14616 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 52 / Thursday, March 17, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

Permit Application Requirements. EPA 

has made the preliminary determination 

that Alabama’s SIP and practices 

adequately provide for permitting fees 

related to the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS when necessary. 

14. 110(a)(2)(M) Consultation/ 

participation by affected local entities: 

ADEM coordinates with local 

governments affected by the SIP. 

Alabama’s SIP also includes a 

description of the public participation 

process for SIP development. Alabama 

has consulted with local entities for the 

development of transportation 

conformity and has worked with the 

Federal Land Managers as a requirement 

of its regional haze rule. More 

specifically, Alabama adopted Statewide consultation procedures for the 

implementation of transportation 

conformity which includes the 

consideration of the development of 

mobile inventories for SIP development 

and the requirements that link 

transportation planning and air quality 

planning in nonattainment and 

maintenance areas. These consultation 

and participation procedures have been 

approved in the Alabama SIP as nonregulatory provisions, ‘‘Alabama 

Interagency Transportation Conformity 

Memorandum of Agreement’’ and 

‘‘Conformity SIP for Birmingham and 

Jackson County.’’ These provisions were 

approved on May 11, 2000 and March 

26, 2009, respectively. See 65 FR 30362 

and 74 FR 13118. Required partners 

covered by Alabama’s consultation 

procedures include federal, state and 

local transportation and air quality 

agency officials. The state and local 

transportation agency officials are most 

directly impacted by transportation 

conformity requirements and are 

required to provide public involvement 

for their activities including the analysis 

which shows how they meet 

transportation conformity requirements. 

EPA has made the preliminary 

determination that Alabama’s SIP and 

practices adequately demonstrate 

consultation/by affected local entities 

related to the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS when necessary. 

IV. Proposed Action 

As described above, ADEM has 

addressed the elements of the CAA 

110(a)(1) and (2) SIP requirements 

pursuant to EPA’s October 2, 2007, 

guidance to ensure that the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS are implemented, 

enforced, and maintained in Alabama. 

EPA is proposing to approve Alabama’s 

infrastructure submission for the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS because this 

submission is consistent with section 

110 of the CAA. 

V. 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, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed 

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 proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• 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. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

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

Dated: March 7, 2011. 

A. Stanley Meiburg, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2011–6229 Filed 3–16–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2011–0046; FRL–9282–9] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; State of 

California; Interstate Transport of 

Pollution; Significant Contribution to 

Nonattainment and Interference With 

Maintenance Requirements 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

the State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revision submitted by the State of 

California for the purpose of addressing 

the interstate transport provisions of 

Clean Air Act (CAA) section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS or standards) and 

the 1997 fine particulate matter (PM2.5) 

NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the 

CAA requires that each state have 

adequate provisions to prohibit air 

emissions from adversely affecting air 

quality in other states through interstate 

transport. EPA is proposing to approve 

California’s SIP revision for the 1997 

8-hour ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS as 

meeting the requirements of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) to prohibit 

emissions that will contribute 

significantly to nonattainment of the 

these standards in any other state and to 

prohibit emissions that will interfere 

with maintenance of these standards by 

any other state. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before April 18, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R09–OAR–2011–0046, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 52 / Thursday, March 17, 2011 / Proposed Rules 14617 

1See 62 FR 38856. The level of the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS is 0.08 parts per million (ppm). 40 

CFR 50.10. The 8-hour ozone standard is met when 

the 3-year average of the annual 4th highest daily 

maximum 8-hour ozone concentrations is 0.08 ppm 

or less (i.e., less than 0.085 ppm based on the 

rounding convention in 40 CFR part 50 Appendix 

I). This 3-year average is referred to as the ‘‘design 

value.’’ 

2See 62 FR 38652. The level of the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS are 15.0 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/ 

m3) (annual arithmetic mean concentration) and 65 

μg/m3 (24-hour average concentration). 40 CFR 

50.7. The annual standard is met when the 3-year 

average of the annual mean concentrations is 15.0 

μg/m3 or less (i.e., less than 15.05 μg/m3 based on 

the rounding convention in 40 CFR part 50 

Appendix N Section 4.3). The 24-hour standard is 

met when the 3-year average annual 98th percentile 

of 24-hour concentrations is 65 μg/m3 or less (i.e., 

less than 65.5 μg/m3 based on the rounding 

convention in 40 CFR part 40 Appendix N Section 

4.3). Id. These 3-year averages are referred to as the 

annual PM2.5 and 24-hour PM2.5 ‘‘design values,’’ 

respectively. 3Memorandum from William T. Harnett entitled 

‘‘Guidance for State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

Submission to Meet Current Outstanding 

Obligations Under Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8- 

hour ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards,’’ August 15, 2006. 

4See 63 FR 57356 (October 27, 1998). EPA’s 

general approach to section 110(a)(2)(D) in the NOX

SIP Call was upheld in Michigan v. EPA, 663 (DC 

Cir. 2000), cert denied, 532 U.S. 904 (2001). 

However, EPA’s approach to interference with 

maintenance in the NOX SIP Call was not explicitly 

reviewed by the court. See, North Carolina v. EPA, 

531 F.3d 896, 907–09 (DC Cir. 2008). 

2. E-mail: mays.rory@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: 415–947–3579. 

4. Mail or deliver: Rory Mays (AIR–2), 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San 

Francisco, CA 94105–3901. Deliveries 

are only accepted during the Regional 

Office’s normal hours of operation. 

Instructions: All comments will be 

included in the public docket without 

change and may be made available 

online at http://www.regulations.gov, 

including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information that 

you consider CBI or otherwise protected 

should be clearly identified as such and 

should not be submitted through 

http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. 

http://www.regulations.gov is an 

anonymous access system, and EPA will 

not know your identity or contact 

information unless you provide it in the 

body of your comment. If you send email directly to EPA, your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the public 

comment. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. 

Docket: The index to the docket for 

this action is available electronically at 

http://www.regulations.gov and in hard 

copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne 

Street, San Francisco, California. While 

all documents in the docket are listed in 

the index, some information may be 

publicly available only at the hard copy 

location (e.g., copyrighted material), and 

some may not be publicly available in 

either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the 

hard copy materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed directly 

below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rory 

Mays, Air Planning Office (AIR–2), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region IX, (415) 972–3227, 

mays.rory@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, the terms 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. What is the State process to submit these 

materials to EPA? 

III. What is EPA’s evaluation of the State’s 

submission? 

A. Evaluation of Significant Contribution 

to Nonattainment 

1. Significant Contribution to 

Nonattainment Evaluation for the 1997 

8-Hour Ozone NAAQS 

2. Significant Contribution to 

Nonattainment Evaluation for the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS 

3. Conclusion Regarding Significant 

Contribution 

B. Evaluation of Interference With 

Maintenance 

1. Interfere With Maintenance Evaluation 

for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS 

2. Interfere With Maintenance Evaluation 

for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS 

3. Conclusion Regarding Interference With 

Maintenance 

IV. Proposed Action 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated 

new standards for 8-hour ozone 1 and 

fine particulate matter 2 (PM2.5). This 

proposed action is in response to the 

promulgation of these standards (the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS). This proposed action 

does not address the requirements of the 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS or the 2008 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS; those standards will be 

addressed in future actions. 

Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires 

states to submit SIPs to address a new 

or revised NAAQS within three years 

after promulgation of such standards, or 

within such shorter period as EPA may 

prescribe. Section 110(a)(2) lists the 

elements that such new SIPs must 

address, as applicable, including section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) which pertains to 

interstate transport of certain emissions. 

On August 15, 2006, EPA issued a 

guidance memorandum that provides 

recommendations to states for making 

submissions to meet the requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 8- 

hour ozone and 1997 PM2.5 standards 

(2006 Guidance).3

The transport SIP provisions in 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) (also called ‘‘good 

neighbor’’ provisions) require each state 

to submit a SIP that prohibits emissions 

that adversely affect another state in the 

ways contemplated in the statute. 

Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) identifies four 

distinct elements related to the 

evaluation of impacts of interstate 

transport of air pollutants. In this 

rulemaking, EPA is addressing the first 

two elements of this section. This 

proposed action does not apply to the 

remaining two elements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) regarding interference 

with measures required to prevent 

significant deterioration of air quality or 

to protect visibility in another state. We 

intend to evaluate and act upon the 

2007 Transport SIP for purposes of these 

additional requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) in separate actions. 

The first element of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) requires that a state’s SIP 

for a new or revised NAAQS must 

contain adequate measures to prohibit 

emissions from sources within the state 

from ‘‘contribut[ing] significantly to 

nonattainment’’ of the NAAQS in 

another state. The second element of 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) requires that 

a state’s SIP must prohibit any source or 

other type of emissions activity in the 

state from emitting pollutants that will 

‘‘interfere with maintenance’’ of the 

applicable NAAQS in any other state. 

The CAA does not specifically 

mandate how to determine significant 

contribution to nonattainment or 

interference with maintenance. 

Therefore, EPA has interpreted these 

terms in past regulatory actions, such as 

the 1998 NOX SIP Call, in which EPA 

took action to remediate emissions of 

nitrogen oxides (NOX) that significantly 

contributed to nonattainment of, or 

interfered with maintenance of, the then 

applicable ozone NAAQS through 

interstate transport of NOX and the 

resulting ozone.4 The NOX SIP Call was 

the mechanism through which EPA 

evaluated whether or not the NOX

emissions from sources in certain states 

had such prohibited interstate impacts, 

and if they had such impacts, required 

the states to adopt substantive SIP 

revisions to eliminate the NOX

emissions, whether through 

participation in a regional cap and trade 

program or by other means. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1

14618 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 52 / Thursday, March 17, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

5See ‘‘Rule to Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine 

Particulate Matter and Ozone (Clean Air Interstate 

Rule); Revisions to Acid Rain Program; Revisions to 

the NOX SIP Call; Final Rule,’’ at 70 FR 25162 at 

25263–69 (May 12, 2005). 

6See 63 FR 57371 (October 27, 1998), NOX SIP 

Call; 70 FR 25172 (May 12, 2005), CAIR; and 75 FR 

45210 (August 2, 2010), Transport Rule Proposal. 

7 2006 Guidance at 5. 

8See North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (DC 

Circuit 2008). 

9 531 F.3d at 909. 

10 Ibid. 11See 75 FR 45210 (August 2, 2010). 

After promulgation of the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS and the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS, EPA again recognized that 

regional transport was a serious concern 

throughout the eastern United States 

and therefore developed the 2005 Clean 

Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) to address 

emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and 

NOX that exacerbate ambient ozone and 

PM2.5 levels in many downwind areas 

through interstate transport.5 Within 

CAIR, EPA interpreted the term 

‘‘interfere with maintenance’’ as part of 

the evaluation of whether or not the 

emissions of sources in certain states 

had such impacts on areas that EPA 

determined would either be in violation 

of the NAAQS, or would be in jeopardy 

of violating the NAAQS, in a modeled 

future year unless action were taken by 

upwind states to reduce SO2 and NOX

emissions. Through CAIR, EPA again 

required states that had such interstate 

impacts to adopt substantive SIP 

revisions to eliminate the SO2 and NOX

emissions, whether through 

participation in a regional cap and trade 

program or by other means. 

EPA’s 2006 Guidance addressed CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) requirements for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. For those states 

subject to CAIR, EPA indicated that 

compliance with CAIR would meet the 

two requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for these NAAQS. For 

states outside of the CAIR region, the 

2006 Guidance recommended various 

methods by which states might evaluate 

whether or not their emissions 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

or the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in another 

state. Among other methods, EPA 

recommended consideration of available 

EPA modeling conducted in 

conjunction with the CAIR, or in the 

absence of such EPA modeling, 

consideration of other information such 

as the amount of emissions, the 

geographic location of violating areas, 

meteorological data, or various other 

forms of information that would be 

relevant to assessing the likelihood of 

significant contribution to violations of 

the NAAQS in another state. 

The assessment of significant 

contribution to nonattainment is not 

restricted to impacts upon areas that are 

formally designated nonattainment. 

Consistent with EPA’s approach in 

CAIR and recently in the Transport Rule 

Proposal, as discussed further below, 

this impact must be evaluated with 

respect to monitors showing a violation 

of the NAAQS.6 Furthermore, although 

relevant information other than 

modeling may be considered in 

assessing the likelihood of significant 

contribution to nonattainment of the 8- 

hour ozone or PM2.5 NAAQS in another 

state, EPA notes that no single piece of 

information is by itself dispositive of the 

issue. Instead, the total weight of all the 

evidence taken together is used to 

evaluate significant contributions to 

nonattainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

or 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in another state. 

As to the second element of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i), for states not within the 

CAIR region, EPA recommended that 

states evaluate whether or not emissions 

from their sources would ‘‘interfere with 

maintenance’’ in other states following 

the conceptual approach adopted by 

EPA in CAIR. After recommending 

various types of information that could 

be relevant for the technical analysis to 

support the SIP submission, such as the 

amount of emissions and meteorological 

conditions in the state, EPA further 

indicated that it would be appropriate 

for the state to assess impacts of its 

emissions on other states using 

considerations comparable to those used 

by EPA ‘‘in evaluating significant 

contribution to nonattainment in the 

CAIR.’’ 7 EPA did not make specific 

recommendations for how states should 

assess interfere with maintenance 

separately, and discussed the first two 

elements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) 

together without explicitly 

differentiating between them. 

In 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for 

the DC Circuit found that CAIR and the 

related CAIR federal implementation 

plans were unlawful.8 Among other 

issues, the court held that EPA had not 

correctly addressed the second element 

of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) in CAIR and 

noted that ‘‘EPA gave no independent 

significance to the ‘interfere with 

maintenance’ prong of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) to separately identify 

upwind sources interfering with 

downwind maintenance.’’ 9 EPA’s 

approach, the court reasoned, would 

leave areas that are ‘‘barely meeting 

attainment’’ with ‘‘no recourse’’ to 

address upwind emissions sources.10

The court therefore concluded that a 

plain language reading of the statute 

requires EPA to give independent 

meaning to the interfere with 

maintenance requirement of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) and that the approach 

used by EPA in CAIR failed to do so. In 

addition to affecting CAIR directly, the 

court’s decision in the North Carolina 

case indirectly affects EPA’s 

recommendations to states in the 2006 

Guidance with respect to the interfere 

with maintenance element of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) because the agency’s 

guidance suggested that states use an 

approach comparable to that used by 

EPA in CAIR. 

To address the judicial remand of 

CAIR, EPA has recently proposed a new 

rule to address interstate transport of air 

pollution pursuant to section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i), the ‘‘Federal 

Implementation Plans to Reduce 

Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate 

Matter and Ozone’’ (Transport Rule 

Proposal).11 As part of the Transport 

Rule Proposal, EPA specifically 

reexamined the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

requirements that emissions from 

sources in a state must not ‘‘contribute 

significantly to nonattainment’’ or 

‘‘interfere with maintenance’’ of the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS and 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS in other states. In the proposal, 

EPA developed an approach to identify 

areas that it predicts to be violating the 

1997 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS, 

and areas that it predicts to be close to 

the level of these NAAQS and therefore 

at risk to become nonattainment unless 

emissions from sources in other states 

are appropriately controlled. This 

approach starts by identifying those 

specific geographic areas for which 

further evaluation is appropriate, and 

differentiates between areas where the 

concern is significant contribution to 

nonattainment as opposed to 

interference with maintenance. 

As described in more detail below, 

EPA evaluated data from existing 

monitors over three overlapping 3-year 

periods (i.e., 2003–2005, 2004–2006, 

and 2005–2007), as well as air quality 

modeling data, in order to determine 

which areas are predicted to be violating 

the 1997 8-hour ozone and PM2.5

NAAQS in 2012, and which areas are 

predicted potentially to have difficulty 

maintaining attainment as of that date. 

In essence, if an area’s projected data for 

2012 indicates that it would be violating 

the NAAQS based on the average of 

these three overlapping periods, then 

this monitor location is appropriate for 

comparison for purposes of the 

significant contribution to 

nonattainment element of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i). If, however, an area’s 

projected data indicate that it would be 

violating the NAAQS based on the 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 52 / Thursday, March 17, 2011 / Proposed Rules 14619 

12A memorandum in the docket for this action 

provides the information EPA used to identify 

monitors that are receptors for evaluation of 

significant contribution or interference with 

maintenance for certain states in the western United 

States. See Memorandum from Brian Timin, EPA 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, 

‘‘Documentation of Future Year Ozone and Annual 

PM2.5 Design Values for Monitors in Western 

States,’’ August 23, 2010 (Timin Memo). 

13To begin this analysis, EPA first identifies all 

monitors projected to be in nonattainment or, based 

on historic variability in air quality, projected to 

have maintenance problems in 2012. Monitors 

projected to be in nonattainment are those with 

future year design values that violate the standard, 

based on the projection of 5-year weighted average 

concentrations. Monitors projected to have 

maintenance problems are those at risk of not 

staying in attainment because the air quality data 

is close enough to the level of the 1997 8-hour 

ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS that minor variations in 

weather or emissions could result in violations of 

the NAAQS in 2012. 

14By letter dated January 26, 2011, CARB 

acknowledged that the 2008 remand of CAIR and 

EPA’s Transport Rule Proposal would affect EPA’s 

review of the 2007 Transport SIP. The letter states 

that based on EPA’s findings in the Timin Memo 

regarding pollution transport in the western states, 

ARB staff concludes that pollutants from California 

do not contribute to nonattainment or maintenance 

problems in other states. See letter dated January 

26, 2011, from Douglas Ito, Chief, Air Quality and 

Transportation Planning Branch, CARB to Lisa 

Hanf, Chief, Air Planning Office, EPA Region 9. 

15 2006 Guidance at 4. 

16 Ibid. at 5. 

17See Transport Rule Proposal, 75 FR 45210 at 

45227 (August 2, 2010). 

18See transmittal letter dated November 16, 2007, 

from James N. Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB, 

to Wayne Nastri, Regional Administrator, EPA 

Region 9, with enclosures, and CARB Resolution 

No. 07–28 (September 27, 2007). 

19See ‘‘Technical and Clarifying Modifications to 

April 26, 2007 Revised Draft Air Resources Board’s 

Proposed State Strategy for California’s 2007 State 

Implementation Plan and May 7, 2007 Revised Draft 

Appendices A through G,’’ included as Attachment 

A to CARB’s Board Resolution 07–28 (September 

27, 2007). 

highest single period, but not over the 

average of the three periods, then this 

monitor location is appropriate for 

comparison for purposes of the interfere 

with maintenance element of the 

statute.12

By this method, EPA has identified 

those areas with monitors that are 

appropriate ‘‘nonattainment receptors’’ 

or ‘‘maintenance receptors’’ for 

evaluating whether the emissions from 

sources in another state could 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment in, or interfere with 

maintenance in, that particular area. 

EPA believes that this new approach for 

identifying areas that are predicted to be 

nonattainment or to have difficulty 

maintaining the NAAQS is appropriate 

to evaluate a state’s submission in 

relation to the elements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) pertaining to 

significant contribution to 

nonattainment and interference with 

maintenance.13 EPA’s 2006 Guidance 

did not provide this specific 

recommendation to states, but in light of 

the court’s decision on CAIR, EPA will 

itself follow this approach in acting 

upon the California submission.14

As explained in the 2006 Guidance, 

EPA does not believe that section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) SIP submissions from all 

states necessarily need to follow 

precisely the same analytical approach 

of CAIR. In the 2006 Guidance, EPA 

stated that: ‘‘EPA believes that the 

contents of the SIP submission required 

by section 110(a)(2)(D) may vary, 

depending upon the facts and 

circumstances related to the specific 

NAAQS. In particular, the data and 

analytical tools available at the time the 

state develops and submits a SIP for a 

new or revised NAAQS necessarily 

affects the contents of the required 

submission.’’ 15 EPA also indicated in 

the 2006 Guidance that it did not 

anticipate that sources in states outside 

the geographic area covered by CAIR 

were significantly contributing to 

nonattainment, or interfering with 

maintenance, in other states.16 As noted 

in the Transport Rule Proposal, EPA 

continues to believe that the more 

widespread and serious transport 

problems in the eastern United States 

are analytically distinct.17 For the 1997 

8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA 

believes that nonattainment and 

maintenance problems in the western 

United States are relatively local in 

nature with only limited impacts from 

interstate transport. In the Transport 

Rule Proposal, EPA did not calculate the 

portion of predicted ozone or PM2.5

concentrations in any downwind state 

that would result from emissions from 

individual western states, such as 

California. 

Accordingly, EPA believes that 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) SIP submissions 

for states outside the geographic area of 

the Transport Rule Proposal may be 

evaluated using a ‘‘weight of the 

evidence’’ approach that takes into 

account the available relevant 

information, such as that recommended 

by EPA in the 2006 Guidance for states 

outside the area affected by CAIR. Such 

information may include, but is not 

limited to, the amount of emissions in 

the state relevant to the NAAQS in 

question, the meteorological conditions 

in the area, the distance from the state 

to the nearest monitors in other states 

that are appropriate receptors, or such 

other information as may be probative to 

consider whether sources in the state 

may interfere with maintenance of the 

1997 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS in 

other states. These submissions can rely 

on modeling when acceptable modeling 

technical analyses are available, but 

EPA does not believe that modeling is 

necessarily required if other available 

information is sufficient to evaluate the 

presence or degree of interstate 

transport in a given situation. 

II. What is the State process to submit 

these materials to EPA? 

CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) and 

section 110(l) require that revisions to a 

SIP be adopted by the state after 

reasonable notice and public hearing. 

EPA has promulgated specific 

procedural requirements for SIP 

revisions in 40 CFR part 51, subpart F. 

These requirements include publication 

of notices, by prominent advertisement 

in the relevant geographic area, of a 

public hearing on the proposed 

revisions, a public comment period of at 

least 30 days, and an opportunity for a 

public hearing. 

On November 16, 2007, the California 

Air Resources Board (CARB) submitted 

the ‘‘Proposed State Strategy for 

California’s 2007 State Implementation 

Plan’’ to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone 

and PM2.5 NAAQS (2007 State 

Strategy).18 Appendix C of the 2007 

State Strategy, as modified by 

Attachment A,19 contains California’s 

SIP revision to address the Transport 

SIP requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

and PM2.5 NAAQS (2007 Transport SIP). 

CARB’s November 16, 2007 submittal 

includes public process documentation 

for the 2007 State Strategy, including 

the 2007 Transport SIP. In addition, the 

SIP revision includes documentation of 

a duly noticed public hearing held on 

September 27, 2007 on the proposed 

2007 State Strategy. 

We find that the process followed by 

CARB in adopting the 2007 Transport 

SIP complies with the procedural 

requirements for SIP revisions under 

CAA section 110 and EPA’s 

implementing regulations. 

III. What is EPA’s evaluation of the 

State’s submission? 

A. Evaluation of Significant 

Contribution to Nonattainment 

This proposed approval addresses the 

significant contribution to 

nonattainment element of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in 

several ways. It takes into account 

California’s 2007 Transport SIP, in 

which the state explains that 

meteorological and other characteristics 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1

14620 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 52 / Thursday, March 17, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

20 2007 State Strategy, Attachment A, page 20. 

21 Ibid. 

22 Ibid. 

23See ibid. (quoting CAIR proposal, 69 FR 4566 

at 4581, January 30, 2004). 

24Transport Rule Proposal, 75 FR 45210 at 

45253–45273. 

25AQS is EPA’s database repository of monitored 

ambient air quality data. See http://www.epa.gov/ 

ttn/airs/airsaqs/. 

26See Transport Rule Proposal, Table IV.C–11, 75 

FR 45210 at 45252. 

in California and in the surrounding 

areas reduce the likelihood that 

emissions from sources in California 

contribute significantly to 

nonattainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

or PM2.5 NAAQS in any downwind 

state. In addition, EPA has 

supplemented the state’s analysis with 

its own evaluation of the evidence to 

assess whether emissions sources in 

California contribute significantly to 

nonattainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

or PM2.5 NAAQS in other states. First, 

EPA has evaluated the potential for 

ozone transport from California to 

specific locations identified in the 

Transport Rule Proposal by reviewing 

ozone back-trajectory analyses and other 

relevant information. Second, EPA has 

considered information in the Brian 

Timin Memo, which provides projected 

future year ozone and annual PM2.5

design values for monitors in the 

western U.S. based on the air quality 

modeling carried out in support of the 

Transport Rule Proposal. Finally, EPA 

has reviewed recent ozone and PM2.5

monitoring data for the states bordering 

California to consider whether 

California emissions could contribute to 

violations of the 1997 8-hour ozone or 

PM2.5 NAAQS in those states. Based on 

these analyses, we propose to conclude 

that emissions from California do not 

contribute significantly to 

nonattainment in any other state for the 

1997 8-hour ozone or PM2.5 NAAQS, 

consistent with the requirements of 

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

1. Significant Contribution to 

Nonattainment Evaluation for the 1997 

8-Hour Ozone NAAQS 

To address whether emissions from 

California sources significantly 

contribute to nonattainment of the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS in another state, 

California argued in the 2007 Transport 

SIP that meteorological conditions 

within the State and its existing air 

pollution control programs support a 

finding that emissions from California 

sources ‘‘[do] not significantly affect 

nonattainment areas in other states.’’ 20

Specifically, the State’s submittal argues 

that ozone episodes in the southwestern 

U.S. are normally associated with 

meteorology that results in stagnant 

conditions (i.e., not conducive to ozone 

transport) and that, on occasion, those 

conditions are weakly impacted by 

migrating low pressure systems over the 

Pacific Ocean that push air high above 

the surface eastward.21 Even though 

acknowledging the occasional 

possibility of ozone being transported 

over long distances, the State asserted in 

the 2007 Transport SIP that California’s 

existing air quality programs (e.g., its 

motor vehicle emissions control 

program, consumer product regulations, 

stationary source permit programs, and 

other control measures) greatly reduce 

the likelihood that emissions from 

California sources will contribute 

significantly to nonattainment in any 

downwind state.22

Also in support of its conclusion, the 

State’s 2007 Transport SIP references 

language in the preamble to CAIR citing 

EPA’s own statement that, given 

geography, meteorology, and 

topography in the western U.S., ‘‘PM2.5

and 8-hour ozone nonattainment 

problems are not likely to be affected 

significantly by pollution transported 

across [the western] states’ 

boundaries.’’ 23 In sum, the State argues 

in the 2007 Transport SIP that EPA’s 

statement in the CAIR rulemaking with 

respect to the likelihood of transport in 

western states, together with the 

meteorological and other information 

provided in California’s submittal, 

support the finding that emissions from 

California sources do not significantly 

affect nonattainment areas in other 

states. 

EPA does not agree with California’s 

assessment in the 2007 Transport SIP 

that these factors alone demonstrate that 

emissions from California sources do 

not contribute significantly to 

nonattainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS in other states. Therefore, EPA 

is supplementing the State’s submittal 

with additional information in order to 

assess this issue more fully, and in light 

of more recent information. As noted 

above, EPA is evaluating the 2007 

Transport SIP taking into account the 

methodologies and analyses developed 

in the Transport Rule Proposal in 

response to the judicial remand of CAIR, 

as well as EPA’s projections of future air 

quality at monitors in western states in 

the Timin Memo and preliminary air 

quality data from monitors in the states 

bordering California. 

The Transport Rule Proposal includes 

an approach to determining whether 

emissions from a state contribute 

significantly to nonattainment of the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in other 

states. Specifically, EPA used existing 

monitoring data and modeling to project 

future concentrations of ozone at 

monitors to identify areas that are 

expected to be violating the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS in 2012, based on the 

5-year weighted average design value. 

We call these monitors ‘‘nonattainment 

sites’’ or ‘‘nonattainment receptors.’’ To 

identify the states with emissions that 

may contribute significantly to ozone 

nonattainment in other states, the 

Transport Rule Proposal models the 

states’ contributions to ambient ozone 

levels at these nonattainment 

receptors.24 Because the Transport Rule 

Proposal does not model the 

contribution of emissions from 

California (and other western states not 

fully inside the Transport Rule 

Proposal’s modeling domain) to 8-hour 

ozone nonattainment receptors in other 

states, our assessment in this proposed 

action relies on a weight of evidence 

approach that considers relevant 

information from the Transport Rule 

Proposal pertaining to states within its 

modeling domain and additional 

material such as back-trajectory 

analyses, geographical and 

meteorological factors, EPA’s 

projections of future air quality at 

monitors in western states in the Timin 

Memo, and EPA’s Air Quality System 

(AQS) 25 monitoring data. Although 

each of the factors considered in the 

following analysis are not in and of 

themselves determinative, consideration 

of these factors together provides a 

reliable qualitative conclusion that 

emissions from California sources are 

not likely to contribute significantly to 

nonattainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS at monitors in other states. 

Our analysis begins by assessing 

California’s contribution to the closest 

nonattainment receptors for the 1997 8- 

hour ozone standard. The Transport 

Rule Proposal identifies, within its 

modeling domain (consisting of 37 

states east of the Rocky Mountains, and 

the District of Columbia), 11 

nonattainment receptors for the 1997 

8-hour ozone standard. Of these, the 

nonattainment receptors closest to 

California are seven receptors in the 

Dallas-Fort Worth and HoustonGalveston-Brazoria 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment areas in eastern Texas. 

The remaining four nonattainment 

receptors for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS are in Louisiana, New York, 

and Pennsylvania.26

The nonattainment receptors in 

Dallas-Fort Worth and HoustonGalveston-Brazoria areas are over 900 

miles from the easternmost border of 

California, and the monitors in 

Louisiana, New York, and Pennsylvania 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 52 / Thursday, March 17, 2011 / Proposed Rules 14621 

27See Technical Support Document, California 

2007 Transport SIP, Evaluation of Significant 

Contribution to Nonattainment and Interference 

with Maintenance for the 1997 8-hour Ozone 

NAAQS, U.S. EPA Region 9, February 25, 2011. 

28Trajectories for each monitor were run 

backwards in time for 72 hours (three days), using 

a trajectory height at the starting point of 1,500 

meters above ground level. 

29See fn. 12 above. 

30See Timin Memo at Appendix B (‘‘Base year 

2003–2007 and Future Year 2012 8-Hour Average 

Ozone Design Values—Western States’’). 

31See U.S. EPA AQS, ‘‘Preliminary Design Value 

Report,’’ 2007–2009, for Nevada, Arizona. 

32See Timin Memo at Appendix B (‘‘Base year 

2003–2007 and Future Year 2012 8-Hour Average 

Ozone Design Values—Western States’’). 

33See U.S. EPA AQS, ‘‘Preliminary Design Value 

Report,’’ 2007–2009, for Oregon, Nevada, Arizona. 

34 Ibid. 

are significantly farther away. Although 

distance alone is not determinative in 

the analysis of potential ozone 

transport, with increasing distance there 

are greater opportunities for ozone and 

NOX dispersion and/or removal from 

the atmosphere due to the effect of 

winds or chemical sink processes. 

Moreover, the intervening Rocky 

Mountains act as a natural barrier to air 

pollution transport. These factors 

together support a conclusion that 

California sources do not contribute 

significantly to nonattainment of the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the 

nearest areas with nonattainment 

receptors identified in the Transport 

Rule Proposal. 

In order to evaluate the potential 

impact of emissions from California 

sources on the nonattainment receptors 

identified in the Transport Rule 

Proposal, EPA evaluated air parcel 

pathways from California to these 

monitoring sites. Specifically, EPA 

reviewed the analysis of ozone transport 

by the Texas Commission on 

Environmental Quality for each 

exceedance day in 2007, 2008, and 2009 

for the seven nonattainment receptors in 

the Dallas-Fort Worth and HoustonGalveston-Brazoria 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment areas in eastern Texas.27

Exceedance days were identified using 

the AQS Database. Back-trajectories 28

were run for all of the days during the 

2007–2009 period when ozone 

concentrations at these receptors 

exceeded the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS (i.e., monitored ozone 

concentrations were 85 parts per billion 

(ppb) or above). These back-trajectory 

maps indicate that air parcel pathways 

to nonattainment receptors in eastern 

Texas do not originate in California. 

Because back-trajectory analysis 

results map pathways of air parcels that 

may or may not transport pollutants, 

they cannot be considered 

determinative as to the transport of 

ozone and its precursors or the absence 

of such transport from California 

emission sources. However, the fact that 

the air parcel trajectories do not directly 

connect California to the nonattainment 

receptors in eastern Texas strongly 

supports the conclusion that emissions 

of ozone and its precursors from 

California are not likely to contribute 

significantly to nonattainment of the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS at these 

receptors. 

To assist in the evaluation of the 

potential for ozone transport among 

western states not included in the 

modeling domain for the Transport Rule 

Proposal, EPA also developed an 

additional analysis in the Timin Memo 

identifying monitors projected to record 

violations of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS within a modeling domain that 

includes the western states.29 The Timin 

Memo identified numerous 

nonattainment sites for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS in southern and central 

California.30 This analysis did not, 

however, identify any projected 

nonattainment receptors for the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS in any other 

western state. EPA’s analysis for 

western states therefore supports our 

proposal to conclude that California 

sources do not contribute significantly 

to nonattainment of the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS in other western states. 

Finally, in addition to the information 

in the 2007 Transport SIP, our review of 

air parcel pathways to the nearest 

nonattainment receptors identified from 

the modeling analyses conducted for the 

Transport Rule Proposal, and EPA’s 

projections of future air quality in the 

western states in the Timin Memo, EPA 

evaluated preliminary air quality 

monitoring data for the areas in states 

bordering California that are designated 

nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. Although significant 

contribution must be measured not just 

against designated nonattainment areas 

but also against areas with monitors 

showing violations of the NAAQS, 

nonattainment areas are a convenient 

starting point for the analysis. The 2007 

Transport SIP identifies two areas in 

states bordering California that are 

currently designated nonattainment for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone standard: The 

Las Vegas area in Clark County, Nevada, 

and the Phoenix-Mesa area in Arizona. 

EPA designated both of these areas as 

nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard in 2004. See 69 FR 

23858 (April 30, 2004); 40 CFR 81.303 

and 81.329. Both of these areas, 

however, have current design values 

indicating attainment of the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. Our review of 

preliminary monitoring data for the 

2007–2009 period available in EPA’s 

AQS Database indicates that the 8-hour 

ozone design values for Las Vegas and 

Phoenix-Mesa during this period were 

78 ppb and 76 ppb, respectively.31

Thus, we believe it is reasonable to 

conclude that California sources are not 

contributing significantly to 

nonattainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS in either the Las Vegas, Nevada 

or Phoenix-Mesa, Arizona 

nonattainment areas. No other area in 

the states bordering California (Oregon, 

Nevada, or Arizona) is currently 

designated nonattainment for the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

As mentioned above, EPA considers 

not only significant contribution to 

designated nonattainment areas, but 

also to areas with monitor readings 

showing violations of the NAAQS. A 

review of the AQS monitoring data for 

adjacent states shows that it is highly 

unlikely that emissions from California 

contribute significantly to violations of 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in any 

downwind state. Specifically, EPA’s 

observed maximum design values at 

monitors in the western states during 

the 2003–2007 period were generally 

well below the 1997 ozone NAAQS 

(except in California), and the 2012 

modeling results at these western 

monitors (where a future year design 

value could be estimated) show a 

downward trend in ozone.32

Additionally, we evaluated ozone 

monitoring data from the 2007–2009 

period from each of the ozone 

monitoring sites in Oregon, Nevada, and 

Arizona, to determine whether the 

ozone levels in any of these states 

violate or potentially violate the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS.33 The highest 

ozone design value at these monitoring 

sites during the 2007–2009 period was 

78 ppb (in the Las Vegas, Nevada area), 

and most monitors recorded 

significantly lower ozone levels.34 We 

have found no violations of the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS at any of the 

monitors in states bordering California, 

nor any indication that emissions from 

California sources contribute 

significantly to nonattainment of the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in these 

adjacent states. 

The fact that monitors in these nearby 

areas are not registering violations of the 

NAAQS does not in itself conclusively 

establish that emissions from California 

could not contribute in the aggregate to 

violations in any other state. But this 

fact combined with our evaluation of 

the nearest nonattainment receptors in 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1

14622 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 52 / Thursday, March 17, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

35See Technical Support for State and Tribal Air 

Quality Fine Particle (PM2.5) Designations, ‘‘EPA 9– 

Factor Analyses for Montana for the Designation of 

PM2.5 Nonattainment Areas,’’ Chapter 6.8.1, 

December 17, 2004. 

36EPA designated this area as nonattainment for 

the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in 2005. 70 FR 944 (January 

5, 2005) and 40 CFR 81.305. 

37 ‘‘Factor 6’’ of this 9-Factor Analysis describes 

the meteorology in the Libby area as follows: ‘‘Libby 

Montana is located in the northwestern part of the 

state in a narrow north-south oriented valley. The 

ridgetops surrounding Libby are approximately 

4,000 feet higher than the town. There are no other 

towns or large emissions sources immediately 

upwind, so transport of high background 

concentrations into Libby is considered unlikely. 

The highest PM2.5 concentrations in Libby generally 

occur during the months of November through 

February. During the summer months 

concentrations typically average less than half the 

level of the annual PM2.5 NAAQS, while winter 

concentrations may double the NAAQS. The much 

higher concentrations in winter are related to 

stagnant weather conditions dominated by light 

winds and strong temperature inversions. These 

meteorological conditions may trap emissions 

within the valley for many days. No recent 

meteorological data is available for Libby, however, 

data from Kalispell, MT show calm wind conditions 

occur 35 percent of the time in the winter months 

and only 15 percent of the time in the spring and 

summer. Vertical temperature soundings at Great 

Falls in Western MT also show a very high 

frequency of surface temperature inversions in the 

winter. 

Due to the meteorology conditions in the town 

and surrounding vicinity of Libby and due to the 

topographical features within Lincoln County and 

more specifically around Libby, that create stagnant 

weather conditions, EPA feels the adjacent counties 

do not impact the PM2.5 monitor located at the 

Libby Courthouse Annex and that the 

nonattainment problem is a localized PM2.5

problem.’’ PM2.5 Designations TSD at Chapter 6.8.1. 

38See PM2.5 Designations TSD at Chapter 6.8.1. 

39This data indicates the annual PM2.5 design 

value for the Libby, Montana area during the 2007– 

2009 period was 12.2 μg/m3. See U.S. EPA AQS, 

‘‘Preliminary Design Value Report,’’ 2007–2009, for 

Montana. 

40For PM2.5, the Transport Rule Proposal 

identified nonattainment receptors for the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS. See 75 FR 45210 at 45212. Because our 

proposal on California’s 2007 Transport SIP 

addresses requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) only for purposes of the 1997 ozone 

and PM2.5 NAAQS, for PM2.5 purposes we consider 

only the nonattainment receptors for the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS identified in the Transport 

Rule Proposal. 

41Specifically, the nonattainment sites for the 

1997 annual PM2.5 standard are located in Alabama, 

Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, 

Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. See 

Transport Rule Proposal, 75 FR 45210 at 45247– 

45248 (August 2, 2010). 

42See Timin Memo at Appendix A (‘‘Base year 

2003–2007 and Future Year 2012 Annual Average 

PM2.5 Design Values—Western States’’). 

eastern Texas, taking into account 

distance, topographical barriers, and 

typical meteorological conditions, 

supports California’s conclusion that 

emissions from its sources do not 

contribute significantly to 

nonattainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS in other states, in accordance 

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

2. Significant Contribution to 

Nonattainment Evaluation for the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS 

In its 2007 Transport SIP, California 

argues that distance to the nearest 

designated PM2.5 nonattainment area, 

topographical features and meteorology 

support a finding that California sources 

do not significantly contribute to 

nonattainment of the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS in another state. The 2007 

Transport SIP also references EPA’s 

technical support document (TSD) for 

the PM2.5 NAAQS nonattainment 

designations (PM2.5 Designations 

TSD),35 which identifies Libby, 

Montana (in Lincoln County), as the 

area closest to California that is 

designated nonattainment for the 1997 

PM2.5 standards.36 As EPA noted in the 

PM2.5 Designations TSD, PM2.5 in Libby 

is predominantly local in origin (e.g., 

residential wood-burning stoves during 

the winter time, when frequent and 

persistent temperature inversions occur, 

were specifically identified as a key 

source of particulate emissions in the 

area). Thus, California correctly noted 

that EPA concluded that PM2.5 pollution 

in Libby is a localized problem.37

The fact that nonattainment in a given 

area is primarily the result of local 

emissions sources does not exclude the 

possibility of significant contribution to 

nonattainment from interstate transport. 

This fact and other evidence, however, 

support the conclusion that emissions 

from California sources are not 

significantly contributing to violations 

in Libby, Montana. That area is more 

than 900 miles away from California 

and is on the other side of the Sierra 

Nevada Mountains, a 400-mile-long 

north-south range of mountains that act 

as a natural barrier to air movement 

between California and Montana.38 In 

addition, Libby is not in the 

predominant direction of winds from 

California, as transport winds generally 

flow from west to east, and not toward 

the north. Given the relatively long 

distance between California and Libby, 

Montana, the intervening mountainous 

topography, the localized nature of the 

PM2.5 nonattainment problem in Libby, 

and the general west-to-east direction of 

transport winds across California, EPA 

believes it is reasonable to conclude that 

California sources do not contribute 

significantly to nonattainment of the 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in Libby, Montana. 

We note also that preliminary data 

available in EPA’s AQS Database for the 

2007–2009 period indicate that the 

Libby, Montana nonattainment area is 

currently attaining the 1997 PM2.5

standards.39

EPA does not agree with California’s 

assessment in the 2007 Transport SIP 

that these factors alone demonstrate that 

emissions from California sources do 

not contribute significantly to 

nonattainment of the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS in any other states. Therefore, 

EPA is supplementing the state’s 

submission with additional information 

in order to assess this issue more fully, 

and in light of more recent information. 

As noted above, EPA is evaluating the 

2007 Transport SIP taking into account 

the methodologies and analyses 

developed in the Transport Rule 

Proposal in response to the judicial 

remand of CAIR, as well as EPA’s 

projections of future air quality at 

monitors in western states in the Timin 

Memo and preliminary air quality data 

from monitors in the states bordering 

California. 

Specifically, we identified the 

nonattainment receptors for the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS closest to 

California to evaluate whether 

emissions from California sources 

contribute significantly to 

nonattainment of the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS in any other state.40 For the 

1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, the 

nonattainment receptors closest to 

California that EPA identified from the 

modeling analyses conducted for the 

Transport Rule Proposal are all east of 

the Mississippi River.41 Given the 

significant distance between California 

and these nonattainment receptors, and 

the intervening mountainous terrain, we 

believe it is reasonable to conclude that 

California sources do not contribute 

significantly to nonattainment of the 

1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS in any of 

these areas. 

To address the potential for impacts 

on states not included in the modeling 

domain for the Transport Rule Proposal, 

we also evaluated whether there are 

monitors suitable for consideration as 

nonattainment receptors in western 

states outside of the geographic area 

covered by the Transport Rule Proposal. 

We note that EPA’s analysis in the 

Timin Memo for western states 

identified numerous nonattainment 

sites for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS 

in southern and central California.42

This analysis did not, however, identify 

any projected nonattainment receptors 

for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS in 

any other western state. Thus, we 

believe it is reasonable to conclude that 

California sources do not contribute 

significantly to nonattainment of the 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in other states. 

The analysis for the Transport Rule 

Proposal did not identify any 

nonattainment receptors for the 1997 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 52 / Thursday, March 17, 2011 / Proposed Rules 14623 

43 75 FR 45210 at 45249–45251 (August 2, 2010). 

44These values were recorded at monitors in 

Liberty-Clairton, Pennsylvania and Provo, Utah. See 

http://epa.gov/airtrends/pdfs/PM2.5%202007- 

2009%20design%20value%20update.pdf. Data 

from EPA’s Air Quality System can be viewed at 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/airs/airsaqs/. 

45See U.S. EPA AQS, ‘‘Preliminary Design Value 

Report,’’ 2007–2009, for Oregon, Nevada, and 

Arizona. 

46The Cowtown monitor had a PM2.5 design 

value of 18.8 μg/m3. See U.S. EPA AQS, 

‘‘Preliminary Design Value Report,’’ 2007–2009, for 

Arizona. 

47See 76 FR 6056 (February 3, 2011); see also 

‘‘Technical Support Document for Determination 

that the Cowtown Monitor is Ineligible for 

Comparison with the Annual PM2.5 NAAQS,’’ April 

26, 2010. 

48Our review of AQS data for the 2007–2009 

period in the three states bordering California 

indicated the highest valid annual PM2.5 design 

value was 12.8 μg/m3 (monitor ID 04–023–0004 in 

Nogales, Arizona) and the highest valid 24-hour 

PM2.5 design value was 47 μg/m3 (monitor ID 41– 

035–0004 in Klamath Falls, Oregon). See U.S. EPA 

AQS, ‘‘Preliminary Design Value Report,’’ 2007– 

2009, for Oregon, Nevada, and Arizona. 

49See Transport Rule Proposal, 75 FR 45210 at 

45253–45273. 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in the portions of 

the U.S. covered by the Transport Rule 

Proposal modeling domain (i.e., the 12 

kilometer (km) grid covering the 

continental U.S. east of the Rockies).43

Recent monitoring data in EPA’s Air 

Quality System (2007–2009 design 

values that are under final EPA review) 

indicate that the highest 24-hour PM2.5

design value in the 47 states of the 

continental U.S. (excluding California) 

is 50 μg/m3,44 which is well below the 

level of the 1997 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS 

of 65 μg/m3. This data further supports 

our proposed finding that California 

sources do not contribute significantly 

to nonattainment of the 1997 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS in any other state. 

Finally, EPA evaluated PM2.5 air 

quality data for areas in the states 

bordering California to determine 

whether California sources might 

contribute significantly to violations of 

the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in these nearby 

areas. No areas in Oregon, Nevada, or 

Arizona are currently designated 

nonattainment for the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS. As mentioned above, however, 

EPA considers not only significant 

contribution to designated 

nonattainment areas, but also to areas 

with monitoring data showing 

violations of the NAAQS. A review of 

the AQS monitoring data for adjacent 

states shows that it is highly unlikely 

that emissions from California 

contribute significantly to violations of 

the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS in any 

downwind state. 

Specifically, we reviewed preliminary 

PM2.5 monitoring data for the 2007–2009 

period available in EPA’s AQS Database 

from all PM2.5 monitoring sites in 

Oregon, Nevada, and Arizona, to 

determine whether the PM2.5 design 

values in any of these states potentially 

violate the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS.45 During this period only one 

monitor in these adjoining states, the 

‘‘Cowtown’’ monitor in Casa Grande, 

Arizona (monitor ID 04–021–3013), has 

a PM2.5 design value exceeding the 1997 

annual standard of 15.0 μg/m3.46 EPA 

has separately determined, however, 

that this monitor is not suitable for 

determining compliance with the 1997 

annual PM2.5 standard because the 

monitor functions as a populationoriented microscale (i.e., localized hot 

spot) monitor.47 No other PM2.5 monitor 

in the three states bordering California 

recorded a violation of the 1997 annual 

or 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS during the 

2007–2009 period.48

The fact that monitors in these nearby 

areas are not registering violations of the 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS does not in itself 

conclusively establish that emissions 

from California could not contribute in 

the aggregate to violations in other 

states. But this fact combined with our 

evaluation of the nearest nonattainment 

receptors in states east of the 

Mississippi River, taking into account 

distance, topographical barriers, and 

typical meteorological conditions, 

supports California’s conclusion on 

PM2.5 contribution for the 1997 NAAQS. 

3. Conclusion Regarding Significant 

Contribution to Nonattainment 

Based on the weight of evidence 

discussed above, including the location 

of the nearest projected nonattainment 

sites, distance to the nearest designated 

PM2.5 nonattainment area, meteorology, 

topography, and recent air quality 

monitoring data, we propose to 

determine that California’s 2007 

Transport SIP is adequate to ensure that 

emissions from California do not 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment in any other state for the 

1997 8-hour ozone or 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS, consistent with the 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). Thus, we propose to 

determine that California’s SIP includes 

the measures necessary to prevent such 

prohibited interstate transport impacts 

for these NAAQS. 

B. Evaluation of Interference With 

Maintenance 

California’s 2007 Transport SIP relies 

upon the recommendations in EPA’s 

2006 Guidance and does not provide a 

specific analysis of the interference with 

maintenance element of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i). Given the court decision 

on CAIR in the interim, however, EPA 

believes that it is necessary to evaluate 

the submission for section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) in such a way as to 

assure that the interfere with 

maintenance element of the statute is 

given independent meaning and is 

appropriately evaluated using the types 

of information that EPA recommended 

in the 2006 Guidance. To accomplish 

this, in this proposed action, EPA has 

supplemented California’s analysis with 

an approach comparable to that of the 

Transport Rule Proposal in order to 

adequately evaluate whether emissions 

from California sources interfere with 

maintenance of these NAAQS in other 

states. As with the significant 

contribution to nonattainment analysis, 

we have evaluated the potential for 

transport of emissions from California 

sources to specific locations identified 

in the Transport Rule Proposal, EPA’s 

projected future year ozone and PM2.5

design values in the Timin Memo for 

monitors in the western U.S., and 

preliminary air quality data from 

monitors in the states bordering 

California. Based on these analyses, we 

propose to conclude that emissions from 

California sources do not interfere with 

maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS or 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in any 

other state, consistent with the 

requirements of CAA section 

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

1. Interfere With Maintenance 

Evaluation for the 8-Hour Ozone 

NAAQS 

As discussed above, in the Transport 

Rule Proposal, EPA projected future 

concentrations of ozone at monitors to 

identify areas that are expected to be 

violating the NAAQS or to have 

difficulty maintaining compliance with 

the NAAQS in 2012. For purposes of the 

interfere with maintenance evaluation, 

EPA projected future concentrations of 

ozone at monitors to identify areas that 

are expected to have a maximum design 

value (based on a single 3-year period) 

that exceeds the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS and by 2012. EPA anticipates 

that these ‘‘maintenance receptors’’ or 

‘‘maintenance sites’’ will have difficulty 

in maintaining attainment of the 

NAAQS if there are adverse variations 

in meteorology or emissions. 

To identify the states with emissions 

that may cause interference with 

attainment of the NAAQS at the 

maintenance receptors, the Transport 

Rule Proposal models the states’ 

contributions to ambient ozone levels at 

these maintenance receptors.49 Because 

the Transport Rule Proposal does not 

model the contribution of emissions 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1

14624 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 52 / Thursday, March 17, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

50See Transport Rule Proposal, Table IV.C–12, 75 

FR 45210 at 45252–45253. 

51See Technical Support Document, California 

2007 Transport SIP, Evaluation of Significant 

Contribution to Nonattainment and Interference 

with Maintenance for the 1997 8-hour Ozone 

NAAQS, U.S. EPA Region 9, February 25, 2011. 

52For each monitor, EPA ran the trajectories 

backwards in time for 72 hours (three days), using 

a trajectory height at the starting point of 1,500 

meters above ground level. 

53See Timin Memo at Appendix B (‘‘Base year 

2003–2007 and Future Year 2012 8-Hour Average 

Ozone Design Values—Western States’’). 

54See Timin Memo at Appendix B (‘‘Base year 

2003–2007 and Future Year 2012 8-Hour Average 

Ozone Design Values—Western States’’). 

55See U.S. EPA AQS, ‘‘Preliminary Design Value 

Report,’’ 2007–2009, for Oregon, Nevada, and 

Arizona. 

56Specifically, the remaining 15 maintenance 

sites for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS are located 

in Illinois, Kentucky, New York, Ohio, 

Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. 

from California (and other western 

states not fully inside the Transport 

Rule Proposal’s modeling domain) to 

8-hour ozone maintenance receptors in 

other states, our assessment relies on a 

weight of evidence approach that 

considers relevant information from the 

Transport Rule Proposal pertaining to 

states within its modeling domain and 

additional information such as backtrajectory analyses, geographical and 

meteorological factors, EPA’s 

projections of future air quality at 

monitors in western states in the Timin 

Memo, and AQS monitoring data. 

Although each of the factors considered 

in the following analysis is not in and 

of itself determinative, consideration of 

these factors together provides a reliable 

qualitative conclusion that emissions 

from California are not likely to interfere 

with maintenance of the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS at monitors in other 

states. 

Our analysis begins by assessing 

California’s contribution to the closest 

maintenance receptors for the 1997 

8-hour ozone standard. The Transport 

Rule Proposal identifies 16 maintenance 

receptors for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard within its modeling domain 

(consisting of 37 states east of the Rocky 

Mountains, and the District of 

Columbia). Of these, the receptors 

closest to California are eight receptors 

in the Dallas-Fort Worth and HoustonGalveston-Brazoria 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment areas in eastern Texas. 

The remaining eight maintenance sites 

are located in Connecticut, Georgia, 

New York and Pennsylvania.50

As discussed above in section III.A.1, 

the Dallas-Fort Worth and HoustonGalveston-Brazoria areas are over 900 

miles from the easternmost border of 

California. The maintenance receptor 

monitors located in Connecticut, 

Georgia, New York and Pennsylvania 

are significantly farther away. Although 

distance alone is not determinative in 

the analysis of potential ozone 

transport, with increasing distance there 

are greater opportunities for ozone and 

NOX dispersion and/or removal from 

the atmosphere. 

To evaluate further the potential for 

California emissions to interfere with 

maintenance at the closest maintenance 

receptor locations, EPA conducted an 

analysis of ozone transport for each 

exceedance day in 2005 and 2006 for 

the eight maintenance receptors in the 

Dallas-Fort Worth and HoustonGalveston-Brazoria 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment areas in eastern Texas.51

Exceedance days were identified using 

the AQS Database, EPA’s repository of 

monitored ambient air quality data. EPA 

ran back-trajectories 52 for those days 

during the 2005–2006 period when 

ozone concentrations at these receptors 

exceeded the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS (i.e., monitored ozone 

concentrations were 85 ppb or above). 

These back-trajectory maps indicate that 

air parcel pathways to maintenance 

receptors in eastern Texas do not 

originate in California. 

Because back-trajectory analysis 

results map pathways of air parcels that 

may or may not transport pollutants, 

they cannot be considered 

determinative as to the transport of 

ozone and its precursors or the absence 

of such transport from California 

emission sources. However, the fact that 

the air parcel trajectories do not connect 

California directly to the maintenance 

receptors in eastern Texas strongly 

supports the conclusion that emissions 

of ozone and its precursors from 

California sources are not likely to 

interfere with maintenance of the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS at these receptors. 

The maintenance receptors for the 1997 

ozone standard identified in the 

Transport Rule Proposal are in similar 

locations relative to California as are the 

nonattainment receptors discussed 

above in section III.A.1, and the same 

considerations regarding distance, 

topography, and meteorology therefore 

support our proposal to determine that 

emissions from California sources do 

not interfere with maintenance at the 

maintenance receptor sites. Thus, EPA 

believes it is reasonable to conclude that 

California sources do not interfere with 

maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS in any other state. 

We note that EPA’s analysis in the 

Timin Memo, for western states not 

included in the modeling domain for 

the Transport Rule Proposal, identified 

four maintenance sites for the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS in southern and 

central California.53 This analysis did 

not, however, identify any projected 

maintenance receptors for the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS in any other 

western state. The absence of monitors 

even suitable for comparison for this 

purpose indicates that emissions from 

California sources do not have such an 

impact in western states. Thus, EPA’s 

analysis for western states also supports 

our proposal to conclude that California 

sources do not interfere with 

maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS in other states. 

Finally, as discussed above in section 

III.A.1, EPA’s observed maximum 

design values at monitors in the western 

states during the 2003–2007 period were 

generally well below the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS, and the 2012 modeling results 

at these western monitors (where a 

future year design value could be 

estimated) show a downward trend in 

ozone.54 Additionally, we evaluated 

ozone monitoring data from the 2007– 

2009 period from each of the ozone 

monitoring sites in Oregon, Nevada, and 

Arizona, and found no violations of the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS at any of 

these monitors during this period.55 The 

fact that monitors in these nearby areas 

are not registering violations of the 

NAAQS does not in itself conclusively 

establish that emissions from California 

could not interfere with maintenance of 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in any 

other state. But this fact combined with 

our evaluation of the nearest 

maintenance receptors in eastern Texas, 

taking into account distance, 

topographical barriers, and typical 

meteorological conditions, in addition 

to the back-trajectory analyses 

conducted to evaluate air parcel 

pathways to eastern Texas, support our 

proposal to conclude that California 

sources do not interfere with 

maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS in any other state. 

2. Interfere With Maintenance 

Evaluation for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS 

The Transport Rule Proposal 

identifies, within its modeling domain, 

16 maintenance receptors for the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS. Of these, the 

closest to California is one receptor 

located in the Harris County PM2.5

nonattainment area in eastern Texas. 

The remaining 15 maintenance 

receptors for the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS are all located in states east of 

the Mississippi River.56

As discussed above in section III.A.1, 

the Dallas-Fort Worth and HoustonWReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 52 / Thursday, March 17, 2011 / Proposed Rules 14625 

57See Timin Memo at Appendix A (‘‘Base year 

2003–2007 and Future Year 2012 Annual Average 

PM2.5 Design Values—Western States’’). 

58 75 FR 45210 at 45249–45251 (August 2, 2010). 

See also fn. 40 and fn. 48. 

59 Data from EPA’s Air Quality System can be 

viewed at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/airs/airsaqs/. 

Galveston-Brazoria areas are over 900 

miles from the easternmost border of 

California, and states with maintenance 

receptors east of the Mississippi River 

are even farther away. Because the 

maintenance receptors for the 1997 

PM2.5 standard identified in the 

Transport Rule Proposal are in similar 

locations relative to California as are the 

nonattainment receptors discussed 

above in sections III.A.1 and A.2, the 

same considerations regarding distance, 

topography, and meteorology support 

our proposal to determine that 

emissions from California sources do 

not interfere with maintenance at the 

maintenance receptor sites. EPA 

therefore believes it is reasonable to 

conclude that California sources do not 

interfere with maintenance of the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS in any other state. 

We note that EPA’s analysis in the 

Timin Memo, for western states not 

included in the modeling domain for 

the Transport Rule Proposal, identified 

numerous maintenance sites for the 

1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS in southern 

and central California.57 This analysis 

did not, however, identify any projected 

maintenance receptors for the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS in any other 

western state. Thus, we believe it is 

reasonable to conclude that California 

sources do not interfere with 

maintenance of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS 

in other states. 

Finally, as discussed above in section 

III.A.2, EPA reviewed PM2.5 monitoring 

data for the 2007–2009 period from all 

PM2.5 monitoring sites in states 

bordering California (Oregon, Nevada, 

and Arizona) and found no violations of 

the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard. The 

fact that monitors in these nearby areas 

are not registering violations of the 

NAAQS does not in itself conclusively 

establish that emissions from California 

could not interfere with maintenance of 

the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS in any 

other state. But this fact combined with 

our evaluation of the nearest 

maintenance receptor in eastern Texas, 

taking into account distance, 

topographical barriers, and typical 

meteorological conditions, supports our 

proposal to conclude that California 

sources do not interfere with 

maintenance of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS 

in any other state. 

The analysis for the Transport Rule 

Proposal did not identify any 

maintenance receptors for the 1997 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in the portions of 

the U.S. covered by the Transport Rule 

Proposal modeling domain.58 Recent 

monitoring data in EPA’s AQS Database 

(2007–2009 design values that are under 

final EPA review) indicate that the 

highest 24-hour PM2.5 design value in 

the 47 states of the continental U.S. 

(excluding California) is 50 μg/m3, 

which is well below the level of the 

1997 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS of 65 μg/ 

m3.59 This data further supports our 

proposed finding that California 

emission sources do not interfere with 

maintenance of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS 

in any other state. 

3. Conclusion Regarding Interference 

With Maintenance 

Based on the weight of evidence, 

including the location of the nearest 

projected maintenance sites, taking into 

account distance, meteorology, 

topography, and recent air quality 

monitoring data, as discussed above, we 

propose to determine that California’s 

2007 Transport SIP is adequate and that 

emissions from California do not 

interfere with maintenance in any other 

state for the 1997 8-hour ozone or 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS, consistent with the 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(I). Thus, we propose to 

determine that California’s SIP includes 

the measures necessary to prevent such 

prohibited interstate transport impacts 

for these NAAQS. 

IV. Proposed Action 

Under section 110(k) of the Clean Air 

Act, EPA is proposing to approve the 

2007 Transport SIP submitted by CARB 

on November 17, 2007, as adequate to 

prohibit emissions from California 

sources that will contribute significantly 

to nonattainment of the 1997 8-hour 

ozone or 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in any 

other state, as required by CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). EPA is also proposing 

to approve the 2007 Transport SIP as 

adequate to prohibit emissions from 

California sources that will interfere 

with maintenance of these NAAQS by 

any other state, as required by section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). Accordingly, we 

propose to find that the California SIP 

contains provisions adequate to prevent 

significant contribution to 

nonattainment of, and interference with 

maintenance of, these NAAQS and does 

not require any additional measures for 

this purpose at this time. This proposed 

action does not apply to the remaining 

two elements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) regarding interference 

with measures required to prevent 

significant deterioration of air quality or 

to protect visibility in another state. We 

intend to evaluate and act upon the 

2007 Transport SIP for purposes of these 

additional requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) in separate actions. 

EPA is soliciting public comments on 

this proposal and will accept comments 

until the date noted in the ‘‘DATES’’ 

section above. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, 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, EPA’s role is to approve 

state choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this action merely 

proposes to approve state law as 

meeting Federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. For 

that reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• 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 Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1

14626 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 52 / Thursday, March 17, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this proposed 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. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Air pollution control, Environmental 

protection, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

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

Dated: March 11, 2011. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2011–6302 Filed 3–16–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2009–0426–201030; FRL– 

9282–6] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Kentucky; 

110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure 

Requirements for the 1997 8-Hour 

Ozone National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

the State Implementation Plan (SIP), 

submitted by the Commonwealth of 

Kentucky, through the Division of Air 

Quality (DAQ) of the Kentucky 

Environmental and Public Protection 

Cabinet, now called the Energy and 

Environment Cabinet, as demonstrating 

that the Commonwealth meets the 

requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and 

(2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone national ambient 

air quality standards (NAAQS). Section 

110(a) of the CAA requires that each 

state adopt and submit a SIP for the 

implementation, maintenance and 

enforcement of each NAAQS 

promulgated by the EPA and is 

commonly referred to as an 

‘‘infrastructure’’ SIP. Kentucky certified 

that the Kentucky SIP contains 

provisions that ensure the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS are implemented, 

enforced, and maintained in Kentucky 

(hereafter referred to as ‘‘infrastructure 

submission’’). Kentucky’s infrastructure 

submission, provided to EPA on 

December 13, 2007, addressed all the 

required infrastructure elements for the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before April 18, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2009–0426, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. E-mail: benjamin.lynorae@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (404) 562–9140. 

4. Mail: ‘‘EPA–R04–OAR–2009–0426,’’ 

Regulatory Development Section, Air 

Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and 

Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. 

5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae 

Benjamin, Regulatory Development 

Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, 

Pesticides and Toxics Management 

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, 

SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Regional Office’s normal hours of 

operation. The Regional Office’s official 

hours of business are Monday through 

Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding federal 

holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R04–OAR–2009– 

0426. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail, 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected. The http:// 

www.regulations.gov Web site is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, i.e., 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 either 

electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Regulatory Development Section, 

Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and 

Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. EPA 

requests that if at all possible, you 

contact the person listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

schedule your inspection. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, 

excluding federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Nacosta C. Ward, Regulatory 

Development Section, Air Planning 

Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 

Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. The 

telephone number is (404) 562–9140. 

Ms. Ward can also be reached via 

electronic mail at 

ward.nacosta@epa.gov. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. What elements are required under 

Sections 110(a)(1) and (2)? 

III. What is EPA’s analysis of how Kentucky 

addressed the elements of Sections 

110(a)(1) and (2) ‘‘infrastructure’’ 

provisions? 

IV. Proposed Action 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a 

new NAAQS for ozone based on 8-hour 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1