ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

EPA-R06-0AR-2007-1119; FRL- -'

Approval and Promulgation ofImplementation Plans; Albuquerque/Bernalillo County,

New Mexico; Interstate Transport of Pollution

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to approve a revision to the Albuquerque/Bernalillo

County, New Mexico State Implementation Plan (SIP) to address the "good neighbor" provisions

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

element ofCAA 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 of Albuquerque. This rulemaking action is being taken under section 110 ofthe CAA.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before [Insert date 30 days from date of

publication in the Federal Register].
2

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. 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 "Contact Us" Web site: http://epa.gov/region6/r6coment.htm. Please

click on "6PD (Multimedia)" and select "Air" before submitting comments.

• E-mail: Mr. Guy Donaldson at donaldson.guy@epa.gov. Please also send a copy by

e-mail to the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section below.

• Fax: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD-L), at fax number 214-

665-7263.

• Mail: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD-L), Environmental

Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.

• Hand or Courier Delivery: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD-L),

Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas

75202-2733. Such deliveries are accepted only between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4

p.m. weekdays, and not on legal holidays. Special arrangements should be made for

deliveries of boxed information.

Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket No. EPA-R06-0AR-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 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
3

you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The

www.regulations.gov web site is an "anonymous access" system, which means EPA will not

know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If

you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov your

e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part ofthe 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. IfEPA 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 ofspecial characters, any form of

encryption, and be free of any 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 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
4

fee for making photocopies of documents. On the day ofthe visit, please check in at the EPA

Region 6 reception area at 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas.

The State submittal is also available for public inspection during official business hours, by

appointment, at the City of Albuquerque, Environmental Health Department, One Civic Plaza,

Albuquerque, NM 87102

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Emad Shahin, Air Planning Section (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 Reviews
5

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 part that air pollutant

emissions from sources within Albuquerque/Bernalillo County do not significantly contribute to

nonattainment ofthe relevant NAAQS 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 of air quality in any other state; and (3) interference with measures required to

protect visibility in any other state will be evaluated and addressed in future rulemakings.

II. What is a SIP?

Section 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 criteria pollutants: carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, lead, particulate

matter, and sulfur dioxide.

The plan developed by a state is referred to as the state implementation plan (SIP).
6

The content ofthe 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 of pollutants. This SIP requirement is specified in

section 110(a)(2)(D). Pursuant to that provision, each state's SIP must contain provisions

adequate to prevent, among other things, emissions that significantly contribute to violations of

the NAAQS in any other state.

States are required to update or revise SIPs under certain circumstances. One such

circumstance is EPA's promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS. Each state must submit these

revisions to EPA for approval and incorporation into the federally-enforceable SIP.

III. What is the Background for this Action?

For air quality purposes, Albuquerque/Bernalillo County operates the same way as a

state. The EPA treats and funds Albuquerque/Bernalillo County as it does states. Enacted in

1967, the New Mexico Air Quality Control Act allowed the establishment ofthe

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 quality jurisdiction over all ofBernalillo County, which encompasses the City of
7

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 shorter period as

EPA may prescribe. Section 11O(a)(2) lists the elements that such new SIPs must address, as

applicable, including section 11 0(a)(2)(D)(i), which pertains to interstate transport of certain

emissions. On August 15, 2006, EPA issued its "Guidance for State Implementation Plan (SIP)

Submission to Meet Current Outstanding Obligations Under Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-

Hour Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards" ("Guidance") for SIP

submissions that states should use to address the requirements 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 that prohibits

emissions that adversely affect another state in the ways contemplated in the statute.

Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) contains four distinct requirements related to the impacts of

interstate transport; however, in this rulemaking EPA is addressing only the requirement that

pertains to preventing sources in one state from emitting pollutants in amounts that will

contribute significantly to nonattainment 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 that the current SIP

is adequate to prevent significant contribution from the Albuquerque/Bernalillo County to

nonattainment in any other state. Thus, no additional emissions controls are necessary at this

time to alleviate interstate transport from sources in Albuquerque/Bernalillo County.

IV. What is EPA's Evaluation 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

of either NAAQS in other states by two different means. For PM2.5, the revision relied primarily

upon technical analysis performed by EPA in connection with another regional rulemaking that
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

of either NAAQS in other states, for the reasons explained below.

To support a determination of no "significant contribution" for the 1997 PM2.5 standards,

the submission relied on EPA's Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR)! 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 Document for 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 of emissions from states without CAIR controls applied on areas projected

in PM2.5 nonattainment in 2010. A maximum impact level of 0.15 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 of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone (Clean Air Interstate Rule);

Revisions to Acid Rain Program; Revisions to the NOx SIP Call; Final Rule," 70 FR 25162 (May 12,2005).

Information regarding CAA section 110(a)(2)(D) SIPs can be found beginning of page 25263.
10

significant impact 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 of Appeals for the District ofColumbia, and

EPA is currently in the process of developing a replacement rule to address interstate transport

for the 1997 8-hour ozone and 1997 PM2.5standards. We do not believe that the CAIR remand

affects EPA's CAIR analysis for the purpose of evaluating New Mexico's and

Albuquerque/Bernalillo County's PM 2.5 impacts on other states. Specifically, EPA's modeling

was conducted without including the impact of any CAIR controls, and thus the evaluation is not

impacted by any uncertainty in the implementation ofCAIR controls due to the remand. Also,

despite remand ofthe CAIR rules, EPA's reliance on the maximum impact level of 0.20 ug/m:'

as the cutoff for the inclusion of a state in the CAIR region was upheld by the court. Therefore,

with respect to the 1997 PM2.5 standards, we believe that the submission adequately establishes

that sources in that State, including Albuquerque/Bernalillo County, are not significantly

contributing to violations ofthat NAAQS in any other state.

To support a determination of no "significant contribution" for the 8-hour ozone

NAAQS, AQCB could not rely upon EPA's CAIR analysis because western states including

New Mexico were not included in the area modeled for ozone. Instead, New Mexico and AQCB

provided an additional modeling analysis ofthe impact of emissions from the State on projected

8-hour ozone nonattainment in downwind states. We note that modeling is not necessarily

required to support this type of SIP submission, but this approach is consistent with EPA's

Guidance to states for this SIP submission.
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, Docket No. 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 included New Mexico in

the modeling domain. While a more recent dataset might be assumed to be more appropriate to

support this action, a 2010 dataset was not available from CENRAP. However, we believe that

the use ofthe 2002 dataset is adequate to evaluate the degree of contribution of emission 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 of potential

transport impacts in 2010 because emissions have been decreasing since 2002 due to various

recent federal control programs (including On-Road and Nonroad reductions). This trend is

confirmed by available 2005 inventory. Inother words, if data from 2002 establish that there is

no significant contribution to 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 of ways that states might elect to evaluate

whether or not there is significant contribution, and we suggested that states might consider

assessing the potential for contribution using assumptions similar to those used by EPA in CAIR.

The State's and AQCB's analysis considered three factors comparable to those used by EPA as

screening criteria in determining significance for states in CAIR: (a) the magnitude ofthe
12

contribution, (b) the frequency ofthe contribution, and (c) the relative amount of contribution.

The additional modeling yielded consistent results showing New Mexico emissions, including

Albuquerque/Bernalillo County do not contribute significantly to 8-hour ozone nonattainment in

any ofthe areas analyzed. New Mexico's highest overall contribution to 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 of 0.4%, with a

contribution average of 0.4 ppb. By EPA's own metrics (as established in CAIR and upheld by

the court), these impacts are considered to be small, infrequent, and well below screening criteria

established at 1% and 2 ppb, respectively. Moreover, not a single metric 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 for New Mexico from EPA Regions 6 and 7" that is included in the docket materials for

this action.

At the time the modeling was performed, Denver's air quality was meeting the standard.

(The 2004-2006 8-Hour Ozone Design Value (DV) was 81 ppb). Therefore, the State and

AQCB did not evaluate New Mexico's ozone impacts on Denver. Denver had a very high ozone

season in 2007 that temporarily pushed the area into nonattainment. The preliminary 2007-2009

DV (awaiting final data validation) is 82 ppb so the area appears to now be back in attainment.

The preliminary 2007-2009 DV is based upon 4th High values 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 ppb
13

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 of Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) in separate rulemakings.

V. Proposed Action

We are proposing to approve a revision to the New Mexico SIP which adequately

demonstrates that air pollutant emissions from sources within Albuquerque/Bernalillo County do

not significantly contribute to nonattainment ofthe relevant NAAQS on any other state.

Information provided by New Mexico Environment Department and AQCB in the

technical demonstration sufficiently demonstrates that emissions from Albuquerque/Bernalillo

County do not significantly contribute to downwind nonattainment. Thus, EPA concludes that

the New Mexico SIP as it pertains to AlbuquerquelBernalillo County complies with CAA section

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

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP

submission that complies with the provisions 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 action
14

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 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 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) 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 of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, IR8sFflsfatisR e,r fefefeRee, a.&

Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

Dated: wrence E. Starfield

~-- Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6