Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 91 / Monday, May 12, 2014 / Proposed Rules 26909 

(i) Related Information 

(1) For more information about this AD, 

contact Joseph Costa, Aerospace Engineer, 

Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 3960 

Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, CA 90712– 

4137; phone: 562–627–5246; fax: 562–627– 

5210; email: joseph.costa@faa.gov. 

(2) Allied-Signal Aerospace Company 

Service Bulletin No. TPE331–72–0873, 

Revision 1, dated May 20, 1993, addresses 

acceptable replacement parts, and other 

information pertaining to the subject of this 

AD. 

(3) For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Honeywell International 

Inc., 111 S. 34th Street, Phoenix, AZ 85034– 

2802; phone: 800–601–3099; Web site: 

http://portal.honeywell.com. 

(4) You may view this service information 

at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 

12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, 

MA. For information on the availability of 

this material at the FAA, call 781–238–7125. 

Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on 

May 6, 2014. 

Colleen M. D’Alessandro, 

Assistant Directorate Manager, Engine & 

Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2014–10783 Filed 5–9–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2014–0214; FRL–9910–77– 

Region 6] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; New Mexico; 

Regional Haze and Interstate Transport 

Affecting Visibility State 

Implementation Plan Revisions; 

Withdrawal of Federal Implementation 

Plan for the San Juan Generating 

Station 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

revisions to the New Mexico Regional 

Haze State Implementation Plan that 

address the Best Available Retrofit 

Technology (BART) requirement for 

oxides of nitrogen (NOX) for the Public 

Service of New Mexico (PNM) San Juan 

Generating Station (SJGS) in San Juan 

County, New Mexico and the New 

Mexico Visibility Transport SIP that 

address impacts of emissions from the 

SJGS, as required by the Federal Clean 

Air Act (CAA) mandate to ensure that 

emissions from sources in New Mexico 

do not interfere with programs in other 

states to protect visibility. In 

conjunction with these proposed 

approvals, we propose to withdraw the 

federal implementation plan (FIP) that 

addresses the NOX BART and visibility 

transport requirements for the SJGS. The 

EPA is taking this action under the 

CAA. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before June 11, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R06– 

OAR–2014–0214 by one of the following 

methods: 

• Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: 

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

online instructions. 

• Email: feldman.michael@epa.gov. 

• Mail or delivery: Mr. Guy 

Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning Section 

(6PD–L), Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, 

Dallas, Texas 75202–2733. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket No. EPA–R06–OAR–2014–0214. 

Our policy is that all comments received 

will be included in the public docket 

without change and may be made 

available online at 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. The 

www.regulations.gov Web site is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means we 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 us without going through 

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, we recommend 

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 we cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

we 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. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. Clearly mark the part or all of 

the information that you claim as CBI. 

For CBI information in a disk or CD 

ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the 

outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI 

and identify electronically within the 

disk or CD ROM the specific 

information that is claimed as CBI. In 

addition to one complete version of the 

comment that includes information 

claimed as CBI, you must submit a copy 

of the comment that does not contain 

the information claimed as CBI for 

inclusion in the public docket. We will 

not disclose information so marked 

except in accordance with procedures 

set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 

Docket: The index to the docket for 

this action is available electronically at 

www.regulations.gov and in hard copy 

at EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, 

Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. While all 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the index, some information may be 

publicly available only at the hard copy 

location (e.g., copyrighted material), and 

some may not be publicly available at 

either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the 

hard copy materials, please schedule an 

appointment with the person listed in 

the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

paragraph below or Mr. Bill Deese at 

214–665–7253. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael Feldman, 214–665–9793; 

feldman.michael@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Definitions 

For the purpose of this document, we 

are giving meaning to certain words or 

initials as follows: 

i. The words or initials Act or CAA 

mean or refer to the Clean Air Act, 

unless the context indicates otherwise. 

ii. The words EPA, we, us or our mean 

or refer to the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency. 

iii. The initials SIP mean or refer to 

State Implementation Plan. 

iv. The initials FIP mean or refer to 

Federal Implementation Plan. 

v. The initials RH and RHR mean or 

refer to Regional Haze and the Regional 

Haze Rule. 

vi. The initials NMED mean the New 

Mexico Environmental Department. 

vii. The initials BART mean or refer 

to Best Available Retrofit Technology. 

viii. The initials EGUs mean or refer 

to Electric Generating Units. 

ix. The initials NOX mean or refer to 

nitrogen oxides. 

x. The initials SO2 mean or refer to 

sulfur dioxide. 

xi. The initials H2SO4 mean or refer to 

sulfuric acid. 

xii. The initials PM2.5 mean or refer to 

particulate matter with an aerodynamic 

of less than 2.5 micrometers. 

xiii. The initials NAAQS mean or 

refer to the National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards. 

xiv. The initials RPOs mean or refer 

to regional planning organizations. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
26910 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 91 / Monday, May 12, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

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 

would be moot should EPA finalize an approval as 

today proposed. 

2While the descriptor alternative suffices for 

explaining the procedural setting for our review, it 

is not here being used as a regulatory term of art. 

In other words, we do not intend to suggest that the 

State Alternative is an ‘‘alternative measure’’ under 

40 CFR 51.308(e)(2) or that it purports to provide 

greater reasonable progress than BART. 

3Term 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. 

4NSR Technical Permit Revision, NSR Permit No. 

0063–M6R3, November 1, 2013. 

5See letter from EPA to Richard Goodyear, 

Bureau Chief, Air Quality Bureau, NMED, 

December 17, 2013. 

6NSR Technical Permit Revision, NSR Permit No. 

0063–M6R3, November 1, 2013. 

xv. The initials WRAP mean or refer 

to the Western Regional Air Partnership. 

xvi. The initials GCVTC mean or refer 

to the Grand Canyon Visibility 

Transport Commission. 

xvii. The initials PNM mean or refer 

to the Public Service Company of New 

Mexico. 

xviii. The initials SJGS mean or refer 

to the San Juan Generating Station. 

xix. The initials SCR mean or refer to 

Selective Catalytic Reduction. 

xx. The initials SNCR mean or refer to 

Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction. 

xxi. The initials TSD mean or refer to 

Technical Support Document. 

Table of Contents 

I. Overview of Proposed Action 

A. Summary of State Submittals and EPA 

Actions 

B. Proposed Action on NOX BART 

Determination for SJGS 

C. Proposed Action on Interstate Transport 

Affecting Visibility 

II. What is the background for our proposed 

actions? 

A. Requirements for Best Available Retrofit 

Technology 

B. The 1997 NAAQS for Ozone and PM2.5

and CAA 110(a)(2)(D)(i) 

III. Our Analysis of the State of New Mexico’s 

Regional Haze SIP Revision for NOX

BART 

A. New Mexico’s NOX BART 

Determination 

B. Our Evaluation of New Mexico’s NOX

BART Determination 

IV. Our Analysis of New Mexico’s Interstate 

Visibility Transport SIP Provisions 

V. EPA’s Analysis of 110(l) 

VI. EPA’s Conclusions and Proposed Action 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Overview of Proposed Action 

A. Summary of State Submittals and 

EPA Actions 

The State of New Mexico adopted and 

transmitted an Interstate Transport SIP 

revision on September 17, 2007 for the 

purpose of addressing the ‘‘good 

neighbor’’ provisions of the CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS and the PM2.5 NAAQS. The 

EPA disapproved a portion of that SIP 

submittal addressing the requirements 

with respect to visibility transport (VT) 

and concurrently promulgated a FIP 

establishing enforceable NOX and SO2

emission limits for the SJGS on August 

22, 2011. The EPA set SO2 emission 

limits of 0.15 pounds per million British 

Thermal Units (lb/MMBtu) for the four 

units of the SJGS. The EPA set 

enforceable NOX emission limits of 0.05 

lbs/MMBtu based upon the EPA’s NOX

BART determination for the SJGS, to 

ensure that its emissions would meet 

the ‘‘good neighbor’’ requirement for 

visibility protection, as well as the 

requirement for NOX BART. 76 FR 

52388 (August 22, 2011). The EPA’s 

NOX BART emission limits can be met 

by the installation of selective catalytic 

reduction (SCR) at all four units of SJGS. 

Among other things, the FIP also 

included a sulfuric acid (H2SO4) 

emission limit to minimize the 

contribution of this pollutant to 

visibility impairment, since emissions 

of this pollutant can potentially increase 

due to operation of SCR. While the FIP 

at 49 CFR 52.1628 is currently in place, 

it may be withdrawn if the EPA 

approves a SIP revision addressing the 

RH requirements for NOX BART and the 

VT requirements for enforceable NOX

and SO2 emission limits. 

The State of New Mexico adopted and 

transmitted RH SIP revisions on 

December 1, 2003 and July 5, 2011 

(‘‘2011 RH SIP revision’’) that addressed 

the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309. The 

EPA approved all of the two submittals 

on November 7, 2012 (77 FR 70693) 

except for the submitted NOX BART 

determination for SJGS. We did not take 

action on this portion of the 2011 RH 

SIP revision because stakeholders, 

including PNM, the New Mexico 

Environmental Department (NMED), 

and EPA, initiated discussions on the 

development of a new alternative that, 

if approved, would impose new NOX

BART requirements on SJGS and allow 

for withdrawal of our FIP. In a February 

22, 2013 letter, New Mexico requested 

that the EPA stay any agency review of 

the NOX BART portion of the 2011 RH 

SIP revision in the interest of pursuing 

development and a hoped-for approval 

of an alternative. 

Accordingly, New Mexico submitted 

RH SIP revisions on October 7, 2013 and 

November 5, 2013, (‘‘2013 RH SIP 

revision’’) that build on the 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’’ 2). The State 

Alternative consists of a previously uncontemplated control scenario involving 

unit shutdowns at the SJGS. If fully 

approved by the EPA, 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 nonbinding agreement 

signed between the PNM, 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.3 The 2013 

RH SIP revision also includes a 

preconstruction permit submitted on 

November 5, 2013 4 that sets a NOX

emission limit based upon the State 

Alternative, compliance schedules, 

compliance deadline for shutdown of 

two units, and monitoring and testing 

requirements. We previously found that 

the 2013 RH SIP revision met the 

completeness criteria in 40 CFR Part 51, 

Appendix V on December 17, 2013.5

New Mexico also adopted and 

submitted VT SIP revisions on July 5, 

2011 (‘‘2011 VT SIP revision), and on 

October 18, 2013 and November 5, 2013 

(‘‘2013 VT SIP revision’’). The 2011 VT 

SIP revision, as revised in 2013, 

includes the determination that all 

sources in New Mexico are sufficiently 

controlled to eliminate interference with 

the visibility programs of other states. It 

also includes a preconstruction permit 

for the SJGS, submitted on November 5, 

2013,6 establishing a more stringent SO2

emission limit as part of the State 

Alternative and a NOX emission limit 

reflecting the State Alternative. 

New Mexico has incorporated 

emissions 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 as part of the State Alternative and 

a NOX emission limit reflecting the State 

Alternative. The fuller permit contains 

three independent scenarios under 

section A112: A, B and C. If the SIP 

revisions are fully approved by the EPA 

and consistent with the terms of the 

permit as explained in the background 

section of the permit, Scenario C 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 91 / Monday, May 12, 2014 / Proposed Rules 26911 

7 40 CFR 51.308(e) contains the basic regulatory 

requirement for BART. 

8Since we are proposing to approve the State 

Alternative that does not include SCR operation, we 

are also proposing to withdraw the H2SO4 emission 

limit in the FIP as it is no longer necessary to 

protect visibility impairment from the facility due 

to emissions of H2SO4. 

9See 64 FR 35714 (July 1, 1999); see also 70 FR 

39104 (July 6, 2005) and 71 FR 60612 (October 13, 

2006). 

becomes effective and the other two 

scenarios are moot. 

B. Proposed Action on NOX BART 

Determination for SJGS 

As a ‘‘309’’ state, the regulatory 

requirement for NOX BART applies to 

subject-to-BART sources in New Mexico 

via 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(vii), which 

requires that the SIP contain ‘‘BART 

requirements for stationary source PM 

and NOX emissions.’’ 7 We note that we 

approved New Mexico’s BART 

determination for PM emissions from 

the SJGS in our final action on 

November 27, 2012. 77 FR 70693. 

Today, we are proposing to approve 

New Mexico’s latest NOX BART 

determination for the SJGS and are 

proposing to withdraw our FIP. Upon 

final approval of the 2013 RH SIP 

revision, the FIP requirements 

addressing regional haze, including the 

NOX and H2SO4 emission limits,8 may 

be withdrawn through a separate 

Administrator-signed final action. 

C. Proposed Action on Interstate 

Transport Affecting Visibility 

We are also proposing to approve the 

2011 Visibility Transport SIP revision as 

revised in 2013 as addressing the ‘‘good 

neighbor’’ provisions of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS and the PM2.5 NAAQS. Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of the Act requires that 

a SIP contain provisions ‘‘prohibiting 

any source or other type of emission 

activity within the state from emitting 

any air pollutant in amounts which will 

. . . interfere with measures required to 

be included in the applicable 

implementation plan for any other State 

under part C [of the CAA] to protect 

visibility.’’ Because of the impacts on 

visibility from the interstate transport of 

pollutants, we interpret the ‘‘good 

neighbor’’ provisions of section 110 of 

the Act as requiring states to include in 

their SIPs either measures to prohibit 

emissions that would interfere with the 

reasonable progress goals set to protect 

Class I areas in other states, or a 

demonstration that emissions from the 

State’s sources and activities will not 

interfere with other states’ visibility 

programs. 

We are proposing to approve the 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 visibility 

programs of other states. We are 

proposing to approve 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. Consistent with our proposed 

approval of the 2011 Visibility 

Transport SIP revision, as revised in 

2013, we are proposing to rescind the 

provisions of the FIP that address NOX

and SO2 emissions for the SJGS for the 

purpose of meeting the ‘‘good neighbor’’ 

requirements of CAA section 

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

visibility. Upon final approval of the 

2011 Visibility Transport SIP revision, 

as revised in 2013, the FIP requirements 

pertaining to SO2 and NOX emission 

limits for visibility transport for the 

SJGS may be withdrawn through a 

separate Administrator-signed final 

action. 

II. What is the background for our 

proposed actions? 

In the CAA Amendments of 1977, 

Congress established a program to 

protect and improve visibility in 

national parks and wilderness areas. See 

CAA section 169A. Congress amended 

the visibility provisions in the CAA in 

1990 to focus attention on the problem 

of regional haze. See CAA section 169B. 

We promulgated regulations in 1999 to 

implement sections 169A and 169B of 

the Act. These regulations require states 

to develop and implement SIPs to 

ensure reasonable progress toward 

improving visibility in mandatory Class 

I Federal areas (Class I areas) by 

reducing emissions that cause or 

contribute to regional haze.9 The final 

actions published at 77 FR 70693 

(November 27, 2012) and 76 FR 52388 

(August 22, 2011), and their underlying 

proposals, contain complete discussions 

of the RHR requirements, generally, as 

well as the detailed background 

information on those requirements as 

applicable to states such as New Mexico 

that elected to submit SIPs to satisfy the 

requirements of 40 CFR 51.309, i.e., the 

regulations specially developed for 

certain Western states opting to address 

regional haze at Colorado Plateau Class 

I areas by implementing the 

recommendations of the Grand Canyon 

Visibility Transport Commission. The 

requirements for NOX BART and 

interstate transport for visibility are the 

only requirements addressed in this 

proposal, and other regional haze 

requirements are discussed for 

background purposes only. 

A. Requirements for Best Available 

Retrofit Technology 

Regional haze SIPs must assure 

reasonable progress towards the 

national goal of achieving natural 

visibility conditions in Class I areas. 

Section 169A of the CAA and our 

implementing regulations require states 

to establish long-term strategies for 

making reasonable progress toward 

meeting this goal. SIPs must also give 

specific attention to certain stationary 

sources that were in existence on 

August 7, 1977, but were not in 

operation before August 7, 1962, and 

require these sources, where 

appropriate, to install BART controls for 

the purpose of eliminating or reducing 

visibility impairment. 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(vii), 

a regional haze SIP submitted under the 

309 program to address SO2 emissions 

must contain any necessary long-term 

strategies and BART requirements for 

PM and NOX. These BART 

determinations must be submitted 

pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e). States are 

directed to conduct BART 

determinations for such sources that 

may be anticipated to cause or 

contribute to any visibility impairment 

in a Class I area. Rather than requiring 

source-specific BART controls, states 

also have the flexibility under 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(2) to adopt an emissions 

trading program or other alternative 

program as long as the alternative 

program provides greater reasonable 

progress towards improving visibility 

than BART. The discussion below 

specifically applies to regional haze 

SIPs that opt to require BART on 

sources subject to the BART 

requirements, rather than satisfying the 

requirements for alternative measures 

that would be evaluated under 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(2). 

On July 6, 2005, the EPA published 

the Guidelines for BART Determinations 

Under the Regional Haze Rule at 

Appendix Y to 40 CFR Part 51 

(hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘BART 

Guidelines’’) to assist states in 

determining which of their sources 

should be subject to the BART 

requirements and the appropriate 

emission limits for each applicable 

source. The BART Guidelines are not 

mandatory for all sources. However, in 

making a BART determination for a 

fossil fuel-fired electric generating plant 

(EGU) with a total generating capacity in 

excess of 750 megawatts, a state must 

use the approach set forth in the BART 

Guidelines. See CAA section 169A(b)(2). 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
26912 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 91 / Monday, May 12, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

10BART-eligible sources are those sources that 

have the potential to emit 250 tons or more of a 

visibility-impairing air pollutant, were put in place 

between August 7, 1962 and August 7, 1977, and 

whose operations fall within one or more of 26 

specifically listed source categories. See CAA 

section 169A(b)(2)(A). 

A state is encouraged, but not required, 

to follow the BART Guidelines in 

making BART determinations for other 

types of sources. 

The process of establishing BART 

emission limitations can be logically 

broken down into three steps: First, 

states identify those sources which meet 

the definition of ‘‘BART-eligible source’’ 

set forth in 40 CFR 51.301; 10 second, 

states determine whether such sources 

‘‘emit[] any air pollutant which may 

reasonably be anticipated to cause or 

contribute to any impairment of 

visibility in any such area’’ (a source 

that fits this description is ‘‘subject to 

BART’’) and; third, for each source 

subject to BART, states identify the 

appropriate type and the level of control 

for reducing emissions. 

Under the BART Guidelines, states 

may select a visibility impact threshold, 

measured in deciviews (dv), below 

which a BART-eligible source would 

not be expected to cause or contribute 

to visibility impairment in any Class I 

area. The state must document this 

threshold in the SIP and state the basis 

for its selection of that value. Any 

source with visibility impacts that 

model above the threshold value would 

be subject to a BART determination 

review. The BART Guidelines 

acknowledge varying circumstances 

affecting different Class I areas. States 

should consider the number of emission 

sources affecting the Class I areas at 

issue and the magnitude of the 

individual sources’ impacts. Any 

visibility impact threshold set by the 

state should not be higher than 0.5 dv. 

See 40 CFR part 51, app. Y, section 

III.A.1. 

The BART Guidelines establish the dv 

as the principal metric for measuring 

visibility. Id. This visibility metric 

expresses uniform changes in visibility 

impairment in terms of common 

increments across the entire range of 

visibility conditions, from pristine to 

extremely hazy conditions. Visibility is 

sometimes expressed in terms of the 

visual range which is the greatest 

distance, in kilometers or miles, at 

which a dark object can just be 

distinguished against the sky. The dv is 

a more useful measure for tracking 

progress in improving visibility because 

each dv change is an equal incremental 

change in visibility perceived by the 

human eye. 

In their SIPs, states must identify 

subject-to-BART sources and document 

their BART control determination 

analyses. In making BART 

determinations, section 169A(g)(2) of 

the CAA requires that states consider 

the following factors: (1) The costs of 

compliance; (2) the energy and non-air 

quality environmental impacts of 

compliance; (3) any existing pollution 

control technology in use at the source; 

(4) the remaining useful life of the 

source; and (5) the degree of 

improvement in visibility which may 

reasonably be anticipated to result from 

the use of such technology. States are 

free to determine the weight and 

significance to be assigned to each 

factor. 

A regional haze SIP must include 

source-specific BART emission limits 

and compliance schedules for each 

source subject to BART. Once a state has 

made its BART determination, the 

BART controls must be installed and 

operated as expeditiously as practicable, 

but no later than five years after the date 

of the EPA approval of the regional haze 

SIP. CAA section 169(g)(4); 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(1)(iv). In addition to what is 

required by the RHR, general SIP 

requirements mandate that the SIP must 

also include all regulatory requirements 

related to monitoring, recordkeeping, 

and reporting for the BART controls on 

the source. See CAA section 110(a). 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(vii), 

the 2013 RH SIP revision contains an 

enforceable NOX BART determination. 

We had previously promulgated a FIP 

that included NOX emission limits of 

0.05 lb/MMBtu on each of the four units 

at SJGS to address both the 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and the NOX BART 

requirements of CAA section 169A and 

the Regional Haze Rule. The FIP also 

included emission limits for H2SO4, 

which were established to minimize the 

contribution of this pollutant to 

visibility impairment in light of 

potential increases in emissions due to 

operation of SCR. 

B. The 1997 NAAQS for Ozone and 

PM2.5 and CAA 110(a)(2)(D)(i) 

On August 15, 2006, we issued our 

‘‘Guidance for State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) Submissions to Meet Current 

Outstanding Obligations Under Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-Hour Ozone and 

PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards’’ (2006 Guidance). We 

developed the 2006 Guidance to make 

recommendations to states for making 

submissions to meet the requirements of 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 

8-hour ozone standards and the 1997 

PM2.5 standards. 

As identified in the 2006 Guidance, 

the ‘‘good neighbor’’ provisions in 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA 

require each state to submit a SIP that 

prohibits emissions that adversely affect 

another state in the ways contemplated 

in the statute. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) 

contains four distinct requirements 

related to the impacts of interstate 

transport. The SIP must prevent sources 

in the state from emitting pollutants in 

amounts which will: (1) Contribute 

significantly to nonattainment of the 

NAAQS in other states; (2) interfere 

with maintenance of the NAAQS in 

other states; (3) interfere with provisions 

to prevent significant deterioration of air 

quality in other states; or (4) interfere 

with efforts to protect visibility in other 

states. In this action, we only address 

the fourth element regarding visibility. 

The 2006 Guidance stated that states 

may make a simple SIP submission 

confirming that it is not possible at that 

time to assess whether there is any 

interference with measures in the 

applicable SIP for another state 

designed to ‘‘protect visibility’’ for the 

8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS until 

regional haze SIPs were submitted and 

approved. Regional haze SIPs were 

required to be submitted by December 

17, 2007. 40 CFR 51.308(b). 

Although we received a SIP revision 

from New Mexico on September 17, 

2007, to meet the requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), a portion of 

which addressed the fourth element 

regarding interference with the 

programs of other states to protect 

visibility, we disapproved this portion 

of the SIP revision for the reasons 

discussed in our final action published 

on August 22, 2011. 76 FR 52389. That 

action concurrently promulgated a FIP 

requiring SO2 and NOX emission limits 

for the SJGS to prevent interference with 

programs to protect visibility in other 

states and finalized a determination 

that, at that time, no additional controls 

on any other sources were necessary. 

III. Our Analysis of the State of New 

Mexico’s Regional Haze SIP Revision 

for NOX BART 

The following discussion evaluates 

the 2013 RH SIP revision intended to 

address the requirements of 40 CFR 

51.309(d)(4)(vii) for the implementation 

of NOX BART at SJGS. The BART 

evaluation process consists of three 

components: (1) An identification of all 

BART-eligible sources, (2) an 

assessment of whether those BARTeligible sources are in fact subject to 

BART and (3) a determination of any 

BART controls. In our prior review and 

action on the 2011 RH SIP revision, we 

agreed with New Mexico’s identification 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 91 / Monday, May 12, 2014 / Proposed Rules 26913 

11 70 FR 39164. 

12Correspondence between PNM and NMED 

concerning these BART analyses is contained in 

NMED Exhibit 6 of the 2011 RH SIP revision. 

13PNM’s 2007 BART analysis and subsequent 

analyses are Exhibit 7a through 7t of the NMED’s 

2011 RH SIP revision. 

14Public Service of New Mexico, Best Available 

Retrofit Technology Analysis, Addendum, April 1, 

2013, submitted as Exhibit 6 of the 2013 RH SIP 

revision 

15The 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. 

16Unless the long-term performance evaluation is 

delayed due to a delay in the EPA approval or per 

the language in the Term Sheet at paragraph 1(d)(iv) 

concerning the evaluation period spanning the 

required number of days during both the summer 

and winter months. 

of sources that are BART-eligible and 

subject to BART, including Units 1, 2, 

3, and 4 of the SJGS. 77 FR 70693 

(November 27, 2012). We approved the 

State’s PM BART determinations and 

emission limits for these units, as well 

as the State’s participation in the SO2

emission reduction milestones and 

backstop trading program, while taking 

no action on the State’s NOX BART 

determinations and emission limits for 

these units. The State’s conclusions 

were also consistent with the 

determinations that the EPA made in 

the course of promulgating its FIP for 

the SJGS. In that final action we found 

that units 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the SJGS 

comprise the only New Mexico source 

subject to BART. 77 FR 70693 

(November 27, 2012). The focus of our 

current review is on the third 

component—the determination of NOX

BART controls for these units. 

The BART Guidelines 11 describe the 

BART analysis as consisting of the 

following five basic steps: 

• Step 1: Identify All Available 

Retrofit Control Technologies, 

• Step 2: Eliminate Technically 

Infeasible Options, 

• Step 3: Evaluate Control 

Effectiveness of Remaining Control 

Technologies, 

• Step 4: Evaluate Impacts and 

Document the Results, and 

• Step 5: Evaluate Visibility Impacts. 

The SJGS consists of four coal-fired 

generating units and associated support 

facilities. Each coal-fired unit burns 

pulverized coal and No. 2 diesel oil (for 

startup) in a boiler, and produces highpressure steam that powers a steam 

turbine coupled with an electric 

generator. Electric power produced by 

the units is supplied to the electric 

power grid for sale. Coal for the units is 

supplied by the adjacent San Juan Mine. 

Units 1 and 2 have a unit capacity of 

350 and 360 MW, respectively. Units 3 

and 4 each have a unit capacity of 544 

MW. 

In June 2007, the operator of the SJGS, 

PNM, submitted its NOX BART 

evaluation to NMED. That analysis was 

added to and revised multiple times to 

incorporate new information or in 

response to comments/requests from the 

NMED 12 for additional visibility 

modeling analyses, control technology 

considerations, and cost analyses.13

PNM’s April 2013 BART Analysis 

addendum 14 (referred to hereafter as the 

‘‘2013 PNM report’’) is an addendum 

and update to the 2007 evaluation and 

subsequent revisions. This analysis adds 

to and updates the previous analyses 

and considers a new scenario not 

previously evaluated. 

The 2013 RH SIP revision under 

review in this action builds upon the 

2011 RH SIP revision and its supporting 

BART analyses, and examines a new 

control scenario including unit 

shutdowns not previously analyzed. For 

purposes of reviewing projected 

visibility benefits and cost-effectiveness, 

this scenario, called the State 

Alternative, is compared to the control 

scenario in the FIP (SCR on all four 

units) and the State’s 2011 NOX BART 

determination (selective non-catalytic 

reduction (SNCR) on all four units). The 

State Alternative differs from the NOX

BART emission limit of 0.05 lb/MMBtu 

in the FIP (which can be met by the 

installation of SCR on all four units) and 

the State’s earlier submitted, superseded 

(if the 2013 RH SIP revision is fully 

approved) determination of 0.23 lb/

MMBtu (which can be met by 

installation of SNCR on all four units). 

The State Alternative contains several 

elements, including among other things, 

the installation of SNCR on Units 1 and 

4 and enforceable deadlines by which 

Units 2 and 3 will be permanently 

retired. The emission reductions, 

visibility improvements, and additional 

non-air quality environmental benefits 

due to the unit shutdowns were an 

important consideration in New 

Mexico’s selection of the State 

Alternative as NOX BART for the SJGS. 

More specifically, the 2013 RH SIP 

revision requires the following: 

• Fifteen (15) months after the EPA 

final approval of the 2013 RH SIP 

revision, but no earlier than January 31, 

2016, the PNM will complete 

installation of SNCR technology on the 

SJGS Units 1 and 4 and meet an 

emission limit of 0.23 lb/MMBtu on a 

rolling 30-day average basis; 15

• Retirement of the SJGS Units 2 and 

3 by December 31, 2017; 

• The PNM will commence a program 

of testing and evaluation, after the 

installation of 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, 

2017.16

In accordance with section 169A of 

the CAA, the RHR, and the BART 

Guidelines, New Mexico weighed the 

five statutory factors in making its NOX

BART determination. New Mexico’s 

final evaluation is available in the 

revised Chapter 10 and Appendix D of 

the 2013 RH SIP revision. We note that 

the State Alternative also results in 

additional reductions in the emissions 

of SO2 on Units 1 and 4. These SO2

emission reductions occur separately 

and apart from the SO2 backstop trading 

program that the EPA has already 

approved as satisfying SO2 BART. These 

SO2 reductions will result in increased 

visibility improvement, and result in 

permitted emissions substantially below 

the level needed to prevent SO2

emissions from New Mexico from 

interfering with the visibility programs 

of other States, as discussed in our 

review of the State’s 2013 Visibility 

Transport SIP revision below. 

A. New Mexico’s NOX BART 

Determination 

In promulgating our FIP, we drew 

heavily upon the analyses prepared by 

the NMED and PNM that were available 

at the time. While we agreed with some 

conclusions presented in those analyses, 

we also disagreed with a number of 

points that are outlined in the proposed 

and final FIP Federal Register notices. 

76 FR 491 (January 5, 2011) and 76 FR 

52388 (August 22, 2011). The BART 

review of the State Alternative in the 

2013 RH SIP revision examines a new 

control scenario, the State Alternative, 

and compares it to the control scenarios 

in the FIP and the 2011 RH SIP revision. 

As explained above, the State 

Alternative is a new control scenario 

proposed by the PNM in coordination 

with the State that includes the 

shutdown of two units at the SJGS by 

December 31, 2017. Consequently, this 

control scenario is different than the 

control scenarios contemplated in the 

FIP and the 2011 RH SIP revision. 

Although the EPA’s regulations do not 

require states to consider a fuel switch 

or a shutdown of an existing unit as part 

of their BART analyses, a state may 

include such options in its analysis 

where a company voluntarily offers 

such measures as a strategy for reducing 

emissions. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
26914 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 91 / Monday, May 12, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

17Consent Decree in The Grand Canyon Trust 

and Sierra Club, Plaintiffs, The State of New 

Mexico, Plaintiff-Intervenor, v. Public Service 

Company of New Mexico, Defendant, (CV 02– 

552BB/ACT (ACE)), lodged in the United States 

District Court, District of New Mexico, on March 10, 

2005, at 15–16. 18Public Service Company of New Mexico, San 

Juan Generating Station, Revised SNCR Analysis, 

February 11, 2011 (2011 NM RH SIP, NMED Ex. 7t). 19As we discuss in our FIP regarding NOX BART 

for the SJGS, we found that SCRSCRSCR is capable 

of achieving an emission limit of 0.05 lbs/MMBtu 

on each of the units of the SJGS, based on a 30 

boiler operating day average. 76 FR 52388. 

20Best Available Retrofit Technology Analysis 

Addendum, Public Service of New Mexico, April 1, 

2013, submitted as Exhibit 6 of the 2013 RH SIP 

revision 

21PNM San Juan Generating Station BART 

Analysis of Nalco Mobotec NOX Control 

Technologies, August 29, 2008. NMED Exhibit 7n 

of the 2011 RH SIP revision 

22PNM San Juan Generating Station BART 

Analysis Update, February 11, 2011. NMED exhibit 

7t of the 2011 RH SIP revision 

23Table 2 was constructed by PNM to incorporate 

costs due to sorbent injection, as a means of SO3

control in conjunction with SCR. This was done by 

PNM in response to a request by NMED. As NMED 

notes in its BART analysis, it understands there are 

SCR catalysts now on the market that are capable 

of a much smaller SO2 to SO3 conversion. 

Furthermore, our analysis contained in the TSD to 

the FIP and the FIP indicate that anticipated SO3

emissions to be much lower than estimated by PNM 

and finds that sorbent injection is not necessary. 

The TSD for our FIP, ‘‘Visibility Modeling for BART 

Determination: San Juan Generating Station, New 

Mexico,’’ and the proposed and final FIP are 

available in the docket to our FIP and also included 

in the docket for this action. 

i. Identification of All Available Retrofit 

Emission Control Technologies 

The SJGS currently has low-NOX

burners (LNB) with overfire air (OFA) 

and a neural network to reduce NOX

emissions and comply with a 2005 

consent decree 17 emission limit of 0.30 

lb NOX/MMBtu on a daily rolling 30- 

day average basis. To address step 1 of 

the BART analysis, New Mexico 

identified a number of potentially 

available NOX control technologies, 

including SNCR, SCR, SNCR/SCR 

Hybrid, Natural Gas Reburn, Nalco 

Mobotec ROFA and Rotamix, NOXStar, 

ECOTUBE, PowerSpan ECO, Phenix 

Clean Combustion, and e-SCRUB. 

ii. Elimination of Technically Infeasible 

Options 

To address step 2 of the BART 

analysis, New Mexico determined that 

the following potentially available NOX

control technologies are not technically 

feasible: Natural Gas Reburn, NOXStar, 

ECOTUBE, PowerSpan ECO, Phenix 

Clean Combustion, and e-SCRUB. This 

conclusion is consistent with our own 

analysis in development of the FIP. New 

Mexico concluded that SCR, SNCR, 

SNCR/SCR Hybrid, and Nalco Mobotec 

ROFA and Rotamix are technically 

feasible control options for the SJGS 

units. 

iii. Evaluation of Control Effectiveness 

of Remaining Control Technologies 

Step 3 of the BART analysis requires 

the evaluation of the control 

effectiveness of the remaining control 

technologies. Table 1 shows the control 

effectiveness of each remaining control 

technology in New Mexico’s BART 

analysis, based on a baseline emission 

rate of 0.30 lb/MMBtu. In its 2011 RH 

SIP revision, New Mexico revised the 

achievable controlled emission rate of 

SNCR from its earlier analysis of 0.24 

lb/MMBtu to 0.23 lb/MMBtu, based on 

tests and an updated performance 

guarantee from the vendor.18 New 

Mexico previously evaluated SCR at an 

emission rate of 0.07 lb/MMBtu and a 

control efficiency of 77%.19 In its 2013 

RH SIP revision, however, New Mexico 

revised its evaluation of SCR, 

concluding that at an emission rate of 

0.05 lb/MMBtu and a control efficiency 

of 83% are achievable, consistent with 

our own evaluation in the FIP. 

TABLE 1—NEW MEXICO’S DETERMINATION OF NOX CONTROL EFFECTIVENESS

Control technology 

Control 

efficiency 

(%) 

Controlled 

emission rate 

(lb/MMBtu) 

ROFA ............................................................................................................................................................... 13 0.26 

Rotamix (SNCR) .............................................................................................................................................. 23 0.23 

SNCR ............................................................................................................................................................... 23 0.23 

ROFA/Rotamix ................................................................................................................................................. 33 0.20 

SCR/SNCR Hybrid ........................................................................................................................................... 40 0.18 

SCR ................................................................................................................................................................. 83 0.05 

iv. Evaluation of Impacts and 

Documentation of Results 

The BART Guidelines require that the 

cost of compliance, energy impacts, 

non-air quality environmental impacts, 

and remaining useful life of the facility 

be analyzed for each potential control 

technology in step 4. Table 2, which is 

found as Table 10 of the revised 

Appendix D of the 2013 RH SIP 

revision, summarizes the unit specific 

cost analysis results submitted to the 

NMED by PNM. The control 

effectiveness for SCR and SNCR in this 

analysis have been updated and the 

costs of these two options have also 

been revised to reflect more recent cost 

information submitted by the PNM 20 to 

NMED for evaluation. The costs 

associated with ROFA, ROFA/Rotamix 

and Rotamix are based on the 2008 

vendor quotes 21 and later adjusted to 

2010 dollars.22 The cost of sorbent 

injection is included in the cost analysis 

for SCR.23 We note that costs for SCR 

and SNCR options are in 2013 dollars 

and annualized over 30 years, while all 

remaining control options are in 2010 

dollars and annualized over 20 years. 

Because the rate of inflation between 

2013 and 2010 was minimal (1.07 

percent), the costs are comparable. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 91 / Monday, May 12, 2014 / Proposed Rules 26915 

TABLE 2—NEW MEXICO’S ANALYSIS OF THE IMPACTS AND COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF NOX CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES

Control technology 

Emission 

limit 

lb/MMBtu 

NOX

emissions 

(tpy) 

NOX

reduction 

(tpy) 

Total 

capital 

investment 

(TCI) 

(1,000$) 

Total 

annualized 

cost 

(TAC) 

(1,000$) 

Cost 

effectiveness 

($/ton) 

Incremental 

cost 

effectiveness 

($/ton) 

Energy 

impacts 

(1,000$) 

Non-air 

impacts 

(1,000$) 

Unit 1 

SCR + sorbent .......... 0.05 690 3,450 180,862 22,165 6,425 6,749 746 1 NA 

SNCR/SCR Hybrid .... 0.18 2,484 1,656 110,683 16,816 10,154 35,917 706 1,762 

ROFA/Rotamix .......... 0.20 2,760 1,380 30,790 6,902 5,001 7,982 1,413 3 

Rotamix (SNCR) ....... 0.23 3,174 966 11,822 3,597 3,723 116 51 4 

SNCR ........................ 0.23 3,174 966 17,392 5,400 5,590 80 43 1 NA 

ROFA ........................ 0.26 3,588 552 19,256 3,549 6,429 ............................ 1,363 1 NA 

Consent Decree ........ 0.30 4,140 1,254 14,580 1,422 1,134 NA NA1 1 NA 

Pre-CD ...................... 0.43 5,394 NA NA NA NA NA NA 1 NA 

Unit 2 

SCR + sorbent .......... 0.05 687 3,433 203,360 24,562 7,157 7,755 729 1 NA 

SNCR/SCR Hybrid .... 0.18 2,471 1,648 115,151 17,306 10,503 37,887 346 1,762 

ROFA/Rotamix .......... 0.20 2,746 1,373 30,790 6,902 5,027 8,024 1,413 3 

Rotamix (SNCR) ....... 0.23 3,158 961 11,822 3,597 3,742 117 51 4 

SNCR ........................ 0.23 3,158 961 17,392 5,400 5,618 80 43 1 NA 

ROFA ........................ 0.26 3,570 549 19,256 3,549 6,462 ............................ 1,363 1 NA 

Consent Decree ........ 0.30 4,119 2,060 14,126 1,378 669 NA 1 NA 1 NA 

Pre-CD ...................... 0.45 6,179 NA NA NA NA NA NA 1 NA 

Unit 3 

SCR + sorbent .......... 0.05 1,072 5,359 264,208 32,585 6,080 6,313 1,107 1 NA 

SNCR/SCR Hybrid .... 0.18 3,859 2,572 178,759 26,604 10,342 39,171 507 2,658 

ROFA/Rotamix .......... 0.20 4,287 2,144 35,724 9,810 4,576 7,498 2,810 5 

Rotamix (SNCR) ....... 0.23 4,931 1,501 13,919 4,988 3,324 ¥378 84 5 

SNCR ........................ 0.23 4,931 1,501 17,163 8,224 5,480 ¥578 51 1 NA 

ROFA ........................ 0.26 5,574 857 22,081 5,231 6,100 ............................ 2,725 1 NA 

Consent Decree ........ 0.30 6,431 2,573 12,715 1,240 482 NA 1 NA 1 NA 

Pre-CD ...................... 0.42 9,004 NA NA NA NA NA NA 1 NA 

Unit 4 

SCR + sorbent .......... 0.05 1,052 5,257 235,940 29,508 5,613 5,623 1,102 1 NA 

SNCR/SCR Hybrid .... 0.18 3,786 2,524 171,412 25,808 10,226 38,034 507 2,658 

ROFA/Rotamix .......... 0.20 4,206 2,103 35,724 9,810 4,664 7,643 2,810 5 

Rotamix (SNCR) ....... 0.23 4,837 1,472 13,919 4,988 3,388 ¥385 84 5 

SNCR ........................ 0.23 4,837 1,472 17,163 8,224 5,587 ¥590 51 1 NA 

ROFA ........................ 0.26 5,468 841 22,081 5,231 6,218 ............................ 2,725 1 NA 

Consent Decree ........ 0.30 6,309 2,524 12,870 1,256 498 NA 1 NA 1 NA 

Pre-CD ...................... 0.42 8,833 NA NA NA NA NA NA 1 NA 

1PNM performed an impact analysis for these technologies and incorporated any monetized energy or non-air environmental impacts into the cost analysis. 

The 2013 RH SIP revision includes a 

new analysis to inform the State’s BART 

determination and its weighing of the 

statutory factors for BART. This analysis 

contemplates three scenarios, SCR on all 

four units, SNCR on all four units, and 

the State Alternative, which includes 

unit shutdowns and SNCR on the 

remaining operating units. Table 3 

summarizes the cost and impact 

analysis of the three scenarios and relies 

on aggregating the unit costs, as 

appropriate, from Table 2. The 

remaining useful life of the units with 

installed control technologies (units not 

being retired) was determined to be 30 

years and therefore, the statutory factor 

of the remaining useful life of the source 

does not weigh in favor of any option 

over another. New Mexico estimated the 

cost-effectiveness of the State 

Alternative at $1,049/ton compared to 

$6,218/ton for the four SCR scenario, 

and $5,561/ton for the four SNCR 

scenario. 

TABLE 3—NEW MEXICO’S ANALYSIS OF THE IMPACTS AND COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF THE THREE NOX CONTROL

SCENARIOS

Control scenario 

NOX

emission 

level 

NOX

emissions 

(TPY) 

NOX

emission 

reduction 

(TPY) 

Total 

capital 

investment 

(TCI) 

(1000$) 

Total 

annualized 

cost 

(TAC) 

(1000$) 

Cost 

effectiveness 

($/ton) 

Energy 

impacts 

SCR All Units (FIP) 

SJGS 1–SCR ........... 0.05 690 3,450 180,862 22,165 6,425 746 

SJGS 2–SCR ........... 0.05 687 3,433 180,862 24,562 7,157 729 

SJGS 3–SCR ........... 0.05 1,072 5,359 264,208 32,585 6,080 1,107 

SJGS 4–SCR ........... 0.05 1,052 5,258 235,940 29,508 5,613 1,102 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
26916 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 91 / Monday, May 12, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

24Table 23 of Appendix D of the 2013 RH SIP 

revision quantifies the reduction in raw material 

usage. 

25PNM’s 2007 BART analysis and subsequent 

analyses are contained in NMED Exhibits 7a 

through 7t of the 2011 RH SIP revision. 

26Technical Support Document, Visibility 

Modeling for BART Determination: San Juan 

Generating Station, New Mexico, EPA Region 6. 

Docket No. EPA–R06–OAR–2010–0846 and 

available in the docket for this action. 

27We note that the emission limit for SO2 of 0.10 

lb/MMBtu for Units 1 and 4 is effective as of March 

5, 2014. 

28Technical Support Document for the PNM 

BART Revision to the New Mexico Regional Haze 

TABLE 3—NEW MEXICO’S ANALYSIS OF THE IMPACTS AND COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF THE THREE NOX CONTROL

SCENARIOS—Continued 

Control scenario 

NOX

emission 

level 

NOX

emissions 

(TPY) 

NOX

emission 

reduction 

(TPY) 

Total 

capital 

investment 

(TCI) 

(1000$) 

Total 

annualized 

cost 

(TAC) 

(1000$) 

Cost 

effectiveness 

($/ton) 

Energy 

impacts 

Total .................. ........................ 3,500 17,500 861,871 108,820 6,218 3,683 

SNCR All Units (State’s 2011 BART Determination) 

SJGS 1–SNCR ........ 0.23 3,174 966 17,392 5,400 5,590 43 

SJGS 2–SNCR ........ 0.23 3,158 961 17,392 5,400 5,618 43 

SJGS 3–SNCR ........ 0.23 4,931 1,501 17,163 8,224 5,480 51 

SJGS 4–SNCR ........ 0.23 4,837 1,472 17,163 8,224 5,587 51 

Total .................. ........................ 16,100 4,900 69,111 27,248 5,561 187 

SNCR Units 1&4 (State Alternative) 

SJGS 1–SNCR ........ 0.23 3,174 966 17,392 5,400 5,590 43 

SJGS 2–retire .......... n/a n/a 4,119 n/a n/a n/a n/a 

SJGS 3–retire .......... n/a n/a 6,431 n/a n/a n/a n/a 

SJGS 4–SNCR ........ 0.23 4,837 1,472 17,163 8,224 5,587 51 

Total .................. ........................ 8,011 12,989 34,556 13,624 1,049 94 

New Mexico also examined the 

energy and non-air quality 

environmental impacts of the three 

scenarios. Compared to current 

operations and the four SCR and four 

SNCR scenarios, the State Alternative 

results in: 

• Up to a 53% decrease in water 

usage at the facility (from 21,000 acrefeet to 10,161 acre-feet); 

• A wastewater generation reduction 

of up to 50%; 

• Reduced energy and non-air quality 

environmental impacts from decreased 

raw material usage and resource 

savings, including reduced limestone 

mining, diesel refining, carbon 

activation, and coal mining associated 

with operations at SJGS; 24 and 

• 50% reduction in solid waste (from 

1.71 million tons per year to 854,130 

tons per year). 

New Mexico determined that these 

energy and non-air quality 

environmental benefits weighed heavily 

in favor of the State Alternative over the 

four SCR and four SNCR scenarios. In 

addition to the energy and non-air 

quality environmental benefits outlined 

above, New Mexico noted that the State 

Alternative will also result in a 

substantial decrease in PM emissions 

from coal processing, handling, and 

transportation, as well as reductions in 

greenhouse gas emissions, mercury and 

other hazardous air pollutant emissions, 

and acid gas emissions from the facility. 

v. Evaluation of Visibility Impacts 

The final factor to consider in the 

BART analysis is the degree of visibility 

improvement anticipated to result from 

the BART control options. As part of its 

2011 RH SIP revision, New Mexico 

submitted the initial and revised 

visibility modeling performed by 

PNM 25 for the SJGS that included 

modeled visibility impacts at the sixteen 

Class I Areas within 300 km of the 

facility. For a detailed description and 

our review of this modeling, see the 

Technical Support Document (TSD) that 

accompanied the proposed FIP (referred 

to as the ‘‘2011 EPA TSD’’).26 In this 

earlier analysis, SCR was modeled at an 

emission rate of 0.07 lb/MMBtu. 

The PNM submitted an updated 

visibility analysis (see Exhibit 6 of the 

2013 RH SIP revision) to New Mexico 

for evaluation that included revised 

emission rates for SO2, and H2SO4, and 

a revised background ammonia 

concentration of 1 ppb. The background 

ammonia concentration of 1 ppb is 

consistent with the background 

ammonia concentration used in our 

earlier modeling analysis and detailed 

in the 2011 EPA TSD. The SO2 emission 

rate for the four SCR and four SNCR 

control scenarios was updated to 0.15 

lb/MMBtu, consistent with the EPA 

modeling in support of the FIP, 

reflective of the emission rate 

determined by the EPA in its August 22, 

2011, final action to be necessary to 

satisfy the CAA’s visibility transport 

requirements, and set in the submitted 

2011 VT SIP revision. The SO2 emission 

rate for the State Alternative was 

updated to reflect the more stringent 

SO2 limit that results from 

implementation of the State 

Alternative.27 The H2SO4 modeled 

emission rates were revised to be 

consistent with the estimated current 

emission rates calculated by the EPA 

and detailed in the 2011 EPA TSD. The 

2013 analysis used the same modeling 

protocol followed by the EPA in support 

of the FIP and detailed in the 2011 EPA 

TSD. This modeling compared the three 

control scenarios mentioned above. 

These modeling scenarios are 

summarized in Table 21 of Appendix D 

of the 2013 RH SIP revision. A 

description of the modeling protocol 

used for both the analyses can be found 

in Appendix D of the 2013 RH SIP 

revision beginning at page 19. A 

summary of visibility modeling inputs 

for both analyses can be found in Tables 

16 through 19 of Appendix D and in 

section 7.6 of Exhibit 6 of the 2013 RH 

SIP revision. The visibility modeling 

protocol and model inputs are also 

summarized in the 2014 EPA TSD.28


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 91 / Monday, May 12, 2014 / Proposed Rules 26917 

State Implementation Plan and Federal 

Implementation Plan, April 2014. (2014 EPA TSD). 

29The visibility analysis focuses on the 98th 

percentile of modeled results to avoid giving undue 

weight to any extreme results. See 70 FR 39121. 

30The proposed FIP, the TSD, and Final Rule are 

added to the docket for this rule making. These 

records contain significant technical analyses that 

we consider available to commenters for this 

proposed action on the State’s submittal. 

31The BART determination for SJGS, as a fossilfuel fired power plant having a total generating 

capacity greater than 750 megawatts, must be made 

pursuant to the BART Guidelines. CAA section 

169A(b)(2). 

Table 4 below shows the results of 

New Mexico’s visibility modeling. This 

modeling summary depicts the visibility 

improvement for the 98th percentile 29

of modeled results over the baseline for 

each control scenario. In comparing the 

four-SCR scenario to the State 

Alternative, the largest average 

difference over three years is 0.47 dv at 

Mesa Verde, 0.24 dv at Canyonlands, 

and 0.13 dv at Weminuche. The average 

difference at the 13 other Class I areas 

is less than 0.1 dv between the two 

control scenarios. 

TABLE 4—MODELED AVERAGE VISIBILITY IMPROVEMENT OF THE 98TH PERCENTILE DELTA-DV IMPACTS FROM 2001–2003 

Class I area 

Distance to 

SJGS 

(km) 

Improvement over baseline Improvement 

of 4 SCR over 

4 SNCR 

Improvement 

of 4 SCR 

over State 

alternative 4 SCR 4 SNCR State alternative 

Arches ...................................................... 222 1.30 0.48 1.23 0.82 0.07 

Bandelier Wilderness ............................... 210 0.77 0.28 0.78 0.49 ¥0.01 

Black Canyon of the Gunnison Wilderness ...................................................... 203 0.77 0.28 0.72 0.49 0.05 

Canyonlands ............................................ 170 2.02 0.64 1.78 1.38 0.24 

Capitol Reef ............................................. 232 0.70 0.25 0.74 0.45 -0.04 

Grand Canyon .......................................... 285 0.30 0.10 0.34 0.20 ¥0.04 

Great Sand Dunes National Monument .. 269 0.77 0.29 0.74 0.48 0.03 

La Garita Wilderness ............................... 169 1.01 0.37 0.95 0.64 0.06 

Maroon Bells-Snowmass Wilderness ...... 271 0.35 0.13 0.35 0.22 0.00 

Mesa Verde .............................................. 40 2.91 0.61 2.44 2.30 0.47 

Pecos Wilderness .................................... 248 0.68 0.24 0.69 0.44 ¥0.01 

Petrified Forest ......................................... 213 0.26 0.11 0.29 0.15 ¥0.03 

San Pedro Parks Wilderness ................... 155 1.38 0.47 1.29 0.91 0.09 

West Elk Wilderness ................................ 216 0.87 0.31 0.79 0.56 0.08 

Weminuche Wilderness ........................... 98 1.55 0.47 1.42 1.08 0.13 

Wheeler Peak Wilderness ....................... 258 0.64 0.25 0.67 0.39 ¥0.03 

In accordance with section 169A of 

the CAA, the RHR, and the BART 

Guidelines, New Mexico weighed the 

five statutory factors in comparing the 

State Alternative against the four-SCR 

and four-SNCR control scenarios. New 

Mexico concluded that the State 

Alternative results in significant 

visibility benefits that are comparable to 

the four-SCR scenario of the FIP and 

much greater than the four-SNCR 

scenario, while also reducing overall 

energy and non-air quality 

environmental impacts at a much lower 

capital expenditure, annualized costs, 

and average cost-effectiveness. As a 

result, New Mexico selected the State 

Alternative as BART. New Mexico 

determined that the schedule provided 

in the 2013 RH SIP revision will result 

in the implementation of BART as 

expeditiously as practicable, as required 

under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv). New 

Mexico selected a NOX BART emission 

limit, achievable through installation 

and operation of an SNCR retrofit on 

Units 1 and 4 and the shutdown of units 

2 and 3, which can be found in the 

preconstruction permit at A112C. In 

accordance with the Term Sheet, the 

permit requires: 

• Fifteen (15) months after the EPA 

final approval of the SIP revision, but no 

earlier than January 31, 2016, the PNM 

will complete installation of SNCR 

technology on the SJGS Units 1 and 4 

and comply with an average nitrogen 

oxide (NOX) emission limit for Units 1 

and 4 of 0.23 lb/MMBtu on a daily 

rolling 30-day average basis. 

• Retirement of SJGS Units 2 and 3 by 

December 31, 2017. 

B. Our Evaluation of New Mexico’s NOX

BART Determination 

The FIP that became effective on 

September 21, 2011 previously 

established NOX BART for SJGS at the 

emission rate of 0.05 lb/MMBtu on a 30 

boiler operating day average, achievable 

through installation and operation of an 

SCR retrofit on all four units (76 FR 

52388; August 22, 2011).30 At the outset, 

we note that the NOX BART 

determination for the SJGS that was 

submitted by New Mexico to replace the 

FIP cannot be disapproved solely on the 

basis that it differs from the 

determination established in the FIP. 

The CAA defines a FIP as ‘‘a plan (or 

portion thereof) promulgated by the 

Administrator to fill all or a portion of 

a gap or otherwise correct all or a 

portion of an inadequacy in a [SIP].’’ 

CAA section 302(y). Because a FIP is 

intended as a gap-filling measure, the 

EPA encourages states to submit 

approvable SIP revisions that correct the 

deficiencies that a given FIP remedied. 

Such a SIP revision need not adopt the 

same suite of control options and 

techniques as the EPA’s FIP, nor does it 

necessarily have to be as stringent as the 

EPA’s FIP in all instances. Rather, when 

a State submits a SIP revision to the 

EPA with the intention of replacing a 

FIP, the EPA must approve the SIP 

revision so long as the SIP revision does 

not ‘‘interfere with any applicable 

requirement concerning attainment and 

reasonable further progress . . . or any 

other applicable requirement of [the 

Act].’’ CAA section 110(l). In regards to 

regional haze SIPs and the statutory 

requirement to make BART 

determinations for certain older major 

stationary sources, the EPA must 

approve a State’s SIP revision so long as 

the State complies with the CAA’s 

visibility protection provisions, the 

RHR, and the BART Guidelines,31 and 

makes a reasonable control 

determination based on the weighing of 

the five factors. We have analyzed New 

Mexico’s new NOX BART determination 

with these requirements in mind. 

We propose to conclude that New 

Mexico has met the requirements of 40 

CFR 51.309(d)(4)(vii) and the BART 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
26918 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 91 / Monday, May 12, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

32Since we are proposing to approve the State 

Alternative that does not include SCR operation, we 

are also proposing to withdraw the H2SO4 emission 

limit in the FIP as it is no longer necessary to 

protect visibility impairment from the facility due 

to emissions of H2SO4. 

33 [T]he State must take into consideration the 

technology available, the costs of compliance, the 

energy and non-air quality environmental impacts 

of compliance, any pollution control equipment in 

use at the source, the remaining useful life of the 

source, and the degree of improvement in visibility 

which may reasonably be anticipated to result from 

the use of such technology. 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A). 

34The BART Guidelines state that ‘‘you must 

conduct a visibility improvement determination for 

the source(s) as part of the BART determination.’’ 

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

added). 

35The SO2 emission limit of 0.10 lb/MMBtu for 

Units 1 and 4 is effective as of March 5, 2014. 

Guidelines in determining NOX BART 

for SJGS. This conclusion is based on 

our review of the 2013 RH SIP revision, 

including the applicable permit 

conditions and all supporting analyses 

identified above. We also propose to 

withdraw the FIP requirements 

pertaining to regional haze and rescind 

the emission limits for NOX and 

H2SO4,32 as well as the accompanying 

compliance schedule that would 

otherwise apply to SJGS. Upon final 

approval of the 2013 RH SIP revision, 

the FIP requirements may be withdrawn 

through a separate Administrator-signed 

final action. Additionally, our final 

approval action will moot the 2011 RH 

SIP revision concerning the four-SNCR 

scenario. 

New Mexico’s revised BART 

determination includes a control 

scenario proposed by PNM that includes 

the shutdown of two of the four units at 

the SJGS by December 31, 2017. As 

such, the control scenario in this 

analysis is different than the control 

scenarios contemplated in the FIP. 

Although the EPA’s regulations do not 

require states to consider a fuel switch 

or a shutdown of an existing unit as part 

of their BART analyses, a state may 

include such options in its analysis 

where a company voluntarily offers 

such measures as a strategy for reducing 

emissions. As discussed previously, 

New Mexico determined that the State 

Alternative was NOX BART for the 

SJGS. New Mexico made this 

determination based on an analysis of 

the five BART factors. Their analysis of 

the five BART factors included 

consideration of the high incremental 

cost-effectiveness and low incremental 

visibility improvement of the FIP 

compared with the State Alternative, as 

well as the additional non-air quality 

environmental and energy benefits of 

the latter. The energy and non-air 

quality environmental impacts, such as 

reduced solid waste generation, waste 

water generation, and water and energy 

usage, associated with the State 

Alternative scenario support the 

conclusion that the State Alternative is 

BART.33 New Mexico also noted 

additional air quality benefits associated 

with shutting down Units 2 and 3. 

While important, these other air quality 

benefits, such as reduced ozone and PM 

formation, reduced greenhouse gases, 

and reduced mercury deposition, are 

not among the BART factors, and were 

not considered in our evaluation of the 

State’s NOX BART determination. 

While the BART Guidelines require 

states to analyze visibility improvement 

on a facility-wide basis,34 states have 

typically analyzed the costs of 

compliance and other BART factors for 

each individual emission unit that 

comprises the BART-eligible source. 

Nevertheless, we do not interpret the 

BART Guidelines as requiring states to 

use this approach with regards to 

analyzing the other BART factors. 

Instead, we believe that states have the 

flexibility to analyze these factors on 

either a unit-specific or facility-wide 

basis, depending on the unique facts of 

each case. Here, we believe that New 

Mexico’s decision to evaluate the BART 

factors on a facility-wide basis was a 

reasonable way to take into account the 

visibility, energy, and non-air quality 

environmental benefits associated with 

unit shutdowns. Had New Mexico used 

a unit-specific approach, these benefits 

would have been discounted altogether, 

which would unfairly prevent states and 

sources from considering unit 

shutdowns as a viable strategy for 

achieving BART. New Mexico’s 

approach is also consistent with the 

State’s separate objective to meet the 

good-neighbor requirement of the CAA 

for visibility, i.e., to ensure that 

collective emissions from the SJGS are 

not interfering with other states’ 

measures to protect visibility. 

i. Visibility Analysis 

We reviewed the CALPUFF modeling 

that supported the visibility impact 

analysis in the 2013 RH SIP revision. 

The revised CALPUFF modeling 

followed a modeling protocol consistent 

with the EPA guidance and 

recommendations, as well as the 

modeling performed by the EPA in 

support of the FIP. Modeled emission 

rates were revised to reflect SCR control 

efficiency evaluated in our FIP analysis, 

as well as the sulfuric acid emission rate 

estimated using the EPA’s methodology 

as described in the 2011 EPA TSD. 

Please see Appendix D and Exhibit 6 of 

the 2013 RH SIP revision, and the EPA’s 

TSDs for more details concerning the 

modeling inputs, model results, and 

New Mexico’s evaluation. We note that 

New Mexico modeled the visibility 

improvement from the State Alternative 

by including the additional SO2

reductions attributable to the 

implementation of the State Alternative, 

but did not include those reductions in 

the other modeling scenarios.35 While 

we have some concerns 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, we note 

that the visibility benefits associated 

with the State Alternative are 

predominately due to NOX reductions 

resulting from installation of SNCR and 

the significant emission reductions 

associated with the shutdown of Units 

2 and 3. As a result, we do not think the 

inclusion of these additional SO2

emission reductions meaningfully 

impact our evaluation of the visibility 

benefits of the evaluated control 

scenarios. 

The modeling results indicate the 

largest differences in average 98th 

percentile impacts over the three 

modeled years between the four-SCR 

scenario and the State Alternative are 

0.47 dv at Mesa Verde, 0.24 dv at 

Canyonlands, and 0.13 dv at 

Weminuche. The average difference at 

the 13 other Class I areas is less than 0.1 

dv between the two control scenarios. 

The largest differences in maximum 

impacts over the three modeled years 

are 0.47 dv at Mesa Verde, 0.42 dv at 

Canyonlands, 0.29 dv at Weminuche, 

and 0.24 dv at Arches. An analysis of 

the difference in the average number of 

days with impacts greater than 0.5 dv 

and 1 dv shows that the State 

Alternative results in nine fewer days 

with impacts greater than 0.5 dv at Mesa 

Verde, but five more days with impacts 

greater than 1.0 dv. The number of days 

with impacts greater than 0.5 dv and 1 

dv are summarized in the table below. 

Eleven Class I areas show no difference 

in the number of impacted days over 1 

dv between the four-SCR scenario and 

the State Alternative. The modeled 

average number of days impacted over 

0.5 dv between these two scenarios is 1 

day or less for 11 of the Class I areas 

examined, with several Class I areas 

experiencing fewer days over the 0.5 dv 

threshold under the State Alternative 

control scenario. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 91 / Monday, May 12, 2014 / Proposed Rules 26919 

36See 70 FR 39168 and 39166 n.15. 

37Public Service of New Mexico San Juan 

Generating Station Units 1, 2, 3 & 4, SNCR and SCR 

Cost Estimates, Final Report, Sargent and Lundy, 

March 29, 2013. 

38See NMED response to comments from the NPS 

available as NMED Exh. 14 of the 2013 RH SIP 

revision. 

TABLE 5—AVERAGE NUMBER OF DAYS IMPACTED OVER 0.5 AND 1.0 DV

Class I area 

Average number of days impacted over 0.5 dv Average number of days impacted over 1 dv 

4 SCR State 

alternative Difference 4 SCR State alternative Difference 

Arches ...................................................... 13 14 ¥1 5 8 ¥3 

Bandelier Wilderness ............................... 6 7 ¥1 1 1 0 

Black Canyon of the Gunnison Wilderness ...................................................... 4 6 ¥2 1 1 0 

Canyonlands ............................................ 23 22 1 8 10 ¥2 

Capitol Reef ............................................. 6 6 0 2 2 0 

Grand Canyon .......................................... 2 2 0 0 0 0 

Great Sand Dunes National Monument .. 3 4 ¥1 1 1 0 

La Garita Wilderness ............................... 7 9 ¥2 0 2 ¥2 

Maroon Bells-Snowmass Wilderness ...... 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Mesa Verde .............................................. 109 100 9 45 50 ¥5 

Pecos Wilderness .................................... 4 4 0 0 0 0 

Petrified Forest ......................................... 1 0 1 0 0 0 

San Pedro Parks Wilderness ................... 19 19 0 5 5 0 

West Elk Wilderness ................................ 3 6 ¥3 0 1 ¥1 

Weminuche Wilderness ........................... 35 41 ¥6 4 5 ¥1 

Wheeler Peak Wilderness ....................... 4 3 1 0 0 0 

New Mexico found, and we agree, that 

the four-SCR scenario in the FIP results 

in only slightly more visibility benefit 

than the State Alternative at a few of the 

examined Class I areas when both 

modeled improvement at each Class I 

area and number of days with 

significant impacts are considered. For 

many of the Class I Areas, the difference 

in visibility impacts between the two 

scenarios is negligible. While we have 

some concern with the modeled 

visibility differences between the two 

control scenarios for Mesa Verde and 

Canyonlands, we propose to 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. 

ii. Cost Analysis 

We also reviewed the costeffectiveness analysis submitted with 

the 2013 RH SIP revision. The BART 

Guidelines require enhanced 

documentation to justify costs that 

significantly deviate from known costs 

of recent retrofits and to justify 

departures from the Control Cost 

Manual.36 We note that the FIP 

originally concluded that the PNM had 

not provided the requisite justification 

or documentation for a variety of cost 

items in their previous cost analyses. In 

this instance, the cost evaluation 

included with the 2013 RH SIP revision 

is limited to the 2013 PNM Report 

submitted as Exhibit 6 of the 2013 RH 

SIP revision and the Sargent and Lundy 

SNCR and SCR Cost Estimates 37 report, 

submitted as Appendix C of Exhibit 6. 

New Mexico has not provided any 

additional documentation in the record 

for the various line items in its updated 

SCR cost estimates. Therefore, as a 

general matter, we cannot conclude that 

certain line items in SCR cost estimates 

are well supported. In particular, some 

of our more significant areas of concern 

are: Inclusion of costs for a sorbent 

injection system, how the cost of the 

balanced draft system was assigned to 

SCR costs, assumptions for the amounts 

of fees and contingencies that account 

for almost 35% of the total project cost, 

and some of the assumptions supporting 

the design of the SCR box and projected 

catalyst demands. 

While we continue to have concerns 

with the updated cost analysis for SCR 

in the 2013 RH SIP revision, we do not 

believe that these concerns render New 

Mexico’s determination unreasonable. 

Even if we were to use the cost of the 

four-SCR scenario estimated by the EPA 

in support of the FIP ($345 million for 

installation of SCR on all four units), 

there is a large difference between the 

four-SCR scenario and the State 

Alternative, which is estimated to cost 

$34.5 million. Moreover, the small 

difference in visibility benefits between 

the two scenarios and the 

environmental and energy benefits of 

the State Alternative continue to 

support the State’s determination that 

the State Alternative is BART. New 

Mexico came to a similar conclusion 

when considering cost estimates 

provided by the National Park Service 

(NPS), which found that the four-SCR 

scenario would cost approximately $374 

million.38 Many of our concerns with 

New Mexico’s SCR cost estimates either 

are not applicable to its SNCR cost 

estimates (e.g., sorbent injection and 

balanced draft) or have a much smaller 

impact on the total estimated cost. 

Capital costs comprise a relatively small 

portion of the total cost of SNCR, where 

the bulk of the annual costs are due to 

the cost of sorbent. Consequently, we 

have chosen to rely on New Mexico’s 

cost estimates for SNCR. 

New Mexico estimated the annualized 

cost of the State Alternative to be 

$13,624,000/yr to reduce NOX emissions 

by 12,989 tons/yr, resulting in a costeffectiveness of $1,049/ton. New Mexico 

estimated the annualized cost of the 

four-SCR scenario to be $108,820,000/yr 

to reduce NOX emissions by 17,500 

tons/yr, resulting in a cost-effectiveness 

of $6,218/ton. The incremental costeffectiveness to achieve the additional 

reduction of 4511 tons/yr between the 

two scenarios is $21,103/ton. If we use 

the costs for SCR from our FIP, then the 

annualized cost of the four-SCR scenario 

becomes $39,265,670/yr, resulting in an 

incremental cost-effectiveness of 

$5,684/ton. The latter incremental costeffectiveness value is in the range of 

costs that states and the EPA have found 

to be reasonable in other regional haze 

actions. Nevertheless, when these costs 

are considered in combination with the 

other BART factors, including the 

marginal visibility benefits of the fourSCR scenario at most Class I areas and 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
26920 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 91 / Monday, May 12, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

39As earlier noted, because we are proposing to 

approve the State Alternative that does not include 

SCR operation, we are also proposing to withdraw 

the H2SO4 emission limit in the FIP, as it is no 

longer necessary to prevent visibility impairment 

from the facility due to emissions of H2SO4. 

the unique energy and non-air quality 

environmental benefits associated with 

the State Alternative, we propose to find 

that the State made a reasonable 

determination. 

iii. EPA’s Conclusion 

In conclusion, we propose to find that 

when cost, energy and non-air quality 

environmental impacts, and anticipated 

visibility benefits are taken into 

consideration, New Mexico’s 

determination that the State Alternative 

is BART is reasonable. The State 

Alternative results in substantial 

visibility benefits and energy and nonair quality environmental benefits, and 

is highly cost-effective. 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 did not justify the 

increase in costs associated with 

installation of SCR on all four units. We 

propose to approve New Mexico’s 2013 

RH SIP revision, including the 2013 

permit conditions found at A112C that 

set the emission limits for Units 1 and 

4, provide the methodologies for 

calculating the two units’ emission rates 

and showing compliance, require the 

shutdown of Units 2 and 3, and 

establish the testing and monitoring 

requirements, and we propose to 

rescind the FIP requirements for NOX

BART. Upon final approval, the FIP 

requirements addressing NOX BART for 

the SJGS, including the H2SO4 emission 

limit,39 may be withdrawn through a 

separate Administrator-signed final 

action. Additionally, our final approval 

action will moot the portions of the 

2011 RH SIP revision not related to the 

State Alternative. 

IV. Our Analysis of New Mexico’s 

Interstate Visibility Transport SIP 

Provisions 

We are also proposing to approve the 

2011 VT SIP revision, as revised in 

2013, as addressing the ‘‘good neighbor’’ 

provisions of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS and the PM2.5 NAAQS with 

respect to visibility. In developing its 

2011 VT SIP revision, as revised in 

2013, New Mexico took note that the 

EPA’s FIP had articulated that the 

Western Regional Air Partnership 

(WRAP) regional planning organization 

(RPO) assumptions for the SJGS of 0.27– 

0.28 lbs/MMBtu for NOX and 0.15 lbs/ 

MMBtu for SO2 were the appropriate 

criteria for approvability of a visibility 

transport SIP and that New Mexico 

sources other than the SJGS are 

sufficiently controlled to eliminate 

interference with the visibility programs 

of other states because the federally 

enforceable emission limits for these 

sources are consistent with those relied 

upon in the WRAP modeling. In 

developing their regional haze SIPs, 

New Mexico and other member states 

collaborated through the WRAP. Each 

state developed its regional haze SIP 

and RPGs based on the WRAP modeling 

and technical analysis. The WRAP 

modeling was based in part on the 

emissions reductions each state 

intended to achieve by 2018. As 

explained in the proposed and final FIP 

notices, we believe that the analysis 

conducted by the WRAP provides an 

appropriate means to ensure that 

emissions from sources in New Mexico 

are not interfering with the visibility 

programs of other states, as 

contemplated in CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). In developing their 

visibility projections using 

photochemical grid modeling, the 

WRAP states assumed a certain level of 

emissions from sources within New 

Mexico. The EPA’s finalized FIP 

required a 0.15 lbs/MMBtu limit for SO2

for SJGS, but required a more stringent 

control of 0.05 lbs/MMBtu for NOX in 

order to satisfy the NOX BART 

requirements for the SJGS. 

The 2011 VT SIP revision, as revised 

in 2013, discusses the WRAP modeling, 

uses the legal rationale relying upon the 

reductions assumed in the WRAP 

modeling, and determines that all 

sources are sufficiently controlled. It 

includes a revised 2013 permit for the 

SJGS reflecting that the State Alternative 

requires installation of SNCR at Units 1 

and 4 at SJGS, with a limit of 0.23 lbs/ 

MMBtu for NOX, and the shutdown of 

Units 2 and 3 in 2017. These emission 

limits for the SJGS will well exceed the 

WRAP assumptions relied upon by 

other states. The 2011 VT SIP revision, 

as revised in 2013 also provides that 

SO2 emissions for the SJGS will be 

controlled at the level of 0.10 lbs/

MMBtu at Units 1 and 4, further 

reducing visibility impairment. 

We are proposing to approve the 2011 

VT SIP revision, as revised in 2013, 

thereby finding that (1) emissions from 

all sources in New Mexico and (2) the 

SO2 and NOX emission limits for units 

1 and 4 combined with the shutdown of 

units 2 and 3 as contained in the 2013 

preconstruction permit for the SJGS at 

A112C, prevent SO2 and NOX emissions 

from New Mexico sources from 

interfering with the visibility programs 

of other states. Therefore, we are 

proposing to withdraw the provisions of 

the FIP that address SO2 and NOX

emissions for the SJGS for the purpose 

of meeting the ‘‘good neighbor’’ 

requirements of CAA Section 

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

visibility. Upon final approval of the 

2011 Visibility Transport SIP revision, 

as revised in 2013, the FIP requirements 

pertaining to SO2 and NOX emissions 

for visibility transport may be 

withdrawn through a separate 

Administrator-signed final action. 

Additionally, our final approval action 

approving Scenario C in section A112 of 

the permit as a source-specific SIP 

revision into the New Mexico SIP for 

RH and Visibility Transport will moot 

scenarios A and B in the permit. 

V. EPA’s Analysis of 110(l) 

Section 110(l) of the CAA states that 

‘‘[t]he Administrator shall not approve a 

revision of a plan if the revision would 

interfere with any applicable 

requirement concerning attainment and 

reasonable further progress or any other 

applicable requirement of this chapter.’’ 

42 U.S.C. 7410(l). The EPA does not 

interpret section 110(l) to require a full 

attainment or maintenance 

demonstration before any changes to a 

SIP may be approved. Generally, a SIP 

revision may be approved under section 

110(l) if the EPA finds that it will at 

least preserve status quo air quality, 

particularly where the pollutants at 

issue are those for which an area has not 

been designated nonattainment. 

We do not believe an approval, as 

proposed, will interfere with the CAA 

requirements for BART or for preventing 

interference with other states’ programs 

to protect visibility because our 

proposal is supported by an evaluation 

that those CAA requirements are met. 

An approval will not result in any 

substantive changes to the BART 

requirements or other CAA 

requirements, and the SJGS units will 

continue to be subject to the CAA 

requirements for BART. The SIP 

replaces a federal determination that 

was based on different underlying facts. 

We also believe that approval of the 

submitted SIP revision will not interfere 

with attainment and maintenance of the 

NAAQS. The submitted SIP revision, if 

approved, will reduce emissions from 

the current levels. The area has not been 

designated nonattainment for any of the 

national ambient air quality standards 

and all monitors in the area are 

currently monitoring attainment of the 

standards. Moreover, the SIP revision 

being approved here will result in 

reduced NOX emissions over current 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 91 / Monday, May 12, 2014 / Proposed Rules 26921 

40We are not proposing action on the 2011 NOX

BART determinations or materials relating to the 

2011 determination that have no bearing on the 

2013 NOX BART determination—such items will be 

moot and no longer require action if the rulemaking 

for proposed approval is finalized as today 

proposed. 

41The permit, by its language, further requires the 

SJGS to diligently seek non-EPA regulatory 

approvals to shut down the units by the prescribed 

date. The PNM’s efforts to get necessary regulatory 

approvals may be a consideration in any potential 

enforcement action should the shutdowns not be 

accomplished by the end of 2017. 

levels and thus result in reduced ozone 

levels in an area that already is meeting 

the ozone standard. In addition, the 

State’s plan, because of the shutdown of 

two units and the lower allowed SO2

emissions from the remaining units, will 

result in less SO2 emissions than our 

FIP. Thus, approval of the State’s plan 

will not contribute to conditions of 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of any standard. 

VI. EPA’s Conclusions and Proposed 

Action 

The EPA is proposing to approve the 

NOX BART determination for the SJGS 

included in the 2013 RH SIP revision 

and the accompanying permit 

conditions at A112C (as described 

below). This conclusion is based on our 

review of the 2013 RH SIP revision, 

including its applicable permit 

conditions, and technical data and 

supporting analyses in it and the 2011 

RH SIP revision that pertain to the 2013 

NOX BART determination.40 If fully 

approved by the EPA, the State 

Alternative supersedes the State’s 

previous NOX BART determination 

included in the 2011 RH SIP revision, 

and the EPA’s duty to act on the 2011 

RH SIP revision’s NOX BART 

determination becomes moot. 

The EPA is also proposing to approve 

the 2011 Visibility Transport SIP 

revision, as revised in 2013, that 

includes the accompanying revised 

2013 permit conditions at A112C for the 

SJGS (as described below) because they 

adequately address the ‘‘good neighbor’’ 

provisions of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS and the PM2.5 NAAQS with 

respect to visibility. If Scenario C in 

section A112 of the permit is fully 

approved into the New Mexico SIP as a 

source-specific SIP revision to meet the 

RH and Visibility Transport CAA 

requirements, scenarios A and B in the 

permit become moot. 

As required by Section 110(a)(2)(A) 

which requires SIPs to have enforceable 

emissions limitations necessary or 

appropriate to meet the applicable 

requirements of the Act, New Mexico 

has incorporated emissions limits and 

requirements for unit shutdowns into a 

2013 preconstruction permit that was 

submitted as part of the SIP revision. 

Specifically, we are proposing to 

approve as a source-specific 

requirement of the New Mexico SIP for 

regional haze and visibility transport, 

section A112C of the 2013 SJGS permit 

into the New Mexico SIP. The fuller 

permit contains three independent 

scenarios under section A112: A, B and 

C. Under the terms of the permit as 

explained in the background section of 

the permit, Scenario C becomes effective 

upon the EPA approval of the 2013 RH 

SIP. Section A112 provides that when 

one scenario is effective, the other two 

scenarios are moot. If we finalize our 

approval, Scenario C requires, among 

other things, the SO2 emission limit of 

0.10 lb/MMBtu and the NOX emission 

limit of 0.23 lb/MMBtu for Units 1 and 

4 of the SJGS, and the shutdown of 

Units 2 and 3 by December 31, 2017.41

If New Mexico wishes to revise any 

portion of the permit’s A112C, other 

than making the emission limits more 

stringent, it must adopt and submit the 

permit change as a revision to the New 

Mexico SIP. 

We are proposing to withdraw the 

FIP, but note that the finalization of the 

withdrawal must follow a finalized 

approval of the 2013 RH SIP revision 

and the 2011, as revised in 2013, 

Visibility Transport SIP revision and be 

accomplished via a separate 

Administrator-signed action. The EPA is 

taking this action under section 110 and 

part C of the CAA. 

VII. 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 the SIP submissions, 

the EPA’s role is to act on state law as 

meeting Federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This proposed action is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 

FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is 

therefore not subject to review under 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 

FR 3821, January 21, 2011). 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This proposed action does not impose 

an information collection burden under 

the provisions of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., 

because this proposed SIP action under 

section 110 of the CAA will not in-andof itself create any new information 

collection burdens but simply approves 

or disapproves certain State 

requirements for inclusion into the SIP. 

Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to conduct 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements unless the 

agency certifies that the rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

Small entities include small businesses, 

small not-for-profit enterprises, and 

small governmental jurisdictions. For 

purposes of assessing the impacts of 

today’s rule on small entities, small 

entity is defined as: (1) A small business 

as defined by the Small Business 

Administration’s (SBA) regulations at 13 

CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental 

jurisdiction that is a government of a 

city, county, town, school district or 

special district with a population of less 

than 50,000; and (3) a small 

organization that is any not-for-profit 

enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. After considering 

the economic impacts of today’s 

proposed rule on small entities, I certify 

that this action will not have a 

significant impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. This rule does 

not impose any requirements or create 

impacts on small entities. This proposed 

SIP action under section 110 of the CAA 

will not in-and-of itself create any new 

requirements but simply approves or 

disapproves certain State requirements 

for inclusion into the SIP. Accordingly, 

it affords no opportunity for the EPA to 

fashion for small entities less 

burdensome compliance or reporting 

requirements or timetables or 

exemptions from all or part of the rule. 

The fact that the CAA prescribes that 

various consequences (e.g., emission 

limitations) may or will flow from this 

action does not mean that the EPA 

either can or must conduct a regulatory 

flexibility analysis for this action. 

Therefore, this action will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

We continue to be interested in the 

potential impacts of this proposed rule 

on small entities and welcome 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
26922 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 91 / Monday, May 12, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

comments on issues related to such 

impacts. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This action contains no Federal 

mandates under the provisions of Title 

II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 

Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531– 

1538 for state, local, or tribal 

governments or the private sector.’’ The 

EPA has determined that the proposed 

action does not include a Federal 

mandate that may result in estimated 

costs of $100 million or more to either 

state, local, or tribal governments in the 

aggregate, or to the private sector. This 

action proposes to approve or 

disapprove pre-existing requirements 

under state or local law, and imposes no 

new requirements. Accordingly, no 

additional costs to state, local, or tribal 

governments, or to the private sector, 

result from this action. 

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

Executive Order 13132, entitled 

‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999), requires the EPA to develop an 

accountable process to ensure 

‘‘meaningful and timely input by state 

and local officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have federalism 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have 

federalism implications’’ is defined in 

the Executive Order to include 

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct 

effects on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government.’’ 

This proposed action does not have 

federalism implications. It will not have 

substantial direct effects on the states, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132, because it 

merely approves or disapproves certain 

state requirements for inclusion into the 

SIP and does not alter the relationship 

or the distribution of power and 

responsibilities established in the CAA. 

Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not 

apply to this action. 

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination 

With Indian Tribal Governments 

This proposed action does not have 

tribal implications, as specified in 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP 

submittals the EPA is proposing to 

approve or disapprove would not apply 

in Indian country located in the state, 

and the EPA notes that it will not 

impose substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this action. Consistent with the 

EPA policy the EPA nonetheless is 

offering consultation to tribes regarding 

this rulemaking action. The EPA will 

respond to relevant comments in the 

final rulemaking action. 

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

The 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 proposed action is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

because it is not an economically 

significant regulatory action based on 

health or safety risks subject to 

Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997). This proposed SIP 

action under section 110 of the CAA 

will not in-and-of itself create any new 

regulations but simply approves or 

disapproves certain state requirements 

for inclusion into the SIP. 

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution or Use 

This proposed action is not subject to 

Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, 

May 22, 2001) because it is not a 

significant regulatory action 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, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 

note) directs the 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. The NTTAA directs 

the EPA to provide Congress, through 

OMB, explanations when the Agency 

decides not to use available and 

applicable voluntary consensus 

standards. 

The EPA believes that this proposed 

action is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the NTTAA because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 

(Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

The EPA lacks the discretionary 

authority to address environmental 

justice in this proposed action. In 

reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA’s 

role is to approve or disapprove state 

choices, based on the criteria of the 

CAA. Accordingly, this action merely 

proposes to approve or disapprove 

certain state requirements for inclusion 

into the SIP under section 110 of the 

CAA and will not in-and-of itself create 

any new requirements. Accordingly, it 

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. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

dioxides, Visibility, Interstate transport 

of pollution, RH, Best available control 

technology. 

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

Dated: April 30, 2014. 

Ron Curry, 

Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

[FR Doc. 2014–10845 Filed 5–9–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 300 

[EPA–HQ–SFUND–2014–0318, 0319, 0320, 

0321, and 0322; FRL–9910–73–OSWER] 

National Priorities List, Proposed Rule 

No. 60 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS