Document ID: EPA-R06-OAR-2014-0237-0001
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: NM065.01 Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approval and Promulgation; New Mexico State; Regional Haze Five-Year Progress Report State Implementation Plan, Proposed rule.  8 pages
Posted Date: 2015-11-03T05:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 212 (Tuesday, November 3, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 67682-67689]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-28007]

[[Page 67682]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2014-0237; FRL-9936-46-Region 6]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; New Mexico; 
Regional Haze Five-Year Progress Report State Implementation Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing 
approval of a revision to a State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted 
by the State of New Mexico through the New Mexico Environment 
Department (NMED) on March 14, 2014. New Mexico's SIP revision 
addresses requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and the EPA's rules 
that require states to submit periodic reports describing progress 
toward reasonable progress goals (RPGs) established for regional haze 
and a determination of the adequacy of the State's existing regional 
haze SIP (RH SIP).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 3, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2014-
0237, by one of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions.
     Email: Mr. Guy Donaldson at donaldson.guy@epa.gov
    Mail or Delivery: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning Section 
(6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, 
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.
    Instructions: Direct comments to Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2014-0237. 
The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the 
public docket without change and made available online at 
www.regulations.gov. The EPA includes any personal information 
provided, unless a comment includes information claimed to be 
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit any information 
electronically that is considered CBI or any other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. The www.regulations.gov Web site 
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means the EPA will not know 
one's identity or contact information unless it is provided in the body 
of a comment. If a comment is emailed directly to the EPA without going 
through www.regulations.gov, then the sender's email address will 
automatically be captured and included as part of the public docket 
comment and made available on the Internet. If a comment is submitted 
electronically, then it is recommended that one's name and other 
contact information be included in the body of the comment, and with 
any disk or CD-ROM submitted. If the EPA cannot read a particular 
comment due to technical difficulties and is unable to contact for 
clarification, the EPA may not be able to consider the comment. 
Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form 
of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. Multimedia 
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written 
comment. The written comment will be considered the official comment 
with multimedia submissions and should include all discussion points 
desired. The EPA will generally not consider comments or their contents 
submitted outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or 
other file sharing systems). For additional information on submitting 
comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available 
electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at the EPA 
Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. While all 
documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may 
be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted 
material), and some may not be publicly available at either location 
(e.g., CBI).
    The New Mexico regional haze progress report is available online at 
the following: www.nmenv.state.nm.us/aqb/reghaz/regional-haze_index.html. It is also available for public inspection during 
official business hours, by appointment, at the Air Quality Bureau, 
Environmental Protection Division, New Mexico Environment Department, 
525 Camino de los Marquez, Suite 1, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. James E. Grady, (214) 665-6745; 
grady.james@epa.gov. To inspect the hard copy materials, please contact 
Mr. Grady or Mr. Bill Deese at (214) 665-7253.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``our,'' 
or ``us'' each mean ``the EPA.''

Table of Contents

I. Background on Regional Haze
II. Background on Regional Haze SIPs
III. Requirements for Five-Year Regional Haze Progress Report SIP
IV. Evaluation of New Mexico's Regional Haze Progress Report SIP
    A. Status of Control Strategies
    1. Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)
    2. SO2 Milestone and Backstop Trading Program
    3. Agricultural and Forestry Smoke Management Techniques
    4. Additional Controls--State Air Regulations: NSR and PSD
    5. Summary of Control Strategy Implementation
    B. Emissions Reductions From Control Strategies
    C. Visibility Progress
    D. Emissions Progress
    E. Assessment of Changes Impeding Visibility Progress
    F. Assessment of Current Strategy To Meet RPGs
    G. Review of Visibility Monitoring Strategy
    H. Determination of Adequacy
V. The EPA's Proposed Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background on Regional Haze

    Regional haze is visibility impairment that occurs over a wide 
geographic area primarily from the pollution of fine particles 
(PM2.5) \1\ in nature. Fine particles causing haze consist 
of sulfates, nitrates, ammonium, particulate organic matter, black 
carbon, and soil dust. Airborne PM2.5 can scatter and absorb 
the incident light and therefore lead to atmospheric opacity and 
horizontal visibility degradation. Regional haze limits visual distance 
and reduces color, clarity and contrast of view. Emissions that affect 
visibility include a wide variety of natural and man-made sources. In 
New Mexico, the most important sources of haze-forming emissions are 
coal-fired power plants, oil and gas development, woodland fires, and 
windblown dust. Reducing PM2.5 and their precursor gases in 
the atmosphere is an effective method of improving visibility. 
PM2.5 precursors consist of sulfur dioxide (SO2), 
nitrogen oxides (NOX), ammonia (NH3) and volatile 
organic compounds (VOCs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Additionally, coarse particles (PM10) can 
contribute to light extinction. However, they settle out from the 
air more rapidly than fine particles and usually will be found 
relatively close to emission sources. Fine particles can be 
transported long distances by wind and can be found in the air 
thousands of miles from where they were formed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Background on Regional Haze SIPs

    In section 169A of the 1977 Amendments to the CAA, Congress created 
a program for protecting visibility in the nation's national parks and 
wilderness areas. This section of the CAA establishes as a national 
goal the prevention of any future, and the

[[Page 67683]]

remedying of any existing man-made impairment of visibility in 156 
national parks and wilderness areas designated as mandatory Class I 
Federal areas.\2\ On December 2, 1980, the EPA promulgated regulations 
to address visibility impairment in Class I areas that is ``reasonably 
attributable'' to a single source or small group of sources, i.e., 
``reasonably attributable visibility impairment.'' \3\ These 
regulations represented the first phase in addressing visibility 
impairment. The EPA deferred action on regional haze that emanates from 
a variety of sources until monitoring, modeling and scientific 
knowledge about the relationships between pollutants and visibility 
impairment were improved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal areas consist 
of National Parks exceeding 6000 acres, wilderness areas and 
national memorial parks exceeding 5000 acres, and all international 
parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977. 42 U.S.C. 7472(a). 
In accordance with section 169A of the CAA, EPA, in consultation 
with the Department of Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas 
where visibility is identified as an important value. 44 FR 69122 
(November 30, 1979). The extent of a mandatory Class I area includes 
subsequent changes in boundaries, such as park expansions. 42 U.S.C. 
7472(a). Although states and tribes may designate as Class I 
additional areas which they consider to have visibility as an 
important value, the requirements of the visibility program set 
forth in section 169A of the CAA apply only to ``mandatory Class I 
Federal areas.'' Each mandatory Class I Federal area is the 
responsibility of a ``Federal Land Manager.'' 42 U.S.C. 7602(i). 
When we use the term ``Class I area'' in this action, we mean a 
``mandatory Class I Federal area.''
    \3\ 45 FR 80084 (December 2, 1980).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Congress added section 169B to the CAA in 1990 to address regional 
haze issues, and the EPA promulgated regulations addressing regional 
haze in 1999.\4\ The Regional Haze Rule revised the existing visibility 
regulations to integrate into the regulations provisions addressing 
regional haze impairment and established a comprehensive visibility 
protection program for Class I areas. The requirements for regional 
haze, found at 40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309, are included in the EPA's 
visibility protection regulations at 40 CFR 51.300-309. States must 
demonstrate reasonable progress toward meeting the national goal of a 
return to natural visibility conditions for mandatory Class I Federal 
areas both within and outside states by 2064. The requirement to submit 
a regional haze SIP applies to all fifty states, the District of 
Columbia, and the Virgin Islands. States were required to submit the 
first implementation plan addressing regional haze visibility 
impairment no later than December 17, 2007.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 64 FR 35714 (July 1, 1999), codified at 40 CFR part 51, 
subpart P (Regional Haze Rule).
    \5\ See 40 CFR 51.308(b). EPA's regional haze regulations 
require subsequent updates to the regional haze SIPs. 40 CFR 
51.308(g)-(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Requirements for the Five-Year Regional Haze Progress Report SIP

    The Regional Haze Rule requires a comprehensive analysis of each 
state's regional haze SIP every ten years and a progress report every 
five years. This five-year review is intended to provide a progress 
report on, and, if necessary, mid-course corrections to, the regional 
haze SIP. The progress report provides an opportunity for public input 
on the State's (and the EPA's) assessment of whether the approved 
regional haze SIP is being implemented appropriately and whether 
reasonable visibility progress is being achieved consistent with the 
projected visibility improvement in the SIP. At a minimum, New Mexico 
must include in its progress report the following seven elements: \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    (1) Provide a description of the status of implementation of all 
control measures in the approved RH SIP.
    (2) Summarize the emissions reductions achieved through 
implementation of the control measures.
    (3) Assess the visibility conditions and changes for each Class I 
area in the State.
    (4) Analyze the changes in emissions from sources and activities 
within the State.
    (5) Provide an assessment of any significant changes in 
anthropogenic emissions within or outside the State that have limited 
or impeded progress in reducing emissions and improving visibility in 
Class I areas.
    (6) Evaluate the sufficiency of the approved RH SIP to meet all 
RPGs.
    (7) Provide a review of the State's visibility monitoring strategy.
    New Mexico submitted their progress report SIP for the State \7\ 
under 40 CFR 51.309.\8\ Typically, progress report requirements of most 
states are covered under 40 CFR 51.308(g) and (h). However, 40 CFR 
51.309 presents nine western states with an optional approach of 
fulfilling Regional Haze Rule requirements by adopting emission 
reduction strategies developed by the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport 
Commission (GCVTC). These strategies were designed primarily to improve 
visibility of sixteen Class I areas in the Colorado Plateau \9\ area. 
Since New Mexico currently has one Class I area, the San Pedro Parks 
Wilderness Area, inside the Colorado Plateau, the State exercised the 
option to meet the alternative requirements contained in 40 CFR 51.309 
for RH SIPs. The requirements for five-year progress reports are 
consistent with those for the other states, but the requirements for 
the reports are codified at 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10) instead of at 40 CFR 
51.308(g) and (h). Also, under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i), states must 
submit a regional haze progress report in the years 2013 and 2018. In 
contrast, under 40 CFR 51.308, states must submit a progress report 
five years from submittal of the initial implementation plan. Under 40 
CFR 51.309(d)(10)(ii), states are required to submit, at the same time 
as the progress report SIP, a determination of the adequacy of their 
existing RH SIP and to take one of four possible actions, as described 
in more detail in this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The proposed action does not pertain to the Albuquerque/
Bernalillo County portion of the SIP in New Mexico. The New Mexico 
Air Quality Control Act (section 74-2-4) authorizes Albuquerque/
Bernalillo County to locally administer and enforce the State Air 
Quality Control Act by providing for a local air quality control 
program, and that entity submitted an initial RH SIP for its own 
jurisdiction that was separately approved by the EPA (77 FR 71119, 
November 29, 2012). The EPA anticipates a separate RH progress 
report SIP submittal from this entity.
    \8\ Three Western States (New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming) 
exercised the option provided in the Regional Haze Rule to meet the 
alternative requirements contained in 40 CFR 51.309 for RH SIPs.
    \9\ The Colorado Plateau is a high, semi-arid tableland in 
Southeast Utah, Northern Arizona, Northwest New Mexico, and Western 
Colorado. The sixteen mandatory Class I areas are as follows: Grand 
Canyon National Park, Mount Baldy Wilderness, Petrified Forest 
National Park, Sycamore Canyon Wilderness, Black Canyon of the 
Gunnison National Park Wilderness, Flat Tops Wilderness, Maroon 
Bells Wilderness, Mesa Verde National Park, Weminuche Wilderness, 
West Elk Wilderness, San Pedro Parks Wilderness, Arches National 
Park, Bryce Canyon National Park, Canyonlands National Park, Capital 
Reef National Park, and Zion National Park.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Evaluation of New Mexico's Regional Haze Progress Report SIP

    On December 31, 2003, the State of New Mexico submitted a RH SIP 
with later SIP revisions (July 5, 2011 and October 7, 2013) that 
addressed the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309.\10\ On March 14, 2014, the 
EPA received the periodic report on progress from NMED in the form of a 
regional haze SIP

[[Page 67684]]

revision. This latest submission is the subject of this proposed 
approval. The periodic report was made in the first implementation 
period toward RPGs for Class I areas in and outside the State that were 
affected by emissions from New Mexico's sources. The SIP revision 
includes the State's determination that the existing RH SIP requires no 
substantive revision to achieve the established regional haze 
visibility improvement and emissions reduction goals for 2018. The EPA 
is proposing to approve New Mexico's progress report SIP on the basis 
that it satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The EPA approved all of the 2003 and 2011 submittals on 
November 27, 2012 (77 FR 70693) except for the submitted 
NOX Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) 
determination for the San Juan Generating Station (SJGS). The EPA 
had issued a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) containing a 
different NOX BART determination for the SJGS. 76 FR 
52,388 (Aug. 22, 2011). The 2013 RH SIP revision contained a new 
NOX BART determination for the SJGS that superseded the 
State's previous NOX BART determination included in the 
2011 RH SIP revision. The EPA withdrew the FIP and approved the 2013 
RH SIP revision on October 9, 2014 (79 FR 60985 and 79 FR 60978)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    New Mexico has nine Class I areas within its borders: Bandelier 
Wilderness, Bosque del Apache National Wildlife Refuge, Carlsbad 
Caverns National Park, Gila Wilderness, Pecos Wilderness, Salt Creek 
Wilderness, Wheeler Peak Wilderness, White Mountain Wilderness, and San 
Pedro Parks Wilderness. San Pedro Parks Wilderness is the only Class I 
area in New Mexico that is located on the Colorado Plateau.\11\ 
Visibility impairment at New Mexico's nine Class I areas is tracked in 
units of deciviews (dv), which is related to the cumulative sum of 
visibility impairment from individual aerosol species as measured by 
eight monitors in the Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual 
Environments (IMPROVE) Network.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The Section 309 SIP submitted by the State of New Mexico in 
December of 2003 addresses only San Pedro Parks Wilderness Area. All 
of the other Class I areas are addressed under the Section 309(g) 
SIP submitted by the State of New Mexico in June of 2011 and as 
revised and submitted in October of 2013.
    \12\ The IMPROVE monitor for the Wheeler Peak Wilderness Area is 
used to represent visibility conditions at the nearby Pecos 
Wilderness. The IMPROVE monitor for Carlsbad Caverns is located in 
Texas at Guadalupe Mountains National Park.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Through collaboration with the Western Regional Air Partnership 
(WRAP),\13\ New Mexico worked with the western states to assess state-
by-state contributions to visibility impairment in specific Class I 
areas in New Mexico and those affected by emissions from New Mexico. 
The WRAP report provides data on other, less pertinent Class I areas 
outside New Mexico borders, and this information primarily appears in 
the technical appendices.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The WRAP is a collaborative effort of tribal governments, 
state governments and various federal agencies representing the 
western states that provides technical and policy tools for the 
western states and tribes to comply with the EPA's Regional Haze 
regulations. Detailed information regarding WRAP support of air 
quality management issues for western states is provided on the WRAP 
Web site (www.wrapair2.org). Data summary descriptions and tools 
specific to Regional Haze Rule support are available on the WRAP 
Technical Support System Web site (http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/tss/).
    \14\ The Western Regional Air Partnership Regional Haze Rule 
Reasonable Progress Summary Report technical support document has 
been prepared on behalf of the fifteen Western State members in the 
WRAP region to provide the technical basis for use by states to 
develop the first of their individual reasonable progress reports 
for the 116 Federal Class I areas located in the Western states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following sections cover:
     The seven regulatory elements required by the progress 
report SIP; \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

     How New Mexico's progress report SIP addressed each 
element; and
     The EPA's analysis and proposed determination as to 
whether New Mexico satisfied each part.

A. Status of Control Strategies

    40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(A) requires a description of the status of 
implementation of all control measures included in the RH SIP for 
achieving RPGs for Class I areas both within and outside the State.
    New Mexico stated in the progress report that it is implementing 
all long-term control strategies, with the exception of the state 
adopted State Mobile Source Regulation.\16\ The State Mobile Source 
Regulation, when adopted, sought to apply California motor vehicle 
standards within New Mexico, and this regulation, while mentioned in 
the State's long-term strategy, was not submitted to EPA as a SIP 
revision. The report explains that federal programs, as revised, 
achieve the same emission reductions and have provided the State a 
basis, in its judgment, for not implementing the regulation. The EPA 
considers this explanation acceptable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(5)(ii), New Mexico is required to 
submit interim reports to the EPA and the public on the 
implementation status of the regional and local strategies to 
address mobile source emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    New Mexico evaluated the status of all measures included in its RH 
SIP in accordance with the requirements under 40 CFR 
51.309(d)(10)(i)(A). The major control measures identified by New 
Mexico in the progress report RH SIP are as follows:

 Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)
 SO2 Milestone and Backstop Trading Program
 Agricultural and Forestry Smoke Management Techniques
 Additional Controls--State Air Regulations: New Source Review 
(NSR) and Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)

    In its initial RH SIP, New Mexico identified ammonium sulfate, 
particulate organic matter, and coarse mass as the largest contributors 
to visibility impairment. Many of the contributing sources to 
visibility impairment in New Mexico are natural, rather than 
anthropogenic in nature, and are not controllable. The primary sources 
of ammonium sulfate are point sources and on- and off-road mobile 
source emissions. For particulate organic matter, the primary sources 
of emissions are from natural and anthropogenic fire. The primary 
sources of coarse mass emissions in New Mexico are windblown and 
fugitive dust. For the progress report, New Mexico focused on those 
emission sources that were anthropogenic in nature.
    The progress report stated that the emissions reductions from 
implementing the major control measures would ensure that the New 
Mexico Class I areas would achieve the RPGs. New Mexico included a 
summary of the implementation status associated with each control 
measure and quantified the benefits where possible. When comparing 
baseline to current visibility conditions, the progress report showed 
that New Mexico is currently on track, if not exceeding, the visibility 
impairment emission reductions needed to achieve RPG's for 2018.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See table 2.1 of New Mexico Regional Haze progress report 
SIP. A complete copy of the progress report SIP is available in the 
online docket for this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)
    New Mexico identified one single stationary source in the progress 
report SIP, the San Juan Generating Station (SJGS), to be subject to 
BART. The SJGS includes four coal-fired boilers. In the New Mexico 2013 
RH SIP, New Mexico determined that the BART controls for boiler units 1 
and 4 will have selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) air pollution 
control devices installed for visibility-impairing pollutant reduction. 
Consistent with the terms in the State's then-pending SIP revision, the 
report assumed future installation of controls would occur fifteen 
months following approval of the revised RH SIP (but not earlier than 
January 31, 2016).\18\ Additionally, the remaining two boiler units, 2 
and 3, would be retired by the end of 2017. New Mexico estimated that 
implementation of the BART controls at SJGS would result in 
NOX reduction of approximately 13,000 tons per year (tpy) 
(from 21,000 tpy to 8,011 tpy); SO2 reduction of 6,600 tpy 
(from 10,500 tpy

[[Page 67685]]

to 3,843 tpy); and particulate matter (PM) reduction of 1,200 tpy (from 
2,380 tpy to 1,184 tpy). These reductions represent a 35% reduction in 
the statewide emissions of NOX, SO2, and PM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Subsequent to the submission of the New Mexico progress 
report SIP, the EPA withdrew the FIP and approved the 2013 RH SIP 
revision on October 9, 2014 (79 FR 60985 and 79 FR 60978).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA finds that the progress report SIP adequately reviews the 
status of New Mexico's BART source. It identifies the controls to be 
applied; outlines the compliance timeframe for those controls; and 
shows potential reduction in visibility-impairing pollutants with 
future BART implementation.
2. SO2 Milestone and Backstop Trading Program
    The progress report SIP discusses the SO2 Milestone and 
Backstop Trading Program \19\ as a control measure. New Mexico has 
participated in this voluntary program since December 31, 2003. New 
Mexico must submit an annual report that compares tracked stationary 
source SO2 emissions to yearly milestones. A milestone is an 
established maximum level of annual emissions for a given year (from 
2003 to 2018). The milestones help establish annual SO2 
emission reduction targets. The annual targets represent RPGs in 
reducing visibility-impairing emissions. If states fail to meet the 
milestones, then the backstop-trading program is triggered to implement 
an emissions cap. The cap allocates emission allowances (or credits) to 
the affected sources based on the cap, and requires the sources to hold 
sufficient allowances to cover their emissions each year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Under Section 309 of the Federal Regional Haze Rule, nine 
western states and tribes within those states have the option of 
submitting plans to reduce regional haze emissions that impair 
visibility at 16 Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau. Five 
states--Arizona, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming--and 
Albuquerque-Bernalillo County initially exercised this option by 
submitting plans to the EPA by December 31, 2003. Oregon elected to 
cease participation in the program in 2006 and Arizona elected to 
cease participation in 2010. The tribes were not subject to the 
deadline and still can opt into the program at any time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Appendix B of the progress report SIP includes the 2011 Regional 
SO2 Emissions and Milestone Report. The 2011 milestone is 
200,722 tons SO2, which represents the average regional 
emissions milestone for the years 2009, 2010, and 2011. The average of 
2009, 2010, and 2011 adjusted emissions was determined to be 130,935 
tons SO2. New Mexico and participating States have met the 
200,722 tons SO2 milestone. Emissions were about 35% below 
the 2011 three-State regional milestone.
3. Agricultural and Forestry Smoke Management Techniques \20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ The EPA approved 20.2.65 NMAC, Smoke Management and 20.2.60 
NMAC Open Burning, on November 27, 2012 (77 FR 70693) in the same 
action approving the 2011 New Mexico RH SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The progress report SIP affirms that New Mexico developed a state 
Smoke Management Plan (SMP) to be used as a control measure. The EPA 
previously approved smoke management rules into the SIP in 2012, which 
protect the health and welfare of New Mexicans from the impacts of 
smoke from all sources of fire.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Several WRAP policies developed by the GCVTC were used to 
guide the development of the New Mexico SMP program: The WRAP Policy 
for Characterizing Fire Emissions shows a methodology to categorize 
fire emissions as either natural or anthropogenic. The WRAP Policy 
on Enhanced Smoke Management Programs for Visibility identifies and 
enhanced SMP to address visibility effects from all types of fire 
that contribute to visibility impairment in mandatory Federal Class 
I areas. The WRAP Policy on Annual Emissions Goals for Fire outlines 
a process by which states/tribes may establish annual emission 
goals, based on the utilization of currently available emission 
reduction techniques, to include in their RH SIPs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Additional Controls--State Air Regulations: NSR and PSD
    The progress report affirms that New Mexico continues to implement 
the State's NSR program and asserts that state regulations are up to 
date with 40 CFR 51.166. NSR applies to all construction permitting for 
new stationary sources under the CAA, for attainment or non-attainment 
areas.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ The NSR program is established by 20.2.72 NMAC. http://164.64.110.239/nmac/parts/title20/20.002.0072.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Likewise, New Mexico implements the State's PSD program, as has 
been the case since 1982. PSD is the NSR program for new major \23\ 
stationary sources and major modifications in attainment areas. The 
program minimizes new pollution and utilizes best available control 
technology (BACT) to reduce visibility-impairing pollutants and prevent 
deterioration of Class I areas.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ ``Major'' means emitting or having the potential to emit 
100 tpy or more of any criteria pollutant for the specific source 
categories listed in the PSD regulations. There are 28 listed source 
categories, which include power plants that use steam to generate 
electricity, petroleum refineries and glass fiber processing plants. 
If a plant does not fall into one of the listed source categories, 
then a threshold of 250 tpy applies. BART addresses certain sources 
that have the potential to emit 250 tpy or more of a single 
visibility-impairing pollutant.
    \24\ The most recent approval of New Mexico's PSD program was on 
12/11/2013 (see 78 FR 75253). PSD is established by 20.2.74 NMAC. 
http://164.64.110.239/nmac/parts/title20/20.002.0074.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Both PSD and BART protect Class I area visibility in the same way. 
BART and PSD are complementary programs aimed at regulating the same 
source categories; either one or the other applies depending upon when 
the source was constructed. PSD was adopted in 1977 for all new major 
sources. BART is applied to pre-PSD, to address visibility impacts from 
existing major sources built 1962 to 1977. BART only addresses 
visibility, whereas PSD addresses NAAQS, increment consumption, and 
visibility.
5. Summary of Control Strategy Implementation
    The EPA proposes to conclude that New Mexico adequately addressed 
the status of control measures in its progress report RH SIP as 
required by the provisions under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(A). All major 
control measures (including BART) were identified and the emission 
reduction strategy behind each control was explained. New Mexico 
included a summary of the implementation status associated with each 
control measure and quantified the benefits where possible. In 
addition, the progress report SIP adequately outlined the compliance 
timeframe for all controls.

B. Emissions Reductions From Control Strategies

    40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(B) requires a summary of the emission 
reductions achieved throughout the State through implementation of 
control measures mentioned in 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(A). The progress 
report must identify and estimate emissions reductions to date in 
visibility-impairing pollutants from the SIP control measures 
identified for implementation.
    New Mexico reported in figure 3.6 of the progress report SIP that 
NOX, SO2, and PM point source emissions decreased 
in New Mexico from 2008 to 2012. Approximated NO2 emissions 
reduced from 63,000 tpy to 44,000 tpy, constituting an emission 
reduction of about 30%. Approximated SO2 emissions reduced 
from 26,000 tpy to 15,000 tpy, constituting an emission reduction of 
about 42%. As compared to NO2 and SO2, PM 
emissions represent a small part of the State's emissions inventories, 
and PM reductions are not especially pronounced. Figure 3.6 shows that 
actual point source emissions for NO2 and SO2 
decreased below the WRAP's projected 2018 point-source emissions that 
helped establish New Mexico's RPGs for the first planning period. In 
reviewing the point source data, the EPA compared it to that reported 
by the Clean Air Markets Division (CAMD) and found that the

[[Page 67686]]

reported emissions were consistent with that data.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See the Technical Support Document (TSD), ``Evaluation of 
State Emission Trends Analysis,'' a copy of which is posted in the 
docket for this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    New Mexico explained that the most significant decrease in 
emissions since the RH SIP revision in June 2011 has been from 
SO2 in accordance with the State's SO2 Milestone 
and Backstop Trading Program. SO2 emissions were about 35% 
below the 2011 three-state regional milestone.
    Part of the observed emission reductions were also the result of 
controls installed at SJGS completed in 2009 in response to a 2005 
consent decree. Future emission reductions to satisfy BART at SJGS will 
also occur during this planning period, resulting in a significant 
reduction in total point source emissions in the State. New Mexico 
estimated that implementation of the BART controls at SJGS would result 
in NOX reduction of approximately 13,000 tons per year (tpy) 
(from 21,000 tpy to 8,011 tpy); SO2 reduction of 6,600 tpy 
(from 10,500 tpy to 3,843 tpy); and particulate matter (PM) reduction 
of 1,200 tpy (from 2,380 tpy to 1,184 tpy). These reductions represent 
a 35% reduction in the statewide emissions of NOX, 
SO2, and PM. Statewide emissions are significantly below the 
2018 projected levels relied upon in the 2011 RH SIP. Therefore, New 
Mexico does not expect reasonable progress to be adversely impacted in 
any of the Class I areas in New Mexico or neighboring states.
    Additional control measures included in the SIP were federal and 
state programs (NSR, PSD, and SMP programs). Qualitatively, the 
continued implementation of those federal and state measures is 
expected to continue to reduce emissions. Deciview and aerosol 
extinction maps provided by New Mexico illustrate both a decrease in 
magnitude of visibility impairment and relative pollutant contribution 
in New Mexico and surrounding states for 2005-2009.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See Figures 3.1 through 3.5 of progress report SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA proposes to conclude that New Mexico has adequately 
summarized the emission reductions achieved throughout the State in its 
progress report RH SIP as required under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(B). In 
meeting this requirement, the EPA does not expect states to quantify 
emission reductions for measures which have not yet been implemented or 
for which the compliance date has not yet been reached. However, for 
purposes of future progress reports, we recommend that New Mexico 
include additional quantitative details on the reductions of each major 
specific visibility-impairing pollutant and utilize available CAMD 
data, as appropriate.

C. Visibility Progress

    40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(C) requires that for each mandatory Class I 
Federal area within the State, the State must assess the following 
visibility conditions and changes, with values for most impaired and 
least impaired days \27\ expressed in terms of five-year averages of 
these annual values:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ The ``most impaired days'' and ``least impaired days'' in 
the regional haze rule refers to the average visibility impairment 
(measured in deciviews) for the 20% of monitored days in a calendar 
year with the highest and lowest amount of visibility impairment, 
respectively, averaged over a five-year period. See 40 CFR 51.301.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. Assess the current visibility conditions for the most impaired 
and least impaired days.
    2. Analyze the difference between current visibility conditions for 
the most impaired and least impaired days and baseline visibility 
conditions.
    3. Evaluate the change in visibility impairment for the most 
impaired and least impaired days over the past five years.
    New Mexico provided visibility data for 2000 through 2011 that 
addressed the three requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(C) for 
Class I areas in New Mexico. Much of the analysis and visibility data 
presented in the New Mexico progress report SIP were taken from the RHR 
Reasonable Progress Summary Report prepared by the WRAP.
    This section requires the report to include deciview values for 
three separate periods: Baseline visibility conditions, current 
visibility conditions, and visibility conditions of the past five 
years. Baseline visibility conditions refer to conditions identified in 
initial RH SIPs for the 2000-2004 period. Current visibility conditions 
refer to the most recent five-year average data available at the time 
the State submitted its progress report. The past five years would be 
five years before the year used for current visibility conditions.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ General Principles for the 5-Year Regional Haze Progress 
Reports for the Initial Regional Haze State Implementation Plans 
(Intended to Assist States and EPA Regional Offices in Development 
and Review of the Progress Reports), EPA, April 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    New Mexico calculated the five-year baseline visibility conditions 
for 2000-2004; successive five-year average visibility conditions for 
2005-2009; and the most recent visibility conditions for 2007-2011. The 
change in baseline and current visibility was compared to the change in 
baseline and past five-year visibility.\29\ Both results were tabulated 
for the 20% worst and best days and compared to 2018 RPGs.\30\ The most 
recent data from 2007-2011 in the progress report SIP were not 
addressed. The EPA provided a comparison of the 2007-2011 data in table 
2, below, showing that progress, while trending toward further 
visibility improvement, was not quite as good as in the 2005-2009 
period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ New Mexico also included 2006 to 2010 data, but it was not 
included in table 2.
    \30\ See Tables 3.3 through 3.20 of the New Mexico progress 
report SIP.

                                               Table 2--Visibility Conditions at New Mexico Class I Areas
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                            Visibility
                                                                                  Visibility                   Visibility                  improvement
                                                       Baseline     2005-2009    improvement     2007-2011    improvement     2018 RPGs    needed over
                    Class I Area                      (2000-2004)     (dv)      over baseline      (dv)      over baseline      (dv)       baseline for
                                                         (dv)                    (2005-2009)                  (2007-2011)                 2018 RPGs (dv)
                                                                                    (dv) *                       (dv) *                         *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     20% Worst Days
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bandelier..........................................          12.2        11.8              0.4        12.0              0.2        11.9              0.3
Bosque del Apache..................................          13.8        13.4              0.4        13.1              0.7       13.59             0.21
Gila Wilderness....................................          13.1        12.5              0.6        11.3              1.8       12.99             0.11
Carlsbad Caverns...................................          17.2        15.9              1.3        15.3              1.9       16.93             0.27
Salt Creek.........................................          18.0        17.5              0.5        17.3              0.7       17.33             0.67
San Pedro Parks....................................          10.2         9.9              0.3        10.1              0.1         9.8              0.4
Wheeler Peak.......................................          10.4         9.1              1.3         9.6              0.8       10.23             0.17

[[Page 67687]]

 
White Mountain.....................................          13.7        13.2              0.5        13.9             -0.2       13.27             0.43
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      20% Best Days
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bandelier..........................................           5.0         4.2              0.8         3.9              1.1        4.89             0.11
Bosque del Apache..................................           6.3         5.8              0.5         5.5              0.8         6.1              0.2
Gila Wilderness....................................           3.3         2.7              0.6         2.4              0.9         3.2              0.1
Carlsbad Caverns...................................           5.9         5.4              0.5         4.9              1.0        6.14
Salt Creek.........................................           7.8         7.3              0.5         6.9              0.9        7.43             0.37
San Pedro Parks....................................           1.5         1.0              0.5         1.0              0.5         1.2              0.3
Wheeler Peak.......................................           1.2         0.9              0.3         0.9              0.3        1.13             0.07
White Mountain.....................................           3.6         3.3              0.3         3.3              0.3        3.42             0.18
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Negative Visibility Improvement means an increase above the baseline values, indicating that visibility has worsened.

    All Class I areas show visibility improvement over the baseline 
through the first progress period (2005-2009). In addition, all Class I 
sites were below the 2018 RPGs for the first progress period except for 
San Pedro Parks and Salt Creek. The five-year average deciview trends 
for 2007-2011 progress period achieved visibility improvement for all 
Class I areas except White Mountain, which got slightly worse by 0.2 
dv. All but three sites met the 2018 RPGs during the 2007-2011 period.
    The EPA proposes to conclude that New Mexico has adequately 
addressed the requirements under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(C) to include 
summaries of monitored visibility data as required by the Regional Haze 
Rule. For purposes of improved clarity on future reports, the EPA 
recommends that New Mexico include a graph of rolling averages similar 
to what was provided in the guidance example,\31\ illustrating the 
uniform glide path. The glide path graphically shows what would be a 
uniform rate of progress, toward meeting the national goal of a return 
to natural visibility conditions by 2064 for each Class I area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See page 10 of General Principles for the 5-Year Regional 
Haze Progress Reports for the Initial Regional Haze State 
Implementation Plans (Intended to Assist States and EPA Regional 
Offices in Development and Review of the Progress Reports) April 
2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Emissions Progress

    40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(D) requires an analysis tracking the change 
over the past five years in emissions of pollutants contributing to 
visibility impairment from all sources and activities within the State. 
Emission changes should be identified by type of source or activity. 
The analysis must be based on the most recent updated emissions 
inventory, with estimates projected forward as necessary and 
appropriate, to account for emissions changes during the applicable 
five-year period. The EPA evaluated New Mexico's analysis and more 
detail is provided in the Technical Support Document for this action.
    The EPA proposes to conclude that New Mexico has adequately 
addressed the requirements under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(D) to track 
changes in emissions of pollutants contributing to visibility 
impairment from all sources and activities within the State. The 
analysis in this progress report was based on appropriate available 
data with sufficient forward projections.

E. Assessment of Changes Impeding Visibility Progress

    40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(E) requires an assessment of any 
significant changes in anthropogenic emissions within or outside the 
State that have occurred over the past five years that have limited or 
impeded progress in reducing pollutant emissions and improving 
visibility in Class I areas impacted by the State's sources.
    New Mexico stated in the progress report SIP that there does not 
appear to be any anthropogenic emissions within New Mexico that would 
have limited or impeded progress in reducing pollutant emissions or 
improving visibility. New Mexico stated that SO2 and PM were 
the major visibility-impairing concerns on the 20% worst days. 
Stationary point sources were the greatest contributor of 
SO2 while fire, including natural and anthropogenic, was the 
greatest PM contributor. Both of these pollutants were covered by long-
term control measures described in the progress report SIP (BART, SMP, 
and SO2 Milestone and Backstop Trading Program). Other 
states relied on WRAP modeling to show reasonable progress at their 
Class I areas. With the BART determination of a two-unit shut down and 
two-unit SNCR installation for the SJGS, New Mexico will be exceeding 
the modeled levels relied on by WRAP for regional haze. Therefore, New 
Mexico is not impeding other states in meeting their RPGs, and is 
decreasing visibility-impairing pollutants more than was anticipated in 
the WRAP modeling for NOX, SO2 and PM.
    The EPA proposes to find that New Mexico has adequately addressed 
the requirements under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(E) to show that the 
major contributors of anthropogenic emissions are being reduced and 
visibility is improving at a uniform rate without having limited or 
impeded progress.

F. Assessment of Current Strategy To Meet RPGs

    40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(F) calls for an assessment of whether the 
current implementation plan elements and strategies in the RH SIP are 
sufficient to enable the State, or other states with mandatory Federal 
Class I areas affected by emissions from the State, to meet all 
established RPGs.
    New Mexico stated in the progress report SIP that the elements and 
strategies outlined in its RH SIP are sufficient to enable New Mexico 
and other neighboring states to meet all the established RPGs. To 
support this conclusion, New Mexico referenced visibility data \32\ 
that showed five-year average deciview trends for the 20% worst and 
best days for the baseline period (2000-2004); subsequent five-

[[Page 67688]]

year visibility conditions (2005-2009); and the most recent five-year 
visibility conditions (2007-2011). All Class I areas indicated 
visibility improvement over the baseline through the first progress 
period. All but two Class I areas were below the RPGs for the first 
progress period based on 2005-2009 data. The five-year average deciview 
trend for the most recent period (2007-2011) achieved visibility 
improvement for all Class I areas except White Mountain, which got 
slightly worse by 0.2 dv. All but three sites met the 2018 RPGs based 
on 2007-2011 data: The data supports an inference that 2007-2011 
visibility conditions at White Mountain are higher due to elevated 
course mass levels in 2011 compared to baseline levels. The 2007-2011 
visibility conditions at Bandelier and San Pedro parks were high, 
apparently due to elevated organic mass levels in 2011 from impacts of 
fires.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ In Appendix C of Regional Haze Progress Report SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although three Class I sites were not tracking the RPGs at the time 
of the progress report, New Mexico expects further reduction of 
SO2 and NO2 emissions, not accounted for in the 
original RH SIP, principally from the implementation of BART controls. 
These added control measures should contribute toward Bandelier, San 
Pedro, and White Mountain achieving the RPGs for 2018. Further progress 
will also occur through recently adopted or proposed regulatory 
programs. The EPA notes that visibility conditions at these sites in 
some years can be impacted more significantly by natural sources of 
wind-blown dust and/or fires than other years and considers this 
relevant when evaluating progress toward the natural visibility goals.
    The EPA proposes to conclude that New Mexico has adequately 
addressed the requirements under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(F). The EPA 
views the requirement of this section as a qualitative assessment that 
should evaluate emissions and visibility trends, including expected 
emissions reductions from measures that have not yet become effective. 
New Mexico referenced the improving visibility trends with 
appropriately supported data with a focus on future implementation of 
BART controls.

G. Review of Visibility Monitoring Strategy

    40 CFR 51.309(10)(i)(G) requires a review of the State's visibility 
monitoring strategy and any modifications to the strategy as necessary.
    The monitoring strategy for regional haze in New Mexico relies upon 
participation in the IMPROVE \33\ network, which is the primary 
monitoring network for regional haze nationwide. The IMPROVE network 
provides a long-term record for tracking visibility improvement or 
degradation. New Mexico currently relies on data collected through the 
IMPROVE network to satisfy the regional haze monitoring requirement as 
specified in the Regional Haze Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ Data from IMPROVE show that visibility impairment caused by 
air pollution occurs virtually all the time at most national parks 
and wilderness areas. The average visual range in many Class I areas 
(i.e., national parks and memorial parks, wilderness areas, and 
international parks meeting certain size criteria) in the western 
United States is 100-150 kilometers, or about one-half to two-thirds 
of the visual range that would exist without anthropogenic air 
pollution. In most of the eastern Class I areas of the United 
States, the average visual range is less than 30 kilometers, or 
about one-fifth of the visual range that would exist under estimated 
natural conditions. 64 FR 35715 (July 1, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its progress report SIP, New Mexico summarizes the existing 
IMPROVE monitoring network: Seven monitoring sites in New Mexico and 
one in Texas (utilized for Carlsbad Caverns National Park). New Mexico 
stated that IMPROVE monitoring data served as the baseline for the 
regional haze program and that future regional haze monitoring strategy 
must be based on, or directly comparable to the current IMPROVE 
network. New Mexico concluded that the existing network is adequate and 
modifications to the visibility monitoring strategy are not necessary 
at this time.
    The EPA proposes to conclude that New Mexico has adequately 
addressed the sufficiency of its monitoring strategy as required by the 
provisions under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(G). New Mexico reaffirmed its 
continued reliance upon the IMPROVE monitoring network. New Mexico also 
explained the importance of the IMPROVE monitoring network for tracking 
visibility trends at its Class I areas and identified no expected 
changes in this network.

H. Determination of Adequacy

    Under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(ii), states are required to submit, at 
the same time as the progress report SIP, a determination of the 
adequacy of their existing RH SIP and to take one of four possible 
actions based on information in the progress report. 40 CFR 
51.309(d)(10)(ii) requires states to take one of the following actions:
    (1) Submit a negative declaration to the EPA that no further 
substantive revision to the State's existing RH SIP is needed.
    (2) If the State determines that the implementation plan is or may 
be inadequate to ensure reasonable progress due to emissions from 
sources in another state(s) which participated in a regional planning 
process, the State must provide notification to the EPA and to the 
other state(s) which participated in the regional planning process with 
the states. The State must also collaborate with the other state(s) 
through the regional planning process for developing additional 
strategies to address the plan's deficiencies.
    (3) Where the State determines that the implementation plan is or 
may be inadequate to ensure reasonable progress due to emissions from 
sources in another country, the State shall provide notification, along 
with available information, to the Administrator.
    (4) If the State determines that the implementation plan is or may 
be inadequate to ensure reasonable progress due to emissions from 
sources within the State, then the State shall revise its 
implementation plan to address the plan's deficiencies within one year.
    The State of New Mexico has provided the information required under 
40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i) in the five-year progress report. Based upon 
this information, New Mexico states in its progress report SIP that it 
believes that the current Section 309 and 309(g) RH SIPs are adequate 
to meet the State's 2018 RPGs and require no further revision at this 
time. Thus, the EPA has received a negative declaration from New 
Mexico.

V. The EPA's Proposed Action

    The EPA is proposing to approve New Mexico's regional haze five-
year progress report SIP revision (submitted on March 11, 2014) as 
meeting the applicable regional haze requirements set forth in 40 CFR 
51.309(d)(10). The EPA is proposing to approve New Mexico's 
determination that the current RH SIP is adequate to meet the State's 
2018 RPGs.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP 
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable 
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in 
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, 
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this 
action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal 
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those 
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:

[[Page 67689]]

     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 
2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental 
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under 
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian 
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has 
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 
country, the proposed rule does not have tribal implications and will 
not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt 
tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 
9, 2000). This action does have tribal implications in non-reservation 
areas of Indian country within the state. However, it will neither 
impose substantial direct compliance costs on federally recognized 
tribal governments, nor preempt tribal law. The EPA is coordinating 
with tribes regarding this matter.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Best Available 
Retrofit Technology, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental 
relations, Nitrogen oxides, Particulate matter, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Regional haze, Sulfur dioxide, Visibility, 
Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: October 23, 2015.
Samuel Coleman,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2015-28007 Filed 11-2-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P