
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 181 (Friday, September 18, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 56418-56422]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-23382]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2014-0904; FRL-9934-26-Region 4]


Air Plan Approval; TN; Reasonably Available Control Measures and 
Redesignation for the TN Portion of the Chattanooga 1997 Annual PM2.5 
Nonattainment Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule; supplemental.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing two 
separate but related actions pertaining to the Tennessee portion of the 
Chattanooga nonattainment area for the 1997 annual fine particulate 
matter (PM2.5) national ambient air quality standards 
(NAAQS) (hereinafter referred to as the ``Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area'' 
or ``Area''). First, EPA is proposing to approve the portion of the 
attainment plan state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by 
the State of Tennessee, through the Tennessee Department of Environment 
and Conservation (TDEC), on October 15, 2009, that addresses reasonably 
available control measures (RACM), including reasonably available 
control technology (RACT), for the Tennessee portion of the Area. EPA 
is not proposing to act on the portions of the SIP revision that are 
unrelated to RACM. Second, EPA is supplementing the Agency's March 27, 
2015, proposed approval of Tennessee's November 13, 2014, redesignation 
request for the Tennessee portion of the Area by proposing that 
approval of the RACM portion of the aforementioned SIP revision 
satisfies the applicable RACM requirements for redesignation under the 
Clean Air Act (CAA or Act).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 9, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2014-0904, by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for 
submitting comments.
    2. Email: R4-ARMS@epa.gov.
    3. Fax: (404) 562-9019.
    4. Mail: ``EPA-R04-OAR-2014-0904,'' Air Regulatory Management 
Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and 
Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae Benjamin, Chief, Air 
Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, 
Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 
30303-8960. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional 
Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional Office's official 
hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., 
excluding Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-
2014-0904. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included 
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at 
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, 
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential 
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is 
restricted by statute. Do not submit through www.regulations.gov or 
email, information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected. 
The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, 
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information 
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email 
comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your 
email address will be automatically captured and included as part of 
the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on 
the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that 
you include your name and other contact information in the body of your 
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your 
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for 
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic 
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of 
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional 
information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center 
homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.

[[Page 56419]]

    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the 
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information may not be publicly available, i.e., CBI or other 
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other 
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet 
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly 
available docket materials are available either electronically in 
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Regulatory Management 
Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and 
Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA 
requests that if at all possible, you contact the person listed in the 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. 
The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through 
Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joel Huey, Air Planning and 
Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Mr. Huey's phone number is (404) 562-9104. 
He can also be reached via electronic mail at huey.joel@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated the first air quality standards 
for PM2.5. EPA promulgated an annual standard at a level of 
15 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\) (based on a 3-year average 
of annual mean PM2.5 concentrations) and a 24-hour standard 
of 65 [mu]g/m\3\ (based on a 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 
24-hour concentrations). See 62 FR 36852. On January 5, 2005, and 
supplemented on April 14, 2005, EPA designated Hamilton County in 
Tennessee, in association with counties in Alabama and Georgia in the 
Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area, as nonattainment for the 1997 Annual 
PM2.5 NAAQS. See 70 FR 944 and 70 FR 19844, respectively. 
Designation of an area as nonattainment for PM2.5 starts the 
process for a state to develop and submit to EPA an attainment plan SIP 
revision under title I, part D of the CAA. This SIP revision must 
include, among other elements, a demonstration of how the NAAQS will be 
attained in the nonattainment area as expeditiously as practicable, but 
no later than the attainment date required by the CAA.
    EPA designated all 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS areas under title I, 
part D, subpart 1 (hereinafter ``Subpart 1''). Subpart 1 contains the 
general requirements for nonattainment areas for criteria pollutants 
and is less prescriptive than the other subparts of title I, part D. On 
April 25, 2007, EPA promulgated a rule, codified at 40 CFR part 51, 
subpart Z, to implement the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS under Subpart 1 
(hereinafter referred to as the ``1997 PM2.5 Implementation 
Rule'').\1\ See 72 FR 20586. On October 15, 2009, Tennessee submitted 
an attainment plan SIP revision pursuant to Subpart 1 and the 1997 
PM2.5 Implementation Rule that addressed RACM and contained 
a reasonable further progress (RFP) plan, base-year and attainment-year 
emissions inventories, and contingency measures for the Area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ On January 4, 2013, in Natural Resources Defense Council v. 
EPA, 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013), the United States Court of 
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) found 
that EPA erred in implementing the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS 
pursuant solely to the general implementation provisions of Subpart 
1 rather than the particulate matter-specific provisions of title I, 
part D, subpart 4. The court remanded both the 1997 PM2.5 
Implementation Rule and the final rule entitled ``Implementation of 
the New Source Review (NSR) Program for Particulate Matter Less than 
2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)'' (73 FR 28321, May 16, 2008) to 
EPA to address this error.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 31, 2011 (76 FR 31239), EPA published a final determination 
that the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area had attained the 1997 Annual 
PM2.5 NAAQS based upon quality-assured and certified ambient 
air monitoring data for the 2007-2009 time period. In that 
determination and in accordance with the 1997 PM2.5 
Implementation Rule at 40 CFR 51.1004(c), EPA suspended the 
requirements for the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area to submit attainment 
demonstrations and associated RACM, RFP plans, contingency measures, 
and other planning SIPs related to attainment of the 1997 Annual 
PM2.5 NAAQS, so long as the Area continues to attain the 
1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS. See 40 CFR 52.2231(c); 76 FR 31239.
    Tennessee submitted a request to EPA on November 13, 2014, to 
redesignate the State's portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area to 
attainment for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS and to approve a 
SIP revision containing a maintenance plan for the Tennessee portion of 
the Area. EPA proposed to approve the redesignation request and the 
related SIP revision in an action signed on March 11, 2015, based, in 
part, on the Agency's longstanding interpretation that Subpart 1 
nonattainment planning requirements, including RACM, are not 
``applicable'' for purposes of CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) once an 
area is attaining the NAAQS and, therefore, need not be approved into 
the SIP before EPA can redesignate the area. See 80 FR 16331 (March 27, 
2015).
    On March 18, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth 
Circuit (Sixth Circuit) issued an opinion in Sierra Club v. EPA, 781 
F.3d 299 (6th Cir. 2015), that is inconsistent with this longstanding 
interpretation regarding section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii). In its decision, the 
Court vacated EPA's redesignation of the Indiana and Ohio portions of 
the Cincinnati-Hamilton nonattainment area to attainment for the 1997 
PM2.5 NAAQS because EPA had not yet approved Subpart 1 RACM 
for the Cincinnati Area into the Indiana and Ohio SIPs.\2\ The Court 
concluded that ``a State seeking redesignation `shall provide for the 
implementation' of RACM/RACT, even if those measures are not strictly 
necessary to demonstrate attainment with the PM2.5 NAAQS . . 
. . If a State has not done so, EPA cannot `fully approve[]' the area's 
SIP, and redesignation to attainment status is improper.'' Sierra Club, 
781 F.3d at 313.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The Court issued an amended decision on July 14, 2015, 
revising some of the legal aspects of the Court's analysis of the 
relevant statutory provisions (section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and section 
172(c)(1)) but maintaining its prior holding that section 172(c)(1) 
``unambiguously requires implementation of RACM/RACT prior to 
redesignation . . . even if those measures are not strictly 
necessary to demonstrate attainment with the PM2.5 
NAAQS.'' See Sierra Club v. EPA, Nos. 12-3169, 12-3182, 12-3420 (6th 
Cir. July 14, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. What are EPA's proposed actions?

    EPA is bound by the Sixth Circuit's decision in Sierra Club v. EPA 
within the Court's jurisdiction unless it is overturned.\3\ Although 
EPA continues to believe that Subpart 1 RACM is not an applicable 
requirement under section 107(d)(3)(E) for an area that has already 
attained the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA is proposing two 
separate but related actions regarding the Tennessee portion of the 
Chattanooga

[[Page 56420]]

TN-GA-AL Area in response to the Court's decision.4 5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The states of Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee are 
located within the Sixth Circuit's jurisdiction.
    \4\ Pursuant to 40 CFR 56.5(b), the EPA Region 4 Regional 
Administrator signed a memorandum on July 20, 2015, seeking 
concurrence from the Director of EPA's Air Quality Policy Division 
(AQPD) in the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards to act 
inconsistent with EPA's interpretation of CAA sections 107(d)(3)(E) 
and 172(c)(1) when taking action on pending and future redesignation 
requests in Kentucky and Tennessee because the Region is bound by 
the Sixth Circuit's decision in Sierra Club v. EPA. The AQPD 
Director issued her concurrence on July 22, 2015. The July 20, 2015, 
memorandum with AQPD concurrence is located in the docket for 
today's proposed actions.
    \5\ On September 3, 2015, the Sixth Circuit denied the petitions 
for rehearing en banc of this portion of its opinion that were filed 
by EPA, the state of Ohio, and industry groups from Ohio. Sierra 
Club v. EPA, Nos. 12-3169, 12-3182, 12-3420, Doc. 136-1 (6th Cir. 
Sept. 3, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, EPA is proposing to approve the portion of the State's 
October 15, 2009, attainment plan SIP revision that addresses RACM 
under Subpart 1 for the Tennessee portion of the Area. Second, EPA is 
supplementing the Agency's proposed approval of Tennessee's November 
13, 2014, redesignation request for the Area by proposing that approval 
of the RACM portion of the aforementioned SIP revision satisfies the 
Subpart 1 RACM requirement in accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E) of 
the CAA. More detail on EPA's rationale for these proposed actions is 
provided below.

III. What is EPA's analysis of the state's RACM submittal?

a. Subpart 1 RACM Requirements

    Subpart 1 requires that each attainment plan ``provide for the 
implementation of all reasonably available control measures as 
expeditiously as practicable (including such reductions in emissions 
from the existing sources in the area as may be obtained through the 
adoption, at a minimum, of reasonably available control technology), 
and shall provide for attainment of the national primary ambient air 
quality standards.'' See CAA section 172(c)(1). EPA interprets RACM, 
including RACT, under section 172(c)(1) as measures that are both 
reasonably available and necessary to demonstrate attainment as 
expeditiously as practicable in the nonattainment area. See 40 CFR 
51.1010(a).\6\ A state must adopt, as RACM, measures that are 
reasonably available considering technical and economic feasibility if, 
considered collectively, they would advance the attainment date by one 
year or more. See 40 CFR 51.1010(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Subpart 1 RACM requirements at 40 CFR 51.1010 were not at 
issue in the D.C. Circuit's remand of the PM2.5 
implementation rule in the January 2013 Natural Resources Defense 
Council v. EPA decision and are therefore not subject to the Court's 
remand. Cf. NRDC v. EPA, 571 F.3d 1245, 1252-53 (D.C. Cir. 2009) 
(upholding a substantially similar interpretation of Subpart 1 RACM 
in the context of ozone implementation regulations).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The PM2.5 Implementation Rule requires that the Subpart 
1 RACM portion of the attainment plan SIP revision include the list of 
potential measures that a state considered and information sufficient 
to show that the state met all requirements for the determination of 
what constitutes RACM in a specific nonattainment area. See 40 CFR 
51.1010(a). Any measures that are necessary to meet these requirements 
which are not already either federally promulgated, part of the state's 
implementation plan, or otherwise creditable in SIPs must be submitted 
in enforceable form as part of a state's attainment plan SIP revision 
for the area. As discussed above, an attainment determination suspends 
the requirement for a PM2.5 nonattainment area to submit an 
attainment plan SIP revision so long as the area continues to attain 
the PM2.5 NAAQS. See 40 CFR 51.1004(c).

b. Proposed Action on RACM Based Upon Attainment of the NAAQS

    EPA is proposing to approve the portion of Tennessee's October 15, 
2009, attainment plan SIP revision that addresses Subpart 1 RACM for 
the State's portion of the Area on the basis that the Area has attained 
the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS and, therefore, no emission 
reduction measures are necessary to satisfy Subpart 1 RACM. As noted 
above, EPA has determined that the Area has attaining data for the 1997 
Annual PM2.5 NAAQS and met the standard by the April 5, 
2010, attainment date. See 77 FR 31239. Because the Area has attained 
the standard, there are no emissions controls that could advance the 
attainment date; thus, no emissions controls are necessary to satisfy 
Subpart 1 RACM pursuant to 40 CFR 51.1010 (defining RACM as the level 
of control necessary to advance the attainment date by one year or 
more).

c. Proposed Action on RACM Based Upon the State's Control Evaluation

    Additionally, the portion of Tennessee's October 15, 2009, 
attainment plan SIP revision that addresses Subpart 1 RACM for the 
State's portion of the Area is approvable on the basis that the SIP 
revision demonstrates that no additional reasonably available controls 
would have advanced the attainment date projected therein.
    Through participation in the regional planning efforts of the 
Visibility Improvement States and Tribal Association of the Southeast 
(VISTAS) and the Association for Southeastern Integrated Planning 
(ASIP), Tennessee determined that existing measures and measures 
planned for implementation by 2009 would result in the Chattanooga TN-
GA-AL Area attaining the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS by the end of 
2009. Air quality modeling conducted by ASIP indicated that the Area 
would attain the annual NAAQS in 2009 based upon projected emissions 
reductions from sources within the Area after 2002 (the base year of 
the nonattainment emissions inventory). As discussed in Chapter 2.0 of 
the October 15, 2009, SIP revision, the State, in consultation with 
VISTAS and ASIP, considered the following existing federally 
enforceable measures in projecting the emissions inventory used for the 
2009 modeling: Tier 2 vehicle standards; heavy-duty gasoline and diesel 
highway vehicle standards; large nonroad diesel engine standards; 
nonroad spark-ignition engines and recreational engines standards; 
NOX SIP call; and the Clean Air Interstate Rule.
    In Tennessee's RACM analysis, which appears in chapter 4.0 of the 
October 15, 2009, SIP revision, the State discusses its evaluation of 
sources of PM2.5 and its precursors within the Tennessee 
portion of the Area and its determination that these sources were 
meeting Subpart 1 RACM levels of emissions control. As discussed above, 
a State must show that all Subpart 1 RACM (including RACT for 
stationary sources) necessary to demonstrate attainment as 
expeditiously as practicable have been adopted and must consider the 
cumulative impact of implementing available measures to determine 
whether a particular emission reduction measure or set of measures is 
required to be adopted as RACM. Potential measures that are reasonably 
available considering technical and economic feasibility must be 
adopted as RACM if, considered collectively, they would advance the 
attainment date by one year or more. Because the attainment 
demonstration in Tennessee's attainment plan SIP revision showed 
attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in the Chattanooga TN-GA-
AL Area by the end of 2009, only measures that would advance the 
attainment date to the end of 2008 would be considered as Subpart 1 
RACM.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ As noted in the preamble to the PM2.5 
Implementation Rule, if a ``State could not achieve significant 
emissions reductions by the beginning of 2008 due to time needed to 
implement reasonable measures or other factors, then it could be 
concluded that reasonably available local measures would not advance 
the attainment date.'' See 72 FR 20617.

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

[[Page 56421]]

    Based on the emissions inventory and other information, the State 
identified the categories of sources that should be evaluated for 
controls. These categories include permitted stationary sources; 
gasoline dispensing facilities; on-road mobile sources; non-road and 
stationary internal combustion engines; open burning; and home heating 
with wood.
    With regard to permitted stationary sources, Tennessee noted that 
conservative sensitivity modeling, conducted by the Georgia Institute 
of Technology, showed that completely eliminating emissions of 
PM2.5, nitrogen oxides, and sulfur dioxide from non-utility 
point sources in the Tennessee portion of the Area would result in only 
small reductions in PM2.5 concentrations (0.06 [mu]g/m\3\ to 
0.25 [mu]g/m\3\). Nevertheless, Tennessee performed a detailed analysis 
of each major source operating in the State's portion of the Area and 
determined that RACT levels of emission control were already in 
place.\8\ This analysis, and the results of sensitivity modeling, 
indicated that no additional reductions were available from local 
permitted stationary sources that would result in attainment in 2008 
rather than 2009. For gasoline dispensing facilities, Tennessee deemed 
the use of Stage 1 vapor recovery to be the RACT level of emissions 
control. Tennessee stated that the existing federally-approved 
inspection and maintenance program constitutes RACM for on-road mobile 
sources and that non-road mobile sources and stationary internal 
combustion engines are regulated by Federal rules. Regarding open 
burning, Chattanooga's federally-approved local implementation plan 
requires open burning permits, bans open burning from May 1 through 
September 30, and prohibits the burning of brush cleared for road 
building and trash in the Tennessee portion of the Area. The State also 
determined that only 712 households (0.6 percent of the total 
households in the Tennessee portion of the Area) were heating primarily 
with wood and that accelerated replacement of older wood burning stoves 
would not advance the attainment date given the ``small portion of 
households using wood hearing, the mild local climate, and the normal 
purchases of Subpart AAA compliant wood burning stoves in the 
nonattainment area.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Appendix 12 of the SIP submittal for a detailed 
discussion of the State's analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Through this evaluation, Tennessee determined that, for each 
category of potential measures, there were either no additional 
emission reductions that could be achieved or no emission reduction 
measures that could be practicably implemented in time to advance 
attainment to the end of 2008. EPA has reviewed the RACM portion of 
Tennessee's October 15, 2009, attainment plan SIP revision and agrees 
with the State's conclusion that no additional emissions reductions 
were available from local sources that would have advanced the 
projected 2009 attainment date.

IV. Why is EPA supplementing its proposed redesignation of the area?

    EPA's March 11, 2015, proposal to approve Tennessee's redesignation 
request for the Tennessee portion of the Area was based, in part, on 
the Agency's longstanding interpretation that Subpart 1 RACM need not 
be approved into a SIP before redesignation to attainment if the 
subject area is attaining the NAAQS. See 80 FR 16331. Although EPA 
disagrees with the portion of the Sixth Circuit's opinion in Sierra 
Club v. EPA that is inconsistent with this interpretation, the Agency 
is bound by this decision within the Court's jurisdiction unless it is 
overturned and must first approve Subpart 1 RACM into Tennessee's SIP 
before it can redesignate the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area to attainment. 
Therefore, EPA is supplementing its redesignation proposal to now rely 
on approval of the RACM portion of the State's October 15, 2009, 
attainment plan SIP revision.

V. Proposed Actions

    EPA has reviewed the RACM portion of Tennessee's October 15, 2009, 
attainment plan SIP revision and proposes to approve it on the basis 
that it is consistent with the CAA, the CAA's implementing regulations, 
and EPA guidance for attainment demonstration submittals. EPA is also 
supplementing its March 27, 2015, proposed approval of the State's 
November 13, 2014, redesignation request for the Tennessee portion of 
the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area by proposing that approval of the RACM 
portion of the aforementioned SIP revision satisfies the Subpart 1 RACM 
requirement in accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. Today's 
proposed actions are focused solely on addressing the Sixth Circuit's 
decision in Sierra Club v. EPA and do not reopen any other aspect of 
the March 27, 2015, proposal for comment.

V. 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 
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);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the CAA; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental 
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under 
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    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,

[[Page 56422]]

Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Sulfur oxides.

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

    Dated: September 9, 2015.
Heather McTeer Toney,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2015-23382 Filed 9-17-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


