Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules 28825 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 162 

[Docket No. USCG–2011–1086] 

RIN 1625–AB84 

Inland Waterways Navigation 

Regulations 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; 

Correction of Preamble. 

SUMMARY: This document makes a 

correction to the preamble of the Notice 

of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) that 

was published in the Federal Register 

on May 8, 2012 (77 FR 27007). In the 

Basis and Purpose section of that 

NPRM, the Coast Guard stated that the 

channel between the Detroit River Light 

and the D33 stationary light is roughly 

twelve-hundred yards wide. This 

statement is incorrect. The channel in 

that area is approximately twelvehundred feet wide. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LT 

Adrian Palomeque, Prevention 

Department, Coast Guard Sector Detroit, 

Detroit, Michigan, (313) 568–9508 or 

Adrian.F.Palomeque@uscg.mil. 

Correction: On May 8, 2012, the Coast 

Guard published in the Federal Register 

an NPRM, proposing to amend 33 CFR 

Part 162. Specifically, the Coast Guard 

proposed to redefine the geographical 

points described in 33 CFR 

162.138(a)(1)(ii) so that the southern 

point of the restricted speed area 

contained therein would be relocated 

from its current location to a point 

approximately 2.5 statute miles to the 

north. 

The NPRM contained an error in the 

‘‘Basis and Purpose’’ section. 

Specifically, the NPRM’s Basis and 

Purpose section incorrectly stated that 

the channel width between the Detroit 

River Light and the D33 stationary light 

is roughly ‘‘twelve-hundred yards’’ 

wide. That is incorrect. The channel in 

that location is roughly ‘‘twelvehundred feet’’ wide. Although this error 

does not affect the proposed rulemaking 

that would amend 33 CFR Part 162, the 

Coast Guard recognizes the confusion 

that this error might create. 

Accordingly, the Coast Guard continues 

to invite comments on the proposed rule 

that was published in the Federal 

Register on May 8, 2012. (77 FR 27007). 

Dated: May 10, 2012. 

Erin H. Ledford, 

Lieutenant Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, 

Acting Chief, Office of Regulations and 

Administrative Law (CG–0943). 

[FR Doc. 2012–11801 Filed 5–15–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2011–0114; FRL–9670–6] 

Approval, Disapproval and 

Promulgation of State Implementation 

Plans; State of Utah; Regional Haze 

Rule Requirements for Mandatory 

Class I Areas 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to partially 

approve and partially disapprove a State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision 

submitted by the State of Utah on May 

26, 2011 that addresses regional haze. 

EPA is also proposing to approve 

specific sections of a State of Utah SIP 

revision submitted on September 9, 

2008 to 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 16, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08– 

OAR–2011–0114, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• 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– 

0114. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http:// 

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 http:// 

www.regulations.gov or email. The 

http://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 http:// 

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 http:// 

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 http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air Program, Environmental 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

28826 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

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 GCVTC mean or refer 

to the Grand Canyon Visibility 

Transport Commission. 

x. The initials IMPROVE mean or refer 

to Interagency Monitoring of Protected 

Visual Environments monitoring 

network. 

xi. The initials IWAQM mean or refer 

to Interagency Workgroup on Air 

Quality Modeling. 

xii. The initials MRR mean or refer to 

monitoring, recordkeeping, and 

reporting. 

xiii. The initials LNB mean or refer to 

low NOX burner. 

xiv. The initials NOX mean or refer to 

nitrogen oxides. 

xv. The initials OC mean or refer to 

organic carbon. 

xvi. The initials PM2.5 mean or refer 

to particulate matter with an 

aerodynamic diameter of less than 2.5 

micrometers. 

xvii. The initials PM10 mean or refer 

to particulate matter with an 

aerodynamic diameter of less than 10 

micrometers. 

xviii. The initials RHR mean or refer 

to the Regional Haze Rule. 

xix. The initials RMC mean or refer to 

the Regional Modeling Center. 

xx. The initials RPO mean or refer to 

regional planning organization. 

xxi. The initials SIP mean or refer to 

State Implementation Plan. 

xxii. The initials SO2 mean or refer to 

sulfur dioxide. 

xxiii. The initials SOFA mean or refer 

to separated overfire air. 

xxiv. The initials TSA mean or refer 

to the tracking system administrator. 

xxv. The initials TSD mean or refer to 

Technical Support Document. 

xxvi. The words Utah or State mean 

or refer to the State of Utah. 

xxvii. The initials UAR mean or refer 

to the Utah Administrative Rules. 

xxviii. The initials VOC mean or refer 

to volatile organic compounds. 

xxix. The initials WRAP mean or refer 

to the Western Regional Air Partnership. 

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 Utah’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 

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 

1. BART-Eligible Sources 

2. Sources Subject-to-BART 

a. Modeling Methodology 

b. Contribution Threshold 

3. BART Determinations and Limits 

G. Mobile Sources 

H. Programs Related to Fire 

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 to GCVTC 

Renewable Energy Goal 

K. Additional Recommendations 

L. Periodic Implementation Plan Revisions 

M. Interstate Coordination 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules 28827 

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. 

2 Visual range is the greatest distance, in 

kilometers or miles, at which a dark object can be 

viewed against the sky. 

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 http://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 

partially approve and partially 

disapprove a State of Utah SIP revision 

submitted on May 26, 2011 that 

addresses the regional haze rule (RHR) 

requirements for the mandatory Class I 

areas under 40 CFR 51.309. Specifically, 

EPA is proposing to approve all sections 

of the SIP submittal as meeting the 

requirements under 40 CFR 51.309, with 

the exception of the requirements under 

40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(vii) pertaining to 

nitrogen oxides (NOX) and particulate 

matter (PM) best available retrofit 

technology (BART). EPA is proposing to 

disapprove the State’s NOX and PM 

BART determinations and limits in 

section D.6.d of the SIP for the following 

four subject-to-BART EGUs: PacifiCorp 

Hunter Unit 1, PacifiCorp Hunter Unit 

2, PacifiCorp Huntington Unit 1, and 

PacifiCorp Huntington Unit 2. EPA is 

proposing to disapprove these BART 

determinations because they do not 

comply with our regulations under 40 

CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A). EPA is also 

proposing to disapprove the State’s SIP 

because it does not contain the 

provisions necessary to make BART 

limits practically enforceable as 

required by section 110(a)(2) of the CAA 

and Appendix V to part 51. 

We are taking no action on section 

G—Long-Term Strategy for Fire 

Programs of the May 26, 2011 submittal 

as we have proposed approval of this 

section in a separate notice (76 FR 

69217, November 8, 2011). 

We are proposing to approve specific 

sections of the State’s September 9, 2008 

SIP submittal. Specifically, we are 

proposing to approve Utah 

Administrative Rules (UAR) R307– 

250—Western Backstop Sulfur Dioxide 

Trading Program and R307–250— 

Emission Inventories. R307–250, in 

conjunction with the SIP, implements 

the backstop trading program provisions 

in accordance with the requirements of 

the RHR under 40 CFR 51.309. The 

purpose of R305–250 is to establish 

consistent emission inventory reporting 

requirements for stationary sources in 

Utah to determine whether sulfur 

dioxide (SO2) emissions are below the 

SO2 milestones established for the 

trading program. We are taking no 

action on the rest of the September 9, 

2008 submittal as the May 26, 2011 

submittal supersedes and replaces the 

remaining sections of the September 9, 

2008 SIP submittal. The State also 

submitted SIPs on December 12, 2003 

and August 8, 2004 to meet the 

requirements of the RHR. These 

submittals have been superseded and 

replaced by the September 9, 2008 and 

May 26, 2011 submittals. 

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 Utah’s 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 until EPA 

has finalized action on all section 309 

SIPs as the program is dependent on the 

participation of the three states. 

Wyoming submitted its 309 SIP to EPA 

on January 12, 2011, and New Mexico 

submitted its 309 SIP to EPA on June 30, 

2011. EPA will be taking action on 

Wyoming 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. 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

28828 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

3Areas 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.’’ 

4EPA’s regional haze regulations require 

subsequent updates to the regional haze SIPs. 40 

CFR 51.308(g)–(i). 

5The 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. 

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 

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 

impairment no later than December 17, 

2007.4

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules 28829 

6The preamble to the RHR provides additional 

details about the deciview. 64 FR 35714, 35725 

(July 1, 1999). 

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 visibility in 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 windblown 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 D.C. Circuit vacated EPA’s approval 

of the WRAP annex (Center for Energy 

and Economic Development v. EPA, No. 

03–1222 (D.C. Cir. Feb. 18, 2005)). In 

response to the court’s decision, 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. 

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 

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 ‘‘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 GCVTC’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, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

28830 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

7The set of ‘‘major stationary sources’’ potentially 

subject-to-BART is listed in CAA section 

169A(g)(7). 

8BART-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. 

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. 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. 

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 ‘‘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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules 28831 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

28832 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

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 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 

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, 

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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules 28833 

9WRAP 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 for this action. 

10Our 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 for this 

action. 

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 Utah’s Submittal 

The following summarizes how we 

are proposing that Utah’s May 26, 2011 

and September 9, 2008 SIP submittals 

meet and do not meet the requirements 

of the RHR, sections 169A(g)(2) and 

110(a)(2) of the CAA, and Appendix V 

to part 51. 

A. Projection of Visibility Improvement 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(2), Utah 

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 

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

Class I area State 

20 Percent worst visibility days 20 Percent best visibility days 

2000–2004 

Baseline monitoring data 

(deciview) 

2018 Base 

case 

(deciview) 

2018 Preliminary reasonable progress 

case 

(deciview) 

2000–2004 

Baseline monitoring data 

(deciview) 

2018 Base 

case 

(deciview) 

2018 Preliminary reasonable progress 

case 

(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 Wilderness.

CO 10.3 10.1 9.9 3.1 2.9 2.9 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

28834 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

11The milestone numbers reflect the participation 

of Wyoming, Utah, and New Mexico, including 

Albuquerque-Bernalillo County in the 309 backstop 

trading program. 

TABLE 1—BASELINE AND 2018 VISIBILITY AT THE COLORADO PLATEAU CLASS I AREAS—Continued 

Class I area State 

20 Percent worst visibility days 20 Percent best visibility days 

2000–2004 

Baseline monitoring data 

(deciview) 

2018 Base 

case 

(deciview) 

2018 Preliminary reasonable progress 

case 

(deciview) 

2000–2004 

Baseline monitoring data 

(deciview) 

2018 Base 

case 

(deciview) 

2018 Preliminary reasonable progress 

case 

(deciview) 

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), Utah 

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 C.3.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 section C of the State’s 

TSD. 

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 C, Figure 

1 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. 

The policy is included in section C of 

the State’s 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 

C.3.b 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 C.3.d 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 C.2 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 E.1.a of the 

SIP).11 Table 2 shows the milestone 

numbers and how compliance with the 

annual milestones will be determined. 

TABLE 2—SO2 EMISSIONS MILESTONES

Year Regional sulfur dioxide milestone 

(tons per year (tpy)) 

Annual SO2 emissions used to determine compliance with the annual milestones 

2008 ............................................................................ 269,083 tons SO2 ........................... Average of 2006, 2007 and 2008. 

2009 ............................................................................ 234,903 tons SO2 ........................... Average of 2007, 2008 and 2009. 

2010 ............................................................................ 200,722 tons SO2 ........................... Average of 2008, 2009 and 2010. 

2011 ............................................................................ 200,722 tons SO2 ........................... Average of 2009, 2010 and 2011. 

2012 ............................................................................ 200,722 tons SO2 ........................... Average of 2010, 2011 and 2012. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules 28835 

12See Demonstration that the SO2 Milestones 

Provide Greater Reasonable Progress than BART in 

section D of the State’s TSD. 

TABLE 2—SO2 EMISSIONS MILESTONES—Continued 

Year Regional sulfur dioxide milestone 

(tons per year (tpy)) 

Annual SO2 emissions used to determine compliance with the annual milestones 

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 an approved SIP ..... 141,849 tons SO2 ........................... Annual; no 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. 

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. A detailed spreadsheet report 

that provides the baseline numbers and 

methodology used to calculate 

emissions for sources covered by the 

program is included in section E of the 

State’s TSD. 

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 

Utah 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 E.1.c 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 reporting of 

actual stationary source SO2 emissions 

within the State to determine if the 

milestone has been exceeded. The State 

revised and submitted as part of their 

regional haze SIP changes to UAR 

R307–150, Emission Inventories, to meet 

this requirement. The SO2 inventory 

requirements of R307–150 require all 

stationary sources with actual emissions 

of 100 tons per year or more of SO2 in 

the year 2000, or in any subsequent 

year, to submit an annual inventory of 

SO2 emissions, beginning with the 2003 

emission inventory. A source that meets 

these criteria and then emits less than 

100 tons per year in a later year must 

continue to submit an SO2 inventory for 

tracking compliance with the regional 

SO2 milestones until 2018 or until the 

trading program has been fully 

implemented and emission tracking is 

occurring under UAR R307–250–9. 

We are proposing to determine that 

the State’s SIP meets the requirements 

of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(iii). 

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 

Utah sources to all participating states 

by September 30 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 31 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 E.1.c 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 E.1.c 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 

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). 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(v), 

the State has provided the requirements 

for the backstop trading program in the 

event that a milestone is not achieved. 

The State adopted and submitted as part 

of its regional haze SIP UAR R307– 

250—Western Backstop Sulfur Dioxide 

Trading Program. R307–250 contains 

the backstop trading program 

requirements applicable to sources 

covered by the program. R307–250, in 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

28836 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

13CALMET/CALPUFF Protocol for BART 

Exemption Screening Analysis for Class I Areas in 

the Western United States, Western Regional Air 

Partnership (WRAP); Gail Tonnesen, Zion Wang; 

Ralph Morris, Abby Hoats and Yiqin Jia, August 15, 

2006. Available at: http://pah.cert.ucr.edu/aqm/ 

308/bart/WRAP_RMC_BART_Protocol_

Aug15_2006.pdf. 

14BART 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. 

conjunction with section E of the SIP, 

implements the backstop trading 

program provisions (the requirements 

and provisions for the backstop trading 

program are discussed in this section 

and section E below). 

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 E.4 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 

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. Utah 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 R307–250–13 and section 

E.1.e 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. Utah 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 Wyoming have also 

submitted SIPs with the same betterthan-BART demonstration as Utah, 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. The State 

identified the following BART-eligible 

sources in Utah: PacifiCorp Hunter 

Units 1 and 2 and PacifiCorp 

Huntington Units 1 and 2. 

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 cause 

or contribute to visibility impairment 

and are thus subject-to-BART (more 

information on subject-to-BART sources 

and modeling can be found in section 

V.F of this notice). The State of New 

Mexico and Utah relied on modeling by 

the WRAP to identify sources subject-toBART. The procedures used are 

outlined in the WRAP Regional 

Modeling Center (RMC) BART Modeling 

Protocol.13 The State of Wyoming 

performed separate modeling to identify 

sources subject-to-BART.14

The states established a contribution 

threshold of 0.5 deciviews for 

determining if a single source causes or 

contributes to visibility impairment (see 

section V.F.1.b of this notice for further 

discussion on the contribution 

threshold). 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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules 28837 

TABLE 3—SUBJECT-TO-BART STATUS FOR SECTION 309 BART-ELIGIBLE SOURCES—Continued 

State Company Facility Subject-to-BART? 

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 Mexico ............. San Juan Generating Station ............... Yes. 

New Mexico ........................................... ............................................................... Rio Grande Station .............................. No. 

New Mexico ........................................... Western Gas Resources ...................... San Juan River Gas Plant ................... No. 

Utah ....................................................... Pacificorp .............................................. Hunter ................................................... Yes. 

Utah ....................................................... Pacificorp .............................................. Huntington ............................................ Yes. 

Wyoming ................................................ Basin Electric ....................................... Laramie River ....................................... Yes. 

Wyoming ................................................ Black Hills Power & Light ..................... Neil Simpson I ...................................... No. 

Wyoming ................................................ Dyno Nobel .......................................... Dyno Nobel .......................................... No. 

Wyoming ................................................ FMC Corp ............................................. Green River Soda Ash Plant ............... Yes. 

Wyoming ................................................ FMC Corp ............................................. Granger River Soda Ash Plant ............ No. 

Wyoming ................................................ General Chemical ................................ Green River Soda Ash Plant ............... Yes. 

Wyoming ................................................ P4 Production ....................................... Rock Springs Coking Plant .................. No. 

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 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 section D 

of 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 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 

installation and operation of BART and 

thus meets the requirements of 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(2)(i)(E). 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

28838 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

15 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. 

16WRAP 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. 

17Appendix B of the SIP contains monitoring 

requirements for fuel gas combustion devices at 

petroleum refineries and kilns with positive 

pressure fabric filters. Appendix B specifies the 

installation of a continuous fuel gas monitoring 

system and predictive flow monitoring system, 

respectively. Appendix B also specifies 

requirements under 40 CFR part 75 sources must 

follow in regards to this equipment. 

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 is provided in 

Section E—Sulfur Dioxide Milestones 

and Backstop Trading Program of the 

State’s SIP and R307–250, which we are 

proposing to approve. 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.15 16 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). 

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. R307–250–3 

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 E.3.a of the SIP and R307– 

250–8 contain the allowance allocation 

provisions as required by 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(2)(vi)(B). R307–250–8 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), R307–250–9 

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 B to the SIP; 17

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. 

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 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 

associated with that unit to another 

source. The program requires that the 

allowances associated with emission 

units that continue to use their pretrigger monitoring methodology be 

placed in a special reserve compliance 

account, while allowances for other 

emission units are placed in a regular 

compliance account. Sources may not 

trade allowances out of a special reserve 

compliance account, even for use by 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules 28839 

emission units at the same source, but 

can use the allowances to show 

compliance for that particular unit (see 

section E.3.i of the SIP). 

R307–250–9(1)(b) allows sources with 

any of the following emission units to 

apply for the establishment of 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 E.2.f 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 

section E of 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 E.1.b(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), R307–250–5 

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 

Section E.3.g of the State’s SIP and 

R307–250–10 have established 

procedures pertaining to allowance 

transfers to meet the requirements of 40 

CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(H). R307–250–10 

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 1st 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. 

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 R307– 

250–12. 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 

R307–250–12(3) 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. 

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), R307–250–11 allows 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

28840 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

18Note that our reference to CALPUFF 

encompasses the entire CALPUFF modeling system, 

which includes the CALMET, CALPUFF, and 

CALPOST models and other pre and post 

processors. The different versions of CALPUFF 

have corresponding versions of CALMET, 

CALPOST, etc. which may not be compatible with 

previous versions (e.g., the output from a newer 

version of CALMET may not be compatible with an 

older version of CALPUFF). The different versions 

of the CALPUFF modeling system are available 

from the model developer at http://www.src.com/ 

verio/download/download.htm. 

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 E.3.h(2) of the SIP). 

We are proposing to determine that 

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 E.1.d 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), 

states must evaluate certain stationary 

sources for NOX and PM BART. BART 

for SO2 is addressed by the backstop 

trading program described above. BART 

requirements can be addressed through 

a case-by-case review under 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(1) or through an alternative 

program under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2). The 

State chose to evaluate BART for NOX

and PM under the case-by-case 

provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1). We 

are proposing to disapprove the State’s 

BART determinations because we find 

that the State’s determinations do not 

meet the requirements of 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(1), section 110(a)(2) of the 

CAA, and Appendix V of part 51, as 

described below. 

1. BART-Eligible Sources 

The first step of a BART evaluation is 

to identify all the BART-eligible sources 

within the state’s boundaries. Utah 

identified the BART-eligible sources in 

Utah by utilizing the approach set out 

in the BART Guidelines (70 FR 39158). 

This approach provides the following 

three criteria for identifying BARTeligible sources: (1) One or more 

emission units at the facility fit within 

one of the 26 categories listed in the 

BART Guidelines; (2) the emission 

unit(s) began operation on or after 

August 6, 1962, and was in existence on 

August 6, 1977; and (3) potential 

emissions of any visibility-impairing 

pollutant from subject units are 250 tons 

or more per year. Utah used its permits 

and 2001–2003 emission inventory 

records to identify facilities in the BART 

source categories with potential 

emissions of 250 tons per year or more 

for any visibility-impairing pollutant 

from any unit that was in existence on 

August 7, 1977 and began operation on 

or after August 7, 1962. Utah 

determined that PacifiCorp Hunter Unit 

1 and Unit 2 and PacifiCorp Huntington 

Unit 1 and Unit 2 are BART-eligible. 

2. Sources Subject-to-BART 

The second step of the BART 

evaluation is to identify those BARTeligible sources that may reasonably be 

anticipated to cause or contribute to any 

visibility impairment at any Class I area, 

i.e. those sources that are subject-toBART. The BART Guidelines allow 

states to consider exempting some 

BART-eligible sources from further 

BART review because they may not 

reasonably be anticipated to cause or 

contribute to any visibility impairment 

in a Class I area. Consistent with the 

BART Guidelines, Utah used dispersion 

modeling performed by the WRAP RMC 

on the BART-eligible sources to assess 

the extent of their contribution to 

visibility impairment at surrounding 

Class I areas. 

a. Modeling Methodology 

The BART Guidelines provide that 

states may use the CALPUFF 18

modeling system or another appropriate 

model to predict the visibility impacts 

from a single source on a Class I area 

and to, therefore, determine whether an 

individual source is anticipated to cause 

or contribute to impairment of visibility 

in Class I areas, i.e., ‘‘is subject-toBART.’’ The Guidelines state that we 

find CALPUFF is the best regulatory 

modeling application currently 

available for predicting a single source’s 

contribution to visibility impairment (70 

FR 39162). 

To determine if each BART-eligible 

source has a significant impact on 

visibility, Utah used the RMC CALPUFF 

modeling results to estimate daily 

visibility impacts above estimated 

natural conditions at each Class I area 

within 300 km of any BART-eligible 

facility, based on maximum actual 24- 

hour emissions over a three year period 

(2001–2003) (see section D.6.c of the 

SIP). The RMC used the CALPUFF 

model for Utah BART sources in 

accordance with a modeling protocol it 

developed. The RMC protocol follows 

recommendations for long-range 

transport described in appendix W to 40 

CFR part 51, Guideline on Air Quality 

Models, and in EPA’s Interagency 

Workgroup on Air Quality Modeling 

(IWAQM) Phase 2 Summary Report and 

Recommendations for Modeling Long 

Range Transport Impacts as 

recommended by the BART Guidelines. 

(40 CFR part 51, appendix Y, section 

III.A.3). 

b. Contribution Threshold 

For states using modeling to 

determine the applicability of BART to 

single sources, the BART Guidelines 

note that the first step is to set a 

contribution threshold to assess whether 

the impact of a single source is 

sufficient to cause or contribute to 

visibility impairment at a Class I area. 

The BART Guidelines state that, ‘‘[a] 

single source that is responsible for a 1.0 

deciview change or more should be 

considered to ‘cause’ visibility 

impairment.’’ (70 FR 39104, 39161). The 

BART Guidelines also state that ‘‘the 

appropriate threshold for determining 

whether a source contributes to 

visibility impairment may reasonably 

differ across states,’’ but, ‘‘[a]s a general 

matter, any threshold that you use for 

determining whether a source 

‘‘contributes’’ to visibility impairment 

should not be higher than 0.5 

deciviews.’’ Id. Further, in setting a 

contribution threshold, states should 

‘‘consider the number of emissions 

sources affecting the Class I areas at 

issue and the magnitude of the 

individual sources’ impacts.’’ The 

Guidelines affirm that states are free to 

use a lower threshold if they conclude 

that the location of a large number of 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules 28841 

19These are new emission limits, and in 

accordance with the SIP, PacifiCorp is required to 

install and operate BART no later than five years 

after EPA approval of the plan. 

BART-eligible sources in proximity to a 

Class I area justifies this approach. 

Utah used a contribution threshold of 

0.5 deciviews for determining which 

sources are subject-to-BART (see section 

D.6.3 of the SIP). Using a threshold of 

0.5 deciviews, the State determined that 

all its BART-eligible sources were 

subject-to-BART. We propose to 

approve the State’s threshold of 0.5 

deciviews. 

The State determined that the 

following units were BART-eligible and 

subject-to-BART: PacifiCorp Hunter 

Unit 1 and Hunter Unit 2 and PacifiCorp 

Huntington Unit1 and Huntington Unit 

2 (see section D.6.3 of the SIP). All four 

units are tangentially fired fossil fuel 

fired EGUs each with a net generating 

capacity of 430 MW, permitted to burn 

bituminous coal. 

We are proposing that the State has 

correctly determined of the BART 

eligible and subject-to-BART units in 

the State. 

3. BART Determinations and Limits 

The third step of a BART evaluation 

is to perform the BART analysis. BART 

is a source-specific control 

determination, based on consideration 

of several factors set out in section 

169A(g)(2) of the CAA. These factors 

include the costs of compliance and the 

degree of improvement in visibility 

associated with the use of possible 

control technologies. EPA issued BART 

Guidelines (Appendix Y to Part 51) in 

2005 to clarify the BART provisions 

based on the statutory and regulatory 

BART requirements (70 FR 39164). The 

BART Guidelines describe the BART 

analysis as consisting of the following 

five basic steps: 

• Step 1: Identify All Available 

Retrofit Control Technologies; 

• Step 2: Eliminate Technically 

Infeasible Options; 

• Step 3: Evaluate Control 

Effectiveness of Remaining Control 

Technologies; 

• Step 4: Evaluate Impacts and 

Document the Results; and 

• Step 5: Evaluate Visibility Impacts. 

In determining BART, the State must 

consider the five statutory factors in 

section 169A of the CAA: (1) The costs 

of compliance; (2) the energy and nonair 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. See also 40 

CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A). The five-factor 

analysis occurs during steps 4 and 5 of 

the BART analysis. We note the BART 

Guidelines (Appendix Y to part 51) 

provide that states must follow the 

guidelines in making BART 

determinations on a source-by-source 

basis for 750 MW power plants but are 

not required to use the process in the 

guidelines when making BART 

determinations for other types of 

sources. States with subject-to-BART 

units with a generating capacity less 

than 750 MW are strongly encouraged to 

follow the BART Guidelines in making 

BART determinations, but they are not 

required to do so. However, the 

requirement to perform a BART analysis 

that considers ‘‘the technology 

available, the costs of compliance, the 

energy and nonair quality 

environmental impacts of compliance, 

any pollution control equipment in use 

at the source, the remaining useful life 

of the source, and the degree of 

improvement in visibility which may 

reasonably be anticipated to result from 

the use of such technology,’’ is found in 

section 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A) of the RHR, 

and applies to all subject-to-BART 

sources. 

We have found issues, as discussed 

below, with the State’s BART 

determinations that lead us to propose 

disapproval. For all of the subject-toBART units, the State did not properly 

determine BART, but instead concluded 

that a slightly lower limit than the 

presumptive limits in the BART 

Guidelines could be adopted in place of 

a detailed source-specific analysis of the 

appropriate level of controls. As noted 

above, EPA issued BART Guidelines in 

2005 that address the BART 

determination process by laying out a 

step by step process for taking into 

consideration the factors relevant to a 

BART determination. 

EPA’s 2005 rulemaking also 

established presumptive BART limits 

for certain EGUs located at power plants 

750 MW or greater in size based on the 

size of the unit, the type of unit, the 

type of fuel used, and the presence or 

absence of controls (70 FR 39131– 

39136). Having identified controls that 

the Agency considered to be generally 

cost-effective across all affected units, 

EPA took into account the substantial 

degree of visibility improvement 

anticipated to result from the use of 

such controls on these EGUs and 

concluded that such BART-eligible 

sources should at least meet the 

presumptive limits. The presumptive 

limits accordingly are the starting point 

in a BART determination for these units, 

unless the state determines that the 

general assumptions underlying EPA’s 

analysis are not applicable in a 

particular case. EPA did not provide 

that states could avoid a source-specific 

BART determination by adopting the 

presumptive limits. In fact, nothing in 

the State’s record would support the 

conclusion that the presumptive limits 

represent the ‘‘best available retrofit 

controls’’ for all EGUs at these large 

power plants. EPA did not address the 

question of whether in specific cases 

more stringent controls would be called 

for, but rather simply concluded that it 

could not reach a generalized 

conclusion as to the appropriateness of 

more stringent controls for categories of 

EGUs. As a result, the BART Rule does 

not establish a ‘‘safe harbor’’ from more 

stringent regulation under the BART 

provisions. 

Regarding BART for PM and NOX, 

neither PacifiCorp nor the State 

performed a BART analysis taking into 

account the statutory factors that states 

are required to consider in determining 

what retrofit controls are BART for 

PacifiCorp Hunter Unit 1 and Unit 2 and 

PacifiCorp Huntington Unit 1 and Unit 

2 (information on the State’s BART 

determination as summarized in this 

paragraph can be found in section D.6.d 

of the SIP). The State determined that it 

could rely on the presumptive limits to 

determine what NOX BART is for the 

subject-to-BART sources. PacifiCorp 

proposed and the State determined, 

without any analysis, that the NOX

BART limit for all the subject-to-BART 

units was 0.26 lb/MMBtu (30-day 

rolling average), which is the current 

operating permit limit for the source 

and which the State assumes can be 

achieved by the installation and 

operation of low NOX burners (LNBs) 

and separated overfire air (SOFA). The 

State reasoned that since this limit is 

slightly lower than the presumptive 

limit, which is 0.28 lb/MMBtu (30-day 

rolling average), it constituted NOX

BART for these sources. There are no 

presumptive limits established for PM. 

PacifiCorp proposed and the State 

agreed, without any analysis, that the 

PM BART limits for all subject-to-BART 

units was the current operating permit 

limit of 0.05 lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling 

average), which the State assumes can 

be achieved by the installation and 

operation of fabric filter baghouses.19

Because PacifiCorp units have a 430 

MW generating capacity, the State is not 

required to follow the BART Guidelines 

in making BART determinations for the 

units. However, neither the State nor 

PacifiCorp have completed a BART 

analysis that considers the statutory 

factors under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A), 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

28842 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

20CAA Section 110(a)(2) states that SIPs ‘‘shall 

(A) include enforceable emission limitations and 

other control measures, means, or techniques 

(including economic incentives such as fees, 

marketable permits, and auctions of emissions 

rights), as well as schedules and timetables for 

compliance, as may be necessary or appropriate to 

meet the applicable requirements of this chapter; 

(C) include a program to provide for the 

enforcement of the measures described in 

subparagraph (A), and regulation of the 

modification and construction of any stationary 

source within the areas covered by the plan as 

necessary to assure that national ambient air quality 

standards are achieved, including a permit program 

as required in parts C and D of this subchapter; (F) 

require, as may be prescribed by the 

Administrator—(i) the installation, maintenance, 

and replacement of equipment, and the 

implementation of other necessary steps, by owners 

or operators of stationary sources to monitor 

emissions from such sources, (ii) periodic reports 

on the nature and amounts of emissions and 

emissions-related data from such sources, and (iii) 

correlation of such reports by the State agency with 

any emission limitations or standards established 

pursuant to this chapter, which reports shall be 

available at reasonable times for public inspection’’ 

21Appendix V part 51 states in section 2.2 that 

complete SIPs contain: ‘‘(g) Evidence that the plan 

contains emission limitations, work practice 

standards and recordkeeping/reporting 

requirements, where necessary, to ensure emission 

levels’’; and ‘‘(h) Compliance/enforcement 

strategies, including how compliance will be 

determined in practice.’’ 

22Utah Division of Air Quality Approval Orders: 

Huntington Unit 2—AN0238012–05, Huntington 

Unit 1—AN0102380019–09; and Hunter Units 1 

and 2—AN0102370012–08. 

23See response to EPA comments in the State’s 

September 9, 2008 regional haze SIP submittal. 

24See August 4, 2008 letter from Callie A. 

Videtich, EPA Region 8, to Cheryl Heying, Utah Air 

Quality Division and February 4, 2011 letter from 

Deborah Lebow-Aal, EPA Region 8, to Cheryl 

Heying, Utah Air Quality Division in the 

Supporting and Related Materials section of this 

docket. 

25 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. 

which provides that: ‘‘The 

determination of BART must be based 

on an analysis of the best system of 

continuous emission control technology 

available and associated emission 

reductions achievable for each BARTeligible source that is subject-to-BART 

within the State. In this analysis, the 

State must take into consideration the 

technology available, the costs of 

compliance, the energy and nonair 

quality environmental impacts of 

compliance, any pollution control 

equipment in use at the source, the 

remaining useful life of the source, and 

the degree of improvement in visibility 

which may reasonably be anticipated to 

result from the use of such technology.’’ 

Furthermore, the State’s regional haze 

SIP does not contain the elements 

necessary to make the proposed 

emission limits practically enforceable. 

Utah’s SIP section D.6.d contains 

controls, emission limits and general 

compliance schedules, but does not 

include SIP provisions specifying 

averaging times, record-keeping, 

monitoring, and specific schedules for 

compliance. The CAA requires that 

SIPs, including the regional haze SIP, 

contain elements sufficient to ensure 

emission limits are practically 

enforceable.20 Other applicable 

regulatory provisions are contained in 

Appendix V to part 51—Criteria for 

Determining the Completeness of Plan 

Submissions.21 Utah suggests that 

including averaging times, 

recordkeeping, monitoring, and specific 

schedules for compliance in the source’s 

operating permits,22 and not as part of 

the SIP, is sufficient to meet the 

statutory and regulatory requirements 

discussed above.23 It is not sufficient to 

include these elements in a permit or 

agreement that is not made part of the 

SIP. EPA does not consider operating 

permit conditions adequate to meet this 

enforceability requirement, as permit 

conditions may be modified without 

going through the SIP approval process. 

During the State’s development of its 

regional haze SIP, we consistently 

informed in comment letters and in 

conversations that foregoing a BART 

analysis is not acceptable and that the 

SIP must contain the necessary elements 

to ensure emission limits, including 

BART emission limits, are practicably 

enforceable. EPA sent letters to the State 

in 2008 and 2011 outlining our concerns 

with the State’s proposed SIP as 

discussed above.24

Therefore, we are proposing to find 

that the State did not properly follow 

the requirements of 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A) and section 

169A(g)(2) of the CAA in determining 

PM and NOX BART for PacifiCorp 

Hunter Unit 1 and Unit 2 and PacifiCorp 

Huntington Unit 1 and Unit 2. 

Specifically, neither the State nor 

PacifiCorp, conducted a BART analyses 

for each of the units that took into 

account the five BART factors. We are 

also proposing to partially disapprove 

the State’s SIP because it does not 

contain the elements necessary to make 

the BART limits practically enforceable 

as required by section 110(a)(2) of the 

CAA and Appendix V to part 51. For 

these reasons, we are proposing to 

disapprove the State’s determination 

that BART for NOX for PacifiCorp 

Hunter Unit 1 and Unit 2 and PacifiCorp 

Huntington Unit 1 and Unit 2 is a NOX

emission limit of 0.26 lb/MMBtu (30- 

day rolling average) (assumed to be 

achieved by LNBs plus SOFA). We are 

also proposing to disapprove the State’s 

determination that BART for PM for 

PacifiCorp Hunter Unit 1 and Unit 2 and 

PacifiCorp Huntington Unit 1 and Unit 

2 is an emission limit of 0.05 lb/MMBtu 

(30-day rolling average) (assumed to be 

achieved by fabric filter baghouses). 

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 

projections for the year 2018.25 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 F.2.a of the SIP). 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(5)(i)(B), 

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). A 

99 percent reduction in SO2 from nonroad 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. 

We are proposing to determine the 

State’s SIP meets the requirements of 40 

CFR 51.309(d)(5). 

H. Programs Related to Fire 

EPA has proposed approval of the 

requirements related to fire under 40 

CFR 51.309(d)(6) in a separate action (76 

FR 69217). 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules 28843 

26Land and Water Fund of the Rockies, 

Northwest Sustainable Energy for Economic 

Development, and Green Info Network with support 

from the Hewlett Foundation and the Energy 

Foundation. Renewable Energy Atlas of the West: A 

Guide to the Region’s Resource Potential. Available 

in section I of the State’s TSD. 

27A complete description of these projections can 

be found in section I of the Utah TSD in a document 

titled Economic Assessment of Implementing the 

10/20 Goals and Energy Efficiency 

Recommendations. 

28The State’s complete evaluation is included in 

the State’s Report to the Environmental Protection 

Agency and the Public to Satisfy the Requirements 

of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(9) in section J of the State’s 

TSD. 

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) (see section H.2.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) (see 

section H.2.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 Utah provided adequate 

to meet the requirements of 40 CFR 

51.309(d)(8) as discussed below (see 

section I of the SIP). 

1. Description of Existing Pollution 

Prevention Programs 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(8)(i), 

section I of the State’s TSD summarizes 

all pollution prevention and renewable 

energy programs currently in place in 

Utah. 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 Utah in 2002 was 5,485 

MW. Renewable energy generation 

capacity represented 0.77 percent of the 

total installed capacity. 

2. Incentive Programs 

Per 40 CFR 51.309(d)(8)(ii), 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 

(see Table 17 in the SIP). Such programs 

include the Residential Energy 

Efficiency Program and Salt Lake City 

Climate Action Plan Program. 

4. Potential for Renewable Energy 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(8)(iv), 

the renewable energy resource potential 

in Utah and its geographic distribution 

across the State have been characterized 

succinctly in the Renewable Energy 

Atlas of the West.26 The Renewable 

Energy Atlas of the West was assembled 

using best available renewable energy 

resource maps and data. The State used 

the Renewable Energy Atlas of the West 

to determine the potential for renewable 

energy across the State. The State has 

summarized the potential for renewable 

energy development in section I.10.B of 

the SIP. 

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.27 The document referenced in 

the prior sentence 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 airpollution 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 

I.10.a 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. 

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.28 Based on this 

evaluation, the State determined no 

additional measures were practicable or 

necessary to demonstrate reasonable 

progress (see section J of the SIP). 

We are proposing to determine that 

the State’s SIP meets the requirements 

of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(9). 

L. Periodic Implementation Plan 

Revisions 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i), 

section L 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 Utah, and Class I areas outside 

Utah that are affected by emissions from 

Utah. The State will address the 

elements listed under 40 CFR 

51.309(d)(10)(i)(A) through (G) as 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

28844 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

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, Utah 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 

The five Class I areas in Utah (Zion 

National Park, Bryce Canyon National 

Park, Arches National Park, Capitol Reef 

National Park, and Canyonlands 

National Park) are located on the 

Colorado Plateau. Since the State does 

not have Class I areas off the Colorado 

Plateau, the State of Utah is not required 

to take action pursuant to 40 CFR 

51.309(g)(1). 

VI. Proposed Action 

In this action, EPA is proposing to 

partially approve and partially 

disapprove a Utah SIP revision 

submitted on May 26, 2011 that 

addresses the RHR requirements for the 

mandatory Class I areas under 40 CFR 

51.309. Specifically, EPA is proposing 

to approve all sections of the SIP 

submittal as meeting the requirements 

under 40 CFR 51.309, with the 

exception of the requirements under 40 

CFR 51.309(d)(4)(vii) pertaining to NOX

and PM BART. EPA is proposing to 

disapprove the State’s NOX and PM 

BART determinations and limits in 

section D.6.d of the SIP for the following 

four subject-to-BART EGUs: Pacificorp 

Hunter Unit 1 and Hunter Unit 2 and 

PacifiCorp Huntington Unit 1 and 

Huntington Unit 2. EPA is proposing to 

disapprove these BART determinations 

because they do not comply with our 

regulations under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1) or 

sections 110(a)(2) and 169A(g)(2) of the 

CAA. 

We are proposing to approve specific 

sections of the State’s September 9, 2008 

SIP submittal. Specifically, we are 

proposing to approve UAR R307–250, 

Western Backstop Sulfur Dioxide 

Trading Program and R307–150, 

Emission Inventories. We are taking no 

action on the rest of the September 9, 

2008 submittal as the May 26, 2011 

submittal supersedes and replaces the 

remaining sections of the September 9, 

2008 SIP submittal, except for the 

requirements pertaining to smoke 

management. We have taken proposed 

action on the smoke management 

requirements in a separate action (76 FR 

69217). 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under the terms of 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and is therefore not 

subject to review under Executive 

Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011). 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Burden is 

defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any 

other statute unless the agency certifies 

that the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Small entities 

include small businesses, small 

organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts 

of today’s proposed rule on small 

entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A 

small business as defined by the Small 

Business Administration’s (SBA) 

regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a 

small governmental jurisdiction that is a 

government of a city, county, town, 

school district or special district with a 

population of less than 50,000; and (3) 

a small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of today’s proposed rule on 

small entities, I certify that this action 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. This proposed rule will not 

impose any requirements on small 

entities because small entities are not 

subject to the requirements of this rule. 

We continue to be interested in the 

potential impacts of the proposed rule 

on small entities and welcome 

comments on issues related to such 

impacts. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 

Law 104–4, establishes requirements for 

federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their regulatory actions on State, local, 

and Tribal governments and the private 

sector. Under section 202 of UMRA, 

EPA generally must prepare a written 

statement, including a cost-benefit 

analysis, for proposed and final rules 

with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may 

result in expenditures to State, local, 

and Tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or to the private sector, of 

$100 million or more (adjusted for 

inflation) in any one year. Before 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules 28845 

promulgating an EPA rule for which a 

written statement is needed, section 205 

of UMRA generally requires EPA to 

identify and consider a reasonable 

number of regulatory alternatives and 

adopt the least costly, most costeffective, or least burdensome 

alternative that achieves the objectives 

of the rule. The provisions of section 

205 of UMRA do not apply when they 

are inconsistent with applicable law. 

Moreover, section 205 of UMRA allows 

EPA to adopt an alternative other than 

the least costly, most cost-effective, or 

least burdensome alternative if the 

Administrator publishes with the final 

rule an explanation why that alternative 

was not adopted. Before EPA establishes 

any regulatory requirements that may 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments, including Tribal 

governments, it must have developed 

under section 203 of UMRA a small 

government agency plan. The plan must 

provide for notifying potentially 

affected small governments, enabling 

officials of affected small governments 

to have meaningful and timely input in 

the development of EPA regulatory 

proposals with significant federal 

intergovernmental mandates, and 

informing, educating, and advising 

small governments on compliance with 

the regulatory requirements. 

Under Title II of UMRA, EPA has 

determined that this proposed rule does 

not contain a federal mandate that may 

result in expenditures that exceed the 

inflation-adjusted UMRA threshold of 

$100 million by State, local, or Tribal 

governments or the private sector in any 

one year. In addition, this proposed rule 

does not contain a significant federal 

intergovernmental mandate as described 

by section 203 of UMRA nor does it 

contain any regulatory requirements 

that might significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999) revokes and replaces Executive 

Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 

(Enhancing the Intergovernmental 

Partnership). Executive Order 13132 

requires EPA to develop an accountable 

process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and 

timely input by State and local officials 

in the development of regulatory 

policies that have federalism 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have 

federalism implications’’ is defined in 

the Executive Order to include 

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct 

effects on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government.’’ Under 

Executive Order 13132, EPA may not 

issue a regulation that has federalism 

implications, that imposes substantial 

direct compliance costs, and that is not 

required by statute, unless the federal 

government provides the funds 

necessary to pay the direct compliance 

costs incurred by State and local 

governments, or EPA consults with 

State and local officials early in the 

process of developing the proposed 

regulation. EPA also may not issue a 

regulation that has federalism 

implications and that preempts State 

law unless the Agency consults with 

State and local officials early in the 

process of developing the proposed 

regulation. 

This rule will not have substantial 

direct effects on the States, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132, because it 

merely addresses the State not fully 

meeting its obligation to prohibit 

emissions from interfering with other 

states measures to protect visibility 

established in the CAA. Thus, Executive 

Order 13132 does not apply to this 

action. In the spirit of Executive Order 

13132, and consistent with EPA policy 

to promote communications between 

EPA and State and local governments, 

EPA specifically solicits comment on 

this proposed rule from State and local 

officials. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

Executive Order 13175, entitled 

Consultation and Coordination With 

Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA 

to develop an accountable process to 

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by 

tribal officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have tribal 

implications.’’ This proposed rule does 

not have tribal implications, as specified 

in Executive Order 13175. It will not 

have substantial direct effects on tribal 

governments. Thus, Executive Order 

13175 does not apply to this rule. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 

19885, April 23, 1997) as applying only 

to those regulatory actions that concern 

health or safety risks, such that the 

analysis required under section 5–501 of 

the EO has the potential to influence the 

regulation. This action is not subject to 

EO 13045 because it implements 

specific standards established by 

Congress in statutes. However, to the 

extent this proposed rule will limit 

emissions of NOX, SO2, and PM, the rule 

will have a beneficial effect on 

children’s health by reducing air 

pollution. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 

2001)), because it is not a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law 

104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 

directs EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities 

unless to do so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. Voluntary consensus 

standards are technical standards (e.g., 

materials specifications, test methods, 

sampling procedures, and business 

practices) that are developed or adopted 

by voluntary consensus standards 

bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide 

Congress, through OMB, explanations 

when the Agency decides not to use 

available and applicable voluntary 

consensus standards. 

This proposed rulemaking does not 

involve technical standards. Therefore, 

EPA is not considering the use of any 

voluntary consensus standards. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, 

February 16, 1994), establishes federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

We have determined that this 

proposed action, if finalized, will not 

have disproportionately high and 

adverse human health or environmental 

effects on minority or low-income 

populations because it increases the 

level of environmental protection for all 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

28846 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

affected populations without having any 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on any population, including any 

minority or low-income population. 

K. Congressional Review Act 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, does not apply 

because this action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ 

as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

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: April 26, 2012. 

James B. Martin, 

Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

[FR Doc. 2012–11848 Filed 5–15–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2011–0064; 

4500030114] 

RIN 1018–AX40 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Designation of Critical 

Habitat for Astragalus lentiginosus var. 

coachellae (Coachella Valley MilkVetch) 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of 

comment period. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, announce the 

reopening of the public comment period 

on the August 25, 2011, proposed 

revised designation of critical habitat for 

Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae 

(Coachella Valley milk-vetch) under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act). We also announce the 

availability of a draft economic analysis 

(DEA) of the proposed revised 

designation of critical habitat for A. l. 

var. coachellae and an amended 

required determinations section of the 

proposal. We are reopening the 

comment period to allow all interested 

parties an opportunity to comment 

simultaneously on the proposed revised 

designation, the associated DEA, and 

the amended required determinations 

section. We are also announcing the 

location and time of a public hearing to 

receive public comments on the 

proposal. Comments previously 

submitted need not be resubmitted, as 

they will be fully considered in 

preparation of the final rule. 

DATES: We will consider comments 

received or postmarked on or before 

June 15, 2012. Comments submitted 

electronically using the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES

section, below) must be received by 

11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing 

date. 

Public Hearing: We will hold a public 

hearing on this proposed rule on May 

31, 2012, from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. and from 

6 p.m. to 8 p.m. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit written 

comments by one of the following 

methods: 

(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Search for Docket 

No. FWS–R8–ES–2011–0064, which is 

the docket number for this rulemaking. 

(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail 

or hand-delivery to: Public Comments 

Processing, Attn: FWS–R8–ES–2011– 

0064; Division of Policy and Directives 

Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS 

2042–PDM; Arlington, VA 22203. 

Public hearing: We will hold a public 

hearing in the Palm Springs City Hall 

Council Chamber, 3200 E. Tahquitz 

Canyon Way, Palm Springs, CA 92263. 

We request that you send comments 

only by the methods described above. 

We will post all comments on http:// 

www.regulations.gov. This generally 

means that we will post any personal 

information you provide us (see the 

Public Comments section below for 

more information). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim 

Bartel, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Carlsbad Fish and 

Wildlife Office, 6010 Hidden Valley Rd., 

Ste. 101, Carlsbad, CA 92011; telephone 

760–431–9440; facsimile 760–431–5902. 

Persons who use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (TDD) may call the 

Federal Information Relay Service 

(FIRS) at 800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Public Comments 

We will accept written comments and 

information during this reopened 

comment period on our proposed 

revised designation of critical habitat for 

Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae 

that was published in the Federal 

Register on August 25, 2011 (76 FR 

53224), our DEA of the proposed revised 

designation, and the amended required 

determinations provided in this 

document. We will consider 

information and recommendations from 

all interested parties. We are 

particularly interested in comments 

concerning: 

(1) The reasons why we should or 

should not designate habitat as ‘‘critical 

habitat’’ under section 4 of the Act (16 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), including whether 

there are threats to the taxon (the term 

taxon, as used herein, refers to any 

taxonomic rank that is not a species (for 

example, a genus, a subspecies, or a 

variety); Astragalus lentiginosus var. 

coachellae is a variety) from human 

activity, the degree of which can be 

expected to increase due to the 

designation, and whether that increase 

in threat outweighs the benefit of 

designation such that the designation of 

critical habitat is not prudent. 

(2) Specific information on: 

(a) The distribution of Astragalus 

lentiginosus var. coachellae; 

(b) The amount and distribution of 

Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae 

habitat; 

(c) What areas within the geographical 

area occupied by the taxon at the time 

of listing that contain physical or 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of the taxon we should 

include in the designation and why; and 

(d) What areas outside the 

geographical area occupied by the taxon 

at the time of listing are essential for the 

conservation of the taxon and why. 

(3) Land use designations and current 

or planned activities in the subject areas 

and their possible impacts on proposed 

critical habitat. 

(4) Information on the projected and 

reasonably likely impacts associated 

with climate change on Astragalus 

lentiginosus var. coachellae and 

proposed critical habitat. 

(5) What areas, extent, and quality of 

the unoccupied fluvial (water) sand 

transport systems in the Coachella 

Valley and surrounding hills and 

mountains are essential for the 

conservation of Astragalus lentiginosus 

var. coachellae and should be included 

in the designation and why. 

(6) Any foreseeable economic, 

national security, or other relevant 

impacts that may result from 

designating any area that may be 

included in the final designation. We 

are particularly interested in any 

impacts on small entities, and the 

benefits of including or excluding areas 

from the proposed designation that are 

subject to these impacts. 

(7) Which specific areas within tribal 

lands proposed for critical habitat 

should be considered for exclusion 

under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS