---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bandelier...........................      \60\ 71       \61\ 66           10            2            0            1            1           15
Bosque del Apache...................           61            61           26            3            0            1            1            8
Carlsbad Caverns....................           30            42           44            5            0            5            2           14
Gila Wilderness.....................           58             3            2            0            0            2            5           33
Pecos Wilderness, Wheeler Park......           57            64           28            3            2            1            1            8

Salt Creek..........................           61            75           26            0            0            2            0           11
White Mountains.....................           40            38           36            4            0            2            2           16
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* New Mexico's percentage shown in the above table is the percent of the WRAP contribution and not a percent of the total contribution. For example, New
  Mexico's nitrate contribution at Bandelier is 66% of the WRAPS contribution of 71%. New Mexico's contribution to the total nitrate at Bandelier is 47%
  (66% of 71%).

                          Table 16--Percentage Sulfate Contribution to Visibility Impairment During Baseline for 20% Worst Days
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Eastern                 Pacific Off    Outside
                  Class I area                       WRAP     New Mexico *     CENRAP       Canada        U.S.        Mexico       shore        domain
                                                  (percent)     (percent)    (percent)    (percent)    (percent)    (percent)    (percent)    (percent)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bandelier......................................           32            48           16            1           12            9            3           27
Bosque del Apache..............................           21            32           23            1           20           14            2           19
Carlsbad Caverns...............................            5            29           28            2           43           10            1           11
Gila Wilderness................................           18            23           19            1           18           20            4           20
Pecos Wilderness, Wheeler Park.................           34            42           17            2            6           10            4           27
Salt Creek.....................................           12            54           29            2           31           10            1           15
White Mountains................................           11            33           30            2           34           10            1           12
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* New Mexico's percentage shown in the above table is the percent of the WRAP contribution and not a percent of the total contribution.

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

    \60\ Corrected from 17% in Table 12-4 of the NM RH 309(g) SIP
submittal based on data from the WRAP TSS.
    \61\ Corrected from 58% in Table 12-5 of the NM RH 309(g) SIP
submittal based on data from the WRAP TSS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    WEP is a screening tool that helps to identify source regions that
have the potential to contribute to haze formation at specific Class I
areas. Unlike PSAT, this method does not account for chemistry or
deposition. The WEP combines emissions inventories, wind patterns, and
residence times of air masses over each area where emissions occur, to
estimate the percent contribution of different pollutants. Like PSAT,
the WEP tool compares baseline values (2000-2004) to 2018 values, to
show the improvement expected by 2018, for sulfate, nitrate, organic
carbon, elemental carbon, PM2.5, and PM10. More
information on the WRAP modeling methodologies is available in Appendix
A to our TSD. The PSAT and WEP results presented below are derived from
Chapter 9 and 12 of the NM RH 309(g) SIP and the WRAP TSS. More
detailed information on sources of visibility impairment can be found
in our TSD. Nitrate and sulfate source apportionment data presented
below is based on the PSAT modeling results. WEP results of source type
and region contributions are provided for other visibility impairing
pollutants.
    The submitted long-term strategy modeling also evaluates the
sources of OMC and CM emissions. Figure 11-12 of the NM RH 309(g) SIP
submittal identifies the source categories that contribute to emissions
of OMC and CM that impact the State's Class I areas. Over 70% of OMC
emissions are due to natural fires. More than 65% of CM emissions are
from wind-blown dust. As discussed above, the State has developed
Natural Event Action Plans that include measures to address
anthropogenic sources of windblown dust during high wind events.
However, windblown dust emissions that are both directly associated
with anthropogenic activities and are controllable have a minimal
effect on visibility at New Mexico's Class I areas, compared to other
sources of windblown dust. A large portion of EC emissions are also due
to natural fires, while mobile emission sources also contribute to the
total EC emissions. EC emissions from mobile sources are expected to
decrease significantly by 2018. These pollutants, primarily from
natural sources, contribute significantly to visibility impairment in
New Mexico.
i. Sources of Visibility Impairment in Bandelier Wilderness
    Visibility impairment at Bandelier in 2002 on the worst 20% days is
largely due to OMC and sulfate. OMC emissions are primarily from
natural fires from NM and AZ. In 2002, the largest contributions of
sulfate to Bandelier on the 20% worst days come from sources outside
the modeling domain (26%), followed by point sources in CENRAP states
(14%), the Eastern United States (11%), New Mexico (11%), and Mexico
(8%). New Mexico area sources contribute 2% of the sulfate on these
days.
    The 2018 projections assume that natural fire emissions of OMC
remain constant between 2002 and 2018. In 2018, visibility impairment
is still primarily due to OMC from natural fires. New Mexico's
emissions of OMC from anthropogenic fires are projected to decrease,
while emissions from area sources are expected to increase. Visibility
impairment due to sulfate is projected to decrease by 2018, due to
large decreases in emissions in CENRAP states and the Eastern United
States. Sulfate contributions to visibility impairment at Bandelier
from Mexico will increase from 2002 levels due to increases in
emissions from point sources in Mexico. Modeled sulfate contributions
from New Mexico increase from 2002 levels due to projected increase in
area source emissions in New Mexico. As discussed above, SO2
emissions from area source emissions in New Mexico, particularly in
Bernalillo County, are overestimated in the WRAP modeling. Bandelier is
located only 83 km outside of Bernalillo County and is impacted by the
WRAP's large assumed increase in SO2 emissions. We also note
that the PSAT results do not include NOX and SO2
reductions due to BART and the SO2 milestone and emissions
trading program. We anticipate additional visibility improvement in
2018 beyond the modeled visibility conditions due to

lower NOX emissions from implementation of the existing
federal implementation plan or another future-approved NOX
BART determination consistent with the RHR requirements and lower
SO2 area emissions than included in the WRAP 2018 modeling
episode used in this analysis. See our TSD for additional data on
visibility modeling results and emissions.
ii. Sources of Visibility Impairment in Bosque del Apache National
Wildlife Refuge
    Visibility impairment at Bosque del Apache in 2002 on the worst 20%
days is mostly due to OMC, sulfate, CM and nitrate. OMC emissions are
primarily from natural fires from NM and AZ. In 2002, the largest
contributions of sulfate to Bosque del Apache on the 20% worst days
come from point sources in CENRAP states (19%), sources outside the
modeling domain (18%), point sources in the Eastern United States
(18%), and Mexico (12%). New Mexico point and area sources contribute
4% and 1%, respectively, of the sulfate on these days. CM emissions
impacting Bosque del Apache are primarily from windblown dust in New
Mexico and neighboring CENRAP states. Contributions of nitrate are from
mobile sources in New Mexico (19%) and CENRAP states (10%) along with
contributions from New Mexico point sources (8%), CENRAP point sources
(9%) and New Mexico area sources (7%).
    The 2018 projections assume that natural fire emissions of OMC
remain constant between 2002 and 2018. In 2018, visibility impairment
is still largely due to OMC from natural fires. New Mexico's emissions
of OMC from anthropogenic fires are projected to decrease, while
emissions from area sources are expected to increase. CM emissions from
windblown dust are held constant from 2002 levels and remain a
significant contribution to visibility impairment in 2018. Visibility
impairment due to sulfate is projected to decrease by 2018, due to
large decreases in emissions in CENRAP states and the Eastern United
States. Sulfate contributions to visibility impairment at Bosque del
Apache from Mexico will increase from 2002 levels due to increases in
emissions from point sources in Mexico. Modeled sulfate contributions
from New Mexico increase from 2002 levels due to projected increase in
area source emissions in New Mexico. As discussed above, SO2
emissions from area source emissions in New Mexico, particularly in
Bernalillo County, are overestimated in the WRAP modeling.
Contributions of nitrate from CENRAP states and New Mexico from mobile
sources are projected to decrease significantly, while contributions
from area source emissions, including emissions from oil and gas
production in New Mexico are projected to increase. We note that the
PSAT results do not include NOX and SO2
reductions due to BART and the SO2 milestone and emissions
trading program. We anticipate additional visibility improvement in
2018 beyond the modeled visibility conditions due to lower
NOX emissions from implementation of the existing federal
implementation plan or another future-approved NOX BART
determination consistent with the RHR requirements and lower
SO2 area emissions than included in the WRAP 2018 modeling
episode used in this analysis. See our TSD for additional data on
visibility modeling results and emissions.
iii. Sources of Visibility Impairment in Carlsbad Caverns National Park
    Visibility impairment at Carlsbad Caverns in 2002 on the worst 20%
days is largely due to sulfate and CM. The IMPROVE monitoring site for
Carlsbad Caverns is located in Guadalupe Mountains National Park,
Texas, south of Carlsbad Caverns National Park. In 2002, the largest
contributions of sulfate to Carlsbad Caverns on the 20% worst days came
from point sources in the Eastern United States (39%), CENRAP states
(23%), and Mexico (9%). CM emissions impacting Carlsbad Caverns are
primarily from windblown dust in New Mexico and neighboring CENRAP
states. WEP results for organic carbon indicate that contributions are
from area source emissions in CENRAP states and New Mexico as well as
natural fires in New Mexico and Arizona and local New Mexico point
sources.
    Visibility impairment due to sulfate is projected to decrease by
2018, due to large decreases in point source emissions in CENRAP states
and the Eastern United States. Sulfate contributions to visibility
impairment at Carlsbad Caverns from Mexico will increase from 2002
levels due to increases in emissions from point sources. Contributions
of nitrate from CENRAP states and New Mexico from mobile sources are
projected to decrease significantly, while contributions from area
source emissions, including emissions from oil and gas production in
New Mexico and the CENRAP states are projected to increase. WEP results
indicate that point source emissions of organic carbon in New Mexico
impacting Carlsbad Caverns decrease significantly by 2018. CM emissions
from windblown dust are held constant from 2002 levels and remain a
significant contribution to visibility impairment in 2018. We note that
the PSAT results do not include NOX and SO2
reductions due to BART and the SO2 milestone and emissions
trading program. We anticipate additional visibility improvement in
2018 beyond the modeled visibility conditions at Carlsbad Caverns due
to lower SO2 area emissions than included in the WRAP 2018
modeling episode used in this analysis. See our TSD for additional data
on visibility modeling results and emissions.
iv. Sources of Visibility Impairment in Gila Wilderness
    Visibility impairment at Gila Wilderness in 2002 on the worst 20%
days is largely due to OMC and sulfate. OMC emissions are primarily
from natural fires from NM and AZ and contribute to over 50% of the
visibility impairment at Gila during the base period. In 2002, the
largest contributions of sulfate to Gila Wilderness on the 20% worst
days come from sources outside the modeling domain (20%), followed by
point sources in the Eastern United States (17%), Mexico (17%), CENRAP
states (16%), and Arizona (5%). We note that an error in data retrieval
affected initial results for modeled visibility conditions at Gila
Wilderness in 2002 and indicated that visibility would degrade from
2002 to 2018.\62\ This error was corrected and the updated data was
included in the NM RH SIP submitted to us.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ Correction of WRAP region Plan02d CMAQ visibility modeling
results on TSS for Regional Haze Planning--Final Memorandum, June
30, 2011, available at: http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/tss/help/plan02d_rev.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2018 projections assume that natural fire emissions of OMC
remain constant between 2002 and 2018. In 2018, visibility impairment
is still primarily due to OMC from natural fires. Visibility impairment
due to sulfate is projected to decrease by 2018, due to large decreases
in point source emissions in CENRAP states and the Eastern United
States. Sulfate contributions to visibility impairment at Gila from
Mexico, Arizona, and New Mexico increase from 2002 levels due to
increases in emissions from point sources.
v. Sources of Visibility Impairment in Pecos Wilderness and Wheeler
Peak Wilderness
    Similar to Bandelier, visibility impairment at Pecos/Wheeler Park
in 2002 on the worst 20% days is largely due to OMC and sulfate. OMC
emissions

are primarily from natural fires from NM and AZ. In 2002, the largest
contributions of sulfate to Pecos/Wheeler Park on the 20% worst days
come from sources outside the modeling domain (26%), followed by point
sources in CENRAP states (15%), Mexico (9%), the Eastern United States
(6%), and New Mexico (6%). Contributions from New Mexico natural fires
are 6%. New Mexico area sources contribute 3% of the sulfate on these
days.
    The 2018 projections assume that natural fire emissions of OMC and
SO2 remain constant between 2002 and 2018. In 2018,
visibility impairment is still primarily due to OMC from natural fires.
New Mexico's emissions of OMC from anthropogenic fires are projected to
decrease, while emissions from area sources are expected to increase.
Visibility impairment due to sulfate is projected to decrease by 2018,
due to large decreases in point source emissions in CENRAP states and
the Eastern United States. Sulfate contributions to visibility
impairment at Pecos/Wheeler Park from Mexico will increase from 2002
levels due to increases in emissions from point sources in Mexico.
Modeled sulfate contributions from New Mexico increase from 2002 levels
due to projected increase in area source emissions in New Mexico. As
discussed above, SO2 emissions from area source emissions in
New Mexico, particularly in Bernalillo County, are overestimated in the
WRAP modeling. We also note that the PSAT results do not include
NOX and SO2 reductions due to BART and the
SO2 milestone and emissions trading program. We anticipate
additional visibility improvement in 2018 beyond the modeled visibility
conditions due to lower NOX emissions from implementation of
the existing federal implementation plan or another future-approved
NOX BART determination consistent with the RHR requirements
and lower SO2 area emissions than included in the WRAP 2018
modeling episode used in this analysis. See our TSD for additional data
on visibility modeling results and emissions.
vi. Sources of Visibility Impairment in Salt Creek Wilderness
    Visibility impairment at Salt Creek in 2002 on the worst 20% days
is largely due to sulfate, nitrate, OMC and CM. In 2002, the largest
contributions of sulfate to Salt Creek on the 20% worst days come from
point sources in the Eastern United States (28%), CENRAP states (24%),
Mexico (9%), and New Mexico (6%). Contributions of nitrate are
primarily from area, mobile and point sources in New Mexico and CENRAP
states. CM emissions impacting Salt Creek are primarily from windblown
dust in New Mexico and neighboring CENRAP states. WEP results for
organic carbon indicate that contributions are from area source
emissions in CENRAP states and New Mexico as well as natural fires in
New Mexico and Arizona and local New Mexico point sources.
    Visibility impairment due to sulfate is projected to decrease by
2018, due to large decreases in emissions in CENRAP states and the
Eastern United States. Sulfate contributions to visibility impairment
at Salt Creek from Mexico increase from 2002 levels due to increases in
emissions from point sources. Contributions of nitrate from CENRAP
states and New Mexico from mobile sources are projected to decrease
significantly, while contributions from area source emissions,
including emissions from oil and gas production in New Mexico and the
CENRAP states are projected to increase. WEP results indicate that
point source emissions of organic carbon in New Mexico impacting Salt
Creek decrease significantly by 2018. CM emissions from windblown dust
are held constant from 2002 levels and remain a significant
contribution to visibility impairment in 2018. We note that the PSAT
results do not include NOX and SO2 reductions due
to BART and the SO2 milestone and emissions trading program.
We anticipate additional visibility improvement in 2018 beyond the
modeled visibility conditions at Salt Creek due to lower NOX
emissions and lower SO2 area emissions than included in the
WRAP 2018 modeling episode used in this analysis. See our TSD for
additional data on visibility modeling results and emissions.
vii. Sources of Visibility Impairment in White Mountain Wilderness
    Visibility impairment at White Mountain in 2002 and 2018 is similar
to Salt Creek. Visibility impairment at White Mountain in 2002 on the
worst 20% days is largely due to sulfate, nitrate, OMC and CM. Compared
to Salt Creek, visibility impairment due to CM is higher at White
Mountain, while impairment due to nitrate is less significant. In 2002,
the largest contributions of sulfate to White Mountain on the 20% worst
days come from point sources in the Eastern United States (30%), CENRAP
states (25%), and Mexico (9%). Contributions of nitrate are primarily
from area, mobile and point sources in New Mexico and CENRAP states. CM
emissions impacting White Mountain are primarily from windblown dust in
New Mexico and neighboring CENRAP states. WEP results for organic
carbon indicate that contributions are from natural fires in New Mexico
and Arizona and area source emissions in CENRAP states and New Mexico.
    Visibility impairment due to sulfate is projected to decrease by
2018, due to large decreases in emissions in CENRAP states and the
Eastern United States. Sulfate contributions to visibility impairment
at White Mountain from Mexico increase from 2002 levels due to
increases in emissions from point sources. Contributions of nitrate
from CENRAP states and New Mexico from mobile sources are projected to
decrease significantly, while contributions from area source emissions,
including emissions from oil and gas production in New Mexico and the
CENRAP states are projected to increase. CM emissions from windblown
dust are held constant from 2002 levels and remain a significant
contribution to visibility impairment in 2018. We note that the PSAT
results do not include NOX and SO2 reductions due
to BART and the SO2 milestone and emissions trading program.
We anticipate additional visibility improvement in 2018 beyond the
modeled visibility conditions at White Mountain due to lower
NOX and SO2 emissions than included in the WRAP
2018 modeling episode used in this analysis. See our TSD for additional
data on visibility modeling results and emissions.
d. New Mexico's Contributions to Visibility Impairment at Class I Areas
in Other States
    CAMx PSAT results were also utilized to evaluate the impact of New
Mexico emission sources in 2002 on visibility impairment at Class I
areas outside of the state. Section 12.2 of the NM RH 309(g) SIP
presents the contribution of New Mexico sources to nitrate and sulfate
on the 20% worst days at the Class I areas in Colorado, Arizona,
Nevada, Utah, Wyoming and Texas. New Mexico emissions are responsible
for up to 60% of the nitrate and 43% of the sulfate at individual Class
I areas in neighboring states on the 20% worst visibility days during
the baseline period. The highest impact from New Mexico sources at
other State's Class I areas occurs at Mesa Verde National Park and
Weminuche Wilderness for both sulfate and nitrate. These two Class I
areas are less than 100km from the SJGS. As discussed in the FIP, the
SJGS has significant impacts on visibility conditions at a large number
of surrounding Class I areas. Emissions

reductions as a result of implementation of the existing federal
implementation plan or another future-approved NOX BART
determination consistent with the RHR requirements will lead to
improvement in visibility conditions and a decrease in New Mexico's
contributions to visibility impairment at the Class I areas in
surrounding states by 2018. The SO2 milestone emissions and
trading program will result in a reduction of statewide SO2
emissions by 2018. NOX emissions from mobile sources are
also anticipated to decrease significantly by 2018, reducing the impact
of New Mexico sources on other Class I areas.
e. Consultation and Emissions Reductions for Other States' Class I
Areas
    As in the development of New Mexico's reasonable progress goals for
its Class I areas, NMED used the WRAP as its main vehicle for
facilitating collaboration with FLMs and other states in satisfying its
LTS consultation requirement. This helped NMED and other state
environmental agencies analyze emission apportionments at Class I areas
and develop coordinated RH SIP strategies.
    Section 51.308(d)(3)(i) requires that New Mexico consult with other
states if its emissions are reasonably anticipated to contribute to
visibility impairment at that state's Class I area(s), and that New
Mexico consult with other states if their emissions are reasonably
anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment at New Mexico's
Class I areas. NMED's consultations with other states are described in
section V.N.3.d above. As already discussed elsewhere, NM neither
requested additional emission reductions from other states, nor made a
commitment to other states for additional emission reductions beyond
the coordinated emission management strategies developed through the
WRAP consultation process and factored in the WRAP's 2018 visibility
projections using photochemical grid modeling. New Mexico determined
that the implementation of BART and other existing measures in state
regional haze plans were sufficient for the states to meet the
reasonable progress goals for their Class I areas, and that future
consultation would address any new strategies or measures needed. All
states participating in NM's consultation process agreed with this
decision. New Mexico's evaluation relied upon NOX BART and
other reductions as described in the SIP. We are proposing to find that
New Mexico satisfies the consultation requirements of 40 CFR
51.308(d)(3)(i).
    Section 51.308(d)(3)(ii) requires that if New Mexico emissions
cause or contribute to impairment in another state's Class I area, New
Mexico must demonstrate that it has included in its RH SIP all measures
necessary to obtain its share of the emission reductions needed to meet
the progress goal for that Class I area. Section 51.308(d)(3)(ii) also
requires that since New Mexico participated in a regional planning
process, it must ensure it has included all measures needed to achieve
its apportionment of emission reduction obligations agreed upon through
that process. As we state in the RHR,\63\ New Mexico's commitments to
participate in the WRAP bind it to secure emission reductions agreed to
as a result of that process, unless it proposes a separate process and
performs its consultations on the basis of that process. 64 FR 35735
(July 1, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ 64 FR 35735.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While States are not bound by the results of a regional planning
effort, nor can the content of their SIPs be dictated by a regional
planning body, we expect that a coordinated regional effort will likely
produce results the States will find beneficial in developing their
regional haze implementation plans. Any State choosing not to follow
the recommendations of a regional body would need to provide a specific
technical basis that its strategy nonetheless provides for reasonable
progress based on the statutory factors. At the same time, we cannot
require States to participate in regional planning efforts if the State
prefers to develop a long-term strategy on its own. We note that any
State that acts alone in this regard must conduct the necessary
technical support to justify their apportionment, which generally will
require regional inventories and a regional modeling analysis.
Additionally, any such State must consult with other States before
submitting its long-term strategy to EPA.
    The emission limits and schedule of compliance that New Mexico
relied on as required by section 51.308(d)(3)(ii) as part of its long-
term strategy to achieve the reasonable progress goals includes
projected reductions from a NOX BART determination for SJGS
that is not under review in this proposed action. The reductions at the
SJGS achieved in compliance with the emission limits and schedule of
compliance in the existing federal implementation plan or anticipated
due to any other future-approved NOX BART determination
consistent with the RHR requirements will result in greater visibility
improvements than projected in the WRAP modeling used to establish the
reasonable progress goals included in the 309(g) SIP submittal. In the
absence of a proposal on that component of the submittal, we propose to
find that the already effective BART requirements for that source
sufficiently support our proposed finding that the requirements of
section 51.308(d)(3)(ii) have been met.
f. Mandatory Long Term Strategy Factors
    Section 51.308(d)(3)(v) requires that New Mexico minimally consider
certain factors in developing its long-term strategy (the LTS factors).
These include: (a) Emission reductions due to ongoing air pollution
control programs, including measures to address RAVI; (b) measures to
mitigate the impacts of construction activities; (c) emissions
limitations and schedules for compliance to achieve the reasonable
progress goal; (d) source retirement and replacement schedules; (e)
smoke management techniques for agricultural and forestry management
purposes including plans as currently exist within the state for these
purposes; (f) enforceability of emissions limitations and control
measures; and (g) the anticipated net effect on visibility due to
projected changes in point, area, and mobile source emissions over the
period addressed by the long-term strategy. For the reasons outlined
below, we propose to find that New Mexico has satisfied all the
requirements of Section 51.308(d)(3)(v).
i. Reductions Due to Ongoing Air Pollution Programs
    In addition to its PM BART determination for the SJGS and the
SO2 emission milestone and trading program, New Mexico's LTS
incorporates emission reductions due to a number of ongoing air
pollution control programs.
    The two primary regulatory tools for addressing visibility
impairment from industrial sources are BART and the Prevention of
Signification Deterioration (PSD)/New Source Review (NSR) rules. The
New Mexico PSD rules protect visibility in Class I areas from new major
industrial sources and major changes to existing sources.\64\ New
Mexico's PSD SIP rules (20.2.74 NMAC) contain requirements for review
of visibility impact assessment from new and modified major stationary
sources within 100 km of a Class I area. New

Mexico's Construction Permits SIP rule (20.2.72 NMAC) addresses
construction or modifications of sources, including minor sources, and
assures compliance with ambient air quality standards. New Mexico's
Operating Permit Program (20.2.70 NMAC) consolidates all air quality
regulatory requirements and provides for appropriate compliance
assurance monitoring and an opportunity for participation by the
public, EPA, and other States in the permitting process. NMED issues
permits to all major and the majority of minor point sources in New
Mexico, and each permit contains enforceable limitations on emissions
of various pollutants, including those which cause or contribute to RH
at the Class I areas in New Mexico. New Mexico also periodically
incorporates by reference Federal New Source Performance Standards
(20.2.77 NMAC) and Federal National Emission Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutant (20.2.78 NMAC), and determines case-by-case Maximum
Achievable Control Technology (MACT) under 20.2.82 NMAC which may
result in reductions of emissions of visibility impairing pollutants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ 20.2.79 NMAC, the provisions for permitting in
nonattainment areas, is not referenced in the state's discussion,
but those provisions also address visibility impairment. The state
presently has one designated nonattainment area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We approved New Mexico's Visibility Protection Plan for Phase I,
Parts I and II, as a SIP revision on January 27, 2006. See 71 FR 4490.
This plan contains short and long-term strategies for reasonable
progress related to addressing reasonably attributable visibility
impairment in New Mexico's Class I areas through visibility monitoring
and control strategies. It includes PSD requirements for visibility
protection and applying BART to existing sources if certified as
causing RAVI.
    Mobile source annual emissions show a major decrease in
NOX in New Mexico from 2002 to 2018. This reduction will
result from numerous ``on the books'' Federal mobile source
regulations. This trend is expected to provide significant visibility
benefits. Beginning in 2006, we mandated new standards for on-road
(highway) diesel fuel, known as ultra-low sulfur diesel. This
regulation dropped the sulfur content of diesel fuel from 500 parts per
million (ppm) to 15 ppm. Ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel enables the use
of cleaner technology diesel engines and vehicles with advanced
emissions control devices, resulting in significantly lower emissions.
Diesel fuel intended for locomotive, marine, and non-road (farming and
construction) engines and equipment was required to meet a low sulfur
diesel fuel maximum specification of 500 ppm sulfur in 2007 (down from
5,000 ppm). By 2010, the ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel standard of 15
ppm sulfur applied to all non-road diesel fuel. Locomotive and marine
diesel fuels are required to meet the ultra-low sulfur diesel standard
beginning in 2012, resulting in further reductions of diesel emissions.
New Mexico also considered ongoing federal mobile source regulations
including the Tier 2 Vehicle Emission Standards, federal low-sulfur
gasoline, national low emissions vehicle standards, heavy-duty vehicle
standards and other federal Non-Road measures in developing its LTS.
    In December of 2007, NMED adopted 20.2.88 NMAC--Emission Standards
for New Motor Vehicles, which incorporates California emission
standards for new passenger cars, light-duty trucks and medium duty
vehicles sold in New Mexico beginning with model year 2011.
    New Mexico also considered programs established to address the
PM10 NAAQS. This includes Natural Events Action Plans
developed for Dona Ana and Luna Counties. The plans outline procedures
to utilize control measures to reduce anthropogenic sources of wind-
blown dust.
ii. Measures To Mitigate the Impacts of Construction Activities
    Section 51.308(d)(3)(v)(B) requires that New Mexico consider
measures to mitigate the impacts of construction activities in
developing its LTS. New Mexico considered developing a rule to address
fugitive dust. New Mexico conducted a survey to gather public comments
on regulation of dust sources in New Mexico. We note that the earlier
discussed programs developed to address the PM10 NAAQS,
including the Natural Events Action Plans developed for Dona Ana and
Luna Counties contain procedures for the use of control measures for
anthropogenic sources of wind-blown dust. These control measures
include the use of dust suppressants, phased construction, and stopping
or slowing construction activities during high winds to mitigate the
impacts of construction activities on visibility impairment. We also
note that Bernalillo County, which falls under the jurisdiction of the
AQCB, has a fugitive dust rule (20.11.20 NMAC) that addresses fugitive
emissions from construction activities within the City of Albuquerque
and Bernalillo County. New Mexico did not go forward to adopt the rule
that was under consideration at the time the 309(g) SIP was developed.
The State has the opportunity to provide an updated analysis of the
issue in the progress report and in any needed, future SIP revisions,
as contemplated by the requirements of Section 309. We are proposing to
find that New Mexico satisfies this component of LTS to consider
measures to mitigate the impacts of construction activities.
iii. Emission Limitations and Schedules of Compliance
    40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v)(C) requires that in developing its LTS, New
Mexico consider emissions limitations and schedules of compliance to
achieve the RPGs. The SIP contains emission reduction milestones and a
backstop trading program that addresses SO2 emissions from
point sources in the State. The backstop trading program provides
emission limits and schedules of compliance for SO2
emissions from point sources. As previously stated, the NOX
BART component of the submittal that applies to SJGS is not here under
review and not within the scope of our proposal to ensure all remaining
RH requirements are in place for the state of New Mexico. The
NOX BART requirements for SJGS are presently satisfied by 40
CFR 52.1628, though this would not preclude its withdrawal following
any future approval of an alternative BART determination found to
comply with the requirements of the RHR.
iv. Source Retirement and Replacement Schedules
    The State does not anticipate any specific major source retirements
or replacements. Replacement of existing facilities will be managed
accordingly through the existing Prevention of Signification
Deterioration program. As NMED becomes aware of such actions, they will
be factored into future reviews. We are proposing to find that the NMED
properly addressed the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v)(D) in the
development of its LTS.
v. Agricultural and Forestry Smoke Management Techniques
    40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v)(E) requires that New Mexico consider smoke
management techniques for agricultural and forestry management purposes
in developing its LTS. New Mexico's smoke management plan and Smoke
Management Rule (20.2.65 NMAC) are described in Section V.H of this
notice. We propose to find that the smoke management plan appropriately
contains smoke management techniques for agricultural and forestry
management purposes, and we are proposing to approve 20.2.65 NMAC that
was submitted as a SIP revision in 2003.

vi. Enforceability of New Mexico's Measures
    Section 51.308(d)(3)(v)(F) requires that New Mexico ensure the
enforceability of emission limitations and control measures used to
meet reasonable progress goals. With the exception of the
NOX BART limit included in the FIP, all existing emission
limitations and control measures used to meet the RPGs for which the
State is responsible are enforceable by the State either through New
Mexico Administrative Code or the SIP measures previously approved by
EPA. Future emission limitations will be enforceable through NSR permit
conditions (that automatically become part of the SIP) or EPA approved
SIP measures. The NOX BART requirements for SJGS must be
included by NMED in a Part 70 air quality permit whether they draw from
40 CFR 52.1628 or from any submitted determination that, on EPA
approval, replaces those requirements. See 70 FR at 39172.
vii. Anticipated Net Effect on Visibility Due to Projected Changes
    40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v)(G) requires that in developing its LTS, New
Mexico consider the anticipated net effect on visibility due to
projected changes in point, area, and mobile source emissions over the
period addressed by the long-term strategy. The anticipated net effect
on visibility due to projected changes in point, area, and mobile
source emissions during this planning period was analyzed using the
WRAP visibility modeling for 2018 and is addressed in Chapter 9 of the
NM RH 309(g) SIP submittal and elsewhere in this proposal. We are
proposing to find that New Mexico satisfies this component of LTS.
g. Our Conclusion on New Mexico's Long Term Strategy
    We propose to approve New Mexico's long-term strategy. The long-
term strategy satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3). Taking
into account that NOX BART requirements for SJGS are
presently satisfied by the requirements of 40 CFR 52.1628 and may only
be alternatively satisfied by an approvable determination that also
complies with the Regional Haze Rule, we propose to also agree that
additional controls and analysis are not presently warranted.
5. Monitoring Strategy and Other SIP Requirements
    Section 51.308(d)(4) requires the SIP contain a monitoring strategy
for measuring, characterizing, and reporting of RH visibility
impairment that is representative of all mandatory Class I Federal
areas within the state. This monitoring strategy must be coordinated
with the monitoring strategy required in Section 51.305 for reasonably
attributable visibility impairment. As Section 51.308(d)(4) notes,
compliance with this requirement may be met through participation in
the IMPROVE network. Since the monitors at the New Mexico Class I areas
are IMPROVE monitors, we propose to determine the 309(g) SIP submittal
has satisfied this requirement. See Chapter 4 of the NM RH 309(g) SIP
and the TSD for details concerning the IMPROVE network.
    Section 51.308(d)(4)(i) requires the establishment of any
additional monitoring sites or equipment needed to assess whether
reasonable progress goals to address RH for all mandatory Class I
Federal areas within the state are being achieved. Table 4-1 of the NM
RH 309(g) SIP submittal shows the IMPROVE monitor site locations,
elevations, start date, and the Class I area to which the monitored
visibility data corresponds. Chapter 4 of the NM RH 309(g) SIP
submittal describes the location of each monitor. Monitors for
Bandelier, Guadalupe Mountains (representative of Carlsbad), and Gila
Wilderness were installed between 1988 and 1994. New monitors were
established at Bosque del Apache, Salt Creek and Wheeler Peak
(representative of both Wheeler Peak and Pecos Wilderness) in mid-2000.
The monitor at White Mountain Wilderness began operation in early 2002.
New Mexico has not identified the need for any additional monitors and
we agree with this conclusion. We propose to find the 309(g) SIP
submittal has satisfied this requirement.
    Section 51.308(d)(4)(ii) requires that RH SIPs establish procedures
by which monitoring data and other information are used in determining
the contribution of emissions from within a state to RH visibility
impairment at mandatory Class I Federal areas both within and outside
the state. The IMPROVE monitoring program is national in scope, and
other states have similar monitoring and data reporting procedures,
ensuring a consistent and robust monitoring data collection system. As
section 51.308(d)(4) indicates, participation in the IMPROVE program
constitutes compliance with this requirement. We therefore propose that
the 309(g) SIP submittal has satisfied this requirement by virtue of
its participation in the IMPROVE program.
    Section 51.308(d)(4)(iv) requires that RH SIPs provide for the
reporting of all visibility monitoring data to the Administrator at
least annually for each mandatory Class I Federal area in the state. To
the extent possible, New Mexico should report visibility monitoring
data electronically. Section 51.308(d)(4)(vi) also requires that NMED
provide for other elements, including reporting, recordkeeping, and
other measures, necessary to assess and report on visibility. We
propose to determine that New Mexico's participation in the IMPROVE
network ensures the monitoring data is reported at least annually, is
easily accessible, and therefore the 309(g) SIP submittal complies with
this requirement.
    Section 51.308(d)(4)(v) requires that NMED maintain a statewide
inventory of emissions of pollutants that are reasonably anticipated to
cause or contribute to visibility impairment in any mandatory Class I
Federal area. The inventory must include emissions for a baseline year,
emissions for the most recent year for which data are available, and
estimates of future projected emissions. The state must also include a
commitment to update the inventory periodically. Please refer to
section V.N.4.a., above, where we discuss NMED's emission inventory.
The 309(g) SIP submittal provides a stated commitment to update the New
Mexico statewide emissions inventories periodically and review periodic
emissions information from other states and future emissions
projections. We propose to determine the RH SIP submittal satisfies
this requirement.

VI. EPA's Conclusions and Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve New Mexico State Implementation Plan
(SIP) revisions received July 5, 2011 and December 1, 2003, addressing
the regional haze requirements for the mandatory Class I areas under 40
CFR 51.309 and the separate submittal for the regional haze
requirements under 40 CFR 51.309(g). EPA is proposing to determine that
the submittals meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309. We note that we
are not, however, proposing action on one component of these
submittals: the submitted NOX BART determination for the San
Juan Generating Station. We are also proposing to approve various
companion regulations submitted to us as SIP revisions for our
consideration alongside the state's Regional Haze plan, specifically:
new sections 20.2.81 NMAC, 20.2.65 NMAC, 20.2.60 NMAC, and submitted
revisions to the previously approved <IP_ADDRESS>0.F NMAC.
    EPA is taking this action under section 110 of the CAA.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely proposes to approve state law as
meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this
action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide 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, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the
SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state,
and the EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on
tribal governments or preempt tribal law. Consistent with EPA policy,
EPA nonetheless is offering consultation to Tribes regarding this rule
making action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxides, Visibility, Regional haze,
Best available control technology.

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

    Dated: May 31, 2012.
Samuel Coleman,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2012-14247 Filed 6-14-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


[Federal Register: May 7, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 89)]
[Notices]
[Page 25700-25702]
[DOCID:fr07my08-73]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0513; FRL-8150-1]

Triclosan Risk Assessment; Notice of Availability and Risk
Reduction Options

AGENCY:  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:  Notice.

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

SUMMARY:  This notice announces the availability of EPA's risk
assessment(s), and related documents for the pesticide triclosan, and
opens a public comment period on these documents (Phase 3 of 4Phase
Process). The public is encouraged to suggest risk management ideas or
proposals to address the risks identified. EPA is developing a
Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) for triclosan through a
modified, 4-Phase public participation process that the Agency uses to
involve the public in developing pesticide reregistration decisions.
Through this program, EPA is ensuring that all pesticides meet current
health and safety standards.

DATES:  Comments must be received on or before July 7, 2008.

ADDRESSES:  Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0513, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bld.g), 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation 8:30 a.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The
Docket telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2007-0513. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the docket without change and may be made available on-line at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-
mail. The Federal regulations.gov website is an ``anonymous access''
system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through
regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and
included as part of the comment that is placed in the docket and made
available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA
recommends that you include your name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA
cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot
contact you for clarification, EPA may not be

able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects
or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index
available in regulations.gov. To access the electronic docket, go to
http://www.regulations.gov, select ``Advanced Search,'' then ``Docket
Search.'' Insert the docket ID number where indicated and select the
``Submit'' button. Follow the instructions on the regulations.gov web
site to view the docket index or access available documents. Although,
listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on
the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available either in the
electronic docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available
in hard copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One
Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA. The
hours of operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket
telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Heather Garvie,Antimicrobials
Division (7510P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-
mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of
interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human
health, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide
users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution,
or use of pesticides. Since others also may be interested, the Agency
has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be
affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    1.  Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2.  Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

II. Background

A. What Action is the Agency Taking?

    EPA is releasing for public comment its human health and
environmental fate and effects risk assessments and related documents
for triclosan, and soliciting public comment on risk management ideas
or proposals. Triclosan is currently registered as an antimicrobial
agent for use in the manufacture of a variety of products as a
materials preservative in paints, fabrics, and plastics, tents, tile
and in commercial, institutional, and industrial premises and equipment
such as conveyor belts, and ice machines. EPA developed the risk
assessment(s) and risk characterization for triclosan through a
modified version of its public process for making pesticide
reregistration eligibility and tolerance reassessment decisions.
Through these programs, EPA is ensuring that pesticides meet current
standards under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA) and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), as
amended by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA).
    The primary use sites for triclosan are use as a materials
preservative in paints, fabrics, and plastics, tents, tile and in
commercial, institutional, and industrial premises and equipment. EPA
is providing an opportunity, through this notice, for interested
parties to provide comments and input on the Agency's risk assessment
for triclosan. Such comments and input could address, for example, the
availability of additional data to further refine the risk assessments,
such as an acute freshwater invertebrate study, and information on the
quantity of triclosan degradates (e.g., triclosan methyl) occurring in
surface waters, biosolids, soil, fish, or shellfish from triclosan
antimicrobial pesticide use. This information could refine the Agency's
risk assessment methodologies and assumptions as applied to this
specific pesticide.
    Through this notice, EPA also is providing an opportunity for
interested parties to provide risk management proposals or otherwise
comment on risk management for triclosan. There are risks of concern
associated with the use of triclosan from occupational exposure for
workers applying paint, using some application methods; and the
application of triclosan in paper making. In targeting these risks of
concern, the Agency solicits information on effective and practical
risk reduction measures.
    EPA seeks to achieve environmental justice, the fair treatment and
meaningful involvement of all people, regardless of race, color,
national origin, or income, in the development, implementation, and
enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. To help
address potential environmental justice issues, the Agency seeks
information on any groups or segments of the population who, as a
result of their location, cultural practices, or other factors, may
have atypical, unusually high exposure to triclosan, compared to the
general population.

    EPA is applying the principles of public participation to all
pesticides undergoing reregistration and tolerance reassessment. The
Agency's Pesticide Tolerance Reassessment and Reregistration; Public
Participation Process, published in the Federal Register on May 14,
2004 (69 FR 26819)(FRL-7357-9), explains that in conducting these
programs, the Agency is tailoring its public participation process to
be commensurate with the level of risk, extent of use, complexity of
the issues, and degree of public concern associated with each
pesticide. For triclosan, a modified, 4-Phase process with 1 comment
period and ample opportunity for public consultation seems appropriate
in view of its refined risk assessment, and/or other factors. However,
if as a result of comments received during this comment period EPA
finds that additional issues warranting further discussion are raised,
the Agency may lengthen the process and include a second comment
period, as needed.
    All comments should be submitted using the methods in ADDRESSES,
and must be received by EPA on or before the closing date. Comments
will become part of the Agency Docket for triclosan. Comments received
after the close of the comment period will be marked ``late.'' EPA is
not required to consider these late comments.

B. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action?

    Section 4(g)(2) of FIFRA as amended directs that, after submission
of all data concerning a pesticide active ingredient, ``the
Administrator shall determine whether pesticides containing such active
ingredient are eligible for reregistration,'' before calling in
product-specific data on individual end-use products and either
reregistering products or taking other ``appropriate regulatory
action.''
    Section 408(q) of the FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a(q), requires EPA to
review tolerances and exemptions for pesticide residues in effect as of
August 2, 1996, to determine whether the tolerance or exemption meets
the requirements of section 408(b)(2) or (c)(2) of FFDCA. This review
is to be completed by August 3, 2006.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests, antimicrobials,
triclosan.

    Dated: April 29, 2008.
Frank Sanders,
Director, Antimicrobials Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. E8-9945 Filed 5-6-07; 8:45 a.m.]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 144 (Wednesday, July 27, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 49356]
[FR Doc No: 2016-17652]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. 2016-87]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
from specified requirements of Title 14 of the Code of Federal
Regulations. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's
awareness of, and participation in, the FAA's exemption process.
Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of
information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of
the petition or its final disposition.

DATES: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket
number and must be received on or before August 8, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2016-8718
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments
from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts
these comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to http://www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
http://www.dot.gov/privacy.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140
of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions concerning
this action, contact Nancy Lauck Claussen, Air Transportation Division,
AFS-200, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20591; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on July 20, 2016.
Lirio Liu,
Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2016-8718
    Section(s) of 14 CFR Affected: 14 CFR Section 121.311
    Description of Relief Sought: The petitioner requests an exemption
from FAR 121.311 (a) and (b) to the extent required for conjoined twins
to be able to be held in their caregiver's lap during all phases of
flight while aboard an aircraft, even though they have reached their
second birthday. This exemption would generally provide an equivalent
level of safety to that of a single lap held infant who has not reached
their second birthday, because the combined weight of these twins does
not exceed the 99th percentile for weight for an infant of only 23
months. Due to physical challenges, without an exemption, these
conjoined twins would be unable to fly onboard an aircraft.
[FR Doc. 2016-17652 Filed 7-26-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P