SUSANA MARTINEZ Governor JOHN A. SANCHEZ Lieutenant Governor



## October 7, 2013

Mr. Ron Curry State of New Mexico ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT 

# Office of the**~ec_re(ffry** 

# .. Harold Runnels Building 1190 Saint Francis Drive, PO Box 5469 Santa Fe, NM 87502-5469 Telephone (505) 827-2855 Fax (505) 827-2836 www.nmenv.state.nm.us



## Regional Administrator (6-A) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200 Dallas, TX 75202-2733
Dear Mr. Curry: RYAN FLYNN Cabinet Secretary· Designate BUTCH TONGATE

Deputy Secretary

CD



## On behalf of the New Mexico Environment Department, I am pleased to submit to the Environmental Protection Agency the enclosed revisions to the New Mexico State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions include amendments to New Mexico's Regional Haze SIP under 40 CFR § 51.309 and the interstate transport SIP good neighbor provisions under Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of the Clean Air Act. Both of these revisions involve a multi-pollutant emission reduction strategy at Public Service Company of New Mexico's ("PNM") San Juan Generating Station.
The hearing record for all of the SIP revisions is attached, which includes the revised SIPs, transcripts, exhibits, public notices, affidavits of publication, the notices of intent to present technical testimony, and public comments. The timing of this SIP submittal, as well as its substantive contents, are in accordance with the "Term Sheet Between the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Public Service Company of New Mexico and State of New Mexico," which was signed by those parties on February 15, 2013 ("Term Sheet").
Please be aware that the Department anticipates the imminent reception of an application from PNM for a construction permit revision to implement certain provisions of these SIP revisions. The Department intends to submit to EPA the revised permit, for EPA's consideration in determining, in accordance with the schedule provided by the Term Sheet, whether the SIP submittal is complete.

## Mr. Ron Curry October 7, 2013 Page 2 of2

Included with the attached hardcopy of the hearing record is an electronic copy of the record provided on disk which I certify to be an exact duplicate of the hardcopy.
If there are any questions concerning this SIP submittal, please contact Rita Bates, Air Quality Planning Section Chief, at (505) 476-4304. Sincerely,

# e~- Ryan Flynn 

## Secretary- Designate Enclosures

cc: Guy Donaldson, EPA Region 6

# NEW MEXICO STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVISION TO SATISIFY THE REQUIREMENTS OF CLEAN AIR ACT 110(a)(2)(D)(i) (II) WITH RESPECT TO VISIBILITY FOR THE 8- HOUR OZONE AND PM 2.5 NAAQS PROMULGATED IN JULY 1997

I. Background A. Regulatory History Under Clean Air Act (“CAA”) Section 110, certain revisions to state implementation plans (“SIPs”) are required within three years of the promulgation or revision by the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) of any National Ambient Air Quality Standard (“NAAQS”). The required contents of such SIP revisions are specified in CAA § 110(a)(2). Most of these requirements address air quality within the state submitting the SIP, however the provisions at CAA § 110(a)(2)(D)(i) address interstatetransport of pollutants. As summarized by EPA: 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 signific antly 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 vi sibility in other states. 75 Fed. Reg. 72,688, 72,689-90, Nov. 26, 2010 In July, 1997, EPA promulgated simultaneous revisions to the NAAQS for ozone and fine particles (“PM 2.5 

## ”) (62 Fed. Reg. 38,652 (July 18, 1997)), triggering a three year

## Clean Air Act § 110(a)(2)(D) SIP Revision May 21, 2013 2 deadline for SIP revisions to address, among other things, the interstate transport provisions of CAA § 110(a)(2)(D). After delays caused in part by litigation over the 1997 NAAQS revisions, EPA on August 15, 2006 issued Guidance for the State Implementation Plan Submissions to Meet Current Outstanding Obligations Under Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-Hour Ozone and PM 2.5

## National Ambient Air Quality Standards, EPA(“2006 Guidance”). On September 17, 2007, New Mexico submitted a SIP to EPA addressing each of the four elements , in accordance with the 2006 Guidance. EPA approved this SIP with respect to element (1) on June 11, 2010 (75 Fed. Reg. 33,174), and approved it with respect to elements (2) and (3) on November 26, 2010 (75 Fed. Reg. 72,688). With respect to the fourth and final element, regarding visibility, the September 17, 2007 SIP stated that New Mexico would submit an approvable SIP for regional haze by December, 2007. This commitment was in accordance with the 2006 Guidance, which provided that “a state could meet the visibility prong of the transport requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of the CAA by submission of the RH SIP, due in December 2007.” 76 Fed. Reg. 491, 496 (Jan. 5, 2011). See also 2006 Guidance, pp. 9-10.
However, New Mexico did not in fact submit an approvable regional haze SIP by December, 2007, and on January 15, 2009, EPA published a “Finding of Failure to Submit State Implementation Plans Required by the 1999 Regional Haze Rule.” 74 Fed. Reg. 2 ,392 (Jan. 15, 2009). New Mexico subsequently submitted a complete regional haze SIP, which was approved by the Board on June 3, 2011 and submitted to EPA by Governor Martinez on June 29, 2011. In a separate action, EPA had previously entered into a consent decree with WildEarth Guardians as a result of that group’s complaint alleging that EPA had failed to perform a non-discretionary duty to either approve SIPs or promulgate FIPs to satisfy the requirements of CAA § 110(a)(2)(D)(i), for several states including New Mexico. WildEarth Guardians v. Lisa Jackson, Case No. 4:09- CV-02453 (USDC N. Cal). In August, 2011, EPA disapproved New Mexico’s September 17, 2007 CAA § 110(a)(2)(D) SIP with respect to the visibility element . 76 Fed. Reg. 52,388. EPA noted that “[t]he2007 submission by New Mexico anticipated that the State would submit a substantive RH SIP to meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).” EPA acknowledged that New Mexico did submit a regional hazeSIP, received by EPA on July 5, 2011, but explained that it “would not have been possible for EPA to review [that] SIP . . . propose a rulemaking, and promulgate a final action by the dates required by the [WildEarth Guardians] consent decree.” 76 Fed. Reg. 52,388, 52,389-90 (Aug 22, 2011).
In the August 22, 2011 f inalrule (and the proposed rule of January 5, 2011, 76 Fed. Reg. 491), EPA explained its rationale for determining what emissions limits were required in

## Clean Air Act § 110(a)(2)(D) SIP Revision May 21, 2013 3 New Mexico in order to comply with the interstate transport provisions of CAA § 110(a)(2)(D), as explained below. B.Emissions Reductions Necessary To Satisfy § 110(A)(2)(D)
In order to determine whether New Mexico emissions would interfere with other state’s regional haze SIPs, EPA looked to New Mexico’s and other western states participation in the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) to collaboratively develop regional haze strategies. EPA reasoned that “[i]n setting reasonable progress goals, States in the West generally replied on” air quality modeling conducted by the WRAP which assumed certain emission reductions from each state. 76 Fed. Reg. at 52,390. Using the WRAP modeling inputs as a yardstick, EPA determined that “New Mexico sources, other than the SJGS [San JuanGenerating Station], 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 .” Id. (emphasis added). With respect to the SJGS , EPA stated that the “SO 2

## and NOx emissions relied upon in the WRAP modeling are not federally enforceable” and thus did not satisfy CAA § 110(a)(2)(C). Id. For SO 2 

## from the SJGS , the WRAPmodeling assumed an emission rate of 0.15 lbs/mmB tu for all four units, and therefore EPA established in the final rule an SO 2

## limit of 0.15 lb/MMBtu on 30 day rolling average on a boiler operating day basis. Id. With respect to NOx from the SJGS , as EPA had previously noted in the proposed rule, the WRAP modeling assumed NOx emission rates of 0.27 lb/MMBtu for Units 1 and2, and 0.28 lbs/MMBtu for Units 3 and4. 76 Fed. Reg. at497. Thus, 0.27 – 0.28 lb NOx/MMBtu was the level relied upon by other states in shaping their visibility strategies. However, EPA did not use those rates to set NOx limits for the SJGS , explaining: We are choosing, however, not to use the WRAP assumptions to make a determination on the enforceable NOx controls necessary to prevent visibility interference, as we are doing for the SO 2 

## controls. Instead, we are addressing NOx control for the SJGS by fulfilling our duty under the BART provisions of the RH rule to promulgate a RH FIP for New Mexico to address . . . the requirement for BART. We do not believe it is prudent to delay a NOx BART determination for the SJGS, because we have determined that the BART requirements are more stringent than the visibility transport requirements

. Id. (emphasis added). EPA thus proceeded to promulgate a BART FIP for the SJGS with a much more stringent emission limit of 0.05 lb/MMBtu, based on installation of selective catalytic reduction (SCR) technology. That BART FIP is currently under review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. Martinez v. EPA , No. 11-9567 and consolidated cases. However, New Mexico, PNM and EPA have reached a tentative settlement agreement.

## Clean Air Act § 110(a)(2)(D) SIP Revision May 21, 2013 4 Under the terms of the tentative agreement, which are contained in a “Term Sheet” signed on February 15, 2013 (Attachment 1) , the SJGS would completely shut down Units 2 and 3 by the end of 2017 and install on Units 1 and 4 selective non- catalytic reduction (SNCR) technology with an emission rate of 0.23 lb/MMBtu, within 15 months of EPA’s approval of this SIP. In summary, EPA adopted the WRAP assumptions for SJGS of 0.27 – 0.28 lbs/mmBtu for NOx and 0.15 lbs/mmBtu for SO 2 

## as the criteria for approvability of a CAA § 110(a)(2)(D) implementation plan. Although EPA imposed a different NOx emission as a BART limit(which is also a subject of the tentative settlement) , the WRAP modeling assumptions remain the benchmark for purpose of determining compliance of CAA § 110(a)(2)(D). C. Satisfaction of the CAA § 110(a)(2)(D) Requirements for the SJGS 1. NOx Under the provisions of the Term Sheet, the NOx emission rate for SJGS Units 1 and 4 will be no greater than 0.23 lb/MMBtu, and for Units 2 and 3 will be zero, upon the shutdown of those Units in 2017. This will clearly result in lower NOx emissions than the WRAP assumptions of 0.27 lb/MMBtu on Units 1 and 2 and 0.28 lb/MMBtu on Units 3 and 4. Specifically, based on an 85% capacity factor, the WRAP assumptions result in 19,324 tons NOx per year, while the Term Sheet scenario results in only 8,011 tons NOx per year, an improvement of more than 58% as compared to the WRAP assumptions. The NOx emissions resulting from the Term Sheet scenario therefore satisfy the requirements of CAA § 110(a)(2)(D) as defined by EPA. 2. SO 2 

## EPA’s final rule established an SO 2

## emission rate of 0.15 lb/MMBtu for each unit on a 30 day rolling average basis, in accordance with the WRAP assumption. PNM voluntarily requested a permit modification to incorporate that limit, and the permit modification was issued on May 16, 2011 (NSR Permit No. 0063-M6R2). Under the provisions of the Term Sheet, SO 2

## emissions will be further reduced by lowering the SO 2

## permit limit at Units 1 and 4 to 0.10 lb/MMBtu (33% lower than the WRAP’s assumed emission rate) and by shutting down Units 2 and 3. This will result in a 67% reduction in emissions from the WRAP assumptions, from 10,535 tons per year to 3,483 tons per year. The SO 2 

## emissions resulting from the Term Sheet scenario therefore satisfy the requirements of CAA § 110(a)(2)(D) as defined by EPA.

## Clean Air Act § 110(a)(2)(D) SIP Revision May 21, 2013 5 II. Requirements Applicable to SJGS Pursuant to CAA §110(a)(2)(D) In accordance with the Term Sheet, the following requirements apply to the San Juan Generating Station:

a. Fifteen (15) months after EPA final approval of this revised SIP, no earlier than January 31, 2016, Public Service Company of New Mexico (PNM) will complete installation of selective non

-catalytic reduction (SNCR) technology on SJGS Units 1 and 4 of no greater than 0.23 lb/MMBtu on a daily rolling 30-day average basis. b. Testing Program. PNM shall comply with the following. Dates that follow with an asterisk(*) in items (i) – (iv) shall be revised accordingly if the installation date extends past January 31, 2016 due to delay in EPA’s SIP approval: i. PNM will commence a program of testing and evaluation, after the installation of the SNCRs. The Testing Program consisting of SNCR Performance Testing, Fuel Performance Testing, and Long

-Term Performance Evaluation is to be completed no later than January 31, 2017,* unless the Long-Term Performance Evaluation is delayed per the language in paragraph b.iv below. ii. SNCR Performance Testing will be conducted to develop a targeted ammonia/urea injection rate range at various load levels without exceeding a to -be-agreed

-upon preliminary slip limit of between 5 and 10 ppm, with the goal of minimizing NOx emissions. PNM shall provide the results of the performance tests, recommended final slip limit, and target ammonia/urea injection rates to NMED and EPA by April 1, 2016.* PNM will allow up to April 30, 2016* for the agencies to either concur with PNM’s slip limit recommendation or to concur on a different slip limit that PNM will comply with for Units 1 and 4. iii. PNM will conduct Fuel Performance Testing (in conjunction with the SNCR Performance Testing) of its pre

-treated coal technology, so long as it has not been previously determined to result in any detrimental effect to SJGS Units 1 and 4 or their operation, with the objective of further reducing NOx emissions. If the Fuel Performance Testing demonstrates that it does not: (i) measurably increase NOx emissions, or (ii) adversely impact overall unit operations, PNM shall also use such pre-treated coal for the 9

-month Long

-Term Performance Evaluation Period described below. PNM will also use pre

-treated coal on Units 2 and 3 when used on Units 1 and 4. iv. Long-Term Performance Evaluation Period. PNM will begin collecting NOx emission and ammonia/urea injection rate data from Units 1 and 4 on a daily rolling 30

-day average basis for nine continuous months beginning on May 1, 2016* and provide such data and any recommendations on the NOx emission limit to NMED and EPA by February 28, 2017* or no later than 28 days after completing the Long

Term Performance Evaluation Period. PNM may request more time if a

## Clean Air Act § 110(a)(2)(D) SIP Revision May 21, 2013 6 slip limit is not agreed upon by April 30, 2016.* The Long

-Term Performance Evaluation Period must include 60 days between June 1 st 

### and August 30th 

### and 60 days between December 1 st 

### and February 28 th



### . The Demonstrated Emission Rate will be the highest daily rolling 30-day average emission rate during the 9

-month Long

-Term Performance Evaluation Period (not including periods of malfunction or abnormal operating conditions) adjusted to three significant digits. If the Demonstrated Emission Rate is greater than or equal to 0.200 lb/MMBtu on a daily rolling 30

-day average basis , no adjustment to the NOx emission rate for Units 1 and 4 will be made. If the Demonstrated Emission Rate is less than 0.200 lb/MMBtu on a daily rolling 30-day average basis PNM will apply for a permit modification by March 31, 2017* (or no later than 60 days after completing the Long

-Term Performance Evaluation Period) to reduce the permitted emission rate by 60% of the difference between 0.23 lb/MMBtu and the Demonstrated Emission Rate, provided the revised emission rate does not adversely impact overall unit operations. The permit modification will include the agreed upon ammonia slip limit.

c. No later than six months from the Board’s adoption this SIP revision, PNM will comply with a sulfur dioxide ("SO 2 

### ") emission rate at Units 1 and 4 of 0.10 lb/MMBtu on a daily rolling 30-day average basis. d. PNM shall diligently seek all necessary regulatory approvals to allow for retirement of SJGS Units 2 and 3 by December 31, 2017 , and if such approvals are granted, shall retire SJGS Units 2 and 3 by December 31, 2017.

# ( STATE OF NEW MEXICO BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT BOARD
IN THE MATTER OF PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN UNDER CLEAN AIR ACT§ 110(a)(2)(D) \VITI-I RESPECT TO VISIBILITY 

## No. ETB 13-03(R)

NEW MEXICO ENVmONMENT DEPARTMENT'S NOTICE OF INTENT TO PRESENT TECHNICAL TESTIMONY

Pursuant to 20.1.302.A NMAC, the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) hereby submits its Notice oflntent to Present Technical Testimony in this proceeding.
l. 

### The person for whom the witnesses will testify. The New Mexico Environment Department.
2. The name and CJualifications 

### of each technical witness.


### Ms. Rita Bates. Rita Bates is the Section Chief of the Planning Section ofNMED's Air Quality Bureau. She has more than 20 years of expeiience in the environmental field, including
fourteen years with NMED. In addition to her work for the Air Quality Bureau, Ms. Bates has worked in industry as an environmental coordinator and in environmental consulting as a project
manager. Ms. Bates holds a B.S. in Biology from Humboldt State University. Her resume is
attached as Exhibit 5.
3. A copy of the direct testimony of each witness in narrative form.
A copy of Ms. Bates testimony is attached as Exhibit 4.
4. Text of any recommended modifications to the pt·ot>osed regulatory change.
NMED does not have any recommended modifications to the proposed SIP revision.
NMED supports the adoption the SIP revision as contained in the Petition ofMay 21, 2013. 1

### 5.
NMEDEx.l NMEDEx.2
NMEDEx. 3 NMEDEx.4 NMEDEx. 5 NMEDEx. 6 

### List and attach all exhibits to be offered at the hearing. Excerpt fi·om Clean Air Act 

## § 110 Excerpts from EPA's Proposed and Final Federal Implementation Plans for the San Juan Generating_ Station Affidavits of Publication Of Hearing Notices Testimony of Rita Bates Resume of Rita Bates Proposed Order and Statement ofReasons
Respectfully submitted,
NEW MEXICO ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL

# rZ--~**~** Bill Grantham Assistant General Counsel New Mexico Environment Department 1190 St. Francis Drive, Suite N-4050 Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505 (505) 222-9594 bill.grantham@state.nm.us

2 

# (



# c§ 7410. State implementation plans for national primary and..., 42 USCA § 7410



### © 2013 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1 United States Code Annotated

Title 42. The Public Health and Welf are Chapter 85. Air Pollution Prev ention and Control (Refs & Annos) Subchapter I. Programs and Activities

Part A. Air Quality and Emissions Limitations (Refs & Annos) 42 U.S.C.A. § 7410 § 7410. State implementation plans for national primary and secondary ambient air quality standards

Currentness



### (a) Adoption of plan by State; submission to Administrator; content of plan; revision; new sources; indirect source review program; supplemental or intermittent control systems
(1) Each State shall, after reasonable notice and public hearings, adopt and submit to the Administrator, within 3 years (or such shorter period as the Administrator may prescribe) after the promulgation of a national primary ambient air quality standard (or any revision thereof) under section 7409 of this title for any air pollutant, a plan which provides for implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of such primary standard in each air quality control region (or portion thereof) within such State. In addition, such State shall adopt and submit to the Administrator (either as a part of a plan submitted under the preceding sentence or separately) within 3 years (or such shorter period as the Administrator may prescribe) after the promulgation of a national ambient air quality secondary standard (or revision thereof), a plan which provides for implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of such secondary standard in each air quality control region (or portion thereof) within such State. Unless a separate public hearing is provided, each State shall consider its plan implementing such secondary standard at the hearing required by the first sentence of this paragraph.
(2) Each implementation plan submitted by a State under this chapter shall be adopted by the State after reasonable notice and public hearing. Each such plan shall

-- (A) include enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, means, or techniques (including economic incentives such as fees, marketable permits, and auctions of emissions rights), as well as schedules and timetables for compliance, as may be necessary or appropriate to meet the applicable requirements of this chapter;
(B) provide for establishment and operation of appropriate devices, methods, systems, and procedures necessary to

-- (i) monitor, compile, and analyze data on ambient air quality, and
(ii) upon request, make such data available to the Administrator;
(C) include a program to provide for the enforcement of the measures described in subparagraph (A), and regulation of the modification and construction of any stationary source within the areas covered by the plan as necessary to assure that national ambient air quality standards are achieved, including a permit program as required in p arts C and D of this subchapter;§ 7410. State implementation plans for national primary and..., 42 USCA § 7410



### © 2013 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 2 (D) contain adequate provisions

-- (i) prohibiting, consistent with the provisions of this subchapter, any source or other type of emissions activity within the State from emitting any air pollutant in amounts which will

--

(I) contribute significantly to nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance by, any other State with respect to any such national primary or secondary ambient air quality standard, or
(II) interfere with measures required to be included in the applicable implementation plan for any other State under part C of this subchapter to prevent significant deterioration of air quality or to protect visibility,
(ii) insuring compliance with the applicable requirements of sections 7426 and 7415 of this title (relating to interstate and international pollution abatement);

* * *

### 491 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules

1 14 CFR 77.13(a), paragraphs (2), (3), (4) and (5) are not relevant to this issue.

Consistent with the above statutory and regulatory framework, the FAA has adopted policy to establish the standards for which the FAA identifies
‘‘ obstructions ’’ and ‘‘hazards ’’ in the navigable airspace in furtherance of its responsibilities to manage the navigable airspace safely and efficiently. See 14 CFR part 77, and FAA Order 7400.2, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters. The FAA issues a determination advising whether the structure would be a hazard to air navigation. The FAA may condition its determination of no hazard with the structure appropriately being marked and lighted, as specified in the determination. FAA criteria for marking and lighting of tall structures are found in Advisory Circular No. 70/7460–1, Obstruction Marking and Lighting.

Unless within the vicinity of an airport, 1 proponents of new structures or alterations of existing structures must file notice with the FAA for ‘‘any construction or alteration of more than 200 feet in height above the ground level at its site. ’’ 14 CFR 77.13(a)(1). Consequently, as the FAA does not study these structures there is no FAA determination that would specify the marking of these structures. Background

The emphasis to discover sources of renewable energy in the United States has prompted individuals and companies to explore all means of energy generation. Wind energy, converted into electrical energy by wind turbines, is widely pursued as a viable alternative. In order to determine if a site meets requirements to construct a wind turbine or wind farm, companies erect METs. These towers are used to gather wind data necessary for site evaluation and development of wind energy projects. The data generally is gathered over a year to ascertain if the targeted area represents a potential location for the installation of wind turbines.

Requirements to file notice under part 77 generally do not apply to structures at heights lower than 200 feet AGL unless close to an airport environment. Therefore, the FAA does not have a database of MET locations, nor does it conduct an aeronautical study to determine whether the particular structure would be hazardous to aviation. These towers are often installed in remote or rural areas, just under 200 feet above ground level (AGL), usually at 198 feet or less. These structures are portable, erected in a matter of hours, installed with guyed wires and constructed from a galvanized material often making them difficult to see in certain atmospheric conditions.

While the METs described above are not subject to the provisions of part 77 and therefore, the FAA does not conduct aeronautical studies to determine whether these structures are obstructions and adversely impact air navigation, the FAA does acknowledge that these towers under certain conditions may be difficult to see by low-level agricultural flights operating under visual flight rules. The color, portability of these towers, their placement in rural and remote areas, and their ability to be erected quickly are factors that pilots should be aware of when conducting operations in these areas.

The FAA has received complaints and inquiries from agricultural operations in remote or rural areas regarding thesafety impacts of these towers on lowlevel agricultural operations. In addition, representatives from the National Agricultural Aviation Association (NAAA) met with the FAA on November 16, 2010 to discuss safety specific concerns of the aerial application industry. The NAAA suggested safety guidelines and marking and lighting criteria in order to reduce the risks for aerial applications. A copy of the material provided by NAAA has been placed in the docket. Proposed Guidance

The FAA is considering revising AC No. 70/7460–1, Obstruction Marking and Lighting, to include guidance for the voluntary marking of METs that are less than 200 feet AGL. The FAA recognizes the need to enhance the conspicuity of these METs, particularly for low-level agricultural operations and seeks public comment on the guidance provided below.

The FAA recommends that the towers be painted in accordance to the marking criteria contained in Chapter 3, paragraphs 30–33 of AC No. 70/7460–1. In particular, we reference paragraph 33(d), which discusses alternate bands of aviation orange and white paint for skeletal framework of storage tanks and similar structures, and towers that have cables attached. The FAA also recommends spherical and/or flag markers be used in addition to aviation orange and white paint when additional conspicuity is necessary. Markers should be installed and displayed according to the existing standards contained in Chapter 3, paragraph 34 of AC No. 70/70460–1.

The FAA is also considering recommending high visibility sleeves on the outer guy wires of these METs. While the current Obstruction Marking and Lighting Advisory Circular does not contain such guidance for high visibility sleeves, the FAA specifically seeks comments on this recommendation.

The FAA anticipates that a uniform and consistent scheme for voluntarily marking these METs would enhance safety by making these towers more readily identifiable for agricultural operations.

Issued in Washington, DC, on December 29, 2010. Edith V. Parish, Manager, Airspace, Regulations and ATC Procedures Group. [FR Doc. 2010–33310 Filed 1–4–11; 8:45 am] **BILLING CODE 4910–13–P**

**ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY**  **40 CFR Part 52 [EPA–R06–OAR–2010–0846; FRL–9246–8]**  **Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; New Mexico;**  **Federal Implementation Plan for Interstate Transport of Pollution**  **Affecting Visibility and Best Available Retrofit Technology Determination**  **AGENCY :**  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). **ACTION :**  Proposed rule. **SUMMARY :**  EPA is proposing to disapprove a portion of the State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of New Mexico for the purpose of addressing the ‘‘good neighbor’’ requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) for the 1997 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS or standards) and the 1997 fine particulate matter (PM 2.5 ) NAAQS. The SIP revision addresses the requirement that New Mexico’s SIP must have adequate provisions to prohibit emissions from adversely affecting another state’s air quality through interstate transport. In this action, EPA is proposing to disapprove the New Mexico Interstate Transport SIP provisions that address the requirement of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) that emissions from New Mexico sources do not interfere with measures required in the SIP of any other state under part C of the CAA to protect visibility. In this action, EPA is also proposing to promulgate a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) to prevent emissions from New Mexico sources from interfering with other states’ measures to protect


### 492 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules visibility, and to implement nitrogen oxides (NO X) and sulfur dioxide (SO 2) emission limits necessary at one source to prevent such interference. In addition, EPA is proposing sulfuric acid (H 2 SO 4) and ammonia (NH 3 ) hourly emission limits at the same source, to minimize the contribution of these compounds to visibility impairment. EPA is proposing monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements to ensure compliance with such emission limitations. EPA also proposes that compliance with the emission limits be within three (3) years of the effective date of our final rule. Furthermore, EPA is proposing the FIP to address the requirement for best available retrofit technology (BART) for NO X for this source. This action is being taken under section 110 and part C of the CAA. **DATES :**  Comments. Comments must be received on or before March 7, 2011.

Public Hearing. EPA intends to hold a public hearing in Farmington, New Mexico to accept oral and written comments on the proposed rulemaking. EPA will provide notice and additional details at least 30 days prior to the hearing in the Federal Register

. **ADDRESSES :**  Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA–R06– OAR–2010–0846, by one of the following methods:

• Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

• Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.

• EPA Region 6 ‘‘ Contact Us’’ Web site: http://epa.gov/region6/ r6coment.htm. Please click on ‘‘ 6PD (Multimedia) ’’ and select ‘‘Air’’ before submitting comments.

• E-mail: Mr. Guy Donaldson at donaldson.guy@epa.gov. Please also send a copy by e-mail to the person listed in the **FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT**  section below.

• Fax: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD–L), at fax number 214–665–7263.

• Mail: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD–L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733.

• Hand or Courier Delivery: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD–L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733. Such deliveries are accepted only between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. weekdays, and not on legal holidays. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket No. EPA–R06–OAR–2010–0846. EPA’s policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at http:// www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http:// www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ‘‘anonymous access ’’ system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through http:// www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.

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 whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in http:// www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Planning Section (6PD–L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733. The file will be made available by appointment for public inspection in the Region 6 FOIA Review Room between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. weekdays except for legal holidays. Contact the person listed in the **FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT** paragraph below or Mr. Bill Deese at 214–665–7253 to make an appointment. If possible, please make the appointment at least two working days in advance of your visit. There will be a 15 cent per page fee for making photocopies of documents. On the day of the visit, please check in at the EPA Region 6 reception area at 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas.

The state submittal is also available for public inspection during official business hours, by appointment, at the New Mexico Environment Department, Air Quality Bureau, 1301 Siler Road, Building B, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87507. **FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Joe Kordzi, Air Planning Section (6PD–L), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733, telephone (214) 665–7186, fax number (214) 665– 7263; e-mail address kordzi.joe@epa.gov. **SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :**  Throughout this document wherever
‘‘we, ’’ ‘‘us, ’’ or ‘‘ our’’ is used, we mean the EPA. Outline I. Overview of Proposed Action II. Background

A. SIP and FIP Background B. Statutory and Regulatory Framework

Addressing Interstate Transport and Visibility 1. The 1997 NAAQS for Ozone and PM 2.5

and CAA 110(a)(2)(D)(i) 2. Visibility Protection 3. Best Available Retrofit Technology 4. The Western Regional Air Partnership

and Evaluation of Regional Haze Impacts III. Our Evaluation

A. New Mexico’s Interstate Transport B. Federal Implementation Plan To

Address Interstate Transport and Visibility and the BART Requirements for NO X 1. Additional SO 2 Emission Limits for the

SJGS 2. Need for Additional NO X Controls 3. NO X BART Evaluation a. The SJGS Is a BART Eligible Source b. The SJGS Is Subject to BART c. The SJGS NO X BART Determination IV. Proposed Action V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Overview of Proposed Action

We are proposing to disapprove a portion of the SIP revision submitted by the State of New Mexico for the purpose of addressing the ‘‘good neighbor’’ provisions of the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) with respect to visibility for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and the PM 2.5 NAAQS. As a result of the proposed disapproval, we are also proposing a FIP to address the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) with respect to visibility to ensure that emissions from New Mexico sources do not interfere with the visibility programs of other states. We are proposing to find that New Mexico sources, other than one, are


### 493 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules

1 Unless otherwise specified, when we say the
‘‘ San Juan Generating Station, ’’ or ‘‘ SJGS, ’’ we mean units 1, 2, 3, and 4, inclusive.

2 Power Plants Section, Four Corners Air Quality Task Force, Report of Mitigation Options, November 1, 2007, available at: http:// www.nmenv.state.nm.us/aqb/4C/Docs/ 4CAQTF

_Report

_FINAL

_PowerPlants.pdf. sufficiently controlled to eliminate interference with the visibility programs of other states, and for the one remaining source we are proposing to impose specific emissions limits that will eliminate such interstate interference. We are simultaneously evaluating whether the source at issue meets certain other related requirements under the Regional Haze (RH) program. As a result of this evaluation, we are likewise proposing to find that the proposed controls for the source at issue will address the NO X BART requirements of the RH program. In this action, we are not addressing whether the state has met other requirements of the RH program and will address those requirements in later actions.

Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of the Act requires that states have a SIP, or submit a SIP revision, containing 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 described above as requiring states to include in their SIPs measures to prohibit emissions that would interfere with the reasonable progress goals set to protect Class I areas in other states. New Mexico submitted a SIP to address these requirements in September 2007. In this action, we are proposing to disapprove the New Mexico SIP submission as not meeting the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) with respect to visibility. The SIP submission made by the state anticipated the timely submission of a substantive RH SIP submission as the means of meeting the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). New Mexico has yet to submit such a RH SIP. In addition, the state has not revised its submission to address the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) with respect to visibility by any alternative means.

By December 17, 2007, each State with one or more Class I Federal areas was also required to submit a RH SIP that included goals that provide for reasonable progress towards achieving natural visibility conditions. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1). We previously found that New Mexico had failed to submit a complete RH SIP by December 17, 2007. 74 FR 2392 (January 15, 2009). This finding started a two year clock for the promulgation of a RH FIP by EPA or the approval of a complete RH SIP from New Mexico. CAA § 110(c)(1).

To address the above concerns, we are also proposing to promulgate a FIP that ensures that emissions from New Mexico sources do not interfere with other states’ measures to protect visibility in accordance with section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 1997 8-hour ozone and 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS, and also to address the requirements under the RH program for BART by imposing limits for NO X for the San Juan Generating Station (SJGS). 1 This FIP will limit the emissions of SO 2 and NO X from the SJGS. Together, the reduction in NO X from our proposed NO X BART determination, and the proposed SO 2 emission limits to establish federal enforceability of current SO 2 levels will serve to ensure there are enforceable mechanisms in place to prohibit New Mexico NO X and SO 2 emissions from interfering with efforts to protect visibility in other states pursuant to the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of the CAA. NO X and SO 2 are significant contributors to visibility impairment in and around New Mexico. As the Four Corners Task Force notes, 2 ‘‘ [r]eduction of NO X is particularly important to improve visibility at Mesa Verde National Park, which is 43 km away from SJGS. * * * [V]isibility has degraded at Mesa Verde over the past decade, and the portion of degradation due to nitrate has increased (while there has been no trend in degradation due to sulfate). ’’ For NO X emissions, we are proposing to require the SJGS to meet an emission limit of 0.05 pounds per million British Thermal Units (lb/MMBtu) at Units 1, 2, 3, and 4, representing an approximately 83% reduction from the SJGS’s baseline NO X emissions. This NO X limit is achievable by installing and operating Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR). For SO 2 , we are proposing to require the SJGS to meet an emission limit of 0.15 lb/ MMBtu. Both of these emission limits would be measured on the basis of a 30-day rolling average. We are also proposing hourly average emission limits for sulfuric acid (H 2 SO 4) and ammonia (NH 3 ) for the SJGS, to minimize the contribution of these compounds to visibility impairment of Class I areas.

Furthermore, we propose that compliance with the emission limits be within three (3) years of the effective date of our final rule. Additionally, we are proposing monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements to ensure compliance with emission limitations. Please see Section IV (Proposed Action) and the proposed regulation language at the end of this Federal Register action for more information. II. Background A. SIP and FIP Background

The CAA requires each state to develop a plan that provides for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS. CAA section 110(a). We establish NAAQS under section 109 of the CAA. Currently, the NAAQS address six (6) criteria pollutants: Carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, lead, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide. The plan developed by a state is referred to as the SIP. The content of the SIP is specified in section 110 of the CAA, other provisions of the CAA, and applicable regulations. A primary purpose of the SIP is to provide the air pollution regulations, control strategies, and other means or techniques developed by the state to ensure that the ambient air within that state meets the NAAQS. However, another important aspect of the SIP is to ensure that emissions from within the state do not have certain prohibited impacts upon the ambient air in other states through the interstate transport of pollutants. CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). States are required to update or revise SIPs under certain circumstances. See CAA section 110(a)(1). One such circumstance is our promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS. Id. Each state must submit these revisions to us for approval andincorporation into the federallyenforceable SIP.

If a State fails to make a required SIP submittal or if we find that the State’s submittal is incomplete or unapprovable, then we must promulgate a FIP to fill this regulatory gap. CAA section 110(c)(1). As discussed elsewhere in this notice, we have made findings related to New Mexico SIP revisions needed to address interstate transport and the requirement that emissions from New Mexico sources do not interfere with measures required in the SIP of any other state to protect visibility, pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of the CAA. We are proposing a FIP to address the deficiencies in the New Mexico Interstate Transport SIP.


### 494 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules

3 Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal areas consist of national parks exceeding 6,000 acres, wilderness areas and national memorial parks exceeding 5,000 acres, and all international parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977. CAA section 162(a). In accordance with section 169A of the CAA, EPA, in consultation with the Department of Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas where visibility is identified as an important value. See 44 FR 69122 (November 30, 1979). The extent of a mandatory Class I area includes subsequent changes in boundaries, such as park expansions. CAA section 162(a). Although states and tribes may designate as Class I additional areas which they consider to have visibility as an important value, the requirements of the visibility program set forth in section 169A of the CAA apply only to
‘‘mandatory Class I Federal areas. ’’ Each mandatory Class I Federal area is the responsibility of a
‘‘Federal Land Manager’’ (FLM). CAA section 302(i). When we use the term ‘‘Class I area’’ in this action, we mean a ‘‘mandatory Class I Federal area. ’’ B. Statutory and Regulatory Framework Addressing Interstate Transport and Visibility 1. The 1997 NAAQS for Ozone and PM 2.5 and CAA 110(a)(2)(D)(i)

On July 18, 1997, we promulgated new NAAQS for 8-hour ozone and for PM 2.5 . 62 FR 38652. Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires states to submit SIPs to address a new or revised NAAQS within 3 years after promulgation of such standards, or within such shorter period as we may prescribe. Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA lists the elements that such new SIPs must address, as applicable, including section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), which pertains to the interstate transport of certain emissions.

On April 25, 2005, we published a
‘‘Finding of Failure to Submit SIPs for Interstate Transport for the 8-hour Ozone and PM 2.5 NAAQS. ’’ 70 FR 21147. This included a finding that New Mexico and other states had failed to submit SIPs for interstate transport of air pollution affecting visibility, and started a 2-year clock for the promulgation of a FIP by us, unless a State made a submission to meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) and we approved the submission. Id.

On August 15, 2006, we issued our
‘‘Guidance for State Implementation Plan (SIP) Submission to Meet Current Outstanding Obligations Under Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-Hour Ozone and PM 2.5 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 section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 8- hour ozone standards and the 1997 PM 2.5 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.

The 2006 Guidance stated that states may make a simple SIP submission confirming that it was 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 PM 2.5 NAAQS until RH SIPs are submitted and approved. RH SIPs were required to be submitted by December 17, 2007. See 74 FR 2392 (January 15, 2009); see also discussion infra section II.B.2.

On September 17, 2007 we received a SIP from New Mexico to address the interstate transport provisions of CAA 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 8-hour ozone and PM 2.5 NAAQS. In this submission, the state indicated that it intended to meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) with respect to visibility by submission of a timely RH SIP. To date, the state has not made a RH SIP submission. In addition, the state has not made a submission demonstrating noninterference with the visibility programs of other states in accordance with section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) by any other means.

In prior actions, we approved the New Mexico SIP submittal for (1) the
‘‘ significant contribution to nonattainment’’ prong of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) (75 FR 33174, June 11, 2010) and (2) the ‘‘interfere with maintenance’’ and ‘‘interfere with measures to prevent significant deterioration’’ prongs of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) (75 FR 72688, November 26, 2010). In this action, we are proposing to disapprove the New Mexico Interstate Transport SIP with respect to the requirement that emissions from New Mexico sources do not interfere with measures required in the SIP of any other state to protect visibility. See CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). We are proposing to promulgate a FIP in order to cure this defect in the New Mexico Interstate Transport SIP. 2. Visibility Protection

In section 169A of the 1977 Amendments to the CAA, Congress created a program for protecting visibility in the nation’s national parks and wilderness areas. This section of the CAA establishes as a national goal the
‘‘prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing, impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas 3 which impairment results from manmade air pollution. ’’ CAA § 169A(a)(1). The terms
‘‘impairment of visibility’’ and ‘‘visibility impairment’’ are defined in the Act to include a reduction in visual range and atmospheric discoloration. Id. section 169A(g)(6). In 1980, we promulgated regulations to address visibility impairment in Class I areas that is
‘‘reasonably attributable’’ to a single source or small group of sources, i.e.,
‘‘reasonably attributable visibility impairment’’ (RAVI). 45 FR 80084 (December 2, 1980). These regulations represented the first phase in addressing visibility impairment. We deferred action on RH that emanates from a variety of sources until monitoring, modeling and scientific knowledge about the relationships between pollutants and visibility impairment were improved. Id.

Congress added section 169B to the CAA in 1990 to address RH issues, and we promulgated regulations addressing RH in 1999. 64 FR 35714 (July 1, 1999), codified at 40 CFR part 51, subpart P (the regional haze rule or RHR). The RHR revised the existing visibility regulations to integrate provisions addressing RH impairment and established a comprehensive visibility protection program for Class I areas. The requirements for RH, found at 40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309, are included in our visibility protection regulations at 40 CFR 51.300–309. States were required to submit the first SIP addressing RH visibility impairment no later than December 17, 2007. 40 CFR 51.308(b).

On January 15, 2009, we published a
‘‘Finding of Failure to Submit State Implementation Plans Required by the 1999 regional haze rule. ’’ 74 FR 2392. We found that New Mexico and other states had failed to submit for our review and approval complete SIPs for improving visibility in the nation’s national parks and wilderness areas by the required date of December 17, 2007. We found that New Mexico failed to submit the plan elements required by 40 CFR 51.309(g), the reasonable progress requirements for areas other than the 16 Class I areas covered by the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission Report. New Mexico also failed to submit the plan element required by 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4), which


### 495 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules

4 NM has an option to submit a RH SIP under either section 51.308 or section 51.309. Although they have indicated their preference is for the latter, the NO x BART FIP we are proposing would apply to either.

5 BART-eligible sources are those sources, which have the potential to emit 250 tons or more of a visibility-impairing air pollutant, that 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. 6 Appendix Y to 40 CFR Part 51—Guidelines for BART Determinations Under the Regional Haze Rule. requires BART for stationary source emissions of NO x and PM under either 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1) or 51.308(e)(2). 4 This finding started a 2-year clock for the promulgation of a FIP by EPA, unless the State made a RH SIP submission and we approved it. 3. Best Available Retrofit Technology

Section 169A of the CAA directs states to evaluate the use of retrofit controls at certain major stationary sources with the potential to emit greater than 250 tons or more of any pollutant, in order to address visibility impacts from these sources. Specifically, it requires states to revise their SIPs to contain such measures as may be necessary to make reasonable progress towards the natural visibility goal, including a requirement that certain categories of existing major stationary sources built between 1962 and 1977 procure, install, and operate the ‘‘Best Available Retrofit Technology, ’’ as determined by the State or us in the case of a plan promulgated under section 110(c) of the CAA. CAA section 169A(b)(2)(A). 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. The RHR required all states to submit implementation plans that, among other measures, contain either emission limits representing BART for certain sources constructed between 1962 and 1977, or alternative measures that provide for greater reasonable progress than BART. 40 CFR 51.308(e). On July 6, 2005, we published the Guidelines for BART Determinations Under the Regional Haze Rule (‘‘BART Guidelines ’’ ) to assist states in determining which of their sources should be subject to the BART requirements and in determining appropriate emission limits for each applicable source. 70 FR 39104.

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 5 ; second, states determine whether each source
‘‘ emits any air pollutant which may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any impairment of visibility in any such area’’ (a source which fits this description is ‘‘ subject to BART’’ ); and third, for each source subject to BART, states then identify the appropriate type and the level of control for reducing emissions.

States must consider the following factors in making BART determinations: (1) The costs of compliance; (2) the energy and nonair 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. 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A). Section 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(B) requires that BART determinations for fossil fuel-fired electric generating plants with a total generating capacity in excess of 750 megawatts, must be made according to the BART Guidelines. 6 A state is encouraged, but not required, to follow the BART Guidelines in making BART determinations for other types of sources.

States must address all visibilityimpairing pollutants emitted by a source in the BART determination process. The most significant visibility impairing pollutants are SO 2 , NO X , and PM. We have stated that states should use their best judgment in determining whether volatile organic compounds (VOCs) or ammonia (NH 3 ) and ammonia compounds impair visibility in Class I areas.

The Regional Planning Organizations (RPOs) provided air quality modeling to the states to help them in determining whether potential BART sources can be reasonably expected to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in a Class I area. Under the BART Guidelines, states may select an exemption threshold value for theirBART modeling, below which a BARTeligible source would not be expected to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in any Class I area. 70 FR 39104. The state must document this exemption threshold value in the SIP and must state the basis for its selection of that value. Id. Any source with emissions that model above the threshold value would be subject to a BART determination review. Id. 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. Id. Any exemption threshold set by the state should not be higher than 0.5 deciview. Id.

The RHR establishes the deciview (dv) as the principal metric for measuring visibility. Id. This visibility metric expresses uniform changes in haziness 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 deciview is a more useful measure for tracking progress in improving visibility, because each deciview change is an equal incremental change in visibility perceived by the human eye. Most people can detect a change in visibility at one deciview.

A RH SIP must include sourcespecific 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 in operation as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than five (5) years after the date of our approval of the RH 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)(2). 4. The Western Regional Air Partnership and Evaluation of Regional Haze Impacts

The Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) is a voluntary partnership of state, tribal, federal, and local air agencies dealing with regional air quality issues in the West. Member states include Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. The WRAP established various committees to assist in managing and developing RH work products. New Mexico is a WRAP member. The WRAP evaluates air quality impacts, including RH impacts, associated with regionally significant emission sources. In so doing, the WRAP has conducted air quality modeling. The states in the West have


### 496 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules

7 More information on WRAP and their work can be found on the Internet at http://www.wrapair2.org and in the TSD for this action. 8 In December, 2003, New Mexico submitted its RH SIP pursuant to the requirements of sections 169A and 169B of the CAA and the regional haze rule. However, in American Corn Growers Ass’n v. EPA, 291 F.3d 1 (DC Cir. 2002), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a ruling vacating and remanding the BART provisions of the regional haze rule. In 2006, EPA issued BART guidelines to address the court’s ruling in that case. See 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005). On January 13, 2009, New Mexico resubmitted portions of its RH SIP, but not the requirements addressing reasonable progress pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(g). 9 Consultation provided through the WRAP have been documented in calls and meetings on the WRAP Web site, available at http:// www.wrapair.org/cal/calendar.php. used this modeling to establish their reasonable progress goals for RH. 7

The RH program, as reflected in the regulations, recognizes the importance of addressing the long-range transport of pollutants for visibility and encourage states to work together to develop plans to address haze. The regulations explicitly require each State to address its ‘‘ share’’ of the emission reductions needed to meet the reasonable progress goals for surrounding Class I areas. States working together through a regional planning process are required to address an agreed upon share of their contribution to visibility impairment in the Class I areas of their neighbors. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(ii). The States in the West worked together through the WRAP to determine their contribution to visibility impairment at the relevant federal Class I areas in the region and the emissions reductions from each State needed to attain the reasonable progress goals for each area. Regional planning organizations (RPOs) such as the WRAP provided much of the technical work necessary to develop RH SIPs, including the modeling used to establish reasonable progress goals. The WRAP evaluated air quality impacts, including RH impacts, associated with regionally significant emission sources. In so doing, the WRAP conducted air quality modeling. The modeling done by the RPOs relied on assumptions regarding emissions over the relevant planning period. Embedded in these assumptions were anticipated emissions reductions from each of the states in the RPO, including reductions from BART and other measures to be adopted as part of the states long-term strategy for addressing RH. The states in the West, in turn, have used this modeling to establish their reasonable progress goals for RH. The reasonable progress goals in the draft and final RH SIPs that have now been prepared by states in the West accordingly are based, in part, on the emissions reductions from nearby states that were agreed on through the WRAP process. III. Our Evaluation A. New Mexico’s Interstate Transport SIP

We received a SIP from New Mexico to address the interstate transport provisions of CAA 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 8-hour ozone and PM 2.5 NAAQS on September 17, 2007. Concerning the provision preventing sources in the state from emitting pollutants in amounts which will interfere with efforts to protect visibility in other states, New Mexico stated that:

• New Mexico sources of emissions do not interfere with implementation of reasonably attributable visibility impairment;

• Its December 2003 RH SIP demonstrated reasonable progress in reducing impacts on Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau; 8 and

• The 2007 SIP update for RH will analyze any impacts from New Mexico that extend beyond the Colorado Plateau and determine appropriate long-term strategies for control measures. As mentioned previously, New Mexico has yet to provide this SIP revision.

New Mexico’s submission addressed the requirement that it not interfere with the visibility programs of other states by stating that it would submit an approvable RH SIP by December 2007. The state did not otherwise establish that emissions from its sources would not interfere with the visibility programs of other states. After intervening events precluded the development of an approvable RH SIP, the state did not make any subsequent SIP submission to address the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) with respect to impacts on the visibility programs of other states. Consequently, because the State did not submit a RH SIP or an alternative means of demonstrating that emissions from its sources would not interfere with the visibility programs of other States, we are proposing disapproval of the SIP received September 17, 2007, with respect to 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and visibility protection. Further, as described in subsequent sections, we are proposing that additional controls are necessary to prevent emissions from New Mexico from interfering with measures to protect visibility in other States. B. Federal Implementation Plan To Address Interstate Transport and Visibility and the BART Requirements for NO X As an initial matter, we note that section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) does not explicitly specify how we should ascertain whether a state’s SIP contains adequate provisions to prevent emissions from sources in that state from interfering with measures required in another state to protect visibility. Thus, the statute is ambiguous on its face, and we must interpret that provision.

Our 2006 Guidance recommended that a state could meet the visibility prong of the transport requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of the CAA by submission of the RH SIP, due in December 2007. Our reasoning was that the development of the RH SIPs was intended to occur in a collaborative environment among the states. In fact, in developing their respective reasonable progress goals, WRAP states consulted with each other through the WRAP’s work groups. 9 As a result of this process, the common understanding was that each State would take action to achieve the emissions reductions relied upon by other states in their reasonable progress demonstrations under the RHR. This effort included all states in the WRAP region contributing information to a Technical Support System (TSS) which provides an analysis of the causes of haze, and the levels of contribution from all sources within each state to the visibility degradation of each Class I area. The WRAP states consulted in the development of reasonable progress goals, using the products of this technical consultation process to co-develop their reasonable progress goals for the Western Class I areas.

We believe that the analysis conducted by the WRAP provides an appropriate means for designing a FIP that will ensure that emissions from sources in New Mexico are not interfering with the visibility programs of other states, as contemplated in 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. Although we have not yet received all RH SIPs, we understand that the WRAP states used the visibility projection modeling to establish their own respective reasonable progress goals. Thus, we believe that an implementation plan that provides for emissions reductions consistent with the assumptions used in the WRAP modeling will ensure that emissions from New Mexico sources do not


### 497 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules

10 Consent 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 02–552 BB/ACT (ACE)), lodged in the United States District Court, District of New Mexico, on March 10, 2005, at 15–16. 11 NO X limit of 0.30 lb/mmBtu on a 30-day rolling average for each of the four units; SO 2 limit of 90%annual average control for each unit, with a shortterm limit not to exceed 0.250 lb/mmBtu for a seven-day block average.

12 New Mexico Environment Department Air Quality Bureau NSR Air Quality Permit No. 0063– M6R1 was issued on September 12, 2008 and superseded Permit No. 0063–M6.

13 Comments Received to-Date on the Draft 2018 Base Case Projections, Version: December 21, 2005, available at http://www.wrapair.org/forums/ssjf/ documents/eictts/Projections/ Summary%20of%20Comments

_ 122105

_ final.pdf, pdf pagination 20. 14 See Finding of Failure to Submit SIPs for Interstate Transport for the 8-hour Ozone and PM 2.5 NAAQS. 70 FR 21147 (April 25, 2005); see also Finding of Failure To Submit State Implementation Plans Required by the 1999 Regional Haze Rule. 74 FR 2392 (January 15, 2009). interfere with the measures designed to protect visibility in other states.

Accordingly, we have reviewed the WRAP photochemical modeling emission projections used in the demonstration of reasonable progress towards natural visibility conditions and compared them to current emission levels from sources in New Mexico. We have concluded that all of the sources in New Mexico are achieving the emission levels assumed by the WRAP in its modeling except for the SJGS. The WRAP modeling assumed the SJGS’s NO X emissions would be 0.27 lbs/ MMBtu for units 1 and 3, and 0.28 lbs/ MMBtu for units 2 and 4, in 2018. The WRAP modeling also assumed SO 2 emissions would be 0.15 lbs/MMBtu in 2018 for the four SJGS units.

The SJGS consists of four (4) coalfired 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 high-pressure steam which 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 and is delivered to the facility by conveyor. 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 2005, the operator of the SJGS, Public Service Company of New Mexico (PNM), entered into a consent decree with the Grand Canyon Trust, Sierra Club, and the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) to reduce emissions of NO X , SO 2 , particulate matter and mercury. 10 The consent decree imposed emissions restrictions, including the following:

• NO X : 0.30 lb/mmBtu on a 30-day rolling average.

• SO 2 : 90% annual average control, not to exceed 0.250 lb/mmBtu for a seven-day block average.

In a permit modification to the construction permit for SJGS, NMED issued a revised construction permit (NSR Air Quality Permit No. 0063–M6) on April 22, 2008 to incorporate some of the conditions from the consent decree. The construction permit was issued by the Air Quality Bureau of the NMED to SJGS pursuant to the New Mexico Air Quality Control Act and regulations and is considered a federally enforceable permit. We were not a party to the consent decree, but the inclusion of limits from the consent decree that have been included in the construction permit for the facility were issued pursuant to the federally approved construction permitting program of the New Mexico SIP. Specifically, the construction permit includes the NO X and SO 2 limits from the consent decree that are identified above. 11 Therefore, these NO X and SO 2 emissions restrictions are federally enforceable. This permit has since been superseded by a further construction permit modification that also includes the consent decree limits on NO X and SO 2 emissions and is federally enforceable. 12

Although the SJGS is subject to a federally enforceable permit, the permit’s 30-day rolling average NO X emission limit of 0.30 lb/mmBtu for all units is less restrictive than the emission rates modeled by the WRAP of 0.27 lbs/MMBtu for units 1 and 3, and 0.28 lbs/MMBtu for units 2 and 4 in assessing the daily visibility impacts. We also note the WRAP photochemical modeling utilized an SO 2 emission rate of 0.15 lbs/MMBtu on a continuous basis for all four units. In previous communications to New Mexico and the WRAP, PNM indicated that the 90% annual average control specified in the permit would be expected to yield roughly an annual average emission rate of 0.195 lb/mmBtu of SO 2 , 13 which is much higher than the 0.15 lb/mmBtu emission rate utilized in the WRAP’s photochemical modeling for assessing daily level impacts. Also, the 90% SO 2 control restriction specified in the permit is an annual average, which allows for short term fluctuations. It also is not directly translatable to an emission limit (e.g., lbs/MMBtu), and requires knowledge of the sulfur content of the coal being burned. Therefore, this limit can further fluctuate depending upon the annual average sulfur content of the coal. This presents an unnecessary enforcement complication. The permit also specifies a 0.250 lb/ mmBtu on a 7-day block average for each unit, which is much less restrictive than the 0.15 lb/mmBtu emission rate that was used within the WRAP’s photochemical modeling.

Therefore, the permit does not provide the necessary emission limits and enforceable mechanisms to ensure the NO X and SO 2 emissions used in the WRAP photochemical modeling for the SJGS units will be met. In the absence of an approvable RH SIP, we do not have an enforceable mechanism for ensuring that sources in New Mexico do not impact visibility in other states. Other WRAP states are relying on levels modeled for the SJGS units, developed in consultation, in their demonstration of reasonable progress towards natural visibility conditions. Therefore, any discrepancies between what was included in the WRAP photochemical modeling and what is presently enforceable, is a concern. We have evaluated these discrepancies and determined they are significant due to the changes in visibility projections in the modeling. We have concluded that it is appropriate to establish federally enforceable limits for pollutants that impact visibility projections within the WRAP photochemical modeling.

As discussed in II.A, we are proposing to disapprove New Mexico Interstate Transport SIP provisions that address the requirement of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) that emissions from New Mexico sources do not interfere with measures required in the SIP of any other state under part C of the CAA to protect visibility. In addition, since New Mexico has not submitted a complete RH SIP that should have, among other things, included a review of BART for NO X at the SJGS, and for both of these requirements we have made a finding of failure to submit, 14 giving us the authority and responsibility to issue a FIP to address the deficiencies in the State’s plan, we are also proposing to find that New Mexico sources, except the SJGS, are sufficiently controlled to eliminate interference with the visibility programs of other states. For the SJGS we are proposing to impose specific emissions limits that will eliminate such interstate interference based on current emissions that satisfies the assumptions in the WRAP modeling.

The following sections outline our proposal for addressing the BART requirements for NO X at SJGS and for ensuring that the SJGS has the controls necessary to prevent emissions from


### 498 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules

15 http://camddataandmaps.epa.gov/gdm/ index.cfm. 16 New Mexico Environment Department, Air Quality Bureau, BART Determination, Public Service Company of New Mexico, San Juan Generating Station, Units 1–4, June 21, 2010, available at http://www.nmenv.state.nm.us/aqb/ reghaz/documents/AppxA

_NM

_SJGS

_NOxBART Determination

_ 06212010.pdf. 17 http://camddataandmaps.epa.gov/gdm/ index.cfm.

18 40 FR 39161 (July 6, 2005). New Mexico from interfering with the reasonable progress goals in other states. 1. Additional SO 2 Emission Limits for the SJGS

As we discuss above, there are no federally enforceable limits that restrict the SJGS’s SO 2 emissions at 0.15 lbs/ MMBtu, the rate assumed by the WRAP in its modeling. Therefore, as part of this action, we are proposing to impose an SO 2 emission rate of 0.15 lbs/MMBtu on a 30 day rolling average for units 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the SJGS. By imposing this limit through this action, we will insure that SO 2 emissions from this source are not interfering with the visibility programs of other states. We note an examination of the SJGS’s actual emission rates based on emissions reported by our Clean Air Markets Division 15 indicates units 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the SJGS are already meeting these SO 2 emission limits.

We are not making a finding that this SO 2 emission limit satisfies BART for SO 2 . NMED has indicated they will submit a RH SIP under 40 CFR 51.309, thus SO 2 BART for the SJGS will be addressed through New Mexico’s participation in an SO 2 trading program, under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4). Should NMED instead submit a RH SIP under 40 CFR 51.308, the SJGS would be subject to an SO 2 BART analysis under 40 CFR 51.308(e). 2. Need for Additional NO X Controls

As we discuss above, the WRAP assumed in its modeling that the SJGS would achieve NO X emission rates of 0.27 lbs/MMBtu for units 1 and 3, and 0.28 lbs/MMBtu for units 2 and 4 in its evaluation of daily impacts in photochemical modeling. Based on our approach of relying on the assumptions in the WRAP modeling, additional control would, therefore, be necessary to ensure that emissions from New Mexico sources do not interfere with efforts to protect visibility in other states pursuant to the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of the CAA.

Unlike the case for SO 2 , the SJGS will have to install controls and therefore make capital investments to achieve these additional NO X reductions. As we note above, on January 15, 2009, we published a ‘‘Finding of Failure to Submit State Implementation Plans Required by the 1999 regional haze rule. ’’ 74 FR 2392. This finding included the plan element required by 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4), which requires BART for stationary source emissions of NO X and PM under either 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1) or 51.308(e)(2). Therefore, rather than making an initial determination to require the controls needed to prevent interference with the visibility programs of other states based on the assumptions in the WRAP photochemical modeling to meet section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requirements, followed soon thereafter by a separate NO X BART evaluation, we find it is appropriate to perform that BART evaluation at this time. Addressing both outstanding obligations at this time will be more efficient and will provide greater certainty to the source as to the appropriate NO X controls needed to meet these two separate but related requirements. Our evaluation of BART for NO X follows. 3. NO X BART Evaluation

In June, 2007, PNM submitted its BART evaluation to NMED. That evaluation was revised multiple times to incorporate additional visibility modeling analyses, control technology considerations, and cost analyses. Although not officially submitted to us, NMED completed a NO X and PM BART determination for the SJGS (referred to herein as the ‘‘NMED BART evaluation’’ ), which we have found to be thorough and comprehensive. 16 In making our NO X BART determination for the SJGS, we drew heavily upon the NO X BART portion of that document, and used it to help inform our NO X BART determination for the SJGS. We have incorporated it into our Technical Support Document (TSD) found in the electronic docket for this action. The electronic docket can be found at the Web site http://www.regulations.gov (docket number EPA–R06–OAR–2010– 0846).

We have determined, as outlined below, that the SJGS is subject to BART and are proposing to require that units 1, 2, 3, and 4 meet an emission limit for NO X of 0.05 lbs/MMBtu. This limit is based on the installation of SCR on each of the units. The following steps outline how we came to this determination. For more detail, please see the TSD. Any BART determinations for other pollutants that may be warranted under the RHR will be addressed in future rulemakings. a. The SJGS Is a BART-Eligible Source

The first step of a BART evaluation is to determine whether a source meets the definition of a ‘‘BART-eligible source’’ in 40 CFR 51.301. BART-eligible sources are those sources which 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. We find, based on emissions reported by our Clean Air Markets Division, 17 that units 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the SJGS each have historically emitted much more than 250 tons of NO X . Also, according to the NMED SJGS Title V Statement of Basis, units 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the SJGS meet the requirement of being ‘‘in existence’’ on August 7, 1977 but not ‘‘in operation’’ before August 7, 1962. Lastly, we find that units 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the SJGS fall under category 1 of the 26listed BART categories, which is fossilfuel fired steam electric plants of more than 250 million British thermal units (BTU) per hour heat input. Therefore, we propose to find that units 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the SJGS are BART-eligible. b. The SJGS Is Subject to BART

Section III of the BART Guidelines outlines several approaches for identifying sources that are subject to BART. This entails making a determination of whether the units of the SJGS cause or contribute to visibility impairment in nearby Class I areas. Among the options we recommended was the use of dispersion modeling for assessing the impacts of a single source. As we note in the BART Guidelines, one of the first steps in this approach to determining whether a source causes or contributes to visibility impairment is to establish a threshold (measured in deciviews). A single source that is responsible for a 1.0 deciview change or more should be considered to ‘‘ cause’’ visibility impairment; a source that causes less than a 1.0 deciview change may still contribute to visibility impairment and thus be subject to BART. We note in the BART Guidelines that states (and by extension EPA when promulgating a FIP) have flexibility in determining an appropriate threshold for determining whether a source
‘‘ contributes to any visibility impairment’’ for the purposes of BART. However, this threshold should not be higher than 0.5 deciviews. 18 In the case of the SJGS, this establishment of a precise threshold for contribution is moot, since visibility modeling indicates that even using the upper bound contribution threshold of 0.5 deciviews, the SJGS contributes to


# Vol. 76 Monday, No. 162 August 22, 2011

Part II 

# Environmental Protection Agency
40 CFR Part 52 Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; New Mexico; Federal Implementation Plan for Interstate Transport of Pollution Affecting Visibility and Best Available Retrofit Technology Determination; Final Rule


### 52388 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
**ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY**  **40 CFR Part 52 EPA–R06–OAR–2010–0846;**  **FRL–9451–1 Approval and Promulgation of**  **Implementation Plans; New Mexico; Federal Implementation Plan for**  **Interstate Transport of Pollution Affecting Visibility and Best Available**  **Retrofit Technology Determination AGENCY**  **:** Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). **ACTION :**  Final rule. **SUMMARY :**  EPA is disapproving a portion of the State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision received from the State of New Mexico on September 17, 2007, for the purpose of addressing the ‘‘good neighbor’’ requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) for the 1997 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS or standards) and the 1997 fine particulate matter (PM 2.5 ) NAAQS. In this action, EPA is disapproving the New Mexico Interstate Transport SIP provisions that address the requirement of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) that emissions from New Mexico sources do not interfere with measures required in the SIP of any other state under part C of the CAA to protect visibility. We have found that New Mexico sources, except the San Juan Generating Station, are sufficiently controlled to eliminate interference with the visibility programs of other states. EPA is promulgating a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) to address this deficiency by implementing nitrogen oxides (NO X) and sulfur dioxide (SO 2) emission limits necessary at the San Juan Generating Station (SJGS), to prevent such interference. EPA found in January 2009 that New Mexico had failed to submit a SIP addressing certain regional haze (RH) requirements, including the requirement for best available retrofit technology (BART). The Clean Air Act required EPA to promulgate a FIP to address RH requirements by January 2011. This FIP addresses the RH BART requirement for NO X for SJGS. In addition, EPA is implementing sulfuric acid (H 2 SO 4) hourly emission limits at the SJGS, to minimize the contribution of this compound to visibility impairment. This action is being taken under section 110 and part C of the CAA. **DATES :**  This final rule is effective on: September 21, 2011. **ADDRESSES :**  EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA–R06–OAR–2010–0846. All documents in the docket are listed in the Federal eRulemaking portal index at http://www.regulations.gov and are available either electronically at http:// www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Ave., Dallas, TX 75202–2733. To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the **FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT**  section. A reasonable fee may be charged for copies. **FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Joe Kordzi, EPA Region 6, (214) 665–7186, kordzi.joe@epa.gov. **SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :**  Throughout this document wherever ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ ‘‘our,’’ or ‘‘the Agency’’ is used, we mean the EPA. Unless otherwise specified, when we say the ‘‘San Juan Generating Station,’’ or ‘‘SJGS,’’ we mean units 1, 2, 3, and 4, inclusive. Overview

The Clean Air Act requires states to prevent air pollution from sources within their borders from impairing air quality and visibility in other states. The Act also requires states to reduce pollution from significant sources whose emissions reduce visibility in the nation’s pristine and wilderness areas (such as the Grand Canyon), and contribute to regional haze. When a state has not adopted plans as required by these provisions, EPA must put such a plan in place, known as a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP).

In this action, EPA is finalizing a FIP for New Mexico to address emissions from one source: the San Juan Generating Station coal-fired power plant. EPA is finding that the other New Mexico pollution sources are adequately controlled to eliminate interference with the clean air visibility programs of other states. This FIP can be replaced by a state plan that EPA finds meets the applicable Clean Air Act requirements. The federal plan will remain in effect no longer than necessary.

In December 2010, EPA proposed to disapprove a portion of the New Mexico Interstate Transport State Implementation Plan (SIP), specifically the New Mexico Interference withVisibility SIP, and proposed a sourcespecific FIP to cut pollution from San Juan Generating Station to address adverse visibility impacts.

The federal plan also addresses a portion of EPA’s 2-year obligation under the Clean Air Act’s Regional Haze Rule to implement a federal plan when the state failed to meet the January 2009 deadline. This shortfall is being addressed by establishing emissions limits representing Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) for nitrogen oxide (NOx) pollution at the San Juan Generating Station power plant.

The federal plan will require the San Juan Generating Station to cut emissions to improve scenic views at 16 of our most treasured parks including the Grand Canyon, Mesa Verde and Bandelier National Monument. Pollution from this power plant impacts four states including Arizona, Utah, Colorado, and New Mexico. Improved air quality also results in public health benefits.

Public Service Company of New Mexico (PNM) owns the San Juan Generating Station power plant. The power plant has four coal-fired generating units. It is located in San Juan County, 15 miles west of Farmington in northwest New Mexico. The thirty-year-old San Juan Generation Station power plant is one of the largest sources of NOx pollution in the United States.

The federal plan requires the San Juan Generating Station coal-fired power plant to reduce nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide pollution to 0.05 pounds per million BTU and 0.15 pounds per million BTU respectively.

By addressing nitrogen oxide pollution requirements of both Interstate Transport and the Regional Haze Rule, PNM will meet these two Clean Air Act requirements for NOx emission limits for the power plant with only one round of improvements. This regulatory certainty will help guide PNM’s business decisions regarding capital investments in pollution controls.

EPA evaluated reliable and proven pollution technologies as part of its decision. EPA determined Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) to be the most cost-effective pollution control to achieve the emission reductions outlined in the federal plan. Evaluation of a less expensive alternative, Selective Non Catalytic Reduction (SNCR), showed that SNCR at the San Juan Generating Station coal-fired power plant achieves far less reduction in pollution and less visibility improvement, and does not fully meet the requirement of the Act for Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART).

EPA held an extended public comment period on this action, an open house, and a public hearing. After careful review of information provided during the public comment period, EPA revised its calculation of the associated cost investment from $229 million to $345 million. Also, in consideration of comments about the time to comply with the new emissions limits, EPA


### 52389 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations extended the time for compliance with the nitrogen oxide pollution emission limit from 3 years to 5 years, the maximum period allowed by the Clean Air Act.

This investment will reduce the visibility impacts due to this facility by over 50% at each one of the 16 national parks and wilderness areas in the area, and promote local tourism by decreasing the number of days when pollution impairs scenic views. Although today’s action is taken to address visibility impairments, PNM will also reduce public health impacts by cutting NO X pollution by over 80% by installing reliable pollution-control technology on its four coal-fired power generation units over the next five years.

EPA will review the regional haze plan that the State submitted in July 2011, and if there is significant new information that changes our analysis, EPA will make appropriate revisions to today’s decision. Detailed Outline I. Summary of Our Proposal II. Final Decision

A. Interstate Transport B. NO X BART Determination for the San

Juan Generating Station (SJGS) C. Compliance Timeframe III. Analysis of Major Issues Raised by Commenters A. Comments on the Costs of the NO X

BART Determination B. Comments on our Proposed NO X BART

Emission Limits C. Comments on our Proposed SO 2

Emission Limit D. Comments on our Proposed H 2 SO 4 and

Ammonia Emission Limits and Other Pollutants E. Comments on the Emission Limit

Compliance Schedule F. Comments on the Conversion of the

SJGS to a Coal-to-Liquids Plant With Carbon Capture as a Means of Satisfying BART G. Comments on Health and Ecosystem

Benefits, and Other Pollutants H. Miscellaneous Comments I. Comments in Favor of Our Proposal J. Comments Arguing Our Proposal Would

Hurt the Economy and/or Raise Electricity Rates K. Comments Arguing Our Proposal Would

Help the Economy L. Comments Requesting an Extension to

the Public Comment Period M. Comments Requesting We Defer Action

in Favor of a New Mexico SIP Submittal N. Comments Generally Against Our

Proposal O. Comments on Legal Issues P. Modeling Comments IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Summary of Our Proposal

On January 5, 2011, we published the proposal on which we are now taking final action. 76 FR 491. We proposed to disapprove a portion of the SIP revision received from the State of New Mexico on September 17, 2007, for the purpose of addressing the ‘‘good neighbor’’ provisions of the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) with respect to visibility for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and the PM 2.5 NAAQS. Having proposed to disapprove these provisions of the New Mexico SIP, we proposed a FIP to address the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) with respect to visibility to ensure that emissions from sources in New Mexico do not interfere with the visibility programs of other states. We proposed to find that New Mexico’s sources, other than the San Juan Generating Station (SJGS), are sufficiently controlled to eliminate interference with the visibility programs of other states, and for the SJGS, we proposed specific SO 2 and NO X emissions limits that will eliminate such interstate interference. For SO 2 , we proposed to require the SJGS to meet an emission limit of 0.15 pounds per million British Thermal Units (lb/ MMBtu). For NO X , we proposed to implement a NO X emission limit of 0.05 lbs/MMBtu, based on our BART determination, as discussed below.

Separate from our proposal under Section 110 of the CAA, we simultaneously evaluated whether the SJGS met certain other related requirements under the Regional Haze (RH) program under Sections 169A and 169B of the CAA. Regional Haze SIPs were due December 17, 2007. In January 2009, we made a finding that New Mexico had failed to submit a RH SIP addressing the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4) and (g). 74 FR 2392 (January 15, 2009). Under the CAA, we are required to promulgate a FIP within two years of the effective date of a finding that a State has failed to submit a SIP unless the State submits a SIP and we approve that SIP within the two year period. CAA § 110(c). At the time of the proposed FIP, New Mexico had not yet submitted a substantive RH SIP addressing, among other things, the requirement that certain stationary sources install BART for NO X . (On July 5, 2011, New Mexico submitted a RH SIP, which we discuss later in this Notice.) Based on our evaluation of the RH BART requirements of section 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4), we proposed to find that the SJGS is subject to BART under section 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4), and/or 51.308(e). We proposed a FIP which contained NO X BART limits for the SJGS based on our proposed NO X BART determination. We proposed to require that the SJGS meet a NO X emission limit of 0.05 lb/MMBtu individually at Units 1, 2, 3, and 4. We noted this NO X limit is achievable by installing and operating Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR).

We proposed that both the NO X and SO 2 emission limits be measured on the basis of a 30 day rolling average. We also proposed hourly average emission limits of 1.06 × 10
¥ 4 lb/MMBtu for H 2 SO 4 and 2.0 parts per million volume dry (ppmvd) ammonia adjusted to 6 percent oxygen, to minimize the contribution of these compounds to visibility impairment. We solicited comments on a range of 2–6 ppmvd for ammonia, and 1.06 × 10
¥ 4 to 7.87 × 10
¥ 4 lb/MMBtu for H 2 SO 4 . Additionally, we proposed monitoring, record-keeping and reporting requirements to ensure compliance with these emission limitations.

Lastly, we proposed that compliance with the emission limits must be within three (3) years of the effective date of our final rule. We solicited comments on alternative timeframes, up to five (5) years from the effective date our final rule. In our proposal, we did not address whether the state had met other requirements of the RH program, which we will address in later actions. Please see our proposal for more details. II. Final Decision A. Interstate Transport

We are disapproving the portion of the SIP revision received from the State of New Mexico on September 17, 2007, for the purpose of addressing the ‘‘good neighbor’’ provisions of the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) with respect to visibility for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and the PM 2.5 NAAQS. The 2007 SIP submission by New Mexico anticipated that the State would submit a substantive RH SIP to meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).

Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of the CAA requires that states have a SIP, or submit a SIP revision, containing 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.’’ States were required to submit a SIP by December 2007 with measures to address regional haze— visibility impairment that is caused by the emissions of air pollutants from numerous sources located over a wide geographic area. Under the RH program, each State with a Class I area must submit a SIP with reasonable progress goals for each such area that provides for an improvement in visibility for the


### 52390 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

1 CAA 42 U.S.C. 7472(a). The list of mandatory class I federal areas where visibility is an important value is codified at 40 CFR part 81 subpart D. 2 See 74 FR 2392. 3 A State Regional Haze SIP was due under the CAA by Dec. 17, 2007, and EPA was obligated to either approve an RH SIP or promulgate a FIP by January 15, 2011. See CAA Section 110(c)(1)(B). most impaired days and ensures no degradation of the best days. (The ‘‘Class I’’ federal areas 1 affected by the SJGS include 16 of our most treasured parks, such as the Grand Canyon, Mesa Verde, and Bandelier National Monument. Emissions from this power plant impact four states including Arizona, Utah, Colorado, and New Mexico.)

Because of the often significant impacts on visibility from the interstate transport of pollutants, we interpret the ‘‘good neighbor’’ provisions of section 110 of the CAA described above as requiring states to include in their SIPs measures to prohibit emissions that would interfere with the reasonable progress goals set to protect Class I areas in other states. This is consistent with the requirements in the RH program which explicitly require each State to address its share of the emission reductions needed to meet the reasonable progress goals for surrounding Class I areas. 64 FR 35714, 35735 (July 1, 1999). States working together through a regional planning process are required to address an agreed upon share of their contribution to visibility impairment in the Class I areas of their neighbors. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(ii).

The States in the West, including New Mexico, worked through a regional planning organization, the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP), to develop strategies to address regional haze. To help the State in establishing reasonable progress goals, the WRAP modeled future visibility conditions. The WRAP modeling assumed emissions reductions from each State, based on extensive consultation among the States as to appropriate strategies for addressing haze. In setting reasonable progress goals, States in the West generally relied on this modeling. As explained in the notice of proposed rulemaking, we believe that the analysis conducted by the WRAP provides an appropriate means for designing a FIP that will ensure that emissions from sources in New Mexico are not interfering with the visibility programs of other states, as contemplated in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).

As a result of our disapproval of New Mexico’s SIP, submitted to meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) with respect to visibility, we are promulgating a FIP to ensure that emissions from New Mexico sources do not interfere with the visibility programs of other states. We find 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. The SO 2 and NO X emissions relied upon in the WRAP modeling for the SJGS, however, are not federally enforceable. Therefore, we are establishing federally enforceable SO 2 emissions limits that will address these discrepancies and eliminate interstate interference based on current emissions that satisfy the assumptions in the WRAP modeling. We are finalizing our proposal to require the SJGS to meet an SO 2 emission limit of 0.15 lb/MMBtu, the rate assumed in the WRAP modeling. We proposed a 30 day rolling average for units 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the SJGS. However, in response to a comment we received, we are changing our proposed averaging period for these emission limits from a straight 30 day calendar average to one calculated on the basis of a Boiler Operating Day (BOD).

Besides not being federally enforceable, the NOx emissions that were assumed in the WRAP modeling cannot be achieved without additional NOx controls for the SJGS to prevent interference with visibility pursuant to the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of the CAA. We are choosing, however, not to use the WRAP assumptions to make a determination on the enforceable NOx controls necessary to prevent visibility interference, as we are doing for the SO 2 controls. Instead, we are addressing NOx control for the SJGS by fulfilling our duty under the BART provisions of the RH rule to promulgate a RH FIP for New Mexico to address, among other elements of the visibility program, the requirement for BART. 2 We do not believe it is prudent to delay a NOx BART determination for the SJGS, because we have determined that the BART requirements are more stringent than the visibility transport requirements. Separating the visibility transport and BART rulemakings could result in near-term requirements for the utility to install one set of controls and capital expenditures, to only satisfy our obligation under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), followed shortly thereafter by different requirements for controls and capital expenditures to satisfy our obligation under BART. This could result in unnecessary costs and confusion. We did receive a New Mexico RH SIP submittal on July 5, 2011, but it came several years after the statutory deadline, and after the close of the comment period on today’s action. 3 In addition, because of the missed deadline for the visibility transport, we are under a court-supervised consent decree deadline with WildEarth Guardians of August 5, 2011, to have either approved the New Mexico SIP or to have implemented a FIP to address the 110(a)(2)(D)(i) provision. It would not have been possible to review the July 5, 2011 SIP submission, propose a rulemaking, and promulgate a final action by the dates required by the consent decree. Notwithstanding these facts, we did comment during the State’s public comment period for their proposed RH SIP in May 2011 and we did evaluate the technology advocated as BART in the State’s proposed RH SIP: SNCR, as discussed in further detail elsewhere in this Notice. B. NOx BART Determination for the San Juan Generating Station (SJGS)

We find that the SJGS is subject to BART under sections 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4), and/or 51.308(e). In this action, we are adopting a FIP that partially addresses the BART requirements of the RH program for New Mexico. We are finalizing our proposal to require the SJGS to meet a NOx emission limit of 0.05 lb/MMBtu individually at Units 1, 2, 3, and 4. As we discuss elsewhere in our response to comments, we find there is ample support for this decision. However, in response to a comment we received, we are changing our proposed averaging period for these emission limits from a straight 30 day calendar average to one calculated on the basis of a boiler operating day (BOD). We also received a comment requesting we revise our proposed unit-by-unit NOx limitation, and replace it with a plant wide average NOx limitation. As we note in our response to this comment, although we are open to combining the BOD and plant wide averaging schemes, this presents a significant technical challenge in having a verifiable, workable, and enforceable algorithm for calculating such an average. Due to our obligation to ensure the enforceability of the emission limits we are imposing in our FIP, we leave it to New Mexico to take up this matter in a future SIP revision, should they deem it worth pursuing. We are confident this issue


# New Mexico Commission of Public Records Administrative Law Division 1205 Camino Carlos Rey Santa Fe, NM 87507 505-476-7907 

# Affidavit of Publication in the 

# New Mexico Register

-===== =-- ------



## I, Art Bransford , cettify that the agency noted below has published legal notices or rules in the New Mexico Register , and that payment has been assessed by invoice for said legal notice or publication, which appeared on the date and in the volume and issue number noted below

. Date of Publication: 6/28/2013 Agency: Volume: 

### XXIV Issue#: 12 Invoice# : NMR-2013- 246 Amount: $88.00 Environment Department Contact: Rita Bates 

### 1190 St Francis Dr Santa Fe, NM 

### 87505- Description: Other Other



### ( sea l) O ther Material Other Material Notice of State Implementation Plan Notice of State Implementat ion Plan



### State of New Mexico , County of Santa Fe Signed and affirmed before me on Friday, June 

### 28, 2013 by Art Bransford 

# _p )

1 A / 

## Notary

# PubuQ~Q VJLo_,a

_ -= d'--=-

- -=- -- Loui se Wood [My commission expires: 

# j I 

# f / 

# 7
Affiant:

# ~**~c ~~**  Publisher, 

## New Mexico Registe ? Date: 6/28/2013**Copies** 

### of the published material documented in this affidavit are en clos ed

Form S RC

-2002-04 R ev i se d Jul y 200 7

## New Mexico Register 

## I Volume XXIV, Number 12 

## I June 28,2013 445 

# Other Material Related to Administrative Law NEW MEXICO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT BOARD
NEW MEXICO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT BOARD NOT ICE OF STATE IMPL EMEN TATION PLAN HEARING The New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board ("Board " ) will hold a public hearing on September 5 , 20 I3, beginning at 9:00 am in Room 7103 at San Juan College, 460 I College Boulevar d , continuing on September 6 , if necessary. Th e New Mexico Env ironm ent Department ( " NMED ") is proposing to adopt re vis ions to the New Mexico State Implementation P

lan for Regiona l Haze. The proposed plan establishes requirements for New Mexico to meet the requirements of 40 CFR Section 51.309, including a revised determination of Best Available Retrofit Technology for the San Ju an Generating Station, located 15 miles west of Farmington. The proposed plan involves the vo luntary retirement of t wo of the four units at this f ac ility, and the in sta ll ation of se lective non- c atalytic r ed uction on the oth er tw o unit s. The proponent of thi s regulatory a d option and revision is the New Mex ico Environment Depar tment ( "N MED " ). The purpose of the public hearing is to consider and take possible actio n on a petition from NME D regarding r evis ions to New Me xico's S tate Implem e ntation Plan under th e federal r eg ional ha ze rule , 40 CFR Section 51.309. The regiona l haze rule r equires s tates to submit State Impl ementation Pl ans to add r ess visibility impairment caused by re gio na l haze in 156 fede rall y-protected parks and wilderness areas, known as Class I areas , includin g nine such areas in New Mexico.
The propo se d revised plan may be r ev ie wed during re gular business hour s at the NME D Ai r Quality Bur eau office , 525 Camino de los Marquez, S uite I , Santa Fe , New Mexico. The full text of NMED's proposed revised State Im plementation Plan are available on NME D 's web site at www.n menv. s t ate. nm.us, or by contacting Rita Bates at (505) 476

-4304 or by email at rita.bates @s tate

. nm.u s . The hearing will be co nducted in acco rdance with 20

. 1.1 NMAC (Rulemaking Proc edures

- En vironme ntal Improvement Boar d) , th e Envi ronm ental Impro veme nt Act, Sec tion 74- 1- 9 NM SA 1978 , th e Air Q ualit y Contro l Act, Section 74

- 2

- 6 NMSA 1978 , and other appl icable procedures.
All intere sted persons will be g iven re asonable opportunity at the hearing to submit r e levant evidence , data , views and arguments, orally or in writing, to introduce exhibits , and to examine witnesses. Persons wish ing to pres ent technical testimony must file with the Board a wri tten notice of intent to do so. The not ice of intent shall: (I) identify the person for whom the witness(es) will testify; (2) identify each te c hnical witness that the person intends to present and state the qualifications of the witness, including a description of thei r education and wo rk background; (3) inc l ude a copy of the direct testimony in narrative form of each tec hni cal witness; (4) attach each exhibit anticipated to be offered by that p erson at the hearing ; and (5) attach the text of any r eco mmended modifications to the proposed r egulatory change.
Notices of intent for the hearing must be received in the Office of the Board not later than 5:00 pm on August 16, and shou ld reference the docket numb er, EIB 13-02 (R) and the dat e of the hearin g . Not ices of int ent to present t echn ical te s timony should be subm itted to: Pam Castaneda, Board Administrator Office of the Environmenta l Improvement Board Harold Runnels Bui ld ing I 190 St. Franc i s Dr

. , Room N2150 Santa Fe , NM 87505 Phone: (505) 827

- 2425 , Fax (505) 827-2836 Any member of the gene ral public may testify at the hearing

. No prior notification is required to pre sent non-technica l te s tim ony at the hearing. Any s uch member may also offer exh ibits in connection with hi s testimony, so long as the exhibit is not undu ly repetitiou s of the te sti mony. A m e mber of the general public who wishes to s ubmi t a writ ten s tatem ent for the record , in l ieu of providing oral te s timony at the hearing, s hall file the written statement prior to the hearin g, or subm it it at the hearin g . Pers ons having a di sa bility and needi ng help in being a part ofthis hearing process s hould con tact J .C. Borrego by August 16 , 2013 at

· th e NMED , Human Resourc es Bureau , P.O.

Box 5469 , 11 90 S t. F ran cis Drive, Sa nta Fe , New Mexico, 87502-5469 , telephone 505-827

-0424. TDY user s pl ease access hi s number via the New Mex ico R e lay Network at 1- 800-659-833 I. 

### The Board may make a deci sio n on the proposed revised state implementation plan at the conc lu s ion of the hearing , or the Board may convene a meeting a t a later date to consider action on the proposal. 

## NEW MEXICO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT BOARD
NEW MEX ICO ENV IRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT BOARD NOT I CE OF STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN HEARING
The New Mexico Environmenta l Improvement Board ( " Board ") will hold a public hearing on September 5 or 6, 2013 in Farmington, New Mexico in Room 7 103 at San Juan Co llege, 460 1 Co llege Blvd. The hearing wi ll commence immediately following the hearing in EIB No. 13-02 (R), scheduled for September 5

- 6 (as nece ssary), 2013 at the same loc ation

. The purpose of the public hearing is to cons ider and take po ssible action on a petition from the New Mexico Environment Department ( "N MED") re gardin g r ev isions to New Mexico 's State Im ple m entation Plan (S IP ). NMED is proposing that th e Board adopt r ev i s ion s t o th e SIP to satis fy the "g ood ne ig hb or" requirements of Clean Air Act ("CAA' ' ) Sectio n II 0(a)( 2)(D)(i)(ll) with r espect to v is ibi l ity for the 8-hour ozone and particulate matter under 2.5 micron s in diameter ("PM 2.5 " ) National Ambient Air Qua lity Standards promulgated in Jul y 1997.
The " Good Neighbor" provision of CAA Sectio n II O(a)(2)(D)(i)( ll ) requires that eac h SIP sub mitted to EPA must addres s em iss ion s fro m within the s tate that affect other s tate s throu gh interstate transport. The U.S. Environmen ta l Protection Agency ( " EPA") has determined that Ne w Mexico has satisfied the Goo d Ne ighbor prov is ions wi th re spec t to vis ibilit y for al l em iss io n sources except the San Juan Generating S tation ("S JGS " ).
The NMED 's proposed Regiona l Haze SIP, which will be considered in the hearing in EIB No. 1 3

-02 ( R) , con tain s a Best Avai lable Retrofit Technology (" BART " ) de t ermination for ni trogen oxi des ("NOx") for the SJGS. The BART determination ca ll s for a NOx em issio n rate of 0.23 pound s per million Briti s h thermal units (lb/mmBtu) for SJGS Units I and 4, and a s hutdo wn by the end of 20 17 of S JGS Un its 2 and 3. For su lfur di oxi de, the R eg iona l Haze S IP ca ll s for a limit of 0

. 1 0 l

b/mmBtu at S JGS Unit s I and 4

. Th ese nitroge n oxide and

### 446 

## New Mexico Register I 

## Volume XXIV, Number 12 I 

## June 28, 2013

s ulfur diox ide e mission limi ts exceed the ex p ec tat ions that neighboring s tates relied upon when de velo ping their ow n vis ibilit y S IPs. Ther efore, NMED proposes that the Board adop t the se limits as also satisfying the ind epende nt requirem e nts of CAA Section II O(a)(2)(D)(i)(l l).
Th e proponent of thi s regulatory adoption an d revision is the New Mex ico Environment Departm ent ("NMED " )

. The proposed revised plan may be r ev iewed durin g reg ul ar bu si ness hou rs at the NMED Air Quality Bureau ofilce , 525 Camin o de los Marquez, S uite I , Santa Fe, New Mexico. The full te xt ofNMED's proposed State Imp lem en t ation Plan is ava ilable on NMED 's web s ite at www. nmenv.state . nm.u s, or by contacting Rit a Bates at (505) 476-4304 or by e mail at r ita

. bate s@state

. nm .us . The hearing will be conducted in accordance with 20.1.1 NMAC (Rulemaking Pro ced ures

- Environmental Impro ve ment Board) , the Environmental Impro vement Act, Section 74-1-9 NMS A 19 78, the Air Qualit y Contro l Act , Section 74

- 2-6 NMSA 1978 , and other applicable proc edures . All interes ted person s will be g iven reasonable opp or tu n ity at the hearin g to submit relevant ev iden ce, data, views an d argume nt s, orall y or in writin g, to introduce exhib its, and t o examine witn esses . Perso ns wishi ng to pr esent t ec hni cal tes tim ony mus t file with the Board a written no ti ce of in tent to do s o. The notice of intent s hall : ( I ) id e nti fy the pers on fo r whom the w itne ss(es) w ill te stif y; (2) iden ti fy each tec hni cal witness that the perso n inte nds to pre s ent and s tate the qu ali ficatio ns of the witness , in c lu d in g a descripti on of the ir e ducat io n and wo rk background; (3) in cl ud e a copy of the direct te s tim ony in narrative form of eac h technical w itn ess; ( 4) li st an d a tta ch each ex hi bit anticip ate d to be otTered by that perso n at the hearin g; and (5) attac h the t ex t of any r ecommended m

od ificati ons to the propose d r eg ul atory c hange . Noti ces of intent f or the hearin g mu s t be r eceived in th e Office of the Board not later than 5:00pm on Augu s t 16, 20 13 , and s houl d r e fere nce the docket numb er, EIB 13 -03 (R) , and the date o f the he aring . Not ices of in te nt to prese nt tec hni ca l testimon y sho uld be s ubmitted to: Pam Castaneda, Board Admini strator Office of th e Envi ronme ntal Improvement Board Ha

rold Runne ls Buildin g 11 9 0 S t. F rancis Dr. , R oo m N2 150 Sa nta Fe , NM 87505 Phone: (505) 827-2425, Fax (5 05) 827-2836 Any memb er of th e ge neral publi c may testify at the hearing. No prior notification i s required to present non-tec hni ca l testimon y at the h ea ring. Any such member may also offer exh ib it s in co nn ection wi th his testimony, so long as th e exh ibi t is no t undul y repet itious of the tes timony. A memb er of the general pub li c wh o w i s he s to su bmit a written s tatement for th e r ecord , in li e u of pro viding oral testimony at t he hearing, s hall file th e wri tten sta tem ent prior to the hear ing , or s ubmit it at the hear ing

. Person s hav in g a di s abili ty an d needin g help in being a part of thi s h earing pro cess shou ld contact J. C. Borrego by August 16 , 20 13 at the NMED , Human R esources Bu reau , P .O. Box 5469, 1190 St. Franci s Dr ive , Santa F e, New Mexi co , 87502-5469 , te lep hone (505 ) 827-0424. TDY user s please access hi s numb er v ia the New Mexico R e lay Network at 1-800-659-8331.
The Board may make a de cision on the propo sed r ev ised state implementatio n plan at the conclusion of the hearing , or the Bo ard may conve ne a m eeting at a late r date to co ns id er act ion on th e proposa l.



## End of Other Related Material Section

### CLA-22-A ( R

- 1 /93) 

# AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION

STATE OF NEW MEXICO County of Bernalillo 

# ss
Linda MacEachen, being duly sworn, d eclar es and says tha t s he i s Classified Adver tising Man ager of The Albuquerque Journal, 

### and that thi s new s p aper is duly qualified to publish l egal no t ice s or adve rtis emen ts with in the m ea nin g of Section 3, Ch apter 1 67, Sess i on Laws o f 1937, and that p ayme nt therefore ha s be en made of asses s ed as court cost; that th e no tice, cop y of which i s h e r eto attach ed , was

### pub~s!u;d in sai er in the r eg ul a r daily edition, for 

# _j_ times, the first publicatio n being on the

## ~ daYo f , 20d, an d the subseque nt co n se cutive publications on**~------------~~---- --** **------------------_,20**

### ___.

# \·~~ Sworn and subscrib e d before m e , a No tar y Publi c, in 

### and

PRICE

# d:j

# lf/. ?r[
Statement to come at end of month.
ACCOUNT NUMBER

_ 

# ___.._!---""-()----'0----'fo.-:)=---3_3- OFFICIAL SEAL 

## Sandra B
. Gutier rez



# <,.... 

### ,, 1 I 'fll!Xlsed revised state Jog at a tater data to cq

# (~__

# Go_v_1L_~~al_s~)**C~**__

# G_w_tL_~_a_ls~)**(~** __

# G_~_**tL_~~al_s~) /**  DIRECCION DE MEJORAS MEDIOAMBIENT ALES DE NUEVO MExiCO AVI SO DE AUDIENCIA DE I MPLEMENTACfON DE P LAN DEL ESTADO 

# I l La**D~ecci6n** de Me j01 as Med io- Ambientales de Nuevo Mexico ('Direcci6n') tend r a una audiencla pUblica eiS Septiembre 2013 a las 9:00 am
. en Ia sala 7103 en San Juan College, 4601 College Blvd. , segu l da el 6 Septiembre 20t3 (seglln sea necesario). 8 Departamento del Me<f10 Ambiente de Nuevo Mexico ('NMED' , por sus siglas en lrljlles) propane adoptar revislones at Plan de l mp t emenlaci6n del Estado de Nuevo M exico para Ia neblina reg10nal. E l plan prtlfluesto establece**requls~os** para que Nuevo Mexico cumpla los de 40 

# I CFR Secci6n 51.309, incluso una delerminaci6n revisada de Ia Mejo r tecnotog ia de modemizaci6n para Ia

· ,

• estacl6n generadora San Juan, siluada 15 millas al occident& de Farmington. El plan propuesto involucra e1

retire voluntario de dos de cuatro unidades en estas instalaciones y ra instalaci6n de una reducci6n no • catalitica selectiva en otras dos u nidades. NEW MEXICO ENVIRONMENTAL I MP RO V EME NT BOARD NOTICE OF STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN HE ARING The New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board ('Board') w m hold a public hearing on**~ptember** 5, 2013, beginning at 9:00am in R oom 7103 at San Juan College, 460J**Coll~e.Bouleva~d.** continUing on. September 6, 

### n necessary. The New Mexico Environment Department ( NMED) IS propoSing to adopt**reVISI~ns** to the New Mexico State Implementation Plan for Regional Haze. The**p~sed** plan establishes**r~qu!re·** ments for New Mexico to meet the requirements of 40 CFR Section 51 .309, mclud1ng a reVIsed deterrrunatiOn of Best Available Retrofrt T echnology f01 the San Juan Generating Station, located**1~** miles west of Far_m ing· ton. The proposed p lan involves the voluntary retirem9nt of two ol the four umts at th1s faclley, and the 1nstal· lation of selective non-catalytic reduction on the other tWo units

. The pro_ponent of this regula!OfY adoption and revision is the New Mexico Environment Department (' NMED"). • The purpose o f the pu blic hearing Is t o consider and take possible action on. a petition from NMED regarding revisiOnS to New Mexico's State Implementation Plan under the federal regiOnal haze rule, 4 0**CF~ ~ecl!on**  51.309. The regional haze rule requires stales to subm it S tate lmplementafion Plans to address vis1b1llty 1 m· pairment caused by regional haz e in 1 56 federally-protected parks and Wilderness areas, known as Class I areas, including nine such areas in New Mexico.

, The proposed revised plan may be reviewed during regular business haulS at the NMED Air Oualrty Bureau • office, 525 Camino de los Marqu ez, Suije 1 , Santa Fe , N eVf MeXJco. The ful l text of NMED's proposed**r~VIS~l!i** l State I mplementation Plan are avaJ iable on NMEO's web**~e** at www
. nmenv.state.nm.us, 01 by contacting A 1· ta Bates at (505) 476-4304 or by email at rita.bates@state.qm.us. The hearing will be conducted in accordance with 20.1.1 NMAC (Rulemakin!l Procedures • E_nvironmental lm· provement -soard), the Environmental Improvement Act, Sect1on 74+9**N~ SA**  1978 , t

he Air Quality Control A ct, Section 74·2-6 NMSA 1978, and other applicable procedures. All interested persons will be given reasonable opportunity at the hearing to submit relevant evidenc:e•.data, views and arguments , orally o r in wrilinQ

. to introduce exhibits, and to examine witnesses

. PeiSOns WISI'I!ng to present tech nical testimony must file With t he Board a written notice of Intent to do so. The notice of 1ntenl shall: 1 

# ! 1! identify the peiSOn fo r whom the witness(es) will testify;

. . . 2 identify each technical witness that the peiSOn intends to present and stale the qualific ations of the WI! · ness, Including a description of their education and work background;

. 

# ! 3l lnclude a copy of the direct te stimony In narrative form ol each technical Witness; 4 a

hach each exhibit anticipated to be offered by that person at the heanng; and 5 atJtach the text of any recommended modifications to the proposed regulatol)' change. Notices o f intent lor the hearing must be received in the Office of the Board not later than 5:00 pm on AUgust 16, and should reference the clodlet number, EIB 13-02 (A) and the date ol the hearing. Notices of intent to present technical te stimony sh ou ld be submitted to: Pam Castaneda, Board Administrator Office of the E nvironmental Improvement Board Harold Runnels Building 11 90 St. Francis Dr., Room N2150 Santa Fe , NM 87505 1 El Departamento del Med io Amblenfe de Nuevo**M~xico** ('NMED') es e1 que propane es ta adopci6n y revisi6n reguladoras. EJ prop6sno de Ia audiencia pubfica es conslderar y tomar una posible acci6n sobre una pellci6n del NMED con relaci6n a las revislones del Plan de lmplementaci6n del Estado de Nuevo**M~xico** ba/o Ia norma federal sobre neblina regional, 40 CFR Secci6n 51.309

. La norma de neblina regional requiere que los estados presente n Planes de l mplementaci6 n Estata l para tratar Ia lalla de vls ibill dad causada par Ia neblina regional en 1 56 parques y areas sllvestres protegidos federalmen t e, las que se conocen como areas de Ctase I, e incfuyen nueva en Nuevo**M~xico.** , E l propoesto f)lan modificado puede ser revisado durante las horas regulares de oftcina, en NMED Air Quality Burea u, 525 Camino de los Marquez, Suite t, Santa Fe , Nuevo M exico. El texto completo y revisado del propueslo Plan de lmplementaci6n est! d i sponible en el sitio www.nmenv.state.nm.us, o comunicandose con Rita Bates en el (505) 476-4304 o por correo electr6nico: rita.bates@stale.nm.us. La audiencia se llevara a cabo de acuerdo con 20.1.1 NMAC (Procedimientos de Reglamentaci6n

- Direcci6n de Mejoras Medioambientales), Ia Ley de Mejoras Medioambiental es, Secci6n 74·1 ·9 NMSA 1978, I a ley de Control de Ia Calidad del Aire, Secci6n 74-2·6 NMSA 1978 y otros p rocedimi entos perti nenles

. A todas las personas lnteresadas se les dara una oportunidad razonable en Ia aulfrencia para presentar pruebas pertinentes, informaci6n, puntos de vista y argumentos, en forma oral o escrita, p ara someter pruebas e interrogar a testigos. Las pe1Sonas que deseen dar testimonio tecnico deben presentar un aviso 

## W

r esc:fi1o a Ia Direcci6n indicando so mtenci6n de hacel1o. El aviso de intenci6n debe: 

# lidentiflcar a Ia peiSOna par quien el testigo ( los testigos) dar4(n) t estimonio. ldenbficar a cada t estigo tecn i co que Ia peiSOna presenta r4 e fn dlcar Ia capacidad det testigo, incluso una I descripci6n de su educacion y antecedentes profes ionales ; 

# ! 3l incluir una copia de las deciaraciones directas en forma de narraci6n de cada testigo tecnico; 4 adjuntar cada prueba que Ia peiSona vaya a presentar en Ia audiencla; y 5 adjuntar el texto de cualquier modif1Caci6n recomendada al propuesto camb io normativo. Los avisos de intenci6n para Ia audlen cla deben recibiiSe en Ia oficina de Ia Dlrecci6n a mas ta rdar para las 5:00p.m

. deliS de agosto 20 1 3 y deben hacer referenda al numero del caso, EIB 13-02 (A) y Ia fecha oe Ia audiencia

. Los avisos de intenci6n para presentar teslimonjos**t~cnicos** deben presentarse a: Pam Castaneda, Board Administrator Office of the Environmental Improvement Board Harold Rume ls Build ing 1190 St. Francis D r., Room N2150 Santa Fe, NM 87505 Tel.: (505) 827-2425, Fax (505) 827-2836 Cualquier miembro de l pl)blico en general puede dar declaraciones en Ia audiencla. No es necesario a visar previamente para dar declaraciones que no sean i tecn i cas en Ia audlencia. Tambien, cua lquier peiSona puede otrecer pruebas con relacl 6n a su testimonio, slempre y cuando dichas p ruebas no sean exageradamente repatitivas del testimonio

. Un miembro de l pl)blico en general que en Iugar de hacer decfaraciones orates en Ia audiencia desee presentar una dectaracl6n par ascrito para que cons1e en el acta, debera registrar Ia declaraci6n por escrito antes de Ia audiencia o Ia puede e ntre9ar en Ia audiencia Las personas con discapacidades y que neceslten ayuda p ara participar en esta a ud1encia deben comunicarse con J

. C. Borrego para el16 de agosto 2013 en NMED , H uman Resou rces Bu rea u, P.O._ Box 5469, t 190 Sl Francis Drive, Santa Fe, Nuevo**M~xico .**  8 7502·5469, te lef ono 505-827-0424. Los usuanos de TOY pueden seceder a su numero via New M exico Relay Netwo(!< en el1-800-659·8331. • Phone: (505) 827

-2425, 

## fall (505) 827-2836 La Direcci6n puede tomar una decisi6n sabre el propuesto plan de imptementaci6n del estado revisado al Any member of the gen eral publ ic 1113Y testify at the hearing. No_ prior not!f!C!Ition is**r~uired** to present non· • concluir Ia audiencia o puede conv ocar a una reun l 6n en una fecha posterior para considerar Ia acci6n sabre technical t estimonY. at the hearing. Any such member may also o"er exh1b1ls 1n connectiOn w 1th h1s testimony, Ia propuesta so long as the exh1bit Is not undufy repetitous of the testimony

. A member of the general publ ic Wl'.o wishes to ' submit a writlen statement for the**reco~ .**  in lieu of P,roviding oral testimony at the hearing, shal He the wntlen statement pnor to the heanng, or subm111t at the heanng. Persons havlng a disability and needing help in being a part of t his hearing process should contact J.C. Borrego by A ugust 16 20 13 at tt.e NMED , Human Resources Bureau , P.O. Box 5469, 1190 St. Francis Drive, Santa Fe , New Mexico, 87502·5469,**~etephone** 505·827-0424. TOY Users please access his number via the New Mexico Relay Networl< at 1-801}659-t\331. The Board may make a decision on the 

### P hearing, or the Board may convene a 1!'-'61**~** Jl ". !mpfemenlation plan at the conctusion of t he XlSider action on the proposal. Journal : June 28 ,20 13

### CLA-22-A (R-1/93) 

# AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION

STATE OF NEW MEXICO County of Bernalillo 

# ss
Li n da MacEac he n , being dul y sworn, decl ares and says th at she i s Class ified Ad ve rti sing Manager of The Albuquerqu e Journal , a n d that this newspaper i s dul y qu al ifi e d to publi s h legal n otices or a d ve rti seme nt s within th e meaning of Section 3, Chapte r 1 67, Sess ion Laws of 1 937, and th at payment the r efor e has been made of assessed as court cos t ; th a t the n oti ce, cop y of which i s h ere to attac h e d , was

## p~~ said r in the r egu lar d aily edition, for 

# _L time s, the fir s t publi cati o n bein g on th e 

## da_ day

# ~f '""'-- , 

# 28, and the s ub se quent co n sec utive publications on**~r------- --** **--~ r-** **---- --** **---------- --** **------_ ,20** 

### ___.

Sworn and s ubscrib ed bef or e me, a No tary Public, in and



# II 

# 7 PR I CE , 

# :.3 

# e 63
Statement to come at end of month.
ACCOUNT NUMBER

_

# ____._**--={)_0____,~ '--"'** **J": '-"'** **...o....._ '3_** 

## '----G_ov_'t

# _Leg~a_ls_) 

# I (..__G_ov_'t _Leg..;_a_ls

___ ) 

# I**(..__G_ov_ t_Leg~a_fs_)**  I 

# - ( I I I 

# r I 

# I**~**

.**~** j l 

### (I:

# ~: ' 1<$ 

# '

.. NEW MEXICO ENV I RONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT BOARD NOTICE OF STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN HEARIN G**i~** "' • The New Mexico Environ mental Improvement B oard ('Board ') will hold a public heanng on September
. 5 or 6, 2013 rn Farmrngtcn New Mexico 10 Room 7103 at San Juan College , 4601 College Blvd. The hean ng**wr~**

· commence immedrately followmg the hearin g rn EIB No

. 13·02 (R) , scheduled for September 5 ·. 6 (as neces '" sa ) 2013 at the same location

. The purpose of the publrc heanng rs to consrder and take possrbfe actiOn o,n

:: a**~tition** from the New Mexico Environment Department (' NMED' ) regardmg r evrs10 ns to New Mexrco s**s~te** tmp lem'entation Plan (SIP). NMED is proposing that \he Board adopt revrsro ns to the SIP to satrsfy the • ood nei hbor" requirements of Clean Air Act ('CAA") Section 1f0(a)(2)(D)(r)( ll) wrth respect to vtstbdrty for**~e 8-hou~**  ozone and partrculate matter under 2 5 microns in drameter (' PM 2.5 ') Natrona! Ambrent Air Ouanty Standards promulgated i n July 1997

. . : The 'Good Neig hbor" provision of CAA Section 110(a )(2)( D )(i)( ll ) requires that each SIP sub m itted to EPA

•· 1 • must address em issions f rom within the state that affect other states through rnterstale**ranspo~.** The U.S. '

.. Environmental Protection Agency ('EPA') has determined that New MeXICO has satrsfred the

. GOO?**Nerg~tx:r** 

# i provi sions with respect to visibil ity tor all emissi on sources except the San Juan Generating**Statio~** ( SJGS ). _' I) t ,j • "The NMED'o p<oposed Regional Haze SIP wh i ch will be conside r ed in the hearing in EIB No. 13-02 (A), con·

·- tains a Best Ava i lable Retrofit T echnology' ('BART') determination for nitrogen oxides

. ('NOx') fo r the SJGS. ! .,.

- The BART determ ination calls for a NOx emiss ion rate of Q .23 pounds per mrllron Bntrsh _thermal umts

, .,. (lblmmBtu) for SJGS Units 1 and 4, and a shutdovm by the end of 20 17 of SJGS Unrls

.2 and 3. Fo r sulfurdr· r" oxide. the Regional Haze SIP can s for a limit of 0.10 lblmmBtu at_SJGS

. Unrts I and 4. These ntl rogen OXIde J and sulfur dioxide emission lim i ts exceed the expectatiOns that nerghbonng sta tes rehed upon when develop- "


# I ing the ir o w

n vis ibili ty SIPs

. Therefore, NMED proposes that the Board adopt these lrmrts as also sahsfyrng , ... • ·•· the independent requirements o f CAA Section 110(a)(2)(D)(r)(ll).



# - .· 

# ,- ·••• · The proponent of this regu l atory adoption and revision is the New Mexico Environment Department

. • ( ' NMED').

. ""' The proposed revised plan may be review ed during r egular business hours at the NMED

### ~ir Quality B ureaJ.;'

-- 

# f ·"""

· office, 525 Cami

- no de los Marquez, Sui t e 1, Santa Fe, New Mexico

. The full text of NMED s pro posed Stat; •· I mpleme n tati on Plan is avai l able on NMED's web site at www.nmenv.state.nm.us, or by contacting Rrta Bate.**:;~** at (505)**476-~0~** or by email at rita.bates@state.nm.us.

. . j Th e hearing wiU be conducte d in accordance with 20. 1

. 1 NMAC (Rulemaking Procedures · Environmental lm provement Board) , the Enviro nmental Improvement Act , Section 74-t-9 NMS;J. t978, the Air Ouahty Centro Act Section 74·2·6 NMSA 1 978, and other applicable procedures

.

. , All ;nterested , persons wi ll be given

.

## reas;n~bl~ opportunity at the hearing to submit re levant evidence,_datJ vie w s · and arguments, oral ly or in writing, to introduce exhrb r ts, and to examrne wrtnesses

. Persons w rsh!ng**~..** pr esent' !echnicat testimony m ust file w ith the Board a wntten notrce of rnten t tq do so. The notice of rnte sha

ll : (t) identify the person for whom t he wnness(es) w i ll testify; •
.. . . (2) identify each tech nical witness that the person intends to present and state the quahhcatrons of th e wr ness · including a de scription o f their education and w ork background;

_ . . I (3)**i~clude** a copy of the direct testimo n y in n9rraijve form of each technrcal

_ wrtness; "

- 1 

### l '**~"** (4) list and attach eac h exhibit anticipated to be offered by that person at the h eanng; and 1 '·,,. • (5) attach**~e** text o f any recommended mod i fications t o the propos
. ed regulatory change.**Notic~s** of Intent fo r the hearing mu s t be r eceived in the Office of the Boa rd not later than 5;00 

### pin on**Aug ~**  16, 2013, and sbould reference the docket number, EIB t3-03 (R), and the date of the heanng. Notices**of~** I •· tentto present tech(licalj?S\if110ny

### _:ho**k!p_:.subm!!' ~**  to:
.

### -:·.---- :- ••
. ·

### ·~. 

# I I _. ·- --· --- .**~-** --- •· •.
. Pam Castaneda, Board Administr.at or Office of the E nvi r

onmental Improvement Board Harold Runnels Building 

### i

. .... 1 t 90 

### st. F rancis Dr., Room

. N2150 t Santa Fe , NM 87505 

# .. 'I i •-" Phone: (505) 827·2425 : Fax (505) 827-2836**I~** A mber of the general public may testify at the hearing

. No prior notification is required to

. p;esent

### _ ; -

•
.**te~h~:al** t estimony at the hearing. Any such member

.may also offer exhib its in connection with his testimon: ·**.~:** i ' ' so long as the exhibit is not unduly repetitious of the testrmony. 

### I

. -.;. DIRECCt6N DE MEJORAS MEDIOAM BIENTALE S DE NUEV< ' MEXICO AVISO DE AUD I ENC I A DE**IMP LEM~NTACION**  DE PlAN DEL E STADO**~** Direcci6n de Mejoras Med io-Ambienlales de Nuev o Mexico ('Direcci6n') llevar.l a cabo una audiencia publrca eiS 6 6 de septiembre de l 20t3 en Farmington, Nuevo Mexico, en el salon 7t03 del San Juan College, 4601 College Blvd

. E mp ezara inmediatamenle despues de Ia audiencia en EIB No

. t 3-02(R) ,**progr~ada pa~a**  _et 5 · 6 de septiembre (segu n sea necesario) del 2013 en el mismo Iugar
. Et prop6sno de Ia audrencra publica es. conside ra r una posible accio n sobre u n a petlci6n del DepartamenJo del Medic Ambrente de Nue•to Mex rco ( ' NMED', per sus siglas en ingltls) , con rel aci6n a revisiones aJ Plan de lfl_lplementacr6n del

.Estado de Nuevo Mexico (SIP, per sus siglas en Ingle s). NMED propene que Ia qrrecc!on adopte**!evt rones**  al SIP para satisfacer los r equisites de 'B uen Vecino ' de Ia l ey del Aire limpio ( CAA , por sus srglas en rngltls), se_cci6n 110(a) (2)(D)(i)(ll ), en lo que respecta a Ia visibilidad**pa~a** el ozone de ocho**hor~s** Y Ia matena de partrculas de 2,5 micrones en diam etro ( ' PM 2 ,5' ) bajo los estandares de Cahdad del Arre del Ambrente Nacronal promulgados en julio de 1997

. El Departamento del Medic Ambiente de Nuevo Mexico rNM ED ') es el que propene esta adopci6n y revision reguladoras. · La provisi6n del ' Buen Vecino ' de _Ia Secci<in t l! i(a)(2)(D)(i)(ll) de Ia CCA requiere que cada SIP presentado a Ia .Agencra de Proteccr6n Ambiental (EPA, per sus slglas en Ingles) de Estados Unidos Irate con las emrs ro nes dentro del estado que afectan a otros estados a travtls del transporte interes tatal. La**~PA** de Estados Unrdos

_ ha determrnado que Nuevo M exico ha satisfecho las provisiones de! Bue n Veetno con respecto a Ia vtSibilrdad para todas las fuentes de emisiones excepto de Ia E staci6n Generadora San Juan ( 'SJG S ' , per sus siglas en ingles).

. El**p~opuesto** SIP de Neblina Region al de l NME D, que se cons i derara en Ia aud iencia en EIB No

. 13-02 (A) , confrene una determ inacion de Ia Mejor tecnoJogfa de Jllodamizacion ( ' BARr, por sus siglas en ingles) para oxides de nrtr6geno (' NOx') para Ia SJGS. · La determinacion BART requiere una tasa de emis i6n de NOx de 0 ,23**lt~ras** per mrll6n de unidades term i cas britanicas (lblmm Btu) para las unidades 1 y 4 de Ia SJGS y que sus**unr~ades** 2 y 3 dejen de operarpara firyes del2017

. Para el di6xido de**azufre~** el SIP de Neblina Region- a l**r~qurere** un**ltm~e** de 0,10 lblmmBtu en las un ldades t y 4 de Ia SJGS. Estes llrriites de emlsiones de dr6

x rdo de azufre y 6xldo de nitr6geno exceden las expectativas en las cuales los eslados vecinos confiaror**~** qesarrollar sus prop ios SIPs de visibi ltdad. Por lo tanto, elf'!MED propene que Ia D i r ecci6n adopte eslo! ltmrtes para tambren cumplrr los reqursrtos rndependientes de Ia seccion 11 0(a)(2)( D )(i)(ll) de Ia CAA.
I ' '•! ' ' El p

ropuesto plan _modificado puede ser revisado durante las horas regula res de oficina, en NMED Air Qualil) Bureau, 525 Camrno de los Marquez, Su ite 1, Santa Fe, Nuevo Mexic<i. El texto complete y revisado de propuesto Plan de l mplementaci6n esta disponible en el sitio www.nmeriv.state.nm.us , o comunicaridose cor Rita Bates**~n** el (505) 4764304 o per correo electr6nico: rita.bates@state.nm.us. , La audrencra se ll evara a cabo de acuerdo con 20. 1.1 NMAC (Procedimientos de Reglamentaci6n

- Drreccron de MeJoras Medroambien1alo9), Ia**~y** de Mejoras Medioamtllentales, Seccl6n 74-1-9 NMSA 1 978, Ia Ley de Control de Ia Calidad del Aire, Secci6n 74·2·6 NMSA 1978 y otros procedir,n i entos pertinentes. A todas las pe r sonas interesadas se les dan! una oportunidad raz ona ble en I a aud lencia para pres'entar pruebas pertrnentes , rnf ormacr6n, puntas de vista y argumentos, en forma oral o escrita, para someter pruebas_ e rnterrogar a testrgos. Las personas que deseen dar testimonio tecnico deben presentar un aviso por escrito a Ia Direcci6n indicando su intencion de hacerto. El aviso de intenci6n debe: (1) !dentifica r a Ia persona per quien el testigo Oos testigos) dara(n) testimonio. (2)**rd~ntifica r**  a cada testigo ti!cnico que Ia persona presentara e indicar f a capacidad d e l te

.stigo, lnduso una**de~nPc:f6n** de su _educaet6n y anteceden t es profesionales;

. . (3) rnclurr una cop r a de la s dec lar aclones directas en forma de narraci6 n de cada testigo tecn ico; (4) ad1untar cada prueba que Ia persona vaya a presentar en Ia audier.c ia ; y**~** (5) adtuntar et texto de cuatquier modiftcaci6n recomendada al pr opuesto cambi o normative

. los avlsos de

### intencio~ para Ia

### audi~~cia deben

### recibir~e en 'Ia oficina de

### 1~ Di recci6n

. a mils

### ta~ar para las 5:00p

. m
. del16 de agosto 2013 y deben hacer r eferenda al numero del case, EIB 13-03 (R) y**l<~!echa** de Ia audiencia. Los avisos de**inte~c 6n**  para presentar t estimonies t ecnicos deben presentarse a : ' · •
. · Pam Castaiieda, Board Administrator Office of the Environmental Improvement Board Harold Ru nnels Building · 1 t90 St. Francis Dr. , R oom N2150 Santa Fe, NM 87505 Tel.: (505) 827-2425 , Fax (505) 827·2836 Cualquie r m iembro del publico en general puede dar dedaraciones en Ia audiencia. No es necesario avisar previamen t e para dar declaraCiones que no sean t ecnicas en Ia audiencia. Tambien, cualq uie r persona puede ofrecer pruebas con relaci6n a su testimonio, slemp re y cuando dichas pruebas no sean exageradamente**repetiti v~s**  del t estimonio. Un miembro del publico en general que en Iugar de hacer declaracrones orates en Ia audrencra desee presen1ar una declaraci6n po r escrito

.para que conste en el acta , debera r egistrar Ia dect araci<io po r escrito antes de Ia audiencia o I a pu ede entregar en Ia audiencia. Las personas con discapacidades y que necesiten ayuda para parti cipa r en esta audiencia deben comunicarse con J. C, Borrego para el16 de agosto 2013 en NM ED, Human Resources Bureau,**0.** Box 5469, 1-190 S t. Francis Drive, Santa Fe, Nuevo Mexico , 87502·5469, t elef

ono 505

-827·0424. los usuaries de TOY pueden acceder a su numero vra New Mexico Relay Network en el 1 ·800-659-8331.

- - . t'v

1_**"~.** A member of the general public whO wisfleS to subll)n a written statement for the record , in lie u of**pr~vidin .'**  , I oral testimo n y at the hearing, shall f ile ltd wntten statement pnor to the heanng , or submrt rt at the hearing. '· p rsons havtng a drsabrlitY and**oding** help in being a part of thrs heari ng pr ocess stw uld contact J.\ ' err 0 b Au ust 1 6, 20t3 at ttl NMED, Human Resources Bureau , P

.O

. Box 5469, 1190 St. ,Fran c.. .. La Direcci6 n puede Iemar una decision sobre el propueslo plan de implementaci6n del estado revisado aJ conctui r Ia audiencia o puede convocer a una reun ion en una fecha posterio r para considerar Ia acci6n sobre Ia propuesta.**B~** egs Y 1 Feg New Mexico 87if5469 , telephone (505) 827-0424. TOY u se rs please access his number Dnve, an a •
. ' A•t 1 -800-659·8331

,, v

i a the New Mexteo Relay Netwo•- · ("'::: Th ' B d

### may**~ake** a decisi r on the proposed revised state imple m entation plan at

### ih~ conclusion of the**~** e
. oar th Board may 00rvne a meeting at a tater date t o con sider acti on on the proposal

, heanng , or e · 

### r.
. ' Joumat: June 28, 20 t 3 

## , ..

## AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION Ad No. 69195 

# STATE OF NEW MEXICO County of San Juan:

JOHN ELCHERT , being duly sworn says: That HE is the PUBLISHER of THE DAILY TIMES , a daily news pape r of general circulation published in English at Farming ton, said county and state , and that the here to a

ttached Legal Notice w as published in a regular and entire iss ue of t he said DAILY TIME S, a daily newspaper duly qualified for the pu rpo se within the meaning of Chapter 167 of the 1937 Session Laws of the State of New Mexico for publication and appeared in the Internet at The Daily Time s web s ite on t he follow ing day(s) :
Friday , Ju ne 28 , 2013

And the cos t of the publication i s $283.34

ON JOHN ELCHERT appea red before me, whom I know personally to be the person who signed th e above document. 

## COPY OF PUBLICATION DIRECCION DE MEJORAS MEDIOAMBIENTALES DE NUEVO MEXICO AVISO DE AUDIENCIA DE IMPLEMENTACION DE PLAN DEL ESTADO La Direcci6n de Mejoras Medio-Ambientales de Nuevo Mexico ("Direcci6n")**llevar<~** a cabo una audiencia publica e l 5 6 6 de**~eptie mbre**  d_el 2013 en Farmington, Nuevo Mex1co, en e l salon 7103 de l San Juan College, 4601 College Blvd. Empezara inm ediatamente despues de I a aud i e nci a en EIB No. 13-02(R), programada para e l 5 - 6 de sept i e mbre ( seg un sea necesario) del 2013 en el mismo**Jug a~.**  El prop6sito de Ia audiencia publica es**c~l"_ls derar**  una posible acc i 6n sobre una pet 1 c 1

6n del Departamento de l Medio Ambiente de Nuevo Mexico ("NMED", por sus sig las en Ingles),**<?~n** relaci6n a revisiones al Pl an de lmplementac10n del Estado de Nuevo Mexica (SIP, por sus sig l as en Ingles). NMED propone que**I~** Direcci6n adopte re v isiones a l SIP para sat1sfacer l_o s requisites de "Buen Vecino"**~e** Ia Ley**~el** A1re Limpio ("CAA", por sus s1glas en mgles), secci6n 110(a)(2)(D){i)(ll), en lo que respecta a Ia vis ibilidad para el ozono de ocho horas Y Ia materia de partfculas de 2,5 micrones en diametro ("PM 2,5") bajo l os.**estandare~** de Calidad del Aire ·del Amb1ente Nac1onal promulgados en julio de 1997. El Departamento del Medio Ambiente de Nuevo Mexico ("NMED") es el que propane esta adopci6n y revision regu l adoras. La provision del "Buen Vecino" de I a Secc i 6n 110(a)(2)(D)(i)( ll ) d e Ia CCA requiere que cada S IP p r esentado a Ia Agencia de Protecc i 6n Ambiental (EPA, por s us sig l as en Ingles) de E stados Unidos trat e con la s emisiones dentro del es tado que afectan a otros estados a trav es del transporte interestatal.

. La EPA de**E~tados** Unido s ha determinado que Nuevo Mex1co h a satisfecho l as provisiones del Buen Vecino con respecto a Ia v isibilid ad para todas las fuentes de emisiones excepto de Ia Estacl6n Generadora San Juan ("SJGS", por su s s igl as en Ingles). El propuesto SIP de Neblina Regional del NMED, que se considerara en I a aud ienc!a e!". EIB No. 13-02 (R) contiene una determmac1on de Ia Mejor tecnologfa de modernizaci6n

. <"BART", por sus s igla s en mgles) para ox 1 dos de nitr6geno ("NOx") para Ia SJGS. La determ i nacion BART requiere una tasa de e mi si6 n de NOx de 0,23 Iibras por millen de unidades term i cas britan i cas {lb/mmBtu) para las unidades 1 y 4 de Ia S JG S y que su s u nidades 2 y 3 dejen de operar para f in es del 20 17. Para e l di6xido de az ufre, e l SIP de Neblin a Regional requier e un l fmite de 0,10 lb/mmBtu en las unidades 1 y 4 de Ia S JGS. Estos l fm i tes de emisiones de di6xido de azufre y 6xido de nitr6geno exceden l as expectativas en l as cua l es lo s estados vecinos confiaron a l desarrollar su s propios S IP s de visi bilidad

. Por lo tanto, el NMED propane que Ia Direcci6n adopte estos lfmite s para tambien cump lir los requisites independientes de Ia secci6n 110(a)(2)(D)(i)( ll ) de Ia CAA. El propuesto plan modificado puede ser revisado durante la s horas regulares de oficina, en NMED Air Quality Bureau, 525 Camino de los Marquez, Suite 1, Santa Fe, Nuevo Mexico. El texto comp l ete y revi sado del prop u esto Pl an de lmp l ementaci6n esta disponible en el sitio www.l"_lmenv.state .nm
. u s, o
. comunicandose co n R r ta Bates en e l (505) 476-4304 o por correo electr6nico: rita.bates @_ state.nm.us

_. La audiencia se ll eva ra a cabo de acuerdo con 20.1.1 NMAC (Procedim i e nto s de Reglam enta ci 6n

-- Direcci6n de Mejo ras Medioambienta l es), Ia L ey de Mejoras Med i oambienta l es, Secci6n 74

- 1

- 9 NM SA 1978, I a L ey de Contro l de I a Ca lid ad del Aire, Secci6n 74

-2

- 6 NMSA 1978 y otros proced imi entos pertinentes.A todas las personas interesadas se les dara una oportunid ad razonable e n Ia audiencia para presentar pruebas pertinentes, informacio n , pu n tas d e vista y argumentos, en forma ora l o esc rita , para so m eter pruebas e interrogar a testigos. La s perso n as que deseen dar t j!st imonio t ec ni co d ebe n prese nt ar un aviso p o r esc rito a I a Direccion indicando s u intencion d e h ace rl o. 

### EJ av i so d e intencion debe: (1) id e ntifi car a I a p ersona por qui en el t es tigo (los te stigo s) d ara( n) testimonio. (2) id e nt i fi car a cada testigo tecnico que Ia perso na presentara e indicar I a capacidad d el testigo, incluso una descripcion de su ed u cacion y a nt ecede n tes profesionales; (3) in c luir una copia de l as declaraciones directas en f o rm a de narra cio n d e ca da testigo tec n ico; (4) adju ntar cada prueb a que I a persona vaya a p r esenta r e n I a audiencia; y (5) adju nt a r e l texto d e c ualquier m odifi cacio n recome nd ada a l prop u esto cam b io normative

. Los avisos de i nten cion para I a audiencia deben recibirse en Ia ofi ci n a d e I a Direcc ion a mas tardar pa r a la s 5:00 p.m. d e l 16 de agos t o 2013 y deben h acer referen cia al numero de l caso, EIB 13- 03 (R) y I a fecha d e I a audienci a. Los avisos de inten c ion p ara pre se ntar t es ti monies tecn i cos deben presenta r se a: Pa m Castaneda, Board Administrator Offic e of the Environmental Improvement Board ' Ha rold Runn e l s Building ll9 0 S t. Francis Dr., R oo m N21 50 Sa nta Fe, NM 87505 Te l. : (505) 827-2425, Fax (505) 827-2 836 Cualq ui e r mi e mbro del publico en genera l puede dar d ecla r aciones en Ia a u dienc ia

. No es necesario avisar prev i amente para dar d ec l ar ac io nes que no sea n tec ni cas en Ia audiencia. Tambien , c ualqui er persona puede ofrecer prueba s con relaci6n a s u testimonio, siempre y c ua ndo dicha s prueb as no sean exagerada m ente repetitivas del t estimo nio. Un mi emb ro d e l publi co e n general qu e en Iugar de h ace r declaraciones ora l es e n Ia audiencia desee pre se ntar un a declaraci6n por escrito para que co n st e en el acta , debera regi stra r Ia d ec laracion por esc rito a ntes d e Ia aud ienc i a o Ia pued e e ntreg ar en I a audiencia. La s personas con discapa c idades y que ne cesite n ayuda para parti c ipar e n esta a udiencia d e b e n co munica r se co n J. C. Borrego para e l 16 de agos to 2013 en NMED, Hum an Resources Bu

- rea u, P.O. Box 5469 , 11 90 St. Fran c is Dri ve , Santa F e , Nuevo M ex i co, 87502

- 5 469, t e letono 505-827 -0 4 24. L os u su ari es d e TOY pu e den acceder a s u numero vfa New M ex i co Relay N etwork en e l1 -800-659-833 1

. L a Direcci6n pu ede tomar una d ec i s ion so bre el propu esto plan d e implementaci6n del estado r ev i sa d o a l conc luir I a aud i encia o puede convocar a un a reunion en una fecha posterior para considerar I a acci6n sobre I a propuesta

. Legal No

. 69195 published in The Daily Times on June 28 , 2013

.

## AFF I DAVIT OF PUBLICATION Ad No. 69194 

## STATE OF NEW MEX I CO County of San Juan:

JO HN EL C HERT , be i ng dul y swo rn s a ys: T hat HE is th e PUBLI S HER o f THE DA ILy T IM E S, a dai ly news p ap e r of ge n eral
c i rcu l atio n publish e d in En glis h at Farming ton, sa id co u nty a nd stat e, a nd that t he here to attac hed Lega l Not i ce w as p u b li shed in a regu l ar a n d entire issu e of t he said DA IL y TI M E S , a d a ily news pa per d u l y qua lif ied fo r t he purpose w it hin t he me a ning of Chapter 167 of the 1 937 Sessio n Laws of the State o f N ew M exico f o r pub li cat i o n and ap p eared in t he I nte rn e t at T h e Daily T i m es web s i te o n t he fo ll ow in g day(s) :
Friday, J une 28 , 2013

And the cost of t he pu b li cation is $259.24

JO HN ELC H ERT appea red befo re me, w ho m I k now personal l y to be the person w h o signed t he above document. 

## COPY O F PUBLICATION NEW MEXICO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT BOARD NOTICE OF STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN HEARING The New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board ("Board") will hold a public hearing on September 5 or 6, 2013 in Farmington, New Mexico in Room 7103 at San Juan College, 4601 Co ll ege B l vd. The hearing will commence immediately fo ll owing the hearing in EI B No. 13- 02 (R), scheduled for September 5 - 6 (as necessa ry), 2013 at the same l ocation. The purpose of the public hearing is to consider and take possible action on a petitio n from t h e New Mexico Environment Department ("NMED") re- gard i ng revisions to New Mexico's State I mplementation P l an (SIP). NMED is proposing that the Board adopt revisions to the SIP to satisfy the "good neighbor" requirements of Clean Air Act ("CAA") Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)( ll ) wit h respect to visibility for the 8-hour ozone and particulate matter under 2.5 microns in diameter ("PM 2.5") National Ambient Air Qual ity Stand

ards promulgated in July 1997. The "Good Neighbor" provision of CAA Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(ll) requires that each SI P submitted to EPA must address emissions from within the state that affect othe r states through interstate transport. The U.S. Environmenta l Protection Agency ("EPA") has determ i ned that New Mexico has satisfied the Good Ne i g h bo r provisions with r espect to visibility for a ll emiss i o n sources except the San Juan Generating Stati on ( " S J GS"). The NMED's proposed Reg i ona l Haze SI P, wh i ch wi ll be cons i dered i n t h e h ear i ng i n EIB No. 13- 02 (R), conta i ns a Best Available Retrofit Techno l ogy ("BART") determination for n i trogen ox- ides ("NOx") for the SJGS. The BART determinat i on ca ll s for a NOx emission rate of 0.23 pounds per million British therma l units (lb/mmBtu) for SJGS Units 1 and 4, and a sh u tdown by the end of 2017 of SJGS Units 2 and 3. For sulfur dioxide, the Regional Haze SIP ca ll s for a limit of 0.10 l b/mmBtu at SJGS Units 1 and 4. These nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide em i ssion limits exceed the expectations that neighboring states relied upon when develop- ing their own visibility SIPs. Therefore, NMED proposes that the Board adopt these limits as al so satisfying the independent requirements of CAA Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(ll). The proponent of this regulatory adoption and revision is the New Mexico Environment Department ( "N MED"). The p r opose d rev i sed p l a n may be rev i ewed du r i n g regu l ar business hours at the Nf0E D Air Quality Bureau of fice, 525 Cam i no de los Marquez, S u ite 1, Santa Fe, New Mexico

. T h e fu ll text of NMED' s proposed State I mp l emen - tatio n Plan is avai l able on NMED's web site at www.nmenv.state.nm.us, or by contacting Rita Bates at (505) 476-4304 or by email at rita.bates@state.nm.us. The hearing will be conducted in accordance with 20.1.1 NMAC (Ru l emaking Procedures

- Environmental Improvement Board), the Environmental I mprovemen t Act, Sect ion 74-1-9 NMSA 1978 , the Air Quality Control Act, Section 74-2 -6 NMSA 1978 , and other applicable procedures. All intere ste d persons will be given reasonable opportunity at the hea ring to s ubmit relevant evidence, data, views and arguments, orally or in writ i ng, to introduce exhibits, and to exami ne wit n esses. Persons w i shing to present tech- 

# I

n i cal testimony must file with the Board a w ri tten notice of intent to do so. The n ot ic e of i n tent sh a ll:

.
_ .**~,.,** 

### •. ·.**u;~,**

,**~** lr.e:•

.(1) identify the p e r son r o r w hom tne witnes s( es) wi l l testify; 

# I (2) identify each tech n ica l w itn ess that the person intends to pre s ent and state the qualifications of the witness, including a description of their education and wo rk background; (3) include a copy of the direct testimony in narrative form of each technical witness; (4) li st and attach each exh ibit anticipated to be offered by that person at the hearing; and (5) attach the text of any recommended modifications to the proposed regulatory change

. Notices of intent for the hearing must be re- ceived in the Office of the Boa rd not later than 5:00 pm on August 16, 2013 , and should refer

- ence the docket number, EIB 13-03 (R), and the date of the hearing. Notices of int ent to present technical testimony should be submitted to: Pam Castaneda, Board Administrator Office of the Environmental Improvement Board Harold Runne l s Building 1190 St. Francis Dr., Room N2150 Santa Fe, NM 87505 Phone: (505) 827-2425, Fax (505) 827- 2836 Any member of the general public may testify \ at the hearing. No prior notification is required to present non-technical testimony at the hearing. Any su ch member may also offer exhibits in connection with hi s testimony, so long as the exhibit i s not unduly repetitious of the testimo

ny
. A member of the general public who wishes to submit a written statement for the record, in 

# I
lieu of providing oral testimony at the hearing, s hall f il e the written statement prior to the hearing, or s ubmit it a t the hearing. Person s having a dis a bility and need ing help in being a part of thi s hearing process should con- tact J.C

. Borrego by August 16, 2013 at the NMED, Human Re sources Bureau, P.O. Box 5469, 1190 St. Francis Drive, Santa Fe, New Mexico , 87502

-5469, te l ephone (505) 827- 0424

. TOY u s ers please access his number via the New Mexico Relay Network at 1 -800-659- 8331. The Board may make a decision on the propo sed revised state implementation plan at the conc lu sion of the hearing, or the Board may convene a meeting , at a l ater date to consider action on the proposal. Legal No
. 69 1 94 pub li s h e d in The Da ily Ti mes on Ju ne 28, 2 01 3. 1

## 1 STATE OF NEW MEXICO BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT BOARD IN THE MATTER OF PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN TO SATISIFY THE REQUIREMENTS OF CLEAN AIR ACT 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) WITH RESPECT TO VISIBILITYNo. EIB 13-03 (R)

______________________________________________________________________________ NMED EXHIBIT4 – TESTIMONY OF RITA BATES

______________________________________________________________________________ Clean Air Act (CAA) §110(a)(2)(D)(i) requires that each state implementation plan (SIP) 1 submitted to EPA must address emissions from within the state that affect other states through 2 interstate transport. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) contains four elements related to the impacts of 3 interstate transport . As explained by EPA, the “SIP must prevent sources in the state from 4 emitting pollutants in amounts which will: (1) Contribute significantly to nonattainment of the 5 NAAQS in other states; (2) interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in other states; (3) 6 interfere with provisions to prevent significant deterioration of air quality in other states; or (4) 7 interfere with efforts to protect visibility in other states. ” 75 Fed. Reg. 72688, 72689-90 (Nov. 8 26, 2010). 9 On September 17, 2007, New Mexico submitted a SIP to EPA addressing each of the 10 four elements. EPA approved this SIP with respect to element (1) on June 11, 2010 (75 Fed. 11 Reg. 33174), and approved it with respect to elements (2) and (3) on November 26, 2010 (75 12 Fed. Reg. 72688). With respect to the fourth and final element, regarding visibility, the 13 September 17, 2007 SIP stated that New Mexico would submit an approvable SIP under for 14 regional haze by December 2007. This commitment was in accordance with EPA guidance 15 applicable at the time, which provided that “a state could meet the visibility prong of the 16

## 2 transport requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of the CAA by submission of the RH SIP, 1 due in December 2007.” 76 Fed. Reg. 491, 496 (Jan. 5, 2011). 2 New Mexico failed to submit an approvable Regional Haze SIP by December, 2007, and 3 on January 15, 2009, EPA published a “Finding of Failure to Submit State Implementation Plans 4 Required by the 1999 regional haze rule.” 74 Fed. Reg. 2392 (Jan. 15, 2009). 5 In accordance with a Consent Decreewith WildEarth Guardians setting a schedule for 6 EPA action on CAA 110(a)(2)(D) SIPs, on December 20, 2010, EPA proposed disapproval of 7 New Mexico’s September 17, 2007 110(a)(2)(D) SIP with respect to the visibility prong, and 8 proposed a FIP consisting of a determination of Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) for 9 the San Juan Generating Station (SJGS). EPA’s rationale for this FIP was that installation of 10 BART controls at the SJGS was necessary to ensure that New Mexico achieved the emission 11 reductions relied upon by neighboring states in setting their reasonable progress goals for 12 visibility improvement. 13 On June 24, 2011, New Mexico submitted a revised Regional Haze SIPunder 40 CFR 14 51.309 and a Regional Haze SIP under 40 CFR 51.309(g) to EPA. That SIP included a proposed 15 BART determination for the SJGS. EPA published final approval of these SIP submittals on 16 December 27, 2012; however, EPA took no action on the Best Available Retrofit Technology 17 (BART) determination for San Juan Generating Station (SJGS)for oxides of nitrogen (NOx). 18 EPA promulgated a BART FIP for the SJGS with a much more stringent emission limit 19 of 0.05 lb/MMBtu, based on installation of selective catalytic reduction (SCR) technology. That 20 BART FIP is currently under review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. 21 Martinez v. EPA, No. 11-9567 and consolidated cases. However, New Mexico, PNM and EPA 22 have reached a tentative settlement agreement. Under the terms of the tentative agreement, which 23

## 3 are contained in a “Term Sheet” signed on February 15, 2013 (Attachment 1 to the proposed SIP 1 revision), the SJGS would completely shut down Units 2 and 3 by the end of 2017 and install on 2 Units 1 and 4 selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) technology with an emission rate of 0.23 3 lb/MMBtu, within 15 months of EPA’s approval of this SIP. The NOx emissions resulting from 4 the Term Sheet scenario therefore satisfy the requirements of CAA § 110(a)(2)(D). 5 Emissions Reductions Necessary to Satisfy § 110(a)(2)(D) 6 In the proposed FIP , EPA explains that as a product of interstate collaboration in 7 developing SIPs through the West Regional Air Partnership, “the common understanding was 8 that each State would takeaction to achieve the emission reductions relied upon in their 9 reasonable progress demonstrations under the [Regional Haze Rule]”. 76 Fed. Reg. At 496. 10
Therefore , EPA found that “an implementation plan that provides for emission reductions 11 consistent with the assumptions used in the WRAP [photochemical grid] modeling will ensure 12 that emissions from New Mexico do not interfere with measures designed to protect visibility in 13 other states.” Id. 14 Therefore, EPA used the emission rates assumed in the WRAP’s modeling for NOx and 15 SO 2 

## from the SJGS as the criteria for avoiding interference with other states visibility measures. 16 Finding that the existing federally enforceable emission limits were higher than those rates, the 17 EPA determined that further reductions were required. 18 Specifically, EPA noted that the WRAP modeling assumed NOx emission rates of 0.27 19 lbs/MMBtu for SJGS Units 1 and 2, and 0.28 lbs/MMBtu for Units 3 and4. EPA compared these 20 WRAP modeling assumptions to the federally enforceable limits applicable to SJGS through a 21 consent decree entered into by the operator of SJGS, Public Service Company of New Mexico 22 (PNM), NMED, and environmental groups, which are: 0.30 lbs/mmBtu for NOx and 0.15 23

## 4 lbs/mmBtu for SO 2 

## . Id. Noting the discrepancy between the federally enforceable limits and the 1 WRAP assumptions, EPA concluded that “it is appropriate to establish federally enforceable 2 limits for pollutants that impact visibility projections within the WRAP photochemical 3 modeling.” Id. EPA then went on to cite its authority to is sue a regional haze FIP for New 4 Mexico, including BART for the SJGS, as a mechanism to achieve the needed reductions. Id. 5 For all other sources in New Mexico, EPA proposed finding that they are sufficiently controlled 6 to prevent interference with visibility programs of other states. Id. 7 In summary, EPA adopted the WRAP assumptions for SJGS of 0.27 – 0.28 lbs/mmBtu 8 for NOx and 0.15 lbs/mmBtu for SO2 as the criteria for approvability of a § 110(a)(2)(D) 9 implementation plan. 10 Satisfaction of the § 110(a)(2)(D) Requirements 11 NOx 12 Under the provisions of the Term Sheet, the NOx emission rate for SJGS Units 1 and 4 13 will be no greater than 0.23 lb/MMBtu, and for Units 2 and 3 will be zero, upon the shutdown of 14 those Units in 2017. This will clearly result in lower NOx emissions than the WRAP 15 assumptions of 0.27 lb/MMBtu on Units 1 and 2 and 0.28 lb/MMBtu on Units 3 and 4. 16 Specifically, based on an 85% capacity factor, the WRAP assumptions result in 19,324 tons NOx 17 per year, while the Term Sheet scenario results inonly 8,011 tons NOx per year, an improvement 18 of more than 58% as compared to the WRAP assumptions. 19 The NOx emissions resulting from the Term Sheet scenario therefore satisfy the 20 requirements of CAA § 110(a)(2)(D) as defined by EPA. 21 SO2 22

## 5 EPA’s final rule established an SO 2

## emission rate of 0.15 lb/MMBtu for each unit on a 30 1 day rolling average basis, in accordance with the WRAP assumption. PNM voluntarily 2 requested a permit modification to incorporate that limit, and the permit modification was issued 3 on May 16, 2011 (NSR Permit No. 0063-M6R2). 4 Under the provisions of the Term Sheet, SO 2

## emissions will be further reduced by 5 lowering the SO 2

## permit limit at Units 1 and 4 to 0.10 lb/MMBtu (33% lower than the WRAP’s 6 assumed emission rate) and by shutting down Units 2 and 3. This will result in a 67% reduction 7 in emissions from the WRAP assumptions, from 10,535 tons per year to 3,483 tons per year. 8 The SO 2 

## emissions resulting from the Term Sheet scenario therefore satisfy the 9 requirements of CAA § 110(a)(2)(D) as defined by EPA. 10

# RITA 

# BATES

EDUCATION


## HUMBOLDT 

## STATE 

## UNIVERSITY

## , ARCATA

## , CALIFORNIA 

## B.S., Biology, 1990. Minor in Botany, emphasis in Ecology. Attendance dates 1986

- 1990. 

# EXPERIENCE


## STATE OF 

## N EW 

## MEXICO 

## , ENVIRONMENT 

## D EPARTMENT 

## AIR 

## QUALITY 

## B UREAU 

## , PLANNING 

## & P OLICY 

## S ECTION 

## Section Chief, March 2005 – present Program Manager (Natural Sciences Manager

-2), March 2000 – March 2005 Environmental Specialist, December 1998 – March 2000 Environmental Scientist, August 1998 – December 1998 The Planning & Policy section of the Air Quality Bureau is responsible for the control strategy, dispersion modeling, emission inventory and small business assistance programs in the Air Quality Bureau. The control strategy section of the Air Quality Bureau is responsible for preparing state implementation plans, policies, and regulations for air quality. The modeling section ensures that all air dispersion modeling analyses submitted to our agency are accurate and complete. The Small Business Assistance Program assists small businesses in meeting air quality regulatory requirements.
EMPIRE 

## GROUP

## , LLC Empire, Nevada Environmental Coordinator, June 1996 – July 1998 Empire Group, LLC is the parent company for several entities which own and operate a geothermal power plant, an onion and garlic dehydration plant, several ranches, and a garlic seed operation. In my position as environmental coordinator, I was responsible for permitting at all facilities. JBR ENVIRONMENTAL 

## C ONSULTANTS 

## , INC


## . Reno, Nevada Environmental Analyst IV, Reno Office C oordinator/Manager, July 1994 – July 1996 Environmental Analyst III, July 1993 – July 1994 Environmental Analyst I, June 1990 – July 1993 As the manager of the Reno office, I supervised seven technical staff and one administrative employee. During my employment with JBR, I worked on and managed numerous NEPA, environmental permitting and baseline projects.

## EIB No. 13-03 Statement of Reasons and Order Page 1 of 4 STATE OF NEW MEXICO BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT BOARD IN THE MATTER OF PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN UNDER CLEAN AIR ACT § 110(a)(2)(D) WITH RESPECT TO VISIBILITY No. EIB 13-03(R)

__________________________________________________________________________ ORDER AND STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR ADOPTION OF SIP REVISIONS

______________________________________________________________________________ This matter come s before the New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board (“Board”) upon a petition filed by the New Mexico Environment Department (“NMED” or “Department”), proposing amendments to New Mexico’s State Implementation Plan (“ SIP”), in order to address the interstate transport requirements with respect to visibility under Clean Air Act § 1 10(a)(2)(D). A public hearing was held in Farmington, New Mexico on September __, 2013, with a quorum of the Board present during the hearing. The Board heard technical testimony from the Department and other parties and admitted exhibits into the record. On September __, 2013, the Board deliberated and voted to adopt the proposed amendments for the reasons that follow: I. STATEMENT OF REASONS 1. The federal Clean Air Act(“CAA” ) at § 110(a)(2)(D)(i) requires states to submit State Implementation Plans (“ SIPs ”) which, among other things, prohibit emissions within the
state thatwould interfere with measures to protect visibility that are required to be included in the SIP of any other state. 2. In a final rule promulgated on August, 22, 2011, the U.S. EPA determined that New Mexico had satisfied the visibility element of CAA § 110(a)(2)(D)(i) with respect to the

## EIB No. 13-03 Statement of Reasons and Order Page 2 of 4 1997 ozone and particulate matter national ambient air quality standards for all sources in the state except for the San Juan Generating Station (SJGS). EPA determined thatthe CAA § 110(a)(2)(D)(i)requirements would be satisfied by NOxemission rates of 0.27 lbs/MMBtu from SJGS Units 1 and 2 and 0.28 lbs/MMBtu from SJGS Units 3 and 4. EPA did not impose these limits, but instead promulgated a best available retrofit technology (BART) federal implementation plan (FIP) under the regional haze provisions of the CAA. 76 Fed. Reg. 52,388 (Aug. 22, 2011). 3. On May21, 2013 NMED filed a petitionwith the Board for a public hearing in this
matter. The petition contained a SIP revision that would satisfy CAA § 110(a)(2)(D) through implementation of the terms of a tentative agreement between NMED, EPA, and
PNM known as the “Term Sheet.” The Term Sheet is intended to address pollution control requirements for the SJGS with respect to regional haze and interstate transport f

or visibility. Under its terms, SJGS will retire Units 2 and 3 by December 31, 2017, and install selective non

- catalytic reduction technology (SNCR)on Units 1 and 4, with an emission limit of 0.23 lbs/MMBtu. 4. On June 15, 2013 , at a meeting conducted in compliance with the Open Meetings Act and other applicable requirements, the Board granted the Department’s request for a hearing in this matter and scheduled the hearing for September 5 or 6, 2013. The Board appointed member John Volkerding as the Hearing Officer. 5. On June 28, 2013, public notice of the hearing was published in the New Mexico Register, in the Farmington Daily Times(in English and Spanish), and in the Albuquerque Journal (inEnglish and Spanish) . The notice stated that the Board may

## EIB No. 13-03 Statement of Reasons and Order Page 3 of 4 make a decision on the proposed SIP revisions at the conclusion of the hearing, or may convene at a later date to consider action on the proposal.
6. NMED filed a Notice of Intent to Present Technical Testimony (NOI) on August 16, 2013, in accordance with the 20.1.1 NMAC.
7. The following parties also filed NOIs:

8. On September __, 2013, the Board adopted the pollution-control scenario for SJGS (the “State Alternative”) as contained in the Term Sheet, as New Mexico’s BART determination for the SJGS. 9. The State Alternative will result in zero NOx emissions from SJGS Units 2 and 3, and NOx emissions of no greater than 0.23 lbs/MMBtu from SJGS Units 1 and 4. The State
Alternative therefore achieves greater emission reductions than EPA determined to be necessary to satisfy CAA § 110(a)(2)(D)(i). 10. A hearing in this matter was heldin Farmington, New Mexico on September ___ 2013 , at which a reasonable opportunity for all persons to be heard was provided. 11. The Board has the authority to adopt the proposed SIP revisionspursuant to N .M.S.A. 1978, §§ 74-2-5.B & C

. 12. In accordance with NMSA 1978 Section 74 -2- 5(C)(1)(a), the proposed SIP revisions and regulations are no more stringent than , but at least as stringent as , required by the federal act and federal regulations pertaining to visibility protection in mandatory Class I areas. 13. The notice and hearing requirements of N .M.S. A 1978 Section 74-2- 6 and 20.1.1 NMAC were satisfied in this rulemaking process.

## EIB No. 13-03 Statement of Reasons and Order Page 4 of 4 14. The proposed amendments are adopted for any or all of the reasons stated above. II. ORDER By majority vote of a quorum of the Board members, the “New Mexico State Implementation Plan Revision to Satisfy the Requirements of Clean Air Act 110(A)(2)(D)(I)(ii) with Respect to Visibility for the 8 -Hour Ozone and PM 2.5 NAAQS Promulgated In July 1997 ”

wasapproved by the Board on September ___, 2013. The Department shall submit this SIP revision as expeditiously as possible to the EPA for approval. To the extent that any provision within the SIP revision is not self

- executing, the Department shall take appropriate actions to implement that provision using its applicable powers and authorities, including but not limited to enforcement authority under N.M.S.A. 1978, 74-2-12 and permitting authority under N.M.S.A. 1978, § 74-2-7, and implementing regulations.

Dated:

On Behalf of the Board

## STATE OF NEW MEXICO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT BOARD

IN THE MATTER OF PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR THE SAN JUAN GENERATING STATION BEST AVAILABLE RETROFIT TECHNOLOGY DETERMINATION ) ) ) ) ) 

## EIB No. 13-03 (R)

RESPONSE OF PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO • • ...

## .- l > 'V

. ....**~** •• · J"**~** •

,r . ,**~** f'

.**~** 

### rf1

. . : ( '· 

## . .



## IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR REGULATORY CHANGE BY THE NEW MEXICO ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT AND ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

Pursuant to 20.1.1.300.C. NMAC , Public Service Company of New Mexico ( ' PNM") submits this Response in Support of the Petition for Regulatory Change filed by the New Mex ico Environment Department ("NMED" or " Department") in the above referenced mater. STATEMENT OF INTEREST This proceeding involves, among other things, a revision to the determination of Best Available Retrofit Technology ( " BART") for the San Juan Generating Station ("San Juan"). San
Juan is an 1800 megawatt (nominally rated) coal-fired electric generating station located near Waterflow, New Mexico. PNM serves as the operating agent for San Juan and owns 46.7% of the facility. Other owners of San Juan include the County of Los Alamos, the City of Farmington, Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, M

- S-R Public Power Agency, the City of Anaheim , Utah Associated Municipal Power System , Southern California Public
Power Authority, and Tucson Electric Power. San Juan is a significant re source in PNM 's generation portfolio.
PNM is also a party to the February 15, 2013 agreem ent in principle among the NMED , the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and PNM relatin g to the proposed alternative state


## 1

# .. .
implementation plan for a revised BART determination for San Juan. Thus , PNM has a significant interest in this proceeding and PNM supports the NMED's petition as filed herein.
ENTRY OF APPEARANCE AND REQUEST FOR NOTICE
This Response constitutes a formal entry of appearance in this proceeding by PNM pursuant to 20.1.303 NMAC. PNM hereby requests service of all further papers in this docket
and written notice of all further proceedings herein to its undersigned counsel. Respectfully submitted, 

# ,C-

·c ard L. 

### Alvidrez MILLER STRATVERT PA P.O. Box 25687 Albuquerque, NM 87125-0687 (505) 842-1950 ralvidrez@mstlaw.com and
Kallie D. Kuehl Corporate Counsel PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO 414 Silver SW, MS 1200 Albuquerque, NM 87158 (505) 241-2700 kallie.kuehl@pnmresources.com



## 2

## CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This will certify this Response of Public Service Company of New Mexico In Support of
Petition for Regulatory Change and Entry of Appearance was e-filed with the New Mexico
Environmental Improvement Board this 21st day of June 2013 and that a copies of the foregoing
were mailed and emailed on the same date to:

New Mexico Environment Department Mr. William G. Grantham Assistant Attorney General 1190 S. St. Francis Drive, #N4050 Santa Fe, NM 87505 Bill.Grantham@state.nm.us 

## Attorney for Petitioner

Pam Castaneda, Administrator New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board Harold 

## L. Runnels Building 1190 St. Francis Drive Suite N4050 Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505 Pam.castaneda@state.nm. us

# ~.~rez

3New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board Mr. Mark Reynolds Assistant Attorney General P.O. Box 1508 Santa Fe, New Mexico 87504-1508 mreyno lds@nmag.gov 

## Attorney for Environmental Improvement Board

## 1

2 3
4 5 6
7 8 9 10
11 12 13
14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

KATHY TOWNSEND COURT REPORTERS 110 Twelfth Street , Northwest , Albuquerque , New Mexico 87102

( 505 ) 243

- 5018

- Fax ( 505 ) 243

- 3606 

# 1

STATE OF NEW MEXICO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT BOARD

No
. EIB 13

- 03 (R)
IN THE MATTER OF PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN UNDER CLEAN AIR ACT SECTION 110 (a)(2)(D) WITH RESPECT TO VISIBILITY

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

BE IT REMEMBERED that on the 5 th day of September , 2013 , the above

- entitled matter came on for hearing before the New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board , taken at San Juan College , Room 7103 , 4601 College Boulevard , Farmington , New Mexico , at the hour of 5: 28 p.m.

## 1

2 3
4 5 6
7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

KATHY TOWNSEND COURT REPORTERS 110 Twelfth Street , Northwest , Albuquerque , New Mexico 87102

( 505 ) 243

- 5018

- Fax ( 505 ) 243

- 3606 

# 2

A P P E A R A N C E S
For the Environmental Improvement Board : DEBORAH PEACOCK GREGORY H. FULFER JAMES R. CASCIANO JOHN MICHAEL VOLKERDING TIMOTHY L. MORROW MATTHEW HOLT

For the New Mexico Environment Department :
BILL GRANTHAM Assistant General Counsel Office of General Counsel New Mexico Environment Department 1190 St
. Francis Drive Suite N- 4050 Santa Fe , New Mexico 87505 ( 505 ) 222

- 9594 bill
. grantham @ state
. nm . us

## 1

2 3
4 5 6
7 8 9 10
11 12 13
14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

KATHY TOWNSEND COURT REPORTERS 110 Twelfth Street , Northwest , Albuquerque , New Mexico 87102

( 505 ) 243

- 5018

- Fax ( 505 ) 243

- 3606 

# 3

I N D E X
PAGE
WITNESSES :
RITA BATES Direct Examination by Mr
. Grantham 8

## 1

2 3
4 5 6
7 8 9 10
11 12 13
14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

KATHY TOWNSEND COURT REPORTERS 110 Twelfth Street , Northwest , Albuquerque , New Mexico 87102

( 505 ) 243

- 5018

- Fax ( 505 ) 243

- 3606 

# 4

E X H I B I T S
ADMITTED
NMED : 1. Excerpt from Clean Air Act Section 110 6 2. Excerpts from EPA 's Proposed and Final
Federal Implementation Plans for the
San Juan Generating Station 6 3. Affidavits of Publication of hearing notices 6 4. Testimony of Rita Bates 6 5. Rita Bates resume 6 6. Order and Statement of Reasons for Adoption of SIP Revisions 6

## 1

2 3
4 5 6
7 8 9 10
11 12 13
14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

KATHY TOWNSEND COURT REPORTERS 110 Twelfth Street , Northwest , Albuquerque , New Mexico 87102

( 505 ) 243

- 5018

- Fax ( 505 ) 243

- 3606 

# 5

MS
. PEACOCK : Now we will move on to

-- okay , item number 8, hearing in EIB 13

- 03 regarding the interstate transport State Implementation Plan ( SIP ) with respect to visibility
.

And I will now turn this over to our Hearing Officer , Vice

- Chair Volkerding
.

MR
. VOLKERDING : All right
. My name is John Volkerding , and I was designated by the Environmental Improvement Board to act

as Hearing Officer in this matter
.

This hearing is being held to consider revisions to the interstate transport State Implementation Plan under Clean Air Act Section 110 (a)(2)(D) with respect to visibility
.

The rulemaking petition was filed by the Environment Department and docketed by the administrator as EIB 13 -03.

The hearing will be conducted in accordance with the Board 's rulemaking procedures set out in 20 .1.1
NMAC
. Pursuant to those procedures , I will conduct the hearing so as to provide reasonable opportunity for all
persons to be heard without making the hearing

un reasonably lengthy
.

The Rules of Civil Procedure and the Rules of Evidence do not apply , but I will make whatever orders

## 1

2 3
4 5 6
7 8 9 10
11 12 13
14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

KATHY TOWNSEND COURT REPORTERS 110 Twelfth Street , Northwest , Albuquerque , New Mexico 87102

( 505 ) 243

- 5018

- Fax ( 505 ) 243

- 3606 

# 6

are necessary to preserve decorum
.

All testimony will be taken under oath , and all persons giving testimony will be subject to

cross - examination by any other person in attendance on the subject matter of their testimony and on matters affecting their credibility . I may limit

cross - examination if necessary to avoid harassment , intimidation or repetition
.

The hearing is being recorded and transcribed by Cheryl Arreguin of Kathy Townsend Court Reporters
. You may obtain a copy of the transcript directly from the court reporter
. It also eventually becomes a public
record , viewable in the office of the Board administrator
.

If you have not signed in , please do so , regardless of whether you wish to present testimony or not
. If you have a phone or pager , please silence it
. Board members , the file contains the petition
for hearing and the Department 's notice of intent to present technical testimony
.

No other parties have made an entry of
appearance .

Is that correct ? Or has PNM also filed ?

## 1

2 3
4 5 6
7 8 9 10
11 12 13
14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

KATHY TOWNSEND COURT REPORTERS 110 Twelfth Street , Northwest , Albuquerque , New Mexico 87102

( 505 ) 243

- 5018

- Fax ( 505 ) 243

- 3606 

# 7

The Public Service Company of New Mexico has also filed to present technical testimony , but no other parties other than them have made an entry of
appearance .

There will be an opportunity for comments by members of the public
. If any members of the public intend to comment , please sign in
. Public comment will
be limited to approximately three minutes and will generally proceed in the order on the sign

- up sheet
.

With that , Mr
. Grantham , please make your
appearance , introduce any witnesses
.

MR
. GRANTHAM : Thank you , Mr
. Hearing Officer
. MR
. VOLKERDING : Thank you . MR
. GRANTHAM : Bill Grantham , representing the
New Mexico Environment Department , and with me is Rita
Bates , the chief of the Planning Section of the Air Quality Bureau
.

Shall I proceed ?
MR
. VOLKERDING : Please
. MR
. GRANTHAM : And I believe that PNM has entered an entry of appearance but not a notice of intent to present technical testimony
. So

--

MR
. VOLKERDING : Thank you for the clarification
.

MR
. GRANTHAM : And I -- with the brevity of

## 1

2 3
4 5 6
7 8 9 10
11 12 13
14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

KATHY TOWNSEND COURT REPORTERS 110 Twelfth Street , Northwest , Albuquerque , New Mexico 87102

( 505 ) 243

- 5018

- Fax ( 505 ) 243

- 3606 

# 8 this hearing , I'm not really going to make any opening
statements
. It would simply be redundant with our testimony , so I'm just going to proceed straight to our testimony
. So if she can be sworn in
. RITA BATES having been first duly sworn or affirmed , was examined and testified as follows :

DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR
. GRANTHAM : Q. Ms
. Bates , please state your name for the record
. A. My name is Rita Bates
. Q. And where are you employed ?
A. I work for the Environment Department in the Air Quality Bureau as the Planning Section Chief . I' ve been with the Air Quality Bureau in the Planning Section for 15 years . Q. And is what has been marked Exhibit 5 a copy of your resume ?
A. Yes , it is
. Q. And did you submit technical testimony in this

-- excuse me -- did you submit pre filed written testimony in this proceeding ?
A. I did
.

## 1

2 3
4 5 6
7 8 9 10
11 12 13
14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

KATHY TOWNSEND COURT REPORTERS 110 Twelfth Street , Northwest , Albuquerque , New Mexico 87102

( 505 ) 243

- 5018

- Fax ( 505 ) 243

- 3606 

# 9
Q. And is that what 's been marked NMED Exhibit 4?
A. Yes
. And I accept that as my testimony
. Q. Thank you . Under oath ? The proposed SIP under Section 1 -- the Department has proposed a SIP revision under Clean Air
Act Section 1 10 (a)(2)(D).

Can you briefly explain what that part of the Clean Air Act requires ?
A. Yes
. Whenever EPA promulgates a new national ambient air quality standard , states are required to show that they have in their implementation plan sufficient rules and plans in place to maintain or attain that revised or newly adopted standard
.

Exhibit 1 is a copy of the 110 (a)(2)(D) requirements , along with other requirements in the Clean Air Act , but we ' re focusing on 110 (a)(2)(D) for this
.

So Section 110 (a)(2)(D) includes the so - called good neighbor provisions that have to show that emissions from New Mexico do not interfere with attainment or maintenance of a standard or with prevention of significant deterioration or with visibility in other states
.

And for this hearing , what we ' re concerned about is the visibility provisions
. So that is the part

## 1

2 3
4 5 6
7 8 9 10
11 12 13
14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

KATHY TOWNSEND COURT REPORTERS 110 Twelfth Street , Northwest , Albuquerque , New Mexico 87102

( 505 ) 243

- 5018

- Fax ( 505 ) 243

- 3606 

# 10

of 110 (a)(2)(D) that we ' re referring to today
. Q. And how is this SIP revision related to the BART determination that the Board just adopted ?
A. EPA tied the Best Available Retrofit Technology Federal Implementation Plan to the 110 (a)(2)(D) visibility provisions for the 19 97 ozone and PM 2.5 

## standards
. They didn 't tie it to the regional
haze rules , so -- which was kind of interesting
.

In Exhibit 2, which is EPA 's proposed rule for the Federal Implementation Plan , they determined
that point

-- that the Western Regional Air Partnership in their modeling used
. 27 to
. 28 pounds per million BTU
to show that New Mexico would not be adversely impacting visibility in other states
.

However , PNM 's permit for San Juan Generating Station had a limit of
. 30 pounds per million BTU. So
EPA took it upon themselves to implement a Federal Implementation Plan that actually went to a much lower limit of
. 05 pounds per million BTU as the BART determination for San Juan Generating Station
. Q. And how will the proposed SIP satisfy the requirements of Clean Air Act Section 110 (a)(2)(D)?
A. The revisions that were just approved to the regional haze SIP and are duplicated in this interstate transport SIP exceed the WRAP modeling that was relied

## 1

2 3
4 5 6
7 8 9 10
11 12 13
14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

KATHY TOWNSEND COURT REPORTERS 110 Twelfth Street , Northwest , Albuquerque , New Mexico 87102

( 505 ) 243

- 5018

- Fax ( 505 ) 243

- 3606 

# 11

upon by other states to meet reasonable progress .

So we are showing in this SIP that
. 23 pounds
per million BTU on two units , with two units shut down , will result in better visibility improvement than was relied on in the WRAP modeling for visibility improvement and how visibility in

-- how emissions from
New Mexico impact visibility in other states
. Q. And were the public notice requirements met in

-- in this hearing ?
A. Yes
. Exhibit 3 are affidavits of publication
. We published notice of this hearing in the New Mexico Register , the Albuquerque Journal and the Farmington Daily Times on June 28 th
. Q. And does the Department have any changes or amendments to the proposed 110 (a)(2)(D) SIP ?
A. No
. And we respectfully request that the Board adopt this SIP revision as proposed
.

And thank you very much for your time and the lateness of the evening
.

MR
. GRANTHAM : Thank you . I have no further questions
. I would

-- actually , I have one question
. Q. Could you explain what is in NMED Exhibit 2?
A. Yes
. Exhibit 2 shows the EPA proposed rule that shows that the
. 27 to
. 28 pounds per million BTU of

## 1

2 3
4 5 6
7 8 9 10
11 12 13
14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

KATHY TOWNSEND COURT REPORTERS 110 Twelfth Street , Northwest , Albuquerque , New Mexico 87102

( 505 ) 243

- 5018

- Fax ( 505 ) 243

- 3606 

# 12 nitrogen oxides would be sufficient because that was what was used in the WRAP modeling
.

MR
. GRANTHAM : Thank you . MS
. BATES : You ' re welcome
. MR
. GRANTHAM : I have no further questions , and I move for admission of Exhibits NMED 1 through 5, and also Exhibit 6, which is the proposed statement of

reasons . And the

-- the SIP that is at issue here that

we are asking you to adopt is as was provided for in
the

-- in the petition of May 21 st , 2013
.

And with that , we stand for questions
. MR
. VOLKERDING : Okay
. The exhibits are admitted
. ( Exhibits NMED 1 through 6 admitted into

evidence .)
MR
. VOLKERDING : And Board questions ?
MS
. PEACOCK : I' ll ask a question for clarification
.

So the revision is the May 21st petition which
also includes Attachment 1, the Term Sheet ; is that
correct ?
MR
. GRANTHAM : That 's correct
.

MS
. PEACOCK : Okay
. MR
. GRANTHAM : Thank you .

## 1

2 3
4 5 6
7 8 9 10
11 12 13
14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

KATHY TOWNSEND COURT REPORTERS 110 Twelfth Street , Northwest , Albuquerque , New Mexico 87102

( 505 ) 243

- 5018

- Fax ( 505 ) 243

- 3606 

# 13

MR
. VOLKERDING : Any other Board questions ? Any questions from members of the audience , including PNM ?

MR
. ALVIDREZ : No questions
. MR
. VOLKERDING : Okay
. Any closing statements from NMED ?
MR
. GRANTHAM : No , Mr
. Hearing Officer
. We ' ll stand on the testimony of Ms
. Bates
.

MR
. VOLKERDING : Okay
. Any reason to keep the record open on the hearing ?
If not , then we will close the hearing record
.

And I will turn the meeting back over to the Chair
. MR
. GRANTHAM : Thank you .

MS
. BATES : Thank you . MR
. VOLKERDING : Thank you . MS
. PEACOCK : Okay
. We will now proceed to deliberations in 13

- 03 (R).

And the Department has proposed a New Mexico
State Implementation Plan revision to satisfy the requirements of the Clean Air Act 110 (a)(2)(D)(i)( II ) with respect to visibility for the eight

- hour ozone PM 2.5 

## NA AQS, promulgated in July , 19 97. This is the May 21 st petition , 2013 , with Attachment 1, which is the Term

## 1

2 3
4 5 6
7 8 9 10
11 12 13
14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

KATHY TOWNSEND COURT REPORTERS 110 Twelfth Street , Northwest , Albuquerque , New Mexico 87102

( 505 ) 243

- 5018

- Fax ( 505 ) 243

- 3606 

# 14

Sheet
. And I can start and say that I support adoption of the proposal by the Department
.

Any other comment ?
MR
. VOLKERDING : I have no comment other than
I would also support it
.

MR
. HOLT : As do I.
MS
. PEACOCK : Any other comments ?
Can we have a motion ?
MR
. VOLKERDING : I' ll move that the Board accept the petition as presented
.

MS
. PEACOCK : Okay
. Is there a second ?
MR
. CASCIANO : Second
. MR
. VOLKERDING : Okay
. Moved and seconded
. All in favor ? ( Simultaneous responses .)
MS
. PEACOCK : Any opposed ? Okay
. The proposal is accepted
. Let 's go to the statement of reasons . Similarly , I would

-- and I' ll just go ahead and make a motion
.

I'd like to move that we approve the order and
statement of reasons , giving the Chair the discretion to make certain changes with the dates for the hearing ,

## 1

2 3
4 5 6
7 8 9 10
11 12 13
14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

KATHY TOWNSEND COURT REPORTERS 110 Twelfth Street , Northwest , Albuquerque , New Mexico 87102

( 505 ) 243

- 5018

- Fax ( 505 ) 243

- 3606 

# 15 filling in number 7, parties
. There was one written public comment that I'm aware of , so I'm going to add a paragraph on public comment
. And if applicable , I want to add the NMSA factors that the Board considered
.

MR
. VOLKERDING : Second
. MS
. PEACOCK : Okay
. Any other comments or discussion ? Okay
. All in favor ? ( Simultaneous responses .)
MS
. PEACOCK : Any opposed ? Okay
. We ' re done with the deliberations in 13

- 03
. So we ' re done with the

-- thank you , Cheryl
.

( Proceedings adjourned at 5:41 p.m. )

## 1

2 3
4 5 6
7 8 9 10
11 12 13
14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

KATHY TOWNSEND COURT REPORTERS 110 Twelfth Street , Northwest , Albuquerque , New Mexico 87102

( 505 ) 243

- 5018

- Fax ( 505 ) 243

- 3606 

# 16

STATE OF NEW MEXICO ) ) ss . COUNTY OF BERNALILLO )

I, CHERYL ARREGUIN , the officer before whom the foregoing proceeding was taken , do hereby certify that
the witnesses whose testimony appears in the foregoing transcript were duly sworn or affirmed ; that I personally recorded the testimony by machine shorthand ; that said transcript is a true record of the testimony given by said witnesses ; that I am neither attorney nor counsel for , nor related to or employed by any of the parties to the action in which this proceeding is taken , and that I am not a relative or employee of any attorney

or counsel employed by the parties hereto or financially interested in the action
.

NOTARY PUBLIC CCR License Number : 21 Expires : 12 / 31 / 2013

My Commission Expires : 12 / 12 / 15

## 0

**05** [1] - 10 : 19 

## 1

**1** [7] - 4:4, 9:5, 9: 15 , 12 :6, 12 : 15 , 12 : 21 , 13 : 25 **110** [1] - 4:4 **110 (a)(2)(D**  [9] - 1:5, 5: 14 , 9: 15 , 9: 17 , 9: 18 , 10 :1, 10 :6, 10 : 22 , 11 : 15 **110 (a)(2)(D)**  [1] - 9:7 **110 (a)(2)(D)(i)(**  **II** [1] - 13 : 22 **1190** [1] - 2: 10 **12 /**  **12 /**  **15** [1] - 16 : 22 **12 /** **31 /** **2013** [1] - 16 : 20 **13 -** **03** [3] - 5:2, 5: 17 , 15 : 12 **13 -** **03 (R**  [1] - 1:3 **13 -** **03 (R)**  [1] - 13 : 19 **15** [1] - 8: 18 **1997** [2] - 10 :6, 13 : 24 

## 2

**2** [4] - 4:5, 10 :9, 11 : 23 , 11 : 24 **20 .1.1**  [1] - 5: 19 **2013** [3] - 1: 15 , 12 : 11 , 13 : 25 **21** [1] - 16 : 20 **21 st**  [3] - 12 : 11 , 12 : 20 , 13 : 24 **222 -** **9594** [1] - 2: 11 **23** [1] - 11 :2 **27** [2] - 10 : 12 , 11 : 25 **28** [2] - 10 : 12 , 11 : 25 **28 th**  [1] - 11 : 13 

## 3

**3** [2] - 4:8, 11 : 10 **30** [1] - 10 : 16 

## 4

**4** [2] - 4: 10 , 9:1 **4601** [1] - 1: 17 

## 5

**5** [3] - 4: 11 , 8: 19 , 12 :6 **505** [1] - 2: 11 **5: 28**  [1] - 1: 19 **5: 41**  [1] - 15 : 14 **5 th**  [1] - 1: 14 

## 6

**6** [9] - 4:4, 4:7, 4:9, 4: 10 , 4: 11 , 4: 12 , 4: 13 , 12 :7, 12 : 15 

## 7

**7** [1] - 15 :1 **7103** [1] - 1: 17 

## 8

**8** [2] - 3:5, 5:2 **87505** [1] - 2: 11 

## A

**above -** **entitled** [1] - 1: 15 **accept** [2] - 9:2, 14 : 11 **accepted** [1] - 14 : 19 **accordance** [1] - 5: 18 **Act** [7] - 4:4, 5: 13 , 9:7, 9:9, 9: 17 , 10 : 22 , 13 : 22 **act** [1] - 5:9 **ACT** [1] - 1:5 **action** [2] - 16 : 14 , 16 : 17 **add** [2] - 15 :2, 15 :4 **adjourned** [1] - 15 : 14 **administrator** [2] - 5: 16 , 6: 14 **admission** [1] - 12 :6 **ADMITTED** [1] - 4:2 **admitted** [2] - 12 : 14 , 12 : 15 **adopt** [2] - 11 : 17 , 12 : 10 **adopted** [2] - 9: 14 , 10 :3 **Ad option**  [1] - 4: 13 **adoption** [1] - 14 :3 **adversely** [1] - 10 : 13 **affecting** [1] - 6:6 **affidavits** [1] - 11 : 10 **Affidavits** [1] - 4:8 **affirmed** [2] - 8:7, 16 :9 **ahead** [1] - 14 : 21 **air** [1] - 9: 11 **AI R**  [1] - 1:5 **Ai r**  [ 11 ] - 4:4, 5: 13 , 7: 16 , 8: 16 , 8: 17 , 9:6, 9:9, 9: 17 , 10 : 11 , 10 : 22 , 13 : 22 **Al buquerque**  [1] - 11 : 12 **AL VIDREZ**  [1] - 13 :4 **ambient** [1] - 9: 11 **amendments** [1] - 11 : 15 **appearance** [4] - 6: 24 , 7:4, 7: 11 , 7: 21 **applicable** [1] - 15 :3 **apply** [1] - 5: 25 **approve** [1] - 14 : 23 **approved** [1] - 10 : 23 **Arreguin** [1] - 6: 10 **ARREGUIN** [1] - 16 :6 **Assistant** [1] - 2:8 **Attachment** [2] - 12 : 21 , 13 : 25 **attain** [1] - 9: 14 **attainment** [1] - 9: 21 **attendance** [1] - 6:4 **attorney** [2] - 16 : 12 , 16 : 15 **audience** [1] - 13 :2 **Available** [1] - 10 :4 **avoid** [1] - 6:7 **aw are**  [1] - 15 :2 

## B

**BART** [2] - 10 :3, 10 : 19 **BATES** [4] - 3:4, 8:6, 12 :4, 13 : 16 **Bates** [6] - 4: 10 , 4: 11 , 7: 16 , 8: 11 , 8: 13 , 13 :8 **BE** [1] - 1: 14 **becomes** [1] - 6: 12 **BERNALILLO** [1] - 16 :3 **Best** [1] - 10 :4 **better** [1] - 11 :4 **Bill** [1] - 7: 14 **BILL** [1] - 2:8 **bill**

**. grantham**  **@ state** 

**. nm**  **. us**  [1] - 2: 12 **BOARD** [1] - 1:1 **Board** [ 11 ] - 1: 17 , 2:2, 5:9, 6: 13 , 6: 20 , 10 :3, 11 : 17 , 12 : 17 , 13 :1, 14 : 10 , 15 :4 **Board 's**  [1] - 5: 19 **Boulev ard**  [1] - 1: 18 **brevity** [1] - 7: 25 **briefly** [1] - 9:8 **BTU** [5] - 10 : 12 , 10 : 16 , 10 : 19 , 11 :3, 11 : 25 **Bureau** [3] - 7: 17 , 8: 16 , 8: 17 **BY** [1] - 8: 10 

## C

**CASCIANO** [2] - 2:4, 14 : 14 **CCR** [1] - 16 : 20 **certain** [1] - 14 : 25 **certify** [1] - 16 :7 **Chair** [3] - 5:6, 13 : 14 , 14 : 24 **changes** [2] - 11 : 14 , 14 : 25 **Cheryl** [2] - 6: 10 , 15 : 13 **CHERYL** [1] - 16 :6 **chief** [1] - 7: 16 **Chief** [1] - 8: 16 **Civil** [1] - 5: 24 **clarification** [2] - 7: 24 , 12 : 19 **Clean** [7] - 4:4, 5: 13 , 9:6, 9:9, 9: 16 , 10 : 22 , 13 : 22 **CLEAN** [1] - 1:5 **close** [1] - 13 : 12 **closing** [1] - 13 :6 **College** [2] - 1: 17 , 1: 18 **comment** [6] - 7:7, 14 :4, 14 :5, 15 :2, 15 :3 **comments** [3] - 7:5, 14 :8, 15 :7 **Commission** [1] - 16 : 22 **Company** [1] - 7:1 **concerned** [1] - 9: 24 **conduct** [1] - 5: 20 **conducted** [1] - 5: 18 **consider** [1] - 5: 11 **considered** [1] - 15 :4 **contains** [1] - 6: 20 **copy** [3] - 6: 11 , 8: 19 , 9: 15 **correct** [3] - 6: 25 , 

## KATHY TOWNSEND COURT REPORTERS 110 Twelfth Street , Northwest , Albuquerque , New Mexico 87102

( 505 ) 243

- 5018

- Fax ( 505 ) 243

- 3606 

# 1

12 : 22 , 12 : 23 **Counsel** [2] - 2:8, 2:9 **counsel** [2] - 16 : 13 , 16 : 16 **CO UNTY**  [1] - 16 :3 **Court** [1] - 6: 10 **court** [1] - 6: 12 **credibility** [1] - 6:6 **cross** [2] - 6:4, 6:7 **cross -** **examination** [2] - 6:4, 6:7 

## D
**Daily** [1] - 11 : 13 **dates** [1] - 14 : 25 **DEBORAH** [1] - 2:3 **decorum** [1] - 6:1 **deliberations** [2] - 13 : 19 , 15 : 11 **Department** [9] - 2:7, 2:9, 5: 16 , 7: 15 , 8: 15 , 9:6, 11 : 14 , 13 : 20 , 14 :3 **Department 's**  [1] - 6: 21 **designated** [1] - 5:9 **deterioration** [1] - 9: 22 **determination** [2] - 10 :3, 10 : 20 **determined** [1] - 10 : 10 **DIRECT** [1] - 8:9 **direct** [1] - 3:5 **directly** [1] - 6: 11 **discretion** [1] - 14 : 24 **discussion** [1] - 15 :7 **docketed** [1] - 5: 16 **done** [2] - 15 : 11 , 15 : 13 **down** [1] - 11 :3 **Drive** [1] - 2: 10 **duly** [2] - 8:7, 16 :9 **duplicated** [1] - 10 : 24 

## E

**EIB** [3] - 1:3, 5:2, 5: 17 **eight** [1] - 13 : 23 **eight -**  **hour** [1] - 13 : 23 **emissions** [2] - 9: 20 , 11 :6 **employed** [3] - 8: 14 , 16 : 13 , 16 : 16**employee** [1] - 16 : 15 **entered** [1] - 7: 21 **entitled** [1] - 1: 15 **entry** [3] - 6: 23 , 7:3, 7: 21 **Environment** [5] - 2:7, 2:9, 5: 16 , 7: 15 , 8: 15 **ENVIRONMENTAL** [1] - 1:1 **Environmental** [3] - 1: 16 , 2:2, 5:9 **EPA** [4] - 9: 10 , 10 :4, 10 : 17 , 11 : 24 **EPA 's**  [2] - 4:5, 10 :9 **evening** [1] - 11 : 19 **eventually** [1] - 6: 12 **Evidence** [1] - 5: 25 **evidence** [1] - 12 : 16 **EXAMINATION** [1] - 8:9 **Examination** [1] - 3:5 **examination** [2] - 6:4, 6:7 **examined** [1] - 8:8 **exceed** [1] - 10 : 25 **Excerpt** [1] - 4:4 **Excerpts** [1] - 4:5 **excuse** [1] - 8: 23 **Exhibit** [8] - 8: 19 , 9:1, 9: 15 , 10 :9, 11 : 10 , 11 : 23 , 11 : 24 , 12 :7 **Exhibits** [2] - 12 :6, 12 : 15 **exhibits** [1] - 12 : 13 **Expires** [2] - 16 : 20 , 16 : 22 **explain** [2] - 9:8, 11 : 23 

## F

**factors** [1] - 15 :4 **Farmington** [2] - 1: 18 , 11 : 12 **favor** [2] - 14 : 16 , 15 :8 **Fe** [1] - 2: 11 **Federal** [4] - 4:6, 10 :5, 10 : 10 , 10 : 17 **file** [1] - 6: 20 **filed** [3] - 5: 15 , 6: 25 , 7:2 **filling** [1] - 15 :1 **Final** [1] - 4:5 **financially** [1] - 16 : 16 **first** [1] - 8:7 **focusing** [1] - 9: 17 **follows** [1] - 8:8 **foregoing** [2] - 16 :7, 16 :8 **Francis** [1] - 2: 10 **FULFER** [1] - 2:3 

## G

**General** [2] - 2:8, 2:9 **generally** [1] - 7:9 **Generating** [3] - 4:7, 10 : 15 , 10 : 20 **given** [1] - 16 : 12 **GRA NTHAM**  [ 13 ] - 2:8, 7: 12 , 7: 14 , 7: 20 , 7: 25 , 8: 10 , 11 : 20 , 12 :3, 12 :5, 12 : 23 , 12 : 25 , 13 :7, 13 : 15 **Grantham** [3] - 3:5, 7: 10 , 7: 14 **GREGORY** [1] - 2:3 

## H

**harassment** [1] - 6:7 **haze** [2] - 10 :8, 10 : 24 **heard** [1] - 5: 22 **hearing** [ 16] - 1: 16 , 4:8, 5:2, 5: 11 , 5: 18 , 5: 21 , 5: 22 , 6:9, 6: 21 , 8:1, 9: 24 , 11 :9, 11 : 11 , 13 : 11 , 13 : 12 , 14 : 25 **Hearing** [4] - 5:5, 5: 10 , 7: 12 , 13 :7 **held** [1] - 5: 11 **hereby** [1] - 16 :7 **hereto** [1] - 16 : 16 **HO LT**  [2] - 2:5, 14 :7 **hour** [2] - 1: 18 , 13 : 23 

## I
**impact** [1] - 11 :7 **impacting** [1] - 10 : 13 **implement** [1] - 10 : 17 **IMPLEMENTATION** [1] - 1:4 **implementation** [1] - 9: 12 **Implementation** [7] - 4:6, 5:3, 5: 13 , 10 :5, 10 : 10 , 10 : 18 , 13 : 21 **improvement** [2] - 11 :4, 11 :6 **IMPROVEMENT** [1] - 1:1 **Improvement** [3] - 1: 16 , 2:2, 5:9 **IN** [1] - 1:4 **includes** [2] - 9: 18 , 12 : 21 **including** [1] - 13 :3 **intend** [1] - 7:7 **intent** [2] - 6: 21 , 7: 22 **interested** [1] - 16 : 17 **interesting** [1] - 10 :8 **interfere** [1] - 9: 20 **interstate** [3] - 5:3, 5: 12 , 10 : 24 **intimidation** [1] - 6:8 **introduce** [1] - 7: 11 **issue** [1] - 12 :9 **IT** [1] - 1: 14 **item** [1] - 5:2 

## J

**JAMES** [1] - 2:4 **John** [1] - 5:8 **JOHN** [1] - 2:4 **Journal** [1] - 11 : 12 **Juan** [4] - 1: 17 , 4:7, 10 : 15 , 10 : 20 **July** [1] - 13 : 24 **June** [1] - 11 : 13 

## K
**Kathy** [1] - 6: 10 **keep** [1] - 13 : 10 **kind** [1] - 10 :8 

## L

**lateness** [1] - 11 : 19 **lengthy** [1] - 5: 23 **License** [1] - 16 : 20 **limit** [3] - 6:6, 10 : 16 , 10 : 19 **limited** [1] - 7:8 **lower** [1] - 10 : 18 

## M

**machine** [1] - 16 : 10 **maintain** [1] - 9: 13 **maintenance** [1] - 9: 21 **marked** [2] - 8: 19 , 9:1 **MATTER** [1] - 1:4 **matter** [3] - 1: 15 , 5: 10 , 6:5 **matters** [1] - 6:5 **MATTHEW** [1] - 2:5 **meet** [1] - 11 :1 **meeting** [1] - 13 : 13 **members** [4] - 6: 20 , 7:6, 13 :2 **met** [1] - 11 :8 **MEXICO** [2] - 1:1, 16 :1 **Mexico** [ 12] - 1: 16 , 1: 18 , 2:7, 2:9, 2: 11 , 7:1, 7: 15 , 9: 20 , 10 : 13 , 11 :7, 11 : 11 , 13 : 20 **MI CHAEL**  [1] - 2:4 **million** [5] - 10 : 12 , 10 : 16 , 10 : 19 , 11 :3, 11 : 25 **minutes** [1] - 7:8 **modeling** [4] - 10 : 12 , 10 : 25 , 11 :5, 12 :2 **MORROW** [1] - 2:5 **motion** [2] - 14 :9, 14 : 22 **move** [4] - 5:1, 12 :6, 14 : 10 , 14 : 23 **moved** [1] - 14 : 15 **MR** [29 ] - 5:7, 7: 12 , 7: 13 , 7: 14 , 7: 19 , 7: 20 , 7: 23 , 7: 25 , 8: 10 , 11 : 20 , 12 :3, 12 :5, 12 : 13 , 12 : 17 , 12 : 23 , 12 : 25 , 13 :1, 13 :4, 13 :5, 13 :7, 13 :9, 13 : 15 , 13 : 17 , 14 :5, 14 :7, 14 : 10 , 14 : 14 , 14 : 15 , 15 :5 **MS** [ 11 ] - 5:1, 12 :4, 12 : 18 , 12 : 24 , 13 : 16 , 13 : 18 , 14 :8, 14 : 12 , 14 : 18 , 15 :6, 15 : 10 

## N

**N- 4050**  [1] - 2: 10 **NAAQS** [1] - 13 : 24 **name** [3] - 5:8, 8: 11 , 8: 13 **national** [1] - 9: 10 **necessary** [2] - 6:1, 6:7 **neighbor** [1] - 9: 19 **new** [1] - 9: 10 **NEW** [2] - 1:1, 16 :1 **New** [ 12] - 1: 16 , 1: 18 , 2:7, 2:9, 2: 11 , 7:1, 7: 15 , 9: 20 , 10 : 13 , 11 :7, 11 : 11 , 13 : 20 **newly** [1] - 9: 14 **nitrogen** [1] - 12 :1


## KATHY TOWNSEND COURT REPORTERS 110 Twelfth Street , Northwest , Albuquerque , New Mexico 87102

( 505 ) 243

- 5018

- Fax ( 505 ) 243

- 3606 

# 2

**NMAC** [1] - 5: 20 **NMED** [6] - 4:3, 9:1, 11 : 23 , 12 :6, 12 : 15 , 13 :6 **NMSA** [1] - 15 :4 **NO TARY**  [1] - 16 : 19 **notice** [4] - 6: 21 , 7: 21 , 11 :8, 11 : 11 **notices** [1] - 4:9 **number** [2] - 5:2, 15 :1 **Number** [1] - 16 : 20 

## O

**oath** [2] - 6:2, 9:4 **obtain** [1] - 6: 11 **OF** [5] - 1:1, 1:4, 1: 12 , 16 :1, 16 :3 **Office** [1] - 2:9 **office** [1] - 6: 13 **Officer** [4] - 5:6, 5: 10 , 7: 12 , 13 :7 **officer** [1] - 16 :6 **one** [2] - 11 : 22 , 15 :1 **open** [1] - 13 : 10 **opening** [1] - 8:1 **opportunity** [2] - 5: 21 , 7:5 **opposed** [2] - 14 : 18 , 15 : 10 **Order** [1] - 4: 12 **order** [2] - 7:9, 14 : 23 **orders** [1] - 5: 25 **oxides** [1] - 12 :1 **ozone** [2] - 10 :6, 13 : 23 

## P

**p.m** [2] - 1: 19 , 15 : 14 **PAGE** [1] - 3:2 **pager** [1] - 6: 18 **paragraph** [1] - 15 :3 **part** [2] - 9:8, 9: 25 **parties** [5] - 6: 23 , 7:3, 15 :1, 16 : 14 , 16 : 16 **Partnership** [1] - 10 : 11 **PEACOCK** [ 10] - 2:3, 5:1, 12 : 18 , 12 : 24 , 13 : 18 , 14 :8, 14 : 12 , 14 : 18 , 15 :6, 15 : 10 **per** [5] - 10 : 12 , 10 : 16 , 10 : 19 , 11 :3, 11 : 25 **permit** [1] - 10 : 15**person** [1] - 6:4 **personally** [1] - 16 : 10 **persons** [2] - 5: 22 , 6:3 **petition** [6] - 5: 15 , 6: 20 , 12 : 11 , 12 : 20 , 13 : 25 , 14 : 11 **phone** [1] - 6: 18 **place** [1] - 9: 13 **Plan** [6] - 5:3, 5: 13 , 10 :5, 10 : 10 , 10 : 18 , 13 : 21 **plan** [1] - 9: 12 **PLA N**  [1] - 1:4 **Planning** [3] - 7: 16 , 8: 16 , 8: 17 **Plans** [1] - 4:6 **plans** [1] - 9: 13 **PM 2.5**  [2] - 10 :7, 13 : 23 **PNM** [3] - 6: 25 , 7: 20 , 13 :3 **PNM 's**  [1] - 10 : 15 **point** [1] - 10 : 11 **pounds** [5] - 10 : 12 , 10 : 16 , 10 : 19 , 11 :2, 11 : 25 **prefiled** [1] - 8: 23 **present** [4] - 6: 16 , 6: 22 , 7:2, 7: 22 **presented** [1] - 14 : 11 **preserve** [1] - 6:1 **prevention** [1] - 9: 22 **Procedure** [1] - 5: 24 **procedures** [2] - 5: 19 , 5: 20 **proceed** [4] - 7:9, 7: 18 , 8:3, 13 : 18 **proceeding** [3] - 8: 24 , 16 :7, 16 : 14 **PROCEEDINGS** [1] - 1: 12 **Proceedings** [1] - 15 : 14 **progress** [1] - 11 :1 **promulgated** [1] - 13 : 24 **promulgates** [1] - 9: 10 **proposal** [2] - 14 :3, 14 : 19 **PROPOSED** [1] - 1:4 **proposed** [9] - 9:5, 9:6, 10 :9, 10 : 21 , 11 : 15 , 11 : 17 , 11 : 24 , 12 :7, 13 : 20 **Proposed** [1] - 4:5 **provide** [1] - 5: 21 **provided** [1] - 12 : 10 **provisions** [3] - 9: 19 , 9: 25 , 10 :6 **public** [7] - 6: 12 , 7:6, 7:7, 11 :8, 15 :2, 15 :3 **PUBLIC** [1] - 16 : 19 **Public** [1] - 7:1 **publication** [1] - 11 : 10 **Publication** [1] - 4:8 **published** [1] - 11 : 11 **pursuant** [1] - 5: 20 

## Q
**Quality** [3] - 7: 17 , 8: 16 , 8: 17 **quality** [1] - 9: 11 **questions** [7] - 11 : 21 , 12 :5, 12 : 12 , 12 : 17 , 13 :1, 13 :2, 13 :4 

## R
**really** [1] - 8:1 **reason** [1] - 13 : 10 **reasonable** [2] - 5: 21 , 11 :1 **Reasons** [1] - 4: 12 **reasons** [3] - 12 :8, 14 : 20 , 14 : 24 **record** [5] - 6: 13 , 8: 12 , 13 : 10 , 13 : 12 , 16 : 11 **recorded** [2] - 6:9, 16 : 10 **redundant** [1] - 8:2 **referring** [1] - 10 :1 **regarding** [1] - 5:2 **regardless** [1] - 6: 16 **regional** [2] - 10 :7, 10 : 24 **Regional** [1] - 10 : 11 **Register** [1] - 11 : 12 **related** [2] - 10 :2, 16 : 13 **relative** [1] - 16 : 15 **relied** [2] - 10 : 25 , 11 :5 **REMEMBERED** [1] - 1: 14 **repetition** [1] - 6:8 **reporter** [1] - 6: 12 **Reporters** [1] - 6: 10 **representing** [1] - 7: 14 **request** [1] - 11 : 16 **required** [1] - 9: 11 **requirements** [5] - 9: 16 , 10 : 22 , 11 :8, 13 : 22 **requires** [1] - 9:9 **respect** [3] - 5:4, 5: 14 , 13 : 23 **RESPECT** [1] - 1:5 **respectfully** [1] - 11 : 16 **responses** [2] - 14 : 17 , 15 :9 **result** [1] - 11 :4 **resume** [2] - 4: 11 , 8: 20 **Retrofit** [1] - 10 :4 **revised** [1] - 9: 14 **revision** [5] - 9:6, 10 :2, 11 : 17 , 12 : 20 , 13 : 21 **REVISIONS** [1] - 1:4 **Revisions** [1] - 4: 13 **revisions** [2] - 5: 12 , 10 : 23 **RITA** [2] - 3:4, 8:6 **Rita** [4] - 4: 10 , 4: 11 , 7: 15 , 8: 13 **Room** [1] - 1: 17 **rule** [2] - 10 :9, 11 : 24 **rulemaking** [2] - 5: 15 , 5: 19 **rules** [2] - 9: 13 , 10 :8 **Rules** [2] - 5: 24 

## S

**San** [4] - 1: 17 , 4:7, 10 : 15 , 10 : 20 **Santa** [1] - 2: 11 **satisfy** [2] - 10 : 21 , 13 : 21 **second** [3] - 14 : 13 , 14 : 14 , 15 :5 **seconded** [1] - 14 : 15 **SECTION** [1] - 1:5 **Section** [9] - 4:4, 5: 14 , 7: 16 , 8: 16 , 8: 17 , 9:5, 9:7, 9: 18 , 10 : 22 **September** [1] - 1: 15 **Service** [1] - 7:1 **set** [1] - 5: 19 **shall** [1] - 7: 18 **Sheet** [2] - 12 : 21 , 14 :1 **sheet** [1] - 7:9 **shorthand** [1] - 16 : 10 **show** [3] - 9: 12 , 9: 19 , 10 : 13 **showing** [1] - 11 :2 **shows** [2] - 11 : 24 , 11 : 25 **shut** [1] - 11 :3 **sign** [2] - 7:7, 7:9 **sign -**  **up** [1] - 7:9 **signed** [1] - 6: 15 **significant** [1] - 9: 22 **silence** [1] - 6: 18 **similarly** [1] - 14 : 21 **simply** [1] - 8:2 **Simultaneous** [2] - 14 : 17 , 15 :9 **SIP** [ 12] - 4: 13 , 5:3, 9:5, 9:6, 10 :2, 10 : 21 , 10 : 24 , 10 : 25 , 11 :2, 11 : 15 , 11 : 17 , 12 :9 **so -** **called** [1] - 9: 18 **ss** [1] - 16 :2 **St** [1] - 2: 10 **stand** [2] - 12 : 12 , 13 :8 **standard** [3] - 9: 11 , 9: 14 , 9: 21 **standards** [1] - 10 :7 **start** [1] - 14 :2 **State** [3] - 5:3, 5: 12 , 13 : 21 **state** [1] - 8: 11 **STATE** [3] - 1:1, 1:4, 16 :1 **Statement** [1] - 4: 12 **statement** [3] - 12 :7, 14 : 20 , 14 : 24 **statements** [2] - 8:2, 13 :6 **states** [5] - 9: 11 , 9: 23 , 10 : 14 , 11 :1, 11 :7 **Station** [3] - 4:7, 10 : 16 , 10 : 20 **straight** [1] - 8:3 **subject** [2] - 6:3, 6:5 **submit** [2] - 8: 22 , 8: 23 **sufficient** [2] - 9: 13 , 12 :1 **Suite** [1] - 2: 10 **support** [2] - 14 :2, 14 :6 **sw orn**  [3] - 8:5, 8:7, 16 :9 

## T

**technical** [4] - 6: 22 , 7:2, 7: 22 , 8: 22 **Technology** [1] - 10 :5 **Term** [2] - 12 : 21 , 

## KATHY TOWNSEND COURT REPORTERS 110 Twelfth Street , Northwest , Albuquerque , New Mexico 87102

( 505 ) 243

- 5018

- Fax ( 505 ) 243

- 3606 

# 3

13 : 25 **testified** [1] - 8:8 **testimony** [ 16] - 6:2, 6:3, 6:5, 6: 16 , 6: 22 , 7:2, 7: 22 , 8:3, 8:4, 8: 22 , 8: 24 , 9:2, 13 :8, 16 :8, 16 : 10 , 16 : 11 **Testimony** [1] - 4: 10 **THE** [2] - 1:4, 1:4 **themselves** [1] - 10 : 17 **three** [1] - 7:8 **tie** [1] - 10 :7 **tied** [1] - 10 :4 **TI MO**  **THY** [1] - 2:5 **TO** [2] - 1:4, 1:5 **today** [1] - 10 :1 **took** [1] - 10 : 17 **Townsend** [1] - 6: 10 **transcribed** [1] - 6:9 **TRANSCRIPT** [1] - 1: 12 **transcript** [3] - 6: 11 , 16 :9, 16 : 11 **transport** [3] - 5:3, 5: 12 , 10 : 25 **true** [1] - 16 : 11 **turn** [2] - 5:5, 13 : 13 **two** [2] - 11 :3 

## U

**UNDER** [1] - 1:5 **under** [5] - 5: 13 , 6:2, 9:4, 9:5, 9:6 **units** [2] - 11 :3 **unreasonably** [1] - 5: 23 **up** [1] - 7:9 

## V

**Vice** [1] - 5:6 **Vice -** **Chair** [1] - 5:6 **vi ewable**  [1] - 6: 13 **vi sibility**  [ 11 ] - 5:4, 5: 14 , 9: 23 , 9: 25 , 10 :6, 10 : 14 , 11 :4, 11 :5, 11 :6, 11 :7, 13 : 23 **VISIBILITY** [1] - 1:5 **Volkerding** [2] - 5:6, 5:8 **VOLKERDING** [ 15] - 2:4, 5:7, 7: 13 , 7: 19 , 7: 23 , 12 : 13 , 12 : 17 , 13 :1, 13 :5, 13 :9, 13 : 17 , 14 :5, 14 : 10 , 14 : 15 , 15 :5

## KATHY TOWNSEND COURT REPORTERS

110 Twelfth Street , Northwest , Albuquerque , New Mexico 87102

( 505 ) 243

- 5018

- Fax ( 505 ) 243

- 3606 

# 4
**W**

**welcome** [1] - 12 :4 **Western** [1] - 10 : 11 **wish** [1] - 6: 16 **WITH** [1] - 1:5 **witnesses** [3] - 7: 11 , 16 :8, 16 : 12 **WITNESSES** [1] - 3:3 **WRAP** [3] - 10 : 25 , 11 :5, 12 :2 **written** [2] - 8: 23 , 15 :1 

## Y

**years** [1] - 8: 18

## STATE OF NEW MEXICO BEFORETHEENVIRONMENTALIMPROVEMENTBOARD 

## IN THE MATTER OF PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN UNDER CLEAN AIR ACT § 

## 110(a)(2)(D) WITH RESPECT TO VISffiiLITY

ORDER AND STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR ADOPTION OF SIP REVISIONS No. EIB 13-03(R)

This matter comes before the New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board ("Board")
upon a petition filed by the New Mexico Environment Department ("NMED" or "Department"), proposing amendments to New Mexico's State Implementation Plan ("SIP"), in order to address
the interstate transport requirements with respect to visibility under Clean Air Act § 110(a)(2)(0). A public hearing was held in Farmington, New Mexico on September 5, 2013, with a quorum of the Board present during the hearing. The Board heard technical testimony
from the Department and other parties and admitted exhibits into the record. On September 5, 2013, the Board deliberated and voted to adopt the proposed amendments for the reasons that follow: 

## I. STATEMENT OF REASONS
1. The federal Clean Air Act ("CAA'') at§ 110(a)(2)(D)(i) requires states to submit State Implementation Plans ("SIPs") which, among other things, prohibit emissions within the

state that would interfere with measures to protect visibility that are required to be
included in the SIP of any other state. 2. In a final rule promulgated on August, 22,2011, the U.S. EPA determined that New Mexico had satisfied the visibility element of CAA § 110(a)(2)(D)(i) with respect to the

Em No. 13-03 Statement of Reasons and Order Page 1 of5

## 1997 ozone and particulate matter national ambient air quality standards for all sources in
the state except for the San Juan Generating Station (SJGS). EPA determined that the
CAA § 

## 110(a)(2)(D)(i) requirements would be satisfied by NOx emission rates of 0.27 lbs/MMBtu from SJGS Units 1 and 2 and 0.28 lbs/MMBtu from SJGS Units 3 and 4.
EPA did not impose these limits, but instead promulgated a best available retrofit technology (BART) federal implementation plan (FIP) under the regional haze provisions
of the CAA. 76 Fed. Reg. 52,388 (Aug. 22, 2011).
3. On May 21, 2013 NMED filed a petition with the Board for a public hearing in this

matter. The petition contained a SIP revision that would satisfy CAA § 

## 110(a)(2)(D) through implementation of the terms of a tentative agreement between NMED, EPA, and
PNM known as the "Term Sheet" (attached hereto). The Term Sheet is intended to address pollution control requirements for the SJGS with respect to regional haze and interstate transport for visibility. Under its terms, SJGS will retire Units 2 and 3 by December 31, 2017, and install selective non-catalytic reduction technology (SNCR) on Units 1 and 4, with an emission limit of 0.23 lbs/MMBtu.
4. On June 15, 2013, at a meeting conducted in compliance with the Open Meetings Act and other applicable requirements, the Board granted the Department's request for a hearing
in this matter and scheduled the hearing for September 5, 2013. The Board appointed member John Volkerding as the Hearing Officer.
5. On June 28, 2013, public notice of the hearing was published in the New Mexico Register, in the Farmington Daily Times (in English and Spanish), and in the Albuquerque Journal (in English and Spanish)

. The notice stated that the Board may

EIB No. 13-03 Statement of Reasons and Order Page 2 of5f:\.



## make a decision on the proposed SIP revisions at the conclusion of the hearing, or may

convene at a later date to consider action on the proposal.
6. NMED filed a Notice of Intent to Present Technical Testimony (NO I) on August 16, 2013, in accordance with the 20.1.1 NMAC.
7. The Public Service Company of New Mexico also filed an entry of appearance. 8. On September 5, 2013, the Board adopted the pollution-control scenario for SJGS (the
"State Alternative") as contained in the Term Sheet, as New Mexico's BART determination for the SJGS.
9. The State Alternative will result in zero NOx emissions from SJGS Units 2 and 3, and
NOx emissions of no greater than 0.23 lbs/MMBtu from SJGS Units 1 and 4. The State Alternative therefore achieves greater emission reductions than EPA determined to be
necessary to satisfy CAA § 

## 110(a)(2)(D)(i).
10. A hearing in this matter was held in Farmington, New Mexico on September 5, 2013, at which a reasonable opportunity for all persons to be heard was provided. Public

comment at the hearing and in writing was unanimous in support of the proposed SIP revisions.
11. The Board has the authority to adopt the proposed SIP revisions pursuant to N.M.S.A. 1978, §§ 

## 74-2-5.B & 

## C. 12. In considering the proposed SIP revisions, the Board is required by the Air Quality Control Act, NMSA 1978, Section 74-2-5.E. to give weight it deems appropriate to all facts and circumstances, including but not limited to (1) character and degree of injury to

or interference with health, welfare, visibility and property; (2) the public interest, including the social and economic value of the sources and subjects of air contaminants;

Em No. 13-03 Statement of Reasons and Order Page 3 of5

## and (3) technical practicability and economic reasonableness of reducing or eliminating
air contaminants from the sources involved and previous experience with equipment and
methods available to control the air contaminants involved. The Board heard ample oral
and written testimony and considered all these facts and circumstances regarding the NMED-proposed SIP in making its decision.
13. In 

## accordance with NMSA 1978 Section 74-2-5(C)(1)(a), the proposed SIP revisions and regulations are no more stringent than, but at least as stringent as, required by the federal

act and federal regulations pertaining to visibility protection in mandatory Class I areas. 14. The notice and hearing requirements of N.M.S.A 1978 Section 74-2-6 and 20.1.1 NMAC

were satisfied in this rulemaking process. 15. The proposed amendments are adopted for any or all of the reasons stated above. 

## II. ORDER 

## By unanimous vote of a quorum of the Board members, the "New Mexico State Implementation Plan Revision to Satisfy the Requirements of Clean Air Act 110(A)(2)(D)(I)(ii) with Respect to Visibility for the 8-Hour Ozone and PM 2.5 NAAQS Promulgated In 

## July 1997"

was approved by the Board on September 5, 2013. The Department shall submit this SIP revision as expeditiously as possible to the EPA for approval. To the extent that any provision within the SIP revision is not self-executing, the Department shall take appropriate actions to implement that provision using its applicable powers and authorities, including but not limited to

EIB No. 13-03 Statement of Reasons and Order Page4 of5

## enforcement authority under N.M.S.A. 1978, 74-2-12 and permitting authority under N.M.S.A. 1978, § 74-2-7, and implementing regulations.

On Behalf of the Board

BIB No. 13-03 Statement of Reasons and Order Page 5 of 5 Dated: September 5, 2013