15664 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 48 / Tuesday, March 12, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

publication of a final rule in the Federal 

Register. 

List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 1500 

Consumer protection, Hazardous 

substances, Imports, Infants and 

children, Labeling, Law enforcement, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, and Toys. 

Accordingly, 16 CFR part 1500 is 

proposed to be amended as follows: 

PART 1500—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 1500 

continues to reads as follows: 

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 1261–1278. 

■ 2. In § 1500.3, revise paragraph (c)(5) 

to read as follows: 

§ 1500.3 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(5) The definition of strong sensitizer 

in section 2(k) of the Federal Hazardous 

Substances Act (restated in 16 CFR 

1500.3(b)(9)) is supplemented by the 

following definitions: 

(i) Sensitizer. A sensitizer is a 

substance that is capable of inducing a 

state of immunologically mediated 

hypersensitivity (including allergic 

photosensitivity) following a variable 

period of exposure to that substance. 

Hypersensitivity to a substance will 

become evident by an allergic reaction 

elicited upon reexposure to the same 

substance. 

(ii) Significant potential for causing 

hypersensitivity. Before designating any 

substance a ‘‘strong sensitizer,’’ the 

Commission shall find that the 

substance has significant potential for 

causing hypersensitivity. Significant 

potential for causing hypersensitivity is 

a relative determination that must be 

made separately for each substance. It 

may be based on chemical or functional 

properties of the substance; documented 

medical evidence of allergic reactions 

upon subsequent exposure to the same 

substance obtained from 

epidemiological surveys or individual 

case reports; controlled in vitro or in 

vivo experimental studies; and 

susceptibility profiles (e.g., genetics, 

age, gender, atopic status) in nonsensitized or allergic subjects. 

(A) In determining whether a 

substance is a ‘‘strong’’ sensitizer, the 

Commission shall consider the available 

data for a number of factors, following 

a weight-of-evidence approach. The 

following factors (if available), ranked in 

descending order of importance, should 

be considered: well-conducted clinical 

and diagnostic studies, epidemiological 

studies, with a preference for general 

population studies over occupational 

studies, well-conducted animal studies, 

well-conducted in vitro test studies, 

cross-reactivity data, and case histories. 

Criteria for a ‘‘well-conducted’’ study 

would include validated outcomes, 

relevant dosing and route of 

administration, and use of appropriate 

controls. Studies should be carried out 

according to national and/or 

international test guidelines and 

according to good laboratory practice 

(GLP), compliance with good clinical 

practice (GCP), and good 

epidemiological practice (GEP). 

(B) Before the Commission designates 

any substance a ‘‘strong’’ sensitizer, 

frequency of occurrence and range of 

severity of reactions in exposed 

subpopulations having average or high 

susceptibility will be considered. The 

minimal severity of a reaction for the 

purpose of designating a material a 

‘‘strong sensitizer’’ is a clinically 

important reaction. A clinically 

important reaction would be considered 

one with loss of function and significant 

impact on quality of life. Consideration 

should be given to the location of the 

hypersensitivity response, such as the 

face, hands, and feet and persistence of 

clinical manifestations. For example, 

strong sensitizers may produce 

substantial illness, including any or all 

of the following: substantial physical 

discomfort and distress, substantial 

hardship, functional or structural 

impairment, chronic morbidity. 

(C) Additional consideration may be 

given to Quantitative Structure-Activity 

Relationships (QSARs), in silico data, 

specific human sensitization threshold 

values, and other data on potency and 

sensitizer bioavailability, if data are 

available and methods are validated. 

Bioavailability is the dose of the 

allergen available to interact with a 

tissue. It is a reflection of how well the 

skin or another organ can absorb the 

allergen and the actual penetrating 

ability of the allergen, including factors 

such as size and composition of the 

chemical. 

(iii) Normal living tissue. The allergic 

hypersensitivity reaction occurs in 

normal living tissues, including the 

skin, mucous membranes (e.g., ocular, 

oral), and other organ systems, such as 

the respiratory tract, gastrointestinal 

tract, or either singularly or in 

combination, following sensitization by 

contact, ingestion, or inhalation. 

* * * * * 

Dated: March 7, 2013. 

Todd A. Stevenson, 

Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2013–05577 Filed 3–11–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6355–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2009–0710; FRL–9789–4] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; New 

Mexico; Interstate Transport of Fine 

Particulate Matter 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

a portion of a State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) submittal from the State of New 

Mexico to address Clean Air Act (CAA 

or Act) requirements in section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) that prohibit air 

emissions which will contribute 

significantly to nonattainment or 

interfere with maintenance in any other 

state for the 2006 fine particulate matter 

(PM2.5) national ambient air quality 

standards (NAAQS). EPA proposes to 

determine that the existing SIP for New 

Mexico contains adequate provisions to 

prohibit air emissions from significantly 

contributing to nonattainment or 

interfering with maintenance of the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS (2006 PM2.5

NAAQS) in any other state as required 

by section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the Act. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before April 11, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket No. EPA–R06– 

OAR–2009–0710, by one of the 

following methods: 

• Federal Rulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Email: Mr. Guy Donaldson at 

donaldson.guy@epa.gov. Please also 

send a copy by email 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 or Delivery: Mr. Guy 

Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning Section 

(6PD–L), Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, 

Dallas, Texas 75202–2733. Deliveries 

are only accepted ruing the Regional 

Office’s normal hours of operation. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R06–OAR–2009– 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 48 / Tuesday, March 12, 2013 / Proposed Rules 15665 

1This proposed action does not address the two 

elements of the transport SIP provision (in CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)) regarding interference 

with measures required to prevent significant 

deterioration of air quality or to protect visibility in 

another state. On January 22, 2013, we approved the 

SIP submittal for the element regarding interference 

with measures required to prevent significant 

deterioration of air quality for the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS (78 FR 4337). We will act on the element 

regarding protection of visibility in another state in 

a future separate rulemaking. 

2See Memorandum from William T. Harnett 

entitled ‘‘Guidance on SIP Elements Required 

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

Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air 

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

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

memoranda/ 

20090925_harnett_pm25_sip_110a12.pdf. 

3See NOX SIP Call, 63 FR 57371 (October 27, 

1998); Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), 70 FR 

25172 (May 12, 2005); and Transport Rule or CrossState Air Pollution Rule, 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 

2011). 

4CAIR 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). 

0710. 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 viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

Docket: Generally, documents in the 

docket for this action are available 

electronically at www.regulations.gov 

and in hard copy at EPA Region 6, 1445 

Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 

75202–2733. While all documents in the 

docket are listed at 

www.regulations.gov, some information 

may be publicly available only at the 

hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted 

material, large maps), and some may not 

be publicly available in either location 

(e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy 

materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Carl Young, Air Planning Section (6PD– 

L), U.S. EPA Region 6, 214–665–6645, 

young.carl@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ means EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. EPA’s Evaluation 

III. Proposed Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

A. 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS and Interstate 

Transport 

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

identifies four distinct elements related 

to the evaluation of impacts of interstate 

transport of air pollutants. In this action 

for the state of New Mexico, EPA is 

addressing the first two elements of 

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

the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.1 The first 

element of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

requires that each SIP for a new or 

revised NAAQS contain adequate 

measures to prohibit any source or other 

type of emissions activity within the 

state from emitting air pollutants that 

will ‘‘contribute significantly to 

nonattainment’’ of the NAAQS in 

another state. The second element of 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires 

that each SIP for a new or revised 

NAAQS 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. 

On June 12, 2009, the Governor of 

New Mexico submitted a letter and 

supporting documentation certifying 

that the New Mexico Environment 

Department (NMED) has evaluated the 

New Mexico SIP, and found that the 

existing SIP does satisfy all the 

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

for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS and that no 

further revisions are necessary. The 

supporting documentation included a 

relevant technical analysis supporting 

New Mexico’s conclusion as 

recommended by EPA’s guidance 

memorandum that provides 

recommendations to states for making 

SIP submissions to meet the 

requirements of CAA section 

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

NAAQS (‘‘2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 

Infrastructure Guidance’’ or 

‘‘Guidance’’).2 A copy of New Mexico’s 

submittal and supporting 

documentation can be found in the 

electronic docket for this action. In this 

proposed action, EPA is evaluating 

whether the June 12, 2009 submittal 

satisfies the interstate transport 

provisions of 110(a)(2)(D)(i) prohibiting 

emissions that adversely affect another 

state in the ways contemplated in the 

statute. 

B. EPA Rules Addressing Interstate 

Transport for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 

EPA has previously addressed the 

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

in past regulatory actions.3 EPA 

published the final Cross-State Air 

Pollution Rule (Transport Rule) to 

address the first two elements of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) in the eastern 

United States with respect to the 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS, the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, 

and the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

(August 8, 2011, 76 FR 48208). The 

Transport Rule was intended to replace 

the earlier Clean Air Interstate Rule 

(CAIR) which was judicially 

remanded.4 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 the Transport Rule. See EME 

Homer City Generation, L.P. v. E.P.A., 

696 F.3d 7 (DC Cir. 2012). The court 

also ordered EPA to continue 

implementing CAIR in the interim. On 

January 24, 2013, the DC Circuit issued 

an order denying all petitions for 

rehearing. At this time, the deadline for 

asking the Supreme Court to review the 

EME Homer City decision has not 

passed and the United States has not yet 

decided whether to seek further appeal. 

In the meantime, and unless the EME 

Homer City decision is reversed or 

otherwise modified, EPA intends to act 

in accordance with the opinion in EME 

Homer City. New Mexico was not 

covered by either CAIR or the Transport 

Rule, and EPA made no determinations 

in either rule regarding whether 

emissions from sources in New Mexico 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
15666 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 48 / Tuesday, March 12, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

5See Memorandum from William T. Harnett 

entitled ‘‘Guidance on SIP Elements Required 

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

Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air 

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

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

memoranda/ 

20090925_harnett_pm25_sip_110a12.pdf. 

6See Memorandum from William T. Harnett 

entitled ‘‘Guidance for State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) Submission to Meet Current Outstanding 

Obligations Under Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8- 

hour ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards,’’ August 15, 2006, available at http:// 

www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t1/memoranda/ 

section110a2di_sip_guidance.pdf. 

7The 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS Infrastructure Guidance 

stated that EPA was working on a new rule to 

replace CAIR that would address issues raised by 

the court in the North Carolina case and that would 

provide guidance to states in addressing the 

requirements related to interstate transport in CAA 

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

It also noted that states could not rely on the CAIR 

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

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

did not address this NAAQS. See 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS Infrastructure Guidance at 3. 

in another state. Based on the technical 

information available at this time, with 

respect to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, the 

issues relating to transport of New 

Mexico’s emissions are analytically 

different from the PM2.5 pollution 

transport issues faced in the states 

addressed by CAIR and the Transport 

Rule. This position of analytical 

differences with respect to New Mexico 

and the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, based upon 

information available at this time, relies 

in part to the more complex terrain in 

New Mexico and western states also not 

addressed by CAIR and the Transport 

Rule, and the greater distance between 

New Mexico emission sources and areas 

that have problems attaining and/or 

maintaining the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Additionally, based on the technical 

information available at this time, the 

areas of concern in the western U.S. for 

the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS that EPA 

analyzed for potential impact by 

emissions from sources in New Mexico 

are generally more locally driven than 

areas of concern addressed in the CAIR 

and Transport Rule. The methodology 

and analysis used for evaluating New 

Mexico’s compliance with the interstate 

transport requirements of 

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

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS is further explained 

in Section II of this proposed 

rulemaking. 

C. EPA Guidance for SIP Submissions to 

Address Interstate Transport for the 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 

On September 25, 2009, EPA issued a 

guidance memorandum that provides 

recommendations to states for making 

SIP submissions to meet the 

requirements of CAA section 

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

NAAQS (‘‘2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 

Infrastructure Guidance’’ or 

‘‘Guidance’’).5 With respect to the 

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

to prohibit emissions that would 

contribute significantly to 

nonattainment of the NAAQS in any 

other state, the 2006 p.m.2.5 NAAQS 

Infrastructure Guidance essentially 

reiterated the recommendations for 

western states made by EPA in previous 

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

requirements for the 1997 8-hour Ozone 

and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.6 The 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS Infrastructure Guidance 

advised states outside of the CAIR 

region to include in their section 

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

adequate technical analysis to support 

their conclusions regarding interstate 

pollution transport, e.g., information 

concerning emissions in the state, 

meteorological conditions in the state 

and in potentially impacted states, 

monitored ambient pollutant 

concentrations in the state and in 

potentially impacted states, distances to 

the nearest areas not attaining the 

NAAQS in other states, and air quality 

modeling.7 With respect to the 

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

to prohibit emissions that would 

interfere with maintenance of the 

NAAQS by any other state, the 

Guidance stated that SIP submissions 

must address this independent and 

distinct requirement of the statute and 

provide technical information 

appropriate to support the State’s 

conclusions, such as information 

concerning emissions in the state, 

meteorological conditions in the state 

and in potentially impacted states, 

monitored ambient concentrations in 

the state and in potentially impacted 

states, and air quality modeling. See 

footnotes 5 and 6. 

In this action, EPA is maintaining the 

conceptual approach to evaluating 

interstate pollution transport under 

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

Agency provided in the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS Infrastructure Guidance. For 

the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA believes 

that nonattainment and maintenance 

problems in the western United States 

are generally relatively local in nature 

with only limited impacts from 

interstate transport. EPA believes that 

the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIP 

submission from New Mexico may be 

evaluated using a ‘‘weight of the 

evidence’’ approach that takes into 

account available relevant information, 

such as that recommended by EPA in 

the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS Infrastructure 

Guidance. Such information may 

include, but is not limited to, the 

amount of emissions in the state 

relevant to the NAAQS in question, the 

meteorological conditions in the area, 

the distance from the state to the nearest 

monitors in other states that are 

appropriate receptors, or such other 

information as may be probative to 

consider whether sources in the state 

may contribute significantly to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 

in other states. These submissions can 

rely on modeling when acceptable 

modeling technical analyses are 

available, but EPA does not believe that 

modeling is necessarily required if other 

available information is sufficient to 

evaluate the presence or degree of 

interstate transport in a specific 

situation. 

II. EPA’s Evaluation 

To determine whether the CAA 

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

satisfied, EPA must determine whether 

a state’s emissions contribute 

significantly to nonattainment or 

interfere with maintenance in 

downwind areas. If this factual finding 

is in the negative, then section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) does not require any 

changes to a state’s SIP. Consistent with 

EPA’s approach in the 1998 NOX SIP 

call, the 2005 CAIR, and the 2011 

Transport Rule, EPA is evaluating these 

impacts with respect to specific 

monitors identified as having 

nonattainment and/or maintenance 

problems, which we refer to as 

‘‘receptors.’’ See footnote 3. EPA notes 

that no single piece of information is by 

itself dispositive of the issue. Instead, 

the total weight of all the evidence taken 

together is used to evaluate 

contributions to nonattainment or 

interference with maintenance of the 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in another state. 

This proposed approval addresses the 

requirements of CAA section 

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

NAAQS in several ways. It takes into 

account the technical analysis contained 

in New Mexico’s June 12, 2009 SIP 

submission, which explains the lack of 

PM2.5 nonattainment areas in or within 

close proximity to the state reduce the 

likelihood that New Mexico’s emissions 

contribute significantly to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 

in any downwind state. In addition, 

EPA has supplemented its evaluation of 

New Mexico’s submittal with a review 

of the monitors in other states that are 

appropriate ‘‘nonattainment receptors’’ 

or ‘‘maintenance receptors,’’ and 

additional technical information in 

considering whether sources in New 

Mexico contribute significantly to 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 48 / Tuesday, March 12, 2013 / Proposed Rules 15667 

8EPA has also considered potential PM2.5

transport from New Mexico to the nearest 

nonattainment and maintenance receptors located 

in the eastern, midwestern and southern states 

covered by the Transport Rule and believes it is 

reasonable to conclude that, given the significant 

distance from New Mexico to the nearest such 

receptor (in Illinois) and the relatively insignificant 

amount of emissions from New Mexico that could 

potentially be transported such a distance, 

emissions from New Mexico sources do not 

significantly contribute to nonattainment or 

interfere with maintenance of the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS at this location. These same factors 

also support a finding that emissions from New 

Mexico sources neither contribute significantly to 

nonattainment nor interfere with maintenance of 

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

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

9Because CAIR did not cover states in the 

western United States, these data are not 

significantly impacted by the remanded CAIR at the 

time and thus could be considered in this analysis. 

In contrast, recent air quality data in the eastern, 

midwestern and southern states are significantly 

impacted by reductions associated with CAIR. 

10EPA did not identify any nonattainment 

receptors in Arizona, Oklahoma, Texas, or 

Colorado. 

11Of these more distant seven states, EPA did not 

identify any nonattainment receptors in Wyoming. 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 

in other states. 

Our Technical Support Document 

(TSD) contains a more detailed 

evaluation and is available in the public 

docket for this rulemaking, which may 

be accessed online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, Docket No. EPA– 

R06–OAR–2009–0710. We provide 

below a summary of our analysis. 

A. Identification of Nonattainment and 

Maintenance Receptors 

EPA evaluated data from existing 

monitors over three overlapping 3-year 

periods (i.e., 2006–2008, 2007–2009, 

and 2008–2010) to determine which 

areas were violating the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS and which areas might have 

difficulty maintaining attainment. If a 

monitoring site measured a violation of 

the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS during the most 

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

this monitor location was evaluated for 

purposes of the significant contribution 

to nonattainment element of section 

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

a monitoring site shows attainment of 

the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS during the most 

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

violation in at least one of the previous 

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

2009), then this monitor location was 

evaluated for purposes of the interfere 

with maintenance element of the 

statute. 

The western United States were not 

included in the CAIR and the Transport 

Rule analyses. The approach described 

above is similar to the approach utilized 

by EPA in promulgating the CAIR and 

the Transport Rule by identifying the 

areas/receptors of concern for use in 

evaluating interstate transport. By this 

method, EPA has identified those areas 

with monitors to be considered 

‘‘nonattainment receptors’’ or 

‘‘maintenance receptors’’ for evaluating 

whether the emissions from sources in 

another state could significantly 

contribute to nonattainment in, or 

interfere with maintenance in, that 

particular area. 

B. Evaluation of Significant 

Contribution to Nonattainment 

EPA reviewed the portion of the State 

of New Mexico’s June 12, 2009 

submission addressing 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

and corresponding technical analysis for 

the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, with EPA’s 

supplemental analysis and additional 

technical information to evaluate the 

potential for New Mexico emissions to 

contribute significantly to 

nonattainment of the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS at specified monitoring sites in 

the western United States.8 EPA first 

identified as ‘‘nonattainment receptors’’ 

all monitoring sites in the western states 

that had recorded PM2.5 design values 

above the level of the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS (35 mg/m3) during the years 

2008–2010.9 See Section III of the TSD 

for a more detailed description of EPA’s 

methodology for selection of 

nonattainment receptors. Because 

geographic distance is a relevant factor 

in the assessment of potential pollution 

transport, (See footnotes 5 and 6), EPA 

initially focused its review on 

information related to potential 

transport of PM2.5 pollution from New 

Mexico to potential nonattainment 

receptors in the states bordering New 

Mexico: Arizona, Utah, Colorado, 

Oklahoma, and Texas.10 Of these 

bordering states, EPA identified only 

Utah as having a nonattainment 

receptor. As detailed in the TSD, EPA 

believes that the following factors 

support a finding that emissions from 

New Mexico do not significantly 

contribute to nonattainment of the 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS in Utah: (1) Technical 

information indicating that elevated 

PM2.5 levels at nonattainment receptors 

are predominantly caused by local 

emission sources, (2) air quality data 

indicating that regional background 

levels of PM2.5 are generally low during 

the time periods of elevated PM2.5 at 

these receptors, (3) the distance to the 

receptor in the northwest quadrant of 

Utah, and (4) the presence of significant 

terrain, which creates a physical 

impediment to pollution transport. 

EPA also evaluated potential PM2.5

transport to potential nonattainment 

receptors in the more distant western 

states of California, Nevada, Oregon, 

Washington, Idaho, Wyoming, and 

Montana.11 EPA believes that the 

following factors support a finding that 

emissions from New Mexico do not 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment of the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS in any of these states 

(excluding California): (1) The 

significant distance from the State of 

New Mexico to the nonattainment 

receptors in these states, (2) technical 

information indicating that elevated 

PM2.5 levels at nonattainment receptors 

in these states are predominantly caused 

by local emission sources, (3) air quality 

data indicating that regional background 

levels of PM2.5 are generally low during 

the time periods of elevated PM2.5 at 

these receptors, and (4) the presence of 

significant terrain, which creates a 

physical impediment to pollution 

transport. With respect to California, 

technical information indicating that 

elevated PM2.5 levels at the 

nonattainment receptors are 

predominantly caused by local emission 

sources and that the dominant air flows 

across California are from the west to 

the east support a finding that emissions 

from the state of New Mexico do not 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment of the 2006 PM2.5

standards in California. 

Based on evaluation of New Mexico’s 

technical analysis for the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS, with EPA’s supplemental 

analysis and additional technical 

information, EPA proposes to conclude 

that emissions from sources in the State 

of New Mexico do not significantly 

contribute to nonattainment of the 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS in any other state and 

that CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

therefore does not require New Mexico 

to adopt additional controls and submit 

them to EPA for approval as part of the 

New Mexico SIP for purposes of 

implementing the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

C. Evaluation of Interference With 

Maintenance 

EPA reviewed the portion of the State 

of New Mexico’s June 12, 2009 

submission addressing 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

and corresponding technical analysis for 

the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, with EPA’s 

supplemental analysis and additional 

technical information to evaluate the 

potential for New Mexico emissions to 

interfere with maintenance of the 2006 

PM2.5 standards at specified monitoring 

sites in the western United States. EPA 

first identified as ‘‘maintenance 

receptors’’ all monitoring sites in the 

western states that had recorded PM2.5

design values above the level of the 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
15668 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 48 / Tuesday, March 12, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS (35 mg/m3) during 

the 2006–2008 and/or 2007–2009 

periods but below this standard during 

the 2008–2010 period. See section IV of 

the TSD for more information regarding 

EPA’s methodology for selection of 

maintenance receptors. All of the 

maintenance receptors in the western 

states are located in California, Utah, 

and Arizona. EPA therefore evaluated 

the potential for transport of New 

Mexico emissions to the maintenance 

receptors located in Arizona, California, 

and Utah. As detailed in the TSD, EPA 

believes that the following factors 

support a finding that emissions from 

sources in the State of New Mexico do 

not interfere with maintenance of the 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in Arizona and 

Utah: (1) The significant distance from 

the State of New Mexico and the sources 

of New Mexico’s PM2.5 pollution to the 

maintenance receptors in these states, 

(2) technical information indicating that 

elevated PM2.5 levels at maintenance 

receptors in these states are 

predominantly caused by local emission 

sources, (3) air quality data indicating 

that regional background levels of PM2.5

are generally low during the time 

periods of elevated PM2.5 at these 

receptors, and (4) the presence of 

significant terrain, which creates a 

physical impediment to pollution 

transport. With respect to California, 

technical information indicating that 

elevated PM2.5 levels at the maintenance 

receptors are predominantly caused by 

local emission sources and that the 

dominant air flows across California are 

from the west to the east support a 

finding that emissions from sources in 

the state of New Mexico do not interfere 

with maintenance of the 2006 PM2.5

standards in California. 

Based on this evaluation of New 

Mexico’s corresponding technical 

analysis for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, 

with EPA’s supplemental analysis and 

additional technical information, EPA 

proposes to conclude that emissions 

from sources in the State of New Mexico 

do not interfere with maintenance of the 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in any other state 

and that CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

therefore does not require New Mexico 

to adopt additional controls and submit 

them to EPA for approval as part of the 

New Mexico SIP for purposes of 

implementing the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

D. Section 110(l) of the Act 

Section 110(l) of the Act prohibits 

EPA from approving any SIP revision 

that would interfere with any applicable 

requirement concerning attainment and 

reasonable further progress or any other 

applicable requirement of the Act. The 

June 12, 2009 SIP submittal from the 

State of New Mexico contains no new 

regulatory provisions and does not 

affect any requirement in New Mexico’s 

applicable implementation plan. 

Therefore, the submission does not 

interfere with any applicable 

requirement concerning attainment and 

reasonable further progress or any other 

applicable requirement of the Act. EPA 

has concluded, based on New Mexico’s 

technical analysis for the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS, and EPA’s additional analysis 

and technical information, that the 

existing SIP for the State of New Mexico 

is sufficient to meet the requirements of 

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

III. Proposed Action 

We are proposing to approve a portion 

of a SIP submittal for the State of New 

Mexico submitted by the Governor on 

June 12, 2009, to address interstate 

transport for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Based on EPA’s evaluation of the State’s 

technical analysis addressing the 

requirements of CAA section 

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

NAAQS, with EPA’s additional analysis 

and technical information, we propose 

to approve the portion of the SIP 

submittal determining the existing SIP 

for New Mexico contains adequate 

provisions to prohibit air emissions 

from contributing significantly to 

nonattainment or interfering with 

maintenance of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 

in any other state as required by CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). This action is 

being taken under section 110 of the 

Act. 

IV. 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 

proposes to approve 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 proposed 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, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: February 25, 2013. 

Ron Curry, 

Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

[FR Doc. 2013–05663 Filed 3–11–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS