Document ID: EPA-R01-OAR-2018-0789-0001
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Massachusetts; Boston Metropolitan Area, Lowell, Springfield, Waltham, and Worcester Second 10-Year Carbon Monoxide Limited Maintenance Plan
Posted Date: 2019-05-16T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 95 (Thursday, May 16, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 22087-22091]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-09978]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R01-OAR-2018-0789; FRL-9993-57-Region 1]

Air Plan Approval; Massachusetts; Boston Metropolitan Area, 
Lowell, Springfield, Waltham, and Worcester Second 10-Year Carbon 
Monoxide Limited Maintenance Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the 
Commonwealth of Massachusetts. This revision includes the second 10-
year limited maintenance plan (LMP) for Carbon Monoxide (CO) for the 
Boston Metropolitan Area, as well as for the cities of Lowell, 
Springfield, Waltham, and Worcester. This LMP addresses maintenance of 
the CO National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for a second 10-
year period beyond the original re-designation to attainment. This 
action is being taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before June 17, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-
OAR-2018-0789 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to 
garcia.ariel@epa.gov. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow 
the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, 
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either 
manner of submission, 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, please contact the person 
identified in the For Further Information Contact section. For 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. Publicly 
available docket materials are available at https://www.regulations.gov 
or at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Region 1 Regional 
Office, Air and Radiation Division, Air Quality Branch, 5 Post Office 
Square--Suite 100, Boston, MA. EPA requests that if at all possible, 
you contact the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT 
section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official 
hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., 
excluding legal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ariel Garcia, Air Quality Branch, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Region 1 Regional Office, 5 Post 
Office Square, Suite 100 (mail code: 05-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912, 
telephone number (617) 918-1660, email garcia.ariel@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Throughout this document whenever ``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our'' is 
used, we mean EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background and Purpose
II. Revision to the Initial Maintenance Plan for Lowell
III. The CO Limited Maintenance Plan Option in Massachusetts
IV. Conformity Under the Limited Maintenance Plan Option
V. EPA's Evaluation of Massachusetts' SIP Revision
    A. Attainment Inventory
    B. Maintenance Demonstration
    C. Monitoring Network/Verification of Continued Attainment
    D. Contingency Plan
VI. Proposed Action
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background and Purpose

    Under the provisions outlined in Sections 186 and 187 of the CAA, 
the Boston metropolitan area, which covers the nine surrounding cities 
of Boston, Cambridge, Chelsea, Everette, Malden, Medford, Quincy, 
Revere, and Somerville (the ``Boston area''), as well as the cities of 
Lowell, Springfield, Waltham, and Worcester (the ``four city areas'') 
were designated nonattainment for the CO NAAQS on November 6, 1991 (56 
FR 56694). The Boston area was classified as ``Moderate'' nonattainment 
and the four city areas were classified as ``Not Classified'' 
nonattainment. On December 12, 1994, Massachusetts submitted a re-
designation request for the Boston area and on May 25, 2001, 
Massachusetts submitted a re-designation request for the four city 
areas. These re-designation requests included a maintenance 
demonstration and contingency plans that outline Massachusetts' control 
strategy for maintenance of the CO NAAQS. The maintenance plan 
provisions under Section 175A of the CAA require that maintenance of 
the relevant NAAQS be provided for at least 10 years after re-
designation, followed by an additional 10-year maintenance period.
    On January 30, 1996, the Boston area was re-designated to 
attainment and EPA approved the first maintenance plan for this area 
(61 FR 2918). On February 19, 2002, the cities of Lowell, Springfield, 
Waltham, and Worcester were re-designated to attainment and EPA 
approved the first maintenance plan for these four city areas (67 FR 
7272).
    On February 9, 2018, to meet the requirements of Section 175A of 
the CAA, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection 
(MassDEP) submitted a revision to its SIP consisting of a second 10-
year CO limited maintenance plan (LMP) for the Boston area and for the 
four city areas. For the Boston area, the initial 10-year

[[Page 22088]]

maintenance period was from 1996 to 2006, and the second 10-year 
maintenance period was from 2006 to 2016.\1\ For the four city areas, 
the initial 10-year maintenance period was from 2002 to 2012, and the 
second 10-year maintenance period is from 2012 to 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Boston metropolitan area is no longer required to 
demonstrate transportation conformity for the Boston metropolitan 
area because the 20-year maintenance period for the Boston 
metropolitan CO maintenance area expired on April 1, 2016. However, 
the remainder of the maintenance plan requirements continue to 
apply, in accordance with the SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Revision to the Initial Maintenance Plan for Lowell

    On May 13, 2011, EPA published a final rule approving a SIP 
revision, submitted by MassDEP, which revised the contingency plan 
portion of the original CO maintenance plan for the city of Lowell (76 
FR 27908). This portion of the plan is used to determine when 
contingency measures need to be triggered to reduce CO concentrations 
in Lowell. After EPA determined that CO concentrations measured in 
Lowell had been below the NAAQS for nearly 25 years, EPA's approval 
action allowed the discontinuation of CO monitoring in the Lowell 
maintenance area. Massachusetts established an alternative triggering 
mechanism for Lowell, which relies on CO data from a nearby CO monitor 
in the city of Worcester to determine when and if monitoring will be 
reestablished in the Lowell maintenance area, and, in some 
circumstances, when contingency measures will be triggered in the 
Lowell maintenance area.

III. The CO Limited Maintenance Plan Option in Massachusetts

    EPA issued guidance via a memorandum dated October 6, 1995, on an 
LMP option for non-classifiable CO nonattainment areas.\2\ This 
guidance states that to quality for the LMP option, an area's second 
highest 8-hour average CO concentration (design value) must be below 85 
percent of the NAAQS for the two-year period leading up to re-
designation. EPA has determined that the CO LMP option is also 
available for second 10-year maintenance plans, regardless of the 
original nonattainment classification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Memorandum from Joseph W. Paisie, Group Leader, Integrated 
Policy and Strategies Group (MD-15), ``Limited Maintenance Plan 
Option for Nonclassifiable CO Nonattainment Areas,'' dated October 
6, 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Boston area's 1994 CO re-designation request was submitted 
prior to the availability of the LMP option. However, the 1994 CO re-
designation request illustrated that monitored levels of CO were below 
the ``85 percent of the NAAQS'' threshold. Massachusetts' monitored CO 
design values for the Boston metropolitan area have remained well below 
85 percent of the NAAQS; therefore, the Boston area is eligible for the 
LMP option. EPA's evaluation of the four city areas' 2001 CO re-
designation request resulted in approval of an LMP. The monitored CO 
design values continue to be well below 85 percent of the NAAQS for the 
four city areas, thus the four city areas are also eligible for the LMP 
option.
    EPA believes that it is justifiable and appropriate to apply a 
reduced set of maintenance plan requirements on areas with data below 
85 percent of the NAAQS, thereby allowing areas to implement the LMP 
option. This includes not requiring the area to forecast future 
emissions or to develop transportation conformity budgets for use in 
conformity determinations in future Transportation Improvement 
Programs. EPA has concluded that emission budgets should not be 
required in LMP areas because it is unreasonable to assume that these 
areas will experience so much growth in the remaining portion of a 20-
year maintenance period that an exceedance or violation of the CO NAAQS 
would result.

IV. Conformity Under the Limited Maintenance Plan Option

    The transportation conformity rule and the general conformity rule 
(40 CFR parts 51 and 93) apply to nonattainment areas and maintenance 
areas covered by an approved maintenance plan. Under either conformity 
rule, an acceptable method of demonstrating a Federal action conforms 
to the applicable SIP is to demonstrate that expected emissions from 
the planned action are consistent with the emissions budgets for the 
area.
    While qualification for the CO LMP option does not exempt an area 
from the need to affirm conformity, conformity may be demonstrated 
without submitting an emissions budget. Under the LMP option, emissions 
budgets are treated as essentially not constraining for the length of 
the maintenance period because it is unreasonable to expect that the 
qualifying areas would experience so much growth in that period that a 
violation of the CO NAAQS would result. For transportation conformity 
purposes, EPA concludes that emissions in these areas need not be 
capped for the maintenance period and, therefore, a regional emissions 
analysis is not required. Similarly, EPA concludes that Federal actions 
subject to the general conformity rule satisfy the ``budget test'' 
specified in 40 CFR 93.158(a)(5)(i)(A) for the same reasons that the 
budgets are essentially considered to be unlimited.
    Under the LMP option, emissions budgets are treated as essentially 
not constraining for the maintenance period because it is unreasonable 
to expect that qualifying areas would experience so much growth in that 
period that a NAAQS violation would result. While areas with 
maintenance plans approved under the LMP option are not subject to the 
budget test, the areas remain subject to the other transportation 
conformity requirements of 40 CFR part 93, subpart A. Thus, the 
metropolitan planning organization (MPO) in the area or the state must 
document and ensure that: (1) Transportation plans and projects provide 
for timely implementation of SIP transportation control measures (TCMs) 
in accordance with 40 CFR 93.113; (2) transportation plans and projects 
comply with the fiscal constraint element as set forth in 40 CFR 
93.108; (3) the MPO's interagency consultation procedures meet the 
applicable requirements of 40 CFR 93.105; (4) conformity of 
transportation plans is determined no less frequently than every four 
years, and conformity of plan amendments and transportation projects is 
demonstrated in accordance with the timing requirements specified in 40 
CFR 93.104; (5) the latest planning assumptions and emissions model are 
used as set forth in 40 CFR 93.110 and 40 CFR 93.111; (6) projects do 
not cause or contribute to any new localized carbon monoxide or 
particulate matter violations, in accordance with procedures specified 
in 40 CFR 93.123; and (7) project sponsors and/or operators provide 
written commitments as specified in 40 CFR 93.125.
    In proposing to approve the second 10-year LMP, the four city areas 
will continue to be exempt from performing a regional emissions 
analysis, but must meet project-level conformity analyses as well as 
the transportation conformity criteria mentioned above. The 20-year 
maintenance period for the Boston area has expired; therefore, the 
Boston area is no longer required to demonstrate transportation 
conformity for the Boston metropolitan CO maintenance area.

V. EPA's Evaluation of Massachusetts' SIP Revision

    The CO NAAQS is attained when the annual second highest 8-hour 
average CO concentration (design value) for an area does not exceed a 
concentration of 9.0 parts per million (ppm). EPA's October 6, 1995, 
guidance states that to qualify for the LMP option, an area's 8-hour 
average CO design value at the time of re-designation must be at or

[[Page 22089]]

below 7.65 ppm (85 percent of the NAAQS) for two consecutive years.
    The 1994 CO re-designation request for the Boston area showed that 
the 8-hour CO design value was 4.8 ppm in 1993. CO monitoring in the 
years that followed has illustrated that the 8-hour design values have 
remained well below 7.65 ppm. For example, the highest CO design value 
for the Boston area in 2014 was 1.1 ppm and in 2015 was 0.9 ppm.
    The CO design values in the four city areas have been well below 
7.65 ppm since 1997 and in the Boston area have been well below 7.65 
ppm since 1985. The highest CO 8-hour design value in 2014 was 1.1 ppm 
for Worcester, and in 2013 was 1.2 ppm for Springfield. MassDEP's 
monitoring data illustrates that an exceedance of the 8-hour CO NAAQS 
has not occurred in the Boston area or the four city areas since 1987. 
Therefore, as stated earlier in this proposed rulemaking action, the 
Boston area and the four city areas are eligible for the LMP option.
    EPA's October 6, 1995, guidance on LMPs for CO specifies that LMPs 
should include the following elements: (1) Attainment Inventory; (2) 
Maintenance Demonstration; (3) Monitoring Network/Verification of 
Continued Attainment; and (4) Contingency Plan. MassDEP's second 10-
year LMP for the Boston area and the four city areas includes these 
necessary components.

A. Attainment Inventory

    The maintenance plan must contain an attainment-year emissions 
inventory to identify a level of CO emissions that is sufficient to 
attain the CO NAAQS. MassDEP's February 9, 2018, SIP submittal contains 
a CO emissions inventory for the Boston area and the four city areas 
using a base year of 2011.\3\ This inventory was developed following 
EPA inventory guidelines, and EPA's National Emissions Inventory (NEI) 
estimates were adopted for several Stationary Area/Nonpoint source 
categories including residential wood-burning, open burning, and other 
fires. For Stationary Point sources such as industrial, electric 
generation, commercial/institutional, and large residential facilities, 
annual activity and emissions data is submitted by the facilities to 
MassDEP's point-source database. On-road mobile-source emissions were 
calculated using EPA's Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES) model. 
MassDEP submitted MOVES inputs to EPA's 2011 NEI and MassDEP adopted 
EPA's MOVES annual emissions estimates as reported in the NEI. As a 
potential exceedance of the CO NAAQS is more likely to occur during 
winter months when cooler temperatures contribute to incomplete 
combustion of fuel from motor vehicles, a ``typical winter day'' format 
is used for the CO inventory, consistent with EPA's inventory 
guidelines. MassDEP adopted the EPA NEI annual CO emission estimates 
for all off-road mobile source emission categories (including aircraft, 
rail locomotives, boats, residential lawn/garden equipment, and 
industrial/commercial construction off-road engines). In the 2011 
emissions inventory, on-road mobile sources represent about 59 percent 
of the typical winter-day CO emissions, followed by 22 percent from 
nonroad mobile sources, nearly 19 percent from area sources, and under 
one percent from point sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ At the time of the February 9, 2018 SIP submittal, the most 
recent comprehensive periodic emissions inventory (PEI) for CO was 
the 2011 Base Year Emissions Inventory which can be found at: 
https://www.mass.gov/lists/massdep-emissions-inventories (last 
visited on April 12, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Maintenance Demonstration

    Consistent with EPA's October 6, 1995, guidance, which states that 
meeting the criteria for an LMP (7.65 ppm or lower design value for two 
consecutive years) also satisfies the requirement for a maintenance 
plan, MassDEP has provided CO monitoring data illustrating the 
consistent low levels of CO. MassDEP illustrates that there has not 
been an exceedance of the 1-hour CO standard of 35 ppm since 1983, and 
an exceedance of the 8-hour standard has not occurred since 1987. In 
addition, the 8-hour CO design values have continually been under 2.0 
ppm (less than 25 percent of the CO NAAQS) since 2006. The monitored CO 
levels were below the 85 percent LMP benchmark of 7.65 ppm for the 
entire period of the initial 10-year maintenance plans and that trend 
has continued into the second 10-year maintenance periods for all areas 
in Massachusetts.

C. Monitoring Network/Verification of Continued Attainment

    EPA's October 6, 1995, guidance states ``[t]o verify the attainment 
status of the area over the maintenance period, the maintenance plan 
should contain provisions for continued operation of an appropriate, 
EPA approved air quality monitoring network, in accordance with 40 CFR 
part 58.'' MassDEP's 2017 Air Monitoring Network Plan, the most recent 
EPA-approved annual air quality monitoring network plan, is included in 
the docket for this action. Under this plan, MassDEP currently operates 
a CO monitor at Liberty Street in Springfield, MA (in addition to a 
handful of other CO monitors across Massachusetts). Due to the low and 
continually declining level of CO monitored at this site over the past 
two decades since the last exceedance of the NAAQS, MassDEP requested 
EPA's approval for the discontinuation of CO monitoring at the 
Springfield-Liberty Street site. Since the Springfield CO maintenance 
plan for the first 10-year period includes a commitment to continue to 
operate an appropriate air-quality monitoring network during the 
maintenance period, MassDEP proposes to use the Worcester-Summer Street 
monitor as a surrogate for Springfield, once the Springfield CO 
monitoring site is closed. MassDEP's February 9, 2018, SIP submittal 
highlights that Worcester has a higher population than Springfield, 
thus Worcester's CO concentrations are likely to be higher due to 
greater motor vehicle emissions, as motor vehicles are significant 
contributors of CO emissions. The Worcester and Springfield monitors 
are both located adjacent to high traffic-volume intersections, and 
MassDEP's monitoring data illustrates that the Springfield and 
Worcester monitors have, for many years, recorded similar CO 
concentrations, well below the NAAQS. For example, in 2014, the highest 
CO 8-hr design value for Worcester was 1.1 ppm and for Springfield was 
0.9 ppm, well below the 9.0 ppm NAAQS and well below 7.65 ppm (the 85% 
of the NAAQS LMP option criteria). Based on these characteristics, 
ambient CO concentrations in Worcester are a valid surrogate for CO 
concentrations in Springfield. MassDEP proposes that, once the 
Worcester monitor begins to serve as a surrogate, if the second-highest 
monitored CO concentration in any calendar year in Worcester reaches 75 
percent of the 1-hour or 8-hour NAAQS for CO, MassDEP will, within 9 
months of the date such concentrations are recorded, re-establish a CO 
monitoring site in Springfield consistent with EPA siting criteria, and 
resume analyzing and reporting CO concentrations in Springfield. Under 
40 CFR part 58.14(c), which allows approval of requests to discontinue 
ambient monitors ``on a case-by-case basis if discontinuance does not 
compromise data collection needed for implementation of a NAAQS and if 
the requirements of appendix D to 40 CFR part 58 continue to be met,'' 
EPA proposes to find that the proposed (1) closure of the Springfield 
CO monitoring site, (2) utilization of the Worcester monitor as a 
surrogate, and (3) proposed criteria for re-instituting

[[Page 22090]]

the Springfield CO monitor meet the requirements of 40 CFR part 
58.14(c).
    MassDEP's Boston CO maintenance plan for the first 10-year period 
includes a commitment to continue to operate a CO monitoring network in 
compliance with 40 CFR part 53 that allows for monitors to be shut down 
with EPA approval. MassDEP stopped monitoring CO at the Kenmore site at 
the end of January 2015 in accordance with EPA's approval of the 
Massachusetts' 2015 Network Plan \4\ because: (1) MassDEP transitioned 
the CO monitoring efforts in Boston from Kenmore Square to Von Hillern 
Street; (2) the CO concentrations measured for Kenmore had been very 
low in years leading up to the closure; and (3) Boston's other monitor, 
Harrison Avenue, will continue to monitor CO for the foreseeable 
future. In addition, the Von Hillern Street CO monitor is located 
adjacent to a high traffic-volume interstate highway where 
concentrations of CO are presumably higher than the Kenmore Square 
site.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Massachusetts 2015 Air Monitoring Network Plan can be found 
at http://www.mass.gov/eea/agencies/massdep/air/reports/annual-ambient-air-quality-monitoring-network-plan.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Massachusetts will continue to operate CO monitors in Boston, 
Worcester, Chicopee, and Lynn in accordance with 40 CFR part 58. Any 
future modification to this network will require approval from EPA to 
ensure that the attainment status of the area can be adequately 
verified.

D. Contingency Plan

    CAA Section 175A states that a maintenance plan must include 
contingency provisions, as necessary, to ensure prompt correction of 
any violation of the relevant NAAQS which may occur after re-
designation of the area to attainment. MassDEP's February 9, 2018, SIP 
submittal makes no changes to the contingency provisions approved as 
part of the first 10-year maintenance plan for the Boston area (61 FR 
2918; January 30, 1996) and for the four city areas (67 FR 7272; 
February 19, 2002), with the exception of added contingency measures 
due to the Springfield monitor closure.
    Three of the four contingency plan measures included in the first 
10-year maintenance plans are being implemented without any triggering 
event (exceedance of the CO design value). The three measures are: (1) 
Reformulated gasoline; (2) enhanced motor vehicle inspection and 
maintenance; and (3) California low-emission vehicle program. All three 
measures are being implemented to meet other requirements of the CAA 
and have the additional benefit of reducing CO emissions. The fourth 
measure that will not go into effect unless a triggering event occurs 
is investigation and potential implementation of local traffic control 
measures, such as traffic-signal changes and revised parking 
restrictions, as well as review and adoption of transportation control 
measures, or other additional vehicle or fuel controls, as needed to 
reduce monitored concentrations to levels that meet the NAAQS.
    In the initial 10-year CO maintenance plan for Springfield, the 
trigger for implementing the contingency plan is a violation at the 
Springfield monitor. MassDEP's proposed contingency plan trigger when 
CO monitoring in Springfield is discontinued will be to use the 
Worcester and Chicopee CO monitoring data as triggers for 
implementation of the contingency plan in Springfield. If either the 
Worcester or Chicopee monitor measures a CO violation, MassDEP will 
implement contingency measures in Springfield. A violation at the 
Worcester monitor would also trigger contingency measures in Worcester 
under the terms of the existing maintenance plan for Worcester. In the 
event that MassDEP is required to re-establish a CO monitor in 
Springfield (which would be triggered by the second-highest CO 
concentration in any calendar year in Worcester reaching 75 percent of 
the NAAQS), a violation of the NAAQS at the re-established Springfield 
monitor would trigger the contingency plan for Springfield.
    EPA is proposing to determine that the proposed contingency measure 
plan for Springfield, in conjunction with the existing contingency 
measure provisions from the first 10-year maintenance plans, continue 
to satisfy the contingency plan requirement under CAA section 175A.

VI. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve the second 10-year LMPs submitted by 
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts on February 9, 2018, for the Boston 
Metropolitan area and for the cities of Lowell, Springfield, Waltham, 
and Worcester. We are also proposing to approve the closure of the 
Springfield, Massachusetts monitor, as well as the revised contingency 
plan trigger for the Springfield area. EPA is soliciting public 
comments on the issues discussed in this notice or on other relevant 
matters. These comments will be considered before taking final action. 
Interested parties may participate in the Federal rulemaking procedure 
by submitting written comments to this proposed rule by following the 
instructions listed in the ADDRESSES section of this Federal Register.

VII. 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, EPA's role is to approve state 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 
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:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review 
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders12866 (58 
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     This action is not expected to be an Executive Order 13771 
regulatory action because this action is not significant 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 Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental 
effects, using practicable and legally permissible

[[Page 22091]]

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 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, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: May 9, 2019.
 Deborah Szaro,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.
[FR Doc. 2019-09978 Filed 5-15-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P