[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
