1

A. Analysis of 309 Comments Received in Response to the November 18, 2003 Public Hearing

Commenter Comment # Section Comment DEQ Response

PacifiCorp A1

Projection of 

Visibility 

Improvement

PacifiCorp notes that Wyoming has done considerable work in 

conducting modeling to identify the benefits that the SO2

program will provide to the Class I areas in Wyoming as well as 

those sixteen on the Colorado Plateau. PacifiCorp recommends 

that for purposes of the SO2 program the state include the 

modeling results for these additional Class I areas and explicitly 

state that this program is meeting the visibility improvement 

requirements for these Class I areas, as well as those on the 

Colorado Plateau.

The initial SIP pursuant to Section 309 focuses on implementing the GCVTC recommendations 

for the Sixteen Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau. The State of Wyoming has made a 

declaration in this submittal that it intends to address other Class I areas pursuant to Section 

309(g) of the Rule in a SIP revision no later than December 31, 2008. In part, that decision was 

informed by the modeling work conducted by the WRAP to verify the Annex analysis, in which it 

was shown that in addition to the 16 Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau, the regional SO2

milestones resulted in visibility improvements in Wyoming’s Class I areas as well. This 

demonstration can be found in Section 4.1.2 of the WRAP Technical Support Document. In 

accordance with Section 309(g), although additional strategies may be required to show 

reasonable progress for other Class I areas, no further demonstration or SO2 strategies will be 

required for Wyoming’s stationary sources that are already included in the 309 regional SO2

milestone program.

PacifiCorp A2

Clean Air 

Corridors

PacifiCorp agrees with the Department's characterization of 

the clean air corridor requirements. Although it is unlikely that 

the emissions increase threshold will be triggered, we urge the 

State to consider that emission increases may not necessarily 

influence all Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau on the leastimpaired days. Efforts should be taken to further refine the 

underlying meteorology and modeling for demonstrating 

impacts on the least impaired days. 

The State agrees that analysis of impact should address each Class I area individually, and that 

refinements are needed in meteorological and monitoring data for demonstrating impacts of 

emissions coming from the clean air corridor. The WRAP’S periodic "Causes of Haze" reports will 

provide more robust understanding of clean air corridors in the future.
2

PacifiCorp A3

Stationary 

Sources

PacifiCorp suggests that Wyoming reiterate EPA’s finding that 

the emission reduction milestones provide “greater reasonable 

progress” than would be achieved by the application of best 

available retrofit technology to eligible sources. For purposes 

of SO2 emissions from stationary sources, Wyoming should 

take advantage of the work completed by the WRAP 

demonstrating this not only for the 16 mandatory Class I 

federal areas on the Colorado Plateau, but for all mandatory 

Class I Federal areas in the western U.S., including the State of 

Wyoming (see: Technical Support Document, 4.1.2. Stationary 

Source SO2 Control Scenario Modeling Results for Western 

Class I Areas). A significant benefit under the rule, and from the 

modeling work completed by the WRAP, is that no further 

demonstrations are necessary to show that, for stationary 

sources of SO2 covered by this program, the milestones will 

satisfy the BART provisions under §169A of the CAA. Affected 

sources covered by this program must have certainty that the 

SO2 milestones will not be reopened.

The initial SIP pursuant to Section 309 focuses on implementing the GCVTC recommendations 

for the Sixteen Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau. The State of Wyoming has made a 

declaration in this submittal that it intends to address other Class I areas pursuant to Section 

309(g) of the Rule in a SIP revision no later than December 31, 2008. In part, that decision was 

informed by the modeling work conducted by the WRAP to verify the Annex analysis, in which it 

was shown that in addition to the 16 Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau, the regional SO2

milestones resulted in visibility improvements in Wyoming’s Class I areas as well. This 

demonstration can be found in Section 4.1.2 of the WRAP Technical Support Document. In 

accordance with Section 309(g), although additional strategies may be required to show 

reasonable progress for other Class I areas, no further demonstration or SO2 strategies will be 

required for Wyoming’s stationary sources that are already included in the 309 regional SO2 

milestone program.
3

PacifiCorp A4

Changes in flow 

Rate 

Measurement 

Processes

While PacifiCorp understands the intent of this provision as it 

was negotiated in the Annex (i.e., to avoid so called “paper 

changes” in emissions), we also have continuing concerns 

about how it will be implemented in the real world. This 

section assumes that monitoring emissions is an exact science 

with discreet actions that affect the accuracy of the data. This 

is simply not true. There are many variables that affect 

emissions and the data that is reported. In order to standardize 

the reporting of emissions, EPA has created a very detailed 

program under Title IV of the Clean Air Act. Utilities have 

complied with EPA’s requirements for measuring, conducting 

quality assurance and quality control activities, and reporting 

stack emissions since 1995. All data supplied to EPA under Title 

IV of the Clean Air Act is certified to meet these EPA standards. 

PacifiCorp recommends that the State be very cautious about 

adjusting the interim milestones using these methods, and 

recommends that the state rely on the emissions that utilities 

report to the EPA under Title IV of the acid rain program, 

rather than getting caught-up in the creation of additional 

clumsy and burdensome databases to address relatively minor 

changes in the milestones.

The WRAP Market Trading Forum discussed at length the issue of “paper” emission changes due 

to new flow measurement techniques. There was concern that these changes would undermine 

the goals of the Annex because real emission reductions would not occur, even though the 

reported emissions would show a decrease. The SIP provisions related to flow rate 

measurement methods were designed to ensure that actual emission reductions take place. 

These measures need to remain in place so that we can determine the scope of the “paper 

changes” that have occurred since 1999. The measures are also specifically required by 40 CFR 

51.309(h)(1)(iv). 
4

PacifiCorp A5

Year 2013 

Assessment

[A4.1(b)] Following the letter and spirit of the Annex, 

PacifiCorp believes that this process entails two steps: (1) a 

determination based on the evidence that The 2018 milestone 

will not be met; and (2) a consensus decision with the other 

309 states that triggering the program is “necessary” to ensure 

the 2018 milestone is met (i.e., consensus that but for an early 

triggering of the program, the 2018 milestone will not be met). 

This properly places the burden on those asserting that the 

program should be triggered early.

Revise A4.2(b) At the end of this subsection, add the following 

sentence: “draft report will be posted on the WRAP website for 

a period of public review and comment for not less than 30 

days.”

Revise A4.3 “Consensus Decision” as follows:

“The Department commits to meet with the participating 

states and tribes in March 2014 to discuss any comments 

received on the 2018 emission projections in the draft report. 

The participating states and tribes will decide, through a 

consensus process, whether it can be determined that the 

2018 milestone will not be met, and whether it is necessary to

trigger the WEB trading program early in order to meet the SO2 

emission reduction goals in 2018.”

A4.2(b) The language was not added at this time because of time constraints, however, in 

coordination with the other 309 states Wyoming commits to provide the suggested public 

notification.

A4.1(b) and A4.3 The suggested language has not been added to the SIP. The purpose of the 

2013 review is to determine whether we are heading into trouble so that the participating states 

and tribes can avoid a major non-compliance issue in 2018. If the 2018 penalty provisions are 

triggered, it will be a failure of the expected process, and sources in Wyoming would face 

significant financial penalties. By triggering the trading program, the states will use the backstop 

regulatory program to ensure that sources remain in compliance and that the goals of the 

program are met. The decision will be based on the best information available, but because the 

states and tribes will be using emission projections, there will always be some uncertainties in 

the numbers. It cannot be “determined that the milestones will not be met” with absolute 

certainty, and the proposed language could be interpreted to require certainty. The milestones 

are designed so that market forces and the incentive of avoiding a regulatory program will drive 

emission reductions rather than a regulatory program. The states and tribes will not trigger the 

trading program in 2013 unless this incentive process does not appear to be effective. The 

decision will not be made lightly. However, it is impossible to identify all of the factors that must 

be considered in this decision process at this point in time.

PacifiCorp A6

Allowance 

Allocations

PacifiCorp included additional comments regarding the 

principles and equity issues that must be considered in the 

allocation process that are listed in Section C, Part C1.1(a)2 of 

the SIP

Wyoming notes and appreciates PacifiCorp’s general agreement with the allocation approach for 

utilities adopted by Wyoming. The proposed SIP contains an allocation methodology for utilities 

in the event that the program is triggered. As described in the SIP, WDEQ is participating in 

ongoing discussions with the other 309 states to ensure that all of the principles and equity 

issues that are listed in the SIP have been addressed in this methodology. PacifiCorp’s 

perspective on how each of the principles and equity issues affect the allocation process will be 

an important part of the ongoing discussions. No changes are recommended to the SIP text at 

this time.
5

PacifiCorp A7

Early Reduction 

Credits

C1.1(a)3. and (b)5. This provision is under review and subject 

to approval of the §309 states and stakeholders. PacifiCorp 

urges Wyoming to finalize all allocation issues affecting utility 

sources at the same time. It is not clear from the proposed SIP 

and proposed rule language what threshold date applies to the 

controls eligible for this credit. The Annex language strongly 

suggests that it should apply to actions that occur after a state 

has committed itself to a §309 SIP. For simplicity, the State 

should use 1/1/03 as the threshold date for the installation of 

controls eligible for this credit.

Chapter 14, Section 2(f)(v)states that the bonus allocations shall be available for reductions that 

occur between 2003 and the program trigger year. This is consistent with the 1/1/03 date 

recommended by PacifiCorp. 

PacifiCorp A8

Renewable 

Resource 

Credits

C1.1(a)4. and (b)6. This provision is under review by certain 

stakeholders and subject to approval of the §309 states and 

stakeholders. PacifiCorp urges Wyoming to finalize all 

allocation issues affecting utilities at the same time.

The proposed SIP contains an allocation methodology for utilities, and an allocation 

methodology for renewable energy resources. As described in the SIP and in the response to 

earlier comments, WDEQ is participating in ongoing discussions to ensure that the allocation 

process is fair and consistent with the goals of the backstop trading program. The renewable 

energy credit and the early reduction bonus allocation will be part of these discussions because 

the allocation process is a series of interlinked parts that cannot be considered individually.
6

PacifiCorp A9

Programs to 

Achieve GCVTC 

Renewable 

Energy Goal

Following the existing paragraph in this subsection or some 

other appropriate place in this section, we ask the State to 

consider adding the following language from the Preamble of 

EPA’s Federal Register Notice of the Final Regional Haze Rule 

on July 1, 1999:

“The goals themselves are not enforceable and States are not 

required to meet the renewable energy goals. . . . Rather, EPA 

is setting enforceable requirements for the States to assess 

progress toward goals established by the GCVTC with respect 

to renewable energy production as a means for reducing 

dependence on more polluting forms of energy production. 

States participating in the GCVTC strategy are responsible for 

explaining why they cannot meet the GCVTC goals. The 

required reporting by the States will inform the public of air 

quality improvements that would result from that goal had it 

been realized. It is the relationship between renewable energy 

production and associated environmental effects (direct and 

indirect) that is the thrust of the assessment and reporting 

effort under the SIP.” (at 35754-55)

This paragraph has not been added. This statement of the intent of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(8) matches 

our understanding but the Preamble carries the same weight whether or not it is included in the 

SIP and generally, we do not repeat language from the Preamble within the SIP. 
7

PacifiCorp A10

Geographic 

Enhancements

PacifiCorp agrees that this approach should be voluntary. We 

urge Wyoming and the WRAP to continue working with the 

federal land managers in order to refine the approach that will 

be used to address RAVI given that regional emissions are 

being reduced under the haze program. This will inevitably 

require some resolution of how so-called “hot spot” areas are 

identified and addressed in the context of the regional haze 

program. While the work of WESTAR and the WRAP has moved 

us in that direction, a few significant policy issues remain 

unresolved (e.g., data interpretation methods revealing 

significant emission spikes within Class I areas that would 

qualify them as genuine “hot spots” and identifying a portfolio 

of remedies if they become necessary).

Wyoming’s current visibility SIP addresses reasonably attributable visibility impairment (RAVI). 

Section K of the SIP addresses the relationship between the existing RAVI SIP and the new 

regional haze SIP. This section states, “If the federal land manager certifies impairment, the 

State of Wyoming will fulfill its obligations to determine attribution and if necessary determine 

BART for the applicable source or group of sources in accordance with Wyoming’s SIP for 

visibility protection approved by EPA on February 15, 1989 through a notice in the Federal 

Register. The Wyoming SIP for reasonably attributable visibility became effective on April 17, 

1989.” Wyoming is committed to continue working with the federal land managers in order to 

refine the approach that will be used to address RAVI given that regional emissions are being 

reduced under the haze program.

PacifiCorp A11

As discussed earlier in these comments (introductory 

paragraphs to “A. Projection of Visibility Improvement” and “C. 

Stationary Sources”), PacifiCorp strongly urges the state to 

address BART for regional haze purposes for the sources 

covered by this program in the 2003 SIP.

The initial SIP pursuant to Section 309 focuses on implementing the GCVTC recommendations 

for the Sixteen Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau. The State of Wyoming has made a 

declaration in this submittal that it intends to address other Class I areas pursuant to Section 

309(g) of the Rule in a SIP revision no later than December 31, 2008. In part, that decision was 

informed by the modeling work conducted by the WRAP to verify the Annex analysis, in which it 

was shown that in addition to the 16 Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau, the regional SO2

milestones resulted in visibility improvements in Wyoming’s Class I areas as well. This 

demonstration can be found in Section 4.1.2 of the WRAP Technical Support Document. In 

accordance with Section 309(g), although additional strategies may be required to show 

reasonable progress for other Class I areas, no further demonstration or SO2 strategies will be 

required for Wyoming’s stationary sources that are already included in the 309 regional SO2

milestone program.
8

National Park 

Service A12

NOx and PM 

Control 

Strategies

Section D.3 of the proposed plan discusses the role of NOx and 

PM in regional haze. Language used by the State indicates that 

some determination of the need for these strategies has 

already been made; perhaps giving the impression that there 

may be little future concern for these pollutants as regional 

haze contributors. The NPS would prefer, based on the 

incompleteness of current work the WRAP is engaged in on 

this subject, that the State stress the ongoing assessment of 

the visibility impacts of NOx and PM, and the potential control 

strategies to address those impacts. It would be appropriate to 

indicate that determinations of these impacts and strategies 

will be addressed in future revisions of the plan. It would also 

be most informative of the current status of this requirement 

to state that until future assessments are completed, the State 

cannot determine what level of control, if any, of NOx and PM 

through a stationary source milestone program, would be 

appropriate.

Additional language has been included in this section to attempt to clarify, and perhaps offset, 

any mistaken impression that Wyoming believes there is little future concern for NOx and PM as 

contributors to regional haze. The statements made in the proposed plan represent the current 

state of analyses, which we agree is incomplete, and which must be reassessed based on more 

complete and accurate analyses prior to the 2007/2008 SIP revision. We have added “The State 

of Wyoming will continue to work with the WRAP to improve the emission inventories and 

regional modeling to support future policy decisions regarding stationary source NOx and PM 

emissions.” to the final paragraph of this section.

National Park 

Service A13

Geographical 

Enhancement 

Program

The National Park Service notes that the second paragraph 

under K1 identifies only the National Park Service as the 

federal land manager.

We also caught this deficiency and substituted the broader “federal land manager” language. 

Thank you for your comment.

National Park 

Service A14

Additional Class 

I Areas

Section L.1 of the proposed regional haze SIP discusses 

reasonable progress for additional mandatory Class I areas not 

part of the 16 Colorado Plateau areas and lists the 7 

mandatory Class I areas in Wyoming. For purposes of the 

federal requirement under Section 309(g), we believe the plan 

should indicate that the 2008 regional haze plan update will 

need to address out-of-state Class I areas that may be affected 

by transport of emissions from Wyoming in addition to the 7 

areas in the State

Section 309 of the regional haze rule requires that the 2003 plan address the 16 Class I areas of 

the Colorado Plateau. Other Class I areas do not need to be addressed until 2008. 40 CFR 

51.309(g) provides a mechanism to apply 309 control strategies to other Class I areas within 

states that submit SIPs under Section 309. Wyoming is making this declaration in its plan. Other 

309 States are declaring within their 309 SIPs whether they will address the additional Class I 

areas within their borders by implementing 309 strategies, or by following the provisions of 

Section 308. Wyoming will, of course, work with other states within the WRAP in addressing 

impairment in Class I areas outside Wyoming’s borders.
9

Powder River 

Basin 

Resource 

Council

A15 Road Dust

The Powder River Basin Resource Council expressed concern 

that the WDEQ’s statement that “NOx and PM strategies are 

not needed based on current information” does not take into 

account the extensive amount of road and construction dust 

associated with coalbed methane development. The PRBRC 

goes on to state that it feels more PM and NOx is necessary 

throughout the Powder River Basin.

Additional language has been included in this section to attempt to clarify, and perhaps offset, 

any mistaken impressions that Wyoming believes there is little future concern for NOx and PM as 

contributors to regional haze. The statements made in the proposed plan represent the current 

state of analyses, which we agree is incomplete, and which must be reassessed based on more 

complete and accurate analyses prior to the 2007/2008 SIP revision. We have added “The State 

of Wyoming will continue to work with the WRAP to improve the emission inventories and 

regional modeling to support future policy decisions regarding stationary source NOx and PM 

emissions.” to the final paragraph of this section.

Regarding monitoring, the State agrees that additional monitoring is desirable, particularly given 

that current computer modeling does a poor job dealing with fugitive PM emissions. Outside of 

the context of regional haze, the DEQ is already deploying more NOx and PM monitors in the 

Basin and, in addition, has a line item in the budget for the next biennium to support the 

placement of even more monitoring stations throughout the State, including the Powder River 

Basin.

As a final note, the general positive support of the PRBRC for the State’s decision to proceed 

with the 309 option is appreciated. 

The Center 

for Energy 

and 

Economic 

Development

A16 General

It is premature for Wyoming to take any administrative action 

on the RHR by choosing § 308 or § 309 as an option because of 

uncertainty created by American Corn Growers Assoc. v EPA, 

291 F.3d 1 (D.C.Cir 2002) decision which invalidated RHR 

especially BART provisions.

EPA’s approval of the Annex on June 5, 2003 addressed the impact of the May 24, 2002 

American Corn Growers Decision (Federal Register, Vol.68, No. 108, pages 33766-33767). The 

approval notice states, “The American Corn Growers court decision did not address the 

provisions in the regional haze rule allowing States to adopt a trading program or other 

alternative measures in place of source specific measures for BART sources.” The State of 

Wyoming has developed a SIP under Section 309 of the Regional Haze Rule based on years of 

work with the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission (GCVTC) and the Western Regional 

Air Partnership (WRAP) that identified the best approach to address regional haze on the 

Colorado Plateau. The approach is flexible, and addresses all of the significant sources of haze in 

the west. The 309 approach also includes provisions allowing States to address other Class I 

areas beyond those on the Colorado Plateau. The American Corn Growers decision does not 

change these underlying reasons for implementing the regional approach allowed under Section 

309 of the Regional Haze Rule.

The Center 

for Energy 

and 

Economic 

Development

A17 General

Wyoming should not commit to a specific regional haze 

implementation approach until after EPA has responded to the 

court’s remand of the RHR because § 309 is one of the BART 

provisions affected by Corn Growers decision

Although CEED has filed a challenge to the Annex - it is valid law until overturned/remanded. 

Pursuant to § 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA [42 USC 7607(d)(7)(B)], “reconsideration of a rule shall not 

postpone the effectiveness of the rule. The effectiveness of the rule may be stayed by court 

order for up to 3 months.” There is no stay order in effect for these rules.
10

The Center 

for Energy 

and 

Economic 

Development

A18 General

Wyoming Cannot adopt a RHR § 309 SIP that is not consistent 

with the Federal Clean Air Act because WS § 35-11-214 

requires that “ . . . Any trading program established shall be 

consistent with the Clean Air Act and regulations promulgated 

thereunder, and consistent with ambient air quality 

standards.” § 309 is a BART provision subject to additional EPA 

rulemaking and trading program is not consistent with CAA as 

it is based on group BART approach

The analyses conducted by the WRAP did not utilize the Regional Haze Rule BART provisions, nor 

did it consider factors included in a determination of BART: the Costs of Compliance, the Energy 

& Non-Air Quality Impacts, the Remaining Useful Life of the Source, the Existing Pollution 

Controls at the source, and the Degree of Visibility Improvement Achieved. The analysis 

considered only an “unofficial” list of BART-applicable sources within the region, an evaluation of 

potential reductions, with a large uncertainty factor to account for the fact that the list of 

sources and the effect of actual controls was unknown. This BART approximation exercise did 

not utilize the BART provisions of the Regional Haze Rule. Therefore, when these provisions were 

remanded to EPA, these invalidated BART provisions had absolutely no relationship to the Annex 

Milestones and trading program defined in the 309 provisions. Section 169A of the Clean Air Act 

gave EPA authority to 1) develop regulations to assure reasonable progress toward reaching the 

national goal of “prevention of any future and the remedying of any existing, impairment in 

visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas which impairment results from man-made air 

pollution.” 2) develop regulations requiring states to submit SIPs containing emission limits, 

compliance schedules, and other measures to make reasonable progress toward meeting the 

national visibility goal [42 USC 7491(b)(2)]. Wyoming’s 309 Regional Haze State Implementation 

Plan and proposed rules meet these requirements and is therefore consistent with the CAA.
11

The Center 

for Energy 

and 

Economic 

Development

A19 General RHR § 309 Annex is not a rational or cost effective approach for 

improving visual air quality in Wyoming.

CEED asserts that the Annex is "flawed" because 1) it doesn’t achieve humanly perceptible 

visibility improvement, 2) there was no adequate economic analysis of the program costs to 

western states’ economies, 3) the comparison of natural gas vs. coal costs didn’t accurately 

reflect the volatility of gas prices, and 4) the Annex would impose economic disincentives for 

new coal fired power plants. EPA’s approval of the Annex on June 5, 2003 states, “ The EPA 

continues to believe that the milestones provide for ‘greater reasonable progress than BART’ 

and for ‘steady and continuing progress’.” (FR Vol.68, No. 108, page 33769) The GCVTC 

strategies that are the basis for Wyoming’s proposed SIP are focused on achievable emission 

reductions from all of the emission sources that contribute to regional haze. 40 CFR 51.309(g) 

allows States electing to do so to address additional Class I areas, such as those in Wyoming, by 

building on the strategies implemented under 309 and take full credit for visibility improvement 

achieved through those strategies. The economic analysis for the Annex supported the earlier 

GCVTC conclusions that an incentive-based market trading program is more cost-effective than a 

traditional command-and-control approach. An incentive-based program allows sources in all of 

the states to find the most cost-effective strategies to reduce SO2 emissions that affect regional 

haze on the Colorado Plateau as well as other Class I areas that were not specifically addressed 

by the Annex. The Annex was negotiated by using the best information available at the time. 

However, the WRAP included uncertainty factors in the analysis to address changes in the 

underlying assumptions. More importantly, a regional emission cap allows flexibility to adapt to 

changing circumstances while still achieving the same or better environmental goals. If natural 

gas prices remain high, the cap will create an incentive to over control existing sources to make 

room under the cap for new, highly-controlled coal-fired power plants.

The Center 

for Energy 

and 

Economic 

Development

A20 General Wyoming cannot meet the Requirements of RHR § 309 for a 

completed SIP Submittal by 12/31/03.

Wyoming has developed a SIP in accordance with the requirements of Section 309 of the 

Regional Haze Rule and will submit that document and supporting materials by the required 

deadline for submission for EPA’s six month completeness review.

Arch Coal A21 General Dual SIPs

The respondent alleges that because Wyoming’s Class I areas are not on the Colorado Plateau 

and that Section 308 of the Regional Haze Rule addresses all Class I areas that Wyoming will be 

required to submit a SIP under both Section 308 and 309 of the Regional Haze Rule. 40 CFR 

51.309(g) allows a state electing to submit a SIP pursuant to Section 309 to make a declaration 

that it will address other Class I areas than those on the Colorado Plateau pursuant to the 

requirements of Sections 309(g)(2) and 309(g)(3) rather than pursuant to Section 308. Wyoming 

has elected to do so.
12

B. Response to EPA Comment Letter Dated May 29, 2008

Arch Coal A22 General Minority Report Concerns

The Milestone Curve was a politically defined shape, and the decision on its shape was simply 

informed by assumptions such as power plant retirement, new source emission rates, etc. The 

curve was not "based on" these assumptions.

Commenter Comment # Section Comment DEQ Response

EPA B1 Milestones

When establishing milestones, WRAP used presumptive levels 

in some cases and source specific information in others. A 

consistent approach is needed.

The WRAP addressed this issue in the Better Than BART demonstration in response to earlier 

comments from EPA (see the end of Section D, page 7). An alternate analysis was conducted 

that assumed that all EGUs that were subject to BART (including units that are smaller than 750 

MWs or are already operating at greater than 50% control) would be operating at the 

presumptive SO2 emission rate of 0.15 lb/MMBtu. The estimated SO2 emission reductions using 

this simpler approach were 91,872 tons. This is comparable to the estimated reduction of 

91,760 that was calculated using the more detailed method. The participating states chose to 

use the more detailed method because it was based on the best information that was available 

rather than relying on the presumptive level for all sources. However, the alternate analysis is 

useful to show that a simpler consistent approach achieves the same result. 

EPA B2 General The alternative program must include all BART-eligible sources 

not just sources that are subject to BART.

As recognized in EPA’s comments, the alternative program applies to all sources with actual 

emissions greater than 100 tons/year SO2 and is likely to include all BART-eligible sources. 

However, to address the possibility that there may be an unusual source that would not be 

included based on actual emissions, each of the participating states will either include language 

in their backstop trading rule to ensure that all BART-eligible sources that are BART-eligible due 

to SO2 emissions are subject to the backstop trading program, or will include an analysis in their 

SIP that demonstrates that all BART-eligible sources meet the 100-ton SO2 threshold.

EPA B3 Better than 

BART

The alternative program does not directly address the 

distribution of emissions. At a minimum the SIP should include 

a determination, supported by a clear weight of evidence that 

Section 309 achieves greater reasonable progress than would 

be achieved through the installation and operation of BART.

The WRAP conducted modeling that compared command and control BART to a trading program 

during the development of the Annex. A new Section H has been added to the end of the Better 

Than BART demonstration to reference the results of that analysis that was submitted to EPA in 

2000.
13

C. Analysis of 309 Comments Received in Response to the October 27, 2009 Public Hearing

D. Analysis of 309 Comments Received in Response to the December 8, 2010 Public Hearing

Commenter Comment # Section Comment DEQ Response

Powder River 

Basin 

Resource 

Council

D1 General

While it is perfectly acceptable to participate in this program as 

a mechanism to reduce emissions and improve visibility in Class 

I areas, the program cannot be used as a shield to avoid other 

requirements under the Regional Haze Rule.

It is not DEQ’s intention to use the 309 program as a shield to avoid other Regional Haze Rule 

requirements. It is the Division’s belief that the State is taking advantage of the program by 

taking full credit for the emissions achieved through the 309 program implementation.

Commenter Comment # Section Comment DEQ Response

Wyoming 

Outdoor 

Council

C1 Better than 

BART

WOC suggests that companies are submitting BART with SO2 

controls that would achieve better reduction than Section 309, 

and therefore these proposals should be adopted because they 

are achieving greater reasonable progress than the 309 

program

The 309 program has undergone analysis to demonstrate that the program is achieving 

reasonable progress that is better than BART. Please refer to the Demonstration that the SO2

Milestones Provide Greater Reasonable Progress than BART document in Appendix E. In this 

demonstration, the State not only verifies that the program meets or exceeds presumptive SO2 

BART levels, but also provides other benefits of implementing the milestone program. One of 

these benefits includes limiting new source growth for SO2 emissions in the participating states. 

In addition, the program includes every source that emits 100 tons per year or greater of SO2, 

and therefore targets a greater number of sources than what would be identified in the BART 

program. Also, the 309 program does not only focus on stationary sources, but also includes 

strategies to address mobile sources, prescribed fire, pollution prevention, and Clean Air 

Corridors.

National 

Park and 

Fish and 

Wildlife 

Services

C2 General DOI is concerned that Wyoming relied on the 309 SIP to address 

impacts from sulfur dioxide, pointing out that the 309 SIP 

focuses on Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau.

Wyoming did rely heavily on the 309 SIP to address impacts from sulfur dioxide. The Rule allows 

the State to take credit for SO2 reductions from the 309 program to show progress in Wyoming’s 

Class I areas. The State of Wyoming would not have participated in the 309 program in the first 

place if meaningful reductions were not anticipated at the monitors in Wyoming Class I areas. 

Wyoming Class I areas all show improvement with respect to sulfate extinction as a result of the 

309 program. This improvement has been documented in the 309(g) SIP (see Table 6.2-2). The 

Regional Haze Rule allows the State to take credit for the 309 improvements when addressing 

309(g) requirements.
14

Commenter Comment # Section Comment DEQ Response

Powder River 

Basin 

Resource 

Council

D2 General

All of Wyoming’s Class I areas (and Class I areas in South Dakota 

that are impacted by Wyoming sources) are off of the Colorado 

Plateau. Therefore, these are additional Class I areas that must 

be addressed through the 309(g) plan. DEQ must fully discuss 

these Class I areas and establish enforceable goals.

The Division believes that the additional Class I areas that are located outside the Colorado 

Plateau are appropriately addressed in the 309 SIP. The State has modeled visibility in the 

additional non-plateau Class I area monitor locations in Wyoming and surrounding states. 

Table 6.2-2 demonstrates visibility broken down by sulfate extinction only. It can be seen in 

this table that all Class I areas modeled show visibility improvement for the worst days, and no 

degradation in visibility for the best days, thereby meeting the requirements outlined in the 

Regional Haze Rule. In addition, Table 6.2-1 outlines the Regional SO2 Emissions and Milestone 

Report summary. This table demonstrates that the 309 states have had significant SO2

reduction and have more than exceeded the goals set by the program.

In addition to the demonstration that sulfates were reduced by the 309 program, the State also 

made a demonstration that the milestones provide greater reasonable progress than BART. 

This demonstration can be found in Appendix E of the SIP as Demonstration that the SO2

Milestones Provide Greater Reasonable Progress than BART. As long as this demonstration is 

performed, under the Regional Haze Rule, EPA allows the State to take credit for any SO2

reduction achieved in section 309, as stated in 51.309(g)(i): “In developing long term strategies 

pursuant to 51.308(d)(3), the state may build upon the strategies implemented under 

paragraph 9(d) of this section, and take full credit for the visibility improvement achieved 

through these strategies.” However, if the URP goal is not met, the Rule does not require SO2

sources to undergo further reduction in order to meet this goal. If the URP goal cannot be met 

for a given planning period, the State must demonstrate why this goal cannot be met, which 

the State believes it has done in Chapter 7 of the 309(g) SIP.

Therefore, the State believes that the additional Class I areas are appropriately addressed in 

the 309 SIP, and it is not necessary to further discuss SO2 enforceable goals in the 309(g) SIP.
15

Commenter Comment # Section Comment DEQ Response

Powder River 

Basin 

Resource 

Council

D3

Better than 

BART 

Determination

DEQ continues to fail to adequately demonstrate that the 

backstop trading program is “better than BART”. DEQ cannot 

rely upon the high level WRAP analysis in place of a unit-by-unit 

specific BART analysis. DEQ’s reliance on the WRAP “Better 

than BART” determination is undercut by actions in states 

across the region that are implementing BART limits that are 

stronger than the SO2 limits at power plants in Wyoming. While 

BACT may not necessarily equate to BART, the limits imposed at 

these new plants demonstrate that a thorough BART analysis is 

needed in light of improved technology efficiencies and costs.

The Regional Haze rule does not require that the State perform a unit-by-unit specific BART 

analysis to demonstrate that the backstop trading program is “Better than BART”. EPA clearly 

explains the intent for the Rule in the Federal Register, Volume 71, No. 198, Dated October 13, 

2006 / Rules and Regulations, in the second paragraph on page 60615: “As discussed in more 

detail below, today’s rule also makes clear that where a trading program or other similar 

alternative program has been designed primarily to meet a Federal or State requirement other 

than BART, the State can use a more simplified approach to demonstrating that the alternative 

program will make greater reasonable progress than BART.” The following statement is also 

made in the same Federal Register on page 60618, middle column, second paragraph: “The 

regulations finalized today therefore provide that where an emissions trading program has 

been designed to meet a requirement other than BART, including the reasonable progress 

requirement, the State may establish a BART benchmark based on an analysis that includes 

simplifying assumptions about BART control levels for sources within a source category.”

Therefore, DEQ believes that the State’s “Better than BART” determination is adequate. As 

demonstrated, EPA does not require the analysis to be performed on a unit-by-unit basis. 

Since the procedure for making the “Better than BART” determination meets EPA’s 

requirements, DEQ does not believe that a thorough BART analysis needs to be performed in 

light of improved technology efficiencies and costs.

Powder River 

Basin 

Resource 

Council

D4 General

DEQ needs to demonstrate that this plan will still be effective 

and enforceable if only a few states are participating. DEQ also 

needs to explain why the state is still participating in the 

program when other states like Colorado and Arizona have 

dropped from the program.

The 309 program is not dependent upon the number of participating states, and therefore will 

be effective and enforceable regardless of the number of participating states. The 309 

program establishes a reduction strategy and at the same time allows flexibility on how the 

State will achieve its goals. The program includes every source that emits 100 tons per year or 

greater of SO2, and therefore targets a greater number of sources than what would be 

identified in the BART program. These benefits have been significant contributing factors in

the Division’s decision that the 309 program is the best option for the State of Wyoming.
16

Commenter Comment # Section Comment DEQ Response

Powder River 

Basin 

Resource 

Council

D5 General

The plan is very unclear as far as what SO2 limits will actually be 

achieved at stationary sources in Wyoming. There is a lack of 

transparency in the draft SIP about reasonable progress goals 

and how they will be enforced. The state must provide a 

demonstration in its SIP of how the backstop trading program is 

meeting its visibility goals and why SO2 controls are not needed 

under reasonable progress.

The 309 program is regional, and therefore milestones are estimated on a regional basis. As a 

result, there are not any specific SO2 limits set for Wyoming alone. The reasonable progress 

goals for this program are set in the form of milestones. If these milestones are not achieved, 

the enforcement action will be the trigger of the Backstop Trading Program. A demonstration 

that the program is meeting visibility goals and achieving greater reasonable progress than 

what is required by BART can be found in Appendix E as Demonstration that the SO2 Milestones 

Provide Greater Reasonable Progress than BART. Additional SO2 controls are not necessary if 

the milestones have been met, and the 309 program is shown to achieve greater reasonable 

progress than BART.

Earthjustice D6

Greater 

Reasonable 

Progress than 

BART

The alternative 309 program does not appear to be an 

improvement over BART for Colorado Plateau Class I areas. 

AQD must either demonstrate the superiority of the alternative 

program based on complete and accurate information, or 

require installation and operation of BART for SO2 emissions at 

Wyoming sources subject to BART.

The Division has demonstrated the superiority of the 309 program in the Demonstration that 

the SO2 Milestones Provide Greater Reasonable Progress than BART document in Appendix E. 

In this demonstration, the State not only verifies that the program meets or exceeds 

presumptive SO2 BART levels, but also provides other benefits of implementing the milestone 

program. One of these benefits includes limiting new source growth for SO2 emissions in the 

participating states. In addition, the program includes every source that emits 100 tons per 

year or greater of SO2, and therefore targets a greater number of sources than what would be 

identified in the BART program. DEQ believes that this conclusion is based on complete and 

accurate information.

Earthjustice D7

Greater 

Reasonable 

Progress than 

BART

In most cases this “Better-than-BART” determination must be 

based on an analysis of BART technology and corresponding 

emission reductions achievable for each source that is subject 

to BART within the state. By relying on an inflated presumptive 

SO2 emission rate for power plants, rather than a lower 

emission rate achievable through BART, WRAP has improperly 

discounted the visibility improvement that may be achieved 

through implementation of BART on eligible sources.

It is not required by the Regional Haze Rule that the State perform source-specific BART 

analyses to determine that the 309 program has achieved better than BART reductions. EPA 

clearly explains the intent for the Rule in the Federal Register, Volume 71, No. 198, Dated 

October 13, 2006 / Rules and Regulations, in the second paragraph on page 60615: “As 

discussed in more detail below, today’s rule also makes clear that where a trading program or 

other similar alternative program has been designed primarily to meet a Federal or State 

requirement other than BART, the State can use a more simplified approach to demonstrating 

that the alternative program will make greater reasonable progress than BART.” The following 

statement is also made in the same Federal Register on page 60618, middle column, second 

paragraph: “The regulations finalized today therefore provide that where an emissions trading 

program has been designed to meet a requirement other than BART, including the reasonable 

progress requirement, the State may establish a BART benchmark based on an analysis that 

includes simplifying assumptions about BART control levels for sources within a source 

category.” Since EPA allows the State to use a simplified approach to analyze BART-eligible 

sources, it is appropriate to use 40 CFR part 51 Appendix Y to determine presumptive levels, 
17

Commenter Comment # Section Comment DEQ Response

rather than look at each source separately.

Therefore, the State believes that the “Better than BART” determination has been conducted 

appropriately, and no further analysis is required.

Earthjustice D8

Greater 

Reasonable 

Progress than 

BART

AQD apparently intends to rely on WRAP’s “better-than-BART” 

determination. However, WRAP’s analysis does not support its 

“better-than-BART” finding. Even if WRAP’s reliance on EPA’s 

presumptive SO2 emissions limit for power plants was 

appropriate, it has failed to establish that the 309 alternative 

program achieves “greater reasonable progress” than BART. 

WRAP concedes that the alternative program will, at best, 

result in the same SO2 reductions achievable through the 

application of BART. WRAP justified the determination in part 

through its claim that emissions reduction will happen sooner 

under the alternative program than under BART.

WRAP’s Demonstration that the SO2 Milestones Provide Greater Reasonable Progress than 

BART report (provided in Appendix E) does support the State’s better than BART finding. On 

Page 12 of the report it states “The Regional SO2 milestone of 141,849 equals the BART 

benchmark, but provides greater reasonable progress than BART for the reasons outlined 

below.....” The report continues to explain the additional advantages of the 309 program such 

as early reductions, the addition of sources that would not be included in BART, a cap in new 

source growth, the inclusion of strategies to address mobile sources, prescribed fire, pollution 

prevention and clean air corridors, tribal set asides, and an improvement in Class I areas off the 

Colorado Plateau. The report does not state that “emission reductions will happen sooner 

under the alternative program than they would under BART”, but rather that the program will 

“contain specific provisions to encourage and reward early emissions reduction...” This 

program has achieved a 60% SO2 reduction from 1990 to 2008, verifying that this program has 

been successful in achieving early reduction. DEQ believes that WRAP has adequately 

demonstrated that the 309 program has achieved better than BART progress.

Earthjustice D9 General

AQD attempts to justify its laggardly progress toward natural 

visibility by pointing to “[m]ajor reductions in SO2 emissions” 

due to the 309 alternative program.

DEQ is not attempting to justify its laggardly progress toward natural visibility conditions by 

pointing out the progress made by the 309 program. The state is permitted to take full credit 

for SO2 emissions achieved in the 309 program according to 51.309(g)(20(i): “...the State may 

build upon the strategies implemented under paragraph (d) of this section, and take full credit 

for the visibility improvement achieved through these strategies”. The State is taking full 

advantage of the 309 program and taking credit for SO2 reductions achieved by the program. 

The State has made great strides for reducing SO2 emissions from the 309 program and found 

it appropriate to mention in the SIP. As explained in Section 7.6 of the 309(g) SIP, the biggest 

impediment to reaching natural visibility goals is wildland fires.
18

Commenter Comment # Section Comment DEQ Response

Earthjustice D10 Better than 

BART

According to section 51.308(e)(3) when the “distribution of 

emissions is not substantially different than under BART, and 

the alternative measure results in greater emissions 

reductions...”, WRAP cannot lawfully comply with the “greater 

reasonable progress” requirement using the alternative 

method.

The Demonstration that the SO2 Milestones Provide Greater Reasonable Progress than BART 

report found in Appendix E takes into account new source growth. For sources that have the 

potential to emit greater than 100 tpy of SO2, the 309 program places a cap on all new source 

growth. There is no such cap placed on the sources regulated under 51.308, which can 

continue to grow as long as the source meets the permitting requirements. Greater emission 

reductions will occur with respect to new sources under the 309 program.

Wyoming 

Outdoor 

Council

D11 Better than 

BART

It appears that the State of Wyoming is poised to propose a 309 

SIP that is more protective of visibility in Class I areas than what 

is proposed in BART. We hope this will be true and we would 

support enhanced levels of sulfur dioxide.

It is true that the Sate of Wyoming proposes to achieve greater SO2 reductions than what 

would be achieved by the BART program. The demonstration can be found in WRAP’s 

Demonstration that the SO2 Milestones Provide Greater Reasonable Progress than BART report 

that is provided in Appendix E. The report explains the additional advantages of the 309 

program such as early reductions, the addition of sources that would not be included in BART, 

a cap in new source growth, the inclusion of strategies to address mobile sources, prescribed 

fire, pollution prevention and clean air corridors, tribal set asides, and an improvement in Class 

I areas off of the Colorado Plateau.

Wyoming 

Outdoor 

Council

D12 General

Based on discussions with the DEQ, it appears that the base 

year will be updated to 2006.

The base year has been changed to 2006 because the program was reworked after EPA 

rewrote the rule on alternatives to BART in 2005.

Wyoming 

Outdoor 

Council

D13 General

We believe that it is critical that SO2 controls meet reasonable 

progress in all Class I areas outside of the Colorado Plateau 

region.

In addition to the visibility demonstration for the Colorado Plateau shown in Section A of the 

SIP, visibility impacts under the 309 program were modeled at all Wyoming Class I areas, and 

Class I areas in surrounding states. It can be seen in Table 4 of the Demonstration that the SO2 

Milestones Provide Greater Reasonable Progress than BART report that visibility with respect to 

SO2 impairment in all surrounding Class I areas improves on the 20% worst days and improves 

or remains flat on the 20% best days.
19

Commenter Comment # Section Comment DEQ Response

Wyoming 

Outdoor 

Council

D14 Better than 

BART

It would be appreciated if DEQ could confirm that the proposed 

SO2 limits proposed by the utilities in their draft BART permits 

will indeed be bettered by the provisions that will be in place 

under the new 309 SIP.

The goal of the 309 program is to achieve greater overall SO2 reduction than what would be 

achieved by BART. As specified in the Demonstration that the SO2 Milestones Provide Greater 

Reasonable Progress than BART report, the 309 program achieves this goal. Thus, the program 

attains greater SO2 reductions than what is proposed by the utilities.

The demonstration is regional, and a unit-by-unit analysis is not required. It is not required by 

the Regional Haze Rule that the State perform source-specific BART analyses to determine that 

the 309 program has achieved better than BART reductions. EPA clearly explains the intent for 

the Rule in the Federal Register, Volume 71, No. 198, Dated October 13, 2006 / Rules and 

Regulations, in the second paragraph on page 60615: “As discussed in more detail below, 

today’s rule also makes clear that where a trading program or other similar alternative 

program has been designed primarily to meet a Federal or State requirement other than BART, 

the State can use a more simplified approach to demonstrating that the alternative program 

will make greater reasonable progress than BART.” The following statement is also made in 

the same Federal Register on page 60618, middle column, second paragraph: “The regulations 

finalized today therefore provide that where an emissions trading program has been designed 

to meet a requirement other than BART, including the reasonable progress requirement, the 

State may establish a BART benchmark based on an analysis that includes simplifying 

assumptions about BART control levels for sources within a source category.”

Wyoming 

Outdoor 

Council

D15 General

It is difficult to justify putting forth significant changes to the 

309 SIP relative to SO2 controls but to not do likewise with 

respect to the 309(g) SIP and NOx and PM controls.

Changes that were made to the SO2 SIP were specific to the goals and objectives of that 

program that did not carry over into the 309(g) SIP.

Wyoming 

Outdoor 

Council

D16 General

We believe that the current massive amount of technical 

language that is found in these SIPs is language that very few 

can really understand, and thus defeats this important 

underlying purpose and policy. Consequently we ask the AQD 

to correct this problem, and make this important public policy 

statement regarding regional haze and the protection of iconic 

The DEQ has strived to present a highly technical subject in a manner that is understandable by 

the general public. Unfortunately, due to the technical nature of the topic, and the rules set 

forth by the Regional Haze Rule, it is not possible to completely remove all technical language. 

The Division has posted additional background information for the public on the DEQ website: 

http://deq.state.wy.us/aqd/regionalhaze.asp. The additional information is aimed at helping 

the public understand regional haze and what is required by the Rule and Implementation 
20

Commenter Comment # Section Comment DEQ Response

Class I areas fully understandable to the public-at-large, not just 

a few specialists.

Plan. The SIP contains a Regional Haze Glossary of Visibility Acronyms, Abbreviations, and 

Terms in the Technical Support Document to assist in technical language understanding. The 

Division has also held numerous public meetings to discuss and answer questions on the 

Regional Haze SIP.

Wyoming 

Outdoor 

Council

D17 General

Comments were submitted to the AQD on October 19, 2010. In 

our view, the current draft SIPs do not make it clear that these 

prior comments have been fully considered.

All of these noted comments were received in the appropriate commenting period, and have 

been addressed by the DEQ in this SIP revision. The DEQ has taken each comment seriously 

and has prepared a response to each comment. All responses can be found in the Technical 

Support Document. The comments that are 309 related take a little longer to answer since 

they must be reviewed by all of the 309 states, and consistent conclusions must be developed 

between all stakeholders. However, all responses to 309 comments are also included in the 

Technical Support Document.

Wyoming 

Outdoor 

Council

D18 Better than 

BART

There is not a plain statement in the 309 SIP that AQD views the 

program as meeting the “better than BART” requirements. We 

ask AQD to insert into the 309 SIP a plain statement of why the 

309 SIP is better than BART, and how precisely that is being 

achieved, and as importantly, how compliance with the 

requirement will be maintained and assured.

The following language has been added to the SIP, Section 3 Part 1: “The definitions associated 

with this section are provided in Appendix A of this document. A demonstration of how the 

Backstop Trading Program is better than applying BART to stationary sources is included in 

Appendix E of this document.”

WRAP’s Demonstration that the SO2 milestones Provide Better Reasonable Progress than BART 

report has been included in Appendix E.

Wyoming 

Outdoor 

Council

D19 BART

The Wyoming Outdoor Council (WOC) commented that the 

AQD has certified that visibility impairment is occurring in a 

number of Class I areas due to pollution from a number of 

power/trona plants. They believe AQD should initiate BART 

permitting for these plants under the reasonably attributable 

visibility impairment (RAVI) rule, and that such permitting 

should include sulfur dioxide controls as well as nitrogen oxides 

and particulate matter controls.

Since adoption of Wyoming’s Visibility SIP and visibility regulations to address reasonably 

attributable visibility impairment (RAVI), neither the Federal Land Managers of any Class I area 

nor the Division has certified that visibility impairment, attributable to a source or small group 

of sources, exists in any Wyoming Class I area pursuant to provisions in Chapter 9, Section 2 of 

the WAQSR (RAVI).
21

Commenter Comment # Section Comment DEQ Response

Wild Earth 

Guardians D20 Better than 

BART

The Better than BART document does not appear to meet the 

requirements of Section 309.

As described in the Better than BART demonstration, the milestones were established to meet 

the broader reasonable progress goals established by the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport 

Commission. Because the milestones were developed primarily to meet the broader goal, the 

Regional Haze Rule in section 308(e)(2)(c) provides that “the State may determine the best 

system of continuous emission control technology and associated emission reductions from

similar types of sources within a source category based on both source-specific and categorywide information, as appropriate.” Presumptive BART was used as the category-wide estimate 

of the emission reductions achievable due to BART, although in some cases more stringent 

estimates were used for sources that had already been permitted for other reasons. These 

estimates were used to establish a benchmark to compare with the alternative program. The 

milestones meet the benchmark. However, as explained in the document, the milestones 

provide much greater benefits than would be achieved by BART. The program includes all 

sources with emissions greater than 100 tons/year of SO2, and most of those sources would 

not be affected by BART. The program ensures that new source growth will not undermine the 

progress that is achieved by emission reductions from existing sources. The program also 

encourages early reductions.

Wild Earth 

Guardians D21 General The 309 Program must be enforceable.

The documents that were recently released for public comment address changes to the 

milestones to account for changes in the states that are participating in the program, changes 

in the growth projections for the electricity sector, and improvements in the estimate of the 

emission reductions achievable due to BART. The enforceable tracking system and enforceable 

Backstop Trading Program that were put into place to ensure that the milestones are met have 

not been changed since the 2003 SIP and will apply to the revised milestones. The Section 309 

States have prepared milestone reports annually since 2003 to compare actual emissions to 

the milestones. If the milestones are exceeded, a Backstop Trading Program will be triggered. 

The details of this program are specified in the WEB Trading Program Rule that is included in 

the 2003 SIPs. The program is currently enforceable at the State level, and will be enforceable 

by EPA when the program is approved into the SIPs for each of the participating states.
22

Commenter Comment # Section Comment DEQ Response

Wild Earth 

Guardians D22 General

The 309 States still do not have SIP provisions that address NOx

and PM.

Each of the Section 309 states has developed provisions to address NOx and PM. These 

provisions are not part of the regional program and are therefore not addressed in the 

documents that were recently released for public comment on the revised milestones. Each of 

the states will take the Regional Milestones and Backstop Trading Program through their own 

rulemaking process. The State of Wyoming addresses NOx and PM through a 309(g) SIP which 

has been reviewed separately from the SO2 SIP.

Peabody 

Energy D23 General

Peabody recommends that the SIP contains a more complete 

discussion of how the new milestones satisfy the requirements 

of the American Corn Growers Association and Center for 

Energy and Economic Development legal documents.

When developing the milestones for the 309 program, the participating 309 States followed

EPA’s most recent 309 Regional Haze Rule. This rule was revised to incorporate the two 

mentioned legal documents in 2006. The State of Wyoming did not find it necessary to 

reiterate what was outlined in the 309 rule and EPA’s preamble to the rule: 

http://frwebgate2.access.gpo.gov/cgibin/PDFgate.cgi?WAISdocID=orvWCF/0/2/0&WAISaction=retrieve.