### ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFRPart 52 EPA-R06-0AR-2007-1119; FRL- -' Approval and Promulgation ofImplementation Plans; Albuquerque/Bernalillo County, New Mexico; Interstate Transport ofPollution

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).



### ACTION: Proposed rule.



### SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to approve a revision to the Albuquerque/Bernalillo County, New Mexico State Implementation Plan (SIP) to address the "good neighbor" provisions ofthe Clean Air Act (CAA) section 11O(a)(2)(D)(i), for the 1997 ozone standards and the 1997 PM 2.5 standards as it applies to Albuquerque/Bernalillo county. The revision addresses one elementofCAA section 11O(a)(2)(D)(i), which pertains to prohibiting air pollutant emissions from within a state to significantly contribute to nonattainment ofthe ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS in any state. The Albuquerque/Bernalillo Air Quality Control Board (AQCB) is responsible for the portion ofthe New Mexico SIP that applies in Bernalillo County, which encompasses the City ofAlbuquerque. This rulemaking action is being taken under section 110 ofthe CAA.



### DATES: Comments must be received on or before 

### [Insertdate 30 days from date of publication in the Federal Register].2 

### ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by DocketNo. 

### EPA-R06-0AR-2007-1119, by one ofthe following methods: • Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

• Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. • EPA Region 6 "ContactUs" Web site: http://epa.gov/region6/r6coment.htm. Please click on "6PD (Multimedia)" and select "Air" before submitting comments. • E-mail: Mr. Guy Donaldson at donaldson.guy@epa.gov. Please also send a copy by e-mail to the person listed in the 

### FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT sectionbelow. • Fax: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD-L), at fax number 214- 665-7263. • Mail: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. • Hand or Courier Delivery: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. Such deliveries are accepted only between the hours of8 a.m. and 4 p.m. weekdays, and not on legal holidays. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries ofboxed information. Instructions: Directyour comments to DocketNo. 

### EPA-R06-0AR-2007-1119. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal informationprovided, unless the commentincludes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submitinformation that

### 3 you considerto be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The www.regulations.gov web site is an "anonymous access" system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contactinformation unless you provide it in the body ofyour comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part ofthe commentthat is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. Ifyou submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body ofyour comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. IfEPA cannot read yourcomment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider yourcomment. Electronic files should avoid the use ofspecial characters, any form of encryption, and be free ofany defects or viruses. Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Planning Section (6PDL), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. The file will be made available by appointment for public inspection in the Region 6 FOIA Review Room betweenthe hours of8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. weekdays except for legal holidays. Contactthe person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT paragraph below or Mr. Bill Deese at 214-665-7253 to make an appointment. Ifpossible, please make the appointment at least two working days in advance ofyour visit. There will be a 15 cent per page

### 4 fee for making photocopies ofdocuments. On the day ofthe visit, please checkin at the EPA Region 6 reception area at 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. The State submittal is also available for public inspection during official business hours, by appointment, at the City ofAlbuquerque, Environmental HealthDepartment, One Civic Plaza, Albuquerque, NM 87102

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Emad Shahin, Air Planning Section (6PDL), 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 a SIP? III. What is the Background for this Action? IV. What is EPA's Evaluation ofthe Submittal? V. Proposed Action VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews5 I. What Action is EPA Taking? We are proposing to approve a revision to the New Mexico State Implementation Plan

.(SIP) to address the "good neighbor" provisions ofthe Clean Air Act (CAA) section

110(a)(2)(D)(i), for the 1997 ozone standards and the 1997 PM2.5 standards for Albuquerque/Bernalillo County, demonstrating that one ofthe required elements ofthe CAA section 11O(a)(2)(D)(i) has been met. The SIP revision demonstrates in partthat air pollutant emissions from sources within Albuquerque/Bernalillo County do not significantly contribute to nonattainment ofthe relevantNAAQS in any other state. Therefore, we have determined that emissions from sources in Albuquerque/Bernalillo County do not significantly contribute to nonattainment ofthe 1997 ozone standards or ofthe 1997 PM 2.5 standards in any other state. In

a separate action, EPA approved this revision for the remainder ofthe State. (75 FR 33174). The remaining three elements ofsection 11O(a)(2)(D): (1) interference with the maintenance of the NAAQS in any other state; (2) interference with measures required to prevent significant deterioration ofair quality in any other state; and (3) interference with measures required to protect visibility in any other state will be evaluated and addressed in future rulemakings.

II. What is a SIP? Section 11O(a)ofthe CAA requires each state to develop a plan that provides for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement ofthe national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). EPA establishes NAAQS under section 109 ofthe CAA. Currently, the NAAQS address six criteriapollutants: carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, lead, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide. The plan developed by a state is referred to as the state implementationplan (SIP).

### 6 The contentofthe SIP is specified in section 110 ofthe CAA, other provisions ofthe CAA, and applicable regulations. SIPs can be extensive, containing state regulations or other enforceable

measures and various types ofsupporting information, such as emissions inventories, monitoring networks, and modeling demonstrations. A primary purpose ofthe SIP is to provide the air pollution regulations, control strategies, and other means or techniques developed by the state to ensure that the ambient air within that state meets the NAAQS. However, another important aspect ofthe SIP is to ensure that emissions from within the state do not have certain prohibited impacts upon the ambient air in other states through interstate transport ofpollutants. This SIP requirement is specified in section 110(a)(2)(D). Pursuantto that provision, each state's SIP must contain provisions adequate to prevent, among other things, emissions that significantly contribute to violations of the NAAQS in any other state. States are required to update or revise SIPs under certain circumstances. One such circumstance is EPA's promulgation ofa new or revisedNAAQS. Each state must submitthese revisions to EPA for approval and incorporation into the federally-enforceable SIP.

III. What is the Background for this Action? For air quality purposes, Albuquerque/Bernalillo County operates the same way as a state. The EPA treats and funds Albuquerque/Bernalillo County as it does states. Enacted in 1967, the New Mexico Air Quality Control Act allowed the establishmentofthe Albuquerque/Bernalillo County AQCB as a local board and gave it authority to administer and enforce its air quality regulations within the AlbuquerquelBernalillo County boundaries. The AQCB has air qualityjurisdiction over all ofBernalillo County, which encompasses the City of7 Albuquerque. The AQCB has the responsibility to adopt and implement the SIP as it applies to Bernalillo County. Therefore, AQCB has the responsibility to address 11O(a)(2)(D)elements within Bernalillo county. The State ofNew Mexico Environmental Improvement Board has jurisdiction over all counties in New Mexico except Bernalillo County. The City of Albuquerque Environmental Health Department, Air Quality Division administers and staffs the air quality program for Albuquerque/Bernalillo County. On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated new standards for 8-hour ozone and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) . This action is being taken in response to the July 18, 1997, revision to the 8-hour

ozone standards and PM 2.5 standards. This action does not address the requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 standards or the 2008 8-hour ozone standards; those standards will be addressed in a later action. Section 110(a)(1) ofthe CAA requires states to submit SIPs to address a new or revised NAAQS within 3 years after promulgation ofsuch standards, or within such shorterperiod as EPA may prescribe. Section 11O(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 ofcertain emissions. On August 15, 2006, EPA issued its "Guidance for State Implementation Plan (SIP) Submission to Meet Current Outstanding Obligations Under Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8- Hour Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards" ("Guidance") for SIP submissions that states should use to address the requirements ofsection 11O(a)(2)(D)(i). EPA developed this guidance to make recommendations to states for making submissions to meet the requirements ofsection 110(a)(2)(D) for the 1997 8-hour ozone standards and 1997 PM2.5 standards.8 EPA received a SIP revision adopted by AQCB on September 12,2007, to address the requirements ofsection 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for both the 1997 8-hour ozone standards and 1997 PM2.5 standards. This SIP revision follows EPA's Guidance. As identified in the Guidance, the "good neighbor" provisions in section 11O(a)(2)(D)(i) require each state to submit a SIP thatprohibits emissions that adversely affect another state in the ways contemplated in the statute. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) contains four distinctrequirements related to the impacts of interstate transport; however, in this rulemaking EPA is addressing only the requirementthat pertains to preventing sources in one state from emitting pollutants in amounts that will contribute significantly to nonattainment ofthe 1997 8-hour ozone standards and 1997 PM2.5 standards in any other state. The Albuquerque/Bernalillo County submission relies on the same technical demonstration used by New Mexico Environment Department, which shows that emissions from the State ofNew Mexico, including Albuquerque/Bernalillo County, do not contribute to nonattainment in another state. Thus, the submission indicates thatthe current SIP is adequate to prevent significant contribution from the Albuquerque/Bernalillo County to nonattainment in any other state. Thus, no additional emissions controls are necessary at this time to alleviate interstate transport from sources in Albuquerque/Bernalillo County.

IV. What is EPA's Evaluation ofthe Submittal? In accordance with EPA's Guidance, the SIP revision addresses interstate transport for the 1997 8-hour ozone standards and 1997 PM2.5 standards. The SIP revision makes a showing that emissions from Albuquerque/Bernalillo County do not significantly contribute to violations ofeitherNAAQS in other states by two different means. For PM2.5,the revision relied primarily upon technical analysis performed by EPA in connection with another regional rulemaking that

### 9 addresses interstate transport. For ozone, the revision relied primarily on additional modeling to address the extent ofinterstate transport. We believe that the submission adequately establishes that emissions from Albuquerque/Bernalillo County do not significantly contribute to violations ofeitherNAAQS in other states, for the reasons explained below. To support a determination ofno "significant contribution" for the 1997 PM2.5 standards, the submission relied on EPA's Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR)! analysis. This approach is consistent with EPA's Guidance to states for this SIP submission. In CAIR, EPA evaluated which states significantly contribute to violations ofthe 1997 8-hour ozone standards and 1997 PM2.5 standards in other states. Based upon its analysis, EPA did not include New Mexico in the CAIR region. In the CAIR preamble, EPA provided its rationale for the exclusion ofthe western states, including New Mexico, from further consideration oftransport for 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 and the requirements ofCAIR. The "Technical Support Documentfor the Interstate Air Quality Rule Air Quality Modeling Analysis," January 2004 (available at http://www.epa.gov/cair/technical.html) contains documentation ofthe modeling used to support CAIR. This modeling included an analysis of the maximum impact ofemissions from states without CAIRcontrols applied on areas projected in PM2.5 nonattainment in 2010. A maximum impact level of0.15 ug/rrr' was considered significant for this analysis (Note- in the final CAIR EPA changed the maximum impact level for this significance test to 0.20 ug/rrr'). EPA's modeling indicated that the maximum impact from emissions from sources in New Mexico (including AlbuquerquelBernalillo County) on any projected nonattainment area in another state was 0.03 ug/m", This value is 20% ofthe See, "Rule to Reduce Interstate Transport ofFine Particulate Matter and Ozone (Clean Air Interstate Rule); Revisions to Acid Rain Program; Revisions to the NOx SIP Call; Final Rule," 70 FR 25162 (May 12,2005). Information regarding CAA section 110(a)(2)(D) SIPs can be found beginning ofpage 25263.10 significantimpact level that EPA used in the CAIR proposal, and therefore EPA determined that emissions from the State ofNew Mexico (including Albuquerque/Bernalillo County) do not significantly contribute to pollutant levels in any area projected to be nonattainment ofthe PM2.5 standard in that analysis. CAIR was remanded by the U.S. Court ofAppeals for the District ofColumbia, and EPA is currently in the process ofdeveloping areplacementrule to address interstate transport for the 1997 8-hour ozone and 1997 PM2.5standards. We do not believe that the CAIR remand affects EPA's CAIR analysis for the purpose ofevaluatingNew Mexico's and Albuquerque/Bernalillo County's PM 2.5 impacts on other states. Specifically, EPA's modeling

was conducted without including the impact ofany CAIR controls, and thus the evaluation is not impacted by any uncertainty in the implementation ofCAIR controls due to the remand. Also, despite remand ofthe CAIR rules, EPA's reliance on the maximum impact level of0.20 ug/m:' as the cutofffor the inclusion ofa state in the CAIRregion was upheld by the court. Therefore, with respectto the 1997 PM2.5 standards, we believe that the submission adequately establishes that sources in that State, including Albuquerque/Bernalillo County, are not significantly contributing to violations ofthat NAAQS in any other state. To support a determination ofno "significantcontribution" for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, AQCB could notrely upon EPA's CAIR analysis because western states including New Mexico were not included in the area modeled for ozone. Instead, New Mexico and AQCB provided an additional modeling analysis ofthe impactofemissions from the State on projected 8-hour ozone nonattainment in downwind states. We note that modeling is not necessarily required to supportthis type ofSIP submission, but this approach is consistentwith EPA's Guidance to states for this SIP submission.11 The modeling relied upon by AQCB is described in greater detail in its technical support document in the submission, and is available at www.regulations.gov, DocketNo. EPA-R06- OAR-2007-1119. We note that EPA assisted the State and AQCB with this analysis, including the development ofthe modeling demonstration. 

### Inorder to develop a model scenario that could evaluate New Mexico's impacts, the State and EPA determined that it was appropriate to rely on data developed by the Central Regional Air Planning Association (CENRAP). Modeling was conducted using a 2002 third quarter CENRAP modeling dataset that includedNew Mexico in the modeling domain. While a more recent dataset might be assumed to be more appropriate to support this action, a 2010 dataset was not available from CENRAP. However, we believe that the use ofthe 2002 dataset is adequate to evaluate the degree ofcontribution ofemission sources in Albuquerque/Bernalillo County, to violations ofthe 1997 8-hour ozone standards. Because the analysis is based on year 2002 emissions, we believe it is a conservative estimate ofpotential transport impacts in 2010 because emissions have been decreasing since 2002 due to various recent federal control programs (including On-Road and Nonroad reductions). This trend is confirmed by available 2005 inventory. 

### Inother words, ifdata from 2002 establish that there is

no significant contributionto violations ofthe 1997 8-hour ozone standards in other states, then Albuquerque/Bernalillo County would have even lower impacts in 2010 and consequently no significant contribution. 

### Inthe Guidance, we recommended a number ofways that states might elect to evaluate whether or not there is significant contribution, and we suggestedthat states might consider assessing the potential for contribution using assumptions similar to those used by EPA in CAIR. The State's and AQCB's analysis considered three factors comparable to those used by EPA as screening criteriain determining significance for states in CAIR: (a) the magnitude ofthe12 contribution, (b) the frequency ofthe contribution, and (c) the relative amount ofcontribution. The additional modeling yielded consistentresults showingNew Mexico emissions, including Albuquerque/Bernalillo County do not contribute significantly to 8-hour ozone nonattainment in any ofthe areas analyzed. New Mexico's highest overall contributionto total nonattainment for any nonattainment area at the time ofthe modeling was for DallasIFort Worth. New Mexico's highest impact on the DallasIFort Worth area was a daily average contribution of0.4%, with a contribution average of0.4 ppb. By EPA's own metrics (as established in CAIR and upheld by the court), these impacts are considered to be small, infrequent, and well below screening criteria established at 1% and 2 ppb, respectively. Moreover, not a single metric ofthe three contribution factors was found to be above the significance threshold established by EPA for any ofthe downwind counties. For more details please see the document titled "Modeling Data and Report forNew Mexico from EPA Regions 6 and 7" that is included in the docket materials for this action. At the time the modeling was performed, Denver's air quality was meeting the standard. (The 2004-2006 8-Hour Ozone Design Value (DV) was 81 ppb). Therefore, the State and AQCB did not evaluate New Mexico's ozone impacts on Denver. Denverhad a very high ozone season in 2007 that temporarily pushed the area into nonattainment. The preliminary 2007-2009 DV (awaiting final data validation) is 82 ppb so the area appears to now be back in attainment. The preliminary 2007-2009 DV is based upon 4th High values of90 ppb in 2007, 79 ppb in 2008, and 79 ppb in 2009 (preliminary). With the last two 4th Highs of79 ppb, Denver would have to monitor a 4th High value of97 ppb in 2010 to go back into nonattainment for the period 2008- 2010. Denver has not had a 4th High value ofmore than 92 ppb in the last 15 years, so it is unlikely that Denver will be in nonattainment at the end ofthe 20 I0 ozone season for the 84 ppb13 standard. Based on preliminary 2007-2009 data, Denver is attaining the standard, so Albuquerque/Bernalillo County emissions should not be considered as contributing to nonattainment in Denver. With respect to the 1997 8-hour ozone standards, we believe that the submission adequately establishes that sources in Albuquerque/Bernalillo County are not significantly contributing to violations ofthat NAAQS in any other state. As noted previously, EPA will be acting on the other elements ofSection 110(a)(2)(D)(i) in separate rulemakings.



### V. Proposed Action We are proposing to approve a revision to the New Mexico SIP which adequately demonstrates that air pollutant emissions from sources within Albuquerque/Bernalillo County do

not significantly contribute to nonattainment ofthe relevantNAAQS on any other state. Informationprovided by New Mexico Environment Department and AQCB in the technical demonstration sufficiently demonstrates that emissions from Albuquerque/Bernalillo County do not significantly contribute to downwind nonattainment. Thus, EPA concludes that the New Mexico SIP as it pertains to AlbuquerquelBernalillo County complies with CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).



### VI. Statutory and Executive OrderReviews Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions ofthe 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 ofthe Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action14 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 "significantregulatory action" subjectto review by the Office ofManagement and Budgetunder Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October4, 1993); • does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions ofthe Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); • is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number ofsmall entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); • does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4); • does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999); • is not an economically significantregulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); • is not a significantregulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); • is not subject to requirements ofSection 12(d) ofthe National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application ofthose 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).15 In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.



### List ofSubjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, 

### IR8sFflsfatisR

# e,rfefefeRee,

# a.& Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

Dated: wrence E. Starfield**~--** Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6