24768 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2008–0702; FRL 9662–7] 

Approval and Promulgation of State 

Implementation Plans; City of 

Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, NM; 

InterState Transport Affecting Visibility 

and Regional Haze Rule Requirements 

for Mandatory Class I Areas 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to 

approve revisions to the State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) for the City 

of Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, New 

Mexico submitted by the Governor of 

New Mexico on July 28, 2011 

addressing the regional haze 

requirements for the mandatory Class I 

areas under 40 CFR 51.309. The EPA is 

proposing to find that these revisions 

and associated rules meet the 

requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) 

and comply with the provisions of 40 

CFR 51.309, thereby meeting 

requirements for reasonable progress for 

the 16 Class I areas covered by the 

Grand Canyon Visibility Transport 

Commission Report for approval of the 

plan through 2018. We are proposing to 

approve SIP submissions offered as 

companion rules to the Section 309 

regional haze plan, specifically, rules for 

the Sulfur Dioxide Emissions Inventory 

Requirements and the Western Backstop 

Trading Program, submitted on 

December 26, 2003, September 10, 2008, 

and May 24, 2011, and rules for Open 

Burning, submitted on December 26, 

2003 and July 28, 2011. We are also 

proposing to approve a portion of the 

SIP revision submitted by the City of 

Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, New 

Mexico on July 30, 2007, for the purpose 

of addressing the ‘‘good neighbor’’ 

provisions of the CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS and the PM2.5 NAAQS. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before May 25, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R06– 

OAR–2008–0702, by one of the 

following methods: 

• Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Email: R6air_bchaze@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–2008–0702. 

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 City of Albuquerque-Bernalillo 

County submittal is also available for 

public inspection during official 

business hours, by appointment, at 1 

Civic Plaza, Room 3047, Albuquerque, 

NM 87102. 

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 RH and RHR mean or refer 

to Regional Haze and Regional Haze Rule. 

v. The initials BC and the words 

Albuquerque and Bernalillo County mean the 

City of Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, New 

Mexico. 

vi. The initials AQCB mean or refer to the 

Albuquerque/Bernalillo County Air Quality 

Control Board. 

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. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 24769 

1The contents of the July 28, 2011 submittal may 

be examined in the docket that has been established 

for this rulemaking. 

xvi. The initial RPGs mean or refer to 

reasonable progress goals. 

xvii. The initials RPOs mean or refer to 

regional planning organizations. 

xviii. The initials WRAP mean or refer to 

the Western Regional Air Partnership. 

xix. The initials GCVTC mea or refer to the 

Grand Canyon Visibility Transport 

Commission. 

Table of Contents 

I. Overview of Proposed Action 

A. Regional Haze 

B. InterState Transport and Visibility 

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 

D. The 1997 NAAQS for Ozone and PM2.5

and CAA 110(a)(2)(D)(i) 

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 City of Albuquerque/ 

Bernalillo County Submittal 

A. Projection of Visibility Improvement 

B. Clean Air Corridors 

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 

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 

VI. Our Analysis of City of AlbuquerqueBernalillo County, New Mexico 

InterState Visibility Transport SIP 

Provisions 

VII. The EPA’s Conclusions and Proposed 

Action 

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Overview of Proposed Action 

A. Regional Haze 

As explained in further detail below, 

40 CFR 51.309 presents certain Western 

States within the Grand Canyon 

Visibility Transport Commission 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 (AQCB) is the 

federally delegated air quality authority 

for the City of Albuquerque and 

Bernalillo County, New Mexico (BC). 

The AQCB is authorized to administer 

and enforce the CAA and the New 

Mexico Air Quality Control Act, and to 

require local air pollution sources to 

comply with air quality standards. The 

AQCB has submitted a Section 309 

regional haze SIP for its geographic area 

of New Mexico under the New Mexico 

Air Quality Control Act (section 74–2– 

4). This SIP submittal is a necessary 

component of the regional haze plan 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 AQCB submitted 

its RH SIP to the EPA on July 28, 2011.1

Our review of the BC RH SIP is 

supported by the review of companion 

rules discussed and relied upon in the 

BC RH SIP; these rules were submitted 

in multiple SIP revisions. These 

submittals request approval of: 20.11.46 

NMAC, Sulfur Dioxide Emission 

Inventory Requirements; Western 

Backstop Sulfur Dioxide Trading 

Program and 20.11.21 NMAC, Open 

Burning. 

The EPA is proposing to approve the 

BC RH SIP, that was submitted to satisfy 

the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309, and 

the related submittals that help address 

discrete requirements of Section 309. 

Among these 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 

the EPA has finalized action on all 

section 309 SIPs. Section 51.309 does 

not require the participation of a certain 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
24770 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

2This SIP revision is viewable in EPA docket 

EPA–R06–OAR–2007–1119, which was established 

for our prior approval of a portion of the SIP 

revision on November 8, 2010. 75 FR 68447. 

3 Visual range is the greatest distance, in 

kilometers or miles, at which a dark object can be 

viewed against the sky. 

4Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal 

areas consist of national parks exceeding 6000 

acres, wilderness areas and national memorial parks 

exceeding 5000 acres, and all international parks 

that were in existence on August 7, 1977. 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 

number of States to validate its 

effectiveness. Utah submitted its 309 

SIP to the EPA on May 26, 2011, 

Wyoming submitted its 309 SIP to the 

EPA on January 12, 2011, and the State 

of New Mexico submitted its 309 SIP to 

the EPA on June 28, 2011 (received July 

5, 2011). The EPA intends to propose 

action on Wyoming, Utah and New 

Mexico’s 309 SIPs in separate actions. 

Once the EPA takes final action 

approving the necessary components of 

the 309 backstop-trading program to 

operate in all of the jurisdictions 

electing to submit 309 SIPs, the program 

will become effective. 

To help address the requirements for 

a 309 backstop-trading program, 

Albuquerque-Bernalillo County 

submitted 20.11.46 NMAC, Sulfur 

Dioxide Emission Inventory 

Requirements; Western Backstop Sulfur 

Dioxide Trading Program, with initial 

adoption on December 26, 2003, and 

later revisions submitted on September 

10, 2008, and May 24, 2011. We are 

proposing to approve 20.11.46 NMAC as 

received in these submittals. We are also 

proposing to approve 20.11.21 NMAC, 

Open Burning (submitted after initial 

adoption on December 26, 2003, with 

revisions submitted on July 28, 2011). 

Further details and analyses on 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 the BC RH SIP submittal. 

As previously Stated, the EPA is 

proposing to approve a City of 

Albuquerque-Bernalillo County SIP 

revision submitted on July 28, 2011 that 

addresses the regional haze 

requirements for the mandatory Class I 

areas under 40 CFR 51.309. The EPA is 

proposing to find that the SIP meets the 

requirements of 40 CFR 51.309. We are 

proposing to approve all parts of the RH 

SIP. We further note that the July 28, 

2011 submittal we are proposing to act 

on builds and relies on earlier RH SIPs 

submitted on December 26, 2003, and 

September 10, 2008. 

B. InterState Transport and Visibility 

We are also proposing to approve a 

portion of the SIP revision submitted to 

us by the City of Albuquerque-Bernalillo 

County, New Mexico on July 30, 2007, 

for the purpose of addressing the ‘‘good 

neighbor’’ provisions of the CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS and the PM2.5 NAAQS.2 Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of the Act requires that 

States have a SIP, or submit a SIP 

revision, containing provisions 

‘‘prohibiting any source or other type of 

emission activity within the State from 

emitting any air pollutant in amounts 

which will * * * interfere with 

measures required to be included in the 

applicable implementation plan for any 

other State under part C [of the CAA] 

* * * to protect visibility.’’ Because of 

the impacts on visibility from the 

interState transport of pollutants, we 

interpret the ‘‘good neighbor’’ 

provisions of section 110 of the Act 

described above as requiring States to 

include in their SIPs either measures to 

prohibit emissions that would interfere 

with the reasonable progress goals set to 

protect Class I areas in other States, or 

a demonstration that emissions from BC 

sources and activities will not have the 

prohibited impacts on other States’ 

existing SIPs. 

The AQCB Stated in its submittal that 

it is not possible to assess whether there 

is any interference with the measures in 

the applicable SIP for another State 

designed to protect visibility for the 

8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS until 

AQCB submits and the EPA approves 

BC’s RH SIP. In developing their 

Regional Haze SIP, BC and potentially 

impacted States collaborated through 

the WRAP. Each State developed its 

Regional Haze Plans and RPGs based on 

the WRAP modeling and technical 

analysis. The WRAP modeling was 

based in part on the emissions 

reductions each State and BC intended 

to achieve by 2018. 

We are proposing to approve the BC 

RH SIP and find that it demonstrates 

that sources within the City of 

Albuquerque/Bernalillo County do not 

cause or contribute to visibility 

impairment at Class I areas outside of 

the City and Bernalillo County. We also 

propose to find that the BC RH SIP 

appropriately includes participation in a 

SO2 emission milestone and backstop 

trading program with the States of New 

Mexico, Wyoming and Utah. We also 

propose to find that the BC RH SIP 

contains those measures included in the 

WRAP modeling and relied upon by 

New Mexico and other States in 

developing their visibility programs. On 

the basis of these findings, we are also 

proposing to approve the City of 

Albuquerque-Bernalillo County 

InterState Transport SIP submittal that 

addresses the visibility requirement of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) that emissions 

from sources within the City of 

Albuquerque and Bernalillo County do 

not interfere with measures of other 

States to protect visibility. 

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 can react in the 

atmosphere to form PM2.5. PM2.5 impairs 

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 3 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 4 which impairment 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 24771 

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.’’ 

5Albuquerque/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). 

6The 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.5 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 Western Regional Air Partnership 

(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 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 

The 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 path 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.6 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 the 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 the 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. 

The EPA determined that the GCVTC 

strategies would provide for reasonable 

progress in mitigating regional haze if 

supplemented by an annex containing 

quantitative emission reduction 

milestones and provisions for a trading 

program or other alternative measure 

(64 FR 35749 and 35756). 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 

the EPA an annex to the GCVTC. The 

annex contained SO2 emission 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
24772 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

reduction milestones and the detailed 

provisions of a backstop trading 

program to be implemented 

automatically if voluntary measures 

failed to achieve the milestones. The 

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. The 

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 the 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, the 

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. 

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. 

D. The 1997 NAAQS for Ozone and 

PM2.5 and CAA 110(a)(2)(D)(i) 

On July 18, 1997, we promulgated 

new NAAQS for 8-hour ozone and for 

PM2.5. 62 FR 38652. Section 110(a)(1) of 

the CAA requires States to submit SIPs 

to address a new or revised NAAQS 

within 3 years after promulgation of 

such standards, or within such shorter 

period as we may prescribe. Section 

110(a)(2) of the CAA lists the elements 

that such new SIPs must address, 

including section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), which 

pertains to the interState transport of 

certain emissions. Thus, States were 

required to submit SIPs that satisfy the 

applicable requirements under sections 

110(a)(1) and (2), including the 

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

by July 2000. States, including the City 

of Albuquerque/Bernalillo County, did 

not meet the statutory July 2000 

deadline for submission of these SIPs. 

Accordingly, on April 25, 2005, the EPA 

made findings of failure to submit, 

notifying all States, including the City of 

Albuquerque/Bernalillo County, of their 

failure to make the required SIP 

submission to address interState 

transport under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). 

70 FR 21147. 

On August 15, 2006, we issued our 

‘‘Guidance for State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) Submissions to Meet Current 

Outstanding Obligations Under Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-Hour Ozone and 

PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards’’ (2006 Guidance). We 

developed the 2006 Guidance to make 

recommendations to States for making 

submissions to meet the requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 

8-hour ozone standards and the 1997 

PM2.5 standards. 

As identified in the 2006 Guidance, 

the ‘‘good neighbor’’ provisions in 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA 

require each State to submit a SIP that 

prohibits emissions that adversely affect 

another State in the ways contemplated 

in the statute. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) 

contains four distinct requirements 

related to the impacts of interState 

transport. The SIP must prevent sources 

in the State from emitting pollutants in 

amounts which will: (1) Contribute 

significantly to nonattainment of the 

NAAQS in other States; (2) interfere 

with maintenance of the NAAQS in 

other States; (3) interfere with 

provisions to prevent significant 

deterioration of air quality in other 

States; or (4) interfere with efforts to 

protect visibility in other States. In this 

action, we only address the fourth 

element regarding visibility. 

The 2006 Guidance Stated that States 

may make a simple SIP submission 

confirming that it is not possible at that 

time to assess whether there is any 

interference with measures in the 

applicable SIP for another State 

designed to ‘‘protect visibility’’ for the 

8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS until 

RH SIPs are submitted and approved. 

RH SIPs were required to be submitted 

by December 17, 2007. See 74 FR 2392 

(January 15, 2009). 

The EPA received a SIP revision 

adopted by AQCB on September 12, 

2007 to address the interState transport 

provisions of CAA 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 

1997 ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. For the 

reasons discussed in section V of this 

proposed rulemaking, we propose to 

find the AQCB adequately demonstrated 

that it is improbable that emissions from 

within the City of Albuquerque and 

Bernalillo County cause or contribute to 

visibility impairment at any Class I area. 

Therefore, we are proposing to approve 

the portion of the City of AlbuquerqueBernalillo County InterState Transport 

SIP submittal that addresses the 

requirement that emissions from the 

City of Albuquerque/Bernalillo County 

sources not interfere with measures 

required in the SIP of any other State to 

protect visibility. See CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). 

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 BC RH 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 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 24773 

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

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

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. 

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) 

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, a 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 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 the 

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 model 

rules for the 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, the 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 BART 

source’’ 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 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
24774 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

anticipated to result from the use of 

such technology. States are free to 

determine the weight and significance 

to be assigned to each factor. 

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 the 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 

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: (1) Actions to minimize 

emissions, (2) evaluation of smoke 

dispersion, (3) alternatives to fire, 

(4) public notification, (5) air quality 

monitoring, (6) surveillance and 

enforcement, and (7) program 

evaluation (40 CFR 51.309(d)(6)(i)). 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 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 include 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 the EPA as part 

of section 309 should be implemented 

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

The 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 the 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 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 24775 

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). 

outside the State that are affected by 

emissions from the State. The 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 

51.509(d)(10)(i)(A)–(G). 

At the same time that the State 

submits its progress reports to the 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 the 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 the 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 the 

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 

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 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 

3915; see also 64 FR 35714. 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. See 70 FR 39104. 

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


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
24776 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

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’’). 

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 

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 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 24777 

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 

reasonable progress than BART (71 FR 

60619). 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 (70 

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), 

the 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. The 

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 

fungibility 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 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
24778 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

13WRAP Regional Technical Support Document 

for the Requirements of § 309 of the Regional Haze 

Rule (64 FR 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, February 

28, 2011. 

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 

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 the EPA. 

V. Our Analysis of the City of 

Albuquerque/Bernalillo County 

Submittal 

The following summarizes the reasons 

why we are proposing that the AQCB’s 

July 28, 2011 submittal (with the 

submitted companion rules of 20.11.46 

NMAC and 20.11.21 NMAC) meets the 

requirements of 40 CFR 51.309 and the 

Clean Air Act. 

A. Projection of Visibility Improvement 

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

BC 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 

emission inventories and 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

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 

Case (dv) 

2000–2004 

Baseline 

Monitoring 

Data (dv) 

2018 Base 

Case (dv) 

2018 Preliminary 

Reasonable 

Progress 

Case (dv) 

Grand Canyon National Park ............................ AZ 11.7 11.4 11.3 2.2 2.2 2.1 

Mount Baldy Wilderness ................................... AZ 11.9 11.5 11.4 3.0 2.9 2.8 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 24779 

15WRAP Regional Technical Support Document 

for the Requirements of § 309 of the Regional Haze 

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

2008. 

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

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 

Case (dv) 

2000–2004 

Baseline 

Monitoring 

Data (dv) 

2018 Base 

Case (dv) 

2018 Preliminary 

Reasonable 

Progress 

Case (dv) 

Petrified Forest National Park ........................... AZ 13.2 12.9 12.9 5.0 4.9 4.8 

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

Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park 

Wilderness.

CO 10.3 10.1 9.9 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 12.6 4.3 4.1 4.0 

Weminuche Wilderness .................................... CO 10.3 10.1 9.9 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 10.9 3.8 3.6 3.5 

Bryce Canyon National Park ............................. UT 11.6 11.3 11.2 2.8 2.7 2.6 

Canyonlands National Park .............................. UT 11.2 11.0 10.9 3.8 3.6 3.5 

Capitol Reef National Park ............................... UT 10.9 10.6 10.5 4.1 4.0 3.9 

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

B. Clean Air Corridors 

1. Comprehensive Emissions Tracking 

Program 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(3), BC’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. For a 

complete description of 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, see Analysis of the Clean 

Air Corridor (CAC) in the Appendix B– 

SIP of the BC RH SIP. 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 

AQCB. 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), BC 

has provided in its RH 309 SIP 

submittal the geographic boundaries of 

the CAC (a map of the CAC can be 

found as Figure 3 in Section B of the BC 

RH 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 

and related technical analysis 

conducted by the WRAP. Appendix B– 

SIP of the AQCB RH SIP summarizes 

this assessment and 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), BC 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,15 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 future 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 BC RH 309 SIP submittal 

describes how BC, in coordination with 

the State of New Mexico, 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 BC identifies significant 

emissions growth, it, in coordination 

with the State of New Mexico, 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, BC, in coordination with the State 

of New Mexico, other transport region 

States, and tribes, will evaluate the need 

for additional emission reduction 

measures and identify an 

implementation schedule for such 

measures. BC will report on the need for 

additional reduction measures to the 

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), 

BC in its RH 309 SIP submittal has 

concluded that one other CAC for the 

Grand Canyon National Park can be 

identified at this time. BC’s conclusion 

appears to derive from the WRAP 

Regional Technical Support Document, 

which cites to an alternative analysis of 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
24780 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

16 Green, M.C.; Pitchford, M.L.; and Ashbaugh, 

L.L. Identification of Candidate Clean Air Corridors 

for the Colorado Plateau. J. Air & Waste Manage. 

Assoc. 1996. 46(5), 446. 

17The milestone numbers reflect the participation 

of Wyoming, Utah, and New Mexico (including the 

City of Albuquerque-Bernalillo County) in the 309 

backstop trading program. 

CACs for the Grand Canyon.16 This 

alternative analysis is not relied upon 

by the WRAP, however, to identify a 

CAC. The CAC identified by the WRAP 

pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(3)(i), is 

mostly a subset of the boundaries of the 

additional CAC for the Grand Canyon 

identified by BC (Appendix B–SIP, 

figure 26 and 27). The WRAP TSD notes 

that: ‘‘Other than the various options for 

selection of a clean air corridor for 

Grand Canyon National Park, shown 

above, no other corridors have been 

identified. If the growth of visibilityimpairing emissions, in the corridor 

identified, remain protective of Grand 

Canyon National Park, then it should be 

protective of the other Colorado Plateau 

Class I areas. Localized emissions near 

the Class I areas within the Clean Air 

Corridor, however, may have more 

effect on those Class I areas. Similarly, 

disproportionate emissions growth in 

the southern portion of the corridor may 

have more effect on Grand Canyon 

National Park.’’ 

BC identified an additional CAC for 

the Grand Canyon National Park, but 

determined no additional measures are 

required at this time to protect against 

future degradation of air quality in any 

of the 16 Class I areas. The WRAP TSD 

and WRAP Policy Paper on Clean Air 

Corridors concluded that identification 

of the one CAC and evaluation of 

patterns of growth within and outside 

this CAC are sufficient to determine that 

no significant emissions growth is 

occurring at this time and that emission 

growth is not causing visibility 

impairment in the 16 Class I areas of the 

Colorado Plateau. We are proposing to 

approve BC’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), 

BC in its RH 309 SIP submittal sets forth 

milestone SO2 numbers for each year of 

the program until 2018.17 Table 2 shows 

the milestone numbers and how 

compliance with the annual milestones 

will be determined (Table 3 of the BC 

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. 

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 is 141,849 tpy (see 

Demonstration that the SO2 Milestones 

Provide Greater Reasonable Progress 

than BART, Section N of the BC RH 

SIP). The difference is a 60 percent 

reduction in SO2 emissions from 1990 to 

2018. Thus, the AQCB 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 SIP includes documentation of the 

specific methodology used to calculate 

SO2 emissions during the 2006 base year 

for each emitting unit included in the 

program. This requirement is addressed 

in Section N of the SIP, while 20.11.46 

NMAC provides details on the 

methodology. 

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

AQCB 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, AQCB will 

submit an annual emissions report that 

documents prior year emissions for 

AQCB sources covered by the 309 

program to all participating States by 

September 30 of each year. AQCB 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. The EPA is proposing to 

determine 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 City of 

Albuquerque/Bernalillo County to 

determine if the milestone has been 

exceeded. 20.11.46 NMAC, Sulfur 

Dioxide Emissions Inventory 

Requirements; Western Backstop Sulfur 

Dioxide Trading Program, requires 

sources to report their emissions 

annually. Specifically, 20.11.46.9 

NMAC 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 

20.11.46.16 NMAC (See section V.E.3 of 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 24781 

this notice for a further detail on 

emission inventory requirements under 

20.11.46.16 NMAC). We are proposing 

to approve 20.11.46 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 BC 

RH 309 SIP submittal provides that BC 

shall submit an annual emissions report 

for sources within the City of 

Albuquerque/Bernalillo County 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 the 

EPA. This final report and 

determination will be submitted to the 

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 BC 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 20.11.46 NMAC, which 

includes the rules that govern the 

program. A review of 20.11.46 NMAC 

and revisions to the rule can be found 

in the TSD. 

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 the EPA, 

emissions from covered stationary 

sources in any year beginning in 2018 

do not exceed the 2018 milestone. In 

order to meet this requirement, BC 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 RH 309 SIP submittal 

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 BC RH SIP). We are proposing to 

determine the RH 309 SIP submittal 

satisfies 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 BC RH 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 BC RH SIP, and Section 

20.11.46.20 NMAC, which we are 

proposing to approve). BC 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 streamlined 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 

AQCB 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 BC determines that 

the 2018 milestone has been met. BC 

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 the appropriate deterrent effect. 

The EPA is proposing to determine the 

RH SIP submittal satisfies the special 

penalties provisions requirement at 40 

CFR 51.309(d)(4)(vi)(B), and proposed 

approval of 20.11.46.20 NMAC is 

included in our proposal to approve 

20.11.46 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-by-source’’ 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 N of the 

BC RH SIP, Demonstration that the SO2

Milestones Provide for Greater 

Reasonable Progress than BART 

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

BC has included a demonstration of 

how the 309 program achieves greater 

reasonable progress than BART for SO2.

Below is a discussion of how the 309 

backstop trading program achieves 

greater reasonable progress than BART. 

Wyoming, Utah, and the State of New 

Mexico have also submitted SIPs with 

the same better than BART 

demonstration as BC 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), 

BC’s RH 309 SIP submittal offers a 

‘‘better-than-BART’’ demonstration that 

lists the BART-eligible 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 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
24782 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

18CALMET/CALPUFF Protocol for BART 

Exemption Screening Analysis for Class I Areas in 

the Western United States, 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. 

19BART 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. 

visibility impairing air pollutant. (40 

CFR 51.301). The WRAP identified three 

potential BART-eligible sources in BC. 

These were: PNM Reeves Generating 

Station, GCC Rio Grande Inc, and Cobisa 

Person Power Project. AQCB assessed 

whether these facilities were existing 

stationary facilities as defined at 40 CFR 

51.301 and determined all three sources 

were determined to be not BARTeligible. These facilities did not meet 

the definition for BART eligibility, 

because PNM Reeves and GCC Rio 

Grande were not in existence and 

operation during the requisite time 

period, and the other facility did not 

have emission units in the 26 source 

categories for BART. We are proposing 

to determine that BC has satisfied 40 

CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(A) and agree that 

there are no BART eligible sources in 

BC. 

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. Having no BARTeligible sources, no modeling was 

required for sources in Bernalillo 

County, and no BC sources were 

determined to be subject to BART. 

The State of 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 the State of New Mexico 

and Utah. The procedures used are 

outlined in the WRAP Regional 

Modeling Center (RMC) BART Modeling 

Protocol.18 The State of Wyoming 

performed separate modeling to identify 

sources subject to BART.19 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 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. 

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 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 24783 

20 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. 

21WRAP 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. 

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 backstop trading program 

achieves greater reasonable progress 

than would be achieved through the 

installation of and operation of BART at 

all the sources subject to BART 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 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 nonsubject 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 program also provides for 

a cap on new source growth. Future 

impairment is prevented by capping 

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 massbased 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. 

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—Emission Reductions for 

Stationary Sources of the BC RH SIP 

and the rules that govern it are found at 

20.11.46 NMAC, 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 BC RH 309 SIP submittal 

includes a summary of 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 N of the BC RH SIP, which 

refers to data from modeling included in 

Tables 2 and 3 of Attachment C to the 

Annex.20 21 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 and milestones 

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 

trading program will achieve greater 

reasonable progress than would be 

achieved through the installation and 

operation of BART, 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 20.11.46 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. 20.11.46.11 

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 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
24784 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

22Western 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. 

emit 100 tons per year or more of SO2

in the program trigger year. We are 

proposing to approve the 20.11.46.11 

NMAC as meeting the requirements of 

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

2. Allowance Provisions 

Part C.C1 of the AQCB RH SIP and 

20.11.46.14 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 BC 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 

20.11.46.14 NMAC as meeting 40 CFR 

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

3. Monitoring and Recordkeeping 

Provisions 

As required by 40 CFR 

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

rule 20.11.46.16.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, BC 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 

20.11.46.21 NMAC or 20.11.46.22 

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

monitoring that the source submits for 

approval by AQCB and the EPA in 

accordance with Paragraph (5) 

Subsection O of 20.11.46.16 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 AQCB 

RH 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 allocation to that 

unit to 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 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 A of 20.11.46.16 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 20.11.46.16 NMAC, sources 

with a special reserve compliance 

account are required to submit to BC 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 

submitted 20.11.46.16 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 BC RH 

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, AQCB will work with the 

State of New Mexico, 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.22 BC assumes responsibility 

for ensuring that all the EATS 

provisions are completed as described 

in its SIP. 

In addition, BC will work with the 

State of New Mexico and 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. BC 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 20.11.46 

NMAC, such as transferring and 

recording allowances. We propose to 

determine the submitted trading 

program has adequate tracking system 

provisions in accordance with 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 

20.11.46.12 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 

BC 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 and 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 BC regarding 

the trading program. We are proposing 

to determine the submitted rule 

20.11.46.12 NMAC and the submitted 

SIP meet the requirements for 

‘‘authorized account representative 

provisions’’ in 40 CFR 

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


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 24785 

23Appendix 2007–C of the AQCB RH SIP, 

Summary 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. 

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). 20.11.46.17 

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 20.11.46.17 as being consistent 

with the program elements required at 

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

Section C3 of the RH 309 SIP 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 CFR 

51.308(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 20.11.46.19 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. AQCB 

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 

20.11.46.19 C. NMAC (discussed in 

further detail below). We are proposing 

to determine the submitted rule 

20.11.46.19 NMAC is consistent with 

the ‘‘compliance provisions’’ 

requirement of 40 CFR 

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

8. Penalty Provisions 

The submitted rule 20.11.46.19 C. 

NMAC provides the penalty provisions 

as 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 

20.11.46.19 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), 20.11.46.18 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 BC 

RH SIP submittal contains provisions 

for a 2013 assessment. For the 2013 

assessment, BC will work with the State 

of New Mexico and other participating 

States to develop a projected emission 

inventory for SO2 through the year 2018. 

BC will then evaluate the projected 

inventory and assess the likelihood of 

meeting the regional milestone for the 

year 2018. BC 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), BC’s RH SIP 

submittal contains BART and long-term 

strategies to address NOX and PM 

emissions As previously discussed, no 

sources in Bernalillo County satisfied 

the definition for BART-eligible sources 

at 40 CFR 51.301. An 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 H–O 

of the AQCB RH SIP. This report 

represents the initial assessment of 

stationary source NOX and PM strategies 

for regional haze. Long-term strategies 

are discussed in section V. N below. 

G. Mobile Sources 

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

BC, 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 onroad 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 2018.23 These 

inventories for New Mexico and the 

Albuquerque urban area are 

summarized in Tables 10, 10.1, 10.2, 

and 10.3 of the BC RH SIP. Mobile 

source emissions (on-road and nonroad) are projected to be at their lowest 

level within Bernalillo County at the 

end of the planning period primarily 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
24786 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

24 Detailed information on the emission inventory 

is contained in the ENVIRON Report WRAP Mobile 

Source Emission Inventories Update, May 2006. 

25 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. 

due to on-road vehicle emission and 

fuel standards established by the EPA. 

An emission inventory update was 

also done for a 2002 base year and 

emission projections for the years 2008, 

2013, and 2018.24 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 the AQCB to address mobile 

source emissions. 

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

Section D 1.(c) of the BC RH SIP States 

that BC 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 available 

emission inventory projections show 

that there will be a 99 percent decrease 

in SO2 emissions from non-road mobile 

sources for 2002–2018. The reduction 

will result from compliance with EPA’s 

rule titled Control of Emissions of Air 

Pollution from Non-road Diesel Engines 

and Fuel (see 69 FR 38958). A 99 

percent reduction in SO2 from non-road 

mobile sources is consistent with the 

goal of reasonable progress and no other 

long-term strategies are necessary to 

address SO2 emissions from non-road 

mobile sources at this time. Pursuant to 

40 CFR 51.309(d)(5)(ii), BC will submit 

interim reports to the EPA in 2013 and 

2018 on the implementation of regional 

and local recommendations from the 

GCVTC report pertaining to mobile 

sources. BC 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), the 

BC RH SIP submittal must provide for 

an evaluation of how its SIP meets the 

51.309(d)(6) ‘‘Programs related to fire’’ 

requirements. 

Based on our review of Section E of 

the BC RH SIP submittal, we propose to 

find that the RH SIP submittal meets the 

309(d)(6) requirements as discussed in 

detail below. We also propose approval 

of revisions to the BC’s Open Burning 

rule submitted to us on December 26, 

2003 and July 28, 2011. The 2003, and 

the 2011 submittals revise and replace 

BC’s Open Burning rule of 1980 that the 

EPA approved into the SIP. By 

proposing to approve the December 26, 

2003, and the July 28, 2011 submittals, 

we are proposing to repeal BC’s Open 

Burning rule of 1980 from the SIP. 

1. Evaluation of Current Fire Programs 

BC’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 

BC have a mechanism in place for 

evaluating and addressing the degree of 

visibility impairment from smoke in 

their planning and application of 

burning. For example, Tables 11 and 12 

of the BC RH SIP submittal document 

the relevant federal, State and local 

programs that address visibility. See 

Tables 11 and 12 for references to the 

State of New Mexico’s Open Burning 

Rule (20.2.60 NMAC), and the State of 

New Mexico’s Smoke Management Rule 

(20.2.65 NMAC). To address local 

programs, BC has adopted the 

Albuquerque-Bernalillo County Open 

Burning Regulation (20.11.21 NMAC) 

and submitted this to us for SIP 

approval and as noted previously, today 

we are proposing to approve it. The rule 

was first approved by the EPA on April 

10, 1980. See 45 FR 24468. To address 

the Regional Haze Rule requirements, 

the AQCB later revised its rules in 2003 

and 2011. See submittals at the EPA 

docket identified No. EPA–R06–OAR– 

2009–0648. A more detailed discussion 

of our proposed approval of the BC 

Open Burning Rule can be found in the 

TSD. There are two types of burns 

specified by the rule. PB–I burns are 

those burn projects expected to generate 

less than one ton per day of PM10 and 

PB–II burns are those burn projects 

expected to generate one ton per day or 

more of PM10. 

We propose to find that BC’s Open 

Burning Rule meets the specific 

additional requirements of 

51.309(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, 

Section 20.11.21.19 of BC’s Open Burn 

Rule requires the use of emission 

reduction techniques (ERT) 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. 

Emission reduction techniques are 

described in 20.11.21.19 NMAC and 

include reducing the area burned, 

mechanical treatments, chemical pretreatments, site conversion, land use 

change, reduction in fuel loading, 

reduction in fuel consumption, 

minimization of emission factor, and the 

use of an air curtain incinerator. The 

rule requires land managers burning 

PB–II burns to use at a minimum, one 

emission reduction technique included 

in 20.11.21.19 NMAC for each planned 

burn project (20.11.21.15 C.(3) NMAC). 

PB–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 this portion of the Open 

Burning rule meets this requirement. 

b. Evaluation of Smoke Dispersion 

To evaluate smoke dispersion, 

20.11.21.15 B.(1)(b) NMAC only allows 

PB–I burns to be ignited during daytime 

hours when the ventilation index 

category is rated ‘‘Good’’ or better as 

determined by using the methodology 

outlined in 20.11.21.17 NMAC. To 

comply with this requirement, the 

burner must conduct visual monitoring 

and document the results in writing. 

These results include an evaluation of 

the smoke dispersion by recording 

characteristics of the smoke (e.g., color, 

density), including the general compass 

direction of dispersion, the patterns of 

vertical dispersion, and the duration of 

the smoke plume(s), and corresponding 

time-of-day information. For burns 

within 1 mile of a population, the 

burner must notify the population in 

advance and AQCB may choose to 

conduct instrument monitoring 

(20.11.21.15 B.(5) NMAC). 

For PB–II burns, 20.11.21.15 C. 

NMAC provides the burner can ignite a 

planned burn project only during times 

when the ventilation category is ‘‘Good’’ 

or better 25 as determined by using the 

methodology outlined in 20.11.21.17 

NMAC, and must notify the public at 

least two days prior to the burn. The 

burner must conduct visual monitoring 

and document the results in writing. 

The AQCB may choose to conduct 

instrument monitoring in addition to 

visual monitoring. We propose to find 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 24787 

that this portion of the Open Burning 

rule meets this requirement. 

c. Alternatives to Fire 

To address the alternatives to fire 

requirement, 20.11.21.15 C.(2) NMAC 

requires that for burns exceeding 1 ton 

PM10 emissions per day, burners must 

consider the use of alternatives to 

burning. 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 AQCB. 

The alternatives to fire that must be 

considered are described in 20.11.21.18 

NMAC. We propose to find that this 

portion of the Open Burning rule meets 

this requirement. 

d. Public Notification 

To meet the public notification 

requirements, 20.11.21.15 B.(5)(b) 

NMAC requires that for PB–I burns, 

burners must make a good faith effort to 

notify the populations that are located 

within one mile of the planned burn 

project. The method of notification shall 

be an advertisement in a newspaper of 

general circulation in the area where the 

burn will take place, or other means, as 

approved by the AQCB to ensure that 

adequate notice is provided to the 

affected public. 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, the 

burner will also notify the local fire 

authorities prior to igniting a burn and 

register the burn project with 

Albuquerque environmental health 

department as required by 20.11.21.15 

B.(2)–(3) NMAC. The Open Burning rule 

at 20.11.21.15 (C) NMAC requires that 

for PB–II burns, burners must make a 

good faith effort to notify the public 

using an advertisement in a newspaper 

of general circulation in the area where 

the burn will take place, or other means, 

as approved by the AQCB to ensure that 

adequate notice is provided to the 

affected public. 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 as required by 

20.11.21.15 C.(11) NMAC. In addition, 

the burner will also notify the local fire 

authorities prior to igniting a burn and 

register the burn project with 

Albuquerque environmental health 

department as required by 20.11.21.15 

C.(6)–(7) NMAC. We propose to find 

that this portion of the Open Burning 

rule meets this requirement. 

e. Air Quality Monitoring 

To address air quality monitoring, 

NMAC sections 20.11.21.15 B.(1)(b)(ii), 

B.(5)(a), and C.(5) require that PB–I and 

PB–II burners conduct and document 

visual monitoring on all planned burn 

projects. Burners will evaluate the 

smoke dispersion by recording 

characteristics of the smoke (e.g., color, 

density), including the general compass 

direction of dispersion, the patterns of 

vertical dispersion, and the duration of 

the smoke plume(s). 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. We propose to find 

that this portion of the Open Burning 

rule meets this requirement. 

f. Surveillance and Enforcement 

To address surveillance and 

enforcement requirements, 20.11.21 

NMAC requires that the permittee 

submit reports and burn project tracking 

forms to the AQCB on PB–I and PB–II 

burns. See 20.11.21.15 NMAC. In 

addition, 20.11.21.13F States that any 

permit issued under the rule may be 

revoked or suspended, if the applicant 

fails to comply with the permit 

provisions therein, and the permittee 

may be subject to enforcement actions. 

We propose to find that this portion of 

the Open Burning rule meets this 

requirement. 

g. Program Evaluation 

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

has included in the RH 309 SIP 

submittal an evaluation of its smoke 

management program and all Federal, 

State, and private prescribed fire smoke 

management programs in Bernalillo 

County based on the potential to 

contribute to visibility impairment in 

the 16 Class I Areas of the Colorado 

Plateau, and how visibility protection 

from smoke is addressed in planning 

and operation. 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(b) and Tables 11 and 12 describe the 

results of these evaluations in detail. For 

example, BC commits to host an annual 

meeting with all burners and interested 

stakeholders to assess the adequacy of 

the design, impact, and implementation 

of the program. BC commits to review 

gathered data with stakeholders on an 

annual basis that will serve to establish 

annual emissions goals. It has also 

adopted an Open Burning regulation at 

20.11.21 NMAC that serves as the 

foundation of the Open Burning 

Program, which the AQCB administers 

and enforces. We propose to find that 

the BC RH SIP submittal meets the 

requirement for program evaluation 

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

2. Inventory and Tracking System 

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 BC 

RH SIP submittal provides for inventory 

and tracking measures that we propose 

to find meet the 309(d)(6)(ii) 

requirement. See Section E(c) of the BC 

RH SIP submittal. For example, BC’s 

Open Burning rule at 20.11.21.15 

NMAC includes requirements for PB–I 

and PB–II burners to report on 

emissions from their burns including 

quantitative information regarding fuel 

types, fuel consumption, and type of 

burn to maintain an adequate emission 

inventory. The AQCB maintains a fire 

emission inventory of the following 

pollutants: VOC, NOX, elemental 

carbon, organic carbon, and fine 

particulate for fire sources within 

Bernalillo County. 20.11.21.15.B(4) 

NMAC requires applicants for PB–I 

burns to complete and submit to the 

AQCB a burn project tracking form 

within two weeks after completion of 

the burn activity. 20.11.21.15.C(9) 

NMAC requires applicants for PB–II 

burns to complete and submit to the 

AQCB a burn project tracking form 

within two weeks after completion of 

the burn activity. Completion of these 

tracking forms in conjunction with the 

emission quantification requirements 

described in 20.11.21.16 should serve as 

the basis for inventory and tracking of 

emissions in Open Burning rule. The 

emissions tracking system follows the 

WRAP Fire Tracking System Policy (See 

Appendix K–O of the ABQ RH SIP). BC 

will submit emission inventory reports 

to the WRAP and each year, BC will 

complete an emissions inventory and 

submit the report to the State of New 

Mexico, as required under 20.11.47 

Emissions Inventory Requirements. We 

are proposing to determine the RH SIP 

submittal meets these requirements. 

3. Identification and Removal of 

Administrative Barriers 

We propose to find that the BC RH 

SIP submittal meets the requirements 

for 309(d)(6)(iii) that requires that States 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
24788 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

26WRAP 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. 

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. Section E(d) of 

the RH SIP submittal, describes the 

process the AQCB commits to undertake 

to address this requirement. For 

example, the AQCB is committed to 

work 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 BC RH SIP relies on 

Non-burning Alternatives for Vegetation 

and Fuel Management, and Burning 

Management Alternatives on 

Agricultural Lands in the Western 

United States (Appendix 2007–E of the 

BC RH SIP) developed by the WRAP for 

non-burning alternatives and methods 

to assess their applicability. Should the 

AQCB determine that an administrative 

barrier exists, the AQCB 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. During the 

development of revisions to the Open 

Burning rule, the AQCB identified one 

potential administrative barrier to the 

use of non-burning alternatives that 

concerns the use of air curtain 

incinerators (ACIs). An ACI is a 

pollution control device which operates 

by forcefully projecting a curtain of air 

across an open chamber or pit in which 

combustion occurs. Introducing high 

velocity air into the combustion zone 

acts as a ‘‘curtain’’ and trapping the 

smoke and the particulate matter. Use of 

this control device will enhance 

combustion, compared with open 

burning, and will curb smoke and 

particulate emissions. This curtain also 

helps with maintaining a higher 

combustion zone temperature, thus 

improving the efficiency of the burn. 

Furthermore, ACIs reduce risk of an 

escaped fire and could be considered for 

safety reasons. Therefore, use of ACIs as 

an ERT is acceptable. Such a use would 

be available to a source through BC’s 

regulation 20.22.7 NMAC. As BC’s rules 

are currently structured, ACI’s are not 

allowed (See 20.11.68 NMAC) unless a 

variance to such a prohibition is granted 

by BC under existing rules. See 20.22.7 

NMAC. In addition, the granting or 

approval of a variance by the board does 

not mean automatic approval by the 

EPA. A source operating under a 

variance may be subject to federal 

enforcement for not meeting the SIP 

unless the State/local agency adopts and 

submits the variance to the EPA 

approval as a SIP revision. We suggest 

that BC be proactive in taking the 

necessary steps they need to revise their 

Open Burning rules to allow for ACI’s 

in appropriate circumstances without 

the need to issue variances. The 

alternatives to fire developed by BC are 

described in 20.11.21.18 NMAC. 

4. Enhanced Smoke Management 

Program 

We propose to find that BC’s RH SIP 

submittal and Open Burning rule meet 

the requirements for 309(d)(iv) that 

requires the SIP include an enhanced 

smoke management program, which 

means the smoke management program 

considers visibility and is based on the 

criteria of efficiency, economics, law, 

emission reduction opportunities, land 

management objectives, and reduction 

of visibility impairment. Pursuant to 40 

CFR 51.309(d)(6)(iv), the smoke 

management programs that operate 

within Bernalillo County 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 

M–O of the BC RH SIP submittal. The 

intent of the WRAP ESMP is to assist 

States to address visibility effects 

associated with fire in a way that is 

adequate for a SIP. The BC’s Open 

Burning regulation, 20.11.21 NMAC, 

which became effective on December 

31, 2003 and was subsequently 

amended and submitted for approval 

meets the Enhanced Smoke 

Management Program (ESMP) policy 

and the Regional Haze Rule (RHR) 

requirements as described above. 

5. Annual Emission Goal 

We propose to find that BC’s RH SIP 

submittal meets the requirements for 

309(d)(v) that requires that States adopt 

a process to establish annual emission 

goals to minimize emission increases 

from fire. Pursuant to 40 CFR 

51.309(d)(6)(v), BC’s RH SIP submittal 

describes how it meets this requirement. 

It has committed to use the policies set 

out by Western Regional Air Partnership 

Policy on Annual Emission Goals for 

Fire to minimize emission increases in 

fire through the use of annual emission 

goals. A copy of this policy can be 

found in Appendix N–O of the BC RH 

SIP. BC will use a collaborative 

mechanism for setting annual emission 

goals and developing a process for 

tracking their attainment on a yearly 

basis. In addition, BC‘s Open Burning 

rule at 20.11.21.19 NMAC relies on 

emission reduction techniques (ERT), 

where appropriate, to minimize 

emission increases in fire within 

Bernalillo County. Under that rule, BC 

will quantify the ERTs that are being 

used within Bernalillo County on a 

project-specific basis to reduce the total 

amount of emissions being generated 

from areas where prescribed fire is being 

used. As described above, the amended 

Open Burning regulation, 20.11.21 

NMAC, requires the use of at least one 

ERT for all prescribed fires with 

emissions exceeding one ton of PM10

per day. 

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 

Chapter 7 of the WRAP TSD.26 Based on 

the WRAP modeling, the AQCB 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. Since AQCB 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). AQCB 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. 

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 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 24789 

27 20.11.20 NMAC was previously approved by 

EPA on April 1, 2009 (74 FR 14731). 

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). 

We note BC has taken additional 

measures to address fugitive dust in 

Fugitive Dust Control, 20.11.20 

NMAC,27 in order to protect human 

health and air quality. The regulation 

requires the use of reasonably available 

control measures to reduce fugitive dust 

that adversely affects public health, 

welfare, safety, or impairs visibility. 

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 BC 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 13 through 17of the BC RH SIP 

submittal summarize all pollution 

prevention and renewable energy 

programs currently in place in New 

Mexico (as of 2003) that could affect 

Bernalillo County. Table 18 shows all 

renewable energy capacity and 

production in use or planned in the 

county as of 2002 (See Appendix O–O 

for Statewide capacity and production). 

BC also determined the total energy 

generation capacity and production 

within Bernalillo County and New 

Mexico. 

2. Incentive Programs 

Per 40 CFR 51.309(d)(8)(ii), Table 20 

of the BC RH SIP submittal identifies 

incentive programs in the State of New 

Mexico that reward efforts for early 

compliance or to go beyond compliance 

by participating in the 309 regional SO2

backstop trading program. The 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 additional 

emission allowances. 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 13 

through 17 of the BC RH SIP submittal 

discuss the policies and programs 

within the State of New Mexico that 

preserve and expand energy 

conservation efforts and renewable 

energy which have a direct effect on 

Bernalillo County. 

4. Potential for Renewable Energy 

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

the RH SIP submittal contains an 

assessment of areas where there is the 

potential for renewable energy to supply 

power in a cost effective manner. 

Appendix O–O of the submitted RH 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 BC RH SIP submittal 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 O–O of the SIP). The 

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 

reductions 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 BC RH SIP indicates that 

BC and the State of New Mexico will 

rely on current renewable energy 

programs as described in Tables 13 

through 17 and Appendix O–O of the 

RH SIP submittal to demonstrate 

progress in achieving the renewable 

energy goal of the GCVTC. The GCVTC’s 

goal is that renewable energy will 

comprise 10 percent of the regional 

power needs by 2005 and 20 percent by 

2015. BC will submit progress reports in 

2013 and 2018, describing Bernalillo 

County’s share of New Mexico’s 

contribution toward meeting the GCVTC 

renewable energy goals. To the extent 

that it is not feasible for Bernalillo 

County to meet its contribution to these 

goals, BC 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 

the EPA, Recommendations for 

Improving Western Vistas, the 

Commission included additional 

recommendations that the EPA did not 

adopt as part of 40 CFR 51.309. 

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

submitted BC RH 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. These 

recommendations are listed in Section 

H of the BC RH SIP. The BC RH 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), BC will submit to the 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 BC RH SIP submittal 

requires BC to submit to the EPA, as a 

SIP revision, periodic progress reports 

for the years 2013 and 2018. The AQCB 

will assess whether current programs 

are achieving reasonable progress in 

Class I areas outside Bernalillo County 

that are affected by emissions from 

within Bernalillo County. BC 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 BC RH SIP submittal provides that 

BC will take one of the following actions 

based upon information contained in 

each periodic progress report. BC will 

provide a negative declaration 

Statement to the EPA saying that no SIP 

revision is needed if BC determines 

reasonable progress is being achieved. If 

the BC finds that the SIP is inadequate 

to ensure reasonable progress due to 

emissions from outside Bernalillo 

County, BC will notify the EPA and the 

contributing State(s), and initiate efforts 

through a regional planning process to 

address the emissions in question. If BC 

finds that the SIP is inadequate to 

ensure reasonable progress due to 

emissions from another country, BC will 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
24790 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

28The IMPROVE monitoring site representing 

Pecos Wilderness is located near Wheeler Peak 

Wilderness. 

29San Pedro Parks Wilderness Area, located in 

New Mexico, is one of the 16 Class I areas of the 

Colorado Plateau. The visibility requirements for 

this area are covered under the Section 309 

submittal evaluated in the preceding sections. 

30http://vista.cira.coloState.edu/tss/. 

31EPA’s review of the WRAP photochemical 

modeling is included in the docket, Technical 

Support Document for Technical Products Prepared 

by the Western Regional Air Partnership in Support 

of Western Regional Haze Plans. 

notify the EPA and provide information 

on the impairment being caused by 

these emissions. If BC finds that the SIP 

is inadequate to ensure reasonable 

progress due to emissions from within 

Bernalillo County, BC 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), BC 

has participated in regional planning 

and coordination with New Mexico and 

other States by participating in the 

WRAP and participating in interState 

coordination efforts with the State of 

New Mexico while developing its 

emission reduction strategies under 40 

CFR 51.309. The backstop trading 

program in the BC SIP submittal and 

companion rules involved coordination 

of the three States (Wyoming, Utah, and 

New Mexico, including BC) 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 

The EPA is proposing to find that BC 

has identified the Class I areas which 

may be affected by emissions from 

within Bernalillo County, as required by 

40 CFR 51.309(g), which provides a 

requirement for compliance with 40 

CFR 51.308(d) to the extent planning is 

necessary for areas other than the 16 

Class I areas addressed in the 309 SIP. 

There are no Class I areas within 

Bernalillo County, therefore BC is not 

required to identify reasonable progress 

goals or calculate baseline and natural 

visibility conditions at any Class I area. 

However, BC is required to address the 

apportionment of visibility impact from 

the emissions generated by sources 

within Bernalillo County at Class I areas 

outside of the county borders. There are 

a total of nine Class I areas within the 

State of New Mexico that are located 

close enough to BC that they may 

plausibly be affected by emissions from 

Bernalillo County (Table 4), as 

discussed in Section L of the BC RH SIP 

submittal. 

TABLE 4—CLASS I AREAS NEAR

BERNALILLO COUNTY

Class I area 

Distance from 

Bernalillo 

County (km) 

Bandelier Wilderness ............ 83 

Bosque del Apache Wilderness ................................... 144 

Carlsbad Caverns National 

Park ................................... 387 

Gila Wilderness .................... 254 

Salt Creek Wilderness .......... 274 

Wheeler Peak Wilderness 

and Pecos Wilderness 28 .. 195 

White Mountain Wilderness .. 266 

San Pedro Parks Wilderness 

Area 29 ............................... 106 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(iii), 

the determinations in the BC RH SIP 

submittal relied on the technical 

analysis and emission inventories 

developed by the WRAP which is 

documented in the WRAP TSD and 

available online at the WRAP Technical 

Support System.30 31 The WRAP 

modeled the impacts of emissions from 

each State on visibility impairment at 

each Class I area in the West. Emissions 

were not analyzed on an individual 

county-level scale so modeling results 

are not available to quantify the impact 

of emissions from Bernalillo County on 

visibility. BC conducted a qualitative 

analysis based on modeling results for 

Statewide New Mexico emissions that 

provide information on the impact of 

New Mexico sources by source category 

and pollutant, emissions inventory data 

for individual counties in New Mexico, 

and weighted emission potential maps. 

This analysis is summarized in Section 

L of the BC RH SIP submittal. The full 

analysis is available as Appendix 2007– 

H and in the addendum to Appendix 

2007–H of the BC RH SIP. BC also 

prepared an evaluation of emission 

inventory trends for 2002, 2005, and 

2008 for NOX and SO2 emissions for 

Bernalillo County (Appendix 2010 B of 

the BC RH SIP). 

The analysis in the BC RH SIP 

submittal identifies some inaccuracies 

in the emission inventories used by the 

WRAP to model the 2002 baseline and 

the 2018 future case. The 2002 and 2018 

emission projections are higher than 

expected when compared to the 

reduction in SO2 emissions observed in 

the actual emissions inventories for 

2002, 2005 and 2008. Bernalillo 

County’s SO2 emissions estimated by 

the WRAP for 2002 are approximately 

5000 TPY, whereas the actual emissions 

for SO2 reported to the EPA for 2002 

was only 1574.9 TPY and have 

decreased significantly to approximately 

260 TPY reported for 2008. The 2018 

emissions used by the WRAP in the 

photochemical modeling for BC 

projected an increase in emissions of 

approximately 9000 TPY over 2002 

emissions. Regardless of the rate of 

population growth and increase in 

vehicle miles traveled within Bernalillo 

County, it is clear that with current lowsulfur fuel regulations such a large 

increase in emissions is unrealistic. We 

note that Statewide emissions of SO2 in 

New Mexico estimated by the WRAP are 

not projected to increase significantly by 

2018, even including the overestimation 

of Bernalillo County emissions. We also 

note that Bernalillo County emissions 

are primarily area and mobile emissions 

due to its large residential area. The 

county has no oil and gas development, 

mining or large EGUs within its 

boundaries. Similarly, NOX emission 

estimates used in the WRAP modeling 

are higher than emissions reported to 

the EPA. Table 5 shows a comparison of 

emission data from Bernalillo County 

(Appendix 2010–B of the BC RH SIP) to 

emissions included in the WRAP 

estimates and photochemical modeling. 

TABLE 5—COMPARISON OF BERNALILLO COUNTY EMISSION ESTIMATES TO WRAP 

Bernalillo County emissions (Appendix 2010–B) WRAP emissions 

2002 2005 2008 2002 2018 

NOX ...................................................................................... 24930.6 23231.3 13570.9 33856.36 26878.08

SO2 ....................................................................................... 1574.9 1594.9 261.1 4996.01 14073.54 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 24791 

Taking this into account and 

evaluating Bernalillo County’s 

contribution of emissions to the 

Statewide inventory, BC concluded that 

it is improbable that Bernalillo County 

emissions have significant impacts on 

nearby Class I areas. Bernalillo County’s 

contribution of emissions for NOX and 

SO2 to the New Mexico emission 

inventory for 2002, as estimated by the 

WRAP is 10% of the Statewide NOX

emissions and 9% of Statewide SO2

emissions. 

The EPA is proposing to find that BC 

adequately evaluated the Class I areas 

that may be impacted by sources of air 

pollution within Bernalillo County and 

BC adequately determined that, at this 

time, it is improbable that sources 

located within the county cause or 

contribute to visibility impairment in a 

Class I area located outside of the 

county. Furthermore, we propose to 

accept that visibility impacts at these 

Class I areas due to area and mobile 

emission sources in Bernalillo County 

are overestimated in the WRAP 2002 

and 2018 visibility modeling. Emission 

trends for 2002 through 2008 indicate 

that emissions of NOX and SO2 within 

Bernalillo County are declining and 

therefore visibility impairment due to 

these emissions are also anticipated to 

decrease from their current low levels 

presented in Appendix 2007–H and in 

the addendum to Appendix 2007–H of 

the BC RH SIP. 

At this time, the qualitative analysis 

of county-level emission impacts on 

Class I areas demonstrates that it is not 

necessary for BC to promulgate 

additional specific regulations to reduce 

emissions to address their effect on 

other Class I areas. BC will rely on 

current regulations for fugitive dust 

control, the SO2 emission milestone and 

backstop trading program, open 

burning, motor vehicle inspection, 

motor vehicle emission standards and 

other regulations to minimize emissions 

that could potential impact visibility at 

other Class I areas, as identified in the 

BC RH SIP submittal. We therefore 

propose to find that the BC RH SIP 

submittal meets the requirements of 40 

CFR 51.308(d)(3). 

As it does not host a Class I area, BC 

is not required to develop a monitoring 

strategy for measuring, characterizing, 

and reporting regional haze impairment 

that is representative of Class I areas 

within the State. However, BC is 

required to establish procedures by 

which monitoring data and other 

information is used to determine the 

contribution of emissions from within 

Bernalillo County to regional haze 

impairment at Class I areas outside of 

the county and to document the 

technical basis on which it is relying to 

determine its apportionment of 

emission reductions necessary for 

achieving reasonable progress in each 

Class I area it affects, as required by 40 

CFR 51.308(d)(3)(iii), (d)(4)(ii) and (iii). 

BC is also required to develop an 

emissions inventory of pollutants that 

are reasonably anticipated to cause or 

contribute to visibility impairment in 

any Class I area, as required by 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(3)(iii) and (d)(4)(v). This 

inventory must include baseline year 

emissions, emissions for the most recent 

year that data is available, and estimates 

of future year emissions. The BC RH SIP 

includes emission inventories for 2002 

and 2018 developed by the WRAP as 

well as actual emission inventories 

prepared by the State of New Mexico 

and BC to satisfy 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(3)(iii) and (d)(4)(v). BC and 

the WRAP commit to update the 

inventory as well as maintain reporting, 

recordkeeping and other measures 

necessary to assess and report on 

visibility improvements as required by 

40 CFR 51.308(d)(4)(v) and (vi). The 

EPA is proposing to find that BC has 

met the requirements of 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(4) through its participation in 

the WRAP and coordinated efforts with 

the State of New Mexico. BC will rely 

on WRAP technical support to evaluate 

monitoring data and emissions growth 

to determine if any future emission 

reductions are necessary for achieving 

reasonable progress. 

VI. Our Analysis of City of 

Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, New 

Mexico InterState Visibility Transport 

SIP Provisions 

We are proposing to approve a portion 

of the SIP revision submitted by the City 

of Albuquerque/Bernalillo County, New 

Mexico on July 30, 2007, for the purpose 

of addressing the ‘‘good neighbor’’ 

provisions of the CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS and the PM2.5 NAAQS. Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of the Act requires that 

States have a SIP, or submit a SIP 

revision, containing provisions 

‘‘prohibiting any source or other type of 

emission activity within the State from 

emitting any air pollutant in amounts 

which will * * * interfere with 

measures required to be included in the 

applicable implementation plan for any 

other State under part C [of the CAA] to 

protect visibility.’’ Because of the 

impacts on visibility from the interState 

transport of pollutants, we interpret the 

‘‘good neighbor’’ provisions of section 

110 of the Act described above as 

requiring States to include in their SIPs 

either measures to prohibit emissions 

that would interfere with the reasonable 

progress goals set to protect Class I areas 

in other States, or a demonstration that 

emissions from Bernalillo County 

sources and activities will not have the 

prohibited impacts on other States’ 

existing SIPs. 

The BC visibility transport SIP 

submittal States that it is not possible to 

assess whether there is any interference 

with the measures in the applicable SIP 

for another State designed to protect 

visibility for the 8-hour ozone and PM2.5

NAAQS until BC submits and the EPA 

approves BC’s RH SIP. 

In developing their Regional Haze 

SIP, BC and potentially impacted States 

collaborated through the WRAP. Each 

State developed its Regional Haze Plans 

and RPGs based on the WRAP modeling 

and technical analysis. The WRAP 

modeling was based in part on the 

emissions reductions each State and BC 

intended to achieve by 2018. We are 

proposing to approve the BC RH SIP 

submittal which includes a 

demonstration that Bernalillo County 

sources do not cause or contribute to 

visibility impairment at Class I areas 

outside of Bernalillo County. We note 

that the BC RH SIP includes 

participation in a SO2 emission 

milestone and backstop trading program 

with the States of New Mexico, 

Wyoming and Utah, and we propose to 

find that the BC measures included in 

the WRAP modeling and relied upon by 

New Mexico and other States in 

developing their visibility programs will 

occur. As previously Stated, we are also 

proposing to agree with BC’s 

determination that it is improbable that 

sources within Bernalillo County are 

causing or contributing to visibility 

impairment at any Class I areas outside 

the county, which includes those of the 

other States. Therefore, we are 

proposing to approve the City of 

Albuquerque-Bernalillo County 

InterState Transport SIP submittal that 

addresses the visibility requirement of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and find that 

the BC SIP contains adequate provisions 

at this time to prohibit emissions from 

BC sources from interfering with 

programs in other States to protect 

visibility. 

VII. The EPA’s Conclusions and 

Proposed Action 

The EPA is proposing to approve a 

City of Albuquerque/Bernalillo County, 

New Mexico Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revision submitted on July 28, 2011 

addressing the regional haze 

requirements for the mandatory Class I 

areas under 40 CFR 51.309. The EPA is 

proposing that this SIP revision meets 

the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309. We 

are proposing to approve all parts of the 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
24792 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

RH SIP submittal, which adds onto and 

incorporates earlier regional haze 

documentation submitted on December 

26, 2003 and September 5, 2008. We 

further propose to approve, as amended, 

the companion rules, of 20.11.46 

NMAC, Sulfur Dioxide Emission 

Inventory Requirements; Western 

Backstop Sulfur Dioxide Trading 

Program and 20.11.21 NMAC, Open 

Burning. 

We are also proposing to approve a 

portion of the SIP revision submitted by 

the City of Albuquerque/Bernalillo 

County, New Mexico on July 30, 2007, 

for the purpose of addressing one of the 

‘‘good neighbor’’ provisions of the CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS and the PM2.5

NAAQS. This would approve the 

portion of the SIP that addresses the 

requirement that the SIP must prevent 

sources in the State from emitting 

pollutants in amounts which will 

interfere with measures included in the 

required plans of other States to protect 

visibility. 

As discussed earlier in this notice, the 

309 backstop trading program is 

dependent on the EPA taking final 

action approving all three participating 

States’ SIP submittals. Until the EPA 

takes final action on all of the States’ 

SIPs, the backstop trading program will 

not be effective. 

VIII. 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. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Air pollution control, Environmental 

protection, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur dioxides, 

Visibility, InterState transport of 

pollution, Regional haze, Best available 

control technology. 

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

Dated: April 12, 2012. 

Al Armendariz, 

Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

[FR Doc. 2012–9808 Filed 4–24–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2