52692 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 166 / Friday, August 27, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule (75 FR 

43889). Comments must be received on 

or before September 7, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2009–0924, by one of the 

following methods: 

Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

E-mail: GHGReportingCBI@epa.gov. 

Fax: (202) 566–1741. 

Mail: Environmental Protection 

Agency, EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), 

Mailcode 6102T, Attention Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0924, 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20460. 

Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, 

Public Reading Room, EPA West 

Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004. 

Such deliveries are only accepted 

during the Docket’s normal hours of 

operation, and special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2009– 

0924. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http:// 

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 http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov your e-mail 

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. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http:// 

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 http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, 

Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., 

NW., Washington, DC. This Docket 

Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 

p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 

legal holidays. The telephone number 

for the Public Reading Room is (202) 

566–1744, and the telephone number for 

the Air Docket is (202) 566–1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Carole Cook, Climate Change Division, 

Office of Atmospheric Programs (MC– 

6207J), Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC 20460; telephone 

number: (202) 343–9263; fax number: 

(202) 343–2342; e-mail address: 

GHGMRR@epa.gov. For technical 

information, contact the Greenhouse 

Gas Reporting Rule Hotline at: http:// 

www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/ 

ghgrule_contactus.htm. Alternatively, 

contact Carole Cook at 202–343–9263. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Additional 

Information on Submitting Comments: 

To expedite review of your comments 

by Agency staff, you are encouraged to 

send a separate copy of your comments, 

in addition to the copy you submit to 

the official docket, to Carole Cook, U.S. 

EPA, Office of Atmospheric Programs, 

Climate Change Division, Mail Code 

6207–J, Washington, DC, 20460, 

telephone (202) 343–9263, e-mail 

GHGReportingCBI@epa.gov. 

Background on Today’s Action: In 

this action, EPA is extending the public 

comment period on the July 27, 2010 

Supplemental Proposal to the Proposed 

Confidentiality Determinations for Data 

Required Under the Mandatory 

Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule 

(‘‘Supplemental CBI Proposal,’’ 75 FR 

43889). EPA is extending the comment 

period for the Supplemental CBI 

Proposal to September 7, 2010. 

On July 7, 2010, EPA published the 

Proposed Confidentiality 

Determinations for Data Required Under 

the Mandatory Greenhouse Gas 

Reporting Rule and Proposed 

Amendment to Special Rules Governing 

Certain Information Obtained Under the 

Clean Air Act (‘‘CBI Proposal,’’ 75 FR 

39094). The comment period for the CBI 

Proposal ends on September 7, 2010. 

On July 27, 2010, EPA published the 

Supplemental CBI Proposal; the 

comment period for the Supplemental 

CBI Proposal would have ended on 

August 26, 2010. 

EPA received comments requesting an 

extension of the public comment period 

for the Supplemental CBI Proposal to 

September 7, 2010. Commenters noted 

that the CBI Proposal and the 

Supplemental CBI Proposal both 

concern the confidentiality of data 

collected under the Greenhouse Gas 

Reporting Program. Commenters also 

noted how comments on the two 

proposals might be easily consolidated 

into one document. Therefore, to 

facilitate submission of public 

comments, EPA is extending the 

comment period for the Supplemental 

CBI Proposal to September 7, 2010 so 

that the comment period for both 

actions ends on the same day. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 2 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: August 23, 2010. 

Dina Kruger, 

Acting Director, Office of Atmospheric 

Programs. 

[FR Doc. 2010–21385 Filed 8–26–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2009–0656; FRL–9193–6] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; New Mexico; 

Interstate Transport of Pollution; 

Revisions to Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration Regulations 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

a State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revision submitted by the State of New 

Mexico for the purpose of addressing 

the ‘‘good neighbor’’ provisions of Clean 

Air Act (CAA) section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS or standards) and the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS. This SIP revision 

addresses the requirement that the State 

of New Mexico’s SIP have adequate 

provisions to prohibit air emissions 

from adversely affecting another state’s 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 166 / Friday, August 27, 2010 / Proposed Rules 52693 

air quality through interstate transport. 

In this action, EPA is proposing to 

approve the New Mexico Interstate 

Transport SIP provisions that address 

the requirement of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) that emissions from 

New Mexico sources do not interfere 

with maintenance of the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS and the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS in any other state. In addition, 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

provisions of this SIP submission that 

address the requirement of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) that emissions from 

New Mexico sources do not interfere 

with measures required in the SIP of 

any other state under part C of the CAA 

to prevent significant deterioration of air 

quality. For purposes of the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS, EPA is also proposing to 

approve a SIP revision that modifies 

New Mexico’s Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) SIP for the 1997 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS to include nitrogen 

oxides (NOX) as an ozone precursor. 

This action is being taken under section 

110 and part C of the Clean Air Act (the 

Act or CAA). 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before September 27, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket No. EPA–R06– 

OAR–2009–0656, by one of the 

following methods: 

• Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

• Follow the online instructions for 

submitting comments. 

• EPA Region 6 ‘‘Contact Us’’ Web 

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

r6coment.htm. Please click on ‘‘6PD 

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

submitting comments. 

• E-mail: Mr. Guy Donaldson at 

donaldson.guy@epa.gov. Please also 

send a copy by e-mail to the person 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section below. 

• Fax: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air 

Planning Section (6PD–L), at fax 

number 214–665–7263. 

• Mail: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, 

Air Planning Section (6PD–L), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 

Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 

75202–2733. 

• Hand or Courier Delivery: Mr. Guy 

Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning Section 

(6PD–L), Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, 

Dallas, Texas 75202–2733. Such 

deliveries are accepted only between the 

hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. weekdays, 

and not on legal holidays. Special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket No. EPA–R06–OAR–2009–0656. 

EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http:// 

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 e-mail. The http:// 

www.regulations.gov Web site is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov your e-mail 

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. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http:// 

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 15 cent per page fee 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 

New Mexico Environment Department, 

Air Quality Bureau, 1190 St. Francis 

Drive, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87502. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Emad Shahin, Air Planning Section 

(6PD–L), Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, 

Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733, 

telephone (214) 665–6717; fax number 

(214) 665–7263; e-mail address 

shahin.emad@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document wherever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean the 

EPA. 

Outline 

I. What action is EPA taking? 

II. What is a SIP? 

III. What is the background for this action? 

IV. What is EPA’s evaluation of the State’s 

submission? 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What action is EPA taking? 

We are proposing to approve a 

submission from the State of New 

Mexico demonstrating that New Mexico 

has adequately addressed two of the 

required elements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i), the elements that require 

that the State Implementation Plan 

prohibit air pollutant emissions from 

sources within a state from interfering 

with maintenance of the relevant 

NAAQS in any other state, and 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 New Mexico do not 

interfere with the maintenance of the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS or of the 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, or with measures 

required to prevent significant 

deterioration of air quality, with regards 

to these ozone or PM2.5 NAAQS in any 

other state. In a separate prior action, we 

have addressed the element of section 

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

prohibiting air pollutant emissions from 

within New Mexico from significantly 

contributing to nonattainment of the 

1997 8-hour ozone and 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS in any other state (75 FR 

33174). The remaining section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) element which pertains 

to interference with measures required 

to protect visibility in any other state 

will be addressed in a future 

rulemaking. 

In conjunction with our proposed 

finding that emissions from sources in 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

52694 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 166 / Friday, August 27, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

1As noted later in this action, these revisions are 

separate from the New Mexico PSD revisions and 

are to 20.2.2 NMAC, Definitions and 20.2.79 

NMAC, Permits-Nonattainment areas. 

New Mexico are not interfering with any 

other state’s PSD program, we are also 

proposing to approve a portion of the 

SIP revision submitted by the State of 

New Mexico with rule revisions to 

regulate NOx emissions in its PSD 

permit program as a precursor to ozone. 

At this time, EPA is not taking action on 

other portions of the SIP revisions 

submitted by New Mexico together with 

the PSD revision.1 EPA intends to act on 

the other revisions submitted together 

with the PSD program revisions at a 

later time. 

EPA proposes to approve the 

foregoing revisions relevant to section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) and the revisions to the 

PSD program pursuant to section 110 

and part C of the CAA. 

II. What is a SIP? 

Section 110(a) of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA) requires each state to develop a 

plan that provides for the 

implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement of the national ambient air 

quality standards (NAAQS). EPA 

establishes NAAQS under section 109 of 

the CAA. Currently, the NAAQS address 

six criteria pollutants: carbon monoxide, 

nitrogen dioxide, ozone, lead, 

particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide. 

The plan developed by a state is 

referred to as the state implementation 

plan (SIP). The content of the SIP is 

specified in section 110 of the CAA, 

other provisions of the CAA, and 

applicable regulations. SIPs can be 

extensive, containing state regulations 

or other enforceable measures and 

various types of supporting information, 

such as emissions inventories, 

monitoring networks, and modeling 

demonstrations. 

A primary purpose of the SIP is to 

provide the air pollution regulations, 

control strategies, and other means or 

techniques developed by the state to 

ensure that the ambient air within that 

state meets the NAAQS. However, 

another important aspect of the SIP is to 

ensure that emissions from within the 

state do not have certain prohibited 

impacts upon the ambient air in other 

states through interstate transport of 

pollutants. This SIP requirement is 

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

CAA. Pursuant to that provision, each 

state’s SIP must contain provisions 

adequate to prevent, among other 

things, emissions that interfere with 

maintenance of the NAAQS in any other 

state or interfere with measures required 

to be included in the SIP of any other 

state to prevent significant deterioration 

of air quality in such other state. 

States are required to update or revise 

SIPs under certain circumstances. One 

such circumstance is EPA’s 

promulgation of a new or revised 

NAAQS. Each state must submit these 

revisions to EPA for approval and 

incorporation into the federallyenforceable SIP. 

III. What is the background for this 

action? 

On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated 

new NAAQS for 8-hour ozone and for 

fine particulate matter (PM2.5). This 

action is being taken in response to the 

promulgation of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. This 

action does not address the 

requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 

or the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS; those 

standards will be addressed in later 

actions. 

Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires 

states to submit SIPs to address a new 

or revised NAAQS within 3 years after 

promulgation of such standards, or 

within such shorter period as EPA may 

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

elements that such new SIPs must 

address, as applicable, including section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i), which pertains to 

interstate transport of certain emissions. 

On August 15, 2006, EPA issued its 

‘‘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’’ (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 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; or (4) interfere with efforts to 

protect visibility in other states. 

On September 17, 2007, EPA received 

a SIP revision from the State of New 

Mexico intended to address the 

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

for both the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standards and the 1997 PM2.5 standards. 

In this rulemaking, EPA is addressing 

only the requirements that pertain to 

preventing sources in New Mexico from 

emitting pollutants that will interfere 

with maintenance of the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS and the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS in other states, or that will 

interfere with measures required to 

prevent significant deterioration of air 

quality in other states with respect to 

these NAAQS. In its submission, the 

State of New Mexico indicated that its 

current SIP is adequate to prevent such 

interference, and thus argued that no 

additional emissions controls or other 

revisions are necessary at this time to 

alleviate interstate transport for the 1997 

8 hour ozone NAAQS or the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS. With this submission, the state 

would meet the first and second 

elements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). 

On August 31, 2009, the New Mexico 

Environment Department (NMED) also 

adopted revisions to its PSD SIP in 

response to revisions required by EPA 

for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA 

received these revisions on September 

21, 2009. These submitted PSD 

revisions included changes to 20.2.74 

NMAC (New Mexico Administrative 

Code) for ‘‘Permits—Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD)’’ 

necessary to address NOX as a precursor 

for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The 

submittal contained revisions to 

Subsections 20.2.74.7 NMAC, 

Definitions; 20.2.74.502 NMAC, Table 2, 

Significant Emission Rates inclusion of 

nitrogen oxides rate for ozone; and 

20.2.74.503 NMAC, Table 3, Significant 

Monitoring Concentrations, Footnote b, 

inclusion of baseline threshold for 

nitrogen oxides for requirements in 

ambient impact analysis. 

With EPA’s approval of this revision, 

that includes NOX as a precursor of the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, New 

Mexico’s PSD SIP will include changes 

necessary to implement the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS within the state as 

contemplated in the 2006 Guidance for 

SIP submissions to meet the third 

element of section 110(a)(2)(D). The 

submittal also contained revisions to 

20.2.2 NMAC, Definitions and 20.2.79 

NMAC, Permits—Nonattainment Areas. 

At this time, EPA is not taking action on 

these other SIP revisions submitted with 

the PSD SIP revisions. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 166 / Friday, August 27, 2010 / Proposed Rules 52695 

2See, 63 FR 57356 (October 27, 1998). EPA’s 

general approach to section 110(a)(2)(D) was upheld 

in Michigan v. EPA, 213 F.3d 663 (DC Cir. 2000), 

cert denied, 532 U.S. 904 (2001). However, EPA’s 

approach to interference with maintenance in the 

NOX SIP Call was not explicitly reviewed by the 

court. See, North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896, 

907–09 (DC Cir. 2008). 

3See, 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005). 

4 2006 Guidance at page 5. 

5See, North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (DC 

Circuit 2008). 

6 Id. 531, F.3d at 909. 

7 Id. 

8See ‘‘Federal Implementation Plans to Reduce 

Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and 

Ozone,’’ 75 FR 45210 (August 2, 2010). 

IV. What is EPA’s evaluation of the 

State’s submission? 

A. EPA’s Evaluation of Interference 

With Maintenance 

The second element of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) requires that a state’s SIP 

must prohibit any source or other type 

of emissions activity in the state from 

emitting pollutants that would ‘‘interfere 

with maintenance’’ of the applicable 

NAAQS in any other state. This term is 

not defined in the statute. Therefore, 

EPA has interpreted this term in past 

regulatory actions, such as the 1998 

NOX SIP Call, in which EPA took action 

to remediate emissions of NOX that 

significantly contributed to 

nonattainment, or interfered with 

maintenance of, the then applicable 

ozone NAAQS through interstate 

transport of NOX and the resulting 

ozone.2 The NOX SIP Call was the 

mechanism through which EPA 

evaluated whether or not the NOX

emissions from sources in certain states 

had such prohibited interstate impacts, 

and if they had such impacts, required 

the states to adopt substantive SIP 

revisions to eliminate those NOX

emissions, whether through 

participation in a regional cap and trade 

program or by other means. 

After promulgation of the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS and the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS, EPA again recognized that 

regional transport was a serious concern 

throughout the eastern U.S. and 

therefore developed the 2005 Clean Air 

Interstate Rule (CAIR) to address 

emissions of SO2 and NOX that 

exacerbate ambient ozone and PM2.5

levels in many downwind areas through 

interstate transport.3 Within CAIR, EPA 

likewise interpreted the term ‘‘interfere 

with maintenance’’ as part of the 

evaluation of whether or not the 

emissions of sources in certain states 

had such impacts on areas that EPA 

determined would either be in violation 

of the NAAQS, or would be in jeopardy 

of violating the NAAQS, in a modeled 

future year unless action were taken by 

upwind states to reduce SO2 and NOX

emissions. Through CAIR, EPA again 

required states that had such interstate 

impacts to adopt substantive SIP 

revisions to eliminate the SO2 and NOX

emissions, whether through 

participation in a regional cap and trade 

program or by other means. 

EPA’s 2006 Guidance addressed 

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

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS. For those states subject 

to CAIR, EPA indicated that compliance 

with CAIR would meet the two 

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

for these NAAQS. For states not within 

the CAIR region, EPA recommended 

that states evaluate whether or not 

emissions from their sources would 

‘‘interfere with maintenance’’ in other 

states, following the conceptual 

approach adopted by EPA in CAIR. 

After recommending various types of 

information that could be relevant for 

the technical analysis to support the SIP 

submission, such as the amount of 

emissions and meteorological 

conditions in the state, EPA further 

indicated that it would be appropriate 

for the state to assess impacts of its 

emissions on other states using 

considerations comparable to those used 

by EPA ‘‘in evaluating significant 

contribution to nonattainment in the 

CAIR.’’ 4 EPA did not make specific 

recommendations for how states should 

assess ‘‘interfere with maintenance’’ 

separately, and discussed the first two 

elements of section 110(a)(2)(D) together 

without explicitly differentiating 

between them. 

In 2008, however, the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the DC Circuit found that 

CAIR and the related CAIR federal 

implementation plans were unlawful.5

Among other issues, the court held that 

EPA had not correctly addressed the 

second element of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) in CAIR. The court 

noted that ‘‘EPA gave no independent 

significance to the ‘interfere with 

maintenance’ prong of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) to separately identify 

upwind sources interfering with 

downwind maintenance.’’ 6. EPA’s 

approach, the court reasoned, would 

leave areas that are ‘‘barely meeting 

attainment’’ with ‘‘no recourse’’ to 

address upwind emissions sources.7

The court therefore concluded that a 

plain language reading of the statute 

requires EPA to give independent 

meaning to the interfere with 

maintenance requirement of section 

110(a)(2)(D) and that the approach used 

by EPA in CAIR failed to do so. 

In addition to affecting CAIR directly, 

the court’s decision in the North 

Carolina case indirectly affects EPA’s 

recommendations to states in the 2006 

Guidance with respect to the interfere 

with maintenance element of section 

110(a)(2)(D) because the agency’s 

guidance suggested that states use an 

approach comparable to that used by 

EPA in CAIR. States such as New 

Mexico have already made SIP 

submissions that rely upon the 

recommendations in EPA’s 2006 

Guidance, and accordingly may not 

have sufficiently differentiated between 

the significant contribution to 

nonattainment and interfere with 

maintenance elements of the statute. 

Given the court decision on CAIR in the 

interim, however, EPA believes that it is 

necessary to evaluate these state 

submissions for section 110(a)(2)(D) in 

such a way as to assure that the interfere 

with maintenance element of the statute 

is given independent meaning and is 

appropriately evaluated using the types 

of information that EPA recommended 

in the 2006 Guidance. To accomplish 

this, EPA believes it is necessary to use 

an updated approach to address this 

issue and to supplement the technical 

analysis provided by the state in order 

to evaluate the submissions with the 

respect to the interfere with 

maintenance element of section 

110(a)(2)(D). 

EPA has recently proposed a new rule 

to address interstate transport pursuant 

to section 110(a)(2)(D), the ‘‘Federal 

Implementation Plans to Reduce 

Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate 

Matter and Ozone’’ (Transport Rule 

Proposal), in order to address the 

judicial remand of CAIR.8 As part of the 

Transport Rule Proposal, EPA 

specifically reexamined the section 

110(a)(2)(D) requirement that emissions 

from sources in a state must not 

‘‘interfere with maintenance’’ of the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS and 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS in other states. In the proposal, 

EPA developed an approach to identify 

areas that it predicts to be close to the 

level of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, and therefore 

at risk to become nonattainment for 

these NAAQS unless emissions from 

sources in other states are appropriately 

controlled. This approach starts by 

identifying those specific geographic 

areas for which further evaluation is 

appropriate, and differentiates between 

areas where the concern is with 

interference with maintenance, rather 

than with significant contribution to 

nonattainment. 

As described in more detail below, 

EPA’s analysis evaluates data from 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

52696 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 166 / Friday, August 27, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

9A memorandum in the docket for this action 

provides the information EPA used in order to 

identify monitors that are receptors for evaluation 

of interference with maintenance for certain states 

in the western United States. See, Memorandum 

from Brian Timin of EPA’s Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, Air Quality Modeling 

Group entitled ‘‘Documentation of Future Year 

Ozone and Annual PM2.5 Design Values for Western 

States’’ (August 2010) (Timin Memo). 

10To begin this analysis, EPA first identifies all 

monitors projected to be in nonattainment or, based 

on historic variability in air quality, projected to 

have maintenance problems in 2012. The ‘‘problem’’ 

is that these maintenance areas are at risk not to 

stay in attainment because they are so close to the 

level of the 1997 ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS that 

minor variations in weather or emissions could 

result in violations of the NAAQS in 2012. 

11 2006 Guidance at 4. 

12 Id. at 5. 

13See, Transport Rule Proposal, 75 FR 45210 

(August 2, 2010) at page 45227. 14See, 75 FR 33174 (June 11, 2010). 

existing monitors over three overlapping 

three year periods (i.e., 2003–2005, 

2004–2006, and 2005–2007), as well as 

air quality modeling data, in order to 

determine which areas are predicted to 

be violating the 1997 ozone and PM2.5

NAAQS in 2012, and which areas are 

predicted to potentially have a difficulty 

with maintaining attainment as of that 

date. In essence, if an area’s projected 

data for 2012 indicates that it would be 

violating the NAAQS based on the 

average of these three overlapping 

periods, then this monitor location is 

appropriate for comparison for purposes 

of the significant contribution to 

nonattainment element of section 

110(a)(2)(D). If, however, an area’s 

projected data indicate that it would be 

violating the NAAQS based on the 

highest single period, but not over the 

average of the three periods, then this 

monitor location is appropriate for 

comparison for purposes of the interfere 

with maintenance element of the 

statute.9

By this method, EPA has identified 

those areas with monitors that are 

appropriate ‘‘maintenance sites’’ or 

maintenance ‘‘receptors’’ for evaluating 

whether the emissions from sources in 

another state could interfere with 

maintenance in that particular area. EPA 

then uses other analytical tools to 

examine the potential impacts of 

emissions from upwind states on these 

maintenance sites in downwind states. 

EPA believes that this new approach for 

identifying those areas that are 

predicted to have maintenance 

problems is appropriate to evaluate the 

section 110(a)(2)(D) SIP submission of a 

state for the interfere with maintenance 

element.10 EPA’s 2006 Guidance did not 

provide this specific recommendation to 

states, but in light of the court’s decision 

on CAIR, EPA will itself follow this 

approach in acting upon the New 

Mexico submission. 

As explained in the 2006 Guidance, 

EPA does not believe that section 

110(a)(2)(D) SIP submissions from all 

states necessarily need to follow 

precisely the same analytical approach 

of CAIR. In the 2006 Guidance, EPA 

stated that: ‘‘EPA believes that the 

contents of the SIP submission required 

by section 110(a)(2)(D) may vary, 

depending upon the facts and 

circumstances related to the specific 

NAAQS. In particular, the data and 

analytical tools available at the time the 

State develops and submits a SIP for a 

new or revised NAAQS necessarily 

affects the contents of the required 

submission.’’ 11 EPA also indicated in 

the 2006 Guidance that it did not 

anticipate that sources in states outside 

the geographic area covered by CAIR 

were significantly contributing to 

nonattainment, or interfering with 

maintenance, in other states.12 As noted 

in the Transport Rule Proposal, EPA 

continues to believe that the more 

widespread and serious transport 

problems in the eastern United States 

are analytically distinct.13 For the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS and the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA believes that 

nonattainment and maintenance 

problems in the western United States 

are relatively local in nature with only 

limited impacts from interstate 

transport. In the Transport Rule 

Proposal, EPA did not calculate 

interstate ozone or PM2.5 contributions 

to or from Western States. 

Accordingly, EPA believes that 

section 110(a)(2)(D) SIP submissions for 

states outside the geographic area of the 

Transport Rule Proposal may be 

evaluated using a ‘‘weight of the 

evidence’’ approach that takes into 

account the available relevant 

information, such as that recommended 

by EPA in the 2006 Guidance for states 

outside the area affected by CAIR. Such 

information may include, but is not 

limited to, the amount of emissions in 

the state relevant to the NAAQS in 

question, the meteorological conditions 

in the area, the distance from the state 

to the nearest monitors in other states 

that are appropriate receptors, or such 

other information as may be probative to 

consider whether sources in the state 

may interfere with maintenance of the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS in other states. These 

submissions can rely on modeling when 

acceptable modeling technical analyses 

are available, but EPA does not believe 

that modeling is necessarily required if 

other available information is sufficient 

to evaluate the presence or degree of 

interstate transport in a given situation. 

B. New Mexico Transport SIP 

To meet the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D), the State of New Mexico 

made a SIP submission to address 

interstate transport for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS and the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS. EPA has previously approved 

this submission for purposes of the 

significant contribution to 

nonattainment element of section 

110(a)(2)(D).14 Below, we discuss our 

evaluation of the state’s submission 

with respect to the interference with 

maintenance element and the 

interference with measures required to 

prevent significant deterioration of air 

quality element. 

a. Interference With Maintenance 

The State’s submittal focused 

primarily on whether emissions from 

New Mexico sources significantly 

contribute to nonattainment of the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS and 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS in other states. Following the 

2006 Guidance and consistent with 

EPA’s approach in CAIR, New Mexico 

did not evaluate whether emissions 

from New Mexico sources interfere with 

maintenance of these NAAQS in other 

states separately from significant 

contribution to nonattainment in other 

states. Instead, the state presumed that 

if New Mexico sources were not 

significantly contributing to violations 

of the NAAQS in other states, then no 

further specific evaluation was 

necessary for purposes of the interfere 

with maintenance element of section 

110(a)(2)(D). As explained above, 

however, CAIR was remanded to EPA, 

in part because the court found that EPA 

had not correctly addressed whether 

emissions from sources in a state 

interfere with maintenance of the 

standards in other states. Therefore, 

EPA must evaluate the New Mexico 

submission in light of the decision of 

the court. 

On July 6, 2010, the EPA 

Administrator signed a proposed rule in 

response to the judicial remand of CAIR. 

The Transport Rule Proposal includes a 

new approach to determine whether 

emissions from a state interfere with 

maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS and the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in 

other states. EPA is using a comparable 

approach to that of the Transport Rule 

Proposal in this action in order to 

determine if emissions from New 

Mexico sources interfere with 

maintenance of these NAAQS in other 

states. 

In the Transport Rule Proposal, EPA 

projected future concentrations of ozone 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 166 / Friday, August 27, 2010 / Proposed Rules 52697 

15See, the Transport Rule Proposal at 75 FR 

45210 (August 2, 2010). 

16Additional information concerning these 

weighted averages is provided in the docket in the 

Timin Memo. 

17Transport Rule Proposal, 75 FR 45210, (August 

2, 2010), pages 45253–45270, and Timin Memo. 

18The Transport Rule Proposal identifies 

nonattainment and maintenance receptors in the 

Eastern U.S. It does not include modeling results for 

the West. The Timin Memo documents further 

evaluation of the 2012 modeling to identify 

nonattainment and maintenance receptors in the 

West. 

19 Id., EPA did not calculate model projections for 

the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in the 36km modeling 

domain. 

20 Data undergoing review from EPA’s Air Quality 

System which is EPA’s repository of ambient air 

quality data. (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/airs/airsaqs/). 

and PM2.5 to identify areas that are 

expected to be out of attainment with 

NAAQS or to have difficulty 

maintaining compliance with the 

NAAQS in 2012. These areas are 

referred to as nonattainment and 

maintenance receptors, respectively. 

These nonattainment and maintenance 

receptors are based on projections of 

future air quality at existing ozone and 

PM2.5 monitoring sites in those 

locations. EPA then used these sites as 

the receptors for examining the 

contributions of emissions from sources 

located in upwind states to 

nonattainment and maintenance 

problems at these monitoring locations. 

Monitoring data was obtained from 

EPA’s Air Quality System (AQS). 

For ozone, EPA evaluated 

concentrations relevant to the 1997 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS. The level of the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS is 0.08 parts 

per million (ppm). The 8-hour ozone 

standard is met if the 3-year average of 

the annual 4th highest daily maximum 

8-hour ozone concentration is less than 

or equal to 0.08 ppm (i.e., less than 

0.085 ppm based on the rounding 

convention in 40 CFR part 50 Appendix 

I). This 3-year average is referred to as 

the ‘‘design value.’’ 

For PM2.5, EPA evaluated 

concentrations of both the annual PM2.5

NAAQS and the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

The 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS is met 

when the 3-year average of the annual 

mean concentration is 15.0 micrograms 

per cubic meter (μg/m3) or less. The 3- 

year average annual mean concentration 

is computed at each site by averaging 

the daily Federal Reference Method 

(FRM) samples by quarter, averaging 

these quarterly averages to obtain an 

annual average, and then averaging the 

three annual averages to get the design 

value. The 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS 

is met when the 3-year average of the 

annual 98th percentile PM2.5

concentrations is 35 μg/m3 or less. The 

1997 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS is met 

when the 3-year average of the annual 

98th percentiles is 65 μg/m3 or less. The 

3-year average mean 98th percentile 

concentration is computed at each site 

by averaging the 3 individual annual 

98th percentile values at each site. The 

3-year average 98th percentile 

concentration is referred to as the 24- 

hour average design value. In this 

action, EPA is only evaluating whether 

New Mexico’s emissions impact other 

states’ ability to maintain the 1997 

annual and 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, because 

those are the NAAQS at issue in this 

section 110(a)(2)(D) SIP submission. In 

later actions, the state and EPA will 

evaluate the impacts of interstate 

transport from emissions from New 

Mexico sources with respect to other 

NAAQS. 

To project future ozone and annual 

PM2.5 design values, EPA projected 

future ozone values based on an average 

of three design value periods which 

include the years 2003–2007 (i.e., 

design values for 2003–2005, 2004– 

2006, and 2005–2007). The average of 

the three design values creates a ‘‘5-year 

weighted average’’ value. The 5-year 

weighted average values were then 

projected to the future years that were 

analyzed for the Transport Rule 

Proposal.15 16 EPA used the 5-year 

weighted average concentrations to 

project concentrations anticipated in 

2012 to determine which monitoring 

sites are expected to be nonattainment 

in this future year. EPA also projected 

2012 design values based on each of the 

three-year periods (i.e., 2003–2005, 

2004–2006, and 2005–2007). The 

highest projection is referred to as the 

‘‘maximum design value’’ and gives an 

indication of potential variability in 

future projections due to differences in 

actual meteorology and emissions from 

what was modeled. 

EPA identified those sites that are 

projected to be attainment based on the 

5-year weighted average design value, 

but that have a maximum design value 

(based on a single three-year period) 

that exceeds the NAAQS, as 

maintenance sites because EPA 

anticipates that there will be more 

difficulty in maintaining attainment of 

the NAAQS at these locations if there 

are adverse variations in meteorology or 

emissions. These projected maintenance 

sites are the ones that EPA has used to 

determine if emissions from New 

Mexico sources potentially interfere 

with maintenance of the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS and 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS in other states in this action. 

From the modeling analyses 

conducted for the Transport Rule 

Proposal, EPA identified the following 

maintenance sites or receptors for the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS: Several 

sites in the Dallas-Ft.Worth (DFW) area; 

several sites in the Houston/Galveston/ 

Brazoria (Houston) area; and other more 

distant sites in Georgia, Pennsylvania, 

New York and Connecticut.17 For 

assessing New Mexico’s potential for 

impacts on maintenance receptors, the 

DFW and Houston areas seem to have 

the highest probability of potential 

impact from New Mexico emissions. For 

the modeling analysis conducted for 

states not included in the Transport 

Rule Proposal (i.e., states not included 

fully in the 12 km Transport Rule 

Proposal modeling domain), EPA 

identified several maintenance sites for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in 

southern and central California using 

available 36 km modeling.18 The 12 km 

Transport Rule Proposal modeling 

domain extends from Texas northward 

to North Dakota and eastward from the 

Rocky Mountains to the East Coast and 

includes 37 states and the District of 

Columbia. Significantly, EPA’s analysis 

did not identify any monitor sites in the 

states that border New Mexico (Texas, 

Arizona, Colorado, Utah, and 

Oklahoma), other than the noted Texas 

areas, as maintenance sites in the 

Transport Rule Proposal. 

For the annual PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA 

identified the following sites as 

maintenance receptors: A site in Cook 

County, Illinois in the Chicago area; a 

site in Harris County, Texas, in the 

Houston/Galveston/Brazoria area; and 

two sites in southern California. As part 

of the Transport Rule Proposal, EPA did 

not evaluate nonattainment receptors for 

the 1997 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS because 

there were no violations of the standard 

in portions of the U.S. covered by the 

12 km grid, which consists of the 

continental U.S. east of the Rockies.19 In 

fact, based on recent monitoring data 

(2007–2009 design values that are under 

final EPA review), the highest 24-hour 

PM2.5 design value in the 47 states of the 

continental U.S. (not including 

California) is 50 μg/m3, which is well 

below the level of the 1997 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS of 65 μg/m3.20 Therefore, 

outside of California, there are no areas 

that we would expect to have difficulty 

in maintaining the 1997 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS. We address the potential for 

interference with maintenance in 

California for the 1997 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS later in this notice. 

EPA has evaluated available analyses 

and conducted additional analyses for 

each of these identified maintenance 

sites that may be potentially impacted 

by emissions from sources in New 

Mexico. Using the same proposed 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

52698 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 166 / Friday, August 27, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

21Transport Rule Proposal, 75 FR 45210 (August 

2, 2010), pages 45253–45270. The Transport Rule 

Proposal included proposed screening thresholds, 

using 1% of the NAAQS, for determining if a State 

should be evaluated for emission reductions from 

the Transport Rule. The proposed thresholds were 

0.15 μg/m3 or more contribution to annual PM2.5, 

0.35 μg/m3 or more contribution to the 1997 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS, and 0.8 ppb or more 

contribution to the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for 

States which contribute to nonattainment or 

maintenance sites in another state. In this notice, 

we are using the same 1% contribution thresholds 

in this notice of 0.15 μg/m3 for the annual PM2.5

NAAQS, 0.8 ppb or more for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. We are proposing a similar 1% threshold 

of 0.65 μg/m3 or more for the 1997 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS. 

22Appendix G of New Mexico’s SIP submittal for 

110(a)(2)(d)(i), ‘‘110(a)(2)(d)(i) Modeling Technical 

Support Document’’. 

23Further details are included in the Modeling 

TSD Memorandum for this notice. 

screening thresholds for analyzing a 

state’s impacts on another state’s 

maintenance sites that are used in the 

Transport Rule Proposal, we have 

determined that emissions from New 

Mexico do not have a large enough 

impact on any of these identified 

maintenance sites to interfere with 

maintenance.21 For the reasons 

discussed below, EPA has determined 

that emissions from New Mexico do not 

interfere with maintenance of these 

NAAQS in any other state. 

Ozone Interfere With Maintenance 

Evaluation 

EPA evaluated whether emissions 

from sources in New Mexico could 

interfere with maintenance of the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS in other states by 

considering the potential impacts of 

such sources on projected maintenance 

sites in California, Texas, and points 

much further to the east. As discussed 

in more detail in the Technical Support 

Document (TSD) for this action, EPA 

concluded that such impacts were most 

likely to be from New Mexico sources to 

the Houston and DFW areas and that 

even those impacts are very small and 

below the level EPA considered the 

initial threshold for further evaluation 

in the Transport Rule Proposal. 

EPA did not separately determine the 

impacts of New Mexico’s emissions on 

other States as part of the Transport 

Rule Proposal analysis because New 

Mexico was partially outside the 12 

kilometer grid. Other modeling was 

available to evaluate the impact of New 

Mexico’s emissions on the 8-hour ozone 

maintenance sites that EPA identified in 

the Houston and DFW areas. EPA has 

conducted a modeling estimate of 

impacts from New Mexico’s emissions 

using the Central Regional Air Planning 

Association (CENRAP) modeling of 

2002 emissions and meteorology.22 The 

CENRAP modeling that EPA utilized 

was an earlier version of the CENRAP 

modeling that a number of states 

submitted as part of their Regional Haze 

State Implementation Plan submittals 

and is currently being reviewed by EPA. 

EPA’s source apportionment CENRAP 

modeling for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

was conducted in 2006 to help provide 

New Mexico and other states with a 

technical analysis for the 110(a)(2)(D) 

SIP submissions. 

As discussed above, the CENRAP 

modeling evaluated New Mexico’s 

impact based on emission and 

meteorological conditions in 2002. For 

the reasons discussed below, EPA 

believes that this modeling is in fact a 

more conservative approach to evaluate 

the potential for impacts on other states 

since it uses a 2002 inventory rather 

than a 2010 or 2012 emission inventory. 

The 2002 analysis would include more 

emissions within the modeling domain 

because of decrease in emissions after 

2002 due to federal measures (such as 

fleet turnover and cleaner vehicles) and 

local reductions in DFW, Houston, and 

other parts of the modeling grid. 

As mentioned previously, the 

evaluation was based on an earlier 

version of the model. Source 

apportionment results are not available 

for the final version of the model. If 

results were available, we do not expect 

them to be significantly different than 

the earlier version and any differences 

would be more than offset by the 

conservative nature of using the 2002 

emissions. 

EPA analyzed source apportionment 

modeling with the 2002 based CENRAP 

modeling and concluded that maximum 

impacts from the emissions of New 

Mexico sources would be 0.2% of the 

NAAQS in the Dallas/Ft. Worth area 

and 0.4% of the NAAQS in the Houston 

area, which are less than the one 

percent of the NAAQS screening 

threshold (0.8 parts per billion) which 

EPA used in the Transport Rule 

Proposal to identify states for further 

analysis and the threshold that we are 

proposing for our determination. The 

methodology EPA used in the Transport 

Rule Proposal to determine if a state’s 

emissions exceeded the one percent of 

the NAAQS considered the average 

impact of a state on a downwind 

monitoring site in another state. 

Comparing the maximum impacts 

shown by the CENRAP modeling to the 

Transport Rule Proposal screening 

threshold is a conservative approach, 

because the average impact over all 

exceedance days at sites in DFW or 

Houston would be lower. Furthermore, 

EPA considers the CENRAP modeling 

analysis conservative because it relies 

on 2002 emission inventory levels, 

whereas additional emission reductions 

have occurred in New Mexico and 

throughout the modeling domain due to 

fleet turnover and other measures to 

reduce air pollution between 2002 and 

2010 that would result in lower overall 

pollution levels if taken into account. 

EPA believes that using the existing 

CENRAP analysis provides a 

conservative basis for concluding that 

emissions from New Mexico do not 

have a substantial impact at 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS maintenance receptors 

outside the state. 

In addition, EPA has reviewed other 

available information concerning the 

cause of higher ozone concentration 

levels in the DFW and Houston areas, 

and this further confirms that when 

these two areas experience elevated 

ozone levels, the meteorological 

patterns only rarely trace the origins of 

these air masses to the New Mexico 

area.23 Because available evidence 

indicates that New Mexico emissions 

are not impacting ozone levels in the 

DFW and Houston areas to a degree that 

constitutes interference with 

maintenance, it is improbable that New 

Mexico emissions would have such 

impacts at other identified maintenance 

sites much farther to the east. EPA 

believes that the only other identified 

maintenance sites for 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS that might be impacted by New 

Mexico sources are in southern and 

central California. As further discussed 

in the TSD for this notice, however, EPA 

has concluded that the meteorological 

patterns (e.g., prevailing winds and 

meteorology that occur when ozone 

exceedances occur) do not transport 

emissions from New Mexico to 

California when California has elevated 

ozone levels, and that the relatively long 

distance and the intervening 

mountainous topography further 

support this conclusion. 

PM2.5 Interfere With Maintenance 

Evaluation 

EPA evaluated whether emissions 

from sources in New Mexico could 

interfere with maintenance in other 

states by considering the potential 

impacts of such sources on projected 

maintenance receptors in Illinois, 

California, and Texas. As discussed in 

more detail in the TSD for this action, 

EPA concluded that such impacts were 

most likely to be from New Mexico 

sources to the Houston area, and that 

those impacts are shown to be very 

small. 

For the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS 

site located in the Chicago area, 

previous EPA modeling developed for 

the 2004 CAIR proposal indicated that 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 166 / Friday, August 27, 2010 / Proposed Rules 52699 

24EPA’s ‘‘Technical Support Document for the 

Interstate Air Quality Rule Air Quality Modeling 

Analyses Appendix H, PM2.5 Contributions to 

Downwind Nonattainment Counties in 2010’’, 

January 2004. 

25TSD. EPA believes that such a comparison is 

instructive because the majority of relevant New 

Mexico emissions occur from sources or activities 

located in the Albuquerque metropolitan area, or in 

areas further to the west. Even if measured from the 

New Mexico state border to St. Louis and Houston, 

however, the proportional impact would 

presumably be comparable. 

26 ‘‘Source Apportionment for PM2.5 at Houston 

Clinton Drive’’, David W. Sullivan, as The 

University of Texas at Austin Center for Energy & 

Environmental Research and Richard Tropp, 

University of Nevada Reno Desert Research 

Institute, TEXAQS II Workshop May 29, 2007 and 

TCEQ Fact Sheet ‘‘Harris County/Clinton Drive 1997 

Annual Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5)’’ November 

2009. 27 ‘‘Historical Meteorological Analysis in Support 

of the 2003 San Joaquin Valley PM10 State 

Implementation Plan’’, Shawn R. Ferreria, Air 

Quality Meteorologist/Atmospheric Scientist And 

Evan M. Shipp, Supervising Air Quality 

Meteorologist San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution 

Control District January 24, 2005. 

impacts from New Mexico’s emissions 

was 0.02 μg/m3,24 which is well below 

the one percent of the NAAQS (i.e., 

(0.15 μg/m3)) threshold that EPA has 

proposed as the initial threshold for 

interference with maintenance in the 

Transport Rule Proposal for the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS. The CAIR 

proposal modeling used a 2010 future 

year assessment versus the 2012 year 

used in the Transport Rule Proposal, but 

EPA believes that the emissions would 

be similar and that the 2010 analysis 

would actually have included somewhat 

more emissions within the modeling 

domain because it included two fewer 

years of reductions from federal 

measures (e.g., fleet turnover). In 

summary, the results of analysis using 

2010 would be expected to be similar to 

but slightly more conservative than 

would be expected for 2012. Therefore, 

we believe the 2004 CAIR modeling 

adequately demonstrates that New 

Mexico’s emissions do not interfere 

with maintenance in the Chicago area. 

EPA did not separately calculate the 

impact of New Mexico’s emissions on 

the Houston area as part of the CAIR 

modeling or in the Transport Rule 

Proposal modeling, but EPA believes 

that one can infer from New Mexico’s 

extremely small impact on other areas 

that New Mexico’s impact on the 

Houston area would also be less than 

one percent of the NAAQS. The only 

modeling available that provided source 

apportionment for annual PM2.5 values 

is the CAIR proposal modeling. The 

CAIR source apportionment results that 

would be expected to most closely 

match Houston from a transport 

phenomena perspective are the results 

for potential impacts on St. Louis. St. 

Louis is helpful for comparison because, 

while not the same direction from New 

Mexico it is the closest area evaluated 

in the CAIR proposal modeling that is 

to the east (in the same general transport 

direction) and at a similar distance from 

New Mexico as Houston. 

For the St. Louis area, the CAIR 

proposal modeling indicated that a 

maximum impact from New Mexico’s 

emissions of 0.02 μg/m3, which is well 

below the 1% of the NAAQS screening 

threshold. The majority of the emissions 

of PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors from New 

Mexico sources emanate from either the 

Albuquerque area or from points father 

west, so it is a useful point from which 

to evaluate the relative distances, The 

distance from Albuquerque to St. Louis, 

Missouri is approximately 920 miles 

and the distance from Albuquerque to 

Houston is about 750 miles, which is 

about 81.5% of the distance from 

Albuquerque to St. Louis.25 Even if one 

conservatively assumed that New 

Mexico emissions had twice the impact 

on Houston that EPA determined they 

do on St Louis due to the shorter 

transport distances, New Mexico’s 

impact on Houston would still be 

significantly below the 1% of the 

NAAQS threshold in the Transport 

Proposal. Given that the difference in 

distances is only 18.5%, this is a 

conservative analysis that would 

indicate no significant impacts would 

be expected from New Mexico on sites 

in Houston, Texas. 

Also, the relative amounts of 

emissions in New Mexico, when 

compared to the emissions in Texas, 

support the conclusion that New 

Mexico emissions do not interfere with 

maintenance in areas in Texas. Using 

databases developed in connection with 

the Regional Haze (RH) program and 

submitted with the RH SIPs, the Texas 

emissions of SO2 are approximately 18 

times larger than New Mexico’s, the 

NOX emissions are approximately 5 

times greater than New Mexico’s, the 

fine particulate matter emissions are 12 

times greater than New Mexico’s and 

the coarse particulate matter is 5.6 times 

greater than New Mexico’s emissions. 

The Transport Rule Proposal modeling 

information also includes emission 

summaries that indicate that Texas’s 

emissions are 1,338,429 tpy of NOX and 

639,505 tpy of SO2 whereas New 

Mexico’s emissions are 240,892 tpy of 

NOX and 24,930 tpy of SO2. Both sets 

of data indicate that New Mexico’s 

emissions are much lower than Texas’s 

emissions of PM2.5 precursors. 

Moreover, most of the sources of PM2.5

precursor emissions in Texas are much 

closer to the maintenance receptor in 

Houston, and therefore less dispersion 

of the pollutants occurs, so Texas’s own 

PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors will have a 

much larger impact on PM2.5 levels in 

Houston. 

In addition, the Texas Commission on 

Environmental Quality (TCEQ) and 

several researchers have conducted 

research into the likely causes of 

elevated annual and 24-hour PM2.5

monitoring values in the Houston area. 

TCEQ and the researcher’s analyses do 

not indicate that emissions from New 

Mexico impact Houston to a degree to 

raise a concern for purposes of the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS. These analyses indicate 

that meteorological patterns are 

transporting air masses from other 

directions (i.e., not from the direction of 

New Mexico) when Houston area sites 

are monitoring elevated PM2.5 levels that 

have the greatest impact on the annual 

DV.26 As discussed further in the TSD, 

distance between the emission sources 

and the maintenance receptors and 

meteorological patterns during times of 

elevated pollution levels in Chicago and 

Houston also support the conclusion 

that New Mexico’s emissions do not 

interfere with maintenance of the 

NAAQS in these areas. In summary, 

considering the available evidence, EPA 

concludes that New Mexico’s emissions 

do not interfere with maintenance of the 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in Houston area. 

EPA also reviewed the potential for 

emissions from New Mexico sources to 

impact other areas with identified 

maintenance sites. The other such areas 

are located in California. As further 

discussed in the TSD, EPA concludes 

that New Mexico sources are unlikely to 

have such impacts given the geographic 

location of these areas and the 

meteorological patterns that prevail in 

the western United States. With respect 

to the 1997 PM2.5 24-hour standard of 65 

μg/m3, the other identified maintenance 

sites that New Mexico sources might 

impact are located in California. EPA 

has evaluated conceptual model 

documents and field study reports that 

indicate that transport patterns when 

elevated PM2.5 occurs in areas of 

California, the meteorological patterns 

are not such that transport of emissions 

from New Mexico to California is 

occurring to a degree to raise a 

concern.27 EPA believes that it is rare 

for meteorological patterns to occur that 

would transport emissions from New 

Mexico sources in such a way that they 

would impact California’s pollution 

levels, and that the relatively long 

distance and the intervening 

mountainous topography further 

support that transport of emissions from 

New Mexico is unlikely. Therefore, 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

52700 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 166 / Friday, August 27, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

available information indicates that 

emissions from sources in New Mexico 

do not impact areas of concern in 

California to the degree that would 

interfere with maintenance of the 1997 

NAAQS in those areas. 

b. Interference With PSD Measures in 

Other States 

The third element of 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. 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. 

EPA believes that New Mexico’s 

submission is consistent with the 2006 

Guidance, when considered in 

conjunction with other PSD program 

revisions that EPA is proposing to 

approve in this action. The State’s 

submittal indicates in Section C, 

‘‘Impact on Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD),’’ that the State’s SIP 

provisions include an EPA-approved 

PSD program applicable to all regulated 

pollutants. New Mexico’s regulations for 

its PSD program were approved by EPA 

and made part of the SIP on February 

27, 1987 (52 FR 5694) at 52.1620/ 

52.1640(c)(37), effective March 30, 1987. 

On September 5, 2007, EPA approved 

the New Mexico’s PSD revisions 

incorporating EPA’s December 31, 2002, 

NSR Reforms into the State’s regulations 

(72 FR 50879), which also recognized 

volatile organic compounds as a 

precursor for ozone. 

Consistent with EPA’s November 29, 

2005, Phase 2 rule for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS (70 FR 71612), the State 

submitted a SIP revision to modify its 

PSD provisions to address NOX as an 

ozone precursor (20.2.74 NMAC). These 

revisions are further discussed below. 

EPA believes that the PSD revision for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS that 

make NOX a precursor for ozone for PSD 

purposes, taken together with the PSD 

SIP and the interstate transport SIP, 

satisfies the requirements of the third 

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

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, i.e., there 

will be no interference with any other 

state’s required PSD measures. 

For the PM2.5 NAAQS, New Mexico 

stated in its section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) 

submission that the State would follow 

EPA’s interim guidance on use of PM10

as a surrogate for PM2.5 as recommended 

in the 2006 Guidance. The New Mexico 

Environment Department (NMED) 

clarified its interpretation of the New 

Mexico Interstate Transport SIP for 

Implementation of the PM2.5 NAAQS in 

a July 23, 2010 letter to EPA. In the 

letter NMED stated that: (1) It does not 

use PM10 as a surrogate for PM2.5 in its 

permitting programs, (2) it requires that 

applicants include PM2.5 modeling and 

emissions in their PSD and minor 

source permit applications, and (3) the 

record for the Department’s permitting 

decision includes an explanation of how 

PM2.5 emissions have been 

appropriately analyzed and estimated. 

The NMED letter is included in the 

electronic docket for this action. 

Because of clarifications to EPA 

guidance, EPA believes that New 

Mexico’s approach is appropriate. 

On the basis of the data and analysis 

presented above, EPA is proposing to 

determine that the New Mexico SIP as 

revised with respect to PSD program 

requirements, satisfactorily addresses 

the requirements of elements (2) and 

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

8-hour ozone NAAQS and 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS. 

C. New Mexico PSD SIP 

The New Mexico Environment 

Department (NMED) made a SIP 

submission to meet requirements of the 

8-hour ozone NAAQS by incorporating 

NOX as a precursor for ozone. The 

submitted PSD SIP revisions adding 

NOX as a precursor for ozone include 

the following: 

• The definition of ‘‘Major stationary 

source’’ states that a major source that is 

major for NOX is considered major for 

ozone (20.2.74.7.AF.(4) NMAC); 

• The definition of ‘‘Regulated new 

source review pollutant’’ specifically 

identifies NOX as an ozone precursor 

(20.2.74.7.AR.(1) NMAC); 

• When referring to a net emissions 

increase or potential to emit, a rate of 

emissions that equals or exceeds 40 tons 

per year of NOX is significant 

(20.2.74.502 NMAC, Table 2, Significant 

Emission Rates); and 

• Any net emissions increase of 100 

tons per year of NOX subject to PSD 

would require an ambient impact 

analysis, including the gathering of 

ambient air quality data (20.2.74.503 

NMAC, Table 3, Footnote b). 

For the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, the 

revision to 20.2.74.7.AF meets the 

federal definition in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(1) 

to identify a major source of nitrogen 

oxides as a major source for ozone. The 

revision to 20.2.74.7.AR NMAC meets 

the federal definition in 40 CFR 

51.166(b)(49) for NOX as an ozone 

precursor. The revision to 20.2.74.502 

NMAC Table 2 meets the federal 

requirement for significant emission rate 

for NOX emissions in 40 CFR 

51.166(b)(23)(i). The revision to 

20.2.74.503 NMAC, Table 3 meets the 

federal requirement for ambient air 

impact analysis for ozone precursors 

under the footnote for 40 CFR 

166(i)(5)(i)(e). Thus, EPA is proposing 

approval of these revisions as meeting 

the requirements of CAA section 110 

and 40 CFR 51.166 for establishing NOX

emissions as a precursor for ozone. 

The State’s SIP submittal also 

contains revisions to Parts 20.2.2 

NMAC, Definitions; and 20.2.79 NMAC, 

Permits—Nonattainment areas. These 

two submitted revisions are severable 

from each other, are severable from the 

submitted revisions to 20.2.74 NMAC 

discussed above, and are severable from 

the Transport SIP requirements 

addressed in this proposed action. The 

EPA is still reviewing the approvability 

of the submitted revisions to Parts 

20.2.2 NMAC and 20.2.79 NMAC; 

therefore, we are not proposing to take 

action on those revisions in this 

proposed rulemaking. We intend to act 

on those revisions in a future 

rulemaking. EPA wishes to note that it 

approved New Mexico’s Nonattainment 

New Source Review SIP on February 8, 

2002 (67 FR 6147). In that same action, 

EPA approved the NOX waiver for the 

Sunland Park 1-hour ozone 

nonattainment area. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 

40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP 

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve 

state choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this action merely 

proposes to approve state law as 

meeting federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. For 

that reason, this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 166 / Friday, August 27, 2010 / Proposed Rules 52701 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this proposed rule does 

not have tribal implications as specified 

by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, 

Volatile organic compounds. 

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

Dated: August 20, 2010. 

Samuel Coleman, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

[FR Doc. 2010–21384 Filed 8–26–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R07–OAR–2008–0538; FRL–9193–8] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; State of 

Missouri 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Supplemental proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA proposes to grant full 

approval of Missouri’s attainment 

demonstration State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) and control strategy for the 

lead National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard (NAAQS) nonattainment area 

of Herculaneum, Missouri. This 

proposed action supplements the 

proposed conditional approval 

published by EPA on October 8, 2008, 

and explains why EPA now believes full 

approval is appropriate. The applicable 

standard addressed in this action is the 

lead NAAQS promulgated by EPA in 

1978. EPA believes that the SIP 

submitted by the state satisfies the 

applicable requirements of the Clean Air 

Act identified in EPA’s October 2008 

proposal, and demonstrates attainment 

of the 1.5 microgram per cubic meter 

(μg/m3) lead NAAQS in the 

Herculaneum, Missouri area. This 

action does not address any obligations 

which Missouri may have relative to the 

revised lead NAAQS promulgated by 

EPA in 2008. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before September 27, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R07– 

OAR–2008–0538, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. E-mail: jay.michael@epa.gov. 

3. Mail: Michael Jay, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Air Planning and 

Development Branch, 901 North 5th 

Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. 

4. Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver 

your comments to: Michael Jay, 

Environmental Protection Agency, Air 

Planning and Development Branch, 901 

North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 

66101. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R07–OAR–2008– 

0538. 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 e-mail. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an e-mail 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through www.regulations.gov, your 

e-mail address will be automatically 

captured and included as part 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. 

Docket. All documents in the 

electronic 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 Environmental 

Protection Agency, Air Planning and 

Development Branch, 901 North 5th 

Street, Kansas City, Kansas. EPA 

requests that you contact the person 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section to schedule your 

inspection. The interested persons 

wanting to examine these documents 

should make an appointment with the 

office at least 24 hours in advance. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael Jay at (913) 551–7460, or e-mail 

him at jay.michael@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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

‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

A. The SIP Process 

1. What is a SIP? 

2. What is the Federal approval process for 

a SIP? 

3. What does Federal approval of a state 

regulation mean to me? 

B. Background for the Proposal 

II. Summary of the State Submittal 

1. Plant Ventilation Design 

2. Ventilation Study Objectives 

3. Ventilation Study Results 

4. Ventilation Limits 

5. Ongoing Ventilation Testing and 

Reporting Requirements 

6. Winter Construction Work Practices 

Manual Modification 

7. Enforceability 

III. Proposed Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS