
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 225 (Monday, November 23, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 72937-72940]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-29681]


 ========================================================================
 Proposed Rules
                                                 Federal Register
 ________________________________________________________________________
 
 This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of 
 the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these 
 notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in 
 the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
 
 ========================================================================
 

  Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 225 / Monday, November 23, 2015 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 72937]]



ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2015-0670; FRL-9937-26-Region 8]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
2008 Ozone NAAQS Interstate Transport for Colorado, Montana, North 
Dakota and South Dakota

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
approve State Implementation Plan (SIP) submissions from the states of 
Colorado, Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota that are intended to 
demonstrate that the SIP for each respective state meets certain 
interstate transport requirements of the Clean Air Act (Act or CAA) for 
the 2008 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). 
These submissions address the requirement that each SIP contain 
adequate provisions prohibiting air emissions that will have certain 
adverse air quality effects in other states. The EPA is proposing to 
approve these SIPs for all four states as containing adequate 
provisions to ensure that air emissions in the states do not 
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance 
of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in any other state.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 23, 2015.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under 
Docket Identification Number EPA-R08-OAR-2015-0670. All documents in 
the docket are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. 
Although listed in the index, some information may not be publicly 
available, i.e., Confidential Business Information or other information 
the disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Certain other 
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet 
and will be publicly available only in the hard copy form. Publicly 
available docket materials are available either electronically through 
http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at EPA Region 8, Office of 
Partnership and Regulatory Assistance, Air Program, 1595 Wynkoop 
Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. The EPA requests that you contact 
the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 
view the hard copy of the docket. The Regional Office's official hours 
of business are Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m., excluding 
federal holidays. An electronic copy of the state's SIP compilation is 
also available at http://www.epa.gov/region8/air/sip.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Adam Clark, Air Program, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 
Wynkoop, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, (303) 312-7104, 
clark.adam@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

What should I consider as I prepare my comments for the EPA?

    1. Submitting Confidential Business Information (CBI). Do not 
submit CBI to the EPA through www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly 
mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For 
CBI information in a disk or CD ROM that you mail to the EPA, mark the 
outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically 
within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is claimed as 
CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes 
information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain 
the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the 
public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in 
accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments, 
remember to:
     Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other 
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and 
page number).
     Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to 
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of 
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
     Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives 
and substitute language for your requested changes.
     Describe any assumptions and provide any technical 
information and/or data that you used.
     If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how 
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be 
reproduced.
     Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and 
suggest alternatives.
     Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the 
use of profanity or personal threats.
     Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period 
deadline identified.

II. Background

    On March 12, 2008, the EPA revised the levels of the primary and 
secondary 8-hour ozone standards from 0.08 parts per million (ppm) to 
0.075 ppm (73 FR 16436). The CAA requires states to submit, within 
three years after promulgation of a new or revised standard, SIPs 
meeting the applicable ``infrastructure'' elements of sections 
110(a)(1) and (2). One of these applicable infrastructure elements, CAA 
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), requires SIPs to contain ``good neighbor'' 
provisions to prohibit certain adverse air quality effects on 
neighboring states due to interstate transport of pollution. There are 
four sub-elements within CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). This action 
addresses the first two sub-elements of the good neighbor provisions, 
at CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). These sub-elements require that each 
SIP for a new or revised standard contain adequate provisions to 
prohibit any source or other type of emissions activity within the 
state from emitting air pollutants that will ``contribute significantly 
to nonattainment'' or ``interfere with maintenance'' of the applicable 
air quality standard in any other state. We note that the EPA has 
addressed the interstate transport requirements of CAA section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the eastern portion of the United States in 
several past regulatory actions.\1\ We

[[Page 72938]]

most recently promulgated the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), 
which addressed CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) in the eastern portion 
of the United States.\2\ CSAPR addressed multiple NAAQS, but did not 
address the 2008 8-hour ozone standard.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ NOX SIP Call, 63 FR 57371 (October 27, 1998); 
Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), 70 FR 25172 (May 12, 2005); Cross-
State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011).
    \2\ 76 FR 48208.
    \3\ CSAPR addressed the 1997 8-hour ozone, and the 1997 and 2006 
fine particulate matter NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In CSAPR, the EPA used detailed air quality analyses to determine 
whether an eastern state's contribution to downwind air quality 
problems was at or above specific thresholds. If a state's contribution 
did not exceed the specified air quality screening threshold, the state 
was not considered ``linked'' to identified downwind nonattainment and 
maintenance receptors and was therefore not considered to significantly 
contribute or interfere with maintenance of the standard in those 
downwind areas. If a state exceeded that threshold, the state's 
emissions were further evaluated, taking into account both air quality 
and cost considerations, to determine what, if any, emissions 
reductions might be necessary. For the reasons stated below, we believe 
it is appropriate to use the same approach we used in CSAPR to 
establish an air quality screening threshold for the evaluation of 
interstate transport requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone 
standard.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Note that EPA has not done an assessment to determine the 
applicability of the one-percent screening threshold for western 
states that contribute above the one percent threshold. There may be 
additional considerations that may impact regulatory decisions 
regarding potential linkages in the west identified by the modeling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In CSAPR, the EPA proposed an air quality screening threshold of 
one percent of the applicable NAAQS and requested comment on whether 
one percent was appropriate.\5\ The EPA evaluated the comments received 
and ultimately determined that one percent was an appropriately low 
threshold because there were important, even if relatively small, 
contributions to identified nonattainment and maintenance receptors 
from multiple upwind states. In response to commenters who advocated a 
higher or lower threshold than one percent, the EPA compiled the 
contribution modeling results for CSAPR to analyze the impact of 
different possible thresholds for the eastern United States. The EPA's 
analysis showed that the one-percent threshold captures a high 
percentage of the total pollution transport affecting downwind states, 
while the use of higher thresholds would exclude increasingly larger 
percentages of total transport. For example, at a five percent 
threshold, the majority of interstate pollution transport affecting 
downwind receptors would be excluded.\6\ In addition, the EPA 
determined that it was important to use a relatively lower one-percent 
threshold because there are adverse health impacts associated with 
ambient ozone even at low levels.\7\ The EPA also determined that a 
lower threshold such as 0.5 percent would result in relatively modest 
increases in the overall percentages of fine particulate matter and 
ozone pollution transport captured relative to the amounts captured at 
the one-percent level. The EPA determined that a ``0.5 percent 
threshold could lead to emission reduction responsibilities in 
additional states that individually have a very small impact on those 
receptors--an indicator that emission controls in those states are 
likely to have a smaller air quality impact at the downwind receptor. 
We are not convinced that selecting a threshold below one percent is 
necessary or desirable.'' \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 75 FR 45210, 45237 (August 2, 2010).
    \6\ See also Air Quality Modeling Final Rule Technical Support 
Document, Appendix F, Analysis of Contribution Thresholds.
    \7\ 76 FR 48208, 48236-37.
    \8\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the final CSAPR, the EPA determined that one percent was a 
reasonable choice considering the combined downwind impact of multiple 
upwind states in the eastern United States, the health effects of low 
levels of fine particulate matter and ozone pollution, and the EPA's 
previous use of a one-percent threshold in CAIR. The EPA used a single 
``bright line'' air quality threshold equal to one percent of the 1997 
8-hour ozone standard, or 0.08 ppm.\9\ The projected contribution from 
each state was averaged over multiple days with projected high modeled 
ozone, and then compared to the one-percent threshold. We concluded 
that this approach for setting and applying the air quality threshold 
for ozone was appropriate because it provided a robust metric, was 
consistent with the approach for fine particulate matter used in CSAPR, 
and because it took into account, and would be applicable to, any 
future ozone standards below 0.08 ppm.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Id.
    \10\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. EPA's Analysis

    On August 4, 2015, the EPA issued a Notice of Data Availability 
(NODA) containing air quality modeling data that applies the CSAPR 
approach to contribution projections for the year 2017 for the 2008 8-
hour ozone NAAQS.\11\ The moderate area attainment date for the 2008 
ozone standard is July 11, 2018. In order to demonstrate attainment by 
this attainment deadline, states will use 2015 through 2017 ambient 
ozone data. Therefore, 2017 is an appropriate future year to model for 
the purpose of examining interstate transport for the 2008 8-hour ozone 
NAAQS. The EPA used photochemical air quality modeling to project ozone 
concentrations at air quality monitoring sites to 2017 and estimated 
state-by-state ozone contributions to those 2017 concentrations. 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. 
The EPA used nationwide state-level ozone source apportionment modeling 
(CAMx Ozone Source Apportionment Technology/Anthropogenic Precursor 
Culpability Analysis technique) to quantify the contribution of 2017 
base case nitrogen oxides (NOX) and volatile organic 
compounds (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 and 
adjacent portions of Canada and Mexico. The NODA and the supporting 
technical support documents have been included in the docket for this 
SIP action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See 80 FR 46271 (August 4, 2015) (Notice of Availability of 
the Environmental protection Agency's Updated Ozone Transport 
Modeling Data for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality 
Standard (NAAQS)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The modeling data released in the August 4, 2015 NODA is the most 
up-to-date information the EPA has developed to inform our analysis of 
upwind state linkages to downwind air quality problems. For purposes of 
evaluating these four states' interstate transport SIPs with respect to 
the 2008 8-hour ozone standard, the EPA is proposing that states whose 
contributions are less than one percent to downwind nonattainment and 
maintenance receptors are considered non-significant.
    The modeling indicates that the relevant contributions from 
Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota are all below the 
one-percent screening threshold of 0.75 ppb.\12\ Colorado's largest 
contribution to any projected downwind nonattainment site is 0.36 ppb, 
and its largest contribution to any projected downwind

[[Page 72939]]

maintenance-only site is 0.34 ppb. Montana's largest contribution to 
any projected downwind nonattainment site is 0.15 ppb, and its largest 
contribution to any projected downwind maintenance-only site is 0.17 
ppb. North Dakota's largest contribution to any projected downwind 
nonattainment site is 0.14 ppb, and its largest contribution to any 
projected downwind maintenance-only site is 0.28 ppb. South Dakota's 
largest contribution to any projected downwind nonattainment site is 
0.08 ppb, and its largest contribution to any projected downwind 
maintenance-only site is 0.12 ppb. These values are all below the one-
percent screening threshold of 0.75 ppb, and therefore there are no 
identified linkages between any of these four respective states and 
2017 downwind projected nonattainment and maintenance sites.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Id. at 46276, Table 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. State Submissions and EPA's Assessment

    Each of the four states addressed in this proposed rulemaking made 
a submission certifying the adequacy of their existing SIP to implement 
the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Colorado submitted its certification on 
December 31, 2012; Montana submitted its certification on January 3, 
2013; North Dakota submitted its certification on March 8, 2013; and 
South Dakota submitted its certification on May 30, 2013. All of these 
2008 ozone infrastructure SIPs are included in the docket for this 
action. Each submission included an analysis of the respective SIP's 
adequacy with regard to the interstate transport requirements of 
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).

A. Colorado

    In its December 31, 2012 submission, the State of Colorado 
concluded that it did not significantly contribute to nonattainment or 
interfere with maintenance in other states with respect to the 2008 8-
hour ozone NAAQS. Colorado based this conclusion on the distance from 
the state to downwind 2008 ozone nonattainment areas and the overall 
decrease in ozone emissions within Colorado. The EPA has determined 
that distance is a relevant factor for an interstate transport 
technical analysis because pollutant dispersion increases as distance 
increases.\13\ Colorado did not provide a detailed analysis supporting 
its conclusion, including any quantification of the distance to other 
nonattainment areas or the amount of ozone emission reductions within 
the state and over what timeframe. Moreover, Colorado suggests that it 
need not perform a more detailed technical analysis until the EPA 
provides guidance specific to the development of SIPs to address 
interstate transport as to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. As the Supreme Court 
recently affirmed in EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., the EPA is 
not obligated to provide any information, guidance, or specific metrics 
before a state must undertake to fulfill its obligation to address 
interstate transport in its SIP. 134 S.Ct. 1584, 1601 (2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Memorandum from William T. Harnett entitled ``Guidance on 
SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 
24-Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air 
Quality Standards (NAAQS),'' September 25, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Despite the state's incomplete technical analysis, the modeling 
released in the EPA's August 4, 2015 NODA confirms Colorado's 
conclusion that the State does not significantly contribute to 
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone standard 
in any other state.\14\ Based on the modeling data and the information 
provided in Colorado's submission, we are proposing to approve 
Colorado's SIP as meeting the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 
requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Montana

    In its January 3, 2013 submission, the State of Montana concluded 
that it did not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere 
with maintenance in other states with respect to the 2008 8-hour ozone 
NAAQS. Montana based this conclusion on the existing permitting 
programs to which current and future Montana ozone sources are subject, 
as well as certain federal requirements such as applicable maximum 
achievable control technology (MACT) and new source performance 
standard (NSPS) requirements. While Montana did not provide information 
or analysis explaining why the existing permitting programs support 
their conclusion that emissions from within the state do not contribute 
to downwind air quality problems, and the EPA does not agree that 
permitting programs alone are necessarily sufficient to show non-
contribution or non-interference at a level that satisfies 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), the EPA concurs with Montana's overall conclusion 
that the State does not significantly contribute to nonattainment or 
interfere with maintenance of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in any other 
state based on the EPA's modeling data from the August 4, 2015 
NODA.\15\ Based on that modeling data, we are proposing to approve 
Montana's SIP as meeting the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 
requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. North Dakota

    In its March 8, 2013 submission, the State of North Dakota 
concluded that it did not significantly contribute to nonattainment or 
interfere with maintenance in other states with respect to the 2008 8-
hour ozone NAAQS. North Dakota based this conclusion in part on the 
results of the modeling conducted for CSAPR, which included analysis of 
North Dakota's downwind contributions for ozone (for the 1997 ozone 
NAAQS). North Dakota noted that the CSAPR modeling predicted the 
State's largest contribution to any projected downwind nonattainment 
site to be 0.2 ppb, and the largest contribution to any projected 
downwind maintenance-only site to be 0.1 ppb. As further evidence that 
North Dakota neither contributes significantly to nonattainment nor 
interferes with maintenance in other states, the State noted that its 
point-source NOX emissions were ``steadily declining'' 
between 2002 and 2011, with more reductions expected as a result of 
regional haze actions.
    The EPA notes that the modeling North Dakota relies upon was 
conducted by the EPA in 2011, for purposes of evaluating upwind state 
contributions and downwind air quality problems as to a prior, less-
stringent ozone NAAQS, and that the modeling evaluated a 2012 
compliance year. Accordingly, the fact that this modeling showed 
downwind contribution less than one percent of the 2008 ozone NAAQS is 
not necessarily dispositive of North Dakota's obligations under section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). However, as discussed above, the EPA has conducted 
more updated modeling subsequent to the State's SIP submission that 
confirms the underlying conclusion of our 2011 modeling, and of North 
Dakota's SIP submission: North Dakota does not significantly contribute 
to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 8-hour ozone 
standard in any other state. Accordingly, we are proposing to approve 
North Dakota's SIP as meeting the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 
requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone standard.

D. South Dakota

    In its May 30, 2013 submission, the State of South Dakota concluded 
that it did not significantly contribute to

[[Page 72940]]

nonattainment or interfere with maintenance in other states with 
respect to the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The State explained that its 
conclusion was ``based on South Dakota's emissions inventory,'' and 
provided further supporting information in an attachment including (1) 
demographic and geographic data; (2) an inventory of emissions and 
locational data on 85 major Title V sources within South Dakota that 
``potentially could impact air quality in neighboring states''; \16\ 
(3) topographical, distance, and meteorological information (including 
windrose graphs); and (4) explanations for why this information 
suggests that the impact of South Dakota's emissions on four nearby 
nonattainment areas is minimal.\17\ Separately, South Dakota noted 
plans to install controls to reduce NOX emissions by 70 
percent from the largest source of ozone-forming pollution in the State 
(Otter Tail's Big Stone power plant),\18\ as well as plans to install 
controls on Black Hills Power's Ben French facility, the State's third 
highest emitter of NOX at the time of the submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The State provided emissions inventories for seven such 
potentially impacted ``neighboring states''--North Dakota, 
Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska, Colorado, Wyoming, and Montana.
    \17\ Specifically, the State's submission discussed potential 
impacts on (1) Sublette County, Wyoming (the only nonattainment area 
in a State bordering South Dakota); (2) northeastern Colorado (the 
``closest ozone non-attainment area to South Dakota''); and (3) 
Sheyboygan County, Wisconsin and Chicago, Illinois (the ``non-
attainment areas . . . closest to the east side of South Dakota'').
    \18\ The EPA notes that these controls have been installed in 
the time since South Dakota made this submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA notes that South Dakota's analysis focuses solely on 
potential impacts to the designated nonattainment areas closest to 
South Dakota, and does not appear to address the potential for either 
significant contribution to nonattainment areas located further away, 
or interference with any maintenance of the standard in areas that 
might currently be in attainment. Even if a state does not 
significantly contribute to the most physically proximate nonattainment 
areas, other factors may cause emissions from the state to affect 
nonattainment areas that are farther away. Furthermore, because prong 1 
and 2 concern air-quality impacts in different areas, even a state that 
does not significantly contribute to nonattainment may still interfere 
with maintenance of the standard in areas currently attaining. 
Nonetheless, as discussed above, the modeling in the EPA's NODA 
confirms South Dakota's underlying conclusion that the State does not 
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance 
of the 2008 ozone standard in any other state. Based on this modeling 
data and the information and analysis provided in South Dakota's 
submission, we are proposing to approve South Dakota's SIP as meeting 
the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for the 2008 8-hour 
ozone standard.

V. Proposed Action

    The EPA is proposing to approve the following submittals as meeting 
the interstate transport requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 
for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS: Colorado's December 31, 2012 
submission; Montana's January 3, 2013 submission; North Dakota's March 
8, 2013 submission; and South Dakota's May 30, 2013 submission. The EPA 
is proposing this approval based on the information and analysis 
provided by each state, as well as the modeling in EPA's August 4, 2015 
NODA that confirms each state's conclusion that its SIP contains 
adequate provisions to ensure that in-state air emissions will not 
contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance 
of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in any other state. This action is being taken 
under section 110 of the CAA.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a 
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and 
applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state 
actions, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 
Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves state law provisions 
as meeting federal requirements and does not propose 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 Clean Air Act; 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 does not 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, Carbon monoxide, 
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen 
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: November 10, 2015.
Shaun L. McGrath,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2015-29681 Filed 11-20-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


