Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; State of Wyoming; Regional Haze Rule Requirements for Mandatory Class I Areas, 30953-30972 [2012-12643]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 101 / Thursday, May 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
for the purpose of developing additional
strategies to address any such
deficiencies in Massachusetts’ plan.
• If Massachusetts determines that its
implementation plan is or may be
inadequate to ensure reasonable
progress as a result of emissions from
sources in another country,
Massachusetts will provide notification,
along with available information, to the
EPA Administrator.
• If Massachusetts determines that
the implementation plan is or may be
inadequate to ensure reasonable
progress as a result of emissions from
sources within the State, Massachusetts
will revise its implementation plan to
address the plan’s deficiencies within
one year from this determination.
IV. What action is EPA proposing to
take?
EPA is proposing approval of
Massachusetts’ December 30, 2011 SIP
revision and February 17, 2012
proposed regional haze SIP revision
supplement, as meeting the applicable
requirements of the Regional Haze Rule
found in 40 CFR 51.308. EPA is
proposing to approve 310 CMR 7.29
‘‘Emission Standards for Power Plants,’’
310 CMR 7.26(50)–(54) ‘‘Outdoor
Hydronic Heaters,’’ Amended Emission
Control Plan for Mt. Tom Station dated
May 15, 2009, Facility Shutdown of
Somerset Power, LLC dated June 22,
2011, Modified Emission Control Plan
for General Electric Aviation—Lynn
dated March 24, 2011, and Modified
Emission Control Plan for Wheelabrator
Saugus, Inc. dated March 14, 2012.
Pursuant to MassDEP’s May 2, 2012
request for parallel processing, EPA is
proposing approval of Massachusetts’
proposed 310 CMR 7.00 ‘‘Definitions,’’
310 CMR 7.05 ‘‘Fuels All Districts,’’
proposed Amended Emission Control
Plan Approval for Salem Harbor Station
dated February 17, 2012, and proposed
Amended Emission Control Plan
Approval for Brayton Point Station
dated February 16, 2012. Under this
procedure, EPA prepared this action
before the State’s final adoption of these
regulations and ECPs. Massachusetts
has already held a public hearing on the
proposed regulations and received
public comment. Massachusetts may
revise the regulations and ECPs in
response to comments. After
Massachusetts submits its final adopted
supplemental SIP revision, EPA will
review this submittal to determine
whether it is significantly different from
the proposal. EPA will determine
whether it is appropriate to approve the
final rules and ECPs with a description
of any changes since the proposal, repropose action based on the final
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:29 May 23, 2012
Jkt 226001
adopted regulations, or take other action
as appropriate.
V. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, 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, EPA’s role is to approve
State choices, provided that they meet
the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this proposed action
merely approves State law as meeting
Federal requirements and does not
impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by State law. For that
reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993);
• 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 (Pub. L. 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 Clean Air Act;
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, this rule does not have
tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), because the SIP is
not approved to apply in Indian country
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
30953
located in the State, and EPA notes that
it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt
tribal law.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Lead,
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile
organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: May 14, 2012.
Ira W. Leighton,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA
Region 1.
[FR Doc. 2012–12640 Filed 5–23–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R08–OAR–2011–0400; FRL–9676–2]
Approval and Promulgation of State
Implementation Plans; State of
Wyoming; Regional Haze Rule
Requirements for Mandatory Class I
Areas
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
EPA is proposing to approve
Wyoming State Implementation Plan
(SIP) revisions submitted on January 12,
2011 and April 19, 2012 that address
regional haze. These SIP revisions were
submitted to address the requirements
of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) and
our rules that require states to prevent
any future and remedy any existing
man-made impairment of visibility in
mandatory Class I areas caused by
emissions of air pollutants from
numerous sources located over a wide
geographic area (also referred to as the
‘‘regional haze program’’). States are
required to assure reasonable progress
toward the national goal of achieving
natural visibility conditions in Class I
areas. EPA is taking this action pursuant
to section 110 of the CAA.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before July 23, 2012.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08–
OAR–2011–0400, by one of the
following methods:
• https://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\24MYP1.SGM
24MYP1
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
30954
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 101 / Thursday, May 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules
• Email: r8airrulemakings@epa.gov.
• Fax: (303) 312–6064 (please alert
the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing
comments).
• Mail: Carl Daly, Director, Air
Program, Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P–
AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver,
Colorado 80202–1129.
• Hand Delivery: Carl Daly, Director,
Air Program, Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P–
AR, 1595 Wynkoop, Denver, Colorado
80202–1129. Such deliveries are only
accepted Monday through Friday, 8:00
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal
holidays. Special arrangements should
be made for deliveries of boxed
information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–R08–OAR–2011–
0400. EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change and may be
made available online at https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through https://
www.regulations.gov or email. The
https://www.regulations.gov Web site is
an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which
means EPA will not know your identity
or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send an email comment directly
to EPA, without going through https://
www.regulations.gov, your email
address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment
that is placed in the public docket and
made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA
recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment.
Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses. For additional instructions on
submitting comments, go to Section I.
General Information of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document.
Docket: All documents in the docket
are listed in the https://
www.regulations.gov index. Although
listed in the index, some information is
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:23 May 23, 2012
Jkt 226001
not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material,
will be publicly available only in hard
copy. Publicly-available docket
materials are available either
electronically in https://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the Air Program, Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8,
Mailcode 8P–AR, 1595 Wynkoop,
Denver, Colorado 80202–1129. EPA
requests that if at all possible, you
contact the individual listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
view the hard copy of the docket. You
may view the hard copy of the docket
Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to
4:00 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Laurel Dygowski, Air Program, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 8, Mailcode 8P–AR, 1595
Wynkoop, Denver, Colorado 80202–
1129, (303) 312–6144,
dygowski.laurel@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Definitions
For the purpose of this document, we are
giving meaning to certain words or initials as
follows:
i. The words or initials Act or CAA mean
or refer to the Clean Air Act, unless the
context indicates otherwise.
ii. The initials BART mean or refer to Best
Available Retrofit Technology.
iii. The initials CAC mean or refer to clean
air corridors.
iv. The initials CEED mean or refer to the
Center for Energy and Economic
Development.
v. The initials EC mean or refer to
elemental carbon.
vi. The initials EGUs mean or refer to
electric generating units.
vii. The initials EATS mean or refer to
Emissions and Allowance Tracking System
viii. The words EPA, we, us or our mean
or refer to the United States Environmental
Protection Agency.
ix. The initials FETS mean or refer to the
Fire Emission Tracking System.
x. The initials GCVTC mean or refer to the
Grand Canyon Visibility Transport
Commission.
xi. The initials IMPROVE mean or refer to
Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual
Environments monitoring network.
xii. The initials MRR mean or refer to
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting.
xiii. The initials NOX mean or refer to
nitrogen oxides.
xiv. The initials OC mean or refer to
organic carbon.
xv. The initials PM2.5 mean or refer to
particulate matter with an aerodynamic
diameter of less than 2.5 micrometers.
xvi. The initials PM10 mean or refer to
particulate matter with an aerodynamic
diameter of less than 10 micrometers.
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
xvii. The initials RHR mean or refer to the
Regional Haze Rule.
xviii. The initials RMC mean or refer to the
Regional Modeling Center.
xix. The initials RPO mean or refer to
regional planning organization.
xx. The initials SIP mean or refer to State
Implementation Plan.
xxi. The initials SO2 mean or refer to sulfur
dioxide.
xxii. The initials TSA mean or refer to the
tracking system administrator.
xxiii. The initials TSD mean or refer to
Technical Support Document.
xxiv. The initials VOC mean or refer to
volatile organic compounds.
xxv. The initials WAQSR mean or refer to
Wyoming Air Quality Standards and
Regulations.
xxvi. The initials WRAP mean or refer to
the Western Regional Air Partnership.
xxvii. The words Wyoming and State mean
or refer to the State of Wyoming.
Table of Contents
I. General Information
A. What should I consider as I prepare my
comments for EPA?
B. Overview of Proposed Action
II. Background Information
A. Regional Haze
B. Requirements of the CAA and EPA’s
Regional Haze Rule
C. Role of Agencies in Addressing Regional
Haze
D. Development of the Requirements for 40
CFR 51.309
III. Requirements for Regional Haze SIPs
Submitted Under 40 CFR 51.309
A. Projection of Visibility Improvement
B. Clean Air Corridors (CACs)
C. Stationary Source Reductions
1. Sulfur Dioxide Emission Reductions
2. Provisions for Stationary Source
Emissions of Nitrogen Oxides and
Particulate Matter
D. Mobile Sources
E. Programs Related to Fire
F. Paved and Unpaved Road Dust
G. Pollution Prevention
H. Additional Recommendations
I. Periodic Implementation Plan Revisions
J. Interstate Coordination
IV. Additional Requirements for Alternative
Programs Under the Regional Haze Rule
A. ‘‘Better-than-BART’’ Demonstration
B. Elements Required for All Alternative
Programs That Have an Emissions Cap
1. Applicability
2. Allowances
3. Monitoring Recordkeeping, and
Reporting
4. Tracking System
5. Account Representative
6. Allowance Transfer
7. Compliance Provisions
8. Penalty Provisions
9. Banking of Allowances
10. Program Assessment
V. Our Analysis of Wyoming’s Submittal
A. Projection of Visibility Improvement
B. Clean Air Corridors
1. Comprehensive Emissions Tracking
Program
2. Identification of Clean Air Corridors
3. Patterns of Growth Within and Outside
of the Clean Air Corridor
E:\FR\FM\24MYP1.SGM
24MYP1
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 101 / Thursday, May 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules
4. Actions if Impairment Inside or Outside
the Clean Air Corridor Occurs
5. Other Clean Air Corridors
C. Stationary Source Reductions
1. Provisions for Stationary Source
Emissions of Sulfur Dioxide
2. Documentation of Emissions Calculation
Methods for Sulfur Dioxide
3. Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and
Reporting of Sulfur Dioxide Emissions
4. Criteria and Procedures for a Market
Trading Program
5. Market Trading Program
6. Provisions for the 2018 Milestone
7. Special Penalty Provision for 2018
D. ‘‘Better-than-BART’’ Demonstration
1. List of BART-Eligible Sources
2. Subject-to-BART Determination
3. Best System of Continuous Emission
Control Technology
4. Projected Emission Reductions
5. Evidence That the Trading Program
Achieves Greater Reasonable Progress
Than BART
6. All Emissions Reductions Must Take
Place During the First Planning Period
7. Detailed Description of the Alternative
Program
8. Surplus Reductions
9. Geographic Distribution of Emissions
E. Requirements for Alternative Programs
With an Emissions Cap
1. Applicability Provisions
2. Allowance Provisions
3. Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and
Reporting
4. Tracking System
5. Account Representative
6. Allowance Transfers
7. Compliance Provisions
8. Penalty Provisions
9. Banking of Allowances
10. Program Assessment
F. Provisions for Stationary Source
Emissions of Nitrogen Oxides and
Particulate Matter
G. Mobile Sources
H. Programs Related to Fire
1. Evaluation of Current Fire Programs
a. Actions To Minimize Emissions
b. Evaluation of Smoke Dispersion
c. Alternatives to Fire
d. Public Notification
e. Air Quality Monitoring
f. Surveillance and Enforcement
g. Program Evaluation
2. Inventory and Tracking System
3. Strategy for Use of Alternatives to
Burning
4. Enhanced Smoke Management Program
5. Annual Emission Goal
I. Paved and Unpaved Road Dust
J. Pollution Prevention
1. Description of Existing Pollution
Prevention Programs
2. Incentive Programs
3. Programs To Preserve and Expand
Energy Conservation Efforts
4. Potential for Renewable Energy
5. Projections of Renewable Energy Goals,
Energy Efficiency, and Pollution
Prevention Activities
6. Programs To Achieve the GCVTC
Renewable Energy Goal
K. Additional Recommendations
L. Periodic Implementation Plan Revisions
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:29 May 23, 2012
Jkt 226001
M. Interstate Coordination
N. Additional Class I Areas
VI. Proposed Action
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. General Information
A. What should I consider as I prepare
my comments for EPA?
1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit CBI
to EPA through https://
www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly
mark the part or all of the information
that you claim to be CBI. For CBI
information in a disk or CD–ROM that
you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the
disk or CD–ROM as CBI and then
identify electronically within the disk or
CD–ROM the specific information that
is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that
includes information claimed as CBI, a
copy of the comment that does not
contain the information claimed as CBI
must be submitted for inclusion in the
public docket. Information so marked
will not be disclosed except in
accordance with procedures set forth in
40 CFR part 2.
2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments.
When submitting comments, remember
to:
a. Identify the rulemaking by docket
number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal
Register date and page number).
b. Follow directions—The agency may
ask you to respond to specific questions
or organize comments by referencing a
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part
or section number.
c. Explain why you agree or disagree;
suggest alternatives and substitute
language for your requested changes.
d. Describe any assumptions and
provide any technical information and/
or data that you used.
e. If you estimate potential costs or
burdens, explain how you arrived at
your estimate in sufficient detail to
allow for it to be reproduced.
f. Provide specific examples to
illustrate your concerns, and suggest
alternatives.
g. Explain your views as clearly as
possible, avoiding the use of profanity
or personal threats.
h. Make sure to submit your
comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
B. Overview of Proposed Action
In this action, EPA is proposing to
approve Wyoming SIP revisions
submitted on January 12, 2011 and
April 19, 2012 that address the regional
haze rule (RHR) for the mandatory Class
I areas under 40 CFR 51.309. EPA is
proposing that the January 12, 2011 and
April 19, 2012 SIPs meet the
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
30955
requirements of 40 CFR 51.309, with the
exception of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(vii),
and 40 CFR 51.309(g), as explained
below.
As part of the January 12, 2011 and
April 19, 2012 SIPs, the State submitted
revisions to the Wyoming Air Quality
Standards and Regulations (WAQSR).
The State submitted WAQSR Chapter
14, Sections 2 and 3—Emission Trading
Program Regulations. WAQSR Chapter
14, in conjunction with the SIP,
implements the backstop trading
program provisions in accordance with
the applicable requirements of 40 CFR
51.308 and 40 CFR 51.309. We are
proposing to approve WAQSR Chapter
14, Section 2 and Section 3. The State
also submitted WAQSR Chapter 10,
Section 4—Smoke Management.
WAQSR Chapter 10, Section 4, in
conjunction with the SIP, implements
the requirements for smoke management
under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6). We are
proposing to approve WAQSR Chapter
10, Section 4.
The State’s submitted another SIP
revision dated January 12, 2011 that
addresses the requirements under 40
CFR 51.309(d)(4)(vii) and 40 CFR
51.309(g) pertaining to best available
retrofit technology (BART) for
particulate matter (PM) and nitrogen
oxides (NOX) and additional Class I
areas, respectively. EPA will be taking
action on this SIP at a later date. In
addition, the January 12, 2011 and April
19, 2012 submittals we are proposing to
act on in this notice supersede and
replace regional haze SIPs submitted on
December 24, 2003, May 27, 2004, and
November 21, 2008.
As explained in further detail below,
40 CFR 51.309 (section 309) allows
western states an optional way to fulfill
the RHR requirements as opposed to
adopting the requirements under 40
CFR 51.308. Three states have elected to
submit a SIP under 40 CFR 51.309.
Those states are Wyoming, Utah, and
New Mexico.1 In this action, EPA is
proposing to approve the Wyoming
section 309 SIP submittal. As required
by 40 CFR 51.309, the participating
states must adopt a trading program, or
what has been termed the Western
Backstop Sulfur Dioxide Trading
Program (backstop trading program or
trading program). The 309 backstop
trading program will not be effective
1 In addition to the SIP submittals from the three
states, Albuquerque/Bernalillo County in New
Mexico must also submit a Section 309 RH SIP to
completely satisfy the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA for the entire State of New
Mexico under the New Mexico Air Quality Control
Act (section 74–2–4). Albuquerque submitted its
regional haze SIP to EPA on June 8, 2011. When we
refer to New Mexico in this notice, we are also
referring to Albuquerque/Bernalillo County.
E:\FR\FM\24MYP1.SGM
24MYP1
30956
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 101 / Thursday, May 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules
until EPA has finalized action on all
section 309 SIPs as the program is
dependent on the participation of the
three states. Utah submitted its 309 SIP
to EPA on May 26, 2011 and New
Mexico submitted its 309 SIP to EPA on
June 30, 2011. EPA will be taking action
on Utah and New Mexico’s 309 SIPs
separately. If EPA takes action
approving the necessary components of
the 309 backstop trading program to
operate in all of the jurisdictions
electing to submit 309 SIPs, the trading
program will become effective.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
II. Background Information
A. Regional Haze
Regional haze is visibility impairment
that is produced by a multitude of
sources and activities which are located
across a broad geographic area and emit
fine particles (PM2.5) (e.g., sulfates,
nitrates, organic carbon (OC), elemental
carbon (EC), and soil dust), and their
precursors (e.g., SO2, NOX, and in some
cases, ammonia (NH3) and volatile
organic compounds (VOC)). Fine
particle precursors react in the
atmosphere to form PM2.5, which
impairs visibility by scattering and
absorbing light. Visibility impairment
reduces the clarity, color, and visible
distance that one can see. PM2.5 can also
cause serious health effects and
mortality in humans and contributes to
environmental effects such as acid
deposition and eutrophication.
Data from the existing visibility
monitoring network, the ‘‘Interagency
Monitoring of Protected Visual
Environments’’ (IMPROVE) monitoring
network, show that visibility
impairment caused by air pollution
occurs virtually all the time at most
national park and wilderness areas. The
average visual range 2 in many Class I
areas (i.e., national parks and memorial
parks, wilderness areas, and
international parks meeting certain size
criteria) in the western United States is
100–150 kilometers, or about one-half to
two-thirds of the visual range that
would exist without anthropogenic air
pollution. In most of the eastern Class
I areas of the United States, the average
visual range is less than 30 kilometers,
or about one-fifth of the visual range
that would exist under estimated
natural conditions. 64 FR 35715 (July 1,
1999).
B. Requirements of the CAA and EPA’s
Regional Haze Rule
In section 169A of the 1977
Amendments to the CAA, Congress
2 Visual range is the greatest distance, in
kilometers or miles, at which a dark object can be
viewed against the sky.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:29 May 23, 2012
Jkt 226001
created a program for protecting
visibility in the nation’s national parks
and wilderness areas. This section of the
CAA establishes as a national goal the
‘‘prevention of any future, and the
remedying of any existing, impairment
of visibility in mandatory Class I
Federal areas 3 which impairment
results from manmade air pollution.’’
On December 2, 1980, EPA promulgated
regulations to address visibility
impairment in Class I areas that is
‘‘reasonably attributable’’ to a single
source or small group of sources, i.e.,
‘‘reasonably attributable visibility
impairment.’’ 45 FR 80084. These
regulations represented the first phase
in addressing visibility impairment.
EPA deferred action on regional haze
that emanates from a variety of sources
until monitoring, modeling and
scientific knowledge about the
relationships between pollutants and
visibility impairment were improved.
Congress added section 169B to the
CAA in 1990 to address regional haze
issues. EPA promulgated a rule to
address regional haze on July 1, 1999.
64 FR 35714 (July 1, 1999, codified at
40 CFR part 51, subpart P). The RHR
revised the existing visibility
regulations to integrate into the
regulation provisions addressing
regional haze impairment and
established a comprehensive visibility
protection program for Class I areas. The
requirements for regional haze, found at
40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309, are included
in EPA’s visibility protection
regulations at 40 CFR 51.300–309. Some
of the main elements of the regional
haze requirements under 40 CFR 51.309
are summarized in sections III and IV of
this preamble. The requirement to
submit a regional haze SIP applies to all
50 states, the District of Columbia and
the Virgin Islands. 40 CFR 51.308(b) and
40 CFR 51.309(c) require states to
submit the first implementation plan
addressing regional haze visibility
3 Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal
areas consist of national parks exceeding 6000
acres, wilderness areas and national memorial parks
exceeding 5000 acres, and all international parks
that were in existence on August 7, 1977. 42 U.S.C.
7472(a). In accordance with section 169A of the
CAA, EPA, in consultation with the Department of
Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas where
visibility is identified as an important value. 44 FR
69122 (November 30, 1979). The extent of a
mandatory Class I area includes subsequent changes
in boundaries, such as park expansions. 42 U.S.C.
7472(a). Although states and tribes may designate
as Class I additional areas which they consider to
have visibility as an important value, the
requirements of the visibility program set forth in
section 169A of the CAA apply only to ‘‘mandatory
Class I Federal areas.’’ Each mandatory Class I
Federal area is the responsibility of a ‘‘Federal Land
Manager.’’ 42 U.S.C. 7602(i). When we use the term
‘‘Class I area’’ in this action, we mean a ‘‘mandatory
Class I Federal area.’’
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
impairment no later than December 17,
2007.4
Few states submitted a regional haze
SIP prior to the December 17, 2007
deadline, and on January 15, 2009, EPA
found that 37 states, including
Wyoming and the District of Columbia,
and the Virgin Islands, had failed to
submit SIPs addressing the regional
haze requirements. 74 FR 2392. Once
EPA has found that a state has failed to
make a required submission, EPA is
required to promulgate a FIP within two
years unless the state submits a SIP and
the Agency approves it within the two
year period. CAA § 110(c)(1).
C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing
Regional Haze
Successful implementation of the
regional haze program will require longterm regional coordination among
states, tribal governments and various
federal agencies. As noted above,
pollution affecting the air quality in
Class I areas can be transported over
long distances, even hundreds of
kilometers. Therefore, to effectively
address the problem of visibility
impairment in Class I areas, states need
to develop strategies in coordination
with one another, taking into account
the effect of emissions from one
jurisdiction on the air quality in
another.
Because the pollutants that lead to
regional haze can originate from sources
located across broad geographic areas,
EPA has encouraged the states and
tribes across the United States to
address visibility impairment from a
regional perspective. Five regional
planning organizations (RPOs) were
developed to address regional haze and
related issues. The RPOs first evaluated
technical information to better
understand how their states and tribes
impact Class I areas across the country,
and then pursued the development of
regional strategies to reduce emissions
of PM and other pollutants leading to
regional haze.
The Western Regional Air Partnership
(WRAP) RPO is a collaborative effort of
state governments, tribal governments,
and various federal agencies established
to initiate and coordinate activities
associated with the management of
regional haze, visibility and other air
quality issues in the western United
States. WRAP member state
governments include: Alaska, Arizona,
California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana,
New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon,
South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and
4 EPA’s regional haze regulations require
subsequent updates to the regional haze SIPs. 40
CFR 51.308(g)–(i).
E:\FR\FM\24MYP1.SGM
24MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 101 / Thursday, May 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules
Wyoming. Tribal members include
Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians,
Confederated Salish and Kootenai
Tribes, Cortina Indian Rancheria, Hopi
Tribe, Hualapai Nation of the Grand
Canyon, Native Village of Shungnak,
Nez Perce Tribe, Northern Cheyenne
Tribe, Pueblo of Acoma, Pueblo of San
Felipe, and Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of
Fort Hall.
D. Development of the Requirements for
40 CFR 51.309
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
EPA’s RHR provides two paths to
address regional haze. One is 40 CFR
51.308, requiring states to perform
individual point source BART
determinations and evaluate the need
for other control strategies. These
strategies must be shown to make
‘‘reasonable progress’’ in improving
visibility in Class I areas inside the state
and in neighboring jurisdictions. The
other method for addressing regional
haze is through 40 CFR 51.309, and is
an option for nine states termed the
‘‘Transport Region States’’ which
include: Arizona, California, Colorado,
Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon,
Utah, and Wyoming, and the 211 tribes
located within those states. By meeting
the requirements under 40 CFR 51.309,
states are making reasonable progress
toward the national goal of achieving
natural visibility conditions for the 16
Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau.
Section 309 requires participating
states to adopt regional haze strategies
that are based on recommendations
from the Grand Canyon Visibility
Transport Commission (GCVTC) for
protecting the 16 Class I areas on the
Colorado Plateau.5 The EPA established
the GCVTC on November 13, 1991. The
purpose of the GCVTC was to assess
information about the adverse impacts
on visibility in and around the 16 Class
I areas on the Colorado Plateau and to
provide policy recommendations to EPA
to address such impacts. Section 169B
of the CAA called for the GCVTC to
evaluate visibility research, as well as
other available information, pertaining
to adverse impacts on visibility from
potential or projected growth in
emissions from sources located in the
5 The Colorado Plateau is a high, semi-arid
tableland in southeast Utah, northern Arizona,
northwest New Mexico, and western Colorado. The
16 mandatory Class I areas are as follows: Grand
Canyon National Park, Mount Baldy Wilderness,
Petrified Forest National Park, Sycamore Canyon
Wilderness, Black Canyon of the Gunnison National
Park Wilderness, Flat Tops Wilderness, Maroon
Bells Wilderness, Mesa Verde National Park,
Weminuche Wilderness, West Elk Wilderness, San
Pedro Parks Wilderness, Arches National Park,
Bryce Canyon National Park, Canyonlands National
Park, Capital Reef National Park, and Zion National
Park.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:29 May 23, 2012
Jkt 226001
region. The GCVTC determined that all
transport region states could potentially
impact the Class I areas on the Colorado
Plateau. The GCVTC submitted a report
to EPA in 1996 with its policy
recommendations for protecting
visibility for the Class I areas on the
Colorado Plateau. Provisions of the 1996
GCVTC report include: strategies for
addressing smoke emissions from
wildland fires and agricultural burning;
provisions to prevent pollution by
encouraging renewable energy
development; and provisions to manage
clean air corridors (CACs), mobile
sources, and wind-blown dust, among
other things. The EPA codified these
recommendations as part of the 1999
RHR. 64 FR 35714 (July 1, 1999).
EPA determined that the GCVTC
strategies would provide for reasonable
progress in mitigating regional haze if
supplemented by an annex containing
quantitative emission reduction
milestones and provisions for a trading
program or other alternative measure
(64 FR 35749 and 35756). Thus, the
1999 RHR required that western states
submit an annex to the GCVTC report
with quantitative milestones and
detailed guidelines for an alternative
program in order to establish the
GCVTC recommendations as an
alternative approach to fulfilling the
section 308 requirements for
compliance with the RHR. In September
2000, the WRAP, which is the successor
organization to the GCVTC, submitted
an annex to EPA. The annex contained
SO2 emission reduction milestones and
the detailed provisions of a backstop
trading program to be implemented
automatically if voluntary measures
failed to achieve the SO2 milestones.
EPA codified the annex on June 5, 2003
at 40 CFR 51.309(h). 68 FR 33764.
Five western states submitted
implementation plans under section 309
in 2003. EPA was challenged by the
Center for Energy and Economic
Development (CEED) on the validity of
the annex provisions. In CEED v. EPA,
the DC Circuit vacated EPA’s approval
of the WRAP annex (Center for Energy
and Economic Development v. EPA, No.
03–1222 (DC Cir. Feb. 18, 2005)). In
response to the court’s decision, EPA
vacated the annex requirements adopted
as 40 CFR 51.309(h), but left in place the
stationary source requirements in 40
CFR 51.309(d)(4). 71 FR 60612. The
requirements under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)
contain general requirements pertaining
to stationary sources and market
trading, and allow states to adopt
alternatives to the point source
application of BART.
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
30957
III. Requirements for Regional Haze
SIPs Submitted Under 40 CFR 51.309
The following is a summary and basic
explanation of the regulations covered
under section 51.309 of the RHR. See 40
CFR 51.309 for a complete listing of the
regulations under which this SIP was
evaluated.
A. Projection of Visibility Improvement
For each of the 16 Class I areas
located on the Colorado Plateau, the SIP
must include a projection of the
improvement in visibility expressed in
deciviews. 40 CFR 51.309(d)(2). The
RHR establishes the deciview as the
principal metric or unit for expressing
visibility. See 70 FR 39104, 39118. This
visibility metric expresses uniform
changes in the degree of haze in terms
of common increments across the entire
range of visibility conditions, from
pristine to extremely hazy conditions.
Visibility expressed in deciviews is
determined by using air quality
measurements to estimate light
extinction and then transforming the
value of light extinction using a
logarithm function. The deciview is a
more useful measure for tracking
progress in improving visibility than
light extinction itself because each
deciview change is an equal incremental
change in visibility perceived by the
human eye. Most people can detect a
change in visibility at one deciview.6
States need to show the projected
visibility improvement for the best and
worst 20 percent days through the year
2018, based on the application of all
section 309 control strategies.
B. Clean Air Corridors (CACs)
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(3),
states must identify CACs. CACs are
geographic areas located within
transport region states that contribute to
the best visibility days (least impaired)
in the 16 Class I areas on the Colorado
Plateau. The CAC as described in the
1996 GCVTC report covers nearly all of
Nevada, large portions of Oregon, Idaho,
and Utah, and encompasses several
Indian nations. In order to meet the RHR
requirements for CACs, states must
adopt a comprehensive emissions
tracking program for all visibility
impairing pollutants within the CAC.
Based on the emissions tracking, states
must identify overall emissions growth
or specific areas of emissions growth in
and outside of the CAC that could be
significant enough to result in visibility
impairment at one or more of the 16
Class I areas. If there is visibility
6 The preamble to the RHR provides additional
details about the deciview. 64 FR 35714, 35725
(July 1, 1999).
E:\FR\FM\24MYP1.SGM
24MYP1
30958
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 101 / Thursday, May 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules
impairment in the CAC, states must
conduct an analysis of the potential
impact in the 16 Class I areas and
determine if additional emission control
measures are needed and how these
measures would be implemented. States
must also indicate in their SIP if any
other CACs exist, and if others are
found, provide necessary measures to
protect against future degradation of
visibility in the 16 Class I areas.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
C. Stationary Source Reductions
1. Sulfur Dioxide Emission Reductions
Section 169A of the CAA directs
states to evaluate the use of retrofit
controls at certain larger, often
uncontrolled, older stationary sources in
order to address their visibility impacts.
Specifically, section 169A(b)(2)(A) of
the CAA requires states to revise their
SIPs to contain such measures as may be
necessary to make reasonable progress
towards the natural visibility goal,
including a requirement that certain
categories of existing major stationary
sources built between 1962 and 1977
procure, install, and operate BART as
determined by the state. Under the RHR,
states are directed to conduct BART
determinations for such ‘‘BARTeligible’’ sources that may be
anticipated to cause or contribute to any
visibility impairment in a Class I area.
Rather than requiring source-specific
BART controls, states have the
flexibility under section 309 to adopt an
emissions trading program or other
alternative program as long as the
alternative provides greater reasonable
progress than would be achieved by the
application of BART pursuant to 40 CFR
51.309(e)(2). Under 40 CFR 51.309,
states can satisfy the section 308 SO2
BART requirements by adopting SO2
emission milestones and a backstop
trading program. 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4).
Under this approach, states must
establish declining SO2 emission
milestones for each year of the program
through 2018. The milestones must be
consistent with the GCTVC’s goal of 50
to 70 percent reduction in SO2
emissions by 2040. If the milestones are
exceeded in any year, the backstop
trading program is triggered.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(ii)(iv), states must include requirements in
the SIP that allow states to determine
whether the milestone has been
exceeded. These requirements include
documentation of the baseline emission
calculation, monitoring, recordkeeping,
and reporting (MRR) of SO2 emissions,
and provisions for conducting an annual
evaluation to determine whether the
milestone has been exceeded. SIPs must
also contain requirements for
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:29 May 23, 2012
Jkt 226001
implementing the backstop trading
program in the event that the milestone
is exceeded and the program is
triggered. 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(v).
The WRAP, in conjunction with EPA,
developed a model for a backstop
trading program. In order to ensure
consistency between states, states opting
to participate in the 309 program need
to adopt rules that are substantively
equivalent to the model rules for the
backstop trading program to meet the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4).
The trading program must also be
implemented no later than 15 months
after the end of the first year that the
milestone is exceeded, require that
sources hold allowances to cover their
emissions, and provide a framework,
including financial penalties, to ensure
that the 2018 milestone is met.
2. Provisions for Stationary Source
Emissions of Nitrogen Oxides and
Particulate Matter
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(vii),
a section 309 SIP must contain any
necessary long term strategies and
BART requirements for PM and NOX.
Section 169A of the CAA directs states
to evaluate the use of retrofit controls at
certain larger, often uncontrolled, older
stationary sources in order to address
visibility impacts from these sources.
Specifically, section 169A(b)(2)(A) of
the CAA requires states to revise their
SIPs to contain such measures as may be
necessary to make reasonable progress
towards the natural visibility goal,
including a requirement that certain
categories of existing major stationary
sources7 built between 1962 and 1977
procure, install, and operate the ‘‘Best
Available Retrofit Technology’’ as
determined by the state.
On July 6, 2005, EPA published the
Guidelines for BART Determinations
Under the Regional Haze Rule at
appendix Y to 40 CFR part 51
(hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘BART
Guidelines’’) to assist states in
determining which of their sources
should be subject to the BART
requirements and in determining
appropriate emission limits for each
applicable source. 70 FR 39104. In
making a BART determination for a
fossil fuel-fired electric generating plant
with a total generating capacity in
excess of 750 megawatts (MW), a state
must use the approach set forth in the
BART Guidelines. A state is encouraged,
but not required, to follow the BART
Guidelines in making BART
determinations for other types of
7 The set of ‘‘major stationary sources’’ potentially
subject-to-BART is listed in CAA section
169A(g)(7).
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
sources. Regardless of source size or
type, a state must meet the requirements
of the CAA and our regulations for
selection of BART, and the state’s BART
analysis and determination must be
reasonable in light of the overarching
purpose of the regional haze program.
The process of establishing BART
emission limitations can be logically
broken down into three steps: first,
states identify those sources which meet
the definition of ‘‘BART-eligible source’’
set forth in 40 CFR 51.301 8; second,
states determine which of such sources
‘‘emits any air pollutant which may
reasonably be anticipated to cause or
contribute to any impairment of
visibility in any such area’’ (a source
which fits this description is ‘‘subjectto-BART’’); and third, for each source
subject-to-BART, states then identify the
best available type and level of control
for reducing emissions.
States must address all visibilityimpairing pollutants emitted by a source
in the BART determination process. The
most significant visibility impairing
pollutants are SO2, NOX, and PM. EPA
has stated that states should use their
best judgment in determining whether
VOC or NH3 compounds impair
visibility in Class I areas.
Under the BART Guidelines, states
may select an exemption threshold
value for their BART modeling, below
which a BART-eligible source would
not be expected to cause or contribute
to visibility impairment in any Class I
area. The state must document this
exemption threshold value in the SIP
and must state the basis for its selection
of that value. Any source with
emissions that model above the
threshold value would be subject to a
BART determination review. The BART
Guidelines acknowledge varying
circumstances affecting different Class I
areas. States should consider the
number of emission sources affecting
the Class I areas at issue and the
magnitude of the individual sources’
impacts. Any exemption threshold set
by the state should not be higher than
0.5 deciview. 40 CFR part 51, appendix
Y, section III.A.1.
In their SIPs, states must identify the
sources that are subject-to-BART and
document their BART control
determination analyses for such sources.
In making their BART determinations,
section 169A(g)(2) of the CAA requires
that states consider the following factors
8 BART-eligible sources are those sources that
have the potential to emit 250 tons or more of a
visibility-impairing air pollutant, were not in
operation prior to August 7, 1962, but were in
existence on August 7, 1977, and whose operations
fall within one or more of 26 specifically listed
source categories. 40 CFR 51.301.
E:\FR\FM\24MYP1.SGM
24MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 101 / Thursday, May 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
when evaluating potential control
technologies: (1) The costs of
compliance; (2) the energy and non-air
quality environmental impacts of
compliance; (3) any existing pollution
control technology in use at the source;
(4) the remaining useful life of the
source; and (5) the degree of
improvement in visibility which may
reasonably be anticipated to result from
the use of such technology.
A regional haze SIP must include
source-specific BART emission limits
and compliance schedules for each
source subject-to-BART. Once a state
has made its BART determination, the
BART controls must be installed and in
operation as expeditiously as
practicable, but no later than five years
after the date of EPA approval of the
regional haze SIP. CAA section 169(g)(4)
and 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv). In addition
to what is required by the RHR, general
SIP requirements mandate that the SIP
must also include all regulatory
requirements related to MRR for the
BART controls on the source. See CAA
section 110(a). As noted above, the RHR
allows states to implement an
alternative program in lieu of BART so
long as the alternative program can be
demonstrated to achieve greater
reasonable progress toward the national
visibility goal than would BART.
D. Mobile Sources
Under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(5), states
must provide inventories of on-road and
non-road mobile source emissions of
VOCs, NOX, SO2, PM2.5, EC, and OC for
the years 2003, 2008, 2013, and 2018.
The inventories must show a
continuous decline in total mobile
source emissions of each of the above
pollutants. If the inventories show a
continuous decline in total mobile
source emissions of each of these
pollutants over the period 2003–2018, a
state is not required to take further
action in their SIP. If the inventories do
not show a continuous decline in
mobile source emissions of one or more
of these pollutants over the period
2003–2018, a state must submit a SIP
that contains measures that will achieve
a continuous decline.
The SIP must also contain any longterm strategies necessary to reduce
emissions of SO2 from non-road mobile
sources, consistent with the goal of
reasonable progress. In assessing the
need for such long-term strategies, the
state may consider emissions reductions
achieved or anticipated from any new
federal standards for sulfur in non-road
diesel fuel. Section 309 SIPs must
provide an update on any additional
mobile source strategies implemented
within the state related to the GCVTC
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:29 May 23, 2012
Jkt 226001
1996 recommendations on mobile
sources.
E. Programs Related to Fire
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6), SIPs
must contain requirements for programs
related to fire. The SIP must show that
the state’s smoke management program,
and all federal or private programs for
prescribed fire in the state, have a
mechanism in place for evaluating and
addressing the degree of visibility
impairment from smoke in their
planning and application of burning.
The state must also ensure that its
prescribed fire smoke management
programs have at least the following
seven elements: (1) Actions to minimize
emissions; (2) evaluation of smoke
dispersion; (3) alternatives to fire; (4)
public notification; (5) air quality
monitoring; (6) surveillance and
enforcement; and (7) program
evaluation. The state must be able to
track statewide emissions of VOC, NOX,
EC, OC, and PM2.5 emissions from
prescribed burning in its state.
Other requirements states must meet
in their 309 plan related to fire include
the adoption of a statewide process for
gathering post-burn activity information
to support emissions inventory and
tracking systems. States must identify
existing administrative barriers to the
use of non-burning alternatives and
adopt a process for continuing to
identify and remove administrative
barriers where feasible. The SIP must
include an enhanced smoke
management program that considers
visibility effects in addition to health
objectives and is based on the criteria of
efficiency, economics, law, emission
reduction opportunities, land
management objectives, and reduction
of visibility impairment. Finally, a state
must establish annual emission goals to
minimize emission increases from fire.
F. Paved and Unpaved Road Dust
Under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(7), states
must submit a SIP that assesses the
impact of dust emissions on regional
haze in the 16 Class I areas on the
Colorado Plateau and to include a
projection of visibility conditions
through 2018 for the least and most
impaired days. If dust emissions are
determined to be a significant
contributor to visibility impairment, the
state must include emissions
management strategies in the SIP to
address their impact.
G. Pollution Prevention
The requirements under the RHR for
pollution prevention only require the
state to provide an assessment of the
energy programs as outlined in 40 CFR
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
30959
51.309(d)(8) and does not require a state
to adopt any specific energy-related
strategies or regulations for regional
haze. In order to meet the requirements
related to pollution prevention, the
state’s plan must include an initial
summary of all pollution prevention
programs currently in place, an
inventory of all renewable energy
generation capacity and production in
use or planned as of the year 2002, the
total energy generation capacity and
production for the state, and the percent
of the total that is renewable energy.
The state’s plan must include a
discussion of programs that provide
incentives for efforts that go beyond
compliance and/or achieve early
compliance with air-pollution related
requirements and programs to preserve
and expand energy conservation efforts.
The state must identify specific areas
where renewable energy has the
potential to supply power where it is
now lacking and where renewable
energy is most cost-effective. The state
must include projections of the short
and long-term emissions reductions,
visibility improvements, cost savings,
and secondary benefits associated with
renewable energy goals, energy
efficiency, and pollution prevention
activities. The state must also provide
its anticipated contribution toward the
GCVTC renewable energy goals for 2005
and 2015. The GCVTC goals are that
renewable energy will comprise 10
percent of the regional power needs by
2005 and 20 percent by 2015.
H. Additional Recommendations
Section 309 requires states to
determine if any of the other
recommendations not codified by EPA
as part of 40 CFR 51.309, should be
implemented in their SIP. 40 CFR
51.309(d)(9). States are not required to
adopt any additional control measures
unless the state determines they are
appropriate and can be practicably
included as enforceable measures to
remedy regional haze in the 16 Class I
areas. Any measures adopted by a state
would need to be enforceable. States
must also submit a report to EPA and
the public in 2013 and 2018 showing
there has been an evaluation of the
additional recommendations and the
progress toward developing and
implementing any such
recommendations.
I. Periodic Implementation Plan
Revisions
Under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10), states
must submit progress reports in the
form of SIP revisions in 2013 and 2018.
The SIP revisions must comply with the
procedural requirements of 40 CFR
E:\FR\FM\24MYP1.SGM
24MYP1
30960
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 101 / Thursday, May 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules
51.102 for public hearings and 40 CFR
51.103 for submission of plans. The
assessment in the progress report must
include an evaluation of Class I areas
located within the state and Class I areas
outside the state that are affected by
emissions from the state. EPA views
these SIP revisions as a periodic check
on progress, rather than a thorough
revision of regional strategies. The state
should focus on significant
shortcomings of the original SIP from
sources that were not fully accounted
for or anticipated when the SIP was
initially developed. The specifics of
what each progress report must contain
can be found at 40 CFR
51.509(d)(10)(i)(A)–(G).
At the same time that the state
submits its progress report to EPA, it
must also take an action based on the
outcome of the assessment in the report.
If the assessment shows that the SIP is
adequate and requires no substantive
revision, the state must submit to EPA
a ‘‘negative declaration’’ statement
saying that no further SIP revisions are
necessary at this time. If the assessment
shows that the SIP is or may be
inadequate due to emissions from
outside the state, the state must notify
EPA and other regional planning states
and work with them to develop
additional control strategies. If the
assessment shows that the SIP is or may
be inadequate due to emissions from
another country, the state must include
appropriate notification to EPA in its
SIP revision. In the event the assessment
shows that the SIP is or may be
inadequate due to emissions from
within the state, the state shall develop
additional strategies to address the
deficiencies and revise the SIP within
one year from the due date of the
progress report.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
J. Interstate Coordination
In complying with the requirements
of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(11), states may
include emission reductions strategies
that are based on coordinated
implementation with other states. The
SIP must include documentation of the
technical and policy basis for the
individual state apportionment (or the
procedures for apportionment
throughout the trans-boundary region),
the contribution addressed by the state’s
plan, how it coordinates with other state
plans, and compliance with any other
appropriate implementation plan
approvability criteria. States may rely
on the relevant technical, policy, and
other analyses developed by a regional
entity, such as the WRAP in providing
such documentation.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:23 May 23, 2012
Jkt 226001
IV. Additional Requirements for
Alternative Programs Under the
Regional Haze Rule
States opting to submit an alternative
program, such as the backstop trading
program under section 309, must also
meet requirements under 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2) and (e)(3). These
requirements for alternative programs
relate to the ‘‘better-than-BART’’ test
and fundamental elements of any
alternative program that establishes a
cap on emissions.
A. ‘‘Better-Than-BART’’ Demonstration
In order to demonstrate that the
alternative program achieves greater
reasonable progress than source-specific
BART, states must provide a
demonstration in their SIP that meets
the requirements in 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2)(i)–(v). States submitting
section 309 SIPs or other alternative
programs are required to list all BARTeligible sources and categories covered
by the alternative program. States are
then required to determine which
BART-eligible sources are ‘‘subject-toBART.’’ The SIP must provide an
analysis of the best system of
continuous emission control technology
available and the associated reductions
for each source subject-to-BART covered
by the alternative program, or what is
termed a ‘‘BART benchmark.’’ Where
the alternative program, such as the 309
backstop trading program, has been
designed to meet requirements other
than BART, states may use simplifying
assumptions in establishing a BART
benchmark. These assumptions can
provide the baseline to show that the
alternative program achieves greater
reasonable progress than BART (71 FR
60619). Under this approach, states
should use the presumptive limits for
EGUs in the BART Guidelines to
establish the BART benchmark used in
the comparison, unless the state
determines that such presumptions are
not appropriate for particular EGUs (70
FR 60619).
The SIP must provide an analysis of
the projected emissions reductions
achievable through the trading program
or other alternative measure and a
determination that the trading program
or other alternative measure achieves
greater reasonable progress than would
be achieved through the installation and
operation of BART pursuant to 40 CFR
51.308(e)(1). 40 CFR 308(e)(2)(i)(D)–(E).
Under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iii)–(iv), all
emission reductions for the alternative
program must take place by 2018, and
all the emission reductions resulting
from the alternative program must be
surplus to those reductions resulting
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
from measures adopted to meet
requirements of the CAA as of the
baseline date of the SIP. Pursuant to 40
CFR 51.309(e)(2)(v), states have the
option of including a provision that the
emissions trading program or other
alternative measure include a
geographic enhancement to the program
to address the requirement under 40
CFR 51.302(c) related to BART for
reasonably attributable visibility
impairment from the pollutants covered
under the emissions trading program or
other alternative measure.
States must also address the
distribution of emissions under the
BART alternative as part of the betterthan-BART demonstration. 40 CFR
51.308(e)(3). If a state can show that
with the alternative program the
distribution of emissions is not
substantially different from sourcespecific BART, and the alternative
program results in greater emission
reductions than source-specific BART,
then the alternative measure may be
deemed to achieve greater reasonable
progress. If the distribution of emissions
is significantly different, the state must
conduct dispersion modeling to
determine differences in visibility
between source-specific BART and the
alternative program for each impacted
Class I area for the 20% worst and best
days. The modeling must show that
visibility does not decline at any Class
I area and that visibility overall is
greater than what would be achieved
with source-specific BART.
B. Elements Required for All Alternative
Programs That Have an Emissions Cap
Under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(A)–(L),
EPA established fundamental
requirements for trading or alternative
programs that have an emissions cap
and require sources to hold allowances
that they can sell, buy, or trade, as in the
case for the 309 backstop trading
program. These requirements are
summarized below.
1. Applicability
The alternative program must have
applicability provisions that define the
sources subject to the program. In the
case of a program covering sources in
multiple states, the states must
demonstrate that the applicability
provisions in each state cover
essentially the same size facilities and,
if source categories are specified, cover
the same source categories.
2. Allowances
Allowances are a key feature of a cap
and trade program. An allowance is a
limited authorization for a source to
emit a specified amount of a pollutant,
E:\FR\FM\24MYP1.SGM
24MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 101 / Thursday, May 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules
as defined by the specific trading
program, during a specified period.
Allowances are fully marketable
commodities. Once allocated,
allowances may be bought, sold, traded,
or banked for use in future years. EPA
has not included in the rule detailed
requirements on how states and tribes
can allocate allowances. A state or tribe
can determine how to allocate
allowances as long as the allocation of
the tonnage value of allowances does
not exceed the total number of tons of
emissions capped by the budget. The
trading program must include allowance
provisions ensuring that the total value
of allowances issued each year under
the program will not exceed the
emissions cap on total annual emissions
from the sources in the program.
data reported for that source. The
account representative will be
responsible for, among other things,
permitting, compliance, and allowance
related actions.
3. Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and
Reporting
MRR of a source’s emissions are
integral parts of any cap and trade
program. Consistent and accurate
measurement of emissions ensures that
each allowance actually represents its
specified tonnage value of emissions
and that one ton of reported emissions
from one source is equivalent to one ton
of reported emissions at another source.
The MRR provisions must require that
boilers, combustion turbines, and
cement kilns in the alternative program
that are allowed to sell or transfer
allowances comply with the
requirements of 40 CFR part 75. The
MRR provisions must require that other
sources in the program allowed to sell
or transfer allowances provide
emissions information with the same
precision, reliability, accessibility, and
timeliness as information required by 40
CFR part 75.
7. Compliance Provisions
Cap and trade programs must include
compliance provisions that prohibit a
source from emitting more emissions
than the total tonnage value of
allowances the source holds for that
year. A cap and trade program must also
contain the specific methods and
procedures for determining compliance
on an annual basis.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
4. Tracking System
An accurate and efficient tracking
system is critical to the functioning of
an emissions trading market. The
tracking system must also be
transparent, allowing all interested
parties access to the information
contained in the accounting system.
Thus, alternative programs must have
requirements for a tracking system that
is publicly available in a secure,
centralized database to track in a
consistent manner all allowances and
emissions in the program.
5. Account Representative
Each source owner or operator
covered by the alternative program must
designate an individual account
representative who is authorized to
represent the owner or operator in all
matters pertaining to the trading
program and who is responsible for the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:29 May 23, 2012
Jkt 226001
6. Allowance Transfer
SIPs must contain provisions
detailing a uniform process for
transferring allowances among all
sources covered by the program and
other possible participants. The
provisions must provide procedures for
sources to request an allowance transfer,
for the request and transfer to be
recorded in the allowance tracking
system, for notification to the source
that the transfer has occurred, and for
notification to the public of each
transfer and request.
8. Penalty Provisions
In order to provide sources with a
strong incentive to comply with the
requirement to hold sufficient
allowances for their emissions on an
annual basis and to establish an
immediate minimum economic
consequence for non-compliance, the
program must include a system for
mandatory allowance deductions. SIPs
must contain a provision that if a source
has excess emissions in a given year,
allowances allocated for the subsequent
year will be deducted from the source’s
account in an amount at least equal to
three times the excess emissions.
9. Banking of Allowances
The banking of allowances occurs
when allowances that have not been
used for compliance are set aside for use
in a later compliance period. Alternative
programs can include provisions for
banked allowances, so long as the SIP
clearly identifies how unused
allowances may be used in future years
and whether there are any restrictions
on the use of any such banked
allowances.
10. Program Assessment
The alternative program must include
provisions for periodic assessment of
the program. Such periodic assessments
are a way to retrospectively assess the
performance of the trading program in
meeting the goals of the regional haze
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
30961
program and determining whether the
trading program needs any adjustments
or changes. At a minimum, the program
evaluation must be conducted every five
years to coincide with the periodic
report describing progress towards the
reasonable progress goals required
under 40 CFR 51.308(g) and must be
submitted to EPA.
V. Our Analysis of Wyoming’s
Submittal
The following summarizes how
Wyoming’s January 12, 2011 submittal
meets the requirements of 40 CFR
51.309, with the exception of 40 CFR
51.309(d)(4)(iii), 40 CFR
51.309(d)(4)(vii), and 40 CFR 51.309(g),
which as discussed above, EPA plans to
propose action on in a future notice.
A. Projection of Visibility Improvement
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(2),
Wyoming provided a comparison of the
monitored 2000–2004 baseline visibility
conditions in deciviews for the 20
percent best and 20 percent worst days
to the projected visibility improvement
for 2018 for the Class I areas on the
Colorado Plateau (see section K.2 of the
SIP). Table 1 shows the State’s baseline
monitoring data and projected visibility
improvement for 2018 from the WRAP
photochemical modeling (for details on
the WRAP emission inventories and
photochemical modeling refer to the
WRAP Technical Support Document
(TSD) 9 and our review of the technical
products developed by the WRAP for
the states in the western region, in
support of their regional haze SIPs).10
The projected visibility improvement
for the 2018 Base Case (referred to as the
Base18b emission inventory and
modeled projections) reflects growth
plus all controls ‘‘on the books’’ as of
December 2004. The projected visibility
improvement for the Preliminary
Reasonable Progress Case (referred to as
the PRP18b emission inventory and
modeled projections) reflects refined
growth estimates, all controls ‘‘on the
books’’ as of 2007, and includes
presumptive or known SO2 BART
controls. The modeling results show
projected visibility improvement for the
20 percent worst days in 2018 and no
degradation in visibility conditions on
9 WRAP Regional Technical Support Document
for the Requirements of § 309 of the Regional Haze
Rule (64 Federal Register 35714—July 1, 1999),
revised May 7, 2008, which can be found in the
State’s TSD included in the docket of this action.
10 Our review of the technical products developed
by the WRAP is available as Technical Support
Document for Technical Products Prepared by the
Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) in
Support of Western Regional Haze Plans, February
28, 2011, which can be found in the Supporting and
Related Materials section of the docket.
E:\FR\FM\24MYP1.SGM
24MYP1
30962
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 101 / Thursday, May 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules
the 20 percent best days at all 16 Class
I areas on the Colorado Plateau. We are
proposing to determine the State’s SIP
satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR
51.309(d)(2).
TABLE 1—BASELINE AND 2018 VISIBILITY AT THE COLORADO PLATEAU CLASS I AREAS
20 Percent worst visibility days
Class I area
State
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 ..........................
Capitol Reef National Park ...........................
Zion National Park ........................................
B. Clean Air Corridors
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
1. Comprehensive Emissions Tracking
Program
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(3),
Wyoming is using a comprehensive
emissions tracking system established
by WRAP to track emissions within
portions of Oregon, Idaho, Nevada and
Utah that have been identified as part of
the CAC (see section B.1(a) of the SIP).
The emission tracking is to ensure that
visibility does not degrade on the leastimpaired days in any of the 16 Class I
areas of the Colorado Plateau. For a
complete description of the emission
tracking system and the process by
which the annual emission trends will
be summarized in order to identify any
significant emissions growth that could
lead to visibility degradation in the 16
Class I areas, see Description of
Comprehensive Emissions Tracking
System in the Wyoming Technical
Support Document (TSD). The TSD can
be found in the docket for this notice.
2. Identification of Clean Air Corridors
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(3)(i),
the State has provided the geographic
boundaries of the CAC (a map of the
CAC can be found in Section B of the
SIP). The WRAP identified the CAC
using studies conducted by the
Meteorological Subcommittee of the
GCVTC and then updated the CAC
based on an assessment described in the
WRAP Policy on Clean Air Corridors
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:29 May 23, 2012
Jkt 226001
2000–2004
Baseline
monitoring
data
(deciview)
2018 Base
case
(deciview)
20 Percent best visibility days
2018
Preliminary
reasonable
progress
case
(deciview)
2000–2004
Baseline
monitoring
data
(deciview)
2018 Base
case
(deciview)
2018
Preliminary
reasonable
progress
case
(deciview)
AZ
AZ
AZ
AZ
CO
11.7
11.9
13.2
15.3
10.3
11.4
11.5
12.9
15.1
10.1
11.3
11.4
12.9
15.1
9.9
2.2
3.0
5.0
5.6
3.1
2.2
2.9
4.9
5.6
2.9
2.1
2.8
4.8
5.6
2.9
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
NM
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
9.6
9.6
13.0
10.3
9.6
10.2
11.2
11.6
11.2
10.9
13.2
9.2
9.2
12.8
10.1
9.2
10.0
11.0
11.3
11.0
10.6
13.0
9.0
9.0
12.6
9.9
9.0
9.8
10.9
11.2
10.9
10.5
13.0
0.7
0.7
4.3
3.1
0.7
1.5
3.8
2.8
3.8
4.1
5.0
0.6
0.6
4.1
2.9
0.6
1.3
3.6
2.7
3.6
4.0
4.7
0.5
0.5
4.0
2.9
0.5
1.2
3.5
2.6
3.5
3.9
4.7
located in the Wyoming TSD. The
technical studies and findings
supporting the WRAP Policy on Clean
Air Corridors are located in Chapter 3 of
the WRAP TSD.
3. Patterns of Growth Within and
Outside of the Clean Air Corridor
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(3)(ii)–
(iii), the State has determined, based on
the WRAP Policy on Clean Air Corridors
and technical analysis conducted by the
WRAP, that inside and outside the CAC
there is no significant emissions growth
occurring at this time that is causing
visibility impairment in the 16 Class I
areas of the Colorado Plateau. The
WRAP will summarize annual emission
trends within and outside of the CAC
and will assess whether any significant
emissions growth is occurring that
could result in visibility impairment in
any of the 16 Class I areas (see section
B.1(c) of the SIP).
4. Actions if Impairment Inside or
Outside the Clean Air Corridor Occurs
The State, in coordination with other
transport region states and tribes, will
review the annual summary of emission
trends within the CAC and determine
whether any significant emissions
growth has occurred. If the State
identifies significant emissions growth,
the State, in coordination with other
transport region states and tribes, will
conduct an analysis of the effects of this
emissions growth. Pursuant to 40 CFR
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
51.309(d)(3)(iv), if this analysis finds
that the emissions growth is causing
visibility impairment in the 16 Class I
areas, the State will evaluate the need
for additional emission reduction
measures and identify an
implementation schedule for such
measures. The State will report on the
need for additional reduction measures
to EPA in accordance with the periodic
progress reports required under 40 CFR
51.309(d)(10)(i) (see section B.1(d) and
(e) of the SIP).
5. Other Clean Air Corridors
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(3)(v),
the State has concluded that no other
CACs can be identified at this time. The
State’s conclusion is based on the WRAP
Policy on Clean Air Corridors, which
determined that no other CACs could be
identified (see section B.1(f) of the SIP).
We are proposing to determine that
the State’s SIP meets the requirements
of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(3).
C. Stationary Source Reductions
1. Provisions for Stationary Source
Emissions of Sulfur Dioxide
As required by 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(i),
the State has adopted SO2 milestone
numbers for each year of the program
until 2018 (see section C.A1.1of the
SIP).11 Table 2 shows the milestone
11 The milestone numbers reflect the participation
of Wyoming, Utah, and New Mexico, including
E:\FR\FM\24MYP1.SGM
24MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 101 / Thursday, May 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules
30963
numbers and how compliance with the
annual milestones will be determined.
TABLE 2—SO2 EMISSIONS MILESTONES
Regional sulfur dioxide milestone
(tons per year (tpy))
Year
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
........................................................................................
........................................................................................
........................................................................................
........................................................................................
........................................................................................
........................................................................................
........................................................................................
........................................................................................
........................................................................................
........................................................................................
........................................................................................
forward, until replaced by an approved SIP ..................
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
SO2 emissions from sources in 1990
totaled 358,364 tpy and the 2018
milestone is 141,849 tpy.12 The
difference is a 60 percent reduction in
SO2 emissions from 1990 to 2018.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(i), the
State has concluded that the emission
reductions are on target to achieve the
GCVTC goal of a 50 to 70 percent
reduction of SO2 emissions by 2040.
We are proposing to determine the
State’s SIP meets the requirements of 40
CFR 51.309(d)4)(i).
2. Documentation of Emissions
Calculation Methods for Sulfur Dioxide
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(ii),
the SIP includes documentation of the
specific methodology used to calculate
SO2 emissions during the 2006 base year
for each emitting unit included in the
program (see Appendix E of the SIP). A
detailed spreadsheet report that
provides the baseline numbers and
methodology used to calculate
emissions for sources covered by the
program is included in this docket.13
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(ii),
the SIP requires the State to document
any change to the specific methodology
used to calculate emissions at any
emitting unit for any year after the base
year. Until the program has been
triggered and source compliance is
required, the State will submit an
annual emissions report to EPA that
documents prior year emissions for
Wyoming sources covered by the 309
program to all participating states by
September 30 of each year. The State
will adjust actual emission inventories
for sources that change the method of
monitoring or calculating their
emissions to be comparable to the
Albuquerque-Bernalillo County in the 309 backstop
trading program.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:29 May 23, 2012
Jkt 226001
269,083
234,903
200,722
200,722
200,722
185,795
170,868
155,940
155,940
155,940
141,849
141,849
tons
tons
tons
tons
tons
tons
tons
tons
tons
tons
tons
tons
SO2
SO2
SO2
SO2
SO2
SO2
SO2
SO2
SO2
SO2
SO2
SO2
..................................
..................................
..................................
..................................
..................................
..................................
..................................
..................................
..................................
..................................
..................................
..................................
emission monitoring or calculation
method used to calculate the 2006 base
year inventory (see section C.A3 of the
SIP).
We are proposing to determine the
State’s SIP meets the requirements of 40
CFR 51.309(d)(4)(ii).
3. Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and
Reporting of Sulfur Dioxide Emissions
In order to meet the emission
reporting requirements of 40 CFR
51.309(d)(4)(iii), the SIP includes
provisions requiring the monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting of actual
stationary source SO2 emissions within
the State to determine if the milestone
has been exceeded. The pre-trigger
emission inventory requirements are
covered by WAQSR Chapter 14, Section
3, which was included in Wyoming’s
April 19, 2012 submittal.
We are proposing to determine the
State’s SIP meets the requirements of 40
CFR 51.309(d)(4)(iii), and we are
proposing to approve WAQSR Chapter
14, Section 3.
Annual SO2 emissions used to
determine compliance with the
annual milestones
Average of 2006, 2007 and 2008.
Average of 2007, 2008 and 2009.
Average of 2008, 2009 and 2010.
Average of 2009, 2010 and 2011.
Average of 2010, 2011 and 2012.
Average of 2011, 2012 and 2013.
Average of 2012, 2013 and 2014.
Average of 2013, 2014 and 2015.
Average of 2014, 2015 and 2016.
Average of 2015, 2016 and 2017.
Year 2018 only.
Annual; no multiyear averaging.
emissions, adjustments to account for
changes in monitoring/calculation
methods or enforcement/settlement
agreements, and adjusted average
emissions for the last three years for
comparison to the regional milestone.
As required by 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(iv),
based on this compilation of reports
from all states participating in the 309
program, states will determine if the
milestone has been exceeded and will
include a determination in a final
regional emissions report that is
submitted to EPA. This final report and
determination will be submitted to EPA
by the end of March, 15 months
following the milestone year (see
section C.A.3 of the SIP).
We are proposing to determine the
State’s SIP meets the requirements of 40
CFR 51.309(d)(4)(iv).
4. Criteria and Procedures for a Market
Trading Program
Until the backstop trading program
has been triggered and source
compliance is required, the State shall
submit an annual emissions report for
Wyoming sources to all participating
states by September 30th of each year.
The report shall document actual SO2
emissions during the previous calendar
year for all sources subject to the section
309 program. The WRAP will compile
reports from all participating states into
a draft regional emission report for SO2
by December 31st of each year. This
report will include actual regional SO2
5. Market Trading Program
Per 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(v), the SIP
provides that if the 309 backstop trading
program is triggered, the regional
emissions report will contain a common
trigger date. In the absence of a common
trigger date, the default date will be
March 31st of the applicable year, but
no later than 15 months after the end of
the milestone year where the milestone
was exceeded (see section C.3.10 of the
SIP). The State’s SIP requires that
sources comply, as soon as practicable,
with the requirement to hold allowances
covering their emissions. Because the
backstop trading program does not
allow allocations to exceed the
milestone, the program is sufficient to
achieve the milestones adopted
pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(i) as
discussed above. The backstop trading
program is also consistent with the
12 See Demonstration that the SO Milestones
2
Provide Greater Reasonable Progress than BART in
section D of the State’s TSD.
13 See 2006 Inventory Documentation in the
Supporting and Related materials section of the
docket.
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\24MYP1.SGM
24MYP1
30964
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 101 / Thursday, May 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules
elements for such programs outlined in
40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi). The analysis
found in Section V.E. of this notice
shows that the backstop trading program
is consistent with the elements for
trading programs outlined in 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2)(vi).
We are proposing to determine the
State’s SIP meets the requirements of 40
CFR 309(d)(4)(v).
6. Provisions for the 2018 Milestone
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(vi)(A),
the SIP has provisions to ensure that,
until a revised implementation plan is
submitted in accordance with 40 CFR
51.308(f) and approved by EPA,
emissions from covered stationary
sources in any year beginning in 2018
do not exceed the 2018 milestone. In
order to meet this requirement, the State
has included special provisions for what
will be required as part of their 2013 SIP
revision required under 40 CFR
51.309(d)(10). The State’s SIP provides
that the 2013 SIP revision required by
40 CFR 51.309(d)(10) will contain either
the provisions of a program designed to
achieve reasonable progress for
stationary sources of SO2 beyond 2018
or a commitment to submit a SIP
revision containing the provisions of
such a program no later than December
31, 2016 (see section D.2 of the SIP).
We are proposing to determine the
State’s SIP meets the requirements of 40
CFR 51.309(d)(4)(vi)(A).
7. Special Penalty Provision for 2018
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(vi)(B),
the SIP includes special penalty
provisions to ensure that the 2018
milestone is met. If the backstop trading
program is triggered and it will not start
until after the year 2018, a special
penalty shall be assessed to sources that
exceed the 2018 milestone. Wyoming
shall seek at least the minimum
financial penalty of $5,000 per ton of
SO2 emissions in excess of a source’s
allowance limitation. Any source may
resolve its excess emissions violation by
agreeing to a streamlined settlement
approach where the source pays a
penalty of $5,000 per ton or partial ton
of excess emissions and the source
makes the payment within 90 calendar
days after the issuance of a notice of
violation.
Any source that does not resolve its
excess emissions violation in
accordance with the streamlined
settlement approach will be subject to
civil enforcement action, in which the
State shall seek a financial penalty for
the excess emissions based on the
State’s statutory maximum civil
penalties. The special penalty
provisions for 2018 will apply for each
year after 2018 until the State
determines that the 2018 milestone has
been met. The State will evaluate the
amount of the minimum monetary
penalty during each five-year SIP review
and the penalty will be adjusted to
ensure that penalties per ton
substantially exceed the expected cost
of allowances, and are thus stringent
penalties (see Chapter 14, Section 2(l)
and section A.5 of the SIP).
We are proposing to determine the
State’s SIP meets the requirements of 40
CFR 51.309(d)(4)(vi)(B).
D. ‘‘Better-Than-BART’’ Demonstration
As discussed in Section IV.A of this
preamble, if a state adopts an alternative
program designed to replace sourcespecific BART controls, the state must
be able to demonstrate that the
alternative program achieves greater
reasonable progress than would be
achieved by BART. Wyoming has
included a demonstration of how the
309 program achieves greater reasonable
progress than BART as discussed in the
document titled Demonstration that the
SO2 Milestones Provide for Greater
Reasonable Progress than BART
(‘‘better-than-BART’’ demonstration).
Section V.D.5 below contains a
discussion on how the 309 backstop
trading program achieves greater
reasonable progress than BART. New
Mexico and Utah have also submitted
SIPs with the same better-than-BART
demonstration as Wyoming, and thus,
are relying on a consistent
demonstration across the states.
1. List of BART-Eligible Sources
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(A),
the State’s better-than-BART
demonstration lists the BART-eligible
sources covered by the program (see
Table 3 below). BART eligible sources
are identified as those sources that fall
within one of the 26 specific source
categories, were built between 1962 and
1977 and have potential emissions of
250 tons per year of any visibility
impairing air pollutant.
We are proposing that this satisfies
the requirements of 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2)(i)(A).
2. Subject-to-BART Determination
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(B),
the State has determined which sources
are subject-to-BART. Each of the section
309 states provided source modeling
that determined which of the BARTeligible sources within their states to
determine which sources cause or
contribute to visibility impairment and
are thus subject-to-BART. The State of
New Mexico and Utah relied on
modeling by the WRAP to identify
sources subject to BART. Based on the
list of identified sources, the WRAP
performed the initial BART modeling
for the State of New Mexico and Utah.
The procedures used are outlined in the
WRAP Regional Modeling Center (RMC)
BART Modeling Protocol.14 The State of
Wyoming performed separate modeling
to identify sources subject-to-BART.15
The states established a contribution
threshold of 0.5 deciviews for
determining if a single source causes or
contributes to visibility impairment. If
the modeling shows that a source has a
0.5 deciview impact at any Class I area,
that source causes or contributes to
visibility impairment and is subject-toBART. Table 3 shows the BART-eligible
sources covered by the 309 backstop
program and whether they are subjectto-BART.
We are proposing to determine that
the State’s SIP meets the requirements
of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(B).
TABLE 3—SUBJECT-TO-BART STATUS FOR SECTION 309 BART-ELIGIBLE SOURCES
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
State
New
New
New
New
Mexico
Mexico
Mexico
Mexico
Company
...............................................
...............................................
...............................................
...............................................
Facility
Frontier ......................................................
Xcel Energy ..............................................
Duke Energy .............................................
Duke Energy .............................................
Empire Abo ...............................................
SWPS Cunningham Station .....................
Artesia Gas Plant ......................................
Linam Ranch Gas Plant ...........................
14 CALMET/CALPUFF Protocol for BART
Exemption Screening Analysis for Class I Areas in
the Western United States, Western Regional Air
Partnership (WRAP); Gail Tonnesen, Zion Wang;
Ralph Morris, Abby Hoats and Yiqin Jia, August 15,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:29 May 23, 2012
Jkt 226001
2006. Available at: https://pah.cert.ucr.edu/aqm/
308/bart/
WRAP_RMC_BART_Protocol_Aug15_2006.pdf.
15 BART Air Modeling Protocol, Individual Source
Visibility Assessments for BART Control Analyses,
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Subject-toBART?
No.
No.
No.
No.
State of Wyoming, Department of Environmental
Quality, Air Quality Division, Cheyenne, WY
September 2006.
E:\FR\FM\24MYP1.SGM
24MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 101 / Thursday, May 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules
30965
TABLE 3—SUBJECT-TO-BART STATUS FOR SECTION 309 BART-ELIGIBLE SOURCES—Continued
State
Company
Facility
New Mexico ...............................................
New Mexico ...............................................
New Mexico ...............................................
New Mexico ...............................................
New Mexico ...............................................
New Mexico ...............................................
New Mexico ...............................................
New Mexico ...............................................
Utah ...........................................................
Utah ...........................................................
Wyoming ...................................................
Wyoming ...................................................
Wyoming ...................................................
Wyoming ...................................................
Wyoming ...................................................
Wyoming ...................................................
Wyoming ...................................................
Wyoming ...................................................
Wyoming ...................................................
Wyoming ...................................................
Wyoming ...................................................
Wyoming ...................................................
Wyoming ...................................................
Dynegy ......................................................
Giant Refining ...........................................
Giant Refining ...........................................
Xcel Energy ..............................................
Marathon ...................................................
Public Service of New Mexico ..................
...................................................................
Western Gas Resources ..........................
Pacificorp ..................................................
Pacificorp ..................................................
Basin Electric ............................................
Black Hills Power & Light .........................
Dyno Nobel ...............................................
FMC Corp. ................................................
FMC Corp. ................................................
General Chemical .....................................
P4 Production ...........................................
Pacificorp ..................................................
Pacificorp ..................................................
Pacificorp ..................................................
Pacificorp ..................................................
Sinclair Oil Corp ........................................
Sinclair Refinery ........................................
Saunders ...................................................
San Juan Refinery ....................................
Ciniza Refinery .........................................
SWPS Maddox Station .............................
Indian Basin Gas Plant .............................
San Juan Generating Station ...................
Rio Grande Station ...................................
San Juan River Gas Plant ........................
Hunter .......................................................
Huntington .................................................
Laramie River ...........................................
Neil Simpson I ..........................................
Dyno Nobel ...............................................
Green River Soda Ash Plant ....................
Granger River Soda Ash Plant .................
Green River Soda Ash Plant ....................
Rock Springs Coking Plant .......................
Dave Johnston ..........................................
Jim Bridger ................................................
Naughton ..................................................
Wyodak .....................................................
Sinclair Refinery ........................................
Casper ......................................................
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
3. Best System of Continuous Emission
Control Technology
As required by 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2)(i)(C), the State determined
what BART would be for each subjectto-BART source covered by the 309
backstop trading program. In the State’s
better-than-BART demonstration, all
subject-to-BART EGUs were assumed to
be operating at the presumptive SO2
emission rate of 0.15 lb/MMBtu
established in the BART Guidelines (70
FR 39171). The 309 program also
includes non-EGU subject-to-BART
units. As explained in the better-thanBART demonstration, the non-EGU
subject-to-BART units are four boilers
located at two trona plants in Wyoming:
FMC Westvaco and General Chemical
Green River. Wyoming made a
determination of what BART would be
for these non-EGU units. FMC Westvaco
recently installed pollution control
projects achieving a 63% reduction in
SO2 from its two boilers. Wyoming
determined this control level would
serve as a BART benchmark for all trona
boilers. Thus, a 63% reduction in
emissions from these sources was
included in the BART benchmark in
calculating emission reductions
assuming the application of BART at
these sources. Emission reductions or
the BART benchmark for all subject-toBART sources covered by the 309
program was calculated to be 48,807
tons of SO2 (all supporting calculations
for the ‘‘better-than-BART’’
demonstration are located in the State’s
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:29 May 23, 2012
Jkt 226001
TSD under the title 10-610_milestone.xls).
We are proposing to determine the
State’s SIP meets the requirements of 40
CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(C).
4. Projected Emissions Reductions
As required by 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2)(i)(D), the State has provided
the expected emission reductions that
would result from the 309 backstop
trading program. The better-than-BART
demonstration projects that 2018
baseline emissions would be 190,656
tpy of SO2 for the sources covered by
the 309 program in the participating
states. The reductions achieved by the
program are 48,807 tpy of SO2, resulting
in remaining emissions of 141,849 tpy
of SO2 in 2018.
We are proposing to determine the
State’s SIP meets the requirements of 40
CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(D).
5. Evidence That the Trading Program
Achieves Greater Reasonable Progress
Than BART
The State’s better-than-BART
demonstration provides numerous
reasons why the SO2 backstop trading
program is better than BART. First,
additional sources beyond BART
sources are included. The backstop
trading program includes all stationary
sources with emissions greater than 100
tpy of SO2, and thus, encompasses 63
non-subject-to-BART sources, which are
identified in the better-than-BART
demonstration. BART applied on a
source-specific basis would not affect
these sources, and there would be no
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Subject-toBART?
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
Yes.
No.
No.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
No.
No.
Yes.
No.
Yes.
No.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
No.
No.
limitation on their future operations
under their existing permit conditions,
or allowable emissions. The milestones
will cap these sources at 2002 actual
emissions, which are less than current
allowable emissions.
The program also provides for a cap
on new source growth. Future
impairment is prevented by capping
emissions growth from sources covered
by the program and also by including
entirely new sources in the region under
the cap. BART applied on a sourcespecific basis would have no impact on
future growth. The backstop trading
program also provides a mass-based cap
that has inherent advantages over
applying BART to each individual
source. The baseline emission
projections and assumed reductions due
to the assumption of BART-level
emission rates on all sources subject-toBART are all based on actual emissions,
using 2006 as the baseline. If the BART
process were applied on a sourcespecific basis to individual sources,
emission limitations would typically be
established as an emission rate (lbs/hr
or lbs/MMBtu) that would account for
variations in the sulfur content of fuel
and alternative operating scenarios, or
allowable emissions. A mass-based cap
that is based on actual emissions is
more stringent because it does not allow
a source to consistently use this
difference between current actual and
allowable emissions.
We are proposing to determine the
State’s 309 backstop trading program
achieves greater reasonable progress
than would be achieved through the
E:\FR\FM\24MYP1.SGM
24MYP1
30966
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 101 / Thursday, May 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules
installation and operation of BART, and
thus, meets the requirements of 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2)(i)(E).
6. All Emission Reductions Must Take
Place During the First Planning Period
The first planning period ends in
2018. As discussed above, the
reductions from the 309 program will
occur by 2018. We are therefore
proposing to determine the State’s SIP
meets the requirements of 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2)(iii).
7. Detailed Description of the
Alternative Program
The detailed description of the
backstop trading program are provided
in Section C—Stationary Sources of the
State’s SIP and WAQSR Chapter 14
Section 2. The details of the backstop
trading program are discussed in section
V.E of this notice. We are proposing to
determine that the State’s SIP meets the
detailed description requirement in 40
CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iii).
8. Surplus Reductions
We propose to approve the
determination in the State’s 309 SIP
submittal that all emission reductions
resulting from the emissions trading
program are surplus as of the baseline
date of the SIP, as required by 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2)(iv).
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
9. Geographic Distribution of Emissions
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3), the
State used modeling conducted by the
WRAP to compare the visibility
improvement expected from source-bysource BART to the backstop trading
program for the Class I areas on the
Colorado Plateau. A summary of the
modeling results can be found in
Section K of the State’s SIP, which
refers to data from modeling included in
Tables 2 and 3 of Attachment C to the
Annex.16 17 This modeling was
conducted during the development of
the Annex to examine if the geographic
distribution of emissions under the
trading program would be substantially
different and disproportionately impact
any Class I area due to a geographic
concentration of emissions. The
modeled visibility improvement for the
16 Voluntary Emissions Reduction Program for
Major Industrial Sources of Sulfur Dioxide in Nine
Western States and A Backstop Market Trading
Program, an Annex to the Report of the Grand
Canyon Visibility Transport Commission
(September 2000) at C–15 and 16.
17 WRAP conducted modeling of the degree of
visibility improvement that would occur on average
and for the 20% best and worst visibility days. The
WRAP used the transfer coefficients developed as
part of the Integrated Assessment System and used
by the GCVTC. As noted in the Annex, this
modeling has limitations which must be considered
when interpreting the results.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:29 May 23, 2012
Jkt 226001
best and worst days at the Class I areas
for the 309 program is similar to
improvement anticipated from the
BART scenario (within 0.1 deciview) on
the worst and best visibility days. Thus,
if we assume participation and
milestones consistent with the model,
the model demonstrates that the
distribution of emissions between the
BART scenario and the 309 trading
program are not substantially different.
We note this modeling demonstration
included nine states, many of which are
not participating in the backstop trading
program. This modeling demonstration
adds support to our proposed
determination, discussed above in this
section, that the regional haze 309 SIP
submittal appropriately shows the
trading program will achieve greater
reasonable progress than would be
achieved through the installation and
operation of BART, as required by 40
CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(E).
E. Requirements for Alternative
Programs With an Emissions Cap
The following analysis shows that the
State’s SIP is consistent with the
elements for trading programs required
by 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi). The backstop
trading program contains milestones,
which are in effect a cap. Under a
backstop trading program, the
provisions of a trading program are
enacted only if the milestone has been
exceeded. Since the 309 trading
program is a backstop trading program,
the provisions outlined below will only
apply if the milestone is exceeded and
the program is triggered.
1. Applicability Provisions
Pursuant to 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2)(vi)(A), the backstop trading
program has the same applicability
requirements in all states opting to
participate in the program. WAQSR
Chapter 14, Section 2(c) contains the
applicability provisions and provides
that the backstop trading program
applies to all stationary sources that
emit 100 tons per year or more of SO2
in the program trigger year.
We are proposing to approve that the
State’s SIP meets the requirements of 40
CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(A).
2. Allowance Provisions
Section C.1.C1 of the SIP and WAQSR
Chapter 14, Section 2(g) contain the
allowance allocation provisions as
required by 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(B).
The rule requires sources to open a
compliance account in order to track
allowances and contains other
requirements associated with those
accounts. The SIP contains the
provisions on how the State will
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
allocate allowances and requires that
the total number of allowances
distributed cannot exceed the milestone
for any given year.
We are proposing to determine the
State’s SIP meets the requirements of 40
CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(B).
3. Monitoring, Recordkeeping and
Reporting Provisions
Pursuant to 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2)(vi)(C)–(E), WAQSR Chapter
14, Section 2(h)(i)(A) provides that
sources subject to 40 CFR part 75 under
a separate requirement from the
backstop trading program shall meet the
requirements contained in 40 CFR part
75 with respect to MRR of SO2
emissions. If a unit is not subject to 40
CFR part 75 under a requirement
separate from the trading program, the
State requires that a source use one of
the following monitoring methods: (1)
Continuous emission monitoring system
for SO2 and flow that complies with all
applicable monitoring provisions in 40
CFR part 75; (2) if the unit is a gas- or
oil-fired combustion device, the
monitoring methodology in Appendix D
to 40 CFR part 75, or, if applicable, the
low mass emissions provisions (with
respect to SO2 mass emissions only) of
section 75.19(c) of 40 CFR part 75; (3)
one of the optional protocols, if
applicable, in Appendix A to WAQSR
Chapter 14;18 or (4) a petition for sitespecific monitoring that the source
submits for approval by the State and
EPA. All the above sources are required
to comply with the reporting and
recordkeeping requirements in 40 CFR
part 75.
Although most sources covered by the
backstop trading program will be able to
meet the monitoring requirements stated
above, there are some emission units
that are either not physically able to
install the needed equipment or do not
emit enough SO2 to justify the expense
of installing these systems. As discussed
in section C5.3 of the SIP, the trading
program allows these emission units to
continue to use their pre-trigger
monitoring methodology, but does not
allow the source to transfer any
allocation to that unit to another source.
The program requires that the
allowances associated with emission
units that continue to use their pretrigger monitoring methodology be
18 Appendix A of Chapter 14 contains monitoring
requirements for fuel gas combustion devices at
petroleum refineries and kilns with positive
pressure fabric filters. Appendix A specifies the
installation of a continuous fuel gas monitoring
system and predictive flow monitoring system,
respectively. Appendix A also specifies
requirements under 40 CFR part 75 sources must
follow in regards to this equipment.
E:\FR\FM\24MYP1.SGM
24MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 101 / Thursday, May 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
placed in a special reserve compliance
account, while allowances for other
emission units are placed in a regular
compliance account. Sources may not
trade allowances out of a special reserve
compliance account, even for use by
emission units at the same source, but
can use the allowances to show
compliance for that particular unit.
WAQSR Chapter 14, Section 2(h)(i)(B)
allows sources with any of the following
emission units to apply to establish a
special reserve compliance account: (1)
Any smelting operation where all of the
emissions from the operation are not
ducted to a stack; (2) any flare, except
to the extent such flares are used as a
fuel gas combustion device at a
petroleum refinery; or (3) any other type
of unit without add-on SO2 control
equipment, if the unit belongs to one of
the following source categories: cement
kilns, pulp and paper recovery furnaces,
lime kilns, or glass manufacturing.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(E),
sources with a special reserve
compliance account are required to
submit to the State an annual emissions
statement and sources are required to
maintain operating records sufficient to
estimate annual emissions consistent
with the baseline emission inventory
submitted in 1998.
We are proposing to determine the
State’s SIP meets the requirements of 40
CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(C)–(E).
4. Tracking System
As required by 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2)(vi)(F), section C2 of the SIP
provides the overarching specifications
for an Emissions and Allowance
Tracking System (EATS). According to
the SIP, the EATS must provide that all
necessary information regarding
emissions, allowances, and transactions
is publicly available in a secure,
centralized database. The EATS must
ensure that each allowance is uniquely
identified, allow for frequent updates,
and include enforceable procedures for
recording data. If the program is
triggered, the State will work with other
states and tribes participating in the
trading program to implement this
system. More detailed specifications for
the EATS are provided in the WEB
Emission and Allowance Tracking
System (EATS) Analysis in the State’s
TSD. The State assumes responsibility
for ensuring that all the EATS
provisions are completed as described
in its SIP and TSD.
In addition, the State will work with
the other participating states to
designate one tracking system
administrator (TSA). The SIP provides
that the TSA shall be designated as
expeditiously as possible, but no later
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:29 May 23, 2012
Jkt 226001
than six months after the program
trigger date. The State will enter into a
binding contract with the TSA that shall
require the TSA to perform all TSA
functions described in the SIP, such as
transferring and recording allowances
(see section A2.2 of the SIP).
We are proposing to determine that
the State’s SIP meets the requirements
of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iv)(F).
5. Account Representative
Pursuant to 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2)(vi)(G), WAQSR Chapter 14,
Section 2(d) contains provisions for the
establishment of an account
representative. The rule requires each
source to identify one account
representative. The account
representative shall submit to the State
and the TSA a signed and dated
certificate that contains a certification
statement verifying that the account
representative has all the necessary
authority to carry out the account
representative responsibilities under the
trading program on behalf of the owners
and operators of the sources. The
certification statement also needs to
indicate that each such owner and
operator shall be fully bound by the
account representatives representations,
actions, inactions, or submissions and
by any decision or order issued to the
account representative by the State
regarding the trading program.
We are proposing to determine the
State’s SIP meets the requirements of 40
CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(G).
6. Allowance Transfers
The State has established procedures
pertaining to allowance transfers to
meet the requirements of 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2)(vi)(H). WAQSR Chapter 14,
Section 2(i) contains requirements
sources must follow for allowance
transfers. To transfer or retire
allowances, the account representative
shall submit the transfer account
number(s) identifying the transferor
account, the serial number of each
allowance to be transferred, the
transferor’s account representative’s
name and signature, and date of
submission. The allowance transfer
deadline is midnight Pacific Standard
Time on March 1 of each year following
the end of the control period. Sources
must correctly submit transfers by this
time in order for a source to be able to
use the allowance to demonstrate
compliance.
Section C3 of the SIP provides the
procedures the TSA must follow to
transfer allowances. The TSA will
record an allowance transfer by moving
each allowance from the transferor
account to the transferee account as
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
30967
specified by the request from the source,
if the transfer is correctly submitted,
and the transferor account includes each
allowance identified in the transfer.
Within five business days of the
recording of an allowance transfer, the
TSA shall notify the account
representatives of both the transferor
and transferee accounts, and make the
transfer information publicly available
on the Internet. Within five business
days of receipt of an allowance transfer
that fails to meet the requirements for
transfer, the TSA will notify the account
representatives of both accounts of the
decision not to record the transfer, and
the reasons for not recording the
transfer.
We are proposing to determine that
the State’s SIP meets the requirements
of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(H).
7. Compliance Provisions
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(I),
the State has provided the procedures
for determining compliance in WAQSR
Chapter 14, Section 2(k). Per this
section, the source must hold
allowances as of the allowance transfer
deadline in the source’s compliance
account (together with any current
control year allowances held in the
source’s special reserve compliance
account) in an amount not less than the
total SO2 emissions for the control
period from the source. The State
determines compliance by comparing
allowances held by the source in their
compliance account(s) with the total
annual SO2 emissions reported by the
source. If the comparison of the
allowances to emissions results in
emissions exceeding allowances, the
source’s excess emissions are subject to
the allowance deduction penalty
discussed in further detail below.
We are proposing to determine that
the State’s SIP meets the requirements
of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(I).
8. Penalty Provisions
WAQSR Chapter 14, Section 2(k)(iii)
provides the penalty provisions
required by 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(J).
Per this section, a source’s allowances
will be reduced by an amount equal to
three times the source’s tons of excess
emissions if they are unable to show
compliance. Allowances allocated for
the following control period will be the
original allowance minus the allowance
penalty. If the compliance account does
not have sufficient allowances allocated
for that control period, the required
number of allowances will be deducted
from the source’s compliance account
regardless of the control period for
which they were allocated.
E:\FR\FM\24MYP1.SGM
24MYP1
30968
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 101 / Thursday, May 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules
We are proposing to determine that
the State’s SIP meets the requirements
of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(J).
9. Banking of Allowances
As allowed by 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2)(vi)(K), WAQSR Chapter 14,
Section 2(j) allows sources to use
allowances from current and prior years
to demonstrate compliance, with some
restrictions. Sources can only use 2018
allowances to show compliance with
the 2018 milestone and may not use
allowances from prior years. In order to
ensure that the use of banked
allowances does not interfere with the
attainment or maintenance of reasonable
progress goals, the backstop trading
program includes flow-control
provisions. The flow-control provisions
are triggered if the TSA determines that
the banked allowances exceed ten
percent of the milestone for the next
control year, and thereby ensure that too
many banked emissions are not used in
any one year (see section C4 of the SIP).
We are proposing to determine the
State’s SIP meets the requirements of 40
CFR 51.309(e)(2)(vi)(J).
10. Program Assessment
Pursuant to 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2)(vi)(L), the SIP contains
provisions for a 2013 assessment and
SIP revision. For the 2013 assessment,
the State will work with other
participating states to develop a
projected emission inventory for SO2
through the year 2018. The State will
then evaluate the projected inventory
and assess the likelihood of meeting the
regional milestone for the year 2018.
The State shall include this assessment
as part of the 2013 progress report that
must be submitted under 40 CFR
51.309(d)(10) (see section D1 of the SIP).
We are proposing to determine the
State’s SIP meets the requirements of 40
CFR 308(e)(2)(vi)(L).
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
F. Provisions for Stationary Source
Emissions of Nitrogen Oxides and
Particulate Matter
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(vii),
the State submitted another SIP dated
January 12, 2011 that contains the
requirements for PM and NOX BART.
EPA plans to act on this submittal in a
separate notice.
G. Mobile Sources
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(5)(i),
the State, in collaboration with the
WRAP, assembled a comprehensive
statewide inventory of mobile source
emissions. The inventory included onroad and non-road mobile source
emissions inventories for western states
for the 2003 base year and emission
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:29 May 23, 2012
Jkt 226001
projections for the year 2018.19 The
inventory shows a continuous decline
in emissions from mobile sources from
VOC, NOX, PM2.5, EC, and OC emissions
over the period of 2003–2018. Between
2003 and 2018, the inventory shows that
there will be a 54 percent decrease in
NOX emissions, a 39 percent decrease in
OC, a 24 percent decrease in EC, a 38
percent decrease of PM2.5, and a 56
percent decrease of VOC. Per 40 CFR
51.309(d)(5)(i)(A), the inventory shows a
decline in the required mobile source
emissions categories and therefore no
further action is required by the State to
address mobile source emissions (see
section D.1 of the SIP).
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(5)(i)(B),
the State reviewed SO2 emissions from
non-road mobile sources. The emission
inventory projections show that there
will be a 99 percent decrease in SO2
emissions from non-road mobile sources
for 2003–2018. The reduction will result
from the implementation of EPA’s rule
titled Control of Emissions of Air
Pollution from Non-road Diesel Engines
and Fuel (see 69 FR 38958). The State
determined that a 99 percent reduction
in SO2 from non-road mobile sources is
consistent with the goal of reasonable
progress and that no other long-term
strategies are necessary to address SO2
emissions from non-road mobile sources
(see section D.1.c of the SIP).
We are proposing to determine the
State’s SIP meets the requirements of 40
CFR 51.309(d)(5).
H. Programs Related to Fire
1. Evaluation of Current Fire Programs
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6)(i),
the State has evaluated its existing open
burning regulations and all existing
federal and private prescribed fire
smoke management programs in the
State. The State evaluated the potential
for fire to contribute to visibility
impairment in the 16 Class I areas of the
Colorado Plateau, and how visibility
protection is addressed by different
entities in planning and operation. The
state of Wyoming relied upon the WRAP
report Assessing Status of Incorporating
Smoke Effects into Fire Planning and
Operation, as well as EPA’s Interim Air
Quality Policy on Wildland and
Prescribed Fire as guides for making this
evaluation. (A full copy of these
documents can be found in the
Wyoming TSD and the Supporting and
Related materials section of the docket,
respectively).
19 Detailed information on the emission inventory
is contained in the ENVIRON Report WRAP Mobile
Source Emission Inventories Update, May 2006.
This report is included in the Supporting and
Related Materials section of the docket.
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
The State determined that a new
smoke management regulation,
incorporated as WAQSR Chapter 10,
Section 4 and submitted as part of the
regional haze SIP, would be required to
meet the requirements of 40 CFR
51.309(d)(6)(i). WAQSR Chapter 10,
Section 4 establishes requirements for
vegetative burners pertaining to the
management of emissions and air
quality impacts from smoke on public
health and visibility. WAQSR Chapter
10, Section 4 applies to burns that will
emit more than 0.25 tons of PM2.5 per
day. There are two types of burns
specified by the rule. SMP–I burns are
those burn projects expected to generate
less than two tons per day of PM10 and
SMP–II burns are those burn projects
expected to generate two tons per day or
more of PM10. The following discusses
how the requirements of WAQSR
Chapter 10, Section 4 meet the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6)(i).
The four required program elements are
discussed below and are contained in
WAQSR Chapter 10, Section 4.
a. Actions To Minimize Emissions
In order to minimize emissions, the
State’s SIP relies on the use of emission
reduction techniques by burners. Any
techniques used in conjunction with
burning that reduce the actual amount
of emissions produced from a planned
burn project are considered emission
reduction techniques. The SIP requires
land managers burning SMP–II burns to
use at a minimum one emission
reduction technique for each planned
burn project. SMP–II burners will
indicate on the required State
registration form the emission reduction
technique(s) utilized for each planned
burn project (WAQSR Chapter 10,
Section 4(g)(i)(C)).
b. Evaluation of Smoke Dispersion
The SIP only allows SMP–I burns to
be ignited during daytime hours when
there is a slight breeze and there is no
population within 0.5 mile of the burn
project in the downwind direction. To
comply with this requirement, the
burner will document the time of day of
the planned burn project, the wind
direction and wind speed at the time of
the burn project, as well as the distance
to a population (WAQSR Chapter 10,
Section 4(f)(iii)).
For SMP–II burns, the SIP provides
the burner with two options pertaining
to the dispersion of smoke and burning.
A burner can ignite a planned burn
project during times when the
ventilation is classified as ‘‘Good’’ or
E:\FR\FM\24MYP1.SGM
24MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 101 / Thursday, May 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules
better.20 Also, a burner can ignite a
planned burn project during times when
the ventilation is classified as ‘‘Fair’’
and if there is no population within 10
miles of the planned burn project in the
downwind trajectory (WAQSR Chapter
10, Section 4(g)(i)(D)).
c. Alternatives to Fire
The State SIP requires that burners
generating over 100 tons per year of PM
must consider the use of alternatives to
burning. Burners must then document
that the use of alternatives to burning
were considered prior to the decision to
utilize fire. The documentation includes
citing the feasibility criterion that
prevented the use of alternatives. This
documentation must be included on the
registration form provided by the State
(WAQSR Chapter 10, Section 4(h)).
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
d. Public Notification
For SMP–I burns, the SIP requires that
burners must make a good faith effort to
utilize a minimum of one public
notification method specified in the SIP
to notify the populations that are
located within one half mile of the
planned burn project. The burner must
conduct public notification no sooner
than 30 days and no later than two days
in advance of the ignition of the
planned burn project. In addition, the
burner will also notify the jurisdictional
fire authority per the requirements of
the jurisdictional fire authority,21 or,
absent any such requirements,
immediately prior to ignition (WAQSR
Chapter 10, Section 4(f)(ii)).
For SMP–II burns, the SIP requires
that burners must make a good faith
effort to utilize a minimum of one
public notification method to notify
populations within 10 miles of the
planned burn project. The burner must
conduct public notification no sooner
than 30 days and no later than two days
in advance of the ignition of the
planned burn project, and will provide
documentation of public notification on
the State post burn reporting form. In
addition, the burner will also notify the
jurisdictional fire authority per the
requirements of the jurisdictional fire
20 Ventilation category is a classification that
describes the potential for smoke to ventilate away
from its source. The classification (Excellent, Very
Good, Good, Fair, Poor) is determined by
multiplying the mixing height in feet by the
transport winds in knots, thus providing the
ventilation category in knot-feet. The ventilation
category can be found in the National Weather
Service’s Fire Weather Forecast, which is the State
approved source for this information
21 Jurisdictional fire authority means an agency,
organization, or department whose purpose is to
prevent, manage, and/or suppress fires in a
designated geographic area, including, but not
limited to, volunteer fire departments, fire districts,
municipal fire departments, and federal fire staff.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:29 May 23, 2012
Jkt 226001
authority or, absent any such
requirements, immediately prior to
ignition (WAQSR Chapter 10, Section
4(g)(iii)).
e. Air Quality Monitoring
Burners of SMP–I burns are required
to attend and observe their planned
burn projects periodically (WAQSR
Chapter 10, Section 4(f)(iv)). SMP–II
burners are required to conduct and
document visual monitoring on all
planned burn projects. On a case-bycase basis, SMP–II burners may also be
required by the State to conduct and
document ambient air quality and/or
visibility monitoring. The use of
monitoring equipment will be based on
the planned burn project’s proximity to
a population, nonattainment area, or
Class I area (WAQSR Chapter 10,
Section 4(g)(i)(E)).
f. Surveillance and Enforcement
The Wyoming Environmental Quality
Act authorizes surveillance, inspection,
and enforcement for the State’s
regulations. WAQSR Chapter 10,
Section 4(e)(ii) specifies that burners
and responsible jurisdictional fire
authorities shall give permission to
State staff to enter and inspect for the
purpose of investigating a planned burn
project or unplanned fire event and for
determining compliance or noncompliance.
g. Program Evaluation
The State will evaluate the fire
programs in the State as part of the
future progress reports required by 40
CFR 51.309(d)(10). The State will use
these evaluations to revise Chapter 10,
Section 4, as needed. The provisions for
program evaluation are included in the
Wyoming Smoke Management Program
Guidance Document, November 2004
(included in the Supporting and Related
Materials section of the docket).
2. Inventory and Tracking System
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6)(ii),
the State maintains a fire emission
inventory of the following pollutants:
VOC, NOX, elemental carbon, organic
carbon, and fine particulate for fire
sources within the State (Section E.2 of
the SIP). In order to maintain the
emission inventory, Chapter 10, Section
4 requires both SMP–I and SMP–II
burners to report to the State on
emissions from their burns. To track
fires, the State uses the WRAP Fire
Emission Tracking System (FETS). The
FETS is a web-enabled database for
planned and unplanned fire events. The
FETS is a planning tool for daily smoke
management coordination, and
retrospective analyses such as emission
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
30969
inventories and regional haze air quality
planning tasks (see https://wrapfets.org).
3. Strategy for Use of Alternatives to
Burning
In section E.3 of the SIP, the State is
required to work with key public and
private entities to identify and remove
administrative barriers to the use of
alternatives to burning for prescribed
fire on federal, State, and private lands,
pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6)(iii).
The process is collaborative and
provides for continuing identification
and removal of administrative barriers,
and considers economic, safety,
technical and environmental feasibility
criteria, and land management
objectives. Should the State determine
that an administrative barrier exists, the
State will work collaboratively with the
appropriate public and private entities
to evaluate the administrative barrier,
identify the steps necessary to remove
the administrative barrier, and initiate
the removal of the administrative
barrier, where it is feasible to do so.
4. Enhanced Smoke Management
Program
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6)(iv),
the smoke management programs that
operate within the State are consistent
with the WRAP Policy on Enhanced
Smoke Management Programs for
Visibility (WRAP ESMP). A copy of this
policy can be found in the Wyoming
TSD. This policy calls for programs to
be based on the criteria of efficiency,
economics, law, emission reduction
opportunities, land management
objectives, and reduction of visibility
impacts. The intent of the WRAP ESMP
is to assist states to address visibility
effects associated with fire in a way that
is adequate for a SIP (section E.4 of the
SIP).
5. Annual Emission Goal
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6)(v),
the State will seek to minimize emission
increases in fire through the use of
annual emission goal using the policies
set out by Western Regional Air
Partnership Policy on Annual Emission
Goals for Fire. A copy of this policy can
be found in the Wyoming TSD. The
State will use a collaborative
mechanism for setting annual emission
goals and developing a process for
tracking their attainment on a yearly
basis. The State will rely on emission
reduction techniques, where
appropriate, to minimize emission
increases in fire (section E.5 of the SIP).
We are proposing that the Sate’s SIP
meets the requirements of 40 CFR
51.309(d)(6).
E:\FR\FM\24MYP1.SGM
24MYP1
30970
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 101 / Thursday, May 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules
I. Paved and Unpaved Road Dust
WRAP performed an assessment of
the impact of dust emissions from paved
and unpaved roads on the 16 Class I
areas of the Colorado Plateau. The
WRAP modeled and calculated the
significance of road dust in terms of the
impact on visibility on the worst 20
percent days. The modeled regional
impact of road dust emissions ranged
from 0.31 deciviews at the Black
Canyon of the Gunnison National Park
to 0.08 deciviews at the Weminuche
Wilderness Area. (For more information
on the WRAP modeling and assessment
of road dust impacts, see Chapter 7 of
the WRAP TSD). Based on the WRAP
modeling, the State has concluded that
road dust is not a significant contributor
to visibility impairment in the 16 Class
I areas. Since the State has found that
road dust is not a significant contributor
to visibility impairment, the State did
not include road dust control strategies
in the SIP pursuant to 40 CFR
51.309(d)(7) (section F.1(b) of the SIP).
The State will track road dust
emissions with the assistance of the
WRAP and provide an update on paved
and unpaved road dust emission trends,
including any modeling or monitoring
information regarding the impact of
these emissions on visibility in the 16
Colorado Plateau Class I Areas. These
updates will include a reevaluation of
whether road dust is a significant
contributor to visibility impairment.
These updates shall be part of the
periodic implementation plan revisions
pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)
(section I.1(a) of the SIP).
We propose to determine the State’s
SIP meets the requirements of 40 CFR
51.309(d)(7).
J. Pollution Prevention
Under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(8), states
must provide information on renewable
energy and other pollution prevention
efforts in the state. 40 CFR 51.309(d)(8)
does not require states to adopt any new
measures or regulations. Thus, we find
the information Wyoming provided
adequate to meet the requirements of 40
CFR 51.309(d)(8) as discussed below.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
1. Description of Existing Pollution
Prevention Programs
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(8)(i),
Table G–1 of the SIP summarizes all
pollution prevention and renewable
energy programs currently in place in
Wyoming. The State also determined
the renewable energy generation
capacity and production in the State
and the State’s total energy generation
capacity and production.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:29 May 23, 2012
Jkt 226001
2. Incentive Programs
Per 40 CFR 51.309(d)(8)(ii), section
G.4 of the SIP states that the State has
provided incentives for early
compliance by participating in the 309
regional SO2 backstop trading program.
The backstop trading program allows for
early reduction credits. Sources of SO2
subject to the trading program that
reduce emissions prior to the program
trigger date shall receive additional
emission allowances. The source may
use such allowances for compliance
purposes or may sell them to other
parties.
3. Programs To Preserve and Expand
Energy Conservation Efforts
Per 40 CFR 51.309(d)(8)(iii), the State
provided a table that discusses the
programs within the State that preserve
and expand energy conservation efforts.
Such programs include the ‘‘Energy
Exchange Program’’ by PacifiCorp and
‘‘Rebuild America,’’ a Department of
Energy resource network. For a
complete list of programs in the State,
see table G–5 of the SIP.
4. Potential for Renewable Energy
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(8)(iv),
the State has utilized data from the
National Renewable Energy Laboratory
to assess areas where there is the
potential for renewable energy to supply
power in a cost-effective manner. The
SIP summarizes the potential for
renewable energy development in
Wyoming. See Figures G–1 through G–
7 of the SIP for more detailed
information.
5. Projections of Renewable Energy
Goals, Energy Efficiency, and Pollution
Prevention Activities
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(8)(v),
the State has used projections made by
the WRAP of the short and long-term
emissions reductions, visibility
improvements, cost savings, and
secondary benefits associated with
renewable energy goals, energy
efficiency, and pollution prevention
activities. (A complete description of
these projections can be found in the
Wyoming TSD in a document titled
Economic Assessment of Implementing
the 10/20 Goals and Energy Efficiency
Recommendations.) The document
provides overall projections of visibility
improvements for the 16 Class I areas.
These projections include the combined
effects of all measures in this SIP,
including air pollution prevention
programs. Although emission
reductions and visibility improvements
from air-pollution prevention programs
are expected at some level, they were
not explicitly calculated because the
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
resolution of the regional air quality
modeling system is not currently
sufficient to show any significant
visibility changes resulting from the
marginal NOX emission reductions
expected from air pollution prevention
programs.
6. Programs To Achieve the GCVTC
Renewable Energy Goal
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(8)(vi),
the State will rely on current renewable
energy programs as described in section
G1 of the SIP to demonstrate progress in
achieving the renewable energy goal of
the GCVTC. The GCVTC’s goal is that
that renewable energy will comprise 10
percent of the regional power needs by
2005 and 20 percent by 2015. The State
will submit progress reports in 2013 and
2018, describing the State’s contribution
toward meeting the GCVTC renewable
energy goals. To the extent that it is not
feasible for the State to meet its
contribution to these goals, the State
will identify what measures were
implemented to achieve its
contribution, and explain why meeting
its contribution was not feasible.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(8)(i),
Table G–1 of the State’s SIP summarizes
all pollution prevention and renewable
energy programs currently in place in
Wyoming. The State’s SIP provides an
estimate of renewable energy generating
capacity in megawatts for each of the
renewable energy categories (see Table
12 of the SIP). Total installed generation
capacity within Wyoming in 2002 was
5,485 MW. Renewable energy
generation capacity in Wyoming
represented 0.77 percent of the total
installed capacity.
K. Additional Recommendations
As part of the 1996 GCVTC report to
EPA, the Commission included
additional recommendations that EPA
did not adopt as part of 40 CFR 51.309.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(9), the
State has evaluated the additional
recommendations of the GCVTC to
determine if any of these
recommendations could be practicably
included in the SIP. The State’s
complete evaluation is included in the
State’s TSD in a document titled A
Report on Additional Recommendations
of the Grand Canyon Visibility
Transport Commission. The State
determined that no additional measures
were practicable or necessary to
demonstrate reasonable progress in the
SIP.
We are proposing to determine that
the State’s SIP meets the requirements
of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(9).
E:\FR\FM\24MYP1.SGM
24MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 101 / Thursday, May 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules
L. Periodic Implementation Plan
Revisions
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i),
section I of the SIP requires the State to
submit to EPA, as a SIP revision,
periodic progress reports for the years
2013 and 2018. The State will assess
whether current programs are achieving
reasonable progress in Class I areas
within Wyoming, and Class I areas
outside Wyoming that are affected by
emissions from Wyoming. The State
will address the elements listed under
40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(A) through (G)
as summarized below: (1)
Implementation status of 2003 SIP
measures; (2) summary of emissions
reductions; (3) assessment of most/least
impaired days; (4) analysis of emission
reductions by pollutant; (5) significant
changes in anthropogenic emissions; (6)
assessment of 2003 SIP sufficiency; and
(7) assessment of visibility monitoring
strategy.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(ii),
the State will take one of the following
actions based upon information
contained in each periodic progress
report. The State will provide a negative
declaration statement to EPA saying that
no SIP revision is needed if the State
determines reasonable progress is being
achieved. If the State finds that the SIP
is inadequate to ensure reasonable
progress due to emissions from outside
the State, the State will notify EPA and
the other contributing state(s), and
initiate efforts through a regional
planning process to address the
emissions in question. If the State finds
that the SIP is inadequate to ensure
reasonable progress due to emissions
from another country, Wyoming will
notify EPA and provide information on
the impairment being caused by these
emissions. If the State finds that the SIP
is inadequate to ensure reasonable
progress due to emissions from within
the State, the State will develop
emission reduction strategies to address
the emissions and revise the SIP no later
than one year from the date that the
progress report was due.
We propose to determine that the
State’s SIP meets the requirements of 40
CFR 51.309(d)(10).
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
M. Interstate Coordination
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(11), the
State has participated in regional
planning and coordination with other
states by participating in the WRAP
while developing its emission reduction
strategies under 40 CFR 51.309.
Appendix D of the SIP contains detailed
information on the interstate
coordination programs developed by the
WRAP and the State’s participation in
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:29 May 23, 2012
Jkt 226001
those programs. The backstop trading
program in the SIP and companion rules
involved coordination of the three states
(Wyoming, Utah, and New Mexico,
including Albuquerque) in its
development and will continue to
involve coordination of the participants
once it is implemented.
We propose to determine the State’s
SIP is consistent with the 40 CFR
51.309(d)(11).
N. Additional Class I Areas
On January 12, 2011, the State
submitted a SIP pursuant to 40 CFR
51.309(g) in order to address the State’s
seven Class I areas not on the Colorado
Plateau. EPA is acting on this
submission separately.
VI. Proposed Action
In this action, EPA is proposing to
approve Wyoming SIP revisions
submitted on January 12, 2011 and
April 19, 2012 that address the RHR for
the mandatory Class I areas under 40
CFR 51.309. EPA is proposing that the
January 12, 2011 and April 19, 2012
SIPs meet the requirements of 40 CFR
51.309, with the exception of 40 CFR
51.309(d)(4)(vii), and 40 CFR 51.309(g).
As part of the January 12, 2011
submittal, the State submitted revisions
to WAQSR. The State submitted
WAQSR Chapter 14, Sections 2 and 3—
Emission Trading Program Regulations.
WAQSR Chapter 14, in conjunction
with the SIP, implements the backstop
trading program provisions in
accordance with the applicable
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308 and 40
CFR 51.309. We are proposing to
approve WAQSR Chapter 14, Section 2
and Section 3. The State also submitted
WAQSR Chapter 10, Section 4—Smoke
Management. WAQSR Chapter 10,
Section 4, in conjunction with the SIP,
implements the requirements for smoke
management under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6).
We are proposing to approve WAQSR
Chapter 10, Section 4.
The State submitted another SIP
revision dated January 12, 2011 that
addresses the requirements under 40
CFR 51.309(d)(4)(vii) and 40 CFR
51.309(g) pertaining to BART for PM
and NOX and additional Class I areas,
respectively. EPA will be taking action
on this SIP at a later date. In addition,
the January 12, 2011 and April 19, 2012
submittals we are proposing to act on in
this notice supersede and replace
regional haze SIPs submitted on
December 24, 2003, May 27, 2004, and
November 21, 2008.
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
30971
VII. 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,
EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed
action merely approves some state law
as meeting Federal requirements and
disapproves other state law because it
does not meet Federal requirements;
this proposed action does not impose
additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason,
this proposed action:
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993);
• 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 (Pub. L. 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, this rule does not have
Tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), because the SIP is
not approved to apply in Indian country
located in the State, and EPA notes that
it will not impose substantial direct
E:\FR\FM\24MYP1.SGM
24MYP1
30972
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 101 / Thursday, May 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules
costs on Tribal governments or preempt
Tribal law.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile
organic compounds.
Dated: May 9, 2012.
James B. Martin,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2012–12643 Filed 5–23–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 721, 795, and 799
[EPA–HQ–OPPT–2010–1039; FRL–9350–8]
RIN 2070–AJ08
Certain Polybrominated
Diphenylethers; Significant New Use
Rule and Test Rule; Extension of
Comment Period
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of
comment period.
AGENCY:
EPA issued a proposed rule in
the Federal Register of April 2, 2012,
that would amend the Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCA) section 5(a)
Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) for
certain polybrominated diphenylethers
(PBDEs), and that would require persons
that manufacture, import, or process any
of three commercial PBDEs, including
in articles, for any use after December
31, 2013, to conduct testing under TSCA
section 4(a). This document extends the
comment period for 60 days, from June
1, 2012 to July 31, 2012.
DATES: Comments, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA–HQ–
OPPT–2010–1039 must be received on
or before July 31, 2012.
ADDRESSES: Follow the detailed
instructions as provided under
ADDRESSES in the Federal Register
document of April 2, 2012.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
technical information contact: Catherine
Roman, Chemical Control Division,
Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics, Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone
number: 202–564–8172; email address:
roman.catherine@epa.gov. For general
information contact: The TSCA–
Hotline, ABVI–Goodwill, 422 South
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:29 May 23, 2012
Jkt 226001
Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620;
telephone number: (202) 554–1404;
email address: TSCA–Hotline@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
This document extends the public
comment period established in the
Federal Register of April 2, 2012 (77 FR
19862) (FRL–8889–3). In that document,
EPA issued a proposed rule that would
amend the Toxic Substances Control
Act (TSCA) section 5(a) Significant New
Use Rule (SNUR) for certain
polybrominated diphenylethers
(PBDEs). That document also proposed
a test rule under TSCA section 4(a) that
would require any person who
manufactures, imports, or processes any
of three commercial PBDEs, including
in articles, for any use after December
31, 2013, to conduct testing on their
effects on health and the environment.
The comment period is being extended
in response to requests from the
Aerospace Industries Association (AIA),
Airlines for America (A4A), and the
International Air Transport Association
(IATA). EPA is hereby extending the
comment period, which was set to end
on June 1, 2012, to July 31, 2012. To
submit comments, or access the docket,
please follow the detailed instructions
as provided under ADDRESSES in the
April 2, 2012 Federal Register
document. If you have questions,
consult the technical person listed
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 721
Environmental protection, Chemicals,
Hazardous substances, Premanufacture
notification, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
40 CFR Part 795
Environmental protection, Chemicals,
Hazardous substances, Health,
Laboratories, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
40 CFR Part 799
Environmental protection, Chemicals,
Hazardous substances, Laboratories,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: May 18, 2012.
James Jones,
Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of
Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2012–12625 Filed 5–23–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 64
[CG Docket Nos. 11–116 and 09–158; CC
Docket No. 98–170; FCC 12–42]
Empowering Consumers to Prevent
and Detect Billing for Unauthorized
Charges (‘‘Cramming’’); Consumer
Information and Disclosure; Truth-inBilling Format
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
In this document, the Federal
Communications Commission
(Commission or FCC) proposes
additional rules to help consumers
prevent and detect the placement of
unauthorized charges on their telephone
bills, an unlawful and fraudulent
practice commonly referred to as
‘‘cramming.’’ Several commenters in
this proceeding support additional
measures to prevent cramming,
including requiring wireline carriers to
obtain a consumer’s affirmative consent
before placing third-party charges on
telephone bills (i.e. ‘‘opt-in’’). There also
is support for adopting anti-cramming
rules for Commercial Mobile Radio
Service (CMRS) and Voice over Internet
Protocol (VoIP) service. The
Commission seeks further comment on
whether it should take additional steps
to prevent wireline cramming, including
‘‘opt-in’’, possible solutions to CMRS
cramming, and any developments of
VoIP cramming.
DATES: Interested parties may file
comments on or before June 25, 2012,
and reply comments on or before July 9,
2012.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by CG Docket No. 11–116, by
any of the following methods:
• Electronic Filers: Comments may be
filed electronically using the Internet by
accessing the Commission’s Electronic
Comment Filing System (ECFS), through
the Commission’s Web site https://
fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Filers should
follow the instructions provided on the
Web site for submitting comments. For
ECFS filers, in completing the
transmittal screen, filers should include
their full name, U.S. Postal service
mailing address, and CG Docket No. 11–
116.
• Paper filers: Parties who choose to
file by paper must file an original and
four copies of each filing. Filings can be
sent by hand or messenger delivery, by
commercial overnight courier, or by
first-class or overnight U.S. Postal
Service mail (although the Commission
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\24MYP1.SGM
24MYP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 101 (Thursday, May 24, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30953-30972]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-12643]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R08-OAR-2011-0400; FRL-9676-2]
Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; State of
Wyoming; Regional Haze Rule Requirements for Mandatory Class I Areas
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve Wyoming State Implementation Plan
(SIP) revisions submitted on January 12, 2011 and April 19, 2012 that
address regional haze. These SIP revisions were submitted to address
the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) and our rules that
require states to prevent any future and remedy any existing man-made
impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I areas caused by emissions
of air pollutants from numerous sources located over a wide geographic
area (also referred to as the ``regional haze program''). States are
required to assure reasonable progress toward the national goal of
achieving natural visibility conditions in Class I areas. EPA is taking
this action pursuant to section 110 of the CAA.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 23, 2012.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-
OAR-2011-0400, by one of the following methods:
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
[[Page 30954]]
Email: r8airrulemakings@epa.gov.
Fax: (303) 312-6064 (please alert the individual listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing comments).
Mail: Carl Daly, Director, Air Program, Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street,
Denver, Colorado 80202-1129.
Hand Delivery: Carl Daly, Director, Air Program,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595
Wynkoop, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. Such deliveries are only accepted
Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal
holidays. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-
2011-0400. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through https://www.regulations.gov or email. The https://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA, without
going through https://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional instructions on submitting
comments, go to Section I. General Information of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the https://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly-available docket materials are available either electronically
in https://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Program,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595
Wynkoop, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. EPA requests that if at all
possible, you contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard copy of the docket. You
may view the hard copy of the docket Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m.
to 4:00 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laurel Dygowski, Air Program, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595
Wynkoop, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, (303) 312-6144,
dygowski.laurel@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Definitions
For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to
certain words or initials as follows:
i. The words or initials Act or CAA mean or refer to the Clean
Air Act, unless the context indicates otherwise.
ii. The initials BART mean or refer to Best Available Retrofit
Technology.
iii. The initials CAC mean or refer to clean air corridors.
iv. The initials CEED mean or refer to the Center for Energy and
Economic Development.
v. The initials EC mean or refer to elemental carbon.
vi. The initials EGUs mean or refer to electric generating
units.
vii. The initials EATS mean or refer to Emissions and Allowance
Tracking System
viii. The words EPA, we, us or our mean or refer to the United
States Environmental Protection Agency.
ix. The initials FETS mean or refer to the Fire Emission
Tracking System.
x. The initials GCVTC mean or refer to the Grand Canyon
Visibility Transport Commission.
xi. The initials IMPROVE mean or refer to Interagency Monitoring
of Protected Visual Environments monitoring network.
xii. The initials MRR mean or refer to monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting.
xiii. The initials NOX mean or refer to nitrogen oxides.
xiv. The initials OC mean or refer to organic carbon.
xv. The initials PM2.5 mean or refer to particulate matter with
an aerodynamic diameter of less than 2.5 micrometers.
xvi. The initials PM10 mean or refer to particulate matter with
an aerodynamic diameter of less than 10 micrometers.
xvii. The initials RHR mean or refer to the Regional Haze Rule.
xviii. The initials RMC mean or refer to the Regional Modeling
Center.
xix. The initials RPO mean or refer to regional planning
organization.
xx. The initials SIP mean or refer to State Implementation Plan.
xxi. The initials SO2 mean or refer to sulfur dioxide.
xxii. The initials TSA mean or refer to the tracking system
administrator.
xxiii. The initials TSD mean or refer to Technical Support
Document.
xxiv. The initials VOC mean or refer to volatile organic
compounds.
xxv. The initials WAQSR mean or refer to Wyoming Air Quality
Standards and Regulations.
xxvi. The initials WRAP mean or refer to the Western Regional
Air Partnership.
xxvii. The words Wyoming and State mean or refer to the State of
Wyoming.
Table of Contents
I. General Information
A. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
B. Overview of Proposed Action
II. Background Information
A. Regional Haze
B. Requirements of the CAA and EPA's Regional Haze Rule
C. Role of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze
D. Development of the Requirements for 40 CFR 51.309
III. Requirements for Regional Haze SIPs Submitted Under 40 CFR
51.309
A. Projection of Visibility Improvement
B. Clean Air Corridors (CACs)
C. Stationary Source Reductions
1. Sulfur Dioxide Emission Reductions
2. Provisions for Stationary Source Emissions of Nitrogen Oxides
and Particulate Matter
D. Mobile Sources
E. Programs Related to Fire
F. Paved and Unpaved Road Dust
G. Pollution Prevention
H. Additional Recommendations
I. Periodic Implementation Plan Revisions
J. Interstate Coordination
IV. Additional Requirements for Alternative Programs Under the
Regional Haze Rule
A. ``Better-than-BART'' Demonstration
B. Elements Required for All Alternative Programs That Have an
Emissions Cap
1. Applicability
2. Allowances
3. Monitoring Recordkeeping, and Reporting
4. Tracking System
5. Account Representative
6. Allowance Transfer
7. Compliance Provisions
8. Penalty Provisions
9. Banking of Allowances
10. Program Assessment
V. Our Analysis of Wyoming's Submittal
A. Projection of Visibility Improvement
B. Clean Air Corridors
1. Comprehensive Emissions Tracking Program
2. Identification of Clean Air Corridors
3. Patterns of Growth Within and Outside of the Clean Air
Corridor
[[Page 30955]]
4. Actions if Impairment Inside or Outside the Clean Air
Corridor Occurs
5. Other Clean Air Corridors
C. Stationary Source Reductions
1. Provisions for Stationary Source Emissions of Sulfur Dioxide
2. Documentation of Emissions Calculation Methods for Sulfur
Dioxide
3. Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting of Sulfur Dioxide
Emissions
4. Criteria and Procedures for a Market Trading Program
5. Market Trading Program
6. Provisions for the 2018 Milestone
7. Special Penalty Provision for 2018
D. ``Better-than-BART'' Demonstration
1. List of BART-Eligible Sources
2. Subject-to-BART Determination
3. Best System of Continuous Emission Control Technology
4. Projected Emission Reductions
5. Evidence That the Trading Program Achieves Greater Reasonable
Progress Than BART
6. All Emissions Reductions Must Take Place During the First
Planning Period
7. Detailed Description of the Alternative Program
8. Surplus Reductions
9. Geographic Distribution of Emissions
E. Requirements for Alternative Programs With an Emissions Cap
1. Applicability Provisions
2. Allowance Provisions
3. Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting
4. Tracking System
5. Account Representative
6. Allowance Transfers
7. Compliance Provisions
8. Penalty Provisions
9. Banking of Allowances
10. Program Assessment
F. Provisions for Stationary Source Emissions of Nitrogen Oxides
and Particulate Matter
G. Mobile Sources
H. Programs Related to Fire
1. Evaluation of Current Fire Programs
a. Actions To Minimize Emissions
b. Evaluation of Smoke Dispersion
c. Alternatives to Fire
d. Public Notification
e. Air Quality Monitoring
f. Surveillance and Enforcement
g. Program Evaluation
2. Inventory and Tracking System
3. Strategy for Use of Alternatives to Burning
4. Enhanced Smoke Management Program
5. Annual Emission Goal
I. Paved and Unpaved Road Dust
J. Pollution Prevention
1. Description of Existing Pollution Prevention Programs
2. Incentive Programs
3. Programs To Preserve and Expand Energy Conservation Efforts
4. Potential for Renewable Energy
5. Projections of Renewable Energy Goals, Energy Efficiency, and
Pollution Prevention Activities
6. Programs To Achieve the GCVTC Renewable Energy Goal
K. Additional Recommendations
L. Periodic Implementation Plan Revisions
M. Interstate Coordination
N. Additional Class I Areas
VI. Proposed Action
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. General Information
A. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit CBI to EPA through https://www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
a. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
b. Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to specific
questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
c. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
d. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
e. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
f. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
g. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
h. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline
identified.
B. Overview of Proposed Action
In this action, EPA is proposing to approve Wyoming SIP revisions
submitted on January 12, 2011 and April 19, 2012 that address the
regional haze rule (RHR) for the mandatory Class I areas under 40 CFR
51.309. EPA is proposing that the January 12, 2011 and April 19, 2012
SIPs meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309, with the exception of 40
CFR 51.309(d)(4)(vii), and 40 CFR 51.309(g), as explained below.
As part of the January 12, 2011 and April 19, 2012 SIPs, the State
submitted revisions to the Wyoming Air Quality Standards and
Regulations (WAQSR). The State submitted WAQSR Chapter 14, Sections 2
and 3--Emission Trading Program Regulations. WAQSR Chapter 14, in
conjunction with the SIP, implements the backstop trading program
provisions in accordance with the applicable requirements of 40 CFR
51.308 and 40 CFR 51.309. We are proposing to approve WAQSR Chapter 14,
Section 2 and Section 3. The State also submitted WAQSR Chapter 10,
Section 4--Smoke Management. WAQSR Chapter 10, Section 4, in
conjunction with the SIP, implements the requirements for smoke
management under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6). We are proposing to approve WAQSR
Chapter 10, Section 4.
The State's submitted another SIP revision dated January 12, 2011
that addresses the requirements under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(vii) and 40
CFR 51.309(g) pertaining to best available retrofit technology (BART)
for particulate matter (PM) and nitrogen oxides (NOX) and
additional Class I areas, respectively. EPA will be taking action on
this SIP at a later date. In addition, the January 12, 2011 and April
19, 2012 submittals we are proposing to act on in this notice supersede
and replace regional haze SIPs submitted on December 24, 2003, May 27,
2004, and November 21, 2008.
As explained in further detail below, 40 CFR 51.309 (section 309)
allows western states an optional way to fulfill the RHR requirements
as opposed to adopting the requirements under 40 CFR 51.308. Three
states have elected to submit a SIP under 40 CFR 51.309. Those states
are Wyoming, Utah, and New Mexico.\1\ In this action, EPA is proposing
to approve the Wyoming section 309 SIP submittal. As required by 40 CFR
51.309, the participating states must adopt a trading program, or what
has been termed the Western Backstop Sulfur Dioxide Trading Program
(backstop trading program or trading program). The 309 backstop trading
program will not be effective
[[Page 30956]]
until EPA has finalized action on all section 309 SIPs as the program
is dependent on the participation of the three states. Utah submitted
its 309 SIP to EPA on May 26, 2011 and New Mexico submitted its 309 SIP
to EPA on June 30, 2011. EPA will be taking action on Utah and New
Mexico's 309 SIPs separately. If EPA takes action approving the
necessary components of the 309 backstop trading program to operate in
all of the jurisdictions electing to submit 309 SIPs, the trading
program will become effective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In addition to the SIP submittals from the three states,
Albuquerque/Bernalillo County in New Mexico must also submit a
Section 309 RH SIP to completely satisfy the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA for the entire State of New Mexico under the
New Mexico Air Quality Control Act (section 74-2-4). Albuquerque
submitted its regional haze SIP to EPA on June 8, 2011. When we
refer to New Mexico in this notice, we are also referring to
Albuquerque/Bernalillo County.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Background Information
A. Regional Haze
Regional haze is visibility impairment that is produced by a
multitude of sources and activities which are located across a broad
geographic area and emit fine particles (PM2.5) (e.g.,
sulfates, nitrates, organic carbon (OC), elemental carbon (EC), and
soil dust), and their precursors (e.g., SO2, NOX,
and in some cases, ammonia (NH3) and volatile organic
compounds (VOC)). Fine particle precursors react in the atmosphere to
form PM2.5, which impairs visibility by scattering and
absorbing light. Visibility impairment reduces the clarity, color, and
visible distance that one can see. PM2.5 can also cause
serious health effects and mortality in humans and contributes to
environmental effects such as acid deposition and eutrophication.
Data from the existing visibility monitoring network, the
``Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments'' (IMPROVE)
monitoring network, show that visibility impairment caused by air
pollution occurs virtually all the time at most national park and
wilderness areas. The average visual range \2\ in many Class I areas
(i.e., national parks and memorial parks, wilderness areas, and
international parks meeting certain size criteria) in the western
United States is 100-150 kilometers, or about one-half to two-thirds of
the visual range that would exist without anthropogenic air pollution.
In most of the eastern Class I areas of the United States, the average
visual range is less than 30 kilometers, or about one-fifth of the
visual range that would exist under estimated natural conditions. 64 FR
35715 (July 1, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Visual range is the greatest distance, in kilometers or
miles, at which a dark object can be viewed against the sky.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Requirements of the CAA and EPA's Regional Haze Rule
In section 169A of the 1977 Amendments to the CAA, Congress created
a program for protecting visibility in the nation's national parks and
wilderness areas. This section of the CAA establishes as a national
goal the ``prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing,
impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas \3\ which
impairment results from manmade air pollution.'' On December 2, 1980,
EPA promulgated regulations to address visibility impairment in Class I
areas that is ``reasonably attributable'' to a single source or small
group of sources, i.e., ``reasonably attributable visibility
impairment.'' 45 FR 80084. These regulations represented the first
phase in addressing visibility impairment. EPA deferred action on
regional haze that emanates from a variety of sources until monitoring,
modeling and scientific knowledge about the relationships between
pollutants and visibility impairment were improved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal areas consist
of national parks exceeding 6000 acres, wilderness areas and
national memorial parks exceeding 5000 acres, and all international
parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977. 42 U.S.C. 7472(a).
In accordance with section 169A of the CAA, EPA, in consultation
with the Department of Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas
where visibility is identified as an important value. 44 FR 69122
(November 30, 1979). The extent of a mandatory Class I area includes
subsequent changes in boundaries, such as park expansions. 42 U.S.C.
7472(a). Although states and tribes may designate as Class I
additional areas which they consider to have visibility as an
important value, the requirements of the visibility program set
forth in section 169A of the CAA apply only to ``mandatory Class I
Federal areas.'' Each mandatory Class I Federal area is the
responsibility of a ``Federal Land Manager.'' 42 U.S.C. 7602(i).
When we use the term ``Class I area'' in this action, we mean a
``mandatory Class I Federal area.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress added section 169B to the CAA in 1990 to address regional
haze issues. EPA promulgated a rule to address regional haze on July 1,
1999. 64 FR 35714 (July 1, 1999, codified at 40 CFR part 51, subpart
P). The RHR revised the existing visibility regulations to integrate
into the regulation provisions addressing regional haze impairment and
established a comprehensive visibility protection program for Class I
areas. The requirements for regional haze, found at 40 CFR 51.308 and
51.309, are included in EPA's visibility protection regulations at 40
CFR 51.300-309. Some of the main elements of the regional haze
requirements under 40 CFR 51.309 are summarized in sections III and IV
of this preamble. The requirement to submit a regional haze SIP applies
to all 50 states, the District of Columbia and the Virgin Islands. 40
CFR 51.308(b) and 40 CFR 51.309(c) require states to submit the first
implementation plan addressing regional haze visibility impairment no
later than December 17, 2007.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ EPA's regional haze regulations require subsequent updates
to the regional haze SIPs. 40 CFR 51.308(g)-(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Few states submitted a regional haze SIP prior to the December 17,
2007 deadline, and on January 15, 2009, EPA found that 37 states,
including Wyoming and the District of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands,
had failed to submit SIPs addressing the regional haze requirements. 74
FR 2392. Once EPA has found that a state has failed to make a required
submission, EPA is required to promulgate a FIP within two years unless
the state submits a SIP and the Agency approves it within the two year
period. CAA Sec. 110(c)(1).
C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze
Successful implementation of the regional haze program will require
long-term regional coordination among states, tribal governments and
various federal agencies. As noted above, pollution affecting the air
quality in Class I areas can be transported over long distances, even
hundreds of kilometers. Therefore, to effectively address the problem
of visibility impairment in Class I areas, states need to develop
strategies in coordination with one another, taking into account the
effect of emissions from one jurisdiction on the air quality in
another.
Because the pollutants that lead to regional haze can originate
from sources located across broad geographic areas, EPA has encouraged
the states and tribes across the United States to address visibility
impairment from a regional perspective. Five regional planning
organizations (RPOs) were developed to address regional haze and
related issues. The RPOs first evaluated technical information to
better understand how their states and tribes impact Class I areas
across the country, and then pursued the development of regional
strategies to reduce emissions of PM and other pollutants leading to
regional haze.
The Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) RPO is a collaborative
effort of state governments, tribal governments, and various federal
agencies established to initiate and coordinate activities associated
with the management of regional haze, visibility and other air quality
issues in the western United States. WRAP member state governments
include: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New
Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and
[[Page 30957]]
Wyoming. Tribal members include Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians,
Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, Cortina Indian Rancheria, Hopi
Tribe, Hualapai Nation of the Grand Canyon, Native Village of Shungnak,
Nez Perce Tribe, Northern Cheyenne Tribe, Pueblo of Acoma, Pueblo of
San Felipe, and Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of Fort Hall.
D. Development of the Requirements for 40 CFR 51.309
EPA's RHR provides two paths to address regional haze. One is 40
CFR 51.308, requiring states to perform individual point source BART
determinations and evaluate the need for other control strategies.
These strategies must be shown to make ``reasonable progress'' in
improving visibility in Class I areas inside the state and in
neighboring jurisdictions. The other method for addressing regional
haze is through 40 CFR 51.309, and is an option for nine states termed
the ``Transport Region States'' which include: Arizona, California,
Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming, and the
211 tribes located within those states. By meeting the requirements
under 40 CFR 51.309, states are making reasonable progress toward the
national goal of achieving natural visibility conditions for the 16
Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau.
Section 309 requires participating states to adopt regional haze
strategies that are based on recommendations from the Grand Canyon
Visibility Transport Commission (GCVTC) for protecting the 16 Class I
areas on the Colorado Plateau.\5\ The EPA established the GCVTC on
November 13, 1991. The purpose of the GCVTC was to assess information
about the adverse impacts on visibility in and around the 16 Class I
areas on the Colorado Plateau and to provide policy recommendations to
EPA to address such impacts. Section 169B of the CAA called for the
GCVTC to evaluate visibility research, as well as other available
information, pertaining to adverse impacts on visibility from potential
or projected growth in emissions from sources located in the region.
The GCVTC determined that all transport region states could potentially
impact the Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau. The GCVTC submitted a
report to EPA in 1996 with its policy recommendations for protecting
visibility for the Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau. Provisions of
the 1996 GCVTC report include: strategies for addressing smoke
emissions from wildland fires and agricultural burning; provisions to
prevent pollution by encouraging renewable energy development; and
provisions to manage clean air corridors (CACs), mobile sources, and
wind-blown dust, among other things. The EPA codified these
recommendations as part of the 1999 RHR. 64 FR 35714 (July 1, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The Colorado Plateau is a high, semi-arid tableland in
southeast Utah, northern Arizona, northwest New Mexico, and western
Colorado. The 16 mandatory Class I areas are as follows: Grand
Canyon National Park, Mount Baldy Wilderness, Petrified Forest
National Park, Sycamore Canyon Wilderness, Black Canyon of the
Gunnison National Park Wilderness, Flat Tops Wilderness, Maroon
Bells Wilderness, Mesa Verde National Park, Weminuche Wilderness,
West Elk Wilderness, San Pedro Parks Wilderness, Arches National
Park, Bryce Canyon National Park, Canyonlands National Park, Capital
Reef National Park, and Zion National Park.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA determined that the GCVTC strategies would provide for
reasonable progress in mitigating regional haze if supplemented by an
annex containing quantitative emission reduction milestones and
provisions for a trading program or other alternative measure (64 FR
35749 and 35756). Thus, the 1999 RHR required that western states
submit an annex to the GCVTC report with quantitative milestones and
detailed guidelines for an alternative program in order to establish
the GCVTC recommendations as an alternative approach to fulfilling the
section 308 requirements for compliance with the RHR. In September
2000, the WRAP, which is the successor organization to the GCVTC,
submitted an annex to EPA. The annex contained SO2 emission
reduction milestones and the detailed provisions of a backstop trading
program to be implemented automatically if voluntary measures failed to
achieve the SO2 milestones. EPA codified the annex on June
5, 2003 at 40 CFR 51.309(h). 68 FR 33764.
Five western states submitted implementation plans under section
309 in 2003. EPA was challenged by the Center for Energy and Economic
Development (CEED) on the validity of the annex provisions. In CEED v.
EPA, the DC Circuit vacated EPA's approval of the WRAP annex (Center
for Energy and Economic Development v. EPA, No. 03-1222 (DC Cir. Feb.
18, 2005)). In response to the court's decision, EPA vacated the annex
requirements adopted as 40 CFR 51.309(h), but left in place the
stationary source requirements in 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4). 71 FR 60612. The
requirements under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4) contain general requirements
pertaining to stationary sources and market trading, and allow states
to adopt alternatives to the point source application of BART.
III. Requirements for Regional Haze SIPs Submitted Under 40 CFR 51.309
The following is a summary and basic explanation of the regulations
covered under section 51.309 of the RHR. See 40 CFR 51.309 for a
complete listing of the regulations under which this SIP was evaluated.
A. Projection of Visibility Improvement
For each of the 16 Class I areas located on the Colorado Plateau,
the SIP must include a projection of the improvement in visibility
expressed in deciviews. 40 CFR 51.309(d)(2). The RHR establishes the
deciview as the principal metric or unit for expressing visibility. See
70 FR 39104, 39118. This visibility metric expresses uniform changes in
the degree of haze in terms of common increments across the entire
range of visibility conditions, from pristine to extremely hazy
conditions. Visibility expressed in deciviews is determined by using
air quality measurements to estimate light extinction and then
transforming the value of light extinction using a logarithm function.
The deciview is a more useful measure for tracking progress in
improving visibility than light extinction itself because each deciview
change is an equal incremental change in visibility perceived by the
human eye. Most people can detect a change in visibility at one
deciview.\6\ States need to show the projected visibility improvement
for the best and worst 20 percent days through the year 2018, based on
the application of all section 309 control strategies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The preamble to the RHR provides additional details about
the deciview. 64 FR 35714, 35725 (July 1, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Clean Air Corridors (CACs)
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(3), states must identify CACs. CACs
are geographic areas located within transport region states that
contribute to the best visibility days (least impaired) in the 16 Class
I areas on the Colorado Plateau. The CAC as described in the 1996 GCVTC
report covers nearly all of Nevada, large portions of Oregon, Idaho,
and Utah, and encompasses several Indian nations. In order to meet the
RHR requirements for CACs, states must adopt a comprehensive emissions
tracking program for all visibility impairing pollutants within the
CAC. Based on the emissions tracking, states must identify overall
emissions growth or specific areas of emissions growth in and outside
of the CAC that could be significant enough to result in visibility
impairment at one or more of the 16 Class I areas. If there is
visibility
[[Page 30958]]
impairment in the CAC, states must conduct an analysis of the potential
impact in the 16 Class I areas and determine if additional emission
control measures are needed and how these measures would be
implemented. States must also indicate in their SIP if any other CACs
exist, and if others are found, provide necessary measures to protect
against future degradation of visibility in the 16 Class I areas.
C. Stationary Source Reductions
1. Sulfur Dioxide Emission Reductions
Section 169A of the CAA directs states to evaluate the use of
retrofit controls at certain larger, often uncontrolled, older
stationary sources in order to address their visibility impacts.
Specifically, section 169A(b)(2)(A) of the CAA requires states to
revise their SIPs to contain such measures as may be necessary to make
reasonable progress towards the natural visibility goal, including a
requirement that certain categories of existing major stationary
sources built between 1962 and 1977 procure, install, and operate BART
as determined by the state. Under the RHR, states are directed to
conduct BART determinations for such ``BART-eligible'' sources that may
be anticipated to cause or contribute to any visibility impairment in a
Class I area.
Rather than requiring source-specific BART controls, states have
the flexibility under section 309 to adopt an emissions trading program
or other alternative program as long as the alternative provides
greater reasonable progress than would be achieved by the application
of BART pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(e)(2). Under 40 CFR 51.309, states
can satisfy the section 308 SO2 BART requirements by
adopting SO2 emission milestones and a backstop trading
program. 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4). Under this approach, states must
establish declining SO2 emission milestones for each year of
the program through 2018. The milestones must be consistent with the
GCTVC's goal of 50 to 70 percent reduction in SO2 emissions
by 2040. If the milestones are exceeded in any year, the backstop
trading program is triggered.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(ii)-(iv), states must include
requirements in the SIP that allow states to determine whether the
milestone has been exceeded. These requirements include documentation
of the baseline emission calculation, monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting (MRR) of SO2 emissions, and provisions for
conducting an annual evaluation to determine whether the milestone has
been exceeded. SIPs must also contain requirements for implementing the
backstop trading program in the event that the milestone is exceeded
and the program is triggered. 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(v).
The WRAP, in conjunction with EPA, developed a model for a backstop
trading program. In order to ensure consistency between states, states
opting to participate in the 309 program need to adopt rules that are
substantively equivalent to the model rules for the backstop trading
program to meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4). The trading
program must also be implemented no later than 15 months after the end
of the first year that the milestone is exceeded, require that sources
hold allowances to cover their emissions, and provide a framework,
including financial penalties, to ensure that the 2018 milestone is
met.
2. Provisions for Stationary Source Emissions of Nitrogen Oxides and
Particulate Matter
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(vii), a section 309 SIP must
contain any necessary long term strategies and BART requirements for PM
and NOX. Section 169A of the CAA directs states to evaluate
the use of retrofit controls at certain larger, often uncontrolled,
older stationary sources in order to address visibility impacts from
these sources. Specifically, section 169A(b)(2)(A) of the CAA requires
states to revise their SIPs to contain such measures as may be
necessary to make reasonable progress towards the natural visibility
goal, including a requirement that certain categories of existing major
stationary sources\7\ built between 1962 and 1977 procure, install, and
operate the ``Best Available Retrofit Technology'' as determined by the
state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The set of ``major stationary sources'' potentially subject-
to-BART is listed in CAA section 169A(g)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 6, 2005, EPA published the Guidelines for BART
Determinations Under the Regional Haze Rule at appendix Y to 40 CFR
part 51 (hereinafter referred to as the ``BART Guidelines'') to assist
states in determining which of their sources should be subject to the
BART requirements and in determining appropriate emission limits for
each applicable source. 70 FR 39104. In making a BART determination for
a fossil fuel-fired electric generating plant with a total generating
capacity in excess of 750 megawatts (MW), a state must use the approach
set forth in the BART Guidelines. A state is encouraged, but not
required, to follow the BART Guidelines in making BART determinations
for other types of sources. Regardless of source size or type, a state
must meet the requirements of the CAA and our regulations for selection
of BART, and the state's BART analysis and determination must be
reasonable in light of the overarching purpose of the regional haze
program.
The process of establishing BART emission limitations can be
logically broken down into three steps: first, states identify those
sources which meet the definition of ``BART-eligible source'' set forth
in 40 CFR 51.301 \8\; second, states determine which of such sources
``emits any air pollutant which may reasonably be anticipated to cause
or contribute to any impairment of visibility in any such area'' (a
source which fits this description is ``subject-to-BART''); and third,
for each source subject-to-BART, states then identify the best
available type and level of control for reducing emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ BART-eligible sources are those sources that have the
potential to emit 250 tons or more of a visibility-impairing air
pollutant, were not in operation prior to August 7, 1962, but were
in existence on August 7, 1977, and whose operations fall within one
or more of 26 specifically listed source categories. 40 CFR 51.301.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
States must address all visibility-impairing pollutants emitted by
a source in the BART determination process. The most significant
visibility impairing pollutants are SO2, NOX, and
PM. EPA has stated that states should use their best judgment in
determining whether VOC or NH3 compounds impair visibility
in Class I areas.
Under the BART Guidelines, states may select an exemption threshold
value for their BART modeling, below which a BART-eligible source would
not be expected to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in any
Class I area. The state must document this exemption threshold value in
the SIP and must state the basis for its selection of that value. Any
source with emissions that model above the threshold value would be
subject to a BART determination review. The BART Guidelines acknowledge
varying circumstances affecting different Class I areas. States should
consider the number of emission sources affecting the Class I areas at
issue and the magnitude of the individual sources' impacts. Any
exemption threshold set by the state should not be higher than 0.5
deciview. 40 CFR part 51, appendix Y, section III.A.1.
In their SIPs, states must identify the sources that are subject-
to-BART and document their BART control determination analyses for such
sources. In making their BART determinations, section 169A(g)(2) of the
CAA requires that states consider the following factors
[[Page 30959]]
when evaluating potential control technologies: (1) The costs of
compliance; (2) the energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of
compliance; (3) any existing pollution control technology in use at the
source; (4) the remaining useful life of the source; and (5) the degree
of improvement in visibility which may reasonably be anticipated to
result from the use of such technology.
A regional haze SIP must include source-specific BART emission
limits and compliance schedules for each source subject-to-BART. Once a
state has made its BART determination, the BART controls must be
installed and in operation as expeditiously as practicable, but no
later than five years after the date of EPA approval of the regional
haze SIP. CAA section 169(g)(4) and 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv). In
addition to what is required by the RHR, general SIP requirements
mandate that the SIP must also include all regulatory requirements
related to MRR for the BART controls on the source. See CAA section
110(a). As noted above, the RHR allows states to implement an
alternative program in lieu of BART so long as the alternative program
can be demonstrated to achieve greater reasonable progress toward the
national visibility goal than would BART.
D. Mobile Sources
Under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(5), states must provide inventories of on-
road and non-road mobile source emissions of VOCs, NOX,
SO2, PM2.5, EC, and OC for the years 2003, 2008,
2013, and 2018. The inventories must show a continuous decline in total
mobile source emissions of each of the above pollutants. If the
inventories show a continuous decline in total mobile source emissions
of each of these pollutants over the period 2003-2018, a state is not
required to take further action in their SIP. If the inventories do not
show a continuous decline in mobile source emissions of one or more of
these pollutants over the period 2003-2018, a state must submit a SIP
that contains measures that will achieve a continuous decline.
The SIP must also contain any long-term strategies necessary to
reduce emissions of SO2 from non-road mobile sources,
consistent with the goal of reasonable progress. In assessing the need
for such long-term strategies, the state may consider emissions
reductions achieved or anticipated from any new federal standards for
sulfur in non-road diesel fuel. Section 309 SIPs must provide an update
on any additional mobile source strategies implemented within the state
related to the GCVTC 1996 recommendations on mobile sources.
E. Programs Related to Fire
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6), SIPs must contain requirements for
programs related to fire. The SIP must show that the state's smoke
management program, and all federal or private programs for prescribed
fire in the state, have a mechanism in place for evaluating and
addressing the degree of visibility impairment from smoke in their
planning and application of burning. The state must also ensure that
its prescribed fire smoke management programs have at least the
following seven elements: (1) Actions to minimize emissions; (2)
evaluation of smoke dispersion; (3) alternatives to fire; (4) public
notification; (5) air quality monitoring; (6) surveillance and
enforcement; and (7) program evaluation. The state must be able to
track statewide emissions of VOC, NOX, EC, OC, and
PM2.5 emissions from prescribed burning in its state.
Other requirements states must meet in their 309 plan related to
fire include the adoption of a statewide process for gathering post-
burn activity information to support emissions inventory and tracking
systems. States must identify existing administrative barriers to the
use of non-burning alternatives and adopt a process for continuing to
identify and remove administrative barriers where feasible. The SIP
must include an enhanced smoke management program that considers
visibility effects in addition to health objectives and is based on the
criteria of efficiency, economics, law, emission reduction
opportunities, land management objectives, and reduction of visibility
impairment. Finally, a state must establish annual emission goals to
minimize emission increases from fire.
F. Paved and Unpaved Road Dust
Under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(7), states must submit a SIP that assesses
the impact of dust emissions on regional haze in the 16 Class I areas
on the Colorado Plateau and to include a projection of visibility
conditions through 2018 for the least and most impaired days. If dust
emissions are determined to be a significant contributor to visibility
impairment, the state must include emissions management strategies in
the SIP to address their impact.
G. Pollution Prevention
The requirements under the RHR for pollution prevention only
require the state to provide an assessment of the energy programs as
outlined in 40 CFR 51.309(d)(8) and does not require a state to adopt
any specific energy-related strategies or regulations for regional
haze. In order to meet the requirements related to pollution
prevention, the state's plan must include an initial summary of all
pollution prevention programs currently in place, an inventory of all
renewable energy generation capacity and production in use or planned
as of the year 2002, the total energy generation capacity and
production for the state, and the percent of the total that is
renewable energy.
The state's plan must include a discussion of programs that provide
incentives for efforts that go beyond compliance and/or achieve early
compliance with air-pollution related requirements and programs to
preserve and expand energy conservation efforts. The state must
identify specific areas where renewable energy has the potential to
supply power where it is now lacking and where renewable energy is most
cost-effective. The state must include projections of the short and
long-term emissions reductions, visibility improvements, cost savings,
and secondary benefits associated with renewable energy goals, energy
efficiency, and pollution prevention activities. The state must also
provide its anticipated contribution toward the GCVTC renewable energy
goals for 2005 and 2015. The GCVTC goals are that renewable energy will
comprise 10 percent of the regional power needs by 2005 and 20 percent
by 2015.
H. Additional Recommendations
Section 309 requires states to determine if any of the other
recommendations not codified by EPA as part of 40 CFR 51.309, should be
implemented in their SIP. 40 CFR 51.309(d)(9). States are not required
to adopt any additional control measures unless the state determines
they are appropriate and can be practicably included as enforceable
measures to remedy regional haze in the 16 Class I areas. Any measures
adopted by a state would need to be enforceable. States must also
submit a report to EPA and the public in 2013 and 2018 showing there
has been an evaluation of the additional recommendations and the
progress toward developing and implementing any such recommendations.
I. Periodic Implementation Plan Revisions
Under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10), states must submit progress reports in
the form of SIP revisions in 2013 and 2018. The SIP revisions must
comply with the procedural requirements of 40 CFR
[[Page 30960]]
51.102 for public hearings and 40 CFR 51.103 for submission of plans.
The assessment in the progress report must include an evaluation of
Class I areas located within the state and Class I areas outside the
state that are affected by emissions from the state. EPA views these
SIP revisions as a periodic check on progress, rather than a thorough
revision of regional strategies. The state should focus on significant
shortcomings of the original SIP from sources that were not fully
accounted for or anticipated when the SIP was initially developed. The
specifics of what each progress report must contain can be found at 40
CFR 51.509(d)(10)(i)(A)-(G).
At the same time that the state submits its progress report to EPA,
it must also take an action based on the outcome of the assessment in
the report. If the assessment shows that the SIP is adequate and
requires no substantive revision, the state must submit to EPA a
``negative declaration'' statement saying that no further SIP revisions
are necessary at this time. If the assessment shows that the SIP is or
may be inadequate due to emissions from outside the state, the state
must notify EPA and other regional planning states and work with them
to develop additional control strategies. If the assessment shows that
the SIP is or may be inadequate due to emissions from another country,
the state must include appropriate notification to EPA in its SIP
revision. In the event the assessment shows that the SIP is or may be
inadequate due to emissions from within the state, the state shall
develop additional strategies to address the deficiencies and revise
the SIP within one year from the due date of the progress report.
J. Interstate Coordination
In complying with the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(11), states
may include emission reductions strategies that are based on
coordinated implementation with other states. The SIP must include
documentation of the technical and policy basis for the individual
state apportionment (or the procedures for apportionment throughout the
trans-boundary region), the contribution addressed by the state's plan,
how it coordinates with other state plans, and compliance with any
other appropriate implementation plan approvability criteria. States
may rely on the relevant technical, policy, and other analyses
developed by a regional entity, such as the WRAP in providing such
documentation.
IV. Additional Requirements for Alternative Programs Under the Regional
Haze Rule
States opting to submit an alternative program, such as the
backstop trading program under section 309, must also meet requirements
under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2) and (e)(3). These requirements for
alternative programs relate to the ``better-than-BART'' test and
fundamental elements of any alternative program that establishes a cap
on emissions.
A. ``Better-Than-BART'' Demonstration
In order to demonstrate that the alternative program achieves
greater reasonable progress than source-specific BART, states must
provide a demonstration in their SIP that meets the requirements in 40
CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)-(v). States submitting section 309 SIPs or other
alternative programs are required to list all BART-eligible sources and
categories covered by the alternative program. States are then required
to determine which BART-eligible sources are ``subject-to-BART.'' The
SIP must provide an analysis of the best system of continuous emission
control technology available and the associated reductions for each
source subject-to-BART covered by the alternative program, or what is
termed a ``BART benchmark.'' Where the alternative program, such as the
309 backstop trading program, has been designed to meet requirements
other than BART, states may use simplifying assumptions in establishing
a BART benchmark. These assumptions can provide the baseline to show
that the alternative program achieves greater reasonable progress than
BART (71 FR 60619). Under this approach, states should use the
presumptive limits for EGUs in the BART Guidelines to establish the
BART benchmark used in the comparison, unless the state determines that
such presumptions are not appropriate for particular EGUs (70 FR
60619).
The SIP must provide an analysis of the projected emissions
reductions achievable through the trading program or other alternative
measure and a determination that the trading program or other
alternative measure achieves greater reasonable progress than would be
achieved through the installation and operation of BART pursuant to 40
CFR 51.308(e)(1). 40 CFR 308(e)(2)(i)(D)-(E). Under 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2)(iii)-(iv), all emission reductions for the alternative
program must take place by 2018, and all the emission reductions
resulting from the alternative program must be surplus to those
reductions resulting from measures adopted to meet requirements of the
CAA as of the baseline date of the SIP. Pursuant to 40 CFR
51.309(e)(2)(v), states have the option of including a provision that
the emissions trading program or other alternative measure include a
geographic enhancement to the program to address the requirement under
40 CFR 51.302(c) related to BART for reasonably attributable visibility
impairment from the pollutants covered under the emissions trading
program or other alternative measure.
States must also address the distribution of emissions under the
BART alternative as part of the better-than-BART demonstration. 40 CFR
51.308(e)(3). If a state can show that with the alternative program the
distribution of emissions is not substantially different from source-
specific BART, and the alternative program results in greater emission
reductions than source-specific BART, then the alternative measure may
be deemed to achieve greater reasonable progress. If the distribution
of emissions is significantly different, the state must conduct
dispersion modeling to determine differences in visibility between
source-specific BART and the alternative program for each impacted
Class I area for the 20% worst and best days. The modeling must show
that visibility does not decline at any Class I area and that
visibility overall is greater than what would be achieved with source-
specific BART.
B. Elements Required for All Alternative Programs That Have an
Emissions Cap
Under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(A)-(L), EPA established fundamental
requirements for trading or alternative programs that have an emissions
cap and require sources to hold allowances that they can sell, buy, or
trade, as in the case for the 309 backstop trading program. These
requirements are summarized below.
1. Applicability
The alternative program must have applicability provisions that
define the sources subject to the program. In the case of a program
covering sources in multiple states, the states must demonstrate that
the applicability provisions in each state cover essentially the same
size facilities and, if source categories are specified, cover the same
source categories.
2. Allowances
Allowances are a key feature of a cap and trade program. An
allowance is a limited authorization for a source to emit a specified
amount of a pollutant,
[[Page 30961]]
as defined by the specific trading program, during a specified period.
Allowances are fully marketable commodities. Once allocated, allowances
may be bought, sold, traded, or banked for use in future years. EPA has
not included in the rule detailed requirements on how states and tribes
can allocate allowances. A state or tribe can determine how to allocate
allowances as long as the allocation of the tonnage value of allowances
does not exceed the total number of tons of emissions capped by the
budget. The trading program must include allowance provisions ensuring
that the total value of allowances issued each year under the program
will not exceed the emissions cap on total annual emissions from the
sources in the program.
3. Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting
MRR of a source's emissions are integral parts of any cap and trade
program. Consistent and accurate measurement of emissions ensures that
each allowance actually represents its specified tonnage value of
emissions and that one ton of reported emissions from one source is
equivalent to one ton of reported emissions at another source. The MRR
provisions must require that boilers, combustion turbines, and cement
kilns in the alternative program that are allowed to sell or transfer
allowances comply with the requirements of 40 CFR part 75. The MRR
provisions must require that other sources in the program allowed to
sell or transfer allowances provide emissions information with the same
precision, reliability, accessibility, and timeliness as information
required by 40 CFR part 75.
4. Tracking System
An accurate and efficient tracking system is critical to the
functioning of an emissions trading market. The tracking system must
also be transparent, allowing all interested parties access to the
information contained in the accounting system. Thus, alternative
programs must have requirements for a tracking system that is publicly
available in a secure, centralized database to track in a consistent
manner all allowances and emissions in the program.
5. Account Representative
Each source owner or operator covered by the alternative program
must designate an individual account representative who is authorized
to represent the owner or operator in all matters pertaining to the
trading program and who is responsible for the data reported for that
source. The account representative will be responsible for, among other
things, permitting, compliance, and allowance related actions.
6. Allowance Transfer
SIPs must contain provisions detailing a uniform process for
transferring allowances among all sources covered by the program and
other possible participants. The provisions must provide procedures for
sources to request an allowance transfer, for the request and transfer
to be recorded in the allowance tracking system, for notification to
the source that the transfer has occurred, and for notification to the
public of each transfer and request.
7. Compliance Provisions
Cap and trade programs must include compliance provisions that
prohibit a source from emitting more emissions than the total tonnage
value of allowances the source holds for that year. A cap and trade
program must also contain the specific methods and procedures for
determining compliance on an annual basis.
8. Penalty Provisions
In order to provide sources with a strong incentive to comply with
the requirement to hold sufficient allowances for their emissions on an
annual basis and to establish an immediate minimum economic consequence
for non-compliance, the program must include a system for mandatory
allowance deductions. SIPs must contain a provision that if a source
has excess emissions in a given year, allowances allocated for the
subsequent year will be deducted from the source's account in an amount
at least equal to three times the excess emissions.
9. Banking of Allowances
The banking of allowances occurs when allowances that have not been
used for compliance are set aside for use in a later compliance period.
Alternative programs can include provisions for banked allowances, so
long as the SIP clearly identifies how unused allowances may be used in
future years and whether there are any restrictions on the use of any
such banked allowances.
10. Program Assessment
The alternative program must include provisions for periodic
assessment of the program. Such periodic assessments are a way to
retrospectively assess the performance of the trading program in
meeting the goals of the regional haze program and determining whether
the trading program needs any adjustments or changes. At a minimum, the
program evaluation must be conducted every five years to coincide with
the periodic report describing progress towards the reasonable progress
goals required under 40 CFR 51.308(g) and must be submitted to EPA.
V. Our Analysis of Wyoming's Submittal
The following summarizes how Wyoming's January 12, 2011 submittal
meets the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309, with the exception of 40 CFR
51.309(d)(4)(iii), 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(vii), and 40 CFR 51.309(g),
which as discussed above, EPA plans to propose action on in a future
notice.
A. Projection of Visibility Improvement
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(2), Wyoming provided a comparison of
the monitored 2000-2004 baseline visibility conditions in deciviews for
the 20 percent best and 20 percent worst days to the projected
visibility improvement for 2018 for the Class I areas on the Colorado
Plateau (see section K.2 of the SIP). Table 1 shows the State's
baseline monitoring data and projected visibility improvement for 2018
from the WRAP photochemical modeling (for details on the WRAP emission
inventories and photochemical modeling refer to the WRAP Technical
Support Document (TSD) \9\ and our review of the technical products
developed by the WRAP for the states in the western region, in support
of their regional haze SIPs).\10\ The projected visibility improvement
for the 2018 Base Case (referred to as the Base18b emission inventory
and modeled projections) reflects growth plus all controls ``on the
books'' as of December 2004. The projected visibility improvement for
the Preliminary Reasonable Progress Case (referred to as the PRP18b
emission inventory and modeled projections) reflects refined growth
estimates, all controls ``on the books'' as of 2007, and includes
presumptive or known SO2 BART controls. The modeling results
show projected visibility improvement for the 20 percent worst days in
2018 and no degradation in visibility conditions on
[[Page 30962]]
the 20 percent best days at all 16 Class I areas on the Colorado
Plateau. We are proposing to determine the State's SIP satisfies the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ WRAP Regional Technical Support Document for the
Requirements of Sec. 309 of the Regional Haze Rule (64 Federal
Register 35714--July 1, 1999), revised May 7, 2008, which can be
found in the State's TSD included in the docket of this action.
\10\ Our review of the technical products developed by the WRAP
is available as Technical Support Document for Technical Products
Prepared by the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) in Support
of Western Regional Haze Plans, February 28, 2011, which can be
found in the Supporting and Related Materials section of the docket.
Table 1--Baseline and 2018 Visibility at the Colorado Plateau Class I Areas
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20 Percent worst visibility days 20 Percent best visibility days
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2018 2018
2000-2004 Preliminary 2000-2004 Preliminary
Class I area State Baseline 2018 Base reasonable Baseline 2018 Base reasonable
monitoring case progress monitoring case progress
data (deciview) case data (deciview) case
(deciview) (deciview) (deciview) (deciview)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grand Canyon National Park................... AZ 11.7 11.4 11.3 2.2 2.2 2.1
Mount Baldy Wilderness....................... AZ 11.9 11.5 11.4 3.0 2.9 2.8
Petrified Forest National Park............... AZ 13.2 12.9 12.9 5.0 4.9 4.8
Sycamore Canyon Wilderness................... AZ 15.3 15.1 15.1 5.6 5.6 5.6
Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park CO 10.3 10.1 9.9 3.1 2.9 2.9
Wilderness.
Flat Tops Wilderness......................... CO 9.6 9.2 9.0 0.7 0.6 0.5
Maroon Bells Wilderness...................... CO 9.6 9.2 9.0 0.7 0.6 0.5
Mesa Verde National Park..................... CO 13.0 12.8 12.6 4.3 4.1 4.0
Weminuche Wilderness......................... CO 10.3 10.1 9.9 3.1 2.9 2.9
West Elk Wilderness.......................... CO 9.6 9.2 9.0 0.7 0.6 0.5
San Pedro Parks Wilderness................... NM 10.2 10.0 9.8 1.5 1.3 1.2
Arches National Park......................... UT 11.2 11.0 10.9 3.8 3.6 3.5
Bryce Canyon National Park................... UT 11.6 11.3 11.2 2.8 2.7 2.6
Canyonlands National Park.................... UT 11.2 11.0 10.9 3.8 3.6 3.5
Capitol Reef National Park................... UT 10.9 10.6 10.5 4.1 4.0 3.9
Zion National Park........................... UT 13.2 13.0 13.0 5.0 4.7 4.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Clean Air Corridors
1. Comprehensive Emissions Tracking Program
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(3), Wyoming is using a comprehensive
emissions tracking system established by WRAP to track emissions within
portions of Oregon, Idaho, Nevada and Utah that have been identified as
part of the CAC (see section B.1(a) of the SIP). The emission tracking
is to ensure that visibility does not degrade on the least-impaired
days in any of the 16 Class I areas of the Colorado Plateau. For a
complete description of the emission tracking system and the process by
which the annual emission trends will be summarized in order to
identify any significant emissions growth that could lead to visibility
degradation in the 16 Class I areas, see Description of Comprehensive
Emissions Tracking System in the Wyoming Technical Support Document
(TSD). The TSD can be found in the docket for this notice.
2. Identification of Clean Air Corridors
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(3)(i), the State has provided the
geographic boundaries of the CAC (a map of the CAC can be found in
Section B of the SIP). The WRAP identified the CAC using studies
conducted by the Meteorological Subcommittee of the GCVTC and then
updated the CAC based on an assessment described in the WRAP Policy on
Clean Air Corridors located in the Wyoming TSD. The technical studies
and findings supporting the WRAP Policy on Clean Air Corridors are
located in Chapter 3 of the WRAP TSD.
3. Patterns of Growth Within and Outside of the Clean Air Corridor
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(3)(ii)-(iii), the State has
determined, based on the WRAP Policy on Clean Air Corridors and
technical analysis conducted by the WRAP, that inside and outside the
CAC there is no significant emissions growth occurring at this time
that is causing visibility impairment in the 16 Class I areas of the
Colorado Plateau. The WRAP will summarize annual emission trends within
and outside of the CAC and will assess whether any significant
emissions growth is occurring that could result in visibility
impairment in any of the 16 Class I areas (see section B.1(c) of the
SIP).
4. Actions if Impairment Inside or Outside the Clean Air Corridor
Occurs
The State, in coordination with other transport region states and
tribes, will review the annual summary of emission trends within the
CAC and determine whether any significant emissions growth has
occurred. If the State identifies significant emissions growth, the
State, in coordination with other transport region states and tribes,
will conduct an analysis of the effects of this emissions growth.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(3)(iv), if this analysis finds that the
emissions growth is causing visibility impairment in the 16 Class I
areas, the State will evaluate the need for additional emission
reduction measures and identify an implementation schedule for such
measures. The State will report on the need for additional reduction
measures to EPA in accordance with the periodic progress reports
required under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i) (see section B.1(d) and (e) of
the SIP).
5. Other Clean Air Corridors
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(3)(v), the State has concluded that no
other CACs can be identified at this time. The State's conclusion is
based on the WRAP Policy on Clean Air Corridors, which determined that
no other CACs could be identified (see section B.1(f) of the SIP).
We are proposing to determine that the State's SIP meets the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(3).
C. Stationary Source Reductions
1. Provisions for Stationary Source Emissions of Sulfur Dioxide
As required by 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(i), the State has adopted
SO2 milestone numbers for each year of the program until
2018 (see section C.A1.1of the SIP).\11\ Table 2 shows the milestone
[[Page 30963]]
numbers and how compliance with the annual milestones will be
determined.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ The milestone numbers reflect the participation of Wyoming,
Utah, and New Mexico, including Albuquerque-Bernalillo County in the
309 backstop trading program.
Table 2--SO2 Emissions Milestones
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual SO2
Regional sulfur emissions used to
dioxide milestone determine
Year (tons per year compliance with
(tpy)) the annual
milestones
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2008............................ 269,083 tons SO2.. Average of 2006,
2007 and 2008.
2009............................ 234,903 tons SO2.. Average of 2007,
2008 and 2009.
2010............................ 200,722 tons SO2.. Average of 2008,
2009 and 2010.
2011............................ 200,722 tons SO2.. Average of 2009,
2010 and 2011.
2012............................ 200,722 tons SO2.. Average of 2010,
2011 and 2012.
2013............................ 185,795 tons SO2.. Average of 2011,
2012 and 2013.
2014............................ 170,868 tons SO2.. Average of 2012,
2013 and 2014.
2015............................ 155,940 tons SO2.. Average of 2013,
2014 and 2015.
2016............................ 155,940 tons SO2.. Average of 2014,
2015 and 2016.
2017............................ 155,940 tons SO2.. Average of 2015,
2016 and 2017.
2018............................ 141,849 tons SO2.. Year 2018 only.
2019 forward, until replaced by 141,849 tons SO2.. Annual; no
an approved SIP. multiyear
averaging.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SO2 emissions from sources in 1990 totaled 358,364 tpy
and the 2018 milestone is 141,849 tpy.\12\ The difference is a 60
percent reduction in SO2 emissions from 1990 to 2018.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(i), the State has concluded that the
emission reductions are on target to achieve the GCVTC goal of a 50 to
70 percent reduction of SO2 emissions by 2040.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See Demonstration that the SO2 Milestones
Provide Greater Reasonable Progress than BART in section D of the
State's TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are proposing to determine the State's SIP meets the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)4)(i).
2. Documentation of Emissions Calculation Methods for Sulfur Dioxide
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(ii), the SIP includes documentation
of the specific methodology used to calculate SO2 emissions
during the 2006 base year for each emitting unit included in the
program (see Appendix E of the SIP). A detailed spreadsheet report that
provides the baseline numbers and methodology used to calculate
emissions for sources covered by the program is included in this
docket.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See 2006 Inventory Documentation in the Supporting and
Related materials section of the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(ii), the SIP requires the State to
document any change to the specific methodology used to calculate
emissions at any emitting unit for any year after the base year. Until
the program has been triggered and source compliance is required, the
State will submit an annual emissions report to EPA that documents
prior year emissions for Wyoming sources covered by the 309 program to
all participating states by September 30 of each year. The State will
adjust actual emission inventories for sources that change the method
of monitoring or calculating their emissions to be comparable to the
emission monitoring or calculation method used to calculate the 2006
base year inventory (see section C.A3 of the SIP).
We are proposing to determine the State's SIP meets the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(ii).
3. Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting of Sulfur Dioxide Emissions
In order to meet the emission reporting requirements of 40 CFR
51.309(d)(4)(iii), the SIP includes provisions requiring the
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting of actual stationary source
SO2 emissions within the State to determine if the milestone
has been exceeded. The pre-trigger emission inventory requirements are
covered by WAQSR Chapter 14, Section 3, which was included in Wyoming's
April 19, 2012 submittal.
We are proposing to determine the State's SIP meets the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(iii), and we are proposing to
approve WAQSR Chapter 14, Section 3.
4. Criteria and Procedures for a Market Trading Program
Until the backstop trading program has been triggered and source
compliance is required, the State shall submit an annual emissions
report for Wyoming sources to all participating states by September
30th of each year. The report shall document actual SO2
emissions during the previous calendar year for all sources subject to
the section 309 program. The WRAP will compile reports from all
participating states into a draft regional emission report for
SO2 by December 31st of each year. This report will include
actual regional SO2 emissions, adjustments to account for
changes in monitoring/calculation methods or enforcement/settlement
agreements, and adjusted average emissions for the last three years for
comparison to the regional milestone. As required by 40 CFR
51.309(d)(4)(iv), based on this compilation of reports from all states
participating in the 309 program, states will determine if the
milestone has been exceeded and will include a determination in a final
regional emissions report that is submitted to EPA. This final report
and determination will be submitted to EPA by the end of March, 15
months following the milestone year (see section C.A.3 of the SIP).
We are proposing to determine the State's SIP meets the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(iv).
5. Market Trading Program
Per 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(v), the SIP provides that if the 309
backstop trading program is triggered, the regional emissions report
will contain a common trigger date. In the absence of a common trigger
date, the default date will be March 31st of the applicable year, but
no later than 15 months after the end of the milestone year where the
milestone was exceeded (see section C.3.10 of the SIP). The State's SIP
requires that sources comply, as soon as practicable, with the
requirement to hold allowances covering their emissions. Because the
backstop trading program does not allow allocations to exceed the
milestone, the program is sufficient to achieve the milestones adopted
pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(i) as discussed above. The backstop
trading program is also consistent with the
[[Page 30964]]
elements for such programs outlined in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi). The
analysis found in Section V.E. of this notice shows that the backstop
trading program is consistent with the elements for trading programs
outlined in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi).
We are proposing to determine the State's SIP meets the
requirements of 40 CFR 309(d)(4)(v).
6. Provisions for the 2018 Milestone
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(vi)(A), the SIP has provisions to
ensure that, until a revised implementation plan is submitted in
accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(f) and approved by EPA, emissions from
covered stationary sources in any year beginning in 2018 do not exceed
the 2018 milestone. In order to meet this requirement, the State has
included special provisions for what will be required as part of their
2013 SIP revision required under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10). The State's SIP
provides that the 2013 SIP revision required by 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)
will contain either the provisions of a program designed to achieve
reasonable progress for stationary sources of SO2 beyond
2018 or a commitment to submit a SIP revision containing the provisions
of such a program no later than December 31, 2016 (see section D.2 of
the SIP).
We are proposing to determine the State's SIP meets the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(vi)(A).
7. Special Penalty Provision for 2018
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(vi)(B), the SIP includes special
penalty provisions to ensure that the 2018 milestone is met. If the
backstop trading program is triggered and it will not start until after
the year 2018, a special penalty shall be assessed to sources that
exceed the 2018 milestone. Wyoming shall seek at least the minimum
financial penalty of $5,000 per ton of SO2 emissions in
excess of a source's allowance limitation. Any source may resolve its
excess emissions violation by agreeing to a streamlined settlement
approach where the source pays a penalty of $5,000 per ton or partial
ton of excess emissions and the source makes the payment within 90
calendar days after the issuance of a notice of violation.
Any source that does not resolve its excess emissions violation in
accordance with the streamlined settlement approach will be subject to
civil enforcement action, in which the State shall seek a financial
penalty for the excess emissions based on the State's statutory maximum
civil penalties. The special penalty provisions for 2018 will apply for
each year after 2018 until the State determines that the 2018 milestone
has been met. The State will evaluate the amount of the minimum
monetary penalty during each five-year SIP review and the penalty will
be adjusted to ensure that penalties per ton substantially exceed the
expected cost of allowances, and are thus stringent penalties (see
Chapter 14, Section 2(l) and section A.5 of the SIP).
We are proposing to determine the State's SIP meets the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(vi)(B).
D. ``Better-Than-BART'' Demonstration
As discussed in Section IV.A of this preamble, if a state adopts an
alternative program designed to replace source-specific BART controls,
the state must be able to demonstrate that the alternative program
achieves greater reasonable progress than would be achieved by BART.
Wyoming has included a demonstration of how the 309 program achieves
greater reasonable progress than BART as discussed in the document
titled Demonstration that the SO2 Milestones Provide for
Greater Reasonable Progress than BART (``better-than-BART''
demonstration). Section V.D.5 below contains a discussion on how the
309 backstop trading program achieves greater reasonable progress than
BART. New Mexico and Utah have also submitted SIPs with the same
better-than-BART demonstration as Wyoming, and thus, are relying on a
consistent demonstration across the states.
1. List of BART-Eligible Sources
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(A), the State's better-than-BART
demonstration lists the BART-eligible sources covered by the program
(see Table 3 below). BART eligible sources are identified as those
sources that fall within one of the 26 specific source categories, were
built between 1962 and 1977 and have potential emissions of 250 tons
per year of any visibility impairing air pollutant.
We are proposing that this satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2)(i)(A).
2. Subject-to-BART Determination
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(B), the State has determined
which sources are subject-to-BART. Each of the section 309 states
provided source modeling that determined which of the BART-eligible
sources within their states to determine which sources cause or
contribute to visibility impairment and are thus subject-to-BART. The
State of New Mexico and Utah relied on modeling by the WRAP to identify
sources subject to BART. Based on the list of identified sources, the
WRAP performed the initial BART modeling for the State of New Mexico
and Utah. The procedures used are outlined in the WRAP Regional
Modeling Center (RMC) BART Modeling Protocol.\14\ The State of Wyoming
performed separate modeling to identify sources subject-to-BART.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ CALMET/CALPUFF Protocol for BART Exemption Screening
Analysis for Class I Areas in the Western United States, Western
Regional Air Partnership (WRAP); Gail Tonnesen, Zion Wang; Ralph
Morris, Abby Hoats and Yiqin Jia, August 15, 2006. Available at:
https://pah.cert.ucr.edu/aqm/308/bart/WRAP_RMC_BART_Protocol_Aug15_2006.pdf.
\15\ BART Air Modeling Protocol, Individual Source Visibility
Assessments for BART Control Analyses, State of Wyoming, Department
of Environmental Quality, Air Quality Division, Cheyenne, WY
September 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The states established a contribution threshold of 0.5 deciviews
for determining if a single source causes or contributes to visibility
impairment. If the modeling shows that a source has a 0.5 deciview
impact at any Class I area, that source causes or contributes to
visibility impairment and is subject-to-BART. Table 3 shows the BART-
eligible sources covered by the 309 backstop program and whether they
are subject-to-BART.
We are proposing to determine that the State's SIP meets the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(B).
Table 3--Subject-to-BART Status for Section 309 BART-Eligible Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Company Facility Subject-to- BART?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Mexico........................... Frontier................ Empire Abo............. No.
New Mexico........................... Xcel Energy............. SWPS Cunningham Station No.
New Mexico........................... Duke Energy............. Artesia Gas Plant...... No.
New Mexico........................... Duke Energy............. Linam Ranch Gas Plant.. No.
[[Page 30965]]
New Mexico........................... Dynegy.................. Saunders............... No.
New Mexico........................... Giant Refining.......... San Juan Refinery...... No.
New Mexico........................... Giant Refining.......... Ciniza Refinery........ No.
New Mexico........................... Xcel Energy............. SWPS Maddox Station.... No.
New Mexico........................... Marathon................ Indian Basin Gas Plant. No.
New Mexico........................... Public Service of New San Juan Generating Yes.
Mexico. Station.
New Mexico........................... ........................ Rio Grande Station..... No.
New Mexico........................... Western Gas Resources... San Juan River Gas No.
Plant.
Utah................................. Pacificorp.............. Hunter................. Yes.
Utah................................. Pacificorp.............. Huntington............. Yes.
Wyoming.............................. Basin Electric.......... Laramie River.......... Yes.
Wyoming.............................. Black Hills Power & Neil Simpson I......... No.
Light.
Wyoming.............................. Dyno Nobel.............. Dyno Nobel............. No.
Wyoming.............................. FMC Corp................ Green River Soda Ash Yes.
Plant.
Wyoming.............................. FMC Corp................ Granger River Soda Ash No.
Plant.
Wyoming.............................. General Chemical........ Green River Soda Ash Yes.
Plant.
Wyoming.............................. P4 Production........... Rock Springs Coking No.
Plant.
Wyoming.............................. Pacificorp.............. Dave Johnston.......... Yes.
Wyoming.............................. Pacificorp.............. Jim Bridger............ Yes.
Wyoming.............................. Pacificorp.............. Naughton............... Yes.
Wyoming.............................. Pacificorp.............. Wyodak................. Yes.
Wyoming.............................. Sinclair Oil Corp....... Sinclair Refinery...... No.
Wyoming.............................. Sinclair Refinery....... Casper................. No.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Best System of Continuous Emission Control Technology
As required by 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(C), the State determined what
BART would be for each subject-to-BART source covered by the 309
backstop trading program. In the State's better-than-BART
demonstration, all subject-to-BART EGUs were assumed to be operating at
the presumptive SO2 emission rate of 0.15 lb/MMBtu
established in the BART Guidelines (70 FR 39171). The 309 program also
includes non-EGU subject-to-BART units. As explained in the better-
than-BART demonstration, the non-EGU subject-to-BART units are four
boilers located at two trona plants in Wyoming: FMC Westvaco and
General Chemical Green River. Wyoming made a determination of what BART
would be for these non-EGU units. FMC Westvaco recently installed
pollution control projects achieving a 63% reduction in SO2
from its two boilers. Wyoming determined this control level would serve
as a BART benchmark for all trona boilers. Thus, a 63% reduction in
emissions from these sources was included in the BART benchmark in
calculating emission reductions assuming the application of BART at
these sources. Emission reductions or the BART benchmark for all
subject-to-BART sources covered by the 309 program was calculated to be
48,807 tons of SO2 (all supporting calculations for the
``better-than-BART'' demonstration are located in the State's TSD under
the title 10-6-10--milestone.xls).
We are proposing to determine the State's SIP meets the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(C).
4. Projected Emissions Reductions
As required by 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(D), the State has provided
the expected emission reductions that would result from the 309
backstop trading program. The better-than-BART demonstration projects
that 2018 baseline emissions would be 190,656 tpy of SO2 for
the sources covered by the 309 program in the participating states. The
reductions achieved by the program are 48,807 tpy of SO2,
resulting in remaining emissions of 141,849 tpy of SO2 in
2018.
We are proposing to determine the State's SIP meets the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(D).
5. Evidence That the Trading Program Achieves Greater Reasonable
Progress Than BART
The State's better-than-BART demonstration provides numerous
reasons why the SO2 backstop trading program is better than
BART. First, additional sources beyond BART sources are included. The
backstop trading program includes all stationary sources with emissions
greater than 100 tpy of SO2, and thus, encompasses 63 non-
subject-to-BART sources, which are identified in the better-than-BART
demonstration. BART applied on a source-specific basis would not affect
these sources, and there would be no limitation on their future
operations under their existing permit conditions, or allowable
emissions. The milestones will cap these sources at 2002 actual
emissions, which are less than current allowable emissions.
The program also provides for a cap on new source growth. Future
impairment is prevented by capping emissions growth from sources
covered by the program and also by including entirely new sources in
the region under the cap. BART applied on a source-specific basis would
have no impact on future growth. The backstop trading program also
provides a mass-based cap that has inherent advantages over applying
BART to each individual source. The baseline emission projections and
assumed reductions due to the assumption of BART-level emission rates
on all sources subject-to-BART are all based on actual emissions, using
2006 as the baseline. If the BART process were applied on a source-
specific basis to individual sources, emission limitations would
typically be established as an emission rate (lbs/hr or lbs/MMBtu) that
would account for variations in the sulfur content of fuel and
alternative operating scenarios, or allowable emissions. A mass-based
cap that is based on actual emissions is more stringent because it does
not allow a source to consistently use this difference between current
actual and allowable emissions.
We are proposing to determine the State's 309 backstop trading
program achieves greater reasonable progress than would be achieved
through the
[[Page 30966]]
installation and operation of BART, and thus, meets the requirements of
40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(E).
6. All Emission Reductions Must Take Place During the First Planning
Period
The first planning period ends in 2018. As discussed above, the
reductions from the 309 program will occur by 2018. We are therefore
proposing to determine the State's SIP meets the requirements of 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2)(iii).
7. Detailed Description of the Alternative Program
The detailed description of the backstop trading program are
provided in Section C--Stationary Sources of the State's SIP and WAQSR
Chapter 14 Section 2. The details of the backstop trading program are
discussed in section V.E of this notice. We are proposing to determine
that the State's SIP meets the detailed description requirement in 40
CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iii).
8. Surplus Reductions
We propose to approve the determination in the State's 309 SIP
submittal that all emission reductions resulting from the emissions
trading program are surplus as of the baseline date of the SIP, as
required by 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iv).
9. Geographic Distribution of Emissions
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3), the State used modeling conducted
by the WRAP to compare the visibility improvement expected from source-
by-source BART to the backstop trading program for the Class I areas on
the Colorado Plateau. A summary of the modeling results can be found in
Section K of the State's SIP, which refers to data from modeling
included in Tables 2 and 3 of Attachment C to the Annex.16
17 This modeling was conducted during the development of the
Annex to examine if the geographic distribution of emissions under the
trading program would be substantially different and disproportionately
impact any Class I area due to a geographic concentration of emissions.
The modeled visibility improvement for the best and worst days at the
Class I areas for the 309 program is similar to improvement anticipated
from the BART scenario (within 0.1 deciview) on the worst and best
visibility days. Thus, if we assume participation and milestones
consistent with the model, the model demonstrates that the distribution
of emissions between the BART scenario and the 309 trading program are
not substantially different. We note this modeling demonstration
included nine states, many of which are not participating in the
backstop trading program. This modeling demonstration adds support to
our proposed determination, discussed above in this section, that the
regional haze 309 SIP submittal appropriately shows the trading program
will achieve greater reasonable progress than would be achieved through
the installation and operation of BART, as required by 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2)(i)(E).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Voluntary Emissions Reduction Program for Major Industrial
Sources of Sulfur Dioxide in Nine Western States and A Backstop
Market Trading Program, an Annex to the Report of the Grand Canyon
Visibility Transport Commission (September 2000) at C-15 and 16.
\17\ WRAP conducted modeling of the degree of visibility
improvement that would occur on average and for the 20% best and
worst visibility days. The WRAP used the transfer coefficients
developed as part of the Integrated Assessment System and used by
the GCVTC. As noted in the Annex, this modeling has limitations
which must be considered when interpreting the results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Requirements for Alternative Programs With an Emissions Cap
The following analysis shows that the State's SIP is consistent
with the elements for trading programs required by 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2)(vi). The backstop trading program contains milestones,
which are in effect a cap. Under a backstop trading program, the
provisions of a trading program are enacted only if the milestone has
been exceeded. Since the 309 trading program is a backstop trading
program, the provisions outlined below will only apply if the milestone
is exceeded and the program is triggered.
1. Applicability Provisions
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(A), the backstop trading
program has the same applicability requirements in all states opting to
participate in the program. WAQSR Chapter 14, Section 2(c) contains the
applicability provisions and provides that the backstop trading program
applies to all stationary sources that emit 100 tons per year or more
of SO2 in the program trigger year.
We are proposing to approve that the State's SIP meets the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(A).
2. Allowance Provisions
Section C.1.C1 of the SIP and WAQSR Chapter 14, Section 2(g)
contain the allowance allocation provisions as required by 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2)(vi)(B). The rule requires sources to open a compliance
account in order to track allowances and contains other requirements
associated with those accounts. The SIP contains the provisions on how
the State will allocate allowances and requires that the total number
of allowances distributed cannot exceed the milestone for any given
year.
We are proposing to determine the State's SIP meets the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(B).
3. Monitoring, Recordkeeping and Reporting Provisions
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(C)-(E), WAQSR Chapter 14,
Section 2(h)(i)(A) provides that sources subject to 40 CFR part 75
under a separate requirement from the backstop trading program shall
meet the requirements contained in 40 CFR part 75 with respect to MRR
of SO2 emissions. If a unit is not subject to 40 CFR part 75
under a requirement separate from the trading program, the State
requires that a source use one of the following monitoring methods: (1)
Continuous emission monitoring system for SO2 and flow that
complies with all applicable monitoring provisions in 40 CFR part 75;
(2) if the unit is a gas- or oil-fired combustion device, the
monitoring methodology in Appendix D to 40 CFR part 75, or, if
applicable, the low mass emissions provisions (with respect to
SO2 mass emissions only) of section 75.19(c) of 40 CFR part
75; (3) one of the optional protocols, if applicable, in Appendix A to
WAQSR Chapter 14;\18\ or (4) a petition for site-specific monitoring
that the source submits for approval by the State and EPA. All the
above sources are required to comply with the reporting and
recordkeeping requirements in 40 CFR part 75.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Appendix A of Chapter 14 contains monitoring requirements
for fuel gas combustion devices at petroleum refineries and kilns
with positive pressure fabric filters. Appendix A specifies the
installation of a continuous fuel gas monitoring system and
predictive flow monitoring system, respectively. Appendix A also
specifies requirements under 40 CFR part 75 sources must follow in
regards to this equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although most sources covered by the backstop trading program will
be able to meet the monitoring requirements stated above, there are
some emission units that are either not physically able to install the
needed equipment or do not emit enough SO2 to justify the
expense of installing these systems. As discussed in section C5.3 of
the SIP, the trading program allows these emission units to continue to
use their pre-trigger monitoring methodology, but does not allow the
source to transfer any allocation to that unit to another source. The
program requires that the allowances associated with emission units
that continue to use their pre-trigger monitoring methodology be
[[Page 30967]]
placed in a special reserve compliance account, while allowances for
other emission units are placed in a regular compliance account.
Sources may not trade allowances out of a special reserve compliance
account, even for use by emission units at the same source, but can use
the allowances to show compliance for that particular unit.
WAQSR Chapter 14, Section 2(h)(i)(B) allows sources with any of the
following emission units to apply to establish a special reserve
compliance account: (1) Any smelting operation where all of the
emissions from the operation are not ducted to a stack; (2) any flare,
except to the extent such flares are used as a fuel gas combustion
device at a petroleum refinery; or (3) any other type of unit without
add-on SO2 control equipment, if the unit belongs to one of
the following source categories: cement kilns, pulp and paper recovery
furnaces, lime kilns, or glass manufacturing. Pursuant to 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2)(vi)(E), sources with a special reserve compliance account
are required to submit to the State an annual emissions statement and
sources are required to maintain operating records sufficient to
estimate annual emissions consistent with the baseline emission
inventory submitted in 1998.
We are proposing to determine the State's SIP meets the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(C)-(E).
4. Tracking System
As required by 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(F), section C2 of the SIP
provides the overarching specifications for an Emissions and Allowance
Tracking System (EATS). According to the SIP, the EATS must provide
that all necessary information regarding emissions, allowances, and
transactions is publicly available in a secure, centralized database.
The EATS must ensure that each allowance is uniquely identified, allow
for frequent updates, and include enforceable procedures for recording
data. If the program is triggered, the State will work with other
states and tribes participating in the trading program to implement
this system. More detailed specifications for the EATS are provided in
the WEB Emission and Allowance Tracking System (EATS) Analysis in the
State's TSD. The State assumes responsibility for ensuring that all the
EATS provisions are completed as described in its SIP and TSD.
In addition, the State will work with the other participating
states to designate one tracking system administrator (TSA). The SIP
provides that the TSA shall be designated as expeditiously as possible,
but no later than six months after the program trigger date. The State
will enter into a binding contract with the TSA that shall require the
TSA to perform all TSA functions described in the SIP, such as
transferring and recording allowances (see section A2.2 of the SIP).
We are proposing to determine that the State's SIP meets the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iv)(F).
5. Account Representative
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(G), WAQSR Chapter 14, Section
2(d) contains provisions for the establishment of an account
representative. The rule requires each source to identify one account
representative. The account representative shall submit to the State
and the TSA a signed and dated certificate that contains a
certification statement verifying that the account representative has
all the necessary authority to carry out the account representative
responsibilities under the trading program on behalf of the owners and
operators of the sources. The certification statement also needs to
indicate that each such owner and operator shall be fully bound by the
account representatives representations, actions, inactions, or
submissions and by any decision or order issued to the account
representative by the State regarding the trading program.
We are proposing to determine the State's SIP meets the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(G).
6. Allowance Transfers
The State has established procedures pertaining to allowance
transfers to meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(H). WAQSR
Chapter 14, Section 2(i) contains requirements sources must follow for
allowance transfers. To transfer or retire allowances, the account
representative shall submit the transfer account number(s) identifying
the transferor account, the serial number of each allowance to be
transferred, the transferor's account representative's name and
signature, and date of submission. The allowance transfer deadline is
midnight Pacific Standard Time on March 1 of each year following the
end of the control period. Sources must correctly submit transfers by
this time in order for a source to be able to use the allowance to
demonstrate compliance.
Section C3 of the SIP provides the procedures the TSA must follow
to transfer allowances. The TSA will record an allowance transfer by
moving each allowance from the transferor account to the transferee
account as specified by the request from the source, if the transfer is
correctly submitted, and the transferor account includes each allowance
identified in the transfer. Within five business days of the recording
of an allowance transfer, the TSA shall notify the account
representatives of both the transferor and transferee accounts, and
make the transfer information publicly available on the Internet.
Within five business days of receipt of an allowance transfer that
fails to meet the requirements for transfer, the TSA will notify the
account representatives of both accounts of the decision not to record
the transfer, and the reasons for not recording the transfer.
We are proposing to determine that the State's SIP meets the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(H).
7. Compliance Provisions
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(I), the State has provided the
procedures for determining compliance in WAQSR Chapter 14, Section
2(k). Per this section, the source must hold allowances as of the
allowance transfer deadline in the source's compliance account
(together with any current control year allowances held in the source's
special reserve compliance account) in an amount not less than the
total SO2 emissions for the control period from the source.
The State determines compliance by comparing allowances held by the
source in their compliance account(s) with the total annual
SO2 emissions reported by the source. If the comparison of
the allowances to emissions results in emissions exceeding allowances,
the source's excess emissions are subject to the allowance deduction
penalty discussed in further detail below.
We are proposing to determine that the State's SIP meets the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(I).
8. Penalty Provisions
WAQSR Chapter 14, Section 2(k)(iii) provides the penalty provisions
required by 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(J). Per this section, a source's
allowances will be reduced by an amount equal to three times the
source's tons of excess emissions if they are unable to show
compliance. Allowances allocated for the following control period will
be the original allowance minus the allowance penalty. If the
compliance account does not have sufficient allowances allocated for
that control period, the required number of allowances will be deducted
from the source's compliance account regardless of the control period
for which they were allocated.
[[Page 30968]]
We are proposing to determine that the State's SIP meets the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(J).
9. Banking of Allowances
As allowed by 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(K), WAQSR Chapter 14, Section
2(j) allows sources to use allowances from current and prior years to
demonstrate compliance, with some restrictions. Sources can only use
2018 allowances to show compliance with the 2018 milestone and may not
use allowances from prior years. In order to ensure that the use of
banked allowances does not interfere with the attainment or maintenance
of reasonable progress goals, the backstop trading program includes
flow-control provisions. The flow-control provisions are triggered if
the TSA determines that the banked allowances exceed ten percent of the
milestone for the next control year, and thereby ensure that too many
banked emissions are not used in any one year (see section C4 of the
SIP).
We are proposing to determine the State's SIP meets the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(e)(2)(vi)(J).
10. Program Assessment
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(L), the SIP contains provisions
for a 2013 assessment and SIP revision. For the 2013 assessment, the
State will work with other participating states to develop a projected
emission inventory for SO2 through the year 2018. The State
will then evaluate the projected inventory and assess the likelihood of
meeting the regional milestone for the year 2018. The State shall
include this assessment as part of the 2013 progress report that must
be submitted under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10) (see section D1 of the SIP).
We are proposing to determine the State's SIP meets the
requirements of 40 CFR 308(e)(2)(vi)(L).
F. Provisions for Stationary Source Emissions of Nitrogen Oxides and
Particulate Matter
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(vii), the State submitted another
SIP dated January 12, 2011 that contains the requirements for PM and
NOX BART. EPA plans to act on this submittal in a separate
notice.
G. Mobile Sources
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(5)(i), the State, in collaboration
with the WRAP, assembled a comprehensive statewide inventory of mobile
source emissions. The inventory included on-road and non-road mobile
source emissions inventories for western states for the 2003 base year
and emission projections for the year 2018.\19\ The inventory shows a
continuous decline in emissions from mobile sources from VOC,
NOX, PM2.5, EC, and OC emissions over the period
of 2003-2018. Between 2003 and 2018, the inventory shows that there
will be a 54 percent decrease in NOX emissions, a 39 percent
decrease in OC, a 24 percent decrease in EC, a 38 percent decrease of
PM2.5, and a 56 percent decrease of VOC. Per 40 CFR
51.309(d)(5)(i)(A), the inventory shows a decline in the required
mobile source emissions categories and therefore no further action is
required by the State to address mobile source emissions (see section
D.1 of the SIP).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Detailed information on the emission inventory is contained
in the ENVIRON Report WRAP Mobile Source Emission Inventories
Update, May 2006. This report is included in the Supporting and
Related Materials section of the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(5)(i)(B), the State reviewed
SO2 emissions from non-road mobile sources. The emission
inventory projections show that there will be a 99 percent decrease in
SO2 emissions from non-road mobile sources for 2003-2018.
The reduction will result from the implementation of EPA's rule titled
Control of Emissions of Air Pollution from Non-road Diesel Engines and
Fuel (see 69 FR 38958). The State determined that a 99 percent
reduction in SO2 from non-road mobile sources is consistent
with the goal of reasonable progress and that no other long-term
strategies are necessary to address SO2 emissions from non-
road mobile sources (see section D.1.c of the SIP).
We are proposing to determine the State's SIP meets the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(5).
H. Programs Related to Fire
1. Evaluation of Current Fire Programs
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6)(i), the State has evaluated its
existing open burning regulations and all existing federal and private
prescribed fire smoke management programs in the State. The State
evaluated the potential for fire to contribute to visibility impairment
in the 16 Class I areas of the Colorado Plateau, and how visibility
protection is addressed by different entities in planning and
operation. The state of Wyoming relied upon the WRAP report Assessing
Status of Incorporating Smoke Effects into Fire Planning and Operation,
as well as EPA's Interim Air Quality Policy on Wildland and Prescribed
Fire as guides for making this evaluation. (A full copy of these
documents can be found in the Wyoming TSD and the Supporting and
Related materials section of the docket, respectively).
The State determined that a new smoke management regulation,
incorporated as WAQSR Chapter 10, Section 4 and submitted as part of
the regional haze SIP, would be required to meet the requirements of 40
CFR 51.309(d)(6)(i). WAQSR Chapter 10, Section 4 establishes
requirements for vegetative burners pertaining to the management of
emissions and air quality impacts from smoke on public health and
visibility. WAQSR Chapter 10, Section 4 applies to burns that will emit
more than 0.25 tons of PM2.5 per day. There are two types of
burns specified by the rule. SMP-I burns are those burn projects
expected to generate less than two tons per day of PM10 and
SMP-II burns are those burn projects expected to generate two tons per
day or more of PM10. The following discusses how the
requirements of WAQSR Chapter 10, Section 4 meet the requirements of 40
CFR 51.309(d)(6)(i). The four required program elements are discussed
below and are contained in WAQSR Chapter 10, Section 4.
a. Actions To Minimize Emissions
In order to minimize emissions, the State's SIP relies on the use
of emission reduction techniques by burners. Any techniques used in
conjunction with burning that reduce the actual amount of emissions
produced from a planned burn project are considered emission reduction
techniques. The SIP requires land managers burning SMP-II burns to use
at a minimum one emission reduction technique for each planned burn
project. SMP-II burners will indicate on the required State
registration form the emission reduction technique(s) utilized for each
planned burn project (WAQSR Chapter 10, Section 4(g)(i)(C)).
b. Evaluation of Smoke Dispersion
The SIP only allows SMP-I burns to be ignited during daytime hours
when there is a slight breeze and there is no population within 0.5
mile of the burn project in the downwind direction. To comply with this
requirement, the burner will document the time of day of the planned
burn project, the wind direction and wind speed at the time of the burn
project, as well as the distance to a population (WAQSR Chapter 10,
Section 4(f)(iii)).
For SMP-II burns, the SIP provides the burner with two options
pertaining to the dispersion of smoke and burning. A burner can ignite
a planned burn project during times when the ventilation is classified
as ``Good'' or
[[Page 30969]]
better.\20\ Also, a burner can ignite a planned burn project during
times when the ventilation is classified as ``Fair'' and if there is no
population within 10 miles of the planned burn project in the downwind
trajectory (WAQSR Chapter 10, Section 4(g)(i)(D)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Ventilation category is a classification that describes the
potential for smoke to ventilate away from its source. The
classification (Excellent, Very Good, Good, Fair, Poor) is
determined by multiplying the mixing height in feet by the transport
winds in knots, thus providing the ventilation category in knot-
feet. The ventilation category can be found in the National Weather
Service's Fire Weather Forecast, which is the State approved source
for this information
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Alternatives to Fire
The State SIP requires that burners generating over 100 tons per
year of PM must consider the use of alternatives to burning. Burners
must then document that the use of alternatives to burning were
considered prior to the decision to utilize fire. The documentation
includes citing the feasibility criterion that prevented the use of
alternatives. This documentation must be included on the registration
form provided by the State (WAQSR Chapter 10, Section 4(h)).
d. Public Notification
For SMP-I burns, the SIP requires that burners must make a good
faith effort to utilize a minimum of one public notification method
specified in the SIP to notify the populations that are located within
one half mile of the planned burn project. The burner must conduct
public notification no sooner than 30 days and no later than two days
in advance of the ignition of the planned burn project. In addition,
the burner will also notify the jurisdictional fire authority per the
requirements of the jurisdictional fire authority,\21\ or, absent any
such requirements, immediately prior to ignition (WAQSR Chapter 10,
Section 4(f)(ii)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Jurisdictional fire authority means an agency,
organization, or department whose purpose is to prevent, manage,
and/or suppress fires in a designated geographic area, including,
but not limited to, volunteer fire departments, fire districts,
municipal fire departments, and federal fire staff.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For SMP-II burns, the SIP requires that burners must make a good
faith effort to utilize a minimum of one public notification method to
notify populations within 10 miles of the planned burn project. The
burner must conduct public notification no sooner than 30 days and no
later than two days in advance of the ignition of the planned burn
project, and will provide documentation of public notification on the
State post burn reporting form. In addition, the burner will also
notify the jurisdictional fire authority per the requirements of the
jurisdictional fire authority or, absent any such requirements,
immediately prior to ignition (WAQSR Chapter 10, Section 4(g)(iii)).
e. Air Quality Monitoring
Burners of SMP-I burns are required to attend and observe their
planned burn projects periodically (WAQSR Chapter 10, Section
4(f)(iv)). SMP-II burners are required to conduct and document visual
monitoring on all planned burn projects. On a case-by-case basis, SMP-
II burners may also be required by the State to conduct and document
ambient air quality and/or visibility monitoring. The use of monitoring
equipment will be based on the planned burn project's proximity to a
population, nonattainment area, or Class I area (WAQSR Chapter 10,
Section 4(g)(i)(E)).
f. Surveillance and Enforcement
The Wyoming Environmental Quality Act authorizes surveillance,
inspection, and enforcement for the State's regulations. WAQSR Chapter
10, Section 4(e)(ii) specifies that burners and responsible
jurisdictional fire authorities shall give permission to State staff to
enter and inspect for the purpose of investigating a planned burn
project or unplanned fire event and for determining compliance or non-
compliance.
g. Program Evaluation
The State will evaluate the fire programs in the State as part of
the future progress reports required by 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10). The State
will use these evaluations to revise Chapter 10, Section 4, as needed.
The provisions for program evaluation are included in the Wyoming Smoke
Management Program Guidance Document, November 2004 (included in the
Supporting and Related Materials section of the docket).
2. Inventory and Tracking System
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6)(ii), the State maintains a fire
emission inventory of the following pollutants: VOC, NOX,
elemental carbon, organic carbon, and fine particulate for fire sources
within the State (Section E.2 of the SIP). In order to maintain the
emission inventory, Chapter 10, Section 4 requires both SMP-I and SMP-
II burners to report to the State on emissions from their burns. To
track fires, the State uses the WRAP Fire Emission Tracking System
(FETS). The FETS is a web-enabled database for planned and unplanned
fire events. The FETS is a planning tool for daily smoke management
coordination, and retrospective analyses such as emission inventories
and regional haze air quality planning tasks (see https://wrapfets.org).
3. Strategy for Use of Alternatives to Burning
In section E.3 of the SIP, the State is required to work with key
public and private entities to identify and remove administrative
barriers to the use of alternatives to burning for prescribed fire on
federal, State, and private lands, pursuant to 40 CFR
51.309(d)(6)(iii). The process is collaborative and provides for
continuing identification and removal of administrative barriers, and
considers economic, safety, technical and environmental feasibility
criteria, and land management objectives. Should the State determine
that an administrative barrier exists, the State will work
collaboratively with the appropriate public and private entities to
evaluate the administrative barrier, identify the steps necessary to
remove the administrative barrier, and initiate the removal of the
administrative barrier, where it is feasible to do so.
4. Enhanced Smoke Management Program
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6)(iv), the smoke management programs
that operate within the State are consistent with the WRAP Policy on
Enhanced Smoke Management Programs for Visibility (WRAP ESMP). A copy
of this policy can be found in the Wyoming TSD. This policy calls for
programs to be based on the criteria of efficiency, economics, law,
emission reduction opportunities, land management objectives, and
reduction of visibility impacts. The intent of the WRAP ESMP is to
assist states to address visibility effects associated with fire in a
way that is adequate for a SIP (section E.4 of the SIP).
5. Annual Emission Goal
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6)(v), the State will seek to minimize
emission increases in fire through the use of annual emission goal
using the policies set out by Western Regional Air Partnership Policy
on Annual Emission Goals for Fire. A copy of this policy can be found
in the Wyoming TSD. The State will use a collaborative mechanism for
setting annual emission goals and developing a process for tracking
their attainment on a yearly basis. The State will rely on emission
reduction techniques, where appropriate, to minimize emission increases
in fire (section E.5 of the SIP).
We are proposing that the Sate's SIP meets the requirements of 40
CFR 51.309(d)(6).
[[Page 30970]]
I. Paved and Unpaved Road Dust
WRAP performed an assessment of the impact of dust emissions from
paved and unpaved roads on the 16 Class I areas of the Colorado
Plateau. The WRAP modeled and calculated the significance of road dust
in terms of the impact on visibility on the worst 20 percent days. The
modeled regional impact of road dust emissions ranged from 0.31
deciviews at the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park to 0.08
deciviews at the Weminuche Wilderness Area. (For more information on
the WRAP modeling and assessment of road dust impacts, see Chapter 7 of
the WRAP TSD). Based on the WRAP modeling, the State has concluded that
road dust is not a significant contributor to visibility impairment in
the 16 Class I areas. Since the State has found that road dust is not a
significant contributor to visibility impairment, the State did not
include road dust control strategies in the SIP pursuant to 40 CFR
51.309(d)(7) (section F.1(b) of the SIP).
The State will track road dust emissions with the assistance of the
WRAP and provide an update on paved and unpaved road dust emission
trends, including any modeling or monitoring information regarding the
impact of these emissions on visibility in the 16 Colorado Plateau
Class I Areas. These updates will include a reevaluation of whether
road dust is a significant contributor to visibility impairment. These
updates shall be part of the periodic implementation plan revisions
pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10) (section I.1(a) of the SIP).
We propose to determine the State's SIP meets the requirements of
40 CFR 51.309(d)(7).
J. Pollution Prevention
Under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(8), states must provide information on
renewable energy and other pollution prevention efforts in the state.
40 CFR 51.309(d)(8) does not require states to adopt any new measures
or regulations. Thus, we find the information Wyoming provided adequate
to meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(8) as discussed below.
1. Description of Existing Pollution Prevention Programs
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(8)(i), Table G-1 of the SIP summarizes
all pollution prevention and renewable energy programs currently in
place in Wyoming. The State also determined the renewable energy
generation capacity and production in the State and the State's total
energy generation capacity and production.
2. Incentive Programs
Per 40 CFR 51.309(d)(8)(ii), section G.4 of the SIP states that the
State has provided incentives for early compliance by participating in
the 309 regional SO2 backstop trading program. The backstop
trading program allows for early reduction credits. Sources of
SO2 subject to the trading program that reduce emissions
prior to the program trigger date shall receive additional emission
allowances. The source may use such allowances for compliance purposes
or may sell them to other parties.
3. Programs To Preserve and Expand Energy Conservation Efforts
Per 40 CFR 51.309(d)(8)(iii), the State provided a table that
discusses the programs within the State that preserve and expand energy
conservation efforts. Such programs include the ``Energy Exchange
Program'' by PacifiCorp and ``Rebuild America,'' a Department of Energy
resource network. For a complete list of programs in the State, see
table G-5 of the SIP.
4. Potential for Renewable Energy
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(8)(iv), the State has utilized data
from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory to assess areas where
there is the potential for renewable energy to supply power in a cost-
effective manner. The SIP summarizes the potential for renewable energy
development in Wyoming. See Figures G-1 through G-7 of the SIP for more
detailed information.
5. Projections of Renewable Energy Goals, Energy Efficiency, and
Pollution Prevention Activities
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(8)(v), the State has used projections
made by the WRAP of the short and long-term emissions reductions,
visibility improvements, cost savings, and secondary benefits
associated with renewable energy goals, energy efficiency, and
pollution prevention activities. (A complete description of these
projections can be found in the Wyoming TSD in a document titled
Economic Assessment of Implementing the 10/20 Goals and Energy
Efficiency Recommendations.) The document provides overall projections
of visibility improvements for the 16 Class I areas. These projections
include the combined effects of all measures in this SIP, including air
pollution prevention programs. Although emission reductions and
visibility improvements from air-pollution prevention programs are
expected at some level, they were not explicitly calculated because the
resolution of the regional air quality modeling system is not currently
sufficient to show any significant visibility changes resulting from
the marginal NOX emission reductions expected from air
pollution prevention programs.
6. Programs To Achieve the GCVTC Renewable Energy Goal
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(8)(vi), the State will rely on current
renewable energy programs as described in section G1 of the SIP to
demonstrate progress in achieving the renewable energy goal of the
GCVTC. The GCVTC's goal is that that renewable energy will comprise 10
percent of the regional power needs by 2005 and 20 percent by 2015. The
State will submit progress reports in 2013 and 2018, describing the
State's contribution toward meeting the GCVTC renewable energy goals.
To the extent that it is not feasible for the State to meet its
contribution to these goals, the State will identify what measures were
implemented to achieve its contribution, and explain why meeting its
contribution was not feasible.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(8)(i), Table G-1 of the State's SIP
summarizes all pollution prevention and renewable energy programs
currently in place in Wyoming. The State's SIP provides an estimate of
renewable energy generating capacity in megawatts for each of the
renewable energy categories (see Table 12 of the SIP). Total installed
generation capacity within Wyoming in 2002 was 5,485 MW. Renewable
energy generation capacity in Wyoming represented 0.77 percent of the
total installed capacity.
K. Additional Recommendations
As part of the 1996 GCVTC report to EPA, the Commission included
additional recommendations that EPA did not adopt as part of 40 CFR
51.309. Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(9), the State has evaluated the
additional recommendations of the GCVTC to determine if any of these
recommendations could be practicably included in the SIP. The State's
complete evaluation is included in the State's TSD in a document titled
A Report on Additional Recommendations of the Grand Canyon Visibility
Transport Commission. The State determined that no additional measures
were practicable or necessary to demonstrate reasonable progress in the
SIP.
We are proposing to determine that the State's SIP meets the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(9).
[[Page 30971]]
L. Periodic Implementation Plan Revisions
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i), section I of the SIP requires
the State to submit to EPA, as a SIP revision, periodic progress
reports for the years 2013 and 2018. The State will assess whether
current programs are achieving reasonable progress in Class I areas
within Wyoming, and Class I areas outside Wyoming that are affected by
emissions from Wyoming. The State will address the elements listed
under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(A) through (G) as summarized below: (1)
Implementation status of 2003 SIP measures; (2) summary of emissions
reductions; (3) assessment of most/least impaired days; (4) analysis of
emission reductions by pollutant; (5) significant changes in
anthropogenic emissions; (6) assessment of 2003 SIP sufficiency; and
(7) assessment of visibility monitoring strategy.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(ii), the State will take one of
the following actions based upon information contained in each periodic
progress report. The State will provide a negative declaration
statement to EPA saying that no SIP revision is needed if the State
determines reasonable progress is being achieved. If the State finds
that the SIP is inadequate to ensure reasonable progress due to
emissions from outside the State, the State will notify EPA and the
other contributing state(s), and initiate efforts through a regional
planning process to address the emissions in question. If the State
finds that the SIP is inadequate to ensure reasonable progress due to
emissions from another country, Wyoming will notify EPA and provide
information on the impairment being caused by these emissions. If the
State finds that the SIP is inadequate to ensure reasonable progress
due to emissions from within the State, the State will develop emission
reduction strategies to address the emissions and revise the SIP no
later than one year from the date that the progress report was due.
We propose to determine that the State's SIP meets the requirements
of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10).
M. Interstate Coordination
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(11), the State has participated in
regional planning and coordination with other states by participating
in the WRAP while developing its emission reduction strategies under 40
CFR 51.309. Appendix D of the SIP contains detailed information on the
interstate coordination programs developed by the WRAP and the State's
participation in those programs. The backstop trading program in the
SIP and companion rules involved coordination of the three states
(Wyoming, Utah, and New Mexico, including Albuquerque) in its
development and will continue to involve coordination of the
participants once it is implemented.
We propose to determine the State's SIP is consistent with the 40
CFR 51.309(d)(11).
N. Additional Class I Areas
On January 12, 2011, the State submitted a SIP pursuant to 40 CFR
51.309(g) in order to address the State's seven Class I areas not on
the Colorado Plateau. EPA is acting on this submission separately.
VI. Proposed Action
In this action, EPA is proposing to approve Wyoming SIP revisions
submitted on January 12, 2011 and April 19, 2012 that address the RHR
for the mandatory Class I areas under 40 CFR 51.309. EPA is proposing
that the January 12, 2011 and April 19, 2012 SIPs meet the requirements
of 40 CFR 51.309, with the exception of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(vii), and
40 CFR 51.309(g).
As part of the January 12, 2011 submittal, the State submitted
revisions to WAQSR. The State submitted WAQSR Chapter 14, Sections 2
and 3--Emission Trading Program Regulations. WAQSR Chapter 14, in
conjunction with the SIP, implements the backstop trading program
provisions in accordance with the applicable requirements of 40 CFR
51.308 and 40 CFR 51.309. We are proposing to approve WAQSR Chapter 14,
Section 2 and Section 3. The State also submitted WAQSR Chapter 10,
Section 4--Smoke Management. WAQSR Chapter 10, Section 4, in
conjunction with the SIP, implements the requirements for smoke
management under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6). We are proposing to approve WAQSR
Chapter 10, Section 4.
The State submitted another SIP revision dated January 12, 2011
that addresses the requirements under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(vii) and 40
CFR 51.309(g) pertaining to BART for PM and NOX and
additional Class I areas, respectively. EPA will be taking action on
this SIP at a later date. In addition, the January 12, 2011 and April
19, 2012 submittals we are proposing to act on in this notice supersede
and replace regional haze SIPs submitted on December 24, 2003, May 27,
2004, and November 21, 2008.
VII. 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, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
proposed action merely approves some state law as meeting Federal
requirements and disapproves other state law because it does not meet
Federal requirements; this proposed action does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this
proposed action:
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
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 (Pub. L. 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, this rule does not have Tribal implications as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the
SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the State,
and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
[[Page 30972]]
costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: May 9, 2012.
James B. Martin,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2012-12643 Filed 5-23-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
