[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 101 (Thursday, May 24, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30953-30972]
[FR Doc No: 2012-12643]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2011-0400; FRL-9676-2]

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve Wyoming State Implementation Plan
(SIP) revisions submitted on January 12, 2011 and April 19, 2012 that
address regional haze. These SIP revisions were submitted to address
the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) and our rules that
require states to prevent any future and remedy any existing man-made
impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I areas caused by emissions
of air pollutants from numerous sources located over a wide geographic
area (also referred to as the ``regional haze program''). States are
required to assure reasonable progress toward the national goal of
achieving natural visibility conditions in Class I areas. EPA is taking
this action pursuant to section 110 of the CAA.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 23, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-
OAR-2011-0400, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.

     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-
2011-0400. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or email. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA, without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional instructions on submitting
comments, go to Section I. General Information of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly-available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Program,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595
Wynkoop, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. EPA requests that if at all
possible, you contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard copy of the docket. You
may view the hard copy of the docket Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m.
to 4:00 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laurel Dygowski, Air Program, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595
Wynkoop, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129,<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 FETS mean or refer to the Fire Emission
Tracking System.
    x. The initials GCVTC mean or refer to the Grand Canyon
Visibility Transport Commission.
    xi. The initials IMPROVE mean or refer to Interagency Monitoring
of Protected Visual Environments monitoring network.
    xii. The initials MRR mean or refer to monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting.
    xiii. The initials NOX mean or refer to nitrogen oxides.
    xiv. The initials OC mean or refer to organic carbon.
    xv. The initials PM2.5 mean or refer to particulate matter with
an aerodynamic diameter of less than 2.5 micrometers.
    xvi. The initials PM10 mean or refer to particulate matter with
an aerodynamic diameter of less than 10 micrometers.
    xvii. The initials RHR mean or refer to the Regional Haze Rule.
    xviii. The initials RMC mean or refer to the Regional Modeling
Center.
    xix. The initials RPO mean or refer to regional planning
organization.
    xx. The initials SIP mean or refer to State Implementation Plan.
    xxi. The initials SO2 mean or refer to sulfur dioxide.
    xxii. The initials TSA mean or refer to the tracking system
administrator.
    xxiii. The initials TSD mean or refer to Technical Support
Document.
    xxiv. The initials VOC mean or refer to volatile organic
compounds.
    xxv. The initials WAQSR mean or refer to Wyoming Air Quality
Standards and Regulations.
    xxvi. The initials WRAP mean or refer to the Western Regional
Air Partnership.
    xxvii. The words Wyoming and State mean or refer to the State of
Wyoming.

Table of Contents

I. General Information
    A. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
    B. Overview of Proposed Action
II. Background Information
    A. Regional Haze
    B. Requirements of the CAA and EPA's Regional Haze Rule
    C. Role of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze
    D. Development of the Requirements for 40 CFR 51.309
III. Requirements for Regional Haze SIPs Submitted Under 40 CFR
51.309
    A. Projection of Visibility Improvement
    B. Clean Air Corridors (CACs)
    C. Stationary Source Reductions
    1. Sulfur Dioxide Emission Reductions
    2. Provisions for Stationary Source Emissions of Nitrogen Oxides
and Particulate Matter
    D. Mobile Sources
    E. Programs Related to Fire
    F. Paved and Unpaved Road Dust
    G. Pollution Prevention
    H. Additional Recommendations
    I. Periodic Implementation Plan Revisions
    J. Interstate Coordination
IV. Additional Requirements for Alternative Programs Under the
Regional Haze Rule
    A. ``Better-than-BART'' Demonstration
    B. Elements Required for All Alternative Programs That Have an
Emissions Cap
    1. Applicability
    2. Allowances
    3. Monitoring Recordkeeping, and Reporting
    4. Tracking System
    5. Account Representative
    6. Allowance Transfer
    7. Compliance Provisions
    8. Penalty Provisions
    9. Banking of Allowances
    10. Program Assessment
V. Our Analysis of Wyoming's Submittal
    A. Projection of Visibility Improvement
    B. Clean Air Corridors
    1. Comprehensive Emissions Tracking Program
    2. Identification of Clean Air Corridors
    3. Patterns of Growth Within and Outside of the Clean Air
Corridor

    4. Actions if Impairment Inside or Outside the Clean Air
Corridor Occurs
    5. Other Clean Air Corridors
    C. Stationary Source Reductions
    1. Provisions for Stationary Source Emissions of Sulfur Dioxide
    2. Documentation of Emissions Calculation Methods for Sulfur
Dioxide
    3. Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting of Sulfur Dioxide
Emissions
    4. Criteria and Procedures for a Market Trading Program
    5. Market Trading Program
    6. Provisions for the 2018 Milestone
    7. Special Penalty Provision for 2018
    D. ``Better-than-BART'' Demonstration
    1. List of BART-Eligible Sources
    2. Subject-to-BART Determination
    3. Best System of Continuous Emission Control Technology
    4. Projected Emission Reductions
    5. Evidence That the Trading Program Achieves Greater Reasonable
Progress Than BART
    6. All Emissions Reductions Must Take Place During the First
Planning Period
    7. Detailed Description of the Alternative Program
    8. Surplus Reductions
    9. Geographic Distribution of Emissions
    E. Requirements for Alternative Programs With an Emissions Cap
    1. Applicability Provisions
    2. Allowance Provisions
    3. Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting
    4. Tracking System
    5. Account Representative
    6. Allowance Transfers
    7. Compliance Provisions
    8. Penalty Provisions
    9. Banking of Allowances
    10. Program Assessment
    F. Provisions for Stationary Source Emissions of Nitrogen Oxides
and Particulate Matter
    G. Mobile Sources
    H. Programs Related to Fire
    1. Evaluation of Current Fire Programs
    a. Actions To Minimize Emissions
    b. Evaluation of Smoke Dispersion
    c. Alternatives to Fire
    d. Public Notification
    e. Air Quality Monitoring
    f. Surveillance and Enforcement
    g. Program Evaluation
    2. Inventory and Tracking System
    3. Strategy for Use of Alternatives to Burning
    4. Enhanced Smoke Management Program
    5. Annual Emission Goal
    I. Paved and Unpaved Road Dust
    J. Pollution Prevention
    1. Description of Existing Pollution Prevention Programs
    2. Incentive Programs
    3. Programs To Preserve and Expand Energy Conservation Efforts
    4. Potential for Renewable Energy
    5. Projections of Renewable Energy Goals, Energy Efficiency, and
Pollution Prevention Activities
    6. Programs To Achieve the GCVTC Renewable Energy Goal
    K. Additional Recommendations
    L. Periodic Implementation Plan Revisions
    M. Interstate Coordination
    N. Additional Class I Areas
VI. Proposed Action
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. General Information

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

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

B. Overview of Proposed Action

    In this action, EPA is proposing to approve Wyoming SIP revisions
submitted on January 12, 2011 and April 19, 2012 that address the
regional haze rule (RHR) for the mandatory Class I areas under 40 CFR
51.309. EPA is proposing that the January 12, 2011 and April 19, 2012
SIPs meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309, with the exception of 40
CFR 51.309(d)(4)(vii), and 40 CFR 51.309(g), as explained below.
    As part of the January 12, 2011 and April 19, 2012 SIPs, the State
submitted revisions to the Wyoming Air Quality Standards and
Regulations (WAQSR). The State submitted WAQSR Chapter 14, Sections 2
and 3--Emission Trading Program Regulations. WAQSR Chapter 14, in
conjunction with the SIP, implements the backstop trading program
provisions in accordance with the applicable requirements of 40 CFR
51.308 and 40 CFR 51.309. We are proposing to approve WAQSR Chapter 14,
Section 2 and Section 3. The State also submitted WAQSR Chapter 10,
Section 4--Smoke Management. WAQSR Chapter 10, Section 4, in
conjunction with the SIP, implements the requirements for smoke
management under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6). We are proposing to approve WAQSR
Chapter 10, Section 4.
    The State's submitted another SIP revision dated January 12, 2011
that addresses the requirements under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(vii) and 40
CFR 51.309(g) pertaining to best available retrofit technology (BART)
for particulate matter (PM) and nitrogen oxides (NOX) and
additional Class I areas, respectively. EPA will be taking action on
this SIP at a later date. In addition, the January 12, 2011 and April
19, 2012 submittals we are proposing to act on in this notice supersede
and replace regional haze SIPs submitted on December 24, 2003, May 27,
2004, and November 21, 2008.
    As explained in further detail below, 40 CFR 51.309 (section 309)
allows western states an optional way to fulfill the RHR requirements
as opposed to adopting the requirements under 40 CFR 51.308. Three
states have elected to submit a SIP under 40 CFR 51.309. Those states
are Wyoming, Utah, and New Mexico.\1\ In this action, EPA is proposing
to approve the Wyoming section 309 SIP submittal. As required by 40 CFR
51.309, the participating states must adopt a trading program, or what
has been termed the Western Backstop Sulfur Dioxide Trading Program
(backstop trading program or trading program). The 309 backstop trading
program will not be effective

until EPA has finalized action on all section 309 SIPs as the program
is dependent on the participation of the three states. Utah submitted
its 309 SIP to EPA on May 26, 2011 and New Mexico submitted its 309 SIP
to EPA on June 30, 2011. EPA will be taking action on Utah and New
Mexico's 309 SIPs separately. If EPA takes action approving the
necessary components of the 309 backstop trading program to operate in
all of the jurisdictions electing to submit 309 SIPs, the trading
program will become effective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Few states submitted a regional haze SIP prior to the December 17,
2007 deadline, and on January 15, 2009, EPA found that 37 states,
including Wyoming and the District of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands,
had failed to submit SIPs addressing the regional haze requirements. 74
FR 2392. Once EPA has found that a state has failed to make a required
submission, EPA is required to promulgate a FIP within two years unless
the state submits a SIP and the Agency approves it within the two year
period. CAA Sec.  110(c)(1).

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 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 DC Circuit vacated EPA's approval of the WRAP annex (Center
for Energy and Economic Development v. EPA, No. 03-1222 (DC Cir. Feb.
18, 2005)). In response to the court's decision, EPA vacated the annex
requirements adopted as 40 CFR 51.309(h), but left in place the
stationary source requirements in 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4). 71 FR 60612. The
requirements under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4) contain general requirements
pertaining to stationary sources and market trading, and allow states
to adopt alternatives to the point source application of BART.

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

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

A. Projection of Visibility Improvement

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

    \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
GCTVC's goal of 50 to 70 percent reduction in SO2 emissions
by 2040. If the milestones are exceeded in any year, the backstop
trading program is triggered.
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(ii)-(iv), states must include
requirements in the SIP that allow states to determine whether the
milestone has been exceeded. These requirements include documentation
of the baseline emission calculation, monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting (MRR) of SO2 emissions, and provisions for
conducting an annual evaluation to determine whether the milestone has
been exceeded. SIPs must also contain requirements for implementing the
backstop trading program in the event that the milestone is exceeded
and the program is triggered. 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(v).
    The WRAP, in conjunction with EPA, developed a model for a backstop
trading program. In order to ensure consistency between states, states
opting to participate in the 309 program need to adopt rules that are
substantively equivalent to the model rules for the backstop trading
program to meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4). The trading
program must also be implemented no later than 15 months after the end
of the first year that the milestone is exceeded, require that sources
hold allowances to cover their emissions, and provide a framework,
including financial penalties, to ensure that the 2018 milestone is
met.
2. Provisions for Stationary Source Emissions of Nitrogen Oxides and
Particulate Matter
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(vii), a section 309 SIP must
contain any necessary long term strategies and BART requirements for PM
and NOX. Section 169A of the CAA directs states to evaluate
the use of retrofit controls at certain larger, often uncontrolled,
older stationary sources in order to address visibility impacts from
these sources. Specifically, section 169A(b)(2)(A) of the CAA requires
states to revise their SIPs to contain such measures as may be
necessary to make reasonable progress towards the natural visibility
goal, including a requirement that certain categories of existing major
stationary sources\7\ built between 1962 and 1977 procure, install, and
operate the ``Best Available Retrofit Technology'' as determined by the
state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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 Wyoming's Submittal

    The following summarizes how Wyoming's January 12, 2011 submittal
meets the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309, with the exception of 40 CFR
51.309(d)(4)(iii), 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(vii), and 40 CFR 51.309(g),
which as discussed above, EPA plans to propose action on in a future
notice.

A. Projection of Visibility Improvement

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

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 of 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.

                                       Table 1--Baseline and 2018 Visibility at the Colorado Plateau Class I Areas
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             20 Percent worst visibility days         20 Percent best visibility days
                                                                         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                2018                                    2018
                                                                           2000-2004                 Preliminary   2000-2004                 Preliminary
                 Class I area                            State              Baseline    2018 Base    reasonable     Baseline    2018 Base    reasonable
                                                                           monitoring      case       progress     monitoring      case       progress
                                                                              data      (deciview)      case          data      (deciview)      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 Park     CO                                10.3         10.1           9.9          3.1          2.9           2.9
 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), Wyoming is using a comprehensive
emissions tracking system established by WRAP to track emissions within
portions of Oregon, Idaho, Nevada and Utah that have been identified as
part of the CAC (see section B.1(a) of the SIP). The emission tracking
is to ensure that visibility does not degrade on the 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 Description of Comprehensive
Emissions Tracking System in the Wyoming Technical Support Document
(TSD). The TSD can be found in the docket for this notice.
2. Identification of Clean Air Corridors
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(3)(i), the State has provided the
geographic boundaries of the CAC (a map of the CAC can be found in
Section B of the SIP). The WRAP identified the CAC using studies
conducted by the Meteorological Subcommittee of the GCVTC and then
updated the CAC based on an assessment described in the WRAP Policy on
Clean Air Corridors located in the Wyoming TSD. The technical studies
and findings supporting the WRAP Policy on Clean Air Corridors are
located in Chapter 3 of the WRAP TSD.
3. Patterns of Growth Within and Outside of the Clean Air Corridor
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(3)(ii)-(iii), the State has
determined, based on the WRAP Policy on Clean Air Corridors and
technical analysis conducted by the WRAP, that inside and outside the
CAC there is no significant emissions growth occurring at this time
that is causing visibility impairment in the 16 Class I areas of the
Colorado Plateau. The WRAP will summarize annual emission trends within
and outside of the CAC and will assess whether any significant
emissions growth is occurring that could result in visibility
impairment in any of the 16 Class I areas (see section B.1(c) of the
SIP).
4. Actions if Impairment Inside or Outside the Clean Air Corridor
Occurs
    The State, in coordination with other transport region states and
tribes, will review the annual summary of emission trends within the
CAC and determine whether any significant emissions growth has
occurred. If the State identifies significant emissions growth, the
State, in coordination with other transport region states and tribes,
will conduct an analysis of the effects of this emissions growth.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(3)(iv), if this analysis finds that the
emissions growth is causing visibility impairment in the 16 Class I
areas, the State will evaluate the need for additional emission
reduction measures and identify an implementation schedule for such
measures. The State will report on the need for additional reduction
measures to EPA in accordance with the periodic progress reports
required under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i) (see section B.1(d) and (e) of
the SIP).
5. Other Clean Air Corridors
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(3)(v), the State has concluded that no
other CACs can be identified at this time. The State's conclusion is
based on the WRAP Policy on Clean Air Corridors, which determined that
no other CACs could be identified (see section B.1(f) of the SIP).
    We are proposing to determine that the State's SIP meets the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(3).

C. Stationary Source Reductions

1. Provisions for Stationary Source Emissions of Sulfur Dioxide
    As required by 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(i), the State has adopted
SO2 milestone numbers for each year of the program until
2018 (see section C.A1.1of the SIP).\11\ Table 2 shows the milestone

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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Annual SO2
                                    Regional sulfur    emissions used to
                                   dioxide milestone       determine
              Year                  (tons per year      compliance with
                                        (tpy))            the  annual
                                                          milestones
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2008............................  269,083 tons SO2..  Average of 2006,
                                                       2007 and 2008.
2009............................  234,903 tons SO2..  Average of 2007,
                                                       2008 and 2009.
2010............................  200,722 tons SO2..  Average of 2008,
                                                       2009 and 2010.
2011............................  200,722 tons SO2..  Average of 2009,
                                                       2010 and 2011.
2012............................  200,722 tons SO2..  Average of 2010,
                                                       2011 and 2012.
2013............................  185,795 tons SO2..  Average of 2011,
                                                       2012 and 2013.
2014............................  170,868 tons SO2..  Average of 2012,
                                                       2013 and 2014.
2015............................  155,940 tons SO2..  Average of 2013,
                                                       2014 and 2015.
2016............................  155,940 tons SO2..  Average of 2014,
                                                       2015 and 2016.
2017............................  155,940 tons SO2..  Average of 2015,
                                                       2016 and 2017.
2018............................  141,849 tons SO2..  Year 2018 only.
2019 forward, until replaced by   141,849 tons SO2..  Annual; no
 an approved SIP.                                      multiyear
                                                       averaging.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    \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 (see Appendix E of the SIP). A detailed spreadsheet report that
provides the baseline numbers and methodology used to calculate
emissions for sources covered by the program is included in this
docket.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See 2006 Inventory Documentation in the Supporting and
Related materials section of the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(ii), the SIP requires the State to
document any change to the specific methodology used to calculate
emissions at any emitting unit for any year after the base year. Until
the program has been triggered and source compliance is required, the
State will submit an annual emissions report to EPA that documents
prior year emissions for Wyoming sources covered by the 309 program to
all participating states by September 30 of each year. The State will
adjust actual emission inventories for sources that change the method
of monitoring or calculating their emissions to be comparable to the
emission monitoring or calculation method used to calculate the 2006
base year inventory (see section C.A3 of the SIP).
    We are proposing to determine the State's SIP meets the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(ii).
3. Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting of Sulfur Dioxide Emissions
    In order to meet the emission reporting requirements of 40 CFR
51.309(d)(4)(iii), the SIP includes provisions requiring the
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting of actual stationary source
SO2 emissions within the State to determine if the milestone
has been exceeded. The pre-trigger emission inventory requirements are
covered by WAQSR Chapter 14, Section 3, which was included in Wyoming's
April 19, 2012 submittal.
    We are proposing to determine the State's SIP meets the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(iii), and we are proposing to
approve WAQSR Chapter 14, Section 3.
4. Criteria and Procedures for a Market Trading Program
    Until the backstop trading program has been triggered and source
compliance is required, the State shall submit an annual emissions
report for Wyoming sources to all participating states by September
30th of each year. The report shall document actual SO2
emissions during the previous calendar year for all sources subject to
the section 309 program. The WRAP will compile reports from all
participating states into a draft regional emission report for
SO2 by December 31st of each year. This report will include
actual regional SO2 emissions, adjustments to account for
changes in monitoring/calculation methods or enforcement/settlement
agreements, and adjusted average emissions for the last three years for
comparison to the regional milestone. As required by 40 CFR
51.309(d)(4)(iv), based on this compilation of reports from all states
participating in the 309 program, states will determine if the
milestone has been exceeded and will include a determination in a final
regional emissions report that is submitted to EPA. This final report
and determination will be submitted to EPA by the end of March, 15
months following the milestone year (see section C.A.3 of the SIP).
    We are proposing to determine the State's SIP meets the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(iv).
5. Market Trading Program
    Per 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(v), the SIP provides that if the 309
backstop trading program is triggered, the regional emissions report
will contain a common trigger date. In the absence of a common trigger
date, the default date will be March 31st of the applicable year, but
no later than 15 months after the end of the milestone year where the
milestone was exceeded (see section C.3.10 of the SIP). The State's SIP
requires that sources comply, as soon as practicable, with the
requirement to hold allowances covering their emissions. Because the
backstop trading program does not allow allocations to exceed the
milestone, the program is sufficient to achieve the milestones adopted
pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(i) as discussed above. The backstop
trading program is also consistent with the

elements for such programs outlined in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi). The
analysis found in Section V.E. of this notice shows that the backstop
trading program is consistent with the elements for trading programs
outlined in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi).
    We are proposing to determine the State's SIP meets the
requirements of 40 CFR 309(d)(4)(v).
6. Provisions for the 2018 Milestone
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(vi)(A), the SIP has provisions to
ensure that, until a revised implementation plan is submitted in
accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(f) and approved by EPA, emissions from
covered stationary sources in any year beginning in 2018 do not exceed
the 2018 milestone. In order to meet this requirement, the State has
included special provisions for what will be required as part of their
2013 SIP revision required under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10). The State's SIP
provides that the 2013 SIP revision required by 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)
will contain either the provisions of a program designed to achieve
reasonable progress for stationary sources of SO2 beyond
2018 or a commitment to submit a SIP revision containing the provisions
of such a program no later than December 31, 2016 (see section D.2 of
the SIP).
    We are proposing to determine the State's SIP meets the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(vi)(A).
7. Special Penalty Provision for 2018
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(vi)(B), the SIP includes special
penalty provisions to ensure that the 2018 milestone is met. If the
backstop trading program is triggered and it will not start until after
the year 2018, a special penalty shall be assessed to sources that
exceed the 2018 milestone. Wyoming shall seek at least the minimum
financial penalty of $5,000 per ton of SO2 emissions in
excess of a source's allowance limitation. Any source may resolve its
excess emissions violation by agreeing to a streamlined settlement
approach where the source pays a penalty of $5,000 per ton or partial
ton of excess emissions and the source makes the payment within 90
calendar days after the issuance of a notice of violation.
    Any source that does not resolve its excess emissions violation in
accordance with the streamlined settlement approach will be subject to
civil enforcement action, in which the State shall seek a financial
penalty for the excess emissions based on the State's statutory maximum
civil penalties. The special penalty provisions for 2018 will apply for
each year after 2018 until the State determines that the 2018 milestone
has been met. The State will evaluate the amount of the minimum
monetary penalty during each five-year SIP review and the penalty will
be adjusted to ensure that penalties per ton substantially exceed the
expected cost of allowances, and are thus stringent penalties (see
Chapter 14, Section 2(l) and section A.5 of the SIP).
    We are proposing to determine the State's SIP meets the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(vi)(B).

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

    As discussed in Section IV.A of this preamble, if a state adopts an
alternative program designed to replace 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.
Wyoming has included a demonstration of how the 309 program achieves
greater reasonable progress than BART as discussed in the document
titled Demonstration that the SO2 Milestones Provide for
Greater Reasonable Progress than BART (``better-than-BART''
demonstration). Section V.D.5 below contains a discussion on how the
309 backstop trading program achieves greater reasonable progress than
BART. New Mexico and Utah have also submitted SIPs with the same
better-than-BART demonstration as Wyoming, and thus, are relying on a
consistent demonstration across the states.
1. List of BART-Eligible Sources
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(A), the State's better-than-BART
demonstration lists the BART-eligible sources covered by the program
(see Table 3 below). BART eligible sources are identified as those
sources that fall within one of the 26 specific source categories, were
built between 1962 and 1977 and have potential emissions of 250 tons
per year of any visibility impairing air pollutant.
    We are proposing that this satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2)(i)(A).
2. Subject-to-BART Determination
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(B), the State has determined
which sources are subject-to-BART. Each of the section 309 states
provided source modeling that determined which of the BART-eligible
sources within their states to determine which sources cause or
contribute to visibility impairment and are thus subject-to-BART. The
State of New Mexico and Utah relied on modeling by the WRAP to identify
sources subject to BART. Based on the list of identified sources, the
WRAP performed the initial BART modeling for the State of New Mexico
and Utah. The procedures used are outlined in the WRAP Regional
Modeling Center (RMC) BART Modeling Protocol.\14\ The State of Wyoming
performed separate modeling to identify sources subject-to-BART.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 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.
    \15\ 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. If the modeling shows that a source has a 0.5 deciview
impact at any Class I area, that source causes or contributes to
visibility impairment and is subject-to-BART. Table 3 shows the BART-
eligible sources covered by the 309 backstop program and whether they
are subject-to-BART.
    We are proposing to determine that the State's SIP meets the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(B).

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

New Mexico...........................  Dynegy..................  Saunders...............  No.
New Mexico...........................  Giant Refining..........  San Juan Refinery......  No.
New Mexico...........................  Giant Refining..........  Ciniza Refinery........  No.
New Mexico...........................  Xcel Energy.............  SWPS Maddox Station....  No.
New Mexico...........................  Marathon................  Indian Basin Gas Plant.  No.
New Mexico...........................  Public Service of New     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 Ash   No.
                                                                  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 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 are
provided in Section C--Stationary Sources of the State's SIP and WAQSR
Chapter 14 Section 2. The details of the backstop trading program are
discussed in section V.E of this notice. We are proposing to determine
that the State's SIP meets the detailed description requirement in 40
CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iii).
8. Surplus Reductions
    We propose to approve the determination in the State's 309 SIP
submittal that all emission reductions resulting from the emissions
trading program are surplus as of the baseline date of the SIP, as
required by 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iv).
9. Geographic Distribution of Emissions
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3), the State used modeling conducted
by the WRAP to compare the visibility improvement expected from source-
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.16
17 This modeling was conducted during the development of the
Annex to examine if the geographic distribution of emissions under the
trading program would be substantially different and disproportionately
impact any Class I area due to a geographic concentration of emissions.
The modeled visibility improvement for the best and worst days at the
Class I areas for the 309 program is similar to improvement anticipated
from the BART scenario (within 0.1 deciview) on the worst and best
visibility days. Thus, if we assume participation and milestones
consistent with the model, the model demonstrates that the distribution
of emissions between the BART scenario and the 309 trading program are
not substantially different. We note this modeling demonstration
included nine states, many of which are not participating in the
backstop trading program. This modeling demonstration adds support to
our proposed determination, discussed above in this section, that the
regional haze 309 SIP submittal appropriately shows the trading program
will achieve greater reasonable progress than would be achieved through
the installation and operation of BART, as required by 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2)(i)(E).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Voluntary Emissions Reduction Program for Major Industrial
Sources of Sulfur Dioxide in Nine Western States and A Backstop
Market Trading Program, an Annex to the Report of the Grand Canyon
Visibility Transport Commission (September 2000) at C-15 and 16.
    \17\ 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. WAQSR Chapter 14, Section 2(c) contains the
applicability provisions and provides that the backstop trading program
applies to all stationary sources that emit 100 tons per year or more
of SO2 in the program trigger year.
    We are proposing to approve that the State's SIP meets the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(A).
2. Allowance Provisions
    Section C.1.C1 of the SIP and WAQSR Chapter 14, Section 2(g)
contain the allowance allocation provisions as required by 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2)(vi)(B). The rule requires sources to open a compliance
account in order to track allowances and contains other requirements
associated with those accounts. The SIP contains the provisions on how
the State will allocate allowances and requires that the total number
of allowances distributed cannot exceed the milestone for any given
year.
    We are proposing to determine the State's SIP meets the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(B).
3. Monitoring, Recordkeeping and Reporting Provisions
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(C)-(E), WAQSR Chapter 14,
Section 2(h)(i)(A) provides that sources subject to 40 CFR part 75
under a separate requirement from the backstop trading program shall
meet the requirements contained in 40 CFR part 75 with respect to MRR
of SO2 emissions. If a unit is not subject to 40 CFR part 75
under a requirement separate from the trading program, the State
requires that a source use one of the following monitoring methods: (1)
Continuous emission monitoring system for SO2 and flow that
complies with all applicable monitoring provisions in 40 CFR part 75;
(2) if the unit is a gas- or oil-fired combustion device, the
monitoring methodology in Appendix D to 40 CFR part 75, or, if
applicable, the low mass emissions provisions (with respect to
SO2 mass emissions only) of section 75.19(c) of 40 CFR part
75; (3) one of the optional protocols, if applicable, in Appendix A to
WAQSR Chapter 14;\18\ or (4) a petition for 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Appendix A of Chapter 14 contains monitoring requirements
for fuel gas combustion devices at petroleum refineries and kilns
with positive pressure fabric filters. Appendix A specifies the
installation of a continuous fuel gas monitoring system and
predictive flow monitoring system, respectively. Appendix A also
specifies requirements under 40 CFR part 75 sources must follow in
regards to this equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although most sources covered by the backstop trading program will
be able to meet the monitoring requirements stated above, there are
some emission units that are either not physically able to install the
needed equipment or do not emit enough SO2 to justify the
expense of installing these systems. As discussed in section C5.3 of
the SIP, the trading program allows these emission units to continue to
use their pre-trigger monitoring methodology, but does not allow the
source to transfer any allocation to that unit to another source. The
program requires that the allowances associated with emission units
that continue to use their 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.
    WAQSR Chapter 14, Section 2(h)(i)(B) allows sources with any of the
following emission units to apply to establish a special reserve
compliance account: (1) Any smelting operation where all of the
emissions from the operation are not ducted to a stack; (2) any flare,
except to the extent such flares are used as a fuel gas combustion
device at a petroleum refinery; or (3) any other type of unit without
add-on SO2 control equipment, if the unit belongs to one of
the following source categories: cement kilns, pulp and paper recovery
furnaces, lime kilns, or glass manufacturing. Pursuant to 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2)(vi)(E), sources with a special reserve compliance account
are required to submit to the State an annual emissions statement and
sources are required to maintain operating records sufficient to
estimate annual emissions consistent with the baseline emission
inventory submitted in 1998.
    We are proposing to determine the State's SIP meets the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(C)-(E).
4. Tracking System
    As required by 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(F), section C2 of the SIP
provides the overarching specifications for an Emissions and Allowance
Tracking System (EATS). According to the SIP, the EATS must provide
that all necessary information regarding emissions, allowances, and
transactions is publicly available in a secure, centralized database.
The EATS must ensure that each allowance is uniquely identified, allow
for frequent updates, and include enforceable procedures for recording
data. If the program is triggered, the State will work with other
states and tribes participating in the trading program to implement
this system. More detailed specifications for the EATS are provided in
the WEB Emission and Allowance Tracking System (EATS) Analysis in the
State's TSD. The State assumes responsibility for ensuring that all the
EATS provisions are completed as described in its SIP and TSD.
    In addition, the State will work with the other participating
states to designate one tracking system administrator (TSA). The SIP
provides that the TSA shall be designated as expeditiously as possible,
but no later than six months after the program trigger date. The State
will enter into a binding contract with the TSA that shall require the
TSA to perform all TSA functions described in the SIP, such as
transferring and recording allowances (see section A2.2 of the SIP).
    We are proposing to determine that the State's SIP meets the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iv)(F).
5. Account Representative
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(G), WAQSR Chapter 14, Section
2(d) contains provisions for the establishment of an account
representative. The rule requires each source to identify one account
representative. The account representative shall submit to the State
and the TSA a signed and dated certificate that contains a
certification statement verifying that the account representative has
all the necessary authority to carry out the account representative
responsibilities under the trading program on behalf of the owners and
operators of the sources. The certification statement also needs to
indicate that each such owner and operator shall be fully bound by the
account representatives representations, actions, inactions, or
submissions and by any decision or order issued to the account
representative by the State regarding the trading program.
    We are proposing to determine the State's SIP meets the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(G).
6. Allowance Transfers
    The State has established procedures pertaining to allowance
transfers to meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(H). WAQSR
Chapter 14, Section 2(i) contains requirements sources must follow for
allowance transfers. To transfer or retire allowances, the account
representative shall submit the transfer account number(s) identifying
the transferor account, the serial number of each allowance to be
transferred, the transferor's account representative's name and
signature, and date of submission. The allowance transfer deadline is
midnight Pacific Standard Time on March 1 of each year following the
end of the control period. Sources must correctly submit transfers by
this time in order for a source to be able to use the allowance to
demonstrate compliance.
    Section C3 of the SIP provides the procedures the TSA must follow
to transfer allowances. The TSA will record an allowance transfer by
moving each allowance from the transferor account to the transferee
account as specified by the request from the source, if the transfer is
correctly submitted, and the transferor account includes each allowance
identified in the transfer. Within five business days of the recording
of an allowance transfer, the TSA shall notify the account
representatives of both the transferor and transferee accounts, and
make the transfer information publicly available on the Internet.
Within five business days of receipt of an allowance transfer that
fails to meet the requirements for transfer, the TSA will notify the
account representatives of both accounts of the decision not to record
the transfer, and the reasons for not recording the transfer.
    We are proposing to determine that the State's SIP meets the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(H).
7. Compliance Provisions
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(I), the State has provided the
procedures for determining compliance in WAQSR Chapter 14, Section
2(k). Per this section, the source must hold allowances as of the
allowance transfer deadline in the source's compliance account
(together with any current control year allowances held in the source's
special reserve compliance account) in an amount not less than the
total SO2 emissions for the control period from the source.
The State determines compliance by comparing allowances held by the
source in their compliance account(s) with the total annual
SO2 emissions reported by the source. If the comparison of
the allowances to emissions results in emissions exceeding allowances,
the source's excess emissions are subject to the allowance deduction
penalty discussed in further detail below.
    We are proposing to determine that the State's SIP meets the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(I).
8. Penalty Provisions
    WAQSR Chapter 14, Section 2(k)(iii) provides the penalty provisions
required by 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(J). Per this section, a source's
allowances will be reduced by an amount equal to three times the
source's tons of excess emissions if they are unable to show
compliance. Allowances allocated for the following control period will
be the original allowance minus the allowance penalty. If the
compliance account does not have sufficient allowances allocated for
that control period, the required number of allowances will be deducted
from the source's compliance account regardless of the control period
for which they were allocated.

    We are proposing to determine that the State's SIP meets the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(J).
9. Banking of Allowances
    As allowed by 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(K), WAQSR Chapter 14, Section
2(j) allows sources to use allowances from current and prior years to
demonstrate compliance, with some restrictions. Sources can only use
2018 allowances to show compliance with the 2018 milestone and may not
use allowances from prior years. In order to ensure that the use of
banked allowances does not interfere with the attainment or maintenance
of reasonable progress goals, the backstop trading program includes
flow-control provisions. The flow-control provisions are triggered if
the TSA determines that the banked allowances exceed ten percent of the
milestone for the next control year, and thereby ensure that too many
banked emissions are not used in any one year (see section C4 of the
SIP).
    We are proposing to determine the State's SIP meets the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(e)(2)(vi)(J).
10. Program Assessment
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(vi)(L), the SIP contains provisions
for a 2013 assessment and SIP revision. For the 2013 assessment, the
State will work with other participating states to develop a projected
emission inventory for SO2 through the year 2018. The State
will then evaluate the projected inventory and assess the likelihood of
meeting the regional milestone for the year 2018. The State shall
include this assessment as part of the 2013 progress report that must
be submitted under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10) (see section D1 of the SIP).
    We are proposing to determine the State's SIP meets the
requirements of 40 CFR 308(e)(2)(vi)(L).

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

    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(vii), the State submitted another
SIP dated January 12, 2011 that contains the requirements for PM and
NOX BART. EPA plans to act on this submittal in a separate
notice.

G. Mobile Sources

    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(5)(i), the State, in collaboration
with the WRAP, assembled a comprehensive statewide inventory of mobile
source emissions. The inventory included on-road and non-road mobile
source emissions inventories for western states for the 2003 base year
and emission projections for the year 2018.\19\ The inventory shows a
continuous decline in emissions from mobile sources from VOC,
NOX, PM2.5, EC, and OC emissions over the period
of 2003-2018. Between 2003 and 2018, the inventory shows that there
will be a 54 percent decrease in NOX emissions, a 39 percent
decrease in OC, a 24 percent decrease in EC, a 38 percent decrease of
PM2.5, and a 56 percent decrease of VOC. Per 40 CFR
51.309(d)(5)(i)(A), the inventory shows a decline in the required
mobile source emissions categories and therefore no further action is
required by the State to address mobile source emissions (see section
D.1 of the SIP).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Detailed information on the emission inventory is contained
in the ENVIRON Report WRAP Mobile Source Emission Inventories
Update, May 2006. This report is included in the Supporting and
Related Materials section of the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(5)(i)(B), the State reviewed
SO2 emissions from non-road mobile sources. The emission
inventory projections show that there will be a 99 percent decrease in
SO2 emissions from non-road mobile sources for 2003-2018.
The reduction will result from the implementation of EPA's rule titled
Control of Emissions of Air Pollution from Non-road Diesel Engines and
Fuel (see 69 FR 38958). The State determined that a 99 percent
reduction in SO2 from non-road mobile sources is consistent
with the goal of reasonable progress and that no other long-term
strategies are necessary to address SO2 emissions from non-
road mobile sources (see section D.1.c of the SIP).
    We are proposing to determine the State's SIP meets the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(5).

H. Programs Related to Fire

1. Evaluation of Current Fire Programs
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6)(i), the State has evaluated its
existing open burning regulations and all existing federal and private
prescribed fire smoke management programs in the State. The State
evaluated the potential for fire to contribute to visibility impairment
in the 16 Class I areas of the Colorado Plateau, and how visibility
protection is addressed by different entities in planning and
operation. The state of Wyoming relied upon the WRAP report Assessing
Status of Incorporating Smoke Effects into Fire Planning and Operation,
as well as EPA's Interim Air Quality Policy on Wildland and Prescribed
Fire as guides for making this evaluation. (A full copy of these
documents can be found in the Wyoming TSD and the Supporting and
Related materials section of the docket, respectively).
    The State determined that a new smoke management regulation,
incorporated as WAQSR Chapter 10, Section 4 and submitted as part of
the regional haze SIP, would be required to meet the requirements of 40
CFR 51.309(d)(6)(i). WAQSR Chapter 10, Section 4 establishes
requirements for vegetative burners pertaining to the management of
emissions and air quality impacts from smoke on public health and
visibility. WAQSR Chapter 10, Section 4 applies to burns that will emit
more than 0.25 tons of PM2.5 per day. There are two types of
burns specified by the rule. SMP-I burns are those burn projects
expected to generate less than two tons per day of PM10 and
SMP-II burns are those burn projects expected to generate two tons per
day or more of PM10. The following discusses how the
requirements of WAQSR Chapter 10, Section 4 meet the requirements of 40
CFR 51.309(d)(6)(i). The four required program elements are discussed
below and are contained in WAQSR Chapter 10, Section 4.
a. Actions To Minimize Emissions
    In order to minimize emissions, the State's SIP relies on the use
of emission reduction techniques by burners. Any techniques used in
conjunction with burning that reduce the actual amount of emissions
produced from a planned burn project are considered emission reduction
techniques. The SIP requires land managers burning SMP-II burns to use
at a minimum one emission reduction technique for each planned burn
project. SMP-II burners will indicate on the required State
registration form the emission reduction technique(s) utilized for each
planned burn project (WAQSR Chapter 10, Section 4(g)(i)(C)).
b. Evaluation of Smoke Dispersion
    The SIP only allows SMP-I burns to be ignited during daytime hours
when there is a slight breeze and there is no population within 0.5
mile of the burn project in the downwind direction. To comply with this
requirement, the burner will document the time of day of the planned
burn project, the wind direction and wind speed at the time of the burn
project, as well as the distance to a population (WAQSR Chapter 10,
Section 4(f)(iii)).
    For SMP-II burns, the SIP provides the burner with two options
pertaining to the dispersion of smoke and burning. A burner can ignite
a planned burn project during times when the ventilation is classified
as ``Good'' or

better.\20\ Also, a burner can ignite a planned burn project during
times when the ventilation is classified as ``Fair'' and if there is no
population within 10 miles of the planned burn project in the downwind
trajectory (WAQSR Chapter 10, Section 4(g)(i)(D)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Ventilation category is a classification that describes the
potential for smoke to ventilate away from its source. The
classification (Excellent, Very Good, Good, Fair, Poor) is
determined by multiplying the mixing height in feet by the transport
winds in knots, thus providing the ventilation category in knot-
feet. The ventilation category can be found in the National Weather
Service's Fire Weather Forecast, which is the State approved source
for this information
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Alternatives to Fire
    The State SIP requires that burners generating over 100 tons per
year of PM must consider the use of alternatives to burning. Burners
must then document that the use of alternatives to burning were
considered prior to the decision to utilize fire. The documentation
includes citing the feasibility criterion that prevented the use of
alternatives. This documentation must be included on the registration
form provided by the State (WAQSR Chapter 10, Section 4(h)).
d. Public Notification
    For SMP-I burns, the SIP requires that burners must make a good
faith effort to utilize a minimum of one public notification method
specified in the SIP to notify the populations that are located within
one half mile of the planned burn project. The burner must conduct
public notification no sooner than 30 days and no later than two days
in advance of the ignition of the planned burn project. In addition,
the burner will also notify the jurisdictional fire authority per the
requirements of the jurisdictional fire authority,\21\ or, absent any
such requirements, immediately prior to ignition (WAQSR Chapter 10,
Section 4(f)(ii)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Jurisdictional fire authority means an agency,
organization, or department whose purpose is to prevent, manage,
and/or suppress fires in a designated geographic area, including,
but not limited to, volunteer fire departments, fire districts,
municipal fire departments, and federal fire staff.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For SMP-II burns, the SIP requires that burners must make a good
faith effort to utilize a minimum of one public notification method to
notify populations within 10 miles of the planned burn project. The
burner must conduct public notification no sooner than 30 days and no
later than two days in advance of the ignition of the planned burn
project, and will provide documentation of public notification on the
State post burn reporting form. In addition, the burner will also
notify the jurisdictional fire authority per the requirements of the
jurisdictional fire authority or, absent any such requirements,
immediately prior to ignition (WAQSR Chapter 10, Section 4(g)(iii)).
e. Air Quality Monitoring
    Burners of SMP-I burns are required to attend and observe their
planned burn projects periodically (WAQSR Chapter 10, Section
4(f)(iv)). SMP-II burners are required to conduct and document visual
monitoring on all planned burn projects. On a case-by-case basis, SMP-
II burners may also be required by the State to conduct and document
ambient air quality and/or visibility monitoring. The use of monitoring
equipment will be based on the planned burn project's proximity to a
population, nonattainment area, or Class I area (WAQSR Chapter 10,
Section 4(g)(i)(E)).
f. Surveillance and Enforcement
    The Wyoming Environmental Quality Act authorizes surveillance,
inspection, and enforcement for the State's regulations. WAQSR Chapter
10, Section 4(e)(ii) specifies that burners and responsible
jurisdictional fire authorities shall give permission to State staff to
enter and inspect for the purpose of investigating a planned burn
project or unplanned fire event and for determining compliance or non-
compliance.
g. Program Evaluation
    The State will evaluate the fire programs in the State as part of
the future progress reports required by 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10). The State
will use these evaluations to revise Chapter 10, Section 4, as needed.
The provisions for program evaluation are included in the Wyoming Smoke
Management Program Guidance Document, November 2004 (included in the
Supporting and Related Materials section of the docket).
2. Inventory and Tracking System
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6)(ii), the State maintains a fire
emission inventory of the following pollutants: VOC, NOX,
elemental carbon, organic carbon, and fine particulate for fire sources
within the State (Section E.2 of the SIP). In order to maintain the
emission inventory, Chapter 10, Section 4 requires both SMP-I and SMP-
II burners to report to the State on emissions from their burns. To
track fires, the State uses the WRAP Fire Emission Tracking System
(FETS). The FETS is a web-enabled database for planned and unplanned
fire events. The FETS is a planning tool for daily smoke management
coordination, and retrospective analyses such as emission inventories
and regional haze air quality planning tasks (see http://wrapfets.org).
3. Strategy for Use of Alternatives to Burning
    In section E.3 of the SIP, the State is required to work with key
public and private entities to identify and remove administrative
barriers to the use of alternatives to burning for prescribed fire on
federal, State, and private lands, pursuant to 40 CFR
51.309(d)(6)(iii). The process is collaborative and provides for
continuing identification and removal of administrative barriers, and
considers economic, safety, technical and environmental feasibility
criteria, and land management objectives. Should the State determine
that an administrative barrier exists, the State will work
collaboratively with the appropriate public and private entities to
evaluate the administrative barrier, identify the steps necessary to
remove the administrative barrier, and initiate the removal of the
administrative barrier, where it is feasible to do so.
4. Enhanced Smoke Management Program
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6)(iv), the smoke management programs
that operate within the State are consistent with the WRAP Policy on
Enhanced Smoke Management Programs for Visibility (WRAP ESMP). A copy
of this policy can be found in the Wyoming TSD. This policy calls for
programs to be based on the criteria of efficiency, economics, law,
emission reduction opportunities, land management objectives, and
reduction of visibility impacts. The intent of the WRAP ESMP is to
assist states to address visibility effects associated with fire in a
way that is adequate for a SIP (section E.4 of the SIP).
5. Annual Emission Goal
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6)(v), the State will seek to minimize
emission increases in fire through the use of annual emission goal
using the policies set out by Western Regional Air Partnership Policy
on Annual Emission Goals for Fire. A copy of this policy can be found
in the Wyoming TSD. The State will use a collaborative mechanism for
setting annual emission goals and developing a process for tracking
their attainment on a yearly basis. The State will rely on emission
reduction techniques, where appropriate, to minimize emission increases
in fire (section E.5 of the SIP).
    We are proposing that the Sate's SIP meets the requirements of 40
CFR 51.309(d)(6).

I. Paved and Unpaved Road Dust

    WRAP performed an assessment of the impact of dust emissions from
paved and unpaved roads on the 16 Class I areas of the Colorado
Plateau. The WRAP modeled and calculated the significance of road dust
in terms of the impact on visibility on the worst 20 percent days. The
modeled regional impact of road dust emissions ranged from 0.31
deciviews at the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park to 0.08
deciviews at the Weminuche Wilderness Area. (For more information on
the WRAP modeling and assessment of road dust impacts, see Chapter 7 of
the WRAP TSD). Based on the WRAP modeling, the State has concluded that
road dust is not a significant contributor to visibility impairment in
the 16 Class I areas. Since the State has found that road dust is not a
significant contributor to visibility impairment, the State did not
include road dust control strategies in the SIP pursuant to 40 CFR
51.309(d)(7) (section F.1(b) of the SIP).
    The State will track road dust emissions with the assistance of the
WRAP and provide an update on paved and unpaved road dust emission
trends, including any modeling or monitoring information regarding the
impact of these emissions on visibility in the 16 Colorado Plateau
Class I Areas. These updates will include a reevaluation of whether
road dust is a significant contributor to visibility impairment. These
updates shall be part of the periodic implementation plan revisions
pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10) (section I.1(a) of the SIP).
    We propose to determine the State's SIP meets the requirements of
40 CFR 51.309(d)(7).

J. Pollution Prevention

    Under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(8), states must provide information on
renewable energy and other pollution prevention efforts in the state.
40 CFR 51.309(d)(8) does not require states to adopt any new measures
or regulations. Thus, we find the information Wyoming provided adequate
to meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(8) as discussed below.
1. Description of Existing Pollution Prevention Programs
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(8)(i), Table G-1 of the SIP summarizes
all pollution prevention and renewable energy programs currently in
place in Wyoming. The State also determined the renewable energy
generation capacity and production in the State and the State's total
energy generation capacity and production.
2. Incentive Programs
    Per 40 CFR 51.309(d)(8)(ii), section G.4 of the SIP states that the
State has provided incentives for early compliance by participating in
the 309 regional SO2 backstop trading program. The backstop
trading program allows for early reduction credits. Sources of
SO2 subject to the trading program that reduce emissions
prior to the program trigger date shall receive additional emission
allowances. The source may use such allowances for compliance purposes
or may sell them to other parties.
3. Programs To Preserve and Expand Energy Conservation Efforts
    Per 40 CFR 51.309(d)(8)(iii), the State provided a table that
discusses the programs within the State that preserve and expand energy
conservation efforts. Such programs include the ``Energy Exchange
Program'' by PacifiCorp and ``Rebuild America,'' a Department of Energy
resource network. For a complete list of programs in the State, see
table G-5 of the SIP.
4. Potential for Renewable Energy
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(8)(iv), the State has utilized data
from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory to assess areas where
there is the potential for renewable energy to supply power in a cost-
effective manner. The SIP summarizes the potential for renewable energy
development in Wyoming. See Figures G-1 through G-7 of the SIP for more
detailed information.
5. Projections of Renewable Energy Goals, Energy Efficiency, and
Pollution Prevention Activities
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(8)(v), the State has used projections
made by the WRAP of the short and long-term emissions reductions,
visibility improvements, cost savings, and secondary benefits
associated with renewable energy goals, energy efficiency, and
pollution prevention activities. (A complete description of these
projections can be found in the Wyoming TSD in a document titled
Economic Assessment of Implementing the 10/20 Goals and Energy
Efficiency Recommendations.) The document provides overall projections
of visibility improvements for the 16 Class I areas. These projections