10022 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 31 / Thursday, February 18, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the State, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

B. Submission to Congress and the 

Comptroller General 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

C. Petitions for Judicial Review 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by April 19, 2021. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this action for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. 

This action pertaining to West 

Virginia’s limited maintenance plan for 

the Steubenville-Weirton, OH–WV area 

(Weirton Area), comprising Brooke and 

Hancock Counties may not be 

challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Volatile organic compounds. 

Dated: February 8, 2021. 

Diana Esher, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR part 

52 as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart XX—West Virginia 

■ 2. In § 52.2520, the table in paragraph 

(e) is amended by adding the entry 

‘‘1997 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient 

Air Quality Standard Second 

Maintenance Plan for the West Virginia 

Portion of the Steubenville-Weirton, 

OH-WV Area Comprising Brooke and 

Hancock Counties’’ at the end of the 

table to read as follows: 

§ 52.2520 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

Name of non-regulatory SIP revision Applicable geographic area State submittal date EPA approval date Additional explanation 

*******

1997 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard Second Maintenance Plan for the 

West Virginia Portion of the SteubenvilleWeirton, OH-WV Area Comprising Brooke and 

Hancock Counties.

Steubenville-Weirton, OH–WV 

Area Comprising Brooke and 

Hancock Counties.

12/10/19 2/18/2021, [insert Federal Register citation].

[FR Doc. 2021–03027 Filed 2–17–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R10–OAR–2019–0573, FRL–10018– 

79–Region 10] 

Air Plan Approval; Washington; 

Infrastructure Requirements for the 

2010 Sulfur Dioxide and 2015 Ozone 

Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: Whenever the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) promulgates a 

new or revised National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard (NAAQS), the Clean 

Air Act requires each state to make a 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

submission to establish that its SIP 

provides for the implementation, 

maintenance, and enforcement of the 

revised NAAQS. This type of SIP 

submission is commonly referred to as 

an infrastructure SIP submission. The 

EPA is approving the State of 

Washington’s September 30, 2019 and 

April 3, 2020, SIP submissions as 

meeting specific infrastructure 

requirements for the 2010 sulfur dioxide 

and 2015 ozone NAAQS. 

DATES: This final rule is effective March 

22, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R10–OAR–2019–0573. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the https://www.regulations.gov 

website. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., CBI 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 is publicly available 

only in hard copy form. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

at https://www.regulations.gov, or 

please contact the person identified in 

the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section for additional availability 

information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff 

Hunt, EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth 

Avenue—Suite 155, Seattle, WA 98101, 

at (206) 553–0256, or hunt.jeff@epa.gov. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 31 / Thursday, February 18, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 10023 

1EPA guidance identifies a five-year period 

following the SIP submission as the relevant 

timeframe for this evaluation. See Stephen D. Page, 

Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards. ‘‘Guidance on Infrastructure State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean 

Air Act Section 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2).’’ 

Memorandum to EPA Air Division Directors, 

Regions 1 through 10, September 13, 2013, at page 

40 (2013 guidance). 

2Recently re-codified to RCW 70A.15, with no 

substantive changes to the statute. 

3The EPA subsequently updated our review of 

performance metrics under the CAA section 105 

grant program for Federal Fiscal Year 2020, which 

is included in the docket for this action. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document wherever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, it is 

intended to refer to the EPA. 

I. Background Information 

On May 26, 2020, the EPA proposed 

to approve Washington’s September 30, 

2019 and April 3, 2020, SIP submissions 

as meeting certain infrastructure 

requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) 

for the 2010 sulfur dioxide (SO2) and 

2015 ozone NAAQS (85 FR 31421). The 

initial public comment period for this 

proposed action ended on June 25, 

2020. Due to an administrative error, the 

EPA omitted the technical support 

document (TSD) relevant to the 

proposed action from the docket during 

the initial comment period, open from 

May 26, 2020 to June 25, 2020. The EPA 

corrected the administrative error and 

on September 3, 2020, we provided an 

additional 30 days for public comment 

on the proposed action (85 FR 54960). 

The public comment period ended on 

October 5, 2020. The EPA received 

adverse comments on the proposal. 

II. Response to Comments 

The EPA received two adverse 

comments during the initial comment 

period related to our administrative 

docket error that left out the TSD 

relevant to the proposed action. The 

EPA addressed these comments by 

including the TSD document in the 

docket and providing an additional 30- 

day comment period. The EPA received 

one additional comment, unrelated to 

our administrative docket error, during 

the initial comment period. We have 

summarized and responded to the 

adverse comment below. The full text of 

the submitted comment may be found in 

the docket for this action. 

Comment—Adequate Resources 

Summary—An anonymous 

commenter stated that, in its proposed 

approval of CAA section 110(a)(2)(E), 

the EPA failed to evaluate adequate 

funding and resources necessary to 

carry out the functions delegated to the 

state and required by the state to carry 

out the functions of the SIP. The 

commenter asserted that the EPA must 

audit Washington’s finances and 

accounting to make an affirmative 

determination as to whether the state 

has the necessary funding and 

resources. The anonymous commenter 

also stated that the EPA should 

affirmatively determine whether 

Washington actually has the necessary 

personnel to carry out and operate 

programs required under the SIP in light 

of recent COVID–19 concerns. 

Response—CAA section 

110(a)(2)(E)(i) requires each state to 

provide necessary assurances that the 

state will have adequate personnel, 

funding, and authority under state law 

necessary to carry out the SIP during the 

five years following the SIP 

submission.1 CAA section 110 does not 

mandate a specific methodology for the 

EPA to evaluate the adequacy of 

resources to implement the SIP. See 76 

FR 42549 (July 19, 2011), at 42554. The 

EPA disagrees with the commenter’s 

assertion that an audit of the state’s 

finances and accounting practices is 

required in order to satisfy the 

requirements of 110(a)(2)(E)(i). The 

EPA’s role in evaluating a SIP 

submission is to assure that the air 

agency’s SIP contains the necessary 

structural requirements in order to meet 

the requirements of a new or revised 

NAAQS. The EPA’s role in approving an 

infrastructure SIP submission is to 

determine whether the submission 

addresses the necessary requirements of 

the Act, not to evaluate the way in 

which a SIP is being implemented. See 

Montana Envtl. Info. Ctr. v. Thomas, 

902 F.3d 971, 978 (9th Cir. 2018). 

In our proposed action, we identified 

Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 

70.94 2 as providing the Washington 

Department of Ecology (Ecology) 

Director authority to hire personnel to 

carry out duties of the department, in 

coordination with local clean air 

agencies and the Energy Facilities Site 

Evaluation Council (funded and 

authorized separately under RCW 

80.50). According to the Washington 

Department of Ecology Budget and 

Program Overview 2019–2021, Ecology 

has an operating budget of $43.7 million 

to perform its air program functions 

($10.1 million from federal funds, with 

the remainder from state funds and 

other permit and fee programs). 

Specifically, Washington receives CAA 

sections 103 and 105 grant funds from 

the EPA and provides state matching 

funds necessary to carry out SIP 

requirements. As part of our September 

3, 2020 reopening of the public 

comment period, we supplemented the 

docket with the general CAA section 

105 program grant supporting materials 

for informational purposes, including 

our most recent review of performance 

metrics under the grant at the time.3 The 

EPA expects that the COVID–19 

pandemic may have impacts on state 

revenues and could theoretically impact 

a state’s ability to adequately implement 

its SIP. However, the impacts of the 

pandemic on Washington’s personnel 

and resources available to satisfy the 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(E) in the future is speculative 

at best. Based on assurances in the 

state’s submission and the analysis 

conducted as part of the EPA’s grant 

programs, we have a reasonable basis to 

conclude that Washington has satisfied 

the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E). 

The EPA finds that Washington has 

provided the necessary assurances of 

adequate sources of personnel, funding, 

and authority under state law to 

implement its SIP for purposes of the 

2010 SO2 and 2015 ozone NAAQS, 

consistent with the EPA’s 2013 

guidance. Therefore, it is appropriate to 

finalize the proposed finding that 

Washington’s SIP satisfies the 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(E). 

III. Final Action 

The EPA is approving Washington’s 

September 30, 2019 and April 3, 2020, 

infrastructure SIP submissions as 

meeting specific infrastructure 

requirements of the CAA. We find that 

the Washington SIP meets the following 

CAA section 110(a)(2) infrastructure 

elements for the 2010 SO2 and 2015 

ozone NAAQS: (A), (B), (C) (except for 

those provisions covered by the PSD 

FIP), (D)(i)(II) (except for those 

provisions covered by the PSD and 

regional haze FIPs), (D)(ii) (except for 

those provisions covered by the PSD 

FIP), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J) (except for 

those provisions covered by the PSD 

FIP), (K), (L), and (M). 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA 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 proposed 

action merely approves state law as 

meeting Federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. For 

that reason, this proposed action: 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
10024 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 31 / Thursday, February 18, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

• 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 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 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). 

Washington’s SIP is approved to apply 

on non-trust land within the exterior 

boundaries of the Puyallup Indian 

Reservation, also known as the 1873 

Survey Area. Under the Puyallup Tribe 

of Indians Settlement Act of 1989, 25 

U.S.C. 1773, Congress explicitly 

provided state and local agencies in 

Washington authority over activities on 

non-trust lands within the 1873 Survey 

Area. Consistent with EPA policy, the 

EPA provided a consultation 

opportunity to the Puyallup Tribe in a 

letter dated July 15, 2019. 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. The EPA will 

submit a report containing this action 

and other required information to the 

U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 

Representatives, and the Comptroller 

General of the United States prior to 

publication of the rule in the Federal 

Register. A major rule cannot take effect 

until 60 days after it is published in the 

Federal Register. This action is not a 

‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 

804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by April 19, 2021. 

Filing a petition for reconsideration by 

the Administrator of this final rule does 

not affect the finality of this action for 

the purposes of judicial review nor does 

it extend the time within which a 

petition for judicial review may be filed, 

and shall not postpone the effectiveness 

of such rule or action. This action may 

not be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

oxides, Volatile organic compounds. 

Dated: February 9, 2021. 

Michelle L. Pirzadeh, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, 40 CFR part 52 is amended as 

follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart WW—Washington 

■ 2. In § 52.2470, Table 2 in paragraph 

(e) is amended by adding an entry for 

‘‘110(a)(2) Infrastructure 

Requirements—Sulfur Dioxide 

Standards and 2015 Ozone Standards’’ 

immediately below the entry ‘‘Interstate 

Transport for the 2015 Ozone NAAQS’’ 

to read as follows: 

§ 52.2470 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

TABLE 2—ATTAINMENT, MAINTENANCE, AND OTHER PLANS

Name of SIP provision 

Applicable 

geographic or nonattainment area 

State 

submittal 

date 

EPA approval date Explanations 

*******

110(a)(2) Infrastructure and Interstate Transport 

*******

110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements—Sulfur Dioxide Standards and 2015 Ozone Standards.Statewide .................................. 9/30/19 and 

4/03/20 

2/18/2021, [Insert Federal Register citation].This action addresses the following CAA section 110(a)(2) elements: (A), (B), (C), 

(D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), 

and (M). 

*******


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 31 / Thursday, February 18, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 10025 

[FR Doc. 2021–03034 Filed 2–17–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2020–0364; FRL–10018– 

18–Region 9] 

Air Plan Approval; California; San 

Diego Air Pollution Control District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking final action to 

approve a revision to the San Diego Air 

Pollution Control District (SDAPCD or 

‘‘District’’) portion of the California 

State Implementation Plan (SIP). This 

revision concerns the regulation of 

emissions of volatile organic 

compounds (VOCs) from large coating 

operations for wood products. We are 

approving the rescission of a local rule 

from the California SIP that is no longer 

needed to regulate these emission 

sources under the Clean Air Act (CAA 

or the ‘‘Act’’). 

DATES: This rule will be effective on 

March 22, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R09–OAR–2020–0364. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the https://www.regulations.gov 

website. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., Confidential Business 

Information 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 through https://

www.regulations.gov, or please contact 

the person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section for 

additional availability information. If 

you need assistance in a language other 

than English or if you are a person with 

disabilities who needs a reasonable 

accommodation at no cost to you, please 

contact the person identified in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robert Schwartz, EPA Region IX, 75 

Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 

94105. By phone: (415) 972–3286 or by 

email at schwartz.robert@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Proposed Action 

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses 

III. EPA Action 

IV. Incorporation by Reference 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Proposed Action 

On October 5, 2020 (85 FR 62687), the 

EPA proposed to approve the rescission 

of the following rule from the California 

SIP. 

Local agency Rule No. Rule title Adopted 

Request for 

rescission 

submitted 

SDAPCD ................................. 67.11.1 Large Coating Operations for Wood Products ....................... 09/25/2002 03/04/2015 

We proposed to approve the 

rescission of this rule because we 

determined that the SIP revision, i.e., 

rule rescission, complies with the 

relevant CAA requirements, including 

CAA sections 110(l) and 193. Our 

proposed action contains more 

information on the rule and our 

evaluation. 

II. Public Comments and EPA 

Responses 

The EPA’s proposed action provided 

a 30-day public comment period. During 

this period, we received no comments. 

III. EPA Action 

No comments were submitted. 

Therefore, as authorized in section 

110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA is fully 

approving the rescission of this rule 

from the California SIP. 

IV. Incorporation by Reference 

In this rule, the EPA is amending 

regulatory text that includes 

incorporation by reference. The EPA is 

removing SDAPCD Rule 67.11.1 as 

described in Table 1 of this preamble 

from the California State 

Implementation Plan, which is 

incorporated by reference in accordance 

with the requirements of 1 CFR part 51. 

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. 

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 Act. Accordingly, this action merely 

approves 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 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 rule does not have 

tribal implications and will not impose 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES