Interstate Transport Prongs 1 and 2 for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide (SO2, 44500-44503 [2018-18892]

Download as PDF 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 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. 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 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 [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