Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; State of North Dakota; Interstate Transport of Pollution for the 2006 PM2.5, 27888-27891 [2013-11295]
Download as PDF
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
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
AGENCY:
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:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:16 May 10, 2013
Jkt 229001
• https://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 https://
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 https://
www.regulations.gov or email. The
https://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 https://
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Docket: All documents in the docket
are listed in the https://
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 https://
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
E:\FR\FM\13MYP1.SGM
13MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 92 / Monday, May 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules
I. General Information
What should I consider as I prepare my
comments for EPA?
1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit CBI
to EPA through https://
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.
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:16 May 10, 2013
Jkt 229001
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
1 This 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.
2 See NO SIP Call, 63 FR 57371 (October 27,
X
1998); CAIR, 70 FR 25172 (May 12, 2005); and
Transport Rule or Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, 76
FR 48208 (August 8, 2011).
3 CAIR 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).
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
27889
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
4 NDDH’s submission, dated August 12, 2010 is
included in the docket for this action.
E:\FR\FM\13MYP1.SGM
13MYP1
27890
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 92 / Monday, May 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules
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 24hour 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
Air quality threshold
(μg/m3)
NAAQS
Largest downwind
contribution to
nonattainment
(μg/m3)
Largest downwind
contribution to
maintenance
(μg/m3)
0.35
0.21
0.33
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS (35 μg/m3) ...................................................................
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
5 For 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.
6 See Id.; Emissions Inventory Final Rule TSD,
June 28, 2011.
7 See section IV.F (Analysis of Contributions
Captured by Various Thresholds) of the Air Quality
Modeling TSD.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:16 May 10, 2013
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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
8 See 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 8hour ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality
Standards,’’ August 15, 2006, available at https://
www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t1/memoranda/
section110a2di_sip_guidance.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\13MYP1.SGM
13MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 92 / Monday, May 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
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).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:16 May 10, 2013
Jkt 229001
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
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
27891
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:
• https://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
DATES:
E:\FR\FM\13MYP1.SGM
13MYP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 92 (Monday, May 13, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 27888-27891]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-11295]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
https://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
https://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 https://www.regulations.gov or email. The https://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 https://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 https://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 https://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
[[Page 27889]]
I. General Information
What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit CBI to EPA through https://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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See 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).
\3\ CAIR 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ NDDH's submission, dated August 12, 2010 is included in the
docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 27890]]
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
[mu]g/m\3\) 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ For 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.
\6\ See Id.; Emissions Inventory Final Rule TSD, June 28, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 [mu]g/m\3\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See section IV.F (Analysis of Contributions Captured by
Various Thresholds) of the Air Quality Modeling TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See 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 https://www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t1/memoranda/section110a2di_sip_guidance.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Largest downwind Largest downwind
Air quality contribution to contribution to
NAAQS threshold ([mu]g/ nonattainment maintenance
m\3\) ([mu]g/m\3\) ([mu]g/m\3\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS (35 [mu]g/m\3\)............... 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
[[Page 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