[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