Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 164 / Friday, August 23, 2013 / Proposed Rules 52473 

You may also access documents of the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register by using the article search 

feature at: www.federalregister.gov. 

Specifically, through the advanced 

search feature at this site, you can limit 

your search to documents published by 

the Department. 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Numbers: 84.010 Improving Programs 

Operated by Local Educational Agencies; 

84.027 Assistance to States for the Education 

of Children with Disabilities) 

List of Subjects in 34 CFR Part 200 

Education of disadvantaged, 

Elementary and secondary education, 

Grant programs—education, Indians— 

education, Infants and children, 

Juvenile delinquency, Migrant labor, 

Private schools, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: August 20, 2013. 

Arne Duncan, 

Secretary of Education. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Secretary proposes to 

amend part 200 of title 34 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations as follows: 

PART 200—TITLE I—IMPROVING THE 

ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT OF THE 

DISADVANTAGED 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 200 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 20 U.S.C. 6301 through 6578, 

unless otherwise noted. 

■ 2. Section 200.1 is amended by: 

■ A. Revising paragraph (e)(1) 

introductory text. 

■ B. Redesignating paragraph (e)(2) as 

(e)(3). 

■ C. Adding new paragraph (e)(2) and 

paragraph (e)(4). 

The revision and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 200.1 State responsibilities for 

developing challenging academic 

standards. 

* * * * * 

(e) Modified academic achievement 

standards. (1) Except as provided in 

paragraphs (e)(2) and (e)(4) of this 

section, a State may not define modified 

academic achievement standards for 

students with disabilities under section 

602(3) of the Individuals with 

Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) who 

meet the State’s criteria under paragraph 

(e)(3) of this section. Modified academic 

achievement standards are standards 

that— 

* * * * * 

(2) A State may define modified 

academic achievement standards for 

students with disabilities who meet the 

State’s criteria under paragraph (e)(3) of 

this section only if the State 

administered alternate assessments 

based on modified academic 

achievement standards in the 2012–13 

school year. 

* * * * * 

(4) A State’s authority to define 

modified academic achievement 

standards under paragraph (e)(2) of this 

section terminates following the State’s 

administration of alternate assessments 

based on those standards during the 

2013–14 school year. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Section 200.6 is amended by: 

■ A. Revising paragraph (a)(3)(i). 

■ B. Redesignating paragraph (a)(3)(ii) 

as (a)(3)(iii). 

■ C. Adding new paragraph (a)(3)(ii) 

and paragraph (a)(3)(iv). 

The revision and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 200.6 Inclusion of all students. 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(3) Alternate assessments that are 

based on modified academic 

achievement standards. (i) Except as 

provided in paragraphs (a)(3)(ii) and (iv) 

of this section, a State may not develop 

and administer an alternate assessment 

based on modified academic 

achievement standards as defined in 

§ 200.1(e)(1) to assess students with 

disabilities who meet the State’s criteria 

under § 200.1(e)(3). 

(ii) A State may continue to 

administer an alternate assessment 

based on modified academic 

achievement standards to assess 

students with disabilities who meet the 

State’s criteria under § 200.1(e)(3) and 

use the results of that assessment for 

accountability determinations only if 

the State administered the assessment in 

the 2012–13 school year. 

* * * * * 

(iv) A State’s authority to administer 

an alternate assessment based on 

modified academic achievement 

standards and use the results for 

accountability determinations 

terminates following the State’s 

administration of that assessment 

during the 2013–14 school year. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2013–20665 Filed 8–22–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2013–0060; FRL–9900–26– 

Region 6] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; New Mexico; 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration; 

Greenhouse Gas Plantwide 

Applicability Limit Permitting 

Revisions 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to 

approve portions of one revision to the 

New Mexico State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) submitted by the New Mexico 

Environment Department (NMED) to 

EPA on January 8, 2013. The January 8, 

2013, proposed SIP revision adopts 

necessary rule revisions to the PSD 

plantwide applicability limit (PAL) 

permitting provisions to issue PALs to 

GHG sources. EPA is proposing to 

approve the January 8, 2013 SIP revision 

to the New Mexico PSD permitting 

program as consistent with federal 

requirements for PSD permitting. At this 

time, EPA is proposing to sever and take 

no action on the portion of the January 

8, 2013, SIP revision that relates to the 

provisions of EPA’s July 20, 2011 GHG 

Biomass Deferral Rule. EPA is proposing 

this action under section 110 and part 

C of the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act). 

EPA is not proposing to approve these 

rules within the exterior boundaries of 

a reservation or other areas within any 

Tribal Nation’s jurisdiction. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before September 23, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R06– 

OAR–2013–0060, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

the online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: Ms. Adina Wiley at 

wiley.adina@epa.gov. 

• Fax: Ms. Adina Wiley, Air Permits 

Section (6PD–R), at fax number 214– 

665–6762. 

• Mail or Delivery: Ms. Adina Wiley, 

Air Permits Section (6PD–R), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 

Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 

75202–2733. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R06–OAR–2013– 

0060. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http://

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

52474 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 164 / Friday, August 23, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

1The July 12, 2013, order states ‘‘[it] is ORDERED, 

on the court’s own motion, that the Clerk withhold 

issuance of the mandate herein until seven days 

after disposition of any timely petition for rehearing 

or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App. 

P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41. This instruction to the 

Clerk is without prejudice to the right of any party 

to move for expedited issuance of the mandate for 

good cause shown.’’ 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

the disclosure of which is restricted by 

statute. Do not submit information 

through http://www.regulations.gov or 

email, if you believe that it is CBI or 

otherwise protected from disclosure. 

The http://www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means that EPA will not know 

your identity or contact information 

unless you provide it in the body of 

your comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through http://www.regulations.gov, 

your email address will be 

automatically captured and included as 

part of the comment that is placed in the 

public docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, EPA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment along with any disk or CD– 

ROM submitted. If EPA cannot read 

your comment due to technical 

difficulties and cannot contact you for 

clarification, EPA may not be able to 

consider your comment. Electronic files 

should avoid the use of special 

characters and any form of encryption 

and should be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket, visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http://

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http://

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information the disclosure of which is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in http://

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air Permits Section (6PD–R), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 

Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 

75202–2733. The file will be made 

available by appointment for public 

inspection in the Region 6 FOIA Review 

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

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

holidays. Contact the person listed in 

the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

paragraph below to make an 

appointment. If possible, please make 

the appointment at least two working 

days in advance of your visit. A 15 cent 

per page fee will be charged for making 

photocopies of documents. On the day 

of the visit, please check in at the EPA 

Region 6 reception area on the seventh 

floor at 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, 

Dallas, Texas. 

The State submittals related to this 

SIP revision, and which are part of the 

EPA docket, are also available for public 

inspection at the Local Air Agency 

listed below during official business 

hours by appointment: 

New Mexico Environment 

Department, Air Quality Bureau, 1190 

St. Francis Drive, Santa Fe, New 

Mexico, 87502. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Adina Wiley (6PD–R), Air Permits 

Section, Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue 

(6PD–R), Suite 1200, Dallas, TX 75202– 

2733. The telephone number is (214) 

665–2115. Ms. Wiley can also be 

reached via electronic mail at 

wiley.adina@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

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

EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background for Our Proposed Action 

A. History of EPA’s GHG-Related Actions 

B. EPA’s Biomass Deferral Rule 

C. EPA’s Tailoring Rule Step 3 

II. Summary of State Submittal 

III. EPA’s Analysis of State Submittal 

IV. Proposed Action 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background for Our Proposed Action 

The Act at section 110(a)(2)(C) 

requires states to develop and submit to 

EPA for approval into the state SIP, 

preconstruction review and permitting 

programs applicable to certain new and 

modified stationary sources of air 

pollutants for attainment and 

nonattainment areas that cover both 

major and minor new sources and 

modifications, collectively referred to as 

the New Source Review (NSR) SIP. The 

CAA NSR SIP program is composed of 

three separate programs: Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD), 

Nonattainment New Source Review 

(NNSR), and Minor NSR. PSD is 

established in part C of title I of the 

CAA and applies in areas that meet the 

NAAQS—‘‘attainment areas’’—as well 

as areas where there is insufficient 

information to determine if the area 

meets the NAAQS—‘‘unclassifiable 

areas.’’ The NNSR SIP program is 

established in part D of title I of the 

CAA and applies in areas that are not in 

attainment of the NAAQS— 

‘‘nonattainment areas.’’ The Minor NSR 

SIP program addresses construction or 

modification activities that do not emit, 

or have the potential to emit, beyond 

certain major source thresholds and 

thus do not qualify as ‘‘major’’ and 

applies regardless of the designation of 

the area in which a source is located. 

EPA regulations governing the criteria 

that states must satisfy for EPA approval 

of the NSR programs as part of the SIP 

are contained in 40 CFR 51.160–51.166. 

New Mexico submitted on January 8, 

2013, regulations specific to the New 

Mexico PSD permitting program for 

approval by EPA into the New Mexico 

SIP. The January 8, 2013, SIP submittal 

includes the PSD permitting provisions 

that were adopted on January 7, 2013 at 

20.2.74 NMAC to defer the application 

of the PSD requirements to biogenic 

carbon dioxide emissions from 

bioenergy and other biogenic stationary 

sources consistent with the EPA’s final 

rule ‘‘Deferral for CO2 Emissions from 

Bioenergy and other Biogenic Sources 

under the Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) and Title V 

Programs’’ (76 FR 43490) (hereafter 

referred to as the ‘‘Biomass Deferral 

Rule’’). The January 8, 2013, SIP 

submittal also adopts regulations that 

provide NMED the ability to issue GHG 

PALs consistent with the ‘‘Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration and Title V 

Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule Step 3 

and GHG Plantwide Applicability 

Limits Final Rule’’ (77 FR 41051) 

hereafter referred to as the ‘‘Tailoring 

Rule Step 3’’. 

On July 12, 2013, the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued its 

decision to vacate the Biomass Deferral 

Rule. See Center for Biological Diversity 

v. EPA (D.C. Cir. No. 11–1101).1 At this 

time, EPA is proposing to sever and take 

no action on the portion of the January 

8, 2013, SIP submittal that adopted the 

biomass deferral provisions. 

Today’s proposed action and the 

accompanying Technical Support 

Document (TSD) present our rationale 

for proposing approval of these 

regulations as meeting the minimum 

federal requirements for the adoption 

and implementation of the PSD SIP 

permitting programs. 

A. History of EPA’s GHG-Related 

Actions 

This section briefly summarizes EPA’s 

recent GHG-related actions that provide 

the background for this action. For more 

information about EPA’s actions, please 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 164 / Friday, August 23, 2013 / Proposed Rules 52475 

2 ‘‘Endangerment and Cause or Contribute 

Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 

202(a) of the Clean Air Act.’’ 74 FR 66496 

(December 15, 2009). 3 ‘‘Interpretation of Regulations that Determine 

Pollutants Covered by Clean Air Act Permitting 

Programs.’’ 75 FR 17004 (April 2, 2010). 4 ‘‘Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission 

Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy 

Standards; Final Rule.’’ 75 FR 25324 (May 7, 2010). 5Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title 

V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule; Final Rule.’’ 75 

FR 31514 (June 3, 2010). 6 ‘‘Action to Ensure Authority to Issue Permits 

Under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

Program to Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: 

Finding of Substantial Inadequacy and SIP Call; 

Final Rule’’ 75 FR 77698 (December 13, 2010). New 

Mexico was not subject to the SIP Call. 7 ‘‘Action to Ensure Authority to Issue Permits 

Under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

Program to Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: 

Finding of Failure to Submit State Implementation 

Plan Revisions Required for Greenhouse Gases’’ 75 

FR 81874 (December 29, 2010). New Mexico was 

not subject to the SIP Call so EPA did not make a 

finding of failure to submit for New Mexico. 

8 ‘‘Action to Ensure Authority to Issue Permits 

Under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

Program to Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: 

Federal Implementation Plan’’ 75 FR 82246 

(December 30, 2010). New Mexico was not covered 

by the GHG PSD Federal Implementation Plan. 

9 ‘‘Limitation of Approval of Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration Provisions Concerning 

Greenhouse Gas Emitting Sources in State 

Implementation Plans; Final Rule’’ 75 FR 82536 

(December 30, 2010). 

see the preambles for the identified 

GHG-related rulemakings discussed in 

the following paragraphs. The citations 

for each rulemaking are included below 

in footnotes to aid the reader. 

EPA has recently undertaken a series 

of actions pertaining to the regulation of 

GHGs that, although for the most part 

are distinct from one another, establish 

the overall framework for today’s final 

action on the New Mexico SIP. Four of 

these actions include, as they are 

commonly called, the ‘‘Endangerment 

Finding’’ and ‘‘Cause or Contribute 

Finding,’’ which EPA issued in a single 

final action,2 the ‘‘Johnson Memo 

Reconsideration,’’ 3 the ‘‘Light-Duty 

Vehicle Rule,’’ 4 and the ‘‘Tailoring 

Rule.’’ 5 Taken together and in 

conjunction with the CAA, these actions 

established regulatory requirements for 

GHGs emitted from new motor vehicles 

and new motor vehicle engines; 

determined that such regulations, when 

they took effect on January 2, 2011, 

subjected GHGs emitted from stationary 

sources to PSD requirements; and 

limited the applicability of PSD 

requirements to GHG sources on a 

phased-in basis. EPA took this last 

action in the Tailoring Rule, which, 

more specifically, established 

appropriate GHG emission thresholds 

for determining the applicability of PSD 

requirements to GHG-emitting sources. 

PSD is implemented through the SIP 

system, and so in December 2010, EPA 

promulgated several rules to implement 

the new GHG PSD SIP program. 

Recognizing that some states had 

approved SIP PSD programs that did not 

apply PSD to GHGs, EPA issued a SIP 

call and, for some of these States, 

finalized a finding of failure to submit 

followed by a Federal Implementation 

Plan.678

For other states, EPA recognized that 

many states had approved SIP PSD 

programs that do apply PSD to GHGs, 

but that do so for sources that emit as 

little as 100 or 250 tpy of GHG, and that 

do not limit PSD applicability to GHGs 

to the higher thresholds in the Tailoring 

Rule; therefore, EPA issued the GHG 

PSD SIP Narrowing Rule.9 Under that 

rule, EPA withdrew its approval of the 

affected SIPs to the extent those SIPs 

covered GHG-emitting sources below 

the Tailoring Rule thresholds. EPA 

based its action primarily on the ‘‘error 

correction’’ provisions of CAA section 

110(k)(6). Under the GHG PSD SIP 

Narrowing Rule, EPA withdrew the 

approval of the New Mexico PSD SIP 

only to the extent that the New Mexico 

SIP covered GHG-emitting sources 

below the Tailoring Rule thresholds. 

EPA has since removed the Narrowing 

Rule restrictions from the New Mexico 

SIP because we approved the revisions 

to the New Mexico PSD program that 

were submitted on December 1, 2010, 

establishing appropriate GHG PSD 

permitting thresholds consistent with 

EPA’s Tailoring Rule. See 76 FR 43149, 

July 20, 2011. 

B. EPA’s Biomass Deferral Rule 

On July 20, 2011, EPA promulgated 

the final ‘‘Deferral for CO2 Emissions 

from Bioenergy and other Biogenic 

Sources Under the Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Title 

V Programs’’ (Biomass Deferral Rule). 

The Biomass Deferral delayed until July 

21, 2014 the consideration of CO2

emissions from bioenergy and other 

biogenic sources when determining 

whether a stationary source meets the 

PSD and Title V applicability 

thresholds. 

The D.C. Circuit Court issued its 

decision to vacate the Biomass Deferral 

Rule on July 12, 2013. 

C. EPA’s Tailoring Rule Step 3 

On July 12, 2012, EPA promulgated 

the final ‘‘Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse 

Gas Tailoring Rule Step 3 and GHG 

Plantwide Applicability Limits’’ (GHG 

Tailoring Rule Step 3 and GHG PALs). 

Following is a brief discussion of the 

Tailoring Rule Step 3. For a full 

discussion of EPA’s rationale for the 

rule, see the notice of final rulemaking 

at 77 FR 41051. 

In the Tailoring Rule, we made 

regulatory commitments for subsequent 

action, including promulgating the 

Tailoring Rule Step 3. Specifically, we 

committed in Step 3 to propose or 

solicit comment on lowering the 

100,000/75,000 major source threshold 

on the basis of three criteria that 

concerned whether the permitting 

authorities had the necessary time to 

develop greater administrative capacity 

due to an increase in resources or 

permitting experience, as well as 

whether the EPA and the permitting 

authorities had developed ways to 

streamline permit issuance. We 

committed to complete the Step 3 action 

by July 1, 2012. 

The EPA finalized Step 3 by 

determining not to lower the current 

GHG applicability thresholds from the 

Step 1 and Step 2 levels at this time. We 

found that the three criteria have not 

been met because state permitting 

authorities have not had sufficient time 

and opportunity to develop the 

necessary infrastructure and increase 

their GHG permitting expertise and 

capacity, and that we and the state 

permitting authorities have not had the 

opportunity to develop streamlining 

measures to improve permit 

implementation. See 77 FR 41051, 

41052. 

The Tailoring Rule Step 3 also 

promulgated revisions to our regulations 

under 40 CFR part 52 for better 

implementation of the federal program 

for establishing PALs for GHG 

emissions. A PAL establishes a sitespecific plantwide emission level for a 

pollutant that allows the source to make 

changes at the facility without triggering 

the requirements of the PSD program, 

provided that emissions do not exceed 

the PAL level. Under the EPA’s 

interpretation of the federal PAL 

provisions, such PALs are already 

available under PSD for non-GHG 

pollutants and for GHGs on a mass 

basis, and we revised the PAL 

regulations to allow for GHG PALs to be 

established on a CO2e basis as well. We 

also revised the regulations to allow a 

GHG-only source to submit an 

application for a CO2e-based GHG PAL 

while also maintaining its minor source 

status. We believe that these actions 

could streamline PSD permitting 

programs by allowing sources and 

permitting authorities to address GHGs 

one time for a source and avoid repeated 

subsequent permitting actions for a 10- 

year period. See 77 FR 41051, 41052. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

52476 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 164 / Friday, August 23, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

II. Summary of State Submittal 

EPA’s most recent approval to the 

New Mexico PSD program was on 

January 22, 2013, where we updated our 

approval of the NM PSD program to 

include the required elements for PSD 

permitting of PM2.5 that were submitted 

on May 23, 2011. See 78 FR 4339. Since 

that time, the State of New Mexico has 

adopted and submitted one revision to 

the PSD program on January 8, 2013, 

affecting the following sections: 

• 20.2.74.7 NMAC—Definitions, 

• 20.2.74.320 NMAC—Actuals 

Plantwide Applicability Limits (PALs) 

These revisions have been submitted to 

adopt and implement the GHG Biomass 

deferral provisions consistent with 

EPA’s July 20, 2011 Final Rule titled 

‘‘Deferral for CO2 Emissions from 

Bioenergy and Other Biogenic Sources 

Under the Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) and Title V 

Programs’’, and the Tailoring Rule Step 

3 permitting provisions consistent with 

EPA’s July 12, 2012 Final Rule titled 

‘‘Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring 

Rule Step 3 and GHG Plantwide 

Applicability Limits’’. The New Mexico 

Environment Department received no 

comments on this rulemaking. 

III. EPA’s Analysis of State Submittal 

As explained more fully in the 

accompanying TSD in this rulemaking, 

New Mexico has adopted and submitted 

regulations that are substantively 

similar to the federal requirements for 

the permitting of GHG-emitting sources 

subject to PSD. The detailed analysis in 

our TSD demonstrates that the revisions 

to 20.2.74.7(AZ)(1) and 20.2.74.320 

NMAC adopted on January 7, 2013, and 

submitted on January 8, 2013, 

appropriately revised the PSD PAL 

permitting requirements to provide the 

NMED the authority to issue GHG PALs, 

consistent with EPA’s Tailoring Rule 

Step 3 for GHG PALs. Our analysis also 

demonstrated that non-substantive 

revisions adopted at 20.2.74.7(AZ)(1), 

(2), (2)(b), (3), (4), and (5) to correct 

typographical errors are also 

approvable. 

Our analysis also demonstrates that 

New Mexico adopted revisions to the 

definition of ‘‘subject to regulation’’ at 

20.2.74.7(AZ)(2)(a) NMAC on January 7, 

2013, and submitted on January 8, 2013, 

for the GHG biomass deferral rule. The 

D.C. Circuit Court issued its decision to 

vacate EPA’s Biomass Deferral Rule on 

July 12, 2013. At this time, we are 

proposing to sever and take no action on 

the submitted biomass revisions from 

New Mexico. 

IV. Proposed Action 

EPA proposes to approve portions of 

the January 8, 2013, submitted revisions 

to 20.2.74 NMAC into the New Mexico 

PSD SIP. New Mexico’s January 8, 2013, 

proposed SIP revision adopts the 

necessary rule revisions to provide 

NMED the authority to issue GHG PALs 

in the New Mexico PSD program. EPA 

has made the preliminary determination 

that the January 8, 2013 revisions to 

20.2.74 NMAC are approvable because 

they are adopted and submitted in 

accordance with the CAA and EPA 

regulations regarding PSD permitting for 

GHGs. Therefore, under section 110 and 

part C of the Act, and for the reasons 

stated above, EPA proposes to approve 

the following revisions to the New 

Mexico SIP: 

• Substantive revisions to 

20.2.74.7(AZ)(1) NMAC establishing 

GHG PAL permitting requirements, 

• Non-substantive revisions to 

20.2.74.7(AZ)(1), (2), (2)(b), (3), (4), and 

(5) to correct formatting, and 

• Substantive revisions to 20.2.74.320 

NMAC establishing the GHG PAL 

permitting requirements. 

EPA is proposing to sever and take no 

action at this time on the submitted 

revisions to 20.2.74.7(AZ)(2)(a) NMAC. 

The D.C. Circuit Court issued an order 

to vacate EPA’s Biomass Deferral Rule 

on July 12, 2013. 

EPA is not proposing to approve these 

rules within the exterior boundaries of 

a reservation or other areas within any 

Tribal Nation’s jurisdiction. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Clean Air Act and applicable Federal 

regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 

52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP 

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve 

state choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this action merely 

proposes to approve state law as 

meeting Federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. For 

that reason, this action: 

• is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

• does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, and incorporation by 

reference. 

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

Dated: August 9, 2013. 

Samuel Coleman, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

[FR Doc. 2013–20657 Filed 8–22–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS