Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0076-0027
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2003-05-07T04:00Z

REVISIONS
TO
REGIONAL
HAZE
RULE
TO
INCORPORATE
SULFUR
DIOXIDE
MILESTONES
AND
BACKSTOP
EMISSIONS
TRADING
PROGRAM
FOR
NINE
WESTERN
STATES
AND
ELIGIBLE
INDIAN
TRIBES
WITHIN
THAT
GEOGRAPHIC
AREA
SUMMARY
OF
PUBLIC
COMMENTS
AND
RESPONSES
Office
of
Air
Quality
Planning
and
Standards
Office
of
Air
and
Radiation
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Research
Triangle
Park,
NC
27711
May
2003
­
ii­
Disclaimer
This
report
is
issued
by
the
Office
of
Air
Quality
Planning
and
Standards,
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency.
Mention
of
trade
names
and/
or
commercial
products
is
not
intended
to
constitute
endorsement
of
recommendation
for
use.
­
iii­
TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
1.0
SUMMARY
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
1­
1.1
BACKGROUND
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
1­
1.2
SIGNIFICANT
CHANGES
SINCE
PROPOSAL
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

2.0
SUMMARY
OF
PUBLIC
COMMENTS
AND
RESPONSES
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2.1
GENERAL
AND
OVERARCHING
ISSUES
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2.1.1
Impact
of
American
Corn
Growers
litigation
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2.1.2
SIP
Deadline
Extension
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2.1.3
Procedural
Issues
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2.2
MILESTONES
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2.2.1
Whether
Milestones
Satisfy
Requirements
in
the
Regional
Haze
Rule
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2.2.2
Future
Adjustments
to
the
Milestones
2.3
ANNUAL
PROCESS
FOR
DETERMINING
WHETHER
A
TRADING
PROGRAM
IS
TRIGGERED
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2.3.1
Date
for
the
Annual
Determination
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2.3.2
Option
for
Triggering
the
Trading
Program
in
the
Year
2013
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2.4
REQUIREMENTS
FOR
THE
BACKSTOP
TRADING
PROGRAM
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2.4.1
Allowances
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2.4.2
Emissions
Quantification
Protocols
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2.4.3
Enforcement
Penalties
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2.4.4
Requirements
for
Periodic
Evaluation
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2.4.5
Provisions
Related
to
Time
Period
After
2018
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2.4.6
Provisions
Related
to
Indian
Tribes
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2.5
MISCELLANEOUS
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
1­
1.0
SUMMARY
BACKGROUND
The
Western
Regional
Air
Partnership
(
WRAP)
submitted
an
Annex
to
the
1996
report
of
the
Grand
Canyon
Visibility
Transport
Commission
(
GCVTC)
to
EPA
on
September
29,
2000.
This
submittal
was
required
under
40
CFR
51.309
of
the
regional
haze
rule
in
order
for
nine
Western
States
(
and
Indian
Tribes
within
the
same
geographic
region)
to
have
the
option
of
submitting
plans
implementing
the
GCVTC
recommendations.
The
Annex
contains
specific
recommendations
for
implementing
a
key
provision
of
the
regional
haze
rule
in
nine
Western
States,
including
a
recommended
set
of
regional
emissions
milestones.
The
milestones
address,
for
the
time
period
between
2003
and
2018,
emissions
of
sulfur
dioxide
(
SO
2),
a
key
precursor
to
the
formation
of
fine
particles
and
regional
haze.

On
May
6,
2002,
EPA
proposed
to
approve
the
provisions
of
the
Annex
submitted
by
the
WRAP
as
meeting
the
requirements
of
the
regional
haze
rule
and
applicable
requirements
under
the
Clean
Air
Act
(
CAA),
(
67
FR
30418).
The
EPA
requested
written
comments
on
the
proposal
and
held
a
public
hearing.
The
public
hearing
was
in
Phoenix,
Arizona
on
June
4,
2002.
A
transcript
for
this
public
hearing
is
available
in
the
public
docket
for
the
regulation
(
Docket
A­
2002­
0076).
The
EPA
received
twelve
written
comments
on
the
package,
primarily
from
Western
stakeholder
groups.
Table
1­
1
presents
a
listing
of
all
persons
that
submitted
written
comments,
their
affiliation,
and
their
docket
item
number.

The
written
comments
that
were
submitted
on
the
proposed
rule
have
been
summarized,
and
responses
to
the
comments
are
included
in
the
following
sections.
This
summary
of
comments
and
responses
serves
as
the
bases
for
the
revisions
between
proposal
and
promulgation
for
the
rulemaking
entitled
"
Revisions
Made
to
the
Regional
Haze
Rule
to
Incorporate
Sulfur
Dioxide
Milestones
and
Backstop
Emissions
Trading
Program
for
Nine
Western
States
and
Eligible
Indian
Tribes
within
that
Geographic
Area."
­
2­
TABLE
1­
1.
LIST
OF
COMMENTERS
ON
PROPOSED
REVISIONS
TO
THE
REGIONAL
HAZE
RULE
TO
INCORPORATE
SULFUR
DIOXIDE
MILESTONES
AND
BACKSTOP
EMISSIONS
TRADING
PROGRAM
FOR
NINE
WESTERN
STATES
AND
ELIGIBLE
INDIAN
TRIBES
WITHIN
THAT
GEOGRAPHIC
AREA
Air
Docket
A­
2002­
76
Item
Number
Commenter
and
affiliation
IV­
D­
01
T.
Ross,
Vice­
President
­
West,
Center
for
Energy
and
Economic
Development,
Alexandria,
VA
IV­
D­
02
M.
W.
Schwirtz,
Senior
Vice
President
&
Chief
Operating
Officer,
Arizona
Electric
Power
Coorperative,
Incorporated,
Benson,
AZ
IV­
D­
03
E.
E.
Wessman,
Vice
president,
Power
Supply
Safety
and
Environment,
Pacificorp,
Salt
Lake
City,
UT
IV­
D­
04
D.
S.
Steele,
The
Strategic
Issues
Management
Group,
Incorporated
on
behalf
of
WEST
Associates
IV­
D­
05
M.
Tunnell,
Director,
Environmental
Affairs,
American
Trucking
Associations,
Incorporated,
West
Sacramento,
CA
IV­
D­
06
V.
Patton,
Senior
Attorney,
Environmental
Defense,
Boulder,
CO
IV­
D­
07
S.
Davis,
Manager,
Environmental,
Health
&
Safety
Department,
Pinnacle
West
Capital
Corporation,
Phoenix,
AZ
IV­
D­
08
M.
O.
Leavitt,
Governor
or
Utah,
Co­
Chair
and
C.
J.
Chino,
Governor
of
Pueblo
of
Acoma,
Western
Regional
Air
Partnership
(
WRAP),
Denver,
CO
IV­
D­
09
H.
V.
Nickel,
M.
L.
Teague
and
K.
L.
Fast,
Counsel,
Hunton
&
Williams,
Washington,
D.
C.
on
behalf
of
the
Utility
Air
Regulatory
Group
(
UARG)

IV­
D­
10
R.
E.
Brady,
Jr.,
Chair,
Colorado
Air
Quality
Control
Commission,
States
of
Colorado,
Denver,
CO
IV­
D­
11
J.
Sims,
Executive
Director,
Western
Business
Roundtable
(
WBRT),
Denver,
CO
­
3­
IV­
D­
12
Duane
Yantorno,
Chairman,
Environment
Committee,
Arizona
Mining
Association,
Phoenix,
AZ
­
4­
2.0
SUMMARY
OF
PUBLIC
COMMENTS
AND
RESPONSES
A
total
of
twelve
letters
commenting
on
the
proposed
revisions
to
the
regional
haze
rule
were
received.
For
the
purpose
of
orderly
presentation,
the
comments
have
been
categorized
under
the
following
topics:

°
General
and
Overarching
Issues

Impact
of
May
24,
2002
American
Corn
Growers
Decision

Extension
of
the
December
31,
2003
SIP
Deadline

Procedural
Issues
°
Milestones
°
Annual
Process
for
Determining
Whether
a
Trading
Program
is
Triggered
°
Requirements
for
the
Backstop
Trading
Program
°
Miscellaneous
2.1
GENERAL
AND
OVERARCHING
ISSUES
2.1.1
Impact
of
American
Corn
Growers
litigation
COMMENT:
Two
commenters
asserted
that
the
Court's
decision
in
American
Corn
Growers
applies
to
the
"
BART
provisions"
generally,
and
that
paragraph
40
CFR
51.309(
f),
under
which
the
Annex
was
developed,
is
one
of
the
"
BART
provisions"
referenced
by
the
Court's
decision.
These
commenters
further
argue
that
the
Court
explicitly
condemned
a
"
group
approach"
to
BART
under
40
CFR
51.308,
and
that
this
approach
is
the
basis
for
the
Annex's
proposal
for
large
stationary
source
emissions
reductions.
These
commenters
further
argue
that
EPA
has
been
asked
by
the
Court
to
review
the
entire
rule,
including
40
CFR
51.309,
and
that
because
of
the
interrelationship
between
Sections
40
CFR
51.308
and
309,
EPA
cannot
approve
the
proposed
rule
until
the
agency
has
revised
the
Regional
Haze
Rule
as
directed
by
the
Court.
Finally,
these
commenters
assert
that
States
would
be
placed
in
an
untenable
position
if
they
were
required
to
decide
whether
to
submit
a
SIP
under
the
Annex
and
§
309
before
EPA
has
finalized
new
§
308
rules
on
remand.

Center
for
Energy
and
Economic
Development
(
CEED)
(
Docket
No.
IV­
D­
01);
American
Trucking
Association
(
ATA)
(
Docket
No.
IV­
D­
05).

COMMENT:
One
commenter
stated
that
it
would
be
a
serious
misreading
of
the
Court's
decision
to
conclude
that
the
proposed
Annex
remains
viable
because
it
is
voluntary
for
the
states.
The
Court
had
two
separate
and
independent
reasons
to
invalidate
EPA's
regulations,
one
of
which
was
intrusion
on
state
authority
and
the
other
of
which
was
failure
to
apply
all
of
the
§
169A(
g)(
2)
BART
factors
on
a
source­
by­
source
basis.

Center
for
Energy
and
Economic
Development
(
CEED)
(
Docket
No.
IV­
D­
01)
­
5­
COMMENT:
Two
commenters
stated
the
court's
decision
does
not
in
any
way
bear
on
the
provisions
in
40
CFR
51.308(
e)(
2)
which
govern
the
discretion
conferred
on
the
states
to
implement
"
an
emissions
trading
program
or
other
alternative
measure"
in
lieu
of
BART.
These
provisions
were
not
addressed
by
the
court's
decision
and
plainly
permit
states,
as
they
see
fit,
to
assess
the
emission
reductions
achievable
for
sources
subject
to
BART
"
on
a
source
category
basis,"
for
comparative
purposes
in
evaluating
the
merits
of
an
alternative
program.
40
CFR
51.308(
e)(
2)(
i)(
B).
The
court
expressly
declined
to
hold
that
the
concept
of
a
collective
approach
to
BART
was
inconsistent
with
the
statute.
Under
the
court's
decision,
even
a
state
implementing
BART
qua
BART
is
free
to
determine
whether
a
source
is
subject
to
BART
and
to
evaluate
the
resulting
visibility
improvement
on
a
collective
basis,
if
the
state
so
chooses.
It
is
clear
that
the
Court
did
not
object
to
the
method
of
implementation
per
se,
but
to
EPA's
requirement
that
states
implement
BART
in
its
prescribed
fashion.
The
WRAP
Annex,
however,
was
designed
as
an
alternative
to
BART
and
developed
voluntarily
through
consensus
by
Western
states,
tribes,
and
stakeholders,
not
according
to
an
EPA
prescription
that
"
constrains
state
authority."

Environmental
Defense
(
Docket
No.
IV­
D­
06);
Pinnacle
West
Capital
Corporation
(
Docket
No.
IV­
D­
07)

COMMENT:
Other
commenters
asked
that
EPA
provide
a
more
detailed
explanation
regarding
the
impact
of
the
Courts
decision.
They
stated
that
the
WRAP's
Annex
could
be
in
jeopardy
if
the
issues
raised
in
the
American
Corn
Growers
case
are
not
addressed.
The
commenters
stated
that
EPA
must
provide
states
and
other
interested
parties
with
a
more
detailed
explanation
regarding
why
the
court's
decision
does
not
impact
the
ability
of
western
states
to
move
ahead
with
implementation
of
the
Annex
and
the
Section
309
provisions
of
the
Regional
Haze
Rule.

Arizona
Electric
Power
Cooperative,
Inc.
(
Docket
No.
IV­
D­
02);
WEST
Associates
(
Docket
No.
IV­
D­
04);
The
Western
Regional
Air
Partnership
(
Docket
No.
IV­
D­
08);
Utility
Air
Regulatory
Group
(
Docket
No.
IV­
D­
09);
The
Colorado
Air
Quality
Control
Commission
(
Docket
No.
IVD
10);
Western
Business
Roundtable
(
Docket
No.
IV­
D­
11).

RESPONSE:
On
May
24,
2002,
the
U.
S.
Court
of
Appeals
for
the
D.
C.
Circuit
issued
a
decision
in
American
Corn
Growers
et
al.
v.
EPA,
291
F.
3d
1
(
D.
C.
Cir.,
2002)
that
invalidated
part
of
EPA's
regional
haze
rule.
Because
EPA
proposed
to
incorporate
the
WRAP
Annex
into
the
regional
haze
rule,
some
commenters
expressed
concerns
as
to
whether
the
court's
decision
would
have
an
impact
on
this
rulemaking
regarding
the
Annex.
The
EPA
believes
that
the
recent
decision
in
American
Corn
Growers
does
not
in
any
way
affect
the
WRAP
Annex
or
EPA's
ability
to
incorporate
the
Annex
into
its
regional
haze
rule.

In
order
to
better
understand
EPA's
conclusion
regarding
the
Annex,
EPA
believes
it
is
helpful
to
review
the
history
of
the
GCVTC
and
the
WRAP.
In
its
1996
report
to
EPA,
the
GCVTC
recommended
a
wide
range
of
control
strategies
to
address
regional
haze,
including
­
6­
strategies
to
reduce
emissions
of
SO
2
from
large
stationary
sources.
Thus,
the
GCVTC
specifically
recognized
that
stationary
sources
would
need
to
be
an
important
part
of
an
overall
visibility
strategy
and,
in
particular,
that
controlling
sulfates
from
these
sources
was
a
key
strategy
for
addressing
haze.
As
part
of
this
overall
strategy,
the
GCVTC
also
concluded
that
interim
targets
that
provided
for
"
steady
and
continuing
emission
reductions"
over
the
entirety
of
the
planning
period
might
also
be
needed.

In
1997,
EPA
proposed
the
regional
haze
rule,
and
in
1998,
the
WGA
submitted
comments
to
EPA
requesting
the
addition
of
specific
language
to
the
rule
to
address
the
recommendations
of
the
GCVTC.
In
these
comments,
the
WGA
reemphasized
the
commitment
of
the
Western
governors
to
the
GCVTC
recommendations.
Following
public
notice
and
an
opportunity
to
comment
on
the
WGA's
proposal,
EPA
issued
the
final
regional
haze
rule
(
64
FR
35714,
July
1,
1999).
In
40
CFR
51.309
of
the
rule,
EPA
established
a
specific
set
of
SIP
requirements
for
the
States
and
Tribes
that
participated
in
the
GCVTC.
As
EPA
noted
in
the
preamble
to
the
rule,
these
requirements
acknowledged
and
gave
effect
to
the
substantial
body
of
work
already
completed
by
the
GCVTC
and
the
WRAP.

One
of
the
requirements
in
40
CFR
51.309
addressed
the
GCVTC's
recommendation
that
the
States
establish
a
cap
on
regional
emissions
of
SO
2
from
stationary
sources.
Under
40
CFR
51.309(
f)
of
the
regional
haze
rule,
the
WRAP
was
required
to
submit
an
annex
to
the
GCVTC
Report
that
would
contain
specific
emission
reduction
milestones
for
the
years
2003,
2008,
2013,
and
2018.
This
provision
explicitly
references
the
recommendations
of
the
GCVTC
for
"
steady
and
continuing
emissions
reductions
.
.
.
consistent
with
the
Commission's
definition
of
reasonable
progress"
and
its
goal
of
50
to
70
percent
reduction
in
emissions
of
SO
2
between
1990
and
2040.
In
the
preamble
to
the
final
regional
haze
rule,
EPA
explained
that
the
WRAP
would
have
to
take
into
account
four
specific
factors
in
setting
these
milestones.
The
preamble
specifically
noted
that
"[
t]
he
first
factor
affecting
the
selection
of
interim
milestones
is
the
GCVTC's
definition
of
reasonable
progress."
(
64
FR
35756).
The
other
factors
listed
in
the
rule
are:
(
1)
the
ultimate
target
in
2040
of
a
50
to
70
percent
reduction
in
emissions
of
SO
2
from
stationary
sources;
(
2)
the
requirement
that
the
emissions
cap
provide
for
greater
progress
than
would
be
achieved
through
source­
specific
BART
requirements;
and
(
3)
the
timing
of
progress
assessment
and
the
identification
of
mechanisms
to
address
the
cases
where
emissions
exceed
milestones.

In
the
regional
haze
rule,
EPA
concluded
that
the
specific
SIP
requirements
in
40
CFR
51.309
provide
for
reasonable
progress
toward
the
national
visibility
goal.
The
WRAP's
plan
for
capping
SO
2
emissions
from
stationary
sources
is
a
part
of
the
Western
States'
and
Tribes'
longterm
strategy
for
achieving
reasonable
progress.
As
described
above,
the
SO
2
program
grew
out
of
the
GCVTC's
recommendations
for
measures
to
remedy
adverse
impacts
on
visibility.

Some
commenters
expressed
concerns
that
the
WRAP's
program
for
controlling
SO
2
emissions
in
the
West,
as
further
defined
by
the
Annex
to
the
GCVTC's
Report,
is
a
"
BART
­
7­
provision"
subject
to
the
American
Corn
Growers
court
remand.
For
several
reasons,
EPA
believes
that
this
is
not
the
case.

Under
the
CAA,
the
BART
provisions
require
the
installation
of
control
technology
on
specific
sources
that
were
built
between
1962
and
1977.
Nothing
in
the
Annex
requires
specific
controls
on
any
individual
source.
A
key
component
of
the
Annex's
SO
2
program
is
the
goal
that
all
reductions
called
for
by
the
program
remain
voluntary.
If
the
reductions
are
achieved
through
voluntary
measures,
then
there
will
be
no
requirements
of
any
kind.
Even
if
the
SO
2
milestones
are
not
achieved
through
voluntary
actions,
the
Annex
does
not
provide
for
source­
specific
controls.
Rather,
the
failure
to
achieve
these
milestones
would
trigger
a
"
backstop"
emissions
trading
program.
Such
a
program,
by
its
very
nature,
does
not
dictate
that
any
particular
source
install
control
technology
or
otherwise
reduce
its
emissions.

The
EPA
also
notes
that
the
Annex
covers
all
stationary
sources
that
emit
more
than
100
tons
per
year
of
SO
2
 
not
just
sources
built
between
1962
and
1977
 
and
thus
goes
well
beyond
the
scope
of
the
statutory
BART
provisions.
For
this
reason
(
and
others
noted
above),
EPA
believes
that
the
SO
2
program
is
a
component
of
the
WRAP's
strategy
for
ensuring
reasonable
progress,
an
aspect
of
the
regional
haze
program
that
was
not
addressed
by
the
American
Corn
Growers
decision.

The
EPA
approved
the
WRAP's
long­
term
strategy
for
addressing
visibility
consistent
with
the
broad
discretion
afforded
States
by
section
169A
and
title
I
of
the
CAA
in
developing
strategies
to
meet
reasonable
progress
goals
and
national
standards.
See
Union
Electric
Co.
v.
EPA,
427
U.
S.
246
(
1976);
Train
v.
NRDC,
421
U.
S.
60
(
1975).
The
SO
2
program,
which
caps
emissions
of
SO
2
from
all
large
stationary
sources,
reflects
the
WRAP
States'
and
Tribes'
judgement
as
to
one
appropriate
means
for
addressing
haze
and
ensuring
reasonable
progress.
The
decision
to
limit
emissions
from
this
category
of
sources
is
well
within
the
discretion
of
the
States
and
Tribes.
The
court's
decision
in
American
Corn
Growers,
which
addresses
only
the
BART
provisions,
does
not
in
any
way
limit
the
general
authority
of
the
States
to
choose
appropriate
control
measures
to
ensure
reasonable
progress.
Any
suggestion
that
the
decision
requires
States
to
undertake
a
source
specific
analysis
of
a
source's
contribution
to
the
problem
of
regional
haze
before
the
State
can
subject
a
source
to
regulation
would
go
far
beyond
the
actual
holding
in
the
case.

As
discussed
above,
40
CFR
51.309
does
not
require
participating
States
to
assess
and
impose
BART
on
individual
sources.
Best
available
retrofit
technology
is
only
relevant
as
one
of
four
factors
that
the
WRAP
must
consider
in
establishing
the
appropriate
emission
reduction
milestones
for
SO
2
 
i.
e.,
the
level
of
the
cap.
The
regional
haze
rule
requires
that
the
milestones
in
the
Annex
to
the
GCVTC
Report
"
must
be
shown
to
provide
for
greater
reasonable
progress
than
would
be
achieved
by
application
of
best
available
retrofit
technology
(
BART)
pursuant
to
51.308(
e)(
2)."
40
CFR
§
51.309(
f)(
1)(
i).
This
is
not
a
requirement
for
BART.
The
requirement
that
the
milestones
"
provide
for
greater
reasonable
progress"
than
BART
is
based
on
the
decision
­
8­
by
EPA
to
provide
States
with
the
flexibility
to
adopt
alternative
measures
in
lieu
of
the
BART
requirements
set
forth
in
statute
so
long
as
these
alternative
measures
were
"
better
than
BART."
See
40
CFR
§
51.308(
e)(
2).
In
short,
the
SO
2
program
described
in
the
regional
haze
rule,
as
further
defined
by
the
Annex,
does
not
impose
controls
on
specific
sources
but
rather
ensures
that
greater
reasonable
progress
is
made
than
would
be
through
installation
of
source
specific
controls
on
the
BART
sources.
The
regional
haze
rule
accordingly
authorizes
States
to
achieve
improvements
in
visibility
through
the
most
cost­
effective
measures
available.

The
American
Corn
Growers
court
did
not
address
the
provisions
in
the
regional
haze
rule
allowing
States
to
adopt
a
trading
program
or
other
alternative
measures
in
place
of
source
specific
control
measures
for
BART
sources.
The
EPA
finds
nothing
in
the
court's
decision
that
would
invalidate
the
trading
program
alternative
to
BART,
as
provided
for
in
40
CFR
51.308(
e)(
2).
In
the
preamble
to
the
regional
haze
rule,
EPA
sets
forth
the
basis
for
its
decision
to
allow
States
this
flexibility
and
described
the
process
for
States
to
make
a
showing
that
the
alternative
measures
provided
for
greater
reasonable
progress.
Significantly,
nothing
in
the
D.
C.
Circuit's
opinion
suggests
that
such
an
alternative
is
in
conflict
with
the
requirements
of
the
visibility
provisions
of
the
CAA.
In
fact,
an
approach
that
allows
States
to
adopt
alternative
measures
in
lieu
of
BART
fully
comports
with
the
court's
view
of
the
States'
broad
authority
in
this
area.
Accordingly,
so
long
as
the
Annex
meets
the
requirements
set
out
in
40
CFR
51.309(
f),
EPA
believes
that
it
may
approve
the
proposed
revisions
to
the
regional
haze
rule
incorporating
the
emission
reduction
milestones
and
other
measures
set
forth
in
the
Annex.

The
EPA
disagrees
with
the
comment
that
States
are
placed
in
an
untenable
position
if
they
must
make
a
decision
on
whether
to
exercise
the
option
under
section
40
CFR
51.309
before
EPA
has
finalized
the
BART
provisions
of
40
CFR
51.308.
The
Western
States,
together
with
other
stakeholders,
have
worked
together
cooperatively
for
a
number
of
years
to
develop
strategies
for
addressing
visibility.
The
option
under
section
40
CFR
51.309
reflects
many
years
of
work
by
the
Grand
Canyon
Visibility
Commission
and
the
WRAP.
States
may
clearly
choose
to
exercise
the
40
CFR
51.309
option,
for
the
reasons
discussed
above.
States
may
also
chose
not
to
exercise
this
option,
and
the
current
uncertainty
over
40
CFR
51.308
balanced
against
the
substantial
efforts
already
expended
by
the
States
and
other
stakeholders
is
a
factor
they
may
take
into
account
in
their
decision.

2.1.2
SIP
Deadline
Extension
COMMENT:
Four
commenters
request
that
the
Section
309
SIP
deadline
be
extended.
Three
commenters
stated
that
additional
time
is
needed
because
EPA
must
revise
the
Section
308
BART
requirements
before
States
can
evaluate
the
308
versus
309
options.

Another
commenter
stated
that
there
is
no
legal
or
policy
basis
for
EPA
to
extend
the
SIP
submittal
deadlines
for
the
transport
regions
States
beyond
the
December
31,
2003
SIP
submittal
deadline.
The
Commission
was
established
in
November
1991,
the
Commission's
­
9­
recommendations
were
complete
in
June
1996,
the
final
haze
rule
was
published
on
July
1,
1999,
and
the
WRAP's
work
on
the
Annex
completed
in
September
2000.
There
is
no
sound
reason
for
further
delay
in
implementing
the
Commission's
recommendations.

Center
for
Energy
and
Economic
Development
(
CEED)
(
Docket
No.
IV­
D­
01);
PacifiCorp
(
Docket
No.
IV­
D­
03);
The
Colorado
Air
Quality
Control
Commission
(
Docket
No.
IV­
D­
10);
Western
Business
Roundtable
(
Docket
No.
IV­
D­
11);
Environmental
Defense
(
Docket
No.
IVD
06)

RESPONSE:
In
the
final
rule,
the
EPA
retains
the
December
31,
2003
deadline
for
a
number
of
reasons.
First,
as
noted
above
in
section
2.1.1,
the
EPA
does
not
believe
that
the
American
Corn
Growers
decision
affects
the
WRAP
States'
ability
to
move
forward
in
implementing
section
40
CFR
51.309.
While
the
court
decision
may
indeed
affect
a
State's
decision
on
whether
to
pursue
the
optional
program
under
40
CFR
5.309,
EPA
does
not
believe
that
this
is
an
adequate
justification
for
delaying
the
program.
Second,
EPA
believes
that
the
2003
deadline
is
a
fundamental
element
of
the
overall
optional
strategy
provided
by
40
CFR
51.309.
The
strategy
was
supportable
under
the
regional
haze
rule
in
large
part
because
it
was
an
early
strategy
that
would
be
in
place
well
before
SIPs
under
40
CFR
51.308.
The
fact
that
it
was
received
early
and
contained
comprehensive
strategies
was
an
important
part
of
the
rationale
for
its
acceptance.
The
EPA
believes
that
the
longer
the
strategy
is
delayed
in
its
implementation,
the
less
valid
this
rationale
becomes.

COMMENT:
One
commenter
stated
that
the
regional
haze
rule
allows
60
months
for
states
to
adopt
enforceable
measures
relating
to
stationary
source
PM
and
NOx
controls,
or
double
the
timeframe
allowed
by
the
CAA.
This
timeframe
will
result
in
SIPs
that
fail
to
meet
the
requirements
of
the
CAA
and,
therefore,
are
not
approvable.

American
Trucking
Association
(
ATA)
(
Docket
No.
IV­
D­
05)

RESPONSE:
The
commenter
appears
to
be
raising
a
concern
regarding
a
provision
in
the
regional
haze
rule
published
on
July
1,
1999.
Section
309(
4)(
v)
requires
any
States
submitting
a
plan
under
section
309
to
provide
for
"
any
necessary
long­
term
strategies
and
BART
requirements
for
stationary
source
PM
and
NOx
no
later
than
December
31,
2008.
The
December
31,
2008
date
is
the
date
by
which
all
States
must
submit
plans
for
addressing
regional
haze.
This
comment
is
not
related
to
today's
rulemaking
which
addresses
the
sufficiency
of
the
milestones
for
sulfur
dioxide
and
other
elements
the
rule
associated
with
the
milestones.
As
such,
the
comment
is
not
relevant
to
EPA's
decision
to
amend
section
309
to
incorporate
the
sulfur
dioxide
milestones
into
the
regional
haze
rule.

As
discussed
above,
implementation
plans
for
the
program
under
40
CFR
51.309
are
due
earlier
than
is
required
for
regional
haze
plans
in
general
under
the
relevant
statutes.
The
first
implementation
plans
for
States
electing
to
adopt
the
recommendations
in
the
Commission
Report
­
10­
are
due
by
December
31,
2003.
Section
309(
4)(
v)
requires
any
such
plans
to
provide
for
a
plan
revision
to
address
PM
and
NOx
emissions
from
stationary
sources
at
the
same
time
as
other
States
will
be
submitting
their
first
implementation
plans.
Thus,
the
appropriate
control
decisions
and
enforceable
limits
or
alternative
program
to
address
these
emissions
will
be
submitted
in
a
time
frame
consistent
with
the
deadlines
under
section
308
and
the
time
frame
set
forth
in
the
relevant
statute.

2.1.3
Procedural
Issues
COMMENT:
One
commenter
states
that
EPA
cannot
approve
the
Annex
because
the
procedural
requirements
of
the
regional
haze
rule
have
not
been
followed.
The
commenter
states
that
EPA
has
not
followed
the
agency's
own
regulatory
timeline
set
forth
in
40
CFR
51.309(
f)(
3).
Specifically,
this
commenter
asserted
that
EPA
has
not
met
the
requirements
of
regional
haze
rule
paragraph
40
CFR
51.309(
f)
because
EPA
did
not
publish
the
annex
upon
receipt,
nor
has
EPA
incorporate(
d)
the
provisions
of
the
annex
into
the
regional
haze
rule
within
1
year
after
EPA
receives
the
annex.

Center
for
Energy
and
Economic
Development
(
CEED)
(
Docket
No.
IV­
D­
01)

RESPONSE:
The
EPA
disagrees
with
the
assertions
that
this
rulemaking
is
procedurally
flawed.
The
EPA
published
a
Notice
of
Availability
in
the
Federal
Register
for
the
Annex
on
November
15,
2000
(
65
FR
68999),
indicating
where
the
Annex
could
be
found
on
EPA's
website.
The
commenter
is
correct
that
EPA
established
a
deadline
of
1
year
to
act
on
the
Annex.
The
EPA
believes
that
the
passage
in
the
rule
stating
that
EPA
"
will
act"
within
1
year
signaled
EPA's
intentions
to
act
within
that
time
period.
Nothing
in
the
regional
haze
rule
precludes
EPA
from
acting
after
this
self­
imposed
deadline.
In
particular,
action
within
the
1­
year
deadline
should
not
be
interpreted
as
a
prerequisite
for
approving
the
Annex
or
for
incorporating
the
Annex
into
the
regional
haze
rule.
In
the
final
rule,
the
EPA
clarifies
its
position
by
removing
the
phrase
"
1
year"
from
section
309(
f)(
3).

COMMENT:
Seven
commenters
requested
an
extension
in
the
public
comment
period
for
the
Notice
of
Proposed
Rulemaking.

Center
for
Energy
and
Economic
Development
(
CEED)
(
Docket
No.
IV­
D­
01);
Arizona
Electric
Power
Cooperative,
Inc.
(
Docket
No.
IV­
D­
02);
PacifiCorp
(
Docket
No.
IV­
D­
03);
WEST
Associates
(
Docket
No.
IV­
D­
04);
The
Western
Regional
Air
Partnership
(
Docket
No.
IV­
D­
08);
Utility
Air
Regulatory
Group
(
Docket
No.
IV­
D­
09);
Western
Business
Roundtable
(
Docket
No.
IV­
D­
11).
­
11­
RESPONSE:
Most
of
these
comments
were
based
upon
a
desire
for
more
time
to
study
the
effects
of
the
American
Corn
Growers
decision
on
the
Annex
rulemaking.
As
a
general
matter,
EPA
attempts
to
take
into
consideration
all
comments
received
on
a
proposed
rule,
including
those
received
after
the
end
of
the
comment
period.
Although
we
cannot
guarantee
that
such
comments
will
be
considered,
EPA
often
does
so.
For
example,
EPA
fully
considered
in
this
rulemaking
the
comments
from
Arizona
Mining
Association
(
Docket
No.
IV­
D­
12)
which
were
received
after
the
July
5,
2002
deadline.
Thus,
as
a
practical
matter,
interested
parties
had
ample
opportunity
to
provide
EPA
with
their
views
on
the
impact
of
the
American
Corn
Growers
decision,
especially
in
light
of
the
fact
that
on
July
22,
2002,
in
a
letter
from
Jeffrey
R.
Holmstead,
EPA
Assistant
Administrator
for
Air
and
Radiation,
to
the
co­
chairs
of
WRAP's
Initiative
Oversight
Committee,
EPA
provided
a
detailed
rationale
for
its
position
that
this
court
decision
did
not
adversely
effect
EPA
'
s
ability
to
move
forward
with
its
proposed
rulemaking
approving
the
Annex.
However,
because
of
the
need
to
move
forward
with
the
rulemaking
in
advance
of
the
December
31,
2003,
deadline
for
submittal
of
plans
under
section
309,
EPA
did
not
believe
it
was
necessary
to
re­
open
the
comment
period.

COMMENT:
Another
commenter
stated
that
a
consensus
support
for
the
Annex
was
not
achieved
among
WRAP
members
(
Colorado
abstained
from
supporting
the
Annex)
and
several
western
states
are
either
not
represented
or
are
represented
but
are
not
eligible
to
develop
Section
309
SIPs.
The
WRAP
excludes
mobile
sources
from
participating
on
its
standing
committees.
Travel
by
a
broad
range
of
participants
is
an
important
component
of
the
process.
The
WRAP
provides
limited
travel
reimbursement
to
individuals
from
selected
groups
who
would
be
unable
to
participate
without
such
assistance.
The
travel
policy
is
used
to
reimburse
participants
according
to
their
affiliations.
This
has
resulted
in
a
biased
WRAP
process
that
precludes
objective
involvement
by
all
interested
parties.
Small
businesses,
such
as
small
trucking
companies,
construction
companies,
taxi
operators
and
others,
can
hardly
afford
to
be
away
from
their
businesses,
much
less
be
reimbursed
50
cents
for
each
dollar
spent.
By
selectively
reimbursing
certain
individuals
deemed
integral
to
the
process,
the
WRAP
process
favors
selected
stakeholders,
thereby
creating
an
inequitable
process.

American
Trucking
Association
(
ATA)
(
Docket
No.
IV­
D­
05)

RESPONSE:
The
EPA
believes
strongly
that
the
WRAP
has
made
reasonable
and
significant
efforts
to
gain
broad­
based
input
into
all
of
its
strategies
for
improving
visibility
in
the
West,
including
the
program
described
here.
Whether
the
WRAP
Annex
reflects
the
consensus
of
all
Western
stakeholders,
however,
is
not
determinative
of
whether
the
final
rule
meets
the
applicable
requirments.
EPA
has
reviewed
the
recommendations
in
the
Annex
and
made
a
final
decision
as
to
the
adequacy
of
the
milestones
based
on
the
requirements
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
and
the
regional
haze
rule.

2.2
MILESTONES
­
12­
2.2.1
Whether
Milestones
Satisfy
Requirements
in
the
Regional
Haze
Rule
COMMENT:
One
commenter
stated
that
the
proposed
rule
falls
short
of
providing
satisfactory
evidence
of
greater
reasonable
progress
than
BART
for
several
reasons:

 
because
of
differences
between
the
BART­
eligible
sources
identified
by
the
WRAP
and
those
identified
under
EPA's
proposed
BART
guidelines,
BART
emissions
reductions
are
underestimated
by
a
few
thousand
tons;

 
the
WRAP
calculated
SO
2
reductions
from
BART­
eligible
sources
of
168,000
tons
for
the
year
2018,
while
in
May
2000,
EPA
provided
the
WRAP
with
a
technical
review
of
their
BART
determination
and
found
that
due
to
a
higher
level
of
control
for
uncontrolled
utility
boilers,
SO
2
reductions
of
170,000
to
190,000
tons
from
BART
are
possible;

 
there
is
an
improper
inclusion
of
an
additional
amount
of
emissions
to
account
for
"
uncertainty"
and
"
headroom."
These
offsets,
referred
to
in
the
Proposed
Rule
as
"
uncertainty"
and
"
operational
headroom,"
represent
an
"
Enronesque"
method
of
accounting
for
lower
levels
of
SO
2
reductions
than
represented.
For
instance,
when
the
additional
35,000
tons
of
"
uncertainty/
operational
headroom"
are
accounted
for,
SO
2
reductions
of
132,000
tons
are
projected
for
2018.
This
total
is
well
below
both
the
EPA's
and
the
WRAP's
BART
estimates
and,
therefore,
does
not
ensure
that
the
Proposed
Rule
will
provide
greater
reasonable
progress
than
BART.

 
the
proposed
rule's
visibility
analysis
is
insufficient
to
demonstrate
a
greater
improvement
in
visibility
than
BART.
The
WRAP
conducted
visibility
analyses
adding
an
additional
10%
of
base
case
SO
2
emission
back
into
the
BART
analysis
to
account
for
uncertainty
as
opposed
to
the
2%
used
in
the
draft
rule.
All
of
the
visibility
benefit
can
be
attributed
to
the
different
uncertainty
value.
In
addition,
the
follow­
up
analyses
assumes
baseline
SO
2
emissions
are
higher
than
those
contained
in
the
Proposed
Rule,
resulting
in
greater
SO
2
reductions
being
attributed
to
the
milestones
and
a
higher
amount
of
tons
attributed
to
uncertainty
for
the
BART
analysis.
Furthermore,
the
follow­
up
analyses
draw
conclusions
based
on
results
outside
the
model's
level
of
confidence,
which
the
Annex
previously
acknowledged
as
one­
tenth
of
a
deciview.

 
the
proposed
rule
needs
to
include
mechanisms
to
ensure
that
a
higher
value
is
placed
on
SO
2
emissions
from
sources
closest
to
the
16
Class
I
areas.
The
proposed
rule
assumes
that
half
of
the
reductions
in
SO
2
emissions
will
come
from
states
on
the
Colorado
Plateau.
There
are
no
provisions,
however,
to
ensure
that
these
SO
2
reductions
will
actually
happen.
Instead,
the
Annex
allows
trading
throughout
the
region
on
a
one­
forone
basis.
Consequently,
reducing
a
ton
of
SO
2
emissions
in
Oregon
will
supposedly
have
the
same
impact
on
visibility
on
the
Colorado
Plateau
as
reducing
a
ton
of
SO
2
emissions
in
Arizona.
SO
2
emissions
from
certain
areas
have
a
greater
impact
on
visibility
on
the
­
13­
Colorado
Plateau
than
others.
Yet,
the
Proposed
Rule
does
not
account
for
this
fact
and,
instead,
assumes
all
SO
2
reductions
throughout
the
nine­
state
region
are
equal.

American
Trucking
Association
(
ATA)
(
Docket
No.
IV­
D­
05)

COMMENT:
Another
commenter
stated
that
EPA's
discussion
in
the
preamble
to
the
propose
rule
did
not
completely
capture
the
scope
and
methodology
of
the
WRAP's
milestone
decision.
This
commenter
noted
that
the
milestones
were
negotiated
numbers
that
reflected
a
broader
view
of
the
entire
backstop
trading
program
and
the
relevant
statutory
factors.
Also,
the
commenter
noted
that
individual
elements
of
the
formula
do
not
represent
a
consensus
position
outside
of
the
balanced
package
of
the
Annex.

The
Western
Regional
Air
Partnership
(
Docket
No.
IV­
D­
08).

COMMENT:
Five
commenters
endorse
the
methodology
to
identify
BART­
eligible
sources
and
calculate
emission
reductions,
as
an
outcome
of
the
consensus
process.

Arizona
Electric
Power
Cooperative
(
Docket
No.
IV­
D­
02);
PacifiCorp
(
Docket
No.
IV­
D­
03);
WEST
Associates
(
Docket
No.
IV­
D­
04);
Utility
Air
Regulatory
Group
(
UARG)
(
Docket
No.
IV­
D­
09).

COMMENT:
Three
commenters
believe
that
the
manner
in
which
the
WRAP
determined
BART
eligibility
is
appropriate
for
the
purposes
of
implementing
the
Annex
and
Section
309
of
the
Regional
Haze
Rule
notwithstanding
how
significant
or
insignificant
the
emissions
difference
may
be.

Arizona
Electric
Power
Cooperative,
Inc.
(
Docket
No.
IV­
D­
02);
WEST
Associates
(
Docket
No.
IV­
D­
04);
Utility
Air
Regulatory
Group
(
Docket
No.
IV­
D­
09).

COMMENT:
Three
commenters
stated
that
the
language
"
during
WRAP
deliberations
on
setting
the
milestones,
it
[
the
EPA]
provided
the
WRAP
with
a
"
technical
review
of
the
control
technology
judgments
made
by
the
WRAP
for
the
utility
boilers."
The
proposed
rule
indicates
that
this
review
would
result
in
15,000
to
35,000
tons
in
greater
reductions.
This
is
not
appropriate
in
the
proposed
rule
and
should
be
removed
particularly
when
the
same
proposed
rule
finds
that
the
milestones
meet
"
the
requirements
of
the
CAA
and
the
Regional
Haze
Rule."

Arizona
Electric
Power
Cooperative
(
Docket
No.
IV­
D­
02);
WEST
Associates
(
Docket
No.
IVD
04);
Utility
Air
Regulatory
Group
(
UARG)
(
Docket
No.
IV­
D­
09).

COMMENT:
Six
commenters
support
the
inclusion
of
an
additional
amount
of
emissions
to
account
for
"
uncertainty"
and
"
headroom."
The
amount
­­
35,000
tons
was
established
as
part
of
the
consensus
and
is
acceptable.
If
EPA
adjusts
this
figure,
it
threatens
to
undermine
the
basis
­
14­
for
the
WRAP
consensus
set
forth
in
the
WRAP
Annex.
The
additional
headroom
provides
flexibility
in
the
program
and
allows
sources
to
use
the
flexibility
in
their
operations.
The
"
headroom/
uncertainty"
margin
allows
sources
to
operate
within
permitted
levels
without
prematurely
triggering
the
program.

Arizona
Electric
Power
Cooperative,
Inc.
(
Docket
No.
IV­
D­
02);
WEST
Associates
(
Docket
No.
IV­
D­
04);
Pinnacle
West
Capital
Corporation
(
Docket
No.
IV­
D­
07);
Utility
Air
Regulatory
Group
(
Docket
No.
IV­
D­
09);
Western
Business
Roundtable
(
Docket
No.
IV­
D­
11);
Arizona
Mining
Association
(
AMA)
(
Docket
No.
IV­
D­
12).

COMMENT:
One
commenter
supports
the
regional
milestones
adopted
by
the
WRAP.
However,
it
is
important
to
clarify
that
these
projections
were
made
only
for
the
purpose
of
forecasting
emissions
and
establishing
aggregate
emission
milestones
for
the
region
­
not
for
purposes
of
prescribing
what
specific
sources
must
do
or
be
held
accountable
for
in
the
future.

PacifiCorp
(
Docket
No.
IV­
D­
03)

RESPONSE:
The
final
rule
retains
the
milestones
contained
in
the
proposed
rule.
The
EPA
continues
to
believe
that
the
milestones
provide
for
"
greater
reasonable
progress
than
BART."
The
EPA
disagrees
with
comments
that
the
milestones
are
deficient
in
this
regard.
The
EPA
agrees
with
stakeholders
that
it
is
a
critical
consideration
that
the
WRAP's
milestones
provide
for
a
"
cap"
on
emissions
which
may
not
be
exceeded.
Any
program
providing
for
caseby
case
controls
on
a
specific
set
of
sources
does
not
establish
such
a
"
cap"
for
the
region.
Moreover,
this
cap
applies
to
a
population
of
sources
that
includes
all
sources
in
the
region
emitting
more
than
100
tons
of
SO
2,
which
is
a
much
broader
population
than
if
only
the
BARTeligible
sources
were
included.
The
EPA
continues
to
conclude
that
the
WRAP
milestones
are
reasonable
in
light
of
the
inherent
uncertainties
that
exist
in
any
forecast
to
the
year
2018.
Modeling
results
showed
predicted
visibility
improvements
equivalent
to,
or
greater
than,
those
that
would
result
from
a
"
command
and
control"
scenario.

The
EPA
disagrees
with
comments
that
it
was
inappropriate
in
the
proposal
to
cite
EPA's
May
2000
technical
review
of
certain
technology
calculations
for
utility
boilers.
The
EPA
believes
that
it
is
appropriate
to
provide
our
technical
judgment
on
this
issue,
and
it
was
appropriate
to
seek
input
from
the
public
on
the
appropriateness
of
the
WRAP's
judgment
on
how
available
control
technologies
should
affect
the
choice
of
milestones.
At
the
same
time,
EPA
disagrees
with
commenter
who
cites
this
analysis
as
conclusive
evidence
that
WRAP's
milestones
are
deficient.
As
noted
above,
this
was
only
one
of
many
judgments
made
by
EPA
in
its
overall
determination.
The
key
factors,
as
noted
above,
are
that
the
WRAP's
program
provides
a
certain
cap
on
the
entire
regional
inventory,
and
that
the
WRAP's
program
covers
a
broader
list
of
sources.
­
15­
The
EPA
found
nothing
in
comments
to
contradict
its
judgment
in
the
proposal
that
there
are
very
minor
differences
between
WRAP's
method
for
identifying
BART­
eligible
sources
in
the
Annex
and
EPA's
method
in
its
proposed
July
2001
BART
guidelines.

The
final
rule
retains
the
milestones
contained
in
the
proposed
rule
including
the
35,000
tons
for
"
uncertainty"
and
"
headroom."
The
EPA
continues
to
share
WRAP's
view
that,
given
that
year
2018
projections
are
uncertain,
it
is
reasonable
to
take
into
account
a
reasonable
amount
of
tons/
yr
for
this
uncertainty
in
calculating
the
milestones.

COMMENT:
Four
commenters
agree
with
EPA's
finding
that
the
emissions
milestones
contained
in
the
Annex
fulfill
all
of
the
requirements
for
"
steady
and
continuing
progress."

Arizona
Electric
Power
Cooperative,
Inc.
(
Docket
No.
IV­
D­
02);
WEST
Associates
(
Docket
No.
IV­
D­
04);
Pinnacle
West
Capital
Corporation
(
Docket
No.
IV­
D­
07);
Utility
Air
Regulatory
Group
(
Docket
No.
IV­
D­
09).

COMMENT:
One
commenter
disagrees
with
EPA's
finding
and
asserted
that
the
Proposed
Rule
fails
to
provide
for
"
steady
and
continuing
emission
reductions."
For
example,
the
2003­
2007
milestones
allow
SO
2
emissions
to
be
5­
10
percent
higher
than
1999
levels.
These
emission
increases,
as
opposed
to
reductions,
will
contribute
to
visibility
degradation
and,
therefore,
are
not
consistent
with
the
Commission's
definition
of
reasonable
progress.
Specifically,
the
Commission's
goal
of
"
achieving
continuous
emission
reductions
necessary
to
reduce
existing
impairment"
cannot
be
satisfied
by
allowing
stationary
sources
to
emit
at
higher
levels
than
they
do
today.
This
commenter
also
noted
that
the
WRAP
uses
as
its
starting
point,
or
frame
of
reference,
the
Commission's
goal
of
achieving
a
13
percent
reduction
in
1990
baseline
emissions
by
the
year
2000,
rather
than
an
estimate
of
actual
emissions
for
2000.
Actual
stationary
source
SO
2
reductions
during
this
time
are
estimated
at
22
percent.
Allowing
the
WRAP
to
account
for
reductions
on
a
projected
rather
than
actual
basis
overestimates
current
stationary
source
SO
2
emissions
and,
consequently,
overestimates
the
actual
reductions
expected
from
the
Proposed
Rule.
This
interpretation
gives
stationary
sources
credit
for
reductions
from
years
past.
However,
this
same
standard
is
not
applied
to
other
emissions
sources
and
will
hold
non­
stationary
sources
to
a
higher
standard
of
reduction.
For
example,
between
1990­
1999
SO
2
emissions
from
mobile
sources
decreased
by
12%.
Yet,
credit
for
these
reductions
is
not
considered
when
determining
mobile
source
compliance.
Rather,
mobile
source
emissions
of
SO
2
are
projected
to
increase
between
1996­
2018.
This
increase,
while
acceptable
for
stationary
source
SO
2
emissions,
may
require
states
to
cap
mobile
source
emissions
in
those
areas
deemed
to
contribute
significantly
to
visibility
impairment
at
any
of
the
16
Class
I
areas
on
the
Colorado
Plateau.
This,
in
turn,
will
force
states
to
develop
a
patchwork
of
SO
2
emission
controls
for
mobile
sources
to
ensure
that
"
significant"
areas
comply
with
the
requirements
of
the
Regional
Haze
Rule.

American
Trucking
Association
(
ATA)
(
Docket
No.
IV­
D­
05)
­
16­
COMMENT:
Two
commenters
support
the
use
of
the
13
percent
benchmark
because
it
is
consistent
with
the
1996
Grand
Canyon
Visibility
Transport
Commission
(
GCVTC)
recommendations,
which
clearly
intended
the
13
percent
reduction
to
be
used
as
the
benchmark
to
show
continuous
and
steady
reductions
even
though
the
region
has
already
exceeded
the
goal
and
is
closer
to
about
a
26
or
27
percent
reduction.
A
switch
to
2000
actual
emissions
may
have
the
effect
of
penalizing
sources
for
early
reductions.
They
agree
with
the
EPA
that
the
50­
70
percent
reduction
meets
the
criterion
for
steady
and
continuing
emissions
reductions
and
support
this
provision
because
it
is
consistent
with
the
recommendations
of
the
GCVTC.

Western
Business
Roundtable
(
WBRT)
(
Docket
No.
IV­
D­
11);
Arizona
Mining
Association
(
AMA)
(
Docket
No.
IV­
D­
12).

RESPONSE:
The
EPA
disagrees
with
comments
that
the
milestones
cannot
be
considered
to
provide
for
"
steady
and
continuing"
reductions
if
actual
emissions
were
allowed
to
increase
in
the
early
years.
As
noted
in
the
proposal,
EPA
believes
that
the
WRAP
appropriately
used
the
GCVTC
goal
of
a
13
percent
reduction
in
emissions
between
1990
and
2000
as
a
starting
point
or
frame
of
reference,
rather
than
an
estimate
of
actual
emissions
for
the
year
2000.
Given
that
a
greater
than
expected
degree
of
reduction
has
already
occurred,
EPA
agrees
that
the
region
should
not
be
effectively
penalized
for
achieving
early
reductions
in
emissions.

The
requirements
in
section
309
of
the
regional
haze
rule
regarding
mobile
sources
are
not
changed
by
the
revisions
to
incorporate
the
milestones.
Moreover,
EPA
does
not
see
any
relationship
between
the
action
taken
today
and
mobile
source
sulfur
dioxide
emissions
from
mobile
sources.
The
EPA
notes
that
there
are
heavy
duty
diesel
fuel
sulfur
standards
efforts
that
have
been
completed
subsequent
to
the
1996
Grand
Canyon
visibility
commission.
The
EPA
has
also
proposed
additional
standards
for
fuel
sulfur
for
nonroad
diesel
engines.
These
national
standards
will
likely
have
a
major
impact
on
future
sulfur
dioxide
emissions
trends
for
mobile
sources.

2.2.2
Future
Adjustments
to
the
Milestones
COMMENT:
Three
commenters
support
the
WRAP
decision
to
allow
for
certain
adjustments
to
the
milestones.
One
commenter
stresses
that
the
adjustment
procedures
must
be
used
judiciously.
Stable
emission
targets
are
the
centerpiece
of
this
program
and
they
should
remain
stable
to
the
greatest
extent
practicable
in
order
to
encourage
efficient
behavior
by
the
affected
sources
in
the
region.
These
adjustment
provisions
should
not
be
viewed
as
a
means
of
increasing
or
decreasing
the
milestones
except
for
the
very
limited
purposes
for
which
the
adjustments
were
established.

PacifiCorp
(
Docket
No.
IV­
D­
03);
Western
Business
Roundtable
(
Docket
No.
IV­
D­
11);
Arizona
Mining
Association
(
AMA)
(
Docket
No.
IV­
D­
12).
­
17­
RESPONSE:
The
EPA
agrees
that
the
program
stability
is
important.
The
provisions
in
the
final
rule
call
for
adjusting
the
milestones
in
the
final
rule
only
for
a
few
specific
limited
circumstances
identified
in
the
Annex.

2.2.2.1
Adjustments
for
States
and
Tribes
that
Choose
not
to
Participate
COMMENT:
One
commenter
agrees
with
EPA
that,
unless
otherwise
agreed
to
by
the
stakeholders
through
the
WRAP
process,
these
state
opt­
out
totals
are
for
the
limited
purpose
of
adjusting
milestones
and
not
for
allocation
purposes.

PacifiCorp
(
Docket
No.
IV­
D­
03)

COMMENT:
Another
commenter
strongly
advocates
that
these
opt­
out
amounts
should
be
treated
as
allocations
for
several
reasons.
First,
the
amounts
listed
in
Table
2
represent
the
best
estimate
of
emissions
reductions
for
the
BART
eligible
sources
in
each
State
or
reservation
in
the
Western
region.
Second,
if
EPA
does
not
construe
these
amounts
as
allocation
figures,
the
trading
program
proposed
in
the
WRAP
Annex
would
likely
fail.
Designating
Table
2
as
the
allocation
figures
in
a
trading
program
would
not
preclude
States
or
Tribes
from
sub­
allocating
these
amounts
to
the
sources
within
the
States'
or
Tribes'
boundaries.

Pinnacle
West
Capital
Corporation
(
Docket
No.
IV­
D­
07)

RESPONSE:
When
developing
the
Annex,
the
WRAP
understood
that
some
States
and
Tribes
may
choose
not
to
participate
in
the
optional
program
provided
by
40
CFR
51.309.
Thus,
the
WRAP
provided
to
EPA
individual
opt­
out
amounts
for
each
State
and
Tribe
and
for
each
year
from
2003
to
2018.
The
proposed
rule
noted,
as
the
WRAP
recommended,
that
the
emissions
amounts
budgeted
in
this
table
are
only
for
the
purpose
of
determining
the
milestones
at
the
beginning
of
the
program
should
some
States
and
Tribes
choose
not
to
participate.
The
EPA
cautioned
that
the
amounts
budgeted
to
each
State
and
Tribe
in
this
table
are
not
necessarily
the
amounts
that
will
be
allocated
to
sources
within
the
relevant
State's
or
Tribe's
jurisdiction
if
a
trading
program
is
triggered.
The
final
rule
retains
the
opt­
out
tables
from
the
proposal.

In
the
final
rule,
as
in
the
proposal,
the
opt­
out
tables
do
not
necessarily
represent
the
amounts
that
would
be
allocated
to
a
given
State
or
Tribe
under
a
trading
program.
The
WRAP
has
developed
a
detailed
methodology
for
determining
and
establishing
trading
program
allocations
for
each
source.
This
methodology
is
described
in
detail
in
sections
II.
D
and
III.
D.
7
of
the
Annex.
The
WRAP
envisioned
that
it
is
this
methodology
that
will
result
in
allocations
should
the
trading
program
be
needed.
While
EPA
would
not
necessarily
object
to
the
use
of
the
opt­
out
tables
as
the
amounts
for
a
State's
trading
program
allocations,
the
EPA
believes
it
would
not
be
appropriate
to
require
that
they
be
used
in
this
fashion
in
the
final
rule.
Using
tables
as
the
amounts
for
trading
program
allocations
would
unnecessarily
constrain
the
WRAP
from
implementing
its
methodology.
­
18­
COMMENT:
One
commenter
stated
that
that
EPA
must
ensure
that
one
of
the
core
criteria
for
evaluating
whether
40
CFR
51.309
does
in
fact
constitute
reasonable
progress
is
whether
the
"
critical
mass"
of
states
participating
in
the
SO
2
declining
emissions
cap
for
stationary
sources
will
in
fact
prevent
degradation
from
new
source
growth.
In
evaluating
whether
there
is
in
fact
a
"
critical
mass"
of
states
participating
in
40
CFR
51.309,
EPA
must
thoroughly
consider
the
extent
to
which
the
cap
will
effectively
prevent
degradation
from
the
suite
of
emissions
from
new
source
growth
across
the
region.

Environmental
Defense
(
Docket
No.
IV­
D­
06)

COMMENT:
One
commenter
supported
EPA's
deferring
to
the
WRAP
on
the
issue
of
critical
mass.
This
commenter
believed
that
WRAP
is
composed
of
interested
stakeholders
that
are
ideally
suited
to
determine
the
"
critical
mass"
needed
for
the
program
to
succeed.

Arizona
Mining
Association
(
AMA)
(
Docket
No.
IV­
D­
12)

COMMENT:
Two
commenters
noted
that
WRAP
is
conducting
a
study
to
determine
critical
mass
and
that
they
intended
to
review
the
results
of
this
study.
These
commenters
further
recommended
that
time
be
allowed
for
interested
stakeholders
to
review
the
findings
of
WRAP's
study
and
to
provide
comments
to
EPA.

Western
Business
Roundtable
(
Docket
No.
IV­
D­
11);
Arizona
Mining
Association
(
AMA)
(
Docket
No.
IV­
D­
12)

RESPONSE:
The
EPA
continues
to
believe,
as
discussed
in
the
proposal,
that
judgments
on
the
issue
of
"
critical
mass"
are
best
left
to
the
WRAP.
Regarding
the
comment
that
the
SO
2
declining
cap
may
not
effectively
prevent
degradation
of
visibility
from
new
sources
throughout
the
region
if
not
enough
States
and
Tribes
participate,
EPA
notes
that
visibility
progress
issues
as
a
general
matter
will
need
to
be
addressed
in
SIPs
submitted
under
40
CFR
51.308.
Accordingly,
EPA
does
not
believe
that
this
comment
warrants
any
change
to
the
proposed
rule
language.

Given
that
EPA
intends
to
defer
to
WRAP's
judgement
on
this
issue,
we
do
not
believe
it
necessary
to
provide
any
formal
process
to
comment
to
the
EPA
on
the
WRAP's
study
of
critical
mass.

2.2.2.2.
Adjustments
for
Smelter
Operations
COMMENT:
Two
commenters
support
the
negotiated
agreement
that
resulted
in
the
proposed
adjustments
to
the
milestones
for
suspended
copper
smelters.
In
particular,
the
"
ifthen
tables
EPA
has
included
in
the
proposed
revisions
to
the
Rule,
accurately
reflect
the
procedures
in
the
Annex.
­
19­
The
two
commenters
also
noted
that
since
the
Annex
was
developed,
the
Phelps
Dodge
Chino
Smelter
has
also
been
placed
on
suspension.
This
should
be
recognized
in
the
Regional
Haze
Rule
without
reopening
the
negotiated
agreement.
The
Rule
should
provide
some
assurance
that
when
the
Chino
Smelter
comes
back
on
line
again,
its
16,000
allowances
will
be
available
to
it
without
prematurely
triggering
the
program.
The
Annex
was
developed
with
the
premise
that
the
Chino
Smelter
would
have
baseline
emissions
of
16,000
tons
per
year
and
a
possible
upward
adjustment
of
3,000
tons
per
year.
As
with
the
other
suspended
smelters,
the
allowances
reserved
for
the
Chino
Smelter
should
not
be
available
for
use
by
other
source
categories.

Western
Business
Roundtable
(
Docket
No.
IV­
D­
11);
Arizona
Mining
Association
(
AMA)
(
Docket
No.
IV­
D­
12).

RESPONSE:
The
final
rule
retains
the
smelter
adjustment
tables
as
proposed.

The
EPA
interprets
this
comment
as
a
concern
that
the
Chino
smelter's
emissions
should
be
accounted
for
in
the
milestones.
Because
the
milestones
do
include
an
emissions
amount
from
the
Chino
Smelter,
EPA
believes
that
if
this
smelter
comes
back
on
line,
this
would
not
lead
to
a
premature
triggering
of
the
program.
Additionally,
if
this
smelter
does
not
come
back
on
line,
this
same
emissions
amount
would
essentially
provide
an
additional
"
cushion"
for
the
remaining
sources.
As
EPA
notes
elsewhere,
similar
to
EPA's
general
position
on
allocating
allowances
for
the
trading
program,
the
EPA
believes
that
the
details
of
such
allocation
procedures
are
best
left
to
the
WRAP
and
participating
States
and
Tribes.

2.2.2.3
Adjustments
for
Utility
Boilers
Opting
to
Use
More
Refined
Flow
Rate
Methods
COMMENT:
One
commenter
recommended
that
EPA
should,
in
the
rule,
clarify
that
the
adjustment
for
utility
boilers
using
a
different
flow
rate
method
will
only
apply
to
the
interim
milestones
of
2003
through
2017.
The
2018
milestone
already
included
assumptions
about
the
effect
of
this
adjustment.
The
preamble
to
the
rule
implies
this
distinction
but
it
needs
to
be
included
in
the
regulatory
text.
The
regulation
should
be
revised
as
follows:
"
51.309(
h)(
l)(
iv)
Adjustments
for
changes
in
flow
rate
measurement
methods.
The
implementation
plan
must
provide
for
adjustments
to
the
interim
milestones
of
2003
through
2017
for
sources
using
the
methods
contained
in
40
CFR
part
60,
appendix
A,
Methods
2F,
2G,
and
2H.
No
adjustments
are
required
for
the
2018
milestone
for
changes
in
the
flow
rate
measurement
methods."

This
commenter
stated
that
with
respect
to
the
three
options
for
technical
procedures
for
calculating
a
flowrate
adjustment,
this
comment
believed
any
of
the
three
proposed
options
were
valid.

With
respect
to
the
three
procedural
options
proposed
by
EPA
for
incorporating
the
adjustments
for
flow
rate,
this
commenter
recommends
that
EPA
use
option
(
c)
in
the
final
rule.
Under
this
approach,
interim
milestones
would
be
adjusted
every
5
years
as
part
of
the
periodic
­
20­
SIP
update.
The
changes
to
the
milestones
would
be
calculated
by
re­
forecasting
the
baseline
emissions
for
all
of
the
utilities
that
had
changed
their
flow
rate
measurement
method
since
the
last
SIP
revision.
Allocations
for
the
affected
sources
would
also
be
changed
as
part
of
this
SIP
revision
to
reflect
the
new
methodology.
During
the
interim
period
between
SIP
revisions,
the
source's
reported
emissions
would
be
revised
on
an
annual
basis
using
one
of
the
options
described
above
for
determining
the
flow
adjustment
factor.
The
annual
compliance
check
will
be
done
by
comparing
the
adjusted
regional
SO
2
emissions
to
the
unadjusted
milestones.
An
equivalent
adjustment
will
also
be
made
to
the
source's
allocation
for
the
purposes
of
trading
under
the
program.
Allocations
for
other
sources
in
the
program
will
not
be
affected.
This
option
will
ensure
that
paper
increases
or
decreases
due
solely
to
changes
in
measurement
techniques
will
not
affect
compliance
with
the
milestones.

The
Western
Regional
Air
Partnership
(
Docket
No.
IV­
D­
08)

COMMENT:
Six
commenters
agree
that
any
of
the
three
possible
technical
methods
identified
in
the
proposed
revisions
to
the
regional
haze
rule
for
calculating
the
change
in
emissions
resulting
from
changes
in
flow
rate
methods
is
acceptable.
The
most
appropriate
of
these
three
methods
for
a
given
situation
should
be
determined
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis
and
after
consultation
between
the
state
or
tribe
and
the
source.

With
respect
to
the
three
procedural
options
for
incorporating
the
flow
rate
adjustment
into
the
milestones,
these
six
commenters
stated
that
if
a
State
or
Tribe
notifies
the
EPA
that
an
individual
source's
emission
monitoring
methodology
has
been
modified
resulting
in
a
change
in
its
reported
emissions,
a
corresponding
up
or
down
adjustment
in
the
affected
sources'
emission
and
the
State's/
Tribe's
total
allocation
would
be
made
as
part
of
its
SIP/
TIP
revision.
Also
a
corresponding
adjustment
of
the
milestones
for
the
entire
region
would
also
be
made
consistent
with
the
respective
State
or
Tribe's
recommendation.

Arizona
Electric
Power
Cooperative,
Inc.
(
Docket
No.
IV­
D­
02);
PacifiCorp
(
Docket
No.
IV­
D­
03);
WEST
Associates
(
Docket
No.
IV­
D­
04);
Utility
Air
Regulatory
Group
(
Docket
No.
IV­
D­
09);
Western
Business
Roundtable
(
Docket
No.
IV­
D­
11);
Arizona
Mining
Association
(
AMA)
(
Docket
No.
IV­
D­
12).

RESPONSE:
The
final
rule
incorporates
the
WRAP's
recommendation
regarding
the
year
2018.
EPA
agrees
that
this
recommendation
better
reflects
the
Annex.

Regarding
the
procedure
for
incorporating
the
adjustment
into
the
milestones,
the
final
rule
adopts
option
(
c),
under
which
States
are
required
to
provide
for
reporting
of
"
adjusted"
emission
rates
pending
an
update
to
the
milestones,
which
would
occur
at
the
time
of
the
plan
revisions
required
under
40
CFR
51.309(
d)(
10).
EPA
agrees
that
this
approach
ensures
a
valid
comparison
of
emissions
to
the
milestone
with
an
appropriate
administrative
process.
­
21­
2.2.2.4
Adjustments
for
Illegal
Emissions
COMMENT:
Five
commenters
believe
the
illegal
emission
provision
should
be
removed
from
the
proposed
rule.
The
illegal
emissions
provision
ignores
the
fact
that
the
Clean
Air
Act
requires
that
any
emissions
reduction
requirement
for
regional
haze
must
serve
one
of
two
statutory
authorities:
it
must
either
(
1)
meet
the
statutory
requirement
to
install
BART;
or
(
2)
allow
the
State
to
make
reasonable
further
progress
toward
the
national
visibility
goal.
EPA
has
no
authority
to
require
emission
reductions
arbitrarily
if
the
reductions
are
not
demonstrated
to
improve
visibility.
As
noted
earlier,
the
proposed
rule
finds
that
the
regional
milestones
meet
"
the
requirements
of
the
CAA
and
the
Regional
Haze
Rule."
It
is
unclear
as
to
why
that
finding
would
change
as
a
result
of
an
enforcement
action
against
a
particular
source.
Industry
stakeholders
agreed
to
the
milestones
in
the
Annex
based
on
the
expectation
that
some
degree
of
regulatory
certainty
would
be
provided.
However,
permitting
the
milestones
to
be
reduced
as
a
result
of
an
unclear
and
arbitrary
definition
of
"
illegal"
significantly
compromises
the
business
certainty
industrial
sources
were
expecting.
Settlements
often
include
greater
emissions
reductions
than
would
have
been
required
under
the
existing
regulatory
requirements.
It
is
not
clear
as
to
how
those
additional
emissions
reduction
would
be
quantified
in
the
context
of
"
illegal
emissions."

One
of
the
commenters
said
in
an
emissions
trading
program
such
as
the
Annex,
the
illegal
emissions
provision
is
especially
bad
policy.
It
will
punish
not
only
the
"
bad
actor"
but,
by
reducing
the
available
supply
of
emissions
allowances,
may
have
an
impact
on
other
market
participants.
In
effect,
it
may
punish
all
industry
in
the
West
­
including
those
that
have
never
violated
any
law.

Arizona
Electric
Power
Cooperative,
Inc.
(
Docket
No.
IV­
D­
02);
PacifiCorp
(
Docket
No.
IV­
D­
03);
WEST
Associates
(
Docket
No.
IV­
D­
04);
Utility
Air
Regulatory
Group
(
Docket
No.
IV­
D­
09);
Western
Business
Roundtable
(
Docket
No.
IV­
D­
11).

RESPONSE:
The
EPA
has
retained
this
provision
in
the
final
rule.
The
EPA
agrees
with
the
WRAP
that
this
provision
is
necessary
to
ensure
that
the
"
baseline,"
the
starting
point
for
the
milestone
calculations,
reflects
compliance
with
regulations.
So
long
as
the
reductions
to
the
milestones
do
not
occur
before
the
date
a
source
comes
back
into
compliance,
EPA
does
not
believe
that
this
adjustment
has
the
effect
of
"
penalizing"
the
other
sources.
Regarding
the
comment
that
this
provision
is
deficient
due
to
a
lack
of
demonstrated
visibility
improvements,
EPA
believes
that
the
WRAP
was
not
required
to
make
a
demonstration
of
the
visibility
improvements
of
this
specific
provision,
which
is
part
of
the
WRAP's
overall
program
for
SO
2
reductions
from
stationary
sources.

COMMENT:
Four
commenters
urge
EPA
to
eliminate
use
of
the
term
"
illegal
emissions"
and
to
substitute
the
more
neutral
term
"
milestone
adjustments
due
to
enforcement
actions."
­
22­
PacifiCorp
(
Docket
No.
IV­
D­
03);
Pinnacle
West
Capital
Corporation
(
Docket
No.
IV­
D­
07);
The
Western
Regional
Air
Partnership
(
Docket
No.
IV­
D­
08);
Arizona
Mining
Association
(
AMA)
(
Docket
No.
IV­
D­
12)

RESPONSE:
The
final
rule
reflects
EPA's
agreement
with
recommendations
of
commenters
to
replace
the
term
"
adjustments
for
illegal
emissions"
with
the
term
"
adjustments
due
to
enforcement
actions."
The
EPA
agrees
that
this
terminology
better
encompasses
the
types
of
situations
that
the
provision
would
address.
The
EPA
interprets
the
term
"
enforcement
action"
in
these
comments
to
be
used
broadly
to
include
any
type
of
enforcement
action
including
administrative
orders,
settlements,
consent
decrees,
court
orders,
and
compliance
schedules
in
title
V
permits.

COMMENT:
Three
commenters
agree
that
Option
2,
allowing
consideration
of
the
individual
circumstances
of
each
case,
is
the
superior
alternative
because
there
is
such
variability
and
complexity
inherent
in
individual
situations
that
do
not
readily
lend
themselves
to
bright­
line
rules.
The
entity
responsible
for
this
determination
should
be
the
parties
entering
into
a
settlement,
in
conjunction
with
the
affected
state
or
tribe.
It
is
important
to
include
the
state
or
tribe
in
this
decision
because
the
milestone
adjustment
would
need
to
occur
through
a
revision
to
the
implementation
plan.
EPA
would
then
have
the
oversight
role
in
their
review
of
the
SIP
to
determine
that
the
adjustment
agreed
to
through
the
settlement
process
is
properly
reflected
in
the
milestone
adjustment.
EPA
also
has
the
ability
to
independently
enforce
federal
requirements,
including
requirements
in
an
approved
state
or
tribal
implementation
plan.
EPA
should
add
a
provision
to
the
regulation
that
requires
states
and
tribes
to
address
the
impacts
of
an
enforcement
action
that
is
SO
2
related
in
the
periodic
implementation
plan
revisions
under
the
haze
rule.
Such
language
should
clearly
require
that
states
and
tribes
indicate
on
the
administrative
record
whether
adjustments
to
the
milestones
are
appropriate
if
any
source
in
the
program
decreases
its
SO
2
emissions
under
an
administrative
or
judicial
enforcement
action
and
explain
the
basis
for
the
states
or
tribes
decision.

PacifiCorp
(
Docket
No.
IV­
D­
03);
The
Western
Regional
Air
Partnership
(
Docket
No.
IV­
D­
08);
Arizona
Mining
Association
(
AMA)
(
Docket
No.
IV­
D­
12).

COMMENT:
Two
commenters
said
EPA
should
clarify
in
the
final
rule
that
the
milestone
adjustments
would
only
apply
to
enforcement
actions
that
would
have
affected
the
assumptions
used
in
the
baseline
emission
projections.
The
rule
as
written
refers
to
"
applicable
regulations
that
were
in
effect
prior
to
the
calculation
of
the
source's
baseline
sulfur
dioxide
emissions."
There
may
be
cases
where
a
future
violation
of
a
long­
standing
requirement
occurs.
For
example,
if
a
source
was
in
compliance
with
a
state's
SO
2
SIP
in
1998
(
the
base
year
that
was
used
for
projections
for
non­
utility
sources),
but
then
violates
a
SIP
provision
in
2010,
the
milestones
should
not
be
adjusted
due
to
the
resulting
enforcement
action.
On
the
other
hand,
if
the
source
was
operating
in
violation
in
1998,
then
the
milestone
should
be
adjusted.
­
23­
The
Western
Regional
Air
Partnership
(
Docket
No.
IV­
D­
08);
Arizona
Mining
Association
(
AMA)
(
Docket
No.
IV­
D­
12).

COMMENT:
One
commenter
said
that
any
adjustment
to
the
milestone
should
be
made
only
if
a
facility
has
knowingly
misrepresented
its
sources
or
emissions.

Western
Business
Round
Table
(
Docket
No.
IV­
D­
11)
in
their
oral
comments
(
June
5,
2002)

COMMENT:
One
commenter
recommended
that
the
adjustments
to
the
milestones
should
only
be
made
for
emission
reductions
arising
out
of
consent
decrees
or
administrative
orders
where
the
EPA
or
authorized
State
has
commenced
an
enforcement
action.
Adjustments
should
not
be
made
to
the
milestones,
where
the
emission
reductions
arise
out
of
voluntary
settlements
initiated
by
a
facility
or
company.
EPA
should
adopt
this
distinction
so
as
to
encourage
sources
to
voluntarily
approach
EPA
or
authorized
States
regarding
reductions
in
emissions.

Pinnacle
West
Capital
Corporation
(
Docket
No.
IV­
D­
07)

RESPONSE:
As
recommended
by
some
commenters,
we
have
added
language
consistent
with
Option
2.
The
EPA
agrees
with
commenters
that
there
will
be
case­
by­
case
considerations
in
enforcement
actions
that
could
affect
whether
an
adjustment
to
the
milestones
is
appropriate.
The
EPA
generally
agrees
with
comments
suggesting
that
the
entity
responsible
for
calculating
the
amount
of
the
adjustment
should
be
the
parties
entering
into
the
settlement,
and
that
where
those
parties
do
not
include
the
State
or
Tribe,
the
State
or
Tribe
should
be
consulted
to
assure
that
correct
assumptions
are
used
for
the
adjustment.
Further,
if
the
parties
involved
in
the
action
are
responsible
for
recommending
the
amount
of
the
adjustment,
or
whether
an
adjustment
is
appropriate,
this
would
allow
a
source
entering
a
voluntary
settlement
to
negotiate
whether
or
not
an
adjustment
should
be
made.

The
EPA
believes
it
is
useful
to
clarify
a
few
points
regarding
actions
where
EPA
or
a
citizens'
group
is
the
plaintiff
in
the
enforcement
action.
Such
cases
would
be
brought
to
the
U.
S.
District
Court.
For
any
such
case
before
the
U.
S.
District
Court,
EPA
intends
to
provide
the
State
or
Tribe
an
opportunity
to
review
and
comment
on
the
proposed
settlement.
If
a
settlement
or
order
from
the
U.
S.
District
Court
is
issued
and
contains
an
adjustment
to
the
milestones,
such
a
settlement
or
order
from
the
court
is
binding
and
the
State
and
Tribe
would
be
required
to
adjust
the
milestones
as
directed
by
the
court.
For
instances
where
such
court
actions
are
silent
on
reforecasting
the
baseline
emissions
and
adjusting
the
milestones,
EPA
believes
the
State
or
Tribe
must
determine
whether
such
a
reforecast
and
adjustment
is
appropriate.

The
EPA
agrees
with
the
WRAP's
recommendations
that
the
State
or
Tribe
should
provide
documentation
of
these
adjustments
for
enforcement
cases
in
the
administrative
record
for
the
5­
year
SIP
or
TIP
revision.
Specifically,
the
rule
requires
the
following
documentation:
­
24­
 
identification
of
each
source
that
has
reduced
SO
2
emissions
under
an
administrative
or
judicial
enforcement
action,
­
whether
the
milestones
were
adjusted
in
response
to
the
reduction
in
SO
2
emissions
under
the
enforcement
action,
­
the
rationale
for
the
State's
or
Tribe's
decision
on
the
milestone
adjustment,
­
if
extra
SO
2
emissions
reductions
(
over
and
above
those
reductions
needed
for
compliance)
were
part
of
the
settlement,
whether
those
reductions
resulted
in
any
adjustment
to
the
milestones
or
allowance
allocations.

EPA
agrees
with
the
comment
that
the
milestone
adjustments
should
only
apply
to
enforcement
actions
that
would
have
affected
the
assumptions
used
in
the
emissions
baseline
projections.
To
clarify
this
point,
the
final
rule
uses
the
terms
"
base
year,"
"
forecast,"
and
"
reforecast
and
includes
definitions
of
these
terms.

EPA
disagrees
that
the
enforcement
case
adjustment
should
only
be
applied
only
if
a
source
knowingly
misrepresented
its
emissions.
This
provision
is
intended
to
apply
broadly
when
the
emissions
forecast
is
based
on
emissions
which
are
not
in
compliance
with
applicable
regulations.

2.3
ANNUAL
PROCESS
FOR
DETERMINING
WHETHER
A
TRADING
PROGRAM
IS
TRIGGERED
2.3.1
Date
for
the
Annual
Determination
COMMENT:
One
commenter
recommends
that
EPA
extend
the
date
for
the
annual
determination
of
compliance
to
March
31,
2006
for
the
2003
milestone
and
then
every
year
thereafter
in
order
to
encourage
the
broadest
regional
participation,
particularly
by
those
states
and
tribes
who,
due
to
the
number
and
complexity
of
their
sources,
may
require
additional
time
to
collect,
validate,
and
analyze
emissions
data.
This
increased
reporting
flexibility
would
not
affect
the
schedule
for
meeting
the
emission
targets
for
the
program
in
the
event
that
the
milestones
are
triggered.

The
Western
Regional
Air
Partnership
(
Docket
No.
IV­
D­
08)

RESPONSE:
In
the
final
rule,
EPA
has
retained
the
deadline
for
the
annual
determination
as
proposed.
The
EPA
recognizes
that
some
States
may
have
more
complex
technical
and
administrative
procedures
for
collecting
annual
emissions
inventory
data
than
other
States
in
the
region.
The
EPA's
current
judgment
is
that
for
States
that
have
indicated
possible
participation
in
the
program
under
40
CFR
51.309,
these
obstacles
do
not
exist.
The
EPA
believes
that
it
is
not
desirable
to
move
the
deadline
forward
in
time
unless
it
is
absolutely
necessary.
While,
as
the
WRAP
correctly
notes,
this
would
not
affect
the
deadlines
for
­
25­
implementation
of
the
backstop
trading
program,
it
would
have
the
effect
of
reducing
the
amount
of
time
for
planning
and
implementation
if
the
trading
program
were
triggered.
If
the
States
needing
more
time
do,
in
fact,
decide
to
participate
in
the
program,
EPA
believes
that
the
regional
haze
rule
could
be
revised
at
a
later
date
as
appropriate
to
reflect
this
need.

2.3.2
Option
for
Triggering
the
Trading
Program
in
the
Year
2013
COMMENT:
One
commenter
stated
that
the
Annex
anticipated
that
the
review
of
the
data
in
2013
for
purposes
of
assessing
the
likelihood
of
meeting
the
2018
milestone
would
be
a
rigorous
review.
If
the
milestones
provide
for
upfront
flexibility
in
exchange
for
"
backloading"
the
reductions,
then
it
is
reasonable
to
assume
that
reductions
may
not
occur
until
the
later
half
of
the
program.
Therefore,
any
finding
to
trigger
the
program
based
on
the
2013
review
should
be
based
on
a
substantial
record
of
information
clearly
indicating
that
achieving
the
milestone
is
not
feasible
without
triggering
the
program.

PacifiCorp
(
Docket
No.
IV­
D­
03)

Two
commenters
believe
criteria
for
determining
whether
or
not
to
trigger
the
Backstop
Trading
Program
in
2013
should
be
developed
by
the
WRAP
and
should
be
included
in
the
Rule.
For
example,
the
criteria
may
include
an
evaluation
of
the
specific
level
of
reductions
achieved
in
2013
or
it
could
be
the
level
of
reduction
yet
to
be
achieved.

Western
Business
Roundtable
(
Docket
No.
IV­
D­
11);
Arizona
Mining
Association
(
AMA)
(
Docket
No.
IV­
D­
12).

RESPONSE:
In
the
final
rule,
EPA
has
retained
the
2013
option
as
proposed.
The
intent
of
this
provision
is
to
provide
broad
flexibility
to
the
States
and
Tribes
for
deciding
whether
this
2013
option
should
be
exercised.
The
decision
to
trigger
the
program
based
on
the
2013
review
will
ultimately
be
that
of
the
participating
States
and
Tribes;
EPA
does
not
believe
that
it
is
desirable
or
feasible
to
develop
specific
decision
criteria
for
this
purpose
in
the
final
rule,
as
this
would
limit
the
States'
and
Tribes'
flexibility.

2.4
REQUIREMENTS
FOR
THE
BACKSTOP
TRADING
PROGRAM
2.4.1
Allowances
COMMENT:
Three
commenters
recommend
that
§
51.309(
h)(
4)(
i)
be
modified
to
read
as
follows
(
new
language
underlined
and
bold
italics):

§
51.309(
h)(
4)(
i)
For
each
source
in
the
program,
the
implementation
plan
must
either
identify
the
specific
allocation
of
allowances,
on
a
tons
per
year
basis,
for
each
calendar
year
from
2009
to
2018
or
a
formula
that
will
be
used
to
calculate
the
allowances
when
­
26­
the
program
is
triggered.
The
total
of
the
tons
per
year
allowances
across
all
participating
States
and
Tribes
may
not
exceed
the
amounts
in
Table
4
of
this
paragraph,
less
a
20,000
ton
amount
that
must
be
set
aside
for
use
by
the
Tribes.
The
implementation
plan
may
include
procedures
for
redistributing
the
allowances
in
future
years,
so
long
as
the
amounts
in
Table
4
of
this
paragraph,
less
a
20,000
ton
amount,
are
not
exceeded.

PacifiCorp
(
Docket
No.
IV­
D­
03);
The
Western
Regional
Air
Partnership
(
Docket
No.
IV­
D­
08);
Arizona
Mining
Association
(
Docket
No.
IV­
D­
12).

RESPONSE:
The
EPA
has
amended
the
proposed
rule
as
requested
by
the
WRAP
and
other
commenters.
The
EPA
agrees
that
a
clear
and
definitive
formula
for
issuing
source­
specific
allowances
is
an
acceptable
approach.

COMMENT:
Two
commenters
urge
EPA
to
clearly
provide
in
the
final
rule
that
states
must
include
the
renewable
energy
set­
aside
as
part
of
their
SIPS,
as
called
for
in
the
Annex.
The
renewable
set­
aside
has
linkages
to
the
pollution­
prevention
requirements
established
in
40
CFR
§
309(
d)(
8)
and
must
be
included
in
the
final
rule.
EPA
should
modify
the
proposed
language
in
40
CFR
§
309(
h)(
4)(
i)
as
follows
(
new
language
underlined
and
bold
italics):

Allowances.
For
each
source
in
the
program,
the
implementation
plan
must
identify
the
specific
allocation
of
allowances,
on
a
tons
per
year
basis,
for
each
calendar
year
from
2009
to
2018.
Eligible
renewable
energy
resources
that
begin
operation
after
October
1,
2000
will
receive
2.5
tons
of
SO2
allowances
per
MW
of
installed
nameplate
capacity
per
year.
Allowance
allocations
for
renewable
energy
resources
that
begin
operation
prior
to
the
program
trigger
will
be
retroactive
to
the
time
of
initial
operation.
The
total
of
the
tons
per
year
allowances
across
all
participating
States
and
Tribes,
including
the
renewable
energy
allowances,
may
not
exceed
the
amounts
in
Table
4
of
this
paragraph,
less
a
20,000
ton
amount
that
must
be
set
aside
for
use
by
Tribes.
The
implementation
plan
may
include
procedures
for
redistributing
the
allowances
in
future
years,
so
long
as
the
amounts
in
Table
4
of
this
paragraph,
less
a
20,000
ton
amount,
are
not
exceeded.

In
addition,
they
urge
EPA
to
add
the
following
corresponding
definition
of
"
eligible
renewable
energy
resources"
to
40
CFR
§
309(
b):

An
eligible
renewable
energy
resource
is
defined
to
mean
electricity
generated
by
nonnuclear
and
non­
fossil
low
or
no
air
emission
technologies
using
resources
that
are
virtually
inexhaustible,
reduce
haze,
and
are
environmentally
beneficial.
The
term
includes
electricity
generated
by
wind
energy
technologies;
solar
photovoltaic
and
solar
thermal
technologies;
geothermal
technologies;
technologies
based
on
landfill
gas
and
biomass
sources,
and
new
low­
impacts
hydropower
that
meets
the
Low­
Impact
Hydropower
Institute
criteria.
Biomass
includes
agricultural,
food
and
wood
wastes.
­
27­
The
term
does
not
include
pumped
storage
or
biomass
from
municipal
solid
waste,
black
liquor,
or
treated
wood.

Environmental
Defense
(
Docket
No.
IV­
D­
06);
The
Western
Regional
Air
Partnership
(
Docket
No.
IV­
D­
08)

RESPONSE:
The
EPA
has
amended
the
proposed
rule
as
requested
by
the
WRAP
and
other
commenters.
We
have
made
two
changes
to
the
specific
language
suggested
by
the
commenters.
Given
the
WRAP's
desire
that
this
provision
be
a
feature
of
the
backstop
trading
program,
EPA
agrees
that
EPA
regulatory
language
is
needed
to
ensure
that
this
feature
is
included
in
SIPs.
First,
EPA
includes
only
the
first
sentence
of
the
WRAP's
recommended
definition
("
Eligible
renewable
energy
resource,
for
purposes
of
40
CFR
51.309,
means
electricity
generated
by
non­
nuclear
and
non­
fossil
low
or
no
air
emission
technologies").
The
EPA
believes
that
it
is
not
necessary
to
include,
and
would
be
difficult
to
interpret,
the
WRAP's
recommended
additional
language
limiting
the
definition
to
only
those
technologies
"
using
resources
that
are
virtually
inexhaustible,
reduce
haze,
and
are
environmentally
beneficial."
The
EPA
agrees
with
the
WRAP
that
it
is
useful
to
clarify
that
this
definition
specifically
includes:

­
electricity
generated
by
wind
energy
technologies;
 
solar
photovoltaic
and
solar
thermal
technologies;
 
geothermal
technologies;
 
technologies
based
on
landfill
gas
and
biomass
sources;
and
­
new
low­
impacts
hydropower
that
meets
the
Low­
Impact
Hydropower
Institute
criteria.

Similarly,
EPA
agrees
with
the
WRAP
that
it
is
useful
to
clarify
that
"
biomass"
includes
agricultural,
food
and
wood
wastes,
but
does
not
include
biomass
from
municipal
solid
waste,
black
liquor,
or
treated
wood,
and
that
for
purposes
of
this
definition,
low­
impacts
hydropower
does
not
include
pumped
storage.
At
the
same
time,
EPA
has
concerns
that
the
various
lists
in
the
WRAP's
proposed
definition
may
not
be
exhaustive,
and
that
it
would
be
preferable
to
be
able
to
consider
additional
renewable
energy
resource
technologies
without
necessitating
a
change
to
40
CFR
51.309.
Accordingly,
EPA
includes
the
lists
in
the
preamble
discussion
as
examples
of
the
type
of
renewable
energy
resource
technologies
covered
by
the
regulatory
text.

The
EPA
has
also
included
an
amendment
to
40
CFR
51.309(
h)(
4)(
i)
which
requires
that
the
backstop
market
trading
program
include
the
WRAP's
recommended
provision
for
renewable
energy
credits.
This
amendment
requires
SIPs
under
40
CFR
51.309
to
include
a
provision
that
eligible
renewable
energy
resources
that
begin
operation
after
October
1,
2000
will
receive
2.5
tons
of
SO
2
allowances
per
megawatt
of
installed
nameplate
capacity
per
year.
The
rule
also
includes
language
consistent
with
the
WRAP's
recommendation
that
allowance
allocations
for
renewable
energy
resources
that
begin
operation
prior
to
the
program
trigger
will
be
retroactive
to
the
time
of
initial
operation.
The
EPA
believes,
however,
that
it
is
important
for
States
to
preserve
flexibility
over
time
with
respect
to
implementing
this
provision.
Accordingly,
the
final
­
28­
rule
allows,
but
does
not
require,
that
implementation
plans
may
provide
for
an
upper
limit
on
the
number
of
allowances
provided
for
eligible
renewable
energy
resources.

COMMENT:
Two
commenters
stated
that
due
to
the
complexity
of
the
floor
allocation
for
the
non­
utility
sector,
and
in
the
interest
of
adding
certainty
to
all
industry
sectors,
they
support
changing
that
requirement
so
that
the
reducible
portion
is
allocated
to
the
utility
sector
and
the
non­
utility
sector
based
upon
the
entire
contribution
of
each
sector
to
the
milestone.

Western
Business
Roundtable
(
Docket
No.
IV­
D­
11);
Arizona
Mining
Association
(
Docket
No.
IV­
D­
12).

COMMENT:
One
commenter
further
supports
that
any
percentage
reduction
in
the
reducible
portion
for
any
year
be
spread
equally
over
all
sources.
For
example,
if
the
required
amount
to
be
reduced
in
2013
is
10%
then
a
source
with
a
1000
ton
reducible
would
have
to
reduce
100
tons
and
a
source
with
a
500
ton
reducible
would
have
to
reduce
50
tons
or
buy
credits
to
offset
the
required
reduction.

Arizona
Mining
Association
(
Docket
No.
IV­
D­
12)

RESPONSE:
These
commenters
are
referring
to
a
provision
in
the
WRAP's
methodology
for
issuing
individual
source
allocations
under
the
backstop
market
trading
program.
In
the
proposal,
EPA
explained
that
it
was
not
appropriate
to
include
provisions
addressing
individual
source
allocations
in
the
rule,
and
that
these
were
best
implemented
by
the
WRAP
and
by
associated
States
and
Tribes
through
their
rulemaking
processes.
EPA
continues
to
hold
this
position,
and
accordingly
the
final
rule
does
not
contain
any
requiring
for
the
nature
of
the
WRAP's
methodology
for
identifying
a
"
reducible"
portion
of
a
source's
allocation.

2.4.2
Emissions
Quantification
Protocols
COMMENT:
Three
commenters
support
the
emissions
quantification
protocol,
and
monitoring,
recordkeeping
and
reporting
provisions.
40
CFR
51.309(
h)(
4)(
iii)
and
(
iv)

Arizona
Electric
Power
Cooperative
(
Docket
No.
IV­
D­
02);
WEST
Associates
(
Docket
No.
IVD
04);
Utility
Air
Regulatory
Group
(
UARG)
(
Docket
No.
IV­
D­
09)

COMMENT:
Two
commenters
stated
that
EPA
should
clarify
that
the
EIP
guidelines
are
not
a
rule
and
that
these
sections
of
the
guidelines
should
be
viewed
as
options
for
meeting
the
requirements
that
are
established
in
§
51.309(
h).
For
this
reason,
the
commenter
has
focused
on
the
specific
provisions
proposed
in
§
51.309(
h)(
4)(
iii)
and
(
iv)
regarding
monitoring
protocols
and
is
not
commenting
on
the
lengthy
provisions
of
the
EIP
guidelines.
The
proposal
should
be
modified
to
state,
"
For
source
categories
with
sources
in
more
that
one
State
submitting
an
implementation
plan
under
this
section,
each
State
must
use
protocols
that
are
sufficiently
­
29­
rigorous
and
comparable
to
ensure
that
emissions
in
the
region
are
measured
in
reliable
and
a
consistent
manner."

Two
commenters
agree
with
the
concept
underlying
§
51.309(
h)(
4)(
iii).
.
.
that
is,
that
the
protocols
"
must
provide
consistent
approaches
for
all
sources
within
a
given
source
category."
These
commenters
requested
that
EPA
ensure
that
this
language
will
not
limit
the
ability
to
establish
different
monitoring
requirements
within
source
categories
based
on
established
criteria
such
as
the
size
of
an
emission
unit.
For
example,
it
may
be
appropriate
to
require
the
use
of
a
continuous
emission
monitoring
system
on
a
large
industrial
boiler
while
using
emission
factors
for
a
smaller
boiler
that
is
used
as
a
backup
unit.
EPA
needs
to
ensure
that
the
final
rule
will
allow
consideration
of
different
approaches
and
allow
flexibility
in
monitoring
options
especially
for
smaller
sources
which
are
anticipated
to
have
greater
difficulty
meeting
stringent
monitoring
requirements.
The
monitoring
provisions
for
smaller
sources
in
the
region
must
still
provide
assurances
that
the
milestone
goals
will
still
be
met;
be
based
on
data
that
are
sound
and
reliable;
be
consistent
with
the
assumptions
of
the
Annex;
and
ensure
the
integrity
of
the
trading
program.

The
Western
Regional
Air
Partnership
(
Docket
No.
IV­
D­
08);
Arizona
Mining
Association
(
Docket
No.
IV­
D­
12)

COMMENT:
One
commenter
suggests
that
the
emission
protocols
used
to
establish
the
baseline
and
to
determine
steady
and
continuing
progress
and
ultimately
whether
the
program
is
triggered
remain
the
same.
If
and
when
the
program
is
triggered,
then
if
improved
protocols
are
available
they
should
be
implemented
at
that
time.
If
the
quantification
protocols
remain
static
for
SO
2
measurements
until
the
program
is
triggered,
at
which
time
sources
will
be
required
to
implement
different
reduction
programs,
then
sources
will
be
better
able
to
adapt
to
the
more
precise
measurements
resulting
from
new
quantification
protocols.
That
is,
the
sources
will
be
able
to
factor
in
the
need,
if
any,
for
greater
reductions
resulting
from
improved
quantification
protocols.

Arizona
Mining
Association
(
Docket
No.
IV­
D­
12)

RESPONSE:
EPA
agrees
that
the
EIP
guidelines
are
not
rules.
With
respect
to
comments
regarding
the
regulatory
language
proposed
in
§
51.309(
h)(
4)(
iii)
and
(
iv),
EPA
is
retaining
the
language
as
proposed..
The
EPA
believes
that
it
is
important
to
retain
the
requirement
that
sources
in
similar
categories
use
the
same
method
for
determining
emissions
under
the
trading
program.
The
EPA
wishes
to
clarify
that
this
does
not
preclude
the
States
and
Tribes
from
making
distinctions
within
a
given
category
regarding
the
appropriate
technique
for
determining
emissions.
However,
we
believe
that
it
is
important
that
any
such
distinctions
be
done
consistently
to
ensure
that
the
same
methods
are
being
used
for
similar
sources.

The
EPA
does
not
believe
that
the
proposed
rule
discourages
innovation
in
the
development
of
monitoring
techniques.
For
the
"
pre­
trigger"
portion
of
the
program,
that
is,
the
­
30­
time
period
before
a
trading
program,
the
program
specifically
provides
for
adjustments
to
the
milestones
to
ensure
that
changes
in
monitoring
techniques
are
appropriately
considered.

COMMENT:
Two
commenters
support
banking
of
emission
allowances.
It
provides
an
incentive
for
making
early
emission
reductions
and
adds
flexibility
to
the
program.

Western
Business
Roundtable
(
Docket
No.
IV­
D­
11);
Arizona
Mining
Association
(
AMA)
(
Docket
No.
IV­
D­
12).

RESPONSE:
The
final
rule
retains
the
proposed
provision
for
banking.
The
provision
is
§
51.309(
h)(
4)(
x)
of
the
final
rule.

2.4.3
Enforcement
Penalties
COMMENT:
Six
commenters
stated
that
the
penalty
provisions
proposed
by
EPA
are
inconsistent
with
the
Annex
and
should
be
modified.
The
proposed
rule
recommends
a
more
stringent
penalty
provision
that
is
disproportionate
to
the
nature
of
the
possible
violations.
Visibility
is
a
welfare
issue
and
not
a
public
health
issue.
EPA
should
replace
the
penalty
provisions
in
the
proposal
with
the
provisions
that
were
recommended
in
the
Annex.
These
provisions
were
based
on
the
acid
rain
program,
and
these
penalties
will
provide
the
needed
incentive
to
achieve
compliance
with
the
emission
reduction
goals
of
the
program
and
will
result
in
more
uniform
penalties
being
imposed
across
states
within
the
region.

Arizona
Electric
Power
Cooperative,
Inc.
(
Docket
No.
IV­
D­
02);
PacifiCorp
(
Docket
No.
IV­
D­
03);
WEST
Associates
(
Docket
No.
IV­
D­
04);
The
Western
Regional
Air
Partnership
(
Docket
No.
IV­
D­
08);
Utility
Air
Regulatory
Group
(
Docket
No.
IV­
D­
09);
Arizona
Mining
Association
(
AMA)
(
Docket
No.
IV­
D­
12)

RESPONSE:
The
EPA
has
made
a
few
changes
to
the
final
rule
based
upon
public
comments
received.
First,
EPA
has
decided
to
include
in
the
final
rule
the
two
specific
types
of
automatic
penalties
listed
in
the
Annex
for
excess
emissions.
The
EPA
believes
that
by
including
a
requirement
for
these
penalty
provisions
in
the
final
rule,
EPA
can
remove
any
ambiguity
that
may
exist
over
whether
the
types
of
provisions
envisioned
by
the
WRAP
would
be
acceptable
to
EPA
for
SIPs
submitted
under
40
CFR
51.309.
The
EPA
agrees
with
the
commenters
that
the
program
should
establish
sufficient
penalties
to
deter
non­
compliance.
The
final
rule
includes
a
requirement
to
forfeit
2
allowances
for
each
ton
of
excess
emissions,
and
a
requirement
for
"
appropriate"
monetary
penalties.
The
EPA
uses
the
term
"
appropriate"
rather
than
the
WRAP's
specific
$
5000
per
ton
amount
in
the
final
rule.
The
EPA
believes
that
because
it
will
be
a
number
of
years
before
the
onset
of
any
backstop
trading
program,
it
is
possible
that
the
appropriate
$/
ton
figure
could
change
over
this
time
period,
and
that
there
may
be
additional
factors
that
may
need
to
be
taken
into
account.
­
31­
The
EPA
believes
that
many
commenters
may
have
misunderstood
the
proposed
regulatory
language
requiring
that
each
day
of
the
year
be
considered
a
separate
violation
and
that
each
ton
of
excess
emissions
be
considered
a
separate
violation.
The
EPA
wishes
to
clarify
that
we
view
these
provisions
as
clarifying
the
liabilities
that
exist
for
violations
under
the
CAA,
and
that
these
penalties
are
not
automatic.
The
EPA
believes
that
it
is
important
to
recognize
that
while
the
penalty
structure
devised
by
the
WRAP
will
represent
the
principle
way
to
deter
violations,
EPA
believes
that
it
is
useful
to
clarify
that
the
additional
liabilities
exist
under
the
CAA.
We
believe
this
is
consistent
with
the
acid
rain
program.
For
example,
under
40
CFR
77.1(
b),
EPA
clarifies
that
the
automatic
penalties
in
the
acid
rain
program
do
not
negate
other
penalties
under
the
CAA,
as
follows:

(
b)
Nothing
in
this
part
shall
limit
or
otherwise
affect
the
application
of
sections
112(
r)(
9),
113,
114,
120,
303,
304,
or
306
of
the
Act,
as
amended.
Any
allowance
deduction,
excess
emission
penalty,
or
interest
required
under
this
part
shall
not
affect
the
liability
of
the
affected
unit's
and
affected
source's
owners
and
operators
for
any
additional
fine,
penalty,
or
assessment,
or
their
obligation
to
comply
with
any
other
remedy,
for
the
same
violation,
as
ordered
under
the
Act.

While
EPA
agrees
with
the
WRAP
that
the
penalty
structure
contained
in
the
backstop
trading
program,
which
is
patterned
after
the
acid
rain
program,
should
be
effective
and
should
constitute
the
principal
way
penalties
would
be
imposed,
it
is
nonetheless
useful
and
important
to
clarify
that
sources
are
potentially
liable
for
other
penalties
under
the
CAA.

The
EPA
also
clarifies
in
the
final
rule
language,
as
noted
on
page
46
of
the
Annex
(
Annex
section
II.
D.
6.
f.),
that
in
addition
to
excess
emissions,
violations
are
possible
with
respect
to
other
program
requirements
(
such
as
monitoring
and
reporting
requirements).
We
agree
with
the
WRAP
that
CAA
civil
and
criminal
penalties
would
apply
to
such
violations,
including
liability
for
each
day
as
an
individual
violation.

2.4.4
Requirements
for
Periodic
Evaluation
COMMENT:
One
commenter
recommended
that
the
required
audit
provisions
should
be
limited
to
those
provisions
that
are
needed
to
verify
that
the
program
is
working.
Provisions
that
address
costs
or
more
indirect
effects
of
the
program
should
not
be
mandated.
These
types
of
provisions
could
be
recommended
in
the
preamble
to
the
final
rule
but
the
decision
about
the
type
and
level
of
analysis
should
be
left
to
the
States
and
Tribes.
Recommended
changes
to
the
audit
provisions
in
5
1.309(
h)(
4)(
xi)
as
outlined
below:

(
A)
No
changes
recommended
­
32­
(
B)
The
rule
language
should
be
modified
to
delete
the
phrase
indicated
below:
"
Whether
the
program
achieved
the
overall
emission
milestone
it
was
intended
to
reach,
and
a
discussion
of
the
actions
that
have
been
necessary
to
reach
the
milestones."
The
backstop
trading
program
is
intended
to
provide
incentives
for
long­
term
business
planning.
The
program
also
allows
other
drivers,
such
as
the
need
to
meet
the
PM
2.5
NAAQS,
to
bring
about
some
of
the
emission
reductions
needed
to
meet
the
regional
haze
goals.
It
could
be
very
difficult
to
try
to
determine
what
actions
were
required
to
achieve
all
of
the
emission
reductions
in
the
region
as
opposed
to
business
decisions
by
sources
in
the
region.
While
this
provision
is
a
good
suggestion,
it
should
not
be
mandated
by
the
rule.

(
C)
No
changes
recommended.

(
D)
The
rule
language
should
be
modified
to
delete
the
phrase
indicated
below:
"
The
administrative
costs
of
the
program
to
sources
and
to
State
and
tribal
regulators,
including
a
discussion
of
whether
States
and
Tribes
have
enough
resources
to
implement
the
program."
States
and
Tribes
will
be
monitoring
the
costs
of
the
program
as
part
of
their
on­
going
internal
program
review,
but
this
should
not
be
mandated
by
EPA.
The
rule
should
be
focused
on
what
is
needed
to
meet
the
visibility
improvement
goals.
The
development
of
the
most
cost­
effective
strategies
to
meet
those
goals
should
be
left
to
the
States
and
Tribes.

(
E)
This
entire
provision
should
be
removed
from
the
rule.
States
and
Tribes
may
choose
to
perform
an
analysis
of
the
cost­
effectiveness
of
the
program,
but
this
should
not
be
mandated
by
EPA.

(
F)
and
(
G)
Both
of
these
provisions
should
be
removed
from
the
rule.
As
mentioned
earlier,
it
could
be
very
difficult
to
determine
what
changes
in
emissions
in
the
region
are
due
to
the
milestones
because
so
many
different
factors
will
come
into
play
in
a
backstop
trading
program.
The
regional
haze
rule
already
includes
provisions
for
a
5­
year
SIP
review
of
the
entire
309
program.
In
addition,
new
SIPS
will
be
developed
every
10
years
to
meet
the
reasonable
progress
goals
of
the
rule.
The
existing
requirements
in
the
rule
are
adequate
to
ensure
that
there
are
not
any
unintended
consequences
due
to
implementation
of
the
backstop
trading
program.
The
additional
audit
requirements
in
(
F)
and
(
G)
could
prove
to
be
difficult
and
expensive
to
analyze
and
should
not
be
mandated
by
EPA.

(
H)
and
(
I)
No
changes
recommended.

The
Western
Regional
Air
Partnership
(
Docket
No.
IV­
D­
08)

RESPONSE:
The
final
rule
incorporates
the
WRAP's
recommended
changes
to
items
(
B)
and
(
D),
and
accepts
the
WRAP's
recommendation
to
delete
item
(
E).
EPA
agrees
that
these
provisions
call
for
determinations
that
are
of
lesser
priority
and
which
may
be
difficult
to
obtain.
­
33­
The
EPA
has,
however,
retained
items
(
F)
and
(
G).
The
EPA
believes
that
it
is
important
that
a
program
evaluation
of
the
trading
program
determine
whether
the
trading
program
resulted
in
any
unexpected
beneficial
effects,
or
any
unintended
detrimental
effects
and
whether
the
actions
taken
to
reduce
SO
2
have
led
to
any
unintended
increases
in
other
pollutants.
While
the
WRAP
correctly
notes
that
there
are
SIP
reviews
every
5
years,
and
new
SIPS
every
10
years,
EPA
believes
that
the
program
evaluations
should
be
designed
to
provide
information
that
indicate
whether
these
SIP
reviews
should
contain
any
mid­
course
corrections.
The
EPA
does
not
believe
that
it
will
require
a
burdensome
or
exhaustive
analysis
to
determine
whether,
qualitatively,
such
effects
have
occurred.
If
it
is
known
that
these
detrimental
effects
have
occurred,
EPA
believes
that
WRAP
States
should
take
this
into
account
in
the
SIP
revisions.

2.4.5
Provisions
Related
to
Time
Period
After
2018
COMMENT:
Three
commenters
stated
that
it
is
clear
that
Sec.
309
and
the
WRAP's
Annex
covers
the
period
from
2003
to
2018.
Therefore,
EPA's
approval
of
the
Annex
should
not
be
dependent
of
what
occurs
after
2018.
This
issue
is
best
left
to
the
visibility
SIP
revisions
at
that
time.

Arizona
Electric
Power
Cooperative,
Inc.
(
Docket
No.
IV­
D­
02);
WEST
Associates
(
Docket
No.
IV­
D­
04);
Utility
Air
Regulatory
Group
(
Docket
No.
IV­
D­
09)

One
commenter
recommends
that
the
language
regarding
SO
2
milestones
after
the
year
2018
be
modified
to
read,
"
no
more
than
510,000
tons
(
480,000
tons
if
suspended
smelters
do
not
resume
operation)
unless
the
milestones
are
replaced
with
a
different
program
that
meets
any
BART
and
"
reasonable
progress"
requirements
established
in
this
rule".

The
Western
Regional
Air
Partnership
(
Docket
No.
IV­
D­
08)

COMMENT:
One
commenter
agrees
with
the
WRAPs
approach
recommending
language
that
affirms
the
notion
that
the
region
will
not
backslide
on
the
tonnage
levels,
but
defers
on
the
question
of
what
will
be
needed
to
achieve
reasonable
progress
after
2018.
One
commenter
said
it
should
be
stated
explicitly
in
the
rule
that
once
the
regional
target
is
achieved,
then
BART
has
been
achieved
and
will
not
be
applied
in
any
other
manner
to
any
BART­
eligible
source
in
the
region.

PacifiCorp
(
Docket
No.
IV­
D­
03)

RESPONSE:
The
EPA
has
incorporated
language
into
Table
1
of
the
final
rule
clarifying
the
requirements
after
2018
unless
the
milestones
are
replaced.
The
EPA
believes
that
this
approach
is
preferable
to
deleting
all
mention
of
this
time
period
from
the
rule.
The
revised
language
indicates
clearly
that
the
SIP
revision
due
in
the
year
2018
will
be
the
principal
way
the
time
period
after
2018
is
addressed.
The
EPA
agrees
that
the
SIP
revision
due
in
2018
does
not
­
34­
need
to
establish
a
new
BART
program,
for
example,
by
undertaking
a
new
analysis
of
the
best
available
retrofit
controls
that
may
exist
at
that
future
date.
However,
it
is
useful
to
clarify
that
it
is
not
permissible
to
substantially
relax
the
requirements
after
2018.
Such
an
approach
is
consistent
with
the
implementation
of
other
requirements
in
the
CAA.
For
example,
a
source
subject
to
new
source
performance
standards
(
NSPS)
is
not
subject
to
a
revised
NSPS
for
new
sources
when
the
NSPS
is
updated
at
some
point
in
the
future,
but
that
source
must
continue
to
meet
the
standard
that
existed
at
the
time
it
was
built.
Similarly,
while
there
is
no
requirement
to
revisit
the
BART
requirement
in
2018,
any
BART
program,
or
alternative
to
BART
program
such
as
the
WRAP
annex,
must
continue
to
meet
the
obligations
of
the
program.

2.4.6
Provisions
Related
to
Indian
Tribes
COMMENT:
One
commenter
would
like
to
emphasize
that
EPA
must
protect
the
interests
of
sources
on
tribal
lands.
EPA
should
modify
the
rule
to
ensure
that
the
interests
of
sources
on
tribal
lands
are
protected,
and
so
that
such
sources
are
not
precluded
from
reaping
the
benefits
of
§
309.
The
participation
of
tribes
with
large
stationary
sources
is
essential
to
the
success
of
the
WRAP
Annex
and
to
having
a
"
critical
mass"
of
participants
in
the
program.
EPA
should
fulfill
its
commitment
to
consult
with
tribes
to
assist
them
in
developing
programs
that
allow
them
to
participate
in
§
309,
and
thus
protect
the
interests
of
tribal
sources.
In
establishing
a
program
under
§
309,
it
is
imperative
that
EPA
and
the
tribes
recognize
and
preserve
the
allocations
for
existing
tribal
sources
listed
in
the
proposed
revisions.

Pinnacle
West
Capital
Corporation
(
Docket
No.
IV­
D­
07)

One
commenter
agrees
that
this
set­
aside
needs
to
be
assured
and
agrees
with
the
proposed
language
regarding
the
set­
aside
in
51.309(
h)(
4)(
i).
EPA
should
emphasize
in
the
final
rule
that
tribal
participation
in
the
trading
program,
either
through
development
of
a
tribal
implementation
plan
(
TIP)
that
includes
full
trading
program
elements
or
participation
through
the
tribal
set­
aside,
shall
not
be
affected
by
the
decision
of
states
to
opt
out
of
the
program.
For
example,
if
California
opts
out
of
the
backstop
trading
program,
all
tribes
that
are
located
in
California
may
still
participate
in
the
distribution
of
the
tribal
set­
aside.
Distribution
of
the
tribal
set­
aside
does
not
need
to
be
addressed
in
the
near
term
and
the
distribution
of
the
set­
aside
should
be
determined
by
the
tribes
and
not
by
EPA
or
the
WRAP.
The
final
rule
should
contain
a
provision
that
will
require
the
determination
of
a
method
to
allocate
or
manage
the
tribal
set­
aside
by
no
later
than
one
year
after
the
market
trading
program
is
triggered.
This
will
allow
tribes
to
track
emissions
trends
over
time
and
prioritize
the
allocation
methodology
decision
according
to
the
likelihood
of
the
program
being
triggered.
EPA
should
fulfill
its
commitment
to
consult
with
tribes
in
the
intervening
years
to
determine
the
methodology,
and
the
WRAP
will
facilitate
and
assist
in
that
process.

The
Western
Regional
Air
Partnership
(
Docket
No.
IV­
D­
08)
­
35­
RESPONSE:
The
EPA
agrees
that
Tribes
should
be
allowed
to
participate
in
the
program
and
their
participation
is
not
dependent
on
the
participation
of
the
States
that
surround
them.
As
stated
in
the
Tribal
Authority
Rule:

"[
t]
ribes
...
shall
be
treated
in
the
same
manner
as
states
with
respect
to
all
provisions
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
and
implementing
regulations,
except
for
those
provisions
identified
in
section
49.4
and
the
regulations
that
implement
those
provisions."
63
FR
7271.

Because
the
CAA
provisions
for
the
regional
haze
rule
are
not
listed
in
section
49.4,
Tribes
should
have
the
opportunity
to
be
treated
in
the
same
manner
as
states
for
purposes
of
implementing
40
CFR
51.309.
Accordingly,
eligible
Tribes
may
submit
a
plan
regardless
of
the
participation
of
neighboring
States.

The
EPA
concurs
with
the
comments
regarding
the
importance
of
assisting
Tribes
in
developing
TIPs.
As
stated
in
the
proposal,
"
For
Tribes
which
choose
to
implement
40
CFR
51.309,
EPA
believes
there
are
a
number
of
ways
that
EPA
can
provide
assistance."
The
EPA
will
help
those
Tribes
with
major
SO
2
sources
to
comply
with
the
pre­
trigger
emissions
tracking
requirements,
and
to
assist
Tribes
interested
in
participating
in
the
backstop
trading
program.
To
this
end,
EPA
has
met,
or
plans
to
meet,
with
all
Tribes
that
have
major
SO
2
sources.
In
these
meetings,
EPA
is
explaining
the
regional
haze
rules
and
options
for
participating
in
the
SO
2
reduction
program.

The
EPA
agrees
that
it
would
be
useful
to
include
a
deadline
for
allocation
of
the
20,000
ton
set­
aside.
We
do
not,
however,
believe
it
is
feasible
because
of
the
uncertainties
regarding
tribal
participation
under
§
51.309.

In
summary,
EPA
is
committed
to
protecting
tribal
air
resources,
building
tribal
air
program
capacity,
and
working
with
Tribes
on
a
government­
to­
government
basis.

COMMENT:
One
commenter
stated
that
tribes
may
opt­
in
to
the
program
by
submitting
TIPS
even
after
2003,
and
that
EPA
will
promulgate
Federal
Implementation
Plans
(
FIPs)
within
reasonable
timeframes
as
necessary
and
appropriate
to
protect
air
quality
in
Indian
Country.
EPA
should
make
assistance
to
tribes
a
priority.
One
valuable
form
of
assistance
would
be
for
EPA
to
develop
a
model
implementation
plan
which
could
be
appropriately
modified
and
utilized
by
any
tribe
choosing
to
participate
in
the
market
trading
program.
More
specifically,
this
model
implementation
plan
could
be
used
by
individual
tribes
to
develop
a
TIP,
or
it
could
serve
as
the
starting
point
for
a
FIP
developed
in
consultation
with
a
tribe
that
desires
to
join
the
program
but
does
not
have
the
resources
to
implement
a
TIP.
We
believe
it
is
important
that
EPA
devote
sufficient
resources
to
ensure
that
any
tribe
that
wishes
to
opt­
in
to
the
program
will
be
able
to
do
so
in
a
timely
manner
whether
or
not
the
tribe
itself
has
the
capacity
to
develop
a
TIP.

The
Western
Regional
Air
Partnership
(
Docket
No.
IV­
D­
08)
­
36­
RESPONSE:
The
EPA
agrees
with
the
comments
that
a
model
TIP
could
serve
to
facilitate
implementation
of
the
program
in
Indian
country.
The
EPA
will
work
with
Tribes
to
further
assess
the
needs
for
such
a
model
TIP.

2.5
MISCELLANEOUS
Interaction
of
the
milestones
and
backstop
trading
program
to
address
reasonably
attributable
visibility
impairment
COMMENT:
One
commenter
stated
that
there
are
two
primary
issues
at
stake:
(
1)
If
the
region
chooses
to
move
forward
with
the
implementation
of
the
Section
309
program,
it
is
essentially
choosing
to
use
a
system
of
economic
incentives
(
a
cap
and
backstop
market
trading
program)
in
order
to
encourage
sources
to
manage
emissions
under
the
milestones.
Layering
a
command
and
control
approach
on
top
of
this
program
to
address
essentially
the
same
issue
(
regional
haze)
would
adversely
affect
the
goals
of
the
regional
market­
based
program.
(
2)
If
the
reasonably
available
visibility
impairment
(
RAVI)
program
is
intended
to
address
the
unique
problem
of
localized
visibility
impairment
or
"
hot
spots",
as
suggested
by
the
regional
haze
rule,
then
it
is
important
for
sources
to
understand
in
advance
how
those
impacts
are
to
be
distinguished
from
regional
haze­
related
impacts.

PacifiCorp
(
Docket
No.
IV­
D­
03)

RESPONSE:
The
EPA
recognizes
the
desire
for
source
owners
and
operators
to
understand
all
of
the
applicable
regulatory
provisions
in
order
to
develop
sound
long­
term
strategies
for
addressing
those
requirements.
The
EPA
understands
that
FLMs
have
been
working
with
States
on
approaches
that
will
provide
specific
guidance
on
the
interface
between
the
regional
program
and
the
program
for
reasonably
attributable
visibility
impairment.

The
Impact
of
Milestones,
Allocations,
and
Growth
COMMENT:
One
commenter
stated
that
a
state's
failure
to
satisfy
reasonable
progress
under
40
CFR
51.309,
either
because
it
delays
adoption
and
submittal
of
its
SIP
under
51.309
or
because
it
opts
to
submit
a
SIP
under
40
CFR
51.308,
will
require
compliance
with
the
reasonable
progress
goals
under
40
CFR
51.308
for
the
first
long­
term
strategy
planning
period.
The
requirement
under
40
CFR
51.308
that
a
state,
in
turn,
ensure
no
degradation
necessitates
that
states
offset
emissions
increases
from
new
sources
of
visibility­
impairing
pollutants
including
new
coal­
fired
and
gas­
fired
power
plants.
The
reasonable
progress
goals
under
40
CFR
§
51.308
include
a
categorical
requirement
that
the
plan
"
ensure
no
degradation
in
visibility
for
the
least
impaired
days."
40
CFR
§
51.308(
d)(
1).
This
requirement
was
expressly
affirmed
by
the
D.
C.
Circuit
in
the
American
Corn
Growers
Association
decision.
Slip
op.
at
14­
2
1.
There
is
an
explosive
growth
in
new
generation
across
the
interior
West
as
indicated
in
the
attached
Energy
Argus
spreadsheet.
This
spreadsheet
shows
that
there
are
tens
of
thousands
of
megawatts
of
new
­
37­
gas­
and
coal­
fired
generation
proposed
in
the
western
states
impacted
by
EPA's
proposed
action
at
issue
here.
Further,
the
attached
power
point
slide
depicts
the
proximity
of
major
new
coalfired
generating
units
to
class
I
areas.
These
new
units,
which
reflect
only
those
known
now,
will
invariably
contribute
to
visibility­
impairing
pollution
loadings
in
key
transport
corridors
for
Class
I
areas
across
the
West.
Under
40
CFR
51.309,
participating
states
will
establish
declining
emissions
caps
for
SO
2,
NOx
and
PM.
These
declining
emissions
caps
must
encompass
new
source
growth
and,
if
sufficiently
rigorous,
will
help
ensure
that
overall
emissions
continue
to
decline
and
that
visibility
will
not
be
degraded,
notwithstanding
any
new
generation.
States
implementing
BART
on
a
source­
by­
source
basis
under
40
CFR
51.308
must
develop
a
rigorous
method
for
in
fact
addressing
the
increasing
emissions
from
new
source
growth
and
preventing
any
visibility
degradation.
We
urge
EPA
to
clarify
that
at
a
minimum
any
such
state
strategy
must
include
emissions
offsets
for
new
generation.
Absent
a
rigorous
cap
on
emissions
from
new
and
existing
sources,
new
sources
must
offset
emissions
increases
to
ensure
no
degradation
in
fact
occurs.

Environmental
Defense
(
Docket
No.
IV­
D­
06)

RESPONSE:
The
EPA
agrees
that
long­
term
strategies
for
regional
haze
under
section
308
will
need
to
take
into
account
the
requirements
for
reasonable
progress
and
that
States
will
need
to
consider
the
need
for
reasonable
progress
in
light
of
future
trends
that
will
affect
emissions,
including
new
source
growth.

COMMENT:
One
commenter
generally
opposes
the
proposed
WRAP's
Annex
and
efforts
to
implement
it
under
Section
309
of
the
Regional
Haze
Rule.
Stationary
source
SO
2
milestones
should
be
made
more
stringent
and
state's
should
not
be
precluded
from
addressing
visibility
impairing
emissions
in
a
consistent
and
equitable
manner.
Stationary
source
emissions
of
VOC,
NOx,
CO,
PM­
10,
PM­
2.5
and
NH
3
are
projected
to
increase
over
the
1996­
2018
time
period
and
are
likely
to
offset
any
visibility
improvements
associated
with
the
Proposed
Rule's
SO
2
milestones
or
achieved
by
reducing
emissions
from
other
sources
throughout
the
region.
The
Proposed
Rule
will
establish
SO
2
milestones
for
stationary
sources
while
enabling
western
states
to
delay
controls
on
other
visibility
impairing
emissions
from
stationary
sources
until
at
least
2008.
The
commenter
notes
that
the
cost
of
the
SO
2
emission
controls
envisioned
under
the
Proposed
Rule
is
projected
at
greater
than
$
100
million.
Given
this
large
expense,
it
seems
unlikely
that
stationary
sources
will
be
willing
to
spend
more
to
install
additional
controls
for
other
visibility
impairing
emissions.
Consequently,
the
Proposed
Rule
emphasizes
reducing
SO
2
emissions
at
the
expense
of
other
stationary
source
emissions.

If
EPA's
intent
is
to
control
only
SO
2
emissions,
then
states
should
not
be
asked
to
control
other
types
of
pollutants
from
non­
stationary
sources.
Alternatively,
EPA
should
ensure
that
states
address
visibility
impairment
through
a
comprehensive
approach
that
considers
all
pollutants
and
all
sources
relative
to
their
contribution
to
visibility
impairment.
The
Proposed
Rule
will
enable
area­
specific
controls
on
mobile
sources
while
doing
nothing
to
ensure
emission
­
38­
reductions
from
stationary
sources
in
those
same
areas.
EPA
should
include
a
determination
that,
due
to
federal
emission
controls
on
mobile
sources,
mobile
source
emissions
from
individual
urban
areas
do
not
contribute
significantly
to
visibility
impairment
at
any
of
the
16
Class
I
Areas
on
the
Colorado
Plateau.

American
Trucking
Association
(
ATA)
(
Docket
No.
IV­
D­
05)

COMMENT:
Another
comment
stated
that
the
Annex
represents
a
flawed
approach
for
achieving
any
perceptible
improvement
in
visual
air
quality.
This
commenter
also
stated
that
it
has
not
been
shown
that
the
Annex
will
achieve
a
humanly­
perceptible
improvement
in
visual
air
quality
in
western
states'
Class
I
areas.
This
commenter
cited
a
letter
dated
September
28,
2000
addressed
to
former
EPA
Administrator
Browner
from
Senator
Inhofe,
wherein
he
points
out
errors
made
and
key
issues
inadequately
addressed
by
the
Annex.
For
example,
Senator
Inhofe
noted
that
the
Annex
did
not
consider
the
changing
energy
picture;
that
no
perceptible
visibility
improvement
is
shown
in
spite
of
large
costs;
and
that
actual
emissions
were
not
accounted
for
in
the
2003
milestone.
Additionally,
the
comment
states
that
in
September
2000,
the
State
of
Colorado
also
declined
to
endorse
the
WRAP's
Annex,
because
of
1)
the
lack
of
a
humanly
perceptible
visibility
improvement,
2)
development
of
the
Annex
in
a
piecemeal
manner,
making
it
too
hard
to
understand
the
totality
of
the
program,
and
3)
the
lack
of
adequate
economic
analysis,
thus
precluding
the
state
from
assessing
the
Annex
program's
impacts.
The
Colorado
letter
is
also
attached
to
CEED's
comments.

Center
for
Energy
and
Economic
Development
(
CEED)
(
Docket
No.
IV­
D­
01).

RESPONSE:
The
Annex
addresses
stationary
sources
of
sulfur
dioxide,
and
is
part
of
an
overall
program
for
reasonable
progressing
in
improving
visibility.
These
comments
appear
to
view
the
Annex,
and
this
rulemaking,
in
isolation.
As
initiated
by
the
Grand
Canyon
Commission,
the
WRAP
has
active
efforts
underway
to
address
air
pollution
issues
from
all
segments
of
the
emissions
inventory.
Section
309
of
the
regional
haze
rule
contains
provisions
to
address
emissions
from
mobile
sources,
fire,
road
dust,
and
clean
air
corridors.
Accordingly,
the
program
to
address
emissions
from
stationary
sources
is
only
one
part
of
a
comprehensive
program
for
addressing
visibility
in
the
West.
States
submitting
plans
under
section
309
will
address,
as
necessary,
emissions
of
other
pollutants
from
stationary
sources
consistent
with
the
time
schedule
for
submitting
plans
under
section
308.

EPA
notes
that
while
the
State
of
Colorado
did
express
concerns
regarding
the
program
in
the
September
2000
letter,
it
did
not
object
to
other
States
and
the
WRAP
moving
forward
with
the
Annex.
Given
the
WRAP's
overall
charter
that
decisions
must
be
made
by
consensus,
it
is
significant
that
the
State
of
Colorado
abstained
from
the
decision
on
submission
of
the
Annex
instead
of
formally
opposing
the
Annex.
­
39­