[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 80 (Wednesday, April 25, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 24768-24792]
[FR Doc No: 2012-9808]

Vol. 77

Wednesday,

No. 80

April 25, 2012

Part II

Environmental Protection Agency

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

40 CFR Part 52

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

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

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

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

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

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

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

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Feldman, Air Planning Section
(6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number
214-665-7263; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Definitions

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

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

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

Table of Contents

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

I. Overview of Proposed Action

A. Regional Haze

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

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

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

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

B. InterState Transport and Visibility

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

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

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

II. What is the background for our proposed actions?

A. Regional Haze

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

    \3\ Visual range is the greatest distance, in kilometers or
miles, at which a dark object can be viewed against the sky.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In section 169A of the 1977 Amendments to the CAA, Congress created
a program for protecting visibility in the nation's national parks and
wilderness areas. This section of the CAA establishes as a national
goal the ``prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing,
impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas \4\ which
impairment

results from man-made air pollution.'' CAA Sec.  169A(a)(1). The terms
``impairment of visibility'' and ``visibility impairment'' are defined
in the Act to include a reduction in visual range and atmospheric
discoloration. Id. section 169A(g)(6). In 1980, we promulgated
regulations to address visibility impairment in Class I areas that is
``reasonably attributable'' to a single source or small group of
sources, i.e., ``reasonably attributable visibility impairment''
(RAVI). 45 FR 80084 (December 2, 1980). These regulations represented
the first phase in addressing visibility impairment. We deferred action
on RH that emanates from a variety of sources until monitoring,
modeling and scientific knowledge about the relationships between
pollutants and visibility impairment improved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal areas consist
of national parks exceeding 6000 acres, wilderness areas and
national memorial parks exceeding 5000 acres, and all international
parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977. See CAA section
162(a). In accordance with section 169A of the CAA, EPA, in
consultation with the Department of Interior, promulgated a list of
156 areas where visibility is identified as an important value. See
44 FR 69122, November 30, 1979. The extent of a mandatory Class I
area includes subsequent changes in boundaries, such as park
expansions. CAA section 162(a). Although States and tribes may
designate as Class I additional areas which they consider to have
visibility as an important value, the requirements of the visibility
program set forth in section 169A of the CAA apply only to
``mandatory Class I Federal areas.'' Each mandatory Class I Federal
area is the responsibility of a ``Federal Land Manager'' (FLM). See
CAA section 302(i). When we use the term ``Class I area'' in this
action, we mean a ``mandatory Class I Federal area.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Congress added section 169B to the CAA in 1990 to address RH
issues, and we promulgated regulations addressing RH in 1999. 64 FR
35714 (July 1, 1999), codified at 40 CFR part 51, subpart P. The
Regional Haze Rule (RHR) revised the existing visibility regulations to
integrate into the regulations provisions addressing RH impairment and
established a comprehensive visibility protection program for Class I
areas. The requirements for RH, found at 40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309, are
included in our visibility protection regulations at 40 CFR 51.300-309.
Some of the main elements of the RH requirements are summarized in
section III. The requirement to submit a RH SIP applies to all 50
States, the District of Columbia and the Virgin Islands.\5\ States were
required to submit the first implementation plan addressing RH
visibility impairment no later than December 17, 2007. 40 CFR
51.308(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Albuquerque/Bernalillo County in New Mexico must also submit
a regional haze SIP to completely satisfy the requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA for the entire State of New Mexico
under the New Mexico Air Quality Control Act (section 74-2-4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze

    Successful implementation of the RH program will require long-term
regional coordination among States, tribal governments and various
federal agencies. As noted above, pollution affecting the air quality
in Class I areas can be transported over long distances, even hundreds
of kilometers. Therefore, to address effectively the problem of
visibility impairment in Class I areas, States need to develop
strategies in coordination with one another, taking into account the
effect of emissions from one jurisdiction on the air quality in
another.
    Because the pollutants that lead to RH can originate from sources
located across broad geographic areas, we have encouraged the States
and tribes across the United States to address visibility impairment
from a regional perspective. Five regional planning organizations
(RPOs) were developed to address RH and related issues. The RPOs first
evaluated technical information to better understand how their States
and tribes impact Class I areas across the country, and then pursued
the development of regional strategies to reduce emissions of
particulate matter (PM) and other pollutants leading to RH.
    The Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) RPO is a collaborative
effort of State governments, tribal governments, and various federal
agencies established to initiate and coordinate activities associated
with the management of regional haze, visibility and other air quality
issues in the western United States. WRAP member State governments
include: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New
Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and
Wyoming. The AQCB staff participated in meetings with the State of New
Mexico staff to coordinate its efforts with the State of New Mexico in
developing its separate 309 SIP.

C. Development of the Requirements for 40 CFR 51.309

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

    \6\ The Colorado Plateau is a high, semi-arid tableland in
southeast Utah, northern Arizona, northwest New Mexico, and western
Colorado. The 16 mandatory Class I areas are as follows: Grand
Canyon National Park, Mount Baldy Wilderness, Petrified Forest
National Park, Sycamore Canyon Wilderness, Black Canyon of the
Gunnison National Park Wilderness, Flat Tops Wilderness, Maroon
Bells Wilderness, Mesa Verde National Park, Weminuche Wilderness,
West Elk Wilderness, San Pedro Parks Wilderness, Arches National
Park, Bryce Canyon National Park, Canyonlands National Park, Capital
Reef National Park, and Zion National Park.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

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

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

A. The CAA and the Regional Haze Rule

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

B. Projection of Visibility Improvement

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

C. Clean Air Corridors

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

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

D. Stationary Source Reductions

1. SO2 Emission Reductions
    Section 169A of the CAA directs States to evaluate the use of
retrofit controls at certain larger, often uncontrolled, older
stationary sources in order to address their visibility impacts.
Specifically, section 169A(b)(2)(A) of the CAA requires States to
revise their SIPs to contain such measures as may be necessary to make
reasonable progress towards the natural visibility goal, including a
requirement that certain categories of existing major stationary
sources built between 1962 and 1977 procure, install, and operate the
``Best Available Retrofit Technology'' (BART) as determined by the
State.\7\ Under the RHR, States are directed to conduct BART
determinations for such ``BART-eligible'' sources that may be
anticipated to cause or contribute to any visibility impairment in a
Class I area. Rather than requiring source-specific BART controls,
States also have the flexibility to adopt an emissions trading program
or other alternative program as long as the alternative provides
greater reasonable progress towards improving visibility than BART.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The set of ``major stationary sources'' potentially subject
to BART is listed in CAA section 169A(g)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 309 provides an alternative method of satisfying the
section 308 SO2 BART requirements with emission milestones
and a backstop trading program (40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)). Under this
approach, a RH 309 SIP must establish declining SO2 emission
milestones for each year of the program through 2018. The milestones
must be consistent with the GCTVC's goal of 50 to 70 percent reduction
in SO2 emissions by 2040. If the milestones are exceeded in
any year, the backstop trading program is triggered.
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(ii)-(iv), States must include
requirements in the SIP that allow States to determine whether the
milestone has been exceeded. These requirements include documentation
of the baseline emission calculation, monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting (MRR) of SO2 emissions, and provisions for
conducting an annual evaluation to determine whether the milestone has
been exceeded. 40 CFR 309(d)(4)(v) also contains requirements for
implementing the backstop trading program in the event that the
milestone is exceeded and the program is triggered.
    The WRAP, in conjunction with the EPA, developed a model for a
backstop trading program. In order to ensure consistency between
States, States opting to participate in the 309 program need to adopt
rules that are substantively equivalent to the model rules for the
backstop trading program to meet the requirements of 40 CFR
51.309(d)(4). The trading program must also be implemented no later
than 15 months after the end of the first year that the milestone is
exceeded, require that sources hold allowances to cover their
emissions, and provide a framework, including financial penalties, to
ensure that the 2018 milestone is met.
2. Provisions for Stationary Source Emissions of Nitrogen Oxides
(NOX) and Particulate Matter (PM)
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(vii), a section 309 SIP must
contain any necessary long term strategies and BART requirements for PM
and NOX. Any such BART provisions may be submitted pursuant
to 40 CFR 51.308(e). We promulgated regulations addressing RH in 1999,
64 FR 35714 (July 1, 1999), codified at 40 CFR part 51, subpart P.\8\
These regulations require all States to submit implementation plans
that, among other measures, contain either emission limits representing
BART for certain sources constructed between 1962 and 1977, or
alternative measures that provide for greater reasonable progress than
BART. 40 CFR 51.308(e). The discussion below specifically applies to
regional haze plans that opt to require BART on sources subject to the
BART requirements, rather than satisfying the requirements for
alternative measures that would be evaluated under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ In American Corn Growers Ass'n v. EPA, 291 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir.
2002), the U.S Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
issued a ruling vacating and remanding the BART provisions of the
regional haze rule. In 2005, we issued BART guidelines to address
the court's ruling in that case. See 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 6, 2005, the EPA published the Guidelines for BART
Determinations Under the Regional Haze Rule at Appendix Y to 40 CFR
part 51 (hereinafter referred to as the ``BART Guidelines'') to assist
States in determining which of their sources should be subject to the
BART requirements and the appropriate emission limits for each
applicable source. The BART Guidelines are not mandatory for all
sources; in making a BART determination for a fossil fuel-fired
electric generating plant (EGU) with a total generating capacity in
excess of 750 megawatts, a State must use the approach set forth in the
BART Guidelines. A State is encouraged, but not required, to follow the
BART Guidelines in making BART determinations for other types of
sources.
    The process of establishing BART emission limitations can be
logically broken down into three steps: First, States identify those
sources which meet the definition of ``BART-eligible source'' set forth
in 40 CFR 51.301; \9\ second, States determine whether such sources
``emits any air pollutant which may reasonably be anticipated to cause
or contribute to any impairment of visibility in any such area'' (a
source which fits this description is ``subject to BART,'') and; third,
for each source subject to BART, States then identify the appropriate
type and the level of control for reducing emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ BART-eligible sources are those sources that have the
potential to emit 250 tons or more of a visibility-impairing air
pollutant, were put in place between August 7, 1962 and August 7,
1977, and whose operations fall within one or more of 26
specifically listed source categories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the BART Guidelines, States may select an exemption threshold
value for their BART modeling, below which a BART-eligible source would
not be expected to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in any
Class I area. The State must document this exemption threshold value in
the SIP and State the basis for its selection of that value. Any source
with emissions that model above the threshold value would be subject to
a BART determination review, or would become what is termed a
``subject-to-BART'' source. The BART Guidelines acknowledge varying
circumstances affecting different Class I areas. States should consider
the number of emission sources affecting the Class I areas at issue and
the magnitude of the individual sources' impacts. Any exemption
threshold set by the State should not be higher than 0.5 deciview. See
also 40 CFR part 51, Appendix Y, section III.A.1.
    In their SIPs, States must identify subject to BART sources and
document their BART control determination analyses. The term ``subject
to BART source'' used in the BART Guidelines means the collection of
individual emission units at a facility that together comprises the
subject-to-BART source. In making BART determinations, section
169A(g)(2) of the CAA requires that States consider the following
factors: (1) The costs of compliance; (2) the energy and non-air
quality environmental impacts of compliance; (3) any existing pollution
control technology in use at the source; (4) the remaining useful life
of the source; and (5) the degree of improvement in visibility which
may reasonably be

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

E. Mobile Sources

    Under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(5), the RH 309 SIP must provide inventories
of on-road and non-road mobile source emissions of VOCs,
NOX, SO2, PM2.5, elemental carbon, and
organic carbon for the years 2003, 2008, 2013, and 2018. The
inventories must show a continuous decline in total mobile source
emissions of each of the above pollutants. If the inventories show a
continuous decline in total mobile source emissions of each of these
pollutants over the period 2003-2018, a State is not required to take
further action in their SIP. If the inventories do not show a
continuous decline in mobile source emissions of one or more of these
pollutants over the period 2003-2018, a State must submit a SIP that
contains measures that will achieve a continuous decline.
    The RH 309 SIP must also contain any long-term strategies necessary
to reduce emissions of SO2 from non-road mobile sources,
consistent with the goal of reasonable progress. In assessing the need
for such long-term strategies, the State may consider emissions
reductions achieved or anticipated from any new federal standards for
sulfur in non-road diesel fuel. Section 309 SIPs must provide an update
on any additional mobile source strategies implemented within the State
related to the GCVTC 1996 recommendations on mobile sources.

F. Programs Related to Fire

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

G. Paved and Unpaved Road Dust

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

H. Pollution Prevention

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

I. Additional Recommendations

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

J. Periodic Implementation Plan Revisions

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

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

K. InterState Coordination

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

L. Additional Class I Areas

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

    \10\ Guidance for Setting Reasonable Progress Goals under the
Regional Haze Program, June 1, 2007, memorandum from William L.
Wehrum, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, to EPA
Regional Administrators, EPA Regions 1-10 (pp. 4-2, 5-1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    The deciview is used in expressing Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs)
(which are interim visibility goals towards meeting the national
visibility goal), defining baseline, current, and natural conditions,
and tracking changes in visibility. To track changes in visibility over
time at each of the 156 Class I areas covered by the visibility program
(40 CFR 81.401-437), and as part of the process for determining
reasonable progress, States must calculate the degree of existing
visibility impairment at each Class I area at the time of each RH SIP
submittal and periodically review progress every five years midway
through each 10-year implementation period. To do this, section
51.308(d)(2) of the RHR requires States to determine the degree of
impairment (in deciviews) for the average of the 20 percent least
impaired (``best'') and 20 percent most impaired (``worst'') visibility
days over a specified time period at each of their Class I areas. In
addition, States must also develop an estimate of natural visibility
conditions for the purpose of comparing progress toward the national
goal. Natural visibility is determined by estimating the natural
concentrations of pollutants that cause visibility impairment and then
calculating total light extinction based on those estimates. We have
provided guidance to States regarding how to calculate baseline,
natural and current visibility conditions.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions Under
the Regional Haze Rule, September 2003, EPA-454/B-03-005, available
at http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/rh_envcurhr_gd.pdf,
(hereinafter referred to as ``our 2003 Natural Visibility
Guidance''); and Guidance for Tracking Progress Under the Regional
Haze Rule, (EPA-454/B-03-004, September 2003, available at http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/rh_tpurhr_gd.pdf, (hereinafter
referred to as our ``2003 Tracking Progress Guidance'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the first RH SIPs that were due by December 17, 2007,
``baseline visibility conditions'' were the starting points for
assessing ``current'' visibility impairment. Baseline visibility
conditions represent the degree of visibility impairment for the 20
percent least impaired days and 20 percent most impaired days for each
calendar year from 2000 to 2004. Using monitoring data for 2000 through
2004, States are required to calculate the average degree of visibility
impairment for each Class I area, based on the average of annual values
over the five-year period. The comparison of initial baseline
visibility conditions to natural visibility conditions indicates the
amount of improvement necessary to attain natural visibility, while the
future comparison of baseline conditions to the then current conditions
will indicate the amount of progress made. In general, the 2000-2004
baseline period is considered the time from which improvement in
visibility is measured.
3. Long-Term Strategy (LTS)
    Consistent with the requirement in section 169A(b) of the CAA that
States include in their regional haze SIP a 10 to 15 year strategy for
making reasonable progress, Section 51.308(d)(3) of the RHR requires
that States include a LTS in their RH SIPs. The LTS is the compilation
of all control measures a State will use during the implementation
period of the specific SIP submittal to meet any applicable RPGs. The
LTS must include ``enforceable emissions limitations, compliance
schedules, and other measures as necessary to achieve the reasonable
progress goals'' for all Class I areas within, or affected by emissions
from, the State. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3).
    When a State's emissions are reasonably anticipated to cause or
contribute to visibility impairment in a Class I area located in
another State, the RHR requires the impacted State to coordinate with
the contributing States in order to develop coordinated emissions
management strategies. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i). Also, a State with a
Class I area impacted by emissions from another State must consult with
such contributing State, (id.) and must also demonstrate that it has
included in its SIP all measures necessary to obtain its share of
emission reductions needed to meet the reasonable progress goals for
the Class I area. Id. at (d)(3)(ii). In such cases, the contributing
State must demonstrate that it has included, in its SIP, all measures
necessary to obtain its share of the emission reductions needed to meet
the RPGs for the Class I area. The RPOs have provided forums for
significant interState consultation, but additional consultations
between States may be required to sufficiently address interState
visibility issues. This is especially true where two States belong to
different RPOs.
    States should consider all types of anthropogenic sources of
visibility impairment in developing their LTS, including stationary,
minor, mobile, and area sources. At a minimum, States must describe how
each of the following seven factors listed below are taken into account
in developing their LTS: (1) Emission reductions due to ongoing air
pollution control programs, including measures to address RAVI; (2)
measures to mitigate the impacts of construction activities; (3)
emissions limitations and schedules for compliance to achieve the RPG;
(4) source retirement and replacement schedules; (5) smoke management
techniques for agricultural and forestry management purposes including
plans as currently exist within the State for these purposes; (6)
enforceability of emissions limitations and control measures; (7) the
anticipated net effect on visibility due to projected changes in point,
area, and mobile source emissions over the period addressed by the LTS.
40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v). Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(g)(2)(i), the State
may build upon and take credit for the strategies implemented to meet
the requirements under paragraph (d) of 40 CFR 51.309.
4. Monitoring Strategy and Other SIP Requirements
    Section 51.308(d)(4) of the RHR includes the requirement for a
monitoring strategy for measuring, characterizing, and reporting of RH
visibility impairment that is representative of all mandatory Class I
Federal areas within the State. The strategy must be coordinated with
the monitoring strategy required in section 51.305 for RAVI. Compliance
with this requirement may be met through ``participation'' in the
Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE)
network, i.e., review and use of monitoring data from the network. The
monitoring strategy is due with the first RH SIP, and it must be
reviewed every five (5) years. The monitoring strategy must also
provide for additional monitoring sites if the IMPROVE network is not
sufficient to determine whether RPGs will be met.
    The SIP must also provide for the following:
     Procedures for using monitoring data and other information
in a State with mandatory Class I areas to determine the contribution
of emissions from within the State to RH visibility impairment at Class
I areas both within and outside the State;
     Procedures for using monitoring data and other information
in a State with no mandatory Class I areas to determine the
contribution of emissions from within the State to RH visibility
impairment at Class I areas in other States;
     Reporting of all visibility monitoring data to the
Administrator at least annually for each Class I area in the State, and
where possible, in electronic format;
     Developing a Statewide inventory of emissions of
pollutants that are reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to
visibility impairment in any Class I area. The inventory must include
emissions for a baseline year, emissions for the most recent year for
which data are available, and estimates

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

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

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

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

    In order to demonstrate that the alternative program achieves
greater reasonable progress than source-specific BART, States must
provide a demonstration in their SIP that meets the requirements in 40
CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)-(v). States submitting section 309 SIPs or other
alternative programs are required to list all BART-eligible sources and
categories covered by the alternative program. States are then required
to determine which BART-eligible sources are ``subject to BART.'' The
SIP must provide an analysis of the best system of continuous emission
control technology available and the associated reductions for each
source subject to BART covered by the alternative program, or what is
termed a ``BART benchmark.'' Where the alternative program, such as the
309 backstop trading program, has been designed to meet requirements
other than BART, States may use simplifying assumptions in establishing
a BART benchmark. These assumptions can provide the baseline to show
that the alternative program achieves greater reasonable progress than
BART (71 FR 60619). Under this approach, States should use the
presumptive limits for EGUs in the BART Guidelines to establish the
BART benchmark used in the comparison, unless the State determines that
such presumptions are not appropriate for particular EGUs (70 FR
60619).
    The RH SIP, and any RH 309 SIP that establishes a 309 backstop
trading program, must provide an analysis of the projected emissions
reductions achievable through the trading program or other alternative
measure and a determination that the trading program or other
alternative measure achieves greater reasonable progress than would be
achieved through the installation and operation of BART (40 CFR
308(e)(2)(C)(iii)). Section 308(e)(2) requires that all emission
reductions for the alternative program take place by 2018, as well as
that the emission reductions resulting from the alternative program are
surplus to those reductions resulting from measures adopted to meet
requirements of the CAA as of the baseline date of the SIP. Pursuant to
40 CFR 51.309(e)(2)(E)(v), States have the option of including a
provision that the emissions trading program or other alternative
measure may include a geographic enhancement to the program to address
the requirement under 40 CFR 51.302(c) related to BART, for reasonably
attributable visibility impairment from the pollutants covered under
the emissions trading program or other alternative measure.
    States must also address the distribution of emissions under the
BART alternative as part of the ``better-than-BART'' demonstration (40
CFR 51.308(e)(3)). If a State can show that with the alternative
program the distribution of emissions is not substantially different
than under BART and the alternative program results in greater emission
reductions, then the alternative measure may be deemed to achieve
greater reasonable progress. If the distribution of emissions is
significantly different, the State must conduct dispersion modeling to
determine differences in visibility between BART and the alternative
program for each impacted Class I area for the worst and best 20
percent of days. The modeling must show that visibility does not
decline at any Class I area and that visibility overall is greater than
what would be achieved with BART.

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

    Under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(A)-(L), the EPA established
fundamental requirements for trading or alternative programs that have
an emissions cap and require sources to hold allowances that they can
sell, buy, or trade, as in the section 309 backstop trading program.
These requirements are discussed in detail below.
1. Applicability
    The alternative program must have applicability provisions that
define the sources subject to the program. In the case of a program
covering sources in multiple States, the States must demonstrate that
the applicability provisions in each State cover essentially the same
size facilities and, if source categories are specified, cover the same
source categories.
2. Allowances
    Allowances are a key feature of a cap and trade program. An
allowance is a limited authorization for a source to emit a specified
amount of a pollutant, as defined by the specific trading program,
during a specified period. Allowances are fully marketable commodities.
Once allocated, allowances may be bought, sold, traded, or banked for
use in future years. The EPA has not included in the rule detailed
requirements on how States and tribes can allocate allowances. A State
or tribe can determine how to allocate allowances as long as the
allocation of the tonnage value of allowances does not exceed the total
number of tons of emissions capped by the budget. The trading program
must include allowance provisions ensuring that the total value of
allowances issued each year under the program will not exceed the
emissions cap on total annual emissions from the sources in the
program.
3. Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting
    Monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting (MRR) of a source's
emissions are integral parts of any cap and trade program. Consistent
and accurate measurement of emissions ensures fungibility of allowances
by validating that each allowance actually represents its specified
tonnage value of emissions and that one ton of reported emissions from
one source is equivalent to one ton of reported emissions at another
source. The MRR provisions must require that boilers, combustion
turbines, and cement kilns in the alternative program that are allowed
to sell or transfer allowances comply with the requirements of 40 CFR
part 75. The MRR provisions must require that other sources in the
program allowed to sell or transfer allowances provide

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

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

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

A. Projection of Visibility Improvement

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

    \13\ WRAP Regional Technical Support Document for the
Requirements of Sec.  309 of the Regional Haze Rule (64 FR 35714-
July 1, 1999) revised May 7, 2008.
    \14\ Our review of the technical products developed by the WRAP
is available as Technical Support Document for Technical Products
Prepared by the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) in Support
of Western Regional Haze Plans, February 28, 2011.

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

Petrified Forest National Park................  AZ                                 13.2         12.9         12.9          5.0          4.9          4.8
Sycamore Canyon Wilderness....................  AZ                                 15.3         15.1         15.1          5.6          5.6          5.6
Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park      CO                                 10.3         10.1          9.9          3.1          2.9          2.9
 Wilderness.
Flat Tops Wilderness..........................  CO                                  9.6          9.2          9.0          0.7          0.6          0.5
Maroon Bells Wilderness.......................  CO                                  9.6          9.2          9.0          0.7          0.6          0.5
Mesa Verde National Park......................  CO                                 13.0         12.8         12.6          4.3          4.1          4.0
Weminuche Wilderness..........................  CO                                 10.3         10.1          9.9          3.1          2.9          2.9
West Elk Wilderness...........................  CO                                  9.6          9.2          9.0          0.7          0.6          0.5
San Pedro Parks Wilderness....................  NM                                 10.2         10.0          9.8          1.5          1.3          1.2
Arches National Park..........................  UT                                 11.2         11.0         10.9          3.8          3.6          3.5
Bryce Canyon National Park....................  UT                                 11.6         11.3         11.2          2.8          2.7          2.6
Canyonlands National Park.....................  UT                                 11.2         11.0         10.9          3.8          3.6          3.5
Capitol Reef National Park....................  UT                                 10.9         10.6         10.5          4.1          4.0          3.9
Zion National Park............................  UT                                 13.2         13.0         13.0          5.0          4.7          4.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Clean Air Corridors

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

    \15\ WRAP Regional Technical Support Document for the
Requirements of Sec.  309 of the Regional Haze Rule (64 FR 35714--
July 1, 1999) revised May 7, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

C. Stationary Source Reductions

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

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

                 Table 2--SO[ihel2] Emissions Milestones
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Annual SO[ihel2]
                                 Regional sulfur      emissions used to
            Year                dioxide milestone   determine compliance
                              (tons per year (tpy)     with the annual
                                                         milestones
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2008........................  269,083 tons SO2....  Average of 2006,
                                                     2007 and 2008.
2009........................  234,903 tons SO2....  Average of 2007,
                                                     2008 and 2009.
2010........................  200,722 tons SO2....  Average of 2008,
                                                     2009 and 2010.
2011........................  200,722 tons SO2....  Average of 2009,
                                                     2010 and 2011.
2012........................  200,722 tons SO2....  Average of 2010,
                                                     2011 and 2012.
2013........................  185,795 tons SO2....  Average of 2011,
                                                     2012 and 2013.
2014........................  170,868 tons SO2....  Average of 2012,
                                                     2013 and 2014.
2015........................  155,940 tons SO2....  Average of 2013,
                                                     2014 and 2015.
2016........................  155,940 tons SO2....  Average of 2014,
                                                     2015 and 2016.
2017........................  155,940 tons SO2....  Average of 2015,
                                                     2016 and 2017.
2018........................  141,849 tons SO2....  Year 2018 only.
2019 forward, until replaced  141,849 tons SO2....  Annual; no multiyear
 by an approved SIP.                                 averaging.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    SO2 emissions from sources in 1990 totaled 358,364 tpy
and the 2018 milestone is 141,849 tpy (see Demonstration that the
SO2 Milestones Provide Greater Reasonable Progress than
BART, Section N of the BC RH SIP). The difference is a 60 percent
reduction in SO2 emissions from 1990 to 2018. Thus, the AQCB
has concluded that the emission reductions are on target to achieve the
GCVTC goal of a 50 to 70 percent reduction of SO2 emissions
by 2040. We are proposing to determine the RH 309 submittal meets the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(i).
2. Documentation of Emissions Calculation Methods for SO2
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(ii), the SIP includes documentation
of the specific methodology used to calculate SO2 emissions
during the 2006 base year for each emitting unit included in the
program. This requirement is addressed in Section N of the SIP, while
20.11.46 NMAC provides details on the methodology.
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(ii), AQCB will document any change
to the specific methodology used to calculate emissions at any emitting
unit for any year after the base year. Until the program has been
triggered and source compliance is required, AQCB will submit an annual
emissions report that documents prior year emissions for AQCB sources
covered by the 309 program to all participating States by September 30
of each year. AQCB will adjust actual emission inventories for sources
that change the method of monitoring or calculating their emissions to
be comparable to the emission monitoring or calculation method used to
calculate the 2006 base year inventory. The EPA is proposing to
determine the SIP submittal satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR
309(d)(4)(ii).
3. Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting of SO2 Emissions
    In order to meet the emission reporting requirements of 40 CFR
51.309(d)(4)(iii), the RH 309 SIP submittal includes provisions
requiring the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting of actual
stationary source SO2 emissions within the City of
Albuquerque/Bernalillo County to determine if the milestone has been
exceeded. 20.11.46 NMAC, Sulfur Dioxide Emissions Inventory
Requirements; Western Backstop Sulfur Dioxide Trading Program, requires
sources to report their emissions annually. Specifically, <IP_ADDRESS>
NMAC defines the emission inventory and reporting requirements for
tracking compliance with the regional sulfur dioxide milestones until
the western backstop sulfur dioxide trading program has been fully
implemented and emission tracking has occurred under <IP_ADDRESS> NMAC
(See section V.E.3 of

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

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

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

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

    \18\ CALMET/CALPUFF Protocol for BART Exemption Screening
Analysis for Class I Areas in the Western United States, Western
Regional Air Partnership (WRAP); Gail Tonnesen, Zion Wang; Ralph
Morris, Abby Hoats and Yiqin Jia, August 15, 2006. Available at:
http://pah.cert.ucr.edu/aqm/308/bart/WRAP_RMC_BART_Protocol_Aug15_2006.pdf.
    \19\ BART Air Modeling Protocol, Individual Source Visibility
Assessments for BART Control Analyses, State of Wyoming, Department
of Environmental Quality, Air Quality Division, Cheyenne, WY
September 2006.

                      Table 3--Subject to BART Status for Section 309 BART-Eligible Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                State                          Company                  Facility             Subject to BART?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Mexico...........................  Frontier...............  Empire Abo.............  No.
New Mexico...........................  Xcel Energy............  SWPS Cunningham Station  No.
New Mexico...........................  Duke Energy............  Artesia Gas Plant......  No.
New Mexico...........................  Duke Energy............  Linam Ranch Gas Plant..  No.
New Mexico...........................  Dynegy.................  Saunders...............  No.
New Mexico...........................  Giant Refining.........  San Juan Refinery......  No.
New Mexico...........................  Giant Refining.........  Ciniza Refinery........  No.
New Mexico...........................  Xcel Energy............  SWPS Maddox Station....  No.
New Mexico...........................  Marathon...............  Indian Basin Gas Plant.  No.
New Mexico...........................  Public Service of New    San Juan Generating      Yes.
                                        Mexico.                  Station.
New Mexico...........................  .......................  Rio Grande Station.....  No.
New Mexico...........................  Western Gas Resources..  San Juan River Gas       No.
                                                                 Plant.
Utah.................................  Pacificorp.............  Hunter.................  Yes.
Utah.................................  Pacificorp.............  Huntington.............  Yes.
Wyoming..............................  Basin Electric.........  Laramie River..........  Yes.
Wyoming..............................  Black Hills Power &      Neil Simpson I.........  No.
                                        Light.
Wyoming..............................  Dyno Nobel.............  Dyno Nobel.............  No.
Wyoming..............................  FMC Corp...............  Green River Soda Ash     Yes.
                                                                 Plant.
Wyoming..............................  FMC Corp...............  Granger River Soda Ash   No.
                                                                 Plant.
Wyoming..............................  General Chemical.......  Green River Soda Ash     Yes.
                                                                 Plant.
Wyoming..............................  P4 Production..........  Rock Springs Coking      No.
                                                                 Plant.
Wyoming..............................  Pacificorp.............  Dave Johnston..........  Yes.
Wyoming..............................  Pacificorp.............  Jim Bridger............  Yes.
Wyoming..............................  Pacificorp.............  Naughton...............  Yes.
Wyoming..............................  Pacificorp.............  Wyodak.................  Yes.
Wyoming..............................  Sinclair Oil Corp......  Sinclair Refinery......  No.
Wyoming..............................  Sinclair Refinery......  Casper.................  No.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Best System of Continuous Emission Control Technology
    As required by 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(C), each State is to
determine what BART would be for each subject to BART source covered by
the 309 backstop trading program. In the ``better-than-BART''
demonstration, all subject to BART electric generating units (EGUs)
were assumed to be operating at the presumptive SO2 emission
rate provided in the BART Guidelines (0.15 lb/MMBtu). The 309 program
also includes non-EGU subject to BART units. The non-EGU subject to
BART units are four boilers located at two trona plants in Wyoming.
Wyoming made a determination of what BART would be for these non-EGU
units. One trona plant recently installed pollution control projects
achieving a 63 percent reduction in SO2 from its two
boilers. The State of Wyoming determined this control level would serve
as a BART benchmark for all trona boilers. Thus, a 63 percent reduction
in emissions from these sources was included as the BART benchmark in
calculating emission reductions assuming application of BART at these
sources. Emission

reductions or the BART benchmark for all subject to BART sources
covered by the 309 program was calculated to be 48,807 tons of
SO2. We are proposing to determine the furnished analysis
meets the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(C).
4. Projected Emissions Reductions
    As required by 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(D), the RH 309 SIP submittal
has provided the expected emission reductions that would result from
the 309 backstop trading program. The ``better-than-BART''
demonstration projects that 2018 baseline emissions would be 190,656
tpy of SO2 for the sources covered by the 309 program in the
participating States. The reductions achieved by the program are 48,807
tpy of SO2, resulting in remaining emissions of 141,849 tpy
of SO2 in 2018. We are proposing to determine the analysis
furnished to satisfy 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(D) is acceptable.
5. Evidence That the Trading Program Achieves Greater Reasonable
Progress Than BART
    We are proposing to approve the RH 309 SIP submittal's
determination that the SO2 backstop trading program achieves
greater reasonable progress than would be achieved through the
installation of and operation of BART at all the sources subject to
BART in the participating States, as required by 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2)(i)(E). As the RH 309 SIP submittal explains, the program
ensures sources beyond BART sources are included. The backstop trading
program includes all stationary sources with emissions greater than 100
tpy of SO2 and thus encompasses 63 non-subject to BART
sources. BART applied on a source-by-source basis would not affect
these sources, and there would be no limitation on their future
operations under their existing permit conditions, or allowable
emissions. The milestones will cap these sources at actual emissions,
which are less than current allowable emissions.
    As the RH 309 SIP submittal also explains, the program also
provides for a cap on new source growth. Future impairment is prevented
by capping emissions growth from sources covered by the program and
from entirely new sources in the region. BART applied on a source-
specific basis would have no impact on future growth. The backstop
trading program also provides a mass-based cap that has inherent
advantages over applying BART to each individual source. The baseline
emission projections and assumed reductions due to the assumption of
BART-level emission rates on all sources subject to BART are all based
on actual emissions, using 2006 as the baseline. If the BART process
were applied on a source-by-source basis to individual sources,
emission limitations would typically be established as an emission rate
(lbs/hr or lbs/MMBtu) that would account for variations in the sulfur
content of fuel and alternative operating scenarios, or allowable
emissions. A mass-based cap that is based on actual emissions is more
stringent because it does not allow a source to consistently use this
difference between current actual and allowable emissions.
6. All Emission Reductions Must Take Place During the First Planning
Period
    The first planning period ends in 2018. As discussed in the
preamble above, the reductions from the 309 program will occur by 2018.
We are therefore proposing to determine the submitted plan satisfies
the requirement of 40 CFR 51.309(e)(2)(iii).
7. Detailed Description of the Alternative Program
    The detailed description of the backstop trading program is
provided in Section C--Emission Reductions for Stationary Sources of
the BC RH SIP and the rules that govern it are found at 20.11.46 NMAC,
which we are proposing to approve. We propose to determine the detailed
description requirement in 40 CFR 51.309(e)(2)(iii) is met. The details
of the backstop trading program are discussed in section V.E of this
notice.
8. Surplus Reductions
    We propose to approve the determination in the RH 309 SIP submittal
that all emission reductions resulting from the emissions trading
program are surplus as of the baseline date of the SIP, as required by
40 CFR 51.208(e)(2)(iv).
9. Geographic Distribution of Emissions
    The BC RH 309 SIP submittal includes a summary of modeling
conducted by the WRAP in 2000 to compare the visibility improvement
expected from BART to the backstop trading program for the Class I
areas on the Colorado Plateau. A summary of the modeling results can be
found in Section N of the BC RH SIP, which refers to data from modeling
included in Tables 2 and 3 of Attachment C to the Annex.\20\ \21\ This
modeling was conducted during the development of the Annex to examine
if the geographic distribution of emissions under the trading program
would be substantially different and disproportionately impact any
Class I area due to a geographic concentration of emissions. The
modeled visibility improvement for the best and worst days at the Class
I areas for the 309 program is similar to improvement anticipated from
the BART scenario (within 0.1 dv) on the worst and best visibility
days, thus--if we assume participation and milestones consistent with
the model--demonstrating that the distribution of emissions between the
BART scenario and the 309 trading program are not substantially
different. We note this modeling demonstration included nine States,
many of which are not participating in the backstop trading program. We
believe this modeling demonstration adds support to our proposed
determination discussed above in this section that the RH 309 SIP
submittal appropriately shows the trading program will achieve greater
reasonable progress than would be achieved through the installation and
operation of BART, as required by 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(E).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Voluntary Emissions Reduction Program for Major Industrial
Sources of Sulfur Dioxide in Nine Western States and A Backstop
Market Trading Program, an Annex to the Report of the Grand Canyon
Visibility Transport Commission (September 2000) at C-15 and 16.
    \21\ WRAP conducted modeling of the degree of visibility
improvement that would occur on average and for the 20% best and
worst visibility days. The WRAP used the transfer coefficients
developed as part of the Integrated Assessment System (IAS) and used
by the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission. As noted in the
Annex, this modeling has limitations which must be considered when
interpreting the results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Requirements for Alternative Programs With an Emissions Cap

    Since the 309 trading program is a backstop trading program, the
provisions outlined below will only apply if the milestone is exceeded
and the program is triggered. We are proposing to approve 20.11.46
NMAC, which provides enforceable rules that govern the triggering and
administration of the program. The analysis that follows shows that the
backstop trading program is consistent with the elements for trading
programs outlined in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi), as required by Section
309. See 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(v).
1. Applicability Provisions
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(A), the backstop trading
program has the same applicability requirements in all States opting to
participate in the program. <IP_ADDRESS> NMAC, which we are proposing to
approve, contains the applicability provisions, which indicates that
the backstop trading program generally applies to all stationary
sources that

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

    \22\ Western Backstop (WEB) Emissions and Allowance Tracking
System (EATS) Analysis. Perrin Quarles Associates, Inc. July 18,