
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 138 (Friday, July 18, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 41900-41904]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-16818]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2013-0764; FRL-9913-94-Region-6]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
New Mexico; Grant County Sulfur Dioxide Limited Maintenance Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a 
limited maintenance plan submitted by the State of New Mexico, dated 
November 1, 2013, for the Grant County maintenance area for the 1971 
sulfur dioxide (SO2) National Ambient Air Quality Standard 
(NAAQS). New Mexico submitted this limited maintenance plan to fulfill 
the second 10-year maintenance plan requirement, under section 175A(b) 
of the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act), to ensure maintenance of the 
1971 SO2 NAAQS through 2025. The EPA is approving the 
maintenance plan pursuant to the CAA.

DATES: This rule is effective on September 16, 2014 without further 
notice, unless EPA receives relevant adverse comment by August 18, 
2014. If EPA receives such comment, EPA will publish a timely 
withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that this rule 
will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R06-
OAR-2013-0764, by one of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions.
     Email: Mr. Guy Donaldson at donaldson.guy@epa.gov. Please 
also send a copy by email to the person listed in the FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section below.
     Mail or Delivery: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning 
Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, 
Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-
2013-0764. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included 
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at 
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 through www.regulations.gov or 
email, information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected. 
The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, 
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information 
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email 
comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your 
email address will be automatically captured and included as part of 
the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on 
the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that 
you include your name and other contact information in the body of your 
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your 
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for 
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic 
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of 
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional 
information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center 
homepage at www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the 
www.regulations.gov index and in hard copy at EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross 
Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. While all documents in the docket are 
listed in the index, some information may be publicly available only at 
the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material), and some may not 
be publicly available at either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the 
hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment with the person 
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT paragraph below or Mr. 
Bill Deese at 214-665-7253.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Dayana Medina (6PD-L), Air 
Planning Section, telephone (214) 665-7241, fax (214) 665-6762, email: 
medina.dayana@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,'' 
and ``our'' means EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Evaluation of New Mexico's Submittal
    A. Has the State demonstrated that Grant County qualifies for 
the Limited Maintenance Plan option?
    B. Elements of a Limited Maintenance Plan for SO2
    1. Attainment Emissions Inventory
    2. Demonstration of Maintenance
    3. Monitoring Network, Verification of Continued Attainment, and 
New Mexico's Request To Discontinue the SO2 Hurley 
Monitor
    4. Contingency Plan
III. Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    On September 11, 1978 (43 FR 40412), the EPA designated a portion 
of Grant County, New Mexico as a nonattainment area for the 1971 
SO2 NAAQS \1\ under Section 107 of the CAA. The area that 
was designated nonattainment is located within the Air Quality Control 
Region

[[Page 41901]]

(AQCR) No. 012, and consists of a 3.5 mile radius surrounding the 
former Kennecott Copper Corporation (now called the Chino Mines-Hurley 
Facility) and land above 6470 feet Mean Sea Level within an 8 mile 
radius of the Hurley Smelter, which is part of the Chino Mines-Hurley 
Facility in Hurley, New Mexico. Emissions from this source caused the 
violations of the SO2 NAAQS that resulted in the area being 
designated nonattainment. EPA approved the attainment SIP for the Grant 
County SO2 nonattainment area on May 5, 1982 (47 FR 19332).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 36 FR 8186 (April 30, 1971).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On February 21, 2003, New Mexico submitted a request that the Grant 
County nonattainment area be redesignated to attainment for the 1971 
SO2 NAAQS. Along with this request, the state submitted a 
maintenance plan which demonstrated that the area was expected to stay 
in attainment of the 1971 SO2 NAAQS for the initial 
maintenance period through 2015. The EPA approved the redesignation 
request and the maintenance plan on September 18, 2003 (68 FR 54672).
    Section 175A(b) of the Act as amended in 1990 requires the state to 
submit a subsequent maintenance plan covering a second ten-year period 
to EPA eight years after designation to attainment. To fulfill this 
requirement of the Act, New Mexico submitted the second ten-year update 
of the SO2 maintenance plan to EPA on November 1, 2013. The 
limited maintenance plan SIP revision demonstrates that the area is 
expected to stay in attainment of the 1971 SO2 NAAQS through 
2025. The revision also requests to discontinue the only SO2 
monitor in the Grant Country maintenance area (the Hurley monitor, AQS 
ID 35-017-0003-42401-1) in light of the negligible SO2 
concentrations measured at the monitor, and to implement an alternative 
SO2 monitoring methodology in its place. This action is 
being taken with respect to the 1971 24-hour SO2 NAAQS. This 
action does not address the 2010 1 hour SO2 Standard but we 
note that concentrations measured on a 1 hour basis are also quite low.

II. Evaluation of New Mexico's Submittal

    On November 1, 2013, the State of New Mexico submitted a revision 
to the New Mexico SIP. This revision provides the second 10-year update 
to the maintenance plan for the area, as required by the section 
175A(b) of the Act. The purpose of this plan is to ensure continued 
maintenance of 1971 SO2 NAAQS in Grant County by 
demonstrating that future emissions of this criteria pollutant are 
expected to remain at or below emission levels necessary for continued 
attainment of the 1971 SO2 NAAQS. Since there are few 
specific content requirements defined in section 175A of the Act for 
maintenance plans, EPA has exercised its discretion to make available 
the option of submitting a Limited Maintenance Plan for areas that can 
make a demonstration of consistent air quality at or below 85% of the 
SO2 NAAQS. EPA has developed guidance memoranda on Limited 
Maintenance Plan options that are specific to the ozone, particulate 
matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than 10 microns 
(PM10), and carbon monoxide NAAQS.\2\ Consistent with EPA's 
policy for limited maintenance plans as presented in those guidance 
memoranda, EPA here has the authority to exercise its reasonable 
discretion and conclude that a limited maintenance plan option is 
justifiable and appropriate in this case for the SO2 NAAQS. 
New Mexico has opted to develop a Limited Maintenance Plan for the 
Grant County SO2 maintenance area to fulfill the second 10-
year maintenance period required by the Act. Our evaluation of the 
Grant County SO2 Limited Maintenance Plan is presented 
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See ``Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Nonclassifiable 
Ozone Nonattainment Areas'' from Sally L. Shaver, Office of Air 
Quality Planning and Standards, dated November 16, 1994; ``Limited 
Maintenance Plan Option for Nonclassifiable CO Nonattainment Areas'' 
from Joseph Paisie, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, 
dated October 6, 1995; and ``Limited Maintenance Plan Option for 
Moderate PM10 Nonattainment Areas'' from Lydia Wegman, 
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, dated August 9, 2001. 
Copies of these guidance memoranda can be found in the docket for 
this proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Has the State demonstrated that Grant County Qualifies for the 
Limited Maintenance Plan option?

    Following the approach presented in our guidance memoranda, we 
believe it appropriate for a limited maintenance plan for 
SO2 option to be available for a State that demonstrates 
that the design values for SO2 in the maintenance area are 
at, or below, 85 percent of the 24-hour SO2 NAAQS or 0.119 
parts per million (ppm). To support use of this option, the area's 
design value should not exceed the 0.119 ppm threshold throughout the 
entire rulemaking process. There is currently only one monitor located 
in the Grant County maintenance area, the Hurley, New Mexico monitor 
(AQS ID 35-017-0003-42401-1). This monitor has been operating since 
1997 and EPA determined in a letter to NMED dated August 26, 2002, that 
the Hurley monitor was placed where modeling indicated the highest 
SO2 concentrations were likely to occur. For this 
submission, the state provided data showing that the SO2 
design value for the 24-hour SO2 NAAQS (0.14 part per 
million (ppm)) has been 0.0 ppm for each of the five most recent years 
(2007-2011) for which certified ambient air quality data is available 
for the Hurley monitor. These values are clearly below the 85% 
threshold, demonstrating that the Grant County maintenance area is 
suitable for a Limited Maintenance Plan option. Consistent with past 
contexts where a limited maintenance plan option was deemed to be 
available, the area does not have a recent history of monitored 
violations nor any long prior history of monitored air quality 
problems.

B. Elements of a Limited Maintenance Plan for SO2

    A Limited Maintenance Plan conventionally consists of several core 
provisions: An attainment inventory, a demonstration of maintenance of 
the NAAQS, operation of a monitoring network, a contingency provision, 
as necessary, to promptly correct any violation of the NAAQS.
1. Attainment Emissions Inventory
    The State's plan should include an emissions inventory to identify 
the level of emissions in the maintenance area that is sufficient to 
attain the NAAQS. The inventory should represent emissions during the 
same five-year period associated with air quality data used to 
determine whether the area meets the applicability requirements of the 
limited maintenance plan option. New Mexico's Grant County Limited 
Maintenance Plan submittal includes an SO2 emissions 
inventory for Grant County Title V sources and Minor Point sources for 
the years 2007-2011. These base years represent the most recent 
emissions inventory data available and are consistent with the data 
used to determine applicability of the limited maintenance plan option 
(i.e., design values at, or below, 85 percent of the 24-hour 
SO2 NAAQS). The source that caused the violations of the 
SO2 NAAQS that resulted in the area being designated 
nonattainment, the former Hurley Smelter, was dismantled and its stacks 
removed in July 2006.\3\ The

[[Page 41902]]

former Hurley Smelter was the only major source of SO2 
located within the maintenance area boundary. There are currently no 
major sources of SO2 located in the Grant County maintenance 
area. There are currently two Title V sources in Grant County (both 
located outside of the Grant County maintenance area): the Chino Mine 
and the Tyrone Mine. The combined actual SO2 emissions for 
the two sources has been no more than 6.57 tons per year (tpy) for each 
of the years 2007-2011. The primary sources of SO2 emissions 
for both facilities are blasting fugitives and diesel generator 
engines. There are currently four minor point sources located within 
the Grant County maintenance area with combined annual allowable 
SO2 emissions of 316 tpy for each of the years 2007-2011. 
However, the actual SO2 emissions generated by these sources 
are minimal. This data supports New Mexico's conclusion that the 
control measures contained in the original attainment plan will 
continue to protect and maintain the 1971 SO2 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Hurley Smelter, a copper ore smelter that was part of 
the Chino Mine-Hurley Facility located in Hurley, New Mexico, was 
dismantled and its stacks were removed in July 2006. The Chino Mine-
Hurley Facility modified its Title V and New Source Review (NSR) 
permits to remove all equipment associated with the former Hurley 
Smelter. A copy of the revised permit issued on May 23, 2007, is 
found in Appendix B of the State's submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Demonstration of Maintenance
    EPA considers the maintenance demonstration requirement satisfied 
if the monitoring data show that the area is meeting the air quality 
criteria for limited maintenance areas (i.e., design value at or below 
0.119 parts per million (ppm) or 85% of the 24-hour SO2 
NAAQS). There is no requirement to project emissions over the 
maintenance period. Instead, EPA believes that if an area is at or 
below 85 percent of exceedance levels, the air quality along with the 
continued applicability of PSD requirements, any control measures 
already in the SIP, and Federal measures, should provide adequate 
assurance of maintenance over the remainder of the 10-year maintenance 
period. As discussed above, the state provided data showing that the 
SO2 design value for the 24-hour SO2 NAAQS (0.14 
part per million (ppm)) has been 0.0 ppm for each of the five most 
recent years (2007-2011) for which certified ambient air quality data 
is available for the Hurley monitor. These values are well below the 
85% threshold, thus demonstrating the appropriateness of a Limited 
Maintenance Plan option for the Grant County maintenance area.
    When EPA approves a limited maintenance plan, EPA is concluding 
that an emissions budget may be treated as essentially not constraining 
for the length of the maintenance period because it is unreasonable to 
expect that such an area will experience so much growth in that period 
that a violation of the SO2 NAAQS would result.
3. Monitoring Network, Verification of Continued Attainment, and New 
Mexico's Request To Discontinue the SO2 Hurley Monitor
    To verify the attainment status of the area over the maintenance 
period, the maintenance plan should contain provisions for continued 
operation of an appropriate, EPA-approved air quality monitoring 
network, in accordance with 40 CFR part 58. Over the course of the last 
30 years, New Mexico has operated four SO2 monitors in the 
Grant County maintenance area. There have been no monitored exceedances 
of the 1971 SO2 NAAQS in the Grant County maintenance area 
since 1979. The Hurley monitor (AIRS Monitor ID 35-017-0003-42401-1), 
which has been in operation since 1997, is the only SO2 
monitor currently operating in the Grant County maintenance area. EPA 
determined in a letter to NMED dated August 26, 2002, that the Hurley 
monitor was placed where modeling indicated the highest SO2 
concentration was likely to occur. Monitored SO2 
concentrations have been negligible for the most recent five years for 
which certified ambient air quality data is available, following the 
July 2006 dismantling of the Hurley Smelter, which was the source 
originally responsible for the violations of the SO2 NAAQS 
that resulted in the area being designated nonattainment. The state 
provided data from the Hurley monitor showing that the SO2 
design value for the 24-hour SO2 NAAQS (0.14 part per 
million (ppm)) has been 0.0 ppm for each of the five most recent years 
(2007-2011) for which certified ambient air quality data was available.
    In light of the limited number of SO2 emission sources, 
the limited amount of SO2 emissions, and the negligible 
monitored SO2 concentrations in the Grant County maintenance 
area, New Mexico is requesting to discontinue SO2 air 
monitoring within the maintenance area, as currently required by its 
maintenance plan, and to instead implement an alternative 
SO2 monitoring methodology that does not utilize a gaseous 
analyzer for determining compliance with the SO2 NAAQS. The 
alternative SO2 monitoring method will consist of using PSD 
and Title V modeling and any required post-construction monitoring for 
new and modified air quality permits and an annual emission review of 
all major SO2 sources located in the Grant County 
maintenance area. In the event that PSD or Title V modeling, PSD or 
Title V post-construction monitoring, or the annual emissions review of 
major sources within the maintenance area indicate there is a 
significant increase in SO2 emissions that may cause a 
potential SO2 NAAQS violation, New Mexico will reinstitute a 
gaseous SO2 monitor at the Hurley, NM monitoring location 
(AIRS ID 35-017-0003-42401-1) or at a site expected to read greater 
SO2 levels than this site. If the monitored SO2 
values after one year are at or below 50 percent of the 24-hour or 
annual SO2 NAAQS, or both, the monitor would again be 
removed and the alternative SO2 monitoring methodology 
reinstated. The process would be repeated each time PSD or Title V 
monitoring, PSD or Title V post-construction monitoring, or the annual 
emission review of major SO2 sources within the maintenance 
area indicate a potential SO2 NAAQS violation.
    We accordingly find that with the alternative SO2 
monitoring methodology in place, the Hurley monitor is no longer 
required as part of the 24-hour SO2 maintenance plan. By our 
approval, the maintenance plan will not contain any contingency 
measures to be triggered by a monitored air quality concentration. NMED 
may submit a separate request for a system modification (including a 
request for discontinuation of a State or local air monitoring station) 
for EPA's review and approval under the bases provided in 40 CFR Sec.  
58.14. We find that the State has satisfied the monitoring network and 
verification of continued attainment requirements for the limited 
maintenance plan.
4. Contingency Plan
    Section 175A(d) of the CAA requires that a maintenance plan include 
contingency provisions, as necessary, to promptly correct any violation 
of the NAAQS that occurs after the area is redesignated to attainment. 
Under section 175A(d), contingency measures do not have to be fully 
adopted at the time of redesignation. However, the contingency plan is 
considered to be an enforceable part of the SIP and should ensure that 
the contingency measures are adopted expeditiously once they are 
triggered by a specified event. The general approach for contingency 
measures discussed in the limited maintenance plan guidance memoranda 
provide that the contingency provisions should identify the measures to 
be adopted, a schedule and procedure for adoption and implementation, 
and a specific time limit for action by the State. However, the General 
Preamble

[[Page 41903]]

for the Implementation of Title I of the Act Amendments of 1990 (57 FR 
13498) states that SO2 provisions require special 
considerations. A primary reason is that SO2 control methods 
are well established and understood. Therefore, contingency measures 
for SO2 need only consist of a comprehensive program to 
identify sources of violations of the SO2 NAAQS and to 
undertake an aggressive follow-up for compliance and enforcement.
    There are currently no major SO2 sources within the 
Grant County maintenance area. In the event that an SO2 
source(s) moves into or within close proximity to the Grant County 
SO2 maintenance area, New Mexico will ensure that such 
source(s) will comply with all applicable state and federal 
SO2 regulations and requirements. New Mexico is also 
committing to maintain a comprehensive compliance and enforcement 
program to identify sources of violation of the SO2 NAAQS 
within the maintenance area and to undertake aggressive follow up 
measures to ensure compliance with the SO2 NAAQS. In 
conformance with CAA section 175A(d), New Mexico will also implement 
all measures with respect to the control of air pollutants concerned 
which were contained in the SIP for the area before redesignation of 
the area as an attainment area, to the extent such measures are 
applicable to any sources which may exist at the time of any NAAQS 
exceedance. We believe that New Mexico's contingency plan is adequate 
for identifying which SO2 sources are responsible for 
violations of the 1971 SO2 NAAQS and undertaking aggressive 
measures to ensure compliance of the SO2 NAAQS. We find that 
New Mexico's contingency measures plan is approvable.

III. Final Action

    The EPA is taking direct final action to approve the second 10-year 
limited maintenance plan for Grant County submitted by the State of New 
Mexico.
    We are approving this limited maintenance plan for the Grant County 
maintenance area for the 1971 SO2 NAAQS. The State of New 
Mexico has complied with the requirements of section 175A of the CAA, 
consistent with its interpretation through past limited maintenance 
plan guidance provided several EPA memoranda dated November 16, 1994; 
October 6, 1995; and August 9, 2001. New Mexico has shown through its 
submittal that SO2 emissions in the Grant County maintenance 
area have decreased to very low levels following the dismantling of the 
Hurley smelter in July 2006. New Mexico has also shown that the 
monitored levels of the 1971 SO2 NAAQS in the Grant County 
area have been negligible since 2007, with design values of 0 ppm for 
the most recent five years for which certified ambient air monitoring 
data is available. Thus, the area has been consistently well below the 
requisite level of 0.119 ppm for the 24-hour SO2 NAAQS in 
order to qualify for the limited maintenance plan option. New Mexico 
has also shown that all SO2 monitored values have been 
consistently well below the 1971 SO2 NAAQS levels. These low 
monitored values of SO2 are expected through the end of the 
maintenance period.
    We find that with the alternative SO2 monitoring 
methodology in place, the Hurley monitor is no longer required as part 
of the 24-hour SO2 maintenance plan. By our approval, the 
maintenance plan will not contain any contingency measures to be 
triggered by a monitored air quality concentration. NMED may submit a 
separate request for a system modification (including a request for 
discontinuation of a State or local air monitoring station) for EPA's 
review and approval under the bases provided in 40 CFR 58.14.
    EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because we view 
this as a non-controversial amendment and anticipate no adverse 
comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal 
Register publication, we are publishing a separate document that will 
serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision if relevant adverse 
comments are received. This rule will be effective on September 16, 
2014 without further notice unless we receive relevant adverse comment 
by August 18, 2014. If we receive relevant adverse comments, we will 
publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the 
public that the rule will not take effect. We will address all public 
comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. We will 
not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties 
interested in commenting must do so now. Please note that if we receive 
relevant adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this 
rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the 
rule, we may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not 
the subject of an adverse comment.

IV. 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 CAA. Accordingly, 
this action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting federal 
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those 
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     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 (Public Law 104-4);
     does not have federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the CAA; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental 
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under 
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications as 
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), 
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in 
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct 
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. section 801 et seq., as 
added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 
1996, generally provides that before a rule

[[Page 41904]]

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. EPA will 
submit a report containing this rule 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. section 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 September 16, 2014. Filing a petition for 
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect 
the finality of this rule 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 its 
requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.

    Dated: July 7, 2014.
Ron Curry,
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 ``Second 10-year 
SO2 maintenance plan for Grant County'' 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         State
                                  geographic or     submittal/
     Name of SIP provision        nonattainment      effective        EPA  approval date           Comments
                                       area            date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Second 10-year SO[ihel2]        Portion of Grant      11/1/2013  7/18/2014..................
 maintenance plan for Grant      county.                         [Insert FR citation].......
 County.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2014-16818 Filed 7-17-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


