Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 90 / Thursday, May 8, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 26019 

■ 2. Add temporary 165.T–0309 to read 

as follows: 

§ 165.T–0309 Trent River, New Bern, North 

Carolina. 

(a) Safety Zone. The safety zone 

includes all waters within a 150 feet 

radius of position 35° 06′ 03′′ North 077° 

03′ 24′′ West, approximately one 

hundred yards east of the Trent River 

Railroad Bridge, New Bern, North 

Carolina. All coordinates reference 

Datum NAD 1983. 

(b) Definitions. (1) Coast Guard Patrol 

Commander means a commissioned, 

warrant, or petty officer of the Coast 

Guard who has been designated by the 

Commander, Coast Guard Sector North 

Carolina. 

(2) Official Patrol means any vessel 

assigned or approved by Commander, 

Coast Guard Sector North Carolina with 

a commissioned, warrant, or petty 

officer on board and displaying a Coast 

Guard ensign. 

(3) Participant includes all vessels 

participating in the ‘‘Hatteras Boat 

Parade’’ under the auspices of the 

Marine Event Permit issued to the event 

sponsor and approved by Commander, 

Coast Guard Sector North Carolina. 

(c) Safety Zone. (1) Except for event 

participants and persons or vessels 

authorized by the Coast Guard Patrol 

Commander, no person or vessel may 

enter or remain in the safety zone. 

(2) The Operator of any vessel in the 

safety zone must: 

(i) Stop the vessel immediately when 

directed to do so by any Official Patrol 

and then proceed only as directed. 

(ii) Comply with the instructions of 

the Official Patrol. 

(iii) If authorized to proceed, proceed 

at the minimum speed necessary to 

maintain a safe course that minimizes 

wake near the event site. 

(d) Enforcement period. This section 

will be enforced from 7:30 p.m. to 9 

p.m. on May 30, 2008. 

Dated: April 21, 2008. 

June E. Ryan, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, 

Sector North Carolina. 

[FR Doc. E8–10272 Filed 5–7–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[Docket No. USCG 2008–0275] 

Safety Zone; Fourth of July Fireworks, 

City of Monterey, Monterey, CA 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of 

regulation. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce 

the Fourth of July Fireworks Display 

safety zone for the city of Monterey from 

8 a.m. to 9:45 p.m. on July 4, 2008. This 

action is necessary to control vessel 

traffic and to ensure the safety of event 

participants and spectators. During the 

enforcement period, unauthorized 

persons or vessels are prohibited from 

entering into, transiting through, or 

anchoring in the safety zone, unless 

authorized by the Patrol Commander 

(PATCOM). 

DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 

165.1191 will be enforced from 8 a.m. 

to 9:45 p.m. on July 4, 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Lieutenant Junior Grade Sheral 

Richardson, Waterways Management 

Branch, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San 

Francisco, at (415) 399–7436. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast 

Guard will enforce the safety zone for 

the annual Fourth of July Fireworks 

Display for the city of Monterey in 33 

CFR 165.1191 on July 4, 2008, from 8 

a.m. to 9:45 p.m. 

Under the provisions of 33 CFR 

165.1191, unauthorized persons or 

vessels are prohibited from entering 

into, transiting through, or anchoring in 

the safety zone during all applicable 

effective dates and times, unless 

authorized to do so by the PATCOM. 

Additionally, each person who receives 

notice of a lawful order or direction 

issued by an official patrol vessel shall 

obey the order of direction. The 

PATCOM is empowered to forbid and 

control the regulated area. The 

PATCOM shall be designated by the 

Commander, Coast Guard Sector San 

Francisco. The PATCOM may, upon 

request, allow the transit of commercial 

vessels through regulated areas when it 

is safe to do so. 

This notice is issued under authority 

of 33 CFR 165.1191 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). 

In addition to this notice in the Federal 

Register, the Coast Guard will provide 

the maritime community with extensive 

advance notification of this enforcement 

period via the Local Notice to Mariners. 

If the Captain of the Port determines 

that the regulated area need not be 

enforced for the full duration stated in 

this notice, he or she may use a 

Broadcast Notice to Mariners to grant 

general permission to enter the 

regulated area. 

Dated: April 15, 2008. 

D.J. Swatland, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Captain 

of the Port, Sector San Francisco. 

[FR Doc. E8–10276 Filed 5–7–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2007–0648; FRL–8563–6] 

Approval and Promulgation of State 

Implementation Plans; States of South 

Dakota and Wyoming; Interstate 

Transport of Pollution 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct Final Rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final 

action to approve State Implementation 

Plans (SIPs) submitted by the States of 

South Dakota and Wyoming that 

address interstate transport with respect 

to the 1997 8-hour ozone and fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5) National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards. EPA 

has determined that the Interstate 

Transport declarations submitted by 

South Dakota on May 15, 2007, and by 

Wyoming on May 3, 2007, satisfy the 

requirements of the Clean Air Act 

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

known as the ‘‘good neighbor’’

provisions, that a state SIP contain 

adequate provisions prohibiting air 

pollutant emissions from sources or 

activities in the state from adversely 

affecting another state. This action is 

being taken under section 110 of the 

Clean Air Act. 

DATES: This rule is effective on July 7, 

2008 without further notice, unless EPA 

receives adverse comment by June 9, 

2008. If adverse comment is received, 

EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of 

the direct final rule in the Federal 

Register informing the public that the 

rule will not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08–

OAR–2007–0648, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES
26020 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 90 / Thursday, May 8, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

• 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 4:55 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–2007–

0648. 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 

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 South Dakota and 

Wyoming mean respectively the State of 

South Dakota and the State of Wyoming. 

Table of Contents 

I. General Information 

What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments for EPA? 

II. What is the purpose of this action? 

III. What is the State process to submit these 

materials to EPA? 

IV. EPA’s evaluation of the State of South 

Dakota May 15, 2007 submittal 

V. EPA’s evaluation of the State of Wyoming 

May 3, 2007 submittal 

VI. Final Action 

VII. 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 Is the Purpose of this Action? 

EPA is approving the ‘‘Interstate 

Transport Report’’ adopted into the 

State of South Dakota SIP on April 19, 

2007 and submitted to EPA on May 15, 

2007. EPA is also approving the 

‘‘Interstate Transport’’ declaration 

adopted into the State of Wyoming SIP 

on April 19, 2007 and submitted to EPA 

on May 3, 2007. The South Dakota 

‘‘Interstate Transport Report’’ and the 

Wyoming ‘‘Interstate Transport’’

declaration address the requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the Clean Air 

Act (CAA). The provisions in this 

section of the CAA, also referred to as 

the ‘‘good neighbor’’ provisions, require 

that each state’s SIP include adequate 

provisions prohibiting emissions that 

adversely affect another state’s air 

quality through interstate transport of 

air pollutants. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 90 / Thursday, May 8, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 26021 

1Unless otherwise noted, in this action the 

expression CAIR rulemaking process or CAIR rule 

refers to materials (data, analyses, assessments) 

developed during the rulemaking process that 

resulted in the May 12, 2005 Federal Register 

notice ‘‘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). 

2See ‘‘South Dakota Implementation Plan, 

Interstate Transport Report,’’ January 5, 2007, page 

2. 

3Reproductions of the two web pages discussed 

in this paragraph may be found in EPA’s April 8, 

2008, ‘‘Guidance and Supporting Documentation’’

memo included in the docket for this action. As of 

1/24/08 the EPA Web page for Non-CAIR States, 

updated in September 2007, may be found at 

http://www.epa.gov/CAIR/not-covered.html. 

III. What Is the State Process To Submit 

These Materials to EPA? 

Section 110(k) of the CAA addresses 

EPA’s actions on submissions of 

revisions to a SIP. 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 South Dakota Department of 

Environmental and Natural Resources 

(DENR) held a public hearing for the 

addition of the Interstate Transport 

Report to the South Dakota SIP on April 

19, 2007, adopted the Report on this 

same date, and submitted it to EPA on 

May 15, 2007. 

The Wyoming Department of 

Environmental Quality (DEQ) held a 

public hearing for the addition of the 

Interstate Transport declaration on 

December 11, 2006, adopted the 

declaration into the State SIP on April 

15, 2007, and submitted it to EPA on 

May 3, 2007. 

We have evaluated the submittals of 

these SIP revisions by the South Dakota 

DENR and the Wyoming DEQ and have 

determined that the States met the 

requirements for reasonable notice and 

public hearing under section 110(a)(2) 

of the CAA. 

IV. EPA’s Evaluation of the State of 

South Dakota May 15, 2007 Submittal 

EPA has reviewed the South Dakota 

Interstate Transport Report submitted 

on May 15, 2007 and believes that 

approval is warranted. The provisions of 

the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) require 

that the South Dakota SIP contain 

adequate provisions prohibiting air 

pollutant emissions from sources or 

activities in the state from adversely 

affecting another state. A state SIP must 

include provisions that prohibit sources 

from emitting pollutants in amounts 

which will: (1) Contribute significantly 

to nonattainment of the NAAQS in 

another state; (2) interfere with 

maintenance of the NAAQS by another 

state; (3) interfere with another state’s 

measures to prevent significant 

deterioration of its air quality; and (4) 

interfere with the efforts of another state 

to protect visibility. EPA issued 

guidance on August 15, 2006 relating to 

SIP submissions that meet the 

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

for the PM2.5 and the 8-hour ozone 

standards. The Interstate Transport 

Report submitted by the State of South 

Dakota is consistent with the guidance. 

To support the first two of the four 

elements noted above, the State of South 

Dakota relies on a combination of: (a) 

EPA positions and modeling analysis 

results published in Federal Register 

notices as part of the Clean Air 

Interstate Rule (CAIR) rulemaking 

process;1 and, (b) considerations of 

geographical and meteorological factors 

affecting the likelihood of pollution 

transport from the State to the closest 8- 

hour ozone and PM2.5 nonattainment 

areas in other states. 

In addition, EPA includes data and 

analysis based on materials published in 

EPA’s CAIR rulemaking notices and on 

monitoring data gathered by the states 

and reported to EPA in the Air Quality 

System (AQS) database. 

For the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, 

the South Dakota Interstate Transport 

Report identifies the Denver 

Metropolitan Area in Colorado, and the 

Illinois and Wisconsin counties along 

the western shore of Lake Michigan as 

the closest nonattainment areas. The 

northernmost edge of the Denver 

Metropolitan Area is about 170 miles 

from the southwest corner of South 

Dakota, and nearly in opposite direction 

to the prevailing winds. These 

considerations, in combination with 

other factors such as the absence of 

nonattainment areas in South Dakota, 

and along the 170 miles between South 

Dakota’s southwestern corner and the 

Denver Metropolitan Area, lead to the 

conclusion that it is highly unlikely that 

South Dakota makes a significant 

contribution to the 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment in this Colorado area. 

The rim of Illinois/Wisconsin counties 

along the western shore of Lake 

Michigan is more than 400 miles from 

the South Dakota eastern border. Again, 

distance, in combination with factors 

such as the absence of nonattainment 

areas in the intervening downwind 

states of Minnesota and Iowa make it 

highly unlikely that South Dakota 

contributes significantly to ozone 

nonattainment in the Illinois and 

Wisconsin counties along the western 

shore of Lake Michigan. 

A similar conclusion is suggested by 

our examination of AQS monitoring 

data on 8-hour ozone exceedance days 

registered during the 2004–2006 years at 

monitoring stations in South Dakota and 

in neighboring downwind or potentially 

downwind states. During these years the 

ozone monitors did not register any 

exceedance days in South Dakota, 

Nebraska and Iowa. In the same time 

span the monitors in Minnesota, another 

of the closest downwind states, 

measured 8-hours ozone exceedances on 

less than 0.5 percent of the days. 

Minnesota monitors registered three 

exceedance days on June 2, July 12 and 

22, 2005. The absence of 8-hour ozone 

exceedance days in South Dakota and 

most of its adjacent states, combined 

with the rare occurrence of exceedance 

days in Minnesota is consistent with 

conclusions drawn from other data and 

analysis, presented in the preceding 

paragraphs: any ozone or ozone 

precursor transport from South Dakota 

to downwind states is not high enough 

to significantly contribute to 

nonattainment, or interfere with 

maintenance of the NAAQS, in 

neighboring downwind states. 

The section of the South Dakota 

Interstate Transport Report addressing 

the absence of significant ozone 

transport from South Dakota to 

downwind states includes a paragraph 

quoted from the EPA web page ‘‘States 

Not Covered by CAIR’’ 2 that has since 

been replaced. While the text quoted in 

the South Dakota Interstate Transport 

SIP reflects accurately the EPA web 

page text at the time South Dakota 

adopted the Report into the State SIP 

and submitted it to EPA, EPA 

subsequently revised its website. 

Specifically, in September 2007, EPA 

removed the sentence ‘‘Several states 

are not included in the CAIR region 

because they do not contribute to down 

wind nonattainment.’’ EPA’s revised 

website prefaces the same list of 22 nonCAIR States (which includes South 

Dakota) with the statement that these 

states are not covered by CAIR, without 

discussing the basis for this 

conclusion.3

EPA’s replacement of the text 

originally published on its ‘‘Non-CAIR 

States’’ web page does not affect our 

evaluation of the State of South Dakota’s 

position that the State is unlikely to 

contribute significantly to ozone 

nonattainment in down wind states, as 

demonstrated by the data and analysis 

examined in the preceding paragraphs. 

In light of EPA’s website revisions, EPA 

recommends that in a future rulemaking 

the State of South Dakota remove from 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES
26022 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 90 / Thursday, May 8, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

4 ‘‘Technical Support for State and Tribal Air 

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

December 2004; Chapter 6, pages 347–352. 

5Adjacent downwind/potentially downwind 

states showing no PM2.5 exceedance days include 

Nebraska, North Dakota and Iowa. Minnesota 

monitors showed one exceedance day in three 

years, on January 31, 2005. 

its Interstate Transport Report the EPA 

paragraph incorrectly reflecting the 

Agency’s position on the Non-CAIR 

states’ contribution to down wind 

nonattainment. 

For the 1997 PM2.5 standard, South 

Dakota identifies Libby, in Lincoln 

County, Montana, and Chicago, Illinois, 

as the nonattainment areas closest to the 

State. Libby is about 570 miles 

northwest from South Dakota, in a 

direction opposite to that of the 

prevailing winds. In addition, EPA’s 

findings based on a nine-factor analysis 

of Lincoln County, and reported in the 

Agency’s technical support document 

for the December 17, 2004 designations, 

stressed the local origins of PM2.5

nonattainment in Libby.4 These 

considerations in combination with 

other factors such as the absence of 

PM2.5 nonattainment areas in South 

Dakota, and the absence of PM2.5

nonattainment areas along the 570 miles 

between the State’s northwest corner 

and Libby lead to the conclusion that it 

is unlikely that South Dakota is making 

a significant contribution to the PM2.5

nonattainment status of Lincoln County 

or interfering with maintenance of the 

NAAQS in Montana. 

The Cook County nonattainment area, 

in which Chicago is located, is about 

450 miles from the southeastern corner 

of South Dakota. Given the distance, the 

absence of PM2.5 nonattainment areas in 

South Dakota, and between South 

Dakota and Cook County, it is unlikely 

that the State of South Dakota is making 

a significant contribution to the 

nonattainment of the 1997 PM2.5

standard in Cook County. This 

assessment is consistent with results of 

the modeling analysis EPA conducted 

and reported in the rulemaking Federal 

Register notices for the determination of 

the CAIR states (69 FR 4566 and 70 FR 

25162). According to the CAIR Proposed 

Rule of January 30, 2004, the maximum 

PM2.5 contribution by South Dakota to 

downwind counties identified as being 

in nonattainment for the base years 2010 

and 2015 is to Cook County, and is 

estimated to be 0.04 μg/m3 (Table V–5, 

69 FR 4608). This amount is well below 

the ‘‘significant contribution’’ threshold 

of 0.20μg/m3 set by EPA. AQS 

monitoring data we reviewed are 

consistent with these results. During the 

years 2004–2006, monitors in the State 

of South Dakota and its adjacent 

downwind or potentially downwind 

states, except for Minnesota, showed no 

PM2.5 exceedance days. During these 

years the Minnesota monitors registered 

exceedances only on one out of 1,096 

days.5

In conclusion, the data and analysis 

reviewed above indicate that the 

Interstate Transport Report adopted by 

South Dakota into the State SIP 

satisfactorily addresses the first two 

elements of the CAA section 

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

hour ozone standards. 

The third element of the section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) provisions requires states 

to prohibit emissions that interfere with 

any other state’s measures to prevent 

significant deterioration (PSD) of air 

quality. Consistently with EPA guidance 

issued August 11, 2006, the State of 

South Dakota explains that the State’s 

SIP provisions include EPA-approved 

PSD and Nonattainment New Source 

Review (NNSR) programs that satisfy 

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

The State PSD program has been 

implemented for many years and NNSR 

implementation has not been needed 

since there are no PM2.5 or 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment areas in South Dakota. 

The fourth element of the section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) provisions concerns the 

requirement that a state SIP prohibit 

sources from emitting pollutants that 

interfere with the efforts of another state 

to protect visibility. Consistent with the 

August 15, 2006 EPA guidance, the 

South Dakota Interstate Transport 

Report declares that there are no State 

sources of emissions interfering with the 

implementation of the 1980 regulations 

that required the states to address 

Reasonably Attributable Visibility 

Impairment (RAVI) SIPs in other states. 

Regarding visibility impairment caused 

by regional haze, the South Dakota 

Interstate Transport Report concurs with 

EPA that it is currently premature to 

determine whether or not SIPs for 8- 

hour ozone or PM2.5 contain adequate 

provisions to prohibit emissions that 

interfere with measures in other states’

SIPs designed to address regional haze. 

This requirement will be addressed in 

the South Dakota regional haze SIP. 

Therefore, South Dakota addresses the 

third and fourth elements of the section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) provisions in a way that 

is consistent with the EPA guidance 

noted above. 

V. EPA’s Evaluation of the State of 

Wyoming May 3, 2007 Submittal 

EPA has reviewed the Wyoming 

Interstate Transport SIP submitted on 

May 3, 2007 and believes that approval 

is warranted. The provisions of the CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) require that the 

Wyoming SIP contain adequate 

provisions prohibiting air pollutant 

emissions from sources or activities in 

the state from adversely affecting 

another state. A state SIP must include 

provisions that prohibit sources from 

emitting pollutants in amounts which 

will: (1) Contribute significantly to 

nonattainment of the NAAQS in another 

state; (2) interfere with maintenance of 

the NAAQS by another state; (3) 

interfere with another state’s measures 

to prevent significant deterioration of its 

air quality; and (4) interfere with the 

efforts of another state to protect 

visibility. EPA issued guidance on 

August 15, 2006 relating to SIP 

submissions that meet the requirements 

of Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 

PM2.5 and the 8-hour ozone standards. 

The Interstate Transport SIP submitted 

by the State of Wyoming is consistent 

with the guidance. 

To support the first two of the four 

elements noted above, the State of 

Wyoming relies on a combination of: (a) 

EPA positions and modeling analysis 

results published in Federal Register 

notices as part of the CAIR rulemaking 

process; and (b) considerations of 

geographical, meteorological and 

topographical factors affecting the 

likelihood of significant pollution 

transport from the State to the closest 

PM2.5 and 8-hour ozone nonattainment 

areas in other states. In addition, we 

examine factors specific to Wyoming, 

and to a number of downwind or 

potentially downwind states that might 

be significantly affected by any 

transport of PM2.5, and of ozone and/or 

ozone precursors from Wyoming. 

For the 8-hour ozone standard, the 

Denver metropolitan area in Colorado, 

and the Las Vegas-Clark County area in 

Nevada are the closest nonattainment 

areas. The Las Vegas-Clark County area 

is more than 400 miles from the 

southwest corner of Wyoming and in a 

direction opposite to that of the 

prevailing winds. Given this distance 

and the absence of 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment areas between Wyoming 

and Clark County, it is unlikely that 

Wyoming is making a significant 

contribution to the ozone nonattainment 

in Clark County. 

Even though the northernmost edge of 

the Denver metropolitan area is only 30 

miles south of the Wyoming border, it 

is highly unlikely that Wyoming 

contributes significantly to this area’s 

non-attainment for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard. The State of Wyoming 

does not have any ozone nonattainment 

areas, and the AQS database indicates 

that during the 2004–2006 years 

Wyoming monitors registered four 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 90 / Thursday, May 8, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 26023 

6The exceedance days were registered at two 

monitors within Sublette County—the site of the 

Jonah gas field development. The exceedance 

values were measured on February 3, 20, and 26, 

2005, and February 27, 2006. 

7See ‘‘Wyoming State Implementation Plan, 

Interstate Transport,’’ December 11, 2006, page 2. 

8Reproductions of the two Web pages discussed 

in this paragraph may be found in EPA’s 

‘‘Guidance, Supporting Materials, and Additional 

Materials’’ in this docket. As of 1/24/08 the EPA 

Web page for Non-CAIR States, updated on 

September 20, 2007, may be found at http:// 

www.epa.gov/CAIR/not-covered.html. 

9 ‘‘Corrected Response to Significant Public 

Comments on the Proposed Clean Air Interstate 

Rule Received in response to: Rule to Reduce 

Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and 

Ozone (Interstate Air Quality Rule); Proposed Rule 

(69 FR 4566; January 30, 2004) Supplemental 

Proposal for the Rule to Reduce Interstate Transport 

of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone (Clean Air 

Interstate Rule); Proposal Rule (69 FR 32684; June 

10, 2004) Docket Number OAR–2003–0053,’’ April 

2005. 

10 ‘‘Technical Support for State and Tribal Air 

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

December 2004; Chapter 6, pages 347–352. 

exceedance days for the 8-hour ozone 

standard, all occurring in the 

wintertime.6 Given that ozone levels 

generally reach peak values during the 

warm months of the year, which is also 

the case of the Denver metropolitan 

area, one may readily conclude that the 

monitoring data noted above excludes 

the likelihood of a significant 

contribution from the State of Wyoming 

to the 8-hour ozone nonattainment of 

the Denver metropolitan area. 

A significant transport of ozone and/ 

or its precursors from Wyoming to other 

close downwind or potentially 

downwind states such as Montana, 

Nebraska, North Dakota and South 

Dakota is also unlikely. As is the case 

with Wyoming, none of these states 

have any ozone nonattainment areas, 

and the four ozone exceedance days 

registered in Wyoming during the 

winter of 2005 and 2006 had no 

significant impact on these states. 

During the 2004–2006 years considered 

here, the monitoring stations in 

Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota and 

South Dakota showed no exceedance 

days for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard. 

The section of the Wyoming Interstate 

Transport SIP addressing the absence of 

significant ozone transport from 

Wyoming to downwind states includes 

a paragraph quoted from the EPA Web 

page ‘‘States Not Covered by CAIR’’ 7

that has since been replaced. While the 

text quoted in the Wyoming Interstate 

Transport SIP reflects accurately the 

EPA Web page text at the time Wyoming 

adopted the Interstate Transport 

declaration into the State SIP and 

submitted it to EPA, EPA subsequently 

revised its Web site. Specifically, in 

September 2007, EPA removed the 

sentence ‘‘Several states are not 

included in the CAIR region because 

they do not contribute to downwind 

nonattainment.’’ EPA’s revised Web site 

prefaces the same list of 22 non-CAIR 

States (which includes Wyoming) with 

the statement that these states are not 

covered by CAIR, without discussing 

the basis for this conclusion.8

EPA’s replacement of the text 

originally published on its ‘‘Non-CAIR 

States’’ Web page does not affect our 

evaluation of the State of Wyoming’s 

position that the State is unlikely to 

contribute significantly to ozone 

nonattainment in downwind states, as 

demonstrated by the data and analysis 

examined in the preceding paragraphs. 

In light of EPA’s Web site revisions, 

EPA recommends that in a future 

rulemaking the State of Wyoming 

remove from its Interstate Transport SIP 

the EPA paragraph incorrectly reflecting 

the Agency’s position on the Non-CAIR 

states’ contribution to downwind 

nonattainment. 

The Wyoming Interstate Transport SIP 

addresses the question of potential 

PM2.5 transport to other states by 

quoting from the explanation given by 

EPA in support of the exclusion of four 

western states (including Wyoming) 

from the analysis that underlies the 

CAIR final rule notice: 

Regarding modeling of all states, in the 

PM2.5 modeling for the NPRM, we modeled 

41 states, and found that the westernmost of 

these states made very small contributions to 

nonattainment in any other state. For the 

revised modeling for the final rule, we 

reduced the set of states modeled for reasons 

of efficiency. The results again showed that 

the westernmost states modeled did not make 

contributions above the significance 

threshold, indicating that had other even 

more western States been modeled they also 

would not have done so. 9

These assessments are substantiated 

by data and consideration of additional 

factors we examine next. Findings from 

the modeling analysis conducted by 

EPA for the CAIR proposed rule include 

the maximum annual average PM2.5

contribution by 41 states to the 

downwind counties identified in 

nonattainment for the base years 2010 

and 2015. Among the states included in 

the study, the maximum PM2.5 annual 

average contribution to nonattainment 

by the westernmost states amounted to: 

0.04 μg/m3 for Colorado, 0.03 μg/m3 for 

Montana, 0.08 μg/m3 for Nebraska, 0.12 

μg/m3 for North Dakota, 0.04 μg/m3 for 

South Dakota, and 0.05 μg/m3 for 

Wyoming (69 FR 4608). These amounts 

are well below the ‘‘significant 

contribution’’ threshold of 0.20 μg/m3

set by EPA. 

A review of PM2.5 attainment/ 

nonattainment areas and AQS 

monitoring data in Wyoming and its 

downwind, or potentially downwind, 

states yields similar conclusions. 

Wyoming’s closest PM2.5 nonattainment 

area is centered in Libby, Lincoln 

County, Montana, which is about 330 

miles north of the Wyoming northwest 

corner. EPA’s findings based on a ninefactor analysis of Lincoln County 

(reported in the Agency’s technical 

support document for the December 17, 

2004 nonattainment designations) stress 

the local origins of PM2.5 nonattainment 

in Libby.10 These findings, in 

combination with other factors such as 

distance, the absence of PM2.5

nonattainment areas in Wyoming, and 

the absence of PM2.5 nonattainment 

areas along the 330 miles between the 

Wyoming northwest corner area and 

Libby, are strong indications that it is 

unlikely that Wyoming is making a 

significant contribution to the PM2.5

nonattainment status of Lincoln County. 

AQS monitoring data for the period 

2004–2006 shows that there were no 

PM2.5 exceedance days in Wyoming, 

Colorado, North Dakota, South Dakota 

and Nebraska. Montana monitors 

registered five exceedance days, 

equivalent to less than 0.5 percent, 

distributed among four different 

counties. 

The data and analyses considered in 

the preceding paragraphs indicate that 

the Interstate Transport declaration 

adopted by Wyoming into the State SIP 

satisfactorily addresses the first two 

elements of the CAA section 

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

PM2.5 and 8-hour ozone standards. 

The third element of the section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) provisions requires states 

to prohibit emissions that interfere with 

any other state’s measures to prevent 

significant deterioration (PSD) of air 

quality. Consistent with EPA guidance 

issued August 11, 2006, the State of 

Wyoming explains that the State’s SIP 

provisions include an EPA-approved 

PSD program, implemented for many 

years, that satisfies the section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) requirements. In the 

absence of any PM2.5 or 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment areas, Wyoming does not 

have an NNSR program but indicates 

that the State will update its NSR 

program to include one if the need 

should arise. 

The fourth element of the section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) provisions concerns the 

requirement that a state SIP prohibit 

sources from emitting pollutants that 

interfere with the efforts of another state 

to protect visibility. Consistent with the 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES
26024 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 90 / Thursday, May 8, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

August 15, 2006 EPA guidance, the 

Wyoming Interstate Transport SIP 

declares that there are no State sources 

of emissions interfering with the 

implementation of the 1980 regulations 

that required the states to address 

Reasonably Attributable Visibility 

Impairment (RAVI) SIPs in other states. 

Regarding visibility impairment caused 

by regional haze, the Wyoming 

Interstate Transport SIP concurs with 

EPA that it is currently premature to 

determine whether or not SIPs for 8- 

hour ozone or PM2.5 contain adequate 

provisions to prohibit emissions that 

interfere with measures in other states’

SIPs designed to address regional haze. 

This requirement will be addressed in 

the Wyoming regional haze SIP. Thus, 

Wyoming addresses the third and fourth 

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

provisions in a way that is consistent 

with the EPA guidance noted above. 

VI. Final Action 

EPA is approving the Interstate 

Transport Report submitted by the State 

of South Dakota on May 15, 2007, and 

is adding section X to 40 CFR 52.1270(e) 

to reflect that the State has adequately 

addressed the required elements of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the Clean Air 

Act. 

EPA is approving the Interstate 

Transport SIP submitted by the State of 

Wyoming on May 3, 2007 and is adding 

section XVIII to 40 CFR 52.2620(e) to 

reflect that the State has adequately 

addressed the required elements of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the Clean Air 

Act. 

EPA is publishing this rule without 

prior proposal because the Agency 

views this as a noncontroversial 

amendment and anticipates no adverse 

comments. This rule will be effective 

July 7, 2008 without further notice 

unless the Agency receives adverse 

comments by June 9, 2008. If the EPA 

receives adverse comments, EPA will 

publish a timely withdrawal in the 

Federal Register informing the public 

that the rule will not take effect. EPA 

will address all public comments in a 

subsequent final rule based on the 

proposed rule. The EPA will not 

institute a second comment period on 

this action. Any parties interested in 

commenting must do so at this time. 

Please note that if EPA receives adverse 

comment on an amendment, paragraph, 

or section of this rule and if that 

provision may be severed from the 

remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt 

as final those provisions of the rule that 

are not the subject of an adverse 

comment. 

VII. 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. 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

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

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

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

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by July 7, 2008. 

Filing a petition for reconsideration by 

the Administrator of this final rule does 

not affect the finality of this action for 

the purposes of judicial review nor does 

it extend the time within which a 

petition for judicial review may be filed, 

and shall not postpone the effectiveness 

of such rule or action. This action may 

not be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile Organic 

Compounds. 

Dated: April 23, 2008. 

Robert E. Roberts, 

Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

■ 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart QQ—South Dakota 

■ 2. In § 52.2170, the table in paragraph 

(e) is amended by adding entry ‘‘X’’ in 

numerical order to read as follows: 

§ 52.2170 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) EPA-approved nonregulatory 

provisions. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 90 / Thursday, May 8, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 26025 

Name of nonregulatory SIP provision 

Applicable geographic 

or non-attainment 

area 

State submittal date/ 

Adopted date 

EPA approval date 

and citation Explanations 

* * * * * * * 

X. Interstate Transport. South Dakota Interstate Transport Report satisfying the requirement of Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the 

CAA for the 1997 8-hour ozone and PM 2.5

standards.

Statewide ................... Submitted: 5/15/07 ....

Adopted: 4/19/07 

5/08/08 [insert FR 

page number where 

document begins].

Subpart ZZ—Wyoming 

■ 3. In § 52.2620, the table in paragraph 

(e) is amended by adding entry ‘‘XVIII’’

in numerical order to read as follows: 

§ 52.2620 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) EPA-approved nonregulatory 

provisions. 

Name of nonregulatory SIP provision 

Applicable geographic 

or non-attainment 

area 

State submittal date/ 

Adopted date 

EPA approval date 

and citation Explanations 

* * * * * * * 

XVIII. Interstate Transport. Wyoming Interstate Transport SIP satisfying the requirement of Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA 

for the 1997 8-hour ozone and PM 2.5

standards.

Statewide ................... Submitted: 5/3/07 ......

Adopted: 4/15/07 

5/08/08 [insert FR 

page number where 

document begins].

[FR Doc. E8–10103 Filed 5–7–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 300 

[FRL–8564–1] 

National Oil and Hazardous 

Substances Pollution Contingency 

Plan; National Priorities List 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Notice of Deletion for the 

Tabernacle Drum Dump Superfund Site 

from the National Priorities List. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) Region 2 

Office announces the deletion of the 

Tabernacle Drum Dump Superfund Site 

from the National Priorities List (NPL). 

The Tabernacle Drum Dump Site is 

located in Tabernacle Township, 

Burlington County, New Jersey. The 

NPL constitutes Appendix B to the 

National Oil and Hazardous Substances 

Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 

CFR part 300, which EPA promulgated 

pursuant to section 105 of the 

Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended. 

EPA and the State of New Jersey, 

through the Department of 

Environmental Protection (NJDEP) have 

determined that all appropriate 

response actions have been 

implemented and no further response 

actions are required. In addition, EPA 

and the NJDEP have determined that the 

remedial action taken at the Tabernacle 

Drum Dump Site is protective of public 

health, welfare, and the environment. 

DATES: Effective Date: May 8, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket 

Identification No. EPA–HQ–SFUND–

2005–0011. All documents in the docket 

are listed on the http:// 

www.regulations.gov Web site. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, i.e., Confidential 

Business Information 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 through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the site information repositories. 

Locations, contacts, phone numbers and 

viewing hours are: EPA’s Region 2 

Superfund Records Center, 290 

Broadway, Room 1828, New York, New 

York 10007–1866, (212) 637–4308. 

Hours: 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through 

Friday, excluding holidays, by 

appointment only. 

Information on the Site is also 

available for viewing at the Site’s 

information repository located at: 

Tabernacle Municipal Building, 163 

Carranza Road, Tabernacle, New Jersey 

08088. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Douglas Tomchuk, Remedial Project 

Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 2, 290 Broadway, 19th 

Floor, New York, New York 10007–

1866, (212) 637–3956. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The site to 

be deleted from the NPL is the 

Tabernacle Drum Dump Superfund Site, 

located in Tabernacle Township, 

Burlington County, New Jersey. 

A Notice of Intent to Delete for the 

Tabernacle Drum Dump Superfund Site 

was published in the Federal Register 

on September 24, 2007. The closing date 

for comments on the Notice of Intent to 

Delete was October 24, 2007. Two 

letters were received by EPA on the 

proposed deletion during the public 

comment period. One of the letters 

simply asked for clarification of the 

ability to continue site restoration after 

the deletion. The second letter provided 

support for the deletion of the 

Tabernacle Drum Dump Site. EPA 

responded to the letters in January 2008. 

A responsiveness summary was 

prepared and placed in both the docket, 

EPA–HQ–SFUND–2005–0011, on 

http://www.regulations.gov, and in the 

local repositories listed above. 

EPA’s decision to propose the site for 

deletion was based on the successful 

implementation of the remedy, which 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES