38362 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 28, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF ANNUAL NUMBER OF FIRMS WITH BLL TESTS AND CASES 1—Continued 

NAICS NAICS description 

Estimated 

number of 

firms where 

employees 

receive 

BLL tests 

Estimated number of firms with BLL cases 

BLL ≥5 BLL ≥10 BLL ≥25 BLL ≥ medical 

removal BLL 2

6222 .... Psychiatric and Substance Abuse Hospitals ..... 12 12 0 0 0 

6232 .... Residential Intellectual and Developmental Disability, Mental Health, and Substance Abuse 

Facilities.

15 15 0 0 0 

6241 .... Individual and Family Services .......................... 51 18 10 2 0 

6243 .... Vocational Rehabilitation Services ..................... 10 1 0 0 0 

7115 .... Independent Artists, Writers, and Performers ... 3 1 0 0 0 

7121 .... Museums, Historical Sites, and Similar Institutions.309 50 30 21 0 

7131 .... Amusement Parks and Arcades ........................ 3 3 0 0 0 

7139 .... Other Amusement and Recreation Industries ... 6,656 1024 619 205 9 

8111 .... Automotive Repair and Maintenance ................. 3,333 553 310 72 1 

8112 .... Electronic and Precision Equipment Repair and 

Maintenance.

29 17 17 11 0 

8113 .... Commercial and Industrial Machinery and 

Equipment (except Automotive and Electronic) Repair and Maintenance.

79 14 10 6 0 

8114 .... Personal and Household Goods Repair and 

Maintenance.

953 133 71 34 1 

8122 .... Death Care Services .......................................... 145 20 11 2 0 

8131 .... Religious Organizations ..................................... 12 3 0 0 0 

8139 .... Business, Professional, Labor, Political, and 

Similar Organizations.

488 72 50 28 1 

9211 .... Executive, Legislative, and Other General Government Support.0 0 0 0 0 

9221 .... Justice, Public Order, and Safety Activities ....... 0 0 0 0 0 

9231 .... Administration of Human Resource Programs .. 0 0 0 0 0 

9241 .... Administration of Environmental Quality Programs.0 0 0 0 0 

9251 .... Administration of Housing Programs, Urban 

Planning, and Community Development.

0 0 0 0 0 

9261 .... Administration of Economic Programs ............... 0 0 0 0 0 

9281 .... National Security and International Affairs ........ 0 0 0 0 0 

Total 44,144 8,611 5,302 2,087 137 

1The Census Bureau defines an establishment as a single physical location at which business is conducted or services or industrial operations 

are performed. The Census Bureau defines a business firm or entity as a business organization consisting of one or more domestic establishments in the same state and industry that are specified under common ownership or control. The firm and the establishment are the same for 

single-establishment firms. For each multi-establishment firm, establishments in the same industry within a state will be counted as one firm; the 

firm employment and annual payroll are summed from the associated establishments. 2 Medical removal levels are BLL ≥50 μg/dL in Construction (NAICS 23) and BLL ≥60 μg/dL in General Industry. 

[FR Doc. 2022–13696 Filed 6–27–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–26–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2021–0772; FRL–9889–01– 

R6] 

Air Plan Approval; New Mexico; 

Interstate Transport Requirements for 

2010 Nitrogen Dioxide National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

the State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revision submitted by the State of New 

Mexico, through New Mexico 

Environment Department (NMED) dated 

June 25, 2021, for the purpose of 

addressing the Clean Air Act (CAA or 

‘‘Act’’) ‘‘good neighbor’’ interstate 

transport (prongs 1 and 2) infrastructure 

SIP requirements for the 2010 1-hour 

Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard 

(NAAQS). The CAA requires that each 

state adopt and submit a SIP for the 

implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement of each NAAQS 

promulgated by the EPA, commonly 

referred to as an ‘‘infrastructure SIP.’’ 

Specifically, the EPA is proposing to 

approve New Mexico’s June 25, 2021, 

SIP revision addressing prongs 1 and 2 

to ensure that air emissions in the State 

do not significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 2010 1-hour NO2

NAAQS in any other state. The EPA is 

proposing to approve this action 

pursuant to section 110 and part D of 

the CAA and the EPA’s regulations. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before July 28, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket No. EPA–R06– 

OAR–2021–0772, at https://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 

The EPA may publish any comment 

received to its public docket. Do not 

submit electronically any information 

you consider to be Confidential 

Business Information (CBI) or other 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 28, 2022 / Proposed Rules 38363 

1Subsequently, after careful consideration of the 

scientific evidence and information available, on 

April 18, 2018, EPA published a final action to 

retain the current NO2 standard at the 2010 level 

of 100 ppb. This action was taken after review of 

the full body of available scientific evidence and 

information, giving particular weight to the 

assessment of the evidence in the 2016 NOX

Integrated Science Assessment; analyses and 

considerations in the Policy Assessment; the advice 

and recommendations of the Clean Air Scientific 

Advisory Committee; and public comments. See 83 

FR 17226 (April 18, 2018). 

2States were required to submit infrastructure 

SIPs for the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS to EPA no 

later than January 22, 2013. 

3See ‘‘Next Steps for Pending Redesignation 

Requests and State Implementation Plan Actions 

Affected by the Recent Court Decision Vacating the 

2011 Cross-State Air Pollution Rule,’’ signed by 

EPA Assistant Administrator Gina McCarthy 

November 19, 2012. This memorandum is in the 

docket for this action. 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. The EPA will generally not 

consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or 

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, please 

contact the person identified in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT SECTION. 

For the full EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

https://www.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 

Docket: The index to the docket for 

this action is available electronically at 

www.regulations.gov. While all 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the index, some information may not be 

publicly available due to docket file size 

restrictions or content (e.g., CBI). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Nevine Salem, EPA Region 6 Office, 

Infrastructure and Ozone Section, 214– 

665–7222, salem.nevine@epa.gov. The 

EPA Region 6 office may be closed to 

the public to reduce the risk of 

transmitting COVID–19. We encourage 

the public to submit comments via 

https://www.regulations.gov, as there is 

a delay in processing mail and no 

courier or hand deliveries will be 

accepted. Please call or email the 

contact listed above if you need 

alternative access to material indexed 

but not provided in the docket. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document wherever 

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

the EPA. 

I. Background 

On January 22, 2010, the EPA 

established a new 1-hour primary 

NAAQS for NO2 at a level of 100 parts 

per billion (ppb), based on a 3-year 

average of the 98th percentile of the 

yearly distribution of 1-hour daily 

maximum concentrations.1 See 75 FR 

6474 (February 9, 2010). This NAAQS is 

designed to protect against exposure to 

the entire group of nitrogen oxides 

(NOX). NO2 is the component of greatest 

concern and is used as the indicator for 

the larger group of NOX. Emissions that 

lead to the formation of NO2 generally 

also lead to the formation of other NOX. 

Therefore, control measures that reduce 

NO2 can generally be expected to reduce 

population exposures to all gaseous 

NOX which may have the co-benefit of 

reducing the formation of ozone and 

fine particles both of which pose 

significant public health threats. For 

comprehensive information on the 2010 

1-hour NO2 NAAQS, please refer to the 

February 9, 2010 Federal Register 

action. See 75 FR 6474. 

Whenever the EPA promulgates a new 

or revised NAAQS, CAA section 

110(a)(1) requires states to submit SIPs 

meeting the applicable requirements of 

section 110(a)(2) within 3 years after 

promulgation of a new or revised 

NAAQS or within such shorter period 

as the EPA may prescribe. Section 

110(a)(2) requires states to address 

structural SIP elements such as 

requirements for monitoring, basic 

program requirements, and legal 

authority that are designed to provide 

for implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement of the NAAQS. The EPA 

refers to the SIP submissions required 

by these provisions as ‘‘infrastructure 

SIPs.’’ Section 110(a) imposes the 

obligation upon states to make an 

infrastructure SIP submission to the 

EPA for a new or revised NAAQS, but 

the contents of individual state 

submissions may vary depending upon 

the facts and circumstances. This 

proposed rule pertains to the 

infrastructure SIP requirements for 

interstate transport of air pollution. 

These submissions must meet the 

various requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2), as applicable.2

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

requires SIPs to include provisions 

prohibiting any source or other type of 

emissions activity in one state from 

emitting any air pollutant in amounts 

that will contribute significantly to 

nonattainment, or interfere with 

maintenance, of the NAAQS, or 

interfere with measures required to 

prevent significant deterioration of air 

quality or to protect visibility in any 

other state. This proposed rule 

addresses the two requirements under 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), which we refer 

to as prong 1 (significant contribution to 

nonattainment of the NAAQS in any 

other state) and prong 2 (interference 

with maintenance of the NAAQS in any 

other state). The EPA often refers to SIP 

revisions addressing the requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) as ‘‘interstate 

transport SIPs.’’ 

The EPA evaluates each state’s 

interstate transport SIP to see how the 

state evaluates the transport of air 

pollution to other states for a given air 

pollutant; what types of information the 

state used in its analysis; how that 

analysis compares with prior EPA 

rulemakings, modeling, monitoring, and 

guidance; and what conclusions were 

drawn by the state. If the EPA concludes 

that the SIP contains adequate 

provisions to prohibit sources from 

emitting air pollutants that significantly 

contribute to nonattainment, or interfere 

with maintenance, of a given NAAQS in 

any other state, we will approve the 

state’s submission with regard to prongs 

1 and 2 of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). 

II. State’s Submittal 

On March 12, 2014, the New Mexico 

Environment Department (NMED) 

submitted its Infrastructure SIP to the 

EPA for the revised 2010 1-hour NO2

standard. At that time, NMED addressed 

the 2010 NO2 interstate transport prongs 

1 and 2 by referencing the EPA’s 

November 19, 2012 Memorandum 3

which outlined the EPA’s intention to 

abide by the August 21, 2012 decision 

of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. 

Circuit, holding that a SIP cannot be 

deemed deficient for failing to meet the 

prong 1 and 2 requirements in Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) before the EPA quantifies 

the state’s obligation. EME Homer City 

Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. 

Cir. 2012). In the March 2014 submittal, 

the state stated that the EPA had not yet 

quantified New Mexico’s interstate 

transport obligation under the 2010 NO2

and therefore New Mexico’s 

infrastructure SIP was adequate for 

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

On April 29, 2014, the U.S. Supreme 

Court reversed and remanded the D.C. 

Circuit’s EME Homer City ruling and 

upheld the EPA’s approach in the CrossState Air Pollution Rule. EPA v. EME 

Homer City Generation, L.P., 572 U.S. 

489 (2014). As a result of the Supreme 

Court reversal, each state was again 

required to address the interstate 

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

regardless of whether the EPA had 

quantified the state’s obligation. In 

accordance with the Supreme Court’s 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
38364 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 28, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

4For comparison with the 2010 NO2 1-hour 

NAAQS, a three-year design value is used. 40 CFR 

50.11(f). 

5See https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-qualitydesign-values#report. As this report indicates, no 

regulatory monitor in the U.S. recorded a design 

value above 80 ppb for the 2018–2020 design value 

period. 

decision, on June 25, 2021, the state of 

New Mexico supplemented its 2010 

NO2 infrastructure SIP to address 

interstate transport prongs 1 and 2 of 

Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), the submission 

supplements the State’s prior 2014 

interstate transport SIP for the NO2

NAAQS. 

III. The EPA’s Evaluation 

A. Evaluation for the 2010 1-Hour NO2

1. The EPA’s General Approach To 

Evaluating the 2010 NO2

Unlike certain other NAAQS like 

ozone and PM2.5, the EPA has not 

developed a recommended approach for 

states to use when addressing prongs 1 

and 2 for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS. 

Following promulgation of the 2010 

NO2 NAAQS, the EPA designated all 

areas of the United States as 

‘‘unclassifiable/attainment’’ for this 

NAAQS because monitors throughout 

the country had indicated no violations 

of the NAAQS from 2008–2010.4 77 FR 

9532 (February 17, 2012). Additionally, 

no violations occurred at any monitor in 

the country in the most recent available 

design value period of 2018–2020.5 For 

these reasons, 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

demonstrations for states have been 

relatively straightforward because the 

EPA has not identified areas in any state 

to which emissions from another state 

would likely contribute significantly to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance. 

2. State’s Submission 

In New Mexico’s June 25, 2021, SIP 

revision, NMED concluded that its SIP 

adequately addresses prong 1 and 2 

with respect to the 2010 1-hour NO2

NAAQS. NMED provided the following 

reasons for its determinations: (1) all 

areas in the United States are designated 

as unclassifiable/attainment for the 2010 

1-hour NO2 NAAQS; (2) there are SIPapproved and state-only regulations that 

directly or indirectly control NO2

emissions. 

3. The EPA’s Analysis 

In addition to the information 

provided in the SIP, the EPA notes that 

the highest monitored valid NO2 design 

values in each state bordering New 

Mexico are well below the NAAQS (see 

Table 1, below), as are the maximum 

single year 98th percentile values from 

each neighboring state between 2018– 

2020 (see Table 2, below). These facts 

further support the State’s assertion that 

significant contribution to 

nonattainment or interference with 

maintenance of the NO2 NAAQS from 

New Mexico is unlikely. 

TABLE 1—1-HOUR NO2 DESIGN VALUES IN NEW MEXICO AND NEIGHBORING STATES

State 

2018–2020 

NO2 design value 

(ppb) 

New Mexico ................................................................................................................................................................................. 38 

Arizona ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 49 

Colorado ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 52 

Oklahoma ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 26 

Texas ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 32 

TABLE 2—MAX 98TH PERCENTILE NO2 CONCENTRATION IN NEW MEXICO AND NEIGHBORING STATES

State Year 

Highest single year 

98th percentile 

value from 

2018–2020 

(ppb) 

New Mexico ............................................................................................................................................. 2020 49 

Arizona ..................................................................................................................................................... 2018 62 

Colorado .................................................................................................................................................. 2020 71 

Oklahoma ................................................................................................................................................. 2018 41 

Texas ....................................................................................................................................................... 2018 69 

With respect to prong 2 (interference 

with maintenance), specifically, in 

addition to the lack of areas violating 

the NO2 NAAQS, there are also no areas 

in neighboring states approaching a 

violation of the 2010 NO2 NAAQS (i.e., 

100 ppb) which might therefore be 

expected to have difficulty maintaining 

the standard. With respect to both 

prongs, we also note that there are no 

areas elsewhere in the United States 

approaching a violation of the 2010 NO2

NAAQS. 

NMED notified the public with the 

publication of the notice in both print 

and online versions of the Albuquerque 

Journal (in English and Spanish). The 

public notice provided opportunity for 

comment and public hearing. NMED did 

not receive any public comment and no 

request for public hearing was received. 

A copy of the New Mexico SIP revision 

submittal is available online at 

www.regulations.gov, Docket number 

EPA–R06–OAR–2021–0772 

IV. Proposed Action 

Based on our review of New Mexico’s 

June 25, 2021, SIP revision submission, 

and our analysis of additional relevant 

information, we propose to determine 

that emissions from New Mexico will 

not significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with the 

maintenance of the 2010 NO2 NAAQS 

in any other state. Accordingly, we 

propose to approve the June 25, 2021, 

New Mexico SIP submission as 

satisfying the requirements of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010 1- 

hour NO2 NAAQS interstate transport 

prongs 1 and 2. The EPA is soliciting 

public comments on this proposed 

action and will consider public 

comments received during the comment 

period. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 28, 2022 / Proposed Rules 38365 

6https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/ 

learn-about-environmental-justice. 

7See the United States Census Bureau’s 

QuickFacts on New Mexico at https://

www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/NM,US/ 

PST045221. 

8https://www.epa.gov/air-quality-managementprocess/managing-air-quality-human-healthenvironmental-and-economic#what (URL dated 03/ 

16/2022). 

9See https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/nitrogendioxide-trends. 

V. Environmental Justice 

Considerations 

Executive Order 12898 (Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629, 

Feb. 16, 1994) directs federal agencies to 

identify and address 

‘‘disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects’’ 

of their actions on minority populations 

and low-income populations to the 

greatest extent practicable and 

permitted by law. The EPA defines 

environmental justice (EJ) as ‘‘the fair 

treatment and meaningful involvement 

of all people regardless of race, color, 

national origin, or income with respect 

to the development, implementation, 

and enforcement of environmental laws, 

regulations, and policies.’’ The EPA 

further defines the term fair treatment to 

mean that ‘‘no group of people should 

bear a disproportionate burden of 

environmental harms and risks, 

including those resulting from the 

negative environmental consequences of 

industrial, governmental, and 

commercial operations or programs and 

policies.’’ 6 The EPA is providing 

additional analysis of environmental 

justice associated with this action for 

the purpose of providing information to 

the public. 

The EPA reviewed demographic data, 

which provides an assessment of 

individual demographic groups of the 

populations within New Mexico.7 The 

EPA then compared the data to the 

national average for each of the 

demographic groups. The results of the 

demographic analysis indicate that, for 

populations within New Mexico, the 

percentage of people of color (persons 

who reported their race as a category 

other than White alone (not Hispanic or 

Latino)) is significantly higher than the 

national average (63.8 percent versus 40 

percent). Within people of color, the 

percentage of the population that is 

Hispanic or Latino is higher than the 

national averages (49.3 percent versus 

18.5 percent) and the percentage of the 

population that is American Indian/ 

Alaska Native is also higher than the 

national average (11.0 percent versus 1.3 

percent). The percentage of people 

living below the poverty level in New 

Mexico is higher than the national 

average (16.8 percent versus 11.4 

percent). The percentage of people over 

25 with a high school diploma in New 

Mexico is slightly below the national 

average (86.5 percent versus 88.5 

percent), similarly, for the percentage 

with a bachelor’s degree or higher 

education is slightly lower than the 

national average (28.1 percent versus 

32.9 percent). 

Communities in close proximity to 

and/or downwind of industrial sources 

may be subject to disproportionate 

environmental impacts of NO2

emissions. Short- and/or long-term 

exposure to elevated concentrations of 

NO2 may contribute to the development 

of asthma and may potentially increase 

susceptibility to respiratory infections. 

People with asthma, as well as children 

and the elderly are generally at greater 

risk for the health effects of NO2.8

However, there are no areas in New 

Mexico or nationwide that show 

problems attaining or maintaining air 

quality with regard to NO2 emissions 

that may contribute to environmental 

and health impacts on all populations 

including minority and low-income 

population. In addition, the national 

average of NO2 concentrations have 

decreased substantially over the years.9

We therefore conclude that this 

proposed rule will not have or lead to 

disproportionately high or adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on communities with environmental 

justice concerns. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely proposes to approve state law as 

meeting Federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. For 

that reason, this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, the SIP is not approved 

to apply on any Indian reservation land 

or in any other area where EPA or an 

Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the proposed rule does 

not have tribal implications and will not 

impose substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Reporting and record keeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

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

Dated: June 22, 2022. 

Earthea Nance, 

Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

[FR Doc. 2022–13725 Filed 6–27–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS