[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