Vol. 77 Friday, 

No. 116 June 15, 2012 

Part II 

Environmental Protection Agency 

40 CFR Part 52 

Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; New Mexico; 

Regional Haze Rule Requirements for Mandatory Class I Areas; Proposed 

Rule 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
36044 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 116 / Friday, June 15, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2009–0050; FRL–9683–9] 

Approval and Promulgation of State 

Implementation Plans; New Mexico; 

Regional Haze Rule Requirements for 

Mandatory Class I Areas 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

New Mexico State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) revisions submitted on July 5, 

2011, and December 1, 2003, by the 

Governor of New Mexico addressing the 

regional haze requirements for the 16 

Class I areas covered by the Grand 

Canyon Visibility Transport 

Commission Report and a separate 

submittal for other Federal mandatory 

Class I areas. EPA is proposing to find 

that the submittals meet the 

requirements. We are proposing action 

on all components of the state’s 

submittals except for the submitted 

nitrogen oxides (NOX) Best Available 

Retrofit Technology (BART) 

determination for the San Juan 

Generating Station (SJGS). We propose 

to approve all other components, 

including the sulfur dioxide emission 

reduction milestones and backstop 

trading program, the smoke 

management plan and the particulate 

matter BART determination for the 

SJGS. We are also proposing to approve 

several SIP submissions offered as 

companion rules to the regional haze 

plan, including submitted regulations 

for the Western Backstop Sulfur Dioxide 

Trading Program, for the inventorying of 

emissions, for smoke management, and 

open burning. EPA is taking this action 

under section 110 of the Clean Air Act. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before July 16, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R06– 

OAR–2009–0050 by one of the following 

methods: 

• Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Email: R6air_nmhaze@epa.gov. 

• Mail: Mr. Michael Feldman, Air 

Planning Section (6PD–L), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 

Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 

75202–2733. 

• Hand or Courier Delivery: Mr. 

Michael Feldman, Air Planning Section 

(6PD–L), Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, 

Dallas, Texas 75202–2733. Such 

deliveries are accepted only between the 

hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. weekdays, 

and not on legal holidays. Special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. 

• Fax: Mr. Michael Feldman, Air 

Planning Section (6PD–L), at fax 

number 214–665–7263. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket No. EPA–R06–OAR–2009–0050. 

Our 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 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected through 

www.regulations.gov or email. The 

www.regulations.gov web site is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means we 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 us 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, we recommend 

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 we cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

we 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 www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air Planning Section (6PD–L), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 

Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 

75202–2733. The file will be made 

available by appointment for public 

inspection in the Region 6 FOIA Review 

Room between the hours of 8:30 a.m. 

and 4:30 p.m. weekdays except for legal 

holidays. Contact the person listed in 

the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

paragraph below or Mr. Bill Deese at 

214–665–7253 to make an appointment. 

If possible, please make the 

appointment at least two working days 

in advance of your visit. There will be 

a 15 cent per page fee for making 

photocopies of documents. On the day 

of the visit, please check in at our 

Region 6 reception area at 1445 Ross 

Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. 

The State of New Mexico submittal is 

also available for public inspection 

during official business hours, by 

appointment, at New Mexico 

Environmental Department, Air Quality 

Bureau, 1301 Siler Rd, Building B, Santa 

Fe, New Mexico 87507. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael Feldman, Air Planning Section 

(6PD–L), Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, 

Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733, 

telephone 214–665–9793; fax number 

214–665–7263; email address 

feldman.michael@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Definitions 

For the purpose of this document, we 

are giving meaning to certain words or 

initials as follows: 

i. The words or initials Act or CAA mean 

or refer to the Clean Air Act, unless the 

context indicates otherwise. 

ii. The words EPA, we, us or our mean or 

refer to the United States Environmental 

Protection Agency. 

iii. The initials SIP mean or refer to State 

Implementation Plan. 

iv. The initials FIP mean or refer to Federal 

Implementation Plan. 

v. The initials RH and RHR mean or refer 

to Regional Haze and Regional Haze Rule. 

vi. The initials NMED mean the New 

Mexico Environmental Department. 

vii. The initials BART mean or refer to Best 

Available Retrofit Technology. 

viii. The initials OC mean or refer to 

organic carbon. 

ix. The initials EC mean or refer to 

elemental carbon. 

x. The initials VOC mean or refer to 

volatile organic compounds. 

xi. The initials EGUs mean or refer to 

Electric Generating Units. 

xii. The initials NOX mean or refer to 

nitrogen oxides. 

xiii. The initials SO2 mean or refer to sulfur 

dioxide. 

xiv. The initials PM10 mean or refer to 

particulate matter with an aerodynamic 

diameter of less than 10 micrometers. 

xv. The initials PM2.5 mean or refer to 

particulate matter with an aerodynamic of 

less than 2.5 micrometers. 

xvi. The initials RPGs mean or refer to 

reasonable progress goals. 

xvii. The initials LTS mean or refer to long 

term strategy. 

xviii. The initials RPOs mean or refer to 

regional planning organizations. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 116 / Friday, June 15, 2012 / Proposed Rules 36045 

xix. The initials WRAP mean or refer to the 

Western Regional Air Partnership. 

xx. The initials CENRAP mean or refer to 

the Central Regional Air Planning 

Association. 

xxi. The initials AQCB mean or refer to the 

Albuquerque-Bernalillo County Air Quality 

Control Board. 

xxii. The initials GCVTC mean or refer to 

the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport 

Commission. 

xxiii. The initials PNM mean or refer to the 

Public Service Company of New Mexico. 

xxiv. The initials SJGS mean or refer to the 

San Juan Generating Station. 

Table of Contents 

I. Overview of Proposed Action 

II. What is the background for our proposed 

actions? 

A. Regional Haze 

B. Roles of Agencies in Addressing 

Regional Haze 

C. Development of the Requirements for 40 

CFR 51.309 

III. What are the requirements for RH SIPs 

submitted under 40 CFR 51.309? 

A. The CAA and the Regional Haze Rule 

B. Projection of Visibility Improvement 

C. Clean Air Corridors 

D. Stationary Source Reductions 

1. SO2 Emission Reductions 

2. Provisions for Stationary Source 

Emissions of Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) and 

Particulate Matter (PM) 

E. Mobile Sources 

F. Programs Related to Fire 

G. Paved and Unpaved Road Dust 

H. Pollution Prevention 

I. Additional Recommendations 

J. Periodic Implementation Plan Revisions 

K. Interstate Coordination 

L. Additional Class I Areas 

1. Determination of Reasonable Progress 

Goals 

2. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and 

Current Visibility Conditions 

3. Long-Term Strategy (LTS) 

4. Monitoring Strategy and Other SIP 

Requirements 

IV. What are the additional requirements for 

alternative programs under the RHR? 

A. ‘‘Better-Than-BART’’ Demonstration 

B. Elements Required for All Alternative 

Programs That Have an Emissions Cap 

1. Applicability 

2. Allowances 

3. Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and 

Reporting 

4. Tracking System 

5. Account Representative 

6. Allowance Transfer 

7. Compliance Provisions 

8. Penalty Provisions 

9. Banking of Allowances 

10. Program Assessment 

V. Our Analysis of the State of New Mexico’s 

Regional Haze SIP Submittal 

A. Projection of Visibility Improvement 

B. Clean Air Corridors (CAC) 

1. Comprehensive Emissions Tracking 

Program 

2. Identification of CACs 

3. Patterns of Growth Within and Outside 

of the CAC 

4. Actions If Impairment Inside or Outside 

the Clean Air Corridor Occurs 

5. Other CACs 

C. Stationary Source Reductions 

1. Provisions for Stationary Source 

Emissions of SO2

2. Documentation of Emissions Calculation 

Methods for SO2

3. Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and 

Reporting of SO2 Emissions 

4. Criteria and Procedures for a Market 

Trading Program 

5. Market Trading Program 

6. Provisions for the 2018 Milestone 

7. Special Penalty Provision for 2018 

D. ‘‘Better-Than-BART’’ Demonstration 

1. List of BART-Eligible Sources 

2. Subject to BART Determination 

3. Best System of Continuous Emission 

Control Technology 

4. Projected Emissions Reductions 

5. Evidence That the Trading Program 

Achieves Greater Reasonable Progress 

Than BART 

6. All Emission Reductions Must Take 

Place During the First Planning Period 

7. Detailed Description of the Alternative 

Program 

8. Surplus Reductions 

9. Geographic Distribution of Emissions 

E. Requirements for Alternative Programs 

With an Emissions Cap 

1. Applicability Provisions 

2. Allowance Provisions 

3. Monitoring and Recordkeeping 

Provisions 

4. Tracking System 

5. Account Representative 

6. Allowance Transfers 

7. Compliance Provisions 

8. Penalty Provisions 

9. Banking of Allowances 

10. Program Assessment 

F. Provisions for Stationary Source NOX

and PM 

1. Identification of BART–Eligible Sources 

2. Identification of Sources Subject to 

BART 

a. Modeling Methodology 

b. Contribution Threshold 

c. Sources Identified to be Subject-to-BART 

3. BART Determination for SJGS 

a. New Mexico’s PM BART Determination 

b. Our Evaluation of New Mexico’s PM 

BART Determination 

G. Mobile Sources 

H. Programs Related to Fire 

1. Evaluation of Current Fire Programs 

a. Actions To Minimize Emissions 

b. Evaluation of Smoke Dispersion 

c. Alternatives to Fire 

d. Public Notification 

e. Air Quality Monitoring 

f. Surveillance and Enforcement 

g. Program Evaluation 

2. Inventory and Tracking System 

3. Identification and Removal of 

Administrative Barriers 

4. Enhanced Smoke Management Program 

5. Annual Emission Goal 

I. Paved and Unpaved Road Dust 

J. Pollution Prevention 

1. Description of Existing Pollution 

Prevention Program 

2. Incentive Programs 

3. Programs To Preserve and Expand 

Energy Conservation Efforts 

4. Potential for Renewable Energy 

5. Projections of Renewable Energy Goals, 

Energy Efficiency, and Pollution 

Prevention Activities 

6. Programs To Achieve GCVTC Renewable 

Energy Goal 

K. Additional Recommendations 

L. Periodic Implementation Plan Revisions 

M. Interstate Coordination 

N. Additional Class I Areas 

1. Affected Class I Areas 

2. Determination of Baseline, Natural and 

Current Visibility Conditions 

a. Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions 

b. Estimating Baseline Visibility 

Conditions 

c. Natural Visibility Impairment 

d. Uniform Rate of Progress 

3. Evaluation of New Mexico’s Reasonable 

Progress Goals 

a. WRAP Visibility Modeling 

b. NMED’s Reasonable Progress ‘‘Four 

Factor’’ Analysis 

c. Establishment of the Reasonable Progress 

Goal 

d. Reasonable Progress Consultation 

e. Our Conclusion on New Mexico’s 

Reasonable Progress Goals 

4. Long-Term Strategy 

a. Emissions Inventory 

i. New Mexico’s 2002 Emission Inventory 

ii. New Mexico’s 2018 Emission Inventory 

b. Visibility Projection Modeling 

c. Sources of Visibility Impairment in New 

Mexico Class I Areas 

i. Sources of Visibility Impairment in 

Bandelier Wilderness 

ii. Sources of Visibility Impairment in 

Bosque del Apache National Wildlife 

Refuge 

iii. Sources of Visibility Impairment in 

Carlsbad Caverns National Park 

iv. Sources of Visibility Impairment in Gila 

Wilderness 

v. Sources of Visibility Impairment in 

Pecos Wilderness and Wheeler Peak 

Wilderness 

vi. Sources of Visibility Impairment in Salt 

Creek Wilderness 

vii. Sources of Visibility Impairment in 

White Mountain Wilderness 

d. New Mexico’s Contributions to Visibility 

Impairment at Class I Areas in Other 

States 

e. Consultation and Emissions Reductions 

for Other States’ Class I Areas 

f. Mandatory Long Term Strategy Factors 

i. Reductions Due to Ongoing Air Pollution 

Programs 

ii. Measures to Mitigate the Impacts of 

Construction Activities 

iii. Emission Limitations and Schedules of 

Compliance 

iv. Source Retirement and Replacement 

Schedules 

v. Agricultural and Forestry Smoke 

Management Techniques 

vi. Enforceability of New Mexico’s 

Measures 

vii. Anticipated Net Effect on Visibility 

Due to Projected Changes 

g. Our Conclusion on New Mexico’s Long 

Term Strategy 

5. Monitoring Strategy and Other SIP 

Requirements 

VI. EPA’s Conclusions and Proposed Action 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
36046 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 116 / Friday, June 15, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

1We previously approved 20.2.73 NMAC, 

including 20.2.73.300 NMAC, through our action at 

75 FR 48860 (August 12, 2010). The state undertook 

other revisions of 20.2.73 NMAC in 2008, but they 

have not been submitted and they are unrelated to 

the minor revisions submitted for review in the 

2011 SIP submission. 

2 Visual range is the greatest distance, in 

kilometers or miles, at which a dark object can be 

viewed against the sky. 

3Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal 

areas consist of national parks exceeding 6000 

acres, wilderness areas and national memorial parks 

I. Overview of Proposed Action 

As explained in further detail below, 

40 CFR 51.309 presents certain Western 

states covered by the Grand Canyon 

Visibility Transport Commission with 

the option of fulfilling the regional haze 

rule (RHR) requirements for 16 Class I 

areas under the provisions of that 

section, rather than under 40 CFR 

51.308. Three states—Wyoming, Utah, 

and New Mexico—have elected to 

submit a SIP under 40 CFR 51.309. The 

Albuquerque/Bernalillo County Air 

Quality Control Board, as the federally 

delegated air quality authority for the 

City of Albuquerque and Bernalillo 

County, New Mexico, for its geographic 

area of New Mexico under the New 

Mexico Air Quality Control Act (section 

74–2–4) has also submitted a Section 

309 regional haze SIP. This separate 

submittal for Albuquerque/Bernalillo 

County is necessary for the Regional 

Haze (RH) requirements to be met for 

the entire State of New Mexico and is 

also necessary to ensure the 

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

the CAA are satisfied for the entire State 

of New Mexico. The Regional Haze and 

110(a)(2)(D) submissions for 

Albuquerque/Bernalillo County are 

being reviewed in a separate Federal 

Register action. 

New Mexico submitted its RH SIP to 

EPA on July 5, 2011, and it adds to 

earlier RH SIP planning components 

that were submitted by the state on 

December 1, 2003. We are acting on the 

great majority of the components of this 

newly submitted 2011 revision in 

advance of our ordinary statutory 

requirement to act on new submissions. 

In this action, we are proposing to 

approve components of the New Mexico 

Regional Haze SIP revisions that were 

submitted to satisfy the requirements of 

40 CFR 51.309. Among the 

requirements, Section 309 calls for 

plans to include a market trading 

program, conventionally known as the 

309 backstop-trading program; this 

program will not be effective until EPA 

has finalized action on all section 309 

SIPs. Section 51.309 does not require 

the participation of a certain number of 

states to validate its effectiveness. Utah 

submitted its 309 SIP to EPA on May 26, 

2011, Wyoming submitted its 309 SIP to 

EPA on January 12, 2011 and the City 

of Albuquerque-Bernalillo County 

submitted its 309 SIP to EPA on July 28, 

2011. EPA proposed action on 

Bernalillo County’s 309 SIP on April 25, 

2012 (77 FR 24768), Utah’s 309 SIP on 

May 15, 2012 (77 FR 28825), and 

Wyoming’s 309 SIP on May 24, 2012 (77 

FR 30953). If EPA takes final action 

approving the necessary components for 

the 309 backstop-trading program to 

operate in all of the jurisdictions 

electing to submit 309 SIPs, the program 

will become effective. 

Our review of the RH SIP is supported 

by the review of companion 

regulations—regulations that the RH SIP 

references and relies upon, that have 

also been submitted for SIP approval. 

Specifically, New Mexico submitted 

20.2.81 NMAC, Western Backstop 

Sulfur Dioxide Trading Program, after 

initial adoption, on December 1, 2003, 

and thereafter submitted revisions with 

the State’s RH 309 SIP on July 5, 2011. 

We are proposing to fully approve 

20.2.81 NMAC. We are also proposing to 

fully approve the following additional 

companion regulations: 20.2.65 NMAC, 

Smoke Management and 20.2.60 NMAC 

Open Burning, both—after their initial 

adoption—submitted on December 1, 

2003; and July 5, 2011 submitted 

revisions to 20.2.73.300.F NMAC, a 

subprovision of a previously approved 

rule that pertains to the ‘‘Emission 

tracking requirements for sulfur dioxide 

emission inventories.’’ 1 Further details 

and the analyses of these companion 

regulations are provided in the 

Technical Support Document in the 

docket for this rulemaking. These rules 

are also discussed at later points in this 

notice when they are relevant to our 

analysis of New Mexico’s RH SIP 

submittal. 

As previously stated, EPA is 

proposing to approve New Mexico SIP 

revisions submitted on July 5, 2011, and 

December 1, 2003, that address the 

regional haze requirements for the 

mandatory Class I areas under 40 CFR 

51.309. EPA is proposing to find that all 

reviewed components of the SIP meet 

the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309. 

We note that we are not proposing 

action on the submitted NOX BART 

determination for the San Juan 

Generating Station. The NOX BART 

requirement for the source is presently 

satisfied by the BART determination 

that is effective under the federal 

implementation plan at 40 CFR 52.1628. 

We have no current statutory duty or 

consent decree obligation to act on this 

component of the state’s Regional Haze 

SIP submittal. We will, however, 

propose action on the submitted NOX

BART determination for San Juan 

Generating Station through a future, 

separate proposal, unless the state of 

New Mexico earlier withdraws it in 

favor of an alternative that it may 

develop through discussions with the 

source and EPA. 

II. What is the background for our 

proposed actions? 

A. Regional Haze 

RH is visibility impairment that is 

produced by a multitude of sources and 

activities which are located across a 

broad geographic area and emit fine 

particles (PM2.5) (e.g., sulfates, nitrates, 

organic carbon, elemental carbon, and 

soil dust) and their precursors (e.g., SO2, 

nitrogen oxides (NOX), and in some 

cases, ammonia (NH3) and volatile 

organic compounds (VOCs)). Fine 

particle precursors react in the 

atmosphere to form PM2.5 (e.g., sulfates, 

nitrates, organic carbon, elemental 

carbon, and soil dust), which also 

impair visibility by scattering and 

absorbing light. Visibility impairment 

reduces the clarity, color, and visible 

distance that one can see. PM2.5 also can 

cause serious health effects and 

mortality in humans and contributes to 

environmental effects such as acid 

deposition and eutrophication. 

Data from the existing visibility 

monitoring network, the ‘‘Interagency 

Monitoring of Protected Visual 

Environments’’ (IMPROVE) monitoring 

network, show that visibility 

impairment caused by air pollution 

occurs virtually all the time at most 

national park and wilderness areas. The 

average visual range 2 in many Class I 

areas (i.e., national parks and memorial 

parks, wilderness areas, and 

international parks meeting certain size 

criteria) in the Western United States is 

100–150 kilometers, or about one-half to 

two-thirds of the visual range that 

would exist without anthropogenic air 

pollution. 64 FR 35714, 35715 (July 1, 

1999). In most of the eastern Class I 

areas of the United States, the average 

visual range is less than 30 kilometers, 

or about one-fifth of the visual range 

that would exist under estimated 

natural conditions. Id. 

In section 169A of the 1977 

Amendments to the CAA, Congress 

created a program for protecting 

visibility in the nation’s national parks 

and wilderness areas. This section of the 

CAA establishes as a national goal the 

‘‘prevention of any future, and the 

remedying of any existing, impairment 

of visibility in mandatory Class I 

Federal areas 3 which impairment 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 116 / Friday, June 15, 2012 / Proposed Rules 36047 

exceeding 5000 acres, and all international parks 

that were in existence on August 7, 1977. See CAA 

section 162(a). In accordance with section 169A of 

the CAA, EPA, in consultation with the Department 

of Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas where 

visibility is identified as an important value. See 44 

FR 69122, November 30, 1979. The extent of a 

mandatory Class I area includes subsequent changes 

in boundaries, such as park expansions. CAA 

section 162(a). Although states and tribes may 

designate as Class I additional areas which they 

consider to have visibility as an important value, 

the requirements of the visibility program set forth 

in section 169A of the CAA apply only to 

‘‘mandatory Class I Federal areas.’’ Each mandatory 

Class I Federal area is the responsibility of a 

‘‘Federal Land Manager’’ (FLM). See CAA section 

302(i). When we use the term ‘‘Class I area’’ in this 

action, we mean a ‘‘mandatory Class I Federal 

area.’’ 

4Albuquerque/Bernalillo County in New Mexico 

must also submit a regional haze SIP to completely 

satisfy the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D) of 

the CAA for the entire State of New Mexico under 

the New Mexico Air Quality Control Act (section 

74–2–4). 

5The Colorado Plateau is a high, semi-arid 

tableland in southeast Utah, northern Arizona, 

northwest New Mexico, and western Colorado. The 

16 mandatory Class I areas are as follows: Grand 

Canyon National Park, Mount Baldy Wilderness, 

Petrified Forest National Park, Sycamore Canyon 

Wilderness, Black Canyon of the Gunnison National 

Park Wilderness, Flat Tops Wilderness, Maroon 

Bells Wilderness, Mesa Verde National Park, 

Weminuche Wilderness, West Elk Wilderness, San 

Pedro Parks Wilderness, Arches National Park, 

Bryce Canyon National Park, Canyonlands National 

Park, Capital Reef National Park, and Zion National 

Park. 

results from man-made air pollution.’’ 

CAA § 169A(a)(1). The terms 

‘‘impairment of visibility’’ and 

‘‘visibility impairment’’ are defined in 

the Act to include a reduction in visual 

range and atmospheric discoloration. Id. 

section 169A(g)(6). In 1980, we 

promulgated regulations to address 

visibility impairment in Class I areas 

that is ‘‘reasonably attributable’’ to a 

single source or small group of sources, 

i.e., ‘‘reasonably attributable visibility 

impairment’’ (RAVI). 45 FR 80084 

(December 2, 1980). These regulations 

represented the first phase in addressing 

visibility impairment. We deferred 

action on RH that emanates from a 

variety of sources until monitoring, 

modeling and scientific knowledge 

about the relationships between 

pollutants and visibility impairment 

improved. 

Congress added section 169B to the 

CAA in 1990 to address RH issues, and 

we promulgated regulations addressing 

RH in 1999. 64 FR 35714 (July 1, 1999), 

codified at 40 CFR part 51, subpart P. 

The Regional Haze Rule (RHR) revised 

the existing visibility regulations to 

integrate into the regulations provisions 

addressing RH impairment and 

established a comprehensive visibility 

protection program for Class I areas. The 

requirements for RH, found at 40 CFR 

51.308 and 51.309, are included in our 

visibility protection regulations at 40 

CFR 51.300–309. Some of the main 

elements of the RH requirements are 

summarized in section III. The 

requirement to submit a RH SIP applies 

to all 50 states, the District of Columbia 

and the Virgin Islands.4 States were 

required to submit the first 

implementation plan addressing RH 

visibility impairment no later than 

December 17, 2007. 40 CFR 51.308(b). 

B. Roles of Agencies in Addressing 

Regional Haze 

Successful implementation of the RH 

program will require long-term regional 

coordination among states, tribal 

governments and various federal 

agencies. As noted above, pollution 

affecting the air quality in Class I areas 

can be transported over long distances, 

even hundreds of kilometers. Therefore, 

to address effectively the problem of 

visibility impairment in Class I areas, 

states need to develop strategies in 

coordination with one another, taking 

into account the effect of emissions from 

one jurisdiction on the air quality in 

another. 

Because the pollutants that lead to RH 

can originate from sources located 

across broad geographic areas, we have 

encouraged the states and tribes across 

the United States to address visibility 

impairment from a regional perspective. 

Five regional planning organizations 

(RPOs) were developed to address RH 

and related issues. The RPOs first 

evaluated technical information to 

better understand how their states and 

tribes impact Class I areas across the 

country, and then pursued the 

development of regional strategies to 

reduce emissions of particulate matter 

(PM) and other pollutants leading to RH. 

The WRAP RPO is a collaborative 

effort of state governments, tribal 

governments, and various federal 

agencies established to initiate and 

coordinate activities associated with the 

management of regional haze, visibility 

and other air quality issues in the 

western United States. WRAP member 

state governments include: Alaska, 

Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, 

Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, 

Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, 

Washington, and Wyoming. The City of 

Albuquerque and Bernalillo County act 

as agents of the Albuquerque-Bernalillo 

County Air Quality Control Board 

(AQCB) to implement, administer, and 

enforce the local air quality program 

within Albuquerque and Bernalillo 

County. The AQCB is the federallydelegated authority to implement the 

CAA for this area, which lies within the 

State of New Mexico. The AQCB staff 

participated in meetings with the State 

of New Mexico staff to coordinate its 

efforts with the State of New Mexico in 

developing its separate 309 SIP. 

C. Development of the Requirements for 

40 CFR 51.309 

EPA’s RHR provides two paths to 

address regional haze. One is 40 CFR 

51.308, requiring states to perform 

individual point source BART 

determinations and evaluate the need 

for other control strategies. These 

strategies must be shown to make 

‘‘reasonable progress’’ in improving 

visibility in Class I areas inside the state 

and in neighboring jurisdictions. The 

other method for addressing regional 

haze is through 40 CFR 51.309 (section 

309), and is an option for nine states 

termed the ‘‘Transport Region States’’ 

which include: Arizona, California, 

Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, 

Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming, and the 

211 Tribes located within those states. 

Section 309 requires participating 

states to adopt regional haze strategies 

that are based on recommendations 

from the Grand Canyon Visibility 

Transport Commission (GCVTC) for 

protecting the 16 Class I areas in the 

Colorado Plateau area.5 The EPA 

established the GCVTC on November 

13, 1991. The purpose of the GCVTC 

was to assess information about the 

adverse impacts on visibility in and 

around 16 Class I areas on the Colorado 

Plateau region and to provide policy 

recommendations to EPA to address 

such impacts. Section 169B of the CAA 

called for the GCVTC to evaluate 

visibility research as well as other 

available information pertaining to 

adverse impacts on visibility from 

potential or projected growth in 

emissions from sources located in the 

region. It was determined that all 

transport region states impacted or 

could potentially impact the Class I 

areas on the Colorado Plateau. The 

GCVTC submitted a report to EPA in 

1996 with its policy recommendations. 

Provisions of the 1996 GCVTC report 

include: strategies for addressing smoke 

emissions from wildland fires and 

agricultural burning; provisions to 

prevent pollution by encouraging 

renewable energy development; and 

provisions to manage clean air 

corridors, mobile sources, and windblown dust, among other things. The 

EPA codified these recommendations as 

part of the 1999 RHR. 

EPA determined that the GCVTC 

strategies would provide for reasonable 

progress in mitigating regional haze if 

supplemented by an annex containing 

quantitative emission reduction 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
36048 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 116 / Friday, June 15, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

6 ‘‘Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) 

means an emission limitation based on the degree 

of reduction achievable through the application of 

the best system of continuous emission reduction 

for each pollutant which is emitted by an existing 

stationary facility. The emission limitation must be 

established, on a case-by-case basis, taking into 

consideration the technology available, the costs of 

compliance, the energy and nonair quality 

environmental impacts of compliance, any 

pollution control equipment in use or in existence 

at the source, the remaining useful life of the 

source, and the degree of improvement in visibility 

which may reasonably be anticipated to result from 

the use of such technology’’ 40 CFR 51.301 

7The set of ‘‘major stationary sources’’ potentially 

subject to BART is listed in CAA section 169A(g)(7). 

milestones and provisions for a trading 

program or other alternative measure 

(64 FR 35749 and 35756, July 1, 1999). 

Thus, the 1999 RHR required that 

Western states submit an annex to the 

GCVTC report with quantitative 

milestones and detailed guidelines in 

order to establish the GCVTC 

recommendations as an alternative 

approach to fulfilling the section 308 

requirements for compliance with the 

RHR. In September 2000, the WRAP, 

which is the successor organization to 

the GCVTC, submitted to EPA an annex 

to the GCVTC. The annex contained SO2

emission reduction milestones and the 

detailed provisions of a backstop trading 

program to be implemented 

automatically if voluntary measures 

failed to achieve the milestones. EPA 

codified the annex on June 5, 2003 as 

40 CFR 51.309(h). 68 FR 33764. 

Five Western states submitted 

implementation plans under the section 

309 alternative program in 2003. EPA 

was challenged by the Center for Energy 

and Economic Development (CEED) on 

the validity of the annex provisions. In 

CEED v. EPA, the D.C. Circuit vacated 

EPA’s approval of the WRAP annex 

(Center for Energy and Economic 

Development v. EPA, No. 03–1222 (D.C. 

Cir. Feb. 18, 2005)). In response to the 

court’s decision, EPA vacated the annex 

requirements adopted as 40 CR 

51.309(h), but left in place the stationary 

source requirements in 40 CFR 

51.309(d)(4). 71 FR 60612 (October 13, 

2006). The requirements under 40 CFR 

51.309(d)(4) contain general 

requirements pertaining to stationary 

sources and market trading, and allow 

states to adopt alternatives to the point 

source application of BART. 

III. What are the requirements for RH 

SIPs submitted under 40 CFR 51.309? 

The following is a summary and basic 

explanation of the regulations covered 

under the RHR. See 40 CFR 51.309 for 

a complete listing of the regulations 

under which this SIP was evaluated. 

A. The CAA and the Regional Haze Rule 

RH SIPs must assure reasonable 

progress towards the national goal of 

achieving natural visibility conditions 

in Class I areas. Section 169A of the 

CAA and our implementing regulations 

require states to establish long-term 

strategies for making reasonable 

progress toward meeting this goal. 

Implementation plans must also give 

specific attention to certain stationary 

sources that were in existence on 

August 7, 1977, but were not in 

operation before August 7, 1962, and 

require these sources, where 

appropriate, to install BART controls for 

the purpose of eliminating or reducing 

visibility impairment. The specific RH 

SIP requirements are discussed in 

further detail below. 

B. Projection of Visibility Improvement 

For each of the 16 Class I areas 

located on the Colorado Plateau, the RH 

309 SIP must include a projection of the 

improvement in visibility expressed in 

deciviews. 40 CFR 51.309(d)(2). The 

plan needs to show the projected 

visibility improvement for the best and 

worst 20 percent days through the year 

2018, based on the application of all 

section 309 control strategies. 

C. Clean Air Corridors 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(3), the 

RH 309 SIP must identify Clean Air 

Corridors (CACs). CACs are geographic 

areas located within transport region 

states that contribute to the best 

visibility days (least impaired) in the 16 

Class I areas of the Colorado Plateau. (A 

map of the CAC can be found in section 

B.1 of the State’s SIP). The CAC as 

described in the 1996 GCVTC report 

covers nearly all of Nevada, large 

portions of Oregon, Idaho, and Utah, 

and encompasses several Indian 

nations. In order to meet the RHR 

requirements for CACs, states must 

adopt a comprehensive emissions 

tracking program for all visibility 

impairing pollutants within the CAC. 

Based on the emissions tracking, states 

must identify overall emissions growth 

or specific areas of emissions growth in 

and outside of the CAC that could be 

significant enough to result in visibility 

impairment at one or more of the 16 

Class I areas. If there is visibility 

impairment in the CAC, states must 

conduct an analysis of the potential 

impact in the 16 Class I areas and 

determine if additional emission control 

measures are needed and how these 

measures would be implemented. States 

must also indicate in their SIP if any 

other CACs exist, and if others are 

found, provide necessary measures to 

protect against future degradation of 

visibility in the 16 Class I areas. 

D. Stationary Source Reductions 

1. SO2 Emission Reductions 

Section 169A of the CAA directs 

states to evaluate the use of retrofit 

controls at certain larger, often 

uncontrolled, older stationary sources in 

order to address their visibility impacts. 

Specifically, section 169A(b)(2)(A) of 

the CAA requires states to revise their 

SIPs to contain such measures as may be 

necessary to make reasonable progress 

towards the natural visibility goal, 

including a requirement that certain 

categories of existing major stationary 

sources built between 1962 and 1977 

procure, install, and operate the ‘‘Best 

Available Retrofit Technology’’ (BART) 6

as determined by the state.7 Under the 

RHR, states are directed to conduct 

BART determinations for such ‘‘BARTeligible’’ sources that may be 

anticipated to cause or contribute to any 

visibility impairment in a Class I area. 

Rather than requiring source-specific 

BART controls, states also have the 

flexibility to adopt an emissions trading 

program or other alternative program as 

long as the alternative provides greater 

reasonable progress towards improving 

visibility than BART. 

Section 309 provides an alternative 

method of satisfying the Section 308 

SO2 BART requirements with emission 

milestones and a backstop trading 

program (40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)). Under 

this approach, an RH 309 SIP must 

establish declining SO2 emission 

milestones for each year of the program 

through 2018. The milestones must be 

consistent with the GCTVC’s goal of 50 

to 70 percent reduction in SO2

emissions by 2040. If the milestones are 

exceeded in any year, the backstop 

trading program is triggered. 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(ii)– 

(iv), states must include requirements in 

the RH 309 SIP that allow states to 

determine whether the milestone has 

been exceeded. These requirements 

include documentation of the baseline 

emission calculation, monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting (MRR) of 

SO2 emissions, and provisions for 

conducting an annual evaluation to 

determine whether the milestone has 

been exceeded. 40 CFR 309(d)(4)(v) also 

contains requirements for implementing 

the backstop trading program in the 

event that the milestone is exceeded and 

the program is triggered. 

The WRAP, in conjunction with EPA, 

developed a model for a backstop 

trading program. In order to ensure 

consistency between states, states opting 

to participate in the 309 program need 

to adopt rules that are substantively 

equivalent to the rules of the model 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 116 / Friday, June 15, 2012 / Proposed Rules 36049 

8 In American Corn Growers Ass’n v. EPA, 291 

F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2002), the U.S. Court of Appeals 

for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a ruling 

vacating and remanding the BART provisions of the 

regional haze rule. In 2005, we issued BART 

guidelines to address the court’s ruling in that case. 

See 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005). 

9BART-eligible sources are those sources that 

have the potential to emit 250 tons or more of a 

visibility-impairing air pollutant, were put in place 

between August 7, 1962 and August 7, 1977, and 

whose operations fall within one or more of 26 

specifically listed source categories. 

backstop trading program to meet the 

requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4). 

The trading program must also be 

implemented no later than 15 months 

after the end of the first year that the 

milestone is exceeded, require that 

sources hold allowances to cover their 

emissions, and provide a framework, 

including financial penalties, to ensure 

that the 2018 milestone is met. 

2. Provisions for Stationary Source 

Emissions of Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) and 

Particulate Matter (PM) 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(vii), 

a section 309 SIP must contain any 

necessary long term strategies and 

BART requirements for PM and NOX. 

Any such BART provisions may be 

submitted pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e). 

We promulgated regulations addressing 

RH in 1999, 64 FR 35714 (July 1, 1999), 

codified at 40 CFR part 51, subpart P.8

These regulations require all states to 

submit implementation plans that, 

among other measures, contain either 

emission limits representing BART for 

certain sources constructed between 

1962 and 1977, or alternative measures 

that provide for greater reasonable 

progress than BART. 40 CFR 51.308(e). 

The discussion below specifically 

applies to regional haze plans that opt 

to require BART on sources subject to 

the BART requirements, rather than 

satisfying the requirements for 

alternative measures that would be 

evaluated under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2). 

On July 6, 2005, EPA published the 

Guidelines for BART Determinations 

Under the Regional Haze Rule at 

Appendix Y to 40 CFR Part 51 

(hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘BART 

Guidelines’’) to assist states in 

determining which of their sources 

should be subject to the BART 

requirements and the appropriate 

emission limits for each applicable 

source. The BART Guidelines are not 

mandatory for all sources; in making a 

BART determination for a fossil fuelfired electric generating plant (EGU) 

with a total generating capacity in 

excess of 750 megawatts, a state must 

use the approach set forth in the BART 

Guidelines. A state is encouraged, but 

not required, to follow the BART 

Guidelines in making BART 

determinations for other types of 

sources. 

The process of establishing BART 

emission limitations can be logically 

broken down into three steps: first, 

states identify those sources which meet 

the definition of ‘‘BART-eligible source’’ 

set forth in 40 CFR 51.301 9; second, 

states determine whether such sources 

‘‘emits any air pollutant which may 

reasonably be anticipated to cause or 

contribute to any impairment of 

visibility in any such area’’ (a source 

which fits this description is ‘‘subject to 

BART,’’; and third, for each source 

subject to BART, states then identify the 

appropriate type and the level of control 

for reducing emissions. 

Under the BART Guidelines, states 

may select an exemption threshold 

value for their BART modeling, below 

which a BART-eligible source would 

not be expected to cause or contribute 

to visibility impairment in any Class I 

area. The state must document this 

exemption threshold value in the SIP 

and state the basis for its selection of 

that value. Any source with emissions 

that model above the threshold value 

would be subject to a BART 

determination review, or would become 

what is termed a ‘‘subject-to-BART’’ 

source. The BART Guidelines 

acknowledge varying circumstances 

affecting different Class I areas. States 

should consider the number of emission 

sources affecting the Class I areas at 

issue and the magnitude of the 

individual sources’ impacts. Any 

exemption threshold set by the state 

should not be higher than 0.5 deciview. 

See also 40 CFR part 51, Appendix Y, 

section III.A.1. 

In their SIPs, states must identify 

subject-to-BART-sources and document 

their BART control determination 

analyses. The term ‘‘subject-to-BARTsource’’ used in the BART Guidelines 

means the collection of individual 

emission units at a facility that together 

comprises the subject-to-BART-source. 

In making BART determinations, 

section 169A(g)(2) of the CAA requires 

that states consider the following 

factors: (1) The costs of compliance; (2) 

the energy and non-air quality 

environmental impacts of compliance; 

(3) any existing pollution control 

technology in use at the source; (4) the 

remaining useful life of the source; and 

(5) the degree of improvement in 

visibility which may reasonably be 

anticipated to result from the use of 

such technology. States are free to 

determine the weight and significance 

to be assigned to each factor. Although 

the states have the freedom to determine 

the weight and significance of the 

statutory factors, they have an 

overriding obligation to come to a 

reasoned determination. 76 FR 81733 

(Dec 28, 2011). 

A regional haze SIP must include 

source-specific BART emission limits 

and compliance schedules for each 

source subject to BART. Once a state has 

made its BART determination, the 

BART controls must be installed and in 

operation as expeditiously as 

practicable, but no later than five years 

after the date of EPA approval of the 

regional haze SIP. CAA section 

169(g)(4)); 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv). In 

addition to what is required by the RHR, 

general SIP requirements mandate that 

the SIP must also include all regulatory 

requirements related to monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting for the 

BART controls on the source. See CAA 

section 110(a). 

E. Mobile Sources 

Under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(5), the RH 

309 SIP must provide inventories of onroad and non-road mobile source 

emissions of VOCs, NOX, SO2, PM2.5, 

elemental carbon, and organic carbon 

for the years 2003, 2008, 2013, and 

2018. The inventories must show a 

continuous decline in total mobile 

source emissions of each of the above 

pollutants. If the inventories show a 

continuous decline in total mobile 

source emissions of each of these 

pollutants over the period 2003–2018, a 

state is not required to take further 

action in their SIP. If the inventories do 

not show a continuous decline in 

mobile source emissions of one or more 

of these pollutants over the period 

2003–2018, a state must submit a SIP 

that contains measures that will achieve 

a continuous decline. 

The RH 309 SIP must also contain any 

long-term strategies necessary to reduce 

emissions of SO2 from non-road mobile 

sources, consistent with the goal of 

reasonable progress. In assessing the 

need for such long-term strategies, the 

state may consider emissions reductions 

achieved or anticipated from any new 

federal standards for sulfur in non-road 

diesel fuel. Section 309 SIPs must 

provide an update on any additional 

mobile source strategies implemented 

within the state related to the GCVTC 

1996 recommendations on mobile 

sources. 

F. Programs Related to Fire 

For states submitting a section 309 

SIP, the RHR contains requirements for 

programs related to fire (40 CFR 

51.309(d)(6)). The plan must show that 

the state’s smoke management program 

and all federal or private programs for 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
36050 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 116 / Friday, June 15, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

prescribed fire in the state have a 

mechanism in place for evaluating and 

addressing the degree of visibility 

impairment from smoke in their 

planning and application of burning. 

The plan must also ensure that its 

prescribed fire smoke management 

programs have at least the following 

seven elements: actions to minimize 

emissions; evaluation of smoke 

dispersion; alternatives to fire; public 

notification; air quality monitoring; 

surveillance and enforcement; and 

program evaluation. The plan must be 

able to track statewide emissions of 

VOC, NOX, EC, OC, and fine particulate 

emissions from prescribed burning 

within the state. 

Other requirements states must meet 

in their 309 plan related to fire include 

the adoption of a statewide process for 

gathering post-burn activity information 

to support emissions inventory and 

tracking systems. The plan must 

identify existing administrative barriers 

to the use of non-burning alternatives 

and adopt a process for continuing to 

identify and remove administrative 

barriers where feasible. The RH 309 SIP 

must include an enhanced smoke 

management program that considers 

visibility effects in addition to health 

objectives and is based on the criteria of 

efficiency, economics, law, emission 

reduction opportunities, land 

management objectives, and reduction 

of visibility impairment. Finally, the 

plan must establish annual emission 

goals to minimize emission increases 

from fire. 

G. Paved and Unpaved Road Dust 

Section 309 requires states to submit 

a SIP that assesses the impact of dust 

emissions on regional haze in the 16 

Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau 

and to include a projection of visibility 

conditions through 2018 for the least 

and most impaired days (40 CFR 

51.309(d)(7)). If dust emissions are 

determined to be a significant 

contributor to visibility impairment, the 

plan must provide emissions 

management strategies to address their 

impact. 

H. Pollution Prevention 

The requirements under pollution 

prevention only require the RH 309 SIP 

to provide an assessment of the energy 

programs as outlined in 40 CFR 

51.309(d)(8) and does not require a state 

to adopt any specific energy-related 

strategies or regulations for regional 

haze. In order to meet the requirements 

related to pollution prevention, the 

state’s plan must include an initial 

summary of all pollution prevention 

programs currently in place, an 

inventory of all renewable energy 

generation capacity and production in 

use or planned as of the year 2002, the 

total energy generation capacity and 

production for the state, and the percent 

of the total that is renewable energy. 

The state’s plan must include a 

discussion of programs that provide 

incentives for efforts that go beyond 

compliance and/or achieve early 

compliance with air-pollution related 

requirements and programs to preserve 

and expand energy conservation efforts. 

The state must identify specific areas 

where renewable energy has the 

potential to supply power where it is 

now lacking and where renewable 

energy is most cost-effective. The RH 

309 plan must include projections of the 

short- and long-term emissions 

reductions, visibility improvements, 

cost savings, and secondary benefits 

associated with the renewable energy 

goals, energy efficiency, and pollution 

prevention activities. The plan must 

also provide its anticipated contribution 

toward the GCVTC renewable energy 

goals for 2005 and 2015. The GCVTC 

goals are that renewable energy will 

comprise 10 percent of the regional 

power needs by 2005 and 20 percent by 

2015. 

I. Additional Recommendations 

Section 309 requires states to 

determine if any of the other 

recommendations in the 1996 GCVTC 

report not codified by EPA as part of 

section 309 should be implemented in 

their RH SIP (40 CFR 51.309(d)(9)). 

States are not required in their RH 309 

SIPs to adopt any control measures 

unless the state determines they are 

appropriate and can be practicably 

included as enforceable measures to 

remedy regional haze in the 16 Class I 

areas. Any measures adopted would 

need to be enforceable like the other 309 

required measures. States must also 

submit a report to EPA and the public 

in 2013 and 2018, showing there has 

been an evaluation of the additional 

recommendations and the progress 

toward developing and implementing 

any such recommendations. 

J. Periodic Implementation Plan 

Revisions 

The RHR requires states to submit 

progress reports in the form of SIP 

revisions in 2013 and 2018 (40 CFR 

51.309(d)(10)). The SIP revisions must 

comply with the procedural 

requirements of 40 CFR 51.102 for 

public hearings and 40 CFR 51.103 for 

submission of plans. The assessment in 

the progress report must include an 

evaluation of Class I areas located 

within the state and Class I areas 

outside the state that are affected by 

emissions from the state. EPA views 

these SIP revisions as a periodic check 

on progress, rather than a thorough 

revision of regional strategies. The state 

should focus on significant 

shortcomings of the original SIP from 

sources that were not fully accounted 

for or anticipated when the SIP was 

initially developed. The specifics of 

what each progress report must contain 

can be found at 40 CFR 

51.309(d)(10)(i)(A)–(G). 

At the same time that the state 

submits its progress reports to EPA, it 

must also take an action based on the 

outcome of this assessment. If the 

assessment shows that the SIP requires 

no substantive revision, the state must 

submit to EPA a ‘‘negative declaration’’ 

statement saying that no further SIP 

revisions are necessary at this time. If 

the assessment shows that the SIP is or 

may be inadequate due to emissions 

from outside the state, the state must 

notify EPA and other regional planning 

states and work with them to develop 

additional strategies. If the assessment 

shows that the SIP is or may be 

inadequate due to emissions from 

another country, the state must include 

appropriate notification to EPA in its 

SIP revision. In the event the assessment 

shows that the SIP is or may be 

inadequate due to emissions from 

within the state, the state shall develop 

additional strategies to address the 

deficiencies and revise the SIP within 

one year from the due date of the 

progress report. 

K. Interstate Coordination 

In complying with the requirements 

of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(11), states may 

include emission reductions strategies 

that are based on coordinated 

implementation with other states. The 

SIP must include documentation of the 

technical and policy basis for the 

individual state apportionment (or the 

procedures for apportionment 

throughout the trans-boundary region), 

the contribution addressed by the state’s 

plan, how it coordinates with other state 

plans, and compliance with any other 

appropriate implementation plan 

approvability criteria. States may rely 

on the relevant technical, policy, and 

other analyses developed by a regional 

entity, such as the WRAP in providing 

such documentation. 

L. Additional Class I Areas 

To comply with the requirements of 

40 CFR 51.309(g), RH 309 SIPs must 

demonstrate reasonable progress for 

mandatory Class I Federal areas other 

than the 16 Class I areas covered by the 

GCVTC. States must submit an 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 116 / Friday, June 15, 2012 / Proposed Rules 36051 

10 Guidance for Setting Reasonable Progress Goals 

under the Regional Haze Program, June 1, 2007, 

memorandum from William L. Wehrum, Acting 

Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, to 

EPA Regional Administrators, EPA Regions 1–10 

(pp.4–2, 5–1). 

11The preamble to the RHR provides additional 

details about the deciview. 64 FR 35714, 35725 

(July 1, 1999). 

12 Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility 

Conditions Under the Regional Haze Rule, 

September 2003, EPA–454/B–03–005, available at 

http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/ 

rh_envcurhr_gd.pdf, (hereinafter referred to as ‘‘our 

2003 Natural Visibility Guidance’’); and Guidance 

for Tracking Progress Under the Regional Haze 

Rule, (EPA–454/B–03–004, September 2003, 

available at http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/ 

memoranda/rh_tpurhr_gd.pdf, (hereinafter referred 

to as our ‘‘2003 Tracking Progress Guidance’’). 

implementation plan that demonstrates 

the expected visibility conditions for the 

most and least impaired days at the 

additional Class I areas based on 

emission projections from the long-term 

strategies in the implementation plan. 

The implementation plan must contain 

provisions establishing reasonable 

progress goals and additional measures 

necessary to demonstrate reasonable 

progress for the additional Federal Class 

I areas. The RH 309 SIP must address 

regional haze in each additional Class I 

area located within the State and in 

each additional Class I area located 

outside the State which may be affected 

by emissions from within the State. 40 

CFR 51.309(g) requires that these 

provisions comply with 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(1) through (4), the general 

requirements of which are described 

below. 

1. Determination of Reasonable Progress 

Goals 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1), for 

each mandatory Class I area located 

within the State, the regional haze SIPs 

must establish goals (expressed in 

deciviews, dv) that provide for 

reasonable progress towards achieving 

natural visibility conditions. The 

vehicle for ensuring continuing progress 

towards achieving the natural visibility 

goal is the submission of a series of RH 

SIPs from the states that establish two 

reasonable progress goals (RPGs) (i.e., 

two distinct goals, one for the ‘‘best’’ 

and one for the ‘‘worst’’ days) for every 

Class I area for each (approximately) 10- 

year implementation period. See 70 FR 

39104 (July 6, 2005); see also 64 FR 

35714 (July 1, 1999). The RHR does not 

mandate specific milestones or rates of 

progress, but instead calls for states to 

establish goals that provide for 

‘‘reasonable progress’’ toward achieving 

natural (i.e., ‘‘background’’) visibility 

conditions. In setting RPGs, states must 

provide for an improvement in visibility 

for the most impaired days over the 

(approximately) 10-year period of the 

SIP, and ensure no degradation in 

visibility for the least impaired days 

over the same period. Id. 

States have significant discretion in 

establishing RPGs, but are required to 

consider the following factors 

established in section 169A of the CAA 

and in our RHR at 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(1)(i)(A): (1) The costs of 

compliance; (2) the time necessary for 

compliance; (3) the energy and non-air 

quality environmental impacts of 

compliance; and (4) the remaining 

useful life of any potentially affected 

sources. States must demonstrate in 

their SIPs how these factors are 

considered when selecting the RPGs for 

the best and worst days for each 

applicable Class I area. States have 

considerable flexibility in how they take 

these factors into consideration, as 

noted in our Reasonable Progress 

Guidance 10. In setting the RPGs, states 

must also consider the rate of progress 

needed to reach natural visibility 

conditions by 2064 (referred to hereafter 

as the ‘‘Uniform Rate of Progress (URP)’’ 

and the emission reduction measures 

needed to achieve that rate of progress 

over the 10-year period of the SIP. 

Uniform progress towards achievement 

of natural conditions by the year 2064 

represents a rate of progress, which 

states are to use for analytical 

comparison to the amount of progress 

they expect to achieve. If the State 

establishes a RPG that provides for a 

slower rate of improvement in visibility 

than the URP, the State must 

demonstrate that the URP is not 

reasonable based on the factors above 

and that the RPG is reasonable. Regional 

haze SIPs must provide an assessment 

of the number of years it would take to 

attain natural visibility at the rate of 

progress selected by the State as 

reasonable. In setting RPGs, each state 

with one or more Class I areas (‘‘Class 

I State’’) must also consult with 

potentially ‘‘contributing states,’’ i.e., 

other nearby states with emission 

sources that may be affecting visibility 

impairment at the Class I State’s areas. 

40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(iv). 

2. Determination of Baseline, Natural, 

and Current Visibility Conditions 

The RHR establishes the deciview 

(dv) as the principal metric for 

measuring visibility. 70 FR 39104 (July 

6, 2005). This visibility metric expresses 

uniform changes in the degree of haze 

in terms of common increments across 

the entire range of visibility conditions, 

from pristine to extremely hazy 

conditions. Visibility is sometimes 

expressed in terms of the visual range, 

which is the greatest distance, in 

kilometers or miles, at which a dark 

object can just be distinguished against 

the sky. The deciview is a useful 

measure for tracking progress in 

improving visibility, because each 

deciview change is an equal incremental 

change in visibility perceived by the 

human eye. Most people can detect a 

change in visibility of one deciview.11

The deciview is used in expressing 

Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs) 

(which are interim visibility goals 

towards meeting the national visibility 

goal), defining baseline, current, and 

natural conditions, and tracking changes 

in visibility. To track changes in 

visibility over time at each of the 156 

Class I areas covered by the visibility 

program (40 CFR 81.401–437), and as 

part of the process for determining 

reasonable progress, states must 

calculate the degree of existing visibility 

impairment at each Class I area at the 

time of each RH SIP submittal and 

periodically review progress every five 

years midway through each 10-year 

implementation period. To do this, 

section 51.308(d)(2) of the RHR requires 

states to determine the degree of 

impairment (in deciviews) for the 

average of the 20 percent least impaired 

(‘‘best’’) and 20 percent most impaired 

(‘‘worst’’) visibility days over a specified 

time period at each of their Class I areas. 

In addition, states must also develop an 

estimate of natural visibility conditions 

for the purpose of comparing progress 

toward the national goal. Natural 

visibility is determined by estimating 

the natural concentrations of pollutants 

that cause visibility impairment and 

then calculating total light extinction 

based on those estimates. We have 

provided guidance to states regarding 

how to calculate baseline, natural and 

current visibility conditions.12

For the first RH SIPs that were due by 

December 17, 2007, ‘‘baseline visibility 

conditions’’ were the starting points for 

assessing ‘‘current’’ visibility 

impairment. Baseline visibility 

conditions represent the degree of 

visibility impairment for the 20 percent 

least impaired days and 20 percent most 

impaired days for each calendar year 

from 2000 to 2004. Using monitoring 

data for 2000 through 2004, states are 

required to calculate the average degree 

of visibility impairment for each Class I 

area, based on the average of annual 

values over the five-year period. The 

comparison of initial baseline visibility 

conditions to natural visibility 

conditions indicates the amount of 

improvement necessary to attain natural 

visibility, while the future comparison 

of baseline conditions to the then 

current conditions will indicate the 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
36052 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 116 / Friday, June 15, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

amount of progress made. In general, the 

2000–2004 baseline period is 

considered the time from which 

improvement in visibility is measured. 

3. Long-Term Strategy (LTS) 

Consistent with the requirement in 

section 169A(b) of the CAA that states 

include in their regional haze SIP a 10 

to 15 year strategy for making 

reasonable progress, Section 

51.308(d)(3) of the RHR requires that 

states include a LTS in their RH SIPs. 

The LTS is the compilation of all 

control measures a state will use during 

the implementation period of the 

specific SIP submittal to meet any 

applicable RPGs. The LTS must include 

‘‘enforceable emissions limitations, 

compliance schedules, and other 

measures as necessary to achieve the 

reasonable progress goals’’ for all Class 

I areas within, or affected by emissions 

from, the state. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3). 

When a state’s emissions are 

reasonably anticipated to cause or 

contribute to visibility impairment in a 

Class I area located in another state, the 

RHR requires the impacted state to 

coordinate with the contributing states 

in order to develop coordinated 

emissions management strategies. 40 

CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i). Also, a state with a 

Class I area impacted by emissions from 

another state must consult with such 

contributing state, (id.) and must also 

demonstrate that it has included in its 

SIP all measures necessary to obtain its 

share of emission reductions needed to 

meet the reasonable progress goals for 

the Class I area. Id. at (d)(3)(ii). In such 

cases, the contributing state must 

demonstrate that it has included, in its 

SIP, all measures necessary to obtain its 

share of the emission reductions needed 

to meet the RPGs for the Class I area. 

The RPOs have provided forums for 

significant interstate consultation, but 

additional consultations between states 

may be required to sufficiently address 

interstate visibility issues. This is 

especially true where two states belong 

to different RPOs. 

States should consider all types of 

anthropogenic sources of visibility 

impairment in developing their LTS, 

including stationary, minor, mobile, and 

area sources. At a minimum, states must 

describe how each of the following 

seven factors listed below are taken into 

account in developing their LTS: (1) 

Emission reductions due to ongoing air 

pollution control programs, including 

measures to address RAVI; (2) measures 

to mitigate the impacts of construction 

activities; (3) emissions limitations and 

schedules for compliance to achieve the 

RPG; (4) source retirement and 

replacement schedules; (5) smoke 

management techniques for agricultural 

and forestry management purposes 

including plans as currently exist 

within the state for these purposes; (6) 

enforceability of emissions limitations 

and control measures; (7) the 

anticipated net effect on visibility due to 

projected changes in point, area, and 

mobile source emissions over the period 

addressed by the LTS. 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(3)(v). Pursuant to 40 CFR 

51.309(g)(2)(i), the State may build upon 

and take credit for the strategies 

implemented to meet the requirements 

under paragraph (d) of 40 CFR 51.309. 

4. Monitoring Strategy and Other SIP 

Requirements 

Section 51.308(d)(4) of the RHR 

includes the requirement for 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. The 

strategy must be coordinated with the 

monitoring strategy required in section 

51.305 for RAVI. Compliance with this 

requirement may be met through 

‘‘participation’’ in the Interagency 

Monitoring of Protected Visual 

Environments (IMPROVE) network, i.e., 

review and use of monitoring data from 

the network. The monitoring strategy is 

due with the first RH SIP, and it must 

be reviewed every five (5) years. The 

monitoring strategy must also provide 

for additional monitoring sites if the 

IMPROVE network is not sufficient to 

determine whether RPGs will be met. 

The SIP must also provide for the 

following: 

• Procedures for using monitoring 

data and other information in a state 

with mandatory Class I areas to 

determine the contribution of emissions 

from within the state to RH visibility 

impairment at Class I areas both within 

and outside the state; 

• Procedures for using monitoring 

data and other information in a state 

with no mandatory Class I areas to 

determine the contribution of emissions 

from within the state to RH visibility 

impairment at Class I areas in other 

states; 

• Reporting of all visibility 

monitoring data to the Administrator at 

least annually for each Class I area in 

the state, and where possible, in 

electronic format; 

• Developing a statewide inventory of 

emissions of pollutants that are 

reasonably anticipated to cause or 

contribute to visibility impairment in 

any Class I 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. A state 

must also make a commitment to update 

the inventory periodically; and 

• Other elements, including 

reporting, recordkeeping, and other 

measures necessary to assess and report 

on visibility. 

The RHR requires control strategies to 

cover an initial implementation period 

extending to the year 2018, with a 

comprehensive reassessment and 

revision of those strategies, as 

appropriate, every 10 years thereafter. 

Periodic SIP revisions must meet the 

core requirements of section 51.308(d) 

with the exception of BART. The 

requirement to evaluate sources for 

BART applies only to the first RH SIP. 

Facilities subject to BART must 

continue to comply with the BART 

provisions of section 51.308(e), as noted 

above. Periodic SIP revisions will assure 

that the statutory requirement of 

reasonable progress will continue to be 

met. 

IV. What are the additional 

requirements for alternative programs 

under the RHR? 

States opting to submit an alternative 

program, such as the backstop trading 

program under section 309, must also 

meet requirements under 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(2) and (e)(3). These 

requirements for alternative programs 

relate to the ‘‘Better-than-BART’’ test 

and fundamental elements of any 

alternative program that establishes a 

cap on emissions. 

A. ‘‘Better-Than-BART’’ Demonstration 

In order to demonstrate that the 

alternative program achieves greater 

reasonable progress than source-specific 

BART, states must provide a 

demonstration in their SIP that meets 

the requirements in 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(2)(i)-(v). States submitting 

section 309 SIPs or other alternative 

programs are required to list all BARTeligible sources and categories covered 

by the alternative program. States are 

then required to determine which 

BART-eligible sources are ‘‘subject to 

BART.’’ The SIP must provide an 

analysis of the best system of 

continuous emission control technology 

available and the associated reductions 

for each source subject to BART covered 

by the alternative program, or what is 

termed a ‘‘BART benchmark.’’ Where 

the alternative program, such as the 309 

backstop trading program, has been 

designed to meet requirements other 

than BART, states may use simplifying 

assumptions in establishing a BART 

benchmark. These assumptions can 

provide the baseline to show that the 

alternative program achieves greater 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 116 / Friday, June 15, 2012 / Proposed Rules 36053 

reasonable progress than BART. 71 FR 

60619 (Oct. 13, 2006). Under this 

approach, states should use the 

presumptive limits for EGUs in the 

BART Guidelines to establish the BART 

benchmark used in the comparison, 

unless the state determines that such 

presumptions are not appropriate for 

particular EGUs (71 FR 60619). 

The RH SIP, and any RH 309 SIP that 

establishes a 309 backstop trading 

program, must provide an analysis of 

the projected emissions reductions 

achievable through the trading program 

or other alternative measure and a 

determination that the trading program 

or other alternative measure achieves 

greater reasonable progress than would 

be achieved through the installation and 

operation of BART (40 CFR 

308(e)(2)(C)(iii)). Section 308(e)(2) 

requires that all emission reductions for 

the alternative program take place by 

2018, as well as that the emission 

reductions resulting from the alternative 

program are surplus to those reductions 

resulting from measures adopted to 

meet requirements of the CAA as of the 

baseline date of the SIP. Pursuant to 40 

CFR 51.309(e)(2)(E)(v), states have the 

option of including a provision that the 

emissions trading program or other 

alternative measure may include a 

geographic enhancement to the program 

to address the requirement under 40 

CFR 51.302(c) related to BART, for 

reasonably attributable visibility 

impairment from the pollutants covered 

under the emissions trading program or 

other alternative measure. 

States must also address the 

distribution of emissions under the 

BART alternative as part of the ‘‘betterthan-BART’’ demonstration (40 CFR 

51.308(e)(3)). If a state can show that 

with the alternative program the 

distribution of emissions is not 

substantially different than under BART 

and the alternative program results in 

greater emission reductions, then the 

alternative measure may be deemed to 

achieve greater reasonable progress. If 

the distribution of emissions is 

significantly different, the state must 

conduct dispersion modeling to 

determine differences in visibility 

between BART and the alternative 

program for each impacted Class I area 

for the worst and best 20 percent of 

days. The modeling must show that 

visibility does not decline at any Class 

I area and that visibility overall is 

greater than what would be achieved 

with BART. 

B. Elements Required for All Alternative 

Programs That Have an Emissions Cap 

Under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(A)–(L), 

EPA established fundamental 

requirements for trading or alternative 

programs that have an emissions cap 

and require sources to hold allowances 

that they can sell, buy, or trade, as in the 

section 309 backstop trading program. 

These requirements are discussed in 

detail below. 

1. Applicability 

The alternative program must have 

applicability provisions that define the 

sources subject to the program. In the 

case of a program covering sources in 

multiple states, the states must 

demonstrate that the applicability 

provisions in each state cover 

essentially the same size facilities and, 

if source categories are specified, cover 

the same source categories. 

2. Allowances 

Allowances are a key feature of a cap 

and trade program. An allowance is a 

limited authorization for a source to 

emit a specified amount of a pollutant, 

as defined by the specific trading 

program, during a specified period. 

Allowances are fully marketable 

commodities. Once allocated, 

allowances may be bought, sold, traded, 

or banked for use in future years. EPA 

has not included in the rule detailed 

requirements on how states and tribes 

can allocate allowances. A state or tribe 

can determine how to allocate 

allowances as long as the allocation of 

the tonnage value of allowances does 

not exceed the total number of tons of 

emissions capped by the budget. The 

trading program must include allowance 

provisions ensuring that the total value 

of allowances issued each year under 

the program will not exceed the 

emissions cap on total annual emissions 

from the sources in the program. 

3. Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and 

Reporting 

Monitoring, recordkeeping, and 

reporting (MRR) of a source’s emissions 

are integral parts of any cap and trade 

program. Consistent and accurate 

measurement of emissions ensures 

reliability of allowances by validating 

that each allowance actually represents 

its specified tonnage value of emissions 

and that one ton of reported emissions 

from one source is equivalent to one ton 

of reported emissions at another source. 

The MRR provisions must require that 

boilers, combustion turbines, and 

cement kilns in the alternative program 

that are allowed to sell or transfer 

allowances comply with the 

requirements of 40 CFR part 75. The 

MRR provisions must require that other 

sources in the program allowed to sell 

or transfer allowances provide 

emissions information with the same 

precision, reliability, accessibility, and 

timeliness as information required by 40 

CFR part 75. 

4. Tracking System 

An accurate and efficient tracking 

system is critical to the functioning of 

an emissions trading market. The 

tracking system must also be 

transparent, allowing all interested 

parties access to the information 

contained in the accounting system. 

Thus, alternative programs must have 

requirements for a tracking system that 

is publicly available in a secure, 

centralized database to track in a 

consistent manner all allowances and 

emissions in the program. 

5. Account Representative 

Each source owner or operator 

covered by the alternative program must 

designate an individual account 

representative who is authorized to 

represent the owner or operator in all 

matters pertaining to the trading 

program and who is responsible for the 

data reported for that source. The 

account representative will be 

responsible for, among other things, 

permitting, compliance, and allowance 

related actions. 

6. Allowance Transfer 

SIPs must contain provisions 

detailing a uniform process for 

transferring allowances among all 

sources covered by the program and 

other possible participants. The 

provisions must provide procedures for 

sources to request an allowance transfer, 

for the request and transfer to be 

recorded in the allowance tracking 

system, for notification to the source 

that the transfer has occurred, and for 

notification to the public of each 

transfer and request. 

7. Compliance Provisions 

Cap and trade programs must include 

compliance provisions that prohibit a 

source from emitting more emissions 

than the total tonnage value of 

allowances the source holds for that 

year. A cap and trade program must also 

contain the specific methods and 

procedures for determining compliance 

on an annual basis. 

8. Penalty Provisions 

In order to provide sources with a 

strong incentive to comply with the 

requirement to hold sufficient 

allowances for their emissions on an 

annual basis and to establish an 

immediate minimum economic 

consequence for non-compliance, the 

program must include a system for 

mandatory allowance deductions. SIPs 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
36054 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 116 / Friday, June 15, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

13WRAP Regional Technical Support Document 

for the Requirements of § 309 of the Regional Haze 

Rule (64 Federal Register 35714—July 1, 1999) 

revised May 7, 2008. 

14Our review of the technical products developed 

by the WRAP is available as Technical Support 

Document for Technical Products Prepared by the 

Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) in 

Support of Western Regional Haze Plans, EPA 

Regions 6, 8, 9 and 10, February 28, 2011. 

must contain a provision that if a source 

has excess emissions in a given year, 

allowances allocated for the subsequent 

year will be deducted from the source’s 

account in an amount at least equal to 

three times the excess emissions. 

9. Banking of Allowances 

The banking of allowances occurs 

when allowances that have not been 

used for compliance are set aside for use 

in a later compliance period. Alternative 

programs can include provisions for 

banked allowances, so long as the SIP 

clearly identifies how unused 

allowances may be used in future years 

and whether there are any restrictions 

on the use of any such banked 

allowances. 

10. Program Assessment 

The alternative program must include 

provisions for periodic assessment of 

the program. Such periodic assessments 

are a way to retrospectively assess the 

performance of the trading program in 

meeting the goals of the regional haze 

program and determining whether the 

trading program needs any adjustments 

or changes. At a minimum, the program 

evaluation must be conducted every five 

years to coincide with the periodic 

report describing progress towards the 

reasonable progress goals required 

under 40 CFR 51.308(g) and must be 

submitted to EPA. 

V. Our Analysis of the State of New 

Mexico’s Regional Haze SIP Submittal 

The following summarizes how New 

Mexico’s June 28, 2011 submittals 

address the requirements of 40 CFR 

51.309. As was noted in the Overview 

section of this notice, this section also 

discusses various companion 

regulations that have been submitted as 

SIP revisions that we have evaluated 

and propose to approve. 

A. Projection of Visibility Improvement 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(2), New 

Mexico’s RH 309 SIP provides a 

comparison of the monitored 2000–2004 

baseline visibility conditions in 

deciviews (dv) for the 20 percent best 

and 20 percent worst days to the 

projected visibility improvement for 

2018 for the Class I areas on the 

Colorado Plateau. Table 1 shows the 

baseline monitoring data and projected 

visibility improvement for 2018 from 

the WRAP photochemical modeling (for 

details on the WRAP photochemical 

modeling refer to the WRAP Technical 

Support Document 13 and our review of 

the technical products developed by the 

WRAP for the States in the western 

region, in support of their RH SIPs 14). 

The projected visibility improvement 

for the 2018 Base Case (referred to as the 

Base18b emission inventory and 

modeled projections) reflects growth 

plus all controls ‘‘on the books’’ as of 

December 2004. The projected visibility 

improvement for the Preliminary 

Reasonable Progress Case (referred to as 

the PRP18b emission inventory and 

modeled projections) reflects refined 

growth estimates, all controls ‘‘on the 

books’’ as of 2007, and includes 

presumptive or known SO2 BART 

controls. The modeling results show 

projected visibility improvement for the 

20 percent worst days in 2018 and no 

degradation in visibility conditions on 

the 20 percent best days at all 16 Class 

I areas on the Colorado Plateau. We are 

proposing to determine the RH 309 SIP 

submittal satisfies the requirements of 

40 CFR 51.309(d)(2). 

TABLE 1—BASELINE AND 2018 VISIBILITY AT THE COLORADO PLATEAU CLASS I AREAS

[Monthly average method] 

Class I Area State 

20 Percent worst visibility days 20 Percent best visibility days 

2000–2004 

Baseline 

monitoring 

data 

(dv) 

2018 Base 

case 

(dv) 

2018 

Preliminary 

reasonable 

progress 

PRP18b case 

(dv) 

2000–2004 

Baseline 

monitoring 

data 

(dv) 

2018 Base 

case 

(dv) 

2018 

Preliminary 

reasonable 

progress 

PRP18b case 

(dv) 

Grand Canyon National Park .................. AZ 11.7 11.4 11.1 2.2 2.2 2.1 

Mount Baldy Wilderness ......................... AZ 11.9 11.5 11.5 3.0 2.9 2.9 

Petrified Forest National Park ................. AZ 13.2 12.9 12.8 5.0 4.9 4.7 

Sycamore Canyon Wilderness ............... AZ 15.3 15.1 15.0 5.6 5.6 5.5 

Black Canyon of the Gunnison National 

Park Wilderness.

CO 10.3 10.0 9.8 3.1 2.9 2.9 

Flat Tops Wilderness .............................. CO 9.6 9.2 9.0 0.7 0.6 0.5 

Maroon Bells Wilderness ........................ CO 9.6 9.2 9.0 0.7 0.6 0.5 

Mesa Verde National Park ...................... CO 13.0 12.8 12.5 4.3 4.1 4.0 

Weminuche Wilderness .......................... CO 10.3 10.0 9.8 3.1 2.9 2.9 

West Elk Wilderness ............................... CO 9.6 9.2 9.0 0.7 0.6 0.5 

San Pedro Parks Wilderness .................. NM 10.2 10.0 9.8 1.5 1.3 1.2 

Arches National Park .............................. UT 11.2 11.0 10.7 3.8 3.6 3.5 

Bryce Canyon National Park .................. UT 11.6 11.3 11.1 2.8 2.7 2.6 

Canyonlands National Park .................... UT 11.2 11.0 10.7 3.8 3.6 3.5 

Capitol Reef National Park ..................... UT 10.9 10.6 10.4 4.1 4.0 3.9 

Zion National Park .................................. UT 13.2 13.0 12.8 5.0 4.7 4.7 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 116 / Friday, June 15, 2012 / Proposed Rules 36055 

15WRAP Regional Technical Support Document 

for the Requirements of § 309 of the Regional Haze 

Rule (64 Federal Register 35714—July 1, 1999) 

revised May 7, 2008. 

16The milestone numbers reflect the participation 

of Wyoming, Utah, and New Mexico (including City 

of Albuquerque-Bernalillo County) in the 309 

backstop trading program. 

B. Clean Air Corridors 

1. Comprehensive Emissions Tracking 

Program 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(3), 

NM’s RH SIP submittal provides for the 

implementation of strategies regarding 

clean-air corridors. We propose to find 

the SIP’s treatment of clean-air corridors 

satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR 

309(d)(3), and its subsections, as 

discussed in the next several 

paragraphs. 

The WRAP developed a 

comprehensive emissions tracking 

system to assist the states in tracking 

emissions within portions of Oregon, 

Idaho, Nevada and Utah that have been 

identified as part of the CAC. The 

emission tracking is to ensure that 

visibility does not degrade on the leastimpaired days in any of the 16 Class I 

areas of the Colorado Plateau. Appendix 

M–1 of the NM RH 309 SIP describes 

the emission tracking system and the 

process by which the annual emission 

trends will be summarized in order to 

identify any significant emissions 

growth that could lead to visibility 

degradation in the 16 Class I areas. The 

SIP submittal and all appendices can be 

found in the docket for this notice. 

Since no portion of the CAC lies within 

New Mexico, this emissions tracking 

system does not include tracking of 

emissions from New Mexico. We are 

proposing to determine the RH 309 SIP 

submittal has met the requirements of 

40 CFR 51.309(d)(3). 

2. Identification of CACs 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(3)(i), 

the State has provided in its RH 309 SIP 

submittal the geographic boundaries of 

the CAC (a map of the CAC can be 

found as in Section B(b) of the SIP). The 

WRAP identified the CAC using studies 

conducted by the Meteorological 

Subcommittee of the GCVTC and then 

updated the CAC based on an 

assessment described in the WRAP 

Policy on Clean Air Corridors (available 

as Appendix-B of the NM RH 309 SIP) 

and related technical analysis 

conducted by the WRAP. Appendix N of 

the NM RH 309 SIP (the WRAP final 

draft Technical Support Document 15) 

contains additional technical analysis 

associated with the identification of the 

CAC. We are proposing to determine the 

RH 309 SIP submittal satisfies the 

51.309(d)(3)(i) requirement. 

3. Patterns of Growth Within and 

Outside of the CAC 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(3)(ii)– 

(iii), the State in its RH 309 SIP 

submittal has determined, based on the 

WRAP Policy Paper on Clean Air 

Corridors and technical analysis 

conducted by the WRAP, that inside 

and outside the CAC there is no 

significant emissions growth occurring 

at this time that is causing visibility 

impairment in the 16 Class I areas of the 

Colorado Plateau. The WRAP will 

summarize annual emission trends 

within and outside of the CAC and will 

assess whether any significant 

emissions growth is occurring that 

could result in visibility impairment in 

any of the 16 Class I areas. We are 

proposing to determine that 40 CFR 

51.309(d)(3)(ii)–(iii) is met. 

4. Actions if Impairment Inside or 

Outside the Clean Air Corridor Occurs 

The RH 309 SIP submittal describes 

how the State, in coordination with 

other transport region states and tribes, 

will review the annual summary of 

emission trends within the CAC and 

determine whether any significant 

emissions growth has occurred. If the 

State identifies significant emissions 

growth, the State, in coordination with 

other transport region states, and tribes, 

will seek WRAP assistance in 

conducting an analysis of the effects of 

this emissions growth. Pursuant to 40 

CFR 51.309(d)(3)(iv), if this analysis 

finds that the emissions growth is 

causing visibility impairment in the 16 

Class I areas, the State, in coordination 

with other transport region states, and 

tribes, will evaluate the need for 

additional emission reduction measures 

and identify an implementation 

schedule for such measures. The State 

will report on the need for additional 

reduction measures to EPA in 

accordance with the periodic progress 

reports required under 40 CFR 

51.309(d)(10)(i). We are proposing to 

determine the RH 309 SIP submittal 

satisfies the strategy requirement of 40 

CFR 309(d)(3)(iv). 

5. Other CACs 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(3)(v), 

the State in its RH 309 SIP submittal has 

concluded that no other CACs can be 

identified at this time. The State’s 

conclusion is based on the WRAP Policy 

on Clean Air Corridors, which used 

technical information to determine that 

no other CACs could be identified. We 

are proposing to approve the state’s 

determination under 40 CFR 

51.309(d)(3)(v). 

C. Stationary Source Reductions 

1. Provisions for Stationary Source 

Emissions of SO2

As required by 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(i), 

the State in its RH 309 SIP submittal 

sets forth milestone SO2 numbers for 

each year of the program until 2018.16

Table 2 shows the milestone numbers 

and how compliance with the annual 

milestones will be determined (Table C– 

1 of the NM RH 309 SIP). 

TABLE 2—SO2 EMISSIONS MILESTONES

Year Regional sulfur dioxide milestone 

(tons per year (tpy)) 

Annual SO2 emissions used to determine 

compliance with the annual milestones 

2008 .................................................................... 269,083 tons SO2 ............................................ Average of 2006, 2007 and 2008. 

2009 .................................................................... 234,903 tons SO2 ............................................ Average of 2007, 2008 and 2009. 

2010 .................................................................... 200,722 tons SO2 ............................................ Average of 2008, 2009 and 2010. 

2011 .................................................................... 200,722 tons SO2 ............................................ Average of 2009, 2010 and 2011. 

2012 .................................................................... 200,722 tons SO2 ............................................ Average of 2010, 2011 and 2012. 

2013 .................................................................... 185,795 tons SO2 ............................................ Average of 2011, 2012 and 2013. 

2014 .................................................................... 170,868 tons SO2 ............................................ Average of 2012, 2013 and 2014. 

2015 .................................................................... 155,940 tons SO2 ............................................ Average of 2013, 2014 and 2015. 

2016 .................................................................... 155,940 tons SO2 ............................................ Average of 2014, 2015 and 2016. 

2017 .................................................................... 155,940 tons SO2 ............................................ Average of 2015, 2016 and 2017. 

2018 .................................................................... 141,849 tons SO2 ............................................ Year 2018 only. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
36056 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 116 / Friday, June 15, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 2—SO2 EMISSIONS MILESTONES—Continued 

Year Regional sulfur dioxide milestone 

(tons per year (tpy)) 

Annual SO2 emissions used to determine 

compliance with the annual milestones 

2019 forward, until replaced by an approved 

SIP.

141,849 tons SO2 ............................................ Annual; no multiyear averaging. 

SO2 emissions from sources in 1990 

totaled 358,364 tpy and the 2018 

milestone are 141,849 tpy (see 

Demonstration that the SO2 Milestones 

Provide Greater Reasonable Progress 

than BART, Section M of the NM RH 

309 SIP). The difference is a 60 percent 

reduction in SO2 emissions from 1990 to 

2018. Thus, the State has concluded that 

the emission reductions are on target to 

achieve the GCVTC goal of a 50 to 70 

percent reduction of SO2 emissions by 

2040. We are proposing to determine the 

RH 309 submittal meets the 

requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(i). 

2. Documentation of Emissions 

Calculation Methods for SO2

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(ii), 

the RH 309 SIP submittal provides 

documentation of the specific 

methodology used to calculate SO2

emissions during the 2006 base year for 

each emitting unit included in the 

program. The requirement is addressed 

in Section C of the NM RH 309 SIP 

submittal, and implemented through 

20.2.73.300.F NMAC provisions that 

were previously approved at 75 FR 

48860 (August 12, 2010). We are also 

now proposing to approve revisions to 

20.2.73.300 that were submitted for 

approval with the most recent RH 309 

SIP submittal on July 5, 2011. 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(ii), 

New Mexico’s RH 309 SIP submittal 

provides that it will document any 

change to the specific methodology used 

to calculate emissions at any emitting 

unit for any year after the base year. 

Until the program has been triggered 

and source compliance is required, the 

State will submit an annual emissions 

report that documents prior year 

emissions for New Mexico sources 

covered by the 309 program to all 

participating states by September 30 of 

each year. The State will adjust actual 

emission inventories for sources that 

change the method of monitoring or 

calculating their emissions to be 

comparable to the emission monitoring 

or calculation method used to calculate 

the 2006 base year inventory. EPA is 

proposing to determine that the current 

SIP as revised by the SIP submittal 

satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR 

309(d)(4)(ii). 

3. Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and 

Reporting of SO2 Emissions 

In order to meet the emission 

reporting requirements of 40 CFR 

51.309(d)(4)(iii), the RH 309 SIP 

submittal includes provisions requiring 

the monitoring, recordkeeping, and 

reporting of actual stationary source SO2

emissions within the State to determine 

if the milestone has been exceeded. 

20.2.73.300.F NMAC requires major 

sources of SO2 to report their emissions 

annually along with documentation of 

the emissions monitoring/estimation 

methodology used, and demonstrate 

that the selected methodology is 

acceptable under the inventory program. 

This rule defines the emission inventory 

and reporting requirements for tracking 

compliance with the regional sulfur 

dioxide milestones until the western 

backstop sulfur dioxide trading program 

has been fully implemented and 

emission tracking has occurred under 

20.2.81.106 NMAC (See section V.E.3 of 

this notice for a further detail on 

emission inventory requirements under 

20.2.81.106 NMAC). We are proposing 

to approve the July 5, 2011 submitted 

revisions to 20.2.73.300.F NMAC and 

determine that the 309 SIP submittal 

satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR 

51.309(d)(4)(iii). 

4. Criteria and Procedures for a Market 

Trading Program 

As stated above, until the backstop 

trading program has been triggered and 

source compliance is required, the RH 

309 SIP submittal provides that the state 

shall submit an annual emissions report 

for New Mexico sources to all 

participating states by September 30 of 

each year. The report shall document 

actual sulfur dioxide emissions during 

the previous calendar year for all 

sources subject to the Section 309 

program. The WRAP will compile 

reports from all participating states into 

a draft regional emission report for SO2

by December 31 of each year. This 

report will include actual regional 

sulfur dioxide emissions, adjustments to 

account for changes in monitoring/ 

calculation methods or enforcement/ 

settlement agreements, and adjusted 

average emissions for the last three 

years for comparison to the regional 

milestone. As required by 40 CFR 

51.309(d)(4)(iv), based on this 

compilation of reports from all states 

participating in the 309 program, states 

will determine if the milestone has been 

exceeded and will include a 

determination in a final regional 

emissions report that is submitted to 

EPA. This final report and 

determination will be submitted to EPA 

by the end of March, 15 months 

following the milestone year. We are 

proposing to determine the RH 309 SIP 

meets the requirements of 40 CFR 

51.309(d)(4)(iv). 

5. Market Trading Program 

Per 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(v), the RH 

309 SIP submittal provides that if the 

309 backstop trading program is 

triggered, the regional emissions report 

will contain a common trigger date. In 

the absence of a common trigger date, 

the default date will be March 31 of the 

applicable year, but no later than 15 

months after the end of the milestone 

year where the milestone was exceeded. 

The NM RH 309 SIP submittal requires 

that sources comply, as soon as 

practicable, with the requirement to 

hold allowances covering their 

emissions. Because the backstop trading 

program does not allow allocations to 

exceed the milestone, the program is 

sufficient to achieve the milestones 

adopted pursuant to 40 CFR 

51.309(d)(4)(i) as discussed above. The 

backstop trading program is also 

consistent with the elements for such 

programs outlined in 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(2)(vi). The analysis found in 

Section V.E. of this notice shows that 

the backstop trading program is 

consistent with the elements for trading 

programs outlined in 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(2)(vi), as required by Section 

309. See 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(v). We are 

proposing to determine the RH 309 SIP 

submittal meets the requirements of 40 

CFR 309(d)(4)(v). We are also proposing 

to approve 20.2.81 NMAC, which 

includes the rules that govern the 

program. 

6. Provisions for the 2018 Milestone 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 

51.309(d)(4)(vi)(A), the RH 309 SIP 

submittal has provisions to ensure that 

until a revised implementation plan is 

submitted in accordance with 40 CFR 

51.308(f) and approved by EPA, 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 116 / Friday, June 15, 2012 / Proposed Rules 36057 

17CALMET/CALPUFF Protocol for BART 

Exemption Screening Analysis for Class I Areas in 

the Western United StatesÕ, Western Regional Air 

Partnership (WRAP); Gail Tonnesen, Zion Wang; 

Ralph Morris, Abby Hoats and Yiqin Jia, August 15, 

2006. Available at: http://pah.cert.ucr.edu/aqm/ 

308/bart/ 

WRAP_RMC_BART_Protocol_Aug15_2006.pdf. 

18BART Air Modeling Protocol, Individual 

Source Visibility Assessments for BART Control 

Analyses, State of Wyoming, Department of 

Environmental Quality, Air Quality Division, 

Cheyenne, WY September 2006. 

emissions from covered stationary 

sources in any year beginning in 2018 

do not exceed the 2018 milestone. In 

order to meet this requirement, the State 

has included special provisions for what 

will be required as part of their 2013 SIP 

revision required under 40 CFR 

51.309(d)(10). The submitted plan 

provides that the 2013 SIP revision 

required by 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10) will 

contain either the provisions of a 

program designed to achieve reasonable 

progress for stationary sources of SO2

beyond 2018 or a commitment to submit 

a SIP revision containing the provisions 

of such a program no later than 

December 31, 2016. (Section C, Part D 

of the NM RH 309 SIP). We are 

proposing to determine the RH 309 SIP 

submittal meets the requirements of 40 

CFR 51.309(d)(4)(vi)(A). 

7. Special Penalty Provision for 2018 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 

51.309(d)(4)(vi)(B), the RH 309 SIP 

submittal includes special penalty 

provisions to ensure that the 2018 

milestone is met. If the backstop trading 

is triggered and the program will not 

start until after the year 2018, a special 

penalty shall be assessed to sources that 

exceed the 2018 milestone (Section A.5 

of the NM RH 309 SIP and Section 

20.2.81.110 NMAC, which we are 

proposing to approve). The State shall 

seek at least the minimum financial 

penalty of $5,000 per ton of SO2

emissions in excess of a source’s 

allowance limitation. Any source may 

resolve its excess emissions violation by 

agreeing to a streamline settlement 

approach where the source pays a 

penalty of $5,000 per ton or partial ton 

of excess emissions and the source 

makes the payment within 90 calendar 

days after the issuance of a notice of 

violation. Any source that does not 

resolve its excess emissions violation in 

accordance with the streamlined 

settlement approach will be subject to 

formal enforcement action, in which the 

NMED shall seek a financial penalty for 

the excess emissions based on New 

Mexico’s statutory maximum civil 

penalties. The special penalty 

provisions for 2018 will apply for each 

year after 2018 until the State 

determines that the 2018 milestone has 

been met. The State will evaluate the 

amount of the minimum monetary 

penalty during each five-year SIP review 

and the penalty will be adjusted to 

ensure that penalties per ton 

substantially exceed the expected cost 

of allowances, and thus provide 

sufficient deterrence. We are proposing 

to determine the RH SIP submittal 

satisfies the special penalties provisions 

requirement of 40 CFR 

51.309(d)(4)(vi)(B). We are proposing 

approval of 20.2.81 NMAC, which 

includes proposed approval of 

20.2.81.110 NMAC. 

D. ‘‘Better-Than-BART’’ Demonstration 

As discussed in Section IV.A of this 

preamble, if a state adopts an alternative 

program designed to replace ‘‘source-bysource’’ BART controls, the state must 

be able to demonstrate that the 

alternative program achieves greater 

reasonable progress than would be 

achieved by BART. In Section M of the 

NM RH 309 SIP, the State has included 

a demonstration of how the 309 program 

achieves greater reasonable progress 

than BART as discussed in the 

document titled Demonstration that the 

SO2 Milestones Provide for Greater 

Reasonable Progress than BART 

(‘‘better-than-BART’’ demonstration). 

Below is a discussion on how the 309 

backstop trading program achieves 

greater reasonable progress than BART. 

The City of Albuquerque—Bernalillo 

County, Wyoming and Utah have also 

submitted SIPs with the same better 

than BART demonstration as New 

Mexico and thus are relying on a 

consistent demonstration across the 

states. 

1. List of BART-Eligible Sources 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(A), 

New Mexico’s RH 309 SIP submittal 

offers a ‘‘better-than-BART’’ 

demonstration that lists the BARTeligible sources covered by the program 

in the section 309 states (see Table 3 

below). BART eligible sources are 

identified as those sources that fall 

within one of the 26 specific source 

categories, were built between 1962 and 

1977 and have potential emissions of 

250 tons per year of any visibility 

impairing air pollutant. (40 CFR 51.301). 

We are proposing to determine that this 

list satisfies 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(A). 

2. Subject to BART Determination 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(B), 

the Section 309 states conducted 

individual source modeling on the 

BART-eligible sources within their 

states to determine which sources in 

their state causes or contributes to 

visibility impairment and are thus 

subject to BART. New Mexico and Utah 

relied on modeling by the WRAP to 

identify sources subject to BART. Based 

on the list of identified sources, the 

WRAP performed the initial BART 

modeling for New Mexico and Utah. 

The procedures used are outlined in the 

WRAP Regional Modeling Center (RMC) 

BART Modeling Protocol.17 One source 

in New Mexico, the SJGS, was 

determined to be subject-to-BART based 

on the initial WRAP modeling. See 

section V.F.2 of this notice for a more 

detailed discussion of New Mexico’s 

identification of subject-to-BART 

sources. Appendix C of the NM RH 

309(g) SIP submittal contains a 

summary of the WRAP modeling used 

in New Mexico’s identification of 

subject-to-BART sources. The State of 

Wyoming performed separate modeling 

to identify sources subject to BART.18

The states established a threshold of 0.5 

deciviews for determining if a single 

source causes or contributes to visibility 

impairment. If the modeling shows that 

a source has a 0.5 or greater deciview 

impact at any Class I area, that source 

causes or contributes to visibility 

impairment and is subject to BART. 

Table 3 shows the BART-eligible 

sources covered by the 309 backstop 

program and whether they are subject to 

BART. We are proposing to determine 

that the RH 309 SIP submittal satisfies 

40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(B). 

TABLE 3—SUBJECT TO BART STATUS FOR SECTION 309 BART-ELIGIBLE SOURCES

State Company Facility Subject to 

BART? 

New Mexico ............................................... Frontier ...................................................... Empire Abo ............................................... No. 

New Mexico ............................................... Xcel Energy ............................................... SWPS Cunningham Station ...................... No. 

New Mexico ............................................... Duke Energy ............................................. Artesia Gas Plant ...................................... No. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
36058 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 116 / Friday, June 15, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 3—SUBJECT TO BART STATUS FOR SECTION 309 BART-ELIGIBLE SOURCES—Continued 

State Company Facility Subject to 

BART? 

New Mexico ............................................... Duke Energy ............................................. Linam Ranch Gas Plant ............................ No. 

New Mexico ............................................... Dynegy ...................................................... Saunders ................................................... No. 

New Mexico ............................................... Giant Refining ........................................... San Juan Refinery .................................... No. 

New Mexico ............................................... Giant Refining ........................................... Ciniza Refinery .......................................... No. 

New Mexico ............................................... Xcel Energy ............................................... SWPS Maddox Station ............................. No. 

New Mexico ............................................... Marathon ................................................... Indian Basin Gas Plant ............................. No. 

New Mexico ............................................... Public Service of New Mexico .................. San Juan Generating Station .................... Yes. 

New Mexico ............................................... .................................................................... Rio Grande Station ................................... No. 

New Mexico ............................................... Western Gas Resources ........................... San Juan River Gas Plant ........................ No. 

Utah ............................................................ Pacificorp ................................................... Hunter ........................................................ Yes. 

Utah ............................................................ Pacificorp ................................................... Huntington ................................................. Yes. 

Wyoming .................................................... Basin Electric ............................................ Laramie River ............................................ Yes. 

Wyoming .................................................... Black Hills Power & Light .......................... Neil Simpson I ........................................... No. 

Wyoming .................................................... Dyno Nobel ............................................... Dyno Nobel ............................................... No. 

Wyoming .................................................... FMC Corp .................................................. Green River Soda Ash Plant .................... Yes. 

Wyoming .................................................... FMC Corp .................................................. Granger River Soda Ash Plant ................. No. 

Wyoming .................................................... General Chemical ..................................... Green River Soda Ash Plant .................... Yes. 

Wyoming .................................................... P4 Production ............................................ Rock Springs Coking Plant ....................... No. 

Wyoming .................................................... Pacificorp ................................................... Dave Johnston .......................................... Yes. 

Wyoming .................................................... Pacificorp ................................................... Jim Bridger ................................................ Yes. 

Wyoming .................................................... Pacificorp ................................................... Naughton ................................................... Yes. 

Wyoming .................................................... Pacificorp ................................................... Wyodak ..................................................... Yes. 

Wyoming .................................................... Sinclair Oil Corp ........................................ Sinclair Refinery ........................................ No. 

Wyoming .................................................... Sinclair Refinery ........................................ Casper ....................................................... No. 

3. Best System of Continuous Emission 

Control Technology 

As required by 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(2)(i)(C), each state is to 

determine what BART would be for 

each subject to BART source covered by 

the 309 backstop trading program. In the 

‘‘better-than-BART’’ demonstration, all 

subject to BART electric generating 

units (EGUs) were assumed to be 

operating at the presumptive SO2

emission rate provided in the BART 

Guidelines (0.15 lb/MMBtu). The 309 

program also includes non-EGU subject 

to BART units. The non-EGU subject to 

BART units are four boilers located at 

two trona plants in Wyoming. Wyoming 

made a determination of what BART 

would be for these non-EGU units. One 

trona plant recently installed pollution 

control projects achieving a 63 percent 

reduction in SO2 from its two boilers. 

The State of Wyoming determined this 

control level would serve as a BART 

benchmark for all trona boilers. Thus, a 

63 percent reduction in emissions from 

these sources was included as the BART 

benchmark in calculating emission 

reductions assuming application of 

BART at these sources. Emission 

reductions or the BART benchmark for 

all subject to BART sources covered by 

the 309 program was calculated to be 

48,807 tons of SO2. We are proposing to 

determine the furnished analysis meets 

the requirements of 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(2)(i)(C). 

4. Projected Emissions Reductions 

As required by 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(2)(i)(D), the RH 309 SIP 

submittal has provided the expected 

emission reductions that would result 

from the 309 backstop trading program. 

The ‘‘better-than-BART’’ demonstration 

projects that 2018 baseline emissions 

would be 190,656 tpy of SO2 for the 

sources covered by the 309 program in 

the participating states. The reductions 

achieved by the program are 48,807 tpy 

of SO2, resulting in remaining emissions 

of 141,849 tpy of SO2 in 2018. We are 

proposing to determine the analysis 

furnished to satisfy 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(2)(i)(D) is acceptable. 

5. Evidence That the Trading Program 

Achieves Greater Reasonable Progress 

Than BART 

We are proposing to approve the RH 

309 SIP submittal’s determination that 

the SO2 trading program achieves 

greater reasonable progress than would 

be achieved through the installation and 

operation of SO2 BART at all sources 

subject to BART and covered by the SO2

trading program in the participating 

states, as required by 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(2)(i)(E). As the RH 309 SIP 

submittal explains, the program ensures 

that sources beyond BART sources are 

included. The backstop trading program 

includes all stationary sources with 

emissions greater than 100 tpy of SO2

and thus encompasses 63 non-subject to 

BART sources. BART applied on a 

source-by-source basis would not affect 

these sources, and there would be no 

limitation on their future operations 

under their existing permit conditions, 

or allowable emissions. The milestones 

will cap these sources at actual 

emissions, which are less than current 

allowable emissions. 

As the RH 309 SIP submittal also 

explains, the SO2 trading program also 

provides for a cap on new source 

growth. Future impairment is prevented 

by capping SO2 emissions growth from 

sources covered by the program and 

from entirely new sources in the region. 

BART applied on a source-specific basis 

would have no impact on future growth. 

The backstop trading program also 

provides a mass-based cap that has 

inherent advantages over applying 

BART to each individual source. The 

baseline emission projections and 

assumed reductions due to the 

assumption of BART-level emission 

rates on all sources subject to BART are 

all based on actual emissions, using 

2006 as the baseline. If the BART 

process were applied on a source-bysource basis to individual sources, 

emission limitations would typically be 

established as an emission rate (lbs/hr 

or lbs/MMBtu) that would account for 

variations in the sulfur content of fuel 

and alternative operating scenarios, or 

allowable emissions. A mass-based cap 

that is based on actual emissions is 

more stringent because it does not allow 

a source to consistently use this 

difference between current actual and 

allowable emissions. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 116 / Friday, June 15, 2012 / Proposed Rules 36059 

19 Voluntary Emissions Reduction Program for 

Major Industrial Sources of Sulfur Dioxide in Nine 

Western States and A Backstop Market Trading 

Program, an Annex to the Report of the Grand 

Canyon Visibility Transport Commission 

(September 2000) at C–15 and 16. 

20WRAP conducted modeling of the degree of 

visibility improvement that would occur on average 

and for the 20% best and worst visibility days. The 

WRAP used the transfer coefficients developed as 

part of the Integrated Assessment System (IAS) and 

used by the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport 

Commission. As noted in the Annex, this modeling 

has limitations which must be considered when 

interpreting the results. 

6. All Emission Reductions Must Take 

Place During the First Planning Period 

The first planning period ends in 

2018. As discussed in the preamble 

above, the reductions from the 309 

program will occur by 2018. We are 

therefore proposing to determine the 

submitted plan satisfies the requirement 

of 40 CFR 51.309(e)(2)(iii). 

7. Detailed Description of the 

Alternative Program 

The detailed description of the 

backstop trading program is provided in 

Section C—Sulfur Dioxide Milestones 

and Backstop Trading Program of the 

NM RH 309 SIP submittal and Western 

Backstop SO2 Trading Program Model 

Rule 20.2.81 NMAC, also a SIP 

submittal which we are proposing to 

approve. We propose to determine the 

detailed description requirement in 40 

CFR 51.309(e)(2)(iii) is met. The details 

of the backstop trading program are 

discussed in section V.E of this notice. 

8. Surplus Reductions 

We propose to approve the 

determination in the RH 309 SIP 

submittal that all emission reductions 

resulting from the emissions trading 

program are surplus as of the baseline 

date of the SIP, as required by 40 CFR 

51.208(e)(2)(iv). 

9. Geographic Distribution of Emissions 

The NM RH 309 SIP submittal 

includes modeling conducted by the 

WRAP in 2000 to compare the visibility 

improvement expected from BART to 

the backstop trading program for the 

Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau. A 

summary of the modeling results can be 

found in, Section M of the NM RH 309 

SIP, which refers to data from modeling 

included in Tables 2 and 3 of 

Attachment C to the Annex.19 20 This 

modeling was conducted during the 

development of the Annex to examine if 

the geographic distribution of emissions 

under the trading program would be 

substantially different and 

disproportionately impact any Class I 

area due to a geographic concentration 

of emissions. The modeled visibility 

improvement for the best and worst 

days at the Class I areas for the 309 

program is similar to improvement 

anticipated from the BART scenario 

(within 0.1 dv) on the worst and best 

visibility days, thus—if we assume 

participation consistent with the 

model—demonstrating that the 

distribution of emissions between the 

BART scenario and the 309 trading 

program are not substantially different. 

We note this modeling demonstration 

included nine states, many of which are 

not participating in the backstop trading 

program. We believe this modeling 

demonstration adds support to our 

proposed determination discussed 

above in this section that the RH 309 

SIP submittal appropriately shows the 

SO2 trading program will achieve 

greater reasonable progress than would 

be achieved through the installation and 

operation of SO2 BART at all sources 

subject to BART and covered by the SO2

trading program, as required by 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(2)(i)(E). 

E. Requirements for Alternative 

Programs With an Emissions Cap 

Since the 309 trading program is a 

backstop trading program, the 

provisions outlined below will only 

apply if the milestone is exceeded and 

the program is triggered. We are 

proposing to approve 20.2.81 NMAC, 

which provides enforceable rules that 

govern the triggering and administration 

of the program. The analysis that 

follows shows that the backstop trading 

program is consistent with the elements 

for trading programs outlined in 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(2)(vi), as required by Section 

309. See 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(v). 

1. Applicability Provisions 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(2)(vi)(A), the backstop trading 

program has the same applicability 

requirements in all states opting to 

participate in the program. 20.2.81.101 

NMAC, which we are proposing to 

approve, contains the applicability 

provisions, which indicates that the 

backstop trading program generally 

applies to all stationary sources that 

emit 100 tons per year or more of SO2

in the program trigger year. We are 

proposing to approve the 20.2.81.101 

NMAC as meeting the requirements of 

40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(A). 

2. Allowance Provisions 

Part C.C1 of the SIP and 20.2.81.105 

NMAC, which we propose to approve, 

contain the allowance allocation 

provisions as required by 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(2)(vi)(B). The rule requires 

sources to open a compliance account in 

order to track allowances and contains 

other requirements associated with 

those accounts. These SIP provisions 

also contain the provisions on how the 

State will allocate allowances and states 

that the total number of allowances 

distributed cannot exceed the milestone 

for any given year. We are proposing to 

approve the submitted 20.2.81.105 

NMAC as meeting the requirement of 40 

CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(B). 

3. Monitoring and Recordkeeping 

Provisions 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(2)(vi)(C)–(E), the submitted 

rule 20.2.81.106.A.1 NMAC provides 

that sources subject to 40 CFR part 75 

under a separate requirement from the 

backstop trading program shall meet the 

requirements contained in part 75 with 

respect to monitoring, recording and 

reporting SO2 emissions. If a unit is not 

subject to 40 CFR part 75 under a 

requirement separate from the trading 

program, the State requires that a source 

use one of the following monitoring 

methods: (1) A continuous emission 

monitoring system (CEMS) for SO2 and 

flow that complies with all applicable 

monitoring provisions in 40 CFR part 

75; (2) if the unit is a gas- or oil-fired 

combustion device, the monitoring 

methodology in Appendix D to 40 CFR 

part 75, or, if applicable, the low mass 

emissions provisions (with respect to 

SO2 mass emissions only) of section 

75.19(c) of 40 CFR part 75; (3) one of the 

optional protocols, if applicable, in 

20.2.81.111 NMAC or 20.2.81.112 

NMAC; or (4) a petition for site-specific 

monitoring that the source submits for 

approval by NMED and EPA in 

accordance with Paragraph (5) 

Subsection O of 20.2.81.106 NMAC. All 

the above sources are required to 

comply with the reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements in 40 CFR 

part 75. 

Although most sources covered by the 

backstop trading program will be able to 

meet the monitoring requirements stated 

above, there are some emission units 

that are either not physically able to 

install the needed equipment or do not 

emit enough sulfur dioxide to justify the 

expense of installing these systems. As 

discussed in part C5.3 of the SIP, the 

trading program allows these emission 

units to continue to use their pre-trigger 

monitoring methodology, but does not 

allow the source to transfer any 

allowances that were allocated to that 

unit for use by another source. The 

program requires that the allowances 

associated with emission units that 

continue to use their pre-trigger 

monitoring methodology be placed in a 

special reserve compliance account, 

while allowances for other emission 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
36060 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 116 / Friday, June 15, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

21Western Backstop (WEB) Emissions and 

Allowance Tracking System (EATS) Analysis. 

Perrin Quarles Associates, Inc. July 18, 2003. 

Available at: http://www.wrapair.org/forums/mtf/

documents/eats/WEB_EATS_Final_Report_July_31.

pdf. 

units are placed in a regular compliance 

account. Sources may not trade 

allowances out of a special reserve 

compliance account, even for use by 

emission units at the same source, but 

can use the allowances to show 

compliance for that particular unit. 

Subsection B of 20.2.81.106 NMAC 

allows sources with any of the following 

emission units to apply to establish a 

special reserve compliance account: (1) 

Any smelting operation where all of the 

emissions from the operation are not 

ducted to a stack; (2) any flare, except 

to the extent such flares are used as a 

fuel gas combustion device at a 

petroleum refinery; or (3) any other type 

of unit without add-on sulfur dioxide 

control equipment, if the unit belongs to 

one of the following source categories: 

cement kilns, pulp and paper recovery 

furnaces, lime kilns, or glass 

manufacturing. Pursuant to the 

submitted 20.2.81.106 NMAC, sources 

with a special reserve compliance 

account are required to submit to the 

State an annual emissions statement and 

sources are required to maintain 

operating records sufficient to estimate 

annual emissions consistent with the 

baseline emission inventory submitted 

in 1998. 

We are proposing to approve the 

above discussed submitted provisions of 

20.2.81 NMAC and find the submitted 

trading program is consistent with the 

monitoring, recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements in 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(2)(vi)(C) through (E). 

4. Tracking System 

As required by 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(2)(vi)(F), section C2 of the 

submitted RH 309 SIP provides the 

overarching specifications for an 

Emissions and Allowance Tracking 

System (EATS). According to the SIP 

submittal, the EATS must provide that 

all necessary information regarding 

emissions, allowances, and transactions 

is publicly available in a secure, 

centralized database. The EATS must 

ensure that each allowance is uniquely 

identified, allow for frequent updates, 

and include enforceable procedures for 

recording data. If the program is 

triggered, the State will work with other 

states and tribes participating in the 

trading program to implement this 

system. More detailed specifications for 

the EATS are provided in the WEB 

Emission and Allowance Tracking 

System (EATS) Analysis.21 New Mexico 

assumes responsibility for ensuring that 

all the EATS provisions are completed 

as described in its SIP. 

In addition, the State will work with 

the other participating states to 

designate one tracking system 

administrator (TSA). The submitted RH 

309 SIP provides that the TSA shall be 

designated as expeditiously as possible, 

but no later than six months after the 

program trigger date. The State will 

enter into a binding contract with the 

TSA that shall require the TSA to 

perform all TSA functions described in 

the SIP and in 20.2.81 NMAC, such as 

transferring and recording allowances. 

We propose to determine the submitted 

trading program has adequate tracking 

system provisions to satisfy the 

requirements of CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(F). 

5. Account Representative 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(2)(vi)(G), the submitted RH 

309 SIP relies on submitted rule 

20.2.81.102 NMAC, which contains 

provisions for the establishment of an 

account representative. The SIP 

submittal requires each source to 

identify one account representative. The 

account representative shall submit to 

the State and the TSA a signed and 

dated certificate that contains a 

certification statement verifying that the 

account representative has all the 

necessary authority to carry out the 

account representative responsibilities 

under the trading program on behalf of 

the owners and operators of the sources. 

The certification statement also needs to 

indicate that each such owner and 

operator shall be fully bound by the 

account representatives representations, 

actions, inactions, or submissions and 

by any decision or order issued to the 

account representative by the State 

regarding the trading program. We are 

proposing to determine the submitted 

rule 20.2.81.102 NMAC and submitted 

SIP meet the requirements for 

‘‘authorized account representative 

provisions’’ in 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(2)(vi)(G). 

6. Allowance Transfers 

The submitted RH 309 SIP establishes 

procedures pertaining to allowance 

transfers to meet the requirement of 40 

CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(H). 20.2.81.107 

NMAC, a submitted rule we propose to 

approve, contains requirements sources 

must follow for allowance transfers. To 

transfer or retire allowances, the 

account representative shall submit the 

transfer account number(s) identifying 

the transferor account, the serial number 

of each allowance to be transferred, the 

transferor’s account representative’s 

name and signature, and date of 

submission. The allowance transfer 

deadline is midnight Pacific Standard 

Time on March 1 of each year following 

the end of the control period. Sources 

must correctly submit transfers by this 

time in order for a source to be able to 

use the allowance to demonstrate 

compliance. We are proposing to 

approve 20.2.81.107 NMAC as being 

consistent with the program elements 

required at 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(H). 

Section C3 of the RH 309 SIP 

submittal provides the procedures the 

TSA must follow to transfer allowances. 

