Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 101 / Thursday, May 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules 30953 

for the purpose of developing additional 

strategies to address any such 

deficiencies in Massachusetts’ plan. 

• If Massachusetts determines that its 

implementation plan is or may be 

inadequate to ensure reasonable 

progress as a result of emissions from 

sources in another country, 

Massachusetts will provide notification, 

along with available information, to the 

EPA Administrator. 

• If Massachusetts determines that 

the implementation plan is or may be 

inadequate to ensure reasonable 

progress as a result of emissions from 

sources within the State, Massachusetts 

will revise its implementation plan to 

address the plan’s deficiencies within 

one year from this determination. 

IV. What action is EPA proposing to 

take? 

EPA is proposing approval of 

Massachusetts’ December 30, 2011 SIP 

revision and February 17, 2012 

proposed regional haze SIP revision 

supplement, as meeting the applicable 

requirements of the Regional Haze Rule 

found in 40 CFR 51.308. EPA is 

proposing to approve 310 CMR 7.29 

‘‘Emission Standards for Power Plants,’’ 

310 CMR 7.26(50)–(54) ‘‘Outdoor 

Hydronic Heaters,’’ Amended Emission 

Control Plan for Mt. Tom Station dated 

May 15, 2009, Facility Shutdown of 

Somerset Power, LLC dated June 22, 

2011, Modified Emission Control Plan 

for General Electric Aviation—Lynn 

dated March 24, 2011, and Modified 

Emission Control Plan for Wheelabrator 

Saugus, Inc. dated March 14, 2012. 

Pursuant to MassDEP’s May 2, 2012 

request for parallel processing, EPA is 

proposing approval of Massachusetts’ 

proposed 310 CMR 7.00 ‘‘Definitions,’’ 

310 CMR 7.05 ‘‘Fuels All Districts,’’ 

proposed Amended Emission Control 

Plan Approval for Salem Harbor Station 

dated February 17, 2012, and proposed 

Amended Emission Control Plan 

Approval for Brayton Point Station 

dated February 16, 2012. Under this 

procedure, EPA prepared this action 

before the State’s final adoption of these 

regulations and ECPs. Massachusetts 

has already held a public hearing on the 

proposed regulations and received 

public comment. Massachusetts may 

revise the regulations and ECPs in 

response to comments. After 

Massachusetts submits its final adopted 

supplemental SIP revision, EPA will 

review this submittal to determine 

whether it is significantly different from 

the proposal. EPA will determine 

whether it is appropriate to approve the 

final rules and ECPs with a description 

of any changes since the proposal, repropose action based on the final 

adopted regulations, or take other action 

as appropriate. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 

40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP 

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve 

State choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this proposed action 

merely approves State law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by State law. For that 

reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

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

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the State, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: May 14, 2012. 

Ira W. Leighton, 

Acting Regional Administrator, EPA 

Region 1. 

[FR Doc. 2012–12640 Filed 5–23–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2011–0400; FRL–9676–2] 

Approval and Promulgation of State 

Implementation Plans; State of 

Wyoming; Regional Haze Rule 

Requirements for Mandatory Class I 

Areas 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

Wyoming State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) revisions submitted on January 12, 

2011 and April 19, 2012 that address 

regional haze. These SIP revisions were 

submitted to address the requirements 

of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) and 

our rules that require states to prevent 

any future and remedy any existing 

man-made impairment of visibility in 

mandatory Class I areas caused by 

emissions of air pollutants from 

numerous sources located over a wide 

geographic area (also referred to as the 

‘‘regional haze program’’). States are 

required to assure reasonable progress 

toward the national goal of achieving 

natural visibility conditions in Class I 

areas. EPA is taking this action pursuant 

to section 110 of the CAA. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before July 23, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08– 

OAR–2011–0400, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
30954 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 101 / Thursday, May 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

• Email: r8airrulemakings@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (303) 312–6064 (please alert 

the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing 

comments). 

• Mail: Carl Daly, Director, Air 

Program, Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P– 

AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, 

Colorado 80202–1129. 

• Hand Delivery: Carl Daly, Director, 

Air Program, Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P– 

AR, 1595 Wynkoop, Denver, Colorado 

80202–1129. Such deliveries are only 

accepted Monday through Friday, 8:00 

a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal 

holidays. Special arrangements should 

be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R08–OAR–2011– 

0400. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or email. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an email comment directly 

to EPA, without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional instructions on 

submitting comments, go to Section I. 

General Information of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http:// 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy. Publicly-available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air Program, Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 

Mailcode 8P–AR, 1595 Wynkoop, 

Denver, Colorado 80202–1129. EPA 

requests that if at all possible, you 

contact the individual listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

view the hard copy of the docket. You 

may view the hard copy of the docket 

Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 

4:00 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Laurel Dygowski, Air Program, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 8, Mailcode 8P–AR, 1595 

Wynkoop, Denver, Colorado 80202– 

1129, (303) 312–6144, 

dygowski.laurel@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Definitions 

For the purpose of this document, we are 

giving meaning to certain words or initials as 

follows: 

i. The words or initials Act or CAA mean 

or refer to the Clean Air Act, unless the 

context indicates otherwise. 

ii. The initials BART mean or refer to Best 

Available Retrofit Technology. 

iii. The initials CAC mean or refer to clean 

air corridors. 

iv. The initials CEED mean or refer to the 

Center for Energy and Economic 

Development. 

v. The initials EC mean or refer to 

elemental carbon. 

vi. The initials EGUs mean or refer to 

electric generating units. 

vii. The initials EATS mean or refer to 

Emissions and Allowance Tracking System 

viii. The words EPA, we, us or our mean 

or refer to the United States Environmental 

Protection Agency. 

ix. The initials FETS mean or refer to the 

Fire Emission Tracking System. 

x. The initials GCVTC mean or refer to the 

Grand Canyon Visibility Transport 

Commission. 

xi. The initials IMPROVE mean or refer to 

Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual 

Environments monitoring network. 

xii. The initials MRR mean or refer to 

monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting. 

xiii. The initials NOX mean or refer to 

nitrogen oxides. 

xiv. The initials OC mean or refer to 

organic carbon. 

xv. The initials PM2.5 mean or refer to 

particulate matter with an aerodynamic 

diameter of less than 2.5 micrometers. 

xvi. The initials PM10 mean or refer to 

particulate matter with an aerodynamic 

diameter of less than 10 micrometers. 

xvii. The initials RHR mean or refer to the 

Regional Haze Rule. 

xviii. The initials RMC mean or refer to the 

Regional Modeling Center. 

xix. The initials RPO mean or refer to 

regional planning organization. 

xx. The initials SIP mean or refer to State 

Implementation Plan. 

xxi. The initials SO2 mean or refer to sulfur 

dioxide. 

xxii. The initials TSA mean or refer to the 

tracking system administrator. 

xxiii. The initials TSD mean or refer to 

Technical Support Document. 

xxiv. The initials VOC mean or refer to 

volatile organic compounds. 

xxv. The initials WAQSR mean or refer to 

Wyoming Air Quality Standards and 

Regulations. 

xxvi. The initials WRAP mean or refer to 

the Western Regional Air Partnership. 

xxvii. The words Wyoming and State mean 

or refer to the State of Wyoming. 

Table of Contents 

I. General Information 

A. What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments for EPA? 

B. Overview of Proposed Action 

II. Background Information 

A. Regional Haze 

B. Requirements of the CAA and EPA’s 

Regional Haze Rule 

C. Role of Agencies in Addressing Regional 

Haze 

D. Development of the Requirements for 40 

CFR 51.309 

III. Requirements for Regional Haze SIPs 

Submitted Under 40 CFR 51.309 

A. Projection of Visibility Improvement 

B. Clean Air Corridors (CACs) 

C. Stationary Source Reductions 

1. Sulfur Dioxide Emission Reductions 

2. Provisions for Stationary Source 

Emissions of Nitrogen Oxides and 

Particulate Matter 

D. Mobile Sources 

E. Programs Related to Fire 

F. Paved and Unpaved Road Dust 

G. Pollution Prevention 

H. Additional Recommendations 

I. Periodic Implementation Plan Revisions 

J. Interstate Coordination 

IV. Additional Requirements for Alternative 

Programs Under the Regional Haze Rule 

A. ‘‘Better-than-BART’’ Demonstration 

B. Elements Required for All Alternative 

Programs That Have an Emissions Cap 

1. Applicability 

2. Allowances 

3. Monitoring Recordkeeping, and 

Reporting 

4. Tracking System 

5. Account Representative 

6. Allowance Transfer 

7. Compliance Provisions 

8. Penalty Provisions 

9. Banking of Allowances 

10. Program Assessment 

V. Our Analysis of Wyoming’s Submittal 

A. Projection of Visibility Improvement 

B. Clean Air Corridors 

1. Comprehensive Emissions Tracking 

Program 

2. Identification of Clean Air Corridors 

3. Patterns of Growth Within and Outside 

of the Clean Air Corridor 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 101 / Thursday, May 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules 30955 

1 In addition to the SIP submittals from the three 

states, Albuquerque/Bernalillo County in New 

Mexico must also submit a Section 309 RH SIP to 

completely satisfy the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA for the entire State of New 

Mexico under the New Mexico Air Quality Control 

Act (section 74–2–4). Albuquerque submitted its 

regional haze SIP to EPA on June 8, 2011. When we 

refer to New Mexico in this notice, we are also 

referring to Albuquerque/Bernalillo County. 

4. Actions if Impairment Inside or Outside 

the Clean Air Corridor Occurs 

5. Other Clean Air Corridors 

C. Stationary Source Reductions 

1. Provisions for Stationary Source 

Emissions of Sulfur Dioxide 

2. Documentation of Emissions Calculation 

Methods for Sulfur Dioxide 

3. Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and 

Reporting of Sulfur Dioxide Emissions 

4. Criteria and Procedures for a Market 

Trading Program 

5. Market Trading Program 

6. Provisions for the 2018 Milestone 

7. Special Penalty Provision for 2018 

D. ‘‘Better-than-BART’’ Demonstration 

1. List of BART-Eligible Sources 

2. Subject-to-BART Determination 

3. Best System of Continuous Emission 

Control Technology 

4. Projected Emission Reductions 

5. Evidence That the Trading Program 

Achieves Greater Reasonable Progress 

Than BART 

6. All Emissions Reductions Must Take 

Place During the First Planning Period 

7. Detailed Description of the Alternative 

Program 

8. Surplus Reductions 

9. Geographic Distribution of Emissions 

E. Requirements for Alternative Programs 

With an Emissions Cap 

1. Applicability Provisions 

2. Allowance Provisions 

3. Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and 

Reporting 

4. Tracking System 

5. Account Representative 

6. Allowance Transfers 

7. Compliance Provisions 

8. Penalty Provisions 

9. Banking of Allowances 

10. Program Assessment 

F. Provisions for Stationary Source 

Emissions of Nitrogen Oxides and 

Particulate Matter 

G. Mobile Sources 

H. Programs Related to Fire 

1. Evaluation of Current Fire Programs 

a. Actions To Minimize Emissions 

b. Evaluation of Smoke Dispersion 

c. Alternatives to Fire 

d. Public Notification 

e. Air Quality Monitoring 

f. Surveillance and Enforcement 

g. Program Evaluation 

2. Inventory and Tracking System 

3. Strategy for Use of Alternatives to 

Burning 

4. Enhanced Smoke Management Program 

5. Annual Emission Goal 

I. Paved and Unpaved Road Dust 

J. Pollution Prevention 

1. Description of Existing Pollution 

Prevention Programs 

2. Incentive Programs 

3. Programs To Preserve and Expand 

Energy Conservation Efforts 

4. Potential for Renewable Energy 

5. Projections of Renewable Energy Goals, 

Energy Efficiency, and Pollution 

Prevention Activities 

6. Programs To Achieve the GCVTC 

Renewable Energy Goal 

K. Additional Recommendations 

L. Periodic Implementation Plan Revisions 

M. Interstate Coordination 

N. Additional Class I Areas 

VI. Proposed Action 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. General Information 

A. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for EPA? 

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit CBI 

to EPA through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly 

mark the part or all of the information 

that you claim to be CBI. For CBI 

information in a disk or CD–ROM that 

you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the 

disk or CD–ROM as CBI and then 

identify electronically within the disk or 

CD–ROM the specific information that 

is claimed as CBI. In addition to one 

complete version of the comment that 

includes information claimed as CBI, a 

copy of the comment that does not 

contain the information claimed as CBI 

must be submitted for inclusion in the 

public docket. Information so marked 

will not be disclosed except in 

accordance with procedures set forth in 

40 CFR part 2. 

2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. 

When submitting comments, remember 

to: 

a. Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

b. Follow directions—The agency may 

ask you to respond to specific questions 

or organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

c. Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

d. Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

e. If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

f. Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

g. Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

h. Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

B. Overview of Proposed Action 

In this action, EPA is proposing to 

approve Wyoming SIP revisions 

submitted on January 12, 2011 and 

April 19, 2012 that address the regional 

haze rule (RHR) for the mandatory Class 

I areas under 40 CFR 51.309. EPA is 

proposing that the January 12, 2011 and 

April 19, 2012 SIPs meet the 

requirements of 40 CFR 51.309, with the 

exception of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(vii), 

and 40 CFR 51.309(g), as explained 

below. 

As part of the January 12, 2011 and 

April 19, 2012 SIPs, the State submitted 

revisions to the Wyoming Air Quality 

Standards and Regulations (WAQSR). 

The State submitted WAQSR Chapter 

14, Sections 2 and 3—Emission Trading 

Program Regulations. WAQSR Chapter 

14, in conjunction with the SIP, 

implements the backstop trading 

program provisions in accordance with 

the applicable requirements of 40 CFR 

51.308 and 40 CFR 51.309. We are 

proposing to approve WAQSR Chapter 

14, Section 2 and Section 3. The State 

also submitted WAQSR Chapter 10, 

Section 4—Smoke Management. 

WAQSR Chapter 10, Section 4, in 

conjunction with the SIP, implements 

the requirements for smoke management 

under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6). We are 

proposing to approve WAQSR Chapter 

10, Section 4. 

The State’s submitted another SIP 

revision dated January 12, 2011 that 

addresses the requirements under 40 

CFR 51.309(d)(4)(vii) and 40 CFR 

51.309(g) pertaining to best available 

retrofit technology (BART) for 

particulate matter (PM) and nitrogen 

oxides (NOX) and additional Class I 

areas, respectively. EPA will be taking 

action on this SIP at a later date. In 

addition, the January 12, 2011 and April 

19, 2012 submittals we are proposing to 

act on in this notice supersede and 

replace regional haze SIPs submitted on 

December 24, 2003, May 27, 2004, and 

November 21, 2008. 

As explained in further detail below, 

40 CFR 51.309 (section 309) allows 

western states an optional way to fulfill 

the RHR requirements as opposed to 

adopting the requirements under 40 

CFR 51.308. Three states have elected to 

submit a SIP under 40 CFR 51.309. 

Those states are Wyoming, Utah, and 

New Mexico.1 In this action, EPA is 

proposing to approve the Wyoming 

section 309 SIP submittal. As required 

by 40 CFR 51.309, the participating 

states must adopt a trading program, or 

what has been termed the Western 

Backstop Sulfur Dioxide Trading 

Program (backstop trading program or 

trading program). The 309 backstop 

trading program will not be effective 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
30956 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 101 / Thursday, May 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

2 Visual range is the greatest distance, in 

kilometers or miles, at which a dark object can be 

viewed against the sky. 

3Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal 

areas consist of national parks exceeding 6000 

acres, wilderness areas and national memorial parks 

exceeding 5000 acres, and all international parks 

that were in existence on August 7, 1977. 42 U.S.C. 

7472(a). In accordance with section 169A of the 

CAA, EPA, in consultation with the Department of 

Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas where 

visibility is identified as an important value. 44 FR 

69122 (November 30, 1979). The extent of a 

mandatory Class I area includes subsequent changes 

in boundaries, such as park expansions. 42 U.S.C. 

7472(a). Although states and tribes may designate 

as Class I additional areas which they consider to 

have visibility as an important value, the 

requirements of the visibility program set forth in 

section 169A of the CAA apply only to ‘‘mandatory 

Class I Federal areas.’’ Each mandatory Class I 

Federal area is the responsibility of a ‘‘Federal Land 

Manager.’’ 42 U.S.C. 7602(i). When we use the term 

‘‘Class I area’’ in this action, we mean a ‘‘mandatory 

Class I Federal area.’’ 

4EPA’s regional haze regulations require 

subsequent updates to the regional haze SIPs. 40 

CFR 51.308(g)–(i). 

until EPA has finalized action on all 

section 309 SIPs as the program is 

dependent on the participation of the 

three states. Utah submitted its 309 SIP 

to EPA on May 26, 2011 and New 

Mexico submitted its 309 SIP to EPA on 

June 30, 2011. EPA will be taking action 

on Utah and New Mexico’s 309 SIPs 

separately. If EPA takes action 

approving the necessary components of 

the 309 backstop trading program to 

operate in all of the jurisdictions 

electing to submit 309 SIPs, the trading 

program will become effective. 

II. Background Information 

A. Regional Haze 

Regional haze is visibility impairment 

that is produced by a multitude of 

sources and activities which are located 

across a broad geographic area and emit 

fine particles (PM2.5) (e.g., sulfates, 

nitrates, organic carbon (OC), elemental 

carbon (EC), and soil dust), and their 

precursors (e.g., SO2, NOX, and in some 

cases, ammonia (NH3) and volatile 

organic compounds (VOC)). Fine 

particle precursors react in the 

atmosphere to form PM2.5, which 

impairs visibility by scattering and 

absorbing light. Visibility impairment 

reduces the clarity, color, and visible 

distance that one can see. PM2.5 can also 

cause serious health effects and 

mortality in humans and contributes to 

environmental effects such as acid 

deposition and eutrophication. 

Data from the existing visibility 

monitoring network, the ‘‘Interagency 

Monitoring of Protected Visual 

Environments’’ (IMPROVE) monitoring 

network, show that visibility 

impairment caused by air pollution 

occurs virtually all the time at most 

national park and wilderness areas. The 

average visual range 2 in many Class I 

areas (i.e., national parks and memorial 

parks, wilderness areas, and 

international parks meeting certain size 

criteria) in the western United States is 

100–150 kilometers, or about one-half to 

two-thirds of the visual range that 

would exist without anthropogenic air 

pollution. In most of the eastern Class 

I areas of the United States, the average 

visual range is less than 30 kilometers, 

or about one-fifth of the visual range 

that would exist under estimated 

natural conditions. 64 FR 35715 (July 1, 

1999). 

B. Requirements of the CAA and EPA’s 

Regional Haze Rule 

In section 169A of the 1977 

Amendments to the CAA, Congress 

created a program for protecting 

visibility in the nation’s national parks 

and wilderness areas. This section of the 

CAA establishes as a national goal the 

‘‘prevention of any future, and the 

remedying of any existing, impairment 

of visibility in mandatory Class I 

Federal areas 3 which impairment 

results from manmade air pollution.’’ 

On December 2, 1980, EPA promulgated 

regulations to address visibility 

impairment in Class I areas that is 

‘‘reasonably attributable’’ to a single 

source or small group of sources, i.e., 

‘‘reasonably attributable visibility 

impairment.’’ 45 FR 80084. These 

regulations represented the first phase 

in addressing visibility impairment. 

EPA deferred action on regional haze 

that emanates from a variety of sources 

until monitoring, modeling and 

scientific knowledge about the 

relationships between pollutants and 

visibility impairment were improved. 

Congress added section 169B to the 

CAA in 1990 to address regional haze 

issues. EPA promulgated a rule to 

address regional haze on July 1, 1999. 

64 FR 35714 (July 1, 1999, codified at 

40 CFR part 51, subpart P). The RHR 

revised the existing visibility 

regulations to integrate into the 

regulation provisions addressing 

regional haze impairment and 

established a comprehensive visibility 

protection program for Class I areas. The 

requirements for regional haze, found at 

40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309, are included 

in EPA’s visibility protection 

regulations at 40 CFR 51.300–309. Some 

of the main elements of the regional 

haze requirements under 40 CFR 51.309 

are summarized in sections III and IV of 

this preamble. The requirement to 

submit a regional haze SIP applies to all 

50 states, the District of Columbia and 

the Virgin Islands. 40 CFR 51.308(b) and 

40 CFR 51.309(c) require states to 

submit the first implementation plan 

addressing regional haze visibility 

impairment no later than December 17, 

2007.4

Few states submitted a regional haze 

SIP prior to the December 17, 2007 

deadline, and on January 15, 2009, EPA 

found that 37 states, including 

Wyoming and the District of Columbia, 

and the Virgin Islands, had failed to 

submit SIPs addressing the regional 

haze requirements. 74 FR 2392. Once 

EPA has found that a state has failed to 

make a required submission, EPA is 

required to promulgate a FIP within two 

years unless the state submits a SIP and 

the Agency approves it within the two 

year period. CAA § 110(c)(1). 

C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing 

Regional Haze 

Successful implementation of the 

regional haze program will require longterm regional coordination among 

states, tribal governments and various 

federal agencies. As noted above, 

pollution affecting the air quality in 

Class I areas can be transported over 

long distances, even hundreds of 

kilometers. Therefore, to effectively 

address the problem of visibility 

impairment in Class I areas, states need 

to develop strategies in coordination 

with one another, taking into account 

the effect of emissions from one 

jurisdiction on the air quality in 

another. 

Because the pollutants that lead to 

regional haze can originate from sources 

located across broad geographic areas, 

EPA has encouraged the states and 

tribes across the United States to 

address visibility impairment from a 

regional perspective. Five regional 

planning organizations (RPOs) were 

developed to address regional haze and 

related issues. The RPOs first evaluated 

technical information to better 

understand how their states and tribes 

impact Class I areas across the country, 

and then pursued the development of 

regional strategies to reduce emissions 

of PM and other pollutants leading to 

regional haze. 

The Western Regional Air Partnership 

(WRAP) RPO is a collaborative effort of 

state governments, tribal governments, 

and various federal agencies established 

to initiate and coordinate activities 

associated with the management of 

regional haze, visibility and other air 

quality issues in the western United 

States. WRAP member state 

governments include: Alaska, Arizona, 

California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, 

New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, 

South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 101 / Thursday, May 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules 30957 

5The Colorado Plateau is a high, semi-arid 

tableland in southeast Utah, northern Arizona, 

northwest New Mexico, and western Colorado. The 

16 mandatory Class I areas are as follows: Grand 

Canyon National Park, Mount Baldy Wilderness, 

Petrified Forest National Park, Sycamore Canyon 

Wilderness, Black Canyon of the Gunnison National 

Park Wilderness, Flat Tops Wilderness, Maroon 

Bells Wilderness, Mesa Verde National Park, 

Weminuche Wilderness, West Elk Wilderness, San 

Pedro Parks Wilderness, Arches National Park, 

Bryce Canyon National Park, Canyonlands National 

Park, Capital Reef National Park, and Zion National 

Park. 

6The preamble to the RHR provides additional 

details about the deciview. 64 FR 35714, 35725 

(July 1, 1999). 

Wyoming. Tribal members include 

Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians, 

Confederated Salish and Kootenai 

Tribes, Cortina Indian Rancheria, Hopi 

Tribe, Hualapai Nation of the Grand 

Canyon, Native Village of Shungnak, 

Nez Perce Tribe, Northern Cheyenne 

Tribe, Pueblo of Acoma, Pueblo of San 

Felipe, and Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of 

Fort Hall. 

D. Development of the Requirements for 

40 CFR 51.309 

EPA’s RHR provides two paths to 

address regional haze. One is 40 CFR 

51.308, requiring states to perform 

individual point source BART 

determinations and evaluate the need 

for other control strategies. These 

strategies must be shown to make 

‘‘reasonable progress’’ in improving 

visibility in Class I areas inside the state 

and in neighboring jurisdictions. The 

other method for addressing regional 

haze is through 40 CFR 51.309, and is 

an option for nine states termed the 

‘‘Transport Region States’’ which 

include: Arizona, California, Colorado, 

Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, 

Utah, and Wyoming, and the 211 tribes 

located within those states. By meeting 

the requirements under 40 CFR 51.309, 

states are making reasonable progress 

toward the national goal of achieving 

natural visibility conditions for the 16 

Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau. 

Section 309 requires participating 

states to adopt regional haze strategies 

that are based on recommendations 

from the Grand Canyon Visibility 

Transport Commission (GCVTC) for 

protecting the 16 Class I areas on the 

Colorado Plateau.5 The EPA established 

the GCVTC on November 13, 1991. The 

purpose of the GCVTC was to assess 

information about the adverse impacts 

on visibility in and around the 16 Class 

I areas on the Colorado Plateau and to 

provide policy recommendations to EPA 

to address such impacts. Section 169B 

of the CAA called for the GCVTC to 

evaluate visibility research, as well as 

other available information, pertaining 

to adverse impacts on visibility from 

potential or projected growth in 

emissions from sources located in the 

region. The GCVTC determined that all 

transport region states could potentially 

impact the Class I areas on the Colorado 

Plateau. The GCVTC submitted a report 

to EPA in 1996 with its policy 

recommendations for protecting 

visibility for the Class I areas on the 

Colorado Plateau. Provisions of the 1996 

GCVTC report include: strategies for 

addressing smoke emissions from 

wildland fires and agricultural burning; 

provisions to prevent pollution by 

encouraging renewable energy 

development; and provisions to manage 

clean air corridors (CACs), mobile 

sources, and wind-blown dust, among 

other things. The EPA codified these 

recommendations as part of the 1999 

RHR. 64 FR 35714 (July 1, 1999). 

EPA determined that the GCVTC 

strategies would provide for reasonable 

progress in mitigating regional haze if 

supplemented by an annex containing 

quantitative emission reduction 

milestones and provisions for a trading 

program or other alternative measure 

(64 FR 35749 and 35756). Thus, the 

1999 RHR required that western states 

submit an annex to the GCVTC report 

with quantitative milestones and 

detailed guidelines for an alternative 

program in order to establish the 

GCVTC recommendations as an 

alternative approach to fulfilling the 

section 308 requirements for 

compliance with the RHR. In September 

2000, the WRAP, which is the successor 

organization to the GCVTC, submitted 

an annex to EPA. The annex contained 

SO2 emission reduction milestones and 

the detailed provisions of a backstop 

trading program to be implemented 

automatically if voluntary measures 

failed to achieve the SO2 milestones. 

EPA codified the annex on June 5, 2003 

at 40 CFR 51.309(h). 68 FR 33764. 

Five western states submitted 

implementation plans under section 309 

in 2003. EPA was challenged by the 

Center for Energy and Economic 

Development (CEED) on the validity of 

the annex provisions. In CEED v. EPA, 

the DC Circuit vacated EPA’s approval 

of the WRAP annex (Center for Energy 

and Economic Development v. EPA, No. 

03–1222 (DC Cir. Feb. 18, 2005)). In 

response to the court’s decision, EPA 

vacated the annex requirements adopted 

as 40 CFR 51.309(h), but left in place the 

stationary source requirements in 40 

CFR 51.309(d)(4). 71 FR 60612. The 

requirements under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4) 

contain general requirements pertaining 

to stationary sources and market 

trading, and allow states to adopt 

alternatives to the point source 

application of BART. 

III. Requirements for Regional Haze 

SIPs Submitted Under 40 CFR 51.309 

The following is a summary and basic 

explanation of the regulations covered 

under section 51.309 of the RHR. See 40 

CFR 51.309 for a complete listing of the 

regulations under which this SIP was 

evaluated. 

A. Projection of Visibility Improvement 

For each of the 16 Class I areas 

located on the Colorado Plateau, the SIP 

must include a projection of the 

improvement in visibility expressed in 

deciviews. 40 CFR 51.309(d)(2). The 

RHR establishes the deciview as the 

principal metric or unit for expressing 

visibility. See 70 FR 39104, 39118. This 

visibility metric expresses uniform 

changes in the degree of haze in terms 

of common increments across the entire 

range of visibility conditions, from 

pristine to extremely hazy conditions. 

Visibility expressed in deciviews is 

determined by using air quality 

measurements to estimate light 

extinction and then transforming the 

value of light extinction using a 

logarithm function. The deciview is a 

more useful measure for tracking 

progress in improving visibility than 

light extinction itself because each 

deciview change is an equal incremental 

change in visibility perceived by the 

human eye. Most people can detect a 

change in visibility at one deciview.6

States need to show the projected 

visibility improvement for the best and 

worst 20 percent days through the year 

2018, based on the application of all 

section 309 control strategies. 

B. Clean Air Corridors (CACs) 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(3), 

states must identify CACs. CACs are 

geographic areas located within 

transport region states that contribute to 

the best visibility days (least impaired) 

in the 16 Class I areas on the Colorado 

Plateau. The CAC as described in the 

1996 GCVTC report covers nearly all of 

Nevada, large portions of Oregon, Idaho, 

and Utah, and encompasses several 

Indian nations. In order to meet the RHR 

requirements for CACs, states must 

adopt a comprehensive emissions 

tracking program for all visibility 

impairing pollutants within the CAC. 

Based on the emissions tracking, states 

must identify overall emissions growth 

or specific areas of emissions growth in 

and outside of the CAC that could be 

significant enough to result in visibility 

impairment at one or more of the 16 

Class I areas. If there is visibility 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
30958 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 101 / Thursday, May 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

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

subject-to-BART is listed in CAA section 

169A(g)(7). 

8BART-eligible sources are those sources that 

have the potential to emit 250 tons or more of a 

visibility-impairing air pollutant, were not in 

operation prior to August 7, 1962, but were in 

existence on August 7, 1977, and whose operations 

fall within one or more of 26 specifically listed 

source categories. 40 CFR 51.301. 

impairment in the CAC, states must 

conduct an analysis of the potential 

impact in the 16 Class I areas and 

determine if additional emission control 

measures are needed and how these 

measures would be implemented. States 

must also indicate in their SIP if any 

other CACs exist, and if others are 

found, provide necessary measures to 

protect against future degradation of 

visibility in the 16 Class I areas. 

C. Stationary Source Reductions 

1. Sulfur Dioxide Emission Reductions 

Section 169A of the CAA directs 

states to evaluate the use of retrofit 

controls at certain larger, often 

uncontrolled, older stationary sources in 

order to address their visibility impacts. 

Specifically, section 169A(b)(2)(A) of 

the CAA requires states to revise their 

SIPs to contain such measures as may be 

necessary to make reasonable progress 

towards the natural visibility goal, 

including a requirement that certain 

categories of existing major stationary 

sources built between 1962 and 1977 

procure, install, and operate BART as 

determined by the state. Under the RHR, 

states are directed to conduct BART 

determinations for such ‘‘BARTeligible’’ sources that may be 

anticipated to cause or contribute to any 

visibility impairment in a Class I area. 

Rather than requiring source-specific 

BART controls, states have the 

flexibility under section 309 to adopt an 

emissions trading program or other 

alternative program as long as the 

alternative provides greater reasonable 

progress than would be achieved by the 

application of BART pursuant to 40 CFR 

51.309(e)(2). Under 40 CFR 51.309, 

states can satisfy the section 308 SO2

BART requirements by adopting SO2

emission milestones and a backstop 

trading program. 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4). 

Under this approach, states must 

establish declining SO2 emission 

milestones for each year of the program 

through 2018. The milestones must be 

consistent with the GCTVC’s goal of 50 

to 70 percent reduction in SO2

emissions by 2040. If the milestones are 

exceeded in any year, the backstop 

trading program is triggered. 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(ii)- 

(iv), states must include requirements in 

the SIP that allow states to determine 

whether the milestone has been 

exceeded. These requirements include 

documentation of the baseline emission 

calculation, monitoring, recordkeeping, 

and reporting (MRR) of SO2 emissions, 

and provisions for conducting an annual 

evaluation to determine whether the 

milestone has been exceeded. SIPs must 

also contain requirements for 

implementing the backstop trading 

program in the event that the milestone 

is exceeded and the program is 

triggered. 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(v). 

The WRAP, in conjunction with EPA, 

developed a model for a backstop 

trading program. In order to ensure 

consistency between states, states opting 

to participate in the 309 program need 

to adopt rules that are substantively 

equivalent to the model rules for the 

backstop trading program to meet the 

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

The trading program must also be 

implemented no later than 15 months 

after the end of the first year that the 

milestone is exceeded, require that 

sources hold allowances to cover their 

emissions, and provide a framework, 

including financial penalties, to ensure 

that the 2018 milestone is met. 

2. Provisions for Stationary Source 

Emissions of Nitrogen Oxides and 

Particulate Matter 

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

a section 309 SIP must contain any 

necessary long term strategies and 

BART requirements for PM and NOX. 

Section 169A of the CAA directs states 

to evaluate the use of retrofit controls at 

certain larger, often uncontrolled, older 

stationary sources in order to address 

visibility impacts from these sources. 

Specifically, section 169A(b)(2)(A) of 

the CAA requires states to revise their 

SIPs to contain such measures as may be 

necessary to make reasonable progress 

towards the natural visibility goal, 

including a requirement that certain 

categories of existing major stationary 

sources7 built between 1962 and 1977 

procure, install, and operate the ‘‘Best 

Available Retrofit Technology’’ as 

determined by the state. 

On July 6, 2005, EPA published the 

Guidelines for BART Determinations 

Under the Regional Haze Rule at 

appendix Y to 40 CFR part 51 

(hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘BART 

Guidelines’’) to assist states in 

determining which of their sources 

should be subject to the BART 

requirements and in determining 

appropriate emission limits for each 

applicable source. 70 FR 39104. In 

making a BART determination for a 

fossil fuel-fired electric generating plant 

with a total generating capacity in 

excess of 750 megawatts (MW), a state 

must use the approach set forth in the 

BART Guidelines. A state is encouraged, 

but not required, to follow the BART 

Guidelines in making BART 

determinations for other types of 

sources. Regardless of source size or 

type, a state must meet the requirements 

of the CAA and our regulations for 

selection of BART, and the state’s BART 

analysis and determination must be 

reasonable in light of the overarching 

purpose of the regional haze program. 

The process of establishing BART 

emission limitations can be logically 

broken down into three steps: first, 

states identify those sources which meet 

the definition of ‘‘BART-eligible source’’ 

set forth in 40 CFR 51.301 8; second, 

states determine which of such sources 

‘‘emits any air pollutant which may 

reasonably be anticipated to cause or 

contribute to any impairment of 

visibility in any such area’’ (a source 

which fits this description is ‘‘subjectto-BART’’); and third, for each source 

subject-to-BART, states then identify the 

best available type and level of control 

for reducing emissions. 

States must address all visibilityimpairing pollutants emitted by a source 

in the BART determination process. The 

most significant visibility impairing 

pollutants are SO2, NOX, and PM. EPA 

has stated that states should use their 

best judgment in determining whether 

VOC or NH3 compounds impair 

visibility in Class I areas. 

Under the BART Guidelines, states 

may select an exemption threshold 

value for their BART modeling, below 

which a BART-eligible source would 

not be expected to cause or contribute 

to visibility impairment in any Class I 

area. The state must document this 

exemption threshold value in the SIP 

and must state the basis for its selection 

of that value. Any source with 

emissions that model above the 

threshold value would be subject to a 

BART determination review. The BART 

Guidelines acknowledge varying 

circumstances affecting different Class I 

areas. States should consider the 

number of emission sources affecting 

the Class I areas at issue and the 

magnitude of the individual sources’ 

impacts. Any exemption threshold set 

by the state should not be higher than 

0.5 deciview. 40 CFR part 51, appendix 

Y, section III.A.1. 

In their SIPs, states must identify the 

sources that are subject-to-BART and 

document their BART control 

determination analyses for such sources. 

In making their BART determinations, 

section 169A(g)(2) of the CAA requires 

that states consider the following factors 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 101 / Thursday, May 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules 30959 

when evaluating potential control 

technologies: (1) The costs of 

compliance; (2) the energy and non-air 

quality environmental impacts of 

compliance; (3) any existing pollution 

control technology in use at the source; 

(4) the remaining useful life of the 

source; and (5) the degree of 

improvement in visibility which may 

reasonably be anticipated to result from 

the use of such technology. 

A regional haze SIP must include 

source-specific BART emission limits 

and compliance schedules for each 

source subject-to-BART. Once a state 

has made its BART determination, the 

BART controls must be installed and in 

operation as expeditiously as 

practicable, but no later than five years 

after the date of EPA approval of the 

regional haze SIP. CAA section 169(g)(4) 

and 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv). In addition 

to what is required by the RHR, general 

SIP requirements mandate that the SIP 

must also include all regulatory 

requirements related to MRR for the 

BART controls on the source. See CAA 

section 110(a). As noted above, the RHR 

allows states to implement an 

alternative program in lieu of BART so 

long as the alternative program can be 

demonstrated to achieve greater 

reasonable progress toward the national 

visibility goal than would BART. 

D. Mobile Sources 

Under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(5), states 

must provide inventories of on-road and 

non-road mobile source emissions of 

VOCs, NOX, SO2, PM2.5, EC, and OC for 

the years 2003, 2008, 2013, and 2018. 

The inventories must show a 

continuous decline in total mobile 

source emissions of each of the above 

pollutants. If the inventories show a 

continuous decline in total mobile 

source emissions of each of these 

pollutants over the period 2003–2018, a 

state is not required to take further 

action in their SIP. If the inventories do 

not show a continuous decline in 

mobile source emissions of one or more 

of these pollutants over the period 

2003–2018, a state must submit a SIP 

that contains measures that will achieve 

a continuous decline. 

The SIP must also contain any longterm strategies necessary to reduce 

emissions of SO2 from non-road mobile 

sources, consistent with the goal of 

reasonable progress. In assessing the 

need for such long-term strategies, the 

state may consider emissions reductions 

achieved or anticipated from any new 

federal standards for sulfur in non-road 

diesel fuel. Section 309 SIPs must 

provide an update on any additional 

mobile source strategies implemented 

within the state related to the GCVTC 

1996 recommendations on mobile 

sources. 

E. Programs Related to Fire 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6), SIPs 

must contain requirements for programs 

related to fire. The SIP must show that 

the state’s smoke management program, 

and all federal or private programs for 

prescribed fire in the state, have a 

mechanism in place for evaluating and 

addressing the degree of visibility 

impairment from smoke in their 

planning and application of burning. 

The state must also ensure that its 

prescribed fire smoke management 

programs have at least the following 

seven elements: (1) Actions to minimize 

emissions; (2) evaluation of smoke 

dispersion; (3) alternatives to fire; (4) 

public notification; (5) air quality 

monitoring; (6) surveillance and 

enforcement; and (7) program 

evaluation. The state must be able to 

track statewide emissions of VOC, NOX, 

EC, OC, and PM2.5 emissions from 

prescribed burning in its state. 

Other requirements states must meet 

in their 309 plan related to fire include 

the adoption of a statewide process for 

gathering post-burn activity information 

to support emissions inventory and 

tracking systems. States must identify 

existing administrative barriers to the 

use of non-burning alternatives and 

adopt a process for continuing to 

identify and remove administrative 

barriers where feasible. The SIP must 

include an enhanced smoke 

management program that considers 

visibility effects in addition to health 

objectives and is based on the criteria of 

efficiency, economics, law, emission 

reduction opportunities, land 

management objectives, and reduction 

of visibility impairment. Finally, a state 

must establish annual emission goals to 

minimize emission increases from fire. 

F. Paved and Unpaved Road Dust 

Under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(7), states 

must submit a SIP that assesses the 

impact of dust emissions on regional 

haze in the 16 Class I areas on the 

Colorado Plateau and to include a 

projection of visibility conditions 

through 2018 for the least and most 

impaired days. If dust emissions are 

determined to be a significant 

contributor to visibility impairment, the 

state must include emissions 

management strategies in the SIP to 

address their impact. 

G. Pollution Prevention 

The requirements under the RHR for 

pollution prevention only require the 

state to provide an assessment of the 

energy programs as outlined in 40 CFR 

51.309(d)(8) and does not require a state 

to adopt any specific energy-related 

strategies or regulations for regional 

haze. In order to meet the requirements 

related to pollution prevention, the 

state’s plan must include an initial 

summary of all pollution prevention 

programs currently in place, an 

inventory of all renewable energy 

generation capacity and production in 

use or planned as of the year 2002, the 

total energy generation capacity and 

production for the state, and the percent 

of the total that is renewable energy. 

The state’s plan must include a 

discussion of programs that provide 

incentives for efforts that go beyond 

compliance and/or achieve early 

compliance with air-pollution related 

requirements and programs to preserve 

and expand energy conservation efforts. 

The state must identify specific areas 

where renewable energy has the 

potential to supply power where it is 

now lacking and where renewable 

energy is most cost-effective. The state 

must include projections of the short 

and long-term emissions reductions, 

visibility improvements, cost savings, 

and secondary benefits associated with 

renewable energy goals, energy 

efficiency, and pollution prevention 

activities. The state must also provide 

its anticipated contribution toward the 

GCVTC renewable energy goals for 2005 

and 2015. The GCVTC goals are that 

renewable energy will comprise 10 

percent of the regional power needs by 

2005 and 20 percent by 2015. 

H. Additional Recommendations 

Section 309 requires states to 

determine if any of the other 

recommendations not codified by EPA 

as part of 40 CFR 51.309, should be 

implemented in their SIP. 40 CFR 

51.309(d)(9). States are not required to 

adopt any additional control measures 

unless the state determines they are 

appropriate and can be practicably 

included as enforceable measures to 

remedy regional haze in the 16 Class I 

areas. Any measures adopted by a state 

would need to be enforceable. States 

must also submit a report to EPA and 

the public in 2013 and 2018 showing 

there has been an evaluation of the 

additional recommendations and the 

progress toward developing and 

implementing any such 

recommendations. 

I. Periodic Implementation Plan 

Revisions 

Under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10), states 

must submit progress reports in the 

form of SIP revisions in 2013 and 2018. 

The SIP revisions must comply with the 

procedural requirements of 40 CFR 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
30960 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 101 / Thursday, May 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

51.102 for public hearings and 40 CFR 

51.103 for submission of plans. The 

assessment in the progress report must 

include an evaluation of Class I areas 

located within the state and Class I areas 

outside the state that are affected by 

emissions from the state. EPA views 

these SIP revisions as a periodic check 

on progress, rather than a thorough 

revision of regional strategies. The state 

should focus on significant 

shortcomings of the original SIP from 

sources that were not fully accounted 

for or anticipated when the SIP was 

initially developed. The specifics of 

what each progress report must contain 

can be found at 40 CFR 

51.509(d)(10)(i)(A)–(G). 

At the same time that the state 

submits its progress report to EPA, it 

must also take an action based on the 

outcome of the assessment in the report. 

If the assessment shows that the SIP is 

adequate and requires no substantive 

revision, the state must submit to EPA 

a ‘‘negative declaration’’ statement 

saying that no further SIP revisions are 

necessary at this time. If the assessment 

shows that the SIP is or may be 

inadequate due to emissions from 

outside the state, the state must notify 

EPA and other regional planning states 

and work with them to develop 

additional control strategies. If the 

assessment shows that the SIP is or may 

be inadequate due to emissions from 

another country, the state must include 

appropriate notification to EPA in its 

SIP revision. In the event the assessment 

shows that the SIP is or may be 

inadequate due to emissions from 

within the state, the state shall develop 

additional strategies to address the 

deficiencies and revise the SIP within 

one year from the due date of the 

progress report. 

J. Interstate Coordination 

In complying with the requirements 

of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(11), states may 

include emission reductions strategies 

that are based on coordinated 

implementation with other states. The 

SIP must include documentation of the 

technical and policy basis for the 

individual state apportionment (or the 

procedures for apportionment 

throughout the trans-boundary region), 

the contribution addressed by the state’s 

plan, how it coordinates with other state 

plans, and compliance with any other 

appropriate implementation plan 

approvability criteria. States may rely 

on the relevant technical, policy, and 

other analyses developed by a regional 

entity, such as the WRAP in providing 

such documentation. 

IV. Additional Requirements for 

Alternative Programs Under the 

Regional Haze Rule 

States opting to submit an alternative 

program, such as the backstop trading 

program under section 309, must also 

meet requirements under 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(2) and (e)(3). These 

requirements for alternative programs 

relate to the ‘‘better-than-BART’’ test 

and fundamental elements of any 

alternative program that establishes a 

cap on emissions. 

A. ‘‘Better-Than-BART’’ Demonstration 

In order to demonstrate that the 

alternative program achieves greater 

reasonable progress than source-specific 

BART, states must provide a 

demonstration in their SIP that meets 

the requirements in 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(2)(i)–(v). States submitting 

section 309 SIPs or other alternative 

programs are required to list all BARTeligible sources and categories covered 

by the alternative program. States are 

then required to determine which 

BART-eligible sources are ‘‘subject-toBART.’’ The SIP must provide an 

analysis of the best system of 

continuous emission control technology 

available and the associated reductions 

for each source subject-to-BART covered 

by the alternative program, or what is 

termed a ‘‘BART benchmark.’’ Where 

the alternative program, such as the 309 

backstop trading program, has been 

designed to meet requirements other 

than BART, states may use simplifying 

assumptions in establishing a BART 

benchmark. These assumptions can 

provide the baseline to show that the 

alternative program achieves greater 

reasonable progress than BART (71 FR 

60619). Under this approach, states 

should use the presumptive limits for 

EGUs in the BART Guidelines to 

establish the BART benchmark used in 

the comparison, unless the state 

determines that such presumptions are 

not appropriate for particular EGUs (70 

FR 60619). 

The SIP must provide an analysis of 

the projected emissions reductions 

achievable through the trading program 

or other alternative measure and a 

determination that the trading program 

or other alternative measure achieves 

greater reasonable progress than would 

be achieved through the installation and 

operation of BART pursuant to 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(1). 40 CFR 308(e)(2)(i)(D)–(E). 

Under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iii)–(iv), all 

emission reductions for the alternative 

program must take place by 2018, and 

all the emission reductions resulting 

from the alternative program must be 

surplus to those reductions resulting 

from measures adopted to meet 

requirements of the CAA as of the 

baseline date of the SIP. Pursuant to 40 

CFR 51.309(e)(2)(v), states have the 

option of including a provision that the 

emissions trading program or other 

alternative measure include a 

geographic enhancement to the program 

to address the requirement under 40 

CFR 51.302(c) related to BART for 

reasonably attributable visibility 

impairment from the pollutants covered 

under the emissions trading program or 

other alternative measure. 

States must also address the 

distribution of emissions under the 

BART alternative as part of the betterthan-BART demonstration. 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(3). If a state can show that 

with the alternative program the 

distribution of emissions is not 

substantially different from sourcespecific BART, and the alternative 

program results in greater emission 

reductions than source-specific BART, 

then the alternative measure may be 

deemed to achieve greater reasonable 

progress. If the distribution of emissions 

is significantly different, the state must 

conduct dispersion modeling to 

determine differences in visibility 

between source-specific BART and the 

alternative program for each impacted 

Class I area for the 20% worst and best 

days. The modeling must show that 

visibility does not decline at any Class 

I area and that visibility overall is 

greater than what would be achieved 

with source-specific BART. 

B. Elements Required for All Alternative 

Programs That Have an Emissions Cap 

Under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(A)–(L), 

EPA established fundamental 

requirements for trading or alternative 

programs that have an emissions cap 

and require sources to hold allowances 

that they can sell, buy, or trade, as in the 

case for the 309 backstop trading 

program. These requirements are 

summarized below. 

1. Applicability 

The alternative program must have 

applicability provisions that define the 

sources subject to the program. In the 

case of a program covering sources in 

multiple states, the states must 

demonstrate that the applicability 

provisions in each state cover 

essentially the same size facilities and, 

if source categories are specified, cover 

the same source categories. 

2. Allowances 

Allowances are a key feature of a cap 

and trade program. An allowance is a 

limited authorization for a source to 

emit a specified amount of a pollutant, 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 101 / Thursday, May 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules 30961 

9WRAP Regional Technical Support Document 

for the Requirements of § 309 of the Regional Haze 

Rule (64 Federal Register 35714—July 1, 1999), 

revised May 7, 2008, which can be found in the 

State’s TSD included in the docket of this action. 

10Our review of the technical products developed 

by the WRAP is available as Technical Support 

Document for Technical Products Prepared by the 

Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) in 

Support of Western Regional Haze Plans, February 

28, 2011, which can be found in the Supporting and 

Related Materials section of the docket. 

as defined by the specific trading 

program, during a specified period. 

Allowances are fully marketable 

commodities. Once allocated, 

allowances may be bought, sold, traded, 

or banked for use in future years. EPA 

has not included in the rule detailed 

requirements on how states and tribes 

can allocate allowances. A state or tribe 

can determine how to allocate 

allowances as long as the allocation of 

the tonnage value of allowances does 

not exceed the total number of tons of 

emissions capped by the budget. The 

trading program must include allowance 

provisions ensuring that the total value 

of allowances issued each year under 

the program will not exceed the 

emissions cap on total annual emissions 

from the sources in the program. 

3. Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and 

Reporting 

MRR of a source’s emissions are 

integral parts of any cap and trade 

program. Consistent and accurate 

measurement of emissions ensures that 

each allowance actually represents its 

specified tonnage value of emissions 

and that one ton of reported emissions 

from one source is equivalent to one ton 

of reported emissions at another source. 

The MRR provisions must require that 

boilers, combustion turbines, and 

cement kilns in the alternative program 

that are allowed to sell or transfer 

allowances comply with the 

requirements of 40 CFR part 75. The 

MRR provisions must require that other 

sources in the program allowed to sell 

or transfer allowances provide 

emissions information with the same 

precision, reliability, accessibility, and 

timeliness as information required by 40 

CFR part 75. 

4. Tracking System 

An accurate and efficient tracking 

system is critical to the functioning of 

an emissions trading market. The 

tracking system must also be 

transparent, allowing all interested 

parties access to the information 

contained in the accounting system. 

Thus, alternative programs must have 

requirements for a tracking system that 

is publicly available in a secure, 

centralized database to track in a 

consistent manner all allowances and 

emissions in the program. 

5. Account Representative 

Each source owner or operator 

covered by the alternative program must 

designate an individual account 

representative who is authorized to 

represent the owner or operator in all 

matters pertaining to the trading 

program and who is responsible for the 

data reported for that source. The 

account representative will be 

responsible for, among other things, 

permitting, compliance, and allowance 

related actions. 

6. Allowance Transfer 

SIPs must contain provisions 

detailing a uniform process for 

transferring allowances among all 

sources covered by the program and 

other possible participants. The 

provisions must provide procedures for 

sources to request an allowance transfer, 

for the request and transfer to be 

recorded in the allowance tracking 

system, for notification to the source 

that the transfer has occurred, and for 

notification to the public of each 

transfer and request. 

7. Compliance Provisions 

Cap and trade programs must include 

compliance provisions that prohibit a 

source from emitting more emissions 

than the total tonnage value of 

allowances the source holds for that 

year. A cap and trade program must also 

contain the specific methods and 

procedures for determining compliance 

on an annual basis. 

8. Penalty Provisions 

In order to provide sources with a 

strong incentive to comply with the 

requirement to hold sufficient 

allowances for their emissions on an 

annual basis and to establish an 

immediate minimum economic 

consequence for non-compliance, the 

program must include a system for 

mandatory allowance deductions. SIPs 

must contain a provision that if a source 

has excess emissions in a given year, 

allowances allocated for the subsequent 

year will be deducted from the source’s 

account in an amount at least equal to 

three times the excess emissions. 

9. Banking of Allowances 

The banking of allowances occurs 

when allowances that have not been 

used for compliance are set aside for use 

in a later compliance period. Alternative 

programs can include provisions for 

banked allowances, so long as the SIP 

clearly identifies how unused 

allowances may be used in future years 

and whether there are any restrictions 

on the use of any such banked 

allowances. 

10. Program Assessment 

The alternative program must include 

provisions for periodic assessment of 

the program. Such periodic assessments 

are a way to retrospectively assess the 

performance of the trading program in 

meeting the goals of the regional haze 

program and determining whether the 

trading program needs any adjustments 

or changes. At a minimum, the program 

evaluation must be conducted every five 

years to coincide with the periodic 

report describing progress towards the 

reasonable progress goals required 

under 40 CFR 51.308(g) and must be 

submitted to EPA. 

V. Our Analysis of Wyoming’s 

Submittal 

The following summarizes how 

Wyoming’s January 12, 2011 submittal 

meets the requirements of 40 CFR 

51.309, with the exception of 40 CFR 

51.309(d)(4)(iii), 40 CFR 

51.309(d)(4)(vii), and 40 CFR 51.309(g), 

which as discussed above, EPA plans to 

propose action on in a future notice. 

A. Projection of Visibility Improvement 

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

Wyoming provided a comparison of the 

monitored 2000–2004 baseline visibility 

conditions in deciviews for the 20 

percent best and 20 percent worst days 

to the projected visibility improvement 

for 2018 for the Class I areas on the 

Colorado Plateau (see section K.2 of the 

SIP). Table 1 shows the State’s baseline 

monitoring data and projected visibility 

improvement for 2018 from the WRAP 

photochemical modeling (for details on 

the WRAP emission inventories and 

photochemical modeling refer to the 

WRAP Technical Support Document 

(TSD) 9 and our review of the technical 

products developed by the WRAP for 

the states in the western region, in 

support of their regional haze SIPs).10

The projected visibility improvement 

for the 2018 Base Case (referred to as the 

Base18b emission inventory and 

modeled projections) reflects growth 

plus all controls ‘‘on the books’’ as of 

December 2004. The projected visibility 

improvement for the Preliminary 

Reasonable Progress Case (referred to as 

the PRP18b emission inventory and 

modeled projections) reflects refined 

growth estimates, all controls ‘‘on the 

books’’ as of 2007, and includes 

presumptive or known SO2 BART 

controls. The modeling results show 

projected visibility improvement for the 

20 percent worst days in 2018 and no 

degradation in visibility conditions on 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
30962 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 101 / Thursday, May 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

11The milestone numbers reflect the participation 

of Wyoming, Utah, and New Mexico, including 

the 20 percent best days at all 16 Class 

I areas on the Colorado Plateau. We are 

proposing to determine the State’s SIP 

satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR 

51.309(d)(2). 

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

Class I area State 

20 Percent worst visibility days 20 Percent best visibility days 

2000–2004 

Baseline 

monitoring 

data 

(deciview) 

2018 Base 

case 

(deciview) 

2018 

Preliminary 

reasonable 

progress 

case 

(deciview) 

2000–2004 

Baseline 

monitoring 

data 

(deciview) 

2018 Base 

case 

(deciview) 

2018 

Preliminary 

reasonable 

progress 

case 

(deciview) 

Grand Canyon National Park ....................... AZ 11.7 11.4 11.3 2.2 2.2 2.1 

Mount Baldy Wilderness ............................... AZ 11.9 11.5 11.4 3.0 2.9 2.8 

Petrified Forest National Park ...................... AZ 13.2 12.9 12.9 5.0 4.9 4.8 

Sycamore Canyon Wilderness ..................... AZ 15.3 15.1 15.1 5.6 5.6 5.6 

Black Canyon of the Gunnison National 

Park Wilderness.

CO 10.3 10.1 9.9 3.1 2.9 2.9 

Flat Tops Wilderness .................................... CO 9.6 9.2 9.0 0.7 0.6 0.5 

Maroon Bells Wilderness .............................. CO 9.6 9.2 9.0 0.7 0.6 0.5 

Mesa Verde National Park ........................... CO 13.0 12.8 12.6 4.3 4.1 4.0 

Weminuche Wilderness ................................ CO 10.3 10.1 9.9 3.1 2.9 2.9 

West Elk Wilderness ..................................... CO 9.6 9.2 9.0 0.7 0.6 0.5 

San Pedro Parks Wilderness ....................... NM 10.2 10.0 9.8 1.5 1.3 1.2 

Arches National Park .................................... UT 11.2 11.0 10.9 3.8 3.6 3.5 

Bryce Canyon National Park ........................ UT 11.6 11.3 11.2 2.8 2.7 2.6 

Canyonlands National Park .......................... UT 11.2 11.0 10.9 3.8 3.6 3.5 

Capitol Reef National Park ........................... UT 10.9 10.6 10.5 4.1 4.0 3.9 

Zion National Park ........................................ UT 13.2 13.0 13.0 5.0 4.7 4.7 

B. Clean Air Corridors 

1. Comprehensive Emissions Tracking 

Program 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(3), 

Wyoming is using a comprehensive 

emissions tracking system established 

by WRAP to track emissions within 

portions of Oregon, Idaho, Nevada and 

Utah that have been identified as part of 

the CAC (see section B.1(a) of the SIP). 

The emission tracking is to ensure that 

visibility does not degrade on the leastimpaired days in any of the 16 Class I 

areas of the Colorado Plateau. For a 

complete description of the emission 

tracking system and the process by 

which the annual emission trends will 

be summarized in order to identify any 

significant emissions growth that could 

lead to visibility degradation in the 16 

Class I areas, see Description of 

Comprehensive Emissions Tracking 

System in the Wyoming Technical 

Support Document (TSD). The TSD can 

be found in the docket for this notice. 

2. Identification of Clean Air Corridors 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(3)(i), 

the State has provided the geographic 

boundaries of the CAC (a map of the 

CAC can be found in Section B of the 

SIP). The WRAP identified the CAC 

using studies conducted by the 

Meteorological Subcommittee of the 

GCVTC and then updated the CAC 

based on an assessment described in the 

WRAP Policy on Clean Air Corridors 

located in the Wyoming TSD. The 

technical studies and findings 

supporting the WRAP Policy on Clean 

Air Corridors are located in Chapter 3 of 

the WRAP TSD. 

3. Patterns of Growth Within and 

Outside of the Clean Air Corridor 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(3)(ii)– 

(iii), the State has determined, based on 

the WRAP Policy on Clean Air Corridors 

and technical analysis conducted by the 

WRAP, that inside and outside the CAC 

there is no significant emissions growth 

occurring at this time that is causing 

visibility impairment in the 16 Class I 

areas of the Colorado Plateau. The 

WRAP will summarize annual emission 

trends within and outside of the CAC 

and will assess whether any significant 

emissions growth is occurring that 

could result in visibility impairment in 

any of the 16 Class I areas (see section 

B.1(c) of the SIP). 

4. Actions if Impairment Inside or 

Outside the Clean Air Corridor Occurs 

The State, in coordination with other 

transport region states and tribes, will 

review the annual summary of emission 

trends within the CAC and determine 

whether any significant emissions 

growth has occurred. If the State 

identifies significant emissions growth, 

the State, in coordination with other 

transport region states and tribes, will 

conduct an analysis of the effects of this 

emissions growth. Pursuant to 40 CFR 

51.309(d)(3)(iv), if this analysis finds 

that the emissions growth is causing 

visibility impairment in the 16 Class I 

areas, the State will evaluate the need 

for additional emission reduction 

measures and identify an 

implementation schedule for such 

measures. The State will report on the 

need for additional reduction measures 

to EPA in accordance with the periodic 

progress reports required under 40 CFR 

51.309(d)(10)(i) (see section B.1(d) and 

(e) of the SIP). 

5. Other Clean Air Corridors 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(3)(v), 

the State has concluded that no other 

CACs can be identified at this time. The 

State’s conclusion is based on the WRAP 

Policy on Clean Air Corridors, which 

determined that no other CACs could be 

identified (see section B.1(f) of the SIP). 

We are proposing to determine that 

the State’s SIP meets the requirements 

of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(3). 

C. Stationary Source Reductions 

1. Provisions for Stationary Source 

Emissions of Sulfur Dioxide 

As required by 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(i), 

the State has adopted SO2 milestone 

numbers for each year of the program 

until 2018 (see section C.A1.1of the 

SIP).11 Table 2 shows the milestone 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 101 / Thursday, May 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules 30963 

Albuquerque-Bernalillo County in the 309 backstop 

trading program. 

12See Demonstration that the SO2 Milestones 

Provide Greater Reasonable Progress than BART in 

section D of the State’s TSD. 

13See 2006 Inventory Documentation in the 

Supporting and Related materials section of the 

docket. 

numbers and how compliance with the 

annual milestones will be determined. 

TABLE 2—SO2 EMISSIONS MILESTONES

Year Regional sulfur dioxide milestone 

(tons per year (tpy)) 

Annual SO2 emissions used to 

determine compliance with the 

annual milestones 

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

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

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

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

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

2013 ........................................................................................ 185,795 tons SO2 .................................. Average of 2011, 2012 and 2013. 

2014 ........................................................................................ 170,868 tons SO2 .................................. Average of 2012, 2013 and 2014. 

2015 ........................................................................................ 155,940 tons SO2 .................................. Average of 2013, 2014 and 2015. 

2016 ........................................................................................ 155,940 tons SO2 .................................. Average of 2014, 2015 and 2016. 

2017 ........................................................................................ 155,940 tons SO2 .................................. Average of 2015, 2016 and 2017. 

2018 ........................................................................................ 141,849 tons SO2 .................................. Year 2018 only. 

2019 forward, until replaced by an approved SIP .................. 141,849 tons SO2 .................................. Annual; no multiyear averaging. 

SO2 emissions from sources in 1990 

totaled 358,364 tpy and the 2018 

milestone is 141,849 tpy.12 The 

difference is a 60 percent reduction in 

SO2 emissions from 1990 to 2018. 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(i), the 

State has concluded that the emission 

reductions are on target to achieve the 

GCVTC goal of a 50 to 70 percent 

reduction of SO2 emissions by 2040. 

We are proposing to determine the 

State’s SIP meets the requirements of 40 

CFR 51.309(d)4)(i). 

2. Documentation of Emissions 

Calculation Methods for Sulfur Dioxide 

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

the SIP includes documentation of the 

specific methodology used to calculate 

SO2 emissions during the 2006 base year 

for each emitting unit included in the 

program (see Appendix E of the SIP). A 

detailed spreadsheet report that 

provides the baseline numbers and 

methodology used to calculate 

emissions for sources covered by the 

program is included in this docket.13

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

the SIP requires the State to document 

any change to the specific methodology 

used to calculate emissions at any 

emitting unit for any year after the base 

year. Until the program has been 

triggered and source compliance is 

required, the State will submit an 

annual emissions report to EPA that 

documents prior year emissions for 

Wyoming sources covered by the 309 

program to all participating states by 

September 30 of each year. The State 

will adjust actual emission inventories 

for sources that change the method of 

monitoring or calculating their 

emissions to be comparable to the 

emission monitoring or calculation 

method used to calculate the 2006 base 

year inventory (see section C.A3 of the 

SIP). 

We are proposing to determine the 

State’s SIP meets the requirements of 40 

CFR 51.309(d)(4)(ii). 

3. Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and 

Reporting of Sulfur Dioxide Emissions 

In order to meet the emission 

reporting requirements of 40 CFR 

51.309(d)(4)(iii), the SIP includes 

provisions requiring the monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting of actual 

stationary source SO2 emissions within 

the State to determine if the milestone 

has been exceeded. The pre-trigger 

emission inventory requirements are 

covered by WAQSR Chapter 14, Section 

3, which was included in Wyoming’s 

April 19, 2012 submittal. 

We are proposing to determine the 

State’s SIP meets the requirements of 40 

CFR 51.309(d)(4)(iii), and we are 

proposing to approve WAQSR Chapter 

14, Section 3. 

4. Criteria and Procedures for a Market 

Trading Program 

Until the backstop trading program 

has been triggered and source 

compliance is required, the State shall 

submit an annual emissions report for 

Wyoming sources to all participating 

states by September 30th of each year. 

The report shall document actual SO2

emissions during the previous calendar 

year for all sources subject to the section 

309 program. The WRAP will compile 

reports from all participating states into 

a draft regional emission report for SO2

by December 31st of each year. This 

report will include actual regional SO2

emissions, adjustments to account for 

changes in monitoring/calculation 

methods or enforcement/settlement 

agreements, and adjusted average 

emissions for the last three years for 

comparison to the regional milestone. 

As required by 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(iv), 

based on this compilation of reports 

from all states participating in the 309 

program, states will determine if the 

milestone has been exceeded and will 

include a determination in a final 

regional emissions report that is 

submitted to EPA. This final report and 

determination will be submitted to EPA 

by the end of March, 15 months 

following the milestone year (see 

section C.A.3 of the SIP). 

We are proposing to determine the 

State’s SIP meets the requirements of 40 

CFR 51.309(d)(4)(iv). 

5. Market Trading Program 

Per 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(v), the SIP 

provides that if the 309 backstop trading 

program is triggered, the regional 

emissions report will contain a common 

trigger date. In the absence of a common 

trigger date, the default date will be 

March 31st of the applicable year, but 

no later than 15 months after the end of 

the milestone year where the milestone 

was exceeded (see section C.3.10 of the 

SIP). The State’s SIP requires that 

sources comply, as soon as practicable, 

with the requirement to hold allowances 

covering their emissions. Because the 

backstop trading program does not 

allow allocations to exceed the 

milestone, the program is sufficient to 

achieve the milestones adopted 

pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(i) as 

discussed above. The backstop trading 

program is also consistent with the 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
30964 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 101 / Thursday, May 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

14CALMET/CALPUFF Protocol for BART 

Exemption Screening Analysis for Class I Areas in 

the Western United States, Western Regional Air 

Partnership (WRAP); Gail Tonnesen, Zion Wang; 

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

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

308/bart/ 

WRAP_RMC_BART_Protocol_Aug15_2006.pdf. 

15BART Air Modeling Protocol, Individual Source 

Visibility Assessments for BART Control Analyses, 

State of Wyoming, Department of Environmental 

Quality, Air Quality Division, Cheyenne, WY 

September 2006. 

elements for such programs outlined in 

40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi). The analysis 

found in Section V.E. of this notice 

shows that the backstop trading program 

is consistent with the elements for 

trading programs outlined in 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(2)(vi). 

We are proposing to determine the 

State’s SIP meets the requirements of 40 

CFR 309(d)(4)(v). 

6. Provisions for the 2018 Milestone 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(vi)(A), 

the SIP has provisions to ensure that, 

until a revised implementation plan is 

submitted in accordance with 40 CFR 

51.308(f) and approved by EPA, 

emissions from covered stationary 

sources in any year beginning in 2018 

do not exceed the 2018 milestone. In 

order to meet this requirement, the State 

has included special provisions for what 

will be required as part of their 2013 SIP 

revision required under 40 CFR 

51.309(d)(10). The State’s SIP provides 

that the 2013 SIP revision required by 

40 CFR 51.309(d)(10) will contain either 

the provisions of a program designed to 

achieve reasonable progress for 

stationary sources of SO2 beyond 2018 

or a commitment to submit a SIP 

revision containing the provisions of 

such a program no later than December 

31, 2016 (see section D.2 of the SIP). 

We are proposing to determine the 

State’s SIP meets the requirements of 40 

CFR 51.309(d)(4)(vi)(A). 

7. Special Penalty Provision for 2018 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(vi)(B), 

the SIP includes special penalty 

provisions to ensure that the 2018 

milestone is met. If the backstop trading 

program is triggered and it will not start 

until after the year 2018, a special 

penalty shall be assessed to sources that 

exceed the 2018 milestone. Wyoming 

shall seek at least the minimum 

financial penalty of $5,000 per ton of 

SO2 emissions in excess of a source’s 

allowance limitation. Any source may 

resolve its excess emissions violation by 

agreeing to a streamlined settlement 

approach where the source pays a 

penalty of $5,000 per ton or partial ton 

of excess emissions and the source 

makes the payment within 90 calendar 

days after the issuance of a notice of 

violation. 

Any source that does not resolve its 

excess emissions violation in 

accordance with the streamlined 

settlement approach will be subject to 

civil enforcement action, in which the 

State shall seek a financial penalty for 

the excess emissions based on the 

State’s statutory maximum civil 

penalties. The special penalty 

provisions for 2018 will apply for each 

year after 2018 until the State 

determines that the 2018 milestone has 

been met. The State will evaluate the 

amount of the minimum monetary 

penalty during each five-year SIP review 

and the penalty will be adjusted to 

ensure that penalties per ton 

substantially exceed the expected cost 

of allowances, and are thus stringent 

penalties (see Chapter 14, Section 2(l) 

and section A.5 of the SIP). 

We are proposing to determine the 

State’s SIP meets the requirements of 40 

CFR 51.309(d)(4)(vi)(B). 

D. ‘‘Better-Than-BART’’ Demonstration 

As discussed in Section IV.A of this 

preamble, if a state adopts an alternative 

program designed to replace sourcespecific BART controls, the state must 

be able to demonstrate that the 

alternative program achieves greater 

reasonable progress than would be 

achieved by BART. Wyoming has 

included a demonstration of how the 

309 program achieves greater reasonable 

progress than BART as discussed in the 

document titled Demonstration that the 

SO2 Milestones Provide for Greater 

Reasonable Progress than BART 

(‘‘better-than-BART’’ demonstration). 

Section V.D.5 below contains a 

discussion on how the 309 backstop 

trading program achieves greater 

reasonable progress than BART. New 

Mexico and Utah have also submitted 

SIPs with the same better-than-BART 

demonstration as Wyoming, and thus, 

are relying on a consistent 

demonstration across the states. 

1. List of BART-Eligible Sources 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(A), 

the State’s better-than-BART 

demonstration lists the BART-eligible 

sources covered by the program (see 

Table 3 below). BART eligible sources 

are identified as those sources that fall 

within one of the 26 specific source 

categories, were built between 1962 and 

1977 and have potential emissions of 

250 tons per year of any visibility 

impairing air pollutant. 

We are proposing that this satisfies 

the requirements of 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(2)(i)(A). 

2. Subject-to-BART Determination 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(B), 

the State has determined which sources 

are subject-to-BART. Each of the section 

309 states provided source modeling 

that determined which of the BARTeligible sources within their states to 

determine which sources cause or 

contribute to visibility impairment and 

are thus subject-to-BART. The State of 

New Mexico and Utah relied on 

modeling by the WRAP to identify 

sources subject to BART. Based on the 

list of identified sources, the WRAP 

performed the initial BART modeling 

for the State of New Mexico and Utah. 

The procedures used are outlined in the 

WRAP Regional Modeling Center (RMC) 

BART Modeling Protocol.14 The State of 

Wyoming performed separate modeling 

to identify sources subject-to-BART.15

The states established a contribution 

threshold of 0.5 deciviews for 

determining if a single source causes or 

contributes to visibility impairment. If 

the modeling shows that a source has a 

0.5 deciview impact at any Class I area, 

that source causes or contributes to 

visibility impairment and is subject-toBART. Table 3 shows the BART-eligible 

sources covered by the 309 backstop 

program and whether they are subjectto-BART. 

We are proposing to determine that 

the State’s SIP meets the requirements 

of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(B). 

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

State Company Facility Subject-toBART? 

New Mexico ............................................... Frontier ...................................................... Empire Abo ............................................... No. 

New Mexico ............................................... Xcel Energy .............................................. SWPS Cunningham Station ..................... No. 

New Mexico ............................................... Duke Energy ............................................. Artesia Gas Plant ...................................... No. 

New Mexico ............................................... Duke Energy ............................................. Linam Ranch Gas Plant ........................... No. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 101 / Thursday, May 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules 30965 

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

State Company Facility Subject-toBART? 

New Mexico ............................................... Dynegy ...................................................... Saunders ................................................... No. 

New Mexico ............................................... Giant Refining ........................................... San Juan Refinery .................................... No. 

New Mexico ............................................... Giant Refining ........................................... Ciniza Refinery ......................................... No. 

New Mexico ............................................... Xcel Energy .............................................. SWPS Maddox Station ............................. No. 

New Mexico ............................................... Marathon ................................................... Indian Basin Gas Plant ............................. No. 

New Mexico ............................................... Public Service of New Mexico .................. San Juan Generating Station ................... Yes. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wyoming ................................................... Pacificorp .................................................. Dave Johnston .......................................... Yes. 

Wyoming ................................................... Pacificorp .................................................. Jim Bridger ................................................ Yes. 

Wyoming ................................................... Pacificorp .................................................. Naughton .................................................. Yes. 

Wyoming ................................................... Pacificorp .................................................. Wyodak ..................................................... Yes. 

Wyoming ................................................... Sinclair Oil Corp ........................................ Sinclair Refinery ........................................ No. 

Wyoming ................................................... Sinclair Refinery ........................................ Casper ...................................................... No. 

3. Best System of Continuous Emission 

Control Technology 

As required by 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(2)(i)(C), the State determined 

what BART would be for each subjectto-BART source covered by the 309 

backstop trading program. In the State’s 

better-than-BART demonstration, all 

subject-to-BART EGUs were assumed to 

be operating at the presumptive SO2

emission rate of 0.15 lb/MMBtu 

established in the BART Guidelines (70 

FR 39171). The 309 program also 

includes non-EGU subject-to-BART 

units. As explained in the better-thanBART demonstration, the non-EGU 

subject-to-BART units are four boilers 

located at two trona plants in Wyoming: 

FMC Westvaco and General Chemical 

Green River. Wyoming made a 

determination of what BART would be 

for these non-EGU units. FMC Westvaco 

recently installed pollution control 

projects achieving a 63% reduction in 

SO2 from its two boilers. Wyoming 

determined this control level would 

serve as a BART benchmark for all trona 

boilers. Thus, a 63% reduction in 

emissions from these sources was 

included in the BART benchmark in 

calculating emission reductions 

assuming the application of BART at 

these sources. Emission reductions or 

the BART benchmark for all subject-toBART sources covered by the 309 

program was calculated to be 48,807 

tons of SO2 (all supporting calculations 

for the ‘‘better-than-BART’’ 

demonstration are located in the State’s 

TSD under the title 10-6- 

10_milestone.xls). 

We are proposing to determine the 

State’s SIP meets the requirements of 40 

CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(C). 

4. Projected Emissions Reductions 

As required by 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(2)(i)(D), the State has provided 

the expected emission reductions that 

would result from the 309 backstop 

trading program. The better-than-BART 

demonstration projects that 2018 

baseline emissions would be 190,656 

tpy of SO2 for the sources covered by 

the 309 program in the participating 

states. The reductions achieved by the 

program are 48,807 tpy of SO2, resulting 

in remaining emissions of 141,849 tpy 

of SO2 in 2018. 

We are proposing to determine the 

State’s SIP meets the requirements of 40 

CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(D). 

5. Evidence That the Trading Program 

Achieves Greater Reasonable Progress 

Than BART 

The State’s better-than-BART 

demonstration provides numerous 

reasons why the SO2 backstop trading 

program is better than BART. First, 

additional sources beyond BART 

sources are included. The backstop 

trading program includes all stationary 

sources with emissions greater than 100 

tpy of SO2, and thus, encompasses 63 

non-subject-to-BART sources, which are 

identified in the better-than-BART 

demonstration. BART applied on a 

source-specific basis would not affect 

these sources, and there would be no 

limitation on their future operations 

under their existing permit conditions, 

or allowable emissions. The milestones 

will cap these sources at 2002 actual 

emissions, which are less than current 

allowable emissions. 

The program also provides for a cap 

on new source growth. Future 

impairment is prevented by capping 

emissions growth from sources covered 

by the program and also by including 

entirely new sources in the region under 

the cap. BART applied on a sourcespecific basis would have no impact on 

future growth. The backstop trading 

program also provides a mass-based cap 

that has inherent advantages over 

applying BART to each individual 

source. The baseline emission 

projections and assumed reductions due 

to the assumption of BART-level 

emission rates on all sources subject-toBART are all based on actual emissions, 

using 2006 as the baseline. If the BART 

process were applied on a sourcespecific basis to individual sources, 

emission limitations would typically be 

established as an emission rate (lbs/hr 

or lbs/MMBtu) that would account for 

variations in the sulfur content of fuel 

and alternative operating scenarios, or 

allowable emissions. A mass-based cap 

that is based on actual emissions is 

more stringent because it does not allow 

a source to consistently use this 

difference between current actual and 

allowable emissions. 

We are proposing to determine the 

State’s 309 backstop trading program 

achieves greater reasonable progress 

than would be achieved through the 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
30966 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 101 / Thursday, May 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

16 Voluntary Emissions Reduction Program for 

Major Industrial Sources of Sulfur Dioxide in Nine 

Western States and A Backstop Market Trading 

Program, an Annex to the Report of the Grand 

Canyon Visibility Transport Commission 

(September 2000) at C–15 and 16. 

17WRAP conducted modeling of the degree of 

visibility improvement that would occur on average 

and for the 20% best and worst visibility days. The 

WRAP used the transfer coefficients developed as 

part of the Integrated Assessment System and used 

by the GCVTC. As noted in the Annex, this 

modeling has limitations which must be considered 

when interpreting the results. 

18Appendix A of Chapter 14 contains monitoring 

requirements for fuel gas combustion devices at 

petroleum refineries and kilns with positive 

pressure fabric filters. Appendix A specifies the 

installation of a continuous fuel gas monitoring 

system and predictive flow monitoring system, 

respectively. Appendix A also specifies 

requirements under 40 CFR part 75 sources must 

follow in regards to this equipment. 

installation and operation of BART, and 

thus, meets the requirements of 40 CFR 

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

6. All Emission Reductions Must Take 

Place During the First Planning Period 

The first planning period ends in 

2018. As discussed above, the 

reductions from the 309 program will 

occur by 2018. We are therefore 

proposing to determine the State’s SIP 

meets the requirements of 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(2)(iii). 

7. Detailed Description of the 

Alternative Program 

The detailed description of the 

backstop trading program are provided 

in Section C—Stationary Sources of the 

State’s SIP and WAQSR Chapter 14 

Section 2. The details of the backstop 

trading program are discussed in section 

V.E of this notice. We are proposing to 

determine that the State’s SIP meets the 

detailed description requirement in 40 

CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iii). 

8. Surplus Reductions 

We propose to approve the 

determination in the State’s 309 SIP 

submittal that all emission reductions 

resulting from the emissions trading 

program are surplus as of the baseline 

date of the SIP, as required by 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(2)(iv). 

9. Geographic Distribution of Emissions 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3), the 

State used modeling conducted by the 

WRAP to compare the visibility 

improvement expected from source-bysource BART to the backstop trading 

program for the Class I areas on the 

Colorado Plateau. A summary of the 

modeling results can be found in 

Section K of the State’s SIP, which 

refers to data from modeling included in 

Tables 2 and 3 of Attachment C to the 

Annex.16 17 This modeling was 

conducted during the development of 

the Annex to examine if the geographic 

distribution of emissions under the 

trading program would be substantially 

different and disproportionately impact 

any Class I area due to a geographic 

concentration of emissions. The 

modeled visibility improvement for the 

best and worst days at the Class I areas 

for the 309 program is similar to 

improvement anticipated from the 

BART scenario (within 0.1 deciview) on 

the worst and best visibility days. Thus, 

if we assume participation and 

milestones consistent with the model, 

the model demonstrates that the 

distribution of emissions between the 

BART scenario and the 309 trading 

program are not substantially different. 

We note this modeling demonstration 

included nine states, many of which are 

not participating in the backstop trading 

program. This modeling demonstration 

adds support to our proposed 

determination, discussed above in this 

section, that the regional haze 309 SIP 

submittal appropriately shows the 

trading program will achieve greater 

reasonable progress than would be 

achieved through the installation and 

operation of BART, as required by 40 

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

E. Requirements for Alternative 

Programs With an Emissions Cap 

The following analysis shows that the 

State’s SIP is consistent with the 

elements for trading programs required 

by 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi). The backstop 

trading program contains milestones, 

which are in effect a cap. Under a 

backstop trading program, the 

provisions of a trading program are 

enacted only if the milestone has been 

exceeded. Since the 309 trading 

program is a backstop trading program, 

the provisions outlined below will only 

apply if the milestone is exceeded and 

the program is triggered. 

1. Applicability Provisions 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(2)(vi)(A), the backstop trading 

program has the same applicability 

requirements in all states opting to 

participate in the program. WAQSR 

Chapter 14, Section 2(c) contains the 

applicability provisions and provides 

that the backstop trading program 

applies to all stationary sources that 

emit 100 tons per year or more of SO2

in the program trigger year. 

We are proposing to approve that the 

State’s SIP meets the requirements of 40 

CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(A). 

2. Allowance Provisions 

Section C.1.C1 of the SIP and WAQSR 

Chapter 14, Section 2(g) contain the 

allowance allocation provisions as 

required by 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(B). 

The rule requires sources to open a 

compliance account in order to track 

allowances and contains other 

requirements associated with those 

accounts. The SIP contains the 

provisions on how the State will 

allocate allowances and requires that 

the total number of allowances 

distributed cannot exceed the milestone 

for any given year. 

We are proposing to determine the 

State’s SIP meets the requirements of 40 

CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(B). 

3. Monitoring, Recordkeeping and 

Reporting Provisions 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(2)(vi)(C)–(E), WAQSR Chapter 

14, Section 2(h)(i)(A) provides that 

sources subject to 40 CFR part 75 under 

a separate requirement from the 

backstop trading program shall meet the 

requirements contained in 40 CFR part 

75 with respect to MRR of SO2

emissions. If a unit is not subject to 40 

CFR part 75 under a requirement 

separate from the trading program, the 

State requires that a source use one of 

the following monitoring methods: (1) 

Continuous emission monitoring system 

for SO2 and flow that complies with all 

applicable monitoring provisions in 40 

CFR part 75; (2) if the unit is a gas- or 

oil-fired combustion device, the 

monitoring methodology in Appendix D 

to 40 CFR part 75, or, if applicable, the 

low mass emissions provisions (with 

respect to SO2 mass emissions only) of 

section 75.19(c) of 40 CFR part 75; (3) 

one of the optional protocols, if 

applicable, in Appendix A to WAQSR 

Chapter 14;18 or (4) a petition for sitespecific monitoring that the source 

submits for approval by the State and 

EPA. All the above sources are required 

to comply with the reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements in 40 CFR 

part 75. 

Although most sources covered by the 

backstop trading program will be able to 

meet the monitoring requirements stated 

above, there are some emission units 

that are either not physically able to 

install the needed equipment or do not 

emit enough SO2 to justify the expense 

of installing these systems. As discussed 

in section C5.3 of the SIP, the trading 

program allows these emission units to 

continue to use their pre-trigger 

monitoring methodology, but does not 

allow the source to transfer any 

allocation to that unit to another source. 

The program requires that the 

allowances associated with emission 

units that continue to use their pretrigger monitoring methodology be 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 101 / Thursday, May 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules 30967 

placed in a special reserve compliance 

account, while allowances for other 

emission units are placed in a regular 

compliance account. Sources may not 

trade allowances out of a special reserve 

compliance account, even for use by 

emission units at the same source, but 

can use the allowances to show 

compliance for that particular unit. 

WAQSR Chapter 14, Section 2(h)(i)(B) 

allows sources with any of the following 

emission units to apply to establish a 

special reserve compliance account: (1) 

Any smelting operation where all of the 

emissions from the operation are not 

ducted to a stack; (2) any flare, except 

to the extent such flares are used as a 

fuel gas combustion device at a 

petroleum refinery; or (3) any other type 

of unit without add-on SO2 control 

equipment, if the unit belongs to one of 

the following source categories: cement 

kilns, pulp and paper recovery furnaces, 

lime kilns, or glass manufacturing. 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(E), 

sources with a special reserve 

compliance account are required to 

submit to the State an annual emissions 

statement and sources are required to 

maintain operating records sufficient to 

estimate annual emissions consistent 

with the baseline emission inventory 

submitted in 1998. 

We are proposing to determine the 

State’s SIP meets the requirements of 40 

CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(C)–(E). 

4. Tracking System 

As required by 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(2)(vi)(F), section C2 of the SIP 

provides the overarching specifications 

for an Emissions and Allowance 

Tracking System (EATS). According to 

the SIP, the EATS must provide that all 

necessary information regarding 

emissions, allowances, and transactions 

is publicly available in a secure, 

centralized database. The EATS must 

ensure that each allowance is uniquely 

identified, allow for frequent updates, 

and include enforceable procedures for 

recording data. If the program is 

triggered, the State will work with other 

states and tribes participating in the 

trading program to implement this 

system. More detailed specifications for 

the EATS are provided in the WEB 

Emission and Allowance Tracking 

System (EATS) Analysis in the State’s 

TSD. The State assumes responsibility 

for ensuring that all the EATS 

provisions are completed as described 

in its SIP and TSD. 

In addition, the State will work with 

the other participating states to 

designate one tracking system 

administrator (TSA). The SIP provides 

that the TSA shall be designated as 

expeditiously as possible, but no later 

than six months after the program 

trigger date. The State will enter into a 

binding contract with the TSA that shall 

require the TSA to perform all TSA 

functions described in the SIP, such as 

transferring and recording allowances 

(see section A2.2 of the SIP). 

We are proposing to determine that 

the State’s SIP meets the requirements 

of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iv)(F). 

5. Account Representative 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(2)(vi)(G), WAQSR Chapter 14, 

Section 2(d) contains provisions for the 

establishment of an account 

representative. The rule requires each 

source to identify one account 

representative. The account 

representative shall submit to the State 

and the TSA a signed and dated 

certificate that contains a certification 

statement verifying that the account 

representative has all the necessary 

authority to carry out the account 

representative responsibilities under the 

trading program on behalf of the owners 

and operators of the sources. The 

certification statement also needs to 

indicate that each such owner and 

operator shall be fully bound by the 

account representatives representations, 

actions, inactions, or submissions and 

by any decision or order issued to the 

account representative by the State 

regarding the trading program. 

We are proposing to determine the 

State’s SIP meets the requirements of 40 

CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(G). 

6. Allowance Transfers 

The State has established procedures 

pertaining to allowance transfers to 

meet the requirements of 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(2)(vi)(H). WAQSR Chapter 14, 

Section 2(i) contains requirements 

sources must follow for allowance 

transfers. To transfer or retire 

allowances, the account representative 

shall submit the transfer account 

number(s) identifying the transferor 

account, the serial number of each 

allowance to be transferred, the 

transferor’s account representative’s 

name and signature, and date of 

submission. The allowance transfer 

deadline is midnight Pacific Standard 

Time on March 1 of each year following 

the end of the control period. Sources 

must correctly submit transfers by this 

time in order for a source to be able to 

use the allowance to demonstrate 

compliance. 

Section C3 of the SIP provides the 

procedures the TSA must follow to 

transfer allowances. The TSA will 

record an allowance transfer by moving 

each allowance from the transferor 

account to the transferee account as 

specified by the request from the source, 

if the transfer is correctly submitted, 

and the transferor account includes each 

allowance identified in the transfer. 

Within five business days of the 

recording of an allowance transfer, the 

TSA shall notify the account 

representatives of both the transferor 

and transferee accounts, and make the 

transfer information publicly available 

on the Internet. Within five business 

days of receipt of an allowance transfer 

that fails to meet the requirements for 

transfer, the TSA will notify the account 

representatives of both accounts of the 

decision not to record the transfer, and 

the reasons for not recording the 

transfer. 

We are proposing to determine that 

the State’s SIP meets the requirements 

of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(H). 

7. Compliance Provisions 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(I), 

the State has provided the procedures 

for determining compliance in WAQSR 

Chapter 14, Section 2(k). Per this 

section, the source must hold 

allowances as of the allowance transfer 

deadline in the source’s compliance 

account (together with any current 

control year allowances held in the 

source’s special reserve compliance 

account) in an amount not less than the 

total SO2 emissions for the control 

period from the source. The State 

determines compliance by comparing 

allowances held by the source in their 

compliance account(s) with the total 

annual SO2 emissions reported by the 

source. If the comparison of the 

allowances to emissions results in 

emissions exceeding allowances, the 

source’s excess emissions are subject to 

the allowance deduction penalty 

discussed in further detail below. 

We are proposing to determine that 

the State’s SIP meets the requirements 

of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(I). 

8. Penalty Provisions 

WAQSR Chapter 14, Section 2(k)(iii) 

provides the penalty provisions 

required by 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(J). 

Per this section, a source’s allowances 

will be reduced by an amount equal to 

three times the source’s tons of excess 

emissions if they are unable to show 

compliance. Allowances allocated for 

the following control period will be the 

original allowance minus the allowance 

penalty. If the compliance account does 

not have sufficient allowances allocated 

for that control period, the required 

number of allowances will be deducted 

from the source’s compliance account 

regardless of the control period for 

which they were allocated. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
30968 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 101 / Thursday, May 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

19 Detailed information on the emission inventory 

is contained in the ENVIRON Report WRAP Mobile 

Source Emission Inventories Update, May 2006. 

This report is included in the Supporting and 

Related Materials section of the docket. 

We are proposing to determine that 

the State’s SIP meets the requirements 

of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(J). 

9. Banking of Allowances 

As allowed by 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(2)(vi)(K), WAQSR Chapter 14, 

Section 2(j) allows sources to use 

allowances from current and prior years 

to demonstrate compliance, with some 

restrictions. Sources can only use 2018 

allowances to show compliance with 

the 2018 milestone and may not use 

allowances from prior years. In order to 

ensure that the use of banked 

allowances does not interfere with the 

attainment or maintenance of reasonable 

progress goals, the backstop trading 

program includes flow-control 

provisions. The flow-control provisions 

are triggered if the TSA determines that 

the banked allowances exceed ten 

percent of the milestone for the next 

control year, and thereby ensure that too 

many banked emissions are not used in 

any one year (see section C4 of the SIP). 

We are proposing to determine the 

State’s SIP meets the requirements of 40 

CFR 51.309(e)(2)(vi)(J). 

10. Program Assessment 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(2)(vi)(L), the SIP contains 

provisions for a 2013 assessment and 

SIP revision. For the 2013 assessment, 

the State will work with other 

participating states to develop a 

projected emission inventory for SO2

through the year 2018. The State will 

then evaluate the projected inventory 

and assess the likelihood of meeting the 

regional milestone for the year 2018. 

The State shall include this assessment 

as part of the 2013 progress report that 

must be submitted under 40 CFR 

51.309(d)(10) (see section D1 of the SIP). 

We are proposing to determine the 

State’s SIP meets the requirements of 40 

CFR 308(e)(2)(vi)(L). 

F. Provisions for Stationary Source 

Emissions of Nitrogen Oxides and 

Particulate Matter 

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

the State submitted another SIP dated 

January 12, 2011 that contains the 

requirements for PM and NOX BART. 

EPA plans to act on this submittal in a 

separate notice. 

G. Mobile Sources 

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

the State, in collaboration with the 

WRAP, assembled a comprehensive 

statewide inventory of mobile source 

emissions. The inventory included onroad and non-road mobile source 

emissions inventories for western states 

for the 2003 base year and emission 

projections for the year 2018.19 The 

inventory shows a continuous decline 

in emissions from mobile sources from 

VOC, NOX, PM2.5, EC, and OC emissions 

over the period of 2003–2018. Between 

2003 and 2018, the inventory shows that 

there will be a 54 percent decrease in 

NOX emissions, a 39 percent decrease in 

OC, a 24 percent decrease in EC, a 38 

percent decrease of PM2.5, and a 56 

percent decrease of VOC. Per 40 CFR 

51.309(d)(5)(i)(A), the inventory shows a 

decline in the required mobile source 

emissions categories and therefore no 

further action is required by the State to 

address mobile source emissions (see 

section D.1 of the SIP). 

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

the State reviewed SO2 emissions from 

non-road mobile sources. The emission 

inventory projections show that there 

will be a 99 percent decrease in SO2

emissions from non-road mobile sources 

for 2003–2018. The reduction will result 

from the implementation of EPA’s rule 

titled Control of Emissions of Air 

Pollution from Non-road Diesel Engines 

and Fuel (see 69 FR 38958). The State 

determined that a 99 percent reduction 

in SO2 from non-road mobile sources is 

consistent with the goal of reasonable 

progress and that no other long-term 

strategies are necessary to address SO2

emissions from non-road mobile sources 

(see section D.1.c of the SIP). 

We are proposing to determine the 

State’s SIP meets the requirements of 40 

CFR 51.309(d)(5). 

H. Programs Related to Fire 

1. Evaluation of Current Fire Programs 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6)(i), 

the State has evaluated its existing open 

burning regulations and all existing 

federal and private prescribed fire 

smoke management programs in the 

State. The State evaluated the potential 

for fire to contribute to visibility 

impairment in the 16 Class I areas of the 

Colorado Plateau, and how visibility 

protection is addressed by different 

entities in planning and operation. The 

state of Wyoming relied upon the WRAP 

report Assessing Status of Incorporating 

Smoke Effects into Fire Planning and 

Operation, as well as EPA’s Interim Air 

Quality Policy on Wildland and 

Prescribed Fire as guides for making this 

evaluation. (A full copy of these 

documents can be found in the 

Wyoming TSD and the Supporting and 

Related materials section of the docket, 

respectively). 

The State determined that a new 

smoke management regulation, 

incorporated as WAQSR Chapter 10, 

Section 4 and submitted as part of the 

regional haze SIP, would be required to 

meet the requirements of 40 CFR 

51.309(d)(6)(i). WAQSR Chapter 10, 

Section 4 establishes requirements for 

vegetative burners pertaining to the 

management of emissions and air 

quality impacts from smoke on public 

health and visibility. WAQSR Chapter 

10, Section 4 applies to burns that will 

emit more than 0.25 tons of PM2.5 per 

day. There are two types of burns 

specified by the rule. SMP–I burns are 

those burn projects expected to generate 

less than two tons per day of PM10 and 

SMP–II burns are those burn projects 

expected to generate two tons per day or 

more of PM10. The following discusses 

how the requirements of WAQSR 

Chapter 10, Section 4 meet the 

requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6)(i). 

The four required program elements are 

discussed below and are contained in 

WAQSR Chapter 10, Section 4. 

a. Actions To Minimize Emissions 

In order to minimize emissions, the 

State’s SIP relies on the use of emission 

reduction techniques by burners. Any 

techniques used in conjunction with 

burning that reduce the actual amount 

of emissions produced from a planned 

burn project are considered emission 

reduction techniques. The SIP requires 

land managers burning SMP–II burns to 

use at a minimum one emission 

reduction technique for each planned 

burn project. SMP–II burners will 

indicate on the required State 

registration form the emission reduction 

technique(s) utilized for each planned 

burn project (WAQSR Chapter 10, 

Section 4(g)(i)(C)). 

b. Evaluation of Smoke Dispersion 

The SIP only allows SMP–I burns to 

be ignited during daytime hours when 

there is a slight breeze and there is no 

population within 0.5 mile of the burn 

project in the downwind direction. To 

comply with this requirement, the 

burner will document the time of day of 

the planned burn project, the wind 

direction and wind speed at the time of 

the burn project, as well as the distance 

to a population (WAQSR Chapter 10, 

Section 4(f)(iii)). 

For SMP–II burns, the SIP provides 

the burner with two options pertaining 

to the dispersion of smoke and burning. 

A burner can ignite a planned burn 

project during times when the 

ventilation is classified as ‘‘Good’’ or 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 101 / Thursday, May 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules 30969 

20 Ventilation category is a classification that 

describes the potential for smoke to ventilate away 

from its source. The classification (Excellent, Very 

Good, Good, Fair, Poor) is determined by 

multiplying the mixing height in feet by the 

transport winds in knots, thus providing the 

ventilation category in knot-feet. The ventilation 

category can be found in the National Weather 

Service’s Fire Weather Forecast, which is the State 

approved source for this information 

21 Jurisdictional fire authority means an agency, 

organization, or department whose purpose is to 

prevent, manage, and/or suppress fires in a 

designated geographic area, including, but not 

limited to, volunteer fire departments, fire districts, 

municipal fire departments, and federal fire staff. 

better.20 Also, a burner can ignite a 

planned burn project during times when 

the ventilation is classified as ‘‘Fair’’ 

and if there is no population within 10 

miles of the planned burn project in the 

downwind trajectory (WAQSR Chapter 

10, Section 4(g)(i)(D)). 

c. Alternatives to Fire 

The State SIP requires that burners 

generating over 100 tons per year of PM 

must consider the use of alternatives to 

burning. Burners must then document 

that the use of alternatives to burning 

were considered prior to the decision to 

utilize fire. The documentation includes 

citing the feasibility criterion that 

prevented the use of alternatives. This 

documentation must be included on the 

registration form provided by the State 

(WAQSR Chapter 10, Section 4(h)). 

d. Public Notification 

For SMP–I burns, the SIP requires that 

burners must make a good faith effort to 

utilize a minimum of one public 

notification method specified in the SIP 

to notify the populations that are 

located within one half mile of the 

planned burn project. The burner must 

conduct public notification no sooner 

than 30 days and no later than two days 

in advance of the ignition of the 

planned burn project. In addition, the 

burner will also notify the jurisdictional 

fire authority per the requirements of 

the jurisdictional fire authority,21 or, 

absent any such requirements, 

immediately prior to ignition (WAQSR 

Chapter 10, Section 4(f)(ii)). 

For SMP–II burns, the SIP requires 

that burners must make a good faith 

effort to utilize a minimum of one 

public notification method to notify 

populations within 10 miles of the 

planned burn project. The burner must 

conduct public notification no sooner 

than 30 days and no later than two days 

in advance of the ignition of the 

planned burn project, and will provide 

documentation of public notification on 

the State post burn reporting form. In 

addition, the burner will also notify the 

jurisdictional fire authority per the 

requirements of the jurisdictional fire 

authority or, absent any such 

requirements, immediately prior to 

ignition (WAQSR Chapter 10, Section 

4(g)(iii)). 

e. Air Quality Monitoring 

Burners of SMP–I burns are required 

to attend and observe their planned 

burn projects periodically (WAQSR 

Chapter 10, Section 4(f)(iv)). SMP–II 

burners are required to conduct and 

document visual monitoring on all 

planned burn projects. On a case-bycase basis, SMP–II burners may also be 

required by the State to conduct and 

document ambient air quality and/or 

visibility monitoring. The use of 

monitoring equipment will be based on 

the planned burn project’s proximity to 

a population, nonattainment area, or 

Class I area (WAQSR Chapter 10, 

Section 4(g)(i)(E)). 

f. Surveillance and Enforcement 

The Wyoming Environmental Quality 

Act authorizes surveillance, inspection, 

and enforcement for the State’s 

regulations. WAQSR Chapter 10, 

Section 4(e)(ii) specifies that burners 

and responsible jurisdictional fire 

authorities shall give permission to 

State staff to enter and inspect for the 

purpose of investigating a planned burn 

project or unplanned fire event and for 

determining compliance or noncompliance. 

g. Program Evaluation 

The State will evaluate the fire 

programs in the State as part of the 

future progress reports required by 40 

CFR 51.309(d)(10). The State will use 

these evaluations to revise Chapter 10, 

Section 4, as needed. The provisions for 

program evaluation are included in the 

Wyoming Smoke Management Program 

Guidance Document, November 2004 

(included in the Supporting and Related 

Materials section of the docket). 

2. Inventory and Tracking System 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6)(ii), 

the State maintains a fire emission 

inventory of the following pollutants: 

VOC, NOX, elemental carbon, organic 

carbon, and fine particulate for fire 

sources within the State (Section E.2 of 

the SIP). In order to maintain the 

emission inventory, Chapter 10, Section 

4 requires both SMP–I and SMP–II 

burners to report to the State on 

emissions from their burns. To track 

fires, the State uses the WRAP Fire 

Emission Tracking System (FETS). The 

FETS is a web-enabled database for 

planned and unplanned fire events. The 

FETS is a planning tool for daily smoke 

management coordination, and 

retrospective analyses such as emission 

inventories and regional haze air quality 

planning tasks (see http://wrapfets.org). 

3. Strategy for Use of Alternatives to 

Burning 

In section E.3 of the SIP, the State is 

required to work with key public and 

private entities to identify and remove 

administrative barriers to the use of 

alternatives to burning for prescribed 

fire on federal, State, and private lands, 

pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6)(iii). 

The process is collaborative and 

provides for continuing identification 

and removal of administrative barriers, 

and considers economic, safety, 

technical and environmental feasibility 

criteria, and land management 

objectives. Should the State determine 

that an administrative barrier exists, the 

State will work collaboratively with the 

appropriate public and private entities 

to evaluate the administrative barrier, 

identify the steps necessary to remove 

the administrative barrier, and initiate 

the removal of the administrative 

barrier, where it is feasible to do so. 

4. Enhanced Smoke Management 

Program 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6)(iv), 

the smoke management programs that 

operate within the State are consistent 

with the WRAP Policy on Enhanced 

Smoke Management Programs for 

Visibility (WRAP ESMP). A copy of this 

policy can be found in the Wyoming 

TSD. This policy calls for programs to 

be based on the criteria of efficiency, 

economics, law, emission reduction 

opportunities, land management 

objectives, and reduction of visibility 

impacts. The intent of the WRAP ESMP 

is to assist states to address visibility 

effects associated with fire in a way that 

is adequate for a SIP (section E.4 of the 

SIP). 

5. Annual Emission Goal 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6)(v), 

the State will seek to minimize emission 

increases in fire through the use of 

annual emission goal using the policies 

set out by Western Regional Air 

Partnership Policy on Annual Emission 

Goals for Fire. A copy of this policy can 

be found in the Wyoming TSD. The 

State will use a collaborative 

mechanism for setting annual emission 

goals and developing a process for 

tracking their attainment on a yearly 

basis. The State will rely on emission 

reduction techniques, where 

appropriate, to minimize emission 

increases in fire (section E.5 of the SIP). 

We are proposing that the Sate’s SIP 

meets the requirements of 40 CFR 

51.309(d)(6). 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
30970 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 101 / Thursday, May 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

I. Paved and Unpaved Road Dust 

WRAP performed an assessment of 

the impact of dust emissions from paved 

and unpaved roads on the 16 Class I 

areas of the Colorado Plateau. The 

WRAP modeled and calculated the 

significance of road dust in terms of the 

impact on visibility on the worst 20 

percent days. The modeled regional 

impact of road dust emissions ranged 

from 0.31 deciviews at the Black 

Canyon of the Gunnison National Park 

to 0.08 deciviews at the Weminuche 

Wilderness Area. (For more information 

on the WRAP modeling and assessment 

of road dust impacts, see Chapter 7 of 

the WRAP TSD). Based on the WRAP 

modeling, the State has concluded that 

road dust is not a significant contributor 

to visibility impairment in the 16 Class 

I areas. Since the State has found that 

road dust is not a significant contributor 

to visibility impairment, the State did 

not include road dust control strategies 

in the SIP pursuant to 40 CFR 

51.309(d)(7) (section F.1(b) of the SIP). 

The State will track road dust 

emissions with the assistance of the 

WRAP and provide an update on paved 

and unpaved road dust emission trends, 

including any modeling or monitoring 

information regarding the impact of 

these emissions on visibility in the 16 

Colorado Plateau Class I Areas. These 

updates will include a reevaluation of 

whether road dust is a significant 

contributor to visibility impairment. 

These updates shall be part of the 

periodic implementation plan revisions 

pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10) 

(section I.1(a) of the SIP). 

We propose to determine the State’s 

SIP meets the requirements of 40 CFR 

51.309(d)(7). 

J. Pollution Prevention 

Under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(8), states 

must provide information on renewable 

energy and other pollution prevention 

efforts in the state. 40 CFR 51.309(d)(8) 

does not require states to adopt any new 

measures or regulations. Thus, we find 

the information Wyoming provided 

adequate to meet the requirements of 40 

CFR 51.309(d)(8) as discussed below. 

1. Description of Existing Pollution 

Prevention Programs 

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

Table G–1 of the SIP summarizes all 

pollution prevention and renewable 

energy programs currently in place in 

Wyoming. The State also determined 

the renewable energy generation 

capacity and production in the State 

and the State’s total energy generation 

capacity and production. 

2. Incentive Programs 

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

G.4 of the SIP states that the State has 

provided incentives for early 

compliance by participating in the 309 

regional SO2 backstop trading program. 

The backstop trading program allows for 

early reduction credits. Sources of SO2

subject to the trading program that 

reduce emissions prior to the program 

trigger date shall receive additional 

emission allowances. The source may 

use such allowances for compliance 

purposes or may sell them to other 

parties. 

3. Programs To Preserve and Expand 

Energy Conservation Efforts 

Per 40 CFR 51.309(d)(8)(iii), the State 

provided a table that discusses the 

programs within the State that preserve 

and expand energy conservation efforts. 

Such programs include the ‘‘Energy 

Exchange Program’’ by PacifiCorp and 

‘‘Rebuild America,’’ a Department of 

Energy resource network. For a 

complete list of programs in the State, 

see table G–5 of the SIP. 

4. Potential for Renewable Energy 

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

the State has utilized data from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

to assess areas where there is the 

potential for renewable energy to supply 

power in a cost-effective manner. The 

SIP summarizes the potential for 

renewable energy development in 

Wyoming. See Figures G–1 through G– 

7 of the SIP for more detailed 

information. 

5. Projections of Renewable Energy 

Goals, Energy Efficiency, and Pollution 

Prevention Activities 

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

the State has used projections made by 

the WRAP of the short and long-term 

emissions reductions, visibility 

improvements, cost savings, and 

secondary benefits associated with 

renewable energy goals, energy 

efficiency, and pollution prevention 

activities. (A complete description of 

these projections can be found in the 

Wyoming TSD in a document titled 

Economic Assessment of Implementing 

the 10/20 Goals and Energy Efficiency 

Recommendations.) The document 

provides overall projections of visibility 

improvements for the 16 Class I areas. 

These projections include the combined 

effects of all measures in this SIP, 

including air pollution prevention 

programs. Although emission 

reductions and visibility improvements 

from air-pollution prevention programs 

are expected at some level, they were 

not explicitly calculated because the 

resolution of the regional air quality 

modeling system is not currently 

sufficient to show any significant 

visibility changes resulting from the 

marginal NOX emission reductions 

expected from air pollution prevention 

programs. 

6. Programs To Achieve the GCVTC 

Renewable Energy Goal 

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

the State will rely on current renewable 

energy programs as described in section 

G1 of the SIP to demonstrate progress in 

achieving the renewable energy goal of 

the GCVTC. The GCVTC’s goal is that 

that renewable energy will comprise 10 

percent of the regional power needs by 

2005 and 20 percent by 2015. The State 

will submit progress reports in 2013 and 

2018, describing the State’s contribution 

toward meeting the GCVTC renewable 

energy goals. To the extent that it is not 

feasible for the State to meet its 

contribution to these goals, the State 

will identify what measures were 

implemented to achieve its 

contribution, and explain why meeting 

its contribution was not feasible. 

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

Table G–1 of the State’s SIP summarizes 

all pollution prevention and renewable 

energy programs currently in place in 

Wyoming. The State’s SIP provides an 

estimate of renewable energy generating 

capacity in megawatts for each of the 

renewable energy categories (see Table 

12 of the SIP). Total installed generation 

capacity within Wyoming in 2002 was 

5,485 MW. Renewable energy 

generation capacity in Wyoming 

represented 0.77 percent of the total 

installed capacity. 

K. Additional Recommendations 

As part of the 1996 GCVTC report to 

EPA, the Commission included 

additional recommendations that EPA 

did not adopt as part of 40 CFR 51.309. 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(9), the 

State has evaluated the additional 

recommendations of the GCVTC to 

determine if any of these 

recommendations could be practicably 

included in the SIP. The State’s 

complete evaluation is included in the 

State’s TSD in a document titled A 

Report on Additional Recommendations 

of the Grand Canyon Visibility 

Transport Commission. The State 

determined that no additional measures 

were practicable or necessary to 

demonstrate reasonable progress in the 

SIP. 

We are proposing to determine that 

the State’s SIP meets the requirements 

of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(9). 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 101 / Thursday, May 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules 30971 

L. Periodic Implementation Plan 

Revisions 

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

section I of the SIP requires the State to 

submit to EPA, as a SIP revision, 

periodic progress reports for the years 

2013 and 2018. The State will assess 

whether current programs are achieving 

reasonable progress in Class I areas 

within Wyoming, and Class I areas 

outside Wyoming that are affected by 

emissions from Wyoming. The State 

will address the elements listed under 

40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(A) through (G) 

as summarized below: (1) 

Implementation status of 2003 SIP 

measures; (2) summary of emissions 

reductions; (3) assessment of most/least 

impaired days; (4) analysis of emission 

reductions by pollutant; (5) significant 

changes in anthropogenic emissions; (6) 

assessment of 2003 SIP sufficiency; and 

(7) assessment of visibility monitoring 

strategy. 

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

the State will take one of the following 

actions based upon information 

contained in each periodic progress 

report. The State will provide a negative 

declaration statement to EPA saying that 

no SIP revision is needed if the State 

determines reasonable progress is being 

achieved. If the State finds that the SIP 

is inadequate to ensure reasonable 

progress due to emissions from outside 

the State, the State will notify EPA and 

the other contributing state(s), and 

initiate efforts through a regional 

planning process to address the 

emissions in question. If the State finds 

that the SIP is inadequate to ensure 

reasonable progress due to emissions 

from another country, Wyoming will 

notify EPA and provide information on 

the impairment being caused by these 

emissions. If the State finds that the SIP 

is inadequate to ensure reasonable 

progress due to emissions from within 

the State, the State will develop 

emission reduction strategies to address 

the emissions and revise the SIP no later 

than one year from the date that the 

progress report was due. 

We propose to determine that the 

State’s SIP meets the requirements of 40 

CFR 51.309(d)(10). 

M. Interstate Coordination 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(11), the 

State has participated in regional 

planning and coordination with other 

states by participating in the WRAP 

while developing its emission reduction 

strategies under 40 CFR 51.309. 

Appendix D of the SIP contains detailed 

information on the interstate 

coordination programs developed by the 

WRAP and the State’s participation in 

those programs. The backstop trading 

program in the SIP and companion rules 

involved coordination of the three states 

(Wyoming, Utah, and New Mexico, 

including Albuquerque) in its 

development and will continue to 

involve coordination of the participants 

once it is implemented. 

We propose to determine the State’s 

SIP is consistent with the 40 CFR 

51.309(d)(11). 

N. Additional Class I Areas 

On January 12, 2011, the State 

submitted a SIP pursuant to 40 CFR 

51.309(g) in order to address the State’s 

seven Class I areas not on the Colorado 

Plateau. EPA is acting on this 

submission separately. 

VI. Proposed Action 

In this action, EPA is proposing to 

approve Wyoming SIP revisions 

submitted on January 12, 2011 and 

April 19, 2012 that address the RHR for 

the mandatory Class I areas under 40 

CFR 51.309. EPA is proposing that the 

January 12, 2011 and April 19, 2012 

SIPs meet the requirements of 40 CFR 

51.309, with the exception of 40 CFR 

51.309(d)(4)(vii), and 40 CFR 51.309(g). 

As part of the January 12, 2011 

submittal, the State submitted revisions 

to WAQSR. The State submitted 

WAQSR Chapter 14, Sections 2 and 3— 

Emission Trading Program Regulations. 

WAQSR Chapter 14, in conjunction 

with the SIP, implements the backstop 

trading program provisions in 

accordance with the applicable 

requirements of 40 CFR 51.308 and 40 

CFR 51.309. We are proposing to 

approve WAQSR Chapter 14, Section 2 

and Section 3. The State also submitted 

WAQSR Chapter 10, Section 4—Smoke 

Management. WAQSR Chapter 10, 

Section 4, in conjunction with the SIP, 

implements the requirements for smoke 

management under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6). 

We are proposing to approve WAQSR 

Chapter 10, Section 4. 

The State submitted another SIP 

revision dated January 12, 2011 that 

addresses the requirements under 40 

CFR 51.309(d)(4)(vii) and 40 CFR 

51.309(g) pertaining to BART for PM 

and NOX and additional Class I areas, 

respectively. EPA will be taking action 

on this SIP at a later date. In addition, 

the January 12, 2011 and April 19, 2012 

submittals we are proposing to act on in 

this notice supersede and replace 

regional haze SIPs submitted on 

December 24, 2003, May 27, 2004, and 

November 21, 2008. 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable Federal regulations 

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

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed 

action merely approves some state law 

as meeting Federal requirements and 

disapproves other state law because it 

does not meet Federal requirements; 

this proposed action does not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by state law. For that reason, 

this proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

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

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999);is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and, 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

Tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the State, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
30972 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 101 / Thursday, May 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

costs on Tribal governments or preempt 

Tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: May 9, 2012. 

James B. Martin, 

Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

[FR Doc. 2012–12643 Filed 5–23–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 721, 795, and 799 

[EPA–HQ–OPPT–2010–1039; FRL–9350–8] 

RIN 2070–AJ08 

Certain Polybrominated 

Diphenylethers; Significant New Use 

Rule and Test Rule; Extension of 

Comment Period 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of 

comment period. 

SUMMARY: EPA issued a proposed rule in 

the Federal Register of April 2, 2012, 

that would amend the Toxic Substances 

Control Act (TSCA) section 5(a) 

Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) for 

certain polybrominated diphenylethers 

(PBDEs), and that would require persons 

that manufacture, import, or process any 

of three commercial PBDEs, including 

in articles, for any use after December 

31, 2013, to conduct testing under TSCA 

section 4(a). This document extends the 

comment period for 60 days, from June 

1, 2012 to July 31, 2012. 

DATES: Comments, identified by docket 

identification (ID) number EPA–HQ– 

OPPT–2010–1039 must be received on 

or before July 31, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Follow the detailed 

instructions as provided under 

ADDRESSES in the Federal Register 

document of April 2, 2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical information contact: Catherine 

Roman, Chemical Control Division, 

Office of Pollution Prevention and 

Toxics, Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone 

number: 202–564–8172; email address: 

roman.catherine@epa.gov. For general 

information contact: The TSCA– 

Hotline, ABVI–Goodwill, 422 South 

Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; 

telephone number: (202) 554–1404; 

email address: TSCA–Hotline@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

This document extends the public 

comment period established in the 

Federal Register of April 2, 2012 (77 FR 

19862) (FRL–8889–3). In that document, 

EPA issued a proposed rule that would 

amend the Toxic Substances Control 

Act (TSCA) section 5(a) Significant New 

Use Rule (SNUR) for certain 

polybrominated diphenylethers 

(PBDEs). That document also proposed 

a test rule under TSCA section 4(a) that 

would require any person who 

manufactures, imports, or processes any 

of three commercial PBDEs, including 

in articles, for any use after December 

31, 2013, to conduct testing on their 

effects on health and the environment. 

The comment period is being extended 

in response to requests from the 

Aerospace Industries Association (AIA), 

Airlines for America (A4A), and the 

International Air Transport Association 

(IATA). EPA is hereby extending the 

comment period, which was set to end 

on June 1, 2012, to July 31, 2012. To 

submit comments, or access the docket, 

please follow the detailed instructions 

as provided under ADDRESSES in the 

April 2, 2012 Federal Register 

document. If you have questions, 

consult the technical person listed 

under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 721 

Environmental protection, Chemicals, 

Hazardous substances, Premanufacture 

notification, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

40 CFR Part 795 

Environmental protection, Chemicals, 

Hazardous substances, Health, 

Laboratories, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

40 CFR Part 799 

Environmental protection, Chemicals, 

Hazardous substances, Laboratories, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: May 18, 2012. 

James Jones, 

Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of 

Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. 

[FR Doc. 2012–12625 Filed 5–23–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 64 

[CG Docket Nos. 11–116 and 09–158; CC 

Docket No. 98–170; FCC 12–42] 

Empowering Consumers to Prevent 

and Detect Billing for Unauthorized 

Charges (‘‘Cramming’’); Consumer 

Information and Disclosure; Truth-inBilling Format 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission 

(Commission or FCC) proposes 

additional rules to help consumers 

prevent and detect the placement of 

unauthorized charges on their telephone 

bills, an unlawful and fraudulent 

practice commonly referred to as 

‘‘cramming.’’ Several commenters in 

this proceeding support additional 

measures to prevent cramming, 

including requiring wireline carriers to 

obtain a consumer’s affirmative consent 

before placing third-party charges on 

telephone bills (i.e. ‘‘opt-in’’). There also 

is support for adopting anti-cramming 

rules for Commercial Mobile Radio 

Service (CMRS) and Voice over Internet 

Protocol (VoIP) service. The 

Commission seeks further comment on 

whether it should take additional steps 

to prevent wireline cramming, including 

‘‘opt-in’’, possible solutions to CMRS 

cramming, and any developments of 

VoIP cramming. 

DATES: Interested parties may file 

comments on or before June 25, 2012, 

and reply comments on or before July 9, 

2012. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by CG Docket No. 11–116, by 

any of the following methods: 

• Electronic Filers: Comments may be 

filed electronically using the Internet by 

accessing the Commission’s Electronic 

Comment Filing System (ECFS), through 

the Commission’s Web site http:// 

fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Filers should 

follow the instructions provided on the 

Web site for submitting comments. For 

ECFS filers, in completing the 

transmittal screen, filers should include 

their full name, U.S. Postal service 

mailing address, and CG Docket No. 11– 

116. 

• Paper filers: Parties who choose to 

file by paper must file an original and 

four copies of each filing. Filings can be 

sent by hand or messenger delivery, by 

commercial overnight courier, or by 

first-class or overnight U.S. Postal 

Service mail (although the Commission 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS