
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 189 (Monday, October 2, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 45762-45771]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-21006]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2016-0406; FRL-9967-77-Region 6]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; New Mexico; 
Albuquerque and Bernalillo County; Regional Haze Progress Report State 
Implementation Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act), the 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a 
revision to a State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the City of 
Albuquerque and Bernalillo County, New Mexico (the County) submitted by 
the Governor on June 24, 2016. The SIP revision addresses

[[Page 45763]]

requirements of the Act and the EPA's rules that require the County to 
submit a periodic report assessing reasonable progress goals (RPGs) for 
regional haze with a determination of the adequacy of the existing 
regional haze SIP.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before November 1, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2016-
0406, at http://www.regulations.gov or via email to 
grady.james@epa.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from 
Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public 
docket. Do not submit any information electronically that is considered 
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or any other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, 
video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written 
comment will be considered the official comment with multimedia 
submissions and should include all discussion points desired. The EPA 
will generally not consider comments or their contents submitted 
outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other 
file sharing systems). For additional submission methods, please 
contact James E. Grady, (214) 665-6745, grady.james@epa.gov. For the 
full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia 
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please 
visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available 
electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at the EPA 
Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. While all 
documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may 
be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted 
material), and some may not be publicly available at either location 
(e.g., CBI).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James E. Grady, (214) 665-6745; 
grady.james@epa.gov. To inspect the hard copy materials, please 
schedule an appointment with James E. Grady or Mr. Bill Deese at 214-
665-7253.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' or 
``our'' each mean ``the EPA.''

Table of Contents:

I. Background on Regional Haze
    A. Visibility Protection
    B. Regulation Overview
II. Requirements for Regional Haze Progress Report
III. Evaluation of Regional Haze Progress Report
    A. Class I Areas
    B. Status of Control Strategies
    1. SO2 Milestone and Backstop Trading Program
    2. NOX and PM Control Strategies
    3. Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)
    4. Mobile Source Emissions
    5. Fire and Smoke Management
    6. Fugitive and Unpaved Road Dust Measures
    7. Additional Controls--Local State Regulations
    8. Summary of Control Strategy Implementation
    C. Emission Reductions From Control Strategies
    D. Visibility Progress
    E. Emissions Progress
    F. Assessment of Changes Impeding Visibility Progress
    G. Assessment of Current Strategy To Meet RPGs
    H. Review of Visibility Monitoring Strategy
    I. Determination of Adequacy of Existing Regional Haze Plan
IV. The EPA's Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background on Regional Haze

A. Visibility Protection

    Regional haze is visibility impairment that occurs over a wide 
geographic area primarily from the pollution of fine particles 
(PM2.5) in nature.\1\ Fine particles causing haze consist of 
sulfates, nitrates, organics, elemental carbon (EC), and soil dust.\2\ 
Airborne PM2.5 can scatter and absorb the incident light 
and, therefore, lead to atmospheric opacity and horizontal visibility 
degradation. Regional haze limits visual distance and reduces color, 
clarity and contrast of view. Emissions that affect visibility include 
a wide variety of natural and man-made sources. In New Mexico, the most 
important sources of haze-forming emissions are coal-fired power 
plants, oil and gas development, woodland fires, and windblown dust. 
Reducing PM2.5 and its precursor gases in the atmosphere is 
an effective method of improving visibility. PM2.5 
precursors consist of sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides 
(NOX), ammonia (NH3) and volatile organic 
compounds (VOCs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Fine particles are less than or equal to 2.5 microns 
([micro]m) in diameter and usually form secondary in nature 
indirectly from other sources. Particles less than or equal to 10 
[micro]m in diameter are referred to as PM10. Particles 
greater than PM2.5 but less than PM10 are 
referred to as coarse mass. Coarse mass can contribute to light 
extinction as well and is made up of primary particles directly 
emitted into the air. Fine particles tend to be man-made, while 
coarse particles tend to have a natural origin. Coarse mass settles 
out from the air more rapidly than fine particles and usually will 
be found relatively close to emission sources. Fine particles can be 
transported long distances by wind and can be found in the air 
thousands of miles from where they were formed.
    \2\ Organic carbon (OC) can be emitted directly as particles, or 
formed through reactions involving gaseous emissions. Elemental 
carbon, in contrast to organic carbon, is exclusively of primary 
origin and emitted by the incomplete combustion of carbon-based 
fuels. They are especially prevalent in diesel exhaust and smoke 
from wild and prescribed fires.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Regulation Overview

    In section 169A of the 1977 CAA Amendments, Congress declared as a 
national goal the prevention of any future, and the remedying of any 
existing, visibility impairment in mandatory class I Federal areas 
where impairment results from manmade air pollution.\3\ Congress added 
section 169B to the CAA in 1990 that added visibility protection 
provisions, and the EPA published final regulations addressing regional 
haze with the 1999 Regional Haze Rule (RHR).\4\ The RHR revised the 
existing visibility regulations and established a more comprehensive 
visibility protection program for mandatory Class I areas. The 
requirements for regional haze are found at 40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309. 
States must demonstrate reasonable progress toward meeting the national 
goal of a return to natural visibility conditions for mandatory Class I 
Federal areas both within and outside states by 2064. The requirement 
to submit a regional haze SIP applies to all fifty states, the District 
of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands. The City of Albuquerque and 
Bernalillo County,\5\ New Mexico must also submit

[[Page 45764]]

