16026 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 31, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Borland NDB/DME, AK, and west of 160° W. 

longitude within a 72.8-mile radius of 

Chignik Airport, AK; and that airspace 

extending upward from 700 feet above the 

surface within a 6.9-mile radius of Eareckson 

Air Station, AK, and within a 7-mile radius 

of Adak Airport, AK, and within 5.2 miles 

northwest and 4.2 miles southeast of the 061° 

bearing from the Mount Moffett NDB, AK, 

extending from the 7-mile radius of Adak 

Airport, AK, to 11.5 miles northeast of Adak 

Airport, AK, and within a 6.5-mile radius of 

King Cove Airport, and extending 1.2 miles 

either side of the 103° bearing from King 

Cove Airport from the 6.5-mile radius out to 

8.8 miles, and within a 6.4-mile radius of the 

Atka Airport, AK, and within a 6.3-mile 

radius of Nelson Lagoon Airport, AK, and 

within a 6.3-mile radius of the Nikolski 

Airport, AK, and within a 6.4-mile radius of 

Sand Point Airport, AK, and within 3 miles 

each side of the 172° bearing from the 

Borland NDB/DME, AK, extending from the 

6.4-mile radius of Sand Point Airport, AK, to 

13.9 miles south of Sand Point Airport, AK, 

and within 5 miles either side of the 318° 

bearing from the Borland NDB/DME, AK, 

extending from the 6.4-mile radius of Sand 

Point Airport, AK, to 17 miles northwest of 

Sand Point Airport, AK, and within 5 miles 

either side of the 324° bearing from the 

Borland NDB/DME, AK, extending from the 

6.4-mile radius of Sand Point Airport, AK, to 

17 miles northwest of the Sand Point Airport, 

AK, and within a 6.6-mile radius of St. 

George Airport, AK, and within an 8-mile 

radius of St. Paul Island Airport, AK, and 8 

miles west and 6 miles east of the 360° 

bearing from St. Paul Island Airport, AK, to 

14 miles north of St. Paul Island Airport, AK, 

and within 6 miles west and 8 miles east of 

the 172° bearing from St. Paul Island Airport, 

AK, to 15 miles south of St. Paul Island 

Airport, AK, and within a 6.4-mile radius of 

Unalaska Airport, AK, and within 2.9 miles 

each side of the 360° bearing from the Dutch 

Harbor NDB, AK, extending from the 6.4-mile 

radius of Unalaska Airport, AK, to 9.5 miles 

north of Unalaska Airport, AK; and that 

airspace extending upward from the surface 

within a 4.6-mile radius of Cold Bay Airport, 

AK, and within 1.7 miles each side of the 

150° bearing from Cold Bay Airport, AK, 

extending from the 4.6-mile radius to 7.7 

miles southeast of Cold Bay Airport, AK, and 

within 3 miles west and 4 miles east of the 

335° bearing from Cold Bay Airport, AK, 

extending from the 4.6-mile radius to 12.2 

miles northwest of Cold Bay Airport, AK. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on March 24, 

2010. 

Kelly Neubecker, 

Acting Manager, Airspace and Rules Group. 

[FR Doc. 2010–7266 Filed 3–30–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2009–0282; FRL–9131–5] 

Approval and Promulgation of State 

Implementation Plan Revisions; State 

of North Dakota; Air Pollution Control 

Rules, and Interstate Transport of 

Pollution for the 1997 PM2.5 and 8-Hour 

Ozone NAAQS: ‘‘Significant 

Contribution to Nonattainment’’ and 

‘‘Interference With Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration’’ 

Requirements 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency is proposing to approve State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions 

submitted by the State of North Dakota 

on April 6, 2009. Specifically, EPA is 

proposing approval of revisions to the 

North Dakota air pollution control rules 

regarding prevention of significant 

deterioration of air quality, and partial 

approval of the SIP revision ‘‘Interstate 

Transport of Air Pollution’’ addressing 

the requirements of Clean Air Act 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 PM2.5

and 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS). For the 

latter, EPA proposes approval of the 

North Dakota Interstate Transport SIP 

sections that address the requirements 

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

state’s emissions from contributing 

significantly to any other state’s 

nonattainment of the NAAQS, or from 

interfering with any other state’s 

required measures to prevent significant 

deterioration of its air quality. EPA will 

act at a later date on the North Dakota 

Interstate Transport SIP sections that 

address the remaining two requirements 

of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), prohibiting a 

state’s emissions from interfering with 

any other state’s maintenance of the 

NAAQS, or with any other state’s 

required measures to protect visibility. 

This action is being taken under section 

110 of the Clean Air Act. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before April 30, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08– 

OAR–2009–0282, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-mail: videtich.callie@epa.gov and 

mastrangelo.domenico@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (303) 312–6064 (please alert 

the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing 

comments). 

• Mail: Callie Videtich, Director, Air 

Program, Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P– 

AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, 

Colorado 80202–1129. 

• Hand Delivery: Callie Videtich, 

Director, Air Program, Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 

Mailcode 8P–AR, 1595 Wynkoop, 

Denver, Colorado 80202–1129. Such 

deliveries are only accepted Monday 

through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., 

excluding Federal holidays. Special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R08–OAR–2009– 

0282. 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 information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. 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 instructions on 

submitting comments, go to Section I. 

General Information of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http:// 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 31, 2010 / Proposed Rules 16027 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy. Publicly-available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air Program, Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 

Mailcode 8P–AR, 1595 Wynkoop, 

Denver, Colorado 80202–1129. EPA 

requests that if at all possible, you 

contact the individual listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

view the hard copy of the docket. You 

may view the hard copy of the docket 

Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4 

p.m., excluding Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Domenico Mastrangelo, Air Program, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 8, Mailcode 8P–AR, 1595 

Wynkoop, Denver, Colorado 80202– 

1129, (303) 312–6436, 

mastrangelo.domenico@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Definitions 

For the purpose of this document, we 

are giving meaning to certain words or 

initials as follows: 

(i) The words or initials Act or CAA 

mean or refer to the Clean Air Act, 

unless the context indicates otherwise. 

(ii) The words EPA, we, us or our 

mean or refer to the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency. 

(iii) The initials SIP mean or refer to 

State Implementation Plan. 

(iv) The words North Dakota and 

State mean the State of North Dakota. 

Table of Contents 

I. General Information 

What Should I Consider as I Prepare My 

Comments for EPA? 

II. What Action Is EPA Proposing? 

III. What Is the State Process to Submit This 

Material to EPA? 

IV. EPA’s Review and Technical Information 

A. Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

Provisions 

B. Interstate Transport SIP 

V. Proposed Action 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. General Information 

What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for EPA? 

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit CBI 

to EPA through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly 

mark the part or all of the information 

that you claim to be CBI. For CBI 

information in a disk or CD ROM that 

you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the 

disk or CD ROM as CBI and then 

identify electronically within the disk or 

CD ROM the specific information that is 

claimed as CBI. In addition to one 

complete version of the comment that 

includes information claimed as CBI, a 

copy of the comment that does not 

contain the information claimed as CBI 

must be submitted for inclusion in the 

public docket. Information so marked 

will not be disclosed except in 

accordance with procedures set forth in 

40 CFR part 2. 

2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. 

When submitting comments, remember 

to: 

a. Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

b. Follow directions—The agency may 

ask you to respond to specific questions 

or organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

c. Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

d. Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

e. If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

f. Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

g. Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

h. Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

II. What Action Is EPA Proposing? 

EPA is proposing approval of 

revisions to the State provisions on the 

prevention significant deterioration 

(PSD) of air quality in subsection 33– 

15–15–01.2 of the North Dakota 

Administrative Code (NDAC), and is 

also proposing partial approval of the 

North Dakota Interstate Transport of Air 

Pollution SIP for the 1997 PM2.5 and 8- 

hour ozone National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS). The 

revisions to NDAC subsection 33–15– 

15–01.2, and the addition to the North 

Dakota SIP of section 7.8, ‘‘Interstate 

Transport of Air Pollution,’’ were 

adopted by the State of North Dakota on 

April 1, 2009 and submitted to EPA on 

April 6, 2009. EPA is proposing to 

approve the revision of NDAC 

subsection 33–15–15–01.02, 

incorporating changes to 40 CFR 52.21 

made by EPA through August 1, 2007. 

EPA also proposes to approve the 

language and demonstrations of the 

North Dakota Interstate Transport SIP 

that address two elements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i): significant contribution 

to nonattainment of the NAAQS in any 

other state, element (1), and interference 

with required measures by any other 

state to prevent significant deterioration 

(PSD) of its air quality, element (3). 

III. What Is the State Process To Submit 

This Material to EPA? 

Section 110(k) of the CAA addresses 

EPA’s rulemaking action on SIP 

submissions by states. The CAA 

requires states to observe certain 

procedural requirements in developing 

SIP revisions for submittal to EPA. 

Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA requires 

that each SIP revision be adopted after 

reasonable notice and public hearing. 

This must occur prior to the revision 

being submitted by a state to EPA. 

The North Dakota Department of 

Health (NDDH) held a public hearing on 

October 7, 2008 for revisions to 

subsection 33–15–15–01.02 of the 

NDAC and for the addition to the North 

Dakota SIP of the Interstate Transport 

non-regulatory provisions. The NDDH 

adopted the provisions on April 1, 2009 

and submitted them to EPA on April 6, 

2009. 

In a March 2, 2010 email, EPA 

requested that the North Dakota Air 

Quality Division clarify the State 

commitment, stated in the Interstate 

Transport SIP submitted to EPA April 6, 

2009, to EPA’s interim policy on the use 

of PM10 as surrogate for PM2.5. In a 

March 8, 2010 letter to the Region 8 Air 

Program, the North Dakota Air Quality 

Division clarified its interpretation of 

EPA’s Surrogate Policy. This 

correspondence is included in this 

action’s supporting docket available for 

public review. 

We have evaluated the submittal by 

the NDDH and have determined that the 

State met the requirements of section 

110(a)(2) of the CAA for reasonable 

notice and public hearing. 

IV. EPA’s Review and Technical 

Information 

A. Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration Provisions 

The revisions to subsection 33–15– 

15–01.2 updated to August 1, 2007 the 

baseline date for incorporation by 

reference of the Federal requirements at 

40 CFR 52.21. In addition, various 

administrative corrections and 

clarifications were made. As these 

revisions were made to make the PSD 

provisions consistent with Federal 

requirements, they are approvable. 

B. Interstate Transport SIP 

The interstate transport provisions at 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), also 

referred to as the ‘‘good neighbor’’ 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
16028 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 31, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

1Memorandum from William T. Harnett entitled 

‘‘Guidance for State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

Submissions 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,’’ (Aug. 15, 2006) (‘‘2006 

Guidance’’). This EPA guidance document is one of 

the documents available for review in the docket 

document entitled: ‘‘Relevant Guidance and 

Supporting Documentation for the Proposed 

Rulemaking Federal Register Action Docket ID # 

EPA–R08–OAR–2009–0282.’’ 

2 In this action the expression ‘‘CAIR’’ refers to the 

final rule published in the May 12, 2005 Federal 

Register and entitled ‘‘Rule to Reduce Interstate 

Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone 

(Clean Air Interstate Rule); Revisions to Acid Rain 

Program; Revisions to NOX SIP Call; Final Rule’’ (70 

FR 25162). 

3 Distances from Bismarck, North Dakota, to areas 

in other states are intended to approximate the 

average transport distance of emissions from 

sources in North Dakota to such areas. For surface 

wind directions, see ‘‘Climate of North DakotaWind,’’ USGS web page at http:// 

www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/habitat/climate/ 

wind.htm, visited February 10, 2010, and available 

for review in EPA’s January 14, 2010 docket 

memorandum: ‘‘Relevant Guidance and Supporting 

Documentation for the Proposed Rulemaking 

Federal Register Action Docket ID # EPA–R08– 

OAR–2009–0282.’’ 

4 ‘‘Technical Support for State and Tribal Air 

Quality Fine Particle (PM2.5) Designations,’’ Chapter 

6, pp. 347–352, December 2004. 

5 In 2001, 2002 and 2006, design values for two 

monitors in Missoula County were 11.1, 11.4 and 

11.8 μg/m3. Computed from AQS monitoring data. 

provisions, require that each state SIP 

contain adequate provisions prohibiting 

emissions that adversely affect another 

state’s air quality through interstate 

transport of air pollutants. Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) contains four 

requirements or elements: (1) 

Significant contribution to 

nonattainment of the NAAQS in any 

other state; (2) interference with 

maintenance of the NAAQS by any 

other state; (3) interference with any 

other state’s required measures to 

prevent significant deterioration of its 

air quality; and (4) interference with any 

other state’s required measures to 

protect visibility. On August 15, 2006, 

EPA issued guidance for SIP 

submissions addressing the section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) requirements for the 1997 

PM2.5 and 8-hour ozone standards.1 In 

November 2005 (70 FR 71612) and May 

2008 (43 FR 28321), EPA finalized 

regulations implementing Phase II of the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and the 

New Source Review (NSR) Program for 

the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

To demonstrate that its SIP satisfies 

the requirements for significant 

contribution to nonattainment, North 

Dakota relies on a combination of: (a) 

EPA modeling analysis results 

published in Federal Register notices as 

part of the Clean Air Interstate Rule 

(CAIR) rulemaking process; 2 (b) 

monitoring data gathered by states and 

reported to EPA in the Air Quality 

System (AQS) database; and (c) 

consideration of geographical and 

meteorological factors affecting the 

likelihood of significant pollution 

transport from North Dakota to the 

closest PM2.5 and 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment areas or violating 

monitors in other states. In this action 

EPA also expands on the analysis of 

geographical and meteorological factors, 

and of ozone and PM2.5 concentration 

levels reflecting AQS monitoring data. 

EPA deems that the North Dakota 

Interstate Transport SIP sections 

addressing requirements (1) and (3) of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) are consistent 

with EPA’s 2006 guidance and the 

referenced implementation rules for 

ozone and PM2.5. 

Significant Contribution Element— 

PM2.5

Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) provides that 

EPA cannot approve a state’s SIP for a 

new or revised NAAQS unless it 

contains adequate measures to prohibit 

emissions from sources within the state 

from contributing significantly to 

nonattainment of the NAAQS in another 

state. EPA’s August 15, 2006, guidance 

to states concerning section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) recommended various 

methods by which states might evaluate 

whether or not its emissions 

significantly contribute to violations of 

the 1997 PM2.5 standards in another 

state. Among other methods, EPA 

recommended consideration of available 

EPA modeling conducted in 

conjunction with 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. It should 

be noted that significant contribution to 

nonattainment is not restricted to 

impacts upon areas that are formally 

designated nonattainment. Consistent 

with EPA’s approach in CAIR, this 

impact must be evaluated with respect 

to monitors showing a violation of the 

NAAQS (70 FR 25172, May 12, 2005, 

and 63 FR 57371, October 27, 1998). 

Furthermore, although relevant 

information other than modeling may be 

considered in assessing the likelihood of 

significant contribution to violations of 

the 1997 PM2.5 standard in another state, 

EPA notes that no single piece of 

information in the following discussion 

is by itself dispositive of the issue. 

Instead, the total weight of all the 

evidence taken together supports the 

conclusion that emissions within North 

Dakota do not significantly contribute to 

violations in another state of the 1997 

PM2.5 standard. 

Although significant contribution 

must be measured not just against 

nonattainment areas, but against areas 

with monitors showing violations of the 

NAAQS, nonattainment areas are a 

convenient starting point for the 

analysis. For the 1997 annual PM2.5

standard, Libby, in Lincoln County, 

Montana, and Chicago, in Cook County, 

Illinois, are the designated 

nonattainment areas closest to the State 

of North Dakota. In 2005, EPA 

designated both areas nonattainment for 

violations of the 1997 annual PM2.5

standards. See 70 FR 944 (January 5, 

2005), and 40 CFR 81.314 and 81.327. 

A number of considerations provide 

evidence that North Dakota emissions 

are unlikely to contribute significantly 

to the violations of the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 standards in Libby. First, Libby is 

more than 650 miles straight west of 

Bismarck, and any impact from North 

Dakota emissions would have to rely on 

strong easterly winds that rarely occur 

in the State.3 This substantial distance 

and the rarity of easterly surface winds, 

while not outcome determinative given 

the distances across which PM2.5 can 

transport, support a conclusion that 

North Dakota emissions are unlikely to 

contribute significantly to violations of 

the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard in 

Libby. Second, in the process of 

designating Libby nonattainment for 

these standards, EPA noted the 

predominantly local origins of PM2.5

nonattainment in Libby.4 While the 

predominance of local sources does not 

alone rule out the possibility of impacts 

from interstate transport, this fact in 

conjunction with the distance and the 

near absence of easterly winds in North 

Dakota supports a conclusion that North 

Dakota emissions are unlikely to 

contribute significantly to violations in 

Libby. Third, during the ten years for 

which monitoring data are available, 

from 1999 to 2008, annual PM2.5 design 

values at all other monitors in Montana 

remained significantly below the 15 μg/ 

m3 nonattainment threshold. Annual 

PM2.5 design values for most of these 

monitors remained at levels equal to, or 

less than, two thirds of the NAAQS. 

Even the three highest design values at 

these monitors were 20 percent lower 

than the level of the annual standard.5

The fact that monitors located 

between North Dakota and Libby are not 

registering violations of the NAAQS 

does not conclusively establish that 

emissions from North Dakota could not 

contribute in the aggregate to violations 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 31, 2010 / Proposed Rules 16029 

6State of Montana, Department of Environmental 

Quality, ‘‘State Implementation Plan-Libby Annual 

PM2.5 Control Plan,’’ submitted to EPA April 1, 

2008. 

7This threshold was upheld by the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the DC Circuit in its adjudication of 

consolidated challenges to CAIR. See North 

Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896, 930 (DC Cir. 2008). 

8As EPA only evaluated sources of NOX and SO2

in CAIR, the CAIR modeling analysis, like the other 

evidence considered in this action, is not by itself 

dispositive of the issue of significant contribution. 

9Unless otherwise referenced, for AQS 

monitoring data and related design values 

referenced in this action see Table 1 and Table 2 

in the docket document entitled: ‘‘Relevant 

Guidance and Supporting Documentation for the 

Proposed Rulemaking Federal Register Action 

Docket ID # EPA–R08–OAR–2009–0282.’’ 

in Libby, but this fact combined with 

other relevant evidence such as the 

distance, wind direction, and localized 

nature of the violations in Libby again 

supports the North Dakota’s Interstate 

Transport SIP conclusion on PM2.5

contribution. Finally, by 2007–2008, the 

annual PM2.5 design values for the Libby 

nonattainment area itself fell below the 

level of the NAAQS, a reduction 

attributed to an effective wood stove 

replacement program that decreased 

PM2.5 emissions by approximately 59 

percent.6 In other words, were there 

emissions from North Dakota sources 

reaching Libby, they would no longer be 

significantly contributing to violations 

of the NAAQS in that location. 

Similarly, available information 

indicates that North Dakota emissions 

are unlikely to contribute significantly 

to the violations of the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 standards in Cook County Illinois. 

In its rulemaking process for CAIR, EPA 

determined which states should be 

subject to the rule due to their 

significant contribution to 

nonattainment of the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS in other states. This 

determination included a modeling 

analysis of the contributions by upwind 

states to a violating monitor in Cook 

County, which is approximately 750 

miles southeast of Bismarck, North 

Dakota. According to modeling cited in 

the CAIR proposal of January 30, 2004 

(69 FR 4566), EPA estimated that the 

maximum contribution by emissions 

from sources in North Dakota to 

downwind counties predicted to have 

violating monitors for the PM2.5 annual 

standard in the 2010 base year was to 

Cook County. EPA estimated that the 

North Dakota annual average 

contribution to Cook County would be 

0.12 μg/m3 (Table V–5, 69 FR 4608), an 

amount well below 0.20 μg/m3, the 

threshold set by EPA in CAIR for the 

initial determination of whether a state 

would be subject to the rule (70 FR 

25188–91).7 The CAIR modeling 

analysis thus provides support for the 

conclusion that emissions from North 

Dakota are not significantly contributing 

to violations of the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS in Cook County.8

As mentioned above, EPA must 

consider not only significant 

contribution to nonattainment areas, but 

also to areas with monitors showing 

violations of the NAAQS. A review of 

the AQS monitoring data for adjacent 

downwind states shows that it is highly 

unlikely that emissions from North 

Dakota contribute significantly to 

downwind areas that have monitors 

showing violations of the 1997 24-hour 

and annual PM2.5 NAAQS. Between 

1999 and 2008 there were no violations 

of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS at any of the 

monitors in adjacent downwind states, 

such as Minnesota, South Dakota and 

Iowa.9

In South Dakota, monitors in 

Minnehaha and Brookings Counties had 

the highest design values for 1997 24- 

hour PM2.5 standards during the 1999– 

2008 period. Their design values 

ranged, respectively, from 23 to 28 and 

from 21 to 26 μg/m3, as compared with 

the 1997 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS of 65 

μg/m3. For annual PM2.5, Codington and 

Minnehaha Counties had the monitors 

with the highest design values, ranging 

from 9.5 to 10.3 μg/m3, and from 9.3 to 

10.4 μg/m3, respectively, as compared to 

the annual NAAQS of 15 μg/m3. 

In Minnesota, during 1999–2008, the 

highest design values for 1997 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS occurred for monitors in 

the Twin Cities’ Hennepin and Ramsey 

Counties, where they ranged, 

respectively, from 23 to 32 and from 26 

to 36 μg/m3. The highest design values 

for annual PM2.5 reflected PM2.5

monitored levels also in these two 

counties, and ranged, respectively, from 

8.9 to 11.9 μg/m3 and from 10.7 to 13.8 

μg/m3. It must be noted that the highest 

design value of 13.8 μg/m3, for a 

monitor in Ramsey County, reflected 

annual PM2.5 concentrations registered 

during the 1999–2001 time span. After 

2001, PM2.5 concentrations in Ramsey 

County decreased steadily, and between 

2006 and 2008 the highest design value 

for any of the Minnesota monitoring 

stations was 11.2 μg/m3, significantly 

below the annual NAAQS. 

In Iowa, the highest 24-hour PM2.5

design values during the 1999–2008 

years reflected pollutant concentrations 

registered at monitors in Clinton and 

Muscatine Counties. In these counties, 

design values ranged, respectively, from 

28 to 36 and from 34 to 38 μg/m3, as 

compared with the 1997 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS of 65 μg/m3. The highest 

annual PM2.5 design values occurred in 

the same counties, and ranged from 11.7 

to 14.1 μg/m3 in Clinton County, and 

from 12.5 to 13.3 μg/m3 in Muscatine 

County. 

The data and weight of evidence 

analysis presented above support the 

conclusion of the North Dakota 

Interstate Transport SIP (adopted April 

1, 2009 and submitted April 6, 2009) 

that emissions from North Dakota do not 

contribute significantly to 

nonattainment in any other state for the 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, consistently with 

the requirements of element (1) of CAA 

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

Significant Contribution Element— 

8-Hour Ozone 

As noted above, Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) provides that EPA cannot 

approve a state’s SIP for a new or 

revised NAAQS unless it contains 

adequate measures to prohibit emissions 

from sources within the state from 

contributing significantly to 

nonattainment of the NAAQS in another 

state. EPA’s August 15, 2006, guidance 

to states concerning section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) recommended various 

methods by which states might evaluate 

whether or not its emissions 

significantly contribute to violations of 

the 1997 ozone standards in another 

state. Among other methods, EPA 

recommended consideration of available 

EPA modeling conducted in 

conjunction with 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, this 

impact must be evaluated with respect 

to monitors showing a violation of the 

NAAQS (70 FR 25172, May 12, 2005, 

and 63 FR 57371, October 27, 1998). 

Furthermore, although relevant 

information other than modeling may be 

considered in assessing the likelihood of 

significant contribution to violations of 

the 1997 8-hour ozone standard in 

another state, EPA notes that no single 

piece of information in the following 

discussion is by itself dispositive of the 

issue. Instead, the total weight of all the 

evidence taken together supports the 

conclusion that emissions from North 

Dakota sources are unlikely to 

contribute significantly to violations in 

another state of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
16030 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 31, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

10The Wisconsin nonattainment areas for the 

1997 8-hour ozone standard include: Door, 

Kewaunee, Manitowoc, Sheboygan, Ozaukee, 

Washington, Milwaukee, Waukesha, Racine and 

Kenosha counties; the Chicago nonattainment area 

includes Cook County and several adjacent Illinois 

and Indiana counties (69 FR 23858, April 30, 2004). 11 Distances from Bismarck, North Dakota, to 

areas in other states are intended to approximate 

the average transport distance of emissions from 

sources in North Dakota to such areas. 

12See USGS data in EPA’s January 14, 2010 

docket memorandum: ‘‘Relevant Guidance and 

Supporting Documentation for the Proposed 

Rulemaking Federal Register Action Docket ID # 

EPA–R08–OAR–2009–0282.’’ 

13Ozone Transport Assessment Group (OTAG), 

Air Quality Analysis Workgroup, ‘‘3.3 Climatology 

of Ozone Synoptic scale Transport in the Eastern 

US,’’ Figures 1(a) and 5(a), pp. 3, 6, January 11, 

1998. The high ozone days included the days with 

ozone concentrations in the 90th percentile. 

14 Ibid. 

15 69 FR 4584 (Jan. 30, 2004) (‘‘We are deferring 

findings for Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, 

South Dakota and North Dakota, which at this time 

cannot be assessed on the same bases as States to 

the east because they are only partially included in 

the modeling domain * * *’’). 

16The 400 mile distance to the nonattainment 

area is calculated from St. Cloud, and is intended 

to be a rough approximation of the average 

transport distance of NOX emission sources from 

Minnesota. 

17 69 FR 4590. 

18Minnesota was not listed among the upwind 

states that contribute significantly to downwind 

counties projected nonattainment for 8-hour ozone 

in the 2010 base year, and is not a CAIR state for 

the 8-hour ozone standard. 69 FR 4602, Table V– 

2; 70 FR 25167. 

Although significant contribution 

must be measured not just against 

nonattainment areas, but against areas 

with monitors showing violations of the 

NAAQS, nonattainment areas are a 

convenient starting point for the 

analysis. For the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS, the North Dakota Interstate 

Transport SIP revision identifies the 

Denver Metro Area/North Front Range 

(DMA/NFR) in Colorado, and the 

Illinois and Wisconsin counties along 

the southwestern shores of Lake 

Michigan as the closest designated 

nonattainment areas.10 EPA’s evaluation 

of whether emissions from North Dakota 

contribute significantly to the ozone 

nonattainment in these areas is based on 

an examination of how geographical and 

meteorological factors affect transport 

from North Dakota to the two areas 

noted above. Our approach does not rely 

on a quantitative determination of North 

Dakota’s contribution, as EPA did for 

other states in its CAIR rulemaking, but 

on a weight-of-evidence analysis based 

on qualitative assessments and 

estimates of the relevant factors. While 

conclusions reached for each of the 

factors considered in the following 

analysis are not in and by themselves 

determinative, consideration of the 

likely effect of all factors provides a 

reliable qualitative conclusion on 

whether North Dakota’s emissions are 

likely to contribute significantly to 

nonattainment in the DMA/NFR area 

and the Illinois/Wisconsin Counties. 

The DMA/NFR nonattainment area is 

approximately 550 miles southwest of 

Bismarck, North Dakota.11 Distance per 

se is not an obstacle to long range 

transport of ozone and/or its precursors, 

as discussed in the January 30, 2004 

notice proposing CAIR (69 FR 4599); 

NOX (the primary ozone precursor that 

was the object of the CAIR transport 

study) may be transported for long 

distances, contributing significantly to 

high ozone concentrations in other 

states. However, with increasing 

distance there are greater opportunities 

for ozone and/or NOX dispersion and/or 

removal from the atmosphere due to the 

effects of winds and chemical sink 

processes. In this context, one may 

conclude that the 550 mile distance 

between North Dakota and the DMA/ 

NFR reduces but does not exclude the 

possibility of significant contribution to 

this area’s nonattainment. 

Another transport factor is wind 

direction. Research for North Dakota 

and states immediately to the south and 

east shows that in North Dakota both 

surface and regional transport winds 

from the northeast, needed to transport 

ozone to the DMA/NFR area, are 

generally rare. Thirty years of data 

collected by the United States 

Geological Survey (USGS) on surface 

wind direction for several North Dakota 

locations show that there was much 

variability by location and time of the 

year, with the exception of northeasterly 

winds, which were very infrequent.12

For long range transport winds, a 

modeling analysis of ozone dispersion 

during the summer months (June to 

August) of the five year period 1991– 

1995 shows that on high local ozone 

days North Dakota and states 

immediately to the south or east were 

characterized by southerly regional 

transport winds. On high regional ozone 

days, during the same period transport 

winds did not have a prevailing 

orientation, and certainly not a 

northeasterly one.13 To the extent that 

these results are representative of 

general ozone transport patterns not 

limited to the 1991–95 period, the rarity 

of northeasterly winds in North Dakota 

and adjacent areas provides evidence 

that NOX emissions from North Dakota 

are likely to be transported in a 

direction away from the Colorado DMA/ 

NFR nonattainment area, and therefore 

supports the conclusion that emissions 

sources in North Dakota are unlikely to 

contribute significantly to violations of 

the 1997 ozone NAAQS in Denver.14

The Illinois/Wisconsin counties along 

the southwestern shores of Lake 

Michigan (which make up the other 

nonattainment area within possible 

transport distance of North Dakota) are 

approximately 700 miles east-southeast 

from Bismarck. The CAIR modeling 

domain for 8-hour ozone transport 

analysis included only the eastern half 

of North Dakota, and the CAIR modeling 

analysis did not determine whether 

NOX emissions from North Dakota 

sources contributed significantly to 

ozone nonattainment in any downwind 

states.15 However, the CAIR modeling 

analysis results for Minnesota provide 

us the opportunity to draw inferences 

about ozone contribution from North 

Dakota sources to nonattainment in the 

Illinois/Wisconsin area. It must be noted 

that Minnesota is nearly half as distant 

from this nonattainment area as North 

Dakota (400 miles as compared with 

700),16 and that to reach the Illinois/ 

Wisconsin nonattainment area, ozone 

transport winds from Minnesota would 

have to have a northwesterly orientation 

similar to that necessary for substantial 

ozone transport from North Dakota. In 

addition, the CAIR modeling analysis 

estimated the Minnesota’s NOX

emissions for the 2010 base year to be 

approximately twice as large as the NOX

emissions from North Dakota’s sources 

(381,500 as compared with 182, 800 

tons).17 Finally, the CAIR analysis 

determined that emissions from 

Minnesota were below the initial 

threshold for including states in CAIR.18

In light of this CAIR determination, and 

of Minnesota’s larger NOX emissions 

and shorter distance to the 

nonattainment area, it is plausible to 

conclude that NOX emissions from 

North Dakota sources are not likely to 

contribute significantly to 

nonattainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard in the Illinois and Wisconsin 

counties along the southwestern shores 

of Lake Michigan. 

Additional ozone transport factors 

specific to North Dakota are distance 

from the nonattainment area and 

prevailing orientation of the winds. As 

noted above, Bismarck is approximately 

700 miles from the Illinois/Wisconsin 

nonattainment area, a distance which 

does not exclude the realistic possibility 

that significant ozone transport might 

occur. Research on surface wind 

direction in North Dakota, reflected in 

the USGS data referenced earlier, shows 

a great variability depending on location 

and time of the year. Northwesterly 

winds are more frequent than 

southwesterly or southeasterly winds 

considered separately, but less frequent 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 31, 2010 / Proposed Rules 16031 

19 Ibid. 20Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 

‘‘Attainment Demonstration—The Wisconsin 

Counties of Kenosha, Racine, Milwaukee, 

Waukesha, Ozaukee, Washington, Sheboygan, 

Manitowoc and Door,’’ pp. 8, 51, September 2009. 21 Ibid. p. 14. 

than the two combined. On the other 

hand, as noted earlier in this review, 

during the ozone season of the years 

1991–1995, on local high ozone days 

regional transport winds in North 

Dakota were predominantly southerly, 

and on high regional ozone days they 

lacked a prevailing orientation. There 

was no strong northwesterly component 

that might allow for significant transport 

of NOX to the Illinois/Wisconsin area.19

To the extent that these results are 

representative of general ozone 

transport patterns not limited to the 

1991–95 period, one may add the 

relative infrequency of northwesterly 

transport winds from North Dakota to 

the other factors that make it unlikely 

for emissions from North Dakota sources 

to contribute significantly to 

nonattainment in the noted Illinois/ 

Wisconsin area. 

This conclusion is supported by the 

recent attainment demonstration 

developed for the nonattainment 

counties along the western shores of 

Lake Michigan by the Wisconsin 

Department of Natural Resources 

(WDNR). The WDNR analysis identifies 

heavy industrial activity and dense 

urbanization as the major local 

contributors to the high ozone 

concentrations in the Illinois and 

Wisconsin Counties along the 

southwestern shores of Lake Michigan. 

Regional ozone transport is thought to 

contribute from 40 to 60% of the 

maximum ozone concentrations in the 

Lake Michigan airshed, and the 

contributing transport is estimated to 

originate from south-southwesterly 

areas, within a span of 160 to 270 

degrees. Any ozone transport from 

North Dakota would fall outside this 

span. The WDNR finding, in 

combination with the results of the 

analysis for other transport factors 

presented above, strengthens the 

conclusion that it is unlikely that 

emissions from North Dakota sources 

contribute significantly to the 

nonattainment of the Illinois/Wisconsin 

Counties on the southwestern shores of 

Lake Michigan.20

Finally, by 2008, the 8-hour ozone 

design values for the Illinois and 

Wisconsin nonattainment counties 

along the shores of Lake Michigan fell 

below the level of the NAAQS, a 

reduction attributed to the 

implementation of State and Federal 

control measures since the designation 

of these counties as nonattainment in 

2004. In other words, were there 

emissions from North Dakota sources 

reaching the Illinois and Wisconsin 

counties along the western rim of Lake 

Michigan, they would no longer be 

significantly contributing to violations 

of the NAAQS in that area.21

As mentioned above, EPA must 

consider not only significant 

contribution to nonattainment areas, but 

also to areas with monitors showing 

violations of the NAAQS. A review of 

the AQS monitoring data for adjacent 

downwind states shows that it is highly 

unlikely that emissions from North 

Dakota contribute significantly to 

downwind areas that have monitors 

showing violations of the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. Between 1999 and 2008 

there were no violations of the 1997 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS at any of the 

monitors in adjacent downwind states, 

such as Minnesota, South Dakota and 

Iowa. 

The design values for Minnesota, 

South Dakota and Iowa during the 

1999–2008 years remained substantially 

below the 1997 NAAQS in most 

counties, as shown by the highest 

design values. In South Dakota, the 

highest design values were in Custer 

and Jackson Counties, where they 

peaked, respectively, at 71 and at 68 

ppb. In Minnesota, the highest design 

values were in Anoka and Washington 

Counties, where they peaked at 75 ppb. 

In Iowa, the highest design values were 

in Clinton and Scott Counties, where 

they reached levels between 78 and 80 

ppb in the early part of the 1999–2008 

period, and decreased to levels, 

respectively, between 67 and 72, and 65 

and 70 ppb during 2006–2008. The 

decrease of Iowa ozone levels between 

1998 and 2008 can be gauged by 

comparing the peak levels of 79–80 ppb 

in 2000–2003 with peak levels of 70–75 

ppb in 2006–2008. 

The data and weight of evidence 

analysis presented above support the 

conclusion of the North Dakota 

Interstate Transport SIP (adopted April 

1, 2009 and submitted April 6, 2009) 

that emissions from North Dakota do not 

contribute significantly to 

nonattainment in any other state for the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, consistently 

with the requirements of element (1) of 

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

Interference With PSD Element—PM2.5

and Ozone 

The third element of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) requires a SIP to contain 

adequate provisions prohibiting 

emissions that interfere with any other 

state’s required measures to prevent 

significant deterioration of its air 

quality. The State of North Dakota 

interstate transport SIP is consistent 

with the 2006 guidance. The SIP 

indicates in Section 7.8.1, subsection C, 

‘‘Impact on Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD),’’ that the State’s SIP 

provisions include an EPA-approved 

PSD program applicable to all regulated 

pollutants. North Dakota’s regulations 

for its PSD program were federallyapproved and made part of the SIP on 

November 2, 1979 (44 FR 63103). On 

July 19, 2007, EPA approved the North 

Dakota PSD revisions incorporating 

EPA’s December 31, 2002 NSR Reforms 

into the State’s regulations (72 FR 

39564). North Dakota does not have 

nonattainment areas for any of the 

criteria pollutants and therefore does 

not have a Nonattainment New Source 

Review (NNSR) program. 

Consistent with EPA’s November 29, 

2005 Phase II rule for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard (70 FR 71612), the State 

updated, effective April 1, 2009, its PSD 

provisions by incorporating by reference 

most of the federal provisions at 52.21, 

including the definition of regulated 

NSR pollutant at 52.21(b)(50), listing 

NOX as an ozone precursor. As 

discussed elsewhere in this notice, EPA 

proposes in this action to approve the 

April 1, 2009 update. Thus, the April 1, 

2009 update, taken together with 

interstate transport SIP section 7.8.1, 

subsection C, satisfies the requirements 

of the third element of CAA section 

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

standard. 

For PM2.5, North Dakota’s SIP declares 

that the State will follow EPA’s interim 

guidance on use of PM10 as a surrogate 

for PM2.5. In response to EPA’s request 

of March 2, 2010, the North Dakota Air 

Quality Division, in a March 8, 2010 

letter to the EPA Region 8 Air Program, 

has clarified an ambiguity in its 

interpretation of the interim guidance. 

The letter states that, until the guidance 

is ended or replaced, North Dakota will 

apply it consistent with EPA’s 

interpretation of the federal case law 

relevant to the use of the PM10 Surrogate 

Policy (see 75 FR 6827, 6831–32, 

February 11, 2010). The State will also 

take into account the limits provided in 

the policy itself, such as the need to 

identify the technical difficulties that 

justify the application of the policy in 

each specific case (75 FR 6834). With 

that clarification, the North Dakota 

Interstate Transport SIP satisfies the 

requirements of the third element of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS. 

On the basis of the data and analysis 

presented above, EPA concludes that 

the North Dakota Interstate Transport 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
16032 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 31, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

non-regulatory provisions adopted into 

the State SIP April 1, 2009 satisfactorily 

address the requirements of elements (1) 

and (3) of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 

1997 PM2.5 and 8-hour ozone standards. 

V. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing approval of 

revisions, submitted by the Governor of 

North Dakota with a letter dated April 

6, 2009, to the prevention of significant 

deterioration provisions in subsection 

33–15–15 of the NDAC, and partial 

approval of the addition to the State SIP 

of the ‘‘Interstate Transport of Air 

Pollution’’ SIP addressing the 

requirements of Clean Air Act section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 PM2.5 and 8- 

hour ozone National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS). For the 

North Dakota Interstate Transport SIP, 

EPA is proposing approval of: (a) The 

introductory language in the State SIP 

Section 7.8; (b) the ‘‘Overview’’ language 

in subsection A., Section 7.8.1; (c) 

language in Section 7.8.1, subsection B., 

‘‘Nonattainment and Maintenance Area 

Impact,’’ that specifically addresses 

element (1) of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), the 

requirement that the SIP contain 

adequate provisions prohibiting 

emissions from North Dakota from 

contributing significantly to 

nonattainment in any other state; and 

(d) Section 7.8.1, subsection C, ‘‘Impact 

on Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD).’’ 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Review 

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 

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 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 

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, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

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

Dated: March 18, 2010. 

Carol L. Campbell, 

Acting Assistant Regional Administrator, 

Region 8. 

[FR Doc. 2010–6894 Filed 3–30–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2007–1032; FRL–9131–4] 

Approval and Promulgation of State 

Implementation Plans; State of 

Colorado; Interstate Transport of 

Pollution Revisions for the 1997 8-Hour 

Ozone NAAQS: ‘‘Significant 

Contribution to Nonattainment’’ 

Requirement 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing partial 

approval of the State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) revisions ‘‘State of Colorado 

Implementation Plan to Meet the 

Requirements of Clean Air Act Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)—Interstate Transport 

Regarding the 1997 8-Hour Ozone 

Standard’’ submitted by the State of 

Colorado on June 18, 2009. The 

Colorado Interstate Transport SIP 

revisions submitted June 18, 2009 

address the requirements of Clean Air 

Act section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 1997 

8-hour ozone National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS). In this 

Federal Register action EPA proposes 

approval of the Colorado SIP sections 

that address the requirement of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) prohibiting a state’s 

emissions from contributing 

significantly to any other state’s 

nonattainment of the NAAQS. EPA will 

act at a later date on the Colorado 

Interstate Transport SIP sections that 

address the requirement prohibiting a 

state’s emissions from interfering with 

any other state’s maintenance of the 

NAAQS. This action is being taken 

under section 110 of the Clean Air Act. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before April 30, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08– 

OAR–2007–1032, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-mail: videtich.callie@epa.gov and 

mastrangelo.domenico@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (303) 312–6064 (please alert 

the individual listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing 

comments). 

• Mail: Callie Videtich, Director, Air 

Program, Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 

8P–AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, 

Colorado 80202–1129. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES