44498 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 170 / Friday, August 31, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

1The term state has the same meaning as 

provided in CAA section 302(d) which specifically 

includes the District of Columbia. 

2All the other infrastructure SIP elements for the 

District for the 2008 ozone NAAQS were addressed 

in a separate rulemaking. See 80 FR 19538 (April 

13, 2015). 

3Both NOX and VOCs are precursors to ozone 

formation. 

4The District’s last remaining EGUs were 

decommissioned in 2012, in part to meet permit 

requirements incorporated into the District’s 

Regional Haze SIP. 77 FR 5191 (February 2, 2012). 

EPA-APPROVED MICHIGAN REGULATIONS—Continued 

Michigan citation Title 

State 

effective 

date 

EPA approval date Comments 

*******

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2018–18853 Filed 8–30–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2014–0701; FRL–9983– 

11—Region 3] 

Air Plan Approval; District of 

Columbia; State Implementation Plan 

for the Interstate Transport 

Requirements for the 2008 Ozone 

Standard 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving a state 

implementation plan (SIP) revision 

submitted by the District of Columbia 

(the District) that pertains to the good 

neighbor and interstate transport 

requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) 

for the 2008 ozone national ambient air 

quality standards (NAAQS). The CAA’s 

good neighbor provision requires EPA 

and states to address the interstate 

transport of air pollution that affects the 

ability of other states to attain and 

maintain the NAAQS. Specifically, the 

good neighbor provision requires each 

state in its SIP to prohibit emissions that 

will significantly contribute to 

nonattainment, or interfere with 

maintenance, of a NAAQS in another 

state. The District submitted a SIP 

revision on June 13, 2014 that addresses 

the interstate transport requirements for 

the 2008 ozone NAAQS. On July 5, 

2018, EPA published a proposed rule for 

just the good neighbor provision of the 

District’s June 13, 2014 submittal. EPA 

is approving the District’s SIP as having 

adequate provisions to meet the 

requirements of the good neighbor 

provision for the 2008 ozone NAAQS in 

accordance with section 110 of the 

CAA. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

October 1, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

Number EPA–R03–OAR–2014–0701. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the http://www.regulations.gov website. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., confidential business information 

(CBI) or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available through http://

www.regulations.gov, or please contact 

the person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section for 

additional availability information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Ellen Schmitt, (215) 814–5787, or by 

email at schmitt.ellen@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

On June 13, 2014, the District 

Department of the Environment (DDOE) 

on behalf of the District submitted a 

revision to its SIP to satisfy the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the 

CAA for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. On 

April 13, 2015 (80 FR 19538), EPA 

approved all parts of the District’s June 

13, 2014 submittal with the exception of 

the portion of the submittal that 

addressed section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of 

the CAA. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), also 

called the good neighbor provision, 

consists of two prongs that require that 

a state’s 1 SIP must contain adequate 

provisions to prohibit any source or 

other type of emissions activity within 

the state from emitting air pollutants 

that ‘‘contribute significantly to 

nonattainment in, or interfere with 

maintenance by, any other state with 

respect to any such national primary or 

secondary ambient air quality 

standard.’’ Under section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA, EPA gives 

independent significance to the matter 

of nonattainment (prong 1) and to that 

of maintenance (prong 2). 

On July 5, 2018 (83 FR 31350), EPA 

published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPR) for the District of 

Columbia, approving the portion of the 

June 13, 2014 District SIP revision 

addressing prongs 1 and 2 of the 

interstate transport requirements for 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 

ozone NAAQS.2

II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA 

Analysis 

In its June 13, 2014 submittal, the 

District identified the implemented 

regulations within its SIP that limit 

nitrogen dioxide (NOX) and/or volatile 

organic compound (VOC) emissions 

from District sources.3 The District 

indicates that there are no electric 

generating units (EGUs) 4 or other large 

industrial sources of NOX emissions 

within the District. In the submittal, the 

District also included information on 

non-EGUs and mobile sources and listed 

the SIP-approved measures that help to 

reduce NOX and VOC emissions from 

non-EGU and mobile sources within the 

District. In the submittal, the District 

points out that it will continue to rely 

on federal measures to reduce NOX

emissions from onroad and nonroad 

engines. The District states its sources 

are already well controlled, and states 

further reductions beyond the District’s 

current SIP measures are not 

economically feasible. 

EPA evaluated the District’s submittal 

for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, 

considering: Ozone precursor emissions; 

an analysis of District source sectors; 

and in-place controls and regulations. 

Due to the District’s small number of 

sources and the high cost of further 

reductions, EPA proposed in its July 5, 

2018 NPR that the District’s SIP, as 

presently approved, contains adequate 

measures to prevent District sources 

from interfering with maintenance or 

contributing significantly to 

nonattainment in another state for the 

2008 ozone NAAQS. The rationale for 

EPA’s proposed action was discussed in 

greater detail in the NPR and 

accompanying technical support 

document (TSD) and will not be restated 

here. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 170 / Friday, August 31, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 44499 

5On April 13, 2015 (80 FR 19538), EPA approved 

portions of the District’s June 13, 2014 submittal for 

the 2008 ozone NAAQS addressing the following: 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), 

(E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). In that action, 

EPA stated it would take later action on the portion 

of the June 13, 2014 SIP submittal addressing 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA. 

6For clarification, section 110(k)(2) requires EPA 

to take action 12 months after a SIP revision 

becomes complete, not 12 months after it is 

submitted, as the commenter indicates. 

In this rulemaking action, EPA is 

approving one portion of the District’s 

June 13, 2014 submittal—the portion 

addressing prongs 1 and 2 of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA. EPA 

previously acted on other portions of 

Delaware’s June 13, 2014 SIP submittal 

for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.5

III. Comments and EPA’s Response 

EPA received a total of four 

anonymous comments on the July 5, 

2018 NPR. All of the comments received 

are included in the docket for this 

action. Three of the comments did not 

concern any of the specific issues raised 

in the NPR, nor did they address EPA’s 

rationale for the proposed approval of 

the District’s submittal. Therefore, EPA 

is not responding to those comments. 

EPA did receive one comment 

considered to be relevant to this 

rulemaking action. 

The commenter indicates that EPA 

was supposed to take action on the 

District’s SIP revision within 12 months 

of receiving the SIP submittal. The 

commenter also indicates the length of 

time (4 years) it took for EPA to approve 

the SIP revision from the time of its 

submittal and questions if transported 

pollution could have been eliminated if 

SIP revisions like this one were 

approved in a timely manner. The 

commenter asks what air quality and 

human health impacts the delay of this 

action has had on neighboring states. 

EPA acknowledges that it missed the 

statutory deadline to take action on the 

good neighbor portion of the District’s 

June 13, 2014 SIP submittal.6 However, 

at this time, EPA is taking final action 

on this SIP revision, and by doing so it 

will meet all such outstanding 

obligations under the CAA. The 

commenter provided no analysis of the 

statutory consequences, if any, from the 

action. Further, EPA disagrees with the 

commenter’s questioning that the 

delayed action on the good neighbor 

portions of the District’s SIP revision 

has impacted air quality and human 

health in neighboring states. As 

explained in the NPR, EPA believes that 

the District’s SIP, as presently approved, 

contains adequate measures to prevent 

District sources from interfering with 

other states’ attainment and/or 

maintenance for the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS. Thus, EPA’s late action on the 

good neighbor portion of the District of 

Columbia’s June 13, 2014 SIP submittal 

did not cause any delay in air quality 

and human health protections as the SIP 

relies on already in-place regulations 

and controls that prevent District 

sources from significantly contributing 

to nonattainment, or interfering with 

maintenance, of the 2008 ozone NAAQS 

in another state. 

IV. Final Action 

EPA is approving the portion of the 

June 13, 2014 District SIP revision 

addressing prongs 1 and 2 of the 

interstate transport requirements for 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA for 

the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 

On April 13, 2015 (80 FR 19538), EPA 

approved the following infrastructure 

elements or portions thereof from the 

June 13, 2014 submittal: CAA section 

110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), 

(E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). 

This action approves the remaining 

portions of the June 13, 2014 SIP 

revision, which address prongs 1 and 2 

of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA, 

also known as the good neighbor 

provision. EPA did not take action upon 

these elements in the Agency’s prior SIP 

approval action, published on April 13, 

2015 (80 FR 19538). 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. General Requirements 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 

FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory 

action because SIP approvals are 

exempted under Executive Order 12866. 

• does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• does not have federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

B. Submission to Congress and the 

Comptroller General 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

C. Petitions for Judicial Review 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
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