[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 241 (Friday, December 14, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 74355-74372]
[FR Doc No: 2012-29406]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2011-0114; FRL-9751-6]

Approval, Disapproval and Promulgation of State Implementation
Plans; State of Utah; Regional Haze Rule Requirements for Mandatory
Class I Areas Under 40 CFR 51.309

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is partially approving and partially disapproving a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Utah on
May 26, 2011 that addresses regional haze. EPA is also approving
specific sections of a State of Utah SIP revision submitted on
September 9, 2008 to address regional haze. These SIP revisions were
submitted to address the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act)
and our rules that require states to prevent any future and remedy any
existing man-made impairment of visibility in

mandatory Class I areas caused by emissions of air pollutants from
numerous sources located over a wide geographic area (also referred to
as the ``regional haze program''). States are required to assure
reasonable progress toward the national goal of achieving natural
visibility conditions in Class I areas. EPA is taking this action
pursuant to section 110 of the CAA.

DATES: This final rule is effective January 14, 2013.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R08-OAR-2011-0114. All documents in the docket are listed on
the www.regulations.gov Web site. Publicly available docket materials
are available either electronically through www.regulations.gov, or in
hard copy at the Air Program, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, 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 a.m. to 4 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laurel Dygowski, Air Program, Mailcode
8P-AR, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street,
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 EGUs mean or refer to electric generating units.
    vi. The words EPA, we, us or our mean or refer to the United
States Environmental Protection Agency.
    vii. The initials GCVTC mean or refer to the Grand Canyon
Visibility Transport Commission.
    viii. The initials MRR mean or refer to monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting.
    ix. The initials LNB mean or refer to low NOX burner.
    x. The initials NOX mean or refer to nitrogen oxides.
    xi. The initials NSR mean or refer to new source review.
    xii. The initials OFA mean or refer to overfire air.
    xiii. The initials PM2.5 mean or refer to particulate matter
with an aerodynamic diameter of less than 2.5 micrometers.
    xiv. The initials PM10 mean or refer to particulate
matter with an aerodynamic diameter of less than 10 micrometers.
    xv. The initials PSD mean or refer to prevention of significant
deterioration.
    xvi. The initials RHR mean or refer to the Regional Haze Rule.
    xvii. The initials SIP mean or refer to State Implementation
Plan.
    xviii. The initials SO2 mean or refer to sulfur dioxide.
    xix. The initials SOFA mean or refer to separated overfire air.
    xx. The words Utah or State mean or refer to the State of Utah.
    xxi. The initials UAR mean or refer to the Utah Administrative
Rules.
    xxii. The initials WESP mean or refer to wet electrostatic
precipitator.
    xxiii. The initials WRAP mean or refer to the Western Regional
Air Partnership.

Table of Contents

I. Background
    A. Regional Haze
    B. Lawsuits
    C. Our Proposal
    D. Public Participation
II. Final Action
III. Basis for Our Final Action
IV. Issues Raised by Commenters and EPA's Responses
    A. Backstop Trading Program
    B. Legal Issues
    1. EPA Authority
    2. Presumptive Limits
    3. Compliance With the Requirements of 40 CFR 51.308
    4. Utah's Permitting Process
    5. Enforceability of BART Emission Limits
    C. Applicability of the BART Guidelines
    D. PM BART
    E. General Comments on BART
    F. Reasonable Progress
    G. Clean Air Corridors (CACs)
    H. General SIP Comments
    I. Additional Comments Pertaining to BART
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    The CAA requires each state to develop plans, referred to as SIPs,
to meet various air quality requirements. A state must submit its SIPs
and SIP revisions to us for approval. Once approved, a SIP is
enforceable by EPA and citizens under the CAA, also known as being
federally enforceable. If a state fails to make a required SIP
submittal or if we find that a state's required submittal is incomplete
or unapprovable, then we must make a finding to that effect. This
action involves the requirement that states have SIPs that address
regional haze.

A. Regional Haze

    In 1990, Congress added section 169B to the CAA to address regional
haze issues, and we promulgated regulations addressing regional haze in
1999. 64 FR 35714 (July 1, 1999), codified at 40 CFR part 51, subpart
P. The requirements for regional haze, found at 40 CFR 51.308 and
51.309, are included in our visibility protection regulations at 40 CFR
51.300-309. The requirement to submit a regional haze SIP applies to
all 50 states, the District of Columbia and the Virgin Islands. States
were required to submit a SIP addressing regional haze visibility
impairment no later than December 17, 2007. 40 CFR 51.308(b).
    Utah submitted SIPs addressing regional haze on September 9, 2008
and May 26, 2011. (These superseded and replaced prior SIP submittals
dated December 12, 2003 and August 8, 2004).

B. Lawsuits

    In a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Colorado, environmental groups sued us for our failure to take timely
action with respect to the regional haze requirements of the CAA and
our regulations for the State of Utah. As a result of this lawsuit, we
entered into a consent decree. The consent decree requires that we sign
a notice of final rulemaking addressing the regional haze requirements
for Utah by October 31, 2012. We are meeting that requirement with the
signing of this notice of final rulemaking.

C. Our Proposal

    We published our notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal
Register on May 16, 2012 (77 FR 28825). In that notice, we provided a
detailed description of the various regional haze requirements. We are
not repeating that description here; instead, the reader should refer
to our notice of proposed rulemaking for further detail.
    In our proposal, we proposed to approve all sections of the May 26,
2011 SIP submittal as meeting the requirements under 40 CFR 51.309,
with the exception of the requirements under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(vii)
pertaining to nitrogen oxides (NOX) and particulate matter
(PM) best available retrofit technology (BART). EPA proposed to
disapprove the State's NOX and PM BART determinations and
limits in section D.6.d of the SIP for the following four subject-to-
BART electric generating units (EGUs): PacifiCorp Hunter Unit 1,
PacifiCorp Hunter Unit 2, PacifiCorp Huntington Unit 1, and PacifiCorp
Huntington Unit 2. EPA proposed to disapprove these BART determinations
because they do not comply with our

regulations under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1) \1\ pertaining to the factors
that need to be considered as part of a BART determination. EPA also
proposed to disapprove the State's SIP because it does not contain the
provisions necessary to make BART limits practically enforceable as
required by section 110(a)(2) of the CAA and Appendix V to part 51.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 40 CFR 51.309(d)(vii) provides that ``The implementation
plan must contain any necessary long term strategies and BART
requirements for stationary source PM and NOX emissions.
Any such BART provisions may be submitted pursuant to either Sec.
51.308(e)(1) or Sec.  51.308(e)(2).''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We proposed to approve specific sections of the State's September
9, 2008 SIP submittal. Specifically, we proposed to approve Utah
Administrative Rules (UAR) R307-250--Western Backstop Sulfur Dioxide
Trading Program and R307-150--Emission Inventories. R307-250, in
conjunction with the SIP, implements the backstop trading program
provisions in accordance with the requirements of the regional haze
rule (RHR) under 40 CFR 51.309. The purpose of R305-150 is to establish
consistent emission inventory reporting requirements for stationary
sources in Utah to determine whether sulfur dioxide (SO2)
emissions are below the SO2 milestones established for the
trading program.

D. Public Participation

    We requested comments on all aspects of our proposed action and
provided a sixty-day comment period, with the comment period closing on
July 16, 2012. We received comments on our proposed rule that supported
our proposed action and that were critical of our proposed action. In
this action, we are responding to the comments we have received, taking
final rulemaking action, and explaining the bases for our action.

II. Final Action

    We are approving all sections of the May 26, 2011 SIP submittal as
meeting the requirements under 40 CFR 51.309, with the exception of the
requirements under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(vii) pertaining to
NOX and PM BART. EPA is disapproving the State's
NOX and PM BART determinations and limits in section D.6.d
of the SIP for the following four subject-to-BART EGUs: PacifiCorp
Hunter Unit 1, PacifiCorp Hunter Unit 2, PacifiCorp Huntington Unit 1,
and PacifiCorp Huntington Unit 2. EPA is disapproving these BART
determinations because they do not comply with our regulations under 40
CFR 51.308(e)(1). EPA is also disapproving the State's SIP because it
does not contain the provisions necessary to make BART limits
practically enforceable as required by section 110(a)(2) of the CAA and
Appendix V to part 51.
    We are approving specific sections of the State's September 9, 2008
SIP submittal. Specifically, we are approving UAR R307-250--Western
Backstop Sulfur Dioxide Trading Program and R307-150--Emission
Inventories. We are taking no action on the rest of the September 9,
2008 submittal as the May 26, 2011 submittal supersedes and replaces
the remaining sections of the September 9, 2008 SIP submittal. The
State also submitted SIPs on December 12, 2003 and August 8, 2004 to
meet the requirements of the RHR. These submittals have been superseded
and replaced by the September 9, 2008 and May 26, 2011 submittals. We
are taking no action on section G--Long-Term Strategy for Fire Programs
of the May 26, 2011 submittal as we have proposed approval of this
section in a separate notice (76 FR 69217, November 8, 2011).

III. Basis for Our Final Action

    We have fully considered all significant comments on our proposal
and have concluded that no changes from our proposal are warranted. Our
action is based on an evaluation of Utah's regional haze SIP submittal
against the regional haze requirements at 40 CFR 51.300-51.309 and CAA
sections 169A and 169B. All general SIP requirements contained in CAA
section 110, other provisions of the CAA, and our regulations
applicable to this action were also evaluated. The purpose of this
action is to ensure compliance with these requirements. Our authority
for action on Utah's SIP submittal is based on CAA section 110(k).
    We are approving most of the State's regional haze SIP provisions
because they meet the relevant RHR requirements and disapproving others
because they do not meet the requirements of the RHR or other
requirements of the CAA. Most of the adverse comments we received
concerning our proposed approval of the regional haze SIP pertained to
our proposed approval of the SO2 backstop trading program
and disapproval of the BART determinations for PacifiCorp Hunter Unit 1
and Unit 2, and PacifiCorp Huntington Unit 1 and Unit 2. However, the
comments have not convinced us that the State did not meet the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.309 that we proposed to approve or that the
State met the requirements of the RHR or the CAA for which we proposed
disapproval.

IV. Issues Raised by Commenters and EPA's Responses

A. Backstop Trading Program

    EPA has proposed to approve the SO2 backstop trading
program components of the RH SIPs for all participating States and has
done so through four separate proposals: for the Bernalillo County
proposal see 77 FR 24768 (April 25, 2012); for the Utah proposal see 77
FR 28825 (May 15, 2012); for the Wyoming proposal see 77 FR 30953 (May
24, 2012); finally, for the New Mexico proposal see 77 FR 36043 (June
15, 2012). National conservation organizations paired with
organizations local to each state have together submitted very similar,
if not identical, comments on various aspects of EPA's proposed
approval of these common program components. These comment letters may
be found in the docket for each proposal and are dated as follows: May
25, 2012 for Bernalillo County; July 16, 2012 for Utah; July 23, 2012
for Wyoming; and July 16, 2012 for New Mexico. Each of the comment
letters has attached a consultant's report dated May 25, 2012, and
titled: ``Evaluation of Whether the SO2 Backstop Trading
Program Proposed by the States of New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming and
Albuquerque-Bernalillo County Will Result in Lower SO2
Emissions than Source-Specific BART.'' In this section, we address and
respond to those comments we identified as being consistently submitted
and specifically directed to the component of the published proposals
dealing with the submitted SO2 backstop trading program. For
our organizational purposes, any additional or unique comments found in
the conservation organization letter that is applicable to this
proposal (i.e., for the State of Utah) will be addressed in the next
section where we also address all other comments received.
    Comment: The commenter acknowledges that prior case law affirms
EPA's regulatory basis for having ``better than BART'' alternative
measures, but nevertheless asserts that it violates Congress' mandate
for an alternative trading program to rely on emissions reductions from
non-BART sources and electric generating units (EGUs) from compliance
with BART.
    Response: The CAA requires BART ``as may be necessary to make
reasonable progress toward meeting the national goal'' of remedying
existing impairment and preventing future impairment at mandatory Class
I areas. See CAA Section 169A(b)(2) (emphasis added). In 1999, EPA
issued regulations allowing for alternatives to BART based

on a reading of the CAA that focused on the overarching goal of the
statute of achieving progress. EPA's regulations provided states with
the option of implementing an emissions trading program or other
alternative measure in lieu of BART so long as the alternative would
result in greater reasonable progress than BART. We note that this
interpretation of CAA Section 169A(B)(2) was determined to be
reasonable by the D.C. Circuit in Center for Energy and Economic
Development v. EPA, 398 F.3d 653, 659-660 (D.C. Cir. 2005) in a
challenge to the backstop market trading program under Section 309, and
again found to reasonable by the D.C. Circuit in Utility Air Regulatory
Group v. EPA, 471 F.3d 1333, 1340 (D.C. Cir. 2006)(``* * * [W]e have
already held in CEED that EPA may leave states free to implement BART-
alternatives so long as those alternatives also ensure reasonable
progress.''). Our regulations for alternatives to BART, including the
provisions for a backstop trading program under Section 309, are
therefore consistent with the CAA and not in issue in this action
approving a SIP submitted under those regulations. We have reviewed the
submitted 309 trading program SIPs to determine whether each has the
required backstop trading program (see 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(v)), and
whether the features of the program satisfy the requirements for
trading programs as alternatives to BART (see 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)). Our
regulations make clear that any market trading program as an
alternative to BART contemplates market participation from a broader
list of sources than merely those sources that are subject to BART. See
40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(B).
    Comment: The submitted 309 trading program is defective because
only three of nine transport states remain in the program. The Grand
Canyon Visibility Transport Commission (GCVTC) Report clearly stated
that the program must be ``comprehensive.'' The program fails to
include the other western states that account for the majority of
sulfate contribution in the Class I areas of participating states, and
therefore Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau will see little or no
visibility benefit. Non-participation by other transport region states
compounds the program's deficiencies.
    Response: We disagree that the 309 trading program is defective
because only three States remain in the program. EPA's regulations do
not require a minimum number of Transport Region States to participate
in the 309 trading program, and there is no reason to believe that the
limited participation by the nine Transport States will limit the
effectiveness of the program in the three States that have submitted
309 SIPs. The commenter's argument is not supported by the regional
haze regulations and is demonstrably inconsistent with the resource
commitments of the Transport Region States that have worked for many
years in the WRAP to develop and submit SIPs to satisfy 40 CFR 51.309.
At the outset, our regulations affirm that ``certain States * * * may
choose'' to comply with the 40 CFR 51.309 requirements and conversely
that ``[a]ny Transport Region State [may] elect not to submit an
implementation plan'' to meet the optional requirements. 40 CFR
51.309(a); see also 40 CFR 51.309(f). We have also previously observed
how the WRAP, in the course of developing its technical analyses as the
framework for a trading program, ``understood that some States and
Tribes may choose not to participate in the optional program provided
by 40 CFR 51.309.'' 68 FR 33769 (June 5, 2003). Only five of nine
Transport Region States initially opted to participate in the backstop
trading program in 2003, and of those initial participants only Oregon
and Arizona later elected not to submit 309 SIPs.
    We disagree with the commenter's assertion that Class I areas on
the Colorado Plateau will see little or no visibility benefit. Non-
participating states must account for sulfate contributions to
visibility impairment at Class I areas by addressing all requirements
that apply under 40 CFR 51.308. To the extent Wyoming, New Mexico and
Utah sources ``do not account for the majority of sulfate
contribution'' at the 16 class I areas on Colorado Plateau, there is no
legal requirement that they account for SO2 emissions
originating from sources outside these participating states. Aside from
this, the modeling results detailed in the proposed rulemaking 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 of the mandatory Class I areas under the submitted 309 plan.
    Finally, we do not agree with the commenter's characterization of
the GCVTC Report, which used the term ``comprehensive'' only in stating
the following: ``It is the intent of [the recommendation for an
incentive-based trading program] that [it] include as many source
categories and species of pollutants as is feasible and technically
defensible. This preference for a `comprehensive' market is based upon
the expectation that a comprehensive program would be more effective at
improving visibility and would yield more cost-effective emission
reduction strategies for the region as a whole.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission,
Recommendations for Improving Western Vistas at 32 (June 10, 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is apparent that the GCVTC recommended comprehensive source
coverage to optimize the market trading program. This does not
necessitate or even necessarily correlate with geographic
comprehensiveness as contemplated by the comment. We note that the
submitted backstop trading program does in fact comprehensively include
``many source categories,'' as may also be expected for any intrastate
trading program that any state could choose to develop and submit under
40 CFR 51.308(e)(2). As was stated in our proposal, section 51.309 does
not require the participation of a certain number of states to validate
its effectiveness.
    Comment: The submitted 309 trading program is defective because the
pollutant reductions from participating states have little visibility
benefit in each other's Class I areas. The states that have submitted
309 SIPs are ``largely non-contiguous'' in terms of their physical
borders and their air shed impacts. Sulfate emissions from each of the
participating states have little effect on Class I areas in other
participating states.
    Response: We disagree. The 309 program was designed to address
visibility impairment for the sixteen Class I areas on the Colorado
Plateau. New Mexico, Wyoming and Utah are identified as Transport
Region States because the GCVTC had determined they could impact the
Colorado Plateau class I areas. The submitted trading program has been
designed by these transport region states to satisfy their requirements
under 40 CFR 51.309 to address visibility impairment at the sixteen
Class I areas. The strategies in these plans are directed toward a
designated clean-air corridor that is defined by the placement of the
16 Class I areas, not the placement of state borders. ``Air sheds''
that do not relate to haze at these Class I areas or that relate to
other Class I areas are similarly not relevant to whether the
requirements for an approvable 309 trading program are met. As
applicable, any transport region state, with Class I areas not on the
Colorado Plateau, implementing the provisions of section 309 must also
separately demonstrate reasonable progress for any additional mandatory
Class I areas other than the 16 Class I areas located within the state.
See 40 CFR 51.309(g). More broadly, the state must submit a long-term
strategy to

address these additional Class I areas as well as those Class I areas
located outside the state, which may be affected by emissions from the
state. 40 CFR 51.309(g) and 51.308(d)(2). In developing long-term
strategies, the Transport Region States may take full credit for
visibility improvements that would be achieved through implementation
of the strategies required by 51.309(d). A state's satisfaction of the
requirements of 51.309(d), and specifically the requirement for
backstop trading program, is evaluated independently from whether a
state has satisfied the requirements of 51.309(g). In neither case,
however, does the approvability inquiry center on the location or
contiguousness of state borders.
    Comment: The emission benchmark used in the submitted 309 trading
program is inaccurate. The ``better-than-BART'' demonstration needs to
analyze BART for each source subject to BART in order to evaluate the
alternative program. The submitted 309 trading program has no BART
analysis. The ``better-than-BART'' demonstration does not comply with
the regional haze regulations when it relies on the presumptive
SO2 emission rate of 0.15 lb/MMBtu for most coal-fired EGUs.
The presumptive SO2 limits are inappropriate because EPA has
elsewhere asserted that ``presumptive limits represented control
capabilities at the time the BART Rule was promulgated, and that [EPA]
expected that scrubber technology would continue to improve and control
costs would continue to decline.'' 77 FR 14614 (March 12, 2012).
    Response: We disagree that the submitted 309 trading program
requires an analysis that determines BART for each source subject to
BART. Source specific BART determinations are not required to support
the better-than-BART demonstration when the ``alternative measure has
been designed to meet a requirement other than BART.'' See 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2)(i)(C). The requirements of Section 309 are meant to
implement the recommendations of the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport
Commission and are regulatory requirements ``other than BART'' that are
part of a long-term strategy to achieve reasonable progress. As such,
in its analysis, the State may assume emission reductions ``for similar
types of sources within a source category based on both source-specific
and category-wide information, as appropriate.'' See id. The 309 States
used this approach in developing their emission benchmark, and we view
it to be consistent with what we have previously stated regarding the
establishment of a BART benchmark. Specifically, we have explained that
states designing alternative programs to meet requirements other than
BART ``may use simplifying assumptions in establishing a BART benchmark
based on an analysis of what BART is likely to be for similar types of
sources within a source category.'' 71 FR 60619 (October 13, 2006).
    We also previously stated that ``we believe that the presumptions
for EGUs in the BART guidelines should be used for comparisons to a
trading program or other alternative measure, unless the State
determines that such presumptions are not appropriate.'' Id. Our
reasoning for this has also long been clear. While EPA recognizes that
a case-by-case BART analysis may result in emission limits more
stringent than the presumptive limits, the presumptive limits are
reasonable and appropriate for use in assessing regional emissions
reductions for the better than BART demonstration. See 71 FR 60619
(``the presumptions represent a reasonable estimate of a stringent case
BART because they would be applied across the board to a wide variety
of units with varying impacts on visibility, at power plants of varying
size and distance from Class I areas''). The submitted SIP revisions
from the 309 states have accordingly and appropriately, followed our
advice that the presumptions for EGUs in the BART guidelines, generally
``should'' be used for comparisons to the trading program unless the
state determines otherwise.
    EPA's expectation that scrubber technology would continue to
improve and that control costs would continue to decline is a basis for
not regarding presumptive limits as a default or safe harbor BART
determination when the BART Guidelines otherwise call for a complete,
case-by-case analysis. We believe it was reasonable for the developers
of the submitted trading program to use the presumptive limits for EGUs
in establishing the emission benchmark, particularly since the
methodology used to establish the emission benchmark was established
near in time to our promulgation of the presumptive limits as well as
our guidance that they should be used. We do not think the assumptions
used at the time the trading program was developed, including the use
of presumptive limits, were unreasonable. Moreover, the commenter has
not demonstrated how the use of presumptive limits as a simplifying
assumption at that time, or even now, would be flawed merely because
EPA expects that scrubber technology and costs will continue to
improve.
    Comment: The presumptive SO2 emission rate overstates
actual emissions from sources that were included in the BART benchmark
calculation. In addition, states in the transport region have
established or proposed significantly more stringent BART limits for
SO2. Using actual SO2 emission data for EGUs,
SO2 emissions would be 130,601 tpy, not the benchmark of
141,859 tpy submitted in the 309 trading program. Using a combination
of actual emissions and unit-specific BART determinations, the
SO2 emissions would be lower still at 123,529 tpy. Finally,
the same data EPA relied on to support its determination that
reductions under the Cross State Air Pollution Rule are ``better-than-
BART'' would translate to SO2 emissions of 124,740 tpy.
These analyses show the BART benchmark is higher than actual
SO2 emissions reductions achievable through BART. It follows
that the submitted 309 trading program is flawed because it cannot be
deemed to achieve ``greater reasonable progress'' than BART.
    Response: The BART benchmark calculation does not overstate
emissions because it was not intended to assess actual emissions at
BART subject sources nor was it intended to assess the control
capabilities of later installed controls. Instead, the presumptive
SO2 emission rate served as a necessary simplifying
assumption. When the states worked to develop the 309 trading program,
they could not be expected to anticipate the future elements of case-
by-case BART determinations made by other states (or EPA, in the case
of a BART determination through any federal implementation plan), nor
could they be expected to anticipate the details of later-installed
SO2 controls or the future application of enforceable
emission limits to those controls. The emissions projections by the
WRAP incorporated the best available information at the time from the
states, and utilized the appropriate methods and models to provide a
prediction of emissions from all source categories in this planning
period. In developing a profile of planning period emissions to support
each state's reasonable progress goals, as well as the submitted
trading program, it was recognized that the final control decisions by
all of the states were not yet complete, as decisions as they may
pertain to emissions from BART eligible sources. Therefore, we believe
it is appropriate that the analysis and demonstration is based on data
that was available to the states at the time they worked to construct
the SO2

trading program. The states did make appropriate adjustments based on
information that was available to them at the time. Notably, the WRAP
appropriately adjusted its use of the presumptive limits in the case of
Huntington Units 1 and 2 in Utah, because those units were already
subject to federally enforceable SO2 emission rates that
were lower than the presumptive rate. The use of actual emissions data
after the 2006 baseline is not relevant to the demonstration that has
been submitted.
    Comment: SO2 emissions under the 309 trading program
would be equivalent to the SO2 emissions if presumptive BART
were applied to each BART-subject source. Because the reductions are
equivalent, the submitted 309 trading program does not show, by ``the
clear weight of the evidence,'' that the alternative measure will
result in greater reasonable progress than would be achieved by
requiring BART. In view of the reductions being equivalent, it is not
proper for EPA to rely on ``non-quantitative factors'' in finding that
the SO2 emissions trading program achieves greater
reasonable progress.
    Response: We recognize that the 2018 SO2 milestone
equals the BART benchmark and that the benchmark generally utilized the
presumptive limits for EGUs, as was deemed appropriate by the states
who worked together to develop the trading program. If the
SO2 milestone is exceeded, the trading program will be
activated. Under this framework, sources that would otherwise be
subject to the trading program have incentives to make independent
reductions to avoid activation of the trading program. We cannot
discount that the 2003 309 SIP submittal may have already influenced
sources to upgrade their plants before any case-by-case BART
determination under Section 308 may have required it. In addition, the
trading program was designed to encourage early reductions by providing
extra allocations for sources that made reductions prior to the program
trigger year. Permitting authorities that would otherwise permit
increases in SO2 emissions for new sources would be equally
conscious of the potential impacts on the achievement of the milestone.
We note that the most recent emission report for the year 2010 shows a
35% reduction in emissions from 2003. The 309 trading program is
designed as a backstop such that sources would work to accomplish
emission reductions through 2018 that would be superior to the
milestone and the BART benchmark. If instead the backstop trading
program is triggered, the sources subject to the program would be
expected to make any reductions necessary to achieve the emission
levels consistent with each source's allocation. We do not believe that
the ``clear weight of the evidence'' determination referenced in 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2)(E)--in short, a determination that the alternative measure
of the 309 trading program achieves greater reasonable progress than
BART--should be understood to prohibit setting the SO2
milestone to equal the BART benchmark. Our determination that the 2018
SO2 milestone and other design features of the 309 SIP will
achieve greater reasonable progress than would be achieved through BART
is based on our understanding of how the SIP will promote and sustain
emission reductions of SO2 as measured against a milestone.
Sources will be actively mindful of the participating states' emissions
inventory and operating to avoid exceeding the milestone, not trying to
maximize their emissions to be equivalent to the milestone, as this
comment suggests. We note the 2018 milestone constitutes an emissions
cap that persists after 2018 unless the trading program can be replaced
via future SIP revisions submitted for EPA approval that will meet the
BART and reasonable progress requirements of 40 CFR 51.308. See 40 CFR
51.309(d)(4)(vi)(A).
    Comment: In proposing to find that the SO2 trading
program achieves greater reasonable progress than BART, EPA's reliance
on the following features of the 309 trading program is flawed: non-
BART emission reductions, a cap on new growth, and a mass-based cap on
emissions. The reliance on non-BART emission reductions is ``a hollow
promise'' because there is no evidence that the trading program will be
triggered for other particular emission sources, and if the program is
never triggered there will be no emission reductions from smaller non-
BART sources. The reliance on a cap on future source emissions is also
faulty because there is no evidence the trading program will be
triggered, and thus the cap may never be implemented. Existing programs
that apply to new sources will already ensure that SO2
emissions from new sources are reduced to the maximum extent. EPA's
discussion of the advantages of a mass-based cap is unsupported and
cannot be justified. EPA wrongly states that a mass-based cap based on
actual emissions is more stringent than BART. There should not be a
meaningful gap between actual and allowable emissions under a proper
BART determination. A mass-based cap does not effectively limit
emissions when operating at lower loads and, as an annual cap, does not
have restrictive compliance averaging. EPA's argument implies that BART
limits do not apply during startup, shutdown or malfunction events,
which is not correct. The established mass-based cap would allow
sources to operate their SO2 controls less efficiently,
because some BART-subject EGUs already operate with lower emissions
than the presumptive SO2 emission rate of 0.15 lb/MMBtu and
because some EGUs were assumed to be operating at 85% capacity when
their capacity factor (and consequently their SO2 emissions
in tpy) was lower.
    Response: We disagree that it is flawed to assess the benefits
found in the distinguishing features of the trading program. The
backstop trading program is not specifically designed so that it will
be activated. Instead, sources that are covered by the program are on
notice that it will be triggered if the regulatory milestones are not
achieved. Therefore, the backstop trading program would be expected to
garner reductions to avoid its activation. It also remains true that if
the trading program is activated, all sources subject to the program,
including smaller non-BART sources would be required to secure emission
reductions as may be necessary to meet their emission allocations under
the program.
    We also disagree that the features of the 2018 milestone as a cap
on future source emissions and as a mass-based cap has no significance.
As detailed in our proposal, the submitted SIP is consistent with the
requirement that the 2018 milestone does indeed continue as an emission
cap for SO2 unless the milestones are replaced by a
different program approved by EPA as meeting the BART and reasonable
progress requirements under 51.308. Future visibility impairment is
prevented by capping emissions growth from those sources not eligible
under the BART requirements, BART sources, and from entirely new
sources in the region. The benefits of a milestone are therefore
functionally distinct from the control efficiency improvements that
could be gained at a limited number of BART subject sources. While
BART-subject sources may not be operating at 85% capacity today, we
believe the WRAP's use of the capacity assumption in consideration of
projected future energy demands in 2018 was reasonable for purposes of
the submitted demonstration. While BART requires BART subject sources
to operate SO2 controls efficiently, this does not mean that
an alternative to BART thereby

allows, encourages, or causes sources to operate their controls less
efficiently. On the contrary, we find that the SIP, consistent with the
well-considered 309 program requirements, functions to the contrary.
Sources will be operating their controls in consideration of the
milestone and they also remain subject to any other existing or future
requirements for operation of SO2 controls.
    We also disagree with the commenter's contention that existing
programs are equivalent in effect to the emissions cap. EPA's new
source review programs are designed to permit, not cap, source growth,
so long as the national ambient air quality standards and other
requirements can be achieved. Moreover, we have not argued that BART
does not apply at all times or that emission reductions under the cap
are meant to function as emission limitations that are made to meet the
definition of BART (40 CFR 51.301). The better-than-BART demonstration
is not, as the comment would have it, based on issues of compliance
averaging or how a BART limit operates in practice at an individual
facility. Instead, it is based on whether the submitted SIP follows the
regulatory requirements for the demonstration and evidences
comparatively superior visibility improvements for the Class I areas it
is designed to address.
    Comment: The submitted 309 SIP will not achieve greater reasonable
progress than would the requirement for BART on individual sources. The
BART program ``if adequately implemented'' will promote greater
reasonable progress, and EPA should require BART on all eligible air
pollution sources in the state. EPA's proposed approval of the 309
trading program is ``particularly problematic'' where the BART sources
cause or contribute to impairment at Class I areas which are not on the
Uniform Rate of Progress (URP) glide-path towards achieving natural
conditions. EPA should require revisions to provide for greater
SO2 reductions in the 309 program, or it should require BART
reductions on all sources subject to BART for SO2.
    Response: We disagree with the issues discussed in this comment. As
discussed in other response to comments, we have found that the state's
SIP submitted under the 309 program will achieve greater reasonable
progress than source-by-source BART. As the regulations housed within
section 309 make clear, states have an opportunity to submit regional
haze SIPs that provide an alternative to source-by-source BART
requirements. Therefore, the commenter's assertion that we should
require BART on all eligible air pollution sources in the state is
fundamentally misplaced. The commenter's use of the URP as a test that
should apparently be applied to the adequacy of the 309 trading program
as a BART alternative is also misplaced, as there is no requirement in
the regional haze rule to do so.
    Comment: The 309 trading program must be disapproved because it
does not provide for ``steady and continuing emissions reductions
through 2018'' as required by 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(ii). The program
establishes its reductions through milestones that are set at three-
year intervals. It would be arbitrary and capricious to conclude these
reductions are ``steady'' or ``continuous.''
    Response: We disagree and find that the reductions required at each
milestone demonstrate steady and continuing emissions reductions. The
milestones do this by requiring regular decreases. These decreases
occur in intervals ranging from one to three years and include
administrative evaluation periods with the possibility of downward
adjustments of the milestone, if warranted. The interval under which
``steady and continuing emissions reductions through 2018'' must occur
is not defined in the regional haze rule. We find the milestone
schedule and the remainder of the trading program submitted by Utah
does in fact reasonably provide for ``steady and continuing emissions
reductions through 2018.''
    Comment: The WRAP attempts to justify the SO2 trading
program because SO2 emissions have decreased in the three
transport region states relying on the alternative program by 33%
between 1990-2000. The justification fails because the reductions were
made prior to the regional haze rule. The reliance on reductions that
predate the regional haze rule violates the requirement of 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2)(iv) that BART alternatives provide emission reductions
that are ``surplus'' to those resulting from programs implemented to
meet other CAA requirements.
    Response: We did not focus on the WRAP's discussion of early
emission reductions in our proposal. However, we do not understand
commenters claim or agree with this comment. The WRAP's statements
regarding past air quality improvements are not contrary to the
requirement that reductions under a trading program be surplus.
Instead, the WRAP was noting that forward-planning sources had already
pursued emission reductions that could be partially credited to the
design of the 309 SIP. We note that the most recent emission report for
the year 2010 shows a 35% reduction in emissions from 2003. Sources
that make early reductions prior to the program trigger year may
acquire extra allocations should the program be triggered. This is an
additional characteristic feature of the backstop trading program that
suggests benefits that would be realized even without triggering of the
program itself. The surplus emission reduction requirement for the
trading program is not an issue, because the existence of surplus
reductions is studied against other reductions that are realized ``as
of baseline date of the SIP.'' The 1990-2000 period plainly falls
earlier than the baseline date of the SIP, so we disagree that the
WRAP's discussion of that period was problematic or violates 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2)(iv), regarding surplus reductions.
    Comment: EPA must correct discrepancies between the data presented
in the 309 SIPs.\3\ There are discrepancies in what has been presented
as the results of WRAP photochemical modeling. The New Mexico regional
haze SIP proposal shows, for example, that the 20% worst days at Grand
Canyon National Park have visibility impairment of 11.1 deciviews,
while the other proposals show 11.3 deciviews. The discrepancy appears
to be due to the submittals being based on different modeling scenarios
developed by the WRAP. EPA must explain and correct the discrepancies
and ``re-notice'' a new proposed rule containing the correct
information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ This particular comment was not submitted in response to the
proposal to approve Albuquerque's 309 trading program, the earliest
published proposal. It was consistently submitted in the comment
periods for the proposals to approve the 309 trading programs for
NM, WY and UT, which were later in time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: We agree that there are discrepancies in the numbers in
Table 1 of the notices. The third column of the table below shows the
modeling results presented in Table 1 of the Albuquerque, Wyoming and
Utah proposals. The modeling results in the New Mexico proposal Table 1
are shown in the fourth column. The discrepancies come from New Mexico
using different preliminary reasonable progress cases developed by the
WRAP. The Wyoming, Utah and Albuquerque proposed notices incorrectly
identify the Preliminary Reasonable Progress (PRP) case as the PRP18b
emission inventory instead of correctly identifying the presented data
as modeled visibility based on the ``PRP18a'' emission inventory. The
PRP18a emission inventory is a predicted 2018 emission inventory with

all known and expected controls as of March 2007. The preliminary
reasonable progress case (``PRP18b'') used by New Mexico is the more
updated version produced by the WRAP with all known and expected
controls as of March 2009. Thus, we are correcting Table 1, column 5 in
the Wyoming, Utah and Albuquerque of our proposed notices to include
model results from the PRP18b emission inventory, consistent with the
New Mexico proposed notice and the fourth column in the table below. We
are also correcting the description of the Preliminary Reasonable
Progress Case (referred to as the PRP18b emission inventory and modeled
projections) to reflect that this emission inventory includes all
controls ``on the books'' as of March 2009.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             2018 Preliminary   2018 Preliminary
                                                                                reasonable         reasonable
                 Class I area                              State             progress PRP18a    progress PRP18b
                                                                             case  (deciview)   case  (deciview)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grand Canyon National Park....................  AZ                                       11.3               11.1
Mount Baldy Wilderness........................  AZ                                       11.4               11.5
Petrified Forest National Park................  AZ                                       12.9               12.8
Sycamore Canyon Wilderness....................  AZ                                       15.1               15.0
Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park      CO                                        9.9                9.8
 Wilderness.
Flat Tops Wilderness..........................  CO                                        9.0                9.0
Maroon Bells Wilderness.......................  CO                                        9.0                9.0
Mesa Verde National Park......................  CO                                       12.6               12.5
Weminuche Wilderness..........................  CO                                        9.9                9.8
West Elk Wilderness...........................  CO                                        9.0                9.0
San Pedro Parks Wilderness....................  NM                                        9.8                9.8
Arches National Park..........................  UT                                       10.9               10.7
Bryce Canyon National Park....................  UT                                       11.2               11.1
Canyonlands National Park.....................  UT                                       10.9               10.7
Capitol Reef National Park....................  UT                                       10.5               10.4
Zion National Park............................  UT                                       13.0               12.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are not re-noticing our proposed rulemaking as the discrepancies
do not change our proposed conclusion that the SIP submitted by Utah
contains reasonable projections of the visibility improvements expected
at the 16 Class I areas at issue. The PRP18a modeling results show
projected visibility improvement for the 20 percent worst days from the
baseline period to 2018. The PRP18b modeling results show either the
same or additional visibility improvement on the 20 percent worst days
beyond the PRP18a modeling results. We also note there are two
discrepancies in New Mexico's Table 1, column four compared to the
other participating States' notices. The 2018 base case visibility
projection in the New Mexico proposed notice for Black Canyon of the
Gunnison National Park Wilderness and Weminuche Wilderness should be
corrected to read 10.1 deciview rather than 10.0. Notwithstanding the
discrepancies described above, we believe that Utah's SIP adequately
project the improvement in visibility for purposes of Section 309.

B. Legal Issues

    Comment: EPA informally announced in the section 114 request letter
that it had already decided, before publishing the partial disapproval,
to reject certain parts of the Utah regional haze SIP.\4\ EPA also
concluded, before publishing the partial disapproval that Utah had
improperly failed to submit a five-factor BART analysis for the
PacifiCorp units as part of the Utah SIP. PacifiCorp believes that
EPA's actions have prejudiced the process for properly considering the
issues that EPA raised in the partial disapproval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See letter dated October 20, 2011 from Stephen Tuber,
Assistant Regional Administrator, EPA Region 8, to Cathy Woollums,
MidAmerican Energy Holdings Company included in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: We disagree with this comment. Contrary to commenter's
assertions, EPA's October 20, 2011 letter to PacifiCorp ``noted that
the SIP did not contain analyses for the sources determined by the
state to be subject-to-BART''. Therefore, the letter did not contain
EPA conclusions, we requested the information from PacifiCorp, as
explained in the letter relying on our authority under section 114(a)
of the CAA to assist in ``the development of, or in reviewing, a
regional haze SIP,'' in developing a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP),
or ``in carrying out the other responsibilities or actions under the
CAA''.
1. EPA Authority
    Comment: We received comments that courts have consistently held
that states are primarily responsible for SIP development and that
EPA's role is ministerial. One commenter went on to point out that
recently, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals described the federal and
state roles: ``The [Clean Air] Act assigns responsibility to the EPA
for identifying air pollutants and establishing National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS). 42 U.S.C. 7408-7409. The states, by
contrast, bear the primary responsibility for implementing those
standards * * *. To implement the NAAQS, the states must adopt and
administer State Implementation Plans (SIPs) that meet certain
statutory criteria. Sec.  7410. The states have wide discretion in
formulating their plans.'' Luminant Generation Co. v. EPA, 675 F.3d
917, 921 (5th Cir. 2012) (citations and quotations omitted); see also
Train v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 421 U.S. 60, 78 (``Congress
intended the States to retain [a] significant degree of control over
the manner in which they attain and maintain national standards.'')
    Commenters asserted that EPA's partial disapproval fails to account
for the significant discretion granted to Utah under the CAA.
Commenters pointed out that based on the language in the CAA, the RHR,
EPA's own guidance, and case law; the states have significant
discretion when creating their regional haze SIPs, and EPA failed to
properly account for that discretion in analyzing the Utah regional
haze SIP.
    Response: Congress crafted the CAA to provide for states to take
the lead in developing implementation plans, but balanced that decision
by requiring EPA to review the plans to determine whether a SIP meets
the requirements of

the CAA. EPA has the authority to disapprove a SIP if it doesn't meet
with minimum requirements. Our action today is consistent with the
statute.
    Our action does not contradict the Supreme Court's decision in
Train. States have significant responsibilities in implementation of
the CAA and meeting the requirements of the RHR. We recognize that
states have the primary responsibility of drafting an implementation
plan to address the requirements of the CAA Visibility Program. We also
recognize that we have the responsibility of ensuring that the state
plans, including RH SIPs, conform to the CAA requirements. We cannot
approve a RH SIP that fails to address the BART requirements.
    Our action in large part approves the RH SIP submitted by Utah. The
disapproval is not intended to encroach on state authority. This action
is only intended to ensure that CAA requirements are satisfied using
our authority under the CAA.
2. Presumptive Limits
    Comment: We received numerous comments that EPA's proposed
disapproval of Utah's BART determinations and ``EPA's RH FIP'' is
improper because the BART units are meeting the presumptive limits in
the BART guidelines based on the installation of combustion controls.
Commenters went to assert that the BART Guidelines only require the
installation of low NOX burners (LNBs) with overfire air
(OFA) and that EPA determined in the guidelines that SCR was generally
not cost-effective for BART. One commenter noted that EPA has
completely ignored the presumptive BART limits in our proposed action
and that this is contrary to the express requirements in both the RHR
and the BART Rule. The commenter goes on to say that EPA's attempt to
completely ignore the presumptive BART limits makes the presumptive
BART limits meaningless and this is contrary to the requirements of the
CAA and the clear intent of the BART Rule. Commenters asserted that the
BART rule on its face, shows that an alternative analysis is required
only when a source cannot meet the presumptive limits, and that while a
state may choose to establish a limit that is more stringent than the
BART limit, there is nothing in the BART rule that would require a
state to do so.
    Commenters asserted that EPA adopted the presumptive BART limits to
establish the specific control levels required for EGUs. Commenters
point out that EPA has not repealed the presumptive limits from the
promulgated BART rule, but in this action EPA does not acknowledge the
existence of the presumptive limits, as if the presumptive BART limits
were no longer a binding regulation. Instead, commenters pointed out
that EPA focused on the five-factor analysis and ignores the
presumptive limits. Commenters argued that unless and until EPA goes
through notice and comment rulemaking to remove the presumptive
emissions limits and establish other requirements consistent with the
CAA, then EPA must approve a state's BART determination that meets the
presumptive regulatory limits.
    One commenter went on to say that as the Utah 2008 regional haze
SIP explains, ``[t]he technical analysis conducted by EPA to determine
presumptive BART limits for SO2 and NOX is in
effect a BART determination analysis for 419 EGUs including Hunter
Units 1 and 2 and Huntington Units 1 and 2.'' The commenter asserted
that Utah then followed what EPA had done in developing Appendix Y and
thus did a five-factor analysis. Because EPA found presumptive BART
controls for PacifiCorp's Units to be ``cost effective'' and to provide
a ``substantial degree of visibility improvement,'' the commenter
stated it is evident that two key elements of the five-factor test are
met.
    Response: We disagree with the commenters. First, for each source
subject to BART, the RHR, at 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A), requires that
states identify the level of control representing BART after
considering the factors set out in CAA section 169A(g), as follows:
``States must identify the best system of continuous emission control
technology for each source subject to BART taking into account the
technology available, the costs of compliance, the energy and non-air
quality environmental impacts of compliance, any pollution control
equipment in use at the source, the remaining useful life of the
source, and the degree of visibility improvement that may be expected
from available control technology.'' 70 FR 39158. In other words, the
presumptive BART limits do not obviate the need to identify the best
system of continuous emission control technology on a case-by-case
basis considering the five factors. A state may not simply ``stop'' its
evaluation of potential control levels at a slightly lower limit than
the presumptive level of control if more stringent control technologies
or limits are technically feasible. We do not read the BART guidelines
in appendix Y to contradict the requirement in our regulations to
determine ``the degree of reduction achievable through the application
of the best system of continuous emission reduction'' ``on a case-by-
case basis,'' considering the five factors. 40 CFR 51.301 (definition
of Best Available Retrofit Technology); 40 CFR 51.308(e).
    Also, our position is supported by the following language in our
BART guidelines: ``While these levels may represent current control
capabilities, we expect that scrubber technology will continue to
improve and control costs continue to decline. You should be sure to
consider the level of control that is currently best achievable at the
time that you are conducting your BART analysis.'' 70 FR 39171.
    While the presumptive limits are meaningful as indicating a level
of control that EPA generally considered achievable and cost effective
at the time it adopted the BART guidelines in 2005, mere consideration
of the presumptive limits does not eliminate the state's obligation to
consider each of the five statutory factors in section 169A. As we
wrote in our proposal, ``[t]he presumptive limits accordingly are the
starting point in a BART determination * * * unless the state
determines that the general assumptions underlying EPA's analysis are
not applicable in a particular case.'' 77 FR 28841. Nothing in the
State's record supports such a conclusion. Finally, our proposed notice
did not contain a FIP.
3. Compliance With the Requirements of 40 CFR 51.308
    Comment: In its proposed partial disapproval, EPA stated that
``neither the State nor PacifiCorp have completed a BART analysis that
considers the statutory factors under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A),'' and
that the requirement to conduct this analysis ``is found in section
51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A) of the RHR,'' However, as set forth below, EPA's
reliance upon section 51.308 is misplaced.
    EPA's RHR provides two regulatory paths to address regional haze.
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.
Utah submitted its regional haze SIP under section 51.309. Therefore,
the requirements of section 51.308 only apply to the extent required by
section 51.309.
    Importantly, PM and NOX emissions and controls under
section 51.309 are treated differently than PM and NOX
emissions and controls under section 51.308, primarily because these
emissions have a significantly smaller impact on visibility on the
Colorado Plateau. WRAP has estimated ``that

stationary source emissions of PM probably cause less than 2 percent of
the region's visibility impairment, whereas stationary source
NOX emissions result in nitrates that probably cause about 2
to 5 percent of the impairment on the Colorado Plateau.'' See
``Stationary Source NOX and PM Emissions in the WRAP Region:
An Initial Assessment of Emissions, Controls, and Air Quality
Impacts,'' October 1, 2003, at 1--3.13. Several illustrations in the
WRAP NOX report show that nitrate emissions have very little
impact on Class I areas in or near Utah and Wyoming. The WRAP report
also explains that ``controls on point source emissions of
NOX and PM will have a relatively limited effect on
visibility in much of the West, all else being equal.''
    Section 51.309 understandably is intended to focus on
SO2 due to the greater visibility impact. Indeed, the GCVTC
and WRAP focused their efforts primarily on sulfur dioxide emissions
because the research indicated this pollutant had the greatest impact
on visibility. The partial disapproval acknowledges that Utah has
complied with the Section 51.309's SO2 requirements and made
great progress towards improving and protecting visibility as a result.
For all of these reasons, section 51.309 takes a different approach to
PM and NOX emissions than does section 51.308, placing much
less emphasis on the need for significant reductions in PM and
NOX emissions and instead focusing almost all attention and
resources in the western U.S. on reducing SO2 emissions.
    As a result of the lesser emphasis in section 51.309 on PM and
NOX emissions, section 51.309(d)(4)(vii) states that a
regional haze SIP ``must contain any necessary long-term strategies and
BART requirements for stationary source PM and NOX
emissions.'' Section 51.308, by contrast, does not contain a similar
``necessary'' threshold for BART. In other words, if a BART requirement
is not ``necessary'' for a section 51.309 state, such as Utah, to make
``reasonable progress,'' then it is not required as part of the
regional haze SIP. EPA's partial disapproval fails to acknowledge the
importance of the ''necessary'' threshold in its own rules, and fails
to identify how Utah's BART determinations do not meet this
``necessary'' threshold.
    Response: We disagree with the comment. As explained in our
proposed rulemaking for Section 51.309(d)(4)(viii) we explained that
the provision ``is intended to clarify that if EPA determines that the
SO2 emission reductions milestones and backstop trading
program submitted in the Section 51.309 SIP makes greater reasonable
progress than BART for SO2, this will not constitute a
determination that BART for PM or NOX is satisfied for any
sources which would otherwise be subject to BART for those pollutants''
(emphasis added). 70 FR 44169 (Aug. 1, 2005). EPA does not interpret
this statement to mean that there are different BART requirements for
Section 308 and 308 RH SIPs. EPA's proposed rulemaking made no finding
that BART determinations conducted for a state submitting a RH SIP
under Section 51.309 should be conducted any differently than a state
submitting a RH FIP under only Section 308. The use of the word
``necessary'' in Section 51.309(d)(4)(viii) was to explain that some
states may have BART NOx emission limitations, while others may not. As
already explained elsewhere in our proposal on the Utah SIP and our
response to other comments, Utah did not conduct a proper evaluation of
the five statutory factors, as required by 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A)
and section 169A(g) of the CAA.
    EPA also disagrees with commenter's assertion that a BART
submission is discretionary. 30 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(viii) is clear in that
the implementation plan ``must'' contain BART requirements. The
proposed regional haze rulemaking explained that the provision that
provides that ``[a]ny such BART provisions may be submitted pursuant to
either Sec.  51.308(e)(1) or 51.308(e)(2),'' was included to ``allow
States the flexibility to address these BART provisions either on a
source-by-source basis under Section 51.308(e)(1), or through an
alternative strategy under Section 51.308(e)(2).'' 70 FR 44169 (August
1, 2005).
    Moreover, EPA's proposed regional haze rule made clear that ``[i]n
limited circumstances, it may be possible for a State to demonstrate
that an alternative program which controls only emissions from
SO2 could achieve greater visibility improvement than
application of source-specific BART controls on emissions of
SO2, NOX and/or PM. We nevertheless believe that
such a showing will be quite difficult to make in most geographic
areas, given that controls on SO2 emissions alone in most
cases will result in increased formation of ammonium nitrate
particles.'' 70 FR 44169 (Aug. 1, 2005). Utah's RH SIP does not include
a demonstration that the backstop SO2 trading program under
Section 51.309 achieves greater visibility improvement than application
of source-specific PM BART controls. Therefore, Utah's Section 51.309
SIP does not provide the adequate level of visibility improvement to
meet the BART requirements.
    Comment: Utah was not required to comply with subsection
51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A) because it had complied with subsection
51.308(e)(l)(ii)(B). Subsection 51.308(e)(1) provides, ``To address the
requirements for BART, the State must submit an implementation plan
containing the following plan elements and include documentation for
all required analyses.'' One of these elements is a ``determination of
BART for each BART-eligible source,'' which may be ``based on an
analysis'' of the five-factor test, Sec.  51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A), or, in
the case of ``fossil-fuel fired power plants having a total generating
capacity greater than 750 megawatts,'' ``must be made pursuant to the
guidelines in appendix Y of this part,'' Sec.  51.308(e)(l)(ii)(B).
Because Utah's regional haze SIP properly relied on Appendix Y, and
thus satisfied subsection (B), it was incorrect for EPA to reject
Utah's analysis as not complying with subsection (A).
    Response: We disagree with this comment. The State must comply at
all times with the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A). In
addition, the State must comply with the requirements of 40 CFR
51.308(e)(1)(ii)(B) for sources that are greater than 750 MW. As we
have stated in our proposed notice and elsewhere in our response to
comments, the State did not perform an analysis pursuant to the five
factors required by the RHR and BART Guidelines, thus the State's SIP
does not meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A) or 40 CFR
51.308(e)(1)(ii)(B).
4. Utah's Permitting Process
    Comment: EPA is overlooking how Utah's permitting program supports
the decisions it made in Utah's regional haze SIP. In this instance,
EPA's comment disregards the review that Utah completed through its new
source review (NSR) program. That review established the emission
limits and monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting (MRR) requirements
for NOX and PM.
    The notice of intent (NOI) for the pollution control project at
Huntington Unit 2 was submitted in October 2004 and the approval order
(AO) was issued in 2005. Because all four BART eligible units are
essentially identical,\5\ this AO established the requirements that
were used for all four units. The NOI for the pollution control
projects at Hunter

Units 1 and 2 was submitted in June 2006 and the AO was issued in
April, 2008. The NOI for the pollution control project at Huntington
Unit 1 was submitted in April 2008 and the AO issued in August 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The four units are PacifiCorp Hunter Units 1 and 2 and
Huntington Units 1 and 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When BART was evaluated for NOX in the 2008 SIP, Utah
relied on the technical review that had been completed through the NSR
program to justify the emission limits and MRR requirements in the AO.
These limits were then evaluated to determine whether the existing
controls satisfied the requirement for BART. Utah, in its regional haze
SIP, determined that the existing controls met the BART requirement,
and therefore no additional controls were required. It is a complete
misrepresentation of the extensive process Utah undertook to say that
the State determined the BART limit without any analysis.
    Response: We disagree with this comment. While Utah may have
considered BART controls through its NSR permitting program, as we have
pointed out in our proposed notice and in our responses above, the
State did not perform the required five-factor BART analysis pursuant
to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1).
5. Enforceability of BART Emission Limits
    Comment: The applicable requirements in the AOs for the Hunter and
Huntington plants have been incorporated into the operating permits for
these plants under authority of R307-415. The operating permit program
was designed to ensure that applicable requirements are clear and are
enforceable. A source that violates one or more enforceable permit
conditions is subject to an enforcement action including, but not
limited to, penalties and corrective action. Enforcement actions may be
initiated by the local permitting authority, EPA or, in many cases,
through citizen suits.
    Utah's operating permit rule requires detailed monitoring,
reporting, and recordkeeping (MRR) (see R307-415-6a(3)) to ensure that
all emission limits are practically enforceable. If MRR provisions are
changed in the AO, the operating permit rules provide a backstop to
ensure that appropriate MRR occurs for each emission limit. R307-415-8,
Permit Review by EPA and Affected States, describes the process by
which EPA may veto the operating permit: ``If EPA objects to the
issuance of a permit in writing within 45 days of receipt of the
proposed permit and all necessary supporting information, then the
Executive Secretary shall not issue the permit. If the Executive
Secretary fails, within 90 days after the date of an objection by EPA,
to revise and submit a proposed permit in response to the objection,
EPA may issue or deny the permit in accordance with the requirements of
the Federal program promulgated under Title V of the Act. R307-415-
8(3).''
    In disapproving Utah's regional haze SIP because ``EPA does not
consider operating permit conditions adequate to meet the MRR and
enforceability requirement'', EPA is thwarting the purpose of the Title
V program, as enacted under the 1990 Amendments to the CAA. Taking
EPA's position would require a SIP revision when an individual source
desires to make a change to its AO and Title V permit. The drafters of
the 1990 Amendments thought otherwise: ``The concept behind this new
[Title V] permit program is to minimize, if not eliminate, the degree
to which decisions relating to individual major sources require SIP
actions. Individual source issues should be resolved in the permit
process, consistent with the SIP. EPA must avoid duplication between
the SIP and permit processes.'' Utah's rule is consistent with the
purpose of Title V as enacted in the 1990 Amendments to the CAA and
with Part 70 rules adopted there under. Moreover, if there are
inadequate monitoring requirements in a source's Title V permit, the
State, consistent with 40 CFR 70.6(c)(1), may supplement those
requirements to rectify the inadequacy. Sierra Club v. EPA, 536 F.3d
675, 680 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
    EPA is attempting to do through its partial disapproval of Utah's
SIP what the D.C. Court of Appeals struck down in Sierra Club. After
reversing course numerous times, in 2006 EPA adopted Part 70 rules
prohibiting state and local authorities from supplementing inadequate
monitoring requirements; instead EPA proposed to remedy such
inadequacies by undertaking a ``programmatic'' strategy. See 71 FR
75422 (Dec. 15, 2006). At the same time as EPA announced its
prohibition, it failed to correct monitoring deficiencies in Title V
permits through a programmatic fix, which resulted in thousands of
Title V permits containing inadequate monitoring requirements. In
Sierra Club, the Court held ``if Congress meant that potentially
thousands of permits could be issued without adequate monitoring
requirements then it would not have said `each permit shall set forth
monitoring requirements to assure compliance with the permit terms and
conditions.'' Sierra Club, 535 F.3d at 678 (citing 42 U.S.C. 7661c(c).
The Court concluded that permitting authorities may supplement
inadequate monitoring requirements. Id.
    EPA has ample means of federally enforcing whether the four EGUs in
Utah either now or in the future abide by adequate MMR requirements
through EPA's Title V authority and through Utah's other air permitting
program. EPA should not resort to imposing draconian requirements on
the State's SIP program and making the State's permit program
practically unworkable by insisting that MRR requirements be contained
in the regional haze SIP.
    Response: EPA disagrees with this comment. EPA's approach in this
action is entirely consistent with section 169A(b)(2) which, as we
wrote when we promulgated the BART Guidelines, ``provides that EPA must
require SIPs to contain emission limits, schedules of compliance, and
other measures as may be necessary to make reasonable progress towards
meeting the goal'' (emphasis added). 70 FR 39120 (July 6, 2005). The
regulations require that the states ``must submit an implementation
plan containing emission limitations representing BART.'' 40 CFR
51.308(e). The Guidelines require that states ``must establish an
enforceable emission limit for each subject emission unit at the source
and for each pollutant subject to review that is emitted from the
source.'' 70 FR 39172 (July 6, 2005). CAA section 110(a)(2) also
requires that SIPs shall ``include enforceable emission limitations.''
    Furthermore, Appendix V to 40 CFR part 51 sets forth the minimum
criteria for determining whether a state implementation plan submitted
for consideration by EPA is an official submission for purposes of
review. The Appendix V criteria include ``[e]vidence that the plan
contains emission limitations, work practice standards and
recordkeeping/reporting requirements, where necessary, to ensure
emission levels'' and ``[c]ompliance/enforcement strategies, including
how compliance will be determined in practice''. Appendix V, Sections
2.2(g) and (h). Therefore, EPA disagrees that the use of title V
permits to implement the MRR necessary to ensure compliance with BART
emission limitations is adequate under the Clean Air Act.
    While the commenter suggests the title V permit program replaces
SIP requirements, this simply is not the case. In fact, the
Congressional Report cited by the commenter is clear that while the
title V permit program provides for ``harmonization'' of the Clean Air
Act requirements, ``title V does not change, and gives EPA no authority
to modify, the substantive provisions of these other titles.''

CONFERENCE REPORT ON--CLEAN AIR ACT AMENDMENTS, 136 Cong. Rec. E3673-
01, 1990 WL 206959.
    Finally, the Sierra Club case cited by the commenter in support of
its contentions did not involve challenges to SIP monitoring
requirements and therefore is not applicable here. The commenter's
claim that title V permits are adequate to meet SIP and regional haze
statutory and regulatory requirements is unfounded and not supported by
the case law cited or the CAA.
    Comment: Utah's SIP and the permits that are issued under that plan
are enforceable under state law and become federally enforceable when
EPA approves the plan and incorporates it into 40 CFR part 52, Subpart
TT.
    In addition to a federally enforceable SIP, AOs issued by the State
are also federally enforceable. AOs become federally enforceable
through R307-401 Permits: New and Modified Sources, and R307-405
Permits: Major Sources in Attainment or Unclassified Areas (PSD), when
those rules are approved by EPA as part of Utah's SIP and codified in
40 CFR 52.2320 and 40 CFR 52.2346. Region 8's Web site recognizes the
role that state permits play in the SIP process: ``SIPs contain state
air regulations that, for example, allow states to permit the
construction and operation of stationary sources, establish specific
requirements for categories of stationary sources, and identify open
burning requirements.''
    AOs issued by the State under authority of R307-401 and R307-405 to
the Hunter and Huntington plants, including provisions to make the
pollution control projects enforceable, contain enforceable emission
limits for NOX and PM, as well as MRR requirements to ensure
that the emission limits are continuously met. EPA has discretion to
federally enforce the provisions of these AOs under authority of the
federally approved Utah SIP. There is no doubt that such AOs are
federally enforceable, as evidenced by lawsuits brought previously by
EPA against other sources in Utah.
    Commenters also explain that Utah's NSR program for major and minor
sources is part of the federally approved SIP. If PacifiCorp seeks to
relax or modify the emission limitations in the AOs for the Hunter or
Huntington plants at some point in the future, the company would be
required to obtain a new AO and apply BACT under either Utah's major
source (R307-405) or minor source (R307-401) rules. A modification may
potentially trigger other requirements. As has been evident throughout
the federal CAA programs that EPA has delegated to Utah, there are
substantial federally enforceable requirements in the broad air program
in Utah to ensure that the emission reductions achieved through the
pollution control projects are maintained (through state or federal
enforcement if necessary) into the future. If the emission limits in
the AO were revised in the future, EPA has the opportunity to review
the changes and provide comments through the NSR process. EPA could
then veto the operating permit in the unlikely circumstance that the
emission limits for NOX or PM became less stringent.
    Commenters also suggest that EPA has proposed to disapprove the
BART determination for NOX and PM in part because EPA
believes that the emission limits and MRR requirements in the AOs and
operating permits are not federally enforceable enough. It is not clear
what additional enforcement action EPA would take due to a violation of
a SIP condition versus a violation of a permit condition.
    Response: We disagree. See our response above. EPA does not have
the option of approving a RH SIP where BART emission limits are
implemented only through construction or operating permits.
    Comment: We received a comment that the BART emission limits must
be included in the Utah SIP and be fully enforceable and that the
commenter supported EPA's disapproval of the Utah regional haze SIP
because it ``does not contain provisions necessary to make BART limits
practically enforceable as required by section 110(a)(2) of the CAA and
Appendix V to part 51.'' The commenter went on to say that the BART
emission limits must be permanent, unalterable, and federally
enforceable by both EPA and citizens.
    Response: As our proposed notice and responses above indicate, we
agree with the commenter on the need for the BART emission limits to be
included in the SIP along with appropriate MRR requirements. Although
we are not approving any BART determinations in this action, when Utah
submits revised BART determinations, the State must include provisions
in the SIP to make the emission limits federally enforceable.

C. Applicability of the BART Guidelines

    Comment: We received comments that EPA made a mistake when it said
in its proposal that because the PacifiCorp units have a 430 MW
generating capacity, the State is not required to follow the BART
Guidelines in making BART determinations for the units. Commenters went
on to say that applicability of the BART guidelines is determined by
the total generating capacity of the fossil fuel fired electric
generating plant, not the size of the individual units. Commenters went
on to say that the total generating capacity of the two units subject
to BART at each facility is 960 MW, and as such, the total generating
capacity of the Hunter and Huntington power plants both exceed the 750
MW trigger for applicability of the BART guidelines.
    Response: We agree with this comment. EPA erred by stating that the
State is not required to follow the BART Guidelines in making BART
determinations for these units. Because of the generating capacity for
the EGUs is above 750 MW, the State must follow the BART Guidelines
when making its BART determinations. 70 FR 39158 (July 6, 2005).

D. PM BART

    Comment: We received numerous comments that Utah relied on the BART
regulations when making its PM BART determinations for these Units.
Commenters pointed out that EPA acknowledges in the proposed rule,
``[t]here are no presumptive limits established for PM.'' With there
being no presumptive limit for PM, commenters state that Utah undertook
its own analysis and reasonably determined that the PM limit for the
Hunter and Huntington Units is the current operating permit level of
0.015.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ In comments from the State, the State recognized that the
emission rates listed in the SIP for PM for all four BART units of
0.05 lb/MMBtu were incorrect. The correct limits are 0.015 lb/MMBtu
(30-day rolling average).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commenters asserted that because Utah determined that PM BART for
the Hunter and Huntington units is the installation and operation of
fabric filter baghouses, which is the most stringent PM control
technology for EGUs, the State did not have to complete a comprehensive
five-factor analysis.
    One commenter asserted that EPA's position is in derogation of
Executive Order 13563. In January 2011, President Obama signed
Executive Order 13563--Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review. The
commenter went on to say that the President described the goals of this
order in an op-ed article published in the Wall Street Journal: ``This
order requires that federal agencies ensure that regulations protect
our safety, health and environment while promoting economic growth * *
*. Where necessary, we won't shy away from addressing obvious gaps: new
safety rules for infant formula; procedures to stop preventable
infections in hospitals; efforts to target

chronic violators of workplace safety laws. But we are also making it
our mission to root out regulations that conflict, that are not worth
the cost, or that are just plain dumb * * *. We're also getting rid of
absurd and unnecessary paperwork requirements that waste time and
money. We're looking at the system as a whole to make sure we avoid
excessive, inconsistent and redundant regulation.'' The commenter
concluded that EPA should recognize that any further analysis of PM is
``absurd and unnecessary paperwork'' that is irrational, as well as a
waste of time and money.
    Response: The BART Guidelines state ``[i]f you find that a BART
source has controls already in place which are the most stringent
controls available (note that this means that all possible improvements
to any control devices have been made), then it is not necessary to
comprehensively complete each following step of the BART analysis in
this section. As long as these most stringent controls available are
made federally enforceable for the purpose of implementing BART for
that source, you may skip the remaining analyses in this section,
including the visibility analysis in step 5. Likewise, if a source
commits to a BART determination that consists of the most stringent
controls available, then there is no need to complete the remaining
analyses in this section.'' 70 FR 39165 (July 6, 2005). While we agree
that baghouses may well be the most stringent control equipment for
controlling PM emissions, the State has not provided a demonstration
that the BART PM emission limits at the Utah BART sources represent the
most stringent controls. Thus, it may be possible for the State to
provide an abbreviated BART determination for PM if it can demonstrate
that the emission limits represent the most stringent level of control.

E. General Comments on BART

    Comment: EPA is aware that the State of Utah, in cooperation with
PacifiCorp, currently is conducting another five-factor BART analysis
for the Units identified in EPA's section 114 request dated October 20,
2011 (see footnote 4). Until that BART analysis is completed and the
results are incorporated into the Utah regional haze SIP, there is no
reason for EPA to continue processing the partial disapproval.
Therefore, EPA should ``withdraw its FIP''.
    In that way, EPA can focus its resources on the upcoming Utah
regional haze SIP version that Utah has committed will contain the BART
analysis information EPA has requested be included. Until then,
continuing the administrative review process for the partial
disapproval is a waste of taxpayer funds and other resources.
    Response: We disagree with this comment. We are under a consent
decree with Wild Earth Guardians to take final action on the Utah
regional haze SIP by October 31, 2012. Under the consent decree, we
must either approve or disapprove all the State's regional haze SIP.
The consent decree does not allow us to delay action in determining
whether the SIP meets the requirements of the RHR. Furthermore, we had
a statutory obligation to act on SIPs within 12 months after they have
been determined to be or deemed complete, and that date has passed.
Moreover, Utah will not be submitting the additional information
referenced above until after October 31, 2012, thus EPA is forced to
take action on the SIP in its entirety. Finally, contrary to
commenter's assertion, our proposed notice did not contain a FIP.

F. Reasonable Progress

    Comment: We received comments that the Utah SIP fails to comply
with 40 CFR 51.309(g) or 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)-(4), which require that
SIPs address impacts to Class I areas not located on the Colorado
plateau. Commenters went on to point out that sources in Utah have been
shown to impact Class I areas outside of the Colorado Plateau.
    Commenters pointed out that under both 40 CFR 51.309(g) and 40 CFR
51.308(d)(1)-(4), a long-term strategy must include such emission
limits, schedules of compliance and other measures as may be necessary
to achieve reasonable progress goals, and that for Class I areas
outside a state's borders, the State has an obligation to adopt
controls necessary to ensure it achieves its share of the pollution
reductions that are required to meet the reasonable progress goals set
for the subject Class I area. Since the requirements of 40 CFR
51.308(d)(1)-(4) apply to Utah, commenters assert that EPA must require
Utah to develop a long-term strategy under 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3).
    Response: We do not agree with this comment. States adopting the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.309 are deemed to have met the requirements
for reasonable progress for the Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau.
40 CFR 51.309(a). For such states, the requirements of 40 CFR
51.308(d)(1) and (d)(2) only apply to Class I areas within their state
not on the Colorado Plateau. See 40 CFR 51.309(g)(2); 40 CFR
51.308(d)(1), (2). All of the Class I areas in Utah are on the Colorado
Plateau. Therefore, the State met all reasonable progress requirements
for the Class I areas in Utah.
    With regard to Class I areas in other states, the State must
satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3). See 40 CFR
51.309(g)(2). In particular, 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(ii) requires that if
emissions from Utah sources cause or contribute to impairment in
another state's Class I area, Utah must demonstrate that it has
included in its regional haze SIP all measures necessary to obtain its
share of the emission reductions needed to meet the progress goal for
that Class I area. Section 51.308(d)(3)(ii) also requires that, since
Utah participated in a regional planning process, it must ensure it has
included all measures needed to achieve its apportionment of emission
reduction obligations agreed upon through that process. As we state in
the RHR, Utah's commitments to participate in WRAP bind it to secure
emission reductions agreed to as a result of that process.
    Under 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(iii), a state must document the technical
basis on which the state is relying to determine its apportionment of
emission reduction obligations necessary to achieve reasonable progress
in each mandatory Class I area the state affects. States may rely on
technical analyses developed by regional planning organizations and
approved by all state participants. Utah analyzed the WRAP modeling and
inventories and determined that emissions from the State do not
significantly impact or will not significantly impact other states'
Class I areas. The State's analysis is summarized below and included in
Section XX.K of the SIP. Inventories developed by the WRAP show a
significant decrease in stationary source NOX and
SO2 emissions. The urban area in northern Utah that may
impact Class I areas in Idaho, Nevada and Wyoming will have a
significant reduction in NOX emissions from mobile sources
as described in Section XX.F of the State's SIP. The State SIP shows
that the contribution to nitrate on the 20% worst days from sources in
Utah decreases substantially between 2002-2018 at Craters of the Moon
in Idaho, Bridger and Fitzpatrick Wilderness Areas in Wyoming, and
Jarbidge Wilderness Area in Nevada. The contribution to sulfates is not
significant at any of the sites.
    As described in Section XX.D.6 of the State's SIP plan, two BART-
eligible plants in central Utah are projected to decrease
SO2 emissions by 13,200 tons and NOX emissions by
6,200 tons between 2002 and 2018. The State also

shows that in general the impact from sources in Utah is not
significant at La Garita Wilderness Area and Great Sand Dunes National
Monument in Colorado, Bandelier National Monument in New Mexico and
Mazatal and Pine Mountain Wilderness Areas in Arizona.
    Utah accepted and incorporated the WRAP-developed visibility
modeling into its regional haze SIP, and the State's regional haze SIP
includes the controls assumed in the modeling. Utah satisfied the RHR's
requirements and included controls in the SIP sufficient to address the
relevant requirements of the RHR related to impacts on Class I areas in
other states.
    Comment: We received a comment that Utah still must comply with
reasonable progress requirements to address visibility impairment
attributable to Utah sources of NOX and PM with respect to
all affected Class I areas including the 16 Class I areas within the
Colorado Plateau, and that Utah first must establish reasonable
progress goals for all Utah Class I areas.
    Response: We do not agree with this comment. Pursuant to 40 CFR
51.309(a), if a state adopts the requirements under 40 CFR 51.309 it
will be deemed to comply with the requirements for reasonable progress
with respect to the Colorado Plateau Class I areas through 2018. As
stated above, all of the Class I areas in Utah are on the Colorado
Plateau, so Utah does not have to separately establish reasonable
progress goals for them. As explained above, Utah has also met the
requirements for Class I areas outside the state.
    Comment: We received a comment from the NPS that, under 40 CFR
51.309(g), Utah should have developed a long-term strategy that
evaluated NOX, PM, and SO2 controls on large non-
BART stationary sources of emissions such as PacifiCorp Hunter Unit 3
to meet reasonable progress requirements with respect to non-Colorado
Plateau Class I areas. In particular, the NPS cited our notice
proposing action on the Utah regional haze SIP. The NPS also referenced
modeling results to argue that NOX emissions from certain
non-BART stationary sources cause or contribute to visibility
impairment at both Capitol Reef NP and at certain Class I areas outside
Utah and off the Colorado Plateau. The NPS states that emission
controls should be considered for these sources in order to meet
reasonable progress requirements.
    Response: We do not agree with these comments. As explained above,
with respect to in-state Class I areas, our approval of the Utah SIP
deems it as meeting reasonable progress requirements for the in-state
Class I areas, as they are all on the Colorado Plateau. With respect to
non-Colorado Plateau Class I areas, in this case 40 CFR 51.309(g) does
not impose any separate obligations on Utah to analyze or impose
emissions controls on non-BART sources to demonstrate reasonable
progress at such areas. Instead, at most, Utah must show that it has
included all measures needed to achieve its apportionment of emission
reduction obligations agreed upon through the WRAP process. See 40 CFR
51.308(d)(3)(ii). As discussed above, Utah has met that requirement,
and the commenter has not provided any information to the contrary.

G. Clean Air Corridors (CACs)

    Comment: Approximately 75% of Utah is located in a CAC. Utah has a
legal duty to protect that CAC from new sources of air pollution both
inside and outside of CACs. Specifically, Utah must identify
significant emissions growth that ``could begin'' to impair visibility
within any CAC and include ``an analysis of the effects of increased
emissions, including provisions for the identification of the need for
additional emission reductions measures, and implementation of the
additional measures where necessary.''
    Utah's regional haze SIP fails to identify several new and proposed
significant air pollution sources that ``could begin'' to adversely
impact visibility in the Utah CAC and nearby Class I areas. For
example, the Alton coal mine in southern Utah is located within the CAC
and may adversely impact visibility in the corridor and in nearby Class
I areas, such as Zion National Park. The Alton coal mine will emit
visibility-impairing emissions, including SO2,
NOX and PM. In addition, the Viresco coal gasification
facility has been proposed for the City of Kanab. The Viresco coal
gasification plant will burn coal from the Alton coal mine. Kanab is
very close to Zion National Park and is also located inside Utah's CAC.
A local citizen organization has requested that the State require an
approval order regulating emissions from the Viresco coal plant. To
date, the State has refused to regulate the Viresco coal gasification
plant and failed to impose any air pollution limitations or controls on
the plant. The EPA should require Utah to regulate the Viresco coal
plant to limit emissions from the plant in order to protect CACs in
Utah, as well as Class I areas.
    Finally, the Deseret Power Electric Cooperative has proposed to add
an additional coal-fired electric generating unit to the Bonanza plant
in northeast Utah. This plant would be located outside of Utah's CAC,
but has the potential to adversely impact visibility in the corridor
and in neighboring Class I areas.
    EPA may not approve the Utah regional haze SIP until the State
identifies all potential sources of pollution; assesses the impact of
these sources on visibility in CACs; and imposes air pollution control
equipment and emission limitations on such sources consistent with 40
CFR 51.309(d)(3)(iii)-(iv).
    Response: We disagree with this comment. Utah relied on the WRAP's
Policy on Clean Air Corridors to determine if emissions within or
outside of the CAC that could impair visibility within the CAC. The
report concluded: ``[p]]ursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(3)(ii), the WRAP
has examined patterns of growth in the corridor and finds that they are
not causing significant emission increases that could have or are
having visibility impacts at one or more of the 16 Class I areas. Nor,
at this time, are such emission increases expected during the first
planning period (2003-2018). Analyses performed by the Grand Canyon
Visibility Transport Commission found that an increase of 25% in
weighted emissions would result in a 0.7 dv reduction in visibility,
whereas the weighted emission increase expected by 2018 is only 4%.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(3)(iii), the WRAP has examined emissions
growth in areas outside the corridor and finds that significant
emissions growth is not occurring that could begin or is beginning to
impair the quality of the air in the corridor and thereby lead to
visibility degradation for the least impaired days in one or more of
the 16 Class I areas.''
    In addition, Utah is using a comprehensive emissions tracking
system established by WRAP to track emissions within portions of
Oregon, Idaho, Nevada and Utah that have been identified as part of the
CAC. The emission tracking system ensures that visibility does not
degrade on the least-impaired days in any of the 16 Class I areas of
the Colorado Plateau. If the emissions tracking system identifies
emissions in or outside of the CAC that are causing visibility
impairment, the State will be required to address these emissions in
accordance with 40 CFR 51.309(d)(3) in the periodic plan revisions that
the State is required to submit in 2013 and 2018. Therefore, should any
of the project emissions highlighted in the comment degrade visibility
on the least-impaired days in any of the 16 Class I areas, the State
will be required to address those impacts.

H. General SIP Comments

    Comment: Utah's technical arguments supporting a weak regional haze
program should be rejected. The State has prepared a Powerpoint
presentation arguing that its weak and illegal regional haze program
should be approved by EPA. In support of Utah's weak BART
determinations the State argues: 1) that NOX reductions are
not creating expected visibility improvements; and, 2) that wintertime
visibility problems should be ignored due to lower tourist visits in
Utah's national parks.
    Response: We note the commenter's concerns regarding consideration
of these two factors. These two factors are outside the scope of the RH
regulation and were not considered by EPA in its proposed partial
approval and partial disapproval of the State's BART determinations. As
discussed in detail elsewhere in this action, EPA finds that the
State's trading program meets the regulatory requirements.
    Comment: The State supports EPA's proposed approval of the
projected visibility improvement in Part K of the Utah SIP. 77 FR
28833-34. As EPA has noted, the modeling results show projected
visibility improvement for the best 20% days and no degradation for the
20% best days at the 16 Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau. In fact,
the projected improvement is greater than described in EPA's proposed
approval. The visibility results in Table 24 of Utah's SIP were adopted
in 2008 based on the PRP18a modeling that was the most current modeling
available at the time, not PRP18b as described in EPA's proposal. Table
1 shows the additional improvement shown by the WRAP's PRP18b modeling.
    Response: We recognize the commenter's support of our proposed
approval of the projected visibility improvement.
    Comment: The GCVTC evaluated haze at Class I Areas on the Colorado
Plateau, and determined that stationary source reductions should be
focused on sulfur dioxide because this is the pollutant that has the
most significant impact on haze. Utah's BART determination was
developed within the context of the overall SIP and reflected this
focus on SO2. The sulfate impact is much more significant
than the nitrate impact, especially on the middle and best 20% days.
Fire (organic carbon) is the second most significant component on the
worst days). In addition, sulfate is a problem year round, while the
nitrate impact is most significant during the winter months when
visitation is low at Utah's national parks. PacifiCorp has already made
significant reductions in NOX at the Hunter and Huntington
plants. The nitrate component of haze in Class I areas on the Colorado
Plateau does not justify going beyond the presumptive BART level for
NOX established in EPA's BART rule.
    Response: We do not agree with this comment. States are required to
meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1) and do a BART
determination on a source-by-source basis in accordance with the BART
Guidelines for EGUs over 750 MW. A regional scale modeling exercise
does not obviate the requirement that the state perform such an
analysis and that ``States must identify the best system of continuous
emission control technology for each source subject to BART * * *'' 70
FR 39158.
    Comment: We received 1,873 comments from members of National Parks
and Conservation Association generally supportive of our disapproval
and encouraging strict controls on the BART units. We also received
comments from the general public and medical community generally in
support of our action.
    Response: We note the commenters' support of our proposed action.

I. Additional Comments Pertaining to BART

    We are not responding to the following comments on BART that
pertain to cost effectiveness, control effectiveness, visibility
improvement, and other factors. We are not responding because we are
disapproving the State's BART determinations and will consider such
comments when we take proposed action on BART determinations for the
four Utah subject to BART EGUs. The following is a summary of the
comments:
    (1) Numerous retrofit technologies are available for the control of
NOX from Hunter and Huntington Units 1 and 2. The suite of
available retrofit control technologies for NOX control from
coal boilers similar to these units is well known, and includes:
selective catalytic reduction (SCR), LNBs, and separated overfire air
(SOFA).
    (2) SCR is technically feasible for all the units.
    (3) SCR is a highly effective control technology that can achieve
90% reductions or higher and meet limits of 0.05 lbs/MMBtu or lower.
    (4) The costs of SCR along with upgraded LNBs and SOFA at Hunter
Units 1 and 2 and Huntington Units 1 and 2 are reasonable. The
commenter estimated that costs for LNBs with SOFA and SCR at a
NOX rate of 0.05 lb/MMBtu range from $1,700-$2,000/ton in
2010 dollars.
    (5) The commenter went on to describe the methodology that they
used to come to their cost effectiveness conclusions: ``[t]oo [sic]
summarize, we calculated cost effectiveness of NOX controls
at Hunter Units 1 and 2 and Huntington Units 1 and 2 as follows. Based
on the Sargent & Lundy SCR IPM Cost Module modified to be consistent
with the Control Cost Manual methodology and to be more realistic of
the costs for these units, as discussed above, we estimated the capital
and O&M costs of SCR at Hunter Units 1 and 2 and Huntington Units 1 and
2. Costs were estimated in 2010 dollars. We estimated the capital and
O&M costs of new LNBs and SOFA based on the cost estimates for the same
controls provided by PacifiCorp to Wyoming DEQ for the similar but
somewhat larger Jim Bridger Unit 1. We converted those costs to 2010
dollars so that these NOX controls could be readily compared
to the SCR controls and so we could evaluate the cost effectiveness of
the combination of LNBs/SOFA plus SCR at the Hunter and Huntington BART
units. Annualized capital costs were based on the real cost of capital
to PacifiCorp and a 20-year life of the pollution controls. Cost
effectiveness was based on the total annual costs (annualized capital +
annual O&M) divided by the tons per year NOX emissions
reductions expected from the average baseline emissions over 2002-2004.
The assumed controlled NOX emission rates were 0.26 lb/MMBtu
for LNBs/SOFA and 0.05 lb/MMBtu for LNBs/SOFA plus SCR.''
    (6) A proper NOX BART determination for Hunter Units 1
and 2 and Huntington Units 1 and 2 must be based on a baseline period
from the 2001 to 2004 timeframe. This timeframe also reflects emissions
prior to any NOX upgrades that have already been completed
at the Hunter and Huntington units.
    (7) According to the Utah regional haze plan, PacifiCorp has
received permits to install new LNBs and two elevations of SOFA.
Because these upgrades were intended to meet presumed regional haze
requirements, these upgrades should be considered in a NOX
BART analysis as part of the suite of controls to meet NOX
BART requirements.
    (8) The energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of SCR are
standard, limited, and can be mitigated. In addition to monetary costs,
SCR typically has several associated impacts that may be noted in a
BART analysis, including increased auxiliary power requirements, waste
associated with catalyst replacement and disposal,

ammonia slip, and the partial conversion of SO2 to sulfuric
acid. The scope of these collateral impacts is nowhere near the scale
that would outweigh the benefits provided by SCR. Thus, there are no
energy or non-air quality environmental impacts that would preclude the
application of SCR at these units.
    (9) The visibility benefit of applying SCR and LNB/SOFA will likely
be significant. A complete BART analysis also evaluates the projected
visibility benefits associated with the implementation of the discussed
controls. Utah did not provide any modeling analyses in the Utah
regional haze plan that evaluated NOX BART options. Utah did
include data on the results of the modeling to determine which units
were subject to BART in its regional haze plan, and the results show
that each unit has significant impacts in all of the Class I areas
located within 300 km of each unit, including Capitol Reef,
Canyonlands, Bryce Canyon, Zion, Grand Canyon, and Black Canyon of the
Gunnison National Parks as well as Mesa Verde National Monument.
    However, the subject-to BART modeling results provided in the Utah
regional haze plan very likely understate the true baseline case
visibility impacts of these units because the SO2 emission
rates modeled are much lower than the maximum 24-hour pound per hour
SO2 emission rates based on actual emissions data submitted
by PacifiCorp to EPA's Clean Air Markets Database.
    (10) Lower PM limits are achievable and appropriate. EPA must
revise PM emission limits for Hunter Units 1 and 2 and Huntington Units
1 and 2 to reflect PM emission rates achievable with BART. We note that
Utah's proposed PM BART limits are unclear. Utah's SIP submittal to EPA
described (presumably filterable) PM limits of 0.05 lbs/MMBtu, which is
echoed by EPA in its proposal. However, the underlying administrative
orders appear to require this limit only until the LNBs, baghouse, and
wet FGD are installed, at which point it drops to a limit of 0.015 lbs/
MMBtu. Further, EPA's proposal states that this is a rolling 30-day
limit, where the administrative orders specify stack testing once per
year. At a minimum, EPA must establish PM BART limits that reflect the
most stringent level of control that the existing and proposed
baghouses are capable of, and must account for the different types of
particulate matter that are emitted.
    Consideration should be given to the following permit limits, which
demonstrate achievable limits at or below 0.015 lbs/MMBtu. Three
prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) permits have been issued
with total PM10 limits of 0.010 lb/MMBtu based on
installation of a fabric filter baghouse, including for Plant
Washington, Longleaf, and Desert Rock. A PSD permit issued to the
Intermountain Power Services Corporation sets BACT emissions limits of
0.013 lb/MMBtu for filterable PM and 0.012 lb/MMBtu for filterable
PM10. Similarly, a permit issued for the Comanche Generating
Station Unit 3 in Colorado included BACT limits of 0.013 lb/MMBtu for
filterable PM and 0.012 lb/MMBtu for filterable PM10.
    There is no reason that the Utah units could not achieve PM
emission rates comparable to a new unit with a properly designed and
operated baghouse. Other states have made low PM BART determinations as
well. For example, U.S. EPA Region 9 adopted BART filterable
particulate limits for the Four Corners power plant, Navajo Nation at
Units 1-3 of 0.012 lb/MMBtu for each unit and at Units 4 and 5, 0.015
lb/MMBtu. South Dakota adopted and EPA approved as BART for the Big
Stone power plant a PM limit of 0.012 lb/MMBtu, applicable at all times
including startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
    Further, at the baghouses that are already installed, the limits
should also be informed by the existing emissions, as determined by
appropriate stack testing or CEMS. According to the available permits,
this testing should already be completed and available for at least two
units.
    For any unit that has not yet installed a baghouse, an important
option to consider in BART particulate matter analyses is the selection
of filtration media. The filtration media determines the control
efficiency of a baghouse for very small particles, which makes the
largest contribution visibility. As both PM10 and
PM2.5 are regulated as BART pollutants, it is important to
select a filtration media that optimizes the removal of these two
fractions. There is a wide range of media that can be used, most of
which are much more efficient for larger particles than smaller
particles.
    Finally, at all units, methods to remove the condensable
particulate matter, a major contributor to PM2.5 and
visibility impairment, should be considered. The primary condensable
particulate matter removal devices are SO2 scrubbers and wet
electrostatic precipitators (WESPs). These have an achievable level of
99.99% PM control. A WESP could be installed either as a conversion of
the outlet field of the existing electrostatic precipitator as a
separate housing downstream of the primary electrostatic precipitator,
or integrated into the scrubber, if one is present. The WESP would
enhance the removal of both filterable PM2.5 and
condensables.
    (11) EPA must evaluate BART for all PM. BART requires the
evaluation of control technology for filterable PM10 and
PM2.5 as well as condensable particulate matter. Because
these sources are subject to BART for particulate matter, BART limits
for both PM10 and PM2.5, including condensables,
should be developed.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is
therefore not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
(76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's final rule on
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as
defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13
CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government
of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated
and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's final rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not

have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. This final rule will not impose any requirements on small
entities because small entities are not subject to the requirements of
this rule. We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the
final rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related to
such impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, and Tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more
(adjusted for inflation) in any one year. Before promulgating an EPA
rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of UMRA
generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of
regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-
effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives
of the rule. The provisions of section 205 of UMRA do not apply when
they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 of
UMRA allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly,
most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including Tribal governments, it must have developed under
section 203 of UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant
federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory
requirements.
    Under Title II of UMRA, EPA has determined that this final rule
does not contain a federal mandate that may result in expenditures that
exceed the inflation-adjusted UMRA threshold of $100 million by State,
local, or Tribal governments or the private sector in any one year. In
addition, this final rule does not contain a significant federal
intergovernmental mandate as described by section 203 of UMRA nor does
it contain any regulatory requirements that might significantly or
uniquely affect small governments.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and replaces
Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 (Enhancing the
Intergovernmental Partnership). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to
develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input
by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies
that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government.'' Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless
the federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA
consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation
that has federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the
Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation.
    This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, because it
merely addresses the State not fully meeting its obligation to prohibit
emissions from interfering with other States measures to protect
visibility established in the CAA. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not
apply to this action.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA
to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely
input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies
that have tribal implications.'' This final rule does not have tribal
implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will not have
substantial direct effects on tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order
13175 does not apply to this rule.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying
only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks,
such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the EO has the
potential to influence the regulation. This action is not subject to EO
13045 because it implements specific standards established by Congress
in statutes. However, to the extent this rule will limit emissions of
NOX, SO2, and PM, the rule will have a beneficial
effect on children's health by reducing air pollution.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001)), because it is not a significant regulatory action
under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    This final rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus
standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994), establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
    We have determined that this final action will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it increases the
level of environmental protection for all affected populations without
having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on any population, including any minority or low-
income population.

K. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, does not
apply because this action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Incorporation by reference, Air pollution
control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: October 30, 2012.
Howard M. Cantor,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, 40 CFR part 52 is 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 TT--Utah

0
2. Section 52.2320 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(71) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.2320  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (71) On May 26, 2011 and September 29, 2011, the State of Utah
submitted revisions to its State Implementation Plan to incorporate the
requirements of the regional haze program.
    (i) Incorporation by reference
    (A) Title R307 of the Utah Administrative Code--Environmental
Quality, Air Quality, Rule R307-150--Emission Inventories, sections -1,
Purpose and General Requirements, -2, Definitions, -3, Applicability, -
5, Sources Identified in R307-150(3)(2), Large Major Source Inventory
Requirements, -6, Sources Identified in R307-150-3(3), -7, Sources
Identified in R307-150-3(4), Other Part 70 Sources, and -8, Exempted
Hazardous Air Pollutants. Effective December 31, 2003; as published in
the Utah State Bulletin December 1, 2003 and January 15, 2004.
    (B) Title R307 of the Utah Administrative Code--Environmental
Quality, Air Quality, Rule R307-150--Emission Inventories, section -4,
Sulfur Dioxide Milestone Emission Inventory Requirements. Effective
September 4, 2008; as published in the Utah State Bulletin July 1, 2008
and October 1, 2008.
    (C) Title R307 of the Utah Administrative Code--Environmental
Quality, Air Quality, Rule R307-250--Western Backstop Sulfur Dioxide
Trading Program, sections -1, Purpose, -3, WEB Trading Program Trigger,
-10, Allowance Transfers, -11, Use of Allowances from a Previous Year,
and -13, Special Penalty Provisions for the 2018 Milestone. Effective
December 31, 2003; as published in the Utah State Bulletin December 1,
2003 and January 15, 2004.
    (D) Title R307 of the Utah Administrative Code--Environmental
Quality, Air Quality, Rule R307-250--Western Backstop Sulfur Dioxide
Trading Program, sections -2, Definitions, -4, WEB Trading Program
Applicability, -5, Account Representative for WEB Sources, -6,
Registration, -7, Allowance Allocations, -8, Establishment of Accounts,
-9, Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting, and -12, Compliance.
Effective November 10, 2008; as published in the Utah State Bulletin
October 1, 2008 and December 1, 2008.
    (ii) Additional materials
    (A) Section XX of the Utah Regional Haze State Implementation Plan.
Effective April 7, 2011. Published in the Utah State Bulletin February
1, 2011.

[FR Doc. 2012-29406 Filed 12-13-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P