```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 80 (Wednesday, April 25, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 24768-24792]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-9808]

[[Page 24767]]

Vol. 77

Wednesday,

No. 80

April 25, 2012

Part II

Environmental Protection Agency

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

40 CFR Part 52

Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; City of 
Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, NM; InterState Transport Affecting 
Visibility and Regional Haze Rule Requirements for Mandatory Class I 
Areas; Proposed Rule

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

[[Page 24768]]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2008-0702; FRL 9662-7]

Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; City of 
Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, NM; InterState Transport Affecting 
Visibility and Regional Haze Rule Requirements for Mandatory Class I 
Areas

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) for the City of Albuquerque-Bernalillo 
County, New Mexico submitted by the Governor of New Mexico on July 28, 
2011 addressing the regional haze requirements for the mandatory Class 
I areas under 40 CFR 51.309. The EPA is proposing to find that these 
revisions and associated rules meet the requirements of the Clean Air 
Act (CAA) and comply with the provisions of 40 CFR 51.309, thereby 
meeting requirements for reasonable progress for the 16 Class I areas 
covered by the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission Report for 
approval of the plan through 2018. We are proposing to approve SIP 
submissions offered as companion rules to the Section 309 regional haze 
plan, specifically, rules for the Sulfur Dioxide Emissions Inventory 
Requirements and the Western Backstop Trading Program, submitted on 
December 26, 2003, September 10, 2008, and May 24, 2011, and rules for 
Open Burning, submitted on December 26, 2003 and July 28, 2011. We are 
also proposing to approve a portion of the SIP revision submitted by 
the City of Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, New Mexico on July 30, 2007, 
for the purpose of addressing the ``good neighbor'' provisions of the 
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and the 
PM2.5 NAAQS.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 25, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R06-
OAR-2008-0702, by one of the following methods:
     Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
     Email: R6air_bchaze@epa.gov Mail: Mr. Michael Feldman, Air Planning Section (6PD-L), 
Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, 
Texas 75202-2733.
     Hand or Courier Delivery: Mr. Michael Feldman, Air 
Planning Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross 
Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. Such deliveries are 
accepted only between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. weekdays, and not 
on legal holidays. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries 
of boxed information.
     Fax: Mr. Michael Feldman, Air Planning Section (6PD-L), at 
fax number 214-665-7263.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2008-
0702. Our policy is that all comments received will be included in the 
public docket without change and may be made available online at 
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, 
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential 
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is 
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to 
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The 
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which 
means we will not know your identity or contact information unless you 
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment 
directly to us without going through www.regulations.gov your email 
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the 
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the 
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, we recommend that you 
include your name and other contact information in the body of your 
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If we cannot read your 
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for 
clarification, we may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic 
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of 
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the 
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. 
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically 
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Planning Section 
(6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, 
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. The file will be made available by 
appointment for public inspection in the Region 6 FOIA Review Room 
between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. weekdays except for legal 
holidays. Contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT paragraph below or Mr. Bill Deese at 214-665-7253 to make an 
appointment. If possible, please make the appointment at least two 
working days in advance of your visit. There will be a 15 cent per page 
fee for making photocopies of documents. On the day of the visit, 
please check in at our Region 6 reception area at 1445 Ross Avenue, 
Suite 700, Dallas, Texas.
    The City of Albuquerque-Bernalillo County submittal is also 
available for public inspection during official business hours, by 
appointment, at 1 Civic Plaza, Room 3047, Albuquerque, NM 87102.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Definitions

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

    i. The words or initials Act or CAA mean or refer to the Clean 
Air Act, unless the context indicates otherwise.
    ii. The words EPA, we, us or our mean or refer to the United 
States Environmental Protection Agency.
    iii. The initials SIP mean or refer to State Implementation 
Plan.
    iv. The initials RH and RHR mean or refer to Regional Haze and 
Regional Haze Rule.
    v. The initials BC and the words Albuquerque and Bernalillo 
County mean the City of Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, New Mexico.
    vi. The initials AQCB mean or refer to the Albuquerque/
Bernalillo County Air Quality Control Board.
    vii. The initials BART mean or refer to Best Available Retrofit 
Technology.
    viii. The initials OC mean or refer to organic carbon.
    ix. The initials EC mean or refer to elemental carbon.
    x. The initials VOC mean or refer to volatile organic compounds.
    xi. The initials EGUs mean or refer to Electric Generating 
Units.
    xii. The initials NOX mean or refer to nitrogen oxides.
    xiii. The initials SO2 mean or refer to sulfur dioxide.
    xiv. The initials PM10 mean or refer to particulate matter with 
an aerodynamic diameter of less than 10 micrometers.
    xv. The initials PM2.5 mean or refer to particulate matter with 
an aerodynamic of less than 2.5 micrometers.

[[Page 24769]]

    xvi. The initial RPGs mean or refer to reasonable progress 
goals.
    xvii. The initials RPOs mean or refer to regional planning 
organizations.
    xviii. The initials WRAP mean or refer to the Western Regional 
Air Partnership.
    xix. The initials GCVTC mea or refer to the Grand Canyon 
Visibility Transport Commission.

Table of Contents

I. Overview of Proposed Action
    A. Regional Haze
    B. InterState Transport and Visibility
II. What is the background for our proposed actions?
    A. Regional Haze
    B. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze
    C. Development of the Requirements for 40 CFR 51.309
    D. The 1997 NAAQS for Ozone and PM2.5 and CAA 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)
III. What are the requirements for RH SIPs submitted under 40 CFR 
51.309?
    A. The CAA and the Regional Haze Rule
    B. Projection of Visibility Improvement
    C. Clean Air Corridors
    D. Stationary Source Reductions
    1. SO2 Emission Reductions
    2. Provisions for Stationary Source Emissions of Nitrogen Oxides 
(NOX) and Particulate Matter (PM)
    E. Mobile Sources
    F. Programs Related to Fire
    G. Paved and Unpaved Road Dust
    H. Pollution Prevention
    I. Additional Recommendations
    J. Periodic Implementation Plan Revisions
    K. InterState Coordination
    L. Additional Class I Areas
    1. Determination of Reasonable Progress Goals
    2. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and Current Visibility 
Conditions
    3. Long-Term Strategy (LTS)
    4. Monitoring Strategy and Other SIP Requirements
IV. What are the additional requirements for alternative programs 
under the RHR?
    A. ``Better-Than-BART'' Demonstration
    B. Elements Required for All Alternative Programs That Have an 
Emissions Cap
    1. Applicability
    2. Allowances
    3. Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting
    4. Tracking System
    5. Account Representative
    6. Allowance Transfer
    7. Compliance Provisions
    8. Penalty Provisions
    9. Banking of Allowances
    10. Program Assessment
V. Our Analysis of the City of Albuquerque/Bernalillo County 
Submittal
    A. Projection of Visibility Improvement
    B. Clean Air Corridors
    1. Comprehensive Emissions Tracking Program
    2. Identification of CACs
    3. Patterns of Growth Within and Outside of the CAC
    4. Actions if Impairment Inside or Outside the Clean Air 
Corridor Occurs
    5. Other CACs
    C. Stationary Source Reductions
    1. Provisions for Stationary Source Emissions of SO2
    2. Documentation of Emissions Calculation Methods for 
SO2
    3. Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting of SO2 
Emissions
    4. Criteria and Procedures for a Market Trading Program
    5. Market Trading Program
    6. Provisions for the 2018 Milestone
    7. Special Penalty Provision for 2018
    D. ``Better-Than-BART'' Demonstration
    1. List of BART-Eligible Sources
    2. Subject to BART Determination
    3. Best System of Continuous Emission Control Technology
    4. Projected Emissions Reductions
    5. Evidence That the Trading Program Achieves Greater Reasonable 
Progress Than BART
    6. All Emission Reductions Must Take Place During the First 
Planning Period
    7. Detailed Description of the Alternative Program
    8. Surplus Reductions
    9. Geographic Distribution of Emissions
    E. Requirements for Alternative Programs With an Emissions Cap
    1. Applicability Provisions
    2. Allowance Provisions
    3. Monitoring and Recordkeeping Provisions
    4. Tracking System
    5. Account Representative
    6. Allowance Transfers
    7. Compliance Provisions
    8. Penalty Provisions
    9. Banking of Allowances
    10. Program Assessment
    F. Provisions for Stationary Source NOX and PM
    G. Mobile Sources
    H. Programs Related to Fire
    1. Evaluation of Current Fire Programs
    a. Actions To Minimize Emissions
    b. Evaluation of Smoke Dispersion
    c. Alternatives to Fire
    d. Public Notification
    e. Air Quality Monitoring
    f. Surveillance and Enforcement
    g. Program Evaluation
    2. Inventory and Tracking System
    3. Identification and Removal of Administrative Barriers
    4. Enhanced Smoke Management Program
    5. Annual Emission Goal
    I. Paved and Unpaved Road Dust
    J. Pollution Prevention
    1. Description of Existing Pollution Prevention Program
    2. Incentive Programs
    3. Programs To Preserve and Expand Energy Conservation Efforts
    4. Potential for Renewable Energy
    5. Projections of Renewable Energy Goals, Energy Efficiency, and 
Pollution Prevention Activities
    6. Programs To Achieve GCVTC Renewable Energy Goal
    K. Additional Recommendations
    L. Periodic Implementation Plan Revisions
    M. InterState Coordination
    N. Additional Class I Areas
VI. Our Analysis of City of Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, New 
Mexico InterState Visibility Transport SIP Provisions
VII. The EPA's Conclusions and Proposed Action
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Overview of Proposed Action

A. Regional Haze

    As explained in further detail below, 40 CFR 51.309 presents 
certain Western States within the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport 
Commission the option of fulfilling the regional haze rule (RHR) 
requirements for 16 Class I areas under the provisions of that section, 
rather than under 40 CFR 51.308. Three States--Wyoming, Utah, and New 
Mexico--have elected to submit a SIP under 40 CFR 51.309. The 
Albuquerque/Bernalillo County Air Quality Control Board (AQCB) is the 
federally delegated air quality authority for the City of Albuquerque 
and Bernalillo County, New Mexico (BC). The AQCB is authorized to 
administer and enforce the CAA and the New Mexico Air Quality Control 
Act, and to require local air pollution sources to comply with air 
quality standards. The AQCB has submitted a Section 309 regional haze 
SIP for its geographic area of New Mexico under the New Mexico Air 
Quality Control Act (section 74-2-4). This SIP submittal is a necessary 
component of the regional haze plan for the entire State of New Mexico 
and is also necessary to ensure the requirements of section 
110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA are satisfied for the entire State of New 
Mexico. The AQCB submitted its RH SIP to the EPA on July 28, 2011.\1\ 
Our review of the BC RH SIP is supported by the review of companion 
rules discussed and relied upon in the BC RH SIP; these rules were 
submitted in multiple SIP revisions. These submittals request approval 
of: 20.11.46 NMAC, Sulfur Dioxide Emission Inventory Requirements; 
Western Backstop Sulfur Dioxide Trading Program and 20.11.21 NMAC, Open 
Burning.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The contents of the July 28, 2011 submittal may be examined 
in the docket that has been established for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA is proposing to approve the BC RH SIP, that was submitted 
to satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309, and the related 
submittals that help address discrete requirements of Section 309. 
Among these requirements, Section 309 calls for plans to include a 
market trading program, conventionally known as the 309 backstop-
trading program; this program will not be effective until the EPA has 
finalized action on all section 309 SIPs. Section 51.309 does not 
require the participation of a certain

[[Page 24770]]

number of States to validate its effectiveness. Utah submitted its 309 
SIP to the EPA on May 26, 2011, Wyoming submitted its 309 SIP to the 
EPA on January 12, 2011, and the State of New Mexico submitted its 309 
SIP to the EPA on June 28, 2011 (received July 5, 2011). The EPA 
intends to propose action on Wyoming, Utah and New Mexico's 309 SIPs in 
separate actions. Once the EPA takes final action approving the 
necessary components of the 309 backstop-trading program to operate in 
all of the jurisdictions electing to submit 309 SIPs, the program will 
become effective.
    To help address the requirements for a 309 backstop-trading 
program, Albuquerque-Bernalillo County submitted 20.11.46 NMAC, Sulfur 
Dioxide Emission Inventory Requirements; Western Backstop Sulfur 
Dioxide Trading Program, with initial adoption on December 26, 2003, 
and later revisions submitted on September 10, 2008, and May 24, 2011. 
We are proposing to approve 20.11.46 NMAC as received in these 
submittals. We are also proposing to approve 20.11.21 NMAC, Open 
Burning (submitted after initial adoption on December 26, 2003, with 
revisions submitted on July 28, 2011). Further details and analyses on 
these companion regulations are provided in the Technical Support 
Document in the docket for this rulemaking. These rules are also 
discussed at later points in this notice when they are relevant to our 
analysis of the BC RH SIP submittal.
    As previously Stated, the EPA is proposing to approve a City of 
Albuquerque-Bernalillo County SIP revision submitted on July 28, 2011 
that addresses the regional haze requirements for the mandatory Class I 
areas under 40 CFR 51.309. The EPA is proposing to find that the SIP 
meets the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309. We are proposing to approve 
all parts of the RH SIP. We further note that the July 28, 2011 
submittal we are proposing to act on builds and relies on earlier RH 
SIPs submitted on December 26, 2003, and September 10, 2008.

B. InterState Transport and Visibility

    We are also proposing to approve a portion of the SIP revision 
submitted to us by the City of Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, New 
Mexico on July 30, 2007, for the purpose of addressing the ``good 
neighbor'' provisions of the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 
8-hour ozone NAAQS and the PM2.5 NAAQS.\2\ Section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of the Act requires that States have a SIP, or 
submit a SIP revision, containing provisions ``prohibiting any source 
or other type of emission activity within the State from emitting any 
air pollutant in amounts which will * * * interfere with measures 
required to be included in the applicable implementation plan for any 
other State under part C [of the CAA] * * * to protect visibility.'' 
Because of the impacts on visibility from the interState transport of 
pollutants, we interpret the ``good neighbor'' provisions of section 
110 of the Act described above as requiring States to include in their 
SIPs either measures to prohibit emissions that would interfere with 
the reasonable progress goals set to protect Class I areas in other 
States, or a demonstration that emissions from BC sources and 
activities will not have the prohibited impacts on other States' 
existing SIPs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ This SIP revision is viewable in EPA docket EPA-R06-OAR-
2007-1119, which was established for our prior approval of a portion 
of the SIP revision on November 8, 2010. 75 FR 68447.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The AQCB Stated in its submittal that it is not possible to assess 
whether there is any interference with the measures in the applicable 
SIP for another State designed to protect visibility for the 8-hour 
ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS until AQCB submits and the EPA 
approves BC's RH SIP. In developing their Regional Haze SIP, BC and 
potentially impacted States collaborated through the WRAP. Each State 
developed its Regional Haze Plans and RPGs based on the WRAP modeling 
and technical analysis. The WRAP modeling was based in part on the 
emissions reductions each State and BC intended to achieve by 2018.
    We are proposing to approve the BC RH SIP and find that it 
demonstrates that sources within the City of Albuquerque/Bernalillo 
County do not cause or contribute to visibility impairment at Class I 
areas outside of the City and Bernalillo County. We also propose to 
find that the BC RH SIP appropriately includes participation in a 
SO2 emission milestone and backstop trading program with the 
States of New Mexico, Wyoming and Utah. We also propose to find that 
the BC RH SIP contains those measures included in the WRAP modeling and 
relied upon by New Mexico and other States in developing their 
visibility programs. On the basis of these findings, we are also 
proposing to approve the City of Albuquerque-Bernalillo County 
InterState Transport SIP submittal that addresses the visibility 
requirement of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) that emissions from sources 
within the City of Albuquerque and Bernalillo County do not interfere 
with measures of other States to protect visibility.

II. What is the background for our proposed actions?

A. Regional Haze

    RH is visibility impairment that is produced by a multitude of 
sources and activities which are located across a broad geographic area 
and emit fine particles (PM2.5) (e.g., sulfates, nitrates, 
organic carbon, elemental carbon, and soil dust) and their precursors 
(e.g., SO2, nitrogen oxides (NOX), and in some 
cases, ammonia (NH3) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs)). 
Fine particle precursors can react in the atmosphere to form 
PM2.5. PM2.5 impairs visibility by scattering and 
absorbing light. Visibility impairment reduces the clarity, color, and 
visible distance that one can see. PM2.5 also can cause 
serious health effects and mortality in humans and contributes to 
environmental effects such as acid deposition and eutrophication.
    Data from the existing visibility monitoring network, the 
``Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments'' (IMPROVE) 
monitoring network, show that visibility impairment caused by air 
pollution occurs virtually all the time at most national park and 
wilderness areas. The average visual range \3\ in many Class I areas 
(i.e., national parks and memorial parks, wilderness areas, and 
international parks meeting certain size criteria) in the western 
United States is 100-150 kilometers, or about one-half to two-thirds of 
the visual range that would exist without anthropogenic air pollution. 
64 FR 35714, 35715 (July 1, 1999). In most of the eastern Class I areas 
of the United States, the average visual range is less than 30 
kilometers, or about one-fifth of the visual range that would exist 
under estimated natural conditions. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 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 \4\ which 
impairment

[[Page 24771]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 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.\5\ States were 
required to submit the first implementation plan addressing RH 
visibility impairment no later than December 17, 2007. 40 CFR 
51.308(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 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 Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) RPO is a collaborative 
effort of State governments, tribal governments, and various federal 
agencies established to initiate and coordinate activities associated 
with the management of regional haze, visibility and other air quality 
issues in the western United States. WRAP member State governments 
include: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New 
Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and 
Wyoming. The AQCB staff participated in meetings with the State of New 
Mexico staff to coordinate its efforts with the State of New Mexico in 
developing its separate 309 SIP.

C. Development of the Requirements for 40 CFR 51.309

    The EPA's RHR provides two paths to address regional haze. One is 
40 CFR 51.308, requiring States to perform individual point source BART 
determinations and evaluate the need for other control strategies. 
These strategies must be shown to make ``reasonable progress'' in 
improving visibility in Class I areas inside the State and in 
neighboring jurisdictions. The other path for addressing regional haze 
is through 40 CFR 51.309 (section 309), and is an option for nine 
States termed the ``Transport Region States'' which include: Arizona, 
California, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, and 
Wyoming, and the 211 Tribes located within those States.
    Section 309 requires participating States to adopt regional haze 
strategies that are based on recommendations from the Grand Canyon 
Visibility Transport Commission (GCVTC) for protecting the 16 Class I 
areas in the Colorado Plateau area.\6\ The EPA established the GCVTC on 
November 13, 1991. The purpose of the GCVTC was to assess information 
about the adverse impacts on visibility in and around 16 Class I areas 
on the Colorado Plateau region and to provide policy recommendations to 
the EPA to address such impacts. Section 169B of the CAA called for the 
GCVTC to evaluate visibility research as well as other available 
information pertaining to adverse impacts on visibility from potential 
or projected growth in emissions from sources located in the region. It 
was determined that all transport region States impacted or could 
potentially impact the Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau. The GCVTC 
submitted a report to the EPA in 1996 with its policy recommendations. 
Provisions of the 1996 GCVTC report include: Strategies for addressing 
smoke emissions from wildland fires and agricultural burning; 
provisions to prevent pollution by encouraging renewable energy 
development; and provisions to manage clean air corridors, mobile 
sources, and wind-blown dust, among other things. The EPA codified 
these recommendations as part of the 1999 RHR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA determined that the GCVTC strategies would provide for 
reasonable progress in mitigating regional haze if supplemented by an 
annex containing quantitative emission reduction milestones and 
provisions for a trading program or other alternative measure (64 FR 
35749 and 35756). Thus, the 1999 RHR required that western States 
submit an annex to the GCVTC report with quantitative milestones and 
detailed guidelines in order to establish the GCVTC recommendations as 
an alternative approach to fulfilling the section 308 requirements for 
compliance with the RHR. In September 2000, the WRAP, which is the 
successor organization to the GCVTC, submitted to the EPA an annex to 
the GCVTC. The annex contained SO2 emission

[[Page 24772]]

reduction milestones and the detailed provisions of a backstop trading 
program to be implemented automatically if voluntary measures failed to 
achieve the milestones. The EPA codified the annex on June 5, 2003 as 
40 CFR 51.309(h). 68 FR 33764.
    Five western States submitted implementation plans under the 
section 309 alternative program in 2003. The EPA was challenged by the 
Center for Energy and Economic Development (CEED) on the validity of 
the annex provisions. In CEED v. EPA, the D.C. Circuit vacated the 
EPA's approval of the WRAP annex (Center for Energy and Economic 
Development v. EPA, No. 03-1222 (D.C. Cir. Feb. 18, 2005)). In response 
to the court's decision, the EPA vacated the annex requirements adopted 
as 40 CR 51.309(h), but left in place the stationary source 
requirements in 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4). 71 FR 60612. The requirements 
under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4) contain general requirements pertaining to 
stationary sources and market trading, and allow States to adopt 
alternatives to the point source application of BART.

D. The 1997 NAAQS for Ozone and PM2.5 and CAA 110(a)(2)(D)(i)

    On July 18, 1997, we promulgated new NAAQS for 8-hour ozone and for 
PM2.5. 62 FR 38652. Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires 
States to submit SIPs to address a new or revised NAAQS within 3 years 
after promulgation of such standards, or within such shorter period as 
we may prescribe. Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA lists the elements that 
such new SIPs must address, including section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), which 
pertains to the interState transport of certain emissions. Thus, States 
were required to submit SIPs that satisfy the applicable requirements 
under sections 110(a)(1) and (2), including the requirements of section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i), by July 2000. States, including the City of 
Albuquerque/Bernalillo County, did not meet the statutory July 2000 
deadline for submission of these SIPs. Accordingly, on April 25, 2005, 
the EPA made findings of failure to submit, notifying all States, 
including the City of Albuquerque/Bernalillo County, of their failure 
to make the required SIP submission to address interState transport 
under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). 70 FR 21147.
    On August 15, 2006, we issued our ``Guidance for State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) Submissions to Meet Current Outstanding 
Obligations Under Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-Hour Ozone and 
PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards'' (2006 
Guidance). We developed the 2006 Guidance to make recommendations to 
States for making submissions to meet the requirements of section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 8-hour ozone standards and the 1997 
PM2.5 standards.
    As identified in the 2006 Guidance, the ``good neighbor'' 
provisions in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA require each State to 
submit a SIP that prohibits emissions that adversely affect another 
State in the ways contemplated in the statute. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) 
contains four distinct requirements related to the impacts of 
interState transport. The SIP must prevent sources in the State from 
emitting pollutants in amounts which will: (1) Contribute significantly 
to nonattainment of the NAAQS in other States; (2) interfere with 
maintenance of the NAAQS in other States; (3) interfere with provisions 
to prevent significant deterioration of air quality in other States; or 
(4) interfere with efforts to protect visibility in other States. In 
this action, we only address the fourth element regarding visibility.
    The 2006 Guidance Stated that States may make a simple SIP 
submission confirming that it is not possible at that time to assess 
whether there is any interference with measures in the applicable SIP 
for another State designed to ``protect visibility'' for the 8-hour 
ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS until RH SIPs are submitted and 
approved. RH SIPs were required to be submitted by December 17, 2007. 
See 74 FR 2392 (January 15, 2009).
    The EPA received a SIP revision adopted by AQCB on September 12, 
2007 to address the interState transport provisions of CAA 
110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. For the 
reasons discussed in section V of this proposed rulemaking, we propose 
to find the AQCB adequately demonstrated that it is improbable that 
emissions from within the City of Albuquerque and Bernalillo County 
cause or contribute to visibility impairment at any Class I area. 
Therefore, we are proposing to approve the portion of the City of 
Albuquerque-Bernalillo County InterState Transport SIP submittal that 
addresses the requirement that emissions from the City of Albuquerque/
Bernalillo County sources not interfere with measures required in the 
SIP of any other State to protect visibility. See CAA section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).

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

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

A. The CAA and the Regional Haze Rule

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

B. Projection of Visibility Improvement

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

C. Clean Air Corridors

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

[[Page 24773]]

protect against future degradation of visibility in the 16 Class I 
areas.

D. Stationary Source Reductions

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

    \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, a RH 309 SIP must establish declining SO2 emission 
milestones for each year of the program through 2018. The milestones 
must be consistent with the GCTVC's goal of 50 to 70 percent reduction 
in SO2 emissions by 2040. If the milestones are exceeded in 
any year, the backstop trading program is triggered.
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(ii)-(iv), States must include 
requirements in the SIP that allow States to determine whether the 
milestone has been exceeded. These requirements include documentation 
of the baseline emission calculation, monitoring, recordkeeping, and 
reporting (MRR) of SO2 emissions, and provisions for 
conducting an annual evaluation to determine whether the milestone has 
been exceeded. 40 CFR 309(d)(4)(v) also contains requirements for 
implementing the backstop trading program in the event that the 
milestone is exceeded and the program is triggered.
    The WRAP, in conjunction with the EPA, developed a model for a 
backstop trading program. In order to ensure consistency between 
States, States opting to participate in the 309 program need to adopt 
rules that are substantively equivalent to the model rules for the 
backstop trading program to meet the requirements of 40 CFR 
51.309(d)(4). The trading program must also be implemented no later 
than 15 months after the end of the first year that the milestone is 
exceeded, require that sources hold allowances to cover their 
emissions, and provide a framework, including financial penalties, to 
ensure that the 2018 milestone is met.
2. Provisions for Stationary Source Emissions of Nitrogen Oxides 
(NOX) and Particulate Matter (PM)
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(vii), a section 309 SIP must 
contain any necessary long term strategies and BART requirements for PM 
and NOX. Any such BART provisions may be submitted pursuant 
to 40 CFR 51.308(e). We promulgated regulations addressing RH in 1999, 
64 FR 35714 (July 1, 1999), codified at 40 CFR part 51, subpart P.\8\ 
These regulations require all States to submit implementation plans 
that, among other measures, contain either emission limits representing 
BART for certain sources constructed between 1962 and 1977, or 
alternative measures that provide for greater reasonable progress than 
BART. 40 CFR 51.308(e). The discussion below specifically applies to 
regional haze plans that opt to require BART on sources subject to the 
BART requirements, rather than satisfying the requirements for 
alternative measures that would be evaluated under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 24774]]

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

E. Mobile Sources

    Under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(5), the RH 309 SIP must provide inventories 
of 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 prescribed fire in the State have a 
mechanism in place for evaluating and addressing the degree of 
visibility impairment from smoke in their planning and application of 
burning. The plan must also ensure that its prescribed fire smoke 
management programs have at least the following seven elements: (1) 
Actions to minimize emissions, (2) evaluation of smoke dispersion, (3) 
alternatives to fire, (4) public notification, (5) air quality 
monitoring, (6) surveillance and enforcement, and (7) program 
evaluation (40 CFR 51.309(d)(6)(i)). The plan must be able to track 
Statewide emissions of VOC, NOX, EC, OC, and fine 
particulate emissions from prescribed burning within the State.
    Other requirements States must meet in their 309 plan related to 
fire include the adoption of a Statewide process for gathering post-
burn activity information to support emissions inventory and tracking 
systems. The plan must identify existing administrative barriers to the 
use of non-burning alternatives and adopt a process for continuing to 
identify and remove administrative barriers where feasible. The SIP 
must include an enhanced smoke management program that considers 
visibility effects in addition to health objectives and is based on the 
criteria of efficiency, economics, law, emission reduction 
opportunities, land management objectives, and reduction of visibility 
impairment. Finally, the plan must establish annual emission goals to 
minimize emission increases from fire.

G. Paved and Unpaved Road Dust

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

H. Pollution Prevention

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

I. Additional Recommendations

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

J. Periodic Implementation Plan Revisions

    The RHR requires States to submit progress reports in the form of 
SIP revisions in 2013 and 2018 (40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)). The SIP 
revisions must comply with the procedural requirements of 40 CFR 51.102 
for public hearings and 40 CFR 51.103 for submission of plans. The 
assessment in the progress report must include an evaluation of Class I 
areas located within the State and Class I areas

[[Page 24775]]

outside the State that are affected by emissions from the State. The 
EPA views these SIP revisions as a periodic check on progress, rather 
than a thorough revision of regional strategies. The State should focus 
on significant shortcomings of the original SIP from sources that were 
not fully accounted for or anticipated when the SIP was initially 
developed. The specifics of what each progress report must contain can 
be found at 40 CFR 51.509(d)(10)(i)(A)-(G).
    At the same time that the State submits its progress reports to the 
EPA, it must also take an action based on the outcome of this 
assessment. If the assessment shows that the SIP requires no 
substantive revision, the State must submit to the EPA a ``negative 
declaration'' Statement saying that no further SIP revisions are 
necessary at this time. If the assessment shows that the SIP is or may 
be inadequate due to emissions from outside the State, the State must 
notify the EPA and other regional planning States and work with them to 
develop additional strategies. If the assessment shows that the SIP is 
or may be inadequate due to emissions from another country, the State 
must include appropriate notification to the EPA in its SIP revision. 
In the event the assessment shows that the SIP is or may be inadequate 
due to emissions from within the State, the State shall develop 
additional strategies to address the deficiencies and revise the SIP 
within one year from the due date of the progress report.

K. InterState Coordination

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

L. Additional Class I Areas

    To comply with the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(g), RH 309 SIPs 
must demonstrate reasonable progress for mandatory Class I Federal 
areas other than the 16 Class I areas covered by the GCVTC. States must 
submit an implementation plan that demonstrates the expected visibility 
conditions for the most and least impaired days at the additional Class 
I areas based on emission projections from the long-term strategies in 
the implementation plan. The implementation plan must contain 
provisions establishing reasonable progress goals and additional 
measures necessary to demonstrate reasonable progress for the 
additional Federal Class I areas. The RH 309 SIP must address regional 
haze in each additional Class I area located within the State and in 
each additional Class I area located outside the State which may be 
affected by emissions from within the State. 40 CFR 309(g) requires 
that these provisions comply with 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1) through (4), the 
general requirements of which are described below.
1. Determination of Reasonable Progress Goals
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1), for each mandatory Class I area 
located within the State, the regional haze SIPs must establish goals 
(expressed in deciviews, dv) that provide for reasonable progress 
towards achieving natural visibility conditions. The vehicle for 
ensuring continuing progress towards achieving the natural visibility 
goal is the submission of a series of RH SIPs from the States that 
establish two reasonable progress goals (RPGs) (i.e., two distinct 
goals, one for the ``best'' and one for the ``worst'' days) for every 
Class I area for each (approximately) 10-year implementation period. 
See 70 FR 3915; see also 64 FR 35714. The RHR does not mandate specific 
milestones or rates of progress, but instead calls for States to 
establish goals that provide for ``reasonable progress'' toward 
achieving natural (i.e., ``background'') visibility conditions. In 
setting RPGs, States must provide for an improvement in visibility for 
the most impaired days over the (approximately) 10-year period of the 
SIP, and ensure no degradation in visibility for the least impaired 
days over the same period. Id.
    States have significant discretion in establishing RPGs, but are 
required to consider the following factors established in section 169A 
of the CAA and in our RHR at 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A): (1) The costs 
of compliance; (2) the time necessary for compliance; (3) the energy 
and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance; and (4) the 
remaining useful life of any potentially affected sources. States must 
demonstrate in their SIPs how these factors are considered when 
selecting the RPGs for the best and worst days for each applicable 
Class I area. States have considerable flexibility in how they take 
these factors into consideration, as noted in our Reasonable Progress 
Guidance.\10\ In setting the RPGs, States must also consider the rate 
of progress needed to reach natural visibility conditions by 2064 
(referred to hereafter as the ``Uniform Rate of Progress (URP)'' and 
the emission reduction measures needed to achieve that rate of progress 
over the 10-year period of the SIP. Uniform progress towards 
achievement of natural conditions by the year 2064 represents a rate of 
progress, which States are to use for analytical comparison to the 
amount of progress they expect to achieve. If the State establishes a 
RPG that provides for a slower rate of improvement in visibility than 
the URP, the State must demonstrate that the URP is not reasonable 
based on the factors above and that the RPG is reasonable. Regional 
haze SIPs must provide an assessment of the number of years it would 
take to attain natural visibility at the rate of progress selected by 
the State as reasonable. In setting RPGs, each State with one or more 
Class I areas (``Class I State'') must also consult with potentially 
``contributing States,'' i.e., other nearby States with emission 
sources that may be affecting visibility impairment at the Class I 
State's areas. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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. See 70 FR 39104. This visibility metric expresses 
uniform changes in the degree of haze in terms of common increments 
across the entire range of visibility conditions, from pristine to 
extremely hazy conditions. Visibility is sometimes expressed in terms 
of the visual range, which is the greatest distance, in kilometers or 
miles, at which a dark object can just be distinguished against the 
sky. The deciview is a useful measure for tracking progress in 
improving visibility, because each deciview change is an equal 
incremental change in visibility perceived by the human eye. Most 
people can detect a change in visibility of one deciview.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

[[Page 24776]]

    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 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

[[Page 24777]]

of future projected emissions. A State must also make a commitment to 
update the inventory periodically; and
     Other elements, including reporting, recordkeeping, and 
other measures necessary to assess and report on visibility.
    The RHR requires control strategies to cover an initial 
implementation period extending to the year 2018, with a comprehensive 
reassessment and revision of those strategies, as appropriate, every 10 
years thereafter. Periodic SIP revisions must meet the core 
requirements of section 51.308(d) with the exception of BART. The 
requirement to evaluate sources for BART applies only to the first RH 
SIP. Facilities subject to BART must continue to comply with the BART 
provisions of section 51.308(e), as noted above. Periodic SIP revisions 
will assure that the statutory requirement of reasonable progress will 
continue to be met.

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

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

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

    In order to demonstrate that the alternative program achieves 
greater reasonable progress than source-specific BART, States must 
provide a demonstration in their SIP that meets the requirements in 40 
CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)-(v). States submitting section 309 SIPs or other 
alternative programs are required to list all 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 reasonable progress than 
BART (71 FR 60619). Under this approach, States should use the 
presumptive limits for EGUs in the BART Guidelines to establish the 
BART benchmark used in the comparison, unless the State determines that 
such presumptions are not appropriate for particular EGUs (70 FR 
60619).
    The RH SIP, and any RH 309 SIP that establishes a 309 backstop 
trading program, must provide an analysis of the projected emissions 
reductions achievable through the trading program or other alternative 
measure and a determination that the trading program or other 
alternative measure achieves greater reasonable progress than would be 
achieved through the installation and operation of BART (40 CFR 
308(e)(2)(C)(iii)). Section 308(e)(2) requires that all emission 
reductions for the alternative program take place by 2018, as well as 
that the emission reductions resulting from the alternative program are 
surplus to those reductions resulting from measures adopted to meet 
requirements of the CAA as of the baseline date of the SIP. Pursuant to 
40 CFR 51.309(e)(2)(E)(v), States have the option of including a 
provision that the emissions trading program or other alternative 
measure may include a geographic enhancement to the program to address 
the requirement under 40 CFR 51.302(c) related to BART, for reasonably 
attributable visibility impairment from the pollutants covered under 
the emissions trading program or other alternative measure.
    States must also address the distribution of emissions under the 
BART alternative as part of the ``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), the EPA established 
fundamental requirements for trading or alternative programs that have 
an emissions cap and require sources to hold allowances that they can 
sell, buy, or trade, as in the section 309 backstop trading program. 
These requirements are discussed in detail below.
1. Applicability
    The alternative program must have applicability provisions that 
define the sources subject to the program. In the case of a program 
covering sources in multiple States, the States must demonstrate that 
the applicability provisions in each State cover essentially the same 
size facilities and, if source categories are specified, cover the same 
source categories.
2. Allowances
    Allowances are a key feature of a cap and trade program. An 
allowance is a limited authorization for a source to emit a specified 
amount of a pollutant, as defined by the specific trading program, 
during a specified period. Allowances are fully marketable commodities. 
Once allocated, allowances may be bought, sold, traded, or banked for 
use in future years. The EPA has not included in the rule detailed 
requirements on how States and tribes can allocate allowances. A State 
or tribe can determine how to allocate allowances as long as the 
allocation of the tonnage value of allowances does not exceed the total 
number of tons of emissions capped by the budget. The trading program 
must include allowance provisions ensuring that the total value of 
allowances issued each year under the program will not exceed the 
emissions cap on total annual emissions from the sources in the 
program.
3. Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting
    Monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting (MRR) of a source's 
emissions are integral parts of any cap and trade program. Consistent 
and accurate measurement of emissions ensures fungibility of allowances 
by validating that each allowance actually represents its specified 
tonnage value of emissions and that one ton of reported emissions from 
one source is equivalent to one ton of reported emissions at another 
source. The MRR provisions must require that boilers, combustion 
turbines, and cement kilns in the alternative program that are allowed 
to sell or transfer allowances comply with the requirements of 40 CFR 
part 75. The MRR provisions must require that other sources in the 
program allowed to sell or transfer allowances provide

[[Page 24778]]

emissions information with the same precision, reliability, 
accessibility, and timeliness as information required by 40 CFR part 
75.
4. Tracking System
    An accurate and efficient tracking system is critical to the 
functioning of an emissions trading market. The tracking system must 
also be transparent, allowing all interested parties access to the 
information contained in the accounting system. Thus, alternative 
programs must have requirements for a tracking system that is publicly 
available in a secure, centralized database to track in a consistent 
manner all allowances and emissions in the program.
5. Account Representative
    Each source owner or operator covered by the alternative program 
must designate an individual account representative who is authorized 
to represent the owner or operator in all matters pertaining to the 
trading program and who is responsible for the data reported for that 
source. The account representative will be responsible for, among other 
things, permitting, compliance, and allowance related actions.
6. Allowance Transfer
    SIPs must contain provisions detailing a uniform process for 
transferring allowances among all sources covered by the program and 
other possible participants. The provisions must provide procedures for 
sources to request an allowance transfer, for the request and transfer 
to be recorded in the allowance tracking system, for notification to 
the source that the transfer has occurred, and for notification to the 
public of each transfer and request.
7. Compliance Provisions
    Cap and trade programs must include compliance provisions that 
prohibit a source from emitting more emissions than the total tonnage 
value of allowances the source holds for that year. A cap and trade 
program must also contain the specific methods and procedures for 
determining compliance on an annual basis.
8. Penalty Provisions
    In order to provide sources with a strong incentive to comply with 
the requirement to hold sufficient allowances for their emissions on an 
annual basis and to establish an immediate minimum economic consequence 
for non-compliance, the program must include a system for mandatory 
allowance deductions. SIPs must contain a provision that if a source 
has excess emissions in a given year, allowances allocated for the 
subsequent year will be deducted from the source's account in an amount 
at least equal to three times the excess emissions.
9. Banking of Allowances
    The banking of allowances occurs when allowances that have not been 
used for compliance are set aside for use in a later compliance period. 
Alternative programs can include provisions for banked allowances, so 
long as the SIP clearly identifies how unused allowances may be used in 
future years and whether there are any restrictions on the use of any 
such banked allowances.
10. Program Assessment
    The alternative program must include provisions for periodic 
assessment of the program. Such periodic assessments are a way to 
retrospectively assess the performance of the trading program in 
meeting the goals of the regional haze program and determining whether 
the trading program needs any adjustments or changes. At a minimum, the 
program evaluation must be conducted every five years to coincide with 
the periodic report describing progress towards the reasonable progress 
goals required under 40 CFR 51.308(g) and must be submitted to the EPA.

V. Our Analysis of the City of Albuquerque/Bernalillo County Submittal

    The following summarizes the reasons why we are proposing that the 
AQCB's July 28, 2011 submittal (with the submitted companion rules of 
20.11.46 NMAC and 20.11.21 NMAC) meets the requirements of 40 CFR 
51.309 and the Clean Air Act.

A. Projection of Visibility Improvement

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

    \13\ 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.
    \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, February 28, 2011.

                                       Table 1--Baseline and 2018 Visibility at the Colorado Plateau Class I Areas
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               20 percent worst visibility days       20 percent best visibility days
                                                                           -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                          2018                                   2018
                 Class I area                              State             2000-2004                Preliminary   2000-2004                Preliminary
                                                                              Baseline    2018 Base    Reasonable    Baseline    2018 Base    Reasonable
                                                                             Monitoring   Case (dv)     Progress    Monitoring   Case (dv)     Progress
                                                                             Data (dv)                 Case (dv)    Data (dv)                 Case (dv)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grand Canyon National Park....................  AZ                                 11.7         11.4         11.3          2.2          2.2          2.1
Mount Baldy Wilderness........................  AZ                                 11.9         11.5         11.4          3.0          2.9          2.8

[[Page 24779]]

 
Petrified Forest National Park................  AZ                                 13.2         12.9         12.9          5.0          4.9          4.8
Sycamore Canyon Wilderness....................  AZ                                 15.3         15.1         15.1          5.6          5.6          5.6
Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park      CO                                 10.3         10.1          9.9          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         12.6          4.3          4.1          4.0
Weminuche Wilderness..........................  CO                                 10.3         10.1          9.9          3.1          2.9          2.9
West Elk Wilderness...........................  CO                                  9.6          9.2          9.0          0.7          0.6          0.5
San Pedro Parks Wilderness....................  NM                                 10.2         10.0          9.8          1.5          1.3          1.2
Arches National Park..........................  UT                                 11.2         11.0         10.9          3.8          3.6          3.5
Bryce Canyon National Park....................  UT                                 11.6         11.3         11.2          2.8          2.7          2.6
Canyonlands National Park.....................  UT                                 11.2         11.0         10.9          3.8          3.6          3.5
Capitol Reef National Park....................  UT                                 10.9         10.6         10.5          4.1          4.0          3.9
Zion National Park............................  UT                                 13.2         13.0         13.0          5.0          4.7          4.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Clean Air Corridors

1. Comprehensive Emissions Tracking Program
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(3), BC's RH SIP submittal provides for 
the implementation of strategies regarding clean-air corridors. We 
propose to find the SIP's treatment of clean-air corridors satisfies 
the requirements of 40 CFR 309(d)(3), and its subsections, as discussed 
in the next several paragraphs.
    The WRAP developed a comprehensive emissions tracking system to 
assist the States in tracking emissions within portions of Oregon, 
Idaho, Nevada and Utah that have been identified as part of the CAC. 
The emission tracking is to ensure that visibility does not degrade on 
the least-impaired days in any of the 16 Class I areas of the Colorado 
Plateau. For a complete description of the emission tracking system and 
the process by which the annual emission trends will be summarized in 
order to identify any significant emissions growth that could lead to 
visibility degradation in the 16 Class I areas, see Analysis of the 
Clean Air Corridor (CAC) in the Appendix B-SIP of the BC RH SIP. The 
SIP submittal and all appendices can be found in the docket for this 
notice. Since no portion of the CAC lies within New Mexico, this 
emissions tracking system does not include tracking of emissions from 
AQCB. We are proposing to determine the RH 309 SIP submittal has met 
the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(3).
2. Identification of CACs
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(3)(i), BC has provided in its RH 309 
SIP submittal the geographic boundaries of the CAC (a map of the CAC 
can be found as Figure 3 in Section B of the BC RH SIP). The WRAP 
identified the CAC using studies conducted by the Meteorological 
Subcommittee of the GCVTC and then updated the CAC based on an 
assessment described in the WRAP Policy on Clean Air Corridors and 
related technical analysis conducted by the WRAP. Appendix B-SIP of the 
AQCB RH SIP summarizes this assessment and contains additional 
technical analysis associated with the identification of the CAC. We 
are proposing to determine the RH 309 SIP submittal satisfies the 
51.309(d)(3)(i) requirement.
3. Patterns of Growth Within and Outside of the CAC
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(3)(ii)-(iii), BC in its RH 309 SIP 
submittal has determined, based on the WRAP Policy Paper on Clean Air 
Corridors and technical analysis conducted by the WRAP,\15\ that inside 
and outside the CAC there is no significant emissions growth occurring 
at this time that is causing visibility impairment in the 16 Class I 
areas of the Colorado Plateau. The WRAP will summarize annual emission 
trends within and outside of the CAC and will assess whether any 
significant future emissions growth is occurring that could result in 
visibility impairment in any of the 16 Class I areas. We are proposing 
to determine that 40 CFR 51.309(d)(3)(ii)-(iii) is met.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Actions if Impairment Inside or Outside the Clean Air Corridor 
Occurs
    The BC RH 309 SIP submittal describes how BC, in coordination with 
the State of New Mexico, other transport region States, and tribes, 
will review the annual summary of emission trends within the CAC and 
determine whether any significant emissions growth has occurred. If BC 
identifies significant emissions growth, it, in coordination with the 
State of New Mexico, other transport region States, and tribes, will 
seek WRAP assistance in conducting an analysis of the effects of this 
emissions growth. Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(3)(iv), if this analysis 
finds that the emissions growth is causing visibility impairment in the 
16 Class I areas, BC, in coordination with the State of New Mexico, 
other transport region States, and tribes, will evaluate the need for 
additional emission reduction measures and identify an implementation 
schedule for such measures. BC will report on the need for additional 
reduction measures to the EPA in accordance with the periodic progress 
reports required under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i). We are proposing to 
determine the RH 309 SIP submittal satisfies the strategy requirement 
of 40 CFR 309(d)(3)(iv).
5. Other CACs
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(3)(v), BC in its RH 309 SIP submittal 
has concluded that one other CAC for the Grand Canyon National Park can 
be identified at this time. BC's conclusion appears to derive from the 
WRAP Regional Technical Support Document, which cites to an alternative 
analysis of

[[Page 24780]]

CACs for the Grand Canyon.\16\ This alternative analysis is not relied 
upon by the WRAP, however, to identify a CAC. The CAC identified by the 
WRAP pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(3)(i), is mostly a subset of the 
boundaries of the additional CAC for the Grand Canyon identified by BC 
(Appendix B-SIP, figure 26 and 27). The WRAP TSD notes that: ``Other 
than the various options for selection of a clean air corridor for 
Grand Canyon National Park, shown above, no other corridors have been 
identified. If the growth of visibility-impairing emissions, in the 
corridor identified, remain protective of Grand Canyon National Park, 
then it should be protective of the other Colorado Plateau Class I 
areas. Localized emissions near the Class I areas within the Clean Air 
Corridor, however, may have more effect on those Class I areas. 
Similarly, disproportionate emissions growth in the southern portion of 
the corridor may have more effect on Grand Canyon National Park.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Green, M.C.; Pitchford, M.L.; and Ashbaugh, L.L. 
Identification of Candidate Clean Air Corridors for the Colorado 
Plateau. J. Air & Waste Manage. Assoc. 1996. 46(5), 446.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    BC identified an additional CAC for the Grand Canyon National Park, 
but determined no additional measures are required at this time to 
protect against future degradation of air quality in any of the 16 
Class I areas. The WRAP TSD and WRAP Policy Paper on Clean Air 
Corridors concluded that identification of the one CAC and evaluation 
of patterns of growth within and outside this CAC are sufficient to 
determine that no significant emissions growth is occurring at this 
time and that emission growth is not causing visibility impairment in 
the 16 Class I areas of the Colorado Plateau. We are proposing to 
approve BC's determination under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(3)(v).

C. Stationary Source Reductions

1. Provisions for Stationary Source Emissions of SO2
    As required by 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(i), BC in its RH 309 SIP 
submittal sets forth milestone SO2 numbers for each year of 
the program until 2018.\17\ Table 2 shows the milestone numbers and how 
compliance with the annual milestones will be determined (Table 3 of 
the BC RH 309 SIP).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The milestone numbers reflect the participation of Wyoming, 
Utah, and New Mexico (including the City of Albuquerque-Bernalillo 
County) in the 309 backstop trading program.

                 Table 2--SO[ihel2] Emissions Milestones
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Annual SO[ihel2]
                                 Regional sulfur      emissions used to
            Year                dioxide milestone   determine compliance
                              (tons per year (tpy)     with the annual
                                                         milestones
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2008........................  269,083 tons SO2....  Average of 2006,
                                                     2007 and 2008.
2009........................  234,903 tons SO2....  Average of 2007,
                                                     2008 and 2009.
2010........................  200,722 tons SO2....  Average of 2008,
                                                     2009 and 2010.
2011........................  200,722 tons SO2....  Average of 2009,
                                                     2010 and 2011.
2012........................  200,722 tons SO2....  Average of 2010,
                                                     2011 and 2012.
2013........................  185,795 tons SO2....  Average of 2011,
                                                     2012 and 2013.
2014........................  170,868 tons SO2....  Average of 2012,
                                                     2013 and 2014.
2015........................  155,940 tons SO2....  Average of 2013,
                                                     2014 and 2015.
2016........................  155,940 tons SO2....  Average of 2014,
                                                     2015 and 2016.
2017........................  155,940 tons SO2....  Average of 2015,
                                                     2016 and 2017.
2018........................  141,849 tons SO2....  Year 2018 only.
2019 forward, until replaced  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 is 141,849 tpy (see Demonstration that the 
SO2 Milestones Provide Greater Reasonable Progress than 
BART, Section N of the BC RH SIP). The difference is a 60 percent 
reduction in SO2 emissions from 1990 to 2018. Thus, the AQCB 
has concluded that the emission reductions are on target to achieve the 
GCVTC goal of a 50 to 70 percent reduction of SO2 emissions 
by 2040. We are proposing to determine the RH 309 submittal meets the 
requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(i).
2. Documentation of Emissions Calculation Methods for SO2
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(ii), the SIP includes documentation 
of the specific methodology used to calculate SO2 emissions 
during the 2006 base year for each emitting unit included in the 
program. This requirement is addressed in Section N of the SIP, while 
20.11.46 NMAC provides details on the methodology.
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(ii), AQCB will document any change 
to the specific methodology used to calculate emissions at any emitting 
unit for any year after the base year. Until the program has been 
triggered and source compliance is required, AQCB will submit an annual 
emissions report that documents prior year emissions for AQCB sources 
covered by the 309 program to all participating States by September 30 
of each year. AQCB will adjust actual emission inventories for sources 
that change the method of monitoring or calculating their emissions to 
be comparable to the emission monitoring or calculation method used to 
calculate the 2006 base year inventory. The EPA is proposing to 
determine the SIP submittal satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR 
309(d)(4)(ii).
3. Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting of SO2 Emissions
    In order to meet the emission reporting requirements of 40 CFR 
51.309(d)(4)(iii), the RH 309 SIP submittal includes provisions 
requiring the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting of actual 
stationary source SO2 emissions within the City of 
Albuquerque/Bernalillo County to determine if the milestone has been 
exceeded. 20.11.46 NMAC, Sulfur Dioxide Emissions Inventory 
Requirements; Western Backstop Sulfur Dioxide Trading Program, requires 
sources to report their emissions annually. Specifically, 20.11.46.9 
NMAC defines the emission inventory and reporting requirements for 
tracking compliance with the regional sulfur dioxide milestones until 
the western backstop sulfur dioxide trading program has been fully 
implemented and emission tracking has occurred under 20.11.46.16 NMAC 
(See section V.E.3 of

[[Page 24781]]

this notice for a further detail on emission inventory requirements 
under 20.11.46.16 NMAC). We are proposing to approve 20.11.46 NMAC and 
determine that the 309 SIP submittal satisfies the requirements of 40 
CFR 51.309(d)(4)(iii).
4. Criteria and Procedures for a Market Trading Program
    As Stated above, until the backstop trading program has been 
triggered and source compliance is required, the BC RH 309 SIP 
submittal provides that BC shall submit an annual emissions report for 
sources within the City of Albuquerque/Bernalillo County to all 
participating States by September 30 of each year. The report shall 
document actual sulfur dioxide emissions during the previous calendar 
year for all sources subject to the Section 309 program. The WRAP will 
compile reports from all participating States into a draft regional 
emission report for SO2 by December 31 of each year. This 
report will include actual regional sulfur dioxide emissions, 
adjustments to account for changes in monitoring/calculation methods or 
enforcement/settlement agreements, and adjusted average emissions for 
the last three years for comparison to the regional milestone. As 
required by 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(iv), based on this compilation of 
reports from all States participating in the 309 program, States will 
determine if the milestone has been exceeded and will include a 
determination in a final regional emissions report that is submitted to 
the EPA. This final report and determination will be submitted to the 
EPA by the end of March, 15 months following the milestone year. We are 
proposing to determine the RH 309 SIP meets the requirements of 40 CFR 
51.309(d)(4)(iv).
5. Market Trading Program
    Per 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(v), the RH 309 SIP submittal provides that 
if the 309 backstop trading program is triggered, the regional 
emissions report will contain a common trigger date. In the absence of 
a common trigger date, the default date will be March 31 of the 
applicable year, but no later than 15 months after the end of the 
milestone year where the milestone was exceeded. The BC RH 309 SIP 
submittal requires that sources comply, as soon as practicable, with 
the requirement to hold allowances covering their emissions. Because 
the backstop trading program does not allow allocations to exceed the 
milestone, the program is sufficient to achieve the milestones adopted 
pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(i) as discussed above. The backstop 
trading program is also consistent with the elements for such programs 
outlined in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi). The analysis found in Section V.E. 
of this notice shows that the backstop trading program is consistent 
with the elements for trading programs outlined in 40 CFR 
51.308(e)(2)(vi), as required by Section 309. See 40 CFR 
51.309(d)(4)(v). We are proposing to determine the RH 309 SIP submittal 
meets the requirements of 40 CFR 309(d)(4)(v). We are also proposing to 
approve 20.11.46 NMAC, which includes the rules that govern the 
program. A review of 20.11.46 NMAC and revisions to the rule can be 
found in the TSD.
6. Provisions for the 2018 Milestone
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(vi)(A), the RH 309 SIP submittal 
has provisions to ensure that until a revised implementation plan is 
submitted in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(f) and approved by the EPA, 
emissions from covered stationary sources in any year beginning in 2018 
do not exceed the 2018 milestone. In order to meet this requirement, BC 
has included special provisions for what will be required as part of 
their 2013 SIP revision required under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10). The RH 309 
SIP submittal provides that the 2013 SIP revision required by 40 CFR 
51.309(d)(10) will contain either the provisions of a program designed 
to achieve reasonable progress for stationary sources of SO2 
beyond 2018 or a commitment to submit a SIP revision containing the 
provisions of such a program no later than December 31, 2016. (Section 
C, Part D of the BC RH SIP). We are proposing to determine the RH 309 
SIP submittal satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(vi)(A).
7. Special Penalty Provision for 2018
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(vi)(B), the BC RH SIP submittal 
includes special penalty provisions to ensure that the 2018 milestone 
is met. If the backstop trading is triggered and the program will not 
start until after the year 2018, a special penalty shall be assessed to 
sources that exceed the 2018 milestone (Section A.5 of the BC RH SIP, 
and Section 20.11.46.20 NMAC, which we are proposing to approve). BC 
shall seek at least the minimum financial penalty of $5,000 per ton of 
SO2 emissions in excess of a source's allowance limitation. 
Any source may resolve its excess emissions violation by agreeing to a 
streamlined settlement approach where the source pays a penalty of 
$5,000 per ton or partial ton of excess emissions and the source makes 
the payment within 90 calendar days after the issuance of a notice of 
violation. Any source that does not resolve its excess emissions 
violation in accordance with the streamlined settlement approach will 
be subject to formal enforcement action, in which the AQCB shall seek a 
financial penalty for the excess emissions based on New Mexico's 
statutory maximum civil penalties. The special penalty provisions for 
2018 will apply for each year after 2018 until BC determines that the 
2018 milestone has been met. BC will evaluate the amount of the minimum 
monetary penalty during each five-year SIP review and the penalty will 
be adjusted to ensure that penalties per ton substantially exceed the 
expected cost of allowances, and thus provide the appropriate deterrent 
effect. The EPA is proposing to determine the RH SIP submittal 
satisfies the special penalties provisions requirement at 40 CFR 
51.309(d)(4)(vi)(B), and proposed approval of 20.11.46.20 NMAC is 
included in our proposal to approve 20.11.46 NMAC.

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

    As discussed in Section IV.A of this preamble, if a State adopts an 
alternative program designed to replace ``source-by-source'' BART 
controls, the State must be able to demonstrate that the alternative 
program achieves greater reasonable progress than would be achieved by 
BART. In Section N of the BC RH SIP, Demonstration that the SO2 
Milestones Provide for Greater Reasonable Progress than BART (``better- 
than-BART'' demonstration), BC has included a demonstration of how the 
309 program achieves greater reasonable progress than BART for 
SO2. Below is a discussion of how the 309 backstop trading 
program achieves greater reasonable progress than BART. Wyoming, Utah, 
and the State of New Mexico have also submitted SIPs with the same 
better than BART demonstration as BC and thus are relying on a 
consistent demonstration across the States.
1. List of BART-Eligible Sources
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(A), BC's RH 309 SIP submittal 
offers a ``better-than-BART'' demonstration that lists the BART-
eligible sources covered by the program in the section 309 States (see 
Table 3 below). BART eligible sources are identified as those sources 
that fall within one of the 26 specific source categories, were built 
between 1962 and 1977 and have potential emissions of 250 tons per year 
of any

[[Page 24782]]

visibility impairing air pollutant. (40 CFR 51.301). The WRAP 
identified three potential BART-eligible sources in BC. These were: PNM 
Reeves Generating Station, GCC Rio Grande Inc, and Cobisa Person Power 
Project. AQCB assessed whether these facilities were existing 
stationary facilities as defined at 40 CFR 51.301 and determined all 
three sources were determined to be not BART-eligible. These facilities 
did not meet the definition for BART eligibility, because PNM Reeves 
and GCC Rio Grande were not in existence and operation during the 
requisite time period, and the other facility did not have emission 
units in the 26 source categories for BART. We are proposing to 
determine that BC has satisfied 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(A) and agree 
that there are no BART eligible sources in BC.
2. Subject to BART Determination
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(B), the section 309 States 
conducted individual source modeling on the BART-eligible sources 
within their States to determine which sources in their State causes or 
contributes to visibility impairment and are thus subject to BART. 
Having no BART-eligible sources, no modeling was required for sources 
in Bernalillo County, and no BC sources were determined to be subject 
to BART.
    The State of New Mexico, and Utah relied on modeling by the WRAP to 
identify sources subject to BART. Based on the list of identified 
sources, the WRAP performed the initial BART modeling for the State of 
New Mexico and Utah. The procedures used are outlined in the WRAP 
Regional Modeling Center (RMC) BART Modeling Protocol.\18\ The State of 
Wyoming performed separate modeling to identify sources subject to 
BART.\19\ The States established a threshold of 0.5 deciviews for 
determining if a single source causes or contributes to visibility 
impairment. If the modeling shows that a source has a 0.5 deciview 
impact at any Class I area, that source causes or contributes to 
visibility impairment and is subject to BART. Table 3 shows the BART-
eligible sources covered by the 309 backstop program and whether they 
are subject to BART. We are proposing to determine that the RH 309 SIP 
submittal satisfies 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ CALMET/CALPUFF Protocol for BART Exemption Screening 
Analysis for Class I Areas in the Western United States, Western 
Regional Air Partnership (WRAP); Gail Tonnesen, Zion Wang; Ralph 
Morris, Abby Hoats and Yiqin Jia, August 15, 2006. Available at: 
http://pah.cert.ucr.edu/aqm/308/bart/WRAP_RMC_BART_Protocol_Aug15_2006.pdf.
    \19\ 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.
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       No.
                                                                 Plant.
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

[[Page 24783]]

reductions or the BART benchmark for all subject to BART sources 
covered by the 309 program was calculated to be 48,807 tons of 
SO2. We are proposing to determine the furnished analysis 
meets the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(C).
4. Projected Emissions Reductions
    As required by 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(D), the RH 309 SIP submittal 
has provided the expected emission reductions that would result from 
the 309 backstop trading program. The ``better-than-BART'' 
demonstration projects that 2018 baseline emissions would be 190,656 
tpy of SO2 for the sources covered by the 309 program in the 
participating States. The reductions achieved by the program are 48,807 
tpy of SO2, resulting in remaining emissions of 141,849 tpy 
of SO2 in 2018. We are proposing to determine the analysis 
furnished to satisfy 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(D) is acceptable.
5. Evidence That the Trading Program Achieves Greater Reasonable 
Progress Than BART
    We are proposing to approve the RH 309 SIP submittal's 
determination that the SO2 backstop trading program achieves 
greater reasonable progress than would be achieved through the 
installation of and operation of BART at all the sources subject to 
BART in the participating States, as required by 40 CFR 
51.308(e)(2)(i)(E). As the RH 309 SIP submittal explains, the program 
ensures sources beyond BART sources are included. The backstop trading 
program includes all stationary sources with emissions greater than 100 
tpy of SO2 and thus encompasses 63 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 program also 
provides for a cap on new source growth. Future impairment is prevented 
by capping emissions growth from sources covered by the program and 
from entirely new sources in the region. BART applied on a source-
specific basis would have no impact on future growth. The backstop 
trading program also provides a 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.
6. All Emission Reductions Must Take Place During the First Planning 
Period
    The first planning period ends in 2018. As discussed in the 
preamble above, the reductions from the 309 program will occur by 2018. 
We are therefore proposing to determine the submitted plan satisfies 
the requirement of 40 CFR 51.309(e)(2)(iii).
7. Detailed Description of the Alternative Program
    The detailed description of the backstop trading program is 
provided in Section C--Emission Reductions for Stationary Sources of 
the BC RH SIP and the rules that govern it are found at 20.11.46 NMAC, 
which we are proposing to approve. We propose to determine the detailed 
description requirement in 40 CFR 51.309(e)(2)(iii) is met. The details 
of the backstop trading program are discussed in section V.E of this 
notice.
8. Surplus Reductions
    We propose to approve the determination in the RH 309 SIP submittal 
that all emission reductions resulting from the emissions trading 
program are surplus as of the baseline date of the SIP, as required by 
40 CFR 51.208(e)(2)(iv).
9. Geographic Distribution of Emissions
    The BC RH 309 SIP submittal includes a summary of modeling 
conducted by the WRAP in 2000 to compare the visibility improvement 
expected from BART to the backstop trading program for the Class I 
areas on the Colorado Plateau. A summary of the modeling results can be 
found in Section N of the BC RH SIP, which refers to data from modeling 
included in Tables 2 and 3 of Attachment C to the Annex.\20\ \21\ This 
modeling was conducted during the development of the Annex to examine 
if the geographic distribution of emissions under the trading program 
would be substantially different and disproportionately impact any 
Class I area due to a geographic concentration of emissions. The 
modeled visibility improvement for the best and worst days at the Class 
I areas for the 309 program is similar to improvement anticipated from 
the BART scenario (within 0.1 dv) on the worst and best visibility 
days, thus--if we assume participation and milestones consistent with 
the model--demonstrating that the distribution of emissions between the 
BART scenario and the 309 trading program are not substantially 
different. We note this modeling demonstration included nine States, 
many of which are not participating in the backstop trading program. We 
believe this modeling demonstration adds support to our proposed 
determination discussed above in this section that the RH 309 SIP 
submittal appropriately shows the trading program will achieve greater 
reasonable progress than would be achieved through the installation and 
operation of BART, as required by 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(E).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Voluntary Emissions Reduction Program for Major Industrial 
Sources of Sulfur Dioxide in Nine Western States and A Backstop 
Market Trading Program, an Annex to the Report of the Grand Canyon 
Visibility Transport Commission (September 2000) at C-15 and 16.
    \21\ 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 20.11.46 
NMAC, which provides enforceable rules that govern the triggering and 
administration of the program. The analysis that follows shows that the 
backstop trading program is consistent with the elements for trading 
programs outlined in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi), as required by Section 
309. See 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(v).
1. Applicability Provisions
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(A), the backstop trading 
program has the same applicability requirements in all States opting to 
participate in the program. 20.11.46.11 NMAC, which we are proposing to 
approve, contains the applicability provisions, which indicates that 
the backstop trading program generally applies to all stationary 
sources that

[[Page 24784]]

emit 100 tons per year or more of SO2 in the program trigger 
year. We are proposing to approve the 20.11.46.11 NMAC as meeting the 
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(A).
2. Allowance Provisions
    Part C.C1 of the AQCB RH SIP and 20.11.46.14 NMAC, which we propose 
to approve, contain the allowance allocation provisions as required by 
40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(B). The rule requires sources to open a 
compliance account in order to track allowances and contains other 
requirements associated with those accounts. These SIP provisions also 
contain the provisions on how BC will allocate allowances and States 
that the total number of allowances distributed cannot exceed the 
milestone for any given year. We are proposing to approve the submitted 
20.11.46.14 NMAC as meeting 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(B).
3. Monitoring and Recordkeeping Provisions
    As required by 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(C)-(E), the submitted rule 
20.11.46.16.A.1 NMAC provides that sources subject to 40 CFR part 75 
under a separate requirement from the backstop trading program shall 
meet the requirements contained in part 75 with respect to monitoring, 
recording and reporting SO2 emissions. If a unit is not 
subject to 40 CFR part 75 under a requirement separate from the trading 
program, BC requires that a source use one of the following monitoring 
methods: (1) A continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) for 
SO2 and flow that complies with all applicable monitoring 
provisions in 40 CFR part 75; (2) if the unit is a gas- or oil-fired 
combustion device, the monitoring methodology in Appendix D to 40 CFR 
part 75, or, if applicable, the low mass emissions provisions (with 
respect to SO2 mass emissions only) of section 75.19(c) of 
40 CFR part 75; (3) one of the optional protocols, if applicable, in 
20.11.46.21 NMAC or 20.11.46.22 NMAC; or (4) a petition for site-
specific monitoring that the source submits for approval by AQCB and 
the EPA in accordance with Paragraph (5) Subsection O of 20.11.46.16 
NMAC. All the above sources are required to comply with the reporting 
and recordkeeping requirements in 40 CFR part 75.
    Although most sources covered by the backstop trading program will 
be able to meet the monitoring requirements Stated above, there are 
some emission units that are either not physically able to install the 
needed equipment or do not emit enough sulfur dioxide to justify the 
expense of installing these systems. As discussed in part C5.3 of the 
AQCB RH SIP, the trading program allows these emission units to 
continue to use their pre-trigger monitoring methodology, but does not 
allow the source to transfer any allocation to that unit to another 
source. The program requires that the allowances associated with 
emission units that continue to use their pre-trigger monitoring 
methodology be placed in a special reserve compliance account, while 
allowances for other emission units are placed in a regular compliance 
account. Sources may not trade allowances out of a special reserve 
compliance account, even for use by emission units at the same source, 
but can use the allowances to show compliance for that particular unit.
    Subsection A of 20.11.46.16 NMAC allows sources with any of the 
following emission units to apply to establish a special reserve 
compliance account: (1) Any smelting operation where all of the 
emissions from the operation are not ducted to a stack; (2) any flare, 
except to the extent such flares are used as a fuel gas combustion 
device at a petroleum refinery; or (3) any other type of unit without 
add-on sulfur dioxide control equipment, if the unit belongs to one of 
the following source categories: cement kilns, pulp and paper recovery 
furnaces, lime kilns, or glass manufacturing. Pursuant to the submitted 
20.11.46.16 NMAC, sources with a special reserve compliance account are 
required to submit to BC an annual emissions Statement and sources are 
required to maintain operating records sufficient to estimate annual 
emissions consistent with the baseline emission inventory submitted in 
1998. We are proposing to approve the submitted 20.11.46.16 NMAC and 
find the submitted trading program is consistent with the monitoring, 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(C) 
through (E).
4. Tracking System
    As required by 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(F), section C2 of the 
submitted RH 309 SIP provides the overarching specifications for an 
Emissions and Allowance Tracking System (EATS). According to the BC RH 
SIP submittal, the EATS must provide that all necessary information 
regarding emissions, allowances, and transactions is publicly available 
in a secure, centralized database. The EATS must ensure that each 
allowance is uniquely identified, allow for frequent updates, and 
include enforceable procedures for recording data. If the program is 
triggered, AQCB will work with the State of New Mexico, other States, 
and tribes participating in the trading program to implement this 
system. More detailed specifications for the EATS are provided in the 
WEB Emission and Allowance Tracking System (EATS) Analysis.\22\ BC 
assumes responsibility for ensuring that all the EATS provisions are 
completed as described in its SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 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, BC will work with the State of New Mexico and the 
other participating States to designate one tracking system 
administrator (TSA). The submitted RH 309 SIP provides that the TSA 
shall be designated as expeditiously as possible, but no later than six 
months after the program trigger date. BC will enter into a binding 
contract with the TSA that shall require the TSA to perform all TSA 
functions described in the SIP and in 20.11.46 NMAC, such as 
transferring and recording allowances. We propose to determine the 
submitted trading program has adequate tracking system provisions in 
accordance with CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(F).
5. Account Representative
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(G), the submitted RH 309 SIP 
relies on submitted rule 20.11.46.12 NMAC, which contains provisions 
for the establishment of an account representative. The SIP submittal 
requires each source to identify one account representative. The 
account representative shall submit to BC and the TSA a signed and 
dated certificate that contains a certification Statement verifying 
that the account representative has all the necessary authority to 
carry out the account representative responsibilities under the trading 
program on behalf of the owners and operators of the sources. The 
certification Statement also needs to indicate and that each such owner 
and operator shall be fully bound by the account representatives 
representations, actions, inactions, or submissions and by any decision 
or order issued to the account representative by BC regarding the 
trading program. We are proposing to determine the submitted rule 
20.11.46.12 NMAC and the submitted SIP meet the requirements for 
``authorized account representative provisions'' in 40 CFR 
51.308(e)(2)(vi)(G).

[[Page 24785]]

6. Allowance Transfers
    The submitted RH 309 SIP establishes procedures pertaining to 
allowance transfers to meet the requirement of 40 CFR 
51.308(e)(2)(vi)(H). 20.11.46.17 NMAC, a submitted rule we propose to 
approve, contains requirements sources must follow for allowance 
transfers. To transfer or retire allowances, the account representative 
shall submit the transfer account number(s) identifying the transferor 
account, the serial number of each allowance to be transferred, the 
transferor's account representative's name and signature, and date of 
submission. The allowance transfer deadline is midnight Pacific 
Standard Time on March 1 of each year following the end of the control 
period. Sources must correctly submit transfers by this time in order 
for a source to be able to use the allowance to demonstrate compliance. 
We are proposing to approve 20.11.46.17 as being consistent with the 
program elements required at 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(H).
    Section C3 of the RH 309 SIP provides the procedures the TSA must 
follow to transfer allowances. The TSA will record an allowance 
transfer by moving each allowance from the transferor account to the 
transferee account as specified by the request from the source, if the 
transfer is correctly submitted and the transferor account includes 
each allowance identified in the transfer. Within five business days of 
the recording of an allowance transfer, the TSA shall notify the 
account representatives of both the transferor and transferee accounts, 
and make the transfer information publicly available on the Internet. 
Within five business days of receipt of an allowance transfer that 
fails to meet the requirements for transfer, the TSA will notify the 
account representatives of both accounts of the decision not to record 
the transfer, and the reasons for not recording the transfer. We are 
proposing to determine the submitted trading program is consistent with 
the ``allowance transfer provisions'' requirement of 40 CFR 
51.308(e)(2)(vi)(H).
7. Compliance Provisions
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(I), the trading program in the 
submitted RH 309 SIP provides the procedures for determining compliance 
and relies on submitted rule 20.11.46.19 NMAC, which we are proposing 
to approve. Per this submitted rule, the source must hold allowances as 
of the allowance transfer deadline in the source's compliance account 
(together with any current control year allowances held in the source's 
special reserve compliance account) in an amount not less than the 
total SO2 emissions for the control period from the source. 
AQCB determines compliance by comparing allowances held by the source 
in their compliance account(s) with the total annual SO2 
emissions reported by the source. If the comparison of the allowances 
to emissions results in emissions exceeding allowances, the source's 
excess emissions are subject to the allowance deduction penalty in 
20.11.46.19 C. NMAC (discussed in further detail below). We are 
proposing to determine the submitted rule 20.11.46.19 NMAC is 
consistent with the ``compliance provisions'' requirement of 40 CFR 
51.308(e)(2)(vi)(I).
8. Penalty Provisions
    The submitted rule 20.11.46.19 C. NMAC provides the penalty 
provisions as required by 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(J). Per this section, 
a source's allowances will be reduced by an amount equal to three times 
the source's tons of excess emissions if they are unable to show 
compliance. We are proposing to determine the submitted rule 
20.11.46.19 is consistent with the ``penalty provisions'' requirement 
of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(J).
9. Banking of Allowances
    As allowed by 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(K), 20.11.46.18 NMAC, which 
we propose to approve, allows sources to use allowances from current 
and prior years to demonstrate compliance, with some restrictions. 
Sources can only use 2018 allowances to show compliance with the 2018 
milestone and may not use allowances from prior years. In order to 
insure that the use of banked allowances does not interfere with the 
attainment or maintenance of reasonable progress goals, the backstop 
trading program includes flow-control provisions (see section C4 of the 
RH 309 SIP submittal). The flow control provisions are triggered if the 
TSA determines that the banked allowances exceed ten percent of the 
milestone for the next control year, and thereby ensure that too many 
banked emissions are not used in any one year. We are proposing to 
determine the submitted trading program has provisions that clarifies 
the restrictions on the use of banked allowances, consistent with the 
requirement in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(K).
10. Program Assessment
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(L), section D1 of the BC RH SIP 
submittal contains provisions for a 2013 assessment. For the 2013 
assessment, BC will work with the State of New Mexico and other 
participating States to develop a projected emission inventory for 
SO2 through the year 2018. BC will then evaluate the 
projected inventory and assess the likelihood of meeting the regional 
milestone for the year 2018. BC shall include this assessment as part 
of the 2013 progress report that must be submitted under 40 CFR 
51.309(d)(10). We are proposing to determine the RH 309 SIP submittal 
is consistent with the program assessment provisions requirement in 40 
CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(L).

F. Provisions for Stationary Source NOX and PM

    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(vii) and 40 CFR 51.309(g), BC's RH 
SIP submittal contains BART and long-term strategies to address 
NOX and PM emissions As previously discussed, no sources in 
Bernalillo County satisfied the definition for BART-eligible sources at 
40 CFR 51.301. An assessment of emissions control strategies for 
stationary source NOX and PM, and the degree of visibility 
improvement that would result from implementation of the identified 
strategies was prepared by the WRAP. This report, Stationary Source 
NOX and PM Emissions in the WRAP Region: An Initial 
Assessment of Emissions, Controls, and Air Quality Impacts, is included 
in Appendix H-O of the AQCB RH SIP. This report represents the initial 
assessment of stationary source NOX and PM strategies for 
regional haze. Long-term strategies are discussed in section V. N 
below.

G. Mobile Sources

    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(5)(i), BC, in collaboration with the 
WRAP, assembled a comprehensive Statewide inventory of mobile source 
emissions that was included in the RH 309 SIP submittal. The inventory 
included 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.\23\ These 
inventories for New Mexico and the Albuquerque urban area are 
summarized in Tables 10, 10.1, 10.2, and 10.3 of the BC RH SIP. Mobile 
source emissions (on-road and non-road) are projected to be at their 
lowest level within Bernalillo County at the end of the planning period 
primarily

[[Page 24786]]

due to on-road vehicle emission and fuel standards established by the 
EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Appendix 2007-C of the AQCB RH SIP, Summary and Discussion 
of 1996 Through 2018 Mobile Source Emissions Inventories. Technical 
Memo from Tom Moore to Mobile Sources Forum. November 26, 2002.; 
Final Report: Development of WRAP Mobile Source Emission 
Inventories, ENVIRON, Feb. 9, 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An emission inventory update was also done for a 2002 base year and 
emission projections for the years 2008, 2013, and 2018.\24\ The 
inventory shows a continuous decline in emissions from mobile sources 
from VOC, NOX, PM2.5, elemental carbon (EC), and 
organic carbon (OC) emissions over the period of 2002-2018. Per 40 CFR 
51.309(d)(5)(i)(A), the inventories show a decline in mobile source 
emissions and therefore no further action is required by the AQCB to 
address mobile source emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 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), Section D 1.(c) of the BC RH 
SIP States that BC will submit a SIP revision no later than December 
31, 2013, containing any long-term strategies necessary to reduce 
SO2 emissions from non-road mobile sources consistent with 
the goal of reasonable progress, if necessary, based on consideration 
of the emission reductions achieved by Federal standards. We note the 
available emission inventory projections show that there will be a 99 
percent decrease in SO2 emissions from non-road mobile 
sources for 2002-2018. The reduction will result from compliance with 
EPA's rule titled Control of Emissions of Air Pollution from Non-road 
Diesel Engines and Fuel (see 69 FR 38958). A 99 percent reduction in 
SO2 from non-road mobile sources is consistent with the goal 
of reasonable progress and no other long-term strategies are necessary 
to address SO2 emissions from non-road mobile sources at 
this time. Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(5)(ii), BC will submit interim 
reports to the EPA in 2013 and 2018 on the implementation of regional 
and local recommendations from the GCVTC report pertaining to mobile 
sources. BC will include these reports as part of the reports required 
by 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10). We propose to determine the RH 309 SIP 
submittal satisfies the requirements of 51 CFR 51.309(d)(5).

H. Programs Related to Fire

    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6), the BC RH SIP submittal must 
provide for an evaluation of how its SIP meets the 51.309(d)(6) 
``Programs related to fire'' requirements.
    Based on our review of Section E of the BC RH SIP submittal, we 
propose to find that the RH SIP submittal meets the 309(d)(6) 
requirements as discussed in detail below. We also propose approval of 
revisions to the BC's Open Burning rule submitted to us on December 26, 
2003 and July 28, 2011. The 2003, and the 2011 submittals revise and 
replace BC's Open Burning rule of 1980 that the EPA approved into the 
SIP. By proposing to approve the December 26, 2003, and the July 28, 
2011 submittals, we are proposing to repeal BC's Open Burning rule of 
1980 from the SIP.
1. Evaluation of Current Fire Programs
    BC's submittal meets 51.309(d)(6)(i) as it demonstrates how its 
smoke management program and all federal or private programs for 
prescribed fire in BC have a mechanism in place for evaluating and 
addressing the degree of visibility impairment from smoke in their 
planning and application of burning. For example, Tables 11 and 12 of 
the BC RH SIP submittal document the relevant federal, State and local 
programs that address visibility. See Tables 11 and 12 for references 
to the State of New Mexico's Open Burning Rule (20.2.60 NMAC), and the 
State of New Mexico's Smoke Management Rule (20.2.65 NMAC). To address 
local programs, BC has adopted the Albuquerque-Bernalillo County Open 
Burning Regulation (20.11.21 NMAC) and submitted this to us for SIP 
approval and as noted previously, today we are proposing to approve it. 
The rule was first approved by the EPA on April 10, 1980. See 45 FR 
24468. To address the Regional Haze Rule requirements, the AQCB later 
revised its rules in 2003 and 2011. See submittals at the EPA docket 
identified No. EPA-R06-OAR-2009-0648. A more detailed discussion of our 
proposed approval of the BC Open Burning Rule can be found in the TSD. 
There are two types of burns specified by the rule. PB-I burns are 
those burn projects expected to generate less than one ton per day of 
PM10 and PB-II burns are those burn projects expected to 
generate one ton per day or more of PM10.
    We propose to find that BC's Open Burning Rule meets the specific 
additional requirements of 51.309(d)(6)(i) which address: (a) Actions 
to minimize emissions, (b) evaluation of smoke dispersion, (c) 
alternatives to fire, (d) public notification, (e) air quality 
monitoring, (f) surveillance and enforcement, and (g) program 
evaluation. These are discussed below.
a. Actions To Minimize Emissions
    In order to minimize emissions, Section 20.11.21.19 of BC's Open 
Burn Rule requires the use of emission reduction techniques (ERT) by 
burners. Any techniques used in conjunction with burning that reduce 
the actual amount of emissions produced from a planned burn project are 
considered emission reduction techniques. Emission reduction techniques 
are described in 20.11.21.19 NMAC and include reducing the area burned, 
mechanical treatments, chemical pre-treatments, site conversion, land 
use change, reduction in fuel loading, reduction in fuel consumption, 
minimization of emission factor, and the use of an air curtain 
incinerator. The rule requires land managers burning PB-II burns to use 
at a minimum, one emission reduction technique included in 20.11.21.19 
NMAC for each planned burn project (20.11.21.15 C.(3) NMAC). PB-II 
burners will indicate on the required form which emission reduction 
techniques are being utilized for each planned burn project. We propose 
to find that this portion of the Open Burning rule meets this 
requirement.
b. Evaluation of Smoke Dispersion
    To evaluate smoke dispersion, 20.11.21.15 B.(1)(b) NMAC only allows 
PB-I burns to be ignited during daytime hours when the ventilation 
index category is rated ``Good'' or better as determined by using the 
methodology outlined in 20.11.21.17 NMAC. To comply with this 
requirement, the burner must conduct visual monitoring and document the 
results in writing. These results include an evaluation of the smoke 
dispersion by recording characteristics of the smoke (e.g., color, 
density), including the general compass direction of dispersion, the 
patterns of vertical dispersion, and the duration of the smoke 
plume(s), and corresponding time-of-day information. For burns within 1 
mile of a population, the burner must notify the population in advance 
and AQCB may choose to conduct instrument monitoring (20.11.21.15 B.(5) 
NMAC).
    For PB-II burns, 20.11.21.15 C. NMAC provides the burner can ignite 
a planned burn project only during times when the ventilation category 
is ``Good'' or better \25\ as determined by using the methodology 
outlined in 20.11.21.17 NMAC, and must notify the public at least two 
days prior to the burn. The burner must conduct visual monitoring and 
document the results in writing. The AQCB may choose to conduct 
instrument monitoring in addition to visual monitoring. We propose to 
find

[[Page 24787]]

that this portion of the Open Burning rule meets this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Ventilation category is a classification that describes the 
potential for smoke to ventilate away from its source. The 
classification (Excellent, Very Good, Good, Fair, Poor) is 
determined by multiplying the mixing height in feet by the transport 
winds in knots, thus providing the ventilation category in knot-
feet. The ventilation category can be found in the National Weather 
Service's Fire Weather Forecast, which is the State approved source 
for this information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Alternatives to Fire
    To address the alternatives to fire requirement, 20.11.21.15 C.(2) 
NMAC requires that for burns exceeding 1 ton PM10 emissions 
per day, burners must consider the use of alternatives to burning. 
Burners must then document that the use of alternatives to burning was 
considered prior to the decision to utilize fire. The documentation 
includes citing the feasibility criterion that prevented the use of 
alternatives. This documentation must be included on the registration 
form provided by the AQCB. The alternatives to fire that must be 
considered are described in 20.11.21.18 NMAC. We propose to find that 
this portion of the Open Burning rule meets this requirement.
d. Public Notification
    To meet the public notification requirements, 20.11.21.15 B.(5)(b) 
NMAC requires that for PB-I burns, burners must make a good faith 
effort to notify the populations that are located within one mile of 
the planned burn project. The method of notification shall be an 
advertisement in a newspaper of general circulation in the area where 
the burn will take place, or other means, as approved by the AQCB to 
ensure that adequate notice is provided to the affected public. The 
burner must conduct public notification no sooner than 30 days and no 
later than two days in advance of the ignition of the planned burn 
project. In addition, the burner will also notify the local fire 
authorities prior to igniting a burn and register the burn project with 
Albuquerque environmental health department as required by 20.11.21.15 
B.(2)-(3) NMAC. The Open Burning rule at 20.11.21.15 (C) NMAC requires 
that for PB-II burns, burners must make a good faith effort to notify 
the public using an advertisement in a newspaper of general circulation 
in the area where the burn will take place, or other means, as approved 
by the AQCB to ensure that adequate notice is provided to the affected 
public. The burner must conduct public notification no sooner than 30 
days and no later than two days in advance of the ignition of the 
planned burn project as required by 20.11.21.15 C.(11) NMAC. In 
addition, the burner will also notify the local fire authorities prior 
to igniting a burn and register the burn project with Albuquerque 
environmental health department as required by 20.11.21.15 C.(6)-(7) 
NMAC. We propose to find that this portion of the Open Burning rule 
meets this requirement.
e. Air Quality Monitoring
    To address air quality monitoring, NMAC sections 20.11.21.15 
B.(1)(b)(ii), B.(5)(a), and C.(5) require that PB-I and PB-II burners 
conduct and document visual monitoring on all planned burn projects. 
Burners will evaluate the smoke dispersion by recording characteristics 
of the smoke (e.g., color, density), including the general compass 
direction of dispersion, the patterns of vertical dispersion, and the 
duration of the smoke plume(s). The use of monitoring equipment will be 
based on the planned burn project's proximity to a population, 
nonattainment area, or Class I area and will be determined on a case-
by-case basis. We propose to find that this portion of the Open Burning 
rule meets this requirement.
f. Surveillance and Enforcement
    To address surveillance and enforcement requirements, 20.11.21 NMAC 
requires that the permittee submit reports and burn project tracking 
forms to the AQCB on PB-I and PB-II burns. See 20.11.21.15 NMAC. In 
addition, 20.11.21.13F States that any permit issued under the rule may 
be revoked or suspended, if the applicant fails to comply with the 
permit provisions therein, and the permittee may be subject to 
enforcement actions. We propose to find that this portion of the Open 
Burning rule meets this requirement.
g. Program Evaluation
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6)(i), BC has included in the RH 309 
SIP submittal an evaluation of its smoke management program and all 
Federal, State, and private prescribed fire smoke management programs 
in Bernalillo County based on the potential to contribute to visibility 
impairment in the 16 Class I Areas of the Colorado Plateau, and how 
visibility protection from smoke is addressed in planning and 
operation. The RH SIP submittal also contains an evaluation of whether 
its smoke management program and these prescribed fire smoke management 
programs contain the following elements: Actions to minimize emissions; 
evaluation of smoke dispersion; alternatives to fire; public 
notification; air quality monitoring; surveillance and enforcement; and 
program evaluation. The SIP at Section E(b) and Tables 11 and 12 
describe the results of these evaluations in detail. For example, BC 
commits to host an annual meeting with all burners and interested 
stakeholders to assess the adequacy of the design, impact, and 
implementation of the program. BC commits to review gathered data with 
stakeholders on an annual basis that will serve to establish annual 
emissions goals. It has also adopted an Open Burning regulation at 
20.11.21 NMAC that serves as the foundation of the Open Burning 
Program, which the AQCB administers and enforces. We propose to find 
that the BC RH SIP submittal meets the requirement for program 
evaluation under 51.309(d)(6)(i).
2. Inventory and Tracking System
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6)(ii), States must include in their 
section 309 plan a Statewide process for gathering the essential post-
burn activity information to support emissions inventory and tracking 
systems. The BC RH SIP submittal provides for inventory and tracking 
measures that we propose to find meet the 309(d)(6)(ii) requirement. 
See Section E(c) of the BC RH SIP submittal. For example, BC's Open 
Burning rule at 20.11.21.15 NMAC includes requirements for PB-I and PB-
II burners to report on emissions from their burns including 
quantitative information regarding fuel types, fuel consumption, and 
type of burn to maintain an adequate emission inventory. The AQCB 
maintains a fire emission inventory of the following pollutants: VOC, 
NOX, elemental carbon, organic carbon, and fine particulate 
for fire sources within Bernalillo County. 20.11.21.15.B(4) NMAC 
requires applicants for PB-I burns to complete and submit to the AQCB a 
burn project tracking form within two weeks after completion of the 
burn activity. 20.11.21.15.C(9) NMAC requires applicants for PB-II 
burns to complete and submit to the AQCB a burn project tracking form 
within two weeks after completion of the burn activity. Completion of 
these tracking forms in conjunction with the emission quantification 
requirements described in 20.11.21.16 should serve as the basis for 
inventory and tracking of emissions in Open Burning rule. The emissions 
tracking system follows the WRAP Fire Tracking System Policy (See 
Appendix K-O of the ABQ RH SIP). BC will submit emission inventory 
reports to the WRAP and each year, BC will complete an emissions 
inventory and submit the report to the State of New Mexico, as required 
under 20.11.47 Emissions Inventory Requirements. We are proposing to 
determine the RH SIP submittal meets these requirements.
3. Identification and Removal of Administrative Barriers
    We propose to find that the BC RH SIP submittal meets the 
requirements for 309(d)(6)(iii) that requires that States

[[Page 24788]]

identify existing administrative barriers to the use of non-burning 
alternatives and adopt a process for continuing to identify and remove 
administrative barriers where feasible. Section E(d) of the RH SIP 
submittal, describes the process the AQCB commits to undertake to 
address this requirement. For example, the AQCB is committed to work 
with key public and private entities to identify and remove 
administrative barriers to the use of alternatives to burning for 
prescribed fire on federal, State, and private lands, pursuant to 40 
CFR 51.309(d)(6)(iii). The process is collaborative and provides for 
continuing identification and removal of administrative barriers, and 
considers economic, safety, technical and environmental feasibility 
criteria, and land management objectives. The BC RH SIP relies on Non-
burning Alternatives for Vegetation and Fuel Management, and Burning 
Management Alternatives on Agricultural Lands in the Western United 
States (Appendix 2007-E of the BC RH SIP) developed by the WRAP for 
non-burning alternatives and methods to assess their applicability. 
Should the AQCB determine that an administrative barrier exists, the 
AQCB will work collaboratively with the appropriate public and private 
entities to evaluate the administrative barrier, identify the steps 
necessary to remove the administrative barrier, and initiate the 
removal of the administrative barrier, where it is feasible to do so. 
During the development of revisions to the Open Burning rule, the AQCB 
identified one potential administrative barrier to the use of non-
burning alternatives that concerns the use of air curtain incinerators 
(ACIs). An ACI is a pollution control device which operates by 
forcefully projecting a curtain of air across an open chamber or pit in 
which combustion occurs. Introducing high velocity air into the 
combustion zone acts as a ``curtain'' and trapping the smoke and the 
particulate matter. Use of this control device will enhance combustion, 
compared with open burning, and will curb smoke and particulate 
emissions. This curtain also helps with maintaining a higher combustion 
zone temperature, thus improving the efficiency of the burn. 
Furthermore, ACIs reduce risk of an escaped fire and could be 
considered for safety reasons. Therefore, use of ACIs as an ERT is 
acceptable. Such a use would be available to a source through BC's 
regulation 20.22.7 NMAC. As BC's rules are currently structured, ACI's 
are not allowed (See 20.11.68 NMAC) unless a variance to such a 
prohibition is granted by BC under existing rules. See 20.22.7 NMAC. In 
addition, the granting or approval of a variance by the board does not 
mean automatic approval by the EPA. A source operating under a variance 
may be subject to federal enforcement for not meeting the SIP unless 
the State/local agency adopts and submits the variance to the EPA 
approval as a SIP revision. We suggest that BC be proactive in taking 
the necessary steps they need to revise their Open Burning rules to 
allow for ACI's in appropriate circumstances without the need to issue 
variances. The alternatives to fire developed by BC are described in 
20.11.21.18 NMAC.
4. Enhanced Smoke Management Program
    We propose to find that BC's RH SIP submittal and Open Burning rule 
meet the requirements for 309(d)(iv) that requires the SIP include an 
enhanced smoke management program, which means the smoke management 
program considers visibility and is based on the criteria of 
efficiency, economics, law, emission reduction opportunities, land 
management objectives, and reduction of visibility impairment. Pursuant 
to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6)(iv), the smoke management programs that operate 
within Bernalillo County are consistent with the WRAP Policy on 
Enhanced Smoke Management Programs for Visibility (WRAP ESMP). A copy 
of this policy can be found in the Appendix M-O of the BC RH SIP 
submittal. The intent of the WRAP ESMP is to assist States to address 
visibility effects associated with fire in a way that is adequate for a 
SIP. The BC's Open Burning regulation, 20.11.21 NMAC, which became 
effective on December 31, 2003 and was subsequently amended and 
submitted for approval meets the Enhanced Smoke Management Program 
(ESMP) policy and the Regional Haze Rule (RHR) requirements as 
described above.
5. Annual Emission Goal
    We propose to find that BC's RH SIP submittal meets the 
requirements for 309(d)(v) that requires that States adopt a process to 
establish annual emission goals to minimize emission increases from 
fire. Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6)(v), BC's RH SIP submittal 
describes how it meets this requirement. It has committed to use the 
policies set out by Western Regional Air Partnership Policy on Annual 
Emission Goals for Fire to minimize emission increases in fire through 
the use of annual emission goals. A copy of this policy can be found in 
Appendix N-O of the BC RH SIP. BC will use a collaborative mechanism 
for setting annual emission goals and developing a process for tracking 
their attainment on a yearly basis. In addition, BC`s Open Burning rule 
at 20.11.21.19 NMAC relies on emission reduction techniques (ERT), 
where appropriate, to minimize emission increases in fire within 
Bernalillo County. Under that rule, BC will quantify the ERTs that are 
being used within Bernalillo County on a project-specific basis to 
reduce the total amount of emissions being generated from areas where 
prescribed fire is being used. As described above, the amended Open 
Burning regulation, 20.11.21 NMAC, requires the use of at least one ERT 
for all prescribed fires with emissions exceeding one ton of 
PM10 per day.

I. Paved and Unpaved Road Dust

    To meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(7), the submitted RH 
309 SIP relies on the assessment WRAP performed on the impact of dust 
emissions from paved and unpaved roads on the 16 Class I areas of the 
Colorado Plateau. The WRAP modeled and calculated the significance of 
road dust in terms of the impact on visibility on the worst 20 percent 
days. The modeled regional impact of road dust emissions ranged from 
0.31 deciviews at the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park to 
0.08 deciviews at the Weminuche Wilderness Area. For more information 
on the WRAP modeling and assessment of road dust impacts, see Chapter 7 
of the WRAP TSD.\26\ Based on the WRAP modeling, the AQCB has concluded 
in section F of the SIP that road dust is not a significant contributor 
to visibility impairment in the 16 Class I areas. We propose to agree 
that road dust is not a significant contributor to visibility 
impairment. Since AQCB has found that road dust is not a significant 
contributor to visibility impairment, there is no need to include road 
dust control strategies in the SIP pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(7). 
AQCB will track road dust emissions with the assistance of the WRAP and 
provide an update on paved and unpaved road dust emission trends, 
including any modeling or monitoring information regarding the impact 
of these emissions on visibility in the 16 Colorado Plateau Class I 
Areas. These updates will include a reevaluation of whether road dust 
is a significant contributor to visibility impairment. These updates 
shall be part of the periodic implementation plan

[[Page 24789]]

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

    \26\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We note BC has taken additional measures to address fugitive dust 
in Fugitive Dust Control, 20.11.20 NMAC,\27\ in order to protect human 
health and air quality. The regulation requires the use of reasonably 
available control measures to reduce fugitive dust that adversely 
affects public health, welfare, safety, or impairs visibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 20.11.20 NMAC was previously approved by EPA on April 1, 
2009 (74 FR 14731).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Pollution Prevention

    Under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(8), States must provide information on 
renewable energy and other pollution prevention efforts in the State. 
40 CFR 51.309(d)(8) does not require States to adopt any new measures 
or regulations. We propose to find the information BC provided in the 
RH 309 SIP submittal adequate to meet the requirements of 40 CFR 
51.309(d)(8) as discussed below.
1. Description of Existing Pollution Prevention Program
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(8)(i), Tables 13 through 17of the BC 
RH SIP submittal summarize all pollution prevention and renewable 
energy programs currently in place in New Mexico (as of 2003) that 
could affect Bernalillo County. Table 18 shows all renewable energy 
capacity and production in use or planned in the county as of 2002 (See 
Appendix O-O for Statewide capacity and production). BC also determined 
the total energy generation capacity and production within Bernalillo 
County and New Mexico.
2. Incentive Programs
    Per 40 CFR 51.309(d)(8)(ii), Table 20 of the BC RH SIP submittal 
identifies incentive programs in the State of New Mexico that reward 
efforts for early compliance or to go beyond compliance by 
participating in the 309 regional SO2 backstop trading 
program. The backstop trading program allows for early reduction 
credits. Sources of SO2 subject to the trading program that 
reduce emissions prior to the program trigger date shall receive 
additional emission allowances. The source may use such allowances for 
compliance purposes or may sell them to other parties.
3. Programs To Preserve and Expand Energy Conservation Efforts
    Per 40 CFR 51.309(d)(8)(iii), Tables 13 through 17 of the BC RH SIP 
submittal discuss the policies and programs within the State of New 
Mexico that preserve and expand energy conservation efforts and 
renewable energy which have a direct effect on Bernalillo County.
4. Potential for Renewable Energy
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(8)(iv), the RH SIP submittal contains 
an assessment of areas where there is the potential for renewable 
energy to supply power in a cost effective manner. Appendix O-O of the 
submitted RH SIP summarizes the potential for renewable energy 
development in New Mexico.
5. Projections of Renewable Energy Goals, Energy Efficiency, and 
Pollution Prevention Activities
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(8)(v), the submitted BC RH SIP 
submittal uses projections made by the WRAP of the short and long-term 
emissions reductions, visibility improvements, cost savings, and 
secondary benefits associated with renewable energy goals, energy 
efficiency, and pollution prevention activities. (A complete 
description of these projections can be found in Appendix O-O of the 
SIP). The SIP provides overall projections of visibility improvements 
for the 16 Class I areas (Table 2). These projections include the 
combined effects of all measures in this SIP, including air pollution 
prevention programs. Although emission reductions and visibility 
improvements from air pollution prevention programs are expected at 
some level, they were not explicitly calculated because the resolution 
of the regional air quality modeling system is not currently sufficient 
to show any significant visibility changes resulting from the marginal 
nitrogen oxide emission reductions expected from air pollution 
prevention programs.
6. Programs To Achieve GCVTC Renewable Energy Goal
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(8)(vi), the submitted BC RH SIP 
indicates that BC and the State of New Mexico will rely on current 
renewable energy programs as described in Tables 13 through 17 and 
Appendix O-O of the RH SIP submittal to demonstrate progress in 
achieving the renewable energy goal of the GCVTC. The GCVTC's goal is 
that renewable energy will comprise 10 percent of the regional power 
needs by 2005 and 20 percent by 2015. BC will submit progress reports 
in 2013 and 2018, describing Bernalillo County's share of New Mexico's 
contribution toward meeting the GCVTC renewable energy goals. To the 
extent that it is not feasible for Bernalillo County to meet its 
contribution to these goals, BC will identify what measures were 
implemented to achieve its contribution, and explain why meeting its 
contribution was not feasible.

K. Additional Recommendations

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

L. Periodic Implementation Plan Revisions

    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i), section I of the BC RH SIP 
submittal requires BC to submit to the EPA, as a SIP revision, periodic 
progress reports for the years 2013 and 2018. The AQCB will assess 
whether current programs are achieving reasonable progress in Class I 
areas outside Bernalillo County that are affected by emissions from 
within Bernalillo County. BC will address the elements listed under 40 
CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(A) through (G) in the progress reports.
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(ii), the BC RH SIP submittal 
provides that BC will take one of the following actions based upon 
information contained in each periodic progress report. BC will provide 
a negative declaration Statement to the EPA saying that no SIP revision 
is needed if BC determines reasonable progress is being achieved. If 
the BC finds that the SIP is inadequate to ensure reasonable progress 
due to emissions from outside Bernalillo County, BC will notify the EPA 
and the contributing State(s), and initiate efforts through a regional 
planning process to address the emissions in question. If BC finds that 
the SIP is inadequate to ensure reasonable progress due to emissions 
from another country, BC will

[[Page 24790]]

notify the EPA and provide information on the impairment being caused 
by these emissions. If BC finds that the SIP is inadequate to ensure 
reasonable progress due to emissions from within Bernalillo County, BC 
will develop emission reduction strategies to address the emissions and 
revise the SIP no later than one year from the date that the progress 
report was due. We propose to determine the RH 309 SIP submittal 
adequately addresses the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10) for 
future progress reports.

M. InterState Coordination

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

N. Additional Class I Areas

    The EPA is proposing to find that BC has identified the Class I 
areas which may be affected by emissions from within Bernalillo County, 
as required by 40 CFR 51.309(g), which provides a requirement for 
compliance with 40 CFR 51.308(d) to the extent planning is necessary 
for areas other than the 16 Class I areas addressed in the 309 SIP. 
There are no Class I areas within Bernalillo County, therefore BC is 
not required to identify reasonable progress goals or calculate 
baseline and natural visibility conditions at any Class I area. 
However, BC is required to address the apportionment of visibility 
impact from the emissions generated by sources within Bernalillo County 
at Class I areas outside of the county borders. There are a total of 
nine Class I areas within the State of New Mexico that are located 
close enough to BC that they may plausibly be affected by emissions 
from Bernalillo County (Table 4), as discussed in Section L of the BC 
RH SIP submittal.

              Table 4--Class I Areas Near Bernalillo County
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Distance from
                      Class I area                          Bernalillo
                                                            County (km)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bandelier Wilderness....................................              83
Bosque del Apache Wilderness............................             144
Carlsbad Caverns National Park..........................             387
Gila Wilderness.........................................             254
Salt Creek Wilderness...................................             274
Wheeler Peak Wilderness and Pecos Wilderness \28\.......             195
White Mountain Wilderness...............................             266
San Pedro Parks Wilderness Area \29\....................             106
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(iii), the determinations in the BC 
RH SIP submittal relied on the technical analysis and emission 
inventories developed by the WRAP which is documented in the WRAP TSD 
and available online at the WRAP Technical Support 
System.30 31 The WRAP modeled the impacts of emissions from 
each State on visibility impairment at each Class I area in the West. 
Emissions were not analyzed on an individual county-level scale so 
modeling results are not available to quantify the impact of emissions 
from Bernalillo County on visibility. BC conducted a qualitative 
analysis based on modeling results for Statewide New Mexico emissions 
that provide information on the impact of New Mexico sources by source 
category and pollutant, emissions inventory data for individual 
counties in New Mexico, and weighted emission potential maps. This 
analysis is summarized in Section L of the BC RH SIP submittal. The 
full analysis is available as Appendix 2007-H and in the addendum to 
Appendix 2007-H of the BC RH SIP. BC also prepared an evaluation of 
emission inventory trends for 2002, 2005, and 2008 for NOX 
and SO2 emissions for Bernalillo County (Appendix 2010 B of 
the BC RH SIP).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ The IMPROVE monitoring site representing Pecos Wilderness 
is located near Wheeler Peak Wilderness.
    \29\ San Pedro Parks Wilderness Area, located in New Mexico, is 
one of the 16 Class I areas of the Colorado Plateau. The visibility 
requirements for this area are covered under the Section 309 
submittal evaluated in the preceding sections.
    \30\ http://vista.cira.coloState.edu/tss/.
    \31\ EPA's review of the WRAP photochemical modeling is included 
in the docket, Technical Support Document for Technical Products 
Prepared by the Western Regional Air Partnership in Support of 
Western Regional Haze Plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The analysis in the BC RH SIP submittal identifies some 
inaccuracies in the emission inventories used by the WRAP to model the 
2002 baseline and the 2018 future case. The 2002 and 2018 emission 
projections are higher than expected when compared to the reduction in 
SO2 emissions observed in the actual emissions inventories 
for 2002, 2005 and 2008. Bernalillo County's SO2 emissions 
estimated by the WRAP for 2002 are approximately 5000 TPY, whereas the 
actual emissions for SO2 reported to the EPA for 2002 was 
only 1574.9 TPY and have decreased significantly to approximately 260 
TPY reported for 2008. The 2018 emissions used by the WRAP in the 
photochemical modeling for BC projected an increase in emissions of 
approximately 9000 TPY over 2002 emissions. Regardless of the rate of 
population growth and increase in vehicle miles traveled within 
Bernalillo County, it is clear that with current low-sulfur fuel 
regulations such a large increase in emissions is unrealistic. We note 
that Statewide emissions of SO2 in New Mexico estimated by 
the WRAP are not projected to increase significantly by 2018, even 
including the overestimation of Bernalillo County emissions. We also 
note that Bernalillo County emissions are primarily area and mobile 
emissions due to its large residential area. The county has no oil and 
gas development, mining or large EGUs within its boundaries. Similarly, 
NOX emission estimates used in the WRAP modeling are higher 
than emissions reported to the EPA. Table 5 shows a comparison of 
emission data from Bernalillo County (Appendix 2010-B of the BC RH SIP) 
to emissions included in the WRAP estimates and photochemical modeling.

                       Table 5--Comparison of Bernalillo County Emission Estimates to WRAP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Bernalillo County emissions (Appendix 2010-B)          WRAP emissions
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       2002            2005            2008            2002            2018
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX.............................         24930.6         23231.3         13570.9        33856.36        26878.08
SO2.............................          1574.9          1594.9           261.1         4996.01        14073.54
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 24791]]

    Taking this into account and evaluating Bernalillo County's 
contribution of emissions to the Statewide inventory, BC concluded that 
it is improbable that Bernalillo County emissions have significant 
impacts on nearby Class I areas. Bernalillo County's contribution of 
emissions for NOX and SO2 to the New Mexico 
emission inventory for 2002, as estimated by the WRAP is 10% of the 
Statewide NOX emissions and 9% of Statewide SO2 
emissions.
    The EPA is proposing to find that BC adequately evaluated the Class 
I areas that may be impacted by sources of air pollution within 
Bernalillo County and BC adequately determined that, at this time, it 
is improbable that sources located within the county cause or 
contribute to visibility impairment in a Class I area located outside 
of the county. Furthermore, we propose to accept that visibility 
impacts at these Class I areas due to area and mobile emission sources 
in Bernalillo County are overestimated in the WRAP 2002 and 2018 
visibility modeling. Emission trends for 2002 through 2008 indicate 
that emissions of NOX and SO2 within Bernalillo 
County are declining and therefore visibility impairment due to these 
emissions are also anticipated to decrease from their current low 
levels presented in Appendix 2007-H and in the addendum to Appendix 
2007-H of the BC RH SIP.
    At this time, the qualitative analysis of county-level emission 
impacts on Class I areas demonstrates that it is not necessary for BC 
to promulgate additional specific regulations to reduce emissions to 
address their effect on other Class I areas. BC will rely on current 
regulations for fugitive dust control, the SO2 emission 
milestone and backstop trading program, open burning, motor vehicle 
inspection, motor vehicle emission standards and other regulations to 
minimize emissions that could potential impact visibility at other 
Class I areas, as identified in the BC RH SIP submittal. We therefore 
propose to find that the BC RH SIP submittal meets the requirements of 
40 CFR 51.308(d)(3).
    As it does not host a Class I area, BC is not required to develop a 
monitoring strategy for measuring, characterizing, and reporting 
regional haze impairment that is representative of Class I areas within 
the State. However, BC is required to establish procedures by which 
monitoring data and other information is used to determine the 
contribution of emissions from within Bernalillo County to regional 
haze impairment at Class I areas outside of the county and to document 
the technical basis on which it is relying to determine its 
apportionment of emission reductions necessary for achieving reasonable 
progress in each Class I area it affects, as required by 40 CFR 
51.308(d)(3)(iii), (d)(4)(ii) and (iii). BC is also required to develop 
an emissions inventory of pollutants that are reasonably anticipated to 
cause or contribute to visibility impairment in any Class I area, as 
required by 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(iii) and (d)(4)(v). This inventory must 
include baseline year emissions, emissions for the most recent year 
that data is available, and estimates of future year emissions. The BC 
RH SIP includes emission inventories for 2002 and 2018 developed by the 
WRAP as well as actual emission inventories prepared by the State of 
New Mexico and BC to satisfy 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(iii) and (d)(4)(v). BC 
and the WRAP commit to update the inventory as well as maintain 
reporting, recordkeeping and other measures necessary to assess and 
report on visibility improvements as required by 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4)(v) 
and (vi). The EPA is proposing to find that BC has met the requirements 
of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4) through its participation in the WRAP and 
coordinated efforts with the State of New Mexico. BC will rely on WRAP 
technical support to evaluate monitoring data and emissions growth to 
determine if any future emission reductions are necessary for achieving 
reasonable progress.

VI. Our Analysis of City of Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, New Mexico 
InterState Visibility Transport SIP Provisions

    We are proposing to approve a portion of the SIP revision submitted 
by the City of Albuquerque/Bernalillo County, New Mexico on July 30, 
2007, for the purpose of addressing the ``good neighbor'' provisions of 
the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and the 
PM2.5 NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of the Act requires 
that States have a SIP, or submit a SIP revision, containing provisions 
``prohibiting any source or other type of emission activity within the 
State from emitting any air pollutant in amounts which will * * * 
interfere with measures required to be included in the applicable 
implementation plan for any other State under part C [of the CAA] to 
protect visibility.'' Because of the impacts on visibility from the 
interState transport of pollutants, we interpret the ``good neighbor'' 
provisions of section 110 of the Act described above as requiring 
States to include in their SIPs either measures to prohibit emissions 
that would interfere with the reasonable progress goals set to protect 
Class I areas in other States, or a demonstration that emissions from 
Bernalillo County sources and activities will not have the prohibited 
impacts on other States' existing SIPs.
    The BC visibility transport SIP submittal States that it is not 
possible to assess whether there is any interference with the measures 
in the applicable SIP for another State designed to protect visibility 
for the 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS until BC submits and 
the EPA approves BC's RH SIP.
    In developing their Regional Haze SIP, BC and potentially impacted 
States collaborated through the WRAP. Each State developed its Regional 
Haze Plans and RPGs based on the WRAP modeling and technical analysis. 
The WRAP modeling was based in part on the emissions reductions each 
State and BC intended to achieve by 2018. We are proposing to approve 
the BC RH SIP submittal which includes a demonstration that Bernalillo 
County sources do not cause or contribute to visibility impairment at 
Class I areas outside of Bernalillo County. We note that the BC RH SIP 
includes participation in a SO2 emission milestone and 
backstop trading program with the States of New Mexico, Wyoming and 
Utah, and we propose to find that the BC measures included in the WRAP 
modeling and relied upon by New Mexico and other States in developing 
their visibility programs will occur. As previously Stated, we are also 
proposing to agree with BC's determination that it is improbable that 
sources within Bernalillo County are causing or contributing to 
visibility impairment at any Class I areas outside the county, which 
includes those of the other States. Therefore, we are proposing to 
approve the City of Albuquerque-Bernalillo County InterState Transport 
SIP submittal that addresses the visibility requirement of section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and find that the BC SIP contains adequate 
provisions at this time to prohibit emissions from BC sources from 
interfering with programs in other States to protect visibility.

VII. The EPA's Conclusions and Proposed Action

    The EPA is proposing to approve a City of Albuquerque/Bernalillo 
County, New Mexico Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted on July 
28, 2011 addressing the regional haze requirements for the mandatory 
Class I areas under 40 CFR 51.309. The EPA is proposing that this SIP 
revision meets the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309. We are proposing to 
approve all parts of the

[[Page 24792]]

RH SIP submittal, which adds onto and incorporates earlier regional 
haze documentation submitted on December 26, 2003 and September 5, 
2008. We further propose to approve, as amended, the companion rules, 
of 20.11.46 NMAC, Sulfur Dioxide Emission Inventory Requirements; 
Western Backstop Sulfur Dioxide Trading Program and 20.11.21 NMAC, Open 
Burning.
    We are also proposing to approve a portion of the SIP revision 
submitted by the City of Albuquerque/Bernalillo County, New Mexico on 
July 30, 2007, for the purpose of addressing one of the ``good 
neighbor'' provisions of the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 
8-hour ozone NAAQS and the PM2.5 NAAQS. This would approve 
the portion of the SIP that addresses the requirement that the SIP must 
prevent sources in the State from emitting pollutants in amounts which 
will interfere with measures included in the required plans of other 
States to protect visibility.
    As discussed earlier in this notice, the 309 backstop trading 
program is dependent on the EPA taking final action approving all three 
participating States' SIP submittals. Until the EPA takes final action 
on all of the States' SIPs, the backstop trading program will not be 
effective.

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a 
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and 
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 
Accordingly, this action merely proposes to approve State law as 
meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional 
requirements beyond those imposed by State law. For that reason, this 
action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority 
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or 
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible 
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as 
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), 
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in 
the State, and the EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct 
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: April 12, 2012.
Al Armendariz,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2012-9808 Filed 4-24-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```