Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; New Mexico; Regional Haze Five-Year Progress Report State Implementation Plan, 67682-67689 [2015-28007]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
67682
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 212 / Tuesday, November 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R06–OAR–2014–0237; FRL–9936–46–
Region 6]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; New Mexico;
Regional Haze Five-Year Progress
Report State Implementation Plan
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing approval of
a revision to a State Implementation
Plan (SIP) submitted by the State of New
Mexico through the New Mexico
Environment Department (NMED) on
March 14, 2014. New Mexico’s SIP
revision addresses requirements of the
Clean Air Act (CAA) and the EPA’s
rules that require states to submit
periodic reports describing progress
toward reasonable progress goals (RPGs)
established for regional haze and a
determination of the adequacy of the
State’s existing regional haze SIP (RH
SIP).
SUMMARY:
Comments must be received on
or before December 3, 2015.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments,
identified by Docket No. EPA–R06–
OAR–2014–0237, by one of the
following methods:
• www.regulations.gov. Follow the
online instructions.
• Email: Mr. Guy Donaldson at
donaldson.guy@epa.gov
Mail or Delivery: Mr. Guy Donaldson,
Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD–L),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1445
Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas
75202–2733.
Instructions: Direct comments to
Docket No. EPA–R06–OAR–2014–0237.
The EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change and made
available online at www.regulations.gov.
The EPA includes any personal
information provided, unless a
comment includes information claimed
to be Confidential Business Information
(CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do
not submit any information
electronically that is considered CBI or
any other information whose disclosure
is restricted by statute. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an
‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which
means the EPA will not know one’s
identity or contact information unless it
is provided in the body of a comment.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
DATES:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:11 Nov 02, 2015
Jkt 238001
If a comment is emailed directly to the
EPA without going through
www.regulations.gov, then the sender’s
email address will automatically be
captured and included as part of the
public docket comment and made
available on the Internet. If a comment
is submitted electronically, then it is
recommended that one’s name and
other contact information be included in
the body of the comment, and with any
disk or CD–ROM submitted. If the EPA
cannot read a particular comment due to
technical difficulties and is unable to
contact for clarification, the EPA may
not be able to consider the comment.
Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses. Multimedia submissions (audio,
video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment
will be considered the official comment
with multimedia submissions and
should include all discussion points
desired. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or their contents
submitted outside of the primary
submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or
other file sharing systems). For
additional information on submitting
comments, please visit https://www2.
epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epadockets.
Docket: The index to the docket for
this action is available electronically at
www.regulations.gov and in hard copy
at the EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. While all
documents in the docket are listed in
the index, some information may be
publicly available only at the hard copy
location (e.g., copyrighted material), and
some may not be publicly available at
either location (e.g., CBI).
The New Mexico regional haze
progress report is available online at the
following: www.nmenv.state.nm.us/aqb/
reghaz/regional-haze_index.html. It is
also available for public inspection
during official business hours, by
appointment, at the Air Quality Bureau,
Environmental Protection Division, New
Mexico Environment Department, 525
Camino de los Marquez, Suite 1, Santa
Fe, New Mexico 87505.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
James E. Grady, (214) 665–6745;
grady.james@epa.gov. To inspect the
hard copy materials, please contact Mr.
Grady or Mr. Bill Deese at (214) 665–
7253.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’
‘‘our,’’ or ‘‘us’’ each mean ‘‘the EPA.’’
Table of Contents
I. Background on Regional Haze
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
II. Background on Regional Haze SIPs
III. Requirements for Five-Year Regional Haze
Progress Report SIP
IV. Evaluation of New Mexico’s Regional
Haze Progress Report SIP
A. Status of Control Strategies
1. Best Available Retrofit Technology
(BART)
2. SO2 Milestone and Backstop Trading
Program
3. Agricultural and Forestry Smoke
Management Techniques
4. Additional Controls—State Air
Regulations: NSR and PSD
5. Summary of Control Strategy
Implementation
B. Emissions Reductions From Control
Strategies
C. Visibility Progress
D. Emissions Progress
E. Assessment of Changes Impeding
Visibility Progress
F. Assessment of Current Strategy To Meet
RPGs
G. Review of Visibility Monitoring Strategy
H. Determination of Adequacy
V. The EPA’s Proposed Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background on Regional Haze
Regional haze is visibility impairment
that occurs over a wide geographic area
primarily from the pollution of fine
particles (PM2.5) 1 in nature. Fine
particles causing haze consist of
sulfates, nitrates, ammonium,
particulate organic matter, black carbon,
and soil dust. Airborne PM2.5 can scatter
and absorb the incident light and
therefore lead to atmospheric opacity
and horizontal visibility degradation.
Regional haze limits visual distance and
reduces color, clarity and contrast of
view. Emissions that affect visibility
include a wide variety of natural and
man-made sources. In New Mexico, the
most important sources of haze-forming
emissions are coal-fired power plants,
oil and gas development, woodland
fires, and windblown dust. Reducing
PM2.5 and their precursor gases in the
atmosphere is an effective method of
improving visibility. PM2.5 precursors
consist of sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen
oxides (NOX), ammonia (NH3) and
volatile organic compounds (VOCs).
II. Background on Regional Haze SIPs
In section 169A of the 1977
Amendments to the CAA, Congress
created a program for protecting
visibility in the nation’s national parks
and wilderness areas. This section of the
CAA establishes as a national goal the
prevention of any future, and the
1 Additionally, coarse particles (PM ) can
10
contribute to light extinction. However, they settle
out from the air more rapidly than fine particles and
usually will be found relatively close to emission
sources. Fine particles can be transported long
distances by wind and can be found in the air
thousands of miles from where they were formed.
E:\FR\FM\03NOP1.SGM
03NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 212 / Tuesday, November 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
remedying of any existing man-made
impairment of visibility in 156 national
parks and wilderness areas designated
as mandatory Class I Federal areas.2 On
December 2, 1980, the EPA promulgated
regulations to address visibility
impairment in Class I areas that is
‘‘reasonably attributable’’ to a single
source or small group of sources, i.e.,
‘‘reasonably attributable visibility
impairment.’’ 3 These regulations
represented the first phase in addressing
visibility impairment. The EPA deferred
action on regional haze that emanates
from a variety of sources until
monitoring, modeling and scientific
knowledge about the relationships
between pollutants and visibility
impairment were improved.
Congress added section 169B to the
CAA in 1990 to address regional haze
issues, and the EPA promulgated
regulations addressing regional haze in
1999.4 The Regional Haze Rule revised
the existing visibility regulations to
integrate into the regulations provisions
addressing regional haze impairment
and established a comprehensive
visibility protection program for Class I
areas. The requirements for regional
haze, found at 40 CFR 51.308 and
51.309, are included in the EPA’s
visibility protection regulations at 40
CFR 51.300–309. States must
demonstrate reasonable progress toward
meeting the national goal of a return to
natural visibility conditions for
mandatory Class I Federal areas both
within and outside states by 2064. The
requirement to submit a regional haze
SIP applies to all fifty states, the District
of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands.
States were required to submit the first
implementation plan addressing
2 Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal
areas consist of National Parks exceeding 6000
acres, wilderness areas and national memorial parks
exceeding 5000 acres, and all international parks
that were in existence on August 7, 1977. 42 U.S.C.
7472(a). In accordance with section 169A of the
CAA, EPA, in consultation with the Department of
Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas where
visibility is identified as an important value. 44 FR
69122 (November 30, 1979). The extent of a
mandatory Class I area includes subsequent changes
in boundaries, such as park expansions. 42 U.S.C.
7472(a). Although states and tribes may designate
as Class I additional areas which they consider to
have visibility as an important value, the
requirements of the visibility program set forth in
section 169A of the CAA apply only to ‘‘mandatory
Class I Federal areas.’’ Each mandatory Class I
Federal area is the responsibility of a ‘‘Federal Land
Manager.’’ 42 U.S.C. 7602(i). When we use the term
‘‘Class I area’’ in this action, we mean a ‘‘mandatory
Class I Federal area.’’
3 45 FR 80084 (December 2, 1980).
4 64 FR 35714 (July 1, 1999), codified at 40 CFR
part 51, subpart P (Regional Haze Rule).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:11 Nov 02, 2015
Jkt 238001
regional haze visibility impairment no
later than December 17, 2007.5
III. Requirements for the Five-Year
Regional Haze Progress Report SIP
The Regional Haze Rule requires a
comprehensive analysis of each state’s
regional haze SIP every ten years and a
progress report every five years. This
five-year review is intended to provide
a progress report on, and, if necessary,
mid-course corrections to, the regional
haze SIP. The progress report provides
an opportunity for public input on the
State’s (and the EPA’s) assessment of
whether the approved regional haze SIP
is being implemented appropriately and
whether reasonable visibility progress is
being achieved consistent with the
projected visibility improvement in the
SIP. At a minimum, New Mexico must
include in its progress report the
following seven elements: 6
(1) Provide a description of the status
of implementation of all control
measures in the approved RH SIP.
(2) Summarize the emissions
reductions achieved through
implementation of the control measures.
(3) Assess the visibility conditions
and changes for each Class I area in the
State.
(4) Analyze the changes in emissions
from sources and activities within the
State.
(5) Provide an assessment of any
significant changes in anthropogenic
emissions within or outside the State
that have limited or impeded progress
in reducing emissions and improving
visibility in Class I areas.
(6) Evaluate the sufficiency of the
approved RH SIP to meet all RPGs.
(7) Provide a review of the State’s
visibility monitoring strategy.
New Mexico submitted their progress
report SIP for the State 7 under 40 CFR
51.309.8 Typically, progress report
requirements of most states are covered
under 40 CFR 51.308(g) and (h).
However, 40 CFR 51.309 presents nine
5 See 40 CFR 51.308(b). EPA’s regional haze
regulations require subsequent updates to the
regional haze SIPs. 40 CFR 51.308(g)–(i).
6 See 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)
7 The proposed action does not pertain to the
Albuquerque/Bernalillo County portion of the SIP
in New Mexico. The New Mexico Air Quality
Control Act (section 74–2–4) authorizes
Albuquerque/Bernalillo County to locally
administer and enforce the State Air Quality
Control Act by providing for a local air quality
control program, and that entity submitted an initial
RH SIP for its own jurisdiction that was separately
approved by the EPA (77 FR 71119, November 29,
2012). The EPA anticipates a separate RH progress
report SIP submittal from this entity.
8 Three Western States (New Mexico, Utah and
Wyoming) exercised the option provided in the
Regional Haze Rule to meet the alternative
requirements contained in 40 CFR 51.309 for RH
SIPs.
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
67683
western states with an optional
approach of fulfilling Regional Haze
Rule requirements by adopting emission
reduction strategies developed by the
Grand Canyon Visibility Transport
Commission (GCVTC). These strategies
were designed primarily to improve
visibility of sixteen Class I areas in the
Colorado Plateau 9 area. Since New
Mexico currently has one Class I area,
the San Pedro Parks Wilderness Area,
inside the Colorado Plateau, the State
exercised the option to meet the
alternative requirements contained in 40
CFR 51.309 for RH SIPs. The
requirements for five-year progress
reports are consistent with those for the
other states, but the requirements for the
reports are codified at 40 CFR
51.309(d)(10) instead of at 40 CFR
51.308(g) and (h). Also, under 40 CFR
51.309(d)(10)(i), states must submit a
regional haze progress report in the
years 2013 and 2018. In contrast, under
40 CFR 51.308, states must submit a
progress report five years from submittal
of the initial implementation plan.
Under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(ii), states
are required to submit, at the same time
as the progress report SIP, a
determination of the adequacy of their
existing RH SIP and to take one of four
possible actions, as described in more
detail in this proposal.
IV. Evaluation of New Mexico’s
Regional Haze Progress Report SIP
On December 31, 2003, the State of
New Mexico submitted a RH SIP with
later SIP revisions (July 5, 2011 and
October 7, 2013) that addressed the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.309.10 On
March 14, 2014, the EPA received the
periodic report on progress from NMED
in the form of a regional haze SIP
9 The Colorado Plateau is a high, semi-arid
tableland in Southeast Utah, Northern Arizona,
Northwest New Mexico, and Western Colorado. The
sixteen mandatory Class I areas are as follows:
Grand Canyon National Park, Mount Baldy
Wilderness, Petrified Forest National Park,
Sycamore Canyon Wilderness, Black Canyon of the
Gunnison National Park Wilderness, Flat Tops
Wilderness, Maroon Bells Wilderness, Mesa Verde
National Park, Weminuche Wilderness, West Elk
Wilderness, San Pedro Parks Wilderness, Arches
National Park, Bryce Canyon National Park,
Canyonlands National Park, Capital Reef National
Park, and Zion National Park.
10 The EPA approved all of the 2003 and 2011
submittals on November 27, 2012 (77 FR 70693)
except for the submitted NOX Best Available
Retrofit Technology (BART) determination for the
San Juan Generating Station (SJGS). The EPA had
issued a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP)
containing a different NOX BART determination for
the SJGS. 76 FR 52,388 (Aug. 22, 2011). The 2013
RH SIP revision contained a new NOX BART
determination for the SJGS that superseded the
State’s previous NOX BART determination included
in the 2011 RH SIP revision. The EPA withdrew the
FIP and approved the 2013 RH SIP revision on
October 9, 2014 (79 FR 60985 and 79 FR 60978)
E:\FR\FM\03NOP1.SGM
03NOP1
67684
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 212 / Tuesday, November 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
revision. This latest submission is the
subject of this proposed approval. The
periodic report was made in the first
implementation period toward RPGs for
Class I areas in and outside the State
that were affected by emissions from
New Mexico’s sources. The SIP revision
includes the State’s determination that
the existing RH SIP requires no
substantive revision to achieve the
established regional haze visibility
improvement and emissions reduction
goals for 2018. The EPA is proposing to
approve New Mexico’s progress report
SIP on the basis that it satisfies the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10).
New Mexico has nine Class I areas
within its borders: Bandelier
Wilderness, Bosque del Apache
National Wildlife Refuge, Carlsbad
Caverns National Park, Gila Wilderness,
Pecos Wilderness, Salt Creek
Wilderness, Wheeler Peak Wilderness,
White Mountain Wilderness, and San
Pedro Parks Wilderness. San Pedro
Parks Wilderness is the only Class I area
in New Mexico that is located on the
Colorado Plateau.11 Visibility
impairment at New Mexico’s nine Class
I areas is tracked in units of deciviews
(dv), which is related to the cumulative
sum of visibility impairment from
individual aerosol species as measured
by eight monitors in the Interagency
Monitoring of Protected Visual
Environments (IMPROVE) Network.12
Through collaboration with the
Western Regional Air Partnership
(WRAP),13 New Mexico worked with
the western states to assess state-by-state
contributions to visibility impairment in
specific Class I areas in New Mexico
and those affected by emissions from
New Mexico. The WRAP report
provides data on other, less pertinent
Class I areas outside New Mexico
11 The Section 309 SIP submitted by the State of
New Mexico in December of 2003 addresses only
San Pedro Parks Wilderness Area. All of the other
Class I areas are addressed under the Section 309(g)
SIP submitted by the State of New Mexico in June
of 2011 and as revised and submitted in October of
2013.
12 The IMPROVE monitor for the Wheeler Peak
Wilderness Area is used to represent visibility
conditions at the nearby Pecos Wilderness. The
IMPROVE monitor for Carlsbad Caverns is located
in Texas at Guadalupe Mountains National Park.
13 The WRAP is a collaborative effort of tribal
governments, state governments and various federal
agencies representing the western states that
provides technical and policy tools for the western
states and tribes to comply with the EPA’s Regional
Haze regulations. Detailed information regarding
WRAP support of air quality management issues for
western states is provided on the WRAP Web site
(www.wrapair2.org). Data summary descriptions
and tools specific to Regional Haze Rule support are
available on the WRAP Technical Support System
Web site (https://vista.cira.colostate.edu/tss/).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:11 Nov 02, 2015
Jkt 238001
borders, and this information primarily
appears in the technical appendices.14
The following sections cover:
• The seven regulatory elements
required by the progress report SIP; 15
• How New Mexico’s progress report
SIP addressed each element; and
• The EPA’s analysis and proposed
determination as to whether New
Mexico satisfied each part.
A. Status of Control Strategies
40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(A) requires a
description of the status of
implementation of all control measures
included in the RH SIP for achieving
RPGs for Class I areas both within and
outside the State.
New Mexico stated in the progress
report that it is implementing all longterm control strategies, with the
exception of the state adopted State
Mobile Source Regulation.16 The State
Mobile Source Regulation, when
adopted, sought to apply California
motor vehicle standards within New
Mexico, and this regulation, while
mentioned in the State’s long-term
strategy, was not submitted to EPA as a
SIP revision. The report explains that
federal programs, as revised, achieve the
same emission reductions and have
provided the State a basis, in its
judgment, for not implementing the
regulation. The EPA considers this
explanation acceptable.
New Mexico evaluated the status of
all measures included in its RH SIP in
accordance with the requirements under
40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(A). The major
control measures identified by New
Mexico in the progress report RH SIP
are as follows:
• Best Available Retrofit Technology
(BART)
• SO2 Milestone and Backstop Trading
Program
• Agricultural and Forestry Smoke
Management Techniques
• Additional Controls—State Air
Regulations: New Source Review
(NSR) and Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD)
In its initial RH SIP, New Mexico
identified ammonium sulfate,
particulate organic matter, and coarse
14 The Western Regional Air Partnership Regional
Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Summary Report
technical support document has been prepared on
behalf of the fifteen Western State members in the
WRAP region to provide the technical basis for use
by states to develop the first of their individual
reasonable progress reports for the 116 Federal
Class I areas located in the Western states.
15 See 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i).
16 Under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(5)(ii), New Mexico is
required to submit interim reports to the EPA and
the public on the implementation status of the
regional and local strategies to address mobile
source emissions.
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
mass as the largest contributors to
visibility impairment. Many of the
contributing sources to visibility
impairment in New Mexico are natural,
rather than anthropogenic in nature, and
are not controllable. The primary
sources of ammonium sulfate are point
sources and on- and off-road mobile
source emissions. For particulate
organic matter, the primary sources of
emissions are from natural and
anthropogenic fire. The primary sources
of coarse mass emissions in New
Mexico are windblown and fugitive
dust. For the progress report, New
Mexico focused on those emission
sources that were anthropogenic in
nature.
The progress report stated that the
emissions reductions from
implementing the major control
measures would ensure that the New
Mexico Class I areas would achieve the
RPGs. New Mexico included a summary
of the implementation status associated
with each control measure and
quantified the benefits where possible.
When comparing baseline to current
visibility conditions, the progress report
showed that New Mexico is currently on
track, if not exceeding, the visibility
impairment emission reductions needed
to achieve RPG’s for 2018.17
1. Best Available Retrofit Technology
(BART)
New Mexico identified one single
stationary source in the progress report
SIP, the San Juan Generating Station
(SJGS), to be subject to BART. The SJGS
includes four coal-fired boilers. In the
New Mexico 2013 RH SIP, New Mexico
determined that the BART controls for
boiler units 1 and 4 will have selective
non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) air
pollution control devices installed for
visibility-impairing pollutant reduction.
Consistent with the terms in the State’s
then-pending SIP revision, the report
assumed future installation of controls
would occur fifteen months following
approval of the revised RH SIP (but not
earlier than January 31, 2016).18
Additionally, the remaining two boiler
units, 2 and 3, would be retired by the
end of 2017. New Mexico estimated that
implementation of the BART controls at
SJGS would result in NOX reduction of
approximately 13,000 tons per year (tpy)
(from 21,000 tpy to 8,011 tpy); SO2
reduction of 6,600 tpy (from 10,500 tpy
17 See table 2.1 of New Mexico Regional Haze
progress report SIP. A complete copy of the
progress report SIP is available in the online docket
for this proposal.
18 Subsequent to the submission of the New
Mexico progress report SIP, the EPA withdrew the
FIP and approved the 2013 RH SIP revision on
October 9, 2014 (79 FR 60985 and 79 FR 60978).
E:\FR\FM\03NOP1.SGM
03NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 212 / Tuesday, November 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules
to 3,843 tpy); and particulate matter
(PM) reduction of 1,200 tpy (from 2,380
tpy to 1,184 tpy). These reductions
represent a 35% reduction in the
statewide emissions of NOX, SO2, and
PM.
The EPA finds that the progress report
SIP adequately reviews the status of
New Mexico’s BART source. It identifies
the controls to be applied; outlines the
compliance timeframe for those
controls; and shows potential reduction
in visibility-impairing pollutants with
future BART implementation.
2. SO2 Milestone and Backstop Trading
Program
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
The progress report SIP discusses the
SO2 Milestone and Backstop Trading
Program 19 as a control measure. New
Mexico has participated in this
voluntary program since December 31,
2003. New Mexico must submit an
annual report that compares tracked
stationary source SO2 emissions to
yearly milestones. A milestone is an
established maximum level of annual
emissions for a given year (from 2003 to
2018). The milestones help establish
annual SO2 emission reduction targets.
The annual targets represent RPGs in
reducing visibility-impairing emissions.
If states fail to meet the milestones, then
the backstop-trading program is
triggered to implement an emissions
cap. The cap allocates emission
allowances (or credits) to the affected
sources based on the cap, and requires
the sources to hold sufficient
allowances to cover their emissions
each year.
Appendix B of the progress report SIP
includes the 2011 Regional SO2
Emissions and Milestone Report. The
2011 milestone is 200,722 tons SO2,
which represents the average regional
emissions milestone for the years 2009,
2010, and 2011. The average of 2009,
2010, and 2011 adjusted emissions was
determined to be 130,935 tons SO2. New
Mexico and participating States have
met the 200,722 tons SO2 milestone.
Emissions were about 35% below the
2011 three-State regional milestone.
19 Under Section 309 of the Federal Regional Haze
Rule, nine western states and tribes within those
states have the option of submitting plans to reduce
regional haze emissions that impair visibility at 16
Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau. Five states—
Arizona, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, and
Wyoming—and Albuquerque-Bernalillo County
initially exercised this option by submitting plans
to the EPA by December 31, 2003. Oregon elected
to cease participation in the program in 2006 and
Arizona elected to cease participation in 2010. The
tribes were not subject to the deadline and still can
opt into the program at any time.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:11 Nov 02, 2015
Jkt 238001
3. Agricultural and Forestry Smoke
Management Techniques 20
67685
The progress report SIP affirms that
New Mexico developed a state Smoke
Management Plan (SMP) to be used as
a control measure. The EPA previously
approved smoke management rules into
the SIP in 2012, which protect the
health and welfare of New Mexicans
from the impacts of smoke from all
sources of fire.21
aimed at regulating the same source
categories; either one or the other
applies depending upon when the
source was constructed. PSD was
adopted in 1977 for all new major
sources. BART is applied to pre-PSD, to
address visibility impacts from existing
major sources built 1962 to 1977. BART
only addresses visibility, whereas PSD
addresses NAAQS, increment
consumption, and visibility.
4. Additional Controls—State Air
Regulations: NSR and PSD
5. Summary of Control Strategy
Implementation
The progress report affirms that New
Mexico continues to implement the
State’s NSR program and asserts that
state regulations are up to date with 40
CFR 51.166. NSR applies to all
construction permitting for new
stationary sources under the CAA, for
attainment or non-attainment areas.22
Likewise, New Mexico implements
the State’s PSD program, as has been the
case since 1982. PSD is the NSR
program for new major 23 stationary
sources and major modifications in
attainment areas. The program
minimizes new pollution and utilizes
best available control technology
(BACT) to reduce visibility-impairing
pollutants and prevent deterioration of
Class I areas.24
Both PSD and BART protect Class I
area visibility in the same way. BART
and PSD are complementary programs
The EPA proposes to conclude that
New Mexico adequately addressed the
status of control measures in its progress
report RH SIP as required by the
provisions under 40 CFR
51.309(d)(10)(i)(A). All major control
measures (including BART) were
identified and the emission reduction
strategy behind each control was
explained. New Mexico included a
summary of the implementation status
associated with each control measure
and quantified the benefits where
possible. In addition, the progress report
SIP adequately outlined the compliance
timeframe for all controls.
20 The EPA approved 20.2.65 NMAC, Smoke
Management and 20.2.60 NMAC Open Burning, on
November 27, 2012 (77 FR 70693) in the same
action approving the 2011 New Mexico RH SIP.
21 Several WRAP policies developed by the
GCVTC were used to guide the development of the
New Mexico SMP program: The WRAP Policy for
Characterizing Fire Emissions shows a methodology
to categorize fire emissions as either natural or
anthropogenic. The WRAP Policy on Enhanced
Smoke Management Programs for Visibility
identifies and enhanced SMP to address visibility
effects from all types of fire that contribute to
visibility impairment in mandatory Federal Class I
areas. The WRAP Policy on Annual Emissions
Goals for Fire outlines a process by which states/
tribes may establish annual emission goals, based
on the utilization of currently available emission
reduction techniques, to include in their RH SIPs.
22 The NSR program is established by 20.2.72
NMAC. https://164.64.110.239/nmac/parts/title20/
20.002.0072.htm.
23 ‘‘Major’’ means emitting or having the potential
to emit 100 tpy or more of any criteria pollutant for
the specific source categories listed in the PSD
regulations. There are 28 listed source categories,
which include power plants that use steam to
generate electricity, petroleum refineries and glass
fiber processing plants. If a plant does not fall into
one of the listed source categories, then a threshold
of 250 tpy applies. BART addresses certain sources
that have the potential to emit 250 tpy or more of
a single visibility-impairing pollutant.
24 The most recent approval of New Mexico’s PSD
program was on 12/11/2013 (see 78 FR 75253). PSD
is established by 20.2.74 NMAC. https://
164.64.110.239/nmac/parts/title20/
20.002.0074.htm.
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
B. Emissions Reductions From Control
Strategies
40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(B) requires a
summary of the emission reductions
achieved throughout the State through
implementation of control measures
mentioned in 40 CFR
51.309(d)(10)(i)(A). The progress report
must identify and estimate emissions
reductions to date in visibilityimpairing pollutants from the SIP
control measures identified for
implementation.
New Mexico reported in figure 3.6 of
the progress report SIP that NOX, SO2,
and PM point source emissions
decreased in New Mexico from 2008 to
2012. Approximated NO2 emissions
reduced from 63,000 tpy to 44,000 tpy,
constituting an emission reduction of
about 30%. Approximated SO2
emissions reduced from 26,000 tpy to
15,000 tpy, constituting an emission
reduction of about 42%. As compared to
NO2 and SO2, PM emissions represent a
small part of the State’s emissions
inventories, and PM reductions are not
especially pronounced. Figure 3.6
shows that actual point source
emissions for NO2 and SO2 decreased
below the WRAP’s projected 2018 pointsource emissions that helped establish
New Mexico’s RPGs for the first
planning period. In reviewing the point
source data, the EPA compared it to that
reported by the Clean Air Markets
Division (CAMD) and found that the
E:\FR\FM\03NOP1.SGM
03NOP1
67686
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 212 / Tuesday, November 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules
reported emissions were consistent with
that data.25
New Mexico explained that the most
significant decrease in emissions since
the RH SIP revision in June 2011 has
been from SO2 in accordance with the
State’s SO2 Milestone and Backstop
Trading Program. SO2 emissions were
about 35% below the 2011 three-state
regional milestone.
Part of the observed emission
reductions were also the result of
controls installed at SJGS completed in
2009 in response to a 2005 consent
decree. Future emission reductions to
satisfy BART at SJGS will also occur
during this planning period, resulting in
a significant reduction in total point
source emissions in the State. New
Mexico estimated that implementation
of the BART controls at SJGS would
result in NOX reduction of
approximately 13,000 tons per year (tpy)
(from 21,000 tpy to 8,011 tpy); SO2
reduction of 6,600 tpy (from 10,500 tpy
to 3,843 tpy); and particulate matter
(PM) reduction of 1,200 tpy (from 2,380
tpy to 1,184 tpy). These reductions
represent a 35% reduction in the
statewide emissions of NOX, SO2, and
PM. Statewide emissions are
significantly below the 2018 projected
levels relied upon in the 2011 RH SIP.
Therefore, New Mexico does not expect
reasonable progress to be adversely
impacted in any of the Class I areas in
New Mexico or neighboring states.
Additional control measures included
in the SIP were federal and state
programs (NSR, PSD, and SMP
programs). Qualitatively, the continued
implementation of those federal and
state measures is expected to continue
to reduce emissions. Deciview and
aerosol extinction maps provided by
New Mexico illustrate both a decrease
in magnitude of visibility impairment
and relative pollutant contribution in
New Mexico and surrounding states for
2005–2009.26
The EPA proposes to conclude that
New Mexico has adequately
summarized the emission reductions
achieved throughout the State in its
progress report RH SIP as required
under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(B). In
meeting this requirement, the EPA does
not expect states to quantify emission
reductions for measures which have not
yet been implemented or for which the
compliance date has not yet been
reached. However, for purposes of
future progress reports, we recommend
that New Mexico include additional
quantitative details on the reductions of
each major specific visibility-impairing
pollutant and utilize available CAMD
data, as appropriate.
C. Visibility Progress
40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(C) requires
that for each mandatory Class I Federal
area within the State, the State must
assess the following visibility
conditions and changes, with values for
most impaired and least impaired
days 27 expressed in terms of five-year
averages of these annual values:
1. Assess the current visibility
conditions for the most impaired and
least impaired days.
2. Analyze the difference between
current visibility conditions for the most
impaired and least impaired days and
baseline visibility conditions.
3. Evaluate the change in visibility
impairment for the most impaired and
least impaired days over the past five
years.
New Mexico provided visibility data
for 2000 through 2011 that addressed
the three requirements of 40 CFR
51.309(d)(10)(i)(C) for Class I areas in
New Mexico. Much of the analysis and
visibility data presented in the New
Mexico progress report SIP were taken
from the RHR Reasonable Progress
Summary Report prepared by the
WRAP.
This section requires the report to
include deciview values for three
separate periods: Baseline visibility
conditions, current visibility conditions,
and visibility conditions of the past five
years. Baseline visibility conditions
refer to conditions identified in initial
RH SIPs for the 2000–2004 period.
Current visibility conditions refer to the
most recent five-year average data
available at the time the State submitted
its progress report. The past five years
would be five years before the year used
for current visibility conditions.28
New Mexico calculated the five-year
baseline visibility conditions for 2000–
2004; successive five-year average
visibility conditions for 2005–2009; and
the most recent visibility conditions for
2007–2011. The change in baseline and
current visibility was compared to the
change in baseline and past five-year
visibility.29 Both results were tabulated
for the 20% worst and best days and
compared to 2018 RPGs.30 The most
recent data from 2007–2011 in the
progress report SIP were not addressed.
The EPA provided a comparison of the
2007–2011 data in table 2, below,
showing that progress, while trending
toward further visibility improvement,
was not quite as good as in the 2005–
2009 period.
TABLE 2—VISIBILITY CONDITIONS AT NEW MEXICO CLASS I AREAS
Class I Area
Baseline
(2000–2004)
(dv)
2005–2009
(dv)
Visibility
improvement
over baseline
(2005–2009)
(dv) *
2007–2011
(dv)
Visibility
improvement
over baseline
(2007–2011)
(dv) *
2018
RPGs
(dv)
Visibility
improvement
needed over
baseline for
2018 RPGs
(dv) *
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
20% Worst Days
Bandelier ....................................
Bosque del Apache ....................
Gila Wilderness ..........................
Carlsbad Caverns ......................
Salt Creek ..................................
San Pedro Parks ........................
Wheeler Peak ............................
12.2
13.8
13.1
17.2
18.0
10.2
10.4
25 See the Technical Support Document (TSD),
‘‘Evaluation of State Emission Trends Analysis,’’ a
copy of which is posted in the docket for this
proposal.
26 See Figures 3.1 through 3.5 of progress report
SIP.
27 The ‘‘most impaired days’’ and ‘‘least impaired
days’’ in the regional haze rule refers to the average
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:11 Nov 02, 2015
Jkt 238001
11.8
13.4
12.5
15.9
17.5
9.9
9.1
0.4
0.4
0.6
1.3
0.5
0.3
1.3
12.0
13.1
11.3
15.3
17.3
10.1
9.6
visibility impairment (measured in deciviews) for
the 20% of monitored days in a calendar year with
the highest and lowest amount of visibility
impairment, respectively, averaged over a five-year
period. See 40 CFR 51.301.
28 General Principles for the 5-Year Regional
Haze Progress Reports for the Initial Regional Haze
State Implementation Plans (Intended to Assist
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
0.2
0.7
1.8
1.9
0.7
0.1
0.8
11.9
13.59
12.99
16.93
17.33
9.8
10.23
0.3
0.21
0.11
0.27
0.67
0.4
0.17
States and EPA Regional Offices in Development
and Review of the Progress Reports), EPA, April
2013.
29 New Mexico also included 2006 to 2010 data,
but it was not included in table 2.
30 See Tables 3.3 through 3.20 of the New Mexico
progress report SIP.
E:\FR\FM\03NOP1.SGM
03NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 212 / Tuesday, November 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules
67687
TABLE 2—VISIBILITY CONDITIONS AT NEW MEXICO CLASS I AREAS—Continued
Class I Area
Baseline
(2000–2004)
(dv)
2005–2009
(dv)
13.7
Visibility
improvement
over baseline
(2005–2009)
(dv) *
13.2
White Mountain ..........................
0.5
2007–2011
(dv)
Visibility
improvement
over baseline
(2007–2011)
(dv) *
2018
RPGs
(dv)
Visibility
improvement
needed over
baseline for
2018 RPGs
(dv) *
13.9
¥0.2
13.27
0.43
3.9
5.5
2.4
4.9
6.9
1.0
0.9
3.3
1.1
0.8
0.9
1.0
0.9
0.5
0.3
0.3
4.89
6.1
3.2
6.14
7.43
1.2
1.13
3.42
0.11
0.2
0.1
20% Best Days
Bandelier ....................................
Bosque del Apache ....................
Gila Wilderness ..........................
Carlsbad Caverns ......................
Salt Creek ..................................
San Pedro Parks ........................
Wheeler Peak ............................
White Mountain ..........................
5.0
6.3
3.3
5.9
7.8
1.5
1.2
3.6
4.2
5.8
2.7
5.4
7.3
1.0
0.9
3.3
0.8
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.37
0.3
0.07
0.18
* Negative Visibility Improvement means an increase above the baseline values, indicating that visibility has worsened.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
All Class I areas show visibility
improvement over the baseline through
the first progress period (2005–2009). In
addition, all Class I sites were below the
2018 RPGs for the first progress period
except for San Pedro Parks and Salt
Creek. The five-year average deciview
trends for 2007–2011 progress period
achieved visibility improvement for all
Class I areas except White Mountain,
which got slightly worse by 0.2 dv. All
but three sites met the 2018 RPGs
during the 2007–2011 period.
The EPA proposes to conclude that
New Mexico has adequately addressed
the requirements under 40 CFR
51.309(d)(10)(i)(C) to include summaries
of monitored visibility data as required
by the Regional Haze Rule. For purposes
of improved clarity on future reports,
the EPA recommends that New Mexico
include a graph of rolling averages
similar to what was provided in the
guidance example,31 illustrating the
uniform glide path. The glide path
graphically shows what would be a
uniform rate of progress, toward
meeting the national goal of a return to
natural visibility conditions by 2064 for
each Class I area.
D. Emissions Progress
40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(D) requires an
analysis tracking the change over the
past five years in emissions of
pollutants contributing to visibility
impairment from all sources and
activities within the State. Emission
changes should be identified by type of
source or activity. The analysis must be
based on the most recent updated
31 See page 10 of General Principles for the 5-Year
Regional Haze Progress Reports for the Initial
Regional Haze State Implementation Plans
(Intended to Assist States and EPA Regional Offices
in Development and Review of the Progress Reports)
April 2013.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:11 Nov 02, 2015
Jkt 238001
emissions inventory, with estimates
projected forward as necessary and
appropriate, to account for emissions
changes during the applicable five-year
period. The EPA evaluated New
Mexico’s analysis and more detail is
provided in the Technical Support
Document for this action.
The EPA proposes to conclude that
New Mexico has adequately addressed
the requirements under 40 CFR
51.309(d)(10)(i)(D) to track changes in
emissions of pollutants contributing to
visibility impairment from all sources
and activities within the State. The
analysis in this progress report was
based on appropriate available data with
sufficient forward projections.
E. Assessment of Changes Impeding
Visibility Progress
40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(E) requires an
assessment of any significant changes in
anthropogenic emissions within or
outside the State that have occurred
over the past five years that have limited
or impeded progress in reducing
pollutant emissions and improving
visibility in Class I areas impacted by
the State’s sources.
New Mexico stated in the progress
report SIP that there does not appear to
be any anthropogenic emissions within
New Mexico that would have limited or
impeded progress in reducing pollutant
emissions or improving visibility. New
Mexico stated that SO2 and PM were the
major visibility-impairing concerns on
the 20% worst days. Stationary point
sources were the greatest contributor of
SO2 while fire, including natural and
anthropogenic, was the greatest PM
contributor. Both of these pollutants
were covered by long-term control
measures described in the progress
report SIP (BART, SMP, and SO2
Milestone and Backstop Trading
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Program). Other states relied on WRAP
modeling to show reasonable progress at
their Class I areas. With the BART
determination of a two-unit shut down
and two-unit SNCR installation for the
SJGS, New Mexico will be exceeding the
modeled levels relied on by WRAP for
regional haze. Therefore, New Mexico is
not impeding other states in meeting
their RPGs, and is decreasing visibilityimpairing pollutants more than was
anticipated in the WRAP modeling for
NOX, SO2 and PM.
The EPA proposes to find that New
Mexico has adequately addressed the
requirements under 40 CFR
51.309(d)(10)(i)(E) to show that the
major contributors of anthropogenic
emissions are being reduced and
visibility is improving at a uniform rate
without having limited or impeded
progress.
F. Assessment of Current Strategy To
Meet RPGs
40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(F) calls for an
assessment of whether the current
implementation plan elements and
strategies in the RH SIP are sufficient to
enable the State, or other states with
mandatory Federal Class I areas affected
by emissions from the State, to meet all
established RPGs.
New Mexico stated in the progress
report SIP that the elements and
strategies outlined in its RH SIP are
sufficient to enable New Mexico and
other neighboring states to meet all the
established RPGs. To support this
conclusion, New Mexico referenced
visibility data 32 that showed five-year
average deciview trends for the 20%
worst and best days for the baseline
period (2000–2004); subsequent five32 In Appendix C of Regional Haze Progress
Report SIP.
E:\FR\FM\03NOP1.SGM
03NOP1
67688
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 212 / Tuesday, November 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
year visibility conditions (2005–2009);
and the most recent five-year visibility
conditions (2007–2011). All Class I
areas indicated visibility improvement
over the baseline through the first
progress period. All but two Class I
areas were below the RPGs for the first
progress period based on 2005–2009
data. The five-year average deciview
trend for the most recent period (2007–
2011) achieved visibility improvement
for all Class I areas except White
Mountain, which got slightly worse by
0.2 dv. All but three sites met the 2018
RPGs based on 2007–2011 data: The
data supports an inference that 2007–
2011 visibility conditions at White
Mountain are higher due to elevated
course mass levels in 2011 compared to
baseline levels. The 2007–2011
visibility conditions at Bandelier and
San Pedro parks were high, apparently
due to elevated organic mass levels in
2011 from impacts of fires.
Although three Class I sites were not
tracking the RPGs at the time of the
progress report, New Mexico expects
further reduction of SO2 and NO2
emissions, not accounted for in the
original RH SIP, principally from the
implementation of BART controls.
These added control measures should
contribute toward Bandelier, San Pedro,
and White Mountain achieving the
RPGs for 2018. Further progress will
also occur through recently adopted or
proposed regulatory programs. The EPA
notes that visibility conditions at these
sites in some years can be impacted
more significantly by natural sources of
wind-blown dust and/or fires than other
years and considers this relevant when
evaluating progress toward the natural
visibility goals.
The EPA proposes to conclude that
New Mexico has adequately addressed
the requirements under 40 CFR
51.309(d)(10)(i)(F). The EPA views the
requirement of this section as a
qualitative assessment that should
evaluate emissions and visibility trends,
including expected emissions
reductions from measures that have not
yet become effective. New Mexico
referenced the improving visibility
trends with appropriately supported
data with a focus on future
implementation of BART controls.
G. Review of Visibility Monitoring
Strategy
40 CFR 51.309(10)(i)(G) requires a
review of the State’s visibility
monitoring strategy and any
modifications to the strategy as
necessary.
The monitoring strategy for regional
haze in New Mexico relies upon
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:11 Nov 02, 2015
Jkt 238001
participation in the IMPROVE 33
network, which is the primary
monitoring network for regional haze
nationwide. The IMPROVE network
provides a long-term record for tracking
visibility improvement or degradation.
New Mexico currently relies on data
collected through the IMPROVE
network to satisfy the regional haze
monitoring requirement as specified in
the Regional Haze Rule.
In its progress report SIP, New Mexico
summarizes the existing IMPROVE
monitoring network: Seven monitoring
sites in New Mexico and one in Texas
(utilized for Carlsbad Caverns National
Park). New Mexico stated that
IMPROVE monitoring data served as the
baseline for the regional haze program
and that future regional haze monitoring
strategy must be based on, or directly
comparable to the current IMPROVE
network. New Mexico concluded that
the existing network is adequate and
modifications to the visibility
monitoring strategy are not necessary at
this time.
The EPA proposes to conclude that
New Mexico has adequately addressed
the sufficiency of its monitoring strategy
as required by the provisions under 40
CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(G). New Mexico
reaffirmed its continued reliance upon
the IMPROVE monitoring network. New
Mexico also explained the importance
of the IMPROVE monitoring network for
tracking visibility trends at its Class I
areas and identified no expected
changes in this network.
H. Determination of Adequacy
Under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(ii), states
are required to submit, at the same time
as the progress report SIP, a
determination of the adequacy of their
existing RH SIP and to take one of four
possible actions based on information in
the progress report. 40 CFR
51.309(d)(10)(ii) requires states to take
one of the following actions:
(1) Submit a negative declaration to
the EPA that no further substantive
revision to the State’s existing RH SIP is
needed.
(2) If the State determines that the
implementation plan is or may be
33 Data from IMPROVE show that visibility
impairment caused by air pollution occurs virtually
all the time at most national parks and wilderness
areas. The average visual range in many Class I
areas (i.e., national parks and memorial parks,
wilderness areas, and international parks meeting
certain size criteria) in the western United States is
100–150 kilometers, or about one-half to two-thirds
of the visual range that would exist without
anthropogenic air pollution. In most of the eastern
Class I areas of the United States, the average visual
range is less than 30 kilometers, or about one-fifth
of the visual range that would exist under estimated
natural conditions. 64 FR 35715 (July 1, 1999).
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
inadequate to ensure reasonable
progress due to emissions from sources
in another state(s) which participated in
a regional planning process, the State
must provide notification to the EPA
and to the other state(s) which
participated in the regional planning
process with the states. The State must
also collaborate with the other state(s)
through the regional planning process
for developing additional strategies to
address the plan’s deficiencies.
(3) Where the State determines that
the implementation plan is or may be
inadequate to ensure reasonable
progress due to emissions from sources
in another country, the State shall
provide notification, along with
available information, to the
Administrator.
(4) If the State determines that the
implementation plan is or may be
inadequate to ensure reasonable
progress due to emissions from sources
within the State, then the State shall
revise its implementation plan to
address the plan’s deficiencies within
one year.
The State of New Mexico has
provided the information required
under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i) in the
five-year progress report. Based upon
this information, New Mexico states in
its progress report SIP that it believes
that the current Section 309 and 309(g)
RH SIPs are adequate to meet the State’s
2018 RPGs and require no further
revision at this time. Thus, the EPA has
received a negative declaration from
New Mexico.
V. The EPA’s Proposed Action
The EPA is proposing to approve New
Mexico’s regional haze five-year
progress report SIP revision (submitted
on March 11, 2014) as meeting the
applicable regional haze requirements
set forth in 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10). The
EPA is proposing to approve New
Mexico’s determination that the current
RH SIP is adequate to meet the State’s
2018 RPGs.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the
Act and applicable Federal regulations.
42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the
EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. Accordingly, this action
merely proposes to approve state law as
meeting Federal requirements and does
not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law. For
that reason, this action:
E:\FR\FM\03NOP1.SGM
03NOP1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 212 / Tuesday, November 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011);
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• Does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of
section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved
to apply on any Indian reservation land
or in any other area where EPA or an
Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the proposed rule does
not have tribal implications and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This
action does have tribal implications in
non-reservation areas of Indian country
within the state. However, it will
neither impose substantial direct
compliance costs on federally
recognized tribal governments, nor
preempt tribal law. The EPA is
coordinating with tribes regarding this
matter.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Best Available
Retrofit Technology, Incorporation by
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:11 Nov 02, 2015
Jkt 238001
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Nitrogen oxides, Particulate matter,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Regional haze, Sulfur
dioxide, Visibility, Volatile organic
compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: October 23, 2015.
Samuel Coleman,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2015–28007 Filed 11–2–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 1, 4
[GN Docket No. 15–206; FCC 15–119]
Improving Outage Reporting for
Submarine Cables and Enhancing
Submarine Cable Outage Data
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
In this document the Federal
Communications Commission
(Commission) proposes to require
submarine cable licensees, as a
condition of their license, to report on
outages involving either lost
connectivity or degradation of 50
percent or more of a submarine cable’s
capacity for periods of at least 30
minutes, regardless of whether the
cable’s traffic is re-routed. The
Commission seeks comment on whether
this reporting system is necessary,
whether the proposed reporting triggers
are appropriate, and whether the
reporting system proposed is the most
efficient means to accomplish the
Commission’s goals of gaining visibility
into the operational status of submarine
cables. The document also seeks
comment on ways in which the
Commission can act to improve the
submarine cable deployment process
either on its own accord or by
coordinating with other stakeholders.
DATES: Submit comments on or before
December 3, 2015 and reply comments
by December 18, 2015.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by docket number GN 15–
206, by any of the following methods:
• Federal Communications
Commission’s Web site: https://fjallfoss.
fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow the instructions
for submitting comments.
• Mail: U.S. Postal Service first-class,
Express, and Priority mail must be
addressed to 445 12th Street SW.,
Washington DC 20554. Commercial
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
67689
overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal
Service Express Mail and Priority Mail)
must be sent to 9300 East Hampton
Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
• People with Disabilities: Contact
the FCC to request reasonable
accommodations (accessible format
documents, sign language interpreters,
CART, etc.) by email: FCC504@fcc.gov
or phone: 202–418–0530 or TTY: 202–
418–0432.
Parties wishing to file materials with
a claim of confidentiality should follow
the procedures set forth in section 0.459
of the Commission’s rules. Confidential
submissions may not be filed via ECFS
but rather should be filed with the
Secretary’s Office following the
procedures set forth in 47 CFR 0.459.
Redacted versions of confidential
submissions may be filed via ECFS. For
detailed instructions for submitting
comments and additional information
on the rulemaking process, see the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michael D. Saperstein, Jr., Attorney
Advisor, Public Safety and Homeland
Security Bureau, (202) 418–7008 or
michael.saperstein@fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
summary of the Commission’s Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in GN
Docket No. 15–206, released on
September 18, 2015. The full text of this
document is available for public
inspection during regular business
hours in the FCC Reference Center,
Room CY–A257, 445 12th Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20554, or online at
https://www.fcc.gov/document/
improving-outage-reporting-submarinecables.
Synopsis of Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking
I. Introduction
Submarine (or ‘‘undersea’’) cables
provide the primary means of
connectivity—voice, data and Internet—
between the mainland United States and
consumers in Alaska, Hawaii, Guam,
American Samoa, the Northern Mariana
Islands, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin
Islands, as well as connectivity between
the United States and the rest of the
world. Given the role of submarine
cables to the nation’s economic and
national security, there is value to
ensuring that infrastructure is reliable,
resilient and diverse. Today, however,
the ad hoc approach to outage reporting
for undersea cables has resulted in a gap
in the sufficiency of the information that
the Commission staff receives from
service providers. To effectuate our
statutory obligations of promoting the
E:\FR\FM\03NOP1.SGM
03NOP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 212 (Tuesday, November 3, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 67682-67689]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-28007]
[[Page 67682]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R06-OAR-2014-0237; FRL-9936-46-Region 6]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; New Mexico;
Regional Haze Five-Year Progress Report State Implementation Plan
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing
approval of a revision to a State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted
by the State of New Mexico through the New Mexico Environment
Department (NMED) on March 14, 2014. New Mexico's SIP revision
addresses requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and the EPA's rules
that require states to submit periodic reports describing progress
toward reasonable progress goals (RPGs) established for regional haze
and a determination of the adequacy of the State's existing regional
haze SIP (RH SIP).
DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 3, 2015.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2014-
0237, by one of the following methods:
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions.
Email: Mr. Guy Donaldson at donaldson.guy@epa.gov
Mail or Delivery: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning Section
(6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200,
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.
Instructions: Direct comments to Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2014-0237.
The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change and made available online at
www.regulations.gov. The EPA includes any personal information
provided, unless a comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit any information
electronically that is considered CBI or any other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. The www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means the EPA will not know
one's identity or contact information unless it is provided in the body
of a comment. If a comment is emailed directly to the EPA without going
through www.regulations.gov, then the sender's email address will
automatically be captured and included as part of the public docket
comment and made available on the Internet. If a comment is submitted
electronically, then it is recommended that one's name and other
contact information be included in the body of the comment, and with
any disk or CD-ROM submitted. If the EPA cannot read a particular
comment due to technical difficulties and is unable to contact for
clarification, the EPA may not be able to consider the comment.
Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form
of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment will be considered the official comment
with multimedia submissions and should include all discussion points
desired. The EPA will generally not consider comments or their contents
submitted outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or
other file sharing systems). For additional information on submitting
comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at the EPA
Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. While all
documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may
be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted
material), and some may not be publicly available at either location
(e.g., CBI).
The New Mexico regional haze progress report is available online at
the following: www.nmenv.state.nm.us/aqb/reghaz/regional-haze_index.html. It is also available for public inspection during
official business hours, by appointment, at the Air Quality Bureau,
Environmental Protection Division, New Mexico Environment Department,
525 Camino de los Marquez, Suite 1, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. James E. Grady, (214) 665-6745;
grady.james@epa.gov. To inspect the hard copy materials, please contact
Mr. Grady or Mr. Bill Deese at (214) 665-7253.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``our,''
or ``us'' each mean ``the EPA.''
Table of Contents
I. Background on Regional Haze
II. Background on Regional Haze SIPs
III. Requirements for Five-Year Regional Haze Progress Report SIP
IV. Evaluation of New Mexico's Regional Haze Progress Report SIP
A. Status of Control Strategies
1. Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)
2. SO2 Milestone and Backstop Trading Program
3. Agricultural and Forestry Smoke Management Techniques
4. Additional Controls--State Air Regulations: NSR and PSD
5. Summary of Control Strategy Implementation
B. Emissions Reductions From Control Strategies
C. Visibility Progress
D. Emissions Progress
E. Assessment of Changes Impeding Visibility Progress
F. Assessment of Current Strategy To Meet RPGs
G. Review of Visibility Monitoring Strategy
H. Determination of Adequacy
V. The EPA's Proposed Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background on Regional Haze
Regional haze is visibility impairment that occurs over a wide
geographic area primarily from the pollution of fine particles
(PM2.5) \1\ in nature. Fine particles causing haze consist
of sulfates, nitrates, ammonium, particulate organic matter, black
carbon, and soil dust. Airborne PM2.5 can scatter and absorb
the incident light and therefore lead to atmospheric opacity and
horizontal visibility degradation. Regional haze limits visual distance
and reduces color, clarity and contrast of view. Emissions that affect
visibility include a wide variety of natural and man-made sources. In
New Mexico, the most important sources of haze-forming emissions are
coal-fired power plants, oil and gas development, woodland fires, and
windblown dust. Reducing PM2.5 and their precursor gases in
the atmosphere is an effective method of improving visibility.
PM2.5 precursors consist of sulfur dioxide (SO2),
nitrogen oxides (NOX), ammonia (NH3) and volatile
organic compounds (VOCs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Additionally, coarse particles (PM10) can
contribute to light extinction. However, they settle out from the
air more rapidly than fine particles and usually will be found
relatively close to emission sources. Fine particles can be
transported long distances by wind and can be found in the air
thousands of miles from where they were formed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Background on Regional Haze SIPs
In section 169A of the 1977 Amendments to the CAA, Congress created
a program for protecting visibility in the nation's national parks and
wilderness areas. This section of the CAA establishes as a national
goal the prevention of any future, and the
[[Page 67683]]
remedying of any existing man-made impairment of visibility in 156
national parks and wilderness areas designated as mandatory Class I
Federal areas.\2\ On December 2, 1980, the EPA promulgated regulations
to address visibility impairment in Class I areas that is ``reasonably
attributable'' to a single source or small group of sources, i.e.,
``reasonably attributable visibility impairment.'' \3\ These
regulations represented the first phase in addressing visibility
impairment. The EPA deferred action on regional haze that emanates from
a variety of sources until monitoring, modeling and scientific
knowledge about the relationships between pollutants and visibility
impairment were improved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal areas consist
of National Parks exceeding 6000 acres, wilderness areas and
national memorial parks exceeding 5000 acres, and all international
parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977. 42 U.S.C. 7472(a).
In accordance with section 169A of the CAA, EPA, in consultation
with the Department of Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas
where visibility is identified as an important value. 44 FR 69122
(November 30, 1979). The extent of a mandatory Class I area includes
subsequent changes in boundaries, such as park expansions. 42 U.S.C.
7472(a). Although states and tribes may designate as Class I
additional areas which they consider to have visibility as an
important value, the requirements of the visibility program set
forth in section 169A of the CAA apply only to ``mandatory Class I
Federal areas.'' Each mandatory Class I Federal area is the
responsibility of a ``Federal Land Manager.'' 42 U.S.C. 7602(i).
When we use the term ``Class I area'' in this action, we mean a
``mandatory Class I Federal area.''
\3\ 45 FR 80084 (December 2, 1980).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress added section 169B to the CAA in 1990 to address regional
haze issues, and the EPA promulgated regulations addressing regional
haze in 1999.\4\ The Regional Haze Rule revised the existing visibility
regulations to integrate into the regulations provisions addressing
regional haze impairment and established a comprehensive visibility
protection program for Class I areas. The requirements for regional
haze, found at 40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309, are included in the EPA's
visibility protection regulations at 40 CFR 51.300-309. States must
demonstrate reasonable progress toward meeting the national goal of a
return to natural visibility conditions for mandatory Class I Federal
areas both within and outside states by 2064. The requirement to submit
a regional haze SIP applies to all fifty states, the District of
Columbia, and the Virgin Islands. States were required to submit the
first implementation plan addressing regional haze visibility
impairment no later than December 17, 2007.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 64 FR 35714 (July 1, 1999), codified at 40 CFR part 51,
subpart P (Regional Haze Rule).
\5\ See 40 CFR 51.308(b). EPA's regional haze regulations
require subsequent updates to the regional haze SIPs. 40 CFR
51.308(g)-(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Requirements for the Five-Year Regional Haze Progress Report SIP
The Regional Haze Rule requires a comprehensive analysis of each
state's regional haze SIP every ten years and a progress report every
five years. This five-year review is intended to provide a progress
report on, and, if necessary, mid-course corrections to, the regional
haze SIP. The progress report provides an opportunity for public input
on the State's (and the EPA's) assessment of whether the approved
regional haze SIP is being implemented appropriately and whether
reasonable visibility progress is being achieved consistent with the
projected visibility improvement in the SIP. At a minimum, New Mexico
must include in its progress report the following seven elements: \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Provide a description of the status of implementation of all
control measures in the approved RH SIP.
(2) Summarize the emissions reductions achieved through
implementation of the control measures.
(3) Assess the visibility conditions and changes for each Class I
area in the State.
(4) Analyze the changes in emissions from sources and activities
within the State.
(5) Provide an assessment of any significant changes in
anthropogenic emissions within or outside the State that have limited
or impeded progress in reducing emissions and improving visibility in
Class I areas.
(6) Evaluate the sufficiency of the approved RH SIP to meet all
RPGs.
(7) Provide a review of the State's visibility monitoring strategy.
New Mexico submitted their progress report SIP for the State \7\
under 40 CFR 51.309.\8\ Typically, progress report requirements of most
states are covered under 40 CFR 51.308(g) and (h). However, 40 CFR
51.309 presents nine western states with an optional approach of
fulfilling Regional Haze Rule requirements by adopting emission
reduction strategies developed by the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport
Commission (GCVTC). These strategies were designed primarily to improve
visibility of sixteen Class I areas in the Colorado Plateau \9\ area.
Since New Mexico currently has one Class I area, the San Pedro Parks
Wilderness Area, inside the Colorado Plateau, the State exercised the
option to meet the alternative requirements contained in 40 CFR 51.309
for RH SIPs. The requirements for five-year progress reports are
consistent with those for the other states, but the requirements for
the reports are codified at 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10) instead of at 40 CFR
51.308(g) and (h). Also, under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i), states must
submit a regional haze progress report in the years 2013 and 2018. In
contrast, under 40 CFR 51.308, states must submit a progress report
five years from submittal of the initial implementation plan. Under 40
CFR 51.309(d)(10)(ii), states are required to submit, at the same time
as the progress report SIP, a determination of the adequacy of their
existing RH SIP and to take one of four possible actions, as described
in more detail in this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The proposed action does not pertain to the Albuquerque/
Bernalillo County portion of the SIP in New Mexico. The New Mexico
Air Quality Control Act (section 74-2-4) authorizes Albuquerque/
Bernalillo County to locally administer and enforce the State Air
Quality Control Act by providing for a local air quality control
program, and that entity submitted an initial RH SIP for its own
jurisdiction that was separately approved by the EPA (77 FR 71119,
November 29, 2012). The EPA anticipates a separate RH progress
report SIP submittal from this entity.
\8\ Three Western States (New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming)
exercised the option provided in the Regional Haze Rule to meet the
alternative requirements contained in 40 CFR 51.309 for RH SIPs.
\9\ The Colorado Plateau is a high, semi-arid tableland in
Southeast Utah, Northern Arizona, Northwest New Mexico, and Western
Colorado. The sixteen mandatory Class I areas are as follows: Grand
Canyon National Park, Mount Baldy Wilderness, Petrified Forest
National Park, Sycamore Canyon Wilderness, Black Canyon of the
Gunnison National Park Wilderness, Flat Tops Wilderness, Maroon
Bells Wilderness, Mesa Verde National Park, Weminuche Wilderness,
West Elk Wilderness, San Pedro Parks Wilderness, Arches National
Park, Bryce Canyon National Park, Canyonlands National Park, Capital
Reef National Park, and Zion National Park.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Evaluation of New Mexico's Regional Haze Progress Report SIP
On December 31, 2003, the State of New Mexico submitted a RH SIP
with later SIP revisions (July 5, 2011 and October 7, 2013) that
addressed the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309.\10\ On March 14, 2014, the
EPA received the periodic report on progress from NMED in the form of a
regional haze SIP
[[Page 67684]]
revision. This latest submission is the subject of this proposed
approval. The periodic report was made in the first implementation
period toward RPGs for Class I areas in and outside the State that were
affected by emissions from New Mexico's sources. The SIP revision
includes the State's determination that the existing RH SIP requires no
substantive revision to achieve the established regional haze
visibility improvement and emissions reduction goals for 2018. The EPA
is proposing to approve New Mexico's progress report SIP on the basis
that it satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ The EPA approved all of the 2003 and 2011 submittals on
November 27, 2012 (77 FR 70693) except for the submitted
NOX Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)
determination for the San Juan Generating Station (SJGS). The EPA
had issued a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) containing a
different NOX BART determination for the SJGS. 76 FR
52,388 (Aug. 22, 2011). The 2013 RH SIP revision contained a new
NOX BART determination for the SJGS that superseded the
State's previous NOX BART determination included in the
2011 RH SIP revision. The EPA withdrew the FIP and approved the 2013
RH SIP revision on October 9, 2014 (79 FR 60985 and 79 FR 60978)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Mexico has nine Class I areas within its borders: Bandelier
Wilderness, Bosque del Apache National Wildlife Refuge, Carlsbad
Caverns National Park, Gila Wilderness, Pecos Wilderness, Salt Creek
Wilderness, Wheeler Peak Wilderness, White Mountain Wilderness, and San
Pedro Parks Wilderness. San Pedro Parks Wilderness is the only Class I
area in New Mexico that is located on the Colorado Plateau.\11\
Visibility impairment at New Mexico's nine Class I areas is tracked in
units of deciviews (dv), which is related to the cumulative sum of
visibility impairment from individual aerosol species as measured by
eight monitors in the Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual
Environments (IMPROVE) Network.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ The Section 309 SIP submitted by the State of New Mexico in
December of 2003 addresses only San Pedro Parks Wilderness Area. All
of the other Class I areas are addressed under the Section 309(g)
SIP submitted by the State of New Mexico in June of 2011 and as
revised and submitted in October of 2013.
\12\ The IMPROVE monitor for the Wheeler Peak Wilderness Area is
used to represent visibility conditions at the nearby Pecos
Wilderness. The IMPROVE monitor for Carlsbad Caverns is located in
Texas at Guadalupe Mountains National Park.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Through collaboration with the Western Regional Air Partnership
(WRAP),\13\ New Mexico worked with the western states to assess state-
by-state contributions to visibility impairment in specific Class I
areas in New Mexico and those affected by emissions from New Mexico.
The WRAP report provides data on other, less pertinent Class I areas
outside New Mexico borders, and this information primarily appears in
the technical appendices.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ The WRAP is a collaborative effort of tribal governments,
state governments and various federal agencies representing the
western states that provides technical and policy tools for the
western states and tribes to comply with the EPA's Regional Haze
regulations. Detailed information regarding WRAP support of air
quality management issues for western states is provided on the WRAP
Web site (www.wrapair2.org). Data summary descriptions and tools
specific to Regional Haze Rule support are available on the WRAP
Technical Support System Web site (https://vista.cira.colostate.edu/tss/).
\14\ The Western Regional Air Partnership Regional Haze Rule
Reasonable Progress Summary Report technical support document has
been prepared on behalf of the fifteen Western State members in the
WRAP region to provide the technical basis for use by states to
develop the first of their individual reasonable progress reports
for the 116 Federal Class I areas located in the Western states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following sections cover:
The seven regulatory elements required by the progress
report SIP; \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
How New Mexico's progress report SIP addressed each
element; and
The EPA's analysis and proposed determination as to
whether New Mexico satisfied each part.
A. Status of Control Strategies
40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(A) requires a description of the status of
implementation of all control measures included in the RH SIP for
achieving RPGs for Class I areas both within and outside the State.
New Mexico stated in the progress report that it is implementing
all long-term control strategies, with the exception of the state
adopted State Mobile Source Regulation.\16\ The State Mobile Source
Regulation, when adopted, sought to apply California motor vehicle
standards within New Mexico, and this regulation, while mentioned in
the State's long-term strategy, was not submitted to EPA as a SIP
revision. The report explains that federal programs, as revised,
achieve the same emission reductions and have provided the State a
basis, in its judgment, for not implementing the regulation. The EPA
considers this explanation acceptable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(5)(ii), New Mexico is required to
submit interim reports to the EPA and the public on the
implementation status of the regional and local strategies to
address mobile source emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Mexico evaluated the status of all measures included in its RH
SIP in accordance with the requirements under 40 CFR
51.309(d)(10)(i)(A). The major control measures identified by New
Mexico in the progress report RH SIP are as follows:
Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)
SO2 Milestone and Backstop Trading Program
Agricultural and Forestry Smoke Management Techniques
Additional Controls--State Air Regulations: New Source Review
(NSR) and Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)
In its initial RH SIP, New Mexico identified ammonium sulfate,
particulate organic matter, and coarse mass as the largest contributors
to visibility impairment. Many of the contributing sources to
visibility impairment in New Mexico are natural, rather than
anthropogenic in nature, and are not controllable. The primary sources
of ammonium sulfate are point sources and on- and off-road mobile
source emissions. For particulate organic matter, the primary sources
of emissions are from natural and anthropogenic fire. The primary
sources of coarse mass emissions in New Mexico are windblown and
fugitive dust. For the progress report, New Mexico focused on those
emission sources that were anthropogenic in nature.
The progress report stated that the emissions reductions from
implementing the major control measures would ensure that the New
Mexico Class I areas would achieve the RPGs. New Mexico included a
summary of the implementation status associated with each control
measure and quantified the benefits where possible. When comparing
baseline to current visibility conditions, the progress report showed
that New Mexico is currently on track, if not exceeding, the visibility
impairment emission reductions needed to achieve RPG's for 2018.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See table 2.1 of New Mexico Regional Haze progress report
SIP. A complete copy of the progress report SIP is available in the
online docket for this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)
New Mexico identified one single stationary source in the progress
report SIP, the San Juan Generating Station (SJGS), to be subject to
BART. The SJGS includes four coal-fired boilers. In the New Mexico 2013
RH SIP, New Mexico determined that the BART controls for boiler units 1
and 4 will have selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) air pollution
control devices installed for visibility-impairing pollutant reduction.
Consistent with the terms in the State's then-pending SIP revision, the
report assumed future installation of controls would occur fifteen
months following approval of the revised RH SIP (but not earlier than
January 31, 2016).\18\ Additionally, the remaining two boiler units, 2
and 3, would be retired by the end of 2017. New Mexico estimated that
implementation of the BART controls at SJGS would result in
NOX reduction of approximately 13,000 tons per year (tpy)
(from 21,000 tpy to 8,011 tpy); SO2 reduction of 6,600 tpy
(from 10,500 tpy
[[Page 67685]]
to 3,843 tpy); and particulate matter (PM) reduction of 1,200 tpy (from
2,380 tpy to 1,184 tpy). These reductions represent a 35% reduction in
the statewide emissions of NOX, SO2, and PM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Subsequent to the submission of the New Mexico progress
report SIP, the EPA withdrew the FIP and approved the 2013 RH SIP
revision on October 9, 2014 (79 FR 60985 and 79 FR 60978).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA finds that the progress report SIP adequately reviews the
status of New Mexico's BART source. It identifies the controls to be
applied; outlines the compliance timeframe for those controls; and
shows potential reduction in visibility-impairing pollutants with
future BART implementation.
2. SO2 Milestone and Backstop Trading Program
The progress report SIP discusses the SO2 Milestone and
Backstop Trading Program \19\ as a control measure. New Mexico has
participated in this voluntary program since December 31, 2003. New
Mexico must submit an annual report that compares tracked stationary
source SO2 emissions to yearly milestones. A milestone is an
established maximum level of annual emissions for a given year (from
2003 to 2018). The milestones help establish annual SO2
emission reduction targets. The annual targets represent RPGs in
reducing visibility-impairing emissions. If states fail to meet the
milestones, then the backstop-trading program is triggered to implement
an emissions cap. The cap allocates emission allowances (or credits) to
the affected sources based on the cap, and requires the sources to hold
sufficient allowances to cover their emissions each year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Under Section 309 of the Federal Regional Haze Rule, nine
western states and tribes within those states have the option of
submitting plans to reduce regional haze emissions that impair
visibility at 16 Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau. Five
states--Arizona, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming--and
Albuquerque-Bernalillo County initially exercised this option by
submitting plans to the EPA by December 31, 2003. Oregon elected to
cease participation in the program in 2006 and Arizona elected to
cease participation in 2010. The tribes were not subject to the
deadline and still can opt into the program at any time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appendix B of the progress report SIP includes the 2011 Regional
SO2 Emissions and Milestone Report. The 2011 milestone is
200,722 tons SO2, which represents the average regional
emissions milestone for the years 2009, 2010, and 2011. The average of
2009, 2010, and 2011 adjusted emissions was determined to be 130,935
tons SO2. New Mexico and participating States have met the
200,722 tons SO2 milestone. Emissions were about 35% below
the 2011 three-State regional milestone.
3. Agricultural and Forestry Smoke Management Techniques \20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ The EPA approved 20.2.65 NMAC, Smoke Management and 20.2.60
NMAC Open Burning, on November 27, 2012 (77 FR 70693) in the same
action approving the 2011 New Mexico RH SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The progress report SIP affirms that New Mexico developed a state
Smoke Management Plan (SMP) to be used as a control measure. The EPA
previously approved smoke management rules into the SIP in 2012, which
protect the health and welfare of New Mexicans from the impacts of
smoke from all sources of fire.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Several WRAP policies developed by the GCVTC were used to
guide the development of the New Mexico SMP program: The WRAP Policy
for Characterizing Fire Emissions shows a methodology to categorize
fire emissions as either natural or anthropogenic. The WRAP Policy
on Enhanced Smoke Management Programs for Visibility identifies and
enhanced SMP to address visibility effects from all types of fire
that contribute to visibility impairment in mandatory Federal Class
I areas. The WRAP Policy on Annual Emissions Goals for Fire outlines
a process by which states/tribes may establish annual emission
goals, based on the utilization of currently available emission
reduction techniques, to include in their RH SIPs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Additional Controls--State Air Regulations: NSR and PSD
The progress report affirms that New Mexico continues to implement
the State's NSR program and asserts that state regulations are up to
date with 40 CFR 51.166. NSR applies to all construction permitting for
new stationary sources under the CAA, for attainment or non-attainment
areas.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ The NSR program is established by 20.2.72 NMAC. https://164.64.110.239/nmac/parts/title20/20.002.0072.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Likewise, New Mexico implements the State's PSD program, as has
been the case since 1982. PSD is the NSR program for new major \23\
stationary sources and major modifications in attainment areas. The
program minimizes new pollution and utilizes best available control
technology (BACT) to reduce visibility-impairing pollutants and prevent
deterioration of Class I areas.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ ``Major'' means emitting or having the potential to emit
100 tpy or more of any criteria pollutant for the specific source
categories listed in the PSD regulations. There are 28 listed source
categories, which include power plants that use steam to generate
electricity, petroleum refineries and glass fiber processing plants.
If a plant does not fall into one of the listed source categories,
then a threshold of 250 tpy applies. BART addresses certain sources
that have the potential to emit 250 tpy or more of a single
visibility-impairing pollutant.
\24\ The most recent approval of New Mexico's PSD program was on
12/11/2013 (see 78 FR 75253). PSD is established by 20.2.74 NMAC.
https://164.64.110.239/nmac/parts/title20/20.002.0074.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Both PSD and BART protect Class I area visibility in the same way.
BART and PSD are complementary programs aimed at regulating the same
source categories; either one or the other applies depending upon when
the source was constructed. PSD was adopted in 1977 for all new major
sources. BART is applied to pre-PSD, to address visibility impacts from
existing major sources built 1962 to 1977. BART only addresses
visibility, whereas PSD addresses NAAQS, increment consumption, and
visibility.
5. Summary of Control Strategy Implementation
The EPA proposes to conclude that New Mexico adequately addressed
the status of control measures in its progress report RH SIP as
required by the provisions under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(A). All major
control measures (including BART) were identified and the emission
reduction strategy behind each control was explained. New Mexico
included a summary of the implementation status associated with each
control measure and quantified the benefits where possible. In
addition, the progress report SIP adequately outlined the compliance
timeframe for all controls.
B. Emissions Reductions From Control Strategies
40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(B) requires a summary of the emission
reductions achieved throughout the State through implementation of
control measures mentioned in 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(A). The progress
report must identify and estimate emissions reductions to date in
visibility-impairing pollutants from the SIP control measures
identified for implementation.
New Mexico reported in figure 3.6 of the progress report SIP that
NOX, SO2, and PM point source emissions decreased
in New Mexico from 2008 to 2012. Approximated NO2 emissions
reduced from 63,000 tpy to 44,000 tpy, constituting an emission
reduction of about 30%. Approximated SO2 emissions reduced
from 26,000 tpy to 15,000 tpy, constituting an emission reduction of
about 42%. As compared to NO2 and SO2, PM
emissions represent a small part of the State's emissions inventories,
and PM reductions are not especially pronounced. Figure 3.6 shows that
actual point source emissions for NO2 and SO2
decreased below the WRAP's projected 2018 point-source emissions that
helped establish New Mexico's RPGs for the first planning period. In
reviewing the point source data, the EPA compared it to that reported
by the Clean Air Markets Division (CAMD) and found that the
[[Page 67686]]
reported emissions were consistent with that data.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ See the Technical Support Document (TSD), ``Evaluation of
State Emission Trends Analysis,'' a copy of which is posted in the
docket for this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Mexico explained that the most significant decrease in
emissions since the RH SIP revision in June 2011 has been from
SO2 in accordance with the State's SO2 Milestone
and Backstop Trading Program. SO2 emissions were about 35%
below the 2011 three-state regional milestone.
Part of the observed emission reductions were also the result of
controls installed at SJGS completed in 2009 in response to a 2005
consent decree. Future emission reductions to satisfy BART at SJGS will
also occur during this planning period, resulting in a significant
reduction in total point source emissions in the State. New Mexico
estimated that implementation of the BART controls at SJGS would result
in NOX reduction of approximately 13,000 tons per year (tpy)
(from 21,000 tpy to 8,011 tpy); SO2 reduction of 6,600 tpy
(from 10,500 tpy to 3,843 tpy); and particulate matter (PM) reduction
of 1,200 tpy (from 2,380 tpy to 1,184 tpy). These reductions represent
a 35% reduction in the statewide emissions of NOX,
SO2, and PM. Statewide emissions are significantly below the
2018 projected levels relied upon in the 2011 RH SIP. Therefore, New
Mexico does not expect reasonable progress to be adversely impacted in
any of the Class I areas in New Mexico or neighboring states.
Additional control measures included in the SIP were federal and
state programs (NSR, PSD, and SMP programs). Qualitatively, the
continued implementation of those federal and state measures is
expected to continue to reduce emissions. Deciview and aerosol
extinction maps provided by New Mexico illustrate both a decrease in
magnitude of visibility impairment and relative pollutant contribution
in New Mexico and surrounding states for 2005-2009.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ See Figures 3.1 through 3.5 of progress report SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA proposes to conclude that New Mexico has adequately
summarized the emission reductions achieved throughout the State in its
progress report RH SIP as required under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(B). In
meeting this requirement, the EPA does not expect states to quantify
emission reductions for measures which have not yet been implemented or
for which the compliance date has not yet been reached. However, for
purposes of future progress reports, we recommend that New Mexico
include additional quantitative details on the reductions of each major
specific visibility-impairing pollutant and utilize available CAMD
data, as appropriate.
C. Visibility Progress
40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(C) requires that for each mandatory Class I
Federal area within the State, the State must assess the following
visibility conditions and changes, with values for most impaired and
least impaired days \27\ expressed in terms of five-year averages of
these annual values:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ The ``most impaired days'' and ``least impaired days'' in
the regional haze rule refers to the average visibility impairment
(measured in deciviews) for the 20% of monitored days in a calendar
year with the highest and lowest amount of visibility impairment,
respectively, averaged over a five-year period. See 40 CFR 51.301.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Assess the current visibility conditions for the most impaired
and least impaired days.
2. Analyze the difference between current visibility conditions for
the most impaired and least impaired days and baseline visibility
conditions.
3. Evaluate the change in visibility impairment for the most
impaired and least impaired days over the past five years.
New Mexico provided visibility data for 2000 through 2011 that
addressed the three requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(C) for
Class I areas in New Mexico. Much of the analysis and visibility data
presented in the New Mexico progress report SIP were taken from the RHR
Reasonable Progress Summary Report prepared by the WRAP.
This section requires the report to include deciview values for
three separate periods: Baseline visibility conditions, current
visibility conditions, and visibility conditions of the past five
years. Baseline visibility conditions refer to conditions identified in
initial RH SIPs for the 2000-2004 period. Current visibility conditions
refer to the most recent five-year average data available at the time
the State submitted its progress report. The past five years would be
five years before the year used for current visibility conditions.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ General Principles for the 5-Year Regional Haze Progress
Reports for the Initial Regional Haze State Implementation Plans
(Intended to Assist States and EPA Regional Offices in Development
and Review of the Progress Reports), EPA, April 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Mexico calculated the five-year baseline visibility conditions
for 2000-2004; successive five-year average visibility conditions for
2005-2009; and the most recent visibility conditions for 2007-2011. The
change in baseline and current visibility was compared to the change in
baseline and past five-year visibility.\29\ Both results were tabulated
for the 20% worst and best days and compared to 2018 RPGs.\30\ The most
recent data from 2007-2011 in the progress report SIP were not
addressed. The EPA provided a comparison of the 2007-2011 data in table
2, below, showing that progress, while trending toward further
visibility improvement, was not quite as good as in the 2005-2009
period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ New Mexico also included 2006 to 2010 data, but it was not
included in table 2.
\30\ See Tables 3.3 through 3.20 of the New Mexico progress
report SIP.
Table 2--Visibility Conditions at New Mexico Class I Areas
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Visibility
Visibility Visibility improvement
Baseline 2005-2009 improvement 2007-2011 improvement 2018 RPGs needed over
Class I Area (2000-2004) (dv) over baseline (dv) over baseline (dv) baseline for
(dv) (2005-2009) (2007-2011) 2018 RPGs (dv)
(dv) * (dv) * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20% Worst Days
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bandelier.......................................... 12.2 11.8 0.4 12.0 0.2 11.9 0.3
Bosque del Apache.................................. 13.8 13.4 0.4 13.1 0.7 13.59 0.21
Gila Wilderness.................................... 13.1 12.5 0.6 11.3 1.8 12.99 0.11
Carlsbad Caverns................................... 17.2 15.9 1.3 15.3 1.9 16.93 0.27
Salt Creek......................................... 18.0 17.5 0.5 17.3 0.7 17.33 0.67
San Pedro Parks.................................... 10.2 9.9 0.3 10.1 0.1 9.8 0.4
Wheeler Peak....................................... 10.4 9.1 1.3 9.6 0.8 10.23 0.17
[[Page 67687]]
White Mountain..................................... 13.7 13.2 0.5 13.9 -0.2 13.27 0.43
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20% Best Days
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bandelier.......................................... 5.0 4.2 0.8 3.9 1.1 4.89 0.11
Bosque del Apache.................................. 6.3 5.8 0.5 5.5 0.8 6.1 0.2
Gila Wilderness.................................... 3.3 2.7 0.6 2.4 0.9 3.2 0.1
Carlsbad Caverns................................... 5.9 5.4 0.5 4.9 1.0 6.14
Salt Creek......................................... 7.8 7.3 0.5 6.9 0.9 7.43 0.37
San Pedro Parks.................................... 1.5 1.0 0.5 1.0 0.5 1.2 0.3
Wheeler Peak....................................... 1.2 0.9 0.3 0.9 0.3 1.13 0.07
White Mountain..................................... 3.6 3.3 0.3 3.3 0.3 3.42 0.18
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Negative Visibility Improvement means an increase above the baseline values, indicating that visibility has worsened.
All Class I areas show visibility improvement over the baseline
through the first progress period (2005-2009). In addition, all Class I
sites were below the 2018 RPGs for the first progress period except for
San Pedro Parks and Salt Creek. The five-year average deciview trends
for 2007-2011 progress period achieved visibility improvement for all
Class I areas except White Mountain, which got slightly worse by 0.2
dv. All but three sites met the 2018 RPGs during the 2007-2011 period.
The EPA proposes to conclude that New Mexico has adequately
addressed the requirements under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(C) to include
summaries of monitored visibility data as required by the Regional Haze
Rule. For purposes of improved clarity on future reports, the EPA
recommends that New Mexico include a graph of rolling averages similar
to what was provided in the guidance example,\31\ illustrating the
uniform glide path. The glide path graphically shows what would be a
uniform rate of progress, toward meeting the national goal of a return
to natural visibility conditions by 2064 for each Class I area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ See page 10 of General Principles for the 5-Year Regional
Haze Progress Reports for the Initial Regional Haze State
Implementation Plans (Intended to Assist States and EPA Regional
Offices in Development and Review of the Progress Reports) April
2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Emissions Progress
40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(D) requires an analysis tracking the change
over the past five years in emissions of pollutants contributing to
visibility impairment from all sources and activities within the State.
Emission changes should be identified by type of source or activity.
The analysis must be based on the most recent updated emissions
inventory, with estimates projected forward as necessary and
appropriate, to account for emissions changes during the applicable
five-year period. The EPA evaluated New Mexico's analysis and more
detail is provided in the Technical Support Document for this action.
The EPA proposes to conclude that New Mexico has adequately
addressed the requirements under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(D) to track
changes in emissions of pollutants contributing to visibility
impairment from all sources and activities within the State. The
analysis in this progress report was based on appropriate available
data with sufficient forward projections.
E. Assessment of Changes Impeding Visibility Progress
40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(E) requires an assessment of any
significant changes in anthropogenic emissions within or outside the
State that have occurred over the past five years that have limited or
impeded progress in reducing pollutant emissions and improving
visibility in Class I areas impacted by the State's sources.
New Mexico stated in the progress report SIP that there does not
appear to be any anthropogenic emissions within New Mexico that would
have limited or impeded progress in reducing pollutant emissions or
improving visibility. New Mexico stated that SO2 and PM were
the major visibility-impairing concerns on the 20% worst days.
Stationary point sources were the greatest contributor of
SO2 while fire, including natural and anthropogenic, was the
greatest PM contributor. Both of these pollutants were covered by long-
term control measures described in the progress report SIP (BART, SMP,
and SO2 Milestone and Backstop Trading Program). Other
states relied on WRAP modeling to show reasonable progress at their
Class I areas. With the BART determination of a two-unit shut down and
two-unit SNCR installation for the SJGS, New Mexico will be exceeding
the modeled levels relied on by WRAP for regional haze. Therefore, New
Mexico is not impeding other states in meeting their RPGs, and is
decreasing visibility-impairing pollutants more than was anticipated in
the WRAP modeling for NOX, SO2 and PM.
The EPA proposes to find that New Mexico has adequately addressed
the requirements under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(E) to show that the
major contributors of anthropogenic emissions are being reduced and
visibility is improving at a uniform rate without having limited or
impeded progress.
F. Assessment of Current Strategy To Meet RPGs
40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(F) calls for an assessment of whether the
current implementation plan elements and strategies in the RH SIP are
sufficient to enable the State, or other states with mandatory Federal
Class I areas affected by emissions from the State, to meet all
established RPGs.
New Mexico stated in the progress report SIP that the elements and
strategies outlined in its RH SIP are sufficient to enable New Mexico
and other neighboring states to meet all the established RPGs. To
support this conclusion, New Mexico referenced visibility data \32\
that showed five-year average deciview trends for the 20% worst and
best days for the baseline period (2000-2004); subsequent five-
[[Page 67688]]
year visibility conditions (2005-2009); and the most recent five-year
visibility conditions (2007-2011). All Class I areas indicated
visibility improvement over the baseline through the first progress
period. All but two Class I areas were below the RPGs for the first
progress period based on 2005-2009 data. The five-year average deciview
trend for the most recent period (2007-2011) achieved visibility
improvement for all Class I areas except White Mountain, which got
slightly worse by 0.2 dv. All but three sites met the 2018 RPGs based
on 2007-2011 data: The data supports an inference that 2007-2011
visibility conditions at White Mountain are higher due to elevated
course mass levels in 2011 compared to baseline levels. The 2007-2011
visibility conditions at Bandelier and San Pedro parks were high,
apparently due to elevated organic mass levels in 2011 from impacts of
fires.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ In Appendix C of Regional Haze Progress Report SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although three Class I sites were not tracking the RPGs at the time
of the progress report, New Mexico expects further reduction of
SO2 and NO2 emissions, not accounted for in the
original RH SIP, principally from the implementation of BART controls.
These added control measures should contribute toward Bandelier, San
Pedro, and White Mountain achieving the RPGs for 2018. Further progress
will also occur through recently adopted or proposed regulatory
programs. The EPA notes that visibility conditions at these sites in
some years can be impacted more significantly by natural sources of
wind-blown dust and/or fires than other years and considers this
relevant when evaluating progress toward the natural visibility goals.
The EPA proposes to conclude that New Mexico has adequately
addressed the requirements under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(F). The EPA
views the requirement of this section as a qualitative assessment that
should evaluate emissions and visibility trends, including expected
emissions reductions from measures that have not yet become effective.
New Mexico referenced the improving visibility trends with
appropriately supported data with a focus on future implementation of
BART controls.
G. Review of Visibility Monitoring Strategy
40 CFR 51.309(10)(i)(G) requires a review of the State's visibility
monitoring strategy and any modifications to the strategy as necessary.
The monitoring strategy for regional haze in New Mexico relies upon
participation in the IMPROVE \33\ network, which is the primary
monitoring network for regional haze nationwide. The IMPROVE network
provides a long-term record for tracking visibility improvement or
degradation. New Mexico currently relies on data collected through the
IMPROVE network to satisfy the regional haze monitoring requirement as
specified in the Regional Haze Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ Data from IMPROVE show that visibility impairment caused by
air pollution occurs virtually all the time at most national parks
and wilderness areas. The average visual range in many Class I areas
(i.e., national parks and memorial parks, wilderness areas, and
international parks meeting certain size criteria) in the western
United States is 100-150 kilometers, or about one-half to two-thirds
of the visual range that would exist without anthropogenic air
pollution. In most of the eastern Class I areas of the United
States, the average visual range is less than 30 kilometers, or
about one-fifth of the visual range that would exist under estimated
natural conditions. 64 FR 35715 (July 1, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its progress report SIP, New Mexico summarizes the existing
IMPROVE monitoring network: Seven monitoring sites in New Mexico and
one in Texas (utilized for Carlsbad Caverns National Park). New Mexico
stated that IMPROVE monitoring data served as the baseline for the
regional haze program and that future regional haze monitoring strategy
must be based on, or directly comparable to the current IMPROVE
network. New Mexico concluded that the existing network is adequate and
modifications to the visibility monitoring strategy are not necessary
at this time.
The EPA proposes to conclude that New Mexico has adequately
addressed the sufficiency of its monitoring strategy as required by the
provisions under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(G). New Mexico reaffirmed its
continued reliance upon the IMPROVE monitoring network. New Mexico also
explained the importance of the IMPROVE monitoring network for tracking
visibility trends at its Class I areas and identified no expected
changes in this network.
H. Determination of Adequacy
Under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(ii), states are required to submit, at
the same time as the progress report SIP, a determination of the
adequacy of their existing RH SIP and to take one of four possible
actions based on information in the progress report. 40 CFR
51.309(d)(10)(ii) requires states to take one of the following actions:
(1) Submit a negative declaration to the EPA that no further
substantive revision to the State's existing RH SIP is needed.
(2) If the State determines that the implementation plan is or may
be inadequate to ensure reasonable progress due to emissions from
sources in another state(s) which participated in a regional planning
process, the State must provide notification to the EPA and to the
other state(s) which participated in the regional planning process with
the states. The State must also collaborate with the other state(s)
through the regional planning process for developing additional
strategies to address the plan's deficiencies.
(3) Where the State determines that the implementation plan is or
may be inadequate to ensure reasonable progress due to emissions from
sources in another country, the State shall provide notification, along
with available information, to the Administrator.
(4) If the State determines that the implementation plan is or may
be inadequate to ensure reasonable progress due to emissions from
sources within the State, then the State shall revise its
implementation plan to address the plan's deficiencies within one year.
The State of New Mexico has provided the information required under
40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i) in the five-year progress report. Based upon
this information, New Mexico states in its progress report SIP that it
believes that the current Section 309 and 309(g) RH SIPs are adequate
to meet the State's 2018 RPGs and require no further revision at this
time. Thus, the EPA has received a negative declaration from New
Mexico.
V. The EPA's Proposed Action
The EPA is proposing to approve New Mexico's regional haze five-
year progress report SIP revision (submitted on March 11, 2014) as
meeting the applicable regional haze requirements set forth in 40 CFR
51.309(d)(10). The EPA is proposing to approve New Mexico's
determination that the current RH SIP is adequate to meet the State's
2018 RPGs.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
[[Page 67689]]
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the proposed rule does not have tribal implications and will
not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt
tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November
9, 2000). This action does have tribal implications in non-reservation
areas of Indian country within the state. However, it will neither
impose substantial direct compliance costs on federally recognized
tribal governments, nor preempt tribal law. The EPA is coordinating
with tribes regarding this matter.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Best Available
Retrofit Technology, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen oxides, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Regional haze, Sulfur dioxide, Visibility,
Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: October 23, 2015.
Samuel Coleman,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2015-28007 Filed 11-2-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
