[Federal Register: April 28, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 82)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 22828-22831]
[DOCID:fr28ap08-12]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-1990-0011; FRL-8558-5]

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
National Priorities List

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice of partial deletion of the Seneca Army Depot Activity
Superfund Site from the National Priorities List.

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

SUMMARY: The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region
2 announces the deletion from the National Priorities List (NPL) of the
following two specific parcels of real property located at the Seneca
Army Depot Activity (SEDA) Superfund Site (Site), Romulus, New York:
Real Estate Parcel 1, except for a portion of this parcel known as
SEAD-24; and the entirety of Real Estate Parcel 2. The NPL, promulgated
pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is found
at Appendix B of 40 CFR part 300, which is an appendix to the National

Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). This
partial deletion of SEDA parcels is done in accordance with 40 CFR
300.425(e) and the Notice of Policy Change: Partial Deletion of Sites
Listed on the National Priorities List, 60 FR 55466 (Nov. 1, 1996).
This deletion pertains to all media (surface soils, subsurface soils,
structures, surface water, and ground water) within Parcel 1, excluding
the SEAD-24 portion of Parcel 1, and Parcel 2.
    Parcel 1, also known as the Empire Biofuels Redevelopment area, is
located midway on the western edge of SEDA. Most of this Parcel did not
require remedial investigations under CERCLA. The two areas within
Parcel 1 that were investigated under CERCLA are known as SEAD-58 and
SEAD-24. SEAD-58 includes two debris disposal areas that have been
found to require no active remediation under CERCLA. SEAD-24 is a two-
acre area which underwent a soil removal action in 2004 and is awaiting
a determination by EPA that all appropriate response actions have been
implemented. SEAD-24 is not included in this deletion and will remain
on the NPL.
    Parcel 2, also known as the Seneca County Public Safety Building
and Jail area, is located along the eastern perimeter of SEDA in the
southeast quadrant. The parcel encompasses two sub-parcel areas
designated as SEAD-50 and SEAD-54, both of which have been remediated.
Subsequent sampling of these two areas confirmed that all appropriate
CERCLA response actions were performed. However, SEAD-50 and 54 are
subject to institutional controls in the form of deed restrictions
which prohibit residential use and use of the groundwater as they are
part of the encompassing Planned Industrial Development area.
    The rest of SEDA will remain on the NPL, and response activities
will continue at the remaining areas determined to be in need of
response actions. The EPA and the State of New York, through the New
York State Department of Environmental Conservation, have determined
that all appropriate response actions under CERCLA have been completed
at the parcels proposed for deletion. However, the deletion of these
parcels does not preclude future actions under Superfund.

DATES: This rule will be effective April 28, 2008.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-1990-0011. All documents in the docket
are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed
in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e.,
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 either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at the site information repositories. Locations, contacts,
phone numbers and viewing hours are:

Regional Repository, U.S. EPA Region 2 Records Center, 290 Broadway,
18th Floor, New York, NY 10007-1866, Hours: 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.--Monday
through Friday.<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Local Site Repository, Seneca Army Depot Activity, 5786 State Route 96,
Building 123, Romulus, NY 14541, Hours: 9 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.--Monday
through Thursday.<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Julio F. Vazquez, Remedial Project
Manager, U.S. EPA Region 2, 290 Broadway, 18th Floor, New York, NY
10007-1866,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The parcels to be deleted from the NPL are
Parcel 1, excluding SEAD-24, and the entirety of Parcel 2 of SEDA. A
notice of intent for partial deletion for this site was published in
the Federal Register on September 11, 2007.
    The closing date for comments on the notice of intent for partial
deletion was October 20, 2007. Eleven public comments were received,
and all the comments relate to the construction of an ethanol plant on
Parcel 1. This issue is not related to our finding that Parcel 1,
excluding SEAD-24, and Parcel 2 do not present any threat to human
health or the environment. A responsiveness summary was prepared and
placed in both the docket, EPA-HQ-SFUND-1990-0011, on http://
www.regulations.gov and in the local repositories listed above.
    EPA identifies sites that may present a significant risk to public
health, welfare and the environment. The NPL is a list of releases or
threatened releases which EPA has determined to be a priority. Deletion
of a portion of a site from the NPL does not preclude further remedial
action. If a significant release occurs at a site, or any portion
thereof, which has been deleted from the NPL, the deleted portions of
the site may be restored to the NPL without application of the Hazard
Ranking System. Deletion of any portion of a site from the NPL does not
affect responsible party liability for further remedial actions, in the
unlikely event that future conditions warrant such actions.

Responsiveness Summary

Introduction

    A Notice of Intent of Partial Deletion for the Seneca Army Depot
Activity (SEDA) Superfund Site was published in the Federal Register on
September 11, 2007 (72 FR 51758-51762). The publication of this notice
was intended to inform the public that EPA planned to delete two
specific parcels from the National Priorities List: Real Estate Parcel
1, except for a portion of that parcel known as SEAD-24; and the
entirety of Real Estate Parcel 2. The notice also provided a 30-day
public comment period on the proposed partial deletion. The closing
date for comments on the Notice of Intent to Partially Delete was
October 11, 2007. Eleven written comments were received (these comments
are available in the Information Repositories); therefore EPA has
prepared this Responsiveness Summary. In addition, all public comments
were considered in EPA's final decision to delete these parcels (as
identified above) of the Site from the NPL.

Responsiveness Summary

    This Responsiveness Summary has been prepared to provide responses
to comments submitted to EPA during the 30-day public comment period
regarding the Notice of Intent to Partially Delete (72 FR 51762) a
portion of Real Estate Parcel 1 and Real Estate Parcel 2 of the SEDA.
The original comments are summarized below and available at http://
www.regulations.gov, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-1990-0001, with the
support materials under document type ``public submissions'' and at the
information repositories at the following addresses: U.S. EPA Region 2
Records Center, 290 Broadway--18th Floor, New York, NY 10007-1866,
Hours: 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.--Monday through Friday,<PHONE_NUMBER>; and
Seneca Army Depot Activity, 5786 State Route 96, Building 123, Romulus,
NY 14541, Hours: 9 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.--Monday through Thursday, (607)
869-1494.
    Summary of Comment from Mary Anne Kowalski: The commenter is
opposed to the deletion of Parcel 1 because this land is proposed to be
used for an ethanol plant that is proceeding without an environmental
impact statement, expressing the view that without an environmental
impact statement the residents of Seneca

County have no way of determining the impact of this construction on
the hazardous materials already there. This deletion action would
remove another impediment to construction.
    Response: In the summer of 2003, EPA concurred with the Finding of
Suitability to Transfer (FOST) for the Conservation/Recreation Area.
This Area included Parcel 1, except for SEAD-58 and SEAD-24. In 2006,
EPA determined that no action under CERCLA was necessary for SEAD-58.
Therefore, EPA's determination is that soils in the Parcel 1 area
proposed for deletion do not present an unacceptable threat to human
health or the environment. Note that a delisting action has no
significant effect upon redevelopment activities. An ethanol plant may
or may not be constructed regardless of whether the parcel remains
listed on the NPL.
    Summary of Comment from Sandra L. Dranias: The commenter expressed
concern regarding the potential health hazards that will be unleashed
by the premature disturbance of these heavily contaminated soils in the
parcels being proposed for deletion. Documents list hazardous materials
removed from the site listed as SEAD-24. SEAD-24 is located directly
nearby the proposed location of the ethanol refinery. None of the soil
surrounding SEAD-24 was ever tested to see if any of these chemicals
leached beyond the borders drawn by the Government.
    Response: SEAD-24, the abandoned powder burning pit, underwent a
time-critical removal action between 2004 and 2006. EPA has not made
its final determination on the ultimate adequacy of this action.
Therefore, this area is retained by the Army until a final
determination is made whether this area no longer presents a
significant threat to human health or the environment. SEAD-24 is not
the subject of this de-listing from the NPL.
    Summary of Comment from Tom and Nancy Hooser: The commenters noted
that, if their information is correct, this deletion means that no
additional cleanup is necessary at the parcel where an ethanol plant is
to be built. We have been provided no environmental impact study, and
the prospect of what could happen down the line is enormous. The parcel
in question needs to be thoroughly cleaned up before anything as
hazardous as an ethanol plant is built in our backyards.
    Response: It is correct that it has been determined that no
additional action is deemed necessary at both Parcel 1, except SEAD-24
(which is not being deleted) and Parcel 2. They do not present an
unacceptable threat to human health or the environment. Parcel 1, SEAD-
58, after remedial investigation activities, was found to require no
active remediation under CERCLA. Parcel 2, including SEAD-50 and SEAD-
54, underwent remediation.
    Summary of Comment from Bobbi Clifford: The commenter pointed out
that 8,300 acres were identified for conservation/recreation uses
according to the Preferred Land Use Plan/Seneca Army Depot Reuse Plan.
On page 21-7, under 9(c), Environmental: the State criteria require
that a ``proposed site not contain any wetlands.'' In the February,
1998 report of the Administrative Final Environmental Impact Statement,
the SEDA Wetlands, Fish and Wildlife Plan identifies ``87 distinct
wetlands on the depot lands.'' In the Environmental Assessment Form of
11/06 for the ethanol/biomass project, Malcolm Pirnie identified the
following: ``sixteen wetlands and eight streams were delineated for the
ethanol/biomass project site, with the main site having eleven wetlands
and two streams. Within the main site, a large wetland system is
approximately 60 acres in size.'' This comment implies that
redevelopment of the property proposed for deletion may negatively
impact wetlands.
    Additionally, the commenter pointed out that during the 1950s and
1960s, classified metallic parts were buried at the Miscellaneous
Components burial Site. Because the documentation of the disposal is
considered classified by the Army, the exact nature of the buried
material has not been disclosed. Results of site investigations
indicate that previous activities may have adversely impacted soil and
groundwater. The commenter implies that contamination may exist at the
parcel proposed for deletion could pose a threat to human health and
the environment.
    Response: In 2003, EPA concurred with the Finding of Suitability to
Transfer for the Conservation/Recreation Area. This document served as
the basis for the transfer of the 8,300 acre parcel. EPA concurred with
this transfer because it had been determined that no further
remediation was warranted at this parcel, and none of the investigation
performed at this area identified contaminants that would present an
unacceptable risk under any land use scenario. The wetlands issue is
not related to this de-listing action. EPA's role to oversee the
suitability of the property to be de-listed does not include approving
any specific redevelopment.
    There are many other areas within SEDA that are undergoing
investigation and other CERCLA-related efforts, including the
Miscellaneous Components Burial Site. These areas are under the control
of the Army and will remain on the NPL until all appropriate response
actions are implemented or it is determined that the areas pose no
significant threat to public health or the environment.
    Summary of Comment from John Ghidiu: This commenter objected to the
delisting because it was his understanding that solid waste and
incinerator ash were disposed of intermittently for 30 years between
1941 and 1979, that radioactive materials were stored in several of the
igloos on the south end of SEDA, and herbicides and pesticides were
stored there as well. Demilitarization of munitions had also been
conducted for forty years by open burning of fuses, projectiles,
explosives and propellants directly upon the ground surface. Burial of
laboratory wastes occurred between 1940 and 1980 at the Radioactive
Waste Burial Sites and the Pitchblende Storage Igloos.
    Response: The areas to be de-listed are not included in any of the
areas of concern identified by the commenter. Since 1984, when SEDA was
proposed to be included on the NPL, EPA, the Army and the State of New
York have been working on various areas of concern including the Ash
Landfill (SEAD-03, 06, 08, 14 and 15), the Pitchblende Ore Storage
(SEAD-48), and the Radioactive Burial Sites (SEAD-12). Although some of
the work is still in progress at these Army-retained areas, the parcels
proposed to be de-listed from the NPL are areas where either all
appropriate response actions have been implemented or there is no
significant threat to public health or the environment.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals,
Hazardous waste, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations,
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water
pollution control, Water supply.

    Dated: March 14, 2008.
Alan J. Steinberg,
Regional Administrator, Region 2.

0
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 40 part 300 is amended as
follows.

PART 300--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 300 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O.
12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR
2923, 3 CFR 1987 Comp., p. 193.

Appendix B--[Amended]

0
2. Table 2 of appendix B to part 300 is amended by revising the entry
under New York for ``Seneca Army Depot'' to read as follows:

Appendix B to Part 300--National Priorities List

* * * * *

                                      Table 2.--Federal Facilities Section
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  St                             Site name                 City/County             Notes \a\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
NY...................................  Seneca Army Depot...........  Romulus................  P

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) * * *
P = Sites with partial deletion(s).

[FR Doc. E8-9077 Filed 4-25-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 194 (Friday, October 5, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 50312-50314]
[FR Doc No: 2018-21718]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2017-0145; 9983-65-Region 6]

Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plan, Oklahoma;
Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking, withdrawal of
proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking, the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is supplementing our proposed
approval published on March 22, 2018, of revisions to the State
Implementation Plan (SIP) for Oklahoma, as submitted by the State of
Oklahoma designee with a letter dated February 14, 2017. First, we are
reopening the comment period based on information submitted by Oklahoma
in a letter dated July 31, 2018, and our analysis of it. Second, EPA is
withdrawing its proposed action on the Commercial and Industrial Solid
Waste Incineration Units rule because the State did not submit it for
approval as a SIP revision.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before November 5, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-
2017-0145, at http://www.regulations.gov or via email to
[email protected]. 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, please
contact Mr. Alan Shar,<PHONE_NUMBER>, [email protected]. For 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.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at the EPA
Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. While all
documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may
be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted
material), and some may not be publicly available at either location
(e.g., CBI).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Alan Shar,<PHONE_NUMBER>;
[email protected]. To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule
an appointment with Mr. Alan Shar.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our'' refer to EPA.

I. Background

    On March 22, 2018 (83 FR 12514), we published a proposed rulemaking
action to approve certain revisions to the Oklahoma SIP, as submitted
by Oklahoma on February 14, 2017. The submittal covers updates to the
Oklahoma SIP, as contained in annual SIP updates for 2013, 2014, 2015,
and 2016, and incorporates the latest changes to the EPA regulations.
Specifically, the March 22, 2018 proposal concerned revisions to the
following rules in the Oklahoma Administrative Code (OAC)--OAC 252:100-
13 Open Burning, OAC 252:100-17 Incinerators, OAC 252:100-25 Visible
Emissions and Particulates, OAC 252:100-31 Control of Emission of
Sulfur Compounds, OAC 252:100, Appendix E Primary Ambient Air Quality
Standards, and OAC 252:100, Appendix F Secondary Ambient Air Quality
Standards. Comments on the proposal were required to be received by
April 23, 2018.

II. Additional information submitted by Oklahoma

    After the close of the public comment period, the Oklahoma
Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) submitted additional
information, by letter dated July 31, 2018, concerning the SIP rule
revisions in our March 22, 2018 proposal. ODEQ provided this
information in response to adverse comments (EPA-R06-OAR-2017-0145-022)
submitted to the EPA during the initial comment period. The information
submitted by ODEQ is intended to clarify the rule revisions and their
applicability as well as to further demonstrate how the revisions
improve the Oklahoma SIP. In particular, ODEQ provided additional
information related to the following four rule revisions included in
the March 22, 2018 proposal: (1) A revision to OAC 252:100-9(4) that
exempts opening burning allowed under OAC 252:100-13-7(6)(B) and OAC
252:100-13-8 from the time restrictions otherwise applicable to opening
burning; (2) a revision to OAC 252:100-17-2 adding NSPS Subpart AAAA
and NSPS Subpart CCCC to the list of sources exempt from the
requirements for general purpose incinerators; (3) a revision to OAC
252:100-25-5(c) eliminating the words ``and EPA'' from the rule's
requirement concerning alternative monitoring; and (4) a revision to
OAC 252:100-31 which replaces SO2 ambient standards
(exposure limits) in the existing SIP at OAC 252:100-31-12 (renumbered
OAC 252:100-31-7) with EPA's 2010 SO2 National Ambient Air
Quality Standards.

III. EPA's Evaluation and Analysis of ODEQ's July 31, 2018 Letter

    We have evaluated the information contained in ODEQ's July 31, 2018
letter and find that it affirms our determination that the submitted
revisions included in the March 22, 2018 proposal meet SIP
requirements, as provided by CAA section 110 and EPA's implementing
regulations at 40 CFR part 51. We have included our evaluation of
ODEQ's July 31, 2018 letter and our additional analysis of the four
rule revisions identified in part II above in a supplement to the
Technical Support Document (TSD) which may be found in the docket. See
Supplement 3 to the TSD in the docket for this action. The result of
our evaluation and analysis continues to support the proposed approval
of the rule revisions identified in the March 22, 2018 proposal, with
the recognition of one inadvertent oversight on our part described
below.
    The March 22, 2018 proposal inadvertently includes a proposal to
approve rule revisions to OAC 252:100-17, Part 9 Commercial and
Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units--specifically OAC 252:100-17-
60 through 17-76. We are withdrawing our proposal action on these
provisions because we lack the authority to act on them under section
110 as a SIP revision. Moreover, these provisions were not submitted to
EPA for SIP approval as part of the February 14, 2017 SIP submittal and
include provisions that pertain to CAA sections 111(d) and 129,
instead, which will be acted upon separately in the future.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Those provisions are not directly related to CAA section 110
(State implementation Plans for NAAQS) and pertain to CAA sections
111(d) (Standards of performance for existing sources; remaining
useful life of source) and 129 (Solid waste combustion) standards.
These Subchapter 17 revisions were submitted by the Oklahoma
Department of Environmental Quality to EPA, by letter dated
September 15, 2017, as an update to Oklahoma's Air Quality State
Plan for Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incinerators (CISWI)
units, under CAA sections 111(d) and 129. Pursuant to those
statutory provisions and EPA's implementing regulations related
thereto, EPA will be evaluating and acting upon the September 15,
2017 Submittal in a separate action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Supplemental Proposed Action

    In summary, EPA proposed to approve certain revisions to the
Oklahoma SIP, as submitted by Oklahoma on February 14, 2017, in our
March 22, 2018 proposal (83 FR 12514). In this supplemental proposed
action, we are withdrawing the proposed action on the revisions to OAC
252:100-17, Part 9 (Part 9), because Part 9 was not included in
Oklahoma's February 14, 2017 SIP submittal. We lack the authority to
act on this Part 9 under CAA section 110 because the State did not
submit it as a SIP revision for approval. We are proposing to affirm
the approvability of the other rule revisions contained in the March
22, 2018 proposal based upon the supplemental information in ODEQ's
July 31, 2018 letter, as well as additional information included in
Supplement 3 to the TSD. The scope of this supplemental notice and the
reopening of the comment period is strictly limited to only the
supplemental information and our evaluation of it. The EPA is not
reopening the comment period on any other aspect of the March 22, 2018
proposal, as an adequate opportunity to comment on those issues has
already been provided. The EPA will not respond to comments received
during the reopened comment period outside the above-defined scope.
This action will allow interested persons additional time to review the
supplemental information to prepare and submit relevant comments. The
EPA will address all comments received on the original proposal and on
this supplemental action in our final action.

V. Incorporation by Reference

    In this action, we are proposing to include in a final rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, we are proposing to incorporate by
reference revisions to Oklahoma's regulations, as described in part IV
above. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents
generally available electronically through

www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at the EPA Region 6 office.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the 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 Act. Accordingly, this
action merely proposes to approve 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 Order
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 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 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 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, Hydrocarbons,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: September 18, 2018.
David Gray,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2018-21718 Filed 10-4-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P