a regional haze SIP separate from the State of New Mexico \6\ to 
completely satisfy the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA 
for the entire State under the New Mexico Air Quality Control Act 
(section 74-2-4).\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Mandatory Class I Federal areas consist of national parks 
exceeding 6,000 acres, wilderness areas and national memorial parks 
exceeding 5,000 acres, and all international parks that were in 
existence on August 7, 1977. The EPA, in consultation with the 
Department of Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas where 
visibility was identified as an important value. The extent of a 
mandatory Class I area includes subsequent changes in boundaries, 
such as park expansions. Although states and tribes may designate 
additional areas as Class I, the requirements of the visibility 
program set forth in the CAA applies only to ``mandatory Class I 
Federal areas.'' Each mandatory Class I Federal area is the 
responsibility of a ``Federal Land Manager.'' When the term ``Class 
I area'' is used in this action, it means ``mandatory Class I 
Federal areas.'' [See 44 FR 69122, November 30, 1979 and CAA 
Sections 162(a), 169A, and 302(i)].
    \4\ See July 1, 1999 Regional Haze Rule final action (64 FR 
35714), as amended in July 6, 2005 (70 FR 39156), October 13, 2006 
(71 FR 60631), June 7, 2012 (77 FR 33656) and in January 10, 2017 
(82 FR 3079).
    \5\ Note that the City of Albuquerque and Bernalillo County is 
treated like a ``state'' for purposes of implementing the RHR, which 
is written specifically for states. The EPA regulates and funds 
Bernalillo County as it does any other state air agency. Enacted in 
1967, the New Mexico State Air Quality Control Act [NMSA 1978 
Sections 74-2-4, 74-2-5, and 74-2-7] allowed for the establishment 
of the Air Quality Control Board (AQCB) as a local board and 
empowered it with the authority to administer and enforce its air 
quality regulations within Bernalillo County. The AQCB has 
jurisdiction over all of Bernalillo County, (including the City of 
Albuquerque), except Indian lands. The State of New Mexico 
Environmental Improvement Board (EIB) has jurisdiction over all 
other counties in New Mexico.
    \6\ On December 31, 2003, New Mexico submitted a regional haze 
SIP with later revisions (July 5, 2011 and October 7, 2013) that 
addressed 40 CFR 51.309. The EPA approved both of the (2003 and 
2011) submittals on November 27, 2012 (77 FR 70693) and approved a 
2013 revision on October 9, 2014 with two separate rules (79 FR 
60985 and 79 FR 60978). The New Mexico progress report was approved 
by the EPA on November 3, 2015 (see 80 FR 67682).
    \7\On November 12, 2003, the County first adopted its 40 CFR 
51.309 regional haze SIP with later revisions (August 13, 2008; June 
8, 2011). The EPA approved these submittals on Apr. 25, 2012 (77 FR 
24768).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Requirements for Regional Haze Progress Report

    The RHR requires a comprehensive analysis of each state's regional 
haze SIP every ten years and a progress report at five-year intervals. 
The five-year review is intended to provide an interim report on the 
implementation of, and, if necessary, mid-course corrections to, the 
regional haze SIP. The progress report provides an opportunity for 
public input on the County's (and the EPA's) assessment of whether the 
approved regional haze SIP is being implemented appropriately and 
whether reasonable visibility progress is being achieved consistent 
with the projected visibility improvement in the SIP. At a minimum, the 
required elements of the progress report under the RHR must include the 
following seven elements: \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See also General Principles for the 5-Year Regional Haze 
Progress Reports for the Initial Regional Haze State Implementation 
Plans (Intended to Assist States and EPA Regional Offices in 
Development and Review of the Progress Reports), April 2013, EPA-
454/B-03-005, available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-03/documents/haze_5year_4-10-13.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) Provide a description of the status of implementation of all 
measures included in the regional haze SIP.
    (2) Summarize the emissions reductions achieved throughout the 
state.
    (3) Provide an assessment of current visibility conditions and the 
change in visibility impairment over the past five years.
    (4) Provide analysis tracking the change over the past five years 
in emissions of pollutants contributing to visibility impairment from 
all sources and activities within the state.
    (5) Provide an assessment of any significant changes in 
anthropogenic emissions within or outside the state that have occurred 
over the past five years that have limited or impeded progress in 
reducing pollutant emissions and improving visibility.
    (6) Provide an assessment of whether the current SIP elements and 
strategies are sufficient to enable the state (or other states with 
mandatory Class I areas affected by emissions from the state) to meet 
all established RPGs.
    (7) Provide a review of the state's visibility monitoring strategy 
and any modifications to the strategy as necessary.
    The City of Albuquerque and Bernalillo County, New Mexico submitted 
its progress report SIP for the County under 40 CFR 51.309 on June 24, 
2016. Typically, progress report requirements of most states are 
covered under 40 CFR 51.308(g) and (h). 40 CFR 51.309 presents nine 
western states with an optional approach of fulfilling RHR requirements 
by adopting emission reduction strategies developed by the Grand Canyon 
Visibility Transport Commission (GCVTC). These strategies were designed 
primarily to improve visibility of sixteen Class I areas in the 
Colorado Plateau area.\9\ Three western states (New Mexico, Utah and 
Wyoming) including the City of Albuquerque and Bernalillo County, NM 
exercised the option provided in the RHR to meet alternative 
requirements contained in 40 CFR 51.309 for regional haze SIPs. For 
these states, the required content of the five-year progress report is 
identical with those for the other states, but are codified at 40 CFR 
51.309(d)(10) instead of at 40 CFR 51.308 (g) and (h). This section 
specifies fixed due dates in 2013 and 2018 for these progress 
reports.\10\ In contrast, under 40 CFR 51.308, states must submit a 
progress report five years from submittal of the initial implementation 
plan. Under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(ii), states are required to submit, at 
the same time as the progress report SIP, a determination of the 
adequacy of their existing regional haze SIP and to take one of four 
possible actions, as described in more detail in this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The Colorado Plateau is a high, semi-arid tableland in 
Southeast Utah, Northern Arizona, Northwest New Mexico, and Western 
Colorado. The sixteen mandatory Class I areas are as follows: Grand 
Canyon National Park, Mount Baldy Wilderness, Petrified Forest 
National Park, Sycamore Canyon Wilderness, Black Canyon of the 
Gunnison National Park Wilderness, Flat Tops Wilderness, Maroon 
Bells Wilderness, Mesa Verde National Park, Weminuche Wilderness, 
West Elk Wilderness, San Pedro Parks Wilderness, Arches National 
Park, Bryce Canyon National Park, Canyonlands National Park, Capital 
Reef National Park, and Zion National Park.
    \10\ The 1999 RHR provided that these three states will 
eventually revert to the progress report due date requirements in 40 
CFR 51.308 for the second implementation period. Recently, there was 
an extension of the second regional haze implementation period 
deadline from 2018 to 2021. (82 FR 3080, January 10, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Evaluation of Regional Haze Progress Report

    On July 28 2011, the AQCB submitted a regional haze SIP for its own 
geographic area of Bernalillo County, New Mexico (including the City of 
Albuquerque) that addressed the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309.\11\ This 
SIP submittal was a necessary component of the regional haze plan for 
New Mexico to ensure that the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D) of 
the CAA were satisfied for the whole state. On July 6, 2016, the EPA 
received the periodic report on progress for the County's regional haze 
SIP in the form of a SIP revision. This latest submission is the 
subject of this proposed approval. The periodic report was made in the 
first implementation period to assess visibility progression for Class 
I areas in and outside of the County that were negatively affected by 
emissions from within the County. The progress report included the 
County's determination that the existing regional haze SIP required no 
substantive revisions to achieve the established regional haze 
visibility improvement and emission reduction goals for 2018. The EPA 
agrees with the County's assessment and is proposing to approve its 
progress report SIP on the basis that it satisfies all requirements of 
40 CFR 51.309(d)(10) as explained in further details in each subsequent 
section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See the EPA's proposed approval (77 FR 24768, April 25, 
2012) and final rule (77 FR 71119, November 29, 2012) for the 
County.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Class I Areas

    The City of Albuquerque and Bernalillo County does not formulate 
specific RPGs for particular Class I areas within its borders since no 
such areas exist.\12\ Therefore, the County is not required to identify 
RPGs or calculate baseline and natural visibility conditions at any 
Class I area. The County, however, is required to address the 
apportionment of visibility impact from the emissions generated by 
sources within the County at Class I areas outside of the County 
borders. As a result, the progress report addressed the emissions 
impact on RPGs and related emission reduction goals for nine Class I 
areas within the state of New Mexico that were identified as being 
close

[[Page 45765]]

enough to the County that they could conceivably be affected by 
emissions from within the County. The nine Class I areas within New 
Mexico that were addressed in the progress report were: Bandelier 
Wilderness, Bosque del Apache National Wildlife Refuge, Carlsbad 
Caverns National Park, Gila Wilderness, Pecos Wilderness, Salt Creek 
Wilderness, Wheeler Peak Wilderness, White Mountain Wilderness, and San 
Pedro Parks Wilderness.\13\ Visibility impairment at New Mexico's nine 
Class I areas was tracked in units of deciviews (dv)\14\ as measured by 
eight monitors in the Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual 
Environments (IMPROVE) Network. Through collaboration with the Western 
Regional Air Partnership (WRAP),\15\ the AQCB worked with New Mexico 
and other western states to assess state-by-state contributions to 
visibility impairment in specific Class I areas affected by Albuquerque 
and Bernalillo County, NM emissions. The determinations in the progress 
report relied on the technical analysis and emission inventories 
developed by the WRAP which is documented online and also appears in 
the technical appendices.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See 77 FR 24768, 24790 (Apr. 25, 2012).
    \13\ The Section 309 SIP submitted by New Mexico in December 
2003 addressed only San Pedro Parks Wilderness Area and the other 
Class I areas were added in a later SIP revision under Section 
309(g) in June 2011 and revised in October 2013. The EPA approved 
both of the (2003 and 2011) submittals on November 27, 2012 (77 FR 
70693) and approved a 2013 revision on October 9, 2014 with two 
separate rules (79 FR 60985 and 79 FR 60978).
    \14\ A deciview is a haze index derived from calculated light 
extinction, such that uniform changes in haziness correspond to 
uniform incremental changes in perception across the entire range of 
conditions, from pristine to highly impaired. The preamble to the 
RHR provides additional details about the deciview (64 FR 35714, 
35725, July 1, 1999).
    \15\ The WRAP is a collaborative effort of tribal governments, 
state governments and various federal agencies representing the 
western states that provides technical and policy tools for the 
western states and tribes to comply with the EPA's Regional Haze 
regulations. Detailed information regarding WRAP support of air 
quality management issues for western states is provided on the WRAP 
Web site (www.wrapair2.org). Data summary descriptions and tools 
specific to RHR support are available on the WRAP Technical Support 
System Web site (http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/tss/).
    \16\ The Western Regional Air Partnership Regional Haze Rule 
Reasonable Progress Summary Report technical support document has 
been prepared on behalf of the fifteen Western State members in the 
WRAP region to provide the technical basis for use by states to 
develop the first of their individual reasonable progress reports 
for the 116 Federal Class I areas located in the Western states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA is proposing to find that the County has appropriately 
identified the Class I areas in this report which could be affected by 
emissions from within the County, as required by 40 CFR 51.309(g). This 
regulation provides a requirement for compliance with 40 CFR 51.308(d) 
to the extent that planning is necessary for areas other than the 
sixteen Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau addressed in the initial 
2003 regional haze SIP. In the ensuing sections, the EPA addresses 
these Class I areas and the seven regulatory elements required by the 
progress report SIP; \17\ how the County's progress report SIP 
addressed each element; and the EPA's analysis and proposed 
determination as to whether the County satisfied each part.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

B. Status of Control Strategies

    40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(A) requires a description of the status of 
implementation of all control measures included in the regional haze 
SIP for achieving RPGs for Class I areas both within and outside the 
state.
    The County evaluated the status of all control measures in its 2011 
regional haze SIP in accordance with the requirements under 40 CFR 
51.309(d)(10)(i)(A). The major control measures identified by the 
County in the progress report are as follows:
     SO2 Milestone and Backstop Trading Program
     NOX and PM Control Strategies
     Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)
     Mobile Sources Emissions \18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(5)(ii), New Mexico is required to 
submit interim reports to the EPA and the public on the 
implementation status of the regional and local strategies to 
address mobile source emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Fire and Smoke Management
     Fugitive and Unpaved Road Dust Measures
     Additional Controls--Local State Regulations
    The County identified ammonium sulfate, particulate organic matter, 
and coarse mass as the largest contributors to visibility impairment at 
New Mexico's Class I areas that need to be controlled.\19\ Many of the 
sources, however, that produce these visibility-impairing pollutants in 
New Mexico are natural, rather than anthropogenic in nature, and are 
not controllable. For the purpose of this progress report, the County 
focused on those emission sources that were anthropogenic in nature (as 
did New Mexico in its report). The primary sources of ammonium sulfate 
are point sources and mobile source emissions. Ammonium sulfate results 
from SO2 and NH3 precursor emissions. 
SO2 emissions in New Mexico are generally associated with 
anthropogenic point sources such as coal-fired power plants, other 
industrial sources like refineries and cement plants, and both on and 
off-road mobile sources. Particulate organic matter emissions in New 
Mexico are from natural and anthropogenic fire. Large wildfire events 
in the west dominate particulate organic aerosol emissions which are 
emitted directly into the air as particles instead of gases. Coarse 
mass emissions in New Mexico happen mainly as a result of windblown and 
fugitive dust. Coarse mass settles out of air more rapidly than fine 
particles, so strong wind events act as a transport vehicle to carry 
them long distances. Otherwise, they will typically be found close to 
the emission source.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See the County's 2016 regional haze progress report 
submittal (page 9) which was reiterated in New Mexico's regional 
haze progress report (page 7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. SO2 Milestone and Backstop Trading Program
    The progress report discussed the SO2 Milestone and 
Backstop Trading Program as a control measure to reduce emissions for 
major sources of SO2.\20\ The County has participated in 
this voluntary program since December 31, 2003.\21\ As part of this 
program, the Section 309 western states and the County must submit an 
annual report that compares tracked stationary sources of 
SO2 emissions to yearly milestones.\22\ A milestone is an 
established maximum level of annual emissions for a given year (from 
2003-2018). The milestones help establish annual SO2 
emission reduction targets. The annual targets represent RPGs in 
reducing visibility-impairing emissions. If states fail to meet the 
milestones, then the backstop-trading program is triggered to

[[Page 45766]]

implement an emissions cap. The cap allocates emission allowances (or 
credits) to the affected sources based on the cap, and requires the 
sources to hold sufficient allowances to cover their emissions each 
year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Under Section 309, nine western states and the tribes 
within those states had the option of submitting plans to reduce 
visibility-impairing emissions at sixteen Class I areas on the 
Colorado Plateau. Five states (Arizona, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, 
Wyoming) and the City of Albuquerque and Bernalillo County, NM 
exercised this option by submitting plans to the EPA by December 1, 
2003. Oregon and Arizona have since elected to cease participation 
in the Milestone and Backstop Trading Program in 2006 and 2010, 
respectively. The tribes are not subject to any deadline and can 
still opt into the program at any time.
    \21\ The County cooperates with its WRAP partners to maintain an 
inventory of regional SO2 emissions, across the Section 
309 states. The City of Albuquerque Air Quality Program (AQP) 
monitors SO2 ambient air concentrations in Bernalillo 
County consistent with EPA regulations. See the City of Albuquerque 
Environmental Health Department (EHD) Web site at https://www.cabq.gov/airquality/documents for Annual Network Reviews for 
Ambient Air Monitoring.
    \22\ See WRAP Web site at https://www.wrapair2.org/reghaze.aspx 
for the Regional Milestone reports. A final 2014 milestone report 
was posted on March 7, 2016 and a draft 2015 report was posted 
recently on March 20, 2017. Appendix G of the County progress report 
includes the 2013 Regional SO2 Emissions and Milestone 
Report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The regional haze SIP requires multiyear averaging of emissions for 
the milestone comparison. From 2005-2017, the three-year average, which 
includes the reporting year and the two previous years, is calculated 
and compared to the milestone. The regional milestone for 2013 was 
185,795 tons SO2. The three-year average SO2 
emissions for 2011, 2012, and 2013 was 105,402 tons SO2, 
which was 43 percent below the 2013 milestone. In table 1 below, 2014 
and 2015 WRAP data shows similar SO2 reduction trends that 
continue beyond 2013 toward 2018. No triggering of the backstop trading 
program has been necessary and the likelihood of meeting the 2018 
target means no changes in the program are needed at the moment. The 
compliance dates show that SO2 emissions have consistently 
been below each annual RPG and are currently tracking to be below the 
2018 milestone.

                                      Table 1--SO2 Emission Milestones \23\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Regional SO2      Average SO2 emissions to determine compliance with
                                        milestone tons                          milestone
                 Year                      per year    ---------------------------------------------------------
                                             (tpy)
                                                                SO2  (tpy)                 3-Year average
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2008..................................         269,083  265,662..................  2006, 2007 and 2008.
2009..................................         234,903  165,633..................  2007, 2008 and 2009.
2010..................................         200,722  146,808..................  2008, 2009 and 2010.
2011..................................         200,722  130,935..................  2009, 2010 and 2011.
2012..................................         200,722  115,115..................  2010, 2011 and 2012.
2013..................................         185,795  105,402..................  2011, 2012 and 2013.
2014..................................         170,868  96,392...................  2012, 2013 and 2014.
2015..................................         155,940  91,310...................  2013, 2014 and 2015.
2016..................................         155,940  Not Available............  2014, 2015 and 2016.
2017..................................         155,940  Not Available............  2015, 2016 and 2017.
2018..................................         141,849  Not Available............  2016, 2017 and 2018.
2019 forward..........................         141,849  Not Available............  Annual; no averaging.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. NOX and PM Control Strategies
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ The milestone numbers reflect the participation of Wyoming, 
Utah, and New Mexico (including the City of Albuquerque and 
Bernalillo County) in the 309 backstop trading program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The County included a report in its 2011 regional haze SIP that 
assessed emission control strategies for NOX and PM 
stationary sources, and the degree of visibility improvement that would 
result from their implementation.\24\ The report concluded that current 
and future NOX and PM emissions do not show to be major 
contributors to regional haze (typically about two percent on average) 
in the vast majority of western Class I areas. The report represented 
the initial assessment of stationary source NOX and PM 
strategies for regional haze, and was a starting point for a more 
extensive analysis in the future. The 2011 regional haze SIP stated 
that the progress report would assess the need for new NOX 
and PM control measures to address any new contributions to regional 
haze from stationary sources in the County. The County concluded in the 
progress report that it does not find new control measures necessary 
for NOX and PM stationary sources at this time. Stationary 
source NOX and PM emissions in the County have not impeded 
reasonable progress of emissions and visibility in New Mexico as a 
whole and are not likely to do so. Please refer to the emission 
reduction section of this report for more details regarding 
NOX and PM emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ The report, Stationary Source NOX and PM Emissions in the 
WRAP Region: An Initial Assessment of Emissions, Controls, and Air 
Quality Impacts, was prepared by the WRAP and is included in 
Appendix H-O of the SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) \25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ BART sources are those sources that have the potential to 
emit 250 tons or more of visibility-impairing pollutants, were put 
in place between August 7, 1962 and August 7, 1977, and whose 
operations fall within one or more of 26 specifically listed source 
categories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The regional haze SIP determined that there are no BART-eligible 
sources in the County, so there are no requirements to install BART 
controls.\26\ Even so, the progress report mentioned how the County 
must still specifically demonstrate that its SO2 milestone 
and backstop-trading program will achieve greater reasonable progress 
than would be achieved by implementation of BART controls.\27\ Under 
this approach, a section 51.309 regional haze SIP must establish 
declining SO2 emission milestones for each year of the 
program through 2018. The milestones must be consistent with the 
GCTVC's goal of fifty to seventy percent reduction in SO2 
emissions by 2040. As demonstrated in the County's regional haze SIP, 
the SO2 milestones provide greater reasonable progress than 
BART and track at a sixty percent pace reduction of the 1990 
SO2 emission levels.\28\ The actual annual SO2 
emission reduction results outperformed this milestone pace. The 
progress report showed that the three-year average SO2 
emissions for 2013 was 43 percent below the 2013 milestone at 105,402 
tons SO2 (see Table 1). That represents a 71 percent 
reduction from the 1990 emission totals and is exceeding the GCVTC goal 
of fifty to seventy percent reduction. The regional SO2 
emissions have continued to decline at a faster pace than called for by 
the SO2 milestones. Thus, as anticipated, the milestone 
program has actually continued to achieve greater reasonable progress 
than would be the case if BART were implemented.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ The WRAP identified three potential BART-eligible sources 
in the County. These were PNM Reeves Generating Station, GCC Rio 
Grande Inc., and Cobisa Person Power Project. The AQCB assessed 
whether these facilities were existing stationary facilities as 
defined at 40 CFR 51.301 and determined that all three sources were 
not BART-eligible. PNM Reeves and GCC Rio Grande were not in 
existence nor operating during the requisite time period, and Cobisa 
Person Power Project did not have emission units in the 26 source 
categories for BART. See the EPA's proposed approval for the 
County's regional haze SIP (77 FR 24768, 24782, April 25, 2012).
    \27\ 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(i).
    \28\ See the County's 2011 regional haze SIP submittal (pages 
112-124). SO2 emissions from sources in 1990 totaled 
358,364 tpy and the 2018 milestone is 141,849 tpy, which represents 
sixty percent reduction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Mobile Source Emissions
    The progress report mentioned that the County is relying upon 
federal standards as long-term measures to

[[Page 45767]]

achieve declines in mobile source emissions that contribute to regional 
haze.\29\ The County also committed itself in the SIP to monitoring 
mobile source emissions (through the WRAP) to assure a continuous 
decline in emissions as defined in 40 CFR 51.309(b)(6).\30\ A statewide 
inventory of baseline and future annual mobile source emissions has 
been compiled for the years 2003-2018 with assistance from the 
WRAP.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See the County's 2011 regional haze SIP (pages 56-58) and 
New Mexico's 2011 regional haze SIP (page 144) for ongoing 
implementation of federal mobile source regulations. The County 
regional haze SIP listed as a haze-control measure 20.11.104 NMAC, 
Emission Standards for New Motor Vehicles. This regulation was 
adopted in 2007 to implement California's clean car standards. At 
the time the regulation was adopted by New Mexico, the California 
standards were projected to substantially differ from federal motor 
vehicle emissions standards. Since that time, the California and 
federal programs for emissions standards for motor vehicles have 
become more aligned with each other than was expected by New Mexico 
when it adopted the State Mobile Source Regulation. For example, in 
2009, the EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 
(NHTSA) proposed ``regulatory convergence'' with California on motor 
vehicle fuel economy standards. See 74 FR 49454 (September 28, 
2009). This was subsequently adopted, starting with model years 
2012-2016. 75 FR 25323 (May 7, 2010). Therefore, 20.11.104 NMAC is 
currently redundant and is not being implemented.
    \30\ See the County's 2011 regional haze SIP (page 59).
    \31\ See WRAP 2013 Summary Report, pages 3-11 to 3-20, 4-1 to 4-
2, and 6-222 to 6-233.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Fire and Smoke Management
    The County is relying on fire and smoke management programs under 
20.11.21 NMAC, Open Burning, in order to help control anthropogenic 
fire related emissions of VOCs, NOX, elemental carbon, 
organic carbon, and PM2.5. This regulation requires that 
most open burning in Bernalillo County be conducted under a permit from 
the City of Albuquerque EHD subject to specific requirements, 
including: reporting of emissions for use in emissions inventories; 
consideration of alternatives to burning; use of enhanced smoke 
management techniques recommended by the WRAP; and use of specific 
emission reduction techniques. The programs in this measure are 
generally designed to limit increases in emissions, rather than to 
reduce existing emissions.
6. Fugitive and Unpaved Road Dust Measures
    The progress report mentioned measures that provide for control of 
PM10 and PM2.5 emissions from unpaved roads and 
from stationary fugitive dust sources.\32\ The EHD implements this 
requirement through 20.11.20 NMAC, Fugitive Dust Control, which 
requires the use of reasonably available control measures (RACM) to 
reduce fugitive dust that impairs visibility or adversely affects 
public health, welfare, and safety.\33\ The measure prevents fugitive 
dust from leaving sites where it is produced, and thus reduces the 
amount of those emissions. The regulation requires sources to obtain 
permits and pay related fees, limits construction activity, and has an 
active enforcement program in place to implement the provisions on an 
ongoing basis. In addition, the AQCB tracks road dust emissions with 
the assistance of the WRAP. They provide updates, including modeling 
and monitoring information, on paved and unpaved road dust emission 
impacts on visibility in the sixteen Colorado Plateau Class I Areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ For more information on the WRAP modeling and assessment of 
road dust impacts, see section F of the County regional haze SIP 
(pages 69-71).
    \33\ The City of Albuquerque EHD also has delegated authority to 
enforce applicable federal standards related to particulate matter, 
as promulgated in 40 CFR Sections 60, 61, and 63.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

7. Additional Controls--Local State Regulations
    The County lists several local regulations that are being used to 
aid in controlling emissions that contribute to the formation of 
regional haze at Class I areas. These regulations, and the pollutants 
targeted by them, appear in table 2 below. The EHD implements and 
enforces these regulations on a continuing basis.

      Table 2--County Regulations Applicable to Regional Haze \34\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Pollutant
          Regulation                  Description          controlled
------------------------------------------------------------------------
20.11.22 NMAC.................  Wood burning..........  CO, PM.
20.11.65 NMAC.................  Volatile Organic        VOCs.
                                 Compounds.
20.11.66 NMAC.................  Process Equipment.....  PM.
20.11.67 NMAC.................  Equipment, Emissions,   SO2, NOX, PM.
                                 Limitations.
20.11.71 NMAC.................  Municipal Solid Waste   CO.
                                 Landfills.
20.11.100 NMAC................  Motor Vehicle           CO, PM,
                                 Inspection,             hydrocarbons.
                                 Decentralized.
20.11.102 NMAC................  Oxygenated Fuels......  CO.
20.11.103 NMAC................  Motor Vehicle Visible   PM.
                                 Emissions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

8. Summary of Control Strategy Implementation
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See the County Web site for a listing of the NMAC rules at 
http://164.64.110.239/nmac/_title20/T20C011.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA proposes to conclude that the County adequately addressed 
the status of control measures in its regional haze SIP, as required by 
the provisions under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(A) for the first 
implementation period. The County's progress report documented the 
status of all control measures included in its regional haze SIP and 
described additional measures that came into effect since the County's 
regional haze SIP was completed, including state regulations and 
various federal measures. All major control measures were identified 
and the strategy behind each control was explained. The County included 
a summary of the implementation status associated with each control 
measure and quantified the benefits where possible. In addition, the 
progress report SIP adequately outlined the compliance timeframe for 
all controls

C. Emission Reductions From Control Strategies

    The provisions under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(B) require the state 
to provide a summary of the emission reductions achieved in the state 
through the control measures subject to the requirements under 40 CFR 
51.309(d)(10)(i)(A). As mentioned previously, the County identified 
ammonium sulfate, particulate organic matter, and coarse mass as the 
largest contributors historically to visibility impairment at New 
Mexico's Class I areas for the initial round of regional haze SIPS. 
Many of the sources, however, that produce these visibility-impairing 
pollutants in New Mexico are natural, rather than anthropogenic in 
nature, and are not controllable. As a result, the New Mexico progress 
report focused on emission reductions from

[[Page 45768]]

point sources because they represent the anthropogenic sources in New 
Mexico.\35\ The New Mexico report showed that these pollutants have 
mostly been contributing less to visibility impairment at New Mexico 
Class I areas over time, and the anthropogenic point source emissions 
related to these pollutants have also been declining in areas of the 
state outside the County.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See the 2014 New Mexico Regional Haze Progress Report (page 
7).
    \36\ See Figure 3.6 from the 2014 New Mexico Regional Haze 
Progress Report (page 15).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For comparison, in its progress report, the County took the same 
approach as New Mexico and reported anthropogenic point source emission 
data (see table 3) from the County for NOX, SO2, 
PM10, and PM2.5 and compared it to WRAP 2018 
projections for the 2008-2013 time-period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See the 2016 County Regional Haze Progress Report (page 
21).

          Table 3--The County Stationary Point Source Emissions Compared to 2018 WRAP Projections \37\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    PM2.5 (tpy)
                      Year                           NOX (tpy)       SO2 (tpy)      PM10 (tpy)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2008............................................           1,139              57           1,222             239
2011............................................           1,120              74             186             110
2012............................................           1,167             132             351             116
2013............................................           1,401             165             323             117
2018 WRAP Projections...........................           3,402           1,612             411              23
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The County noted that pollutant emissions from the County have not 
impeded reductions in the rest of the state. SO2 and 
NOX county emission trends have increased slightly since 
2008 but have remained well below the WRAP 2018 projections for point 
sources and were just a fraction of the levels observed in the rest of 
the state (see table 4). PM10 emission levels for the County 
were below the WRAP 2018 projections while PM2.5 levels were 
above the WRAP predictions. Although the PM2.5 levels were 
above WRAP 2018 projections, PM emission levels from the County have 
decreased in a downward trend for both fine particulates and coarse 
mass since 2008. When comparing pollutant emission contributions of 
NOX, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5 
from the County to the statewide national emission inventory (NEI), the 
County concluded that it is improbable that the County emissions have 
had significant impacts on nearby Class I areas. The reported point 
source amounts from the County remain low in comparison to those from 
the rest of the state as seen from the statewide NEI data in table 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ As reported in the online EPA Emissions Inventory System 
(EIS) Gateway database for point sources only.

                    Table 4--NEI Point Source Emission Data for New Mexico for 2002-2014 \38\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    PM2.5 (tpy)
                      Year                           NOX (tpy)       SO2 (tpy)      PM10 (tpy)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002............................................          95,493          36,392           6,558           5,511
2005............................................          72,707          18,532           3,611           2,994
2008............................................          57,461          22,868           2,953           1,754
2011............................................          47,497          19,987           2,545           1,722
2014............................................          42,623          12,535           3,091           1,538
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NEI data shows that the emission trend of each major 
contributor to visibility impairment in New Mexico has decreased 
significantly since 2002. NOX emissions have decreased by 55 
percent and SO2 emissions have decreased by 65 percent. PM 
reductions also reduced considerably from their NEI baseline totals 
(52% for PM10 and 72% for PM2.5) and remain below 
the 2018 WRAP projections for New Mexico, although not especially 
pronounced.\39\ A more-detailed breakdown of the distribution of each 
contributing pollutant species can be seen in section E of this report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See Figure 3.6 from the 2014 New Mexico Regional Haze 
Progress Report (page 15).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA proposes to conclude that the County adequately addressed 
the requirements under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(B) with its summary of 
emission reductions of visibility impairing pollutants. Overall, the 
County demonstrated the emission reductions achieved in the major 
contributing visibility impairing pollutants in the County for the 
first implementation period. Anthropogenic emissions of haze related 
pollutants from stationary point sources in the County are unlikely to 
reverse the larger, favorable statewide emission trends, because over 
time such local emissions have remained at a fraction of the levels 
seen in the rest of the state. Furthermore, such county emissions are 
under or close to the WRAP 2018 projections for those pollutants.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ See the 2016 County Regional Haze Progress Report (pages 
15-22).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Visibility Progress

    The provisions under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(C) require that states 
with Class I areas provide the following information for the most 
impaired and least impaired days \41\ for each area, with values 
expressed in terms of five-year averages of these annual values: (1) 
Current visibility conditions; (2) the difference between current 
visibility conditions and baseline visibility conditions; and (3) the 
change in visibility impairment over the past five years. The County 
does not have any Class I areas within its borders; therefore, no 
visibility data is required to be analyzed for this element. In regard 
to New Mexico's Class I areas outside of the County, please note that 
when comparing baseline to current visibility conditions, the New 
Mexico progress report showed that New Mexico is currently on track, if 
not exceeding, the visibility impairment

[[Page 45769]]

emission reductions needed to achieve RPG's for 2018.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ The most and least impaired days in the regional haze rule 
refers to the average visibility impairment (measured in deciviews) 
for the 20 percent of monitored days in a calendar year with the 
highest and lowest amount of visibility impairment, respectively, 
averaged over a five-year period (see 40 CFR 51.301).
    \42\ See table 2.1 of New Mexico Regional Haze Progress Report 
(page 5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Emissions Progress

    The provisions under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(D) require an analysis 
tracking emission changes of visibility impairing pollutants from the 
state's sources by type or category over the past five years based on 
the most recent updated emission inventory. In its progress report SIP, 
the County presented WRAP emission inventories for 2002, 2008, and 
2011, as well as projected inventories for 2018, in accordance with the 
requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(D). The pollutant inventories 
included SO2, NOX, NH3, VOCs, organic 
carbon, elemental carbon, coarse mass, and soil dust. The inventories 
were categorized for all major visibility-impairing pollutants under 
major source groupings either as anthropogenic or natural. The 
anthropogenic source categorization included point and area sources; on 
and off-road mobile sources; area oil and gas; fugitive and road dust; 
and anthropogenic fire. The natural source categorization included 
natural fire, wind-blown dust, and biogenic sources. A breakdown of the 
total anthropogenic emissions for the County and state can be seen 
below in table 5. The table shows the percent apportionment of County 
emissions for each of the key haze-causing pollutants related to the 
rest of the state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ The emission totals for the County are taken from the 
County regional haze progress report (tables 3.22-3.29). Emission 
totals for the entire state of New Mexico are taken from the New 
Mexico Regional Haze progress report (tables 3.23-3.30). Detailed 
inventory descriptions for development of the WRAP Base02b, plan02c 
and plan02d inventories are available on the WRAP TSS Web site 
http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/TSS/Results/Emissions.aspx and 
archived on the original WRAP Web site http://www.wrapair.org/forums/ssjf/pivot.html.

          Table 5--Comparison of County and State Anthropogenic Emissions to WRAP 2018 Projections \43\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    2002 Total
                                                     baseline       2008 Total      2011 Total       WRAP 2018
       Pollutant species            Inventory        emissions       emissions       emissions      projections
                                                    (tons/year)     (tons/year)     (tons/year)     (tons/year)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SO2...........................  County..........     4,772 (10%)             291      1,250 (6%)          13,770
                                State...........          48,354          27,392          21,624
NOX...........................  County..........    33,661 (11%)          16,960     14,760 (9%)          26,819
                                State...........         295,266         211,132         168,008
NH3...........................  County..........      1,400 (4%)             856        682 (2%)           1,683
                                State...........          32,266          43,840          37,071
VOCs..........................  County..........     25,573 (7%)          19,137     14,574 (7%)          23,891
                                State...........         344,077         268,792         214,360
PM2.5.........................  County..........     2,229 (18%)           4,112      5,777 (7%)           2,433
                                State...........          12,573          61,587          85,576
Coarse Mass...................  County..........    16,387 (25%)          36,982     56,655 (7%)          17,369
                                State...........          66,096         511,327         830,697
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The WRAP data showed that the percentage of County emissions 
contributing to the total state emissions has decreased for each 
pollutant species from the 2002 baseline to 2011. The WRAP emission 
inventories were previously identified in the SIP as reflecting 
overestimates of actual emissions in key source categories. Even so, 
there has not been a drastic, sudden spike in the percentages, which 
would be a cause for concern for visibility degradation at the Class I 
areas. The decreasing WRAP percentages are indicators that the County 
``conservative'' emission estimates have improved throughout the first 
implementation period and are contributing less and less to visibility 
impairment at Class I areas outside of its borders from 2002-2011. The 
County concluded that it is unlikely that the County emissions had 
significant impacts on nearby Class I areas as a result. The County's 
contribution of emissions compared to the New Mexico emission 
inventory, as estimated by the WRAP, is six percent of the State 
SO2 emissions; nine percent of the State NOX 
emissions; two percent of the State NH3 emissions; seven 
percent of the State VOC emissions; seven percent of the State 
PM2.5 emissions; and seven percent of the State coarse mass 
emissions. These percentages are all down from their 2002 baseline 
levels. PM2.5 and coarse mass 2011 total emissions are 
higher than the WRAP 2018 projections, but their decreasing percent 
contributions are better indicators of the progress made since 
emissions have increased statewide, yet their percentages have 
decreased from eighteen and 25 percent respectively, in 2002, to seven 
percent each in 2011.
    The EPA is proposing to find that the County adequately addressed 
the requirements under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(D). The EPA concludes 
that the County presented an adequate analysis tracking emission trends 
for the key visibility impairing pollutants. The analysis provided the 
most recent period of approximately five years for which data was 
available in practical terms (2002-2008), and provided an additional 
update for 2011 that presented further information covering 
approximately two five-year periods (2002-2011). The trends indicate 
that it was improbable that sources located within the County caused or 
contributed to visibility impairment in any Class I area located 
outside of the County. The emission trends declined within the County 
compared to 2002 baseline levels and the percent contributions related 
to the rest of the state have all continued to decline over time.

F. Assessment of Changes Impeding Visibility Progress

    The provisions under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(E) require an 
assessment of whether any significant emission changes have occurred 
within the state over the five-year period since the SIP was submitted, 
and whether emission increases outside the state are affecting a Class 
I area within the state adversely. A ``significant change'' could be 
either a substantial unexpected increase in anthropogenic emissions 
that occurred over the five-year period or a significant expected 
reduction in anthropogenic emissions that did not occur in the analysis 
for the SIP.
    The EPA proposes to conclude that the County adequately addressed 
the provisions under 40 CFR

[[Page 45770]]

51.309(d)(10)(i)(E). The County does not have any Class I areas within 
its borders, so there is no requirement to assess impacts in the County 
from sources outside of its boundaries. Furthermore, the County sources 
do not impact any of the Class I areas outside of its borders, as was 
stated in the County's regional haze SIP revision, which the EPA 
approved on April 25, 2012.\44\ In conjunction with that previous 
action, the EPA's current analysis of emission reductions to meet the 
provisions of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(B) and 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(D) 
show that no ``significant changes'' in emissions within the County 
have occurred to impede visibility improvement or have adversely 
affected the nine Class I areas in New Mexico.\45\ Emission trends for 
the key visibility impairing pollutants were confirmed to be decreasing 
from the baseline to 2018 by statewide NEI data and reported County 
emissions. Additionally, the WRAP data showed that emissions from the 
County have remained at the same percentage levels over time or 
decreased relative to emissions from elsewhere in the state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ See 77 FR (24768, 24791).
    \45\ Changes in wildfires are not a ``change'' to report under 
51.309(d)(10)(i)(E) per EPA guidance, General Principles for the 5-
Year Regional Haze Progress Reports for the Initial Regional Haze 
State Implementation Plans (page 15).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. Assessment of Current Strategy To Meet RPGs

    The provisions under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(F) require an 
assessment of whether the current regional haze SIP is sufficient to 
enable the state, or other states, to meet the RPGs for Class I areas 
affected by emissions from the state. The County does not contain any 
Class I areas, and emissions from the County were found to not impact 
any Class I areas outside of its borders. As discussed previously, the 
NEI data showed that the total emissions of each major contributor to 
visibility impairment in New Mexico has decreased significantly since 
2002. The total County emissions have remained at a fraction of the 
levels seen in the rest of the state and are under or close to the WRAP 
2018 RPGs when looking at the cumulative anthropogenic emissions.
    The County provided a breakdown showing whether or not every key 
pollutant in each source category was meeting its 2018 RPGs for annual 
emissions.\46\ Of the 56 individual RPGs for the County, 42 were either 
being met or referred to pollutants that showed declining emissions 
since 2002. Fourteen of the County goals were not yet being met as of 
the 2011 WRAP inventory, but nine of those annual goals showed reported 
emission levels less than 200 tpy, and one was just under 500 tpy. 
Those ten goals were associated with point sources and on and off road 
mobile source categories. The County concluded that those ten reported 
emissions were unlikely to impede New Mexico's progress toward 
achieving statewide goals for emissions and visibility since the 
emission levels represented a negligible portion of total statewide 
emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ Showed in tables 3.22-3.29 of the County Regional Haze 
Progress Report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The four remaining annual emission goals that were not being met 
covered coarse mass, organic carbon, and PM2.5 pollutants. 
The increased contributions from these pollutants were associated with 
fugitive/road dust and area (non-point) source categories. Annual 
emissions with higher levels of organic matter, elemental carbon, 
PM2.5 and coarse mass with a lower contribution from 
ammonium sulfate are heavily dominated from wildfires and particulate 
matter. High coarse mass was measured during the spring, which was 
indicative of high-wind events that occurred during the late winter and 
spring months in New Mexico. Wildfires or high-wind events might again 
affect annual emissions in the 2018 timeframe, but the County showed 
that it is meeting nearly all of its annual emission goals even with 
experienced annual emission increases from natural events that still 
have not hindered New Mexico from meeting its RPGs beyond the County 
borders. The County expects further reduction of SO2 and 
NO2 emissions, the primary pollutant species associated with 
anthropogenic sources, to continue their broad declines in the same 
areas.
    The EPA proposes to conclude that the County has addressed 40 CFR 
51.309(d)(10)(i)(F) because its current regional haze SIP is sufficient 
to enable the state of New Mexico and other nearby states to meet their 
RPGs, particularly as the County was not identified as contributing to 
any impairment in such Class I areas. The fairly constant proportion of 
County emissions compared to the rest of the state are negligible. In 
spite of natural events, the County showed that it is meeting nearly 
all of its annual emission goals and the annual emission increases from 
natural events still have not hindered New Mexico from meeting its RPGs 
beyond the County borders.

H. Review of Visibility Monitoring Strategy

    The provisions under 40 CFR 51.309(10)(i)(G) require a review of a 
state's visibility monitoring strategy for visibility impairing 
pollutants and an assessment of whether any modifications to the 
strategy are necessary. In its progress report SIP, the County stated 
that there are no Class I areas within its boundaries, and therefore it 
was not required to fulfill this provision. The EPA proposes to 
conclude that the County is exempt from addressing the requirements of 
40 CFR 51.309(10)(i)(G), as that requirement is solely for states with 
Class I areas in their borders.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ The New Mexico progress report concluded (pages 46-47) that 
no changes in the state's visibility monitoring strategy are needed 
because the IMPROVE network has continued to provide adequate 
monitoring data to support implementation of the RHR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Determination of Adequacy of Existing Regional Haze Plan

    Under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(ii), states are required to submit, at 
the same time as the progress report SIP, a determination of the 
adequacy of their existing regional haze SIP and to take one of four 
possible actions based on information in the progress report. 40 CFR 
51.309(d)(10)(ii) requires states to take one of the following actions:
    (1) Submit a negative declaration to the EPA that no further 
substantive revision to the State's existing regional haze SIP is 
needed.
    (2) If the State determines that the implementation plan is or may 
be inadequate to ensure reasonable progress due to emissions from 
sources in another state(s) which participated in a regional planning 
process, the State must provide notification to the EPA and to the 
other state(s) which participated in the regional planning process with 
the states. The State must also collaborate with the other state(s) 
through the regional planning process for developing additional 
strategies to address the plan's deficiencies.
    (3) Where the State determines that the implementation plan is or 
may be inadequate to ensure reasonable progress due to emissions from 
sources in another country, the State shall provide notification, along 
with available information, to the Administrator.
    (4) If the State determines that the implementation plan is or may 
be inadequate to ensure reasonable progress due to emissions from 
sources within the State, then the State shall revise its 
implementation plan to

[[Page 45771]]

address the plan's deficiencies within one year.
    The City of Albuquerque and Bernalillo County, New Mexico has 
provided the information required under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i) in the 
five-year progress report. Based upon this information, the County 
stated in its progress report SIP that it believes that the current 
Section 309 and Section 309(g) regional haze SIPs are adequate to meet 
the State's 2018 RPGs and require no further revision at this time. 
Thus, the EPA has received a negative declaration from the City of 
Albuquerque and Bernalillo County, NM.

IV. The EPA's Proposed Action

    The EPA is proposing to approve the City of Albuquerque and 
Bernalillo County, New Mexico's regional haze five-year progress report 
SIP revision (submitted June 24, 2016) as meeting the applicable 
regional haze requirements set forth in 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10). The EPA 
is proposing to approve the City of Albuquerque and Bernalillo County, 
New Mexico's determination that the current regional haze SIP is 
adequate to meet the State's 2018 RPGs.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP 
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable 
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in 
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, 
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this 
action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal 
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those 
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 
2011), and 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental 
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under 
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). In addition, the 
SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any 
other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe 
has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the proposed rule 
does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial 
direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified 
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Best Available 
Retrofit Technology, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, 
Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Regional haze, Sulfur 
dioxide, Visibility, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: September 26, 2017.
Samuel Coleman,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2017-21006 Filed 9-29-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


