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).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Volatile organic compounds. 

Dated: August 21, 2018. 

Cecil Rodrigues, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart J—District of Columbia 

■ 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: 

§ 52.470 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

Name of non-regulatory SIP 

revision 

Applicable geographic 

area 

State submittal 

date EPA approval date Additional explanation 

*******

Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure 

Requirements for the 2008 

Ozone NAAQS.

District of Columbia ......... 6/13/14 8/31/18, [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

This action addresses CAA element 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). 

*******

[FR Doc. 2018–18855 Filed 8–30–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

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 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 170 / Friday, August 31, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 44501 

1As 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. 

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. 

REVISED TABLE 1—SO2 EMISSION TRENDS IN TONS PER YEAR

State 2000 2005 2010 2016 

SO2

reduction, 

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 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
44502 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 170 / Friday, August 31, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

2As 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. 

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 

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 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 170 / Friday, August 31, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 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 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart G—Colorado 

■ 2. Section 52.352 is amended by 

adding paragraph (f) to read as follows: 

§ 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 

■ 3. Section 52.1393 is amended by 

adding paragraph (e) to read as follows: 

§ 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 

■ 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 

■ 5. Section 52.2170, paragraph (e), is 

amended by adding table entry XXII. to 

read as follows: 

§ 52.2170 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

Rule title State effective date EPA effective 

date Final rule citation, date Comments 

*******

XXII. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) Interstate Transport 

Requirements for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.

Submitted: 12/20/2013 ..... 10/1/2018 [Insert Federal Register 

citation], 8/31/2018.

Subpart ZZ—Wyoming 

■ 6. Section 52.2620, paragraph (e), is 

amended by adding table entry (31) to 

read as follows: 

§ 52.2620 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

Rule No. Rule title State effective 

date 

EPA effective 

date 

Final rule citation, 

date Comments 

(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 10/1/2018 [Insert Federal Register citation], 8/31/ 

2018.

[FR Doc. 2018–18892 Filed 8–30–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES