67682 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 212 / Tuesday, November 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

1Additionally, coarse particles (PM10) can 

contribute to light extinction. However, they settle 

out from the air more rapidly than fine particles and 

usually will be found relatively close to emission 

sources. Fine particles can be transported long 

distances by wind and can be found in the air 

thousands of miles from where they were formed. 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2014–0237; FRL–9936–46– 

Region 6] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; New Mexico; 

Regional Haze Five-Year Progress 

Report State Implementation Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing approval of 

a revision to a State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) submitted by the State of New 

Mexico through the New Mexico 

Environment Department (NMED) on 

March 14, 2014. New Mexico’s SIP 

revision addresses requirements of the 

Clean Air Act (CAA) and the EPA’s 

rules that require states to submit 

periodic reports describing progress 

toward reasonable progress goals (RPGs) 

established for regional haze and a 

determination of the adequacy of the 

State’s existing regional haze SIP (RH 

SIP). 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before December 3, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by Docket No. EPA–R06– 

OAR–2014–0237, by one of the 

following methods: 

• www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

online instructions. 

• Email: Mr. Guy Donaldson at 

donaldson.guy@epa.gov 

Mail or Delivery: Mr. Guy Donaldson, 

Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD–L), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 

Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 

75202–2733. 

Instructions: Direct comments to 

Docket No. EPA–R06–OAR–2014–0237. 

The EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and made 

available online at www.regulations.gov. 

The EPA includes any personal 

information provided, unless a 

comment includes information claimed 

to be Confidential Business Information 

(CBI) or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. Do 

not submit any information 

electronically that is considered CBI or 

any other information whose disclosure 

is restricted by statute. The 

www.regulations.gov Web site is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means the EPA will not know one’s 

identity or contact information unless it 

is provided in the body of a comment. 

If a comment is emailed directly to the 

EPA without going through 

www.regulations.gov, then the sender’s 

email address will automatically be 

captured and included as part of the 

public docket comment and made 

available on the Internet. If a comment 

is submitted electronically, then it is 

recommended that one’s name and 

other contact information be included in 

the body of the comment, and with any 

disk or CD–ROM submitted. If the EPA 

cannot read a particular comment due to 

technical difficulties and is unable to 

contact for clarification, the EPA may 

not be able to consider the comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. Multimedia submissions (audio, 

video, etc.) must be accompanied by a 

written comment. The written comment 

will be considered the official comment 

with multimedia submissions and 

should include all discussion points 

desired. The EPA will generally not 

consider comments or their contents 

submitted outside of the primary 

submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or 

other file sharing systems). For 

additional information on submitting 

comments, please visit http://www2.

epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epadockets. 

Docket: The index to the docket for 

this action is available electronically at 

www.regulations.gov and in hard copy 

at the EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, 

Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. While all 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the index, some information may be 

publicly available only at the hard copy 

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

some may not be publicly available at 

either location (e.g., CBI). 

The New Mexico regional haze 

progress report is available online at the 

following: www.nmenv.state.nm.us/aqb/ 

reghaz/regional-haze_index.html. It is 

also available for public inspection 

during official business hours, by 

appointment, at the Air Quality Bureau, 

Environmental Protection Division, New 

Mexico Environment Department, 525 

Camino de los Marquez, Suite 1, Santa 

Fe, New Mexico 87505. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

James E. Grady, (214) 665–6745; 

grady.james@epa.gov. To inspect the 

hard copy materials, please contact Mr. 

Grady or Mr. Bill Deese at (214) 665– 

7253. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ 

‘‘our,’’ or ‘‘us’’ each mean ‘‘the EPA.’’ 

Table of Contents 

I. Background on Regional Haze 

II. Background on Regional Haze SIPs 

III. Requirements for Five-Year Regional Haze 

Progress Report SIP 

IV. Evaluation of New Mexico’s Regional 

Haze Progress Report SIP 

A. Status of Control Strategies 

1. Best Available Retrofit Technology 

(BART) 

2. SO2 Milestone and Backstop Trading 

Program 

3. Agricultural and Forestry Smoke 

Management Techniques 

4. Additional Controls—State Air 

Regulations: NSR and PSD 

5. Summary of Control Strategy 

Implementation 

B. Emissions Reductions From Control 

Strategies 

C. Visibility Progress 

D. Emissions Progress 

E. Assessment of Changes Impeding 

Visibility Progress 

F. Assessment of Current Strategy To Meet 

RPGs 

G. Review of Visibility Monitoring Strategy 

H. Determination of Adequacy 

V. The EPA’s Proposed Action 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background on Regional Haze 

Regional haze is visibility impairment 

that occurs over a wide geographic area 

primarily from the pollution of fine 

particles (PM2.5) 1 in nature. Fine 

particles causing haze consist of 

sulfates, nitrates, ammonium, 

particulate organic matter, black carbon, 

and soil dust. Airborne PM2.5 can scatter 

and absorb the incident light and 

therefore lead to atmospheric opacity 

and horizontal visibility degradation. 

Regional haze limits visual distance and 

reduces color, clarity and contrast of 

view. Emissions that affect visibility 

include a wide variety of natural and 

man-made sources. In New Mexico, the 

most important sources of haze-forming 

emissions are coal-fired power plants, 

oil and gas development, woodland 

fires, and windblown dust. Reducing 

PM2.5 and their precursor gases in the 

atmosphere is an effective method of 

improving visibility. PM2.5 precursors 

consist of sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen 

oxides (NOX), ammonia (NH3) and 

volatile organic compounds (VOCs). 

II. Background on Regional Haze SIPs 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 212 / Tuesday, November 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 67683 

2Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal 

areas consist of National Parks exceeding 6000 

acres, wilderness areas and national memorial parks 

exceeding 5000 acres, and all international parks 

that were in existence on August 7, 1977. 42 U.S.C. 

7472(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. 44 FR 

69122 (November 30, 1979). The extent of a 

mandatory Class I area includes subsequent changes 

in boundaries, such as park expansions. 42 U.S.C. 

7472(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.’’ 42 U.S.C. 7602(i). When we use the term 

‘‘Class I area’’ in this action, we mean a ‘‘mandatory 

Class I Federal area.’’ 

3 45 FR 80084 (December 2, 1980). 

4 64 FR 35714 (July 1, 1999), codified at 40 CFR 

part 51, subpart P (Regional Haze Rule). 

5See 40 CFR 51.308(b). EPA’s regional haze 

regulations require subsequent updates to the 

regional haze SIPs. 40 CFR 51.308(g)–(i). 

6See 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i) 

7The proposed action does not pertain to the 

Albuquerque/Bernalillo County portion of the SIP 

in New Mexico. The New Mexico Air Quality 

Control Act (section 74–2–4) authorizes 

Albuquerque/Bernalillo County to locally 

administer and enforce the State Air Quality 

Control Act by providing for a local air quality 

control program, and that entity submitted an initial 

RH SIP for its own jurisdiction that was separately 

approved by the EPA (77 FR 71119, November 29, 

2012). The EPA anticipates a separate RH progress 

report SIP submittal from this entity. 

8Three Western States (New Mexico, Utah and 

Wyoming) exercised the option provided in the 

Regional Haze Rule to meet the alternative 

requirements contained in 40 CFR 51.309 for RH 

SIPs. 

9The Colorado Plateau is a high, semi-arid 

tableland in Southeast Utah, Northern Arizona, 

Northwest New Mexico, and Western Colorado. The 

sixteen mandatory Class I areas are as follows: 

Grand Canyon National Park, Mount Baldy 

Wilderness, Petrified Forest National Park, 

Sycamore Canyon Wilderness, Black Canyon of the 

Gunnison National Park Wilderness, Flat Tops 

Wilderness, Maroon Bells Wilderness, Mesa Verde 

National Park, Weminuche Wilderness, West Elk 

Wilderness, San Pedro Parks Wilderness, Arches 

National Park, Bryce Canyon National Park, 

Canyonlands National Park, Capital Reef National 

Park, and Zion National Park. 

10The EPA approved all of the 2003 and 2011 

submittals on November 27, 2012 (77 FR 70693) 

except for the submitted NOX Best Available 

Retrofit Technology (BART) determination for the 

San Juan Generating Station (SJGS). The EPA had 

issued a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) 

containing a different NOX BART determination for 

the SJGS. 76 FR 52,388 (Aug. 22, 2011). The 2013 

RH SIP revision contained a new NOX BART 

determination for the SJGS that superseded the 

State’s previous NOX BART determination included 

in the 2011 RH SIP revision. The EPA withdrew the 

FIP and approved the 2013 RH SIP revision on 

October 9, 2014 (79 FR 60985 and 79 FR 60978) 

remedying of any existing man-made 

impairment of visibility in 156 national 

parks and wilderness areas designated 

as mandatory Class I Federal areas.2 On 

December 2, 1980, the EPA 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.’’ 3 These regulations 

represented the first phase in addressing 

visibility impairment. The EPA deferred 

action on regional haze that emanates 

from a variety of sources until 

monitoring, modeling and scientific 

knowledge about the relationships 

between pollutants and visibility 

impairment were improved. 

Congress added section 169B to the 

CAA in 1990 to address regional haze 

issues, and the EPA promulgated 

regulations addressing regional haze in 

1999.4 The Regional Haze Rule revised 

the existing visibility regulations to 

integrate into the regulations provisions 

addressing regional haze impairment 

and established a comprehensive 

visibility protection program for Class I 

areas. The requirements for regional 

haze, found at 40 CFR 51.308 and 

51.309, are included in the EPA’s 

visibility protection regulations at 40 

CFR 51.300–309. States must 

demonstrate reasonable progress toward 

meeting the national goal of a return to 

natural visibility conditions for 

mandatory Class I Federal areas both 

within and outside states by 2064. The 

requirement to submit a regional haze 

SIP applies to all fifty states, the District 

of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands. 

States were required to submit the first 

implementation plan addressing 

regional haze visibility impairment no 

later than December 17, 2007.5

III. Requirements for the Five-Year 

Regional Haze Progress Report SIP 

The Regional Haze Rule requires a 

comprehensive analysis of each state’s 

regional haze SIP every ten years and a 

progress report every five years. This 

five-year review is intended to provide 

a progress report on, and, if necessary, 

mid-course corrections to, the regional 

haze SIP. The progress report provides 

an opportunity for public input on the 

State’s (and the EPA’s) assessment of 

whether the approved regional haze SIP 

is being implemented appropriately and 

whether reasonable visibility progress is 

being achieved consistent with the 

projected visibility improvement in the 

SIP. At a minimum, New Mexico must 

include in its progress report the 

following seven elements: 6

(1) Provide a description of the status 

of implementation of all control 

measures in the approved RH SIP. 

(2) Summarize the emissions 

reductions achieved through 

implementation of the control measures. 

(3) Assess the visibility conditions 

and changes for each Class I area in the 

State. 

(4) Analyze the changes in emissions 

from sources and activities within the 

State. 

(5) Provide an assessment of any 

significant changes in anthropogenic 

emissions within or outside the State 

that have limited or impeded progress 

in reducing emissions and improving 

visibility in Class I areas. 

(6) Evaluate the sufficiency of the 

approved RH SIP to meet all RPGs. 

(7) Provide a review of the State’s 

visibility monitoring strategy. 

New Mexico submitted their progress 

report SIP for the State 7 under 40 CFR 

51.309.8 Typically, progress report 

requirements of most states are covered 

under 40 CFR 51.308(g) and (h). 

However, 40 CFR 51.309 presents nine 

western states with an optional 

approach of fulfilling Regional Haze 

Rule requirements by adopting emission 

reduction strategies developed by the 

Grand Canyon Visibility Transport 

Commission (GCVTC). These strategies 

were designed primarily to improve 

visibility of sixteen Class I areas in the 

Colorado Plateau 9 area. Since New 

Mexico currently has one Class I area, 

the San Pedro Parks Wilderness Area, 

inside the Colorado Plateau, the State 

exercised the option to meet the 

alternative requirements contained in 40 

CFR 51.309 for RH SIPs. The 

requirements for five-year progress 

reports are consistent with those for the 

other states, but the requirements for the 

reports are codified at 40 CFR 

51.309(d)(10) instead of at 40 CFR 

51.308(g) and (h). Also, under 40 CFR 

51.309(d)(10)(i), states must submit a 

regional haze progress report in the 

years 2013 and 2018. In contrast, under 

40 CFR 51.308, states must submit a 

progress report five years from submittal 

of the initial implementation plan. 

Under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(ii), states 

are required to submit, at the same time 

as the progress report SIP, a 

determination of the adequacy of their 

existing RH SIP and to take one of four 

possible actions, as described in more 

detail in this proposal. 

IV. Evaluation of New Mexico’s 

Regional Haze Progress Report SIP 

On December 31, 2003, the State of 

New Mexico submitted a RH SIP with 

later SIP revisions (July 5, 2011 and 

October 7, 2013) that addressed the 

requirements of 40 CFR 51.309.10 On 

March 14, 2014, the EPA received the 

periodic report on progress from NMED 

in the form of a regional haze SIP 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

67684 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 212 / Tuesday, November 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

11The Section 309 SIP submitted by the State of 

New Mexico in December of 2003 addresses only 

San Pedro Parks Wilderness Area. All of the other 

Class I areas are addressed under the Section 309(g) 

SIP submitted by the State of New Mexico in June 

of 2011 and as revised and submitted in October of 

2013. 

12The IMPROVE monitor for the Wheeler Peak 

Wilderness Area is used to represent visibility 

conditions at the nearby Pecos Wilderness. The 

IMPROVE monitor for Carlsbad Caverns is located 

in Texas at Guadalupe Mountains National Park. 

13The WRAP is a collaborative effort of tribal 

governments, state governments and various federal 

agencies representing the western states that 

provides technical and policy tools for the western 

states and tribes to comply with the EPA’s Regional 

Haze regulations. Detailed information regarding 

WRAP support of air quality management issues for 

western states is provided on the WRAP Web site 

(www.wrapair2.org). Data summary descriptions 

and tools specific to Regional Haze Rule support are 

available on the WRAP Technical Support System 

Web site (http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/tss/). 

14The Western Regional Air Partnership Regional 

Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Summary Report 

technical support document has been prepared on 

behalf of the fifteen Western State members in the 

WRAP region to provide the technical basis for use 

by states to develop the first of their individual 

reasonable progress reports for the 116 Federal 

Class I areas located in the Western states. 

15See 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i). 

16Under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(5)(ii), New Mexico is 

required to submit interim reports to the EPA and 

the public on the implementation status of the 

regional and local strategies to address mobile 

source emissions. 

17See table 2.1 of New Mexico Regional Haze 

progress report SIP. A complete copy of the 

progress report SIP is available in the online docket 

for this proposal. 

18Subsequent to the submission of the New 

Mexico progress report SIP, the EPA withdrew the 

FIP and approved the 2013 RH SIP revision on 

October 9, 2014 (79 FR 60985 and 79 FR 60978). 

revision. This latest submission is the 

subject of this proposed approval. The 

periodic report was made in the first 

implementation period toward RPGs for 

Class I areas in and outside the State 

that were affected by emissions from 

New Mexico’s sources. The SIP revision 

includes the State’s determination that 

the existing RH SIP requires no 

substantive revision to achieve the 

established regional haze visibility 

improvement and emissions reduction 

goals for 2018. The EPA is proposing to 

approve New Mexico’s progress report 

SIP on the basis that it satisfies the 

requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10). 

New Mexico has nine Class I areas 

within its borders: Bandelier 

Wilderness, Bosque del Apache 

National Wildlife Refuge, Carlsbad 

Caverns National Park, Gila Wilderness, 

Pecos Wilderness, Salt Creek 

Wilderness, Wheeler Peak Wilderness, 

White Mountain Wilderness, and San 

Pedro Parks Wilderness. San Pedro 

Parks Wilderness is the only Class I area 

in New Mexico that is located on the 

Colorado Plateau.11 Visibility 

impairment at New Mexico’s nine Class 

I areas is tracked in units of deciviews 

(dv), which is related to the cumulative 

sum of visibility impairment from 

individual aerosol species as measured 

by eight monitors in the Interagency 

Monitoring of Protected Visual 

Environments (IMPROVE) Network.12

Through collaboration with the 

Western Regional Air Partnership 

(WRAP),13 New Mexico worked with 

the western states to assess state-by-state 

contributions to visibility impairment in 

specific Class I areas in New Mexico 

and those affected by emissions from 

New Mexico. The WRAP report 

provides data on other, less pertinent 

Class I areas outside New Mexico 

borders, and this information primarily 

appears in the technical appendices.14

The following sections cover: 

• The seven regulatory elements 

required by the progress report SIP; 15

• How New Mexico’s progress report 

SIP addressed each element; and 

• The EPA’s analysis and proposed 

determination as to whether New 

Mexico satisfied each part. 

A. Status of Control Strategies 

40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(A) requires a 

description of the status of 

implementation of all control measures 

included in the RH SIP for achieving 

RPGs for Class I areas both within and 

outside the State. 

New Mexico stated in the progress 

report that it is implementing all longterm control strategies, with the 

exception of the state adopted State 

Mobile Source Regulation.16 The State 

Mobile Source Regulation, when 

adopted, sought to apply California 

motor vehicle standards within New 

Mexico, and this regulation, while 

mentioned in the State’s long-term 

strategy, was not submitted to EPA as a 

SIP revision. The report explains that 

federal programs, as revised, achieve the 

same emission reductions and have 

provided the State a basis, in its 

judgment, for not implementing the 

regulation. The EPA considers this 

explanation acceptable. 

New Mexico evaluated the status of 

all measures included in its RH SIP in 

accordance with the requirements under 

40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(A). The major 

control measures identified by New 

Mexico in the progress report RH SIP 

are as follows: 

• Best Available Retrofit Technology 

(BART) 

• SO2 Milestone and Backstop Trading 

Program 

• Agricultural and Forestry Smoke 

Management Techniques 

• Additional Controls—State Air 

Regulations: New Source Review 

(NSR) and Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) 

In its initial RH SIP, New Mexico 

identified ammonium sulfate, 

particulate organic matter, and coarse 

mass as the largest contributors to 

visibility impairment. Many of the 

contributing sources to visibility 

impairment in New Mexico are natural, 

rather than anthropogenic in nature, and 

are not controllable. The primary 

sources of ammonium sulfate are point 

sources and on- and off-road mobile 

source emissions. For particulate 

organic matter, the primary sources of 

emissions are from natural and 

anthropogenic fire. The primary sources 

of coarse mass emissions in New 

Mexico are windblown and fugitive 

dust. For the progress report, New 

Mexico focused on those emission 

sources that were anthropogenic in 

nature. 

The progress report stated that the 

emissions reductions from 

implementing the major control 

measures would ensure that the New 

Mexico Class I areas would achieve the 

RPGs. New Mexico included a summary 

of the implementation status associated 

with each control measure and 

quantified the benefits where possible. 

When comparing baseline to current 

visibility conditions, the progress report 

showed that New Mexico is currently on 

track, if not exceeding, the visibility 

impairment emission reductions needed 

to achieve RPG’s for 2018.17

1. Best Available Retrofit Technology 

(BART) 

New Mexico identified one single 

stationary source in the progress report 

SIP, the San Juan Generating Station 

(SJGS), to be subject to BART. The SJGS 

includes four coal-fired boilers. In the 

New Mexico 2013 RH SIP, New Mexico 

determined that the BART controls for 

boiler units 1 and 4 will have selective 

non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) air 

pollution control devices installed for 

visibility-impairing pollutant reduction. 

Consistent with the terms in the State’s 

then-pending SIP revision, the report 

assumed future installation of controls 

would occur fifteen months following 

approval of the revised RH SIP (but not 

earlier than January 31, 2016).18

Additionally, the remaining two boiler 

units, 2 and 3, would be retired by the 

end of 2017. New Mexico estimated that 

implementation of the BART controls at 

SJGS would result in NOX reduction of 

approximately 13,000 tons per year (tpy) 

(from 21,000 tpy to 8,011 tpy); SO2

reduction of 6,600 tpy (from 10,500 tpy 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 212 / Tuesday, November 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 67685 

19Under Section 309 of the Federal Regional Haze 

Rule, nine western states and tribes within those 

states have the option of submitting plans to reduce 

regional haze emissions that impair visibility at 16 

Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau. Five states— 

Arizona, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, and 

Wyoming—and Albuquerque-Bernalillo County 

initially exercised this option by submitting plans 

to the EPA by December 31, 2003. Oregon elected 

to cease participation in the program in 2006 and 

Arizona elected to cease participation in 2010. The 

tribes were not subject to the deadline and still can 

opt into the program at any time. 

20The EPA approved 20.2.65 NMAC, Smoke 

Management and 20.2.60 NMAC Open Burning, on 

November 27, 2012 (77 FR 70693) in the same 

action approving the 2011 New Mexico RH SIP. 

21Several WRAP policies developed by the 

GCVTC were used to guide the development of the 

New Mexico SMP program: The WRAP Policy for 

Characterizing Fire Emissions shows a methodology 

to categorize fire emissions as either natural or 

anthropogenic. The WRAP Policy on Enhanced 

Smoke Management Programs for Visibility 

identifies and enhanced SMP to address visibility 

effects from all types of fire that contribute to 

visibility impairment in mandatory Federal Class I 

areas. The WRAP Policy on Annual Emissions 

Goals for Fire outlines a process by which states/ 

tribes may establish annual emission goals, based 

on the utilization of currently available emission 

reduction techniques, to include in their RH SIPs. 

22The NSR program is established by 20.2.72 

NMAC. http://164.64.110.239/nmac/parts/title20/

20.002.0072.htm. 

23 ‘‘Major’’ means emitting or having the potential 

to emit 100 tpy or more of any criteria pollutant for 

the specific source categories listed in the PSD 

regulations. There are 28 listed source categories, 

which include power plants that use steam to 

generate electricity, petroleum refineries and glass 

fiber processing plants. If a plant does not fall into 

one of the listed source categories, then a threshold 

of 250 tpy applies. BART addresses certain sources 

that have the potential to emit 250 tpy or more of 

a single visibility-impairing pollutant. 

24The most recent approval of New Mexico’s PSD 

program was on 12/11/2013 (see 78 FR 75253). PSD 

is established by 20.2.74 NMAC. http://

164.64.110.239/nmac/parts/title20/

20.002.0074.htm. 

to 3,843 tpy); and particulate matter 

(PM) reduction of 1,200 tpy (from 2,380 

tpy to 1,184 tpy). These reductions 

represent a 35% reduction in the 

statewide emissions of NOX, SO2, and 

PM. 

The EPA finds that the progress report 

SIP adequately reviews the status of 

New Mexico’s BART source. It identifies 

the controls to be applied; outlines the 

compliance timeframe for those 

controls; and shows potential reduction 

in visibility-impairing pollutants with 

future BART implementation. 

2. SO2 Milestone and Backstop Trading 

Program 

The progress report SIP discusses the 

SO2 Milestone and Backstop Trading 

Program 19 as a control measure. New 

Mexico has participated in this 

voluntary program since December 31, 

2003. New Mexico must submit an 

annual report that compares tracked 

stationary source SO2 emissions to 

yearly milestones. A milestone is an 

established maximum level of annual 

emissions for a given year (from 2003 to 

2018). The milestones help establish 

annual SO2 emission reduction targets. 

The annual targets represent RPGs in 

reducing visibility-impairing emissions. 

If states fail to meet the milestones, then 

the backstop-trading program is 

triggered to implement an emissions 

cap. The cap allocates emission 

allowances (or credits) to the affected 

sources based on the cap, and requires 

the sources to hold sufficient 

allowances to cover their emissions 

each year. 

Appendix B of the progress report SIP 

includes the 2011 Regional SO2

Emissions and Milestone Report. The 

2011 milestone is 200,722 tons SO2, 

which represents the average regional 

emissions milestone for the years 2009, 

2010, and 2011. The average of 2009, 

2010, and 2011 adjusted emissions was 

determined to be 130,935 tons SO2. New 

Mexico and participating States have 

met the 200,722 tons SO2 milestone. 

Emissions were about 35% below the 

2011 three-State regional milestone. 

3. Agricultural and Forestry Smoke 

Management Techniques 20

The progress report SIP affirms that 

New Mexico developed a state Smoke 

Management Plan (SMP) to be used as 

a control measure. The EPA previously 

approved smoke management rules into 

the SIP in 2012, which protect the 

health and welfare of New Mexicans 

from the impacts of smoke from all 

sources of fire.21

4. Additional Controls—State Air 

Regulations: NSR and PSD 

The progress report affirms that New 

Mexico continues to implement the 

State’s NSR program and asserts that 

state regulations are up to date with 40 

CFR 51.166. NSR applies to all 

construction permitting for new 

stationary sources under the CAA, for 

attainment or non-attainment areas.22

Likewise, New Mexico implements 

the State’s PSD program, as has been the 

case since 1982. PSD is the NSR 

program for new major 23 stationary 

sources and major modifications in 

attainment areas. The program 

minimizes new pollution and utilizes 

best available control technology 

(BACT) to reduce visibility-impairing 

pollutants and prevent deterioration of 

Class I areas.24

Both PSD and BART protect Class I 

area visibility in the same way. BART 

and PSD are complementary programs 

aimed at regulating the same source 

categories; either one or the other 

applies depending upon when the 

source was constructed. PSD was 

adopted in 1977 for all new major 

sources. BART is applied to pre-PSD, to 

address visibility impacts from existing 

major sources built 1962 to 1977. BART 

only addresses visibility, whereas PSD 

addresses NAAQS, increment 

consumption, and visibility. 

5. Summary of Control Strategy 

Implementation 

The EPA proposes to conclude that 

New Mexico adequately addressed the 

status of control measures in its progress 

report RH SIP as required by the 

provisions under 40 CFR 

51.309(d)(10)(i)(A). All major control 

measures (including BART) were 

identified and the emission reduction 

strategy behind each control was 

explained. New Mexico included a 

summary of the implementation status 

associated with each control measure 

and quantified the benefits where 

possible. In addition, the progress report 

SIP adequately outlined the compliance 

timeframe for all controls. 

B. Emissions Reductions From Control 

Strategies 

40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(B) requires a 

summary of the emission reductions 

achieved throughout the State through 

implementation of control measures 

mentioned in 40 CFR 

51.309(d)(10)(i)(A). The progress report 

must identify and estimate emissions 

reductions to date in visibilityimpairing pollutants from the SIP 

control measures identified for 

implementation. 

New Mexico reported in figure 3.6 of 

the progress report SIP that NOX, SO2, 

and PM point source emissions 

decreased in New Mexico from 2008 to 

2012. Approximated NO2 emissions 

reduced from 63,000 tpy to 44,000 tpy, 

constituting an emission reduction of 

about 30%. Approximated SO2

emissions reduced from 26,000 tpy to 

15,000 tpy, constituting an emission 

reduction of about 42%. As compared to 

NO2 and SO2, PM emissions represent a 

small part of the State’s emissions 

inventories, and PM reductions are not 

especially pronounced. Figure 3.6 

shows that actual point source 

emissions for NO2 and SO2 decreased 

below the WRAP’s projected 2018 pointsource emissions that helped establish 

New Mexico’s RPGs for the first 

planning period. In reviewing the point 

source data, the EPA compared it to that 

reported by the Clean Air Markets 

Division (CAMD) and found that the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

67686 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 212 / Tuesday, November 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

25See the Technical Support Document (TSD), 

‘‘Evaluation of State Emission Trends Analysis,’’ a 

copy of which is posted in the docket for this 

proposal. 26See Figures 3.1 through 3.5 of progress report 

SIP. 27The ‘‘most impaired days’’ and ‘‘least impaired 

days’’ in the regional haze rule refers to the average 

visibility impairment (measured in deciviews) for 

the 20% of monitored days in a calendar year with 

the highest and lowest amount of visibility 

impairment, respectively, averaged over a five-year 

period. See 40 CFR 51.301. 

28 General Principles for the 5-Year Regional 

Haze Progress Reports for the Initial Regional Haze 

State Implementation Plans (Intended to Assist 

States and EPA Regional Offices in Development 

and Review of the Progress Reports), EPA, April 

2013. 

29New Mexico also included 2006 to 2010 data, 

but it was not included in table 2. 

30See Tables 3.3 through 3.20 of the New Mexico 

progress report SIP. 

reported emissions were consistent with 

that data.25

New Mexico explained that the most 

significant decrease in emissions since 

the RH SIP revision in June 2011 has 

been from SO2 in accordance with the 

State’s SO2 Milestone and Backstop 

Trading Program. SO2 emissions were 

about 35% below the 2011 three-state 

regional milestone. 

Part of the observed emission 

reductions were also the result of 

controls installed at SJGS completed in 

2009 in response to a 2005 consent 

decree. Future emission reductions to 

satisfy BART at SJGS will also occur 

during this planning period, resulting in 

a significant reduction in total point 

source emissions in the State. New 

Mexico estimated that implementation 

of the BART controls at SJGS would 

result in NOX reduction of 

approximately 13,000 tons per year (tpy) 

(from 21,000 tpy to 8,011 tpy); SO2

reduction of 6,600 tpy (from 10,500 tpy 

to 3,843 tpy); and particulate matter 

(PM) reduction of 1,200 tpy (from 2,380 

tpy to 1,184 tpy). These reductions 

represent a 35% reduction in the 

statewide emissions of NOX, SO2, and 

PM. Statewide emissions are 

significantly below the 2018 projected 

levels relied upon in the 2011 RH SIP. 

Therefore, New Mexico does not expect 

reasonable progress to be adversely 

impacted in any of the Class I areas in 

New Mexico or neighboring states. 

Additional control measures included 

in the SIP were federal and state 

programs (NSR, PSD, and SMP 

programs). Qualitatively, the continued 

implementation of those federal and 

state measures is expected to continue 

to reduce emissions. Deciview and 

aerosol extinction maps provided by 

New Mexico illustrate both a decrease 

in magnitude of visibility impairment 

and relative pollutant contribution in 

New Mexico and surrounding states for 

2005–2009.26

The EPA proposes to conclude that 

New Mexico has adequately 

summarized the emission reductions 

achieved throughout the State in its 

progress report RH SIP as required 

under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(B). In 

meeting this requirement, the EPA does 

not expect states to quantify emission 

reductions for measures which have not 

yet been implemented or for which the 

compliance date has not yet been 

reached. However, for purposes of 

future progress reports, we recommend 

that New Mexico include additional 

quantitative details on the reductions of 

each major specific visibility-impairing 

pollutant and utilize available CAMD 

data, as appropriate. 

C. Visibility Progress 

40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(C) requires 

that for each mandatory Class I Federal 

area within the State, the State must 

assess the following visibility 

conditions and changes, with values for 

most impaired and least impaired 

days 27 expressed in terms of five-year 

averages of these annual values: 

1. Assess the current visibility 

conditions for the most impaired and 

least impaired days. 

2. Analyze the difference between 

current visibility conditions for the most 

impaired and least impaired days and 

baseline visibility conditions. 

3. Evaluate the change in visibility 

impairment for the most impaired and 

least impaired days over the past five 

years. 

New Mexico provided visibility data 

for 2000 through 2011 that addressed 

the three requirements of 40 CFR 

51.309(d)(10)(i)(C) for Class I areas in 

New Mexico. Much of the analysis and 

visibility data presented in the New 

Mexico progress report SIP were taken 

from the RHR Reasonable Progress 

Summary Report prepared by the 

WRAP. 

This section requires the report to 

include deciview values for three 

separate periods: Baseline visibility 

conditions, current visibility conditions, 

and visibility conditions of the past five 

years. Baseline visibility conditions 

refer to conditions identified in initial 

RH SIPs for the 2000–2004 period. 

Current visibility conditions refer to the 

most recent five-year average data 

available at the time the State submitted 

its progress report. The past five years 

would be five years before the year used 

for current visibility conditions.28

New Mexico calculated the five-year 

baseline visibility conditions for 2000– 

2004; successive five-year average 

visibility conditions for 2005–2009; and 

the most recent visibility conditions for 

2007–2011. The change in baseline and 

current visibility was compared to the 

change in baseline and past five-year 

visibility.29 Both results were tabulated 

for the 20% worst and best days and 

compared to 2018 RPGs.30 The most 

recent data from 2007–2011 in the 

progress report SIP were not addressed. 

The EPA provided a comparison of the 

2007–2011 data in table 2, below, 

showing that progress, while trending 

toward further visibility improvement, 

was not quite as good as in the 2005– 

2009 period. 

TABLE 2—VISIBILITY CONDITIONS AT NEW MEXICO CLASS I AREAS

Class I Area 

Baseline 

(2000–2004) 

(dv) 

2005–2009 

(dv) 

Visibility 

improvement 

over baseline 

(2005–2009) 

(dv) * 

2007–2011 

(dv) 

Visibility 

improvement 

over baseline 

(2007–2011) 

(dv) * 

2018 

RPGs 

(dv) 

Visibility 

improvement 

needed over 

baseline for 

2018 RPGs 

(dv) * 

20% Worst Days 

Bandelier .................................... 12.2 11.8 0.4 12.0 0.2 11.9 0.3 

Bosque del Apache .................... 13.8 13.4 0.4 13.1 0.7 13.59 0.21 

Gila Wilderness .......................... 13.1 12.5 0.6 11.3 1.8 12.99 0.11 

Carlsbad Caverns ...................... 17.2 15.9 1.3 15.3 1.9 16.93 0.27 

Salt Creek .................................. 18.0 17.5 0.5 17.3 0.7 17.33 0.67 

San Pedro Parks ........................ 10.2 9.9 0.3 10.1 0.1 9.8 0.4 

Wheeler Peak ............................ 10.4 9.1 1.3 9.6 0.8 10.23 0.17 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 212 / Tuesday, November 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 67687 

31See page 10 of General Principles for the 5-Year 

Regional Haze Progress Reports for the Initial 

Regional Haze State Implementation Plans 

(Intended to Assist States and EPA Regional Offices 

in Development and Review of the Progress Reports) 

April 2013. 

32 In Appendix C of Regional Haze Progress 

Report SIP. 

TABLE 2—VISIBILITY CONDITIONS AT NEW MEXICO CLASS I AREAS—Continued 

Class I Area 

Baseline 

(2000–2004) 

(dv) 

2005–2009 

(dv) 

Visibility 

improvement 

over baseline 

(2005–2009) 

(dv) * 

2007–2011 

(dv) 

Visibility 

improvement 

over baseline 

(2007–2011) 

(dv) * 

2018 

RPGs 

(dv) 

Visibility 

improvement 

needed over 

baseline for 

2018 RPGs 

(dv) * 

White Mountain .......................... 13.7 13.2 0.5 13.9 ¥0.2 13.27 0.43 

20% Best Days 

Bandelier .................................... 5.0 4.2 0.8 3.9 1.1 4.89 0.11 

Bosque del Apache .................... 6.3 5.8 0.5 5.5 0.8 6.1 0.2 

Gila Wilderness .......................... 3.3 2.7 0.6 2.4 0.9 3.2 0.1 

Carlsbad Caverns ...................... 5.9 5.4 0.5 4.9 1.0 6.14 

Salt Creek .................................. 7.8 7.3 0.5 6.9 0.9 7.43 0.37 

San Pedro Parks ........................ 1.5 1.0 0.5 1.0 0.5 1.2 0.3 

Wheeler Peak ............................ 1.2 0.9 0.3 0.9 0.3 1.13 0.07 

White Mountain .......................... 3.6 3.3 0.3 3.3 0.3 3.42 0.18 

* Negative Visibility Improvement means an increase above the baseline values, indicating that visibility has worsened. 

All Class I areas show visibility 

improvement over the baseline through 

the first progress period (2005–2009). In 

addition, all Class I sites were below the 

2018 RPGs for the first progress period 

except for San Pedro Parks and Salt 

Creek. The five-year average deciview 

trends for 2007–2011 progress period 

achieved visibility improvement for all 

Class I areas except White Mountain, 

which got slightly worse by 0.2 dv. All 

but three sites met the 2018 RPGs 

during the 2007–2011 period. 

The EPA proposes to conclude that 

New Mexico has adequately addressed 

the requirements under 40 CFR 

51.309(d)(10)(i)(C) to include summaries 

of monitored visibility data as required 

by the Regional Haze Rule. For purposes 

of improved clarity on future reports, 

the EPA recommends that New Mexico 

include a graph of rolling averages 

similar to what was provided in the 

guidance example,31 illustrating the 

uniform glide path. The glide path 

graphically shows what would be a 

uniform rate of progress, toward 

meeting the national goal of a return to 

natural visibility conditions by 2064 for 

each Class I area. 

D. Emissions Progress 

40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(D) requires an 

analysis tracking the change over the 

past five years in emissions of 

pollutants contributing to visibility 

impairment from all sources and 

activities within the State. Emission 

changes should be identified by type of 

source or activity. The analysis must be 

based on the most recent updated 

emissions inventory, with estimates 

projected forward as necessary and 

appropriate, to account for emissions 

changes during the applicable five-year 

period. The EPA evaluated New 

Mexico’s analysis and more detail is 

provided in the Technical Support 

Document for this action. 

The EPA proposes to conclude that 

New Mexico has adequately addressed 

the requirements under 40 CFR 

51.309(d)(10)(i)(D) to track changes in 

emissions of pollutants contributing to 

visibility impairment from all sources 

and activities within the State. The 

analysis in this progress report was 

based on appropriate available data with 

sufficient forward projections. 

E. Assessment of Changes Impeding 

Visibility Progress 

40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(E) requires an 

assessment of any significant changes in 

anthropogenic emissions within or 

outside the State that have occurred 

over the past five years that have limited 

or impeded progress in reducing 

pollutant emissions and improving 

visibility in Class I areas impacted by 

the State’s sources. 

New Mexico stated in the progress 

report SIP that there does not appear to 

be any anthropogenic emissions within 

New Mexico that would have limited or 

impeded progress in reducing pollutant 

emissions or improving visibility. New 

Mexico stated that SO2 and PM were the 

major visibility-impairing concerns on 

the 20% worst days. Stationary point 

sources were the greatest contributor of 

SO2 while fire, including natural and 

anthropogenic, was the greatest PM 

contributor. Both of these pollutants 

were covered by long-term control 

measures described in the progress 

report SIP (BART, SMP, and SO2

Milestone and Backstop Trading 

Program). Other states relied on WRAP 

modeling to show reasonable progress at 

their Class I areas. With the BART 

determination of a two-unit shut down 

and two-unit SNCR installation for the 

SJGS, New Mexico will be exceeding the 

modeled levels relied on by WRAP for 

regional haze. Therefore, New Mexico is 

not impeding other states in meeting 

their RPGs, and is decreasing visibilityimpairing pollutants more than was 

anticipated in the WRAP modeling for 

NOX, SO2 and PM. 

The EPA proposes to find that New 

Mexico has adequately addressed the 

requirements under 40 CFR 

51.309(d)(10)(i)(E) to show that the 

major contributors of anthropogenic 

emissions are being reduced and 

visibility is improving at a uniform rate 

without having limited or impeded 

progress. 

F. Assessment of Current Strategy To 

Meet RPGs 

40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(F) calls for an 

assessment of whether the current 

implementation plan elements and 

strategies in the RH SIP are sufficient to 

enable the State, or other states with 

mandatory Federal Class I areas affected 

by emissions from the State, to meet all 

established RPGs. 

New Mexico stated in the progress 

report SIP that the elements and 

strategies outlined in its RH SIP are 

sufficient to enable New Mexico and 

other neighboring states to meet all the 

established RPGs. To support this 

conclusion, New Mexico referenced 

visibility data 32 that showed five-year 

average deciview trends for the 20% 

worst and best days for the baseline 

period (2000–2004); subsequent fivemstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

67688 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 212 / Tuesday, November 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

33 Data from IMPROVE show that visibility 

impairment caused by air pollution occurs virtually 

all the time at most national parks and wilderness 

areas. The average visual range in many Class I 

areas (i.e., national parks and memorial parks, 

wilderness areas, and international parks meeting 

certain size criteria) in the western United States is 

100–150 kilometers, or about one-half to two-thirds 

of the visual range that would exist without 

anthropogenic air pollution. In most of the eastern 

Class I areas of the United States, the average visual 

range is less than 30 kilometers, or about one-fifth 

of the visual range that would exist under estimated 

natural conditions. 64 FR 35715 (July 1, 1999). 

year visibility conditions (2005–2009); 

and the most recent five-year visibility 

conditions (2007–2011). All Class I 

areas indicated visibility improvement 

over the baseline through the first 

progress period. All but two Class I 

areas were below the RPGs for the first 

progress period based on 2005–2009 

data. The five-year average deciview 

trend for the most recent period (2007– 

2011) achieved visibility improvement 

for all Class I areas except White 

Mountain, which got slightly worse by 

0.2 dv. All but three sites met the 2018 

RPGs based on 2007–2011 data: The 

data supports an inference that 2007– 

2011 visibility conditions at White 

Mountain are higher due to elevated 

course mass levels in 2011 compared to 

baseline levels. The 2007–2011 

visibility conditions at Bandelier and 

San Pedro parks were high, apparently 

due to elevated organic mass levels in 

2011 from impacts of fires. 

Although three Class I sites were not 

tracking the RPGs at the time of the 

progress report, New Mexico expects 

further reduction of SO2 and NO2

emissions, not accounted for in the 

original RH SIP, principally from the 

implementation of BART controls. 

These added control measures should 

contribute toward Bandelier, San Pedro, 

and White Mountain achieving the 

RPGs for 2018. Further progress will 

also occur through recently adopted or 

proposed regulatory programs. The EPA 

notes that visibility conditions at these 

sites in some years can be impacted 

more significantly by natural sources of 

wind-blown dust and/or fires than other 

years and considers this relevant when 

evaluating progress toward the natural 

visibility goals. 

The EPA proposes to conclude that 

New Mexico has adequately addressed 

the requirements under 40 CFR 

51.309(d)(10)(i)(F). The EPA views the 

requirement of this section as a 

qualitative assessment that should 

evaluate emissions and visibility trends, 

including expected emissions 

reductions from measures that have not 

yet become effective. New Mexico 

referenced the improving visibility 

trends with appropriately supported 

data with a focus on future 

implementation of BART controls. 

G. Review of Visibility Monitoring 

Strategy 

40 CFR 51.309(10)(i)(G) requires a 

review of the State’s visibility 

monitoring strategy and any 

modifications to the strategy as 

necessary. 

The monitoring strategy for regional 

haze in New Mexico relies upon 

participation in the IMPROVE 33

network, which is the primary 

monitoring network for regional haze 

nationwide. The IMPROVE network 

provides a long-term record for tracking 

visibility improvement or degradation. 

New Mexico currently relies on data 

collected through the IMPROVE 

network to satisfy the regional haze 

monitoring requirement as specified in 

the Regional Haze Rule. 

In its progress report SIP, New Mexico 

summarizes the existing IMPROVE 

monitoring network: Seven monitoring 

sites in New Mexico and one in Texas 

(utilized for Carlsbad Caverns National 

Park). New Mexico stated that 

IMPROVE monitoring data served as the 

baseline for the regional haze program 

and that future regional haze monitoring 

strategy must be based on, or directly 

comparable to the current IMPROVE 

network. New Mexico concluded that 

the existing network is adequate and 

modifications to the visibility 

monitoring strategy are not necessary at 

this time. 

The EPA proposes to conclude that 

New Mexico has adequately addressed 

the sufficiency of its monitoring strategy 

as required by the provisions under 40 

CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(G). New Mexico 

reaffirmed its continued reliance upon 

the IMPROVE monitoring network. New 

Mexico also explained the importance 

of the IMPROVE monitoring network for 

tracking visibility trends at its Class I 

areas and identified no expected 

changes in this network. 

H. Determination of Adequacy 

Under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(ii), states 

are required to submit, at the same time 

as the progress report SIP, a 

determination of the adequacy of their 

existing RH SIP and to take one of four 

possible actions based on information in 

the progress report. 40 CFR 

51.309(d)(10)(ii) requires states to take 

one of the following actions: 

(1) Submit a negative declaration to 

the EPA that no further substantive 

revision to the State’s existing RH SIP is 

needed. 

(2) If the State determines that the 

implementation plan is or may be 

inadequate to ensure reasonable 

progress due to emissions from sources 

in another state(s) which participated in 

a regional planning process, the State 

must provide notification to the EPA 

and to the other state(s) which 

participated in the regional planning 

process with the states. The State must 

also collaborate with the other state(s) 

through the regional planning process 

for developing additional strategies to 

address the plan’s deficiencies. 

(3) Where the State determines that 

the implementation plan is or may be 

inadequate to ensure reasonable 

progress due to emissions from sources 

in another country, the State shall 

provide notification, along with 

available information, to the 

Administrator. 

(4) If the State determines that the 

implementation plan is or may be 

inadequate to ensure reasonable 

progress due to emissions from sources 

within the State, then the State shall 

revise its implementation plan to 

address the plan’s deficiencies within 

one year. 

The State of New Mexico has 

provided the information required 

under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i) in the 

five-year progress report. Based upon 

this information, New Mexico states in 

its progress report SIP that it believes 

that the current Section 309 and 309(g) 

RH SIPs are adequate to meet the State’s 

2018 RPGs and require no further 

revision at this time. Thus, the EPA has 

received a negative declaration from 

New Mexico. 

V. The EPA’s Proposed Action 

The EPA is proposing to approve New 

Mexico’s regional haze five-year 

progress report SIP revision (submitted 

on March 11, 2014) as meeting the 

applicable regional haze requirements 

set forth in 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10). The 

EPA is proposing to approve New 

Mexico’s determination that the current 

RH SIP is adequate to meet the State’s 

2018 RPGs. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable Federal regulations. 

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

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely proposes to approve state law as 

meeting Federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. For 

that reason, this action: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 212 / Tuesday, November 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 67689 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

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

January 21, 2011); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, the SIP is not approved 

to apply on any Indian reservation land 

or in any other area where EPA or an 

Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the proposed rule does 

not have tribal implications and will not 

impose substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This 

action does have tribal implications in 

non-reservation areas of Indian country 

within the state. However, it will 

neither impose substantial direct 

compliance costs on federally 

recognized tribal governments, nor 

preempt tribal law. The EPA is 

coordinating with tribes regarding this 

matter. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Best Available 

Retrofit Technology, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen oxides, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Regional haze, Sulfur 

dioxide, Visibility, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

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

Dated: October 23, 2015. 

Samuel Coleman, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

[FR Doc. 2015–28007 Filed 11–2–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Parts 1, 4 

[GN Docket No. 15–206; FCC 15–119] 

Improving Outage Reporting for 

Submarine Cables and Enhancing 

Submarine Cable Outage Data 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document the Federal 

Communications Commission 

(Commission) proposes to require 

submarine cable licensees, as a 

condition of their license, to report on 

outages involving either lost 

connectivity or degradation of 50 

percent or more of a submarine cable’s 

capacity for periods of at least 30 

minutes, regardless of whether the 

cable’s traffic is re-routed. The 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

this reporting system is necessary, 

whether the proposed reporting triggers 

are appropriate, and whether the 

reporting system proposed is the most 

efficient means to accomplish the 

Commission’s goals of gaining visibility 

into the operational status of submarine 

cables. The document also seeks 

comment on ways in which the 

Commission can act to improve the 

submarine cable deployment process 

either on its own accord or by 

coordinating with other stakeholders. 

DATES: Submit comments on or before 

December 3, 2015 and reply comments 

by December 18, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by docket number GN 15– 

206, by any of the following methods: 

• Federal Communications 

Commission’s Web site: http://fjallfoss.

fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow the instructions 

for submitting comments. 

• Mail: U.S. Postal Service first-class, 

Express, and Priority mail must be 

addressed to 445 12th Street SW., 

Washington DC 20554. Commercial 

overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal 

Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) 

must be sent to 9300 East Hampton 

Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743. 

• People with Disabilities: Contact 

the FCC to request reasonable 

accommodations (accessible format 

documents, sign language interpreters, 

CART, etc.) by email: FCC504@fcc.gov 

or phone: 202–418–0530 or TTY: 202– 

418–0432. 

Parties wishing to file materials with 

a claim of confidentiality should follow 

the procedures set forth in section 0.459 

of the Commission’s rules. Confidential 

submissions may not be filed via ECFS 

but rather should be filed with the 

Secretary’s Office following the 

procedures set forth in 47 CFR 0.459. 

Redacted versions of confidential 

submissions may be filed via ECFS. For 

detailed instructions for submitting 

comments and additional information 

on the rulemaking process, see the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael D. Saperstein, Jr., Attorney 

Advisor, Public Safety and Homeland 

Security Bureau, (202) 418–7008 or 

michael.saperstein@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in GN 

Docket No. 15–206, released on 

September 18, 2015. The full text of this 

document is available for public 

inspection during regular business 

hours in the FCC Reference Center, 

Room CY–A257, 445 12th Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20554, or online at 

https://www.fcc.gov/document/

improving-outage-reporting-submarinecables. 

Synopsis of Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking 

I. Introduction 

Submarine (or ‘‘undersea’’) cables 

provide the primary means of 

connectivity—voice, data and Internet— 

between the mainland United States and 

consumers in Alaska, Hawaii, Guam, 

American Samoa, the Northern Mariana 

Islands, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin 

Islands, as well as connectivity between 

the United States and the rest of the 

world. Given the role of submarine 

cables to the nation’s economic and 

national security, there is value to 

ensuring that infrastructure is reliable, 

resilient and diverse. Today, however, 

the ad hoc approach to outage reporting 

for undersea cables has resulted in a gap 

in the sufficiency of the information that 

the Commission staff receives from 

service providers. To effectuate our 

statutory obligations of promoting the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS