Interstate Transport Prongs 1 and 2 for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide (SO2, 44500-44503 [2018-18892]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
44500
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 170 / Friday, August 31, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
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).)
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
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
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
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:04 Aug 30, 2018
*
6/13/14
*
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
Jkt 244001
*
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
*
District of Columbia .........
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
§ 52.470
■
*
*
Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure
Requirements for the 2008
Ozone NAAQS.
[FR Doc. 2018–18855 Filed 8–30–18; 8:45 am]
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
PART 52—APPROVAL AND
PROMULGATION OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
State submittal
date
*
On June 4, 2018, the EPA proposed to
approve submissions from Colorado,
Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota
Sfmt 4700
*
Additional explanation
*
*
This action addresses CAA element
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
*
I. Background
Fmt 4700
*
*
(e) * * *
*
8/31/18, [Insert Federal
Register citation].
*
Frm 00052
Identification of plan.
EPA approval date
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 https://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 https://
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.
PO 00000
2. In § 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:
■
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
Applicable geographic
area
*
Subpart J—District of Columbia
Dated: August 21, 2018.
Cecil Rodrigues,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
Name of non-regulatory SIP
revision
*
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Volatile organic compounds.
*
*
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
E:\FR\FM\31AUR1.SGM
31AUR1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 170 / Friday, August 31, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
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
44501
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.
REVISED TABLE 1—SO2 EMISSION TRENDS IN TONS PER YEAR
State
2000
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
Arizona .................................................................................
Colorado ...............................................................................
Idaho ....................................................................................
Iowa ......................................................................................
Kansas .................................................................................
Minnesota .............................................................................
Montana ...............................................................................
Nebraska ..............................................................................
New Mexico .........................................................................
North Dakota ........................................................................
Oklahoma .............................................................................
South Dakota .......................................................................
Utah ......................................................................................
Wyoming ..............................................................................
2005
118,528
115,122
34,525
265,005
148,416
148,899
57,517
86,894
164,631
275,138
145,862
41,120
58,040
141,439
90,577
80,468
35,451
222,419
199,006
156,468
42,085
121,785
47,671
159,221
169,464
28,579
52,998
122,453
2010
2016
73,075
60,459
14,774
142,738
80,267
85,254
26,869
77,898
23,651
119,322
136,348
16,202
29,776
91,022
SO2
reduction,
2000–2016
(%)
41,415
25,547
10,016
56,139
18,624
35,480
18,338
54,934
17,959
58,058
81,890
3,081
15,512
51,769
65
78
71
79
87
76
68
37
89
79
44
92
73
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
1 As noted at proposal, these values were derived
using the EPA’s web page https://www.epa.gov/airemissions-inventories/air-pollutant-emissionstrends-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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:04 Aug 30, 2018
Jkt 244001
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\31AUR1.SGM
31AUR1
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
44502
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 170 / Friday, August 31, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
area was still designated as
nonattainment.2
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
2 As noted at proposal, the Billings 2010 SO
2
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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:04 Aug 30, 2018
Jkt 244001
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);
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
• 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
E:\FR\FM\31AUR1.SGM
31AUR1
44503
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 170 / Friday, August 31, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
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
(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 SO2
NAAQS.
Subpart BB—Montana
3. Section 52.1393 is amended by
adding paragraph (e) to read as follows:
■
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
§ 52.1393 Interstate transport
requirements.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
2. Section 52.352 is amended by
adding paragraph (f) to read as follows:
■
§ 52.352
*
*
Interstate transport.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
(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.
Rule title
State effective date
*
*
*
XXII. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) Interstate Transport
Requirements for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
*
Submitted: 12/20/2013 .....
§ 52.2620
Subpart ZZ—Wyoming
6. Section 52.2620, paragraph (e), is
amended by adding table entry (31) to
read as follows:
■
*
4. Section 52.1833 is amended by
adding paragraph (h) to read as follows:
■
§ 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
*
Subpart G—Colorado
Subpart JJ—North Dakota
5. Section 52.2170, paragraph (e), is
amended by adding table entry XXII. to
read as follows:
■
§ 52.2170
*
EPA effective
date
*
10/1/2018
Identification of plan.
*
*
(e) * * *
*
Final rule citation, date
*
[Insert Federal Register
citation], 8/31/2018.
(31) XXXI ...................
Interstate transport SIP for Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) prongs 1 and 2 for the
2010 SO2 NAAQS..
3/6/2015
EPA effective
date
10/1/2018
Final rule citation,
date
[Insert Federal Register citation], 8/31/
2018.
[FR Doc. 2018–18892 Filed 8–30–18; 8:45 am]
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
Jkt 244001
PO 00000
Comments
*
*
State effective
date
Rule title
16:04 Aug 30, 2018
*
Identification of plan.
*
*
(e) * * *
Rule No.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
*
Frm 00055
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 9990
E:\FR\FM\31AUR1.SGM
31AUR1
Comments
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 170 (Friday, August 31, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 44500-44503]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[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 https://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 https://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 [email protected].
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 SO2 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
