Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 72 / Friday, April 13, 2012 / Proposed Rules 22249 

veterinary licensing and practice 

requirements. 

(2) The veterinarian must fully and 

accurately enter the following 

information on the VFD: 

(i) The veterinarian’s name, address, 

and telephone number; 

(ii) The client’s name, telephone 

number, and business or home address; 

(iii) The premises at which the 

animals specified in the VFD are 

located; 

(iv) The date of VFD issuance; 

(v) The expiration date of the VFD. 

This date cannot extend beyond the 

expiration date specified in the 

approval, conditional approval, or index 

listing, if such date is specified. In cases 

where the expiration date is not 

specified in the approval, conditional 

approval, or index listing, the expiration 

date of the VFD cannot exceed 6 months 

after the date of issuance; 

(vi) The name of the animal drug; 

(vii) The species and production class 

of animals to be fed the medicated feed; 

(viii) The approximate number of 

animals to be fed the medicated feed 

prior to the expiration date on the VFD; 

(ix) The indication for which the VFD 

is issued; 

(x) The level of drug in the feed and 

duration of use; 

(xi) The withdrawal time, special 

instructions, and cautionary statements 

necessary for use of the drug in 

conformance with the approval; 

(xii) The number of reorders (refills) 

authorized, if permitted by the drug 

approval, conditional approval, or index 

listing; 

(xiii) The statement: ‘‘Extralabel use 

(i.e., use of this VFD feed in a manner 

other than as directed on the labeling) 

is not permitted’’; and 

(xiv) The veterinarian’s electronic or 

written signature. 

(3) The veterinarian may, at his or her 

discretion, enter the following 

information on the VFD to more 

specifically identify the animals 

authorized to be treated/fed the 

medicated feed: 

(i) A more specific description of the 

location of animals (e.g., by site, pen, 

barn, stall, tank, or other descriptor that 

the veterinarian deems appropriate); 

(ii) The approximate age range of the 

animals; 

(iii) The approximate weight range of 

the animals; and 

(iv) Any other information the 

veterinarian deems appropriate to 

identify the animals specified in the 

VFD. 

(4) The veterinarian must send the 

VFD to the feed distributor via 

hardcopy, fax, or electronically. If in 

hardcopy, the veterinarian may send the 

VFD to the distributor either directly or 

through the client. 

(5) The veterinarian must provide a 

copy of the VFD to the client. 

(6) The veterinarian may not transmit 

a VFD by phone. 

(c) Responsibilities of any person who 

distributes an animal feed containing a 

VFD drug: 

(1) The distributor may only fill a 

VFD if the VFD contains the information 

required in § 558.6(b)(2). 

(2) The distributor may only 

distribute an animal feed containing a 

VFD drug that complies with the terms 

of the VFD. 

(3) A distributor of animal feed 

containing VFD drugs must notify FDA 

at the time it first distributes animal 

feed containing VFD drugs. The 

notification is required one time per 

distributor and must include the 

following information: 

(i) The distributor’s complete name 

and business address; 

(ii) The distributor’s signature or the 

signature of the distributor’s authorized 

agent; and 

(iii) The date the notification was 

signed; 

(4) A distributor must submit the 

notification by letter or facsimile to the 

Food and Drug Administration, Center 

for Veterinary Medicine, Division of 

Animal Feeds (HFV–220), 7519 

Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, prior 

to beginning its first distribution. 

(5) A distributor must notify the 

Center for Veterinary Medicine within 

30 days of any change in ownership, 

business name, or business address. 

(6) A distributor may only distribute 

a VFD feed to another person for further 

distribution if the distributor first 

obtains a written acknowledgment from 

the person to whom the feed is shipped 

stating that that person must not ship or 

move such feed to an animal production 

facility without a VFD, or ship such feed 

to another person for further 

distribution unless that person has 

provided the same written 

acknowledgment to the distributor’s 

immediate supplier. 

Dated: April 5, 2012. 

David Dorsey, 

Acting Associate Commissioner for Policy and 

Planning. 

[FR Doc. 2012–8844 Filed 4–11–12; 11:15 am] 

BILLING CODE 4160–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2009–0648; FRL–9658–2] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; New Mexico; 

Albuquerque/Bernalillo County: 

Infrastructure and Interstate Transport 

Requirements for the 1997 and 2008 

Ozone and the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

submittals from the Governor of New 

Mexico to the State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) for the City of Albuquerque/ 

Bernalillo County area, pursuant to the 

Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act) that 

address the infrastructure elements 

specified in the CAA section 110(a)(2), 

necessary to implement, maintain, and 

enforce the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone 

and the 1997 and 2006 fine particulate 

matter (PM2.5) national ambient air 

quality standards (NAAQS or 

standards). We are proposing to find 

that the current Albuquerque/Bernalillo 

County SIP meets the following 

infrastructure elements for the 1997 and 

2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS and the 

1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS: 

110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), 

(H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). We are also 

proposing to find that the current 

Albuquerque/Bernalillo County SIP 

meets one of the four provisions of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), which addresses 

the requirement that emissions from 

sources in the area do not interfere with 

measures required in the SIP of any 

other state under part C of the CAA to 

prevent significant deterioration (PSD) 

of air quality, with regard to the 1997 

and 2008 ozone and 1997 and 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is also proposing to 

approve SIP revisions that modify the 

PSD SIP to include nitrogen oxides 

(NOX) as an ozone precursor. For 

purposes of the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS, EPA is proposing to approve 

revisions to the Albuquerque/Bernalillo 

County PSD SIP that identify the PM2.5

precursors and establish significant 

emission rates for said precursors, 

consistent with the federal 

requirements. We are also proposing to 

approve other revisions to the 

Albuquerque/Bernalillo County PSD SIP 

to maintain consistency with the federal 

PSD permitting requirements. In 

addition to these revisions, EPA is 

proposing to approve other revisions to 

the Albuquerque/Bernalillo County SIP 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
22250 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 72 / Friday, April 13, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

necessary to implement Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (AAQS). These 

actions are taken under section 110 and 

part C of the Act. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before May 14, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket No. EPA–R06– 

OAR–2009–0648, by one of the 

following methods: 

• Federal Rulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• U.S. EPA Region 6 ‘‘Contact Us’’ 

Web site: http://epa.gov/region6/ 

r6comment.htm. Please click on ‘‘6PD 

(Multimedia)’’ and select ‘‘Air’’ before 

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: 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 ID No. EPA–R06–OAR–2009– 

0648. 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: 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 (6PD–L), 

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 fee of 15 cents per page for making 

photocopies of documents. On the day 

of the 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—Air Quality 

Division, One Civic Plaza, Room 3047, 

Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103, 

telephone 505–768–1972, email address 

aqd@cabq.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

John Walser, Air Planning Section 

(6PD–L), Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, 

Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733, 

telephone 214–665–7128; fax number 

214–665–6762; email address 

walser.john@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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

and ‘‘our’’ means EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

A. What are the National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards? 

B. What is a SIP? 

C. What is the background for this 

rulemaking? 

1. Section 110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure 

SIP Elements 

2. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) Interstate 

Transport SIP Elements 

3. Revisions to the Albuquerque/Bernalillo 

County PSD SIP 

a. Revisions To Address the 1997 and 2008 

8-Hour Ozone NAAQS 

b. Revisions To Address the 1997 and 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS 

c. Revisions To Address the Greenhouse 

Gas (GHG) Permitting Requirements 

d. Revisions To Maintain Consistency With 

the Federal PSD Requirements 

4. Additional Revisions to the 

Albuquerque/Bernalillo County SIP 

D. What elements are required under 

section 110(a)(2)? 

II. What action is EPA proposing? 

A. Section 110(a)(1) and (2) 

B. PSD Requirements 

C. Additional SIP Revisions 

III. How do the revisions to the Albuquerque/ 

Bernalillo County PSD SIP meet EPA 

requirements? 

A. Revisions To Address the 1997 and 

2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS 

B. Revisions To Address the 2008 PM2.5

NSR Rule 

C. Revisions To Address GHG Permitting 

Requirements 

D. Revisions To Maintain Consistency 

With the Federal PSD Requirements 

IV. How has Albuquerque/Bernalillo County 

addressed the elements of section 

110(a)(2)? 

V. Additional Revisions to the Albuquerque/ 

Bernalillo County SIP 

VI. Proposed Action 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

The Albuquerque/Bernalillo County 

Air Quality Control Board (AQCB) is the 

federally delegated air quality authority 

for the City of Albuquerque and 

Bernalillo County, New Mexico. Section 

74–2–4 of the New Mexico Air Quality 

Control Act (AQCA) authorizes 

Albuquerque/Bernalillo County to 

locally administer and enforce the State 

Air Quality Control Act by providing for 

a local air quality control program. 

Thus, state law views Albuquerque/ 

Bernalillo County and the State of New 

Mexico as distinct air quality control 

entities. Therefore, each entity is 

required to submit its own SIP in order 

to satisfy the requirements of section 

110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA and the 

AQCA, and to require local air pollution 

sources to comply with air quality 

standards. The AQCB is responsible for 

the portion of the New Mexico SIP that 

applies in Bernalillo County (excluding 

Tribal Land), which encompasses the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 72 / Friday, April 13, 2012 / Proposed Rules 22251 

1This proposed rulemaking does not apply to 

Tribal Lands encompassed within the Albuquerque/ 

Bernalillo County area. 

2Two elements identified in section 110(a)(2) are 

not governed by the 3-year submission deadline of 

section 110(a)(1) because SIPs incorporating 

necessary local nonattainment area controls are not 

due within 3 years after promulgation of a new or 

revised NAAQS, but rather are due at the time the 

nonattainment area plan requirements are due 

pursuant to section 172 of the CAA. These elements 

are: (1) Submissions required by section 

110(a)(2)(C) to the extent that subsection refers to 

a permit program as required in part D Title I of 

the CAA and (2) submissions required by section 

110(a)(2)(I) which pertain to the nonattainment 

planning requirements of part D Title I of the CAA. 

Therefore, this action does not cover these specific 

SIP elements. 

3EPA issued a revised 8-hour ozone standard on 

March 27, 2008 (73 FR 16436). On September 16, 

2009, the EPA Administrator announced that EPA 

would take rulemaking action to reconsider the 

2008 primary and secondary ozone NAAQS. On 

January 19, 2010, EPA proposed to set different 

primary and secondary ozone standards than those 

set in 2008 to provide requisite protection of public 

health and welfare, respectively (75 FR 2938). The 

final reconsidered ozone NAAQS have yet to be 

promulgated. 

City of Albuquerque. As required by 40 

CFR Part 51, the Governor of New 

Mexico has submitted SIP revisions, on 

behalf of the Albuquerque/Bernalillo 

County, under the AQCA (section 74–2– 

4), to satisfy the requirements of section 

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

for the Albuquerque/Bernalillo County 

area.1 Because of Albuquerque/ 

Bernalillo County’s separate authority 

and SIP, it is necessary to separately 

address the requirements of 110(a)(2) for 

this portion of the State in order to 

ensure that the requirements are 

satisfied for the entire State of New 

Mexico. 

A. What are the National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards? 

Section 109 of the Act requires EPA 

to establish NAAQS for pollutants that 

‘‘may reasonably be anticipated to 

endanger public health and welfare,’’ 

and to develop a primary and secondary 

standard for each NAAQS. The primary 

standard is designed to protect human 

health with an adequate margin of 

safety, and the secondary standard is 

designed to protect public welfare and 

the environment. EPA has set NAAQS 

for six common air pollutants, referred 

to as criteria pollutants: carbon 

monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, 

ozone, particulate matter (PM), and 

sulfur dioxide. These standards present 

state and local governments with the 

minimum air quality levels they must 

meet to comply with the Act. Also, 

these standards provide information to 

residents of the United States about the 

air quality in their communities. 

B. What is a SIP? 

The SIP is a set of air pollution 

regulations, control strategies, other 

means or techniques, and technical 

analyses developed by the state (or in 

this case, local) air pollution control 

agency, to ensure that the state meets 

the NAAQS. The SIP is required by 

section 110 and other provisions of the 

Act. These SIPs can be extensive, 

containing state regulations or other 

enforceable documents and supporting 

information such as emissions 

inventories, monitoring networks, and 

modeling demonstrations. Each state 

must submit these regulations and 

control strategies to EPA for approval 

and incorporation into the Federallyenforceable SIP. Another important 

aspect of the SIP is to ensure that 

emissions from within the state do not 

have certain prohibited impacts on the 

ambient air in other states through 

interstate transport of pollutants. This 

SIP requirement is specified in section 

110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA. Pursuant to 

that section, each state’s SIP must 

contain provisions adequate to prevent, 

among other things, emissions that 

interfere with measures required to be 

included in the SIP of any other state to 

prevent significant deterioration of air 

quality in any other state. Each EPAapproved SIP protects air quality 

primarily by addressing air pollution at 

its point of origin. 

C. What is the background for this 

rulemaking? 

Under sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the 

Act, states are required to submit SIPs 

that provide for the implementation, 

maintenance, and enforcement (the 

infrastructure) of a new or revised 

NAAQS within three years following 

the promulgation of the NAAQS, or 

within such shorter period as EPA may 

prescribe. Section 110(a)(2) lists the 

specific infrastructure elements that 

must be incorporated into the SIPs, 

including for example, requirements for 

emission inventories, new source 

review (NSR), air pollution control 

measures, and monitoring that are 

designed to assure attainment and 

maintenance of the NAAQS. Table 1 in 

Section D of this rulemaking provides a 

list of all 14 infrastructure elements.2

EPA refers to the requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(A)–(C), (D)(ii), (E)–(H), 

and (J)–(M) as the ‘‘infrastructure’’ SIPs. 

Additionally, EPA refers to the 

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

as the ‘‘interstate transport’’ SIPs. EPA 

provided separate guidance to states on 

each type of SIP, infrastructure and 

interstate transport, and these actions 

are on separate tracks and timelines. 

1. Section 110(a)(1) and (2) 

Infrastructure SIP Elements 

On July 18, 1997, we published new 

and revised NAAQS for ozone (62 FR 

38856) and PM (62 FR 38652). For 

ozone, we set an 8-hour standard of 0.08 

parts per million (ppm) to replace the 1- 

hour standard of 0.12 ppm. For PM we 

set a new annual and a new 24-hour 

NAAQS for particles with an 

aerodynamic diameter less than or equal 

to a nominal 2.5 micrometers (denoted 

PM2.5). The annual PM2.5 standard was 

set at 15 micrograms per cubic meter 

(mg/m3). The 24-hour PM2.5 standard 

was set at 65 mg/m3. On October 17, 

2006, we published revised standards 

for PM (71 FR 61144). For PM2.5, the 

annual standard of 15 mg/m3 was 

retained, and the 24-hour standard was 

revised to 35 mg/m3. For PM10 the 

annual standard was revoked, and the 

24-hour standard (150 mg/m3) was 

retained. On March 27, 2008, we 

published revised standards for ozone 

(73 FR 16436) of 0.75 ppm to replace the 

1997 8-hour standard of 0.08 ppm. For 

more information on these standards, 

please see the 1997, 2006, and 2008 

Federal Register notices (62 FR 38856, 

62 FR 38652, 71 FR 61144, and 73 FR 

16436). 

Thus, states were required to submit 

such SIPs for the 1997 8-hour ozone and 

PM2.5 NAAQS to EPA no later than June 

2000.3 However, intervening litigation 

over the 1997 8-hour ozone and PM2.5

NAAQS created uncertainty about how 

to proceed, and many states did not 

provide the required ‘‘infrastructure’’ 

SIP submission for these newly 

promulgated NAAQS. 

On March 4, 2004, Earthjustice 

submitted a notice of intent to sue 

related to EPA’s failure to issue findings 

of failure to submit related to the 

infrastructure requirements for the 1997 

8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA 

entered into a consent decree with 

Earthjustice which required EPA, among 

other things, to complete a Federal 

Register notice announcing EPA’s 

determinations pursuant to section 

110(k)(1)(B) of the Act as to whether 

each state had made complete 

submissions to meet the requirements of 

section 110(a)(2) for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS by December 15, 2007. 

Subsequently, EPA received an 

extension of the date to complete this 

Federal Register notice until March 17, 

2008, based upon agreement to make the 

findings with respect to submissions 

made by January 7, 2008. In accordance 

with the consent decree, EPA made 

completeness findings for each state 

based upon what the Agency had 

received from each state as of January 7, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
22252 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 72 / Friday, April 13, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

4This and any other guidance documents 

referenced in this action are in the docket for this 

rulemaking. 

5Specifically, the letter stated that New Mexico 

needed to revise its rules as follows: To include 

PM2.5 in its definition of major sources; to include 

PM2.5 in the definition of NAAQS and precursors 

of a criteria pollutant; to include significant harm 

levels for PM2.5; and to include NOX as a precursor 

for ozone. 

6See, Comments of Midwest Environmental 

Defense Center, dated May 31, 2011. Docket # EPA– 

R05–OAR–2007–1179 (adverse comments on 

proposals for three states in Region 5). EPA notes 

that these public comments on another proposal are 

not relevant to this rulemaking and do not have to 

be directly addressed in this rulemaking. EPA will 

respond to these comments in the appropriate 

rulemaking action to which they apply. 

2008. With regard to the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS, EPA entered into a consent 

decree with Earthjustice, which 

required EPA, among other things, to 

complete a Federal Register notice 

announcing EPA’s determinations 

pursuant to section 110(k)(1)(B) of the 

Act as to whether each state had made 

complete submissions to meet the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2) for the 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS by October 5, 2008. 

On March 27, 2008 and October 22, 

2008, we published findings concerning 

whether states had made the 110(a)(2) 

submissions for the 1997 ozone (73 FR 

16205) and PM2.5 standards (73 FR 

62902). In the March 27, 2008 action, 

we found that New Mexico (including 

Albuquerque/Bernalillo County) 

addressed all but one of the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the 

Act necessary to implement the 1997 

ozone NAAQS. As required by section 

110(a)(2)(C) and (J), New Mexico failed 

to submit a SIP addressing changes to 

the part C Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) permit program 

required by the November 29, 2005 (70 

FR 71612, page 71699) final rule that 

made NOX a precursor for ozone in the 

part C regulations at 40 CFR 51.166 and 

in 40 CFR 52.21. Subsequent to this 

finding, the Albuquerque/Bernalillo 

County PSD program was revised to 

implement the 8-hour ozone NAAQS by 

adopting regulations to implement NOX

as a precursor for ozone on December 

22, 2005 and April 13, 2006. These 

revisions were submitted as SIP 

revisions by the Governor of New 

Mexico on May 24, 2006. EPA SIPapproved the December 22, 2005 PSD 

revisions on April 26, 2007 (72 FR 

20728). In the October 22, 2008 action, 

we found that New Mexico (including 

Albuquerque/Bernalillo County) made 

complete submissions intended to 

provide for the basic program elements 

specified in section 110(a)(2) of the Act 

necessary to implement the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS. 

On October 2, 2007 we issued 

‘‘Guidance on SIP Elements Required 

Under Section 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 

1997 8-hour Ozone and PM2.5 National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards,’’ 

Memorandum from William T. Harnett, 

Director, Air Quality Policy Division 

(AQPD), Office of Air Quality Planning 

and Standards (OAQPS).4 On September 

25, 2009, we issued ‘‘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),’’ 

Memorandum also from William T. 

Harnett, Director, AQPD, OAQPS. Each 

of these guidance memos addresses the 

SIP elements found in 110(a)(2). In each 

of these guidance memos, the guidance 

states that, to the extent that existing 

SIPs already meet the requirements, 

states need only certify that fact to us. 

On December 11, 2007, EPA received 

a SIP submittal from Albuquerque/ 

Bernalillo County, certifying that its 

portion of the New Mexico SIP includes 

all the requirements in section 110(a)(1) 

and (2) of the Act for implementation of 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

On April 7, 2008 the Governor of New 

Mexico submitted a certification letter 

addressing Albuquerque/Bernalillo 

County’s requirements under section 

110(a)(1) and (2) of the Act for 

implementation of the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS. The letter certified what 

sections of the New Mexico SIP 

(including Albuquerque/Bernalillo 

County) were met, as well as what 

sections needed to be revised to comply 

with the 110(a)(1) and (2) 

requirements.5 The letter identified 

proposed revisions to the Albuquerque/ 

Bernalillo County SIP and a timeline for 

finalizing the revisions. 

On May 24, 2006 and August 16, 

2010, the Governor of New Mexico 

submitted revisions to the Albuquerque/ 

Bernalillo County portion of the New 

Mexico SIP to adopt and implement 

PSD permitting regulations to meet the 

federal requirements for implementation 

of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. The 

submissions also included revisions to 

the SIP to provide for NOX to be treated 

as a precursor to ozone formation in the 

preconstruction permitting program for 

PSD. Also in the August 16, 2010 

submittal, the Governor included an 

Infrastructure SIP ‘‘Completeness 

Checklist,’’ certifying how 

Albuquerque/Bernalillo County met all 

the requirements of section 110(a)(1) 

and (2) of the Act. We are proposing 

action on these items in today’s 

rulemaking. 

Additional information: EPA is 

currently acting upon SIPs that address 

the infrastructure requirements of CAA 

section 110(a)(1) and (2) for ozone and 

PM2.5 NAAQS for various states across 

the country. Commenters on EPA’s 

recent proposals for some states raised 

concerns about EPA statements that it 

was not addressing certain substantive 

issues in the context of acting on those 

infrastructure SIP submissions.6 Those 

commenters specifically raised concerns 

involving provisions in existing SIPs 

and with EPA’s statements in other 

proposals that it would address two 

issues separately and not as part of 

actions on the infrastructure SIP 

submissions: (i) Existing provisions 

related to excess emissions during 

periods of start-up, shutdown, or 

malfunction at sources, that may be 

contrary to the CAA and EPA’s policies 

addressing such excess emissions 

(‘‘SSM’’); and (ii) existing provisions 

related to ‘‘director’s variance’’ or 

‘‘director’s discretion’’ that purport to 

permit revisions to SIP approved 

emissions limits with limited public 

process or without requiring further 

approval by EPA, that may be contrary 

to the CAA (‘‘director’s discretion’’). 

EPA notes that there are two other 

substantive issues for which EPA 

likewise stated in other proposals that it 

would address the issues separately: (i) 

Existing provisions for minor source 

new source review programs that may 

be inconsistent with the requirements of 

the CAA and EPA’s regulations that 

pertain to such programs (‘‘minor source 

NSR’’); and (ii) existing provisions for 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

programs that may be inconsistent with 

current requirements of EPA’s ‘‘Final 

NSR Improvement Rule,’’ 67 FR 80186 

(December 31, 2002), as amended by 72 

FR 32526 (June 13, 2007) (‘‘NSR 

Reform’’). In light of the comments, EPA 

believes that its statements in various 

proposed actions on infrastructure SIPs 

with respect to these four individual 

issues should be explained in greater 

depth. It is important to emphasize that 

EPA is taking the same position with 

respect to these four substantive issues 

in this action on the infrastructure SIP 

submittals for the 1997 and 2008 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS and the 1997 and 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS submissions from 

Albuquerque/Bernalillo County. 

EPA intended the statements in the 

other proposals concerning these four 

issues merely to be informational, and 

to provide general notice of the 

potential existence of provisions within 

the existing SIPs of some states that 

might require future corrective action. 

EPA did not want states, regulated 

entities, or members of the public to be 

under the misconception that the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 72 / Friday, April 13, 2012 / Proposed Rules 22253 

7For example, section 110(a)(2)(E) provides that 

states must provide assurances that they have 

adequate legal authority under state and local law 

to carry out the SIP; section 110(a)(2)(C) provides 

that states must have a substantive program to 

address certain sources as required by part C of the 

CAA; section 110(a)(2)(G) provides that states must 

have both legal authority to address emergencies 

and substantive contingency plans in the event of 

such an emergency. 

8For example, section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) requires 

EPA to be sure that each state’s SIP contains 

adequate provisions to prevent significant 

contribution to nonattainment of the NAAQS in 

other states. This provision contains numerous 

terms that require substantial rulemaking by EPA in 

order to determine such basic points as what 

constitutes significant contribution. See, e.g., ‘‘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) (defining, among other things, the phrase 

‘‘contribute significantly to nonattainment’’). 

9See, e.g., Id., 70 FR 25162, at 63–65 (May 12, 

2005) (explaining relationship between timing 

requirement of section 110(a)(2)(D) versus section 

110(a)(2)(I)). 

10EPA issued separate guidance to states with 

respect to SIP submissions to meet section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 ozone and 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS. See, ‘‘Guidance for State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) Submissions 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,’’ from 

William T. Harnett, Director AQPD, OAQPS, to 

Regional Air Division Directors, Regions I–X, dated 

August 15, 2006. 

Agency’s approval of the infrastructure 

SIP submission of a given state should 

be interpreted as a re-approval of certain 

types of provisions that might exist 

buried in the larger existing SIP for such 

state. Thus, for example, EPA explicitly 

noted that the Agency believes that 

some states may have existing SIP 

approved SSM provisions that are 

contrary to the CAA and EPA policy, 

but that ‘‘in this rulemaking, EPA is not 

proposing to approve or disapprove any 

existing State provisions with regard to 

excess emissions during SSM of 

operations at facilities.’’ EPA further 

explained, for informational purposes, 

‘‘EPA plans to address such State 

regulations in the future.’’ EPA made 

similar statements, for similar reasons, 

with respect to the director’s discretion, 

minor source NSR, and NSR Reform 

issues. EPA’s objective was to make 

clear that approval of an infrastructure 

SIP for these ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS 

should not be construed as explicit or 

implicit reapproval of any existing 

provisions that relate to these four 

substantive issues. EPA is reiterating 

that position in this action on these 

infrastructure SIP submittals for 

Albuquerque/Bernalillo County. 

Unfortunately, the commenters and 

others evidently interpreted these 

statements to mean that EPA considered 

action upon the SSM provisions and the 

other three substantive issues to be 

integral parts of acting on an 

infrastructure SIP submission, and 

therefore that EPA was merely 

postponing taking final action on the 

issues in the context of the 

infrastructure SIPs. This was not EPA’s 

intention. To the contrary, EPA only 

meant to convey its awareness of the 

potential for certain types of 

deficiencies in existing SIPs, and to 

prevent any misunderstanding that it 

was reapproving any such existing 

provisions. EPA’s intention was to 

convey its position that the statute does 

not require that infrastructure SIPs 

address these specific substantive issues 

in existing SIPs and that these issues 

may be dealt with separately, outside 

the context of acting on the 

infrastructure SIP submission of a state. 

To be clear, EPA did not mean to imply 

that it was not taking a full final agency 

action on the infrastructure SIP 

submission with respect to any 

substantive issue that EPA considers to 

be a required part of acting on such 

submissions under section 110(k) or 

under section 110(c). Given the 

confusion evidently resulting from 

EPA’s statements in those other 

proposals, however, we want to explain 

more fully the Agency’s reasons for 

concluding that these four potential 

substantive issues in existing SIPs may 

be addressed separately from actions on 

infrastructure SIP submissions. 

The requirement for the SIP 

submissions at issue arises out of CAA 

section 110(a)(1). That provision 

requires that states must make a SIP 

submission ‘‘within 3 years (or such 

shorter period as the Administrator may 

prescribe) after the promulgation of a 

national primary ambient air quality 

standard (or any revision thereof)’’ and 

that these SIPs are to provide for the 

‘‘implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement’’ of such NAAQS. Section 

110(a)(2) includes a list of specific 

elements that ‘‘[e]ach such plan’’ 

submission must meet. EPA has 

historically referred to these particular 

submissions that states must make after 

the promulgation of a new or revised 

NAAQS as ‘‘infrastructure SIPs.’’ This 

specific term does not appear in the 

statute, but EPA uses the term to 

distinguish this particular type of SIP 

submission designed to address basic 

structural requirements of a SIP from 

other types of SIP submissions designed 

to address other different requirements, 

such as ‘‘nonattainment SIP’’ 

submissions required to address the 

nonattainment planning requirements of 

part D, ‘‘regional haze SIP’’ submissions 

required to address the visibility 

protection requirements of CAA section 

169A, new source review permitting 

program submissions required to 

address the requirements of part D, and 

a host of other specific types of SIP 

submissions that address other specific 

matters. 

Although section 110(a)(1) addresses 

the timing and general requirements for 

these infrastructure SIPs, and section 

110(a)(2) provides more details 

concerning the required contents of 

these infrastructure SIPs, EPA believes 

that many of the specific statutory 

provisions are facially ambiguous. In 

particular, the list of required elements 

provided in section 110(a)(2) contains a 

wide variety of disparate provisions, 

some of which pertain to required legal 

authority, some of which pertain to 

required substantive provisions, and 

some of which pertain to requirements 

for both authority and substantive 

provisions.7 Some of the elements of 

section 110(a)(2) are relatively 

straightforward, but others clearly 

require interpretation by EPA through 

rulemaking, or recommendations 

through guidance, in order to give 

specific meaning for a particular 

NAAQS.8

Notwithstanding that section 110(a)(2) 

provides that ‘‘each’’ SIP submission 

must meet the list of requirements 

therein, EPA has long noted that this 

literal reading of the statute is internally 

inconsistent, insofar as section 

110(a)(2)(I) pertains to nonattainment 

SIP requirements that could not be met 

on the schedule provided for these SIP 

submissions in section 110(a)(1).9 This 

illustrates that EPA must determine 

which provisions of section 110(a)(2) 

may be applicable for a given 

infrastructure SIP submission. 

Similarly, EPA has previously decided 

that it could take action on different 

parts of the larger, general 

‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ for a given NAAQS 

without concurrent action on all 

subsections, such as section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i), because the Agency 

bifurcated the action on these latter 

‘‘interstate transport’’ provisions within 

section 110(a)(2) and worked with states 

to address each of the four prongs of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) with substantive 

administrative actions proceeding on 

different tracks with different 

schedules.10 This illustrates that EPA 

may conclude that subdividing the 

applicable requirements of section 

110(a)(2) into separate SIP actions may 

sometimes be appropriate for a given 

NAAQS where a specific substantive 

action is necessitated, beyond a mere 

submission addressing basic structural 

aspects of the state’s SIP. Finally, EPA 

notes that not every element of section 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
22254 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 72 / Friday, April 13, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

11For example, implementation of the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS required the deployment of a system of 

new monitors to measure ambient levels of that new 

indicator species for the new NAAQS. 

12See, ‘‘Guidance on SIP Elements Required 

Under Section 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-hour 

Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards,’’ from William T. Harnett, Director 

AQPD, OAQPS, to Air Division Directors, Regions 

I-X, dated October 2, 2007 (the ‘‘2007 Guidance’’). 

13 Id., at page 2. 

14 Id., at attachment A, page 1. 

15 Id., at page 4. In retrospect, the concerns raised 

by commenters with respect to EPA’s approach to 

some substantive issues indicates that the statute is 

not so ‘‘self explanatory,’’ and indeed is sufficiently 

ambiguous that EPA needs to interpret it in order 

to explain why these substantive issues do not need 

to be addressed in the context of infrastructure SIPs 

and may be addressed at other times and by other 

means. 

16See, ‘‘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),’’ from William T, 

Harnett, Director AQPD, OAQPS, to Regional Air 

Division Directors, Regions I–X, dated September 

25, 2009 (the ‘‘2009 Guidance’’). 

110(a)(2) would be relevant, or as 

relevant, or relevant in the same way, 

for each new or revised NAAQS and the 

attendant infrastructure SIP submission 

for that NAAQS. For example, the 

monitoring requirements that might be 

necessary for purposes of section 

110(a)(2)(B) for one NAAQS could be 

very different than what might be 

necessary for a different pollutant. Thus, 

the content of an infrastructure SIP 

submission to meet this element from a 

state might be very different for an 

entirely new NAAQS, versus a minor 

revision to an existing NAAQS.11

Similarly, EPA notes that other types 

of SIP submissions required under the 

statute also must meet the requirements 

of section 110(a)(2), and this also 

demonstrates the need to identify the 

applicable elements for other SIP 

submissions. For example, 

nonattainment SIPs required by part D 

likewise have to meet the relevant 

subsections of section 110(a)(2) such as 

section 110(a)(2)(A) or (E). By contrast, 

it is clear that nonattainment SIPs 

would not need to meet the portion of 

section 110(a)(2)(C) that pertains to part 

C, i.e., the PSD requirements applicable 

in attainment areas. Nonattainment SIPs 

required by part D also would not need 

to address the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(G) with respect to emergency 

episodes, as such requirements would 

not be limited to nonattainment areas. 

As this example illustrates, each type of 

SIP submission may implicate some 

subsections of section 110(a)(2) and not 

others. 

Given the potential for ambiguity of 

the statutory language of section 

110(a)(1) and (2), EPA believes that it is 

appropriate for EPA to interpret that 

language in the context of acting on the 

infrastructure SIPs for a given NAAQS. 

Because of the inherent ambiguity of the 

list of requirements in section 110(a)(2), 

EPA has adopted an approach in which 

it reviews infrastructure SIPs against 

this list of elements ‘‘as applicable.’’ In 

other words, EPA assumes that Congress 

could not have intended that each and 

every SIP submission, regardless of the 

purpose of the submission or the 

NAAQS in question, would meet each 

of the requirements, or meet each of 

them in the same way. EPA elected to 

use guidance to make recommendations 

for infrastructure SIPs for these ozone 

and PM2.5 NAAQS. 

On October 2, 2007, EPA issued 

guidance making recommendations for 

the infrastructure SIP submissions for 

both the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and 

the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.12 Within this 

guidance document, EPA described the 

duty of states to make these submissions 

to meet what the Agency characterized 

as the ‘‘infrastructure’’ elements for 

SIPs, which it further described as the 

‘‘basic SIP requirements, including 

emissions inventories, monitoring, and 

modeling to assure attainment and 

maintenance of the standards.’’ 13 As 

further identification of these basic 

structural SIP requirements, 

‘‘attachment A’’ to the guidance 

document included a short description 

of the various elements of section 

110(a)(2) and additional information 

about the types of issues that EPA 

considered germane in the context of 

such infrastructure SIPs. EPA 

emphasized that the description of the 

basic requirements listed on attachment 

A was not intended ‘‘to constitute an 

interpretation of’’ the requirements, and 

was merely a ‘‘brief description of the 

required elements.’’ 14 EPA also stated 

its belief that with one exception, these 

requirements were ‘‘relatively self 

explanatory, and past experience with 

SIPs for other NAAQS should enable 

States to meet these requirements with 

assistance from EPA Regions.’’ 15 For the 

one exception to that general 

assumption, however, i.e., how states 

should proceed with respect to the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(G) for 

the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA gave much 

more specific recommendations. But for 

other infrastructure SIP submittals, and 

for certain elements of the submittals for 

the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA assumed 

that each State would work with its 

corresponding EPA regional office to 

refine the scope of a State’s submittal 

based on an assessment of how the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2) should 

reasonably apply to the basic structure 

of the State’s SIP for the NAAQS in 

question. 

On September 25, 2009, EPA issued 

guidance to make recommendations to 

states with respect to the infrastructure 

SIPs for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.16 In the 

2009 Guidance, EPA addressed a 

number of additional issues that were 

not germane to the infrastructure SIPs 

for the 1997 8-hour ozone and 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS, but were germane to 

these SIP submissions for the 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS, e.g., the requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) that EPA had 

bifurcated from the other infrastructure 

elements for those specific 1997 ozone 

and PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Significantly, neither the 2007 

Guidance nor the 2009 Guidance 

explicitly referred to the SSM, director’s 

discretion, minor source NSR, or NSR 

Reform issues as among specific 

substantive issues EPA expected states 

to address in the context of the 

infrastructure SIPs, nor did EPA give 

any more specific recommendations 

with respect to how states might address 

such issues even if they elected to do so. 

The SSM and director’s discretion 

issues implicate section 110(a)(2)(A), 

and the minor source NSR and NSR 

Reform issues implicate section 

110(a)(2)(C). In the 2007 Guidance and 

the 2009 Guidance, however, EPA did 

not indicate to states that it intended to 

interpret these provisions as requiring a 

substantive submission to address these 

specific issues in existing SIP provisions 

in the context of the infrastructure SIPs 

for these NAAQS. Instead, EPA’s 2007 

Guidance merely indicated its belief 

that the states should make submissions 

in which they established that they have 

the basic SIP structure necessary to 

implement, maintain, and enforce the 

NAAQS. EPA believes that states can 

establish that they have the basic SIP 

structure, notwithstanding that there 

may be potential deficiencies within the 

existing SIP. Thus, EPA’s proposals for 

other states mentioned these issues not 

because the Agency considers them 

issues that must be addressed in the 

context of an infrastructure SIP as 

required by section 110(a)(1) and (2), 

but rather because EPA wanted to be 

clear that it considers these potential 

existing SIP problems as separate from 

the pending infrastructure SIP actions. 

The same holds true for this action on 

the infrastructure SIP submittals for 

Albuquerque/Bernalillo County. 

EPA believes that this approach to the 

infrastructure SIP requirement is 

reasonable, because it would not be 

feasible to read section 110(a)(1) and (2) 

to require a top to bottom, stem to stern, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 72 / Friday, April 13, 2012 / Proposed Rules 22255 

17EPA has recently issued a SIP call to rectify a 

specific SIP deficiency related to the SSM issue. 

See, ‘‘Finding of Substantial Inadequacy of 

Implementation Plan; Call for Utah State 

Implementation Plan Revision,’’ 76 FR 21639 (April 

18, 2011). 

18EPA has recently utilized this authority to 

correct errors in past actions on SIP submissions 

related to PSD programs. See, ‘‘Limitation of 

Approval of Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

Provisions Concerning Greenhouse Gas EmittingSources in State Implementation Plans; Final Rule,’’ 

75 FR 82536 (December 30, 2010). EPA has 

previously used its authority under CAA 110(k)(6) 

to remove numerous other SIP provisions that the 

Agency determined it had approved in error. See, 

e.g., 61 FR 38664 (July 25, 1996) and 62 FR 34641 

(June 27, 1997) (corrections to American Samoa, 

Arizona, California, Hawaii, and Nevada SIPs); 69 

FR 67062 (November 16, 2004) (corrections to 

California SIP); and 74 FR 57051 (November 3, 

2009) (corrections to Arizona and Nevada SIPs). 

19EPA has recently disapproved a SIP submission 

from Colorado on the grounds that it would have 

included a director’s discretion provision 

inconsistent with CAA requirements, including 

section 110(a)(2)(A). See, e.g., 75 FR 42342 at 42344 

(July 21, 2010) (proposed disapproval of director’s 

discretion provisions); 76 FR 4540 (January 26, 

2011) (final disapproval of such provisions). 

20These portions are severable. By which, we 

mean that the portions of the SIP revision required 

by EPA’s Implementation of the New Source 

Review (NSR) Program for Particulate Matter Less 

Than 2.5 Micrometers rule can be implemented 

independently of the remaining portions of the 

submittal, without affecting the stringency of the 

submitted rules. In addition, the remaining portions 

of the submittal are not necessary for approval of 

the provisions implementing the PM2.5 NAAQS. 

review of each and every provision of an 

existing SIP merely for purposes of 

assuring that the state in question has 

the basic structural elements for a 

functioning SIP for a new or revised 

NAAQS. Because SIPs have grown by 

accretion over the decades as statutory 

and regulatory requirements under the 

CAA have evolved, they may include 

some outmoded provisions and 

historical artifacts that, while not fully 

up to date, nevertheless may not pose a 

significant problem for the purposes of 

‘‘implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement’’ of a new or revised 

NAAQS when EPA considers the overall 

effectiveness of the SIP. To the contrary, 

EPA believes that a better approach is 

for EPA to determine which specific SIP 

elements from section 110(a)(2) are 

applicable to an infrastructure SIP for a 

given NAAQS, and to focus attention on 

those elements that are most likely to 

need a specific SIP revision in light of 

the new or revised NAAQS. Thus, for 

example, EPA’s 2007 Guidance 

specifically directed states to focus on 

the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(G) 

for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS because of 

the absence of underlying EPA 

regulations for emergency episodes for 

this NAAQS and an anticipated absence 

of relevant provisions in existing SIPs. 

Finally, EPA believes that its 

approach is a reasonable reading of 

section 110(a)(1) and (2) because the 

statute provides other avenues and 

mechanisms to address specific 

substantive deficiencies in existing SIPs. 

These other statutory tools allow the 

Agency to take appropriate tailored 

action, depending upon the nature and 

severity of the alleged SIP deficiency. 

Section 110(k)(5) authorizes EPA to 

issue a ‘‘SIP call’’ whenever the Agency 

determines that a state’s SIP is 

substantially inadequate to attain or 

maintain the NAAQS, to mitigate 

interstate transport, or otherwise to 

comply with the CAA.17 Section 

110(k)(6) authorizes EPA to correct 

errors in past actions, such as past 

approvals of SIP submissions.18

Significantly, EPA’s determination that 

an action on the infrastructure SIP 

submittal is not the appropriate time 

and place to address all potential 

existing SIP problems does not preclude 

the Agency’s subsequent reliance on 

provisions in section 110(a)(2) as part of 

the basis for action at a later time. For 

example, although it may not be 

appropriate to require a state to 

eliminate all existing inappropriate 

director’s discretion provisions in the 

course of acting on the infrastructure 

SIP, EPA believes that section 

110(a)(2)(A) may be among the statutory 

bases that the Agency cites in the course 

of addressing the issue in a subsequent 

action.19

2. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) Interstate 

Transport SIP Elements 

Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) pertains to 

interstate transport of certain emissions. 

On August 15, 2006, the 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’’ (2006 Guidance). EPA 

developed the 2006 Guidance to make 

recommendations to states for making 

submissions to meet the requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 8- 

hour ozone standards and the 1997 

PM2.5 standards. As identified in the 

2006 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 

(prongs) related to the impacts of 

interstate transport. The SIP must 

prevent sources in the state from 

emitting pollutants in amounts which 

will: (1) Contribute significantly to 

nonattainment of the NAAQS in other 

states; (2) interfere with maintenance of 

the NAAQS in other states; (3) interfere 

with provisions to prevent significant 

deterioration of air quality in other 

states; and (4) interfere with efforts to 

protect visibility in other states. 

On September 12, 2007 and August 

25, 2010 (dated August 16, 2010), we 

received SIP submissions from the 

Governor of New Mexico intended to 

address the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) for both the 1997 8-hour 

ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA 

approved a portion of the 2007 SIP 

submittal—the first prong—that pertains 

to preventing sources in one state from 

emitting pollutants in amounts that will 

contribute significantly to 

nonattainment of the 1997 ozone and 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in any other state 

(75 FR 68447, November 8, 2010). In 

today’s action, we are also addressing a 

portion of that submittal—the third 

prong—that pertains to preventing 

sources in Albuquerque/Bernalillo 

County from emitting pollutants that 

will interfere with measures required to 

prevent significant deterioration of air 

quality in other states. In its submission, 

New Mexico indicated that its current 

PSD NSR SIP is adequate to prevent 

such interference. In a separate 

rulemaking, EPA is taking action on the 

requirement regarding interference with 

efforts to protect visibility in other 

states. The remaining prong, which 

addresses interference with 

maintenance of the NAAQS in other 

states, will be evaluated in a separate 

rulemaking. 

3. Revisions to the Albuquerque/ 

Bernalillo County PSD SIP 

Today’s rulemaking includes the 

review and analysis of two separate 

revisions to the Albuquerque/Bernalillo 

County SIP for PSD permitting 

submitted to EPA on May 24, 2006 and 

August 16, 2010, that include provisions 

to implement the 1997 and 2008 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS and the 1997 and 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS. We note that the AQCB 

also provided revisions to the NNSR 

permitting program in the August 16, 

2010 submittal. EPA is severing the 

August 16, 2010 revisions to the NNSR 

SIP from our proposed action.20 The 

NNSR SIP is a separate permit program 

for nonattainment areas that functions 

independently from the PSD program 

and is authorized under Part D of the 

Title I of the CAA. As explained 

previously in section I.C.1 of this 

proposed rule, the Albuquerque 

infrastructure SIP review does not 

include evaluation of NNSR provisions 

at this time. EPA will address the NNSR 

SIP revisions in a separate rulemaking. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
22256 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 72 / Friday, April 13, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

21 ‘‘Endangerment and Cause or Contribute 

Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 

202(a) of the Clean Air Act.’’ 74 FR 66496 

(December 15, 2009). 

22 ‘‘Interpretation of Regulations that Determine 

Pollutants Covered by Clean Air Act Permitting 

Programs.’’ 75 FR 17004 (April 2, 2010). 

23 ‘‘Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission 

Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy 

Standards; Final Rule.’’ 75 FR 25324 (May 7, 2010). 

24Prevention of Significant Deterioration and 

Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule; Final Rule.’’ 

75 FR 31514 (June 3, 2010). 

a. Revisions To Address the 1997 and 

2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS 

On May 24, 2006 and August 16, 

2010, the Governor submitted revisions 

to the PSD SIP that include, but are not 

limited to, revisions that provide for 

NOX to be treated as a precursor to 

ozone formation in the preconstruction 

permitting program for PSD, found at 

Title 20, Chapter 11, Section 61 of the 

New Mexico Administrative Code 

(20.11.61 NMAC). We are proposing to 

approve portions of two revisions to the 

PSD SIP that include revisions to 

20.11.61 NMAC as submitted to EPA on 

May 24, 2006 and August 16, 2010 

respectively, which implement the 

provisions for NOX as a precursor for 

ozone, consistent with the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS as published in the 

November 29, 2005 FRN. EPA finds that 

these revisions are necessary for 

implementation of the 1997 and 2008 

ozone standard. As discussed further in 

our Technical Support Document (TSD), 

these revisions adopted by the AQCB 

meet the requirements of the CAA and 

EPA’s PSD SIP rules and are consistent 

with EPA’s policy and guidance 

regarding the PSD permit program. 

b. Revisions To Address the 1997 and 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 

To implement the PSD permitting 

component of section 110(a)(2)(C) for 

the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 standards, 

states were required to submit the 

necessary SIP revisions to EPA by May 

16, 2011 under EPA’s Implementation of 

the New Source Review (NSR) Program 

for Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 

Micrometers (73 FR 28321, May 16, 

2008; hereafter referred to as ‘‘2008 

PM2.5 NSR rule’’). On July 14, 2010, the 

Albuquerque/Bernalillo County AQCB 

adopted revisions to the Albuquerque/ 

Bernalillo County SIP to amend their 

PSD and NNSR programs to implement 

PM2.5 NAAQS. These revisions became 

effective on August 30, 2010. The 

Governor submitted these changes to 

EPA as a SIP revision on August 16, 

2010. As noted previously, we are 

proposing action on only the PSD 

revisions at this time. We are proposing 

to approve portions of the revisions to 

the PSD SIP at 20.11.61 NMAC 

submitted on August 16, 2010 that 

implement the provisions for PM2.5

permitting, including the identification 

of PM2.5 precursors and significant 

emission rates, consistent with the 

requirements as published in the 2008 

PM2.5 NSR rule to adequately implement 

the 1997 and 2006 NAAQS. As 

discussed further in our TSD, these 

revisions adopted by the Albuquerque/ 

Bernalillo County AQCB meet the 

requirements of the CAA and EPA’s PSD 

SIP rules and are consistent with EPA’s 

policy and guidance regarding the PSD 

permit program. 

c. Revisions To Address the Greenhouse 

Gas (GHG) Permitting Requirements 

EPA has recently undertaken a series 

of actions pertaining to the regulation of 

GHGs that, although for the most part 

are distinct from one another, establish 

the overall framework for today’s 

proposed action on the Albuquerque 

infrastructure SIP. Four of these actions 

include, as they are commonly called, 

the ‘‘Endangerment Finding’’ and 

‘‘Cause or Contribute Finding,’’ which 

EPA issued in a single final action,21 the 

‘‘Johnson Memo Reconsideration,’’ 22

the ‘‘Light-Duty Vehicle Rule,’’ 23 and 

the ‘‘Tailoring Rule.’’ 24 Taken together 

and in conjunction with the CAA, these 

actions established regulatory 

requirements for GHGs emitted from 

new motor vehicles and new motor 

vehicle engines; determined that such 

regulations, when they took effect on 

January 2, 2011, subjected GHGs 

emitted from stationary sources to PSD 

requirements; and limited the 

applicability of PSD requirements to 

GHG sources on a phased-in basis. EPA 

took this last action in the Tailoring 

Rule, which, more specifically, 

established appropriate GHG emission 

thresholds for determining the 

applicability of PSD requirements to 

GHG-emitting sources. 

On December 15, 2010, the Governor 

of New Mexico submitted to EPA a SIP 

revision that modified Albuquerque/ 

Bernalillo County’s PSD program to 

establish appropriate emission 

thresholds for determining which new 

stationary sources and modification 

projects become subject to 

Albuquerque/Bernalillo County’s PSD 

permitting requirements for their GHG 

emissions. The regulatory revisions that 

Albuquerque/Bernalillo County 

submitted, on December 15, 2010, 

incorporate the Tailoring Rule 

thresholds, thereby (i) assuring that, 

under State law, only sources at or 

above the Tailoring Rule thresholds 

would be subject to PSD; and (ii) 

avoiding confusion under the federallyapproved SIP by clarifying that the SIP 

applies only to sources at or above the 

Tailoring Rule thresholds. EPA 

determined that the PSD SIP revision 

met the requirements of section 110 and 

part C of the CAA and EPA regulations 

regarding PSD permitting for GHGs, and 

EPA approved the PSD SIP revision 

effective January 30, 2012. (See 76 FR 

81836). 

d. Revisions To Maintain Consistency 

With the Federal PSD Requirements 

In addition to the revisions submitted 

on May 24, 2006 and August 16, 2010 

to implement the 1997 and 2008 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS and the 1997 and 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS, Albuquerque also 

adopted and submitted several revisions 

to the general PSD program to maintain 

consistency with the Federal PSD 

requirements. It is incumbent on a 

permitting authority to routinely review 

and update the SIP to maintain 

consistency with the Federal 

requirements and submit these revisions 

as appropriate for review and 

incorporation into the state’s SIP. As 

further explained in the TSD, EPA finds 

that these revisions are consistent with 

the Federal PSD requirements at 40 CFR 

51.166 and necessary to implement the 

Albuquerque PSD SIP. 

4. Additional Revisions to the 

Albuquerque/Bernalillo County SIP 

On November 6, 2009, the Governor 

submitted a SIP revision that included 

among other things, updating the SIP 

rule entitled Ambient Air Quality 

Standards. We are taking this 

opportunity to evaluate and propose 

action on the Ambient Air Quality 

Standard SIP portion of the 2009 

submission. EPA is not taking action on 

the other severable portions of 

November 2009 SIP revision submittal 

at this time. 

D. What elements are required under 

section 110(a)(2)? 

Pursuant to the October 2, 2007 EPA 

guidance for addressing the SIP 

infrastructure elements required under 

sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 

ozone and 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS, there are 14 essential 

components that must be included in 

the SIP. These are listed in Table 1 

below. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 72 / Friday, April 13, 2012 / Proposed Rules 22257 

25Section 110(a)(2)(I) is omitted from the list. 

Section 110(a)(2)(I) pertains to the nonattainment 

planning requirements of part D, Title I of the Act. 

This section is not governed by the 3-year 

submission deadline of section 110(a)(1) because 

SIPs incorporating necessary local nonattainment 

area controls are not due within 3 years after 

promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, but are 

due at the time the nonattainment area plan 

requirements are due pursuant to section 172. Thus 

this action does not cover section 110(a)(2)(I). 

TABLE 1—SECTION 110(a)(2) ELEMENTS REQUIRED IN SIPS

Clean Air Act citation Brief description 

Section 110(a)(2)(A) ........................................... Emission limits and other control measures. 

Section 110(a)(2)(B) ........................................... Ambient air quality monitoring/data system. 

Section 110(a)(2)(C) ........................................... Program for enforcement of control measures. 

Section 110(a)(2)(D) ........................................... Interstate transport. 

Section 110(a)(2)(E) ........................................... Adequate resources. 

Section 110(a)(2)(F) ........................................... Stationary source monitoring system. 

Section 110(a)(2)(G) ........................................... Emergency power. 

Section 110(a)(2)(H) ........................................... Future SIP revisions. 

Section 110(a)(2)(J) 25 ........................................ Consultation with government officials. 

Section 110(a)(2)(J) ............................................ Public notification. 

Section 110(a)(2)(J) ............................................ Prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) and visibility protection. 

Section 110(a)(2)(K) ........................................... Air quality modeling/submission of such data. 

Section 110(a)(2)(L) ............................................ Permitting fees. 

Section 110(a)(2)(M) ........................................... Consultation/participation by affected local entities. 

II. What action is EPA proposing? 

A. Section 110(a)(1) and (2) 

In today’s action, we are proposing to 

determine and approve that the 

following section 110(a)(2) elements are 

contained in the current Albuquerque/ 

Bernalillo County SIP and provide the 

infrastructure for implementing the 

1997 and 2008 ozone and the 1997 and 

2006 PM2.5 standards: Emission limits 

and other control measures (section 

110(a)(2)(A)); ambient air quality 

monitoring/data system (section 

110(a)(2)(B)); the program for 

enforcement of control measures 

(section 110(a)(2)(C)); international and 

interstate pollution abatement (section 

110(a)(2)(D)(ii)); adequate resources 

(section 110(a)(2)(E)); stationary source 

monitoring system (section 110(a)(2)(F)); 

emergency power (section 110(a)(2)(G)); 

future SIP revisions (section 

110(a)(2)(H)); consultation with 

government officials (section 

110(a)(2)(J)); public notification (section 

110(a)(2)(J)); PSD and visibility 

protection (section 110(a)(2)(J)); air 

quality modeling/data (section 

110(a)(2)(K)); permitting fees (section 

110(a)(2)(L)); and consultation/ 

participation by affected local entities 

(section 110(a)(2)(M)). 

We are also proposing that 

Albuquerque/Bernalillo County has 

adequately addressed one of the four 

required prongs of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i), the interstate transport 

prong, which requires that the SIP 

prohibit air emissions from sources 

within a state from interfering with 

measures required to prevent significant 

deterioration of air quality in any other 

state. We are proposing to determine 

that emissions from sources in 

Albuquerque/Bernalillo County do not 

interfere with measures to prevent 

significant deterioration of air quality in 

any other state for the 1997 and 2008 

ozone and the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS (CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)). As noted previously, 

we already have found that emissions 

from sources within Albuquerque/ 

Bernalillo County do not significantly 

contribute to nonattainment of the 1997 

ozone and PM2.5 standards in any other 

state. We are not addressing the prongs 

of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 

and 2008 8-hour ozone and 1997 and 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS that pertain to 

prohibiting air emissions with 

Albuquerque/Bernalillo County from: 

(1) Interfering with the maintenance of 

the relevant NAAQS in any other state 

and (2) interfering with the measures 

required to protect visibility in any 

other state. We also are not addressing 

the remaining prong for the 2008 ozone 

and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS that pertain to 

prohibiting emissions from sources 

within Albuquerque/Bernalillo County 

from significantly contributing to 

nonattainment in any other state. We 

will take action on these prongs of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for these 

particular NAAQS, which address 

interstate transport, in separate 

rulemakings. 

B. PSD Requirements 

In conjunction with our proposed 

finding that the Albuquerque/Bernalillo 

County SIP meets the section 110(a)(1) 

and (2) infrastructure and interstate 

transport SIP elements listed above for 

the four NAAQS, we are also proposing 

to approve portions of two SIP revisions 

submitted by the Governor of New 

Mexico to EPA on May 24, 2006 and 

August 16, 2010 to the Albuquerque 

PSD Permitting Program at 20.11.61 

NMAC. These revisions identify NOX as 

a precursor to ozone, identify the 

precursors for PM2.5 and the applicable 

significant emission rates for PM2.5 PSD 

permitting, and make other necessary 

updates to maintain consistency with 

the federal PSD permitting requirements 

at 40 CFR 51.166 and 40 CFR Part 51, 

Appendix W. EPA is taking no action at 

this time on revisions to the 

Albuquerque NNSR Permitting program 

that were submitted to EPA on August 

16, 2010. We find that the NNSR 

permitting program revisions can be 

severed from our action today on the 

PSD program revisions since the NNSR 

revisions are authorized under Title I, 

Part D of the CAA. 

C. Additional SIP Revisions 

EPA also is proposing to approve a 

portion of a revision submitted on 

November 6, 2009 to the New Mexico 

SIP for Ambient Air Quality Standards, 

codified at 20.11.8 NMAC (Part 8). The 

substantive revisions submitted to Part 

8 revise the local ambient air quality 

standards to make them consistent with 

the current NAAQS. 

III. How do the revisions to the 

Albuquerque/Bernalillo County PSD 

SIP meet EPA requirements? 

A. Revisions To Address the 1997 and 

2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS 

To meet the requirements of 

110(a)(2)(C) for the 1997 and 2008 ozone 

standard, EPA believes the State must 

have updated its PSD rules to treat NOX

as a precursor to ozone (70 FR 71612). 

On May 24, 2006 and August 16, 2010, 

the Governor of New Mexico submitted 

the provisions for NOX as a precursor 

consistent with EPA’s November 29, 

2005 Phase 2 rule for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. EPA proposes to 

approve the May 24, 2006 and August 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
22258 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 72 / Friday, April 13, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

16, 2010 SIP revisions to Albuquerque/ 

Bernalillo County’s PSD permitting 

regulations that implement the 

provisions for NOX as a precursor 

because EPA finds these rule revisions 

necessary to implement the 1997 and 

2008 ozone NAAQS. The Albuquerque 

PSD program satisfies the November 29, 

2005 rule as follows. A complete 

analysis is provided in the TSD for this 

action. 

1. Revising the PSD definition of 

Major Stationary Source to state that a 

source major for VOC or NOX will be 

considered major for ozone. EPA SIPapproved the revision to the Major 

Stationary Source definition at 

20.11.61.7.JJ in our April 26, 2007 final 

action on the Albuquerque NSR Reform 

package, see 72 FR 20728. 

2. Revising the PSD definition of 

Major Modification to state that any 

significant emissions increase from any 

emissions units or net emissions 

increase at a major stationary source 

that is significant for VOC or NOX shall 

be considered significant for ozone. 

Albuquerque adopted the revised 

definition of Major Modification at 

20.11.61.7.HH NMAC to include NOX as 

an ozone precursor on April 13, 2006 

and submitted to EPA on May 24, 2006. 

3. Adding the emission rate for NOX, 

as a precursor to ozone, as 40 tpy, in the 

PSD definition of Significant. The 

August 16, 2010 submittal revises the 

definition of Significant at 

20.11.61.7.YY NMAC and Table 2 at 

20.11.61.27 NMAC to identify NOX as 

an ozone precursor. 

4. Identifying NOX as a precursor for 

ozone in the definition of Regulated 

NSR Pollutant. As currently SIPapproved at 20.11.61.7.VV(1), the 

definition of Regulated NSR Pollutant 

identifies NOX as an ozone precursor. 

See EPA’s April 26, 2007 approval of 

the Albuquerque NSR Reform package 

at 72 FR 20728. The August 16, 2010, 

revisions to the Albuquerque PSD 

Program revise the definition of 

Regulated NSR Pollutant to address 

PM2.5 requirements (as discussed below) 

but continue to identify NOX as an 

ozone precursor. 

5. Under the PSD requirements, 

allowing for an exemption with respect 

to ambient air quality monitoring data 

for a source with a net emissions 

increase less than 100 tpy of NOX. 

Albuquerque adopted and submitted 

revisions to 20.11.61.28 NMAC—Table 

3 Significant Monitoring Concentrations 

on May 24, 2006 and August 16, 2010 

to identify NOX as an ozone precursor 

and allow for the aforementioned 

exemption from ambient air quality 

monitoring. 

B. Revisions To Address the 2008 PM2.5

NSR Rule 

To meet the requirements of 

110(a)(2)(C) for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

standard, EPA believes that the State 

must have updated its PSD rules to 

identify the PM2.5 precursors and 

significant emission rates as outlined in 

our May 16, 2008 rulemaking. The 

Governor of New Mexico submitted a 

SIP revision on August 16, 2010 to 

address the requirements of the 1997 

and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA proposes 

to approve the August 16, 2010 SIP 

revision to Albuquerque/Bernalillo 

County’s PSD permitting regulations 

that implement the provisions for PM2.5

permitting because EPA finds these rule 

revisions adequate and necessary to 

implement the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. The Albuquerque PSD program 

satisfies the May 16, 2008 rulemaking as 

follows. A complete analysis is 

provided in the TSD for this action. 

1. Revising the PSD definition of 

Significant to identify the significant 

emission rates for PM2.5 precursors. 

Revisions to the Albuquerque PSD SIP 

at 20.11.61.7.YY NMAC and 20.11.61.27 

Table 2 NMAC were submitted on 

August 16, 2010, that identify 

significant emission rates for the PM2.5

precursors (10 TPY of direct PM2.5, 40 

TPY of SO2, 40 TPY of NOX unless 

demonstrated not to be a PM2.5

precursor). 

2. Revising the PSD definition of 

Regulated NSR Pollutant to identify the 

PM2.5 precursors. Revisions to the 

Albuquerque PSD SIP at 20.11.61.7.VV 

NMAC submitted on August 16, 2010, 

revise the definition of Regulated NSR 

Pollutant to identify SO2 is a PM2.5

precursor in all attainment and 

unclassifiable areas, NOX is presumed to 

be a PM2.5 precursor in all attainment 

and unclassifiable areas unless 

demonstrated not to be, and VOC is 

presumed not to be a PM2.5 precursor in 

any attainment or unclassifiable area 

unless demonstrated otherwise. 

3. Reserving a section in the PSD 

definition of Regulated NSR Pollutant. 

The August 16, 2010 revisions to the 

Albuquerque PSD SIP reserve a section 

in the definition of Regulated NSR 

Pollutant at 20.11.61.7.VV(5) NMAC. 

4. Revising the PSD definition of 

Regulated NSR Pollutant to require that 

PM, PM2.5 and PM10 emissions shall 

include gaseous emissions from a source 

or activity which condense to form 

particulate matter at ambient 

temperatures. Revisions to the 

Albuquerque PSD SIP at 

20.11.61.7.VV(6) NMAC submitted on 

August 16, 2010, revise the definition of 

Regulated NSR Pollutant to include 

condensables. 

5. Revising the PSD requirements for 

monitoring by providing an exemption 

for sources if the pollutant of interest is 

less than the significant monitoring 

concentration. The August 16, 2010 

revisions at 20.11.61.18(H) NMAC 

satisfy this requirement. 

C. Revisions To Address GHG 

Permitting Requirements 

Albuquerque adopted and submitted 

revisions to the PSD program consistent 

with EPA’s GHG Tailoring Rule 

requirements on January 10, 2011. EPA 

evaluated and SIP-approved these PSD 

provisions in a separate rulemaking on 

December 29, 2011, see 76 FR 81836. 

Our approval action found that 

Albuquerque has the necessary rules 

and resources in place to apply the PSD 

permit program requirements to GHGemitting sources. 

D. Revisions To Maintain Consistency 

With Federal PSD Requirements 

The May 24, 2006 and August 16, 

2010 revisions to the Albuquerque PSD 

program also included several 

substantive and non-substantive 

revisions necessary to maintain 

consistency with the Federal PSD 

requirements. The TSD for this action 

includes a thorough review of each of 

the revisions, including non-substantive 

revisions to update internal crossreferences and reformat SIP-approved 

provisions. The TSD also includes an 

analysis of each of the substantive 

revisions, which include revising: 

• Multiple revisions to PSD 

definitions at 20.11.61.7 NMAC to 

maintain consistency with PSD program 

requirements at 40 CFR 51.166. 

Definitions substantively revised 

include: ‘‘Baseline area’’, ‘‘Building, 

structure, facility or installation’’, 

‘‘Federally Enforceable’’, ‘‘Regulated 

NSR Pollutant’’, ‘‘Significant’’, and 

‘‘VOC’’; 

• 20.11.61.11 NMAC to include 

provisions for ‘‘hybrid tests for projects 

that involve multiple types of emission 

units’’ consistent with 40 CFR 

51.166(a)(7)(iv)(f); 

• 20.11.61.12 NMAC to include 

provision for ‘‘reasonable possibility’’ 

consistent with 40 CFR 51.166(r)(6)(vi); 

• 20.11.61.21 NMAC to update the 

public notification provisions to require 

that the proposed control technology 

and alternatives be included in the 

notice, pursuant to 40 CFR 51.166(q); 

• 20.11.61.23 to provide more clarity 

to the listed sources for exclusions from 

increment consumption pursuant to 40 

CFR 51.166(f); 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 72 / Friday, April 13, 2012 / Proposed Rules 22259 

26NOX and VOCs are precursors to ozone. PM can 

be emitted directly and secondarily formed; the 

latter is the result of NOX and SO2 precursors 

combining with ammonia to form ammonium 

nitrate and ammonium sulfate. 

27 ‘‘State Implementation Plans (SIPs): Policy 

Regarding Excess Emissions During Malfunctions, 

Startup, and Shutdown,’’ Memorandum from 

Steven A. Herman, Assistant Administrator for 

Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, and 

Robert Perciasepe, Assistant Administrator for Air 

and Radiation, dated September 20, 1999. 

28The section addressing exemptions and 

variances is found on p. 45109 of the 1987 

rulemaking. 

29The Air Quality System (AQS) is EPA’s 

repository of ambient air quality data. AQS stores 

data from over 10,000 monitors, 5,000 of which are 

currently active. State, Local and Tribal agencies 

collect the data and submit it to AQS on a periodic 

basis. 

30A copy of EPA’s evaluation and approval is in 

the docket for this rulemaking. 

• 20.11.61.26 Table 1 NMAC to 

exclude ethanol production facilities 

that produce ethanol from natural 

fermentation from the listed PSD major 

source categories pursuant to 40 CFR 

51.166(b)(1)(i)(a); and 

• 20.11.61.27 Table 2 NMAC to 

include significant emission rates for 

municipal solid waste landfills pursuant 

to 40 CFR 51.166(b)(23)(i). 

IV. How has Albuquerque/Bernalillo 

County addressed the elements of 

section 110(a)(2)? 

The Albuquerque/Bernalillo County 

submittals address the elements of 

Section 110(a)(2) as described below. 

We provide a more detailed review and 

analysis of the Albuquerque/Bernalillo 

County infrastructure SIP elements in 

the TSD, located in the docket for this 

proposed rulemaking. 

Enforceable emission limits and other 

control measures, pursuant to section 

110(a)(2)(A): Section 110(a)(2)(A) 

requires that all measures and other 

elements in the SIP be enforceable. This 

provision does not require the submittal 

of regulations or emission limits 

developed specifically for attaining the 

1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone and 1997 

and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. Those 

regulations are due later as part of 

attainment demonstrations. 

Additionally, as explained earlier (see 

footnote 2), EPA does not consider SIP 

requirements triggered by the 

nonattainment area mandates in part D 

of Title I of the CAA to be governed by 

the submission deadline of section 

110(a)(1). 

Enacted in 1967, the New Mexico Air 

Quality Control Act (AQCA) provided 

for the establishment of the 

Albuquerque-Bernalillo County AQCB 

as a joint local authority, acting on 

behalf of both the County of Bernalillo 

and the City of Albuquerque. Within the 

exterior boundary of Bernalillo County, 

the AQCB is authorized to adopt, 

promulgate, publish, amend and repeal 

regulations consistent with the New 

Mexico Air Quality Control Act, and to 

maintain national ambient air quality 

standards and prevent or abate air 

pollution, including regulations 

prescribing air standards, within 

Bernalillo County. Through the City of 

Albuquerque’s Department of 

Environmental Health, the Albuquerque 

Air Quality Division (AQD) serves as the 

administrative agency for the AQCB. 

The AQD is authorized to administer 

and enforce the provisions of the New 

Mexico Air Quality Control Act within 

the boundary of Bernalillo County. The 

AQCB has promulgated rules to limit 

and control emissions of, among other 

things, PM, sulfur compounds 

(including SO2), nitrogen compounds 

(including NOX), and VOCs.26 These 

rules include emission limits, control 

measures, permits, and compliance 

schedules and are found in 20.11 NMAC 

(e.g., 20.11.5 Visible Air Contaminants, 

20.11.20 Fugitive Dust Control, 20.11.21 

Open Burning, 20.11.22 Wood Burning, 

20.11.65 Volatile Organic Compounds, 

20.11.66 Process Equipment, 20.11.67 

Equipment, Emissions, Limitations, 

20.11.67.14 Coal Burning Equipment— 

Nitrogen Dioxide, 20.11.67.15 Coal 

Burning Equipment—Sulfur Dioxide, 

20.11.67.17 Oil Burning Equipment— 

Nitrogen Dioxide, 20.11.67.19 Oil 

Burning Equipment—Sulfur Dioxide, 

20.11.68 Incinerators and Crematories, 

and 20.11.60 NNSR NMAC and 20.11.61 

PSD NMAC). 

In this action, EPA is not proposing to 

approve or disapprove any existing state 

provisions with regard to excess 

emissions during startup, shutdown, or 

malfunction (SSM) of operations at a 

facility. However, EPA previously 

approved provisions with regard to 

excess emissions as part of the 

Albuquerque/Bernalillo County SIP 

(20.11.49 NMAC) on February 4, 2010. 

See 75 FR 5698. EPA believes that a 

number of states may have SSM SIP 

provisions which are contrary to the Act 

and inconsistent with existing EPA 

guidance,27 and the Agency plans to 

address such state regulations in the 

future. In the meantime, EPA 

encourages any state having a deficient 

SSM provision to take steps to correct 

it as soon as possible. Similarly, in this 

proposed action EPA does not include 

a review of, and also does not propose 

to take any action to approve or 

disapprove, any existing SIP rules with 

regard to director’s discretion or 

variance provisions. EPA believes that a 

number of states have such provisions 

that are contrary to the Act and not 

consistent with existing EPA guidance 

(52 FR 45044, November 24, 1987) 28

and the Agency plans to take action in 

the future to address such state 

regulations. In the meantime, EPA 

encourages any state having a director’s 

discretion or variance provision in its 

SIP that is contrary to the Act and 

inconsistent with EPA guidance to take 

steps to correct the deficiency as soon 

as possible. 

A detailed list of the applicable rules 

at 20.11 NMAC is provided in the TSD. 

The Albuquerque/Bernalillo County SIP 

contains enforceable emission limits 

and other control measures, which are 

in the federally enforceable SIP. EPA is 

proposing to determine that the 

Albuquerque/Bernalillo County SIP 

meets the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(A) of the Act with respect to 

the 1997 and 2008 ozone and the 1997 

and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Ambient air quality monitoring/data 

system, pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(B): 

Section 110(a)(2)(B) requires SIPs to 

include provisions for establishment 

and operation of ambient air quality 

monitors, collecting and analyzing 

ambient air quality data, and making 

these data available to EPA upon 

request. The AQD operates and 

maintains a network of air quality 

monitors throughout Bernalillo County; 

data are collected, results are quality 

assured and the data are submitted to 

EPA’s Air Quality System 29 on a 

quarterly basis. The air quality 

surveillance network undergoes annual 

review by EPA. EPA evaluated 

Albuquerque’s 2011 Annual Monitoring 

Network Plan (AAMNP) and approved it 

on January 13, 2012.30 The AQD’s 

AAMNP addresses each of the criteria 

pollutants, including 8-hour ozone and 

PM2.5 and thus allows the AQD to 

measure the Albuquerque/Bernalillo 

County air quality for compliance with 

the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone and the 

1997 and 2006 PM2.5 standards. 

The AQD’s air quality surveillance 

network consists of nine stations that 

measure ambient concentrations of the 

criteria pollutants for which standards 

have been established in 40 CFR Part 50 

(46 FR 2655), including ozone and 

PM2.5. The AQD works closely with EPA 

Region 6 and the New Mexico Air 

Quality Bureau to ensure that its 

monitoring network meets the 

requirements for monitoring networks at 

40 CFR part 58 Appendix D. The AQD’s 

Web site (www.cabq.gov/airquality) and 

EPA’s AirNow Web site 

(www.airnow.gov) contain up-to-date 

information about air quality 

monitoring, including a description of 

the network, information about 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
22260 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 72 / Friday, April 13, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

31EPA approved Bernalillo County Ordinance 

88–45 into the Albuquerque/Bernalillo County SIP 

in a June 1, 1999 rulemaking (64 FR 29235). 

Albuquerque/Bernalillo County has since amended 

the ordinance and re–codified it as Bernalillo 

County Ordinance 94–5. EPA will act on this 

amended ordinance in a future rulemaking. For 

purposes of the I–SIP discussion, we will cite to the 

current ordinance. The Joint Air Quality Control 

Board Ordinance 94–5 is also cited as legal 

authority in 20.11.1.3 NMAC, which is SIP– 

approved. 

32Under the Bernalillo County Joint Air Quality 

Control Board Ordinance, the AQD ‘‘shall 

administer and enforce the provisions of the Air 

Quality Control Act,’’ while the AQCB ‘‘shall adopt, 

promulgate, publish, amend and repeal 

regulations.’’ Moreover, Any person who 

participated in a permitting action before the [AQD] 

and who is adversely affected by such permitting 

action may file a petition for hearing before the 

board.’’ See Ordinance 88–45, Sections 7(A)–(H). 

monitoring of ozone and PM2.5, and the 

daily Air Quality Index (AQI). 

In summary, Albuquerque/Bernalillo 

County meets the requirements to 

establish, operate, and maintain an 

ambient air monitoring network, collect 

and analyze the monitoring data, and 

make the data available to EPA upon 

request. EPA is proposing to find that 

the current Albuquerque/Bernalillo 

County SIP meets the requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(B) of the Act for the 

1997 and 2008 ozone and 1997 and 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Program for enforcement of control 

measures and regulation of the 

modification and construction of 

stationary sources, including a permit 

program, pursuant to section 

110(a)(2)(C): The New Mexico Air 

Quality Control Act provides the AQCB 

with enforcement authority and 

Albuquerque/Bernalillo County has an 

EPA-approved air permitting program 

SIP for both major and minor sources. 

The administrative proceedings for 

enforcement actions, including 

administrative compliance orders and 

determination of penalty, are provided 

in 20.11.90 NMAC (75 FR 5698, 

February 4, 2010). The rules at Title 20, 

Chapter 11 of NMAC address allowable 

emission rates, compliance, control 

technology requirements, control 

schedules, monitoring and testing 

requirements, and reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. These 

clarify the boundaries beyond which 

regulated entities in Albuquerque/ 

Bernalillo County can expect 

enforcement action. 

Bernalillo County Ordinance 94–5, 

also known as the Joint Air Quality 

Control Board Ordinance,31 provides 

the AQD with authority to enforce 

permitting provisions, and provides for 

assessment of administrative 

enforcement actions and administrative 

penalties for violations of those permit 

terms and conditions, and injunctive 

relief (Bernalillo County Ordinance 94– 

5, Sections 9–18). The Albuquerque/ 

Bernalillo County AQCB and AQD have 

the necessary legal authority and 

jurisdiction to adopt and implement 

requirements for measuring and 

monitoring air emissions and to require 

owners and operators of sources to make 

and maintain records of the emissions. 

Therefore, the Albuquerque/Bernalillo 

County AQCB and AQD have the 

requisite legal authority to implement 

and enforce the minor and major permit 

revision procedures in accordance with 

the requirements of the CAA. 

To meet the requirement for having a 

program for the regulation of the 

modification and construction of any 

stationary source within the areas 

covered by the plan as necessary to 

assure that NAAQS are achieved, 

including a permit program as required 

by part C and part D of the CAA, 

generally, the State is required to have 

SIP–approved PSD, Nonattainment, and 

Minor NSR permitting programs 

adequate to implement the 1997 and 

2008 8-hour ozone and the 1997 and 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. We are not 

evaluating nonattainment–related 

provisions, such as the nonattainment 

NSR program required by part D in 

110(a)(2)(C) and measures for 

attainment required by section 

110(a)(2)(I), as part of the infrastructure 

SIPs for these four NAAQS because 

these submittals are required beyond the 

date (three years from NAAQS 

promulgation) that section 110 

infrastructure submittals are required. 

PSD programs apply in areas that are 

meeting the NAAQS, referred to as 

attainment areas, or in areas that are 

unclassifiable, referred to as 

unclassifiable/attainment areas. PSD 

applies to new major sources and major 

modifications at existing sources. The 

Albuquerque/Bernalillo County PSD SIP 

program, found at 20.11.61 NMAC, was 

initially approved into the SIP on 

December 21, 1993, effective January 20, 

1994 at 58 FR 67330. Subsequent 

revisions to the Albuquerque/Bernalillo 

County PSD SIP program were adopted 

by the AQCB on December 14, 2005, 

submitted May 24, 2006, and approved 

into the SIP on April 26, 2007 at 72 FR 

20728. The AQD has the authority to 

issue PSD permits and enforce them 

under the approved PSD SIP, while the 

AQCB has appellate authority over the 

permitting.32

Additionally, as explained in sections 

II.B and III of this notice, EPA is 

proposing to approve revisions to the 

PSD program that were adopted by the 

AQCB on April 13, 2006 and July 14, 

2010, submitted May 24, 2006 and 

August 16, 2010, respectively. 

PSD Permitting for Sources that are 

Major for Ozone Precursors: To 

implement section 110(a)(2)(C) for the 

1997 and 2008 ozone NAAQS, a state 

must have updated its PSD rules to 

address NOX as an ozone precursor (70 

FR 71612). On May 24, 2006 and August 

16, 2010, the Governor submitted the 

provisions for NOX as a precursor, 

consistent with EPA’s November 29, 

2005 Phase 2 rule for the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS (70 FR 71612) as part of its 

revisions to 20.11.61 NMAC. Based on 

our review and analysis of the May 24, 

2006 and August 16, 2010 submittals, 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

following revisions to the Albuquerque/ 

Bernalillo County PSD SIP as necessary 

to implement the provision for NOX as 

a precursor to ozone consistent with 70 

FR 71612: revisions to 20.11.61.7.HH 

Major Modification adopted April 13, 

2006 and submitted May 24, 2006, 

revisions to 20.11.61.7.YY Significant, 

and 20.11.61.27 Table 2—Significant 

Emission Rates adopted July 14, 2010 

and submitted August 16, 2010; 

revisions to 20.11.61.7.VV Regulated 

New Source Review Pollutant adopted 

July 12, 2010 and submitted August 16, 

2010; and revisions to 20.11.61.28 Table 

3—Significant Monitoring 

Concentrations adopted on April 13, 

2006 and July 14, 2010 and submitted 

on May 24, 2006 and August 16, 2010, 

respectively. Please see sections II.B and 

III of this notice and the TSD 

accompanying this rulemaking for 

additional information about how the 

May 24, 2006 and August 16, 2010 PSD 

SIP revisions satisfy section 110(a)(2)(C) 

for the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. 

PM2.5 PSD Permitting: To implement 

the PSD permitting component of 

section 110(a)(2)(C) for the 1997 and 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, states were 

required to submit the necessary SIP 

revisions to EPA by May 16, 2011 under 

EPA’s 2008 PM2.5 NSR rule. On July 14, 

2010 the AQCB adopted these revisions 

effective August 30, 2010. On August 

16, 2010, the Governor submitted 

necessary revisions to the Albuquerque/ 

Bernalillo County SIP to amend the PSD 

program to meet the 1997 and 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS implementation 

requirements. EPA is proposing to 

approve the following revisions to the 

Albuquerque/Bernalillo County PSD SIP 

adopted on July 14, 2010 and submitted 

on August 16, 2010 in today’s action: 

revisions to 20.11.61.7.YY Significant 

and 20.11.61.27 Table 2—Significant 

Emission Rates; revisions to 

20.11.61.7.VV Regulated NSR Pollutant; 

and revisions to 20.11.61.18(H)— 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 72 / Friday, April 13, 2012 / Proposed Rules 22261 

Monitoring Requirements Air Quality 

Analysis. Please see sections II.B and III 

of this notice and the accompanying 

TSD for more information on our 

approval of revisions to the PSD 

Program for PM2.5 permitting. 

GHG PSD Permitting: The Tailoring 

Rule established thresholds that phase 

in the applicability of PSD requirements 

to GHG sources, starting with the largest 

GHG emitters, and were designed to 

relieve the overwhelming administrative 

burdens and costs associated with the 

dramatic increase in permitting burden 

that would have resulted from applying 

PSD requirements to GHG emission 

increases at or above only the mass– 

based statutory thresholds of 100/250 

tons per year generally applicable to all 

PSD–regulated pollutants starting on 

January 2, 2011. However, EPA 

recognized that even after it finalized 

the Tailoring Rule, many SIPs with 

approved PSD programs would, until 

they were revised, continue to apply 

PSD at the statutory thresholds, even 

though the States would not have 

sufficient resources to implement the 

PSD program at those levels. EPA 

consequently implemented its ‘‘PSD SIP 

Narrowing Rule’’ and narrowed its 

approval of those provisions of 

previously approved SIPs that apply 

PSD to GHG emissions increases from 

sources emitting GHGs below the 

Tailoring Rule thresholds (75 FR 82536, 

December 30, 2010). Through the PSD 

SIP Narrowing Rule, EPA withdrew its 

previous approvals of those programs to 

the extent the SIPs apply PSD to 

increases in GHG emissions from GHG– 

emitting sources below the Tailoring 

Rule thresholds. The portions of the 

PSD programs regulating GHGs from 

GHG–emitting sources with emission 

increases at or above the Tailoring Rule 

thresholds remained approved. The 

effect of EPA narrowing its approval in 

this manner is that the provisions of 

previously approved SIPs that apply 

PSD to GHG emissions increases from 

sources emitting GHGs below the 

Tailoring Rule thresholds have the 

status of having been submitted by the 

State but not yet acted upon by EPA (75 

FR 82536). 

On December 15, 2010, the Governor 

submitted a revision to the SIP to 

establish appropriate emission 

thresholds for determining which new 

stationary sources and modification 

projects become subject to PSD 

permitting requirements for GHG 

emissions. The PSD SIP revision to 

address GHGs was approved by the EPA 

on December 29, 2011 (76 FR 81836). 

Thus, the GHG emission thresholds for 

PSD applicability set forth in EPA’s 

Tailoring Rule, ensuring that smaller 

GHG sources emitting less than these 

thresholds are not subject to section 110 

of the CAA were approved. 

Minor Source Permitting: Section 

110(a)(2)(C) creates a ‘‘general duty on 

States to include a program in their SIP 

that regulates the modification and 

construction of any stationary source as 

necessary to assure that the NAAQS are 

achieved’’ (70 FR 71612, 71677). This 

duty is often referred to as ‘‘minor 

NSR.’’ EPA provides states with a 

‘‘broad degree of discretion’’ in 

implementing their minor NSR 

programs (71 FR 48696, 48700, August 

21, 2006). The ‘‘considerably less 

detailed’’ regulations for minor NSR are 

provided in 40 CFR 51.160 through 

51.164. We have determined that the 

Albuquerque/Bernalillo County minor 

NSR regulations at 20.11.41 NMAC 

approved as part of the SIP pursuant to 

section 110(a)(2)(C) regulate emissions 

of ozone and its precursors and PM. 

Albuquerque/Bernalillo County and 

EPA have relied upon the Albuquerque/ 

Bernalillo County SIP–approved 

existing minor NSR program to ensure 

that new and modified sources not 

captured by the major NNSR or PSD 

permitting programs do not interfere 

with attainment and maintenance of the 

NAAQS. 

It is important to stress that EPA is 

not proposing to approve or disapprove 

the Albuquerque/Bernalillo County 

existing minor NSR SIP program itself to 

the extent that it may be inconsistent 

with EPA’s regulations governing this 

program. EPA believes that a number of 

states may have minor NSR provisions 

that are contrary to the existing EPA 

regulations for this program. EPA 

intends to work with states to reconcile 

state minor NSR SIP programs with 

EPA’s regulatory provisions for the 

program. The statutory requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(C) provide for 

considerable flexibility in designing 

minor NSR programs, and EPA believes 

it may be time to revisit the regulatory 

requirements for this program in order 

to give the states an appropriate level of 

flexibility to design programs that meet 

their particular air quality concerns, 

while assuring reasonable consistency 

across the country in protecting the 

NAAQS with respect to new and 

modified minor sources. 

Based on the above, we are proposing 

to find that the current Albuquerque/ 

Bernalillo County PSD SIP meets 

section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to the 

1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone and the 

1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Interstate transport, pursuant to 

section 110(a)(2)(D): Section 

110(a)(2)(D) has two components, 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) and 110(a)(2)(D)(ii). 

Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) requires SIPs to 

include provisions prohibiting any 

source or other type of emissions 

activity in one state from contributing 

significantly to nonattainment, 

interfering with maintenance of the 

NAAQS in another state, or from 

interfering with measures required to 

prevent significant deterioration of air 

quality or to protect visibility in another 

state. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires 

SIPs to include provisions insuring 

compliance with sections 115 and 126 

of the Act, relating to interstate and 

international pollution abatement. 

PSD and interstate transport, 

pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i): One 

of the four prongs in section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) requires a SIP to contain 

adequate provisions prohibiting 

emissions that interfere with any other 

state’s required measures to prevent 

significant deterioration of its air 

quality. This is the only element of 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) on which EPA is 

proposing action in this rulemaking. 

EPA’s 2006 Guidance made 

recommendations for SIP submissions 

to meet this requirement with respect to 

both the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and 

the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

The 2006 Guidance states that the 

PSD permitting program is the primary 

measure that each state must include to 

prevent interference with any other 

state’s required measures to prevent 

significant deterioration of its air quality 

in accordance with section 

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

As discussed previously in this 

rulemaking with regards to section 

110(a)(2)(C) and in the TSD, the 

Albuquerque/Bernalillo County PSD 

program is in the SIP and meets the 

basic requirements for implementing the 

ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. We are 

proposing to approve the portion of the 

submission from August 16, 2010 that 

has adequately addressed section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of the CAA, for the 

element that requires that the SIP 

prohibit air pollutant emissions from 

sources within a state from interfering 

with measures required to prevent 

significant deterioration of air quality in 

any other state. 

Consistent with EPA’s November 29, 

2005 Phase 2 rule for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS, the State submitted SIP 

revisions to modify its PSD provisions 

to address NOX as an ozone precursor. 

Also consistent with EPA’s 2008 PM2.5

NSR rule, the State submitted SIP 

revisions to modify its PSD provisions 

to adequately implement the 1997 and 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is approving 

these revisions and they have been 

discussed previously in this notice. EPA 

believes that the PSD revision for the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
22262 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 72 / Friday, April 13, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

33See 64 FR 29235. 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS that makes 

NOX a precursor for ozone for PSD 

purposes, and the PSD revisions to 

implement the EPA’s 2008 PM2.5 NSR 

SIP rule, taken together with the PSD 

SIP and the interstate transport SIP, 

satisfy the requirements of the third 

element of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 

1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone and 1997 

and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, i.e., there will 

be no interference with any other state’s 

required PSD measures. 

We are proposing to determine that 

emissions from sources in Albuquerque/ 

Bernalillo County do not interfere with 

measures required to prevent significant 

deterioration of air quality for the 1997 

and 2008 8-hour ozone and 1997 and 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in any other state. 

This rulemaking action is being taken 

under section 110(a) of the CAA. 

In a prior action, EPA approved 

Albuquerque/Bernalillo County SIP 

revisions that addressed the 

requirements of section 

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

emissions from sources in Albuquerque/ 

Bernalillo County do not significantly 

contribute to nonattainment of the 1997 

8-hour ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in 

any other state (75 FR 68447). The final 

rule was effective December 8, 2010. 

The SIP revision demonstrated that air 

pollutant emissions from sources within 

Albuquerque/Bernalillo County do not 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment of the relevant NAAQS 

in any other state for those pollutants. 

The remaining three elements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i): (1) Do not significantly 

contribute to nonattainment of the 

relevant NAAQS in any other state for 

the 2008 ozone NAAQS and the 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS; (2) interference with the 

maintenance of the NAAQS in any other 

state for all four NAAQS; (3) 

interference with measures required to 

protect visibility in any other state will 

be evaluated and addressed in future 

rulemakings. 

Interstate and international pollution 

abatement, pursuant to section 

110(a)(2)(D)(ii): Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) 

of the Act requires compliance with 

sections 115 and 126 of the Act, relating 

to interstate and international pollution 

abatement. Section 115(a) addresses 

endangerment of public health or 

welfare in foreign countries from 

pollution emitted in the United States. 

Pursuant to section 115, the 

Administrator has neither received nor 

issued a formal notification that 

emissions from Albuquerque/Bernalillo 

County are endangering public health or 

welfare in a foreign country. Section 

126(a) of the Act requires new or 

modified sources to notify neighboring 

states of potential impacts from such 

sources. Albuquerque/Bernalillo County 

also has no pending obligations under 

section 126 of the Act. 

EPA is proposing to find that the 

Albuquerque/Bernalillo County SIP 

meets the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(ii) of the Act for the 1997 

and 2008 ozone and 1997 and 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Adequate personnel, funding, and 

authority, pursuant to section 

110(a)(2)(E): As stated previously, the 

Albuquerque/Bernalillo County AQCB 

is the federally delegated air quality 

authority for Albuquerque and 

Bernalillo County, New Mexico. The 

New Mexico Air Quality Control Act 

(AQCA, section 74–2–4) authorizes 

Albuquerque/Bernalillo County to 

locally administer and implement the 

State Air Quality Control Act by 

providing for a local air quality control 

program. Thus, state law views 

Albuquerque/Bernalillo County and the 

remainder of the State of New Mexico 

as distinct air quality control entities. 

The AQCA also provides for the 

establishment of the Albuquerque/ 

Bernalillo County AQCB as a joint local 

authority, acting on behalf of both the 

County of Bernalillo and the City of 

Albuquerque. Within the boundary of 

Bernalillo County, the AQCB is 

authorized to adopt, promulgate, 

publish, amend and repeal regulations 

consistent with the New Mexico Air 

Quality Control Act, and to maintain 

national ambient air quality standards 

and prevent or abate air pollution, 

including regulations prescribing air 

standards, within Bernalillo County 

(with the exception of tribal lands). 

Through the City of Albuquerque’s 

Department of Environmental Health, 

the Albuquerque Air Quality Division 

(AQD) serves as the administrative 

agency for the AQCB. The AQD is 

authorized to administer and enforce 

the provisions of the New Mexico Air 

Quality Control Act within the 

boundary of Bernalillo County. 

The City of Albuquerque and 

Bernalillo County Ordinances approved 

into the SIP on June 1, 1999 provide 

assurances that Albuquerque/Bernalillo 

County has the adequate personnel and 

funding to carry out their SIP.33 The 

August 16, 2010 Albuquerque/Bernalillo 

County SIP submittal from the Governor 

includes a discussion of funding and 

personnel resources for carrying out the 

programs of the SIP for demonstrating 

attainment of 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 and 

1997 and 2008 ozone NAAQS. The 

submittals state that budgets are 

approved annually by the Albuquerque 

City Council, and that the annual 

budgeting process provides a periodic 

update that enables the AQD to adjust 

funding and personnel needs to carry 

out air programs to meet the CAA. The 

Bernalillo County Joint Air Quality 

Ordinance authorizes the AQCB to 

adopt rules, pursuant to AQCA section 

74–2–7, for establishing fees, to review 

and act on permit applications; amend 

and review permits; conduct 

inspections of facilities; and enforce the 

rules and orders of permits. Fees 

collected pursuant to this ordinance are 

then deposited into a fund created by 

section 74–2–16 of the AQCA, which 

must be used by the municipality or 

county only for the purpose of paying 

the reasonable costs of, among other 

things, reviewing and acting on permit 

applications, implementing and 

enforcing rules of the permit, air 

monitoring, air modeling, preparing 

guidance, and preparing emission 

inventories. 

Additionally, there are federal sources 

of funding for the implementation of the 

1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone and 1997 

and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS through, for 

example, the CAA sections 103 and 105 

grant funds. The AQD receives federal 

funds on an annual basis, under 

sections 103 and 105 of the Act, to 

support its air quality programs. The 

AQD has authority to collect fees for 

Title V and non-Title V permit 

applications, revisions, renewals and 

inspections pursuant to New Mexico 

AQCA, New Mexico Statutes Annotated 

(NMSA) 1978 Sections 74–2–4, 74–2–5 

and 74–2–7, the Bernalillo County 

Ordinance 94–5 Sections 3, 4 and 7, and 

the revised ordinances of Albuquerque 

1994, Section 9–5–1–3, Section 9–5–1– 

4 and Section 9–5–1–7. For example, 

New Mexico AQCA Section 74–2– 

7(B)(7) requires by regulation a schedule 

of emission fees consistent with the 

provisions of Section 502(b)(3) of the 

1990 Amendments to the Federal Clean 

Air Act. The SIP-approved regulation 

that addresses permit fees, AQCB Air 

Quality Control Regulation Section 21— 

Permit Fees (April 10, 1980 at 45 FR 

24460) was repealed and replaced by 

the Albuquerque/Bernalillo County 

AQCB rule effective July 1, 2001 and 

recodified as 20.11.2 NMAC. It was 

submitted as a SIP revision on May 24, 

2011. We have proposed to approve the 

revisions that repeal and replace the 

existing SIP rule but have not finalized 

our action (November 4, 2011, 76 FR 

68385). A detailed list of the applicable 

sections of the NMAC is provided in the 

TSD. More specific information on 

permitting fees is provided in the 

discussion for 110(a)(2)(L) below and in 

the TSD. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 72 / Friday, April 13, 2012 / Proposed Rules 22263 

34As explained in greater detail in footnote 31, 

Bernalillo County Ordinance 94–5 amended 

Ordinance 88–45, which is in the Albuquerque/ 

Bernalillo County SIP. EPA will act on Bernalillo 

County Ordinance 94–5 in a future rulemaking. 

35EPA approved the Albuquerque/Bernalillo 

County Title V program (20.11.42 NMAC, Operating 

Permits) on November 26, 1996 (61 FR 60032, 

effective January 27, 1997) and subsequent 

revisions on September 8, 2004 (69 FR 54244, 

effective November 8, 2004). 

Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) requires that 

states comply with section 128. Section 

128 requires: (1) That the majority of 

members of the state body which 

approves permits or enforcement orders 

do not derive any significant portion of 

their income from entities subject to 

permitting or enforcement orders under 

the CAA; and (2) any potential conflicts 

of interest by such body be adequately 

disclosed. On June 1,1999, the EPA 

approved into the SIP the AQCB 

Ordinances and provisions of the ACQA 

that pertain to financial disclosures, 

conflicts of interest, code of conduct 

and ethical conduct for the Executive 

Director and classified employees of the 

agency (64 FR 29235). The EPA action, 

effective August 2, 1999, approved the 

SIP revisions for Board composition and 

conflict of interest disclosure 

requirements submitted by the Governor 

for Albuquerque/Bernalillo County. 

These include public interest 

requirements and safeguards against 

conflict of interest and are codified in 

the City of Albuquerque Ordinances, 2– 

6–1–3(A)(4), 9–5–1–3(B)(4), 9–5–1–3(E) 

and County Ordinance 94–5, Section 

(3)(E) Joint Air Quality Control Board 

Ordinance. For example, County 

Ordinance 94–5 Section (3)(E) states: 

Any member of the Board who has a 

conflict of interest regarding a matter before 

the Board shall disqualify himself or herself 

from the discussion and shall abstain from 

the vote on such matter. A conflict of interest 

means any interest which may yield, directly 

or indirectly any monetary or other material 

benefit to the Board member or the member’s 

spouse or minor child.34

EPA is proposing to find that the 

Albuquerque/Bernalillo County SIP 

meets the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(E) of the Act for the 1997 and 

2008 

8-hour ozone and the 1997 and 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Stationary source monitoring system, 

pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(F): Rules 

that require stationary sources to 

monitor for compliance, provide 

recordkeeping and reporting, and 

provide for enforcement of ozone, PM2.5, 

and precursors to these pollutants (SO2, 

ammonia, VOCs and NOX), consistent 

with the requirements of 40 CFR part 

51, subpart K have been approved into 

the Albuquerque/Bernalillo County SIP 

and codified at 20.11.1 NMAC (General 

Provisions, 70 FR 41963, July 21, 2005), 

20.11.5 NMAC (Visible Air 

Contaminants, 69 FR 78312, Dec. 30, 

2004), 20.11.40 NMAC (Source 

Registration, 69 FR 78312), 20.11.49 

NMAC (Excess Emissions, 75 FR 5698, 

Feb. 4, 2010), 20.11.66 NMAC (Process 

Equipment, 69 FR 78312), 20.11.67 

NMAC (Equipment, Emissions, 

Limitations, 69 FR 78312), and 20.11.90 

NMAC (Source Surveillance, 75 FR 

5698). Requirements in 20.11.47 NMAC 

(Emission Inventory Requirements) 

provide for the reporting of emission 

inventories on a schedule consistent 

with EPA regulations at 40 CFR 51.211, 

subpart K—Source Surveillance. 

20.11.42 NMAC, Operating Permits, 

encompasses the Title V operating 

permit program for facilities within 

Bernalillo County. The Title V program 

is a delegated program and does not 

reside in the SIP.35

Under the Albuquerque/Bernalillo 

County SIP rules, the AQD is required 

to analyze the emissions data from 

point, area, mobile, and biogenic 

(natural) sources. The AQD uses this 

data to track progress towards 

maintaining the NAAQS, develop 

control and maintenance strategies, 

identify sources and general emission 

levels, and determine compliance with 

Albuquerque/Bernalillo County and 

EPA requirements. Additionally, the 

AQD air quality inspectors compare 

source emissions to emission limitations 

and standards pursuant to 20.11.90.6 

NMAC. Emissions data are available 

electronically: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ 

chief/eiinformation.html. These rules 

are in the federally-approved SIP. A 

comprehensive list of the chapters and 

Federal Register citations is provided in 

the TSD. 

EPA is proposing to find that the 

Albuquerque/Bernalillo County SIP 

meets the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(F) for the 1997 and 2008 

8-hour ozone and the 1997 and 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Emergency power, pursuant to section 

110(a)(2)(G): Section 110(a)(2)(G) 

requires states to provide for authority 

to address activities causing imminent 

and substantial endangerment to public 

health, including contingency plans to 

implement the emergency episode 

provisions in their SIPs. The AQCB and 

AQD are empowered by the New 

Mexico Air Quality Control Act to 

respond to air pollution episodes and 

other air quality emergencies, and the 

AQCB adopted contingency plans to 

implement emergency episode 

provisions in the SIP. The Air Pollution 

Episode Contingency Plan for Bernalillo 

County was approved into the SIP on 

August 12, 1991 (56 FR 38073, effective 

October 11, 1991). The Albuquerque/ 

Bernalillo County Air Pollution Episode 

Contingency Plan (Plan) addresses all 

the necessary requirements for a Priority 

1 region (defined in 40 CFR 51.150). 

First, the Plan includes significant 

harm levels for sulfur dioxide, 

particulate matter, carbon monoxide, 

ozone, and nitrogen dioxide as per 40 

CFR 51.151. Second, the Plan 

adequately addresses all requirements 

for contingency plans outlined in 40 

CFR 51.152. Three stages of episode 

criteria as per 40 CFR 51.152(a)(1) and 

40 CFR 51, appendix L, are set forth: air 

pollution alert, air pollution warning, 

and air pollution emergency. Prior to 

reaching the first episode stage, an air 

Stagnation Advisory will be in effect. 

This is initiated when the AQD is 

notified by the National Weather 

Service (NWS) that air stagnation 

conditions will persist for a period of 36 

hours or more within the Middle Rio 

Grande portion of New Mexico 

(includes Bernalillo County). The 

Episode Criteria Table on page 3 of the 

Plan shows alert, warning, emergency, 

and significant harm levels for each of 

the pollutants. The Plan also provides 

for public announcement of, and 

specifies adequate emission control 

actions to be taken at, each episode 

stage (40 CFRR 51.152(a)(2) and 40 CFR 

51.152(a)(3)). Finally, the Plan 

sufficiently addresses the requirements 

of 51.152(b)(1–3) concerning prompt 

acquisition of forecasts of atmospheric 

stagnation conditions including 

updates, source compliance inspections, 

and communication procedures. 

The criteria for ozone are based on a 

1-hour average ozone level. These 

episode criteria and contingency 

measures are adequate to address 8-hour 

ozone emergency episodes and are in 

the federally approved SIP. The 

Albuquerque/Bernalillo County Plan 

provides for the pollutants specified 

under 40 CFR 51.150, including 

particulate matter, and is consistent 

with the provisions of 40 CFR 51.151 

and 152, and Appendix L to Part 51. 

The 2009 Infrastructure SIP Guidance 

for PM2.5 recommends that a state with 

at least one monitored 24-hour PM2.5

value exceeding 140.4 mg/m3 since 2006 

establish an emergency episode plan 

and contingency measures to be 

implemented should such level be 

exceeded again. The 2006–2010 ambient 

air quality monitoring data for 

Albuquerque/Bernalillo County do not 

exceed 140.4 mg/m3. The PM2.5 levels 

have consistently remained below this 

level (140.4 mg/m3), and furthermore, 

the AQCB has appropriate general 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
22264 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 72 / Friday, April 13, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

36Section 110(a)(2)(J) is divided into three 

segments: consultation with government officials; 

public notification; and PSD and visibility 

protection. 

37As discussed earlier in this proposed action, 

the Albuquerque Air Quality Division is a part of 

the City of Albuquerque’s Department of 

Environmental Health. The AQD serves as the 

administrative agency for the Bernalillo County Air 

Quality Control Board, which encompasses the City 

of Albuquerque. 

emergency powers to address PM2.5

related episodes to protect the 

environment and public health. Given 

Albuquerque/Bernalillo County’s 

monitored PM2.5 levels, EPA is 

proposing that Albuquerque/Bernalillo 

County is not required to submit an 

emergency episode plan and 

contingency measures at this time, for 

the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 standards. 

Additional detail is provided in the 

TSD. 

EPA is proposing to find that the 

Albuquerque/Bernalillo County SIP 

meets the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(G) for the 1997 and 2008 8- 

hour ozone and 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. 

Future SIP revisions, pursuant to 

section 110(a)(2)(H): The New Mexico 

AQCA directs the AQD to prepare and 

develop the SIP and provides the AQD 

with the authority to carry out other 

duties, requirements and 

responsibilities necessary for the 

implementation and fulfillment of the 

requirements of the CAA. The New 

Mexico AQCA (section 74–2–4) 

delegates authority to AQCB to adopt, 

promulgate, publish, amend and repeal 

regulations consistent with the AQCA to 

attain and maintain NAAQS and 

prevent or abate air pollution. Thus, the 

AQCB has the authority (AQCA Section 

74–2–5.1) to revise the SIP from time to 

time as may be necessary to take into 

account revisions of primary or 

secondary NAAQS, or the availability of 

improved or more expeditious methods 

of attaining such standards. 

Furthermore, the AQCB also has the 

authority under these New Mexico 

AQCA provisions to revise the SIP in 

the event the EPA, pursuant to the 

federal CAA, finds the SIP to be 

substantially inadequate to attain the 

NAAQS. 

EPA is proposing to find that the 

Albuquerque/Bernalillo County SIP 

meets the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(H) for the 1997 and 2008 8- 

hour ozone and 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. 

Consultation with government 

officials, pursuant to section 

110(a)(2)(J): 36 The New Mexico AQCA 

(section 74–2–5—Duties and Powers of 

the Local Board) and Air Quality 

Control Board Ordinances gives the 

AQD and AQCB authority to advise, 

consult, contract and cooperate with 

municipalities, counties, other states, 

the federal government and other 

interested persons or groups in regards 

to matters of common interest in the 

field of air quality control. The County 

Ordinance 94–5 ‘‘establishes powers 

and duties of the Board for providing for 

the adoption, administration and 

enforcement of the regulations; 

providing for variances; providing for 

permits; providing for special 

regulations consistent with Federal and 

State requirements for prevention of 

significant deterioration, new source 

performance standards, national 

emissions standards for hazardous air 

pollutants and providing for operating 

permits and fees as required by the 1990 

Amendments to the Federal CAA.’’ 

Additionally, 20.11.82 NMAC— 

Rulemaking Procedures standardizes the 

procedures used in rulemaking 

proceedings before the AQCB, including 

public notice. These rules and 

regulations comply with the 

requirements of section 121 of the CAA 

that requires that states provide a 

satisfactory process of consultation with 

general purpose local governments. 

Furthermore, Bernalillo County 

Ordinance 94–5 states that any 

regulations adopted by the AQCB must 

include, among other things, any 

information that the AQD deems 

necessary; specification of public notice; 

comment period and public period; 

provisions requiring notice to the New 

Mexico Environment Department for 

permitting sources that emit 100 or 

more tpy of any regulated air 

contaminant; and provisions that 

require notice to, and review by, EPA. 

These rules comply with the 

requirements of CAA section 121. 

Therefore, EPA is proposing to find 

that the Albuquerque/Bernalillo County 

SIP meets this portion of the section 

110(a)(2)(J) requirements for the 1997 

and 2008 8-hour ozone and the 1997 

and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Public notification if NAAQS are 

exceeded, pursuant to section 

110(a)(2)(J): Public notification begins 

with the air quality forecasts, which 

advise the public of conditions capable 

of exceeding the 8-hour ozone and PM2.5

NAAQS. The air quality forecasts for 

Albuquerque/Bernalillo County can be 

found on the City of Albuquerque 37

Web site at www.cabq.gov/airquality 

and are updated hourly. Ozone forecasts 

are made daily during the ozone season 

for the Bernalillo County. The ozone 

forecasts are made, in most cases, a day 

in advance local time and are valid for 

the next day. Ozone readings/warnings 

and the daily air quality index for the 

area are generated automatically, and 

sent to the all persons that have signed 

up on the City of Albuquerque Web site 

(www.cabq.gov/airquality/ 

enviroflash.html ) to receive email 

updates, which includes the public, 

various stakeholders and government 

officials. This Air Quality Notification 

System is a service through airnow.gov 

and is called EnviroFlash. EnviroFlash 

is a system that sends emails about daily 

air quality forecasts. The message is the 

same air quality information that the 

local radio or television stations 

provide, plus suggested safety measures 

when air quality levels are unhealthy. 

Additionally, the air quality index is 

available via telephone by calling the 

AQD. Public notice is governed by the 

New Mexico AQCA (section 74–2–6) 

and 20.11.82 NMAC—Rulemaking 

Procedures Air Quality Control Board. 

EPA is proposing to find that the 

Albuquerque/Bernalillo County SIP 

meets this portion of the section 

110(a)(2)(J) requirements for the 1997 

and 2008 8-hour ozone and 1997 and 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

PSD and visibility protection, section 

110(a)(2)(J): This portion of section 

110(a)(2)(J) in part requires that a state’s 

SIP meet the applicable requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(C) as relating to PSD 

programs. As discussed previously in 

this rulemaking with regards to section 

110(a)(2)(C) and in the TSD, the 

Albuquerque/Bernalillo County’s PSD 

program is in the SIP (12/21/93 at 58 FR 

67330 and 4/26/07 at 72 FR 20728). In 

addition to the approved program and to 

meet the requirements of 110(a)(2)(C) 

and 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for 1997 and 2008 

ozone standard, EPA believes 

Albuquerque/Bernalillo County must 

have updated its PSD rules to treat NOX

as a precursor for ozone. Thus, we are 

proposing to approve the SIP revisions 

(submitted May 24, 2006 and August 16, 

2010) to implement NOX as a precursor 

to ozone. To implement section 

110(a)(2)(C) for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

standard, states must provide a SIP 

revision due May 16, 2011 under EPA’s 

Implementation of the New Source 

Review (NSR) Program for Particulate 

Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (73 

FR 28321). The AQCB adopted rules on 

July 14, 2010 to meet this requirement 

and the Governor submitted them on 

August 16, 2010 for approval as a SIP 

revision. We discuss our proposal to 

approve these revisions and the 

revisions implementing NOX as a 

precursor to ozone in further detail in 

this rulemaking and in the TSD. 

The most recent New Mexico SIP 

revision of the Albuquerque/Bernalillo 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 72 / Friday, April 13, 2012 / Proposed Rules 22265 

38Albuquerque/Bernalillo County has an 

federally-approved Title V fee program in place. 

EPA approved Albuquerque/Bernalillo County’s 

Title V fee program as part of its Title V Operating 

Permit Program on November 26, 1996. See 61 FR 

60032. EPA approved revisions to the Albuquerque/ 

Bernalillo County Title V fee program on September 

8, 2004. See 69 FR 54244. 

County Regional Haze program, which 

addresses the visibility transport prong 

for Albuquerque/Bernalillo County, was 

submitted to EPA on July 28, 2011. We 

are evaluating this submittal and will be 

proposing action on the Regional Haze 

submittal in Spring of 2012. With regard 

to the applicable requirements for 

visibility protection, EPA recognizes 

that states are subject to visibility and 

regional haze program requirements 

under part C of the Act (which includes 

sections 169A and 169B). In the event 

of the establishment of a new NAAQS, 

however, the visibility and regional 

haze program requirements under part C 

do not change. Thus, we find that there 

is no new visibility obligation 

‘‘triggered’’ under section 110(a)(2)(J) 

when a new NAAQS becomes effective. 

This would be the case even in the 

event a secondary PM2.5 NAAQS for 

visibility is established, because this 

NAAQS would not affect visibility 

requirements under part C. 

EPA is proposing to find that the 

Albuquerque/Bernalillo County SIP 

meets the visibility protection 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(J) for 

the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone and 

1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Air quality and modeling and 

submission of data, pursuant to section 

110(a)(2)(K): The New Mexico Air 

Quality Control Act charges the AQCB 

and AQD with preparing and 

implementing the SIP, which includes 

modeling to inform decisions on 

nonattainment area boundaries and 

demonstrate effectiveness of SIP control 

strategies. 

The AQD’s air quality modeling work 

complies with EPA’s guidance on the 

use of models in attainment 

demonstrations for the 8-hour ozone 

standard and uses EPA’s latest draft 

final guidance for modeling PM2.5

consistent with the air quality modeling 

requirements in 40 CFR 52.21(l) and 

(m). EPA Region 6 and AQD modeling 

staff have communicated on numerous 

occasions regarding modeling for 

Bernalillo County. Additionally, 

20.11.61 NMAC Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration requires 

approval of permits consistent with the 

modeling requirements of 40 CFR 

51.21(l) and (m). As stated in the August 

16, 2010 SIP submittal, the AQD 

commits to continue to use air quality 

models in accordance with EPA’s 

currently approved modeling guidance 

and protocols and the continued 

submittal of data and modeling results 

to EPA. 

EPA is proposing to find that the 

Albuquerque/Bernalillo County SIP 

meets the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(K) for the 1997 and 2008 8- 

hour ozone and the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. 

Permitting fees, section 110(a)(2)(L): 

The AQD has authority to collect fees 

for Title V 38 and non-Title V permit 

applications, revisions, renewals and 

inspections pursuant to New Mexico 

AQCA, New Mexico Statutes Annotated 

(NMSA) 1978 Sections 74–2–4, 74–2–5 

and 74–2–7, the Bernalillo County 

Ordinance 94–5—Joint Air Quality 

Control Board Sections 3, 4 and 7, and 

the revised ordinances of Albuquerque 

1994, Section 9–5–1–3, Section 9–5–1– 

4 and Section 9–5–1–7. For example, 

New Mexico AQCA Section 74–2– 

7(B)(7) requires by regulation a schedule 

of emission fees consistent with the 

Title V provisions of Section 502(b)(3) 

of the CAA. The SIP-approved 

regulation that addresses permit fees, 

AQCB Air Quality Control Regulation 

Section 21—Permit Fees (April 10, 1980 

at 45 FR 24460) was repealed and 

replaced by the more stringent and 

broader in scope Albuquerque/ 

Bernalillo County AQCB rule effective 

July 1, 2001 and recodified as 20.11.2 

NMAC. It was submitted as a SIP 

revision on May 24, 2011. We have 

proposed to approve the revisions that 

repeal and replace the existing SIP rule 

but have not finalized our action 

(November 4, 2011, 76 FR 68385). A 

detailed list of the applicable sections of 

the NMAC is provided in the TSD. 

The submitted revision that we have 

proposed to approve addresses fees for 

reviewing and acting on specific permit 

applications received by the AQCD; fees 

to partially offset the administrative 

costs of permit-related administrative 

hearings; funding for small business 

stationary sources; and fees to cover 

administrative expenses. The comment 

period on the proposal closed on 

December 5, 2011. No comments were 

received. 

EPA is proposing to find that the 

Albuquerque/Bernalillo County SIP 

meets the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(L) for the 1997 and 2008 8- 

hour ozone and the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. 

Consultation/participation by affected 

local entities, section 110(a)(2)(M): New 

Mexico is divided in two air authorities, 

Albuquerque/Bernalillo County and 

State of New Mexico covering the 

remaining counties. Each authority is 

responsible for controlling air pollution 

emitted by stationary sources within its 

respective jurisdiction. The AQD, 

consistent with regulations adopted by 

the AQCB, consults with and provides 

liaison to the New Mexico Environment 

Department’s Air Quality Bureau and 

provides frequent and regular 

communication and consultation with 

their management and staff. Section 

5(B)(4) of the AQCA authorizes the AQD 

to advise, consult, contract and 

cooperate with municipalities, counties, 

other states, the federal government and 

other interested persons or groups in 

regards to matters of common interest in 

the field of air quality control. The 

AQCB is required to conduct public 

hearings and to solicit testimony from 

the public when plans or rules are 

proposed to be adopted by the AQCB for 

inclusion into the SIP. Consultation and 

public involvement are also required by 

20.11.3 NMAC, Transportation 

Conformity (75 FR 20922, April 22, 

2010). For example, Subsection (F) 

Public Consultation Procedures of 

20.11.3.105 NMAC, requires ‘‘affected 

agencies making conformity 

determinations on transportation plans, 

programs and projects shall establish a 

proactive public involvement process 

that provides opportunity for public 

review and comments * * *’’ EPA is 

proposing to find that the Albuquerque/ 

Bernalillo County SIP meets the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(M) for 

the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone and the 

1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

V. Additional Revisions to the 

Albuquerque/Bernalillo County SIP 

EPA is also proposing to approve a 

portion of a SIP submission that 

addresses Ambient Air Quality 

Standards. 

Ambient Air Quality Standards: The 

provisions for ambient air quality 

standards are addressed at 20.11.8 

NMAC, or Part 8 of the Albuquerque/ 

Bernalillo County SIP. This provision 

was approved into the SIP on May 31, 

2006 (71 FR 30805). This provision 

incorporates by reference the state 

ambient air quality standards and 

summarizes the local ambient air 

quality standards that are identical to 

the NAAQS, which are codified at 40 

CFR Part 50.4 et seq. On November 6, 

2009, the Governor of New Mexico 

submitted a revision to the New Mexico 

SIP that included among other things, 

Ambient Air Quality Standards, 

codified at 20.11.8 NMAC (Part 8). The 

substantive revisions submitted to Part 

8 again revise the local ambient air 

quality standards to make them 

consistent with the current NAAQS. 

Specifically, the standards for carbon 

monoxide (CO), ozone (O3), sulfur 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
22266 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 72 / Friday, April 13, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

dioxide (SO2), PM2.5, PM10 and lead (Pb) 

were revised to reflect the new 

standards for those pollutants. Nonsubstantive revisions are editorial in 

nature with the replacement of terms 

and other clarifications or typographical 

corrections. We are proposing to 

approve the severable portion of the 

November 6, 2009 SIP revision 

submittal that revises Part 8, because it 

will ensure that the Albuquerque/ 

Bernalillo County SIP contains 

standards that are consistent with the 

latest Federally-promulgated NAAQS. 

Appendix A of the TSD for this 

rulemaking provides more detail 

regarding the specific revisions. 

VI. Proposed Action 

We are proposing to approve the 

submittals provided to demonstrate that 

the Albuquerque/Bernalillo County SIP 

meets the infrastructure elements for the 

1997 and 2008 ozone and 1997 and 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS listed below: 

Emission limits and other control measures 

(110(a)(2)(A) of the Act); 

Ambient air quality monitoring/data 

system (110(a)(2)(B) of the Act); 

Program for enforcement of control 

measures (110(a)(2)(C) of the Act); 

Interstate transport, pursuant to section 

110(a)(2)(D)(ii) of the Act; 

Adequate resources (110(a)(2)(E) of the 

Act); 

Stationary source monitoring system 

(110(a)(2)(F) of the Act); 

Emergency power (110(a)(2)(G) of the Act); 

Future SIP revisions (110(a)(2)(H) of the 

Act); 

Consultation with government officials 

(110(a)(2)(J) of the Act); 

Public notification (110(a)(2)(J) of the Act); 

Prevention of significant deterioration and 

visibility protection (110(a)(2)(J) of the Act); 

Air quality modeling data (110(a)(2)(K) of 

the Act); 

Permitting fees (110(a)(2)(L) of the Act); 

and 

Consultation/participation by affected local 

entities (110(a)(2)(M) of the Act). 

We are also proposing to approve the 

portion of the Albuquerque/Bernalillo 

County SIP revision submittal that 

addresses the requirement of section 

(110)(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of the Act that 

emissions from sources in Albuquerque/ 

Bernalillo County do not interfere with 

measures required in the SIP of any 

other state under part C of the Act 

regarding PSD for the 1997 and 2008 

8-hour ozone and 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. 

We are proposing to approve 

Albuquerque/Bernalillo County PSD SIP 

provisions to 20.11.61 NMAC submitted 

May 24, 2006 and August 16, 2010. 

These SIP revisions address NOX as a 

precursor for ozone, consistent with 

EPA’s November 29, 2005 Phase 2 rule 

for the 1997 ozone NAAQS (70 FR 

71612). These revisions also identify the 

precursors for PM2.5 and significant 

emission rates necessary for PM2.5 PSD 

permitting, consistent with the 1997 and 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS (73 FR 28321, May 

16, 2008). Additionally, the May 24, 

2006 and August 16, 2010 submittals 

make numerous other changes necessary 

to maintain consistency with the federal 

PSD permitting requirements. 

Specifically, we are proposing to 

approve revisions to 20.11.61.7, 

20.11.61.28, and 20.11.61.29 NMAC 

submitted on May 24, 2006. We are also 

proposing to approve revisions to 

20.11.61.1, 20.11.61.2, 20.11.61.7, 

20.11.61.11, 20.11.61.12, 20.11.61.14, 

20.11.61.15, 20.11.61.16, 20.11.61.17, 

20.11.61.18, 20.11.61.19, 20.11.61.20, 

20.11.61.23, 20.11.61.24, 20.11.61.25, 

20.11.61.26, 20.11.61.27, 20.11.61.28, 

20.11.61.29, 20.11.61.30, and 

20.11.61.31 NMAC submitted on August 

16, 2010. 

We are also proposing to approve SIP 

revisions from November 6, 2009 

pertaining to updating Part 8 Ambient 

Air Quality Standards (20.11.8 NMAC). 

EPA is proposing to approve these 

revisions pursuant to section 110 of the 

CAA. These revisions improve the 

Albuquerque/Bernalillo County SIP and 

update 20.11.8 NMAC to add new 

standards and revise existing NAAQS in 

20.11.8 NMAC to be consistent with 40 

CFR Part 50—National Primary and 

Secondary Ambient Air Quality 

Standards. 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, 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 CAA. 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 CAA; 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. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Nitrogen dioxides, Ozone, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: March 30, 2012. 

Samuel Coleman, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

[FR Doc. 2012–8927 Filed 4–12–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS