Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Provo, Utah Second 10-Year Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan, 12241-12244 [2020-04230]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 41 / Monday, March 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R08–OAR–2019–0696; FRL–10005–
71–Region 8]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality State Implementation Plans;
Provo, Utah Second 10-Year Carbon
Monoxide Maintenance Plan
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a
State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision submitted by the State of Utah.
On January 14, 2019, the Governor of
Utah submitted to the EPA a Clean Air
Act (CAA) section 175A(b) second 10year maintenance plan for the Provo
area for the carbon monoxide (CO)
National Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS). This limited maintenance
plan (LMP) addresses maintenance of
the CO NAAQS for a second 10-year
period beyond the original
redesignation. This action is being taken
under sections 110 and 175A of the
CAA.
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before April 1, 2020.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08–
OAR–2019–0696, to the Federal
Rulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Once submitted, comments cannot be
edited or removed from
www.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, 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: All documents in the docket
are listed in the www.regulations.gov
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:09 Feb 28, 2020
Jkt 250001
index. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly
available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, will be publicly
available only in hard copy. Publicly
available docket materials are available
either electronically in
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the Air Program, Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8,
1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado
80202–1129. The EPA requests that if at
all possible, you contact the individual
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section to view the hard copy
of the docket. You may view the hard
copy of the docket Monday through
Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., excluding
federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Amrita Singh, Air and Radiation
Division, EPA, Region 8, Mailcode
8ARD–QP, 1595 Wynkoop Street,
Denver, Colorado 80202–1129, (303)
312–6103, singh.amrita@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document wherever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
the EPA.
I. Background
Under the CAA Amendments of 1990,
the Provo area was designated as
nonattainment and classified as a
‘‘moderate >12.7 ppm’’ CO area (56 FR
56839, November 6, 1991). On April 1,
2004, the Governor of Utah submitted to
the EPA a request to redesignate the
Provo CO nonattainment area to
attainment for the CO NAAQS. Along
with this request, the Governor
submitted a CAA section 175A(a)
maintenance plan which demonstrated
that the area would maintain the CO
NAAQS for the first 10 years following
our approval of the redesignation
request. We approved the State’s
redesignation request and 10-year
maintenance plan on November 2, 2005
(70 FR 66264).
Eight years after an area is
redesignated to attainment, CAA section
175A(b) requires the state to submit a
subsequent maintenance plan to the
EPA, covering a second 10-year period.1
This second 10-year maintenance plan
must demonstrate continued
compliance with the NAAQS during
this second 10-year period. To fulfill
this requirement of the CAA, the
Governor of Utah submitted the second
10-year update of the Provo CO
maintenance plan (hereafter; ‘‘revised
Provo Maintenance Plan’’) to us on
1 In this case, the initial maintenance period
extended through 2015.
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
12241
January 14, 2019. With this action, we
are proposing approval of the revised
Provo Maintenance Plan.
The 8-hour CO NAAQS—9.0 parts per
million (ppm)—is attained when such
value is not exceeded more than once a
year. 40 CFR 50.8(a)(1). The Provo area
has attained the 8-hour CO NAAQS
from 1994 to the present.2 In October
1995, the EPA issued guidance that
provided CO nonattainment areas the
option of using a less rigorous ‘‘limited
maintenance plan’’ (LMP) option to
demonstrate continued attainment and
maintenance of the CO NAAQS.3
According to this ‘‘LMP Guidance,’’
areas that can demonstrate design
values (2nd highest max) at or below
7.65 ppm (85% of exceedance levels of
the 8-hour CO NAAQS) for eight
consecutive quarters qualify to use an
LMP. For the revised Provo
Maintenance Plan, the State used the
LMP option to demonstrate continued
maintenance of the CO NAAQS in the
Provo area. We have determined that the
Provo area qualifies for the LMP option
because the maximum design value for
the most recent eight consecutive
quarters with certified data at the time
the State adopted the plan (years 2016
and 2017) was 1.6 ppm.4
II. The EPA’s Evaluation of the Provo
Second 10-Year CO Maintenance Plan
The following are the key elements of
an LMP for CO: Emission Inventory,
Maintenance Demonstration,
Monitoring Network/Verification of
Continued Attainment, Contingency
Plan, and Conformity Determinations.
Below, we describe our evaluation of
each of these elements as it pertains to
the revised Provo Maintenance Plan.
A. Emission Inventory
The revised Provo Maintenance Plan
contains an emissions inventory for
2016. The emission inventory is a list,
by source category, of the tons per day
2 In a direct final rulemaking published
September 20, 2002, the EPA determined that the
Provo area had attained the CO NAAQS from 1994
through 2001. (67 FR 59165). The measures taken
by the State to achieve attainment of the CO
NAAQS are also detailed in this rulemaking action.
3 Memorandum ‘‘Limited Maintenance Plan
Option for Nonclassifiable CO Nonattainment
Areas’’ from Joseph W. Paisie, Group Leader, EPA
Integrated Policy and Strategies Group, to Air
Branch Chiefs, October 6, 1995.
4 See Table 4 below. Additionally, according to
the LMP guidance, an area using the LMP option
must continue to have a design value ‘‘at or below
7.65 ppm until the time of final EPA action on the
redesignation.’’ Table 4, below, demonstrates that
the area meets this requirement.
E:\FR\FM\02MRP1.SGM
02MRP1
12242
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 41 / Monday, March 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
of CO directly emitted in Utah County
(in which the Provo CO maintenance
area is located) on a typical winter day
in 2016.5 This inventory is shown in
Table 1, below.
above, a maintenance area is qualified to
use the LMP option if that area’s
maximum 8-hour CO design value for
eight consecutive quarters does not
exceed 7.65 ppm (85% of the CO
NAAQS). The EPA maintains that if an
TABLE 1—UTAH COUNTY EMISSIONS area begins the maintenance period with
INVENTORY FOR A TYPICAL WINTER a design value no greater than 7.65 ppm,
the applicability of prevention of
DAY IN 2016
significant deterioration requirements,
the control measures already in the SIP,
CO
Emission inventory summary
(tons/day)
and federal measures should provide
adequate assurance of maintenance over
Point Sources .......................
0.901 the 10-year maintenance period.
Onroad Mobile ......................
94.827
Therefore, the EPA does not require
Nonroad Mobile ....................
27.769
Railroads ...............................
0.255 areas using the LMP option to project
Wood Burning .......................
6.454 emissions over the maintenance period.
Commercial Cooking ............
0.137 Because CO design values in the Provo
Nat. Gas Fuel Combustion ...
3.144 area are consistently well below the
LMP threshold (see Table 4), the State
Total ...............................
133.488 has adequately demonstrated that the
Provo area will maintain the CO
The State noted that 92% of the CO
NAAQS into the future.
in the 2016 emissions inventory were
C. Monitoring Network/Verification of
from mobile sources. For that reason,
Continued Attainment
the State also calculated mobile source
emissions data for the city of Provo on
Per the EPA’s LMP Guidance, ‘‘to
a typical winter day in 2011, 2014 and
verify the attainment status of the area
2016 using EPA-recommended mobile
over the maintenance period, the
sources emissions modeling methods
maintenance plan should contain
(MOVES2014a).6
provisions for continued operation of an
appropriate, EPA-approved air quality
TABLE 2—PROVO VEHICLE MILES
monitoring network.’’ 8 In instances
TRAVELED ON AN AVERAGE WINTER where a state has used the LMP option
for a second ten-year CO maintenance
DAY
plan in an area whose monitoring values
have consistently been well below the
Vehicle
Average
CO
miles traveled/
NAAQS, the EPA has allowed the state
Year
tons/day
in
winter day in
to monitor CO in the maintenance area
Provo city
Provo city
using average daily traffic (ADT) counts
2011 ..........
1,255,778
16.53 in lieu of ambient air quality
2014 ..........
1,312,491
14.46 monitoring.9 For the revised Provo
2016 ..........
1,497,156
13 Maintenance Plan, the State has elected
to use a similar alternative monitoring
As shown in Table 2 (and as noted in
method which does not rely on ambient
the revised Provo Maintenance Plan),
monitoring to verify continued
modeled average CO emissions declined attainment of the CO NAAQS. This
from 2011 to 2014, and again from 2014 method utilizes ADT counts that are
to 2016, despite an increase in vehicle
collected by a Utah Department of
miles traveled in each of these periods,
Transportation (UDOT) traffic counter
which the State attributed to vehicles
located along a major thoroughfare
growing continuously cleaner over time. (North University Avenue) in Provo, by
The Provo LMP contains a detailed
comparing ongoing ADT counts to those
emission inventory that was prepared in collected when monitoring data in the
accordance with EPA guidance and is
area showed design values well below
acceptable to the EPA.7
the CO NAAQS.
Since 2007, no Provo CO monitor has
B. Maintenance Demonstration
registered a design value greater than
We consider the maintenance
2.6 ppm, which is below one-third of
demonstration requirement to be
the NAAQS.10 Citing these consistently
satisfied for areas that qualify for and
low monitor values, and expressing a
use the LMP option. As mentioned
8 See
5 Violations
of the CO NAAQS are most likely to
occur on winter weekdays.
6 Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES)
model; version 2014a.
7 ‘‘Procedures for Processing Requests to
Redesignate Areas to Attainment,’’ from John
Calcagni, September 4, 1992.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:09 Feb 28, 2020
Jkt 250001
LMP Guidance, October 6, 1995, at 4.
e.g., ‘‘Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; State of Montana
Second 10-Year Carbon Monoxide Maintenance
Plan for Billings,’’ 80 FR 16571, March 30, 2015.
10 See Table 4 below. Design values were derived
from the EPA Air Data (https://www.epa.gov/
outdoor-air-quality-data) website.
9 See,
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
desire to reallocate monitoring
resources, the State has requested to
discontinue CO monitoring in Provo
and instead use an alternative strategy
for monitoring maintenance of the CO
NAAQS.
The State’s alternative monitoring
method utilizes ADT vehicle counts
collected from a permanent automatic
traffic counter in the Provo CO
maintenance area to determine average
monthly traffic during the traditional
high CO concentration season of
November through February. The State
will compare the latest rolling 3-years of
monthly ADT volumes to the 2013–2016
baseline ADT volumes (see Table 3) that
correlate to the low CO monitored
values during that period (see Table 4).
Because mobile sources are the biggest
driver of CO levels (as demonstrated in
the ‘‘Emission Inventory’’ section), the
State reasoned that any significant
increase in CO emissions would have to
be accompanied by a significant
increase in ADT.11 The EPA agrees with
the State’s reasoning.
TABLE 3—TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR
PROVO, UTAH
Rolling 2013–2016 ADT: November to
February
Month-year
Provo
November 2013 ........................
December 2013 ........................
January 2014 ............................
February 2014 ..........................
November 2014 ........................
December 2014 ........................
January 2015 ............................
February 2015 ..........................
November 2015 ........................
December 2015 ........................
January 2016 ............................
February 2016 ..........................
27,223
24,881
27,361
28,679
28,453
27,156
29,056
30,682
29,582
27,518
30,452
32,301
Average .............................
28,612
TABLE 4—8-HOUR CO DESIGN
VALUES FOR PROVO, UTAH
Design value
(ppm) 12
2.6
1.8
2.5
1.9
2.0
1.8
2.1
1.9
2.1
1.3
1.6
.............................................
.............................................
.............................................
.............................................
.............................................
.............................................
.............................................
.............................................
.............................................
.............................................
.............................................
Year
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
11 See ‘‘Review of National Ambient Air Quality
Standards for Carbon Monoxide,’’ 76 FR 54294,
August 31, 2011.
E:\FR\FM\02MRP1.SGM
02MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 41 / Monday, March 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
If the rolling 3-year ADT value is 25%
higher than the average value of 28,612
from the 2013–2016 baseline period, the
State will reestablish CO ambient
monitoring in Provo the following high
season (November–February). If the CO
design value in that season has not
increased from the baseline mean by an
equal or greater rate at which ADT has
increased, and the monitor values
remain at or below 50% of the CO
NAAQS (2nd max concentration ≤4.5
ppm), the monitor may again be
removed and the ADT counts will
continue to be relied upon to determine
compliance with the NAAQS.
40 CFR 58.14(c) allows approval of
requests to discontinue ambient
monitors ‘‘on a case-by-case basis if
discontinuance does not compromise
data collection needed for
implementation of a NAAQS and if the
requirements of appendix D to this part,
if any, continue to be met.’’ The EPA
finds that Utah’s alternative monitoring
method meets the criteria of 40 CFR
58.14(c) for the Provo CO maintenance
area. Given the long history of low CO
concentrations in the Provo area, and
the adequacy of the State’s alternative
monitoring method at ensuring
continued attainment of the CO
NAAQS, the EPA finds it appropriate to
approve the State’s request to
discontinue the Provo monitor and use
their alternative monitoring method in
its place.
D. Contingency Plan
Section 175A(d) of the CAA requires
that a maintenance plan include
contingency provisions to promptly
correct any violation of the NAAQS that
occurs after redesignation of an area. To
meet this requirement, the State has
identified appropriate contingency
measures along with a schedule for the
development and implementation of
such measures.
The revised Provo Maintenance Plan
stated that Utah will use an exceedance
of the CO NAAQS as the trigger for
adopting specific contingency measures
for the Provo area. As noted, the State’s
alternative monitoring method requires
reinstitution of a CO monitor in Provo
if traffic levels increase from the 2013–
2016 baseline by a factor of 25%.
Therefore, the EPA finds that CO
emissions in Provo are very unlikely to
increase to the point of an exceedance
without that exceedance being observed
by a gaseous monitor.
The revised Provo Maintenance Plan
indicates that, once monitoring is
12 Design values were derived from the EPA Air
Data (https://www.epa.gov/outdoor-air-quality-data)
website.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:09 Feb 28, 2020
Jkt 250001
reinstated, a measured 8-hour CO
concentration in a given year which
exceeds the LMP eligibility requirement
of 7.65 ppm would require the State to
evaluate the cause of the CO increase.
Within 6 months of validation of the
concentration above 7.65 ppm, the State
must present the Utah Air Quality Board
(UAQB) with a recommended strategy to
either prevent or correct any violation of
the 8-hour CO standard. The revised
Provo Maintenance Plan also states that,
if a violation of the CO NAAQS occurs,
the UAQB will hold a public meeting to
consider the prior contingency measures
that helped bring the Provo area into
attainment, including the mandatory
2.7% oxygen fuels program and annual
inspection and maintenance tests for
mobile sources, in addition to any
measures that could help the area
reduce CO emissions. Selected
contingency measures would then be
adopted and required by November 1st
of the next winter season.
We find that the contingency
measures provided in the revised Provo
Maintenance Plan are sufficient and
meet the requirements of section
175A(d) of the CAA.
E. Transportation Conformity
Transportation conformity is required
by section 176(c) of the CAA.
Conformity to a SIP means that
transportation activities will not
produce new air quality violations,
worsen existing violations, or delay
timely attainment of the NAAQS (CAA
176(c)(B)). The EPA’s conformity rule
provisions in 40 CFR part 93, subpart A
require that transportation plans,
programs and projects conform to SIPs
and establish the criteria and
procedures for determining whether or
not they demonstrate conformity. The
EPA’s conformity rule provisions
include requirements for a
demonstration that emissions from the
Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and
the Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP) are consistent with the
motor vehicle emission budget (MVEB)
contained in the SIP revision (40 CFR
93.118 and 93.124). The MVEB is
defined as the level of mobile source
emissions relied upon in the attainment
or maintenance demonstration to
maintain compliance with the NAAQS
in the nonattainment or maintenance
area.13
Under the LMP policy, emissions
budgets are treated as essentially not
constraining for the length of the
13 The EPA’s transportation conformity
requirements and policy on MVEBs are found in the
preamble to the November 24, 1993, transportation
conformity rule (see 58 FR 62193–62196) and in the
sections of 40 CFR part 93 referenced above.
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
12243
maintenance period. While the EPA’s
LMP policy does not exempt an area
from the need to affirm conformity, it
explains that the area may demonstrate
conformity without submitting a MVEB.
This is because it is unreasonable to
expect that an LMP area will experience
so much growth in that period that a
violation of the CO NAAQS would
result.14 Therefore, for the Provo CO
maintenance area, all actions that
require conformity determinations for
CO under our conformity rule
provisions are considered to have
already satisfied the regional emissions
analysis and ‘‘budget test’’ requirements
in 40 CFR 93.118.
Since LMP areas are still maintenance
areas, certain aspects of transportation
conformity determinations are still
required for transportation plans,
programs and projects. Specifically, for
such determinations, RTPs, TIPs and
projects must still demonstrate that they
are fiscally constrained (40 CFR 93.108)
and must meet the criteria for
consultation (40 CFR 93.105 and 40 CFR
93.112) and Transportation Control
Measure implementation in the
conformity rule provisions (40 CFR
93.113). In addition, projects in LMP
areas will still be required to meet the
applicable criteria for CO hot spot
analyses to satisfy ‘‘project level’’
conformity determinations (40 CFR
93.116 and 40 CFR 93.123) which must
also incorporate the latest planning
assumptions and models available (40
CFR 93.110 and 40 CFR 93.111
respectively).
In view of the CO LMP policy, the
effect of this proposed approval will be
that no regional emissions analyses for
future transportation CO conformity
determinations will be required of the
Mountainland Association of
Governments, who is the Metropolitan
Planning Organization for Utah County,
for the CO LMP period (as per the EPA’s
CO LMP policy and 40 CFR 93.109(e)).
III. Proposed Action
The EPA is proposing to approve the
revised Provo Maintenance Plan
submitted on January 14, 2019. This
maintenance plan meets the applicable
CAA requirements and the EPA has
determined it is sufficient to provide for
maintenance of the CO NAAQS over the
course of the second 10-year
maintenance period out to 2025.
IV. Statutory and Executive Orders
Review
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the
14 See
E:\FR\FM\02MRP1.SGM
LMP Guidance, October 6, 1995, at 4.
02MRP1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
12244
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 41 / Monday, March 2, 2020 / Proposed Rules
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 the EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
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 proposed rule does
not have tribal implications and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law as
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:09 Feb 28, 2020
Jkt 250001
40 CFR Part 171
• Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental
Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/
DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.
NW, Washington, DC 20460–0001.
• Hand Delivery: To make special
arrangements for hand delivery or
delivery of boxed information, please
follow the instructions at https://
www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
Additional instructions on
commenting or visiting the docket,
along with more information about
dockets generally, is available at https://
www.epa.gov/dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jackie Mosby, Field and External Affairs
Division (7506P), Office of Pesticide
Programs, Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone
number: (703) 305–7102; email address:
Mosby.Jackie@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
[EPA–HQ–OPP–2011–0037; FRL–10005–59]
I. General Information
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Volatile
organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: February 25, 2020.
Gregory Sopkin,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2020–04230 Filed 2–28–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
EPA Plan for the Federal Certification
of Applicators of Restricted Use
Pesticides Within Indian Country;
Proposed Revisions; Notice of
Availability and Request for Comment
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
EPA is announcing proposed
revisions to the EPA-administered
federal pesticide applicator certification
plan to certify applicators of restricted
use pesticides in areas of Indian country
that are not covered by any other EPAapproved certification plan. After this
proposed plan is finalized and
implemented, certification of
applicators in Indian country will be
administered by EPA, unless a tribe
submits its own tribal certification plan,
enters into a tribal-EPA agreement, or
opts out of the revised EPA Plan. EPA
is soliciting comments on EPA’s
proposed revisions to the federal
certification plan in Indian country
where no other EPA-approved plan
applies.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before June 1, 2020.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by docket identification (ID)
number EPA–HQ–OPP–2011–0037, by
one of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute.
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
A. Does this action apply to me?
You may be potentially affected by
this action if you are an individual or
business that is seeking certification to
apply restricted use pesticides (RUPs),
as defined under section 3(d) of the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (7 U.S.C. 136a
et seq.) and 40 CFR part 152, subpart I,
in areas of Indian country where no
other EPA-approved plan applies. This
action may, however, be of interest to
those involved in agriculture and
anyone involved with the distribution
and application of pesticides for
agricultural purposes. Others involved
with pesticides in a non-agricultural
setting may also be affected. Since other
entities may also be interested, the
Agency has not attempted to describe all
the specific entities that may be affected
by this action. You may be potentially
affected by this action if you are: A state
lead agency (SLA), tribe, or federal
agency who administers a certification
program for pesticides applicators or a
pesticide safety educator; or other
person who provides pesticide safety
training for pesticide applicator
certification or recertification. This
document also addresses EPA’s work on
a government-to-government basis with
tribes (see Unit VIII.). If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of
this action to a particular entity, please
consult the person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
B. What should I consider as I prepare
my comments for EPA?
1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this
information to EPA through
regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark
E:\FR\FM\02MRP1.SGM
02MRP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 41 (Monday, March 2, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 12241-12244]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-04230]
[[Page 12241]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R08-OAR-2019-0696; FRL-10005-71-Region 8]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality State Implementation
Plans; Provo, Utah Second 10-Year Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
State of Utah. On January 14, 2019, the Governor of Utah submitted to
the EPA a Clean Air Act (CAA) section 175A(b) second 10-year
maintenance plan for the Provo area for the carbon monoxide (CO)
National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). This limited maintenance
plan (LMP) addresses maintenance of the CO NAAQS for a second 10-year
period beyond the original redesignation. This action is being taken
under sections 110 and 175A of the CAA.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before April 1, 2020.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-
OAR-2019-0696, to the Federal Rulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
www.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, 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: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Program,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street,
Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. The EPA requests that if at all possible,
you contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section to view the hard copy of the docket. You may view the
hard copy of the docket Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.,
excluding federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amrita Singh, Air and Radiation
Division, EPA, Region 8, Mailcode 8ARD-QP, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver,
Colorado 80202-1129, (303) 312-6103, [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we,''
``us'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA.
I. Background
Under the CAA Amendments of 1990, the Provo area was designated as
nonattainment and classified as a ``moderate >12.7 ppm'' CO area (56 FR
56839, November 6, 1991). On April 1, 2004, the Governor of Utah
submitted to the EPA a request to redesignate the Provo CO
nonattainment area to attainment for the CO NAAQS. Along with this
request, the Governor submitted a CAA section 175A(a) maintenance plan
which demonstrated that the area would maintain the CO NAAQS for the
first 10 years following our approval of the redesignation request. We
approved the State's redesignation request and 10-year maintenance plan
on November 2, 2005 (70 FR 66264).
Eight years after an area is redesignated to attainment, CAA
section 175A(b) requires the state to submit a subsequent maintenance
plan to the EPA, covering a second 10-year period.\1\ This second 10-
year maintenance plan must demonstrate continued compliance with the
NAAQS during this second 10-year period. To fulfill this requirement of
the CAA, the Governor of Utah submitted the second 10-year update of
the Provo CO maintenance plan (hereafter; ``revised Provo Maintenance
Plan'') to us on January 14, 2019. With this action, we are proposing
approval of the revised Provo Maintenance Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In this case, the initial maintenance period extended
through 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 8-hour CO NAAQS--9.0 parts per million (ppm)--is attained when
such value is not exceeded more than once a year. 40 CFR 50.8(a)(1).
The Provo area has attained the 8-hour CO NAAQS from 1994 to the
present.\2\ In October 1995, the EPA issued guidance that provided CO
nonattainment areas the option of using a less rigorous ``limited
maintenance plan'' (LMP) option to demonstrate continued attainment and
maintenance of the CO NAAQS.\3\ According to this ``LMP Guidance,''
areas that can demonstrate design values (2nd highest max) at or below
7.65 ppm (85% of exceedance levels of the 8-hour CO NAAQS) for eight
consecutive quarters qualify to use an LMP. For the revised Provo
Maintenance Plan, the State used the LMP option to demonstrate
continued maintenance of the CO NAAQS in the Provo area. We have
determined that the Provo area qualifies for the LMP option because the
maximum design value for the most recent eight consecutive quarters
with certified data at the time the State adopted the plan (years 2016
and 2017) was 1.6 ppm.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ In a direct final rulemaking published September 20, 2002,
the EPA determined that the Provo area had attained the CO NAAQS
from 1994 through 2001. (67 FR 59165). The measures taken by the
State to achieve attainment of the CO NAAQS are also detailed in
this rulemaking action.
\3\ Memorandum ``Limited Maintenance Plan Option for
Nonclassifiable CO Nonattainment Areas'' from Joseph W. Paisie,
Group Leader, EPA Integrated Policy and Strategies Group, to Air
Branch Chiefs, October 6, 1995.
\4\ See Table 4 below. Additionally, according to the LMP
guidance, an area using the LMP option must continue to have a
design value ``at or below 7.65 ppm until the time of final EPA
action on the redesignation.'' Table 4, below, demonstrates that the
area meets this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. The EPA's Evaluation of the Provo Second 10-Year CO Maintenance
Plan
The following are the key elements of an LMP for CO: Emission
Inventory, Maintenance Demonstration, Monitoring Network/Verification
of Continued Attainment, Contingency Plan, and Conformity
Determinations. Below, we describe our evaluation of each of these
elements as it pertains to the revised Provo Maintenance Plan.
A. Emission Inventory
The revised Provo Maintenance Plan contains an emissions inventory
for 2016. The emission inventory is a list, by source category, of the
tons per day
[[Page 12242]]
of CO directly emitted in Utah County (in which the Provo CO
maintenance area is located) on a typical winter day in 2016.\5\ This
inventory is shown in Table 1, below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Violations of the CO NAAQS are most likely to occur on
winter weekdays.
Table 1--Utah County Emissions Inventory for a Typical Winter Day in
2016
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emission inventory summary CO (tons/day)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Sources........................................... 0.901
Onroad Mobile........................................... 94.827
Nonroad Mobile.......................................... 27.769
Railroads............................................... 0.255
Wood Burning............................................ 6.454
Commercial Cooking...................................... 0.137
Nat. Gas Fuel Combustion................................ 3.144
---------------
Total............................................... 133.488
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The State noted that 92% of the CO in the 2016 emissions inventory
were from mobile sources. For that reason, the State also calculated
mobile source emissions data for the city of Provo on a typical winter
day in 2011, 2014 and 2016 using EPA-recommended mobile sources
emissions modeling methods (MOVES2014a).\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES) model; version
2014a.
Table 2--Provo Vehicle Miles Traveled on an Average Winter Day
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vehicle miles
traveled/ Average CO
Year winter day in tons/day in
Provo city Provo city
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2011.................................... 1,255,778 16.53
2014.................................... 1,312,491 14.46
2016.................................... 1,497,156 13
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As shown in Table 2 (and as noted in the revised Provo Maintenance
Plan), modeled average CO emissions declined from 2011 to 2014, and
again from 2014 to 2016, despite an increase in vehicle miles traveled
in each of these periods, which the State attributed to vehicles
growing continuously cleaner over time. The Provo LMP contains a
detailed emission inventory that was prepared in accordance with EPA
guidance and is acceptable to the EPA.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ ``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to
Attainment,'' from John Calcagni, September 4, 1992.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Maintenance Demonstration
We consider the maintenance demonstration requirement to be
satisfied for areas that qualify for and use the LMP option. As
mentioned above, a maintenance area is qualified to use the LMP option
if that area's maximum 8-hour CO design value for eight consecutive
quarters does not exceed 7.65 ppm (85% of the CO NAAQS). The EPA
maintains that if an area begins the maintenance period with a design
value no greater than 7.65 ppm, the applicability of prevention of
significant deterioration requirements, the control measures already in
the SIP, and federal measures should provide adequate assurance of
maintenance over the 10-year maintenance period. Therefore, the EPA
does not require areas using the LMP option to project emissions over
the maintenance period. Because CO design values in the Provo area are
consistently well below the LMP threshold (see Table 4), the State has
adequately demonstrated that the Provo area will maintain the CO NAAQS
into the future.
C. Monitoring Network/Verification of Continued Attainment
Per the EPA's LMP Guidance, ``to verify the attainment status of
the area over the maintenance period, the maintenance plan should
contain provisions for continued operation of an appropriate, EPA-
approved air quality monitoring network.'' \8\ In instances where a
state has used the LMP option for a second ten-year CO maintenance plan
in an area whose monitoring values have consistently been well below
the NAAQS, the EPA has allowed the state to monitor CO in the
maintenance area using average daily traffic (ADT) counts in lieu of
ambient air quality monitoring.\9\ For the revised Provo Maintenance
Plan, the State has elected to use a similar alternative monitoring
method which does not rely on ambient monitoring to verify continued
attainment of the CO NAAQS. This method utilizes ADT counts that are
collected by a Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) traffic counter
located along a major thoroughfare (North University Avenue) in Provo,
by comparing ongoing ADT counts to those collected when monitoring data
in the area showed design values well below the CO NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See LMP Guidance, October 6, 1995, at 4.
\9\ See, e.g., ``Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality
Implementation Plans; State of Montana Second 10-Year Carbon
Monoxide Maintenance Plan for Billings,'' 80 FR 16571, March 30,
2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since 2007, no Provo CO monitor has registered a design value
greater than 2.6 ppm, which is below one-third of the NAAQS.\10\ Citing
these consistently low monitor values, and expressing a desire to
reallocate monitoring resources, the State has requested to discontinue
CO monitoring in Provo and instead use an alternative strategy for
monitoring maintenance of the CO NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See Table 4 below. Design values were derived from the EPA
Air Data (https://www.epa.gov/outdoor-air-quality-data) website.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The State's alternative monitoring method utilizes ADT vehicle
counts collected from a permanent automatic traffic counter in the
Provo CO maintenance area to determine average monthly traffic during
the traditional high CO concentration season of November through
February. The State will compare the latest rolling 3-years of monthly
ADT volumes to the 2013-2016 baseline ADT volumes (see Table 3) that
correlate to the low CO monitored values during that period (see Table
4). Because mobile sources are the biggest driver of CO levels (as
demonstrated in the ``Emission Inventory'' section), the State reasoned
that any significant increase in CO emissions would have to be
accompanied by a significant increase in ADT.\11\ The EPA agrees with
the State's reasoning.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See ``Review of National Ambient Air Quality Standards for
Carbon Monoxide,'' 76 FR 54294, August 31, 2011.
Table 3--Traffic Volumes for Provo, Utah
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rolling 2013-2016 ADT: November to February
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Month-year Provo
------------------------------------------------------------------------
November 2013.............................................. 27,223
December 2013.............................................. 24,881
January 2014............................................... 27,361
February 2014.............................................. 28,679
November 2014.............................................. 28,453
December 2014.............................................. 27,156
January 2015............................................... 29,056
February 2015.............................................. 30,682
November 2015.............................................. 29,582
December 2015.............................................. 27,518
January 2016............................................... 30,452
February 2016.............................................. 32,301
------------
Average................................................ 28,612
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4--8-Hour CO Design Values for Provo, Utah
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Design value (ppm) \12\ Year
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.6........................................................ 2007
1.8........................................................ 2008
2.5........................................................ 2009
1.9........................................................ 2010
2.0........................................................ 2011
1.8........................................................ 2012
2.1........................................................ 2013
1.9........................................................ 2014
2.1........................................................ 2015
1.3........................................................ 2016
1.6........................................................ 2017
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 12243]]
If the rolling 3-year ADT value is 25% higher than the average
value of 28,612 from the 2013-2016 baseline period, the State will
reestablish CO ambient monitoring in Provo the following high season
(November-February). If the CO design value in that season has not
increased from the baseline mean by an equal or greater rate at which
ADT has increased, and the monitor values remain at or below 50% of the
CO NAAQS (2nd max concentration <=4.5 ppm), the monitor may again be
removed and the ADT counts will continue to be relied upon to determine
compliance with the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Design values were derived from the EPA Air Data (https://www.epa.gov/outdoor-air-quality-data) website.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR 58.14(c) allows approval of requests to discontinue ambient
monitors ``on a case-by-case basis if discontinuance does not
compromise data collection needed for implementation of a NAAQS and if
the requirements of appendix D to this part, if any, continue to be
met.'' The EPA finds that Utah's alternative monitoring method meets
the criteria of 40 CFR 58.14(c) for the Provo CO maintenance area.
Given the long history of low CO concentrations in the Provo area, and
the adequacy of the State's alternative monitoring method at ensuring
continued attainment of the CO NAAQS, the EPA finds it appropriate to
approve the State's request to discontinue the Provo monitor and use
their alternative monitoring method in its place.
D. Contingency Plan
Section 175A(d) of the CAA requires that a maintenance plan include
contingency provisions to promptly correct any violation of the NAAQS
that occurs after redesignation of an area. To meet this requirement,
the State has identified appropriate contingency measures along with a
schedule for the development and implementation of such measures.
The revised Provo Maintenance Plan stated that Utah will use an
exceedance of the CO NAAQS as the trigger for adopting specific
contingency measures for the Provo area. As noted, the State's
alternative monitoring method requires reinstitution of a CO monitor in
Provo if traffic levels increase from the 2013-2016 baseline by a
factor of 25%. Therefore, the EPA finds that CO emissions in Provo are
very unlikely to increase to the point of an exceedance without that
exceedance being observed by a gaseous monitor.
The revised Provo Maintenance Plan indicates that, once monitoring
is reinstated, a measured 8-hour CO concentration in a given year which
exceeds the LMP eligibility requirement of 7.65 ppm would require the
State to evaluate the cause of the CO increase. Within 6 months of
validation of the concentration above 7.65 ppm, the State must present
the Utah Air Quality Board (UAQB) with a recommended strategy to either
prevent or correct any violation of the 8-hour CO standard. The revised
Provo Maintenance Plan also states that, if a violation of the CO NAAQS
occurs, the UAQB will hold a public meeting to consider the prior
contingency measures that helped bring the Provo area into attainment,
including the mandatory 2.7% oxygen fuels program and annual inspection
and maintenance tests for mobile sources, in addition to any measures
that could help the area reduce CO emissions. Selected contingency
measures would then be adopted and required by November 1st of the next
winter season.
We find that the contingency measures provided in the revised Provo
Maintenance Plan are sufficient and meet the requirements of section
175A(d) of the CAA.
E. Transportation Conformity
Transportation conformity is required by section 176(c) of the CAA.
Conformity to a SIP means that transportation activities will not
produce new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or
delay timely attainment of the NAAQS (CAA 176(c)(B)). The EPA's
conformity rule provisions in 40 CFR part 93, subpart A require that
transportation plans, programs and projects conform to SIPs and
establish the criteria and procedures for determining whether or not
they demonstrate conformity. The EPA's conformity rule provisions
include requirements for a demonstration that emissions from the
Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and the Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP) are consistent with the motor vehicle emission budget
(MVEB) contained in the SIP revision (40 CFR 93.118 and 93.124). The
MVEB is defined as the level of mobile source emissions relied upon in
the attainment or maintenance demonstration to maintain compliance with
the NAAQS in the nonattainment or maintenance area.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ The EPA's transportation conformity requirements and policy
on MVEBs are found in the preamble to the November 24, 1993,
transportation conformity rule (see 58 FR 62193-62196) and in the
sections of 40 CFR part 93 referenced above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the LMP policy, emissions budgets are treated as essentially
not constraining for the length of the maintenance period. While the
EPA's LMP policy does not exempt an area from the need to affirm
conformity, it explains that the area may demonstrate conformity
without submitting a MVEB. This is because it is unreasonable to expect
that an LMP area will experience so much growth in that period that a
violation of the CO NAAQS would result.\14\ Therefore, for the Provo CO
maintenance area, all actions that require conformity determinations
for CO under our conformity rule provisions are considered to have
already satisfied the regional emissions analysis and ``budget test''
requirements in 40 CFR 93.118.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See LMP Guidance, October 6, 1995, at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since LMP areas are still maintenance areas, certain aspects of
transportation conformity determinations are still required for
transportation plans, programs and projects. Specifically, for such
determinations, RTPs, TIPs and projects must still demonstrate that
they are fiscally constrained (40 CFR 93.108) and must meet the
criteria for consultation (40 CFR 93.105 and 40 CFR 93.112) and
Transportation Control Measure implementation in the conformity rule
provisions (40 CFR 93.113). In addition, projects in LMP areas will
still be required to meet the applicable criteria for CO hot spot
analyses to satisfy ``project level'' conformity determinations (40 CFR
93.116 and 40 CFR 93.123) which must also incorporate the latest
planning assumptions and models available (40 CFR 93.110 and 40 CFR
93.111 respectively).
In view of the CO LMP policy, the effect of this proposed approval
will be that no regional emissions analyses for future transportation
CO conformity determinations will be required of the Mountainland
Association of Governments, who is the Metropolitan Planning
Organization for Utah County, for the CO LMP period (as per the EPA's
CO LMP policy and 40 CFR 93.109(e)).
III. Proposed Action
The EPA is proposing to approve the revised Provo Maintenance Plan
submitted on January 14, 2019. This maintenance plan meets the
applicable CAA requirements and the EPA has determined it is sufficient
to provide for maintenance of the CO NAAQS over the course of the
second 10-year maintenance period out to 2025.
IV. Statutory and Executive Orders Review
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the
[[Page 12244]]
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 the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
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 proposed rule does not have tribal implications and
will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or
preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
dioxide, Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: February 25, 2020.
Gregory Sopkin,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2020-04230 Filed 2-28-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
