Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; New Mexico; Albuquerque and Bernalillo County; Regional Haze Progress Report State Implementation Plan, 45762-45771 [2017-21006]
Download as PDF
45762
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 189 / Monday, October 2, 2017 / Proposed Rules
Specialty Care; 64.042 VHA Inpatient
Surgery; 64.043 VHA Mental Health
Residential; 64.044 VHA Home Care;
64.045 VHA Outpatient Ancillary
Services; 64.046 VHA Inpatient
Psychiatry; 64.047 VHA Primary Care;
64.048 VHA Mental Health Clinics;
64.049 VHA Community Living Center;
and 64.050 VHA Diagnostic Care.
Signing Authority
The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or
designee, approved this document and
authorized the undersigned to sign and
submit the document to the Office of the
Federal Register for publication
electronically as an official document of
the Department of Veterans Affairs. Gina
S. Farrisee, Deputy Chief of Staff,
Department of Veterans Affairs,
approved this document on July 28,
2017 for publication.
List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 17
Administrative practice and
procedure, Alcohol abuse, Alcoholism,
Claims, Day care, Dental health, Drug
abuse, Foreign relations, Government
contracts, Grant programs—health,
Grant programs—veterans, Health care,
Health facilities, Health professions,
Health records, Homeless, Medical and
dental schools, Medical devices,
Medical research, Mental health
programs, Nursing homes, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements,
Scholarships and fellowships, Travel
and transportation expenses, Veterans.
Dated: September 26, 2017.
Michael Shores,
Director, Regulation Policy & Management,
Office of the Secretary, Department of
Veterans Affairs.
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, we propose to amend 38 CFR
part 17 as follows:
PART 17—MEDICAL
1. The authority citation for part 17 is
amended by adding an entry for
§ 17.417 in numerical order to read in
part as follows:
■
Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501, and as noted in
specific sections.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
*
*
*
*
*
Section 17.417 also issued under 38 U.S.C.
1701 (note), 1709A, 1712A (note), 1722B,
7301, 7330A, 7401–7403; 7406 (note)).
2. Revise the undesignated center
heading immediately after § 17.412 to
read as follows:
■
Authority of Health Care Providers to
Practice in the Department
■
3. Add § 17.417 to read as follows:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:16 Sep 29, 2017
Jkt 244001
§ 17.417
Health care providers.
(a) Definitions. The following
definitions apply to this section.
(1) Beneficiary. The term beneficiary
means a veteran or any other individual
receiving health care under title 38 of
the United States Code.
(2) Health care provider. The term
health care provider means an
individual who:
(i) Is licensed, registered, or certified
in a State to practice a health care
specialty identified under 38 U.S.C.
7402(b);
(ii) Is appointed to an occupation in
the Veterans Health Administration that
is listed in or authorized under 38
U.S.C. 7401(1) or (3);
(iii) Maintains credentials (e.g., a
license, registration, or certification) in
accordance with the requirements of his
or her medical specialty as identified
under 38 U.S.C. 7402(b); and
(iv) Is not a VA-contracted employee.
(3) State. The term State means a State
as defined in 38 U.S.C. 101(20), or a
political subdivision of such a State.
(4) Telehealth. The term telehealth
means the use of electronic information
or telecommunications technologies to
support clinical health care, patient and
professional health-related education,
public health, and health
administration.
(b) Health care provider’s practice. (1)
Health care providers may provide
telehealth services, within their scope of
practice and in accordance with
privileges granted to them by the
Department, irrespective of the State or
location within a State where the health
care provider or the beneficiary is
physically located. Health care
providers’ practice is subject to the
limitations imposed by the Controlled
Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. 801, et seq.,
on the authority to prescribe or
administer controlled substances, as
well as any other limitations on the
provision of VA care set forth in
applicable Federal law and policy. This
section only grants health care providers
the ability to practice telehealth within
the scope of their VA employment and
does not otherwise grant health care
providers additional authorities that go
beyond the scope of the health care
providers’ State license, registration, or
certification.
(2) Situations where a health care
provider’s VA practice of telehealth may
be inconsistent with a State law or State
license, registration, or certification
requirements related to telehealth
include when:
(i) The beneficiary and the health care
provider are physically located in
different States during the episode of
care;
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
(ii) The beneficiary is receiving
services in a State other than the health
care provider’s State of licensure,
registration, or certification;
(iii) The health care provider is
delivering services in a State other than
the health care provider’s State of
licensure, registration, or certification;
(iv) The health care provider is
delivering services either on or outside
VA property;
(v) The beneficiary is receiving
services while she or he is located either
on or outside VA property;
(vi) The beneficiary has or has not
previously been assessed, in person, by
the health care provider; or
(vii) Other State requirements would
prevent or impede the practice of health
care providers delivering telehealth to
VA beneficiaries.
(c) Preemption of State law. To
achieve important Federal interests,
including, but not limited to, the ability
to provide the same complete medical
and hospital service to beneficiaries in
all States under 38 U.S.C. 7301, this
section preempts conflicting State laws
relating to the practice of health care
providers when such health care
providers are practicing telehealth
within the scope of their VA
employment. Any State law, rule,
regulation or requirement pursuant to
such law, is without any force or effect
on, and State governments have no legal
authority to enforce them in relation to,
this section or decisions made by VA
under this section.
[FR Doc. 2017–20951 Filed 9–29–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320–01–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R06–OAR–2016–0406; FRL–9967–77–
Region 6]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; New Mexico;
Albuquerque and Bernalillo County;
Regional Haze Progress Report State
Implementation Plan
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
Pursuant to the Federal Clean
Air Act (CAA or the Act), the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
is proposing to approve a revision to a
State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the
City of Albuquerque and Bernalillo
County, New Mexico (the County)
submitted by the Governor on June 24,
2016. The SIP revision addresses
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\02OCP1.SGM
02OCP1
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 189 / Monday, October 2, 2017 / Proposed Rules
requirements of the Act and the EPA’s
rules that require the County to submit
a periodic report assessing reasonable
progress goals (RPGs) for regional haze
with a determination of the adequacy of
the existing regional haze SIP.
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before November 1, 2017.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments,
identified by Docket No. EPA–R06–
OAR–2016–0406, at https://
www.regulations.gov or via email to
grady.james@epa.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Once submitted, comments cannot be
edited or removed from Regulations.gov.
The EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket. Do not
submit any information electronically
that is considered Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or any other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment.
The written comment will be
considered the official comment with
multimedia submissions and should
include all discussion points desired.
The EPA will generally not consider
comments or their contents submitted
outside of the primary submission (i.e.
on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
systems). For additional submission
methods, please contact James E. Grady,
(214) 665–6745, grady.james@epa.gov.
For the full EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
Docket: The index to the docket for
this action is available electronically at
www.regulations.gov and in hard copy
at the EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. While all
documents in the docket are listed in
the index, some information may be
publicly available only at the hard copy
location (e.g., copyrighted material), and
some may not be publicly available at
either location (e.g., CBI).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
James E. Grady, (214) 665–6745;
grady.james@epa.gov. To inspect the
hard copy materials, please schedule an
appointment with James E. Grady or Mr.
Bill Deese at 214–665–7253.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’
or ‘‘our’’ each mean ‘‘the EPA.’’
Table of Contents:
I. Background on Regional Haze
A. Visibility Protection
B. Regulation Overview
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:16 Sep 29, 2017
Jkt 244001
II. Requirements for Regional Haze Progress
Report
III. Evaluation of Regional Haze Progress
Report
A. Class I Areas
B. Status of Control Strategies
1. SO2 Milestone and Backstop Trading
Program
2. NOX and PM Control Strategies
3. Best Available Retrofit Technology
(BART)
4. Mobile Source Emissions
5. Fire and Smoke Management
6. Fugitive and Unpaved Road Dust
Measures
7. Additional Controls—Local State
Regulations
8. Summary of Control Strategy
Implementation
C. Emission Reductions From Control
Strategies
D. Visibility Progress
E. Emissions Progress
F. Assessment of Changes Impeding
Visibility Progress
G. Assessment of Current Strategy To Meet
RPGs
H. Review of Visibility Monitoring Strategy
I. Determination of Adequacy of Existing
Regional Haze Plan
IV. The EPA’s Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background on Regional Haze
A. Visibility Protection
Regional haze is visibility impairment
that occurs over a wide geographic area
primarily from the pollution of fine
particles (PM2.5) in nature.1 Fine
particles causing haze consist of
sulfates, nitrates, organics, elemental
carbon (EC), and soil dust.2 Airborne
PM2.5 can scatter and absorb the
incident light and, therefore, lead to
atmospheric opacity and horizontal
visibility degradation. Regional haze
limits visual distance and reduces color,
clarity and contrast of view. Emissions
that affect visibility include a wide
variety of natural and man-made
sources. In New Mexico, the most
important sources of haze-forming
1 Fine particles are less than or equal to 2.5
microns (mm) in diameter and usually form
secondary in nature indirectly from other sources.
Particles less than or equal to 10 mm in diameter
are referred to as PM10. Particles greater than PM2.5
but less than PM10 are referred to as coarse mass.
Coarse mass can contribute to light extinction as
well and is made up of primary particles directly
emitted into the air. Fine particles tend to be manmade, while coarse particles tend to have a natural
origin. Coarse mass settles out from the air more
rapidly than fine particles and usually will be
found relatively close to emission sources. Fine
particles can be transported long distances by wind
and can be found in the air thousands of miles from
where they were formed.
2 Organic carbon (OC) can be emitted directly as
particles, or formed through reactions involving
gaseous emissions. Elemental carbon, in contrast to
organic carbon, is exclusively of primary origin and
emitted by the incomplete combustion of carbonbased fuels. They are especially prevalent in diesel
exhaust and smoke from wild and prescribed fires.
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
45763
emissions are coal-fired power plants,
oil and gas development, woodland
fires, and windblown dust. Reducing
PM2.5 and its precursor gases in the
atmosphere is an effective method of
improving visibility. PM2.5 precursors
consist of sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen
oxides (NOX), ammonia (NH3) and
volatile organic compounds (VOCs).
B. Regulation Overview
In section 169A of the 1977 CAA
Amendments, Congress declared as a
national goal the prevention of any
future, and the remedying of any
existing, visibility impairment in
mandatory class I Federal areas where
impairment results from manmade air
pollution.3 Congress added section 169B
to the CAA in 1990 that added visibility
protection provisions, and the EPA
published final regulations addressing
regional haze with the 1999 Regional
Haze Rule (RHR).4 The RHR revised the
existing visibility regulations and
established a more comprehensive
visibility protection program for
mandatory Class I areas. The
requirements for regional haze are found
at 40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309. States
must demonstrate reasonable progress
toward meeting the national goal of a
return to natural visibility conditions for
mandatory Class I Federal areas both
within and outside states by 2064. The
requirement to submit a regional haze
SIP applies to all fifty states, the District
of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands. The
City of Albuquerque and Bernalillo
County,5 New Mexico must also submit
3 Mandatory Class I Federal areas consist of
national parks exceeding 6,000 acres, wilderness
areas and national memorial parks exceeding 5,000
acres, and all international parks that were in
existence on August 7, 1977. The EPA, in
consultation with the Department of Interior,
promulgated a list of 156 areas where visibility was
identified as an important value. The extent of a
mandatory Class I area includes subsequent changes
in boundaries, such as park expansions. Although
states and tribes may designate additional areas as
Class I, the requirements of the visibility program
set forth in the CAA applies only to ‘‘mandatory
Class I Federal areas.’’ Each mandatory Class I
Federal area is the responsibility of a ‘‘Federal Land
Manager.’’ When the term ‘‘Class I area’’ is used in
this action, it means ‘‘mandatory Class I Federal
areas.’’ [See 44 FR 69122, November 30, 1979 and
CAA Sections 162(a), 169A, and 302(i)].
4 See July 1, 1999 Regional Haze Rule final action
(64 FR 35714), as amended in July 6, 2005 (70 FR
39156), October 13, 2006 (71 FR 60631), June 7,
2012 (77 FR 33656) and in January 10, 2017 (82 FR
3079).
5 Note that the City of Albuquerque and Bernalillo
County is treated like a ‘‘state’’ for purposes of
implementing the RHR, which is written
specifically for states. The EPA regulates and funds
Bernalillo County as it does any other state air
agency. Enacted in 1967, the New Mexico State Air
Quality Control Act [NMSA 1978 Sections 74–2–4,
74–2–5, and 74–2–7] allowed for the establishment
of the Air Quality Control Board (AQCB) as a local
E:\FR\FM\02OCP1.SGM
Continued
02OCP1
45764
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 189 / Monday, October 2, 2017 / Proposed Rules
a regional haze SIP separate from the
State of New Mexico 6 to completely
satisfy the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA for the entire
State under the New Mexico Air Quality
Control Act (section 74–2–4).7
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
II. Requirements for Regional Haze
Progress Report
The RHR requires a comprehensive
analysis of each state’s regional haze SIP
every ten years and a progress report at
five-year intervals. The five-year review
is intended to provide an interim report
on the implementation of, and, if
necessary, mid-course corrections to,
the regional haze SIP. The progress
report provides an opportunity for
public input on the County’s (and the
EPA’s) assessment of whether the
approved regional haze SIP is being
implemented appropriately and whether
reasonable visibility progress is being
achieved consistent with the projected
visibility improvement in the SIP. At a
minimum, the required elements of the
progress report under the RHR must
include the following seven elements: 8
(1) Provide a description of the status
of implementation of all measures
included in the regional haze SIP.
(2) Summarize the emissions
reductions achieved throughout the
state.
(3) Provide an assessment of current
visibility conditions and the change in
visibility impairment over the past five
years.
(4) Provide analysis tracking the
change over the past five years in
emissions of pollutants contributing to
visibility impairment from all sources
and activities within the state.
board and empowered it with the authority to
administer and enforce its air quality regulations
within Bernalillo County. The AQCB has
jurisdiction over all of Bernalillo County, (including
the City of Albuquerque), except Indian lands. The
State of New Mexico Environmental Improvement
Board (EIB) has jurisdiction over all other counties
in New Mexico.
6 On December 31, 2003, New Mexico submitted
a regional haze SIP with later revisions (July 5, 2011
and October 7, 2013) that addressed 40 CFR 51.309.
The EPA approved both of the (2003 and 2011)
submittals on November 27, 2012 (77 FR 70693)
and approved a 2013 revision on October 9, 2014
with two separate rules (79 FR 60985 and 79 FR
60978). The New Mexico progress report was
approved by the EPA on November 3, 2015 (see 80
FR 67682).
7On November 12, 2003, the County first adopted
its 40 CFR 51.309 regional haze SIP with later
revisions (August 13, 2008; June 8, 2011). The EPA
approved these submittals on Apr. 25, 2012 (77 FR
24768).
8 See also General Principles for the 5-Year
Regional Haze Progress Reports for the Initial
Regional Haze State Implementation Plans
(Intended to Assist States and EPA Regional Offices
in Development and Review of the Progress
Reports), April 2013, EPA–454/B–03–005, available
at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/201603/documents/haze_5year_4-10-13.pdf.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:16 Sep 29, 2017
Jkt 244001
(5) Provide an assessment of any
significant changes in anthropogenic
emissions within or outside the state
that have occurred over the past five
years that have limited or impeded
progress in reducing pollutant
emissions and improving visibility.
(6) Provide an assessment of whether
the current SIP elements and strategies
are sufficient to enable the state (or
other states with mandatory Class I
areas affected by emissions from the
state) to meet all established RPGs.
(7) Provide a review of the state’s
visibility monitoring strategy and any
modifications to the strategy as
necessary.
The City of Albuquerque and
Bernalillo County, New Mexico
submitted its progress report SIP for the
County under 40 CFR 51.309 on June
24, 2016. Typically, progress report
requirements of most states are covered
under 40 CFR 51.308(g) and (h). 40 CFR
51.309 presents nine western states with
an optional approach of fulfilling RHR
requirements by adopting emission
reduction strategies developed by the
Grand Canyon Visibility Transport
Commission (GCVTC). These strategies
were designed primarily to improve
visibility of sixteen Class I areas in the
Colorado Plateau area.9 Three western
states (New Mexico, Utah and
Wyoming) including the City of
Albuquerque and Bernalillo County,
NM exercised the option provided in
the RHR to meet alternative
requirements contained in 40 CFR
51.309 for regional haze SIPs. For these
states, the required content of the fiveyear progress report is identical with
those for the other states, but are
codified at 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10) instead
of at 40 CFR 51.308 (g) and (h). This
section specifies fixed due dates in 2013
and 2018 for these progress reports.10 In
contrast, under 40 CFR 51.308, states
must submit a progress report five years
from submittal of the initial
implementation plan. Under 40 CFR
9 The Colorado Plateau is a high, semi-arid
tableland in Southeast Utah, Northern Arizona,
Northwest New Mexico, and Western Colorado. The
sixteen mandatory Class I areas are as follows:
Grand Canyon National Park, Mount Baldy
Wilderness, Petrified Forest National Park,
Sycamore Canyon Wilderness, Black Canyon of the
Gunnison National Park Wilderness, Flat Tops
Wilderness, Maroon Bells Wilderness, Mesa Verde
National Park, Weminuche Wilderness, West Elk
Wilderness, San Pedro Parks Wilderness, Arches
National Park, Bryce Canyon National Park,
Canyonlands National Park, Capital Reef National
Park, and Zion National Park.
10 The 1999 RHR provided that these three states
will eventually revert to the progress report due
date requirements in 40 CFR 51.308 for the second
implementation period. Recently, there was an
extension of the second regional haze
implementation period deadline from 2018 to 2021.
(82 FR 3080, January 10, 2017).
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
51.309(d)(10)(ii), states are required to
submit, at the same time as the progress
report SIP, a determination of the
adequacy of their existing regional haze
SIP and to take one of four possible
actions, as described in more detail in
this proposal.
III. Evaluation of Regional Haze
Progress Report
On July 28 2011, the AQCB submitted
a regional haze SIP for its own
geographic area of Bernalillo County,
New Mexico (including the City of
Albuquerque) that addressed the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.309.11 This
SIP submittal was a necessary
component of the regional haze plan for
New Mexico to ensure that the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D) of
the CAA were satisfied for the whole
state. On July 6, 2016, the EPA received
the periodic report on progress for the
County’s regional haze SIP in the form
of a SIP revision. This latest submission
is the subject of this proposed approval.
The periodic report was made in the
first implementation period to assess
visibility progression for Class I areas in
and outside of the County that were
negatively affected by emissions from
within the County. The progress report
included the County’s determination
that the existing regional haze SIP
required no substantive revisions to
achieve the established regional haze
visibility improvement and emission
reduction goals for 2018. The EPA
agrees with the County’s assessment and
is proposing to approve its progress
report SIP on the basis that it satisfies
all requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)
as explained in further details in each
subsequent section.
A. Class I Areas
The City of Albuquerque and
Bernalillo County does not formulate
specific RPGs for particular Class I areas
within its borders since no such areas
exist.12 Therefore, the County is not
required to identify RPGs or calculate
baseline and natural visibility
conditions at any Class I area. The
County, however, is required to address
the apportionment of visibility impact
from the emissions generated by sources
within the County at Class I areas
outside of the County borders. As a
result, the progress report addressed the
emissions impact on RPGs and related
emission reduction goals for nine Class
I areas within the state of New Mexico
that were identified as being close
11 See the EPA’s proposed approval (77 FR 24768,
April 25, 2012) and final rule (77 FR 71119,
November 29, 2012) for the County.
12 See 77 FR 24768, 24790 (Apr. 25, 2012).
E:\FR\FM\02OCP1.SGM
02OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 189 / Monday, October 2, 2017 / Proposed Rules
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
enough to the County that they could
conceivably be affected by emissions
from within the County. The nine Class
I areas within New Mexico that were
addressed in the progress report were:
Bandelier Wilderness, Bosque del
Apache National Wildlife Refuge,
Carlsbad Caverns National Park, Gila
Wilderness, Pecos Wilderness, Salt
Creek Wilderness, Wheeler Peak
Wilderness, White Mountain
Wilderness, and San Pedro Parks
Wilderness.13 Visibility impairment at
New Mexico’s nine Class I areas was
tracked in units of deciviews (dv)14 as
measured by eight monitors in the
Interagency Monitoring of Protected
Visual Environments (IMPROVE)
Network. Through collaboration with
the Western Regional Air Partnership
(WRAP),15 the AQCB worked with New
Mexico and other western states to
assess state-by-state contributions to
visibility impairment in specific Class I
areas affected by Albuquerque and
Bernalillo County, NM emissions. The
determinations in the progress report
relied on the technical analysis and
emission inventories developed by the
WRAP which is documented online and
also appears in the technical
appendices.16
The EPA is proposing to find that the
County has appropriately identified the
Class I areas in this report which could
be affected by emissions from within the
County, as required by 40 CFR
51.309(g). This regulation provides a
13 The Section 309 SIP submitted by New Mexico
in December 2003 addressed only San Pedro Parks
Wilderness Area and the other Class I areas were
added in a later SIP revision under Section 309(g)
in June 2011 and revised in October 2013. The EPA
approved both of the (2003 and 2011) submittals on
November 27, 2012 (77 FR 70693) and approved a
2013 revision on October 9, 2014 with two separate
rules (79 FR 60985 and 79 FR 60978).
14 A deciview is a haze index derived from
calculated light extinction, such that uniform
changes in haziness correspond to uniform
incremental changes in perception across the entire
range of conditions, from pristine to highly
impaired. The preamble to the RHR provides
additional details about the deciview (64 FR 35714,
35725, July 1, 1999).
15 The WRAP is a collaborative effort of tribal
governments, state governments and various federal
agencies representing the western states that
provides technical and policy tools for the western
states and tribes to comply with the EPA’s Regional
Haze regulations. Detailed information regarding
WRAP support of air quality management issues for
western states is provided on the WRAP Web site
(www.wrapair2.org). Data summary descriptions
and tools specific to RHR support are available on
the WRAP Technical Support System Web site
(https://vista.cira.colostate.edu/tss/).
16 The Western Regional Air Partnership Regional
Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Summary Report
technical support document has been prepared on
behalf of the fifteen Western State members in the
WRAP region to provide the technical basis for use
by states to develop the first of their individual
reasonable progress reports for the 116 Federal
Class I areas located in the Western states.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:16 Sep 29, 2017
Jkt 244001
requirement for compliance with 40
CFR 51.308(d) to the extent that
planning is necessary for areas other
than the sixteen Class I areas on the
Colorado Plateau addressed in the
initial 2003 regional haze SIP. In the
ensuing sections, the EPA addresses
these Class I areas and the seven
regulatory elements required by the
progress report SIP; 17 how the County’s
progress report SIP addressed each
element; and the EPA’s analysis and
proposed determination as to whether
the County satisfied each part.
B. Status of Control Strategies
40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(A) requires a
description of the status of
implementation of all control measures
included in the regional haze SIP for
achieving RPGs for Class I areas both
within and outside the state.
The County evaluated the status of all
control measures in its 2011 regional
haze SIP in accordance with the
requirements under 40 CFR
51.309(d)(10)(i)(A). The major control
measures identified by the County in
the progress report are as follows:
• SO2 Milestone and Backstop
Trading Program
• NOX and PM Control Strategies
• Best Available Retrofit Technology
(BART)
• Mobile Sources Emissions 18
• Fire and Smoke Management
• Fugitive and Unpaved Road Dust
Measures
• Additional Controls—Local State
Regulations
The County identified ammonium
sulfate, particulate organic matter, and
coarse mass as the largest contributors
to visibility impairment at New
Mexico’s Class I areas that need to be
controlled.19 Many of the sources,
however, that produce these visibilityimpairing pollutants in New Mexico are
natural, rather than anthropogenic in
nature, and are not controllable. For the
purpose of this progress report, the
County focused on those emission
sources that were anthropogenic in
nature (as did New Mexico in its report).
The primary sources of ammonium
sulfate are point sources and mobile
source emissions. Ammonium sulfate
results from SO2 and NH3 precursor
emissions. SO2 emissions in New
17 See
40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i).
40 CFR 51.309(d)(5)(ii), New Mexico is
required to submit interim reports to the EPA and
the public on the implementation status of the
regional and local strategies to address mobile
source emissions.
19 See the County’s 2016 regional haze progress
report submittal (page 9) which was reiterated in
New Mexico’s regional haze progress report (page
7).
18 Under
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
45765
Mexico are generally associated with
anthropogenic point sources such as
coal-fired power plants, other industrial
sources like refineries and cement
plants, and both on and off-road mobile
sources. Particulate organic matter
emissions in New Mexico are from
natural and anthropogenic fire. Large
wildfire events in the west dominate
particulate organic aerosol emissions
which are emitted directly into the air
as particles instead of gases. Coarse
mass emissions in New Mexico happen
mainly as a result of windblown and
fugitive dust. Coarse mass settles out of
air more rapidly than fine particles, so
strong wind events act as a transport
vehicle to carry them long distances.
Otherwise, they will typically be found
close to the emission source.
1. SO2 Milestone and Backstop Trading
Program
The progress report discussed the SO2
Milestone and Backstop Trading
Program as a control measure to reduce
emissions for major sources of SO2.20
The County has participated in this
voluntary program since December 31,
2003.21 As part of this program, the
Section 309 western states and the
County must submit an annual report
that compares tracked stationary sources
of SO2 emissions to yearly milestones.22
A milestone is an established maximum
level of annual emissions for a given
year (from 2003–2018). The milestones
help establish annual SO2 emission
reduction targets. The annual targets
represent RPGs in reducing visibilityimpairing emissions. If states fail to
meet the milestones, then the backstoptrading program is triggered to
20 Under Section 309, nine western states and the
tribes within those states had the option of
submitting plans to reduce visibility-impairing
emissions at sixteen Class I areas on the Colorado
Plateau. Five states (Arizona, New Mexico, Oregon,
Utah, Wyoming) and the City of Albuquerque and
Bernalillo County, NM exercised this option by
submitting plans to the EPA by December 1, 2003.
Oregon and Arizona have since elected to cease
participation in the Milestone and Backstop
Trading Program in 2006 and 2010, respectively.
The tribes are not subject to any deadline and can
still opt into the program at any time.
21 The County cooperates with its WRAP partners
to maintain an inventory of regional SO2 emissions,
across the Section 309 states. The City of
Albuquerque Air Quality Program (AQP) monitors
SO2 ambient air concentrations in Bernalillo County
consistent with EPA regulations. See the City of
Albuquerque Environmental Health Department
(EHD) Web site at https://www.cabq.gov/airquality/
documents for Annual Network Reviews for
Ambient Air Monitoring.
22 See WRAP Web site at https://
www.wrapair2.org/reghaze.aspx for the Regional
Milestone reports. A final 2014 milestone report
was posted on March 7, 2016 and a draft 2015
report was posted recently on March 20, 2017.
Appendix G of the County progress report includes
the 2013 Regional SO2 Emissions and Milestone
Report.
E:\FR\FM\02OCP1.SGM
02OCP1
45766
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 189 / Monday, October 2, 2017 / Proposed Rules
includes the reporting year and the two
previous years, is calculated and
compared to the milestone. The regional
milestone for 2013 was 185,795 tons
SO2. The three-year average SO2
emissions for 2011, 2012, and 2013 was
105,402 tons SO2, which was 43 percent
below the 2013 milestone. In table 1
below, 2014 and 2015 WRAP data
shows similar SO2 reduction trends that
implement an emissions cap. The cap
allocates emission allowances (or
credits) to the affected sources based on
the cap, and requires the sources to hold
sufficient allowances to cover their
emissions each year.
The regional haze SIP requires
multiyear averaging of emissions for the
milestone comparison. From 2005–
2017, the three-year average, which
continue beyond 2013 toward 2018. No
triggering of the backstop trading
program has been necessary and the
likelihood of meeting the 2018 target
means no changes in the program are
needed at the moment. The compliance
dates show that SO2 emissions have
consistently been below each annual
RPG and are currently tracking to be
below the 2018 milestone.
TABLE 1—SO2 EMISSION MILESTONES 23
Year
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
Regional SO2
milestone tons
per year
(tpy)
.........................................
.........................................
.........................................
.........................................
.........................................
.........................................
.........................................
.........................................
.........................................
.........................................
.........................................
forward ...........................
269,083
234,903
200,722
200,722
200,722
185,795
170,868
155,940
155,940
155,940
141,849
141,849
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
2. NOX and PM Control Strategies
The County included a report in its
2011 regional haze SIP that assessed
emission control strategies for NOX and
PM stationary sources, and the degree of
visibility improvement that would
result from their implementation.24 The
report concluded that current and future
NOX and PM emissions do not show to
be major contributors to regional haze
(typically about two percent on average)
in the vast majority of western Class I
areas. The report represented the initial
assessment of stationary source NOX
and PM strategies for regional haze, and
was a starting point for a more extensive
analysis in the future. The 2011 regional
haze SIP stated that the progress report
would assess the need for new NOX and
PM control measures to address any
new contributions to regional haze from
stationary sources in the County. The
County concluded in the progress report
that it does not find new control
measures necessary for NOX and PM
stationary sources at this time.
Stationary source NOX and PM
emissions in the County have not
impeded reasonable progress of
23 The
milestone numbers reflect the participation
of Wyoming, Utah, and New Mexico (including the
City of Albuquerque and Bernalillo County) in the
309 backstop trading program.
24 The report, Stationary Source NO and PM
X
Emissions in the WRAP Region: An Initial
Assessment of Emissions, Controls, and Air Quality
Impacts, was prepared by the WRAP and is
included in Appendix H–O of the SIP.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:16 Sep 29, 2017
Jkt 244001
Average SO2 emissions to determine compliance with milestone
SO2
(tpy)
3-Year average
265,662 ...................................
165,633 ...................................
146,808 ...................................
130,935 ...................................
115,115 ...................................
105,402 ...................................
96,392 .....................................
91,310 .....................................
Not Available ...........................
Not Available ...........................
Not Available ...........................
Not Available ...........................
2006, 2007 and 2008.
2007, 2008 and 2009.
2008, 2009 and 2010.
2009, 2010 and 2011.
2010, 2011 and 2012.
2011, 2012 and 2013.
2012, 2013 and 2014.
2013, 2014 and 2015.
2014, 2015 and 2016.
2015, 2016 and 2017.
2016, 2017 and 2018.
Annual; no averaging.
emissions and visibility in New Mexico
as a whole and are not likely to do so.
Please refer to the emission reduction
section of this report for more details
regarding NOX and PM emissions.
3. Best Available Retrofit Technology
(BART) 25
The regional haze SIP determined that
there are no BART-eligible sources in
the County, so there are no requirements
to install BART controls.26 Even so, the
progress report mentioned how the
County must still specifically
demonstrate that its SO2 milestone and
backstop-trading program will achieve
greater reasonable progress than would
be achieved by implementation of BART
controls.27 Under this approach, a
section 51.309 regional haze SIP must
25 BART sources are those sources that have the
potential to emit 250 tons or more of visibilityimpairing pollutants, were put in place between
August 7, 1962 and August 7, 1977, and whose
operations fall within one or more of 26 specifically
listed source categories.
26 The WRAP identified three potential BARTeligible sources in the County. These were PNM
Reeves Generating Station, GCC Rio Grande Inc.,
and Cobisa Person Power Project. The AQCB
assessed whether these facilities were existing
stationary facilities as defined at 40 CFR 51.301 and
determined that all three sources were not BARTeligible. PNM Reeves and GCC Rio Grande were not
in existence nor operating during the requisite time
period, and Cobisa Person Power Project did not
have emission units in the 26 source categories for
BART. See the EPA’s proposed approval for the
County’s regional haze SIP (77 FR 24768, 24782,
April 25, 2012).
27 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(i).
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
establish declining SO2 emission
milestones for each year of the program
through 2018. The milestones must be
consistent with the GCTVC’s goal of
fifty to seventy percent reduction in SO2
emissions by 2040. As demonstrated in
the County’s regional haze SIP, the SO2
milestones provide greater reasonable
progress than BART and track at a sixty
percent pace reduction of the 1990 SO2
emission levels.28 The actual annual
SO2 emission reduction results
outperformed this milestone pace. The
progress report showed that the threeyear average SO2 emissions for 2013 was
43 percent below the 2013 milestone at
105,402 tons SO2 (see Table 1). That
represents a 71 percent reduction from
the 1990 emission totals and is
exceeding the GCVTC goal of fifty to
seventy percent reduction. The regional
SO2 emissions have continued to
decline at a faster pace than called for
by the SO2 milestones. Thus, as
anticipated, the milestone program has
actually continued to achieve greater
reasonable progress than would be the
case if BART were implemented.
4. Mobile Source Emissions
The progress report mentioned that
the County is relying upon federal
standards as long-term measures to
28 See the County’s 2011 regional haze SIP
submittal (pages 112–124). SO2 emissions from
sources in 1990 totaled 358,364 tpy and the 2018
milestone is 141,849 tpy, which represents sixty
percent reduction.
E:\FR\FM\02OCP1.SGM
02OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 189 / Monday, October 2, 2017 / Proposed Rules
achieve declines in mobile source
emissions that contribute to regional
haze.29 The County also committed
itself in the SIP to monitoring mobile
source emissions (through the WRAP) to
assure a continuous decline in
emissions as defined in 40 CFR
51.309(b)(6).30 A statewide inventory of
baseline and future annual mobile
source emissions has been compiled for
the years 2003–2018 with assistance
from the WRAP.31
5. Fire and Smoke Management
The County is relying on fire and
smoke management programs under
20.11.21 NMAC, Open Burning, in order
to help control anthropogenic fire
related emissions of VOCs, NOX,
elemental carbon, organic carbon, and
PM2.5. This regulation requires that most
open burning in Bernalillo County be
conducted under a permit from the City
of Albuquerque EHD subject to specific
requirements, including: reporting of
emissions for use in emissions
inventories; consideration of
alternatives to burning; use of enhanced
smoke management techniques
recommended by the WRAP; and use of
specific emission reduction techniques.
The programs in this measure are
generally designed to limit increases in
emissions, rather than to reduce existing
emissions.
6. Fugitive and Unpaved Road Dust
Measures
The progress report mentioned
measures that provide for control of
PM10 and PM2.5 emissions from unpaved
roads and from stationary fugitive dust
sources.32 The EHD implements this
requirement through 20.11.20 NMAC,
Fugitive Dust Control, which requires
the use of reasonably available control
measures (RACM) to reduce fugitive
dust that impairs visibility or adversely
affects public health, welfare, and
safety.33 The measure prevents fugitive
dust from leaving sites where it is
produced, and thus reduces the amount
45767
of those emissions. The regulation
requires sources to obtain permits and
pay related fees, limits construction
activity, and has an active enforcement
program in place to implement the
provisions on an ongoing basis. In
addition, the AQCB tracks road dust
emissions with the assistance of the
WRAP. They provide updates, including
modeling and monitoring information,
on paved and unpaved road dust
emission impacts on visibility in the
sixteen Colorado Plateau Class I Areas.
7. Additional Controls—Local State
Regulations
The County lists several local
regulations that are being used to aid in
controlling emissions that contribute to
the formation of regional haze at Class
I areas. These regulations, and the
pollutants targeted by them, appear in
table 2 below. The EHD implements and
enforces these regulations on a
continuing basis.
TABLE 2—COUNTY REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO REGIONAL HAZE 34
Regulation
Description
20.11.22 NMAC ...............................
20.11.65 NMAC ...............................
20.11.66 NMAC ...............................
20.11.67 NMAC ...............................
20.11.71 NMAC ...............................
20.11.100 NMAC .............................
20.11.102 NMAC .............................
20.11.103 NMAC .............................
Wood burning ........................................................................................
Volatile Organic Compounds .................................................................
Process Equipment ................................................................................
Equipment, Emissions, Limitations ........................................................
Municipal Solid Waste Landfills .............................................................
Motor Vehicle Inspection, Decentralized ...............................................
Oxygenated Fuels ..................................................................................
Motor Vehicle Visible Emissions ...........................................................
8. Summary of Control Strategy
Implementation
measures were identified and the
strategy behind each control was
explained. The County included a
summary of the implementation status
associated with each control measure
and quantified the benefits where
possible. In addition, the progress report
SIP adequately outlined the compliance
timeframe for all controls
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
The EPA proposes to conclude that
the County adequately addressed the
status of control measures in its regional
haze SIP, as required by the provisions
under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(A) for the
first implementation period. The
County’s progress report documented
the status of all control measures
included in its regional haze SIP and
described additional measures that
came into effect since the County’s
regional haze SIP was completed,
including state regulations and various
federal measures. All major control
29 See the County’s 2011 regional haze SIP (pages
56–58) and New Mexico’s 2011 regional haze SIP
(page 144) for ongoing implementation of federal
mobile source regulations. The County regional
haze SIP listed as a haze-control measure 20.11.104
NMAC, Emission Standards for New Motor
Vehicles. This regulation was adopted in 2007 to
implement California’s clean car standards. At the
time the regulation was adopted by New Mexico,
the California standards were projected to
substantially differ from federal motor vehicle
emissions standards. Since that time, the California
and federal programs for emissions standards for
motor vehicles have become more aligned with
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:16 Sep 29, 2017
Jkt 244001
Pollutant controlled
CO, PM.
VOCs.
PM.
SO2, NOX, PM.
CO.
CO, PM, hydrocarbons.
CO.
PM.
The provisions under 40 CFR
51.309(d)(10)(i)(B) require the state to
provide a summary of the emission
reductions achieved in the state through
the control measures subject to the
requirements under 40 CFR
51.309(d)(10)(i)(A). As mentioned
previously, the County identified
ammonium sulfate, particulate organic
matter, and coarse mass as the largest
contributors historically to visibility
impairment at New Mexico’s Class I
areas for the initial round of regional
haze SIPS. Many of the sources,
however, that produce these visibilityimpairing pollutants in New Mexico are
natural, rather than anthropogenic in
nature, and are not controllable. As a
result, the New Mexico progress report
focused on emission reductions from
each other than was expected by New Mexico when
it adopted the State Mobile Source Regulation. For
example, in 2009, the EPA and the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
proposed ‘‘regulatory convergence’’ with California
on motor vehicle fuel economy standards. See 74
FR 49454 (September 28, 2009). This was
subsequently adopted, starting with model years
2012–2016. 75 FR 25323 (May 7, 2010). Therefore,
20.11.104 NMAC is currently redundant and is not
being implemented.
30 See the County’s 2011 regional haze SIP (page
59).
31 See WRAP 2013 Summary Report, pages 3–11
to 3–20, 4–1 to 4–2, and 6–222 to 6–233.
32 For more information on the WRAP modeling
and assessment of road dust impacts, see section F
of the County regional haze SIP (pages 69–71).
33 The City of Albuquerque EHD also has
delegated authority to enforce applicable federal
standards related to particulate matter, as
promulgated in 40 CFR Sections 60, 61, and 63.
34 See the County Web site for a listing of the
NMAC rules at https://164.64.110.239/nmac/_
title20/T20C011.htm.
C. Emission Reductions From Control
Strategies
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\02OCP1.SGM
02OCP1
45768
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 189 / Monday, October 2, 2017 / Proposed Rules
point sources because they represent the
anthropogenic sources in New
Mexico.35 The New Mexico report
showed that these pollutants have
mostly been contributing less to
visibility impairment at New Mexico
Class I areas over time, and the
anthropogenic point source emissions
related to these pollutants have also
been declining in areas of the state
outside the County.36
For comparison, in its progress report,
the County took the same approach as
New Mexico and reported
anthropogenic point source emission
data (see table 3) from the County for
NOX, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5 and
compared it to WRAP 2018 projections
for the 2008–2013 time-period.
TABLE 3—THE COUNTY STATIONARY POINT SOURCE EMISSIONS COMPARED TO 2018 WRAP PROJECTIONS 37
Year
2008
2011
2012
2013
2018
NOX (tpy)
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
WRAP Projections ..................................................................................
The County noted that pollutant
emissions from the County have not
impeded reductions in the rest of the
state. SO2 and NOX county emission
trends have increased slightly since
2008 but have remained well below the
WRAP 2018 projections for point
sources and were just a fraction of the
levels observed in the rest of the state
(see table 4). PM10 emission levels for
SO2 (tpy)
1,139
1,120
1,167
1,401
3,402
the County were below the WRAP 2018
projections while PM2.5 levels were
above the WRAP predictions. Although
the PM2.5 levels were above WRAP 2018
projections, PM emission levels from
the County have decreased in a
downward trend for both fine
particulates and coarse mass since 2008.
When comparing pollutant emission
contributions of NOX, SO2, PM10, and
57
74
132
165
1,612
PM10 (tpy)
1,222
186
351
323
411
PM2.5 (tpy)
239
110
116
117
23
PM2.5 from the County to the statewide
national emission inventory (NEI), the
County concluded that it is improbable
that the County emissions have had
significant impacts on nearby Class I
areas. The reported point source
amounts from the County remain low in
comparison to those from the rest of the
state as seen from the statewide NEI
data in table 4.
TABLE 4—NEI POINT SOURCE EMISSION DATA FOR NEW MEXICO FOR 2002–2014 38
Year
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
2002
2005
2008
2011
2014
NOX (tpy)
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
The NEI data shows that the emission
trend of each major contributor to
visibility impairment in New Mexico
has decreased significantly since 2002.
NOX emissions have decreased by 55
percent and SO2 emissions have
decreased by 65 percent. PM reductions
also reduced considerably from their
NEI baseline totals (52% for PM10 and
72% for PM2.5) and remain below the
2018 WRAP projections for New
Mexico, although not especially
pronounced.39 A more-detailed
breakdown of the distribution of each
contributing pollutant species can be
seen in section E of this report.
The EPA proposes to conclude that
the County adequately addressed the
requirements under 40 CFR
51.309(d)(10)(i)(B) with its summary of
emission reductions of visibility
impairing pollutants. Overall, the
35 See the 2014 New Mexico Regional Haze
Progress Report (page 7).
36 See Figure 3.6 from the 2014 New Mexico
Regional Haze Progress Report (page 15).
37 See the 2016 County Regional Haze Progress
Report (page 21).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:16 Sep 29, 2017
Jkt 244001
95,493
72,707
57,461
47,497
42,623
County demonstrated the emission
reductions achieved in the major
contributing visibility impairing
pollutants in the County for the first
implementation period. Anthropogenic
emissions of haze related pollutants
from stationary point sources in the
County are unlikely to reverse the
larger, favorable statewide emission
trends, because over time such local
emissions have remained at a fraction of
the levels seen in the rest of the state.
Furthermore, such county emissions are
under or close to the WRAP 2018
projections for those pollutants.40
D. Visibility Progress
The provisions under 40 CFR
51.309(d)(10)(i)(C) require that states
with Class I areas provide the following
information for the most impaired and
least impaired days 41 for each area,
38 As reported in the online EPA Emissions
Inventory System (EIS) Gateway database for point
sources only.
39 See Figure 3.6 from the 2014 New Mexico
Regional Haze Progress Report (page 15).
40 See the 2016 County Regional Haze Progress
Report (pages 15–22).
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
SO2 (tpy)
36,392
18,532
22,868
19,987
12,535
PM10 (tpy)
6,558
3,611
2,953
2,545
3,091
PM2.5 (tpy)
5,511
2,994
1,754
1,722
1,538
with values expressed in terms of fiveyear averages of these annual values: (1)
Current visibility conditions; (2) the
difference between current visibility
conditions and baseline visibility
conditions; and (3) the change in
visibility impairment over the past five
years. The County does not have any
Class I areas within its borders;
therefore, no visibility data is required
to be analyzed for this element. In
regard to New Mexico’s Class I areas
outside of the County, please note that
when comparing baseline to current
visibility conditions, the New Mexico
progress report showed that New
Mexico is currently on track, if not
exceeding, the visibility impairment
41 The most and least impaired days in the
regional haze rule refers to the average visibility
impairment (measured in deciviews) for the 20
percent of monitored days in a calendar year with
the highest and lowest amount of visibility
impairment, respectively, averaged over a five-year
period (see 40 CFR 51.301).
E:\FR\FM\02OCP1.SGM
02OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 189 / Monday, October 2, 2017 / Proposed Rules
emission reductions needed to achieve
RPG’s for 2018.42
E. Emissions Progress
The provisions under 40 CFR
51.309(d)(10)(i)(D) require an analysis
tracking emission changes of visibility
impairing pollutants from the state’s
sources by type or category over the past
five years based on the most recent
updated emission inventory. In its
progress report SIP, the County
presented WRAP emission inventories
for 2002, 2008, and 2011, as well as
projected inventories for 2018, in
accordance with the requirements of 40
CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(D). The pollutant
inventories included SO2, NOX, NH3,
VOCs, organic carbon, elemental carbon,
coarse mass, and soil dust. The
inventories were categorized for all
major visibility-impairing pollutants
under major source groupings either as
anthropogenic or natural. The
anthropogenic source categorization
included point and area sources; on and
45769
off-road mobile sources; area oil and
gas; fugitive and road dust; and
anthropogenic fire. The natural source
categorization included natural fire,
wind-blown dust, and biogenic sources.
A breakdown of the total anthropogenic
emissions for the County and state can
be seen below in table 5. The table
shows the percent apportionment of
County emissions for each of the key
haze-causing pollutants related to the
rest of the state.
TABLE 5—COMPARISON OF COUNTY AND STATE ANTHROPOGENIC EMISSIONS TO WRAP 2018 PROJECTIONS 43
2002 Total
baseline
emissions
(tons/year)
Pollutant species
Inventory
SO2 ...................................................
County ..............................................
State .................................................
County ..............................................
State .................................................
County ..............................................
State .................................................
County ..............................................
State .................................................
County ..............................................
State .................................................
County ..............................................
State .................................................
NOX ...................................................
NH3 ...................................................
VOCs .................................................
PM2.5 .................................................
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Coarse Mass .....................................
4,772 (10%)
48,354
33,661 (11%)
295,266
1,400 (4%)
32,266
25,573 (7%)
344,077
2,229 (18%)
12,573
16,387 (25%)
66,096
2008 Total
emissions
(tons/year)
291
27,392
16,960
211,132
856
43,840
19,137
268,792
4,112
61,587
36,982
511,327
2011 Total
emissions
(tons/year)
1,250 (6%)
21,624
14,760 (9%)
168,008
682 (2%)
37,071
14,574 (7%)
214,360
5,777 (7%)
85,576
56,655 (7%)
830,697
WRAP 2018
projections
(tons/year)
13,770
26,819
1,683
23,891
2,433
17,369
The WRAP data showed that the
percentage of County emissions
contributing to the total state emissions
has decreased for each pollutant species
from the 2002 baseline to 2011. The
WRAP emission inventories were
previously identified in the SIP as
reflecting overestimates of actual
emissions in key source categories. Even
so, there has not been a drastic, sudden
spike in the percentages, which would
be a cause for concern for visibility
degradation at the Class I areas. The
decreasing WRAP percentages are
indicators that the County
‘‘conservative’’ emission estimates have
improved throughout the first
implementation period and are
contributing less and less to visibility
impairment at Class I areas outside of its
borders from 2002–2011. The County
concluded that it is unlikely that the
County emissions had significant
impacts on nearby Class I areas as a
result. The County’s contribution of
emissions compared to the New Mexico
emission inventory, as estimated by the
WRAP, is six percent of the State SO2
emissions; nine percent of the State
NOX emissions; two percent of the State
NH3 emissions; seven percent of the
State VOC emissions; seven percent of
the State PM2.5 emissions; and seven
percent of the State coarse mass
emissions. These percentages are all
down from their 2002 baseline levels.
PM2.5 and coarse mass 2011 total
emissions are higher than the WRAP
2018 projections, but their decreasing
percent contributions are better
indicators of the progress made since
emissions have increased statewide, yet
their percentages have decreased from
eighteen and 25 percent respectively, in
2002, to seven percent each in 2011.
The EPA is proposing to find that the
County adequately addressed the
requirements under 40 CFR
51.309(d)(10)(i)(D). The EPA concludes
that the County presented an adequate
analysis tracking emission trends for the
key visibility impairing pollutants. The
analysis provided the most recent
period of approximately five years for
which data was available in practical
terms (2002–2008), and provided an
additional update for 2011 that
presented further information covering
approximately two five-year periods
(2002–2011). The trends indicate that it
was improbable that sources located
within the County caused or contributed
to visibility impairment in any Class I
area located outside of the County. The
emission trends declined within the
County compared to 2002 baseline
levels and the percent contributions
related to the rest of the state have all
continued to decline over time.
42 See table 2.1 of New Mexico Regional Haze
Progress Report (page 5).
43 The emission totals for the County are taken
from the County regional haze progress report
(tables 3.22–3.29). Emission totals for the entire
state of New Mexico are taken from the New Mexico
Regional Haze progress report (tables 3.23–3.30).
Detailed inventory descriptions for development of
the WRAP Base02b, plan02c and plan02d
inventories are available on the WRAP TSS Web
site https://vista.cira.colostate.edu/TSS/Results/
Emissions.aspx and archived on the original WRAP
Web site https://www.wrapair.org/forums/ssjf/
pivot.html.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:16 Sep 29, 2017
Jkt 244001
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
F. Assessment of Changes Impeding
Visibility Progress
The provisions under 40 CFR
51.309(d)(10)(i)(E) require an
assessment of whether any significant
emission changes have occurred within
the state over the five-year period since
the SIP was submitted, and whether
emission increases outside the state are
affecting a Class I area within the state
adversely. A ‘‘significant change’’ could
be either a substantial unexpected
increase in anthropogenic emissions
that occurred over the five-year period
or a significant expected reduction in
anthropogenic emissions that did not
occur in the analysis for the SIP.
The EPA proposes to conclude that
the County adequately addressed the
provisions under 40 CFR
E:\FR\FM\02OCP1.SGM
02OCP1
45770
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 189 / Monday, October 2, 2017 / Proposed Rules
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
51.309(d)(10)(i)(E). The County does not
have any Class I areas within its
borders, so there is no requirement to
assess impacts in the County from
sources outside of its boundaries.
Furthermore, the County sources do not
impact any of the Class I areas outside
of its borders, as was stated in the
County’s regional haze SIP revision,
which the EPA approved on April 25,
2012.44 In conjunction with that
previous action, the EPA’s current
analysis of emission reductions to meet
the provisions of 40 CFR
51.309(d)(10)(i)(B) and 40 CFR
51.309(d)(10)(i)(D) show that no
‘‘significant changes’’ in emissions
within the County have occurred to
impede visibility improvement or have
adversely affected the nine Class I areas
in New Mexico.45 Emission trends for
the key visibility impairing pollutants
were confirmed to be decreasing from
the baseline to 2018 by statewide NEI
data and reported County emissions.
Additionally, the WRAP data showed
that emissions from the County have
remained at the same percentage levels
over time or decreased relative to
emissions from elsewhere in the state.
G. Assessment of Current Strategy To
Meet RPGs
The provisions under 40 CFR
51.309(d)(10)(i)(F) require an
assessment of whether the current
regional haze SIP is sufficient to enable
the state, or other states, to meet the
RPGs for Class I areas affected by
emissions from the state. The County
does not contain any Class I areas, and
emissions from the County were found
to not impact any Class I areas outside
of its borders. As discussed previously,
the NEI data showed that the total
emissions of each major contributor to
visibility impairment in New Mexico
has decreased significantly since 2002.
The total County emissions have
remained at a fraction of the levels seen
in the rest of the state and are under or
close to the WRAP 2018 RPGs when
looking at the cumulative anthropogenic
emissions.
The County provided a breakdown
showing whether or not every key
pollutant in each source category was
meeting its 2018 RPGs for annual
emissions.46 Of the 56 individual RPGs
for the County, 42 were either being met
or referred to pollutants that showed
44 See
77 FR (24768, 24791).
in wildfires are not a ‘‘change’’ to
report under 51.309(d)(10)(i)(E) per EPA guidance,
General Principles for the 5-Year Regional Haze
Progress Reports for the Initial Regional Haze State
Implementation Plans (page 15).
46 Showed in tables 3.22–3.29 of the County
Regional Haze Progress Report.
45 Changes
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:16 Sep 29, 2017
Jkt 244001
declining emissions since 2002.
Fourteen of the County goals were not
yet being met as of the 2011 WRAP
inventory, but nine of those annual
goals showed reported emission levels
less than 200 tpy, and one was just
under 500 tpy. Those ten goals were
associated with point sources and on
and off road mobile source categories.
The County concluded that those ten
reported emissions were unlikely to
impede New Mexico’s progress toward
achieving statewide goals for emissions
and visibility since the emission levels
represented a negligible portion of total
statewide emissions.
The four remaining annual emission
goals that were not being met covered
coarse mass, organic carbon, and PM2.5
pollutants. The increased contributions
from these pollutants were associated
with fugitive/road dust and area (nonpoint) source categories. Annual
emissions with higher levels of organic
matter, elemental carbon, PM2.5 and
coarse mass with a lower contribution
from ammonium sulfate are heavily
dominated from wildfires and
particulate matter. High coarse mass
was measured during the spring, which
was indicative of high-wind events that
occurred during the late winter and
spring months in New Mexico.
Wildfires or high-wind events might
again affect annual emissions in the
2018 timeframe, but the County showed
that it is meeting nearly all of its annual
emission goals even with experienced
annual emission increases from natural
events that still have not hindered New
Mexico from meeting its RPGs beyond
the County borders. The County expects
further reduction of SO2 and NO2
emissions, the primary pollutant species
associated with anthropogenic sources,
to continue their broad declines in the
same areas.
The EPA proposes to conclude that
the County has addressed 40 CFR
51.309(d)(10)(i)(F) because its current
regional haze SIP is sufficient to enable
the state of New Mexico and other
nearby states to meet their RPGs,
particularly as the County was not
identified as contributing to any
impairment in such Class I areas. The
fairly constant proportion of County
emissions compared to the rest of the
state are negligible. In spite of natural
events, the County showed that it is
meeting nearly all of its annual emission
goals and the annual emission increases
from natural events still have not
hindered New Mexico from meeting its
RPGs beyond the County borders.
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
H. Review of Visibility Monitoring
Strategy
The provisions under 40 CFR
51.309(10)(i)(G) require a review of a
state’s visibility monitoring strategy for
visibility impairing pollutants and an
assessment of whether any
modifications to the strategy are
necessary. In its progress report SIP, the
County stated that there are no Class I
areas within its boundaries, and
therefore it was not required to fulfill
this provision. The EPA proposes to
conclude that the County is exempt
from addressing the requirements of 40
CFR 51.309(10)(i)(G), as that
requirement is solely for states with
Class I areas in their borders.47
I. Determination of Adequacy of
Existing Regional Haze Plan
Under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(ii), states
are required to submit, at the same time
as the progress report SIP, a
determination of the adequacy of their
existing regional haze SIP and to take
one of four possible actions based on
information in the progress report. 40
CFR 51.309(d)(10)(ii) requires states to
take one of the following actions:
(1) Submit a negative declaration to
the EPA that no further substantive
revision to the State’s existing regional
haze SIP is needed.
(2) If the State determines that the
implementation plan is or may be
inadequate to ensure reasonable
progress due to emissions from sources
in another state(s) which participated in
a regional planning process, the State
must provide notification to the EPA
and to the other state(s) which
participated in the regional planning
process with the states. The State must
also collaborate with the other state(s)
through the regional planning process
for developing additional strategies to
address the plan’s deficiencies.
(3) Where the State determines that
the implementation plan is or may be
inadequate to ensure reasonable
progress due to emissions from sources
in another country, the State shall
provide notification, along with
available information, to the
Administrator.
(4) If the State determines that the
implementation plan is or may be
inadequate to ensure reasonable
progress due to emissions from sources
within the State, then the State shall
revise its implementation plan to
47 The New Mexico progress report concluded
(pages 46–47) that no changes in the state’s
visibility monitoring strategy are needed because
the IMPROVE network has continued to provide
adequate monitoring data to support
implementation of the RHR.
E:\FR\FM\02OCP1.SGM
02OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 189 / Monday, October 2, 2017 / Proposed Rules
address the plan’s deficiencies within
one year.
The City of Albuquerque and
Bernalillo County, New Mexico has
provided the information required
under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i) in the
five-year progress report. Based upon
this information, the County stated in its
progress report SIP that it believes that
the current Section 309 and Section
309(g) regional haze SIPs are adequate
to meet the State’s 2018 RPGs and
require no further revision at this time.
Thus, the EPA has received a negative
declaration from the City of
Albuquerque and Bernalillo County,
NM.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
IV. The EPA’s Proposed Action
The EPA is proposing to approve the
City of Albuquerque and Bernalillo
County, New Mexico’s regional haze
five-year progress report SIP revision
(submitted June 24, 2016) as meeting the
applicable regional haze requirements
set forth in 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10). The
EPA is proposing to approve the City of
Albuquerque and Bernalillo County,
New Mexico’s determination that the
current regional haze SIP is adequate to
meet the State’s 2018 RPGs.
V. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the
Act and applicable Federal regulations.
42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the
EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. Accordingly, this action
merely proposes to approve state law as
meeting Federal requirements and does
not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law. For
that reason, this action:
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993), 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011), and 13771 (82 FR
9339, February 2, 2017);
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• Does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Public Law 104–4);
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:16 Sep 29, 2017
Jkt 244001
• Does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of
section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). In
addition, the SIP is not approved to
apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an
Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the proposed rule does
not have tribal implications and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Best Available
Retrofit Technology, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Lead,
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Regional haze, Sulfur
dioxide, Visibility, Volatile organic
compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: September 26, 2017.
Samuel Coleman,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2017–21006 Filed 9–29–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD
49 CFR Part 1102
[Docket No. EP 739]
Ex Parte Communications in Informal
Rulemaking Proceedings
Surface Transportation Board.
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
In this decision, the Surface
Transportation Board (the Board)
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
45771
proposes to modify its regulations to
permit, subject to disclosure
requirements, ex parte communications
in informal rulemaking proceedings.
The Board also proposes other changes
to its ex parte rules that would clarify
and update when and how interested
persons may communicate informally
with the Board regarding pending
proceedings other than rulemakings.
The intent of the proposed regulations
is to enhance the Board’s ability to make
informed decisions through increased
stakeholder communications while
ensuring that the Board’s recordbuilding process in rulemaking
proceedings remains transparent and
fair.
DATES: Comments are due by November
1, 2017. Replies are due by November
16, 2017.
ADDRESSES: Comments and replies may
be submitted either via the Board’s efiling format or in paper format. Any
person using e-filing should attach a
document and otherwise comply with
the instructions found on the Board’s
Web site at ‘‘www.stb.gov’’ at the ‘‘E–
FILING’’ link. Any person submitting a
filing in paper format should send an
original and 10 paper copies of the filing
to: Surface Transportation Board, Attn:
Docket No. EP 739, 395 E Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20423–0001. Copies of
written comments and replies will be
available for viewing and self-copying at
the Board’s Public Docket Room, Room
131, and will be posted to the Board’s
Web site.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jonathon Binet at (202) 245–0368.
Assistance for the hearing impaired is
available through the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at
(800) 877–8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Board’s current regulations at 49 CFR
1102.2 generally prohibit most informal
communications between the Board and
interested persons concerning the merits
of pending Board proceedings. These
regulations require that communications
with the Board or Board staff regarding
the merits of an ‘‘on-the-record’’ Board
proceeding not be made on an ex parte
basis (i.e., without the knowledge or
consent of the parties to the
proceeding). See 49 CFR 1102.2(c); 49
CFR 1102.2(a)(3). The current
regulations detail the procedures
required in the event an impermissible
communication occurs and the potential
sanctions for violations. See 49 CFR
1102.2(e), (f).
The Board’s predecessor agency, the
Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC),
determined that the general prohibition
on ex parte communications in
E:\FR\FM\02OCP1.SGM
02OCP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 189 (Monday, October 2, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 45762-45771]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-21006]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R06-OAR-2016-0406; FRL-9967-77-Region 6]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; New Mexico;
Albuquerque and Bernalillo County; Regional Haze Progress Report State
Implementation Plan
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act), the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a
revision to a State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the City of
Albuquerque and Bernalillo County, New Mexico (the County) submitted by
the Governor on June 24, 2016. The SIP revision addresses
[[Page 45763]]
requirements of the Act and the EPA's rules that require the County to
submit a periodic report assessing reasonable progress goals (RPGs) for
regional haze with a determination of the adequacy of the existing
regional haze SIP.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before November 1, 2017.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2016-
0406, at https://www.regulations.gov or via email to
grady.james@epa.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public
docket. Do not submit any information electronically that is considered
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or any other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio,
video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written
comment will be considered the official comment with multimedia
submissions and should include all discussion points desired. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or their contents submitted
outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other
file sharing systems). For additional submission methods, please
contact James E. Grady, (214) 665-6745, grady.james@epa.gov. For the
full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at the EPA
Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. While all
documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may
be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted
material), and some may not be publicly available at either location
(e.g., CBI).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James E. Grady, (214) 665-6745;
grady.james@epa.gov. To inspect the hard copy materials, please
schedule an appointment with James E. Grady or Mr. Bill Deese at 214-
665-7253.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' or
``our'' each mean ``the EPA.''
Table of Contents:
I. Background on Regional Haze
A. Visibility Protection
B. Regulation Overview
II. Requirements for Regional Haze Progress Report
III. Evaluation of Regional Haze Progress Report
A. Class I Areas
B. Status of Control Strategies
1. SO2 Milestone and Backstop Trading Program
2. NOX and PM Control Strategies
3. Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)
4. Mobile Source Emissions
5. Fire and Smoke Management
6. Fugitive and Unpaved Road Dust Measures
7. Additional Controls--Local State Regulations
8. Summary of Control Strategy Implementation
C. Emission Reductions From Control Strategies
D. Visibility Progress
E. Emissions Progress
F. Assessment of Changes Impeding Visibility Progress
G. Assessment of Current Strategy To Meet RPGs
H. Review of Visibility Monitoring Strategy
I. Determination of Adequacy of Existing Regional Haze Plan
IV. The EPA's Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background on Regional Haze
A. Visibility Protection
Regional haze is visibility impairment that occurs over a wide
geographic area primarily from the pollution of fine particles
(PM2.5) in nature.\1\ Fine particles causing haze consist of
sulfates, nitrates, organics, elemental carbon (EC), and soil dust.\2\
Airborne PM2.5 can scatter and absorb the incident light
and, therefore, lead to atmospheric opacity and horizontal visibility
degradation. Regional haze limits visual distance and reduces color,
clarity and contrast of view. Emissions that affect visibility include
a wide variety of natural and man-made sources. In New Mexico, the most
important sources of haze-forming emissions are coal-fired power
plants, oil and gas development, woodland fires, and windblown dust.
Reducing PM2.5 and its precursor gases in the atmosphere is
an effective method of improving visibility. PM2.5
precursors consist of sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides
(NOX), ammonia (NH3) and volatile organic
compounds (VOCs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Fine particles are less than or equal to 2.5 microns
([micro]m) in diameter and usually form secondary in nature
indirectly from other sources. Particles less than or equal to 10
[micro]m in diameter are referred to as PM10. Particles
greater than PM2.5 but less than PM10 are
referred to as coarse mass. Coarse mass can contribute to light
extinction as well and is made up of primary particles directly
emitted into the air. Fine particles tend to be man-made, while
coarse particles tend to have a natural origin. Coarse mass settles
out from the air more rapidly than fine particles and usually will
be found relatively close to emission sources. Fine particles can be
transported long distances by wind and can be found in the air
thousands of miles from where they were formed.
\2\ Organic carbon (OC) can be emitted directly as particles, or
formed through reactions involving gaseous emissions. Elemental
carbon, in contrast to organic carbon, is exclusively of primary
origin and emitted by the incomplete combustion of carbon-based
fuels. They are especially prevalent in diesel exhaust and smoke
from wild and prescribed fires.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Regulation Overview
In section 169A of the 1977 CAA Amendments, Congress declared as a
national goal the prevention of any future, and the remedying of any
existing, visibility impairment in mandatory class I Federal areas
where impairment results from manmade air pollution.\3\ Congress added
section 169B to the CAA in 1990 that added visibility protection
provisions, and the EPA published final regulations addressing regional
haze with the 1999 Regional Haze Rule (RHR).\4\ The RHR revised the
existing visibility regulations and established a more comprehensive
visibility protection program for mandatory Class I areas. The
requirements for regional haze are found at 40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309.
States must demonstrate reasonable progress toward meeting the national
goal of a return to natural visibility conditions for mandatory Class I
Federal areas both within and outside states by 2064. The requirement
to submit a regional haze SIP applies to all fifty states, the District
of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands. The City of Albuquerque and
Bernalillo County,\5\ New Mexico must also submit
[[Page 45764]]
a regional haze SIP separate from the State of New Mexico \6\ to
completely satisfy the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA
for the entire State under the New Mexico Air Quality Control Act
(section 74-2-4).\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Mandatory Class I Federal areas consist of national parks
exceeding 6,000 acres, wilderness areas and national memorial parks
exceeding 5,000 acres, and all international parks that were in
existence on August 7, 1977. The EPA, in consultation with the
Department of Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas where
visibility was identified as an important value. The extent of a
mandatory Class I area includes subsequent changes in boundaries,
such as park expansions. Although states and tribes may designate
additional areas as Class I, the requirements of the visibility
program set forth in the CAA applies only to ``mandatory Class I
Federal areas.'' Each mandatory Class I Federal area is the
responsibility of a ``Federal Land Manager.'' When the term ``Class
I area'' is used in this action, it means ``mandatory Class I
Federal areas.'' [See 44 FR 69122, November 30, 1979 and CAA
Sections 162(a), 169A, and 302(i)].
\4\ See July 1, 1999 Regional Haze Rule final action (64 FR
35714), as amended in July 6, 2005 (70 FR 39156), October 13, 2006
(71 FR 60631), June 7, 2012 (77 FR 33656) and in January 10, 2017
(82 FR 3079).
\5\ Note that the City of Albuquerque and Bernalillo County is
treated like a ``state'' for purposes of implementing the RHR, which
is written specifically for states. The EPA regulates and funds
Bernalillo County as it does any other state air agency. Enacted in
1967, the New Mexico State Air Quality Control Act [NMSA 1978
Sections 74-2-4, 74-2-5, and 74-2-7] allowed for the establishment
of the Air Quality Control Board (AQCB) as a local board and
empowered it with the authority to administer and enforce its air
quality regulations within Bernalillo County. The AQCB has
jurisdiction over all of Bernalillo County, (including the City of
Albuquerque), except Indian lands. The State of New Mexico
Environmental Improvement Board (EIB) has jurisdiction over all
other counties in New Mexico.
\6\ On December 31, 2003, New Mexico submitted a regional haze
SIP with later revisions (July 5, 2011 and October 7, 2013) that
addressed 40 CFR 51.309. The EPA approved both of the (2003 and
2011) submittals on November 27, 2012 (77 FR 70693) and approved a
2013 revision on October 9, 2014 with two separate rules (79 FR
60985 and 79 FR 60978). The New Mexico progress report was approved
by the EPA on November 3, 2015 (see 80 FR 67682).
\7\On November 12, 2003, the County first adopted its 40 CFR
51.309 regional haze SIP with later revisions (August 13, 2008; June
8, 2011). The EPA approved these submittals on Apr. 25, 2012 (77 FR
24768).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Requirements for Regional Haze Progress Report
The RHR requires a comprehensive analysis of each state's regional
haze SIP every ten years and a progress report at five-year intervals.
The five-year review is intended to provide an interim report on the
implementation of, and, if necessary, mid-course corrections to, the
regional haze SIP. The progress report provides an opportunity for
public input on the County's (and the EPA's) assessment of whether the
approved regional haze SIP is being implemented appropriately and
whether reasonable visibility progress is being achieved consistent
with the projected visibility improvement in the SIP. At a minimum, the
required elements of the progress report under the RHR must include the
following seven elements: \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See also General Principles for the 5-Year Regional Haze
Progress Reports for the Initial Regional Haze State Implementation
Plans (Intended to Assist States and EPA Regional Offices in
Development and Review of the Progress Reports), April 2013, EPA-
454/B-03-005, available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-03/documents/haze_5year_4-10-13.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Provide a description of the status of implementation of all
measures included in the regional haze SIP.
(2) Summarize the emissions reductions achieved throughout the
state.
(3) Provide an assessment of current visibility conditions and the
change in visibility impairment over the past five years.
(4) Provide analysis tracking the change over the past five years
in emissions of pollutants contributing to visibility impairment from
all sources and activities within the state.
(5) Provide an assessment of any significant changes in
anthropogenic emissions within or outside the state that have occurred
over the past five years that have limited or impeded progress in
reducing pollutant emissions and improving visibility.
(6) Provide an assessment of whether the current SIP elements and
strategies are sufficient to enable the state (or other states with
mandatory Class I areas affected by emissions from the state) to meet
all established RPGs.
(7) Provide a review of the state's visibility monitoring strategy
and any modifications to the strategy as necessary.
The City of Albuquerque and Bernalillo County, New Mexico submitted
its progress report SIP for the County under 40 CFR 51.309 on June 24,
2016. Typically, progress report requirements of most states are
covered under 40 CFR 51.308(g) and (h). 40 CFR 51.309 presents nine
western states with an optional approach of fulfilling RHR requirements
by adopting emission reduction strategies developed by the Grand Canyon
Visibility Transport Commission (GCVTC). These strategies were designed
primarily to improve visibility of sixteen Class I areas in the
Colorado Plateau area.\9\ Three western states (New Mexico, Utah and
Wyoming) including the City of Albuquerque and Bernalillo County, NM
exercised the option provided in the RHR to meet alternative
requirements contained in 40 CFR 51.309 for regional haze SIPs. For
these states, the required content of the five-year progress report is
identical with those for the other states, but are codified at 40 CFR
51.309(d)(10) instead of at 40 CFR 51.308 (g) and (h). This section
specifies fixed due dates in 2013 and 2018 for these progress
reports.\10\ In contrast, under 40 CFR 51.308, states must submit a
progress report five years from submittal of the initial implementation
plan. Under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(ii), states are required to submit, at
the same time as the progress report SIP, a determination of the
adequacy of their existing regional haze SIP and to take one of four
possible actions, as described in more detail in this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The Colorado Plateau is a high, semi-arid tableland in
Southeast Utah, Northern Arizona, Northwest New Mexico, and Western
Colorado. The sixteen mandatory Class I areas are as follows: Grand
Canyon National Park, Mount Baldy Wilderness, Petrified Forest
National Park, Sycamore Canyon Wilderness, Black Canyon of the
Gunnison National Park Wilderness, Flat Tops Wilderness, Maroon
Bells Wilderness, Mesa Verde National Park, Weminuche Wilderness,
West Elk Wilderness, San Pedro Parks Wilderness, Arches National
Park, Bryce Canyon National Park, Canyonlands National Park, Capital
Reef National Park, and Zion National Park.
\10\ The 1999 RHR provided that these three states will
eventually revert to the progress report due date requirements in 40
CFR 51.308 for the second implementation period. Recently, there was
an extension of the second regional haze implementation period
deadline from 2018 to 2021. (82 FR 3080, January 10, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Evaluation of Regional Haze Progress Report
On July 28 2011, the AQCB submitted a regional haze SIP for its own
geographic area of Bernalillo County, New Mexico (including the City of
Albuquerque) that addressed the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309.\11\ This
SIP submittal was a necessary component of the regional haze plan for
New Mexico to ensure that the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D) of
the CAA were satisfied for the whole state. On July 6, 2016, the EPA
received the periodic report on progress for the County's regional haze
SIP in the form of a SIP revision. This latest submission is the
subject of this proposed approval. The periodic report was made in the
first implementation period to assess visibility progression for Class
I areas in and outside of the County that were negatively affected by
emissions from within the County. The progress report included the
County's determination that the existing regional haze SIP required no
substantive revisions to achieve the established regional haze
visibility improvement and emission reduction goals for 2018. The EPA
agrees with the County's assessment and is proposing to approve its
progress report SIP on the basis that it satisfies all requirements of
40 CFR 51.309(d)(10) as explained in further details in each subsequent
section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See the EPA's proposed approval (77 FR 24768, April 25,
2012) and final rule (77 FR 71119, November 29, 2012) for the
County.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Class I Areas
The City of Albuquerque and Bernalillo County does not formulate
specific RPGs for particular Class I areas within its borders since no
such areas exist.\12\ Therefore, the County is not required to identify
RPGs or calculate baseline and natural visibility conditions at any
Class I area. The County, however, is required to address the
apportionment of visibility impact from the emissions generated by
sources within the County at Class I areas outside of the County
borders. As a result, the progress report addressed the emissions
impact on RPGs and related emission reduction goals for nine Class I
areas within the state of New Mexico that were identified as being
close
[[Page 45765]]
enough to the County that they could conceivably be affected by
emissions from within the County. The nine Class I areas within New
Mexico that were addressed in the progress report were: Bandelier
Wilderness, Bosque del Apache National Wildlife Refuge, Carlsbad
Caverns National Park, Gila Wilderness, Pecos Wilderness, Salt Creek
Wilderness, Wheeler Peak Wilderness, White Mountain Wilderness, and San
Pedro Parks Wilderness.\13\ Visibility impairment at New Mexico's nine
Class I areas was tracked in units of deciviews (dv)\14\ as measured by
eight monitors in the Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual
Environments (IMPROVE) Network. Through collaboration with the Western
Regional Air Partnership (WRAP),\15\ the AQCB worked with New Mexico
and other western states to assess state-by-state contributions to
visibility impairment in specific Class I areas affected by Albuquerque
and Bernalillo County, NM emissions. The determinations in the progress
report relied on the technical analysis and emission inventories
developed by the WRAP which is documented online and also appears in
the technical appendices.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See 77 FR 24768, 24790 (Apr. 25, 2012).
\13\ The Section 309 SIP submitted by New Mexico in December
2003 addressed only San Pedro Parks Wilderness Area and the other
Class I areas were added in a later SIP revision under Section
309(g) in June 2011 and revised in October 2013. The EPA approved
both of the (2003 and 2011) submittals on November 27, 2012 (77 FR
70693) and approved a 2013 revision on October 9, 2014 with two
separate rules (79 FR 60985 and 79 FR 60978).
\14\ A deciview is a haze index derived from calculated light
extinction, such that uniform changes in haziness correspond to
uniform incremental changes in perception across the entire range of
conditions, from pristine to highly impaired. The preamble to the
RHR provides additional details about the deciview (64 FR 35714,
35725, July 1, 1999).
\15\ The WRAP is a collaborative effort of tribal governments,
state governments and various federal agencies representing the
western states that provides technical and policy tools for the
western states and tribes to comply with the EPA's Regional Haze
regulations. Detailed information regarding WRAP support of air
quality management issues for western states is provided on the WRAP
Web site (www.wrapair2.org). Data summary descriptions and tools
specific to RHR support are available on the WRAP Technical Support
System Web site (https://vista.cira.colostate.edu/tss/).
\16\ The Western Regional Air Partnership Regional Haze Rule
Reasonable Progress Summary Report technical support document has
been prepared on behalf of the fifteen Western State members in the
WRAP region to provide the technical basis for use by states to
develop the first of their individual reasonable progress reports
for the 116 Federal Class I areas located in the Western states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA is proposing to find that the County has appropriately
identified the Class I areas in this report which could be affected by
emissions from within the County, as required by 40 CFR 51.309(g). This
regulation provides a requirement for compliance with 40 CFR 51.308(d)
to the extent that planning is necessary for areas other than the
sixteen Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau addressed in the initial
2003 regional haze SIP. In the ensuing sections, the EPA addresses
these Class I areas and the seven regulatory elements required by the
progress report SIP; \17\ how the County's progress report SIP
addressed each element; and the EPA's analysis and proposed
determination as to whether the County satisfied each part.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Status of Control Strategies
40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(A) requires a description of the status of
implementation of all control measures included in the regional haze
SIP for achieving RPGs for Class I areas both within and outside the
state.
The County evaluated the status of all control measures in its 2011
regional haze SIP in accordance with the requirements under 40 CFR
51.309(d)(10)(i)(A). The major control measures identified by the
County in the progress report are as follows:
SO2 Milestone and Backstop Trading Program
NOX and PM Control Strategies
Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)
Mobile Sources Emissions \18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(5)(ii), New Mexico is required to
submit interim reports to the EPA and the public on the
implementation status of the regional and local strategies to
address mobile source emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fire and Smoke Management
Fugitive and Unpaved Road Dust Measures
Additional Controls--Local State Regulations
The County identified ammonium sulfate, particulate organic matter,
and coarse mass as the largest contributors to visibility impairment at
New Mexico's Class I areas that need to be controlled.\19\ Many of the
sources, however, that produce these visibility-impairing pollutants in
New Mexico are natural, rather than anthropogenic in nature, and are
not controllable. For the purpose of this progress report, the County
focused on those emission sources that were anthropogenic in nature (as
did New Mexico in its report). The primary sources of ammonium sulfate
are point sources and mobile source emissions. Ammonium sulfate results
from SO2 and NH3 precursor emissions.
SO2 emissions in New Mexico are generally associated with
anthropogenic point sources such as coal-fired power plants, other
industrial sources like refineries and cement plants, and both on and
off-road mobile sources. Particulate organic matter emissions in New
Mexico are from natural and anthropogenic fire. Large wildfire events
in the west dominate particulate organic aerosol emissions which are
emitted directly into the air as particles instead of gases. Coarse
mass emissions in New Mexico happen mainly as a result of windblown and
fugitive dust. Coarse mass settles out of air more rapidly than fine
particles, so strong wind events act as a transport vehicle to carry
them long distances. Otherwise, they will typically be found close to
the emission source.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See the County's 2016 regional haze progress report
submittal (page 9) which was reiterated in New Mexico's regional
haze progress report (page 7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. SO2 Milestone and Backstop Trading Program
The progress report discussed the SO2 Milestone and
Backstop Trading Program as a control measure to reduce emissions for
major sources of SO2.\20\ The County has participated in
this voluntary program since December 31, 2003.\21\ As part of this
program, the Section 309 western states and the County must submit an
annual report that compares tracked stationary sources of
SO2 emissions to yearly milestones.\22\ A milestone is an
established maximum level of annual emissions for a given year (from
2003-2018). The milestones help establish annual SO2
emission reduction targets. The annual targets represent RPGs in
reducing visibility-impairing emissions. If states fail to meet the
milestones, then the backstop-trading program is triggered to
[[Page 45766]]
implement an emissions cap. The cap allocates emission allowances (or
credits) to the affected sources based on the cap, and requires the
sources to hold sufficient allowances to cover their emissions each
year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Under Section 309, nine western states and the tribes
within those states had the option of submitting plans to reduce
visibility-impairing emissions at sixteen Class I areas on the
Colorado Plateau. Five states (Arizona, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah,
Wyoming) and the City of Albuquerque and Bernalillo County, NM
exercised this option by submitting plans to the EPA by December 1,
2003. Oregon and Arizona have since elected to cease participation
in the Milestone and Backstop Trading Program in 2006 and 2010,
respectively. The tribes are not subject to any deadline and can
still opt into the program at any time.
\21\ The County cooperates with its WRAP partners to maintain an
inventory of regional SO2 emissions, across the Section
309 states. The City of Albuquerque Air Quality Program (AQP)
monitors SO2 ambient air concentrations in Bernalillo
County consistent with EPA regulations. See the City of Albuquerque
Environmental Health Department (EHD) Web site at https://www.cabq.gov/airquality/documents for Annual Network Reviews for
Ambient Air Monitoring.
\22\ See WRAP Web site at https://www.wrapair2.org/reghaze.aspx
for the Regional Milestone reports. A final 2014 milestone report
was posted on March 7, 2016 and a draft 2015 report was posted
recently on March 20, 2017. Appendix G of the County progress report
includes the 2013 Regional SO2 Emissions and Milestone
Report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The regional haze SIP requires multiyear averaging of emissions for
the milestone comparison. From 2005-2017, the three-year average, which
includes the reporting year and the two previous years, is calculated
and compared to the milestone. The regional milestone for 2013 was
185,795 tons SO2. The three-year average SO2
emissions for 2011, 2012, and 2013 was 105,402 tons SO2,
which was 43 percent below the 2013 milestone. In table 1 below, 2014
and 2015 WRAP data shows similar SO2 reduction trends that
continue beyond 2013 toward 2018. No triggering of the backstop trading
program has been necessary and the likelihood of meeting the 2018
target means no changes in the program are needed at the moment. The
compliance dates show that SO2 emissions have consistently
been below each annual RPG and are currently tracking to be below the
2018 milestone.
Table 1--SO2 Emission Milestones \23\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regional SO2 Average SO2 emissions to determine compliance with
milestone tons milestone
Year per year ---------------------------------------------------------
(tpy)
SO2 (tpy) 3-Year average
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2008.................................. 269,083 265,662.................. 2006, 2007 and 2008.
2009.................................. 234,903 165,633.................. 2007, 2008 and 2009.
2010.................................. 200,722 146,808.................. 2008, 2009 and 2010.
2011.................................. 200,722 130,935.................. 2009, 2010 and 2011.
2012.................................. 200,722 115,115.................. 2010, 2011 and 2012.
2013.................................. 185,795 105,402.................. 2011, 2012 and 2013.
2014.................................. 170,868 96,392................... 2012, 2013 and 2014.
2015.................................. 155,940 91,310................... 2013, 2014 and 2015.
2016.................................. 155,940 Not Available............ 2014, 2015 and 2016.
2017.................................. 155,940 Not Available............ 2015, 2016 and 2017.
2018.................................. 141,849 Not Available............ 2016, 2017 and 2018.
2019 forward.......................... 141,849 Not Available............ Annual; no averaging.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. NOX and PM Control Strategies
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ The milestone numbers reflect the participation of Wyoming,
Utah, and New Mexico (including the City of Albuquerque and
Bernalillo County) in the 309 backstop trading program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The County included a report in its 2011 regional haze SIP that
assessed emission control strategies for NOX and PM
stationary sources, and the degree of visibility improvement that would
result from their implementation.\24\ The report concluded that current
and future NOX and PM emissions do not show to be major
contributors to regional haze (typically about two percent on average)
in the vast majority of western Class I areas. The report represented
the initial assessment of stationary source NOX and PM
strategies for regional haze, and was a starting point for a more
extensive analysis in the future. The 2011 regional haze SIP stated
that the progress report would assess the need for new NOX
and PM control measures to address any new contributions to regional
haze from stationary sources in the County. The County concluded in the
progress report that it does not find new control measures necessary
for NOX and PM stationary sources at this time. Stationary
source NOX and PM emissions in the County have not impeded
reasonable progress of emissions and visibility in New Mexico as a
whole and are not likely to do so. Please refer to the emission
reduction section of this report for more details regarding
NOX and PM emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ The report, Stationary Source NOX and PM Emissions in the
WRAP Region: An Initial Assessment of Emissions, Controls, and Air
Quality Impacts, was prepared by the WRAP and is included in
Appendix H-O of the SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) \25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ BART sources are those sources that have the potential to
emit 250 tons or more of visibility-impairing pollutants, were put
in place between August 7, 1962 and August 7, 1977, and whose
operations fall within one or more of 26 specifically listed source
categories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The regional haze SIP determined that there are no BART-eligible
sources in the County, so there are no requirements to install BART
controls.\26\ Even so, the progress report mentioned how the County
must still specifically demonstrate that its SO2 milestone
and backstop-trading program will achieve greater reasonable progress
than would be achieved by implementation of BART controls.\27\ Under
this approach, a section 51.309 regional haze SIP must establish
declining SO2 emission milestones for each year of the
program through 2018. The milestones must be consistent with the
GCTVC's goal of fifty to seventy percent reduction in SO2
emissions by 2040. As demonstrated in the County's regional haze SIP,
the SO2 milestones provide greater reasonable progress than
BART and track at a sixty percent pace reduction of the 1990
SO2 emission levels.\28\ The actual annual SO2
emission reduction results outperformed this milestone pace. The
progress report showed that the three-year average SO2
emissions for 2013 was 43 percent below the 2013 milestone at 105,402
tons SO2 (see Table 1). That represents a 71 percent
reduction from the 1990 emission totals and is exceeding the GCVTC goal
of fifty to seventy percent reduction. The regional SO2
emissions have continued to decline at a faster pace than called for by
the SO2 milestones. Thus, as anticipated, the milestone
program has actually continued to achieve greater reasonable progress
than would be the case if BART were implemented.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ The WRAP identified three potential BART-eligible sources
in the County. These were PNM Reeves Generating Station, GCC Rio
Grande Inc., and Cobisa Person Power Project. The AQCB assessed
whether these facilities were existing stationary facilities as
defined at 40 CFR 51.301 and determined that all three sources were
not BART-eligible. PNM Reeves and GCC Rio Grande were not in
existence nor operating during the requisite time period, and Cobisa
Person Power Project did not have emission units in the 26 source
categories for BART. See the EPA's proposed approval for the
County's regional haze SIP (77 FR 24768, 24782, April 25, 2012).
\27\ 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(i).
\28\ See the County's 2011 regional haze SIP submittal (pages
112-124). SO2 emissions from sources in 1990 totaled
358,364 tpy and the 2018 milestone is 141,849 tpy, which represents
sixty percent reduction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Mobile Source Emissions
The progress report mentioned that the County is relying upon
federal standards as long-term measures to
[[Page 45767]]
achieve declines in mobile source emissions that contribute to regional
haze.\29\ The County also committed itself in the SIP to monitoring
mobile source emissions (through the WRAP) to assure a continuous
decline in emissions as defined in 40 CFR 51.309(b)(6).\30\ A statewide
inventory of baseline and future annual mobile source emissions has
been compiled for the years 2003-2018 with assistance from the
WRAP.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ See the County's 2011 regional haze SIP (pages 56-58) and
New Mexico's 2011 regional haze SIP (page 144) for ongoing
implementation of federal mobile source regulations. The County
regional haze SIP listed as a haze-control measure 20.11.104 NMAC,
Emission Standards for New Motor Vehicles. This regulation was
adopted in 2007 to implement California's clean car standards. At
the time the regulation was adopted by New Mexico, the California
standards were projected to substantially differ from federal motor
vehicle emissions standards. Since that time, the California and
federal programs for emissions standards for motor vehicles have
become more aligned with each other than was expected by New Mexico
when it adopted the State Mobile Source Regulation. For example, in
2009, the EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA) proposed ``regulatory convergence'' with California on motor
vehicle fuel economy standards. See 74 FR 49454 (September 28,
2009). This was subsequently adopted, starting with model years
2012-2016. 75 FR 25323 (May 7, 2010). Therefore, 20.11.104 NMAC is
currently redundant and is not being implemented.
\30\ See the County's 2011 regional haze SIP (page 59).
\31\ See WRAP 2013 Summary Report, pages 3-11 to 3-20, 4-1 to 4-
2, and 6-222 to 6-233.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Fire and Smoke Management
The County is relying on fire and smoke management programs under
20.11.21 NMAC, Open Burning, in order to help control anthropogenic
fire related emissions of VOCs, NOX, elemental carbon,
organic carbon, and PM2.5. This regulation requires that
most open burning in Bernalillo County be conducted under a permit from
the City of Albuquerque EHD subject to specific requirements,
including: reporting of emissions for use in emissions inventories;
consideration of alternatives to burning; use of enhanced smoke
management techniques recommended by the WRAP; and use of specific
emission reduction techniques. The programs in this measure are
generally designed to limit increases in emissions, rather than to
reduce existing emissions.
6. Fugitive and Unpaved Road Dust Measures
The progress report mentioned measures that provide for control of
PM10 and PM2.5 emissions from unpaved roads and
from stationary fugitive dust sources.\32\ The EHD implements this
requirement through 20.11.20 NMAC, Fugitive Dust Control, which
requires the use of reasonably available control measures (RACM) to
reduce fugitive dust that impairs visibility or adversely affects
public health, welfare, and safety.\33\ The measure prevents fugitive
dust from leaving sites where it is produced, and thus reduces the
amount of those emissions. The regulation requires sources to obtain
permits and pay related fees, limits construction activity, and has an
active enforcement program in place to implement the provisions on an
ongoing basis. In addition, the AQCB tracks road dust emissions with
the assistance of the WRAP. They provide updates, including modeling
and monitoring information, on paved and unpaved road dust emission
impacts on visibility in the sixteen Colorado Plateau Class I Areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ For more information on the WRAP modeling and assessment of
road dust impacts, see section F of the County regional haze SIP
(pages 69-71).
\33\ The City of Albuquerque EHD also has delegated authority to
enforce applicable federal standards related to particulate matter,
as promulgated in 40 CFR Sections 60, 61, and 63.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Additional Controls--Local State Regulations
The County lists several local regulations that are being used to
aid in controlling emissions that contribute to the formation of
regional haze at Class I areas. These regulations, and the pollutants
targeted by them, appear in table 2 below. The EHD implements and
enforces these regulations on a continuing basis.
Table 2--County Regulations Applicable to Regional Haze \34\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pollutant
Regulation Description controlled
------------------------------------------------------------------------
20.11.22 NMAC................. Wood burning.......... CO, PM.
20.11.65 NMAC................. Volatile Organic VOCs.
Compounds.
20.11.66 NMAC................. Process Equipment..... PM.
20.11.67 NMAC................. Equipment, Emissions, SO2, NOX, PM.
Limitations.
20.11.71 NMAC................. Municipal Solid Waste CO.
Landfills.
20.11.100 NMAC................ Motor Vehicle CO, PM,
Inspection, hydrocarbons.
Decentralized.
20.11.102 NMAC................ Oxygenated Fuels...... CO.
20.11.103 NMAC................ Motor Vehicle Visible PM.
Emissions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Summary of Control Strategy Implementation
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ See the County Web site for a listing of the NMAC rules at
https://164.64.110.239/nmac/_title20/T20C011.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA proposes to conclude that the County adequately addressed
the status of control measures in its regional haze SIP, as required by
the provisions under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(A) for the first
implementation period. The County's progress report documented the
status of all control measures included in its regional haze SIP and
described additional measures that came into effect since the County's
regional haze SIP was completed, including state regulations and
various federal measures. All major control measures were identified
and the strategy behind each control was explained. The County included
a summary of the implementation status associated with each control
measure and quantified the benefits where possible. In addition, the
progress report SIP adequately outlined the compliance timeframe for
all controls
C. Emission Reductions From Control Strategies
The provisions under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(B) require the state
to provide a summary of the emission reductions achieved in the state
through the control measures subject to the requirements under 40 CFR
51.309(d)(10)(i)(A). As mentioned previously, the County identified
ammonium sulfate, particulate organic matter, and coarse mass as the
largest contributors historically to visibility impairment at New
Mexico's Class I areas for the initial round of regional haze SIPS.
Many of the sources, however, that produce these visibility-impairing
pollutants in New Mexico are natural, rather than anthropogenic in
nature, and are not controllable. As a result, the New Mexico progress
report focused on emission reductions from
[[Page 45768]]
point sources because they represent the anthropogenic sources in New
Mexico.\35\ The New Mexico report showed that these pollutants have
mostly been contributing less to visibility impairment at New Mexico
Class I areas over time, and the anthropogenic point source emissions
related to these pollutants have also been declining in areas of the
state outside the County.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ See the 2014 New Mexico Regional Haze Progress Report (page
7).
\36\ See Figure 3.6 from the 2014 New Mexico Regional Haze
Progress Report (page 15).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For comparison, in its progress report, the County took the same
approach as New Mexico and reported anthropogenic point source emission
data (see table 3) from the County for NOX, SO2,
PM10, and PM2.5 and compared it to WRAP 2018
projections for the 2008-2013 time-period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ See the 2016 County Regional Haze Progress Report (page
21).
Table 3--The County Stationary Point Source Emissions Compared to 2018 WRAP Projections \37\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5 (tpy)
Year NOX (tpy) SO2 (tpy) PM10 (tpy)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2008............................................ 1,139 57 1,222 239
2011............................................ 1,120 74 186 110
2012............................................ 1,167 132 351 116
2013............................................ 1,401 165 323 117
2018 WRAP Projections........................... 3,402 1,612 411 23
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The County noted that pollutant emissions from the County have not
impeded reductions in the rest of the state. SO2 and
NOX county emission trends have increased slightly since
2008 but have remained well below the WRAP 2018 projections for point
sources and were just a fraction of the levels observed in the rest of
the state (see table 4). PM10 emission levels for the County
were below the WRAP 2018 projections while PM2.5 levels were
above the WRAP predictions. Although the PM2.5 levels were
above WRAP 2018 projections, PM emission levels from the County have
decreased in a downward trend for both fine particulates and coarse
mass since 2008. When comparing pollutant emission contributions of
NOX, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5
from the County to the statewide national emission inventory (NEI), the
County concluded that it is improbable that the County emissions have
had significant impacts on nearby Class I areas. The reported point
source amounts from the County remain low in comparison to those from
the rest of the state as seen from the statewide NEI data in table 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ As reported in the online EPA Emissions Inventory System
(EIS) Gateway database for point sources only.
Table 4--NEI Point Source Emission Data for New Mexico for 2002-2014 \38\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5 (tpy)
Year NOX (tpy) SO2 (tpy) PM10 (tpy)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002............................................ 95,493 36,392 6,558 5,511
2005............................................ 72,707 18,532 3,611 2,994
2008............................................ 57,461 22,868 2,953 1,754
2011............................................ 47,497 19,987 2,545 1,722
2014............................................ 42,623 12,535 3,091 1,538
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NEI data shows that the emission trend of each major
contributor to visibility impairment in New Mexico has decreased
significantly since 2002. NOX emissions have decreased by 55
percent and SO2 emissions have decreased by 65 percent. PM
reductions also reduced considerably from their NEI baseline totals
(52% for PM10 and 72% for PM2.5) and remain below
the 2018 WRAP projections for New Mexico, although not especially
pronounced.\39\ A more-detailed breakdown of the distribution of each
contributing pollutant species can be seen in section E of this report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ See Figure 3.6 from the 2014 New Mexico Regional Haze
Progress Report (page 15).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA proposes to conclude that the County adequately addressed
the requirements under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(B) with its summary of
emission reductions of visibility impairing pollutants. Overall, the
County demonstrated the emission reductions achieved in the major
contributing visibility impairing pollutants in the County for the
first implementation period. Anthropogenic emissions of haze related
pollutants from stationary point sources in the County are unlikely to
reverse the larger, favorable statewide emission trends, because over
time such local emissions have remained at a fraction of the levels
seen in the rest of the state. Furthermore, such county emissions are
under or close to the WRAP 2018 projections for those pollutants.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ See the 2016 County Regional Haze Progress Report (pages
15-22).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Visibility Progress
The provisions under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(C) require that states
with Class I areas provide the following information for the most
impaired and least impaired days \41\ for each area, with values
expressed in terms of five-year averages of these annual values: (1)
Current visibility conditions; (2) the difference between current
visibility conditions and baseline visibility conditions; and (3) the
change in visibility impairment over the past five years. The County
does not have any Class I areas within its borders; therefore, no
visibility data is required to be analyzed for this element. In regard
to New Mexico's Class I areas outside of the County, please note that
when comparing baseline to current visibility conditions, the New
Mexico progress report showed that New Mexico is currently on track, if
not exceeding, the visibility impairment
[[Page 45769]]
emission reductions needed to achieve RPG's for 2018.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ The most and least impaired days in the regional haze rule
refers to the average visibility impairment (measured in deciviews)
for the 20 percent of monitored days in a calendar year with the
highest and lowest amount of visibility impairment, respectively,
averaged over a five-year period (see 40 CFR 51.301).
\42\ See table 2.1 of New Mexico Regional Haze Progress Report
(page 5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Emissions Progress
The provisions under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(D) require an analysis
tracking emission changes of visibility impairing pollutants from the
state's sources by type or category over the past five years based on
the most recent updated emission inventory. In its progress report SIP,
the County presented WRAP emission inventories for 2002, 2008, and
2011, as well as projected inventories for 2018, in accordance with the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(D). The pollutant inventories
included SO2, NOX, NH3, VOCs, organic
carbon, elemental carbon, coarse mass, and soil dust. The inventories
were categorized for all major visibility-impairing pollutants under
major source groupings either as anthropogenic or natural. The
anthropogenic source categorization included point and area sources; on
and off-road mobile sources; area oil and gas; fugitive and road dust;
and anthropogenic fire. The natural source categorization included
natural fire, wind-blown dust, and biogenic sources. A breakdown of the
total anthropogenic emissions for the County and state can be seen
below in table 5. The table shows the percent apportionment of County
emissions for each of the key haze-causing pollutants related to the
rest of the state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ The emission totals for the County are taken from the
County regional haze progress report (tables 3.22-3.29). Emission
totals for the entire state of New Mexico are taken from the New
Mexico Regional Haze progress report (tables 3.23-3.30). Detailed
inventory descriptions for development of the WRAP Base02b, plan02c
and plan02d inventories are available on the WRAP TSS Web site
https://vista.cira.colostate.edu/TSS/Results/Emissions.aspx and
archived on the original WRAP Web site https://www.wrapair.org/forums/ssjf/pivot.html.
Table 5--Comparison of County and State Anthropogenic Emissions to WRAP 2018 Projections \43\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002 Total
baseline 2008 Total 2011 Total WRAP 2018
Pollutant species Inventory emissions emissions emissions projections
(tons/year) (tons/year) (tons/year) (tons/year)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SO2........................... County.......... 4,772 (10%) 291 1,250 (6%) 13,770
State........... 48,354 27,392 21,624
NOX........................... County.......... 33,661 (11%) 16,960 14,760 (9%) 26,819
State........... 295,266 211,132 168,008
NH3........................... County.......... 1,400 (4%) 856 682 (2%) 1,683
State........... 32,266 43,840 37,071
VOCs.......................... County.......... 25,573 (7%) 19,137 14,574 (7%) 23,891
State........... 344,077 268,792 214,360
PM2.5......................... County.......... 2,229 (18%) 4,112 5,777 (7%) 2,433
State........... 12,573 61,587 85,576
Coarse Mass................... County.......... 16,387 (25%) 36,982 56,655 (7%) 17,369
State........... 66,096 511,327 830,697
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The WRAP data showed that the percentage of County emissions
contributing to the total state emissions has decreased for each
pollutant species from the 2002 baseline to 2011. The WRAP emission
inventories were previously identified in the SIP as reflecting
overestimates of actual emissions in key source categories. Even so,
there has not been a drastic, sudden spike in the percentages, which
would be a cause for concern for visibility degradation at the Class I
areas. The decreasing WRAP percentages are indicators that the County
``conservative'' emission estimates have improved throughout the first
implementation period and are contributing less and less to visibility
impairment at Class I areas outside of its borders from 2002-2011. The
County concluded that it is unlikely that the County emissions had
significant impacts on nearby Class I areas as a result. The County's
contribution of emissions compared to the New Mexico emission
inventory, as estimated by the WRAP, is six percent of the State
SO2 emissions; nine percent of the State NOX
emissions; two percent of the State NH3 emissions; seven
percent of the State VOC emissions; seven percent of the State
PM2.5 emissions; and seven percent of the State coarse mass
emissions. These percentages are all down from their 2002 baseline
levels. PM2.5 and coarse mass 2011 total emissions are
higher than the WRAP 2018 projections, but their decreasing percent
contributions are better indicators of the progress made since
emissions have increased statewide, yet their percentages have
decreased from eighteen and 25 percent respectively, in 2002, to seven
percent each in 2011.
The EPA is proposing to find that the County adequately addressed
the requirements under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(D). The EPA concludes
that the County presented an adequate analysis tracking emission trends
for the key visibility impairing pollutants. The analysis provided the
most recent period of approximately five years for which data was
available in practical terms (2002-2008), and provided an additional
update for 2011 that presented further information covering
approximately two five-year periods (2002-2011). The trends indicate
that it was improbable that sources located within the County caused or
contributed to visibility impairment in any Class I area located
outside of the County. The emission trends declined within the County
compared to 2002 baseline levels and the percent contributions related
to the rest of the state have all continued to decline over time.
F. Assessment of Changes Impeding Visibility Progress
The provisions under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(E) require an
assessment of whether any significant emission changes have occurred
within the state over the five-year period since the SIP was submitted,
and whether emission increases outside the state are affecting a Class
I area within the state adversely. A ``significant change'' could be
either a substantial unexpected increase in anthropogenic emissions
that occurred over the five-year period or a significant expected
reduction in anthropogenic emissions that did not occur in the analysis
for the SIP.
The EPA proposes to conclude that the County adequately addressed
the provisions under 40 CFR
[[Page 45770]]
51.309(d)(10)(i)(E). The County does not have any Class I areas within
its borders, so there is no requirement to assess impacts in the County
from sources outside of its boundaries. Furthermore, the County sources
do not impact any of the Class I areas outside of its borders, as was
stated in the County's regional haze SIP revision, which the EPA
approved on April 25, 2012.\44\ In conjunction with that previous
action, the EPA's current analysis of emission reductions to meet the
provisions of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(B) and 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(D)
show that no ``significant changes'' in emissions within the County
have occurred to impede visibility improvement or have adversely
affected the nine Class I areas in New Mexico.\45\ Emission trends for
the key visibility impairing pollutants were confirmed to be decreasing
from the baseline to 2018 by statewide NEI data and reported County
emissions. Additionally, the WRAP data showed that emissions from the
County have remained at the same percentage levels over time or
decreased relative to emissions from elsewhere in the state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ See 77 FR (24768, 24791).
\45\ Changes in wildfires are not a ``change'' to report under
51.309(d)(10)(i)(E) per EPA guidance, General Principles for the 5-
Year Regional Haze Progress Reports for the Initial Regional Haze
State Implementation Plans (page 15).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
G. Assessment of Current Strategy To Meet RPGs
The provisions under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(F) require an
assessment of whether the current regional haze SIP is sufficient to
enable the state, or other states, to meet the RPGs for Class I areas
affected by emissions from the state. The County does not contain any
Class I areas, and emissions from the County were found to not impact
any Class I areas outside of its borders. As discussed previously, the
NEI data showed that the total emissions of each major contributor to
visibility impairment in New Mexico has decreased significantly since
2002. The total County emissions have remained at a fraction of the
levels seen in the rest of the state and are under or close to the WRAP
2018 RPGs when looking at the cumulative anthropogenic emissions.
The County provided a breakdown showing whether or not every key
pollutant in each source category was meeting its 2018 RPGs for annual
emissions.\46\ Of the 56 individual RPGs for the County, 42 were either
being met or referred to pollutants that showed declining emissions
since 2002. Fourteen of the County goals were not yet being met as of
the 2011 WRAP inventory, but nine of those annual goals showed reported
emission levels less than 200 tpy, and one was just under 500 tpy.
Those ten goals were associated with point sources and on and off road
mobile source categories. The County concluded that those ten reported
emissions were unlikely to impede New Mexico's progress toward
achieving statewide goals for emissions and visibility since the
emission levels represented a negligible portion of total statewide
emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ Showed in tables 3.22-3.29 of the County Regional Haze
Progress Report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The four remaining annual emission goals that were not being met
covered coarse mass, organic carbon, and PM2.5 pollutants.
The increased contributions from these pollutants were associated with
fugitive/road dust and area (non-point) source categories. Annual
emissions with higher levels of organic matter, elemental carbon,
PM2.5 and coarse mass with a lower contribution from
ammonium sulfate are heavily dominated from wildfires and particulate
matter. High coarse mass was measured during the spring, which was
indicative of high-wind events that occurred during the late winter and
spring months in New Mexico. Wildfires or high-wind events might again
affect annual emissions in the 2018 timeframe, but the County showed
that it is meeting nearly all of its annual emission goals even with
experienced annual emission increases from natural events that still
have not hindered New Mexico from meeting its RPGs beyond the County
borders. The County expects further reduction of SO2 and
NO2 emissions, the primary pollutant species associated with
anthropogenic sources, to continue their broad declines in the same
areas.
The EPA proposes to conclude that the County has addressed 40 CFR
51.309(d)(10)(i)(F) because its current regional haze SIP is sufficient
to enable the state of New Mexico and other nearby states to meet their
RPGs, particularly as the County was not identified as contributing to
any impairment in such Class I areas. The fairly constant proportion of
County emissions compared to the rest of the state are negligible. In
spite of natural events, the County showed that it is meeting nearly
all of its annual emission goals and the annual emission increases from
natural events still have not hindered New Mexico from meeting its RPGs
beyond the County borders.
H. Review of Visibility Monitoring Strategy
The provisions under 40 CFR 51.309(10)(i)(G) require a review of a
state's visibility monitoring strategy for visibility impairing
pollutants and an assessment of whether any modifications to the
strategy are necessary. In its progress report SIP, the County stated
that there are no Class I areas within its boundaries, and therefore it
was not required to fulfill this provision. The EPA proposes to
conclude that the County is exempt from addressing the requirements of
40 CFR 51.309(10)(i)(G), as that requirement is solely for states with
Class I areas in their borders.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ The New Mexico progress report concluded (pages 46-47) that
no changes in the state's visibility monitoring strategy are needed
because the IMPROVE network has continued to provide adequate
monitoring data to support implementation of the RHR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Determination of Adequacy of Existing Regional Haze Plan
Under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(ii), states are required to submit, at
the same time as the progress report SIP, a determination of the
adequacy of their existing regional haze SIP and to take one of four
possible actions based on information in the progress report. 40 CFR
51.309(d)(10)(ii) requires states to take one of the following actions:
(1) Submit a negative declaration to the EPA that no further
substantive revision to the State's existing regional haze SIP is
needed.
(2) If the State determines that the implementation plan is or may
be inadequate to ensure reasonable progress due to emissions from
sources in another state(s) which participated in a regional planning
process, the State must provide notification to the EPA and to the
other state(s) which participated in the regional planning process with
the states. The State must also collaborate with the other state(s)
through the regional planning process for developing additional
strategies to address the plan's deficiencies.
(3) Where the State determines that the implementation plan is or
may be inadequate to ensure reasonable progress due to emissions from
sources in another country, the State shall provide notification, along
with available information, to the Administrator.
(4) If the State determines that the implementation plan is or may
be inadequate to ensure reasonable progress due to emissions from
sources within the State, then the State shall revise its
implementation plan to
[[Page 45771]]
address the plan's deficiencies within one year.
The City of Albuquerque and Bernalillo County, New Mexico has
provided the information required under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i) in the
five-year progress report. Based upon this information, the County
stated in its progress report SIP that it believes that the current
Section 309 and Section 309(g) regional haze SIPs are adequate to meet
the State's 2018 RPGs and require no further revision at this time.
Thus, the EPA has received a negative declaration from the City of
Albuquerque and Bernalillo County, NM.
IV. The EPA's Proposed Action
The EPA is proposing to approve the City of Albuquerque and
Bernalillo County, New Mexico's regional haze five-year progress report
SIP revision (submitted June 24, 2016) as meeting the applicable
regional haze requirements set forth in 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10). The EPA
is proposing to approve the City of Albuquerque and Bernalillo County,
New Mexico's determination that the current regional haze SIP is
adequate to meet the State's 2018 RPGs.
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011), and 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017);
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4);
Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). In addition, the
SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any
other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe
has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the proposed rule
does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial
direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Best Available
Retrofit Technology, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Regional haze, Sulfur
dioxide, Visibility, Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: September 26, 2017.
Samuel Coleman,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2017-21006 Filed 9-29-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P