```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 116 (Friday, June 15, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 36043-36083]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-14247]

[[Page 36043]]

Vol. 77

Friday,

No. 116

June 15, 2012

Part II

Environmental Protection Agency

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

40 CFR Part 52

Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; New Mexico; 
Regional Haze Rule Requirements for Mandatory Class I Areas; Proposed 
Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 116 / Friday, June 15, 2012 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 36044]]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2009-0050; FRL-9683-9]

Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; New 
Mexico; Regional Haze Rule Requirements for Mandatory Class I Areas

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve New Mexico State Implementation 
Plan (SIP) revisions submitted on July 5, 2011, and December 1, 2003, 
by the Governor of New Mexico addressing the regional haze requirements 
for the 16 Class I areas covered by the Grand Canyon Visibility 
Transport Commission Report and a separate submittal for other Federal 
mandatory Class I areas. EPA is proposing to find that the submittals 
meet the requirements. We are proposing action on all components of the 
state's submittals except for the submitted nitrogen oxides 
(NOX) Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) 
determination for the San Juan Generating Station (SJGS). We propose to 
approve all other components, including the sulfur dioxide emission 
reduction milestones and backstop trading program, the smoke management 
plan and the particulate matter BART determination for the SJGS. We are 
also proposing to approve several SIP submissions offered as companion 
rules to the regional haze plan, including submitted regulations for 
the Western Backstop Sulfur Dioxide Trading Program, for the 
inventorying of emissions, for smoke management, and open burning. EPA 
is taking this action under section 110 of the Clean Air Act.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 16, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R06-
OAR-2009-0050 by one of the following methods:
     Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
     Email: R6air_nmhaze@epa.gov.
     Mail: Mr. Michael Feldman, Air Planning Section (6PD-L), 
Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, 
Texas 75202-2733.
     Hand or Courier Delivery: Mr. Michael Feldman, Air 
Planning Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross 
Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. Such deliveries are 
accepted only between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. weekdays, and not 
on legal holidays. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries 
of boxed information.
     Fax: Mr. Michael Feldman, Air Planning Section (6PD-L), at 
fax number 214-665-7263.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2009-
0050. Our policy is that all comments received will be included in the 
public docket without change and may be made available online at 
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, 
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential 
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is 
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to 
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The 
www.regulations.gov web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which 
means we will not know your identity or contact information unless you 
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment 
directly to us without going through www.regulations.gov your email 
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the 
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the 
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, we recommend that you 
include your name and other contact information in the body of your 
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If we cannot read your 
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for 
clarification, we may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic 
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of 
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the 
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. 
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically 
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Planning Section 
(6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, 
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. The file will be made available by 
appointment for public inspection in the Region 6 FOIA Review Room 
between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. weekdays except for legal 
holidays. Contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT paragraph below or Mr. Bill Deese at 214-665-7253 to make an 
appointment. If possible, please make the appointment at least two 
working days in advance of your visit. There will be a 15 cent per page 
fee for making photocopies of documents. On the day of the visit, 
please check in at our Region 6 reception area at 1445 Ross Avenue, 
Suite 700, Dallas, Texas.
    The State of New Mexico submittal is also available for public 
inspection during official business hours, by appointment, at New 
Mexico Environmental Department, Air Quality Bureau, 1301 Siler Rd, 
Building B, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87507.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Feldman, Air Planning Section 
(6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, 
Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone 214-665-9793; fax number 
214-665-7263; email address feldman.michael@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Definitions

    For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain 
words or initials as follows:

    i. The words or initials Act or CAA mean or refer to the Clean 
Air Act, unless the context indicates otherwise.
    ii. The words EPA, we, us or our mean or refer to the United 
States Environmental Protection Agency.
    iii. The initials SIP mean or refer to State Implementation 
Plan.
    iv. The initials FIP mean or refer to Federal Implementation 
Plan.
    v. The initials RH and RHR mean or refer to Regional Haze and 
Regional Haze Rule.
    vi. The initials NMED mean the New Mexico Environmental 
Department.
    vii. The initials BART mean or refer to Best Available Retrofit 
Technology.
    viii. The initials OC mean or refer to organic carbon.
    ix. The initials EC mean or refer to elemental carbon.
    x. The initials VOC mean or refer to volatile organic compounds.
    xi. The initials EGUs mean or refer to Electric Generating 
Units.
    xii. The initials NOX mean or refer to nitrogen oxides.
    xiii. The initials SO2 mean or refer to sulfur dioxide.
    xiv. The initials PM10 mean or refer to particulate matter with 
an aerodynamic diameter of less than 10 micrometers.
    xv. The initials PM2.5 mean or refer to particulate matter with 
an aerodynamic of less than 2.5 micrometers.
    xvi. The initials RPGs mean or refer to reasonable progress 
goals.
    xvii. The initials LTS mean or refer to long term strategy.
    xviii. The initials RPOs mean or refer to regional planning 
organizations.

[[Page 36045]]

    xix. The initials WRAP mean or refer to the Western Regional Air 
Partnership.
    xx. The initials CENRAP mean or refer to the Central Regional 
Air Planning Association.
    xxi. The initials AQCB mean or refer to the Albuquerque-
Bernalillo County Air Quality Control Board.
    xxii. The initials GCVTC mean or refer to the Grand Canyon 
Visibility Transport Commission.
    xxiii. The initials PNM mean or refer to the Public Service 
Company of New Mexico.
    xxiv. The initials SJGS mean or refer to the San Juan Generating 
Station.

Table of Contents

I. Overview of Proposed Action
II. What is the background for our proposed actions?
    A. Regional Haze
    B. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze
    C. Development of the Requirements for 40 CFR 51.309
III. What are the requirements for RH SIPs submitted under 40 CFR 
51.309?
    A. The CAA and the Regional Haze Rule
    B. Projection of Visibility Improvement
    C. Clean Air Corridors
    D. Stationary Source Reductions
    1. SO2 Emission Reductions
    2. Provisions for Stationary Source Emissions of Nitrogen Oxides 
(NOX) and Particulate Matter (PM)
    E. Mobile Sources
    F. Programs Related to Fire
    G. Paved and Unpaved Road Dust
    H. Pollution Prevention
    I. Additional Recommendations
    J. Periodic Implementation Plan Revisions
    K. Interstate Coordination
    L. Additional Class I Areas
    1. Determination of Reasonable Progress Goals
    2. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and Current Visibility 
Conditions
    3. Long-Term Strategy (LTS)
    4. Monitoring Strategy and Other SIP Requirements
IV. What are the additional requirements for alternative programs 
under the RHR?
    A. ``Better-Than-BART'' Demonstration
    B. Elements Required for All Alternative Programs That Have an 
Emissions Cap
    1. Applicability
    2. Allowances
    3. Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting
    4. Tracking System
    5. Account Representative
    6. Allowance Transfer
    7. Compliance Provisions
    8. Penalty Provisions
    9. Banking of Allowances
    10. Program Assessment
V. Our Analysis of the State of New Mexico's Regional Haze SIP 
Submittal
    A. Projection of Visibility Improvement
    B. Clean Air Corridors (CAC)
    1. Comprehensive Emissions Tracking Program
    2. Identification of CACs
    3. Patterns of Growth Within and Outside of the CAC
    4. Actions If Impairment Inside or Outside the Clean Air 
Corridor Occurs
    5. Other CACs
    C. Stationary Source Reductions
    1. Provisions for Stationary Source Emissions of SO2
    2. Documentation of Emissions Calculation Methods for 
SO2
    3. Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting of SO2 
Emissions
    4. Criteria and Procedures for a Market Trading Program
    5. Market Trading Program
    6. Provisions for the 2018 Milestone
    7. Special Penalty Provision for 2018
    D. ``Better-Than-BART'' Demonstration
    1. List of BART-Eligible Sources
    2. Subject to BART Determination
    3. Best System of Continuous Emission Control Technology
    4. Projected Emissions Reductions
    5. Evidence That the Trading Program Achieves Greater Reasonable 
Progress Than BART
    6. All Emission Reductions Must Take Place During the First 
Planning Period
    7. Detailed Description of the Alternative Program
    8. Surplus Reductions
    9. Geographic Distribution of Emissions
    E. Requirements for Alternative Programs With an Emissions Cap
    1. Applicability Provisions
    2. Allowance Provisions
    3. Monitoring and Recordkeeping Provisions
    4. Tracking System
    5. Account Representative
    6. Allowance Transfers
    7. Compliance Provisions
    8. Penalty Provisions
    9. Banking of Allowances
    10. Program Assessment
    F. Provisions for Stationary Source NOX and PM
    1. Identification of BART-Eligible Sources
    2. Identification of Sources Subject to BART
    a. Modeling Methodology
    b. Contribution Threshold
    c. Sources Identified to be Subject-to-BART
    3. BART Determination for SJGS
    a. New Mexico's PM BART Determination
    b. Our Evaluation of New Mexico's PM BART Determination
    G. Mobile Sources
    H. Programs Related to Fire
    1. Evaluation of Current Fire Programs
    a. Actions To Minimize Emissions
    b. Evaluation of Smoke Dispersion
    c. Alternatives to Fire
    d. Public Notification
    e. Air Quality Monitoring
    f. Surveillance and Enforcement
    g. Program Evaluation
    2. Inventory and Tracking System
    3. Identification and Removal of Administrative Barriers
    4. Enhanced Smoke Management Program
    5. Annual Emission Goal
    I. Paved and Unpaved Road Dust
    J. Pollution Prevention
    1. Description of Existing Pollution Prevention Program
    2. Incentive Programs
    3. Programs To Preserve and Expand Energy Conservation Efforts
    4. Potential for Renewable Energy
    5. Projections of Renewable Energy Goals, Energy Efficiency, and 
Pollution Prevention Activities
    6. Programs To Achieve GCVTC Renewable Energy Goal
    K. Additional Recommendations
    L. Periodic Implementation Plan Revisions
    M. Interstate Coordination
    N. Additional Class I Areas
    1. Affected Class I Areas
    2. Determination of Baseline, Natural and Current Visibility 
Conditions
    a. Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions
    b. Estimating Baseline Visibility Conditions
    c. Natural Visibility Impairment
    d. Uniform Rate of Progress
    3. Evaluation of New Mexico's Reasonable Progress Goals
    a. WRAP Visibility Modeling
    b. NMED's Reasonable Progress ``Four Factor'' Analysis
    c. Establishment of the Reasonable Progress Goal
    d. Reasonable Progress Consultation
    e. Our Conclusion on New Mexico's Reasonable Progress Goals
    4. Long-Term Strategy
    a. Emissions Inventory
    i. New Mexico's 2002 Emission Inventory
    ii. New Mexico's 2018 Emission Inventory
    b. Visibility Projection Modeling
    c. Sources of Visibility Impairment in New Mexico Class I Areas
    i. Sources of Visibility Impairment in Bandelier Wilderness
    ii. Sources of Visibility Impairment in Bosque del Apache 
National Wildlife Refuge
    iii. Sources of Visibility Impairment in Carlsbad Caverns 
National Park
    iv. Sources of Visibility Impairment in Gila Wilderness
    v. Sources of Visibility Impairment in Pecos Wilderness and 
Wheeler Peak Wilderness
    vi. Sources of Visibility Impairment in Salt Creek Wilderness
    vii. Sources of Visibility Impairment in White Mountain 
Wilderness
    d. New Mexico's Contributions to Visibility Impairment at Class 
I Areas in Other States
    e. Consultation and Emissions Reductions for Other States' Class 
I Areas
    f. Mandatory Long Term Strategy Factors
    i. Reductions Due to Ongoing Air Pollution Programs
    ii. Measures to Mitigate the Impacts of Construction Activities
    iii. Emission Limitations and Schedules of Compliance
    iv. Source Retirement and Replacement Schedules
    v. Agricultural and Forestry Smoke Management Techniques
    vi. Enforceability of New Mexico's Measures
    vii. Anticipated Net Effect on Visibility Due to Projected 
Changes
    g. Our Conclusion on New Mexico's Long Term Strategy
    5. Monitoring Strategy and Other SIP Requirements
VI. EPA's Conclusions and Proposed Action
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

[[Page 36046]]

I. Overview of Proposed Action

    As explained in further detail below, 40 CFR 51.309 presents 
certain Western states covered by the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport 
Commission with the option of fulfilling the regional haze rule (RHR) 
requirements for 16 Class I areas under the provisions of that section, 
rather than under 40 CFR 51.308. Three states--Wyoming, Utah, and New 
Mexico--have elected to submit a SIP under 40 CFR 51.309. The 
Albuquerque/Bernalillo County Air Quality Control Board, as the 
federally delegated air quality authority for the City of Albuquerque 
and Bernalillo County, New Mexico, for its geographic area of New 
Mexico under the New Mexico Air Quality Control Act (section 74-2-4) 
has also submitted a Section 309 regional haze SIP. This separate 
submittal for Albuquerque/Bernalillo County is necessary for the 
Regional Haze (RH) requirements to be met for the entire State of New 
Mexico and is also necessary to ensure the requirements of section 
110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA are satisfied for the entire State of New 
Mexico. The Regional Haze and 110(a)(2)(D) submissions for Albuquerque/
Bernalillo County are being reviewed in a separate Federal Register 
action.
    New Mexico submitted its RH SIP to EPA on July 5, 2011, and it adds 
to earlier RH SIP planning components that were submitted by the state 
on December 1, 2003. We are acting on the great majority of the 
components of this newly submitted 2011 revision in advance of our 
ordinary statutory requirement to act on new submissions.
    In this action, we are proposing to approve components of the New 
Mexico Regional Haze SIP revisions that were submitted to satisfy the 
requirements of 40 CFR 51.309. Among the requirements, Section 309 
calls for plans to include a market trading program, conventionally 
known as the 309 backstop-trading program; this program will not be 
effective until EPA has finalized action on all section 309 SIPs. 
Section 51.309 does not require the participation of a certain number 
of states to validate its effectiveness. Utah submitted its 309 SIP to 
EPA on May 26, 2011, Wyoming submitted its 309 SIP to EPA on January 
12, 2011 and the City of Albuquerque-Bernalillo County submitted its 
309 SIP to EPA on July 28, 2011. EPA proposed action on Bernalillo 
County's 309 SIP on April 25, 2012 (77 FR 24768), Utah's 309 SIP on May 
15, 2012 (77 FR 28825), and Wyoming's 309 SIP on May 24, 2012 (77 FR 
30953). If EPA takes final action approving the necessary components 
for the 309 backstop-trading program to operate in all of the 
jurisdictions electing to submit 309 SIPs, the program will become 
effective.
    Our review of the RH SIP is supported by the review of companion 
regulations--regulations that the RH SIP references and relies upon, 
that have also been submitted for SIP approval. Specifically, New 
Mexico submitted 20.2.81 NMAC, Western Backstop Sulfur Dioxide Trading 
Program, after initial adoption, on December 1, 2003, and thereafter 
submitted revisions with the State's RH 309 SIP on July 5, 2011. We are 
proposing to fully approve 20.2.81 NMAC. We are also proposing to fully 
approve the following additional companion regulations: 20.2.65 NMAC, 
Smoke Management and 20.2.60 NMAC Open Burning, both--after their 
initial adoption--submitted on December 1, 2003; and July 5, 2011 
submitted revisions to 20.2.73.300.F NMAC, a subprovision of a 
previously approved rule that pertains to the ``Emission tracking 
requirements for sulfur dioxide emission inventories.'' \1\ Further 
details and the analyses of these companion regulations are provided in 
the Technical Support Document in the docket for this rulemaking. These 
rules are also discussed at later points in this notice when they are 
relevant to our analysis of New Mexico's RH SIP submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ We previously approved 20.2.73 NMAC, including 20.2.73.300 
NMAC, through our action at 75 FR 48860 (August 12, 2010). The state 
undertook other revisions of 20.2.73 NMAC in 2008, but they have not 
been submitted and they are unrelated to the minor revisions 
submitted for review in the 2011 SIP submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As previously stated, EPA is proposing to approve New Mexico SIP 
revisions submitted on July 5, 2011, and December 1, 2003, that address 
the regional haze requirements for the mandatory Class I areas under 40 
CFR 51.309. EPA is proposing to find that all reviewed components of 
the SIP meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309.
    We note that we are not proposing action on the submitted 
NOX BART determination for the San Juan Generating Station. 
The NOX BART requirement for the source is presently 
satisfied by the BART determination that is effective under the federal 
implementation plan at 40 CFR 52.1628. We have no current statutory 
duty or consent decree obligation to act on this component of the 
state's Regional Haze SIP submittal. We will, however, propose action 
on the submitted NOX BART determination for San Juan 
Generating Station through a future, separate proposal, unless the 
state of New Mexico earlier withdraws it in favor of an alternative 
that it may develop through discussions with the source and EPA.

II. What is the background for our proposed actions?

A. Regional Haze

    RH is visibility impairment that is produced by a multitude of 
sources and activities which are located across a broad geographic area 
and emit fine particles (PM2.5) (e.g., sulfates, nitrates, 
organic carbon, elemental carbon, and soil dust) and their precursors 
(e.g., SO2, nitrogen oxides (NOX), and in some 
cases, ammonia (NH3) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs)). 
Fine particle precursors react in the atmosphere to form 
PM2.5 (e.g., sulfates, nitrates, organic carbon, elemental 
carbon, and soil dust), which also impair visibility by scattering and 
absorbing light. Visibility impairment reduces the clarity, color, and 
visible distance that one can see. PM2.5 also can cause 
serious health effects and mortality in humans and contributes to 
environmental effects such as acid deposition and eutrophication.
    Data from the existing visibility monitoring network, the 
``Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments'' (IMPROVE) 
monitoring network, show that visibility impairment caused by air 
pollution occurs virtually all the time at most national park and 
wilderness areas. The average visual range \2\ in many Class I areas 
(i.e., national parks and memorial parks, wilderness areas, and 
international parks meeting certain size criteria) in the Western 
United States is 100-150 kilometers, or about one-half to two-thirds of 
the visual range that would exist without anthropogenic air pollution. 
64 FR 35714, 35715 (July 1, 1999). In most of the eastern Class I areas 
of the United States, the average visual range is less than 30 
kilometers, or about one-fifth of the visual range that would exist 
under estimated natural conditions. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Visual range is the greatest distance, in kilometers or 
miles, at which a dark object can be viewed against the sky.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In section 169A of the 1977 Amendments to the CAA, Congress created 
a program for protecting visibility in the nation's national parks and 
wilderness areas. This section of the CAA establishes as a national 
goal the ``prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing, 
impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas \3\ which 
impairment

[[Page 36047]]

results from man-made air pollution.'' CAA Sec.  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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Areas 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 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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Congress added section 169B to the CAA in 1990 to address RH 
issues, and we promulgated regulations addressing RH in 1999. 64 FR 
35714 (July 1, 1999), codified at 40 CFR part 51, subpart P. The 
Regional Haze Rule (RHR) revised the existing visibility regulations to 
integrate into the regulations provisions addressing RH impairment and 
established a comprehensive visibility protection program for Class I 
areas. The requirements for RH, found at 40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309, are 
included in our visibility protection regulations at 40 CFR 51.300-309. 
Some of the main elements of the RH requirements are summarized in 
section III. The requirement to submit a RH SIP applies to all 50 
states, the District of Columbia and the Virgin Islands.\4\ States were 
required to submit the first implementation plan addressing RH 
visibility impairment no later than December 17, 2007. 40 CFR 
51.308(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Albuquerque/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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze

    Successful implementation of the RH program will require long-term 
regional coordination among states, tribal governments and various 
federal agencies. As noted above, pollution affecting the air quality 
in Class I areas can be transported over long distances, even hundreds 
of kilometers. Therefore, to address effectively the problem of 
visibility impairment in Class I areas, states need to develop 
strategies in coordination with one another, taking into account the 
effect of emissions from one jurisdiction on the air quality in 
another.
    Because the pollutants that lead to RH can originate from sources 
located across broad geographic areas, we have encouraged the states 
and tribes across the United States to address visibility impairment 
from a regional perspective. Five regional planning organizations 
(RPOs) were developed to address RH and related issues. The RPOs first 
evaluated technical information to better understand how their states 
and tribes impact Class I areas across the country, and then pursued 
the development of regional strategies to reduce emissions of 
particulate matter (PM) and other pollutants leading to RH.
    The WRAP RPO is a collaborative effort of state governments, tribal 
governments, and various federal agencies established to initiate and 
coordinate activities associated with the management of regional haze, 
visibility and other air quality issues in the western United States. 
WRAP member state governments include: Alaska, Arizona, California, 
Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, South 
Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. The City of Albuquerque and 
Bernalillo County act as agents of the Albuquerque-Bernalillo County 
Air Quality Control Board (AQCB) to implement, administer, and enforce 
the local air quality program within Albuquerque and Bernalillo County. 
The AQCB is the federally-delegated authority to implement the CAA for 
this area, which lies within the State of New Mexico. The AQCB staff 
participated in meetings with the State of New Mexico staff to 
coordinate its efforts with the State of New Mexico in developing its 
separate 309 SIP.

C. Development of the Requirements for 40 CFR 51.309

    EPA's RHR provides two paths to address regional haze. One is 40 
CFR 51.308, requiring states to perform individual point source BART 
determinations and evaluate the need for other control strategies. 
These strategies must be shown to make ``reasonable progress'' in 
improving visibility in Class I areas inside the state and in 
neighboring jurisdictions. The other method for addressing regional 
haze is through 40 CFR 51.309 (section 309), and is an option for nine 
states termed the ``Transport Region States'' which include: Arizona, 
California, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, and 
Wyoming, and the 211 Tribes located within those states.
    Section 309 requires participating states to adopt regional haze 
strategies that are based on recommendations from the Grand Canyon 
Visibility Transport Commission (GCVTC) for protecting the 16 Class I 
areas in the Colorado Plateau area.\5\ The EPA established the GCVTC on 
November 13, 1991. The purpose of the GCVTC was to assess information 
about the adverse impacts on visibility in and around 16 Class I areas 
on the Colorado Plateau region and to provide policy recommendations to 
EPA to address such impacts. Section 169B of the CAA called for the 
GCVTC to evaluate visibility research as well as other available 
information pertaining to adverse impacts on visibility from potential 
or projected growth in emissions from sources located in the region. It 
was determined that all transport region states impacted or could 
potentially impact the Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau. The GCVTC 
submitted a report to EPA in 1996 with its policy recommendations. 
Provisions of the 1996 GCVTC report include: strategies for addressing 
smoke emissions from wildland fires and agricultural burning; 
provisions to prevent pollution by encouraging renewable energy 
development; and provisions to manage clean air corridors, mobile 
sources, and wind-blown dust, among other things. The EPA codified 
these recommendations as part of the 1999 RHR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA determined that the GCVTC strategies would provide for 
reasonable progress in mitigating regional haze if supplemented by an 
annex containing quantitative emission reduction

[[Page 36048]]

milestones and provisions for a trading program or other alternative 
measure (64 FR 35749 and 35756, July 1, 1999). Thus, the 1999 RHR 
required that Western states submit an annex to the GCVTC report with 
quantitative milestones and detailed guidelines in order to establish 
the GCVTC recommendations as an alternative approach to fulfilling the 
section 308 requirements for compliance with the RHR. In September 
2000, the WRAP, which is the successor organization to the GCVTC, 
submitted to EPA an annex to the GCVTC. The annex contained 
SO2 emission reduction milestones and the detailed 
provisions of a backstop trading program to be implemented 
automatically if voluntary measures failed to achieve the milestones. 
EPA codified the annex on June 5, 2003 as 40 CFR 51.309(h). 68 FR 
33764.
    Five Western states submitted implementation plans under the 
section 309 alternative program in 2003. EPA was challenged by the 
Center for Energy and Economic Development (CEED) on the validity of 
the annex provisions. In CEED v. EPA, the D.C. Circuit vacated EPA's 
approval of the WRAP annex (Center for Energy and Economic Development 
v. EPA, No. 03-1222 (D.C. Cir. Feb. 18, 2005)). In response to the 
court's decision, EPA vacated the annex requirements adopted as 40 CR 
51.309(h), but left in place the stationary source requirements in 40 
CFR 51.309(d)(4). 71 FR 60612 (October 13, 2006). The requirements 
under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4) contain general requirements pertaining to 
stationary sources and market trading, and allow states to adopt 
alternatives to the point source application of BART.

III. What are the requirements for RH SIPs submitted under 40 CFR 
51.309?

    The following is a summary and basic explanation of the regulations 
covered under the RHR. See 40 CFR 51.309 for a complete listing of the 
regulations under which this SIP was evaluated.

A. The CAA and the Regional Haze Rule

    RH SIPs must assure reasonable progress towards the national goal 
of achieving natural visibility conditions in Class I areas. Section 
169A of the CAA and our implementing regulations require states to 
establish long-term strategies for making reasonable progress toward 
meeting this goal. Implementation plans must also give specific 
attention to certain stationary sources that were in existence on 
August 7, 1977, but were not in operation before August 7, 1962, and 
require these sources, where appropriate, to install BART controls for 
the purpose of eliminating or reducing visibility impairment. The 
specific RH SIP requirements are discussed in further detail below.

B. Projection of Visibility Improvement

    For each of the 16 Class I areas located on the Colorado Plateau, 
the RH 309 SIP must include a projection of the improvement in 
visibility expressed in deciviews. 40 CFR 51.309(d)(2). The plan needs 
to show the projected visibility improvement for the best and worst 20 
percent days through the year 2018, based on the application of all 
section 309 control strategies.

C. Clean Air Corridors

    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(3), the RH 309 SIP must identify Clean 
Air Corridors (CACs). CACs are geographic areas located within 
transport region states that contribute to the best visibility days 
(least impaired) in the 16 Class I areas of the Colorado Plateau. (A 
map of the CAC can be found in section B.1 of the State's SIP). The CAC 
as described in the 1996 GCVTC report covers nearly all of Nevada, 
large portions of Oregon, Idaho, and Utah, and encompasses several 
Indian nations. In order to meet the RHR requirements for CACs, states 
must adopt a comprehensive emissions tracking program for all 
visibility impairing pollutants within the CAC. Based on the emissions 
tracking, states must identify overall emissions growth or specific 
areas of emissions growth in and outside of the CAC that could be 
significant enough to result in visibility impairment at one or more of 
the 16 Class I areas. If there is visibility impairment in the CAC, 
states must conduct an analysis of the potential impact in the 16 Class 
I areas and determine if additional emission control measures are 
needed and how these measures would be implemented. States must also 
indicate in their SIP if any other CACs exist, and if others are found, 
provide necessary measures to protect against future degradation of 
visibility in the 16 Class I areas.

D. Stationary Source Reductions

1. SO2 Emission Reductions
    Section 169A of the CAA directs states to evaluate the use of 
retrofit controls at certain larger, often uncontrolled, older 
stationary sources in order to address their visibility impacts. 
Specifically, section 169A(b)(2)(A) of the CAA requires states to 
revise their SIPs to contain such measures as may be necessary to make 
reasonable progress towards the natural visibility goal, including a 
requirement that certain categories of existing major stationary 
sources built between 1962 and 1977 procure, install, and operate the 
``Best Available Retrofit Technology'' (BART) \6\ as determined by the 
state.\7\ Under the RHR, states are directed to conduct BART 
determinations for such ``BART-eligible'' 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ ``Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) means an 
emission limitation based on the degree of reduction achievable 
through the application of the best system of continuous emission 
reduction for each pollutant which is emitted by an existing 
stationary facility. The emission limitation must be established, on 
a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration the technology 
available, the costs of compliance, the energy and nonair quality 
environmental impacts of compliance, any pollution control equipment 
in use or in existence at the source, the remaining useful life of 
the source, and the degree of improvement in visibility which may 
reasonably be anticipated to result from the use of such 
technology'' 40 CFR 51.301
    \7\ The set of ``major stationary sources'' potentially subject 
to BART is listed in CAA section 169A(g)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 309 provides an alternative method of satisfying the 
Section 308 SO2 BART requirements with emission milestones 
and a backstop trading program (40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)). Under this 
approach, an RH 309 SIP must establish declining SO2 
emission milestones for each year of the program through 2018. The 
milestones must be consistent with the GCTVC's goal of 50 to 70 percent 
reduction in SO2 emissions by 2040. If the milestones are 
exceeded in any year, the backstop trading program is triggered.
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(ii)-(iv), states must include 
requirements in the RH 309 SIP that allow states to determine whether 
the milestone has been exceeded. These requirements include 
documentation of the baseline emission calculation, monitoring, 
recordkeeping, and reporting (MRR) of SO2 emissions, and 
provisions for conducting an annual evaluation to determine whether the 
milestone has been exceeded. 40 CFR 309(d)(4)(v) also contains 
requirements for implementing the backstop trading program in the event 
that the milestone is exceeded and the program is triggered.
    The WRAP, in conjunction with EPA, developed a model for a backstop 
trading program. In order to ensure consistency between states, states 
opting to participate in the 309 program need to adopt rules that are 
substantively equivalent to the rules of the model

[[Page 36049]]

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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 6, 2005, EPA published the Guidelines for BART 
Determinations Under the Regional Haze Rule at Appendix Y to 40 CFR 
Part 51 (hereinafter referred to as the ``BART Guidelines'') to assist 
states in determining which of their sources should be subject to the 
BART requirements and the appropriate emission limits for each 
applicable source. The BART Guidelines are not mandatory for all 
sources; in making a BART determination for a fossil fuel-fired 
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ BART-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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 anticipated to result from the use of such 
technology. States are free to determine the weight and significance to 
be assigned to each factor. Although the states have the freedom to 
determine the weight and significance of the statutory factors, they 
have an overriding obligation to come to a reasoned determination. 76 
FR 81733 (Dec 28, 2011).
    A regional haze SIP must include source-specific BART emission 
limits and compliance schedules for each source subject to BART. Once a 
state has made its BART determination, the BART controls must be 
installed and in operation as expeditiously as practicable, but no 
later than five years after the date of EPA approval of the regional 
haze SIP. CAA section 169(g)(4)); 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv). In addition 
to what is required by the RHR, general SIP requirements mandate that 
the SIP must also include all regulatory requirements related to 
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting for the BART controls on the 
source. See CAA section 110(a).

E. Mobile Sources

    Under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(5), the RH 309 SIP must provide inventories 
of on-road 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

[[Page 36050]]

prescribed fire in the state have a mechanism in place for evaluating 
and addressing the degree of visibility impairment from smoke in their 
planning and application of burning. The plan must also ensure that its 
prescribed fire smoke management programs have at least the following 
seven elements: actions to minimize emissions; evaluation of smoke 
dispersion; alternatives to fire; public notification; air quality 
monitoring; surveillance and enforcement; and program evaluation. The 
plan must be able to track statewide emissions of VOC, NOX, 
EC, OC, and fine particulate emissions from prescribed burning within 
the state.
    Other requirements states must meet in their 309 plan related to 
fire include the adoption of a statewide process for gathering post-
burn activity information to support emissions inventory and tracking 
systems. The plan must identify existing administrative barriers to the 
use of non-burning alternatives and adopt a process for continuing to 
identify and remove administrative barriers where feasible. The RH 309 
SIP must include an enhanced smoke management program that considers 
visibility effects in addition to health objectives and is based on the 
criteria of efficiency, economics, law, emission reduction 
opportunities, land management objectives, and reduction of visibility 
impairment. Finally, the plan must establish annual emission goals to 
minimize emission increases from fire.

G. Paved and Unpaved Road Dust

    Section 309 requires states to submit a SIP that assesses the 
impact of dust emissions on regional haze in the 16 Class I areas on 
the Colorado Plateau and to include a projection of visibility 
conditions through 2018 for the least and most impaired days (40 CFR 
51.309(d)(7)). If dust emissions are determined to be a significant 
contributor to visibility impairment, the plan must provide emissions 
management strategies to address their impact.

H. Pollution Prevention

    The requirements under pollution prevention only require the RH 309 
SIP to provide an assessment of the energy programs as outlined in 40 
CFR 51.309(d)(8) and does not require a state to adopt any specific 
energy-related strategies or regulations for regional haze. In order to 
meet the requirements related to pollution prevention, the state's plan 
must include an initial summary of all pollution prevention programs 
currently in place, an inventory of all renewable energy generation 
capacity and production in use or planned as of the year 2002, the 
total energy generation capacity and production for the state, and the 
percent of the total that is renewable energy.
    The state's plan must include a discussion of programs that provide 
incentives for efforts that go beyond compliance and/or achieve early 
compliance with air-pollution related requirements and programs to 
preserve and expand energy conservation efforts. The state must 
identify specific areas where renewable energy has the potential to 
supply power where it is now lacking and where renewable energy is most 
cost-effective. The RH 309 plan must include projections of the short- 
and long-term emissions reductions, visibility improvements, cost 
savings, and secondary benefits associated with the renewable energy 
goals, energy efficiency, and pollution prevention activities. The plan 
must also provide its anticipated contribution toward the GCVTC 
renewable energy goals for 2005 and 2015. The GCVTC goals are that 
renewable energy will comprise 10 percent of the regional power needs 
by 2005 and 20 percent by 2015.

I. Additional Recommendations

    Section 309 requires states to determine if any of the other 
recommendations in the 1996 GCVTC report not codified by EPA as part of 
section 309 should be implemented in their RH SIP (40 CFR 
51.309(d)(9)). States are not required in their RH 309 SIPs to adopt 
any control measures unless the state determines they are appropriate 
and can be practicably included as enforceable measures to remedy 
regional haze in the 16 Class I areas. Any measures adopted would need 
to be enforceable like the other 309 required measures. States must 
also submit a report to EPA and the public in 2013 and 2018, showing 
there has been an evaluation of the additional recommendations and the 
progress toward developing and implementing any such recommendations.

J. Periodic Implementation Plan Revisions

    The RHR requires states to submit progress reports in the form of 
SIP revisions in 2013 and 2018 (40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)). The SIP 
revisions must comply with the procedural requirements of 40 CFR 51.102 
for public hearings and 40 CFR 51.103 for submission of plans. The 
assessment in the progress report must include an evaluation of Class I 
areas located within the state and Class I areas outside the state that 
are affected by emissions from the state. EPA views these SIP revisions 
as a periodic check on progress, rather than a thorough revision of 
regional strategies. The state should focus on significant shortcomings 
of the original SIP from sources that were not fully accounted for or 
anticipated when the SIP was initially developed. The specifics of what 
each progress report must contain can be found at 40 CFR 
51.309(d)(10)(i)(A)-(G).
    At the same time that the state submits its progress reports to 
EPA, it must also take an action based on the outcome of this 
assessment. If the assessment shows that the SIP requires no 
substantive revision, the state must submit to EPA a ``negative 
declaration'' statement saying that no further SIP revisions are 
necessary at this time. If the assessment shows that the SIP is or may 
be inadequate due to emissions from outside the state, the state must 
notify EPA and other regional planning states and work with them to 
develop additional strategies. If the assessment shows that the SIP is 
or may be inadequate due to emissions from another country, the state 
must include appropriate notification to EPA in its SIP revision. In 
the event the assessment shows that the SIP is or may be inadequate due 
to emissions from within the state, the state shall develop additional 
strategies to address the deficiencies and revise the SIP within one 
year from the due date of the progress report.

K. Interstate Coordination

    In complying with the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(11), states 
may include emission reductions strategies that are based on 
coordinated implementation with other states. The SIP must include 
documentation of the technical and policy basis for the individual 
state apportionment (or the procedures for apportionment throughout the 
trans-boundary region), the contribution addressed by the state's plan, 
how it coordinates with other state plans, and compliance with any 
other appropriate implementation plan approvability criteria. States 
may rely on the relevant technical, policy, and other analyses 
developed by a regional entity, such as the WRAP in providing such 
documentation.

L. Additional Class I Areas

    To comply with the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(g), RH 309 SIPs 
must demonstrate reasonable progress for mandatory Class I Federal 
areas other than the 16 Class I areas covered by the GCVTC. States must 
submit an

[[Page 36051]]

implementation plan that demonstrates the expected visibility 
conditions for the most and least impaired days at the additional Class 
I areas based on emission projections from the long-term strategies in 
the implementation plan. The implementation plan must contain 
provisions establishing reasonable progress goals and additional 
measures necessary to demonstrate reasonable progress for the 
additional Federal Class I areas. The RH 309 SIP must address regional 
haze in each additional Class I area located within the State and in 
each additional Class I area located outside the State which may be 
affected by emissions from within the State. 40 CFR 51.309(g) requires 
that these provisions comply with 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1) through (4), the 
general requirements of which are described below.
1. Determination of Reasonable Progress Goals
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1), for each mandatory Class I area 
located within the State, the regional haze SIPs must establish goals 
(expressed in deciviews, dv) that provide for reasonable progress 
towards achieving natural visibility conditions. The vehicle for 
ensuring continuing progress towards achieving the natural visibility 
goal is the submission of a series of RH SIPs from the states that 
establish two reasonable progress goals (RPGs) (i.e., two distinct 
goals, one for the ``best'' and one for the ``worst'' days) for every 
Class I area for each (approximately) 10-year implementation period. 
See 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005); see also 64 FR 35714 (July 1, 1999). 
The RHR does not mandate specific milestones or rates of progress, but 
instead calls for states to establish goals that provide for 
``reasonable progress'' toward achieving natural (i.e., ``background'') 
visibility conditions. In setting RPGs, states must provide for an 
improvement in visibility for the most impaired days over the 
(approximately) 10-year period of the SIP, and ensure no degradation in 
visibility for the least impaired days over the same period. Id.
    States have significant discretion in establishing RPGs, but are 
required to consider the following factors established in section 169A 
of the CAA and in our RHR at 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A): (1) The costs 
of compliance; (2) the time necessary for compliance; (3) the energy 
and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance; and (4) the 
remaining useful life of any potentially affected sources. States must 
demonstrate in their SIPs how these factors are considered when 
selecting the RPGs for the best and worst days for each applicable 
Class I area. States have considerable flexibility in how they take 
these factors into consideration, as noted in our Reasonable Progress 
Guidance \10\. In setting the RPGs, states must also consider the rate 
of progress needed to reach natural visibility conditions by 2064 
(referred to hereafter as the ``Uniform Rate of Progress (URP)'' and 
the emission reduction measures needed to achieve that rate of progress 
over the 10-year period of the SIP. Uniform progress towards 
achievement of natural conditions by the year 2064 represents a rate of 
progress, which states are to use for analytical comparison to the 
amount of progress they expect to achieve. If the State establishes a 
RPG that provides for a slower rate of improvement in visibility than 
the URP, the State must demonstrate that the URP is not reasonable 
based on the factors above and that the RPG is reasonable. Regional 
haze SIPs must provide an assessment of the number of years it would 
take to attain natural visibility at the rate of progress selected by 
the State as reasonable. In setting RPGs, each state with one or more 
Class I areas (``Class I State'') must also consult with potentially 
``contributing states,'' i.e., other nearby states with emission 
sources that may be affecting visibility impairment at the Class I 
State's areas. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and Current Visibility 
Conditions
    The RHR establishes the deciview (dv) as the principal metric for 
measuring visibility. 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005). This visibility 
metric expresses uniform changes in the degree of haze in terms of 
common increments across the entire range of visibility conditions, 
from pristine to extremely hazy conditions. Visibility is sometimes 
expressed in terms of the visual range, which is the greatest distance, 
in kilometers or miles, at which a dark object can just be 
distinguished against the sky. The deciview is a useful measure for 
tracking progress in improving visibility, because each deciview change 
is an equal incremental change in visibility perceived by the human 
eye. Most people can detect a change in visibility of one deciview.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The preamble to the RHR provides additional details about 
the deciview. 64 FR 35714, 35725 (July 1, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\

    \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'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 36052]]

amount of progress made. In general, the 2000-2004 baseline period is 
considered the time from which improvement in visibility is measured.
3. Long-Term Strategy (LTS)
    Consistent with the requirement in section 169A(b) of the CAA that 
states include in their regional haze SIP a 10 to 15 year strategy for 
making reasonable progress, Section 51.308(d)(3) of the RHR requires 
that states include a LTS in their RH SIPs. The LTS is the compilation 
of all control measures a state will use during the implementation 
period of the specific SIP submittal to meet any applicable RPGs. The 
LTS must include ``enforceable emissions limitations, compliance 
schedules, and other measures as necessary to achieve the reasonable 
progress goals'' for all Class I areas within, or affected by emissions 
from, the state. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3).
    When a state's emissions are reasonably anticipated to cause or 
contribute to visibility impairment in a Class I area located in 
another state, the RHR requires the impacted state to coordinate with 
the contributing states in order to develop coordinated emissions 
management strategies. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i). Also, a state with a 
Class I area impacted by emissions from another state must consult with 
such contributing state, (id.) and must also demonstrate that it has 
included in its SIP all measures necessary to obtain its share of 
emission reductions needed to meet the reasonable progress goals for 
the Class I area. Id. at (d)(3)(ii). In such cases, the contributing 
state must demonstrate that it has included, in its SIP, all measures 
necessary to obtain its share of the emission reductions needed to meet 
the RPGs for the Class I area. The RPOs have provided forums for 
significant interstate consultation, but additional consultations 
between states may be required to sufficiently address interstate 
visibility issues. This is especially true where two states belong to 
different RPOs.
    States should consider all types of anthropogenic sources of 
visibility impairment in developing their LTS, including stationary, 
minor, mobile, and area sources. At a minimum, states must describe how 
each of the following seven factors listed below are taken into account 
in developing their LTS: (1) Emission reductions due to ongoing air 
pollution control programs, including measures to address RAVI; (2) 
measures to mitigate the impacts of construction activities; (3) 
emissions limitations and schedules for compliance to achieve the RPG; 
(4) source retirement and replacement schedules; (5) smoke management 
techniques for agricultural and forestry management purposes including 
plans as currently exist within the state for these purposes; (6) 
enforceability of emissions limitations and control measures; (7) the 
anticipated net effect on visibility due to projected changes in point, 
area, and mobile source emissions over the period addressed by the LTS. 
40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v). Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(g)(2)(i), the State 
may build upon and take credit for the strategies implemented to meet 
the requirements under paragraph (d) of 40 CFR 51.309.
4. Monitoring Strategy and Other SIP Requirements
    Section 51.308(d)(4) of the RHR includes the requirement for a 
monitoring strategy for measuring, characterizing, and reporting of RH 
visibility impairment that is representative of all mandatory Class I 
Federal areas within the state. The strategy must be coordinated with 
the monitoring strategy required in section 51.305 for RAVI. Compliance 
with this requirement may be met through ``participation'' in the 
Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) 
network, i.e., review and use of monitoring data from the network. The 
monitoring strategy is due with the first RH SIP, and it must be 
reviewed every five (5) years. The monitoring strategy must also 
provide for additional monitoring sites if the IMPROVE network is not 
sufficient to determine whether RPGs will be met.
    The SIP must also provide for the following:
     Procedures for using monitoring data and other information 
in a state with mandatory Class I areas to determine the contribution 
of emissions from within the state to RH visibility impairment at Class 
I areas both within and outside the state;
     Procedures for using monitoring data and other information 
in a state with no mandatory Class I areas to determine the 
contribution of emissions from within the state to RH visibility 
impairment at Class I areas in other states;
     Reporting of all visibility monitoring data to the 
Administrator at least annually for each Class I area in the state, and 
where possible, in electronic format;
     Developing a statewide inventory of emissions of 
pollutants that are reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to 
visibility impairment in any Class I area. The inventory must include 
emissions for a baseline year, emissions for the most recent year for 
which data are available, and estimates of future projected emissions. 
A state must also make a commitment to update the inventory 
periodically; and
     Other elements, including reporting, recordkeeping, and 
other measures necessary to assess and report on visibility.
    The RHR requires control strategies to cover an initial 
implementation period extending to the year 2018, with a comprehensive 
reassessment and revision of those strategies, as appropriate, every 10 
years thereafter. Periodic SIP revisions must meet the core 
requirements of section 51.308(d) with the exception of BART. The 
requirement to evaluate sources for BART applies only to the first RH 
SIP. Facilities subject to BART must continue to comply with the BART 
provisions of section 51.308(e), as noted above. Periodic SIP revisions 
will assure that the statutory requirement of reasonable progress will 
continue to be met.

IV. What are the additional requirements for alternative programs under 
the RHR?

    States opting to submit an alternative program, such as the 
backstop trading program under section 309, must also meet requirements 
under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2) and (e)(3). These requirements for 
alternative programs relate to the ``Better-than-BART'' test and 
fundamental elements of any alternative program that establishes a cap 
on emissions.

A. ``Better-Than-BART'' Demonstration

    In order to demonstrate that the alternative program achieves 
greater reasonable progress than source-specific BART, states must 
provide a demonstration in their SIP that meets the requirements in 40 
CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)-(v). States submitting section 309 SIPs or other 
alternative programs are required to list all BART-eligible 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

[[Page 36053]]

reasonable progress than BART. 71 FR 60619 (Oct. 13, 2006). Under this 
approach, states should use the presumptive limits for EGUs in the BART 
Guidelines to establish the BART benchmark used in the comparison, 
unless the state determines that such presumptions are not appropriate 
for particular EGUs (71 FR 60619).
    The RH SIP, and any RH 309 SIP that establishes a 309 backstop 
trading program, must provide an analysis of the projected emissions 
reductions achievable through the trading program or other alternative 
measure and a determination that the trading program or other 
alternative measure achieves greater reasonable progress than would be 
achieved through the installation and operation of BART (40 CFR 
308(e)(2)(C)(iii)). Section 308(e)(2) requires that all emission 
reductions for the alternative program take place by 2018, as well as 
that the emission reductions resulting from the alternative program are 
surplus to those reductions resulting from measures adopted to meet 
requirements of the CAA as of the baseline date of the SIP. Pursuant to 
40 CFR 51.309(e)(2)(E)(v), states have the option of including a 
provision that the emissions trading program or other alternative 
measure may include a geographic enhancement to the program to address 
the requirement under 40 CFR 51.302(c) related to BART, for reasonably 
attributable visibility impairment from the pollutants covered under 
the emissions trading program or other alternative measure.
    States must also address the distribution of emissions under the 
BART alternative as part of the ``better-than-BART'' demonstration (40 
CFR 51.308(e)(3)). If a state can show that with the alternative 
program the distribution of emissions is not substantially different 
than under BART and the alternative program results in greater emission 
reductions, then the alternative measure may be deemed to achieve 
greater reasonable progress. If the distribution of emissions is 
significantly different, the state must conduct dispersion modeling to 
determine differences in visibility between BART and the alternative 
program for each impacted Class I area for the worst and best 20 
percent of days. The modeling must show that visibility does not 
decline at any Class I area and that visibility overall is greater than 
what would be achieved with BART.

B. Elements Required for All Alternative Programs That Have an 
Emissions Cap

    Under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(A)-(L), EPA established fundamental 
requirements for trading or alternative programs that have an emissions 
cap and require sources to hold allowances that they can sell, buy, or 
trade, as in the section 309 backstop trading program. These 
requirements are discussed in detail below.
1. Applicability
    The alternative program must have applicability provisions that 
define the sources subject to the program. In the case of a program 
covering sources in multiple states, the states must demonstrate that 
the applicability provisions in each state cover essentially the same 
size facilities and, if source categories are specified, cover the same 
source categories.
2. Allowances
    Allowances are a key feature of a cap and trade program. An 
allowance is a limited authorization for a source to emit a specified 
amount of a pollutant, as defined by the specific trading program, 
during a specified period. Allowances are fully marketable commodities. 
Once allocated, allowances may be bought, sold, traded, or banked for 
use in future years. EPA has not included in the rule detailed 
requirements on how states and tribes can allocate allowances. A state 
or tribe can determine how to allocate allowances as long as the 
allocation of the tonnage value of allowances does not exceed the total 
number of tons of emissions capped by the budget. The trading program 
must include allowance provisions ensuring that the total value of 
allowances issued each year under the program will not exceed the 
emissions cap on total annual emissions from the sources in the 
program.
3. Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting
    Monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting (MRR) of a source's 
emissions are integral parts of any cap and trade program. Consistent 
and accurate measurement of emissions ensures reliability of allowances 
by validating that each allowance actually represents its specified 
tonnage value of emissions and that one ton of reported emissions from 
one source is equivalent to one ton of reported emissions at another 
source. The MRR provisions must require that boilers, combustion 
turbines, and cement kilns in the alternative program that are allowed 
to sell or transfer allowances comply with the requirements of 40 CFR 
part 75. The MRR provisions must require that other sources in the 
program allowed to sell or transfer allowances provide emissions 
information with the same precision, reliability, accessibility, and 
timeliness as information required by 40 CFR part 75.
4. Tracking System
    An accurate and efficient tracking system is critical to the 
functioning of an emissions trading market. The tracking system must 
also be transparent, allowing all interested parties access to the 
information contained in the accounting system. Thus, alternative 
programs must have requirements for a tracking system that is publicly 
available in a secure, centralized database to track in a consistent 
manner all allowances and emissions in the program.
5. Account Representative
    Each source owner or operator covered by the alternative program 
must designate an individual account representative who is authorized 
to represent the owner or operator in all matters pertaining to the 
trading program and who is responsible for the data reported for that 
source. The account representative will be responsible for, among other 
things, permitting, compliance, and allowance related actions.
6. Allowance Transfer
    SIPs must contain provisions detailing a uniform process for 
transferring allowances among all sources covered by the program and 
other possible participants. The provisions must provide procedures for 
sources to request an allowance transfer, for the request and transfer 
to be recorded in the allowance tracking system, for notification to 
the source that the transfer has occurred, and for notification to the 
public of each transfer and request.
7. Compliance Provisions
    Cap and trade programs must include compliance provisions that 
prohibit a source from emitting more emissions than the total tonnage 
value of allowances the source holds for that year. A cap and trade 
program must also contain the specific methods and procedures for 
determining compliance on an annual basis.
8. Penalty Provisions
    In order to provide sources with a strong incentive to comply with 
the requirement to hold sufficient allowances for their emissions on an 
annual basis and to establish an immediate minimum economic consequence 
for non-compliance, the program must include a system for mandatory 
allowance deductions. SIPs

[[Page 36054]]

must contain a provision that if a source has excess emissions in a 
given year, allowances allocated for the subsequent year will be 
deducted from the source's account in an amount at least equal to three 
times the excess emissions.
9. Banking of Allowances
    The banking of allowances occurs when allowances that have not been 
used for compliance are set aside for use in a later compliance period. 
Alternative programs can include provisions for banked allowances, so 
long as the SIP clearly identifies how unused allowances may be used in 
future years and whether there are any restrictions on the use of any 
such banked allowances.
10. Program Assessment
    The alternative program must include provisions for periodic 
assessment of the program. Such periodic assessments are a way to 
retrospectively assess the performance of the trading program in 
meeting the goals of the regional haze program and determining whether 
the trading program needs any adjustments or changes. At a minimum, the 
program evaluation must be conducted every five years to coincide with 
the periodic report describing progress towards the reasonable progress 
goals required under 40 CFR 51.308(g) and must be submitted to EPA.

V. Our Analysis of the State of New Mexico's Regional Haze SIP 
Submittal

    The following summarizes how New Mexico's June 28, 2011 submittals 
address the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309. As was noted in the Overview 
section of this notice, this section also discusses various companion 
regulations that have been submitted as SIP revisions that we have 
evaluated and propose to approve.

A. Projection of Visibility Improvement

    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(2), New Mexico's RH 309 SIP provides a 
comparison of the monitored 2000-2004 baseline visibility conditions in 
deciviews (dv) for the 20 percent best and 20 percent worst days to the 
projected visibility improvement for 2018 for the Class I areas on the 
Colorado Plateau. Table 1 shows the baseline monitoring data and 
projected visibility improvement for 2018 from the WRAP photochemical 
modeling (for details on the WRAP photochemical modeling refer to the 
WRAP Technical Support Document \13\ and our review of the technical 
products developed by the WRAP for the States in the western region, in 
support of their RH SIPs \14\). The projected visibility improvement 
for the 2018 Base Case (referred to as the Base18b emission inventory 
and modeled projections) reflects growth plus all controls ``on the 
books'' as of December 2004. The projected visibility improvement for 
the Preliminary Reasonable Progress Case (referred to as the PRP18b 
emission inventory and modeled projections) reflects refined growth 
estimates, all controls ``on the books'' as of 2007, and includes 
presumptive or known SO2 BART controls. The modeling results 
show projected visibility improvement for the 20 percent worst days in 
2018 and no degradation in visibility conditions on the 20 percent best 
days at all 16 Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau. We are proposing 
to determine the RH 309 SIP submittal satisfies the requirements of 40 
CFR 51.309(d)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ WRAP Regional Technical Support Document for the 
Requirements of Sec.  309 of the Regional Haze Rule (64 Federal 
Register 35714--July 1, 1999) revised May 7, 2008.
    \14\ Our review of the technical products developed by the WRAP 
is available as Technical Support Document for Technical Products 
Prepared by the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) in Support 
of Western Regional Haze Plans, EPA Regions 6, 8, 9 and 10, February 
28, 2011.

                                       Table 1--Baseline and 2018 Visibility at the Colorado Plateau Class I Areas
                                                                [Monthly average method]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          20 Percent worst visibility days           20 Percent best visibility days
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                      2018                                      2018
                                                                        2000-2004                  Preliminary    2000-2004                  Preliminary
                Class I Area                           State            Baseline      2018 Base    reasonable     Baseline      2018 Base    reasonable
                                                                       monitoring    case  (dv)     progress     monitoring     case (dv)     progress
                                                                       data  (dv)                  PRP18b case   data  (dv)                  PRP18b case
                                                                                                      (dv)                                      (dv)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grand Canyon National Park..................  AZ                              11.7          11.4          11.1           2.2           2.2           2.1
Mount Baldy Wilderness......................  AZ                              11.9          11.5          11.5           3.0           2.9           2.9
Petrified Forest National Park..............  AZ                              13.2          12.9          12.8           5.0           4.9           4.7
Sycamore Canyon Wilderness..................  AZ                              15.3          15.1          15.0           5.6           5.6           5.5
Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park    CO                              10.3          10.0           9.8           3.1           2.9           2.9
 Wilderness.
Flat Tops Wilderness........................  CO                               9.6           9.2           9.0           0.7           0.6           0.5
Maroon Bells Wilderness.....................  CO                               9.6           9.2           9.0           0.7           0.6           0.5
Mesa Verde National Park....................  CO                              13.0          12.8          12.5           4.3           4.1           4.0
Weminuche Wilderness........................  CO                              10.3          10.0           9.8           3.1           2.9           2.9
West Elk Wilderness.........................  CO                               9.6           9.2           9.0           0.7           0.6           0.5
San Pedro Parks Wilderness..................  NM                              10.2          10.0           9.8           1.5           1.3           1.2
Arches National Park........................  UT                              11.2          11.0          10.7           3.8           3.6           3.5
Bryce Canyon National Park..................  UT                              11.6          11.3          11.1           2.8           2.7           2.6
Canyonlands National Park...................  UT                              11.2          11.0          10.7           3.8           3.6           3.5
Capitol Reef National Park..................  UT                              10.9          10.6          10.4           4.1           4.0           3.9
Zion National Park..........................  UT                              13.2          13.0          12.8           5.0           4.7           4.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 36055]]

B. Clean Air Corridors

1. Comprehensive Emissions Tracking Program
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(3), NM's RH SIP submittal provides for 
the implementation of strategies regarding clean-air corridors. We 
propose to find the SIP's treatment of clean-air corridors satisfies 
the requirements of 40 CFR 309(d)(3), and its subsections, as discussed 
in the next several paragraphs.
    The WRAP developed a comprehensive emissions tracking system to 
assist the states in tracking emissions within portions of Oregon, 
Idaho, Nevada and Utah that have been identified as part of the CAC. 
The emission tracking is to ensure that visibility does not degrade on 
the least-impaired days in any of the 16 Class I areas of the Colorado 
Plateau. Appendix M-1 of the NM RH 309 SIP describes the emission 
tracking system and the process by which the annual emission trends 
will be summarized in order to identify any significant emissions 
growth that could lead to visibility degradation in the 16 Class I 
areas. The SIP submittal and all appendices can be found in the docket 
for this notice. Since no portion of the CAC lies within New Mexico, 
this emissions tracking system does not include tracking of emissions 
from New Mexico. We are proposing to determine the RH 309 SIP submittal 
has met the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(3).
2. Identification of CACs
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(3)(i), the State has provided in its 
RH 309 SIP submittal the geographic boundaries of the CAC (a map of the 
CAC can be found as in Section B(b) of the SIP). The WRAP identified 
the CAC using studies conducted by the Meteorological Subcommittee of 
the GCVTC and then updated the CAC based on an assessment described in 
the WRAP Policy on Clean Air Corridors (available as Appendix-B of the 
NM RH 309 SIP) and related technical analysis conducted by the WRAP. 
Appendix N of the NM RH 309 SIP (the WRAP final draft Technical Support 
Document \15\) contains additional technical analysis associated with 
the identification of the CAC. We are proposing to determine the RH 309 
SIP submittal satisfies the 51.309(d)(3)(i) requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ WRAP Regional Technical Support Document for the 
Requirements of Sec.  309 of the Regional Haze Rule (64 Federal 
Register 35714--July 1, 1999) revised May 7, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Patterns of Growth Within and Outside of the CAC
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(3)(ii)-(iii), the State in its RH 309 
SIP submittal has determined, based on the WRAP Policy Paper on Clean 
Air Corridors and technical analysis conducted by the WRAP, that inside 
and outside the CAC there is no significant emissions growth occurring 
at this time that is causing visibility impairment in the 16 Class I 
areas of the Colorado Plateau. The WRAP will summarize annual emission 
trends within and outside of the CAC and will assess whether any 
significant emissions growth is occurring that could result in 
visibility impairment in any of the 16 Class I areas. We are proposing 
to determine that 40 CFR 51.309(d)(3)(ii)-(iii) is met.
4. Actions if Impairment Inside or Outside the Clean Air Corridor 
Occurs
    The RH 309 SIP submittal describes how the State, in coordination 
with other transport region states and tribes, will review the annual 
summary of emission trends within the CAC and determine whether any 
significant emissions growth has occurred. If the State identifies 
significant emissions growth, the State, in coordination with other 
transport region states, and tribes, will seek WRAP assistance in 
conducting an analysis of the effects of this emissions growth. 
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(3)(iv), if this analysis finds that the 
emissions growth is causing visibility impairment in the 16 Class I 
areas, the State, in coordination with other transport region states, 
and tribes, will evaluate the need for additional emission reduction 
measures and identify an implementation schedule for such measures. The 
State will report on the need for additional reduction measures to EPA 
in accordance with the periodic progress reports required under 40 CFR 
51.309(d)(10)(i). We are proposing to determine the RH 309 SIP 
submittal satisfies the strategy requirement of 40 CFR 309(d)(3)(iv).
5. Other CACs
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(3)(v), the State in its RH 309 SIP 
submittal has concluded that no other CACs can be identified at this 
time. The State's conclusion is based on the WRAP Policy on Clean Air 
Corridors, which used technical information to determine that no other 
CACs could be identified. We are proposing to approve the state's 
determination under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(3)(v).

C. Stationary Source Reductions

1. Provisions for Stationary Source Emissions of SO2
    As required by 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(i), the State in its RH 309 SIP 
submittal sets forth milestone SO2 numbers for each year of 
the program until 2018.\16\ Table 2 shows the milestone numbers and how 
compliance with the annual milestones will be determined (Table C-1 of 
the NM RH 309 SIP).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The milestone numbers reflect the participation of Wyoming, 
Utah, and New Mexico (including City of Albuquerque-Bernalillo 
County) in the 309 backstop trading program.

                    Table 2--SO2 Emissions Milestones
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Regional sulfur    Annual SO2 emissions
                                dioxide milestone     used to determine
            Year                 (tons per year      compliance with the
                                     (tpy))           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.

[[Page 36056]]

 
2019 forward, until replaced  141,849 tons SO2....  Annual; no multiyear
 by an approved SIP.                                 averaging.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    SO2 emissions from sources in 1990 totaled 358,364 tpy 
and the 2018 milestone are 141,849 tpy (see Demonstration that the 
SO2 Milestones Provide Greater Reasonable Progress than 
BART, Section M of the NM RH 309 SIP). The difference is a 60 percent 
reduction in SO2 emissions from 1990 to 2018. Thus, the 
State has concluded that the emission reductions are on target to 
achieve the GCVTC goal of a 50 to 70 percent reduction of 
SO2 emissions by 2040. We are proposing to determine the RH 
309 submittal meets the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(i).
2. Documentation of Emissions Calculation Methods for SO2
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(ii), the RH 309 SIP submittal 
provides documentation of the specific methodology used to calculate 
SO2 emissions during the 2006 base year for each emitting 
unit included in the program. The requirement is addressed in Section C 
of the NM RH 309 SIP submittal, and implemented through 20.2.73.300.F 
NMAC provisions that were previously approved at 75 FR 48860 (August 
12, 2010). We are also now proposing to approve revisions to 
20.2.73.300 that were submitted for approval with the most recent RH 
309 SIP submittal on July 5, 2011.
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(ii), New Mexico's RH 309 SIP 
submittal provides that it will document any change to the specific 
methodology used to calculate emissions at any emitting unit for any 
year after the base year. Until the program has been triggered and 
source compliance is required, the State will submit an annual 
emissions report that documents prior year emissions for New Mexico 
sources covered by the 309 program to all participating states by 
September 30 of each year. The State will adjust actual emission 
inventories for sources that change the method of monitoring or 
calculating their emissions to be comparable to the emission monitoring 
or calculation method used to calculate the 2006 base year inventory. 
EPA is proposing to determine that the current SIP as revised by the 
SIP submittal satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR 309(d)(4)(ii).
3. Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting of SO2 Emissions
    In order to meet the emission reporting requirements of 40 CFR 
51.309(d)(4)(iii), the RH 309 SIP submittal includes provisions 
requiring the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting of actual 
stationary source SO2 emissions within the State to 
determine if the milestone has been exceeded. 20.2.73.300.F NMAC 
requires major sources of SO2 to report their emissions 
annually along with documentation of the emissions monitoring/
estimation methodology used, and demonstrate that the selected 
methodology is acceptable under the inventory program. This rule 
defines the emission inventory and reporting requirements for tracking 
compliance with the regional sulfur dioxide milestones until the 
western backstop sulfur dioxide trading program has been fully 
implemented and emission tracking has occurred under 20.2.81.106 NMAC 
(See section V.E.3 of this notice for a further detail on emission 
inventory requirements under 20.2.81.106 NMAC). We are proposing to 
approve the July 5, 2011 submitted revisions to 20.2.73.300.F NMAC and 
determine that the 309 SIP submittal satisfies the requirements of 40 
CFR 51.309(d)(4)(iii).
4. Criteria and Procedures for a Market Trading Program
    As stated above, until the backstop trading program has been 
triggered and source compliance is required, the RH 309 SIP submittal 
provides that the state shall submit an annual emissions report for New 
Mexico sources to all participating states by September 30 of each 
year. The report shall document actual sulfur dioxide emissions during 
the previous calendar year for all sources subject to the Section 309 
program. The WRAP will compile reports from all participating states 
into a draft regional emission report for SO2 by December 31 
of each year. This report will include actual regional sulfur dioxide 
emissions, adjustments to account for changes in monitoring/calculation 
methods or enforcement/settlement agreements, and adjusted average 
emissions for the last three years for comparison to the regional 
milestone. As required by 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(iv), based on this 
compilation of reports from all states participating in the 309 
program, states will determine if the milestone has been exceeded and 
will include a determination in a final regional emissions report that 
is submitted to EPA. This final report and determination will be 
submitted to EPA by the end of March, 15 months following the milestone 
year. We are proposing to determine the RH 309 SIP meets the 
requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(iv).
5. Market Trading Program
    Per 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(v), the RH 309 SIP submittal provides that 
if the 309 backstop trading program is triggered, the regional 
emissions report will contain a common trigger date. In the absence of 
a common trigger date, the default date will be March 31 of the 
applicable year, but no later than 15 months after the end of the 
milestone year where the milestone was exceeded. The NM RH 309 SIP 
submittal requires that sources comply, as soon as practicable, with 
the requirement to hold allowances covering their emissions. Because 
the backstop trading program does not allow allocations to exceed the 
milestone, the program is sufficient to achieve the milestones adopted 
pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(i) as discussed above. The backstop 
trading program is also consistent with the elements for such programs 
outlined in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi). The analysis found in Section V.E. 
of this notice shows that the backstop trading program is consistent 
with the elements for trading programs outlined in 40 CFR 
51.308(e)(2)(vi), as required by Section 309. See 40 CFR 
51.309(d)(4)(v). We are proposing to determine the RH 309 SIP submittal 
meets the requirements of 40 CFR 309(d)(4)(v). We are also proposing to 
approve 20.2.81 NMAC, which includes the rules that govern the program.
6. Provisions for the 2018 Milestone
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(vi)(A), the RH 309 SIP submittal 
has provisions to ensure that until a revised implementation plan is 
submitted in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(f) and approved by EPA,

[[Page 36057]]

emissions from covered stationary sources in any year beginning in 2018 
do not exceed the 2018 milestone. In order to meet this requirement, 
the State has included special provisions for what will be required as 
part of their 2013 SIP revision required under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10). 
The submitted plan provides that the 2013 SIP revision required by 40 
CFR 51.309(d)(10) will contain either the provisions of a program 
designed to achieve reasonable progress for stationary sources of 
SO2 beyond 2018 or a commitment to submit a SIP revision 
containing the provisions of such a program no later than December 31, 
2016. (Section C, Part D of the NM RH 309 SIP). We are proposing to 
determine the RH 309 SIP submittal meets the requirements of 40 CFR 
51.309(d)(4)(vi)(A).
7. Special Penalty Provision for 2018
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(vi)(B), the RH 309 SIP submittal 
includes special penalty provisions to ensure that the 2018 milestone 
is met. If the backstop trading is triggered and the program will not 
start until after the year 2018, a special penalty shall be assessed to 
sources that exceed the 2018 milestone (Section A.5 of the NM RH 309 
SIP and Section 20.2.81.110 NMAC, which we are proposing to approve). 
The State shall seek at least the minimum financial penalty of $5,000 
per ton of SO2 emissions in excess of a source's allowance 
limitation. Any source may resolve its excess emissions violation by 
agreeing to a streamline settlement approach where the source pays a 
penalty of $5,000 per ton or partial ton of excess emissions and the 
source makes the payment within 90 calendar days after the issuance of 
a notice of violation. Any source that does not resolve its excess 
emissions violation in accordance with the streamlined settlement 
approach will be subject to formal enforcement action, in which the 
NMED shall seek a financial penalty for the excess emissions based on 
New Mexico's statutory maximum civil penalties. The special penalty 
provisions for 2018 will apply for each year after 2018 until the State 
determines that the 2018 milestone has been met. The State will 
evaluate the amount of the minimum monetary penalty during each five-
year SIP review and the penalty will be adjusted to ensure that 
penalties per ton substantially exceed the expected cost of allowances, 
and thus provide sufficient deterrence. We are proposing to determine 
the RH SIP submittal satisfies the special penalties provisions 
requirement of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(vi)(B). We are proposing approval of 
20.2.81 NMAC, which includes proposed approval of 20.2.81.110 NMAC.

D. ``Better-Than-BART'' Demonstration

    As discussed in Section IV.A of this preamble, if a state adopts an 
alternative program designed to replace ``source-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 M of the NM RH 309 SIP, the State has included a 
demonstration of how the 309 program achieves greater reasonable 
progress than BART as discussed in the document titled Demonstration 
that the SO2 Milestones Provide for Greater Reasonable 
Progress than BART (``better-than-BART'' demonstration). Below is a 
discussion on how the 309 backstop trading program achieves greater 
reasonable progress than BART. The City of Albuquerque--Bernalillo 
County, Wyoming and Utah have also submitted SIPs with the same better 
than BART demonstration as New Mexico and thus are relying on a 
consistent demonstration across the states.
1. List of BART-Eligible Sources
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(A), New Mexico's RH 309 SIP 
submittal offers a ``better-than-BART'' demonstration that lists the 
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 visibility impairing air pollutant. (40 CFR 51.301). We 
are proposing to determine that this list satisfies 40 CFR 
51.308(e)(2)(i)(A).
2. Subject to BART Determination
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(B), the Section 309 states 
conducted individual source modeling on the BART-eligible sources 
within their states to determine which sources in their state causes or 
contributes to visibility impairment and are thus subject to BART. New 
Mexico and Utah relied on modeling by the WRAP to identify sources 
subject to BART. Based on the list of identified sources, the WRAP 
performed the initial BART modeling for New Mexico and Utah. The 
procedures used are outlined in the WRAP Regional Modeling Center (RMC) 
BART Modeling Protocol.\17\ One source in New Mexico, the SJGS, was 
determined to be subject-to-BART based on the initial WRAP modeling. 
See section V.F.2 of this notice for a more detailed discussion of New 
Mexico's identification of subject-to-BART sources. Appendix C of the 
NM RH 309(g) SIP submittal contains a summary of the WRAP modeling used 
in New Mexico's identification of subject-to-BART sources. The State of 
Wyoming performed separate modeling to identify sources subject to 
BART.\18\ The states established a threshold of 0.5 deciviews for 
determining if a single source causes or contributes to visibility 
impairment. If the modeling shows that a source has a 0.5 or greater 
deciview impact at any Class I area, that source causes or contributes 
to visibility impairment and is subject to BART. Table 3 shows the 
BART-eligible sources covered by the 309 backstop program and whether 
they are subject to BART. We are proposing to determine that the RH 309 
SIP submittal satisfies 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ CALMET/CALPUFF Protocol for BART Exemption Screening 
Analysis for Class I Areas in the Western United States[Verbar], 
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.
    \18\ BART 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.

                      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.

[[Page 36058]]

 
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     San Juan Generating       Yes.
                                        Mexico.                   Station.
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 &       Neil Simpson I..........  No.
                                        Light.
Wyoming..............................  Dyno Nobel..............  Dyno Nobel..............  No.
Wyoming..............................  FMC Corp................  Green River Soda Ash      Yes.
                                                                  Plant.
Wyoming..............................  FMC Corp................  Granger River Soda Ash    No.
                                                                  Plant.
Wyoming..............................  General Chemical........  Green River Soda Ash      Yes.
                                                                  Plant.
Wyoming..............................  P4 Production...........  Rock Springs Coking       No.
                                                                  Plant.
Wyoming..............................  Pacificorp..............  Dave Johnston...........  Yes.
Wyoming..............................  Pacificorp..............  Jim Bridger.............  Yes.
Wyoming..............................  Pacificorp..............  Naughton................  Yes.
Wyoming..............................  Pacificorp..............  Wyodak..................  Yes.
Wyoming..............................  Sinclair Oil Corp.......  Sinclair Refinery.......  No.
Wyoming..............................  Sinclair Refinery.......  Casper..................  No.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Best System of Continuous Emission Control Technology
    As required by 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(C), each state is to 
determine what BART would be for each subject to BART source covered by 
the 309 backstop trading program. In the ``better-than-BART'' 
demonstration, all subject to BART electric generating units (EGUs) 
were assumed to be operating at the presumptive SO2 emission 
rate provided in the BART Guidelines (0.15 lb/MMBtu). The 309 program 
also includes non-EGU subject to BART units. The non-EGU subject to 
BART units are four boilers located at two trona plants in Wyoming. 
Wyoming made a determination of what BART would be for these non-EGU 
units. One trona plant recently installed pollution control projects 
achieving a 63 percent reduction in SO2 from its two 
boilers. The State of Wyoming determined this control level would serve 
as a BART benchmark for all trona boilers. Thus, a 63 percent reduction 
in emissions from these sources was included as the BART benchmark in 
calculating emission reductions assuming application of BART at these 
sources. Emission reductions or the BART benchmark for all subject to 
BART sources covered by the 309 program was calculated to be 48,807 
tons of SO2. We are proposing to determine the furnished 
analysis meets the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(C).
4. Projected Emissions Reductions
    As required by 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(D), the RH 309 SIP submittal 
has provided the expected emission reductions that would result from 
the 309 backstop trading program. The ``better-than-BART'' 
demonstration projects that 2018 baseline emissions would be 190,656 
tpy of SO2 for the sources covered by the 309 program in the 
participating states. The reductions achieved by the program are 48,807 
tpy of SO2, resulting in remaining emissions of 141,849 tpy 
of SO2 in 2018. We are proposing to determine the analysis 
furnished to satisfy 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(D) is acceptable.
5. Evidence That the Trading Program Achieves Greater Reasonable 
Progress Than BART
    We are proposing to approve the RH 309 SIP submittal's 
determination that the SO2 trading program achieves greater 
reasonable progress than would be achieved through the installation and 
operation of SO2 BART at all sources subject to BART and 
covered by the SO2 trading program in the participating 
states, as required by 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(E). As the RH 309 SIP 
submittal explains, the program ensures that sources beyond BART 
sources are included. The backstop trading program includes all 
stationary sources with emissions greater than 100 tpy of 
SO2 and thus encompasses 63 non-subject to BART sources. 
BART applied on a source-by-source basis would not affect these 
sources, and there would be no limitation on their future operations 
under their existing permit conditions, or allowable emissions. The 
milestones will cap these sources at actual emissions, which are less 
than current allowable emissions.
    As the RH 309 SIP submittal also explains, the SO2 
trading program also provides for a cap on new source growth. Future 
impairment is prevented by capping SO2 emissions growth from 
sources covered by the program and from entirely new sources in the 
region. BART applied on a source-specific basis would have no impact on 
future growth. The backstop trading program also provides a mass-based 
cap that has inherent advantages over applying BART to each individual 
source. The baseline emission projections and assumed reductions due to 
the assumption of BART-level emission rates on all sources subject to 
BART are all based on actual emissions, using 2006 as the baseline. If 
the BART process were applied on a source-by-source 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.

[[Page 36059]]

6. All Emission Reductions Must Take Place During the First Planning 
Period
    The first planning period ends in 2018. As discussed in the 
preamble above, the reductions from the 309 program will occur by 2018. 
We are therefore proposing to determine the submitted plan satisfies 
the requirement of 40 CFR 51.309(e)(2)(iii).
7. Detailed Description of the Alternative Program
    The detailed description of the backstop trading program is 
provided in Section C--Sulfur Dioxide Milestones and Backstop Trading 
Program of the NM RH 309 SIP submittal and Western Backstop 
SO2 Trading Program Model Rule 20.2.81 NMAC, also a SIP 
submittal which we are proposing to approve. We propose to determine 
the detailed description requirement in 40 CFR 51.309(e)(2)(iii) is 
met. The details of the backstop trading program are discussed in 
section V.E of this notice.
8. Surplus Reductions
    We propose to approve the determination in the RH 309 SIP submittal 
that all emission reductions resulting from the emissions trading 
program are surplus as of the baseline date of the SIP, as required by 
40 CFR 51.208(e)(2)(iv).
9. Geographic Distribution of Emissions
    The NM RH 309 SIP submittal includes modeling conducted by the WRAP 
in 2000 to compare the visibility improvement expected from BART to the 
backstop trading program for the Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau. 
A summary of the modeling results can be found in, Section M of the NM 
RH 309 SIP, which refers to data from modeling included in Tables 2 and 
3 of Attachment C to the Annex.19 20 This modeling was 
conducted during the development of the Annex to examine if the 
geographic distribution of emissions under the trading program would be 
substantially different and disproportionately impact any Class I area 
due to a geographic concentration of emissions. The modeled visibility 
improvement for the best and worst days at the Class I areas for the 
309 program is similar to improvement anticipated from the BART 
scenario (within 0.1 dv) on the worst and best visibility days, thus--
if we assume participation consistent with the model--demonstrating 
that the distribution of emissions between the BART scenario and the 
309 trading program are not substantially different. We note this 
modeling demonstration included nine states, many of which are not 
participating in the backstop trading program. We believe this modeling 
demonstration adds support to our proposed determination discussed 
above in this section that the RH 309 SIP submittal appropriately shows 
the SO2 trading program will achieve greater reasonable 
progress than would be achieved through the installation and operation 
of SO2 BART at all sources subject to BART and covered by 
the SO2 trading program, as required by 40 CFR 
51.308(e)(2)(i)(E).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Voluntary Emissions Reduction Program for Major Industrial 
Sources of Sulfur Dioxide in Nine Western States and A Backstop 
Market Trading Program, an Annex to the Report of the Grand Canyon 
Visibility Transport Commission (September 2000) at C-15 and 16.
    \20\ WRAP 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Requirements for Alternative Programs With an Emissions Cap

    Since the 309 trading program is a backstop trading program, the 
provisions outlined below will only apply if the milestone is exceeded 
and the program is triggered. We are proposing to approve 20.2.81 NMAC, 
which provides enforceable rules that govern the triggering and 
administration of the program. The analysis that follows shows that the 
backstop trading program is consistent with the elements for trading 
programs outlined in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi), as required by Section 
309. See 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(v).
1. Applicability Provisions
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(A), the backstop trading 
program has the same applicability requirements in all states opting to 
participate in the program. 20.2.81.101 NMAC, which we are proposing to 
approve, contains the applicability provisions, which indicates that 
the backstop trading program generally applies to all stationary 
sources that emit 100 tons per year or more of SO2 in the 
program trigger year. We are proposing to approve the 20.2.81.101 NMAC 
as meeting the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(A).
2. Allowance Provisions
    Part C.C1 of the SIP and 20.2.81.105 NMAC, which we propose to 
approve, contain the allowance allocation provisions as required by 40 
CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(B). The rule requires sources to open a compliance 
account in order to track allowances and contains other requirements 
associated with those accounts. These SIP provisions also contain the 
provisions on how the State will allocate allowances and states that 
the total number of allowances distributed cannot exceed the milestone 
for any given year. We are proposing to approve the submitted 
20.2.81.105 NMAC as meeting the requirement of 40 CFR 
51.308(e)(2)(vi)(B).
3. Monitoring and Recordkeeping Provisions
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(C)-(E), the submitted rule 
20.2.81.106.A.1 NMAC provides that sources subject to 40 CFR part 75 
under a separate requirement from the backstop trading program shall 
meet the requirements contained in part 75 with respect to monitoring, 
recording and reporting SO2 emissions. If a unit is not 
subject to 40 CFR part 75 under a requirement separate from the trading 
program, the State requires that a source use one of the following 
monitoring methods: (1) A continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) 
for SO2 and flow that complies with all applicable 
monitoring provisions in 40 CFR part 75; (2) if the unit is a gas- or 
oil-fired combustion device, the monitoring methodology in Appendix D 
to 40 CFR part 75, or, if applicable, the low mass emissions provisions 
(with respect to SO2 mass emissions only) of section 
75.19(c) of 40 CFR part 75; (3) one of the optional protocols, if 
applicable, in 20.2.81.111 NMAC or 20.2.81.112 NMAC; or (4) a petition 
for site-specific monitoring that the source submits for approval by 
NMED and EPA in accordance with Paragraph (5) Subsection O of 
20.2.81.106 NMAC. All the above sources are required to comply with the 
reporting and recordkeeping requirements in 40 CFR part 75.
    Although most sources covered by the backstop trading program will 
be able to meet the monitoring requirements stated above, there are 
some emission units that are either not physically able to install the 
needed equipment or do not emit enough sulfur dioxide to justify the 
expense of installing these systems. As discussed in part C5.3 of the 
SIP, the trading program allows these emission units to continue to use 
their pre-trigger monitoring methodology, but does not allow the source 
to transfer any allowances that were allocated to that unit for use by 
another source. The program requires that the allowances associated 
with emission units that continue to use their pre-trigger monitoring 
methodology be placed in a special reserve compliance account, while 
allowances for other emission

[[Page 36060]]

units are placed in a regular compliance account. Sources may not trade 
allowances out of a special reserve compliance account, even for use by 
emission units at the same source, but can use the allowances to show 
compliance for that particular unit.
    Subsection B of 20.2.81.106 NMAC allows sources with any of the 
following emission units to apply to establish a special reserve 
compliance account: (1) Any smelting operation where all of the 
emissions from the operation are not ducted to a stack; (2) any flare, 
except to the extent such flares are used as a fuel gas combustion 
device at a petroleum refinery; or (3) any other type of unit without 
add-on sulfur dioxide control equipment, if the unit belongs to one of 
the following source categories: cement kilns, pulp and paper recovery 
furnaces, lime kilns, or glass manufacturing. Pursuant to the submitted 
20.2.81.106 NMAC, sources with a special reserve compliance account are 
required to submit to the State an annual emissions statement and 
sources are required to maintain operating records sufficient to 
estimate annual emissions consistent with the baseline emission 
inventory submitted in 1998.
    We are proposing to approve the above discussed submitted 
provisions of 20.2.81 NMAC and find the submitted trading program is 
consistent with the monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(C) through (E).
4. Tracking System
    As required by 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(F), section C2 of the 
submitted RH 309 SIP provides the overarching specifications for an 
Emissions and Allowance Tracking System (EATS). According to the SIP 
submittal, the EATS must provide that all necessary information 
regarding emissions, allowances, and transactions is publicly available 
in a secure, centralized database. The EATS must ensure that each 
allowance is uniquely identified, allow for frequent updates, and 
include enforceable procedures for recording data. If the program is 
triggered, the State will work with other states and tribes 
participating in the trading program to implement this system. More 
detailed specifications for the EATS are provided in the WEB Emission 
and Allowance Tracking System (EATS) Analysis.\21\ New Mexico assumes 
responsibility for ensuring that all the EATS provisions are completed 
as described in its SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Western 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the State will work with the other participating 
states to designate one tracking system administrator (TSA). The 
submitted RH 309 SIP provides that the TSA shall be designated as 
expeditiously as possible, but no later than six months after the 
program trigger date. The State will enter into a binding contract with 
the TSA that shall require the TSA to perform all TSA functions 
described in the SIP and in 20.2.81 NMAC, such as transferring and 
recording allowances. We propose to determine the submitted trading 
program has adequate tracking system provisions to satisfy the 
requirements of CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(F).
5. Account Representative
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(G), the submitted RH 309 SIP 
relies on submitted rule 20.2.81.102 NMAC, which contains provisions 
for the establishment of an account representative. The SIP submittal 
requires each source to identify one account representative. The 
account representative shall submit to the State and the TSA a signed 
and dated certificate that contains a certification statement verifying 
that the account representative has all the necessary authority to 
carry out the account representative responsibilities under the trading 
program on behalf of the owners and operators of the sources. The 
certification statement also needs to indicate that each such owner and 
operator shall be fully bound by the account representatives 
representations, actions, inactions, or submissions and by any decision 
or order issued to the account representative by the State regarding 
the trading program. We are proposing to determine the submitted rule 
20.2.81.102 NMAC and submitted SIP meet the requirements for 
``authorized account representative provisions'' in 40 CFR 
51.308(e)(2)(vi)(G).
6. Allowance Transfers
    The submitted RH 309 SIP establishes procedures pertaining to 
allowance transfers to meet the requirement of 40 CFR 
51.308(e)(2)(vi)(H). 20.2.81.107 NMAC, a submitted rule we propose to 
approve, contains requirements sources must follow for allowance 
transfers. To transfer or retire allowances, the account representative 
shall submit the transfer account number(s) identifying the transferor 
account, the serial number of each allowance to be transferred, the 
transferor's account representative's name and signature, and date of 
submission. The allowance transfer deadline is midnight Pacific 
Standard Time on March 1 of each year following the end of the control 
period. Sources must correctly submit transfers by this time in order 
for a source to be able to use the allowance to demonstrate compliance. 
We are proposing to approve 20.2.81.107 NMAC as being consistent with 
the program elements required at 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(H).
    Section C3 of the RH 309 SIP submittal provides the procedures the 
TSA must follow to transfer allowances. The TSA will record an 
allowance transfer by moving each allowance from the transferor account 
to the transferee account as specified by the request from the source, 
if the transfer is correctly submitted and the transferor account 
includes each allowance identified in the transfer. Within five 
business days of the recording of an allowance transfer, the TSA shall 
notify the account representatives of both the transferor and 
transferee accounts, and make the transfer information publicly 
available on the Internet. Within five business days of receipt of an 
allowance transfer that fails to meet the requirements for transfer, 
the TSA will notify the account representatives of both accounts of the 
decision not to record the transfer, and the reasons for not recording 
the transfer. We are proposing to determine the submitted trading 
program is consistent with the ``allowance transfer provisions'' 
requirement of 40 CFR51.308(e)(2)(vi)(H).
7. Compliance Provisions
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(I), the trading program in the 
submitted RH 309 SIP provides the procedures for determining compliance 
and relies on submitted rule 20.2.81.109 NMAC, which we are proposing 
to approve. Per this submitted rule, the source must hold allowances as 
of the allowance transfer deadline in the source's compliance account 
(together with any current control year allowances held in the source's 
special reserve compliance account) in an amount not less than the 
total SO2 emissions for the control period from the source. 
The State determines compliance by comparing allowances held by the 
source in their compliance account(s) with the total annual 
SO2 emissions reported by the source. If the comparison of 
the allowances to emissions results in emissions exceeding allowances, 
the source's excess emissions are subject to the allowance deduction 
penalty in 20.2.81.109 C. NMAC (discussed in further detail below). We 
are proposing to determine the submitted rule

[[Page 36061]]

20.2.81.109 NMAC is consistent with the ``compliance provisions'' 
requirement of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(I).
8. Penalty Provisions
    The submitted rule 20.2.81.109 C. NMAC provides the penalty 
provisions required by 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(J). Per this section, a 
source's allowances will be reduced by an amount equal to three times 
the source's tons of excess emissions if they are unable to show 
compliance. We are proposing to determine the submitted rule 20.2.81 is 
consistent with the ``penalty provisions'' requirement of 40 CFR 
51.308(e)(2)(vi)(J).
9. Banking of Allowances
    As allowed by 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(K), 20.2.81.108 NMAC, which 
we propose to approve, allows sources to use allowances from current 
and prior years to demonstrate compliance, with some restrictions. 
Sources can only use 2018 allowances to show compliance with the 2018 
milestone and may not use allowances from prior years. In order to 
insure that the use of banked allowances does not interfere with the 
attainment or maintenance of reasonable progress goals, the backstop 
trading program includes flow-control provisions (see section C4 of the 
RH 309 SIP submittal). The flow control provisions are triggered if the 
TSA determines that the banked allowances exceed ten percent of the 
milestone for the next control year, and thereby ensure that too many 
banked emissions are not used in any one year. We are proposing to 
determine the submitted trading program has provisions that clarifies 
the restrictions on the use of banked allowances, consistent with the 
requirement in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(K).
10. Program Assessment
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(L), section D1 of the RH 309 
SIP submittal contains provisions for a 2013 assessment. For the 2013 
assessment, the State will work with other participating states to 
develop a projected emission inventory for SO2 through the 
year 2018. The State will then evaluate the projected inventory and 
assess the likelihood of meeting the regional milestone for the year 
2018. New Mexico shall include this assessment as part of the 2013 
progress report that must be submitted under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10). We 
are proposing to determine the RH 309 SIP submittal is consistent with 
the program assessment provisions requirement in 40 CFR 
51.308(e)(2)(vi)(L).

F. Provisions for Stationary Source NOX and PM

    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(vii) and 40 CFR 51.309(g), NMED's 
submittal contains BART and long-term strategies to address NOx and PM 
emissions. An initial assessment of emissions control strategies for 
stationary source NOx and PM, and the degree of visibility improvement 
that would result from implementation of the identified strategies was 
prepared by the WRAP. This report, Stationary Source NOX and 
PM Emissions in the WRAP Region: An Initial Assessment of Emissions, 
Controls, and Air Quality Impacts, is included in Appendix C-2 of the 
submitted NM RH 309 SIP. This report represents an initial assessment 
of stationary source NOX and PM strategies for regional haze 
performed in 2003 using emission inventories, available ambient 
monitoring data, and very limited modeling. Based on this analysis, 
NMED concluded that for the majority of the Class I areas in the WRAP, 
NOX and PM emissions are not major contributors to 
visibility impairment, and that RAVI remedies are available in cases 
where particular stationary sources may impact a particular Class I 
area. An additional assessment of long-term strategies and BART 
requirements for NOX and PM are included in the NM RH 309(g) 
SIP. An evaluation of NMED's PM BART determination is in this section. 
As previously stated, we are not proposing action on the NOX 
BART determination for SJGS. Evaluation of NMED's LTS is available in 
Section V.N.4 of this proposal. NMED has committed to reassess its 
NOX and PM long-term strategies in its SIP updates in 2013 
and 2018.
    BART is an element of New Mexico's LTS for the first implementation 
period. As discussed in more detail in section III.D. of this preamble, 
the BART evaluation process consists of three components: (1) An 
identification of all the BART-eligible sources, (2) an assessment of 
whether those BART-eligible sources are in fact subject to BART and (3) 
a determination of any BART controls. NMED addressed these steps as 
follows:
1. Identification of BART-Eligible Sources
    The first step of a BART evaluation is to identify all the BART-
eligible sources within the state's boundaries. NMED identified the 
BART-eligible sources in New Mexico by utilizing the three eligibility 
criteria in the BART Guidelines (70 FR 39158, July 6, 2005) and our 
regulations (40 CFR 51.301): (1) One or more emission units at the 
facility fit within one of the 26 categories listed in the BART 
Guidelines; (2) the emission unit(s) was constructed on or after August 
6, 1962, and was in existence prior to August 6, 1977; and (3) 
potential emissions of any visibility-impairing pollutant from subject 
units are 250 tons or more per year. Table 3 above lists the BART-
eligible sources in New Mexico.
2. Identification of Sources Subject to BART
    The second step of the BART evaluation is to identify those BART-
eligible sources that may reasonably be anticipated to cause or 
contribute to visibility impairment at any Class I area, i.e. those 
sources that are subject to BART. The BART Guidelines allow states to 
consider exempting some BART-eligible sources from further BART review 
because they may not reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute 
to any visibility impairment in a Class I area. Consistent with the 
BART Guidelines, NMED relied on the WRAP's initial BART screening 
modeling to assess the extent of each facility's contribution to 
visibility impairment at surrounding Class I areas and identify sources 
subject to BART. Appendix C of the submitted NM RH SIP for 309(g) 
summarizes the initial BART screening performed by the WRAP for New 
Mexico.
a. Modeling Methodology
    The BART Guidelines provide that states may choose to use the 
CALPUFF modeling system or another appropriate model to predict the 
visibility impacts from a single source on a Class I area, and to 
therefore determine whether an individual source is anticipated to 
cause or contribute to impairment of visibility in Class I areas, i.e., 
``is subject to BART''. The Guidelines state that we believe CALPUFF is 
the best regulatory modeling application currently available for 
predicting a single source's contribution to visibility impairment (70 
FR 39162, July 6, 2005). NMED relied on WRAP screening modeling using 
the CALPUFF modeling system to determine whether individual sources in 
New Mexico were subject to or exempt from BART.
    The BART Guidelines also recommend that states develop a modeling 
protocol for making individual source attributions, and suggest that 
states may want to consult with us and their RPO to address any issues 
prior to modeling. The procedures used are outlined in the WRAP 
Regional Modeling Center (RMC)

[[Page 36062]]

BART Modeling Protocol.\22\ Stakeholders, including EPA, FLMs, 
industrial sources, trade groups, and other interested parties, 
actively participated in the development and review of the WRAP 
protocol at the time it was developed. We propose to find the chosen 
model and the general modeling methodology used by the WRAP to be 
acceptable at the time it was utilized for identifying which units were 
subject to BART.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ The procedures used are outlined in the WRAP Regional 
Modeling Center (RMC) BART Modeling Protocol that is available at: 
http://pah.cert.ucr.edu/aqm/308/bart/WRAP_RMC_BART_Protocol_Aug15_2006.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Contribution Threshold
    For states using modeling to determine the applicability of BART to 
single sources, the BART Guidelines note that the first step is to set 
a contribution threshold to assess whether the impact of a single 
source is sufficient to cause or contribute to visibility impairment at 
a Class I area. The BART Guidelines state that, ``[a] single source 
that is responsible for a 1.0 deciview change or more should be 
considered to `cause' visibility impairment.'' 70 FR 39104, 39161 (July 
6, 2005). The BART Guidelines also state that ``the appropriate 
threshold for determining whether a source contributes to visibility 
impairment may reasonably differ across states,'' but, ``[a]s a general 
matter, any threshold that you use for determining whether a source 
`contributes' to visibility impairment should not be higher than 0.5 
deciviews.'' Id. Further, in setting a contribution threshold, states 
should ``consider the number of emissions sources affecting the Class I 
areas at issue and the magnitude of the individual sources' impacts. 
The Guidelines affirm that states are free to use a lower threshold if 
they conclude that the location of a large number of BART-eligible 
sources in proximity of a Class I area justifies this approach. NMED 
and the WRAP used a contribution threshold of 0.5 dv for determining 
which sources are subject to BART. The results of the visibility 
impacts modeling demonstrated that the majority of the individual BART-
eligible sources had visibility impacts well below 0.5 dv.\23\ With the 
exception of the San Juan Generating Station that had modeled 
visibility impacts well above 0.5 dv, the highest visibility impact of 
the remaining BART-eligible sources was 0.33 dv. We agree with the 
State's rationale for choosing this threshold value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See Appendix C of the NM RH 309(g) SIP for a Summary of 
WRAP RMC BART Modeling for New Mexico Draft6, December 17, 
2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Sources Identified to be Subject-to-BART
    The WRAP screening modeling evaluated sources that were identified 
as BART-eligible and determined the only sources that did not screen 
out in New Mexico were the four units of the SJGS. An eligible BART 
source with a predicted impact of 0.5 dv or more of impairment in a 
Class I area ``contributes'' to visibility impairment and is subject to 
BART.\24\ A single source that is responsible for a 1.0 deciview change 
or more should be considered to ``cause'' visibility impairment. The 
results of this analysis indicated that SJGS, on a facility-wide basis, 
causes visibility impairment at all 16 Class I areas that lie within 
300 km of the facility. However, this modeling was based on the 
installed control technology at the time and does not reflect emission 
reductions due to the installation of consent decree \25\ controls. 
Revised modeling performed by NMED and by us, including controls 
required by the consent decree and currently installed, further 
confirmed that SJGS still causes visibility impairment at more than 
half of the Class I areas in the vicinity of the facility and 
contributes (above 0.5 deciviews) to visibility impairment at the 
remaining areas on a facility-wide basis. Furthermore, on an individual 
unit basis, all units cause visibility impairment at Mesa Verde 
National Park, and cause or contribute to visibility impairment at a 
number of other Class I areas.\26\ Our modeling indicates that the 
visibility impairment is primarily dominated by nitrate particulates. 
Therefore, as the WRAP screening modeling has previously concluded, and 
further modeling by NMED and EPA confirms, even with post-consent 
decree controls on SJGS units, the SJGS units 1, 2, 3, and 4 still have 
a significant impact at surrounding Class I areas. Consequently, we 
propose to approve NMED's subject-to-BART determination and find that 
units 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the SJGS are the only New Mexico sources 
subject to BART.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 70 FR 39104, 39121 (July 6, 2005).
    \25\ Consent Decree in The Grand Canyon Trust and Sierra Club, 
Plaintiffs, The State of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Intervenor, v. Public 
Service Company of New Mexico, Defendant, (CV 02-552 BB/ACT (ACE)), 
lodged in the United States District Court, District of New Mexico, 
on March 10, 2005, at 15-16. The consent decree resulted in the 
installation of low-NOX burners with overfire air ports 
and a neural network system to reduce NOX emissions, and 
a full-sized pulse jet fabric filter to reduce PM emissions. The wet 
limestone scrubber was modified to eliminate flue gas bypass, and 
dibasic acid was added to the scrubber process to improve 
SO2 removal. Installation of these controls on all four 
units was completed in the spring of 2009. The consent decree 
requires compliance with emission limits of 0.3 lb/MMBtu 
NOX, 0.015 lb/MMBtu PM, and 90% annual average control, 
not to exceed 0.25 lb/MMBtu SO2 for a seven day block 
average for each unit.
    \26\ See the TSD for our FIP, ``Visibility Modeling for BART 
Determination: San Juan Generating Station, New Mexico'' available 
in the docket to our FIP (Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2010-0846) and 
included in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. BART Determination for SJGS
    The third step of a BART evaluation is to perform the BART 
analysis. The BART Guidelines \27\ describe the BART analysis as 
consisting of the following five basic steps:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 70 FR 39164.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Step 1: Identify All Available Retrofit Control 
Technologies,
     Step 2: Eliminate Technically Infeasible Options,
     Step 3: Evaluate Control Effectiveness of Remaining 
Control Technologies,
     Step 4: Evaluate Impacts and Document the Results, and
     Step 5: Evaluate Visibility Impacts.
    The SJGS consists of four (4) coal-fired generating units and 
associated support facilities. Each coal-fired unit burns pulverized 
coal and No. 2 diesel oil (for startup) in a boiler, and produces high-
pressure steam which powers a steam turbine coupled with an electric 
generator. Electric power produced by the units is supplied to the 
electric power grid for sale. Coal for the units is supplied by the 
adjacent San Juan Mine and is delivered to the facility by conveyor. 
Units 1 and 2 have a unit capacity of 350 and 360 MW, respectively. 
Units 3 and 4 each have a unit capacity of 544 MW.
    In June, 2007, the operator of the SJGS, Public Service Company of 
New Mexico (PNM) submitted its PM and NOX BART evaluation to 
NMED. That evaluation was revised multiple times to incorporate 
additional visibility modeling analyses, control technology 
considerations, and cost analyses.\28\ NMED's final evaluation of this 
BART determination for NOX and PM is available in Chapter 10 
and Appendix D of the NM RH 309(g) SIP submittal. Our evaluation and 
proposal for action only

[[Page 36063]]

concerns the PM BART determination. As discussed above, BART 
requirements for SO2 are met through New Mexico's 
participation in a SO2 milestone emissions and backstop 
trading program. As also discussed above, we are not proposing action 
on the submitted NOX BART determination for the San Juan 
Generating Station. The NOX BART requirement for the source 
is presently satisfied by the BART determination that is effective 
under the federal implementation plan at 40 CFR 52.1628. We will 
propose action on the submitted NOX BART determination for 
San Juan Generating Station through a future, separate proposal, unless 
the state of New Mexico earlier withdraws it in favor of an alternative 
that it may develop through discussions with the source and EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Public Service Company of New Mexico, San Juan Generating 
Station, Best Available Retrofit Technology Analysis, June 6, 2007; 
PNM San Juan Generating Station, BART Analysis of SNCR, May 30, 
2008. PNM San Juan Generating Station, BART Analysis of Nalco 
Mobotec NOX Control Technologies, August 29, 2008; Public 
Service Company of New Mexico, San Juan Generating Station Final 
particulate matter BART analysis, August 28, 2008; Public Service 
Company of New Mexico, San Juan Generating Station Revised SNCR 
Analysis, February 11, 2011 and supporting reports and analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. New Mexico's PM BART Determination
    The SJGS currently has pulse jet fabric filters installed and an 
emission limit of 0.015 lb/MMBtu PM. PNM identified flue gas 
conditioning with hot side electrostatic precipitator (ESP), pulse jet 
fabric filter (PJFF), compact hybrid particulate collector, and max-9 
electrostatic fabric filter as available controls for PM at SJGS. At 
NMED's request, PNM also identified wet ESP (WESP).
    Hot-side ESP and compact hybrid particulate collector were 
eliminated because these technologies were determined to not provide 
control performance lower than the currently permitted limit for PM. 
The max-9 electrostatic fabric filter was also eliminated due to 
limited application in large utility boilers. WESP and PJFF were 
determined to be technically feasible and were evaluated in PNM's BART 
analysis for PM.\29\ PNM determined that PJFF and WESP are capable of 
achieving emission limits of 0.015 lb/MMBtu PM and 0.010 lb/MMBtu PM, 
respectively. PNM then evaluated the impacts, including costs of 
compliance, energy impacts, non-air quality impacts, and the remaining 
useful life, of operating WESP in addition to the existing PJFF. PNM's 
evaluation considered auxiliary power consumption, additional water 
consumption, and waste water disposal requirements, as well as cost. 
The installation of WESP was estimated to reduce emissions of PM by 69 
tons per year (tpy) each for Units 1 and 2, 107 tpy for Unit 3 and 105 
tpy at Unit 4. The addition of WESP was determined by PNM and evaluated 
by NMED to have a cost-effectiveness ranging from about $145,000 to 
$173,000 per ton of PM removed for each unit. PNM then performed 
modeling to investigate the visibility impacts. Based on their five-
factor analysis, NMED concluded that BART for units 1-4 for PM is the 
existing PJFF and the existing emission limit of 0.015 lb/MMBtu.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Public Service Company of New Mexico, San Juan Generating 
Station Final particulate matter BART analysis, PNM (August 28, 
2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Our Evaluation of New Mexico's PM BART Determination
    We have determined that PNM overestimated the cost of WESP because 
PNM did not follow the EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual,\30\ where 
possible, as directed by the BART Guidelines.\31\ For example, PNM's 
cost analysis includes costs not allowed under EPA's Cost Manual 
methodology, such as Allowance for Funds Used During Construction 
(AFUDC).\32\ PNM's visibility analysis shows a maximum visibility 
improvement of 0.62 dv from WESP being installed on all four units at 
Mesa Verde and 0.14 dv improvement at San Pedro Parks. Visibility 
benefits at other Class I areas are below 0.1 dv. As discussed in 
detail in the FIP and accompanying TSD,\33\ we identified 
inconsistencies between PNM's modeling and EPA guidance. In our 
evaluation of NMED's PM BART determination we considered these 
deviations from EPA guidance for cost estimates and visibility impact 
analysis. We note that some visibility benefit is anticipated at Mesa 
Verde through the installation of WESP at SJGS. However, given the high 
anticipated cost on a $/ton removed basis for WESP at SJGS, even if we 
corrected the cost estimate to be consistent with EPA guidance, we 
believe the cost of installation and operation of WESP would not be 
cost-effective. Therefore, we propose to approve NMED's PM BART 
determination for the SJGS that PM BART is satisfied by the existing 
PJFF and the existing emission limit of 0.015 lb/MMBtu.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ U.S. EPA, EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual, Report 
EPA/452/B-02-001, 6th Ed., January 2002 (``Cost Manual''), The EPA 
Air Pollution Control Cost Manual is the current name for what was 
previously known as the OAQPS Control Cost Manual, the name for the 
Cost Manual in previous (pre-2002) editions of the Cost Manual.
    \31\ In order to maintain and improve consistency, cost 
estimates should be based on the OAQPS Control Cost Manual, where 
possible. 70 FR 39104, 39166 (2005).
    \32\ There may be other deficiencies in New Mexico's cost 
evaluation of PM BART for the SJGS, but we take no position on them, 
as they are moot in light of the potential visibility benefits 
versus the order of any possible magnitude adjustment in New 
Mexico's cost analysis.
    \33\ The proposed FIP, the TSD, and the Final Rule are added to 
the docket for this rule making and are also available in the docket 
to our FIP (Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2010-0846).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. Mobile Sources

    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(5)(i), New Mexico, in collaboration 
with the WRAP, assembled a comprehensive statewide inventory of mobile 
source emissions that was included in the RH 309 SIP submittal. The 
inventory included on-road and non-road mobile source emissions 
inventories for Western states for the time period 1996 through 2018, 
inventorying 1996, and then projecting 2003, 2008, 2013, and 2018.\34\ 
These inventories for New Mexico are summarized in Tables D-1 and D-2 
of the NM RH 309 SIP and described in Chapter 5 of the WRAP TSD.\35\ 
Mobile source emissions (on-road and non-road) are projected to be at 
their lowest level within New Mexico at the end of the planning period, 
primarily due to on-road vehicle emission and fuel standards by the 
EPA, with the exception of SO2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 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.
    \35\ WRAP Regional Technical Support Document for the 
Requirements of Sec.  309 of the Regional Haze Rule (64 FR 35714-
July 1, 1999) revised May 7, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An emission inventory update was also done for a 2002 base year and 
emission projections for the years 2008, 2013, and 2018.\36\ The 
inventory shows a continuous decline in emissions from mobile sources 
from VOC, NOX, PM2.5, elemental carbon (EC), and 
organic carbon (OC) emissions over the period of 2002-2018. Per 40 CFR 
51.309(d)(5)(i)(A), the inventories show a decline in mobile source 
emissions and therefore no further action is required by New Mexico to 
address mobile source emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ Detailed information on the emission inventory is contained 
in the ENVIRON Report WRAP Mobile Source Emission Inventories 
Update, May 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(5)(i)(B), the State will submit a SIP 
revision no later than December 31, 2013, containing any long-term 
strategies necessary to reduce SO2 emissions from non-road 
mobile sources consistent with the goal of reasonable progress if 
necessary based on consideration of the emission reductions achieved by 
Federal standards. We note the updated available emission inventory 
projections show that there will be a 99 percent decrease in 
SO2 emissions from 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-

[[Page 36064]]

road Diesel Engines and Fuel. 69 FR 38958 (June 29, 2004). A 99 percent 
reduction in SO2 from non-road mobile sources is consistent 
with the goal of reasonable progress and no other 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), the State 
will submit interim reports to EPA in 2013 and 2018 on the 
implementation of regional and local recommendations from the GCVTC 
report pertaining to mobile sources. New Mexico will include these 
reports as part of the reports required by 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10). We 
propose to determine the RH 309 SIP submittal satisfies the 
requirements of 51 CFR 51.309(d)(5).

H. Programs Related to Fire

    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6)(i), the NM RH 309 SIP must provide 
for an evaluation of how its SIP meets the ``Programs related to fire'' 
requirements. Based on our review of Section E of the 309 SIP, we 
propose to find that the submittal meets the 309(d)(6) requirements as 
discussed in detail below. We also propose approval of 20.2.65 NMAC, 
Smoke Management, and revisions to 20.2.60 NMAC, Open Burning, both 
submitted on December 1, 2003. The 2003 submittal of 20.2.60 NMAC 
replaces the state's Open Burning that we previously approved as part 
of the New Mexico SIP at 62 FR 50514 (September 26, 1997). By proposing 
to approve the 2003 submittal, we are proposing to repeal from the New 
Mexico SIP the earlier version of the Open Burning Rule.
1. Evaluation of Current Fire Programs
    The State's submittal meets 51.309(d)(6)(i) as it demonstrates how 
its smoke management program and all federal or private programs for 
prescribed fire in New Mexico have a mechanism in place for evaluating 
and addressing the degree of visibility impairment from smoke in their 
planning and application of burning. New Mexico has adopted 20.2.65 
NMAC to meet regional haze rule requirements. New Mexico has also 
submitted revisions to 20.2.60 NMAC as a SIP revision. See submittals 
at the EPA docket identified No. EPA-R06-OAR-2009-0050. We note that 
20.2.60 NMAC, the rule for Open Burning, is not strictly related to the 
satisfaction of regional haze requirements. We first approved the 
State's open burning regulation (20.2.60 NMAC) into the SIP on 
September 26, 1997 at 62 FR 50518, and we propose to approve the 
submitted 20.2.60 NMAC as improving the SIP. Because this new open 
burning rule is an improvement over the SIP open burning rule, we also 
are proposing to remove from the SIP, the previously approved open 
burning rule. Among other things, 20.2.60 NMAC adds new restrictions on 
the burning of household waste. A more detailed discussion of our 
proposed approval of the Smoke Management rule and Open Burning rule 
can be found in Appendix B of the Technical Support Document (TSD) that 
accompanies this notice.
    We propose to find that the NM RH 309 SIP submittal and the 
companion rules meet the specific additional requirements of 
309(d)(6)(i) which address: (a) Actions to minimize emissions, (b) 
evaluation of smoke dispersion, (c) alternatives to fire, (d) public 
notification, (e) air quality monitoring, (f) surveillance and 
enforcement, and (g) program evaluation. These are discussed below.
a. Actions To Minimize Emissions
    In order to minimize emissions, New Mexico's RH 309 SIP relies on 
the use of emission reduction techniques by burners. Any techniques 
used in conjunction with burning that reduce the actual amount of 
emissions produced from a planned burn project are considered emission 
reduction techniques. The Smoke Management Rule submittal requires land 
managers burning SMP-II burns (burn projects that emit greater than or 
equal to one ton of PM10 emissions per day) to use at a 
minimum one emission reduction technique for each planned burn project. 
See 20.2.65.103.C NMAC. SMP-II burners will indicate on the required 
form which emission reduction techniques are being utilized for each 
planned burn project. We propose to find that these portions of the 
Smoke Management rule meet the requirement to address actions to 
minimize emissions.
b. Evaluation of Smoke Dispersion
    The Smoke Management Rule only allows SMP-I burns (burn projects 
that emit less than one ton per day of PM10 emissions) to be 
ignited during daytime hours when the ventilation index category is 
rated ``Good'' or better. See 20.2.65.102.A(2)(a) NMAC. To comply with 
this requirement, the burner must conduct visual monitoring and 
document the results in writing. For burns within 1 mile of a 
population, the burner must notify the department at least two business 
days in advance and NMED may choose to conduct instrument monitoring. 
See 20.2.65.102.A(2)(b).
    For SMP-II burns, the Smoke Management rule provides the burner can 
ignite a planned burn project only during times when the ventilation 
category is ``Good'' or better,\37\ and must notify the public at least 
two days prior to the burn. See 20.2.65.103.D. The burner must conduct 
visual monitoring and document the results in writing. NMED may choose 
to conduct instrument monitoring in addition to visual monitoring. See 
20.2.65.103.J.(1). We propose to find that these portions of the Smoke 
Management rule meet the requirement for evaluation of smoke 
dispersion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ Ventilation category is a classification that describes the 
potential for smoke to ventilate away from its source. The 
classification (Excellent, Very Good, Good, Fair, Poor) is 
determined by multiplying the mixing height in feet by the transport 
winds in knots, thus providing the ventilation category in knot-
feet. The ventilation category can be found in the National Weather 
Service's Fire Weather Forecast, which is the State approved source 
for this information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Alternatives to Fire
    The NM RH 309 SIP requires, through the Smoke Management Rule, that 
for burns exceeding 1 ton PM10 emissions per day, burners 
must consider the use of alternatives to burning. See 20.2.65.103.B and 
C. Burners must then document that the use of alternatives to burning 
was considered prior to the decision to utilize fire. The documentation 
includes citing the feasibility criterion that prevented the use of 
alternatives. This documentation must be included on the registration 
form provided by the NMED. The burner must maintain all records of 
actions and maintain such records for a minimum of one year. See 
20.2.65.103.K. We propose to find that these portions of the Smoke 
Management Rule meet the requirement to consider alternatives to fire.
d. Public Notification
    To meet the public notification requirements, the Smoke Management 
rule contains requirements for public notice for burn projects planned 
in proximity to population. For example, 20.2.65.102.E requires for 
SMP-I burns, that burners notify the populations that are located with 
one mile of the planned burn project. The burner must conduct public 
notification no sooner than 30 days and no later than two days in 
advance of the ignition of the planned burn project. In addition, under 
20.2.65.102.B, the burner must notify the local fire authorities prior 
to igniting a burn and register the burn project with NMED. For SMP-II 
burns, the 20.2.65.103.J requires that burners notify the populations 
within 15 miles of the planned burn project. The burner must conduct 
public notification no sooner than 30 days and no later than

[[Page 36065]]

two days in advance of the ignition of the planned burn project. In 
addition, the burner will also notify the local fire authorities prior 
to igniting a burn and register the burn project with NMED under 
20.2.65.103.F. We propose to find that these portions of the Smoke 
Management rule meet the requirement to address notification of the 
public.
e. Air Quality Monitoring
    To address air quality monitoring, the Smoke Management rule 
requires that SMP-I and SMP-II burners conduct and document visual 
monitoring on all planned burn projects under 20.2.65.102.A(2)(b) and 
20.2.65.103.E. The use of monitoring equipment will be based on the 
planned burn project's proximity to a population, nonattainment area, 
or Class I area and will be determined on a case-by-case basis by NMED. 
We propose to find that this portion of the Smoke Management rule meets 
this requirement.
f. Surveillance and Enforcement
    To address surveillance and enforcement requirements, 20.2.65 NMAC 
requires that the permittee submit reports and burn project tracking 
forms to the NMED on SMP-I and SMP-II burns. See 20.2.65.102D NMAC and 
20.2.65.103I NMAC. The New Mexico Air Quality Control Act, NMSA 1978 
Chapter 74, Article 2 authorizes enforcement actions and the assessment 
of civil penalties for violations. Section E of the State's submittal 
contains a more detailed explanation of the existing procedures in 
place to address this. We propose to find that the current SIP and the 
State's enforcement mechanisms meet this requirement.
g. Program Evaluation
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6)(i), the RH SIP submittal also 
contains an evaluation of whether its smoke management program and 
these prescribed fire smoke management programs contain the following 
elements: actions to minimize emissions; evaluation of smoke 
dispersion; alternatives to fire; public notification; air quality 
monitoring; surveillance and enforcement; and program evaluation. The 
SIP at Section E and Appendix E-1 describe the results of these 
evaluations in detail. For example, NMED, in its RH 309 SIP, commits to 
hosting an annual meeting with all burners and interested stakeholders 
to assess the adequacy of the design, impact, and implementation of the 
program. These program evaluations will be used to revise and improve 
the smoke management plan, as needed. The State also commits to review 
gathered data with stakeholders on an annual basis that will serve to 
establish annual emissions goals. In addition, that State has adopted a 
Smoke Management regulation at 20.2.65 NMAC that serves as the 
foundation of the smoke management plan, which the NMED administers and 
enforces. We propose to find that the New Mexico RH SIP submittal meets 
the requirement for program evaluation under 51.309(d)(6)(i).
2. Inventory and Tracking System
    We propose to find the RH 309 SIP meets the requirements of 40 CFR 
51.309(d)(6)(ii) for fire emissions inventorying and tracking. Pursuant 
to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6)(ii), States must include in their section 309 
plan a statewide process for gathering the essential post-burn activity 
information to support emissions inventory and tracking systems. The 
SIP submittal provides for a host of inventory and tracking measures 
that we believe meet the 309(d)(6)(ii) requirement. For example, the 
State follows the WRAP's guidance, ``Fire Tracking System Policy,'' on 
establishing an adequate system for tracking and emissions inventory of 
the following pollutants: VOC, NOx, elemental carbon, organic carbon, 
and fine particulate for fire sources within New Mexico. The SIP 
follows the WRAP's policies on emission inventory and tracking 
requirements that can be found in section E (c) and Appendix M-2, and 
Appendix E-6 of the state's submittal. In order to maintain the 
emission inventory, 20.2.65.102.D and 20.2.65.103.I NMAC requires the 
burners to complete and submit to the NMED a burn project tracking form 
within two weeks after completion of the burn activity to report on 
emissions from their burns including quantitative information regarding 
fuel types, fuel consumption, and type of burn. We are proposing to 
determine that the RH SIP submittal and the submitted Smoke Management 
rule meet these requirements.
3. Identification and Removal of Administrative Barriers
    We propose to find that the NM RH 309 SIP submittal meets the 40 
CFR 51.309(d)(6)(iii) requirements to address administrative barriers 
to facilitate alternatives to burning. Section E(d) and Appendix E-2 of 
the state's RH 309 SIP, describe the process the NMED commits to 
undertake to address this requirement.
    In section E(d) of the SIP, the State commits to working with key 
public and private entities to identify and remove administrative 
barriers to the use of alternatives to burning for prescribed fire on 
federal, State, and private lands, pursuant to 40 CFR 
51.309(d)(6)(iii). The process is collaborative and provides for 
continuing identification and removal of administrative barriers, and 
considers economic, safety, technical and environmental feasibility 
criteria, and land management objectives. The State relied on Non-
burning Alternatives for Vegetation and Fuel Management, and Burning 
Management Alternatives on Agricultural Lands in the Western United 
States developed by the WRAP for non-burning alternatives and methods 
to assess their applicability. Should New Mexico determine that an 
administrative barrier exists, the State will work collaboratively with 
the appropriate public and private entities to evaluate the 
administrative barrier, identify the steps necessary to remove the 
administrative barrier, and initiate the removal of the administrative 
barrier, where it is feasible to do so. For example, NMED is committed 
to review the registration forms required for burns conducted under SMP 
II that requires burners to identify why alternatives to burning have 
not been used. The State commits to collect this data and analyze it to 
determine whether administrative barriers to the use of alternatives 
exist. The state commits to evaluate this information at the annual 
program evaluation meeting to be held each year in January with all 
burners. Should it be determined that a specific administrative barrier 
exists, New Mexico will contact the appropriate agency to determine how 
this barrier may be removed and will work collaboratively with the 
agency and the burners to remove the barrier. We accordingly, believe 
the requirement to address administrative barriers is satisfied.
4. Enhanced Smoke Management Program
    We propose to find the submitted RH 309 SIP provides enhanced smoke 
management programs to meet the requirements of 40 CFR 
51.309(d)(6)(iv). The smoke management programs that operate within the 
State are consistent with the WRAP Policy on Enhanced Smoke Management 
Programs for Visibility (WRAP ESMP). A copy of this policy can be found 
in the Appendix E-4 of the NM RH 309 SIP. This policy calls for 
programs to be based on the criteria of efficiency, economics, law, 
emission reduction opportunities, land management objectives, and 
reduction of visibility impacts. The intent of the WRAP ESMP is to 
assist states to

[[Page 36066]]

address visibility effects associated with fire in a way that is 
adequate for a SIP. Appendix E-1 of the NM RH 309 SIP explains how the 
smoke management program in New Mexico meets the Enhanced Smoke 
Management Program (ESMP) policy and the Regional Haze Rule (RHR) 
requirements. The RH 309 SIP submittal and the submitted Smoke 
Management rule meet the requirements as described above.
5. Annual Emission Goal
    We propose to find the submitted RH 309 SIP satisfies the 
requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6)(v) for ``annual emission goals for 
fire, excluding wildfire.'' In its RH 309 SIP, the state commits to 
minimizing emission increases in fire through the use of annual 
emission goals using the policies set out by Western Regional Air 
Partnership Policy on Annual Emission Goals for Fire. A copy of this 
policy can be found in the Appendix E-5 of the NM RH 309 SIP. The State 
will use a collaborative mechanism for setting annual emission goals 
and developing a process for tracking their attainment on a yearly 
basis. New Mexico will rely on emission reduction techniques (ERT), 
where appropriate, to minimize emission increases in fire within the 
State. The State will quantify the ERTs that are being used within New 
Mexico on a project-specific basis to reduce the total amount of 
emissions being generated from areas where prescribed fire is being 
used. 20.2.65 NMAC, requires the use of at least one ERT for all 
prescribed fires with emissions exceeding one ton of PM10 
per day.
    Based on our review of Section E and Appendix E of the state's RH 
309 submittal, we propose to find the submitted SIP meets the 
309(d)(6)(v) requirements. We also propose approval of the state's 
Smoke Management and Open Burning rules submitted to us on December 1, 
2003.

I. Paved and Unpaved Road Dust

    To meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(7), the submitted RH 
309 SIP relies on the assessment WRAP performed on the impact of dust 
emissions from paved and unpaved roads on the 16 Class I areas of the 
Colorado Plateau. The WRAP modeled and calculated the significance of 
road dust in terms of the impact on visibility on the worst 20 percent 
days. The modeled regional impact of road dust emissions ranged from 
0.31 deciviews at the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park to 
0.08 deciviews at the Weminuche Wilderness Area. For more information 
on the WRAP modeling and assessment of road dust impacts see Appendix F 
of the NM RH 309 SIP submittal and Chapter 7 of the WRAP TSD.\38\ Based 
on the WRAP modeling, the State has concluded in section F of the SIP 
that road dust is not a significant contributor to visibility 
impairment in the 16 Class I areas. We propose to agree that road dust 
is not a significant contributor to visibility impairment in the 16 
Class I areas. Since the State has found that road dust is not a 
significant contributor to visibility impairment, there is no need to 
include road dust control strategies in the SIP pursuant to 40 CFR 
51.309(d)(7). The State will track road dust emissions with the 
assistance of the WRAP and provide an update on paved and unpaved road 
dust emission trends, including any modeling or monitoring information 
regarding the impact of these emissions on visibility in the 16 
Colorado Plateau Class I Areas. A description of the road dust emission 
tracking program is included in Appendix M-3 of the NM RH 309 SIP. 
These updates will include a reevaluation of whether road dust is a 
significant contributor to visibility impairment. These updates shall 
be part of the periodic implementation plan revisions pursuant to 40 
CFR 51.309(d)(10). We propose to determine the submitted RH 309 SIP 
satisfies 40 CFR 51.309(d)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ WRAP Regional Technical Support Document for the 
Requirements of Sec.  309 of the Regional Haze Rule (64 Federal 
Register 35714-July 1, 1999) revised May 7, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Pollution Prevention

    Under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(8), states must provide information on 
renewable energy and other pollution prevention efforts in the state. 
40 CFR 51.309(d)(8) does not require states to adopt any new measures 
or regulations. We propose to find the information New Mexico provided 
in the RH 309 SIP submittal adequate to meet the requirements of 40 CFR 
51.309(d)(8) as discussed below.
1. Description of Existing Pollution Prevention Program
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(8)(i), Tables G-1 through G-3 of the 
NM RH 309 SIP submittal summarize all pollution prevention programs 
currently in place in New Mexico (as of 2002). Appendix G summarizes 
all renewable energy capacity and production in use or planned in the 
State as of 2002, the total energy generation capacity and production 
in the State and the percent of that total that is renewable.
2. Incentive Programs
    Per 40 CFR 51.309(d)(8)(ii), Table G-6 of the RH 309 SIP submittal 
identifies incentive programs in the State of New Mexico that reward 
efforts for early compliance or to go beyond compliance with air 
pollution related requirements. Table G-6 lists the Green Zia 
Environmental Excellence Program that encourages establishment of 
prevention-based environmental management systems. The 309 regional 
SO2 backstop trading program allows for early reduction 
credits. Sources of SO2 subject to the trading program that 
reduce emissions prior to the program trigger date shall receive early 
reduction bonus allocations (20.2.81.104E NMAC). The source may use 
such allowances for compliance purposes or may sell them to other 
parties.
3. Programs To Preserve and Expand Energy Conservation Efforts
    Per 40 CFR 51.309(d)(8)(iii), Tables G-1 through G-5 of the NM RH 
309 SIP submittal discuss the policies and programs within the State of 
New Mexico that preserve and expand energy conservation efforts and 
renewable energy.
4. Potential for Renewable Energy
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(8)(iv), the RH 309 SIP submittal 
contains an assessment of areas where there is the potential for 
renewable energy to supply power in a cost effective manner. Appendix G 
of the submitted RH 309 SIP summarizes the potential for renewable 
energy development in New Mexico.
5. Projections of Renewable Energy Goals, Energy Efficiency, and 
Pollution Prevention Activities
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(8)(v), the submitted RH 309 SIP uses 
projections made by the WRAP of the short and long-term emissions 
reductions, visibility improvements, cost savings, and secondary 
benefits associated with renewable energy goals, energy efficiency, and 
pollution prevention activities. (A complete description of these 
projections can be found in Appendix G of the NM RH 309 SIP.) The NM RH 
309 SIP provides overall projections of visibility improvements for the 
16 Class I areas (Table 2). These projections include the combined 
effects of all measures in this SIP, including air pollution prevention 
programs. Although emission reductions and visibility improvements from 
air-pollution prevention programs are expected at some level, they were 
not explicitly calculated because the resolution of the regional air 
quality modeling system is not currently sufficient to show any 
significant visibility changes resulting from the marginal nitrogen 
oxide emission

[[Page 36067]]

expected from air pollution prevention programs.
6. Programs To Achieve GCVTC Renewable Energy Goal
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(8)(vi), the submitted RH 309 SIP 
indicates the State will rely on current renewable energy programs as 
described in G-1 through G-5 and Appendix G of the SIP submittal to 
demonstrate progress in achieving the renewable energy goal of the 
GCVTC. The GCVTC's goal is that that renewable energy will comprise 10 
percent of the regional power needs by 2005 and 20 percent by 2015. New 
Mexico will submit progress reports in 2013 and 2018, describing New 
Mexico's contribution toward meeting the GCVTC renewable energy goals. 
To the extent that it is not feasible for New Mexico to meet its 
contribution to these goals, the State will identify what measures were 
implemented to achieve its contribution, and explain why meeting its 
contribution was not feasible.

K. Additional Recommendations

    As part of the 1996 GCVTC report to EPA, Recommendations for 
Improving Western Vistas,\39\ the Commission included additional 
recommendations that EPA did not adopt as part of 40 CFR 51.309. 
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(9), the submitted RH 309 SIP has an 
evaluation of the additional recommendations of the GCVTC to determine 
if any of these recommendations could be practicably included in the 
SIP. The RH 309 SIP includes the determination that no additional 
measures were practicable or necessary to demonstrate reasonable 
progress in the SIP. Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(9), the State will 
submit to EPA a progress report in 2013 and 2018 on the progress toward 
developing and implementing policy or strategy options recommended in 
the Commission report. We propose to determine the RH 309 SIP submittal 
meets the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(9).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ Recommendations for Improving Western Vistas, Report of the 
Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission to the EPA, June 1996. 
Available at: http://www.wrapair.org/WRAP/reports/GCVTCFinal.PDF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

L. Periodic Implementation Plan Revisions

    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i), section I of the NM RH 309 SIP 
submittal requires the State to submit to EPA, as a SIP revision, 
periodic progress reports for the years 2013 and 2018. New Mexico will 
assess whether current programs are achieving reasonable progress in 
Class I areas that are affected by emissions from New Mexico sources. 
New Mexico will address the elements listed under 40 CFR 
51.309(d)(10)(i)(A) through (G) in the progress reports.
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(ii), the RH 309 SIP submittal 
provides that the state will take one of the following actions based 
upon information contained in each periodic progress report. The State 
will provide a negative declaration statement to EPA saying that no SIP 
revision is needed if New Mexico determines reasonable progress is 
being achieved. If New Mexico finds that the SIP is inadequate to 
ensure reasonable progress due to emissions from outside New Mexico, 
the State will notify EPA and the contributing state(s), and initiate 
efforts through a regional planning process to address the emissions in 
question. If New Mexico finds that the SIP is inadequate to ensure 
reasonable progress due to emissions from another country, New Mexico 
will notify EPA and provide information on the impairment being caused 
by these emissions. If New Mexico finds that the SIP is inadequate to 
ensure reasonable progress due to emissions from within the State, New 
Mexico will develop emission reduction strategies to address the 
emissions and revise the SIP no later than one year from the date that 
the progress report was due. We propose to determine the RH 309 SIP 
submittal adequately addresses the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10) 
for future progress reports.

M. Interstate Coordination

    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(11), the State has participated in 
regional planning and coordination with other states by participating 
in the WRAP, and participating in interstate coordination efforts with 
the City of Albuquerque-Bernalillo County while developing its emission 
reduction strategies under 40 CFR 51.309. The backstop trading program 
in the NM RH 309 SIP submittal and companion rules involved 
coordination of the three states (Wyoming, Utah, and New Mexico, 
including Albuquerque-Bernalillo County) in its development and will 
continue to involve coordination of the participants once it is 
implemented. We propose to determine the submitted RH 309 SIP is 
consistent with the 40 CFR 51.309(d)(11).

N. Additional Class I Areas

    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(g), New Mexico must demonstrate 
reasonable progress for mandatory Class I Federal areas other than the 
16 Class I areas covered by the GCVTC. With the RH 309 SIP submittal 
discussed above, New Mexico submitted a separately marked ``309(g)'' 
SIP revision, supported by various technical appendices. As discussed 
below, we have evaluated the demonstration in the 309(g) SIP submittal 
of the expected visibility conditions for the most and least impaired 
days at the additional Class I areas based on emission projections from 
the long-term strategies in the implementation plan. We have also 
evaluated the provisions establishing reasonable progress goals for the 
additional class I areas as required by 40 CFR 51.309(g)(2), as 
detailed below. These provisions must comply with 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1) 
through (4).
1. Affected Class I Areas
    In accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(d), NMED has identified nine Class 
I areas within its borders, Bandelier Wilderness Area, Bosque del 
Apache National Wildlife Refuge, Carlsbad Caverns National Park, Gila 
Wilderness, Pecos Wilderness, Salt Creek Wilderness, Wheeler Peak 
Wilderness, White Mountain Wilderness, and San Pedro Parks Wilderness 
Area. As discussed above, the San Pedro Parks Wilderness Area is the 
only Class I area included as one of the 16 Class I areas of the 
Colorado Plateau and visibility requirements for this area are covered 
under the NM RH 309 SIP submittal evaluated in the preceding sections. 
NMED has also determined that New Mexico emissions can impact 
visibility at Class I areas outside of New Mexico. NMED evaluated the 
impact of New Mexico emissions at Class I areas in Arizona, Colorado, 
Nevada, Utah, Texas and Wyoming, based on modeled visibility for 2002 
and projections of visibility in 2018 for the 20% worst visibility days 
focusing on available source apportionment modeling data for nitrate 
and sulfate. The modeling results for the 2002 base year indicate that 
New Mexico emissions are responsible for up to 60% of the nitrate 
concentrations and 43% of the sulfate at individual Class I areas in 
neighboring states on the 20% worst visibility days. See our TSD that 
accompanies this notice and Chapter 12 of the NM RH 309(g) SIP for more 
information on New Mexico's impact at specific Class I areas in nearby 
states. We are proposing to find that New Mexico has appropriately 
identified the Class I areas within New Mexico and the Class I areas 
outside of New Mexico which may be affected by emissions from within 
New Mexico, as required by 40 CFR 51.308(d).
2. Determination of Baseline, Natural and Current Visibility Conditions
    As required by section 51.308(d)(2)(i) of the RHR and consistent 
with EPA's

[[Page 36068]]

2003 Natural Visibility Guidance,\40\ the RH 309(g) SIP submittal 
includes calculations of the baseline/current and natural visibility 
conditions for the additional Class I areas, on the most impaired and 
least impaired days, as summarized below (and further described in the 
TSD). The natural visibility conditions, baseline visibility 
conditions, and visibility impact reductions needed to achieve the 
natural visibility conditions are presented in Table 7 and further 
explained in this section. More detail is available in Chapter 6 of the 
NM RH 309(g) SIP submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions Under 
the Regional Haze Rule, EPA-454/B-03-005, September 2003.

                                   Table 7--Baseline and Natural Visibility Conditions at New Mexico's Class I Areas *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        2064 Natural visibility       Baseline visibility          Difference  (dv)
                                                                           conditions  (dv)            conditions  (dv)      ---------------------------
             Class I area                     IMPROVE  Monitor       --------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       20%  Worst     20%  Best    20%  Worst     20%  Best    20%  Worst     20%  Best
                                                                          days          days          days          days          days          days
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bandelier............................  BAND1........................          6.26          1.29         12.22          4.95          5.96          3.66
Bosque del Apache....................  BOAP1........................          6.73          2.16         13.80          6.28          7.07          4.12
Carlsbad Caverns.....................  GUMO1........................          6.65          0.99         17.19          5.95         10.54          4.96
Gila Wilderness......................  GICL1........................          6.66          0.52         13.11          3.31          6.45          2.79
Pecos Wilderness, Wheeler Park.......  WHPE1........................          6.08     \41\-0.57         10.41          1.22          4.33          1.79
Salt Creek...........................  SACR1........................          6.81          2.12         18.03          7.84         11.22          5.72
White Mountains......................  WHIT1........................           6.8          0.66         13.70          3.55          6.90          2.89
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Note: Because the San Pedro Parks Wilderness Area is on the Colorado Plateau, it is not subject to the requirements of Section 51.309(g) and is
  therefore missing from this and other tables in this section. Baseline and projected visibility conditions for San Pedro Parks Wilderness Area can be
  found in Table 1.

a. Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions
    Natural background visibility, as defined in EPA's 2003 Natural 
Visibility Guidance, is estimated by calculating the expected light 
extinction using default estimates of natural concentrations of fine 
particle components adjusted by site-specific estimates of humidity. 
This calculation uses the IMPROVE equation, which is a formula for 
estimating light extinction from the estimated natural concentrations 
of fine particle components (or from components measured by the IMPROVE 
monitors). As documented in EPA's 2003 Natural Visibility Guidance, EPA 
allows states to use ``refined'' or alternative approaches to 2003 EPA 
guidance to estimate the values that characterize the natural 
visibility conditions of Class I areas. One alternative approach is to 
develop and justify the use of alternative estimates of natural 
concentrations of fine particle components. Another alternative is to 
use the ``new IMPROVE equation'' that was adopted for use by the 
IMPROVE Steering Committee in December 2005.\42\ The purpose of this 
refinement to the ``old IMPROVE equation'' is to provide more accurate 
estimates of the various factors that affect the calculation of light 
extinction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ Negative deciview values correspond to total extinction 
less than 10 Mm-1, and can occur in areas of high 
elevation with lower Rayleigh Scattering, WHPE1 is located at an 
elevation of 11,000 ft.
    \42\ The IMPROVE program is a cooperative measurement effort 
governed by a steering committee composed of representatives from 
Federal agencies (including representatives from EPA and the FLMs) 
and RPOs. The IMPROVE monitoring program was established in 1985 to 
aid the creation of Federal and State implementation plans for the 
protection of visibility in Class I areas. One of the objectives of 
IMPROVE is to identify chemical species and emission sources 
responsible for existing anthropogenic visibility impairment. The 
IMPROVE program has also been a key participant in visibility-
related research, including the advancement of monitoring 
instrumentation, analysis techniques, visibility modeling, policy 
formulation and source attribution field studies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NMED opted to use the WRAP calculations in which the default 
estimates for the natural conditions were combined with the ``new 
IMPROVE equation,'' for the Class I areas in New Mexico. This is an 
acceptable approach under our 2003 Natural Visibility Guidance. NMED 
used the new IMPROVE equation to calculate the ``refined'' natural 
visibility value for the 20 percent worst days and for the 20 percent 
best days.\43\ The natural conditions for New Mexico's Class I areas 
are summarized in Table 7, above. We have reviewed NMED's estimate of 
the natural visibility conditions and propose to find it acceptable 
using the new IMPROVE equation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ Natural Haze levels for Class I areas and information 
calculation methodology can be found at: http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/Data/IMPROVE/summary_data.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The new IMPROVE equation takes into account the most recent review 
of the science \44\ and it accounts for the effect of particle size 
distribution on light extinction efficiency of sulfate, nitrate, and 
organic carbon. It also adjusts the mass multiplier for organic carbon 
(particulate organic matter) by increasing it from 1.4 to 1.8. New 
terms are added to the equation to account for light extinction by sea 
salt and light absorption by gaseous nitrogen dioxide. Site-specific 
values are used for Rayleigh scattering (scattering of light due to 
atmospheric gases) to account for the site-specific effects of 
elevation and temperature. Separate relative humidity enhancement 
factors are used for small and large size distributions of ammonium 
sulfate and ammonium nitrate and for sea salt. The terms for the 
remaining contributors, elemental carbon (light-absorbing carbon), fine 
soil, and coarse mass terms, do not change between the original and new 
IMPROVE equations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ Hand, J.L., and Malm, W.C., 2006, Review of the IMPROVE 
Equation for Estimating Ambient Light Extinction Coefficients--Final 
Report. March 2006. Prepared for Interagency Monitoring of Protected 
Visual Environments (IMPROVE), Colorado State University, 
Cooperative Institute for Research in the Atmosphere, Fort Collins, 
Colorado, available at http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/publications/GrayLit/016_IMPROVEeqReview/IMPROVEeqReview.htm and 
Pitchford, Marc., 2006, Natural Haze Levels II: Application of the 
New IMPROVE Algorithm to Natural Species Concentrations Estimates. 
Final Report of the Natural Haze Levels II Committee to the RPO 
Monitoring/Data Analysis Workgroup. September 2006, available at 
http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/Publications/GrayLit/029_NaturalCondII/naturalhazelevelsIIreport.ppt.

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

[[Page 36069]]

b. Estimating Baseline Visibility Conditions
    As required by section 51.308(d)(2)(i) of the RHR and consistent 
with EPA's 2003 Natural Visibility Guidance,\45\ the 309(g) SIP 
submittal calculates baseline visibility conditions for the eight 
additional Class I areas. The baseline condition calculation begins 
with the calculation of light extinction, using the IMPROVE equation. 
The IMPROVE equation sums the light extinction \46\ resulting from 
individual pollutants, such as sulfates and nitrates. As with the 
natural visibility conditions calculation, NMED chose to use the new 
IMPROVE equation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions Under 
the Regional Haze Rule, EPA-454/B-03-005, September 2003.
    \46\ The amount of light lost as it travels over one million 
meters. The haze index, in units of deciviews (dv), is calculated 
directly from the total light extinction, bext expressed 
in inverse megameters (Mm-1), as follows: HI = 10 
ln(bext/10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The period for establishing baseline visibility conditions is 2000-
2004, and baseline conditions must be calculated using available 
monitoring data. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(2). NMED calculated the baseline 
conditions at the Class I areas on the 20 percent worst days and 20 
percent best days using available monitoring data for each Class I 
area. We have reviewed NMED's estimation of baseline visibility 
conditions and propose to find it acceptable.
c. Natural Visibility Impairment
    To address the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(2)(iv)(A), the 
309(g) SIP submittal also calculated the number of deciviews by which 
baseline conditions exceed natural visibility conditions at the State's 
Class I areas. These results are summarized in Table 7. We have 
reviewed NMED's estimate of the natural visibility impairment and 
propose to find it acceptable.
d. Uniform Rate of Progress
    In setting the RPGs, the 309(g) SIP submittal analyzes and 
determines the Uniform Rate of Progress (URP) needed to reach natural 
visibility conditions by the year 2064 for the 20% worst days (Table 
8). In so doing, NMED compared the baseline visibility conditions to 
the natural visibility conditions at each Class I area within the State 
(as described above) and determined the amount of improvement necessary 
to attain natural visibility conditions. The uniform rate of progress 
is calculated as the rate of improvement needed to attain natural 
visibility conditions for the 20% worst days by 2064 as described in 
Section 6.5 of the NM RH 309(g) SIP. NMED constructed the uniform rate 
of progress consistent with the requirements of the Regional Haze Rule 
and consistent with our 2003 Tracking Progress Guidance by plotting a 
straight graphical line from the baseline level of visibility 
impairment for 2000-2004 to the level of visibility conditions 
representing no anthropogenic impairment in 2064 for each New Mexico 
Class I area. The uniform rates of progress are summarized in Table 8 
and further described below. We propose to find that NMED in its 309(g) 
SIP submittal has appropriately calculated the URP.
3. Evaluation of New Mexico's Reasonable Progress Goals
    In order to establish reasonable progress goals for New Mexico's 
Class I areas and to determine the controls needed for the LTS, New 
Mexico followed the process established in the Regional Haze Rule. 
First, New Mexico identified the anticipated visibility improvement in 
2018 in the New Mexico Class I areas using the WRAP Community Multi-
Scale Air Quality (CMAQ) photochemical grid modeling results. This 
modeling identified the extent of visibility improvement from the 
baseline by pollutant for each Class I area. The modeling relied on 
projected source emission inventories, which included enforceable 
federal and state regulations already in place and assumptions of BART 
controls. New Mexico, through the WRAP, then identified the source 
categories that are major contributors to visibility impairment and 
evaluated controls for these sources based on a consideration of the 
factors identified in the CAA and EPA's regulations. See CAA 169A(g)(1) 
and 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A). Based on this analysis, the submitted 
309(g) SIP sets the reasonable progress goals for each Class I area and 
compared the reasonable progress goals for each area to the 2018 
uniform rate of progress.
     The submitted 309(g) SIP includes New Mexico's analysis 
and conclusion that reasonable progress will be made by 2018, including 
an analysis of pollutant trends, emission reductions, and improvements 
expected. The reasonable progress discussion and analyses are included 
in Chapter 11 of the NM RH 309(g) SIP. We have evaluated the 309(g) SIP 
submittal, and we are proposing to approve New Mexico's submitted 
reasonable progress goals as described more fully below. At the outset, 
however, we note that because we are not proposing action to approve or 
disapprove the submitted NOX BART determination for SJGS, 
the RPGs are evaluated with the understanding that NOX BART 
requirements for that source are presently satisfied by the 
requirements of 40 CFR Sec.  52.1628. We expect future emission 
reductions will be achieved in compliance with the existing Federal 
implementation plan or in compliance with the terms of a future-
approved NOX BART determination for SJGS determined to be 
consistent with RHR requirements. In the absence of any proposed action 
on the submitted NOX BART determination, we deem the RPGs to 
be approvable, as described more fully below. The reductions at the 
SJGS achieved in compliance with the existing Federal implementation 
plan or anticipated due to any other future-approved NOX 
BART determination consistent with the RHR requirements will result in 
greater visibility improvements than projected in the WRAP modeling 
used to establish the reasonable progress goals included in the 309(g) 
SIP submittal. If the basis for evaluation of the RPGs were to change, 
as for example if we were to take final action approving or 
disapproving the submitted NOX BART determination for SJGS, 
we recognize that a reevaluation of this proposal may be warranted.
a. WRAP Visibility Modeling
    The primary tool WRAP relied upon for modeling regional haze 
improvements by 2018, and for estimating New Mexico's Reasonable 
Progress Goals, was the CMAQ model. The CMAQ model was used to estimate 
2018 visibility conditions in New Mexico and all Western Class I areas, 
based on application of anticipated regional haze strategies in the 
various states' regional haze plans, including some assumed controls on 
BART sources.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ We provide a more detailed discussion on the WRAP modeling 
in section IV.E.3 below and in Technical Support Document for 
Technical Products Prepared by the Western Regional Air Partnership 
(WRAP) in Support of Western Regional Haze Plans, EPA Regions 6, 8, 
9, and 10, February 28, 2011, available in the docket as Appendix A 
to the TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Regional Modeling Center (RMC) at the University of California 
Riverside conducted the CMAQ modeling under the oversight of the WRAP 
Modeling Forum. The Regional Modeling Center developed air quality 
modeling inputs including annual meteorology and emissions inventories 
for: (1) A 2002 actual emissions base case, (2) a planning case to 
represent the 2000-2004 regional haze baseline period using averages 
for key emissions categories, and (3) a 2018 base case of projected 
emissions determined using factors known at the end of 2005. All 
emission inventories were spatially and

[[Page 36070]]

temporally allocated using the Sparse Matrix Operator Kernel Emissions 
(SMOKE) modeling system. Each of these inventories underwent a number 
of revisions throughout the development process to arrive at the final 
versions used in CMAQ modeling. A description of the CMAQ modeling 
performed by WRAP can be found in Chapter 9 of the NM RH 309(g) SIP 
submittal (for details on the WRAP photochemical modeling refer to the 
WRAP Technical Support Document \48\ and our review of the technical 
products developed by the WRAP for the States in the western region, in 
support of their RH SIPs \49\). A detailed discussion of the emission 
inventories and modeling is also included in a subsequent section on 
long term strategy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ WRAP Regional Technical Support Document for the 
Requirements of Sec.  309 of the Regional Haze Rule (64 Federal 
Register 35714--July 1, 1999) revised May 7, 2008.
    \49\ Our review of the technical products developed by the WRAP 
is available as Technical Support Document for Technical Products 
Prepared by the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) in Support 
of Western Regional Haze Plans, Regions 6, 8, 9, and 10, February 
28, 2011, Appendix A to the TSD to this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. NMED's Reasonable Progress ``Four Factor'' Analysis
    Sections 51.309(g) and 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A) require that in 
establishing a reasonable progress goal for any mandatory Class I 
Federal area within the State, the State must: consider the costs of 
compliance, the time necessary for compliance, the energy and non-air 
quality environmental impacts of compliance, and the remaining useful 
life of any potentially affected sources, and include a demonstration 
showing how these factors were taken into consideration in selecting 
the goal. The four factor analysis is used to identify and evaluate 
potential emission control strategies for facilities. For 
SO2, the State of New Mexico has addressed visibility 
impairment associated with this pollutant under the separate 309 SIP 
submitted to EPA and evaluated above. New Mexico's participation in the 
SO2 emissions milestone and backstop trading program will 
result in reductions in SO2 emissions. To evaluate any 
additional measures necessary to demonstrate reasonable progress, NMED 
relied on an analysis prepared for the WRAP for specific source types 
throughout the WRAP states.\50\ The WRAP identified reciprocal internal 
combustion engines and turbines, oil and gas exploration and production 
field operations, natural gas processing operations, industrial 
boilers, cement kilns, sulfuric acid manufacturing plants, pulp and 
paper lime kilns, and oil refineries as the major emission sources in 
the WRAP states to analyze for potential controls under the four factor 
analysis. NMED did not identify any additional reductions in their 
evaluation of the WRAP analysis. In the RH 309(g) SIP submittal, NMED 
commits to conduct further research to evaluate non-BART sources for 
possible emission controls and retrofits for the next Plan update in 
2013.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ Supplementary Information for Four Factor Analyses by WRAP 
States, prepared by EC/R Incorporated, May 4, 2009 and corrected 
April 20, 2010, available as Appendix E to the NM RH 309(g) SIP.
    \51\ For example, New Mexico is evaluating and testing control 
strategies for emissions associated with oil and gas exploration and 
production to incorporate in future SIP updates. Control options for 
ozone are being evaluated simultaneously and the State believes that 
many co-benefits from controlling emissions for ozone will 
supplement the regional haze program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NMED also requested an additional analysis be done on specific 
sources in New Mexico.\52\ This analysis included evaluation of 
selected sources at 3 petroleum refineries in New Mexico, (1) Navajo 
Refining Co., Artesia Refinery--Fluid Catalytic Cracking Unit (FCCU) 
1, catalyst regeneration and process heater, (2) Western 
Refining Southwest, Bloomfield Refinery--FCCU 1, catalyst 
regeneration and process heater, and (3) Western Refining Southwest, 
Gallup Refinery--CO Boiler Unit 1. After evaluation of the 
four factors (Section 11.2.3 of the NM RH 309(g) SIP), the 309(g) SIP 
submittal includes a determination that due to the controls currently 
installed at the FCCU at the Artesia Refinery and the low level of 
emissions, additional controls at this source are unnecessary at this 
time. The Bloomfield Refinery has been in suspended operations since 
November 2009. The Bloomfield FCCU is subject to NOX and 
SO2 reductions according to the Catalyst Additive Program 
required by an Amended Stipulation and Final Order (AFSO) \53\ as the 
result of an enforcement action. The 309(g) SIP submittal includes a 
determination that additional controls to address regional haze are not 
necessary at this source at this time due to the stringent emission 
limits already required by the Catalyst Additive Program. The FCCU at 
the Gallup Refinery is also subject to the Catalyst Additive Program 
and was required to decrease FCCU NOX to 20 ppmvd and 
SO2 to 25 ppmvd (both at 0% O2) by December 31, 
2010. The boiler will meet an emission rate of 0.04 lb/MMBtu after 
modifications including Low-NOX burners. The 309(g) SIP 
submittal includes a determination that additional controls at this 
source to address regional haze are unnecessary at this time due to the 
stringent emission limits already required by the Catalyst Additive 
Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ Supplementary Information for Four-Factor Analyses for 
Selected Individual Facilities in New Mexico, prepared by EC/R 
Incorporated, May 5, 2009. Available as Appendix F to the NM RH 
309(g) SIP.
    \53\ NMED Stipulation and Final Order No. AQCA 02-09 (CO) and 
No. AQCA 05-22 (CO), August 2, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The submitted 309(g) SIP includes an analysis that considered the 
four statutory factors under 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A) to evaluate the 
potential of controlling certain sources or source categories for 
addressing visibility impacts from man-made sources within its borders. 
We propose to find that the submitted 309(g) four factor analysis meets 
the requirements under 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A).
c. Establishment of the Reasonable Progress Goal
    40 CFR 308(d)(1) of the Regional Haze Rule requires States to 
``establish goals (in deciviews) that provide for reasonable progress 
towards achieving natural visibility conditions'' for each Class I area 
of the State. These reasonable progress goals are interim goals that 
must provide for incremental visibility improvement for the most 
impaired visibility days, and ensure no degradation for the least 
impaired visibility days. The reasonable progress goals for the first 
planning period are goals for the year 2018.
    Based on (1) The results of the WRAP CMAQ modeling, (2) the results 
of the four-factor analysis of 3 New Mexico refineries and major source 
categories, and (3) the emission controls on New Mexico's one BART 
source and other BART sources in nearby States, the 309(g) SIP 
submittal establishes reasonable progress goals for the most impaired 
days for the New Mexico Class I areas.
    NMED relied on the 2018 projected visibility conditions from the 
WRAP photochemical modeling to establish RPGs for the 20% best days and 
20% worst days for each Class I area. NMED's RPGs establish a slower 
rate of progress than the URP for each Class I area. NMED has 
calculated the number of years it would take to attain natural 
visibility conditions under the rate of progress selected by the State 
as reasonable (Table 8). As we discuss below, NMED indicated that 
emissions from wildfires, windblown dust, and/or emissions from other 
states and Mexico, impede New Mexico's ability to meet the URPs. See 
the TSD and Section 11.3 of the NM RH 309(g) SIP for a detailed 
discussion of the RPGs.

[[Page 36071]]

                                          Table 8--URP, RPG and Years to Natural Conditions for 20% Worst Days
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                           Uniform rate       Rate of        Years to
                      Class I area                        Baseline  (dv)  Projected 2018      Natural       of progress     improvement       natural
                                                                               (RPG)        conditions        (dv/yr)        under RPG      conditions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bandelier...............................................           12.22           11.9             6.26           0.099          0.0229             261
Bosque del Apache.......................................           13.80           13.59            6.73           0.118          0.0150             397
Carlsbad Caverns........................................           17.19           16.93            6.65           0.176          0.0186             321
Gila Wilderness.........................................           13.11           12.99            6.66           0.108          0.0086             695
Pecos Wilderness, Wheeler Park..........................           10.41           10.23            6.08           0.072          0.0129             464
Salt Creek..............................................           18.03           17.33            6.81           0.187          0.0500             119
White Mountains.........................................           13.70           13.27            6.8            0.115          0.307              194
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The WRAP's projections for the 20% best and 20% worst days 
represent the RPGs for the 20% best and 20% worst days for the Class I 
areas in New Mexico are shown in Table 11-8 of the NM RH 309(g) SIP and 
reproduced below in Table 9.

                       Table 9--New Mexico's RPGs for the 20% Best and Worst Days in 2018
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  20% Worst days                           20% Best days
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Class I area                             2018 Uniform
                                  Baseline  (dv)   progress goal  2018 RPG  (dv)  Baseline  (dv)  2018 RPG  (dv)
                                                       (dv)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bandelier.......................           12.22           10.83            11.9            4.95            4.89
Bosque del Apache...............           13.80           12.15           13.59            6.28             6.1
Carlsbad Caverns................           17.19           14.73           16.92            5.95            6.12
Gila Wilderness.................           13.11           11.61           12.99            3.31             3.2
Pecos Wilderness, Wheeler Park..           10.41            9.40           10.23            1.22            1.12
Salt Creek......................           18.03           15.41      \54\ 17.31            7.84            7.43
White Mountains.................           13.70           12.09           13.26            3.55            3.41
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    \54\ Corrected from 17.07 dv in the NM RH 309 (g) SIP Table 11-8 
based on model projections data from the WRAP TSS for Salt Creek 
based on the PRP18b emission inventory. Model results using the 
PRP18a emission inventory project visibility impairment at Salt 
Creek to be 17.07 dv in 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    40 CFR 308(d)(1) requires that the reasonable progress goals must 
provide for an improvement in visibility for the 20% worst days and 
ensure no degradation of visibility on the 20% best days. NMED 
established reasonable progress goals that show an improvement over 
baseline conditions on the 20% worst days at all 8 Class I areas. With 
the exception of Carlsbad Caverns, all Class I areas also show no 
degradation on the 20% best days.
    For Carlsbad Caverns, NMED provided modeling data that demonstrates 
that significant projected growth in emissions by 2018 from Mexico are 
responsible for the degradation in visibility conditions on the 20% 
best days at this Class I area (Section 11.3.3 of the NM RH 309(g) SIP 
submittal). WRAP visibility modeling results with Mexico emissions held 
constant from 2002 to 2018 show a slight improvement in visibility 
conditions at Carlsbad Caverns on the 20% best days. NMED also provides 
results of the Weighted Emissions Potential (WEP) analysis preformed by 
the WRAP that is based on emissions and residence time, rather than 
modeling. This analysis shows that the projected 2018 emissions of 
sulfur dioxide that potentially impact Carlsbad on the 20% best days 
from Mexico are much greater than emissions from other regions (See 
figures 11-3 and 11-4 of the submitted NM RH 309(g) SIP). The WRAP WEP 
analysis is described in more detail in section V.N.4.c. below. NMED 
notes that IMPROVE Monitor data for the Carlsbad Caverns Class I area, 
however, shows improvement in visibility conditions on the 20% best 
days since the baseline period. Due to the high level of uncertainty in 
projected Mexico emissions, the monitored improvement, and the lack of 
jurisdictional control over these Mexican emissions, the submitted 
309(g) SIP found this RPG for Carlsbad to be reasonable. We agree with 
this assessment.
    As explained in the submitted 309(g) SIP, New Mexico believes the 
reasonable progress goals it established for the New Mexico Class I 
areas on the 20% worst days are reasonable, and that it is not 
reasonable to achieve the glide path in 2018. In support of this 
conclusion, New Mexico includes a discussion of the pollutant 
contributions and the sources of visibility impairment at each Class I 
area and compares the RPGs to the URP goal on a pollutant specific 
basis (see Section 11.3 of the NM RH 309(g) SIP). The factors that New 
Mexico considered are summarized as: (1) For all of New Mexico's Class 
I areas, the contribution to visibility impairment from organic mass 
carbon (OMC) and/or coarse mass (CM) from natural sources that cannot 
be controlled is significant. Section V.N.4.c below discusses the 
sources of visibility impairment at each Class I area and the percent 
contribution from OMC and CM; (2) Sources outside the modeling domain 
and in Mexico contribute significantly to nitrate and sulfate at New 
Mexico's Class I areas. Sources in Mexico are not under the control of 
New Mexico and are projected to increase by 2018. This increase 
restricts the amount of progress achievable, particularly at those 
Class I areas located in Southern New Mexico. Section V.N.4.c below 
discusses the sources of visibility impairment at each Class I area and 
the percent contribution from Mexico and outside the modeling domain; 
(3) Controls on oil and gas emission sources are being evaluated and 
are anticipated to be in place over the next ten years. These emission 
reductions will allow for increased improvement in visibility 
conditions at those Class I areas located near oil and gas production 
regions in the State; and

[[Page 36072]]

(4) Reductions due to NOX BART will further improve 
visibility at Class I areas.
d. Reasonable Progress Consultation
    NMED relied on the WRAP as its main vehicle for facilitating 
collaboration with FLMs and other states in developing its RH 309 SIP. 
NMED was able to use WRAP generated products, such as regional 
photochemical modeling results and visibility projections, and source 
apportionment modeling to assist in identifying neighboring states' 
contributions to the visibility impairment at New Mexico's Class I 
areas. The technical analyses and emission inventories developed by the 
WRAP are documented in the WRAP TSD and available online at the WRAP 
Technical Support System.55 56
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/tss/.
    \56\ Technical Support Document for Technical Products Prepared 
by the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) in Support of Western 
Regional Haze Plans, EPA Regions 6, 8, 9, and 10, February 28, 2011, 
Appendix A to the TSD to this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    New Mexico consulted through the WRAP, and relied on the technical 
tools, policy documents, and other products that all Western states 
used to develop their regional haze plans. The WRAP Implementation Work 
Group was one of the primary collaboration mechanisms. All the states 
relied upon similar emission inventories, results from source 
apportionment studies and BART modeling, review of IMPROVE monitoring 
data, existing state smoke management programs, and other information 
in assessing the extent to which each state contributes to visibility 
impairment in other states' Class I areas. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(ii) of 
the Regional Haze Rule requires a state to demonstrate that its 
regional haze plan includes all measures necessary to obtain its fair 
share of emission reductions needed to meet reasonable progress goals. 
Based on the consultation described above, New Mexico identified no 
major contributions that supported developing new interstate 
strategies, mitigation measures, or emission reduction obligations. New 
Mexico determined that the implementation of BART and other existing 
measures in state regional haze plans were sufficient for the states to 
meet the reasonable progress goals for their Class I areas, and that 
future consultation would address any new strategies or measures 
needed, and all states participating in the consultations agreed. We 
are proposing to find that New Mexico has satisfied the requirement 
under sections 51.309(g) and 51.308(d)(1)(iv) to consult with other 
states that may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to 
visibility impairment at New Mexico's Class I areas.
e. Our Conclusion on New Mexico's Reasonable Progress Goals
    Section 11.3 of the NM RH 309(g) SIP provides NMED's demonstration 
that the RPGs established by NMED provide reasonable visibility 
improvement though they provide for less improvement than the uniform 
rate of progress. We evaluated the analysis provided by NMED along with 
the WRAP modeling results, WRAP emission inventories and other 
information in examining the RPGs established by NMED. We preliminarily 
reach the following conclusions:
     NMED's analysis demonstrates that the predominant 
pollutants that affect the State's ability to meet the URP goals are 
OMC, CM and sulfate (SO4). OMC and CM emissions are primarily from 
naturally occurring wildfires and wind-blown dust. Figure 11-12 of the 
NM RH 309(g) SIP submittal identifies the source categories that 
contribute to emissions of OMC and CM that impact the State's Class I 
areas. Over 70% of OMC emissions are due to natural fires. More than 
65% of CM emissions are from wind-blown dust. The State has developed 
Natural Event Action Plans that include measures to address 
anthropogenic sources of windblown dust during high wind events. 
However, windblown dust emissions that are both directly associated 
with anthropogenic activities and are controllable have a minimal 
effect on visibility at New Mexico's Class I areas compared to other 
sources of windblown dust. Because the State has limited ability to 
control these sources of visibility impairment, OMC and CM emissions 
will continue to impact visibility at New Mexico's Class I areas and 
limit the visibility improvement achievable during the planning period. 
Because of the difficulty and uncertainty in estimating emissions of 
windblown dust and the limited ability to control these emissions, 
windblown dust emissions are held constant from 2002 to 2018. Other 
sources of CM including fugitive dust and road dust emissions are 
projected to increase by 2018, however, these increases contribute to 
only a 4% increase in total CM emissions in 2018. We also note that 
because visibility modeling performance for CM was poor, projected CM 
visibility impacts for 2018 were kept at 2002 levels.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ All CM relative response factors (RRF) were set to a value 
of 1 when projecting course matter visibility impacts to the future 
year 2018, regardless of the future year modeling results. For more 
information see our review of the technical products developed by 
the WRAP that is available as Technical Support Document for 
Technical Products Prepared by the Western Regional Air Partnership 
(WRAP) in Support of Western Regional Haze Plans, EPA Regions 6, 8, 
9, and 10, February 28, 2011, Appendix A to the TSD for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     In addressing visibility impairment due to sulfate 
emissions we analyzed the emission inventories developed by the WRAP. 
We note that New Mexico seeks approval for participation in the 
SO2 emissions milestone and backstop trading program that 
applies to all stationary sources that emit greater than 100 tpy of 
SO2 and will result in emission reductions of SO2 
between 2002 and 2018. Our analysis of the WRAP emission inventories 
used in the photochemical modeling to project visibility conditions 
revealed an overestimation of area source SO2 emissions from 
New Mexico. In particular, emissions for Bernalillo County were much 
higher than current emissions and emission trends would suggest (See 
the TSD for a summary of Bernalillo County emission estimates). WRAP 
emission projections include a 200% increase in New Mexico's statewide 
area source SO2 emissions, primarily in Bernalillo County, 
while no other WRAP state is projected to have an increase in area 
source SO2 emissions greater than 50%. Bernalillo County 
emission estimates reported to the National Emission Inventory are much 
lower than those in the 2002 WRAP emission inventory and show a trend 
of decreasing emissions from 2002 to 2008. In development of the 2018 
emission projections, WRAP used the EPA model EGAS to estimate growth 
for some area sources. This model can over predict area source growth 
by using a simple multiplier and does not take into account additional 
regulatory requirements, both federal and state, in the analysis. This 
over prediction in area source SO2 emissions in New Mexico 
in the 2018 WRAP modeling results in overall less modeled visibility 
improvement than would be anticipated with the much lower rate of 
growth in emissions anticipated by 2018 and overestimates the 
contribution of New Mexico emissions to visibility impairment at Class 
I areas in 2018. Furthermore, these SO2 emissions are also 
overestimated in the 2002 emission inventory and leads to an 
overestimate of the contribution of New Mexico emissions to visibility 
impairment at Class I areas in 2002. Refer to the TSD for detailed 
information on the WRAP emission estimates and source apportionment 
modeling for SO2 area source emission at each Class I area.

[[Page 36073]]

     Contributions of NOX and SO2 from 
Mexico point sources are also significant and are anticipated to 
increase by 2018. These emissions are not under the jurisdiction of 
NMED and will limit the rate of progress achievable on the 20% worst 
days. For the 20% best days, growth in emissions from Mexico results in 
a slight projected degradation in visibility conditions at the Carlsbad 
Caverns Class I area. We note that monitored data shows that visibility 
conditions have improved at this area from the baseline period.
     The San Juan Generating Station is by far the largest 
point source of NOX and SO2 emissions under NMED 
jurisdiction. Due to reductions required by the consent decree and by 
the implementation of BART, significant reductions in SO2 
and NOX emissions from 2002 values will occur. 
Implementation of NOX BART will result in more reductions 
than those included in the WRAP 2018 modeling. The FIP limits 
NOX emissions to 0.05 lb/MMBtu, resulting in an approximate 
83% reduction in NOX from the emission limit the facility is 
currently complying with (0.3 lb/MMBtu). We note that NMED's submitted 
NOX BART determination though not under review for this 
proposal and not legally effective unless it is approved would require 
control rates below the future year projected NOX emissions 
for the source developed in the WRAP consultation process. The 
reductions at the SJGS achieved in compliance with the existing federal 
implementation plan or anticipated due to any other future-approved 
NOX BART determination consistent with the RHR requirements 
will result in greater visibility improvements than projected in the 
WRAP visibility modeling relied upon to establish the reasonable 
progress goals included in the 309(g) SIP submittal. Through the WRAP 
consultation process, New Mexico provided the anticipated future year 
projected NOX emissions from the SJGS to be 0.27 lb/MMBtu 
for units 1 and 3 and 0.28 lb/MMBtu for units 2 and 4. These values 
were used in the 2018 emission inventory and the WRAP modeling used to 
determine the RPGs. Consequently, implementation of NOX BART 
at the SJGS will result in greater reasonable progress than is 
anticipated in the analysis included in the NM RH 309(g) SIP submittal.
     In addition to NOX BART at SJGS, NOX 
reductions at another large power plant within the State (Four Corners 
Power Plant) that lies on tribal lands, outside of the jurisdiction of 
NMED, are anticipated as the result of a BART determination that is 
part of a FIP. These two BART determinations represent significant 
reductions in NOX emissions at the largest emission sources 
within the State.
    Based on the above considerations, we propose to agree with New 
Mexico's conclusion that it is not reasonable to meet the uniform rate 
of progress for its Class I areas, and we propose approval of New 
Mexico's analysis and reasonable progress goals. In setting its RPGs 
for its Class I areas for the 20% worst days, New Mexico relied on 
certain NOX emission reductions at the SJGS that may 
underestimate the reductions to be achieved. NOX BART is an 
element of the long term strategy necessary to achieve the reasonable 
progress goals. Whether the existing federal implementation plan or 
another future-approved NOX BART determination consistent 
with the RHR requirements is in place, we expect the state to include 
any corrections and updates to emission reductions in its next Regional 
Haze SIP with updated modeling to quantify the visibility improvement 
that results from all emission reduction measures in place by 2018.
4. Long-Term Strategy
    As described in section III.L.3. of this action, the long-term 
strategy (LTS) is a compilation of state-specific control measures 
relied on by the state for achieving its RPGs. The LTS must include 
``enforceable emissions limitations, compliance schedules, and other 
measures as necessary to achieve the reasonable progress goals'' for 
all Class I areas within, or affected by emissions from, the state. 40 
CFR 51.308(d)(3). New Mexico's LTS for the first implementation period 
addresses the emissions reductions from federal, state, and local 
controls that take effect in the state from the end of the baseline 
period starting in 2004 until 2018. The New Mexico LTS was developed by 
NMED, in coordination with the WRAP RPO, through an evaluation of the 
following components: (1) Construction of a WRAP 2002 baseline emission 
inventory; (2) construction of a WRAP 2018 projected emission 
inventory, including reductions from WRAP member state controls 
required or expected under federal and state regulations (including 
BART); (3) modeling to determine visibility improvement and apportion 
individual state contributions; (4) state consultation; and (5) 
application of the LTS factors. The State's detailed long-term strategy 
is included in Chapter 12 of the NM RH 309(g) SIP.
a. Emissions Inventory
    40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(iii) requires that New Mexico document the 
technical basis, including modeling, monitoring and emissions 
information, on which it relied upon to determine its apportionment of 
emission reduction obligations necessary for achieving reasonable 
progress in each mandatory Class I Federal area it affects. New Mexico 
must identify the baseline emissions inventory on which its strategies 
are based. Section 51.308(d)(3)(iv) requires that New Mexico identify 
all anthropogenic sources of visibility impairment considered by the 
state in developing its long-term strategy. This includes major and 
minor stationary sources, mobile sources, and area sources. New Mexico 
addressed these requirements by relying on technical analyses developed 
by its RPO, WRAP and approved by all state participants, as described 
below.
    Bernalillo County, New Mexico falls under the jurisdiction of the 
Albuquerque Air Quality Control Board (AQBC). The AQBC staff 
participated in meetings with the State of New Mexico staff to 
coordinate its efforts with the State of New Mexico in developing its 
separate 309 SIP. The WRAP emission inventory for New Mexico and source 
apportionment modeling results includes emissions from all of New 
Mexico, including Bernalillo County. For emission inventory data 
excluding Bernalillo County, refer to Chapter 8 of the NM RH 309(g) SIP 
submittal.
    The emissions inventory used in the RH technical analyses was 
developed by WRAP with assistance from New Mexico using approved EPA 
methods. Emissions within New Mexico are both naturally occurring and 
man-made. Two primary sources of naturally occurring emissions in New 
Mexico include wildfires and windblown dust. An emissions inventory for 
each visibility impairing pollutant was developed by WRAP for New 
Mexico for the baseline year 2002 and for 2018, which is the first 
reasonable progress milestone. NMED and the WRAP developed an emission 
inventory for anthropogenic sources (point, stationary area, mobile, 
road dust, prescribed and agricultural fire) as well as other sources 
for the baseline year of 2002. See Chapter 8 and Appendix A of the NM 
RH 309(g) SIP submittal and Appendix A of our TSD for details on how 
the 2002 emissions inventory was constructed. The 2018 emissions 
inventory was then developed by projecting the 2002 emissions to 2018 
and applying reductions expected from federal and state regulations 
affecting the emissions

[[Page 36074]]

of the visibility-impairing pollutants NOX, SO2,, 
volatile organic compounds (VOCs), primary organic aerosol (POA), 
elemental Carbon (EC), fine particulate matter (Soil--
PM2.5), CM, and ammonia (NH3).
i. New Mexico's 2002 Emission Inventory
    New Mexico's 2002 emissions inventory is summarized below in Table 
10:

                                                     Table 10--New Mexico's 2002 Emissions Inventory
                                                              [Including Bernalillo County]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Source category                      SO2          NOX          VOCs         POA           EC          Soil          CM          NH3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point...........................................       37,918      100,398       17,574          978           13        1,180        2,286           75
Anthropogenic Fire..............................           94          396          608          682          123           87          105           75
Natural Fire....................................        2,729        8,613       18,846       16,272        3,293        1,223        5,400        1,875
Biogenic........................................            0       42,139    1,016,487            0            0            0            0            0
Area............................................        5,433       25,140       49,010        2,529          301        2,821          695       29,959
WRAP Area O&G...................................          250       56,210      224,268            0            0            0            0            0
On-Road Mobile..................................        2,066       67,835       38,768          653          756            0          403        2,132
Off-Road Mobile.................................        3,846       45,311       13,580          563        1,526            0            0           26
Road Dust.......................................            4            1            0          114            9        1,305       11,074            0
Fugitive Dust...................................            6            7            0          360           24        6,751       51,533            0
Wind Blown Dust.................................            0            0            0            0            0       16,399      147,589            0
                                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................       52,347      346,050    1,379,410       22,151        6,046       29,765      219,086       34,141
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We propose that New Mexico's 2002 emission inventory is acceptable 
for the purpose of developing the LTS. We note, however that some 
issues have been identified in the emission inventory as discussed 
above in Section V.N.3.e, that must be considered when analyzing the 
results of modeling analysis prepared using this inventory.
ii. New Mexico's 2018 Emission Inventory
    In general, NMED used a combination of our Economic Growth Analysis 
System (EGAS 5), our mobile emissions factor model (MOBILE 6), our off-
road emissions factor model (NONROAD), and the Integrated Planning 
Model (IPM) for electric generating units in constructing its 2018 
emission inventory. More specifically, the WRAP developed emissions for 
a number of inventory source classifications: Point, area, non-road and 
on-road mobile sources, biogenic sources, anthropogenic and natural 
fire, road and fugitive dust, and area oil and gas emissions. The WRAP 
used its 2002 emission inventory, described above, to project emissions 
forward to 2018. Reductions expected from federal and state regulations 
were included in the inventory. See Chapter 8 of the NM RH 309(g) SIP 
and Appendix A of our TSD for more details on how the 2018 emissions 
inventory was constructed. The WRAP 2018 Base Case emission inventory 
(referred to as the Base18b emission inventory) reflects growth plus 
all controls ``on the books'' as of December 2004. The WRAP 2018 
Preliminary Reasonable Progress Case (referred to as the PRP18b 
emission inventory) reflects refined growth estimates, all controls 
``on the books'' as of 2007, and includes presumptive or known 
SO2 BART controls. Emission inventory data summarized below 
is based on the PRP18b emission inventory. New Mexico's 2018 emissions 
inventory (including Bernalillo County emissions) is summarized in 
Table 11. Tables 12 and 13 summarize the projected change in emissions 
from 2002 to 2018 in the WRAP emission inventories.

                                                     Table 11--New Mexico's 2018 Emissions Inventory
                                                              [Including Bernalillo County]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Source category                      SO2          NOX          VOCs         POA           EC          Soil          CM          NH3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point...........................................       31,270       73,417       26,308          243           13        1,148        2,142          118
Anthropogenic Fire..............................           72          263          388          442           85           44           63           42
Natural Fire....................................        2,729        8,613       18,846       16,271        3,293        1,223        5,400        1,875
Biogenic........................................            0       42,139    1,016,487            0            0            0            0            0
Area............................................       16,285       33,931       70,566        2,848          374        3,644        1,231       30,233
WRAP Area O&G...................................           12       74,648      267,846            0            0            0            0            0
On-Road Mobile..................................          334       19,746       15,554          656          205            0          464        2,877
Off-Road Mobile.................................          313       28,471        8,942          358          743            0            0           36
Road Dust.......................................            6            2            0          153           13        1,751       14,857            0
Fugitive Dust...................................            7            7            0          366           25        7,026       56,533            0
Wind Blown Dust.................................            0            0            0            0            0       16,399      147,589            0
                                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................       51,028      281,236    1,424,936       21,338        4,750       31,235      228,279       35,181
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 36075]]

                                            Table 12--Change (tpy) in New Mexico Emissions From 2002 to 2018
                                                              [Including Bernalillo County]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Source category                      SO2          NOX          VOCs         POA           EC          Soil          CM          NH3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point...........................................       -6,648      -26,981        8,734         -735            0          -32         -144           43
Anthropogenic Fire..............................          -22         -133         -220         -240          -38          -43          -42          -33
Natural Fire....................................            0            0            0           -1            0            0            0            0
Biogenic........................................            0            0            0            0            0            0            0            0
Area............................................       10,852        8,791       21,556          319           73          823          536          274
WRAP Area O&G...................................         -238       18,438       43,578            0            0            0            0            0
On-Road Mobile..................................       -1,732      -48,089      -23,214            3         -551            0           61          745
Off-Road Mobile.................................       -3,533      -16,840       -4,638         -205         -783            0            0           10
Road Dust.......................................            2            1            0           39            4          446        3,783            0
Fugitive Dust...................................            1            0            0            6            1          275        5,000            0
Wind Blown Dust.................................            0            0            0            0            0            0            0            0
                                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................       -1,319      -64,814       45,796         -813       -1,296        1,470        9,193        1,040
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                           Table 13--Net Change (%) in New Mexico Emissions From 2002 to 2018
                                                              [Including Bernalillo County]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Source category                      SO2          NOx          VOCs         POA           EC          Soil          CM          NH3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point...........................................          -18          -27           50          -75            0           -3           -6           58
Anthropogenic Fire..............................          -24          -34          -36          -35          -31          -49          -41          -44
Natural Fire....................................            0            0            0            0            0            0            0            0
Biogenic........................................            0            0            0            0            0            0            0            0
Area............................................          200           35           44           13           24           29           77            1
WRAP Area O&G...................................          -95           33           19            0            0            0            0            0
On-Road Mobile..................................          -84          -71          -60            0          -73            0           15           35
Off-Road Mobile.................................          -92          -37          -35          -36          -51            0            0           38
Road Dust.......................................           50          100            0           34           44           34           34            0
Fugitive Dust...................................           18            0            0            2            4            4           10            0
Wind Blown Dust.................................            0            0            0            0            0            0            0            0
                                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................           -3          -19            3           -4          -21            5            4            3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The WRAP and NMED used New Mexico's and other states' 2018 emission 
inventories to construct visibility projection modeling for 2018. We 
propose to determine New Mexico's 2018 emission inventory is 
acceptable, while noting that some issues have been identified in the 
emission inventory as discussed above in Section V.N.3.e that must be 
considered when analyzing the results of modeling analysis prepared 
using this inventory.
    Statewide, total NOX and SO2 emissions are 
projected to decrease from 2002 levels by 2018. NOX 
emissions in the 2018 WRAP emission projections decrease by 19% 
primarily due to improvements in mobile sources and reductions at SJGS 
due to the 2005 consent decree. As discussed above, further reductions 
in NOX emissions at the largest NOX source in the 
state, the SJGS, due to implementation of BART are anticipated by 2018.
    SO2 mobile and point source emissions are also projected 
to decrease from 2002 to 2018. However, the large increase in area 
source SO2 emissions (200%) is much larger than reasonably 
anticipated (see discussion above and our TSD). Increases in 
NOX and VOC emissions are anticipated due to expansion of 
oil and gas production activities in the State. Much of the POA and EC 
emissions are due to natural fires that can fluctuate greatly in 
location and intensity from year to year. The 2018 emission inventory 
assumes that emissions from natural fires remain constant from 2002 
levels. Anthropogenic sources of POA and EC are projected to decrease 
by 2018. We propose that New Mexico's 2018 emission inventory is 
acceptable for the purpose of developing the LTS. We note, however that 
some issues have been identified in the emission inventory as discussed 
above in Section V.N.3.e, that must be considered when analyzing the 
results of modeling analysis prepared using this inventory.
b. Visibility Projection Modeling
    The WRAP performed modeling for the RH LTS for its member states, 
including New Mexico. The modeling analysis is a complex technical 
evaluation that began with selection of the modeling system. The WRAP 
used (1) The Mesoscale Meteorological Model (MM5) meteorological model, 
(2) the Sparse Matrix Operator Kernel Emissions (SMOKE) modeling system 
to generate hourly gridded speciated emission inputs, (3) the Community 
Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) photochemical grid model and (4) the 
Comprehensive Air Quality model with extensions (CAMx), as a secondary 
corroborative model. CAMx was also utilized with its Particulate Source 
Apportionment Technology (PSAT) tool to provide source apportionment 
for both the baseline and future case visibility modeling.
    The photochemical modeling of RH for the WRAP states for 2002 and 
2018 was conducted on the 36-km resolution national regional planning 
organization domain that covered the continental United States, 
portions of Canada and Mexico, and portions of the Atlantic and Pacific 
Oceans along the east and west coasts. The WRAP states' modeling was 
developed consistent with our guidance.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses for 
Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone, 
PM2.5, and Regional Haze, (EPA-454/B-07-002), April 2007, 
located at http://www.epa.gov/scram001/guidance/guide/final-03-pm-rh-guidance.pdf.
    Emissions Inventory Guidance for Implementation of Ozone and 
Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) 
and Regional Haze Regulations, August 2005, updated November 2005 
(``our Modeling Guidance''), located at http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/eidocs/eiguid/index.html, EPA-454/R-05-001.

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

[[Page 36076]]

    The WRAP examined the model performance of the regional modeling 
for the areas of interest before determining whether the CMAQ model 
results were suitable for use in the RH assessment of the LTS and for 
use in the modeling assessment. The 2002 modeling efforts were used to 
evaluate air quality/visibility modeling for a historical episode--in 
this case, for calendar year 2002--to demonstrate the suitability of 
the modeling systems for subsequent planning, sensitivity, and 
emissions control strategy modeling. Model performance evaluation was 
performed by comparing the output from model simulations with ambient 
air quality data for the same time period to determine whether the 
model's performance was sufficiently accurate to justify using the 
model for simulating future conditions. Once the WRAP determined the 
model performance to be acceptable, it used the model to determine the 
2018 RPGs using the current and future year air quality modeling 
predictions, and compared the RPGs to the URP. The results of this 
modeling are discussed below.
c. Sources of Visibility Impairment in New Mexico Class I Areas
    Baseline period monitoring data was used to analyze the 
contribution of pollutants to light extinction. Table 14 below 
summarizes the baseline period monitored data found in Chapter 7 of the 
NM RH 309(g) SIP, showing the contribution of each species to 
visibility impairment at each Class I area on the 20 worst days.

                                  Table 14--Percentage of Light Extinction on 20% Worst Days During the Baseline Period
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   SO4          NO3          OMC           EC          Soil          CM        Sea salt
                         Class I area                           (percent)    (percent)    (percent)    (percent)    (percent)    (percent)    (percent)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bandelier....................................................        22.33         8.09        45.95        10.03         3.56         9.39         0.65
Bosque del Apache............................................        24.35        10.39        26.25         8.44         6.17        21.75         0.65
Carlsbad Caverns.............................................        33.81         7.79        13.73         2.66         9.02        32.79         0.20
Gila Wilderness..............................................        21.97         2.87        50.96        10.19         4.78         8.92         0.32
Pecos Wilderness, Wheeler Park...............................        23.56         7.11        37.33         9.78         7.56        12.44         2.22
Salt Creek...................................................        31.75        21.10        14.26         4.73         6.27        21.86         0.38
White Mountains..............................................        31.72         9.06        27.19         5.44         5.74        20.24         0.60
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Visibility impairment in Class I areas is the result of local air 
pollution as well as transport of regional pollution across long 
distances. In order to determine the significant emission source 
regions and emission source types contributing to haze in New Mexico's 
Class I areas, New Mexico relied upon two source apportionment analysis 
techniques developed by the WRAP. The first technique was regional 
modeling using CAMx and the PSAT tool, used for the attribution of 
sulfate and nitrate sources only. The second technique was the Weighted 
Emissions Potential (WEP) tool, used for attribution of sources of 
organic carbon, elemental carbon, PM2.5, and 
PM10. The WEP tool is based on emissions and residence time, 
not modeling. PSAT uses the CAMx air quality model to show nitrate-
sulfate-ammonia chemistry and apply this chemistry to a system of 
tracers or ``tags'' to track the chemical transformations, transport, 
and removal of NOX and SO2. These two pollutants 
are important because they can be significant contributors to 
visibility impairment and much of the total mass of NOX and 
SO2 originates from anthropogenic sources. Therefore, the 
results from this analysis can be useful in determining contributing 
sources that may be controllable, both in-state and in neighboring 
states. The PSAT results presented below are derived from Section 12.3 
of the NM RH 309(g) SIP and the WRAP Technical Support System 
(TSS).\59\ Tables 15 and 16 show the percent contribution of nitrate 
and sulfate from the WRAP and other source regions to modeled 
visibility impairment on the 20% worst days for 2002. Also shown is the 
percentage of the WRAP contributions from New Mexico sources. The 
Central Regional Air Planning Association (CENRAP) region includes the 
states and tribal areas of Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, 
Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Arkansas, and Louisiana. Some errors were 
discovered in the tables of Section 12.3 for the WRAP's percentage 
contribution of nitrate of the 20% worst days during the baseline 
period. Those errors have been corrected in Table 15 below. We note 
that the 2018 emission inventory used in this analysis (Base18b) is an 
earlier version that does not include emission reductions due to BART. 
In New Mexico and surrounding states, BART requirements and reductions 
through the SO2 emission milestone trading program will 
result in additional NOX and SO2 reductions 
beyond than those assumed in the source apportionment modeling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ WRAP technical products are available at http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/tss/.

                      Table 15--Percentage of Nitrate Contribution to Visibility Impairment During Baseline for the 20% Worst Days
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                             Eastern                 Pacific off    Outside
            Class I area                  WRAP     New Mexico *     CENRAP       Canada        U.S.        Mexico       shore        domain
                                       (percent)     (percent)    (percent)    (percent)    (percent)    (percent)    (percent)    (percent)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bandelier...........................      \60\ 71       \61\ 66           10            2            0            1            1           15
Bosque del Apache...................           61            61           26            3            0            1            1            8
Carlsbad Caverns....................           30            42           44            5            0            5            2           14
Gila Wilderness.....................           58             3            2            0            0            2            5           33
Pecos Wilderness, Wheeler Park......           57            64           28            3            2            1            1            8

[[Page 36077]]

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 36078]]

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

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

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

[[Page 36079]]

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

[[Page 36080]]

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

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

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

[[Page 36081]]

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

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

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

[[Page 36082]]

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

VI. EPA's Conclusions and Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve New Mexico State Implementation Plan 
(SIP) revisions received July 5, 2011 and December 1, 2003, addressing 
the regional haze requirements for the mandatory Class I areas under 40 
CFR 51.309 and the separate submittal for the regional haze 
requirements under 40 CFR 51.309(g). EPA is proposing to determine that 
the submittals meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309. We note that we 
are not, however, proposing action on one component of these 
submittals: the submitted NOX BART determination for the San 
Juan Generating Station. We are also proposing to approve various 
companion regulations submitted to us as SIP revisions for our 
consideration alongside the state's Regional Haze plan, specifically: 
new sections 20.2.81 NMAC, 20.2.65 NMAC, 20.2.60 NMAC, and submitted 
revisions to the previously approved 20.2.73.300.F NMAC.
    EPA is taking this action under section 110 of the CAA.

[[Page 36083]]

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a 
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and 
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 
Accordingly, this action merely proposes to approve state law as 
meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional 
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this 
action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority 
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or 
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible 
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified 
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the 
SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, 
and the EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on 
tribal governments or preempt tribal law. Consistent with EPA policy, 
EPA nonetheless is offering consultation to Tribes regarding this rule 
making action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

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