### ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFRPart 52 EPA-R06-0AR-2007-0993; FRL- -----' Approval and Promulgation ofImplementation Plans; New Mexico; Interstate Transport ofPollution

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).



### ACTION: Direct final rule.



### SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State ofNew Mexico for the purpose of addressing the "good neighbor" provisions ofthe Clean Air Act (CAA) section 11O(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 ozone standards and the 1997 PM2.5 standards. This SIP revision satisfies a portion ofthe State ofNew Mexico's obligation to submit a SIP revision that demonstrates that adequate provisions are in place to prohibit air emissions from adversely affecting another state's air quality through interstate transport.. This rulemaking action is being taken under section 110 ofthe CAA and addresses one element of CAA section 110 (a)(2)(D)(i), which pertains to prohibiting air pollutant emissions from within New Mexico from significantly contributing to nonattainment ofthe ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS in any state.



### DATES: This direct final rule will be effective 

### [Insert date 60 days from date ofpublication in the Federal Register] without further notice unless EPA receives relevant adverse comments2 by [Insert date 30 days from date ofpublication in the Federal Register]. Ifadverse comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal ofthe direct final rule in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submityour comments, identified by DocketNo. EPA-R06-0AR-2007-0993, by one ofthe following methods:

• Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

• Followthe 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 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 of8 a.m. and 4 p.m. weekdays, and not on legal holidays. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries ofboxed information.3 Instructions: Direct your comments to DocketNo. 

### EPA-R06-0AR-2007-0993. 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 commentincludes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)

or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that 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 contact informationunless 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 cannotread your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contactyou 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 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 FOIA4 Review Room between the hours of8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. weekdays except for legal holidays. Contactthe person listed in the FORFURTHERINFORMATION 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 centper page fee for making photocopies ofdocuments. 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 New Mexico EnvironmentDepartment, Air Quality Bureau, 1190 St. Francis Drive, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87502.

FOR FURTHERINFORMATION CONTACT: Emad Shahin, Air Planning Section (6PDL), Environmental ProtectionAgency, 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: 1. WhatAction is EPA Taking? II. What is a SIP? III. What is the Background for this Action? IV. What is EPA's Evaluation ofthe State's Submission?5 V. Final Action VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What Action is EPA Taking? We are approving a submission from the State ofNew Mexico demonstrating that New Mexico has adequately addressed one ofthe required elements of the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), the elementthat prohibits air pollutant emissions from sources within a state from significantly contributing to nonattainment ofthe relevant NAAQS in any other state. We have determined that emissions from sources in New Mexico do not significantly contribute to nonattainment ofthe 1997 ozone standards or ofthe 1997 PM2.5 standards in any other state. The remaining three elements ofsection 11O(a)(2)(D) are SIPs addressing: (i) interference with the maintenance ofthe NAAQS in any other state; (ii) interference with measures required to prevent significant deterioration ofair quality in any other state; and (iii) interference with

measures required to protect visibility in any other state. The aforementioned 3 elements will be evaluated and addressed in future rulemakings. EPA is publishing this rule withoutpriorproposal because we view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section ofthis Federal Registerpublication, we are publishing a separate documentthat will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision ifadverse comments are received. This rule will be effective on [FEDERAL REGISTER OFFICE: insert date 60 days from date of publication in the Federal Register] without further notice unless we receive adverse comment by [FEDERAL REGISTER OFFICE: insert date 30 days from date ofpublication in the Federal Register). Ifwe receive adverse comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the6 FederalRegisterinforming the public that the rule will not take effect. We will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. We will not institute a second commentperiod on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. Please note that ifwe receive adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and ifthat provision may be severed from the remainder ofthe rule, we may adopt as final those provisions ofthe rule "that are not the subject ofan adverse comment.

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 oftheCAA. Currently, the NAAQS address six criteriapollutants: carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, lead, particulate matter, and sulfurdioxide. The plan developed by a state is referred to as the state implementationplan (SIP). 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 certainprohibited impacts upon the ambient air in other states through interstate transport ofpollutants. This SIP requirement is specified in

### 7 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 ofa new or revised NAAQS. Each state must submit these revisions to EPA for approval and incorporation into the federally-enforceable SIP.



### III. Whatis the Background for this Action? On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated new standards for 8-hour ozone and fine particulate matter (PM2.s). 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)(l) 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 110(a)(2)(D)(i) which pertains to interstate transport ofcertain emissions. On August 15, 2006, EPA issued its "Guidance for State ImplementationPlan (SIP) Submission to Meet Current Outstanding Obligations Under Section 11O(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8- Hour Ozone and PM2.s National Ambient Air Quality Standards" ("Guidance") for SIP submissions that states should use to address the requirements ofsection 110(a)(2)(D)(i). EPA developed this guidance to make recommendations to states for making submissions to meet the8 requirements ofsection 110(a)(2)(D) for the 1997 8-hour ozone standards and 1997 PM2.5 standards. On September 17,2007, we received a SIP revision from the State ofNew Mexico 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 submittal follows EPA's Guidance. As identified in the Guidance, the "good neighbor" provisions in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) require each State to submit a SIP that prohibits emissions that adversely affect another state in the ways contemplated in the statute. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) contains four distinct requirements related to the impacts of interstate transport; however, in this rulemaking EPA is addressing only the requirement that pertains to preventing sources in the state from emitting pollutants in amounts which will contribute significantly to nonattainrnent ofthe 1997 8-hour ozone standards and 1997 PM2.5 standards in any other state. In its submission, the State ofNew Mexico indicated that its current SIP is adequate to prevent such significant contribution to nonattainrnent in any other state, and thus no additional emissions controls are necessary at this time to alleviate interstate transport.



### IV. What is EPA's Evaluation of the State's Submission? In accordance with EPA's Guidance, the State ofNewMexico has made a SIP submission addressing interstate transport for the 1997 8-hour ozone standards and 1997 PM2.5 standards. The State has made a showing that emissions from New Mexico do not significantly contribute to violations ofeitherNAAQS in other states by two different means. For**PM2.~** the State has relied primarily upon technical analysis performed by EPA in connection with another regional rulemaking that addresses interstate transport. For ozone, the State has relied primarily

on additional modeling to address the extent ofinterstate transport. We believe that the

### 9 submission adequately establishes that emissions from New Mexico do not significantly contribute to violations ofeither NAAQS in other states, for the reasons explained below. To support a determination ofno "significantcontribution" for the 1997 PM2.5 standards, the state has relied on EPA's Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR)l 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 PM2.5standards 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 PM2.5and 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 ofemissions from States without CAIR controls applied on areas projected in PM2.5 nonattainment in 2010. A maximum impact level of0.15 ug/m" 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/nr'). EPA's modeling indicated that the maximum impact from emissions from sources in New Mexico on any projected nonattainment area in another state was 0.03 ug/nr'. This value is 20% ofthe significant impact level that EPA used in the CAIR proposal, and therefore EPA determined that emissions from the state ofNew Mexico do not

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 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 a replacement rule to address interstate transport for the 1997 8-hourozone and 1997 PM2.5 standards. We do not believe that the CAIR remand affects New Mexico's reliance on EPA's CAIR analysis for the purpose ofevaluating New Mexico'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 of the CAIRrules, EPA's reliance on the maximum impact level of0.20 ug/nr' as the cutofffor the inclusion ofa state in the CAIRregion was upheld by the court. Therefore, with respect to the 1997 PM2.5 standards, we believe that New Mexico's submission adequately establishes that sources in that state are not significantly contributing to violations ofthat NAAQS in any other state. To support a determination ofno "significantcontribution" for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, New Mexico 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 provided an additional modeling analysis ofthe impact ofemissions 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. The modeling relied upon by the state is described in greater detail in its technical support document in the submission, and is available at www.regulations.gov, DocketNo. EPA-11 R06-0AR-2007-0993. We note that EPA assisted the state with this analysis, including the development ofthe modeling demonstration. In order to develop a model scenario that could evaluate New Mexico's impacts, the state and EPA determinedthat 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 ofNew Mexico emissions sources 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, as New Mexico's 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. In other words, ifdata from 2002 establishthat there is

no significant contributionto violations ofthe 1997 8-hour ozone standards in other states, then New Mexico sources would have even lower impacts currently and consequently no significant contribution. In the Guidance, we recommended a number ofways that states might electto evaluate whether or not there is significant contribution, and we suggested that states might consider assessing the potential for contribution using assumptions similarto those used by EPA in CAIR. The state'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 contribution, (b) the frequency ofthe contribution, and (c) the relative amount ofcontribution. The additional modeling yielded consistentresults showing New Mexico emissions do not contribute12 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 DallaslFort Worth. New Mexico's highest impact on the DallaslFort 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 consideredto be small and 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 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 2010 ozone season for the 84 ppb standard. Since based on preliminary 2007-2009 data, Denveris attaining the standard, New Mexico's emissions should not be considered as contributing to nonattainment in Denver.

### 13 With respectto the 1997 8-hour ozone standards, we believe that New Mexico's submission adequately establishes that sources in that state 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. Final Action We are approving revisions to the New Mexico SIP which adequately demonstrates that air pollutant emissions from sources within New Mexico do not significantly to nonattainment of the relevant NAAQAS on any other state. Based on the information provided by NMED in the technical demonstration, it has sufficiently been demonstrated that emissions from New Mexico do not significantly contribute to downwind nonattainment. Thus, EPA concludes that the New Mexico SIP complies with CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).



### VI. Statutory and Executive OrderReviews Underthe Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submissionthat 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 meetthe criteria ofthe Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action: • is not a "significantregulatory action" subjectto review by the Office ofManagement and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October4, 1993);14 • 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 subjectto 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). 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.15 The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 

### et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy ofthe rule, to each House ofthe Congress and to the Comptroller General ofthe United States. EPA will submit areport containing this action and other required informationto the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House ofRepresentatives, and the Comptroller General ofthe United States prior to publication ofthe rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannottake effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a "major rule" as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).Under section 307(b)(1) ofthe Clean Air Act, petitions forjudicial review ofthis action must be filed in the United States Court ofAppeals for the appropriate circuitby [FEDERAL REGISTER OFFICE: insert date 60 days from date ofpublication of this document in the Federal Register]. Filing a petition for reconsiderationby the Administrator ofthis final rule does not affectthe finality ofthis action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition forjudicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness ofsuch rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)16

List ofSubjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

Dated: Al Armendariz Regional Administrator, Region 617

40 CFRPart 52 is amended as follows: PART 52 - [AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.c. 7401 

### etseq. Subpart GG - New Mexico 2. The secondtable in § 52.1620(e) entitled "EPA Approved Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures in the New Mexico SIP" is amended by adding an entry to the end to read as follows: § 52.1620 Identification ofplan.



## ***** (e) 

## *** EPA ApprovedNonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures in the New Mexico SIP 

### I State Applicable geographic submittal/effective Name ofSIP provision or nonattainment area date EPA approval date Explanation 

### *** **** CAA 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) New Mexico 09/17/07 [insert date ofFR SIP - Interstate Transport publication] [insert FR page number where the document begins]