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

Federal RegisterJun 15, 2012

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

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

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

AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:

Proposed rule.

SUMMARY:

EPA is proposing to approve New Mexico State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted on July 5, 2011, and December 1, 2003, by the Governor of New Mexico addressing the regional haze requirements for the 16 Class I areas covered by the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission Report and a separate submittal for other Federal mandatory Class I areas. EPA is proposing to find that the submittals meet the requirements. We are proposing action on all components of the state's submittals except for the submitted nitrogen oxides (NO

) Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) determination for the San Juan Generating Station (SJGS). We propose to approve all other components, including the sulfur dioxide emission reduction milestones and backstop trading program, the smoke management plan and the particulate matter BART determination for the SJGS. We are also proposing to approve several SIP submissions offered as companion rules to the regional haze plan, including submitted regulations for the Western Backstop Sulfur Dioxide Trading Program, for the inventorying of emissions, for smoke management, and open burning. EPA is taking this action under section 110 of the Clean Air Act.

DATES:

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

ADDRESSES:

Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-2009-0050 by one of the following methods:

•

Federal e-Rulemaking Portal:

http://www.regulations.gov.

Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.

•

Email:

R6air_nmhaze@epa.gov.

•

Mail:

Mr. Michael Feldman, Air Planning Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.

•

Hand or Courier Delivery:

Mr. Michael Feldman, Air Planning Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. Such deliveries are accepted only between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. weekdays, and not on legal holidays. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

•

Fax:

Mr. Michael Feldman, Air Planning Section (6PD-L), at fax number 214-665-7263.

Instructions:

Direct your comments to Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2009-0050. Our policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at

www.regulations.gov,

including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through

www.regulations.gov

or email. The

www.regulations.gov

web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means we will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to us without going through

www.regulations.gov

your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, we recommend that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If we cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, we may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.

Docket:

All documents in the docket are listed in the

www.regulations.gov

index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available,

e.g.,

CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in

www.regulations.gov

or in hard copy at the Air Planning Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. The file will be made available by appointment for public inspection in the Region 6 FOIA Review Room between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. weekdays except for legal holidays. Contact the person listed in the

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

paragraph below or Mr. Bill Deese at 214-665-7253 to make an appointment. If possible, please make the appointment at least two working days in advance of your visit. There will be a 15 cent per page fee for making photocopies of documents. On the day of the visit, please check in at our Region 6 reception area at 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas.

The State of New Mexico submittal is also available for public inspection during official business hours, by appointment, at New Mexico Environmental Department, Air Quality Bureau, 1301 Siler Rd, Building B, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87507.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michael Feldman, Air Planning Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone 214-665-9793; fax number 214-665-7263; email address

feldman.michael@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Definitions

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

i. The words or initials

Act

CAA

mean or refer to the Clean Air Act, unless the context indicates otherwise.

ii. The words

EPA, we, us

our

mean or refer to the United States Environmental Protection Agency.

iii. The initials

SIP

mean or refer to State Implementation Plan.

iv. The initials

FIP

mean or refer to Federal Implementation Plan.

v. The initials

and

RHR

mean or refer to Regional Haze and Regional Haze Rule.

vi. The initials

NMED

mean the New Mexico Environmental Department.

vii. The initials

BART

mean or refer to Best Available Retrofit Technology.

viii. The initials

mean or refer to organic carbon.

ix. The initials

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

mean or refer to nitrogen oxides.

xiii. The initials

mean or refer to sulfur dioxide.

xiv. The initials

mean or refer to particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of less than 10 micrometers.

xv. The initials

2.5

mean or refer to particulate matter with an aerodynamic of less than 2.5 micrometers.

xvi. The initials

RPGs

mean or refer to reasonable progress goals.

xvii. The initials

LTS

mean or refer to long term strategy.

xviii. The initials

RPOs

mean or refer to regional planning organizations.

xix. The initials

WRAP

mean or refer to the Western Regional Air Partnership.

xx. The initials

CENRAP

mean or refer to the Central Regional Air Planning Association.

xxi. The initials

AQCB

mean or refer to the Albuquerque-Bernalillo County Air Quality Control Board.

xxii. The initials

GCVTC

mean or refer to the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission.

xxiii. The initials

PNM

mean or refer to the Public Service Company of New Mexico.

xxiv. The initials

SJGS

mean or refer to the San Juan Generating Station.

Table of Contents

I. Overview of Proposed Action

II. What is the background for our proposed actions?

A. Regional Haze

B. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze

C. Development of the Requirements for 40 CFR 51.309

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

A. The CAA and the Regional Haze Rule

B. Projection of Visibility Improvement

C. Clean Air Corridors

D. Stationary Source Reductions

1. SO

Emission Reductions

2. Provisions for Stationary Source Emissions of Nitrogen Oxides (NO

) and Particulate Matter (PM)

E. Mobile Sources

F. Programs Related to Fire

G. Paved and Unpaved Road Dust

H. Pollution Prevention

I. Additional Recommendations

J. Periodic Implementation Plan Revisions

K. Interstate Coordination

L. Additional Class I Areas

1. Determination of Reasonable Progress Goals

2. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and Current Visibility Conditions

3. Long-Term Strategy (LTS)

4. Monitoring Strategy and Other SIP Requirements

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

A. “Better-Than-BART” Demonstration

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

1. Applicability

2. Allowances

3. Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting

4. Tracking System

5. Account Representative

6. Allowance Transfer

7. Compliance Provisions

8. Penalty Provisions

9. Banking of Allowances

10. Program Assessment

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

A. Projection of Visibility Improvement

B. Clean Air Corridors (CAC)

1. Comprehensive Emissions Tracking Program

2. Identification of CACs

3. Patterns of Growth Within and Outside of the CAC

4. Actions If Impairment Inside or Outside the Clean Air Corridor Occurs

5. Other CACs

C. Stationary Source Reductions

1. Provisions for Stationary Source Emissions of SO

2. Documentation of Emissions Calculation Methods for SO

3. Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting of SO

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 NO

and PM

1. Identification of BART-Eligible Sources

2. Identification of Sources Subject to BART

a. Modeling Methodology

b. Contribution Threshold

c. Sources Identified to be Subject-to-BART

3. BART Determination for SJGS

a. New Mexico's PM BART Determination

b. Our Evaluation of New Mexico's PM BART Determination

G. Mobile Sources

H. Programs Related to Fire

1. Evaluation of Current Fire Programs

a. Actions To Minimize Emissions

b. Evaluation of Smoke Dispersion

c. Alternatives to Fire

d. Public Notification

e. Air Quality Monitoring

f. Surveillance and Enforcement

g. Program Evaluation

2. Inventory and Tracking System

3. Identification and Removal of Administrative Barriers

4. Enhanced Smoke Management Program

5. Annual Emission Goal

I. Paved and Unpaved Road Dust

J. Pollution Prevention

1. Description of Existing Pollution Prevention Program

2. Incentive Programs

3. Programs To Preserve and Expand Energy Conservation Efforts

4. Potential for Renewable Energy

5. Projections of Renewable Energy Goals, Energy Efficiency, and Pollution Prevention Activities

6. Programs To Achieve GCVTC Renewable Energy Goal

K. Additional Recommendations

L. Periodic Implementation Plan Revisions

M. Interstate Coordination

N. Additional Class I Areas

1. Affected Class I Areas

2. Determination of Baseline, Natural and Current Visibility Conditions

a. Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions

b. Estimating Baseline Visibility Conditions

c. Natural Visibility Impairment

d. Uniform Rate of Progress

3. Evaluation of New Mexico's Reasonable Progress Goals

a. WRAP Visibility Modeling

b. NMED's Reasonable Progress “Four Factor” Analysis

c. Establishment of the Reasonable Progress Goal

d. Reasonable Progress Consultation

e. Our Conclusion on New Mexico's Reasonable Progress Goals

4. Long-Term Strategy

a. Emissions Inventory

i. New Mexico's 2002 Emission Inventory

ii. New Mexico's 2018 Emission Inventory

b. Visibility Projection Modeling

c. Sources of Visibility Impairment in New Mexico Class I Areas

i. Sources of Visibility Impairment in Bandelier Wilderness

ii. Sources of Visibility Impairment in Bosque del Apache National Wildlife Refuge

iii. Sources of Visibility Impairment in Carlsbad Caverns National Park

iv. Sources of Visibility Impairment in Gila Wilderness

v. Sources of Visibility Impairment in Pecos Wilderness and Wheeler Peak Wilderness

vi. Sources of Visibility Impairment in Salt Creek Wilderness

vii. Sources of Visibility Impairment in White Mountain Wilderness

d. New Mexico's Contributions to Visibility Impairment at Class I Areas in Other States

e. Consultation and Emissions Reductions for Other States' Class I Areas

f. Mandatory Long Term Strategy Factors

i. Reductions Due to Ongoing Air Pollution Programs

ii. Measures to Mitigate the Impacts of Construction Activities

iii. Emission Limitations and Schedules of Compliance

iv. Source Retirement and Replacement Schedules

v. Agricultural and Forestry Smoke Management Techniques

vi. Enforceability of New Mexico's Measures

vii. Anticipated Net Effect on Visibility Due to Projected Changes

g. Our Conclusion on New Mexico's Long Term Strategy

5. Monitoring Strategy and Other SIP Requirements

VI. EPA's Conclusions and Proposed Action

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Overview of Proposed Action

As explained in further detail below, 40 CFR 51.309 presents certain Western states covered by the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission with the option of fulfilling the regional haze rule (RHR) requirements for 16 Class I areas under the provisions of that section, rather than under 40 CFR 51.308. Three states—Wyoming, Utah, and New Mexico—have elected to submit a SIP under 40 CFR 51.309. The Albuquerque/Bernalillo County Air Quality Control Board, as the federally delegated air quality authority for the City of Albuquerque and Bernalillo County, New Mexico, for its geographic area of New Mexico under the New Mexico Air Quality Control Act (section 74-2-4) has also submitted a Section 309 regional haze SIP. This separate submittal for Albuquerque/Bernalillo County is necessary for the Regional Haze (RH) requirements to be met for the entire State of New Mexico and is also necessary to ensure the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA are satisfied for the entire State of New Mexico. The Regional Haze and 110(a)(2)(D) submissions for Albuquerque/Bernalillo County are being reviewed in a separate

Federal Register

action.

New Mexico submitted its RH SIP to EPA on July 5, 2011, and it adds to earlier RH SIP planning components that were submitted by the state on December 1, 2003. We are acting on the great majority of the components of this newly submitted 2011 revision in advance of our ordinary statutory requirement to act on new submissions.

In this action, we are proposing to approve components of the New Mexico Regional Haze SIP revisions that were submitted to satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309. Among the requirements, Section 309 calls for plans to include a market trading program, conventionally known as the 309 backstop-trading program; this program will not be effective until EPA has finalized action on all section 309 SIPs. Section 51.309 does not require the participation of a certain number of states to validate its effectiveness. Utah submitted its 309 SIP to EPA on May 26, 2011, Wyoming submitted its 309 SIP to EPA on January 12, 2011 and the City of Albuquerque-Bernalillo County submitted its 309 SIP to EPA on July 28, 2011. EPA proposed action on Bernalillo County's 309 SIP on April 25, 2012 (77 FR 24768), Utah's 309 SIP on May 15, 2012 (77 FR 28825), and Wyoming's 309 SIP on May 24, 2012 (77 FR 30953). If EPA takes final action approving the necessary components for the 309 backstop-trading program to operate in all of the jurisdictions electing to submit 309 SIPs, the program will become effective.

Our review of the RH SIP is supported by the review of companion regulations—regulations that the RH SIP references and relies upon, that have also been submitted for SIP approval. Specifically, New Mexico submitted 20.2.81 NMAC, Western Backstop Sulfur Dioxide Trading Program, after initial adoption, on December 1, 2003, and thereafter submitted revisions with the State's RH 309 SIP on July 5, 2011. We are proposing to fully approve 20.2.81 NMAC. We are also proposing to fully approve the following additional companion regulations: 20.2.65 NMAC,

Smoke Management

and 20.2.60 NMAC

Open Burning,

both—after their initial adoption—submitted on December 1, 2003; and July 5, 2011 submitted revisions to 20.2.73.300.F NMAC, a subprovision of a previously approved rule that pertains to the “

Emission tracking requirements for sulfur dioxide emission inventories.

”

Further details and the analyses of these companion regulations are provided in the Technical Support Document in the docket for this rulemaking. These rules are also discussed at later points in this notice when they are relevant to our analysis of New Mexico's RH SIP submittal.

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

As previously stated, EPA is proposing to approve New Mexico SIP revisions submitted on July 5, 2011, and December 1, 2003, that address the regional haze requirements for the mandatory Class I areas under 40 CFR 51.309. EPA is proposing to find that all reviewed components of the SIP meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309.

We note that we are not proposing action on the submitted NO

BART determination for the San Juan Generating Station. The NO

BART requirement for the source is presently satisfied by the BART determination that is effective under the federal implementation plan at 40 CFR 52.1628. We have no current statutory duty or consent decree obligation to act on this component of the state's Regional Haze SIP submittal. We will, however, propose action on the submitted NO

BART determination for San Juan Generating Station through a future, separate proposal, unless the state of New Mexico earlier withdraws it in favor of an alternative that it may develop through discussions with the source and EPA.

II. What is the background for our proposed actions?

A. Regional Haze

RH is visibility impairment that is produced by a multitude of sources and activities which are located across a broad geographic area and emit fine particles (PM

2.5

) (

e.g.,

sulfates, nitrates, organic carbon, elemental carbon, and soil dust) and their precursors (

e.g.,

, nitrogen oxides (NO

), and in some cases, ammonia (NH

) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs)). Fine particle precursors react in the atmosphere to form PM

2.5

(

e.g.,

sulfates, nitrates, organic carbon, elemental carbon, and soil dust), which also impair visibility by scattering and absorbing light. Visibility impairment reduces the clarity, color, and visible distance that one can see. PM

2.5

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

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.

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

which impairment

results from man-made air pollution.” CAA § 169A(a)(1). The terms “impairment of visibility” and “visibility impairment” are defined in the Act to include a reduction in visual range and atmospheric discoloration.

Id.

section 169A(g)(6). In 1980, we promulgated regulations to address visibility impairment in Class I areas that is “reasonably attributable” to a single source or small group of sources,

i.e.,

“reasonably attributable visibility impairment” (RAVI). 45 FR 80084 (December 2, 1980). These regulations represented the first phase in addressing visibility impairment. We deferred action on RH that emanates from a variety of sources until monitoring, modeling and scientific knowledge about the relationships between pollutants and visibility impairment improved.

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.

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

Albuquerque/Bernalillo County in New Mexico must also submit a regional haze SIP to completely satisfy the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA for the entire State of New Mexico under the New Mexico Air Quality Control Act (section 74-2-4).

B. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze

Successful implementation of the RH program will require long-term regional coordination among states, tribal governments and various federal agencies. As noted above, pollution affecting the air quality in Class I areas can be transported over long distances, even hundreds of kilometers. Therefore, to address effectively the problem of visibility impairment in Class I areas, states need to develop strategies in coordination with one another, taking into account the effect of emissions from one jurisdiction on the air quality in another.

Because the pollutants that lead to RH can originate from sources located across broad geographic areas, we have encouraged the states and tribes across the United States to address visibility impairment from a regional perspective. Five regional planning organizations (RPOs) were developed to address RH and related issues. The RPOs first evaluated technical information to better understand how their states and tribes impact Class I areas across the country, and then pursued the development of regional strategies to reduce emissions of particulate matter (PM) and other pollutants leading to RH.

The WRAP RPO is a collaborative effort of state governments, tribal governments, and various federal agencies established to initiate and coordinate activities associated with the management of regional haze, visibility and other air quality issues in the western United States. WRAP member state governments include: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. The City of Albuquerque and Bernalillo County act as agents of the Albuquerque-Bernalillo County Air Quality Control Board (AQCB) to implement, administer, and enforce the local air quality program within Albuquerque and Bernalillo County. The AQCB is the federally-delegated authority to implement the CAA for this area, which lies within the State of New Mexico. The AQCB staff participated in meetings with the State of New Mexico staff to coordinate its efforts with the State of New Mexico in developing its separate 309 SIP.

C. Development of the Requirements for 40 CFR 51.309

EPA's RHR provides two paths to address regional haze. One is 40 CFR 51.308, requiring states to perform individual point source BART determinations and evaluate the need for other control strategies. These strategies must be shown to make “reasonable progress” in improving visibility in Class I areas inside the state and in neighboring jurisdictions. The other method for addressing regional haze is through 40 CFR 51.309 (section 309), and is an option for nine states termed the “Transport Region States” which include: Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming, and the 211 Tribes located within those states.

Section 309 requires participating states to adopt regional haze strategies that are based on recommendations from the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission (GCVTC) for protecting the 16 Class I areas in the Colorado Plateau area.

The EPA established the GCVTC on November 13, 1991. The purpose of the GCVTC was to assess information about the adverse impacts on visibility in and around 16 Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau region and to provide policy recommendations to EPA to address such impacts. Section 169B of the CAA called for the GCVTC to evaluate visibility research as well as other available information pertaining to adverse impacts on visibility from potential or projected growth in emissions from sources located in the region. It was determined that all transport region states impacted or could potentially impact the Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau. The GCVTC submitted a report to EPA in 1996 with its policy recommendations. Provisions of the 1996 GCVTC report include: strategies for addressing smoke emissions from wildland fires and agricultural burning; provisions to prevent pollution by encouraging renewable energy development; and provisions to manage clean air corridors, mobile sources, and wind-blown dust, among other things. The EPA codified these recommendations as part of the 1999 RHR.

The Colorado Plateau is a high, semi-arid tableland in southeast Utah, northern Arizona, northwest New Mexico, and western Colorado. The 16 mandatory Class I areas are as follows: Grand Canyon National Park, Mount Baldy Wilderness, Petrified Forest National Park, Sycamore Canyon Wilderness, Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park Wilderness, Flat Tops Wilderness, Maroon Bells Wilderness, Mesa Verde National Park, Weminuche Wilderness, West Elk Wilderness, San Pedro Parks Wilderness, Arches National Park, Bryce Canyon National Park, Canyonlands National Park, Capital Reef National Park, and Zion National Park.

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

milestones and provisions for a trading program or other alternative measure (64 FR 35749 and 35756, July 1, 1999). Thus, the 1999 RHR required that Western states submit an annex to the GCVTC report with quantitative milestones and detailed guidelines in order to establish the GCVTC recommendations as an alternative approach to fulfilling the section 308 requirements for compliance with the RHR. In September 2000, the WRAP, which is the successor organization to the GCVTC, submitted to EPA an annex to the GCVTC. The annex contained SO

emission reduction milestones and the detailed provisions of a backstop trading program to be implemented automatically if voluntary measures failed to achieve the milestones. EPA codified the annex on June 5, 2003 as 40 CFR 51.309(h). 68 FR 33764.

Five Western states submitted implementation plans under the section 309 alternative program in 2003. EPA was challenged by the Center for Energy and Economic Development (CEED) on the validity of the annex provisions. In

CEED

EPA,

the D.C. Circuit vacated EPA's approval of the WRAP annex (

Center for Energy and Economic Development

EPA,

No. 03-1222 (D.C. Cir. Feb. 18, 2005)). In response to the court's decision, EPA vacated the annex requirements adopted as 40 CR 51.309(h), but left in place the stationary source requirements in 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4). 71 FR 60612 (October 13, 2006). The requirements under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4) contain general requirements pertaining to stationary sources and market trading, and allow states to adopt alternatives to the point source application of BART.

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

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

A. The CAA and the Regional Haze Rule

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

B. Projection of Visibility Improvement

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

C. Clean Air Corridors

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

D. Stationary Source Reductions

1. SO

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.

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.

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

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 SO

BART requirements with emission milestones and a backstop trading program (40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)). Under this approach, an RH 309 SIP must establish declining SO

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 SO

emissions by 2040. If the milestones are exceeded in any year, the backstop trading program is triggered.

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(ii)-(iv), states must include requirements in the RH 309 SIP that allow states to determine whether the milestone has been exceeded. These requirements include documentation of the baseline emission calculation, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting (MRR) of SO

emissions, and provisions for conducting an annual evaluation to determine whether the milestone has been exceeded. 40 CFR 309(d)(4)(v) also contains requirements for implementing the backstop trading program in the event that the milestone is exceeded and the program is triggered.

The WRAP, in conjunction with EPA, developed a model for a backstop trading program. In order to ensure consistency between states, states opting to participate in the 309 program need to adopt rules that are substantively equivalent to the rules of the model

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 (NO

) 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 NO

. 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.

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).

American Corn Growers Ass'n

EPA,

291 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2002), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a ruling vacating and remanding the BART provisions of the regional haze rule. In 2005, we issued BART guidelines to address the court's ruling in that case.

See

70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005).

On July 6, 2005, EPA published the

Guidelines for BART Determinations Under the Regional Haze Rule

at Appendix Y to 40 CFR Part 51 (hereinafter referred to as the “BART Guidelines”) to assist states in determining which of their sources should be subject to the BART requirements and the appropriate emission limits for each applicable source. The BART Guidelines are not mandatory for all sources; in making a BART determination for a fossil fuel-fired electric generating plant (EGU) with a total generating capacity in excess of 750 megawatts, a state must use the approach set forth in the BART Guidelines. A state is encouraged, but not required, to follow the BART Guidelines in making BART determinations for other types of sources.

The process of establishing BART emission limitations can be logically broken down into three steps: first, states identify those sources which meet the definition of “BART-eligible source” set forth in 40 CFR 51.301

; 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.

BART-eligible sources are those sources that have the potential to emit 250 tons or more of a visibility-impairing air pollutant, were put in place between August 7, 1962 and August 7, 1977, and whose operations fall within one or more of 26 specifically listed source categories.

Under the BART Guidelines, states may select an exemption threshold value for their BART modeling, below which a BART-eligible source would not be expected to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in any Class I area. The state must document this exemption threshold value in the SIP and state the basis for its selection of that value. Any source with emissions that model above the threshold value would be subject to a BART determination review, or would become what is termed a “subject-to-BART” source. The BART Guidelines acknowledge varying circumstances affecting different Class I areas. States should consider the number of emission sources affecting the Class I areas at issue and the magnitude of the individual sources' impacts. Any exemption threshold set by the state should not be higher than 0.5 deciview. See also 40 CFR part 51, Appendix Y, section III.A.1.

In their SIPs, states must identify subject-to-BART-sources and document their BART control determination analyses. The term “subject-to-BART- source” used in the BART Guidelines means the collection of individual emission units at a facility that together comprises the subject-to-BART-source. In making BART determinations, section 169A(g)(2) of the CAA requires that states consider the following factors: (1) The costs of compliance; (2) the energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance; (3) any existing pollution control technology in use at the source; (4) the remaining useful life of the source; and (5) the degree of improvement in visibility which may reasonably be anticipated to result from the use of such technology. States are free to determine the weight and significance to be assigned to each factor. Although the states have the freedom to determine the weight and significance of the statutory factors, they have an overriding obligation to come to a reasoned determination. 76 FR 81733 (Dec 28, 2011).

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

See

CAA section 110(a).

E. Mobile Sources

Under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(5), the RH 309 SIP must provide inventories of on-road and non-road mobile source emissions of VOCs, NO

, SO

, PM

2.5

, 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 SO

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: actions to minimize emissions; evaluation of smoke dispersion; alternatives to fire; public notification; air quality monitoring; surveillance and enforcement; and program evaluation. The plan must be able to track statewide emissions of VOC, NO

, EC, OC, and fine particulate emissions from prescribed burning within the state.

Other requirements states must meet in their 309 plan related to fire include the adoption of a statewide process for gathering post-burn activity information to support emissions inventory and tracking systems. The plan must identify existing administrative barriers to the use of non-burning alternatives and adopt a process for continuing to identify and remove administrative barriers where feasible. The RH 309 SIP must include an enhanced smoke management program that considers visibility effects in addition to health objectives and is based on the criteria of efficiency, economics, law, emission reduction opportunities, land management objectives, and reduction of visibility impairment. Finally, the plan must establish annual emission goals to minimize emission increases from fire.

G. Paved and Unpaved Road Dust

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

H. Pollution Prevention

The requirements under pollution prevention only require the RH 309 SIP to provide an assessment of the energy programs as outlined in 40 CFR 51.309(d)(8) and does not require a state to adopt any specific energy-related strategies or regulations for regional haze. In order to meet the requirements related to pollution prevention, the state's plan must include an initial summary of all pollution prevention programs currently in place, an inventory of all renewable energy generation capacity and production in use or planned as of the year 2002, the total energy generation capacity and production for the state, and the percent of the total that is renewable energy.

The state's plan must include a discussion of programs that provide incentives for efforts that go beyond compliance and/or achieve early compliance with air-pollution related requirements and programs to preserve and expand energy conservation efforts. The state must identify specific areas where renewable energy has the potential to supply power where it is now lacking and where renewable energy is most cost-effective. The RH 309 plan must include projections of the short- and long-term emissions reductions, visibility improvements, cost savings, and secondary benefits associated with the renewable energy goals, energy efficiency, and pollution prevention activities. The plan must also provide its anticipated contribution toward the GCVTC renewable energy goals for 2005 and 2015. The GCVTC goals are that renewable energy will comprise 10 percent of the regional power needs by 2005 and 20 percent by 2015.

I. Additional Recommendations

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

J. Periodic Implementation Plan Revisions

The RHR requires states to submit progress reports in the form of SIP revisions in 2013 and 2018 (40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)). The SIP revisions must comply with the procedural requirements of 40 CFR 51.102 for public hearings and 40 CFR 51.103 for submission of plans. The assessment in the progress report must include an evaluation of Class I areas located within the state and Class I areas outside the state that are affected by emissions from the state. EPA views these SIP revisions as a periodic check on progress, rather than a thorough revision of regional strategies. The state should focus on significant shortcomings of the original SIP from sources that were not fully accounted for or anticipated when the SIP was initially developed. The specifics of what each progress report must contain can be found at 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(A)-(G).

At the same time that the state submits its progress reports to EPA, it must also take an action based on the outcome of this assessment. If the assessment shows that the SIP requires no substantive revision, the state must submit to EPA a “negative declaration” statement saying that no further SIP revisions are necessary at this time. If the assessment shows that the SIP is or may be inadequate due to emissions from outside the state, the state must notify EPA and other regional planning states and work with them to develop additional strategies. If the assessment shows that the SIP is or may be inadequate due to emissions from another country, the state must include appropriate notification to EPA in its SIP revision. In the event the assessment shows that the SIP is or may be inadequate due to emissions from within the state, the state shall develop additional strategies to address the deficiencies and revise the SIP within one year from the due date of the progress report.

K. Interstate Coordination

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

L. Additional Class I Areas

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

implementation plan that demonstrates the expected visibility conditions for the most and least impaired days at the additional Class I areas based on emission projections from the long-term strategies in the implementation plan. The implementation plan must contain provisions establishing reasonable progress goals and additional measures necessary to demonstrate reasonable progress for the additional Federal Class I areas. The RH 309 SIP must address regional haze in each additional Class I area located within the State and in each additional Class I area located outside the State which may be affected by emissions from within the State. 40 CFR 51.309(g) requires that these provisions comply with 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1) through (4), the general requirements of which are described below.

1. Determination of Reasonable Progress Goals

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1), for each mandatory Class I area located within the State, the regional haze SIPs must establish goals (expressed in deciviews, dv) that provide for reasonable progress towards achieving natural visibility conditions. The vehicle for ensuring continuing progress towards achieving the natural visibility goal is the submission of a series of RH SIPs from the states that establish two reasonable progress goals (RPGs)

(i.e.,

two distinct goals, one for the “best” and one for the “worst” days) for every Class I area for each (approximately) 10-year implementation period.

See

70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005);

see also

64 FR 35714 (July 1, 1999). The RHR does not mandate specific milestones or rates of progress, but instead calls for states to establish goals that provide for “reasonable progress” toward achieving natural (

i.e.,

“background”) visibility conditions. In setting RPGs, states must provide for an improvement in visibility for the most impaired days over the (approximately) 10-year period of the SIP, and ensure no degradation in visibility for the least impaired days over the same period.

Id.

States have significant discretion in establishing RPGs, but are required to consider the following factors established in section 169A of the CAA and in our RHR at 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A): (1) The costs of compliance; (2) the time necessary for compliance; (3) the energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance; and (4) the remaining useful life of any potentially affected sources. States must demonstrate in their SIPs how these factors are considered when selecting the RPGs for the best and worst days for each applicable Class I area. States have considerable flexibility in how they take these factors into consideration, as noted in our Reasonable Progress Guidance

. 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).

Guidance for Setting Reasonable Progress Goals under the Regional Haze Program,

June 1, 2007, memorandum from William L. Wehrum, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, to EPA Regional Administrators, EPA Regions 1-10 (pp.4-2, 5-1).

2. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and Current Visibility Conditions

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

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

The deciview is used in expressing Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs) (which are interim visibility goals towards meeting the national visibility goal), defining baseline, current, and natural conditions, and tracking changes in visibility. To track changes in visibility over time at each of the 156 Class I areas covered by the visibility program (40 CFR 81.401-437), and as part of the process for determining reasonable progress, states must calculate the degree of existing visibility impairment at each Class I area at the time of each RH SIP submittal and periodically review progress every five years midway through each 10-year implementation period. To do this, section 51.308(d)(2) of the RHR requires states to determine the degree of impairment (in deciviews) for the average of the 20 percent least impaired (“best”) and 20 percent most impaired (“worst”) visibility days over a specified time period at each of their Class I areas. In addition, states must also develop an estimate of natural visibility conditions for the purpose of comparing progress toward the national goal. Natural visibility is determined by estimating the natural concentrations of pollutants that cause visibility impairment and then calculating total light extinction based on those estimates. We have provided guidance to states regarding how to calculate baseline, natural and current visibility conditions.

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 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 (Oct. 13, 2006). Under this approach, states should use the presumptive limits for EGUs in the BART Guidelines to establish the BART benchmark used in the comparison, unless the state determines that such presumptions are not appropriate for particular EGUs (71 FR 60619).

The RH SIP, and any RH 309 SIP that establishes a 309 backstop trading program, must provide an analysis of the projected emissions reductions achievable through the trading program or other alternative measure and a determination that the trading program or other alternative measure achieves greater reasonable progress than would be achieved through the installation and operation of BART (40 CFR 308(e)(2)(C)(iii)). Section 308(e)(2) requires that all emission reductions for the alternative program take place by 2018, as well as that the emission reductions resulting from the alternative program are surplus to those reductions resulting from measures adopted to meet requirements of the CAA as of the baseline date of the SIP. Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(e)(2)(E)(v), states have the option of including a provision that the emissions trading program or other alternative measure may include a geographic enhancement to the program to address the requirement under 40 CFR 51.302(c) related to BART, for reasonably attributable visibility impairment from the pollutants covered under the emissions trading program or other alternative measure.

States must also address the distribution of emissions under the BART alternative as part of the “better-than-BART” demonstration (40 CFR 51.308(e)(3)). If a state can show that with the alternative program the distribution of emissions is not substantially different than under BART and the alternative program results in greater emission reductions, then the alternative measure may be deemed to achieve greater reasonable progress. If the distribution of emissions is significantly different, the state must conduct dispersion modeling to determine differences in visibility between BART and the alternative program for each impacted Class I area for the worst and best 20 percent of days. The modeling must show that visibility does not decline at any Class I area and that visibility overall is greater than what would be achieved with BART.

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

Under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(A)-(L), EPA established fundamental requirements for trading or alternative programs that have an emissions cap and require sources to hold allowances that they can sell, buy, or trade, as in the section 309 backstop trading program. These requirements are discussed in detail below.

1. Applicability

The alternative program must have applicability provisions that define the sources subject to the program. In the case of a program covering sources in multiple states, the states must demonstrate that the applicability provisions in each state cover essentially the same size facilities and, if source categories are specified, cover the same source categories.

2. Allowances

Allowances are a key feature of a cap and trade program. An allowance is a limited authorization for a source to emit a specified amount of a pollutant, as defined by the specific trading program, during a specified period. Allowances are fully marketable commodities. Once allocated, allowances may be bought, sold, traded, or banked for use in future years. EPA has not included in the rule detailed requirements on how states and tribes can allocate allowances. A state or tribe can determine how to allocate allowances as long as the allocation of the tonnage value of allowances does not exceed the total number of tons of emissions capped by the budget. The trading program must include allowance provisions ensuring that the total value of allowances issued each year under the program will not exceed the emissions cap on total annual emissions from the sources in the program.

3. Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting

Monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting (MRR) of a source's emissions are integral parts of any cap and trade program. Consistent and accurate measurement of emissions ensures reliability of allowances by validating that each allowance actually represents its specified tonnage value of emissions and that one ton of reported emissions from one source is equivalent to one ton of reported emissions at another source. The MRR provisions must require that boilers, combustion turbines, and cement kilns in the alternative program that are allowed to sell or transfer allowances comply with the requirements of 40 CFR part 75. The MRR provisions must require that other sources in the program allowed to sell or transfer allowances provide emissions information with the same precision, reliability, accessibility, and timeliness as information required by 40 CFR part 75.

4. Tracking System

An accurate and efficient tracking system is critical to the functioning of an emissions trading market. The tracking system must also be transparent, allowing all interested parties access to the information contained in the accounting system. Thus, alternative programs must have requirements for a tracking system that is publicly available in a secure, centralized database to track in a consistent manner all allowances and emissions in the program.

5. Account Representative

Each source owner or operator covered by the alternative program must designate an individual account representative who is authorized to represent the owner or operator in all matters pertaining to the trading program and who is responsible for the data reported for that source. The account representative will be responsible for, among other things, permitting, compliance, and allowance related actions.

6. Allowance Transfer

SIPs must contain provisions detailing a uniform process for transferring allowances among all sources covered by the program and other possible participants. The provisions must provide procedures for sources to request an allowance transfer, for the request and transfer to be recorded in the allowance tracking system, for notification to the source that the transfer has occurred, and for notification to the public of each transfer and request.

7. Compliance Provisions

Cap and trade programs must include compliance provisions that prohibit a source from emitting more emissions than the total tonnage value of allowances the source holds for that year. A cap and trade program must also contain the specific methods and procedures for determining compliance on an annual basis.

8. Penalty Provisions

In order to provide sources with a strong incentive to comply with the requirement to hold sufficient allowances for their emissions on an annual basis and to establish an immediate minimum economic consequence for non-compliance, the program must include a system for mandatory allowance deductions. SIPs

must contain a provision that if a source has excess emissions in a given year, allowances allocated for the subsequent year will be deducted from the source's account in an amount at least equal to three times the excess emissions.

9. Banking of Allowances

The banking of allowances occurs when allowances that have not been used for compliance are set aside for use in a later compliance period. Alternative programs can include provisions for banked allowances, so long as the SIP clearly identifies how unused allowances may be used in future years and whether there are any restrictions on the use of any such banked allowances.

10. Program Assessment

The alternative program must include provisions for periodic assessment of the program. Such periodic assessments are a way to retrospectively assess the performance of the trading program in meeting the goals of the regional haze program and determining whether the trading program needs any adjustments or changes. At a minimum, the program evaluation must be conducted every five years to coincide with the periodic report describing progress towards the reasonable progress goals required under 40 CFR 51.308(g) and must be submitted to EPA.

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

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

A. Projection of Visibility Improvement

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(2), New Mexico's RH 309 SIP provides a comparison of the monitored 2000-2004 baseline visibility conditions in deciviews (dv) for the 20 percent best and 20 percent worst days to the projected visibility improvement for 2018 for the Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau. Table 1 shows the baseline monitoring data and projected visibility improvement for 2018 from the WRAP photochemical modeling (for details on the WRAP photochemical modeling refer to the WRAP Technical Support Document

and our review of the technical products developed by the WRAP for the States in the western region, in support of their RH SIPs

). 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 SO

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).

WRAP Regional Technical Support Document for the Requirements of § 309 of the Regional Haze Rule (64

Federal Register

35714—July 1, 1999) revised May 7, 2008.

Our review of the technical products developed by the WRAP is available as

Technical Support Document for Technical Products Prepared by the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) in Support of Western Regional Haze Plans,

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

Table 1—Baseline and 2018 Visibility at the Colorado Plateau Class I Areas

[Monthly average method]

Class I Area

State

20 Percent worst visibility days

2000-2004 Baseline monitoring data

(dv)

2018 Base case

(dv)

2018

Preliminary

reasonable progress PRP18b case

(dv)

20 Percent best visibility days

2000-2004 Baseline monitoring data

(dv)

2018 Base case

(dv)

2018

Preliminary

reasonable progress PRP18b case

(dv)

Grand Canyon National Park

11.7

11.4

11.1

2.2

2.1

Mount Baldy Wilderness

11.9

11.5

3.0

2.9

Petrified Forest National Park

13.2

12.9

12.8

5.0

4.9

4.7

Sycamore Canyon Wilderness

15.3

15.1

15.0

5.6

5.5

Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park Wilderness

10.3

10.0

9.8

3.1

2.9

Flat Tops Wilderness

9.6

9.2

9.0

0.7

0.6

0.5

Maroon Bells Wilderness

9.6

9.2

9.0

0.7

0.6

0.5

Mesa Verde National Park

13.0

12.8

12.5

4.3

4.1

4.0

Weminuche Wilderness

10.3

10.0

9.8

3.1

2.9

West Elk Wilderness

9.6

9.2

9.0

0.7

0.6

0.5

San Pedro Parks Wilderness

10.2

10.0

9.8

1.5

1.3

1.2

Arches National Park

11.2

11.0

10.7

3.8

3.6

3.5

Bryce Canyon National Park

11.6

11.3

11.1

2.8

2.7

2.6

Canyonlands National Park

11.2

11.0

10.7

3.8

3.6

3.5

Capitol Reef National Park

10.9

10.6

10.4

4.1

4.0

3.9

Zion National Park

13.2

13.0

12.8

5.0

4.7

B. Clean Air Corridors

1. Comprehensive Emissions Tracking Program

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(3), NM's RH SIP submittal provides for the implementation of strategies regarding clean-air corridors. We propose to find the SIP's treatment of clean-air corridors satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR 309(d)(3), and its subsections, as discussed in the next several paragraphs.

The WRAP developed a comprehensive emissions tracking system to assist the states in tracking emissions within portions of Oregon, Idaho, Nevada and Utah that have been identified as part of the CAC. The emission tracking is to ensure that visibility does not degrade on the least-impaired days in any of the 16 Class I areas of the Colorado Plateau. Appendix M-1 of the NM RH 309 SIP describes the emission tracking system and the process by which the annual emission trends will be summarized in order to identify any significant emissions growth that could lead to visibility degradation in the 16 Class I areas. The SIP submittal and all appendices can be found in the docket for this notice. Since no portion of the CAC lies within New Mexico, this emissions tracking system does not include tracking of emissions from New Mexico. We are proposing to determine the RH 309 SIP submittal has met the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(3).

2. Identification of CACs

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(3)(i), the State has provided in its RH 309 SIP submittal the geographic boundaries of the CAC (a map of the CAC can be found as in Section B(b) of the SIP). The WRAP identified the CAC using studies conducted by the Meteorological Subcommittee of the GCVTC and then updated the CAC based on an assessment described in the

WRAP Policy on Clean Air Corridors

(available as Appendix-B of the NM RH 309 SIP) and related technical analysis conducted by the WRAP. Appendix N of the NM RH 309 SIP (the WRAP final draft Technical Support Document

) 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.

WRAP Regional Technical Support Document for the Requirements of § 309 of the Regional Haze Rule (64

Federal Register

35714—July 1, 1999) revised May 7, 2008.

3. Patterns of Growth Within and Outside of the CAC

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(3)(ii)-(iii), the State in its RH 309 SIP submittal has determined, based on the

WRAP Policy Paper on Clean Air Corridors

and technical analysis conducted by the WRAP, that inside and outside the CAC there is no significant emissions growth occurring at this time that is causing visibility impairment in the 16 Class I areas of the Colorado Plateau. The WRAP will summarize annual emission trends within and outside of the CAC and will assess whether any significant emissions growth is occurring that could result in visibility impairment in any of the 16 Class I areas. We are proposing to determine that 40 CFR 51.309(d)(3)(ii)-(iii) is met.

4. Actions if Impairment Inside or Outside the Clean Air Corridor Occurs

The RH 309 SIP submittal describes how the State, in coordination with other transport region states and tribes, will review the annual summary of emission trends within the CAC and determine whether any significant emissions growth has occurred. If the State identifies significant emissions growth, the State, in coordination with other transport region states, and tribes, will seek WRAP assistance in conducting an analysis of the effects of this emissions growth. Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(3)(iv), if this analysis finds that the emissions growth is causing visibility impairment in the 16 Class I areas, the State, in coordination with other transport region states, and tribes, will evaluate the need for additional emission reduction measures and identify an implementation schedule for such measures. The State will report on the need for additional reduction measures to EPA in accordance with the periodic progress reports required under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i). We are proposing to determine the RH 309 SIP submittal satisfies the strategy requirement of 40 CFR 309(d)(3)(iv).

5. Other CACs

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(3)(v), the State in its RH 309 SIP submittal has concluded that no other CACs can be identified at this time. The State's conclusion is based on the

WRAP Policy on Clean Air Corridors,

which used technical information to determine that no other CACs could be identified. We are proposing to approve the state's determination under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(3)(v).

C. Stationary Source Reductions

1. Provisions for Stationary Source Emissions of SO

As required by 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(i), the State in its RH 309 SIP submittal sets forth milestone SO

numbers for each year of the program until 2018.

Table 2 shows the milestone numbers and how compliance with the annual milestones will be determined (Table C-1 of the NM RH 309 SIP).

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

Table 2—SO

Emissions Milestones

Year

Regional sulfur dioxide milestone

(tons per year (tpy))

Annual SO

emissions used to determine compliance with the annual milestones

2008

269,083 tons SO

Average of 2006, 2007 and 2008.

2009

234,903 tons SO

Average of 2007, 2008 and 2009.

2010

200,722 tons SO

Average of 2008, 2009 and 2010.

2011

200,722 tons SO

Average of 2009, 2010 and 2011.

2012

200,722 tons SO

Average of 2010, 2011 and 2012.

2013

185,795 tons SO

Average of 2011, 2012 and 2013.

2014

170,868 tons SO

Average of 2012, 2013 and 2014.

2015

155,940 tons SO

Average of 2013, 2014 and 2015.

2016

155,940 tons SO

Average of 2014, 2015 and 2016.

2017

155,940 tons SO

Average of 2015, 2016 and 2017.

2018

141,849 tons SO

Year 2018 only.

2019 forward, until replaced by an approved SIP

141,849 tons SO

Annual; no multiyear averaging.

emissions from sources in 1990 totaled 358,364 tpy and the 2018 milestone are 141,849 tpy (see

Demonstration that the SO

Milestones Provide Greater Reasonable Progress than BART,

Section M of the NM RH 309 SIP). The difference is a 60 percent reduction in SO

emissions from 1990 to 2018. Thus, the State has concluded that the emission reductions are on target to achieve the GCVTC goal of a 50 to 70 percent reduction of SO

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 SO

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(ii), the RH 309 SIP submittal provides documentation of the specific methodology used to calculate SO

emissions during the 2006 base year for each emitting unit included in the program. The requirement is addressed in Section C of the NM RH 309 SIP submittal, and implemented through 20.2.73.300.F NMAC provisions that were previously approved at 75 FR 48860 (August 12, 2010). We are also now proposing to approve revisions to 20.2.73.300 that were submitted for approval with the most recent RH 309 SIP submittal on July 5, 2011.

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(ii), New Mexico's RH 309 SIP submittal provides that it will document any change to the specific methodology used to calculate emissions at any emitting unit for any year after the base year. Until the program has been triggered and source compliance is required, the State will submit an annual emissions report that documents prior year emissions for New Mexico sources covered by the 309 program to all participating states by September 30 of each year. The State will adjust actual emission inventories for sources that change the method of monitoring or calculating their emissions to be comparable to the emission monitoring or calculation method used to calculate the 2006 base year inventory. EPA is proposing to determine that the current SIP as revised by the SIP submittal satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR 309(d)(4)(ii).

3. Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting of SO

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 SO

emissions within the State to determine if the milestone has been exceeded. 20.2.73.300.F NMAC requires major sources of SO

to report their emissions annually along with documentation of the emissions monitoring/estimation methodology used, and demonstrate that the selected methodology is acceptable under the inventory program. This rule defines the emission inventory and reporting requirements for tracking compliance with the regional sulfur dioxide milestones until the western backstop sulfur dioxide trading program has been fully implemented and emission tracking has occurred under 20.2.81.106 NMAC (See section V.E.3 of this notice for a further detail on emission inventory requirements under 20.2.81.106 NMAC). We are proposing to approve the July 5, 2011 submitted revisions to 20.2.73.300.F NMAC and determine that the 309 SIP submittal satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(iii).

4. Criteria and Procedures for a Market Trading Program

As stated above, until the backstop trading program has been triggered and source compliance is required, the RH 309 SIP submittal provides that the state shall submit an annual emissions report for New Mexico sources to all participating states by September 30 of each year. The report shall document actual sulfur dioxide emissions during the previous calendar year for all sources subject to the Section 309 program. The WRAP will compile reports from all participating states into a draft regional emission report for SO

by December 31 of each year. This report will include actual regional sulfur dioxide emissions, adjustments to account for changes in monitoring/calculation methods or enforcement/settlement agreements, and adjusted average emissions for the last three years for comparison to the regional milestone. As required by 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(iv), based on this compilation of reports from all states participating in the 309 program, states will determine if the milestone has been exceeded and will include a determination in a final regional emissions report that is submitted to EPA. This final report and determination will be submitted to EPA by the end of March, 15 months following the milestone year. We are proposing to determine the RH 309 SIP meets the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(iv).

5. Market Trading Program

Per 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(v), the RH 309 SIP submittal provides that if the 309 backstop trading program is triggered, the regional emissions report will contain a common trigger date. In the absence of a common trigger date, the default date will be March 31 of the applicable year, but no later than 15 months after the end of the milestone year where the milestone was exceeded. The NM RH 309 SIP submittal requires that sources comply, as soon as practicable, with the requirement to hold allowances covering their emissions. Because the backstop trading program does not allow allocations to exceed the milestone, the program is sufficient to achieve the milestones adopted pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(i) as discussed above. The backstop trading program is also consistent with the elements for such programs outlined in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi). The analysis found in Section V.E. of this notice shows that the backstop trading program is consistent with the elements for trading programs outlined in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi), as required by Section 309. See 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(v). We are proposing to determine the RH 309 SIP submittal meets the requirements of 40 CFR 309(d)(4)(v). We are also proposing to approve 20.2.81 NMAC, which includes the rules that govern the program.

6. Provisions for the 2018 Milestone

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(vi)(A), the RH 309 SIP submittal has provisions to ensure that until a revised implementation plan is submitted in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(f) and approved by EPA,

emissions from covered stationary sources in any year beginning in 2018 do not exceed the 2018 milestone. In order to meet this requirement, the State has included special provisions for what will be required as part of their 2013 SIP revision required under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10). The submitted plan provides that the 2013 SIP revision required by 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10) will contain either the provisions of a program designed to achieve reasonable progress for stationary sources of SO

beyond 2018 or a commitment to submit a SIP revision containing the provisions of such a program no later than December 31, 2016. (Section C, Part D of the NM RH 309 SIP). We are proposing to determine the RH 309 SIP submittal meets the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(vi)(A).

7. Special Penalty Provision for 2018

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(vi)(B), the RH 309 SIP submittal includes special penalty provisions to ensure that the 2018 milestone is met. If the backstop trading is triggered and the program will not start until after the year 2018, a special penalty shall be assessed to sources that exceed the 2018 milestone (Section A.5 of the NM RH 309 SIP and Section 20.2.81.110 NMAC, which we are proposing to approve). The State shall seek at least the minimum financial penalty of $5,000 per ton of SO

emissions in excess of a source's allowance limitation. Any source may resolve its excess emissions violation by agreeing to a streamline settlement approach where the source pays a penalty of $5,000 per ton or partial ton of excess emissions and the source makes the payment within 90 calendar days after the issuance of a notice of violation. Any source that does not resolve its excess emissions violation in accordance with the streamlined settlement approach will be subject to formal enforcement action, in which the NMED shall seek a financial penalty for the excess emissions based on New Mexico's statutory maximum civil penalties. The special penalty provisions for 2018 will apply for each year after 2018 until the State determines that the 2018 milestone has been met. The State will evaluate the amount of the minimum monetary penalty during each five-year SIP review and the penalty will be adjusted to ensure that penalties per ton substantially exceed the expected cost of allowances, and thus provide sufficient deterrence. We are proposing to determine the RH SIP submittal satisfies the special penalties provisions requirement of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(vi)(B). We are proposing approval of 20.2.81 NMAC, which includes proposed approval of 20.2.81.110 NMAC.

D. “Better-Than-BART” Demonstration

As discussed in Section IV.A of this preamble, if a state adopts an alternative program designed to replace “source-by-source” BART controls, the state must be able to demonstrate that the alternative program achieves greater reasonable progress than would be achieved by BART. In Section M of the NM RH 309 SIP, the State has included a demonstration of how the 309 program achieves greater reasonable progress than BART as discussed in the document titled

Demonstration that the SO

Milestones Provide for Greater Reasonable Progress than BART

(“better-than-BART” demonstration). Below is a discussion on how the 309 backstop trading program achieves greater reasonable progress than BART. The City of Albuquerque—Bernalillo County, Wyoming and Utah have also submitted SIPs with the same better than BART demonstration as New Mexico and thus are relying on a consistent demonstration across the states.

1. List of BART-Eligible Sources

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(A), New Mexico's RH 309 SIP submittal offers a “better-than-BART” demonstration that lists the BART-eligible sources covered by the program in the section 309 states (see Table 3 below). BART eligible sources are identified as those sources that fall within one of the 26 specific source categories, were built between 1962 and 1977 and have potential emissions of 250 tons per year of any visibility impairing air pollutant. (40 CFR 51.301). We are proposing to determine that this list satisfies 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(A).

2. Subject to BART Determination

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(B), the Section 309 states conducted individual source modeling on the BART-eligible sources within their states to determine which sources in their state causes or contributes to visibility impairment and are thus subject to BART. New Mexico and Utah relied on modeling by the WRAP to identify sources subject to BART. Based on the list of identified sources, the WRAP performed the initial BART modeling for New Mexico and Utah. The procedures used are outlined in the WRAP Regional Modeling Center (RMC) BART Modeling Protocol.

One source in New Mexico, the SJGS, was determined to be subject-to-BART based on the initial WRAP modeling. See section V.F.2 of this notice for a more detailed discussion of New Mexico's identification of subject-to-BART sources. Appendix C of the NM RH 309(g) SIP submittal contains a summary of the WRAP modeling used in New Mexico's identification of subject-to-BART sources. The State of Wyoming performed separate modeling to identify sources subject to BART.

The states established a threshold of 0.5 deciviews for determining if a single source causes or contributes to visibility impairment. If the modeling shows that a source has a 0.5 or greater deciview impact at any Class I area, that source causes or contributes to visibility impairment and is subject to BART. Table 3 shows the BART-eligible sources covered by the 309 backstop program and whether they are subject to BART. We are proposing to determine that the RH 309 SIP submittal satisfies 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(B).

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.

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 Mexico

San Juan Generating Station

Yes.

New Mexico

Rio Grande Station

No.

New Mexico

Western Gas Resources

San Juan River Gas Plant

No.

Utah

Pacificorp

Hunter

Yes.

Utah

Pacificorp

Huntington

Yes.

Wyoming

Basin Electric

Laramie River

Yes.

Wyoming

Black Hills Power & Light

Neil Simpson I

No.

Wyoming

Dyno Nobel

No.

Wyoming

FMC Corp

Green River Soda Ash Plant

Yes.

Wyoming

FMC Corp

Granger River Soda Ash Plant

No.

Wyoming

General Chemical

Green River Soda Ash Plant

Yes.

Wyoming

P4 Production

Rock Springs Coking Plant

No.

Wyoming

Pacificorp

Dave Johnston

Yes.

Wyoming

Pacificorp

Jim Bridger

Yes.

Wyoming

Pacificorp

Naughton

Yes.

Wyoming

Pacificorp

Wyodak

Yes.

Wyoming

Sinclair Oil Corp

Sinclair Refinery

No.

Wyoming

Sinclair Refinery

Casper

No.

3. Best System of Continuous Emission Control Technology

As required by 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(C), each state is to determine what BART would be for each subject to BART source covered by the 309 backstop trading program. In the “better-than-BART” demonstration, all subject to BART electric generating units (EGUs) were assumed to be operating at the presumptive SO

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 SO

from its two boilers. The State of Wyoming determined this control level would serve as a BART benchmark for all trona boilers. Thus, a 63 percent reduction in emissions from these sources was included as the BART benchmark in calculating emission reductions assuming application of BART at these sources. Emission reductions or the BART benchmark for all subject to BART sources covered by the 309 program was calculated to be 48,807 tons of SO

. 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 SO

for the sources covered by the 309 program in the participating states. The reductions achieved by the program are 48,807 tpy of SO

, resulting in remaining emissions of 141,849 tpy of SO

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 SO

trading program achieves greater reasonable progress than would be achieved through the installation and operation of SO

BART at all sources subject to BART and covered by the SO

trading program in the participating states, as required by 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(E). As the RH 309 SIP submittal explains, the program ensures that sources beyond BART sources are included. The backstop trading program includes all stationary sources with emissions greater than 100 tpy of SO

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 SO

trading program also provides for a cap on new source growth. Future impairment is prevented by capping SO

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—

Sulfur Dioxide Milestones and Backstop Trading Program

of the NM RH 309 SIP submittal and Western Backstop SO

Trading Program Model Rule 20.2.81 NMAC, also a SIP submittal which we are proposing to approve. We propose to determine the detailed description requirement in 40 CFR 51.309(e)(2)(iii) is met. The details of the backstop trading program are discussed in section V.E of this notice.

8. Surplus Reductions

We propose to approve the determination in the RH 309 SIP submittal that all emission reductions resulting from the emissions trading program are surplus as of the baseline date of the SIP, as required by 40 CFR 51.208(e)(2)(iv).

9. Geographic Distribution of Emissions

The NM RH 309 SIP submittal includes modeling conducted by the WRAP in 2000 to compare the visibility improvement expected from BART to the backstop trading program for the Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau. A summary of the modeling results can be found in, Section M of the NM RH 309 SIP, which refers to data from modeling included in Tables 2 and 3 of Attachment C to the Annex.

19 20

This modeling was conducted during the development of the Annex to examine if the geographic distribution of emissions under the trading program would be substantially different and disproportionately impact any Class I area due to a geographic concentration of emissions. The modeled visibility improvement for the best and worst days at the Class I areas for the 309 program is similar to improvement anticipated from the BART scenario (within 0.1 dv) on the worst and best visibility days, thus—if we assume participation consistent with the model—demonstrating that the distribution of emissions between the BART scenario and the 309 trading program are not substantially different. We note this modeling demonstration included nine states, many of which are not participating in the backstop trading program. We believe this modeling demonstration adds support to our proposed determination discussed above in this section that the RH 309 SIP submittal appropriately shows the SO

trading program will achieve greater reasonable progress than would be achieved through the installation and operation of SO

BART at all sources subject to BART and covered by the SO

trading program, as required by 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(E).

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.

WRAP conducted modeling of the degree of visibility improvement that would occur on average and for the 20% best and worst visibility days. The WRAP used the transfer coefficients developed as part of the Integrated Assessment System (IAS) and used by the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission. As noted in the Annex, this modeling has limitations which must be considered when interpreting the results.

E. Requirements for Alternative Programs With an Emissions Cap

Since the 309 trading program is a backstop trading program, the provisions outlined below will only apply if the milestone is exceeded and the program is triggered. We are proposing to approve 20.2.81 NMAC, which provides enforceable rules that govern the triggering and administration of the program. The analysis that follows shows that the backstop trading program is consistent with the elements for trading programs outlined in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi), as required by Section 309. See 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(v).

1. Applicability Provisions

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(A), the backstop trading program has the same applicability requirements in all states opting to participate in the program. 20.2.81.101 NMAC, which we are proposing to approve, contains the applicability provisions, which indicates that the backstop trading program generally applies to all stationary sources that emit 100 tons per year or more of SO

in the program trigger year. We are proposing to approve the 20.2.81.101 NMAC as meeting the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(A).

2. Allowance Provisions

Part C.C1 of the SIP and 20.2.81.105 NMAC, which we propose to approve, contain the allowance allocation provisions as required by 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(B). The rule requires sources to open a compliance account in order to track allowances and contains other requirements associated with those accounts. These SIP provisions also contain the provisions on how the State will allocate allowances and states that the total number of allowances distributed cannot exceed the milestone for any given year. We are proposing to approve the submitted 20.2.81.105 NMAC as meeting the requirement of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(B).

3. Monitoring and Recordkeeping Provisions

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(C)-(E), the submitted rule 20.2.81.106.A.1 NMAC provides that sources subject to 40 CFR part 75 under a separate requirement from the backstop trading program shall meet the requirements contained in part 75 with respect to monitoring, recording and reporting SO

emissions. If a unit is not subject to 40 CFR part 75 under a requirement separate from the trading program, the State requires that a source use one of the following monitoring methods: (1) A continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) for SO

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 SO

mass emissions only) of section 75.19(c) of 40 CFR part 75; (3) one of the optional protocols, if applicable, in 20.2.81.111 NMAC or 20.2.81.112 NMAC; or (4) a petition for site-specific monitoring that the source submits for approval by NMED and EPA in accordance with Paragraph (5) Subsection O of 20.2.81.106 NMAC. All the above sources are required to comply with the reporting and recordkeeping requirements in 40 CFR part 75.

Although most sources covered by the backstop trading program will be able to meet the monitoring requirements stated above, there are some emission units that are either not physically able to install the needed equipment or do not emit enough sulfur dioxide to justify the expense of installing these systems. As discussed in part C5.3 of the SIP, the trading program allows these emission units to continue to use their pre-trigger monitoring methodology, but does not allow the source to transfer any allowances that were allocated to that unit for use by another source. The program requires that the allowances associated with emission units that continue to use their pre-trigger monitoring methodology be placed in a special reserve compliance account, while allowances for other emission

units are placed in a regular compliance account. Sources may not trade allowances out of a special reserve compliance account, even for use by emission units at the same source, but can use the allowances to show compliance for that particular unit.

Subsection B of 20.2.81.106 NMAC allows sources with any of the following emission units to apply to establish a special reserve compliance account: (1) Any smelting operation where all of the emissions from the operation are not ducted to a stack; (2) any flare, except to the extent such flares are used as a fuel gas combustion device at a petroleum refinery; or (3) any other type of unit without add-on sulfur dioxide control equipment, if the unit belongs to one of the following source categories: cement kilns, pulp and paper recovery furnaces, lime kilns, or glass manufacturing. Pursuant to the submitted 20.2.81.106 NMAC, sources with a special reserve compliance account are required to submit to the State an annual emissions statement and sources are required to maintain operating records sufficient to estimate annual emissions consistent with the baseline emission inventory submitted in 1998.

We are proposing to approve the above discussed submitted provisions of 20.2.81 NMAC and find the submitted trading program is consistent with the monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(C) through (E).

4. Tracking System

As required by 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(F), section C2 of the submitted RH 309 SIP provides the overarching specifications for an Emissions and Allowance Tracking System (EATS). According to the SIP submittal, the EATS must provide that all necessary information regarding emissions, allowances, and transactions is publicly available in a secure, centralized database. The EATS must ensure that each allowance is uniquely identified, allow for frequent updates, and include enforceable procedures for recording data. If the program is triggered, the State will work with other states and tribes participating in the trading program to implement this system. More detailed specifications for the EATS are provided in the

WEB Emission and Allowance Tracking System (EATS) Analysis.

New Mexico assumes responsibility for ensuring that all the EATS provisions are completed as described in its SIP.

Western Backstop (WEB) Emissions and Allowance Tracking System (EATS) Analysis. Perrin Quarles Associates, Inc. July 18, 2003. Available at:

http://www.wrapair.org/forums/mtf/documents/eats/WEB_EATS_Final_Report_July_31.pdf.

In addition, the State will work with the other participating states to designate one tracking system administrator (TSA). The submitted RH 309 SIP provides that the TSA shall be designated as expeditiously as possible, but no later than six months after the program trigger date. The State will enter into a binding contract with the TSA that shall require the TSA to perform all TSA functions described in the SIP and in 20.2.81 NMAC, such as transferring and recording allowances. We propose to determine the submitted trading program has adequate tracking system provisions to satisfy the requirements of CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(F).

5. Account Representative

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(G), the submitted RH 309 SIP relies on submitted rule 20.2.81.102 NMAC, which contains provisions for the establishment of an account representative. The SIP submittal requires each source to identify one account representative. The account representative shall submit to the State and the TSA a signed and dated certificate that contains a certification statement verifying that the account representative has all the necessary authority to carry out the account representative responsibilities under the trading program on behalf of the owners and operators of the sources. The certification statement also needs to indicate that each such owner and operator shall be fully bound by the account representatives representations, actions, inactions, or submissions and by any decision or order issued to the account representative by the State regarding the trading program. We are proposing to determine the submitted rule 20.2.81.102 NMAC and submitted SIP meet the requirements for “authorized account representative provisions” in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(G).

6. Allowance Transfers

The submitted RH 309 SIP establishes procedures pertaining to allowance transfers to meet the requirement of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(H). 20.2.81.107 NMAC, a submitted rule we propose to approve, contains requirements sources must follow for allowance transfers. To transfer or retire allowances, the account representative shall submit the transfer account number(s) identifying the transferor account, the serial number of each allowance to be transferred, the transferor's account representative's name and signature, and date of submission. The allowance transfer deadline is midnight Pacific Standard Time on March 1 of each year following the end of the control period. Sources must correctly submit transfers by this time in order for a source to be able to use the allowance to demonstrate compliance. We are proposing to approve 20.2.81.107 NMAC as being consistent with the program elements required at 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(H).

Section C3 of the RH 309 SIP submittal provides the procedures the TSA must follow to transfer allowances. The TSA will record an allowance transfer by moving each allowance from the transferor account to the transferee account as specified by the request from the source, if the transfer is correctly submitted and the transferor account includes each allowance identified in the transfer. Within five business days of the recording of an allowance transfer, the TSA shall notify the account representatives of both the transferor and transferee accounts, and make the transfer information publicly available on the Internet. Within five business days of receipt of an allowance transfer that fails to meet the requirements for transfer, the TSA will notify the account representatives of both accounts of the decision not to record the transfer, and the reasons for not recording the transfer. We are proposing to determine the submitted trading program is consistent with the “allowance transfer provisions” requirement of 40 CFR51.308(e)(2)(vi)(H).

7. Compliance Provisions

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(I), the trading program in the submitted RH 309 SIP provides the procedures for determining compliance and relies on submitted rule 20.2.81.109 NMAC, which we are proposing to approve. Per this submitted rule, the source must hold allowances as of the allowance transfer deadline in the source's compliance account (together with any current control year allowances held in the source's special reserve compliance account) in an amount not less than the total SO

emissions for the control period from the source. The State determines compliance by comparing allowances held by the source in their compliance account(s) with the total annual SO

emissions reported by the source. If the comparison of the allowances to emissions results in emissions exceeding allowances, the source's excess emissions are subject to the allowance deduction penalty in 20.2.81.109 C. NMAC (discussed in further detail below). We are proposing to determine the submitted rule

20.2.81.109 NMAC is consistent with the “compliance provisions” requirement of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(I).

8. Penalty Provisions

The submitted rule 20.2.81.109 C. NMAC provides the penalty provisions required by 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(J). Per this section, a source's allowances will be reduced by an amount equal to three times the source's tons of excess emissions if they are unable to show compliance. We are proposing to determine the submitted rule 20.2.81 is consistent with the “penalty provisions” requirement of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(J).

9. Banking of Allowances

As allowed by 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(K), 20.2.81.108 NMAC, which we propose to approve, allows sources to use allowances from current and prior years to demonstrate compliance, with some restrictions. Sources can only use 2018 allowances to show compliance with the 2018 milestone and may not use allowances from prior years. In order to insure that the use of banked allowances does not interfere with the attainment or maintenance of reasonable progress goals, the backstop trading program includes flow-control provisions (see section C4 of the RH 309 SIP submittal). The flow control provisions are triggered if the TSA determines that the banked allowances exceed ten percent of the milestone for the next control year, and thereby ensure that too many banked emissions are not used in any one year. We are proposing to determine the submitted trading program has provisions that clarifies the restrictions on the use of banked allowances, consistent with the requirement in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(K).

10. Program Assessment

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(L), section D1 of the RH 309 SIP submittal contains provisions for a 2013 assessment. For the 2013 assessment, the State will work with other participating states to develop a projected emission inventory for SO

through the year 2018. The State will then evaluate the projected inventory and assess the likelihood of meeting the regional milestone for the year 2018. New Mexico shall include this assessment as part of the 2013 progress report that must be submitted under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10). We are proposing to determine the RH 309 SIP submittal is consistent with the program assessment provisions requirement in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(L).

F. Provisions for Stationary Source NO

and PM

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(vii) and 40 CFR 51.309(g), NMED's submittal contains BART and long-term strategies to address NOx and PM emissions. An initial assessment of emissions control strategies for stationary source NOx and PM, and the degree of visibility improvement that would result from implementation of the identified strategies was prepared by the WRAP. This report,

Stationary Source NO

and PM Emissions in the WRAP Region: An Initial Assessment of Emissions, Controls, and Air Quality Impacts,

is included in Appendix C-2 of the submitted NM RH 309 SIP. This report represents an initial assessment of stationary source NO

and PM strategies for regional haze performed in 2003 using emission inventories, available ambient monitoring data, and very limited modeling. Based on this analysis, NMED concluded that for the majority of the Class I areas in the WRAP, NO

and PM emissions are not major contributors to visibility impairment, and that RAVI remedies are available in cases where particular stationary sources may impact a particular Class I area. An additional assessment of long-term strategies and BART requirements for NO

and PM are included in the NM RH 309(g) SIP. An evaluation of NMED's PM BART determination is in this section. As previously stated, we are not proposing action on the NO

BART determination for SJGS. Evaluation of NMED's LTS is available in Section V.N.4 of this proposal. NMED has committed to reassess its NO

and PM long-term strategies in its SIP updates in 2013 and 2018.

BART is an element of New Mexico's LTS for the first implementation period. As discussed in more detail in section III.D. of this preamble, the BART evaluation process consists of three components: (1) An identification of all the BART-eligible sources, (2) an assessment of whether those BART-eligible sources are in fact subject to BART and (3) a determination of any BART controls. NMED addressed these steps as follows:

1. Identification of BART-Eligible Sources

The first step of a BART evaluation is to identify all the BART-eligible sources within the state's boundaries. NMED identified the BART-eligible sources in New Mexico by utilizing the three eligibility criteria in the BART Guidelines (70 FR 39158, July 6, 2005) and our regulations (40 CFR 51.301): (1) One or more emission units at the facility fit within one of the 26 categories listed in the BART Guidelines; (2) the emission unit(s) was constructed on or after August 6, 1962, and was in existence prior to August 6, 1977; and (3) potential emissions of any visibility-impairing pollutant from subject units are 250 tons or more per year. Table 3 above lists the BART-eligible sources in New Mexico.

2. Identification of Sources Subject to BART

The second step of the BART evaluation is to identify those BART-eligible sources that may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment at any Class I area,

i.e.

those sources that are subject to BART. The BART Guidelines allow states to consider exempting some BART-eligible sources from further BART review because they may not reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any visibility impairment in a Class I area. Consistent with the BART Guidelines, NMED relied on the WRAP's initial BART screening modeling to assess the extent of each facility's contribution to visibility impairment at surrounding Class I areas and identify sources subject to BART. Appendix C of the submitted NM RH SIP for 309(g) summarizes the initial BART screening performed by the WRAP for New Mexico.

a. Modeling Methodology

The BART Guidelines provide that states may choose to use the CALPUFF modeling system or another appropriate model to predict the visibility impacts from a single source on a Class I area, and to therefore determine whether an individual source is anticipated to cause or contribute to impairment of visibility in Class I areas,

i.e.,

“is subject to BART”. The Guidelines state that we believe CALPUFF is the best regulatory modeling application currently available for predicting a single source's contribution to visibility impairment (70 FR 39162, July 6, 2005). NMED relied on WRAP screening modeling using the CALPUFF modeling system to determine whether individual sources in New Mexico were subject to or exempt from BART.

The BART Guidelines also recommend that states develop a modeling protocol for making individual source attributions, and suggest that states may want to consult with us and their RPO to address any issues prior to modeling. The procedures used are outlined in the WRAP Regional Modeling Center (RMC)

BART Modeling Protocol.

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

The procedures used are outlined in the WRAP Regional Modeling Center (RMC) BART Modeling Protocol that is available at:

http://pah.cert.ucr.edu/aqm/308/bart/WRAP_RMC_BART_Protocol_Aug15_2006.pdf.

b. Contribution Threshold

For states using modeling to determine the applicability of BART to single sources, the BART Guidelines note that the first step is to set a contribution threshold to assess whether the impact of a single source is sufficient to cause or contribute to visibility impairment at a Class I area. The BART Guidelines state that, “[a] single source that is responsible for a 1.0 deciview change or more should be considered to `cause' visibility impairment.” 70 FR 39104, 39161 (July 6, 2005). The BART Guidelines also state that “the appropriate threshold for determining whether a source contributes to visibility impairment may reasonably differ across states,” but, “[a]s a general matter, any threshold that you use for determining whether a source `contributes' to visibility impairment should not be higher than 0.5 deciviews.”

Id.

Further, in setting a contribution threshold, states should “consider the number of emissions sources affecting the Class I areas at issue and the magnitude of the individual sources' impacts. The Guidelines affirm that states are free to use a lower threshold if they conclude that the location of a large number of BART-eligible sources in proximity of a Class I area justifies this approach. NMED and the WRAP used a contribution threshold of 0.5 dv for determining which sources are subject to BART. The results of the visibility impacts modeling demonstrated that the majority of the individual BART-eligible sources had visibility impacts well below 0.5 dv.

With the exception of the San Juan Generating Station that had modeled visibility impacts well above 0.5 dv, the highest visibility impact of the remaining BART-eligible sources was 0.33 dv. We agree with the State's rationale for choosing this threshold value.

See Appendix C of the NM RH 309(g) SIP for a Summary of WRAP RMC BART Modeling for New Mexico Draft#6, December 17, 2010.

c. Sources Identified to be Subject-to-BART

The WRAP screening modeling evaluated sources that were identified as BART-eligible and determined the only sources that did not screen out in New Mexico were the four units of the SJGS. An eligible BART source with a predicted impact of 0.5 dv or more of impairment in a Class I area “contributes” to visibility impairment and is subject to BART.

A single source that is responsible for a 1.0 deciview change or more should be considered to “cause” visibility impairment. The results of this analysis indicated that SJGS, on a facility-wide basis, causes visibility impairment at all 16 Class I areas that lie within 300 km of the facility. However, this modeling was based on the installed control technology at the time and does not reflect emission reductions due to the installation of consent decree

controls. Revised modeling performed by NMED and by us, including controls required by the consent decree and currently installed, further confirmed that SJGS still causes visibility impairment at more than half of the Class I areas in the vicinity of the facility and contributes (above 0.5 deciviews) to visibility impairment at the remaining areas on a facility-wide basis. Furthermore, on an individual unit basis, all units cause visibility impairment at Mesa Verde National Park, and cause or contribute to visibility impairment at a number of other Class I areas.

Our modeling indicates that the visibility impairment is primarily dominated by nitrate particulates. Therefore, as the WRAP screening modeling has previously concluded, and further modeling by NMED and EPA confirms, even with post-consent decree controls on SJGS units, the SJGS units 1, 2, 3, and 4 still have a significant impact at surrounding Class I areas. Consequently, we propose to approve NMED's subject-to-BART determination and find that units 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the SJGS are the only New Mexico sources subject to BART.

70 FR 39104, 39121 (July 6, 2005).

Consent Decree in

The Grand Canyon Trust and Sierra Club, Plaintiffs, The State of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Intervenor,

Public Service Company of New Mexico, Defendant,

(CV 02-552 BB/ACT (ACE)), lodged in the United States District Court, District of New Mexico, on March 10, 2005, at 15-16. The consent decree resulted in the installation of low-NO

burners with overfire air ports and a neural network system to reduce NO

emissions, and a full-sized pulse jet fabric filter to reduce PM emissions. The wet limestone scrubber was modified to eliminate flue gas bypass, and dibasic acid was added to the scrubber process to improve SO

removal. Installation of these controls on all four units was completed in the spring of 2009. The consent decree requires compliance with emission limits of 0.3 lb/MMBtu NO

, 0.015 lb/MMBtu PM, and 90% annual average control, not to exceed 0.25 lb/MMBtu SO

for a seven day block average for each unit.

See the TSD for our FIP, “Visibility Modeling for BART Determination: San Juan Generating Station, New Mexico” available in the docket to our FIP (Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2010-0846) and included in the docket for this action.

3. BART Determination for SJGS

The third step of a BART evaluation is to perform the BART analysis. The BART Guidelines

describe the BART analysis as consisting of the following five basic steps:

70 FR 39164.

• Step 1: Identify All Available Retrofit Control Technologies,

• Step 2: Eliminate Technically Infeasible Options,

• Step 3: Evaluate Control Effectiveness of Remaining Control Technologies,

• Step 4: Evaluate Impacts and Document the Results, and

• Step 5: Evaluate Visibility Impacts.

The SJGS consists of four (4) coal-fired generating units and associated support facilities. Each coal-fired unit burns pulverized coal and No. 2 diesel oil (for startup) in a boiler, and produces high-pressure steam which powers a steam turbine coupled with an electric generator. Electric power produced by the units is supplied to the electric power grid for sale. Coal for the units is supplied by the adjacent San Juan Mine and is delivered to the facility by conveyor. Units 1 and 2 have a unit capacity of 350 and 360 MW, respectively. Units 3 and 4 each have a unit capacity of 544 MW.

In June, 2007, the operator of the SJGS, Public Service Company of New Mexico (PNM) submitted its PM and NO

BART evaluation to NMED. That evaluation was revised multiple times to incorporate additional visibility modeling analyses, control technology considerations, and cost analyses.

NMED's final evaluation of this BART determination for NO

and PM is available in Chapter 10 and Appendix D of the NM RH 309(g) SIP submittal. Our evaluation and proposal for action only

concerns the PM BART determination. As discussed above, BART requirements for SO

are met through New Mexico's participation in a SO

milestone emissions and backstop trading program. As also discussed above, we are not proposing action on the submitted NO

BART determination for the San Juan Generating Station. The NO

BART requirement for the source is presently satisfied by the BART determination that is effective under the federal implementation plan at 40 CFR 52.1628. We will propose action on the submitted NO

Public Service Company of New Mexico, San Juan Generating Station, Best Available Retrofit Technology Analysis, June 6, 2007; PNM San Juan Generating Station, BART Analysis of SNCR, May 30, 2008. PNM San Juan Generating Station, BART Analysis of Nalco Mobotec NO

Control Technologies, August 29, 2008; Public Service Company of New Mexico, San Juan Generating Station Final particulate matter BART analysis, August 28, 2008; Public Service Company of New Mexico, San Juan Generating Station Revised SNCR Analysis, February 11, 2011 and supporting reports and analysis.

a. New Mexico's PM BART Determination

The SJGS currently has pulse jet fabric filters installed and an emission limit of 0.015 lb/MMBtu PM. PNM identified flue gas conditioning with hot side electrostatic precipitator (ESP), pulse jet fabric filter (PJFF), compact hybrid particulate collector, and max-9 electrostatic fabric filter as available controls for PM at SJGS. At NMED's request, PNM also identified wet ESP (WESP).

Hot-side ESP and compact hybrid particulate collector were eliminated because these technologies were determined to not provide control performance lower than the currently permitted limit for PM. The max-9 electrostatic fabric filter was also eliminated due to limited application in large utility boilers. WESP and PJFF were determined to be technically feasible and were evaluated in PNM's BART analysis for PM.

PNM determined that PJFF and WESP are capable of achieving emission limits of 0.015 lb/MMBtu PM and 0.010 lb/MMBtu PM, respectively. PNM then evaluated the impacts, including costs of compliance, energy impacts, non-air quality impacts, and the remaining useful life, of operating WESP in addition to the existing PJFF. PNM's evaluation considered auxiliary power consumption, additional water consumption, and waste water disposal requirements, as well as cost. The installation of WESP was estimated to reduce emissions of PM by 69 tons per year (tpy) each for Units 1 and 2, 107 tpy for Unit 3 and 105 tpy at Unit 4. The addition of WESP was determined by PNM and evaluated by NMED to have a cost-effectiveness ranging from about $145,000 to $173,000 per ton of PM removed for each unit. PNM then performed modeling to investigate the visibility impacts. Based on their five-factor analysis, NMED concluded that BART for units 1-4 for PM is the existing PJFF and the existing emission limit of 0.015 lb/MMBtu.

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

b. Our Evaluation of New Mexico's PM BART Determination

We have determined that PNM overestimated the cost of WESP because PNM did not follow the EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual,

where possible, as directed by the BART Guidelines.

For example, PNM's cost analysis includes costs not allowed under EPA's Cost Manual methodology, such as Allowance for Funds Used During Construction (AFUDC).

PNM's visibility analysis shows a maximum visibility improvement of 0.62 dv from WESP being installed on all four units at Mesa Verde and 0.14 dv improvement at San Pedro Parks. Visibility benefits at other Class I areas are below 0.1 dv. As discussed in detail in the FIP and accompanying TSD,

we identified inconsistencies between PNM's modeling and EPA guidance. In our evaluation of NMED's PM BART determination we considered these deviations from EPA guidance for cost estimates and visibility impact analysis. We note that some visibility benefit is anticipated at Mesa Verde through the installation of WESP at SJGS. However, given the high anticipated cost on a $/ton removed basis for WESP at SJGS, even if we corrected the cost estimate to be consistent with EPA guidance, we believe the cost of installation and operation of WESP would not be cost-effective. Therefore, we propose to approve NMED's PM BART determination for the SJGS that PM BART is satisfied by the existing PJFF and the existing emission limit of 0.015 lb/MMBtu.

U.S. EPA, EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual, Report EPA/452/B-02-001, 6th Ed., January 2002 (“Cost Manual”), The EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual is the current name for what was previously known as the OAQPS Control Cost Manual, the name for the Cost Manual in previous (pre-2002) editions of the Cost Manual.

In order to maintain and improve consistency, cost estimates should be based on the OAQPS Control Cost Manual, where possible. 70 FR 39104, 39166 (2005).

There may be other deficiencies in New Mexico's cost evaluation of PM BART for the SJGS, but we take no position on them, as they are moot in light of the potential visibility benefits versus the order of any possible magnitude adjustment in New Mexico's cost analysis.

The proposed FIP, the TSD, and the Final Rule are added to the docket for this rule making and are also available in the docket to our FIP (Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2010-0846).

G. Mobile Sources

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(5)(i), New Mexico, in collaboration with the WRAP, assembled a comprehensive statewide inventory of mobile source emissions that was included in the RH 309 SIP submittal. The inventory included on-road and non-road mobile source emissions inventories for Western states for the time period 1996 through 2018, inventorying 1996, and then projecting 2003, 2008, 2013, and 2018.

These inventories for New Mexico are summarized in Tables D-1 and D-2 of the NM RH 309 SIP and described in Chapter 5 of the WRAP TSD.

Mobile source emissions (on-road and non-road) are projected to be at their lowest level within New Mexico at the end of the planning period, primarily due to on-road vehicle emission and fuel standards by the EPA, with the exception of SO

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.

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

An emission inventory update was also done for a 2002 base year and emission projections for the years 2008, 2013, and 2018.

The inventory shows a continuous decline in emissions from mobile sources from VOC, NO

, PM

2.5

, elemental carbon (EC), and organic carbon (OC) emissions over the period of 2002-2018. Per 40 CFR 51.309(d)(5)(i)(A), the inventories show a decline in mobile source emissions and therefore no further action is required by New Mexico to address mobile source emissions.

Detailed information on the emission inventory is contained in the ENVIRON Report

WRAP Mobile Source Emission Inventories Update,

May 2006.

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(5)(i)(B), the State will submit a SIP revision no later than December 31, 2013, containing any long-term strategies necessary to reduce SO

emissions from non-road mobile sources consistent with the goal of reasonable progress if necessary based on consideration of the emission reductions achieved by Federal standards. We note the updated available emission inventory projections show that there will be a 99 percent decrease in SO

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.

69 FR 38958 (June 29, 2004). A 99 percent reduction in SO

from non-road mobile sources is consistent with the goal of reasonable progress and no other long-term strategies are necessary to address SO

emissions from non-road mobile sources at this time. Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(5)(ii), the State will submit interim reports to EPA in 2013 and 2018 on the implementation of regional and local recommendations from the GCVTC report pertaining to mobile sources. New Mexico will include these reports as part of the reports required by 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10). We propose to determine the RH 309 SIP submittal satisfies the requirements of 51 CFR 51.309(d)(5).

H. Programs Related to Fire

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6)(i), the NM RH 309 SIP must provide for an evaluation of how its SIP meets the “Programs related to fire” requirements. Based on our review of Section E of the 309 SIP, we propose to find that the submittal meets the 309(d)(6) requirements as discussed in detail below. We also propose approval of 20.2.65 NMAC,

Smoke Management,

and revisions to 20.2.60 NMAC,

Open Burning,

both submitted on December 1, 2003. The 2003 submittal of 20.2.60 NMAC replaces the state's Open Burning that we previously approved as part of the New Mexico SIP at 62 FR 50514 (September 26, 1997). By proposing to approve the 2003 submittal, we are proposing to repeal from the New Mexico SIP the earlier version of the Open Burning Rule.

1. Evaluation of Current Fire Programs

The State's submittal meets 51.309(d)(6)(i) as it demonstrates how its smoke management program and all federal or private programs for prescribed fire in New Mexico have a mechanism in place for evaluating and addressing the degree of visibility impairment from smoke in their planning and application of burning. New Mexico has adopted 20.2.65 NMAC to meet regional haze rule requirements. New Mexico has also submitted revisions to 20.2.60 NMAC as a SIP revision. See submittals at the EPA docket identified No. EPA-R06-OAR-2009-0050. We note that 20.2.60 NMAC, the rule for Open Burning, is not strictly related to the satisfaction of regional haze requirements. We first approved the State's open burning regulation (20.2.60 NMAC) into the SIP on September 26, 1997 at 62 FR 50518, and we propose to approve the submitted 20.2.60 NMAC as improving the SIP. Because this new open burning rule is an improvement over the SIP open burning rule, we also are proposing to remove from the SIP, the previously approved open burning rule. Among other things, 20.2.60 NMAC adds new restrictions on the burning of household waste. A more detailed discussion of our proposed approval of the Smoke Management rule and Open Burning rule can be found in Appendix B of the Technical Support Document (TSD) that accompanies this notice.

We propose to find that the NM RH 309 SIP submittal and the companion rules meet the specific additional requirements of 309(d)(6)(i) which address: (a) Actions to minimize emissions, (b) evaluation of smoke dispersion, (c) alternatives to fire, (d) public notification, (e) air quality monitoring, (f) surveillance and enforcement, and (g) program evaluation. These are discussed below.

a. Actions To Minimize Emissions

In order to minimize emissions, New Mexico's RH 309 SIP relies on the use of emission reduction techniques by burners. Any techniques used in conjunction with burning that reduce the actual amount of emissions produced from a planned burn project are considered emission reduction techniques. The Smoke Management Rule submittal requires land managers burning SMP-II burns (burn projects that emit greater than or equal to one ton of PM

emissions per day) to use at a minimum one emission reduction technique for each planned burn project. See 20.2.65.103.C NMAC. SMP-II burners will indicate on the required form which emission reduction techniques are being utilized for each planned burn project. We propose to find that these portions of the Smoke Management rule meet the requirement to address actions to minimize emissions.

b. Evaluation of Smoke Dispersion

The Smoke Management Rule only allows SMP-I burns (burn projects that emit less than one ton per day of PM

emissions) to be ignited during daytime hours when the ventilation index category is rated “Good” or better. See 20.2.65.102.A(2)(a) NMAC. To comply with this requirement, the burner must conduct visual monitoring and document the results in writing. For burns within 1 mile of a population, the burner must notify the department at least two business days in advance and NMED may choose to conduct instrument monitoring. See 20.2.65.102.A(2)(b).

For SMP-II burns, the Smoke Management rule provides the burner can ignite a planned burn project only during times when the ventilation category is “Good” or better,

and must notify the public at least two days prior to the burn. See 20.2.65.103.D. The burner must conduct visual monitoring and document the results in writing. NMED may choose to conduct instrument monitoring in addition to visual monitoring. See 20.2.65.103.J.(1). We propose to find that these portions of the Smoke Management rule meet the requirement for evaluation of smoke dispersion.

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

c. Alternatives to Fire

The NM RH 309 SIP requires, through the Smoke Management Rule, that for burns exceeding 1 ton PM

emissions per day, burners must consider the use of alternatives to burning. See 20.2.65.103.B and C. Burners must then document that the use of alternatives to burning was considered prior to the decision to utilize fire. The documentation includes citing the feasibility criterion that prevented the use of alternatives. This documentation must be included on the registration form provided by the NMED. The burner must maintain all records of actions and maintain such records for a minimum of one year. See 20.2.65.103.K. We propose to find that these portions of the Smoke Management Rule meet the requirement to consider alternatives to fire.

d. Public Notification

To meet the public notification requirements, the Smoke Management rule contains requirements for public notice for burn projects planned in proximity to population. For example, 20.2.65.102.E requires for SMP-I burns, that burners notify the populations that are located with one mile of the planned burn project. The burner must conduct public notification no sooner than 30 days and no later than two days in advance of the ignition of the planned burn project. In addition, under 20.2.65.102.B, the burner must notify the local fire authorities prior to igniting a burn and register the burn project with NMED. For SMP-II burns, the 20.2.65.103.J requires that burners notify the populations within 15 miles of the planned burn project. The burner must conduct public notification no sooner than 30 days and no later than

two days in advance of the ignition of the planned burn project. In addition, the burner will also notify the local fire authorities prior to igniting a burn and register the burn project with NMED under 20.2.65.103.F. We propose to find that these portions of the Smoke Management rule meet the requirement to address notification of the public.

e. Air Quality Monitoring

To address air quality monitoring, the Smoke Management rule requires that SMP-I and SMP-II burners conduct and document visual monitoring on all planned burn projects under 20.2.65.102.A(2)(b) and 20.2.65.103.E. The use of monitoring equipment will be based on the planned burn project's proximity to a population, nonattainment area, or Class I area and will be determined on a case-by-case basis by NMED. We propose to find that this portion of the Smoke Management rule meets this requirement.

f. Surveillance and Enforcement

To address surveillance and enforcement requirements, 20.2.65 NMAC requires that the permittee submit reports and burn project tracking forms to the NMED on SMP-I and SMP-II burns. See 20.2.65.102D NMAC and 20.2.65.103I NMAC. The New Mexico Air Quality Control Act, NMSA 1978 Chapter 74, Article 2 authorizes enforcement actions and the assessment of civil penalties for violations. Section E of the State's submittal contains a more detailed explanation of the existing procedures in place to address this. We propose to find that the current SIP and the State's enforcement mechanisms meet this requirement.

g. Program Evaluation

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6)(i), the RH SIP submittal also contains an evaluation of whether its smoke management program and these prescribed fire smoke management programs contain the following elements: actions to minimize emissions; evaluation of smoke dispersion; alternatives to fire; public notification; air quality monitoring; surveillance and enforcement; and program evaluation. The SIP at Section E and Appendix E-1 describe the results of these evaluations in detail. For example, NMED, in its RH 309 SIP, commits to hosting an annual meeting with all burners and interested stakeholders to assess the adequacy of the design, impact, and implementation of the program. These program evaluations will be used to revise and improve the smoke management plan, as needed. The State also commits to review gathered data with stakeholders on an annual basis that will serve to establish annual emissions goals. In addition, that State has adopted a Smoke Management regulation at 20.2.65 NMAC that serves as the foundation of the smoke management plan, which the NMED administers and enforces. We propose to find that the New Mexico RH SIP submittal meets the requirement for program evaluation under 51.309(d)(6)(i).

2. Inventory and Tracking System

We propose to find the RH 309 SIP meets the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6)(ii) for fire emissions inventorying and tracking. Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6)(ii), States must include in their section 309 plan a statewide process for gathering the essential post-burn activity information to support emissions inventory and tracking systems. The SIP submittal provides for a host of inventory and tracking measures that we believe meet the 309(d)(6)(ii) requirement. For example, the State follows the WRAP's guidance, “Fire Tracking System Policy,” on establishing an adequate system for tracking and emissions inventory of the following pollutants: VOC, NOx, elemental carbon, organic carbon, and fine particulate for fire sources within New Mexico. The SIP follows the WRAP's policies on emission inventory and tracking requirements that can be found in section E (c) and Appendix M-2, and Appendix E-6 of the state's submittal. In order to maintain the emission inventory, 20.2.65.102.D and 20.2.65.103.I NMAC requires the burners to complete and submit to the NMED a burn project tracking form within two weeks after completion of the burn activity to report on emissions from their burns including quantitative information regarding fuel types, fuel consumption, and type of burn. We are proposing to determine that the RH SIP submittal and the submitted Smoke Management rule meet these requirements.

3. Identification and Removal of Administrative Barriers

We propose to find that the NM RH 309 SIP submittal meets the 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6)(iii) requirements to address administrative barriers to facilitate alternatives to burning. Section E(d) and Appendix E-2 of the state's RH 309 SIP, describe the process the NMED commits to undertake to address this requirement.

In section E(d) of the SIP, the State commits to working with key public and private entities to identify and remove administrative barriers to the use of alternatives to burning for prescribed fire on federal, State, and private lands, pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6)(iii). The process is collaborative and provides for continuing identification and removal of administrative barriers, and considers economic, safety, technical and environmental feasibility criteria, and land management objectives. The State relied on

Non-burning Alternatives for Vegetation and Fuel Management,

and

Burning Management Alternatives on Agricultural Lands in the Western United States

developed by the WRAP for non-burning alternatives and methods to assess their applicability. Should New Mexico determine that an administrative barrier exists, the State will work collaboratively with the appropriate public and private entities to evaluate the administrative barrier, identify the steps necessary to remove the administrative barrier, and initiate the removal of the administrative barrier, where it is feasible to do so. For example, NMED is committed to review the registration forms required for burns conducted under SMP II that requires burners to identify why alternatives to burning have not been used. The State commits to collect this data and analyze it to determine whether administrative barriers to the use of alternatives exist. The state commits to evaluate this information at the annual program evaluation meeting to be held each year in January with all burners. Should it be determined that a specific administrative barrier exists, New Mexico will contact the appropriate agency to determine how this barrier may be removed and will work collaboratively with the agency and the burners to remove the barrier. We accordingly, believe the requirement to address administrative barriers is satisfied.

4. Enhanced Smoke Management Program

We propose to find the submitted RH 309 SIP provides enhanced smoke management programs to meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6)(iv). The smoke management programs that operate within the State are consistent with the

WRAP Policy on Enhanced Smoke Management Programs for Visibility

(WRAP ESMP). A copy of this policy can be found in the Appendix E-4 of the NM RH 309 SIP. This policy calls for programs to be based on the criteria of efficiency, economics, law, emission reduction opportunities, land management objectives, and reduction of visibility impacts. The intent of the WRAP ESMP is to assist states to

address visibility effects associated with fire in a way that is adequate for a SIP. Appendix E-1 of the NM RH 309 SIP explains how the smoke management program in New Mexico meets the Enhanced Smoke Management Program (ESMP) policy and the Regional Haze Rule (RHR) requirements. The RH 309 SIP submittal and the submitted Smoke Management rule meet the requirements as described above.

5. Annual Emission Goal

We propose to find the submitted RH 309 SIP satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6)(v) for “annual emission goals for fire, excluding wildfire.” In its RH 309 SIP, the state commits to minimizing emission increases in fire through the use of annual emission goals using the policies set out by

Western Regional Air Partnership Policy on Annual Emission Goals for Fire.

A copy of this policy can be found in the Appendix E-5 of the NM RH 309 SIP. The State will use a collaborative mechanism for setting annual emission goals and developing a process for tracking their attainment on a yearly basis. New Mexico will rely on emission reduction techniques (ERT), where appropriate, to minimize emission increases in fire within the State. The State will quantify the ERTs that are being used within New Mexico on a project-specific basis to reduce the total amount of emissions being generated from areas where prescribed fire is being used. 20.2.65 NMAC, requires the use of at least one ERT for all prescribed fires with emissions exceeding one ton of PM

per day.

Based on our review of Section E and Appendix E of the state's RH 309 submittal, we propose to find the submitted SIP meets the 309(d)(6)(v) requirements. We also propose approval of the state's Smoke Management and Open Burning rules submitted to us on December 1, 2003.

I. Paved and Unpaved Road Dust

To meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(7), the submitted RH 309 SIP relies on the assessment WRAP performed on the impact of dust emissions from paved and unpaved roads on the 16 Class I areas of the Colorado Plateau. The WRAP modeled and calculated the significance of road dust in terms of the impact on visibility on the worst 20 percent days. The modeled regional impact of road dust emissions ranged from 0.31 deciviews at the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park to 0.08 deciviews at the Weminuche Wilderness Area. For more information on the WRAP modeling and assessment of road dust impacts see Appendix F of the NM RH 309 SIP submittal and Chapter 7 of the WRAP TSD.

Based on the WRAP modeling, the State has concluded in section F of the SIP that road dust is not a significant contributor to visibility impairment in the 16 Class I areas. We propose to agree that road dust is not a significant contributor to visibility impairment in the 16 Class I areas. Since the State has found that road dust is not a significant contributor to visibility impairment, there is no need to include road dust control strategies in the SIP pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(7). The State will track road dust emissions with the assistance of the WRAP and provide an update on paved and unpaved road dust emission trends, including any modeling or monitoring information regarding the impact of these emissions on visibility in the 16 Colorado Plateau Class I Areas. A description of the road dust emission tracking program is included in

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.