### ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 EPA·R06-0AR-2009-0656; FRL- ---' Approval and Promulgation ofImplementation Plans; New Mexico; Interstate Transport ofPollution; Revisions to Prevention ofSignificant Deterioration Regulations



### AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.



### SUMMARY: EPA

### isproposing toapprove a StateImplementation Plan (SIP)revision 

### submitted by

### theState ofNew 

### Mexicofor thepurpose ofaddressing the "goodneighbor" provisions of Clean Air Act (CAA) section IIO(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 8-hourozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS or standards) and the 1997 PM,s NAAQS. This SIP 

### revisionaddresses therequirement

### that the StateofNew 

### Mexico's SIP haveadequate provisions to prohibit airemissionsfrom adversely affectinganother state's air

### quality through interstate 

### transport. Inthis action, EPA isproposing toapprove theNew MexicoInterstate Transport SIP provisions that address the requirement ofsection 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) that emissions from New 

### Mexico sources do notinterfere withmaintenance ofthe 

### 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS andthe 1997PM2.5 NAAQS in anyother state. Inaddition, EPA is proposing to approve theprovisions ofthis SIP submission that address the requirement ofsection 11O(a)(2)(D)(i)(1I)that emissions 

### from New Mexico sourcesdo notinterfere withmeasures required in the SIPofanyother state under part C ofthe 

### CAA toprevent significantdeterioration ofairquality. For purposes ofthe2 

### 19978-hour ozoneNAAQS, EPAis alsoproposing to approve aSIP revision

### that modifies New Mexico's Prevention ofSignificant Deterioration (PSD) SIP for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

### toinclude nitrogen oxides (NOx)as anozoneprecursor. Thisaction isbeing taken under section 110 and part C ofthe Clean Air Act (the Act or CAA).



### DATES: Comments must 

### bereceived on orbefore [Insertdate 30 days from date of publication in the Federal Register).

ADDRESSES: Submityour comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-0AR-2009-0656, by one ofthe 

### following methods:

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

### • Followthe online instructions for submitting comments. • EPA Region 6 "Contact Us" Web site: 

### http://epa.govlregion61r6coment.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 FURTHERINFORMATION CONTACT 

### sectionbelow. • 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

### 3 75202-2733. Such deliveries are accepted only between the hours of8 a.m. and 4 p.m. weekdays, and not on legal holidays. Special arrangements should 

### be made for 

### deliveries of boxedinformation. Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket No. EPA-R06-0AR-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 

### 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.govweb site is an "anonymous access" system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body ofyour comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.govyour e-mail address will 

### beautomatically captured and included as part ofthe comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. Ifyou submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body ofyour comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. 

### IfEPAcannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not 

### beable to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use ofspecial characters, any 

### formof encryption, and 

### befree ofany defects or viruses. 

### Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the 

### www.regulations.govindex. 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 

### bepublicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available

### 4 either electronically in www.regulations.govorinhardcopy at the Air Planning Section (6PDL), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. The file will 

### be made available by appointment for public inspection in the Region 6 FOIA Review Room between the hours of8:30 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. Ifpossible, please make the appointment at least two working days in advance ofyour visit. There will be a 15 cent per page fee for making photocopies ofdocuments. On the day ofthe visit, please check in at the EPA 

### Region 6 reception area at 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. The state submittal is also available for public inspection during official business hours, by appointment, at the New Mexico Environment Department, Air Quality Bureau, 1190 St. Francis Drive, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87502.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Emad Shahin, Air Planning Section (6PDL), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone (214) 665-6717; 

### faxnumber (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?5 II. What is a SIP? III. 

### Whatis 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 ofNew Mexico demonstrating thatNew Mexico has adequately addressed two ofthe required elements of CAA section 11O(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 ofthe relevant NAAQS in any other state, and from interfering 

### withmeasures required to prevent significant deterioration ofair quality in any other state. We are proposing to determine that emissions from
sources in New Mexico do not interfere with the maintenance ofthe 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS
or ofthe 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, or with measures required to prevent significant deterioration of air quality, with regards to these ozone or PM2.5NAAQS in any other state. In a separate prior action, we have addressed the element ofsection 11O(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 PM" NAAQS in any other state (75 FR 33174). The remaining section 110(a)(2)(0)(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 New Mexico are not interfering with any other state's PSO program, we are also proposing to approve a portion ofthe SIP revision submitted by the State ofNew Mexico with rule revisions to regulate

### 6 

### NOxemissions in its PSDpermitprogram as aprecursorto ozone. At this time, EPA is not taking action on other portions ofthe SIP revisions submitted by New Mexico together with the 

### PSDrevision.' 

### EPAintends to act on the otherrevisions submitted togetherwith the PSD program revisions at a later time. EPA proposes to approve the foregoing revisions relevant to section 11O(a)(2)(D)(i) and the revisions to the PSD program pursuant to section 110 and part C ofthe CAA.

II. What is a SIP? Section IIO(a) 01 the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires each state to develop a plan that provides for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement ofthe national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). EPA establishes NAAQS under section 109 ofthe 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 ofthe SIP is specified in section 110 ofthe CAA, other provisions ofthe CAA, and applicable regulations. SIPs can 

### beextensive, containing state regulations or other enforceable
measures and various types ofsupporting information, such as emissions inventories, monitoring networks, and modeling demonstrations. A primary purpose ofthe SIP is to provide the air pollution regulations, control strategies, and other means or techniques developed by the state to ensure that the ambient air within that state meets the NAAQS. However, another important aspect ofthe SIP is to ensure that emissions from within the state do not have certain prohibited impacts upon the ambient air in

1 As 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.

### 7 

### other states through interstate transport ofpollutants. This SIP requirement is specified in section IIO(a)(2)(D) ofthe CAA. Pursuant to that provision, each state's SIP must contain 

### provisions adequate toprevent, among otherthings, emissions that interfere 

### with maintenance of theNAAQS 

### in any otherstate orinterfere with

### measures required to 

### be included in the SIPof any otherstate to prevent significantdeterioration ofair qualityin such otherstate. Statesare required to update or revise SIPsunder certain circumstances. One such circumstance is EPA's promulgation ofa new or revised NAAQS. Eachstate mustsubmitthese revisions to EPA 

### forapproval andincorporation into thefederally-enforceable 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 (PM 2

### .5). 

### This action is being takenin responseto thepromulgation ofthe 1997 8-hourozone NAAQS and 1997 PM z

.5

### NAAQS. This action does notaddress therequirements for the 2006 PM,.5 NAAQS or the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS; those standards will be 

### addressed in later actions. Section II00a)(I) ofthe 

### CAArequires states to submit SIPsto address a new or revised NAAQS within 3 years afterpromulgation ofsuch standards, or within suchshorter period as EPA mayprescribe. Section II 0(a)(2) lists the elements thatsuch new SIPs mustaddress, as applicable, including section 11O(a)(2)(D)(i), which pertains to interstate transport ofcertain 

### emissions. On August 15, 2006, EPA issued its "Guidance forState Implementation Plan(SIP) Submissions 

### to Meet Current Outstanding Obligations Under Section II0(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8- Hour Ozone and PM, 5National Ambient Air Quality Standards" (2006 Guidance). EPA 

### developed the 2006 Guidance to makerecommendations to statesformaking submissionsto

### 8
meet the requirements ofsection 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 8-hour ozone standards and the 1997 PM,., standards. 

### Asidentified in the 2006Guidance, the "goodneighbor" 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 11O(a)(2)(D)(i)contains four distinct requirements related to the impacts ofinterstate transport. The SIP must prevent sources in the state from emitting pollutants in amounts which will: (1) contribute significantly to nonattainment ofthe NAAQS in other states; (2) interfere with maintenance ofthe NAAQS in other states; (3) interfere with provisions to prevent significant deterioration ofair 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 ofNew Mexico intended to address the requirements ofsection II0(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 ofthe 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in other states, or that will interfere withmeasures required to prevent significant deterioration of air quality in other states with respect to these NAAQS. In its submission, the State ofNew Mexico indicated that its current SIP is adequate to prevent such interference, and thus argued that no additional emissions controls or otherrevisions are necessary at this time to alleviate interstate transport for the 1997 8 hour ozone NAAQS or the 1997 PM,s NAAQS. With this submission, the state would meet the first and second elements ofsection 11O(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

### 9 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

c

### Prevention ofSignificant Deterioration (PSD)" necessary to address NOx as aprecursor 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 ofbaseline threshold for nitrogen oxides for requirements in ambient impact analysis. With EPA's approval ofthis revision, that includes NOx as a precursor ofthe 19978- 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 ofsection 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.



### IV. What is EPA's Evaluation ofthe State's Submission?

A. EPA's Evaluation ofInterference with Maintenance The second element ofsection IIO(a)(2)(D)(i) reqnires that a state's SIP must prohibit any source or othertype ofemissions activity in the state from emitting pollutants that would "interfere with maintenance" ofthe applicable NAAQS in any other state. This term is not defined in the statute. Therefore, EPA has interpreted this term in pastregulatory actions, such10 as the 1998 NOx SIP Call, in which EPA took action to remediate emissions ofNOx that significantly contributed to nonattainment, or interfered with maintenance of, the then applicable
ozone NAAQS through interstate transport ofNOx and the resulting 

### ozone.' 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 ifthey 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 ofthe 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and the 1997 PM,s 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 ofS02 and NOx that exacerbate ambient ozone and 

### PM Z

.5levels in many downwind areas through interstate transport.' Within CAIR, EPA likewise interpreted the term "interfere with maintenance" as part ofthe evaluation ofwhether or not the emissions ofsources in certain states had such impacts on areas that EPA determined would eitherbe in violation ofthe NAAQ8, or would be injeopardy ofviolating the NAAQ8, in a modeled future year unless action were taken by upwind states to reduce 802 and NOx emissions. Through CAIR, EPA again required states that had such interstate impacts to adopt substantive SIP revisions to eliminate the 802 and NOx emissions, whether through participation in a regional cap and trade program or by other means. EPA's 2006 Guidance addressed section IlO(a)(2)(D) requirements for the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS and 1997 PM,.>NAAQS. Forthose states subjectto CAIR, EPA indicated that compliance with CAIR would meet the two requirements ofsectioo 11O(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for these

2 See, 63 FR 57356 (October 27, 1998). EPA's general approach to section 11O(aX2XD) was upheld in Michigan v, EPA, 213 F.3d663 (D.C. 

### err. 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 (D.C. Cir. 2008). 3 See, 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005).

### 11 NAAQS. For states not within the CAIR region, EPA recommended that states evaluate 

### whetheror notemissions fromtheir sources would "interferewith 

### maintenance" in other states, following the conceptual approach adopted by EPA in CAIR. After recommending various types ofinformation

### thatcould be relevant for the technical analysis to support the SIP submission, such as the amount ofemissions and meteorological conditions in the state, EPA further indicated that it would 

### beappropriate for the state to assess impacts ofits 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 ofsection 110(a)(2)(0) together without explicitly differentiating between them. In 2008, however, the 

# u.s. Court ofAppeals for the D.C. 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 ofsection I 10(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) in CAIR. The court noted that "EPA gave no independent significance to the 'interfere with maintenance' prong ofsection 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) to separately identify upwind sources interfering with downwind maintenance. ,,6. EPA's approach, the courtreasoned, would leave
areas that are "barely meeting attairunent" with "no recourse" to address upwind emissions sources," The court therefore concluded that a plain language reading ofthe statute requires EPA to give independent meaning to the interfere with maintenance requirement ofsection IIO(a)(2)(D) and that the approach used by EPA in CAIR failed to do so.

4 2006 Guidance at page 5. 5 See, North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Circuit 2008). 6 ld. 531, F.3d at 909. 7Id.

### 12
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 ofsection 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 ofthe statute. Given the court decision on CAIR in the interim, however, EPA believes that 

### itis necessary to evaluate these state submissions for section 11O(a)(2)(D) in such a way as to assure that the interfere with maintenance element ofthe statute is given independent meaning and is appropriately evaluated using the types ofinformation 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 ofsection IIO(a)(2)(D). EPA 

### hasrecently proposed a new rule to address interstate transport pursuant to section 

### llO(a)(2)(D), the "Federal Implementation Plans to Reduce Interstate TransportofFine Particulate Matter and Ozone" (Transport Rule Proposal), in order to address the judicial remand ofCAIR. 8 As part ofthe 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" ofthe 1997 8-hourozone NAAQS and 1997 PM" 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 PM" NAAQS, and therefore at risk to become

8 See "Federal Implementation Plans to Reduce Interstate Transport ofFine Particulate Matter and Ozone," 75 FR 45210 (August 2, 2010).

### 13 nonattainment forthese NAAQS 

### unless emissions from sources in other statesareappropriately controlled. This approach starts by identifying those specific geographic areas for which further 

### evaluation is appropriate, anddifferentiates between areaswhere theconcern iswith 

### interference with maintenance, rather than with significant contribution to nonattainment. As described in more detail below, EPA's analysis evaluates data from 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.S NAAQS in 2012, and which areas are predicted to potentially have a difficulty with maintaining attainment as ofthat date. In essence, ifan area's projected data for 2012 indicates that 

### it would he violating the NAAQS based on the average ofthese three overlapping periods, then this monitor location is appropriate for comparison for purposes ofthe significant contribution to nonattainment element ofsection 

### 11 O(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 ofthe three periods, then this monitor location is appropriate for comparison for purposes ofthe interfere with maintenance element ofthe statute." 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 ofemissions from upwind states on these maintenance sites 

### in downwind states. EPA believes that this new approach for identifying those

9 A memorandum in the docket for this action provides the information EPA used in orderto identify monitors that are receptors for evaluation ofinterference with maintenance for certain states in the western United States. See, Memorandum from Brian Timin ofEPA's Office ofAir Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality Modeling Group entitled "Documentation ofFuture Year Ozone and Annual PM2.5 Design Values for Western States" (August'2010) (Timin Memo).

### 14

areas that are predicted to have maintenance problems is appropriate to evaluate the section 110(a)(2)(D) SIP submission ofa state for the interfere with maintenance element. 10 EPA's 

### 2006 Guidance did notprovide this specific recommendationto states, but in light of the court's decision on CAIR. EPA will itselffollow 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 ofthe SIP submission required by section llO(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 ofthe required submission."ll 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 

### srates.P 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 PM,s 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.

10 To 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 attainmentbecause they are so close to the level ofthe 1997 ozone and**PM2,~** NAAQS that minor variations in weather or emissions could result in violations ofthe NAAQS in 20t2. II 2006 Guidance at 4. 12 Id. at 5. 13 See, Transport Rule Proposal, 75 FR 45210 (August 2, 2010) at page 45227.

### 15 Accordingly, EPA believes that section 110(a)(2)(D) SIP submissions for states outside the geographic area ofthe Transport Rule Proposal may 

### be evaluated using a "weight ofthe 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, hut is not limited to, the amount ofemissions 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 ofthe 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and 1997 PM,s 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 ifother available information is sufficientto evaluate the presence or degree ofinterstate transport in a given situation.



### B. New Mexico Transport SIP To meet the requirements ofsection 110(a)(2)(D), the State ofNew 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 ofthe significant contribution to nonattainment element ofsection 11O(a)(2)(D).14 Below, we discuss our evaluation ofthe state's submission with respect to the interference with maintenance element and the interference with measures required to prevent significant deterioration ofair quality element.
a. Interference with Maintenance

14 See, 75 FR 33174 (June 11,2010).16 

### The State's submittal focused primarily on whetheremissions from NewMexico sources significantly contribute to nonattainment ofthe 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and 1997 PM" 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 ofthese NAAQS in other states separately from significant contribution to nonattainment in other states. Instead, the state presumed that ifNew Mexico sources were not significantly contributing to violations ofthe NAAQS in other states, then no further specific evaluation was necessary for purposes ofthe interfere with maintenance element ofsection 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 ofthe standards in other states. Therefore, EPA must evaluate the New Mexico submission in light ofthe decision ofthe court. On July 6, 2010, the EPA Administrator signed a proposed rule in response to thejudicial remand ofCAIR. The Transport Rule Proposal includes a new approach to determine whether emissions from a state interfere with maintenance ofthe 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and the 1997 PM" NAAQS in other states. EPA is using a comparable approach to that ofthe Transport Rule Proposal in this action in orderto determine ifemissions from New Mexico sources interfere with maintenance ofthese NAAQS in other states. In the Transport Rule Proposal, EPA projected future concentrations ofozone and PM2.s to identify areas that are expected to 

### be out ofattainment 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 offuture air quality at existing ozone and PM2,s monitoring sites in those17 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 ofthe 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS is 0.08 parts per million (ppm). The 8-hour ozone standard is met 

### ifthe 3-year average ofthe 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 

### PM 

### z

.5, EPA evaluated concentrations ofboth the annual PM2.5NAAQS and the 24- hour PM" NAAQS. The 1997 annual PM,s NAAQS is met when the 3-year average ofthe annual mean concentration is 15.0 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m') 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 PM2.5NAAQS is met when the 3-year average ofthe annual 98th percentile PM2,5 concentrations is 35 Jlg/m 3 or less. The 1997 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS is met when the 3-year average ofthe annual9Sthpercentiles is 65 Jlg/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 NAAQS18 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 fromemissions fromNew Mexico sources withrespect to otherNAAQS. To project future ozone and annual PM2.5 design values, EPA projected future ozone values based on an average ofthree design value periods which include the years 2003-2007 (i.e., design values for 2003-2005, 2004-2006, and 2005-2007). The average ofthe three design values creates a "5-year weighted average" value. 

### The5-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 ofthe 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 ofpotential 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 

### bemore difficulty in maintaining attainment ofthe NAAQS at these locations ifthere are adverse variations in meteorology or emissions. These projected maintenance sites are the ones that EPA has used to determine ifemissions from New Mexico sources potentially interfere With maintenance ofthe 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and 1997 armual PM,., NAAQS in other states in this action.

15 See, the Transport Rule Proposal at 75 FR 45210 (August 2, 2010). 16 Additional information concerning these weighted averages is provided in the docket in the Timin Memo.

### 19 

### Fromthemodeling analyses conducted for theTransport Rule Proposal, EPAidentified the following maintenance sites or receptors for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS: several sites in 

### theDallas-Ft.Worth (DFW) area; several sites in the HoustoniGalvestonlBrazoria (Houston) area; and othermore distant sites inGeorgia, Pennsylvania, New Yorkand Connecticut." For assessing New Mexico's potential for impacts on maintenance receptors, the DFW and Houston
areas seem to have the highest probability ofpotential 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-hourozone NAAQS in southern and central California using available 36 

### km modeling. IS 

### 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 ofColumbia. 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 theannual PM,., NAAQS, 

### EPAidentified the 

### following sitesas maintenance receptors: a site in Cook County, Illinois in the Chicago area; a site in Harris County, Texas, in the HoustoniGalvestonIBrazoria area; and two sites in southern California. As part ofthe TransportRule Proposal, EPA did not evaluate nonattainment receptors for the 1997 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS because there were no violations ofthe standard in portions ofthe U.S. covered

17TransportRule Proposal, 75 FR45210, (August 2, 2010), pages 45253-45270, and Timin Memo. 11 The 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 docwnents further evaluation ofthe 2012 modeling to identify nonattainment and maintenance receptors in the West.

### 20 bythe 12 

### Ian grid, which consists ofthe continental 

### U.S. east ofthe Rockies." In fact, based on recent monitoring data (2007-2009 design values that are under final EPA review), the highest 24-hour PM 2.5 design value in the 47 states ofthe continental U.S. (not including California) is 50

### ~g/m3, which is well below the level ofthe 1997 24-hour 

### PM,s NAAQS of65

### ~g/m3 

### 20 Therefore, outside ofCalifornia, there are no areas that we would expect to have difficulty in maintaining the1997 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 ofthese identified maintenance sites that may be potentially impacted by emissions from sources in New Mexico. Using the same proposed 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 ofthese identified maintenance sites to interfere with maintenance.r' For the reasons discussed below, EPA has determined that emissions from New Mexico do not interfere with maintenance ofthese NAAQS in any other state.

Ozone Interfere with Maintenance Evaluation

19Id., EPA did not calculate model projections for the 24-hour**PMI.~** NAAQS in the 36km modeling domain. ae Data undergoing review from EPA's Air Quality System which is EPA's repository ofambient air quality data. (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/airs/airsaqs!). II Transport Rule Proposal, 75 FR 45210 (August 2, 2010), pages 45253-45270. The Transport Rule Proposal included proposed screeningthresholds, using I% ofthe NAAQS, for detennining ifa State should beevaluated for emission reductions from the Transport Rule. The proposed thresholds were 0.15 /-lg/m3 or more contribution to annual PM**I_~,** 0.35 /-lg/m3 or more contribution to the 1997 24-hour**PMI_~** 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 ofO.IS /-lglm3 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 of0.65 /-lglmJ or more for the 1997 24-hour**PM2,~** NAAQS.

### 21 EPAevaluated whether emissions from sources in New Mexico couldinterfere with maintenance of the 1997 8-hourozone NAAQS in other states by consideringthe potential impacts of such sources on projectedmaintenance 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 ofNew Mexico's emissions on other States
as part ofthe Transport Rule Proposal analysis because New Mexico 

### was partially outside the 12 kilometer grid. Other modeling was available to evaluate the impact ofNew 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 ofimpacts from New Mexico's emissions using the Central Regional Air Planning Association (CENRAP) modeling of2002 emissions and meteorology", The CENRAP modeling that EPA utilized was an earlier version ofthe CENRAP modeling that
a number ofstates submitted as part oftheir 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 llO(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 20 I0 or 2012 emission inventory. The

22 Appendix G ofNew Mexico's SIP submittal for llO(aX2)(dXi), "11O(a)(2XdXi) Modeling Technical Support Document",

### 22 2002 analysis wouldinclude more emissions within the modelingdomain becauseof decrease in emissions after 2002 due to federal measures (such as fleet turnover and cleaner vehicles) and 

### localreductions in DFW,Houston, and other parts of the modeling grid. As mentioned previously, the evaluationwas based on an earlier version of the model. Source apportionmentresults are not available for the final version ofthe model. Ifresults were available, we do not expectthem to he significantly different than the earlier version and any differences would 

### be more than offsetby the conservative nature ofusing the 2002 emissions. 

### EPA analyzedsourceapportiomnent modeling with the 2002 basedCENRAP modeling and concluded that maximumimpacts from the emissionsof New Mexico sourceswouldbe 

### 0.2% of the NAAQS in theDallaslFt. Worth area and 0.4% of the NAAQS in the Houston area, which are less than the one percent ofthe 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 ifa state's emissions exceeded the one percent ofthe NAAQS considered the average impact ofa 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 iftaken into account. EPA believes that using the existing CENRAP analysis provides a conservative basis for concluding that

### 23 emissions fromNewMexico do not havea substantial impactat 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS maintenance receptors outside the state. 

### Inaddition, EPAhasreviewed otheravailable information concerning the causeofhigher
ozoneconcentration levels in theDFW andHouston areas, andthis further confirms 

### thatwhen these two areas experience elevated ozone levels, the meteorological patterns only rarely trace the origins ofthese 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 ozoneexceedances occur) do not transport emissions from New Mexico to California when Californiahas elevated ozone levels, and that the relatively long distance and the intervening mountainous topography further support this conclusion.
PM] 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 ofsuch sources on projected maintenance receptors in Illinois, California, and Texas. As discussed in more detail in the TSD

23 Further details are included in the Modeling TSD Memorandum for this notice.24 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 PM,.>NAAQS site located in the Chicago area, previous EPA modeling developed for the 2004 CAIR proposal indicated that impacts from New Mexico's emissions was 0.02 J.1g1mJ,24 which is well below the one percent ofthe NAAQS (i.e. (0.15 J.1g1mJ

## » threshold that EPA 

### has proposed as the initial threshold for interference with maintenance in the Transport Rule Proposal for the 1997 annual PM,.>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 ofreductions from federal measures (e.g., fleet turnover). In summary, the results ofanalysis using 20 I0 would be expected to 

### besimilar to but slightly more conservative 

### than would he expected for 2012. Therefore, we helieve 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 impactofNew Mexico's emissions on the Houston
area as part ofthe CAIR modeling or in the Transport Rule Proposal modeling, but EPA helieves 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 ofthe 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

24 EPA's "Technical Support Document for the Interstate Air Quality Rule Air Quality Modeling Analyses Appendix H, PM2,5 Contributions to Downwind Nonattainment Counties in 20to", January 2004.

### 25 impacts on 81. Louis. St. Louis is helpful forcomparison because, while not the samedirection from New Mexico it is the closest area evaluated in the CAIR proposal modeling that is to the 

### east (in the samegeneral transport direction) and at a similardistance fromNewMexico as Houston. Forthe St. Louis area, the CAIR proposal modeling indicated that a maximum impact from New Mexico's emissions of0.02 J..lg/m3
, which is well below the 1% ofthe NAAQS screening threshold. The majority ofthe emissions ofPM2.5 and PM25 precursors from New Mexico sources emanate from eitherthe 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 81. Louis, Missouri is approximately 920 miles and the distance from Albuquerque to Houston is about 750 miles, which is about 81.5 % ofthe distance from Albuquerque to St. Louis." 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 shortertransport distances, New Mexico's 

### impact on Houston would still be significantly below the 1% 

### ofthe 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 

### beexpected from New Mexico on sites in Houston, Texas. Also, the relative amounts ofemissions in New Mexico, when compared to the emissions in Texas, supportthe 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 ofS02 are approximately 18

2S TSD. EPA believes that such a comparison is instructive because the majority ofrelevant New Mexico emissions occur from sources or activities located in the Albuquerque metropolitan area, or in areas further to the west. Even ifmeasured from the New Mexico state border to St. Louis and Houston, however, the proportional impact would presumably be comparable.

### 26 times largerthan New Mexico's, the NOx emissionsare approximately 5 times greaterthan New Mexico's, the fineparticulate matteremissionsare 12 times greaterthan New Mexico's and the
coarseparticulate matter is 5.6 times greaterthan New Mexico's emissions. TheTransport Rule Proposal modeling information also includes emission summaries that indicate that Texas's emissions are 1,338,429 tpy ofNOx and 639.505 tpy 0[802 whereas New Mexico's emissions
are 240,892 tpy ofNOx and 24,930 tpy ofS02. Both sets ofdata indicate that New Mexico's emissions are much lower than Texas's emissions ofPM2.S precursors. Moreover, most ofthe
sources ofPM2.S precursor emissions in Texas are much closer to the maintenance receptor in Houston, and therefore less dispersion ofthe pollutants occurs, so Texas's own 

### PM2.S and PM2.5 precursors will have a much larger impact on PM2,s levels in Houston. 

### In addition, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) and several researchers have conducted research into the likely causes ofelevated annual and 24-hour PM2.s 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 ofthe 1997 PM2.SNAAQS. These analyses indicate that meteorological patterns are transporting air
masses from other directions (i.e., not from the direction ofNew Mexico) when Houston area sites are monitoring elevated PM2.s1eveis 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 ofelevated pollution levels in Chicago and Houston also support the conclusion that New Mexico's emissions do not interfere with maintenance ofthe NAAQS in these areas. In summary, considering the available evidence,

26 "Source Apportionment for PM2.5atHouston Clinton Drive", David W. Sullivan The University ofTexas at Austin Center for Energy & Environmental Research and Richard Tropp, University ofNevada 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
EPA concludes that New Mexico's emissions do not interfere with maintenance ofthe 1997 

### PM2.5 NAAQS in 

### Houston area. EPA

### also reviewedthepotential foremissions from NewMexico sources to impactother
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 ofthese areas and the meteorological patterns that prevail in the western United States. With respect to the 1997 PM2.5 24-hour standard of65 j.1g1m3• 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 

### thatindicate that transport patterns when elevated PM2.5 occurs in areas ofCalifornia, the meteorological patterns are not such that transport ofemissions from New Mexico to California is occurring to a degree to raise a concern." 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 ofemissions from New Mexico is unlikely. Therefore, available information indicates that emissions from sources in New Mexico do not impact areas ofconcern in Californiato 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 ofsection 1IO(a)(2)(D)(i) requires a SIP to contain adequate provisions prohibiting emissions that interfere with any other state's required measures to prevent

27 "Historical Meteorological Analysis in Support ofthe 2003 San Joaquin Valley PMl0 State Implementation Plan". Shawn R. Ferreria Air Quality MeteorologistJAtmospheric Scientist And Evan M. Shipp Supervising Air Quality Meteorologist San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District January 24. 2005.

### 28 

### significantdeterioration ofitsair quality. EPA's 2006 Guidance made recommendations for SIP submissions to meet thisrequirement 

### with respect to both the 1997 8-hourozone NAAQS and the 1997 PM,s NAAQS. 

### EPAbelievesthatNew Mexico'5 

### submission is consistent

### withthe 2006 Guidance, when 

### considered inconjunction withother PSDprogram revisions that EPA is proposing toapprove in this action. The State's submittal indicates in Section C, "Impact on PreventionofSignificant 

### Deterioration (PSD)," 

### that theState's SIPprovisions include anEPA-approved PSDprogram applicable to all regulated pollutants. New Mexico's regulations for its PSD program were approved by EPA and made part ofthe 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 7\612), the State submitted a SIP revision to modify its PSD provisions to 

### address NOx as an ozoneprecursor (20.2.74 NMAC). Theserevisions are further discussed below. EPA believes that the PSD revision for the 1997 8-hourozone NAAQS that make NOx a 

### precursorforozone for PSDpurposes, taken together 

### withthe PSD SIP andtheinterstate transport SIP, satisfies the requirements ofthe third element ofsection 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 

### 19978-hour ozoneNAAQS, i.e.,there will be 

### nointerference withanyotherstate'srequired PSD 

### measures. For the PM,., NAAQS, New Mexico stated in its section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) submission that 

### theState would followEPA's interim guidance on useofPMIO

### as asurrogate forPM 2.S

### as

### 29 recommended in the 2006 Guidance. The New Mexico EnvironmentDepartment (NMED) 

### clarified its

### interpretation 

### of theNew MexicoInterstate Transport SIP for Implementation 

### of the PM,s NAAQS in a July 23, 2010 letter to EPA. In the letter NMED stated that: (1) it does not


### use 

### PMIO as a surrogate for

### PM 2.S 

### in

### itspermitting programs, 

### (2) it

### requires that applicants 

### include PM2_5 

### modeling and emissions intheir PSDand minor source permit applications, and (3) therecord for the Department's permitting 

### decisionincludes anexplanation ofhow PM2.5 

### emissions have beenappropriately analyzed and estimated. The NMED letter is included in the electronic docketforthis action. Becauseofclarifications to 

### EPA guidance, EPA believesthat New Mexico'sapproach is appropriate. 

### Onthebasis ofthedata and analysis presented above, EPA isproposing to determine thattheNew MexicoSIP asrevised withrespect to PSDprogram requirements, satisfactorily addresses the requirements ofelements (2) and (3) ofsection 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS and 1997 PM,s NAAQS.



# c. New Mexico PSD SIP 

### The New MexicoEnvironmentDepartment (NMED) made a SIPsubmission to

### meet requirements ofthe 

### 8-hour ozoneNAAQS

### byincorporating NOx as aprecursorforozone. The submitted PSDSIP revisions adding NOx as aprecursor forozoneinclude thefollowing: • thedefinition of

### "Majorstationary source" states thatamajorsource that is majorfor NOx is considered major for ozone (20.2.74.7.AF.(4) NMAC); 

### • thedefinition of"Regulated 

### newsource reviewpollutant" specifically identifies NOx
as an ozone precursor (20.2.74.7.AR.(1) NMAC);30

• when referring to a net emissions increase or potential to emit, a rate ofemissions 

### that equals or exceeds 40 tons per year ofNOx is significant (20.2.74.502 NMAC, Table 2, Significant Emission Rates); and 

### • any net emissions increaseof 100 

### tons per yearofNO

### x subject to PSD would require
an ambient impact analysis, including the gathering ofambient 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 ofnitrogen oxides as a major source for
ozone. The revision to 20.2.74.7.ARNMAC meets the federal definition in 40 CFR 51.l66(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.l66(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 ofthese revisions as meeting the requirements ofCAA 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 ofthe 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 NonattainmentNew Source Review SIP on February 8,31 2002 (67 FR 6147). In that same action, EPA approved the NOx waiver for the Sunland Park 1- 

### hourozone nonattainment area.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

### Under the CleanAir Act, theAdministrator is required to approve a SIPsubmissionthat complies

### with the provisionsofthe 

### Actand 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 thecriteria ofthe 

### Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this actionmerely proposes to approve statelaw as 

### meetingFederal requirements and does not imposeadditional 

### requirements beyond those imposed by

### state law. Forthat reason, this action: • is nota "significant regulatory action" subject to reviewbytheOffice ofManagement and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October4, 1993); 

### • does notimpose aninformation collection burden undertheprovisions ofthePaperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 

### et seq.); 

### • iscertified as nothaving asignificanteconomic impacton asubstantial numberofsmall entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 

### el seq.); 

### • does notcontain any unfunded mandate orsignificantly oruniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4); 

### • does nothaveFederalism implications asspecified inExecutive Order 13132(64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999); 

### • is not aneconomically significantregulatory action based onhealth orsafety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, Apri123, 1997);

### 32 • is not a significant regulatory action subjectto Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 200 I); • is not subjectto requirements ofSection 12(d) ofthe National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application ofthose 

### requirements would be inconsistentwith 

### the Clean Air Act; and 

### • does notprovide EPAwith thediscretionary authority toaddress, asappropriate, 

### disproportionate human health orenvironmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

### Inaddition, thisproposed ruledoes not havetribal implicationsas specified

### by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in 

### Indian country located in thestate, 

### and EPA notesthat 

### itwill not imposesubstantial directcosts
on

### tribal governments orpreempttribal law.

### 33

List ofSubjects in 40 CFR Part52 

### Environmental protection, Air pollutioncontrol, Incorporation by 

### reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organiccompounds.



# '0/,&0/7-0/0 I Dated: 

## S • M II 

# e 

# c.", Ie "" 0 

## 1'\ Acting Regional Administrator,**Regi~** 

### 6