Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 92 / Monday, May 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules 27883 

efficiency and reduce burden for 

VOSBs? 

6. What additional training tools or 

assistance might be offered to create 

more clarity for stakeholders and help 

them more efficiently and effectively 

navigate the verification regulations? 

7. What documents, records, or other 

materials could the Office for the Center 

for Veterans Enterprise use to 

distinguish legitimate VOSBs/SDVOSBs 

from businesses that fraudulently seek 

contracts from the Government? 

8. Would a special Hotline to report 

suspected ineligible VOSBs/SDVOSBs 

help the Government ensure that 

contracts are awarded to legitimate 

VOSBs/SDVOSBs? 

Approved: May 7, 2013. 

Jose D. Riojas, 

Interim Chief of Staff, Department of Veterans 

Affairs. 

[FR Doc. 2013–11326 Filed 5–10–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8320–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2012–0347; FRL–9813–3] 

Approval and Promulgation of State 

Implementation Plans; State of 

Montana; Interstate Transport of 

Pollution for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to partially 

approve and partially disapprove 

portions of a State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) submission from the State of 

Montana that are intended to 

demonstrate 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 Montana’s SIP 

contain adequate provisions to prohibit 

air emissions from adversely affecting 

another state’s air quality through 

interstate transport. Specifically, EPA is 

proposing to partially approve and 

partially disapprove the portion of the 

Montana SIP submission that addresses 

the CAA requirement prohibiting 

emissions from Montana 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. EPA is also 

proposing to partially approve and 

partially disapprove the portion of 

Montana’s submission that addresses 

the CAA requirement that SIPs contain 

provisions to insure compliance with 

specific other CAA requirements 

relating to interstate and international 

pollution abatement. The partial 

disapprovals, if finalized, would not 

trigger an obligation for EPA to 

promulgate a Federal Implementation 

Plan (FIP) to address these interstate 

transport requirements as EPA is 

determining that the existing SIP is 

adequate to meet the specific CAA 

requirements. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before June 12, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08– 

OAR–2012–0347, 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– 

0347. 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, unless the 

context indicates otherwise. 

(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. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
27884 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 92 / Monday, May 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

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. 

(v) The initials SIP mean or refer to State 

Implementation Plan. 

(vi) The initials MDEQ mean or refer to the 

Montana Department of Environmental 

Quality. 

(vii) The words Montana and State mean 

the State of Montana. 

Table of Contents 

I. General Information 

II. Background 

A. 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS and Interstate 

Transport 

B. Rules Addressing Interstate Transport 

for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in the Eastern 

United States 

C. EPA Guidance for SIP Submissions to 

Address Interstate Transport for the 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS 

III. Montana’s Submittal 

IV. EPA’s Evaluation 

A. Identification of Nonattainment and 

Maintenance Receptors 

B. Evaluation of Significant Contribution to 

Nonattainment 

C. Evaluation of Interference With 

Maintenance 

D. Evaluation of Montana’s SIP With 

regard to CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) 

V. Proposed Action 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. General Information 

What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments for EPA? 

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit CBI 

to EPA through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or 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 

identifies four distinct elements related 

to the evaluation of impacts of interstate 

transport of air pollutants. In this action 

for the state of Montana, 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 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. 

EPA is also addressing the 

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

with respect to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires each 

SIP to contain adequate provisions to 

insure compliance with the applicable 

requirements of sections 126 and 115 of 

the Act. Section 126 pertains to 

notification to nearby states and 

petitions from states to EPA regarding 

interstate transport of pollution. Section 

115 pertains to international transport of 

pollution. 

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 CAA 

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 (D.C. Cir. 

2008). On August 21, 2012, a panel of 

the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. 

Circuit issued a decision to vacate the 

CSAPR. See EME Homer City 

Generation, L.P. v. E.P.A., 696 F.3d 7 

(D.C. 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. 

It is important to note that Montana 

was not among the states covered by 

CAIR and CSAPR and was outside of the 

modeling domain used in the analysis 

for those rules. However, as explained 

in section IV of this proposal, our 

methodology and analysis for evaluating 

Montana’s compliance with 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS is intended to be consistent 

with portions of the methodology in 

CSAPR that were not called into 

question in the D.C. Circuit’s decision, 

in particular the methodology used to 

identify monitors in other states—called 

‘‘receptors’’—that are appropriate for 

assessing interstate transport. 

C. EPA Guidance for SIP Submissions 

To Address Interstate Transport for the 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 

On September 25, 2009, EPA issued a 

guidance memorandum that provides 

recommendations to states for making 

SIP submissions to meet the 

requirements of CAA section 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 92 / Monday, May 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules 27885 

4See Memorandum from William T. Harnett 

entitled ‘‘Guidance on SIP Elements Required 

Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24- 

Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS),’’ September 25, 2009, 

available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t1/ 

memoranda/ 

20090925_harnett_pm25_sip_110a12.pdf. 

5See 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. 

6The 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS Infrastructure Guidance 

stated that EPA was working on a new rule to 

replace CAIR that would address issues raised by 

the court in the North Carolina case and that would 

provide guidance to states in addressing the 

requirements related to interstate transport in CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

It also noted that states could not rely on the CAIR 

rule for section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) submissions for the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS because the CAIR rule 

did not address this NAAQS. See 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS Infrastructure Guidance at 3. 

7MDEQ’s certification letter, dated February 10, 

2010 is included in the docket for this action. 

8CAIR addressed the 1997 PM2.5 and 1997 ozone 

NAAQS. 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2006 PM2.5

standards (‘‘2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 

Infrastructure Guidance’’ or 

‘‘Guidance’’).4 With respect to the 

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

to prohibit emissions that would 

contribute significantly to 

nonattainment of the NAAQS in any 

other state, the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 

Infrastructure Guidance essentially 

reiterated the recommendations for 

western states made by EPA in previous 

guidance addressing the 110(a)(2)(D)(i) 

requirements for the 1997 8-hour Ozone 

and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.5 The 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS Infrastructure Guidance 

advised states outside of the CAIR 

region to include in their section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIP submissions an 

adequate technical analysis to support 

their conclusions regarding interstate 

pollution transport, e.g., information 

concerning emissions in the state, 

meteorological conditions in the state 

and in potentially impacted states, 

monitored ambient pollutant 

concentrations in the state and in 

potentially impacted states, distances to 

the nearest areas not attaining the 

NAAQS in other states, and air quality 

modeling.6 With respect to the 

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

to prohibit emissions that would 

interfere with maintenance of the 

NAAQS by any other state, the 

Guidance stated that SIP submissions 

must address this independent and 

distinct requirement of the statute and 

provide technical information 

appropriate to support the State’s 

conclusions, such as information 

concerning emissions in the state, 

meteorological conditions in the state 

and in potentially impacted states, 

monitored ambient concentrations in 

the state and in potentially impacted 

states, and air quality modeling. 

In assessing interstate transport of 

emissions from Montana, EPA continues 

to consider relevant the types of 

information that were suggested in the 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS Infrastructure 

Guidance. 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 contribute significantly to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 

in other states. Modeling can be relied 

on 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 

specific situation. 

III. Montana’s Submittal 

On February 10, 2010, the Montana 

Department of Environmental Quality 

(MDEQ) made a submission certifying 

that Montana’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 brief transport analysis to 

support the conclusion that Montana’s 

SIP meets the requirements of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for this 

NAAQS.7

Montana’s PM2.5 transport analysis 

relies almost solely on EPA’s decision 

not to model contribution from Montana 

to other states for the CAIR. We do not 

consider this adequate analysis, in large 

part because CAIR did not address the 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.8 Moreover, as 

Montana was outside the modeling 

domains used in developing CAIR and 

CSAPR, EPA did not model the impact 

of emissions from Montana in the 

modeling done for either rule. EPA’s 

decision in CAIR and CSAPR to focus 

on transport among states in the eastern 

and central portions of the U.S. did not 

constitute a determination that SIPs for 

states outside the modeling domain (e.g. 

those in the Western U.S.) were 

necessarily adequate to address 

interstate transport for the 1997 or 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS. As a result, western 

states such as Montana that were not 

included in the modeling domains for 

the CAIR and CSAPR rulemakings 

cannot rely on that modeling to 

demonstrate the adequacy of their 

transport SIPs. Such states, if they chose 

to submit transport SIPs for the 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS, must conduct a transport 

analysis that relies on relevant data and 

factors. MDEQ’s submission contains no 

technical analysis of potential interstate 

transport or any other support for the 

State’s conclusion that the existing 

Montana SIP satisfies the requirements 

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

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. MDEQ’s 

submission also failed to address how 

Montana’s SIP is adequate to meet the 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(ii). 

IV. EPA’s Evaluation 

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 that state’s SIP. If, however, 

the evaluation reveals that emissions 

from sources within the state do 

contribute significantly to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance in other states, then the 

state must adopt substantive provisions 

to eliminate those emissions. The state 

could achieve any required reductions 

through traditional command and 

control programs, or at its own election, 

through participation in a cap and trade 

program. 

Consistent with the first step of EPA’s 

approach in the 1998 NOX SIP call, the 

2005 CAIR, and the 2011 CSAPR, EPA 

is evaluating impacts of emissions from 

Montana with respect to specific 

monitors identified as having 

nonattainment and/or maintenance 

problems, which we refer to as 

‘‘receptors.’’ To evaluate these impacts, 

and in the absence of relevant modeling 

of Montana emissions, EPA is 

examining factors suggested by the 2006 

Guidance such as monitoring data, 

topography, and meteorology. EPA 

notes that no single piece of information 

is by itself dispositive of the issue. 

Instead, the total weight of all the 

evidence taken together is used to 

evaluate significant contributions to 

nonattainment or interference with 

maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS in another state. 

As noted above, Montana’s February 

10, 2010 transport analysis relies on 

factors irrelevant to the 2006 PM2.5


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
27886 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 92 / Monday, May 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

9EPA also considered potential PM2.5 transport 

from Montana to the nearest nonattainment and 

maintenance receptors located in the eastern, 

midwestern and southern states covered by CSAPR 

and believes it is reasonable to conclude that, given 

the significant distance from Montana to the nearest 

such receptor (in Wisconsin) and the relatively 

insignificant amount of emissions from Montana 

that could potentially be transported such a 

distance, emissions from Montana sources do not 

significantly contribute to nonattainment or 

interfere with maintenance of the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS at this location. These same factors 

also support a finding that emissions from Montana 

sources neither contribute significantly to 

nonattainment nor interfere with maintenance of 

the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS at any location 

further east. See TSD at Section I.B.3. 

10Because CAIR did not cover states in the 

Western United States, these data are not 

significantly impacted by the remanded CAIR and 

thus could be considered in this analysis. In 

contrast, recent air quality data in the eastern, 

midwestern and southern states are significantly 

impacted by reductions associated with CAIR and 

because CSAPR was developed to replace CAIR, 

EPA could not consider reductions associated with 

the CAIR in the base case transport analysis for 

those states. See 76 FR at 48223–24. 

NAAQS, and lacks any technical 

analysis to support the State’s 

conclusion with respect to interstate 

transport. For these reasons, we propose 

to partially disapprove the State’s 

submission. However, we also propose 

to partially approve the submission 

based on EPA’s supplemental 

evaluation of relevant technical 

information, which supports a finding 

that emissions from Montana do not 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS in any other state and that the 

existing Montana SIP is, therefore, 

adequate to meet the requirements of 

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

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Our supplemental evaluation 

considers several factors, including 

identification of the monitors in other 

states that are appropriate 

‘‘nonattainment receptors’’ or 

‘‘maintenance receptors,’’ consistent 

with EPA’s approach in the CSAPR, and 

additional technical information to 

evaluate whether emissions from 

Montana contribute significantly to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS at these receptors. 

Our Technical Support Document 

(TSD) contains a detailed evaluation 

and is available in the public docket for 

this rulemaking, which may be accessed 

online at http://www.regulations.gov, 

docket number EPA–R08–OAR–2012– 

0347. Below, we provide a summary of 

our analysis. 

A. Identification of Nonattainment and 

Maintenance Receptors 

EPA evaluated data from existing 

monitors over three overlapping 3-year 

periods (i.e., 2006–2008, 2007–2009, 

and 2008–2010) to determine which 

areas were violating the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS and which areas might have 

difficulty maintaining the standard. If a 

monitoring site measured a violation of 

the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS during the most 

recent 3-year period (2008–2010), then 

this monitor location was evaluated for 

purposes of the significant contribution 

to nonattainment element of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). If, on the other hand, 

a monitoring site shows attainment of 

the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS during the most 

recent 3-year period (2008–2010) but a 

violation in at least one of the previous 

two 3-year periods (2006–2008 or 2007– 

2009), then this monitor location was 

evaluated for purposes of the interfere 

with maintenance element of the 

statute. 

This approach is similar to that used 

in the modeling done during the 

development of CSAPR to identify the 

areas/receptors of concern when 

evaluating interstate transport. Nothing 

in the EME Homer City decision 

disturbs or undermines the validity of 

this approach to identifying receptors. 

However, as noted above, CSAPR did 

not model interstate transport of 

emissions from Montana to these 

receptors, so we consider other 

technical information to make our 

evaluation. 

B. Evaluation of Significant 

Contribution to Nonattainment 

EPA reviewed technical information 

to evaluate the potential for Montana 

emissions to contribute significantly to 

nonattainment of the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS at specified monitoring sites in 

the Western U.S.9 EPA first identified as 

‘‘nonattainment receptors’’ all 

monitoring sites in the western states 

that had recorded PM2.5 design values 

above the level of the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS (35 mg/m3) during the 

years 2008–2010.10 See Section III of our 

TSD for more a more detailed 

description of EPA’s methodology for 

selection of nonattainment receptors. 

Because geographic distance is a 

relevant factor in the assessment of 

potential pollution transport, EPA first 

reviewed information related to 

potential transport of PM2.5 pollution 

from Montana to the nonattainment 

receptors in states bordering Montana, 

both of which were in Idaho. As 

detailed in our TSD, the following 

factors support a finding that emissions 

from Montana do not significantly 

contribute to nonattainment of the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in Idaho: (1) 

Technical information, such as data 

from monitors in the vicinity of the 

Idaho nonattainment receptors, 

indicating that elevated PM2.5 levels are 

predominantly caused by emissions 

from local sources; (2) topographical 

considerations such as intervening 

mountain ranges; and 3) meteorological 

considerations such as prevailing 

winds. While none of these factors by 

itself would necessarily show noncontribution, when taken together in a 

weight-of-evidence assessment they are 

sufficient for EPA to determine that 

emissions from Montana do not 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment at the Idaho receptors. 

EPA also evaluated potential PM2.5

transport to nonattainment receptors in 

the more distant western states of 

Oregon, Washington, Utah, Nevada, and 

California. The following factors 

support a finding that emissions from 

Montana do not significantly contribute 

to nonattainment of the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS in any of these states: (1) 

The significant distance from Montana 

to the nonattainment receptors in these 

states; (2) technical information, such as 

data from nearby monitors, indicating 

that elevated PM2.5 levels at 

nonattainment receptors in these states 

are predominantly caused by emissions 

from local sources; and (3) the presence 

of intervening mountain ranges, which 

tend to impede pollution transport. 

Based on our evaluation, we propose 

to conclude that emissions of direct 

PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors from sources 

in the State of Montana do not 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment of the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 standards in any other state, that 

the existing SIP for the State of Montana 

is adequate to satisfy the ‘‘significant 

contribution’’ requirements of CAA 

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

the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standards, and 

that the State of Montana therefore does 

not need to adopt additional controls for 

purposes of implementing the 

‘‘significant contribution’’ requirements 

of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to that 

NAAQS at this time. 

C. Evaluation of Interference With 

Maintenance 

We also reviewed technical 

information to evaluate the potential for 

Montana emissions to interfere with 

maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

standards at specified monitoring sites 

in the Western U.S. EPA first identified 

as ‘‘maintenance receptors’’ all 

monitoring sites in the western states 

that had recorded PM2.5 design values 

above the level of the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS (35 mg/m3) during the 

2006–2008 and/or 2007–2009 periods 

but below this standard during the 

2008–2010 period. See section III of our 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 92 / Monday, May 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules 27887 

11See Administrative Rule of Montana (‘‘ARM’’) 

17.8.826(2)(d). 

TSD for more information regarding 

EPA’s methodology for selection of 

maintenance receptors. All of the 

maintenance receptors in the western 

states are located in California, Utah and 

Arizona. EPA therefore evaluated the 

potential for transport of Montana 

emissions to the maintenance receptors 

located in these states. As detailed in 

our TSD, the following factors support 

a finding that emissions from Montana 

do not interfere with maintenance of the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in those 

states: (1) Technical information 

indicating that elevated PM2.5 levels at 

these maintenance receptors are 

predominantly caused by local emission 

sources; and (2) the significant distance 

between Montana and these 

maintenance receptors. 

Based on this evaluation, EPA 

proposes to conclude that emissions of 

direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors from 

sources in the State of Montana do not 

interfere with maintenance of the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 standards in any other 

state, that the existing SIP for the State 

of Montana is adequate to satisfy the 

‘‘interfere with maintenance’’ 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), and that the State of 

Montana therefore does not need to 

adopt additional controls for purposes 

of implementing the ‘‘interfere with 

maintenance’’ requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to that 

NAAQS at this time. 

D. Evaluation of Montana’s SIP With 

Regard to CAA Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) 

As stated, MDEQ’s February 10, 2010 

submission did not address the 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(ii), which requires that each 

SIP shall contain adequate provisions 

insuring compliance with applicable 

requirements of sections 126 and 115 

(relating to interstate and international 

pollution abatement). Because the State 

did not address this element for the 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA proposes to 

partially disapprove this portion of 

Montana’s submission. However, we 

also propose to partially approve the 

submission based on our evaluation 

which finds that Montana’s existing SIP 

is sufficient to meet the requirements of 

110(a)(2)(D)(ii). 

Section 126(a) requires notification to 

affected, nearby states of major 

proposed new (or modified) sources. 

Sections 126(b) and (c) pertain to 

petitions by affected states to the 

Administrator regarding sources 

violating the ‘‘interstate transport’’ 

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

Section 115 similarly pertains to 

international transport of air pollution. 

As required by 40 CFR 

51.166(q)(2)(iv), Montana’s SIPapproved PSD program requires notice 

to states whose lands may be affected by 

the emissions of sources subject to 

PSD.11 This suffices to meet the notice 

requirement of section 126(a). 

Montana has no pending obligations 

under sections 126(c) or 115(b); 

therefore, its SIP currently meets the 

requirements of those sections. In 

summary, the SIP meets the 

requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) for the 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

V. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to partially approve 

and partially disapprove the 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) 

portions of Montana’s February 10, 2010 

submission. We propose to partially 

disapprove the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) portion 

of the submission because it relies on 

irrelevant factors and lacks any 

technical analysis to support the State’s 

conclusion with respect to interstate 

transport. However, we also propose to 

partially approve this portion of the 

submission based on EPA’s 

supplemental evaluation of relevant 

technical information, which supports a 

finding that emissions from Montana do 

not significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS in any other state and that the 

existing Montana SIP is, therefore, 

adequate to meet the requirements of 

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

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. We 

propose to conclude that any FIP 

obligation resulting from finalization of 

the partial disapproval would be 

satisfied by our determination that there 

is no deficiency in the SIP to correct. 

Finalization of this proposed 

disapproval also would not require any 

further action on Montana’s part given 

EPA’s conclusion that the SIP is 

adequate to meet the requirements of 

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

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Similarly, EPA is proposing to 

partially disapprove the 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) 

portion of Montana’s submission 

because it fails to address or discuss this 

CAA requirement. However, we propose 

to partially approve this portion of the 

submission based on the conclusion that 

the State’s existing SIP is adequate to 

meet the requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(ii) for the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS. For similar reasons, the 

partial disapproval of the submission for 

the 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requirement does not 

require any further action from Montana 

or create any additional FIP obligation 

for EPA. 

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 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 CAA. Accordingly, this proposed 

action merely approves some state law 

as meeting federal requirements and 

disapproves other state law because it 

does not meet federal requirements; this 

proposed action 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 

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 (Public Law 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 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 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
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