Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 141 / Monday, July 23, 2018 / Proposed Rules 34813 

1National Ambient Air Quality Standards for 

Ozone Final Rule, 80 FR 65292 (October 26, 2015). 

2SIP revisions that are intended to meet the 

requirements of section 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA 

are often referred to as infrastructure SIPs and the 

elements under 110(a)(2) are referred to as 

infrastructure requirements. 

• 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 is not proposed 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). 

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. 

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

Dated: July 13, 2018. 

Debra Thomas, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

[FR Doc. 2018–15481 Filed 7–20–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R10–OAR–2018–0061; FRL–9981– 

08—Region 10] 

Air Plan Approval; Washington; 

Interstate Transport Requirements for 

the 2015 Ozone NAAQS 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Clean Air Act (CAA) 

requires each State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) to contain adequate provisions 

prohibiting emissions that will have 

certain adverse air quality effects in 

other states. On February 7, 2018, the 

State of Washington made a submittal to 

the Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) to address these requirements for 

the 2015 ozone National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS). The EPA is 

proposing to approve the submittal as 

meeting the requirement that each SIP 

contain adequate provisions to prohibit 

emissions that will significantly 

contribute to nonattainment or interfere 

with maintenance of the 2015 ozone 

NAAQS in any other state. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before August 22, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10– 

OAR–2018–0061 at https://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from 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://www.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff 

Hunt at (206) 553–0256, or hunt.jeff@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

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

intended to refer to the EPA. This 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section is 

arranged as follows: 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. State Submittal 

III. EPA Evaluation 

IV. Proposed Action 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

On October 1, 2015, the EPA 

promulgated a revision to the ozone 

NAAQS (2015 ozone NAAQS), lowering 

the level of both the primary and 

secondary standards to 0.070 parts per 

million (ppm).1 Section 110(a)(1) of the 

CAA requires states to submit, within 3 

years after promulgation of a new or 

revised standard, SIPs meeting the 

applicable elements of section 

110(a)(2).2 One of these applicable 

requirements is found in section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i), otherwise known as the 

good neighbor provision, which 

generally requires SIPs to contain 

adequate provisions to prohibit in-state 

emissions activities from having certain 

adverse air quality effects on other states 

due to interstate transport of pollution. 

There are four prongs within CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i): Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) contains prongs 1 and 

2, while section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) 

includes prongs 3 and 4. This action 

addresses the first two prongs under 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). Under prongs 1 

and 2 of the good neighbor provision, a 

state’s SIP for a new or revised NAAQS 

must contain adequate provisions 

prohibiting any source or other type of 

emissions activity within the state from 

emitting air pollutants in amounts that 

will contribute significantly to 

nonattainment of the NAAQS in another 

state (prong 1) or from interfering with 

maintenance of the NAAQS in another 

state (prong 2). Under section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA, the EPA 

gives independent significance to 

evaluating prong 1 and prong 2. 

We note that the EPA has addressed 

the interstate transport requirements of 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with 

respect to prior ozone NAAQS in 

several regulatory actions, including the 

Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), 

which addressed interstate transport 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
34814 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 141 / Monday, July 23, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

3See Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) 

Final Rule, 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011); CSAPR 

Update for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS (CSAPR 

Update) Final Rule, 81 FR 74504 (October 26, 2016). 

4For purposes of CSAPR and the CSAPR Update 

action, the western U.S. (or the West) was 

considered to consist of the 11 western contiguous 

states of Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, 

Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, 

Washington, and Wyoming. The eastern U.S. (or the 

East) was considered to consist of the 37 states east 

of the 11 western states. 

5Other rulemakings addressing ozone transport 

include the NOX SIP Call, 63 FR 57356 (October 27, 

1998), and the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), 70 

FR 25162 (May 12, 2005). 

6The four-step interstate framework has also been 

used to address requirements of the good neighbor 

provision for some previous particulate matter (PM) 

NAAQS, including in the western United States. 

See, e.g., 83 FR 30380 (June 28, 2018). 

7See, e.g., Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality State Implementation Plans; California; 

Interstate Transport Requirements for Ozone, Fine 

Particular Matter, and Sulfur Dioxide, Proposed 

Rule, 83 FR 5375, 5376–77 (February 7, 2018). 

8See Notice of Availability of the Environmental 

Protection Agency’s Preliminary Interstate Ozone 

Transport Modeling Data for the 2015 Ozone 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS), 

82 FR 1733 (January 6, 2017). 

9See Information on the Interstate Transport State 

Implementation Plan Submissions for the 2008 

Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

under Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), 

October 27, 2017. 

10See Information on the Interstate Transport 

State Implementation Plan Submissions for the 

2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards under Clean Air Act Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), March 27, 2018. 

with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS 

as well as the 1997 and 2006 fine 

particulate matter standards, and the 

Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update 

for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS (CSAPR 

Update).3 These actions only addressed 

interstate transport in to the eastern 

United States 4 and did not address the 

2015 ozone NAAQS. 

Through the development and 

implementation of CSAPR, the CSAPR 

Update and previous rulemakings 

pursuant to the good neighbor 

provision,5 the EPA, working in 

partnership with states, developed the 

following four-step interstate transport 

framework to address the requirements 

of the good neighbor provision for the 

ozone NAAQS: 6 (1) Identify downwind 

air quality problems; (2) identify 

upwind states that impact those 

downwind air quality problems 

sufficiently such that they are 

considered ‘‘linked’’ and therefore 

warrant further review and analysis; (3) 

identify the emissions reductions 

necessary (if any), considering cost and 

air quality factors, to prevent linked 

upwind states identified in step 2 from 

contributing significantly to 

nonattainment or interfering with 

maintenance of the NAAQS at the 

locations of the downwind air quality 

problems; and (4) adopt permanent and 

enforceable measures needed to achieve 

those emissions reductions. This fourstep framework has also been used to 

address interstate transport with respect 

to prior ozone NAAQS in the western 

United States.7

The EPA has released several 

documents containing information 

relevant to evaluating interstate 

transport with respect to the 2015 ozone 

NAAQS. First, on January 6, 2017, the 

EPA published a notice of data 

availability (NODA) with preliminary 

interstate ozone transport modeling 

with projected ozone design values for 

2023, on which we requested 

comment.8 On October 27, 2017, we 

released a memorandum (2017 

memorandum) containing updated 

modeling data for 2023, which 

incorporated changes made in response 

to comments on the NODA.9 Although 

the 2017 memorandum also released 

data for a 2023 modeling year, we 

specifically stated that the modeling 

may be useful for states developing SIPs 

to address remaining good neighbor 

obligations for the 2008 ozone NAAQS 

but did not address the 2015 ozone 

NAAQS. Finally, on March 27, 2018, we 

issued a memorandum (2018 

memorandum) indicating the same 2023 

modeling data released in the 2017 

memorandum would also be useful for 

evaluating potential downwind air 

quality problems with respect to the 

2015 ozone NAAQS (step 1 of the fourstep framework). The 2018 

memorandum also included newly 

available contribution modeling results 

to assist states in evaluating their impact 

on potential downwind air quality 

problems (step 2 of the four-step 

framework) in their efforts to develop 

good neighbor SIPs for the 2015 ozone 

NAAQS to address their interstate 

transport obligations.10

The 2018 memorandum describes the 

process and results of the updated 

photochemical modeling to project 

ambient ozone levels for the year 2023. 

The memorandum explains that the 

selection of the 2023 analytic year aligns 

with the 2015 ozone NAAQS attainment 

year for Moderate nonattainment areas. 

As described in more detail in the 2017 

and 2018 memoranda, the EPA used 

photochemical air quality modeling to 

project ozone concentrations at air 

quality monitoring sites to 2023 and 

estimated state-by-state ozone 

contributions to those 2023 

concentrations. This modeling used the 

Comprehensive Air Quality Model with 

Extensions (CAMx version 6.40) to 

model average and maximum design 

values in 2023 in order to identify 

potential nonattainment and 

maintenance receptors with respect to 

the 2015 ozone NAAQS. The 

memorandum presents the design 

values in two ways: First, following the 

EPA’s historic ‘‘3 x 3’’ approach to 

evaluating all sites, and second, 

following the modified approach for 

coastal monitoring sites in which 

‘‘overwater’’ modeling data were not 

included in the calculation of future 

year design values. 

For purposes of identifying potential 

nonattainment and maintenance 

receptors in 2023, the EPA applied the 

same approach used in the CSAPR 

Update, wherein the EPA considered a 

combination of monitoring data and 

modeling projections to identify 

monitoring sites that are projected to 

have problems attaining or maintaining 

the NAAQS. Specifically, the EPA 

identified nonattainment receptors as 

those monitoring sites with current 

measured values exceeding the NAAQS 

that also have projected (i.e., in 2023) 

average design values exceeding the 

NAAQS. The EPA identified 

maintenance receptors as those 

monitoring sites with maximum design 

values exceeding the NAAQS. This 

included sites with current measured 

values below the NAAQS with projected 

average and maximum design values 

exceeding the NAAQS, and monitoring 

sites with projected average design 

values below the NAAQS but with 

projected maximum design values 

exceeding the NAAQS. The EPA 

included the design values and 

monitoring data for all monitoring sites 

projected to be potential nonattainment 

or maintenance receptors based on the 

updated 2023 modeling in Attachment 

B to the 2018 memorandum. 

After identifying potential downwind 

nonattainment and maintenance sites, 

the EPA next performed nationwide, 

state-level ozone source-apportionment 

modeling to estimate the expected 

contribution to these nonattainment and 

maintenance sites from each state 

(excluding Alaska and Hawaii). The 

EPA performed air quality model runs 

for a modeling domain that covers the 

48 contiguous United States and 

adjacent portions of Canada and 

Mexico. The EPA included contribution 

information resulting from the sourceapportionment modeling in Attachment 

C to the 2018 memorandum. 

In the CSAPR and the CSAPR Update, 

the EPA used a threshold of one percent 

of the NAAQS to determine whether a 

given upwind state was ‘‘linked’’ at step 

2 of the four-step framework and would 

therefore contribute to downwind 

nonattainment and maintenance sites 

(also known as receptors) identified in 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 141 / Monday, July 23, 2018 / Proposed Rules 34815 

11As discussed above, the EPA has indicated that 

states may have flexibilities to follow a different 

analytic approach to evaluating interstate transport, 

including the identification of downwind air 

quality problems. Because the EPA is concluding 

that Washington will have an insignificant impact 

on any potential receptors identified in its analysis, 

it need not definitively determine whether these 

areas should be treated as receptors for the 2015 

ozone standard. 

12 80 FR 77578 (December 15, 2015). 13The EPA’s analysis indicates specifically that 

Washington will have a 0.20 ppb impact at the 

potential nonattainment receptor in Sacramento, 

California (60670012), which has a projected 

average design value of 74.5 ppb, a maximum 

design value of 75.9 ppb, and a 2014–2016 design 

value of 83 ppb. The EPA’s analysis further 

indicates that Washington will have a 0.16 ppb 

impact at the potential maintenance receptor in 

Tulare, California (61072002), which has which has 

a projected average design value of 68.9 ppb, a 

maximum design value of 71.4 ppb, and a 2014– 

2016 design value of 80 ppb. We note that the 

updated methodology slightly increased 

Washington’s modeled contribution to the projected 

nonattainment and maintenance receptors 

compared to the preliminary photochemical 

modeling, but, as described in this action, remain 

at a contribution level of less than one percent of 

the 2015 ozone NAAQS. 

step 1. If a state’s impact did not exceed 

the one percent threshold, the upwind 

state was not ‘‘linked’’ to a downwind 

air quality problem, and the EPA 

therefore concluded the state will not 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the NAAQS in the 

downwind states. However, if a state’s 

impact exceeded the one percent 

threshold, the state’s emissions were 

further evaluated in step 3, taking into 

account both air quality and cost 

considerations, to determine what, if 

any, emissions reductions might be 

necessary to address the good neighbor 

provision. The EPA has not determined 

what an appropriate threshold would be 

for identifying at step 2 of the 

framework whether an upwind state is 

linked, and therefore contributes to a 

downwind air quality problem with 

respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS. 

However, as discussed in more detail 

below, the EPA is using a similar 

preliminary approach for the 2015 

ozone NAAQS in reviewing 

Washington’s SIP. 

For more specific information on the 

modeling and analysis, please see 2017 

and 2018 memoranda, the Notice of 

Data Availability for the preliminary 

interstate transport assessment, and the 

supporting technical documents 

included in the docket for this action. 

While the 2018 memorandum 

presented information regarding the 

EPA’s latest analysis of ozone transport 

following the approaches the EPA has 

taken in prior regional rulemaking 

actions, the EPA has not made any final 

determinations regarding how states 

should identify downwind receptors 

with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS 

at step 1 of the four-step framework, or 

what threshold should be used to 

identify ‘‘linked’’ upwind states at step 

2. Rather, the EPA noted that states have 

flexibility in developing their own SIPs 

to follow somewhat different analytical 

approaches than the EPA, so long as 

their chosen approach has an adequate 

technical justification and is consistent 

with the requirements of the CAA. The 

2018 memorandum therefore included 

as Attachment A a preliminary list of 

potential flexibilities that the EPA 

concluded may warrant further 

discussion as states develop good 

neighbor SIPs addressing the 2015 

ozone NAAQS. In presenting the list, 

the EPA did not make any 

determination whether the potential 

flexibilities are consistent with the CAA 

nor did the EPA specifically recommend 

any particular approach. 

II. State Submittal 

On February 7, 2018, Washington 

submitted a SIP revision addressing the 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) interstate 

transport requirements for the 2015 

ozone NAAQS. Washington relied upon 

the EPA’s preliminary photochemical 

air quality modeling for the 2015 ozone 

NAAQS, contained in the January 6, 

2017 NODA discussed above, which 

was the most current data available at 

the time of Washington’s submittal. 

Washington reviewed the EPA’s 

preliminary 2023 modeling, determined 

that the future year projections are 

appropriate, and concurred with the 

EPA’s preliminary photochemical 

modeling results, which indicate that 

Washington’s largest contribution to 

potential downwind nonattainment and 

maintenance sites would be 0.15 ppb 

and 0.11 ppb, respectively. Washington 

compared these values to a screening 

threshold of 0.70 ppb, representing one 

percent of the 2015 ozone NAAQS, and 

concluded that emissions from 

Washington sources will not 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS 

in any other state. 

III. EPA Evaluation 

As previously discussed, the 2018 

memorandum is the most up-to-date 

information the EPA has developed to 

inform our analysis of upwind state 

linkages to downwind air quality 

problems. The 2018 memorandum 

identifies potential downwind 

nonattainment and maintenance 

receptors, using the definitions applied 

in the CSAPR Update. Relevant here, 

the 2018 memorandum identifies 56 

potential nonattainment and 

maintenance receptors in the West in 

Arizona (2), California (49), and 

Colorado (5).11 The 2018 memorandum 

also provides contribution data 

regarding the impact of other states on 

the potential receptors. Although the 

EPA has not identified a specific 

threshold for identifying contribution at 

step 2 for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, for 

purposes of evaluating Washington’s 

2015 ozone NAAQS interstate transport 

SIP submittal, we are proposing that at 

least where a state’s contributions are 

less than one percent to downwind 

nonattainment and maintenance sites, it 

is reasonable to conclude the state’s 

impact is not a contribution. While the 

EPA has indicated in Attachment A to 

the 2018 memorandum that states may 

consider alternative thresholds for 

identifying states that will contribute to 

downwind air quality problems—so 

long as the alternative threshold is 

technically justified—the EPA believes 

it is reasonable to continue to conclude 

that states with an impact below a 

threshold of one percent of the NAAQS 

will not significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the NAAQS in any other 

state. This is consistent with our prior 

action on Washington’s SIP with respect 

to the 2008 ozone NAAQS and with the 

EPA’s approach to both the 1997 and 

2008 ozone NAAQS in CSAPR and the 

CSAPR Update.12

The EPA’s updated 2023 modeling 

discussed in the 2018 memorandum 

indicates that Washington’s largest 

contributions to any potential 

downwind nonattainment and 

maintenance receptor in the West are 

0.20 ppb and 0.16 ppb, respectively.13

These values are below a one percent 

screening threshold of 0.70 ppb, and as 

a result, identify no linkages between 

Washington and 2023 downwind 

potential nonattainment and 

maintenance sites. Washington’s 

projected contribution to potential 

receptors in the East is even lower. 

Accordingly, we propose to conclude 

that emissions from Washington will 

not contribute to these potential 

receptors, and thus, the state will not 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the NAAQS in any other 

state. 

We also note that the EPA has 

assessed potential transport to the 

Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Fort 

Hall Reservation in southeast Idaho, 

which the EPA approved to be treated 

as an affected downwind state for CAA 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
34816 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 141 / Monday, July 23, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

sections 110(a)(2)(D) and 126. While the 

tribes do not operate an ozone monitor, 

the nearest ozone monitors to Fort Hall 

Reservation are in Ada County, Idaho; 

Boise area (AQS site IDs 160010010 and 

160010017) and Butte County, Idaho; 

Idaho Falls (AQS site ID 160230101). 

Past and present design values for ozone 

are complete, valid and below the 

current standard. The EPA’s modeled 

2023 average and maximum design 

values suggest these ozone 

concentrations will continue to decline. 

We therefore propose to find that it is 

reasonable to conclude that emissions 

from Washington will not contribute 

significantly to nonattainment or 

interfere with maintenance of the 2015 

ozone NAAQS at the Fort Hall 

Reservation. A memorandum 

summarizing our evaluation can be 

found in the docket for this action. 

IV. Proposed Action 

As discussed in Section II, 

Washington concluded that emissions 

from the state will not significantly 

contribute to nonattainment or interfere 

with maintenance of the 2015 ozone 

NAAQS in any other state. The EPA’s 

updated modeling, discussed in Section 

III confirms this finding. We are 

proposing to approve the Washington 

SIP as meeting CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for the 

2015 ozone NAAQS. The EPA is 

requesting comments on the proposed 

approval. 

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 

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 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); 

• 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 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, 

Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

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

Dated: July 11, 2018. 

Chris Hladick, 

Regional Administrator, Region 10. 

[FR Doc. 2018–15625 Filed 7–20–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2018–0388, FRL–9980– 

67—Region 8] 

Approval and Promulgation of State 

Implementation Plan Revisions; 

Infrastructure Monitoring 

Requirements for the 2008 Pb, 2010 

SO2, 2010 NO2 and 2012 PM2.5 National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards; Utah 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

elements of State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) revisions from the State of Utah to 

demonstrate the State meets 

infrastructure monitoring requirements 

of the Clean Air Act (Act or CAA) for 

the National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS) promulgated for 

lead (Pb) on October 15, 2008, nitrogen 

dioxide (NO2) on January 22, 2010, 

sulfur dioxide (SO2) on June 2, 2010, 

and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) on 

December 14, 2012. Section 110(a) of 

the CAA requires that each state submit 

a SIP for the implementation, 

maintenance and enforcement of each 

NAAQS promulgated by the EPA. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before August 22, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08– 

OAR–2018–0388 at http://

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 

http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1