Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules 2571 

FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace 

Designations and Reporting Points, is 

published yearly and effective on 

September 15. 

Regulatory Notices and Analyses 

The FAA has determined that this 

proposed regulation only involves an 

established body of technical 

regulations for which frequent and 

routine amendments are necessary to 

keep them operationally current. It, 

therefore: (1) Is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under Executive 

Order 12866; (2) is not a ‘‘significant 

rule’’ under Department of 

Transportation (DOT) Regulatory 

Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; 

February 26, 1979); and (3) does not 

warrant preparation of a regulatory 

evaluation as the anticipated impact is 

so minimal. Since this is a routine 

matter that will only affect air traffic 

procedures and air navigation, it is 

certified that this proposed rule, when 

promulgated, will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities under the 

criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. 

Environmental Review 

This proposal will be subject to an 

environmental analysis in accordance 

with FAA Order 1050.1F, 

‘‘Environmental Impacts: Policies and 

Procedures’’ prior to any FAA final 

regulatory action. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, 

Navigation (air). 

The Proposed Amendment 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as 

follows: 

PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, 

B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR 

TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND 

REPORTING POINTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for 14 CFR 

part 71 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 

40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 

1959–1963 Comp., p. 389. 

§ 71.1 [Amended] 

■ 2. The incorporation by reference in 

14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order JO 7400.11F, 

Airspace Designations and Reporting 

Points, dated August 10, 2021, and 

effective September 15, 2021, is 

amended as follows: 

Paragraph 6011 United States Area 

Navigation Routes. 

* * * * * 

T–232 BARROW, AK (BRW) TO NORTHWAY, AK (ORT) [AMENDED] 

Barrow, AK (BRW) VOR/DME (Lat. 71°16′24.33′′ N, long. 156°47′17.22′′ W) 

OCOCU, AK WP (Lat. 67°05′08.90′′ N, long. 151°45′00.43′′ W) 

Bettles, AK (BTT) VOR/DME (Lat. 66°54′18.03′′ N, long. 151°32′09.18′′ W) 

Fairbanks, AK (FAI) VORTAC (Lat. 64°48′00.25′′ N, long. 148°00′43.11′′ W) 

IMARE, AK WP (Lat. 64°33′29.60′′ N, long. 147°17′20.31′′ W) 

CUTUB, AK WP (Lat. 64°17′49.15′′ N, long. 146°37′11.65′′ W) 

RIVOR, AK Fix (Lat. 64°09′46.97′′ N, long. 146°09′22.50′′ W) 

Big Delta, AK (BIG) VORTAC (Lat. 64°00′16.06′′ N, long. 145°43′02.09′′ W) 

Northway, AK (ORT) VORTAC (Lat. 62°56′49.92′′ N, long. 141°54′45.39′′ W) 

* * * * * 

Issued in Washington, DC, on January 11, 

2022. 

Michael R. Beckles, 

Acting Manager, Rules and Regulations 

Group. 

[FR Doc. 2022–00791 Filed 1–14–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2020–0441; FRL–9443–01– 

R8] 

Disapproval of Air Quality 

Implementation Plans; Wyoming; 

Proposed Revisions to Regional Haze 

State Implementation Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to 

disapprove a State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) revision submitted by the State of 

Wyoming on May 14, 2020, and 

supplemented in September and 

October 2020, addressing regional haze 

(‘‘Wyoming’s 2020 SIP revision’’). 

Wyoming’s 2020 SIP revision reverses 

the State’s 2011 decision that emission 

limits consistent with the installation of 

selective catalytic reduction (SCR) for 

the Jim Bridger power plant, Units 1 and 

2, are necessary to make reasonable 

progress under the State’s long-term 

strategy for the first regional haze 

planning period. The SIP revision 

contains a source-specific nitrogen 

oxide (NOX) reasonable progress 

analysis and determination that 

currently installed controls (low-NOX

burners with separated overfire air 

(LNB/SOFA)) are sufficient for 

reasonable progress during the first 

planning period for Jim Bridger Units 1 

and 2, and that the emission limits 

associated with the installation of SCR 

are no longer necessary. The SIP 

revision also contains plant-wide 

monthly and annual NOX and sulfur 

dioxide (SO2) emission limits for the Jim 

Bridger power plant, Units 1–4. EPA is 

proposing to disapprove this SIP 

revision in full. The agency is proposing 

this action pursuant to sections 110 and 

169A of the Clean Air Act (CAA). 

DATES: Comments: Written comments 

must be received on or before February 

17, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08– 

OAR–2020–0441, to the Federal 

Rulemaking Portal: https://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from 

www.regulations.gov. EPA may publish 

any comment received to its public 

docket. Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. EPA will generally not consider 

comments or comment contents located 

outside of the primary submission (i.e., 

on the web, cloud, or other file sharing 

system). For additional submission 

methods, the full EPA public comment 

policy, information about CBI or 

multimedia submissions, and general 

guidance on making effective 

comments, please visit http://

www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epadockets. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
2572 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

1 79 FR 5032 (January 30, 2014). 

2The BART determination compliance date for 

all units was March 4, 2019. Reasonable progress 

determination compliance dates for each include: 

Unit 1 = December 31, 2022; Unit 2 = December 31, 

2021; Unit 3 = December 31, 2015; and Unit 4 = 

December 31, 2016. 

3At the request of EPA, Wyoming supplemented 

the original SIP submittal with additional 

documentation on September 8, 2020, and October 

6, 2020. 

4State of Wyoming, ‘‘Addressing Regional Haze 

Visibility Protection For The Mandatory Federal 

Class I Areas Required Under 40 CFR 51.309,’’ 

Revised May 14, 2020 (‘‘Wyoming 2020 SIP 

Revision’’). 

5Wyoming’s SIP revision refers to these limits as 

‘‘voluntary visibility enhancing emission limits.’’ 

They represent a separate SIP component from 

Wyoming’s source-specific reasonable progress 

analysis and determination. The limits were 

voluntarily proposed by PacifiCorp to reduce 

regional haze causing pollutants. Wyoming 2020 

SIP Revision at 8–9. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

electronically in www.regulations.gov. 

To reduce the risk of COVID–19 

transmission, for this action we do not 

plan to offer hard copy review of the 

docket. Please email or call the person 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section if you need to make 

alternative arrangements for access to 

the docket. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jaslyn Dobrahner, Air and Radiation 

Division, EPA, Region 8, Mailcode 8P– 

ARD, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, 

Colorado, 80202–1129, telephone 

number: (303) 312–6252, email address: 

dobrahner.jaslyn@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document wherever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

EPA. 

I. What Action is EPA Proposing? 

II. Background 

A. Requirements of the Clean Air Act and 

EPA’s Regional Haze Rule 

B. Best Available Retrofit Technology 

C. Long-Term Strategy and Reasonable 

Progress Requirements 

D. Consultation with Federal Land 

Managers 

III. Wyoming’s Regional Haze SIP Revisions 

A. Background 

B. May 14, 2020 Submittal 

C. Summary of Wyoming’s Reasonable 

Progress Reassessment 

1. Costs of Compliance 

2. Time Necessary for Compliance 

3. Energy and Non-Air Quality 

Environmental Impacts of Compliance 

4. Remaining Useful Life 

5. Visibility Improvement 

6. Reasonable Progress Demonstration 

D. Summary of Wyoming’s Plant-Wide 

Monthly and Annual NOX and SO2

Emission Limits for Jim Bridger 

IV. EPA’s Evaluation and Proposed 

Disapproval of Wyoming’s Regional Haze 

SIP Revisions 

A. Basis for Proposed Disapproval 

B. EPA’s Proposed Disapproval of 

Wyoming’s Reasonable Progress 

Determination for Jim Bridger Units 1 

and 2 

1. Basis of Our Proposed Disapproval 

a. Costs of Compliance 

b. Visibility Improvement 

c. Other Factors 

d. Summary of EPA’s Evaluation of 

Wyoming’s Reasonable Progress 

Demonstration 

C. Plant-Wide Monthly and Annual NOX

and SO2 Emission Limits for Jim Bridger 

Units 1–4 

D. Clean Air Act Section 110(l) 

E. Consultation With Federal Land 

Managers 

V. Summary of EPA’s Proposed Action 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What action is EPA proposing? 

On January 30, 2014, EPA 

promulgated a final rule titled, 

‘‘Approval, Disapproval and 

Promulgation of Implementation Plans; 

State of Wyoming; Regional Haze State 

Implementation Plan; Federal 

Implementation Plan for Regional 

Haze,’’ approving in part a regional haze 

SIP revision submitted by the State of 

Wyoming on January 12, 2011 (2014 

final rule).1 In the 2014 final rule, EPA 

approved Wyoming’s NOX best available 

retrofit technology (BART) emission 

limits of 0.26 lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling 

average) for Jim Bridger Units 1–4, as 

well as the State’s decision to include in 

its long-term strategy NOX reasonable 

progress emission limits of 0.07 lb/ 

MMBtu (30-day rolling average) for the 

same units, among other actions.2

Wyoming submitted its 2020 SIP 

revision on May 14, 2020.3 The SIP 

revision contains amendments to 

Chapters 7 and 8 of Wyoming’s regional 

haze SIP narrative and would 

incorporate certain conditions of 

Wyoming air quality permit #P0025809 

into the SIP.4 Together, the amendments 

provide a source-specific NOX

reasonable progress analysis and 

determination for Jim Bridger Units 1 

and 2, remove the NOX reasonable 

progress emission limits currently 

required for Jim Bridger Units 1 and 2, 

and add plant-wide monthly and annual 

NOX and SO2 emission limits for Jim 

Bridger Units 1–4.5

EPA is proposing to disapprove this 

SIP revision in full. Our proposed 

disapproval is based on the following: 

(1) The reasonable cost-effectiveness of 

the existing reasonable progress control 

requirements for Jim Bridger Units 1 

and 2 (emission limits consistent with 

the installation of SCR); (2) the 

appreciable visibility improvement 

estimated to result from compliance 

with the existing control requirements; 

and (3) the fact that the State previously 

determined that the costs of those 

control requirements were reasonable 

and that they are necessary to satisfy the 

statutory requirements, and has not 

provided any new information that 

would support a revised determination 

that the requirements are now 

unreasonable. In fact, the updated cost 

information provided by Wyoming 

indicates that SCR for these units is 

even more cost-effective than the State 

estimated in 2011 and EPA estimated in 

its 2014 final rule, while the estimated 

visibility benefits remain the same as 

estimated in the 2014 final rule. 

Based on our proposed conclusions in 

section IV.B in this document, we 

propose to find that removing the SCR 

requirement would interfere with the 

regional haze requirements of the CAA, 

specifically, with the requirement that 

SIPs contain the emission limits, 

schedules of compliance, and other 

measures that are necessary to make 

reasonable progress toward the national 

visibility goal. That is, approving 

Wyoming’s removal of the SCR 

requirement would be inconsistent with 

the statutory requirement that 

Wyoming’s SIP contain the measures 

necessary to make reasonable progress 

toward the national visibility goal. 

Furthermore, EPA cannot propose to 

approve Wyoming’s plant-wide NOX

and SO2 emission limits while 

proposing to disapprove the elimination 

of the SCR requirements for Units 1 and 

2, because such a partial approval 

would render the SIP more stringent 

than the State intended. Regardless, as 

discussed in section IV.C, the 

installation of SCR on Units 1 and 2 is 

estimated to reduce NOX by at least 

3,000 tons per year (tpy) based on 

current utilization. EPA believes it is 

reasonable to conclude that the plantwide NOX and SO2 emission limits that 

Wyoming has required in lieu of the 

existing control requirements would not 

provide similar or greater emissions 

reductions or visibility improvement 

compared to two additional SCRs, as 

claimed by the State. 

II. Background 

A. Requirements of the Clean Air Act 

and EPA’s Regional Haze Rule 

In section 169A of the CAA, Congress 

created a program for protecting 

visibility in national parks and 

wilderness areas. This section of the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules 2573 

6 42 U.S.C. 7491(a). Areas designated as 

mandatory Class I Federal areas consist of national 

parks exceeding 6,000 acres, wilderness areas and 

national memorial parks exceeding 5,000 acres, and 

all international parks that were in existence on 

August 7, 1977. 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 

whose visibility they consider to be 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.’’ 

7 64 FR 35714, 35714 (July 1, 1999) (codified at 

40 CFR part 51, subpart P). 

8EPA had previously promulgated regulations to 

address visibility impairment in Class I areas that 

is ‘‘reasonably attributable’’ to a single source or 

small group of sources, i.e., reasonably attributable 

visibility impairment (RAVI). 45 FR 80084, 80084 

(December 2, 1980). 

9EPA revised the Regional Haze Rule on January 

10, 2017. 82 FR 3078 (January 10, 2017). Under the 

revised Regional Haze Rule, the requirements in 40 

CFR 51.308(d) and (e) apply to first implementation 

period SIP submissions and 40 CFR 51.308(f) 

applies to submissions for the second and 

subsequent implementation periods. 82 FR 3087; 

see also 81 FR 26942, 26952 (May 4, 2016). 

10See 42 U.S.C. 7410(a), 7491, and 7492; CAA 

sections 110(a), 169A, and 169B. 

11 42 U.S.C. 7491(b)(2); 7410. 

12 40 CFR 51.308(e). EPA designed the Guidelines 

for BART Determinations Under the Regional Haze 

Rule (Guidelines) ‘‘to help States and others (1) 

identify those sources that must comply with the 

BART requirement, and (2) determine the level of 

control technology that represents BART for each 

source.’’ 40 CFR part 51, appendix Y, I.A. Section 

II of the Guidelines describes the four steps to 

identify BART sources, and Section III explains 

how to identify BART sources (i.e., sources that are 

‘‘subject to BART’’). 

13 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2). WildEarth Guardians v. 

EPA, 770 F.3d 919, 934 (10th Cir. 2014). 

14The 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 the 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 Park 

Wilderness, Arches National Park, Bryce Canyon 

National Park, Canyonlands National Park, Capital 

Reef National Park, and Zion National Park. 

15 64 FR 35714 (July 1, 1999); 68 FR 33764 (June 

5, 2003). 

16 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(vi). 

17 42 U.S.C. 7491(b)(2)(B). 

18See 42 U.S.C. 7491(b)(2); 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3). 

19 42 U.S.C. 7491(g)(1); 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A). 

20Under the Regional Haze Rule, SIPs are due for 

each regional haze planning period, or 

implementation period. The terms ‘‘planning 

Continued 

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 which impairment results 

from manmade air pollution.’’ 6

EPA promulgated a rule to address 

regional haze on July 1, 1999.7 The 

Regional Haze Rule revised the existing 

visibility regulations 8 to integrate 

provisions addressing regional haze and 

established a comprehensive visibility 

protection program for Class I areas. The 

requirements for regional haze, found at 

40 CFR 51.308 and 40 CFR 51.309, are 

included in EPA’s visibility protection 

regulations at 40 CFR 51.300 through 40 

CFR 51.309.9

The CAA requires each state to 

develop a SIP to meet various air quality 

requirements, including protection of 

visibility.10 Regional haze SIPs must 

assure reasonable progress toward the 

national goal of preventing future and 

remedying existing manmade visibility 

impairment in Class I areas. A state 

must submit its SIP and SIP revisions to 

EPA for approval.11 Once approved, a 

SIP is enforceable by EPA and citizens 

under the CAA; that is, the SIP is 

federally enforceable. 

B. Best Available Retrofit Technology 

Section 169A(b)(2) of the CAA 

requires SIPs to contain such measures 

as may be necessary to make reasonable 

progress toward meeting the national 

visibility goal. Section 169(b)(2)(A) 

specifies that one such requirement is 

for certain categories of existing major 

stationary sources built between 1962 

and 1977 to procure, install, and operate 

BART as determined by the states 

through their SIPs. Under the Regional 

Haze Rule, states (or EPA, in the case of 

a Federal implementation plan (FIP)) are 

directed to make BART determinations 

for such ‘‘BART-eligible’’ sources— 

typically larger, often uncontrolled, and 

older stationary sources—that may 

reasonably be anticipated to cause or 

contribute to any visibility impairment 

in a Class I area.12 Rather than requiring 

source-specific BART controls, states 

also have the flexibility to adopt an 

emissions trading program or other 

alternative program as long as the 

alternative will achieve greater 

reasonable progress toward natural 

visibility conditions than BART.13

One such ‘‘BART alternative’’ is 

included in 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. Transport Region 

States can adopt regional haze strategies 

based on recommendations from the 

Grand Canyon Visibility Transport 

Commission (GCVTC) for protecting 

visibility in the 16 Class I areas on the 

Colorado Plateau.14

As part of its overall plan for making 

reasonable progress toward the national 

visibility goal for those 16 Class I areas, 

the GCVTC submitted a program to EPA, 

known as the Western SO2 Backstop 

Trading Program, containing annual SO2

emissions reduction milestones and 

detailed provisions for a backstop 

trading program to be implemented 

automatically if states’ measures fail to 

achieve the SO2 milestones. EPA 

approved the Backstop Trading Program 

as a BART alternative for SO2

emissions.15 Transport Region States’ 

SIPs must also contain BART 

requirements for stationary-source 

emissions of NOX and particulate 

matter.16

C. Long-Term Strategy and Reasonable 

Progress Requirements 

In addition to the BART requirements, 

the CAA’s visibility protection 

provisions also require that states’ 

regional haze SIPs contain a ‘‘long-term 

(ten to fifteen years) strategy for making 

reasonable progress toward meeting the 

national goal. . . .’’ 17 The long-term 

strategy must address regional haze 

visibility impairment for each 

mandatory Class I area within the state 

and each mandatory Class I area located 

outside the state that may be affected by 

emissions from the state. It must include 

the enforceable emission limitations, 

compliance schedules, and other 

measures necessary to achieve the 

reasonable progress goals.18 The 

reasonable progress goals, in turn, are 

calculated for each Class I area based on 

the control measures states have 

selected for sources by applying the four 

statutory ‘‘reasonable progress’’ factors, 

which are ‘‘the costs of compliance, the 

time necessary for compliance, the 

energy and non-air quality 

environmental impacts of compliance, 

and the remaining useful life of any 

existing source subject to such 

requirement.’’ 19 That is, states consider 

the four reasonable progress factors, and 

certain other factors listed in 

§ 51.308(d)(3) of the Regional Haze Rule, 

to determine what controls must be 

included in the long-term strategy. 

Those controls are represented in the 

long-term strategy, i.e., the SIP, as 

emission limits, schedules of 

compliance, and other measures. The 

reasonable progress goals are the 

predicted visibility outcome of 

implementing the long-term strategy in 

addition to ongoing pollution control 

programs stemming from other CAA 

requirements. 

Unlike BART determinations, which 

are required only for the first regional 

haze planning period SIPs,20 states are 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
2574 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

period’’ and ‘‘implementation period’’ are used 

interchangeably in this document. 

21 40 CFR 51.308(f). The 2021 deadline was 

originally in 2018; EPA revised this deadline in 

2017. 82 FR 3078 (January 10, 2017); see also 40 

CFR 51.308(f). Following the 2021 SIP revision 

deadline, the next SIP revision is due in 2028. 40 

CFR 51.308(f). 

22 40 CFR 51.308(g); 51.309(d)(10). 

23 40 CFR 51.309(a). 

24 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(vii). 

25 79 FR 5199. 

26 42 U.S.C. 7491(d). 

27 40 CFR 51.308(i). 

28 77 FR 33022, 33030, 33035 (June 4, 2012). 29 79 FR 5221. Installation of new LNB with 

SOFA (LNB/SOFA) corresponds to a NOX emission 

limit of 0.26 lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling average). 30 Id. Installation and operation of SCR 

corresponds to a NOX emission limit of 0.07 lb/ 

MMBtu (30-day rolling average). 

31 77 FR 33053; see also State of Wyoming, 

‘‘Addressing Regional Haze Visibility Protection For 

The Mandatory Federal Class I Areas Required 

Under 40 CFR 51.309,’’ January 7, 2011, at 102. 

32 77 FR 33053. 

33 77 FR 33054. 

34 78 FR 34738, 34755–56 (June 10, 2013). 

However, of the twenty retrofit actions referenced 

in EPA’s 2013 proposal, PacifiCorp has installed 

only two SCRs in Wyoming and three SCRs and one 

SNCR in Colorado to date. 

35 78 FR 34780. 

required to submit updates to their longterm strategies, including new 

reasonable progress analyses and 

reasonable progress goals, in the form of 

SIP revisions on July 31, 2021, and at 

specific intervals thereafter.21 In 

addition, each state must periodically 

submit a report to EPA at five-year 

intervals beginning five years after the 

submission of the initial regional haze 

SIP, evaluating the state’s progress 

toward meeting the reasonable progress 

goals for each Class I area within the 

state.22

By meeting all the requirements of 40 

CFR 51.309, including but not limited to 

the section 309-specific BART 

requirements, a Transport Region State 

can be deemed to be making reasonable 

progress toward the national goal for the 

first implementation period for the 16 

Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau.23

For stationary sources, the section 309 

requirements include any necessary 

long-term strategies for reasonable 

progress for particulate matter (PM) and 

NOX emissions.24 Additionally, the 

State of Wyoming includes several nonColorado Plateau Class I areas, and thus 

was also required to submit a long-term 

strategy for those Class I areas.25

D. Consultation With Federal Land 

Managers 

The Regional Haze Rule requires that 

a state consult with Federal Land 

Managers (FLMs) before adopting and 

submitting a required SIP submittal or 

revision. Further, a state must include a 

summary of the FLMs’ conclusions and 

recommendations in its notice to the 

public,26 as well as include in its 

submission to EPA a description of how 

it addressed any comments provided by 

the FLMs.27

III. Wyoming’s Regional Haze SIP 

Revisions 

A. Background 

The Jim Bridger power plant is in 

Sweetwater County, Wyoming, and is 

owned in part and operated by 

PacifiCorp. The power plant is 

composed of four 530 megawatt (MW) 

tangentially fired boilers burning 

pulverized coal for a total net generating 

capacity of 2,120 MW. Wyoming 

determined that all four units are 

subject to BART.28

Wyoming submitted a SIP on January 

12, 2011, that addressed regional haze 

requirements under 40 CFR 51.309 for 

the first regional haze planning period. 

The State’s regional haze SIP 

determined that NOX BART for Jim 

Bridger Units 1–4 was new LNB/SOFA. 

Compliance with the BART emission 

limits was required by March 4, 2019, 

for all four Jim Bridger units.29 The 

State also determined that emission 

limits consistent with the installation of 

SCR were necessary to satisfy the 

reasonable progress (not BART) 

requirements. Wyoming’s SIP required 

compliance with these emission limits 

by December 31, 2022, December 31, 

2021, December 31, 2015, and December 

31, 2016, for Units 1–4, respectively.30

The State indicated that the delayed 

timeline for installing SCR was based on 

the large number of retrofits that 

PacifiCorp was undertaking or helping 

to finance at power plants in Wyoming, 

Utah, Colorado, and Arizona.31

In June 2012, we proposed to find the 

State’s BART determination for Jim 

Bridger Units 1 and 2 unreasonable. We 

explained that the cost-effectiveness 

values for LNB/SOFA + SCR were 

reasonable and within the range that 

Wyoming had determined to be 

reasonable for other BART sources. We 

further explained that the associated 

visibility improvement and NOX

emissions reductions were significant. 

Because the State’s compliance date for 

installing SCR was beyond the five years 

allowed by the statute for BART 

sources, we proposed to disapprove the 

State’s BART determination and 

proposed a FIP requiring a NOX

emission limit consistent with the 

installation of SCR with a compliance 

deadline of no later than five years after 

EPA took final action.32

Alternatively, EPA proposed to 

conclude that while BART for all four 

Jim Bridger units was LNB/SOFA + SCR 

when the units were considered 

individually, i.e., without regard to 

other units in the PacifiCorp system, 

when considering all PacifiCorp’s units 

with their additional retrofit obligations, 

BART was LNB/SOFA + SCR on Units 

3 and 4 and LNB + OFA on Units 1 and 

2. EPA explained that, based on claims 

by the State and PacifiCorp, costs, 

considered broadly across all four units 

as well as for units in other states, could 

be unreasonable for PacifiCorp to incur 

within five years of EPA’s final action. 

EPA then proposed in the alternative to 

approve Wyoming’s BART and 

reasonable progress determinations for 

Units 1 and 2, the latter of which would 

require an SCR emission limit by 

December 31, 2021, for Unit 2, and 

December 31, 2022, for Unit 1. EPA 

noted that the Agency believed it ‘‘may 

be reasonable and feasible for [SCR] to 

be completed somewhat earlier’’ but 

that, given the context, it ‘‘may be 

appropriate to give considerable 

deference to the State’s conclusions 

about what controls are reasonable and 

when they should be implemented.’’ 33

In 2013, EPA issued another proposal 

after the Agency conducted its own cost 

analyses and visibility modeling. As in 

2012, EPA proposed two options in the 

alternative. In proposing to approve the 

State’s BART and reasonable progress 

determinations for Jim Bridger Units 1 

and 2, EPA again cited the fact that 

PacifiCorp may be required to install 

several additional retrofits at units in 

Wyoming and in other states and 

proposed to give deference to the State 

under the circumstances.34

In the alternative, EPA again proposed 

in 2013 to determine that BART for Jim 

Bridger Units 1 and 2 is LNB/SOFA + 

SCR and is required within five years of 

EPA’s final action. EPA explained that 

the cost-effectiveness values for 

installing SCR were reasonable and the 

visibility improvement at the most 

impacted Class I area was significant. 

EPA further explained that the cost 

estimates were within the range that 

Wyoming in its SIP and EPA in other 

SIP and FIP actions have considered 

reasonable in the BART context.35

After considering comments received 

on the 2012 and 2013 proposals, in the 

2014 final rule, EPA finalized approval 

of Wyoming’s determination that BART 

for Jim Bridger Units 1 and 2 was LNB/ 

SOFA and that SCR should be required 

for reasonable progress as part of the 

State’s long-term strategy by 2021 and 

2022. EPA explained that the updated 

source-wide visibility improvement 

associated with the installation of LNB/ 

SOFA + SCR would be significant (1.25– 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules 2575 

36 79 FR 5048. 

37 79 FR 5040, 5048. Note that the text at 79 FR 

5048 misstates the average cost-effectiveness for 

LNB/SOFA + SCR at Units 1 and 2. The correct 

figures are stated in Table 5 and 6 at 79 FR 5040. 

Note that for Jim Bridger Units 3 and 4, we 

disagreed with Wyoming’s conclusion that BART 

was not LNB/SOFA + SCR, but we nonetheless 

approved the State’s BART and reasonable progress 

determinations of 0.26 lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling 

average) and 0.07 lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling 

average), respectively, because the compliance 

deadlines for SCR were all within the statutory 

timeframe for BART. 77 FR 33035–36; 79 FR 5046, 

5221. 

38 79 FR 5048. 

39 Id. 

40 79 FR 5048–49. 

41Letter dated May 12, 2020, from Todd Parfitt, 

Director, Wyoming Department of Environmental 

Quality, to Gregory Sopkin, Regional Administrator, 

EPA Region 8, Subject: State Implementation Plant 

Approval Request—Regional Haze 309(g) SIP 

revision for PacifiCorp Jim Bridger Power Plant. 

42Wyoming 2020 SIP Revision at 3. 

1.5 deciviews) with unit-specific 

visibility benefits for Units 1 and 2 at 

0.27–0.37 deciviews at the most 

impacted Class I area (Bridger), 

respectively. We explained that ‘‘[t]he 

fact that Jim Bridger Station affects a 

number of other Class I areas [(in 

addition to Bridger)], which would also 

see appreciable visibility improvement 

with the installation of LNB/SOFA + 

SCR, also weighs in favor of selecting 

this option as BART.’’ 36 We also found 

that the updated average costeffectiveness of LNB/SOFA + SCR at 

$2,635 and $3,403/ton for Units 1 and 

2, respectively, was in line with what 

we had found to be acceptable in other 

determinations,37 in addition to finding 

that the incremental cost-effectiveness 

of $7,447 and $8,968/ton for Units 1 and 

2, respectively, was on the high end of 

what we had found to be reasonable in 

other determinations.38 However, EPA 

ultimately concluded that, ‘‘while we 

believe that these costs and visibility 

improvements could potentially justify 

LNB/SOFA + SCR as BART, because 

this is a close call and because the State 

has chosen to require SCR as a 

reasonable progress control, we believe 

deference to the State is appropriate in 

this instance.’’ 39 We thus finalized the 

State’s determination to require LNB/ 

SOFA as BART controls with a 

corresponding emission limit of 0.26 lb/ 

MMBtu by March 4, 2019, for Jim 

Bridger Units 1 and 2, and the State’s 

determination to require SCR as part of 

the State’s long-term strategy necessary 

to achieve reasonable progress with a 

corresponding emission limit of 0.07 lb/ 

MMBtu (30-day rolling average) by 2022 

and 2021 for Jim Bridger Units 1 and 2, 

respectively.40

B. May 14, 2020 Submittal 

Notwithstanding the State’s 2011 

determination to require the installation 

of SCR as being necessary for reasonable 

progress in the State’s long-term strategy 

for Jim Bridger 1 and 2 in 2021 and 

2022, and the deference EPA afforded 

the State’s determination in the 2014 

final rule (instead of requiring SCR as 

BART controls within five years of 

EPA’s action), on May 14, 2020, 

Wyoming submitted a SIP revision for 

the purpose of amending the State’s 

regional haze SIP and removing the SCR 

requirement for Jim Bridger Units 1 and 

2.41 Wyoming stated that ‘‘[d]ue to the 

significant costs of installing SCR on 

Units 1 and 2, and the potential impact 

of those costs to PacifiCorp’s customers, 

PacifiCorp reassessed its compliance 

with the Regional Haze Rule and 

developed an alternative regional haze 

compliance strategy . . . .’’ 42

The State’s 2020 SIP revision contains 

a source-specific, NOX-only reasonable 

progress analysis and determination for 

Jim Bridger Units 1 and 2, as well as 

plant-wide annual and monthly NOX

and SO2 emission limits for Jim Bridger 

Units 1–4. Specifically, the amendments 

provide a source-specific reasonable 

progress four-factor analysis and 

consideration of visibility benefits for 

Jim Bridger Units 1 and 2 to 

demonstrate that the current LNB/SOFA 

NOX BART controls also satisfy the 

reasonable progress requirements for 

those units for the first planning period. 

The SIP revision thereby would remove 

the existing reasonable progress 

requirement for Jim Bridger Units 1 and 

2 to comply with emission limits of 0.07 

lb/MMBtu in 2021 and 2022 (Table 1). 

TABLE 1—EXISTING AND PROPOSED NOX EMISSION LIMITS FOR JIM BRIDGER UNITS 1–4 

Unit 

Existing NOX

BART emission 

limit 

(30-day rolling 

average; 

lb/MMBtu) 1

Existing NOX

reasonable 

progress emission 

limit 

(30-day rolling 

average; 

lb/MMBtu) 2

Proposed NOX

reasonable 

progress emission 

limit 

(30-day rolling 

average; 

lb/MMBtu) 

1 ................................................................................................................................. 0.26 0.07 0.26 

2 ................................................................................................................................. 0.26 0.07 0.26 

3 ................................................................................................................................. 0.26 0.07 3 N/A 

4 ................................................................................................................................. 0.26 0.07 3 N/A 

1 Compliance date is March 4, 2019; no changes to the NOX BART emission limits are proposed. 2 Compliance dates for each is: Unit 1 = December 31, 2022; Unit 2 = December 31, 2021; Unit 3 = December 31, 2015; and Unit 4 = December 31, 2016. 3 No change to existing NOX reasonable progress emission limit of 0.07 lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling average). 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
2576 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

43Letter dated May 5, 2020, from Nancy E. Vehr, 

Administrator, Air Quality Division, Wyoming 

Department of Environmental Quality, to James 

Owens, Director, Environmental Services, 

PacifiCorp, Subject: Permit #P0025809 (Permit 

#0025809). 

44The visibility benefit of an emissions reduction 

measure is not listed as a required factor, but 

neither the CAA nor the Regional Haze Rule 

prohibits a state from considering visibility benefits 

when it determines what emissions control 

measures are required for a source to make 

reasonable progress at a Class I area. Therefore, a 

state may consider the visibility benefits of 

potential control measures when determining what 

is necessary to make reasonable progress. 

45Wyoming 2020 SIP Revision at 3; see also 

PacifiCorp, Jim Bridger Power Plant Reasonable 

Progress Determination to Support PacifiCorp’s 

Reasonable Progress Reassessment (PacifiCorp 

Reassessment), February 2019. 

46Wyoming 2020 SIP Revision, PacifiCorp, 

Corrected JB RP Reassessment NOX Comparison 

Tables, October 6, 2020. 

In addition, Wyoming’s 2020 SIP 

revision would add federally 

enforceable month-by-month plant-wide 

NOX and SO2 emission limits across all 

four Jim Bridger units, as well as an 

enforceable annual plant-wide NOX and 

SO2 emissions cap of 17,500 tpy, 

effective January 1, 2022 (Table 2). The 

plant-wide monthly and annual 

emission limits for Jim Bridger Units 1– 

4 are already State-enforceable through 

Wyoming air quality permit #P0025809. 

The final permit was issued on May 5, 

2020.43

TABLE 2—ENFORCEABLE MONTHLY PLANT-WIDE BLOCK NOX AND SO2 EMISSION LIMITS FOR JIM BRIDGER UNITS 1–4, 

EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2022 

Month 

Total units 1–4 

NOX emission limit 

(monthly average 

basis) 

(lb/hour) 

Total units 1–4 

SO2 emission limit 

(monthly average 

basis) 

(lb/hour) 

January ........................................................................................................................................................ 2,050 2,100 

February ....................................................................................................................................................... 2,050 2,100 

March ........................................................................................................................................................... 2,050 2,100 

April .............................................................................................................................................................. 2,050 2,100 

May .............................................................................................................................................................. 2,200 2,100 

June ............................................................................................................................................................. 2,500 2,100 

July ............................................................................................................................................................... 2,500 2,100 

August .......................................................................................................................................................... 2,500 2,100 

September ................................................................................................................................................... 2,500 2,100 

October ........................................................................................................................................................ 2,300 2,100 

November .................................................................................................................................................... 2,030 2,100 

December .................................................................................................................................................... 2,050 2,100 

C. Summary of Wyoming’s Reasonable 

Progress Reassessment 

Pursuant to CAA section 169A(g)(1) 

and 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A), in 

determining the measures necessary to 

make reasonable progress, a state must 

take into account the following four 

factors and demonstrate how they were 

taken into consideration in making a 

reasonable progress determination: 

• Costs of Compliance; 

• Time Necessary for Compliance; 

• Energy and Non-Air Quality 

Environmental Impacts of Compliance; 

and 

• Remaining Useful Life of Any 

Potentially Affected Sources. 

In order to conduct a source-specific 

reasonable progress assessment for Jim 

Bridger Units 1 and 2, the State took 

into consideration the four required 

factors and also included visibility 

improvement as an additional factor in 

its reasonable progress analysis.44

Wyoming relied on information 

provided by PacifiCorp and EPA for 

evaluating potential reasonable progress 

NOX emissions controls—LNB/SOFA, 

LNB/SOFA + selective non-catalytic 

reduction (SNCR), and LNB/SOFA + 

SCR—at Jim Bridger.45

1. Costs of Compliance 

For the source-specific reasonable 

progress analysis associated with this 

action, Wyoming relied on cost 

information provided by PacifiCorp. 

PacifiCorp used NOX emission rates for 

LNB/SOFA of 0.187 lb/MMBtu and 

0.192 lb/MMBtu (annual average) 

reflective of the actual emissions rate 

(2013–2015) for Units 1 and 2, 

respectively. The anticipated NOX

emission rate for LNB/SOFA + SNCR 

was assumed to be 0.15 lb/MMBtu 

(annual) for both Units 1 and 2. The 

NOX emission rate for LNB/SOFA + SCR 

was assumed to be 0.05 lb/MMBtu 

(annual), which corresponds to the 0.07 

lb/MMBtu LNB/SOFA + SCR NOX 30- 

day rolling average emission limits for 

Units 1 and 2 that EPA approved in the 

2014 final rule. 

Wyoming’s source-specific reasonable 

progress analysis for Units 1 and 2 

based capital costs and annual operating 

and maintenance (O&M) costs on the 

actual costs incurred to install and 

operate SCR technology on Jim Bridger 

Units 3 and 4, as well as the actual costs 

to install LNB/SOFA on Units 1 and 2 

(Table 3). Capital costs for SNCR 

technology were estimated based on 

recent similarly sized projects (Table 

3).46

TABLE 3—PACIFICORP’S TOTAL CAPITAL AND O&M COSTS FOR THE JIM BRIDGER UNITS 1 AND 2 REASONABLE

PROGRESS ANALYSIS

NOX control technology 

Total installed capital costs 

($) 

Total O&M costs 

($/year) 

Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 1 Unit 2 

LNB/SOFA ....................................................................................................... $8,410,000 $7,986,000 ........................ ........................

SNCR ............................................................................................................... 15,538,000 15,538,000 2,954,000 3,158,000 

SCR ................................................................................................................. 140,428,000 140,428,000 2,580,000 2,527,000 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules 2577 

47EPA, ‘‘Control Cost Manual,’’ Section 4, 

Chapter 1, April 25, 2019, page 1–53–54, and 

Chapter 2, June 2019, page 80, available at https:// 

www.epa.gov/economic-and-cost-analysis-airpollution-regulations/cost-reports-and-guidanceair-pollution (last visited December 2021). 

48Wyoming 2020 SIP Revision, PacifiCorp, 

Corrected JB RP Reassessment NOX Comparison 

Tables, October 6, 2020. 

49Wyoming 2020 SIP Revision at 5. 

50 Id. 

51 Id. at 6. 

PacifiCorp annualized capital costs 

using the capital recovery factor (CRF) 

approach described in EPA’s Control 

Cost Manual using 20-year and 30-year 

amortization periods for SNCR and SCR, 

respectively.47 Total annual costs were 

calculated as the sum of the annualized 

capital costs and total O&M costs. The 

cost-effectiveness of each NOX control 

technology was calculated on a dollarper-ton of pollutant removed basis by 

dividing the total annual costs by the 

reduction in annual NOX emissions 

associated with each NOX emissions 

control technology (i.e., LNB/SOFA, 

LNB/SOFA + SNCR, LNB/SOFA + SCR). 

Similarly, PacifiCorp calculated the 

incremental cost-effectiveness of each 

NOX control technology on a dollar-perton of pollutant removed basis by 

dividing the difference of the total 

annual costs (of one control technology 

compared to that of the next most 

stringent control technology) by the 

difference in the reduction in annual 

NOX emissions (of the two control 

technologies). 

The summary of cost-effectiveness 

figures for Wyoming’s reasonable 

progress analysis for Jim Bridger Units 

1 and 2 is shown in Table 4. Baseline 

NOX emissions (2001–2003) are 8,432 

tpy and 7,575 tpy for Units 1 and 2, 

respectively. 

TABLE 4—SUMMARY OF JIM BRIDGER UNITS 1 AND 2 NOX REVISED REASONABLE PROGRESS COST ANALYSIS 48

NOX control technology 

NOX emissions rate 

(lb/MMBtu; 

annual) 

Emissions reduction 

(tpy) 

Annualized cost 

($/year) 

Average costeffectiveness 

($/ton) 

Incremental 

cost-effectiveness 

($/ton) 

Unit 1 

LNB/SOFA ....................... 1 0.187 4,414 ............................... $794,000 ......................... $180 

LNB/SOFA + SNCR ......... 2 0.15 5,209 ............................... 5,215,000 ........................ 1,001 5,560 

LNB/SOFA + SCR ........... 0.05 7,358 ............................... 14,692,000 ...................... 1,997 4,410 

Unit 2 

LNB/SOFA ....................... 1 0.192 3,649 ............................... 754,000 ........................... 207 

LNB/SOFA + SNCR ......... 2 0.15 4,508 ............................... 5,379,000 ........................ 1,193 5,385 

LNB/SOFA + SCR ........... 0.05 6,552 ............................... 14,599,000 ...................... 2,228 4,510 

1 lb/MMBtu, annual average. 

2 lb/MMBtu, annual. The controlled NOX emission rate with SNCR was assumed to be 0.15 lb./MMBtu, which corresponds with a reduction of 

approximately 20 percent. 

Wyoming also summarized the total 

estimated capital costs and annual costs 

combined for Units 1 and 2 for the 

installation of SCR and SNCR, in 

addition to the LNB/SOFA NOX

emissions controls already installed, for 

the revised reasonable progress analysis 

(Table 5). 

TABLE 5—TOTAL CAPITAL AND ANNUAL COSTS FOR JIM BRIDGER UNITS 1 AND 2 REVISED REASONABLE PROGRESS

ANALYSIS 49

NOX control technology 

Control 

efficiency 

(%) 

Capital costs 

($) 

Annual costs 

($/year) 

LNB/SOFA ................................................................................................................................... 53 $16,396,000 $1,548,000 

LNB/SOFA + SNCR ..................................................................................................................... 63 47,472,000 10,594,000 

LNB/SOFA + SCR ....................................................................................................................... 87 297,252,000 29,291,000 

Although Jim Bridger Units 3 and 4 

are not included in the reasonable 

progress analysis, Wyoming noted that 

the total capital cost for LNB/SOFA + 

SCR installation on Units 3 and 4, 

which are already installed, was 

$310,959,000. Ultimately, Wyoming 

concluded that the installation of SCR 

on Jim Bridger Units 1 and 2 would cost 

‘‘hundreds of millions more’’ than the 

costs already incurred for LNB/SOFA 

NOX emissions controls while SNCR 

would cost ‘‘tens of millions more’’ than 

the costs already incurred for LNB/ 

SOFA NOX emissions controls.50

2. Time Necessary for Compliance 

As stated previously, the SIP 

approved by EPA on January 30, 2014, 

requires an emission limit of 0.07 lb/ 

MMBtu associated with the installation 

of LNB/SOFA + SCR on Jim Bridger 

Unit 1 by December 31, 2022, and on 

Unit 2 by December 31, 2021. Wyoming 

stated in the 2020 SIP revision that if 

SNCR installation was required, the 

compliance timelines would match the 

SCR timeline. The current LNB/SOFA 

NOX emissions controls were installed 

in 2010 and 2005 for Units 1 and 2, 

respectively.51

3. Energy and Non-Air Quality 

Environmental Impacts of Compliance 

The State identified that SCR control 

technology would periodically produce 

solid waste when the catalyst is 

changed. Additionally, Wyoming stated 

that SCR control technology would 

require the storage and use of ammonia, 

while SNCR would require the storage 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
2578 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

52 Id. at 6. 

53 Id. at 4. 

54See id. at 7. In the 2014 final rule, EPA 

addressed comments on the visibility improvement 

modeling by developing a new protocol that makes 

several improvements in the modeling, including 

the latest regulatory version of the CALPUFF model 

at the time of the rule (version 5.8), the use of an 

improved method to assess the effects of pollutants 

on light scattering and visibility impairment 

(Method 8), the use of background ammonia 

concentrations based on monitoring data and 

regulatory default concentrations for the area, and 

the use of an ammonia-limiting correction to treat 

sources with multiple units. We used two sets of 

background ammonia concentrations based on 

representative monthly varying ammonia 

concentrations and default concentrations for 

forested areas. 

