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.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

72937 

Vol. 80, No. 225 

Monday, November 23, 2015 

1NOX SIP Call, 63 FR 57371 (October 27, 1998); 

Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), 70 FR 25172 (May 

Continued 

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 subelements 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 


wgreen on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
72938 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 225 / Monday, November 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

12, 2005); Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), 

76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011). 

2 76 FR 48208. 

3CSAPR addressed the 1997 8-hour ozone, and 

the 1997 and 2006 fine particulate matter NAAQS. 

4Note 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. 

5 75 FR 45210, 45237 (August 2, 2010). 

6See also Air Quality Modeling Final Rule 

Technical Support Document, Appendix F, 

Analysis of Contribution Thresholds. 7 76 FR 48208, 48236–37. 

8 Id. 

9 Id. 

10 Id. 

11See 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)). 

12 Id. at 46276, Table 3. 

most recently promulgated the CrossState 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

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

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 onepercent 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

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 onepercent 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

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-bystate 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. 

The modeling data released in the 

August 4, 2015 NODA is the most upto-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 


wgreen on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 225 / Monday, November 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 72939 

13Memorandum 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. 14 Id. 15 Id. 

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 onepercent 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. 

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). 

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. 

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 noncontribution 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. 

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 


wgreen on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
72940 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 225 / Monday, November 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

16The State provided emissions inventories for 

seven such potentially impacted ‘‘neighboring 

states’’—North Dakota, Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska, 

Colorado, Wyoming, and Montana. 

17Specifically, 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’’). 

18The EPA notes that these controls have been 

installed in the time since South Dakota made this 

submission. 

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. 

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 airquality 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 instate 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 


wgreen on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS