27888 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 92 / Monday, May 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

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: May 2, 2013. 

Howard M. Cantor, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

[FR Doc. 2013–11292 Filed 5–10–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2012–0348; FRL–9813–2] 

Approval and Promulgation of State 

Implementation Plans; State of North 

Dakota; Interstate Transport of 

Pollution for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

portions of a State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) submission from the State of North 

Dakota which demonstrates that its SIP 

meets certain interstate transport 

requirements of the Clean Air Act 

(‘‘Act’’ or ‘‘CAA’’) for the 2006 fine 

particulate matter (‘‘PM2.5’’) National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(‘‘NAAQS’’). This submission addresses 

the requirement that North Dakota’s SIP 

contain adequate provisions to prohibit 

air emissions from adversely affecting 

another state’s air quality through 

interstate transport. In this action, EPA 

is proposing to approve the portion of 

the North Dakota SIP submission that 

addresses the CAA requirement 

prohibiting emissions from North 

Dakota sources from significantly 

contributing to nonattainment of the 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in any other state or 

interfering with maintenance of the 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS by any other state. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before June 12, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08– 

OAR–2012–0348, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: clark.adam@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (303) 312–6064 (please alert 

the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing 

comments). 

• Mail: Carl Daly, Director, Air 

Program, Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P– 

AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, 

Colorado 80202–1129. 

• Hand Delivery: Carl Daly, 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, 8:00 

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–2012– 

0348. 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 email. 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 email comment directly 

to EPA, without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your email 

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, 8:00 a.m. to 

4:00 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Adam Clark, Air Program, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 8, Mailcode 8P–AR, 1595 

Wynkoop, Denver, Colorado 80202– 

1129, (303) 312–7104, 

clark.adam@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. 

(ii) The initials CAIR mean or refer to the 

Clean Air Interstate Rule. 

(iii) The initials CSAPR mean or refer to 

the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule. 

(iv) The words EPA, we, us or our mean or 

refer to the United States Environmental 

Protection Agency. 

(v) The initials SIP mean or refer to State 

Implementation Plan. 

(vi) The words North Dakota and State 

mean the State of North Dakota. 

Table of Contents 

I. General Information 

II. Background 

A. 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS and Interstate 

Transport 

B. EPA Rules Addressing Interstate 

Transport for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in 

Eastern States 

III. North Dakota’s Submittal 

IV. EPA’s Evaluation 

A. EPA’s Approach for Evaluating 

Interstate Transport of Air Pollution 

B. EPA’s Evaluation of North Dakota’s 

Submittal 

V. Proposed Action 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 92 / Monday, May 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules 27889 

1This proposed action does not address the two 

elements of the transport SIP provision (in CAA 

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

with measures required to prevent significant 

deterioration of air quality or to protect visibility in 

another state. We will act on these elements in a 

separate rulemaking. 

2See NOX SIP Call, 63 FR 57371 (October 27, 

1998); CAIR, 70 FR 25172 (May 12, 2005); and 

Transport Rule or Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, 76 

FR 48208 (August 8, 2011). 

3CAIR addressed the 1997 annual and 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS, and the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

It did not address the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

For more information on CAIR, please see our July 

30, 2012 proposal for Arizona regarding interstate 

transport for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS (77 FR 44551, 

44552). 

4NDDH’s submission, dated August 12, 2010 is 

included in the docket for this action. 

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 email. 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. Background 

A. 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS and Interstate 

Transport 

Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA 

specifies four distinct elements related 

to the evaluation of impacts of interstate 

transport of air pollutants with respect 

to a new or revised NAAQS. In this 

action for the State of North Dakota, 

EPA is addressing the first two elements 

of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) with respect to 

the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.1 The first 

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

requires that each SIP for a new or 

revised NAAQS contain adequate 

provisions to prohibit any source or 

other type of emissions activity within 

the state from emitting air pollutants 

that will ‘‘contribute significantly to 

nonattainment’’ of the applicable 

NAAQS in another state. The second 

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

requires that each SIP for a new or 

revised NAAQS contain adequate 

provisions to prohibit any source or 

other type of emissions activity in the 

state from emitting pollutants that will 

‘‘interfere with maintenance’’ of the 

applicable NAAQS in any other state. 

B. EPA Rules Addressing Interstate 

Transport for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in 

the Eastern United States 

EPA has addressed the requirements 

of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for many 

states in the eastern portion of the 

country in three regulatory actions.2

Most recently, EPA published the final 

Cross State Air Pollution Rule 

(‘‘CSAPR’’ or ‘‘Transport Rule’’) to 

address the first two elements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) in the Eastern United 

States with respect to the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS, the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, and 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS (August 

8, 2011, 76 FR 48208). CSAPR was 

intended to replace the earlier Clean Air 

Interstate Rule (CAIR) which was 

judicially remanded.3 See North 

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

2008). On August 21, 2012, the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit 

issued a decision to vacate CSAPR. See 

EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. 

E.P.A., 696 F.3d 7 (DC Cir. 2012). The 

EME Homer City panel also ordered EPA 

to continue implementing CAIR in the 

interim. On March 29, 2013, the United 

States asked the Supreme Court to 

review the EME Homer City decision. In 

the mean time, and unless the EME 

Homer City decision is reversed or 

otherwise modified, EPA intends to act 

in accordance with the panel opinion in 

EME Homer City. North Dakota was 

entirely within the modeling domain for 

the air quality modeling analyses used 

in the development of CAIR and 

CSAPR. 

III. North Dakota’s Submittal 

On August 12, 2010, the North Dakota 

Department of Health (NDDH) made a 

submission certifying that North 

Dakota’s SIP is adequate to implement 

the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS for all the 

‘‘infrastructure’’ requirements of CAA 

section 110(a)(2). This submission 

included a transport analysis to support 

the conclusion that North Dakota’s SIP 

meets the requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for this NAAQS.4

North Dakota’s PM2.5 transport 

analysis contains the State’s assessment 

of the potential for emissions of PM2.5

and PM2.5 precursors from North Dakota 

sources to significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 24-hour PM2.5

standards in any other state. In its 

analysis, the State considered distance, 

wind direction, monitor values in North 

Dakota and other states, modeling by the 

Western Regional Air Partnership of 

contribution to Class I Areas, and 

anticipated future PM2.5 emission 

reductions. 

IV. EPA’s Evaluation 

A. EPA’s Approach for Evaluating 

Interstate Transport of Air Pollution 

To determine whether the CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirement is 

satisfied, EPA first determines whether 

a state’s emissions contribute 

significantly to nonattainment or 

interfere with maintenance in 

downwind areas. If a state is determined 

not to have such contribution or 

interference, then section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) does not require any 

changes to a SIP. EPA is proposing to 

determine that the existing SIP for North 

Dakota is adequate to satisfy the 

requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the 

CAA to address interstate transport 

requirements with regard to the 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS. This proposed 

conclusion is based on air quality 

modeling originally conducted by EPA 

during the rulemaking process for 

CSAPR. This modeling quantified, for 

each individual state within the 

modeling domain (including North 

Dakota), contributions to downwind 

nonattainment and maintenance areas. 

In the CSAPR rulemaking (proposal 

and final) process, EPA explained how 

nonattainment and maintenance 

‘‘receptors’’ would be identified so that 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
27890 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 92 / Monday, May 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

5For our definition of both nonattainment and 

maintenance receptors, see the Technical Support 

Documents for the final CSAPR, including the 

‘‘Technical Support Document (TSD) for the 

Transport Rule—Air Quality Modeling’’, (the 

proposal TSD) June 2010, and the ‘‘Air Quality 

Modeling Final Rule Technical Support 

Document’’, (Air Quality Modeling TSD) June 2011, 

in the docket for this action. 

6See Id.; Emissions Inventory Final Rule TSD, 

June 28, 2011. 

7See section IV.F (Analysis of Contributions 

Captured by Various Thresholds) of the Air Quality 

Modeling TSD. 

8See Memorandum from William T. Harnett 

entitled ‘‘Guidance for State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) Submission to Meet Current Outstanding 

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

hour ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards,’’ August 15, 2006, available at http:// 

www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t1/memoranda/ 

section110a2di_sip_guidance.pdf. 

contribution to nonattainment and 

interference with maintenance could be 

assessed with respect to those 

receptors.5 The receptors were 

identified as all monitoring sites that 

had PM2.5 design values above the level 

of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS (35 

mg/m3) for certain analytic years. Then 

EPA compiled an emissions inventory 

for the year 2005, the most recent year 

for which EPA had a complete national 

inventory at that time. In the CSAPR 

analysis, EPA also projected the 

inventory for a future year analysis for 

evaluating the interstate transport 

impacts in that future year.6 The air 

quality modeling conducted for CSAPR 

then evaluated interstate contributions 

from emissions in upwind states to 

downwind nonattainment and 

maintenance receptors for the 1997 

annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Please see the Air Quality Modeling 

Final Rule Technical Support 

Document, June 2011 (‘‘Air Quality 

Modeling TSD’’) for the CSAPR. 

Appendix D of this TSD details North 

Dakota’s contribution data for the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS for all downwind 

receptors. 

EPA then used air quality thresholds 

to indentify linkages between upwind 

states and downwind nonattainment 

and maintenance receptors. As detailed 

in EPA’s Air Quality Modeling TSD, 

EPA used a threshold of 1% of the 

NAAQS to identify these linkages. Our 

analysis for CSAPR found that the 1% 

threshold captures a high percentage of 

the total pollution transport affecting 

downwind states for PM2.5.7 The air 

quality thresholds were therefore 

calculated as 1% of the NAAQS, which 

is 0.35 mg/m3 for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS. EPA found states projected to 

exceed this air quality threshold at one 

or more downwind nonattainment 

receptors emissions to be linked to all 

such receptors, and therefore subject to 

further evaluation. EPA did not conduct 

further evaluation of emissions from 

states that were not linked to any 

downwind receptors. 

The methodology and modeling used 

to analyze the impact of emissions from 

North Dakota and to identify potential 

linkages between North Dakota and 

downwind nonattainment and 

maintenance receptors with respect to 

the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS is 

described in further detail in the Air 

Quality Modeling TSDs. These 

documents can be found in the 

electronic docket for this action, which 

is available through the 

www.regulations.gov Web site. 

B. EPA’s Evaluation of North Dakota’s 

Submittal 

In its submittal, North Dakota relied 

on factors we have generally found to be 

relevant for assessing interstate 

transport for western states that were 

not within the modeling domain for 

CSAPR.8 However, North Dakota was 

within the modeling domain for CSAPR. 

As we consider the modeling conducted 

during the development of CSAPR to 

contain the most accurate and 

comprehensive technical assessment of 

PM2.5 interstate transport for those states 

within its modeling domain, including 

North Dakota, we examined that 

analysis to assess transport of PM2.5

emissions from North Dakota to other 

states. 

The air quality modeling performed 

during the development of CSAPR 

found that the impact from North 

Dakota emissions on both downwind 

nonattainment and maintenance 

receptors was less than the 1% 

threshold for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

EPA therefore did not find emissions 

from North Dakota linked to any 

downwind nonattainment or 

maintenance receptors for the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Below is a summary of the air quality 

modeling results for North Dakota from 

Table IV–9 of EPA’s Air Quality 

Modeling TSD regarding North Dakota’s 

largest contribution to both downwind 

PM2.5 nonattainment and maintenance 

areas. 

NORTH DAKOTA’S LARGEST CONTRIBUTION TO DOWNWIND PM2.5 NONATTAINMENT AND MAINTENANCE AREAS

NAAQS 

Air quality threshold 

(μg/m3) 

Largest downwind 

contribution to 

nonattainment 

(μg/m3) 

Largest downwind 

contribution to 

maintenance 

(μg/m3) 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS (35 μg/m3) ................................................................... 0.35 0.21 0.33 

Based on this analysis, we propose to 

approve North Dakota’s submission 

certifying that its SIP meets the 

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

for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. We continue 

to believe it is appropriate to rely on the 

modeling done during the development 

of CSAPR, even with the EME Homer 

City opinion vacating the rule. EME 

Homer City Generation L.P. v. EPA, 696 

F.3d 7 (DC Cir. 2012). Nothing in the 

EME Homer City opinion suggests that 

the air quality modeling on which our 

proposal relies is flawed or invalid for 

any reason. In addition, nothing in that 

opinion undermines or calls into 

question our proposed conclusion that, 

because emissions from North Dakota 

do not contribute more than 1% of the 

1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS to any 

downwind area with nonattainment or 

maintenance problems, North Dakota 

does not contribute significantly to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance in another state for these 

NAAQS. Further, EPA is not proposing 

to rely on any requirements of CSAPR 

or emission reductions associated with 

that rule to support its conclusion that 

North Dakota has met its 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) obligations with 

respect to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

V. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) portion of North 

Dakota’s August 12, 2010 SIP 

submission, based on conclusions 

drawn from the technical analysis done 

during the development of CSAPR that 

emissions from North Dakota sources do 

not contribute significantly to 

nonattainment of the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS in any other state or 

interfere with maintenance of the 2006 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 92 / Monday, May 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules 27891 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS by any other 

state. Accordingly, we propose to 

conclude that the existing SIP is 

adequate to address the requirements of 

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

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, and that additional 

control measures in North Dakota are 

not necessary for this purpose. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable federal regulations 

(42 USC 7410(k), 40 CFR 52.02(a)). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely proposes to approve some state 

law as meeting federal requirements and 

does not impose additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

state law. For that reason, this proposed 

action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

USC 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 

USC 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 USC 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and, 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

Tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on Tribal governments or preempt 

Tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, 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: May 2, 2013. 

Howard M. Cantor, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

[FR Doc. 2013–11295 Filed 5–10–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2011–0724; FRL–9812–9] 

Promulgation of State Implementation 

Plan Revisions; Infrastructure 

Requirements for the 1997 and 2006 

PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards; Montana 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to partially 

approve and partially disapprove the 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

submission from the State of Montana to 

demonstrate that the SIP meets the 

infrastructure requirements for the 1997 

and 2006 National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS) for particulate 

matter less than or equal to 2.5 

micrometers (mm) in diameter (PM2.5). 

The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires that 

each state, after a new or revised 

NAAQS is promulgated, review their 

SIP to ensure that they meet 

infrastructure requirements. The State of 

Montana submitted a certification of 

their infrastructure SIP for the 1997 and 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, dated February 10, 

2010. EPA does not propose to act in 

this notice on the State’s submissions to 

meet requirements relating to interstate 

transport of air pollution for the 1997 

and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA will act 

on those submissions in a separate 

action. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before June 12, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08– 

OAR–2011–0724, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: ayala.kathy@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (303) 312–6064 (please alert 

the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing 

comments). 

• Mail: Director, Air Program, 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P–AR, 

1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 

80202–1129. 

• Hand Delivery: Director, Air 

Program, Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P– 

AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, 

Colorado 80202–1129. Such deliveries 

are only accepted Monday through 

Friday, 8:00 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–2011– 

0724. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

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 www.regulations.gov 

or email. The 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 email 

comment directly to EPA, without going 

through www.regulations.gov your email 

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 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS