Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; New Mexico; Regional Haze Progress Report State Implementation Plan, 27127-27133 [2017-12208]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 113 / Wednesday, June 14, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
This action is subject to the CRA, and
the EPA will submit a rule report to
each House of the Congress and to the
Comptroller General of the United
States. This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
L. Petitions for Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean
Air Act, petitions for judicial review of
this action must be filed in the United
States Court of Appeals for the
appropriate circuit by August 14, 2017.
Filing a petition for reconsideration by
the Administrator of this final rule does
not affect the finality of this rule for the
purposes of judicial review nor does it
extend the time within which a petition
for judicial review may be filed, and
shall not postpone the effectiveness of
such rule or action. This action may not
be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements (see section
307(b)(2)).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
New source review, Ozone, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic
compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: May 19, 2017.
Alexis Strauss,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
PART 52—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart F—California
2. Section 52.220 is amended by
adding paragraphs (b)(14)(ii),
(c)(279)(i)(A)(15) and (16), and
(c)(442)(i)(A)(4) to read as follows:
■
Identification of plan-in part.
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(14) * * *
(ii) Previously approved on May 31,
1972 in paragraph (b)(14) of this section
and now deleted with replacement in
paragraph (c)(351)(i)(A)(4) of this
section, Rule 103.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(279) * * *
(i) * * *
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:55 Jun 13, 2017
Jkt 241001
[FR Doc. 2017–12235 Filed 6–13–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R06–OAR–2014–0237; FRL–9962–75Region 6]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; New Mexico;
Regional Haze Progress Report State
Implementation Plan
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
Pursuant to the Federal Clean
Air Act (CAA or the Act), the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
is approving a revision to a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by
the State of New Mexico on March 14,
2014. New Mexico’s SIP revision
addresses requirements of the Act and
the EPA’s rules that require New Mexico
to submit a periodic report assessing
progress toward the reasonable progress
goals (RPGs) for mandatory Class I
Federal areas in and outside New
Mexico with a determination of the
adequacy of the State’s existing regional
haze SIP.
DATES: This rule is effective on July 14,
2017.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA–R06–OAR–2014–0237. All
documents in the docket are listed at the
https://www.regulations.gov Web site.
Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available,
e.g., Confidential Business Information
or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material,
is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy
SUMMARY:
Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code
of Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:
§ 52.220
(A) * * *
(15) Rule 204, ‘‘Applications,’’ revised
on September 14, 1999.
(16) Previously approved on January
3, 2007 in paragraph (c)(279)(i)(A)(14) of
this section and now deleted with
replacement in paragraph
(c)(442)(i)(A)(4) of this section, Rule
206.
*
*
*
*
*
(442) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) * * *
(4) Rule 206, ‘‘Processing of
Applications,’’ revised on October 22,
2013.
*
*
*
*
*
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
27127
form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either
electronically through https://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
James E. Grady, (214) 665–6745;
grady.james@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’
or ‘‘our’’ each mean ‘‘the EPA.’’
I. Background
The background for this action is
discussed in detail in the EPA’s
November 3, 2015 proposal.1 In that
document, the EPA proposed to approve
New Mexico’s regional haze progress
report SIP revision (submitted on March
14, 2014) as meeting the applicable
regional haze requirements set forth in
40 CFR 51.309(d)(10). In addition, the
EPA proposed to approve New Mexico’s
determination that the current regional
haze SIP is adequate to meet the State’s
RPGs for the first planning period and
requires no further substantive revision
to achieve established goals for visibility
improvement and emission reductions.
The proposal and the accompanying
technical support document (TSD)
provide detailed descriptions of New
Mexico’s SIP revision and the rationale
for the EPA’s proposed approval of the
State’s submittal. Please see the docket
for these and other documents regarding
the proposal.
The public comment period for the
proposal closed on December 3, 2015.
The EPA received one set of comments
in a letter dated December 3, 2015, from
the National Parks Conservation
Association and the San Juan Citizens
Alliance regarding the EPA’s proposal.
The comment letter is included in the
publicly posted docket associated with
this action at https://
www.regulations.gov. Below, the EPA
provides a summary of the comments
received and corresponding responses.
After careful consideration of the
comments and the information
provided, the EPA is approving the
progress report, as proposed.
II. Response to Comments
Comment: The commenter noted that
New Mexico’s progress report indicated
that the State is no longer implementing
its State Mobile Source Regulation but
is relying on federal programs that will
achieve the same reductions. The
commenter argued that the progress
report does not meet 40 CFR
51.309(d)(10)(i)(A) because it was not
clear about the start date of the State’s
1 See
E:\FR\FM\14JNR1.SGM
80 FR 67682.
14JNR1
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES
27128
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 113 / Wednesday, June 14, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
reliance on federal programs for mobile
source reduction or the impact that a
delayed start had on visibility.
Response: The comment does not
demonstrate a failure to meet
§ 51.309(d)(10)(i)(A). This element
requires a description of the status of
implementation of all control measures
included in the regional haze SIP for
achieving RPGs for Class I areas both
within and outside the State. As
discussed in the proposal, New Mexico
stated in the progress report that it is
implementing all long-term control
strategies with the exception of the
formerly adopted, and now repealed,
State Mobile Source Regulation. The
State Mobile Source Regulation, when
adopted in 2007, would have applied
the California motor vehicle standards
within New Mexico. We do not agree
that the provided details for
§ 51.309(d)(10)(i)(A) are lacking or
inadequate. Section 51.309(d)(10)(i)(A)
requires only a description of the status
of the implementation of the measures
in the regional haze SIP, not an
assessment of the effect of the
implementation or failure to implement
each specific measure. New Mexico’s
reliance on the federal program is
unlikely to have a significant impact on
visibility. At the time the regulation was
adopted by New Mexico, the California
standards were projected to
substantially differ from federal motor
vehicle emissions standards. Since that
time, as the progress report notes, the
California and federal programs for
emissions standards for motor vehicles
are more aligned with each other than
was expected by New Mexico when it
adopted the State Mobile Source
Regulation.2
Comment: The progress report does
not meet 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(A)
because it was not clear whether certain
Western Regional Air Partnership
(WRAP) policies, including the WRAP
Policy on Enhanced Smoke
Management Programs for Visibility and
the WRAP Policy on Annual Emissions
Goals for Fire, were incorporated into
the State’s Smoke Management Plan
(SMP) and are being implemented.
Response: Consistent with the
recommendation of the Grand Canyon
Visibility Transport Commission, the
regional haze program under 40 CFR
part 309 brings special attentiveness to
smoke management. New Mexico
adopted a revision to the New Mexico
2 For
example, in 2009, the EPA and the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
proposed ‘‘regulatory convergence’’ with California
on motor vehicle fuel economy standards. See 74
FR 49454 (September 28, 2009). This was
subsequently adopted, starting with model years
2012–2016. 75 FR 25323 (May 7, 2010).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:55 Jun 13, 2017
Jkt 241001
Administrative Code (NMAC)
addressing smoke management to meet
these regional haze rule requirements.
The EPA previously approved New
Mexico’s regional haze SIP in 2012 as
meeting the requirements of 40 CFR
51.309(d)(6), which deals with
implementation plan requirements
related to fire.3 In doing so, the EPA
noted that the SMP operating within
New Mexico was consistent with the
WRAP Policy on Enhanced Smoke
Management Programs for Visibility and
the Wrap Policy on Annual Emissions
Goals for Fire, both of which were
appendices to the approved Regional
Haze SIP.4 The progress report stated
that New Mexico, aside from its update
regarding State Mobile Source
Regulation, is implementing the longterm strategies adopted into the regional
haze SIP. This sufficiently indicates the
status of implementation for the State’s
SMP. Therefore, we disagree that the
progress report’s discussion of the
State’s SMP failed to meet the
requirements of 40 CFR
51.309(d)(1)(i)(A).
Comment: The progress report does
not meet 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(B)
because it did not include any
information about emission reductions
provided by the State’s SMP. Annual
emissions related to fire and estimated
benefits should be readily available.
Response: We do not agree with the
assertion that the progress report fails to
meet the requirements of 40 CFR
51.309(d)(10)(i)(B). While this provision
requires a summary of the emission
reductions achieved in the State through
the implementation of the measures in
its regional haze SIP, nothing in this
provision requires the State to include
estimates in its progress report of the
emission reductions achieved by
specific measures. Namely, there is no
requirement for a detailed, causal
analysis that pinpoints or links certain
emission reductions to actual regional
haze SIP measures. It is acceptable for
the State to provide a summary of
overall emission changes, rather than an
analysis that attributes particular
emission reductions from specific
sources to certain measures in the plan,
mainly when such a higher level
summary does not indicate any problem
with the direction and magnitude of
these overall changes. We address in the
response to a later comment the
adequacy of the State’s summary of
overall emissions.
Additionally, the comment
misperceives the basis for inclusion of
3 See 77 FR 70693 (November 27,2012)
(approving 20.2.65 NMAC (Smoke Management)).
4 See 77 FR 36065.
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
the SMP in the SIP. The visibility goal
announced in section 169A of the CAA
is both to prevent future impairment as
well as remedy existing impairment.
Regional haze SIPs accordingly may
include programs to avert increases in
emissions. The SMP is generally
designed to limit increases in emissions,
rather than to reduce existing emissions.
As such, there would be little purpose
for the State to try to estimate the
specific emission reductions achieved
through implementation of the
program.5
Comment: The progress report does
not meet 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(B)
because there were no estimates of
reductions by the new source review
(NSR) and prevention of significant
deterioration (PSD) programs. The
progress report did not indicate what
emissions were avoided or allowed by
the implementation of these programs.
Response: As explained above,
nothing in 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(B)
requires the State to include estimates
in its progress report of the emission
reductions achieved by specific
measures included in the regional haze
SIP.
Additionally, although the regional
haze SIP also cited the PSD and NSR
programs, the primary benefit from
these programs is to limit emission
increases rather than precisely working
to achieve reductions in existing
emissions. Given this, there would be
little purpose for New Mexico to try to
estimate the specific emission
reductions achieved through the
implementation of these programs.
Comment: The progress report does
not meet 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(B)
because point source data for sources
reporting to the Clean Air Markets
Database should be included.
Response: This comment does not
identify a basis to disapprove the SIP
revision. Source-specific information on
all electric generating units (the sources
reporting to the Clean Air Markets
Database) is not required in
summarizing the emission reductions in
the progress report. The submitted
progress report provided detailed
information on anticipated emission
reductions at the San Juan Generating
Station (SJGS). This facility is the largest
point source in the State and the most
significant New Mexico emission source
in the Clean Air Markets Database. More
5 Consistent with these points, as reported on
New Mexico’s Smoke Management Program Web
site, a fire emissions summary for 2005–2016 shows
no appreciable increases in SMP-regulated
emissions. See New Mexico 2017 Annual Smoke
Management Meeting Presentation, available at
https://www.env.nm.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/
01/2016_Fire_Emissions.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\14JNR1.SGM
14JNR1
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 113 / Wednesday, June 14, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
importantly, it is the only electric
generating unit with definite emission
limits in the New Mexico regional haze
SIP. The progress report provided
statewide point source emission data
from 2008–2012 and compared it to the
2018 projected emission levels.6 While
additional information from the Clean
Air Markets Database regarding
emissions from other electric generating
units may be useful, it is not essential
for the approval of the submitted
progress report. As noted in the
proposal, we compared the point source
data in the progress report to that
reported by the Clean Air Markets
Database and found that the reported
emissions were consistent with that
data.
Comment: The progress report does
not meet 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(B)
because the inventories did not address
all haze-related pollutants. Emission
inventories specific to particulate
organic matter, coarse mass, ammonia
(NH3), and volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) should be included.
Response: 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(B)
requires a summary of the emission
reductions achieved throughout the
State through implementation of the
control measures mentioned in 40 CFR
51.309(d)(10)(i)(A). Because this
provision does not call for a summary
of all pollutants that could contribute to
visibility impairment, we do not agree
that the progress report is inadequate.
The initial regional haze SIP focused on
reducing emissions of sulfur dioxide
(SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOX), and
particulate matter (PM) emissions, and
New Mexico’s progress report
summarized the changes in emissions in
these pollutants from 2008–2012. Even
if no information on other pollutants
was included in the progress report, we
would consider it reasonable and
sufficient if New Mexico’s progress
report only provided a summary of
emission reductions for these
pollutants.
New Mexico’s progress report,
however, also provided information on
other visibility-impairing pollutants.
Section 3.5 of the progress report
discussed New Mexico’s baseline
emissions inventory for 2002 and an
estimated emissions inventory for 2008.
The 2002 inventory was developed by
the WRAP for use in the initial WRAP
regional haze SIP strategy development.
The 2008 inventory was based on
WRAP inventory work for the Westwide Jumpstart Air Quality Modeling
Study (WestJumpAQMS) and the
6 See
Figure 3.6 of Progress Report for the State
Implementation Plan for Regional Haze, March 11,
2014.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:55 Jun 13, 2017
Jkt 241001
Deterministic & Empirical Assessment
of Smoke’s Contribution to Ozone
(DEASCO3) modeling project efforts.
The pollutants inventoried were SO2,
NOX, NH3, VOCs, primary organic
aerosol (POA), elemental carbon (EC),
fine soil, and coarse mass. The
inventories were categorized for all
major visibility-impairing pollutants
under major source groupings either as
anthropogenic or natural. The
anthropogenic source categorization
included point and area sources, on and
off-road mobile sources, area oil and
gas, fugitive and road dust, and
anthropogenic fire. The natural source
categorization included natural fire,
wind-blown dust, and biogenic sources.
Comment: The progress report
presented information on visibility
levels within section 3.3 of the progress
report, which is titled as addressing the
requirement of 40 CFR
51.309(d)(10)(i)(B). The commenter does
not consider this presentation as
satisfying the requirement of 40 CFR
51.309(d)(10)(i)(B) concerning emissions
because the progress report failed to
explain how much of the monitored
improvements in visibility impairment
were the result of emission reductions
from control measures in the New
Mexico SIP or from factors outside of
the SIP. Furthermore, the trends
outlined in section 3.5 were seven years
out of date.
Response: We agree with the
commenter that information on
visibility levels is not an adequate
substitute for the summary of emissions
that is specifically required by
§ 51.309(d)(10)(i)(B). However, we are
not basing our approval of the progress
report as meeting the requirements of 40
CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(B) on the
information on visibility levels
presented in section 3.3 of the progress
report. The summary of emissions
requirement is satisfied for the reasons
explained in our earlier responses.
Comment: The goal of the progress
report is to document progress and
changes over the past five years and to
make informed decisions on that basis.
To meet the requirements of 40 CFR
51.309(d)(10)(i)(C), the progress report
should include information that
describes the preceding five-year period
as closely as possible. The progress
report discussed the 2005–2009 period.
Although information from 2007–2011
was included, the EPA should require
the use of the most recent data available.
Response: Although New Mexico
used 2005–2009 data to estimate current
conditions, it also included additional
IMPROVE data in its progress report.
The 2007–2011 visibility information
was specifically included in Tables 3.3–
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
27129
3.18 of the progress report. We do not
agree that the information was not
addressed such that the requirements of
the section were not met. Because the
progress report was not submitted until
March 14, 2014, however, there was an
understandable lag between its drafting,
its adoption, and submission. We do not
consider the non-inclusion of visibility
data more recent than 2011 to be a basis
for disapproval. Visibility data for all
Class I areas through 2013 were
available to the public as of the date of
the commenter’s letter via the IMPROVE
program’s Web site, and the commenter
did not argue that the more recent data
supports disapproval of the progress
report.
Comment: The progress report does
not meet 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(D)
because it did not use the most up-todate emissions information nor provide
sufficient forward projections.
Response: Section 3.8 of the progress
report contains a detailed analysis of
2008 emissions from all source types. In
addition, Figure 3.6 of the SIP revision
presents SO2 and NOX point source
emission data for 2008–2012. The year
2012 was the most recent emission
information covering all types of point
sources available at the time of the
progress report’s development. The
progress report does not include any
emissions information for non-point
sources for any year more recent than
2008. However, we note that the 2011
National Emissions Inventory (NEI)
Version 1.01 was published by the EPA
in July 2013,7 only about 8 months
before the State submitted the progress
report. In light of this, we consider the
progress report to adequately meet the
requirement of 40 CFR
51.309(d)(10)(i)(D), which calls for an
analysis tracking the changes ‘‘over the
past 5 years’’ in emissions from ‘‘all
sources’’ based on ‘‘the most recent
updated emissions inventory.’’
Regarding the issue of projected
inventories, § 51.309(d)(10)(i)(D) states
that emission estimates must be
projected forward as necessary and
appropriate to account for emissions
changes during ‘‘the applicable 5-year
period.’’ This phrase is meant to refer to
‘‘the past 5 years,’’ a phrase that itself
is not clearly defined in the rule. The
progress report was required to be
submitted in 2013 and was submitted in
February 2014. Thus, a projection for
point sources would at most have
included estimates for 2013. In light of
this, we do not believe that a projection
7 Profile of the 2011 National Air Emissions
Inventory, April 2014, https://www.epa.gov/sites/
production/files/2015-08/documents/lite_
finalversion_ver10.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\14JNR1.SGM
14JNR1
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES
27130
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 113 / Wednesday, June 14, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
for point sources beyond 2012 is
necessary. With regard to non-point
sources, a projection could have
addressed projected-emissions several
years beyond the 2008 information
presented in the progress report;
however, the SIP focuses primarily on
the control of point source emissions.
With respect to changes in fire-related
emissions, projections would inherently
be highly uncertain in any case.
Consequently, we do not believe that
projections of non-point source
emissions beyond 2008 were needed in
the progress report.
Comment: The progress report does
not meet 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(E)
because it drew an unsupported
conclusion that no anthropogenic
emissions within New Mexico limited
or impeded progress in reducing
pollutant emissions or improving
visibility. For example, White Mountain
had visibility degradation.
Response: We disagree with the
comment. 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. In its progress report, New
Mexico concluded that no such changes
had occurred. The proposal noted that
there have been significant reductions
in emissions of SO2 and NOX from point
sources within the State. Also, the State
has relied on the history of visibility
levels at affected Class I areas to assess
whether there have been changes in
emissions that limit or impede progress.
While we do not consider information
on visibility levels to be a substitute for
the required summary of emissions that
is exactly required by
§ 51.309(d)(10)(i)(B), we consider this
approach to be an acceptable method for
making the assessment of whether there
have been changes in emissions that
limit or impede progress. Overall
visibility at each of the seven Class I
areas in New Mexico had improved
since the baseline period, with the
exception of visibility at the White
Mountain Wilderness Area for the most
recent period. Specifically, for White
Mountain, the five-year average
deciview trend for the 2007–2011
period showed slightly worse visibility
(0.2 dv higher) for the 20% worst days,
as compared to average conditions for
2000–2004. The commenter relied on
this degradation in visibility at White
Mountain to support its argument that
anthropogenic emissions within New
Mexico have limited progress in
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:55 Jun 13, 2017
Jkt 241001
improving visibility. The slight
visibility degradation at White
Mountain, however, was the result of
elevated coarse mass levels from nonanthropogenic sources in 2011
compared to baseline levels.8 Overall
SO2 and NOX emissions in New Mexico
have actually been going down, or are
at least stable. The proposal also
indicated that White Mountain showed
a 0.3 dv improvement in visibility on
the 20% best days.9
Comment: The progress report does
not meet 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(E)
because it failed to address
anthropogenic emissions outside of New
Mexico that may have limited or
impeded progress in visibility
improvement.
Response: The progress report is
required to assess significant changes
outside the State that have limited or
impeded progress, as specified by
§ 51.309(d)(10)(i)(E). As in the case of
assessing in-state emissions, we believe
it was acceptable for the State to use
trends in visibility levels to make this
assessment. Visibility conditions at the
Class I areas are improving, as discussed
in response to the comment above, and
there do not appear to be significant
changes that would call for explicit
discussion. We also note that the State’s
Regional Haze SIP and its participation
in the section 309 program addressed
anthropogenic emissions from outside
of the borders that limit or impede
visibility improvement.
Comment: The progress report does
not meet 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(F)
because it cited 2000–2010 visibility
monitoring data to conclude that New
Mexico’s approach was sufficient to
meet the RPGs. The progress report
offers little support to show that
visibility is causally linked to New
Mexico’s SIP measures rather than to
changes in natural or out-of-state
sources. The EPA should require
quantitative evidence to show the link
between visibility benefits and the SIP
measures.
Response: We view the requirement of
this section as a qualitative assessment
that should evaluate emissions and
visibility trends, including expected
emission reductions from measures that
have not yet become effective. Even
though section 3.7 of the progress report
(titled as addressing the requirement of
40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(F)) cited
visibility monitoring data from 2000–
2010, visibility data through 2011 is
presented in other sections of the
progress report. In particular, tables 3.3–
8 See
80 FR 67688.
SIP includes this information in Table 3.17
and Table 3.18.
9 The
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
3.18 presented visibility values of the
20% worst and 20% best days of
periods 2000–2004, 2005–2009, 2006–
2010, and 2001–2011 for each affected
Class I area. Table 2.1 of the progress
report showed the RPGs for each area.
The five-year average deciview values
for the most recent period 2007–2011
indicated visibility improvement for all
Class I areas (relative to 2000–2004
baseline period) except White
Mountain, which was slightly worse by
0.2 dv. It is important to note that White
Mountain visibility improved in the
2005–2009 and 2006–2010 periods
compared to the baseline period 2000–
2004. The data supports the conclusion
that the 2007–2011 visibility conditions
at White Mountain were higher than the
2000–2004 baseline due to elevated
coarse mass levels in 2011 from high
wind events.
The 2007–2011 visibility conditions
at Bandelier and San Pedro parks were
higher than in the intermediate periods,
due to elevated particulate organic
matter levels in 2011 from impacts of
fires, but better than in 2000–2004.
For all the areas, the 2007–2011
visibility levels were better than the
RPGs for the 20% best days. This is also
true for five of the areas for the 20%
worst days. The commenter did not
suggest any particular reasons to expect
that visibility will degrade in these areas
for the best/worst days where it is
already better than the 2018 RPGs.
As noted, three Class I sites were not
yet meeting the 2018 RPGs for the 20%
worst days in 2007–2011. The progress
report explains that in this period White
Mountain was adversely affected by
coarse mass from high wind events, and
San Pedro and Bandelier were affected
by particulate organic matter from
natural and anthropogenic fires. In
2005–2009, these three areas were
below or very close to the 2018 RPGs.
In summary, we conclude that the
State’s visibility assessment is adequate.
Wildfires or dust storms might again
affect visibility in the 2018 timeframe,
but New Mexico expects further
reduction of SO2 and NO2 emissions,
principally from the implementation of
Best Available Retrofit Technology
(BART) controls. These control
measures should contribute toward
improved visibility conditions at all
New Mexico Class I areas, including
Bandelier, San Pedro, and White
Mountain for 2018. Further progress
will also occur through recently adopted
or proposed regulatory programs. The
State was reasonable to rest on these
positive overall visibility trends and
future expectations regarding emission
reductions in determining that the
existing SIP requires no further revision
E:\FR\FM\14JNR1.SGM
14JNR1
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 113 / Wednesday, June 14, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
to achieve established RPGs. New
Mexico demonstrated progress toward
meeting the RPGs and no substantive
revisions to the Regional Haze SIP are
necessary for the first planning period.
We also note that § 51.309(d)(10)(i)(F)
does not impose a requirement for a
demonstration of a causal linkage
between improvements in visibility and
measures in New Mexico’s SIP.
Comment: The progress report does
not meet 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(F)
because it did not offer sufficient
evaluation of the lack-of-progress or
backsliding at Class I areas, like White
Mountain, that indicated degradation in
the 2007–2011 time-period relative to
2005–2009 values. A more detailed
account of visibility issues at these Class
I areas should be required before
concluding that the existing SIP is
adequate.
Response: We disagree with this
comment. Based on the speciation
information in Tables 3.3–3.18, the data
supports the conclusion that dust
storms and/or wildfires are responsible
for the limited cases of degradation in
visibility between 2005–2009 and 2007–
2011, rather than any backsliding on the
control of emissions from anthropogenic
sources.
Comment: According to 40 CFR
51.308(d)(1)(B)(vi), RPGs should reflect
all reductions in the SIP and in any
other CAA requirement. RPGs for Class
I areas impacted by SJGS should be
lower. The EPA should require the
progress report to include a list of Class
I areas impacted by future reductions
from SJGS and clarify that RPGs are
those that would be consistent with that
source’s reductions.
Response: The progress report was
prepared with emphasis on New
Mexico’s improvement in meeting
established RPGs for 2018. There were
no changes to the State’s RPGs in the
progress report nor were there any
submitted for review as any separate SIP
revision. Whether the RPGs should be
lower is not in the scope of the
proposed action. We agree that future
reductions at SJGS will improve
visibility at Class I areas inside and
outside of New Mexico. Having already
approved the RPGs,10 we noted that
with the additional future two-unit shut
down and two-unit selective noncatalytic reduction (SNCR) installation
at the SJGS, New Mexico emissions will
improve on the RPGs in its SIP. New
Mexico is not impeding other states in
meeting analogous RPGs, and the
additional BART controls will decrease
10 The RPGs can be seen in the June 2012
proposed action (77 FR 36044) which was finalized
on November 27, 2012 (77 FR 70693).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:55 Jun 13, 2017
Jkt 241001
visibility-impairing pollutants more
than anticipated from the RPGs based
on the WRAP modeling for NOX, SO2
and PM.
New Mexico does not have a progress
report requirement to list all Class I
areas impacted by future reductions
from the SJGS. However, state and
federal technical records for the BART
determination at SJGS provide
information on this area of interest.
Comment: The commenter requested
that the EPA require revisions to the
progress report to ensure Class I areas in
New Mexico and surrounding states are
on the glide path to achieve natural
visibility conditions by 2064.
Response: In the progress report SIP,
New Mexico was required to assess
whether the SIP was sufficient to meet
the RPGs that were established for the
first ten-year planning period. There is
no requirement for a state to include an
assessment of whether a SIP is sufficient
to ensure that Class I areas (in the State
or those in nearby states) are on track to
meet the uniform rate of progress
(URP).11 The State followed the proper
approach in setting the RPGs through
2018 by considering the URP and the
factors established in section 169A of
the CAA and in the EPA’s Regional
Haze Rule at 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A).
In doing so, the RPGs reflected a slower
rate of progress than the URP for the
first planning period. Those established
RPGs for each Class I area in New
Mexico were approved by the EPA in a
previous action.12 Looking forward,
New Mexico will be required to provide
new updated RPGs for 2028 in the next
comprehensive regional haze SIP
revision planning period.
III. Final Action
The EPA is approving New Mexico’s
regional haze 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).13 The EPA is also
11 The URP is the minimum rate of progress
needed to achieve the CAA goal of natural visibility
conditions within sixty years (to 2064). It represents
the slope between baseline visibility conditions in
2004 and natural visibility conditions in 2064. The
URP for each ten-year long-term strategy equals the
visibility improvement along the glide path for that
planning period.
12 The RPGs can be seen in the June 2012
proposed action (77 FR 36044) which was finalized
on November 27, 2012 (77 FR 70693).
13 The final 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
regional haze SIP for that jurisdiction that was
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
27131
approving New Mexico’s determination
that the current regional haze SIP
requires no further substantive revision
at this time in order to achieve
established RPGs for 2018 for visibility
improvement and emission reductions.
40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(A) requires a
description of the status of
implementation of all control measures
included in the regional haze SIP for
achieving RPGs for Class I areas both
within and outside the State. New
Mexico adequately addressed the status
of control measures in the progress
report regional haze 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
time-frame for all controls.
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 emission
reductions to date in visibilityimpairing pollutants from the SIP
control measures identified for
implementation. New Mexico has
adequately summarized the emission
reductions achieved throughout the
State in the progress report regional
haze SIP as required under 40 CFR
51.309(d)(10)(i)(B).
40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(C) requires
that for each mandatory Class I Federal
area within the State, the State must
assess visibility conditions and changes,
with values for most impaired and least
impaired days expressed in terms of
five-year averages of these annual
values. 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.14
40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(D) requires an
analysis tracking the change over the
separately approved by the EPA (77 FR 71119,
November 29, 2012). The EPA anticipates a separate
regional haze progress report SIP submittal from
this entity.
14 For purposes of improved clarity on future
reports, we recommend that New Mexico include
a graph of rolling averages similar to what was
provided in the guidance example, 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.
E:\FR\FM\14JNR1.SGM
14JNR1
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES
27132
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 113 / Wednesday, June 14, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
past five years in emissions of
pollutants contributing to visibility
impairment from all sources and
activities within the State. 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. 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 the progress
report was based on appropriate data.
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 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
without having limited or impeded
progress.
40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(F) calls for an
assessment of whether the current
implementation plan elements and
strategies in the regional haze 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 has adequately addressed the
requirements under 40 CFR
51.309(d)(10)(i)(F). New Mexico
referenced the improving visibility
trends with appropriately supported
data with a focus on future
implementation of BART controls.
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. New Mexico has adequately
addressed the sufficiency of the
monitoring strategy as required by the
provisions under 40 CFR
51.309(d)(10)(i)(G). New Mexico
reaffirmed the continued reliance upon
the IMPROVE monitoring network. New
Mexico also explained the importance
of the IMPROVE monitoring network for
tracking visibility trends at the Class I
areas and identified no expected
changes in this network.
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 the
existing regional haze SIP and take one
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:55 Jun 13, 2017
Jkt 241001
of four possible actions based on
information in the progress report. New
Mexico stated in the progress report SIP
that the current Section 309 and 309(g)
regional haze SIPs are adequate to meet
the State’s 2018 RPGs and require no
further revision at this time. The EPA is
approving this negative declaration from
New Mexico.
V. 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,
if the choices meet the criteria of the
CAA. Accordingly, this action merely
approves the information and
determinations in the State’s progress
report as meeting Federal requirements
and does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by
state law. For that reason, this action:
• 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, 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
this rulemaking does not involve
technical standards; and
• Does not provide the EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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 the EPA or an
Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the 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).
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report, which includes a
copy of the rule, to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. The EPA will
submit a report containing this action
and other required information to the
U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller
General of the United States prior to
publication of the rule in the Federal
Register. A major rule cannot take effect
until 60 days after it is published in the
Federal Register. This action is not a
‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA,
petitions for judicial review of this
action must be filed in the United States
Court of Appeals for the appropriate
circuit by August 14, 2017. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the
Administrator of this final rule does not
affect the finality of this action for the
purposes of judicial review nor does it
extend the time within which a petition
for judicial review may be filed, and
shall not postpone the effectiveness of
such rule or action. This action may not
be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce the requirements. (See section
307(b)(2).)
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.
Dated: June 1, 2017.
Samuel Coleman,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
E:\FR\FM\14JNR1.SGM
14JNR1
27133
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 113 / Wednesday, June 14, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
PART 52—APPROVAL AND
PROMULGATION OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
Mexico Progress Report for the State
Implementation Plan for Regional Haze’’
at the end of the table to read as follows:
Subpart GG—New Mexico
2. In § 52.1620(e), the second table
titled ‘‘EPA Approved Nonregulatory
Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory
Measures in the New Mexico SIP’’ is
amended by adding the entry ‘‘New
■
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
§ 52.1620
*
Identification of plan.
*
*
(e) * * *
*
*
EPA APPROVED NONREGULATORY PROVISIONS AND QUASI-REGULATORY MEASURES IN THE NEW MEXICO SIP
Name of SIP provision
Applicable geographic or
nonattainment area
*
*
New Mexico Progress Report for the
State Implementation Plan for Regional Haze.
*
Statewide .........................
[FR Doc. 2017–12208 Filed 6–13–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 68
[EPA–HQ–OEM–2015–0725; FRL–9963–55–
OLEM]
RIN 2050–AG91
Accidental Release Prevention
Requirements: Risk Management
Programs Under the Clean Air Act;
Further Delay of Effective Date
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule; delay of effective
date.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is delaying the effective
date of the Risk Management Program
Amendments for an additional 20
months, to allow EPA to conduct a
reconsideration proceeding and to
consider other issues that may benefit
from additional comment. The new
effective date of the rule is February 19,
2019. The Risk Management Program
Amendments were published in the
Federal Register on January 13, 2017.
On January 26, 2017 and on March 16,
2017, EPA published two documents in
the Federal Register that delayed the
effective date of the amendments until
June 19, 2017. The EPA proposed in an
April 3, 2017 Federal Register action to
further delay the effective date until
February 19, 2019 and held a public
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
State
submittal/
effective date
*
3/14/2014
EPA approval date
Explanation
*
*
6/14/2017 [Insert Federal
Register citation].
hearing on April 19, 2017. This action
allows the Agency time to consider
petitions for reconsideration of the Risk
Management Program Amendments and
take further regulatory action, as
appropriate, which could include
proposing and finalizing a rule to revise
or rescind these amendments.
DATES: The effective date of the rule
amending 40 CFR part 68 published at
82 FR 4594 (January 13, 2017), as
delayed at 82 FR 4594 (January 26,
2017) and 82 FR 13968 (March 16,
2017), is further delayed until February
19, 2019.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a
docket for the rule amending 40 CFR
part 68 under Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–
OEM–2015–0725. All documents in the
docket are listed on the https://
www.regulations.gov Web site. Although
listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material,
is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy
form. Publicly available docket
materials are available electronically
through https://www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
James Belke, United States
Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Land and Emergency
Management, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.
NW., (Mail Code 5104A), Washington,
DC 20460; telephone number: (202)
564–8023; email address: belke.jim@
epa.gov, or: Kathy Franklin, United
*
States Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Land and Emergency
Management, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.
NW., (Mail Code 5104A), Washington,
DC 20460; telephone number: (202)
564–7987; email address:
franklin.kathy@epa.gov.
Electronic copies of this document
and related news releases are available
on EPA’s Web site at https://
www.epa.gov/rmp. Copies of this final
rule are also available at https://
www.regulations.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
This final rule applies to those
facilities, referred to as ‘‘stationary
sources’’ under the Clean Air Act
(CAA), that are subject to the chemical
accident prevention requirements at 40
CFR part 68. This includes stationary
sources holding more than a threshold
quantity (TQ) of a regulated substance
in a process. Table 5 provides industrial
sectors and the associated NAICS codes
for entities potentially affected by this
action. The Agency’s goal is to provide
a guide for readers to consider regarding
entities that potentially could be
affected by this action. However, this
action may affect other entities not
listed in this table. If you have questions
regarding the applicability of this action
to a particular entity, consult the
person(s) listed in the introductory
section of this action under the heading
entitled FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.
TABLE 5—INDUSTRIAL SECTORS AND ASSOCIATED NAICS CODES FOR ENTITIES POTENTIALLY AFFECTED BY THIS ACTION
Sector
NAICS code
Administration of Environmental Quality Programs ........................................................................................................
Agricultural Chemical Distributors:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:55 Jun 13, 2017
Jkt 241001
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\14JNR1.SGM
14JNR1
924.
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 113 (Wednesday, June 14, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 27127-27133]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-12208]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R06-OAR-2014-0237; FRL-9962-75-Region 6]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; New Mexico;
Regional Haze Progress Report State Implementation Plan
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act), the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a revision to a
State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the State of New Mexico on
March 14, 2014. New Mexico's SIP revision addresses requirements of the
Act and the EPA's rules that require New Mexico to submit a periodic
report assessing progress toward the reasonable progress goals (RPGs)
for mandatory Class I Federal areas in and outside New Mexico with a
determination of the adequacy of the State's existing regional haze
SIP.
DATES: This rule is effective on July 14, 2017.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-2014-0237. All documents in the docket are
listed at the https://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure
is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through https://www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at the EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas,
Texas 75202-2733.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. James E. Grady, (214) 665-6745;
grady.james@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' or
``our'' each mean ``the EPA.''
I. Background
The background for this action is discussed in detail in the EPA's
November 3, 2015 proposal.\1\ In that document, the EPA proposed to
approve New Mexico's regional haze progress report SIP revision
(submitted on March 14, 2014) as meeting the applicable regional haze
requirements set forth in 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10). In addition, the EPA
proposed to approve New Mexico's determination that the current
regional haze SIP is adequate to meet the State's RPGs for the first
planning period and requires no further substantive revision to achieve
established goals for visibility improvement and emission reductions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See 80 FR 67682.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposal and the accompanying technical support document (TSD)
provide detailed descriptions of New Mexico's SIP revision and the
rationale for the EPA's proposed approval of the State's submittal.
Please see the docket for these and other documents regarding the
proposal.
The public comment period for the proposal closed on December 3,
2015. The EPA received one set of comments in a letter dated December
3, 2015, from the National Parks Conservation Association and the San
Juan Citizens Alliance regarding the EPA's proposal. The comment letter
is included in the publicly posted docket associated with this action
at https://www.regulations.gov. Below, the EPA provides a summary of the
comments received and corresponding responses. After careful
consideration of the comments and the information provided, the EPA is
approving the progress report, as proposed.
II. Response to Comments
Comment: The commenter noted that New Mexico's progress report
indicated that the State is no longer implementing its State Mobile
Source Regulation but is relying on federal programs that will achieve
the same reductions. The commenter argued that the progress report does
not meet 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(A) because it was not clear about the
start date of the State's
[[Page 27128]]
reliance on federal programs for mobile source reduction or the impact
that a delayed start had on visibility.
Response: The comment does not demonstrate a failure to meet Sec.
51.309(d)(10)(i)(A). This element requires a description of the status
of implementation of all control measures included in the regional haze
SIP for achieving RPGs for Class I areas both within and outside the
State. As discussed in the proposal, New Mexico stated in the progress
report that it is implementing all long-term control strategies with
the exception of the formerly adopted, and now repealed, State Mobile
Source Regulation. The State Mobile Source Regulation, when adopted in
2007, would have applied the California motor vehicle standards within
New Mexico. We do not agree that the provided details for Sec.
51.309(d)(10)(i)(A) are lacking or inadequate. Section
51.309(d)(10)(i)(A) requires only a description of the status of the
implementation of the measures in the regional haze SIP, not an
assessment of the effect of the implementation or failure to implement
each specific measure. New Mexico's reliance on the federal program is
unlikely to have a significant impact on visibility. At the time the
regulation was adopted by New Mexico, the California standards were
projected to substantially differ from federal motor vehicle emissions
standards. Since that time, as the progress report notes, the
California and federal programs for emissions standards for motor
vehicles are more aligned with each other than was expected by New
Mexico when it adopted the State Mobile Source Regulation.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ For example, in 2009, the EPA and the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) proposed ``regulatory
convergence'' with California on motor vehicle fuel economy
standards. See 74 FR 49454 (September 28, 2009). This was
subsequently adopted, starting with model years 2012-2016. 75 FR
25323 (May 7, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: The progress report does not meet 40 CFR
51.309(d)(10)(i)(A) because it was not clear whether certain Western
Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) policies, including the WRAP Policy on
Enhanced Smoke Management Programs for Visibility and the WRAP Policy
on Annual Emissions Goals for Fire, were incorporated into the State's
Smoke Management Plan (SMP) and are being implemented.
Response: Consistent with the recommendation of the Grand Canyon
Visibility Transport Commission, the regional haze program under 40 CFR
part 309 brings special attentiveness to smoke management. New Mexico
adopted a revision to the New Mexico Administrative Code (NMAC)
addressing smoke management to meet these regional haze rule
requirements. The EPA previously approved New Mexico's regional haze
SIP in 2012 as meeting the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6), which
deals with implementation plan requirements related to fire.\3\ In
doing so, the EPA noted that the SMP operating within New Mexico was
consistent with the WRAP Policy on Enhanced Smoke Management Programs
for Visibility and the Wrap Policy on Annual Emissions Goals for Fire,
both of which were appendices to the approved Regional Haze SIP.\4\ The
progress report stated that New Mexico, aside from its update regarding
State Mobile Source Regulation, is implementing the long-term
strategies adopted into the regional haze SIP. This sufficiently
indicates the status of implementation for the State's SMP. Therefore,
we disagree that the progress report's discussion of the State's SMP
failed to meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(1)(i)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See 77 FR 70693 (November 27,2012) (approving 20.2.65 NMAC
(Smoke Management)).
\4\ See 77 FR 36065.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: The progress report does not meet 40 CFR
51.309(d)(10)(i)(B) because it did not include any information about
emission reductions provided by the State's SMP. Annual emissions
related to fire and estimated benefits should be readily available.
Response: We do not agree with the assertion that the progress
report fails to meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(B).
While this provision requires a summary of the emission reductions
achieved in the State through the implementation of the measures in its
regional haze SIP, nothing in this provision requires the State to
include estimates in its progress report of the emission reductions
achieved by specific measures. Namely, there is no requirement for a
detailed, causal analysis that pinpoints or links certain emission
reductions to actual regional haze SIP measures. It is acceptable for
the State to provide a summary of overall emission changes, rather than
an analysis that attributes particular emission reductions from
specific sources to certain measures in the plan, mainly when such a
higher level summary does not indicate any problem with the direction
and magnitude of these overall changes. We address in the response to a
later comment the adequacy of the State's summary of overall emissions.
Additionally, the comment misperceives the basis for inclusion of
the SMP in the SIP. The visibility goal announced in section 169A of
the CAA is both to prevent future impairment as well as remedy existing
impairment. Regional haze SIPs accordingly may include programs to
avert increases in emissions. The SMP is generally designed to limit
increases in emissions, rather than to reduce existing emissions. As
such, there would be little purpose for the State to try to estimate
the specific emission reductions achieved through implementation of the
program.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Consistent with these points, as reported on New Mexico's
Smoke Management Program Web site, a fire emissions summary for
2005-2016 shows no appreciable increases in SMP-regulated emissions.
See New Mexico 2017 Annual Smoke Management Meeting Presentation,
available at https://www.env.nm.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/2016_Fire_Emissions.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: The progress report does not meet 40 CFR
51.309(d)(10)(i)(B) because there were no estimates of reductions by
the new source review (NSR) and prevention of significant deterioration
(PSD) programs. The progress report did not indicate what emissions
were avoided or allowed by the implementation of these programs.
Response: As explained above, nothing in 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(B)
requires the State to include estimates in its progress report of the
emission reductions achieved by specific measures included in the
regional haze SIP.
Additionally, although the regional haze SIP also cited the PSD and
NSR programs, the primary benefit from these programs is to limit
emission increases rather than precisely working to achieve reductions
in existing emissions. Given this, there would be little purpose for
New Mexico to try to estimate the specific emission reductions achieved
through the implementation of these programs.
Comment: The progress report does not meet 40 CFR
51.309(d)(10)(i)(B) because point source data for sources reporting to
the Clean Air Markets Database should be included.
Response: This comment does not identify a basis to disapprove the
SIP revision. Source-specific information on all electric generating
units (the sources reporting to the Clean Air Markets Database) is not
required in summarizing the emission reductions in the progress report.
The submitted progress report provided detailed information on
anticipated emission reductions at the San Juan Generating Station
(SJGS). This facility is the largest point source in the State and the
most significant New Mexico emission source in the Clean Air Markets
Database. More
[[Page 27129]]
importantly, it is the only electric generating unit with definite
emission limits in the New Mexico regional haze SIP. The progress
report provided statewide point source emission data from 2008-2012 and
compared it to the 2018 projected emission levels.\6\ While additional
information from the Clean Air Markets Database regarding emissions
from other electric generating units may be useful, it is not essential
for the approval of the submitted progress report. As noted in the
proposal, we compared the point source data in the progress report to
that reported by the Clean Air Markets Database and found that the
reported emissions were consistent with that data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See Figure 3.6 of Progress Report for the State
Implementation Plan for Regional Haze, March 11, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: The progress report does not meet 40 CFR
51.309(d)(10)(i)(B) because the inventories did not address all haze-
related pollutants. Emission inventories specific to particulate
organic matter, coarse mass, ammonia (NH3), and volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) should be included.
Response: 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(B) requires a summary of the
emission reductions achieved throughout the State through
implementation of the control measures mentioned in 40 CFR
51.309(d)(10)(i)(A). Because this provision does not call for a summary
of all pollutants that could contribute to visibility impairment, we do
not agree that the progress report is inadequate. The initial regional
haze SIP focused on reducing emissions of sulfur dioxide
(SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOX), and particulate
matter (PM) emissions, and New Mexico's progress report summarized the
changes in emissions in these pollutants from 2008-2012. Even if no
information on other pollutants was included in the progress report, we
would consider it reasonable and sufficient if New Mexico's progress
report only provided a summary of emission reductions for these
pollutants.
New Mexico's progress report, however, also provided information on
other visibility-impairing pollutants. Section 3.5 of the progress
report discussed New Mexico's baseline emissions inventory for 2002 and
an estimated emissions inventory for 2008. The 2002 inventory was
developed by the WRAP for use in the initial WRAP regional haze SIP
strategy development. The 2008 inventory was based on WRAP inventory
work for the West-wide Jumpstart Air Quality Modeling Study
(WestJumpAQMS) and the Deterministic & Empirical Assessment of Smoke's
Contribution to Ozone (DEASCO3) modeling project efforts. The
pollutants inventoried were SO2, NOX,
NH3, VOCs, primary organic aerosol (POA), elemental carbon
(EC), fine soil, and coarse mass. The inventories were categorized for
all major visibility-impairing pollutants under major source groupings
either as anthropogenic or natural. The anthropogenic source
categorization included point and area sources, on and off-road mobile
sources, area oil and gas, fugitive and road dust, and anthropogenic
fire. The natural source categorization included natural fire, wind-
blown dust, and biogenic sources.
Comment: The progress report presented information on visibility
levels within section 3.3 of the progress report, which is titled as
addressing the requirement of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(B). The commenter
does not consider this presentation as satisfying the requirement of 40
CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(B) concerning emissions because the progress
report failed to explain how much of the monitored improvements in
visibility impairment were the result of emission reductions from
control measures in the New Mexico SIP or from factors outside of the
SIP. Furthermore, the trends outlined in section 3.5 were seven years
out of date.
Response: We agree with the commenter that information on
visibility levels is not an adequate substitute for the summary of
emissions that is specifically required by Sec. 51.309(d)(10)(i)(B).
However, we are not basing our approval of the progress report as
meeting the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(B) on the
information on visibility levels presented in section 3.3 of the
progress report. The summary of emissions requirement is satisfied for
the reasons explained in our earlier responses.
Comment: The goal of the progress report is to document progress
and changes over the past five years and to make informed decisions on
that basis. To meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(C), the
progress report should include information that describes the preceding
five-year period as closely as possible. The progress report discussed
the 2005-2009 period. Although information from 2007-2011 was included,
the EPA should require the use of the most recent data available.
Response: Although New Mexico used 2005-2009 data to estimate
current conditions, it also included additional IMPROVE data in its
progress report. The 2007-2011 visibility information was specifically
included in Tables 3.3-3.18 of the progress report. We do not agree
that the information was not addressed such that the requirements of
the section were not met. Because the progress report was not submitted
until March 14, 2014, however, there was an understandable lag between
its drafting, its adoption, and submission. We do not consider the non-
inclusion of visibility data more recent than 2011 to be a basis for
disapproval. Visibility data for all Class I areas through 2013 were
available to the public as of the date of the commenter's letter via
the IMPROVE program's Web site, and the commenter did not argue that
the more recent data supports disapproval of the progress report.
Comment: The progress report does not meet 40 CFR
51.309(d)(10)(i)(D) because it did not use the most up-to-date
emissions information nor provide sufficient forward projections.
Response: Section 3.8 of the progress report contains a detailed
analysis of 2008 emissions from all source types. In addition, Figure
3.6 of the SIP revision presents SO2 and NOX
point source emission data for 2008-2012. The year 2012 was the most
recent emission information covering all types of point sources
available at the time of the progress report's development. The
progress report does not include any emissions information for non-
point sources for any year more recent than 2008. However, we note that
the 2011 National Emissions Inventory (NEI) Version 1.01 was published
by the EPA in July 2013,\7\ only about 8 months before the State
submitted the progress report. In light of this, we consider the
progress report to adequately meet the requirement of 40 CFR
51.309(d)(10)(i)(D), which calls for an analysis tracking the changes
``over the past 5 years'' in emissions from ``all sources'' based on
``the most recent updated emissions inventory.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Profile of the 2011 National Air Emissions Inventory, April
2014, https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-08/documents/lite_finalversion_ver10.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding the issue of projected inventories, Sec.
51.309(d)(10)(i)(D) states that emission estimates must be projected
forward as necessary and appropriate to account for emissions changes
during ``the applicable 5-year period.'' This phrase is meant to refer
to ``the past 5 years,'' a phrase that itself is not clearly defined in
the rule. The progress report was required to be submitted in 2013 and
was submitted in February 2014. Thus, a projection for point sources
would at most have included estimates for 2013. In light of this, we do
not believe that a projection
[[Page 27130]]
for point sources beyond 2012 is necessary. With regard to non-point
sources, a projection could have addressed projected-emissions several
years beyond the 2008 information presented in the progress report;
however, the SIP focuses primarily on the control of point source
emissions. With respect to changes in fire-related emissions,
projections would inherently be highly uncertain in any case.
Consequently, we do not believe that projections of non-point source
emissions beyond 2008 were needed in the progress report.
Comment: The progress report does not meet 40 CFR
51.309(d)(10)(i)(E) because it drew an unsupported conclusion that no
anthropogenic emissions within New Mexico limited or impeded progress
in reducing pollutant emissions or improving visibility. For example,
White Mountain had visibility degradation.
Response: We disagree with the comment. 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. In its progress report, New Mexico concluded that no
such changes had occurred. The proposal noted that there have been
significant reductions in emissions of SO2 and
NOX from point sources within the State. Also, the State has
relied on the history of visibility levels at affected Class I areas to
assess whether there have been changes in emissions that limit or
impede progress. While we do not consider information on visibility
levels to be a substitute for the required summary of emissions that is
exactly required by Sec. 51.309(d)(10)(i)(B), we consider this
approach to be an acceptable method for making the assessment of
whether there have been changes in emissions that limit or impede
progress. Overall visibility at each of the seven Class I areas in New
Mexico had improved since the baseline period, with the exception of
visibility at the White Mountain Wilderness Area for the most recent
period. Specifically, for White Mountain, the five-year average
deciview trend for the 2007-2011 period showed slightly worse
visibility (0.2 dv higher) for the 20% worst days, as compared to
average conditions for 2000-2004. The commenter relied on this
degradation in visibility at White Mountain to support its argument
that anthropogenic emissions within New Mexico have limited progress in
improving visibility. The slight visibility degradation at White
Mountain, however, was the result of elevated coarse mass levels from
non-anthropogenic sources in 2011 compared to baseline levels.\8\
Overall SO2 and NOX emissions in New Mexico have
actually been going down, or are at least stable. The proposal also
indicated that White Mountain showed a 0.3 dv improvement in visibility
on the 20% best days.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See 80 FR 67688.
\9\ The SIP includes this information in Table 3.17 and Table
3.18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: The progress report does not meet 40 CFR
51.309(d)(10)(i)(E) because it failed to address anthropogenic
emissions outside of New Mexico that may have limited or impeded
progress in visibility improvement.
Response: The progress report is required to assess significant
changes outside the State that have limited or impeded progress, as
specified by Sec. 51.309(d)(10)(i)(E). As in the case of assessing in-
state emissions, we believe it was acceptable for the State to use
trends in visibility levels to make this assessment. Visibility
conditions at the Class I areas are improving, as discussed in response
to the comment above, and there do not appear to be significant changes
that would call for explicit discussion. We also note that the State's
Regional Haze SIP and its participation in the section 309 program
addressed anthropogenic emissions from outside of the borders that
limit or impede visibility improvement.
Comment: The progress report does not meet 40 CFR
51.309(d)(10)(i)(F) because it cited 2000-2010 visibility monitoring
data to conclude that New Mexico's approach was sufficient to meet the
RPGs. The progress report offers little support to show that visibility
is causally linked to New Mexico's SIP measures rather than to changes
in natural or out-of-state sources. The EPA should require quantitative
evidence to show the link between visibility benefits and the SIP
measures.
Response: We view the requirement of this section as a qualitative
assessment that should evaluate emissions and visibility trends,
including expected emission reductions from measures that have not yet
become effective. Even though section 3.7 of the progress report
(titled as addressing the requirement of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(F))
cited visibility monitoring data from 2000-2010, visibility data
through 2011 is presented in other sections of the progress report. In
particular, tables 3.3-3.18 presented visibility values of the 20%
worst and 20% best days of periods 2000-2004, 2005-2009, 2006-2010, and
2001-2011 for each affected Class I area. Table 2.1 of the progress
report showed the RPGs for each area.
The five-year average deciview values for the most recent period
2007-2011 indicated visibility improvement for all Class I areas
(relative to 2000-2004 baseline period) except White Mountain, which
was slightly worse by 0.2 dv. It is important to note that White
Mountain visibility improved in the 2005-2009 and 2006-2010 periods
compared to the baseline period 2000-2004. The data supports the
conclusion that the 2007-2011 visibility conditions at White Mountain
were higher than the 2000-2004 baseline due to elevated coarse mass
levels in 2011 from high wind events.
The 2007-2011 visibility conditions at Bandelier and San Pedro
parks were higher than in the intermediate periods, due to elevated
particulate organic matter levels in 2011 from impacts of fires, but
better than in 2000-2004.
For all the areas, the 2007-2011 visibility levels were better than
the RPGs for the 20% best days. This is also true for five of the areas
for the 20% worst days. The commenter did not suggest any particular
reasons to expect that visibility will degrade in these areas for the
best/worst days where it is already better than the 2018 RPGs.
As noted, three Class I sites were not yet meeting the 2018 RPGs
for the 20% worst days in 2007-2011. The progress report explains that
in this period White Mountain was adversely affected by coarse mass
from high wind events, and San Pedro and Bandelier were affected by
particulate organic matter from natural and anthropogenic fires. In
2005-2009, these three areas were below or very close to the 2018 RPGs.
In summary, we conclude that the State's visibility assessment is
adequate. Wildfires or dust storms might again affect visibility in the
2018 timeframe, but New Mexico expects further reduction of
SO2 and NO2 emissions, principally from the
implementation of Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) controls.
These control measures should contribute toward improved visibility
conditions at all New Mexico Class I areas, including Bandelier, San
Pedro, and White Mountain for 2018. Further progress will also occur
through recently adopted or proposed regulatory programs. The State was
reasonable to rest on these positive overall visibility trends and
future expectations regarding emission reductions in determining that
the existing SIP requires no further revision
[[Page 27131]]
to achieve established RPGs. New Mexico demonstrated progress toward
meeting the RPGs and no substantive revisions to the Regional Haze SIP
are necessary for the first planning period. We also note that Sec.
51.309(d)(10)(i)(F) does not impose a requirement for a demonstration
of a causal linkage between improvements in visibility and measures in
New Mexico's SIP.
Comment: The progress report does not meet 40 CFR
51.309(d)(10)(i)(F) because it did not offer sufficient evaluation of
the lack-of-progress or backsliding at Class I areas, like White
Mountain, that indicated degradation in the 2007-2011 time-period
relative to 2005-2009 values. A more detailed account of visibility
issues at these Class I areas should be required before concluding that
the existing SIP is adequate.
Response: We disagree with this comment. Based on the speciation
information in Tables 3.3-3.18, the data supports the conclusion that
dust storms and/or wildfires are responsible for the limited cases of
degradation in visibility between 2005-2009 and 2007-2011, rather than
any backsliding on the control of emissions from anthropogenic sources.
Comment: According to 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(B)(vi), RPGs should
reflect all reductions in the SIP and in any other CAA requirement.
RPGs for Class I areas impacted by SJGS should be lower. The EPA should
require the progress report to include a list of Class I areas impacted
by future reductions from SJGS and clarify that RPGs are those that
would be consistent with that source's reductions.
Response: The progress report was prepared with emphasis on New
Mexico's improvement in meeting established RPGs for 2018. There were
no changes to the State's RPGs in the progress report nor were there
any submitted for review as any separate SIP revision. Whether the RPGs
should be lower is not in the scope of the proposed action. We agree
that future reductions at SJGS will improve visibility at Class I areas
inside and outside of New Mexico. Having already approved the RPGs,\10\
we noted that with the additional future two-unit shut down and two-
unit selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) installation at the SJGS,
New Mexico emissions will improve on the RPGs in its SIP. New Mexico is
not impeding other states in meeting analogous RPGs, and the additional
BART controls will decrease visibility-impairing pollutants more than
anticipated from the RPGs based on the WRAP modeling for
NOX, SO2 and PM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ The RPGs can be seen in the June 2012 proposed action (77
FR 36044) which was finalized on November 27, 2012 (77 FR 70693).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Mexico does not have a progress report requirement to list all
Class I areas impacted by future reductions from the SJGS. However,
state and federal technical records for the BART determination at SJGS
provide information on this area of interest.
Comment: The commenter requested that the EPA require revisions to
the progress report to ensure Class I areas in New Mexico and
surrounding states are on the glide path to achieve natural visibility
conditions by 2064.
Response: In the progress report SIP, New Mexico was required to
assess whether the SIP was sufficient to meet the RPGs that were
established for the first ten-year planning period. There is no
requirement for a state to include an assessment of whether a SIP is
sufficient to ensure that Class I areas (in the State or those in
nearby states) are on track to meet the uniform rate of progress
(URP).\11\ The State followed the proper approach in setting the RPGs
through 2018 by considering the URP and the factors established in
section 169A of the CAA and in the EPA's Regional Haze Rule at 40 CFR
51.308(d)(1)(i)(A). In doing so, the RPGs reflected a slower rate of
progress than the URP for the first planning period. Those established
RPGs for each Class I area in New Mexico were approved by the EPA in a
previous action.\12\ Looking forward, New Mexico will be required to
provide new updated RPGs for 2028 in the next comprehensive regional
haze SIP revision planning period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ The URP is the minimum rate of progress needed to achieve
the CAA goal of natural visibility conditions within sixty years (to
2064). It represents the slope between baseline visibility
conditions in 2004 and natural visibility conditions in 2064. The
URP for each ten-year long-term strategy equals the visibility
improvement along the glide path for that planning period.
\12\ The RPGs can be seen in the June 2012 proposed action (77
FR 36044) which was finalized on November 27, 2012 (77 FR 70693).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Final Action
The EPA is approving New Mexico's regional haze 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).\13\ The
EPA is also approving New Mexico's determination that the current
regional haze SIP requires no further substantive revision at this time
in order to achieve established RPGs for 2018 for visibility
improvement and emission reductions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ The final 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 regional haze SIP for
that jurisdiction that was separately approved by the EPA (77 FR
71119, November 29, 2012). The EPA anticipates a separate regional
haze progress report SIP submittal from this entity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(A) requires a description of the status of
implementation of all control measures included in the regional haze
SIP for achieving RPGs for Class I areas both within and outside the
State. New Mexico adequately addressed the status of control measures
in the progress report regional haze 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 time-frame for all
controls.
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 emission reductions to date in
visibility-impairing pollutants from the SIP control measures
identified for implementation. New Mexico has adequately summarized the
emission reductions achieved throughout the State in the progress
report regional haze SIP as required under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(B).
40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(C) requires that for each mandatory Class I
Federal area within the State, the State must assess visibility
conditions and changes, with values for most impaired and least
impaired days expressed in terms of five-year averages of these annual
values. 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.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ For purposes of improved clarity on future reports, we
recommend that New Mexico include a graph of rolling averages
similar to what was provided in the guidance example, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(D) requires an analysis tracking the change
over the
[[Page 27132]]
past five years in emissions of pollutants contributing to visibility
impairment from all sources and activities within the State. 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.
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 the progress report was based on
appropriate data.
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
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
without having limited or impeded progress.
40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(F) calls for an assessment of whether the
current implementation plan elements and strategies in the regional
haze 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 has adequately addressed the
requirements under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(F). New Mexico referenced
the improving visibility trends with appropriately supported data with
a focus on future implementation of BART controls.
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.
New Mexico has adequately addressed the sufficiency of the monitoring
strategy as required by the provisions under 40 CFR
51.309(d)(10)(i)(G). New Mexico reaffirmed the continued reliance upon
the IMPROVE monitoring network. New Mexico also explained the
importance of the IMPROVE monitoring network for tracking visibility
trends at the Class I areas and identified no expected changes in this
network.
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 the existing regional haze SIP and take one of four
possible actions based on information in the progress report. New
Mexico stated in the progress report SIP that the current Section 309
and 309(g) regional haze SIPs are adequate to meet the State's 2018
RPGs and require no further revision at this time. The EPA is approving
this negative declaration from New Mexico.
V. 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,
if the choices meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action
merely approves the information and determinations in the State's
progress report as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose
additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that
reason, this action:
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, 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 this rulemaking does not involve technical standards; and
Does not provide the 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 the EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the 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).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by August 14, 2017. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce the requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
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.
Dated: June 1, 2017.
Samuel Coleman,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
[[Page 27133]]
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart GG--New Mexico
0
2. In Sec. 52.1620(e), the second table titled ``EPA Approved
Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures in the New
Mexico SIP'' is amended by adding the entry ``New Mexico Progress
Report for the State Implementation Plan for Regional Haze'' at the end
of the table to read as follows:
Sec. 52.1620 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
EPA Approved Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures in the New Mexico SIP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicable
Name of SIP provision geographic or State submittal/ EPA approval date Explanation
nonattainment area effective date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
New Mexico Progress Report for Statewide.......... 3/14/2014 6/14/2017 [Insert ...................
the State Implementation Plan Federal Register
for Regional Haze. citation].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2017-12208 Filed 6-13-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P