[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 95 (Wednesday, May 16, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28825-28846]
[FR Doc No: 2012-11848]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2011-0114; FRL-9670-6]

Approval, Disapproval and Promulgation of State Implementation
Plans; State of Utah; Regional Haze Rule Requirements for Mandatory
Class I Areas

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to partially approve and partially disapprove
a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of
Utah on May 26, 2011 that addresses regional haze. EPA is also
proposing to approve specific sections of a State of Utah SIP revision
submitted on September 9, 2008 to address regional haze. These SIP
revisions were submitted to address the requirements of the Clean Air
Act (CAA or Act) and our rules that require states to prevent any
future and remedy any existing man-made impairment of visibility in
mandatory Class I areas caused by emissions of air pollutants from
numerous sources located over a wide geographic area (also referred to
as the ``regional haze program''). States are required to assure
reasonable progress toward the national goal of achieving natural
visibility conditions in Class I areas. EPA is taking this action
pursuant to section 110 of the CAA.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 16, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-
OAR-2011-0114, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER> (please alert the individual listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing comments).
     Mail: Carl Daly, Director, Air Program, Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street,
Denver, Colorado 80202-1129.
     Hand Delivery: Carl Daly, Director, Air Program,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595
Wynkoop, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. Such deliveries are only accepted
Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal
holidays. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-
2011-0114. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or email. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA, without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional instructions on submitting
comments, go to Section I. General Information of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly-available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Program,
Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop,
Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. EPA requests that if at all possible, you
contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to view the hard copy of the docket. You may view the hard copy
of the docket Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., excluding
Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laurel Dygowski, Air Program, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595
Wynkoop, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Definitions

    For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain
words or initials as follows:
    i. The words or initials Act or CAA mean or refer to the Clean Air
Act, unless the context indicates otherwise.
    ii. The initials BART mean or refer to Best Available Retrofit
Technology.
    iii. The initials CAC mean or refer to clean air corridors.
    iv. The initials CEED mean or refer to the Center for Energy and
Economic Development.
    v. The initials EC mean or refer to elemental carbon.
    vi. The initials EGUs mean or refer to electric generating units.
    vii. The initials EATS mean or refer to Emissions and Allowance
Tracking System.
    viii. The words EPA, we, us or our mean or refer to the United
States Environmental Protection Agency.
    ix. The initials GCVTC mean or refer to the Grand Canyon Visibility
Transport Commission.
    x. The initials IMPROVE mean or refer to Interagency Monitoring of
Protected Visual Environments monitoring network.
    xi. The initials IWAQM mean or refer to Interagency Workgroup on
Air Quality Modeling.
    xii. The initials MRR mean or refer to monitoring, recordkeeping,
and reporting.
    xiii. The initials LNB mean or refer to low NOX burner.
    xiv. The initials NOX mean or refer to nitrogen oxides.
    xv. The initials OC mean or refer to organic carbon.
    xvi. The initials PM2.5 mean or refer to particulate matter with an
aerodynamic diameter of less than 2.5 micrometers.
    xvii. The initials PM10 mean or refer to particulate matter with an
aerodynamic diameter of less than 10 micrometers.
    xviii. The initials RHR mean or refer to the Regional Haze Rule.
    xix. The initials RMC mean or refer to the Regional Modeling
Center.
    xx. The initials RPO mean or refer to regional planning
organization.
    xxi. The initials SIP mean or refer to State Implementation Plan.
    xxii. The initials SO2 mean or refer to sulfur dioxide.
    xxiii. The initials SOFA mean or refer to separated overfire air.
    xxiv. The initials TSA mean or refer to the tracking system
administrator.
    xxv. The initials TSD mean or refer to Technical Support Document.
    xxvi. The words Utah or State mean or refer to the State of Utah.
    xxvii. The initials UAR mean or refer to the Utah Administrative
Rules.
    xxviii. The initials VOC mean or refer to volatile organic
compounds.
    xxix. The initials WRAP mean or refer to the Western Regional Air
Partnership.

Table of Contents

I. General Information
    A. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
    B. Overview of Proposed Action
II. Background Information
    A. Regional Haze
    B. Requirements of the CAA and EPA's Regional Haze Rule
    C. Role of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze
    D. Development of the Requirements for 40 CFR 51.309
III. Requirements for Regional Haze SIPs Submitted Under 40 CFR
51.309
    A. Projection of Visibility Improvement
    B. Clean Air Corridors (CACs)
    C. Stationary Source Reductions
    1. Sulfur Dioxide Emission Reductions
    2. Provisions for Stationary Source Emissions of Nitrogen Oxides
and Particulate Matter
    D. Mobile Sources
    E. Programs Related to Fire
    F. Paved and Unpaved Road Dust
    G. Pollution Prevention
    H. Additional Recommendations
    I. Periodic Implementation Plan Revisions
    J. Interstate Coordination
IV. Additional Requirements for Alternative Programs Under the
Regional Haze Rule
    A. ``Better-Than-BART'' Demonstration
    B. Elements Required for All Alternative Programs That Have an
Emissions Cap
    1. Applicability
    2. Allowances
    3. Monitoring Recordkeeping, and Reporting
    4. Tracking System
    5. Account Representative
    6. Allowance Transfer
    7. Compliance Provisions
    8. Penalty Provisions
    9. Banking of Allowances
    10. Program Assessment
V. Our Analysis of Utah's Submittal
    A. Projection of Visibility Improvement
    B. Clean Air Corridors
    1. Comprehensive Emissions Tracking Program
    2. Identification of Clean Air Corridors
    3. Patterns of Growth Within and Outside of the Clean Air
Corridor
    4. Actions If Impairment Inside or Outside the Clean Air
Corridor Occurs
    5. Other Clean Air Corridors
    C. Stationary Source Reductions
    1. Provisions for Stationary Source Emissions of Sulfur Dioxide
    2. Documentation of Emissions Calculation Methods for Sulfur
Dioxide
    3. Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting of Sulfur Dioxide
Emissions
    4. Criteria and Procedures for a Market Trading Program
    5. Market Trading Program
    6. Provisions for the 2018 Milestone
    7. Special Penalty Provision for 2018
    D. ``Better-Than-BART'' Demonstration
    1. List of BART-Eligible Sources
    2. Subject-to-BART Determination
    3. Best System of Continuous Emission Control Technology
    4. Projected Emission Reductions
    5. Evidence That the Trading Program Achieves Greater Reasonable
Progress Than BART
    6. All Emissions Reductions Must Take Place During the First
Planning Period
    7. Detailed Description of the Alternative Program
    8. Surplus Reductions
    9. Geographic Distribution of Emissions
    E. Requirements for Alternative Programs With an Emissions Cap
    1. Applicability Provisions
    2. Allowance Provisions
    3. Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting
    4. Tracking System
    5. Account Representative
    6. Allowance Transfers
    7. Compliance Provisions
    8. Penalty Provisions
    9. Banking of Allowances
    10. Program Assessment
    F. Provisions for Stationary Source Emissions of Nitrogen Oxides
and Particulate Matter
    1. BART-Eligible Sources
    2. Sources Subject-to-BART
    a. Modeling Methodology
    b. Contribution Threshold
    3. BART Determinations and Limits
    G. Mobile Sources
    H. Programs Related to Fire
    I. Paved and Unpaved Road Dust
    J. Pollution Prevention
    1. Description of Existing Pollution Prevention Programs
    2. Incentive Programs
    3. Programs To Preserve and Expand Energy Conservation Efforts
    4. Potential for Renewable Energy
    5. Projections of Renewable Energy Goals, Energy Efficiency, and
Pollution Prevention Activities
    6. Programs To Achieve to GCVTC Renewable Energy Goal
    K. Additional Recommendations
    L. Periodic Implementation Plan Revisions
    M. Interstate Coordination

    N. Additional Class I areas
VI. Proposed Action
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. General Information

A. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit CBI to EPA through http://www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    a. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    b. Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to specific
questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    c. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    d. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    e. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    f. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
    g. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    h. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline
identified.

B. Overview of Proposed Action

    In this action, EPA is proposing to partially approve and partially
disapprove a State of Utah SIP revision submitted on May 26, 2011 that
addresses the regional haze rule (RHR) requirements for the mandatory
Class I areas under 40 CFR 51.309. Specifically, EPA is proposing to
approve all sections of the SIP submittal as meeting the requirements
under 40 CFR 51.309, with the exception of the requirements under 40
CFR 51.309(d)(4)(vii) pertaining to nitrogen oxides (NOX)
and particulate matter (PM) best available retrofit technology (BART).
EPA is proposing to disapprove the State's NOX and PM BART
determinations and limits in section D.6.d of the SIP for the following
four subject-to-BART EGUs: PacifiCorp Hunter Unit 1, PacifiCorp Hunter
Unit 2, PacifiCorp Huntington Unit 1, and PacifiCorp Huntington Unit 2.
EPA is proposing to disapprove these BART determinations because they
do not comply with our regulations under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A).
EPA is also proposing to disapprove the State's SIP because it does not
contain the provisions necessary to make BART limits practically
enforceable as required by section 110(a)(2) of the CAA and Appendix V
to part 51.
    We are taking no action on section G--Long-Term Strategy for Fire
Programs of the May 26, 2011 submittal as we have proposed approval of
this section in a separate notice (76 FR 69217, November 8, 2011).
    We are proposing to approve specific sections of the State's
September 9, 2008 SIP submittal. Specifically, we are proposing to
approve Utah Administrative Rules (UAR) R307-250--Western Backstop
Sulfur Dioxide Trading Program and R307-250--Emission Inventories.
R307-250, in conjunction with the SIP, implements the backstop trading
program provisions in accordance with the requirements of the RHR under
40 CFR 51.309. The purpose of R305-250 is to establish consistent
emission inventory reporting requirements for stationary sources in
Utah to determine whether sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions are
below the SO2 milestones established for the trading
program. We are taking no action on the rest of the September 9, 2008
submittal as the May 26, 2011 submittal supersedes and replaces the
remaining sections of the September 9, 2008 SIP submittal. The State
also submitted SIPs on December 12, 2003 and August 8, 2004 to meet the
requirements of the RHR. These submittals have been superseded and
replaced by the September 9, 2008 and May 26, 2011 submittals.
    As explained in further detail below, 40 CFR 51.309 (section 309)
allows western states an optional way to fulfill the RHR requirements
as opposed to adopting the requirements under 40 CFR 51.308. Three
states have elected to submit a SIP under 40 CFR 51.309. Those states
are Wyoming, Utah, and New Mexico.\1\ In this action, EPA is proposing
to approve Utah's section 309 SIP submittal. As required by 40 CFR
51.309, the participating states must adopt a trading program, or what
has been termed the Western Backstop Sulfur Dioxide Trading Program
(backstop trading program or trading program). The 309 backstop trading
program will not be effective until EPA has finalized action on all
section 309 SIPs as the program is dependent on the participation of
the three states. Wyoming submitted its 309 SIP to EPA on January 12,
2011, and New Mexico submitted its 309 SIP to EPA on June 30, 2011. EPA
will be taking action on Wyoming and New Mexico's 309 SIPs separately.
If EPA takes action approving the necessary components of the 309
backstop trading program to operate in all of the jurisdictions
electing to submit 309 SIPs, the trading program will become effective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In addition to the SIP submittals from the three states,
Albuquerque/Bernalillo County in New Mexico must also submit a
Section 309 RH SIP to completely satisfy the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA for the entire State of New Mexico under the
New Mexico Air Quality Control Act (section 74-2-4). Albuquerque
submitted its regional haze SIP to EPA on June 8, 2011. When we
refer to New Mexico in this notice, we are also referring to
Albuquerque/Bernalillo County.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Background Information

A. Regional Haze

    Regional haze is visibility impairment that is produced by a
multitude of sources and activities which are located across a broad
geographic area and emit fine particles (PM2.5) (e.g.,
sulfates, nitrates, organic carbon (OC), elemental carbon (EC), and
soil dust), and their precursors (e.g., SO2, NOX,
and in some cases, ammonia (NH3) and volatile organic
compounds (VOC)). Fine particle precursors react in the atmosphere to
form PM2.5, which impairs visibility by scattering and
absorbing light. Visibility impairment reduces the clarity, color, and
visible distance that one can see. PM2.5 can also cause
serious health effects and mortality in humans and contributes to
environmental effects such as acid deposition and eutrophication.
    Data from the existing visibility monitoring network, the
``Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments'' (IMPROVE)
monitoring network, show that visibility impairment caused by air
pollution occurs virtually all the time at most national park and
wilderness areas. The average visual range \2\ in many Class I

areas (i.e., national parks and memorial parks, wilderness areas, and
international parks meeting certain size criteria) in the western
United States is 100-150 kilometers, or about one-half to two-thirds of
the visual range that would exist without anthropogenic air pollution.
In most of the eastern Class I areas of the United States, the average
visual range is less than 30 kilometers, or about one-fifth of the
visual range that would exist under estimated natural conditions. 64 FR
35715 (July 1, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Visual range is the greatest distance, in kilometers or
miles, at which a dark object can be viewed against the sky.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Requirements of the CAA and EPA's Regional Haze Rule

    In section 169A of the 1977 Amendments to the CAA, Congress created
a program for protecting visibility in the nation's national parks and
wilderness areas. This section of the CAA establishes as a national
goal the ``prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing,
impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas \3\ which
impairment results from manmade air pollution.'' On December 2, 1980,
EPA promulgated regulations to address visibility impairment in Class I
areas that is ``reasonably attributable'' to a single source or small
group of sources, i.e., ``reasonably attributable visibility
impairment.'' 45 FR 80084. These regulations represented the first
phase in addressing visibility impairment. EPA deferred action on
regional haze that emanates from a variety of sources until monitoring,
modeling and scientific knowledge about the relationships between
pollutants and visibility impairment were improved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal areas consist
of national parks exceeding 6000 acres, wilderness areas and
national memorial parks exceeding 5000 acres, and all international
parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977. 42 U.S.C. 7472(a).
In accordance with section 169A of the CAA, EPA, in consultation
with the Department of Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas
where visibility is identified as an important value. 44 FR 69122
(November 30, 1979). The extent of a mandatory Class I area includes
subsequent changes in boundaries, such as park expansions. 42 U.S.C.
7472(a). Although states and tribes may designate as Class I
additional areas which they consider to have visibility as an
important value, the requirements of the visibility program set
forth in section 169A of the CAA apply only to ``mandatory Class I
Federal areas.'' Each mandatory Class I Federal area is the
responsibility of a ``Federal Land Manager.'' 42 U.S.C. 7602(i).
When we use the term ``Class I area'' in this action, we mean a
``mandatory Class I Federal area.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Congress added section 169B to the CAA in 1990 to address regional
haze issues. EPA promulgated a rule to address regional haze on July 1,
1999. 64 FR 35714 (July 1, 1999, codified at 40 CFR part 51, subpart
P). The RHR revised the existing visibility regulations to integrate
into the regulation provisions addressing regional haze impairment and
established a comprehensive visibility protection program for Class I
areas. The requirements for regional haze, found at 40 CFR 51.308 and
51.309, are included in EPA's visibility protection regulations at 40
CFR 51.300-309. Some of the main elements of the regional haze
requirements under 40 CFR 51.309 are summarized in sections III and IV
of this preamble. The requirement to submit a regional haze SIP applies
to all 50 states, the District of Columbia and the Virgin Islands. 40
CFR 51.308(b) and 40 CFR 51.309(c) require states to submit the first
implementation plan addressing regional haze visibility impairment no
later than December 17, 2007.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ EPA's regional haze regulations require subsequent updates
to the regional haze SIPs. 40 CFR 51.308(g)-(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze

    Successful implementation of the regional haze program will require
long-term regional coordination among states, tribal governments and
various federal agencies. As noted above, pollution affecting the air
quality in Class I areas can be transported over long distances, even
hundreds of kilometers. Therefore, to effectively address the problem
of visibility impairment in Class I areas, states need to develop
strategies in coordination with one another, taking into account the
effect of emissions from one jurisdiction on the air quality in
another.
    Because the pollutants that lead to regional haze can originate
from sources located across broad geographic areas, EPA has encouraged
the states and tribes across the United States to address visibility
impairment from a regional perspective. Five regional planning
organizations (RPOs) were developed to address regional haze and
related issues. The RPOs first evaluated technical information to
better understand how their states and tribes impact Class I areas
across the country, and then pursued the development of regional
strategies to reduce emissions of PM and other pollutants leading to
regional haze.
    The Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) RPO is a collaborative
effort of state governments, tribal governments, and various federal
agencies established to initiate and coordinate activities associated
with the management of regional haze, visibility and other air quality
issues in the western United States. WRAP member state governments
include: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New
Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and
Wyoming. Tribal members include Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians,
Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, Cortina Indian Rancheria, Hopi
Tribe, Hualapai Nation of the Grand Canyon, Native Village of Shungnak,
Nez Perce Tribe, Northern Cheyenne Tribe, Pueblo of Acoma, Pueblo of
San Felipe, and Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of Fort Hall.

D. Development of the Requirements for 40 CFR 51.309

    EPA's RHR provides two paths to address regional haze. One is 40
CFR 51.308, requiring states to perform individual point source BART
determinations and evaluate the need for other control strategies.
These strategies must be shown to make ``reasonable progress'' in
improving visibility in Class I areas inside the state and in
neighboring jurisdictions. The other method for addressing regional
haze is through 40 CFR 51.309, and is an option for nine states termed
the ``Transport Region States'' which include: Arizona, California,
Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming, and the
211 tribes located within those states. By meeting the requirements
under 40 CFR 51.309, states are making reasonable progress toward the
national goal of achieving natural visibility conditions for the 16
Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau.
    Section 309 requires participating states to adopt regional haze
strategies that are based on recommendations from the Grand Canyon
Visibility Transport Commission (GCVTC) for protecting the 16 Class I
areas on the Colorado Plateau.\5\ The EPA established the GCVTC on
November 13, 1991. The purpose of the GCVTC was to assess information
about the adverse impacts on visibility in and around the 16 Class I
areas on the Colorado Plateau and to provide policy recommendations to
EPA to address such impacts. Section 169B of the CAA called for the
GCVTC to

evaluate visibility research, as well as other available information,
pertaining to adverse impacts on visibility from potential or projected
growth in emissions from sources located in the region. The GCVTC
determined that all transport region states could potentially impact
visibility in the Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau. The GCVTC
submitted a report to EPA in 1996 with its policy recommendations for
protecting visibility for the Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau.
Provisions of the 1996 GCVTC report include: Strategies for addressing
smoke emissions from wildland fires and agricultural burning;
provisions to prevent pollution by encouraging renewable energy
development; and provisions to manage clean air corridors (CACs),
mobile sources, and wind-blown dust, among other things. The EPA
codified these recommendations as part of the 1999 RHR. 64 FR 35714
(July 1, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Colorado Plateau is a high, semi-arid tableland in
southeast Utah, northern Arizona, northwest New Mexico, and western
Colorado. The 16 mandatory Class I areas are as follows: Grand
Canyon National Park, Mount Baldy Wilderness, Petrified Forest
National Park, Sycamore Canyon Wilderness, Black Canyon of the
Gunnison National Park Wilderness, Flat Tops Wilderness, Maroon
Bells Wilderness, Mesa Verde National Park, Weminuche Wilderness,
West Elk Wilderness, San Pedro Parks Wilderness, Arches National
Park, Bryce Canyon National Park, Canyonlands National Park, Capital
Reef National Park, and Zion National Park.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA determined that the GCVTC strategies would provide for
reasonable progress in mitigating regional haze if supplemented by an
annex containing quantitative emission reduction milestones and
provisions for a trading program or other alternative measure (64 FR
35749 and 35756). Thus, the 1999 RHR required that western states
submit an annex to the GCVTC report with quantitative milestones and
detailed guidelines for an alternative program in order to establish
the GCVTC recommendations as an alternative approach to fulfilling the
section 308 requirements for compliance with the RHR. In September
2000, the WRAP, which is the successor organization to the GCVTC,
submitted an annex to EPA. The annex contained SO2 emission
reduction milestones and the detailed provisions of a backstop trading
program to be implemented automatically if voluntary measures failed to
achieve the SO2 milestones. EPA codified the annex on June
5, 2003 at 40 CFR 51.309(h). 68 FR 33764.
    Five western states submitted implementation plans under section
309 in 2003. EPA was challenged by the Center for Energy and Economic
Development (CEED) on the validity of the annex provisions. In CEED v.
EPA, the D.C. Circuit vacated EPA's approval of the WRAP annex (Center
for Energy and Economic Development v. EPA, No. 03-1222 (D.C. Cir. Feb.
18, 2005)). In response to the court's decision, EPA vacated the annex
requirements adopted as 40 CFR 51.309(h), but left in place the
stationary source requirements in 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4). 71 FR 60612. The
requirements under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4) contain general requirements
pertaining to stationary sources and market trading, and allow states
to adopt alternatives to the point source application of BART.

III. Requirements for Regional Haze SIPs Submitted Under 40 CFR 51.309

    The following is a summary and basic explanation of the regulations
covered under section 51.309 of the RHR. See 40 CFR 51.309 for a
complete listing of the regulations under which this SIP was evaluated.

A. Projection of Visibility Improvement

    For each of the 16 Class I areas located on the Colorado Plateau,
the SIP must include a projection of the improvement in visibility
expressed in deciviews. 40 CFR 51.309(d)(2). The RHR establishes the
deciview as the principal metric or unit for expressing visibility. See
70 FR 39104, 39118. This visibility metric expresses uniform changes in
the degree of haze in terms of common increments across the entire
range of visibility conditions, from pristine to extremely hazy
conditions. Visibility expressed in deciviews is determined by using
air quality measurements to estimate light extinction and then
transforming the value of light extinction using a logarithm function.
The deciview is a more useful measure for tracking progress in
improving visibility than light extinction itself because each deciview
change is an equal incremental change in visibility perceived by the
human eye. Most people can detect a change in visibility at one
deciview.\6\ States need to show the projected visibility improvement
for the best and worst 20 percent days through the year 2018, based on
the application of all section 309 control strategies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The preamble to the RHR provides additional details about
the deciview. 64 FR 35714, 35725 (July 1, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Clean Air Corridors (CACs)

    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(3), states must identify CACs. CACs
are geographic areas located within transport region states that
contribute to the best visibility days (least impaired) in the 16 Class
I areas on the Colorado Plateau. The CAC as described in the 1996 GCVTC
report covers nearly all of Nevada, large portions of Oregon, Idaho,
and Utah, and encompasses several Indian nations. In order to meet the
RHR requirements for CACs, states must adopt a comprehensive emissions
tracking program for all visibility impairing pollutants within the
CAC. Based on the emissions tracking, states must identify overall
emissions growth or specific areas of emissions growth in and outside
of the CAC that could be significant enough to result in visibility
impairment at one or more of the 16 Class I areas. If there is
visibility impairment in the CAC, states must conduct an analysis of
the potential impact in the 16 Class I areas and determine if
additional emission control measures are needed and how these measures
would be implemented. States must also indicate in their SIP if any
other CACs exist, and if others are found, provide necessary measures
to protect against future degradation of visibility in the 16 Class I
areas.

C. Stationary Source Reductions

1. Sulfur Dioxide Emission Reductions
    Section 169A of the CAA directs states to evaluate the use of
retrofit controls at certain larger, often uncontrolled, older
stationary sources in order to address their visibility impacts.
Specifically, section 169A(b)(2)(A) of the CAA requires states to
revise their SIPs to contain such measures as may be necessary to make
reasonable progress towards the natural visibility goal, including a
requirement that certain categories of existing major stationary
sources built between 1962 and 1977 procure, install, and operate BART
as determined by the state. Under the RHR, states are directed to
conduct BART determinations for such ``BART-eligible'' sources that may
be anticipated to cause or contribute to any visibility impairment in a
Class I area.
    Rather than requiring source-specific BART controls, states have
the flexibility under section 309 to adopt an emissions trading program
or other alternative program as long as the alternative provides
greater reasonable progress than would be achieved by the application
of BART pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(e)(2). Under 40 CFR 51.309, states
can satisfy the section 308 SO2 BART requirements by
adopting SO2 emission milestones and a backstop trading
program. 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4). Under this approach, states must
establish declining SO2 emission milestones for each year of
the program through 2018. The milestones must be consistent with the
GCVTC's goal of 50 to 70 percent reduction in SO2 emissions
by 2040. If the milestones are exceeded in any year, the backstop
trading program is triggered.
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(ii)-(iv), states must include
requirements in the SIP that allow states to determine whether the
milestone has been exceeded. These requirements include documentation
of the baseline emission calculation, monitoring, recordkeeping,

and reporting (MRR) of SO2 emissions, and provisions for
conducting an annual evaluation to determine whether the milestone has
been exceeded. SIPs must also contain requirements for implementing the
backstop trading program in the event that the milestone is exceeded
and the program is triggered. 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(v).
    The WRAP, in conjunction with EPA, developed a model for a backstop
trading program. In order to ensure consistency between states, states
opting to participate in the 309 program need to adopt rules that are
substantively equivalent to the model rules for the backstop trading
program to meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4). The trading
program must also be implemented no later than 15 months after the end
of the first year that the milestone is exceeded, require that sources
hold allowances to cover their emissions, and provide a framework,
including financial penalties, to ensure that the 2018 milestone is
met.
2. Provisions for Stationary Source Emissions of Nitrogen Oxides and
Particulate Matter
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(vii), a section 309 SIP must
contain any necessary long term strategies and BART requirements for PM
and NOX. Section 169A of the CAA directs states to evaluate
the use of retrofit controls at certain larger, often uncontrolled,
older stationary sources in order to address visibility impacts from
these sources. Specifically, section 169A(b)(2)(A) of the CAA requires
states to revise their SIPs to contain such measures as may be
necessary to make reasonable progress towards the natural visibility
goal, including a requirement that certain categories of existing major
stationary sources \7\ built between 1962 and 1977 procure, install,
and operate the ``Best Available Retrofit Technology'' as determined by
the state. Under the RHR, states are directed to conduct BART
determinations for such ``BART-eligible'' sources that may be
anticipated to cause or contribute to any visibility impairment in a
Class I area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The set of ``major stationary sources'' potentially subject-
to-BART is listed in CAA section 169A(g)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 6, 2005, EPA published the Guidelines for BART
Determinations Under the Regional Haze Rule at appendix Y to 40 CFR
part 51 (hereinafter referred to as the ``BART Guidelines'') to assist
states in determining which of their sources should be subject to the
BART requirements and in determining appropriate emission limits for
each applicable source. 70 FR 39104. In making a BART determination for
a fossil fuel-fired electric generating plant with a total generating
capacity in excess of 750 megawatts (MW), a state must use the approach
set forth in the BART Guidelines. A state is encouraged, but not
required, to follow the BART Guidelines in making BART determinations
for other types of sources. Regardless of source size or type, a state
must meet the requirements of the CAA and our regulations for selection
of BART, and the state's BART analysis and determination must be
reasonable in light of the overarching purpose of the regional haze
program.
    The process of establishing BART emission limitations can be
logically broken down into three steps: first, states identify those
sources which meet the definition of ``BART-eligible source'' set forth
in 40 CFR 51.301; \8\ second, states determine which of such sources
``emits any air pollutant which may reasonably be anticipated to cause
or contribute to any impairment of visibility in any such area'' (a
source which fits this description is ``subject-to-BART''); and third,
for each source subject-to-BART, states then identify the best
available type and level of control for reducing emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ BART-eligible sources are those sources that have the
potential to emit 250 tons or more of a visibility-impairing air
pollutant, were not in operation prior to August 7, 1962, but were
in existence on August 7, 1977, and whose operations fall within one
or more of 26 specifically listed source categories. 40 CFR 51.301.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    States must address all visibility-impairing pollutants emitted by
a source in the BART determination process. The most significant
visibility impairing pollutants are SO2, NOX, and
PM. EPA has stated that states should use their best judgment in
determining whether VOC or NH3 compounds impair visibility
in Class I areas.
    Under the BART Guidelines, states may select an exemption threshold
value for their BART modeling, below which a BART-eligible source would
not be expected to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in any
Class I area. The state must document this exemption threshold value in
the SIP and must state the basis for its selection of that value. Any
source with emissions that model above the threshold value would be
subject to a BART determination review. The BART Guidelines acknowledge
varying circumstances affecting different Class I areas. States should
consider the number of emission sources affecting the Class I areas at
issue and the magnitude of the individual sources' impacts. Any
exemption threshold set by the state should not be higher than 0.5
deciview. 40 CFR part 51, appendix Y, section III.A.1.
    In their SIPs, states must identify the sources that are subject-
to-BART and document their BART control determination analyses for such
sources. In making their BART determinations, section 169A(g)(2) of the
CAA requires that states consider the following factors when evaluating
potential control technologies: (1) The costs of compliance; (2) the
energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance; (3) any
existing pollution control technology in use at the source; (4) the
remaining useful life of the source; and (5) the degree of improvement
in visibility which may reasonably be anticipated to result from the
use of such technology.
    A regional haze SIP must include source-specific BART emission
limits and compliance schedules for each source subject-to-BART. Once a
state has made its BART determination, the BART controls must be
installed and in operation as expeditiously as practicable, but no
later than five years after the date of EPA approval of the regional
haze SIP. CAA section 169(g)(4) and 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv). In
addition to what is required by the RHR, general SIP requirements
mandate that the SIP must also include all regulatory requirements
related to MRR for the BART controls on the source. See CAA section
110(a). As noted above, the RHR allows states to implement an
alternative program in lieu of BART so long as the alternative program
can be demonstrated to achieve greater reasonable progress toward the
national visibility goal than would BART.

D. Mobile Sources

    Under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(5), states must provide inventories of on-
road and non-road mobile source emissions of VOCs, NOX,
SO2, PM2.5, EC, and OC for the years 2003, 2008,
2013, and 2018. The inventories must show a continuous decline in total
mobile source emissions of each of the above pollutants. If the
inventories show a continuous decline in total mobile source emissions
of each of these pollutants over the period 2003-2018, a state is not
required to take further action in their SIP. If the inventories do not
show a continuous decline in mobile source emissions of one or more of
these pollutants over the period 2003-2018, a state must submit a SIP
that contains measures that will achieve a continuous decline.
    The SIP must also contain any long-term strategies necessary to
reduce emissions of SO2 from non-road mobile

sources, consistent with the goal of reasonable progress. In assessing
the need for such long-term strategies, the state may consider
emissions reductions achieved or anticipated from any new federal
standards for sulfur in non-road diesel fuel. Section 309 SIPs must
provide an update on any additional mobile source strategies
implemented within the state related to the GCVTC 1996 recommendations
on mobile sources.

E. Programs Related to Fire

    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6), SIPs must contain requirements for
programs related to fire. The SIP must show that the state's smoke
management program, and all federal or private programs for prescribed
fire in the state, have a mechanism in place for evaluating and
addressing the degree of visibility impairment from smoke in their
planning and application of burning. The state must also ensure that
its prescribed fire smoke management programs have at least the
following seven elements: (1) Actions to minimize emissions; (2)
evaluation of smoke dispersion; (3) alternatives to fire; (4) public
notification; (5) air quality monitoring; (6) surveillance and
enforcement; and (7) program evaluation. The state must be able to
track statewide emissions of VOC, NOX, EC, OC, and
PM2.5 emissions from prescribed burning in its state.
    Other requirements states must meet in their 309 plan related to
fire include the adoption of a statewide process for gathering post-
burn activity information to support emissions inventory and tracking
systems. States must identify existing administrative barriers to the
use of non-burning alternatives and adopt a process for continuing to
identify and remove administrative barriers where feasible. The SIP
must include an enhanced smoke management program that considers
visibility effects in addition to health objectives and is based on the
criteria of efficiency, economics, law, emission reduction
opportunities, land management objectives, and reduction of visibility
impairment. Finally, a state must establish annual emission goals to
minimize emission increases from fire.

F. Paved and Unpaved Road Dust

    Under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(7), states must submit a SIP that assesses
the impact of dust emissions on regional haze in the 16 Class I areas
on the Colorado Plateau and to include a projection of visibility
conditions through 2018 for the least and most impaired days. If dust
emissions are determined to be a significant contributor to visibility
impairment, the state must include emissions management strategies in
the SIP to address their impact.

G. Pollution Prevention

    The requirements under the RHR for pollution prevention only
require the state to provide an assessment of the energy programs as
outlined in 40 CFR 51.309(d)(8) and does not require a state to adopt
any specific energy-related strategies or regulations for regional
haze. In order to meet the requirements related to pollution
prevention, the state's plan must include an initial summary of all
pollution prevention programs currently in place, an inventory of all
renewable energy generation capacity and production in use or planned
as of the year 2002, the total energy generation capacity and
production for the state, and the percent of the total that is
renewable energy.
    The state's plan must include a discussion of programs that provide
incentives for efforts that go beyond compliance and/or achieve early
compliance with air-pollution related requirements and programs to
preserve and expand energy conservation efforts. The state must
identify specific areas where renewable energy has the potential to
supply power where it is now lacking and where renewable energy is most
cost-effective. The state must include projections of the short and
long-term emissions reductions, visibility improvements, cost savings,
and secondary benefits associated with renewable energy goals, energy
efficiency, and pollution prevention activities. The state must also
provide its anticipated contribution toward the GCVTC renewable energy
goals for 2005 and 2015. The GCVTC goals are that renewable energy will
comprise 10 percent of the regional power needs by 2005 and 20 percent
by 2015.

H. Additional Recommendations

    Section 309 requires states to determine if any of the other
recommendations not codified by EPA as part of 40 CFR 51.309 should be
implemented in their SIP. 40 CFR 51.309(d)(9). States are not required
to adopt any additional control measures unless the state determines
they are appropriate and can be practicably included as enforceable
measures to remedy regional haze in the 16 Class I areas. Any measures
adopted by a state would need to be enforceable. States must also
submit a report to EPA and the public in 2013 and 2018 showing there
has been an evaluation of the additional recommendations and the
progress toward developing and implementing any such recommendations.

I. Periodic Implementation Plan Revisions

    Under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10), states must submit progress reports in
the form of SIP revisions in 2013 and 2018. The SIP revisions must
comply with the procedural requirements of 40 CFR 51.102 for public
hearings and 40 CFR 51.103 for submission of plans. The assessment in
the progress report must include an evaluation of Class I areas located
within the state and Class I areas outside the state that are affected
by emissions from the state. EPA views these SIP revisions as a
periodic check on progress, rather than a thorough revision of regional
strategies. The state should focus on significant shortcomings of the
original SIP from sources that were not fully accounted for or
anticipated when the SIP was initially developed. The specifics of what
each progress report must contain can be found at 40 CFR
51.509(d)(10)(i)(A)-(G).
    At the same time that the state submits its progress report to EPA,
it must also take an action based on the outcome of the assessment in
the report. If the assessment shows that the SIP is adequate and
requires no substantive revision, the state must submit to EPA a
``negative declaration'' statement saying that no further SIP revisions
are necessary at this time. If the assessment shows that the SIP is or
may be inadequate due to emissions from outside the state, the state
must notify EPA and other regional planning states and work with them
to develop additional control strategies. If the assessment shows that
the SIP is or may be inadequate due to emissions from another country,
the state must include appropriate notification to EPA in its SIP
revision. In the event the assessment shows that the SIP is or may be
inadequate due to emissions from within the state, the state shall
develop additional strategies to address the deficiencies and revise
the SIP within one year from the due date of the progress report.

J. Interstate Coordination

    In complying with the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(11), states
may include emission reductions strategies that are based on
coordinated implementation with other states. The SIP must include
documentation of the technical and policy basis for the individual
state apportionment (or the procedures for apportionment throughout the
trans-boundary region), the contribution addressed by the state's

plan, how it coordinates with other state plans, and compliance with
any other appropriate implementation plan approvability criteria.
States may rely on the relevant technical, policy, and other analyses
developed by a regional entity, such as the WRAP in providing such
documentation.

IV. Additional Requirements for Alternative Programs Under the Regional
Haze Rule

    States opting to submit an alternative program, such as the
backstop trading program under section 309, must also meet requirements
under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2) and (e)(3). These requirements for
alternative programs relate to the ``better-than-BART'' test and
fundamental elements of any alternative program that establishes a cap
on emissions.

A. ``Better-Than-BART'' Demonstration

    In order to demonstrate that the alternative program achieves
greater reasonable progress than source-specific BART, states must
provide a demonstration in their SIP that meets the requirements in 40
CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)-(v). States submitting section 309 SIPs or other
alternative programs are required to list all BART-eligible sources and
categories covered by the alternative program. States are then required
to determine which BART-eligible sources are ``subject-to-BART.'' The
SIP must provide an analysis of the best system of continuous emission
control technology available and the associated reductions for each
source subject-to-BART covered by the alternative program, or what is
termed a ``BART benchmark.'' Where the alternative program, such as the
309 backstop trading program, has been designed to meet requirements
other than BART, states may use simplifying assumptions in establishing
a BART benchmark. These assumptions can provide the baseline to show
that the alternative program achieves greater reasonable progress than
BART (71 FR 60619). Under this approach, states should use the
presumptive limits for EGUs in the BART Guidelines to establish the
BART benchmark used in the comparison, unless the state determines that
such presumptions are not appropriate for particular EGUs (70 FR
60619).
    The SIP must provide an analysis of the projected emissions
reductions achievable through the trading program or other alternative
measure and a determination that the trading program or other
alternative measure achieves greater reasonable progress than would be
achieved through the installation and operation of BART pursuant to 40
CFR 51.308(e)(1). 40 CFR 308(e)(2)(i)(D)-(E). Under 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2)(iii)-(iv), all emission reductions for the alternative
program must take place by 2018, and all the emission reductions
resulting from the alternative program must be surplus to those
reductions resulting from measures adopted to meet requirements of the
CAA as of the baseline date of the SIP. Pursuant to 40 CFR
51.309(e)(2)(v), states have the option of including a provision that
the emissions trading program or other alternative measure include a
geographic enhancement to the program to address the requirement under
40 CFR 51.302(c) related to BART for reasonably attributable visibility
impairment from the pollutants covered under the emissions trading
program or other alternative measure.
    States must also address the distribution of emissions under the
BART alternative as part of the better-than-BART demonstration. 40 CFR
51.308(e)(3). If a state can show that with the alternative program the
distribution of emissions is not substantially different from source-
specific BART, and the alternative program results in greater emission
reductions than source-specific BART, then the alternative measure may
be deemed to achieve greater reasonable progress. If the distribution
of emissions is significantly different, the state must conduct
dispersion modeling to determine differences in visibility between
source-specific BART and the alternative program for each impacted
Class I area for the 20% worst and best days. The modeling must show
that visibility does not decline at any Class I area and that
visibility overall is greater than what would be achieved with source-
specific BART.

B. Elements Required for All Alternative Programs That Have an
Emissions Cap

    Under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(A)-(L), EPA established fundamental
requirements for trading or alternative programs that have an emissions
cap and require sources to hold allowances that they can sell, buy, or
trade, as in the case for the 309 backstop trading program. These
requirements are summarized below.
1. Applicability
    The alternative program must have applicability provisions that
define the sources subject to the program. In the case of a program
covering sources in multiple states, the states must demonstrate that
the applicability provisions in each state cover essentially the same
size facilities and, if source categories are specified, cover the same
source categories.
2. Allowances
    Allowances are a key feature of a cap and trade program. An
allowance is a limited authorization for a source to emit a specified
amount of a pollutant, as defined by the specific trading program,
during a specified period. Allowances are fully marketable commodities.
Once allocated, allowances may be bought, sold, traded, or banked for
use in future years. EPA has not included in the rule detailed
requirements on how states and tribes can allocate allowances. A state
or tribe can determine how to allocate allowances as long as the
allocation of the tonnage value of allowances does not exceed the total
number of tons of emissions capped by the budget. The trading program
must include allowance provisions ensuring that the total value of
allowances issued each year under the program will not exceed the
emissions cap on total annual emissions from the sources in the
program.
3. Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting
    MRR of a source's emissions are integral parts of any cap and trade
program. Consistent and accurate measurement of emissions ensures that
each allowance actually represents its specified tonnage value of
emissions and that one ton of reported emissions from one source is
equivalent to one ton of reported emissions at another source. The MRR
provisions must require that boilers, combustion turbines, and cement
kilns in the alternative program that are allowed to sell or transfer
allowances comply with the requirements of 40 CFR part 75. The MRR
provisions must require that other sources in the program allowed to
sell or transfer allowances provide emissions information with the same
precision, reliability, accessibility, and timeliness as information
required by 40 CFR part 75.
4. Tracking System
    An accurate and efficient tracking system is critical to the
functioning of an emissions trading market. The tracking system must
also be transparent, allowing all interested parties access to the
information contained in the accounting system. Thus, alternative
programs must have requirements for a tracking system that is publicly
available in a secure, centralized database to track in a consistent
manner all allowances and emissions in the program.

5. Account Representative
    Each source owner or operator covered by the alternative program
must designate an individual account representative who is authorized
to represent the owner or operator in all matters pertaining to the
trading program and who is responsible for the data reported for that
source. The account representative will be responsible for, among other
things, permitting, compliance, and allowance related actions.
6. Allowance Transfer
    SIPs must contain provisions detailing a uniform process for
transferring allowances among all sources covered by the program and
other possible participants. The provisions must provide procedures for
sources to request an allowance transfer, for the request and transfer
to be recorded in the allowance tracking system, for notification to
the source that the transfer has occurred, and for notification to the
public of each transfer and request.
7. Compliance Provisions
    Cap and trade programs must include compliance provisions that
prohibit a source from emitting more emissions than the total tonnage
value of allowances the source holds for that year. A cap and trade
program must also contain the specific methods and procedures for
determining compliance on an annual basis.
8. Penalty Provisions
    In order to provide sources with a strong incentive to comply with
the requirement to hold sufficient allowances for their emissions on an
annual basis and to establish an immediate minimum economic consequence
for non-compliance, the program must include a system for mandatory
allowance deductions. SIPs must contain a provision that if a source
has excess emissions in a given year, allowances allocated for the
subsequent year will be deducted from the source's account in an amount
at least equal to three times the excess emissions.
9. Banking of Allowances
    The banking of allowances occurs when allowances that have not been
used for compliance are set aside for use in a later compliance period.
Alternative programs can include provisions for banked allowances, so
long as the SIP clearly identifies how unused allowances may be used in
future years and whether there are any restrictions on the use of any
such banked allowances.
10. Program Assessment
    The alternative program must include provisions for periodic
assessment of the program. Such periodic assessments are a way to
retrospectively assess the performance of the trading program in
meeting the goals of the regional haze program and determining whether
the trading program needs any adjustments or changes. At a minimum, the
program evaluation must be conducted every five years to coincide with
the periodic report describing progress towards the reasonable progress
goals required under 40 CFR 51.308(g) and must be submitted to EPA.

V. Our Analysis of Utah's Submittal

    The following summarizes how we are proposing that Utah's May 26,
2011 and September 9, 2008 SIP submittals meet and do not meet the
requirements of the RHR, sections 169A(g)(2) and 110(a)(2) of the CAA,
and Appendix V to part 51.

A. Projection of Visibility Improvement

    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(2), Utah provided a comparison of the
monitored 2000-2004 baseline visibility conditions in deciviews for the
20 percent best and 20 percent worst days to the projected visibility
improvement for 2018 for the Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau (see
section K.2 of the SIP). Table 1 shows the State's baseline monitoring
data and projected visibility improvement for 2018 from the WRAP
photochemical modeling (for details on the WRAP emission inventories
and photochemical modeling refer to the WRAP Technical Support Document
(TSD) \9\ and our review of the technical products developed by the
WRAP for the states in the western region, in support of their regional
haze SIPs).\10\ The projected visibility improvement for the 2018 Base
Case (referred to as the Base18b emission inventory and modeled
projections) reflects growth plus all controls ``on the books'' as of
December 2004. The projected visibility improvement for the Preliminary
Reasonable Progress Case (referred to as the PRP18b emission inventory
and modeled projections) reflects refined growth estimates, all
controls ``on the books'' as of 2007, and includes presumptive or known
SO2 BART controls. The modeling results show projected
visibility improvement for the 20 percent worst days in 2018 and no
degradation in visibility conditions on the 20 percent best days at all
16 Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau. We are proposing to determine
the State's SIP satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ WRAP Regional Technical Support Document for the
Requirements of Sec.  309 of the Regional Haze Rule (64 Federal
Register 35714--July 1, 1999), revised May 7, 2008, which can be
found in the State's TSD included in the docket for this action.
    \10\ Our review of the technical products developed by the WRAP
is available as Technical Support Document for Technical Products
Prepared by the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) in Support
of Western Regional Haze Plans, February 28, 2011, which can be
found in the Supporting and Related Materials section of the docket
for this action.

                                       Table 1--Baseline and 2018 Visibility at the Colorado Plateau Class I Areas
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 20 Percent worst visibility days                 20 Percent best visibility days
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             2000-2004                         2018          2000-2004                         2018
             Class I area                    State           Baseline                       Preliminary      Baseline                       Preliminary
                                                            monitoring    2018 Base case    reasonable      monitoring    2018 Base case    reasonable
                                                               data         (deciview)     progress case       data         (deciview)     progress case
                                                            (deciview)                      (deciview)      (deciview)                      (deciview)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grand Canyon National Park...........  AZ                           11.7            11.4            11.3             2.2             2.2             2.1
Mount Baldy Wilderness...............  AZ                           11.9            11.5            11.4             3.0             2.9             2.8
Petrified Forest National Park.......  AZ                           13.2            12.9            12.9             5.0             4.9             4.8
Sycamore Canyon Wilderness...........  AZ                           15.3            15.1            15.1             5.6             5.6             5.6
Black Canyon of the Gunnison National  CO                           10.3            10.1             9.9             3.1             2.9             2.9
 Park Wilderness.
Flat Tops Wilderness.................  CO                            9.6             9.2             9.0             0.7             0.6             0.5
Maroon Bells Wilderness..............  CO                            9.6             9.2             9.0             0.7             0.6             0.5

Mesa Verde National Park.............  CO                           13.0            12.8            12.6             4.3             4.1             4.0
Weminuche Wilderness.................  CO                           10.3            10.1             9.9             3.1             2.9             2.9
West Elk Wilderness..................  CO                            9.6             9.2             9.0             0.7             0.6             0.5
San Pedro Parks Wilderness...........  NM                           10.2            10.0             9.8             1.5             1.3             1.2
Arches National Park.................  UT                           11.2            11.0            10.9             3.8             3.6             3.5
Bryce Canyon National Park...........  UT                           11.6            11.3            11.2             2.8             2.7             2.6
Canyonlands National Park............  UT                           11.2            11.0            10.9             3.8             3.6             3.5
Capitol Reef National Park...........  UT                           10.9            10.6            10.5             4.1             4.0             3.9
Zion National Park...................  UT                           13.2            13.0            13.0             5.0             4.7             4.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Clean Air Corridors

1. Comprehensive Emissions Tracking Program
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(3), Utah is using a comprehensive
emissions tracking system established by WRAP to track emissions within
portions of Oregon, Idaho, Nevada and Utah that have been identified as
part of the CAC (see section C.3.a of the SIP). The emission tracking
is to ensure that visibility does not degrade on the least-impaired
days in any of the 16 Class I areas of the Colorado Plateau. For a
complete description of the emission tracking system and the process by
which the annual emission trends will be summarized in order to
identify any significant emissions growth that could lead to visibility
degradation in the 16 Class I areas, see section C of the State's TSD.
2. Identification of Clean Air Corridors
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(3)(i), the State has provided the
geographic boundaries of the CAC (a map of the CAC can be found in
section C, Figure 1 of the SIP). The WRAP identified the CAC using
studies conducted by the Meteorological Subcommittee of the GCVTC and
then updated the CAC based on an assessment described in the WRAP
Policy on Clean Air Corridors. The policy is included in section C of
the State's TSD. The technical studies and findings supporting the WRAP
Policy on Clean Air Corridors are located in Chapter 3 of the WRAP TSD.
3. Patterns of Growth Within and Outside of the Clean Air Corridor
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(3)(ii)-(iii), the State has
determined, based on the WRAP Policy on Clean Air Corridors and
technical analysis conducted by the WRAP, that inside and outside the
CAC there is no significant emissions growth occurring at this time
that is causing visibility impairment in the 16 Class I areas of the
Colorado Plateau. The WRAP will summarize annual emission trends within
and outside of the CAC and will assess whether any significant
emissions growth is occurring that could result in visibility
impairment in any of the 16 Class I areas (see section C.3.b of the
SIP).
4. Actions if Impairment Inside or Outside the Clean Air Corridor
Occurs
    The State, in coordination with other transport region states and
tribes, will review the annual summary of emission trends within the
CAC and determine whether any significant emissions growth has
occurred. If the State identifies significant emissions growth, the
State, in coordination with other transport region states and tribes,
will conduct an analysis of the effects of this emissions growth.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(3)(iv), if this analysis finds that the
emissions growth is causing visibility impairment in the 16 Class I
areas, the State will evaluate the need for additional emission
reduction measures and identify an implementation schedule for such
measures. The State will report on the need for additional reduction
measures to EPA in accordance with the periodic progress reports
required under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i) (see section C.3.d of the SIP).
5. Other Clean Air Corridors
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(3)(v), the State has concluded that no
other CACs can be identified at this time. The State's conclusion is
based on the WRAP Policy on Clean Air Corridors, which determined that
no other CACs could be identified (see section C.2 of the SIP).
    We are proposing to determine that the State's SIP meets the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(3).

C. Stationary Source Reductions

1. Provisions for Stationary Source Emissions of Sulfur Dioxide
    As required by 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(i), the State has adopted
SO2 milestone numbers for each year of the program until
2018 (see section E.1.a of the SIP).\11\ Table 2 shows the milestone
numbers and how compliance with the annual milestones will be
determined.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The milestone numbers reflect the participation of Wyoming,
Utah, and New Mexico, including Albuquerque-Bernalillo County in the
309 backstop trading program.

                    Table 2--SO2 Emissions Milestones
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Regional sulfur    Annual SO2 emissions
                                    dioxide         used to determine
             Year              milestone  (tons    compliance with the
                                per year (tpy))     annual milestones
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2008.........................  269,083 tons SO2  Average of 2006, 2007
                                                  and 2008.
2009.........................  234,903 tons SO2  Average of 2007, 2008
                                                  and 2009.
2010.........................  200,722 tons SO2  Average of 2008, 2009
                                                  and 2010.
2011.........................  200,722 tons SO2  Average of 2009, 2010
                                                  and 2011.
2012.........................  200,722 tons SO2  Average of 2010, 2011
                                                  and 2012.

2013.........................  185,795 tons SO2  Average of 2011, 2012
                                                  and 2013.
2014.........................  170,868 tons SO2  Average of 2012, 2013
                                                  and 2014.
2015.........................  155,940 tons SO2  Average of 2013, 2014
                                                  and 2015.
2016.........................  155,940 tons SO2  Average of 2014, 2015
                                                  and 2016.
2017.........................  155,940 tons SO2  Average of 2015, 2016
                                                  and 2017.
2018.........................  141,849 tons SO2  Year 2018 only.
2019 forward, until replaced   141,849 tons SO2  Annual; no multiyear
 by an approved SIP.                              averaging.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    SO2 emissions from sources in 1990 totaled 358,364 tpy
and the 2018 milestone is 141,849 tpy.\12\ The difference is a 60
percent reduction in SO2 emissions from 1990 to 2018.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(i), the State has concluded that the
emission reductions are on target to achieve the GCVTC goal of a 50 to
70 percent reduction of SO2 emissions by 2040.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Demonstration that the SO2 Milestones
Provide Greater Reasonable Progress than BART in section D of the
State's TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are proposing to determine the State's SIP meets the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)4)(i).
2. Documentation of Emissions Calculation Methods for Sulfur Dioxide
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(ii), the SIP includes documentation
of the specific methodology used to calculate SO2 emissions
during the 2006 base year for each emitting unit included in the
program. A detailed spreadsheet report that provides the baseline
numbers and methodology used to calculate emissions for sources covered
by the program is included in section E of the State's TSD.
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(ii), the SIP requires the State to
document any change to the specific methodology used to calculate
emissions at any emitting unit for any year after the base year. Until
the program has been triggered and source compliance is required, the
State will submit an annual emissions report to EPA that documents
prior year emissions for Utah sources covered by the 309 program to all
participating states by September 30 of each year. The State will
adjust actual emission inventories for sources that change the method
of monitoring or calculating their emissions to be comparable to the
emission monitoring or calculation method used to calculate the 2006
base year inventory (see section E.1.c of the SIP).
    We are proposing to determine the State's SIP meets the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(ii).
3. Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting of Sulfur Dioxide Emissions
    In order to meet the emission reporting requirements of 40 CFR
51.309(d)(4)(iii), the SIP includes provisions requiring the reporting
of actual stationary source SO2 emissions within the State
to determine if the milestone has been exceeded. The State revised and
submitted as part of their regional haze SIP changes to UAR R307-150,
Emission Inventories, to meet this requirement. The SO2
inventory requirements of R307-150 require all stationary sources with
actual emissions of 100 tons per year or more of SO2 in the
year 2000, or in any subsequent year, to submit an annual inventory of
SO2 emissions, beginning with the 2003 emission inventory. A
source that meets these criteria and then emits less than 100 tons per
year in a later year must continue to submit an SO2
inventory for tracking compliance with the regional SO2
milestones until 2018 or until the trading program has been fully
implemented and emission tracking is occurring under UAR R307-250-9.
    We are proposing to determine that the State's SIP meets the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(iii).
4. Criteria and Procedures for a Market Trading Program
    Until the backstop trading program has been triggered and source
compliance is required, the State shall submit an annual emissions
report for Utah sources to all participating states by September 30 of
each year. The report shall document actual SO2 emissions
during the previous calendar year for all sources subject to the
section 309 program. The WRAP will compile reports from all
participating states into a draft regional emission report for
SO2 by December 31 of each year. This report will include
actual regional SO2 emissions, adjustments to account for
changes in monitoring/calculation methods or enforcement/settlement
agreements, and adjusted average emissions for the last three years for
comparison to the regional milestone. As required by 40 CFR
51.309(d)(4)(iv), based on this compilation of reports from all states
participating in the 309 program, states will determine if the
milestone has been exceeded and will include a determination in a final
regional emissions report that is submitted to EPA. This final report
and determination will be submitted to EPA by the end of March, 15
months following the milestone year (see section E.1.c of the SIP).
    We are proposing to determine the State's SIP meets the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(iv).
5. Market Trading Program
    Per 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(v), the SIP provides that if the 309
backstop trading program is triggered, the regional emissions report
will contain a common trigger date. In the absence of a common trigger
date, the default date will be March 31st of the applicable year, but
no later than 15 months after the end of the milestone year where the
milestone was exceeded (see section E.1.c of the SIP). The State's SIP
requires that sources comply, as soon as practicable, with the
requirement to hold allowances covering their emissions. Because the
backstop trading program does not allow allocations to exceed the
milestone, the program is sufficient to achieve the milestones adopted
pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(i) as discussed above. The backstop
trading program is also consistent with the elements for such programs
outlined in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi). The analysis found in Section V.E.
of this notice shows that the backstop trading program is consistent
with the elements for trading programs outlined in 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2)(vi).
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(v), the State has provided the
requirements for the backstop trading program in the event that a
milestone is not achieved. The State adopted and submitted as part of
its regional haze SIP UAR R307-250--Western Backstop Sulfur Dioxide
Trading Program. R307-250 contains the backstop trading program
requirements applicable to sources covered by the program. R307-250, in

conjunction with section E of the SIP, implements the backstop trading
program provisions (the requirements and provisions for the backstop
trading program are discussed in this section and section E below).
    We are proposing to determine the State's SIP meets the
requirements of 40 CFR 309(d)(4)(v).
6. Provisions for the 2018 Milestone
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(vi)(A), the SIP has provisions to
ensure that, until a revised implementation plan is submitted in
accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(f) and approved by EPA, emissions from
covered stationary sources in any year beginning in 2018 do not exceed
the 2018 milestone. In order to meet this requirement, the State has
included special provisions for what will be required as part of their
2013 SIP revision required under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10). The State's SIP
provides that the 2013 SIP revision required by 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)
will contain either the provisions of a program designed to achieve
reasonable progress for stationary sources of SO2 beyond
2018 or a commitment to submit a SIP revision containing the provisions
of such a program no later than December 31, 2016 (see section E.4 of
the SIP).
    We are proposing to determine the State's SIP meets the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(vi)(A).
7. Special Penalty Provision for 2018
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(vi)(B), the SIP includes special
penalty provisions to ensure that the 2018 milestone is met. If the
backstop trading is triggered and it will not start until after the
year 2018, a special penalty shall be assessed to sources that exceed
the 2018 milestone. Utah shall seek at least the minimum financial
penalty of $5,000 per ton of SO2 emissions in excess of a
source's allowance limitation. Any source may resolve its excess
emissions violation by agreeing to a streamlined settlement approach
where the source pays a penalty of $5,000 per ton or partial ton of
excess emissions and the source makes the payment within 90 calendar
days after the issuance of a notice of violation.
    Any source that does not resolve its excess emissions violation in
accordance with the streamlined settlement approach will be subject to
civil enforcement action, in which the State shall seek a financial
penalty for the excess emissions based on the State's statutory maximum
civil penalties. The special penalty provisions for 2018 will apply for
each year after 2018 until the State determines that the 2018 milestone
has been met. The State will evaluate the amount of the minimum
monetary penalty during each five-year SIP review and the penalty will
be adjusted to ensure that penalties per ton substantially exceed the
expected cost of allowances, and are thus stringent penalties (see
R307-250-13 and section E.1.e of the SIP).
    We are proposing to determine the State's SIP meets the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(vi)(B).

D. ``Better-Than-BART'' Demonstration

    As discussed in Section IV.A of this preamble, if a state adopts an
alternative program designed to replace source-specific BART controls,
the state must be able to demonstrate that the alternative program
achieves greater reasonable progress than would be achieved by BART.
Utah has included a demonstration of how the 309 program achieves
greater reasonable progress than BART as discussed in the document
titled Demonstration that the SO2 Milestones Provide for Greater
Reasonable Progress than BART (``better-than-BART'' demonstration).
Section V.D.5 below contains a discussion on how the 309 backstop
trading program achieves greater reasonable progress than BART. New
Mexico and Wyoming have also submitted SIPs with the same better-than-
BART demonstration as Utah, and thus are relying on a consistent
demonstration across the states.
1. List of BART-Eligible Sources
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(A), the State's better-than-BART
demonstration lists the BART-eligible sources covered by the program
(see Table 3 below). BART eligible sources are identified as those
sources that fall within one of the 26 specific source categories, were
built between 1962 and 1977 and have potential emissions of 250 tons
per year of any visibility impairing air pollutant. The State
identified the following BART-eligible sources in Utah: PacifiCorp
Hunter Units 1 and 2 and PacifiCorp Huntington Units 1 and 2.
    We are proposing that this satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2)(i)(A).
2. Subject-to-BART Determination
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(B), the State has determined
which sources are subject-to-BART. Each of the section 309 states
provided source modeling that determined which of the BART-eligible
sources within their states cause or contribute to visibility
impairment and are thus subject-to-BART (more information on subject-
to-BART sources and modeling can be found in section V.F of this
notice). The State of New Mexico and Utah relied on modeling by the
WRAP to identify sources subject-to-BART. The procedures used are
outlined in the WRAP Regional Modeling Center (RMC) BART Modeling
Protocol.\13\ The State of Wyoming performed separate modeling to
identify sources subject-to-BART.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ CALMET/CALPUFF Protocol for BART Exemption Screening
Analysis for Class I Areas in the Western United States, Western
Regional Air Partnership (WRAP); Gail Tonnesen, Zion Wang; Ralph
Morris, Abby Hoats and Yiqin Jia, August 15, 2006. Available at:
http://pah.cert.ucr.edu/aqm/308/bart/WRAP_RMC_BART_Protocol_Aug15_2006.pdf.
    \14\ BART Air Modeling Protocol, Individual Source Visibility
Assessments for BART Control Analyses, State of Wyoming, Department
of Environmental Quality, Air Quality Division, Cheyenne, WY
September 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The states established a contribution threshold of 0.5 deciviews
for determining if a single source causes or contributes to visibility
impairment (see section V.F.1.b of this notice for further discussion
on the contribution threshold). If the modeling shows that a source has
a 0.5 deciview impact at any Class I area, that source causes or
contributes to visibility impairment and is subject-to-BART. Table 3
shows the BART-eligible sources covered by the 309 backstop program and
whether they are subject-to-BART.
    We are proposing to determine that the State's SIP meets the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(B).

                      Table 3--Subject-to-BART Status for Section 309 BART-Eligible Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               State                       Company                Facility               Subject-to-BART?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Mexico........................  Frontier.............  Empire Abo...........  No.
New Mexico........................  Xcel Energy..........  SWPS Cunningham        No.
                                                            Station.
New Mexico........................  Duke Energy..........  Artesia Gas Plant....  No.
New Mexico........................  Duke Energy..........  Linam Ranch Gas Plant  No.

New Mexico........................  Dynegy...............  Saunders.............  No.
New Mexico........................  Giant Refining.......  San Juan Refinery....  No.
New Mexico........................  Giant Refining.......  Ciniza Refinery......  No.
New Mexico........................  Xcel Energy..........  SWPS Maddox Station..  No.
New Mexico........................  Marathon.............  Indian Basin Gas       No.
                                                            Plant.
New Mexico........................  Public Service of New  San Juan Generating    Yes.
                                     Mexico.                Station.
New Mexico........................  .....................  Rio Grande Station...  No.
New Mexico........................  Western Gas Resources  San Juan River Gas     No.
                                                            Plant.
Utah..............................  Pacificorp...........  Hunter...............  Yes.
Utah..............................  Pacificorp...........  Huntington...........  Yes.
Wyoming...........................  Basin Electric.......  Laramie River........  Yes.
Wyoming...........................  Black Hills Power &    Neil Simpson I.......  No.
                                     Light.
Wyoming...........................  Dyno Nobel...........  Dyno Nobel...........  No.
Wyoming...........................  FMC Corp.............  Green River Soda Ash   Yes.
                                                            Plant.
Wyoming...........................  FMC Corp.............  Granger River Soda     No.
                                                            Ash Plant.
Wyoming...........................  General Chemical.....  Green River Soda Ash   Yes.
                                                            Plant.
Wyoming...........................  P4 Production........  Rock Springs Coking    No.
                                                            Plant.
Wyoming...........................  Pacificorp...........  Dave Johnston........  Yes.
Wyoming...........................  Pacificorp...........  Jim Bridger..........  Yes.
Wyoming...........................  Pacificorp...........  Naughton.............  Yes.
Wyoming...........................  Pacificorp...........  Wyodak...............  Yes.
Wyoming...........................  Sinclair Oil Corp....  Sinclair Refinery....  No.
Wyoming...........................  Sinclair Refinery....  Casper...............  No.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Best System of Continuous Emission Control Technology
    As required by 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(C), the State determined what
BART would be for each subject-to-BART source covered by the 309
backstop trading program. In the State's better-than-BART
demonstration, all subject-to-BART EGUs were assumed to be operating at
the presumptive SO2 emission rate of 0.15 lb/MMBtu
established in the BART Guidelines (70 FR 39171). The 309 program also
includes non-EGU subject-to-BART units. As explained in the better-
than-BART demonstration, the non-EGU subject-to-BART units are four
boilers located at two trona plants in Wyoming: FMC Westvaco and
General Chemical Green River. Wyoming made a determination of what BART
would be for these non-EGU units. FMC Westvaco recently installed
pollution control projects achieving a 63% reduction in SO2
from its two boilers. Wyoming determined this control level would serve
as a BART benchmark for all trona boilers. Thus, a 63% reduction in
emissions from these sources was included in the BART benchmark in
calculating emission reductions assuming the application of BART at
these sources. Emission reductions or the BART benchmark for all
subject-to-BART sources covered by the 309 program was calculated to be
48,807 tons of SO2 (all supporting calculations for the
``better-than-BART'' demonstration are located in section D of the
State's TSD under the title 10-6-10--milestone.xls).
    We are proposing to determine the State's SIP meets the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(C).
4. Projected Emissions Reductions
    As required by 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(D), the State has provided
the expected emission reductions that would result from the 309
backstop trading program. The better-than-BART demonstration projects
that 2018 baseline emissions would be 190,656 tpy of SO2 for
the sources covered by the 309 program in the participating states. The
reductions achieved by the program are 48,807 tpy of SO2,
resulting in remaining emissions of 141,849 tpy of SO2 in
2018.
    We are proposing to determine the State's SIP meets the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(D).
5. Evidence That the Trading Program Achieves Greater Reasonable
Progress Than BART
    The State's better-than-BART demonstration provides numerous
reasons why the SO2 backstop trading program is better than
BART. First, additional sources beyond BART sources are included. The
backstop trading program includes all stationary sources with emissions
greater than 100 tpy of SO2, and thus, encompasses 63 non-
subject-to-BART sources, which are identified in the better-than-BART
demonstration. BART applied on a source-specific basis would not affect
these sources, and there would be no limitation on their future
operations under their existing permit conditions, or allowable
emissions. The milestones will cap these sources at 2002 actual
emissions, which are less than current allowable emissions.
    The program also provides for a cap on new source growth. Future
impairment is prevented by capping emissions growth from sources
covered by the program, and also by including entirely new sources in
the region under the cap. BART applied on a source-specific basis would
have no impact on future growth. The backstop trading program also
provides a mass-based cap that has inherent advantages over applying
BART to each individual source. The baseline emission projections and
assumed reductions due to the assumption of BART-level emission rates
on all sources subject-to-BART are all based on actual emissions, using
2006 as the baseline. If the BART process were applied on a source-
specific basis to individual sources, emission limitations would
typically be established as an emission rate (lbs/hr or lbs/MMBtu) that
would account for variations in the sulfur content of fuel and
alternative operating scenarios, or allowable emissions. A mass-based
cap that is based on actual emissions is more stringent because it does
not allow a source to consistently use this difference between current
actual and allowable emissions.
    We are proposing to determine the State's 309 backstop trading
program achieves greater reasonable progress than would be achieved
through the installation and operation of BART and thus meets the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(E).

6. All Emission Reductions Must Take Place During the First Planning
Period
    The first planning period ends in 2018. As discussed above, the
reductions from the 309 program will occur by 2018. We are therefore
proposing to determine the State's SIP meets the requirements of 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2)(iii).
7. Detailed Description of the Alternative Program
    The detailed description of the backstop trading program is
provided in Section E--Sulfur Dioxide Milestones and Backstop Trading
Program of the State's SIP and R307-250, which we are proposing to
approve. We are proposing to determine that the State's SIP meets the
detailed description requirement in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iii).
8. Surplus Reductions
    We propose to approve the determination in the State's 309 SIP
submittal that all emission reductions resulting from the emissions
trading program are surplus as of the baseline date of the SIP, as
required by 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iv).
9. Geographic Distribution of Emissions
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3), the State used modeling conducted
by the WRAP to compare the visibility improvement expected from source-
by source BART to the backstop trading program for the Class I areas on
the Colorado Plateau. A summary of the modeling results can be found in
Section K of the State's SIP, which refers to data from modeling
included in Tables 2 and 3 of Attachment C to the
Annex.15 16 This modeling was conducted during the
development of the Annex to examine if the geographic distribution of
emissions under the trading program would be substantially different
and disproportionately impact any Class I area due to a geographic
concentration of emissions. The modeled visibility improvement for the
best and worst days at the Class I areas for the 309 program is similar
to improvement anticipated from the BART scenario (within 0.1 deciview)
on the worst and best visibility days. Thus, if we assume participation
and milestones consistent with the model, the model demonstrates that
the distribution of emissions between the BART scenario and the 309
trading program are not substantially different. We note this modeling
demonstration included nine states, many of which are not participating
in the backstop trading program. This modeling demonstration adds
support to our proposed determination discussed above in this section
that the regional haze 309 SIP submittal appropriately shows the
trading program will achieve greater reasonable progress than would be
achieved through the installation and operation of BART, as required by
40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(E).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Voluntary Emissions Reduction Program for Major Industrial
Sources of Sulfur Dioxide in Nine Western States and A Backstop
Market Trading Program, an Annex to the Report of the Grand Canyon
Visibility Transport Commission (September 2000) at C-15 and 16.
    \16\ WRAP conducted modeling of the degree of visibility
improvement that would occur on average and for the 20% best and
worst visibility days. The WRAP used the transfer coefficients
developed as part of the Integrated Assessment System and used by
the GCVTC. As noted in the Annex, this modeling has limitations
which must be considered when interpreting the results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Requirements for Alternative Programs With an Emissions Cap

    The following analysis shows that the State's SIP is consistent
with the elements for trading programs required by 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2)(vi). The backstop trading program contains milestones,
which are in effect a cap. Under a backstop trading program, the
provisions of a trading program are enacted only if the milestone has
been exceeded. Since the 309 trading program is a backstop trading
program, the provisions outlined below will only apply if the milestone
is exceeded and the program is triggered.
1. Applicability Provisions
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(A), the backstop trading
program has the same applicability requirements in all states opting to
participate in the program. R307-250-3 contains the applicability
provisions and provides that the backstop trading program applies to
all stationary sources that emit 100 tons per year or more of
SO2 in the program trigger year.
    We are proposing to approve that the State's SIP meets the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(A).
2. Allowance Provisions
    Section E.3.a of the SIP and R307-250-8 contain the allowance
allocation provisions as required by 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(B). R307-
250-8 requires sources to open a compliance account in order to track
allowances and contains other requirements associated with those
accounts. The SIP contains the provisions on how the State will
allocate allowances and requires that the total number of allowances
distributed cannot exceed the milestone for any given year.
    We are proposing to determine the State's SIP meets the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(B).
3. Monitoring, Recordkeeping and Reporting Provisions
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(C)-(E), R307-250-9 provides
that sources subject to 40 CFR part 75 under a separate requirement
from the backstop trading program shall meet the requirements contained
in 40 CFR part 75 with respect to MRR of SO2 emissions. If a
unit is not subject to 40 CFR part 75 under a requirement separate from
the trading program, the State requires that a source use one of the
following monitoring methods: (1) Continuous emission monitoring system
for SO2 and flow that complies with all applicable
monitoring provisions in 40 CFR part 75; (2) if the unit is a gas- or
oil-fired combustion device, the monitoring methodology in Appendix D
to 40 CFR part 75, or, if applicable, the low mass emissions provisions
(with respect to SO2 mass emissions only) of section
75.19(c) of 40 CFR part 75; (3) one of the optional protocols, if
applicable, in Appendix B to the SIP; \17\ or (4) a petition for site-
specific monitoring that the source submits for approval by the State
and EPA. All the above sources are required to comply with the
reporting and recordkeeping requirements in 40 CFR part 75.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Appendix B of the SIP contains monitoring requirements for
fuel gas combustion devices at petroleum refineries and kilns with
positive pressure fabric filters. Appendix B specifies the
installation of a continuous fuel gas monitoring system and
predictive flow monitoring system, respectively. Appendix B also
specifies requirements under 40 CFR part 75 sources must follow in
regards to this equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although most sources covered by the backstop trading program will
be able to meet the monitoring requirements stated above, there are
some emission units that are either not physically able to install the
needed equipment or do not emit enough SO2 to justify the
expense of installing these systems. As discussed in the SIP, the
trading program allows these emission units to continue to use their
pre-trigger monitoring methodology, but does not allow the source to
transfer any allocation associated with that unit to another source.
The program requires that the allowances associated with emission units
that continue to use their pre-trigger monitoring methodology be placed
in a special reserve compliance account, while allowances for other
emission units are placed in a regular compliance account. Sources may
not trade allowances out of a special reserve compliance account, even
for use by

emission units at the same source, but can use the allowances to show
compliance for that particular unit (see section E.3.i of the SIP).
    R307-250-9(1)(b) allows sources with any of the following emission
units to apply for the establishment of a special reserve compliance
account: (1) Any smelting operation where all of the emissions from the
operation are not ducted to a stack; (2) any flare, except to the
extent such flares are used as a fuel gas combustion device at a
petroleum refinery; or (3) any other type of unit without add-on
SO2 control equipment, if the unit belongs to one of the
following source categories: cement kilns, pulp and paper recovery
furnaces, lime kilns, or glass manufacturing. Pursuant to 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2)(vi)(E), sources with a special reserve compliance account
are required to submit to the State an annual emissions statement and
sources are required to maintain operating records sufficient to
estimate annual emissions consistent with the baseline emission
inventory submitted in 1998.
    We are proposing to determine the State's SIP meets the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(C)-(E).
4. Tracking System
    As required by 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(F), section E.2.f of the SIP
provides the overarching specifications for an Emissions and Allowance
Tracking System (EATS). According to the SIP, the EATS must provide
that all necessary information regarding emissions, allowances, and
transactions is publicly available in a secure, centralized database.
The EATS must ensure that each allowance is uniquely identified, allow
for frequent updates, and include enforceable procedures for recording
data. If the program is triggered, the State will work with other
states and tribes participating in the trading program to implement
this system. More detailed specifications for the EATS are provided in
the WEB Emission and Allowance Tracking System (EATS) Analysis in
section E of the State's TSD. The State assumes responsibility for
ensuring that all the EATS provisions are completed as described in its
SIP and TSD.
    In addition, the State will work with the other participating
states to designate one tracking system administrator (TSA). The SIP
provides that the TSA shall be designated as expeditiously as possible,
but no later than six months after the program trigger date. The State
will enter into a binding contract with the TSA that shall require the
TSA to perform all TSA functions described in the SIP, such as
transferring and recording allowances (see section E.1.b(2) of the
SIP).
    We are proposing to determine that the State's SIP meets the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iv)(F).
5. Account Representative
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(G), R307-250-5 contains
provisions for the establishment of an account representative. The rule
requires each source to identify one account representative. The
account representative shall submit to the State and the TSA a signed
and dated certificate that contains a certification statement verifying
that the account representative has all the necessary authority to
carry out the account representative responsibilities under the trading
program on behalf of the owners and operators of the sources. The
certification statement also needs to indicate that each such owner and
operator shall be fully bound by the account representatives
representations, actions, inactions, or submissions and by any decision
or order issued to the account representative by the State regarding
the trading program.
    We are proposing to determine the State's SIP meets the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(G).
6. Allowance Transfers
    Section E.3.g of the State's SIP and R307-250-10 have established
procedures pertaining to allowance transfers to meet the requirements
of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(H). R307-250-10 contains requirements
sources must follow for allowance transfers. To transfer or retire
allowances, the account representative shall submit the transfer
account number(s) identifying the transferor account, the serial number
of each allowance to be transferred, the transferor's account
representative's name and signature, and date of submission. The
allowance transfer deadline is midnight Pacific Standard Time on March
1st of each year following the end of the control period. Sources must
correctly submit transfers by this time in order for a source to be
able to use the allowance to demonstrate compliance.
    The SIP provides the procedures the TSA must follow to transfer
allowances. The TSA will record an allowance transfer by moving each
allowance from the transferor account to the transferee account as
specified by the request from the source, if the transfer is correctly
submitted, and the transferor account includes each allowance
identified in the transfer. Within five business days of the recording
of an allowance transfer, the TSA shall notify the account
representatives of both the transferor and transferee accounts, and
make the transfer information publicly available on the Internet.
Within five business days of receipt of an allowance transfer that
fails to meet the requirements for transfer, the TSA will notify the
account representatives of both accounts of the decision not to record
the transfer, and the reasons for not recording the transfer.
    We are proposing to determine that the State's SIP meets the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(H).
7. Compliance Provisions
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(I), the State has provided the
procedures for determining compliance in R307-250-12. Per this section,
the source must hold allowances as of the allowance transfer deadline
in the source's compliance account (together with any current control
year allowances held in the source's special reserve compliance
account) in an amount not less than the total SO2 emissions
for the control period from the source. The State determines compliance
by comparing allowances held by the source in their compliance
account(s) with the total annual SO2 emissions reported by
the source. If the comparison of the allowances to emissions results in
emissions exceeding allowances, the source's excess emissions are
subject to the allowance deduction penalty discussed in further detail
below.
    We are proposing to determine that the State's SIP meets the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(I).
8. Penalty Provisions
    R307-250-12(3) provides the penalty provisions required by 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2)(vi)(J). Per this section, a source's allowances will be
reduced by an amount equal to three times the source's tons of excess
emissions if they are unable to show compliance. Allowances allocated
for the following control period will be the original allowance minus
the allowance penalty. If the compliance account does not have
sufficient allowances allocated for that control period, the required
number of allowances will be deducted from the source's compliance
account regardless of the control period for which they were allocated.
    We are proposing to determine that the State's SIP meets the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(J).
9. Banking of Allowances
    As allowed by 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(K), R307-250-11 allows

sources to use allowances from current and prior years to demonstrate
compliance, with some restrictions. Sources can only use 2018
allowances to show compliance with the 2018 milestone and may not use
allowances from prior years. In order to ensure that the use of banked
allowances does not interfere with the attainment or maintenance of
reasonable progress goals, the backstop trading program includes flow-
control provisions. The flow control provisions are triggered if the
TSA determines that the banked allowances exceed ten percent of the
milestone for the next control year, and thereby ensure that too many
banked emissions are not used in any one year (see section E.3.h(2) of
the SIP).
    We are proposing to determine that the State's SIP meets the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(e)(2)(vi)(J).
10. Program Assessment
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(L), the SIP contains provisions
for a 2013 assessment and SIP revision. For the 2013 assessment, the
State will work with other participating states to develop a projected
emission inventory for SO2 through the year 2018. The State
will then evaluate the projected inventory and assess the likelihood of
meeting the regional milestone for the year 2018. The State shall
include this assessment as part of the 2013 progress report that must
be submitted under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10) (see section E.1.d of the SIP).
    We are proposing to determine the State's SIP meets the
requirements of 40 CFR 308(e)(2)(vi)(L).

F. Provisions for Stationary Source Emissions of Nitrogen Oxides and
Particulate Matter

    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(vii), states must evaluate certain
stationary sources for NOX and PM BART. BART for
SO2 is addressed by the backstop trading program described
above. BART requirements can be addressed through a case-by-case review
under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1) or through an alternative program under 40
CFR 51.308(e)(2). The State chose to evaluate BART for NOX
and PM under the case-by-case provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1). We are
proposing to disapprove the State's BART determinations because we find
that the State's determinations do not meet the requirements of 40 CFR
51.308(e)(1), section 110(a)(2) of the CAA, and Appendix V of part 51,
as described below.
1. BART-Eligible Sources
    The first step of a BART evaluation is to identify all the BART-
eligible sources within the state's boundaries. Utah identified the
BART-eligible sources in Utah by utilizing the approach set out in the
BART Guidelines (70 FR 39158). This approach provides the following
three criteria for identifying BART-eligible sources: (1) One or more
emission units at the facility fit within one of the 26 categories
listed in the BART Guidelines; (2) the emission unit(s) began operation
on or after August 6, 1962, and was in existence on August 6, 1977; and
(3) potential emissions of any visibility-impairing pollutant from
subject units are 250 tons or more per year. Utah used its permits and
2001-2003 emission inventory records to identify facilities in the BART
source categories with potential emissions of 250 tons per year or more
for any visibility-impairing pollutant from any unit that was in
existence on August 7, 1977 and began operation on or after August 7,
1962. Utah determined that PacifiCorp Hunter Unit 1 and Unit 2 and
PacifiCorp Huntington Unit 1 and Unit 2 are BART-eligible.
2. Sources Subject-to-BART
    The second step of the BART evaluation is to identify those BART-
eligible sources that may reasonably be anticipated to cause or
contribute to any visibility impairment at any Class I area, i.e. those
sources that are subject-to-BART. The BART Guidelines allow states to
consider exempting some BART-eligible sources from further BART review
because they may not reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute
to any visibility impairment in a Class I area. Consistent with the
BART Guidelines, Utah used dispersion modeling performed by the WRAP
RMC on the BART-eligible sources to assess the extent of their
contribution to visibility impairment at surrounding Class I areas.
a. Modeling Methodology
    The BART Guidelines provide that states may use the CALPUFF \18\
modeling system or another appropriate model to predict the visibility
impacts from a single source on a Class I area and to, therefore,
determine whether an individual source is anticipated to cause or
contribute to impairment of visibility in Class I areas, i.e., ``is
subject-to-BART.'' The Guidelines state that we find CALPUFF is the
best regulatory modeling application currently available for predicting
a single source's contribution to visibility impairment (70 FR 39162).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Note that our reference to CALPUFF encompasses the entire
CALPUFF modeling system, which includes the CALMET, CALPUFF, and
CALPOST models and other pre and post processors. The different
versions of CALPUFF have corresponding versions of CALMET, CALPOST,
etc. which may not be compatible with previous versions (e.g., the
output from a newer version of CALMET may not be compatible with an
older version of CALPUFF). The different versions of the CALPUFF
modeling system are available from the model developer at http://www.src.com/verio/download/download.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To determine if each BART-eligible source has a significant impact
on visibility, Utah used the RMC CALPUFF modeling results to estimate
daily visibility impacts above estimated natural conditions at each
Class I area within 300 km of any BART-eligible facility, based on
maximum actual 24-hour emissions over a three year period (2001-2003)
(see section D.6.c of the SIP). The RMC used the CALPUFF model for Utah
BART sources in accordance with a modeling protocol it developed. The
RMC protocol follows recommendations for long-range transport described
in appendix W to 40 CFR part 51, Guideline on Air Quality Models, and
in EPA's Interagency Workgroup on Air Quality Modeling (IWAQM) Phase 2
Summary Report and Recommendations for Modeling Long Range Transport
Impacts as recommended by the BART Guidelines. (40 CFR part 51,
appendix Y, section III.A.3).
b. Contribution Threshold
    For states using modeling to determine the applicability of BART to
single sources, the BART Guidelines note that the first step is to set
a contribution threshold to assess whether the impact of a single
source is sufficient to cause or contribute to visibility impairment at
a Class I area. The BART Guidelines state that, ``[a] single source
that is responsible for a 1.0 deciview change or more should be
considered to `cause' visibility impairment.'' (70 FR 39104, 39161).
The BART Guidelines also state that ``the appropriate threshold for
determining whether a source contributes to visibility impairment may
reasonably differ across states,'' but, ``[a]s a general matter, any
threshold that you use for determining whether a source ``contributes''
to visibility impairment should not be higher than 0.5 deciviews.'' Id.
Further, in setting a contribution threshold, states should ``consider
the number of emissions sources affecting the Class I areas at issue
and the magnitude of the individual sources' impacts.'' The Guidelines
affirm that states are free to use a lower threshold if they conclude
that the location of a large number of

BART-eligible sources in proximity to a Class I area justifies this
approach.
    Utah used a contribution threshold of 0.5 deciviews for determining
which sources are subject-to-BART (see section D.6.3 of the SIP). Using
a threshold of 0.5 deciviews, the State determined that all its BART-
eligible sources were subject-to-BART. We propose to approve the
State's threshold of 0.5 deciviews.
    The State determined that the following units were BART-eligible
and subject-to-BART: PacifiCorp Hunter Unit 1 and Hunter Unit 2 and
PacifiCorp Huntington Unit1 and Huntington Unit 2 (see section D.6.3 of
the SIP). All four units are tangentially fired fossil fuel fired EGUs
each with a net generating capacity of 430 MW, permitted to burn
bituminous coal.
    We are proposing that the State has correctly determined of the
BART eligible and subject-to-BART units in the State.
3. BART Determinations and Limits
    The third step of a BART evaluation is to perform the BART
analysis. BART is a source-specific control determination, based on
consideration of several factors set out in section 169A(g)(2) of the
CAA. These factors include the costs of compliance and the degree of
improvement in visibility associated with the use of possible control
technologies. EPA issued BART Guidelines (Appendix Y to Part 51) in
2005 to clarify the BART provisions based on the statutory and
regulatory BART requirements (70 FR 39164). The BART Guidelines
describe the BART analysis as consisting of the following five basic
steps:
     Step 1: Identify All Available Retrofit Control
Technologies;
     Step 2: Eliminate Technically Infeasible Options;
     Step 3: Evaluate Control Effectiveness of Remaining
Control Technologies;
     Step 4: Evaluate Impacts and Document the Results; and
     Step 5: Evaluate Visibility Impacts.
    In determining BART, the State must consider the five statutory
factors in section 169A of the CAA: (1) The costs of compliance; (2)
the energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance; (3)
any existing pollution control technology in use at the source; (4) the
remaining useful life of the source; and (5) the degree of improvement
in visibility which may reasonably be anticipated to result from the
use of such technology. See also 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A). The five-
factor analysis occurs during steps 4 and 5 of the BART analysis. We
note the BART Guidelines (Appendix Y to part 51) provide that states
must follow the guidelines in making BART determinations on a source-
by-source basis for 750 MW power plants but are not required to use the
process in the guidelines when making BART determinations for other
types of sources. States with subject-to-BART units with a generating
capacity less than 750 MW are strongly encouraged to follow the BART
Guidelines in making BART determinations, but they are not required to
do so. However, the requirement to perform a BART analysis that
considers ``the technology available, the costs of compliance, the
energy and nonair quality environmental impacts of compliance, any
pollution control equipment in use at the source, the remaining useful
life of the source, and the degree of improvement in visibility which
may reasonably be anticipated to result from the use of such
technology,'' is found in section 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A) of the RHR, and
applies to all subject-to-BART sources.
    We have found issues, as discussed below, with the State's BART
determinations that lead us to propose disapproval. For all of the
subject-to-BART units, the State did not properly determine BART, but
instead concluded that a slightly lower limit than the presumptive
limits in the BART Guidelines could be adopted in place of a detailed
source-specific analysis of the appropriate level of controls. As noted
above, EPA issued BART Guidelines in 2005 that address the BART
determination process by laying out a step by step process for taking
into consideration the factors relevant to a BART determination.
    EPA's 2005 rulemaking also established presumptive BART limits for
certain EGUs located at power plants 750 MW or greater in size based on
the size of the unit, the type of unit, the type of fuel used, and the
presence or absence of controls (70 FR 39131-39136). Having identified
controls that the Agency considered to be generally cost-effective
across all affected units, EPA took into account the substantial degree
of visibility improvement anticipated to result from the use of such
controls on these EGUs and concluded that such BART-eligible sources
should at least meet the presumptive limits. The presumptive limits
accordingly are the starting point in a BART determination for these
units, unless the state determines that the general assumptions
underlying EPA's analysis are not applicable in a particular case. EPA
did not provide that states could avoid a source-specific BART
determination by adopting the presumptive limits. In fact, nothing in
the State's record would support the conclusion that the presumptive
limits represent the ``best available retrofit controls'' for all EGUs
at these large power plants. EPA did not address the question of
whether in specific cases more stringent controls would be called for,
but rather simply concluded that it could not reach a generalized
conclusion as to the appropriateness of more stringent controls for
categories of EGUs. As a result, the BART Rule does not establish a
``safe harbor'' from more stringent regulation under the BART
provisions.
    Regarding BART for PM and NOX, neither PacifiCorp nor
the State performed a BART analysis taking into account the statutory
factors that states are required to consider in determining what
retrofit controls are BART for PacifiCorp Hunter Unit 1 and Unit 2 and
PacifiCorp Huntington Unit 1 and Unit 2 (information on the State's
BART determination as summarized in this paragraph can be found in
section D.6.d of the SIP). The State determined that it could rely on
the presumptive limits to determine what NOX BART is for the
subject-to-BART sources. PacifiCorp proposed and the State determined,
without any analysis, that the NOX BART limit for all the
subject-to-BART units was 0.26 lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling average), which
is the current operating permit limit for the source and which the
State assumes can be achieved by the installation and operation of low
NOX burners (LNBs) and separated overfire air (SOFA). The
State reasoned that since this limit is slightly lower than the
presumptive limit, which is 0.28 lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling average), it
constituted NOX BART for these sources. There are no
presumptive limits established for PM. PacifiCorp proposed and the
State agreed, without any analysis, that the PM BART limits for all
subject-to-BART units was the current operating permit limit of 0.05
lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling average), which the State assumes can be
achieved by the installation and operation of fabric filter
baghouses.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ These are new emission limits, and in accordance with the
SIP, PacifiCorp is required to install and operate BART no later
than five years after EPA approval of the plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because PacifiCorp units have a 430 MW generating capacity, the
State is not required to follow the BART Guidelines in making BART
determinations for the units. However, neither the State nor PacifiCorp
have completed a BART analysis that considers the statutory factors
under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A),

which provides that: ``The determination of BART must be based on an
analysis of the best system of continuous emission control technology
available and associated emission reductions achievable for each BART-
eligible source that is subject-to-BART within the State. In this
analysis, the State must take into consideration the technology
available, the costs of compliance, the energy and nonair quality
environmental impacts of compliance, any pollution control equipment in
use at the source, the remaining useful life of the source, and the
degree of improvement in visibility which may reasonably be anticipated
to result from the use of such technology.''
    Furthermore, the State's regional haze SIP does not contain the
elements necessary to make the proposed emission limits practically
enforceable. Utah's SIP section D.6.d contains controls, emission
limits and general compliance schedules, but does not include SIP
provisions specifying averaging times, record-keeping, monitoring, and
specific schedules for compliance. The CAA requires that SIPs,
including the regional haze SIP, contain elements sufficient to ensure
emission limits are practically enforceable.\20\ Other applicable
regulatory provisions are contained in Appendix V to part 51--Criteria
for Determining the Completeness of Plan Submissions.\21\ Utah suggests
that including averaging times, recordkeeping, monitoring, and specific
schedules for compliance in the source's operating permits,\22\ and not
as part of the SIP, is sufficient to meet the statutory and regulatory
requirements discussed above.\23\ It is not sufficient to include these
elements in a permit or agreement that is not made part of the SIP. EPA
does not consider operating permit conditions adequate to meet this
enforceability requirement, as permit conditions may be modified
without going through the SIP approval process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ CAA Section 110(a)(2) states that SIPs ``shall (A) include
enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, means,
or techniques (including economic incentives such as fees,
marketable permits, and auctions of emissions rights), as well as
schedules and timetables for compliance, as may be necessary or
appropriate to meet the applicable requirements of this chapter; (C)
include a program to provide for the enforcement of the measures
described in subparagraph (A), and regulation of the modification
and construction of any stationary source within the areas covered
by the plan as necessary to assure that national ambient air quality
standards are achieved, including a permit program as required in
parts C and D of this subchapter; (F) require, as may be prescribed
by the Administrator--(i) the installation, maintenance, and
replacement of equipment, and the implementation of other necessary
steps, by owners or operators of stationary sources to monitor
emissions from such sources, (ii) periodic reports on the nature and
amounts of emissions and emissions-related data from such sources,
and (iii) correlation of such reports by the State agency with any
emission limitations or standards established pursuant to this
chapter, which reports shall be available at reasonable times for
public inspection''
    \21\ Appendix V part 51 states in section 2.2 that complete SIPs
contain: ``(g) Evidence that the plan contains emission limitations,
work practice standards and recordkeeping/reporting requirements,