Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Texas; Interstate Transport Requirements for the 1997 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards, 49894-49897 [2018-21448]
Download as PDF
49894
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 3, 2018 / Proposed Rules
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
take appropriate action. If we propose to
limit the duration of our approval of the
budgets in the 2016 PM2.5 Plan, we will
provide the public an opportunity to
comment. The duration of our approval
of the submitted budgets will not be
limited until we complete such a
rulemaking.
VI. Summary of Proposed Actions and
Request for Public Comment
Under CAA section 110(k)(3), the EPA
is proposing to approve SIP revisions
submitted by California to address the
Act’s Serious area planning
requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
in the South Coast nonattainment area.
Specifically, the EPA is proposing to
approve the following elements of the
2016 PM2.5 Plan:
1. A comprehensive, accurate, current
inventory of actual emissions from all
sources of PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors in
the area (CAA section 172(c)(3));
2. Provisions to assure that BACM,
including BACT, for the control of
direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors shall
be implemented no later than 4 years
after the area is reclassified (CAA
section 189(b)(1)(B));
3. A demonstration (including air
quality modeling) that the plan provides
for attainment as expeditiously as
practicable but no later than December
31, 2019 (CAA sections 188(c)(2) and
189(b)(1)(A));
4. Plan provisions that require RFP
(CAA section 172(c)(2));
5. Quantitative milestones that are to
be achieved every 3 years until the area
is redesignated attainment and which
demonstrate RFP toward attainment by
the applicable date (CAA section
189(c)); and
6. 2017 and 2019 motor vehicle
emissions budgets, as shown in Table 6
of this proposed rule, because they are
derived from an approvable RFP plan
and attainment demonstration and meet
the requirements of CAA section 176(c)
and 40 CFR part 93, subpart A.
The EPA is also proposing to approve
the interpollutant trading mechanism
provided in the 2016 PM2.5 Plan and
clarified in a March 14, 2018 letter from
the District for use in transportation
conformity analyses for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS, in accordance with 40 CFR
93.124. We are not proposing any action
at this time on the attainment
contingency measure component of the
2016 PM2.5 Plan. Finally, the EPA is
proposing to find that the requirement
for contingency measures to be
undertaken if the area fails to make
reasonable further progress under CAA
section 172(c)(9) is moot as applied to
the 2017 milestone year, because the
State and District have demonstrated to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:23 Oct 02, 2018
Jkt 247001
the EPA’s satisfaction that the 2017
milestones have been met.
We will accept comments from the
public on these proposals for the next
30 days. The deadline and instructions
for submission of comments are
provided in the DATES and ADDRESSES
sections at the beginning of this
preamble.
VII. 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 proposes to approve 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);
• 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
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act;
and
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
• does not provide the EPA with the
discretionary authority to address
disproportionate human health or
environmental effects with practical,
appropriate, and legally permissible
methods under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not 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 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, Ammonia,
Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Oxides of
nitrogen, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: September 24, 2018.
Deborah Jordan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 9.
[FR Doc. 2018–21560 Filed 10–2–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R06–OAR–2008–0408; FRL–9984–
28—Region 6]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; Texas;
Interstate Transport Requirements for
the 1997 Ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standards
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
Pursuant to the Federal Clean
Air Act (CAA or the Act), the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
is proposing to approve portions of two
Texas State Implementation Plan (SIP)
submittals that pertain to the good
neighbor and interstate transport
requirements of the CAA with respect to
the 1997 ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS). The good
neighbor provision requires each state,
in its SIP, to prohibit emissions that will
significantly contribute to
nonattainment, or interfere with
maintenance, of a NAAQS in other
states. In this action, EPA is proposing
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\03OCP1.SGM
03OCP1
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 3, 2018 / Proposed Rules
to approve the Texas SIP submittals as
having met the requirements of the good
neighbor provision for the 1997 ozone
NAAQS in accordance with section 110
of the CAA.
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before November 2, 2018.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket No. EPA–R06–
OAR–2008–0408, at https://
www.regulations.gov or via email to
young.carl@epa.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
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. 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, please
contact Carl Young, 214–665–6645,
young.carl@epa.gov. For 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/commentingepa-dockets.
Docket: The index to the docket for
this action is available electronically at
www.regulations.gov and in hard copy
at the EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. While all
documents in the docket are listed in
the index, some information may be
publicly available only at the hard copy
location (e.g., copyrighted material), and
some may not be publicly available at
either location (e.g., CBI).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carl
Young, 214–665–6645, young.carl@
epa.gov. To inspect the hard copy
materials, please schedule an
appointment with Mr. Young or Mr. Bill
Deese at 214–665–7253.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document wherever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
the EPA.
health and public welfare. In 1997, we
established new 8-hour primary and
secondary ozone NAAQS of 0.08 parts
per million (62 FR 38856, July 18,
1997).1 Ground level ozone is formed
when nitrogen oxides (NOX) and
volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
react in the presence of sunlight.
Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires
states to submit, within three years after
promulgation of a new or revised
standard, SIPs meeting the applicable
‘‘infrastructure’’ elements set forth in
Section 110(a)(2). One of these
applicable infrastructure elements, CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), requires SIPs to
contain ‘‘good neighbor’’ provisions to
prohibit certain adverse air quality
effects on neighboring states due to
interstate transport of pollution. There
are four sub-elements within CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). This action
reviews how the first two sub-elements
of the good neighbor provisions at CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) were addressed
in the infrastructure SIP submittals from
Texas for the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. These sub-elements require
that each SIP for a new or revised
NAAQS contain adequate provisions to
prohibit any emissions activity within
the state from emitting air pollutants
that will ‘‘contribute significantly to
nonattainment’’ or ‘‘interfere with
maintenance’’ of the applicable air
quality standard in any other state.
The EPA has addressed the interstate
transport requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in several
past regulatory actions. Most relevant to
this action, we promulgated the Clean
Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) in 2005 to
address the requirements of the good
neighbor provision for the 1997 fine
particulate PM2.5 and 1997 ozone
NAAQS (May 12, 2005, 70 FR 25172).
While Texas was included in CAIR with
respect to the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, we
determined that Texas would not
significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS
in other states. However, CAIR was
remanded by the D.C. Circuit in North
Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir.
2008), modified on reh’g, 550 F.3d 1176.
The court determined that CAIR was
‘‘fundamentally flawed’’ and ordered
EPA to ‘‘redo its analysis from the
ground up.’’ 531 F.3d at 929.
In 2011 we promulgated the CrossState Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) to
I. Background
A. The 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS and
Interstate Transport of Air Pollution
Under section 109 of the CAA, we
establish NAAQS to protect human
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:23 Oct 02, 2018
Jkt 247001
1 In 2008, we revised the 8-hour ozone NAAQS
to 0.075 ppm (73 FR 16436, March 27, 2008) and
in 2015 we revised the 8-hour ozone NAAQS to
0.070 ppm (80 FR 65292, October 26, 2015). This
proposal pertains to the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS
only.
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
49895
address the remand of CAIR.2 CSAPR
addressed the state and federal
obligations under CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) to prohibit air pollution
contributing significantly to
nonattainment in, or interfering with
maintenance by, any other state with
regard to the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS
and the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, as
well as the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
To address Texas’ transport obligation
under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
with regard to the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS, CSAPR established Federal
Implementation Plan (FIP) requirements
for affected electric generating units
(EGUs) in Texas, including an emissions
budget that applied to the EGUs’
collective ozone-season emissions of
NOX. The CSAPR budgets were to be
implemented in two phases, with phase
1 to be implemented beginning with the
2012 ozone season and phase 2 to be
implemented beginning with the 2014
ozone season.3 Due to litigation, phase
1 of CSAPR was not implemented until
2015 and phase 2 was set to be
implemented beginning in 2017. (81 FR
13275, March 14, 2016).
In subsequent litigation (See generally
EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v.
EPA, 795 F.3d 118 (D.C. Cir. Ct. App.
2015) (‘‘EME Homer City II’’ herein)),
the court reviewed our ability to
regulate interstate air pollution pursuant
to the good neighbor provision. The
court in EME Homer City II declared the
CSAPR phase 2 ozone season emission
budgets of 11 states invalid, including
Texas, holding that those budgets overcontrol with respect to the downwind
air quality problems to which those
states were linked for the 1997 ozone
NAAQS.4
In our response to Homer City II, we
addressed Texas’s ozone-season
emissions budget in the regulation,
2 Federal Implementation Plans; Interstate
Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone and
Correction of SIP Approvals, 76 FR 48208 (August
8, 2011) (codified as amended at 40 CFR 52.38 and
52.39 and 40 CFR part 97).
3 However, the implementation of the emissions
budgets was stayed by the D.C. Circuit in December
2011 pending further litigation. The D.C. Circuit
initially issued a decision in EME Homer City
Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012)
(EME Homer City I), vacating CSAPR, but in April
2014, the Supreme Court issued a opinion reversing
the D.C. Circuit and remanding the case for further
proceedings. EPA v. EME Homer City Generation,
L.P., 134 S. Ct. 1584, 1600–01 (2014). After the
Supreme Court issued its decision, the D.C. Circuit
granted a motion from EPA to lift the stay and toll
the compliance timeframes by three years. See
Respondents’ Motion to Lift the Stay Entered on
December 30, 2011, Document #1499505, EME
Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, No. 11–1302
(D.C. Cir. filed June 26, 2014); Order, Document
#1518738, EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA,
No. 11–1302 (D.C. Cir. issued Oct. 23, 2014).
4 EME Homer City II, 795 F.3d at 129–30, 138
(D.C. Cir. Ct. App. 2015).
E:\FR\FM\03OCP1.SGM
03OCP1
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
49896
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 3, 2018 / Proposed Rules
CSAPR Update, which was promulgated
in 2016 to address the requirements of
the good neighbor provision for the
2008 ozone NAAQS.5 In the original
2011 CSAPR, EPA noted that the
reductions for 11 states, including
Texas, may not be sufficient to fully
eliminate all significant contribution to
nonattainment or interference with
maintenance for certain downwind
areas with respect to the 1997 ozone
NAAQS because EPA’s analysis
projected continued nonattainment and
maintenance problems at downwind
receptors to which these upwind states
were linked after implementation of the
CSAPR trading programs. Specifically,
exceedances were expected in Baton
Rouge, Louisiana; Houston, Texas; and
Allegan, Michigan according to the
remedy case modeling conducted for the
original CSAPR rule. The CSAPR
Update used 2017 as the analytic year
for the air quality modeling to
determine nonattainment and
maintenance receptors and states linked
to those receptors. We evaluated this
2017 modeling to determine whether
additional emission reductions would
be needed in these 11 states, including
Texas, to address the states’ full good
neighbor obligation for the 1997 ozone
NAAQS.
Despite our conclusion in the 2011
CSAPR that the 1997 ozone transport
problems to which Texas was linked
were not fully resolved, the court
concluded in EME Homer City II that the
ozone season emission budget finalized
for Texas may result in over-control as
to the ozone air quality problems to
which the state was linked. 795 F.3d at
129–30. In response to this
determination, we removed Texas’s
phase 2 ozone season budget as a
constraint in the 2017 air quality
modeling conducted for the CSAPR
Update. EPA concluded that, even in
the absence of this constraint, the 2017
air quality modeling shows that the
predicted average design values (DVs) 6
used to identify nonattainment
receptors and the maximum DVs used to
identify maintenance receptors would
both be below the level of the 1997
ozone NAAQS for the downwind
receptors of concern to which Texas was
linked in the original CSAPR
rulemaking with respect the 1997 ozone
NAAQS. Accordingly, we found that
Texas emissions would no longer
contribute significantly to
nonattainment in, or interfere with
maintenance by, any other state with
5 CSAPR Update Rule for the 2008 ozone NAAQS,
81 FR 74504, October 26, 2016.
6 DVs are used to determine whether a NAAQS
is being met.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:23 Oct 02, 2018
Jkt 247001
respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS. (See
generally, 81 FR 74504). Consistent with
this finding, we removed the FIP
requirements associated with the 1997
ozone NAAQS, and sources in Texas
were no longer subject to the phase 2
ozone season budget calculated to
address that standard. See 40 CFR
52.38(b)(2)(ii) (relieving sources in
Texas of the obligation to comply with
the remanded phase 2 ozone season
emission budgets after 2016).7
B. Texas SIP Submittals Pertaining to
the 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS and
Interstate Transport of Air Pollution
Texas made the following SIP
submittals to address CAA requirements
to prohibit emissions which will
significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS
in other states: (1) An April 4, 2008
submittal stating that the state had
addressed any potential CAA section
110(a)(2) infrastructure issues associated
with the 1997 ozone NAAQS, including
the first two sub-elements for interstate
transport in (CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)) and (2) a separate, but
similar May 1, 2008 submittal which
discussed how the first two subelements of the good neighbor provision
were addressed with respect to the 1997
ozone standards. For the reasons
described below, this action proposes to
approve the state’s two SIP submittals
with respect to the state’s conclusions
regarding the first two sub-elements of
the good neighbor provisions at CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 1997
ozone NAAQS. See Docket No. EPA–
R06–OAR–2008–0408 in
www.regulations.gov.
II. The EPA’s Evaluation
Each of the above-referenced Texas
SIP submittals relied on (1) EPA’s CAIR
modeling document, ‘‘Technical
Support Document for the Final Clean
Air Interstate Rule—Air Quality
Modeling, March 2005’’ 8 and (2)
emission controls found in the Texas
SIP to support a conclusion that the
Texas SIP had adequate provisions to
prohibit emissions which will
significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS
in any other state. The SIP submittals
rely on the conclusion in the CAIR
rulemaking that Texas would not
7 EPA notes that, because Texas was linked to
downwind air quality problems with respect to the
2008 ozone NAAQS in its analysis, the EPA
promulgated a new ozone season NOX emission
budget to address that standard at 40 CFR 97.810(a).
8 Document EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0053–2151 in
regulations.gov.
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS
in downwind states. While CAIR was
still in place at the time the state
submitted its SIPs, as discussed above,
the rule was remanded by the D.C.
Circuit in 2008 because the court found
it was ‘‘fundamentally flawed’’ and
must be replaced ‘‘from the ground up.’’
North Carolina, 531 F.3d at 929–30.
Accordingly, we cannot approve the
state’s SIP submittals based on the CAIR
analysis. However, more recent
information provides support for our
proposed approval of the conclusions in
the SIP submittals that the state will not
significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS
in any other state.
The updated air quality modeling
conducted for the original CSAPR
rulemaking projected the effect of
emissions on ambient air quality
monitors (receptors). The modeling
projected that in 2012: (1) A receptor
located in East Baton Rouge Parish,
Louisiana (monitor ID 220330003)
would have difficulty attaining and
maintaining the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS; and, (2) A receptor located in
Allegan County, Michigan (monitor ID
260050003) would have difficulty
maintaining the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS (76 FR 48208, 48236, August 8,
2011). The modeling also showed that
Texas emissions were projected to
contribute more than the threshold
amount of ozone pollution necessary to
be considered ‘‘linked’’ to these
receptors for the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS (76 FR 48208, 48246, August 8,
2011). These were the only ozone
receptors with projected air quality
problems to which Texas was found to
be linked.
In CSAPR we used air quality
projections for the year 2012, which was
also the intended start year for
implementation of the CSAPR Phase 1
EGU emission budgets, to identify
receptors projected to have air quality
problems. The CSAPR final rule record
also contained air quality projections for
2014, which was the intended start year
for implementation of the CSAPR Phase
2 EGU emission budgets. The 2014
modeling results projected that before
considering the emissions reductions
anticipated from implementation of
CSAPR: (1) The East Baton Parish
receptor would have an average 8-hour
ozone DV of 84.1 parts per billion (ppb)
and a maximum DV of 87.7 ppb; and,
(2) The Allegan County, Michigan
E:\FR\FM\03OCP1.SGM
03OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 3, 2018 / Proposed Rules
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
would have maximum DV of 83.6 ppb.9
We used a value of 85 ppb to determine
whether a particular ozone receptor
should be identified as having air
quality problems that may trigger
transport obligations in upwind states
with regard to the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS (76 FR 48208, 48236).
The 2014 modeling results show that
the Allegan County, Michigan monitor
which Texas was linked to in the 2012
modeling was no longer projected to
have air quality problems sufficient to
trigger transport obligations with regard
to the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Thus,
Texas was no longer projected to
interfere with maintenance of the 1997
ozone NAAQS at the Allegan County
receptor in 2014. However, the 2014
modeling results continued to project
that the East Baton Parish receptor
would have problems maintaining the
1997 ozone NAAQS.
As discussed above, in response to the
remand of Texas’s CSAPR phase 2
ozone season budget by the D.C. Circuit
in EME Homer City II, EPA reviewed the
2017 air quality modeling conducted for
the CSAPR Update. EPA concluded that,
even in the absence of Texas’s CSAPR
budget, both the Baton Rouge and
Allegan receptors would have average
and maximum DVs below the level of
the 1997 ozone NAAQS for the
downwind receptors of concern to
which Texas was linked in the original
CSAPR rulemaking with respect the
1997 ozone NAAQS. Accordingly, EPA
found that Texas emissions would no
longer contribute significantly to
nonattainment in, or interfere with
maintenance by, any other state with
respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS at
either receptor or in any other state. (81
FR 74525–26). This conclusion is based
on EPA’s most recent modeling analysis
and is supported by the fact that the
Baton Rouge area has monitored
attainment of the 1997 ozone standard
since 2008.
III. Proposed Action
We are proposing to approve the
portions of the April 4, 2008 and May
1, 2008 Texas SIP submittals as they
pertain to the requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to
the 1997 ozone NAAQS. We propose to
find that the conclusion in the state’s
SIP submittals is consistent with EPA’s
conclusion regarding the Texas’s good
neighbor obligation, that emissions from
Texas will not significantly contribute
9 See projected 2014 base case average and
maximum DVs for these monitors at pages B–14 and
B–16 of the June 2011 Air Quality Modeling Final
Rule Technical Support Document for CSAPR,
Document ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0491–4140,
available in regulations.gov.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:23 Oct 02, 2018
Jkt 247001
to nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS
in any other state.
IV. 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.
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 CAA. Accordingly, this action
merely proposes to approve state law as
meeting Federal requirements and does
not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law. For
that reason, this 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);
• 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
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does 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).
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
49897
In addition, 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 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, Ozone.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: September 26, 2018.
Anne Idsal,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2018–21448 Filed 10–2–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 62
[EPA–R05–OAR–2018–0600; FRL–9984–
56—Region 5]
Air Plan Approval; Indiana; Negative
Declarations for Commercial and
Industrial Solid Waste Incineration and
Sewage Sludge Incineration Units for
Designated Facilities and Pollutants
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is notifying the public
that we have received from Indiana
requests for withdrawals of the
previously approved state plans and
notification of negative declarations for
Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste
Incineration (CISWI) units and Sewage
Sludge Incineration (SSI) units. The
Indiana Department of Environmental
Management (IDEM) submitted its
CISWI withdrawal and negative
declaration by letter dated July 31, 2017
and its SSI withdrawal and negative
declaration by letter dated July 31, 2017.
IDEM notified EPA in its negative
declaration letters that there are no
CISWI or SSI units subject to the
requirements of the Clean Air Act (Act)
currently operating in Indiana.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before November 2, 2018.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05–
OAR–2018–0600, at https://
www.regulations.gov or via email to
cain.alexis@epa.gov. For comments
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\03OCP1.SGM
03OCP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 192 (Wednesday, October 3, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 49894-49897]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-21448]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R06-OAR-2008-0408; FRL-9984-28--Region 6]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Texas;
Interstate Transport Requirements for the 1997 Ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standards
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act), the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve portions
of two Texas State Implementation Plan (SIP) submittals that pertain to
the good neighbor and interstate transport requirements of the CAA with
respect to the 1997 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS). The good neighbor provision requires each state, in its SIP,
to prohibit emissions that will significantly contribute to
nonattainment, or interfere with maintenance, of a NAAQS in other
states. In this action, EPA is proposing
[[Page 49895]]
to approve the Texas SIP submittals as having met the requirements of
the good neighbor provision for the 1997 ozone NAAQS in accordance with
section 110 of the CAA.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before November 2, 2018.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-
2008-0408, at https://www.regulations.gov or via email to
[email protected]. 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 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. 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, please contact Carl Young, 214-665-6645,
[email protected]. For 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.
Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at the EPA
Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. While all
documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may
be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted
material), and some may not be publicly available at either location
(e.g., CBI).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carl Young, 214-665-6645,
[email protected]. To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule
an appointment with Mr. Young or Mr. Bill Deese at 214-665-7253.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA.
I. Background
A. The 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS and Interstate Transport of Air
Pollution
Under section 109 of the CAA, we establish NAAQS to protect human
health and public welfare. In 1997, we established new 8-hour primary
and secondary ozone NAAQS of 0.08 parts per million (62 FR 38856, July
18, 1997).\1\ Ground level ozone is formed when nitrogen oxides
(NOX) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) react in the
presence of sunlight.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In 2008, we revised the 8-hour ozone NAAQS to 0.075 ppm (73
FR 16436, March 27, 2008) and in 2015 we revised the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS to 0.070 ppm (80 FR 65292, October 26, 2015). This proposal
pertains to the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS only.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires states to submit, within
three years after promulgation of a new or revised standard, SIPs
meeting the applicable ``infrastructure'' elements set forth in Section
110(a)(2). One of these applicable infrastructure elements, CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i), requires SIPs to contain ``good neighbor'' provisions
to prohibit certain adverse air quality effects on neighboring states
due to interstate transport of pollution. There are four sub-elements
within CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). This action reviews how the first
two sub-elements of the good neighbor provisions at CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) were addressed in the infrastructure SIP submittals
from Texas for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. These sub-elements require
that each SIP for a new or revised NAAQS contain adequate provisions to
prohibit any emissions activity within the state from emitting air
pollutants that will ``contribute significantly to nonattainment'' or
``interfere with maintenance'' of the applicable air quality standard
in any other state.
The EPA has addressed the interstate transport requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS
in several past regulatory actions. Most relevant to this action, we
promulgated the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) in 2005 to address the
requirements of the good neighbor provision for the 1997 fine
particulate PM2.5 and 1997 ozone NAAQS (May 12, 2005, 70 FR
25172). While Texas was included in CAIR with respect to the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS, we determined that Texas would not
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of the 1997 ozone NAAQS in other states. However, CAIR was remanded by
the D.C. Circuit in North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir.
2008), modified on reh'g, 550 F.3d 1176. The court determined that CAIR
was ``fundamentally flawed'' and ordered EPA to ``redo its analysis
from the ground up.'' 531 F.3d at 929.
In 2011 we promulgated the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR)
to address the remand of CAIR.\2\ CSAPR addressed the state and federal
obligations under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) to prohibit air
pollution contributing significantly to nonattainment in, or
interfering with maintenance by, any other state with regard to the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, as
well as the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. To address Texas'
transport obligation under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with regard
to the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, CSAPR established Federal
Implementation Plan (FIP) requirements for affected electric generating
units (EGUs) in Texas, including an emissions budget that applied to
the EGUs' collective ozone-season emissions of NOX. The
CSAPR budgets were to be implemented in two phases, with phase 1 to be
implemented beginning with the 2012 ozone season and phase 2 to be
implemented beginning with the 2014 ozone season.\3\ Due to litigation,
phase 1 of CSAPR was not implemented until 2015 and phase 2 was set to
be implemented beginning in 2017. (81 FR 13275, March 14, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Federal Implementation Plans; Interstate Transport of Fine
Particulate Matter and Ozone and Correction of SIP Approvals, 76 FR
48208 (August 8, 2011) (codified as amended at 40 CFR 52.38 and
52.39 and 40 CFR part 97).
\3\ However, the implementation of the emissions budgets was
stayed by the D.C. Circuit in December 2011 pending further
litigation. The D.C. Circuit initially issued a decision in EME
Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (EME
Homer City I), vacating CSAPR, but in April 2014, the Supreme Court
issued a opinion reversing the D.C. Circuit and remanding the case
for further proceedings. EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 134
S. Ct. 1584, 1600-01 (2014). After the Supreme Court issued its
decision, the D.C. Circuit granted a motion from EPA to lift the
stay and toll the compliance timeframes by three years. See
Respondents' Motion to Lift the Stay Entered on December 30, 2011,
Document #1499505, EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, No. 11-
1302 (D.C. Cir. filed June 26, 2014); Order, Document #1518738, EME
Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, No. 11-1302 (D.C. Cir. issued
Oct. 23, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In subsequent litigation (See generally EME Homer City Generation,
L.P. v. EPA, 795 F.3d 118 (D.C. Cir. Ct. App. 2015) (``EME Homer City
II'' herein)), the court reviewed our ability to regulate interstate
air pollution pursuant to the good neighbor provision. The court in EME
Homer City II declared the CSAPR phase 2 ozone season emission budgets
of 11 states invalid, including Texas, holding that those budgets over-
control with respect to the downwind air quality problems to which
those states were linked for the 1997 ozone NAAQS.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ EME Homer City II, 795 F.3d at 129-30, 138 (D.C. Cir. Ct.
App. 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In our response to Homer City II, we addressed Texas's ozone-season
emissions budget in the regulation,
[[Page 49896]]
CSAPR Update, which was promulgated in 2016 to address the requirements
of the good neighbor provision for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.\5\ In the
original 2011 CSAPR, EPA noted that the reductions for 11 states,
including Texas, may not be sufficient to fully eliminate all
significant contribution to nonattainment or interference with
maintenance for certain downwind areas with respect to the 1997 ozone
NAAQS because EPA's analysis projected continued nonattainment and
maintenance problems at downwind receptors to which these upwind states
were linked after implementation of the CSAPR trading programs.
Specifically, exceedances were expected in Baton Rouge, Louisiana;
Houston, Texas; and Allegan, Michigan according to the remedy case
modeling conducted for the original CSAPR rule. The CSAPR Update used
2017 as the analytic year for the air quality modeling to determine
nonattainment and maintenance receptors and states linked to those
receptors. We evaluated this 2017 modeling to determine whether
additional emission reductions would be needed in these 11 states,
including Texas, to address the states' full good neighbor obligation
for the 1997 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ CSAPR Update Rule for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, 81 FR 74504,
October 26, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite our conclusion in the 2011 CSAPR that the 1997 ozone
transport problems to which Texas was linked were not fully resolved,
the court concluded in EME Homer City II that the ozone season emission
budget finalized for Texas may result in over-control as to the ozone
air quality problems to which the state was linked. 795 F.3d at 129-30.
In response to this determination, we removed Texas's phase 2 ozone
season budget as a constraint in the 2017 air quality modeling
conducted for the CSAPR Update. EPA concluded that, even in the absence
of this constraint, the 2017 air quality modeling shows that the
predicted average design values (DVs) \6\ used to identify
nonattainment receptors and the maximum DVs used to identify
maintenance receptors would both be below the level of the 1997 ozone
NAAQS for the downwind receptors of concern to which Texas was linked
in the original CSAPR rulemaking with respect the 1997 ozone NAAQS.
Accordingly, we found that Texas emissions would no longer contribute
significantly to nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance by,
any other state with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS. (See generally,
81 FR 74504). Consistent with this finding, we removed the FIP
requirements associated with the 1997 ozone NAAQS, and sources in Texas
were no longer subject to the phase 2 ozone season budget calculated to
address that standard. See 40 CFR 52.38(b)(2)(ii) (relieving sources in
Texas of the obligation to comply with the remanded phase 2 ozone
season emission budgets after 2016).\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ DVs are used to determine whether a NAAQS is being met.
\7\ EPA notes that, because Texas was linked to downwind air
quality problems with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS in its
analysis, the EPA promulgated a new ozone season NOX
emission budget to address that standard at 40 CFR 97.810(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Texas SIP Submittals Pertaining to the 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS and
Interstate Transport of Air Pollution
Texas made the following SIP submittals to address CAA requirements
to prohibit emissions which will significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS in
other states: (1) An April 4, 2008 submittal stating that the state had
addressed any potential CAA section 110(a)(2) infrastructure issues
associated with the 1997 ozone NAAQS, including the first two sub-
elements for interstate transport in (CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I))
and (2) a separate, but similar May 1, 2008 submittal which discussed
how the first two sub-elements of the good neighbor provision were
addressed with respect to the 1997 ozone standards. For the reasons
described below, this action proposes to approve the state's two SIP
submittals with respect to the state's conclusions regarding the first
two sub-elements of the good neighbor provisions at CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. See Docket No. EPA-R06-
OAR-2008-0408 in www.regulations.gov.
II. The EPA's Evaluation
Each of the above-referenced Texas SIP submittals relied on (1)
EPA's CAIR modeling document, ``Technical Support Document for the
Final Clean Air Interstate Rule--Air Quality Modeling, March 2005'' \8\
and (2) emission controls found in the Texas SIP to support a
conclusion that the Texas SIP had adequate provisions to prohibit
emissions which will significantly contribute to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS in any other state.
The SIP submittals rely on the conclusion in the CAIR rulemaking that
Texas would not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere
with maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS in downwind states. While CAIR
was still in place at the time the state submitted its SIPs, as
discussed above, the rule was remanded by the D.C. Circuit in 2008
because the court found it was ``fundamentally flawed'' and must be
replaced ``from the ground up.'' North Carolina, 531 F.3d at 929-30.
Accordingly, we cannot approve the state's SIP submittals based on the
CAIR analysis. However, more recent information provides support for
our proposed approval of the conclusions in the SIP submittals that the
state will not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere
with maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS in any other state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Document EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0053-2151 in regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The updated air quality modeling conducted for the original CSAPR
rulemaking projected the effect of emissions on ambient air quality
monitors (receptors). The modeling projected that in 2012: (1) A
receptor located in East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana (monitor ID
220330003) would have difficulty attaining and maintaining the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS; and, (2) A receptor located in Allegan County,
Michigan (monitor ID 260050003) would have difficulty maintaining the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS (76 FR 48208, 48236, August 8, 2011). The
modeling also showed that Texas emissions were projected to contribute
more than the threshold amount of ozone pollution necessary to be
considered ``linked'' to these receptors for the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS (76 FR 48208, 48246, August 8, 2011). These were the only ozone
receptors with projected air quality problems to which Texas was found
to be linked.
In CSAPR we used air quality projections for the year 2012, which
was also the intended start year for implementation of the CSAPR Phase
1 EGU emission budgets, to identify receptors projected to have air
quality problems. The CSAPR final rule record also contained air
quality projections for 2014, which was the intended start year for
implementation of the CSAPR Phase 2 EGU emission budgets. The 2014
modeling results projected that before considering the emissions
reductions anticipated from implementation of CSAPR: (1) The East Baton
Parish receptor would have an average 8-hour ozone DV of 84.1 parts per
billion (ppb) and a maximum DV of 87.7 ppb; and, (2) The Allegan
County, Michigan
[[Page 49897]]
would have maximum DV of 83.6 ppb.\9\ We used a value of 85 ppb to
determine whether a particular ozone receptor should be identified as
having air quality problems that may trigger transport obligations in
upwind states with regard to the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS (76 FR 48208,
48236).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See projected 2014 base case average and maximum DVs for
these monitors at pages B-14 and B-16 of the June 2011 Air Quality
Modeling Final Rule Technical Support Document for CSAPR, Document
ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4140, available in regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2014 modeling results show that the Allegan County, Michigan
monitor which Texas was linked to in the 2012 modeling was no longer
projected to have air quality problems sufficient to trigger transport
obligations with regard to the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Thus, Texas was
no longer projected to interfere with maintenance of the 1997 ozone
NAAQS at the Allegan County receptor in 2014. However, the 2014
modeling results continued to project that the East Baton Parish
receptor would have problems maintaining the 1997 ozone NAAQS.
As discussed above, in response to the remand of Texas's CSAPR
phase 2 ozone season budget by the D.C. Circuit in EME Homer City II,
EPA reviewed the 2017 air quality modeling conducted for the CSAPR
Update. EPA concluded that, even in the absence of Texas's CSAPR
budget, both the Baton Rouge and Allegan receptors would have average
and maximum DVs below the level of the 1997 ozone NAAQS for the
downwind receptors of concern to which Texas was linked in the original
CSAPR rulemaking with respect the 1997 ozone NAAQS. Accordingly, EPA
found that Texas emissions would no longer contribute significantly to
nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance by, any other state
with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS at either receptor or in any other
state. (81 FR 74525-26). This conclusion is based on EPA's most recent
modeling analysis and is supported by the fact that the Baton Rouge
area has monitored attainment of the 1997 ozone standard since 2008.
III. Proposed Action
We are proposing to approve the portions of the April 4, 2008 and
May 1, 2008 Texas SIP submittals as they pertain to the requirements of
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS. We
propose to find that the conclusion in the state's SIP submittals is
consistent with EPA's conclusion regarding the Texas's good neighbor
obligation, that emissions from Texas will not significantly contribute
to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS
in any other state.
IV. 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. 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 CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this 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);
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 application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
Does 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).
In addition, 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 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, Ozone.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: September 26, 2018.
Anne Idsal,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2018-21448 Filed 10-2-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P