The TSA will record an allowance 

transfer by moving each allowance from 

the transferor account to the transferee 

account as specified by the request from 

the source, if the transfer is correctly 

submitted and the transferor account 

includes each allowance identified in 

the transfer. Within five business days 

of the recording of an allowance 

transfer, the TSA shall notify the 

account representatives of both the 

transferor and transferee accounts, and 

make the transfer information publicly 

available on the Internet. Within five 

business days of receipt of an allowance 

transfer that fails to meet the 

requirements for transfer, the TSA will 

notify the account representatives of 

both accounts of the decision not to 

record the transfer, and the reasons for 

not recording the transfer. We are 

proposing to determine the submitted 

trading program is consistent with the 

‘‘allowance transfer provisions’’ 

requirement of 40 

CFR51.308(e)(2)(vi)(H). 

7. Compliance Provisions 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(I), 

the trading program in the submitted RH 

309 SIP provides the procedures for 

determining compliance and relies on 

submitted rule 20.2.81.109 NMAC, 

which we are proposing to approve. Per 

this submitted rule, the source must 

hold allowances as of the allowance 

transfer deadline in the source’s 

compliance account (together with any 

current control year allowances held in 

the source’s special reserve compliance 

account) in an amount not less than the 

total SO2 emissions for the control 

period from the source. The State 

determines compliance by comparing 

allowances held by the source in their 

compliance account(s) with the total 

annual SO2 emissions reported by the 

source. If the comparison of the 

allowances to emissions results in 

emissions exceeding allowances, the 

source’s excess emissions are subject to 

the allowance deduction penalty in 

20.2.81.109 C. NMAC (discussed in 

further detail below). We are proposing 

to determine the submitted rule 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 116 / Friday, June 15, 2012 / Proposed Rules 36061 

20.2.81.109 NMAC is consistent with 

the ‘‘compliance provisions’’ 

requirement of 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(2)(vi)(I). 

8. Penalty Provisions 

The submitted rule 20.2.81.109 C. 

NMAC provides the penalty provisions 

required by 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(J). 

Per this section, a source’s allowances 

will be reduced by an amount equal to 

three times the source’s tons of excess 

emissions if they are unable to show 

compliance. We are proposing to 

determine the submitted rule 20.2.81 is 

consistent with the ‘‘penalty 

provisions’’ requirement of 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(2)(vi)(J). 

9. Banking of Allowances 

As allowed by 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(2)(vi)(K), 20.2.81.108 NMAC, 

which we propose to approve, allows 

sources to use allowances from current 

and prior years to demonstrate 

compliance, with some restrictions. 

Sources can only use 2018 allowances 

to show compliance with the 2018 

milestone and may not use allowances 

from prior years. In order to insure that 

the use of banked allowances does not 

interfere with the attainment or 

maintenance of reasonable progress 

goals, the backstop trading program 

includes flow-control provisions (see 

section C4 of the RH 309 SIP submittal). 

The flow control provisions are 

triggered if the TSA determines that the 

banked allowances exceed ten percent 

of the milestone for the next control 

year, and thereby ensure that too many 

banked emissions are not used in any 

one year. We are proposing to determine 

the submitted trading program has 

provisions that clarifies the restrictions 

on the use of banked allowances, 

consistent with the requirement in 40 

CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(K). 

10. Program Assessment 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(2)(vi)(L), section D1 of the RH 

309 SIP submittal contains provisions 

for a 2013 assessment. For the 2013 

assessment, the State will work with 

other participating states to develop a 

projected emission inventory for SO2

through the year 2018. The State will 

then evaluate the projected inventory 

and assess the likelihood of meeting the 

regional milestone for the year 2018. 

New Mexico shall include this 

assessment as part of the 2013 progress 

report that must be submitted under 40 

CFR 51.309(d)(10). We are proposing to 

determine the RH 309 SIP submittal is 

consistent with the program assessment 

provisions requirement in 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(2)(vi)(L). 

F. Provisions for Stationary Source NOX

and PM 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(vii) 

and 40 CFR 51.309(g), NMED’s 

submittal contains BART and long-term 

strategies to address NOx and PM 

emissions. An initial assessment of 

emissions control strategies for 

stationary source NOx and PM, and the 

degree of visibility improvement that 

would result from implementation of 

the identified strategies was prepared by 

the WRAP. This report, Stationary 

Source NOX and PM Emissions in the 

WRAP Region: An Initial Assessment of 

Emissions, Controls, and Air Quality 

Impacts, is included in Appendix C–2 

of the submitted NM RH 309 SIP. This 

report represents an initial assessment 

of stationary source NOX and PM 

strategies for regional haze performed in 

2003 using emission inventories, 

available ambient monitoring data, and 

very limited modeling. Based on this 

analysis, NMED concluded that for the 

majority of the Class I areas in the 

WRAP, NOX and PM emissions are not 

major contributors to visibility 

impairment, and that RAVI remedies are 

available in cases where particular 

stationary sources may impact a 

particular Class I area. An additional 

assessment of long-term strategies and 

BART requirements for NOX and PM are 

included in the NM RH 309(g) SIP. An 

evaluation of NMED’s PM BART 

determination is in this section. As 

previously stated, we are not proposing 

action on the NOX BART determination 

for SJGS. Evaluation of NMED’s LTS is 

available in Section V.N.4 of this 

proposal. NMED has committed to 

reassess its NOX and PM long-term 

strategies in its SIP updates in 2013 and 

2018. 

BART is an element of New Mexico’s 

LTS for the first implementation period. 

As discussed in more detail in section 

III.D. of this preamble, the BART 

evaluation process consists of three 

components: (1) An identification of all 

the BART-eligible sources, (2) an 

assessment of whether those BARTeligible sources are in fact subject to 

BART and (3) a determination of any 

BART controls. NMED addressed these 

steps as follows: 

1. Identification of BART-Eligible 

Sources 

The first step of a BART evaluation is 

to identify all the BART-eligible sources 

within the state’s boundaries. NMED 

identified the BART-eligible sources in 

New Mexico by utilizing the three 

eligibility criteria in the BART 

Guidelines (70 FR 39158, July 6, 2005) 

and our regulations (40 CFR 51.301): (1) 

One or more emission units at the 

facility fit within one of the 26 

categories listed in the BART 

Guidelines; (2) the emission unit(s) was 

constructed on or after August 6, 1962, 

and was in existence prior to August 6, 

1977; and (3) potential emissions of any 

visibility-impairing pollutant from 

subject units are 250 tons or more per 

year. Table 3 above lists the BARTeligible sources in New Mexico. 

2. Identification of Sources Subject to 

BART 

The second step of the BART 

evaluation is to identify those BARTeligible sources that may reasonably be 

anticipated to cause or contribute to 

visibility impairment at any Class I area, 

i.e. those sources that are subject to 

BART. The BART Guidelines allow 

states to consider exempting some 

BART-eligible sources from further 

BART review because they may not 

reasonably be anticipated to cause or 

contribute to any visibility impairment 

in a Class I area. Consistent with the 

BART Guidelines, NMED relied on the 

WRAP’s initial BART screening 

modeling to assess the extent of each 

facility’s contribution to visibility 

impairment at surrounding Class I areas 

and identify sources subject to BART. 

Appendix C of the submitted NM RH 

SIP for 309(g) summarizes the initial 

BART screening performed by the 

WRAP for New Mexico. 

a. Modeling Methodology 

The BART Guidelines provide that 

states may choose to use the CALPUFF 

modeling system or another appropriate 

model to predict the visibility impacts 

from a single source on a Class I area, 

and to therefore determine whether an 

individual source is anticipated to cause 

or contribute to impairment of visibility 

in Class I areas, i.e., ‘‘is subject to 

BART’’. The Guidelines state that we 

believe CALPUFF is the best regulatory 

modeling application currently 

available for predicting a single source’s 

contribution to visibility impairment (70 

FR 39162, July 6, 2005). NMED relied on 

WRAP screening modeling using the 

CALPUFF modeling system to 

determine whether individual sources 

in New Mexico were subject to or 

exempt from BART. 

The BART Guidelines also 

recommend that states develop a 

modeling protocol for making 

individual source attributions, and 

suggest that states may want to consult 

with us and their RPO to address any 

issues prior to modeling. The 

procedures used are outlined in the 

WRAP Regional Modeling Center (RMC) 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
36062 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 116 / Friday, June 15, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

22The procedures used are outlined in the WRAP 

Regional Modeling Center (RMC) BART Modeling 

Protocol that is available at: http://pah.cert.ucr.edu/ 

aqm/308/bart/WRAP_RMC_BART_Protocol_Aug15_

2006.pdf. 

23See Appendix C of the NM RH 309(g) SIP for 

a Summary of WRAP RMC BART Modeling for New 

Mexico Draft#6, December 17, 2010. 

24 70 FR 39104, 39121 (July 6, 2005). 25Consent Decree in The Grand Canyon Trust 

and Sierra Club, Plaintiffs, The State of New 

Mexico, Plaintiff-Intervenor, v. Public Service 

Company of New Mexico, Defendant, (CV 02–552 

BB/ACT (ACE)), lodged in the United States District 

Court, District of New Mexico, on March 10, 2005, 

at 15–16. The consent decree resulted in the 

installation of low-NOX burners with overfire air 

ports and a neural network system to reduce NOX

emissions, and a full-sized pulse jet fabric filter to 

reduce PM emissions. The wet limestone scrubber 

was modified to eliminate flue gas bypass, and 

dibasic acid was added to the scrubber process to 

improve SO2 removal. Installation of these controls 

on all four units was completed in the spring of 

2009. The consent decree requires compliance with 

emission limits of 0.3 lb/MMBtu NOX, 0.015 lb/ 

MMBtu PM, and 90% annual average control, not 

to exceed 0.25 lb/MMBtu SO2 for a seven day block 

average for each unit. 

26See the TSD for our FIP, ‘‘Visibility Modeling 

for BART Determination: San Juan Generating 

Station, New Mexico’’ available in the docket to our 

FIP (Docket No. EPA–R06–OAR–2010–0846) and 

included in the docket for this action. 

27 70 FR 39164. 

28Public Service Company of New Mexico, San 

Juan Generating Station, Best Available Retrofit 

Technology Analysis, June 6, 2007; PNM San Juan 

Generating Station, BART Analysis of SNCR, May 

30, 2008. PNM San Juan Generating Station, BART 

Analysis of Nalco Mobotec NOX Control 

Technologies, August 29, 2008; Public Service 

Company of New Mexico, San Juan Generating 

Station Final particulate matter BART analysis, 

August 28, 2008; Public Service Company of New 

Mexico, San Juan Generating Station Revised SNCR 

Analysis, February 11, 2011 and supporting reports 

and analysis. 

BART Modeling Protocol.22

Stakeholders, including EPA, FLMs, 

industrial sources, trade groups, and 

other interested parties, actively 

participated in the development and 

review of the WRAP protocol at the time 

it was developed. We propose to find 

the chosen model and the general 

modeling methodology used by the 

WRAP to be acceptable at the time it 

was utilized for identifying which units 

were subject to BART. 

b. Contribution Threshold 

For states using modeling to 

determine the applicability of BART to 

single sources, the BART Guidelines 

note that the first step is to set a 

contribution threshold to assess whether 

the impact of a single source is 

sufficient to cause or contribute to 

visibility impairment at a Class I area. 

The BART Guidelines state that, ‘‘[a] 

single source that is responsible for a 1.0 

deciview change or more should be 

considered to ‘cause’ visibility 

impairment.’’ 70 FR 39104, 39161 (July 

6, 2005). The BART Guidelines also 

state that ‘‘the appropriate threshold for 

determining whether a source 

contributes to visibility impairment may 

reasonably differ across states,’’ but, 

‘‘[a]s a general matter, any threshold 

that you use for determining whether a 

source ‘contributes’ to visibility 

impairment should not be higher than 

0.5 deciviews.’’ Id. Further, in setting a 

contribution threshold, states should 

‘‘consider the number of emissions 

sources affecting the Class I areas at 

issue and the magnitude of the 

individual sources’ impacts. The 

Guidelines affirm that states are free to 

use a lower threshold if they conclude 

that the location of a large number of 

BART-eligible sources in proximity of a 

Class I area justifies this approach. 

NMED and the WRAP used a 

contribution threshold of 0.5 dv for 

determining which sources are subject 

to BART. The results of the visibility 

impacts modeling demonstrated that the 

majority of the individual BART-eligible 

sources had visibility impacts well 

below 0.5 dv.23 With the exception of 

the San Juan Generating Station that had 

modeled visibility impacts well above 

0.5 dv, the highest visibility impact of 

the remaining BART-eligible sources 

was 0.33 dv. We agree with the State’s 

rationale for choosing this threshold 

value. 

c. Sources Identified to be Subject-toBART 

The WRAP screening modeling 

evaluated sources that were identified 

as BART-eligible and determined the 

only sources that did not screen out in 

New Mexico were the four units of the 

SJGS. An eligible BART source with a 

predicted impact of 0.5 dv or more of 

impairment in a Class I area 

‘‘contributes’’ to visibility impairment 

and is subject to BART.24 A single 

source that is responsible for a 1.0 

deciview change or more should be 

considered to ‘‘cause’’ visibility 

impairment. The results of this analysis 

indicated that SJGS, on a facility-wide 

basis, causes visibility impairment at all 

16 Class I areas that lie within 300 km 

of the facility. However, this modeling 

was based on the installed control 

technology at the time and does not 

reflect emission reductions due to the 

installation of consent decree 25

controls. Revised modeling performed 

by NMED and by us, including controls 

required by the consent decree and 

currently installed, further confirmed 

that SJGS still causes visibility 

impairment at more than half of the 

Class I areas in the vicinity of the 

facility and contributes (above 0.5 

deciviews) to visibility impairment at 

the remaining areas on a facility-wide 

basis. Furthermore, on an individual 

unit basis, all units cause visibility 

impairment at Mesa Verde National 

Park, and cause or contribute to 

visibility impairment at a number of 

other Class I areas.26 Our modeling 

indicates that the visibility impairment 

is primarily dominated by nitrate 

particulates. Therefore, as the WRAP 

screening modeling has previously 

concluded, and further modeling by 

NMED and EPA confirms, even with 

post-consent decree controls on SJGS 

units, the SJGS units 1, 2, 3, and 4 still 

have a significant impact at surrounding 

Class I areas. Consequently, we propose 

to approve NMED’s subject-to-BART 

determination and find that units 1, 2, 

3, and 4 of the SJGS are the only New 

Mexico sources subject to BART. 

3. BART Determination for SJGS 

The third step of a BART evaluation 

is to perform the BART analysis. The 

BART Guidelines 27 describe the BART 

analysis as consisting of the following 

five basic steps: 

• Step 1: Identify All Available 

Retrofit Control Technologies, 

• Step 2: Eliminate Technically 

Infeasible Options, 

• Step 3: Evaluate Control 

Effectiveness of Remaining Control 

Technologies, 

• Step 4: Evaluate Impacts and 

Document the Results, and 

• Step 5: Evaluate Visibility Impacts. 

The SJGS consists of four (4) coalfired generating units and associated 

support facilities. Each coal-fired unit 

burns pulverized coal and No. 2 diesel 

oil (for startup) in a boiler, and produces 

high-pressure steam which powers a 

steam turbine coupled with an electric 

generator. Electric power produced by 

the units is supplied to the electric 

power grid for sale. Coal for the units is 

supplied by the adjacent San Juan Mine 

and is delivered to the facility by 

conveyor. Units 1 and 2 have a unit 

capacity of 350 and 360 MW, 

respectively. Units 3 and 4 each have a 

unit capacity of 544 MW. 

In June, 2007, the operator of the 

SJGS, Public Service Company of New 

Mexico (PNM) submitted its PM and 

NOX BART evaluation to NMED. That 

evaluation was revised multiple times to 

incorporate additional visibility 

modeling analyses, control technology 

considerations, and cost analyses.28

NMED’s final evaluation of this BART 

determination for NOX and PM is 

available in Chapter 10 and Appendix D 

of the NM RH 309(g) SIP submittal. Our 

evaluation and proposal for action only 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 116 / Friday, June 15, 2012 / Proposed Rules 36063 

29Public Service Company of New Mexico, San 

Juan Generating Station Final particulate matter 

BART analysis, PNM (August 28, 2008). 

30U.S. EPA, EPA Air Pollution Control Cost 

Manual, Report EPA/452/B–02–001, 6th Ed., 

January 2002 (‘‘Cost Manual’’), The EPA Air 

Pollution Control Cost Manual is the current name 

for what was previously known as the OAQPS 

Control Cost Manual, the name for the Cost Manual 

in previous (pre-2002) editions of the Cost Manual. 

31 In order to maintain and improve consistency, 

cost estimates should be based on the OAQPS 

Control Cost Manual, where possible. 70 FR 39104, 

39166 (2005). 

32There may be other deficiencies in New 

Mexico’s cost evaluation of PM BART for the SJGS, 

but we take no position on them, as they are moot 

in light of the potential visibility benefits versus the 

order of any possible magnitude adjustment in New 

Mexico’s cost analysis. 

33The proposed FIP, the TSD, and the Final Rule 

are added to the docket for this rule making and are 

also available in the docket to our FIP (Docket No. 

EPA–R06–OAR–2010–0846). 

34Summary and Discussion of 1996 Through 

2018 Mobile Source Emissions Inventories. 

Technical Memo from Tom Moore to Mobile 

Sources Forum. November 26, 2002.; Final Report: 

Development of WRAP Mobile Source Emission 

Inventories, ENVIRON, Feb. 9, 2004. 

35WRAP Regional Technical Support Document 

for the Requirements of § 309 of the Regional Haze 

Rule (64 FR 35714–July 1, 1999) revised May 7, 

2008. 

36 Detailed information on the emission inventory 

is contained in the ENVIRON Report WRAP Mobile 

Source Emission Inventories Update, May 2006. 

concerns the PM BART determination. 

As discussed above, BART requirements 

for SO2 are met through New Mexico’s 

participation in a SO2 milestone 

emissions and backstop trading 

program. As also discussed above, we 

are not proposing action on the 

submitted NOX BART determination for 

the San Juan Generating Station. The 

NOX BART requirement for the source 

is presently satisfied by the BART 

determination that is effective under the 

federal implementation plan at 40 CFR 

52.1628. We will propose action on the 

submitted NOX BART determination for 

San Juan Generating Station through a 

future, separate proposal, unless the 

state of New Mexico earlier withdraws 

it in favor of an alternative that it may 

develop through discussions with the 

source and EPA. 

a. New Mexico’s PM BART 

Determination 

The SJGS currently has pulse jet 

fabric filters installed and an emission 

limit of 0.015 lb/MMBtu PM. PNM 

identified flue gas conditioning with hot 

side electrostatic precipitator (ESP), 

pulse jet fabric filter (PJFF), compact 

hybrid particulate collector, and max-9 

electrostatic fabric filter as available 

controls for PM at SJGS. At NMED’s 

request, PNM also identified wet ESP 

(WESP). 

Hot-side ESP and compact hybrid 

particulate collector were eliminated 

because these technologies were 

determined to not provide control 

performance lower than the currently 

permitted limit for PM. The max-9 

electrostatic fabric filter was also 

eliminated due to limited application in 

large utility boilers. WESP and PJFF 

were determined to be technically 

feasible and were evaluated in PNM’s 

BART analysis for PM.29 PNM 

determined that PJFF and WESP are 

capable of achieving emission limits of 

0.015 lb/MMBtu PM and 0.010 lb/ 

MMBtu PM, respectively. PNM then 

evaluated the impacts, including costs 

of compliance, energy impacts, non-air 

quality impacts, and the remaining 

useful life, of operating WESP in 

addition to the existing PJFF. PNM’s 

evaluation considered auxiliary power 

consumption, additional water 

consumption, and waste water disposal 

requirements, as well as cost. The 

installation of WESP was estimated to 

reduce emissions of PM by 69 tons per 

year (tpy) each for Units 1 and 2, 107 

tpy for Unit 3 and 105 tpy at Unit 4. The 

addition of WESP was determined by 

PNM and evaluated by NMED to have 

a cost-effectiveness ranging from about 

$145,000 to $173,000 per ton of PM 

removed for each unit. PNM then 

performed modeling to investigate the 

visibility impacts. Based on their fivefactor analysis, NMED concluded that 

BART for units 1–4 for PM is the 

existing PJFF and the existing emission 

limit of 0.015 lb/MMBtu. 

b. Our Evaluation of New Mexico’s PM 

BART Determination 

We have determined that PNM 

overestimated the cost of WESP because 

PNM did not follow the EPA Air 

Pollution Control Cost Manual,30 where 

possible, as directed by the BART 

Guidelines.31 For example, PNM’s cost 

analysis includes costs not allowed 

under EPA’s Cost Manual methodology, 

such as Allowance for Funds Used 

During Construction (AFUDC).32 PNM’s 

visibility analysis shows a maximum 

visibility improvement of 0.62 dv from 

WESP being installed on all four units 

at Mesa Verde and 0.14 dv improvement 

at San Pedro Parks. Visibility benefits at 

other Class I areas are below 0.1 dv. As 

discussed in detail in the FIP and 

accompanying TSD,33 we identified 

inconsistencies between PNM’s 

modeling and EPA guidance. In our 

evaluation of NMED’s PM BART 

determination we considered these 

deviations from EPA guidance for cost 

estimates and visibility impact analysis. 

We note that some visibility benefit is 

anticipated at Mesa Verde through the 

installation of WESP at SJGS. However, 

given the high anticipated cost on a $/ 

ton removed basis for WESP at SJGS, 

even if we corrected the cost estimate to 

be consistent with EPA guidance, we 

believe the cost of installation and 

operation of WESP would not be costeffective. Therefore, we propose to 

approve NMED’s PM BART 

determination for the SJGS that PM 

BART is satisfied by the existing PJFF 

and the existing emission limit of 0.015 

lb/MMBtu. 

G. Mobile Sources 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(5)(i), 

New Mexico, in collaboration with the 

WRAP, assembled a comprehensive 

statewide inventory of mobile source 

emissions that was included in the RH 

309 SIP submittal. The inventory 

included on-road and non-road mobile 

source emissions inventories for 

Western states for the time period 1996 

through 2018, inventorying 1996, and 

then projecting 2003, 2008, 2013, and 

2018.34 These inventories for New 

Mexico are summarized in Tables D–1 

and D–2 of the NM RH 309 SIP and 

described in Chapter 5 of the WRAP 

TSD.35 Mobile source emissions (onroad and non-road) are projected to be 

at their lowest level within New Mexico 

at the end of the planning period, 

primarily due to on-road vehicle 

emission and fuel standards by the EPA, 

with the exception of SO2. 

An emission inventory update was 

also done for a 2002 base year and 

emission projections for the years 2008, 

2013, and 2018.36 The inventory shows 

a continuous decline in emissions from 

mobile sources from VOC, NOX, PM2.5, 

elemental carbon (EC), and organic 

carbon (OC) emissions over the period 

of 2002–2018. Per 40 CFR 

51.309(d)(5)(i)(A), the inventories show 

a decline in mobile source emissions 

and therefore no further action is 

required by New Mexico to address 

mobile source emissions. 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(5)(i)(B), 

the State will submit a SIP revision no 

later than December 31, 2013, 

containing any long-term strategies 

necessary to reduce SO2 emissions from 

non-road mobile sources consistent with 

the goal of reasonable progress if 

necessary based on consideration of the 

emission reductions achieved by 

Federal standards. We note the updated 

available emission inventory projections 

show that there will be a 99 percent 

decrease in SO2 emissions from nonroad mobile sources for 2002–2018. The 

reduction will result from compliance 

with EPA’s rule titled Control of 

Emissions of Air Pollution from NonVerDate Mar<15>2010 17:08 Jun 14, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM 15JNP2

srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
36064 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 116 / Friday, June 15, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

37 Ventilation category is a classification that 

describes the potential for smoke to ventilate away 

from its source. The classification (Excellent, Very 

Good, Good, Fair, Poor) is determined by 

multiplying the mixing height in feet by the 

transport winds in knots, thus providing the 

ventilation category in knot-feet. The ventilation 

category can be found in the National Weather 

Service’s Fire Weather Forecast, which is the State 

approved source for this information. 

road Diesel Engines and Fuel. 69 FR 

38958 (June 29, 2004). A 99 percent 

reduction in SO2 from non-road mobile 

sources is consistent with the goal of 

reasonable progress and no other longterm strategies are necessary to address 

SO2 emissions from non-road mobile 

sources at this time. Pursuant to 40 CFR 

51.309(d)(5)(ii), the State will submit 

interim reports to EPA in 2013 and 2018 

on the implementation of regional and 

local recommendations from the GCVTC 

report pertaining to mobile sources. 

New Mexico will include these reports 

as part of the reports required by 40 CFR 

51.309(d)(10). We propose to determine 

the RH 309 SIP submittal satisfies the 

requirements of 51 CFR 51.309(d)(5). 

H. Programs Related to Fire 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6)(i), 

the NM RH 309 SIP must provide for an 

evaluation of how its SIP meets the 

‘‘Programs related to fire’’ requirements. 

Based on our review of Section E of the 

309 SIP, we propose to find that the 

submittal meets the 309(d)(6) 

requirements as discussed in detail 

below. We also propose approval of 

20.2.65 NMAC, Smoke Management, 

and revisions to 20.2.60 NMAC, Open 

Burning, both submitted on December 1, 

2003. The 2003 submittal of 20.2.60 

NMAC replaces the state’s Open 

Burning that we previously approved as 

part of the New Mexico SIP at 62 FR 

50514 (September 26, 1997). By 

proposing to approve the 2003 

submittal, we are proposing to repeal 

from the New Mexico SIP the earlier 

version of the Open Burning Rule. 

1. Evaluation of Current Fire Programs 

The State’s submittal meets 

51.309(d)(6)(i) as it demonstrates how 

its smoke management program and all 

federal or private programs for 

prescribed fire in New Mexico have a 

mechanism in place for evaluating and 

addressing the degree of visibility 

impairment from smoke in their 

planning and application of burning. 

New Mexico has adopted 20.2.65 NMAC 

to meet regional haze rule requirements. 

New Mexico has also submitted 

revisions to 20.2.60 NMAC as a SIP 

revision. See submittals at the EPA 

docket identified No. EPA–R06–OAR– 

2009–0050. We note that 20.2.60 

NMAC, the rule for Open Burning, is 

not strictly related to the satisfaction of 

regional haze requirements. We first 

approved the State’s open burning 

regulation (20.2.60 NMAC) into the SIP 

on September 26, 1997 at 62 FR 50518, 

and we propose to approve the 

submitted 20.2.60 NMAC as improving 

the SIP. Because this new open burning 

rule is an improvement over the SIP 

open burning rule, we also are 

proposing to remove from the SIP, the 

previously approved open burning rule. 

Among other things, 20.2.60 NMAC 

adds new restrictions on the burning of 

household waste. A more detailed 

discussion of our proposed approval of 

the Smoke Management rule and Open 

Burning rule can be found in Appendix 

B of the Technical Support Document 

(TSD) that accompanies this notice. 

We propose to find that the NM RH 

309 SIP submittal and the companion 

rules meet the specific additional 

requirements of 309(d)(6)(i) which 

address: (a) Actions to minimize 

emissions, (b) evaluation of smoke 

dispersion, (c) alternatives to fire, (d) 

public notification, (e) air quality 

monitoring, (f) surveillance and 

enforcement, and (g) program 

evaluation. These are discussed below. 

a. Actions To Minimize Emissions 

In order to minimize emissions, New 

Mexico’s RH 309 SIP relies on the use 

of emission reduction techniques by 

burners. Any techniques used in 

conjunction with burning that reduce 

the actual amount of emissions 

produced from a planned burn project 

are considered emission reduction 

techniques. The Smoke Management 

Rule submittal requires land managers 

burning SMP–II burns (burn projects 

that emit greater than or equal to one 

ton of PM10 emissions per day) to use 

at a minimum one emission reduction 

technique for each planned burn 

project. See 20.2.65.103.C NMAC. SMP– 

II burners will indicate on the required 

form which emission reduction 

techniques are being utilized for each 

planned burn project. We propose to 

find that these portions of the Smoke 

Management rule meet the requirement 

to address actions to minimize 

emissions. 

b. Evaluation of Smoke Dispersion 

The Smoke Management Rule only 

allows SMP–I burns (burn projects that 

emit less than one ton per day of PM10

emissions) to be ignited during daytime 

hours when the ventilation index 

category is rated ‘‘Good’’ or better. See 

20.2.65.102.A(2)(a) NMAC. To comply 

with this requirement, the burner must 

conduct visual monitoring and 

document the results in writing. For 

burns within 1 mile of a population, the 

burner must notify the department at 

least two business days in advance and 

NMED may choose to conduct 

instrument monitoring. See 

20.2.65.102.A(2)(b). 

For SMP–II burns, the Smoke 

Management rule provides the burner 

can ignite a planned burn project only 

during times when the ventilation 

category is ‘‘Good’’ or better,37 and must 

notify the public at least two days prior 

to the burn. See 20.2.65.103.D. The 

burner must conduct visual monitoring 

and document the results in writing. 

NMED may choose to conduct 

instrument monitoring in addition to 

visual monitoring. See 20.2.65.103.J.(1). 

We propose to find that these portions 

of the Smoke Management rule meet the 

requirement for evaluation of smoke 

dispersion. 

c. Alternatives to Fire 

The NM RH 309 SIP requires, through 

the Smoke Management Rule, that for 

burns exceeding 1 ton PM10 emissions 

per day, burners must consider the use 

of alternatives to burning. See 

20.2.65.103.B and C. Burners must then 

document that the use of alternatives to 

burning was considered prior to the 

decision to utilize fire. The 

documentation includes citing the 

feasibility criterion that prevented the 

use of alternatives. This documentation 

must be included on the registration 

form provided by the NMED. The 

burner must maintain all records of 

actions and maintain such records for a 

minimum of one year. See 

20.2.65.103.K. We propose to find that 

these portions of the Smoke 

Management Rule meet the requirement 

to consider alternatives to fire. 

d. Public Notification 

To meet the public notification 

requirements, the Smoke Management 

rule contains requirements for public 

notice for burn projects planned in 

proximity to population. For example, 

20.2.65.102.E requires for SMP–I burns, 

that burners notify the populations that 

are located with one mile of the planned 

burn project. The burner must conduct 

public notification no sooner than 30 

days and no later than two days in 

advance of the ignition of the planned 

burn project. In addition, under 

20.2.65.102.B, the burner must notify 

the local fire authorities prior to igniting 

a burn and register the burn project with 

NMED. For SMP–II burns, the 

20.2.65.103.J requires that burners 

notify the populations within 15 miles 

of the planned burn project. The burner 

must conduct public notification no 

sooner than 30 days and no later than 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 116 / Friday, June 15, 2012 / Proposed Rules 36065 

two days in advance of the ignition of 

the planned burn project. In addition, 

the burner will also notify the local fire 

authorities prior to igniting a burn and 

register the burn project with NMED 

under 20.2.65.103.F. We propose to find 

that these portions of the Smoke 

Management rule meet the requirement 

to address notification of the public. 

e. Air Quality Monitoring 

To address air quality monitoring, the 

Smoke Management rule requires that 

SMP–I and SMP–II burners conduct and 

document visual monitoring on all 

planned burn projects under 

20.2.65.102.A(2)(b) and 20.2.65.103.E. 

The use of monitoring equipment will 

be based on the planned burn project’s 

proximity to a population, 

nonattainment area, or Class I area and 

will be determined on a case-by-case 

basis by NMED. We propose to find that 

this portion of the Smoke Management 

rule meets this requirement. 

f. Surveillance and Enforcement 

To address surveillance and 

enforcement requirements, 20.2.65 

NMAC requires that the permittee 

submit reports and burn project tracking 

forms to the NMED on SMP–I and SMP– 

II burns. See 20.2.65.102D NMAC and 

20.2.65.103I NMAC. The New Mexico 

Air Quality Control Act, NMSA 1978 

Chapter 74, Article 2 authorizes 

enforcement actions and the assessment 

of civil penalties for violations. Section 

E of the State’s submittal contains a 

more detailed explanation of the 

existing procedures in place to address 

this. We propose to find that the current 

SIP and the State’s enforcement 

mechanisms meet this requirement. 

g. Program Evaluation 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6)(i), 

the RH SIP submittal also contains an 

evaluation of whether its smoke 

management program and these 

prescribed fire smoke management 

programs contain the following 

elements: actions to minimize 

emissions; evaluation of smoke 

dispersion; alternatives to fire; public 

notification; air quality monitoring; 

surveillance and enforcement; and 

program evaluation. The SIP at Section 

E and Appendix E–1 describe the results 

of these evaluations in detail. For 

example, NMED, in its RH 309 SIP, 

commits to hosting an annual meeting 

with all burners and interested 

stakeholders to assess the adequacy of 

the design, impact, and implementation 

of the program. These program 

evaluations will be used to revise and 

improve the smoke management plan, 

as needed. The State also commits to 

review gathered data with stakeholders 

on an annual basis that will serve to 

establish annual emissions goals. In 

addition, that State has adopted a 

Smoke Management regulation at 

20.2.65 NMAC that serves as the 

foundation of the smoke management 

plan, which the NMED administers and 

enforces. We propose to find that the 

New Mexico RH SIP submittal meets the 

requirement for program evaluation 

under 51.309(d)(6)(i). 

2. Inventory and Tracking System 

We propose to find the RH 309 SIP 

meets the requirements of 40 CFR 

51.309(d)(6)(ii) for fire emissions 

inventorying and tracking. Pursuant to 

40 CFR 51.309(d)(6)(ii), States must 

include in their section 309 plan a 

statewide process for gathering the 

essential post-burn activity information 

to support emissions inventory and 

tracking systems. The SIP submittal 

provides for a host of inventory and 

tracking measures that we believe meet 

the 309(d)(6)(ii) requirement. For 

example, the State follows the WRAP’s 

guidance, ‘‘Fire Tracking System 

Policy,’’ on establishing an adequate 

system for tracking and emissions 

inventory of the following pollutants: 

VOC, NOx, elemental carbon, organic 

carbon, and fine particulate for fire 

sources within New Mexico. The SIP 

follows the WRAP’s policies on 

emission inventory and tracking 

requirements that can be found in 

section E (c) and Appendix M–2, and 

Appendix E–6 of the state’s submittal. 

In order to maintain the emission 

inventory, 20.2.65.102.D and 

20.2.65.103.I NMAC requires the 

burners to complete and submit to the 

NMED a burn project tracking form 

within two weeks after completion of 

the burn activity to report on emissions 

from their burns including quantitative 

information regarding fuel types, fuel 

consumption, and type of burn. We are 

proposing to determine that the RH SIP 

submittal and the submitted Smoke 

Management rule meet these 

requirements. 

3. Identification and Removal of 

Administrative Barriers 

We propose to find that the NM RH 

309 SIP submittal meets the 40 CFR 

51.309(d)(6)(iii) requirements to address 

administrative barriers to facilitate 

alternatives to burning. Section E(d) and 

Appendix E–2 of the state’s RH 309 SIP, 

describe the process the NMED commits 

to undertake to address this 

requirement. 

In section E(d) of the SIP, the State 

commits to working with key public and 

private entities to identify and remove 

administrative barriers to the use of 

alternatives to burning for prescribed 

fire on federal, State, and private lands, 

pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6)(iii). 

The process is collaborative and 

provides for continuing identification 

and removal of administrative barriers, 

and considers economic, safety, 

technical and environmental feasibility 

criteria, and land management 

objectives. The State relied on Nonburning Alternatives for Vegetation and 

Fuel Management, and Burning 

Management Alternatives on 

Agricultural Lands in the Western 

United States developed by the WRAP 

for non-burning alternatives and 

methods to assess their applicability. 

Should New Mexico determine that an 

administrative barrier exists, the State 

will work collaboratively with the 

appropriate public and private entities 

to evaluate the administrative barrier, 

identify the steps necessary to remove 

the administrative barrier, and initiate 

the removal of the administrative 

barrier, where it is feasible to do so. For 

example, NMED is committed to review 

the registration forms required for burns 

conducted under SMP II that requires 

burners to identify why alternatives to 

burning have not been used. The State 

commits to collect this data and analyze 

it to determine whether administrative 

barriers to the use of alternatives exist. 

The state commits to evaluate this 

information at the annual program 

evaluation meeting to be held each year 

in January with all burners. Should it be 

determined that a specific 

administrative barrier exists, New 

Mexico will contact the appropriate 

agency to determine how this barrier 

may be removed and will work 

collaboratively with the agency and the 

burners to remove the barrier. We 

accordingly, believe the requirement to 

address administrative barriers is 

satisfied. 

4. Enhanced Smoke Management 

Program 

We propose to find the submitted RH 

309 SIP provides enhanced smoke 

management programs to meet the 

requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6)(iv). 

The smoke management programs that 

operate within the State are consistent 

with the WRAP Policy on Enhanced 

Smoke Management Programs for 

Visibility (WRAP ESMP). A copy of this 

policy can be found in the Appendix E– 

4 of the NM RH 309 SIP. This policy 

calls for programs to be based on the 

criteria of efficiency, economics, law, 

emission reduction opportunities, land 

management objectives, and reduction 

of visibility impacts. The intent of the 

WRAP ESMP is to assist states to 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
36066 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 116 / Friday, June 15, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

38WRAP Regional Technical Support Document 

for the Requirements of § 309 of the Regional Haze 

Rule (64 Federal Register 35714–July 1, 1999) 

revised May 7, 2008. 

address visibility effects associated with 

fire in a way that is adequate for a SIP. 

Appendix E–1 of the NM RH 309 SIP 

explains how the smoke management 

program in New Mexico meets the 

Enhanced Smoke Management Program 

(ESMP) policy and the Regional Haze 

Rule (RHR) requirements. The RH 309 

SIP submittal and the submitted Smoke 

Management rule meet the requirements 

as described above. 

5. Annual Emission Goal 

We propose to find the submitted RH 

309 SIP satisfies the requirements of 40 

CFR 51.309(d)(6)(v) for ‘‘annual 

emission goals for fire, excluding 

wildfire.’’ In its RH 309 SIP, the state 

commits to minimizing emission 

increases in fire through the use of 

annual emission goals using the policies 

set out by Western Regional Air 

Partnership Policy on Annual Emission 

Goals for Fire. A copy of this policy can 

be found in the Appendix E–5 of the 

NM RH 309 SIP. The State will use a 

collaborative mechanism for setting 

annual emission goals and developing a 

process for tracking their attainment on 

a yearly basis. New Mexico will rely on 

emission reduction techniques (ERT), 

where appropriate, to minimize 

emission increases in fire within the 

State. The State will quantify the ERTs 

that are being used within New Mexico 

on a project-specific basis to reduce the 

total amount of emissions being 

generated from areas where prescribed 

fire is being used. 20.2.65 NMAC, 

requires the use of at least one ERT for 

all prescribed fires with emissions 

exceeding one ton of PM10 per day. 

Based on our review of Section E and 

Appendix E of the state’s RH 309 

submittal, we propose to find the 

submitted SIP meets the 309(d)(6)(v) 

requirements. We also propose approval 

of the state’s Smoke Management and 

Open Burning rules submitted to us on 

December 1, 2003. 

I. Paved and Unpaved Road Dust 

To meet the requirements of 40 CFR 

51.309(d)(7), the submitted RH 309 SIP 

relies on the assessment WRAP 

performed on the impact of dust 

emissions from paved and unpaved 

roads on the 16 Class I areas of the 

Colorado Plateau. The WRAP modeled 

and calculated the significance of road 

dust in terms of the impact on visibility 

on the worst 20 percent days. The 

modeled regional impact of road dust 

emissions ranged from 0.31 deciviews at 

the Black Canyon of the Gunnison 

National Park to 0.08 deciviews at the 

Weminuche Wilderness Area. For more 

information on the WRAP modeling and 

assessment of road dust impacts see 

Appendix F of the NM RH 309 SIP 

submittal and Chapter 7 of the WRAP 

TSD.38 Based on the WRAP modeling, 

the State has concluded in section F of 

the SIP that road dust is not a significant 

contributor to visibility impairment in 

the 16 Class I areas. We propose to agree 

that road dust is not a significant 

contributor to visibility impairment in 

the 16 Class I areas. Since the State has 

found that road dust is not a significant 

contributor to visibility impairment, 

there is no need to include road dust 

control strategies in the SIP pursuant to 

40 CFR 51.309(d)(7). The State will 

track road dust emissions with the 

assistance of the WRAP and provide an 

update on paved and unpaved road dust 

emission trends, including any 

modeling or monitoring information 

regarding the impact of these emissions 

on visibility in the 16 Colorado Plateau 

Class I Areas. A description of the road 

dust emission tracking program is 

included in Appendix M–3 of the NM 

RH 309 SIP. These updates will include 

a reevaluation of whether road dust is 

a significant contributor to visibility 

impairment. These updates shall be part 

of the periodic implementation plan 

revisions pursuant to 40 CFR 

51.309(d)(10). We propose to determine 

the submitted RH 309 SIP satisfies 40 

CFR 51.309(d)(7). 

J. Pollution Prevention 

Under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(8), states 

must provide information on renewable 

energy and other pollution prevention 

efforts in the state. 40 CFR 51.309(d)(8) 

does not require states to adopt any new 

measures or regulations. We propose to 

find the information New Mexico 

provided in the RH 309 SIP submittal 

adequate to meet the requirements of 40 

CFR 51.309(d)(8) as discussed below. 

1. Description of Existing Pollution 

Prevention Program 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(8)(i), 

Tables G–1 through G–3 of the NM RH 

309 SIP submittal summarize all 

pollution prevention programs currently 

in place in New Mexico (as of 2002). 

Appendix G summarizes all renewable 

energy capacity and production in use 

or planned in the State as of 2002, the 

total energy generation capacity and 

production in the State and the percent 

of that total that is renewable. 

2. Incentive Programs 

Per 40 CFR 51.309(d)(8)(ii), Table G– 

6 of the RH 309 SIP submittal identifies 

incentive programs in the State of New 

Mexico that reward efforts for early 

compliance or to go beyond compliance 

with air pollution related requirements. 

Table G–6 lists the Green Zia 

Environmental Excellence Program that 

encourages establishment of preventionbased environmental management 

systems. The 309 regional SO2 backstop 

trading program allows for early 

reduction credits. Sources of SO2

subject to the trading program that 

reduce emissions prior to the program 

trigger date shall receive early reduction 

bonus allocations (20.2.81.104E NMAC). 

The source may use such allowances for 

compliance purposes or may sell them 

to other parties. 

3. Programs To Preserve and Expand 

Energy Conservation Efforts 

Per 40 CFR 51.309(d)(8)(iii), Tables 

G–1 through G–5 of the NM RH 309 SIP 

submittal discuss the policies and 

programs within the State of New 

Mexico that preserve and expand energy 

conservation efforts and renewable 

energy. 

4. Potential for Renewable Energy 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(8)(iv), 

the RH 309 SIP submittal contains an 

assessment of areas where there is the 

potential for renewable energy to supply 

power in a cost effective manner. 

Appendix G of the submitted RH 309 

SIP summarizes the potential for 

renewable energy development in New 

Mexico. 

5. Projections of Renewable Energy 

Goals, Energy Efficiency, and Pollution 

Prevention Activities 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(8)(v), 

the submitted RH 309 SIP uses 

projections made by the WRAP of the 

short and long-term emissions 

reductions, visibility improvements, 

cost savings, and secondary benefits 

associated with renewable energy goals, 

energy efficiency, and pollution 

prevention activities. (A complete 

description of these projections can be 

found in Appendix G of the NM RH 309 

SIP.) The NM RH 309 SIP provides 

overall projections of visibility 

improvements for the 16 Class I areas 

(Table 2). These projections include the 

combined effects of all measures in this 

SIP, including air pollution prevention 

programs. Although emission 

reductions and visibility improvements 

from air-pollution prevention programs 

are expected at some level, they were 

not explicitly calculated because the 

resolution of the regional air quality 

modeling system is not currently 

sufficient to show any significant 

visibility changes resulting from the 

marginal nitrogen oxide emission 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 116 / Friday, June 15, 2012 / Proposed Rules 36067 

39Recommendations for Improving Western 

Vistas, Report of the Grand Canyon Visibility 

Transport Commission to the EPA, June 1996. 

Available at: http://www.wrapair.org/WRAP/ 

reports/GCVTCFinal.PDF. 

expected from air pollution prevention 

programs. 

6. Programs To Achieve GCVTC 

Renewable Energy Goal 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(8)(vi), 

the submitted RH 309 SIP indicates the 

State will rely on current renewable 

energy programs as described in G–1 

through G–5 and Appendix G of the SIP 

submittal to demonstrate progress in 

achieving the renewable energy goal of 

the GCVTC. The GCVTC’s goal is that 

that renewable energy will comprise 10 

percent of the regional power needs by 

2005 and 20 percent by 2015. New 

Mexico will submit progress reports in 

2013 and 2018, describing New 

Mexico’s contribution toward meeting 

the GCVTC renewable energy goals. To 

the extent that it is not feasible for New 

Mexico to meet its contribution to these 

goals, the State will identify what 

measures were implemented to achieve 

its contribution, and explain why 

meeting its contribution was not 

feasible. 

K. Additional Recommendations 

As part of the 1996 GCVTC report to 

EPA, Recommendations for Improving 

Western Vistas,39 the Commission 

included additional recommendations 

that EPA did not adopt as part of 40 CFR 

51.309. Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(9), 

the submitted RH 309 SIP has an 

evaluation of the additional 

recommendations of the GCVTC to 

determine if any of these 

recommendations could be practicably 

included in the SIP. The RH 309 SIP 

includes the determination that no 

additional measures were practicable or 

necessary to demonstrate reasonable 

progress in the SIP. Pursuant to 40 CFR 

51.309(d)(9), the State will submit to 

EPA a progress report in 2013 and 2018 

on the progress toward developing and 

implementing policy or strategy options 

recommended in the Commission 

report. We propose to determine the RH 

309 SIP submittal meets the 

requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(9). 

L. Periodic Implementation Plan 

Revisions 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i), 

section I of the NM RH 309 SIP 

submittal requires the State to submit to 

EPA, as a SIP revision, periodic progress 

reports for the years 2013 and 2018. 

New Mexico will assess whether current 

programs are achieving reasonable 

progress in Class I areas that are affected 

by emissions from New Mexico sources. 

New Mexico will address the elements 

listed under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(A) 

through (G) in the progress reports. 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(ii), 

the RH 309 SIP submittal provides that 

the state will take one of the following 

actions based upon information 

contained in each periodic progress 

report. The State will provide a negative 

declaration statement to EPA saying that 

no SIP revision is needed if New Mexico 

determines reasonable progress is being 

achieved. If New Mexico finds that the 

SIP is inadequate to ensure reasonable 

progress due to emissions from outside 

New Mexico, the State will notify EPA 

and the contributing state(s), and 

initiate efforts through a regional 

planning process to address the 

emissions in question. If New Mexico 

finds that the SIP is inadequate to 

ensure reasonable progress due to 

emissions from another country, New 

Mexico will notify EPA and provide 

information on the impairment being 

caused by these emissions. If New 

Mexico finds that the SIP is inadequate 

to ensure reasonable progress due to 

emissions from within the State, New 

Mexico will develop emission reduction 

strategies to address the emissions and 

revise the SIP no later than one year 

from the date that the progress report 

was due. We propose to determine the 

RH 309 SIP submittal adequately 

addresses the requirements of 40 CFR 

51.309(d)(10) for future progress reports. 

M. Interstate Coordination 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(11), the 

State has participated in regional 

planning and coordination with other 

states by participating in the WRAP, and 

participating in interstate coordination 

efforts with the City of AlbuquerqueBernalillo County while developing its 

emission reduction strategies under 40 

CFR 51.309. The backstop trading 

program in the NM RH 309 SIP 

submittal and companion rules involved 

coordination of the three states 

(Wyoming, Utah, and New Mexico, 

including Albuquerque-Bernalillo 

County) in its development and will 

continue to involve coordination of the 

participants once it is implemented. We 

propose to determine the submitted RH 

309 SIP is consistent with the 40 CFR 

51.309(d)(11). 

N. Additional Class I Areas 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(g), New 

Mexico must demonstrate reasonable 

progress for mandatory Class I Federal 

areas other than the 16 Class I areas 

covered by the GCVTC. With the RH 309 

SIP submittal discussed above, New 

Mexico submitted a separately marked 

‘‘309(g)’’ SIP revision, supported by 

various technical appendices. As 

discussed below, we have evaluated the 

demonstration in the 309(g) SIP 

submittal of the expected visibility 

conditions for the most and least 

impaired days at the additional Class I 

areas based on emission projections 

from the long-term strategies in the 

implementation plan. We have also 

evaluated the provisions establishing 

reasonable progress goals for the 

additional class I areas as required by 40 

CFR 51.309(g)(2), as detailed below. 

These provisions must comply with 40 

CFR 51.308(d)(1) through (4). 

1. Affected Class I Areas 

In accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(d), 

NMED has identified nine Class I areas 

within its borders, Bandelier Wilderness 

Area, Bosque del Apache National 

Wildlife Refuge, Carlsbad Caverns 

National Park, Gila Wilderness, Pecos 

Wilderness, Salt Creek Wilderness, 

Wheeler Peak Wilderness, White 

Mountain Wilderness, and San Pedro 

Parks Wilderness Area. As discussed 

above, the San Pedro Parks Wilderness 

Area is the only Class I area included as 

one of the 16 Class I areas of the 

Colorado Plateau and visibility 

requirements for this area are covered 

under the NM RH 309 SIP submittal 

evaluated in the preceding sections. 

NMED has also determined that New 

Mexico emissions can impact visibility 

at Class I areas outside of New Mexico. 

NMED evaluated the impact of New 

Mexico emissions at Class I areas in 

Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, Utah, Texas 

and Wyoming, based on modeled 

visibility for 2002 and projections of 

visibility in 2018 for the 20% worst 

visibility days focusing on available 

source apportionment modeling data for 

nitrate and sulfate. The modeling results 

for the 2002 base year indicate that New 

Mexico emissions are responsible for up 

to 60% of the nitrate concentrations and 

43% of the sulfate at individual Class I 

areas in neighboring states on the 20% 

worst visibility days. See our TSD that 

accompanies this notice and Chapter 12 

of the NM RH 309(g) SIP for more 

information on New Mexico’s impact at 

specific Class I areas in nearby states. 

We are proposing to find that New 

Mexico has appropriately identified the 

Class I areas within New Mexico and 

the Class I areas outside of New Mexico 

which may be affected by emissions 

from within New Mexico, as required by 

40 CFR 51.308(d). 

2. Determination of Baseline, Natural 

and Current Visibility Conditions 

As required by section 51.308(d)(2)(i) 

of the RHR and consistent with EPA’s 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
36068 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 116 / Friday, June 15, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

40 Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility 

Conditions Under the Regional Haze Rule, EPA– 

454/B–03–005, September 2003. 41Negative deciview values correspond to total 

extinction less than 10 Mm¥1, and can occur in 

areas of high elevation with lower Rayleigh 

Scattering, WHPE1 is located at an elevation of 

11,000 ft. 42The IMPROVE program is a cooperative 

measurement effort governed by a steering 

committee composed of representatives from 

Federal agencies (including representatives from 

EPA and the FLMs) and RPOs. The IMPROVE 

monitoring program was established in 1985 to aid 

the creation of Federal and State implementation 

plans for the protection of visibility in Class I areas. 

One of the objectives of IMPROVE is to identify 

chemical species and emission sources responsible 

for existing anthropogenic visibility impairment. 

The IMPROVE program has also been a key 

participant in visibility-related research, including 

the advancement of monitoring instrumentation, 

analysis techniques, visibility modeling, policy 

formulation and source attribution field studies. 43Natural Haze levels for Class I areas and 

information calculation methodology can be found 

at: http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/Data/ 

IMPROVE/summary_data.htm. 

44Hand, J.L., and Malm, W.C., 2006, Review of 

the IMPROVE Equation for Estimating Ambient 

Light Extinction Coefficients—Final Report. March 

2006. Prepared for Interagency Monitoring of 

Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE), 

Colorado State University, Cooperative Institute for 

Research in the Atmosphere, Fort Collins, Colorado, 

available at http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/ 

publications/GrayLit/016_IMPROVEeqReview/ 

IMPROVEeqReview.htm and Pitchford, Marc., 2006, 

Natural Haze Levels II: Application of the New 

IMPROVE Algorithm to Natural Species 

Concentrations Estimates. Final Report of the 

Natural Haze Levels II Committee to the RPO 

Monitoring/Data Analysis Workgroup. September 

2006, available at http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/ 

improve/Publications/GrayLit/029_NaturalCondII/ 

naturalhazelevelsIIreport.ppt. 

2003 Natural Visibility Guidance,40 the 

RH 309(g) SIP submittal includes 

calculations of the baseline/current and 

natural visibility conditions for the 

additional Class I areas, on the most 

impaired and least impaired days, as 

summarized below (and further 

described in the TSD). The natural 

visibility conditions, baseline visibility 

conditions, and visibility impact 

reductions needed to achieve the 

natural visibility conditions are 

presented in Table 7 and further 

explained in this section. More detail is 

available in Chapter 6 of the NM RH 

309(g) SIP submittal. 

TABLE 7—BASELINE AND NATURAL VISIBILITY CONDITIONS AT NEW MEXICO’S CLASS I AREAS * 

Class I area IMPROVE 

Monitor 

2064 Natural visibility 

conditions 

(dv) 

Baseline visibility 

conditions 

(dv) 

Difference 

(dv) 

20% 

Worst days 

20% 

Best days 

20% 

Worst days 

20% 

Best days 

20% 

Worst days 

20% 

Best days 

Bandelier ............................... BAND1 ............. 6.26 1.29 12.22 4.95 5.96 3.66 

Bosque del Apache ............... BOAP1 ............. 6.73 2.16 13.80 6.28 7.07 4.12 

Carlsbad Caverns ................. GUMO1 ............ 6.65 0.99 17.19 5.95 10.54 4.96 

Gila Wilderness ..................... GICL1 ............... 6.66 0.52 13.11 3.31 6.45 2.79 

Pecos Wilderness, Wheeler 

Park.

WHPE1 ............. 6.08 41¥0.57 10.41 1.22 4.33 1.79 

Salt Creek ............................. SACR1 .............. 6.81 2.12 18.03 7.84 11.22 5.72 

White Mountains ................... WHIT1 .............. 6.8 0.66 13.70 3.55 6.90 2.89 

* Note: Because the San Pedro Parks Wilderness Area is on the Colorado Plateau, it is not subject to the requirements of Section 51.309(g) 

and is therefore missing from this and other tables in this section. Baseline and projected visibility conditions for San Pedro Parks Wilderness 

Area can be found in Table 1. 

a. Estimating Natural Visibility 

Conditions 

Natural background visibility, as 

defined in EPA’s 2003 Natural Visibility 

Guidance, is estimated by calculating 

the expected light extinction using 

default estimates of natural 

concentrations of fine particle 

components adjusted by site-specific 

estimates of humidity. This calculation 

uses the IMPROVE equation, which is a 

formula for estimating light extinction 

from the estimated natural 

concentrations of fine particle 

components (or from components 

measured by the IMPROVE monitors). 

As documented in EPA’s 2003 Natural 

Visibility Guidance, EPA allows states 

to use ‘‘refined’’ or alternative 

approaches to 2003 EPA guidance to 

estimate the values that characterize the 

natural visibility conditions of Class I 

areas. One alternative approach is to 

develop and justify the use of 

alternative estimates of natural 

concentrations of fine particle 

components. Another alternative is to 

use the ‘‘new IMPROVE equation’’ that 

was adopted for use by the IMPROVE 

Steering Committee in December 

2005.42 The purpose of this refinement 

to the ‘‘old IMPROVE equation’’ is to 

provide more accurate estimates of the 

various factors that affect the calculation 

of light extinction. 

NMED opted to use the WRAP 

calculations in which the default 

estimates for the natural conditions 

were combined with the ‘‘new 

IMPROVE equation,’’ for the Class I 

areas in New Mexico. This is an 

acceptable approach under our 2003 

Natural Visibility Guidance. NMED 

used the new IMPROVE equation to 

calculate the ‘‘refined’’ natural visibility 

value for the 20 percent worst days and 

for the 20 percent best days.43 The 

natural conditions for New Mexico’s 

Class I areas are summarized in Table 7, 

above. We have reviewed NMED’s 

estimate of the natural visibility 

conditions and propose to find it 

acceptable using the new IMPROVE 

equation. 

The new IMPROVE equation takes 

into account the most recent review of 

the science 44 and it accounts for the 

effect of particle size distribution on 

light extinction efficiency of sulfate, 

nitrate, and organic carbon. It also 

adjusts the mass multiplier for organic 

carbon (particulate organic matter) by 

increasing it from 1.4 to 1.8. New terms 

are added to the equation to account for 

light extinction by sea salt and light 

absorption by gaseous nitrogen dioxide. 

Site-specific values are used for 

Rayleigh scattering (scattering of light 

due to atmospheric gases) to account for 

the site-specific effects of elevation and 

temperature. Separate relative humidity 

enhancement factors are used for small 

and large size distributions of 

ammonium sulfate and ammonium 

nitrate and for sea salt. The terms for the 

remaining contributors, elemental 

carbon (light-absorbing carbon), fine 

soil, and coarse mass terms, do not 

change between the original and new 

IMPROVE equations. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 116 / Friday, June 15, 2012 / Proposed Rules 36069 

45 Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility 

Conditions Under the Regional Haze Rule, EPA– 

454/B–03–005, September 2003. 

46The amount of light lost as it travels over one 

million meters. The haze index, in units of 

deciviews (dv), is calculated directly from the total 

light extinction, bext expressed in inverse 

megameters (Mm¥1), as follows: HI = 10 ln(bext/10). 

47We provide a more detailed discussion on the 

WRAP modeling in section IV.E.3 below and in 

Technical Support Document for Technical 

Products Prepared by the Western Regional Air 

Partnership (WRAP) in Support of Western Regional 

Haze Plans, EPA Regions 6, 8, 9, and 10, February 

28, 2011, available in the docket as Appendix A to 

the TSD. 

b. Estimating Baseline Visibility 

Conditions 

As required by section 51.308(d)(2)(i) 

of the RHR and consistent with EPA’s 

2003 Natural Visibility Guidance,45 the 

309(g) SIP submittal calculates baseline 

visibility conditions for the eight 

additional Class I areas. The baseline 

condition calculation begins with the 

calculation of light extinction, using the 

IMPROVE equation. The IMPROVE 

equation sums the light extinction 46

resulting from individual pollutants, 

such as sulfates and nitrates. As with 

the natural visibility conditions 

calculation, NMED chose to use the new 

IMPROVE equation. 

The period for establishing baseline 

visibility conditions is 2000–2004, and 

baseline conditions must be calculated 

using available monitoring data. 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(2). NMED calculated the 

baseline conditions at the Class I areas 

on the 20 percent worst days and 20 

percent best days using available 

monitoring data for each Class I area. 

We have reviewed NMED’s estimation 

of baseline visibility conditions and 

propose to find it acceptable. 

c. Natural Visibility Impairment 

To address the requirements of 40 

CFR 51.308(d)(2)(iv)(A), the 309(g) SIP 

submittal also calculated the number of 

deciviews by which baseline conditions 

exceed natural visibility conditions at 

the State’s Class I areas. These results 

are summarized in Table 7. We have 

reviewed NMED’s estimate of the 

natural visibility impairment and 

propose to find it acceptable. 

d. Uniform Rate of Progress 

In setting the RPGs, the 309(g) SIP 

submittal analyzes and determines the 

Uniform Rate of Progress (URP) needed 

to reach natural visibility conditions by 

the year 2064 for the 20% worst days 

(Table 8). In so doing, NMED compared 

the baseline visibility conditions to the 

natural visibility conditions at each 

Class I area within the State (as 

described above) and determined the 

amount of improvement necessary to 

attain natural visibility conditions. The 

uniform rate of progress is calculated as 

the rate of improvement needed to 

attain natural visibility conditions for 

the 20% worst days by 2064 as 

described in Section 6.5 of the NM RH 

309(g) SIP. NMED constructed the 

uniform rate of progress consistent with 

the requirements of the Regional Haze 

Rule and consistent with our 2003 

Tracking Progress Guidance by plotting 

a straight graphical line from the 

baseline level of visibility impairment 

for 2000–2004 to the level of visibility 

conditions representing no 

anthropogenic impairment in 2064 for 

each New Mexico Class I area. The 

uniform rates of progress are 

summarized in Table 8 and further 

described below. We propose to find 

that NMED in its 309(g) SIP submittal 

has appropriately calculated the URP. 

3. Evaluation of New Mexico’s 

Reasonable Progress Goals 

In order to establish reasonable 

progress goals for New Mexico’s Class I 

areas and to determine the controls 

needed for the LTS, New Mexico 

followed the process established in the 

Regional Haze Rule. First, New Mexico 

identified the anticipated visibility 

improvement in 2018 in the New 

Mexico Class I areas using the WRAP 

Community Multi-Scale Air Quality 

(CMAQ) photochemical grid modeling 

results. This modeling identified the 

extent of visibility improvement from 

the baseline by pollutant for each Class 

I area. The modeling relied on projected 

source emission inventories, which 

included enforceable federal and state 

regulations already in place and 

assumptions of BART controls. New 

Mexico, through the WRAP, then 

identified the source categories that are 

major contributors to visibility 

impairment and evaluated controls for 

these sources based on a consideration 

of the factors identified in the CAA and 

EPA’s regulations. See CAA 169A(g)(1) 

and 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A). Based on 

this analysis, the submitted 309(g) SIP 

sets the reasonable progress goals for 

each Class I area and compared the 

reasonable progress goals for each area 

to the 2018 uniform rate of progress. 

• The submitted 309(g) SIP includes 

New Mexico’s analysis and conclusion 

that reasonable progress will be made by 

2018, including an analysis of pollutant 

trends, emission reductions, and 

improvements expected. The reasonable 

progress discussion and analyses are 

included in Chapter 11 of the NM RH 

309(g) SIP. We have evaluated the 

309(g) SIP submittal, and we are 

proposing to approve New Mexico’s 

submitted reasonable progress goals as 

described more fully below. At the 

outset, however, we note that because 

we are not proposing action to approve 

or disapprove the submitted NOX BART 

determination for SJGS, the RPGs are 

evaluated with the understanding that 

NOX BART requirements for that source 

are presently satisfied by the 

requirements of 40 CFR § 52.1628. We 

expect future emission reductions will 

be achieved in compliance with the 

existing Federal implementation plan or 

in compliance with the terms of a 

future-approved NOX BART 

determination for SJGS determined to be 

consistent with RHR requirements. In 

the absence of any proposed action on 

the submitted NOX BART 

determination, we deem the RPGs to be 

approvable, as described more fully 

below. The reductions at the SJGS 

achieved in compliance with the 

existing Federal implementation plan or 

anticipated due to any other futureapproved 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. If the basis for 

evaluation of the RPGs were to change, 

as for example if we were to take final 

action approving or disapproving the 

submitted NOX BART determination for 

SJGS, we recognize that a reevaluation 

of this proposal may be warranted. 

a. WRAP Visibility Modeling 

The primary tool WRAP relied upon 

for modeling regional haze 

improvements by 2018, and for 

estimating New Mexico’s Reasonable 

Progress Goals, was the CMAQ model. 

The CMAQ model was used to estimate 

2018 visibility conditions in New 

Mexico and all Western Class I areas, 

based on application of anticipated 

regional haze strategies in the various 

states’ regional haze plans, including 

some assumed controls on BART 

sources.47

The Regional Modeling Center (RMC) 

at the University of California Riverside 

conducted the CMAQ modeling under 

the oversight of the WRAP Modeling 

Forum. The Regional Modeling Center 

developed air quality modeling inputs 

including annual meteorology and 

emissions inventories for: (1) A 2002 

actual emissions base case, (2) a 

planning case to represent the 2000– 

2004 regional haze baseline period 

using averages for key emissions 

categories, and (3) a 2018 base case of 

projected emissions determined using 

factors known at the end of 2005. All 

emission inventories were spatially and 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
36070 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 116 / Friday, June 15, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

48WRAP Regional Technical Support Document 

for the Requirements of § 309 of the Regional Haze 

Rule (64 Federal Register 35714—July 1, 1999) 

revised May 7, 2008. 49Our review of the technical products developed 

by the WRAP is available as Technical Support 

Document for Technical Products Prepared by the 

Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) in 

Support of Western Regional Haze Plans, Regions 

6, 8, 9, and 10, February 28, 2011, Appendix A to 

the TSD to this action. 

50Supplementary Information for Four Factor 

Analyses by WRAP States, prepared by EC/R 

Incorporated, May 4, 2009 and corrected April 20, 

2010, available as Appendix E to the NM RH 309(g) 

SIP. 

51For example, New Mexico is evaluating and 

testing control strategies for emissions associated 

with oil and gas exploration and production to 

incorporate in future SIP updates. Control options 

for ozone are being evaluated simultaneously and 

the State believes that many co-benefits from 

controlling emissions for ozone will supplement the 

regional haze program. 52Supplementary Information for Four-Factor 

Analyses for Selected Individual Facilities in New 

Mexico, prepared by EC/R Incorporated, May 5, 

2009. Available as Appendix F to the NM RH 309(g) 

SIP. 53NMED Stipulation and Final Order No. AQCA 

02–09 (CO) and No. AQCA 05–22 (CO), August 2, 

2005. 

temporally allocated using the Sparse 

Matrix Operator Kernel Emissions 

(SMOKE) modeling system. Each of 

these inventories underwent a number 

of revisions throughout the 

development process to arrive at the 

final versions used in CMAQ modeling. 

A description of the CMAQ modeling 

performed by WRAP can be found in 

Chapter 9 of the NM RH 309(g) SIP 

submittal (for details on the WRAP 

photochemical modeling refer to the 

WRAP Technical Support Document 48

and our review of the technical products 

developed by the WRAP for the States 

in the western region, in support of their 

RH SIPs 49). A detailed discussion of the 

emission inventories and modeling is 

also included in a subsequent section on 

long term strategy. 

b. NMED’s Reasonable Progress ‘‘Four 

Factor’’ Analysis 

Sections 51.309(g) and 

51.308(d)(1)(i)(A) require that in 

establishing a reasonable progress goal 

for any mandatory Class I Federal area 

within the State, the State must: 

consider the costs of compliance, the 

time necessary for compliance, the 

energy and non-air quality 

environmental impacts of compliance, 

and the remaining useful life of any 

potentially affected sources, and include 

a demonstration showing how these 

factors were taken into consideration in 

selecting the goal. The four factor 

analysis is used to identify and evaluate 

potential emission control strategies for 

facilities. For SO2, the State of New 

Mexico has addressed visibility 

impairment associated with this 

pollutant under the separate 309 SIP 

submitted to EPA and evaluated above. 

New Mexico’s participation in the SO2

emissions milestone and backstop 

trading program will result in 

reductions in SO2 emissions. To 

evaluate any additional measures 

necessary to demonstrate reasonable 

progress, NMED relied on an analysis 

prepared for the WRAP for specific 

source types throughout the WRAP 

states.50 The WRAP identified 

reciprocal internal combustion engines 

and turbines, oil and gas exploration 

and production field operations, natural 

gas processing operations, industrial 

boilers, cement kilns, sulfuric acid 

manufacturing plants, pulp and paper 

lime kilns, and oil refineries as the 

major emission sources in the WRAP 

states to analyze for potential controls 

under the four factor analysis. NMED 

did not identify any additional 

reductions in their evaluation of the 

WRAP analysis. In the RH 309(g) SIP 

submittal, NMED commits to conduct 

further research to evaluate non-BART 

sources for possible emission controls 

and retrofits for the next Plan update in 

2013.51

NMED also requested an additional 

analysis be done on specific sources in 

New Mexico.52 This analysis included 

evaluation of selected sources at 3 

petroleum refineries in New Mexico, (1) 

Navajo Refining Co., Artesia Refinery— 

Fluid Catalytic Cracking Unit (FCCU) 

#1, catalyst regeneration and process 

heater, (2) Western Refining Southwest, 

Bloomfield Refinery—FCCU #1, catalyst 

regeneration and process heater, and (3) 

Western Refining Southwest, Gallup 

Refinery—CO Boiler Unit #1. After 

evaluation of the four factors (Section 

11.2.3 of the NM RH 309(g) SIP), the 

309(g) SIP submittal includes a 

determination that due to the controls 

currently installed at the FCCU at the 

Artesia Refinery and the low level of 

emissions, additional controls at this 

source are unnecessary at this time. The 

Bloomfield Refinery has been in 

suspended operations since November 

2009. The Bloomfield FCCU is subject to 

NOX and SO2 reductions according to 

the Catalyst Additive Program required 

by an Amended Stipulation and Final 

Order (AFSO) 53 as the result of an 

enforcement action. The 309(g) SIP 

submittal includes a determination that 

additional controls to address regional 

haze are not necessary at this source at 

this time due to the stringent emission 

limits already required by the Catalyst 

Additive Program. The FCCU at the 

Gallup Refinery is also subject to the 

Catalyst Additive Program and was 

required to decrease FCCU NOX to 20 

ppmvd and SO2 to 25 ppmvd (both at 

0% O2) by December 31, 2010. The 

boiler will meet an emission rate of 0.04 

lb/MMBtu after modifications including 

Low-NOX burners. The 309(g) SIP 

submittal includes a determination that 

additional controls at this source to 

address regional haze are unnecessary at 

this time due to the stringent emission 

limits already required by the Catalyst 

Additive Program. 

The submitted 309(g) SIP includes an 

analysis that considered the four 

statutory factors under 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(1)(i)(A) to evaluate the 

potential of controlling certain sources 

or source categories for addressing 

visibility impacts from man-made 

sources within its borders. We propose 

to find that the submitted 309(g) four 

factor analysis meets the requirements 

under 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A). 

c. Establishment of the Reasonable 

Progress Goal 

40 CFR 308(d)(1) of the Regional Haze 

Rule requires States to ‘‘establish goals 

(in deciviews) that provide for 

reasonable progress towards achieving 

natural visibility conditions’’ for each 

Class I area of the State. These 

reasonable progress goals are interim 

goals that must provide for incremental 

visibility improvement for the most 

impaired visibility days, and ensure no 

degradation for the least impaired 

visibility days. The reasonable progress 

goals for the first planning period are 

goals for the year 2018. 

Based on (1) The results of the WRAP 

CMAQ modeling, (2) the results of the 

four-factor analysis of 3 New Mexico 

refineries and major source categories, 

and (3) the emission controls on New 

Mexico’s one BART source and other 

BART sources in nearby States, the 

309(g) SIP submittal establishes 

reasonable progress goals for the most 

impaired days for the New Mexico Class 

I areas. 

NMED relied on the 2018 projected 

visibility conditions from the WRAP 

photochemical modeling to establish 

RPGs for the 20% best days and 20% 

worst days for each Class I area. NMED’s 

RPGs establish a slower rate of progress 

than the URP for each Class I area. 

NMED has calculated the number of 

years it would take to attain natural 

visibility conditions under the rate of 

progress selected by the State as 

reasonable (Table 8). As we discuss 

below, NMED indicated that emissions 

from wildfires, windblown dust, and/or 

emissions from other states and Mexico, 

impede New Mexico’s ability to meet 

the URPs. See the TSD and Section 11.3 

of the NM RH 309(g) SIP for a detailed 

discussion of the RPGs. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 116 / Friday, June 15, 2012 / Proposed Rules 36071 

54Corrected from 17.07 dv in the NM RH 309 (g) 

SIP Table 11–8 based on model projections data 

from the WRAP TSS for Salt Creek based on the 

PRP18b emission inventory. Model results using the 

PRP18a emission inventory project visibility 

impairment at Salt Creek to be 17.07 dv in 2018. 

TABLE 8—URP, RPG AND YEARS TO NATURAL CONDITIONS FOR 20% WORST DAYS

Class I area Baseline 

(dv) 

Projected 2018 

(RPG) 

Natural 

conditions 

Uniform rate of 

progress 

(dv/yr) 

Rate of 

improvement 

under RPG 

Years to 

natural 

conditions 

Bandelier ............................................ 12.22 11 .9 6 .26 0.099 0 .0229 261 

Bosque del Apache ............................ 13.80 13 .59 6 .73 0.118 0 .0150 397 

Carlsbad Caverns .............................. 17.19 16 .93 6 .65 0.176 0 .0186 321 

Gila Wilderness .................................. 13.11 12 .99 6 .66 0.108 0 .0086 695 

Pecos Wilderness, Wheeler Park ...... 10.41 10 .23 6 .08 0.072 0 .0129 464 

Salt Creek .......................................... 18.03 17 .33 6 .81 0.187 0 .0500 119 

White Mountains ................................ 13.70 13 .27 6 .8 0.115 0 .307 194 

The WRAP’s projections for the 20% 

best and 20% worst days represent the 

RPGs for the 20% best and 20% worst 

days for the Class I areas in New Mexico 

are shown in Table 11–8 of the NM RH 

309(g) SIP and reproduced below in 

Table 9. 

TABLE 9—NEW MEXICO’S RPGS FOR THE 20% BEST AND WORST DAYS IN 2018 

Class I area 

20% Worst days 20% Best days 

Baseline 

(dv) 

2018 Uniform 

progress goal 

(dv) 

2018 RPG 

(dv) 

Baseline 

(dv) 

2018 RPG 

(dv) 

Bandelier .............................................................................. 12.22 10.83 11.9 4.95 4.89 

Bosque del Apache .............................................................. 13.80 12.15 13.59 6.28 6.1 

Carlsbad Caverns ................................................................ 17.19 14.73 16.92 5.95 6.12 

Gila Wilderness .................................................................... 13.11 11.61 12.99 3.31 3.2 

Pecos Wilderness, Wheeler Park ........................................ 10.41 9.40 10.23 1.22 1.12 

Salt Creek ............................................................................ 18.03 15.41 54 17.31 7.84 7.43 

White Mountains .................................................................. 13.70 12.09 13.26 3.55 3.41 

40 CFR 308(d)(1) requires that the 

reasonable progress goals must provide 

for an improvement in visibility for the 

20% worst days and ensure no 

degradation of visibility on the 20% best 

days. NMED established reasonable 

progress goals that show an 

improvement over baseline conditions 

on the 20% worst days at all 8 Class I 

areas. With the exception of Carlsbad 

Caverns, all Class I areas also show no 

degradation on the 20% best days. 

For Carlsbad Caverns, NMED 

provided modeling data that 

demonstrates that significant projected 

growth in emissions by 2018 from 

Mexico are responsible for the 

degradation in visibility conditions on 

the 20% best days at this Class I area 

(Section 11.3.3 of the NM RH 309(g) SIP 

submittal). WRAP visibility modeling 

results with Mexico emissions held 

constant from 2002 to 2018 show a 

slight improvement in visibility 

conditions at Carlsbad Caverns on the 

20% best days. NMED also provides 

results of the Weighted Emissions 

Potential (WEP) analysis preformed by 

the WRAP that is based on emissions 

and residence time, rather than 

modeling. This analysis shows that the 

projected 2018 emissions of sulfur 

dioxide that potentially impact Carlsbad 

on the 20% best days from Mexico are 

much greater than emissions from other 

regions (See figures 11–3 and 11–4 of 

the submitted NM RH 309(g) SIP). The 

WRAP WEP analysis is described in 

more detail in section V.N.4.c. below. 

NMED notes that IMPROVE Monitor 

data for the Carlsbad Caverns Class I 

area, however, shows improvement in 

visibility conditions on the 20% best 

days since the baseline period. Due to 

the high level of uncertainty in 

projected Mexico emissions, the 

monitored improvement, and the lack of 

jurisdictional control over these 

Mexican emissions, the submitted 

309(g) SIP found this RPG for Carlsbad 

to be reasonable. We agree with this 

assessment. 

As explained in the submitted 309(g) 

SIP, New Mexico believes the 

reasonable progress goals it established 

for the New Mexico Class I areas on the 

20% worst days are reasonable, and that 

it is not reasonable to achieve the glide 

path in 2018. In support of this 

conclusion, New Mexico includes a 

discussion of the pollutant 

contributions and the sources of 

visibility impairment at each Class I 

area and compares the RPGs to the URP 

goal on a pollutant specific basis (see 

Section 11.3 of the NM RH 309(g) SIP). 

The factors that New Mexico considered 

are summarized as: (1) For all of New 

Mexico’s Class I areas, the contribution 

to visibility impairment from organic 

mass carbon (OMC) and/or coarse mass 

(CM) from natural sources that cannot 

be controlled is significant. Section 

V.N.4.c below discusses the sources of 

visibility impairment at each Class I 

area and the percent contribution from 

OMC and CM; (2) Sources outside the 

modeling domain and in Mexico 

contribute significantly to nitrate and 

sulfate at New Mexico’s Class I areas. 

Sources in Mexico are not under the 

control of New Mexico and are 

projected to increase by 2018. This 

increase restricts the amount of progress 

achievable, particularly at those Class I 

areas located in Southern New Mexico. 

Section V.N.4.c below discusses the 

sources of visibility impairment at each 

Class I area and the percent contribution 

from Mexico and outside the modeling 

domain; (3) Controls on oil and gas 

emission sources are being evaluated 

and are anticipated to be in place over 

the next ten years. These emission 

reductions will allow for increased 

improvement in visibility conditions at 

those Class I areas located near oil and 

gas production regions in the State; and 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
36072 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 116 / Friday, June 15, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

55http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/tss/. 

56Technical Support Document for Technical 

Products Prepared by the Western Regional Air 

Partnership (WRAP) in Support of Western Regional 

Haze Plans, EPA Regions 6, 8, 9, and 10, February 

28, 2011, Appendix A to the TSD to this action. 

57All CM relative response factors (RRF) were set 

to a value of 1 when projecting course matter 

visibility impacts to the future year 2018, regardless 

of the future year modeling results. For more 

information see our review of the technical 

products developed by the WRAP that is available 

as Technical Support Document for Technical 

Products Prepared by the Western Regional Air 

Partnership (WRAP) in Support of Western Regional 

Haze Plans, EPA Regions 6, 8, 9, and 10, February 

28, 2011, Appendix A to the TSD for this action. 

(4) Reductions due to NOX BART will 

further improve visibility at Class I 

areas. 

d. Reasonable Progress Consultation 

NMED relied on the WRAP as its 

main vehicle for facilitating 

collaboration with FLMs and other 

states in developing its RH 309 SIP. 

NMED was able to use WRAP generated 

products, such as regional 

photochemical modeling results and 

visibility projections, and source 

apportionment modeling to assist in 

identifying neighboring states’ 

contributions to the visibility 

impairment at New Mexico’s Class I 

areas. The technical analyses and 

emission inventories developed by the 

WRAP are documented in the WRAP 

TSD and available online at the WRAP 

Technical Support System.55 56

New Mexico consulted through the 

WRAP, and relied on the technical 

tools, policy documents, and other 

products that all Western states used to 

develop their regional haze plans. The 

WRAP Implementation Work Group was 

one of the primary collaboration 

mechanisms. All the states relied upon 

similar emission inventories, results 

from source apportionment studies and 

BART modeling, review of IMPROVE 

monitoring data, existing state smoke 

management programs, and other 

information in assessing the extent to 

which each state contributes to visibility 

impairment in other states’ Class I areas. 

40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(ii) of the Regional 

Haze Rule requires a state to 

demonstrate that its regional haze plan 

includes all measures necessary to 

obtain its fair share of emission 

reductions needed to meet reasonable 

progress goals. Based on the 

consultation described above, New 

Mexico identified no major 

contributions that supported developing 

new interstate strategies, mitigation 

measures, or emission reduction 

obligations. 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, and all 

states participating in the consultations 

agreed. We are proposing to find that 

New Mexico has satisfied the 

requirement under sections 51.309(g) 

and 51.308(d)(1)(iv) to consult with 

other states that may reasonably be 

anticipated to cause or contribute to 

visibility impairment at New Mexico’s 

Class I areas. 

e. Our Conclusion on New Mexico’s 

Reasonable Progress Goals 

Section 11.3 of the NM RH 309(g) SIP 

provides NMED’s demonstration that 

the RPGs established by NMED provide 

reasonable visibility improvement 

though they provide for less 

improvement than the uniform rate of 

progress. We evaluated the analysis 

provided by NMED along with the 

WRAP modeling results, WRAP 

emission inventories and other 

information in examining the RPGs 

established by NMED. We preliminarily 

reach the following conclusions: 

• NMED’s analysis demonstrates that 

the predominant pollutants that affect 

the State’s ability to meet the URP goals 

are OMC, CM and sulfate (SO4). OMC 

and CM emissions are primarily from 

naturally occurring wildfires and windblown dust. 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. 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. Because the 

State has limited ability to control these 

sources of visibility impairment, OMC 

and CM emissions will continue to 

impact visibility at New Mexico’s Class 

I areas and limit the visibility 

improvement achievable during the 

planning period. Because of the 

difficulty and uncertainty in estimating 

emissions of windblown dust and the 

limited ability to control these 

emissions, windblown dust emissions 

are held constant from 2002 to 2018. 

Other sources of CM including fugitive 

dust and road dust emissions are 

projected to increase by 2018, however, 

these increases contribute to only a 4% 

increase in total CM emissions in 2018. 

We also note that because visibility 

modeling performance for CM was poor, 

projected CM visibility impacts for 2018 

were kept at 2002 levels.57

• In addressing visibility impairment 

due to sulfate emissions we analyzed 

the emission inventories developed by 

the WRAP. We note that New Mexico 

seeks approval for participation in the 

SO2 emissions milestone and backstop 

trading program that applies to all 

stationary sources that emit greater than 

100 tpy of SO2 and will result in 

emission reductions of SO2 between 

2002 and 2018. Our analysis of the 

WRAP emission inventories used in the 

photochemical modeling to project 

visibility conditions revealed an 

overestimation of area source SO2

emissions from New Mexico. In 

particular, emissions for Bernalillo 

County were much higher than current 

emissions and emission trends would 

suggest (See the TSD for a summary of 

Bernalillo County emission estimates). 

WRAP emission projections include a 

200% increase in New Mexico’s 

statewide area source SO2 emissions, 

primarily in Bernalillo County, while no 

other WRAP state is projected to have 

an increase in area source SO2

emissions greater than 50%. Bernalillo 

County emission estimates reported to 

the National Emission Inventory are 

much lower than those in the 2002 

WRAP emission inventory and show a 

trend of decreasing emissions from 2002 

to 2008. In development of the 2018 

emission projections, WRAP used the 

EPA model EGAS to estimate growth for 

some area sources. This model can over 

predict area source growth by using a 

simple multiplier and does not take into 

account additional regulatory 

requirements, both federal and state, in 

the analysis. This over prediction in 

area source SO2 emissions in New 

Mexico in the 2018 WRAP modeling 

results in overall less modeled visibility 

improvement than would be anticipated 

with the much lower rate of growth in 

emissions anticipated by 2018 and 

overestimates the contribution of New 

Mexico emissions to visibility 

impairment at Class I areas in 2018. 

Furthermore, these SO2 emissions are 

also overestimated in the 2002 emission 

inventory and leads to an overestimate 

of the contribution of New Mexico 

emissions to visibility impairment at 

Class I areas in 2002. Refer to the TSD 

for detailed information on the WRAP 

emission estimates and source 

apportionment modeling for SO2 area 

source emission at each Class I area. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 116 / Friday, June 15, 2012 / Proposed Rules 36073 

• Contributions of NOX and SO2 from 

Mexico point sources are also 

significant and are anticipated to 

increase by 2018. These emissions are 

not under the jurisdiction of NMED and 

will limit the rate of progress achievable 

on the 20% worst days. For the 20% 

best days, growth in emissions from 

Mexico results in a slight projected 

degradation in visibility conditions at 

the Carlsbad Caverns Class I area. We 

note that monitored data shows that 

visibility conditions have improved at 

this area from the baseline period. 

• The San Juan Generating Station is 

by far the largest point source of NOX

and SO2 emissions under NMED 

jurisdiction. Due to reductions required 

by the consent decree and by the 

implementation of BART, significant 

reductions in SO2 and NOX emissions 

from 2002 values will occur. 

Implementation of NOX BART will 

result in more reductions than those 

included in the WRAP 2018 modeling. 

The FIP limits NOX emissions to 0.05 

lb/MMBtu, resulting in an approximate 

83% reduction in NOX from the 

emission limit the facility is currently 

complying with (0.3 lb/MMBtu). We 

note that NMED’s submitted NOX BART 

determination though not under review 

for this proposal and not legally 

effective unless it is approved would 

require control rates below the future 

year projected NOX emissions for the 

source developed in the WRAP 

consultation process. The reductions at 

the SJGS achieved in compliance with 

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 visibility modeling relied 

upon to establish the reasonable 

progress goals included in the 309(g) 

SIP submittal. Through the WRAP 

consultation process, New Mexico 

provided the anticipated future year 

projected NOX emissions from the SJGS 

to be 0.27 lb/MMBtu for units 1 and 3 

and 0.28 lb/MMBtu for units 2 and 4. 

These values were used in the 2018 

emission inventory and the WRAP 

modeling used to determine the RPGs. 

Consequently, implementation of NOX

BART at the SJGS will result in greater 

reasonable progress than is anticipated 

in the analysis included in the NM RH 

309(g) SIP submittal. 

• In addition to NOX BART at SJGS, 

NOX reductions at another large power 

plant within the State (Four Corners 

Power Plant) that lies on tribal lands, 

outside of the jurisdiction of NMED, are 

anticipated as the result of a BART 

determination that is part of a FIP. 

These two BART determinations 

represent significant reductions in NOX

emissions at the largest emission 

sources within the State. 

Based on the above considerations, 

we propose to agree with New Mexico’s 

conclusion that it is not reasonable to 

meet the uniform rate of progress for its 

Class I areas, and we propose approval 

of New Mexico’s analysis and 

reasonable progress goals. In setting its 

RPGs for its Class I areas for the 20% 

worst days, New Mexico relied on 

certain NOX emission reductions at the 

SJGS that may underestimate the 

reductions to be achieved. NOX BART is 

an element of the long term strategy 

necessary to achieve the reasonable 

progress goals. Whether the existing 

federal implementation plan or another 

future-approved NOX BART 

determination consistent with the RHR 

requirements is in place, we expect the 

state to include any corrections and 

updates to emission reductions in its 

next Regional Haze SIP with updated 

modeling to quantify the visibility 

improvement that results from all 

emission reduction measures in place 

by 2018. 

4. Long-Term Strategy 

As described in section III.L.3. of this 

action, the long-term strategy (LTS) is a 

compilation of state-specific control 

measures relied on by the state for 

achieving its RPGs. The LTS must 

include ‘‘enforceable emissions 

limitations, compliance schedules, and 

other measures as necessary to achieve 

the reasonable progress goals’’ for all 

Class I areas within, or affected by 

emissions from, the state. 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(3). New Mexico’s LTS for the 

first implementation period addresses 

the emissions reductions from federal, 

state, and local controls that take effect 

in the state from the end of the baseline 

period starting in 2004 until 2018. The 

New Mexico LTS was developed by 

NMED, in coordination with the WRAP 

RPO, through an evaluation of the 

following components: (1) Construction 

of a WRAP 2002 baseline emission 

inventory; (2) construction of a WRAP 

2018 projected emission inventory, 

including reductions from WRAP 

member state controls required or 

expected under federal and state 

regulations (including BART); (3) 

modeling to determine visibility 

improvement and apportion individual 

state contributions; (4) state 

consultation; and (5) application of the 

LTS factors. The State’s detailed longterm strategy is included in Chapter 12 

of the NM RH 309(g) SIP. 

a. Emissions Inventory 

40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(iii) requires that 

New Mexico document the technical 

basis, including modeling, monitoring 

and emissions information, on which it 

relied upon to determine its 

apportionment of emission reduction 

obligations necessary for achieving 

reasonable progress in each mandatory 

Class I Federal area it affects. New 

Mexico must identify the baseline 

emissions inventory on which its 

strategies are based. Section 

51.308(d)(3)(iv) requires that New 

Mexico identify all anthropogenic 

sources of visibility impairment 

considered by the state in developing its 

long-term strategy. This includes major 

and minor stationary sources, mobile 

sources, and area sources. New Mexico 

addressed these requirements by relying 

on technical analyses developed by its 

RPO, WRAP and approved by all state 

participants, as described below. 

Bernalillo County, New Mexico falls 

under the jurisdiction of the 

Albuquerque Air Quality Control Board 

(AQBC). The AQBC staff participated in 

meetings with the State of New Mexico 

staff to coordinate its efforts with the 

State of New Mexico in developing its 

separate 309 SIP. The WRAP emission 

inventory for New Mexico and source 

apportionment modeling results 

includes emissions from all of New 

Mexico, including Bernalillo County. 

For emission inventory data excluding 

Bernalillo County, refer to Chapter 8 of 

the NM RH 309(g) SIP submittal. 

The emissions inventory used in the 

RH technical analyses was developed by 

WRAP with assistance from New 

Mexico using approved EPA methods. 

Emissions within New Mexico are both 

naturally occurring and man-made. Two 

primary sources of naturally occurring 

emissions in New Mexico include 

wildfires and windblown dust. An 

emissions inventory for each visibility 

impairing pollutant was developed by 

WRAP for New Mexico for the baseline 

year 2002 and for 2018, which is the 

first reasonable progress milestone. 

NMED and the WRAP developed an 

emission inventory for anthropogenic 

sources (point, stationary area, mobile, 

road dust, prescribed and agricultural 

fire) as well as other sources for the 

baseline year of 2002. See Chapter 8 and 

Appendix A of the NM RH 309(g) SIP 

submittal and Appendix A of our TSD 

for details on how the 2002 emissions 

inventory was constructed. The 2018 

emissions inventory was then 

developed by projecting the 2002 

emissions to 2018 and applying 

reductions expected from federal and 

state regulations affecting the emissions 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
36074 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 116 / Friday, June 15, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

of the visibility-impairing pollutants 

NOX, SO2,, volatile organic compounds 

(VOCs), primary organic aerosol (POA), 

elemental Carbon (EC), fine particulate 

matter (Soil—PM2.5), CM, and ammonia 

(NH3). 

i. New Mexico’s 2002 Emission 

Inventory 

New Mexico’s 2002 emissions 

inventory is summarized below in Table 

10: 

TABLE 10—NEW MEXICO’S 2002 EMISSIONS INVENTORY

[Including Bernalillo County] 

Source category SO2 NOX VOCs POA EC Soil CM NH3

Point ................................. 37,918 100,398 17,574 978 13 1,180 2,286 75 

Anthropogenic Fire ........... 94 396 608 682 123 87 105 75 

Natural Fire ...................... 2,729 8,613 18,846 16,272 3,293 1,223 5,400 1,875 

Biogenic ........................... 0 42,139 1,016,487 0 0 0 0 0 

Area .................................. 5,433 25,140 49,010 2,529 301 2,821 695 29,959 

WRAP Area O&G ............ 250 56,210 224,268 0 0 0 0 0 

On-Road Mobile ............... 2,066 67,835 38,768 653 756 0 403 2,132 

Off-Road Mobile ............... 3,846 45,311 13,580 563 1,526 0 0 26 

Road Dust ........................ 4 1 0 114 9 1,305 11,074 0 

Fugitive Dust .................... 6 7 0 360 24 6,751 51,533 0 

Wind Blown Dust ............. 0 0 0 0 0 16,399 147,589 0 

Total .......................... 52,347 346,050 1,379,410 22,151 6,046 29,765 219,086 34,141 

We propose that New Mexico’s 2002 

emission inventory is acceptable for the 

purpose of developing the LTS. We 

note, however that some issues have 

been identified in the emission 

inventory as discussed above in Section 

V.N.3.e, that must be considered when 

analyzing the results of modeling 

analysis prepared using this inventory. 

ii. New Mexico’s 2018 Emission 

Inventory 

In general, NMED used a combination 

of our Economic Growth Analysis 

System (EGAS 5), our mobile emissions 

factor model (MOBILE 6), our off-road 

emissions factor model (NONROAD), 

and the Integrated Planning Model 

(IPM) for electric generating units in 

constructing its 2018 emission 

inventory. More specifically, the WRAP 

developed emissions for a number of 

inventory source classifications: Point, 

area, non-road and on-road mobile 

sources, biogenic sources, 

anthropogenic and natural fire, road and 

fugitive dust, and area oil and gas 

emissions. The WRAP used its 2002 

emission inventory, described above, to 

project emissions forward to 2018. 

Reductions expected from federal and 

state regulations were included in the 

inventory. See Chapter 8 of the NM RH 

309(g) SIP and Appendix A of our TSD 

for more details on how the 2018 

emissions inventory was constructed. 

The WRAP 2018 Base Case emission 

inventory (referred to as the Base18b 

emission inventory) reflects growth plus 

all controls ‘‘on the books’’ as of 

December 2004. The WRAP 2018 

Preliminary Reasonable Progress Case 

(referred to as the PRP18b emission 

inventory) reflects refined growth 

estimates, all controls ‘‘on the books’’ as 

of 2007, and includes presumptive or 

known SO2 BART controls. Emission 

inventory data summarized below is 

based on the PRP18b emission 

inventory. New Mexico’s 2018 

emissions inventory (including 

Bernalillo County emissions) is 

summarized in Table 11. Tables 12 and 

13 summarize the projected change in 

emissions from 2002 to 2018 in the 

WRAP emission inventories. 

TABLE 11—NEW MEXICO’S 2018 EMISSIONS INVENTORY

[Including Bernalillo County] 

Source category SO2 NOX VOCs POA EC Soil CM NH3

Point ................................. 31,270 73,417 26,308 243 13 1,148 2,142 118 

Anthropogenic Fire ........... 72 263 388 442 85 44 63 42 

Natural Fire ...................... 2,729 8,613 18,846 16,271 3,293 1,223 5,400 1,875 

Biogenic ........................... 0 42,139 1,016,487 0 0 0 0 0 

Area .................................. 16,285 33,931 70,566 2,848 374 3,644 1,231 30,233 

WRAP Area O&G ............ 12 74,648 267,846 0 0 0 0 0 

On-Road Mobile ............... 334 19,746 15,554 656 205 0 464 2,877 

Off-Road Mobile ............... 313 28,471 8,942 358 743 0 0 36 

Road Dust ........................ 6 2 0 153 13 1,751 14,857 0 

Fugitive Dust .................... 7 7 0 366 25 7,026 56,533 0 

Wind Blown Dust ............. 0 0 0 0 0 16,399 147,589 0 

Total .......................... 51,028 281,236 1,424,936 21,338 4,750 31,235 228,279 35,181 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 116 / Friday, June 15, 2012 / Proposed Rules 36075 

58 Guidance on the Use of Models and Other 

Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air 

Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze, 

(EPA–454/B–07–002), April 2007, located at 

http://www.epa.gov/scram001/guidance/guide/ 

final-03-pm-rh-guidance.pdf. 

Continued 

TABLE 12—CHANGE (TPY) IN NEW MEXICO EMISSIONS FROM 2002 TO 2018 

[Including Bernalillo County] 

Source category SO2 NOX VOCs POA EC Soil CM NH3

Point ................................. ¥6,648 ¥26,981 8,734 ¥735 0 ¥32 ¥144 43 

Anthropogenic Fire ........... ¥22 ¥133 ¥220 ¥240 ¥38 ¥43 ¥42 ¥33 

Natural Fire ...................... 0 0 0 ¥1 0 0 0 0 

Biogenic ........................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Area .................................. 10,852 8,791 21,556 319 73 823 536 274 

WRAP Area O&G ............ ¥238 18,438 43,578 0 0 0 0 0 

On-Road Mobile ............... ¥1,732 ¥48,089 ¥23,214 3 ¥551 0 61 745 

Off-Road Mobile ............... ¥3,533 ¥16,840 ¥4,638 ¥205 ¥783 0 0 10 

Road Dust ........................ 2 1 0 39 4 446 3,783 0 

Fugitive Dust .................... 1 0 0 6 1 275 5,000 0 

Wind Blown Dust ............. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total .......................... ¥1,319 ¥64,814 45,796 ¥813 ¥1,296 1,470 9,193 1,040 

TABLE 13—NET CHANGE (%) IN NEW MEXICO EMISSIONS FROM 2002 TO 2018 

[Including Bernalillo County] 

Source category SO2 NOx VOCs POA EC Soil CM NH3

Point ................................. ¥18 ¥27 50 ¥75 0 ¥3 ¥6 58 

Anthropogenic Fire ........... ¥24 ¥34 ¥36 ¥35 ¥31 ¥49 ¥41 ¥44 

Natural Fire ...................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Biogenic ........................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Area .................................. 200 35 44 13 24 29 77 1 

WRAP Area O&G ............ ¥95 33 19 0 0 0 0 0 

On-Road Mobile ............... ¥84 ¥71 ¥60 0 ¥73 0 15 35 

Off-Road Mobile ............... ¥92 ¥37 ¥35 ¥36 ¥51 0 0 38 

Road Dust ........................ 50 100 0 34 44 34 34 0 

Fugitive Dust .................... 18 0 0 2 4 4 10 0 

Wind Blown Dust ............. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total .......................... ¥3 ¥19 3 ¥4 ¥21 5 4 3 

The WRAP and NMED used New 

Mexico’s and other states’ 2018 

emission inventories to construct 

visibility projection modeling for 2018. 

We propose to determine New Mexico’s 

2018 emission inventory is acceptable, 

while noting that some issues have been 

identified in the emission inventory as 

discussed above in Section V.N.3.e that 

must be considered when analyzing the 

results of modeling analysis prepared 

using this inventory. 

Statewide, total NOX and SO2

emissions are projected to decrease from 

2002 levels by 2018. NOX emissions in 

the 2018 WRAP emission projections 

decrease by 19% primarily due to 

improvements in mobile sources and 

reductions at SJGS due to the 2005 

consent decree. As discussed above, 

further reductions in NOX emissions at 

the largest NOX source in the state, the 

SJGS, due to implementation of BART 

are anticipated by 2018. 

SO2 mobile and point source 

emissions are also projected to decrease 

from 2002 to 2018. However, the large 

increase in area source SO2 emissions 

(200%) is much larger than reasonably 

anticipated (see discussion above and 

our TSD). Increases in NOX and VOC 

emissions are anticipated due to 

expansion of oil and gas production 

activities in the State. Much of the POA 

and EC emissions are due to natural 

fires that can fluctuate greatly in 

location and intensity from year to year. 

The 2018 emission inventory assumes 

that emissions from natural fires remain 

constant from 2002 levels. 

Anthropogenic sources of POA and EC 

are projected to decrease by 2018. We 

propose that New Mexico’s 2018 

emission inventory is acceptable for the 

purpose of developing the LTS. We 

note, however that some issues have 

been identified in the emission 

inventory as discussed above in Section 

V.N.3.e, that must be considered when 

analyzing the results of modeling 

analysis prepared using this inventory. 

b. Visibility Projection Modeling 

The WRAP performed modeling for 

the RH LTS for its member states, 

including New Mexico. The modeling 

analysis is a complex technical 

evaluation that began with selection of 

the modeling system. The WRAP used 

(1) The Mesoscale Meteorological Model 

(MM5) meteorological model, (2) the 

Sparse Matrix Operator Kernel 

Emissions (SMOKE) modeling system to 

generate hourly gridded speciated 

emission inputs, (3) the Community 

Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) 

photochemical grid model and (4) the 

Comprehensive Air Quality model with 

extensions (CAMx), as a secondary 

corroborative model. CAMx was also 

utilized with its Particulate Source 

Apportionment Technology (PSAT) tool 

to provide source apportionment for 

both the baseline and future case 

visibility modeling. 

The photochemical modeling of RH 

for the WRAP states for 2002 and 2018 

was conducted on the 36-km resolution 

national regional planning organization 

domain that covered the continental 

United States, portions of Canada and 

Mexico, and portions of the Atlantic and 

Pacific Oceans along the east and west 

coasts. The WRAP states’ modeling was 

developed consistent with our 

guidance.58


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
36076 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 116 / Friday, June 15, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

Emissions Inventory Guidance for 

Implementation of Ozone and Particulate Matter 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) 

and Regional Haze Regulations, August 2005, 

updated November 2005 (‘‘our Modeling 

Guidance’’), located at http://www.epa.gov/ 

ttnchie1/eidocs/eiguid/index.html, EPA–454/R–05– 

001. 

59WRAP technical products are available at 

http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/tss/. 

The WRAP examined the model 

performance of the regional modeling 

for the areas of interest before 

determining whether the CMAQ model 

results were suitable for use in the RH 

assessment of the LTS and for use in the 

modeling assessment. The 2002 

modeling efforts were used to evaluate 

air quality/visibility modeling for a 

historical episode—in this case, for 

calendar year 2002—to demonstrate the 

suitability of the modeling systems for 

subsequent planning, sensitivity, and 

emissions control strategy modeling. 

Model performance evaluation was 

performed by comparing the output 

from model simulations with ambient 

air quality data for the same time period 

to determine whether the model’s 

performance was sufficiently accurate to 

justify using the model for simulating 

future conditions. Once the WRAP 

determined the model performance to 

be acceptable, it used the model to 

determine the 2018 RPGs using the 

current and future year air quality 

modeling predictions, and compared the 

RPGs to the URP. The results of this 

modeling are discussed below. 

c. Sources of Visibility Impairment in 

New Mexico Class I Areas 

Baseline period monitoring data was 

used to analyze the contribution of 

pollutants to light extinction. Table 14 

below summarizes the baseline period 

monitored data found in Chapter 7 of 

the NM RH 309(g) SIP, showing the 

contribution of each species to visibility 

impairment at each Class I area on the 

20 worst days. 

TABLE 14—PERCENTAGE OF LIGHT EXTINCTION ON 20% WORST DAYS DURING THE BASELINE PERIOD

Class I area SO4 

(percent) 

NO3 

(percent) 

OMC 

(percent) 

EC 

(percent) 

Soil 

(percent) 

CM 

(percent) 

Sea salt 

(percent) 

Bandelier .................................................. 22.33 8.09 45.95 10.03 3.56 9.39 0.65 

Bosque del Apache .................................. 24.35 10.39 26.25 8.44 6.17 21.75 0.65 

Carlsbad Caverns .................................... 33.81 7.79 13.73 2.66 9.02 32.79 0.20 

Gila Wilderness ........................................ 21.97 2.87 50.96 10.19 4.78 8.92 0.32 

Pecos Wilderness, Wheeler Park ............ 23.56 7.11 37.33 9.78 7.56 12.44 2.22 

Salt Creek ................................................ 31.75 21.10 14.26 4.73 6.27 21.86 0.38 

White Mountains ...................................... 31.72 9.06 27.19 5.44 5.74 20.24 0.60 

Visibility impairment in Class I areas 

is the result of local air pollution as well 

as transport of regional pollution across 

long distances. In order to determine the 

significant emission source regions and 

emission source types contributing to 

haze in New Mexico’s Class I areas, New 

Mexico relied upon two source 

apportionment analysis techniques 

developed by the WRAP. The first 

technique was regional modeling using 

CAMx and the PSAT tool, used for the 

attribution of sulfate and nitrate sources 

only. The second technique was the 

Weighted Emissions Potential (WEP) 

tool, used for attribution of sources of 

organic carbon, elemental carbon, PM2.5, 

and PM10. The WEP tool is based on 

emissions and residence time, not 

modeling. PSAT uses the CAMx air 

quality model to show nitrate-sulfateammonia chemistry and apply this 

chemistry to a system of tracers or 

‘‘tags’’ to track the chemical 

transformations, transport, and removal 

of NOX and SO2. These two pollutants 

are important because they can be 

significant contributors to visibility 

impairment and much of the total mass 

of NOX and SO2 originates from 

anthropogenic sources. Therefore, the 

results from this analysis can be useful 

in determining contributing sources that 

may be controllable, both in-state and in 

neighboring states. The PSAT results 

presented below are derived from 

Section 12.3 of the NM RH 309(g) SIP 

and the WRAP Technical Support 

System (TSS).59 Tables 15 and 16 show 

the percent contribution of nitrate and 

sulfate from the WRAP and other source 

regions to modeled visibility 

impairment on the 20% worst days for 

2002. Also shown is the percentage of 

the WRAP contributions from New 

Mexico sources. The Central Regional 

Air Planning Association (CENRAP) 

region includes the states and tribal 

areas of Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, 

Texas, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, 

Arkansas, and Louisiana. Some errors 

were discovered in the tables of Section 

12.3 for the WRAP’s percentage 

contribution of nitrate of the 20% worst 

days during the baseline period. Those 

errors have been corrected in Table 15 

below. We note that the 2018 emission 

inventory used in this analysis 

(Base18b) is an earlier version that does 

not include emission reductions due to 

BART. In New Mexico and surrounding 

states, BART requirements and 

reductions through the SO2 emission 

milestone trading program will result in 

additional NOX and SO2 reductions 

beyond than those assumed in the 

source apportionment modeling. 

TABLE 15—PERCENTAGE OF NITRATE CONTRIBUTION TO VISIBILITY IMPAIRMENT DURING BASELINE FOR THE 20% WORST

DAYS

Class I area WRAP 

(percent) 

New Mexico * 

(percent) 

CENRAP 

(percent) 

Canada 

(percent) 

Eastern 

U.S. 

(percent) 

Mexico 

(percent) 

Pacific off 

shore 

(percent) 

Outside 

domain 

(percent) 

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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 116 / Friday, June 15, 2012 / Proposed Rules 36077 

60Corrected from 17% in Table 12–4 of the NM 

RH 309(g) SIP submittal based on data from the 

WRAP TSS. 

61Corrected from 58% in Table 12–5 of the NM 

RH 309(g) SIP submittal based on data from the 

WRAP TSS. 

TABLE 15—PERCENTAGE OF NITRATE CONTRIBUTION TO VISIBILITY IMPAIRMENT DURING BASELINE FOR THE 20% WORST

DAYS—Continued 

Class I area WRAP 

(percent) 

New Mexico * 

(percent) 

CENRAP 

(percent) 

Canada 

(percent) 

Eastern 

U.S. 

(percent) 

Mexico 

(percent) 

Pacific off 

shore 

(percent) 

Outside 

domain 

(percent) 

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

Class I area WRAP 

(percent) 

New Mexico * 

(percent) 

CENRAP 

(percent) 

Canada 

(percent) 

Eastern 

U.S. 

(percent) 

Mexico 

(percent) 

Pacific Off 

shore 

(percent) 

Outside 

domain 

(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. 

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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
36078 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 116 / Friday, June 15, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

62Correction 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. 

lower NOX emissions from 

implementation of the existing federal 

implementation plan or another futureapproved 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 futureapproved 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. 

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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 116 / Friday, June 15, 2012 / Proposed Rules 36079 

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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
36080 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 116 / Friday, June 15, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

63 64 FR 35735. 

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. 

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). 

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 futureapproved 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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 116 / Friday, June 15, 2012 / Proposed Rules 36081 

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. 

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 ultralow 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, lightduty 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. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
36082 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 116 / Friday, June 15, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

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 20.2.73.300.F 

NMAC. 

EPA is taking this action under 

section 110 of the CAA. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 116 / Friday, June 15, 2012 / Proposed Rules 36083 

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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2