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

Related Material

Other Related Documents

Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.

[Federal Register: May 24, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 101)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 33455-33461]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr24my00-10]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[NM39-1-7462; FRL-6703-8]

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is approving revisions to the Albuquerque/Bernalillo
County carbon monoxide (CO) State Implementation Plan (SIP) under the
Federal Clean Air Act as Amended in 1990 (the Act). On February 4,
1999, the Governor requested EPA approval of a revision to the CO
maintenance plan and motor vehicle emissions budgets covering 1996 to
2006, and the establishment of a CO motor vehicle emissions budget for
the year 2010. The EPA initiated the approval process in two rule
makings, the first for revisions to the CO maintenance plan and motor
vehicle emissions budgets covering 1996 to 2006, and the second action
to establish a CO motor vehicle emissions budget for the year 2010.
This action is a final approval of both actions; revisions to the CO
maintenance plan, and the CO Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget for 1996,
1999, 2002, 2005, 2006, and 2010. These CO Motor Vehicle Emissions
Budgets are for transportation conformity purposes.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective on May 24, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Copies of documents relevant to this action are available
for public inspection during normal business hours at the following
locations. Anyone wanting to examine these documents should make an
appointment with the appropriate office at least two working days in
advance.

Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, Air Planning Section (6PD-
L), 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.
Albuquerque Environmental Health Department, Air Pollution Control
Division, One Civic Plaza, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Matthew Witosky of the EPA Region
6 Air Planning Section, at (214) 665-7214, or WITOSKY.MATTHEW@EPA.GOV.

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

1. What Action Is EPA Taking?

The EPA is promulgating final approval of revisions to the
Albuquerque CO maintenance plan. The original plan was approved in 1996
(61 FR 29970). In a document published December 20, 1999, the EPA
published a direct final approval of revisions to the CO maintenance
plan and related conformity budgets (64 FR 71027), with a companion
proposed rule (64 FR 71086). The companion proposed rule was published
in the event we received adverse comments, which we did. The direct
final rule was withdrawn on February 14, 2000 (65 FR 7290). That
document indicated that final action would be forthcoming.
The EPA also proposed approval of a Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget

[[Page 33456]]

(MVEB) for 2010 for the CO maintenance area. That notice was published
on February 29, 2000, beginning a 30 day public comment period (65 FR
10437). No comments were received on this proposed action.
Today's action is final approval and promulgation of both actions.

2. What Is Being Approved?

First, we are approving revisions to the CO maintenance plan's
emission inventory for the nonattainment area. The following table
summarizes the emission inventory for Albuquerque.

Albuquerque Maintenance Plan
[Carbon monoxide emissions in tons per day (tpd): revised maintenance plan]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category 1996 1999 2002 2005 2006
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Highway Mobile................................. 266.99 229.09 209.01 205.67 205.86
Off-Road Mobile................................ 50.90 52.68 54.46 56.25 56.84
Area........................................... 67.19 69.87 72.60 75.25 76.09
Stationary..................................... 3.92 27.40 27.54 27.68 27.72
----------------------------------------------------------------
Total...................................... 389.00 379.04 363.61 364.85 366.51
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The EPA is also approving a series of MVEB's for the region,
including a MVEB for the year 2010, which is beyond the current 10 year
maintenance plan. These approved MVEB's are as follows:

Table 2.--Albuquerque CO Maintenance Plan
[Motor vehicle emissions budget (in tpd)]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year 1996 1999 2002 2005 2006 2010
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MVEB.............................. 266.99 229.09 209.01 205.67 205.86 222.46
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. How Will These MVEB's Be Used?

These MVEB's will be used for transportation conformity purposes,
replacing the budgets in the original maintenance plan. The five year
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and 20 year transportation
plans for the Albuquerque region and corresponding emissions from on-
road vehicles cannot surpass the above budgets.

4. When Is EPA's Approval Effective?

This action concerns only approval of the revised maintenance plan
and MVEB's. Since December of 1999, the Albuquerque area has been in a
conformity lapse, during which time certain transportation projects
cannot be approved, accepted, or funded. The EPA is making this action
effective upon publication to facilitate the conformity process.
The EPA reminds all parties that this document does not end the
conformity lapse. The EPA, FHWA, State, and local planning agencies are
working to complete the conformity process. The final conformity
determination will be made by the FHWA.
Under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3),
agency rule makings may take effect before 30 days after the date of
publication in the Federal Register if an agency has good cause to
mandate an earlier effective date. It's the EPA's position that
approving the necessary budgets as soon as possible, in the interest of
facilitating the end of the conformity lapse, is cause to support
making this action taking effect on publication.
5. What Comments Did EPA Receive to the Direct Final Notice?

Comment 1

Several parties stated that the Albuquerque Environmental Health
Department (AEHD) is inverting the conformity process by setting a MVEB
budget to fit a transportation plan. One party stated that the AEHD
elected to revise the maintenance plan budget when the transportation
plans could not conform. The party further stated that there is no data
to show that the increase in VMT being incorporated into the budget is
due solely to the unexpected growth in population.
Response
The Clean Air Act as Amended in 1990, hereafter referred to as
``the Act,'' does not prohibit that maintenance areas review and revise
their maintenance plans. As long as areas demonstrate continued
maintenance, areas may revise them at their discretion, in accordance
with the requirements of the Act, EPA's rules, and applicable guidance.
Many areas revise them to estimate, more accurately, emissions that
have grown at a rate different than the rate assumed in the original
maintenance plan. All maintenance plans are revised after eight years,
extending them an additional ten years. The AEHD elected to revise
several elements of the inventory to make it more accurate. All of the
emissions categories were revised as a result of this review.
Similarly, the Act allows areas to revise their Motor Vehicle
Emissions Budget, so long as the area demonstrates they will maintain
the standard. The revision submitted to the EPA shows total emissions
in the area will remain at or below the emissions quantified in the
attainment year. This constitutes an acceptable demonstration of
continued attainment of the CO standard. (See the Act section 110, see
also the preamble to the conformity rule at 58 FR 62196 on how to
revise the budget and see 40 CFR 93.118).

Comment 2

The party alleged that the AEHD incorporated inappropriate
assumptions used in the transportation model into the mobile modeling
used to support the SIP revision. The party objected to straight-line
interpolation of VMT levels as an inappropriate technique to estimate
emissions.
Response
The EPA provided for interpolation as an acceptable method of
estimating emissions for regulatory purposes in guidance documents for
completing SIP's. Specifically, the EPA guided planning agencies to use
interpolation to estimate emissions for projected inventories, where it
would be too costly and time-consuming to generate

[[Page 33457]]

analyses for the interim years within a specified time period. The EPA
issued this guidance for VMT growth factors (Procedures for Preparing
Emissions Projections, 1991, page 29), and speeds (Procedures for
Emission Inventory Preparation, 1992, page 31), and therefore,
emissions.
In the case of Albuquerque, the MPO projected VMT for 1995, 2000,
2005, and 2010 using their transportation model, and per EPA guidance,
calibrated the model using Highway Performance Measurement System
(HPMS)-based factors. Since the maintenance plan was required to begin
in 1996 and conclude in 2006, the AEHD used interpolation to determine
the appropriate emissions for interim years. This is acceptable under
EPA guidance.
The EPA reviewed the other Mobile5a inputs that represent
assumptions about local conditions. It is EPA's position that these
assumptions are reasonable and represent the best information currently
available.

Comment 3

The party stated that the AEHD incorrectly estimated the impact of
Big-I construction on vehicle speeds during construction, and VMT on
alternative routes due to construction.
Response
The AEHD is not required to quantify and incorporate the impact of
construction in their MVEB in the SIP, because the impact of such
construction is considered temporary. Emission inventory guidance does
not instruct areas to quantify mobile emissions at the level of
discrete construction projects.
We would point out that we cannot make an exception for a violation
of the standard that could be attributed to temporary traffic
conditions related to construction. While the MVEB does not have to
include these temporary emissions, we do support the efforts of the
AEHD and other agencies to mitigate them during the construction phase
to avoid possible violations.

Comment 4

The party alleged that the AEHD used the 2010 roadway network to
calculate emissions for the 2006 projections.
Response
The proposed revision does not use the 2010 road network as the
basis for determining VMT and then emissions in 2006. The projections
for 2006 were based on interpolation between the two years for which
the AEHD conducted VMT and emissions analysis using the more direct
method of estimation. This method used complete street inventories, as
they are expected to be in 2005 and 2010. Interpolation between these
years allocates growth in VMT and emissions to each year during the
period being studied. This does not mean that the impact of all road
improvements scheduled to take place between 2005 and 2010 are being
used to calculate emissions in 2006. As mentioned in a previous
response, this interpolation technique is acceptable under EPA
guidance.

Comment 5

The party stated that the AEHD used travel demand management
programs (TDM's) or transportation control measures (TCM's) to reduce
VMT used to set the emissions budget, even though the TDM's and TCM's
do not have designated sources of funding and are not in the federally
approved SIP.
Response
The AEHD did not use any TCM's or TDM's to calculate the base
emission inventory, project future inventories, or set the
corresponding MVEB's. The AEHD used VMT projections provided to them by
the Middle Rio Grand Council of Governments, the authorized MPO in the
area. In a letter dated March 26, 1997, the AEHD specifically requested
that the MPO not use any VMT reduction programs in the analysis they
were to submit. The City's revision package submitted to the EPA
included a summary of the VMT calculation methodology written by the
MPO, dated September 11, 1997. That summary stated that the MPO did not
use any VMT mitigation programs in the VMT estimates that they were
providing. These estimates were then used in the inventory process.
The party referred to measures used to mitigate VMT growth in the
effort to meet the MVEB. Those measures were not in the SIP revision,
but were incorporated into the conformity analysis, as permitted under
the transportation conformity rule. The conformity analysis is under
review by the EPA. After review and comment by the EPA, FHWA issues its
determination on conformity.

Comment 6

The party alleged that population was attributed to areas that will
not have road access until after 2020.
Response
The EPA would remind the party that the action is for approval of
the maintenance plan to 2006, and the MVEB to 2010. The EPA reviewed
maps available to the general public (``tiger'' maps generated on April
28, 2000, from http://www.census.gov) at the U.S. Census Bureau web
site of the referenced areas, and found road access to these areas.

Comment 7

The party stated that the road improvements from the Big I project
would induce changes in trip patterns, traffic patterns, and speed that
were not adequately captured in the modeling.
Response
The model used by the MPO is appropriate and able to represent
these changes. It is EPA's position that the MPO followed appropriate
guidance in using the model to project changes in VMT and speed that
result from transportation system improvements, the kind of changes in
VMT the model was designed to measure.

Comment 8

The party alleged that compliance with the Inspection and
Maintenance (I/M) program and anti-tampering enforcement rates were too
high. The party said that a 95 percent compliance rate was too high,
and the AEHD should have used 90 percent compliance.
Response
The AEHD based their assumption on the national default rate, 96
percent, for approved I/M programs. The AEHD reduced the compliance
rate from 96 to 95 percent to be slightly more conservative than the
national compliance factor. The EPA receives and reviews periodic
summary reports for the program, and finds the assumption reasonable.

Comment 9

The party stated that the AEHD used national default fleet mix and
national default mileage accrual rates, when they should have developed
their own fleet mix and mileage rates from the I/M program.
Response
Agencies using the Mobile model may use EPA's national default
values for these model inputs (See Mobile 5 Users manual). Although the
EPA acknowledges that data generated locally is likely to reflect local
conditions more accurately, this is at the discretion of the planning
agencies. EPA's default values are acceptable for areas that elect not
to develop their own, until the EPA can update the model and related
default values.

[[Page 33458]]

Comment 10

The party objected to setting urban and rural local road speeds to
a constant 25 and 20 miles per hour.
Response
The modeling does reflect that the MPO set traffic speed on all
urban local roads to an average of 25 miles per hour, and traffic on
rural local roads to average 20 miles per hour. An assumption had to be
made because the HPMS does not provide data on local roads. For all
other road categories, the model employs actual field data to calibrate
speeds. The assumption of 20 and 25 miles per hour on local roads was
reasonable, and resulted in higher emission factors than such factors
for any other road class. The proportion of all traffic on local roads
was about ten percent. Local planning agencies are left to make
reasonable judgments to estimate speed on these roads. In EPA's
opinion, these are reasonable assumptions.
The EPA further analyzed this issue by comparing the VMT and speed
data used in the SIP to the data used in the transportation plans now
under conformity review. The MPO used the same projected VMT and speed
estimates for this SIP, and the corresponding transportation plan and
TIP. Since the MPO used identical numbers for both analyses, the impact
of the traffic speed assumption vis-a-vis another assumption is
minimal.

Comment 11

The party alleges that the AEHD modeled lower speeds and lower
emissions by using a speed enforcement program, without documentation
to support including such a program.
Response
The projected speeds used to compute the emissions in the SIP
revision decreased slightly over time. The EPA reviewed the emission
projections in detail and concluded that lower speeds are more a
product of increased VMT. Speed estimates on such roadway segments are
the product of the transportation model. As pointed out above, the
Albuquerque MPO appropriately employed an endorsed model that, under an
assumption of continued VMT growth, would induce lower speeds in future
years.

Comment 12

The Party contends that the Albuquerque vehicle fleet is not as
clean as the national average. The party also stated that the model
runs did not differentiate the fleet mix by roadway class.
Response
Under EPA guidance, the AEHD can rely on national default values
for vehicle fleet mix and vehicle mileage accrual rates. When the model
uses defaults for the mix and mileage rates, the fleet mix by roadway
class also becomes an implicit default variable. (Mobile 5 Users Guide,
sec. 2.2.2, and 2.2.3).

Comment 13

The Party contends that the goal for decreasing reliance on the
Single Occupant Vehicle (SOV) was relaxed from the 2015 plan to the
2020 plan.
Response
Beyond a demonstration of continued maintenance, the issue is not
germane to this action. Local agencies have the discretion to elect how
they will maintain the standard. The EPA encourages areas to take
actions to reduce reliance on the SOV. However, AEHD's revision
demonstrates continued attainment with credible analysis, which meets
the requirements of the Act.

Comment 14

The Party contends that the 1.4 billion dollars needed to implement
the 2020 Plan has not been secured, because the Regional Transit
Authority was not granted taxing authority. The Party claims that a
line item of $100 million dollars in the 2000 to 2005 plan to purchase
busses was deleted, but remained in the first five years of the 2020
plan.
Response
The comment is not germane to this SIP action, because transit
improvements were not employed in generating the VMT projections used
by the AEHD to project emissions for the inventory and MVEB. The issues
of fiscal constraint are beyond the scope of this SIP approval action
and should be addressed in the transportation conformity process.

Comment 15

The Party alleges that building additional road capacity produces
more VMT, but that the model is inadequate to capture this. The party
contends that the model predicts lower emissions as a result of road
expansion, when the model should predict more emissions.
Response
The MPO used an endorsed transportation model, currently the best
tool available to planning agencies. All areas that employ models must
show that their model predicts, with reasonable accuracy, the impact of
transportation improvements. This process, called calibration and
validation, was performed in order for the modeling results to be
acceptable. The EPA encourages the party to bring their concerns into
the conformity process through the established public participation
process.

Comment 16

The Party states that they regularly commute by bicycle, and
observes fewer bicycles on the road despite the increase in facilities.
The party says this observation contradicts the assumption of the MPO
that increased bicycle ridership will reduce VMT.
Response
The assumption of increased bicycle ridership was not used to
estimate VMT, and therefore did not affect emissions in the SIP MVEB.

Comment 17

The Party asked if recent ozone readings presage nonattainment of
ozone, that would result through a greater allowance for CO emissions.
Response
The AEHD is not required to demonstrate maintenance of the ozone
standard in order to revise their CO maintenance plan in the CO SIP.
The concept of conformity was created in the Act to insure that the
growth of VMT and on-road emissions did not interfere with attainment
and maintenance of national standards. Any actions that AEHD or EPA
might take to continue ozone maintenance must be under the legal
framework established for control of ozone precursors. Currently there
is no monitoring data that indicate ozone violations. If evidence ever
shows there are violations, the EPA can issue a SIP call for the area
to submit an ozone SIP. An EPA SIP call and/or a designation to ozone
nonattainment would, in fact, compel the area to perform conformity
analysis for ozone precursors.
The EPA is acting on a revision to the CO SIP, which meets the
requirements for such a revision.

Comment 18

The Party asked what would prevent the AEHD from asking for another
revision to the MVEB, in three or four years?
Response
The AEHD could request another revision to the MVEB at a later
date. The AEHD must extend the initial maintenance plan an additional
ten

[[Page 33459]]

years before the initial maintenance plan expires in 2006. However,
basin-wide emissions must remain below 389 tons per day as established
in the maintenance plan.

Comment 19

The Party asks that the EPA issue a conditional approval, with the
condition that the transportation model be improved. The Party also
requested that approval be conditioned on a commitment from the MPO to
a balanced transportation system.
Response
The EPA's review and approval is based on whether the Albuquerque
area can maintain the CO standard and prevent violations of the CO
standard with a revised MVEB (see section 110 of the Act). It's EPA's
opinion that AEHD successfully demonstrated that Albuquerque will
continue to maintain the CO standard with a revised MVEB.

6. What Comments Did EPA Receive to the February 28, 2000, Proposed
Rule?

The EPA received no comments to that proposed rule.

7. Will Albuquerque have to Revise the Inventory and MVEB's Again?

Albuquerque must revise the maintenance plan again by 2004, to
extend the maintenance plan an additional 10 years from the final year
of the current plan, 2006. This will cover the years from 2006 to 2016.
This may result in changes to the 2006, and 2010 budgets established
today. Regardless, the area must remain below the total level of CO
emissions established in the maintenance plan to demonstrate continued
attainment of the standard.

II. Final Action

The EPA is approving revisions to the Albuquerque/ Bernalillo
County carbon monoxide (CO) State Implementation Plan (SIP). This
action is a final approval of revisions to each of the categories of
the CO emissions inventory, the basin-wide total of CO emissions for
the area, and the CO Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for 1996, 1999,
2002, 2005, 2006, and 2010. The CO Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets must
be used for transportation conformity purposes once this approval is
effective.

III. 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 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 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 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 final 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 rule making requirements unless the
agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant

[[Page 33460]]

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 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will be effective May 24,
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 July 24, 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, Intergovernmental
Relations, Carbon Monoxide.

Dated: May 12, 2000.
Gregg A. Cooke,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.

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 table at the end of the paragraph is
amended by adding a new entry to the end of the table as follows:

Sec. 52.1620 Identification of plan.

* * * * *
(e) EPA approved nonregulatory provisions.
* * * * *

EPA Approved New Mexico Statutes in the Current New Mexico SIP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State approval/
State citation Title/subject effective date EPA approval date Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * * * *
City of Albuquerque request for Carbon monoxide June 22, 1998..... [Insert date of
redesignation. maintenance plan and publication and
motor vehicle emission FR page number].
budgets.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 33461]]

[FR Doc. 00-12792 Filed 5-23-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

Notices For
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994

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

Related Material

Local Navigation