[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 113 (Wednesday, June 14, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 27127-27133]
[FR Doc No: 2017-12208]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2014-0237; FRL-9962-75-Region 6]

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act), the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a revision to a
State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the State of New Mexico on
March 14, 2014. New Mexico's SIP revision addresses requirements of the
Act and the EPA's rules that require New Mexico to submit a periodic
report assessing progress toward the reasonable progress goals (RPGs)
for mandatory Class I Federal areas in and outside New Mexico with a
determination of the adequacy of the State's existing regional haze
SIP.

DATES: This rule is effective on July 14, 2017.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-2014-0237. All documents in the docket are
listed at the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure
is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at the EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas,
Texas 75202-2733.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. James E. Grady,<PHONE_NUMBER>;
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' or
``our'' each mean ``the EPA.''

I. Background

    The background for this action is discussed in detail in the EPA's
November 3, 2015 proposal.\1\ In that document, the EPA proposed to
approve New Mexico's regional haze progress report SIP revision
(submitted on March 14, 2014) as meeting the applicable regional haze
requirements set forth in 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10). In addition, the EPA
proposed to approve New Mexico's determination that the current
regional haze SIP is adequate to meet the State's RPGs for the first
planning period and requires no further substantive revision to achieve
established goals for visibility improvement and emission reductions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 80 FR 67682.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposal and the accompanying technical support document (TSD)
provide detailed descriptions of New Mexico's SIP revision and the
rationale for the EPA's proposed approval of the State's submittal.
Please see the docket for these and other documents regarding the
proposal.
    The public comment period for the proposal closed on December 3,
2015. The EPA received one set of comments in a letter dated December
3, 2015, from the National Parks Conservation Association and the San
Juan Citizens Alliance regarding the EPA's proposal. The comment letter
is included in the publicly posted docket associated with this action
at http://www.regulations.gov. Below, the EPA provides a summary of the
comments received and corresponding responses. After careful
consideration of the comments and the information provided, the EPA is
approving the progress report, as proposed.

II. Response to Comments

    Comment: The commenter noted that New Mexico's progress report
indicated that the State is no longer implementing its State Mobile
Source Regulation but is relying on federal programs that will achieve
the same reductions. The commenter argued that the progress report does
not meet 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(A) because it was not clear about the
start date of the State's

reliance on federal programs for mobile source reduction or the impact
that a delayed start had on visibility.
    Response: The comment does not demonstrate a failure to meet Sec.
51.309(d)(10)(i)(A). This element requires a description of the status
of implementation of all control measures included in the regional haze
SIP for achieving RPGs for Class I areas both within and outside the
State. As discussed in the proposal, New Mexico stated in the progress
report that it is implementing all long-term control strategies with
the exception of the formerly adopted, and now repealed, State Mobile
Source Regulation. The State Mobile Source Regulation, when adopted in
2007, would have applied the California motor vehicle standards within
New Mexico. We do not agree that the provided details for Sec.
51.309(d)(10)(i)(A) are lacking or inadequate. Section
51.309(d)(10)(i)(A) requires only a description of the status of the
implementation of the measures in the regional haze SIP, not an
assessment of the effect of the implementation or failure to implement
each specific measure. New Mexico's reliance on the federal program is
unlikely to have a significant impact on visibility. At the time the
regulation was adopted by New Mexico, the California standards were
projected to substantially differ from federal motor vehicle emissions
standards. Since that time, as the progress report notes, the
California and federal programs for emissions standards for motor
vehicles are more aligned with each other than was expected by New
Mexico when it adopted the State Mobile Source Regulation.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ For example, in 2009, the EPA and the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) proposed ``regulatory
convergence'' with California on motor vehicle fuel economy
standards. See 74 FR 49454 (September 28, 2009). This was
subsequently adopted, starting with model years 2012-2016. 75 FR
25323 (May 7, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: The progress report does not meet 40 CFR
51.309(d)(10)(i)(A) because it was not clear whether certain Western
Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) policies, including the WRAP Policy on
Enhanced Smoke Management Programs for Visibility and the WRAP Policy
on Annual Emissions Goals for Fire, were incorporated into the State's
Smoke Management Plan (SMP) and are being implemented.
    Response: Consistent with the recommendation of the Grand Canyon
Visibility Transport Commission, the regional haze program under 40 CFR
part 309 brings special attentiveness to smoke management. New Mexico
adopted a revision to the New Mexico Administrative Code (NMAC)
addressing smoke management to meet these regional haze rule
requirements. The EPA previously approved New Mexico's regional haze
SIP in 2012 as meeting the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6), which
deals with implementation plan requirements related to fire.\3\ In
doing so, the EPA noted that the SMP operating within New Mexico was
consistent with the WRAP Policy on Enhanced Smoke Management Programs
for Visibility and the Wrap Policy on Annual Emissions Goals for Fire,
both of which were appendices to the approved Regional Haze SIP.\4\ The
progress report stated that New Mexico, aside from its update regarding
State Mobile Source Regulation, is implementing the long-term
strategies adopted into the regional haze SIP. This sufficiently
indicates the status of implementation for the State's SMP. Therefore,
we disagree that the progress report's discussion of the State's SMP
failed to meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(1)(i)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See 77 FR 70693 (November 27,2012) (approving 20.2.65 NMAC
(Smoke Management)).
    \4\ See 77 FR 36065.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: The progress report does not meet 40 CFR
51.309(d)(10)(i)(B) because it did not include any information about
emission reductions provided by the State's SMP. Annual emissions
related to fire and estimated benefits should be readily available.
    Response: We do not agree with the assertion that the progress
report fails to meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(B).
While this provision requires a summary of the emission reductions
achieved in the State through the implementation of the measures in its
regional haze SIP, nothing in this provision requires the State to
include estimates in its progress report of the emission reductions
achieved by specific measures. Namely, there is no requirement for a
detailed, causal analysis that pinpoints or links certain emission
reductions to actual regional haze SIP measures. It is acceptable for
the State to provide a summary of overall emission changes, rather than
an analysis that attributes particular emission reductions from
specific sources to certain measures in the plan, mainly when such a
higher level summary does not indicate any problem with the direction
and magnitude of these overall changes. We address in the response to a
later comment the adequacy of the State's summary of overall emissions.
    Additionally, the comment misperceives the basis for inclusion of
the SMP in the SIP. The visibility goal announced in section 169A of
the CAA is both to prevent future impairment as well as remedy existing
impairment. Regional haze SIPs accordingly may include programs to
avert increases in emissions. The SMP is generally designed to limit
increases in emissions, rather than to reduce existing emissions. As
such, there would be little purpose for the State to try to estimate
the specific emission reductions achieved through implementation of the
program.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Consistent with these points, as reported on New Mexico's
Smoke Management Program Web site, a fire emissions summary for
2005-2016 shows no appreciable increases in SMP-regulated emissions.
See New Mexico 2017 Annual Smoke Management Meeting Presentation,
available at https://www.env.nm.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/2016_Fire_Emissions.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: The progress report does not meet 40 CFR
51.309(d)(10)(i)(B) because there were no estimates of reductions by
the new source review (NSR) and prevention of significant deterioration
(PSD) programs. The progress report did not indicate what emissions
were avoided or allowed by the implementation of these programs.
    Response: As explained above, nothing in 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(B)
requires the State to include estimates in its progress report of the
emission reductions achieved by specific measures included in the
regional haze SIP.
    Additionally, although the regional haze SIP also cited the PSD and
NSR programs, the primary benefit from these programs is to limit
emission increases rather than precisely working to achieve reductions
in existing emissions. Given this, there would be little purpose for
New Mexico to try to estimate the specific emission reductions achieved
through the implementation of these programs.
    Comment: The progress report does not meet 40 CFR
51.309(d)(10)(i)(B) because point source data for sources reporting to
the Clean Air Markets Database should be included.
    Response: This comment does not identify a basis to disapprove the
SIP revision. Source-specific information on all electric generating
units (the sources reporting to the Clean Air Markets Database) is not
required in summarizing the emission reductions in the progress report.
The submitted progress report provided detailed information on
anticipated emission reductions at the San Juan Generating Station
(SJGS). This facility is the largest point source in the State and the
most significant New Mexico emission source in the Clean Air Markets
Database. More

importantly, it is the only electric generating unit with definite
emission limits in the New Mexico regional haze SIP. The progress
report provided statewide point source emission data from 2008-2012 and
compared it to the 2018 projected emission levels.\6\ While additional
information from the Clean Air Markets Database regarding emissions
from other electric generating units may be useful, it is not essential
for the approval of the submitted progress report. As noted in the
proposal, we compared the point source data in the progress report to
that reported by the Clean Air Markets Database and found that the
reported emissions were consistent with that data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Figure 3.6 of Progress Report for the State
Implementation Plan for Regional Haze, March 11, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: The progress report does not meet 40 CFR
51.309(d)(10)(i)(B) because the inventories did not address all haze-
related pollutants. Emission inventories specific to particulate
organic matter, coarse mass, ammonia (NH3), and volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) should be included.
    Response: 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(B) requires a summary of the
emission reductions achieved throughout the State through
implementation of the control measures mentioned in 40 CFR
51.309(d)(10)(i)(A). Because this provision does not call for a summary
of all pollutants that could contribute to visibility impairment, we do
not agree that the progress report is inadequate. The initial regional
haze SIP focused on reducing emissions of sulfur dioxide
(SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOX), and particulate
matter (PM) emissions, and New Mexico's progress report summarized the
changes in emissions in these pollutants from 2008-2012. Even if no
information on other pollutants was included in the progress report, we
would consider it reasonable and sufficient if New Mexico's progress
report only provided a summary of emission reductions for these
pollutants.
    New Mexico's progress report, however, also provided information on
other visibility-impairing pollutants. Section 3.5 of the progress
report discussed New Mexico's baseline emissions inventory for 2002 and
an estimated emissions inventory for 2008. The 2002 inventory was
developed by the WRAP for use in the initial WRAP regional haze SIP
strategy development. The 2008 inventory was based on WRAP inventory
work for the West-wide Jumpstart Air Quality Modeling Study
(WestJumpAQMS) and the Deterministic & Empirical Assessment of Smoke's
Contribution to Ozone (DEASCO3) modeling project efforts. The
pollutants inventoried were SO2, NOX,
NH3, VOCs, primary organic aerosol (POA), elemental carbon
(EC), fine soil, and coarse mass. The inventories were categorized for
all major visibility-impairing pollutants under major source groupings
either as anthropogenic or natural. The anthropogenic source
categorization included point and area sources, on and off-road mobile
sources, area oil and gas, fugitive and road dust, and anthropogenic
fire. The natural source categorization included natural fire, wind-
blown dust, and biogenic sources.
    Comment: The progress report presented information on visibility
levels within section 3.3 of the progress report, which is titled as
addressing the requirement of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(B). The commenter
does not consider this presentation as satisfying the requirement of 40
CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(B) concerning emissions because the progress
report failed to explain how much of the monitored improvements in
visibility impairment were the result of emission reductions from
control measures in the New Mexico SIP or from factors outside of the
SIP. Furthermore, the trends outlined in section 3.5 were seven years
out of date.
    Response: We agree with the commenter that information on
visibility levels is not an adequate substitute for the summary of
emissions that is specifically required by Sec.  51.309(d)(10)(i)(B).
However, we are not basing our approval of the progress report as
meeting the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(B) on the
information on visibility levels presented in section 3.3 of the
progress report. The summary of emissions requirement is satisfied for
the reasons explained in our earlier responses.
    Comment: The goal of the progress report is to document progress
and changes over the past five years and to make informed decisions on
that basis. To meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(C), the
progress report should include information that describes the preceding
five-year period as closely as possible. The progress report discussed
the 2005-2009 period. Although information from 2007-2011 was included,
the EPA should require the use of the most recent data available.
    Response: Although New Mexico used 2005-2009 data to estimate
current conditions, it also included additional IMPROVE data in its
progress report. The 2007-2011 visibility information was specifically
included in Tables 3.3-3.18 of the progress report. We do not agree
that the information was not addressed such that the requirements of
the section were not met. Because the progress report was not submitted
until March 14, 2014, however, there was an understandable lag between
its drafting, its adoption, and submission. We do not consider the non-
inclusion of visibility data more recent than 2011 to be a basis for
disapproval. Visibility data for all Class I areas through 2013 were
available to the public as of the date of the commenter's letter via
the IMPROVE program's Web site, and the commenter did not argue that
the more recent data supports disapproval of the progress report.
    Comment: The progress report does not meet 40 CFR
51.309(d)(10)(i)(D) because it did not use the most up-to-date
emissions information nor provide sufficient forward projections.
    Response: Section 3.8 of the progress report contains a detailed
analysis of 2008 emissions from all source types. In addition, Figure
3.6 of the SIP revision presents SO2 and NOX
point source emission data for 2008-2012. The year 2012 was the most
recent emission information covering all types of point sources
available at the time of the progress report's development. The
progress report does not include any emissions information for non-
point sources for any year more recent than 2008. However, we note that
the 2011 National Emissions Inventory (NEI) Version 1.01 was published
by the EPA in July 2013,\7\ only about 8 months before the State
submitted the progress report. In light of this, we consider the
progress report to adequately meet the requirement of 40 CFR
51.309(d)(10)(i)(D), which calls for an analysis tracking the changes
``over the past 5 years'' in emissions from ``all sources'' based on
``the most recent updated emissions inventory.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Profile of the 2011 National Air Emissions Inventory, April
2014, https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-08/documents/lite_finalversion_ver10.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding the issue of projected inventories, Sec.
51.309(d)(10)(i)(D) states that emission estimates must be projected
forward as necessary and appropriate to account for emissions changes
during ``the applicable 5-year period.'' This phrase is meant to refer
to ``the past 5 years,'' a phrase that itself is not clearly defined in
the rule. The progress report was required to be submitted in 2013 and
was submitted in February 2014. Thus, a projection for point sources
would at most have included estimates for 2013. In light of this, we do
not believe that a projection

for point sources beyond 2012 is necessary. With regard to non-point
sources, a projection could have addressed projected-emissions several
years beyond the 2008 information presented in the progress report;
however, the SIP focuses primarily on the control of point source
emissions. With respect to changes in fire-related emissions,
projections would inherently be highly uncertain in any case.
Consequently, we do not believe that projections of non-point source
emissions beyond 2008 were needed in the progress report.
    Comment: The progress report does not meet 40 CFR
51.309(d)(10)(i)(E) because it drew an unsupported conclusion that no
anthropogenic emissions within New Mexico limited or impeded progress
in reducing pollutant emissions or improving visibility. For example,
White Mountain had visibility degradation.
    Response: We disagree with the comment. 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. In its progress report, New Mexico concluded that no
such changes had occurred. The proposal noted that there have been
significant reductions in emissions of SO2 and
NOX from point sources within the State. Also, the State has
relied on the history of visibility levels at affected Class I areas to
assess whether there have been changes in emissions that limit or
impede progress. While we do not consider information on visibility
levels to be a substitute for the required summary of emissions that is
exactly required by Sec.  51.309(d)(10)(i)(B), we consider this
approach to be an acceptable method for making the assessment of
whether there have been changes in emissions that limit or impede
progress. Overall visibility at each of the seven Class I areas in New
Mexico had improved since the baseline period, with the exception of
visibility at the White Mountain Wilderness Area for the most recent
period. Specifically, for White Mountain, the five-year average
deciview trend for the 2007-2011 period showed slightly worse
visibility (0.2 dv higher) for the 20% worst days, as compared to
average conditions for 2000-2004. The commenter relied on this
degradation in visibility at White Mountain to support its argument
that anthropogenic emissions within New Mexico have limited progress in
improving visibility. The slight visibility degradation at White
Mountain, however, was the result of elevated coarse mass levels from
non-anthropogenic sources in 2011 compared to baseline levels.\8\
Overall SO2 and NOX emissions in New Mexico have
actually been going down, or are at least stable. The proposal also
indicated that White Mountain showed a 0.3 dv improvement in visibility
on the 20% best days.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See 80 FR 67688.
    \9\ The SIP includes this information in Table 3.17 and Table
3.18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: The progress report does not meet 40 CFR
51.309(d)(10)(i)(E) because it failed to address anthropogenic
emissions outside of New Mexico that may have limited or impeded
progress in visibility improvement.
    Response: The progress report is required to assess significant
changes outside the State that have limited or impeded progress, as
specified by Sec.  51.309(d)(10)(i)(E). As in the case of assessing in-
state emissions, we believe it was acceptable for the State to use
trends in visibility levels to make this assessment. Visibility
conditions at the Class I areas are improving, as discussed in response
to the comment above, and there do not appear to be significant changes
that would call for explicit discussion. We also note that the State's
Regional Haze SIP and its participation in the section 309 program
addressed anthropogenic emissions from outside of the borders that
limit or impede visibility improvement.
    Comment: The progress report does not meet 40 CFR
51.309(d)(10)(i)(F) because it cited 2000-2010 visibility monitoring
data to conclude that New Mexico's approach was sufficient to meet the
RPGs. The progress report offers little support to show that visibility
is causally linked to New Mexico's SIP measures rather than to changes
in natural or out-of-state sources. The EPA should require quantitative
evidence to show the link between visibility benefits and the SIP
measures.
    Response: We view the requirement of this section as a qualitative
assessment that should evaluate emissions and visibility trends,
including expected emission reductions from measures that have not yet
become effective. Even though section 3.7 of the progress report
(titled as addressing the requirement of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(F))
cited visibility monitoring data from 2000-2010, visibility data
through 2011 is presented in other sections of the progress report. In
particular, tables 3.3-3.18 presented visibility values of the 20%
worst and 20% best days of periods 2000-2004, 2005-2009, 2006-2010, and
2001-2011 for each affected Class I area. Table 2.1 of the progress
report showed the RPGs for each area.
    The five-year average deciview values for the most recent period
2007-2011 indicated visibility improvement for all Class I areas
(relative to 2000-2004 baseline period) except White Mountain, which
was slightly worse by 0.2 dv. It is important to note that White
Mountain visibility improved in the 2005-2009 and 2006-2010 periods
compared to the baseline period 2000-2004. The data supports the
conclusion that the 2007-2011 visibility conditions at White Mountain
were higher than the 2000-2004 baseline due to elevated coarse mass
levels in 2011 from high wind events.
    The 2007-2011 visibility conditions at Bandelier and San Pedro
parks were higher than in the intermediate periods, due to elevated
particulate organic matter levels in 2011 from impacts of fires, but
better than in 2000-2004.
    For all the areas, the 2007-2011 visibility levels were better than
the RPGs for the 20% best days. This is also true for five of the areas
for the 20% worst days. The commenter did not suggest any particular
reasons to expect that visibility will degrade in these areas for the
best/worst days where it is already better than the 2018 RPGs.
    As noted, three Class I sites were not yet meeting the 2018 RPGs
for the 20% worst days in 2007-2011. The progress report explains that
in this period White Mountain was adversely affected by coarse mass
from high wind events, and San Pedro and Bandelier were affected by
particulate organic matter from natural and anthropogenic fires. In
2005-2009, these three areas were below or very close to the 2018 RPGs.
    In summary, we conclude that the State's visibility assessment is
adequate. Wildfires or dust storms might again affect visibility in the
2018 timeframe, but New Mexico expects further reduction of
SO2 and NO2 emissions, principally from the
implementation of Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) controls.
These control measures should contribute toward improved visibility
conditions at all New Mexico Class I areas, including Bandelier, San
Pedro, and White Mountain for 2018. Further progress will also occur
through recently adopted or proposed regulatory programs. The State was
reasonable to rest on these positive overall visibility trends and
future expectations regarding emission reductions in determining that
the existing SIP requires no further revision

to achieve established RPGs. New Mexico demonstrated progress toward
meeting the RPGs and no substantive revisions to the Regional Haze SIP
are necessary for the first planning period. We also note that Sec.
51.309(d)(10)(i)(F) does not impose a requirement for a demonstration
of a causal linkage between improvements in visibility and measures in
New Mexico's SIP.
    Comment: The progress report does not meet 40 CFR
51.309(d)(10)(i)(F) because it did not offer sufficient evaluation of
the lack-of-progress or backsliding at Class I areas, like White
Mountain, that indicated degradation in the 2007-2011 time-period
relative to 2005-2009 values. A more detailed account of visibility
issues at these Class I areas should be required before concluding that
the existing SIP is adequate.
    Response: We disagree with this comment. Based on the speciation
information in Tables 3.3-3.18, the data supports the conclusion that
dust storms and/or wildfires are responsible for the limited cases of
degradation in visibility between 2005-2009 and 2007-2011, rather than
any backsliding on the control of emissions from anthropogenic sources.
    Comment: According to 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(B)(vi), RPGs should
reflect all reductions in the SIP and in any other CAA requirement.
RPGs for Class I areas impacted by SJGS should be lower. The EPA should
require the progress report to include a list of Class I areas impacted
by future reductions from SJGS and clarify that RPGs are those that
would be consistent with that source's reductions.
    Response: The progress report was prepared with emphasis on New
Mexico's improvement in meeting established RPGs for 2018. There were
no changes to the State's RPGs in the progress report nor were there
any submitted for review as any separate SIP revision. Whether the RPGs
should be lower is not in the scope of the proposed action. We agree
that future reductions at SJGS will improve visibility at Class I areas
inside and outside of New Mexico. Having already approved the RPGs,\10\
we noted that with the additional future two-unit shut down and two-
unit selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) installation at the SJGS,
New Mexico emissions will improve on the RPGs in its SIP. New Mexico is
not impeding other states in meeting analogous RPGs, and the additional
BART controls will decrease visibility-impairing pollutants more than
anticipated from the RPGs based on the WRAP modeling for
NOX, SO2 and PM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The RPGs can be seen in the June 2012 proposed action (77
FR 36044) which was finalized on November 27, 2012 (77 FR 70693).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    New Mexico does not have a progress report requirement to list all
Class I areas impacted by future reductions from the SJGS. However,
state and federal technical records for the BART determination at SJGS
provide information on this area of interest.
    Comment: The commenter requested that the EPA require revisions to
the progress report to ensure Class I areas in New Mexico and
surrounding states are on the glide path to achieve natural visibility
conditions by 2064.
    Response: In the progress report SIP, New Mexico was required to
assess whether the SIP was sufficient to meet the RPGs that were
established for the first ten-year planning period. There is no
requirement for a state to include an assessment of whether a SIP is
sufficient to ensure that Class I areas (in the State or those in
nearby states) are on track to meet the uniform rate of progress
(URP).\11\ The State followed the proper approach in setting the RPGs
through 2018 by considering the URP and the factors established in
section 169A of the CAA and in the EPA's Regional Haze Rule at 40 CFR
51.308(d)(1)(i)(A). In doing so, the RPGs reflected a slower rate of
progress than the URP for the first planning period. Those established
RPGs for each Class I area in New Mexico were approved by the EPA in a
previous action.\12\ Looking forward, New Mexico will be required to
provide new updated RPGs for 2028 in the next comprehensive regional
haze SIP revision planning period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The URP is the minimum rate of progress needed to achieve
the CAA goal of natural visibility conditions within sixty years (to
2064). It represents the slope between baseline visibility
conditions in 2004 and natural visibility conditions in 2064. The
URP for each ten-year long-term strategy equals the visibility
improvement along the glide path for that planning period.
    \12\ The RPGs can be seen in the June 2012 proposed action (77
FR 36044) which was finalized on November 27, 2012 (77 FR 70693).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Final Action

    The EPA is approving New Mexico's regional haze 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).\13\ The
EPA is also approving New Mexico's determination that the current
regional haze SIP requires no further substantive revision at this time
in order to achieve established RPGs for 2018 for visibility
improvement and emission reductions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The final 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 regional haze SIP for
that jurisdiction that was separately approved by the EPA (77 FR
71119, November 29, 2012). The EPA anticipates a separate regional
haze progress report SIP submittal from this entity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(A) requires a description of the status of
implementation of all control measures included in the regional haze
SIP for achieving RPGs for Class I areas both within and outside the
State. New Mexico adequately addressed the status of control measures
in the progress report regional haze 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 time-frame for all
controls.
    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 emission reductions to date in
visibility-impairing pollutants from the SIP control measures
identified for implementation. New Mexico has adequately summarized the
emission reductions achieved throughout the State in the progress
report regional haze SIP as required under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(B).
    40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(C) requires that for each mandatory Class I
Federal area within the State, the State must assess visibility
conditions and changes, with values for most impaired and least
impaired days expressed in terms of five-year averages of these annual
values. 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.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ For purposes of improved clarity on future reports, we
recommend that New Mexico include a graph of rolling averages
similar to what was provided in the guidance example, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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. 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.
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 the progress report was based on
appropriate data.
    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
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
without having limited or impeded progress.
    40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(F) calls for an assessment of whether the
current implementation plan elements and strategies in the regional
haze 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 has adequately addressed the
requirements under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(F). New Mexico referenced
the improving visibility trends with appropriately supported data with
a focus on future implementation of BART controls.
    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.
New Mexico has adequately addressed the sufficiency of the monitoring
strategy as required by the provisions under 40 CFR
51.309(d)(10)(i)(G). New Mexico reaffirmed the continued reliance upon
the IMPROVE monitoring network. New Mexico also explained the
importance of the IMPROVE monitoring network for tracking visibility
trends at the Class I areas and identified no expected changes in this
network.
    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 the existing regional haze SIP and take one of four
possible actions based on information in the progress report. New
Mexico stated in the progress report SIP that the current Section 309
and 309(g) regional haze SIPs are adequate to meet the State's 2018
RPGs and require no further revision at this time. The EPA is approving
this negative declaration from New Mexico.

V. 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,
if the choices meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action
merely approves the information and determinations in the State's
progress report 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 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, 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 this rulemaking does not involve technical standards; and
     Does not provide the 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 the EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the 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).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by August 14, 2017. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce the requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

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.

    Dated: June 1, 2017.
Samuel Coleman,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart GG--New Mexico

0
2. In Sec.  52.1620(e), the second table titled ``EPA Approved
Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures in the New
Mexico SIP'' is amended by adding the entry ``New Mexico Progress
Report for the State Implementation Plan for Regional Haze'' at the end
of the table to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1620  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

            EPA Approved Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures in the New Mexico SIP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Applicable
      Name of SIP provision          geographic or     State submittal/  EPA approval date       Explanation
                                   nonattainment area   effective date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
New Mexico Progress Report for    Statewide..........        3/14/2014  6/14/2017 [Insert    ...................
 the State Implementation Plan                                           Federal Register
 for Regional Haze.                                                      citation].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2017-12208 Filed 6-13-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P