72688 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 227 / Friday, November 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

[Revise the heading of 16.5.2 as follows:] 

16.5.2 Express Mail and Priority Mail 

Sack Labels 

[Revise the text in 16.5.2 as follows:] 

Labels for Express Mail or Priority 

Mail sacks containing Open and 

Distribute shipments must be barcoded 

and meet the requirements in 708.6.0. 

All lines of information must be 

completely visible when inserted into 

the label holder. Label sacks as follows: 

a. Line 1 (destination line) provides 

information on the destination entry 

office where the enclosed mail is to be 

distributed. 

1. For destination delivery unit (DDU) 

distribution, use the facility name and 

ZIP Code found in the Drop Shipment 

Address File available at the USPS 

FAST Web site at https://fast.usps.com 

(click Resources in the left-hand 

navigation bar, then ‘‘Go’’ for ‘‘Drop Ship 

Product File Download’’). 

2. For SCF distribution, use the 

destination in L005, Column B. 

3. For ADC distribution, use the 

destination in L004, Column B (Priority 

Mail Open and Distribute Only). 

4. For NDC distribution, use the 

destination in L601, Column B. 

5. For ASF distribution, use L602, 

Column B (Priority Mail Open and 

Distribute Only). 

b. For Line 2 (content line), print 

‘‘EXPRESS MAIL OPEN AND DIST’’ or 

‘‘PRIORITY MAIL OPEN AND DIST,’’ as 

applicable. 

c. For Line 3 (origin line), show the 

city and state of the entry Post Office or 

the mailer’s name and the city and state 

of the mailer’s location. It is 

recommended that the mailer’s name 

also appear with the city and state of the 

entry Post Office. See 708.6.2.5 for 

additional standards. 

[Revise the tag numbers in the heading 

of 16.5.3 as follows:] 

16.5.3 Tags 257 and 267—Express 

Mail Open and Distribute 

[Revise the text in 16.5.3 as follows:] 

Tag 257 and Tag 267 provide a place 

to affix Express Mail postage and the 

address label for the destination facility. 

Tag 257 or Tag 267 must be attached to 

each Express Mail sack, in addition to 

the Express Mail sack label, to identify 

it as an Express Mail Open and 

Distribute shipment as follows: 

a. Attach Tag 267 to sacks used as 

Express Mail Open and Distribute 

containers destined to a NDC or SCF 

facility. 

b. Attach Tag 257 to sacks used as 

Express Mail Open and Distribute 

containers destined to a DDU. Label 

257S may be affixed to containers used 

for Express Mail Open and Distribute 

shipments prepared under 16.5.1c or 

16.5.1d. 

16.5.4 Tags 161 and 190—Priority 

Mail Open and Distribute 

* * * Tag 161 or Tag 190 must be 

attached to each Priority Mail sack, in 

addition to the Priority Mail sack label, 

or container to identify it as a Priority 

Mail Open and Distribute shipment as 

follows: 

* * * * * 

[Revise the last sentence in item 16.5.4b 

as follows:] 

b. * * * Label 190S may be affixed to 

containers used for Priority Mail Open 

and Distribute shipments prepared 

under 16.5.1c or 16.5.1d. 

* * * * * 

16.5.6 Address Labels 

[Revise the first sentence in 16.5.6 as 

follows:] 

In addition to Tag 257, Tag 267, Tag 

161, or Tag 190, USPS-provided 

containers and envelopes and mailersupplied containers used for Express 

Mail Open and Distribute or Priority 

Mail Open and Distribute must bear an 

address label that states ‘‘OPEN AND 

DISTRIBUTE AT:’’ followed by the 

facility name.* * * 

16.5.7 Address Label Service Barcode 

Requirement 

[Revise the introductory text of 16.5.7 as 

follows:] 

An electronic service barcode using 

the USS 128, USS 39, or Intelligent Mail 

package barcode (IMpb) (eVS approved 

mailers) symbology for Express Mail 

Open and Distribute, and the 

concatenated GS1–128 or IMpb 

symbology for Priority Mail Open and 

Distribute, must be incorporated in the 

address label. Mailers must prepare 

address labels using the formats in 

16.5.8 through 16.5.12. The labels must 

include either a service type code ‘‘723’’ 

with an IMpb or ‘‘DB’’ prefix with a USS 

128 or USS 39 barcode for Express Mail 

Open and Distribute or service type 

code ‘‘55’’ with a concatenated GS1–128 

barcode or ’’123’’ with an IMpb for 

Priority Mail Open and Distribute, to 

identify the service. The humanreadable text ‘‘USPS SCAN ON 

ARRIVAL’’ must appear above the 

barcode. USPS certification is required 

from the National Customer Support 

Center (NCSC) for each printer used to 

print barcoded open and distribute 

address labels, except for barcodes 

created using USPS Shipping Assistant. 

NCSC contact information, formatting 

specifications for barcodes and 

electronic files, and certification, are 

included in Publication 91, 

Confirmation Services Technical Guide. 

Mailers can use the following options 

available to create a label with a service 

barcode for Express Mail Open and 

Distribute and Priority Mail Open and 

Distribute address labels: 

* * * * * 

16.5.9 SCF Address Labels 

* * * * * 

Exhibit 16.5.9 SCF Address Label 

[Replace Exhibit 16.5.9 with an Express 

Mail Open and Distribute SCF label.] 

* * * * * 

16.5.11 NDC Address Labels 

* * * * * 

Exhibit 16.5.11 NDC Address Label 

[Replace Exhibit 16.5.11 with an 

Express Mail Open and Distribute NDC 

label.] 

* * * * * 

16.6 Enter and Deposit 

* * * * * 

16.6.2 Entry 

[Revise the first sentence of 16.6.2 as 

follows:] 

A PS Form 3152, Confirmation 

Services Certification, (Priority Mail 

Open and Distribute) or PS Form 3152– 

E (Express Mail Open and Distribute) 

must accompany each Open and 

Distribute shipment. * * * 

* * * * * 

We will publish an appropriate 

amendment to 39 CFR Part 111 to reflect 

these changes. 

Neva R. Watson, 

Attorney, Legislative. 

[FR Doc. 2010–29801 Filed 11–24–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–12–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2009–0656; FRL–9230–3] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; New Mexico; 

Interstate Transport of Pollution 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision 

submitted by the State of New Mexico 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 227 / Friday, November 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 72689 

for the purpose of addressing the ‘‘good 

neighbor’’ provisions of the Clean Air 

Act (Act or CAA) section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) 

for the 1997 8-hour ozone National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS 

or standards) and the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS. This SIP revision addresses the 

requirement that New Mexico’s SIP has 

adequate provisions to prohibit air 

emissions from adversely affecting 

another state’s air quality through 

interstate transport. In this action, EPA 

is approving the New Mexico Interstate 

Transport SIP provisions that address 

the requirement of CAA section 110 

(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) that emissions from New 

Mexico sources do not interfere with 

maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS and the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in 

any other state. In addition, EPA is 

approving the provisions of this SIP 

submission that address the requirement 

of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) that 

emissions from the State’s sources do 

not interfere with measures required in 

the SIP of any other state under part C 

of the CAA to prevent ‘‘significant 

deterioration of air quality.’’ For 

purposes of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, 

EPA is also approving a SIP revision 

that modifies New Mexico’s Prevention 

of Significant Deterioration (PSD) SIP 

for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS to 

include nitrogen oxides (NOX) as an 

ozone precursor. This action is being 

taken under section 110 and part C of 

the Act. 

DATES: This final rule will be effective 

December 27, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket 

Identification No. EPA–R06–OAR– 

2009–0656. All documents in the docket 

are listed at http://www.regulations.gov. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., Confidential Business Information 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically through 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 Freedom of 

Information Act (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. 

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 

shahin.emad@epa.gov. 

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 the background for this action? 

III. What comments did EPA receive and how 

has EPA responded to them? 

IV. Final Action 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What action is EPA taking? 

We are approving a submission from 

the State of New Mexico demonstrating 

that New Mexico has adequately 

addressed two of the required elements 

of the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), the 

element that prohibits air pollutant 

emissions from sources within a state 

from interfering with the maintenance 

of the relevant NAAQS in any other 

state, and the element that prohibits 

those pollutants from interfering with 

measures required in the SIP of any 

other state under part C of the CAA to 

prevent significant deterioration of air 

quality. 

We have determined that emissions 

from sources in New Mexico do not 

interfere with the maintenance of the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS or the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS or with measures 

required to prevent significant 

deterioration of air quality with regards 

to these ozone or PM2.5 NAAQS in any 

other state. Because we have determined 

that emissions from New Mexico 

sources do not interfere with 

maintenance of these NAAQS, or 

interfere with measures required to 

prevent significant deterioration of air 

quality in any other state, sections 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II) do not require 

any substantive changes to New 

Mexico’s SIP for these purposes. EPA 

published a prior final rule (75 FR 

33174) on June 11, 2010 approving the 

New Mexico SIP submission for the 

‘‘significant contribution to 

nonattainment’’ prong of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i). The remaining element 

of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), which pertains 

to interference with measures required 

to protect visibility in any other state, 

will be addressed in a future 

rulemaking. 

In conjunction with our finding that 

emissions from sources in New Mexico 

are not interfering with any other state’s 

PSD program, we are also approving 

New Mexico’s submitted rule revisions 

to regulate NOX emissions as a 

precursor to ozone in its PSD permit 

program. EPA intends to act on the 

other revisions submitted together with 

the PSD program revisions at a later 

time. 

II. What is the background for this 

action? 

On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated 

new NAAQS for 8-hour ozone and fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5). This action is 

being taken in response to the 1997 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS and PM2.5 NAAQS. 

This action does not address the 

requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 

or the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS; those 

standards will be addressed in later 

actions. 

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’’ (2006 Guidance). EPA 

developed the 2006 Guidance to make 

recommendations to states for making 

submissions to meet the requirements of 

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

hour ozone NAAQS and 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS. As identified in the 2006 

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. The SIP must prevent sources 

in the state from emitting pollutants in 

amounts which will: (1) Contribute 

significantly to nonattainment of the 

NAAQS in other states; (2) interfere 

with maintenance of the NAAQS in 

other states; (3) interfere with provisions 

to prevent significant deterioration of air 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
72690 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 227 / Friday, November 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

1As EPA noted in the proposal, the term 

‘‘interfere with maintenance’’ is not defined in the 

CAA. As such, the term is ambiguous and EPA’s 

interpretation of that term in this action is both 

reasonable and consistent with the overall goals of 

the CAA. By this approach, EPA is giving 

independent meaning to the term and supporting 

that interpretation with technical analysis to apply 

it to the facts of this action. 

quality in other states; or (4) interfere 

with efforts to protect visibility in other 

states. 

On September 17, 2007, EPA received 

a SIP revision from the State of New 

Mexico intended to address the 

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

for both the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standards and the 1997 PM2.5 standards. 

On June 11, 2010, EPA found that 

emissions from New Mexico do not 

contribute significantly to 

nonattainment of the NAAQS in other 

states (75 FR 33174). In this rulemaking, 

EPA is addressing the requirements that 

pertain to preventing sources in New 

Mexico from emitting pollutants that 

will interfere with maintenance of the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and the 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in other states, or 

that will interfere with measures 

required to prevent significant 

deterioration of air quality in other 

states with respect to these NAAQS. In 

its submission, the State of New Mexico 

demonstrated that its current SIP is 

adequate to prevent such interference, 

and thus argued that no additional 

emissions controls are necessary at this 

time to alleviate interstate transport for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS or the 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. With the 

submission, the State meets the second 

and third elements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i). On August 27, 2010, we 

published a proposed rule to approve 

the portion of New Mexico’s SIP 

submission that addressed the two 

elements that pertain to prohibiting air 

pollutant emissions from within New 

Mexico from interfering with 

maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS or with 

measures required in the SIP of any 

other state under part C of the CAA to 

prevent significant deterioration of air 

quality in any other state (75 FR 52692). 

We simultaneously proposed to approve 

New Mexico’s September 21, 2009 

submittal that adds NOX as an ozone 

precursor in its PSD rules. For EPA’s 

full analysis on the approvability of 

these SIP submittals, please see that 

proposal. EPA received adverse 

comments regarding the ‘‘interfere with 

maintenance’’ element during the 

comment period, and accordingly EPA 

is responding to those comments in 

today’s final action. 

III. What comments did EPA receive 

and how has EPA responded to them? 

EPA received one comment letter on 

the August 27, 2010 proposed rule. The 

letter can be found on the internet in the 

electronic docket for this action. To 

access the letters, please go to http:// 

www.regulations.gov and search for 

Docket No. EPA–R06–OAR–2007–0993, 

or contact the person listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

paragraph above. The discussion below 

addresses those comments and our 

response. 

Comments from WildEarth Guardians. 

Comment No. 1—The commenter 

stated that EPA inappropriately defined 

the term ‘‘interfere with maintenance.’’ It 

argued that EPA’s definition appeared to 

be ‘‘inappropriately conflated with the 

definition of nonattainment.’’ It argued 

that the definition of maintenance 

appeared to be tied to nonattainment, 

asserting that ‘‘unless an area has 

violated or is in violation of the 

NAAQS, the agency will not consider 

whether New Mexico is interfering with 

that area’s ability to maintain 

compliance with the NAAQS.’’ For this 

reason, it argued EPA did not give 

independent meaning to the ‘‘interfere 

with maintenance’’ prong of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). 

EPA Response: The definition of 

maintenance used by EPA is consistent 

with the direction given to EPA by the 

Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit in 

North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 

(DC Cir. 2008).1 In that case, the court 

analyzed the definition of ‘‘interfere 

with maintenance’’ used in the Clean 

Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). The court 

found that the definition EPA used 

‘‘gave no independent significance to the 

‘interfere with maintenance’ prong of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) to separately 

identify upwind sources interfering 

with downwind maintenance.’’ Id. at 

910. It further reasoned that ‘‘[u]nder 

EPA’s reading of the statute, a state can 

never ‘interfere with maintenance’ ’’ 

unless EPA determines that at one point 

it ‘‘contribute[d] significantly to 

nonattainment.’’ Id. at 910. Based on this 

analysis, the court found the definition 

unlawful holding that ‘‘[b]ecause EPA 

describes CAIR as a complete remedy to 

a section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) violation and 

does not give independent significance 

to the ‘interfere with maintenance’ 

language to identify upwind states that 

interfere with downwind maintenance, 

EPA unlawfully nullifies that aspect of 

the statute and provides no protection 

for downwind areas that, despite EPA’s 

predictions, still find themselves 

struggling to meet NAAQS due to 

upwind interference in 2010.’’ Id. at 

910–911. 

The approach used by EPA to 

evaluate New Mexico’s SIP submission 

and to determine whether emissions 

from sources in New Mexico interfere 

with maintenance in any other state 

directly addresses these flaws. It gives 

significant independent meaning to the 

term ‘‘interfere with maintenance.’’ It 

establishes a process to identify any 

specific receptors in downwind states 

that, even though they are projected to 

be in attainment and thus would not be 

nonattainment receptors, may have 

difficulty maintaining the NAAQS in 

question. These receptors are referred to 

as maintenance receptors. 

The methodology EPA used to 

identify maintenance receptors gives 

independent meaning to the term 

‘‘interfere with maintenance’’ and 

establishes a process to identify 

projected attainment receptors that, 

based on the historic variability of air 

quality at that site (which may be due 

to variability in emissions and/or 

meteorology), may have difficulty 

maintaining the standard. As explained 

in greater detail below, the commenter’s 

objection to EPA’s approach appears to 

be based on the misconception that the 

methodology EPA used to identify 

maintenance sites was dependent on 

base year NAAQS violations. 

The commenter’s statement that 

EPA’s designation of maintenance 

receptors is ‘‘firmly hitched to a finding 

that the maximum design value based 

on a single three-year period between 

2003 and 2007 is in excess of the 

NAAQS’’ appears to be based on a 

misunderstanding of the methodology 

used by EPA to identify maintenance 

receptors. EPA’s methodology did not, 

as the commenter appears to assume, 

require a site to have a design value 

above the NAAQS for one of the three 

base periods (2003–2005, 2004–2006, 

2005-2007) to be considered a 

maintenance site. The methodology is 

based on an analysis of the future year 

average and future year maximum 

design values. It does not depend on 

whether the base year design values 

exceed the NAAQS. In the proposal, 

EPA explained that ‘‘EPA identified 

those sites that are projected to be 

attainment based on the 5-year weighted 

average design value, but that have a 

maximum design value (based on a 

single three-year period) that exceeds 

the NAAQS, as maintenance sites.’’ (75 

FR 52697). The maximum design value 

referenced in this sentence is the 

maximum future design value 

calculated using each of the three base 

design value periods separately. 

Whether or not one of the three base 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 227 / Friday, November 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 72691 

2Commenter referenced the Colorado Department 

of Public Health and Environment’s ‘‘2010 Ozone 

Attainment Demonstration Modeling for the Denver 

8-hour Ozone State Implementation Plan Control 

Strategy’’ and the Environ modeling report ‘‘Final 

2010 Ozone Attainment Demonstration Modeling 

for the Denver 8-hour Ozone State Implementation 

Plan.’’ 

3EPA Source Apportionment Modeling using a 

version of the CENRAP modeling database with a 

2002 Emission Inventory. 

4Commenter referenced 75 FR pages 33182– 

33183. 

period design values exceeded the 

NAAQS was not a factor considered in 

determining whether a site was a 

maintenance receptor. 

To better understand this concept, it 

is useful to compare the methodologies 

used in the Transport Rule (TR) 

proposal (75 FR 45210 (August 2, 2010)) 

to identify nonattainment and 

maintenance receptors. In the TR 

proposal, base period (2003–2007) 

ambient data were projected to the 

future (using model outputs), to identify 

both nonattainment and maintenance 

receptors. In both cases, receptors were 

identified by projected future design 

values; however, because more 

conservative data were used for the 

maintenance analysis, this analysis 

could identify receptors that were 

projected by the nonattainment analysis 

to be in attainment, yet might have 

difficulty attaining the standard due to 

historic variability of air quality at that 

site. To identify future nonattainment 

sites EPA calculated the future year 

design values by projecting the 5-year 

weighted average design value for each 

site. Only if this future year design 

value exceeded the NAAQS was the site 

considered to be a nonattainment 

receptor. However, to identify projected 

maintenance sites EPA used a different 

methodology that took into account 

historic variability in air quality at each 

receptor. For this approach EPA 

calculated the maximum future year 

design value by processing each of the 

three base design value periods (2003– 

2005, 2004–2006, and 2005–2007) 

separately. The highest of the three 

future values is the maximum design 

value, which is used to determine 

maintenance receptors. 

In this way, EPA’s analysis identifies 

those areas that are projected to be in 

attainment, but may have difficulty 

maintaining attainment of the standard, 

for example in a year with particularly 

severe meteorology (weather that is 

conducive to ozone and/or particulate 

formation). In other words, this analysis 

does exactly what the DC Circuit 

directed EPA to do in North Carolina, 

531 F.3d 896. It gave independent 

meaning to the ‘‘interfere with 

maintenance’’ prong of 110(a)(2)(D) and 

is providing protection to any areas that, 

although they are predicted to attain the 

standard (and thus upwind sources 

could not be found to significantly 

contribute to nonattainment in that area) 

may have difficulty maintaining the 

standard. Id. at 911. 

EPA used this same approach to 

identify any potential maintenance 

receptors for purposes of evaluating 

New Mexico’s SIP submission. For the 

reasons explained above, this approach 

is both reasonable and consistent with 

the direction given to EPA by the DC 

Circuit in North Carolina, 531 F.3d 896. 

Comment No. 2—The commenter 

cited a variety of information suggesting 

that receptors in the Denver/North Front 

Range (Denver/NFR) area should also be 

considered for maintenance purposes 

under 110(a)(2)(D)(i) in this action. The 

commenter points out that as EPA itself 

has stated that ‘‘Data for 2005–2007 and 

2006–2008 reflect violations of the 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS at the Rocky Flats 

North monitor (values of {0.085} and 

0.086 ppm, respectively).’’ The 

commenter also argued that modeling 

prepared in conjunction with Colorado’s 

Denver/NFR attainment demonstration 

shows that by 2010, the three-year 

design value is only projected to be 

lowered to 0.084 parts per million, 

barely in compliance with the NAAQS, 

and that certain portions of the Denver/ 

NFR area of Colorado would violate the 

1997 ozone NAAQS in 2010 at grid cells 

west of Fort Collins. The commenter 

referenced several documents that are 

part of the Colorado’s Denver/NFR 8- 

hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration 

in support of its arguments. The 

commenter cited the report’s language 

that indicated that the modeling 

projection of a value above the 1997 8- 

hour standard to the west of Fort Collins 

is not ‘‘implausible’’ explaining, ‘‘In the 

case of the Denver ozone modeling, 

higher ozone concentrations are 

estimated west of Fort Collins than at 

the locations of the two monitors in Fort 

Collins on some days and this does not 

appear to be an error in the modeling 

system’’.2

The commenter argued that EPA’s 

failure to consider the Denver/NFR area 

as a receptor for evaluating interference 

with maintenance in this action reflects 

the very problem that the DC Circuit 

warned could result without giving 

independent meaning to the term 

‘‘interfere with maintenance.’’ The 

commenter asserted that EPA’s own 

modeling (CENRAP modeling with 2002 

emission inventory) indicated that 

sources in New Mexico contribute more 

than 2 parts per billion (up to 5% of 

Denver/NFR area’s total concentrations) 

of ozone on days when exceedances of 

the 1997 8-hour standard are projected 

in Denver/NFR.3 The commenter stated 

that EPA has rejected this modeling 

information because it used outdated 

emission data without any indication 

that it is invalid or fails to indicate that 

sources within New Mexico may 

interfere with maintenance in 

Colorado.4

EPA’s Response—EPA disagrees with 

the commenter’s argument that EPA has 

inappropriately identified the correct 

monitors for maintenance receptors. As 

discussed in greater detail in the 

previous response to comment, EPA has 

selected a method that identifies 

maintenance receptors separately from 

nonattainment receptors and gives an 

independent meaning to the interfere 

with maintenance prong of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i). EPA has consistently 

applied this method to all potential 

receptors in States potentially impacted 

by New Mexico’s emissions including 

those in the Denver/NFR area. 

The commenter’s argument EPA did 

not consistently identify maintenance 

receptors is premised on the same 

fundamental misunderstanding 

discussed in response to comment #1— 

that EPA’s identification of 

nonattainment receptors was based on 

current or past NAAQS violations. As 

explained above, this is not correct. EPA 

did not base its identification of 

maintenance receptors on an analysis of 

whether air quality at those receptors 

exceeded the NAAQS in the base years. 

The methodology EPA used to identify 

maintenance areas takes into account 

historic variability of emissions at 

specific monitoring sites to analyze 

whether or not monitoring sites 

projected to be in attainment in 2012 

will nonetheless remain at risk of 

slipping into nonattainment in that year. 

The commenter provided a number of 

modeling or monitoring analyses for 

2010 or earlier. As we have addressed 

in responses elsewhere in this notice, 

EPA continues to believe 2012 is the 

appropriate year for this analysis. Thus, 

modeling or monitoring data for other 

years is not directly relevant to this 

rulemaking. Nonetheless, below we 

address the commenter’s specific 

assertions about the modeling. 

The commenter asserts that 

monitoring data for 2005–07 and 2006– 

08 for the Rocky Flats North monitor 

reflect violations of the 8-hour NAAQS 

and therefore EPA should consider this 

Rocky Flats North monitor as a 

‘‘maintenance receptor.’’ The commenter 

further cites modeling prepared in 

conjunction with Colorado’s Denver/ 

NFR attainment demonstration to 

support its assertion that EPA has 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
72692 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 227 / Friday, November 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

5EPA’s ‘‘Guidance on the Use of Models and 

Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of 

Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional 

Haze,’’ EPA–454/B–07–002, April 2007. 

6 75 Federal Register 40 CFR part 52 [EPA–R08– 

OAR–2010–0285; FRL–9177–2], Proposed Rule, 

‘‘Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality 

Implementation Plans; Colorado; Attainment 

Demonstration for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard, 

and Approval of Related Revisions’’; pages 42346– 

42361. 

7 Id. 

8 Id., page 32. 

9The Rist Canyon monitoring station uses a 

Federal Equivalent Method (FEM) and follows the 

quality assurance requirements of 40 CFR part 58 

Appendix A. Ozone data collected at this 

monitoring station is eligible for comparison to the 

ozone NAAQS after the monitor has operated for 

more than 24 months per 40 CFR 58.30(c). Design 

values, however, are based on the 3-year average of 

the annual fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour 

average ozone concentration (see 40 CFR part 50, 

Appendix D). 

applied inconsistently its definition of 

interference with maintenance. The 

modeling data referenced by the 

commenter, however, only identifies 

monitors that, in the commenter’s view, 

are at risk of being in nonattainment or 

having maintenance problems in 2010. 

The monitoring data cited indicates 

high ozone levels in the past. The 

underlying issue raised is thus 

substantively the same as that raised in 

comment no. 3 below which argues that 

EPA’s analysis is faulty because it 

identifies receptors likely to have 

difficulty maintaining the standard in 

2012 and not at the present or in the 

past. EPA’s response to comment no. 3 

below, illustrates how its approach, 

based on modeling analyses that 

identify receptors at risk for 

maintenance in the year 2012, is 

appropriate and consistent with the DC 

Circuit decision in North Carolina v. 

EPA. 

EPA’s method is based on model 

projection values that take into account 

multi-year variability in ozone data at 

specific monitors. For identification of 

maintenance receptors, EPA utilized the 

monitoring data from the 2003–2007 

period to calculate 2012 future year 

modeling design value projections. The 

2003–07 period includes three Design 

Value (DV) periods (2003–2005, 2004– 

2006, and 2005–2007). The 2012 future 

year DVs were calculated by 

multiplying a 3-year DV (base year) by 

the ratio of the Future Year average of 

the daily 8-hour ozone maximums 

around a monitor over the Base Year 

average of the daily 8-hour ozone 

maximums around a monitor. This 

calculation was performed for each of 

the three 3-year DVs (2003–2005, 2004– 

2006, and 2005–2007). This approach 

yielded three different projected 2012 

design values and thus, tests for 

variability in meteorology. If any of the 

three 2012 projections was above the 

1997 ozone standard, then the receptor 

would be considered a maintenance 

receptor. None of the 2012 projections 

for the Denver/NFR area was above the 

standard so the area was not considered 

a maintenance area. This approach was 

the same as the approach used for every 

potential receptor evaluated. It is worth 

noting that EPA’s analysis included the 

2005–2007 data for the Rocky Flats 

monitor (which is one of the highest 

monitored DVs in recent years for this 

monitor) that the commenter raised as a 

concern and pursuant to its 

methodology as previously described 

EPA’s analysis determined that the 

Rocky Flats monitor would not be a 

maintenance receptor in 2012. 

Further, EPA disagrees with 

commenter’s conclusion that the 

modeling performed for the Denver/NFR 

attainment demonstration with the 2010 

model projections establishes that any 

of the areas identified will have 

maintenance problems for the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS. We disagree with 

the commenter’s conclusion that the 

Denver/NFR area monitors should be 

identified as ‘‘maintenance receptors’’ in 

large part because he bases his 

conclusion on projections for 2010 

instead of 2012. This modeling used 

projections for 2010 not 2012, which as 

explained above and in response to 

comment no. 3 below is not the correct 

year for comparison, given the approach 

EPA has developed for determining 

maintenance receptors. EPA’s analysis 

of maintenance receptors, which is 

based on the approach developed in the 

Transport Rule Proposal to be consistent 

with the DC Circuit’s opinion in North 

Carolina v. EPA and uses projections for 

2012, did not identify any maintenance 

receptors in the Denver/NFR area. This 

conclusion is consistent with evidence 

suggesting emissions are likely to trend 

downward (for example, with two more 

years of fleet turnover, this modeling 

would likely have projected lower levels 

of ozone in 2012) and preliminary 

monitoring data for 2010, which 

indicates that the Denver/NFR area is 

meeting the 1997 ozone standard. 

Further, EPA has reviewed Colorado’s 

attainment demonstration for the 

Denver/NFR area and proposed that the 

combination of the modeling and 

Weight of Evidence analyses 

demonstrates that Denver will be in 

attainment in 2010.5 6

In addition, the commenter’s concern 

that an area west of Fort Collins might 

exceed 84 ppb in 2010 is based on 

exceedance values in the Colorado 

modeling analysis from a special 

analysis, called the Unmonitored Area 

Analysis (UAA), that is recommended 

for model grid cells that are not 

analyzed in the monitor based 

attainment demonstration because they 

are not located near a monitor. EPA 

does not believe that the UAA 

establishes that this area should be 

considered a maintenance receptor area 

for the purposes of 110(a)(2)(D)(i). 

First, the UAA analysis is for 2010, 

which as noted above is not the correct 

analysis year. Second, EPA guidance 

indicates that NAAQS violations in the 

UAA should be handled on a case by 

case basis.7 The guidance stresses that 

due to the lack of measured data, the 

examination of ozone concentrations as 

part of the unmonitored area analysis is 

more uncertain than the monitor based 

attainment test. This is true even in 

situations such as this where, as the 

commenter points out; no known errors 

were identified by the contractor in the 

modeling analysis. As a result, the UAA 

results are recommended to be treated 

as a separate test from the monitor based 

attainment test with less weight put on 

the conclusions of the UAA analysis. 

EPA’s attainment demonstration 

guidance indicates ‘‘While it is expected 

that States will implement additional 

emission controls to eliminate predicted 

violations of the monitor based test, the 

same requirements may not be 

appropriate in unmonitored areas.’’ 8

The guidance recommends that it may 

be appropriate to deploy additional 

monitors in an area where the 

unmonitored analysis indicates a 

potential future year violation. 

To address the concerns raised by the 

UAA, Colorado installed an additional 

ozone monitor in the area West of Fort 

Collins to determine whether the model 

predicted ozone concentrations are, in 

fact, valid. The special purpose monitor, 

located in Rist Canyon, began operation 

on May 14, 2009. The Rist Canyon 

monitoring station has collected data for 

two ozone seasons (approximately 16 

months) since it began operating and the 

fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour 

average ozone concentration reading is 

69 ppb for May through December of 

2009 and 72 ppb for January through 

August 2010.9

Therefore, EPA does not believe the 

modeling performed for the State of 

Colorado’s Denver/NFR area SIP can 

support the conclusion that this area 

should be considered a maintenance 

receptor area for the purposes of 

110(a)(2)(D)(i). The methodology 

developed to identify maintenance 

receptors for the purpose of analyzing 

interference with maintenance with 

respect to the 1997 ozone and PM2.5

NAAQS relies on base period 

monitoring data to identify monitor 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 227 / Friday, November 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 72693 

locations that are projected to have 

maintenance problems in 2012. The 

methodology does not identify receptors 

based on modeling data alone. While 

the monitor has not operated long 

enough to account for variability in 

ozone levels, the newly installed 

monitor in the relevant area is reading 

well below the standard and this fact 

further confirms that the modeling 

results and the UAA results do not 

support the conclusion that receptors in 

the Denver/NFR area should be 

considered maintenance receptors for 

the purpose of CAA section 110(2)(D)(i). 

EPA also disagrees with the 

commenter’s comments that the 2002 

CENRAP based modeling that evaluated 

New Mexico’s impacts demonstrates a 

maintenance problem since the analysis 

was based on emission and 

meteorological conditions in 2002, not 

the analysis year of 2012. The CENRAP 

modeling used a 2002 emission 

inventory which is likely to project 

higher ozone levels and is therefore very 

conservative compared to modeling 

projections with a 2012 emission 

inventory analysis. The CENRAP 

modeling was performed to provide a 

conservative test using source 

apportionment modeling with a readily 

available modeling system (since 

construction of a complete modeling 

system from scratch requires 

significantly much more time and 

resources) to determine whether further 

analysis was warranted to determine if 

emissions from sources in New Mexico 

(and other states) could potentially 

interfere with maintenance in 

downwind nonattainment areas. The 

sole purpose of the modeling was to 

provide a very conservative technical 

analysis that would provide a basis for 

determining that an area did not have a 

significant impact upon the Denver/NFR 

area. Therefore, the CENRAP modeling 

cannot serve to provide a basis for 

determining that an area has an impact 

on other areas in 2012. It also cannot be 

relied upon to provide a basis to 

determine which areas should be 

considered as maintenance for the 

purposes of 110(a)(2)(D)(i). 

In conclusion, EPA disagrees with the 

commenter. We have used a fully 

consistent approach in identifying areas 

that may have difficulty in maintaining 

attainment of the NAAQS. It is these 

areas that we have further evaluated to 

see if New Mexico’s emissions would 

interfere with maintenance of the 

NAAQS. 

Comment No. 3—The commenter also 

argued that EPA’s analysis ignores 

whether emissions from New Mexico 

sources are at present interfering with 

maintenance in other States. The 

commenter argued that EPA erred by 

considering only whether New Mexico 

emissions will interfere with 

maintenance of the NAAQS in 2012 at 

monitors that would then be considered 

‘‘maintenance receptors.’’ It argues that 

this approach is inconsistent with the 

approach taken to determine whether 

New Mexico significantly contributes to 

nonattainment in other States (citing 

75 FR 33174–33190). The commenter 

agreed that ‘‘EPA should ensure that 

New Mexico does not interfere with 

maintenance or contribute significantly 

to nonattainment in other states in the 

future,’’ but argued that ‘‘the agency’s 

duties under Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

apply both in the present and the 

future.’’ In short, the commenter argued 

that EPA’s approach is flawed simply 

because EPA evaluated whether or not 

there is significant contribution to 

nonattainment in other states looking at 

current data, whereas EPA evaluated 

whether there is interference with 

maintenance looking at future projected 

data. 

EPA Response: EPA disagrees with 

the commenter concerning the 

evaluation of significant contribution 

versus interference with maintenance. 

Section 110(a)(2)(D)(I)(i) of the Clean 

Air Act requires states to submit SIPs 

within 3 years of promulgation or 

revision of a NAAQS that: 

(D) Contain adequate provisions– 

(i) Prohibiting * * * any source or 

other type of emissions activity within 

the state from emitting any air pollutant 

in amounts which will— 

(I) Contribute significantly to 

nonattainment or, interfere with 

maintenance by, any other State with 

respect to any such national primary or 

secondary ambient air quality standard, 

or 

(II) Interfere with measures required 

to be included in the applicable 

implementation plan for any other State 

under part C of this subchapter to 

prevent significant deterioration of air 

quality or to protect visibility. 

In determining the appropriate year to 

analyze in determining whether 

emissions from New Mexico will 

interfere with maintenance by any other 

State, EPA used an approach upheld by 

the DC Circuit in North Carolina v. EPA. 

In that case, the Court examined EPA’s 

definition of ‘‘will’’ in ‘‘will contribute 

significantly.’’ The placement of the 

word ‘‘will’’ at the end of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) clarifies that it applies to 

all of the provisions that follow—both 

those in 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and those in 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). Thus the DC Circuit’s 

discussion of the meaning of the word 

‘‘will’’ in ‘‘will significantly contribute’’ 

also applies to the meaning of the word 

‘‘will’’ in ‘‘will * * * interfere with 

maintenance.’’ 

In North Carolina v. EPA, the DC 

Circuit rejected North Carolina’s 

argument that EPA erred in limiting its 

analysis of downwind areas by 

excluding areas that were currently 

monitored nonattainment but projected 

to be in attainment at a future date. Like 

the commenter argues here, North 

Carolina had argued that EPA was 

obligated to analyze the significant 

contribution of states that were 

contributing to areas of North Carolina 

that were in nonattainment at the time 

the rule was promulgated, even though 

those areas were projected to come into 

attainment by the year selected for the 

future base case analysis. In rejecting 

this argument, the DC Circuit explained 

that the approach used by EPA was 

identical to the one used previously in 

the NOx SIP Call and that ‘‘because 

‘will’ can mean either certainty or 

indicate the future tense,’’ EPA’s 

approach was reasonable. In other 

words, the court approved EPA’s 

approach that entailed the evaluation of 

interstate transport impacts at a future 

date in time. 

Contrary to the assertions of the 

commenter, EPA believes that 

evaluation of interference with 

maintenance using a future date is the 

most appropriate approach for that 

requirement. As explained in the 

proposed action, the court decision 

affecting the CAIR rule required EPA to 

reevaluate its approach to the interfere 

with maintenance requirement of 

section 110(a)(2)(D) and to develop a 

new approach to give that requirement 

separate meaning. In doing so, EPA has 

developed an approach that necessarily 

requires a number of years of data, and 

an analysis that evaluates where there 

may be difficulties with maintaining 

attainment at a specific point in time, in 

this instance 2012. EPA’s prior 

evaluation of whether emissions from 

New Mexico were significantly 

contributing to nonattainment in other 

states was based on the data available at 

the time of that evaluation and before 

EPA had developed its approach for 

evaluating interference with 

maintenance. It is reasonable and 

appropriate for EPA to use, in this 

rulemaking, the current approach to 

identifying maintenance receptors for 

purposes of section 110(a)(2)(D) that 

EPA developed to be consistent with the 

direction given to EPA in North 

Carolina v. EPA. 

Finally, we note that comments on the 

validity or reasonableness of EPA’s 

approach to determining significant 

contribution in the prior action are not 

directly relevant to this rulemaking. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
72694 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 227 / Friday, November 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

This rulemaking addresses only the 

‘‘interfere with maintenance’’ and PSD 

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

IV. Final Action 

We are approving two elements of the 

Interstate Transport SIP submitted by 

the State of New Mexico on September 

17, 2007. Specifically, in this action we 

are approving the New Mexico Interstate 

Transport SIP provision that address the 

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

that emissions from sources in New 

Mexico do not interfere with 

maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

or 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in any other 

state, and the provision that addresses 

the requirement of Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) that emissions from 

New Mexico’s sources do not interfere 

with measures required in the SIP of 

any other state under part C of the CAA 

to prevent ‘‘significant deterioration of 

air quality.’’ For purposes of the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS, EPA also is 

approving a SIP revision adopted by 

NMED on August 31, 2009, that 

modifies New Mexico’s PSD SIP for the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS to include 

nitrogen oxides as an ozone precursor. 

After fully considering all comments 

received on the proposed rule, we have 

concluded that the State’s submission, 

and additional evidence evaluated by 

EPA, establishes that emissions from 

New Mexico sources do not interfere 

with the maintenance of the ozone and 

PM2.5 NAAQS of 1997 in any other 

states or with measures required by SIPs 

of other states to prevent significant 

deterioration of air quality. Accordingly, 

New Mexico does not need to include 

additional emission limitations on its 

sources to eliminate any such 

contribution to other states for purposes 

of these NAAQS. 

V. 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. 

The Congressional Review Act, 

5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by January 25, 2011. 

Filing a petition for reconsideration by 

the Administrator of this final rule does 

not affect the finality of this action for 

the purposes of judicial review nor does 

it extend the time within which a 

petition for judicial review may be filed, 

and shall not postpone the effectiveness 

of such rule or action. This action may 

not be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Dated: November 10, 2010. 

Lawrence E. Starfield, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

■ 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart GG—New Mexico 

■ 2. Section 52.1620 is amended: 

■ a. In paragraph (c) by revising the 

entry for Part 74 under ‘‘New Mexico 

Administrative Code (NMAC) Title 20— 

Environment Protection Chapter 2—Air 

Quality’’. 

■ b. In paragraph (e) revising the entry 

in the second table for ‘‘Interstate 

transport for the 1997 ozone and PM2.5

NAAQS’’ and adding a new entry 

immediately after it. 

The amendments read as follows: 

§ 52.1620 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 227 / Friday, November 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 72695 

EPA-APPROVED NEW MEXICO REGULATIONS

State citation Title/subject 

State approval/submittal date 

EPA approval date Explanation 

*******

Part 74 ..................................... Permits—Prevention 

of Significant Deterioration.

8/31/2009 11/26/2010 [Insert citation of publication].

* * * * * * * 

(e) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED NON-REGULATORY PROVISIONS AND QUASI-REGULATORY MEASURES IN THE NEW MEXICO SIP 

Name of SIP provision 

Applicable geographic or nonattainment area State submittal/effective 

date 

EPA approval date Explanation 

*******

Interstate transport for the 1997 

ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS.

New Mexico ..... 9/17/2007 6/10/2010 .................. Revisions to prohibit significant contribution to 

nonattainment in any other state. 

Approval for revisions to prohibit interference 

with maintenance and PSD measures in any 

other state. 

Interstate transport for the 1997 

ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS.

New Mexico ..... 9/17/2007 11/26/2010 [Insert citation of publication].Revisions to prohibit interference with maintenance and PSD measures in any other state. 

[FR Doc. 2010–29397 Filed 11–24–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2007–0314; FRL–9230–2] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Oklahoma; 

State Implementation Plan Revisions 

for Interstate Transport of Pollution, 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration, 

Nonattainment New Source Review, 

Source Registration and Emissions 

Reporting and Rules of Practice and 

Procedure 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is approving part of a 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revision submitted by the State of 

Oklahoma that demonstrates that 

adequate provisions are in place to 

prohibit Oklahoma air emissions from 

interfering with Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) 

measures required in the SIP of any 

other state for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) and the 1997 fine particulate 

matter (PM2.5) NAAQS. Specifically, 

EPA is approving the Oklahoma 

Interstate Transport SIP provisions that 

address the requirement of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) that emissions from 

sources in Oklahoma do not interfere 

with measures required in the SIP of 

any other state under part C of the CAA 

to prevent ‘‘significant deterioration of 

air quality.’’ EPA is also approving 

portions of revisions to the Oklahoma 

SIP submitted on February 14, 2002, 

and June 24, 2010. The February 14, 

2002, revisions we are approving relate 

to PSD and Nonattainment New Source 

Review (NNSR) for major sources, 

source registration and emissions 

reporting and other rules of practice and 

procedure (except for revisions relating 

to minor sources). The June 24, 2010, 

revisions we are approving include 

nitrogen oxides (NOX) as an ozone 

precursor in Oklahoma’s PSD SIP for 

purposes of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. This action is being taken 

under section 110 and parts C and D of 

the Clean Air Act (CAA). 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

December 27, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket 

Identification No. EPA–R06–OAR– 

2007–0314. All documents in the docket 

are listed at www.regulations.gov. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., Confidential Business Information 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically through 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 Freedom of 

Information Act (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. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carl 

Young, Air Planning Section (6PD–L), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, 

Dallas, Texas 75202–2733, telephone 

(214) 665–6645; fax number (214) 665– 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES