56928 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 180 / Friday, September 17, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

• 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 proposed rule does 

not have Tribal implications as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because 

the SIP is not approved to apply in 

Indian country located in the State, and 

EPA notes that it will not impose 

substantial direct costs on Tribal 

governments or preempt Tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Incorporation by reference, 

Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

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

Dated: September 9, 2010. 

Al Armendariz, 

Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

[FR Doc. 2010–23291 Filed 9–16–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2009–0557; FRL–9202–8] 

Approval and Promulgation of State 

Implementation Plan Revisions; State 

of North Dakota; Interstate Transport 

of Pollution for the 1997 PM2.5 and 8- 

hour Ozone NAAQS: ‘‘Interference With 

Maintenance’’ Requirements 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency is proposing partial approval of 

the State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revisions called ‘‘Interstate Transport of 

Air Pollution’’ addressing the 

‘‘interference with maintenance’’ 

requirement of Clean Air Act (CAA) 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5) and 8-hour 

ozone National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS). In this action EPA 

proposes to approve the North Dakota 

Interstate Transport SIP sections that 

address the requirements of section 

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

emissions from interfering with 

maintenance by any other state of the 

1997 PM2.5 and 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

This action is being taken under section 

110 of the CAA. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before October 18, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08– 

OAR–2009–0557, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-mail: 

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– 

0557. 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. 


wwoods2 on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 180 / Friday, September 17, 2010 / Proposed Rules 56929 

(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. Background 

III. What action is EPA proposing? 

IV. What is the State process to submit this 

material to EPA? 

V. EPA’s Review and Technical Information 

A. EPA’s Evaluation of Interference with 

Maintenance 

B. North Dakota Transport SIP 

VI. Proposed 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: 

Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

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. 

Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

Describe any assumptions and provide 

any technical information and/or data 

that you used. 

If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

Provide specific examples to illustrate 

your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

Make sure to submit your comments by 

the comment period deadline 

identified. 

II. Background 

On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated 

new NAAQS for ozone and for PM2.5. 

This action is being taken in response to 

the promulgation of the 1997 PM2.5 and 

8-hour ozone NAAQS. This action does 

not address the requirements for the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 or 2008 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS; those standards will be 

addressed in later actions. 

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

states to submit SIPs to address a new 

or revised NAAQS within 3 years after 

promulgation of such standards, or 

within such shorter period as EPA may 

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

elements that such new SIPs must 

address, as applicable, including section 

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

interstate transport of certain emissions. 

On August 15, 2006, EPA issued its 

‘‘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’’ (2006 Guidance). EPA 

developed the 2006 Guidance to make 

recommendations to states for making 

submissions to meet the requirements of 

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

hour ozone standards and the 1997 

PM2.5 standards. 

As identified in the 2006 Guidance, 

the ‘‘good neighbor’’ provisions in 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) require each state 

to submit a SIP that prohibits emissions 

that adversely affect another state in the 

ways contemplated in the statute. 

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

distinct requirements related to the 

impacts of interstate transport. The SIP 

must prevent sources in the state from 

emitting pollutants in amounts which 

will: (1) Contribute significantly to 

nonattainment of the NAAQS in other 

states; (2) interfere with maintenance of 

the NAAQS in other states; (3) interfere 

with provisions to prevent significant 

deterioration of air quality in other 

states; or (4) interfere with efforts to 

protect visibility in other states. 

On April 6, 2009, EPA received a SIP 

revision from the State of North Dakota 

intended to address the requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for both the 1997 

8-hour ozone standards and the 1997 

PM2.5 standards. In this rulemaking, 

EPA is addressing only the requirements 

that pertain to preventing sources in 

North Dakota from emitting pollutants 

that will interfere with maintenance of 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and the 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS by other states. In 

its submission, the State of North 

Dakota indicated that its current SIP is 

adequate to prevent such interference. 

With this submission, the state intended 

to meet the recommendations of the 

2006 Guidance for SIP submissions to 

meet the second element of section 

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

hour ozone standards. 

III. What action is EPA proposing? 

EPA is proposing partial approval of 

the North Dakota Interstate Transport of 

Air Pollution SIP for the 1997 PM2.5 and 

8-hour ozone NAAQS. The addition to 

the North Dakota SIP of section 7.8, 

‘‘Interstate Transport of Air Pollution,’’ 

was 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 language and 

demonstrations of the North Dakota 

Interstate Transport SIP that address 

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

i.e., the prohibition of interference with 

maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS and the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS by 

any other state. 

IV. 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 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. 

EPA has reviewed the submittal by 

the NDDH and has determined that the 

State met the requirements for 

reasonable notice and public hearing 

under section 110(a)(2) of the CAA. 

V. EPA’s Review and Technical 

Information 

A. EPA’s Evaluation of Interference 

With Maintenance 

The second element of section 

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

must prohibit any source or other type 


wwoods2 on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with PROPOSALS-1
56930 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 180 / Friday, September 17, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

1See, 63 FR 57356 (October 27, 1998). EPA’s 

general approach to section 110(a)(2)(D) was upheld 

in Michigan v. EPA, 213 F.3d 663 (DC Cir. 2000), 

cert denied, 532 U.S. 904 (2001). However, EPA’s 

approach to interference with maintenance in the 

NOX SIP Call was not explicitly reviewed by the 

court. See, North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896, 

907–09 (DC Cir. 2008). 

2See, 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005). 

3 2006 Guidance at 5. 

4See, North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (DC 

Cir. 2008). 

5 Id. at 909. 

6 Id. 

7See ‘‘Federal Implementation Plans to Reduce 

Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and 

Ozone,’’ 75 FR 45210 (August 2, 2010). 

of emissions activity in the state from 

emitting pollutants that would ‘‘interfere 

with maintenance’’ of the applicable 

NAAQS by any other state. This term is 

not defined in the statute. Therefore, 

EPA has interpreted this term in past 

regulatory actions, such as the 1998 

NOX SIP Call, in which EPA took action 

to eliminate emissions of NOX that 

significantly contributed to 

nonattainment, or interfered with 

maintenance of, the then applicable 

ozone NAAQS through interstate 

transport of NOX and the resulting 

ozone.1 The NOX SIP Call was the 

mechanism through which EPA 

evaluated whether or not the NOX

emissions from sources in certain states 

had such prohibited interstate impacts, 

and if they had such impacts, required 

the states to adopt substantive SIP 

revisions to eliminate the NOX

emissions, whether through 

participation in a regional cap and trade 

program or by other means. 

After promulgation of the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS and the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS, EPA again recognized that 

regional transport was a serious concern 

throughout the eastern U.S. and 

therefore developed the 2005 Clean Air 

Interstate Rule (CAIR) to address 

emissions of SO2 and NOX that 

exacerbate ambient ozone and PM2.5

levels in many downwind areas through 

interstate transport.2 Within CAIR, EPA 

likewise interpreted the term ‘‘interfere 

with maintenance’’ as part of the 

evaluation of whether or not the 

emissions of sources in certain states 

had such impacts on areas that EPA 

determined would either be in violation 

of the NAAQS, or would be in jeopardy 

of violating the NAAQS, in a modeled 

future year unless action were taken by 

upwind states to reduce SO2 and NOX

emissions. Through CAIR, EPA again 

required states that had such interstate 

impacts to adopt substantive SIP 

revisions to eliminate the SO2 and NOX

emissions, whether through 

participation in a regional cap and trade 

program or by other means. 

EPA’s 2006 Guidance addressed 

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

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. For those states 

subject to CAIR, EPA indicated that 

compliance with CAIR would meet the 

two requirements of section 

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

states not within the CAIR region, EPA 

recommended that states evaluate 

whether or not emissions from their 

sources would ‘‘interfere with 

maintenance’’ by other states, following 

the conceptual approach adopted by 

EPA in CAIR. After recommending 

various types of information that could 

be relevant for the technical analysis to 

support the SIP submission, such as the 

amount of emissions and meteorological 

conditions in the state, EPA further 

indicated that it would be appropriate 

for the state to assess impacts of its 

emissions on other states using 

considerations comparable to those used 

by EPA ‘‘in evaluating significant 

contribution to nonattainment in the 

CAIR.’’ 3 EPA did not make specific 

recommendations for how states should 

assess ‘‘interference with maintenance’’ 

separately, and discussed the first two 

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

together without explicitly 

differentiating between them. 

In 2008, however, the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the DC Circuit found that 

CAIR and the related CAIR Federal 

implementation plans were unlawful.4

Among other issues, the court held that 

EPA had not correctly addressed the 

second element of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) in CAIR. The court 

noted that ‘‘EPA gave no independent 

significance to the ‘interfere with 

maintenance’ prong of section 

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

upwind sources interfering with 

downwind maintenance.’’ 5 EPA’s 

approach, the court reasoned, would 

leave areas that are ‘‘barely meeting 

attainment’’ with ‘‘no recourse’’ to 

address upwind emissions sources.6

The court therefore concluded that a 

plain language reading of the statute 

requires EPA to give independent 

meaning to the interfere with 

maintenance requirement of section 

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

by EPA in CAIR failed to do so. 

In addition to affecting CAIR directly, 

the court’s decision in the North 

Carolina case indirectly affects EPA’s 

recommendations to states in the 2006 

Guidance with respect to the 

interference with maintenance element 

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

agency’s guidance suggested that states 

use an approach comparable to that 

used by EPA in CAIR. States such as 

North Dakota developed and adopted 

their Interstate Transport SIP not long 

after the Court’s July 2008 decision, but 

well before EPA, in the Transport Rule 

Proposal (see below), was able to 

propose a new approach for the 

interference with maintenance element. 

Without recommendations from EPA, 

North Dakota’s SIP may not have 

sufficiently differentiated between the 

significant contribution to 

nonattainment and interference with 

maintenance elements of the statute, 

and relied in a general way on the 

difference between monitored 

concentrations and the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS to evaluate the impacts 

of State emissions on maintenance of 

the NAAQS in neighboring states. EPA 

believes that it is necessary to evaluate 

these state submissions for section 

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

assure that the interfere with 

maintenance element of the statute is 

given independent meaning and is 

appropriately evaluated using the types 

of information that EPA recommended 

in the 2006 Guidance. To accomplish 

this, EPA believes it is necessary to use 

an updated approach to this issue and 

to supplement the technical analysis 

provided by the state in order to 

evaluate the submissions with respect to 

the interfere with maintenance element 

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

EPA has recently proposed a new rule 

to address interstate transport pursuant 

to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), the ‘‘Federal 

Implementation Plans to Reduce 

Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate 

Matter and Ozone’’ (Transport Rule 

Proposal), in order to address the 

judicial remand of CAIR.7 As part of the 

Transport Rule Proposal, EPA 

specifically reexamined the section 

110(a)(2)(D) requirement that emissions 

from sources in a state must not 

‘‘interfere with maintenance’’ of the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS and 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS by other states. In the proposal, 

EPA developed an approach to identify 

areas that it predicts to be close to the 

level of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in the future, 

and therefore at risk to become or 

continue to be nonattainment for these 

NAAQS unless emissions from sources 

in other states are appropriately 

controlled. This approach starts by 

identifying those specific geographic 

areas for which further evaluation is 

appropriate, and differentiates between 

areas where the concern is with 

interference with maintenance, rather 

than with significant contribution to 

nonattainment. 


wwoods2 on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 180 / Friday, September 17, 2010 / Proposed Rules 56931 

8To begin this analysis, EPA first identifies all 

monitors projected to be in nonattainment or, based 

on historic variability in air quality, projected to 

have maintenance problems in 2012. These 

maintenance areas are at risk not to stay in 

attainment because they are so close to the level of 

the 1997 ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS that minor 

variations in weather or emissions could result in 

violations of the NAAQS in 2012. 

9 2006 Guidance at 4. 

10 Id. at 5. 

11See, Transport Rule Proposal, 75 FR 45210, 

45277. 12See, 75 FR 33174 (June 11, 2010). 

As described in more detail below, 

EPA’s analysis evaluates data from 

existing monitors over three overlapping 

three-year periods (i.e., 2003–2005, 

2004–2006, and 2005–2007), as well as 

air quality modeling data, in order to 

determine which areas are predicted to 

be violating the 1997 8-hour ozone and 

PM2.5 NAAQS in 2012, and which areas 

are predicted potentially to have 

difficulty with maintaining attainment 

as of that date. In essence, if an area’s 

projected data for 2012 indicates that it 

would be violating the NAAQS based on 

the average of these three overlapping 

periods, then this monitor location is 

appropriate for comparison for purposes 

of the significant contribution to 

nonattainment element of section 

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

projected data indicate that it would be 

violating the NAAQS based on the 

highest single period, but not over the 

average of the three periods, then this 

monitor location is appropriate for 

comparison for purposes of the 

interference with maintenance element 

of the statute. 

By this method, EPA has identified 

those areas with monitors that are 

appropriate ‘‘maintenance-only sites’’ or 

maintenance ‘‘receptors’’ for evaluating 

whether the emissions from sources in 

another state could interfere with 

maintenance in that particular area. EPA 

then uses other analytical tools to 

examine the potential impacts of 

emissions from upwind states on these 

maintenance receptors in downwind 

states. EPA believes that this new 

approach for identifying those areas that 

are predicted to have maintenance 

problems is appropriate to evaluate the 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) SIP submission of 

a state for the interference with 

maintenance element.8 EPA’s 2006 

Guidance did not provide this specific 

recommendation to states, but in light of 

the court’s decision on CAIR, EPA will 

itself follow this approach in acting 

upon the North Dakota submission. 

As explained in the 2006 Guidance, 

EPA does not believe that section 

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

states necessarily need to follow 

precisely the same analytical approach 

as CAIR. In the 2006 Guidance, EPA 

stated that: ‘‘EPA believes that the 

contents of the SIP submission required 

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

depending upon the facts and 

circumstances related to the specific 

NAAQS. In particular, the data and 

analytical tools available at the time the 

State develops and submits a SIP for a 

new or revised NAAQS necessarily 

affects the contents of the required 

submission.’’ 9 EPA also indicated in the 

2006 Guidance that it did not anticipate 

that sources in states outside the 

geographic area covered by CAIR were 

significantly contributing to 

nonattainment, or interfering with 

maintenance, in other states.10 As noted 

in the Transport Rule Proposal, EPA 

continues to believe that the more 

widespread and serious transport 

problems in the eastern United States 

are analytically distinct. For the 1997 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS and the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS, EPA believes that 

nonattainment and maintenance 

problems in the western United States 

are relatively local in nature with only 

limited impacts from interstate 

transport.11 In the Transport Rule 

Proposal, EPA did not calculate 

interstate ozone or PM2.5 contributions 

to or from western States. 

Accordingly, EPA believes that 

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

for states not evaluated in the Transport 

Rule Proposal may be evaluated using a 

‘‘weight of the evidence’’ approach that 

takes into account available relevant 

information, such as that recommended 

by EPA in the 2006 Guidance for states 

outside the area affected by CAIR. Such 

information may include, but is not 

limited to, the amount of emissions in 

the state relevant to the NAAQS in 

question, the meteorological conditions 

in the area, the distance from the state 

to the nearest monitors in other states 

that are appropriate receptors, or such 

other information as may be probative to 

consider whether sources in the state 

may interfere with maintenance of the 

1997 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS in 

other states. These submissions can rely 

on modeling when acceptable modeling 

technical analyses are available, but 

EPA does not believe that modeling is 

necessarily required if other available 

information is sufficient to evaluate the 

presence or degree of interstate 

transport in a given situation. 

As a result, in the Transport Rule 

Proposal, EPA focused its modeling on 

a domain including eastern states. The 

Transport Rule Proposal’s modeling 

domain includes all states east of the 

Rockies, from North Dakota in the north 

to Texas in the south and eastward, and 

its analysis results include estimates of 

North Dakota’s contribution to the 

maintenance-only sites within the 

Transport Rule Proposal’s modeling 

domain for the 1997 annual PM2.5 and 

8-hour ozone NAAQS. To reach a 

comprehensive determination on 

whether emissions from North Dakota 

interfere with maintenance of the 

NAAQS by any other states we use these 

estimated contributions in combination 

with other types of information that 

allow us to assess whether emissions 

from North Dakota interfere with 

maintenance of the NAAQS by states 

outside the Eastern modeling domain. 

B. North Dakota Transport SIP 

To meet the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i), the State of North Dakota 

on April 6, 2009 made a SIP submission 

to EPA addressing interstate transport 

for the 1997 PM2.5 and the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. EPA has previously approved 

this submission for purposes of the 

significant contribution to 

nonattainment and of the interference 

with PSD elements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i).12 The State’s submittal 

focused primarily on whether emissions 

from North Dakota sources significantly 

contribute to nonattainment of the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS and 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS in other states. Following the 

2006 Guidance and consistent with 

EPA’s approach in CAIR, North Dakota 

did not evaluate whether emissions 

from the State sources interfere with 

maintenance of these NAAQS by other 

states separately from significant 

contribution to nonattainment in other 

states. Instead, the State presumed that 

if North Dakota sources were not 

significantly contributing to violations 

of the NAAQS in other states, then no 

further specific evaluation was 

necessary for purposes of the 

interference with maintenance element 

of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). As explained 

above, however, CAIR was remanded to 

EPA, in part because the court found 

that EPA had failed to give independent 

meaning to the ‘‘interfere with 

maintenance’’ requirement, a flaw that 

EPA has remedied in the Transport Rule 

Proposal. However, North Dakota 

submitted its Interstate Transport SIP 

without the benefit of EPA’s new 

interpretation. We therefore discuss in 

more detail the approach of the 

Transport Rule Proposal and apply it to 

our assessment of whether North 

Dakota’s emissions interfere with 

maintenance of the relevant NAAQS by 

any other states. 

Below, we discuss in greater detail 

relevant methods and techniques of the 


wwoods2 on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with PROPOSALS-1
56932 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 180 / Friday, September 17, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

13The 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, which is not 

the subject of this action, is met when the 3-year 

average of the annual 98th percentile PM2.5

concentrations is 35 μg/m3 or less. 

14See, Transport Rule Proposal, at 45246. 

15For details, see: id., at 45233 et seq., and ‘‘Air 

Quality Modeling Technical Support Document,’’ 

(AQMTSD) (June 2010), available at Regulations.gov 

as Document ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0491– 

0047. For greater detail on air quality contributions 

see: ‘‘Transport Rule Air Quality Contributions,’’ 

Document ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0491–0060. 

16Transport Rule Proposal, at 45237. 

17Note that, differently from CAIR, the Transport 

Rule decouples the precision of air quality 

thresholds from the monitoring reporting 

requirements and uses 2-digit values representing 

one percent of the NAAQS. Id. 

Transport Rule Proposal, followed by 

our assessment of whether emissions 

from North Dakota interfere with 

maintenance of the 1997 PM2.5 and 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS. 

On July 6, 2010, the EPA 

Administrator signed a proposed rule in 

response to the judicial remand of CAIR. 

The Transport Rule Proposal, published 

August 2, 2010, includes a new 

approach to determine whether 

emissions from a state interfere with 

maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS and the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS by 

other states. In this action, EPA is using 

modeling results from the Transport 

Rule Proposal to assess whether North 

Dakota emissions interfere with 

maintenance of the NAAQS by states 

included in the proposed rule’s 

modeling domain. We use a comparable 

approach to assess whether North 

Dakota interferes with maintenance of 

the NAAQS by western states, not 

modeled for ozone or PM2.5

contributions from North Dakota. 

In the Transport Rule Proposal, EPA 

projected future concentrations of ozone 

and PM2.5 at monitors to identify areas 

that are expected to be out of attainment 

with NAAQS or to have difficulty 

maintaining compliance with the 

NAAQS in 2012. These areas are 

referred to as nonattainment and 

maintenance receptors respectively. 

These nonattainment and maintenance 

receptors are based on projections of 

future air quality at existing ozone and 

PM2.5 monitoring sites in those 

locations. EPA then used these sites as 

the receptors for examining the 

contributions of emissions from sources 

located in upwind states to 

nonattainment and maintenance 

problems at these monitoring locations. 

For ozone, EPA evaluated air quality, 

or ozone concentrations, relative to the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The 1997 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS is set at 0.8 parts 

per million. The 8-hour ozone standard 

is met if the 3-year average of the annual 

4th highest daily maximum 8-hour 

ozone concentration is less than or 

equal to 0.08 ppm (i.e., less than 85 ppb 

based on the rounding convention in 40 

CFR part 50 Appendix I). This 3-year 

average is referred to as the ‘‘design 

value.’’ 

For PM2.5, EPA evaluated 

concentrations for both the annual PM2.5

NAAQS and the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

The 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS is met 

when the 3-year average of the annual 

mean concentration is 15.0 micrograms 

per cubic meter (μg/m3) or less. The 3- 

year average annual mean concentration 

is computed at each site by averaging 

the daily Federal Reference Method 

(FRM) samples by quarter, averaging 

these quarterly averages to obtain an 

annual average, and then averaging the 

three annual averages to get the design 

value. The 1997 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS 

is met when the 3-year average of the 

annual 98th percentiles is 65 μg/m3 or 

less.13 The 3-year average mean 98th 

percentile concentration is computed at 

each site by averaging the three 

individual annual 98th percentile 

values at each site. The 3-year average 

98th percentile concentration is referred 

to as the 24-hour average design value. 

To project future ozone and annual 

PM2.5 design values, EPA relies on 

monitoring data from the Air Quality 

System (AQS) combined with 

photochemical air quality modeling 

results. The Transport Rule Proposal 

generates the projected future ozone 

values based on an average of three 

design value periods which include the 

years 2003–2007 (i.e., design values for 

2003–2005, 2004–2006, and 2005– 

2007). The average of the three design 

values creates a ‘‘5-year weighted 

average’’ value. The 5-year weighted 

average values were then projected to 

the future years that were analyzed for 

the Transport Rule Proposal.14 EPA 

used the 5-year weighted average 

concentrations to project concentrations 

anticipated in 2012 to determine which 

monitoring sites are expected to be 

nonattainment in this future year. EPA 

also projected 2012 design values based 

on each of the three year periods (i.e., 

2003–2005, 2004–2006, and 2005– 

2007.) The highest projection, referred 

to as ‘‘maximum design value,’’ gives an 

indication of potential variability in 

future projections due to differences in 

actual meteorology and emissions from 

what was modeled. 

EPA identified those sites that are 

projected to be attainment based on the 

5-year weighted average design value, 

but that have a maximum design value 

(based on a single three year period) that 

exceeds the NAAQS, as maintenance 

receptors. These sites are attaining the 

NAAQS based on the projected average 

design values, but EPA anticipates that 

there will be more difficulty in 

maintaining attainment of the NAAQS 

at these locations if there are adverse 

variations in meteorology or emissions. 

These projected maintenance sites are 

the ones that EPA has used to determine 

if emissions from North Dakota sources 

potentially interfere with maintenance 

of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and 

1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS in other 

states in this action. 

To evaluate ambient impacts from 

upwind states to maintenance receptors, 

the Transport Rule Proposal uses a two 

step approach for measuring each state’s 

significant contribution. In the first step, 

EPA evaluates through air quality 

modeling, contributions from individual 

states to downwind maintenance 

receptors. States whose contributions to 

any downwind receptors which are 

above the ‘‘significant contribution’’ 

threshold, one percent of the relevant 

NAAQS, are considered ‘‘linked’’ to 

those receptors for the purpose of the 

second step. In the second step, EPA 

uses maximum cost thresholds, 

informed by air quality considerations, 

to determine the portion of each state’s 

contribution that constitutes its 

‘‘interference with maintenance,’’ or 

‘‘significant contribution.’’ 15

EPA Transport Rule Proposal 

proposed a threshold for ‘‘interference 

with maintenance’’ at one percent of the 

NAAQS for both PM2.5 and ozone.16 For 

the 1997 annual PM2.5 EPA proposed in 

the Transport Rule Proposal a threshold 

of 0.15 μg/m3, without any further 

rounding up.17 States contributing less 

than 0.15 μg/m3 to downwind 

maintenance receptors are below the 

threshold and as a result are excluded 

from further analysis. States 

contributing 0.15 μg/m3 or more are 

above the threshold and are ‘‘linked’’ to 

the counties in which the affected 

receptors are located. States with 

‘‘linkages’’ to downwind maintenance 

receptors are included in the analytical 

process that determines the controls (if 

any) required for compliance with the 

‘‘interference with maintenance’’ 

element of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 

1997 PM2.5 standards. 

For the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, 

EPA Transport Rule Proposal proposed 

a threshold for ‘‘interference with 

maintenance’’ at 0.8 ppb, one percent of 

the NAAQS. State contributions of 0.8 

ppb and higher are considered above the 

threshold, while state contributions less 

than 0.8 ppb are below the threshold 

and such states are excluded from 

further analysis. States contributing 

significantly, 0.8 ppb or more, to 


wwoods2 on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 180 / Friday, September 17, 2010 / Proposed Rules 56933 

18 Id. 

19Table IV.C–8, id., at 45248. 

20Table IV.C–13, id., at 45255. 

21For ‘‘linkages’’ between states and maintenanceonly sites see Table IV.C–15, id., at 45259–60. 

22EPA’s August 23, 2010 memo, ‘‘Documentation 

of Future Year Ozone and Annual PM2.5 Design 

Values for Western States,’’ at 5. 

23This distance is estimated on a straight path 

from North Dakota’s southwestern corner to Los 

Angeles. Any emissions from North Dakota sources 

reaching the Los Angeles and Orange Counties 

would travel a longer distance because the sources 

would be farther east and/or north than the State’s 

southwestern corner, and because long range 

transport air parcel pathways rarely follow a 

straight path. 

24Western States Design Values (August 23, 2010) 

at 9–11. 

25EPA did not model projections for the 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS in the 36 km grid modeling domain. 

For the states included in the Eastern domain see 

Table IV.C–13, Transport Rule Proposal, at 45255. 

26 Data undergoing review from EPA’s Air Quality 

System, which is EPA’s repository of ambient air 

quality data. (See http://www.epa.gov/ttn/airs/ 

airsaqs/). 

27The AQS preliminary design value data shows 

that in 2009 design values at monitors in these 

locations ranged from 60 μg/m3 in Fresno and 

Turlock, to 70 μg/m3 in Bakersfield. 

downwind maintenance receptors are 

considered to be ‘‘linked’’ to the counties 

in which they are located and are 

included in the follow-up process that 

determines the controls (if any) required 

of such states to satisfy the ‘‘interfere 

with maintenance’’ element of section 

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

standard.18

PM2.5

In the Transport Rule Proposal, EPA 

projected future concentrations of PM2.5

to identify receptors that are expected to 

have difficulty maintaining compliance 

with the NAAQS in 2012, referred to as 

maintenance-only sites or maintenance 

receptors. For the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS, the Transport Rule Proposal 

identified 16 maintenance receptors in 

its modeling domain. The monitors at 

risk for maintenance are located in 

seven states, including two in Illinois 

(Cook County), four in West Virginia, 

six in Ohio, and one each in Kentucky, 

New York, Pennsylvania and Texas.19

To determine the states in the Eastern 

domain that contribute significantly to 

maintenance receptors, the Transport 

Rule models the states’ PM2.5

contribution to the maintenance 

receptors in these states. The largest 

contribution from North Dakota 

emissions to the maintenance receptors 

in these states was estimated to be 0.05 

μg/m3, a level two thirds below the 

‘‘significant contribution’’ threshold of 

0.15 μg/m3.20 This small contribution 

excluded North Dakota from the 

Transport Rule Proposal’s follow-up 

analysis for the states that contributed 

significantly and were ‘‘linked’’ to at 

least one of the monitors at risk for 

maintenance of the NAAQS.21

To assist in the evaluation of whether 

emissions from a state’s sources 

interfere with maintenance of the 

NAAQS in western states, EPA has 

developed, independent of the 

Transport Rule Proposal, a modeling 

analysis identifying monitors at risk for 

maintenance of the NAAQS within a 

modeling domain that includes the 

western states. The analysis presented 

in the memo, ‘‘Documentation of Future 

Year Ozone and Annual PM2.5 Design 

Values for Western States’’ (Western 

States Design Values), uses model 

results from the Transport Rule Proposal 

modeling Continental U.S. 36 km grid, 

which is coarser than the 12 km grid 

used in the Transport Rule, but does not 

necessarily yield less reliable results.22

EPA’s modeling analysis of western 

states to identify monitors at risk for 

maintenance of the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS identifies only two such 

maintenance-only receptors, in Los 

Angeles and Orange Counties, 

California. These monitors are at least 

1,100 miles from North Dakota’s closest 

area (the State’s southwestern corner,) 23

and mountain ranges between North 

Dakota and the southern California 

maintenance receptors, such as the 

Rocky Mountains, Wasatch and the 

Sierra Nevada, present large obstacles to 

PM2.5 transport from North Dakota to the 

two maintenance receptors in Los 

Angeles and Orange Counties. In 

addition, west of the Continental Divide 

the prevailing winds generally move 

from south-westerly, westerly, or northwesterly directions, as indicated by the 

typical movement of weather systems. 

Thus, geography, topography and 

meteorology of the region that 

encompasses North Dakota and 

California make it unlikely for PM2.5

emissions and/or its precursors to 

contribute significantly to California’s 

maintenance receptors, and thus 

interfere with maintenance of the 

annual PM2.5 1997 NAAQS at these 

receptors. 

It must also be noted that there are no 

maintenance receptors in any of the 

western states adjacent, or relatively 

close, to North Dakota, such as 

Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, and Utah. In 

fact, 2012 projected design values for 

the annual PM2.5 peaked in Utah, 

Montana and Idaho at concentrations 

below 12 μg/m3, and in Wyoming at 

concentrations below 10 μg/m3.24

Turning to the 1997 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS, in the Transport Rule Proposal 

EPA did not evaluate nonattainment 

receptors because there were no 

violations of these standards in portions 

of the U.S. covered by the 12 km grid, 

which includes the 37 states east of the 

Rockies.25 In fact, based on recent 

monitoring data (2007–2009 design 

values that are under final EPA review), 

the highest 24-hour PM2.5 design value 

in 47 of the 48 states of the continental 

U.S. (not including California) is 50 μg/ 

m3, which is well below the level of the 

1997 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS of 65 μg/ 

m3.26 Therefore, outside of California, 

there are no areas that we would expect 

to have difficulty in maintaining the 

1997 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. In 

California, the most recent (2009) 24- 

hour PM2.5 design values show that the 

only monitors that might be at risk for 

maintenance of the 1997 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS are in Turlock, Fresno, and 

Bakersfield, in the northern, central and 

southern sections of the San Joaquin 

Valley.27 The high mountain ranges on 

three sides of the Valley’s boundaries 

(Coast Mountain with 5,000 feet peaks 

on the west, Sierra Nevada range with 

14,000 feet peaks on the east, and 

Tehachapi Mountains with 6,000 feet 

along the southern boundary) are an 

obstacle to transport of PM2.5 and its 

precursors into the valley. As noted 

earlier in our discussion of the impacts 

from North Dakota emissions on annual 

PM2.5 concentrations, and in this case 

too, the geography (nearly 1,200 miles 

distance), topography (high mountain 

ranges between North Dakota and 

California), and meteorology 

(southwesterly or westerly directions of 

prevailing winds) make it highly 

unlikely that emissions from North 

Dakota contribute significantly to the 

San Joaquin Valley monitors at risk for 

maintenance of the 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS. 

In conclusion, our analysis indicates 

that emissions of PM2.5 and/or its 

precursors from the sources in North 

Dakota are unlikely to interfere with 

maintenance of the 24-hour and the 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS by any other 

states. 

8-Hour Ozone 

In the Transport Rule Proposal, EPA 

projected future concentrations of ozone 

to identify receptors, referred to as 

maintenance receptors, that are 

expected to have difficulty maintaining 

compliance with the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS in 2012. To determine states 

that impact maintenance-only sites, in 

the Transport Rule Proposal EPA 

models the states’ ozone contribution to 

these receptors. For the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS, EPA identified 16 maintenance 


wwoods2 on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with PROPOSALS-1
56934 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 180 / Friday, September 17, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

28Table IV.C–12, Transport Rule Proposal, at 

45252–53 

29Western States Design Values (August 23, 

2010). 

30We are excluding the California monitors from 

this portion of our analysis because above we have 

already demonstrated that North Dakota’s emissions 

are unlikely to interfere with maintenance at the 

modeled California maintenance monitors in the 

northern, central and southern sections of the state. 

The factors we considered—distance, topography, 

and wind orientation—apply equally to the unmodeled monitors and make it plausible to 

conclude that the same demonstration is true for 

North Dakota emissions’ impact on California nonmodeled monitors. 

receptors in its modeling domain. The 

monitors at risk for maintenance are 

located in a handful of states, including 

eight monitors in Texas, four in 

Connecticut, two in Georgia, and one 

each in New York and Pennsylvania.28

The largest contribution from North 

Dakota emissions to the 16 maintenance 

receptors in these states was estimated 

to be 0.0 ppb, resulting in the exclusion 

of the State’s emissions from further 

analysis, and in the conclusion that 

North Dakota emissions do not interfere 

with maintenance of the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS by any states in the 

eastern U.S.A. 

As noted earlier, EPA has also 

developed a modeling analysis 

identifying maintenance receptors 

within a modeling domain that includes 

the western states.29 In the western 

states EPA identified only four monitors 

at risk for maintenance of the 1997 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS, and all four are in 

California, in Mercer, Placer, Riverside, 

and Sacramento Counties. Geography 

and topography are not favorable to 

ozone transport from North Dakota, 

which is approximately 1200 miles 

northeast of the counties referenced 

above. In the absence of significant 

northeasterly regional transport winds, 

mountain ranges between North Dakota 

and the California maintenance 

receptors, such as the Rocky Mountains, 

the Wasatch and the Sierra Nevada, 

present serious obstacles to ozone 

transport from North Dakota to 

California. Thus, geography and 

topography reduce the likelihood of 

transport from North Dakota to 

California’s maintenance receptors. 

Prevailing wind orientation in fact 

strongly supports the conclusion that 

emissions from North Dakota sources 

are unlikely to interfere with 

maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard in California. West of the 

Continental Divide the prevailing winds 

generally move from south-westerly, 

westerly, or north-westerly directions, 

as indicated by the typical movement of 

weather systems. To further evaluate the 

direction of regional transport winds 

affecting the California maintenance 

receptors, EPA Region 8 has plotted 

back trajectories starting at each 

maintenance receptor on high ozone 

days. High ozone days include the top 

one third of the exceedance days (for the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS) registered 

at each monitor in 2005 and 2006. As 

shown by the trajectories mapped for all 

four maintenance receptors in Figure 

3.1, Appendix A of EPA’s supporting 

documentation, on high ozone days air 

parcels converge on the Mercer, Placer, 

Sacramento and Riverside monitors 

from the northwest, south and 

southeast, but there are no pathways 

from the east/northeast directions 

reaching even as far as the eastern 

Nevada border, let alone North Dakota. 

For a large number of receptors in 

western states, EPA’s modeling analysis 

could not calculate 2012 projected 

design values because these receptors 

did not have at least 5 days with base 

year concentrations equal to or greater 

than 70 ppb, as required by EPA’s 

modeling guidance. However, the 

observed maximum design values at 

these sites in the 2003–2007 period 

were generally well below the 1997 

ozone NAAQS. The highest (nonCalifornia 30) site had a maximum 

design value of 77 ppb. Additionally, 

the 2012 modeling results at western 

monitors (where a future year design 

value could be estimated,) shows a 

downward trend in ozone. There are no 

areas in the West where ozone is 

predicted to be higher in 2012 (without 

CAIR) compared to 2005. On these bases 

it is plausible to conclude that it is 

highly unlikely, but not impossible, for 

these monitors to be at risk for 

maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. 

In conclusion, data and weight of 

evidence analysis presented in this 

section support the position of the 

North Dakota Interstate Transport SIP 

(adopted into the State SIP on April 1, 

2009 and submitted to EPA April 6, 

2009) that emissions from North Dakota 

do not interfere with maintenance of the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS by any other 

state, consistent with the requirements 

of element (2) of CAA section 

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

VI. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing partial approval of 

the addition to the North Dakota SIP of 

the ‘‘Interstate Transport of Air 

Pollution’’ SIP addressing the 

requirements of CAA section 

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

hour ozone National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS). EPA is 

proposing approval of the language in 

Section 7.8.1, subsection B., 

‘‘Nonattainment and Maintenance Area 

Impact,’’ that specifically addresses 

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

requirement that the SIP contain 

adequate provisions prohibiting 

emissions from North Dakota from 

interfering with maintenance of the 

1997 PM2.5 and 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

by any other state. The language in 

Section 7.8.1, subsection B., that 

addresses element (1) of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) was approved by EPA in 

a June 3, 2010 Federal Register action. 

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 

2835, 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 


wwoods2 on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 180 / Friday, September 17, 2010 / Proposed Rules 56935 

• 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: September 9, 2010. 

Carol Rushin, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

[FR Doc. 2010–23292 Filed 9–16–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2007–1035; FRL–9202–7] 

Approval and Promulgation of State 

Implementation Plans; State of 

Colorado; Interstate Transport of 

Pollution Revisions for the 1997 8-hour 

Ozone NAAQS: ‘‘Interference With 

Maintenance’’ Requirement 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed Rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

the ‘‘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’’ addressing the 

‘‘interference with maintenance’’ 

requirement of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). 

On June 18, 2009 the State of Colorado 

submitted an interstate transport State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) addressing 

the interstate transport requirements 

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

Clean Air Act (CAA). In this action, EPA 

is proposing to approve the Colorado 

Interstate Transport SIP provisions that 

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

requirement prohibiting a state’s 

emissions from interfering with 

maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) by any other state. This action 

is being taken under section 110 of the 

CAA. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before October 18, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08– 

OAR–2007–1035, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-mail: 

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–2007– 

1035. 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 Colorado and State 

mean the State of Colorado. 

Table of Contents 

I. General Information 

What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments for EPA? 

II. Background 

III. What action is EPA proposing? 

IV. What is the State process to submit these 

materials to EPA? 


wwoods2 on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with PROPOSALS-1