Air Plan Approval; Georgia; 2008 8-Hour Ozone Interstate Transport, 33027-33030 [2019-14729]

Download as PDF khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 133 / Thursday, July 11, 2019 / Proposed Rules with shareholders by including explanatory materials regarding the reasons for the use of the notice and access proxy rules and the process of receiving and reviewing proxy materials and voting pursuant to the notice and access proxy rules. The amendments also revised the timeframe for delivering a notice to shareholders when a soliciting person other than the issuer relies on the notice and access proxy rules and permit mutual funds to accompany the Notice with a summary prospectus. Prior RFA Analysis: A Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis was prepared in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 603 in conjunction with the Commission’s adoption of Release No. 33–9108 (Feb. 22, 2010). The Commission solicited comment on the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis included in the proposing release, Release No. 33–9073 (Oct. 14, 2009), but, as stated in the adopting release, received no comments on that analysis. * * * * * Title: Shareholder Approval of Executive Compensation of TARP Recipients. Citation: 17 CFR 240.14a–6, 17 CFR 240.14a–20, and 17 CFR 240.14a–101. Authority: 12 U.S.C. 5221(e), and 15 U.S.C. 78n(a) and 78w(a). Description: The Commission adopted amendments to the proxy rules under the Exchange Act to set forth certain requirements for U.S. registrants subject to Section 111(e) of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (‘‘EESA’’). Section 111(e) of EESA requires companies that have received financial assistance under the Troubled Asset Relief Program (‘‘TARP’’) to permit a separate shareholder advisory vote to approve the compensation of executives, as disclosed pursuant to the compensation disclosure rules of the Commission, during the period in which any obligation arising from financial assistance provided under the TARP remains outstanding. The amendments were intended to help implement this requirement by specifying and clarifying it in the context of the federal proxy rules. Prior RFA Analysis: Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Commission certified that the proposed amendment to the federal proxy rules would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This certification was incorporated into the proposing release, Release No. 34– 60218 (July 1, 2009). As stated in the adopting release, Release No. 34–61335 (January 12, 2010), the Commission VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Jul 10, 2019 Jkt 247001 received no comments concerning the impact on small entities or the Regulatory Flexibility Act certification. * * * * * By the Commission. Dated: July 3, 2019. Vanessa A. Countryman, Secretary. [FR Doc. 2019–14616 Filed 7–10–19; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011–01–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA–R04–OAR–2018–0813; FRL–9996–23– Region 4] Air Plan Approval; Georgia; 2008 8Hour Ozone Interstate Transport Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. AGENCY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve Georgia’s August 15, 2018, State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission pertaining to the ‘‘good neighbor’’ provision of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) for the 2008 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The good neighbor provision requires each state’s implementation plan to address the interstate transport of air pollution in amounts that contribute significantly to nonattainment, or interfere with maintenance, of a NAAQS in any other state. In this action, EPA is proposing to determine that Georgia will not contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in any other state. Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve the August 15, 2018, SIP revision as meeting the requirements of the good neighbor provision for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. SUMMARY: Comments must be received on or before August 12, 2019. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– OAR–2018–0813 at https:// www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. DATES: PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 33027 Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ commenting-epa-dockets. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Evan Adams, Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air and Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Mr. Adams can also be reached via telephone at (404) 562–9009 and via electronic mail at adams.evan@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background On March 12, 2008, EPA promulgated an ozone NAAQS that revised the levels of the primary and secondary 8-hour ozone standards from 0.08 parts per million (ppm) to 0.075 ppm.1 See 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008). Pursuant to CAA section 110(a)(1), within three years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS (or shorter, if EPA prescribes), states must submit SIPs that meet the applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2). EPA has historically referred to these SIP submissions made for the purpose of satisfying the requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) as ‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ submissions. One of the structural requirements of section 110(a)(2) is section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), which generally requires SIPs to contain adequate provisions to prohibit in-state emissions activities from having certain adverse air quality effects on neighboring states due to interstate transport of air pollution. There are four sub-elements, or ‘‘prongs,’’ within section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA. CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), also known as the ‘‘good neighbor’’ provision, requires SIPs to include provisions prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity in one state from emitting any air pollutant in amounts that will contribute significantly to nonattainment, or interfere with 1 0.075 E:\FR\FM\11JYP1.SGM ppm equates to 75 parts per billion (ppb). 11JYP1 33028 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 133 / Thursday, July 11, 2019 / Proposed Rules maintenance, of the NAAQS in another state. The two provisions of this section are referred to as prong 1 (significant contribution to nonattainment) and prong 2 (interference with maintenance). Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires SIPs to contain adequate provisions to prohibit emissions that will interfere with measures required to be included in the applicable implementation plan for any other state under part C to prevent significant deterioration of air quality (prong 3) or to protect visibility (prong 4). This proposed action addresses only prongs 1 and 2 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). All other infrastructure SIP elements for Georgia for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS were addressed in separate rulemakings.2 A. State Submittal khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 On August 15, 2018, the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (GA EPD) provided a SIP submittal to EPA to address the interstate transport requirements of sections 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the Georgia SIP.3 Georgia made this submission to certify that its SIP contains adequate provisions to prohibit emissions activities within the State which will contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in any other state, and therefore, adequately addresses the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.4 Georgia’s certification is based on EPA’s air quality modeling and monitoring data, SIP-approved and state provisions regulating emissions of ozone precursors (volatile organic 2 See 83 FR 19637 (May 4,2018); 80 FR 61109 (October 9, 2015); and 80 FR 14019 (March 18, 2015). 3 On March 6, 2012, Georgia submitted a SIP revision to address the 110(a)(1) and (2) requirements of the CAA including section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. On October 3, 2013, the State withdrew its good neighbor SIP submission. See August 29, 2016, Memorandum from Gobeail McKinley re ‘‘Status of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIPs for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS,’’ available at https://www.regulations.gov/ document?D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0500-0509. 4 On July 13, 2015, EPA published a final rulemaking that finalized findings of failure to submit with regard to the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for 24 states, including Georgia, with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. See 80 FR 39961. The findings of failure to submit established a two-year deadline for EPA to promulgate a FIP to address the interstate transport SIP requirements pertaining to significant contribution to nonattainment and interference with maintenance unless, prior to EPA promulgating a FIP, the state submits, and EPA approves, a SIP that meets these requirements. Additional background on the findings of failure to submit—including EPA’s findings related to Georgia—can be found in the preamble to the final rule. See 80 FR 39961. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Jul 10, 2019 Jkt 247001 compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NOX)) within the State, and an analysis of recent trends in emissions of ozone precursors (VOCs and NOX) from Georgia sources. B. EPA’s Analysis Related to 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS EPA developed technical information and related analyses to assist states with meeting section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS through SIPs and, as appropriate, to provide backstop federal implementation plans (FIPs) in the event that states failed to submit approvable SIPs.5 On October 26, 2016, EPA took steps to effectuate this backstop role with respect to eastern states 6 by finalizing an update to the 2011 Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (2011 CSAPR) ozone season program that addresses good neighbor obligations for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS (CSAPR Update).7 The CSAPR Update establishes statewide NOX budgets for certain affected electricity generating units in 22 eastern states for the May through September ozone season to reduce the interstate transport of ozone pollution in the eastern United States, and thereby help downwind states and communities meet and maintain the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. See 81 FR 74506. The rule also determined that emissions from 14 states (including Georgia) will not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in downwind states. Accordingly, EPA determined that it need not require further emission reductions from sources in those states to address the good neighbor provision as to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Id. The CSAPR Update used the same framework that EPA used when developing the original 2011 CSAPR, EPA’s interstate transport rule addressing the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS as well as the 1997 and 2006 fine particulate matter (PM2.5) NAAQS. This framework established the 5 The EPA issued a Notice of Data Availability on August 4, 2015, requesting comment on the modeling platform and air quality modeling results that were used for the proposed Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) Update. See 80 FR 46271. 6 For purposes of the CSAPR Update, ‘‘eastern’’ states refer to all contiguous states fully east of the Rocky Mountains (thus not including the mountain states of Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, or New Mexico). 7 See Federal Implementation Plans: Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone and Correction of SIP Approvals, Final Rule (2011 CSAPR), 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011); Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS (CSAPR Update), 81 FR 74504 (October 26, 2016). PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 following four-step process to address the requirements of the good neighbor provision: (1) Identify downwind areas, referred to as receptors, that are expected to have problems attaining or maintaining the NAAQS; (2) determine which upwind states impact these identified problems in amounts sufficient to ‘‘link’’ them to the downwind air quality problems; (3) for states linked to downwind air quality problems, identify upwind emissions, if any, that will significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of a NAAQS; and (4) reduce the identified upwind emissions for states that are found to have emissions that will significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS downwind by adopting permanent and enforceable measures in a FIP or SIP. In the CSAPR Update, EPA used this fourstep framework to determine whether states in the east will significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of downwind air quality. As explained below, the CSAPR Update’s four-step analysis supports the conclusions provided in GA EPD’s August 15, 2018, interstate transport SIP submittal for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS that the state will not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the standard in other states. In the technical analysis supporting the CSAPR Update, EPA used detailed air quality analyses to determine where projected nonattainment or maintenance receptors would be, at step 1 of the fourstep framework, and whether emissions from an eastern state contribute to downwind air quality problems at those projected nonattainment or maintenance receptors, at step 2 of the framework. Specifically, EPA determined whether each state’s contributing emissions were at or above a specific threshold. EPA determined that one percent was an appropriate threshold to use in this analysis because there were important, even if relatively small, contributions to identified nonattainment and maintenance receptors from multiple upwind states at that threshold.8 See 81 8 EPA’s analysis showed that the one-percent threshold generally captured a high percentage of the total pollution transport affecting downwind states. EPA’s analysis further showed that the application of a lower threshold would result in relatively modest increases in the overall percentage of ozone transport pollution captured, while the use of higher thresholds would result in a relatively large reduction in the overall percentage of ozone pollution transport captured relative to the levels captured at one percent at the majority of the receptors. See 81 FR 74504 (October 26, 2016) and ‘‘Air Quality Modeling Final Rule Technical E:\FR\FM\11JYP1.SGM 11JYP1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 133 / Thursday, July 11, 2019 / Proposed Rules khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 FR 74504. For the CSAPR Update, EPA applied an air quality screening threshold of 0.75 ppb (equivalent to one percent of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS of 75 ppb) to identify linkages between upwind states and the downwind nonattainment and maintenance receptors. States with impacts below the one-percent threshold were considered not to contribute to identified downwind nonattainment and maintenance receptors and therefore would not contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the standard in those downwind areas. If a state’s impact was equal to or exceeded the one-percent threshold, that state was considered linked to the downwind nonattainment or maintenance receptor(s) and the state’s emissions were further evaluated, taking into account both air quality and cost considerations, to determine whether any emissions reductions might be necessary to address the state’s obligation pursuant to CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). As discussed in the final rulemaking for the CSAPR Update, the air quality modeling contained in EPA’s technical analysis: (1) Identified locations in the U.S. where EPA anticipated nonattainment or maintenance issues in 2017 for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS (these were identified as nonattainment or maintenance receptors, respectively), and (2) quantified the projected contributions from emissions from upwind states to downwind ozone concentrations at the receptors in 2017. See 81 FR 74504 (October 26, 2016). This modeling used the Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extensions (CAMx version 6.11) to model the 2011 base year and the 2017 future base case emissions scenarios to identify projected nonattainment and maintenance sites with respect to the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in 2017. EPA used nationwide state-level ozone source apportionment modeling (the CAMx Ozone Source Apportionment Technology/Anthropogenic Precursor Culpability Analysis technique) to quantify the contribution of 2017 base Support Document for the Final CSAPR Update’’ (CSAPR Update Modeling TSD), available at https:// www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-05/ documents/aq_modeling_tsd_final_csapr_ update.pdf. This approach is consistent with the use of a one-percent threshold to identify those states ‘‘linked’’ to air quality problems with respect to the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the original CSAPR rulemaking, wherein EPA noted that there are adverse health impacts associated with ambient ozone even at low levels. See 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011); see also ‘‘Air Quality Modeling Final Rule Technical Support Document’’ for the 2011 CSAPR, located at https://www.regulations.gov/ document?D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4140. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Jul 10, 2019 Jkt 247001 case NOX and VOC emissions from all sources in each state to the 2017 projected receptors. The air quality model runs were performed for a modeling domain that covers the 48 contiguous United States, the District of Columbia, and adjacent portions of Canada and Mexico. The updated modeling data released to support the final CSAPR Update inform the Agency’s analysis of upwind state linkages to downwind air quality problems for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS for Georgia. See CSAPR Update Modeling TSD. EPA’s air quality modeling for the final CSAPR Update indicated that Georgia’s largest impact on any projected downwind nonattainment receptor in 2017 was 0.60 ppb and Georgia’s largest contribution to any projected downwind maintenance-only site in 2017 was 0.62 ppb.9 These values are below the one percent screening threshold of 0.75 ppb, and therefore there are no identified linkages between Georgia and 2017 downwind projected nonattainment and maintenance sites.10 II. What is EPA’s analysis of the Georgia’s submittal? As mentioned in section I, Georgia’s August 15, 2018, submittal certifies that emission activities from the State will not contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in any other state for the following reasons: (1) Modeling conducted by EPA in support of the CSAPR Update indicates that Georgia’s impact on any downwind receptor is less than 1 percent of the standard; (2) NOX and VOC precursor emissions in Georgia have decreased since 1990; and (3) Georgia has in place both SIPapproved and state provisions that regulate ozone precursors in the State. Based on an assessment of this information, EPA proposes to approve Georgia’s SIP submission because the State will not significantly contribute to nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance by, any other state with respect to the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Georgia’s submittal assessed EPA’s CSAPR Update modeling. Georgia cites EPA’s August 2016 CSAPR Update Modeling TSD where the modeling indicated that Georgia’s largest impact on any projected downwind nonattainment receptor in 2017 was 9 See CSAPR Update Modeling TSD at Table 4– 2, section 4.4 and Appendix D. 10 Georgia continues to have CSAPR NO ozone X season requirements (including emission budget) related to the 1997 ozone NAAQS. See 81 FR 74504, 74524 n 92. PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 33029 0.60 ppb and the largest impact on any projected downwind maintenance-only site was 0.62 ppb, both of which are below 0.75 ppb, the one percent threshold for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. EPA concluded that Georgia’s emissions will not contribute to downwind nonattainment and maintenance receptors and therefore, did not promulgate a FIP that required additional emission reductions from Georgia. Accordingly, in the CSAPR Update, EPA made a final determination that Georgia emissions will not significantly contribute to nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance by, any other state for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and that sources in the State are not required to further reduce emissions pursuant to the good neighbor provision with respect to this standard.11 Georgia’s submittal also notes that total annual NOX emissions and total annual VOC emissions in the state have decreased by 58 percent and 49 percent, respectively, between 1990 and 2017. EPA notes that ozone precursor emissions nationally continue to decline from 1990 levels and are largely driven by federal and state implementation of stationary and mobile source regulations.12 Additionally, nationwide ozone concentrations have also decreased since 1990. Id. GA EPD identified regulations that have been approved into the Georgia SIP to provide for the control of NOX and VOCs, which are precursors that contribute to ambient ozone concentrations. These regulations include Regulations 391–3–1–.02— Provisions Amended and 391–3–1–.03— Permits, which provide for the implementation of a permitting program for New Source Review and Prevention of Significant Deterioration requirements required under Title I, Parts C and D of the CAA for sources of NOX and VOCs. The permitting requirements help ensure that NOX and VOC emissions from new and modified sources are controlled. Specifically for the control of NOX, GA EPD identified SIP-approved regulations that establish emission standards and compliance (testing and monitoring) requirements for stationary sources of air pollution: 391–3–1– .02(2)(yy)—Emissions of Nitrogen Oxides from Major Sources, 391–3–1– 11 See 81 FR 74506. EPA is not reopening for comment final determinations made in the CSAPR Update or the modeling conducted to support that rulemaking. 12 See EPA’s annual report on the nation’s air quality status and trends through 2017, available at https://gispub.epa.gov/air/trendsreport/2018/ documentation/AirTrends_Flyer.pdf. E:\FR\FM\11JYP1.SGM 11JYP1 33030 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 133 / Thursday, July 11, 2019 / Proposed Rules .02(2)(jjj)—NOX Emissions from Electric Utility Steam Generating Units, 391–3– 1–.02(2)(lll)—NOX Emissions From Fuel-Burning Equipment, and Regulation 391–3–1–.02(2)(rrr)—NOX from Small Fuel-Burning Equipment. Georgia also identified Regulation 391– 3–20—Vehicle Emissions Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) Program which regulates vehicle emissions in the state.13 Georgia further identified the following SIP-approved regulations that provide for the implementation of VOC emissions controls by fulfilling RACT requirements for specific source categories: Regulation 391–3–1–.02(2)(t) through (ff), (hh) through (nn), (pp) through (ss), (vv), (ccc) through (eee), (hhh), (kkk), (vvv), and (yyy) through (aaaa). GA EPD further identified Regulation 391–3–1–.02(2)(tt)—VOC Emissions from Major Sources, which outlines the case-by-case RACT regulations in the State. EPA proposes to approve Georgia’s August 15, 2018, SIP submission on grounds that it addresses the State’s 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) good neighbor obligation for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS because EPA has found that the State will not contribute significantly to nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance by, any other state. khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 III. Proposed Action EPA is proposing to determine that Georgia will not contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in any other state. Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve Georgia’s August 15, 2018, SIP submission as meeting the CAA requirements of prongs 1 and 2 under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA requests comment on this proposed approval of Georgia’s SIP. 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. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed action merely proposes to approve state 13 Although not relied upon for purposes of approval, GA EPD also identified state-only provisions of the Georgia Rules for Air Quality Control 391–3–1–.02(2)(sss)—Multipollutant Control for Electric Utility Steam Generating Units as a regulations that the State is implementing which provides for the control of NOX emissions. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Jul 10, 2019 Jkt 247001 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 • 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). 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 rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Dated: June 26, 2019. Mary S. Walker, Regional Administrator, Region 4. [FR Doc. 2019–14729 Filed 7–10–19; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA–R09–OAR–2019–0165; FRL–9996–17– Region 9] Air Quality Implementation Plan; California; Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District; Stationary Source Permits Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. AGENCY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing action on a revision to the Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District (YSAQMD or ‘‘the District’’) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). We are proposing to approve a rule governing issuance of permits for stationary sources, including review and permitting of major sources and major modifications under part D of title I of the Clean Air Act (CAA or ‘‘the Act’’). Specifically, the revision pertains to YSAQMD Rule 3.25, ‘‘Federal New Source Review for New and Modified Major PM2.5 Sources.’’ We are taking comments on this proposal and a final action will follow. DATES: Written comments must be received on or before August 12, 2019. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09– OAR–2019–0165 at https:// www.regulations.gov, or via email to R9AirPermits@epa.gov. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be removed or edited from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, 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 SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\11JYP1.SGM 11JYP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 133 (Thursday, July 11, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 33027-33030]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-14729]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2018-0813; FRL-9996-23-Region 4]


Air Plan Approval; Georgia; 2008 8-Hour Ozone Interstate 
Transport

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
approve Georgia's August 15, 2018, State Implementation Plan (SIP) 
submission pertaining to the ``good neighbor'' provision of the Clean 
Air Act (CAA or Act) for the 2008 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air 
Quality Standards (NAAQS). The good neighbor provision requires each 
state's implementation plan to address the interstate transport of air 
pollution in amounts that contribute significantly to nonattainment, or 
interfere with maintenance, of a NAAQS in any other state. In this 
action, EPA is proposing to determine that Georgia will not contribute 
significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in any other state. Therefore, EPA is proposing 
to approve the August 15, 2018, SIP revision as meeting the 
requirements of the good neighbor provision for the 2008 8-hour ozone 
NAAQS.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 12, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2018-0813 at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot 
be edited or removed from regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment 
received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any 
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) 
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a 
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment 
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will 
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of 
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing 
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment 
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general 
guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Evan Adams, Air Regulatory Management 
Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air and Radiation 
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth 
Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Mr. Adams can also be reached 
via telephone at (404) 562-9009 and via electronic mail at 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background

    On March 12, 2008, EPA promulgated an ozone NAAQS that revised the 
levels of the primary and secondary 8-hour ozone standards from 0.08 
parts per million (ppm) to 0.075 ppm.\1\ See 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 
2008). Pursuant to CAA section 110(a)(1), within three years after 
promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS (or shorter, if EPA prescribes), 
states must submit SIPs that meet the applicable requirements of 
section 110(a)(2). EPA has historically referred to these SIP 
submissions made for the purpose of satisfying the requirements of 
sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) as ``infrastructure SIP'' submissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 0.075 ppm equates to 75 parts per billion (ppb).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One of the structural requirements of section 110(a)(2) is section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i), which generally requires SIPs to contain adequate 
provisions to prohibit in-state emissions activities from having 
certain adverse air quality effects on neighboring states due to 
interstate transport of air pollution. There are four sub-elements, or 
``prongs,'' within section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA. CAA section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), also known as the ``good neighbor'' provision, 
requires SIPs to include provisions prohibiting any source or other 
type of emissions activity in one state from emitting any air pollutant 
in amounts that will contribute significantly to nonattainment, or 
interfere with

[[Page 33028]]

maintenance, of the NAAQS in another state. The two provisions of this 
section are referred to as prong 1 (significant contribution to 
nonattainment) and prong 2 (interference with maintenance). Section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires SIPs to contain adequate provisions to 
prohibit emissions that will interfere with measures required to be 
included in the applicable implementation plan for any other state 
under part C to prevent significant deterioration of air quality (prong 
3) or to protect visibility (prong 4). This proposed action addresses 
only prongs 1 and 2 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). All other 
infrastructure SIP elements for Georgia for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS 
were addressed in separate rulemakings.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See 83 FR 19637 (May 4,2018); 80 FR 61109 (October 9, 2015); 
and 80 FR 14019 (March 18, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. State Submittal

    On August 15, 2018, the Georgia Environmental Protection Division 
(GA EPD) provided a SIP submittal to EPA to address the interstate 
transport requirements of sections 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the Georgia 
SIP.\3\ Georgia made this submission to certify that its SIP contains 
adequate provisions to prohibit emissions activities within the State 
which will contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with 
maintenance of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in any other state, and 
therefore, adequately addresses the requirements of CAA section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.\4\ Georgia's 
certification is based on EPA's air quality modeling and monitoring 
data, SIP-approved and state provisions regulating emissions of ozone 
precursors (volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides 
(NOX)) within the State, and an analysis of recent trends in 
emissions of ozone precursors (VOCs and NOX) from Georgia 
sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ On March 6, 2012, Georgia submitted a SIP revision to 
address the 110(a)(1) and (2) requirements of the CAA including 
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. On 
October 3, 2013, the State withdrew its good neighbor SIP 
submission. See August 29, 2016, Memorandum from Gobeail McKinley re 
``Status of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIPs for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS,'' 
available at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0500-0509.
    \4\ On July 13, 2015, EPA published a final rulemaking that 
finalized findings of failure to submit with regard to the 
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for 24 states, 
including Georgia, with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. See 80 FR 
39961. The findings of failure to submit established a two-year 
deadline for EPA to promulgate a FIP to address the interstate 
transport SIP requirements pertaining to significant contribution to 
nonattainment and interference with maintenance unless, prior to EPA 
promulgating a FIP, the state submits, and EPA approves, a SIP that 
meets these requirements. Additional background on the findings of 
failure to submit--including EPA's findings related to Georgia--can 
be found in the preamble to the final rule. See 80 FR 39961.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. EPA's Analysis Related to 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 8-Hour 
Ozone NAAQS

    EPA developed technical information and related analyses to assist 
states with meeting section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for the 
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS through SIPs and, as appropriate, to provide 
backstop federal implementation plans (FIPs) in the event that states 
failed to submit approvable SIPs.\5\ On October 26, 2016, EPA took 
steps to effectuate this backstop role with respect to eastern states 
\6\ by finalizing an update to the 2011 Cross-State Air Pollution Rule 
(2011 CSAPR) ozone season program that addresses good neighbor 
obligations for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS (CSAPR Update).\7\ The 
CSAPR Update establishes statewide NOX budgets for certain 
affected electricity generating units in 22 eastern states for the May 
through September ozone season to reduce the interstate transport of 
ozone pollution in the eastern United States, and thereby help downwind 
states and communities meet and maintain the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 
See 81 FR 74506. The rule also determined that emissions from 14 states 
(including Georgia) will not significantly contribute to nonattainment 
or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in downwind 
states. Accordingly, EPA determined that it need not require further 
emission reductions from sources in those states to address the good 
neighbor provision as to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The EPA issued a Notice of Data Availability on August 4, 
2015, requesting comment on the modeling platform and air quality 
modeling results that were used for the proposed Cross-State Air 
Pollution Rule (CSAPR) Update. See 80 FR 46271.
    \6\ For purposes of the CSAPR Update, ``eastern'' states refer 
to all contiguous states fully east of the Rocky Mountains (thus not 
including the mountain states of Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, or New 
Mexico).
    \7\ See Federal Implementation Plans: Interstate Transport of 
Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone and Correction of SIP Approvals, 
Final Rule (2011 CSAPR), 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011); Cross-State 
Air Pollution Rule Update for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS (CSAPR Update), 
81 FR 74504 (October 26, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CSAPR Update used the same framework that EPA used when 
developing the original 2011 CSAPR, EPA's interstate transport rule 
addressing the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS as well as the 1997 and 2006 
fine particulate matter (PM2.5) NAAQS. This framework 
established the following four-step process to address the requirements 
of the good neighbor provision: (1) Identify downwind areas, referred 
to as receptors, that are expected to have problems attaining or 
maintaining the NAAQS; (2) determine which upwind states impact these 
identified problems in amounts sufficient to ``link'' them to the 
downwind air quality problems; (3) for states linked to downwind air 
quality problems, identify upwind emissions, if any, that will 
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance 
of a NAAQS; and (4) reduce the identified upwind emissions for states 
that are found to have emissions that will significantly contribute to 
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS downwind by 
adopting permanent and enforceable measures in a FIP or SIP. In the 
CSAPR Update, EPA used this four-step framework to determine whether 
states in the east will significantly contribute to nonattainment or 
interfere with maintenance of downwind air quality. As explained below, 
the CSAPR Update's four-step analysis supports the conclusions provided 
in GA EPD's August 15, 2018, interstate transport SIP submittal for the 
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS that the state will not significantly 
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 
standard in other states.
    In the technical analysis supporting the CSAPR Update, EPA used 
detailed air quality analyses to determine where projected 
nonattainment or maintenance receptors would be, at step 1 of the four-
step framework, and whether emissions from an eastern state contribute 
to downwind air quality problems at those projected nonattainment or 
maintenance receptors, at step 2 of the framework. Specifically, EPA 
determined whether each state's contributing emissions were at or above 
a specific threshold. EPA determined that one percent was an 
appropriate threshold to use in this analysis because there were 
important, even if relatively small, contributions to identified 
nonattainment and maintenance receptors from multiple upwind states at 
that threshold.\8\ See 81

[[Page 33029]]

FR 74504. For the CSAPR Update, EPA applied an air quality screening 
threshold of 0.75 ppb (equivalent to one percent of the 2008 8-hour 
ozone NAAQS of 75 ppb) to identify linkages between upwind states and 
the downwind nonattainment and maintenance receptors. States with 
impacts below the one-percent threshold were considered not to 
contribute to identified downwind nonattainment and maintenance 
receptors and therefore would not contribute significantly to 
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the standard in those 
downwind areas. If a state's impact was equal to or exceeded the one-
percent threshold, that state was considered linked to the downwind 
nonattainment or maintenance receptor(s) and the state's emissions were 
further evaluated, taking into account both air quality and cost 
considerations, to determine whether any emissions reductions might be 
necessary to address the state's obligation pursuant to CAA section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ EPA's analysis showed that the one-percent threshold 
generally captured a high percentage of the total pollution 
transport affecting downwind states. EPA's analysis further showed 
that the application of a lower threshold would result in relatively 
modest increases in the overall percentage of ozone transport 
pollution captured, while the use of higher thresholds would result 
in a relatively large reduction in the overall percentage of ozone 
pollution transport captured relative to the levels captured at one 
percent at the majority of the receptors. See 81 FR 74504 (October 
26, 2016) and ``Air Quality Modeling Final Rule Technical Support 
Document for the Final CSAPR Update'' (CSAPR Update Modeling TSD), 
available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-05/documents/aq_modeling_tsd_final_csapr_update.pdf. This approach is 
consistent with the use of a one-percent threshold to identify those 
states ``linked'' to air quality problems with respect to the 1997 
8-hour ozone NAAQS in the original CSAPR rulemaking, wherein EPA 
noted that there are adverse health impacts associated with ambient 
ozone even at low levels. See 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011); see also 
``Air Quality Modeling Final Rule Technical Support Document'' for 
the 2011 CSAPR, located at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4140.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in the final rulemaking for the CSAPR Update, the air 
quality modeling contained in EPA's technical analysis: (1) Identified 
locations in the U.S. where EPA anticipated nonattainment or 
maintenance issues in 2017 for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS (these were 
identified as nonattainment or maintenance receptors, respectively), 
and (2) quantified the projected contributions from emissions from 
upwind states to downwind ozone concentrations at the receptors in 
2017. See 81 FR 74504 (October 26, 2016). This modeling used the 
Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extensions (CAMx version 6.11) to 
model the 2011 base year and the 2017 future base case emissions 
scenarios to identify projected nonattainment and maintenance sites 
with respect to the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in 2017. EPA used 
nationwide state-level ozone source apportionment modeling (the CAMx 
Ozone Source Apportionment Technology/Anthropogenic Precursor 
Culpability Analysis technique) to quantify the contribution of 2017 
base case NOX and VOC emissions from all sources in each 
state to the 2017 projected receptors. The air quality model runs were 
performed for a modeling domain that covers the 48 contiguous United 
States, the District of Columbia, and adjacent portions of Canada and 
Mexico. The updated modeling data released to support the final CSAPR 
Update inform the Agency's analysis of upwind state linkages to 
downwind air quality problems for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS for 
Georgia. See CSAPR Update Modeling TSD.
    EPA's air quality modeling for the final CSAPR Update indicated 
that Georgia's largest impact on any projected downwind nonattainment 
receptor in 2017 was 0.60 ppb and Georgia's largest contribution to any 
projected downwind maintenance-only site in 2017 was 0.62 ppb.\9\ These 
values are below the one percent screening threshold of 0.75 ppb, and 
therefore there are no identified linkages between Georgia and 2017 
downwind projected nonattainment and maintenance sites.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See CSAPR Update Modeling TSD at Table 4-2, section 4.4 and 
Appendix D.
    \10\ Georgia continues to have CSAPR NOX ozone season 
requirements (including emission budget) related to the 1997 ozone 
NAAQS. See 81 FR 74504, 74524 n 92.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. What is EPA's analysis of the Georgia's submittal?

    As mentioned in section I, Georgia's August 15, 2018, submittal 
certifies that emission activities from the State will not contribute 
significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in any other state for the following reasons: 
(1) Modeling conducted by EPA in support of the CSAPR Update indicates 
that Georgia's impact on any downwind receptor is less than 1 percent 
of the standard; (2) NOX and VOC precursor emissions in 
Georgia have decreased since 1990; and (3) Georgia has in place both 
SIP-approved and state provisions that regulate ozone precursors in the 
State. Based on an assessment of this information, EPA proposes to 
approve Georgia's SIP submission because the State will not 
significantly contribute to nonattainment in, or interfere with 
maintenance by, any other state with respect to the 2008 8-hour ozone 
NAAQS.
    Georgia's submittal assessed EPA's CSAPR Update modeling. Georgia 
cites EPA's August 2016 CSAPR Update Modeling TSD where the modeling 
indicated that Georgia's largest impact on any projected downwind 
nonattainment receptor in 2017 was 0.60 ppb and the largest impact on 
any projected downwind maintenance-only site was 0.62 ppb, both of 
which are below 0.75 ppb, the one percent threshold for the 2008 ozone 
NAAQS. EPA concluded that Georgia's emissions will not contribute to 
downwind nonattainment and maintenance receptors and therefore, did not 
promulgate a FIP that required additional emission reductions from 
Georgia. Accordingly, in the CSAPR Update, EPA made a final 
determination that Georgia emissions will not significantly contribute 
to nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance by, any other state 
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and that sources in the State are not required 
to further reduce emissions pursuant to the good neighbor provision 
with respect to this standard.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See 81 FR 74506. EPA is not reopening for comment final 
determinations made in the CSAPR Update or the modeling conducted to 
support that rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Georgia's submittal also notes that total annual NOX 
emissions and total annual VOC emissions in the state have decreased by 
58 percent and 49 percent, respectively, between 1990 and 2017. EPA 
notes that ozone precursor emissions nationally continue to decline 
from 1990 levels and are largely driven by federal and state 
implementation of stationary and mobile source regulations.\12\ 
Additionally, nationwide ozone concentrations have also decreased since 
1990. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See EPA's annual report on the nation's air quality status 
and trends through 2017, available at https://gispub.epa.gov/air/trendsreport/2018/documentation/AirTrends_Flyer.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    GA EPD identified regulations that have been approved into the 
Georgia SIP to provide for the control of NOX and VOCs, 
which are precursors that contribute to ambient ozone concentrations. 
These regulations include Regulations 391-3-1-.02--Provisions Amended 
and 391-3-1-.03--Permits, which provide for the implementation of a 
permitting program for New Source Review and Prevention of Significant 
Deterioration requirements required under Title I, Parts C and D of the 
CAA for sources of NOX and VOCs. The permitting requirements 
help ensure that NOX and VOC emissions from new and modified 
sources are controlled.
    Specifically for the control of NOX, GA EPD identified 
SIP-approved regulations that establish emission standards and 
compliance (testing and monitoring) requirements for stationary sources 
of air pollution: 391-3-1-.02(2)(yy)--Emissions of Nitrogen Oxides from 
Major Sources, 391-3-1-

[[Page 33030]]

.02(2)(jjj)--NOX Emissions from Electric Utility Steam Generating 
Units, 391-3-1-.02(2)(lll)--NOX Emissions From Fuel-Burning Equipment, 
and Regulation 391-3-1-.02(2)(rrr)--NOX from Small Fuel-
Burning Equipment. Georgia also identified Regulation 391-3-20--Vehicle 
Emissions Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) Program which regulates 
vehicle emissions in the state.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Although not relied upon for purposes of approval, GA EPD 
also identified state-only provisions of the Georgia Rules for Air 
Quality Control 391-3-1-.02(2)(sss)--Multipollutant Control for 
Electric Utility Steam Generating Units as a regulations that the 
State is implementing which provides for the control of 
NOX emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Georgia further identified the following SIP-approved regulations 
that provide for the implementation of VOC emissions controls by 
fulfilling RACT requirements for specific source categories: Regulation 
391-3-1-.02(2)(t) through (ff), (hh) through (nn), (pp) through (ss), 
(vv), (ccc) through (eee), (hhh), (kkk), (vvv), and (yyy) through 
(aaaa). GA EPD further identified Regulation 391-3-1-.02(2)(tt)--VOC 
Emissions from Major Sources, which outlines the case-by-case RACT 
regulations in the State.
    EPA proposes to approve Georgia's August 15, 2018, SIP submission 
on grounds that it addresses the State's 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) good 
neighbor obligation for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS because EPA has 
found that the State will not contribute significantly to nonattainment 
in, or interfere with maintenance by, any other state.

III. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to determine that Georgia will not contribute 
significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in any other state. Therefore, EPA is proposing 
to approve Georgia's August 15, 2018, SIP submission as meeting the CAA 
requirements of prongs 1 and 2 under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA requests comment on this proposed approval 
of Georgia's SIP.

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. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in 
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, 
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. 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
     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).
    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 rule does 
not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct 
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

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: June 26, 2019.
Mary S. Walker,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2019-14729 Filed 7-10-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.