Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 145 / Thursday, July 29, 2010 / Proposed Rules 44731 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2007–1119; FRL–9181–7] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Albuquerque/ 

Bernalillo County, NM; Interstate 

Transport of Pollution 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to 

approve a revision to the Albuquerque/ 

Bernalillo County, New Mexico State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) to address 

the ‘‘good neighbor’’ provisions of the 

Clean Air Act (CAA) section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i), for the 1997 ozone 

standards and the 1997 PM2.5 standards 

as it applies to Albuquerque/Bernalillo 

county. The revision addresses one 

element of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), 

which pertains to prohibiting air 

pollutant emissions from within a state 

to significantly contribute to 

nonattainment of the ozone and PM2.5

NAAQS in any state. The Albuquerque/ 

Bernalillo Air Quality Control Board 

(AQCB) is responsible for the portion of 

the New Mexico SIP that applies in 

Bernalillo County, which encompasses 

the City of Albuquerque. This 

rulemaking action is being taken under 

section 110 of the CAA. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before August 30, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket No. EPA–R06– 

OAR–2007–1119, 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–2007–1119. 

EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that 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 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. 

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 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 

City of Albuquerque, Environmental 

Health Department, One Civic Plaza, 

Albuquerque, NM 87102. 

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 

submittal? 

V. Proposed Action 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What action is EPA taking? 

We are proposing to approve a 

revision to the New Mexico State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) to address 

the ‘‘good neighbor’’ provisions of the 

Clean Air Act (CAA) section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i), for the 1997 ozone 

standards and the 1997 PM2.5 standards 

for Albuquerque/Bernalillo County, 

demonstrating that one of the required 

elements of the CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) has been met. The SIP 

revision demonstrates in part that air 

pollutant emissions from sources within 

Albuquerque/Bernalillo County do not 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment of the relevant NAAQS 

in any other state. Therefore, we have 

determined that emissions from sources 

in Albuquerque/Bernalillo County do 

not significantly contribute to 

nonattainment of the 1997 ozone 

standards or of the 1997 PM2.5 standards 

in any other state. In a separate action, 

EPA approved this revision for the 

remainder of the State. (75 FR 33174). 

The remaining three elements of section 

110(a)(2)(D): (1) Interference with the 

maintenance of the NAAQS in any other 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

44732 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 145 / Thursday, July 29, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

1See, ‘‘Rule to Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine 

Particulate Matter and Ozone (Clean Air Interstate 

Rule); Revisions to Acid Rain Program; Revisions to 

the NOX SIP Call; Final Rule,’’ 70 FR 25162 (May 

12, 2005). Information regarding CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D) SIPs can be found beginning of page 

25263. 

state; (2) interference with measures 

required to prevent significant 

deterioration of air quality in any other 

state; and (3) interference with measures 

required to protect visibility in any 

other state will be evaluated and 

addressed in future rulemakings. 

II. What is a SIP? 

Section 110(a) of the 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). 

Pursuant to that provision, each state’s 

SIP must contain provisions adequate to 

prevent, among other things, emissions 

that significantly contribute to 

violations of the NAAQS in any other 

state. 

States are required to update or revise 

SIPs under certain circumstances. One 

such circumstance is EPA’s 

promulgation of a new or revised 

NAAQS. Each state must submit these 

revisions to EPA for approval and 

incorporation into the federallyenforceable SIP. 

III. What is the background for this 

action? 

For air quality purposes, 

Albuquerque/Bernalillo County operates 

the same way as a state. The EPA treats 

and funds Albuquerque/Bernalillo 

County as it does states. Enacted in 

1967, the New Mexico Air Quality 

Control Act allowed the establishment 

of the Albuquerque/Bernalillo County 

AQCB as a local board and gave it 

authority to administer and enforce its 

air quality regulations within the 

Albuquerque/Bernalillo County 

boundaries. The AQCB has air quality 

jurisdiction over all of Bernalillo 

County, which encompasses the City of 

Albuquerque. The AQCB has the 

responsibility to adopt and implement 

the SIP as it applies to Bernalillo 

County. Therefore, AQCB has the 

responsibility to address 110(a)(2)(D) 

elements within Bernalillo county. The 

State of New Mexico Environmental 

Improvement Board has jurisdiction 

over all counties in New Mexico except 

Bernalillo County. The City of 

Albuquerque Environmental Health 

Department, Air Quality Division 

administers and staffs the air quality 

program for Albuquerque/Bernalillo 

County. 

On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated 

new standards for 8-hour ozone and fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5). This action is 

being taken in response to the July 18, 

1997, revision to the 8-hour ozone 

standards and PM2.5 standards. This 

action does not address the 

requirements for the 2006 PM2.5

standards or the 2008 8-hour ozone 

standards; those standards will be 

addressed in a later action. 

Section 110(a)(1) 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) Submission to Meet Current 

Outstanding Obligations Under Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-Hour Ozone and 

PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards’’ (‘‘Guidance’’) for SIP 

submissions that states should use to 

address the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i). EPA developed this 

guidance to make recommendations to 

states for making submissions to meet 

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

for the 1997 8-hour ozone standards and 

1997 PM2.5 standards. 

EPA received a SIP revision adopted 

by AQCB on September 12, 2007, to 

address the requirements of section 

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

ozone standards and 1997 PM2.5

standards. This SIP revision follows 

EPA’s Guidance. As identified in the 

Guidance, the ‘‘good neighbor’’ 

provisions in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) 

require each state to submit a SIP that 

prohibits emissions that adversely affect 

another state in the ways contemplated 

in the statute. 

Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) contains four 

distinct requirements related to the 

impacts of interstate transport; however, 

in this rulemaking EPA is addressing 

only the requirement that pertains to 

preventing sources in one state from 

emitting pollutants in amounts that will 

contribute significantly to 

nonattainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standards and 1997 PM2.5 standards in 

any other state. The Albuquerque/ 

Bernalillo County submission relies on 

the same technical demonstration used 

by New Mexico Environment 

Department, which shows that 

emissions from the State of New 

Mexico, including Albuquerque/ 

Bernalillo County, do not contribute to 

nonattainment in another state. Thus, 

the submission indicates that the 

current SIP is adequate to prevent 

significant contribution from the 

Albuquerque/Bernalillo County to 

nonattainment in any other state. Thus, 

no additional emissions controls are 

necessary at this time to alleviate 

interstate transport from sources in 

Albuquerque/Bernalillo County. 

IV. What is EPA’s evaluation of the 

submittal? 

In accordance with EPA’s Guidance, 

the SIP revision addresses interstate 

transport for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standards and 1997 PM2.5 standards. 

The SIP revision makes a showing that 

emissions from Albuquerque/Bernalillo 

County do not significantly contribute 

to violations of either NAAQS in other 

states by two different means. For PM2.5,

the revision relied primarily upon 

technical analysis performed by EPA in 

connection with another regional 

rulemaking that addresses interstate 

transport. For ozone, the revision relied 

primarily on additional modeling to 

address the extent of interstate 

transport. We believe that the 

submission adequately establishes that 

emissions from Albuquerque/Bernalillo 

County do not significantly contribute 

to violations of either NAAQS in other 

states, for the reasons explained below. 

To support a determination of no 

‘‘significant contribution’’ for the 1997 

PM2.5 standards, the submission relied 

on EPA’s Clean Air Interstate Rule 

(CAIR) 1 analysis. This approach is 

consistent with EPA’s Guidance to 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 145 / Thursday, July 29, 2010 / Proposed Rules 44733 

states for this SIP submission. In CAIR, 

EPA evaluated which states 

significantly contribute to violations of 

the 1997 8-hour ozone standards and 

1997 PM2.5 standards in other states. 

Based upon its analysis, EPA did not 

include New Mexico in the CAIR region. 

In the CAIR preamble, EPA provided its 

rationale for the exclusion of the 

western states, including New Mexico, 

from further consideration of transport 

for 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 and the 

requirements of CAIR. 

The ‘‘Technical Support Document for 

the Interstate Air Quality Rule Air 

Quality Modeling Analysis,’’ January 

2004 (available at http://www.epa.gov/ 

cair/technical.html) contains 

documentation of the modeling used to 

support CAIR. This modeling included 

an analysis of the maximum impact of 

emissions from states without CAIR 

controls applied on areas projected in 

PM2.5 nonattainment in 2010. A 

maximum impact level of 0.15 μg/m3

was considered significant for this 

analysis (Note: in the final CAIR EPA 

changed the maximum impact level for 

this significance test to 0.20 μg/m3). 

EPA’s modeling indicated that the 

maximum impact from emissions from 

sources in New Mexico (including 

Albuquerque/Bernalillo County) on any 

projected nonattainment area in another 

state was 0.03 μg/m3. This value is 20% 

of the significant impact level that EPA 

used in the CAIR proposal, and 

therefore EPA determined that 

emissions from the State of New Mexico 

(including Albuquerque/Bernalillo 

County) do not significantly contribute 

to pollutant levels in any area projected 

to be nonattainment of the PM2.5

standard in that analysis. 

CAIR was remanded by the U.S. Court 

of Appeals for the District of Columbia, 

and EPA is currently in the process of 

developing a replacement rule to 

address interstate transport for the 1997 

8-hour ozone and 1997 PM2.5 standards. 

We do not believe that the CAIR remand 

affects EPA’s CAIR analysis for the 

purpose of evaluating New Mexico’s 

and Albuquerque/Bernalillo County’s 

PM2.5 impacts on other states. 

Specifically, EPA’s modeling was 

conducted without including the impact 

of any CAIR controls, and thus the 

evaluation is not impacted by any 

uncertainty in the implementation of 

CAIR controls due to the remand. Also, 

despite remand of the CAIR rules, EPA’s 

reliance on the maximum impact level 

of 0.20 μg/m3 as the cutoff for the 

inclusion of a state in the CAIR region 

was upheld by the court. Therefore, 

with respect to the 1997 PM2.5

standards, we believe that the 

submission adequately establishes that 

sources in that State, including 

Albuquerque/Bernalillo County, are not 

significantly contributing to violations 

of that NAAQS in any other state. 

To support a determination of no 

‘‘significant contribution’’ for the 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS, AQCB could not rely 

upon EPA’s CAIR analysis because 

western states including New Mexico 

were not included in the area modeled 

for ozone. Instead, New Mexico and 

AQCB provided an additional modeling 

analysis of the impact of emissions from 

the State on projected 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment in downwind states. We 

note that modeling is not necessarily 

required to support this type of SIP 

submission, but this approach is 

consistent with EPA’s Guidance to 

states for this SIP submission. 

The modeling relied upon by AQCB is 

described in greater detail in its 

technical support document in the 

submission, and is available at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, Docket No. EPA– 

R06–OAR–2007–1119. We note that 

EPA assisted the State and AQCB with 

this analysis, including the 

development of the modeling 

demonstration. In order to develop a 

model scenario that could evaluate New 

Mexico’s impacts, the State and EPA 

determined that it was appropriate to 

rely on data developed by the Central 

Regional Air Planning Association 

(CENRAP). Modeling was conducted 

using a 2002 third quarter CENRAP 

modeling dataset that included New 

Mexico in the modeling domain. While 

a more recent dataset might be assumed 

to be more appropriate to support this 

action, a 2010 dataset was not available 

from CENRAP. However, we believe 

that the use of the 2002 dataset is 

adequate to evaluate the degree of 

contribution of emission sources in 

Albuquerque/Bernalillo County, to 

violations of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standards. Because the analysis is based 

on year 2002 emissions, we believe it is 

a conservative estimate of potential 

transport impacts in 2010 because 

emissions have been decreasing since 

2002 due to various recent federal 

control programs (including On-Road 

and Nonroad reductions). This trend is 

confirmed by available 2005 inventory. 

In other words, if data from 2002 

establish that there is no significant 

contribution to violations of the 1997 8- 

hour ozone standards in other states, 

then Albuquerque/Bernalillo County 

would have even lower impacts in 2010 

and consequently no significant 

contribution. 

In the Guidance, we recommended a 

number of ways that states might elect 

to evaluate whether or not there is 

significant contribution, and we 

suggested that states might consider 

assessing the potential for contribution 

using assumptions similar to those used 

by EPA in CAIR. The State’s and 

AQCB’s analysis considered three 

factors comparable to those used by EPA 

as screening criteria in determining 

significance for states in CAIR: (a) The 

magnitude of the contribution, (b) the 

frequency of the contribution, and (c) 

the relative amount of contribution. The 

additional modeling yielded consistent 

results showing New Mexico emissions, 

including Albuquerque/Bernalillo 

County do not contribute significantly 

to 8-hour ozone nonattainment in any of 

the areas analyzed. New Mexico’s 

highest overall contribution to total 

nonattainment for any nonattainment 

area at the time of the modeling was for 

Dallas/Fort Worth. New Mexico’s 

highest impact on the Dallas/Fort Worth 

area was a daily average contribution of 

0.4%, with a contribution average of 0.4 

ppb. By EPA’s own metrics (as 

established in CAIR and upheld by the 

court), these impacts are considered to 

be small, infrequent, and well below 

screening criteria established at 1% and 

2 ppb, respectively. Moreover, not a 

single metric of the three contribution 

factors was found to be above the 

significance threshold established by 

EPA for any of the downwind counties. 

For more details please see the 

document titled ‘‘Modeling Data and 

Report for New Mexico from EPA 

Regions 6 and 7’’ that is included in the 

docket materials for this action. 

At the time the modeling was 

performed, Denver’s air quality was 

meeting the standard. (The 2004–2006 

8-Hour Ozone Design Value (DV) was 81 

ppb.) Therefore, the State and AQCB did 

not evaluate New Mexico’s ozone 

impacts on Denver. Denver had a very 

high ozone season in 2007 that 

temporarily pushed the area into 

nonattainment. The preliminary 2007– 

2009 DV (awaiting final data validation) 

is 82 ppb so the area appears to now be 

back in attainment. The preliminary 

2007–2009 DV is based upon 4th High 

values of 90 ppb in 2007, 79 ppb in 

2008, and 79 ppb in 2009 (preliminary). 

With the last two 4th Highs of 79 ppb, 

Denver would have to monitor a 4th 

High value of 97 ppb in 2010 to go back 

into nonattainment for the period 2008– 

2010. Denver has not had a 4th High 

value of more than 92 ppb in the last 15 

years, so it is unlikely that Denver will 

be in nonattainment at the end of the 

2010 ozone season for the 84 ppb 

standard. Based on preliminary 2007– 

2009 data, Denver is attaining the 

standard, so Albuquerque/Bernalillo 

County emissions should not be 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

44734 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 145 / Thursday, July 29, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

considered as contributing to 

nonattainment in Denver. 

With respect to the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standards, we believe that the 

submission adequately establishes that 

sources in Albuquerque/Bernalillo 

County are not significantly 

contributing to violations of that 

NAAQS in any other state. As noted 

previously, EPA will be acting on the 

other elements of Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) 

in separate rulemakings. 

V. Proposed Action 

We are proposing to approve a 

revision to the New Mexico SIP which 

adequately demonstrates that air 

pollutant emissions from sources within 

Albuquerque/Bernalillo County do not 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment of the relevant NAAQS 

on any other state. 

Information provided by New Mexico 

Environment Department and AQCB in 

the technical demonstration sufficiently 

demonstrates that emissions from 

Albuquerque/Bernalillo County do not 

significantly contribute to downwind 

nonattainment. Thus, EPA concludes 

that the New Mexico SIP as it pertains 

to Albuquerque/Bernalillo County 

complies with CAA section 

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

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions 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 

approves state law as meeting Federal 

requirements and does not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by state law. For that reason, 

this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this 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, Ozone, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

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

Dated: July 20, 2010. 

Lawrence E. Starfield, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

[FR Doc. 2010–18560 Filed 7–28–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2010–0585; FRL–9182–7] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans and Designation 

of Areas for Air Quality Planning 

Purposes; State of Nevada; 

Redesignation of Las Vegas Valley to 

Attainment for the Carbon Monoxide 

Standard 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

the State of Nevada’s request to 

redesignate to attainment the Las Vegas 

Valley nonattainment area for the 

carbon monoxide national ambient air 

quality standard. EPA is also proposing 

to approve the carbon monoxide 

maintenance plan and motor vehicle 

emissions budgets for the area, as well 

as certain additional revisions to the 

Nevada State implementation plan. 

These revisions include the suspension 

of a local wintertime cleaner burning 

gasoline rule, and the relaxation of a 

State rule governing wintertime gasoline 

in Clark County. EPA’s proposed 

approval is contingent upon receipt of a 

supplemental submittal from the State 

of Nevada containing a commitment to 

reinstate the existing vapor pressure 

limit in the State wintertime gasoline 

rule, if necessary, and thereby to 

implement the related contingency 

measure in the maintenance plan. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before August 30, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2010–0585, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. E-mail: oconnor.karina@epa.gov. 

3. Mail or deliver: Karina O’Connor 

(AIR–2), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, CA 94105–3901. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R09–OAR–2010– 

0585. 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 that EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send e-mail 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 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS