83 FR 44498 - Air Plan Approval; District of Columbia; State Implementation Plan for the Interstate Transport Requirements for the 2008 Ozone Standard
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 170 (August 31, 2018)
Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 170 (August 31, 2018)
| Page Range | 44498-44500 | |
| FR Document | 2018-18855 |
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 170 (Friday, August 31, 2018)] [Rules and Regulations] [Pages 44498-44500] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2018-18855] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R03-OAR-2014-0701; FRL-9983-11--Region 3] Air Plan Approval; District of Columbia; State Implementation Plan for the Interstate Transport Requirements for the 2008 Ozone Standard AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the District of Columbia (the District) that pertains to the good neighbor and interstate transport requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 2008 ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). The CAA's good neighbor provision requires EPA and states to address the interstate transport of air pollution that affects the ability of other states to attain and maintain the NAAQS. Specifically, the good neighbor provision requires each state in its SIP to prohibit emissions that will significantly contribute to nonattainment, or interfere with maintenance, of a NAAQS in another state. The District submitted a SIP revision on June 13, 2014 that addresses the interstate transport requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. On July 5, 2018, EPA published a proposed rule for just the good neighbor provision of the District's June 13, 2014 submittal. EPA is approving the District's SIP as having adequate provisions to meet the requirements of the good neighbor provision for the 2008 ozone NAAQS in accordance with section 110 of the CAA. DATES: This final rule is effective on October 1, 2018. ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2014-0701. All documents in the docket are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available through http://www.regulations.gov, or please contact the person identified in the For Further Information Contact section for additional availability information. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Schmitt, (215) 814-5787, or by email at schmitt.ellen@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background On June 13, 2014, the District Department of the Environment (DDOE) on behalf of the District submitted a revision to its SIP to satisfy the requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. On April 13, 2015 (80 FR 19538), EPA approved all parts of the District's June 13, 2014 submittal with the exception of the portion of the submittal that addressed section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), also called the good neighbor provision, consists of two prongs that require that a state's \1\ SIP must contain adequate provisions to prohibit any source or other type of emissions activity within the state from emitting air pollutants that ``contribute significantly to nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance by, any other state with respect to any such national primary or secondary ambient air quality standard.'' Under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA, EPA gives independent significance to the matter of nonattainment (prong 1) and to that of maintenance (prong 2). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The term state has the same meaning as provided in CAA section 302(d) which specifically includes the District of Columbia. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- On July 5, 2018 (83 FR 31350), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) for the District of Columbia, approving the portion of the June 13, 2014 District SIP revision addressing prongs 1 and 2 of the interstate transport requirements for section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.\2\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\ All the other infrastructure SIP elements for the District for the 2008 ozone NAAQS were addressed in a separate rulemaking. See 80 FR 19538 (April 13, 2015). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA Analysis In its June 13, 2014 submittal, the District identified the implemented regulations within its SIP that limit nitrogen dioxide (NOX ) and/or volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from District sources.\3\ The District indicates that there are no electric generating units (EGUs) \4\ or other large industrial sources of NOX emissions within the District. In the submittal, the District also included information on non-EGUs and mobile sources and listed the SIP-approved measures that help to reduce NOX and VOC emissions from non-EGU and mobile sources within the District. In the submittal, the District points out that it will continue to rely on federal measures to reduce NOX emissions from onroad and nonroad engines. The District states its sources are already well controlled, and states further reductions beyond the District's current SIP measures are not economically feasible. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\ Both NOX and VOCs are precursors to ozone formation. \4\ The District's last remaining EGUs were decommissioned in 2012, in part to meet permit requirements incorporated into the District's Regional Haze SIP. 77 FR 5191 (February 2, 2012). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- EPA evaluated the District's submittal for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, considering: Ozone precursor emissions; an analysis of District source sectors; and in-place controls and regulations. Due to the District's small number of sources and the high cost of further reductions, EPA proposed in its July 5, 2018 NPR that the District's SIP, as presently approved, contains adequate measures to prevent District sources from interfering with maintenance or contributing significantly to nonattainment in another state for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The rationale for EPA's proposed action was discussed in greater detail in the NPR and accompanying technical support document (TSD) and will not be restated here. [[Page 44499]] In this rulemaking action, EPA is approving one portion of the District's June 13, 2014 submittal--the portion addressing prongs 1 and 2 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA. EPA previously acted on other portions of Delaware's June 13, 2014 SIP submittal for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.\5\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \5\ On April 13, 2015 (80 FR 19538), EPA approved portions of the District's June 13, 2014 submittal for the 2008 ozone NAAQS addressing the following: CAA section 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). In that action, EPA stated it would take later action on the portion of the June 13, 2014 SIP submittal addressing section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- III. Comments and EPA's Response EPA received a total of four anonymous comments on the July 5, 2018 NPR. All of the comments received are included in the docket for this action. Three of the comments did not concern any of the specific issues raised in the NPR, nor did they address EPA's rationale for the proposed approval of the District's submittal. Therefore, EPA is not responding to those comments. EPA did receive one comment considered to be relevant to this rulemaking action. The commenter indicates that EPA was supposed to take action on the District's SIP revision within 12 months of receiving the SIP submittal. The commenter also indicates the length of time (4 years) it took for EPA to approve the SIP revision from the time of its submittal and questions if transported pollution could have been eliminated if SIP revisions like this one were approved in a timely manner. The commenter asks what air quality and human health impacts the delay of this action has had on neighboring states. EPA acknowledges that it missed the statutory deadline to take action on the good neighbor portion of the District's June 13, 2014 SIP submittal.\6\ However, at this time, EPA is taking final action on this SIP revision, and by doing so it will meet all such outstanding obligations under the CAA. The commenter provided no analysis of the statutory consequences, if any, from the action. Further, EPA disagrees with the commenter's questioning that the delayed action on the good neighbor portions of the District's SIP revision has impacted air quality and human health in neighboring states. As explained in the NPR, EPA believes that the District's SIP, as presently approved, contains adequate measures to prevent District sources from interfering with other states' attainment and/or maintenance for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Thus, EPA's late action on the good neighbor portion of the District of Columbia's June 13, 2014 SIP submittal did not cause any delay in air quality and human health protections as the SIP relies on already in-place regulations and controls that prevent District sources from significantly contributing to nonattainment, or interfering with maintenance, of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in another state. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \6\ For clarification, section 110(k)(2) requires EPA to take action 12 months after a SIP revision becomes complete, not 12 months after it is submitted, as the commenter indicates. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IV. Final Action EPA is approving the portion of the June 13, 2014 District SIP revision addressing prongs 1 and 2 of the interstate transport requirements for section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. On April 13, 2015 (80 FR 19538), EPA approved the following infrastructure elements or portions thereof from the June 13, 2014 submittal: CAA section 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). This action approves the remaining portions of the June 13, 2014 SIP revision, which address prongs 1 and 2 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA, also known as the good neighbor provision. EPA did not take action upon these elements in the Agency's prior SIP approval action, published on April 13, 2015 (80 FR 19538). V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. General Requirements 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, 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 EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). C. Petitions for Judicial Review Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States [[Page 44500]] Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 30, 2018. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action, addressing the District of Columbia's good neighbor provision for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).) List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Volatile organic compounds. Dated: August 21, 2018. Cecil Rodrigues, Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 0 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Subpart J--District of Columbia 0 2. In Sec. 52.470, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding a new entry for ``Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS'' after the existing entry for ``Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS'' to read as follows: Sec. 52.470 Identification of plan. * * * * * (e) * * * ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name of non-regulatory SIP Applicable State Additional revision geographic area submittal date EPA approval date explanation ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- * * * * * * * Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure District of 6/13/14 8/31/18, [Insert This action Requirements for the 2008 Ozone Columbia. Federal Register addresses CAA NAAQS. citation]. element 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) . * * * * * * * ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [FR Doc. 2018-18855 Filed 8-30-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
![44498 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 170 / Friday, August 31, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
EPA-APPROVED MICHIGAN REGULATIONS—Continued
State
Michigan citation Title effective EPA approval date Comments
date
* * * * * * *
* * * * * the http://www.regulations.gov website. interstate transport requirements for
[FR Doc. 2018–18853 Filed 8–30–18; 8:45 am] Although listed in the index, some section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P information is not publicly available, ozone NAAQS.2
e.g., confidential business information
II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA
(CBI) or other information whose
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Analysis
disclosure is restricted by statute.
AGENCY Certain other material, such as In its June 13, 2014 submittal, the
copyrighted material, is not placed on District identified the implemented
40 CFR Part 52 the internet and will be publicly regulations within its SIP that limit
[EPA–R03–OAR–2014–0701; FRL–9983– available only in hard copy form. nitrogen dioxide (NOX) and/or volatile
11—Region 3] Publicly available docket materials are organic compound (VOC) emissions
available through http:// from District sources.3 The District
Air Plan Approval; District of www.regulations.gov, or please contact indicates that there are no electric
Columbia; State Implementation Plan the person identified in the FOR FURTHER generating units (EGUs) 4 or other large
for the Interstate Transport INFORMATION CONTACT section for industrial sources of NOX emissions
Requirements for the 2008 Ozone additional availability information. within the District. In the submittal, the
Standard FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: District also included information on
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Ellen Schmitt, (215) 814–5787, or by non-EGUs and mobile sources and listed
Agency (EPA). email at schmitt.ellen@epa.gov. the SIP-approved measures that help to
ACTION: Final rule. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: reduce NOX and VOC emissions from
non-EGU and mobile sources within the
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection I. Background District. In the submittal, the District
Agency (EPA) is approving a state On June 13, 2014, the District points out that it will continue to rely
implementation plan (SIP) revision Department of the Environment (DDOE) on federal measures to reduce NOX
submitted by the District of Columbia on behalf of the District submitted a emissions from onroad and nonroad
(the District) that pertains to the good revision to its SIP to satisfy the engines. The District states its sources
neighbor and interstate transport requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the are already well controlled, and states
requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) CAA for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. On further reductions beyond the District’s
for the 2008 ozone national ambient air April 13, 2015 (80 FR 19538), EPA current SIP measures are not
quality standards (NAAQS). The CAA’s approved all parts of the District’s June economically feasible.
good neighbor provision requires EPA 13, 2014 submittal with the exception of EPA evaluated the District’s submittal
and states to address the interstate the portion of the submittal that for the 2008 ozone NAAQS,
transport of air pollution that affects the addressed section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of considering: Ozone precursor emissions;
ability of other states to attain and the CAA. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), also an analysis of District source sectors;
maintain the NAAQS. Specifically, the called the good neighbor provision, and in-place controls and regulations.
good neighbor provision requires each consists of two prongs that require that Due to the District’s small number of
state in its SIP to prohibit emissions that a state’s 1 SIP must contain adequate sources and the high cost of further
will significantly contribute to provisions to prohibit any source or reductions, EPA proposed in its July 5,
nonattainment, or interfere with other type of emissions activity within 2018 NPR that the District’s SIP, as
maintenance, of a NAAQS in another the state from emitting air pollutants presently approved, contains adequate
state. The District submitted a SIP that ‘‘contribute significantly to measures to prevent District sources
revision on June 13, 2014 that addresses nonattainment in, or interfere with from interfering with maintenance or
the interstate transport requirements for maintenance by, any other state with contributing significantly to
the 2008 ozone NAAQS. On July 5, respect to any such national primary or nonattainment in another state for the
2018, EPA published a proposed rule for secondary ambient air quality 2008 ozone NAAQS. The rationale for
just the good neighbor provision of the standard.’’ Under section EPA’s proposed action was discussed in
District’s June 13, 2014 submittal. EPA 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA, EPA gives greater detail in the NPR and
is approving the District’s SIP as having independent significance to the matter accompanying technical support
adequate provisions to meet the of nonattainment (prong 1) and to that document (TSD) and will not be restated
requirements of the good neighbor of maintenance (prong 2). here.
provision for the 2008 ozone NAAQS in On July 5, 2018 (83 FR 31350), EPA
accordance with section 110 of the published a notice of proposed 2 All the other infrastructure SIP elements for the
CAA. rulemaking (NPR) for the District of District for the 2008 ozone NAAQS were addressed
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
Columbia, approving the portion of the in a separate rulemaking. See 80 FR 19538 (April
DATES: This final rule is effective on 13, 2015).
October 1, 2018. June 13, 2014 District SIP revision 3 Both NO and VOCs are precursors to ozone
X
addressing prongs 1 and 2 of the formation.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
4 The District’s last remaining EGUs were
docket for this action under Docket ID 1 The term state has the same meaning as decommissioned in 2012, in part to meet permit
Number EPA–R03–OAR–2014–0701. All provided in CAA section 302(d) which specifically requirements incorporated into the District’s
documents in the docket are listed on includes the District of Columbia. Regional Haze SIP. 77 FR 5191 (February 2, 2012).
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:04 Aug 30, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31AUR1.SGM 31AUR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_44668/page/1.svg)
![44500 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 170 / Friday, August 31, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
Court of Appeals for the appropriate List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
circuit by October 30, 2018. Filing a Environmental protection, Air
petition for reconsideration by the Subpart J—District of Columbia
pollution control, Incorporation by
Administrator of this final rule does not reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
affect the finality of this action for the Volatile organic compounds. ■ 2. In § 52.470, the table in paragraph
purposes of judicial review nor does it (e) is amended by adding a new entry
Dated: August 21, 2018.
extend the time within which a petition for ‘‘Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure
Cecil Rodrigues, Requirements for the 2008 Ozone
for judicial review may be filed, and
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. NAAQS’’ after the existing entry for
shall not postpone the effectiveness of
such rule or action. This action, 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: ‘‘Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure
addressing the District of Columbia’s Requirements for the 2008 Ozone
PART 52—APPROVAL AND NAAQS’’ to read as follows:
good neighbor provision for the 2008 PROMULGATION OF
ozone NAAQS, may not be challenged IMPLEMENTATION PLANS § 52.470 Identification of plan.
later in proceedings to enforce its
requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).) ■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 * * * * *
continues to read as follows: (e) * * *
Name of non-regulatory SIP Applicable geographic State submittal EPA approval date Additional explanation
revision area date
* * * * * * *
Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure District of Columbia ......... 6/13/14 8/31/18, [Insert Federal This action addresses CAA element
Requirements for the 2008 Register citation]. 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
Ozone NAAQS.
* * * * * * *
[FR Doc. 2018–18855 Filed 8–30–18; 8:45 am] nonattainment or interfere with and Wyoming as meeting the interstate
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P maintenance of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in transport requirements of CAA section
any other state. 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010 SO2
DATES: This rule is effective on October NAAQS (83 FR 25617). An explanation
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 1, 2018. of the CAA requirements, a detailed
AGENCY ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a
analysis of the states’ submissions, and
docket for this action under Docket ID the EPA’s rationale for approval of each
40 CFR Part 52 submission were all provided in the
Number EPA– EPA–R08–OAR–2018–
0109. All documents in the docket are notice of proposed rulemaking, and will
[EPA–R08–OAR–2018–0109; FRL–9982–
81—Region 8] listed on the http://www.regulations.gov not be restated here. The public
comment period for this proposed rule
website. Although listed in the index,
Interstate Transport Prongs 1 and 2 for ended on July 5, 2018. The EPA
some information is not publicly
the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Standard received one comment letter from the
available, e.g., confidential business
for Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, North Dakota Department of Health
information (CBI) or other information
South Dakota and Wyoming (NDDH), one comment letter from the
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Wyoming Department of Environmental
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Certain other material, such as
Quality (WDEQ) and six anonymous
Agency (EPA). copyrighted material, is not placed on
comments on the proposal. The six
the internet and will be publicly
ACTION: Final rule. anonymous comments lacked the
available only in hard copy form.
required specificity to the Colorado,
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Publicly available docket materials are
Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota or
Agency (EPA) is approving portions of available through http://
Wyoming SIP submissions and the
State Implementation Plan (SIP) www.regulations.gov, or please contact
interstate transport requirements of
submissions from Colorado, Montana, the person identified in the ‘‘For Further
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). NDDH
North Dakota, South Dakota and Information Contact’’ section for
and WDEQ’s comments are addressed
Wyoming addressing the Clean Air Act additional availability information.
below, while the anonymous comments
(CAA or Act) interstate transport SIP FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: are not addressed because they fall
requirements for the 2010 sulfur dioxide Adam Clark, Air Program, U.S. EPA outside the scope of our proposed
(SO2) National Ambient Air Quality Region 8, Mailcode 8P–AR, 1595 action.
Standard (NAAQS). These submissions Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado
address the requirement that each SIP 80202–1129, (303) 312–7104, or II. Response to Comments
contain adequate provisions prohibiting clark.adam@epa.gov. Comment: NDDH stated that the 2010
air emissions that will have certain SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: and 2016 SO2 emissions levels for their
adverse air quality effects in other state listed in the proposal rule’s ‘‘Table
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
Throughout this document ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’
states. The EPA is approving portions of and ‘‘our’’ means the EPA. 1—SO2 Emission Trends’’ (83 FR 25618)
these infrastructure SIPs for the appeared too high, and that the 2000–
aforementioned states as containing I. Background 2016 SO2 reduction in the table for
adequate provisions to ensure that air On June 4, 2018, the EPA proposed to North Dakota should be 79% rather than
emissions in the states will not approve submissions from Colorado, the 44% listed in this Table 1. In
significantly contribute to Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota addition to this recommended
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:04 Aug 30, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31AUR1.SGM 31AUR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_44668/page/3.svg)
Document Created: 2018-08-31 00:53:53
Document Modified: 2018-08-31 00:53:53
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Rules and Regulations | |
| Action | Final rule. | |
| Dates | This final rule is effective on October 1, 2018. | |
| Contact | Ellen Schmitt, (215) 814-5787, or by email at [email protected] | |
| FR Citation | 83 FR 44498 | |
| CFR Associated | Environmental Protection; Air Pollution Control; Incorporation by Reference; Nitrogen Dioxide; Ozone and Volatile Organic Compounds |
2024 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR