[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 145 (Thursday, July 29, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 44731-44734]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-18560]
[[Page 44731]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R06-OAR-2007-1119; FRL-9181-7]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Albuquerque/
Bernalillo County, NM; Interstate Transport of Pollution
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to approve a revision to the Albuquerque/
Bernalillo County, New Mexico State Implementation Plan (SIP) to
address the ``good neighbor'' provisions of the Clean Air Act (CAA)
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), for the 1997 ozone standards and the 1997
PM2.5 standards as it applies to Albuquerque/Bernalillo
county. The revision addresses one element of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i), which pertains to prohibiting air pollutant emissions
from within a state to significantly contribute to nonattainment of the
ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS in any state. The Albuquerque/
Bernalillo Air Quality Control Board (AQCB) is responsible for the
portion of the New Mexico SIP that applies in Bernalillo County, which
encompasses the City of Albuquerque. This rulemaking action is being
taken under section 110 of the CAA.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 30, 2010.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-
2007-1119, by one of the following methods:
Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
EPA Region 6 ``Contact Us'' Web site: http://epa.gov/region6/r6coment.htm. Please click on ``6PD (Multimedia)'' and select
``Air'' before submitting comments.
E-mail: Mr. Guy Donaldson at [email protected]. Please
also send a copy by e-mail to the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section below.
Fax: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD-
L), at fax number 214-665-7263.
Mail: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD-
L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200,
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.
Hand or Courier Delivery: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air
Planning Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross
Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. Such deliveries are
accepted only between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. weekdays, and not
on legal holidays. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries
of boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2007-
1119. 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 e-mail.
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 e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov
your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part
of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available
on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends
that you include your name and other contact information in the body of
your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read
your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be 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.
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 Planning
Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. The file will be made available by
appointment for public inspection in the Region 6 FOIA Review Room
between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. weekdays except for legal
holidays. Contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT paragraph below or Mr. Bill Deese at 214-665-7253 to make an
appointment. If possible, please make the appointment at least two
working days in advance of your visit. There will be a 15 cent per page
fee for making photocopies of documents. On the day of the visit,
please check in at the EPA Region 6 reception area at 1445 Ross Avenue,
Suite 700, Dallas, Texas.
The State submittal is also available for public inspection during
official business hours, by appointment, at the City of Albuquerque,
Environmental Health Department, One Civic Plaza, Albuquerque, NM
87102.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Emad Shahin, Air Planning Section
(6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone (214) 665-6717; fax
number (214) 665-7263; e-mail address [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA.
Outline
I. What action is EPA taking?
II. What is a SIP?
III. What is the background for this action?
IV. What is EPA's evaluation of the submittal?
V. Proposed Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What action is EPA taking?
We are proposing to approve a revision to the New Mexico State
Implementation Plan (SIP) to address the ``good neighbor'' provisions
of the Clean Air Act (CAA) section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), for the 1997 ozone
standards and the 1997 PM2.5 standards for Albuquerque/
Bernalillo County, demonstrating that one of the required elements of
the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) has been met. The SIP revision
demonstrates in part that air pollutant emissions from sources within
Albuquerque/Bernalillo County do not significantly contribute to
nonattainment of the relevant NAAQS in any other state. Therefore, we
have determined that emissions from sources in Albuquerque/Bernalillo
County do not significantly contribute to nonattainment of the 1997
ozone standards or of the 1997 PM2.5 standards in any other
state. In a separate action, EPA approved this revision for the
remainder of the State. (75 FR 33174). The remaining three elements of
section 110(a)(2)(D): (1) Interference with the maintenance of the
NAAQS in any other
[[Page 44732]]
state; (2) interference with measures required to prevent significant
deterioration of air quality in any other state; and (3) interference
with measures required to protect visibility in any other state will be
evaluated and addressed in future rulemakings.
II. What is a SIP?
Section 110(a) of the CAA requires each state to develop a plan
that provides for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of
the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). EPA establishes
NAAQS under section 109 of the CAA. Currently, the NAAQS address six
criteria pollutants: Carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, lead,
particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide.
The plan developed by a state is referred to as the state
implementation plan (SIP). The content of the SIP is specified in
section 110 of the CAA, other provisions of the CAA, and applicable
regulations. SIPs can be extensive, containing state regulations or
other enforceable measures and various types of supporting information,
such as emissions inventories, monitoring networks, and modeling
demonstrations.
A primary purpose of the SIP is to provide the air pollution
regulations, control strategies, and other means or techniques
developed by the state to ensure that the ambient air within that state
meets the NAAQS. However, another important aspect of the SIP is to
ensure that emissions from within the state do not have certain
prohibited impacts upon the ambient air in other states through
interstate transport of pollutants. This SIP requirement is specified
in section 110(a)(2)(D). Pursuant to that provision, each state's SIP
must contain provisions adequate to prevent, among other things,
emissions that significantly contribute to violations of the NAAQS in
any other state.
States are required to update or revise SIPs under certain
circumstances. One such circumstance is EPA's promulgation of a new or
revised NAAQS. Each state must submit these revisions to EPA for
approval and incorporation into the federally-enforceable SIP.
III. What is the background for this action?
For air quality purposes, Albuquerque/Bernalillo County operates
the same way as a state. The EPA treats and funds Albuquerque/
Bernalillo County as it does states. Enacted in 1967, the New Mexico
Air Quality Control Act allowed the establishment of the Albuquerque/
Bernalillo County AQCB as a local board and gave it authority to
administer and enforce its air quality regulations within the
Albuquerque/Bernalillo County boundaries. The AQCB has air quality
jurisdiction over all of Bernalillo County, which encompasses the City
of Albuquerque. The AQCB has the responsibility to adopt and implement
the SIP as it applies to Bernalillo County. Therefore, AQCB has the
responsibility to address 110(a)(2)(D) elements within Bernalillo
county. The State of New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board has
jurisdiction over all counties in New Mexico except Bernalillo County.
The City of Albuquerque Environmental Health Department, Air Quality
Division administers and staffs the air quality program for
Albuquerque/Bernalillo County.
On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated new standards for 8-hour ozone
and fine particulate matter (PM2.5). This action is being
taken in response to the July 18, 1997, revision to the 8-hour ozone
standards and PM2.5 standards. This action does not address
the requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 standards or the 2008 8-
hour ozone standards; those standards will be addressed in a later
action.
Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires states to submit SIPs to
address a new or revised NAAQS within 3 years after promulgation of
such standards, or within such shorter period as EPA may prescribe.
Section 110(a)(2) lists the elements that such new SIPs must address,
as applicable, including section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), which pertains to
interstate transport of certain emissions. On August 15, 2006, EPA
issued its ``Guidance for State Implementation Plan (SIP) 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'' (``Guidance'') for SIP submissions that states should use
to address the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). EPA developed
this guidance to make recommendations to states for making submissions
to meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D) for the 1997 8-hour
ozone standards and 1997 PM2.5 standards.
EPA received a SIP revision adopted by AQCB on September 12, 2007,
to address the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for both the
1997 8-hour ozone standards and 1997 PM2.5 standards. This
SIP revision follows EPA's Guidance. As identified in the Guidance, the
``good neighbor'' provisions in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) require each
state to submit a SIP that prohibits emissions that adversely affect
another state in the ways contemplated in the statute.
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) contains four distinct requirements related
to the impacts of interstate transport; however, in this rulemaking EPA
is addressing only the requirement that pertains to preventing sources
in one state from emitting pollutants in amounts that will contribute
significantly to nonattainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone standards and
1997 PM2.5 standards in any other state. The Albuquerque/
Bernalillo County submission relies on the same technical demonstration
used by New Mexico Environment Department, which shows that emissions
from the State of New Mexico, including Albuquerque/Bernalillo County,
do not contribute to nonattainment in another state. Thus, the
submission indicates that the current SIP is adequate to prevent
significant contribution from the Albuquerque/Bernalillo County to
nonattainment in any other state. Thus, no additional emissions
controls are necessary at this time to alleviate interstate transport
from sources in Albuquerque/Bernalillo County.
IV. What is EPA's evaluation of the submittal?
In accordance with EPA's Guidance, the SIP revision addresses
interstate transport for the 1997 8-hour ozone standards and 1997
PM2.5 standards. The SIP revision makes a showing that
emissions from Albuquerque/Bernalillo County do not significantly
contribute to violations of either NAAQS in other states by two
different means. For PM2.5, the revision relied primarily
upon technical analysis performed by EPA in connection with another
regional rulemaking that addresses interstate transport. For ozone, the
revision relied primarily on additional modeling to address the extent
of interstate transport. We believe that the submission adequately
establishes that emissions from Albuquerque/Bernalillo County do not
significantly contribute to violations of either NAAQS in other states,
for the reasons explained below.
To support a determination of no ``significant contribution'' for
the 1997 PM2.5 standards, the submission relied on EPA's
Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) \1\ analysis. This approach is
consistent with EPA's Guidance to
[[Page 44733]]
states for this SIP submission. In CAIR, EPA evaluated which states
significantly contribute to violations of the 1997 8-hour ozone
standards and 1997 PM2.5 standards in other states. Based
upon its analysis, EPA did not include New Mexico in the CAIR region.
In the CAIR preamble, EPA provided its rationale for the exclusion of
the western states, including New Mexico, from further consideration of
transport for 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 and the requirements of
CAIR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See, ``Rule to Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine
Particulate Matter and Ozone (Clean Air Interstate Rule); Revisions
to Acid Rain Program; Revisions to the NOX SIP Call;
Final Rule,'' 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005). Information regarding CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D) SIPs can be found beginning of page 25263.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ``Technical Support Document for the Interstate Air Quality
Rule Air Quality Modeling Analysis,'' January 2004 (available at http://www.epa.gov/cair/technical.html ) contains documentation of the
modeling used to support CAIR. This modeling included an analysis of
the maximum impact of emissions from states without CAIR controls
applied on areas projected in PM2.5 nonattainment in 2010. A
maximum impact level of 0.15 [micro]g/m\3\ was considered significant
for this analysis (Note: in the final CAIR EPA changed the maximum
impact level for this significance test to 0.20 [micro]g/m\3\). EPA's
modeling indicated that the maximum impact from emissions from sources
in New Mexico (including Albuquerque/Bernalillo County) on any
projected nonattainment area in another state was 0.03 [micro]g/m\3\.
This value is 20% of the significant impact level that EPA used in the
CAIR proposal, and therefore EPA determined that emissions from the
State of New Mexico (including Albuquerque/Bernalillo County) do not
significantly contribute to pollutant levels in any area projected to
be nonattainment of the PM2.5 standard in that analysis.
CAIR was remanded by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia, and EPA is currently in the process of developing a
replacement rule to address interstate transport for the 1997 8-hour
ozone and 1997 PM2.5 standards. We do not believe that the
CAIR remand affects EPA's CAIR analysis for the purpose of evaluating
New Mexico's and Albuquerque/Bernalillo County's PM2.5
impacts on other states. Specifically, EPA's modeling was conducted
without including the impact of any CAIR controls, and thus the
evaluation is not impacted by any uncertainty in the implementation of
CAIR controls due to the remand. Also, despite remand of the CAIR
rules, EPA's reliance on the maximum impact level of 0.20 [micro]g/m\3\
as the cutoff for the inclusion of a state in the CAIR region was
upheld by the court. Therefore, with respect to the 1997
PM2.5 standards, we believe that the submission adequately
establishes that sources in that State, including Albuquerque/
Bernalillo County, are not significantly contributing to violations of
that NAAQS in any other state.
To support a determination of no ``significant contribution'' for
the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, AQCB could not rely upon EPA's CAIR analysis
because western states including New Mexico were not included in the
area modeled for ozone. Instead, New Mexico and AQCB provided an
additional modeling analysis of the impact of emissions from the State
on projected 8-hour ozone nonattainment in downwind states. We note
that modeling is not necessarily required to support this type of SIP
submission, but this approach is consistent with EPA's Guidance to
states for this SIP submission.
The modeling relied upon by AQCB is described in greater detail in
its technical support document in the submission, and is available at
http://www.regulations.gov, Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2007-1119. We note
that EPA assisted the State and AQCB with this analysis, including the
development of the modeling demonstration. In order to develop a model
scenario that could evaluate New Mexico's impacts, the State and EPA
determined that it was appropriate to rely on data developed by the
Central Regional Air Planning Association (CENRAP). Modeling was
conducted using a 2002 third quarter CENRAP modeling dataset that
included New Mexico in the modeling domain. While a more recent dataset
might be assumed to be more appropriate to support this action, a 2010
dataset was not available from CENRAP. However, we believe that the use
of the 2002 dataset is adequate to evaluate the degree of contribution
of emission sources in Albuquerque/Bernalillo County, to violations of
the 1997 8-hour ozone standards. Because the analysis is based on year
2002 emissions, we believe it is a conservative estimate of potential
transport impacts in 2010 because emissions have been decreasing since
2002 due to various recent federal control programs (including On-Road
and Nonroad reductions). This trend is confirmed by available 2005
inventory. In other words, if data from 2002 establish that there is no
significant contribution to violations of the 1997 8-hour ozone
standards in other states, then Albuquerque/Bernalillo County would
have even lower impacts in 2010 and consequently no significant
contribution.
In the Guidance, we recommended a number of ways that states might
elect to evaluate whether or not there is significant contribution, and
we suggested that states might consider assessing the potential for
contribution using assumptions similar to those used by EPA in CAIR.
The State's and AQCB's analysis considered three factors comparable to
those used by EPA as screening criteria in determining significance for
states in CAIR: (a) The magnitude of the contribution, (b) the
frequency of the contribution, and (c) the relative amount of
contribution. The additional modeling yielded consistent results
showing New Mexico emissions, including Albuquerque/Bernalillo County
do not contribute significantly to 8-hour ozone nonattainment in any of
the areas analyzed. New Mexico's highest overall contribution to total
nonattainment for any nonattainment area at the time of the modeling
was for Dallas/Fort Worth. New Mexico's highest impact on the Dallas/
Fort Worth area was a daily average contribution of 0.4%, with a
contribution average of 0.4 ppb. By EPA's own metrics (as established
in CAIR and upheld by the court), these impacts are considered to be
small, infrequent, and well below screening criteria established at 1%
and 2 ppb, respectively. Moreover, not a single metric of the three
contribution factors was found to be above the significance threshold
established by EPA for any of the downwind counties. For more details
please see the document titled ``Modeling Data and Report for New
Mexico from EPA Regions 6 and 7'' that is included in the docket
materials for this action.
At the time the modeling was performed, Denver's air quality was
meeting the standard. (The 2004-2006 8-Hour Ozone Design Value (DV) was
81 ppb.) Therefore, the State and AQCB did not evaluate New Mexico's
ozone impacts on Denver. Denver had a very high ozone season in 2007
that temporarily pushed the area into nonattainment. The preliminary
2007-2009 DV (awaiting final data validation) is 82 ppb so the area
appears to now be back in attainment. The preliminary 2007-2009 DV is
based upon 4th High values of 90 ppb in 2007, 79 ppb in 2008, and 79
ppb in 2009 (preliminary). With the last two 4th Highs of 79 ppb,
Denver would have to monitor a 4th High value of 97 ppb in 2010 to go
back into nonattainment for the period 2008-2010. Denver has not had a
4th High value of more than 92 ppb in the last 15 years, so it is
unlikely that Denver will be in nonattainment at the end of the 2010
ozone season for the 84 ppb standard. Based on preliminary 2007-2009
data, Denver is attaining the standard, so Albuquerque/Bernalillo
County emissions should not be
[[Page 44734]]
considered as contributing to nonattainment in Denver.
With respect to the 1997 8-hour ozone standards, we believe that
the submission adequately establishes that sources in Albuquerque/
Bernalillo County are not significantly contributing to violations of
that NAAQS in any other state. As noted previously, EPA will be acting
on the other elements of Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) in separate
rulemakings.
V. Proposed Action
We are proposing to approve a revision to the New Mexico SIP which
adequately demonstrates that air pollutant emissions from sources
within Albuquerque/Bernalillo County do not significantly contribute to
nonattainment of the relevant NAAQS on any other state.
Information provided by New Mexico Environment Department and AQCB
in the technical demonstration sufficiently demonstrates that emissions
from Albuquerque/Bernalillo County do not significantly contribute to
downwind nonattainment. Thus, EPA concludes that the New Mexico SIP as
it pertains to Albuquerque/Bernalillo County complies with CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: July 20, 2010.
Lawrence E. Starfield,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2010-18560 Filed 7-28-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P