[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 243 (Monday, December 20, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 71027-71031]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-32174]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[NM39-1-7416a; FRL-6504-9]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of New 
Mexico; Approval of Revised Maintenance Plan for Albuquerque/Bernalillo 
County; Albuquerque/Bernalillo County, New Mexico; Carbon Monoxide

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is approving, by direct final action, a revision to 
the Albuquerque/Bernalillo County carbon monoxide (CO) State 
Implementation Plan (SIP). The Governor of New Mexico requested EPA 
approval of the revision on February 4, 1999. The Governor requested 
approval of changes and adjustments to the baseline emission inventory, 
approval of a new Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget, and revisions to 
budget projections in the CO maintenance plan.

DATES: This rule is effective on February 18, 2000 without further 
notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by January 19, 2000. If we 
receive such comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the 
Federal Register informing the public that this rule will not take 
effect.

ADDRESSES: You should address comments on this action to Mr. Thomas 
Diggs, EPA Region 6, Air Planning Section (6PD-L), 1445 Ross Avenue, 
Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202.
    Copies of all materials considered in this rulemaking, including 
the technical support document may be examined during normal business 
hours at the following locations: EPA Region 6 offices, 1445 Ross 
Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202, and the Albuquerque 
Environmental Health Department, Air Pollution Control Division, One 
Civic Plaza Room 3023, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102. If you plan to 
view the documents at either location, please call 48 hours ahead of 
the time you plan to arrive.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Matthew Witosky of the EPA Region 
6 Air Planning Section, at (214) 665-7214, or [email protected].

I. Supplementary Information

Overview

    The information in this section is organized as follows:

1. What action is the EPA taking today?
2. Why must the EPA approve a change to the maintenance plan?
3. What changes in the Albuquerque maintenance plan are being 
approved?
    a. Emissions Budget categories.
    (1) Point Source
    (2) Mobile source
    (a) How can the emissions projections differ so much?
    (3) Area source
4. Why are the emissions inventory and budgets being revised?
5. Under what authority does Albuquerque revise it's plan?
6. How is Albuquerque protecting air quality, if they are increasing 
the amount of mobile emissions allowed in the region?

1. What action is the EPA taking today?

    The EPA is approving a revision to the Albuquerque and Bernalillo 
County carbon monoxide maintenance plan. Hereafter, Albuquerque and 
Bernalillo County will be referred to as ``Albuquerque.'' Albuquerque 
requested a revision to the point, area, and mobile source emissions 
budget categories, and the overall budget ceiling in the plan. This 
includes a revision to the on-road mobile source budget, also referred 
to as the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget (MVEB). The original 
maintenance plan budget was adopted with the request to redesignate the 
area to attainment.

2. Why must the EPA approve a change to the maintenance plan?

    The Federal Clean Air Act as Amended in 1990, (the Act) requires 
States (or in this case, Albuquerque) to seek EPA approval of revisions 
to maintenance plans, because such plans are part of the federally 
enforceable SIP. Albuquerque submitted the revised inventory and 
emissions budget, to address a potential conflict between the on-road 
mobile source emissions projected by the proposed Metropolitan 
Transportation Plan, and the CO MVEB for the years 1999 and 2002. 
Albuquerque indicated that previous on-road mobile emissions 
projections and point source projections were too low, and the area 
source projections were too high. Without a revision, the area's on-
road mobile emissions might surpass the MVEB in the maintenance plan.

3. What changes in the Albuquerque maintenance plan are being approved?

    The EPA is approving Albuquerque's adjustment to the three main 
categories of emissions in the maintenance plan. The following is a 
complete table of the previous maintenance plan budget, and the 
revision to the maintenance plan budget. A more detailed review of the 
revision follows this table.

  Albuquerque Maintenance Plan--Carbon Monoxide Emissions in Tons Per Day (tpd): Maintenance Plan and Revision
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Category                 Version        1996         1999         2002         2005         2006
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Highway mobile (MVEB):                    Plan        235.50       207.95       197.13       199.12       202.95
                                  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Revised        266.99       229.09       209.01       205.67       205.86
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Off road mobile:                          Plan         48.12        50.48        52.86        55.22        55.98
                                  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Revised         50.90        52.68        54.46        56.25        56.84
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Area:                                     Plan        116.28       120.98       125.71       130.42       131.98
                                  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Revised         67.19        69.87        72.60        75.25        76.09
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stationary:                               Plan             0            0            0            0            0
                                  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 71028]]

 
                                       Revised          3.92        27.40        27.54        27.68        27.72
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total:                                    Plan        399.90       379.41       375.70       384.76       390.91
                                  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Revised        389.00       379.04       363.61       364.85       366.51
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    a. Emissions Budget categories.
    (1) Point Source
    The maintenance plan adopted by Albuquerque and approved by the EPA 
projected that no point sources would exist in the maintenance area in 
the year 2006, meaning the area would have no stationary source CO 
emissions. Albuquerque now projects that point source emissions will 
equal 27.72 tpd. These facilities are or will be operating under 
appropriate local permits.
    (2) Mobile source
    Albuquerque's revision indicated that on-road emission levels were 
higher in 1996 than originally projected. The previously approved 
projections were 235.5 tpd, while Albuquerque now estimates that 
emissions in 1996 were 266.9. The following table shows how the 
previous and new projections compare. The maintenance plan adopted by 
Albuquerque and approved by the EPA in 1995 projected that on-road 
mobile sources would contribute 202.95 tpd to the maintenance area in 
the year 2006, down from a 1996 baseline level of 235.50 tpd. These 
numbers constitute the MVEB adopted previously. The revised maintenance 
plan estimates that on-road mobile sources will contribute 205.86 tpd, 
down from a revised baseline of 266.99 tpd. Below is a table comparing 
the change in motor vehicle emission budgets.

 Albuquerque CO Maintenance Plan Comparison of Selected Years On-road Mobile Budget (MVEB) in tpd Approved Plan
                                                  and Revision
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            SIP revision                               1996     1999     2002     2005     2006
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maintenance plan, 1995.............................................   235.50   207.95   197.13   199.12   202.95
Revision to maintenance plan, 1999.................................   266.99   229.09   209.01   205.67   205.86
Difference.........................................................    31.49    21.14    11.88     6.55     2.91
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this action, the EPA is approving the following MVEB, which will 
be used for transportation conformity purposes.

         Albuquerque CO Maintenance Plan Approved Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget (MVEB), in Tons Per Day
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Year                                   1996     1999     2002     2005     2006
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On-road mobile emissions budget....................................   266.99   229.09   209.01   205.67   205.86
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (a) How can the emission projections differ so much?
    On-road mobile emissions tend to react to three factors. First, 
vehicles become cleaner over time as older vehicles are replaced with 
newer vehicles that emit less pollution. Much of the reduction in 
emissions depicted above reflects vehicle turnover. The second factor, 
that tends to drive up emissions, is the growth of Vehicle Miles 
Traveled (VMT). Both sets of projections predicted continued growth in 
VMT. However, the revised projections indicate that VMT will not grow 
as fast as originally predicted. The above also indicates that, over 
time, lesser emissions that result from vehicle turnover is the 
stronger factor, so the net result is still lower emissions over time.
    Albuquerque revised their estimates of VMT downward, reflecting 
their expectation that growth in the area would be less robust than 
during the previous period. The forecasts predict that annual growth 
will drop from 1.93 percent per year in 1996, to 1.46 per year in 2005 
within Bernalillo County. This deceleration is partly due to a 
predicted shift in growth patterns to outlying areas, from Bernalillo 
County. Counties surrounding the maintenance area, such as Valencia, 
Sandoval, and Torrance, are expected to grow faster. Although growth of 
outlying areas may impact emission levels, Albuquerque's estimates do 
not indicate the impact will cause the maintenance area to deteriorate 
into CO nonattainment.
    The third factor that affected the emission inventory and 
projections was temperature assumptions in the model. Albuquerque 
updated the temperature data used in the MOBILE5 model, to compute 
vehicle emissions. The MOBILE5 model generates emission rates for 
vehicles on a grams-per-mile basis, relying on locally recorded 
temperatures to generate the rate. Ambient temperature affects CO 
emissions from internal combustion (i.e., vehicle) engines. In the 
original request for redesignation, Albuquerque input temperature data 
from 1991, 1992, and 1993 to generate the appropriate emission factors. 
Their revised inventory uses temperature data from 1994, 1995, and 
1996. This change in temperature, when input into MOBILE5, produces a 
lower grams/mile emission rate for local vehicles. Although the 
temperatures input were different, Albuquerque followed EPA guidance by 
using the most recent temperature data in the model. EPA guidance 
states that areas should use the three most recent years of data, 
during which the area was in attainment of the standard.

[[Page 71029]]

    Albuquerque made an additional change in the projections that 
should be noted, but whose impact was marginal. Albuquerque changed the 
factor that converts annual vehicle miles traveled, to a winter season 
average. This factor is used to better estimate winter driving habits, 
compared to average driving habits year round. For additional 
information on this part, see the Technical Support Document.
    (3) Area source
    The maintenance plan adopted by Albuquerque and approved by the EPA 
projected that area sources would contribute 116.28 tpd in 1996, 
growing to a level of 131.98 tpd to the maintenance area in the year 
2006. In the revised plan, the area's emissions were 67.19 tpd in 1996, 
that will grow to 76.09 tpd by 2006. Albuquerque reduced the emissions 
inventory figures for 1996 through a study of wood-burning practices in 
the maintenance area. The study was commissioned by Albuquerque and 
performed by a contractor. In that study, Albuquerque learned that 
carbon monoxide emissions from household wood burning had been 
overestimated in the original maintenance plan. The original plan used 
national ``typical use'' data for the amount of wood burned, to 
quantify CO emissions produced by household wood burning. By opting to 
conduct local research, Albuquerque was able to develop and use its own 
activity data, thereby predicting lower emissions.
    The EPA generally encourages that areas perform research to 
determine the actual level of emissions, rather than rely on 
established ``default'' emission factors, where areas can afford to 
perform the research. After performing the study, Albuquerque had 
sufficient documentation to revise the inventory to an emission level 
that they believe more accurately reflects local conditions. Therefore, 
the EPA is approving a downward adjustment by 49.09 tpd. This revised 
estimate of area source emissions allowed revisions in the point and 
on-road mobile categories, without causing an increase in the overall 
level of emissions allowed in the budget.

4. Why are the emission inventory and budgets being revised?

    Bernalillo County, Albuquerque, and the surrounding area, continue 
to grow rapidly. The Act mandates that CO areas redesignated to 
attainment must adopt plans that will keep air pollution levels below 
the health-based standard, especially during times of growth. The 
original projections adopted in the original maintenance plan 
underestimated the growth of on-road mobile emissions, and 
overestimated other emissions. The EPA must approve any change to the 
CO maintenance plan. Once approved, the MVEB in the CO maintenance plan 
is used for conformity purposes. For the most recent action on 
conformity in Albuquerque, See 64 FR 36786, July 8, 1999.

5. Under what authority does Albuquerque revise the plan?

    The Act allows Albuquerque to change the approved MVEB in the 
maintenance plan, provided that the budget continues to provide for 
attainment. In the case of a maintenance plan, emissions must remain 
below the estimated emissions in the year the area attained the 
standard.
    The rules under the Act allow budgets to be adjusted, provided that 
the total of emissions stay below the level that achieved attainment. 
The EPA approval of the maintenance plan established the MVEB for 
transportation conformity purposes, and the overall budget as a 
demonstration of continued attainment.

6. How is Albuquerque protecting air quality, if they are increasing 
the amount of mobile emissions allowed in the region?

    Albuquerque is resetting the budget levels for mobile emissions, 
point source emissions, and area source emissions, but is not 
increasing the overall emissions allowed in the basin. Although on-road 
mobile source emissions (i.e., vehicles) will now make up a greater 
share of the CO produced in the area, total CO emissions are lower than 
the original maintenance plan. The EPA's review of this revision finds 
that the new mobile source emissions budget, and the overall emissions 
budget, will keep the total emissions for the area at or below the 
attainment year inventory level.
    Moreover, the total emissions level is below the level established 
in the original maintenance plan. In the plan adopted and approved in 
1995, Albuquerque demonstrated that the region could maintain air 
quality with 390 tpd from all sources. The revision sets a new 
maintenance level at 366 tpd. This commits Albuquerque to maintaining 
area emissions below 366 tpd, down 24 tpd from the previous plan. This 
change is ultimately more protective of the standard, because 
Albuquerque's maintenance plan requires the Air Board to consider 
implementing the maintenance plan contingency measures if Albuquerque 
projects that emissions will reach 366 tpd. The continency measures 
include increasing the frequency of the vehicle inspection and 
maintenance program, or increasing the oxygenate content in gasoline 
sold during the winter (high CO) season. In the event that the periodic 
inventory demonstrated emissions have surpassed these revised levels, 
the Albuquerque Air Board could implement one or both contingency 
measures as a preventive measure to avoid nonattainment. In the event 
that monitored CO levels violated the standard, these contingency 
measures would be implemented without further action from the Air 
Board.

II. Final Action

    The EPA is approving, by direct final action, Albuquerque's 
revision to the CO maintenance plan, part of the SIP for New Mexico. 
This revision was submitted to the EPA on February 9, 1999. The 
revision contains a revised attainment inventory of emissions from 
area, point, on-road mobile, and off-road mobile sources. It also 
contains the CO Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget in the maintenance plan 
for purposes of transportation conformity.
    The EPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because we 
view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse 
comments. However, in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of today's Federal 
Register publication, we are publishing a separate document that will 
serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision if we receive adverse 
comments. This rule will be effective February 18, 2000, without 
further notice unless we receive relevant adverse comments by January 
19, 2000.
    If EPA receives adverse comments, we will publish a timely 
withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule 
will not take affect. We will address all public comments in a 
subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. We will not institute 
a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in 
commenting must do so at this time.

III. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order (E.O.) 12866

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this 
regulatory action from E.O. 12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and 
Review.''

B. Executive Order 13132

    Executive 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 10, 
1999) revokes and replaces E.O. 12612, ``Federalism,'' and E.O. 12875, 
``Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership.'' Executive Order 13132 
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful 
and

[[Page 71030]]

timely input by State and local officials in the development of 
regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies 
that have federalism implications'' is defined in the E.O. to include 
regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on 
the relationship between the national government and the States, or on 
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels 
of government.'' Under E.O. 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that 
has federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance 
costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal 
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance 
costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA consults with 
State and local officials early in the process of developing the 
proposed regulation. The EPA also may not issue a regulation that has 
federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the Agency 
consults with State and local officials early in the process of 
developing the proposed regulation.
    This final rule will not have substantial direct effects on the 
States, on the relationship between the national government and the 
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government, as specified in E.O. 13132, because it 
merely approves a State rule implementing a Federal standard, and does 
not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and 
responsibilities established in the Act.'' Thus, the requirements of 
section 6 of the E.O. do not apply to this rule. .

C. Executive Order 13045

    Executive Order 13045, entitled ``Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 
1997), applies to any rule that: (1) is determined to be ``economically 
significant'' as defined under E.O. 12866, and (2) concerns an 
environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may 
have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action 
meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health 
or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the 
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and 
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
    The EPA interprets E.O. 13045 as applying only to those regulatory 
actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that the 
analysis required under section 5-501 of the Order has the potential to 
influence the regulation. This final rule is not subject to E.O. 13045 
because it approves a State program.

D. Executive Order 13084

    Under E.O. 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not 
required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the 
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal 
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance 
costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults with those 
governments. If EPA complies by consulting, E.O. 13084 requires EPA to 
provide to the OMB, in a separately identified section of the preamble 
to the rule, a description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation 
with representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the 
nature of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue 
the regulation. In addition, E.O. 13084 requires EPA to develop an 
effective process permitting elected officials and other 
representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful 
and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters 
that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.''
    Today's rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the 
communities of Indian tribal governments, because the Albuquerque 
maintenance plan does not affect Indian lands, or impose any 
requirements on tribal governments. Accordingly, the requirements of 
section 3(b) of E.O. 13084 do not apply to this rule.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., generally 
requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 
rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the 
agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities 
include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small 
governmental jurisdictions. This final rule will not have a significant 
impact on a substantial number of small entities because SIP approvals 
under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Act do not create any 
new requirements but simply approve requirements that the State is 
already imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP approval does not 
create any new requirements, I certify that this action will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under the 
Act, preparation of a flexibility analysis would constitute Federal 
inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The Act 
forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. See 
Union Electric Co. v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 
7410(a)(2).

F. Unfunded Mandates

    Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 
signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must prepare a budgetary impact 
statement to accompany any proposed or final rule that includes a 
Federal mandate that may result in estimated annual costs to State, 
local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to private sector, of 
$100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA must select the most cost-
effective and least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives 
of the rule and is consistent with statutory requirements. Section 203 
requires EPA to establish a plan for informing and advising any small 
governments that may be significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
    The EPA has determined that the approval action promulgated does 
not include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated annual costs 
of $100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments 
in the aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action 
approves pre-existing requirements under State or local law, and 
imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, 
local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from 
this action.

G. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this rule and 
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule can 
not take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major'' rule as defined by 5

[[Page 71031]]

U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will be effective February 18, 2000.

H. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act, petitions for judicial review 
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for 
the appropriate circuit by February 18, 2000. Filing a petition for 
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect 
the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does 
it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be 
filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. 
This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its 
requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 
Intergovernmental relations.

    Dated November 26, 1999.
Carl E. Edlund,
Acting Regional Administrator.
    Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is 
amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart GG--New Mexico

    2. In Sec. 52.1620(e) the first table is amended by adding an entry 
to the end of the table to read as follows:


Sec. 52.1620  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

            EPA Approved Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures in the New Mexico SIP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Applicable
      Name of SIP provision          geographic or     State submittal/    EPA approval date      Explanation
                                  nonattainment area    Effective date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
        *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *
                                                        *
Revision approving request for    Albuquerque CO      February 4, 1999    December 20, 1999   Revision to
 redesignation, vehicle I/M        maintenance plan.                           [FR 71027]      maintenance plan
 program, and required                                                                         budgets.
 maintenance plan.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 99-32174 Filed 12-17-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P