45762 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 189 / Monday, October 2, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

Specialty Care; 64.042 VHA Inpatient 

Surgery; 64.043 VHA Mental Health 

Residential; 64.044 VHA Home Care; 

64.045 VHA Outpatient Ancillary 

Services; 64.046 VHA Inpatient 

Psychiatry; 64.047 VHA Primary Care; 

64.048 VHA Mental Health Clinics; 

64.049 VHA Community Living Center; 

and 64.050 VHA Diagnostic Care. 

Signing Authority 

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or 

designee, approved this document and 

authorized the undersigned to sign and 

submit the document to the Office of the 

Federal Register for publication 

electronically as an official document of 

the Department of Veterans Affairs. Gina 

S. Farrisee, Deputy Chief of Staff, 

Department of Veterans Affairs, 

approved this document on July 28, 

2017 for publication. 

List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 17 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Alcohol abuse, Alcoholism, 

Claims, Day care, Dental health, Drug 

abuse, Foreign relations, Government 

contracts, Grant programs—health, 

Grant programs—veterans, Health care, 

Health facilities, Health professions, 

Health records, Homeless, Medical and 

dental schools, Medical devices, 

Medical research, Mental health 

programs, Nursing homes, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, 

Scholarships and fellowships, Travel 

and transportation expenses, Veterans. 

Dated: September 26, 2017. 

Michael Shores, 

Director, Regulation Policy & Management, 

Office of the Secretary, Department of 

Veterans Affairs. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, we propose to amend 38 CFR 

part 17 as follows: 

PART 17—MEDICAL 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 is 

amended by adding an entry for 

§ 17.417 in numerical order to read in 

part as follows: 

Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501, and as noted in 

specific sections. 

* * * * * 

Section 17.417 also issued under 38 U.S.C. 

1701 (note), 1709A, 1712A (note), 1722B, 

7301, 7330A, 7401–7403; 7406 (note)). 

■ 2. Revise the undesignated center 

heading immediately after § 17.412 to 

read as follows: 

Authority of Health Care Providers to 

Practice in the Department 

■ 3. Add § 17.417 to read as follows: 

§ 17.417 Health care providers. 

(a) Definitions. The following 

definitions apply to this section. 

(1) Beneficiary. The term beneficiary 

means a veteran or any other individual 

receiving health care under title 38 of 

the United States Code. 

(2) Health care provider. The term 

health care provider means an 

individual who: 

(i) Is licensed, registered, or certified 

in a State to practice a health care 

specialty identified under 38 U.S.C. 

7402(b); 

(ii) Is appointed to an occupation in 

the Veterans Health Administration that 

is listed in or authorized under 38 

U.S.C. 7401(1) or (3); 

(iii) Maintains credentials (e.g., a 

license, registration, or certification) in 

accordance with the requirements of his 

or her medical specialty as identified 

under 38 U.S.C. 7402(b); and 

(iv) Is not a VA-contracted employee. 

(3) State. The term State means a State 

as defined in 38 U.S.C. 101(20), or a 

political subdivision of such a State. 

(4) Telehealth. The term telehealth 

means the use of electronic information 

or telecommunications technologies to 

support clinical health care, patient and 

professional health-related education, 

public health, and health 

administration. 

(b) Health care provider’s practice. (1) 

Health care providers may provide 

telehealth services, within their scope of 

practice and in accordance with 

privileges granted to them by the 

Department, irrespective of the State or 

location within a State where the health 

care provider or the beneficiary is 

physically located. Health care 

providers’ practice is subject to the 

limitations imposed by the Controlled 

Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. 801, et seq., 

on the authority to prescribe or 

administer controlled substances, as 

well as any other limitations on the 

provision of VA care set forth in 

applicable Federal law and policy. This 

section only grants health care providers 

the ability to practice telehealth within 

the scope of their VA employment and 

does not otherwise grant health care 

providers additional authorities that go 

beyond the scope of the health care 

providers’ State license, registration, or 

certification. 

(2) Situations where a health care 

provider’s VA practice of telehealth may 

be inconsistent with a State law or State 

license, registration, or certification 

requirements related to telehealth 

include when: 

(i) The beneficiary and the health care 

provider are physically located in 

different States during the episode of 

care; 

(ii) The beneficiary is receiving 

services in a State other than the health 

care provider’s State of licensure, 

registration, or certification; 

(iii) The health care provider is 

delivering services in a State other than 

the health care provider’s State of 

licensure, registration, or certification; 

(iv) The health care provider is 

delivering services either on or outside 

VA property; 

(v) The beneficiary is receiving 

services while she or he is located either 

on or outside VA property; 

(vi) The beneficiary has or has not 

previously been assessed, in person, by 

the health care provider; or 

(vii) Other State requirements would 

prevent or impede the practice of health 

care providers delivering telehealth to 

VA beneficiaries. 

(c) Preemption of State law. To 

achieve important Federal interests, 

including, but not limited to, the ability 

to provide the same complete medical 

and hospital service to beneficiaries in 

all States under 38 U.S.C. 7301, this 

section preempts conflicting State laws 

relating to the practice of health care 

providers when such health care 

providers are practicing telehealth 

within the scope of their VA 

employment. Any State law, rule, 

regulation or requirement pursuant to 

such law, is without any force or effect 

on, and State governments have no legal 

authority to enforce them in relation to, 

this section or decisions made by VA 

under this section. 

[FR Doc. 2017–20951 Filed 9–29–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8320–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2016–0406; FRL–9967–77– 

Region 6] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; New Mexico; 

Albuquerque and Bernalillo County; 

Regional Haze Progress Report State 

Implementation Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Clean 

Air Act (CAA or the Act), the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

is proposing to approve a revision to a 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the 

City of Albuquerque and Bernalillo 

County, New Mexico (the County) 

submitted by the Governor on June 24, 

2016. The SIP revision addresses 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 189 / Monday, October 2, 2017 / Proposed Rules 45763 

1Fine particles are less than or equal to 2.5 

microns (mm) in diameter and usually form 

secondary in nature indirectly from other sources. 

Particles less than or equal to 10 mm in diameter 

are referred to as PM10. Particles greater than PM2.5

but less than PM10 are referred to as coarse mass. 

Coarse mass can contribute to light extinction as 

well and is made up of primary particles directly 

emitted into the air. Fine particles tend to be manmade, while coarse particles tend to have a natural 

origin. Coarse mass settles out from the air more 

rapidly than fine particles and usually will be 

found relatively close to emission sources. Fine 

particles can be transported long distances by wind 

and can be found in the air thousands of miles from 

where they were formed. 

2Organic carbon (OC) can be emitted directly as 

particles, or formed through reactions involving 

gaseous emissions. Elemental carbon, in contrast to 

organic carbon, is exclusively of primary origin and 

emitted by the incomplete combustion of carbonbased fuels. They are especially prevalent in diesel 

exhaust and smoke from wild and prescribed fires. 

3Mandatory Class I Federal areas consist of 

national parks exceeding 6,000 acres, wilderness 

areas and national memorial parks exceeding 5,000 

acres, and all international parks that were in 

existence on August 7, 1977. The EPA, in 

consultation with the Department of Interior, 

promulgated a list of 156 areas where visibility was 

identified as an important value. The extent of a 

mandatory Class I area includes subsequent changes 

in boundaries, such as park expansions. Although 

states and tribes may designate additional areas as 

Class I, the requirements of the visibility program 

set forth in the CAA applies only to ‘‘mandatory 

Class I Federal areas.’’ Each mandatory Class I 

Federal area is the responsibility of a ‘‘Federal Land 

Manager.’’ When the term ‘‘Class I area’’ is used in 

this action, it means ‘‘mandatory Class I Federal 

areas.’’ [See 44 FR 69122, November 30, 1979 and 

CAA Sections 162(a), 169A, and 302(i)]. 

