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 TON GATE 

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, 

Ryan 

e~- 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 interstate transport 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 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. 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 (“PM2.5”) (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 PM2.5 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]he 2007 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 haze SIP, 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 final rule (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 Juan Generating 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 “SO2 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 SO2 from the SJGS, the WRAP modeling assumed an emission 

rate of 0.15 lbs/mmBtu for all four units, and therefore EPA established in the final rule 

an SO2 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 and 2, 

and 0.28 lbs/MMBtu for Units 3 and 4. 76 Fed. Reg. at 497. 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 SO2 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 SO2 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. SO2

EPA’s final rule established an SO2 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, SO2 emissions will be further reduced by 

lowering the SO2 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 SO2 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 LongTerm 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 1st

and August 30th and 60 days between December 1st and February 28th. 

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 ("SO2") 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 

Bill 

rZ--~ 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 Welfare

Chapter 85. Air Pollution Prevention 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 parts 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);

 

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

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 the 

safety 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 (PM2.5) 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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
492 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

visibility, and to implement nitrogen 

oxides (NOX) and sulfur dioxide (SO2) 

emission limits necessary at one source 

to prevent such interference. In 

addition, EPA is proposing sulfuric acid 

(H2SO4) and ammonia (NH3) 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 

NOX 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 PM2.5

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 NOX

1. Additional SO2 Emission Limits for the 

SJGS 

2. Need for Additional NOX Controls 

3. NOX BART Evaluation 

a. The SJGS Is a BART Eligible Source 

b. The SJGS Is Subject to BART 

c. The SJGS NOX 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 PM2.5 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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 493 

1Unless otherwise specified, when we say the 

‘‘San Juan Generating Station,’’ or ‘‘SJGS,’’ we mean 

units 1, 2, 3, and 4, inclusive. 

2Power 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 NOX 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 PM2.5 NAAQS, and also 

to address the requirements under the 

RH program for BART by imposing 

limits for NOX for the San Juan 

Generating Station (SJGS).1 This FIP 

will limit the emissions of SO2 and NOX

from the SJGS. Together, the reduction 

in NOX from our proposed NOX BART 

determination, and the proposed SO2

emission limits to establish federal 

enforceability of current SO2 levels will 

serve to ensure there are enforceable 

mechanisms in place to prohibit New 

Mexico NOX and SO2 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. NOX and 

SO2 are significant contributors to 

visibility impairment in and around 

New Mexico. As the Four Corners Task 

Force notes,2 ‘‘[r]eduction of NOX 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 NOX

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 NOX

emissions. This NOX limit is achievable 

by installing and operating Selective 

Catalytic Reduction (SCR). For SO2, 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 (H2SO4) and 

ammonia (NH3) 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 and 

incorporation 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. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
494 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

3Areas 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 

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

On July 18, 1997, we promulgated 

new NAAQS for 8-hour ozone and for 

PM2.5. 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 PM2.5 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 

PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards’’ (2006 Guidance). We 

developed the 2006 Guidance to make 

recommendations to states for making 

submissions to meet the requirements of 

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

hour ozone standards and the 1997 

PM2.5 standards. 

As identified in the 2006 Guidance, 

the ‘‘good neighbor’’ provisions in 

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

require each state to submit a SIP that 

prohibits emissions that adversely affect 

another state in the ways contemplated 

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

contains four distinct requirements 

related to the impacts of interstate 

transport. The SIP must prevent sources 

in the state from emitting pollutants in 

amounts which will: (1) Contribute 

significantly to nonattainment of the 

NAAQS in other states; (2) interfere 

with maintenance of the NAAQS in 

other states; (3) interfere with provisions 

to prevent significant deterioration of air 

quality in other states; or (4) interfere 

with efforts to protect visibility in other 

states. 

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 PM2.5 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 PM2.5 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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 495 

4NM 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 NOx BART FIP we are proposing would apply 

to either. 

5BART-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. 

6Appendix Y to 40 CFR Part 51—Guidelines for 

BART Determinations Under the Regional Haze 

Rule. 

requires BART for stationary source 

emissions of NOx 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 SO2, NOX, and PM. We 

have stated that states should use their 

best judgment in determining whether 

volatile organic compounds (VOCs) or 

ammonia (NH3) 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 their 

BART 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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
496 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

7More 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). 

9Consultation 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 PM2.5 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 NOX

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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 497 

10Consent 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. 

11NOX limit of 0.30 lb/mmBtu on a 30-day rolling 

average for each of the four units; SO2 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. 

12New 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. 

13Comments 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. 

14See Finding of Failure to Submit SIPs for 

Interstate Transport for the 8-hour Ozone and PM2.5

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 

NOX 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 SO2

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 NOX, SO2, particulate 

matter and mercury.10 The consent 

decree imposed emissions restrictions, 

including the following: 

• NOX: 0.30 lb/mmBtu on a 30-day 

rolling average. 

• SO2: 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 NOX

and SO2 limits from the consent decree 

that are identified above.11 Therefore, 

these NOX and SO2 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 NOX and SO2

emissions and is federally enforceable.12

Although the SJGS is subject to a 

federally enforceable permit, the 

permit’s 30-day rolling average NOX

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 SO2 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 SO2,13 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% SO2

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 NOX and SO2 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 NOX 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 NOX at SJGS and for 

ensuring that the SJGS has the controls 

necessary to prevent emissions from 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
498 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

15http://camddataandmaps.epa.gov/gdm/ 

index.cfm. 

16New 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. 

17http://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 SO2 Emission Limits for 

the SJGS 

As we discuss above, there are no 

federally enforceable limits that restrict 

the SJGS’s SO2 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 SO2 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 SO2 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 

SO2 emission limits. 

We are not making a finding that this 

SO2 emission limit satisfies BART for 

SO2. NMED has indicated they will 

submit a RH SIP under 40 CFR 51.309, 

thus SO2 BART for the SJGS will be 

addressed through New Mexico’s 

participation in an SO2 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 SO2 BART analysis under 

40 CFR 51.308(e). 

2. Need for Additional NOX Controls 

As we discuss above, the WRAP 

assumed in its modeling that the SJGS 

would achieve NOX 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 SO2, the SJGS will 

have to install controls and therefore 

make capital investments to achieve 

these additional NOX 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 NOX 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 NOX 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 NOX

controls needed to meet these two 

separate but related requirements. Our 

evaluation of BART for NOX follows. 

3. NOX 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 NOX 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 NOX BART determination 

for the SJGS, we drew heavily upon the 

NOX BART portion of that document, 

and used it to help inform our NOX

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 

NOX 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 NOX. 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 26 

listed 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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
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 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES2
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 (PM2.5) 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 (NOX) and sulfur 

dioxide (SO2) 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 

NOX for SJGS. In addition, EPA is 

implementing sulfuric acid (H2SO4) 

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 with 

Visibility 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 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 52389 

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 NOX 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. NOX 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 NOX

BART Determination 

B. Comments on our Proposed NOX BART 

Emission Limits 

C. Comments on our Proposed SO2

Emission Limit 

D. Comments on our Proposed H2SO4 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 PM2.5 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 SO2 and NOX

emissions limits that will eliminate 

such interstate interference. For SO2, we 

proposed to require the SJGS to meet an 

emission limit of 0.15 pounds per 

million British Thermal Units (lb/ 

MMBtu). For NOX, we proposed to 

implement a NOX 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 NOX. (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 NOX BART limits for the 

SJGS based on our proposed NOX BART 

determination. We proposed to require 

that the SJGS meet a NOX emission limit 

of 0.05 lb/MMBtu individually at Units 

1, 2, 3, and 4. We noted this NOX limit 

is achievable by installing and operating 

Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR). 

We proposed that both the NOX and 

SO2 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 

H2SO4 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 H2SO4. 

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 PM2.5 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 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES2
52390 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

1CAA 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. 2See 74 FR 2392. 

3A 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 SO2 and NOX

emissions relied upon in the WRAP 

modeling for the SJGS, however, are not 

federally enforceable. Therefore, we are 

establishing federally enforceable SO2

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 

SO2 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 SO2

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 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES2
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 

(seal) 

Other Material 

Other Material 

Notice of State Implementation Plan 

Notice of State Implementation 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'--=-- -=--- Louise 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 enclosedForm SRC-2002-04 Revised July 2007 
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 

NOTICE OF STATE IMPLEMENTATION 

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 Boulevard, 

continuing on September 6, if necessary. 

The New Mexico Environment Department 

("NMED") is proposing to adopt revisions 

to the New Mexico State Implementation 

Plan for Regional 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 Juan Generating Station, located 

15 miles west of Farmington. The proposed 

plan involves the voluntary retirement of 

two of the four units at this facility, and 

the installation of selective non-catalytic 

reduction on the other two units. 

The proponent of this regulatory adoption 

and revision is the New Mexico Environment 

Department ("NMED"). 

The purpose of the public hearing is to 

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, 

40 CFR Section 51.309. The regional 

haze rule requires states to submit State 

Implementation Plans to address visibility 

impairment caused by regional haze in 156 

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 hours at the NMED 

Air Quality Bureau office, 525 Camino de 

los Marquez, Suite I, Santa Fe, New Mexico. 

The full text of NMED's proposed revised 

State Implementation Plan are available 

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 (Rulemaking Procedures 

- Environmental Improvement Board), the 

Environmental Improvement Act, Section 

74-1-9 NMSA 1978, the Air Quality Control 

Act, Section 74-2-6 NMSA 1978, and other 

applicable procedures. 

All interested persons will be given 

reasonable opportunity at the hearing to 

submit relevant evidence, data, views and 

arguments, orally or in writing, to introduce 

exhibits, and to examine witnesses. Persons 

wishing to present technical testimony must 

file with the Board a written notice of intent 

to do so. The notice of intent shall: 

(I) identify the person for whom the 

witness(es) will testify; 

(2) identify each technical witness that 

the person intends to present and state the 

qualifications of the witness, including a 

description of their education and work 

background; 

(3) include a copy of the direct testimony in 

narrative form of each technical witness; 

( 4) attach each exhibit 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 

received in the Office of the Board not later 

than 5:00 pm on August 16, and should 

reference the docket number, EIB 13-02 

(R) and the date of the hearing. Notices of 

intent to present technical testimony should 

be submitted to: 

Pam Castaneda, Board Administrator 

Office of the Environmental Improvement 

Board 

Harold Runnels Building 

I 190 St. Franc is 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 such member may 

also offer exhibits in connection with his 

testimony, so long as the exhibit is not 

unduly repetitious of the testimony. 

A member of the general public who wishes 

to submit a written statement for the record, 

in lieu of providing oral testimony at the 

hearing, shall file the written statement prior 

to the hearing, or submit it at the hearing. 

Persons having a disability and needing help 

in being a part of this hearing process should 

contact J .C. Borrego by August 16, 2013 at 

· the NMED, Human Resources Bureau, P.O. 

Box 5469, 11 90 St. Francis Drive, Santa 

Fe, New Mexico, 87502-5469, telephone 

505-827-0424. TDY users please access his 

number via the New Mexico Relay Network 

at 1-800-659-833 I. 

The Board may make a decision on the 

proposed revised state implementation plan 

at the conclusion of the hearing, or the Board 

may convene a meeting at a later date to 

consider action on the proposal. 

NEW MEXICO 

ENVIRONMENTAL 

IMPROVEMENT BOARD 

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, 460 1 College Blvd. 

The hearing wi ll commence immediately 

following the hearing in EIB No. 13-02 

(R), scheduled for September 5 - 6 (as 

necessary), 2013 at the same location. The 

purpose of the public hearing is to consider 

and take possible action on a petition from 

the New Mexico Environment Department 

("NMED") regarding revisions to New 

Mexico's State Implementation Plan (SIP). 

NMED is proposing that the Board adopt 

revisions to the SIP to satisfy the "good 

neighbor" requirements of Clean Air Act 

("CAA'') Section II 0(a)(2)(D)(i)(ll) with 

respect to visibi lity for the 8-hour ozone 

and particulate matter under 2.5 microns in 

diameter ("PM 2.5") National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards promulgated in July 1997. 

The "Good Neighbor" provision of CAA 

Section II O(a)(2)(D)(i)(ll) requires that 

each SIP submitted to EPA must address 

emissions from within the state that affect 

other states through interstate transport. 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

("EPA") has determined that New Mexico 

has satisfied the Good Neighbor provisions 

with respect to visibility for all emission 

sources except the San Juan Generating 

Station ("SJGS"). 

The NMED's proposed Regional Haze SIP, 

which will be considered in the hearing 

in EIB No. 13-02 (R), contains a Best 

Available Retrofit Technology ("BART") 

determination for nitrogen oxides ("NOx") 

for the SJGS. The BART determination calls 

for a NOx emission rate of 0.23 pounds per 

million British thermal units (lb/mmBtu) 

for SJGS Units I and 4, and a shutdown 

by the end of 2017 of SJGS Units 2 and 3. 

For sulfur dioxide, the Regional Haze SIP 

calls for a limit of 0. 10 lb/mmBtu at SJGS 

Units I and 4. These nitrogen oxide and 
446 New Mexico Register I Volume XXIV, Number 12 I June 28, 2013 

sulfur dioxide emission limits exceed the 

expectations that neighboring states relied 

upon when developing their own visibility 

SIPs. Therefore, NMED proposes that the 

Board adopt these limits as also satisfying 

the independent requirements of CAA 

Section II O(a)(2)(D)(i)(ll). 

The proponent of this regulatory adoption 

and revision is the New Mexico Environment 

Department ("NMED"). 

The proposed revised plan may be reviewed 

during regular business hours at the NMED 

Air Quality Bureau ofilce, 525 Camino 

de los Marquez, Suite I, Santa Fe, New 

Mexico. The full text ofNMED's proposed 

State Implementation Plan is available 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 (Rulemaking Procedures 

- Environmental Improvement Board), the 

Environmental Improvement Act, Section 

74-1-9 NMSA 1978, the Air Quality Control 

Act, Section 74-2-6 NMSA 1978, and other 

applicable procedures. 

All interested persons will be given 

reasonable opportunity at the hearing to 

submit relevant evidence, data, views and 

arguments, orally or in writing, to introduce 

exhibits, and to examine witnesses. Persons 

wishing to present technical testimony must 

file with the Board a written notice of intent 

to do so. The notice of intent shall: 

(I) identify the person for whom the 

witness(es) will testify; 

(2) identify each techni cal witness that 

the person intends to present and state the 

qualifications of the witness, including a 

description of their education and work 

background; 

(3) include a copy of the direct testimony in 

narrative form of each technical witness; 

(4) list and attach each exhibit anticipated to 

be otTered 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 

received in the Office of the Board not later 

than 5:00pm on August 16, 2013, and should 

reference the docket number, EIB 13-03 (R), 

and the date of the hearing. Notices of intent 

to present technical testimony should be 

submitted to: 

Pam Castaneda, Board Administrator 

Office of the Environmental Improvement 

Board 

Harold Runnels Building 

11 90 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 such member may 

also offer exhibits in connection with his 

testimony, so long as the exhibit is not 

unduly repetitious of the testimony. 

A member of the general public who wishes 

to submit a written statement for the record, 

in lieu of providing oral testimony at the 

hearing, shall file the written statement prior 

to the hearing, or submit it at the hearing. 

Persons having a disability and needing help 

in being a part of this hearing process should 

contact J.C. Borrego by August 16, 2013 at 

the NMED, Human Resources Bureau, P.O. 

Box 5469, 1190 St. Francis Drive, Santa Fe, 

New Mexico, 87502-5469, telephone (505) 

827-0424. TDY users please access his 

number via the New Mexico Relay Network 

at 1-800-659-8331. 

The Board may make a decision on the 

proposed revised state implementation plan 

at the conclusion of the hearing, or the Board 

may convene a meeting at a later date to 

consider action on the proposal. 

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, declar es and says that she is Classified Adver tising Manager 

of The Albuquerque Journal, and that this newspaper is duly qualified to publish legal notices or 

advertisements within the meaning of Section 3, Chapter 167, Session Laws of 1937, and that payment 

therefore has been made of assessed as court cost; that the notice, copy of which is hereto attached, 

was pub~s!u;d in sai er in the regular daily edition, for _j_ times, the first publication being on 

the ~ daYof , 20d, and the subsequent consecutive publications on 

~------------~~------------------------_,20 ___ . 

Sworn 

\·~~ and subscribed before me, a Notary Public, in and 

PRICE d:j lf/. ?r[ 

Statement to come at end of month. 

ACCOUNT NUMBER _ ___.._!---""-()----'0----'fo.-:)=---3_3-

OFFICIAL SEAL 

Sandra B. Gutierrez 
, .... ,, 

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 

AVISO DE AUDIENCIA DE IMPLEMENTACfON DE PLAN DEL EST ADO I 

l La D~ecci6n de Mej01as Medio-Ambientales de Nuevo Mexico ('Direcci6n') tendra una audiencla pUblica eiS 

Septiembre 2013 a las 9:00 am. en Ia sala 7103 en San Juan College, 4601 College Blvd., segulda 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 lmptemenlaci6n del Estado de Nuevo Mexico 

para Ia neblina reg10nal. El plan prtlfluesto establece requls~os para que Nuevo Mexico cumpla los de 40 

I CFR Secci6n 51.309, incluso una delerminaci6n revisada de Ia Mejor tecnotogia 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 unidades. 

NEW MEXICO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT BOARD 

NOTICE OF STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN HEARING 

The New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board ('Board') wm hold a public hearing on ~ptember 5, 

2013, beginning at 9:00am in Room 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 Technology f01 the San Juan Generating Station, located 1~ miles west of Far_ming· 

ton. The proposed plan 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 of the public hearing Is to 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, 40 CF~ ~ecl!on 51.309. The regional haze rule requires stales to submit State lmplementafion Plans to address vis1b1llty 1m· pairment caused by regional haze in 156 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 Marquez, Suije 1, Santa Fe, NeVf MeXJco. The full text of NMED's proposed r~VIS~l!i l State Implementation Plan are avaJiable on NMEO's web ~e at www.nmenv.state.nm.us, 01 by contacting A1· 

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, the Air Quality Control 

Act, 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 or in wrilinQ. to introduce exhibits, and to examine witnesses. PeiSOns WISI'I!ng to 

present technical testimony must file With the Board a written notice of Intent to do so. The notice of 1ntenl 

shall: 1 

!

1! identify the peiSOn for whom the witness(es) will testify; . . . 2 identify each technical witness that the peiSOn intends to present and stale the qualifications of the WI!· 

ness, Including a description of their education and work background; . 

!

3l lnclude a copy of the direct testimony In narrative form ol each technical Witness; 

4 ahach 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 of 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 testimony should be submitted to: 

Pam Castaneda, Board Administrator 

Office of the Environmental Improvement Board 

Harold Runnels Building 

11 90 St. Francis Dr., Room N2150 

Santa Fe, NM 87505 

1 El Departamento del Medio Amblenfe de Nuevo M~xico ('NMED') es e1 que propane esta 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 

presenten Planes de lmplementaci6n Estatal para tratar Ia lalla de vlsibilldad causada par Ia neblina regional en 156 parques y areas sllvestres protegidos federalmente, las que se conocen como areas de Ctase I, e incfuyen nueva en Nuevo M~xico. , 

El propoesto f)lan modificado puede ser revisado durante las horas regulares de oftcina, en NMED Air Quality 

Bureau, 525 Camino de los Marquez, Suite t, Santa Fe, Nuevo Mexico. El texto completo y revisado del 

propueslo Plan de lmplementaci6n est! disponible 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 Medioambientales, Secci6n 74·1·9 NMSA 1978, 

Ia ley de Control de Ia Calidad del Aire, Secci6n 74-2·6 NMSA 1978 y otros procedimientos pertinenles. 

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, para 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: 

l identiflcar a Ia peiSOna par quien el testigo (los testigos) dar4(n) testimonio. 

ldenbficar a cada testigo tecnico que Ia peiSOna presentar4 e fndlcar Ia capacidad det testigo, incluso una I 

descripci6n de su educacion y antecedentes profesionales; 

!

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 cambio normativo. 

Los avisos de intenci6n para Ia audlencla deben recibiiSe en Ia oficina de Ia Dlrecci6n a mas tardar para las 5:00p.m. deliS de agosto 2013 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 Rumels Building 

1190 St. Francis Dr., Room N2150 

Santa Fe, NM 87505 

Tel.: (505) 827-2425, Fax (505) 827-2836 

Cualquier miembro del pl)blico en general puede dar declaraciones en Ia audiencla. No es necesario avisar 

previamente para dar declaraciones que no seani tecnicas en Ia audlencia. Tambien, cualquier peiSona 

puede otrecer pruebas con relacl6n a su testimonio, slempre y cuando dichas pruebas no sean exageradamente repatitivas del testimonio. Un miembro del 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 entre9ar en Ia audiencia Las 

personas con discapacidades y que neceslten ayuda para participar en esta aud1encia deben comunicarse con J. C. Borrego para el16 de agosto 2013 en NMED, Human Resources Bureau, P.O._Box 5469, t 190 Sl 

Francis Drive, Santa Fe, Nuevo M~xico. 87502·5469, telefono 505-827-0424. Los usuanos de TOY pueden 

seceder a su numero via New Mexico 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 general public 1113Y testify at the hearing. No_ prior not!f!C!Ition is r~uired to present non· • concluir Ia audiencia o puede convocar a una reunl6n en una fecha posterior para considerar Ia acci6n sabre 

technical testimonY. at the hearing. Any such member may also o"er exh1b1ls 1n connectiOn w1th h1s testimony, Ia propuesta so long as the exh1bit Is not undufy repetitous of the testimony. 

A member of the general public 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 this hearing process should contact J.C. 

Borrego by August 16 2013 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 the 

XlSider action on the proposal. 

Journal: June 28,2013 
CLA-22-A (R-1/93) 

AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION 

STATE OF NEW MEXICO 

County of Bernalillo ss 

Linda MacEachen, being duly sworn, declares and says that she is Classified Advertising Manager 

of The Albuquerque Journal, and that this newspaper is duly qualified to publish legal notices or 

advertisements within the meaning of Section 3, Chapter 167, Session Laws of 1937, and that payment 

ther efor e has been made of assessed as court cost; tha t the notice, copy of which is hereto attached, 

was p~~ said r in the regular daily edition, for _L times, the first publication being on 

the da_ day ~f '""'-- , 28, and the subsequent consecutive publications on 

~r-----------~r-------------------------_,20 ___ . 

Sworn and subscribed before me, a Notary Public, in and 

PRICE , 

II :.3 e 7 63 

Statement to come at end of month. 

ACCOUNT NUMBER _ ____._--={)_0____,~'--"' J": '-"'...o....._ '3_ 
I '----G_ov_'t _Leg~a_ls_) I (..__G_ov_'t _Leg..;_a_ls ___ ) I (..__G_ov_t_Leg~a_fs_) - I ( I 

I 

r 

I I ~ . ~ 

j 

l (I: 

~: ' 1<$ ' .. NEW MEXICO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT BOARD 

NOTICE OF STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN HEARING i~ 

"' • The New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board ('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 heanng wr~ · commence immedrately followmg the hearing 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 revrs10ns to New Mexrco s 

s~te tmplem'entation Plan (SIP). NMED is proposing that \he Board adopt revrsrons to the SIP to satrsfy the • ood nei hbor" requirements of Clean Air Act ('CAA") Section 1 f0(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 in July 1997. . 

: The 'Good Neighbor" provision of CAA Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(ll) requires that each SIP submitted to EPA 

•· 1 • must address emissions from 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 provisions with respect to visibility tor all emission sources except the San Juan Generating Statio~ ( SJGS ). _' I) t ,j 

• "The NMED'o p<oposed Regional Haze SIP which will be considered in the hearing in EIB No. 13-02 (A), con· 

·-tains a Best Available Retrofit Technology' ('BART') determination for nitrogen oxides.('NOx') for the SJGS.! .,. 

- The BART determination calls for a NOx emission rate of Q.23 pounds per mrllron Bntrsh _thermal umts 

, .,. (lblmmBtu) for SJGS Units 1 and 4, and a shutdovm by the end of 2017 of SJGS Unrls. 2 and 3. For sulfurdr· 

r" oxide. the Regional Haze SIP cans for a limit of 0.10 lblmmBtu at_SJGS. Unrts I and 4. These ntlrogen OXIde 

J and sulfur dioxide emission limits exceed the expectatiOns that nerghbonng states rehed upon when develop- " 

I 

ing their own visibility SIPs. Therefore, NMED proposes that the Board adopt these lrmrts as also sahsfyrng, ... 

• ·•· the independent requirements of CAA Section 110(a)(2)(D)(r)(ll). 

- .· ,- ·••• · The proponent of this regulatory adoption and revision is the New Mexico Environment Department . • 

('NMED'). . 

""' The proposed revised plan may be reviewed during regular business hours at the NMED ~ir Quality BureaJ.;' --

f

·""" ·office, 525 Cami-no de los Marquez, Suite 1, Santa Fe, New Mexico. The full text of NMED s proposed Stat; 

•· Implementation Plan is available 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 

The hearing wiU be conducted in accordance with 20.1.1 NMAC (Rulemaking Procedures · Environmental lm 

provement Board), the Environmental Improvement Act, Section 74-t-9 NMS;J. t978, the Air Ouahty Centro 

Act Section 74·2·6 NMSA 1978, and other applicable procedures . 

. , All ;nterested,persons will be given. reas;n~bl~ opportunity at the hearing to submit relevant evidence,_datJ 

views· and arguments, orally or in writing, to introduce exhrbrts, and to examrne wrtnesses. Persons wrsh!ng 

~.. present' !echnicat testimony must file with the Board a wntten notrce of rntent tq do so. The notice of rnte 

shall: (t) identify the person for whom the wnness(es) will testify; • .. . . (2) identify each technical witness that the person intends to present and state the quahhcatrons of the wr 

ness ·including a description of their education and work background; _ . . I 

(3) i~clude a copy of the direct testimony in n9rraijve form of each technrcal_ wrtness; "- 1 l 

' ~" (4) list and attach each exhibit anticipated to be offered by that person at the heanng; and 1 

'·,,. • (5) attach ~e text of any recommended modifications to the propos.ed regulatory change. 

Notic~s of Intent for the hearing must be received in the Office of the Board 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.ator Office of the Environmental Improvement Board 

Harold Runnels Building 

i ..... 1 t90 st. Francis 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 testimony at the hearing. Any such member.may also offer exhibits in connection with his testimon:· .~: i ' ' so long as the exhibit is not unduly repetitious of the testrmony. I . -.;. 

DIRECCt6N DE MEJORAS MEDIOAMBIENTALES DE NUEV<' MEXICO 

AVISO DE AUDIENCIA DE IMPLEM~NTACION DE PlAN DEL EST ADO 

~ Direcci6n de Mejoras Medio-Ambienlales de Nuevo Mexico ('Direcci6n') llevar.l a cabo una audiencia 

publrca eiS 6 6 de septiembre del 20t3 en Farmington, Nuevo Mexico, en el salon 7t03 del San Juan College, 4601 College Blvd. Empezara inmediatamenle despues de Ia audiencia en EIB No. t3-02(R), 

progr~ada pa~a _et 5 · 6 de septiembre (segun sea necesario) del 2013 en el mismo Iugar. Et prop6sno de 

Ia audrencra publica es. considerar una posible accion sobre una petlci6n del DepartamenJo del Medic 

Ambrente de Nue•to Mexrco ('NMED', per sus siglas en ingltls), con relaci6n a revisiones aJ Plan de 

lfl_lplementacr6n del . Estado de Nuevo Mexico (SIP, per sus siglas en Ingles). NMED propene que Ia 

qrrecc!on adopte !evt rones al SIP para satisfacer los requisites de 'Buen 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 diametro ('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 rNMED') 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 

emrsrones dentro del estado que afectan a otros estados a travtls del transporte interestatal. La ~PA de 

Estados Unrdos _ ha determrnado que Nuevo Mexico ha satisfecho las provisiones de! Buen Veetno con 

respecto a Ia vtSibilrdad para todas las fuentes de emisiones excepto de Ia Estaci6n Generadora San Juan 

('SJGS', per sus siglas en ingles). . 

El p~opuesto SIP de Neblina Regional del NMED, que se considerara en Ia audiencia en EIB No. 13-02 (A), 

confrene una determinacion 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 emisi6n de NOx de 

0,23 lt~ras per mrll6n de unidades termicas britanicas (lblmmBtu) 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- al r~qurere un ltm~e de 0,10 lblmmBtu en las unldades t y 4 de Ia SJGS. Estes llrriites de emlsiones de 

dr6xrdo de azufre y 6xldo de nitr6geno exceden las expectativas en las cuales los eslados vecinos confiaror 

~ qesarrollar sus propios SIPs de visibiltdad. Por lo tanto, elf'!MED propene que Ia Direcci6n adopte eslo! 

ltmrtes para tambren cumplrr los reqursrtos rndependientes de Ia seccion 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(ll) de Ia CAA. I ' '•! ' ' 

El propuesto plan _modificado puede ser revisado durante las horas regulares de oficina, en NMED Air Qualil) 

Bureau, 525 Camrno de los Marquez, Suite 1, Santa Fe, Nuevo Mexic<i. El texto complete y revisado de 

propuesto Plan de lmplementaci6n 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 llevara 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 1978, 

Ia Ley de Control de Ia Calidad del Aire, Secci6n 74·2·6 NMSA 1978 y otros procedir,nientos pertinentes. 

A todas las personas interesadas se les dan! una oportunidad razonable en Ia audlencia para pres'entar 

pruebas pertrnentes, rnformacr6n, 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) !dentificar a Ia persona per quien el testigo Oos testigos) dara(n) testimonio. 

(2) rd~ntificar a cada testigo ti!cnico que Ia persona presentara e indicar fa capacidad del te.stigo, lnduso una 

de~nPc:f6n de su _educaet6n y antecedentes profesionales; . . 

(3) rnclurr una copra de las declaraclones directas en forma de narraci6n de cada testigo tecnico; 

(4) ad1untar cada prueba que Ia persona vaya a presentar en Ia audier.cia; y ~ 

(5) adtuntar et texto de cuatquier modiftcaci6n recomendada al propuesto cambio normative. 

los avlsos de intencio~ para Ia audi~~cia deben recibir~e en 'Ia oficina de 1~ Direcci6n. a mils ta~ar para las 

5:00p.m. del16 de agosto 2013 y deben hacer referenda al numero del case, EIB 13-03 (R) y l<~!echa de Ia 

audiencia. Los avisos de inte~c 6n para presentar testimonies tecnicos deben presentarse a: ' · •. · 

Pam Castaiieda, Board Administrator 

Office of the Environmental Improvement Board 

Harold Runnels Building · 

1 t90 St. Francis Dr., Room N2150 

Santa Fe, NM 87505 

Tel.: (505) 827-2425, Fax (505) 827·2836 

Cualquier miembro del publico en general puede dar dedaraciones en Ia audiencia. No es necesario avisar 

previamente para dar declaraCiones que no sean tecnicas en Ia audiencia. Tambien, cualquier persona 

puede ofrecer pruebas con relaci6n a su testimonio, slempre y cuando dichas pruebas no sean 

exageradamente repetitiv~s del testimonio. Un miembro del publico en general que en Iugar de hacer 

declaracrones orates en Ia audrencra desee presen1ar una declaraci6n por escrito.para que conste en el acta, 

debera registrar Ia dectaraci<io por escrito antes de Ia audiencia o Ia puede entregar en Ia audiencia. Las 

personas con discapacidades y que necesiten ayuda para participar en esta audiencia deben comunicarse 

con J. C, Borrego para el16 de agosto 2013 en NMED, Human Resources Bureau, 0. Box 5469, 1-190 St. 

Francis Drive, Santa Fe, Nuevo Mexico, 87502·5469, telefono 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 lieu of pr~vidin.' , 

I oral testimony at the hearing, shall file 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 hearing process stwuld contact J.\ ' err 0 b Au ust 16, 20t3 at ttl NMED, Human Resources Bureau, P.O. Box 5469, 1190 St. ,Franc.. 

.. La Direcci6n puede Iemar una decision sobre el propueslo plan de implementaci6n del estado revisado aJ 

conctuir Ia audiencia o puede convocer a una reunion en una fecha posterior para considerar Ia acci6n sobre 

Ia propuesta. 

B~ egs Y

1 Feg New Mexico 87if5469, telephone (505) 827-0424. TOY users please access his number 

Dnve, an a •. ' A•t 1-800-659·8331 ,, via the New Mexteo Relay Netwo•- · 

("'::: Th' B d may ~ake a decisir on the proposed revised state implementation plan at ih~ conclusion of the 

~ e . oar th Board may 00rvne a meeting at a tater date to consider action 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 newspaper of general 

circulation published in English at Farmington, 

said county and state, and that the hereto 

attached Legal Notice was published in a 

regular and entire issue of the said DAILY 

TIMES, a daily newspaper duly qualified for 

the purpose 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 Times web site on 

the following day(s): 

Friday, June 28, 2013 

And the cost of the publication is $283.34 

ON JOHN ELCHERT 

appeared before me, whom I know personally 

to be the person who signed the above 

document. 

COPY OF PUBLICATION 

DIRECCION DE MEJORAS MEDIOAMBIENTALES 

DE NUEVO MEXICO 

AVISO DE AUDIENCIA DE IMPLEMENTACION DE 

PLAN DEL EST ADO 

La Direcci6n de Mejoras Medio-Ambientales de 

Nuevo Mexico ("Direcci6n") llevar<~ a cabo una audiencia publica el 5 6 6 de ~eptiembre d_el 

2013 en Farmington, Nuevo Mex1co, en el salon 

7103 del San Juan College, 4601 College Blvd. 

Empezara inmediatamente despues de Ia 

audiencia en EIB No. 13-02(R), programada 

para el 5 - 6 de septiembre (segun sea 

necesario) del 2013 en el mismo Juga~. El 

prop6sito de Ia audiencia publica es c~l"_ls derar una posible acci6n sobre una pet1c16n del 

Departamento del Medio Ambiente de Nuevo 

Mexico ("NMED", por sus siglas en Ingles), <?~n 

relaci6n a revisiones al Plan de lmplementac10n 

del Estado de Nuevo Mexica (SIP, por sus siglas 

en Ingles). NMED propone que I~ Direcci6n 

adopte revisiones al SIP para sat1sfacer l_os 

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 visibilidad para el ozono de ocho horas Y Ia 

materia de partfculas de 2,5 micrones en 

diametro ("PM 2,5") bajo los. 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 reguladoras. 

La provision del "Buen Vecino" de Ia Secci6n 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(ll) de Ia CCA requiere que cada 

SIP presentado a Ia Agencia de Protecci6n 

Ambiental (EPA, por sus siglas en Ingles) de 

Estados Unidos trate con las emisiones dentro 

del estado que afectan a otros estados a traves 

del transporte interestatal. .La EPA de E~tados Unidos ha determinado que Nuevo Mex1co ha satisfecho las provisiones del Buen Vecino con respecto a Ia visibilidad para todas las fuentes 

de emisiones excepto de Ia Estacl6n 

Generadora San Juan ("SJGS", por sus siglas en 

Ingles). 

El propuesto SIP de Neblina Regional del NMED, 

que se considerara en Ia audienc!a e!". EIB No. 

13-02 (R) contiene una determmac1on de Ia 

Mejor tecnologfa de modernizaci6n. <"BART", 

por sus siglas en mgles) para ox1dos de 

nitr6geno ("NOx") para Ia SJGS. La 

determinacion BART requiere una tasa de emisi6n de NOx de 0,23 Iibras por millen de 

unidades termicas britanicas {lb/mmBtu) para 

las unidades 1 y 4 de Ia SJGS y que sus unidades 2 y 3 dejen de operar para fines del 

2017. Para el di6xido de azufre, el SIP de 

Neblina Regional requiere un lfmite de 0,10 

lb/mmBtu en las unidades 1 y 4 de Ia SJGS. 

Estos lfmites de emisiones de di6xido de azufre 

y 6xido de nitr6geno exceden las expectativas en las cuales los estados vecinos confiaron al 

desarrollar sus propios SIPs de visibilidad. Por 

lo tanto, el NMED propane que Ia Direcci6n 

adopte estos lfmites para tambien cumplir los requisites independientes de Ia secci6n 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(ll) de Ia CAA. 

El propuesto plan modificado puede ser 

revisado durante las horas regulares de oficina, en NMED Air Quality Bureau, 525 Camino de los 

Marquez, Suite 1, Santa Fe, Nuevo Mexico. El 

texto complete y revisado del propuesto Plan de lmplementaci6n esta disponible en el sitio 

www.l"_lmenv.state.nm.us, o . comunicandose 

con Rrta Bates en el (505) 476-4304 o por correo electr6nico: rita.bates@_state.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 

Medioambientales, Secci6n 74-1-9 NMSA 1978, 

Ia Ley de Control de Ia Calidad del Aire, Secci6n 

74-2-6 NMSA 1978 y otros procedimientos 

pertinentes. 
A todas las personas interesadas se les dara una oportunidad razonable en Ia audiencia para 

presentar pruebas pertinentes, informacion, puntas de vista y argumentos, en forma oral o escrita, para someter pruebas e interrogar a 

testigos. Las personas que deseen dar 

tj!stimonio tecnico deben presentar un aviso 

por escrito a Ia Direccion indicando su 

intencion de hacerlo. EJ aviso de intencion debe: 

(1) identificar a Ia persona por quien el testigo (los testigos) dara(n) testimonio. 

(2) identificar a cada testigo tecnico que Ia persona presentara e indicar Ia capacidad del 

testigo, incluso una descripcion de su educacion y antecedentes profesionales; 

(3) incluir una copia de las declaraciones 

directas en forma de narracion de cada testigo tecnico; 

(4) adjuntar cada prueba que Ia persona vaya a presentar en Ia audiencia; y 

(5) adjuntar el texto de cualquier modificacion recomendada al propuesto cambio normative. 

Los avisos de intencion para Ia audiencia deben 

recibirse en Ia oficina de Ia Direccion a mas tardar para las 5:00 p.m. del 16 de agosto 2013 

y deben hacer referencia al numero del caso, 

EIB 13-03 (R) y Ia fecha de Ia audiencia. Los 

avisos de intencion para presentar testimonies 

tecnicos deben presentarse a: 

Pam Castaneda, Board Administrator 

Office of the Environmental Improvement 

Board ' 

Harold Runnels Building 

ll90 St. Francis Dr., Room N2150 

Santa Fe, NM 87505 

Tel.: (505) 827-2425, Fax (505) 827-2836 

Cualquier miembro del publico en general 

puede dar declaraciones en Ia audiencia. No es necesario avisar previamente para dar 

declaraciones que no sean tecnicas en Ia audiencia. Tambien, cualquier persona puede 

ofrecer pruebas con relaci6n a su testimonio, 

siempre y cuando dichas pruebas no sean exageradamente repetitivas del testimonio. Un 

miembro del publico en general que en Iugar de 

hacer declaraciones orales en Ia audiencia 

desee presentar una declaraci6n por escrito 

para que conste en el acta, debera registrar Ia 

declaracion por escrito antes de Ia audiencia o 

Ia puede entregar en Ia audiencia. Las personas con discapacidades y que necesiten ayuda para participar en esta audiencia deben comunicarse con J. C. Borrego para el 16 de 

agosto 2013 en NMED, Human Resources Bu- reau, P.O. Box 5469, 1190 St. Francis Drive, Santa Fe, Nuevo Mexico, 87502-5469, teletono 

505-827-0424. Los usuaries de TOY pueden 

acceder a su numero vfa New Mexico Relay Network en el1-800-659-8331. 

La Direcci6n puede tomar una decision sobre el 

propuesto plan de implementaci6n del estado revisado al concluir Ia audiencia o puede 

convocar a una reunion en una fecha posterior 

para considerar Ia acci6n sobre Ia propuesta. 

Legal No. 69195 published in The Daily Times on June 28, 2013. 
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION 

Ad No. 69194 

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 newspaper of general 

circulation published in English at Farmington, 

said county and state, and that the hereto 

attached Legal Notice was published in a 

regular and entire issue of the said DAILy 

TIMES, a daily newspaper duly qualified for 

the purpose 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 Times web site on 

the following day(s): 

Friday, June 28, 2013 

And the cost of the publication is $259.24 

JOHN ELCHERT 

appeared before me, whom I know personally 

to be the person who signed the above 

document. 

COPY OF 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 

College Blvd. The hearing will commence immediately following the hearing in EIB No. 13-

02 (R), scheduled for September 5 - 6 (as necessary), 2013 at the same location. The purpose of the public hearing is to consider and 

take possible action on a petition from t he New 

Mexico Environment Department ("NMED") re- garding revisions to New Mexico's State Implementation Plan (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) with respect to visibility for the 8-hour ozone and particulate matter under 2.5 microns in diameter 

("PM 2.5") National Ambient Air Quality Standards promulgated in July 1997. 

The "Good Neighbor" provision of CAA Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(ll) requires that each SIP submitted to EPA must address emissions from 

within the state that affect other states 

through interstate transport. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") has determined that New Mexico has satisfied the Good 

Neighbor provisions with respect to visibility 

for all emission sources except the San Juan 

Generating Station ("SJGS"). 

The NMED's proposed Regional Haze SIP, which 

wi ll be considered in the hearing in EIB No. 13-

02 (R), contains a Best Available Retrofit Technology ("BART") determination for nitrogen ox- ides ("NOx") for the SJGS. The BART determination calls for a NOx emission rate of 0.23 

pounds per million British thermal units 

(lb/mmBtu) for SJGS Units 1 and 4, and a shutdown by the end of 2017 of SJGS Units 2 and 3. 

For sulfur dioxide, the Regional Haze SIP calls for a limit of 0.10 lb/mmBtu at SJGS Units 1 and 

4. These nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide emission 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 also 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 ("NMED"). 

The proposed revised plan may be reviewed 

during regular business hours at the Nf0ED Air 

Quality Bureau office, 525 Camino de los 

Marquez, Suite 1, Santa Fe, New Mexico. The full text of NMED's proposed State Implemen -

tation Plan is available 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 (Rulemaking Procedures -

Environmental Improvement Board), the Environmental Improvement Act, Section 74-1-9 

NMSA 1978, the Air Quality Control Act, Section 

74-2-6 NMSA 1978, and other applicable procedures. 

All interested persons will be given reasonable 

opportunity at the hearing to submit relevant 

evidence, data, views and arguments, orally or in writing, to introduce exhibits, and to examine witnesses. Persons wishing to present tech-I nical testimony must file with the Board a written notice of intent to do so. The notice of intent shall: . _. ~,., •. ·. u;~, 

, ~ lr.e:• . 
(1) identify the person ror whom tne 

witness(es) will testify; I 

(2) identify each technical witness that the person intends to present and state the qualifications of the witness, including a description of 

their education and work background; 

(3) include a copy of the direct testimony in 

narrative form of each technical witness; 

(4) list and attach each exhibit 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 Board 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 intent to present 

technical testimony should be submitted to: 

Pam Castaneda, Board Administrator 

Office of the Environmental Improvement 

Board 

Harold Runnels 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 such member may also offer exhibits 

in connection with his testimony, so long as the exhibit is not unduly repetitious of the testimony. 

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, 

shall file the written statement prior to the 

hearing, or submit it at the hearing. 

Persons having a disability and needing help in 

being a part of this hearing process should con- tact J.C. Borrego by August 16, 2013 at the 

NMED, Human Resources Bureau, P.O. Box 

5469, 1190 St. Francis Drive, Santa Fe, New 

Mexico, 87502-5469, telephone (505) 827-

0424. TOY users please access his number via 

the New Mexico Relay Network at 1-800-659-

8331. 

The Board may make a decision on the proposed revised state implementation plan at the 

conclusion of the hearing, or the Board may convene a meeting ,at a later date to consider 

action on the proposal. 

Legal No. 69194 published in The Daily Times 

on June 28, 2013. 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 VISIBILITY No. EIB 13-03 (R)

 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

NMED EXHIBIT 4 – TESTIMONY OF RITA BATES

______________________________________________________________________________ 

1 Clean Air Act (CAA) §110(a)(2)(D)(i) requires that each state implementation plan (SIP) 

2 submitted to EPA must address emissions from within the state that affect other states through 

3 interstate transport. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) contains four elements related to the impacts of 

4 interstate transport. As explained by EPA, the “SIP must prevent sources in the state from 

5 emitting pollutants in amounts which will: (1) Contribute significantly to nonattainment of the 

6 NAAQS in other states; (2) interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in other states; (3) 

7 interfere with provisions to prevent significant deterioration of air quality in other states; or (4) 

8 interfere with efforts to protect visibility in other states.” 75 Fed. Reg. 72688, 72689-90 (Nov. 

9 26, 2010). 

10 On September 17, 2007, New Mexico submitted a SIP to EPA addressing each of the 

11 four elements. EPA approved this SIP with respect to element (1) on June 11, 2010 (75 Fed. 

12 Reg. 33174), and approved it with respect to elements (2) and (3) on November 26, 2010 (75 

13 Fed. Reg. 72688). With respect to the fourth and final element, regarding visibility, the 

14 September 17, 2007 SIP stated that New Mexico would submit an approvable SIP under for 

15 regional haze by December 2007. This commitment was in accordance with EPA guidance 

16 applicable at the time, which provided that “a state could meet the visibility prong of the 
2 

1 transport requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of the CAA by submission of the RH SIP, 

2 due in December 2007.” 76 Fed. Reg. 491, 496 (Jan. 5, 2011). 

3 New Mexico failed to submit an approvable Regional Haze SIP by December, 2007, and 

4 on January 15, 2009, EPA published a “Finding of Failure to Submit State Implementation Plans 

5 Required by the 1999 regional haze rule.” 74 Fed. Reg. 2392 (Jan. 15, 2009). 

6 In accordance with a Consent Decree with WildEarth Guardians setting a schedule for 

7 EPA action on CAA 110(a)(2)(D) SIPs, on December 20, 2010, EPA proposed disapproval of 

8 New Mexico’s September 17, 2007 110(a)(2)(D) SIP with respect to the visibility prong, and 

9 proposed a FIP consisting of a determination of Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) for 

10 the San Juan Generating Station (SJGS). EPA’s rationale for this FIP was that installation of 

11 BART controls at the SJGS was necessary to ensure that New Mexico achieved the emission 

12 reductions relied upon by neighboring states in setting their reasonable progress goals for 

13 visibility improvement.

14 On June 24, 2011, New Mexico submitted a revised Regional Haze SIP under 40 CFR 

15 51.309 and a Regional Haze SIP under 40 CFR 51.309(g) to EPA. That SIP included a proposed 

16 BART determination for the SJGS. EPA published final approval of these SIP submittals on 

17 December 27, 2012; however, EPA took no action on the Best Available Retrofit Technology 

18 (BART) determination for San Juan Generating Station (SJGS) for oxides of nitrogen (NOx). 

19 EPA promulgated a BART FIP for the SJGS with a much more stringent emission limit 

20 of 0.05 lb/MMBtu, based on installation of selective catalytic reduction (SCR) technology. That 

21 BART FIP is currently under review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. 

22 Martinez v. EPA, No. 11-9567 and consolidated cases. However, New Mexico, PNM and EPA 

23 have reached a tentative settlement agreement. Under the terms of the tentative agreement, which 
3 

1 are contained in a “Term Sheet” signed on February 15, 2013 (Attachment 1 to the proposed SIP 

2 revision), the SJGS would completely shut down Units 2 and 3 by the end of 2017 and install on 

3 Units 1 and 4 selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) technology with an emission rate of 0.23 

4 lb/MMBtu, within 15 months of EPA’s approval of this SIP. The NOx emissions resulting from 

5 the Term Sheet scenario therefore satisfy the requirements of CAA § 110(a)(2)(D).

6 Emissions Reductions Necessary to Satisfy § 110(a)(2)(D)

7 In the proposed FIP, EPA explains that as a product of interstate collaboration in 

8 developing SIPs through the West Regional Air Partnership, “the common understanding was 

9 that each State would take action to achieve the emission reductions relied upon in their 

10 reasonable progress demonstrations under the [Regional Haze Rule]”. 76 Fed. Reg. At 496. 

11 Therefore, EPA found that “an implementation plan that provides for emission reductions 

12 consistent with the assumptions used in the WRAP [photochemical grid] modeling will ensure 

13 that emissions from New Mexico do not interfere with measures designed to protect visibility in 

14 other states.” Id.

15 Therefore, EPA used the emission rates assumed in the WRAP’s modeling for NOx and 

16 SO2 from the SJGS as the criteria for avoiding interference with other states visibility measures. 

17 Finding that the existing federally enforceable emission limits were higher than those rates, the 

18 EPA determined that further reductions were required. 

19 Specifically, EPA noted that the WRAP modeling assumed NOx emission rates of 0.27 

20 lbs/MMBtu for SJGS Units 1 and 2, and 0.28 lbs/MMBtu for Units 3 and 4. EPA compared these 

21 WRAP modeling assumptions to the federally enforceable limits applicable to SJGS through a 

22 consent decree entered into by the operator of SJGS, Public Service Company of New Mexico 

23 (PNM), NMED, and environmental groups, which are: 0.30 lbs/mmBtu for NOx and 0.15 
4 

1 lbs/mmBtu for SO2. Id. Noting the discrepancy between the federally enforceable limits and the 

2 WRAP assumptions, EPA concluded that “it is appropriate to establish federally enforceable 

3 limits for pollutants that impact visibility projections within the WRAP photochemical 

4 modeling.” Id. EPA then went on to cite its authority to issue a regional haze FIP for New 

5 Mexico, including BART for the SJGS, as a mechanism to achieve the needed reductions. Id. 

6 For all other sources in New Mexico, EPA proposed finding that they are sufficiently controlled 

7 to prevent interference with visibility programs of other states. Id.

8 In summary, EPA adopted the WRAP assumptions for SJGS of 0.27 – 0.28 lbs/mmBtu 

9 for NOx and 0.15 lbs/mmBtu for SO2 as the criteria for approvability of a § 110(a)(2)(D) 

10 implementation plan.

11 Satisfaction of the § 110(a)(2)(D) Requirements

12 NOx

13 Under the provisions of the Term Sheet, the NOx emission rate for SJGS Units 1 and 4 

14 will be no greater than 0.23 lb/MMBtu, and for Units 2 and 3 will be zero, upon the shutdown of 

15 those Units in 2017. This will clearly result in lower NOx emissions than the WRAP 

16 assumptions of 0.27 lb/MMBtu on Units 1 and 2 and 0.28 lb/MMBtu on Units 3 and 4. 

17 Specifically, based on an 85% capacity factor, the WRAP assumptions result in 19,324 tons NOx 

18 per year, while the Term Sheet scenario results in only 8,011 tons NOx per year, an improvement 

19 of more than 58% as compared to the WRAP assumptions. 

20 The NOx emissions resulting from the Term Sheet scenario therefore satisfy the 

21 requirements of CAA § 110(a)(2)(D) as defined by EPA.

22 SO2
5 

1 EPA’s final rule established an SO2 emission rate of 0.15 lb/MMBtu for each unit on a 30 

2 day rolling average basis, in accordance with the WRAP assumption. PNM voluntarily 

3 requested a permit modification to incorporate that limit, and the permit modification was issued 

4 on May 16, 2011 (NSR Permit No. 0063-M6R2). 

5 Under the provisions of the Term Sheet, SO2 emissions will be further reduced by 

6 lowering the SO2 permit limit at Units 1 and 4 to 0.10 lb/MMBtu (33% lower than the WRAP’s 

7 assumed emission rate) and by shutting down Units 2 and 3. This will result in a 67% reduction 

8 in emissions from the WRAP assumptions, from 10,535 tons per year to 3,483 tons per year. 

9 The SO2 emissions resulting from the Term Sheet scenario therefore satisfy the 

10 requirements of CAA § 110(a)(2)(D) as defined by EPA.
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 NEW MEXICO, ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT

AIR QUALITY BUREAU, PLANNING & POLICY SECTION

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 CONSULTANTS, INC. 

Reno, Nevada 

Environmental Analyst IV, Reno Office Coordinator/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 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)(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 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 
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 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.” 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 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 (in English 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 held in 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 revisions pursuant 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” 

was approved 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 Mexico 

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 resource in PNM's 

generation portfolio. 

PNM is also a party to the February 15, 2013 agreement in principle among the NMED, 

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and PNM relating 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 STRA TVERT 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 

3 

New Mexico Environmental Improvement 

Board 

Mr. Mark Reynolds 

Assistant Attorney General 

P.O. Box 1508 

Santa Fe, New Mexico 87504-1508 

mreynolds@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 5th 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

unreasonably 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 prefiled 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 110(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 1997 ozone

and PM2.5 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 28th.

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 21st, 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 PM2.5

NAAQS, promulgated in July, 1997. This is the May 21st

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

21st [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

28th [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

5th [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

Adoption [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

AIR [1] - 1:5

Air [11] - 4:4, 5:13,

7:16, 8:16, 8:17, 9:6,

9:9, 9:17, 10:11,

10:22, 13:22

Albuquerque [1] -

11:12

ALVIDREZ [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

aware [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

Boulevard [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

COUNTY [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

GRANTHAM [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

HOLT [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

MICHAEL [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

NOTARY [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

PLAN [1] - 1:4

Planning [3] - 7:16,

8:16, 8:17

Plans [1] - 4:6

plans [1] - 9:13

PM2.5 [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

sworn [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

TIMOTHY [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

viewable [1] - 6:13

visibility [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 of5 
f:\. 

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