Air Plan Approval; New Mexico; Interstate Transport Requirements for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS, 66098-66103 [2019-25991]

Download as PDF 66098 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 3, 2019 / Proposed Rules country, the 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, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds. Subpart AA—Missouri Dated: November 22, 2019. James Gulliford, Regional Administrator, Region 7. 2. In § 52.1320, the table in paragraph (c) is amended by revising the entry ‘‘10–6.030’’ to read as follows: ■ For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA proposes to amend 40 CFR part 52 as set forth below: § 52.1320 * PART 52—APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS Identification of plan. * * (c)* * * * * 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: ■ EPA-APPROVED MISSOURI REGULATIONS Missouri citation State effective date Title EPA approval date Explanation Missouri Department of Natural Resources * * * * * * * Chapter 6—Air Quality Standards, Definitions, Sampling and Reference Methods, and Air Pollution Control Regulations for the State of Missouri * * 10–6.030 .................................... * * * * * * Sampling Methods for Air Pollution Sources. * * January 3, 2020, [Federal Register citation of the final rule]. * * which will significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in other states. The EPA is proposing to approve these submittals based on the conclusion that New Mexico will not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in any other state. BILLING CODE 6560–50–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA–R06–OAR–2018–0705; FRL–10002– 28–Region 6] Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. AGENCY: Pursuant to the Clean Air Act, (CAA or Act), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing action on submissions from the State of New Mexico and the City of Albuquerque—Bernalillo County that are intended to demonstrate that the New Mexico State Implementation Plan (SIP) meets certain interstate transport requirements of the CAA for the 2008 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). These submissions address interstate transport, CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), which requires each state’s SIP to prohibit emissions SUMMARY: 18:33 Dec 02, 2019 Jkt 250001 * * Written comments must be received on or before January 2, 2020. DATES: Air Plan Approval; New Mexico; Interstate Transport Requirements for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS 11/30/2019 * [FR Doc. 2019–26002 Filed 12–2–19; 8:45 am] VerDate Sep<11>2014 * Submit your comments, identified by Docket Number EPA–R06– OAR–2018–0705, at http:// www.regulations.gov or via email to fuerst.sherry@epa.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 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 ADDRESSES: PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 * * * 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 Sherry Fuerst, 214–665–6454, fuerst.sherry@epa.gov. 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-epadockets. Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at the EPA Region 6 Office, 1201 Elm Street, Suite 500, Dallas, Texas. While all documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material), and some may not be publicly available at either location (e.g., CBI). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sherry Fuerst, 214–665–6454, fuerst.sherry@epa.gov. To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment with Ms. Fuerst or Mr. Bill Deese at 214–665–7253. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean the EPA. E:\FR\FM\03DEP1.SGM 03DEP1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 3, 2019 / Proposed Rules I. Background lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS On March 12, 2008, the EPA revised the levels of the primary and secondary 8-hour ozone NAAQS from 0.08 parts per million (ppm) to 0.075 ppm (73 FR 16436, March 27, 2008). Primary standards are set to protect human health while secondary standards are set to protect public welfare. The 2008 ozone NAAQS are met at an ambient air quality monitoring site when the 3-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8hour average ozone concentration is less than or equal to the NAAQS, as determined in accordance with appendix P to 40 CFR part 50.1 This action is being taken in response to the promulgation of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The CAA requires states submit, within three years after promulgation of a new or revised standard, SIP revisions meeting the applicable ‘‘infrastructure’’ elements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2). One of these applicable infrastructure elements, CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), requires SIPs to contain provisions to prohibit certain adverse air quality effects on downwind states due to interstate transport of pollution. Specifically, section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires that each SIP for a new or revised standard contain adequate provisions to prohibit any emissions activity within the State from emitting air pollutants that will ‘‘contribute significantly to nonattainment’’ (subelement 1) or ‘‘interfere with maintenance’’ (sub-element 2) of the applicable air quality standard in any other state.2 Ozone is not emitted directly into the air but is created by chemical reactions between oxides of nitrogen (NOX) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the presence of sunlight. Emissions from electric utilities and industrial facilities, motor vehicles, gasoline vapors, and chemical solvents are some of the major sources of NOX and VOCs. Because ground-level ozone formation increases with temperature and sunlight, ozone levels are generally higher during the summer. Increased temperature also increases emissions of VOCs and can indirectly increase NOX emissions (See 81 FR 74504, 74513, October 26, 2016). 1 Under appendix P, digits to the right of the third decimal place are truncated. 2 All other parts of the infrastructure SIP for the State of New Mexico were submitted on September 14, 2013 and final approval was published June 24, 2015 (80 FR 36246). All other parts of the 2008 ozone infrastructure SIP for City of Albuquerque— Bernalillo County were submitted December 26, 2008 and final approval was published September 19, 2013 (77 FR 58032). VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:32 Dec 02, 2019 Jkt 250001 EPA has established a four-step interstate transport framework to address the sub-element 1 and 2 requirements for ozone and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) NAAQS through the development and implementation of several previous rulemakings.3 The four steps of this framework are as follows: (1) Identify downwind air quality problems; (2) identify upwind states that impact those downwind air quality problems enough to warrant further review and analysis; (3) identify the emissions reductions, if any, necessary to prevent an identified upwind state from contributing significantly or interfering with maintenance with respect to those downwind air quality problems; and (4) adopt permanent and enforceable measures needed to achieve those emissions reductions. The EPA has applied this framework in various actions addressing sub-elements 1 and 2 for the PM2.5 and ozone NAAQS.4 In prior actions, the EPA has concluded that states with impacts on downwind nonattainment and maintenance receptors less than 1% of the 2008 ozone NAAQS do not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance pursuant to CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). This framework will be followed in this evaluation. To assist states with meeting section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, the EPA has conducted interstate ozone transport modeling, provided informational memos, issued two Notices of Data Availability (NODAs), and issued regional rules that use the four-step framework to evaluate states’ interstate transport obligations. The modeling data were developed to inform our analysis, in various actions, of downwind air quality problems and upwind state impacts on those problems. We 3 See, e.g., Finding of Significant Contribution and Rulemaking for Certain States in the Ozone Transport Assessment Group Region for Purposes of Reducing Regional Transport of Ozone (also known as the NOX SIP Call), 63 FR 57356 (October 27, 1998); Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), 70 FR 25 162 (May 12, 2005); Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) final rule. 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011); CSAPR Update final rule. 81 FR 74504 (October 26, 2016). 4 See, e.g., ‘‘Interstate Transport Prongs 1 and 2 for the 2012 Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Standard for Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota and Wyoming,’’ 83 FR 21227 (May 9, 2018); ‘‘Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality State Implementation Plans; California; Interstate Transport Requirements for Ozone, Fine Particulate Matter, and Sulfur Dioxide,’’ 83 FR 5375 (February 7, 2018), ‘‘Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval of Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Arizona; Infrastructure Requirements to Address Interstate Transport for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS’’, 81 FR 15200 (March 22, 2016). PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 66099 published and requested public comment on interstate ozone transport modeling data for two different analytic years. For the purposes of this document, we will be referring to the data from these as the ‘‘Transport Future Year 2017 modeling’’ 5 and the ‘‘Transport Future Year 2023 modeling.’’ 6 The final version of the Transport Future Year 2017 modeling was released with the CSAPR Update and included projections of downwind nonattainment and maintenance receptors as well as calculations of the projected impacts of upwind states to these downwind receptors. The latest version of the Transport Future Year 2023 modeling relied on in this action was released in an October 27, 2017 memorandum ‘‘Supplemental Information on the Interstate Transport State Implementation Plan Submissions for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards under Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).’’ 7 The 5 See Notice of Availability of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Updated Ozone Transport Modeling Data for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS), 80 FR 46271 (August 4, 2015); see also ‘‘Updated Air Quality Modeling Technical Support Document for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS Transport Assessment,’’ August 2015 (included in the docket to the NODA); see also the final updated modeling known as the ‘‘Transport Future Year 2017 Model’’ with all design values (DVs) for all monitors in all states (both east and west) and all states contribution breakouts for all monitors in the CSAPR Update docket; EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0500–0459, 2017 Ozone Contributions, https://www.regulations.gov/ document?D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0500-0459; ‘‘Air Quality Modeling Technical Support Document for the Final Cross State Air Pollution Rule Update; August 2016’’; (aq_modeling_TSD_final_CSAPR_ update.pdf at https://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/airquality-modeling-technical-support-documentfinal-cross-state-air-pollution-rule). 6 See Preliminary Interstate Ozone Transport Modeling Data for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality (January 6, 2017, 82 FR 1733) https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EPA-HQOAR-2016-0751 for the original notice and data file. The updated information including supplemental data with updated contribution analysis can be found at EPA’s Clean Air Markets internet page ‘‘Memo and Supplemental Information Regarding Interstate Transport SIPs for the 2015 Ozone NAAQS’’ https://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/memoand-supplemental-information-regarding-interstatetransport-sips-2015-ozone-naaqs. ‘‘Air Quality Modeling Technical Support Document for the 2015 Ozone NAAQS Preliminary Interstate Transport Assessment; December 2016’’ https://www.epa.gov/ sites/production/files/2017-01/documents/aq_ modeling_tsd_2015_o3_naaqs_preliminary_ interstate_transport_assessmen.pdf https:// www.epa.gov/airmarkets/air-quality-modelingtechnical-support-document-2015-ozone-naaqspreliminary-interstate). 7 See Supplemental Information on the Interstate Transport State Implementation Plan Submissions for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards under Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), October 27, 2017, available in the docket for this action and at https://www.epa.gov/ sites/production/files/2017-10/documents/final_ 2008_o3_naaqs_transport_memo_10-27-17b.pdf. E:\FR\FM\03DEP1.SGM 03DEP1 66100 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 3, 2019 / Proposed Rules modeling projections of downwind nonattainment and maintenance receptors as well as calculations of the projected impacts of upwind states to these downwind receptors was released in a March 27, 2018 memorandum ‘‘Information on the Interstate Transport State Implementation Plan Submissions for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards under Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).’’ 8 Using the four step framework and considering the information in the memos, the underlying modeling information and NODA’s discussed above, EPA conducted a Weight of Evidence (WOE) evaluation of the State of New Mexico SIP submittal (submitted by the New Mexico Environment Department), the City of Albuquerque— Bernalillo County SIP submittal (submitted by the City of Albuquerque Environmental Health Department) and the New Mexico SIP. lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS II. New Mexico’s and City of Albuquerque-Bernalillo County’s NAAQS Infrastructure Submissions The New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) and City of Albuquerque Environmental Health Department (EHD) each provided submissions intended to demonstrate how the existing New Mexico SIP meets the applicable 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The NMED submittal was received on October 10, 2018 9 while the EHD submittal was made on October 4, 2018. Because the City of Albuquerque and Bernalillo County are a separate, combined jurisdiction from the rest of New Mexico for air quality purposes, the agencies for each jurisdiction made separate submittals to EPA for the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirement for 2008 ozone NAAQS. NMED made the submittal on behalf of the New Mexico governor for the City of Albuquerque— Bernalillo County. NMED made the submittal covering the remainder of the State. Each submittal applied a common analytical framework addressing the State as a whole. Relevant statutes and local ordinances convey the legislative authority for these submittals. Legislative authority for New Mexico’s air quality program is codified in Chapter 74 (Environmental Improvement) of the New Mexico 8 See Information on the Interstate Transport State Implementation Plan Submissions for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards under Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), March 27, 2018, available in the docket for this action and at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/ files/2018-03/documents/transport_memo_03_27_ 18_1.pdf. 9 The cover letter is dated July 24, 2018. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:32 Dec 02, 2019 Jkt 250001 Statutes Annotated 1978 (NMSA 1978), which gives the State Environmental Improvement Board and NMED the authority to implement the CAA in New Mexico. Legislative authority for the City of Albuquerque—Bernalillo County Air Quality Control Board and EHD is codified in NMSA 1978 section 74–2–4 and in local ordinances, Revised Ordinances of the City of Albuquerque sections 9–1–5–1 to 9–1–5–99, and Bernalillo County Ordinances sections 30–31 to 30–47. The authority to implement air quality programs under State statutes is contained in the New Mexico Administrative Code (NMAC), specifically Title 20, Chapter 2—Air Quality (Statewide) and Title 20, Chapter 11—City of Albuquerque— Bernalillo County Air Quality Control Board. These regulations are part of the approved New Mexico SIP and cited in 40 CFR 52.1620(c). In their submittals, NMED and EHD, both point to certain rules and the Statutes Codified at Title 74 of the NMSA (the Air Quality Control Act 74– 2–1) in the infrastructure SIPs (i-SIPs) to support their authority that the New Mexico SIP meets the requirements to prohibit certain adverse air quality effects on downwind states due to interstate transport of pollution. Specifically, they assert in the submittals that the SIP contains adequate provisions to prohibit any emissions activity within the State from emitting air pollutants that will ‘‘contribute significantly to nonattainment’’ (sub-element 1) or ‘‘interfere with maintenance’’ (subelement 2) of the applicable air quality standard in any other state. NMED’s portion of the SIP contains enforceable emission limitations and other control measures for ozone and its precursors (including NOX and VOCs) in Title 20 Chapter 2 of the New Mexico Administrative Code, Parts 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 32–34, 72–75, 79, and 99. EHD’s portion of the SIP contains enforceable emissions limitations and other control measures for any NAAQS, including ozone and its precursors in Title 20, Chapter 11 NMAC Parts 1–8, 40–41, 47, 49, 60–61, 63–67, 90, and 102. New Mexico and Bernalillo County regulations that have been approved in the New Mexico SIP can be found listed at 40 CFR 52.1620(c). Both agencies point to the rules for New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS), and Maximum Achievable Control Technology Standards for Source Categories of Hazardous Air Pollutants (MACT). PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 We note that the SIP approved rules for NMED at 20.2.7.200.A(3) and (6) require that a source subject to NSPS, NESHAPS, and/or MACT must obtain a New Source Review (NSR) SIP Permit. The SIP approved rule at 20.2.72.208 requires that an NSR SIP permit cannot be issued if violations of the NAAQS, NSPS, NESHAPS, MACT, PSD increment, NMED rules, and NMED statutes would occur. The EHD SIP approved rules incorporate by reference the requirement to meet New Source Performance Standards for Stationary Sources, in 20.11.63 NMAC, and Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Stationary Sources in 20.11.64 NMAC. We note that SIP approved rule for EHD at 20.11.41.2.B.1 NMAC requires that sources within Bernalillo County subject to NSPS and NESHAP must obtain an NSR SIP permit. The SIP approved rule at 20.11.41.16(A) requires that an NSR SIP permit cannot be issued if violations of the NAAQS, NSPS, NESHAPS, Board rule, and Air Quality Control Act would occur. The SIP approved rule at 20.11.41.18.B reiterates this. NMED and EHD also considered the EPA’s modeling when developing their SIP submittals intended to demonstrate that their SIP meets CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. They state that neither the Transport Future Year 2017 modeling nor the Transport Future Year 2023 modeling linked New Mexico to any nonattainment receptors in other states. They note that the Transport Future Year 2017 modeling linked New Mexico to one maintenance receptor, National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL), monitor 080590011, in Jefferson County, Colorado, but that the Transport Future Year 2023 modeling did not show New Mexico linked to any maintenance receptors in other states. In their submittals, NMED and EHD conclude, using a WOE approach, that New Mexico emissions will not contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in other states. They based their WOE conclusion on four elements: (1) The insignificance of EPA modeled impact on nonattainment and maintenance receptors of concern in 2023; (2) Control measures scheduled to be implemented through 2023 that were incorporated into EPA’s modeling; (3) An attainment demonstration approved for the Denver nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS; And, (4) an exceptional events demonstration for wildfires, which occurred in 2017 that supported the Denver attainment demonstration. E:\FR\FM\03DEP1.SGM 03DEP1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 3, 2019 / Proposed Rules As discussed above, it was necessary for both NMED and the EHD to make independent submittals to demonstrate how the existing New Mexico SIP meets the applicable CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS because the organizations have authority for air pollution control in different areas of the State. The submittals, however, are sufficiently similar that for our evaluation we will refer to the departments jointly as ‘‘New Mexico’’ in this document. III. EPA’s Evaluation A. EPA’s Sub-Element 1 Evaluation (Do emissions originating in New Mexico contribute significantly to the nonattainment of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in other states?) EPA reviewed all elements of the WOE analysis provided in the New Mexico submittals as well as additional relevant technical information to determine whether the SIP has adequate provisions to ensure emissions from the State will not contribute significantly to nonattainment of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in a downwind state. While we reviewed all 4 elements of New Mexico’s submittal we found elements 1 and 2 to be the most relevant and persuasive with consideration of the additional information provided by EPA’s Transport Future Year 2017 modeling analysis. The EPA conducted this review within the established fourstep interstate transport framework. lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS Step 1—Identification of Downwind Air Quality Problems In order to determine whether a state will contribute significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS in other states, the EPA first identifies projected nonattainment problems in a future analytic year (step 1 of the four-step framework). As mentioned above, EPA identifies nonattainment receptors as those monitoring sites that have projected average Future Design Values (FDVs) 10 exceeding the NAAQS. Both 10 The modeling analyses projects FDVs by adjusting observed ambient concentrations during a selected base-case year using a ratio based on changes in model response at a receptor due to changes in emissions between the base-case year and the future year. The average FDV is calculated using an average base DV that is an average of the three DVs that include the 2011 base-case year in the DV. In this case, it is the average of the DVs (2009–2011 DV, 2010–2012 DV, and 2011–2013 DV). The maximum FDV is calculated using a maximum base DV that includes the base-case 2011 year in the DV. In this case, it is the maximum DV of the 2009–2011 DV, 2010–2012 DV, and 2011– 2013 DV. Both the average and maximum DVs are adjusted using model response changes due to emissions changes between 2011 and the future analysis years of either 2023 and 2017. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:32 Dec 02, 2019 Jkt 250001 models discussed in Section I above (Transport Future Year 2017 model and Transport Future Year 2023 model) evaluated potential downwind air quality problems and projected contributions from upwind states to downwind receptors. Both the Transport Future Year 2017 modeling and Transport Future Year 2023 modeling utilized a modeled basecase year of 2011 and monitoring data from the 2009–2013 period to establish the base period DVs. The Transport Future Year 2017 model projected downwind air quality problems and upwind state contributions using meteorological input from the base-case period (2011) with source emissions data estimated for the future year 2017 to yield model projected ozone levels in the future year analysis (2017), also called the ‘‘2017 analytic year.’’ The Transport Future Year 2023 model projected downwind air quality problems and upwind state contributions using meteorological input from the base-case period (2011) with source emissions data estimated for the future year 2023 to yield model projected ozone levels for the future year 2023 analysis, also called the ‘‘2023 analytic year.’’ The Transport Future Year 2017 model forecasted nonattainment receptors located in several areas across the continental United States for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The Transport Future Year 2023 model forecasted nonattainment receptors only in California for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Step 2—Identify Upwind States That Impact Those Downwind Air Quality Problems Enough To Warrant Further Review and Analysis Consistent with previous rulemakings,11 EPA applied a threshold of 1% of the 2008 ozone NAAQS of 75 ppb (0.75 ppb) to identify linkages at step 2 between upwind states and downwind nonattainment receptors. Accordingly, if a state’s impact on identified downwind receptors did not equal or exceed 0.75 ppb, the state was not considered ‘‘linked’’ to those receptors and was not considered to contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the standard in those downwind areas. However, if a state’s 11 See Finding of Significant Contribution and Rulemaking for Certain States in the Ozone Transport Assessment Group Region for Purposes of Reducing Regional Transport of Ozone (also known as the NOX SIP Call), 63 FR 57356 (October 27, 1998); Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) Final Rule, 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005); CSAPR Final Rule, 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011); CSAPR Update for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS (CSAPR Update) Final Rule, 81 FR 74504 (October 26, 2016). PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 66101 impact equaled or exceeded the 0.75 ppb threshold, that state was considered ‘‘linked’’ to the downwind nonattainment or maintenance receptor(s) and further analysis was conducted at step 3 to determine whether the state significantly contributes to nonattainment and in what degree. As further discussed in our Technical Support Document (TSD) for this action, neither the 2017 nor the 2023 modeling showed New Mexico linked to any nonattainment receptor. The largest impact New Mexico was forecasted by the Transport Future Year 2017 model to make on a nonattainment area (Imperial County, California) was 0.26 ppb, well under EPA’s 1% threshold. Likewise, the largest impact New Mexico is forecasted by the Transport Future Year 2023 model to make on a nonattainment area (Imperial County, California) is 0.13 ppb, again, well under EPA’s 1% threshold. Since New Mexico is not forecasted to be linked to nonattainment areas at step 2 of the four-step interstate transport framework, undertaking a review of and analyses for the remainder of the four-step process is not warranted. Accordingly, the EPA proposes to agree with the NMED and EHD submittals based on the conclusion that New Mexico will not contribute significantly to nonattainment in any other state and therefore proposes to approve the two SIP revisions with respect to sub-element 1 of the good neighbor provision. B. EPA’s Sub-Element 2 Evaluation (Do emissions originating in New Mexico interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in other states?) As described in EPA’s Sub-Element 1 Evaluation, EPA reviewed all elements of WOE analysis presented in the New Mexico submittals and additional relevant technical information to determine whether the SIP has adequate provisions to ensure emissions from the State will not interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in a downwind state. Step 1—Identification of Downwind Air Quality Problems In order to determine whether a state will interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in downwind states, EPA first identifies projected maintenance problems in a future analytic year (i.e. step 1 of the four-step framework). EPA identifies maintenance receptors as those monitoring sites with projected maximum FDVs exceeding the NAAQS. As discussed, we have two relevant interstate ozone transport modeling analysis, the Transport Future Year E:\FR\FM\03DEP1.SGM 03DEP1 66102 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 3, 2019 / Proposed Rules 2017 model analysis and the Transport Future Year 2023 model analysis. The Transport Future Year 2017 model projected maintenance receptors located in several areas across the continental United States for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The Transport Future Year 2023 model projected maintenance receptors only in California for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS Step 2—Identify Upwind States That Impact Those Downwind Air Quality Problems Enough To Warrant Further Review and Analysis As above and consistent with previous rulemakings,12 EPA applied a threshold of 1% of the 2008 ozone NAAQS of 75 ppb (0.75 ppb) to identify linkages at step 2 between upwind states and downwind maintenance receptors. EPA’s Transport Future Year 2017 model analysis indicated New Mexico was linked to one maintenance receptor, NREL, monitor 080590011, in Jefferson County, Colorado with a maximum modeled 2017 future DV of 0.78 ppb (above the 0.75 ppb 2008 ozone NAAQS), and the modeling-based contribution from New Mexico is 0.77 ppb (above the 0.75 ppb 1% contribution threshold by 0.02 ppb). The Transport Future Year 2023 model analysis did not show New Mexico linked to any maintenance receptors in 2023. The currently applicable ozone attainment date for the 2008 NAAQS in the Denver area is July 2021 and would apply to the NREL receptor. We, however, have not conducted any air quality modeling aligned with the 2021 attainment date, so we evaluated available modeling and emissions data to determine whether we would expect the linkage identified in the 2017 modeling to persist in a year aligned with the applicable attainment date, 2021. As discussed further below, we believe that the New Mexico contribution is currently below the 1% threshold. EPA examined the projected decrease in New Mexico’s anthropogenic NOX emissions inventories between the Transport Future Year 2017 (156,783 tons of NOX) and Transport Future Year 2023 modeling analyses (130,318 tons of NOX), see TSD for full analysis. We evaluated the change in New Mexico’s anthropogenic NOX emissions since previous EPA regional modeling has indicated reductions in NOX emissions result in more ozone reductions in the context of reducing upwind state impacts on downwind receptors in 12 See Footnote 3. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:32 Dec 02, 2019 Jkt 250001 other states.13 Regional modeling in Colorado and Denver also indicate that area ozone levels are more sensitive to NOX reductions. There is a projected decrease of 26,465 tons of NOX (approximately 17%) between 2017 and 2023 with most of these reductions (22,292 tons of NOX) occurring from fleet turnover in onroad, nonroad, and rail emissions. New Mexico’s Electrical Generating Unit (EGU) NOX emissions are also projected to decrease by 939 tons (approximately 7% of EGU NOX emissions) between 2017 and 2023. The Transport Future Year 2017 analysis includes controls put on San Juan Generating Station Units 1 and 4 and the Transport Future Year 2023 analysis also included reductions due to the enforceable shutdowns of units 2 and 3 by December 31, 2017 as part of Regional Haze Best Available Retrofit Technology (‘‘BART’’) SIP.14 Since most of the decreases in New Mexico’s anthropogenic NOX emissions are from mobile, onroad, and rail source categories that change annually due to fleet turnover, it is reasonable, in this case, to assume that the change in New Mexico’s anthropogenic NOX emissions and downwind ozone impacts is approximately linear for these categories, which in turn would make the decrease in New Mexico contributions to the NREL receptor approximately linear.15 In March 2018 EPA released modeling contribution data for 2023. We used the daily contribution data from this 2023 modeling as part of the process for estimating contributions in the 2020 analytic year. This process included a linear interpolation of contributions between 2017 and 2023 to estimate the contribution from New Mexico in 2020. In order to ensure consistency in the 2020 and 2023 contributions for use in interpolating between these two analytic years, EPA calculated the average contribution from New Mexico to the NREL receptor using the underlying daily 2023 contribution data for the same days that were used to calculate 13 CSAPR Update final rule. 81 FR 74504 (October 26, 2016) Section IV pgs.74513–74516. Including ‘‘The EPA has previously concluded in the NOX SIP Call, CAIR, and CSAPR that, for reducing regionalscale ozone transport, a NOX control strategy is effective.’’ 14 Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; New Mexico; Regional Haze and Interstate Transport Affecting Visibility State Implementation Plan Revisions, Final Rule, 79 FR 60985, (Oct. 9, 2014). 15 Linear interpolation may not be appropriate in other situations where, for example, the emissions reductions occur as a single step decline during one of the intervening years, and/or when the magnitude of the emissions reduction is relatively large, and/or when the interpolation is done over a long-time horizon. PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 the average contribution for 2017. Specifically, the 2017 contribution analysis included 5 days and we used the daily contributions from these same 5 days to calculate the Transport Future Year 2023 average contribution. Using this consistent methodology, the contribution from New Mexico in 2023 is 0.65 ppb in 2023, which is below the 1% contribution threshold. We note that change in contribution between 2017 (0.77 ppb) and 2023 (0.65 ppb) is approximately a 16% decrease, which is very similar with the decrease of approximately 17% in New Mexico’s anthropogenic NOX emissions inventories between those two years and further supports using linear interpolation in this case. A linear interpolation between the 2017 contribution of 0.77 ppb and the 2023 contribution of 0.65 ppb gives an estimate of the linear rate of decline of the contribution of New Mexico to the NREL monitor of 0.022 ppb per year (0.77¥0.65)/6. An estimate of the analytic year contribution for 2020 can be calculated by the equation (0.77¥3 * 0.022 ppb) = 0.71. Thus, EPA estimates that the contribution of New Mexico to the NREL maintenance monitor is and will continue to be below the 1% threshold, 0.75 ppb, for determining a linkage. Had future year modeling been performed for an earlier year of 2020 which would align with 2021 Serious area attainment date for Denver area, our analysis indicates that New Mexico’s contribution would be below 0.75 ppb to the NREL receptor, regardless of whether NREL was a maintenance receptor for the 2008 ozone NAAQS in that year, and New Mexico would not be linked to the NREL receptor. By this analysis, New Mexico is not forecasted to be linked to NREL or other maintenance receptors at step 2 of the four-step interstate transport framework, thus, completing a review of and analyses for the remainder of the four-step process is not warranted. Based on our review of the October 10, 2018, NMED submittal and the October 4, 2018, EHD submittal and other relevant information, EPA proposes to approve the submissions based on the conclusion that New Mexico emissions will not interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in any other state and therefore propose to approve the two SIP revisions. IV. Proposed Action EPA is proposing to (1) determine that consistent with the CAA, that both, New Mexico and City of AlbuquerqueBernalillo County have met their E:\FR\FM\03DEP1.SGM 03DEP1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 3, 2019 / Proposed Rules lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS obligation under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) because New Mexico will not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in any other state and (2) approve the October 10, 2018 New Mexico and October 4, 2018 City of AlbuquerqueBernalillo County SIP revisions for the 2008 ozone NAAQS interstate transport requirements of CAA 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). V. 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); • Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866; • 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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:32 Dec 02, 2019 Jkt 250001 • 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 oxides, Ozone. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Dated: November 21, 2019. Kenley McQueen, Regional Administrator, Region 6. [FR Doc. 2019–25991 Filed 12–2–19; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA–R06–OAR–2018–0208; FRL–10002– 11–Region 6] Air Plan Approval; Oklahoma; Updates to the General SIP and New Source Review Permitting Requirements Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. AGENCY: Pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve identified portions of revisions to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for Oklahoma submitted by the State of Oklahoma designee by letters dated May 16, 1994; July 26, 2010; January 8, 2018; May 16, 2018; and December 19, 2018 and as clarified on May 16, 2018. This action addresses the revisions submitted to the Oklahoma SIP pertaining to incorporation by reference of Federal requirements, updates to the general SIP provisions and New Source Review (NSR) permit programs to address public notice and modeling requirements, including certain statutory provisions. DATES: Written comments must be received on or before January 3, 2020. SUMMARY: PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 66103 Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA–R06– OAR–2018–0208, at https:// www.regulations.gov or via email to wiley.adina@epa.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 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 Adina Wiley, (214) 665–2115, wiley.adina@epa.gov. 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-epadockets. Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at the EPA Region 6 Office, 1201 Elm Street, Suite 500, Dallas, Texas. While all documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material), and some may not be publicly available at either location (e.g., CBI). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Adina Wiley, EPA Region 6 Office, Air Permits Section, 1201 Elm Street, Suite 500, Dallas, TX 75270, 214–665–2115, wiley.adina@epa.gov. To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment with Adina Wiley or Mr. Bill Deese at 214–665–7253. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean the EPA. ADDRESSES: I. Background Section 110 of the Act requires states to develop air pollution regulations and control strategies to ensure that air quality meets the EPA’s National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). These ambient standards are established under section 109 of the Act and they currently address six criteria pollutants: Carbon monoxide, nitrogen E:\FR\FM\03DEP1.SGM 03DEP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 232 (Tuesday, December 3, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 66098-66103]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-25991]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2018-0705; FRL-10002-28-Region 6]


Air Plan Approval; New Mexico; Interstate Transport Requirements 
for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Clean Air Act, (CAA or Act), the Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing action on submissions from the 
State of New Mexico and the City of Albuquerque--Bernalillo County that 
are intended to demonstrate that the New Mexico State Implementation 
Plan (SIP) meets certain interstate transport requirements of the CAA 
for the 2008 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). 
These submissions address interstate transport, CAA section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), which requires each state's SIP to prohibit 
emissions which will significantly contribute to nonattainment or 
interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in other states. The EPA is 
proposing to approve these submittals based on the conclusion that New 
Mexico will not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere 
with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in any other state.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before January 2, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket Number EPA-R06-
OAR-2018-0705, at http://www.regulations.gov or via email to 
[email protected]. 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 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 Sherry Fuerst, 214-665-
6454, [email protected]. 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 and in hard copy at the EPA 
Region 6 Office, 1201 Elm Street, Suite 500, Dallas, Texas. While all 
documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may 
be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted 
material), and some may not be publicly available at either location 
(e.g., CBI).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sherry Fuerst, 214-665-6454, 
[email protected]. To inspect the hard copy materials, please 
schedule an appointment with Ms. Fuerst or Mr. Bill Deese at 214-665-
7253.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we,'' 
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA.

[[Page 66099]]

I. Background

    On March 12, 2008, the EPA revised the levels of the primary and 
secondary 8-hour ozone NAAQS from 0.08 parts per million (ppm) to 0.075 
ppm (73 FR 16436, March 27, 2008).
    Primary standards are set to protect human health while secondary 
standards are set to protect public welfare. The 2008 ozone NAAQS are 
met at an ambient air quality monitoring site when the 3-year average 
of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone 
concentration is less than or equal to the NAAQS, as determined in 
accordance with appendix P to 40 CFR part 50.\1\ This action is being 
taken in response to the promulgation of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Under appendix P, digits to the right of the third decimal 
place are truncated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CAA requires states submit, within three years after 
promulgation of a new or revised standard, SIP revisions meeting the 
applicable ``infrastructure'' elements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2). 
One of these applicable infrastructure elements, CAA section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), requires SIPs to contain provisions to prohibit 
certain adverse air quality effects on downwind states due to 
interstate transport of pollution. Specifically, section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires that each SIP for a new or revised standard 
contain adequate provisions to prohibit any emissions activity within 
the State from emitting air pollutants that will ``contribute 
significantly to nonattainment'' (sub-element 1) or ``interfere with 
maintenance'' (sub-element 2) of the applicable air quality standard in 
any other state.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ All other parts of the infrastructure SIP for the State of 
New Mexico were submitted on September 14, 2013 and final approval 
was published June 24, 2015 (80 FR 36246). All other parts of the 
2008 ozone infrastructure SIP for City of Albuquerque--Bernalillo 
County were submitted December 26, 2008 and final approval was 
published September 19, 2013 (77 FR 58032).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ozone is not emitted directly into the air but is created by 
chemical reactions between oxides of nitrogen (NOX) and 
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the presence of sunlight. 
Emissions from electric utilities and industrial facilities, motor 
vehicles, gasoline vapors, and chemical solvents are some of the major 
sources of NOX and VOCs. Because ground-level ozone 
formation increases with temperature and sunlight, ozone levels are 
generally higher during the summer. Increased temperature also 
increases emissions of VOCs and can indirectly increase NOX 
emissions (See 81 FR 74504, 74513, October 26, 2016).
    EPA has established a four-step interstate transport framework to 
address the sub-element 1 and 2 requirements for ozone and fine 
particulate matter (PM2.5) NAAQS through the development and 
implementation of several previous rulemakings.\3\ The four steps of 
this framework are as follows: (1) Identify downwind air quality 
problems; (2) identify upwind states that impact those downwind air 
quality problems enough to warrant further review and analysis; (3) 
identify the emissions reductions, if any, necessary to prevent an 
identified upwind state from contributing significantly or interfering 
with maintenance with respect to those downwind air quality problems; 
and (4) adopt permanent and enforceable measures needed to achieve 
those emissions reductions. The EPA has applied this framework in 
various actions addressing sub-elements 1 and 2 for the 
PM2.5 and ozone NAAQS.\4\ In prior actions, the EPA has 
concluded that states with impacts on downwind nonattainment and 
maintenance receptors less than 1% of the 2008 ozone NAAQS do not 
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance 
pursuant to CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). This framework will be 
followed in this evaluation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See, e.g., Finding of Significant Contribution and 
Rulemaking for Certain States in the Ozone Transport Assessment 
Group Region for Purposes of Reducing Regional Transport of Ozone 
(also known as the NOX SIP Call), 63 FR 57356 (October 
27, 1998); Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), 70 FR 25 162 (May 12, 
2005); Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) final rule. 76 FR 
48208 (August 8, 2011); CSAPR Update final rule. 81 FR 74504 
(October 26, 2016).
    \4\ See, e.g., ``Interstate Transport Prongs 1 and 2 for the 
2012 Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Standard for 
Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota and Wyoming,'' 83 FR 
21227 (May 9, 2018); ``Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality 
State Implementation Plans; California; Interstate Transport 
Requirements for Ozone, Fine Particulate Matter, and Sulfur 
Dioxide,'' 83 FR 5375 (February 7, 2018), ``Partial Approval and 
Partial Disapproval of Air Quality State Implementation Plans; 
Arizona; Infrastructure Requirements to Address Interstate Transport 
for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS'', 81 FR 15200 (March 22, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To assist states with meeting section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 
requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, the EPA has conducted interstate 
ozone transport modeling, provided informational memos, issued two 
Notices of Data Availability (NODAs), and issued regional rules that 
use the four-step framework to evaluate states' interstate transport 
obligations. The modeling data were developed to inform our analysis, 
in various actions, of downwind air quality problems and upwind state 
impacts on those problems. We published and requested public comment on 
interstate ozone transport modeling data for two different analytic 
years. For the purposes of this document, we will be referring to the 
data from these as the ``Transport Future Year 2017 modeling'' \5\ and 
the ``Transport Future Year 2023 modeling.'' \6\ The final version of 
the Transport Future Year 2017 modeling was released with the CSAPR 
Update and included projections of downwind nonattainment and 
maintenance receptors as well as calculations of the projected impacts 
of upwind states to these downwind receptors. The latest version of the 
Transport Future Year 2023 modeling relied on in this action was 
released in an October 27, 2017 memorandum ``Supplemental Information 
on the Interstate Transport State Implementation Plan Submissions for 
the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards under Clean Air 
Act Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).'' \7\ The

[[Page 66100]]

modeling projections of downwind nonattainment and maintenance 
receptors as well as calculations of the projected impacts of upwind 
states to these downwind receptors was released in a March 27, 2018 
memorandum ``Information on the Interstate Transport State 
Implementation Plan Submissions for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air 
Quality Standards under Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).'' \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Notice of Availability of the Environmental Protection 
Agency's Updated Ozone Transport Modeling Data for the 2008 Ozone 
National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS), 80 FR 46271 (August 
4, 2015); see also ``Updated Air Quality Modeling Technical Support 
Document for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS Transport Assessment,'' August 
2015 (included in the docket to the NODA); see also the final 
updated modeling known as the ``Transport Future Year 2017 Model'' 
with all design values (DVs) for all monitors in all states (both 
east and west) and all states contribution breakouts for all 
monitors in the CSAPR Update docket; EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0500-0459, 2017 
Ozone Contributions, https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0500-0459; ``Air Quality Modeling Technical Support 
Document for the Final Cross State Air Pollution Rule Update; August 
2016''; (aq_modeling_TSD_final_CSAPR_update.pdf at https://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/air-quality-modeling-technical-support-document-final-cross-state-air-pollution-rule).
    \6\ See Preliminary Interstate Ozone Transport Modeling Data for 
the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality (January 6, 2017, 82 FR 
1733) https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0751 for 
the original notice and data file. The updated information including 
supplemental data with updated contribution analysis can be found at 
EPA's Clean Air Markets internet page ``Memo and Supplemental 
Information Regarding Interstate Transport SIPs for the 2015 Ozone 
NAAQS'' https://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/memo-and-supplemental-information-regarding-interstate-transport-sips-2015-ozone-naaqs. 
``Air Quality Modeling Technical Support Document for the 2015 Ozone 
NAAQS Preliminary Interstate Transport Assessment; December 2016'' 
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-01/documents/aq_modeling_tsd_2015_o3_naaqs_preliminary_interstate_transport_assessmen.pdf https://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/air-quality-modeling-technical-support-document-2015-ozone-naaqs-preliminary-interstate).
    \7\ See Supplemental Information on the Interstate Transport 
State Implementation Plan Submissions for the 2008 Ozone National 
Ambient Air Quality Standards under Clean Air Act Section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), October 27, 2017, available in the docket for 
this action and at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-10/documents/final_2008_o3_naaqs_transport_memo_10-27-17b.pdf.
    \8\ See Information on the Interstate Transport State 
Implementation Plan Submissions for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient 
Air Quality Standards under Clean Air Act Section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), March 27, 2018, available in the docket for this 
action and at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-03/documents/transport_memo_03_27_18_1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Using the four step framework and considering the information in 
the memos, the underlying modeling information and NODA's discussed 
above, EPA conducted a Weight of Evidence (WOE) evaluation of the State 
of New Mexico SIP submittal (submitted by the New Mexico Environment 
Department), the City of Albuquerque--Bernalillo County SIP submittal 
(submitted by the City of Albuquerque Environmental Health Department) 
and the New Mexico SIP.

II. New Mexico's and City of Albuquerque-Bernalillo County's NAAQS 
Infrastructure Submissions

    The New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) and City of 
Albuquerque Environmental Health Department (EHD) each provided 
submissions intended to demonstrate how the existing New Mexico SIP 
meets the applicable 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for the 2008 ozone 
NAAQS. The NMED submittal was received on October 10, 2018 \9\ while 
the EHD submittal was made on October 4, 2018. Because the City of 
Albuquerque and Bernalillo County are a separate, combined jurisdiction 
from the rest of New Mexico for air quality purposes, the agencies for 
each jurisdiction made separate submittals to EPA for the 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirement for 2008 ozone NAAQS. NMED made the 
submittal on behalf of the New Mexico governor for the City of 
Albuquerque--Bernalillo County. NMED made the submittal covering the 
remainder of the State. Each submittal applied a common analytical 
framework addressing the State as a whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The cover letter is dated July 24, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Relevant statutes and local ordinances convey the legislative 
authority for these submittals. Legislative authority for New Mexico's 
air quality program is codified in Chapter 74 (Environmental 
Improvement) of the New Mexico Statutes Annotated 1978 (NMSA 1978), 
which gives the State Environmental Improvement Board and NMED the 
authority to implement the CAA in New Mexico. Legislative authority for 
the City of Albuquerque--Bernalillo County Air Quality Control Board 
and EHD is codified in NMSA 1978 section 74-2-4 and in local 
ordinances, Revised Ordinances of the City of Albuquerque sections 9-1-
5-1 to 9-1-5-99, and Bernalillo County Ordinances sections 30-31 to 30-
47.
    The authority to implement air quality programs under State 
statutes is contained in the New Mexico Administrative Code (NMAC), 
specifically Title 20, Chapter 2--Air Quality (Statewide) and Title 20, 
Chapter 11--City of Albuquerque--Bernalillo County Air Quality Control 
Board. These regulations are part of the approved New Mexico SIP and 
cited in 40 CFR 52.1620(c).
    In their submittals, NMED and EHD, both point to certain rules and 
the Statutes Codified at Title 74 of the NMSA (the Air Quality Control 
Act 74-2-1) in the infrastructure SIPs (i-SIPs) to support their 
authority that the New Mexico SIP meets the requirements to prohibit 
certain adverse air quality effects on downwind states due to 
interstate transport of pollution. Specifically, they assert in the 
submittals that the SIP contains adequate provisions to prohibit any 
emissions activity within the State from emitting air pollutants that 
will ``contribute significantly to nonattainment'' (sub-element 1) or 
``interfere with maintenance'' (sub-element 2) of the applicable air 
quality standard in any other state.
    NMED's portion of the SIP contains enforceable emission limitations 
and other control measures for ozone and its precursors (including 
NOX and VOCs) in Title 20 Chapter 2 of the New Mexico 
Administrative Code, Parts 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 32-34, 72-75, 79, and 99. 
EHD's portion of the SIP contains enforceable emissions limitations and 
other control measures for any NAAQS, including ozone and its 
precursors in Title 20, Chapter 11 NMAC Parts 1-8, 40-41, 47, 49, 60-
61, 63-67, 90, and 102. New Mexico and Bernalillo County regulations 
that have been approved in the New Mexico SIP can be found listed at 40 
CFR 52.1620(c).
    Both agencies point to the rules for New Source Performance 
Standards (NSPS), National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants (NESHAPS), and Maximum Achievable Control Technology 
Standards for Source Categories of Hazardous Air Pollutants (MACT).
    We note that the SIP approved rules for NMED at 20.2.7.200.A(3) and 
(6) require that a source subject to NSPS, NESHAPS, and/or MACT must 
obtain a New Source Review (NSR) SIP Permit. The SIP approved rule at 
20.2.72.208 requires that an NSR SIP permit cannot be issued if 
violations of the NAAQS, NSPS, NESHAPS, MACT, PSD increment, NMED 
rules, and NMED statutes would occur. The EHD SIP approved rules 
incorporate by reference the requirement to meet New Source Performance 
Standards for Stationary Sources, in 20.11.63 NMAC, and Emission 
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Stationary Sources in 
20.11.64 NMAC. We note that SIP approved rule for EHD at 20.11.41.2.B.1 
NMAC requires that sources within Bernalillo County subject to NSPS and 
NESHAP must obtain an NSR SIP permit. The SIP approved rule at 
20.11.41.16(A) requires that an NSR SIP permit cannot be issued if 
violations of the NAAQS, NSPS, NESHAPS, Board rule, and Air Quality 
Control Act would occur. The SIP approved rule at 20.11.41.18.B 
reiterates this.
    NMED and EHD also considered the EPA's modeling when developing 
their SIP submittals intended to demonstrate that their SIP meets CAA 
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. They 
state that neither the Transport Future Year 2017 modeling nor the 
Transport Future Year 2023 modeling linked New Mexico to any 
nonattainment receptors in other states. They note that the Transport 
Future Year 2017 modeling linked New Mexico to one maintenance 
receptor, National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL), monitor 080590011, in 
Jefferson County, Colorado, but that the Transport Future Year 2023 
modeling did not show New Mexico linked to any maintenance receptors in 
other states.
    In their submittals, NMED and EHD conclude, using a WOE approach, 
that New Mexico emissions will not contribute significantly to 
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in 
other states. They based their WOE conclusion on four elements: (1) The 
insignificance of EPA modeled impact on nonattainment and maintenance 
receptors of concern in 2023; (2) Control measures scheduled to be 
implemented through 2023 that were incorporated into EPA's modeling; 
(3) An attainment demonstration approved for the Denver nonattainment 
area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS; And, (4) an exceptional events 
demonstration for wildfires, which occurred in 2017 that supported the 
Denver attainment demonstration.

[[Page 66101]]

    As discussed above, it was necessary for both NMED and the EHD to 
make independent submittals to demonstrate how the existing New Mexico 
SIP meets the applicable CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements 
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS because the organizations have authority for 
air pollution control in different areas of the State. The submittals, 
however, are sufficiently similar that for our evaluation we will refer 
to the departments jointly as ``New Mexico'' in this document.

III. EPA's Evaluation

A. EPA's Sub-Element 1 Evaluation (Do emissions originating in New 
Mexico contribute significantly to the nonattainment of the 2008 ozone 
NAAQS in other states?)

    EPA reviewed all elements of the WOE analysis provided in the New 
Mexico submittals as well as additional relevant technical information 
to determine whether the SIP has adequate provisions to ensure 
emissions from the State will not contribute significantly to 
nonattainment of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in a downwind state. While we 
reviewed all 4 elements of New Mexico's submittal we found elements 1 
and 2 to be the most relevant and persuasive with consideration of the 
additional information provided by EPA's Transport Future Year 2017 
modeling analysis. The EPA conducted this review within the established 
four-step interstate transport framework.
Step 1--Identification of Downwind Air Quality Problems
    In order to determine whether a state will contribute significantly 
to nonattainment of the NAAQS in other states, the EPA first identifies 
projected nonattainment problems in a future analytic year (step 1 of 
the four-step framework). As mentioned above, EPA identifies 
nonattainment receptors as those monitoring sites that have projected 
average Future Design Values (FDVs) \10\ exceeding the NAAQS. Both 
models discussed in Section I above (Transport Future Year 2017 model 
and Transport Future Year 2023 model) evaluated potential downwind air 
quality problems and projected contributions from upwind states to 
downwind receptors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The modeling analyses projects FDVs by adjusting observed 
ambient concentrations during a selected base-case year using a 
ratio based on changes in model response at a receptor due to 
changes in emissions between the base-case year and the future year. 
The average FDV is calculated using an average base DV that is an 
average of the three DVs that include the 2011 base-case year in the 
DV. In this case, it is the average of the DVs (2009-2011 DV, 2010-
2012 DV, and 2011-2013 DV). The maximum FDV is calculated using a 
maximum base DV that includes the base-case 2011 year in the DV. In 
this case, it is the maximum DV of the 2009-2011 DV, 2010-2012 DV, 
and 2011-2013 DV. Both the average and maximum DVs are adjusted 
using model response changes due to emissions changes between 2011 
and the future analysis years of either 2023 and 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Both the Transport Future Year 2017 modeling and Transport Future 
Year 2023 modeling utilized a modeled base-case year of 2011 and 
monitoring data from the 2009-2013 period to establish the base period 
DVs. The Transport Future Year 2017 model projected downwind air 
quality problems and upwind state contributions using meteorological 
input from the base-case period (2011) with source emissions data 
estimated for the future year 2017 to yield model projected ozone 
levels in the future year analysis (2017), also called the ``2017 
analytic year.'' The Transport Future Year 2023 model projected 
downwind air quality problems and upwind state contributions using 
meteorological input from the base-case period (2011) with source 
emissions data estimated for the future year 2023 to yield model 
projected ozone levels for the future year 2023 analysis, also called 
the ``2023 analytic year.'' The Transport Future Year 2017 model 
forecasted nonattainment receptors located in several areas across the 
continental United States for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The Transport 
Future Year 2023 model forecasted nonattainment receptors only in 
California for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
Step 2--Identify Upwind States That Impact Those Downwind Air Quality 
Problems Enough To Warrant Further Review and Analysis
    Consistent with previous rulemakings,\11\ EPA applied a threshold 
of 1% of the 2008 ozone NAAQS of 75 ppb (0.75 ppb) to identify linkages 
at step 2 between upwind states and downwind nonattainment receptors. 
Accordingly, if a state's impact on identified downwind receptors did 
not equal or exceed 0.75 ppb, the state was not considered ``linked'' 
to those receptors and was not considered to contribute significantly 
to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the standard in those 
downwind areas. However, if a state's impact equaled or exceeded the 
0.75 ppb threshold, that state was considered ``linked'' to the 
downwind nonattainment or maintenance receptor(s) and further analysis 
was conducted at step 3 to determine whether the state significantly 
contributes to nonattainment and in what degree.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Finding of Significant Contribution and Rulemaking for 
Certain States in the Ozone Transport Assessment Group Region for 
Purposes of Reducing Regional Transport of Ozone (also known as the 
NOX SIP Call), 63 FR 57356 (October 27, 1998); Clean Air 
Interstate Rule (CAIR) Final Rule, 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005); CSAPR 
Final Rule, 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011); CSAPR Update for the 2008 
Ozone NAAQS (CSAPR Update) Final Rule, 81 FR 74504 (October 26, 
2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As further discussed in our Technical Support Document (TSD) for 
this action, neither the 2017 nor the 2023 modeling showed New Mexico 
linked to any nonattainment receptor. The largest impact New Mexico was 
forecasted by the Transport Future Year 2017 model to make on a 
nonattainment area (Imperial County, California) was 0.26 ppb, well 
under EPA's 1% threshold. Likewise, the largest impact New Mexico is 
forecasted by the Transport Future Year 2023 model to make on a 
nonattainment area (Imperial County, California) is 0.13 ppb, again, 
well under EPA's 1% threshold. Since New Mexico is not forecasted to be 
linked to nonattainment areas at step 2 of the four-step interstate 
transport framework, undertaking a review of and analyses for the 
remainder of the four-step process is not warranted. Accordingly, the 
EPA proposes to agree with the NMED and EHD submittals based on the 
conclusion that New Mexico will not contribute significantly to 
nonattainment in any other state and therefore proposes to approve the 
two SIP revisions with respect to sub-element 1 of the good neighbor 
provision.

B. EPA's Sub-Element 2 Evaluation (Do emissions originating in New 
Mexico interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in other 
states?)

    As described in EPA's Sub-Element 1 Evaluation, EPA reviewed all 
elements of WOE analysis presented in the New Mexico submittals and 
additional relevant technical information to determine whether the SIP 
has adequate provisions to ensure emissions from the State will not 
interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in a downwind state.
Step 1--Identification of Downwind Air Quality Problems
    In order to determine whether a state will interfere with 
maintenance of the NAAQS in downwind states, EPA first identifies 
projected maintenance problems in a future analytic year (i.e. step 1 
of the four-step framework). EPA identifies maintenance receptors as 
those monitoring sites with projected maximum FDVs exceeding the NAAQS. 
As discussed, we have two relevant interstate ozone transport modeling 
analysis, the Transport Future Year

[[Page 66102]]

2017 model analysis and the Transport Future Year 2023 model analysis. 
The Transport Future Year 2017 model projected maintenance receptors 
located in several areas across the continental United States for the 
2008 ozone NAAQS. The Transport Future Year 2023 model projected 
maintenance receptors only in California for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
Step 2--Identify Upwind States That Impact Those Downwind Air Quality 
Problems Enough To Warrant Further Review and Analysis
    As above and consistent with previous rulemakings,\12\ EPA applied 
a threshold of 1% of the 2008 ozone NAAQS of 75 ppb (0.75 ppb) to 
identify linkages at step 2 between upwind states and downwind 
maintenance receptors. EPA's Transport Future Year 2017 model analysis 
indicated New Mexico was linked to one maintenance receptor, NREL, 
monitor 080590011, in Jefferson County, Colorado with a maximum modeled 
2017 future DV of 0.78 ppb (above the 0.75 ppb 2008 ozone NAAQS), and 
the modeling-based contribution from New Mexico is 0.77 ppb (above the 
0.75 ppb 1% contribution threshold by 0.02 ppb). The Transport Future 
Year 2023 model analysis did not show New Mexico linked to any 
maintenance receptors in 2023. The currently applicable ozone 
attainment date for the 2008 NAAQS in the Denver area is July 2021 and 
would apply to the NREL receptor. We, however, have not conducted any 
air quality modeling aligned with the 2021 attainment date, so we 
evaluated available modeling and emissions data to determine whether we 
would expect the linkage identified in the 2017 modeling to persist in 
a year aligned with the applicable attainment date, 2021. As discussed 
further below, we believe that the New Mexico contribution is currently 
below the 1% threshold.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Footnote 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA examined the projected decrease in New Mexico's anthropogenic 
NOX emissions inventories between the Transport Future Year 
2017 (156,783 tons of NOX) and Transport Future Year 2023 
modeling analyses (130,318 tons of NOX), see TSD for full 
analysis. We evaluated the change in New Mexico's anthropogenic 
NOX emissions since previous EPA regional modeling has 
indicated reductions in NOX emissions result in more ozone 
reductions in the context of reducing upwind state impacts on downwind 
receptors in other states.\13\ Regional modeling in Colorado and Denver 
also indicate that area ozone levels are more sensitive to 
NOX reductions. There is a projected decrease of 26,465 tons 
of NOX (approximately 17%) between 2017 and 2023 with most 
of these reductions (22,292 tons of NOX) occurring from 
fleet turnover in onroad, nonroad, and rail emissions. New Mexico's 
Electrical Generating Unit (EGU) NOX emissions are also 
projected to decrease by 939 tons (approximately 7% of EGU 
NOX emissions) between 2017 and 2023. The Transport Future 
Year 2017 analysis includes controls put on San Juan Generating Station 
Units 1 and 4 and the Transport Future Year 2023 analysis also included 
reductions due to the enforceable shutdowns of units 2 and 3 by 
December 31, 2017 as part of Regional Haze Best Available Retrofit 
Technology (``BART'') SIP.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ CSAPR Update final rule. 81 FR 74504 (October 26, 2016) 
Section IV pgs.74513-74516. Including ``The EPA has previously 
concluded in the NOX SIP Call, CAIR, and CSAPR that, for 
reducing regional-scale ozone transport, a NOX control 
strategy is effective.''
    \14\ Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; New 
Mexico; Regional Haze and Interstate Transport Affecting Visibility 
State Implementation Plan Revisions, Final Rule, 79 FR 60985, (Oct. 
9, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since most of the decreases in New Mexico's anthropogenic 
NOX emissions are from mobile, onroad, and rail source 
categories that change annually due to fleet turnover, it is 
reasonable, in this case, to assume that the change in New Mexico's 
anthropogenic NOX emissions and downwind ozone impacts is 
approximately linear for these categories, which in turn would make the 
decrease in New Mexico contributions to the NREL receptor approximately 
linear.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Linear interpolation may not be appropriate in other 
situations where, for example, the emissions reductions occur as a 
single step decline during one of the intervening years, and/or when 
the magnitude of the emissions reduction is relatively large, and/or 
when the interpolation is done over a long-time horizon.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In March 2018 EPA released modeling contribution data for 2023. We 
used the daily contribution data from this 2023 modeling as part of the 
process for estimating contributions in the 2020 analytic year. This 
process included a linear interpolation of contributions between 2017 
and 2023 to estimate the contribution from New Mexico in 2020. In order 
to ensure consistency in the 2020 and 2023 contributions for use in 
interpolating between these two analytic years, EPA calculated the 
average contribution from New Mexico to the NREL receptor using the 
underlying daily 2023 contribution data for the same days that were 
used to calculate the average contribution for 2017. Specifically, the 
2017 contribution analysis included 5 days and we used the daily 
contributions from these same 5 days to calculate the Transport Future 
Year 2023 average contribution. Using this consistent methodology, the 
contribution from New Mexico in 2023 is 0.65 ppb in 2023, which is 
below the 1% contribution threshold.
    We note that change in contribution between 2017 (0.77 ppb) and 
2023 (0.65 ppb) is approximately a 16% decrease, which is very similar 
with the decrease of approximately 17% in New Mexico's anthropogenic 
NOX emissions inventories between those two years and 
further supports using linear interpolation in this case. A linear 
interpolation between the 2017 contribution of 0.77 ppb and the 2023 
contribution of 0.65 ppb gives an estimate of the linear rate of 
decline of the contribution of New Mexico to the NREL monitor of 0.022 
ppb per year (0.77-0.65)/6. An estimate of the analytic year 
contribution for 2020 can be calculated by the equation (0.77-3 * 0.022 
ppb) = 0.71. Thus, EPA estimates that the contribution of New Mexico to 
the NREL maintenance monitor is and will continue to be below the 1% 
threshold, 0.75 ppb, for determining a linkage.
    Had future year modeling been performed for an earlier year of 2020 
which would align with 2021 Serious area attainment date for Denver 
area, our analysis indicates that New Mexico's contribution would be 
below 0.75 ppb to the NREL receptor, regardless of whether NREL was a 
maintenance receptor for the 2008 ozone NAAQS in that year, and New 
Mexico would not be linked to the NREL receptor. By this analysis, New 
Mexico is not forecasted to be linked to NREL or other maintenance 
receptors at step 2 of the four-step interstate transport framework, 
thus, completing a review of and analyses for the remainder of the 
four-step process is not warranted.
    Based on our review of the October 10, 2018, NMED submittal and the 
October 4, 2018, EHD submittal and other relevant information, EPA 
proposes to approve the submissions based on the conclusion that New 
Mexico emissions will not interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone 
NAAQS in any other state and therefore propose to approve the two SIP 
revisions.

IV. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to (1) determine that consistent with the CAA, 
that both, New Mexico and City of Albuquerque-Bernalillo County have 
met their

[[Page 66103]]

obligation under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) because New Mexico will 
not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with 
maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in any other state and (2) approve 
the October 10, 2018 New Mexico and October 4, 2018 City of 
Albuquerque-Bernalillo County SIP revisions for the 2008 ozone NAAQS 
interstate transport requirements of CAA 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).

V. 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);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under 
Executive Order 12866;
     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 oxides, Ozone.

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

    Dated: November 21, 2019.
Kenley McQueen,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2019-25991 Filed 12-2-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P