4See July 1, 1999 Regional Haze Rule final action 

(64 FR 35714), as amended in July 6, 2005 (70 FR 

39156), October 13, 2006 (71 FR 60631), June 7, 

2012 (77 FR 33656) and in January 10, 2017 (82 FR 

3079). 

5Note that the City of Albuquerque and Bernalillo 

County is treated like a ‘‘state’’ for purposes of 

implementing the RHR, which is written 

specifically for states. The EPA regulates and funds 

Bernalillo County as it does any other state air 

agency. Enacted in 1967, the New Mexico State Air 

Quality Control Act [NMSA 1978 Sections 74–2–4, 

74–2–5, and 74–2–7] allowed for the establishment 

of the Air Quality Control Board (AQCB) as a local 

Continued 

requirements of the Act and the EPA’s 

rules that require the County to submit 

a periodic report assessing reasonable 

progress goals (RPGs) for regional haze 

with a determination of the adequacy of 

the existing regional haze SIP. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before November 1, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by Docket No. EPA–R06– 

OAR–2016–0406, at http://

www.regulations.gov or via email to 

grady.james@epa.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 

The EPA may publish any comment 

received to its public docket. Do not 

submit any information electronically 

that is considered Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or any other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment will be 

considered the official comment with 

multimedia submissions and should 

include all discussion points desired. 

The EPA will generally not consider 

comments or their contents submitted 

outside of the primary submission (i.e. 

on the web, cloud, or other file sharing 

systems). For additional submission 

methods, please contact James E. Grady, 

(214) 665–6745, grady.james@epa.gov. 

For the full EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 

Docket: The index to the docket for 

this action is available electronically at 

www.regulations.gov and in hard copy 

at the EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, 

Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. While all 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the index, some information may be 

publicly available only at the hard copy 

location (e.g., copyrighted material), and 

some may not be publicly available at 

either location (e.g., CBI). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

James E. Grady, (214) 665–6745; 

grady.james@epa.gov. To inspect the 

hard copy materials, please schedule an 

appointment with James E. Grady or Mr. 

Bill Deese at 214–665–7253. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ 

or ‘‘our’’ each mean ‘‘the EPA.’’ 

Table of Contents: 

I. Background on Regional Haze 

A. Visibility Protection 

B. Regulation Overview 

II. Requirements for Regional Haze Progress 

Report 

III. Evaluation of Regional Haze Progress 

Report 

A. Class I Areas 

B. Status of Control Strategies 

1. SO2 Milestone and Backstop Trading 

Program 

2. NOX and PM Control Strategies 

3. Best Available Retrofit Technology 

(BART) 

4. Mobile Source Emissions 

5. Fire and Smoke Management 

6. Fugitive and Unpaved Road Dust 

Measures 

7. Additional Controls—Local State 

Regulations 

8. Summary of Control Strategy 

Implementation 

C. Emission Reductions From Control 

Strategies 

D. Visibility Progress 

E. Emissions Progress 

F. Assessment of Changes Impeding 

Visibility Progress 

G. Assessment of Current Strategy To Meet 

RPGs 

H. Review of Visibility Monitoring Strategy 

I. Determination of Adequacy of Existing 

Regional Haze Plan 

IV. The EPA’s Proposed Action 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background on Regional Haze 

A. Visibility Protection 

Regional haze is visibility impairment 

that occurs over a wide geographic area 

primarily from the pollution of fine 

particles (PM2.5) in nature.1 Fine 

particles causing haze consist of 

sulfates, nitrates, organics, elemental 

carbon (EC), and soil dust.2 Airborne 

PM2.5 can scatter and absorb the 

incident light and, therefore, lead to 

atmospheric opacity and horizontal 

visibility degradation. Regional haze 

limits visual distance and reduces color, 

clarity and contrast of view. Emissions 

that affect visibility include a wide 

variety of natural and man-made 

sources. In New Mexico, the most 

important sources of haze-forming 

emissions are coal-fired power plants, 

oil and gas development, woodland 

fires, and windblown dust. Reducing 

PM2.5 and its precursor gases in the 

atmosphere is an effective method of 

improving visibility. PM2.5 precursors 

consist of sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen 

oxides (NOX), ammonia (NH3) and 

volatile organic compounds (VOCs). 

B. Regulation Overview 

In section 169A of the 1977 CAA 

Amendments, Congress declared as a 

national goal the prevention of any 

future, and the remedying of any 

existing, visibility impairment in 

mandatory class I Federal areas where 

impairment results from manmade air 

pollution.3 Congress added section 169B 

to the CAA in 1990 that added visibility 

protection provisions, and the EPA 

published final regulations addressing 

regional haze with the 1999 Regional 

Haze Rule (RHR).4 The RHR revised the 

existing visibility regulations and 

established a more comprehensive 

visibility protection program for 

mandatory Class I areas. The 

requirements for regional haze are found 

at 40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309. States 

must demonstrate reasonable progress 

toward meeting the national goal of a 

return to natural visibility conditions for 

mandatory Class I Federal areas both 

within and outside states by 2064. The 

requirement to submit a regional haze 

SIP applies to all fifty states, the District 

of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands. The 

City of Albuquerque and Bernalillo 

County,5 New Mexico must also submit 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
45764 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 189 / Monday, October 2, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

board and empowered it with the authority to 

administer and enforce its air quality regulations 

within Bernalillo County. The AQCB has 

jurisdiction over all of Bernalillo County, (including 

the City of Albuquerque), except Indian lands. The 

State of New Mexico Environmental Improvement 

Board (EIB) has jurisdiction over all other counties 

in New Mexico. 

6On December 31, 2003, New Mexico submitted 

a regional haze SIP with later revisions (July 5, 2011 

and October 7, 2013) that addressed 40 CFR 51.309. 

The EPA approved both of the (2003 and 2011) 

submittals on November 27, 2012 (77 FR 70693) 

and approved a 2013 revision on October 9, 2014 

with two separate rules (79 FR 60985 and 79 FR 

60978). The New Mexico progress report was 

approved by the EPA on November 3, 2015 (see 80 

FR 67682). 

7On November 12, 2003, the County first adopted 

its 40 CFR 51.309 regional haze SIP with later 

revisions (August 13, 2008; June 8, 2011). The EPA 

approved these submittals on Apr. 25, 2012 (77 FR 

24768). 

8See also General Principles for the 5-Year 

Regional Haze Progress Reports for the Initial 

Regional Haze State Implementation Plans 

(Intended to Assist States and EPA Regional Offices 

in Development and Review of the Progress 

Reports), April 2013, EPA–454/B–03–005, available 

at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016- 

03/documents/haze_5year_4-10-13.pdf. 

9The Colorado Plateau is a high, semi-arid 

tableland in Southeast Utah, Northern Arizona, 

Northwest New Mexico, and Western Colorado. The 

sixteen 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. 

10The 1999 RHR provided that these three states 

will eventually revert to the progress report due 

date requirements in 40 CFR 51.308 for the second 

implementation period. Recently, there was an 

extension of the second regional haze 

implementation period deadline from 2018 to 2021. 

(82 FR 3080, January 10, 2017). 

11See the EPA’s proposed approval (77 FR 24768, 

April 25, 2012) and final rule (77 FR 71119, 

November 29, 2012) for the County. 

12See 77 FR 24768, 24790 (Apr. 25, 2012). 

a regional haze SIP separate from the 

State of New Mexico 6 to completely 

satisfy the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA for the entire 

State under the New Mexico Air Quality 

Control Act (section 74–2–4).7

II. Requirements for Regional Haze 

Progress Report 

The RHR requires a comprehensive 

analysis of each state’s regional haze SIP 

every ten years and a progress report at 

five-year intervals. The five-year review 

is intended to provide an interim report 

on the implementation of, and, if 

necessary, mid-course corrections to, 

the regional haze SIP. The progress 

report provides an opportunity for 

public input on the County’s (and the 

EPA’s) assessment of whether the 

approved regional haze SIP is being 

implemented appropriately and whether 

reasonable visibility progress is being 

achieved consistent with the projected 

visibility improvement in the SIP. At a 

minimum, the required elements of the 

progress report under the RHR must 

include the following seven elements: 8

(1) Provide a description of the status 

of implementation of all measures 

included in the regional haze SIP. 

(2) Summarize the emissions 

reductions achieved throughout the 

state. 

(3) Provide an assessment of current 

visibility conditions and the change in 

visibility impairment over the past five 

years. 

(4) Provide analysis tracking the 

change over the past five years in 

emissions of pollutants contributing to 

visibility impairment from all sources 

and activities within the state. 

(5) Provide an assessment of any 

significant changes in anthropogenic 

emissions within or outside the state 

that have occurred over the past five 

years that have limited or impeded 

progress in reducing pollutant 

emissions and improving visibility. 

(6) Provide an assessment of whether 

the current SIP elements and strategies 

are sufficient to enable the state (or 

other states with mandatory Class I 

areas affected by emissions from the 

state) to meet all established RPGs. 

(7) Provide a review of the state’s 

visibility monitoring strategy and any 

modifications to the strategy as 

necessary. 

The City of Albuquerque and 

Bernalillo County, New Mexico 

submitted its progress report SIP for the 

County under 40 CFR 51.309 on June 

24, 2016. Typically, progress report 

requirements of most states are covered 

under 40 CFR 51.308(g) and (h). 40 CFR 

51.309 presents nine western states with 

an optional approach of fulfilling RHR 

requirements by adopting emission 

reduction strategies developed by the 

Grand Canyon Visibility Transport 

Commission (GCVTC). These strategies 

were designed primarily to improve 

visibility of sixteen Class I areas in the 

Colorado Plateau area.9 Three western 

states (New Mexico, Utah and 

Wyoming) including the City of 

Albuquerque and Bernalillo County, 

NM exercised the option provided in 

the RHR to meet alternative 

requirements contained in 40 CFR 

51.309 for regional haze SIPs. For these 

states, the required content of the fiveyear progress report is identical with 

those for the other states, but are 

codified at 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10) instead 

of at 40 CFR 51.308 (g) and (h). This 

section specifies fixed due dates in 2013 

and 2018 for these progress reports.10 In 

contrast, under 40 CFR 51.308, states 

must submit a progress report five years 

from submittal of the initial 

implementation plan. Under 40 CFR 

51.309(d)(10)(ii), states are required to 

submit, at the same time as the progress 

report SIP, a determination of the 

adequacy of their existing regional haze 

SIP and to take one of four possible 

actions, as described in more detail in 

this proposal. 

III. Evaluation of Regional Haze 

Progress Report 

On July 28 2011, the AQCB submitted 

a regional haze SIP for its own 

geographic area of Bernalillo County, 

New Mexico (including the City of 

Albuquerque) that addressed the 

requirements of 40 CFR 51.309.11 This 

SIP submittal was a necessary 

component of the regional haze plan for 

New Mexico to ensure that the 

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

the CAA were satisfied for the whole 

state. On July 6, 2016, the EPA received 

the periodic report on progress for the 

County’s regional haze SIP in the form 

of a SIP revision. This latest submission 

is the subject of this proposed approval. 

The periodic report was made in the 

first implementation period to assess 

visibility progression for Class I areas in 

and outside of the County that were 

negatively affected by emissions from 

within the County. The progress report 

included the County’s determination 

that the existing regional haze SIP 

required no substantive revisions to 

achieve the established regional haze 

visibility improvement and emission 

reduction goals for 2018. The EPA 

agrees with the County’s assessment and 

is proposing to approve its progress 

report SIP on the basis that it satisfies 

all requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10) 

as explained in further details in each 

subsequent section. 

A. Class I Areas 

The City of Albuquerque and 

Bernalillo County does not formulate 

specific RPGs for particular Class I areas 

within its borders since no such areas 

exist.12 Therefore, the County is not 

required to identify RPGs or calculate 

baseline and natural visibility 

conditions at any Class I area. The 

County, however, is required to address 

the apportionment of visibility impact 

from the emissions generated by sources 

within the County at Class I areas 

outside of the County borders. As a 

result, the progress report addressed the 

emissions impact on RPGs and related 

emission reduction goals for nine Class 

I areas within the state of New Mexico 

that were identified as being close 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 189 / Monday, October 2, 2017 / Proposed Rules 45765 

13The Section 309 SIP submitted by New Mexico 

in December 2003 addressed only San Pedro Parks 

Wilderness Area and the other Class I areas were 

added in a later SIP revision under Section 309(g) 

in June 2011 and revised in October 2013. The EPA 

approved both of the (2003 and 2011) submittals on 

November 27, 2012 (77 FR 70693) and approved a 

2013 revision on October 9, 2014 with two separate 

rules (79 FR 60985 and 79 FR 60978). 

14A deciview is a haze index derived from 

calculated light extinction, such that uniform 

changes in haziness correspond to uniform 

incremental changes in perception across the entire 

range of conditions, from pristine to highly 

impaired. The preamble to the RHR provides 

additional details about the deciview (64 FR 35714, 

35725, July 1, 1999). 

15The WRAP is a collaborative effort of tribal 

governments, state governments and various federal 

agencies representing the western states that 

provides technical and policy tools for the western 

states and tribes to comply with the EPA’s Regional 

Haze regulations. Detailed information regarding 

WRAP support of air quality management issues for 

western states is provided on the WRAP Web site 

(www.wrapair2.org). Data summary descriptions 

and tools specific to RHR support are available on 

the WRAP Technical Support System Web site 

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

16The Western Regional Air Partnership Regional 

Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Summary Report 

technical support document has been prepared on 

behalf of the fifteen Western State members in the 

WRAP region to provide the technical basis for use 

by states to develop the first of their individual 

reasonable progress reports for the 116 Federal 

Class I areas located in the Western states. 

17See 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i). 

18Under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(5)(ii), New Mexico is 

required to submit interim reports to the EPA and 

the public on the implementation status of the 

regional and local strategies to address mobile 

source emissions. 

19See the County’s 2016 regional haze progress 

report submittal (page 9) which was reiterated in 

New Mexico’s regional haze progress report (page 

7). 

20Under Section 309, nine western states and the 

tribes within those states had the option of 

submitting plans to reduce visibility-impairing 

emissions at sixteen Class I areas on the Colorado 

Plateau. Five states (Arizona, New Mexico, Oregon, 

Utah, Wyoming) and the City of Albuquerque and 

Bernalillo County, NM exercised this option by 

submitting plans to the EPA by December 1, 2003. 

Oregon and Arizona have since elected to cease 

participation in the Milestone and Backstop 

Trading Program in 2006 and 2010, respectively. 

The tribes are not subject to any deadline and can 

still opt into the program at any time. 

21The County cooperates with its WRAP partners 

to maintain an inventory of regional SO2 emissions, 

across the Section 309 states. The City of 

Albuquerque Air Quality Program (AQP) monitors 

SO2 ambient air concentrations in Bernalillo County 

consistent with EPA regulations. See the City of 

Albuquerque Environmental Health Department 

(EHD) Web site at https://www.cabq.gov/airquality/ 

documents for Annual Network Reviews for 

Ambient Air Monitoring. 

22See WRAP Web site at https://

www.wrapair2.org/reghaze.aspx for the Regional 

Milestone reports. A final 2014 milestone report 

was posted on March 7, 2016 and a draft 2015 

report was posted recently on March 20, 2017. 

Appendix G of the County progress report includes 

the 2013 Regional SO2 Emissions and Milestone 

Report. 

enough to the County that they could 

conceivably be affected by emissions 

from within the County. The nine Class 

I areas within New Mexico that were 

addressed in the progress report were: 

Bandelier Wilderness, Bosque del 

Apache National Wildlife Refuge, 

Carlsbad Caverns National Park, Gila 

Wilderness, Pecos Wilderness, Salt 

Creek Wilderness, Wheeler Peak 

Wilderness, White Mountain 

Wilderness, and San Pedro Parks 

Wilderness.13 Visibility impairment at 

New Mexico’s nine Class I areas was 

tracked in units of deciviews (dv)14 as 

measured by eight monitors in the 

Interagency Monitoring of Protected 

Visual Environments (IMPROVE) 

Network. Through collaboration with 

the Western Regional Air Partnership 

(WRAP),15 the AQCB worked with New 

Mexico and other western states to 

assess state-by-state contributions to 

visibility impairment in specific Class I 

areas affected by Albuquerque and 

Bernalillo County, NM emissions. The 

determinations in the progress report 

relied on the technical analysis and 

emission inventories developed by the 

WRAP which is documented online and 

also appears in the technical 

appendices.16

The EPA is proposing to find that the 

County has appropriately identified the 

Class I areas in this report which could 

be affected by emissions from within the 

County, as required by 40 CFR 

51.309(g). This regulation provides a 

requirement for compliance with 40 

CFR 51.308(d) to the extent that 

planning is necessary for areas other 

than the sixteen Class I areas on the 

Colorado Plateau addressed in the 

initial 2003 regional haze SIP. In the 

ensuing sections, the EPA addresses 

these Class I areas and the seven 

regulatory elements required by the 

progress report SIP; 17 how the County’s 

progress report SIP addressed each 

element; and the EPA’s analysis and 

proposed determination as to whether 

the County satisfied each part. 

B. Status of Control Strategies 

40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(A) requires a 

description of the status of 

implementation of all control measures 

included in the regional haze SIP for 

achieving RPGs for Class I areas both 

within and outside the state. 

The County evaluated the status of all 

control measures in its 2011 regional 

haze SIP in accordance with the 

requirements under 40 CFR 

51.309(d)(10)(i)(A). The major control 

measures identified by the County in 

the progress report are as follows: 

• SO2 Milestone and Backstop 

Trading Program 

• NOX and PM Control Strategies 

• Best Available Retrofit Technology 

(BART) 

• Mobile Sources Emissions 18

• Fire and Smoke Management 

• Fugitive and Unpaved Road Dust 

Measures 

• Additional Controls—Local State 

Regulations 

The County identified ammonium 

sulfate, particulate organic matter, and 

coarse mass as the largest contributors 

to visibility impairment at New 

Mexico’s Class I areas that need to be 

controlled.19 Many of the sources, 

however, that produce these visibilityimpairing pollutants in New Mexico are 

natural, rather than anthropogenic in 

nature, and are not controllable. For the 

purpose of this progress report, the 

County focused on those emission 

sources that were anthropogenic in 

nature (as did New Mexico in its report). 

The primary sources of ammonium 

sulfate are point sources and mobile 

source emissions. Ammonium sulfate 

results from SO2 and NH3 precursor 

emissions. SO2 emissions in New 

Mexico are generally associated with 

anthropogenic point sources such as 

coal-fired power plants, other industrial 

sources like refineries and cement 

plants, and both on and off-road mobile 

sources. Particulate organic matter 

emissions in New Mexico are from 

natural and anthropogenic fire. Large 

wildfire events in the west dominate 

particulate organic aerosol emissions 

which are emitted directly into the air 

as particles instead of gases. Coarse 

mass emissions in New Mexico happen 

mainly as a result of windblown and 

fugitive dust. Coarse mass settles out of 

air more rapidly than fine particles, so 

strong wind events act as a transport 

vehicle to carry them long distances. 

Otherwise, they will typically be found 

close to the emission source. 

1. SO2 Milestone and Backstop Trading 

Program 

The progress report discussed the SO2

Milestone and Backstop Trading 

Program as a control measure to reduce 

emissions for major sources of SO2.20

The County has participated in this 

voluntary program since December 31, 

2003.21 As part of this program, the 

Section 309 western states and the 

County must submit an annual report 

that compares tracked stationary sources 

of SO2 emissions to yearly milestones.22

A milestone is an established maximum 

level of annual emissions for a given 

year (from 2003–2018). The milestones 

help establish annual SO2 emission 

reduction targets. The annual targets 

represent RPGs in reducing visibilityimpairing emissions. If states fail to 

meet the milestones, then the backstoptrading program is triggered to 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
45766 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 189 / Monday, October 2, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

23The milestone numbers reflect the participation 

of Wyoming, Utah, and New Mexico (including the 

City of Albuquerque and Bernalillo County) in the 

309 backstop trading program. 

24The report, Stationary Source NOX and PM 

Emissions in the WRAP Region: An Initial 

Assessment of Emissions, Controls, and Air Quality 

Impacts, was prepared by the WRAP and is 

included in Appendix H–O of the SIP. 

25BART sources are those sources that have the 

potential to emit 250 tons or more of visibilityimpairing pollutants, 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. 

26The WRAP identified three potential BARTeligible sources in the County. These were PNM 

Reeves Generating Station, GCC Rio Grande Inc., 

and Cobisa Person Power Project. The AQCB 

assessed whether these facilities were existing 

stationary facilities as defined at 40 CFR 51.301 and 

determined that all three sources were not BARTeligible. PNM Reeves and GCC Rio Grande were not 

in existence nor operating during the requisite time 

period, and Cobisa Person Power Project did not 

have emission units in the 26 source categories for 

BART. See the EPA’s proposed approval for the 

County’s regional haze SIP (77 FR 24768, 24782, 

April 25, 2012). 

27 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(i). 

28See the County’s 2011 regional haze SIP 

submittal (pages 112–124). SO2 emissions from 

sources in 1990 totaled 358,364 tpy and the 2018 

milestone is 141,849 tpy, which represents sixty 

percent reduction. 

implement an emissions cap. The cap 

allocates emission allowances (or 

credits) to the affected sources based on 

the cap, and requires the sources to hold 

sufficient allowances to cover their 

emissions each year. 

The regional haze SIP requires 

multiyear averaging of emissions for the 

milestone comparison. From 2005– 

2017, the three-year average, which 

includes the reporting year and the two 

previous years, is calculated and 

compared to the milestone. The regional 

milestone for 2013 was 185,795 tons 

SO2. The three-year average SO2

emissions for 2011, 2012, and 2013 was 

105,402 tons SO2, which was 43 percent 

below the 2013 milestone. In table 1 

below, 2014 and 2015 WRAP data 

shows similar SO2 reduction trends that 

continue beyond 2013 toward 2018. No 

triggering of the backstop trading 

program has been necessary and the 

likelihood of meeting the 2018 target 

means no changes in the program are 

needed at the moment. The compliance 

dates show that SO2 emissions have 

consistently been below each annual 

RPG and are currently tracking to be 

below the 2018 milestone. 

TABLE 1—SO2 EMISSION MILESTONES 23

Year 

Regional SO2

milestone tons 

per year 

(tpy) 

Average SO2 emissions to determine compliance with milestone 

SO2

(tpy) 3-Year average 

2008 ......................................... 269,083 265,662 ................................... 2006, 2007 and 2008. 

2009 ......................................... 234,903 165,633 ................................... 2007, 2008 and 2009. 

2010 ......................................... 200,722 146,808 ................................... 2008, 2009 and 2010. 

2011 ......................................... 200,722 130,935 ................................... 2009, 2010 and 2011. 

2012 ......................................... 200,722 115,115 ................................... 2010, 2011 and 2012. 

2013 ......................................... 185,795 105,402 ................................... 2011, 2012 and 2013. 

2014 ......................................... 170,868 96,392 ..................................... 2012, 2013 and 2014. 

2015 ......................................... 155,940 91,310 ..................................... 2013, 2014 and 2015. 

2016 ......................................... 155,940 Not Available ........................... 2014, 2015 and 2016. 

2017 ......................................... 155,940 Not Available ........................... 2015, 2016 and 2017. 

2018 ......................................... 141,849 Not Available ........................... 2016, 2017 and 2018. 

2019 forward ........................... 141,849 Not Available ........................... Annual; no averaging. 

2. NOX and PM Control Strategies 

The County included a report in its 

2011 regional haze SIP that assessed 

emission control strategies for NOX and 

PM stationary sources, and the degree of 

visibility improvement that would 

result from their implementation.24 The 

report concluded that current and future 

NOX and PM emissions do not show to 

be major contributors to regional haze 

(typically about two percent on average) 

in the vast majority of western Class I 

areas. The report represented the initial 

assessment of stationary source NOX

and PM strategies for regional haze, and 

was a starting point for a more extensive 

analysis in the future. The 2011 regional 

haze SIP stated that the progress report 

would assess the need for new NOX and 

PM control measures to address any 

new contributions to regional haze from 

stationary sources in the County. The 

County concluded in the progress report 

that it does not find new control 

measures necessary for NOX and PM 

stationary sources at this time. 

Stationary source NOX and PM 

emissions in the County have not 

impeded reasonable progress of 

emissions and visibility in New Mexico 

as a whole and are not likely to do so. 

Please refer to the emission reduction 

section of this report for more details 

regarding NOX and PM emissions. 

3. Best Available Retrofit Technology 

(BART) 25

The regional haze SIP determined that 

there are no BART-eligible sources in 

the County, so there are no requirements 

to install BART controls.26 Even so, the 

progress report mentioned how the 

County must still specifically 

demonstrate that its SO2 milestone and 

backstop-trading program will achieve 

greater reasonable progress than would 

be achieved by implementation of BART 

controls.27 Under this approach, a 

section 51.309 regional haze 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 

fifty to seventy percent reduction in SO2

emissions by 2040. As demonstrated in 

the County’s regional haze SIP, the SO2

milestones provide greater reasonable 

progress than BART and track at a sixty 

percent pace reduction of the 1990 SO2

emission levels.28 The actual annual 

SO2 emission reduction results 

outperformed this milestone pace. The 

progress report showed that the threeyear average SO2 emissions for 2013 was 

43 percent below the 2013 milestone at 

105,402 tons SO2 (see Table 1). That 

represents a 71 percent reduction from 

the 1990 emission totals and is 

exceeding the GCVTC goal of fifty to 

seventy percent reduction. The regional 

SO2 emissions have continued to 

decline at a faster pace than called for 

by the SO2 milestones. Thus, as 

anticipated, the milestone program has 

actually continued to achieve greater 

reasonable progress than would be the 

case if BART were implemented. 

4. Mobile Source Emissions 

The progress report mentioned that 

the County is relying upon federal 

standards as long-term measures to 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 189 / Monday, October 2, 2017 / Proposed Rules 45767 

29See the County’s 2011 regional haze SIP (pages 

56–58) and New Mexico’s 2011 regional haze SIP 

(page 144) for ongoing implementation of federal 

mobile source regulations. The County regional 

haze SIP listed as a haze-control measure 20.11.104 

NMAC, Emission Standards for New Motor 

Vehicles. This regulation was adopted in 2007 to 

implement California’s clean car standards. At the 

time the regulation was adopted by New Mexico, 

the California standards were projected to 

substantially differ from federal motor vehicle 

emissions standards. Since that time, the California 

and federal programs for emissions standards for 

motor vehicles have become more aligned with 

each other than was expected by New Mexico when 

it adopted the State Mobile Source Regulation. For 

example, in 2009, the EPA and the National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 

proposed ‘‘regulatory convergence’’ with California 

on motor vehicle fuel economy standards. See 74 

FR 49454 (September 28, 2009). This was 

subsequently adopted, starting with model years 

2012–2016. 75 FR 25323 (May 7, 2010). Therefore, 

20.11.104 NMAC is currently redundant and is not 

being implemented. 

30See the County’s 2011 regional haze SIP (page 

59). 

31See WRAP 2013 Summary Report, pages 3–11 

to 3–20, 4–1 to 4–2, and 6–222 to 6–233. 

32For more information on the WRAP modeling 

and assessment of road dust impacts, see section F 

of the County regional haze SIP (pages 69–71). 

33The City of Albuquerque EHD also has 

delegated authority to enforce applicable federal 

standards related to particulate matter, as 

promulgated in 40 CFR Sections 60, 61, and 63. 

34See the County Web site for a listing of the 

NMAC rules at http://164.64.110.239/nmac/_

title20/T20C011.htm. 

achieve declines in mobile source 

emissions that contribute to regional 

haze.29 The County also committed 

itself in the SIP to monitoring mobile 

source emissions (through the WRAP) to 

assure a continuous decline in 

emissions as defined in 40 CFR 

51.309(b)(6).30 A statewide inventory of 

baseline and future annual mobile 

source emissions has been compiled for 

the years 2003–2018 with assistance 

from the WRAP.31

5. Fire and Smoke Management 

The County is relying on fire and 

smoke management programs under 

20.11.21 NMAC, Open Burning, in order 

to help control anthropogenic fire 

related emissions of VOCs, NOX, 

elemental carbon, organic carbon, and 

PM2.5. This regulation requires that most 

open burning in Bernalillo County be 

conducted under a permit from the City 

of Albuquerque EHD subject to specific 

requirements, including: reporting of 

emissions for use in emissions 

inventories; consideration of 

alternatives to burning; use of enhanced 

smoke management techniques 

recommended by the WRAP; and use of 

specific emission reduction techniques. 

The programs in this measure are 

generally designed to limit increases in 

emissions, rather than to reduce existing 

emissions. 

6. Fugitive and Unpaved Road Dust 

Measures 

The progress report mentioned 

measures that provide for control of 

PM10 and PM2.5 emissions from unpaved 

roads and from stationary fugitive dust 

sources.32 The EHD implements this 

requirement through 20.11.20 NMAC, 

Fugitive Dust Control, which requires 

the use of reasonably available control 

measures (RACM) to reduce fugitive 

dust that impairs visibility or adversely 

affects public health, welfare, and 

safety.33 The measure prevents fugitive 

dust from leaving sites where it is 

produced, and thus reduces the amount 

of those emissions. The regulation 

requires sources to obtain permits and 

pay related fees, limits construction 

activity, and has an active enforcement 

program in place to implement the 

provisions on an ongoing basis. In 

addition, the AQCB tracks road dust 

emissions with the assistance of the 

WRAP. They provide updates, including 

modeling and monitoring information, 

on paved and unpaved road dust 

emission impacts on visibility in the 

sixteen Colorado Plateau Class I Areas. 

7. Additional Controls—Local State 

Regulations 

The County lists several local 

regulations that are being used to aid in 

controlling emissions that contribute to 

the formation of regional haze at Class 

I areas. These regulations, and the 

pollutants targeted by them, appear in 

table 2 below. The EHD implements and 

enforces these regulations on a 

continuing basis. 

TABLE 2—COUNTY REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO REGIONAL HAZE 34

Regulation Description Pollutant controlled 

20.11.22 NMAC ............................... Wood burning ........................................................................................ CO, PM. 

20.11.65 NMAC ............................... Volatile Organic Compounds ................................................................. VOCs. 

20.11.66 NMAC ............................... Process Equipment ................................................................................ PM. 

20.11.67 NMAC ............................... Equipment, Emissions, Limitations ........................................................ SO2, NOX, PM. 

20.11.71 NMAC ............................... Municipal Solid Waste Landfills ............................................................. CO. 

20.11.100 NMAC ............................. Motor Vehicle Inspection, Decentralized ............................................... CO, PM, hydrocarbons. 

20.11.102 NMAC ............................. Oxygenated Fuels .................................................................................. CO. 

20.11.103 NMAC ............................. Motor Vehicle Visible Emissions ........................................................... PM. 

8. Summary of Control Strategy 

Implementation 

The EPA proposes to conclude that 

the County adequately addressed the 

status of control measures in its regional 

haze SIP, as required by the provisions 

under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(A) for the 

first implementation period. The 

County’s progress report documented 

the status of all control measures 

included in its regional haze SIP and 

described additional measures that 

came into effect since the County’s 

regional haze SIP was completed, 

including state regulations and various 

federal measures. All major control 

measures were identified and the 

strategy behind each control was 

explained. The County included a 

summary of the implementation status 

associated with each control measure 

and quantified the benefits where 

possible. In addition, the progress report 

SIP adequately outlined the compliance 

timeframe for all controls 

C. Emission Reductions From Control 

Strategies 

The provisions under 40 CFR 

51.309(d)(10)(i)(B) require the state to 

provide a summary of the emission 

reductions achieved in the state through 

the control measures subject to the 

requirements under 40 CFR 

51.309(d)(10)(i)(A). As mentioned 

previously, the County identified 

ammonium sulfate, particulate organic 

matter, and coarse mass as the largest 

contributors historically to visibility 

impairment at New Mexico’s Class I 

areas for the initial round of regional 

haze SIPS. Many of the sources, 

however, that produce these visibilityimpairing pollutants in New Mexico are 

natural, rather than anthropogenic in 

nature, and are not controllable. As a 

result, the New Mexico progress report 

focused on emission reductions from 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
45768 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 189 / Monday, October 2, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

35See the 2014 New Mexico Regional Haze 

Progress Report (page 7). 

36See Figure 3.6 from the 2014 New Mexico 

Regional Haze Progress Report (page 15). 

37See the 2016 County Regional Haze Progress 

Report (page 21). 

38As reported in the online EPA Emissions 

Inventory System (EIS) Gateway database for point 

sources only. 

39See Figure 3.6 from the 2014 New Mexico 

Regional Haze Progress Report (page 15). 

40See the 2016 County Regional Haze Progress 

Report (pages 15–22). 

41The most and least impaired days in the 

regional haze rule refers to the average visibility 

impairment (measured in deciviews) for the 20 

percent of monitored days in a calendar year with 

the highest and lowest amount of visibility 

impairment, respectively, averaged over a five-year 

period (see 40 CFR 51.301). 

point sources because they represent the 

anthropogenic sources in New 

Mexico.35 The New Mexico report 

showed that these pollutants have 

mostly been contributing less to 

visibility impairment at New Mexico 

Class I areas over time, and the 

anthropogenic point source emissions 

related to these pollutants have also 

been declining in areas of the state 

outside the County.36

For comparison, in its progress report, 

the County took the same approach as 

New Mexico and reported 

anthropogenic point source emission 

data (see table 3) from the County for 

NOX, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5 and 

compared it to WRAP 2018 projections 

for the 2008–2013 time-period. 

TABLE 3—THE COUNTY STATIONARY POINT SOURCE EMISSIONS COMPARED TO 2018 WRAP PROJECTIONS 37

Year NOX (tpy) SO2 (tpy) PM10 (tpy) PM2.5 (tpy) 

2008 ................................................................................................................. 1,139 57 1,222 239 

2011 ................................................................................................................. 1,120 74 186 110 

2012 ................................................................................................................. 1,167 132 351 116 

2013 ................................................................................................................. 1,401 165 323 117 

2018 WRAP Projections .................................................................................. 3,402 1,612 411 23 

The County noted that pollutant 

emissions from the County have not 

impeded reductions in the rest of the 

state. SO2 and NOX county emission 

trends have increased slightly since 

2008 but have remained well below the 

WRAP 2018 projections for point 

sources and were just a fraction of the 

levels observed in the rest of the state 

(see table 4). PM10 emission levels for 

the County were below the WRAP 2018 

projections while PM2.5 levels were 

above the WRAP predictions. Although 

the PM2.5 levels were above WRAP 2018 

projections, PM emission levels from 

the County have decreased in a 

downward trend for both fine 

particulates and coarse mass since 2008. 

When comparing pollutant emission 

contributions of NOX, SO2, PM10, and 

PM2.5 from the County to the statewide 

national emission inventory (NEI), the 

County concluded that it is improbable 

that the County emissions have had 

significant impacts on nearby Class I 

areas. The reported point source 

amounts from the County remain low in 

comparison to those from the rest of the 

state as seen from the statewide NEI 

data in table 4. 

TABLE 4—NEI POINT SOURCE EMISSION DATA FOR NEW MEXICO FOR 2002–2014 38

Year NOX (tpy) SO2 (tpy) PM10 (tpy) PM2.5 (tpy) 

2002 ................................................................................................................. 95,493 36,392 6,558 5,511 

2005 ................................................................................................................. 72,707 18,532 3,611 2,994 

2008 ................................................................................................................. 57,461 22,868 2,953 1,754 

2011 ................................................................................................................. 47,497 19,987 2,545 1,722 

2014 ................................................................................................................. 42,623 12,535 3,091 1,538 

The NEI data shows that the emission 

trend of each major contributor to 

visibility impairment in New Mexico 

has decreased significantly since 2002. 

NOX emissions have decreased by 55 

percent and SO2 emissions have 

decreased by 65 percent. PM reductions 

also reduced considerably from their 

NEI baseline totals (52% for PM10 and 

72% for PM2.5) and remain below the 

2018 WRAP projections for New 

Mexico, although not especially 

pronounced.39 A more-detailed 

breakdown of the distribution of each 

contributing pollutant species can be 

seen in section E of this report. 

The EPA proposes to conclude that 

the County adequately addressed the 

requirements under 40 CFR 

51.309(d)(10)(i)(B) with its summary of 

emission reductions of visibility 

impairing pollutants. Overall, the 

County demonstrated the emission 

reductions achieved in the major 

contributing visibility impairing 

pollutants in the County for the first 

implementation period. Anthropogenic 

emissions of haze related pollutants 

from stationary point sources in the 

County are unlikely to reverse the 

larger, favorable statewide emission 

trends, because over time such local 

emissions have remained at a fraction of 

the levels seen in the rest of the state. 

Furthermore, such county emissions are 

under or close to the WRAP 2018 

projections for those pollutants.40

D. Visibility Progress 

The provisions under 40 CFR 

51.309(d)(10)(i)(C) require that states 

with Class I areas provide the following 

information for the most impaired and 

least impaired days 41 for each area, 

with values expressed in terms of fiveyear averages of these annual values: (1) 

Current visibility conditions; (2) the 

difference between current visibility 

conditions and baseline visibility 

conditions; and (3) the change in 

visibility impairment over the past five 

years. The County does not have any 

Class I areas within its borders; 

therefore, no visibility data is required 

to be analyzed for this element. In 

regard to New Mexico’s Class I areas 

outside of the County, please note that 

when comparing baseline to current 

visibility conditions, the New Mexico 

progress report showed that New 

Mexico is currently on track, if not 

exceeding, the visibility impairment 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 189 / Monday, October 2, 2017 / Proposed Rules 45769 

42See table 2.1 of New Mexico Regional Haze 

Progress Report (page 5). 43The emission totals for the County are taken 

from the County regional haze progress report 

(tables 3.22–3.29). Emission totals for the entire 

state of New Mexico are taken from the New Mexico 

Regional Haze progress report (tables 3.23–3.30). 

Detailed inventory descriptions for development of 

the WRAP Base02b, plan02c and plan02d 

inventories are available on the WRAP TSS Web 

site http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/TSS/Results/ 

Emissions.aspx and archived on the original WRAP 

Web site http://www.wrapair.org/forums/ssjf/ 

pivot.html. 

emission reductions needed to achieve 

RPG’s for 2018.42

E. Emissions Progress 

The provisions under 40 CFR 

51.309(d)(10)(i)(D) require an analysis 

tracking emission changes of visibility 

impairing pollutants from the state’s 

sources by type or category over the past 

five years based on the most recent 

updated emission inventory. In its 

progress report SIP, the County 

presented WRAP emission inventories 

for 2002, 2008, and 2011, as well as 

projected inventories for 2018, in 

accordance with the requirements of 40 

CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(D). The pollutant 

inventories included SO2, NOX, NH3, 

VOCs, organic carbon, elemental carbon, 

coarse mass, and soil dust. The 

inventories were categorized for all 

major visibility-impairing pollutants 

under major source groupings either as 

anthropogenic or natural. The 

anthropogenic source categorization 

included point and area sources; on and 

off-road mobile sources; area oil and 

gas; fugitive and road dust; and 

anthropogenic fire. The natural source 

categorization included natural fire, 

wind-blown dust, and biogenic sources. 

A breakdown of the total anthropogenic 

emissions for the County and state can 

be seen below in table 5. The table 

shows the percent apportionment of 

County emissions for each of the key 

haze-causing pollutants related to the 

rest of the state. 

TABLE 5—COMPARISON OF COUNTY AND STATE ANTHROPOGENIC EMISSIONS TO WRAP 2018 PROJECTIONS 43

Pollutant species Inventory 

2002 Total 

baseline 

emissions 

(tons/year) 

2008 Total 

emissions 

(tons/year) 

2011 Total 

emissions 

(tons/year) 

WRAP 2018 

projections 

(tons/year) 

SO2 ................................................... County .............................................. 4,772 (10%) 291 1,250 (6%) 13,770 

State ................................................. 48,354 27,392 21,624 

NOX ................................................... County .............................................. 33,661 (11%) 16,960 14,760 (9%) 26,819 

State ................................................. 295,266 211,132 168,008 

NH3 ................................................... County .............................................. 1,400 (4%) 856 682 (2%) 1,683 

State ................................................. 32,266 43,840 37,071 

VOCs ................................................. County .............................................. 25,573 (7%) 19,137 14,574 (7%) 23,891 

State ................................................. 344,077 268,792 214,360 

PM2.5 ................................................. County .............................................. 2,229 (18%) 4,112 5,777 (7%) 2,433 

State ................................................. 12,573 61,587 85,576 

Coarse Mass ..................................... County .............................................. 16,387 (25%) 36,982 56,655 (7%) 17,369 

State ................................................. 66,096 511,327 830,697 

The WRAP data showed that the 

percentage of County emissions 

contributing to the total state emissions 

has decreased for each pollutant species 

from the 2002 baseline to 2011. The 

WRAP emission inventories were 

previously identified in the SIP as 

reflecting overestimates of actual 

emissions in key source categories. Even 

so, there has not been a drastic, sudden 

spike in the percentages, which would 

be a cause for concern for visibility 

degradation at the Class I areas. The 

decreasing WRAP percentages are 

indicators that the County 

‘‘conservative’’ emission estimates have 

improved throughout the first 

implementation period and are 

contributing less and less to visibility 

impairment at Class I areas outside of its 

borders from 2002–2011. The County 

concluded that it is unlikely that the 

County emissions had significant 

impacts on nearby Class I areas as a 

result. The County’s contribution of 

emissions compared to the New Mexico 

emission inventory, as estimated by the 

WRAP, is six percent of the State SO2

emissions; nine percent of the State 

NOX emissions; two percent of the State 

NH3 emissions; seven percent of the 

State VOC emissions; seven percent of 

the State PM2.5 emissions; and seven 

percent of the State coarse mass 

emissions. These percentages are all 

down from their 2002 baseline levels. 

PM2.5 and coarse mass 2011 total 

emissions are higher than the WRAP 

2018 projections, but their decreasing 

percent contributions are better 

indicators of the progress made since 

emissions have increased statewide, yet 

their percentages have decreased from 

eighteen and 25 percent respectively, in 

2002, to seven percent each in 2011. 

The EPA is proposing to find that the 

County adequately addressed the 

requirements under 40 CFR 

51.309(d)(10)(i)(D). The EPA concludes 

that the County presented an adequate 

analysis tracking emission trends for the 

key visibility impairing pollutants. The 

analysis provided the most recent 

period of approximately five years for 

which data was available in practical 

terms (2002–2008), and provided an 

additional update for 2011 that 

presented further information covering 

approximately two five-year periods 

(2002–2011). The trends indicate that it 

was improbable that sources located 

within the County caused or contributed 

to visibility impairment in any Class I 

area located outside of the County. The 

emission trends declined within the 

County compared to 2002 baseline 

levels and the percent contributions 

related to the rest of the state have all 

continued to decline over time. 

F. Assessment of Changes Impeding 

Visibility Progress 

The provisions under 40 CFR 

51.309(d)(10)(i)(E) require an 

assessment of whether any significant 

emission changes have occurred within 

the state over the five-year period since 

the SIP was submitted, and whether 

emission increases outside the state are 

affecting a Class I area within the state 

adversely. A ‘‘significant change’’ could 

be either a substantial unexpected 

increase in anthropogenic emissions 

that occurred over the five-year period 

or a significant expected reduction in 

anthropogenic emissions that did not 

occur in the analysis for the SIP. 

The EPA proposes to conclude that 

the County adequately addressed the 

provisions under 40 CFR 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
45770 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 189 / Monday, October 2, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

44See 77 FR (24768, 24791). 

45Changes in wildfires are not a ‘‘change’’ to 

report under 51.309(d)(10)(i)(E) per EPA guidance, 

General Principles for the 5-Year Regional Haze 

Progress Reports for the Initial Regional Haze State 

Implementation Plans (page 15). 

46Showed in tables 3.22–3.29 of the County 

Regional Haze Progress Report. 

47The New Mexico progress report concluded 

(pages 46–47) that no changes in the state’s 

visibility monitoring strategy are needed because 

the IMPROVE network has continued to provide 

adequate monitoring data to support 

implementation of the RHR. 

51.309(d)(10)(i)(E). The County does not 

have any Class I areas within its 

borders, so there is no requirement to 

assess impacts in the County from 

sources outside of its boundaries. 

Furthermore, the County sources do not 

impact any of the Class I areas outside 

of its borders, as was stated in the 

County’s regional haze SIP revision, 

which the EPA approved on April 25, 

2012.44 In conjunction with that 

previous action, the EPA’s current 

analysis of emission reductions to meet 

the provisions of 40 CFR 

51.309(d)(10)(i)(B) and 40 CFR 

51.309(d)(10)(i)(D) show that no 

‘‘significant changes’’ in emissions 

within the County have occurred to 

impede visibility improvement or have 

adversely affected the nine Class I areas 

in New Mexico.45 Emission trends for 

the key visibility impairing pollutants 

were confirmed to be decreasing from 

the baseline to 2018 by statewide NEI 

data and reported County emissions. 

Additionally, the WRAP data showed 

that emissions from the County have 

remained at the same percentage levels 

over time or decreased relative to 

emissions from elsewhere in the state. 

G. Assessment of Current Strategy To 

Meet RPGs 

The provisions under 40 CFR 

51.309(d)(10)(i)(F) require an 

assessment of whether the current 

regional haze SIP is sufficient to enable 

the state, or other states, to meet the 

RPGs for Class I areas affected by 

emissions from the state. The County 

does not contain any Class I areas, and 

emissions from the County were found 

to not impact any Class I areas outside 

of its borders. As discussed previously, 

the NEI data showed that the total 

emissions of each major contributor to 

visibility impairment in New Mexico 

has decreased significantly since 2002. 

The total County emissions have 

remained at a fraction of the levels seen 

in the rest of the state and are under or 

close to the WRAP 2018 RPGs when 

looking at the cumulative anthropogenic 

emissions. 

The County provided a breakdown 

showing whether or not every key 

pollutant in each source category was 

meeting its 2018 RPGs for annual 

emissions.46 Of the 56 individual RPGs 

for the County, 42 were either being met 

or referred to pollutants that showed 

declining emissions since 2002. 

Fourteen of the County goals were not 

yet being met as of the 2011 WRAP 

inventory, but nine of those annual 

goals showed reported emission levels 

less than 200 tpy, and one was just 

under 500 tpy. Those ten goals were 

associated with point sources and on 

and off road mobile source categories. 

The County concluded that those ten 

reported emissions were unlikely to 

impede New Mexico’s progress toward 

achieving statewide goals for emissions 

and visibility since the emission levels 

represented a negligible portion of total 

statewide emissions. 

The four remaining annual emission 

goals that were not being met covered 

coarse mass, organic carbon, and PM2.5

pollutants. The increased contributions 

from these pollutants were associated 

with fugitive/road dust and area (nonpoint) source categories. Annual 

emissions with higher levels of organic 

matter, elemental carbon, PM2.5 and 

coarse mass with a lower contribution 

from ammonium sulfate are heavily 

dominated from wildfires and 

particulate matter. High coarse mass 

was measured during the spring, which 

was indicative of high-wind events that 

occurred during the late winter and 

spring months in New Mexico. 

Wildfires or high-wind events might 

again affect annual emissions in the 

2018 timeframe, but the County showed 

that it is meeting nearly all of its annual 

emission goals even with experienced 

annual emission increases from natural 

events that still have not hindered New 

Mexico from meeting its RPGs beyond 

the County borders. The County expects 

further reduction of SO2 and NO2

emissions, the primary pollutant species 

associated with anthropogenic sources, 

to continue their broad declines in the 

same areas. 

The EPA proposes to conclude that 

the County has addressed 40 CFR 

51.309(d)(10)(i)(F) because its current 

regional haze SIP is sufficient to enable 

the state of New Mexico and other 

nearby states to meet their RPGs, 

particularly as the County was not 

identified as contributing to any 

impairment in such Class I areas. The 

fairly constant proportion of County 

emissions compared to the rest of the 

state are negligible. In spite of natural 

events, the County showed that it is 

meeting nearly all of its annual emission 

goals and the annual emission increases 

from natural events still have not 

hindered New Mexico from meeting its 

RPGs beyond the County borders. 

H. Review of Visibility Monitoring 

Strategy 

The provisions under 40 CFR 

51.309(10)(i)(G) require a review of a 

state’s visibility monitoring strategy for 

visibility impairing pollutants and an 

assessment of whether any 

modifications to the strategy are 

necessary. In its progress report SIP, the 

County stated that there are no Class I 

areas within its boundaries, and 

therefore it was not required to fulfill 

this provision. The EPA proposes to 

conclude that the County is exempt 

from addressing the requirements of 40 

CFR 51.309(10)(i)(G), as that 

requirement is solely for states with 

Class I areas in their borders.47

I. Determination of Adequacy of 

Existing Regional Haze Plan 

Under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(ii), states 

are required to submit, at the same time 

as the progress report SIP, a 

determination of the adequacy of their 

existing regional haze SIP and to take 

one of four possible actions based on 

information in the progress report. 40 

CFR 51.309(d)(10)(ii) requires states to 

take one of the following actions: 

(1) Submit a negative declaration to 

the EPA that no further substantive 

revision to the State’s existing regional 

haze SIP is needed. 

(2) If the State determines that the 

implementation plan is or may be 

inadequate to ensure reasonable 

progress due to emissions from sources 

in another state(s) which participated in 

a regional planning process, the State 

must provide notification to the EPA 

and to the other state(s) which 

participated in the regional planning 

process with the states. The State must 

also collaborate with the other state(s) 

through the regional planning process 

for developing additional strategies to 

address the plan’s deficiencies. 

(3) Where the State determines that 

the implementation plan is or may be 

inadequate to ensure reasonable 

progress due to emissions from sources 

in another country, the State shall 

provide notification, along with 

available information, to the 

Administrator. 

(4) If the State determines that the 

implementation plan is or may be 

inadequate to ensure reasonable 

progress due to emissions from sources 

within the State, then the State shall 

revise its implementation plan to 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 189 / Monday, October 2, 2017 / Proposed Rules 45771 

address the plan’s deficiencies within 

one year. 

The City of Albuquerque and 

Bernalillo County, New Mexico has 

provided the information required 

under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i) in the 

five-year progress report. Based upon 

this information, the County stated in its 

progress report SIP that it believes that 

the current Section 309 and Section 

309(g) regional haze SIPs are adequate 

to meet the State’s 2018 RPGs and 

require no further revision at this time. 

Thus, the EPA has received a negative 

declaration from the City of 

Albuquerque and Bernalillo County, 

NM. 

IV. The EPA’s Proposed Action 

The EPA is proposing to approve the 

City of Albuquerque and Bernalillo 

County, New Mexico’s regional haze 

five-year progress report SIP revision 

(submitted June 24, 2016) as meeting the 

applicable regional haze requirements 

set forth in 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10). The 

EPA is proposing to approve the City of 

Albuquerque and Bernalillo County, 

New Mexico’s determination that the 

current regional haze SIP is adequate to 

meet the State’s 2018 RPGs. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, 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, the 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely proposes to approve state law as 

meeting Federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. For 

that reason, this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993), 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011), and 13771 (82 FR 

9339, February 2, 2017); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Public Law 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). In 

addition, the SIP is not approved to 

apply on any Indian reservation land or 

in any other area where EPA or an 

Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the proposed rule does 

not have tribal implications and will not 

impose substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Best Available 

Retrofit Technology, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Regional haze, Sulfur 

dioxide, Visibility, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

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

Dated: September 26, 2017. 

Samuel Coleman, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

[FR Doc. 2017–21006 Filed 9–29–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD 

49 CFR Part 1102 

[Docket No. EP 739] 

Ex Parte Communications in Informal 

Rulemaking Proceedings 

AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board. 

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: In this decision, the Surface 

Transportation Board (the Board) 

proposes to modify its regulations to 

permit, subject to disclosure 

requirements, ex parte communications 

in informal rulemaking proceedings. 

The Board also proposes other changes 

to its ex parte rules that would clarify 

and update when and how interested 

persons may communicate informally 

with the Board regarding pending 

proceedings other than rulemakings. 

The intent of the proposed regulations 

is to enhance the Board’s ability to make 

informed decisions through increased 

stakeholder communications while 

ensuring that the Board’s recordbuilding process in rulemaking 

proceedings remains transparent and 

fair. 

DATES: Comments are due by November 

1, 2017. Replies are due by November 

16, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: Comments and replies may 

be submitted either via the Board’s efiling format or in paper format. Any 

person using e-filing should attach a 

document and otherwise comply with 

the instructions found on the Board’s 

Web site at ‘‘www.stb.gov’’ at the ‘‘E– 

FILING’’ link. Any person submitting a 

filing in paper format should send an 

original and 10 paper copies of the filing 

to: Surface Transportation Board, Attn: 

Docket No. EP 739, 395 E Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20423–0001. Copies of 

written comments and replies will be 

available for viewing and self-copying at 

the Board’s Public Docket Room, Room 

131, and will be posted to the Board’s 

Web site. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jonathon Binet at (202) 245–0368. 

Assistance for the hearing impaired is 

available through the Federal 

Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 

(800) 877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Board’s current regulations at 49 CFR 

1102.2 generally prohibit most informal 

communications between the Board and 

interested persons concerning the merits 

of pending Board proceedings. These 

regulations require that communications 

with the Board or Board staff regarding 

the merits of an ‘‘on-the-record’’ Board 

proceeding not be made on an ex parte 

basis (i.e., without the knowledge or 

consent of the parties to the 

proceeding). See 49 CFR 1102.2(c); 49 

CFR 1102.2(a)(3). The current 

regulations detail the procedures 

required in the event an impermissible 

communication occurs and the potential 

sanctions for violations. See 49 CFR 

1102.2(e), (f). 

The Board’s predecessor agency, the 

Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC), 

determined that the general prohibition 

on ex parte communications in 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS