Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 196 / Thursday, October 9, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 60985 

Available Retrofit requirements in CAA 

section 169(b)(2)(A) and the Visibility 

Impairment requirements in CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). This action 

will not modify this relationship. Thus, 

Executive Order 13132 does not apply 

to this action. 

F. Executive Order 13175—Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This FIP withdrawal action does not 

have tribal implications, as specified in 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000). In this action, EPA 

is not addressing any Tribal 

Implementation Plans. This action is 

limited to the withdrawal of the New 

Mexico RH and IT FIP for PNM’s San 

Juan Generating Station. Thus, 

Executive Order 13175 does not apply 

to this action. Consistent with EPA 

policy, EPA offered consultation to 

tribes regarding this rulemaking action. 

G. Executive Order 13045—Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 

(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as 

applying only to those regulatory 

actions that concern health or safety 

risks, such that the analysis required 

under section 5–501 of the executive 

order has the potential to influence the 

regulation. This action is not subject to 

EO 13045 because EPA in withdrawing 

the New Mexico RH and IT FIP for 

PNM’s San Juan Generating Station, as 

authorized by the CAA, EPA considers 

visibility and not health or safety risks. 

H. Executive Order 13211—Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This FIP withdrawal action is not 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001) because it is 

exempt from review under Executive 

Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104— 

113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs 

EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities 

unless to do so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. Voluntary consensus 

standards are technical standards (e.g., 

materials specifications, test methods, 

sampling procedures, and business 

practices) that are developed or adopted 

by voluntary consensus standards 

bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide 

Congress, through OMB, explanations 

when the Agency decides not to use 

available and applicable voluntary 

consensus standards. This FIP 

withdrawal action for PNM’s San Juan 

Generating Station does not involve 

technical standards. Therefore, EPA did 

not consider the use of any voluntary 

consensus standards. 

J. Executive Order 12898—Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

This final rule does not provide EPA 

with the discretionary authority to 

address, as appropriate, 

disproportionate human health or 

environmental effects, using practicable 

and legally permissible methods, under 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, 

February 16, 1994). 

K. Congressional Review Act 

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. 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). 

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 December 8, 

2014. 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 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, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, 

Regional haze, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

dioxide, and Visibility. 

Dated: September 26, 2014. 

Gina McCarthy, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, Title 40, chapter I, of the 

Code of Federal Regulations is amended 

as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

§ 52.1628 [Removed and Reserved] 

■ 2. Section 52.1628 is removed and 

reserved. 

[FR Doc. 2014–23905 Filed 10–8–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2014–0214; FRL–9917–63– 

Region 6] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; New Mexico; 

Regional Haze and Interstate Transport 

Affecting Visibility State 

Implementation Plan Revisions 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking final action 

under the Clean Air Act (CAA) to 

approve a revision to the New Mexico 

Regional Haze State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) that addresses the Best 

Available Retrofit Technology (BART) 

requirement for oxides of nitrogen 

(NOX) for the Public Service Company 

of New Mexico (PNM) San Juan 

Generating Station (SJGS) in San Juan 

County, New Mexico. EPA is also taking 

final action under the CAA to approve 

a revision to the New Mexico Visibility 

Transport SIP that addresses the CAA 

requirement that emissions from sources 

in New Mexico do not interfere with 

programs in other states to protect 

visibility. The SIP meets this 

requirement through emission 

limitations for NOX and sulfur dioxide 

(SO2) at SJGS. 

DATES: This final rule will be effective 

November 10, 2014. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
60986 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 196 / Thursday, October 9, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

1We are acting on everything not yet acted upon 

in the 2011 RH SIP revision that pertains to the 

2013 NOX BART determination. The 2013 RH SIP 

revision explains that the revised, more recent NOX

BART determination would ‘‘supersede’’ the 2011 

NOX BART determination if EPA approves it. 

Certain NMED documents from the 2011 RH SIP 

revision are relevant to the state’s 2013 conclusions 

regarding NOX BART, but other information that 

relates solely to the 2011 NOX BART determination 

is now moot with EPA’s finalized approval of the 

superseding BART determination. 

2Term Sheet Between the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Public Service Company of New 

Mexico and the State of New Mexico (‘‘Term 

Sheet’’), February 15, 2013. 

3NSR Technical Permit Revision, NSR Permit No. 

0063–M6R3, November 1, 2013. 

4The permit conditions at A112C specify the 

averaging time and calculation methodology for the 

enforceable emission limit for NOX on Units 1 and 

4 of 0.23 lb/MMBtu on a boiler-operating-day basis, 

averaged across the two units. 

5A delay may be allowed under special 

circumstances that would limit the number of 

evaluation days during both summer and winter 

months, as discussed in the paragraph 1(d)(iv) of 

the Term Sheet. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R06–OAR–2014–0214. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the http://www.regulations.gov index. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., Confidential Business Information 

or other information the disclosure of 

which is restricted by statute. Certain 

other material, such as copyrighted 

material, will be publicly available only 

in hard copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in http://

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air Planning Section (6PD–L), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 

Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 

75202–2733. The file will be made 

available by appointment for public 

inspection in the Region 6 FOIA Review 

Room between the hours of 8:30 a.m. 

and 4:30 p.m. weekdays except for legal 

holidays. Contact the person listed in 

the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

paragraph below or Mr. Bill Deese at 

214–665–7253 to make an appointment. 

If possible, please make the 

appointment at least two working days 

in advance of your visit. A 15 cent per 

page fee will be charged for making 

photocopies of documents. On the day 

of the visit, please check in at the EPA 

Region 6 reception area on the seventh 

floor at 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, 

Dallas, Texas 75202–2733. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Michael Feldman (214) 665–9793, email 

feldman.michael@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. What is the background for this action? 

II. What final action is EPA taking? 

III. Response to Comments 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What is the background for this 

action? 

The background for today’s final rule 

is discussed in detail in our May 12, 

2014 document, in which we proposed 

to approve New Mexico’s SIP revisions. 

See 79 FR 26909. The comment period 

on the proposed action was open for 30 

days, and several comments were 

received. 

II. What final action is EPA taking? 

We are approving New Mexico’s 

regional haze SIP revisions submitted 

on October 7, 2013 and November 5, 

2013 (‘‘2013 RH SIP revision’’), that 

build on a SIP revision submitted on 

July 5, 2011 (‘‘2011 RH SIP revision’’).1

The 2013 RH SIP revision contains a 

new NOX BART determination for the 

SJGS (referred to as the ‘‘State 

Alternative’’). The State Alternative 

consists of a previously uncontemplated control scenario involving 

unit shutdowns at the SJGS. With this 

approval, the State Alternative 

supersedes the State’s previous NOX

BART determination that was included 

in the 2011 RH SIP revision. The State 

Alternative reflects the terms of the 

tentative agreement signed between the 

PNM, the New Mexico Environment 

Department (NMED), and EPA to 

address the regional haze requirements 

applicable to the SJGS. This agreement 

is included as Exhibit 5 of the 2013 RH 

SIP revision.2 The 2013 RH SIP revision 

also includes a preconstruction permit 

submitted on November 5, 2013,3 that 

sets a NOX emission limit based upon 

the State Alternative, compliance 

schedules, a compliance deadline for 

the shutdown of two units, and 

monitoring and testing requirements. 

More specifically, the 2013 RH SIP 

revision requires the following: 

• Fifteen (15) months after EPA’s 

final approval of the 2013 RH SIP 

revision, but no earlier than January 31, 

2016, PNM will complete installation of 

SNCR technology on SJGS Units 1 and 

4 and meet an emission limit of 0.23 lb/ 

MMBtu on a rolling 30-day average 

basis; 4

• PNM will retire SJGS Units 2 and 3 

by December 31, 2017; and 

• PNM will commence a program of 

testing and evaluation, after the 

installation of the SNCRs, to determine 

if additional NOX emission reductions 

can be achieved. The Testing Program, 

consisting of SNCR performance testing, 

fuel performance testing, and long-term 

performance evaluation, must be 

completed no later than January 31, 

2017.5

In addition to approving New 

Mexico’s revised enforceable NOX

BART determination for SJGS, we are 

also approving New Mexico’s 2011 

Visibility Transport SIP revision, as 

revised in 2013, because it demonstrates 

that emissions from all sources in New 

Mexico are sufficiently controlled to 

eliminate interference with the visibility 

programs of other states. We are also 

approving as part of New Mexico’s SIP 

the operative sections of the 2013 

permit for SJGS on the basis that the 

SO2 and NOX emission limits for the 

SJGS will sufficiently prevent emissions 

from sources in New Mexico from 

interfering with the visibility programs 

of other states. 

New Mexico has incorporated 

emission limits and requirements for 

unit shutdowns into the 2013 

preconstruction permit that was 

submitted as part of the SIP revisions. 

Specifically, as a source-specific 

requirement of the New Mexico SIP for 

regional haze and visibility transport, 

section A112C of the 2013 SJGS permit 

provides a more stringent SO2 emission 

limit (i.e., than previously permitted or 

SIP-required) as part of the State 

Alternative and a NOX emission limit 

reflecting the State Alternative. The 

permit contains three independent 

scenarios under section A112: A, B, and 

C. Consistent with the terms of the 

permit, our final approval puts Scenario 

C into effect, while the other two 

scenarios are now moot. 

We have determined that the 2013 RH 

SIP revision and corresponding 

visibility transport SIP revisions are 

approvable because the revisions were 

adopted and submitted in accordance 

with the CAA and EPA’s regulations 

regarding the regional haze program and 

meet the CAA provisions concerning 

non-interference with programs to 

protect visibility in other states. We are 

taking this final action today under 

section 110 and part C of the CAA. 

Consistent with the discussion provided 

in our proposal, the 2011 RH SIP 

provision for NOX BART is fully 

superseded and/or moot with today’s 

approval and does not constitute a SIP 

submittal pending EPA review and 

action. 

In addition, as our May 12, 2014 

proposal explained, the approval of the 

SIP submittals enables EPA to withdraw 

or rescind the Federal Implementation 

Plan (FIP) that was earlier promulgated 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 196 / Thursday, October 9, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 60987 

6Western Resource Advocates, New Energy 

Economy, WildEarth Guardians, Conservation 

Voters of New Mexico, Physicians for Social 

Responsibility (NM), Environment New Mexico/

Environment New Mexico Research and Policy 

Center, New Mexico Independent Power Producers 

Climate Change Leadership Institute, Santa Fe 

Innovation Park, The Global Warming Express, 

Chainbreaker Collective, Center for Civic Policy, 

Citizens’ Climate Lobby, and 350.org. These 

stakeholders also submitted a letter that has been 

added to the docket as a late comment; it raises no 

issues not already addressed by our response to 

comments. 

to address the same requirements. See 

79 FR 26909. Accordingly, as a result of 

today’s approval action, we are also 

taking action to withdraw the regional 

haze FIP for New Mexico at 40 CFR 

52.1628. The action to withdraw the FIP 

is in a separate action contained in 

today’s Federal Register. Upon the 

effective date of the Federal Register 

documents, the requirements in the 

approved SIP apply and the FIP 

requirements for the SJGS are 

withdrawn. 

III. Response to Comments 

We received several comments on our 

proposed approval of the 2013 RH SIP 

revision that were submitted by PNM, 

NMED, the Navajo Nation, the National 

Park Service, Tucson Electric Power 

Company, Utah Associated Municipal 

Power Systems, a consortium of 

environmental organizations,6 Santa Fe 

Monthly Meeting Peace and Social 

Concerns Committee, and Earth Justice. 

Copies of the comments are available in 

the docket for this rulemaking. 

Summaries of the issues raised in the 

comment letters, and our responses, 

follow: 

Comment: A commenter, identified as 

a part owner of SJGS Unit 4, requested 

a 12-month extension of the SIP’s 

compliance period for meeting the new 

NOX limits. The commenter referred to 

the EPA proposal, ‘‘Carbon Pollution 

Emission Guidelines for Existing 

Stationary Sources: Electric Utility 

Generating Units,’’ subsequently 

published at 79 FR 34829 (June 18, 

2014), and asserted that an extension 

would allow for adequate consideration 

of the impacts of the proposal relative 

to the investment considerations of 

installing SNCRs at the SJGS. The 

commenter stated that ownership of 

SJGS presently includes utilities from 

five Western states, and the interstate 

nature of ownership and emissions 

complicates a coordinated compliance 

planning process. Another commenter, 

identified as a part owner of SJGS Units 

1 and 2, supported the costs, anticipated 

haze reduction, and other 

environmental benefits associated with 

the 2013 RH SIP revision, but similarly 

requested that EPA amend its approval 

and provide additional time for 

installation of SNCR on the basis that 

more time is needed to study the 

proposed standards for reducing carbon 

pollution at existing EGUs. 

Response: EPA believes that CAA 

section 111(d) efforts and actions will 

tend to contribute to overall air quality 

improvements and thus should be 

complementary to criteria pollutant and 

regional haze SIP efforts but do not 

provide a basis for delaying 

implementation of these efforts. See 79 

FR at 34931. The 111(d) proposal 

specifically mentions the next 10-year 

SIP revision for regional haze that is due 

by July 2018 and covers the time period 

through 2028, explaining that the 

timeframes proposed for submittal of 

the CAA section 111(d) state plans will 

allow considerable time for 

coordination by states in the 

development of their respective plans. 

The proposal does not suggest that 

further delays are warranted for 

implementing the regional haze 

requirements that were first due in 

December 2007. Indeed, states and 

affected sources will be able to take into 

account requirements of programs such 

as Regional Haze in considering the 

development of state plans under 

section 111(d). 

More importantly here, EPA cannot 

alter an otherwise approvable SIP 

revision to extend a compliance date. 

The 2013 RH SIP revision submitted by 

New Mexico provides the compliance 

date. Moreover, the compliance dates 

that New Mexico set are as ‘‘expeditious 

as practicable,’’ as required by the CAA. 

See CAA section 169A(b)(2)(A), (g)(2). 

Because the compliance dates meet 

CAA requirements, EPA cannot 

establish different compliance dates 

when taking action on the SIP revision. 

See CAA section 110(k)(3), (l). 

Comment: A commenter stated that 

unit retirements and NOX controls at 

SJGS would reduce regional haze and 

provide other significant environmental, 

economic, and health benefits, and 

states that ‘‘these additional benefits 

must be recognized.’’ The commenter 

requested, however, that EPA’s approval 

contain a statement reflecting EPA’s 

willingness to consider eliminating the 

NOX emission control requirements on 

Units 1 and 4 if, by December 31, 2016, 

there is a commitment to permanently 

retire Unit 1 and/or 4 within a 

reasonably short time-frame. PNM 

responded to this request in its own 

comment (although it mistakenly cited 

the date of December 31, 2015 when 

paraphrasing the comment). PNM’s 

comment stated that EPA should reject 

the request for an EPA statement 

regarding the retirement of additional 

capacity because the Agency lacks any 

analysis or basis upon which to evaluate 

the efficacy or legality of the request. 

Response: We decline to endorse a 

proposal not before us, as suggested by 

the commenter. Because the 2013 RH 

SIP revision meets CAA requirements, 

we are required to approve it. See CAA 

section 110(k)(3),(l). 

Comment: PNM submitted a comment 

supporting the proposed rule, agreeing 

that the 2013 RH SIP revision is 

reasonable, even when EPA’s estimated 

SCR costs are used. PNM asserted, 

however, that its own estimated SCR 

capital costs were confirmed by detailed 

bids from engineering, procurement, 

and construction contractors, and that 

none of the bids were in the range of 

EPA’s estimated SCR costs. PNM 

believed that these bids should satisfy 

any requirement for enhanced 

documentation to support higher SCR 

costs, but acknowledged that their cost 

estimates provide different treatment to 

items such as sorbent injection, 

apportionment of balanced draft costs, 

and fees and contingencies. 

Response: We appreciate PMN’s 

comment supporting approval. As 

identified by the comment, EPA’s cost 

analysis for SCR was based on a 

different design (e.g., no costs for 

sorbent injection) than the design PNM 

used when soliciting bids from vendors. 

PNM’s bids were not submitted with the 

comment and, based on the available 

documentation, we remain unable to 

conclude that certain line items in 

PNM’s SCR cost estimates are well 

supported. While the BART Guidelines 

explain that data from vendor bids may 

be used in developing equipment cost 

estimates, this does not mean that 

bottom-line figures can serve as a 

substitute for a full cost analysis or that 

all costs included therein would be 

appropriate for making an assessment of 

cost-effectiveness. The expectation 

remains that the cost analysis maintain 

and improve consistency through 

adherence to the OAQPS Control Cost 

Manual, where possible. Moreover, the 

BART Guidelines state that 

documentation is expected, and indeed 

especially important, where a state 

believes that costs will be unreasonable 

even though other recent retrofits have 

cost-effectiveness values that are within 

what has been considered a reasonable 

range. As we established in our FIP, 

recent SCR retrofits at coal-fired power 

plants have been found to be costeffective, and this cost effectiveness is 

generally validated by large emission 

reductions even when there are large 

capital costs. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
60988 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 196 / Thursday, October 9, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

7 40 CFR part 51, app. Y, section IV.D.5. 

8See New Source Review Workshop Manual (Oct. 

1990), available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/nsr/gen/ 

wkshpman.pdf. 

9The comment provided a citation to 79 FR 

23273 (April 28, 2014) relating to the Tasco facility 

in Idaho, and one to ‘‘78 FR 24112,’’ which we 

interpret as having intended to refer to 78 FR 60700 

(October 2, 2013) (bearing ‘‘FR Doc. 2013–24112’’). 

Comment: NMED provided comments 

in support of approval and stated that 

they generally concur with our 

description and evaluation of the State 

Alternative for NOX BART. 

Response: We appreciate this 

comment. 

Comment: NMED commented that 

states cannot be required to take a unitspecific (or unit-by-unit) approach to 

assessing the BART factors. In American 

Corn Growers v. EPA, 291 F.3d 1, 8 (D.C. 

Cir. 2002), a reviewing court held that 

it was invalid to consider visibility 

impacts on a multiple-source basis 

while employing a source-specific 

approach to the other four BART factors. 

The commenter stated that requiring 

states to assess visibility on a facilitywide basis while considering the other 

factors on a unit-by-unit basis would be 

similarly unsupported by the statute 

and would impermissibly constrain 

state authority. 

Response: We disagree with this 

comment. In American Corn Growers, 

the D.C. Circuit held that EPA could not 

adopt a ‘‘group-BART approach’’ to the 

visibility factor because it could force 

states to require BART controls at some 

sources without any empirical evidence 

of a particular source’s contribution to 

visibility impairment in a Class I area. 

As a result, the Regional Haze Rule and 

BART Guidelines require states to 

analyze the five statutory factors for 

each BART-eligible source without 

reference to the benefits that BART will 

achieve at other sources. Beyond this, 

however, the court did not opine on 

how the BART factors should be 

analyzed or weighed by states, let alone 

proscribe a unit-specific or prescribe a 

facility-wide approach to BART. 

As we recently explained in our 

action on the Wyoming regional haze 

SIP, see 79 FR 5031 (Jan. 30, 2014), the 

BART Guidelines prescribe that states 

‘‘must conduct a visibility improvement 

determination for the source(s) as part of 

the BART determination,’’ 7 and we 

interpret this language as requiring 

states to consider the visibility 

improvement from BART applied to the 

BART-eligible source as a whole. We do 

not believe that either the CAA or the 

BART Guidelines mandate either a unitspecific or a facility-wide approach to 

analyzing or weighing the remaining 

BART factors. In most circumstances, 

however, we believe that states should 

use a unit-specific approach to assessing 

the technical feasibility and costs of 

controls options, as well as the existing 

controls and remaining useful life of 

BART-eligible units. This approach is 

clearly contemplated by the BART 

Guidelines and has been used for 

decades in other CAA contexts, such as 

the evaluation of Best Available Control 

Technology (BACT) for new and 

modified major stationary sources.8 A 

unit-specific approach to these factors is 

appropriate because the age, type, size, 

location, and emission characteristics of 

the various emission units at a source 

can differ greatly, and many control 

options by design apply to a single unit. 

However, in unique circumstances, such 

as in situations where a control strategy 

can be implemented facility-wide or 

where the benefits of unit shutdowns 

must be taken into account, then we 

believe that the CAA and BART 

Guidelines provide states with the 

flexibility to analyze and weigh the 

BART factors for the source as a whole, 

rather than for its constituent emission 

units. 

Comment: NMED responded to a 

statement in the proposal that expressed 

some concern with the appropriateness 

of including SO2 reductions from units 

1 and 4 in one of the NOX BART control 

options analyzed, rather than as part of 

the facility’s baseline emissions, by 

explaining that the SO2 limit of 0.10 lbs/ 

MMBtu is required by the 2013 RH SIP 

revision alone and would not be 

required if the FIP continues to remain 

in force. 

Response: While the inclusion of the 

SO2 reductions in the SIP helps to 

further demonstrate non-interference 

with the visibility protection programs 

of other states, in keeping with the 

visibility transport requirements of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), and helps in 

showing the overall visibility benefits of 

the 2013 RH SIP revision, we had noted 

that those reductions do not specifically 

lend support to a visibility improvement 

determination for NOX BART through 

the application of NOX controls. 

However, no commenters took issue 

with the inclusion of SO2 reductions in 

the studied scenarios or insisted that 

refinements were necessary on this 

point, and it remains our view that the 

inclusion of the reductions did not 

meaningfully impact the evaluation of 

visibility benefits due to NOX

reductions at the facility. 

Comment: The Navajo Nation 

submitted a comment supporting the 

proposal as the best scenario for meeting 

BART, endorsing it for having 

reasonable costs of compliance and a 

realistic timeframe. The comment also 

stated that the 2013 RH SIP revision 

addressed concerns regarding potential 

job losses faced by Navajo work forces 

at the SJGS and San Juan mine more 

effectively than EPA’s FIP. 

Response: We appreciate this 

comment supporting approval. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

the 2013 RH SIP revision appears to be 

an alternative consistent with the intent 

of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2) and therefore 

needs to demonstrate greater reasonable 

progress than EPA’s BART 

determination. The fact that the 2013 

RH SIP revision does not demonstrate 

greater reasonable progress than EPA’s 

BART determination gave the 

commenter concern because the 

commenter considered it a departure 

from rules and guidance. The 

commenter also asserted that previous 

EPA decisions have required a source to 

demonstrate its proposed alternative is 

better than EPA’s BART determination, 

citing actions for Idaho and the Four 

Corners Power Plant.9

Response: We disagree that the 2013 

RH SIP revision appears to be a BART 

alternative under section 51.308(e)(2). 

New Mexico explicitly stated that it was 

not evaluating a BART alternative when 

responding to comments during the 

state process and again when submitting 

comments to support our proposed 

approval. Therefore, New Mexico was 

not required to make a demonstration of 

greater reasonable progress. Instead, 

New Mexico evaluated a new, sourcespecific BART determination under 

section 51.308(e)(1). To fully account for 

the source owner’s proposed unit 

shutdowns, New Mexico chose to weigh 

the BART factors in light of source-wide 

considerations. As explained in our 

proposal and elsewhere in our 

responses to comments, we believe that 

this approach is permissible under the 

CAA and the BART Guidelines. The 

prior EPA actions cited by the 

commenter are not relevant to our 

action on New Mexico’s NOX BART 

determination for SJGS. While both the 

Four Corners and Idaho actions 

contained BART alternatives that 

demonstrated greater reasonable 

progress, we are not evaluating a BART 

alternative here. Moreover, while the 

Idaho action also involved two new 

BART determinations that happened to 

be more stringent than the state’s 

original BART determinations, neither 

the CAA nor our regulations require a 

new BART determination to be more 

stringent in every instance in order to 

supersede a prior BART determination. 

Comment: One commenter argued 

that the CAA requires that any 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 196 / Thursday, October 9, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 60989 

10Specifically, the commenter cited our Indiana 

regional haze SIP action (77 FR 3975, 3982 (Jan. 26, 

2012)) for its statement that a source needs to 

‘‘implement BART at each BART-subject unit,’’ and 

the Montana regional haze FIP (77 FR 57864, Sept. 

18, 2012) for discussing statutory BART factors for 

units at a BART source. 

alternative regional haze strategy must 

outperform the visibility gains of the 

existing strategy or, in other words, be 

‘‘better than BART,’’ and the 2013 RH 

SIP revision fails to accomplish this. 

Citing to CAA section 7410(a) and (l), 

the commenter argued that the 

characterization of the 2013 RH SIP 

revision as including a new BART 

determination is plainly unlawful 

because the State has not undertaken 

the BART analysis required by the CAA 

and BART Guidelines, and EPA did not 

provide any explanation for why the SIP 

revision is approvable when the FIP had 

a more stringent BART determination. 

Response: As explained above, the 

2013 RH SIP revision was not submitted 

to meet section 51.308(e)(2) 

requirements, so it is not required to be 

better than BART. As we stated in the 

proposal, the 2013 RH SIP revision 

contains a new, source-specific BART 

analysis that is based on different 

underlying facts than those that were 

present when we evaluated our FIP. 

Thus, the commenter’s assertion that the 

state failed to undertake a BART 

analysis is clearly incorrect. Finally, 

contrary to the commenter’s assertion, 

CAA section 110(l) does not prohibit a 

state from submitting a SIP that is less 

stringent than a FIP. Our proposal 

provided an analysis conducted under 

section 110(l), which showed that the 

2013 RH SIP revision would not 

interfere with the attainment or 

maintenance of any NAAQS or any 

other CAA requirement. See 79 FR at 

26920. Because New Mexico complied 

with the CAA’s visibility protection 

provisions, the Regional Haze Rule, and 

the BART Guidelines, and made a 

reasonable control determination based 

on the weighing of the five factors, EPA 

is required to approve the 2013 RH SIP 

revision. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

the 2013 RH SIP revision does not 

comply with the mandatory unitspecific analytical approach required by 

the CAA. The commenter argued that 

the BART Guidelines require BART to 

be determined on a unit-specific basis 

because a BART emission limit must be 

established for each affected emission 

unit. The commenter also pointed out 

that the BART Guidelines provide an 

example of a unit-specific approach 

where they state that ‘‘control options 

must be analyzed for Units B through H 

as well as Unit A.’’ Consequently, the 

commenter concluded that New Mexico 

and EPA are required to follow the unitspecific approach. 

Response: We disagree with this 

comment. The portion of the BART 

Guidelines cited by the commenter 

explains how all BART units at the 

subject to BART source must be 

included in the BART analysis. The 

2013 SIP revision implements BART at 

each BART-subject unit by requiring 

either shutdowns or controls. Also, 

while the BART Guidelines clearly 

contemplate that states will analyze 

technical feasibility and costeffectiveness on a unit-specific basis, 

they do not explicitly require such an 

approach, nor do they provide guidance 

for situations in which a source 

proposes unit shutdowns as an 

emission-reduction strategy. Moreover, 

contrary to the commenter’s assertion, 

the CAA does not mandate any specific 

analytical approach. Consequently, in 

situations where a state is 

contemplating a novel control scenario 

not contemplated by the BART 

Guidelines, such as one that involves 

unit shutdowns, we believe that states 

have the flexibility to tailor their BART 

analyses by evaluating and weighing the 

BART factors on a facility-wide (i.e., 

‘‘source’’) basis rather than on a unitspecific basis in order to account for the 

emission reductions and benefits that 

would directly result from the 

shutdowns. Moreover, while BART 

emission limits are also typically 

established for each unit that comprises 

the BART-eligible source, as New 

Mexico chose to do here, nothing in the 

CAA or BART Guidelines prevents a 

state from setting an emission limit that 

averages emissions across multiple 

units, so long as that limit is ‘‘based on 

the degree of reduction achievable 

through the best system of continuous 

emission reduction for each pollutant.’’ 

See 40 CFR 51.301. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

a facility-wide BART determination is 

inconsistent with other EPA actions. 

The commenter cited to EPA actions in 

Indiana and Montana to support this 

contention.10 The commenter also 

pointed out that EPA used a unitspecific approach to analyzing the first 

four factors when promulgating its FIP 

for SJGS. The commenter called EPA’s 

proposal an unexplained departure from 

EPA’s past practice in implementing its 

binding guidelines. 

Response: We disagree with this 

comment for the same reasons 

explained above. EPA’s actions in 

Indiana, Montana, and our FIP for SJGS 

did not involve unit shutdowns and 

therefore are not determinative of how 

the BART statutory factors should be 

considered and weighed in this context. 

Also, contrary to the commenter’s 

assertion, we explained in our proposal 

why New Mexico’s approach was 

reasonable in light of the unique 

circumstances presented and, on that 

basis, cannot validly be seen as any 

departure from past actions. As was 

stated, the state’s approach reasonably 

takes into account the visibility, energy, 

and non-air quality environmental 

benefits associated with unit 

shutdowns. See 79 FR 26918. 

Furthermore, the 2013 SIP revision 

implements BART at each BART-subject 

unit by requiring either shutdowns or 

controls. 

Comment: A commenter stated that 

EPA’s proposal arbitrarily rejected SCR 

in favor of less effective pollution 

controls even though EPA found that an 

emission limitation based on SCR was 

BART in the FIP. The commenter 

explained that SCR provides the best 

visibility outcomes and is cost-effective. 

Response: Under different factual 

circumstances, we determined that SCR 

for the four SJGS units had reasonable 

average cost-effectiveness values and 

would promote significant visibility 

improvements, thereby supporting the 

basis for the emission limits set forth in 

the FIP. In the 2013 RH SIP revision, 

New Mexico demonstrated that SNCR in 

tandem with shutdowns has visibility 

benefits on par with those anticipated 

from the FIP at much lower overall 

costs, while also reducing overall energy 

and non-air quality environmental 

impacts. Although we continue to 

believe that SCR is a cost-effective 

control and are not abandoning the legal 

and technical basis for our FIP, we 

believe that when cost, energy and nonair quality environmental impacts, and 

anticipated visibility benefits are all 

taken into consideration, New Mexico’s 

determination that the State Alternative 

is BART is reasonable. While SCR 

remains cost-effective on a $/ton basis, 

the incremental visibility benefit of the 

four-SCR scenario of the FIP over the 

State Alternative is small at most Class 

I areas, and New Mexico reasonably 

concluded that this small additional 

visibility benefit, when considered with 

the difference in the energy and non-air 

quality environmental impacts, did not 

justify the large increase in costs 

associated with the installation of SCR 

on all four units. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

the visibility impacts of the State 

Alternative are significantly worse than 

the four-SCR scenario in the FIP. The 

commenter explained that the difference 

in visibility impacts between the two 

scenarios will be 0.47 dv at Mesa Verde, 

0.24 dv at Canyonlands, and 0.13 dv at 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
60990 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 196 / Thursday, October 9, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

11Appendix W to 40 CFR Part 51 ‘‘Guideline to 

Air Quality Models’’ states: ‘‘It was concluded from 

these case studies that the CALPUFF dispersion 

model had performed in a reasonable manner, and 

had no apparent bias toward over or under 

prediction, so long as the transport distance was 

limited to less than 300 km.’’ 

12Environmental Protection Agency, 1998. 

Interagency Workgroup on Air Quality Modeling 

(IWAQM) Phase 2 Summary Report and 

Recommendations for Modeling Long-Range 

Transport Impacts. Publication No. EPA–454/R–98– 

019. Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards, 

Research Triangle Park, NC. (NTIS No. PB 99– 

121089) 

Weminuche. The sum of these visibility 

differences is 0.84 dv, which is above 

the 0.5 dv threshold that is used to 

determine ‘‘significance.’’ Also, the 

State Alternative will result in five more 

days with impacts over 1 dv at Mesa 

Verde, three more days at Arches, and 

two more days at both Canyonlands and 

La Garita when compared to the fourSCR scenario in the FIP. 

Response: As we stated in the 

proposal when comparing the two 

scenarios, while we have some concern 

with the modeled visibility differences 

between the two control scenarios for 

Mesa Verde and Canyonlands, we find 

that the State’s decision to select the 

State Alternative was ultimately 

reasonable, especially considering the 

costs of compliance and the energy and 

non-air quality environmental impacts 

of the two scenarios. We noted that the 

difference in visibility impacts between 

the two scenarios are negligible at most 

of the Class I areas examined. The 

average difference at the 13 other Class 

I areas (other than Mesa Verde, 

Canyonlands, and Weminuche) is less 

than 0.1 dv between the two control 

scenarios. In considering the number of 

days impacted, eleven Class I areas 

show no difference in the number of 

days with impacts over 1 dv. We also 

note that the typical application of 0.5 

dv as a contribution threshold comes in 

the context of assessing impacts at a 

single Class I area, not cumulative 

impacts across multiple Class I areas. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

the CAA requires EPA to either improve 

the State Alternative or reject it 

altogether. 

Response: We disagree with this 

comment. As we explained earlier, EPA 

is required to approve any SIP revision 

that meets CAA requirements. See CAA 

section 110(k)(3), (l). EPA does not have 

authority to improve a SIP revision that 

is otherwise approvable, and the 

commenter has provided no basis for 

EPA to disapprove the 2013 RH SIP 

revision. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

EPA based its proposed approval on a 

fundamentally flawed cost-benefit 

analysis that artificially inflated the cost 

and artificially reduced the benefits of 

SCR. The commenter also thought that 

New Mexico underestimated the costs of 

SNCR. The commenter argued that EPA 

had no rational basis for concluding that 

cost refinements would not change the 

result. The commenter cited to Center 

for Biological Diversity v. National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 

538 F.3d 1172, 1201–03 (9th Cir. 2008), 

for the proposition that EPA must recalculate a cost value that would 

significantly alter the analysis. With 

cost corrections, the commenter 

believed that New Mexico’s capital cost 

assumptions for SCR would be cut in 

half, demonstrating that SCR remains 

cost-effective at Units 1 and 4. The 

commenter provided an attachment that 

highlighted how New Mexico’s cost 

range for SCR at SJGS was well above 

the cost per kilowatt for SCR 

demonstrated by other cost studies for 

comparable retrofits. 

Response: We maintain our view that 

SCR has favorable and reasonable 

average cost-effectiveness values at SJGS 

under the technical record developed 

for the FIP, and we agree with the 

comment that New Mexico’s cost range 

for SCR is still high compared to other 

cost studies. Even so, as discussed in 

response to comments from PNM 

concerning cost, the state’s BART 

selection in this case is reasonable. New 

Mexico was advantaged with the full 

technical record that we developed to 

promulgate the FIP, and the state 

declared that it would favor the 2013 

RH SIP revision even if it were to adopt 

and utilize the lower costs for SCR that 

we had relied on in promulgating the 

FIP. In addition, in our proposed action, 

we recalculated the annual cost and 

incremental cost-effectiveness of the 

four-SCR option using the cost estimates 

presented in the FIP. Thus, there is a 

significant record basis for our finding 

that lower SCR costs would not change 

the result of our action. 

As to the state’s alleged 

underestimation of SNCR costs, the 

comment does not provide any details 

to enable us to provide a response. We 

also considered the Ninth Circuit’s 

decision in Center for Biological 

Diversity v. National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration and do not see 

how it has any bearing on the issue of 

costs in this case. In that case, the Ninth 

Circuit faulted NHTSA for its failure to 

monetize the value of carbon emissions 

in setting fuel economy standards. In 

addition to the fact that the case did not 

concern BART determinations, the 

comment does not identify any 

particular line item in the state’s 

analysis of SCR costs that has not been 

monetized. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

our proposal failed to consider the 

prospect of installing SCR on Units 1 

and 4, while still shutting down Units 

2 and 3. The commenter noted that such 

a scenario would lead to even greater 

visibility benefits. The commenter 

provided modeled visibility results and 

estimates of the level of emission 

reductions that would result from this 

scenario and concluded that the State 

Alternative was inferior. 

Response: While we acknowledge that 

a scenario at SJGS involving two 

shutdowns and two SCRs would result 

in superior visibility benefits than the 

State Alternative or even the FIP, the 

state did not present this scenario to us 

in the 2013 RH SIP revision. As we 

explained above, we are required to 

evaluate the SIP revision that is before 

us. Moreover, in situations that involve 

the voluntary retirement of units, states 

need the flexibility to analyze control 

scenarios that have the support of the 

source owner. There is no evidence in 

the record indicating that PNM would 

have volunteered to retire two of its 

units if SCR were required on the 

remaining units. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

the NMED’s BART analysis contains a 

flawed visibility analysis. The 

commenter argued that NMED 

arbitrarily ignored fourteen Class I areas 

between 300 km and 440 km from SJGS 

in its cumulative visibility analysis, 

which was an arbitrary and unexplained 

departure from EPA’s analytical 

approach that was followed in analyzing 

the Big Stone and Colstrip power plants. 

The commenter concluded that the 

failure to assess impacts at more distant 

Class I areas masked the full visibility 

benefit of SCR. Finally, the commenter 

referred to comments submitted by the 

National Park Service to New Mexico on 

their proposed SIP revision, which 

stated that the visibility modeling was 

not done according to the BART 

Guidelines. 

Response: We disagree with this 

comment. In regard to selecting a model 

and developing a modeling protocol, the 

BART Guidelines refer to our Guideline 

on Air Quality Models 11 and the 

Interagency Workgroup on Air Quality 

Modeling (IWAQM) Phase 2 report.12

The IWAQM report reviewed modelperformance evaluations of CALPUFF as 

a function of distance from the source 

and recommended the use of CALPUFF 

for transport distances of order 200 km 

and less. The report also recommended 

that the use of CALPUFF for 

characterizing transport beyond 200 to 

300 km should be done cautiously with 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 196 / Thursday, October 9, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 60991 

13Available as NMED Ex. 14 of the 2013 RH SIP 

revision. 

14Public Service Company of New Mexico, San 

Juan Generating Station, Revised SNCR Analysis, 

February 11, 2011 (2011 NM RH SIP, NMED Ex. 7t). 

an awareness of the likely problems 

involved. Consistent with this 

recommendation, we believe that it is 

reasonable to use CALPUFF to evaluate 

visibility impacts up to 300 km. While 

we agree with the commenter that 

emissions from SJGS may impact Class 

I areas at distances greater than 300 km, 

the IWAQM report cautions that 

CALPUFF results are less reliable at 

distances greater than 300 km. 

Therefore, we do not think that it is 

arbitrary to exclude more distant 

receptors from a visibility analysis or to 

base the visibility assessment for a 

BART determination on visibility 

impacts within 300 km from the source. 

Contrary to the commenter’s 

suggestion, this was the same approach 

followed when modeling the visibility 

benefits associated with various control 

scenarios at the Colstrip power plant. 

See 77 FR 57867–68. In regard to the Big 

Stone power plant, South Dakota 

performed modeling for Class I areas 

beyond 300 km only because there were 

no Class I areas within 300 km of the 

source. As a result, South Dakota 

worked with EPA to develop a special 

modeling protocol that incorporated 

CALPUFF’s puff-splitting option despite 

the IWAQM report’s conceptual 

concerns with that feature. Moreover, 

South Dakota expressly acknowledged 

that it was departing from EPA’s 

guidance. Consequently, we believe that 

Big Stone presented an exception to the 

general rule that CALPUFF be applied 

to assess visibility impacts only on 

those Class I areas within 300 km of the 

source. Finally, in regard to NPS’s 

comments concerning the visibility 

analysis during the state process, we 

agree with the response provided at the 

time by NMED 13 and note that NPS did 

not raise these concerns again in their 

comments on our proposed action. 

Comment: A commenter stated that 

the proposed 0.23 lb/MMBtu limit does 

not apply to each unit due to a crossunit averaging provision, so the 

emissions from a given unit could be 

higher than 0.23 lb/MMbtu. 

Response: In this case, it is 

appropriate for the 2013 RH SIP revision 

to allow SJGS to average emissions 

across its BART-eligible emission units 

within the fence line. The BART 

Guidelines allow this approach when, 

as here, the reductions would be equal 

to those reductions that would be 

obtained by simply controlling each of 

the BART-eligible units that constitute 

the BART source. Because SJGS is 

required to demonstrate continuous 

compliance over a reasonable averaging 

time, the reductions associated with the 

assigned limit are assured. As part of its 

five-factor analysis, New Mexico 

evaluated the control effectiveness of 

SNCR and determined that SNCR could 

achieve an emission rate of 0.23 lb/ 

MMBtu on each unit based on tests and 

an updated performance guarantee from 

the vendor.14 Consistent with the BART 

Guidelines, the permit conditions at 

A112C specify the averaging time and 

calculation methodology for the 

enforceable emission limit, which must 

be calculated on a 30-boiler-operatingday basis, averaged across the two units. 

While we agree with the commenter that 

emissions from either unit may exceed 

0.23 lb/MMBtu on a given day, the 

combined emissions from both units 

cannot exceed 0.23 lb/MMBtu over the 

course of the averaging period, so total 

emission reductions will be equal to 

those that would be obtained under two 

separate limits. 

Comment: One commenter alleged 

that our proposal implied that PNM’s 

decision to retire Units 2 and 3 was 

solely taken for the purpose of meeting 

BART. The commenter suggested that 

EPA should explicitly state whether this 

was the case for the record or discuss 

whether independent reasons would 

require or motivate the shutdown of the 

units. 

Response: We fail to see how this 

comment is relevant to our evaluation of 

the 2013 RH SIP revision. Nevertheless, 

we note that, when developing the FIP, 

we assumed that the remaining useful 

life of all four units at SJGS exceeded 30 

years, and the 2013 RH SIP revision 

provides no information that would 

change that assumption. Nor does the 

SIP revision provide any information to 

suggest that PNM had motivations other 

than creating a more cost-effective 

BART-compliance scenario when 

volunteering to shut down Units 2 

and 3. 

Comment: A commenter stated that, 

while our proposal implied that there 

will be no capacity increase elsewhere 

or at the SJGS to replace the lost 

capacity from Units 2 and 3, the final 

rule should make this explicit to 

properly give weight to the benefits 

from their retirement. 

Response: We disagree with this 

comment. As an initial matter, our 

proposal did not imply that the 

retirement of Units 2 and 3 could be 

undertaken without the possible need to 

address lost capacity. Most likely, the 

lost capacity will be replaced through 

some combination of conservation, 

efficiency, and new capacity. More 

importantly, however, the CAA does not 

require an analysis of the statutory 

factors to include the consideration of 

hypothetical emissions increases at 

other facilities or even at the same 

facility due to lost capacity. We also 

note that any emissions units that might 

be constructed at SJGS in the future 

would likely be subject to both BACT 

and any applicable new source 

performance standards. Moreover, all 

emission units would be subject to 

analysis under the regional haze 

requirements for reasonable progress in 

future planning periods. 

Comment: One commenter asserted 

that our proposal failed to explain how 

New Mexico could permissibly reach a 

conclusion that directly opposes EPA’s 

conclusion in the FIP. The commenter 

stated that the voluntary retirement of 

Units 2 and 3 did not change the fact 

that SCR remains cost-effective at the 

Units 1 and 4. 

Response: We disagree that the 2013 

RH SIP reached a conclusion that 

directly opposes the conclusion we 

made in promulgating the FIP. Under 

different factual circumstances, we 

determined that SCR for the four SJGS 

units had reasonable average costeffectiveness values and would promote 

significant visibility improvements, 

thereby supporting the basis for the 

emission limits set forth in the FIP. As 

we stated in the proposal, the 2013 RH 

SIP revision contains a new, sourcespecific BART analysis that is based on 

different underlying facts than those 

that were present when we evaluated 

our FIP. We were not presented with the 

retirement of Units 2 and 3 when we 

promulgated the FIP. With this 

information in hand, New Mexico 

permissibly conducted a new BART 

analysis using a facility-wide approach 

that allowed the full range of visibility, 

energy, and non-air quality 

environmental benefits associated with 

the shutdowns to be taken into account. 

While the average cost-effectiveness of 

SCR on Units 1 and 4 remains 

reasonable, New Mexico demonstrated 

that the incremental cost-effectiveness 

of the four-SCR scenario in our FIP over 

the State Alternative was high when 

compared against the additional 

visibility improvements from the 

former, while also considering the 

energy, and non-air quality 

environmental benefits associated with 

the State Alternative. 

Comment: One commenter thought 

that the timeline for the installation of 

SNCR was too long because SNCR is a 

simpler technology to install than SCR. 

Response: We agree that SNCR is a 

simpler technology to install than SCR 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
60992 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 196 / Thursday, October 9, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

and requires less time for installation. 

New Mexico determined, and we agree, 

that the compliance timeframe in the 

2013 RH SIP revision is as expeditious 

as practicable, as required under 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(1)(iv). 

Comment: One commenter thought 

that the 0.05 lb/MMBtu rate used for the 

study of SCR as a BART control option 

was likely too high. The commenter 

suggested that many units, such as those 

in Dry Fork, WY and Morgantown, MD, 

are routinely achieving emission rates in 

the range of 0.02–0.04 lb/MMBtu. 

Reducing the studied emission limit for 

SCR to 0.04 lb/MMBtu would show the 

option to be even more cost-effective. 

Response: We disagree that lower 

control rates needed to be evaluated for 

SCR. We evaluated the monthly 

emission data from these two facilities 

for the past several years (available at 

EPA’s Air Market Program data Web 

site: www.epa.gov/ampd). All three 

units have monthly emission rates that 

sometimes exceed 0.04 lb/MMBtu. 

Indeed, the Morgantown units have 

months where the monthly emission 

rate is 0.05 lb/MMBtu or higher. In 

promulgating the FIP, we evaluated the 

performance of both new and retrofit 

SCRs and determined that 0.05 lb/ 

MMBtu on a 30-boiler-operating-day 

average was the appropriate emission 

limit for SCR at the SJGS units. See 76 

FR 491 and 76 FR 52388. New Mexico 

appropriately used this same rate in 

their cost and visibility analyses for the 

four-SCR scenario as part of its BART 

evaluation. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

The Administrator is required to 

approve a SIP submission that complies 

with the provisions of the Clean Air Act 

and applicable Federal regulations. 42 

U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, 

in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s 

role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this 

action merely approves state law 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 Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, the SIP is not approved 

to apply on any Indian reservation land 

or in any other area where EPA or an 

Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), nor will it impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law. 

Consistent with EPA policy, EPA 

offered consultation to tribes regarding 

this rulemaking action. 

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. 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 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 December 8, 

2014. Filing a petition for 

reconsideration by the Administrator of 

this final rule does not affect the finality 

of this action for the purposed 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, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, 

Regional haze, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

dioxide, and Visibility. 

Dated: September 26, 2014. 

Samuel Coleman, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6 

Therefore, 40 CFR part 52 is amended 

as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

■ 2. In § 52.1620: 

■ a. In paragraph (d), the table titled 

‘‘EPA-Approved New Mexico SourceSpecific Requirements’’ is amended by 

adding a first entry for ‘‘Units 1, 2, 3, & 

4 of the San Juan Generating Station’’ to 

the table. 

■ b. In paragraph (e), the second table 

entitled ‘‘EPA Approved Nonregulatory 

Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory 

Measures in the New Mexico SIP,’’ is 

amended by revising the entry for 

‘‘Regional Haze SIP under 40 CFR 

51.309, Statewide (except Bernalillo 

County)’’ and adding a new entry at the 

end for ‘‘Revision to satisfy the 

requirements of Clean Air Act 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) with respect to 

visibility for the 8-hour Ozone and 

PM2.5 NAAQS’’. 

The additions and revisions read as 

follows: 

§ 52.1620. Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 196 / Thursday, October 9, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 60993 

EPA-APPROVED NEW MEXICO SOURCE-SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS

Name of source Permit number 

State 

approval/ 

effective date 

EPA Approval date Explanation 

Units 1, 2, 3, & 4 of the San 

Juan Generating Station.

NSR Permit No. 0063–M6R3, 

Section A112C.

11/1/2013 10/9/14 [Insert FR citation] ....... Ch. 10 (BART) of SIP 

under 40 CFR 51.309(g). 

(e) * * * 

* * * * * 

EPA APPROVED NONREGULATORY PROVISIONS AND QUASI-REGULATORY MEASURES IN THE NEW MEXICO SIP 

Name of SIP provision Applicable geographic or 

nonattainment area 

State 

submittal/ 

effective date 

EPA approval date Explanation 

*******

Regional Haze SIP under 40 CFR 

51.309.

Statewide (except Bernalillo County).6/24/2011, 

10/7/2013, 

11/1/2013 

11/27/2012, 77 FR 70693, 10/9/14 

[Insert FR citation].

* * * * * * * 

Revision to satisfy the requirements 

of Clean Air Act 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) 

with respect to visibility for the 8- 

hour Ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS.

Statewide (except Bernalillo County).10/7/2013, 

11/1/2013 

10/9/14 [Insert FR citation].

§ 52.1629 [Removed and Reserved] 

■ 3. Section 52.1629 is removed and 

reserved. 

[FR Doc. 2014–23904 Filed 10–8–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 60 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2014–0272; FRL–9917–49– 

Region 9] 

Automatic Delegation of Authority to 

the States of Colorado, Montana, North 

Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and 

Wyoming To Implement and Enforce 

New Source Performance Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: This action informs the public 

that on February 27, 2014, the EPA 

authorized automatic delegation to 

implement and enforce Clean Air Act 

(CAA) New Source Performance 

Standards (NSPS) to the states of 

Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, 

South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming 

(hereafter Region 8 states). Also in this 

action, EPA is taking direct final action 

to delete the delegation status table of 

NSPS for Region 8 states in the Code of 

Federal Regulations (CFR) and replace it 

with a Web page address reflecting 

current delegation status of Region 8 

states. 

DATES: This rule is effective on 

December 8, 2014 without further 

notice, unless EPA receives adverse 

comment by November 10, 2014. If 

adverse comment is received, EPA will 

publish a timely withdrawal of the 

direct final rule in the Federal Register 

informing the public that the rule will 

not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08– 

OAR–2014–0272, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: fulton.abby@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (303) 312–6064 (please alert 

the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing 

comments). 

• Mail: Director, Air Program, 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P–AR, 1595 

Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 

80202–1129. 

• Hand Delivery: Director, Air 

Program, Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P– 

AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, 

Colorado 80202–1129. Such deliveries 

are only accepted Monday through 

Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding 

Federal holidays. Special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket EPA–R08–OAR–2014–0272. 

EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http://

www.regulations.gov or email. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an email comment directly 

to EPA, without going through http://

www.regulations.gov your email address 

will be automatically captured and 

included as part of the comment that is 

placed in the public docket and made 

available on the Internet. If you submit 

an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional instructions on 

submitting comments, go to Section I. 

General Information of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES