```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 48 (Tuesday, March 12, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 15664-15668]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-05663]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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-

[[Page 15665]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ This 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 15666]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See NOX SIP Call, 63 FR 57371 (October 27, 1998); 
Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), 70 FR 25172 (May 12, 2005); and 
Transport Rule or Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, 76 FR 48208 
(August 8, 2011).
    \4\ CAIR 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See 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.
    \6\ See 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.
    \7\ The 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 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

[[Page 15667]]

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 [mu]g/m\3\) 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ EPA 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.
    \9\ Because 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.
    \10\ EPA did not identify any nonattainment receptors in 
Arizona, Oklahoma, Texas, or Colorado.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Of these more distant seven states, EPA did not identify 
any nonattainment receptors in Wyoming.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 15668]]

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS (35 [mu]g/m\3\) 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
```