[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 39 (Monday, February 28, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 10437-10439]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-4655]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[NM39-2-7452; FRL-6542-7]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of New 
Mexico; Approval of Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget; Albuquerque/
Bernalillo County, New Mexico; Carbon Monoxide

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing approval of 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 a CO motor vehicle emissions budget for the year 2010. This 
action proposes to approve only the CO Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget 
for 2010. This CO Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget is for transportation 
conformity purposes.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 29, 2000.

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 rule making, 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],

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 an additional MVEB?
    3. Why is Albuquerque setting a budget for a year beyond the 
current maintenance plan?
    4. Do other emissions grow in the same time period? a. Why are 
projected highway mobile emissions in Table 2 different than the MVEB 
in Table 1?
    5. How is Albuquerque protecting air quality, if they are 
increasing the amount of mobile emissions allowed in the region?
    6. Under what authority does Albuquerque revise the plan?
    7. How is this action related to the direct final rule, published 
December 20, 1999, revising the MVEB and CO maintenance plan?

1. What Action Is the EPA Taking Today?

    The EPA proposes approval of a revision to the Albuquerque and 
Bernalillo County CO SIP. Hereafter, Albuquerque and Bernalillo County 
will be referred to as ``Albuquerque.'' Albuquerque requested approval 
of a motor vehicle emissions budget (MVEB) for the year 2010. The EPA 
proposes approval of this budget of 222.46 tpd. This budget is 
applicable for 2010, four years beyond the end of the current 
maintenance plan. This budget is an addition to the MVEB's approved in 
the maintenance plan.

 Table 1--Albuquerque Approved CO Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget (MVEB)
                            [In tons per day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Year                                 2010
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MVEB.........................................................     222.46
------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Why Must the EPA Approve an Additional MVEB?

    The Federal Clean Air Act as Amended in 1990 (the Act), and the 
conformity rules, provide that the EPA must approve MVEB's for areas in 
maintenance. Albuquerque received redesignation to attainment and 
entered the maintenance period in 1996. Their

[[Page 10438]]

initial maintenance plan, from 1996 to 2006, was approved at 61 FR 
29970, and revised at 64 FR 71027, December 20, 1999. The MVEB for each 
year before 2010 was approved in the December 20, 1999, notice 
approving the maintenance plan revision. It should be noted that the 
2006 budget and this budget for 2010 could be revised again in 2004, 
when Albuquerque is required to revise the 10 year maintenance plan.

3. Why Is Albuquerque Setting a Budget for a Year Beyond the Current 
Maintenance Plan?

    The Metropolitan Planning Organization for the Albuquerque area 
must develop transportation improvement plans covering 20 years, to 
receive federal funding for projects. Since the budget set for 2006 is 
the last budget approved by the EPA, it is the applicable budget for 
plans that contemplate projects from 2006 and later. Albuquerque 
indicated that growth in vehicle emissions will grow beyond the budget 
set for 2006, totaling 214.48 tons per day, by 2010. This additional 
budget will set the budget for 2010 and later, making it the applicable 
budget for transportation conformity determinations for 2010 and later.

4. Do Other Emissions Grow in the Same Time Period?

    Albuquerque provided emission projections for all four emissions 
categories, to 2010. The figures for 2010 were estimated by applying 
growth factors to the totals established in 2006. Albuquerque used the 
same technique to calculate the figures for 2010, as were used in the 
maintenance plan. Table 2 below is a summary of these projections, 
provided to show how the emissions are added up, to project area-wide 
emissions.

   Table 2--Albuquerque Carbon Monoxide Emissions in Tons Per Day (tpd): Maintenance Plan and 2010 Projections
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Highway      Off-road
                    Category                      Stationary     mobile       mobile        Area        Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maintenance Plan 1996..........................         3.92       266.99        50.90        67.19       389.00
Maintenance Plan 200...........................       627.72       205.86        56.84        76.09       366.51
Projections 2010...............................        27.91       214.48        59.22        79.41       381.02
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Why Are Projected Highway Mobile Emissions in Table 2 Different Than 
the MVEB in Table 1?
    The projections in Table 2 for 2010 are a projected inventory. 
Albuquerque calculated that on-road emissions will grow to 214.48 tpd, 
and all other emissions will grow to 166.4 tpd. Table 1 is a budget. 
Albuquerque has elected to allocate a margin for additional growth, 
making the MVEB 222.46 tpd.

5. How Is Albuquerque Protecting Air Quality, if They Are Increasing 
the Amount of Mobile Emissions Allowed in the Region?

    Table 2 above illustrates that overall emissions will remain at or 
below the attainment-year level of 389 tpd in 1996, even if highway 
emissions grow faster than projected. In addition, Albuquerque's 
maintenance plan requires the Air Board to consider implementing the 
maintenance plan contingency measures if Albuquerque projects that 
emissions will breach 389 tpd. In the event that monitored CO levels 
violated the standard, these contingency measures would be implemented 
without further action from the Air Board. These contingency measures 
are intended to bring the area back into attainment.

6. Under What Authority Does Albuquerque Revise the Plan?

    The Act allows Albuquerque to change the approved MVEB in the SIP, 
provided that the budget continues to provide for attainment. In this 
case, emissions must remain at or below the estimated emissions in the 
year the area attained the standard, 389 tpd in 1996. As shown in Table 
2, emissions are projected to remain below 389 tpd. Even if highway 
mobile emissions reached the budget level of 222.46, total emissions 
would remain equal to 389, allowing the area to remain in attainment. 
It is noted that if the area later determines that emissions will 
surpass 389 tpd through 2016, Albuquerque will be required to 
demonstrate with air quality modeling and monitoring data, that this 
increase will not result in a failure to maintain the standard.

7. How Is This Action Related to the Direct Final Rule, Published 
December 20, 1999, Revising the MVEB and CO Maintenance Plan?

    The EPA published a direct final rule approving a revision to the 
CO maintenance plan, and MVEB's up to 2006. That action was published 
December 20, 1999, at 64 FR 71027. The EPA used a direct final action, 
because we anticipated no adverse comments. A proposed rule, 64 FR 
71086, was published the same day in the same issue of the Federal 
Register, stating that if EPA received adverse comments we would 
address them in a subsequent final rule, after a withdrawal of the 
direct final rule. The EPA received adverse comments, and issued a 
withdrawal notice. The withdrawal notice stated that EPA would address 
comments in a subsequent final rule based on the December 20, 1999, 
proposed rule.
    Hence, comments submitted on the proposed rule, issed December 20, 
1999 (64 FR 71086), and this proposed rule will be addressed together 
in a subsequent final rule. The EPA has elected to combine responses to 
the rules because the revision to the maintenance plan, MVEB's from 
1996 to 2006, and the out-year MVEB for 2010 were submitted at the same 
time, and involve substantially the same analysis.

Proposed Action

    The EPA is proposing to approve a CO motor vehicle emissions budget 
for 2010. This budget will be used for conformity purposes.

Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

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

B. Executive Order 13132

    Executive 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 10, 
1999) revokes and replaces Executive Order 12612, ``Federalism,'' and 
Executive Order 12875, ``Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership.'' 
Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to develop an accountable process to 
ensure ``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in 
the development of regulatory policies that

[[Page 10439]]

have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism 
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order 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 Executive Order 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 proposed 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 Executive Order 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 Executive Order 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 Executive Order 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 Executive Order 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 proposed rule is not 
subject to Executive Order 13045 because it approves a State program.

D. Executive Order 13084

    Under Executive Order 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, Executive Order 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, Executive Order 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. This action does not involve 
or impose any requirements that affect Indian tribes. Accordingly, the 
requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 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 proposed 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.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide.

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

    Dated: February 15, 2000.
Gregg A. Cooke,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 00-4655 Filed 2-25-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-U