55 79 FR 5048. 

56Wyoming 2020 SIP Revision at 7. 

57 Id. 

58 Id. at 7–8. 

and use of urea. With respect to energy 

use, the State estimated that SNCR 

would require 6 times the energy 

required by the current NOX control 

technology (LNB/SOFA), and SCR 

would require 150 times the energy 

required by LNB/SOFA. Wyoming 

further stated that SCR would require 

the use of an additional 10.4 megawatts 

of energy. Wyoming did not anticipate 

any additional negative non-air 

environmental impacts associated with 

the current LNB/SOFA NOX emissions 

controls.52

4. Remaining Useful Life 

For this evaluation, Wyoming stated 

that the expected life of the source is 

less than the expected life of the 

emissions control technology, which is 

30 years for SCR and 20 years for SNCR. 

However, Wyoming did not provide an 

enforceable shutdown date that would 

ensure that the expected life of the 

source would in fact be reduced.53

Therefore, notwithstanding the State’s 

expectation of a shortened remaining 

useful life for the source, it used the full 

30-year and 20-year periods for SCR and 

SNCR, respectively, in its analyses. 

5. Visibility Improvement 

Although visibility improvement is 

not one of the four statutory factors for 

reasonable progress, Wyoming elected 

to include visibility improvement in the 

reasonable progress analysis for Jim 

Bridger Units 1 and 2. Wyoming did not 

complete new visibility modeling for 

the reasonable progress analysis and 

determination. Instead, the State relied 

upon EPA’s CALPUFF modeling results 

contained in the 2014 final rule to 

assess the visibility impacts of the NOX

emissions control technologies 

evaluated, i.e., for LNB/SOFA, LNB/ 

SOFA + SNCR, LNB/SOFA + SCR.54 In 

our 2014 final rule, we evaluated the 

CALPUFF visibility modeling of the Jim 

Bridger power plant for the most 

impacted Class I area, Bridger 

Wilderness (Table 6).55

TABLE 6—SUMMARY OF JIM BRIDGER POWER PLANT NOX VISIBILITY ANALYSIS IN EPA’S 2014 FINAL RULE

Jim Bridger 

Visibility Improvement (deciviews) 1

(modeled results using an ammonia background based on 

a monitored monthly varying concentration/modeled results 

using IWAQM default 0.5 ppb background ammonia) 3

LNB/SOFA LNB/SOFA + 

SNCR LNB/SOFA + SCR 

Unit 1 ......................................................................................................................... 0.17/0.23 0.20/0.27 0.27/0.37 

Unit 2 ......................................................................................................................... 0.16/0.21 0.19/0.25 0.27/0.36 

Unit 3 ......................................................................................................................... 0.14/0.19 0.17/0.23 0.26/0.35 

Unit 4 ......................................................................................................................... 0.25/0.23 0.30/0.28 0.45/0.42 

Total 2 .................................................................................................................. 0.72/0.86 0.86/1.03 1.25/1.5 

1For most impacted Class I area, Bridger Wilderness. 

2The total visibility improvement was estimated as the sum of the visibility improvement from each unit. 

3EPA, Air Quality Modeling Protocol; Wyoming Regional Haze Implementation Plan, January 2014. 

The State noted that EPA determined 

in 2014 that the unit-specific visibility 

benefits for LNB/SOFA + SCR 

installation on Units 1 and 2 were 

‘‘modest’’ at 0.27 to 0.37 deciviews. In 

addition, the State noted that the 

incremental visibility improvement, as 

determined by EPA, of LNB/SOFA + 

SCR over LNB/SOFA, was 0.10 to 0.14 

deciviews for Unit 1 and 0.11 to 0.15 

deciviews for Unit 2. The State further 

noted that incremental improvement of 

LNB/SOFA + SNCR over LNB/SOFA 

was smaller at between 0.03–0.04 

deciviews for both Units 1 and 2.56

In addition to comparing the visibility 

impacts associated with each NOX

emissions control technology, Wyoming 

also pointed to PacifiCorp’s estimated 

NOX emissions reductions. The State 

asserted that the current LNB/SOFA 

NOX emissions controls already have 

reduced NOX emissions from the 2001– 

2003 baseline by a combined 8,063 tpy 

for Units 1 and 2. The installation of 

SCR would reduce NOX emissions from 

the 2001–2003 baseline by an additional 

5,848 tpy (Units 1 and 2 combined), 

while the installation of SNCR would 

reduce NOX emissions from the baseline 

by an additional 1,655 tpy.57

According to the State, in spite of the 

additional NOX emissions reductions 

achievable through each NOX control 

technology, EPA’s 2014 modeling 

demonstrates that the installation of 

SCR on Units 1 and 2 would result in 

only modest incremental visibility 

benefits of 0.10–0.15 deciviews (per 

unit) when compared to current LNB/ 

SOFA NOX emissions controls on Units 

1 and 2. The State concluded that these 

visibility improvements are not 

significant enough to outweigh the 

substantial cost of installing SCR. 

Instead, Wyoming concluded that 

relying on the current NOX emissions 

controls (LNB/SOFA) is the reasonable 

choice for Jim Bridger Units 1 and 2.58

6. Reasonable Progress Demonstration 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules 2579 

59 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A). 

60Wyoming 2020 SIP Revision at 7. 

61 Id. 

62 Id. at 7, 8 (citing 77 FR 24794 (April 25, 2012), 

77 FR 11879 (February 28, 2012), 77 FR 18052 

(March 26, 2012), 77 FR 23988 (April 20, 2012), 83 

FR 62204 (November 30, 2018), 80 FR 18944 (April 

8, 2015), 77 FR 21896 (April 12, 2012)). 

63 Id. at 7. 

64 Id. at 8. 

65Wyoming 2020 SIP Revision at 8–9 (quoting 

EPA’s ‘‘Guidance for Setting Reasonable Progress 

Goals Under the Regional Haze Program,’’ June 1, 

2007 (2007 Guidance)). 

66Wyoming 2020 SIP Revision at 8–12. 

67Wyoming chose the CALPUFF visibility model 

because it was the same model used to analyze the 

existing reasonable progress requirements (79 FR 

5039). See Wyoming 2020 SIP Revision at 11. 

68 Id. at 11–12. 

69Averaged across all impacted Class I areas, 

including Bridger Wilderness, Fitzpatrick 

Wilderness, Grand Teton National Park, Mt. Zirkel 

Wilderness, Rocky Mountain National Park, Rawah 

Wilderness, Teton Wilderness, Washakie 

Wilderness, and Yellowstone National Park. 

PacifiCorp Reassessment at 15. 

70 Id. at 11–12. 

71See PacifiCorp Reassessment, Attachment 1 at 

21. 

After considering each of the four 

reasonable progress factors, states must 

demonstrate how those factors, and 

visibility improvement if included in 

the analysis, were taken into 

consideration in making a reasonable 

progress determination.59 Thus, after 

consideration of the four factors, along 

with an evaluation of the modeled 

visibility impacts at the most impacted 

Class I area (Bridger Wilderness), 

Wyoming determined that no additional 

controls beyond BART are necessary for 

Jim Bridger Units 1 and 2 under the 

reasonable progress provisions for the 

first regional haze planning period. 

Wyoming determined that, ‘‘[w]hile SCR 

installation on Units 1 & 2 could be 

expected to be more efficient in 

controlling NOX emission than either 

SNCR installation or relying on Current 

Unit 1–2 NOX Controls [(LNB/SOFA)], 

the estimated capital costs, annual costs, 

and cost-effectiveness are far higher for 

SCR and SNCR, compared with little 

modeled visibility benefit.’’ 60 In 

addition, the State explained that SCR 

will produce solid waste every time the 

catalyst must be replaced and will have 

higher electricity requirements. The 

State further explained that the current 

NOX controls are already in use and do 

not require additional time for 

compliance.61

Wyoming stated that its reasonable 

progress determination for Jim Bridger 

Units 1 and 2 is consistent with several 

similar EPA decisions where EPA 

rejected SNCR and SCR because the 

cost-effectiveness values associated with 

the control measures were significantly 

higher and/or the NOX emissions 

reductions achieved were not that much 

more than combustion controls (LNB) 

alone.62 Furthermore, Wyoming stated 

that it considers the costs that 

PacifiCorp has already incurred on NOX

emissions control technology at the Jim 

Bridger power plant and the associated 

improvement in visibility to be 

sufficient for reasonable progress.63

In summary, Wyoming concluded that 

the reasonable progress analysis 

demonstrates that the current NOX

emissions controls (LNB/SOFA) on 

Units 1 and 2, including the current 

NOX emission limits of 0.26 lb/MMBtu 

(30-day rolling average), which apply to 

each unit, constitute NOX reasonable 

progress for Jim Bridger Units 1 and 2. 

Therefore, Wyoming’s 2020 SIP revision 

would remove the emission limits of 

0.07 lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling average) 

associated with the installation of SCR 

at Jim Bridger Units 1 and 2 as part of 

the State’s long-term strategy to achieve 

reasonable progress at several Class I 

areas for the first planning period.64

D. Summary of Wyoming’s Plant-Wide 

Monthly and Annual NOX and SO2

Emission Limits for Jim Bridger 

In addition to concluding that 

emission limits consistent with LNB/ 

SOFA are sufficient for reasonable 

progress for Jim Bridger Units 1 and 2, 

the State asserted that PacifiCorp’s 

plant-wide monthly and annual NOX

and SO2 emission limits for Jim Bridger 

Units 1–4 strengthen and support the 

reasonable progress determination for 

Jim Bridger Units 1 and 2. Specifically, 

the State quoted EPA’s 2007 Reasonable 

Progress Goals Guidance (2007 

Guidance), which provides that States 

‘‘have flexibility in how to take into 

consideration [the] statutory factors and 

any other factors [the state has] 

determined to be relevant,’’ 65 in 

claiming that PacifiCorp’s monthly 

plant-wide NOX and SO2 emission 

limits (shown in Table 2) and the 

annual plant-wide NOX and SO2

emissions cap of 17,500 tpy are relevant 

in Wyoming’s revised reasonable 

progress analysis and determination. 

The State pointed to a number of factors 

to describe how the plant-wide monthly 

and annual NOX and SO2 emission 

limits bolster the revised reasonable 

progress analysis. These include what 

the State asserted are greater modeled 

visibility improvement, lower costs, and 

fewer overall energy and environmental 

impacts than the installation of SCR and 

SNCR on Units 1 and 2.66

Wyoming relied on CALPUFF 

visibility modeling conducted by 

PacifiCorp to evaluate visibility 

improvement associated with the plantwide monthly and annual NOX and SO2

emission limits compared to LNB/SOFA 

+ SCR and LNB/SOFA + SNCR.67 The 

CALPUFF modeling report used the 

following three metrics to evaluate the 

results: 

• The 98th percentile modeled deltadeciview, averaged over the 3 years 

modeled and applied to each Class I 

area individually; 

• The number of modeled days 

(summed over the 3 years modeled) 

with a plant-wide impact above 0.5 

delta-deciview, applied to each Class I 

area individually; and 

• The number of modeled days 

(summed over the 3 years modeled) 

with a plant-wide impact above 1.0 

delta-deciview, applied to each Class I 

area individually. 

Under all three metrics, Wyoming 

asserted that the updated CALPUFF 

modeling results demonstrate that the 

plant-wide monthly and annual NOX

and SO2 emission limits resulted in 

greater visibility improvement than SCR 

and SNCR.68

With respect to the 98th percentile 

metric, the State asserted that the 

visibility impacts for the Jim Bridger 

power plant under the SCR, SNCR, and 

plant-wide monthly and annual NOX

and SO2 emission limits scenarios are 

0.760, 0.930, and 0.653 deciviews, 

respectively.69 Wyoming further 

asserted that the number of CALPUFFmodeled days resulting in a plant-wide 

visibility impact above 0.5 deltadeciviews over a three-year period 

under the SCR, SNCR, and plant-wide 

monthly and annual NOX and SO2

emission limits scenarios are 475, 597, 

and 371 days, respectively. Finally, with 

respect to the number of CALPUFFmodeled days resulting in a plant-wide 

visibility impact above 1.0 deltadeciview over a three-year period under 

the SCR, SNCR, and plant-wide monthly 

and annual NOX and SO2 emission 

limits scenarios are 127, 195, and 108 

days, respectively, according to the 

State.70

According to Wyoming, installation of 

SCR and SNCR on Units 1 and 2 will 

result in the reduction of NOX emissions 

of 5,848 and 1,655 tpy respectively, 

relative to ‘‘current operating potential.’’ 

‘‘Current operating potential,’’ as 

defined in PacifiCorp’s technical 

analysis, is based on a combination of 

recent emission rates with plant-wide 

heat input (i.e., utilization) from the 

2001–2003 period.71 Implementation of 

the plant-wide monthly and annual 

NOX and SO2 emission limits will result 

in the reduction of NOX and SO2


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
2580 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

72 Id. at 9–10. 

73 Id. at 9–10. 

74 Id. at 10–11. 

75Cf. Arizona v. EPA, 815 F.3d 519, 531 (9th Cir. 

2016) (While states have discretion to balance the 

five BART factors, they must also adhere to certain 

requirements when conducting BART analyses. 

EPA may not approve BART determinations that are 

based on analyses that are unreasoned or unmoored 

to the statutory provisions.) (citing N. Dakota v. 

EPA, 730 F.3d 750, 761 (8th Cir. 2013)). 

76 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(iii). 

77 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2)(J), (l), (k)(3); 7491(a)(1), 

(b)(2)(B); Oklahoma v. EPA, 723 F.3d 1201 (10th 

Cir. 2013). 

emissions of 6,056 tpy relative to a 

baseline of 2001–2003 utilization. In 

addition to reductions in NOX and SO2

emissions, Wyoming stated that the 

plant-wide emission limits will reduce 

all emissions from the Jim Bridger 

power plant, including PM, mercury 

(Hg), greenhouse gases (GHG), carbon 

monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide (CO2), 

and sulfuric acid (H2SO4), as well as 

reduce coal consumption, coal 

combustion residual production and 

disposal, and raw water consumption.72

To compare cost-effectiveness 

estimates, the State relied on 

PacifiCorp’s analysis using total tons of 

SO2 and NOX reduced from ‘‘current 

operating potential’’ under the 

assumption that the pollutants would 

have equivalent visibility impacts 

(Table 7). 

TABLE 7—PACIFICORP’S SUMMARY OF JIM BRIDGER UNITS 1–4, COST ANALYSIS FOR SCR, SNCR, AND PLANT-WIDE

MONTHLY AND ANNUAL NOX AND SO2 EMISSION LIMITS

Jim Bridger Control technology Capital cost 

($) 

Annualized 

cost 

($/year) 

Costeffectiveness 

($/ton) 

Units 1–2 ......................................................... SCR ................................................................ 280,856,000 27,743,000 4,744 

Units 1–2 ......................................................... SNCR ............................................................. 31,076,000 9,046,000 5,469

Units 1–4 ......................................................... Monthly and Annual Plant-Wide Emission 

Limits.

4,659,000 2,115,000 349

Wyoming also asserted that the plantwide monthly and annual NOX and SO2

emission limits are more cost-effective 

than SCR or SNCR. Furthermore, 

Wyoming claimed that even if all three 

emissions control measures are 

compared on a NOX-only basis 

(excluding SO2), the plant-wide 

monthly and annual NOX and SO2

emission limits remain the most costeffective option.73

In addition to the asserted visibility 

and cost benefits associated with the 

plant-wide monthly and annual NOX

and SO2 emission limits, Wyoming 

compared the energy and non-air 

quality environmental impacts of 

compliance. First, Wyoming contended 

that, as compared to the use of SCR, the 

plant-wide monthly and annual NOX

and SO2 emission limits would allow 

approximately 10.4 megawatts of 

electrical energy required by SCR for 

Units 1 and 2 to be instead directed to 

the electrical grid to power 

approximately 8,761 average homes. 

Second, Wyoming asserted that the 

installation of SCR controls on Units 1 

and 2 would not restrict the capacity 

factor of these units (e.g., the annual 

heat output), so these units could 

operate with a potential average annual 

capacity factor of 100 percent. In 

contrast, Wyoming explained that 

implementation of the plant-wide 

monthly and annual NOX and SO2

emission limits would limit the capacity 

of all four units and effectively limit 

annual boiler heat input, thereby also 

providing a reduction in the 

consumption of natural resources (i.e., 

water and coal). Third, Wyoming 

asserted that the installation of SCR at 

Units 1 and 2 would result in additional 

storage and use of ammonia and create 

more coal combustion residuals. 

Likewise, the installation of SNCR on 

Units 1 and 2 would result in additional 

storage and use of urea and would also 

create more coal combustion residuals 

compared to the plant-wide monthly 

and annual NOX and SO2 emission 

limits. Finally, Wyoming asserted that 

the plant-wide monthly and annual 

NOX and SO2 emission limits provide 

the entire facility the flexibility to ‘‘load 

follow’’ or accommodate intermittent 

influx of renewable energy into the 

western power grid, which has larger 

scale environmental impacts in 

Wyoming and across the West.74

IV. EPA’s Evaluation and Proposed

Disapproval of Wyoming’s Regional

Haze SIP Revisions

A. Basis for Proposed Disapproval

Although states have discretion under

the Regional Haze Rule to balance the 

four statutory factors in making control 

determinations for sources, their 

analyses must be both reasoned and 

moored to the statutory requirement to 

make reasonable progress toward the 

national visibility goal.75 The Regional 

Haze Rule provides that, ‘‘in 

determining whether the State’s goal for 

visibility improvement provides for 

reasonable progress toward natural 

visibility conditions, the Administrator 

will evaluate’’ the state’s demonstration 

under 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i) and (ii).76

Thus, our regulations and the CAA 

require that we review the 

reasonableness of the State’s reasonable 

progress determination in light of the 

goal of achieving natural visibility 

conditions. This approach is also 

inherent in our role as the 

administrative agency empowered to 

review and approve SIPs. In this SIP 

review action, EPA is not only 

authorized, but required to exercise 

independent technical judgement in 

evaluating the adequacy of the State’s 

regional haze SIP, including its 

reasonable progress determinations.77

For the reasons described in section 

IV.B. below, EPA proposes to

disapprove Wyoming’s regional haze

SIP revision. Our proposed action is

based on an evaluation of Wyoming’s

2020 SIP revision under the regional

haze requirements at 40 CFR 51.300–

51.309 and CAA section 169A. The

revisions were also evaluated against

the general SIP requirements contained

in CAA section 110 and our regulations

applicable to this action. Additionally,

EPA is not reopening, and thus not

accepting comment on, EPA’s 2014

approval of Wyoming’s BART

determinations for Jim Bridger Units 1–

4 or EPA’s 2014 approval of the

emission limits Wyoming required as

reasonable progress controls for Jim

Bridger Units 3 and 4. Any comments

on these issues will be deemed beyond

the scope of this action.


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules 2581 

78 42 U.S.C. 7491(a)(1), (b)(2)(B); 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(1)(iii). 

79See 77 FR 57864, 57899 (September 18, 2012), 

79 FR 9318, 9353–54 (February 18, 2014), 81 FR 

296, 309–310 (January 5, 2016). See also 2007 

Guidance at page 5–1. 

80EPA, ‘‘Control Cost Manual,’’ Section 4, 

Chapter 2, June 2019, page 80, available at https:// 

www.epa.gov/economic-and-cost-analysis-airpollution-regulations/cost-reports-and-guidanceair-pollution (last visited December 2021). 

81Wyoming 2020 SIP Revision at 4–5. 

82 2007 Guidance at page 5–1, 2 (referring to the 

BART Guidelines and Control Cost Manual). See 

also 40 CFR part 51, appendix Y, IV.D.4.b (‘‘For 

purposes of air pollutant analysis, ‘effectiveness’ is 

measured in terms of tons of pollutant emissions 

removed, and ‘cost’ is measured in terms of 

annualized control costs. We recommend two types 

of cost-effectiveness calculations—average cost 

effectiveness, and incremental cost effectiveness.’’). 

B. EPA’s Proposed Disapproval of 

Wyoming’s Reasonable Progress 

Determination for Jim Bridger Units 1 

and 2 

We are proposing to disapprove 

Wyoming’s regional haze SIP revision 

for the NOX reasonable progress 

determination for Jim Bridger Units 1 

and 2. 

In our analysis of the Wyoming 2020 

SIP revision, we evaluated Wyoming’s 

reasonable progress determination for 

Jim Bridger Units 1 and 2 under 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(1)(i)(A). Under this 

requirement, a state must consider the 

following four factors and include a 

demonstration of how they were taken 

into consideration in making a 

reasonable progress determination: 

• Costs of Compliance; 

• Time Necessary for Compliance; 

• Energy and Non-Air Quality 

Environmental Impacts of Compliance; 

and 

• Remaining Useful Life of Any 

Potentially Affected Sources. 

The State has discretion to reasonably 

weigh these four factors, along with 

visibility improvement if it so chooses, 

to determine what controls are 

necessary to include in the long-term 

strategy for a specific source. States 

exercise this discretion within the 

context of the statutory requirement to 

make reasonable progress toward the 

national visibility goal.78

1. Basis of Our Proposed Disapproval 

We are proposing to find that 

Wyoming’s 2020 SIP revision does not 

provide a reasonable basis for reversing 

the State’s 2011 determination of what 

reasonable progress controls are 

necessary for Jim Bridger Units 1 and 2 

for the first planning period. Our 

proposed disapproval is based on the 

following: (1) The reasonable costeffectiveness of the existing control 

requirements for Jim Bridger Units 1 

and 2 (emission limits consistent with 

the installation of SCR); (2) the 

appreciable visibility improvement 

estimated to result from compliance 

with the existing reasonable progress 

control requirements; and (3) the fact 

that the State previously determined 

that the costs of those control 

requirements were reasonable and that 

they are necessary to satisfy the 

statutory requirements, and has not 

provided any new information that 

would support a revised determination 

that the existing control requirements 

are now unreasonable. Because the State 

has not provided adequate justification 

for reversing its 2011 determination, 

removing the existing emission limits 

reflecting LNB/SOFA + SCR from the 

SIP would be inconsistent with the 

requirement that SIPs contain the 

measures necessary to make reasonable 

progress toward the national visibility 

goal. We therefore propose to 

disapprove the State’s 2020 SIP 

revision. 

As an initial matter, we propose to 

find that the State reasonably 

characterized the four factors required 

in a reasonable progress analysis, 

including the costs of compliance, the 

time necessary for compliance, energy 

and non-air quality environmental 

impacts of compliance, and the 

remaining useful life of any potentially 

affected sources. In addition, we agree 

with the State that, although visibility 

improvement is not one of the four 

factors required by CAA section 

169A(g)(1) and 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(1)(i)(A), visibility 

improvement (along with the statutory 

factors) can be considered to determine 

what control measures are necessary to 

make reasonable progress.79

We are also specifically proposing to 

find that Wyoming’s revised cost 

calculation is appropriate, including: (1) 

The use of actual annual average (2013– 

2015) NOX emissions rates for LNB/ 

SOFA; (2) the use of NOX emissions 

rates of 0.15 and 0.05 lb/MMBtu 

(annual) for LNB/SOFA + SNCR and 

LNB/SOFA + SCR, respectively; (3) the 

use of amortization periods of 20, 20, 

and 30 years for LNB/SOFA, SNCR and 

SCR, respectively; (4) the use of actual 

costs for the installation and operation 

of SCR taken from those incurred for 

Units 3 and 4; and (5) the use of a 

baseline of 2001–2003 emissions to 

analyze cost and visibility associated 

with LNB/SOFA, LNB/SOFA + SNCR, 

and LNB/SOFA + SCR. 

However, as explained previously, 

notwithstanding our proposed finding 

that Wyoming reasonably characterized 

relevant information under each of the 

four statutory factors, we are proposing 

to find that the State did not reasonably 

consider that information in reaching its 

revised reasonable progress 

determination. 

Of the four reasonable progress factors 

and the optional visibility improvement 

factor, the State placed significant 

emphasis on the costs of compliance in 

its analysis of controls for Jim Bridger 

Units 1 and 2. Consistent with the 

State’s analysis, we afford this factor 

similar significance in our evaluation 

here. We are also evaluating the 

visibility improvement information that 

Wyoming considered in the SIP 

revision, as well as the other three 

factors—remaining useful life, time 

necessary for compliance, and energy 

and non-air environmental impacts. 

After a consideration of all five of these 

factors, we propose to conclude that the 

State’s determination that the 

installation of SCR is not necessary for 

reasonable progress is unreasonable. 

a. Costs of Compliance 

In order to evaluate Wyoming’s 2020 

SIP revision with respect to the cost of 

compliance, we first evaluate 

Wyoming’s characterization of the costs 

using the updated Control Cost Manual. 

Next, we evaluate the reasonableness of 

the costs associated with the installation 

of SCR on Units 1 and 2 with respect to 

average and incremental costeffectiveness and the State’s explanation 

for why requiring SCR on Units 1 and 

2 is unreasonable. 

The revised NOX control cost 

estimates in Wyoming’s 2020 SIP 

revision are based on the current 

version of the Control Cost Manual, 

which has been revised since our 2014 

final rule. As updated, the Control Cost 

Manual includes a 30-year equipment 

life for SCR.80 The change in equipment 

life estimate from 20 to 30 years for SCR 

affects annual cost estimates, as well as 

average cost-effectiveness and 

incremental cost-effectiveness estimates. 

We propose to find Wyoming’s use of 

the updated Control Cost Manual 

appropriate. 

In the 2020 SIP revision, Wyoming 

provided updated capital costs, annual 

costs, and average and incremental costeffectiveness figures for SNCR, SCR, and 

the plant-wide annual and monthly 

limits.81 The 2007 Guidance instructs 

that states should evaluate both average 

and incremental costs according to the 

Control Cost Manual to maintain and 

improve consistency.82 These figures 

take into account capital and annual 

costs and allow states and EPA to 

compare costs of controls industry wide. 

EPA’s guidance further cautions against 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
2582 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

83See 40 CFR part 51, appendix Y, IV.D.4.g. 

84See Table 4 in this document. Because we are 

finding the most stringent control technology (SCR) 

reasonable, and because Wyoming did not request 

that we evaluate other control technologies, we are 

not evaluating additional control technologies. See 

40 CFR part 51, appendix Y, IV.D.1.9. 

85See Table 4 in this document. 

86 77 FR 33053. 

87 79 FR 5048. 

88 79 FR 5039–40. The NOX emission limit for 

Units 1, 2, and 3 were revised (through settlement) 

on May 20, 2019, to 0.06 lb/MMBtu by July 1, 2019, 

0.15 lb/MMBtu by December 31, 2018, and 0.15 lb/ 

MMBtu by December 31, 2018, respectively. 84 FR 

22711 (May 20, 2019). 

89 79 FR 5044. The NOX emission limit at Wyodak 

is subject to ongoing litigation and settlement 

discussions. 

90The examples cited by Wyoming in the 2020 

SIP revision do not establish that the revised costeffectiveness figures for Jim Bridger Units 1 and 2 

are unreasonable. Indeed, the average costeffectiveness figures in the examples are higher 

than or similar to Wyoming’s revised cost estimates. 

See 80 FR 18944, 18975 (April 8, 2015) (proposed 

rule stating that LNB/SOFA + SCR average ($3,552 

and $2,749 per ton) and incremental ($6,717 and 

$5,736 per ton) cost-effectiveness figures were 

‘‘within the range of what we consider to be costeffective’’ for BART but incremental visibility 

improvement of 0.069 deciviews at a single Class 

I area is ‘‘relatively small’’ in light of incremental 

cost-effectiveness figures); 77 FR 21896, 21901 

(April 12, 2012) (proposed rule stating that LNB/ 

OFA + SCR average cost-effectiveness figures of 

$2,110, $1,967, and $2,183 and incremental costeffectiveness figures of $4,534, $4,330, and $2,756 

were not cost prohibitive or sufficiently large to 

warrant eliminating SCR from consideration as 

BART). 

91See supra note 37. 

92Wyoming 2020 SIP Revision at 5. 

93For Jim Bridger Unit 1, using monthly varying 

ammonia concentrations, model visibility 

improvements with LNB/OFA + SCR were 0.37 

deciviews at Bridger; 0.26 deciviews at Fitzpatrick; 

0.29 deciviews at Mt Zirkel; 0.35 deciviews at 

Rawah; 0.36 deciviews at Rocky Mountain; 0.17 

deciviews at Grand Teton; 0.14 deciviews at Teton; 

0.19 deciviews at Washakie; and 0.15 deciviews at 

Yellowstone. For Jim Bridger Unit 1, using a 

constant 0.5 ppb ammonia concentration, model 

visibility improvements with LNB/OFA/SCR were: 

0.37 deciviews at Bridger; 0.26 deciviews at 

Fitzpatrick; 0.29 deciviews at Mt Zirkel; 0.35 

deciviews at Rawah; 0.36 deciviews at Rocky 

Mountain; 0.17 deciviews at Grand Teton; 0.14 

deciviews at Teton; 0.19 deciviews at Washakie; 

and 0.15 deciviews at Yellowstone. For Jim Bridger 

Unit 2, using monthly varying ammonia 

concentrations, model visibility improvements with 

LNB/OFA/SCR were: 0.36 deciviews at Bridger; 

0.26 deciviews at Fitzpatrick; 0.28 deciviews at Mt 

Zirkel; 0.35 deciviews at Rawah; 0.36 deciviews at 

considering in isolation the capital costs 

of a control option, as large or small 

capital costs alone are not dispositive of 

the reasonableness of a potential 

control.83 Thus, we deem the average 

and incremental cost-effectiveness 

figures most relevant to our 

consideration of Wyoming’s revised cost 

analysis. 

In the revised cost analysis for the 

2020 SIP revision, Wyoming’s cost 

estimates show an average costeffectiveness for LNB/SOFA + SCR for 

Units 1 and 2 of $1,997 and $2,228 per 

ton of NOX removed, respectively.84

Wyoming’s cost estimates also show an 

incremental cost-effectiveness for LNB/ 

SOFA + SCR for Units 1 and 2 of $4,410 

and $4,510 per ton of NOX removed, 

respectively, relative to the next-moststringent control (LNB/SOFA + 

SNCR).85

Based on the State’s estimates, the 

costs of the existing control 

requirements (LNB/SOFA + SCR) are 

eminently reasonable. Indeed, in 2011, 

the State deemed reasonable an average 

cost-effectiveness of $2,258 per ton of 

NOX removed (LNB/SOFA + SCR) and 

incremental cost-effectiveness of $5,721 

per ton of NOX removed (LNB/SOFA + 

SCR) for each unit when it required 

SCRs as reasonable progress controls.86

Similarly, EPA concluded in our 2014 

final rule that our revised average costeffectiveness figures for LNB/SOFA + 

SCR for Units 1 and 2 of $2,635 and 

$3,403 per ton and our revised 

incremental cost-effectiveness figures 

for LNB/SOFA + SCR for Units 1 and 2 

of $7,447 and $8,968 were reasonable.87

Relatedly, in our 2014 final rule, we 

required through a Federal 

implementation plan an emission limit 

consistent with the installation of new 

LNB/OFA + SCR at four other units in 

Wyoming with higher cost-effectiveness 

figures: LNB/OFA + SCR at Laramie 

River Station Units 1, 2, and 3 had an 

average cost-effectiveness of $4,461, 

$4,424, and $4,375 per ton and 

incremental cost-effectiveness of $5,449, 

$5,871, and $5,667 per ton, 

respectively,88 and LNB/OFA + SCR at 

Wyodak had an average costeffectiveness of $4,036 per ton and 

incremental cost-effectiveness of $6,233 

per ton.89

Thus, the revised average costeffectiveness and incremental costeffectiveness for installing SCR on Jim 

Bridger Units 1 and 2 in Wyoming’s 

2020 SIP revision are even lower than 

what Wyoming determined were 

reasonable for the same units in 2011. 

And the revised cost-effectiveness 

figures are even lower than what EPA in 

2014 determined were reasonable for 

Jim Bridger Units 1 and 2 and for four 

other units addressed in the 2014 final 

rule.90

In 2014, EPA ultimately deferred to 

Wyoming’s BART and reasonable 

progress determinations for Jim Bridger, 

even though the available information 

suggested that SCR was reasonable as 

BART, given the State’s commitment to 

require SCR as reasonable progress 

controls. But here, the State submitted 

a SIP revision that does not warrant 

such deference. Specifically, the cost 

associated with installing and operating 

the currently required controls on Jim 

Bridger Units 1 and 2 has not increased 

beyond what the State determined in 

2011 was reasonable. Wyoming has 

asserted only that not requiring 

emission limits reflecting SCR for Units 

1 and 2 will be less costly than requiring 

them and the amount that PacifiCorp 

has spent to date on NOX control 

technology at Jim Bridger is sufficient 

for reasonable progress. Neither of these 

justifications offers a compelling basis 

for removing the existing control 

requirements, as both were expected 

and acknowledged at the time of 

Wyoming’s 2011 decision to require the 

controls. Additionally, we note again 

that the expected fleetwide installations 

of SCRs that PacifiCorp had previously 

anticipated have not come to pass.91

Regardless, in 2011, Wyoming 

determined the costs the source would 

incur were reasonable and that emission 

limits reflecting LNB/SOFA + SCR are 

necessary to meet the statutory 

requirements. The State has offered no 

reasonable explanation for its reversal, 

i.e., for why the revised, even lower 

cost-effectiveness estimates for SCR are 

now unreasonable such that an emission 

limit associated with SCR is no longer 

necessary to meet the requirement to 

make reasonable progress. 

In summary, we disagree with 

Wyoming that the cost analysis strongly 

favors removing the existing SCR-based 

requirement 92 for the following reasons: 

(1) The average cost-effectiveness and 

incremental cost-effectiveness for 

installing SCR on Units 1 and 2 in 

Wyoming’s 2020 SIP revision are even 

lower than what Wyoming determined 

were reasonable in 2011 and lower than 

what we found to be reasonable for the 

installation of LNB/SOFA + SCR in 

similar instances in 2014; (2) the State 

has offered no reasonable explanation 

for why the revised, lower costeffectiveness estimates for SCR are now 

unreasonable; and (3) Wyoming has not 

provided any new information that 

would support a revised determination 

that the costs of the existing control 

requirements are now unreasonable. 

b. Visibility Improvement 

For Jim Bridger, the projected 

visibility improvements associated with 

the installation of LNB/SOFA and SCR 

are between 0.27–0.37 and 0.27–0.36 

deciviews for Units 1 and 2, 

respectively, at the most impacted Class 

I area, Bridger Wilderness (Table 6). 

Additionally, the installation of SCR at 

Units 1 and 2 would result in visibility 

improvement at numerous other Class I 

areas.93


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules 2583 

Rocky Mountain; 0.16 deciviews at Grand Teton; 

0.14 deciviews at Teton; 0.19 deciviews at 

Washakie; and 0.14 deciviews at Yellowstone. For 

Jim Bridger Unit 2, using a constant 0.5 ppb 

ammonia concentration, model visibility 

improvements with LNB/OFA/SCR were: 0.36 

deciviews at Bridger; 0.26 deciviews at Fitzpatrick; 

0.28 deciviews at Mt Zirkel; 0.35 deciviews at 

Rawah; 0.36 deciviews at Rocky Mountain; 0.16 

deciviews at Grand Teton; 0.14 deciviews at Teton; 

0.19 deciviews at Washakie; and 0.14 deciviews at 

Yellowstone. 79 FR 5041. 

94Wyoming 2020 SIP Revision at 7. 

95 79 FR 5048 (emphasis added). 

96Compare 42 U.S.C. 7491(g)(2) (including 

visibility as a factor in BART determinations) with 

id. 7491(g)(1) (visibility not included as an explicit 

factor in reasonable progress determinations); see 

also EPA, ‘‘Clarifications Regarding Regional Haze 

State Implementation Plans for the Second 

Implementation Period,’’ July 8, 2021 (‘‘July 2021 

Clarifications Memo’’) at 12–13, available at https:// 

www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2021-07/ 

clarifications-regarding-regional-haze-stateimplementation-plans-for-the-secondimplementation-period.pdf; 82 FR 3078, 3093 

(January 10, 2017) (because regional haze is caused 

by emissions from numerous sources, in order to 

address it, states may not abandon controls they 

already have determined are reasonable based on 

the four statutory factors on the basis that impact 

on visibility conditions is subjectively assessed as 

not ‘‘meaningful’’). 

97See id.; see also 40 CFR 51.308(e)(5) (after a 

state has met BART requirements, BART-eligible 

sources are subject to reasonable progress 

requirements in the same manner as other sources). 98As with Wyoming’s cost-effectiveness 

examples, Wyoming’s visibility examples do not 

support Wyoming’s conclusions regarding visibility 

improvement. Each is an example of a proposed 

BART determination that does not address the fact 

that, in many instances, reasonable progress 

controls naturally yield relatively smaller visibility 

improvement over already-installed BART controls. 

Thus, the fact that we proposed to reject controls 

of a certain cost-effectiveness and visibility 

improvement for BART does not necessitate 

rejecting similar controls for reasonable progress. 

See 77 FR 24794, 24818 (April 25, 2012) (proposed 

rule stating that SCR is cost-effective for BART at 

$5,358 per ton but visibility improvement at the 

most impacted Class I area of 0.254 deciviews and 

cumulative visibility improvement at seven Class I 

areas of 0.273 deciviews are small and thus EPA 

proposed to approve determination that BART is 

not SCR); 77 FR 11879, 11891 (February 28, 2012) 

(proposed rule stating that EPA proposed to agree 

with state determination that certain controls for a 

refinery were not BART due to high costs 

(unavailable) and small visibility gains (0.045 to 

0.16 deciview range)); 77 FR 18052, 18066 (March 

26, 2012) (proposed rule stating that EPA proposed 

to agree with the state’s determination that SCR was 

not BART given high cost-effectiveness ($9,900 and 

$15,290 per ton) and low visibility improvement 

(under 0.2 deciviews)); 77 FR 23988, 24013 (April 

20, 2012) (proposed rule stating that SO2 BART 

controls were cost-effective when values ranged 

from $1400 to $4800 per ton but visibility 

improvement ranges of 0.033 and 0.18 were 

‘‘relatively small’’). 

99 2007 Guidance at 5–2 and 5–3. 

100 2007 Guidance at 5–2 and 5–3; 40 CFR part 

51, appendix Y, IV.D.4.h–i. 

101Additionally, in its 2011 SIP submission 

Wyoming did not identify any energy or non-air 

quality environmental impacts that would preclude 

selection of any of the controls evaluated for Jim 

Bridger, including LNB/SOFA + SCR. See 78 FR 

34753. 

As an initial matter, Wyoming 

mischaracterizes our 2014 final rule in 

its 2020 SIP revision when it asserts that 

EPA ‘‘determined that the unit-specific 

visibility benefits for LNB/SOFA + SCR 

installation on Units 1 and 2 were 

‘modest’ (0.27 to 0.37 deciviews).’’ 94 In 

the 2014 final rule, EPA stated that the 

visibility improvement associated with 

the installation of SCR is ‘‘significant on 

a source-wide basis (1.25 to 1.5 

deciviews),’’ while ‘‘[t]he unit-specific 

benefits for Units 1 and 2 are somewhat 

more modest (0.27–0.37 deciviews).’’ 95

That is to say, the unit-specific benefits 

were relatively less than the benefits for 

the entire source, which will always be 

the case. Thus, we did not characterize 

the visibility improvement associated 

with the installation of SCR at Jim 

Bridger Units 1 and 2 as merely 

‘‘modest,’’ and we do not agree with 

Wyoming’s characterization of the 

associated visibility improvement as 

such now. The fact remains that the 

installation of SCR at Jim Bridger Units 

1 and 2 would yield appreciable 

visibility improvement at a reasonable 

cost. 

States choosing to consider visibility 

benefits as an optional additional factor 

should not use visibility to summarily 

dismiss cost-effective potential controls. 

This is because the CAA does not 

explicitly list visibility as a factor that 

must be considered in reasonable 

progress determinations.96 In this case, 

Wyoming is rejecting additional 

controls at Units 1 and 2, regardless of 

whether they are cost-effective, because 

‘‘installation of SCR on Units 1 & 2 

would result in only modest 

incremental visibility benefits of .10 to 

.15 deciviews (per unit) when compared 

to LNB/SOFA on Units 1 and 2.’’ This 

is a generally inappropriate basis on 

which to make reasonable progress 

determinations for sources. 

Furthermore, because Units 1 and 2 

already have been controlled under 

BART, additional controls would be 

expected to make relatively smaller 

contributions to visibility improvement 

as a proportion of total impairment. 

This does not mean, however, that such 

sources need not be controlled in order 

to achieve the national visibility goal.97

To the contrary, the evaluation and 

control of BART sources such as Jim 

Bridger Units 1 and 2 under the 

reasonable progress requirements will 

be necessary to achieve the national goal 

of the prevention of any future, and the 

remedying of any existing manmade 

impairment of visibility in Class I 

areas.98

Finally, in Wyoming’s 2020 SIP 

revision, the visibility improvement 

remains unchanged from our 2014 final 

rule, and the State has provided no new 

visibility information to support a 

revised NOX reasonable progress 

determination that the existing control 

requirements are now unreasonable. In 

summary, we disagree with Wyoming’s 

assertion that the visibility benefits are 

not sufficiently meaningful to warrant 

cost-effective controls. 

c. Other Factors 

Relevant to energy and non-air quality 

environmental impacts, the State noted 

that SCR will produce solid waste when 

the catalyst is replaced periodically, and 

that requiring SCR will require 

significantly more electricity than LNB/ 

SOFA. EPA’s 2007 Guidance provides 

that to the extent energy and non-air 

quality environmental impacts of 

compliance are quantifiable, they 

should be included in the engineering 

analysis supporting the cost of 

compliance estimates.99 PacifiCorp did 

so in the revised cost analysis for the 

2020 SIP revision. As explained 

elsewhere in this document, even with 

the energy and non-air environmental 

costs incorporated into the cost analysis, 

the cost-effectiveness of SCR remains 

reasonable. 

Additionally, the 2007 Guidance 

points to EPA’s BART Guidelines, 

which provide, among other things, that 

(1) the fact that a control technology 

uses energy in and of itself does not 

disqualify that technology, and (2) the 

fact that a control technology creates 

waste that must be disposed of does not 

necessarily argue against selection of 

that technology, especially if the control 

has been applied to similar facilities 

elsewhere and the waste is similar to 

those other applications.100 Wyoming 

has merely pointed out that the existing 

controls on Units 1 and 2 (LNB/SOFA) 

require less electricity to operate than 

SNCR or SCR and that SCR requires 

periodic catalyst replacement. The State 

has not demonstrated that the 

anticipated energy expenditure or waste 

that would be generated at Units 1 and 

2 would be any different from the 

numerous other units for which states or 

EPA have required SCR. Indeed, 

Wyoming has already determined that 

energy and non-air environmental 

impacts did not disqualify SCR from 

being a reasonable control technology 

for two units at the same facility, i.e., at 

Jim Bridger Units 3 and 4.101 Based on 

EPA’s long-standing guidance and the 

fact that the State has not provided any 

evidence to support a conclusion that 

the energy and non-air environmental 

impacts of SCR at Units 1 and 2 are 

unreasonable, we disagree that these 

factors support a conclusion that SCR is 

not the reasonable choice of control. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
2584 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

102Letter from Todd Parfitt, Director, Wyoming 

Department of Environmental Quality, to Gregory 

Sopkin, Regional Administrator, USEPA Region 8, 

Subject: State Implementation Plan Approval 

Request—Regional Haze 309(g) SIP Revision for 

PacifiCorp Jim Bridger Power Plant (May 12, 2020). 

See also Wyoming 2020 SIP Revision at 3. 

103Wyoming 2020 SIP Revision at 9. 

104 Id. at 3. 

105Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. Gorsuch, 742 F.2d 

1028, 1036 (7th Cir. 1984). 

106As stated above, Wyoming has discretion to 

evaluate factors (beyond the four factors) that it 

considers relevant in formulating its long-term 

strategy, 2007 Guidance at page 5–1, so long as it 

does so reasonably and in a manner consistent with 

the statute and other applicable requirements. 42 

U.S.C. 7491(b)(2)(B); 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(iii). 

107Wyoming 2020 SIP Revision at 9, 10, and 12. 

108 Implementation of NOX limits consistent with 

installing SCRs on Units 1 and 2, combined with 

the plant-wide monthly SO2 limits would likely 

result in some SO2 reductions (from the monthly 

plant-wide limits) plus additional NOX reductions 

(from meeting the 0.07 lb/MMBtu limits on Units 

1 and 2) that are beyond what was intended in the 

SIP revision. 

109Wyoming 2020 SIP Revision at 9. 

With respect to remaining useful life, 

as stated above, Wyoming did not 

provide an enforceable shutdown date 

that would ensure that the expected life 

of Jim Bridger Units 1 and 2 would be 

less than the expected life of the control 

technology. Thus, Wyoming 

appropriately used the Control Cost 

Manual remaining useful life for SCR of 

30 years in the cost analysis. 

With respect to time necessary for 

compliance, Wyoming noted that the 

LNB/SOFA are already in use and thus, 

in contrast to SCR and SNCR, do not 

need any additional time for 

compliance. The deadline for Jim 

Bridger Units 1 and 2 to comply with 

the existing control requirements 

reflecting installation and operation of 

SCR by December 31, 2022 and 

December 31, 2021, respectively has 

existed in the SIP since 2014. We thus 

do not believe it is reasonable for the 

State to consider the time necessary for 

compliance as weighing in favor of not 

requiring SCRs as reasonable progress 

controls. 

d. Summary of EPA’s Evaluation of 

Wyoming’s Reasonable Progress 

Demonstration 

In summary, we propose to 

disapprove Wyoming’s reasonable 

progress demonstration concluding that 

the NOX emission limits associated with 

LNB/SOFA controls are the reasonable 

choice for Jim Bridger Units 1 and 2. We 

base our proposed disapproval on the 

following: (1) The reasonable average 

cost-effectiveness and incremental costeffectiveness of the existing control 

requirements for Jim Bridger Units 1 

and 2; (2) the appreciable visibility 

improvement estimated to result from 

compliance with the existing reasonable 

progress control requirements; (3) the 

fact that the State previously 

determined that the costs of those 

control requirements were reasonable 

given the visibility benefits, and thus 

necessary to satisfy the statutory 

requirements, and has not provided any 

new information that would support a 

revised determination that the existing 

control requirements are now 

unreasonable. Ultimately, we propose to 

find that because the State failed to 

justify its conclusion that the existing 

SCR requirements should be removed 

such that no further controls beyond 

BART are required for Jim Bridger Units 

1 and 2, we cannot reasonably approve 

Wyoming’s 2020 SIP revision. Because 

removing the existing SCR requirements 

would be inconsistent with the statutory 

requirement that SIPs contain the 

measures necessary to make reasonable 

progress, we are proposing to 

disapprove Wyoming’s 2020 SIP 

revision. 

C. Plant-Wide Monthly and Annual NOX

and SO2 Emission Limits for Jim Bridger 

Units 1–4 

Wyoming’s SIP revision includes ‘‘an 

alternative regional haze compliance 

strategy for the Jim Bridger Power 

Plant’’ 102 that Wyoming considered as 

supplemental information to its revised 

four-factor reasonable progress analysis 

and determination. Wyoming asserts 

that the alternative regional haze 

compliance strategy’s plant-wide 

monthly and annual NOX and SO2

emission limits are designed to reduce 

regional haze and create numerous other 

environmental benefits toward 

achieving natural visibility conditions at 

its Class I areas.103

The 2020 SIP revision provides that 

the State ‘‘considered it appropriate to 

re-balance and reconsider its 

[reasonable progress/long-term strategy] 

determination and complete a four 

factor reasonable progress analysis on a 

NOX-only basis.’’ 104 Our proposed 

disapproval of Wyoming’s reasonable 

progress determination for Jim Bridger 

Units 1 and 2 is thus based solely on the 

source-specific NOX reasonable progress 

analysis, as this analysis and resulting 

determination were intended to replace 

the State’s previous NOX-only 

determination. However, we are also 

proposing to find that we cannot 

approve, and are therefore proposing to 

disapprove, the plant-wide emission 

limits, which rely on a comparative 

analysis that includes both NOX and 

SO2 emissions reductions. 

EPA is proposing to disapprove the 

plant-wide monthly NOX and SO2

emission limits because we cannot 

render a SIP more stringent than 

intended by the state through a partial 

SIP approval.105 While Wyoming has 

discretion to consider these limits,106 it 

is our understanding that Wyoming 

intended to adopt and make enforceable 

the plant-wide monthly and annual 

NOX and SO2 emission limits, as 

proposed by PacifiCorp, in lieu of the 

required emission limits associated with 

the installation of SCR on Units 1 and 

2 and not in addition to the required 

emission limits associated with the 

installation of SCR.107 That is, we 

understand that Wyoming did not 

intend to implement the plant-wide 

monthly and annual NOX and SO2

emission limits together with SCR on 

Jim Bridger Units 1 and 2. Implementing 

a NOX emission limit consistent with 

the installation of SCR together with 

plant-wide monthly and annual NOX

and SO2 emission limits would 

effectively increase the stringency of the 

SIP beyond what was intended in the 

Wyoming 2020 SIP revision.108 Thus, 

because EPA cannot render Wyoming’s 

SIP more stringent than intended by the 

State through a partial SIP approval, and 

because we are proposing to disapprove 

Wyoming’s revised NOX reasonable 

progress determination as unreasonable, 

we are also proposing to extend our 

disapproval to the State’s plant-wide 

monthly and annual NOX and SO2

emission limits. Wyoming may choose 

to submit the plant-wide monthly and 

annual NOX and SO2 emission limits to 

EPA in a stand-alone SIP submittal if 

the State would like to incorporate these 

emission limits into its SIP independent 

of the revised NOX reasonable progress 

analysis and determination for Jim 

Bridger Units 1 and 2 contained in the 

2020 SIP revision. For example, some 

form of plant-wide mass limits could 

serve as a SIP strengthening measure. 

In addition to the legal basis for 

proposing to disapprove the plant-wide 

monthly and annual NOX and SO2

emission limits, we also note two 

additional considerations. These 

considerations relate to Wyoming and 

PacifiCorp’s quantitative analyses in 

support of the plant-wide limits, which 

assume that Jim Bridger is still operating 

at historical (2001–2003) levels. 

Although we are not relying on these 

considerations as the basis of our 

proposed disapproval, we provide them 

here for completeness. 

First, Wyoming analyzed the plantwide limits assuming Jim Bridger’s 

emissions are consistent with the plant’s 

‘‘current operating potential.’’ 109 As 

explained above, PacifiCorp’s analysis 

defines ‘‘current operating potential’’ as 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules 2585 

110See Wyoming 2020 SIP Revision at 9 (plantwide emission limits would result in combined 

NOX and SO2 reduction of 6,056 tons/year). 

111Compare PacifiCorp Reassessment, 

Attachment 1 at 21 (providing 2001–2003 average 

heat input used as baseline for cost-effectiveness 

analysis) with EPA Calculations for Wyoming 2020 

SIP Revision (January 7, 2022) (Tab 1). 

112See, e.g., Wyoming 2020 SIP Revision at 9 

(PacifiCorp’s comparative analysis of the existing 

control requirements and plant-wide emission 

limits indicates the limits ‘‘produce better modeled 

visibility and greater environmental benefits than 

installation of SCR or SNCR’’). 

113Unlike the BART program, which includes an 

extensive regulatory framework under which states 

can rely on such historical emissions and 

utilization data to demonstrate that a BART 

alternative achieves greater reasonable progress 

than BART, neither the CAA nor the Regional Haze 

Rule contain a similar framework for reasonable 

progress. Compare 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2) and (3) with 

(d)(1)(i)(A) and (d)(3). 

114PacifiCorp Reassessment at 7. The PacifiCorp 

Reassessment also references annual heat input 

values that were not disclosed to EPA due to 

confidential forecasted capacity factors (see 

Attachment 3B to Attachment 1). Therefore, some 

assumptions are unknown and impossible to 

replicate. 

115Compare PacifiCorp Reassessment, 

Attachment 1 at 21 (providing 2001–2003 average 

heat input used as baseline for cost-effectiveness 

analysis) with EPA Calculations for Wyoming 2020 

SIP Revision (January 7, 2022) (Tab 1). 

116Wyoming and PacifiCorp used the 2001–2003 

period as the baseline for the revised cost estimates 

in the Wyoming 2020 SIP Revision’s NOX-only fourfactor analysis for Jim Bridger Units 1 and 2. EPA 

believes this is a reasonable approach given the 

circumstances, particularly that the purpose was to 

compare the costs of different controls against a 

common baseline and that the cost and visibility 

figures relied on for that analysis were originally 

calculated for BART purposes. In contrast, EPA 

understands the purpose of the quantitative 

analysis accompanying the plant-wide monthly and 

annual NOX and SO2 emission limits was to 

determine whether they will result in greater 

prospective emissions reductions and visibility 

improvement than SCR. See, e.g., Wyoming 2020 

SIP Revision at 12 (‘‘In addition, PacifiCorp’s 

visibility enhancing proposal to limit overall 

operations at all four Jim Bridger Units adds 

support to Wyoming’s reasonable progress revision, 

and ensures that visibility improvements greater 

than SCR installation will be achieved for the State 

of Wyoming.’’). In this context, using a historical 

utilization baseline that does not reflect current or 

likely future plant operation obfuscates the 

assessment of future potential emissions reductions. 

117EPA Calculations for Wyoming 2020 SIP 

Revision (January 7, 2022) (Tab 1). Data based on 

the information obtained from EPA’s Clean Air 

Markets Division (CAMD) database, available at: 

https://ampd.epa.gov/ampd/. 

118See supra note 114. 

119EPA Calculations for Wyoming 2020 SIP 

Revision (January 7, 2022) (Tabs 3 and 4). 

120 Id. at Tab 2. 

a combination of recent emission rates 

with plant-wide heat input (i.e., 

utilization) from the 2001–2003 period. 

Thus, the majority of the emissions 

reductions that Wyoming credited to the 

plant-wide limits 110 would be realized 

only if Jim Bridger was utilized at levels 

consistent with the 2001–2003 period. 

However, recent utilization of the plant, 

based on the 2017–2020 period, has 

been much lower.111 EPA examined 

emissions and operations data from the 

2017 to 2020 period because it reflects 

(1) full operation of the SCRs on Units 

3 and 4 that were installed in 2015 and 

2016, respectively, (2) earlier SO2

scrubber upgrades on all four units, and 

(3) recent trends in plant operations, as 

hours of operation and heat input. To 

the extent Wyoming’s demonstration 

relies on historical (2001–2003) 

utilization to show that the plant-wide 

monthly and annual NOX and SO2

emission limits achieve greater 

emissions reductions (and therefore 

greater visibility improvement) than 

SCRs on Units 1 and 2,112 neither the 

CAA nor the Regional Haze Rule 

provide a basis for such reliance.113

Second (and relatedly), based on 

recent (2017–2020) operation of the 

plant, we believe it is reasonable to 

conclude that the plant-wide monthly 

and annual NOX and SO2 emission 

limits would not actually achieve 

similar or greater emissions reductions 

and visibility improvement compared to 

the installation of SCR on Units 1 and 

2 as Wyoming contends. 

Wyoming claims that the plant-wide 

limits will produce greater visibility 

improvement compared to the 

installation of two additional SCRs on 

Units 1 and 2. However, the CALPUFF 

visibility modeling inputs, and therefore 

visibility modeling results, are premised 

on assumptions about Jim Bridger’s 

baseline utilization and emissions. 

Again, Wyoming analyzed the plantwide emission limits assuming Jim 

Bridger’s emissions were consistent 

with its plant-wide heat input from the 

2001–2003 period. That is, the modeling 

analysis assumes heat input from a 

historical period that does not 

correspond to how the facility is 

currently operated.114 The plant-wide 

2017–2020 average utilization is 

approximately 29 percent below 2001– 

2003 average levels.115 Based on the 

assumption of plant-wide heat input 

from the 2001–2003 period, the analysis 

of the plant-wide limits by PacifiCorp 

and Wyoming estimates a reduction of 

5,049 tpy of SO2 and 1,007 tpy of NOX. 

Had the quantitative analysis been 

based on Jim Bridger’s current 

utilization, it would have shown that 

the plant-wide limits would actually 

achieve far fewer emissions reductions 

going forward.116 For example, the 

proposed annual plant-wide SO2 + NOX

emission limit is 17,500 tpy. However, 

in the 2017–2020 period, plant-wide 

annual SO2 + NOX emissions have 

ranged from 14,823 to 16,004 tpy.117

Therefore, Jim Bridger is already 

operating well below the proposed 

annual plant-wide SO2 + NOX emission 

limits. Consequently, any annual SO2

and NOX reductions based on the 

source’s actual current operations 

would be much smaller than estimated 

from the analysis of a potential 

historical operation basis. 

Due to the complicated nature of the 

proposed monthly limits and a lack of 

complete information,118 EPA could not 

complete a full evaluation of the impact 

of the monthly limits on emissions and 

emissions reductions. However, based 

on the information available to EPA, it 

appears that while the proposed 

additional plant-wide monthly SO2 and 

NOX limits may restrict SO2 emissions 

(and to a lesser extent NOX emissions) 

in some months, the facility’s recent 

operation has been emitting at levels 

similar to the proposed monthly 

limits.119 Thus, the plant-wide annual 

and monthly limits appear to result in 

few actual emissions reductions based 

on Jim Bridger’s recent operation. 

In contrast, installation of two 

additional SCRs on Units 1 and 2 will 

provide significant and certain 

additional NOX emissions reductions 

under any operating scenario compared 

to either recent operation or potential 

historical operation. With the current 

SIP emission limits of 0.07 lb/MMBtu 

(30-day rolling average) for Units 1 and 

2, additional SCRs on those two units 

would reduce annual NOX emissions by 

at least 3,000 tpy relative to the 2017– 

2020 period (based on actual calendar 

month operation over that time 

period).120 Because the more recent data 

reflect the facility as it operates today 

(including emissions controls and limits 

that PacifiCorp and Wyoming assumed 

in the analysis of plant-wide limits), we 

believe it presents a reasonable set of 

operating conditions from which to 

evaluate which scenario would achieve 

greater combined NOX and SO2

emissions reductions in future years. 

Furthermore, neither PacifiCorp nor 

Wyoming included any information that 

would indicate increased operation in 

the future. 

In conclusion, unlike the plant-wide 

NOX and SO2 emission limits, 

installation of two additional SCRs 

provides significant NOX reductions of 

at least 3,000 tpy. Based on the 

information we have before us, we 

believe it is reasonable to conclude that 

the proposed plant-wide annual and 

monthly limits would not provide 

similar or greater emissions reductions 

or visibility improvement compared to 

the installation of two additional SCRs. 

This is especially true in comparison to 

recent operation of the Jim Bridger plant 

in the 2017 to 2020 period. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
2586 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

121 43 U.S.C. 7410(l). Note that ‘‘reasonable 

further progress’’ as used in CAA section 110(l) is 

a reference to that term as defined in section 301(a) 

(i.e., 42 U.S.C. 7501(a)), and as such means 

reductions required to attain the National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) set for criteria 

pollutants under section 109. This term as used in 

section 110(l) (and defined in section 301(a)) is not 

synonymous with ‘‘reasonable progress’’ as that 

term is used in the regional haze program. Instead, 

section 110(l) provides that EPA cannot approve 

plan revisions that interfere with regional haze 

requirements (including reasonable progress 

requirements) insofar as they are ‘‘other applicable 

requirement[s]’’ of the CAA. 

122Wyoming 2020 SIP Revision at 13. We note, 

however, that NOX is not a criteria pollutant itself 

but instead represents a group of highly reactive 

gases that includes the criteria pollutant nitrogen 

dioxide (NO2). 

123Amber Potts, Wyoming Department of 

Environmental Quality, Record of State of 

Wyoming, PacifiCorp, and Federal Land Manager 

Consultation Meeting for the Proposed Updates to 

the Regional Haze (Round 1) SIP Concerning the 

Jim Bridger Facility, May 21, 2019. See also 

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, 

FLM Consultation Meeting Slides. 

D. Clean Air Act Section 110(l) 

Under CAA section 110(l), the EPA 

cannot approve a plan revision ‘‘if the 

revision would interfere with any 

applicable requirement concerning 

attainment and reasonable further 

progress (as defined in section 7501 of 

this title), or any other applicable 

requirement of this chapter.’’ 121

Wyoming states that the 2020 SIP 

revision will not interfere with 

reasonable further progress or other 

applicable requirements because there 

are no areas in Wyoming that are 

currently designated nonattainment for 

NOX or particulate matter, and that with 

the reductions anticipated from the 

plant-wide annual and monthly limits, 

the SIP revision will not interfere with 

attainment or maintenance of the 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS).122

As an initial matter, we note that 

Wyoming’s evaluation pursuant to CAA 

section 110(l) is overly narrow and does 

not address all relevant NAAQS-related 

considerations. Additionally, CAA 

section 110(l) applies to all 

requirements of the CAA, not just the 

attainment and maintenance of the 

NAAQS. The previous sections of this 

document explain how the State failed 

to justify its conclusion that the existing 

SCR requirements should be removed 

such that no further controls beyond 

BART are necessary for Jim Bridger 

Units 1 and 2 for reasonable progress in 

the first planning period. Based on our 

proposed conclusions in section IV.B in 

this document, we propose to find that 

removing the SCR requirement would 

interfere with the regional haze 

requirements of the CAA, specifically, 

with the requirement that SIPs contain 

the emission limits, schedules of 

compliance, and other measures that are 

necessary to make reasonable progress 

toward the national visibility goal. 

Accordingly, we propose to disapprove 

the Wyoming 2020 SIP revision under 

CAA section 110(l) in addition to the 

basis stated in section IV.B above. 

E. Consultation With Federal Land 

Managers 

Under 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2), Wyoming 

was obligated to provide the FLMs with 

an opportunity for consultation in 

development of the State’s proposed SIP 

revision no less than sixty days prior to 

the associated public hearing or public 

comment opportunity. On March 29, 

2019, the State of Wyoming informed 

the FLMs of the State’s draft proposed 

regional haze SIP revision for the Jim 

Bridger power plant. In doing so, the 

State provided the FLMs with a copy of 

the draft regional haze SIP revision and 

provided the FLMs with sixty days to 

provide comments as well as the 

opportunity to discuss the draft SIP 

during a phone call on May 21, 2019.123

The State did not receive any comments 

from the FLMs. Therefore, we propose 

to find that Wyoming met its obligations 

for consultation in development of the 

Wyoming 2020 SIP revision. 

V. Summary of EPA’s Proposed Action 

In this action, EPA is proposing to 

disapprove the Wyoming 2020 SIP 

revision (as submitted in May 2020 and 

supplemented in September and 

October 2020), which includes 

amendments to Chapters 7.3.6 and 8 of 

Wyoming’s regional haze SIP narrative, 

Addressing Regional Haze Visibility 

Protection For The Mandatory Federal 

Class I Areas Required Under 40 CFR 

51.309, that contain a source-specific 

NOX reasonable progress analysis and 

revised determination for Jim Bridger 

Units 1 and 2. EPA is also proposing to 

disapprove the plant-wide monthly and 

annual NOX and SO2 emission limits for 

Jim Bridger Units 1–4. Because we are 

proposing to disapprove the State’s 

proposed revisions to its existing SIP 

requirements, we are not proposing to 

change any regulatory text, including 

text in 40 CFR 52.2620 or 40 CFR 

52.2636. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the 

requirements of the CAA. As explained 

above, Wyoming’s SIP submission does 

not meet the requirements of the CAA. 

Accordingly, this action merely 

proposes to disapprove state law as not 

meeting Federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. For 

that reason, this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, the SIP is not approved 

to apply on any Indian reservation land 

or in any other area where EPA or an 

Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the proposed rule does 

not have tribal implications and will not 

impose substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules 2587 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Greenhouse gases, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

oxides, Volatile organic compounds. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Dated: January 11, 2022. 

KC Becker, 

Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

[FR Doc. 2022–00777 Filed 1–14–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 648 

[Docket No. 220110–0007] 

RTID 0648–XX075 

Fisheries of the Northeastern United 

States; Northeast Skate Complex; 2022 

and 2023 Specifications 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes Northeast 

skate specifications for the 2022 fishing 

year, and projects specifications for 

fishing year 2023, as recommended by 

the New England Fishery Management 

Council. This action is necessary to 

establish annual allowable harvest 

levels for the skate fishery that prevent 

overfishing while enabling optimum 

yield, using the best scientific 

information available. This rule also 

informs the public of the proposed 

fishery specifications and provides an 

opportunity for comment. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

February 17, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

on this document, identified by NOAA– 

NMFS–2021–0116, by the following 

method: 

Electronic Submission: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. 

1. Go to https://www.regulations.gov, 

and enter ‘‘NOAA–NMFS–2021–0116’’ 

in the Search box; 

2. Click the ‘‘Comment’’ icon, 

complete the required fields; and 

3. Enter or attach your comments. 

Instructions: Comments sent by any 

other method, to any other address or 

individual, or received after the end of 

the comment period, may not be 

considered by NMFS. All comments 

received are a part of the public record 

and will generally be posted for public 

viewing on www.regulations.gov 

without change. All personal identifying 

information (e.g., name, address, etc.), 

confidential business information, or 

otherwise sensitive information 

submitted voluntarily by the sender will 

be publicly accessible. NMFS will 

accept anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/ 

A’’ in the required fields if you wish to 

remain anonymous). 

Copies of the Supplemental 

Information Report (SIR) and other 

supporting documents for this action are 

available upon request from Thomas A. 

Nies, Executive Director, New England 

Fishery Management Council, 50 Water 

Street, Newburyport, MA 01950. These 

documents are also accessible via the 

internet at https://www.nefmc.org/ 

management-plans/skates. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Cynthia Ferrio, Fishery Policy Analyst, 

(978) 281–9180. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The New England Fishery 

Management Council (Council) manages 

a complex of seven skate species 

(barndoor, clearnose, little, rosette, 

smooth, thorny, and winter skate) in the 

New England and Mid-Atlantic regions 

under the Northeast Skate Complex 

Fishery Management Plan (FMP). Skates 

are harvested and managed in two 

different fishery sectors, one for food 

(the wing fishery) and one for bait used 

in other fisheries (the bait fishery). The 

FMP requires the review and 

specification of annual skate harvest 

limits, including: An annual catch limit 

(ACL), an annual catch target (ACT), a 

fishery-level total allowable landings 

limit (TAL), separate TALs for the wing 

and bait fisheries, and other 

management measures, as needed, for 

up to two fishing years (FY) at a time. 

This action proposes skate 

specifications for the 2022 fishing year, 

and projects specifications for 2023, as 

recommended by the Council. The 

current specifications that were 

implemented through Framework 

Adjustment 8 to the FMP (85 FR 33579; 

June 2, 2020) expire on April 30, 2022, 

but will roll over beyond that date until 

a final rule for new specifications is in 

effect. 

Proposed Specifications 

This action proposes the Council’s 

recommended northeast skate fishery 

specifications for fishing year 2022 and 

projects unchanged specifications for 

fishing year 2023. These proposed catch 

limits are consistent with 

recommendations from the Council’s 

SSC, Skate Committee, and Skate Plan 

Development Team (Skate PDT). The 

resulting proposed specifications would 

increase all catch limits by at least 14 

percent in fishing year 2022, largely as 

a result of increased skate biomass 

throughout the complex. A comparison 

of the current 2021 and the proposed 

2022–2023 specifications is summarized 

below in Table 1. The Council will 

review the projected 2023 specifications 

to determine if any changes need to be 

made prior to the 2023 fishing year. We 

will publish a notice prior to the 2023 

fishing year to confirm these limits as 

projected or a proposed rule for any 

necessary changes. 

TABLE 1—COMPARISON OF CURRENT 2021, AND PROPOSED 2022–2023 SKATE FISHERY SPECIFICATIONS, IN METRIC

TONS

2021 

(current) 

2022–23 

(proposed) 

Percent 

change 

ABC/ACL ...................................................................................................................................... 32,715 37,236 +14 

ACT .............................................................................................................................................. 29,444 33,513 +14 

Overall Fishery TAL ..................................................................................................................... 17,864 21,142 +18 

Wing TAL (66.5% of Overall TAL) ............................................................................................... 11,879 14,059 +18 

Wing Season 1 TAL (57% of Wing TAL) .................................................................................... 6,771 8,014 +18 

Wing Season 2 TAL .................................................................................................................... 5,108 6,045 +18 

Bait TAL (33.5% of Overall TAL) ................................................................................................. 5,984 7,082 +18 

Bait Season 1 TAL (30.8% of Bait TAL) ..................................................................................... 1,843 2,181 +18 

Bait Season 2 TAL (37.1% of Bait TAL) ..................................................................................... 2,220 2,627 +18 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS