[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 43 (Tuesday, March 5, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 7854-7858]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-03940]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2018-0801; FRL-9990-23-Region 10]


Air Plan Approval; OR; 2015 Ozone NAAQS Interstate Transport 
Requirements

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires each State Implementation 
Plan (SIP) to contain adequate provisions prohibiting emissions that 
will have certain adverse air quality effects in other states. On 
September 25, 2018, the State of Oregon made a submission to the 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to address these requirements for 
the 2015 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The EPA 
is proposing to approve the submission as meeting the requirement that 
each SIP contain adequate provisions to prohibit emissions that will 
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance 
of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in any other state.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before April 4, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
OAR-2018-0801 at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot 
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any 
comment received to its public docket. Do not electronically submit any 
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) 
or other information the disclosure of which 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. The 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://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Claudia Vaupel at (206) 553-6121, or 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,'' 
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, it is intended to refer to the EPA. This 
supplementary information section is arranged as follows:

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. State Submission
III. EPA Evaluation
IV. Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    On October 1, 2015, the EPA promulgated a revision to the ozone 
NAAQS (2015 ozone NAAQS), lowering the level of both the primary and 
secondary standards to 0.070 parts per million (ppm).\1\ Section 
110(a)(1) of the CAA requires states to submit, within 3 years after 
promulgation of a new or revised standard, SIPs meeting the applicable 
requirements of section 110(a)(2).\2\ One of these applicable 
requirements is found in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), otherwise known as 
the good neighbor provision, which

[[Page 7855]]

generally requires SIPs to contain adequate provisions to prohibit in-
state emissions activities from having certain adverse air quality 
effects on other states due to interstate transport of pollution. There 
are four so-called ``prongs'' within CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i): 
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) contains prongs 1 and 2, while section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) includes prongs 3 and 4. This action addresses the 
first two prongs under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). Under prongs 1 and 2 
of the good neighbor provision, a SIP for a new or revised NAAQS must 
contain adequate provisions prohibiting any source or other type of 
emissions activity within the state from emitting air pollutants in 
amounts that will significantly contribute to nonattainment of the 
NAAQS in another state (prong 1) or from interfering with maintenance 
of the NAAQS in another state (prong 2). Under section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA, the EPA and states must give independent 
significance to prong 1 and prong 2 when evaluating downwind air 
quality problems under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(i)(I).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone, Final 
Rule, 80 FR 65292 (October 26, 2015). Although the level of the 
standard is specified in the units of ppm, ozone concentrations are 
also described in parts per billion (ppb). For example, 0.070 ppm is 
equivalent to 70 ppb.
    \2\ SIP revisions that are intended to meet the applicable 
requirements of section 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA are often 
referred to as infrastructure SIPs and the applicable elements under 
110(a)(2) are referred to as infrastructure requirements.
    \3\ See North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896, 909-911 (2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We note that the EPA has addressed the interstate transport 
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to prior 
ozone NAAQS in several regional regulatory actions, including the 
Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), which addressed interstate 
transport with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS as well as the 1997 and 
2006 fine particulate matter standards, and the Cross-State Air 
Pollution Rule Update for the 2008 ozone NAAQS (CSAPR Update).\4\ These 
actions only addressed interstate transport in the eastern United 
States \5\ and did not address the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011) (i.e., CSAPR) and 81 FR 
74504 (October 26, 2016) (i.e., CSAPR Update).
    \5\ For purposes of CSAPR and the CSAPR Update action, the 
Western U.S. (or the West) was considered to consist of the 11 
western contiguous states of Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, 
Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. 
The Eastern U.S. (or the East) was considered to consist of the 37 
states east of the 11 Western states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Through the development and implementation of CSAPR, the CSAPR 
Update and previous regional rulemakings pursuant to the good neighbor 
provision,\6\ the EPA, working in partnership with states, developed 
the following four-step interstate transport framework to address the 
requirements of the good neighbor provision for the ozone NAAQS: \7\ 
(1) Identify downwind air quality problems; (2) identify upwind states 
that impact those downwind air quality problems sufficiently such that 
they are considered ``linked'' and therefore warrant further review and 
analysis; (3) identify the emissions reductions necessary (if any), 
considering cost and air quality factors, to prevent linked upwind 
states identified in step 2 from contributing significantly to 
nonattainment or interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS at the 
locations of the downwind air quality problems; and (4) adopt permanent 
and enforceable measures needed to achieve those emissions reductions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Other regional rulemakings addressing ozone transport 
include the NOX SIP Call, 63 FR 57356 (October 27, 1998), 
and the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 
2005).
    \7\ The four-step interstate framework has also been used to 
address requirements of the good neighbor provision for some 
previous particulate matter and ozone NAAQS, including in the 
Western United States. See, e.g., 83 FR 30380 (June 28, 2018) and 83 
FR 5375, 5376-77 (February 7, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA has released several documents containing information 
relevant to evaluating interstate transport with respect to the 2015 
ozone NAAQS. First, on January 6, 2017, the EPA published a notice of 
data availability (NODA) with preliminary interstate ozone transport 
modeling with projected ozone design values for 2023, on which we 
requested comment.\8\ The year 2023 was used as the analytic year for 
this preliminary modeling because that year aligns with the expected 
attainment year for Moderate ozone nonattainment areas.\9\ On October 
27, 2017, we released a memorandum (2017 memorandum) containing updated 
modeling data for 2023, which incorporated changes made in response to 
comments on the NODA.\10\ Although the 2017 memorandum also released 
data for a 2023 modeling year, we specifically stated that the modeling 
may be useful for states developing SIPs to address remaining good 
neighbor obligations for the 2008 ozone NAAQS but did not address the 
2015 ozone NAAQS. And, on March 27, 2018, we issued a memorandum (March 
2018 memorandum) indicating the same 2023 modeling data released in the 
2017 memorandum would also be useful for evaluating potential downwind 
air quality problems with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS (step 1 of 
the four-step framework). The March 2018 memorandum included newly 
available contribution modeling results to assist states in evaluating 
their impact on potential downwind air quality problems (step 2 of the 
four-step framework) in their efforts to develop good neighbor SIPs for 
the 2015 ozone NAAQS to address their interstate transport 
obligations.\11\ The EPA subsequently issued two more memoranda in 
August and October 2018, providing guidance to states developing good 
neighbor SIPs for the 2015 ozone NAAQS concerning, respectively, 
potential contribution thresholds that may be appropriate to apply in 
step 2 and considerations for identifying downwind areas that may have 
problems maintaining the standard (under prong 2 of the good neighbor 
provision) at step 1 of the framework.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Notice of Availability of the Environmental Protection 
Agency's Preliminary Interstate Ozone Transport Modeling Data for 
the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS), 82 FR 
1733 (January 6, 2017).
    \9\ 82 FR 1735 (January 6, 2017).
    \10\ See Information on the Interstate Transport State 
Implementation Plan Submissions for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient 
Air Quality Standards under Clean Air Act Section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), October 27, 2017, available in the docket for 
this action or at https://www.epa.gov/interstate-air-pollution-transport/interstate-air-pollution-transport-memos-and-notices.
    \11\ See Information on the Interstate Transport State 
Implementation Plan Submissions for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient 
Air Quality Standards under Clean Air Act Section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), March 27, 2018, available in the docket for this 
action or at https://www.epa.gov/interstate-air-pollution-transport/interstate-air-pollution-transport-memos-and-notices.
    \12\ See Analysis of Contribution Thresholds for Use in Clean 
Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) Interstate Transport State 
Implementation Plan Submissions for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient 
Air Quality Standards, August 31, 2018) (``August 2018 
memorandum''), and Considerations for Identifying Maintenance 
Receptors for Use in Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 
Interstate Transport State Implementation Plan Submissions for the 
2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards, October 19, 2018, 
available in the docket for this action or at https://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/memo-and-supplemental-information-regarding-interstate-transport-sips-2015-ozone-naaqs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The March 2018 memorandum describes the process and results of the 
updated photochemical and source-apportionment modeling used to project 
ambient ozone concentrations for the year 2023 and the state-by state 
impacts on those concentrations. The March 2018 memorandum also 
explains that the selection of the 2023 analytic year aligns with the 
2015 ozone NAAQS attainment year for Moderate nonattainment areas. As 
described in more detail in the 2017 and March 2018 memoranda, the EPA 
used the Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extensions (CAMx version 
6.40) to model average and maximum design values in 2023 to identify 
potential nonattainment and maintenance receptors (i.e., monitoring 
sites that are projected to have problems attaining or maintaining the 
2015 ozone NAAQS). The March 2018 memorandum presents

[[Page 7856]]

design values calculated in two ways: First, following the EPA's 
historic ``3 x 3'' approach \13\ to evaluating all sites, and second, 
following a modified approach for coastal monitoring sites in which 
``overwater'' modeling data were not included in the calculation of 
future year design values (referred to as the ``no water'' approach).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See March 2018 memorandum, p. 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For purposes of identifying potential nonattainment and maintenance 
receptors in 2023, the EPA applied the same approach used in the CSAPR 
Update, wherein the EPA considered a combination of monitoring data and 
modeling projections to identify monitoring sites that are projected to 
have problems attaining or maintaining the NAAQS. Specifically, the EPA 
identified nonattainment receptors as those monitoring sites with 
measured values \14\ exceeding the NAAQS that also have projected 
(i.e., in 2023) average design values exceeding the NAAQS. The EPA 
identified maintenance receptors as those monitoring sites with 
projected maximum design values exceeding the NAAQS. This included 
sites with measured values below the NAAQS but with projected average 
and maximum design values exceeding the NAAQS, and monitoring sites 
with projected average design values below the NAAQS but with projected 
maximum design values exceeding the NAAQS. The EPA included the design 
values and monitoring data for all monitoring sites projected to be 
potential nonattainment or maintenance receptors based on the updated 
2023 modeling in Attachment B to the March 2018 memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The EPA used 2016 ozone design values, based on 2014-2016 
measured data, which were the most current data at the time of the 
analysis. See attachment B of the March 2018 memorandum, p. B-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After identifying potential downwind nonattainment and maintenance 
receptors, the EPA next performed nationwide, state-level ozone source-
apportionment modeling to estimate the expected impact from each state 
to each nonattainment and maintenance receptor.\15\ The EPA included 
contribution information resulting from the source-apportionment 
modeling in Attachment C to the March 2018 memorandum. For more 
specific information on the modeling and analysis, please see the 2017 
and March 2018 memoranda, the NODA for the preliminary interstate 
transport assessment, and the supporting technical documents included 
in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ As discussed in the March 2018 memorandum, the EPA 
performed source-apportionment model runs for a modeling domain that 
covers the 48 contiguous United States and the District of Columbia, 
and adjacent portions of Canada and Mexico.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the CSAPR and the CSAPR Update, the EPA used a threshold of one 
percent of the NAAQS to determine whether a given upwind state was 
``linked'' at step 2 of the four-step framework and would therefore 
contribute to downwind nonattainment and maintenance sites identified 
in step 1. If a state's impact did not exceed the one percent 
threshold, the upwind state was not ``linked'' to a downwind air 
quality problem, and the EPA therefore concluded the state will not 
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance 
of the NAAQS in the downwind states. However, if a state's impact 
exceeded the one percent threshold, the state's emissions were further 
evaluated in step 3, taking into account both air quality and cost 
considerations, to determine what, if any, emissions reductions might 
be necessary to address the good neighbor provision.
    As noted previously, on August 31, 2018, the EPA issued a 
memorandum (the August 2018 memorandum) providing guidance concerning 
potential contribution thresholds that may be appropriate to apply with 
respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS in step 2. Consistent with the process 
for selecting the one percent threshold in CSAPR and the CSAPR Update, 
the memorandum included analytical information regarding the degree to 
which potential air quality thresholds would capture the collective 
amount of upwind contribution from upwind states to downwind receptors 
for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. The August 2018 memorandum indicated that, 
based on the EPA's analysis of its most recent modeling data, the 
amount of upwind collective contribution captured using a 1 ppb 
threshold is generally comparable, overall, to the amount captured 
using a threshold equivalent to one percent of the 2015 ozone NAAQS. 
Accordingly, the EPA indicated that it may be reasonable and 
appropriate for states to use a 1 ppb contribution threshold, as an 
alternative to the one percent threshold, at step 2 of the four-step 
framework in developing their SIP revisions addressing the good 
neighbor provision for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See August 2018 memorandum, p. 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the March 2018 memorandum presented information regarding the 
EPA's latest analysis of ozone transport following the approaches the 
EPA has taken in prior regional rulemaking actions, the EPA has not 
made any final determinations regarding how states should identify 
downwind receptors with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS at step 1 of 
the four-step framework. Rather, the EPA noted that states have 
flexibility in developing their own SIPs to follow different analytical 
approaches than the EPA's, so long as their chosen approach has an 
adequate technical justification and is consistent with the 
requirements of the CAA.

II. State Submission

    On September 25, 2018, Oregon submitted a SIP revision addressing 
the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) interstate transport requirements 
for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. Oregon relied on the results of EPA's 
modeling for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, contained in the March 2018 
memorandum, to identify downwind nonattainment and maintenance 
receptors that may be impacted by emissions from sources in Oregon. 
Based on Oregon's review of EPA's modeling assumptions, model 
performance evaluation, and the modifications made in response to 
public comments, Oregon determined that EPA's future year projections 
were appropriate for purposes of evaluating Oregon's impact on 
attainment and maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in other states. For 
example, Oregon found that EPA's modeling used emissions inventory 
projections that accounted for state rules, announced shut downs of 
electric generating units such as the 2020 shutdown of the Boardman 
power plant, and included Oregon's adoption of California's Low 
Emission Vehicles III program.\17\ Thus, Oregon concurred with the 
EPA's photochemical modeling results that indicate Oregon's greatest 
impact on any potential downwind nonattainment or maintenance receptor 
would be 0.57 ppb. Oregon compared these values to a screening 
threshold of 0.70 ppb, representing one percent of the 2015 ozone 
NAAQS, and concluded that because none of Oregon's impacts exceed this 
threshold, emissions from Oregon sources will not significantly 
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2015 
ozone NAAQS in any other state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See ``Oregon State Implementation Plan Revision Addressing 
the Interstate Transport of Ozone (O3),'' p. 5, October 
2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. EPA Evaluation

    As previously discussed, the March 2018 memorandum identifies 
potential downwind nonattainment and maintenance receptors, using the 
definitions applied in the CSAPR Update and using both the ``3 x 3'' 
and

[[Page 7857]]

the ``no water'' approaches to calculating future year design values. 
The March 2018 memorandum identifies 57 potential nonattainment and 
maintenance receptors in the West in Arizona (2), California (49), and 
Colorado (6).\18\ The March 2018 memorandum also provides contribution 
data regarding the impact of other states on the potential receptors. 
For purposes of evaluating Oregon's 2015 ozone NAAQS interstate 
transport SIP submission, we propose that, at least where a state's 
impacts are less than one percent to downwind nonattainment and 
maintenance sites, it is reasonable to conclude that the state's impact 
will not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with 
maintenance of the NAAQS in any other state. This is consistent with 
our prior action on Oregon's SIP with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS 
\19\ and with the EPA's approach to both the 1997 and 2008 ozone NAAQS 
in CSAPR and the CSAPR Update. The EPA notes, nonetheless, that 
consistent with the August 2018 memorandum, it may be reasonable and 
appropriate for states to use a 1 ppb contribution threshold, as an 
alternative to a one percent threshold, at step 2 of the four-step 
framework in developing their SIP revisions addressing the good 
neighbor provision for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. However, for the reasons 
discussed below, it is unnecessary for the EPA to determine whether it 
may be appropriate to apply a 1 ppb threshold for purposes of this 
action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The number of receptors in the identified western states is 
57, irrespective of whether the ``3 x 3'' or ``no water'' approach 
is used. Further, although the EPA has indicated that states may 
have flexibilities to apply a different analytic approach to 
evaluating interstate transport, including identifying downwind air 
quality problems, because the EPA is also concluding in this 
proposed action that Oregon will have an insignificant impact on any 
potential receptors identified in its analysis, Oregon need not 
definitively determine whether the identified monitoring sites 
should be treated as receptors for the 2015 ozone standard.
    \19\ 80 FR 79266 (December 21, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA's updated 2023 modeling discussed in the March 2018 
memorandum indicates that Oregon's largest impact on any potential 
downwind nonattainment and maintenance receptor in the West are 0.57 
ppb and 0.45 ppb, respectively.\20\ These values are less than 0.70 ppb 
(one percent of the 2015 ozone NAAQS),\21\ and as a result, demonstrate 
that emissions from Oregon are not linked to any 2023 downwind 
potential nonattainment and maintenance receptors identified in the 
March 2018 memorandum. The projected impacts from Oregon to potential 
receptors in the East is even lower. Accordingly, we propose to 
conclude that emissions from Oregon will not contribute to any 
potential receptors, and thus, the state will not significantly 
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS 
in any other state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ The EPA's analysis indicates that Oregon will have a 0.57 
ppb impact at the potential nonattainment receptor in Sacramento, 
California (Site ID 60670012), which has a 2023 projected average 
design value of 74.5 ppb, a 2023 projected maximum design value of 
75.9 ppb, and had a 2014-2016 design value of 83 ppb. The EPA's 
analysis further indicates that Oregon will have a 0.45 ppb impact 
at a potential maintenance receptor in Sacramento, California (Site 
ID 60675003), which has which has a projected 2023 average design 
value of 69.9 ppb, a 2023 projected maximum design value of 88 ppb, 
and had a 2014-2016 design value of 80 ppb. See the March 2018 
memorandum, attachment C.
    \21\ Because none of Oregon's impacts exceed 0.70 ppb, they 
necessarily also do not exceed the 1 ppb contribution threshold 
discussed in the August 2018 memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We also note that the EPA has assessed potential transport to the 
Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall Reservation in southeast 
Idaho, which the EPA approved to be treated as an affected downwind 
state for CAA sections 110(a)(2)(D) and 126. While the Shoshone-Bannock 
Tribes do not operate an ozone monitor, the nearest ozone monitors to 
the Fort Hall Reservation are in Ada County, Idaho, in the Boise area 
and in Butte County, Idaho, in the Idaho Falls area. As discussed 
previously, the EPA's modeling did not identify receptors in Idaho and 
the ozone monitoring sites nearest to the Fort Hall Reservation were 
projected to remain below the current standard. For the Idaho Falls 
area monitoring site (Site ID 160230101), which had a 2014-2016 design 
value of 60 ppb, the EPA's modeling projects a 2023 maximum design 
value of 60.2 ppb and a 2023 average design value of 59.6 ppb, both 
below the 70 ppb standard. For the Boise area monitoring site with the 
highest projected ozone concentrations (Site ID 160010017), which had a 
2014-2016 design value of 67 ppb, the EPA's modeling projects a 2023 
maximum design value of 59.8 ppb and a 2023 average design value of 
59.4 ppb.\22\ We therefore propose to find that emissions from Oregon 
will not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with 
maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS at the Fort Hall Reservation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ In attachment A of the 2017 memorandum, the EPA provided 
the projected ozone design values at individual monitoring sites 
nationwide. The data for the Idaho monitors is presented on page A-
10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Proposed Action

    As discussed in section II, Oregon concluded that emissions from 
sources in the state will not significantly contribute to nonattainment 
or interfere with maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in any other 
state. The EPA's evaluation of Oregon's submission, discussed in 
section III, confirms this finding. We are proposing to approve the 
Oregon submission as meeting CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 
requirements for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. The EPA is requesting comments 
on the proposed approval.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a 
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and 
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 
Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves state law as meeting 
Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond 
those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' 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);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under 
Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is 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.);
     Does 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);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

[[Page 7858]]

     Is 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 it does not involve technical standards; and
     Does not provide the 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 proposed SIP would not be approved to apply on any Indian 
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe 
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 
Indian country, the proposed rule does not have tribal implications and 
will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or 
preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 
November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: February 8, 2019.
Chris Hladick,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2019-03940 Filed 3-4-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P