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 <IP_ADDRESS> NMAC, which we are proposing
to approve. Per this submitted rule, the source must hold allowances as
of the allowance transfer deadline in the source's compliance account
(together with any current control year allowances held in the source's
special reserve compliance account) in an amount not less than the
total SO2 emissions for the control period from the source.
The State determines compliance by comparing allowances held by the
source in their compliance account(s) with the total annual
SO2 emissions reported by the source. If the comparison of
the allowances to emissions results in emissions exceeding allowances,
the source's excess emissions are subject to the allowance deduction
penalty in <IP_ADDRESS> C. NMAC (discussed in further detail below). We
are proposing to determine the submitted rule

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

F. Provisions for Stationary Source NOX and PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

G. Mobile Sources

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

    \34\ Summary and Discussion of 1996 Through 2018 Mobile Source
Emissions Inventories. Technical Memo from Tom Moore to Mobile
Sources Forum. November 26, 2002.; Final Report: Development of WRAP
Mobile Source Emission Inventories, ENVIRON, Feb. 9, 2004.
    \35\ WRAP Regional Technical Support Document for the
Requirements of Sec.  309 of the Regional Haze Rule (64 FR 35714-
July 1, 1999) revised May 7, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(5)(i)(B), the State will submit a SIP
revision no later than December 31, 2013, containing any long-term
strategies necessary to reduce SO2 emissions from non-road
mobile sources consistent with the goal of reasonable progress if
necessary based on consideration of the emission reductions achieved by
Federal standards. We note the updated available emission inventory
projections show that there will be a 99 percent decrease in
SO2 emissions from non-road mobile sources for 2002-2018.
The reduction will result from compliance with EPA's rule titled
Control of Emissions of Air Pollution from Non-

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

H. Programs Related to Fire

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

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

c. Alternatives to Fire
    The NM RH 309 SIP requires, through the Smoke Management Rule, that
for burns exceeding 1 ton PM10 emissions per day, burners
must consider the use of alternatives to burning. See <IP_ADDRESS>.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
<IP_ADDRESS>.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, <IP_ADDRESS>.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
<IP_ADDRESS>.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 <IP_ADDRESS>.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
<IP_ADDRESS>.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 <IP_ADDRESS>.A(2)(b) and
<IP_ADDRESS>.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 <IP_ADDRESS>D NMAC and
<IP_ADDRESS>I 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, <IP_ADDRESS>.D and <IP_ADDRESS>.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 PM10
per day.
    Based on our review of Section E and Appendix E of the state's RH
309 submittal, we propose to find the submitted SIP meets the
309(d)(6)(v) requirements. We also propose approval of the state's
Smoke Management and Open Burning rules submitted to us on December 1,
2003.

I. Paved and Unpaved Road Dust

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

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

J. Pollution Prevention

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

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

K. Additional Recommendations

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

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

L. Periodic Implementation Plan Revisions

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

M. Interstate Coordination

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

N. Additional Class I Areas

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                      Table 15--Percentage of Nitrate Contribution to Visibility Impairment During Baseline for the 20% Worst Days
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Eastern                 Pacific off    Outside
            Class I area                  WRAP     New Mexico *     CENRAP       Canada        U.S.        Mexico       shore        domain
                                       (percent)     (percent)    (percent)    (percent)    (percent)    (percent)    (percent)    (percent)