Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 97 / Wednesday, May 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules 28901 

Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Population 

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. 

EPA lacks the discretionary authority 

to address environmental justice in this 

proposed rulemaking. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Approval and 

promulgation of implementation plans, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen 

dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, and Sulfur 

dioxide. 

Dated: May 8, 2015. 

Alexis Strauss, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2015–12243 Filed 5–19–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2013–0616; FRL–9927–23– 

Region 6] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; New Mexico; 

Revisions to the New Source Review 

(NSR) State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

for Albuquerque-Bernalillo County; 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) Permitting 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

two revisions to the New Mexico State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) to update the 

Albuquerque-Bernalillo County 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) SIP permitting program consistent 

with federal requirements. New Mexico 

submitted the Albuquerque-Bernalillo 

County PSD SIP permitting revisions on 

July 26, 2013, and March 4, 2015, which 

included a request for parallel 

processing of the submitted 2015 

revisions. These submittals contain 

revisions to address the requirements of 

the EPA’s May 2008, July 2010, and 

October 2012 PM2.5 PSD 

Implementation Rules and to 

incorporate revisions consistent with 

the EPA’s March 2011 Fugitives Interim 

Rule, July 2011 Greenhouse Gas (GHG) 

Biomass Deferral Rule, and July 2012 

GHG Tailoring Rule Step 3 and GHG 

PALs Rule. The EPA is proposing to 

find that these revisions to the New 

Mexico SIP meet the Federal Clean Air 

Act (the Act or CAA) and EPA 

regulations, and are consistent with EPA 

policies. We are proposing this action 

under section 110 and part C of title I 

of the Act. The EPA is not approving 

these rules within the exterior 

boundaries of a reservation or other 

areas within any Tribal Nation’s 

jurisdiction. 

DATES: Written comments should be 

received on or before June 19, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket No. EPA–R06– 

OAR–2013–0616, by one of the 

following methods: 

• www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

online instructions. 

• Email: Ms. Ashley Mohr at 

mohr.ashley@epa.gov. 

• Mail or delivery: Ms. Ashley Mohr, 

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– 

0616. The EPA’s 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 

the disclosure of which is restricted by 

statute. Do not submit information 

through www.regulations.gov or email, 

if you believe that it is CBI or otherwise 

protected from disclosure. The 

www.regulations.gov Web site is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means that the 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 the EPA 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, the 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 the EPA cannot read 

your comment due to technical 

difficulties and cannot contact you for 

clarification, the 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. 

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). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Ashley Mohr, (214) 665–7289, 

mohr.ashley@epa.gov. To inspect the 

hard copy materials, please schedule an 

appointment with Ms. Ashley Mohr or 

Mr. Bill Deese at (214) 665–7253. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document wherever 

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

the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

A. New Mexico’s SIP Submittals 

B. Relevant EPA Rulemakings 

II. The EPA’s Evaluation 

III. Proposed Action 

IV. Incorporation by Reference 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

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

requires states to develop and submit to 

the EPA for approval into the State 

Implementation Plan (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 

Clean Air Act (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 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS)—‘‘attainment areas’’—as well 

as areas where there is insufficient 

information to determine if the area 

meets the NAAQS—‘‘unclassifiable 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

28902 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 97 / Wednesday, May 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

1See 77 FR 58032. 

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. 

The 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. 

A. New Mexico’s SIP Submittals 

Since the EPA’s last SIP approval on 

September 19, 2012, of PSD SIP 

requirements for AlbuquerqueBernalillo County,1 the State of New 

Mexico has submitted two revisions to 

the Albuquerque-Bernalillo County PSD 

program: (1) A SIP revision submittal 

dated July 26, 2013, which affects 

sixteen sections under 20.11.61 NMAC; 

and (2) a request for parallel processing 

of a SIP revision dated March 4, 2015, 

which affects two sections under 

20.11.61 NMAC. 

i. Summary of the January 26, 2013, SIP 

Submittal 

The July 26, 2013, SIP submittal 

contains revisions to adopt and 

implement: (1) the EPA’s 2008 NSR 

PM2.5 Rule, (2) the EPA’s 2010 PM2.5

PSD Increment—Significant Impact 

Levels (SILs)—Significant Monitoring 

Concentration (SMC) Rule, (3) the EPA’s 

2012 PM2.5 NSR Implementation Rule, 

(4) the EPA’s 2011 Fugitives Interim 

Rule, (5) the EPA’s 2011 Biomass 

Deferral Rule, and (6) the EPA’s 2012 

GHG Tailoring Rule Step 3 and GHG 

PALs Rule. The July 2013 submittal 

from New Mexico also contains other 

non-substantive revisions to the 

Albuquerque-Bernalillo County PSD 

program that are not directly associated 

with the incorporation of the EPA Rules. 

As part of this proposed rulemaking, the 

EPA is addressing these non-substantive 

revisions and the substantive revisions 

to the New Mexico SIP that were 

submitted to adopt and implement the 

six aforementioned rulemakings by the 

EPA. 

ii. Summary of the March 4, 2015, SIP 

Submittal 

On March 4, 2015, New Mexico 

submitted a request for the parallel 

processing of additional SIP revisions to 

the Albuquerque-Bernalillo County PSD 

program. This means that the EPA is 

proposing approval of the submitted 

revisions at the same time that the 

public comment and rulemaking 

process is taking place at the state and 

local level. These proposed revisions to 

part 61 are being made in response to 

comments the EPA provided on the July 

26, 2013, SIP submittal. Specifically, the 

March 2015 parallel processing request 

contains proposed revisions to Section 

7—Definitions and Section 11— 

Applicability. New Mexico’s parallel 

processing request was made in 

accordance with paragraph 2.3.1 of 

appendix V to 40 CFR part 51. As part 

of this proposed rulemaking, the EPA is 

addressing the proposed revisions to the 

New Mexico SIP contained in the March 

4, 2015, parallel processing request. As 

required by paragraph 2.3.2 of appendix 

V to 40 CFR part 51, the EPA will not 

take final action on the proposed 

revisions contained in the March 4, 

2015, submittal until the final SIP 

revision submittal containing these 

revisions to the Albuquerque-Bernalillo 

County PSD program as a final adoption 

is received from New Mexico. 

Therefore, the EPA is proposing to 

approve the SIP revision request after 

the completion of the state public 

process and final submittal. More 

information regarding the anticipated 

timeline of the state’s rulemaking 

process is contained in the TSD 

accompanying this proposed action. 

B. Relevant EPA Rulemakings 

i. Summary of the EPA’s 2008 NSR 

PM2.5 Rule 

On May 8, 2008, the EPA finalized the 

NSR PM2.5 Rule to implement the PM2.5

NAAQS. See 73 FR 28321. As a result 

of the EPA’s final NSR PM2.5 Rule, states 

were required to submit applicable SIP 

revisions to the EPA no later than May 

16, 2011, to address this Rule’s PSD and 

NNSR SIP requirements. With respect to 

PSD permitting, the SIP revision 

submittals are required to meet the 

following PSD SIP requirements to 

implement the PM2.5 NAAQS: (1) 

Require PSD permits to address directly 

emitted PM2.5 and precursor pollutants; 

(2) establish significant emission rates 

for direct PM2.5 and precursor pollutants 

(including SO2 and NOX); and (3) 

account for gases that condense to form 

particles (condensables) in PM2.5 and 

PM10 emission limits in PSD permits. 

Prior to the adoption of the revisions 

included in the July 26, 2013, SIP 

submittal, the Albuquerque-Bernalillo 

County Air Board adopted revisions to 

20.11.61 NMAC to incorporate all but 

one of the amendments consistent with 

the EPA’s 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule. These 

revisions were approved by the EPA on 

September 19, 2012. See 77 FR 58032. 

New Mexico’s July 26, 2013, SIP 

revision submittal incorporates the final 

remaining amendment to 20.11.61 

NMAC to be consistent with the 

revisions to the federal rules at 40 CFR 

51.166(i)(5) contained in the EPA’s 2008 

rulemaking. Specifically, the July 2013 

SIP submittal amends 20.11.61 NMAC 

to include an additional exemption that 

gives the department discretion to 

exempt a stationary source from air 

monitoring requirements for a particular 

pollutant. The EPA finds that New 

Mexico’s July 26, 2013, SIP revision 

submittal is consistent with the 2008 

NSR PM2.5 Rule for PSD and meets the 

requirements of section 110 and part C 

of the CAA. 

ii. Summary of the EPA’s 2010 PM2.5

PSD Increment—SILs—SMC Rule 

On October 20, 2010, the EPA 

finalized the PM2.5 PSD Increment— 

SILs—SMC Rule to provide additional 

regulatory requirements under the PSD 

SIP program regarding the 

implementation of the PM2.5 NAAQS for 

NSR. See 75 FR 64864. As a result, the 

PM2.5 PSD Increment—SILs—SMC Rule 

required states to submit SIP revisions 

to adopt the required PSD increments by 

July 20, 2012. Specifically, the SIP rule 

requires a state’s submitted PSD SIP 

revision to adopt and submit for the 

EPA approval the PM2.5 increments 

pursuant to section 166(a) of the CAA to 

prevent significant deterioration of air 

quality in areas meeting the NAAQS. 

States could also discretionarily choose 

to adopt and submit for EPA approval 

SILs used as a screening tool (by a major 

source subject to PSD) to evaluate the 

impact a proposed major source or 

modification may have on the NAAQS 

or PSD increment and a SMC, (also a 

screening tool) used by a major source 

subject to PSD to determine the 

subsequent level of data gathering 

required for a PSD permit application 

for emissions of PM2.5. More detail on 

the PM2.5 PSD Increment—SILs—SMC 

Rule can be found in the EPA’s October 

20, 2010, final rule. See 75 FR 64864. 

(a) What are PSD increments? 

Under section 165(a)(3) of the CAA, a 

PSD permit applicant must demonstrate 

that emissions from the proposed 

construction and operation of a facility 

‘‘will not cause, or contribute to, air 

pollution in excess of any maximum 

allowable increase or allowable 

concentration for any pollutant.’’ In 

other words, when a source applies for 

a PSD SIP permit to emit a regulated 

pollutant in an attainment or 

unclassifiable area, the permitting 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 97 / Wednesday, May 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules 28903 

2Section 169(4) of the CAA provides that the 

baseline concentration of a pollutant for a particular 

baseline area is generally the same air quality at the 

time of the first application for a PSD permit in the 

area. 

3Baseline dates are pollutant specific. That is, a 

complete PSD application establishes the baseline 

date only for those regulated NSR pollutants that 

are projected to be emitted in significant amounts 

(as defined in the regulations) by the applicant’s 

new source or modification. Thus, an area may have 

different baseline dates for different pollutants. 

4The EPA generally characterized the PM2.5

NAAQS as a NAAQS for a new indicator of PM. 

The EPA did not replace the PM10 NAAQS with the 

NAAQS for PM2.5 when the PM2.5 NAAQS were 

promulgated in 1997. The EPA rather retained the 

annual and 24-hour NAAQS for PM10 as if PM2.5

was a new pollutant even though the EPA had 

already developed air quality criteria for PM 

generally. See 75 FR 64864 (October 20, 2010). 

5The EPA interprets 166(a) to authorize the EPA 

to promulgate pollutant-specific PSD regulations 

meeting the requirements of section 166(c) and 

166(d) for any pollutant for which the EPA 

promulgates a NAAQS after 1977. 

authority implementing the PSD SIP 

must determine if emissions of the 

regulated pollutant from the source will 

cause significant deterioration in air 

quality. Significant deterioration occurs 

when the amount of the new pollution 

exceeds the applicable PSD increment, 

which is the ‘‘maximum allowable 

increase’’ of an air pollutant allowed to 

occur above the applicable baseline 

concentration 2 for that pollutant. PSD 

increments prevent air quality in 

attainment and unclassifiable areas from 

deteriorating to the level set by the 

NAAQS. Therefore, an increment is the 

mechanism used to estimate ‘‘significant 

deterioration’’ of air quality for a 

pollutant in an area. 

For PSD baseline purposes, a baseline 

area for a particular pollutant emitted 

from a source includes the attainment or 

unclassifiable/attainment area in which 

the source is located as well as any 

other attainment or unclassifiable/

attainment area in which the source’s 

emissions of that pollutant are projected 

(by air quality modeling) to result in an 

ambient pollutant increase of at least 1 

mg/m3 (annual average). See 40 CFR 

51.166(b)(15)(i) and (ii). Under the 

EPA’s existing regulations, the 

establishment of a baseline area for any 

PSD increment results from the 

submission of the first complete PSD 

permit application and is based on the 

location of the proposed source and its 

emissions impact on the area. Once the 

baseline area is established, subsequent 

PSD sources locating in that area need 

to consider that a portion of the 

available increment may have already 

been consumed by previous emissions 

increases. In general, the submittal date 

of the first complete PSD permit 

application in a particular area is the 

operative ‘‘baseline date.’’ 3 On or before 

the date of the first complete PSD 

application, emissions generally are 

considered to be part of the baseline 

concentration, except for certain 

emissions from major stationary 

sources. Most emissions increases that 

occur after the baseline date will be 

counted toward the amount of 

increment consumed. Similarly, 

emissions decreases after the baseline 

date restore or expand the amount of 

increment that is available. See 75 FR 

64864. As described in the PM2.5 PSD 

Increment—SILs—SMC Rule, pursuant 

to the authority under section 166(a) of 

the CAA the EPA promulgated 

numerical increments for PM2.5 as a new 

pollutant 4 for which the NAAQS were 

established after August 7, 1977,5 and 

derived 24-hour and annual PM2.5

increments for the three area 

classifications (Class I, II and III) using 

the ‘‘contingent safe harbor’’ approach. 

See 75 FR 64864 at 64869 and table at 

40 CFR 51.166(c)(1). 

In addition to PSD increments for the 

PM2.5 NAAQS, the PM2.5 PSD 

Increment—SILs—SMC Rule amended 

the definition at 40 CFR 51.166 and 

52.21 for ‘‘major source baseline date’’ 

and ‘‘minor source baseline date’’ to 

establish the PM2.5 NAAQS specific 

dates (including trigger dates) associated 

with the implementation of PM2.5 PSD 

increments. See 75 FR 64864. In 

accordance with section 166(b) of the 

CAA, the EPA required the states to 

submit revised implementation plans 

adopting the PM2.5 PSD increments to 

the EPA for approval within 21 months 

from promulgation of the final rule (by 

July 20, 2012). Each state was 

responsible for determining how 

increment consumption and the setting 

of the minor source baseline date for 

PM2.5 would occur under its own PSD 

program. Regardless of when a state 

begins to require PM2.5 increment 

analysis and how it chooses to set the 

PM2.5 minor source baseline date, the 

emissions from sources subject to PSD 

for PM2.5 for which construction 

commenced after October 20, 2010, 

(major source baseline date) consume 

the PM2.5 increment and therefore 

should be included in the increment 

analyses occurring after the minor 

source baseline date is established for 

an area under the state’s revised PSD 

SIP program. 

(b) What are PSD SILs and SMC? 

The EPA’s PM2.5 PSD Increment— 

SILs—SMC Rule also established SILs 

and SMC for the PM2.5 NAAQS to 

address air quality modeling and 

monitoring provisions for fine particle 

pollution in areas protected by the PSD 

program. The SILs and SMC are 

numerical values that represent 

thresholds of insignificant, i.e., de 

minimis, modeled source impacts or 

monitored (ambient) concentrations, 

respectively. The de minimis principle 

is grounded in a decision described by 

the court case Alabama Power Co. v. 

Costle, 636 F.2d 323, 360 (D.C. Cir. 

1980). In this case reviewing the EPA’s 

1978 PSD regulations, the court 

recognized that ‘‘there is likely a basis 

for an implication of de minimis 

authority to provide exemption when 

the burdens of regulation yield a gain of 

trivial or no value.’’ 636 F.2d at 360. 

The EPA established such values for 

PM2.5 in the PM2.5 PSD Increment— 

SILs—SMC rule to be used as screening 

tools by a major source subject to PSD 

to determine the subsequent level of 

analysis and data gathering required for 

a PSD permit application for emissions 

of PM2.5. See 75 FR 64864. As part of the 

response to comments in the PM2.5 PSD 

Increment—SILs—SMC Rule final 

rulemaking, the EPA explained that the 

agency considers that the SILs and SMC 

used as de minimis thresholds for the 

various pollutants are useful tools that 

enable permitting authorities and PSD 

applicants to screen out ‘‘insignificant’’ 

activities; however, the fact remains that 

these values are not required by the Act 

as part of an approvable SIP program. 

(c) SILs-SMC Litigation 

The PM2.5 SILs and SMC were subject 

to litigation before the U.S. Court of 

Appeals. (Sierra Club v. EPA, Case No. 

10–1413, D.C. Circuit). In response to 

the litigation, the EPA filed a brief on 

April 6, 2012, which contained a 

request that the Court vacate and 

remand to the EPA portions of two PSD 

PM2.5 rules (40 CFR 51.166 and 40 CFR 

52.21) addressing the PM2.5 SILs so that 

the EPA could voluntarily correct errors 

in those provisions. On January 22, 

2013, the Court granted the EPA’s 

request for vacature and remand of the 

PM2.5 SILs provisions and also vacated 

parts of 40 CFR 51.166 and 40 CFR 

52.21 that established the PM2.5 SMC, 

finding that the EPA was precluded 

from using the PM2.5 SMC to exempt 

permit applicants from the statutory 

requirement to compile preconstruction 

monitoring data. As a result of the 

Court’s decision, States should avoid 

including language in SIP revision 

submittals that are the same as or have 

similar effects as the vacated PM2.5 SILs 

and SMC language in 40 CFR 51.166 

and 52.21. As stated previously, neither 

the PM2.5 SILs nor the PM2.5 SMC are 

required elements of the PSD SIP for 

PM2.5. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

28904 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 97 / Wednesday, May 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

6For a complete history of the EPA’s rulemakings 

related to GHG emissions please review the 

following final actions: 

‘‘Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings 

for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the 

Clean Air Act.’’ 74 FR 66496 (December 15, 2009). 

‘‘Interpretation of Regulations that Determine 

Pollutants Covered by Clean Air Act Permitting 

Programs.’’ 75 FR 17004 (April 2, 2010). 

‘‘Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission 

Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy 

Standards; Final Rule.’’ 75 FR 25324 (May 7, 2010). 

‘‘Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title 

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

FR 31514 (June 3, 2010). 

New Mexico’s July 26, 2013, SIP 

revision submittal includes revisions to 

20.11.61 NMAC that incorporate the 

amendments to the PSD regulations 

consistent with the changes in the 2010 

PM2.5 PSD Increment—SILs—SMC Rule. 

Consistent with the January 2013 

vacature and remand by the U.S. Court 

of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (the D.C. 

Circuit), the SIP revision submittal also 

correctly excludes those amendments 

from the EPA’s 2010 Rule that 

established the PM2.5 SILs and SMC. 

Therefore, the EPA finds that these 

revisions in the July 2013 submittal are 

consistent with the 2010 rulemaking 

and subsequent Court decision and meet 

the requirements of section 110 and part 

C of the CAA. 

iii. Summary of the EPA’s 2012 PM2.5

NSR Implementation Rule 

On October 12, 2012, the EPA 

finalized amendments to its rules for the 

CAA NSR permitting program regarding 

the definition of ‘‘regulated NSR 

pollutant.’’ This rulemaking clarified 

when condensable particulate matter 

should be measured. The final rule 

continued to require that condensable 

particulate matter be included as part of 

the emissions measurements for 

regulation of PM2.5/PM10. As a result of 

the EPA’s final 2012 NSR PM2.5 Rule, 

the inadvertent requirement that 

measurements of condensable 

particulate matter emissions be 

included as part of the measurement 

and regulation of ‘‘particulate matter 

emissions’’ was removed. 

New Mexico’s July 26, 2013, SIP 

revision submittal includes a revision to 

the definition of ‘‘regulated NSR 

pollutant.’’ Specifically, the SIP revision 

revises this definition found at 

20.11.61.7(WW) NMAC to include the 

clarifying language related to the 

condensable particulate matter portion 

accounted for in PM2.5 and PM10

emissions. The EPA notes that as part of 

the July 2013 SIP revision submittal, 

New Mexico did not remove the 

requirement for condensable particulate 

matter emissions to be included in 

particulate matter emissions. Therefore, 

the definition of ‘‘regulated NSR 

pollutant’’ at 20.11.61.7(WW) NMAC is 

more stringent than the federal 

definition. See 40 CFR 51.166(b)(49). 

The EPA finds that the revisions to the 

definition of ‘‘regulated NSR pollutant’’ 

in the July 26, 2013, submittal meet the 

federal requirements in that the 

definition is more stringent than the 

federal definition. 

iv. Summary of the EPA’s 2011 

Fugitives Interim Rule 

On March 8, 2011, the EPA issued an 

interim rule to stay a December 2008 

rule known as the Fugitives Emissions 

Rule. The 2008 Rule established new 

provisions for how fugitive emissions 

should be treated for NSR permitting. 

The EPA’s 2011 interim rule replaced 

the stay issued by the EPA on March 31, 

2010, which inadvertently covered 

portions of the NSR permitting 

requirements that should not have been 

stayed. The 2011 rulemaking stayed the 

2008 Fugitive Emissions Rule as 

originally intended and reverted the 

regulatory text back to the language that 

existed prior to those amendments, 

which the EPA is reconsidering in 

response to a 2009 Natural Resources 

Defense Council petition for 

reconsideration of the 2008 Fugitive 

Emissions Rule. 

New Mexico’s July 26, 2013, SIP 

revision submittal includes revisions to 

20.11.61 NMAC that incorporate the 

amendments to the PSD regulations 

consistent with the changes in the 2011 

Fugitives Interim Rule. The EPA finds 

that these revisions in the July 2013 

submittal are consistent with the 2011 

rulemaking and meet the requirements 

of section 110 and part C of the CAA. 

v. Summary of the the EPA’s 2011 

Biomass Deferral Rule 

On July 20, 2011, the EPA 

promulgated the Biomass Deferral Rule, 

which deferred, for a period of three 

years, the application of the PSD and 

title V permitting requirements to CO2

emissions from bioenergy and other 

biogenic stationary sources. See 76 FR 

43490. 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). 

New Mexico’s July 26, 2013, SIP 

revision submittal includes revisions to 

20.11.61 NMAC that incorporate the 

2011 Biomass Deferral Rule into the 

Albuquerque-Bernalillo County PSD 

program. However, as discussed in this 

proposed rulemaking, New Mexico’s 

March 4, 2015, SIP Submittal contains 

revisions to update the PSD program to 

remove the biomass deferral, which was 

vacated in 2013. The EPA finds that the 

combined revisions from the July 2013 

and March 2015 submittals are 

consistent with current PSD regulations 

with respect to the vacated Biogas 

Referral Rule and meet the requirements 

of section 110 and part C of the CAA. 

vi. Summary of the the EPA’s 2012 

Tailoring Rule and GHG PALs Rule 

On June 3, 2010, the EPA issued a 

final rule, known as the Tailoring Rule, 

which phased in permitting 

requirements for GHG emissions from 

stationary sources under the CAA PSD 

and title V permitting programs (75 FR 

31514). For Step 1 of the Tailoring Rule, 

which began on January 2, 2011, PSD or 

title V requirements applied to sources 

of GHG emissions only if the sources 

were subject to PSD or title V ‘‘anyway’’ 

due to their emissions of non-GHG 

pollutants. These sources are referred to 

as ‘‘anyway sources.’’ Step 2 of the 

Tailoring Rule, which began on July 1, 

2011, applied the PSD and title V 

permitting requirements under the CAA 

to sources that were classified as major, 

and, thus, required to obtain a permit, 

based solely on their potential GHG 

emissions and to modifications of 

otherwise major sources that required a 

PSD permit because they increased only 

GHG above applicable levels in the EPA 

regulations. 

On July 12, 2012, the 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).6 77 FR 41051. In the 

Tailoring Rule Step 3 portion of this 

rule, the EPA decided against further 

phase in of the PSD and title V 

requirements to apply to sources 

emitting lower levels of greenhouse gas 

emissions. Thus, the thresholds for 

determining PSD applicability based on 

emission of greenhouse gases remained 

the same as established in Step 2 of the 

Tailoring Rule. The Step 3 portions of 

the EPA’s July 12, 2012, final rule are 

not relevant to today’s proposed action 

on the New Mexico SIP revision. 

The GHG PALs portion of the July 12, 

2012, final rule promulgated revisions 

to the EPA regulations under 40 CFR 

part 52 for establishing PALs for GHG 

emissions. For a full discussion of the 

EPA’s rationale for the GHG PALs 

provisions, see the notice of final 

rulemaking at 77 FR 41051. A PAL 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 97 / Wednesday, May 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules 28905 

7 134 S.Ct. 2427 (2014). 

8Original case is Coalition for Responsible 

Regulation v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 09–1322, 06/26/ 

20, judgment entered for No. 09–1322 on 04/10/

2015. 

establishes a site-specific 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 the EPA revised the PAL 

regulations to allow for GHG PALs to be 

established on a carbon dioxide 

equivalent (CO2e) basis as well. See 77 

FR 41052. The EPA finalized these 

revisions in an effort to streamline 

federal and SIP PSD permitting 

programs by allowing sources and 

permitting authorities to address GHGs 

using a PAL in a manner similar to the 

use of PALs for non-GHG pollutants. 

See 77 FR 41051, 41052. 

II. The EPA’s Evaluation 

New Mexico’s July 26, 2013, and 

March 4, 2015, SIP revision submittals 

include amendments to the 

Albuquerque-Bernalillo County PSD 

program found in 20.11.61 NMAC to 

incorporate changes to federal PSD 

provisions resulting from the following 

EPA rulemakings: 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule, 

2010 PM2.5 PSD Increment—SILs—SMC 

Rule, 2012 PM2.5 PSD Implementation 

Rule, 2011 Fugitives Interim Rule, 2011 

Biomass Deferral Rule, and 2012 GHG 

Tailoring Rule Step 3 and GHG PALs 

Rule. The July 26, 2013, SIP revisions 

also contains additional non-substantive 

revisions to 20.11.61 NMAC including 

formatting revisions, inclusion of 

acronyms, and rewording of provisions 

to make this Part consistent with other 

provisions of the NMAC. 

On June 23, 2014, the United States 

Supreme Court, in Utility Air Regulatory 

Group v. Environmental Protection 

Agency,7 issued a decision addressing 

the application of PSD permitting 

requirements to GHG emissions. The 

Supreme Court said that the EPA may 

not treat GHGs as an air pollutant for 

purposes of determining whether a 

source is a major source (or 

modification thereof) required to obtain 

a PSD permit. The Court also said that 

the EPA could continue to require that 

PSD permits, otherwise required based 

on emissions of pollutants other than 

GHGs, contain limitations on GHG 

emissions based on the application of 

Best Available Control Technology 

(BACT). The Supreme Court decision 

effectively upheld PSD permitting 

requirements for GHG emissions under 

Step 1 of the Tailoring Rule for ‘‘anyway 

sources’’ and invalidated PSD 

permitting requirements for Step 2 

sources. 

In accordance with the Supreme 

Court decision, on April 10, 2015, the 

D.C. Circuit issued an amended 

judgment vacating the regulations that 

implemented Step 2 of the Tailoring 

Rule, but not the regulations that 

implement Step 1 of the Tailoring Rule. 

A copy of the judgment is included in 

the docket to this rulemaking.8 The 

amended judgment preserves, without 

the need for additional rulemaking by 

the EPA, the application of the Best 

Available Control Technology (BACT) 

requirement to GHG emissions from 

sources that are required to obtain a PSD 

permit based on emissions of pollutants 

other than GHGs (‘‘anyway’’ sources). 

The D.C. Circuit’s judgment vacated the 

regulations at issue in the litigation, 

including 40 CFR 51.166(b)(48)(v), ‘‘to 

the extent they require a stationary 

source to obtain a PSD permit if 

greenhouse gases are the only pollutant 

(i) that the source emits or has the 

potential to emit above the applicable 

major source thresholds, or (ii) for 

which there is a significant emissions 

increase from a modification.’’ 

The EPA may need to take additional 

steps to revise federal PSD rules in light 

of the Supreme Court decision and 

recent D.C. Circuit judgment. In 

addition, the EPA anticipates that many 

states will revise their existing SIPapproved PSD programs. The EPA is not 

expecting states to have revised their 

existing PSD program regulations at this 

juncture. However, the EPA is 

evaluating PSD program submissions to 

assure that the state’s program correctly 

addresses GHGs consistent with both 

decisions. 

New Mexico’s existing approved SIP 

for the Albuquerque-Bernalillo County 

PSD program contains the greenhouse 

gas permitting requirements required 

under 40 CFR 51.166, as amended in the 

Tailoring Rule. As a result, the 

Albuquerque-Bernalillo County’s SIPapproved PSD permitting program 

continues to require that PSD permits 

(otherwise required based on emissions 

of pollutants other than GHGs) contain 

limitations on GHG emissions based on 

the application of BACT when sources 

emit or increase greenhouse gases in the 

amount of 75,000 tons per year (tpy), 

measured as carbon dioxide equivalent. 

Although the SIP-approved 

Albuquerque-Bernalillo County PSD 

permitting program may also currently 

contain provisions that are no longer 

necessary in light of the D.C. Circuit’s 

judgment or the Supreme Court 

decision, this does not prevent the EPA 

from approving the submission 

addressed in this rule. New Mexico’s 

July 26, 2013, and March 4, 2015, SIP 

submissions do not add any greenhouse 

gas permitting requirements that are 

inconsistent either decision. 

Likewise, this revision does add to the 

New Mexico SIP for the AlbuquerqueBernalillo County PSD program 

elements of the EPA’s July 12, 2012, rule 

implementing Step 3 of the phase in of 

PSD permitting requirements for 

greenhouse gases described in the 

Tailoring Rule, which became effective 

on August 13, 2012. Specifically, the 

incorporation of the Step 3 rule 

provisions will allow GHG-emitting 

sources to obtain PALs for their GHG 

emissions on a CO2e basis. The GHG 

PAL provisions, as currently written, 

include some provisions that may no 

longer be appropriate in light of both the 

D.C. Circuit’s judgment and the 

Supreme Court decision. Since the 

Supreme Court has determined that 

sources and modifications may not be 

defined as ‘‘major’’ solely on the basis 

of the level of greenhouse gases emitted 

or increased, PALs for greenhouse gases 

may no longer have value in some 

situations where a source might have 

triggered PSD based on greenhouse gas 

emissions alone. However, PALs for 

GHGs may still have a role to play in 

determining whether a modification that 

triggers PSD for a pollutant other than 

greenhouse gases should also be subject 

to BACT for greenhouse gases. These 

provisions, like the other GHG 

provisions discussed previously, may be 

revised at some future time. However, 

these provisions do not add new 

requirements for sources or 

modifications that only emit or increase 

greenhouse gases above the major 

source threshold or the 75,000 tpy 

greenhouse gas level in section 

52.21(b)(49)(iv). Rather, the PALs 

provisions provide increased flexibility 

to sources that wish to address their 

GHG emissions in a PAL. Since this 

flexibility may still be valuable to 

sources in at least one context described 

above, we believe that it is appropriate 

to approve these provisions into the 

New Mexico SIP at this juncture. 

As discussed in this rulemaking and 

the accompanying TSD, the EPA finds 

that the revisions to the AlbuquerqueBernalillo County PSD program 

contained in the July 26, 2013, and 

March 4, 2015, SIP revision submittals 

are consistent with the aforementioned 

the EPA rulemakings and meet the 

associated federal requirements. The 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

28906 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 97 / Wednesday, May 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

EPA therefore proposes to find the 

proposed SIP revisions to be fully 

approvable. 

III. Proposed Action 

The EPA is proposing to approve 

revisions to the Albuquerque-Bernalillo 

County PSD program that were 

submitted by New Mexico as a SIP 

revision on July 26, 2013, and March 4, 

2015. We are proposing approval of the 

portions of the July 26, 2013, and March 

4, 2015, submittals that revised the 

following sections under 20.11.61: 

• 20.11.61.2 NMAC—Scope, 

• 20.11.61.5 NMAC—Effective Date, 

• 20.11.61.6 NMAC—Objective, 

• 20.11.61.7 NMAC—Definitions, 

• 20.11.61.10 NMAC—Documents, 

• 20.11.61.11 NMAC—Applicability, 

• 20.11.61.12 NMAC—Obligations of 

Owners or Operators of Sources, 

• 20.11.61.14 NMAC—Control 

Technology Review and Innovative 

Control Technology, 

• 20.11.61.15 NMAC—Ambient 

Impact Requirements, 

• 20.11.61.18 NMAC—Air Quality 

Analysis and Monitoring Requirements, 

• 20.11.61.20 NMAC—Actuals 

Plantwide Applicability Limits (PALs), 

• 20.11.61.23 NMAC—Exclusions 

from Increment Consumption, 

• 20.11.61.24 NMAC—Sources 

Impacting Federal Class I AreasAdditional Requirements, 

• 20.11.61.27 NMAC—Table 2- 

Significant Emission Rates, 

• 20.11.61.29 NMAC—Table 4- 

Allowable PSD Increments, and 

• 20.11.61.30 NMAC—Table 5- 

Maximum Allowable Increases for Class 

I Variances. 

The EPA has determined that these 

revisions to the New Mexico SIP’s 

Albuquerque-Bernalillo County PSD 

program are approvable because the 

submitted rules are adopted and 

submitted in accordance with the CAA 

and are consistent with the EPA 

regulations regarding PSD permitting. 

The EPA is proposing this action under 

section 110 and part C of the Act. 

The EPA is severing from our 

proposed approval action the revisions 

to 20.11.60 NMAC submitted on July 26, 

2013, which are revisions to the 

Albuquerque-Bernalillo County NNSR 

Program and will be addressed in a 

separate action. 

IV. Incorporation by Reference 

In this rule, the EPA is proposing to 

include in a final EPA rule regulatory 

text that includes incorporation by 

reference. In accordance with 

requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is 

proposing to incorporate by reference 

the New Mexico regulations discussed 

in section III. of this preamble. The EPA 

has made, and will continue to make, 

these documents generally available 

electronically through 

www.regulations.gov and/or in hard 

copy at the appropriate EPA office (see 

the ADDRESSES section of this preamble 

for more information). 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable Federal regulations. 

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

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely proposes to approve state law as 

meeting Federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. For 

that reason, this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide the EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule is not proposed 

to apply on any Indian reservation land 

or in any other area where the EPA or 

an Indian tribe has demonstrated that 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the proposed rule does 

not have tribal implications and will not 

impose substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: April 24, 2015. 

Ron Curry, 

Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

[FR Doc. 2015–11780 Filed 5–19–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2015–0029; FRL–9928–00– 

Region 3] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Pennsylvania; Redesignation Request 

and Associated Maintenance Plan for 

the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley 

Nonattainment Area for the 1997 

Annual and 2006 24-Hour Fine 

Particulate Matter Standard 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s 

December 22, 2014 request to 

redesignate to attainment the PittsburghBeaver Valley nonattainment area 

(Pittsburgh Area or Area) for the 1997 

annual and 2006 24-hour fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5) National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS or standards). EPA is also 

proposing to determine that the Area 

continues to attain the 1997 annual and 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. In 

addition, EPA is proposing to approve 

as a revision to the Pennsylvania State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) the 

associated maintenance plan that was 

submitted with the redesignation 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS