From<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2014 7:03 PM
To: Kaleri, Cynthia
Cc<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Dewees, Jason; Bouchard, Andrew; Handrich, Charles;
Howard, Jodi<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: Follow-up to OxyVinyls Test Plan for PVC NESHAPs
Importance: High

Ms. Kaleri,

This submission is a follow-up to our meeting of August 13, 2014, to review
the Site-Specific Performance Test Plan submitted to EPA on July 30, 2014. The
testing will be performed to comply with the CAA114 ICR request and compliance
performance test requirements of the Area Source PVC NESHAP and, as a
contingency, the Major Source PVC NESHAP.  The following paragraphs address
the information you requested during the meeting.

1.      Additional information on the similarity of the two oxidizer/scrubber
trains.

A table is enclosed which summarizes the design and operating characteristics
of both trains.  OxyVinyls does not foresee any significant emission
differences in our two trains.  It should be noted that at the time of the
last performance test in 2011, the two trains were identical.  Subsequent to
that test, OxyVinyls installed the two-stage burner on the "A" oxidizer to
allow for more efficient turn down operation.  We plan to test the "A" train
in our performance test scheduled for next month.  We will then have data from
past CAA
114 tests indicating that both units comply with the area or major source PVC
MACT limits.

2.      Alternate Monitoring Request (AMR) for absorber/scrubber operation.

Enclosed is an AMR, filed as a contingency, should it be necessary for the
LaPorte Plant to comply with the major source limits in the future.  We
respectfully request approval from EPA Region 6 prior to our performance test
of 9/29/2014 to ensure that we capture the correct operational data during the
test.

3.      Request to submit the 2009 30-day THC data  in lieu of gathering new
data for the CAA 114 ICR.

During the meeting, a statement was made that our 2009/2010 was too outdated
to be used.  However, that testing was performed 12/10/2009 through 2/07/2010;
therefore the data less than 5 years old.  Also, as shown in the data provided
in Appendix E of our test plan, the only detectable THC values occurred for a
few hours on only 2 or 3 days when oxidizer startup or shutdown events took
place, which is to be expected with all combustion devices.  Therefore,
OxyVinyls believes that gathering additional days of non detectable THC values
seems of limited value.  We do, however, endorse EPA's continued effort to
correlate THC and TOH data.  As indicated previously, the earliest the plant
can begin testing is 9/22/2014.  Due to staggered annual outages for each
plant, it is not likely that we will have a full 30 days of THC data compiled
for reporting by the 11/17/2014 deadline, however we will make our best effort
to do so.

4.      Request to use the 2011 D/F data in lieu of gathering new  data for
the compliance performance test.

Based upon your verbal feedback, OxyVinyls understands that our prior D/F data
gathered for a CAA114 ICR at our LaPorte Plant can be used in lieu of
gathering additional D/F data.  Accordingly, we are not planning to include
that sampling in our September 2014 testing.

5.      Thermal Oxidizer Firebox Temperature

We understand that EPA (Region 6) is assessing whether the oxidizer
temperature operating limit (OPL) will be set at the  minimum 1-hr run value
or the average of the 1-hr test runs.

6.      Correction to Method 8270 referenced in Test Plan

You indicated that our test plan incorrectly referred to analytical method
8270C in lieu of 8270D.  We acknowledge that this method was updated in
February 2007, and we will modify our plans accordingly (i.e., and utilize the
updated method as required in the performance test).

Finally,  thank you to Mr. Charles Handrich for forwarding the technical
information about alkalinity vs. pH measurement and ORP probes.  We will
review it for possible future application.

We trust this information answers EPA's questions to date.  If you have any
additional questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate
to contact either Ms. Deanna Strain at<PHONE_NUMBER> or Stephanie Engwall at
(972) 404-3291.

Barry Christensen
Mgr. Air Quality
Occidental Chemical
972 404 3209

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication (including any attachments) is for
the sole use of the intended recipient and may contain confidential
information. Unauthorized use, distribution or disclosure of this
communication is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please
promptly notify the sender by return e-mail or telephone and permanently
delete or destroy all electronic and hard copies of this e-mail and any
attachments.


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 19 (Monday, February 1, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 7718]
[FR Doc No: 2021-02096]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Docket Numbers: RP21-399-000.
    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: 1.25.21 Negotiated Rates--
Equinor Natural Gas LLC R-7120-13 to be effective 2/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 1/25/21.
    Accession Number: 20210125-5050.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/8/21.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-400-000.
    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: 1.25.21 Negotiated Rates--
Equinor Natural Gas LLC R-7120-14 to be effective 2/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 1/25/21.
    Accession Number: 20210125-5051.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/8/21.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-401-000.
    Applicants: Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate--Yankee Gas
510802 Release eff 1-26-2021 to be effective 1/26/2021.
    Filed Date: 1/25/21.
    Accession Number: 20210125-5118.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/8/21.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying
the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified date(s). Protests may be considered,
but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: January 26, 2021.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-02096 Filed 1-29-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: March 27, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 60)]
[Notices]
[Page 16402-16403]
[DOCID:fr27mr08-90]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Release No. 34-57538; File No. SR-NSX-2008-07]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change
Relating to Post Only Orders

March 20, 2008.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'')\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on March 17, 2008, the National Stock Exchange, Inc. (``NSX'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change, as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the
Exchange. The Exchange has designated this proposal as one effecting a
change in an existing order-entry system of a self-regulatory
organization under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act,\3\ and Rule
19b-4(f)(5) thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposal immediately
effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comment on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange is proposing to clarify that a Post Only Order will be
rejected without execution if it is immediately marketable against
round-lot orders when entered. The Exchange will permit a Post Only
Order to post if odd-lot orders are the only marketable orders in the
book.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.nsx.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such
statements.

1. Purpose

    A Post Only Order is an order designed to encourage displayed
liquidity on the Exchange. By its terms, a Post Only Order is posted on
the Exchange and does not route away to another trading center.
Currently, a Post Only Order is rejected by the Exchange if the order
is immediately marketable against any order on the Exchange, even if
the order is an odd-lot order.\5\ The Exchange intends to change the
operation of Post Only Orders so that such orders are rejected only if
there are marketable round-lot orders in the book, resulting in Post
Only Orders being posted when an odd lot order is the only marketable
order in the book. In this way, the Exchange will enhance liquidity on
the Exchange by permitting greater ability for the Post Only Order to
be posted in the book.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ In SR-NSX-2008-03, the Exchange adopted a new Zero Display
Reserve Order type and changed the rule text to state that Post Only
Orders that are not Zero Display Reserve Orders will be rejected
without execution if immediately marketable. See Securities Exchange
Act Release No. 57311 (February 12, 2008), 73 FR 9148 (February 19,
2008). The Zero Display Reserve Order type will commence trading in
April 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NSX Rule 11.11(c)(5)(A) states that the ``Post Only Order that is
not a Zero Display Reserve Order will be rejected without execution if
it is immediately marketable when entered.'' To clarify this Rule, the
Exchange is now amending the language to make clear that Post Only
Orders will be rejected only if there are marketable round-lot orders
in the book.\6\ Orders marked Post Only will always be considered
``liquidity providing'' by the Exchange for purposes of application of
the Exchange's fees and rebate programs. By making a Post Only
designation, ETP Holders are able to avoid the risk that their orders
will be considered ``liquidity taking'' for purposes of application of
the Exchange's fees and rebate programs.
    The Exchange's clarification of Rule 11.11(c)(5) is consistent with
Regulation NMS. Only round-lot orders are subject to the requirements
of Regulation NMS in that only round-lot orders must be included in the
Exchange's automated quote.\7\ In contrast, odd-lot orders are not
displayed, and the prohibitions against both locked and crossed markets
and trade-throughs do not apply to odd-lots. Exchanges are permitted to
establish their own rules for handling odd-lot orders and the odd-lot
portions of mixed-lot orders.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Exchange notes that odd lot orders are aggregated where
possible to form round lots.
    \7\ Under Regulation NMS, Rule 600(b)(8) defines ``bid'' or
``offer'' as the bid price or offer price for one or more round lots
of an NMS security. This definition is embedded in the definition of
``quotation'' in Rule 600(b)(62), as well as the definition of
``protected bid'' or ``protected offer'' in Rule 600(b)(57). 17 CFR
242.600(b).
    \8\ See Response No. 7.03 in ``Responses to Frequently Asked
Questions Concerning Rule 611 and Rule 610 of Regulation NMS,''
Division of Trading and Markets, dated June 8, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that this clarification to the Post Only
Order will enhance the use of Post Only Orders. Further, allowing Post
Only Orders greater opportunities to post in the book will increase the
displayed liquidity in the Exchange.

2. Statutory Basis

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6(b) of the Act \9\ in general, and
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\10\ in particular, which requires, among
other things, that the rules of an exchange be designed to promote just
and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling,
processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions
in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition
    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any inappropriate burden on competition.
C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others
    The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on
the proposed rule change.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    The foregoing proposed rule change is filed pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \11\ and subparagraph (f)(5) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder \12\ because it effects a change in an existing order-entry
system of a self-regulatory

organization that: (i) Does not significantly affect the protection of
investors or the public interest; (ii) does not impose any significant
burden on competition; and (iii) does not have the effect of limiting
the access to or availability of the system. The rule change is simply
a language clarification of an existing NSX rule. Furthermore, the rule
change raises no novel issues for the Commission and is consistent with
odd-lot order handling as contemplated by Regulation NMS. Accordingly,
the proposal is effective upon Commission receipt of the filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NSX-2008-07 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NSX-2008-07. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, on official business
days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also
will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of
the NSX. All comments received will be posted without change; the
Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NSX-
2008-07 and should be submitted on or before April 17, 2008.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-6248 Filed 3-26-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 216 (Wednesday, November 7, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 55656-55665]
[FR Doc No: 2018-24372]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2018-0607; FRL-9986-03-Region 8]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Wyoming; Revisions to Regional Haze State Implementation Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a source-specific revision to the Wyoming State Implementation
Plan (SIP) that provides an alternative to Best Available Retrofit
Technology (BART) for Unit 3 at the Naughton Power Plant (``the SIP
revision'') that is owned and operated by PacifiCorp. The EPA proposes
to find that the BART alternative for Naughton Unit 3 would provide
greater reasonable progress toward natural visibility

conditions than BART in accordance with the requirements of section 110
of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and the EPA's Regional Haze Rule (RHR). The
SIP revision was submitted by the State of Wyoming on November 28,
2017.
    The SIP revision for Naughton Unit 3 was submitted along with
Wyoming's 5-year progress report, which is required under the Regional
Haze Rule. However, the EPA is not proposing to act on the 5-year
progress report in this rulemaking.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before December 7, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-
OAR-2018-0607, to the Federal Rulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
www.regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Aaron Worstell, Air Program, EPA,
Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-
1129,<PHONE_NUMBER>, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. General Information
II. Background
III. The SIP Revision for Naughton Unit 3
IV. Clean Air Action Section 110(l)
V. Consultation With FLMs
VI. The EPA's Proposed Action
VII. Incorporation by Reference
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. General Information

A. Definitions

    For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain
words or acronyms as follows:
     The words Wyoming and State mean the State of Wyoming.
     The word Naughton refers to the Naughton Plant.
     The initials BART mean or refer to Best Available Retrofit
Technology.
     The term Class I area refers to a mandatory Class I
federal area.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The initials CAA mean or refer to the Clean Air Act.
     The initials CBI mean or refer to Confidential Business
Information.
     The initials EGU mean or refer to Electric Generating
Unit.
     The words EPA, we, us, or our mean or refer to the United
States Environmental Protection Agency.
     The initials FGR mean flue gas recirculation.
     The initials FIP mean or refer to Federal Implementation
Plan.
     The initials LNB mean or refer to low-NOX
burners.
     The initials MMBtu mean or refer to million British
thermal units.
     The initials NAAQS mean or refer to National Ambient Air
Quality Standards.
     The initials NOX mean or refer to nitrogen oxides.
     The initials OFA mean or refer to over fire air.
     The initials PM mean or refer to Particulate Matter, which
is inclusive of PM10 (particulate matter less than or equal
to 10 micrometers) and PM2.5 (particulate matter less than
or equal to 2.5 micrometers).
     The initials SCR mean or refer to Selective Catalytic
Reduction.
     The initials SIP mean or refer to State Implementation
Plan.
     The initials SO2 mean or refer to Sulfur Dioxide.

B. Docket

    All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov
index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly
available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly
available docket materials are available either electronically in
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Program, Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver,
Colorado 80202-1129. The 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.

II. Background

A. Requirements of the Clean Air Act and the 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 which
impairment results from manmade air pollution.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 42 U.S.C. 7491(a). Areas designated as mandatory Class I
Federal areas consist of national parks exceeding 6,000 acres,
wilderness areas and national memorial parks exceeding 5,000 acres,
and all international parks that were in existence on August 7,
1977. 42 U.S.C. 7472(a). In accordance with section 169A of the CAA,
the EPA, in consultation with the Department of Interior,
promulgated a list of 156 areas where visibility is identified as an
important value. 44 FR 69122 (November 30, 1979). The extent of a
mandatory Class I area includes subsequent changes in boundaries,
such as park expansions. 42 U.S.C. 7472(a). Although states and
tribes may designate as Class I additional areas whose visibility
they consider to be an important value, the requirements of the
visibility program set forth in section 169A of the CAA apply only
to ``mandatory Class I Federal areas.'' Each mandatory Class I
Federal area is the responsibility of a ``Federal Land Manager.'' 42
U.S.C. 7602(i). When we use the term ``Class I area'' in this
section, we mean a ``mandatory Class I Federal area.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA promulgated a rule to address regional haze on July 1,
1999.\3\ The RHR revised the existing visibility regulations \4\ to
integrate provisions addressing regional haze and established a
comprehensive visibility protection program for Class I areas. The
requirements for regional haze, found at 40 CFR 51.308 and 40 CFR
51.309, are included in the EPA's visibility protection regulations at
40 CFR 51.300 through 40 CFR 51.309. The EPA revised the RHR on January
10, 2017.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 64 FR 35714, 35714 (July 1, 1999) (codified at 40 CFR part
51, subpart P).
    \4\ The EPA had previously promulgated regulations to address
visibility impairment in Class I areas that is ``reasonably
attributable'' to a single source or small group of sources, i.e.,
reasonably attributable visibility impairment (RAVI). 45 FR 80084,
80084 (December 2, 1980).
    \5\ 82 FR 3078 (January 10, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CAA requires each state to develop a SIP to meet various air
quality

requirements, including protection of visibility.\6\ Regional haze SIPs
must assure reasonable progress toward the national goal of achieving
natural visibility conditions in Class I areas. A state must submit its
SIP and SIP revisions to the EPA for approval. Once approved, a SIP is
enforceable by the EPA and citizens under the CAA; that is, the SIP is
federally enforceable. If a state elects not to make a required SIP
submittal, fails to make a required SIP submittal or if we find that a
state's required submittal is incomplete or not approvable, then we
must promulgate a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) to fill this
regulatory gap.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 42 U.S.C. 7410(a), 7491, and 7492(a); CAA sections 110(a),
169A, and 169B.
    \7\ 42 U.S.C. 7410(c)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)

    Section 169A of the CAA directs states as part of their SIPs 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' implementation plans to contain such measures as
may be necessary to make reasonable progress toward the natural
visibility goal, including a requirement that certain categories of
existing major stationary sources built between 1962 and 1977 procure,
install, and operate the ``Best Available Retrofit Technology'' as
determined by the states through their SIPs. Under the RHR, states (or
the EPA) are directed to conduct BART determinations for such ``BART-
eligible'' sources that may reasonably be anticipated to cause or
contribute to any visibility impairment in a Class I area.\8\ Rather
than requiring source-specific BART controls, states also have the
flexibility to adopt an emissions trading program or other alternative
program as long as the alternative provides greater reasonable progress
towards improving visibility than BART.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 40 CFR 51.308(e). The EPA designed the Guidelines for BART
Determinations Under the Regional Haze Rule (Guidelines) 40 CFR
Appendix Y to part 51 ``to help States and others (1) identify those
sources that must comply with the BART requirement, and (2)
determine the level of control technology that represents BART for
each source.'' Guidelines, Section I.A. Section II of the Guidelines
describes the four steps to identify BART sources, and Section III
explains how to identify BART sources (i.e., sources that are
``subject to BART'').
    \9\ 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2). WildEarth Guardians v. EPA, 770 F.3d
919 (10th Cir. 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. BART Alternatives

    An alternative program to BART must 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.
    In order to demonstrate that the alternative program achieves
greater reasonable progress than source-specific BART, a state must
demonstrate that its SIP meets the requirements in 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2)(i) through (v). The state or the EPA must conduct 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, termed a ``BART benchmark.'' Where
the alternative program has been designed to meet requirements other
than BART, simplifying assumptions may be used to establish a BART
benchmark.
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(E), the state or the EPA, must
also provide a determination that the alternative program achieves
greater reasonable progress than BART under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3) or
otherwise based on the clear weight of evidence. 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3),
in turn, provides specific tests applicable under specific
circumstances for determining whether the alternative achieves greater
reasonable progress than BART. If the distribution of emissions for the
alternative program is not substantially different than for BART, and
the alternative program results in greater emissions reductions, then
the alternative program may be deemed to achieve greater reasonable
progress. If the distribution of emissions is significantly different,
the differences in visibility between BART and the alternative program,
must be determined by conducting dispersion modeling for each impacted
Class I area for the best and worst 20 percent of days. This modeling
demonstrates ``greater reasonable progress'' if both of the two
following criteria are met: (1) Visibility does not decline in any
Class I area; and (2) there is overall improvement in visibility when
comparing the average differences between BART and the alternative
program across all the affected Class I areas. Alternatively, pursuant
to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2), states may show that the alternative achieves
greater reasonable progress than the BART benchmark ``based on the
clear weight of evidence'' determinations. Specific RHR requirements
for alternative programs are discussed in more detail in Section
III.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Generally, a SIP addressing regional haze must include emission
limits and compliance schedules for each source subject to BART. In
addition to the RHR's requirements, general SIP requirements mandate
that the SIP include all regulatory requirements related to monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting for the alternative's enforceable
requirements. See CAA section 110(a); 40 CFR part 51, subpart K.

D. Reasonable Progress Requirements

    In addition to BART requirements, as mentioned previously, each
regional haze SIP must contain measures as necessary to make reasonable
progress towards the national visibility goal. Finally, the SIP must
establish reasonable progress goals (RPGs) for each Class I area within
the state for the plan implementation period (or ``planning period''),
based on the measures included in the long-term strategy.\11\ If an RPG
provides for a slower rate of improvement in visibility than the rate
under which the national goal of no anthropogenic visibility impact
would be attained by 2064, the SIP must demonstrate, based on the four
reasonable progress factors, why that faster rate is not reasonable and
the slower rate provided for by the SIP's state-specific RPG is
reasonable.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 40 CFR 51.308(d).
    \12\ 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Consultation With Federal Land Managers (FLMs)

    The RHR requires that a state consult with FLMs before adopting and
submitting a required SIP or SIP revision.\13\ Further, the EPA, or
state when considering a SIP revision, must include in its proposal a
description of how it addressed any comments provided by the FLMs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 40 CFR 51.308(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The 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. 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. By meeting the requirements under 40
CFR 51.309, a Transport Region State can be deemed to be making
reasonable progress toward the

national goal of achieving natural visibility conditions for the 16
Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 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: Grand Canyon National
Park, Mount Baldy Wilderness, Petrified Forest National Park,
Sycamore Canyon Wilderness, Black Canyon of the Gunnison National
Park Wilderness, Flat Tops Wilderness, Maroon Bells Wilderness, Mesa
Verde National Park, Weminuche Wilderness, West Elk Wilderness, San
Pedro Park Wilderness, Arches National Park, Bryce Canyon National
Park, Canyonlands National Park, Capital Reef National Park and Zion
National Park.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 309 requires those Transport Region States that choose to
participate 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.
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 the EPA to
address such impacts. 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 the EPA in 1996 for protecting
visibility for the Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau, and the EPA
codified these recommendations as an option available to states as part
of the RHR.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 64 FR 35714, 35749 (July 1, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 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.\16\ In
September 2000, the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP), which is
the successor organization to the GCVTC, submitted an annex to the EPA.
The annex contained SO2 emissions reduction milestones and
detailed provisions of a backstop trading program to be implemented
automatically if voluntary measures failed to achieve the
SO2 milestones. The EPA codified the annex on June 5, 2003
at 40 CFR 51.309(h).\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 64 FR 35714, 35749, 35756 (July 1, 1999).
    \17\ 68 FR 33764, 33767 (June 5, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Five western states, including Wyoming, submitted implementation
plans under section 309 in 2003.\18\ The EPA was challenged by the
Center for Energy and Economic Development (CEED) on the validity of
the annex provisions. In CEED v. EPA, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals
vacated the EPA approval of the WRAP annex.\19\ In response to the
court's decision, the EPA vacated the annex requirements adopted under
40 CFR 51.309(h), but left in place the stationary source requirements
in 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4).\20\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Five states--Arizona, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah and
Wyoming--and Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, New Mexico, initially
exercised this option by submitting plans to the EPA in December
2003. Oregon elected to cease participation in 2006, and Arizona
elected to cease participation in 2010.
    \19\ Ctr. for Energy & Econ. Dev. v. EPA, 398 F.3d 653, 654
(D.C. Cir. 2005).
    \20\ 71 FR 60612 (October 13, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, rather than requiring source-specific BART controls as
explained previously in Section II.B., states have the flexibility to
adopt an emissions trading program or other alternative program if the
alternative provides greater reasonable progress than would be achieved
by the application of BART pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2). Under 40
CFR 51.309, states can satisfy the SO2 BART requirements by
adopting SO2 emissions milestones and a backstop trading
program. Under this approach, states must establish declining
SO2 emissions milestones for each year of the program
through 2018. The milestones must be consistent with the GCVTC's goal
of 50 to 70 percent reduction in SO2 emissions by 2040. The
backstop trading program would be implemented if a milestone is
exceeded and the program is triggered.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(v).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. History of NOX and PM BART Determinations for Naughton Unit 3

1. PacifiCorp Naughton Unit 3
    The PacifiCorp Naughton Power Plant, located in Lincoln County,
Wyoming, is comprised of three pulverized coal-fired units with a total
net generating capacity of 700 megawatts (MW). All three boilers are
tangentially fired and burn subbituminous coal. Naughton Unit 3
generates a nominal 330 MW and commenced operation in 1971. Naughton
Unit 3 is currently equipped with low-NOX burners (LNB) and
overfire air (OFA) to control NOX, sodium-based wet flue gas
desulfurization to control SO2, and an electrostatic
precipitator and flue gas conditioning to control PM.\22\ All three
units are within the statutory definition of BART-eligible units, and
were determined to be subject to BART by Wyoming in its 2011 Regional
Haze SIP (discussed below).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ PM includes both PM10 and PM2.5. See
Definitions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. 2011 Wyoming Regional Haze SIP
    Wyoming submitted its SIP revision to the EPA on January 12, 2011,
to address the requirements of section 309(g) of the RHR. On June 10,
2013, the EPA proposed to approve portions of the Wyoming Regional Haze
SIP, including the State's NOX and PM BART determinations
for Naughton Unit 3.\23\ Specifically, we proposed to approve: (1)
Wyoming's NOX BART emission limit of 0.07 lb/MMBtu (30-day
rolling average), reflecting the existing LNBs plus OFA and the
installation of selective catalytic reduction (SCR), and (2) Wyoming's
PM BART emission limit of 0.015 lb/MMBtu, reflecting installation of a
new full-scale fabric filter.24 25 We also proposed to
approve the associated compliance dates that required that PacifiCorp
comply with the NOX and PM BART emission limits within 5
years from the effective date of our final rule (that is, by March 4,
2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 78 FR 34738 (June 10, 2013); 78 FR 34760 (June 10, 2013).
    \24\ The BART requirement is met through compliance with the
specified emission limit, and may be achieved through measures other
than the referenced control technology.
    \25\ Wyoming's 2011 SIP also contained NOX emission
limits of 259 lb/hr (30-day rolling average) and 1,134 tons/year,
and PM emission limits of 56 lb/hr and 243 tons/year. These hourly
and annual limits are the product of the respective lb/MMBtu
emission limit and the design heat input for an hour or year.
However, EPA's SIP approval only included the lb/MMBtu emission
limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    During the public comment period for the EPA's proposed rule,
PacifiCorp submitted comments indicating that, in place of installing
SCR on Naughton Unit 3 to meet the NOX BART emission limit
of 0.07 lb/MMbtu (30-day rolling average), it planned to convert the
unit to natural gas firing by the end of 2018. On July 5, 2013, at the
request of PacifiCorp, Wyoming issued air quality permit MD-14506 \26\
to modify the Naughton Power Plant by converting Unit 3 to fire natural
gas. In a meeting with PacifiCorp held on October 31, 2013, the company
clarified to the EPA that its comments were a request that the EPA
establish emission limits reflecting conversion to natural gas through
a FIP. In response to PacifiCorp's request, in our final rule the EPA
indicated that while we tentatively supported PacifiCorp's planned
conversion of Naughton Unit 3 to burn natural gas, we were unable to
impose the associated emission limits

through a FIP.\27\ We found no basis to disapprove Wyoming's SIP
requirement for Naughton Unit 3 and were therefore obligated to approve
them. Accordingly, in a final rule dated January 30, 2014, the EPA
approved Wyoming's NOX and PM emission limits for Naughton
Unit 3 that reflected the installation of SCR and a new full-scale
fabric filter baghouse.\28\ At the time, we acknowledged that Wyoming
intended to submit a revision to its regional haze SIP for Naughton
Unit 3 that would reflect conversion to natural gas. We indicated that
we would act on the SIP revision in an expedited timeframe.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ The emission limits and other requirements associated with
the BART alternative were superseded by subsequent permits.
    \27\ 79 FR 5045 (January 30, 2014).
    \28\ 79 FR 5220, 5221 (January 30, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Though we approved Wyoming's NOX and PM BART \29\
emission limits for Naughton Unit 3, we disapproved the monitoring,
record-keeping, and reporting requirements in the SIP for all BART
sources, and promulgated federal requirements in their place for the
reasons stated in our January 30, 2014 final rule and June 10, 2013
proposed rule.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Separately, under 40 CFR 51.309, Wyoming submitted a SIP
satisfying BART requirements for SO2 by adopting
SO2 emission milestones and a backstop trading program.
We finalized approval of Wyoming's 309 program for SO2 on
December 12, 2012. 77 FR 73926 (December 12, 2012).
    \30\ 79 FR 5221, 5222 (January 30, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Wyoming Regional Haze SIP Revision for Naughton Unit 3
    On November 28, 2017, Wyoming submitted a revision to the Wyoming
Regional Haze SIP (``SIP revision'') that provides an alternative to
NOX and PM BART for Naughton Unit 3 (``Naughton Unit 3 BART
Alternative''). This SIP revision is in Appendix B to Wyoming's 5-year
progress report, titled Alternative to BART for NOX and PM for
PacifiCorp Naughton Unit 3, and includes five air quality permits for
the Naughton Power Plant.\31\ The SIP revision is the subject of this
proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ Appendix B to the SIP contains the State's better than BART
demonstration (PDF pp. 184-193) and five air quality permits issued
by the State of Wyoming for the Naughton Power Plant. Permit Nos.
P0021110 (March 7, 2017), PDF pp. 194-198; P0021918 (November 18,
2016), PDF pp. 199-200; MD-15946 (March 20, 2014), PDF pp. 201-205;
MD-14506 (July 5, 2013), PDF pp. 206-215; and MD-6042A2 (March 7,
2012), PDF pp. 216-220.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. The SIP Revision for Naughton Unit 3

A. Summary of the SIP Revision

    The November 28, 2017 SIP revision requires that PacifiCorp cease
firing coal at Naughton Unit 3 no later than January 30, 2019.\32\ The
SIP revision establishes NOX and PM emission limits that
reflect firing natural gas, installation of new low-NOX gas
burners along with a boiler flue gas recirculation system (FGR) for
NOX control, and a limit on annual heat input of 12,964,800
MMBtu/year (based on 12-month rolling average of hourly heat input
values \33\) equal to 40 percent of the maximum design heat input when
firing coal.\34\ Collectively, these control measures will
significantly reduce NOX and PM emissions. The SIP revision
includes the associated compliance deadlines, monitoring, recordkeeping
and reporting requirements. Finally, the SIP revision includes a
determination that the Naughton Unit 3 BART alternative is ``better
than BART'' based on a demonstration that it fulfills the requirements
of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2) for a BART alternative. More information
regarding Wyoming's analysis of the BART alternative is set forth
below, along with the EPA's evaluation of the analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ The coal pulverizers will be removed from service.
    \33\ The EPA understands the ``12-month rolling average heat
input of hourly heat input values'' to mean that the hourly heat
input values are summed for each month, and that these monthly
values are then averaged on a rolling 12-month basis.
    \34\ The State's SIP explains that ``. . . PacifiCorp will no
longer operate the unit as a base-load Electric Generating Unit
(EGU). Instead it will be operated as a peaking unit with a maximum
annual heat input factor of 40%, or 12,964,800 MMBtu based on 12-
month rolling average of hourly heat input values.'' SIP Appendix B
at p. 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. The EPA's Evaluation of the SIP Revision

    The RHR establishes the requirements for BART alternatives. Three
of the requirements are of relevance to our evaluation of the Naughton
Unit 3 BART alternative. We evaluate the proposed alternative to the
NOX and PM BART requirements in the SIP revision with
respect to each of these following elements:
     A demonstration that the emissions trading program or
other alternative measure will achieve greater reasonable progress than
would have resulted from the installation and operation of BART at all
sources subject to BART in the state and covered by the alternative
program.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     A requirement that all necessary emissions reductions take
place during the period of the first long-term strategy for regional
haze.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     A demonstration that the emissions reductions resulting
from the alternative measure will be surplus to those reductions
resulting from the measures adopted to meet requirements of the CAA as
of the baseline date of the SIP.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our evaluation draws from Appendix B of the SIP submittal:
Alternative to BART for NOX and PM for PacifiCorp Naughton Unit 3.
1. Demonstration That the Alternative Measure Will Achieve Greater
Reasonable Progress
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i), a state must demonstrate that
the alternative measure will achieve greater reasonable progress than
would have resulted from the installation and operation of BART at all
sources subject to BART in the state and covered by the alternative
program. For a source-specific BART alternative, the critical elements
of this demonstration are:
     A list of all BART-eligible sources within the state;
     A list of all BART-eligible sources and all BART source
categories covered by the alternative program;
     An analysis of BART and associated emission reductions;
     An analysis of projected emissions reductions achievable
through the BART alternative; and
     A determination that the alternative achieves greater
reasonable progress than would be achieved through the installation and
operation of BART.
    We summarize the SIP revision with respect to each of these
elements and provide our evaluation in the proceeding sections.
 A List of All BART-Eligible Sources Within the State
    Table 1 shows a list of all BART-eligible sources in the State of
Wyoming.

                 Table 1--Wyoming BART-Eligible Sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Company                             Facility
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PacifiCorp................................  Jim Bridger.
Basin Electric............................  Laramie River.
PacifiCorp................................  Dave Johnston.
PacifiCorp................................  Naughton.
PacifiCorp................................  Wyodak.
FMC.......................................  Westvaco.
General Chemical..........................  Green River.
Black Hills...............................  Neil Simpson 1.
Sinclair..................................  Sinclair Refinery.
Sinclair..................................  Casper Refinery.
FMC.......................................  Granger.
Dyno Nobel................................  Dyno Nobel.
OCI Wyoming...............................  OCI Wyoming.
P4 Production.............................  P4 Production.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

 A List of All BART-Eligible Sources and All BART Source
Categories Covered by the BART Alternative Program
    Table 2 shows a list of all the BART-eligible sources covered by
the BART

alternative program along with the BART source category.

                       Table 2--Wyoming Subject-to-BART Sources Covered by the Alternative
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Company                         Facility          Subject-to-BART units       Source category
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PacifiCorp...........................  Naughton Power Plant...  Unit 3.................  Electrical generating
                                                                                units.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Analysis of BART and Associated Emission Reductions
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(C), the SIP must include an
analysis of BART and associated emission reductions at Naughton Unit 3.
As noted above, Wyoming's BART analyses and determinations for Naughton
Unit 3 were included in the 2011 Wyoming Regional Haze SIP. The EPA
approved Wyoming's NOX BART emission limit of 0.07 lb/MMBtu
(30-day rolling average) for Naughton Unit 3 that reflected existing
LNBs plus OFA with the installation of SCR.\38\ In addition to the
NOX BART emission limit of 0.07 lb/MMBtu approved by the
EPA, the 2011 SIP included NOX emission limits of 259 lb/hr
(30-day rolling average) and 1,134 tons/year. We also approved
Wyoming's PM BART emission limit of 0.015 lb/that reflected
installation of a new full-scale fabric filter.\39\ In addition to the
PM BART emission limit of 0.015 lb/MMBtu approved by the EPA, the 2011
SIP included PM emission limits of 56 lb/hr and 243 tons/year. These
BART determinations are shown in the SIP revision, and are summarized
in Table 3 below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ 79 FR 5045 (January 30, 2014).
    \39\ Ibid.

    Table 3--Summary of Wyoming's NOX and PM BART Determinations for
                             Naughton Unit 3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Permitted controls               NOX                   PM
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SCR, New Fabric Filter          0.07 lb/MMBtu (30- 0.015 lb/MMBtu.
 Baghouse.                       day rolling).     56 lb/hr.
                                259 lb/hr (30-day  243 tons/yr.
                                 rolling).
                                1,134 tons/yr....
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We propose to find that Wyoming has met the requirement for an
analysis of BART and associated emission reductions achievable at
Naughton Unit 3 under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(C). Note that the emission
reductions associated with BART, when expressed in tons reduced per
year, are shown in the section that follows.
 Analysis of Projected Emissions Reductions Achievable Through
the BART Alternative
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(D), the SIP must include an
analysis of projected emissions reductions achievable through the BART
alternative. The BART alternative achieves emission reductions through
the following control measures: conversion of the unit to natural gas
firing, installation of new low-NOX gas burners and FGR for
NOX control, and a limit on annual heat input equal to 40
percent of the maximum design heat input (when burning coal), or
12,964,800 MMBtu/year. The SIP revision includes an analysis of the
projection emissions and emissions reductions associated with these
alternative control measures as reproduced in Tables 4 and 5 below.

 Table 4--Naughton Unit 3 Emission Limits When Converted to Natural Gas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Permitted controls               NOX                   PM
------------------------------------------------------------------------
New LNB, FGR..................  0.12 lb/MMBtu (30- 0.008 lb/MMBtu.
                                 day rolling).     30 lb/hr.
                                250 lb/hr (30-day  52 tons/yr.
                                 rolling).
                                519 tons/yr......
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                       Table 5--Naughton Unit 3 Emission Comparison When Converted to Natural Gas
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                NOX                                             PM
               Fuel                  Permitted controls  -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             lb/MMbtu          lb/hr          tons/yr        lb/MMbtu          lb/hr          tons/yr
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coal..............................  SCR, Fabric Filter..            0.07             259           1,134           0.015              56             243
Natural Gas.......................  New LNB, FGR, heat              0.12             250             519           0.008              30              52
                                     input limit.
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional Reduction..............  ....................  ..............               9             615           0.007              26             191
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Here we note that Wyoming calculated the annual emission reductions
achievable through BART based on a potential-to-emit (i.e., allowable)
emissions basis. For example, Wyoming calculated the annual emissions
for NOX under the BART scenario by multiplying the unit's
maximum hourly heat input when

combusting coal of 3,700 MMbtu/hr by the emission limit of 0.07 lb/
MMBtu (30-day rolling average). Wyoming then converted the resulting
value of 259 lb/hr to a tons/yr basis (3700 MMBtu/hr x 0.07 lb/MMBtu x
8760 hr/yr x 1 ton/2000 lb = 1,134 tons/yr). Wyoming's calculation for
BART assumes that the unit would be operated at the maximum design heat
input of 3,700 MMBtu/hr for the entire year (8,760 hours), yielding an
annual heat input of 32,412,000 MMBtu. We disagree with the calculation
methodology Wyoming used to calculate the annual emission reductions
achievable with BART because they were based on a potential-to-emit
basis. By contrast, in our analysis of NOX BART associated
with the 2011 SIP, consistent with the BART Guidelines,\40\ we
calculated the projected emissions with SCR based on past actual
practice rather than the potential-to-emit. Our calculations reflected
the actual operation of Naughton Unit 3 during the baseline period of
2001-2003 during which the heat input of the unit was 24,856,366
MMBtu.\41\ In addition, as opposed to using the 30-day rolling average
emission limit of 0.07 lb/MMBtu, the EPA used the anticipated annual
emission rate with SCR of 0.05 lb/MMbtu.\42\ Since that time, the 0.05
lb/MMBtu annual emission rate has been demonstrated at other PacifiCorp
EGUs in Wyoming that have been retrofitted with SCR and that burn
similar coal to Naughton Unit 3.\43\ The result is that the EPA
calculated that the projected actual annual NOX emissions
with SCR would be 621 tons/year \44\ (as opposed to 1,134 tons/year
calculated by Wyoming). Because the value of 621 tons/year was
calculated consistent with the procedures outlined in the BART
Guidelines, and reflects the projected actual emissions that would have
been achieved with SCR, it sets the appropriate benchmark for making
the better-than-BART comparison. To ensure an apples-to-apples
comparison, it is also appropriate to calculate the projected annual
emissions anticipated with the BART alternative in a commensurate
manner to that for BART (i.e., based on projected actual rather than
allowable emissions). Nonetheless, even if annual emissions for the
BART alternative are calculated based on an allowable emissions basis
as Wyoming has done, the allowed annual emissions for the BART
alternative of 519 tons/year is lower than the EPA's estimate for BART
(SCR) of 621 tons/year. Therefore, regardless of whether the emission
reductions achievable with the BART alternative are assessed on a
projected actual or allowable emissions basis, the anticipated
NOX emissions are lower under the BART alternative than they
are under BART. The same conclusion holds true for PM. Therefore, while
we disagree with the State's potential-to-emit (allowable) methodology,
we propose to agree with the State's conclusion that the emissions
reductions achievable through the alternative measure are better-than-
BART. 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ In general, for the existing sources subject-to-BART, you
will estimate the anticipated annual emissions based upon actual
emissions from a baseline period. 70 FR 39167 (July 5, 2005,
emphasis added).
    \41\ Heat input data was obtained from the EPA Air Markets
Program Data.
    \42\ 79 FR 5043, Table 14 (January 30, 2014); 79 FR 5167
(January 30, 2014).
    \43\ Refer to the EPA Air Markets Program Data for Jim Bridger
Power Plant Units 3 and 4 where SCR was installed in 2015 and 2016,
respectively.
    \44\ Andover Technology Partners, ``Cost of NOX
Controls on Wyoming EGUs'', October 28, 2013; ``Wyoming EGU BART and
Reasonable Progress Cost,'' 10/28/2013. Docket ID EPA-R08-OAR-2012-
0026-0241.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Determination That the Alternative Achieves Greater Reasonable
Progress Than Would Be Achieved Through the Installation and Operation
of BART
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(E), the SIP revision must
provide a determination under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3) or otherwise based on
the clear weight of evidence that the alternative achieves greater
reasonable progress than BART. Two different tests for determining
whether the alternative achieves greater reasonable progress than BART
are outlined in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3). Under the first test, if the
distribution of emissions is not substantially different than under
BART, and the alternative measure results in greater emission
reductions, then the alternative measure may be deemed to achieve
greater reasonable progress. Under the second test, if the distribution
of emissions is significantly different, then dispersion modeling must
be conducted to determine differences between BART and the BART
alternative for each impacted Class I area for the worst and best 20
percent days. The modeling would demonstrate ``greater reasonable
progress'' if both of the following criteria are met: (1) Visibility
does not decline in any Class I area; and (2) there is an overall
improvement in visibility, determined by comparing the average
differences between BART and the alternative over all affected Class I
areas. This modeling test is sometimes referred to as the ``two-prong
test.''
    As stated in the SIP revision, the emissions reductions under
PacifiCorp's BART alternative will occur at the same unit, and
therefore the distribution of emissions under BART and the better-than-
BART alternative are not substantially different. Accordantly, if the
BART alternative results in greater emission reductions, then it may be
deemed to achieve greater reasonable progress. The SIP revision
includes an analysis of the emission reductions achievable with the
BART alternative as compared to BART which indicates that the BART
alternative achieves greater emission reductions. As indicated in
section E. above, the BART alternative will achieve additional
NOX reductions and additional PM reductions that are greater
than achieved by BART.\45\ Therefore, we propose to find that Wyoming's
conclusion that the BART alternative achieves greater reasonable
progress than would be achieved through the installation and operation
of BART is appropriate. 40 CFR 51.308((e)(2)(i)(E).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ These values are based on a comparison of allowable
emissions. See discussion regarding allowable versus actual
emissions in preceding section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. A Requirement That All Necessary Emissions Reductions Take Place
During the Period of the First Long-Term Strategy for Regional Haze
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iii), all necessary emission
reductions must take place during the period of the first long-term
strategy for regional haze. The RHR further provides that, to meet this
requirement, a detailed description of the alternative measure,
including schedules for implementation, the emission reductions
required by the program, all necessary administrative and technical
procedures for implementing the program, rules for accounting and
monitoring emissions, and procedures for enforcement.
    The SIP revision requires PacifiCorp to cease firing coal at
Naughton Unit 3 no later than January 30, 2019.\46\ Because no
emissions will occur between the date that PacifiCorp must cease firing
coal, and when the unit is converted to fire natural gas, the SIP
revision achieves emission reductions before the original BART
compliance date of March 4, 2019. As a result, we do not find that it
is appropriate to disapprove this aspect of the BART alternative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ Appendix B, p. 2 (PDF p. 187). The associated emission and
operational limits apply upon conversion of Naughton Unit 3 to fire
natural gas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, Wyoming has included the relevant implementation
schedules, monitoring, reporting and record keeping requirements in the
SIP revision as presented in section VI of this action. Accordingly, we
propose to

find that the BART alternative meets the requirements of 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2)(iii).
3. Demonstration That Emissions Reductions From the Alternative Measure
Will Be Surplus
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iv), the SIP must demonstrate that
the emissions reductions resulting from the BART alternative measure
will be surplus to those reductions resulting from measures adopted to
meet requirements of the CAA as of the baseline date of the SIP. The
baseline date for regional haze SIPs is 2002. All the NOX
and PM emission reductions required by the BART alternative will occur
in the future and are surplus to reductions resulting from SIP measures
applicable to Naughton Unit 3 as of 2002. Therefore, we propose to find
that the BART alternative complies with 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iv).
    In sum, we propose to find that the BART alternative meets all the
applicable requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2).

IV. Clean Air Act Section 110(l)

    Under CAA section 110(l), the EPA cannot approve a plan revision
``if the revision would interfere with any applicable requirement
concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (as defined in
section 7501 of this title), or any other applicable requirement of
this chapter.'' \47\ The previous sections of the action explain how
the SIP revision will comply with applicable regional haze requirements
and general implementation plan requirements such as enforceability.
With respect to requirements concerning attainment and reasonable
further progress, the Wyoming Regional Haze SIP, as revised by this
action, will result in a significant reduction in emissions compared to
current levels. Moreover, the SIP revision will result in decreased
future NOX and PM emissions as compared to the prior SIP,
and will therefore achieve greater reasonable progress than the prior
SIP. In addition, the area where the Naughton Unit 3 is located has not
been designated nonattainment for any National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS). Thus, the revisions will ensure a significant
reduction in NOX and PM emissions compared to current levels
in an area that has not been designated nonattainment for the relevant
NAAQS at those current levels. Accordingly, we propose to find that
these revisions satisfy section 110(l).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ Note that ``reasonable further progress'' as used in CAA
section 110(l) is a reference to that term as defined in section
301(a) (i.e., 42 U.S.C. 7501(a)), and as such means reductions
required to attain the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) set for criteria pollutants under section 109. This term as
used in section 110(l) (and defined in section 301(a)) is not
synonymous with ``reasonable progress'' as that term is used in the
regional haze program. Instead, section 110(l) provides that the EPA
cannot approve plan revisions that interfere with regional haze
requirements (including reasonable progress requirements) insofar as
they are ``other applicable requirement[s]'' of the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Consultation With FLMs

    There are seven Class I areas in the State of Wyoming. The United
States Forest Service (USFS) manages the Bridger Wilderness,
Fitzpatrick Wilderness, North Absaroka Wilderness, Teton Wilderness and
Washakie Wilderness. The National Park Service (NPS) manages the Grand
Teton National Park and Yellowstone National Park. The RHR grants the
FLMs a special role in the review of regional haze implementation
plans, summarized in section II.E of this preamble.
    Under 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2), Wyoming was obligated to provide the
USFS and the NPS with an opportunity for consultation in development of
the State's proposed SIP revision no less than 60 days prior to the
associated public hearing or public comment opportunity. The SIP
revision does not describe whether this consultation occurred.
Nonetheless, Wyoming made the SIP revision for Naughton Unit 3
available to the public on June 5, 2017. The State's SIP submittal does
not include any comments from the FLMs on its SIP revision for Naughton
Unit 3 during the public comment period. Additionally, the FLMs will
have an opportunity to comment during the public comment period for
this action. We propose to find that while Wyoming did not state in its
proposed SIP revision that it fully met its obligation to provide the
FLMs with an opportunity for consultation in development of the SIP
revision, the FLMs will have nevertheless been provided with two
opportunities to comment.

VI. The EPA's Proposed Action

    In this action, the EPA is proposing to approve Wyoming's SIP
revision for the Alternative to BART for NOX and PM for
PacifiCorp Naughton Unit 3, including the associated emission and
operational limitations, compliance dates, and monitoring, record
keeping, and reporting requirements. Specifically, the EPA is proposing
to approve the following federally enforceable elements of the SIP
revision for Naughton Unit 3:
     The NOX and PM emission limits found in Wyoming
air quality permits MD-15946 (condition 5, lb/hr and tons/year) and
P0021110 (condition 7, lb/MMbtu).
     The operational limit on annual heat input of 12,964,800
MMBtu (based on 12-month rolling average of hourly heat input values)
found in Wyoming air quality permit P0021110 (condition 18).
     The compliance dates found in Wyoming air quality permit
P0021110; specifically including that PacifiCorp shall (1) remove the
coal pulverizers from service (cease firing coal) by January 30, 2019
(P0021110, condition 19), (2) comply with the NOX and PM
emission limits in lb/MMBtu upon conversion to natural gas firing
(P0021110, condition 7), and (3) comply with the heat input limit by
January 30, 2019 (P0021110, condition 18).
     The compliance dates found in Wyoming air quality permit
MD-15946 (conditions 5 and 6), requiring that PacifiCorp comply with
the NOX and PM emission limits in lb/hr and tons/year upon
completion of the initial performance tests.
     The monitoring, record keeping, and reporting requirements
found in air quality permit P0021110 (NOX CEMs, conditions 8
and 9; heat input, condition 18; PM stack testing, condition 10;
reporting, conditions 4, 11, 12, 13, 14, 19; record keeping, condition
17; notification, conditions 4 and 6; good practice, condition 21;
credible evidence, condition 24).

VII. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include regulatory text in an
EPA final rule that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference the SIP amendments described in section VI. of this preamble.
The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally
available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 8 Office
(please contact the person identified in the ``For Further Information
Contact'' section of this preamble for more information).

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements

beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the proposed rule does not have tribal implications and
will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or
preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate
matter, Sulfur oxides.

    Dated: November 2, 2018.
Douglas Benevento,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 8.

    40 CFR part 52 is proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart ZZ--Wyoming

0
2. Section 52.2620 is amended by adding in paragraph (d), the entry
``Naughton Unit 3'' at the end of the table; and by adding in paragraph
(e), in numerical order, the entry ``(32) XXXII'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.2620   Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Final rule citation/
            Regulation                     Rule title         State effective date   EPA effective date           date                  Comments
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
Naughton Unit 3..................  Air Quality SIP Permits    November 28, 2017...  December 7, 2018....  [Federal Register     Only the following
                                    containing BART                                                        citation] November    permit provisions: NOX
                                    Alternative                                                            7, 2018.              and PM emission limits
                                    requirements, MD-15946                                                                       (P0021110, condition 7;
                                    and P0021110.                                                                                MD-15946, condition 5);
                                                                                emission limit
                                                                                compliance dates
                                                                                (P0021110, condition 7;
                                                                                MD-15946, conditions 5
                                                                                and 6); heat input
                                                                                limit and compliance
                                                                                date (P0021110,
                                                                                condition 18);
                                                                                compliance date for
                                                                                coal pulverizers to be
                                                                                removed from service
                                                                                (P0021110, condition
                                                                                19); and associated
                                                                                monitoring,
                                                                                recordkeeping, and
                                                                                reporting requirements
                                                                                (P0021110, conditions
                                                                                4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12,
                                                                                13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 21,
                                                                                and 24).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (e) * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Final rule citation
             Rule No.                      Rule title         State effective date   EPA effective date           date                  Comments
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
(32) XXXII.......................  Wyoming State              November 28, 2017...  December 7, 2018....  [Federal Register     Only includes Appendix
                                    Implementation Plan 5-                                                 citation], November   B: Alternative to BART
                                    Year Progress Report for                                               7, 2018.              for NOX and PM for
                                    Regional Haze, Appendix                                                                      PacifiCorp Naughton
                                    B: Alternative to BART                                                                       Unit 3.
                                    for NOX and PM for
                                    PacifiCorp Naughton Unit
                                    3.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
3. Section 52.2636 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(1)(vii) and
amending paragraph(c)(1) by revising Table 1 to Sec.  52.2636 to read
as follows:

Sec.  52.2636   Implementation plan for regional haze.

    (a) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (vii) PacifiCorp Naughton Power Plant Units 1 and 2 (PM and
NOX); and
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) * * *

                        Table 1 to Sec.   52.2636
 [Emission limits for BART units for which EPA approved the State's BART
                 and Reasonable Progress determinations]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          NOX emission
                                       PM emission      limits--lb/MMBtu
       Source name/BART unit         limits--lb/MMBtu   (30-day rolling
                                                            average)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FMC Westvaco Trona Plant/Unit NS-                0.05               0.35
 1A...............................
FMC Westvaco Trona Plant/Unit NS-                0.05               0.35
 1B...............................
TATA Chemicals Partners (General                 0.09               0.28
 Chemical) Green River Trona Plant/
 Boiler C.........................
TATA Chemicals Partners (General                 0.09               0.28
 Chemical) Green River Trona Plant/
 Boiler D.........................
Basin Electric Power Cooperative                 0.03                N/A
 Laramie River Station/Unit 1.....
Basin Electric Power Cooperative                 0.03                N/A
 Laramie River Station/Unit 2.....
Basin Electric Power Cooperative                 0.03                N/A
 Laramie River Station/Unit 3.....
PacifiCorp Dave Johnston Power                  0.015                N/A
 Plant/Unit 3.....................
PacifiCorp Dave Johnston Power                  0.015               0.15
 Plant/Unit 4.....................
PacifiCorp Jim Bridger Power Plant/              0.03          0.26/0.07
 Unit 1\1\........................
PacifiCorp Jim Bridger Power Plant/              0.03          0.26/0.07
 Unit 2\1\........................
PacifiCorp Jim Bridger Power Plant/              0.03          0.26/0.07
 Unit 3\1\........................
PacifiCorp Jim Bridger Power Plant/              0.03          0.26/0.07
 Unit 4\1\........................
PacifiCorp Naughton Power Plant/                 0.04               0.26
 Unit 1...........................
PacifiCorp Naughton Power Plant/                 0.04               0.26
 Unit 2...........................
PacifiCorp Wyodak Power Plant/Unit              0.015                N/A
 1................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The owners and operators of PacifiCorp Jim Bridger Units 1, 2, 3,
  and 4 shall comply with the NOX emission limit for BART of 0.26 lb/
  MMBtu and PM emission limit for BART of 0.03 lb/MMBtu and other
  requirements of this section by March 4, 2019. The owners and
  operators of PacifiCorp Jim Bridger Units 1, 2, 3 and 4 shall comply
  with the NOX emission limit for reasonable progress of 0.07 lb/MMBtu
  by: December 31, 2022, for Unit 1, December 31, 2021, for Unit 2,
  December 31, 2015, for Unit 3, and December 31, 2016, for Unit 4.

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2018-24372 Filed 11-6-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P