16032 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 31, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

non-regulatory provisions adopted into 

the State SIP April 1, 2009 satisfactorily 

address the requirements of elements (1) 

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

1997 PM2.5 and 8-hour ozone standards. 

V. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing approval of 

revisions, submitted by the Governor of 

North Dakota with a letter dated April 

6, 2009, to the prevention of significant 

deterioration provisions in subsection 

33–15–15 of the NDAC, and partial 

approval of the addition to the State SIP 

of the ‘‘Interstate Transport of Air 

Pollution’’ SIP addressing the 

requirements of Clean Air Act section 

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

hour ozone National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS). For the 

North Dakota Interstate Transport SIP, 

EPA is proposing approval of: (a) The 

introductory language in the State SIP 

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

in subsection A., Section 7.8.1; (c) 

language in Section 7.8.1, subsection B., 

‘‘Nonattainment and Maintenance Area 

Impact,’’ that specifically addresses 

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

requirement that the SIP contain 

adequate provisions prohibiting 

emissions from North Dakota from 

contributing significantly to 

nonattainment in any other state; and 

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

on Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD).’’ 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Review 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 

40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP 

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve 

state choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this action merely 

approves state law as meeting Federal 

requirements and does not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by state law. For that reason, 

this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

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

Dated: March 18, 2010. 

Carol L. Campbell, 

Acting Assistant Regional Administrator, 

Region 8. 

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

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2007–1032; FRL–9131–4] 

Approval and Promulgation of State 

Implementation Plans; State of 

Colorado; Interstate Transport of 

Pollution Revisions for the 1997 8-Hour 

Ozone NAAQS: ‘‘Significant 

Contribution to Nonattainment’’ 

Requirement 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing partial 

approval of the State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) revisions ‘‘State of Colorado 

Implementation Plan to Meet the 

Requirements of Clean Air Act Section 

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

Regarding the 1997 8-Hour Ozone 

Standard’’ submitted by the State of 

Colorado on June 18, 2009. The 

Colorado Interstate Transport SIP 

revisions submitted June 18, 2009 

address the requirements of Clean Air 

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

8-hour ozone National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS). In this 

Federal Register action EPA proposes 

approval of the Colorado SIP sections 

that address the requirement of section 

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

emissions from contributing 

significantly to any other state’s 

nonattainment of the NAAQS. EPA will 

act at a later date on the Colorado 

Interstate Transport SIP sections that 

address the requirement prohibiting a 

state’s emissions from interfering with 

any other state’s maintenance of the 

NAAQS. This action is being taken 

under section 110 of the Clean Air Act. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before April 30, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08– 

OAR–2007–1032, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

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

mastrangelo.domenico@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (303) 312–6064 (please alert 

the individual listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing 

comments). 

• Mail: Callie Videtich, Director, Air 

Program, Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 

8P–AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, 

Colorado 80202–1129. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 31, 2010 / Proposed Rules 16033 

• 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– 

1032. 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 Information 

III. What Action Is EPA Proposing? 

IV. What Is the State Process To Submit 

These Materials to EPA? 

V. EPA’s Review and Technical Information 

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: 

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 Information 

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

requires that a state’s SIP must contain 

adequate provisions prohibiting any 

source or other type of emissions 

activity within the state from emitting 

any air pollutant in amounts which will: 

(1) Contribute significantly to 

nonattainment of the NAAQS in any 

other state; (2) interfere with 

maintenance of the NAAQS by any 

other state; (3) interfere with any other 

state’s required measures to prevent 

significant deterioration of air quality; 

or (4) interfere with any other state’s 

required measures to protect visibility. 

On June 11, 2008, the State of Colorado 

submitted to EPA an Interstate 

Transport SIP addressing the interstate 

transport requirements of CAA section 

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

8-hour ozone NAAQS. In response to 

EPA’s concerns with the June 11, 2008 

submittal, on December 30, 2008 the 

State adopted and on June 18, 2009 

submitted a revised SIP addressing the 

requirements of elements (1) and (2) of 

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

8-hour ozone NAAQS. The State of 

Colorado is planning to submit in June 

2010 further revisions addressing the 

requirements of elements (3) and (4) for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and the 

requirements of elements (1) through (4) 

for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
16034 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 31, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

1Memorandum from William T. Harnett entitled 

Guidance for State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

Submissions to Meet Current Outstanding 

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

8-hour Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (Aug. 15, 2006) (‘‘2006 

Guidance’’). Available for review in EPA’s January 

14, 2010 docket document entitled: ‘‘Relevant 

Guidance and Supporting Documentation for the 

Proposed Rulemaking Federal Register Action 

Docket ID # EPA–R08–OAR–2007–1032. 

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

final rule published in the May 12, 2005 Federal 

Register and entitled ‘‘Rule to Reduce Interstate 

Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone 

(Clean Air Interstate Rule); Revisions to Acid Rain 

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

FR 25162). 

3See Figure 5, page 15 of the Interstate Transport 

SIP submitted June 18, 2009. It must be noted that 

the modeling analysis domain for the DMA/NFR 

attainment plan was limited to the State territory, 

and that the 70-mile distance represents the 

approximate distance from Denver to the western 

border of Morgan County. 

III. What Action Is EPA Proposing? 

EPA is proposing partial approval of 

the Colorado Interstate Transport of Air 

Pollution SIP addressing the 

requirements of CAA section 

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

ozone NAAQS. On December 30, 2008, 

the Colorado Air Quality Control 

Commission (AQCC) adopted the ‘‘State 

of Colorado Implementation Plan to 

Meet the Requirements of the Clean Air 

Act Section 110(a)(2)(d)(i)(I)—Interstate 

Transport Regarding the 1997 8-Hour 

Ozone Standard.’’ Colorado submitted 

the December 30, 2008 SIP revision to 

EPA on June 18, 2009. In this Federal 

Register action EPA is proposing to 

approve only the language and 

demonstration that addresses element 

(1) of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i): Prohibition 

of significant contribution to 

nonattainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS in any other state. 

IV. What Is the State Process To Submit 

These Materials 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 Colorado AQCC held a public 

hearing in December 2008 for the 

interstate transport SIP revision: ‘‘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.’’ The AQCC adopted 

this revision on December 30, 2008, and 

the State submitted it to EPA on 

June 18, 2009. 

On November 18, 2009, the AQCC 

provided EPA with an exact color 

duplicate of the SIP adopted by the 

AQCC on December 30, 2008 and 

included in the June 18, 2009 submittal 

to EPA. In the original submittal, AQCC 

provided a black and white copy. The 

SIP’s color duplicate, available for 

review as part of the Docket, makes it 

easier to understand modeling results 

reported in several graphs that are part 

of the SIP technical demonstration. 

EPA has reviewed the submittal from 

the State of Colorado 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 

The interstate transport provisions at 

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

referred to as the ‘‘good neighbor’’ 

provisions, require that each state’s SIP 

contain adequate provisions prohibiting 

emissions that adversely affect any other 

state’s air quality through interstate 

transport of air pollutants. As discussed 

in the Background Information section 

of this notice, a state’s SIP must contain 

provisions that satisfy the four elements 

of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). On August 15, 

2006, EPA issued guidance for SIP 

submissions addressing the 

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

for the 1997 PM2.5 and 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS.1 The portions of the Colorado 

Interstate Transport SIP revision that 

address element (1) of section 

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

NAAQS are consistent with EPA’s 2006 

guidance. 

To demonstrate that emissions from 

Colorado do not contribute significantly 

to nonattainment of the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS in any other state, the 

Colorado Interstate Transport SIP relies 

on a combination of: (a) Modeling 

analysis done by the State as part of the 

attainment demonstration SIP for the 

Denver Metropolitan Area/North Front 

Range (DMA/NFR) nonattainment area 

for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard; (b) 

monitoring data gathered by states and 

reported to EPA in the Air Quality 

System (AQS) database; and (c) 

considerations of geographical and 

meteorological factors. In this action, 

EPA expands on the analysis of 

geographical and meteorological factors, 

and of ozone concentration levels 

reflecting AQS monitoring data. 

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

EPA cannot approve a state’s SIP for a 

new or revised NAAQS unless it 

contains adequate measures to prohibit 

emissions from sources within the state 

from contributing significantly to 

nonattainment of the NAAQS in another 

state. EPA’s August 15, 2006 guidance 

to states concerning section 

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

methods by which states might evaluate 

whether or not its emissions 

significantly contribute to violations of 

the 1997 ozone standards in another 

state. Among other methods, EPA 

recommended consideration of available 

EPA modeling conducted in 

conjunction with CAIR,2 or in the 

absence of such EPA modeling, 

consideration of other information such 

as the amount of emissions, the 

geographic location of violating areas, 

meteorological data, or various other 

forms of information that would be 

relevant to assessing the likelihood of 

significant contribution to violations of 

the NAAQS in another state. The 

assessment of significant contribution to 

nonattainment is not restricted to 

impacts upon areas that are formally 

designated nonattainment. Consistent 

with EPA’s approach in CAIR, this 

impact must be evaluated with respect 

to any monitors showing a violation of 

the NAAQS (70 FR 25172, May 12, 

2005, and 63 FR 57371, October 27, 

1998). Furthermore, although relevant 

information other than modeling may be 

considered in assessing the likelihood of 

significant contribution to violations of 

the 1997 8-hour ozone standard in 

another state, EPA notes that no single 

piece of information in the following 

discussion is by itself dispositive of the 

issue. Instead, the total weight of all the 

evidence taken together supports the 

conclusion that emissions from 

Colorado sources are unlikely to 

contribute significantly to violations of 

the 1997 8-hour ozone standard in any 

other state. 

The Colorado Interstate Transport SIP 

uses results from Colorado’s 2009 

‘‘8-Hour Ozone Attainment Plan’’ for the 

DMA/NFR nonattainment area, and a 

report from the Western States Air 

Resource (WESTAR) Council to 

underscore that: (a) Local anthropogenic 

ozone contribution to high ozone 

concentrations in Denver is only about 

25%; and (b) on days of highest ozone 

concentrations (reflecting a design value 

of 84.9 ppb) in the DMA/NFR area, the 

projected design values decrease to 63 

ppb or less for all downwind Colorado 

counties east of an imaginary northsouth line approximately 70 miles east 

from Denver.3 EPA does not accept the 

State of Colorado Interstate Transport 

SIP assessment that these results 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 31, 2010 / Proposed Rules 16035 

4 ‘‘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,’’ p. 17, December 

12, 2009. 

5 Ibid., pp. 8–9. 

6The Wisconsin nonattainment areas for the 1997 

8-hour ozone standard include: Door, Kewaunee, 

Manitowoc, Sheboygan, Ozaukee, Washington, 

Milwaukee, Waukesha, Racine and Kenosha 

counties; the Chicago nonattainment area includes 

Cook County and several adjacent Illinois and 

Indiana counties (69 FR 23858, April 30, 2004). 

7Ozone Transport Assessment Group (OTAG), 

Air Quality Analysis Workgroup: ‘‘3.3 Climatology 

of Ozone Synoptic Scale Transport in the Eastern 

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

1998. High ozone days were days with ozone 

concentrations in the 90th percentile. 

8Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 

‘‘Attainment Demonstration—The Wisconsin 

Counties of Kenosha, Racine, Milwaukee, 

Waukesha, Ozaukee, Washington, Sheboygan, 

Manitowoc and Door,’’ September 2009. 

demonstrate that ‘‘ the magnitude of 

ozone transport from Colorado to other 

states is too low to significantly 

contribute to nonattainment in * * * 

any other state with respect to the 0.08 

ppb NAAQS.’’ 4 Similarly, EPA does not 

accept the claim in Colorado’s SIP that 

the absence of violations of the 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS in adjacent downwind 

states such as Kansas, Nebraska and 

Wyoming suffices to show that 

emissions from Colorado sources do not 

significantly affect farther downwind 

ozone nonattainment areas such as St. 

Louis.5 The relatively limited 

contribution of local emissions to 

nonattainment in the DMA/NFR, the 

quick drop in ozone levels in the 

easternmost Colorado counties, and 

even the substantial gap between the 

1997 NAAQS and design values in 

adjacent downwind states do not 

exclude a potential significant 

contribution from Colorado emissions to 

downwind nonattainment areas. 

However, as a reflection of emission 

levels, the relatively (to the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS) moderate ozone 

concentrations in eastern Colorado and 

in adjacent downwind states somewhat 

reduces the probability of significant 

ozone contribution from Colorado 

emission sources to considerably farther 

downwind nonattainment areas such as 

St. Louis, Missouri, and Chicago, 

Illinois. 

In addition, significant contribution 

should be measured not just against 

nonattainment areas, but also against 

areas with monitors showing violations 

of the NAAQS. That said, 

nonattainment areas are a convenient 

starting point for EPA’s analysis. For the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, the St. 

Louis area and the Illinois and 

Wisconsin Counties along the 

southwestern shore of Lake Michigan 

(Illinois/Wisconsin area) are the 

designated downwind nonattainment 

areas closest to Colorado.6 EPA’s 

evaluation of whether emissions from 

Colorado contribute significantly to 

ozone nonattainment in these areas 

relies on an examination of a variety of 

data and analysis that provide insight 

on ozone transport from Colorado to 

these two areas. Because EPA does not 

have detailed modeling for Colorado 

and nearby downwind states, our 

approach does not rely on a quantitative 

determination of Colorado’s 

contribution, as EPA did for other states 

in its CAIR rulemaking, but on a weightof-evidence analysis based on 

qualitative assessments and estimates of 

the relevant factors. While conclusions 

reached for each of the factors 

considered in the following analysis are 

not in and by themselves determinative, 

consideration of all of these factors 

provides a reliable qualitative 

conclusion on whether Colorado’s 

emissions are likely to contribute 

significantly to nonattainment in the St. 

Louis and the Illinois/Wisconsin areas. 

The Illinois/Wisconsin nonattainment 

area is approximately 900 miles east/ 

northeast from the Colorado DMA/NFR 

area. Distance per se is not an obstacle 

to long range transport of ozone and/or 

its precursors, as discussed in the 

January 30, 2004 notice proposing CAIR 

(69 FR 4599). NOx, the primary ozone 

precursor that was the object of the 

CAIR transport study, may be 

transported for long distances, 

contributing significantly to high ozone 

concentrations in other states. However, 

with increasing distance there are 

greater opportunities for ozone or NOX

dispersion and/or removal from the 

atmosphere due to the effect of winds or 

chemical sink processes. As a result, 

one may conclude that the 900-mile 

distance from Colorado sources of NOX

emissions and the Illinois/Wisconsin 

area reduces, but does not exclude, the 

possibility of significant contribution to 

this area’s nonattainment. 

Another transport factor is wind 

direction. For long range transport 

winds, a modeling analysis of ozone 

dispersion during the summer months 

(June to August) of the five-year period 

1991–1995 shows that on high local 

ozone days the prevailing long range 

transport winds in States immediately 

to the east and north of Colorado 

(Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota, Iowa, 

Minnesota, and North Dakota) had a 

southerly direction. On high regional 

ozone days, during the same period, 

regional transport winds in the same 

States were southwesterly, but with a 

westerly component so weak that a 

greater portion of NOX emissions from 

Colorado would likely remain 

significantly west of the Illinois/ 

Wisconsin nonattainment area.7 To the 

extent that these results are 

representative of general ozone 

transport patterns not limited to the 

1991–1995 period, the weak western 

component of long range transport 

winds during high ozone days in the 

States east and north of Colorado 

provides evidence that NOX emissions 

from Colorado are unlikely to contribute 

significantly to violations of the 1997 

ozone NAAQS in the Illinois/Wisconsin 

counties along the southwestern shores 

of Lake Michigan. 

Additional circumstantial evidence 

supporting this conclusion is found in 

technical documentation developed in 

recent years by the States of Kansas and 

Wisconsin. To support its Interstate 

Transport SIP, the State of Kansas 

submitted to EPA Region 7 technical 

documentation that includes back 

trajectory analyses gauging the pathway 

of air masses impacting the Illinois/ 

Wisconsin nonattainment area on the 

four days with highest ozone 

concentrations during each of the years 

2005–2007. The back trajectory analyses 

in Appendix G of the technical support 

section show that, for the four days with 

the highest ozone readings, none of the 

pathways followed by air masses 

moving into the Chicago Metropolitan 

Statistical Area (MSA) or into several of 

the Wisconsin nonattainment counties 

came from Colorado. Since these back 

trajectories refer to the pathways of air 

masses and not specifically to ozone 

transport, the results of this analysis 

cannot be considered determinative as 

to the significant contribution of ozone 

or NOX from Colorado emissions to the 

nonattainment counties along the 

southwestern shores of Lake Michigan. 

However, the lack of any back 

trajectories from Colorado indicates that 

it is unlikely that NOX emissions from 

the State contribute significantly to the 

nonattainment of the Illinois/Wisconsin 

area. 

Further support is given by a recent 

attainment demonstration by the 

Wisconsin Department of Natural 

Resources (WDNR) for the 

nonattainment counties along the 

southwestern shores of Lake Michigan.8

The WDNR analysis identifies heavy 

industrial activity and dense 

urbanization as the major local 

contributors to the high ozone 

concentrations in the Indiana, Illinois 

and Wisconsin Counties along the 

southwestern shores of Lake Michigan. 

Between 40 and 60 percent of the 

maximum ozone concentrations in the 

Lake Michigan airshed is attributed to 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
16036 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 31, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

9 Ibid., p. 51. 

10 Ibid. 11See the January 4, 2007 State of Kansas 

submittal to EPA of Interstate Transport SIP 

revisions, Document ID# EPA–R07–OAR–2007– 

0141–0003, pp. 6–7. 

12OTAG, ‘‘Ozone as Function of Local Wind 

Speed and Direction: Evidence of Local and 

Regional Transport,’’ p. 33, July 26, 1997. 

13 Document ID# EPA–R07–OAR–2007–0141– 

0003, Appendix G. 

14See Table 4, pages 7 and 8, of the Colorado 

Interstate Transport SIP. 

regional transport, occurring from 

emission sources located within a 

south-southwesterly arc spanning from 

160 to 270 degrees (compass direction). 

Colorado’s location at the western 

margins of this arc (Denver is 

approximately 260 degrees southwest of 

Chicago) substantially reduces the 

likelihood for NOX emissions from the 

State to contribute significantly to 

nonattainment in the Illinois/Wisconsin 

area.9 Given the southerly orientation of 

regional transport winds in States east 

and north of Colorado, it is likely that 

Colorado ozone or NOX emissions 

would be heavily dispersed in a 

northward direction west of this 

nonattainment area. 

Finally, by 2008, the 8-hour ozone 

design values for the Illinois and 

Wisconsin nonattainment counties 

along the shores of Lake Michigan fell 

below the level of the NAAQS, a 

reduction attributed to the 

implementation of State and Federal 

control measures since the designation 

of these counties as nonattainment in 

2004. In other words, were there 

emissions from Colorado sources 

reaching the Illinois and Wisconsin 

counties along the western rim of Lake 

Michigan, they would no longer be 

significantly contributing to violations 

of the NAAQS in that area.10

The other nonattainment area, St. 

Louis and adjacent counties, is 

approximately 800 miles straight east 

from the Colorado DMA/NFR area. This 

substantial distance does not, in and by 

itself, exclude the possibility of 

significant contribution from Colorado’s 

NOX emissions to nonattainment in the 

St. Louis area. However, it is also 

sufficient to provide many opportunities 

for ozone dispersion and removal from 

the atmosphere due to the effect of 

winds and chemical sink processes, and 

thus reduce the likelihood of significant 

contribution from Colorado to 

nonattainment in this area. 

The impact of wind direction on 

ozone transport from Colorado to the St. 

Louis area is gauged through the results 

of several findings. Kansas, immediately 

east of Colorado and west of Missouri, 

is characterized by strong southerly 

surface winds that match prevailing 

regional transport winds, which have a 

southerly orientation during days of 

elevated ozone concentration. 

Throughout 2005 its winds averaged 

daily speeds slightly over 9 mph.11 The 

OTAG modeling analysis referred to 

earlier shows that, during the five years 

from 1991 to 1995, on high ozone days 

regional transport winds in Kansas and 

Missouri have a prevailing southerly 

orientation. To the extent that these 

results are representative of general 

ozone transport patterns not limited to 

the 1991–95 period, they indicate that 

ozone/NOX emissions from Colorado 

reaching Kansas or Missouri were very 

likely to be redirected northward and 

away from the St. Louis area, thus 

lessening the likelihood for a significant 

ozone contribution to nonattainment 

from Colorado. 

Results from other studies are 

consistent with these tentative 

conclusions. In a study published by 

OTAG in 1997, the St. Louis area 

showed higher ozone concentrations (70 

as compared with 55 ppb) on days with 

winds from the south or the east than on 

days with winds from the west (the 

general direction from Colorado) or 

southwest.12 More recent back trajectory 

analyses gauging the pathway of air 

masses impacting St. Louis on days of 

high ozone allow similar conclusions. 

The State of Kansas’ technical 

documentation supporting its Interstate 

Transport SIP (approved by EPA in 

March 2007) include back trajectory 

analyses independent of their source 

regions (i.e., Colorado or Kansas.) The 

results show that for each of the 2005– 

2007 years, on the four days with the 

highest ozone readings the frequency of 

trajectory ‘‘contribution’’ from Colorado 

to St. Louis was negligible. There is only 

one instance of a 500 meter trajectory 

from Colorado, while there were none 

for transport at 1500 meter of altitude.13

These findings, in combination with the 

other circumstantial evidence examined 

above, strengthen the conclusion that it 

is unlikely that emissions from Colorado 

sources contribute significantly to the 

nonattainment of the St. Louis area. 

As mentioned above, EPA must 

consider not only significant 

contribution to nonattainment areas, but 

also to areas with monitors showing 

violations of the NAAQS. A review of 

the AQS monitoring data for adjacent 

downwind states shows that it is highly 

unlikely that emissions from Colorado 

contribute significantly to downwind 

areas that have monitors showing 

violations of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. Between 1999 and 2008 there 

were no violations of the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS at any of the monitors in 

adjacent downwind states, such as 

Kansas, Nebraska and Wyoming. 

Design values for the years 2005– 

2007 14 show that in adjacent downwind 

states such as Kansas, Nebraska, and 

Wyoming, there were no violations of 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and that 

in most counties ozone levels remained 

substantially below the NAAQS. In 

Kansas, the 2007 design value for Trego 

County, the county with a monitoring 

station closest to Colorado, was 71 ppb, 

or 16 percent below the ozone NAAQS. 

The counties that had the highest design 

values are at or near the eastern edge of 

the state, about 400 miles from 

Colorado’s eastern border, and their 

design values ranged from 76 ppb for 

Johnson and Sumner Counties to 77 ppb 

for Leavenworth and Wyandotte 

Counties. In Nebraska and Wyoming, 

the highest ozone design values did not 

exceed 69 ppb in Douglas County, 

Nebraska and 72 ppb in Sublette 

County, Wyoming. 

The historical trend over the period 

1998–2008 for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

design values in these states places the 

2005–2007 data reviewed above in 

context. In Nebraska, ozone design 

values were consistently low throughout 

the period. In Wyoming, design values 

were also constant in most of the 

monitored areas, where ozone 

monitoring only began between 2003 

and 2005. Kansas design values show a 

clear trend of declining ozone levels 

from the late 1990s to the most recent 

years. In Linn, Sedgwick, and Sumner 

Counties, design values decreased from 

highs ranging between 77 and 82 ppb 

during 2000–2003 to levels ranging 

between 66 and 75 ppb in 2006–2008. 

The data and weight of evidence 

analysis presented above support the 

conclusion of the Colorado Interstate 

Transport SIP (adopted into the State 

SIP on December 30, 2008 and 

submitted to EPA June 18, 2009) that 

emissions from Colorado do not 

contribute significantly to 

nonattainment in any other state for the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, consistently 

with the requirements of element (1) of 

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

VI. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing partial approval of 

the Colorado SIP to meet the 

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

regarding the 1997 ozone standard. 

Specifically, in this action EPA is 

proposing to approve only the language 

and demonstration that, in this SIP 

revision, address the requirements of 

element (1): Prohibition of significant 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 31, 2010 / Proposed Rules 16037 

contribution to nonattainment of the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in any other 

state. At a later date, EPA will act on the 

language and demonstration addressing 

element (2): prohibition of interference 

with maintenance of the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS in any other state. 

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. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile Organic 

Compounds. 

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

Dated: March 18, 2010. 

Carol L. Campbell, 

Acting Deputy Regional Administrator, 

Region 8. 

[FR Doc. 2010–6893 Filed 3–30–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 261 

[EPA–R06–RCRA–2009–0549; SW–FRL– 

9131–6] 

Hazardous Waste Management 

System; Identification and Listing of 

Hazardous Waste; Proposed Exclusion 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule and request for 

comment. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to grant a 

petition submitted by Tokusen USA, 

Inc. (called just Tokusen hereinafter) to 

exclude (or delist) a wastewater 

treatment plant (WWTP) sludge filter 

cake (called just sludge hereinafter) 

generated by Tokusen in Conway, AR 

from the lists of hazardous wastes. EPA 

used the Delisting Risk Assessment 

Software (DRAS) in the evaluation of 

the impact of the petitioned waste on 

human health and the environment. 

EPA bases its proposed decision to 

grant the petition on an evaluation of 

waste-specific information provided by 

the petitioner. This proposed decision, 

if finalized, would exclude the 

petitioned waste from the requirements 

of hazardous waste regulations under 

the Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act (RCRA). 

If finalized, EPA would conclude that 

Tokusen’s petitioned waste is nonhazardous with respect to the original 

listing criteria. EPA would also 

conclude that Tokusen’s process 

minimizes short-term and long-term 

threats from the petitioned waste to 

human health and the environment. 

DATES: We will accept comments until 

April 30, 2010. We will stamp 

comments postmarked after the close of 

the comment period as ‘‘late.’’ These 

‘‘late’’ comments may not be considered 

in formulating a final decision. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R06– 

RCRA–2009–0549 by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: 

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

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. E-mail: kim.youngmoo@epa.gov. 

3. Mail: Youngmoo Kim, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Multimedia Planning and Permitting 

Division, RCRA Branch, Mail Code: 

6PD–C, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX 

75202. 

4. Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver 

your comments to: Youngmoo Kim, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Multimedia Planning and Permitting 

Division, RCRA Branch, Mail Code: 

6PD–C, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX 

75202. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R06–RCRA–2009– 

0549. 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 

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 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES