Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 84 / Monday, May 2, 2011 / Proposed Rules 24421 

related to an Iranian-Linked Financial 

Institution Designated Under IEEPA, other 

than through a correspondent account 

detailed above. (If this box has been selected 

please fill out the below information for each 

Iranian-Linked Financial Institution 

Designated Under IEEPA). 

Iranian-Linked Financial Institution Designated Under IEEPA 

Identify System or 

Means by Which 

Transfer(s) of Funds 

Was Processed 

Full Name on 

Account(s) (if 

applicable) 

Account Number(s) (if 

applicable) 

Other Applicable 

Identifying Information 

for the Transfer(s) of 

Funds 

Approximate Value in 

USD of Transfer(s) of 

Funds Processed 

(other than through a 

Correspondent 

Account) Within Preceding 90 Calendar 

Days 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

(Add more rows as needed.) 

D. Processed one or more transfers of 

funds related to an IRGC-Linked Person 

Designated Under IEEPA: Check box to 

certify. 

b Foreign Bank hereby certifies that it has 

not processed one or more transfers of funds 

within the preceding 90 calendar days 

related to an IRGC-Linked Person Designated 

Under IEEPA. 

b Foreign Bank hereby certifies that it has 

processed one or more transfers of funds 

within the preceding 90 calendar days 

related to an IRGC-Linked Person Designated 

Under IEEPA. (If this box has been selected 

please fill out the below information for each 

IRGC-Linked Person Designated Under 

IEEPA). 

IRGC-Linked Person 

Designated Under 

IEEPA 

Identify System or 

Means by Which 

Transfer(s) of Funds 

Was Processed 

Full Name on 

Account(s) (if 

applicable) 

Account Number(s) (if 

applicable) 

Other Applicable 

Identifying Information 

for the Transfer(s) of 

Funds 

Approximate Value in 

USD of Transfer(s) of 

Funds Processed 

Within Preceding 90 

Calendar Days 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

(Add more rows as needed.) 

E. General 

Foreign Bank hereby agrees to notify in 

writing the Bank if Foreign Bank establishes 

a new Correspondent Account for an IranianLinked Financial Institution Designated 

Under IEEPA at any time within 365 calendar 

days from the date of this response. Foreign 

Bank agrees to provide such notification 

within 30 calendar days of such change. 

Foreign Bank understands that the Bank 

will provide a copy of this Certification to the 

U.S. Department of the Treasury. Foreign 

Bank further understands that the statements 

contained in this Certification may be 

transmitted to one or more departments or 

agencies of the United States of America for 

the purpose of fulfilling such departments’ 

and agencies’ governmental functions. 

I, llllllllll (name of 

signatory), certify that I have read and 

understand this Certification, that the 

statements made in this Certification are 

complete and correct, and that I am 

authorized to execute this Certification on 

behalf of Foreign Bank. 

[Name of Foreign Bank] lllllllll

[Signature] lllllllllllllll

[Printed Name] lllllllllllll

[Title] lllllllllllllllll

Executed on this lllllllll day of 

lllllll, 20ll. 

To be completed by the Bank: llllll 

I, llllllllll (name of 

signatory), have read and understand this 

Certification; the statements made in this 

Certification are complete and correct, to the 

best of the knowledge of the Bank; and the 

Bank does not know, suspect, or have reason 

to suspect that the Certification made by 

Foreign Bank is incorrect. I am authorized to 

submit this document on behalf of the Bank. 

[Name of Bank] lllllllllllll

[Signature] lllllllllllllll

[Printed Name] lllllllllllll

[Title] lllllllllllllllll

Submitted on this lllllllll day of 

lllll, 20ll. 

[FR Doc. 2011–10482 Filed 4–29–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810–35–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2009–0647; FRL–9301–1] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; New 

Mexico; Section 110(a)(2) 

Infrastructure Requirements for 1997 

8-Hour Ozone and Fine Particulate 

Matter National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards; New Mexico Ambient Air 

Quality Standards; Approval of New 

Mexico’s PSD Program; CFR 

Codification Technical Corrections 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

submittals from the State of New 

Mexico pursuant to the Clean Air Act 

(CAA or Act) that address the 

infrastructure elements specified in the 

CAA section 110(a)(2), necessary to 

implement, maintain, and enforce the 

1997 8-hour ozone and 1997 fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5) national 

ambient air quality standards (NAAQS 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
24422 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 84 / Monday, May 2, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

or standards). We are proposing to find 

that the current New Mexico State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) meets the 

following infrastructure elements for the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and the 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS: 110(a)(2)(A), (B), 

(C), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), 

and (M). EPA is also proposing to 

approve a November 2, 2006, SIP 

revision to regulation 20.2.3 of the New 

Mexico Administrative Code (NMAC) 

(Ambient Air Quality Standards), to 

remove the state ambient air quality 

standards from being an applicable 

requirement under the State’s Title V 

permitting program, found at 20.2.70 

NMAC (Operating Permits). EPA is also 

proposing to correct an administrative 

oversight by converting our February 27, 

1987, conditional approval of New 

Mexico’s PSD program (52 FR 5964) to 

a full approval based on the November 

2, 1988, approval of New Mexico’s stack 

height regulations (53 FR 44191), at 

which point New Mexico fully met the 

condition in the conditional approval. 

Please note the fact that we had not 

formally converted the February 27, 

1987 conditional approval to a full 

approval, yet this had no impact on 

New Mexico’s authority to implement 

the PSD program. Lastly, EPA is 

proposing to make a number of U.S. 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 

codification technical corrections to 

amend the description of the approved 

New Mexico SIP. This action is being 

taken under section 110 and part C of 

the Act. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before June 1, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket No. EPA–R06– 

OAR–2009–0647, by one of the 

following methods: 

• Federal Rulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• U.S. EPA Region 6 ‘‘Contact Us’’ 

Web site: http://epa.gov/region6/ 

r6comment.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 ID No. EPA–R06–OAR–2009– 

0647. 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. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

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

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http:// 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

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

information 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 fee of 15 cents per page 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: New 

Mexico Environment Department 

(NMED), Air Quality Bureau, 1190 St. 

Francis Drive, Santa Fe, New Mexico 

87502. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Dayana Medina, Air Planning Section 

(6PD–L), Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, 

Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733, 

telephone 214–665–7241; fax number 

214–665–6762; e-mail address 

medina.dayana@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ means EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

A. What are the National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards? 

B. What is a SIP? 

C. What is the background for this 

rulemaking? 

a. Section 110(a)(1) and (2) 

b. Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Component of 

PSD Programs 

D. What elements are required under 

Section 110(a)(2)? 

II. What action is EPA proposing? 

A. Section 110(a)(1) and (2) 

B. CFR Codification Technical Correction 

to 40 CFR 52.1620(e) 

C. CFR Codification Technical Corrections 

to 40 CFR 52.1620(c) and 40 CFR 

52.1640(c)(66)(i)(B) 

D. Conversion of Our Conditional 

Approval of New Mexico’s PSD Program 

to Full Approval and CFR Codification 

Technical Corrections to 40 CFR 

52.1634(a) and 40 CFR 52.1640(c)(39) 

E. SIP Revision to 20.2.3 NMAC 

III. How has New Mexico addressed the 

elements of Section 110(a)(2)? 

IV. Proposed Action 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

A. What are the National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards? 

Section 109 of the Act requires EPA 

to establish NAAQS for pollutants that 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 84 / Monday, May 2, 2011 / Proposed Rules 24423 

1Two elements identified in section 110(a)(2) are 

not governed by the 3-year submission deadline of 

section 110(a)(1) because SIPs incorporating 

necessary local nonattainment area controls are not 

due within 3 years after promulgation of a new or 

revised NAAQS, but rather are due at the time the 

nonattainment area plan requirements are due 

pursuant to section 172. These requirements are: (i) 

Submissions required by section 110(a)(2)(C) to the 

extent that subsection refers to a permit program as 

required in part D Title I of the CAA and (ii) 

submissions required by section 110(a)(2)(I) which 

pertain to the nonattainment planning requirements 

of part D Title I of the CAA. Therefore, this action 

does not cover these specific SIP elements. This 

action also does not pertain to section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i). Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) contains four 

distinct requirements, or ‘‘prongs,’’ related to the 

impacts of interstate transport. The Interstate 

Transport 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. EPA published a finding on April 25, 2005 

(70 FR 21147) that all states had failed to submit 

SIPs addressing interstate transport for the 8-hour 

ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS, as required by section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i). Furthermore, there is a consent 

decree in place for seven states in the western 

United States, including New Mexico, to meet the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) with regard 

to the 1997 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS (74 FR 

64076, December 7, 2009). Under the consent 

decree, for each of these seven states, EPA is 

required to fully approve SIPs and/or promulgate 

FIPs that satisfy the four ‘‘prongs’’ of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) by specified dates. 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 72588, November 26, 2010). To address the 

fourth prong of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), we proposed 

to disapprove the New Mexico Interstate Transport 

SIP provisions that address the requirement that 

emissions from New Mexico sources do not 

interfere with measures required in the SIP of any 

other state to protect visibility (76 FR 491, January 

5, 2011). In the same rulemaking, we proposed to 

promulgate a FIP in order to prevent emissions from 

New Mexico sources from interfering with other 

states’ measures to protect visibility, and to 

implement nitrogen oxides (NOX) and sulfur 

dioxide (SO2) emission limits necessary at one 

source to prevent such interference and to address 

the requirement for best available retrofit 

technology (BART) for NOX for this same source. 

For the 1997 ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS, the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) are being 

addressed separately and are not included in the 

infrastructure SIPs. 

2EPA issued a revised 8-hour ozone standard on 

March 27, 2008 (73 FR 16436). On September 16, 

2009, the EPA Administrator announced that EPA 

would take rulemaking action to reconsider the 

2008 primary and secondary ozone NAAQS. On 

January 19, 2010, EPA proposed to set different 

primary and secondary ozone standards than those 

set in 2008 to provide requisite protection of public 

health and welfare, respectively (75 FR 2938). The 

final reconsidered ozone NAAQS have yet to be 

promulgated. This rulemaking does not address the 

2008 ozone standard. 

‘‘may reasonably be anticipated to 

endanger public health and welfare,’’ 

and to develop a primary and secondary 

standard for each NAAQS. The primary 

standard is designed to protect human 

health with an adequate margin of 

safety, and the secondary standard is 

designed to protect public welfare and 

the environment. EPA has set NAAQS 

for six common air pollutants, referred 

to as criteria pollutants: carbon 

monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, 

ozone, particulate matter, and sulfur 

dioxide. These standards present state 

and local governments with the 

minimum air quality levels they must 

meet to comply with the Act. Also, 

these standards provide information to 

residents of the United States about the 

air quality in their communities. 

B. What is a SIP? 

The SIP is a set of air pollution 

regulations, control strategies, other 

means or techniques, and technical 

analyses developed by the state, to 

ensure that the state meets the NAAQS. 

The SIP is required by section 110 and 

other provisions of the Act. These SIPs 

can be extensive, containing state 

regulations or other enforceable 

documents and supporting information 

such as emissions inventories, 

monitoring networks, and modeling 

demonstrations. Each state must submit 

these regulations and control strategies 

to EPA for approval and incorporation 

into the Federally enforceable SIP. Each 

Federally approved SIP protects air 

quality primarily by addressing air 

pollution at its point of origin. 

C. What is the background for this 

rulemaking? 

a. Section 110(a)(1) and (2) 

On July 18, 1997, we promulgated 

new and revised NAAQS for ozone (62 

FR 38856) and PM (62 FR 38652). For 

ozone, we set an 8-hour standard of 0.08 

parts per million (ppm) to replace the 1- 

hour standard of 0.12 ppm. For PM, we 

set a new annual and a new 24-hour 

NAAQS for particles with an 

aerodynamic diameter less than or equal 

to a nominal 2.5 micrometers (denoted 

PM2.5). The annual PM2.5 standard was 

set at 15 micrograms per cubic meter 

(μg/m3). The 24-hour PM2.5 standard 

was set at 65 μg/m3. For more 

information on these standards, please 

see the 1997 Federal Register notices 

(62 FR 38856 and 62 FR 38652). 

Under sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the 

Act, states are required to submit SIPs 

that provide for the implementation, 

maintenance, and enforcement (the 

infrastructure) of a new or revised 

NAAQS within three years following 

the promulgation of the NAAQS, or 

within such shorter period as EPA may 

prescribe. Section 110(a)(2) lists the 

specific infrastructure elements that 

must be incorporated into the SIPs, 

including for example, requirements for 

air pollution control measures, and 

monitoring that are designed to assure 

attainment and maintenance of the 

NAAQS. A table listing all 14 

infrastructure elements is included in 

subsection D of section I of this 

proposed rulemaking.1 Thus states were 

required to submit such SIPs for the 

1997 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS to 

EPA no later than June 2000.2 However, 

intervening litigation over the 1997 8- 

hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS created 

uncertainty about how to proceed and 

many states did not provide the 

required ‘‘infrastructure’’ SIP submission 

for these newly promulgated NAAQS. 

On March 4, 2004, Earthjustice 

submitted a notice of intent to sue 

related to EPA’s failure to issue findings 

of failure to submit related to the 

infrastructure requirements for the 1997 

8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA 

entered into a consent decree with 

Earthjustice which required EPA, among 

other things, to complete a Federal 

Register notice announcing EPA’s 

determinations pursuant to section 

110(k)(1)(B) of the Act as to whether 

each state had made complete 

submissions to meet the requirements of 

section 110(a)(2) for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS by December 15, 2007. 

Subsequently, EPA received an 

extension of the date to complete this 

Federal Register notice until March 17, 

2008, based upon agreement to make the 

findings with respect to submissions 

made by January 7, 2008. In accordance 

with the consent decree, EPA made 

completeness findings for each state 

based upon what the Agency received 

from each state as of January 7, 2008. 

With regard to the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, 

EPA entered into a consent decree with 

Earthjustice which required EPA, among 

other things, to complete a Federal 

Register notice announcing EPA’s 

determinations pursuant to section 

110(k)(1)(B) of the Act as to whether 

each state had made complete 

submissions to meet the requirements of 

section 110(a)(2) for the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS by October 5, 2008. 

On March 27, 2008, and October 22, 

2008, we published findings concerning 

whether states had made the necessary 

110(a)(2) submissions for the 1997 

ozone (73 FR 16205) and PM2.5

standards (73 FR 62902). In the March 

27, 2008 action, we found that New 

Mexico had made a submission that 

addressed some, but not all of the 

section 110(a)(2) requirements of the 

Act necessary to implement the 1997 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
24424 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 84 / Monday, May 2, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

3 In the March 27, 2008 action we found that New 

Mexico had not submitted a SIP revision that 

modified New Mexico’s Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) SIP for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS to include NOX as an ozone precursor, 

which is necessary for approval of elements 

110(a)(2)(C) and the PSD and visibility portion of 

element 110(a)(2)(J). On September 21, 2009, New 

Mexico submitted the necessary PSD SIP revision. 

We approved New Mexico’s NOX as an ozone 

precursor submittal on November 26, 2010 at 75 FR 

72688. 4This and any other guidance documents 

referenced in this action are in the docket for this 

rulemaking. 5 In New Mexico’s March 3, 2008 infrastructure 

SIP submittal, the State indicated that, at that time, 

the New Mexico SIP did not satisfy all the 

infrastructure requirements of section 110(a)(2) for 

the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. As explained in section III 

of this rulemaking and in the TSD, we are 

proposing to find that New Mexico’s current SIP 

now meets all the infrastructure requirements of 

section 110(a)(2) for the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS. 

6The April 19, 2011 letter clarified the State’s 

December 10, 2007 infrastructure SIP submittal for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone standard; the State’s March 

3, 2008 infrastructure SIP submittal for the 1997 

PM 2.5 standard; and the State’s June 12, 2009 

infrastructure SIP submittal for the 2006 PM 2.5

standard. The State’s April 19, 2011 letter is 

severable, as it clarifies three separate infrastructure 

SIP submittals. At this time, we are only proposing 

to take action on the State’s December 10, 2007, and 

March 3, 2008 submittals for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

and 1997 PM 2.5 standards. We will take action on 

the June 12, 2009 submittal for the 2006 PM 2.5

standard in a separate rulemaking. 

7 ‘‘Endangerment and Cause or Contribute 

Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 

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

(December 15, 2009). 

8 ‘‘Interpretation of Regulations that Determine 

Pollutants Covered by Clean Air Act Permitting 

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

9 ‘‘Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission 

Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy 

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

10 ‘‘Prevention of Significant Deterioration and 

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

75 FR 31514 (June 3, 2010). 

11 ‘‘Limitation of Approval of Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration Provisions Concerning 

Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in State 

Implementation Plans.’’ 75 FR 82536 (December 30, 

2010). 

8-hour ozone NAAQS.3 In the October 

22, 2008 action, we found that New 

Mexico had made a complete SIP 

submission that provides for the basic 

program elements specified in section 

110(a)(2) of the Act necessary to 

implement the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

On October 2, 2007, we issued 

‘‘Guidance on SIP Elements Required 

Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 

1997 8-hour Ozone and PM2.5 National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards,’’ 

Memorandum from William T. Harnett, 

Director, Air Quality Policy Division, 

Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards.4 The guidance provides that 

to the extent that existing SIPs for ozone 

and PM already meet the requirements, 

states need only certify that fact to us. 

On December 10, 2007, the Governor 

of New Mexico submitted a letter 

certifying that NMED has evaluated the 

New Mexico SIP and found that the SIP 

satisfies the requirements of section 

110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. On March 3, 2008, the 

Governor of New Mexico submitted a 

letter certifying that NMED has 

evaluated the New Mexico SIP and 

found that the SIP does not satisfy all 

the requirements of section 110(a)(1) 

and (2) for the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS. The 

March 3, 2008 letter included a table 

with an explanation of how the current 

New Mexico SIP meets most of the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2) for the 

PM 2.5 NAAQS and also a table outlining 

what sections of New Mexico’s SIP need 

to be revised to comply with the section 

110(a)(2) requirements for the PM 2.5

NAAQS.5 On April 19, 2011, NMED 

submitted a letter clarifying its 

submittals to make clear that the portion 

of the PSD SIP that is currently not 

acted upon by EPA (i.e., the portions 

from which EPA removed its previous 

approval) is not part of its infrastructure 

submissions.6 These letters are in the 

docket for this rulemaking. 

b. Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Component of 

PSD Programs 

EPA has recently undertaken a series 

of actions pertaining to the regulation of 

GHGs that, although for the most part 

distinct from one another, establish the 

overall framework for today’s proposed 

action on the New Mexico SIP. Four of 

these actions include, as they are 

commonly called, the ‘‘Endangerment 

Finding’’ and ‘‘Cause or Contribute 

Finding,’’ which EPA issued in a single 

final action,7 the ‘‘Johnson Memo 

Reconsideration,’’ 8 the ‘‘Light-Duty 

Vehicle Rule,’’ 9 and the ‘‘Tailoring 

Rule.’’ 10 Taken together and in 

conjunction with the CAA, these 

actions: (1) Established regulatory 

requirements for GHGs emitted from 

new motor vehicles and new motor 

vehicle engines; (2) determined that 

such regulations, when they took effect 

on January 2, 2011, subjected GHGs 

emitted from stationary sources to PSD 

requirements; and (3) limited the 

applicability of PSD requirements to 

GHG sources on a phased-in basis. EPA 

took this last action in the Tailoring 

Rule, which, more specifically, 

established appropriate GHG emission 

thresholds for determining the 

applicability of PSD requirements to 

GHG-emitting sources. In December 

2010, EPA followed up on these actions 

by issuing the ‘‘PSD SIP Narrowing 

Rule,’’ 11 in which EPA withdrew its 

previous approval of SIP PSD programs 

in 24 states, including New Mexico, that 

apply to GHG-emitting sources below 

the thresholds in the final Tailoring 

Rule. The Tailoring Rule and PSD SIP 

Narrowing Rule both discuss the states’ 

ability to provide assurances that they 

will have adequate resources to meet the 

new GHG PSD permitting requirements 

at statutory levels of emissions, and the 

PSD SIP Narrowing Rule affected EPA’s 

prior approval of portions of a state’s 

SIP that do not incorporate thresholds 

established under the Tailoring Rule. 

On November 10, 2010, New Mexico 

adopted revisions to the State’s PSD 

rules to implement the GHG thresholds 

established in EPA’s GHG Tailoring 

Rule and submitted the corresponding 

SIP revision to EPA on December 1, 

2010. On April 14, 2011, EPA proposed 

approval of New Mexico’s GHG rules 

submitted on December 1, 2010 (76 FR 

20907). EPA intends to take final action 

on the December 1, 2010 submittal in a 

separate rulemaking no later than EPA’s 

final action on New Mexico’s 1997 

ozone and PM 2.5 infrastructure SIP 

submittals. Additionally, the NMED 

submitted a clarification letter to EPA 

on April 19, 2011, clarifying that the 

portions of the PSD program related to 

greenhouse gas permitting that 

remained approved after the 

promulgation of EPA’s PSD SIP 

Narrowing Rule satisfy sections 

110(a)(2)(C) and (J) of the Act. As we 

discuss further in this notice and in the 

TSD, New Mexico currently has 

adequate resources to carry out the GHG 

component of the currently approved 

PSD SIP program, which requires PSD 

permitting for sources emitting GHGs at 

or above the 75,000/100,000 tons per 

year (tpy) threshold specified by the 

Tailoring Rule. 

D. What elements are required under 

Section 110(a)(2)? 

The October 2, 2007, EPA guidance 

for addressing the SIP infrastructure 

elements required under sections 

110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 ozone and 

PM 2.5 NAAQS, provides a list of 14 

essential components that States must 

include in their SIPs. These are listed in 

Table 1 below. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 84 / Monday, May 2, 2011 / Proposed Rules 24425 

12Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) of the Act requires 

compliance with sections 115 and 126 of the Act, 

relating to international and interstate pollution 

abatement, respectively. Under section 126(a)(1), 

SIPs must require notification to nearby, affected 

states of ‘‘major proposed new (or modified) 

sources’’ in either of two instances: (1) when the 

source is subject to PSD (section 126(a)(1)(A)); or (2) 

when the source ‘‘may significantly contribute to 

levels of air pollution in excess’’ of the NAAQS in 

air quality control regions in other states (section 

126(a)(1)(B)). Any new major stationary source or 

major modification in an attainment or 

unclassifiable area is subject to PSD. Therefore, in 

attainment or unclassifiable areas, any source that 

potentially falls under section 126(a)(1)(B) must 

also fall under (A). Thus, to the extent that section 

126(a)(1)(B) provides any requirements separate 

from those in section 126(a)(1)(A), it does so only 

for major proposed new or modified sources in 

nonattainment areas, that is, for sources subject to 

nonattainment NSR. The requirements of section 

126(a)(1)(B) should therefore be addressed in states 

with nonattainment areas through those states’ 

nonattainment NSR programs. As explained 

elsewhere in this proposed rulemaking, 

nonattainment NSR programs are not a subject of 

this action, so EPA will not address the 

requirements of section 126(a)(1)(B) in the 

infrastructure SIPs. 

13Section 110(a)(2)(I) pertains to the 

nonattainment planning requirements of part D, 

Title I of the Act. This section is not governed by 

the 3-year submission deadline of section 110(a)(1) 

because SIPs incorporating necessary local 

nonattainment area controls are not due within 3 

years after promulgation of a new or revised 

NAAQS, but are due at the time the nonattainment 

area plan requirements are due pursuant to section 

172. Thus this action does not cover section 

110(a)(2)(I). 

14 40 CFR 52.1620 provides the Identification of 

Plan for New Mexico, which lists the EPA-approved 

provisions of the SIP for the State, as provided 

under section 110 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 7410, and 

40 CFR 51 to meet the NAAQS. New Mexico’s EPA 

approved nonregulatory provisions are provided 

under 40 CFR 52.1620(e). 

15The New Mexico Air Pollution Episode 

Contingency Plan is applicable statewide outside of 

the boundaries of Bernalillo County and Indian 

Lands, and was adopted by New Mexico on July 7, 

1988, and submitted to EPA as a SIP revision on 

August 19, 1988. 

16New Mexico’s air quality regulations approved 

by EPA into the SIP, along with the State’s 

approval/effective date of the regulations, EPA’s 

approval date of the regulations into the SIP, and 

the Federal Register notice citation for approval 

into the SIP are provided under 40 CFR 52.1620(c). 

TABLE 1—SECTION 110(A)(2) ELEMENTS REQUIRED IN SIPS

Clean Air Act Citation Brief description 

Section 110(a)(2)(A) ................................................................................. Emission limits and other control measures. 

Section 110(a)(2)(B) ................................................................................. Ambient air quality monitoring/data system. 

Section 110(a)(2)(C) ................................................................................. Program for enforcement of control measures. 

Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) 12 ......................................................................... Interstate and international transport. 

Section 110(a)(2)(E) ................................................................................. Adequate resources. 

Section 110(a)(2)(F) ................................................................................. Stationary source monitoring system. 

Section 110(a)(2)(G) ................................................................................. Emergency power. 

Section 110(a)(2)(H) ................................................................................. Future SIP revisions. 

Section 110(a)(2)(J) 13 .............................................................................. Consultation with government officials. 

Section 110(a)(2)(J) .................................................................................. Public notification. 

Section 110(a)(2)(J) .................................................................................. Prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) and visibility 

protection. 

Section 110(a)(2)(K) ................................................................................. Air quality modeling/data.

Section 110(a)(2)(L) ................................................................................. Permitting fees. 

Section 110(a)(2)(M) ................................................................................ Consultation/participation by affected local entities. 

II. What action is EPA proposing? 

A. Section 110(a)(1) and (2) 

EPA is proposing to approve the New 

Mexico SIP submittals that identify 

where and how the 14 basic 

infrastructure elements are in the EPAapproved SIP as specified in section 

110(a)(2) of the Act. The New Mexico 

submittals do not include revisions to 

the SIP, but document how the current 

New Mexico SIP already includes the 

required infrastructure elements. In 

today’s action, we are proposing to find 

that the following section 110(a)(2) 

elements are contained in the current 

New Mexico SIP and provide the 

infrastructure for implementing the 

1997 ozone and PM 2.5 standards: 

Emission limits and other control 

measures (section 110(a)(2)(A)); ambient 

air quality monitoring/data system 

(section 110(a)(2)(B)); program for 

enforcement of control measures 

(section 110(a)(2)(C)); international and 

interstate pollution abatement (section 

110(a)(2)(D)(ii)); adequate resources 

(section 110(a)(2)(E)); stationary source 

monitoring system (section 110(a)(2)(F)); 

emergency power (section 110(a)(2)(G)); 

future SIP revisions (section 

110(a)(2)(H)); consultation with 

government officials (section 

110(a)(2)(J)); public notification (section 

110(a)(2)(J)); PSD and visibility 

protection (section 110(a)(2)(J)); air 

quality modeling/data (section 

110(a)(2)(K)); permitting fees (section 

110(a)(2)(L)); and consultation/ 

participation by affected local entities 

(section 110(a)(2)(M)). 

B. CFR Codification Technical 

Correction to 40 CFR 52.1620(e) 

EPA is proposing to correct a CFR 

codification technical error made in the 

table titled ‘‘EPA Approved 

Nonregulatory Provisions and QuasiRegulatory Measures in the New Mexico 

SIP,’’ found at 40 CFR 52.1620(e).14 EPA 

approved New Mexico’s Air Pollution 

Episode Contingency Plan into the SIP 

on August 21, 1990 (55 FR 34013) under 

the SIP codification method in existence 

at the time. When we changed our SIP 

codification method for New Mexico on 

July 13, 1998 (63 FR 37493), we added 

the table currently found under 40 CFR 

52.1620(e), and included entries in this 

table for all EPA approved 

nonregulatory provisions in the New 

Mexico SIP, including those approved 

prior to 1998. We note that we made an 

error in not including the already SIP 

approved New Mexico Air Pollution 

Episode Contingency Plan when we 

added this table under 40 CFR 

52.1620(e). We are proposing to make a 

CFR codification technical correction to 

amend the table titled ‘‘EPA Approved 

Nonregulatory Provisions and QuasiRegulatory Measures in the New Mexico 

SIP’’ to include an entry for the New 

Mexico Air Pollution Episode 

Contingency Plan approved by EPA into 

the SIP on August 21, 1990 (55 FR 

34013, 40 CFR 52.1639(a)).15 EPA is 

proposing to make this CFR codification 

technical correction because it clarifies 

that EPA has approved the State’s air 

pollution episode provisions into the 

New Mexico SIP. 

C. CFR Codification Technical 

Corrections to 40 CFR 52.1620(c) and 40 

CFR 52.1640(c)(66)(i)(B) 

EPA is also proposing to correct two 

CFR codification technical errors made 

in the table titled ‘‘EPA Approved New 

Mexico Regulations,’’ found at 40 CFR 

52.1620(c).16 On October 20, 1995, New 

Mexico adopted a recodification of the 

State’s air quality control regulations 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
24426 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 84 / Monday, May 2, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

17 In New Mexico’s 1995 adoption of the 

recodification of the State’s air quality regulations, 

the AQCRs existing at the time were renumbered 

and reformatted into the current NMAC, as was 

required by the New Mexico State Records Center. 18After construction, a source must obtain an 

operating permit, also called a Title V operating 

permit, as this requirement comes from Title V of 

the Act. Most Title V permits are issued by 

approved State and local permitting authorities. 

These permits are often called part 70 permits 

because the regulations that establish minimum 

standards for State permit programs are found at 40 

CFR part 70. 

19 40 CFR 52.1640 identifies the original New 

Mexico SIP and all revisions submitted by New 

Mexico that were federally approved prior to 

January 1, 1998. 

20New Mexico’s Title V permitting program is 

legally not part of the SIP, but was approved by 

EPA on November 26, 1996 (61 FR 60032) as the 

State’s Title V permitting program. 

21Any other CFR corrections to the New Mexico 

SIP that may be required will be addressed in a 

separate future action. 

22See 40 CFR 52.1640(c)(37)(B). 

23 40 CFR 52.1634(a) provides for New Mexico’s 

SIP approved PSD program. As stated elsewhere in 

this rulemaking, 40 CFR 52.1640(c) provides for all 

revisions submitted by New Mexico that were 

federally approved into the SIP prior to January 1, 

1998. 40 CFR 52.1640(c)(39) provides for New 

Mexico’s SIP approved stack height regulation. 

(AQCRs).17 New Mexico submitted the 

recodification of, and revisions to, the 

SIP on January 8, 1996, and EPA 

approved these revisions into the SIP on 

September 26, 1997 (62 FR 50514). We 

would like to clarify that when we 

approved the recodification of, and 

revisions to, the New Mexico SIP in the 

September 26, 1997 rulemaking, we 

made a codification error in 40 CFR 

52.1620(c) by incorrectly including 

entries in the table titled ‘‘EPA 

Approved New Mexico Regulations’’ for 

part 70 (Operating Permits) and part 71 

(Operating Permit Emission Fees) of 

20.2 NMAC, which constitute New 

Mexico’s Title V permitting program 

and the associated permitting fees, 

respectively.18 The preamble of the 

September 26, 1997 rulemaking 

contains a table listing the rules 

submitted by New Mexico as a 

recodification, which EPA had reviewed 

and approved as a recodification to the 

New Mexico SIP (62 FR 50514, see 

pages 50516–17). This table in the 

preamble did not contain part 70 or part 

71 of 20.2 NMAC, yet the CFR table 

found at 40 CFR 52.1620(c) and the New 

Mexico Identification of Plan at 40 CFR 

52.1640(c)(66)(i)(B) 19 erroneously 

included the two Title V regulations. 

The preamble of the September 26, 1997 

rulemaking did not act to approve these 

two Title V regulations as part of the 

New Mexico SIP. Further, we have 

never taken any rulemaking action to 

approve parts 70 and 71 into the New 

Mexico SIP. Therefore, New Mexico’s 

Title V permitting program has always 

been, and continues to be outside the 

scope of the New Mexico SIP.20 In 

addition, the table titled ‘‘EPA Approved 

New Mexico Regulations,’’ currently 

incorrectly lists the EPA approval date 

of the recodification of New Mexico’s 

regulations in the SIP to be November 

25, 1997. Although the Federal Register 

citation (62 FR 50514) listed under the 

table is correct, the November 25, 1997 

date is incorrect and should be changed 

to September 26, 1997. EPA is 

proposing to amend the table titled 

‘‘EPA Approved New Mexico 

Regulations,’’ found at 40 CFR 

52.1620(c), by deleting the entries for 

parts 70 and 71 of 20.2 NMAC and by 

changing the EPA approval date of the 

62 FR 50514 rulemaking from the 

currently listed date of November 25, 

1997 to the correct date of September 

26, 1997. We are also proposing to 

amend 40 CFR 52.1640(c)(66)(i)(B) such 

that it reads as follows: ‘‘New Mexico 

Administrative Code, Title 20, Chapter 

2, Parts 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 

16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 30, 31, 32, 33, 

34, 40, 41, 60, 61, 72 (Subparts I, II and 

III; Subpart V, Sections 501 and 502), 

73, 75, 79, and 80; adopted by the New 

Mexico Environmental Improvement 

Board on October 20, 1995, and filed 

with the State Records and Archives 

Center on October 30, 1995.’’ EPA is 

proposing to make the CFR codification 

technical corrections to 40 CFR 

52.1640(c)(66)(i)(B) and to the table 

titled ‘‘EPA Approved New Mexico 

Regulations,’’ found under 40 CFR 

52.1620(c), as indicated above, because 

it is necessary to clarify which New 

Mexico air quality regulations are 

currently approved into the New 

Mexico SIP and the EPA approval date 

of these regulations into the SIP.21

D. Conversion of Our Conditional 

Approval of New Mexico’s PSD Program 

to Full Approval and the CFR 

Codification Technical Corrections to 40 

CFR 52.1634(a) and 40 CFR 

52.1640(c)(39) 

In reviewing the history of New 

Mexico’s PSD program for the purposes 

of the infrastructure SIP, we found that 

the State’s PSD program was 

conditionally approved into the SIP on 

February 27, 1987 (52 FR 5964). In the 

February 27, 1987 rulemaking, New 

Mexico’s PSD program was 

conditionally approved by EPA on the 

basis that (i) the State would not issue 

permits to sources that would require 

review under EPA’s stack height 

regulations because they would have a 

stack height over 65 meters or would 

use any other dispersion techniques, as 

defined at 40 CFR 51.1(hh); and (ii) as 

quickly as possible, the State would 

adopt and submit as a plan revision a 

regulation that is equivalent to the 

regulations in 40 CFR Part 51 

promulgated to implement Section 123 

of the Act, regarding stack heights. On 

May 14, 1985, the Governor of New 

Mexico submitted a letter in which he 

committed the State not to issue PSD 

permits to sources that would require 

review under EPA’s stack height 

regulations because they would have 

stack heights over 65 meters or would 

use any other dispersion techniques, as 

defined at 40 CFR 51.1(hh).22 On April 

26, 1988, New Mexico submitted as a 

SIP revision a new regulation on stack 

height requirements to satisfy the 

Federal requirements of 40 CFR Part 51. 

On November 2, 1988, EPA approved 

New Mexico’s stack height regulation 

into the SIP (53 FR 44191). Thus, 

condition (i) of our February 27, 1987 

conditional approval of New Mexico’s 

PSD program was met when New 

Mexico complied with the Governor’s 

May 14, 1985 commitment letter in the 

interim, and condition (ii) was met 

when we approved New Mexico’s stack 

height regulations in the November 2, 

1988 rulemaking. Therefore, upon our 

approval of New Mexico’s stack height 

regulations in the November 2, 1988 

rulemaking, New Mexico had fully met 

all the conditions of EPA’s February 27, 

1987 conditional approval of the State’s 

PSD program. However, due to an 

administrative oversight, EPA failed to 

convert the conditional approval of New 

Mexico’s PSD program into a full 

approval at that time. We note that the 

fact that EPA has not formally converted 

the conditional approval to a full 

approval has no impact on the State’s 

authority to implement the PSD 

program. Therefore, we now propose to 

convert our February 27, 1987 

conditional approval of the State’s PSD 

program to a full approval based on our 

approval of the State’s stack height 

regulations in the November 2, 1988 

rulemaking (53 FR 44191). 

In accordance with our proposal to 

convert our February 27, 1987 

conditional approval of New Mexico’s 

PSD program to a full approval, we 

intend to make codification technical 

corrections to 40 CFR 52.1634(a) and 40 

CFR 52.1640(c)(39).23 40 CFR 52.1634(a) 

currently identifies New Mexico’s PSD 

program as meeting the requirements of 

part C of the Act for prevention of 

significant deterioration of air quality 

and as being SIP approved, but does not 

explain that we initially conditionally 

approved the State’s PSD program on 

February 27, 1987, and that New Mexico 

has since then met the conditions of our 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 84 / Monday, May 2, 2011 / Proposed Rules 24427 

24See footnote 20 above. 

conditional approval. We are proposing 

to amend the paragraph at 40 CFR 

52.1634(a) to read as follows: ‘‘The plan 

submitted by the Governor of New 

Mexico on February 21, 1984 (as 

adopted by the New Mexico 

Environmental Improvement Board 

(NMEIB) on January 13, 1984), August 

19, 1988 (as revised and adopted by the 

NMEIB on July 8, 1988), and July 16, 

1990 (as revised and adopted by the 

NMEIB on March 9, 1990), Air Quality 

Control Regulation 707—Permits, 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) and its Supplemental document, 

is approved as meeting the requirements 

of part C, Clean Air Act, for preventing 

significant deterioration of air quality. 

Additionally, on November 2, 1988, 

EPA approved New Mexico’s stack 

height regulation into the SIP (53 FR 

44191), thereby satisfying the conditions 

of EPA’s conditional approval of the 

State’s PSD program on February 27, 

1987 (52 FR 5964). Therefore, the 

conditional approval is converted to a 

full approval when we take final action 

on this CFR correction.’’ 40 CFR 

52.1640(c)(39) currently identifies New 

Mexico’s stack height regulation 

submitted on April 26, 1988 as having 

been approved into the SIP, but does not 

identify that this denotes that New 

Mexico has fully satisfied all conditions 

of our February 27, 1987 conditional 

approval of New Mexico’s PSD program. 

We are proposing to amend the 

paragraph at 40 CFR 52.1640(c)(39) to 

read as follows: ‘‘On April 26, 1988, the 

Governor of New Mexico submitted a 

revision to the State Implementation 

Plan that contained Air Quality Control 

Regulation No. 710—Stack Height 

Requirements, as adopted by the New 

Mexico Environmental Improvement 

Board on March 10, 1988. Regulation 

No. 710 enables the State to ensure that 

the degree of emission limitation 

required for the control of any air 

pollutant under its SIP is not affected by 

that portion of any stack height that 

exceeds GEP or by any other dispersion 

technique. With EPA’s November 2, 

1988, approval of the State’s revision to 

the State Implementation Plan to 

include Regulation No. 710 (53 FR 

44191), the State has satisfied the 

conditions of our February 27, 1987 

conditional approval of the State’s plan 

for preventing significant deterioration 

of air quality (52 FR 5964). When we 

take final action on this CFR correction, 

the conditional approval will be 

converted to a full approval.’’ 

We are proposing the above CFR 

codification technical corrections to the 

paragraphs at 40 CFR 52.1634(a) and 40 

CFR 52.1640(c)(39) because we are 

proposing to convert our February 27, 

1987 conditional approval of New 

Mexico’s PSD program to a full 

approval. 

E. SIP Revision to 20.2.3 NMAC 

In conjunction with our proposed 

finding that the New Mexico SIP meets 

the section 110(a)(1) and (2) 

infrastructure SIP elements listed above, 

we are also proposing to fully approve 

a severable portion of a SIP revision 

submitted by NMED to EPA on 

November 2, 2006. This portion of the 

submittal contains a revision to 20.2.3 

NMAC (Ambient Air Quality Standards) 

and is not a requirement under the 

infrastructure SIPs, and therefore our 

proposed approval of this revision is 

severable from our proposed approval of 

New Mexico’s infrastructure SIP 

submittals. The revision adds a new 

subpart 9 to 20.2.3 NMAC, including 

language to ensure that sources being 

issued a permit under the State’s minor 

source permitting program, found at 

20.2.72 NMAC (Construction Permits), 

are required to continue to address the 

State’s ambient air quality standards in 

their application. The revision includes 

language in 20.2.3.9 NMAC that 

removes the state ambient air quality 

standards from being an applicable 

requirement under the State’s Title V 

permitting program, found at 20.2.70 

NMAC (Operating Permits). Because 

New Mexico’s Title V program is 

outside the scope of the New Mexico 

SIP, this revision does not constitute a 

relaxation of the current New Mexico 

SIP.24 As described above in subsection 

C of this section, we made a codification 

error in 40 CFR 52.1620(c) by 

incorrectly including entries in the table 

titled ‘‘EPA Approved New Mexico 

Regulations’’ for part 70 (Operating 

Permits) and part 71 (Operating Permit 

Emission Fees) of 20.2 NMAC, which 

are State regulations that have not been 

approved into the New Mexico SIP. As 

the New Mexico Title V permitting 

program, codified at 20.2.70 NMAC, has 

not been approved into the New Mexico 

SIP, approval of the November 2, 2006 

revision to 20.2.3 NMAC is appropriate 

and will not constitute a relaxation of 

the current New Mexico SIP. The SIP 

revision to 20.2.3 NMAC we are 

proposing to approve is severable from 

the portions of the November 2, 2006 

SIP submittal on which we are taking no 

action in this rulemaking. By severable, 

we mean that the portion of the SIP 

revisions we are proposing to approve 

can be implemented independently of 

the portions on which we are not acting, 

without affecting the stringency of the 

submitted rules. EPA is not proposing to 

take action on any other portions of the 

November 2, 2006 SIP revisions in this 

proposed rulemaking; EPA intends to 

act on the other revisions in a separate 

rulemaking. EPA proposes to approve 

the portion of the November 2, 2006 

revision, as indicated above, because it 

clarifies the permitting requirements 

under the New Mexico SIP. 

III. How has New Mexico addressed the 

elements of Section 110(a)(2)? 

The New Mexico submittals address 

the elements of Section 110(a)(2) as 

described below. We provide a more 

detailed review and analysis of the New 

Mexico infrastructure SIP elements in 

the Technical Support Document (TSD), 

located in the docket for this 

rulemaking. 

Enforceable emission limits and other 

control measures, pursuant to section 

110(a)(2)(A): Section 110(a)(2)(A) 

requires that all measures and other 

elements in the SIP be enforceable. This 

provision does not require the submittal 

of regulations or emission limits 

developed specifically for attaining the 

1997 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 standards. 

Those regulations are due later as part 

of attainment demonstrations. 

The New Mexico Environmental 

Improvement Act, found in Chapter 74, 

Article 1 of the New Mexico Statutes 

Annotated 1978 (denoted NMSA 1978 

74–1), created the NMED and the New 

Mexico Environmental Improvement 

Board (EIB). The New Mexico Air 

Quality Control Act codified at NMSA 

1978 74–2, delegates authority to the 

EIB to adopt, promulgate, publish, 

amend and repeal regulations consistent 

with the Air Quality Control Act to 

attain and maintain NAAQS and 

prevent or abate air pollution. See 

NMSA 1978 74–2–5(B)(1). The Air 

Quality Control Act also designates the 

NMED as the State’s air pollution 

control agency and the Environmental 

Improvement Act provides the NMED 

with enforcement authority. The SIP 

rule at Title 20 of the New Mexico 

Administrative Code (denoted as 20 

NMAC) describes NMED as the State’s 

air pollution control agency and its 

enforcement authority, referencing the 

NMSA 1978 (44 FR 21019, April 9, 

1979; revised 49 FR 44101, November 2, 

1984; recodified approved in 62 FR 

50518, September 26, 1997). 

The NMED has promulgated rules to 

limit and control emissions of PM, 

sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides 

(NOX) and volatile organic compounds 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
24428 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 84 / Monday, May 2, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

25NOX and VOCs are precursors to ozone. PM can 

be emitted directly and secondarily formed; the 

latter is the result of NOX and SO2 precursors 

combining with ammonia to form ammonium 

nitrate and ammonium sulfate. 

26Title 20 addresses Environmental Protection 

and chapter 2 addresses Air Quality. 

27EPA approved New Mexico’s current 

provisions regarding excess emissions occurring 

during startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) 

of operations at a facility on September 14, 2009 (74 

FR 46910). 

28 ‘‘State Implementation Plans (SIPs): Policy 

Regarding Excess Emissions During Malfunctions, 

Startup, and Shutdown,’’ Memorandum from Steven 

A. Herman, Assistant Administrator for 

Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, and 

Robert Perciasepe, Assistant Administrator for Air 

and Radiation, dated August 11, 1999. 

29The section addressing exemptions and 

variances is found on p. 45109 of the 1987 

rulemaking. 

30The Air Quality System (AQS) is EPA’s 

repository of ambient air quality data. AQS stores 

data from over 10,000 monitors, 5000 of which are 

currently active. State, Local and Tribal agencies 

collect the data and submit it to AQS on a periodic 

basis. 

31A copy of our approval letter is available in the 

docket for this rulemaking. 

(VOCs).25 These rules include emission 

limits, control measures, permits, fees, 

and compliance schedules and are 

found in Title 20, chapter 2 of the 

NMAC26 (denoted 20.2 NMAC): 20.2 

NMAC parts 3, 5, 7–8, 10–22, 30–34, 

40–41, 72–75, and 98–99. 

In this proposed action, EPA is not 

proposing to approve or disapprove any 

existing New Mexico SIP provisions 

with regard to excess emissions during 

startup, shutdown, or malfunction 

(SSM) of operations at a facility.27 EPA 

believes that a number of states may 

have SSM SIP provisions that are 

contrary to the Act and existing EPA 

guidance,28 and the Agency plans to 

address such state regulations in the 

future. In the meantime, EPA 

encourages any state having a deficient 

SSM provision to take steps to correct 

it as soon as possible. Similarly, in this 

proposed action, EPA is not proposing 

to approve or disapprove any existing 

state rules with regard to director’s 

discretion or variance provisions. EPA 

believes that a number of states may 

have such provisions that are contrary 

to the Act and existing EPA guidance 

(52 FR 45044, November 24, 1987),29

and the Agency plans to take action in 

the future to address such state 

regulations. In the meantime, EPA 

encourages any state having a director’s 

discretion or variance provision in its 

SIP which is contrary to the Act and 

EPA guidance to take steps to correct 

the deficiency as soon as possible. 

A detailed list of the applicable 20.2 

NMAC parts discussed above is 

provided in the TSD. New Mexico’s SIP 

clearly contains enforceable emission 

limits and other control measures, 

which are in the Federally enforceable 

SIP. EPA is proposing to find that the 

New Mexico SIP meets the requirements 

of section 110(a)(2)(A) with respect to 

the 1997 8-hour ozone and PM2.5

NAAQS. 

Ambient air quality monitoring/data 

analysis system, pursuant to section 

110(a)(2)(B): Section 110(a)(2)(B) 

requires SIPs to include provisions for 

establishment and operation of ambient 

air quality monitors, collecting and 

analyzing ambient air quality data, and 

making these data available to EPA 

upon request. The NMED operates and 

maintains a statewide network of air 

quality monitors; data are collected, 

results are quality assured, and the data 

are submitted to EPA’s Air Quality 

System30 on a regular basis. New 

Mexico’s Statewide Air Quality 

Surveillance Network was approved by 

EPA on August 6, 1981 (46 FR 40005), 

and consists of stations that measure 

ambient concentrations of the six 

criteria pollutants, including ozone and 

PM2.5. The air quality surveillance 

network undergoes annual review by 

EPA. On July 7, 2010, NMED submitted 

its 2010 Annual Air Monitoring 

Network Plan (AAMNP) that included 

the plans for the 1997 ozone and PM2.5

NAAQS. EPA approved New Mexico’s 

2010 AAMNP on January 7, 2011.31 The 

NMED Web site provides the ozone and 

PM2.5 monitor locations, and current 

and historical data (http:// 

air.nmenv.state.nm.us/). 

In summary, New Mexico meets the 

requirement to establish, operate, and 

maintain an ambient air monitoring 

network, collect and analyze the 

monitoring data, and make the data 

available to EPA upon request. EPA is 

proposing to find that the current New 

Mexico SIP meets the requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(B) with respect to the 

1997 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Program for enforcement of control 

measures and regulation of the 

modification and construction of any 

stationary source within the areas 

covered by the plan as necessary to 

assure that NAAQS are achieved, 

including a permit program, as required 

by Parts C and D, pursuant to section 

110(a)(2)(C): Regarding a program for 

enforcement of control measures, as 

stated previously, the Air Quality 

Control Act designates the NMED as the 

State’s air pollution control agency and 

the Environmental Improvement Act 

provides the NMED with authority to 

enforce the state’s environmental 

quality rules. The NMED established 

rules governing emissions of the criteria 

pollutants and their precursors 

throughout the State and these rules are 

in the Federally enforceable SIP. The 

rules in 20.2 NMAC parts 3, 5, 7–8, 10– 

22, 30–34, 40–41, 72–75, and 98–99 

include allowable emission rates, 

compliance, control plan requirements, 

actual and allowable emissions, 

monitoring and testing requirements, 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements, and control schedules. 

These rules clarify the boundaries 

beyond which regulated entities in New 

Mexico can expect enforcement action. 

To meet the requirement for having a 

program for the 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 by Parts C 

and D, generally, the State is required to 

have SIP-approved PSD, Nonattainment, 

and Minor NSR permitting programs 

adequate to implement the 1997 8-hour 

ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. We are not 

evaluating nonattainment-related 

provisions, such as the Nonattainment 

NSR program required by part D in 

110(a)(2)(C) and measures for 

attainment required by section 

110(a)(2)(I), as part of the infrastructure 

SIPs for these two NAAQS because 

these submittals are required beyond the 

date (3 years from NAAQS 

promulgation) that section 110 

infrastructure SIP submittals are 

required. 

PSD programs apply in areas that are 

meeting the NAAQS, referred to as areas 

in attainment, and in areas for which 

there is insufficient information to 

designate as either attainment or 

nonattainment, referred to as 

unclassifiable areas. As described in the 

section titled ‘‘What Action is EPA 

Proposing?,’’ New Mexico’s PSD 

program was conditionally approved 

into the SIP on February 27, 1987 (52 FR 

5964). Today, we propose to convert the 

conditional approval to a full approval 

on the basis of our November 2, 1988 

approval of New Mexico’s April 26, 

1988 submittal to include in the SIP a 

new regulation on stack height 

requirements to satisfy the Federal 

requirements of 40 CFR Part 51. 

Subsequent revisions to New Mexico’s 

PSD program were approved into the 

SIP on August 21, 1990 (55 FR 34013), 

May 2, 1991 (56 FR 20137), October 15, 

1996 (61 FR 53639), March 10, 2003 (68 

FR 11316), December 24, 2003 (68 FR 

74483), September 5, 2007 (72 FR 

50879), and November 26, 2010 (75 FR 

72688). 

To meet the requirements of 

110(a)(2)(C) for the 1997 ozone 

standard, EPA believes the State must 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 84 / Monday, May 2, 2011 / Proposed Rules 24429 

32 ‘‘Interim Implementation of New Source 

Review for PM2.5,’’ Memorandum from John S. 

Seitz, Director of Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards, dated October 23, 1997. 

33The Federal Register notice 73 FR 28321 was 

published May 16, 2008. 

34 July 23, 2010, letter from Mary Uhl, Bureau 

Chief, Air Quality Bureau, New Mexico 

Environment Department, to Thomas Diggs, 

Associate Director for Air Programs, EPA Region 6. 

This letter is in the docket for this rulemaking. 

35On June 24, 2010, the State submitted a letter 

to EPA stating that current New Mexico rules 

require regulating GHGs at the existing 100/250 tpy 

threshold, rather than at the higher thresholds set 

in the Tailoring Rule because the State does not 

have the authority to apply the meaning of the term 

‘‘subject to regulation’’ established in the Tailoring 

Rule. New Mexico also submitted a letter on 

September 14, 2010, in response to the proposed 

GHG SIP Call again confirming that EPA correctly 

classified New Mexico as a State with authority to 

apply PSD requirements to GHGs. The September 

14, 2010, letter also identifies that NMED is 

pursuing rulemaking activity to define the terms 

‘‘greenhouse gas’’ and ‘‘subject to regulation.’’ These 

two letters are in the docket for this rulemaking. As 

explained elsewhere in this rulemaking, on 

November 10, 2010, New Mexico adopted revisions 

to the State’s PSD rules to implement the GHG 

thresholds established in EPA’s GHG Tailoring Rule 

and submitted the corresponding SIP revision to 

EPA on December 1, 2010. On April 14, 2011, EPA 

proposed approval of New Mexico’s GHG rules 

submitted on December 1, 2010 (76 FR 20907). EPA 

intends to take final action on the December 1, 2010 

submittal in a separate rulemaking no later than 

EPA’s final action on New Mexico’s 1997 ozone and 

PM2.5 infrastructure SIP submittals. 

36Revisions to New Mexico’s minor source 

permitting program were most recently approved by 

EPA into the SIP on September 26, 1997 (62 FR 

50514). 

have updated its PSD rules to treat NOX

as a precursor for ozone (70 FR 71612). 

On November 26, 2010, EPA approved 

revisions to New Mexico’s PSD SIP for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS to 

include NOX as an ozone precursor (75 

FR 72688). 

To implement section 110(a)(2)(C) for 

the 1997 PM2.5 standard, EPA believes 

that States should appropriately 

implement the interim policy for 

preconstruction (PSD) review as 

interpreted by legal rulings.32 States 

may follow this approach until May 16, 

2011, the date by which we required 

states to provide revisions to their PSD 

regulations to implement the PM2.5

standard as provided under 73 FR 

28321.33 During the transition to SIPapproved PSD requirements for PM2.5, 

New Mexico confirmed to EPA by letter 

that: (1) it does not use PM10 as a 

surrogate for PM2.5 in its permitting 

programs; (2) it requires that applicants 

include PM2.5 modeling and emissions 

in their PSD and minor source permit 

applications; and (3) the record for the 

NMED’s permitting decision includes an 

explanation of how PM2.5 emissions 

have been appropriately analyzed and 

estimated.34 (See also 75 FR 52692, page 

52700; 75 FR 72688, page 72694). 

Furthermore, the State has recently 

proposed to revise their rules to address 

PM2.5 in their PSD program, and expects 

to adopt these revisions in May 2011. 

The State is planning to submit these 

revised PSD rules to EPA as a SIP 

revision by May 16, 2011. EPA will act 

on this submission in a separate 

rulemaking. 

New Mexico has the authority to issue 

permits under the SIP-approved PSD 

program to sources of GHG emissions 

(75 FR 82536, page 82536, December 30, 

2010).35 The Tailoring Rule established 

thresholds that phase in the 

applicability of PSD requirements to 

GHG sources, starting with the largest 

GHG emitters, and were designed to 

relieve the overwhelming administrative 

burdens and costs associated with the 

dramatic increase in permitting burden 

that would have resulted from applying 

PSD requirements to GHG emission 

increases at or above only the massbased statutory thresholds of 100/250 

tpy generally applicable to all PSDregulated pollutants starting on January 

2, 2011. However, EPA recognized that 

even after it finalized the Tailoring Rule, 

many SIPs with approved PSD programs 

would, until they were revised, 

continue to apply PSD at the statutory 

thresholds, even though the states 

would not have sufficient resources to 

implement the PSD program at those 

levels. EPA consequently implemented 

its ‘‘PSD SIP Narrowing Rule’’ and 

narrowed its approval of those 

provisions of previously approved SIPs 

of 24 states, including New Mexico, that 

apply PSD to GHG emission increases 

from sources emitting GHGs below the 

Tailoring Rule thresholds (75 FR 82536, 

December 30, 2010). Through the PSD 

SIP Narrowing Rule, EPA withdrew its 

previous approvals of those programs to 

the extent the SIPs apply PSD to 

increases in GHG emissions from GHGemitting sources below the Tailoring 

Rule thresholds. The portions of the 

PSD programs regulating GHGs from 

GHG-emitting sources with emission 

increases at or above the Tailoring Rule 

thresholds remained approved. The 

effect of EPA narrowing its approval in 

this manner is that the provisions of 

previously approved SIPs that apply 

PSD to GHG emissions increases from 

sources emitting GHGs below the 

Tailoring Rule thresholds have the 

status of having been submitted by the 

state but not yet acted upon by EPA (75 

FR 82536, December 30, 2010). 

On November 10, 2010, New Mexico 

adopted revisions to the State’s PSD 

rules to implement the GHG thresholds 

established in EPA’s GHG Tailoring 

Rule and submitted the corresponding 

SIP revision to EPA on December 1, 

2010. On April 14, 2011, EPA proposed 

approval of New Mexico’s GHG rules 

submitted on December 1, 2010 (76 FR 

20907). EPA intends to take final action 

on the above proposal in a separate 

rulemaking no later than EPA’s final 

action on New Mexico’s 1997 ozone and 

PM2.5 infrastructure SIP submittals. We 

are proposing to find that the current 

New Mexico PSD SIP meets the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) 

with respect to the 1997 8-hour ozone 

and PM2.5 NAAQS, as long as we are 

able to fully approve New Mexico’s 

GHG submittal on or before our final 

action on New Mexico’s 1997 ozone and 

PM2.5 infrastructure SIP submittals. 

Additionally, New Mexico submitted 

a clarification letter to EPA on April 19, 

2011, clarifying that the portion of the 

GHG PSD program in the State’s 

submittal under infrastructure SIP 

review is only the portion that remained 

approved after EPA’s promulgation of 

the PSD SIP Narrowing Rule, which is 

the portion that regulates GHG-emitting 

sources with GHG emissions at or above 

the Tailoring Rule thresholds. 

Therefore, if we are unable to fully 

approve New Mexico’s GHG submittal, 

in the alternative, we are proposing to 

find that the current New Mexico PSD 

SIP meets section 110(a)(2)(C) with 

respect to the 1997 8-hour ozone and 

PM2.5 NAAQS on the basis of the State’s 

April 19, 2011 clarification letter. 

Section 110(a)(2)(C) creates ‘‘a general 

duty on States to include a program in 

their SIP that regulates the modification 

and construction of any stationary 

source as necessary to assure that the 

NAAQS are achieved’’ (70 FR 71612, 

71677). EPA provides states with a 

‘‘broad degree of discretion’’ in 

implementing their Minor NSR 

programs (71 FR 48696, 48700). The 

‘‘considerably less detailed’’ regulations 

for minor NSR are provided in 40 CFR 

51.160 through 51.164. EPA has 

determined that New Mexico’s Minor 

NSR program adopted pursuant to 

section 110(a)(2)(C) of the Act regulates 

emissions of all regulated air 

contaminants for which there is a 

NAAQS (20.2.72.200 NMAC). New 

Mexico’s Minor NSR permitting 

requirements are found at 20.2.72 

NMAC and were approved into the SIP 

on May 14, 1973 (38 FR 12702).36 In this 

action, EPA is proposing to approve 

New Mexico’s infrastructure SIP for the 

1997 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS 

with respect to the general requirement 

of section 110(a)(2)(C) to include a 

program in the SIP that regulates the 

modification and construction of any 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
24430 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 84 / Monday, May 2, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

stationary source as necessary to assure 

that the NAAQS are achieved. EPA is 

not proposing to approve or disapprove 

the State’s existing Minor NSR program 

itself to the extent that it is inconsistent 

with EPA’s regulations governing this 

program. EPA believes that a number of 

states may have Minor NSR provisions 

that are contrary to the existing EPA 

regulations for this program. EPA 

intends to work with states to reconcile 

state Minor NSR programs with EPA’s 

regulatory provisions for the program. 

The statutory requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(C) provide for considerable 

flexibility in designing Minor NSR 

programs, and EPA believes it may be 

time to revisit the regulatory 

requirements for this program to give 

the states an appropriate level of 

flexibility to design a program that 

meets their particular air quality 

concerns, while assuring reasonable 

consistency across the country in 

protecting the NAAQS with respect to 

new and modified minor sources. 

EPA is proposing to find that the 

current New Mexico SIP meets the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) 

with respect to the 1997 8-hour ozone 

and PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Interstate and international transport, 

pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii): 

Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) of the Act 

requires compliance with sections 115 

and 126 of the Act, relating to interstate 

and international pollution abatement. 

Section 115(a) addresses endangerment 

of public health or welfare in foreign 

countries from pollution emitted in the 

United States. Pursuant to section 115, 

the Administrator has neither received 

nor issued a formal notification that 

emissions from New Mexico are 

endangering public health or welfare in 

a foreign country. Section 126(a) of the 

Act requires new or modified sources to 

notify neighboring states of potential 

impacts from such sources. Under 

section 126(a)(1)(A), SIPs must require 

notification to nearby, affected states of 

‘‘major proposed new (or modified) 

sources’’ when the source is subject to 

PSD. New Mexico’s SIP approved PSD 

program rules at 20.2.74.400 NMAC 

satisfy the requirements of section 

126(a)(1)(A) by providing that the 

NMED must send notice of the proposed 

action on PSD permits to, among others, 

‘‘any state * * * whose lands may be 

affected by emissions from the source or 

modification.’’ The State also has no 

pending obligations under section 126 

of the Act. 

EPA is proposing to find that the New 

Mexico SIP meets the requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) with respect to 

the 1997 8-hour ozone and PM2.5

NAAQS. 

Adequate personnel, funding, and 

authority, pursuant to section 

110(a)(2)(E): The Department of the 

Environment Act provides that the 

secretary of the NMED ‘‘shall * * * 

employ and fix the compensation of 

those persons necessary to discharge his 

duties * * *’’ See NMSA 1978 9–7A– 

6(B). The NMED is also authorized to 

receive State appropriations to 

implement environmental programs. 

See generally, NMSA 1978 9–7A. There 

are Federal sources of funding for the 

implementation of the 1997 8-hour 

ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS, through, for 

example, the CAA sections 103 and 105 

grant funds. The NMED receives Federal 

funds on an annual basis, under 

sections 103 and 105 of the Act, to 

support its air quality programs. 

Additionally, the State provides funds 

equal to 40 percent of the 105 grant fees 

it receives. 

Fees collected for the Title V and nonTitle V permit programs, and other 

inspections, maintenance and renewals 

required of other air pollution sources 

also provide necessary funds to help 

implement the State’s air programs. 

Information on permitting fees is 

provided in the discussion for section 

110(a)(2)(L) below. The Air Quality 

Control Act designates the NMED as the 

State air pollution control agency for all 

purposes under Federal legislation 

relating to air pollution and provides 

the NMED with the power ‘‘to accept, 

receive and administer grants or other 

funds or gifts from public and private 

agencies, including the Federal 

government, or from any person * * *’’ 

See NMSA 1978 74–2–5.1(F). For more 

detail on funding sources, please see the 

TSD. 

The Air Quality Control Act delegates 

authority to the EIB to adopt, 

promulgate, publish, amend and repeal 

regulations consistent with the Air 

Quality Control Act to attain and 

maintain national ambient air quality 

standards and prevent or abate air 

pollution. See NMSA 1978 74–2– 

5(B)(1). The Environmental 

Improvement Act provides the NMED 

with the power ‘‘to enforce the rules, 

regulations and orders promulgated by 

the board * * *’’ See NMSA 1978 74– 

1–6(F). The Air Quality Control Act also 

gives the NMED the duty to ‘‘develop 

and present to the environmental 

improvement board or the local board a 

plan for the regulation, control, 

prevention or abatement of air pollution 

***’’ and gives the EIB the authority 

to adopt such a plan. See NMSA 1978 

74–2–5.1(H) and NMSA 1978 74–2– 

5(B)(2). Therefore, the State has 

demonstrated it has adequate authority 

under its rules and regulations to carry 

out its SIP obligations with respect to 

the 1997 8-hour ozone and PM2.5

NAAQS. 

As discussed previously in this 

rulemaking with regards to section 

110(a)(2)(C), on November 10, 2010, 

New Mexico adopted revisions to the 

State’s PSD rules to implement the GHG 

thresholds established in EPA’s GHG 

Tailoring Rule and submitted the 

corresponding SIP revision to EPA on 

December 1, 2010. EPA proposed 

approval of these revisions on April 14, 

2011 (76 FR 20907). The GHG Tailoring 

Rule implemented thresholds 

establishing applicability of the PSD 

permitting program to GHG-emitting 

sources only if they emit GHGs in 

amounts above the 75,000/100,000 tpy 

of carbon dioxide equivalent (denoted 

CO2e). Thus sources in affected states, 

including New Mexico, will not be 

subject to Federal or state requirements 

to obtain permits at the lower 100/250 

tpy level. The Tailoring Rule thresholds 

were designed to relieve the 

overwhelming administrative burdens 

and costs associated with the dramatic 

increase in permitting burden that 

would have resulted from applying PSD 

at the statutory levels (100/250 tpy). 

EPA intends to take final action on the 

above proposal in a separate rulemaking 

no later than EPA’s final action on New 

Mexico’s 1997 ozone and PM2.5

infrastructure SIP submittals. We are 

proposing to find that the current New 

Mexico PSD SIP meets section 

110(a)(2)(C) with respect to the 1997 8- 

hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS, as long 

as we are able to fully approve New 

Mexico’s GHG submittal on or before 

our final action on New Mexico’s 1997 

ozone and PM2.5 infrastructure SIP 

submittals; or, in the alternative, we are 

proposing to find that the current New 

Mexico PSD SIP meets section 

110(a)(2)(C) with respect to the 1997 8- 

hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS on the 

basis of the State’s April 19, 2011 

clarification letter. 

EPA is proposing to find that the New 

Mexico SIP meets the requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(E) with respect to the 

1997 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Stationary source monitoring system, 

pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(F): New 

Mexico’s regulations at 20.2 NMAC 

parts 5, 7–8, 10–20, 30–34, 40–41, and 

72–74 require source monitoring for 

compliance, recordkeeping and 

reporting, and provide for enforcement 

with respect to all the NAAQS and their 

precursors. These source monitoring 

program requirements generate data for, 

among other pollutants, ozone, PM2.5, 

and the precursors to these pollutants 

(VOCs, NOX, and SO2). 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 84 / Monday, May 2, 2011 / Proposed Rules 24431 

37The AirData Web site provides access to air 

pollution data for the entire United States and 

produces reports and maps of air pollution data 

based on criteria specified by the user. 

38The ozone and PM data are available through 

AQS. The AQS data for PM are provided in the 

docket for this rulemaking. 

39Section 110(a)(2)(J) is divided into three 

segments: Consultation with government officials; 

public notification; and PSD and visibility 

protection. 

Under the New Mexico SIP rules, the 

NMED is required to analyze the 

emissions data from point, area, mobile, 

and biogenic (natural) sources. The 

NMED uses this data to track progress 

towards maintaining the NAAQS, 

develop control and maintenance 

strategies, identify sources and general 

emission levels, and determine 

compliance with New Mexico and EPA 

requirements. The State’s emissions 

data are available on the NMED Web 

site (http://www.nmenv.state.nm.us). 

These rules have been approved by EPA 

into the SIP. A list of the rules and 

Federal Register citations are provided 

in the TSD. 

There are two requirements that New 

Mexico must meet regarding emissions 

inventories (EIs): the EI requirement for 

nonattainment areas, and the 

requirement to submit annual EI data to 

EPA’s National Emissions Inventory 

(NEI) database. Because Nonattainment 

NSR is outside the scope of this 

rulemaking, we are not addressing New 

Mexico’s EI for nonattainment areas in 

this proposed action. The NEI is EPA’s 

central repository for air emissions data. 

EPA published the Air Emissions 

Reporting Rule (AERR) on December 5, 

2008, which modified the requirements 

for collecting and reporting air 

emissions data (73 FR 76539). The 

AERR shortened the time states are 

given to report emissions data from 17 

to 12 months, giving states one calendar 

year to submit emissions data. All states 

are required to submit a comprehensive 

emissions inventory every three years 

and report emissions for certain larger 

sources annually through EPA’s online 

Emissions Inventory System (EIS). 

States report emissions data for the six 

criteria pollutants and the precursors 

that form them—nitrogen oxides, sulfur 

dioxide, ammonia, lead, carbon 

monoxide, particulate matter, and 

volatile organic compounds. EPA 

compiles the emissions data, 

supplementing it where necessary, and 

releases it to the general public through 

the Web site http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ 

chief/eiinformation.html. The NMED is 

current with their submittals to the NEI 

database; the 2008 data was submitted 

to EPA in 2010. The State’s emissions 

data are also available on EPA’s AirData 

Web site (http://www.epa.gov/air/data/ 

index.html).37

EPA is proposing to find that the New 

Mexico SIP meets the requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(F) with respect to the 

1997 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Emergency power, pursuant to section 

110(a)(2)(G): Section 110(a)(2)(G) 

requires States to provide for authority 

to address activities causing imminent 

and substantial endangerment to public 

health, including contingency plans to 

implement the emergency episode 

provisions in their SIPs. The Air Quality 

Control Act provides the NMED with 

authority to address environmental 

emergencies, and the NMED has 

contingency plans to implement 

emergency episode provisions in the 

SIP. New Mexico promulgated the ‘‘Air 

Pollution Episode Contingency Plan for 

New Mexico,’’ which includes 

contingency measures, and these 

provisions were approved into the SIP 

on August 21, 1990 (55 FR 34013). The 

criteria for ozone are based on a 1-hour 

average ozone level. These episode 

criteria and contingency measures are 

adequate to address ozone emergency 

episodes and are in the Federally 

approved SIP. 

As explained in the section of this 

rulemaking titled ‘‘What Action Is EPA 

Proposing?,’’ in this rulemaking we are 

also proposing to make a CFR 

codification technical correction to 

amend the table titled ‘‘EPA Approved 

Nonregulatory Provisions And QuasiRegulatory Measures In The New 

Mexico SIP’’ under 40 CFR 52.1620(e), to 

include an entry for the New Mexico Air 

Pollution Episode Contingency Plan 

approved by EPA into the SIP on August 

21, 1990 (see 55 FR 34013, 40 CFR 

52.1639(a)). EPA is proposing to make 

this CFR codification technical 

correction because it clarifies that EPA 

previously approved the State’s air 

pollution episode provisions into the 

New Mexico SIP. 

The 2009 Infrastructure SIP Guidance 

for PM2.5 recommends that a state with 

at least one monitored 24-hour PM2.5

value exceeding 140.4 μg/m3 since 2006 

establish an emergency episode plan 

and contingency measures to be 

implemented should such level be 

exceeded again. The 2006–2010 ambient 

air quality monitoring data 38 for New 

Mexico do not exceed 140.4 μg/m3. The 

PM2.5 levels have consistently remained 

below this level (140.4 μg/m3), and 

furthermore, the State has appropriate 

general emergency powers to address 

PM2.5 related episodes to protect the 

environment and public health. Given 

the State’s low monitored PM2.5 levels, 

EPA is proposing the State is not 

required to submit an emergency 

episode plan and contingency measures 

at this time, for the 1997 PM2.5 standard. 

Additional detail is provided in the 

TSD. 

EPA is proposing to find that the New 

Mexico SIP meets the requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(G) with respect to the 

1997 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Future SIP revisions, pursuant to 

section 110(a)(2)(H): The Air Quality 

Control Act provides that the EIB shall 

‘‘* * * adopt, promulgate, publish, 

amend, and repeal regulations 

consistent with the Air Quality Control 

Act to attain and maintain national 

ambient air quality standards and 

prevent or abate air pollution * * *.’’ 

See NMSA 1978 74–2–5(B)(1). The 

Environmental Improvement Act 

provides that the NMED shall, ‘‘* * * 

enforce the rules, regulations and orders 

promulgated by the board * * *.’’ See 

NMSA 1978 74–1–6(F). In addition, the 

Air Quality Control Act requires the 

NMED to, ‘‘* * * advise, consult, 

contract with and cooperate with local 

authorities, other states, the Federal 

government and other interested 

persons or groups in regard to matters 

of common interest in the field of air 

quality control * * *’’ See NMSA 1978 

74–2–5.2(B). Thus, New Mexico has the 

authority to revise its SIP from time to 

time as may be necessary to take into 

account revisions of primary or 

secondary NAAQS, or the availability of 

improved or more expeditious methods 

of attaining such standards. 

Furthermore, New Mexico also has the 

authority under the above provisions to 

revise its SIP in the event the EPA, 

pursuant to the Act, finds the SIP to be 

substantially inadequate to attain the 

NAAQS. 

EPA is proposing to find that the New 

Mexico SIP meets the requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(H) with respect to the 

1997 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Consultation with government 

officials, pursuant to section 

110(a)(2)(J): 39 The Air Quality Control 

Act, as codified at NMSA 1978 74–2–6, 

provides that, ‘‘no regulations or 

emission control requirement shall be 

adopted until after a public hearing by 

the environmental improvement board 

or the local board’’ and provides that, ‘‘at 

the hearing, the environmental 

improvement board or the local board 

shall allow all interested persons 

reasonable opportunity to submit data, 

views, or arguments orally or in writing 

and to examine witnesses testifying at 

the hearing.’’ See NMSA 1978 74–2–6(B) 

and (D). In addition, the Air Quality 

Control Act provides that the NMED 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
24432 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 84 / Monday, May 2, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

40Areas 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). 

41See 71 FR 4490, published January 27, 2006. 

42See 65 FR 14877. 43Please see http://air.nmenv.state.nm.us/. 

44 40 CFR 51.309(g) concerns the reasonable 

progress requirements for areas other than the 16 

Class I areas covered by the Grand Canyon 

Visibility Transport Commission Report. 

45New Mexico has the option to submit a 

Regional Haze SIP under either section 51.308 or 

section 51.309. 

shall have the power and duty to 

‘‘advise, consult, contract with and 

cooperate with local authorities, other 

states, the Federal government and other 

interested persons or groups in regard to 

matters of common interest in the field 

of air quality control * * *’’ See NMSA 

1978 74–2–5.2(B). The State’s SIP 

approved PSD rules at 20.2.74.400 

NMAC mandate that the NMED shall 

provide for public participation and 

notification regarding permitting 

applications to any other state or local 

air pollution control agencies, local 

government officials of the city or 

county where the source will be located, 

and Federal Land Managers (FLM) 

whose lands may be affected by 

emissions from the source or 

modification. The State’s SIP approved 

PSD rules at 20.2.74.403 NMAC require 

the NMED to consult with FLMs 

regarding permit applications for 

sources impacting Class I Federal 

areas.40 Furthermore, the State of New 

Mexico has committed in the SIP to 

consult continually with the FLMs on 

the review and implementation of the 

visibility program and to notify the FLM 

of any advance notification or early 

consultation with a major new or 

modifying source prior to the 

submission of the permit application.41

The State’s SIP approved Transportation 

Conformity rules at 20.2.99.116 and 

20.2.99.124 NMAC require that 

interagency consultation and 

opportunity for public involvement be 

provided before making transportation 

conformity determinations and before 

adopting applicable SIP revisions on 

transportation-related SIPs.42 These 

rules are in the Federally-approved SIP. 

EPA is proposing to find that the New 

Mexico SIP meets the requirements of 

this portion of section 110(a)(2)(J) with 

respect to the 1997 8-hour ozone and 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Public notification if NAAQS are 

exceeded, pursuant to section 

110(a)(2)(J): Public notification begins 

with the air quality forecast, which 

advises the public of conditions capable 

of exceeding the NAAQS (see 54 FR 

9783). New Mexico’s provisions 

regarding public notification of 

instances or areas in which any primary 

NAAQS was exceeded were approved 

into the SIP on August 24, 1983 (48 FR 

38466). In addition, the NMED air 

monitoring Web site provides live air 

quality data for each of the monitoring 

stations in New Mexico.43 The Web site 

also provides information on the health 

effects of ozone, particulate matter, and 

other criteria pollutants. 

EPA is proposing to find that the New 

Mexico SIP meets the requirements of 

this portion of section 110(a)(2)(J) with 

respect to the 1997 8-hour ozone and 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

PSD and visibility protection, 

pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(J): This 

portion of section 110(a)(2)(J) in part 

requires that a state’s SIP meet the 

applicable requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(C) as relating to PSD programs. 

As detailed in the subsection titled 

‘‘Program for enforcement of control 

measures and regulation of the 

modification and construction of any 

stationary source * * * pursuant to 

section 110(a)(2)(C)’’ of this rulemaking 

and in the TSD, New Mexico’s PSD 

program was conditionally approved 

into the SIP on February 27, 1987 (52 FR 

5964). New Mexico has since then met 

the conditions of our conditional 

approval, so we are proposing to convert 

our conditional approval into a full 

approval. The State’s PSD program is in 

the SIP (52 FR 5964, 53 FR 44191, 55 

FR 43013, 56 FR 20137, 61 FR 53639, 

68 FR 11316, 68 FR 74483, 72 FR 50879, 

and 75 FR 72688). In addition, to meet 

the requirements of 110(a)(2)(C) for the 

1997 ozone standard, EPA believes the 

State must have updated its PSD rules 

to treat NOX as a precursor for ozone. 

On November 26, 2010, EPA approved 

a SIP revision that modified New 

Mexico’s PSD SIP for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard to include NOX as an 

ozone precursor (75 FR 72688). To 

implement section 110(a)(2)(C) for the 

1997 PM2.5 standard, EPA believes that 

States should appropriately implement 

the interim policy for preconstruction 

review, as described above. During the 

transition to SIP-approved PSD 

requirements for PM2.5, NMED 

submitted a letter to EPA clarifying that: 

(1) It does not use PM10 as a surrogate 

for PM2.5 in its permitting programs; (2) 

it requires that applicants include PM2.5

modeling and emissions in their PSD 

and minor source permit applications; 

and (3) the record for the NMED’s 

permitting decision includes an 

explanation of how PM2.5 emissions 

have been appropriately analyzed and 

estimated. Furthermore, the State has 

recently proposed to revise their rules to 

address PM2.5 in their PSD program, and 

expects to adopt these revisions in May 

2011. The State is planning to submit to 

EPA these revised PSD rules as a SIP 

revision by May 16, 2011. The State’s 

minor source permitting requirements 

were approved at 38 FR 12702. The 

portions of the State’s PSD program 

related to permitting GHGs at or above 

the Tailoring Rule thresholds are 

approvable in light of the PSD SIP 

Narrowing Rule. As discussed above, 

regarding GHG permitting, EPA intends 

to take final action on the December 1, 

2010 submittal in a separate rulemaking 

no later than EPA’s final action on New 

Mexico’s 1997 ozone and PM2.5

infrastructure SIP submittals. We are 

proposing to find that the current New 

Mexico PSD SIP meets section 

110(a)(2)(C) with respect to the 1997 8- 

hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS, as long 

as we are able to fully approve New 

Mexico’s GHG submittal on or before 

our final action on New Mexico’s 1997 

ozone and PM2.5 infrastructure SIP 

submittals; or, in the alternative, we are 

proposing to find that the current New 

Mexico PSD SIP meets section 

110(a)(2)(C) with respect to the 1997 8- 

hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS on the 

basis of the State’s April 19, 2011 

clarification letter. EPA is proposing to 

find that the New Mexico SIP meets the 

PSD requirement of section 110(a)(2)(C). 

A more detailed discussion is provided 

in subsection 110(a)(2)(C) above and in 

the TSD. EPA is proposing to find that 

the New Mexico SIP meets the 

requirements of this portion of section 

110(a)(2)(J) with respect to the 1997 8- 

hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. 

EPA approved New Mexico’s 

Visibility Protection Plan and approved 

a Long-Term Strategy for Visibility 

Protection into the New Mexico SIP on 

January 27, 2006 (71 FR 4490). The State 

submitted a Regional Haze SIP to EPA 

on December 1, 2003. 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 had failed to submit for our 

review and approval a complete SIP for 

improving visibility in the nation’s 

national parks and wilderness areas by 

the required date of December 17, 2007. 

Specifically, we found that New Mexico 

had failed to submit the plan elements 

required by 40 CFR 51.309(g),44 and 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).45 On January 13, 2009, 

New Mexico submitted a letter to EPA, 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 84 / Monday, May 2, 2011 / Proposed Rules 24433 

46 January 13, 2009, letter from Bill Richardson, 

Governor of New Mexico, to Mayor Richard Greene, 

Regional Administrator, EPA Region 6. This letter 

is in the docket for this rulemaking. 

47See the Attainment Demonstration for the San 

Juan County Early Action Compact Area, approved 

by EPA and adopted into the SIP on August 17, 

2005 (70 FR 48285). 48See 65 FR 14877. 

clarifying that they intended to submit 

a Regional Haze SIP revision in 2009 to 

address the requirements of 40 CFR 

51.309(d)(4) and 40 CFR 51.309(g).46

New Mexico has since stated that they 

intend to make this necessary 

submission in 2011. To date, the State 

has not made a Regional Haze SIP 

submission. The State proposed to 

adopt a Regional Haze SIP on February 

28, 2011, and the public comment 

period will run through June 1, 2011. 

EPA will take action separately on New 

Mexico’s Regional Haze SIP once the 

State makes this submittal. With regard 

to the applicable requirements for 

visibility protection, EPA recognizes 

that States are subject to visibility and 

regional haze program requirements 

under Part C of the Act (which includes 

sections 169A and 169B). In the event 

of the establishment of a new NAAQS, 

however, the visibility and regional 

haze program requirements under part C 

do not change. Thus, we find that there 

is no new visibility obligation 

‘‘triggered’’ under section 110(a)(2)(J) 

when a new NAAQS becomes effective; 

and as such, visibility protection 

requirements are not relevant for 

purposes of this action. This would be 

the case even in the event a secondary 

PM2.5 NAAQS for visibility is 

established, because this NAAQS would 

not affect visibility requirements under 

part C. EPA is therefore proposing to 

find that the New Mexico SIP meets the 

requirements of this portion of section 

110(a)(2)(J) with respect to the 1997 8- 

hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Air quality modeling and submission 

of data, pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(K): 

The Air Quality Control Act authorizes 

NMED to ‘‘develop facts and make 

investigations and studies,’’ thereby 

providing for the functions of 

environmental air quality assessment. 

As an example, New Mexico submitted 

modeling and control measures in a SIP 

revision to demonstrate attainment of 

the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.47 The 

modeling and control measures in the 

SIP revision were approved by EPA and 

adopted into the SIP. 

This section of the Act also requires 

that a SIP provide for the submission of 

data related to such air quality modeling 

to the EPA upon request. The Air 

Quality Control Act authorizes NMED to 

cooperate with the Federal government 

in regard to matters of common interest 

in the field of air quality control, 

thereby allowing it to make this 

submission to EPA. See NMSA 1978 

74–2–5.2(B). 

EPA is proposing to find that the New 

Mexico SIP meets the requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(K) with respect to the 

1997 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Permitting fees, pursuant to section 

110(a)(2)(L): The Air Quality Control 

Act provides the EIB with the legal 

authority for establishing an emission 

fee schedule and a construction permit 

fee schedule to recover the reasonable 

costs of acting on permit applications, 

implementing, and enforcing permits. 

See NMSA 1978 74–2–7. New Mexico’s 

Permit Fee System was approved by 

EPA on July 17, 1991 (56 FR 32511). 

New Mexico’s Permit Fee System 

implements a fee system for all 

preconstruction air permits issued by 

NMED. New Mexico’s regulations for 

construction permit fees are found at 

20.2.75 NMAC. The State’s Title V 

program and associated fees legally are 

not part of the SIP, but were approved 

by EPA on November 26, 1996 (61 FR 

60032) as part of the New Mexico Title 

V Program. EPA is reviewing the New 

Mexico Title V program, including the 

Title V fee structure, separate from this 

action. Because the Title V program and 

associated fees legally are not part of the 

SIP, the infrastructure SIP action we are 

proposing today does not preclude EPA 

from taking future action regarding New 

Mexico’s Title V program. 

EPA is proposing to find that the New 

Mexico SIP meets the requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(L) with respect to the 

1997 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Consultation/participation by affected 

local entities, pursuant to section 

110(a)(2)(M): As indicated above, the 

Air Quality Control Act provides that, 

‘‘no regulations or emission control 

requirement shall be adopted until after 

a public hearing by the environmental 

improvement board or the local board’’ 

and provides that, ‘‘at the hearing, the 

environmental improvement board or 

the local board shall allow all interested 

persons reasonable opportunity to 

submit data, views, or arguments orally 

or in writing and to examine witnesses 

testifying at the hearing.’’ See NMSA 

1978 74–2–6(B) and (D). In addition, the 

Air Quality Control Act provides that 

the NMED shall have the power and 

duty to ‘‘advise, consult, contract with 

and cooperate with local authorities, 

other states, the Federal government and 

other interested persons or groups in 

regard to matters of common interest in 

the field of air quality control * * *’’ 

See NMSA 1978 74–2–5.2(B). New 

Mexico’s SIP approved PSD regulations 

at 20.2.74.400 NMAC mandate that the 

NMED shall provide for public 

participation and notification regarding 

permitting applications to any other 

state or local air pollution control 

agencies, local government officials of 

the city or county where the source will 

be located, and FLMs whose lands may 

be affected by emissions from the source 

or modification. New Mexico’s SIP 

approved Transportation Conformity 

regulations at 20.2.99.116 and 

20.2.99.124 NMAC require that 

interagency consultation and 

opportunity for public involvement be 

provided before making transportation 

conformity determinations and before 

adopting applicable SIP revisions on 

transportation-related SIPs.48

EPA is proposing to find that the New 

Mexico SIP meets the requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(M) with respect to the 

1997 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. 

IV. Proposed Action 

We are proposing to approve the 

submittals provided by the State of New 

Mexico to demonstrate that the New 

Mexico SIP meets the requirements of 

Section 110(a)(1) and (2) of the Act for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone and PM2.5

NAAQS. We are proposing to find that 

the current New Mexico SIP meets the 

infrastructure elements listed below: 

Emission limits and other control 

measures (110(a)(2)(A) of the Act); 

Ambient air quality monitoring/data 

system (110(a)(2)(B) of the Act); 

Program for enforcement of control 

measures (110(a)(2)(C) of the Act); 

Interstate and international transport 

(110(a)(2)(D)(ii) of the Act); 

Adequate resources (110(a)(2)(E) of 

the Act); 

Stationary source monitoring system 

(110(a)(2)(F) of the Act); 

Emergency power (110(a)(2)(G) of the 

Act); 

Future SIP revisions (110(a)(2)(H) of 

the Act); 

Consultation with government 

officials (110(a)(2)(J) of the Act); 

Public notification (110(a)(2)(J) of the 

Act); 

Prevention of significant deterioration 

and visibility protection (110(a)(2)(J) of 

the Act); 

Air quality modeling data 

(110(a)(2)(K) of the Act); 

Permitting fees (110(a)(2)(L) of the 

Act); and 

Consultation/participation by affected 

local entities (110(a)(2)(M) of the Act). 

EPA is also proposing to make CFR 

codification technical corrections to 

amend the following: 

1. The table titled ‘‘EPA Approved 

Nonregulatory Provisions And QuasiVerDate Mar<15>2010 17:43 Apr 29, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02MYP1.SGM 02MYP1

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
24434 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 84 / Monday, May 2, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

Regulatory Measures In The New 

Mexico SIP,’’ found under 40 CFR 

52.1620(e), by including an entry for 

New Mexico’s already SIP approved Air 

Pollution Episode Contingency Plan. 

2. The table titled ‘‘EPA Approved 

New Mexico Regulations,’’ found under 

40 CFR 52.1620(c), by (i) deleting 

entries for part 70 (Operating Permits) 

and part 71 (Operating Permit Emission 

Fees) of 20.2 NMAC and (ii) correcting 

the currently listed EPA approval date 

for the recodification of New Mexico’s 

air quality regulations in the SIP. 

3. 40 CFR 52.1640(c)(66)(i)(B), by 

amending the paragraph such that it 

correctly identifies the State regulations 

submitted by the State and approved by 

EPA into the New Mexico SIP. 

4. 40 CFR 52.1634(a) and 40 CFR 

52.1640(c)(39), by amending each 

paragraph such that it identifies that 

New Mexico has fully met all conditions 

of our February 27, 1987 conditional 

approval of New Mexico’s PSD program 

such that our conditional approval is 

converted to a full approval. 

We are also proposing to convert our 

February 27, 1987, conditional approval 

of New Mexico’s PSD program (52 FR 

5964), to a full approval based on the 

November 2, 1988, approval of New 

Mexico’s stack height regulations (53 FR 

44191), at which point New Mexico 

fully met the condition in the 

conditional approval. 

Lastly, EPA is proposing to approve a 

severable revision to regulation 20.2.3 

NMAC (Ambient Air Quality 

Standards), which was submitted by 

New Mexico on November 2, 2006. The 

revision to 20.2.3 NMAC removes the 

state ambient air quality standards from 

being an applicable requirement under 

the State’s Title V permitting program, 

found at 20.2.70 NMAC (Operating 

Permits). The revision also adds 

language to ensure that sources being 

issued a permit under the State’s minor 

source permitting program, found at 

20.2.72 NMAC (Operating Permits), are 

required to continue to address the 

State’s ambient air quality standards in 

their application. 

EPA is proposing these actions in 

accordance with section 110 and part C 

of the Act and EPA’s regulations and is 

consistent with EPA guidance. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, 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, EPA’s role is to approve 

state choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this action merely 

proposes to approve state law as 

meeting Federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. For 

that reason, this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). In 

addition, this rule does not have Tribal 

implications as specified by Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000), because the SIP is not approved 

to apply in Indian country located in the 

state, and EPA notes that it will not 

impose substantial direct costs on Tribal 

governments or preempt Tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxides, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

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

Dated: April 22, 2011. 

Al Armendariz, 

Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

[FR Doc. 2011–10569 Filed 4–29–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Parts 0 and 1 

[GC Docket No. 10–43; FCC 11–11] 

Commission’s Ex Parte Rules and 

Other Procedural Rules 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Further notice of proposed 

rulemaking 

SUMMARY: In this document the 

Commission seeks comment on 

amending the rules to require that 

notices of ex parte discussions disclose 

real parties-in-interest. The change was 

proposed because the existing rules do 

not enable interested parties to know 

whose interests are being represented 

when a contact is made. By requiring 

the disclosure of this information the 

proposed amendment would increase 

transparency and openness in 

Commission proceedings. The FNPRM 

was adopted in conjunction with a 

Report and Order amending the ex parte 

rules, which is published elsewhere in 

this Federal Register. 

DATES: Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of 

the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 

1.419, interested parties may file 

comments on or before June 16, 2011 

and reply comments on or before July 

18, 2011. Written comments on the 

Paperwork Reduction Act proposed 

information collection requirements 

must be submitted by the public, Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB), and 

other interested parties on or before July 

1, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by GC Docket No. 10–43, by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Federal Communications 

Commission’s Web Site: http:// 

fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• People with Disabilities: Contact the 

FCC to request reasonable 

accommodations (accessible format 

documents, sign language interpreters, 

CART, etc.) by e-mail: FCC504@fcc.gov 

or phone: 202–418–0530 or TTY: 202– 

418–0432. 

In addition to filing comments with 

the Office of the Secretary, a copy of any 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS