83 FR 44500 - Interstate Transport Prongs 1 and 2 for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide (SO2
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 170 (August 31, 2018)
Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 170 (August 31, 2018)
| Page Range | 44500-44503 | |
| FR Document | 2018-18892 |
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 170 (Friday, August 31, 2018)] [Rules and Regulations] [Pages 44500-44503] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2018-18892] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R08-OAR-2018-0109; FRL-9982-81--Region 8] Interstate Transport Prongs 1 and 2 for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Standard for Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota and Wyoming AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving portions of State Implementation Plan (SIP) submissions from Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota and Wyoming addressing the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) interstate transport SIP requirements for the 2010 sulfur dioxide (SO2 ) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (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 approving portions of these infrastructure SIPs for the aforementioned states as containing adequate provisions to ensure that air emissions in the states will not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in any other state. DATES: This rule is effective on October 1, 2018. ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA- EPA-R08-OAR-2018-0109. 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: Adam Clark, Air Program, U.S. EPA Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202- 1129, (303) 312-7104, or clark.adam@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us'' and ``our'' means the EPA. I. Background On June 4, 2018, the EPA proposed to approve submissions from Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota and Wyoming as meeting the interstate transport requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS (83 FR 25617). An explanation of the CAA requirements, a detailed analysis of the states' submissions, and the EPA's rationale for approval of each submission were all provided in the notice of proposed rulemaking, and will not be restated here. The public comment period for this proposed rule ended on July 5, 2018. The EPA received one comment letter from the North Dakota Department of Health (NDDH), one comment letter from the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (WDEQ) and six anonymous comments on the proposal. The six anonymous comments lacked the required specificity to the Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota or Wyoming SIP submissions and the interstate transport requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). NDDH and WDEQ's comments are addressed below, while the anonymous comments are not addressed because they fall outside the scope of our proposed action. II. Response to Comments Comment: NDDH stated that the 2010 and 2016 SO2 emissions levels for their state listed in the proposal rule's ``Table 1--SO2 Emission Trends'' (83 FR 25618) appeared too high, and that the 2000-2016 SO2 reduction in the table for North Dakota should be 79% rather than the 44% listed in this Table 1. In addition to this recommended [[Page 44501]] correction, NDDH agreed with the EPA's proposed approval of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS for the state of North Dakota, asserting that ``sources in North Dakota do not significantly contribute to SO2 concentrations in nonattainment or maintenance areas in other states.'' NDDH stated that SO2 emissions in North Dakota continue to decrease, specifically noting the shutdown of the coal-fired electric generating unit Stanton Station in 2017, the forthcoming conversion of the University of North Dakota heating plant from coal to natural gas (permit currently under review), and the continued replacement of coal- fired electrical generation by wind electrical generation as a portion of total electrical generation in the state between 2012 and 2017. NDDH also provided 2017 SO2 monitoring design values, showing that these levels continue to be below the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. Response: The EPA agrees with the state that the 2010 and 2016 SO2 emission levels for North Dakota listed in ``Table 1-- SO2 Emission Trends'' require correction. With regard to the 2016 SO2 emissions, we derived these emissions data from the EPA's ``Air Pollutant Emissions Trends'' web page which was updated on March 28, 2018,\1\ after the values for Table 1 had been calculated. For this reason, the 2016 SO2 emissions levels and the 2000- 2016 SO2 emissions reduction for each state listed in Table 1 of the proposed rule are not consistent with those currently presented on the EPA's ``Air Pollutant Emissions Trends'' web page. Therefore, the EPA has recreated ``Table 1--SO2 Emission Trends'' below. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ As noted at proposal, these values were derived using the EPA's web page https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/air-pollutant-emissions-trends-data. Specifically, a link on this web page titled ``State Average Annual Emissions Trend'' which connected to a spreadsheet. As shown on the ``Read Me'' page of this spreadsheet, the ``draft state trends'' were updated on March 28, 2018. This update has caused the 2016 SO2 emissions levels in the prior iteration of the spreadsheet to change for all states. Revised Table 1--SO2 Emission Trends in Tons per Year ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SO2 reduction, State 2000 2005 2010 2016 2000-2016 (%) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Arizona......................... 118,528 90,577 73,075 41,415 65 Colorado........................ 115,122 80,468 60,459 25,547 78 Idaho........................... 34,525 35,451 14,774 10,016 71 Iowa............................ 265,005 222,419 142,738 56,139 79 Kansas.......................... 148,416 199,006 80,267 18,624 87 Minnesota....................... 148,899 156,468 85,254 35,480 76 Montana......................... 57,517 42,085 26,869 18,338 68 Nebraska........................ 86,894 121,785 77,898 54,934 37 New Mexico...................... 164,631 47,671 23,651 17,959 89 North Dakota.................... 275,138 159,221 119,322 58,058 79 Oklahoma........................ 145,862 169,464 136,348 81,890 44 South Dakota.................... 41,120 28,579 16,202 3,081 92 Utah............................ 58,040 52,998 29,776 15,512 73 Wyoming......................... 141,439 122,453 91,022 51,769 63 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The EPA also agrees with NDDH that the 2010 emissions value for North Dakota was incorrect in ``Table 1--SO2 Emission Trends.'' That value has been corrected in this revised version of the table. The 2010 SO2 emissions levels for all other states, as well as all 2000 and 2005 emissions levels, remain unchanged from those in ``Table 1--SO2 Emission Trends'' in the proposed rulemaking. The corrected values for North Dakota illustrate an even greater decline in emissions of SO2 than that discussed in the proposed rulemaking. The corrected values in this table are therefore consistent with the EPA's analysis in its proposed determination that emissions from North Dakota are not in violation of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). The EPA notes that North Dakota's comment refers to ``nonattainment or maintenance areas'' (emphasis added) as part of its reiteration that sources within the state do not have certain downwind impacts on other states. The EPA has routinely interpreted the obligation to prohibit emissions that ``significantly contribute to nonattainment'' of the NAAQS in downwind states to be independent of formal designations because exceedances can happen in any area. Similarly, the EPA does not interpret the reference to ``maintenance'' under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) to be limited to maintenance areas, as this provision requires evaluation of the potential impact of upwind emissions on all areas that are currently measuring clean data, but may have issues maintaining that air quality. Nothing in the CAA limits states' obligations under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) to downwind areas that have been formally designated. Regarding the additional information provided by NDDH to support the EPA's proposed conclusion that the state meets the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, the EPA agrees that this information is supportive of that conclusion. Comment: WDEQ expressed support of the EPA's proposed approval of their SIP as meeting the interstate transport requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. However, WDEQ disagreed with the EPA's statement in our proposal that ``Wyoming's analysis does not independently address whether the SIP contains adequate provisions prohibiting emissions that will interfere with maintenance of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in any other state.'' 83 FR 25631. WDEQ asserted that its weight of evidence demonstration for prong 1, ``significant contribution to nonattainment,'' also adequately addresses the requirements for prong 2, ``interference with maintenance.'' WDEQ also stated that there were no other 2010 SO2 nonattainment or maintenance areas in neighboring states to address at the time of its submission apart from the Billings, Montana 2010 SO2 maintenance area, which WDEQ addressed in that submission when the [[Page 44502]] area was still designated as nonattainment.\2\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\ As noted at proposal, the Billings 2010 SO2 maintenance area was in nonattainment status at the time of Wyoming's March 6, 2015 submission, and was redesignated to attainment on May 10, 2016. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Response: The EPA disagrees that WDEQ's analysis of potential impact on the Billings area represents an independent analysis of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) prong 2. WDEQ's March 6, 2015 submission analyzed Wyoming's potential impact on the Billings area and the lack of additional nonattainment areas in surrounding states to determine whether the Wyoming SIP meets the requirements of prong 1 and prong 2. However, the court in North Carolina v. EPA, (531 F.3d 896, DC Cir. 2008) was specifically concerned with areas not designated nonattainment when it rejected the view that ``a state can never `interfere with maintenance' unless the EPA determines that at one point it `contribute[d] significantly to nonattainment.' '' 531 F.3d at 910. The court pointed out that areas barely attaining the standard due in part to emissions from upwind sources would have ``no recourse'' pursuant to such an interpretation. Id. In accordance with the court's decision and as noted in our proposal, ``the EPA interprets CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) prong 2 to require an evaluation of the potential impact of a state's emissions on areas that are currently measuring clean data, but that may have issues maintaining that air quality, rather than only former nonattainment, and thus current maintenance, areas.'' 83 FR 25621. For this reason, Wyoming's analysis of the Billings area alone would not independently address 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) prong 2, based on the EPA's longstanding interpretation of this provision. Because WDEQ did not conduct such an analysis as part of its weight of evidence, the EPA supplemented the state's analysis (see proposal at 83 FR 25631) and proposed to find that Wyoming does not interfere with maintenance of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in any other state. With respect to the assertions WDEQ makes in its comments regarding maintenance areas, the EPA does not interpret the reference to ``maintenance'' under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) to be limited to maintenance areas. As previously described, this provision requires evaluation of the potential impact of upwind emissions on all areas that are currently measuring clean data, but may have issues maintaining that air quality. Nothing in the CAA limits states' obligations under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) to downwind areas that have been formally designated. III. Final Action The EPA is approving the following submission as meeting the interstate transport requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS: Colorado's July 17, 2013 and February 16, 2018 submissions; Montana's July 15, 2013 submission; North Dakota's March 7, 2013 submission; South Dakota's December 20, 2013 submission; and Wyoming's March 6, 2015 submission. This action is being taken under section 110 of the CAA. IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under the CAA, 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 choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and do 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, described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4); Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999); Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). In addition, these SIPs are 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). 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. The 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). Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States 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 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, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping [[Page 44503]] requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Volatile organic compounds. Dated: August 27, 2018. Debra Thomas, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8. 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 G--Colorado 0 2. Section 52.352 is amended by adding paragraph (f) to read as follows: Sec. 52.352 Interstate transport. * * * * * (f) Addition to the Colorado State Implementation Plan of the Colorado Interstate Transport SIP regarding 2010 Standards, submitted to EPA on July 17, 2013, and February 16, 2018, for both elements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010 SO 2 NAAQS. Subpart BB--Montana 0 3. Section 52.1393 is amended by adding paragraph (e) to read as follows: Sec. 52.1393 Interstate transport requirements. * * * * * (e) EPA is approving the Montana 2010 SO2 NAAQS Infrastructure Certification, submitted to EPA on July 15, 2013, for both elements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. Subpart JJ--North Dakota 0 4. Section 52.1833 is amended by adding paragraph (h) to read as follows: Sec. 52.1833 Section 110(a)(2) infrastructure requirements. * * * * * (h) EPA is approving the North Dakota 2010 SO2 NAAQS Infrastructure Certification, submitted to EPA on March 7, 2013, for both elements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. Subpart QQ--South Dakota 0 5. Section 52.2170, paragraph (e), is amended by adding table entry XXII. to read as follows: Sec. 52.2170 Identification of plan. * * * * * (e) * * * ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- EPA effective Final rule citation, Rule title State effective date date date Comments ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- * * * * * * * XXII. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) Submitted: 12/20/2013 10/1/2018 [Insert Federal Interstate Transport Requirements Register citation], for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. 8/31/2018. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subpart ZZ--Wyoming 0 6. Section 52.2620, paragraph (e), is amended by adding table entry (31) to read as follows: Sec. 52.2620 Identification of plan. * * * * * (e) * * * -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- State EPA effective Rule No. Rule title effective date date Final rule citation, date Comments -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (31) XXXI................................ Interstate transport SIP for 3/6/2015 10/1/2018 [Insert Federal Register Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) citation], 8/31/2018. prongs 1 and 2 for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [FR Doc. 2018-18892 Filed 8-30-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
![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_44670/page/1.svg)
![44502 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 170 / Friday, August 31, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
area was still designated as 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) to downwind areas that • Is not subject to requirements of
nonattainment.2 have been formally designated. section 12(d) of the National
Response: The EPA disagrees that Technology Transfer and Advancement
WDEQ’s analysis of potential impact on III. Final Action
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
the Billings area represents an The EPA is approving the following application of those requirements would
independent analysis of submission as meeting the interstate be inconsistent with the CAA; and
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) prong 2. WDEQ’s transport requirements of CAA section • Does not provide the EPA with the
March 6, 2015 submission analyzed 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010 SO2 discretionary authority to address, as
Wyoming’s potential impact on the NAAQS: Colorado’s July 17, 2013 and appropriate, disproportionate human
Billings area and the lack of additional February 16, 2018 submissions; health or environmental effects, using
nonattainment areas in surrounding Montana’s July 15, 2013 submission; practicable and legally permissible
states to determine whether the North Dakota’s March 7, 2013 methods, under Executive Order 12898
Wyoming SIP meets the requirements of submission; South Dakota’s December (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
prong 1 and prong 2. However, the court 20, 2013 submission; and Wyoming’s In addition, these SIPs are not
in North Carolina v. EPA, (531 F.3d 896, March 6, 2015 submission. This action approved to apply on any Indian
DC Cir. 2008) was specifically is being taken under section 110 of the reservation land or in any other area
concerned with areas not designated CAA. where EPA or an Indian tribe has
nonattainment when it rejected the view demonstrated that a tribe has
that ‘‘a state can never ‘interfere with IV. Statutory and Executive Order jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
maintenance’ unless the EPA Reviews country, the rule does not have tribal
determines that at one point it Under the CAA, the Administrator is implications and will not impose
‘contribute[d] significantly to required to approve a SIP submission substantial direct costs on tribal
nonattainment.’ ’’ 531 F.3d at 910. The that complies with the provisions of the governments or preempt tribal law as
court pointed out that areas barely Act and applicable federal regulations. specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
attaining the standard due in part to 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
emissions from upwind sources would Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the The Congressional Review Act, 5
have ‘‘no recourse’’ pursuant to such an EPA’s role is to approve state choices, U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
interpretation. Id. In accordance with provided that they meet the criteria of Business Regulatory Enforcement
the court’s decision and as noted in our the CAA. Accordingly, this action Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
proposal, ‘‘the EPA interprets CAA merely approves state law as meeting that before a rule may take effect, the
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) prong 2 to federal requirements and do not impose agency promulgating the rule must
require an evaluation of the potential additional requirements beyond those submit a rule report, which includes a
impact of a state’s emissions on areas imposed by state law. For that reason, copy of the rule, to each House of the
that are currently measuring clean data, this action: Congress and to the Comptroller General
but that may have issues maintaining • Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory of the United States. The EPA will
that air quality, rather than only former action’’ subject to review by the Office submit a report containing this action
nonattainment, and thus current of Management and Budget under and other required information to the
maintenance, areas.’’ 83 FR 25621. For Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
this reason, Wyoming’s analysis of the October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, Representatives, and the Comptroller
Billings area alone would not January 21, 2011); General of the United States prior to
independently address 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) • Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 publication of the rule in the Federal
prong 2, based on the EPA’s FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory Register. A major rule cannot take effect
longstanding interpretation of this action because SIP approvals are until 60 days after it is published in the
provision. Because WDEQ did not exempted under Executive Order 12866; Federal Register. This action is not a
conduct such an analysis as part of its • Does not impose an information ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C.
weight of evidence, the EPA collection burden under the provisions 804(2).
supplemented the state’s analysis (see of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean
proposal at 83 FR 25631) and proposed U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); Air Act, petitions for judicial review of
to find that Wyoming does not interfere • Is certified as not having a this action must be filed in the United
with maintenance of the 2010 SO2 significant economic impact on a States Court of Appeals for the
NAAQS in any other state. substantial number of small entities appropriate circuit by October 30, 2018.
With respect to the assertions WDEQ under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 Filing a petition for reconsideration by
makes in its comments regarding U.S.C. 601 et seq.); the Administrator of this final rule does
maintenance areas, the EPA does not • Does not contain any unfunded not affect the finality of this action for
interpret the reference to ‘‘maintenance’’ mandate or significantly or uniquely the purposes of judicial review nor does
under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) to be affect small governments, described in it extend the time within which a
limited to maintenance areas. As the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of petition for judicial review may be filed,
previously described, this provision 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); and shall not postpone the effectiveness
requires evaluation of the potential • Does not have federalism of such rule or action. This action may
impact of upwind emissions on all areas implications as specified in Executive not be challenged later in proceedings to
that are currently measuring clean data, Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, enforce its requirements. (See section
but may have issues maintaining that air 1999); 307(b)(2).)
• Is not an economically significant
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
quality. Nothing in the CAA limits
states’ obligations under section regulatory action based on health or List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
safety risks subject to Executive Order Environmental protection, Air
2 As noted at proposal, the Billings 2010 SO
2 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); pollution control, Incorporation by
maintenance area was in nonattainment status at
the time of Wyoming’s March 6, 2015 submission,
• Is not a significant regulatory action reference, Intergovernmental relations,
and was redesignated to attainment on May 10, subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter,
2016. 28355, May 22, 2001); Reporting and recordkeeping
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:04 Aug 30, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31AUR1.SGM 31AUR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_44670/page/3.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 170 / Friday, August 31, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 44503
requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Volatile (f) Addition to the Colorado State Subpart JJ—North Dakota
organic compounds. Implementation Plan of the Colorado
Dated: August 27, 2018. Interstate Transport SIP regarding 2010 ■ 4. Section 52.1833 is amended by
Standards, submitted to EPA on July 17, adding paragraph (h) to read as follows:
Debra Thomas,
2013, and February 16, 2018, for both
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8. § 52.1833 Section 110(a)(2) infrastructure
elements of CAA section requirements.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010 SO2
NAAQS. * * * * *
PART 52—APPROVAL AND (h) EPA is approving the North Dakota
PROMULGATION OF Subpart BB—Montana 2010 SO2 NAAQS Infrastructure
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS Certification, submitted to EPA on
■ 3. Section 52.1393 is amended by March 7, 2013, for both elements of
■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 adding paragraph (e) to read as follows: CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the
continues to read as follows: 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
§ 52.1393 Interstate transport
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. requirements. Subpart QQ—South Dakota
* * * * *
Subpart G—Colorado ■ 5. Section 52.2170, paragraph (e), is
(e) EPA is approving the Montana amended by adding table entry XXII. to
■ 2. Section 52.352 is amended by 2010 SO2 NAAQS Infrastructure read as follows:
adding paragraph (f) to read as follows: Certification, submitted to EPA on July
15, 2013, for both elements of CAA § 52.2170 Identification of plan.
§ 52.352 Interstate transport. section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010 * * * * *
* * * * * SO2 NAAQS. (e) * * *
EPA effective
Rule title State effective date Final rule citation, date Comments
date
* * * * * * *
XXII. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) Interstate Transport Submitted: 12/20/2013 ..... 10/1/2018 [Insert Federal Register
Requirements for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. citation], 8/31/2018.
Subpart ZZ—Wyoming § 52.2620 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
■ 6. Section 52.2620, paragraph (e), is
amended by adding table entry (31) to (e) * * *
read as follows:
State effective EPA effective Final rule citation,
Rule No. Rule title Comments
date date date
(31) XXXI ................... Interstate transport SIP for Section 3/6/2015 10/1/2018 [Insert Federal Reg-
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) prongs 1 and 2 for the ister citation], 8/31/
2010 SO2 NAAQS.. 2018.
[FR Doc. 2018–18892 Filed 8–30–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:04 Aug 30, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\31AUR1.SGM 31AUR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_44670/page/4.svg)
Document Created: 2018-08-31 00:52:52
Document Modified: 2018-08-31 00:52:52
| 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 rule is effective on October 1, 2018. | |
| Contact | Adam Clark, Air Program, U.S. EPA Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202- 1129, (303) 312-7104, or [email protected] | |
| FR Citation | 83 FR 44500 | |
| CFR Associated | Environmental Protection; Air Pollution Control; Incorporation by Reference; Intergovernmental Relations; Nitrogen Dioxide; Particulate Matter; Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements; Sulfur Dioxide and Volatile Organic Compounds |
2024 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR