disagree with the remainder of the comment. As we have discussed in
other responses, we are not required, nor have we chosen to, use the $/
deciview metric, let alone the same on a cumulative basis, when
assessing BART.
    We have addressed the control effectiveness of SCR above in section
V.C.3.
    Comment: For Wyodak, EPA is proposing that the FIP NOX
BART is new LNBs with OFA plus SNCR at an emission limit of 0.17 lb/
MMBtu. EPA proposes to eliminate new LNBs with advanced OFA plus SCR
because: ``Although the cost-effectiveness and visibility improvement
are within the range of other EPA FIP actions, we find that the
cumulative visibility improvement of 1.16 deciviews for new LNBs with
OFA plus SCR is low compared to the cumulative visibility benefits that
will be achieved by requiring SCR at Dave Johnston Unit 3 (2.92
deciview), Laramie River Unit 1 (2.12 deciview), Laramie River Unit 2
(1.97 deciview), Laramie River Unit 3 (2.29 deciview), Naughton Unit 1
(3.54 deciview), and Naughton Unit 2 (4.18 deciview).''
    Because the cumulative visibility improvement from EPA's proposed
control strategy is barely half of the visibility improvement that EPA
rejected as ``low,'' then visibility improvement cannot be the only
factor relied upon by EPA in making its BART determination. We can only
conclude that EPA is somehow relating visibility improvement to another
factor. For example, after correcting for the unsupported 1.3 retrofit
factor at this relatively simple, single-EGU facility, the cost-
effectiveness of adding SCR is $16 million/deciview at Wind Cave
National Park, and $10 million/cumulative deciview. By comparison,
based upon EPA estimates, addition of SCR to Laramie River Unit 3
results in $28 million/deciview at the most-impacted Class I area, and
addition of SCR to Laramie River Unit 2 yields $10 million/cumulative
deciview. The cumulative cost effectiveness of adding SCR to Wyodak is
equivalent to EPA's accepted values at Laramie River Unit 2.
    Response: We disagree with the suggested use of the $/deciview
metric. As we have discussed in other responses, we are not required,
nor have we chosen to, use the $/deciview metric, let alone the same on
a cumulative basis, when assessing BART. Even if we had, the
commenter's position is predicated on their assertion that EPA
inappropriately applied a retrofit factor for SCR at Wyodak. As we have
discussed in other responses, we disagree that it was inappropriate to
apply a retrofit factor of 1.3. However, as explained below, we agree
that we should not have relied on the basis stated in our proposal to
reject SCR. For Wyodak, we find that the visibility improvements at two
Class I areas, when weighed with the other BART factors, makes SCR
reasonable as BART.
    Comment: Based upon cost and visibility improvement, we believe
that SCR is BART for Wyodak. Under the EPA proposal, Wyodak would still
contribute over 0.7 deciview impairment at Wind Cave National Park (and
exceed 0.5 deciviews at Badlands National Park). With the addition of
SCR, impairment would drop to less

than 0.5 deciviews at all Class I areas. As EPA stated in its proposal,
``cost-effectiveness and visibility improvement are within the range of
other EPA FIP actions.'' Even though cumulative visibility improvement
is relatively low, so are SCR costs. Addition of SCR at Wyodak should
be required because it is consistent with the other BART determinations
EPA has made here.
    Response: After further consideration, we agree that it was
inappropriate for EPA to reject SCR as BART for Wyodak based on the
rationale that Wyodak's emissions affect fewer Class I areas than
Wyoming's other BART-eligible sources. Where consideration of the five
factors demonstrates that a control is reasonable in light of the
visibility improvement that will occur at the most impacted Class I
area, as was the case here for Wyodak and Wind Cave, the fact that
additional Class I areas will also experience visibility improvement
can only bolster the case for that control's selection, not undermine
it. In other words, the fact that Wyodak's emissions affect two Class I
areas instead of six or seven is irrelevant if the improvement at just
one Class I area is sufficient to warrant a control's selection as
BART. Consequently, we have reassessed the five factors for Wyodak and
now conclude, even after taking into account our revised cost estimates
and visibility modeling, that LNB/OFA + SCR is NOX BART for
Wyodak Unit 1.
    Comment: SCR with an emission limit of 0.05 lb/MMBtu should be
required as NOX BART for Wyodak, rather than an SNCR-based
limit of 0.17 lb/MMBtu as EPA proposes. EPA properly recognized that
the cost-effectiveness and incremental cost-effectiveness of SCR to
reduce Wyodak's NOX emissions are reasonable, but
nonetheless proposed to reject SCR on the basis of purportedly
insufficient cumulative visibility benefits. EPA's proposed
determination is improper, because EPA has failed to justify why
incremental visibility benefits over the large number of Class I Areas
impacted by Wyodak's NOX emissions should not be required to
achieve reasonable progress toward the national visibility goal,
particularly in light of the fact that none of the Wyoming Class I
areas affected by Wyodak's NOX emissions are projected to
achieve the Uniform Rate of Progress (URP) in 2018. Moreover, while EPA
evaluated the impacts of Wyodak's NOX emissions only at Wind
Cave and Badlands National Parks, our supplemental modeling shows that
SCR to control Wyodak's NOX emissions will nearly eliminate
the plant's perceptible visibility impacts at 18 Class I areas. EPA's
visibility justification for rejecting SCR as BART was improper because
Congress has directed EPA to require BART ``for the purpose of
eliminating or reducing any [visibility] impairment'' caused by the
source. 42 U.S.C. 7491(b)(2)(A). Installing SCR at Wyodak would resolve
this impairment.
    Response: See our response to the previous comment. While we do not
agree with the commenter's assertion that Wyodak's emissions have
perceptible visibility impacts at 18 Class I areas or that the URP is
relevant for purposes of a BART determination, we do agree that our
decision to eliminate SCR based on cumulative visibility improvement
was improper.
    Comment: EPA properly recognized that the cost-effectiveness and
incremental cost-effectiveness of SCR to reduce Wyodak's NOX
emissions are reasonable, but nonetheless proposed to reject SCR on the
basis of purportedly insufficient cumulative visibility benefits. EPA's
estimate of costs is significantly inflated, and the true costs are
lower than EPA found because the EPA used unjustified ``retrofit
factors,'' interest rate, and auxiliary power costs. On these bases,
the EPA should require SCR at Wyodak as BART.
    Response: See our previous two responses.
6. Trona Mines
a. FMC Westvaco and General Chemical Green River
    Comment: EPA should reconsider whether SCR plus combustion controls
is BART for the FMC Westvaco Units NS-1A and NS-1B. At $3,493/ton, as
presented by EPA, SCR may be a cost-effective option. Furthermore, EPA
should evaluate whether the cost of SCR for FMC Westvaco Units NS-1A
and NS-1B were calculated correctly.
    Response: Although EPA has not re-evaluated the cost of SCR at the
FMC Westvaco Units, we note the relatively low visibility improvement
from SCR for each unit (0.24 deciviews). Because of the low visibility
improvement from SCR, we do not find that a reconsideration of costs
would necessarily have led EPA or the State to a different conclusion
regarding the selection of SCR.
    Comment: At a minimum, EPA must require SNCR and LNB + SOFA as BART
for NOX at the Westvaco plant. EPA determined that this
enhanced technology could achieve a 0.21 lb/MMBtu NOX
emissions rate. This would result in a 70% reduction in NOX
emissions from current levels, rather than just a 50% reduction that
would result from the 0.35 lb/MMBtu emission rate currently proposed.
Requiring SNCR would lead to NOX emissions reductions of
1,903 tpy. SNCR in addition to LNB+SOFA is highly cost effective at
$673/ton. This is well within the range of BART costs that EPA has
found reasonable for SNCR at other facilities, including facilities in
Wyoming. For example, EPA proposes to reject Wyoming's NOX
BART proposal for Wyodak Unit 1, and instead to require LNB+OFA+SNCR as
BART, finding the technology cost effective at $958/ton, a higher cost
than the same technology at the Westvaco boilers.
    Response: We disagree with this comment. First, SNCR at each of the
units would achieve a 0.19 deciview improvement, with an incremental
visibility improvement of 0.06 deciviews. The cost effectiveness for
LNBs compared to LNBs with SNCR is more than double ($304/ton compared
to $673/ton). Based on this information, we find it reasonable for the
State not to determine SNCR is BART for these units based on a
consideration of the five factors, including the visibility
improvement.
    Comment: Requiring SNCR at the FMC Westvaco plant would improve
visibility at affected Class I areas. EPA states that Wyoming's
visibility modeling for this facility demonstrated a 0.19 deciview
improvement at the Bridger Wilderness Area from the installation of
SNCR on each boiler. In fact, Wyoming's modeling demonstrated a 0.198
deciview visibility improvement for the maximum 98th percentile impact
at Bridger Wilderness Area. The combined visibility improvement due to
SNCR at both Westvaco boilers is nearly 0.4 deciviews at the Bridger
Wilderness Area alone. EPA found it appropriate to consider the
combined visibility impact of pollution controls on multiple units at a
single facility in determining that BART is SNCR for Units 1 and 2 of
the Colstrip facility in Montana and should likewise consider the
combined visibility impact of SNCR on the two Westvaco boilers.
    Response: We have addressed a similar comment above in section V.B
of this rulemaking. We recognize that there may be some efficiencies in
installing SNCR on two units (e.g., a common reagent supply system),
but expect that this would provide only a modest reduction in annual
costs. We do not find that the combined benefit for the two FMC
Westvaco boilers, 0.4 deciviews, is a basis for requiring SNCR.
    Comment: Wyoming's modeling also showed that SNCR could virtually
eliminate the visibility impairment at the Bridger Wilderness Area
caused by

the FMC Westvaco Units NS-1A and NS-1B, reducing the number of days of
noticeable visibility impairment caused by each boiler from eleven to
just one. Visibility in the Bridger Wilderness Area is presently
diminished by 4.6 deciviews from natural conditions and, under EPA's
proposed action, it will not achieve natural conditions until 2165. A
0.4 deciview visibility improvement at the Bridger Wilderness Area is
particularly significant in light of new sources of haze-causing
pollution from the oil and gas industry that will affect this area.
NOX emissions from Wyoming oil and gas development are
expected to more than double in the current regional haze planning
period, from 14,725 tpy in 2002 to 34,142 tpy in 2018, yet EPA does not
propose any NOX emissions reductions from this sector.
Accordingly, it is imperative for Wyoming and EPA to reduce
NOX emissions from every other source to the greatest extent
possible, including by requiring SNCR to be installed at the FMC
Westvaco Units NS-1A and NS-1B.
    Response: We disagree with this comment. BART is a source-by-source
analysis taking into consideration the five factors. The BART
Guidelines and RHR do not require states or EPA to take into
consideration the state being able to achieve the URP for a Class I
area in its determination of BART for individual BART units.\236\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \236\ In determining the measures necessary to make reasonable
progress and in selecting RPGs for mandatory Class I areas within
Wyoming, the State took into account the following four factors into
consideration: Costs of compliance; time necessary for compliance;
energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance; and
remaining useful life of any potentially affected sources. CAA
section 169A(g)(1) and 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A). 40 CFR
51.308(d)(1)(ii) allows for a slower rate of improvement in
visibility than the URP, as long as it is demonstrated that based on
these four factors, it is not reasonable to achieve the URP and that
the selected RPG is reasonable. CAA section 169A(g)(1) and 40 CFR
51.308(d)(1)(i)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: Wyoming's modeling, upon which EPA relied, excluded all
Class I areas beyond 300 km from the Westvaco facility. However, there
is no demonstration that Class I areas further afield are not impacted
by the Westvaco facility. As a comparison, EPA recently approved the
South Dakota regional haze SIP which includes BART limits for the Big
Stone facility, for which the nearest Class I area is over 400 km away.
    Response: We explained in response to another comment the reasons
why we did not evaluate visibility impairment at Class I areas at
distances greater than 300 km. Regarding the South Dakota regional haze
SIP, there are no Class I areas within 300 km of the Big Stone
Facility. Therefore, it was reasonable for the state to evaluate
visibility impacts at the nearest Class I area even though the distance
was greater than 300 km. We note that the BART rule provides some
flexibility to the states in the approach used to evaluate visibility
impairment. The fact that South Dakota chose to evaluate visibility
impacts at a distance greater than 300 km does not impose a similar
requirement on other states.
    Comment: Considering just the two Class I areas modeled, the
installation and operation of SNCR would result in a cumulative maximum
98th percentile visibility improvement of 0.304 deciviews from each
unit, or 0.608 from both units combined. This cumulative visibility
improvement at two Class I areas is significant and amply justifies
SNCR, at a minimum, as BART.
    Response: In the proposed rule, we did focus on the visibility
benefits at the most impacted Class I area. We considered the
visibility benefits at the other Class I areas, but did not consider
the benefits sufficient to warrant a change in our determination as to
the appropriate level of control.
    Comment: Although the cost effectiveness and visibility
improvements due to SNCR and LNB+SOFA standing alone justify a
determination that this combination of technologies is BART, EPA
apparently agreed with Wyoming that the incremental costs of requiring
SNCR were not justified by the resulting visibility improvement. EPA's
consideration of incremental cost effectiveness and visibility benefit
is arbitrary given the lack of any objective criteria and in any event,
must not be viewed in a vacuum.
    Response: We disagree with this comment. As stated above, we find
it reasonable, based on a consideration of the five factors, including
the low visibility improvement, for the State to find that SNCR and
LNBs was not reasonable for BART.
    Comment: Although the State and EPA determined that addition of
combustion controls is BART for the three BART boilers at these two
facilities, it is unclear how they arrived at these conclusions. The
visibility improvement from EPA's proposed controls for the trona
plants are less than the visibility improvement that EPA rejected as
``low'' in the EGU BART analyses, so it appears that EPA is using
different criteria for these facilities or relating visibility
improvement to another factor, which we assume to be some combination
of cost and visibility improvement. (Otherwise, one would always choose
the control strategy with the greatest visibility improvement.)
    However, it appears that EPA did not evaluate the cost analyses
presented by the companies and the State, so we are concerned that the
cost analyses for these two trona plants may suffer for the same
problems that we pointed out to EPA before regarding the EGUs. For
example, although Boiler D at Green River is the same size as the FMC
boilers: (1) FMC evaluated addition of new combustion controls in
combination with SNCR or SCR, Green River did not. (2) The capital cost
of adding SNCR at Green River Boiler D is more than four times FMC. (3)
EPA presented cost-effectiveness of SNCR as $3,176/ton at Green River
Boiler D. The actual cost-effectiveness, based on EPA's annual cost and
emission reduction, is $1,637/ton. (4) FMC assumed that SCR could
reduce NOX by 31% to 0.10 lb/MMBtu, Green River assumed 80%
NOX reduction to 0.14 lb/MMBtu. (EPA typically assumes that
SCR can achieve 0.05 lb//MMBtu on an annual basis.) (5) SCR capital
cost is $43 million at FMC, $19 million for Green River Boiler D. (6)
EPA presented cost-effectiveness of SCR as $3,510/ton at Green River
Boiler D. The actual cost-effectiveness, based on EPA's annual cost and
emission reduction, is $2,339/ton.
    It is apparent that EPA must have been considering the costs of
controls, but, in view of the substantial discrepancies noted above,
those costs are questionable. In view of these discrepancies, we
question how EPA rejected the more-effective control technologies (SNCR
and SCR) that produce greater visibility improvements for the proposed
controls.
    Response: We disagree with this comment. Even if the cost of SNCR
and SCR were reduced, we find that the visibility improvement (Boiler
C--0.08 deciviews for SNCR and 0.14 deciviews for SCR; Boiler D--0.12
deciviews for SNCR and 0.17 deciviews for SCR) would not warrant the
selection of post-combustion controls for BART.
b. FMC Granger Trona Mine
    Comment: EPA proposes to approve Wyoming's determination that the
FMC Granger trona mine, while BART-eligible, is not subject-to-BART.
The basis for EPA's proposed approval is that the visibility impact of
this facility at the Bridger Wilderness Class I area would be 0.39
deciviews, and EPA proposes to ``agree with Wyoming that 0.5 deciviews
is a reasonable threshold for determining whether its BART-eligible
sources are subject-to-BART.'' EPA should reconsider its determination
that the Granger facility is not subject-to-BART. In making the

subject-to-BART determination at least three considerations must be
incorporated pursuant to EPA's BART guidelines: Whether the source
causes or contributes to visibility impairment in a Class I area, the
number of emissions sources affecting a Class I area, and the magnitude
of the individual source impacts. Wyoming determined that the Granger
plant was not subject-to-BART because its visibility impairment level
at the Bridger Wilderness was predicted to be 0.39 deciviews--below the
0.5 deciview threshold. Wyoming's determination was flawed however
because it apparently did not consider the other factors essential to a
subject-to-BART determination, i.e., the number of emissions sources
affecting the Class I area and the magnitude of the individual sources'
impacts.
    There are a large number of pollution sources affecting visibility
in the Bridger Wilderness Area, including significant impacts from
thousands of operating oil and gas wells that are not BART-eligible.
This fact highlights the need for maximum feasible emissions from each
source contributing to impairment at the Bridger Wilderness Area,
particularly sources like the FMC Granger trona mine, which is eligible
for BART controls.
    Response: We disagree with this comment. Wyoming used a
contribution threshold of 0.5 deciviews for determining which sources
are subject-to-BART. By using a contribution threshold of 0.5
deciviews, Wyoming exempted seven of the fourteen BART-eligible sources
in the State from further review under the BART requirements. Based on
the modeling results, the State determined that P4 Production, FMC
Granger, and OCI Wyoming had an impact of .07 deciviews, 0.39 deciview,
and 0.07 deciview, respectively, at Bridger Wilderness. Black Hills
Neil Simpson 1, Sinclair Casper Refinery, and Sinclair--Sinclair
Refinery have an impact of 0.27 deciview, 0.06 deciview, and 0.12
deciview, respectively, at Wind Cave. Dyno-Nobel had an impact of 0.22
deciview at Rocky Mountain National Park. These sources' modeled
visibility impacts fell below the State's threshold of 0.5 deciview and
were determined not to be subject-to-BART. Given the relatively limited
impact on visibility from these seven sources, we continue to agree
with Wyoming that 0.5 deciviews is a reasonable threshold for
determining whether its BART-eligible sources are subject-to-BART. In
addition, the commenter points to the impacts from oil and gas at Class
I areas. The BART Guidelines do not require states to consider the
impacts from sources other than BART-eligible sources when defining the
threshold for determining what sources are subject-to-BART. While the
Guidelines first say that, in setting a contribution threshold, states
should consider the number of ``emissions sources'' affecting the Class
I area at issue, the Guidelines then go on to clarify that states may
use a lower contribution threshold based on the location of a large
number of ``BART-eligible'' sources within the State that are proximate
to the Class I area at issue.

E. Reasonable Progress

1. RPGs
    Comment: 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1) of the RHR requires states to
establish goals (in deciviews) that provide for reasonable progress
towards achieving natural visibility conditions for each Class I area
of the state. These are goals, not standards. Goals are typically
understood as levels aimed for but not necessarily met. Early on in the
process, EPA considered setting ``presumptive targets'' but eliminated
them before the final rule. EPA also says that the RPGs established by
the state are not directly enforceable. In spite of this, EPA has
proposed to FIP the Wyoming RPGs.
    EPA does not specifically define the word ``goal,'' but the RHR
does describe what must be considered when the goals are set. Wyoming
has set six reasonable progress goals and every one of them met that
criteria. EPA does not even argue with this basic fact. When setting
the goals, the state must do a reasonable progress analysis. The State
of Wyoming complied with this requirement as well.
    Response: EPA disagrees with this comment. Wyoming's selected RPGs
do not meet the requirements of the RHR. In establishing RPGs, Wyoming
must make two demonstrations. First, the State must demonstrate how the
four statutory reasonable factors, as applied to potentially affected
sources, were taken into consideration in selecting the goals. 40 CFR
51.308(d)(1)(i). In addition, if Wyoming establishes an RPG that
provides for a slower rate of improvement than the URP, the State must
demonstrate, based on the four statutory reasonable progress factors,
that achieving the URP is not reasonable and that the selected RPG is
reasonable. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(ii). In determining whether the
selected RPGs in fact provide for reasonable progress towards natural
visibility conditions, EPA must evaluate these two demonstrations. 40
CFR 51.308(d)(iii).
    EPA's interpretation of the statute and the RHR is that BART
sources should also be identified as anthropogenic sources of
visibility impairment for purposes of developing the long-term
strategy. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(iv). Correspondingly, BART sources should
be considered ``potentially affected sources'' and evaluated for
controls using the reasonable progress factors. See 40 CFR
51.308(d)(1)(i)(A). However, due to the similarity of the reasonable
progress and BART factors, it is reasonable for states to rely on their
BART determinations to fulfill the requirements of 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A)
and 51.308(d)(1)(ii) (if applicable), in other words to demonstrate
that the reasonable progress factors were reasonably considered for
those sources for the first planning period. This interpretation is
consistent with guidance EPA has issued for states regarding meeting
reasonable progress requirements.\237\ However, the Wyoming submittal
states that the reasonable progress ``four factor analysis . . . is a
method for evaluating potential control strategies for facilities that
are not eligible for Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) or
better-than-BART programs.'' Wyo. 309(g) Submittal at 115. Thus, the
Wyoming submittal on its face fails to meet the requirements of the
statute and the RHR. To the extent that Wyoming can be said to have
relied on its BART determinations to establish that the State
reasonably considered the reasonable progress factors for those
sources, that reliance fails for those sources for which we are
disapproving the BART determinations. In addition, as the State's RPGs
fall short of the URP, the State failed to adequately demonstrate,
based on the four statutory reasonable progress factors, that achieving
the URP was not reasonable and that, the selected RPG is reasonable.
Given our evaluation of these demonstrations, we have determined that
the selected RPGs do not provide for reasonable progress towards
natural visibility conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \237\ US EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
Guidance for Setting Reasonable Progress Goals Under the Regional
Haze Program (June 1, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, although we are not disapproving the State's ultimate
determination to not impose controls on non-BART sources, we note that
(as explained in more detail below) the State unreasonably relied on
impermissible factors to reach those determinations. Thus, the State
failed to demonstrate that it was reasonable, based on consideration of
the statutory reasonable progress factors, to not meet the URP. In
other words, although we are approving the State's decision as part of
its long-term strategy to not

impose controls on the non-BART sources the State listed, we are still
disapproving the State's RPGs.
    Because the State failed to meet the requirements of
51.308(d)(1)(i) and (ii) when the State selected its RPGs as part of
the State's Regional Haze SIP, EPA is obligated to promulgate a
regional haze FIP to meet those requirements. That the RPGs are named
``goals,'' not standards, and are not directly enforceable is
irrelevant to this obligation.
    Comment: Wyoming explained to EPA that Wyoming could not compel
these reasonable progress sources to put on controls without a State
rule, and that rule would have to include a visibility impact analysis.
Wyoming was willing to commit to developing such a rule in the next
planning period, but it did not have the time or resources left to
complete that task and get the SIP submitted to the EPA for the first
planning period. Wyoming's administrative rulemaking process requires
about nine months to a year to develop and finalize rules. Wyoming
believes that it has taken an important first step in the process, and
it appears to be more than many other states were making.
    Wyoming also believes that it made more sense to develop a
comprehensive State reasonable progress rule that could be used for the
next SIPs to address regional haze. That rule would take extra time
that EPA was not willing to give the State. EPA told the State
repeatedly that ``The Regional Haze Rule does not allow for commitments
to potentially implement strategies at some later date that are
identified under reasonable progress.'' The State is still dumbfounded
by this kind of response for a rule that goes out to 2064, especially
where EPA itself has recognized the one-step-at-a-time doctrine.
    Response: EPA disagrees with this comment. While we understand the
State's position on its limits on its authority, time, and resources,
EPA first promulgated the reasonable progress requirements under the
RHR on July 1, 1999, and we issued our guidance on setting RPGs in
September 2007. Wyoming submitted its Regional Haze SIP on January 12,
2011. Wyoming does not explain why the State did not have an adequate
amount of time to develop a regional haze SIP that meets the
requirements for reasonable progress.
    In any case, the State's limits on its authority, time, and
resources are not permissible factors for EPA to take into account when
assessing the State's Regional Haze SIP. Instead, we must assess
whether it meets the requirements of the RHR, and in particular the
requirements for reasonable progress towards natural visibility
conditions. We note that we are approving certain portions of Wyoming's
Regional Haze SIP with respect to reasonable progress requirements.
    To the extent that the notion of ``one-step-at-a-time'' is relevant
in this context, as explained elsewhere, Wyoming's Regional Haze SIP
fails to adequately make the very first step towards natural visibility
conditions: Achieving reasonable progress during the first planning
period. A commitment to completing that first step in a future planning
period cannot substitute for actually completing the first step within
schedule. Wyoming cites no authority to the contrary; conditional
approval under CAA section 110(k)(4) does not apply as Wyoming has made
no commitment to adopt specific enforceable measures within one year to
remedy the deficiencies. Again, whatever the constraints imposed on the
State by time, resources, and authority, those constraints cannot be
taken into account in assessing whether the State has met the
requirements for the first planning period. In this case, Wyoming has
not met those requirements with respect to reasonable progress.
    Comment: States are required, when setting RPGs, to determine the
rate of progress needed to attain natural visibility conditions by
2064. The State did that and included it in the SIP. EPA's RHR also
requires that if the rate is slower than the rate established by
drawing a straight line between baseline visibility and natural
conditions, that it must be explained why. The data clearly show that
the primary reason that the State will not reach natural conditions by
2064 is that smoke from wildfires controls the slope of the line.
    Response: EPA disagrees with this comment, which understates the
requirements of the RHR for setting RPGs. We agree that Wyoming did
appropriately determine the URP needed to attain natural visibility
conditions by 2064 and we are approving that determination. However,
when a state selects an RPG that provides for a slower rate of
improvement in visibility than the URP, it is not the case that all the
state must do is ``explain why.'' Instead, the state must demonstrate,
based on the statutory reasonable progress factors as applied to
potentially affected sources, that the URP is not reasonable and that
the selected RPG is reasonable. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(ii). Under the RHR,
40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(iii), and under section 110 of the Act (as
discussed elsewhere) we are required to evaluate the state's
demonstration.
    As discussed elsewhere, the State did not reasonably consider the
statutory reasonable progress factors for potentially affected sources.
As a result, the State also failed to adequately demonstrate, based on
the four statutory reasonable progress factors as applied to
potentially affected sources, that achieving the URP was not reasonable
and that the selected RPG is reasonable. We therefore are disapproving
Wyoming's selected RPGs.
    With respect to the comment's reference to wildfires, we provide a
detailed response to comments relating to wildfires and natural
conditions in the modeling section of this response to comments.
    Comment: EPA cannot remove the reasonable progress goals for the
State. Wyoming followed the process outlined in the RHR. EPA is not
following the RHR by proposing a control requirement for a specific
source to replace six RPGs for an entire state. The RHR does not allow
for the substitution of RPGs with control strategies. EPA's proposed
disapproval is contrary to law.
    Response: EPA disagrees with this comment. As discussed above, we
are disapproving the State's selected RPGs because they do not meet the
requirements of the RHR. In addition, the commenter is mistaken in
stating that EPA is ``replacing'' RPGs with control requirements for a
specific source. This statement conflates two separate but related
requirements of the RHR. First, states must set RPGs in accordance with
40 CFR 51.308(d)(1). Second, states must submit a LTS, including
enforceable emissions limitations, compliance schedules, and other
measures as necessary to achieve the RPGs. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3).
    We are disapproving Wyoming's RPGs because they do not meet the
requirements of 51.308(d)(1), as detailed above. Separately, we
proposed to disapprove Wyoming's determination to not impose
enforceable emissions limitations at Dave Johnston Units 1 and 2. Thus,
we did not propose to ``replace'' the RPGs with control requirements;
instead, we proposed to provide both. However, as explained elsewhere,
on the basis of the cost and visibility information that EPA developed,
we are now approving Wyoming's determination (although not the State's
rationale) to not impose enforceable emissions limitations at Dave
Johnston Units 1 and 2. We nonetheless continue to disagree with the
comment.
    Comment: There is no way Wyoming can control the impacts from
wildfire

smoke on visibility. Therefore, it will be a very long time, 126 to 161
years, before controlling manmade sources can ever overcome the smoke
impacts, and that is assuming that smoke impacts never increase. The
length of time for other western states is even longer, and EPA has
approved those SIPs. Wyoming included this explanation along with
identifying other sources that impact visibility, but EPA disagreed
with the Wyoming assessment, saying not all reasonable controls were
implemented during the first planning period. Specifically, EPA
disagreed with Wyoming's determination to not impose controls on Dave
Johnston Units 1 and 2. Because Wyoming did not impose controls on Dave
Johnston Units 1 and 2, EPA has proposed to disapprove Wyoming's RPGs.
    Wyoming believes that EPA's reasoning for disapproving the State's
RPGs is flawed and arbitrary. First, the State set goals based on
regional modeling projections done for the entire western U.S. To the
best of our knowledge, that is the same process that every other state
in the western U.S. used and many of them now have approved RPGs in
spite of the fact that it will take hundreds of years in all of the
western Class I areas to reach ``natural conditions.'' In North Dakota,
for example, it will take between 156 and 232 years to reach natural
conditions at affected Class I areas. It would be impossible to set
deciview goals without regional modeling, unless the State wanted to
wildly guess at it.
    Response: EPA disagrees with this comment. We are not disapproving
Wyoming's RPGs solely on the basis that they fall short of achieving
the URP. Instead, as explained above, we are disapproving them on the
basis that the State has failed to demonstrate that the four statutory
reasonable progress factors were appropriately considered. The State
has also failed to demonstrate, again based on the four statutory
reasonable progress factors, that achieving the URP is unreasonable and
that the State's selected RPGs are reasonable. The comment's reference
to wildfires is beside the point, as the existence of wildfires does
not relieve the State of all responsibility to reasonably consider the
statutory reasonable progress factors for potentially affected sources.
We elsewhere provide a detailed response to comments relating to
wildfires and natural conditions in the modeling section of this
response to comments.
    Comment: While EPA ``anticipates'' that controls at Dave Johnston
Units 1 and 2 would result in measurable visibility improvement in
regional modeling demonstrations, and that ``anticipation,'' not
modeling, therefore justifies dispensing with Wyoming's RPGs, Wyoming
does not. When the WRAP modeled all of the emission reductions from the
entire western U.S. (including Wyoming emission reductions for all of
the pollutants) for this first planning period, Wyoming saw an
improvement of 0.6 deciviews at the Yellowstone site, and a 0.5
deciview improvement at the North Absaroka and Bridger sites on the
worst days. The numbers are even smaller or zero for the best days.
These improvements from much larger emission reductions for multiple
pollutants are almost imperceptible. Therefore, it is highly unlikely
that emission reductions for NOX from two units would make
enough difference to show up as an ``improvement'' in regional scale
modeling, and thereby justify setting different RPGs.
    Response: We disagree with the approach suggested in this comment.
Below, we discuss the use of CALPUFF (instead of the regional scale
modeling the comment suggests) to determine visibility improvement from
controls on Dave Johnston Units 1 and 2. We also respond to comments
regarding regional scale modeling in section V.B.
    Comment: The EPA proposes to impose reasonable progress controls on
Dave Johnston Units 1 and 2, more stringent NOX BART
controls on Dave Johnston Unit 3, Jim Bridger Units 1 and 2, Wyodak
Unit 1, and Laramie Units 1, 2, and 3. These EPA proposed controls are
more stringent than what was assumed by the WRAP in modeling Wyoming's
RPGs. Wyoming established its RPGs based on the regional modeling
projections completed in the WRAP process. In proposing these
reasonable progress controls, EPA is also proposing RPGs that are
consistent with the controls, thereby rejecting Wyoming's proposed
RPGs.
    In rejecting Wyoming's RPGs and imposing its own, EPA did not re-
run the WRAP model; instead, the agency essentially guessed ``that the
additional controls would result in an increase in visibility
improvement during the 20% worst days,'' thereby warranting the more
stringent controls at these units.
    EPA's proposal to reject Wyoming's RPGs is not warranted. First,
the mere assumption that additional controls will result in greater
visibility improvement cannot reasonably be supported without modeling
data. EPA admits that it ran no modeling that would support its best
guess that visibility would improve with the installation of more
stringent controls. Second, EPA's proposal to place controls on the
Dave Johnston Units 1 and 2 is flawed. The Dave Johnston Units 1 and 2
are not BART-eligible units. When Wyoming considered the WRAP model
data, it concluded that putting controls on the Dave Johnston Units 1
and 2 would not result in an improvement in visibility. Without any
improvement in visibility coming from placing controls on these non-
BART units, Wyoming reasonably concluded that there was no reason to
change its RPGs.
    Response: We disagree with this comment. WRAP performed regional
photochemical modeling using both the CMAQ and CAMx air quality models
to evaluate progress toward attaining visibility goals using all
projected emission changes from all source categories throughout the
United States. WRAP did not perform regional photochemical modeling to
evaluate the visibility impacts of individual BART sources. While WRAP
did make assumptions regarding the level of emissions control that
would be adopted by BART sources, no state or EPA region has re-run the
WRAP's regional photochemical models to assess individual BART source
contributions to visibility impairment. Instead, the BART sources, the
states, and EPA have used the CALPUFF model to evaluate contributions
to visibility impairment from individual BART sources. As discussed
earlier in this rulemaking and the docket for this final action, EPA
modeled visibility impairment from individual sources in making its
determination of BART and reasonable progress controls. Thus, the
comment is inaccurate in stating that EPA ran no modeling to assess
whether controls on Dave Johnston Units 1 and 2 would improve
visibility. With respect to the assertion that Wyoming considered the
WRAP model data and decided that the data showed controls on Dave
Johnston Units 1 and 2 would not improve visibility, the Wyoming SIP
submittal does not reflect that. In evaluating the reasonable progress
factors for Dave Johnston Units 1 and 2 (which was selected by the
State as a potentially affected source) the SIP submittal states: ``LNB
or LNB w/OFA seem to be the most reasonable choice[s] for the Dave
Johnston Electric Generating Station boilers BW41 and BW42 based on the
four factor analysis. The implementation of new control technologies on
the two boilers are discussed in further detail in Chapter 8 (Section
8.3.4), Long-Term Strategy.'' Nonetheless, in section 8.3.4, the SIP
stated: ``The Air Quality Administrator cannot, per Wyoming Statute 35-
11-202, establish emission control

requirements except through State rule or regulation. Furthermore, the
Wyoming statute requires the Administrator to consider the character
and degree of injury of the emissions involved. In this case,
visibility modeling would be required to assess the degree of injury
caused by the emissions. Modeling is not available at this time to
determine impacts from emission reduction.'' As we explain elsewhere,
these are not permissible reasons to ignore the four statutory
reasonable progress factors. Nonetheless, our revised visibility
modeling leads us to the conclusion that it was not unreasonable for
the State to not impose controls on Dave Johnston Units 1 and 2, even
though the State's basis for doing so was inadequate.
    Comment: Wyoming's adoption of an alternative SO2
program, even if it were valid, does not relieve Wyoming of its
obligation to develop and implement a LTS that includes measures
necessary to reduce visibility-impairing emissions of SO2,
PM, and NOX to achieve RPGs for non-Colorado Plateau Class I
areas. Accordingly, EPA must determine whether Wyoming's RPGs for its
non-Colorado Plateau Class I areas are adequate.
    Response: We agree that Wyoming must develop a LTS to address
reasonable progress for non-Colorado Plateau Class I areas. As our
proposed notice indicates, we proposed to disapprove the State's RPGs.
We also proposed to implement additional controls under reasonable
progress. We are completing the action to disapprove the State's RPG's
today, and as explained elsewhere in this section, we are not
finalizing requirements for additional controls under reasonable
progress.
    Comment: With the exception of the controls required on Naughton
Unit 3, PacifiCorp has installed all of the BART controls required by
the Wyoming BART permits and the regional haze SIP. These controls were
installed from 2005 through 2012. The actual monitored visibility
impairment demonstrates that Wyoming has made significant progress in
reducing nitrate concentrations and further demonstrates that the RPGs
are on track through the 2008-2017 planning period. EPA's FIP is not
``necessary'' to meet RPGs for nitrates in these Class I areas. As a
result, EPA should withdraw its FIP.
    Response: EPA disagrees with this comment. As explained above, the
State was required to assess the four statutory reasonable progress
factors for potentially affected sources and reasonably determine
potential controls, and we are required to evaluate the State's
determination. The State did not demonstrate reasonable progress for
those determinations that we are disapproving. As a result, we must
disapprove the State's RPGs and promulgate a FIP for them. We also note
that the comment does not explain the relationship between the State's
RPGs and changes in monitored visibility impairment as the result of
installed controls, as the State's RPGs were not remodeled to reflect
the controls selected by the State.
    Comment: Any discussion of the appropriate NOX control
levels required under the RHR should include an assessment of the
existing visibility levels to understand what pollutants are driving
visibility impairment in Wyoming. Measured visibility impairment at
Wyoming's IMPROVE monitoring stations shows that the contribution from
nitrates, which are visibility impairing pollutants that result from
NOX emissions, play a lesser role in visibility impairment
in Wyoming than particulate organic mass or sulfates. The latest
available IMPROVE data (2000-2009) from the WRAP Technical Support
System reveals the following about the two Class I areas that were most
closely examined for impacts from Wyoming BART sources: (1) Currently,
the air in those Class I areas is very clear, with overall visibility
among the best in the entire country; (2) When visibility is not good,
i.e., when you can't see across the vista, it is likely because of
smoke from wildfires; (3) The contribution to visibility impairment
from nitrate particles, which are as a result of emissions of
NOX, is small.
    The State believes it has made a good case that fire contributes
more to visibility impairment than nitrates at Class I areas most
affected by Wyoming sources. The State has made great progress in
reducing the manmade contribution to visibility impairment from power
plants, even when the manmade contribution has much less impact to
visibility impairment than other components. EPA's proposed disapproval
and FIP are not supported by a record that demonstrates small
visibility improvements predicted by a CALPUFF model replete with
uncertainty when the actual, measured levels of nitrates at Class I
areas affected by those sources is so small. Wyoming's SIP is
adequately supported because Wyoming considered these and other factors
in arriving at the selected levels of NOX controls for
Wyoming sources and the schedule for the installation of those
controls.
    Response: We disagree with this comment. Regardless of the
considerations presented in the comment, the State was required, at a
minimum, to evaluate the four statutory reasonable progress factors for
potentially affected sources and to reasonably determine controls, and
we are required to evaluate the State's determination. In evaluating
the factors for Dave Johnston Units 1 and 2, which was selected in the
State's SIP as a potentially affected source, the SIP submittal states:
``LNB or LNB w/OFA seem to be the most reasonable choice[s] for the
Dave Johnston Electric Generating Station boilers BW41 and BW42 based
on the four factor analysis. The implementation of new control
technologies on the two boilers are discussed in further detail in
Chapter 8 (Section 8.3.4), Long-Term Strategy.'' Nonetheless, in
section 8.3.4, the SIP stated: ``The Air Quality Administrator cannot,
per Wyoming Statute 35-11-202, establish emission control requirements
except through State rule or regulation. Furthermore, the Wyoming
statute requires the Administrator to consider the character and degree
of injury of the emissions involved. In this case, visibility modeling
would be required to assess the degree of injury caused by the
emissions. Modeling is not available at this time to determine impacts
from emission reduction.''
    As explained above, it is unreasonable and impermissible for the
State to disregard its four factor analysis on the basis that the State
lacked the necessary modeling and that reasonable progress requirements
could be postponed until the next planning period. The considerations
presented by the comment do not change this.
    In addition, section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) of the Act requires that SIPs
provide necessary assurances that, among other things, the State has
adequate authority and resources to carry out the plan. The SIP
language we quote above instead denies that the State has the proper
authority and resources to meet the requirements of the RHR, in
particular the requirement that the long-term strategy ``include
enforceable emissions limitations . . . and other measures as necessary
to achieve the reasonable progress goals.'' 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3). As a
result, Wyoming's Regional Haze submittal fails to meet the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)(i), which is applicable to
``[each] implementation plan submitted by a State under [the CAA],''
including the Regional Haze submittal.
    Comment: An area of the RHR that is unusual is in the timing of the
implementation of the rule. It is the most forward looking of all the
rules

with requirements to be carried out by the grandchildren of the people
who are currently working on the rule, with an end date of 2064. While
EPA has established long-term targets through the acid rain program and
ozone attainment requirements in a 10-20 year time frame, they have
never set goals that were 60 years down the road. This is significant
because EPA recognized that the problem was complicated and that it
would take at least this much time to solve it.
    EPA's strategy included breaking up the long-range goal of
achieving natural conditions by 2064 into many smaller pieces. EPA
included a requirement for states to submit comprehensive SIP revisions
in 2018 and every ten years thereafter. In addition to the
comprehensive SIP revisions, states will also be required under 40 CFR
51.308(g) to submit progress reports in the form of a SIP revision
every five years, with the first revision due in 2013. Between both the
comprehensive SIP revisions and the progress report SIP revisions,
states will be working on 16 more SIP revisions, at a minimum, to
address regional haze. The State views these upcoming SIP revisions on
regional haze as opportunities to build on the first SIP, and that the
current rush by the EPA to get so many reductions procured in the first
time period as unnecessary. It is unnecessary because the State has
submitted a plan to reduce NOX from BART sources by 45,153
tons, and an additional 19,677 tons through the LTS in the first
planning period. There are few states in the country that can
demonstrate this magnitude of emission reductions Wyoming has secured.
    EPA recognized in the RHR preamble that many factors will change
over time and that it may be possible to procure emission reductions in
the future that cannot be accomplished during an earlier period. EPA
expected reductions to occur over time and did not expect states to
front end load this program with emission reductions.
    The RHR provides states with the time necessary to intelligently
address the very complicated problem of regional haze. Wyoming asks EPA
to recognize their own intentions to roll out this program step by step
and approve the State's decision to require SCR on PacifiCorp Units 1
and 2 of the Jim Bridger Power Plant in 2021 and 2022 as part of the
LTS. The State also asks that EPA give the State the time it needs to
create a rule to address reasonable progress, which would include
reductions at the PacifiCorp Dave Johnston Plant, Units 1 and 2.
Wyoming plans to create a general reasonable progress rule in the next
planning period to address future reductions.
    Response: While we recognize the emission reductions achieved by
the State for the first planning period and that the regional haze
program is a long-term program, the State must still meet the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308 for the first planning period. As we
stated in our proposal notice, the State's plan does not fully meet the
requirements for BART and reasonable progress. Because we have found
that the State's SIP submission did not adequately satisfy the RHR
requirements in full, we have not only the authority, but a duty to
promulgate a FIP that meets those requirements. The EPA disagrees that
the additional emission reductions required by our proposed FIP are
unnecessary, as we have demonstrated that the State's SIP does not meet
the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308. Our FIP action is only intended to
ensure that CAA requirements are satisfied in accordance with our
authority under the CAA.
    Comment: We received numerous comments that monitoring data shows
that the worst visibility days are due to wildfires and that EPA should
be focusing on these emissions and not on nitrate emissions from
stationary sources, which have little impact on poor visibility days.
One commenter pointed out data from Class I areas in Wyoming that show
organic carbon and elemental carbon, which are indicators of wildfire,
are major contributors on poor visibility days compared to nitrates.
Another commenter stated that the only EPA policy to address fires is
the Interim Air Quality Policy on Wildland and Prescribed Fires which
has not been updated since 1998 and that the EPA is not taking action
on this core issue.
    Response: While we agree that industrial facilities are not the
only causes of haze, we disagree with the thrust of this comment. We
provide a detailed response to comments relating to wildfires and
natural conditions in the modeling section of this response to
comments. Regardless of the contribution from wildfire emissions, 40
CFR 51.308(d)(3)(iv) states, ``The State must identify all
anthropogenic sources of visibility impairment considered by the State
in developing its long-term strategy. The State should consider major
and minor stationary sources, mobile sources, and area sources.'' As
discussed elsewhere, in its submittal the State identified a number of
stationary sources as potential contributors to visibility impairment
(i.e. potentially affected sources). The State was required, at a
minimum, to evaluate the five statutory BART factors and four statutory
reasonable progress factors for potentially affected sources and to
reasonably determine controls, and we are required to evaluate the
State's determination. 40 CFR 51.308(e) and 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(iv),
respectively. The requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(iv) and 40 CFR
51.308(e) are not dependent on the showing of a certain amount of
impairment from point sources.
    Comment: The CAA and the RHR require SIPs to set forth goals,
expressed in deciviews, that assure ``reasonable progress toward
meeting the national goal'' of ``natural visibility conditions [in
Class I areas] by the year 2064.'' 42 U.S.C. 7491(a)(4), (b); 40 CFR
51.308(d)(1)(i)(A). The goals ``must provide for an improvement in
visibility for the most impaired days over the period of the
implementation plan and ensure no degradation in visibility for the
least impaired days over the same period.'' 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1). To
establish these goals, a state must also ``[a]nalyze and determine the
rate of progress needed to attain natural visibility conditions by the
year 2064,'' by ``compar[ing] baseline visibility conditions to natural
visibility conditions [in Class I areas] and determin[ing] the uniform
rate of visibility improvement'' necessary to achieve natural
conditions by 2064. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(B).
    Wyoming's SIP meets these requirements. See SIP, at 114-31. The SIP
calculates and compares baseline and natural visibility conditions, Id.
at 114-15, analyzes the rate of progress needed to attain natural
visibility conditions by 2064, Id., and establishes a uniform rate of
progress, Id. Wyoming also ensured improvement in visibility on the
most impaired days and no degradation on the least impaired days. See
Id. at 115 (Table 7.2.1). And, most importantly, the SIP establishes
reasonable progress goals. Id. at 127-131. The CAA and the RHR also
require states to make reasonable progress determinations for
particular sources by ``[c]onsider[ing] the costs of compliance, the
time necessary for compliance, the energy and non-air quality
environmental impacts of compliance, and the remaining useful life of
any potentially affected sources, and includ[ing] a demonstration
showing how these factors were taken into consideration in selecting
the goal.'' 40 CFR 51.308(d)(l)(i)(A).
    Wyoming also met this requirement. The SIP clearly explains how
Wyoming considered these factors and identified sources impacting
visibility in Class I areas. See SIP, at 116-17. Wyoming then

explained in its SIP how it applied the factors to each individual
source. See Id. at 117-27. The SIP therefore meets the requirements of
the Act and the RHR.
    Response: As discussed elsewhere, we have evaluated Wyoming's BART
and reasonable progress determinations and we are disapproving them for
Dave Johnston Unit 3, Wyodak Unit 1, and Laramie River Station Units 1-
3. Because the State did not reasonably consider the statutory BART
factors for these sources, the State also failed to adequately
demonstrate (to the extent that the State relied on its BART
determinations to demonstrate the required consideration of the
reasonable progress factors) that the reasonable progress factors were
appropriately considered in establishing the RPGs. The State also
failed to adequately demonstrate, based on the statutory BART and
reasonable progress factors, that achieving the URP was not reasonable
and that the selected RPG is reasonable. Given our evaluation of these
two demonstrations and the comments received, we have determined that
the selected RPGs do not provide for reasonable progress towards
natural visibility conditions.
    In making this determination, we are not limited to merely noting
whether the State has submitted an analysis that purports to consider
the BART and reasonable progress statutory reasonable progress factors.
Instead, we evaluate whether the State reasonably assessed the
statutory BART and reasonable progress factors as applied to
potentially affected sources and, based on those factors, reasonably
determined whether controls were required for this planning period. In
this case, the State did not do so.
    As discussed earlier, because the State failed to meet the
requirements of Sec.  51.308(d)(1)(i) and (ii) when the State selected
its RPGs as part of the State's Regional Haze SIP, EPA is obligated to
promulgate a regional haze FIP to meet those requirements.
    We do agree that the State did correctly calculate and compare
baseline and natural visibility conditions, analyzed the rate of
progress needed to attain natural visibility conditions by 2064, and
established a URP. We agree that Wyoming's SIP ensured improvement in
visibility on the most impaired days and no degradation on the least
impaired days, as does our FIP.
    Comment: EPA acknowledges that Wyoming evaluated the requisite four
factors in its reasonable progress determinations. 78 FR 34785. But,
EPA asserts that Wyoming incorrectly calculated costs in those
determinations. Id. EPA, however, does not explain how Wyoming
incorrectly calculated costs. EPA asserts first that ``EPA's rationale
for disapproving the State's reasonable progress determination[s] . . .
can be found in Section VIII.B of [the proposal].'' ld. at 34763.
Section VIII.B--the location of EPA's supposed ``rationale''--only
reiterates EPA's general allegation of deficiencies in the control cost
estimates. Id. at 34785. EPA therefore has not described with any
meaningful degree of specificity the supposed errors that justify
rejecting the State's reasonable progress determinations. EPA's failure
to provide an intelligible justification for its action is unlawful and
arbitrary, and precludes Wyoming from offering a more meaningful
response.
    Response: We disagree. First, the commenter fails to fully disclose
EPA's proposed rationale for disapproving the State's reasonable
progress determination for Dave Johnston Units 1 and 2. The commenter
cites language related to our finding of deficiencies with the State's
cost analysis (at 78 FR 34785), but fails to cite our fuller
explanation for disapproving the State's determination a few pages
later (at 78 FR 34787): ``We disagree with the State's reasoning for
not adopting reasonable progress controls for Dave Johnston Unit 1 and
Unit 2. If the State determined that it needed to adopt a rule or
perform modeling to adequately assess and, if warranted, require
reasonable progress controls, the State should have completed these
steps before it submitted its regional haze SIP. The RHR does not allow
for commitments to potentially implement strategies at some later date
that are identified under reasonable progress or for the State to take
credit for such commitments.''
    We offered this rationale in response to the State's argument that
no controls were reasonable because: (1) the State's four factor
analysis was limited, in that no guidance was provided by EPA for
identifying significant sources and EPA did not establish contribution
to visibility impairment thresholds (a potential fifth factor for
reasonable progress determinations), (2) the State cannot, per Wyoming
Statute 35-11-202, establish emission control requirements except
through State rule or regulation, (3) the Wyoming statute requires the
State to consider the character and degree of injury of the emissions
involved--information that State claimed not to have, and (4) the State
believes it has taken a strong and reasonable first step in identifying
potential contributors to visibility impairment, and that the next step
of creating an appropriate rule or regulation will be accomplished in
the next SIP revision. 78 FR 34786. Therefore, our proposed rationale
for disapproving the State's reasonable progress determination for Dave
Johnston extended beyond our concerns with the cost analysis.
    Even so, contrary to the commenter's assertions, and though perhaps
not to the level of detail desired by the commenter, we did
sufficiently explain our concerns with deficiencies in Wyoming's cost
analyses, including those for Dave Johnston Units 1 and 2. Most
notably, as described in Section VII.C of the proposed rule, we
recognized that Wyoming had understated ``the ability of SCR to reduce
NOX.'' This was most pronounced at Dave Johnston Units 1 and
2 where the State assumed that SCR would only reduce NOX to
an emission rate of about 0.09 lb/MMBtu (equivalent to an 80% reduction
from 2001-2003 baseline). As we have established elsewhere in response
to comments, in this instance SCR has the ability to reduce
NOX to an emission rate of 0.05 lb/MMBtu or less. Therefore,
it is clear that the State underestimated the emission reductions that
can be achieved with SCR, and thereby miscalculated the cost
effectiveness. And while EPA did not find that SCR was warranted for
Dave Johnston Units 1 and 2, it was nonetheless necessary to correctly
calculate the cost effectiveness of all of the technically feasible
controls in order to rationally evaluate the State's decision to not
impose any controls and to (had we been compelled to impose a FIP)
select from among competing control options.
    Comment: The RHR clearly states that every implementation plan must
include reasonable progress goals. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(l). Those goals
must be expressed in deciviews and must provide for visibility
improvement on the most impaired days and no degradation on the least
impaired days during the planning period. Id. In EPA's own words, RPGs
are ``[t]he vehicle for ensuring continuing progress towards achieving
the natural visibility goal,'' 78 FR 34743, which is the focal point of
the regional haze program, see 42 U.S.C. 749l(a)(l).
    EPA proposes to disapprove the State's reasonable progress goals.
78 FR 34767. In the same sentence, EPA claims to be proposing a FIP to
replace those goals, which EPA asserts can be found in Section VIII.C
of the notice. Section VIII.C reveals, however, that EPA has in fact
failed to establish replacement RPGs. See Id. at 34788.

EPA does not set forth RPGs in deciviews, nor does it provide for
visibility improvement on the most impaired days with no degradation on
the least impaired days. See Id. Instead, EPA merely ``anticipates''
that its FIP would lead to improved visibility. Id. EPA's anticipation
falls far short of the plain requirements of the RHR--concrete,
deciview-based reasonable progress goals that provide for improved
visibility on the worst days and no degradation on the best days. EPA's
failure to establish RPGs to replace the SIP goals EPA proposes to
disapprove is therefore unlawful.
    EPA justifies its failure to establish the requisite RPGs by
explaining that it ``could not re-run the modeling due to time and
resource constraints [.]'' Id. This excuse stands in stark contrast to
EPA's response to similar claims the State raised in the context of
reasonable progress. For example, the State explained to EPA that the
State could not complete its evaluation of the impacts to visibility
from oil and gas sources until the WRAP completes its emission
inventory study. Id. at 34764-34765. EPA responded that ``If the State
determined that additional information was need . . . the State should
have developed the information.'' Id. at 34765. Similarly, the State
explained to EPA that it needed to conduct additional modeling before
it could justify controls for the Mountain Cement kiln. Id. at 34765-
34766. Again setting forth its dual standard, EPA responded that ``If
the State determined that it needed to adopt a rule or perform modeling
. . . the State should have completed these steps before it submitted
its regional haze SIP.'' Id. at 34766.
    Response: EPA disagrees with this comment to the extent it argues
that we should approve the State's RPGs. We note that the State did
not, in setting its RPGs, re-run its modeling to reflect the State's
selected controls. Instead, the State relied on WRAP modeling that
reflected certain generic assumptions about the level of controls. See
Wyo. 309(g) SIP, pages 53 and 127. As we have explained elsewhere,
regardless of how the State quantified its RPGs, they cannot be
approved, as the State failed to appropriately consider the four
statutory reasonable progress factors for the sources the State
selected as potentially affected sources. See 40 CFR
51.308(d)(1)(i)(A). In addition, the State cannot rely on the BART
determinations that we are disapproving to show reasonable progress for
those sources. Because we must disapprove the State's RPGs, and RPGs
are a required component of a regional haze SIP, we must promulgate our
own. We note that the RPGs are not directly enforceable. 40 CFR
51.308(d)(1)(v). The elements that directly impact sources and
visibility are the emissions limitations in the long-term strategy,
including those for BART and those for the reasonable progress sources.
    Comment: When determining the responsibility for regional haze,
Sweetwater County strongly believes that the DEQ and EPA need to
investigate the contribution to Wyoming's haze problem by sources
located outside of the United States, especially from countries like
China that do not appreciate the necessity for strong environmental
regulations. If we do not consider the effects of air pollution
contributing to our nation's and our State's air quality issues, we
open the door for unfair competition. To assign the entire cost of
Wyoming's haze and air pollution to Wyoming industries without
considering the effects of offshore sources is unfair to our
industries, and it would cause unnecessary impacts to the economy of
Wyoming and the United States.
    Response: While sources outside Wyoming do contribute to haze in
the Class I areas within Wyoming, that does not preclude the State's or
our obligation to evaluate sources within the State according to the
five BART factors and the four reasonable progress factors and to
require additional controls where necessary. In addition, we note that
the State did evaluate the sources of contribution to Class I areas in
the State (see e.g., Chapter 5 of the SIP).
    Comment: One commenter stated that EPA must re-evaluate its method
for assessing visibility impacts from wildfires or states will never be
able to achieve natural background goals. The commenter went on to say
that EPA should (1) eliminate the impacts from fire from the annual
contribution to the deciview analysis or (2) properly incorporate it
into the natural background equation to establish a glide path states
can achieve. The commenter provided graphical data from the IMPROVE
network to show the contributions to light extinction from organic
carbon, elemental carbon, and nitrate.
    Response: EPA does recognize this issue and has taken it into
consideration in this action on the Wyoming SIP and in our final FIP.
We agreed that Wyoming did appropriately determine the URP needed to
attain natural visibility conditions by 2064 and we are approving that
determination. We are not disapproving Wyoming's RPGs solely on the
basis that they fall short of achieving the URP. Instead, as explained
above, we are disapproving them on the basis that the State has failed
to demonstrate that the four statutory reasonable progress factors were
appropriately considered. As stated previously, regardless of the
contribution from wildfire emissions, 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(iv) states,
``The State must identify all anthropogenic sources of visibility
impairment considered by the State in developing its long-term
strategy. The State should consider major and minor stationary sources,
mobile sources, and area sources.'' As discussed elsewhere, in its
submittal the State identified a number of stationary sources as
potential contributors to visibility impairment (i.e. potentially
affected sources) and was required, at a minimum, to evaluate the five
statutory BART factors and four statutory reasonable progress factors
for potentially affected sources and to reasonably determine controls,
and we are required to evaluate the State's determination. 40 CFR
51.308(e) and 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(iv), respectively.
2. Reasonable Progress Sources
a. Oil and Gas Sources
    Comment: We received comments that volatile organic compound (VOC)
emissions from the oil and gas industry must be controlled under
reasonable progress. Commenters asserted that EPA acknowledged that oil
and gas sources emit haze-causing VOCs but inexplicably failed to
analyze whether reducing such VOC emissions is reasonable. One
commenter pointed out that EPA has just designated Sublette County (and
portions of Sweetwater and Lincoln Counties) in nonattainment with the
8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard, so there is no
doubt the ozone levels in Sublette County are of great concern.
Commenters pointed out that ozone severely impairs visibility; the
failure to consider strategies to limit oil and gas industry VOC
emissions was a significant oversight on both the part of the State and
EPA. Thus, commenters concluded that EPA must correct this problem by
analyzing and imposing reasonable progress controls on oil and gas
industry VOC emissions.
    Commenters pointed out that there are numerous opportunities to
reduce VOC emissions from the oil and gas industry. These include
requiring all oil and gas fields in the State to control VOC emissions
to the same extent currently required in the Pinedale Anticline and
Jonah fields pursuant to the State's BACT guidelines, implementing
recommendations from the Upper Green River Basin Air Quality

Citizens Advisory Task Force, and adoption of a statewide offset
program.
    Response: We disagree with this comment. The commenters did not
provide any evidence of the impact of VOC emissions on visibility in
Class I areas.
    Comment: Wyoming claims that regulation of drilling rigs is
problematic because drilling rigs are mobile sources over which states
have limited CAA authority. EPA is not similarly constrained and may
require emissions reductions from drilling rigs in a FIP. Replacement
of Tier 2 engines with Tier 4 engines on drilling rigs has a cost
effectiveness value as low as $900/ton, which is very reasonable.
    Response: EPA disagrees with this comment. The costs noted by the
commenter for controls for drill rig engines are the lower end of the
costs presented by the State. For replacement of Tier 2 engines with
Tier 4 engines, the State presented costs of $900 to $2400 per ton of
NOX removed, but the commenter cited only the $900 per ton
figure. To the extent that drill rig engines could be regulated under
the RHR, this range of costs is not so low that we are prepared to
disapprove the State's determination in the reasonable progress
context.
    Comment: EPA states it disagrees with the State's reasoning for not
adopting reasonable progress controls for the for oil and gas sources.
It is our view that, having made this finding, it is inappropriate for
EPA to then propose approval of the State's control plan, a plan which
would involve no new controls on the oil and gas sector. Having found
that the State's RPGs were not justified, the EPA must put in place a
FIP establishing RPGs for the oil and gas sector or ask the State to
revise its plan.
    There are numerous available means for controlling NOX
from the oil and gas sector, which is the primary focus that EPA has.
For example, the State has begun regulating NOX emissions
from drill rigs on the Pinedale Anticline and Jonah Field. The State
has put in place a number of regulations on those drill rigs. We
believe there is no reason this could not be extended to other fields
in other portions of the state.
    Response: We disagree with this comment. First, we did not propose
approval of the State's control plan in its entirety. Instead, we
proposed to disapprove the State's reasonable progress determination
for Dave Johnston Units 1 and 2; we also proposed to disapprove the
State's RPGs. We then proposed a FIP for the RPGs. While we are
approving the State's reasonable progress determination for Dave
Johnston Units 1 and 2, we are still finalizing a FIP for the RPGs, as
we have disapproved some of the State's BART determinations. Second, as
we stated in our proposal, although we disagree with the State's
reasoning with respect to the oil and gas sector, after considering the
costs presented by the State, we find that they are not so low that we
are prepared to disapprove the State's determination in the reasonable
progress context. With respect to NOX emissions generally
from the oil and gas sector, as discussed elsewhere, Wyoming applies
minor source BACT to these sources. For drill rig engines in
particular, see our response above. Finally, with respect to visibility
impacts of NOX emissions from oil and gas sources on Class I
areas, this comment provided no particular data. We respond below to
other comments on visibility impacts of oil and gas sources.
    Comment: The State provided sound reasoning for not adopting
reasonable progress controls for oil and gas sources. Wyoming is an oil
and gas production state, along with Colorado, North Dakota, New
Mexico, Montana, and Utah. One of the biggest challenges faced by these
WRAP states has been to inventory the emissions from this industry. At
the beginning of the regional haze process, a comprehensive emission
inventory of oil and gas production operations in the western region
that covered both point and area sources had not been developed. No
methodology had been developed to produce an inventory of this scope.
The WRAP oil and gas states collaborated to develop and implement a
uniform procedure for estimating area source emissions from oil and gas
operations. WRAP initiated a study to focus on estimating emissions of
pollutants with the potential to impair visibility near Class I areas
in the West, particularly NOX emissions.
    Developing this inventory has been one of the most important tasks
that needed to be completed before any of the western states could
begin to look at imposing controls for improving visibility. In
addition to developing these critical inventories, the State has also
been very active in identifying and controlling emissions from the oil
and gas industry. Wyoming has been ahead of the curve when it comes to
controlling emissions from this industry to protect health standards.
The EPA's recently finalized national oil and gas regulations to reduce
air pollutants from the oil and gas production industry were patterned
in large part after what Wyoming has been doing since the early 1990's.
Since 2005, the State has been spending more time and resources to
study and control emissions from natural gas production than any other
sector.
    When it came time to address visibility impacts associated with the
oil and gas industry for the RHR, Wyoming completed the required
reasonable progress analysis. Wyoming also laid out reasons for why the
time was not right for requiring additional controls on the industry to
reduce visibility impairment, including lacking the very critical
information to be supplied by the WRAP inventory study. In spite of
Wyoming's diligent efforts, EPA disagrees with the State's reasoning
for not adopting reasonable progress controls for the industry during
the first planning period.
    EPA has completely misunderstood the purpose of the collaborative
study to develop and implement a uniform procedure for estimating area
source emissions from oil and gas operations. Wyoming could not have
developed such a procedure on their own, and it continues to make no
sense for each state in the West to develop independent emission
inventories that cannot be compared to neighboring state inventories
for a regional effort. EPA should understand this better than any
individual state, since it relies on consistency in comprehensive
national inventories to develop sound national rules. While Wyoming
waits for the WRAP inventory study to be completed, it has not been
idle with respect to developing information on the oil and gas
industry. The State has invested huge resources in understanding
emissions from this industry and EPA's suggestion that the State ``just
develop the information'' shows a total lack of understanding of the
problem.
    EPA's whole issue is about substituting its view regarding timing
in place of Wyoming's reasoned judgment. Wyoming is hopeful that as it
addresses ozone nonattainment it can also demonstrate the co-benefits
to improving visibility just as EPA has done in the East by developing
an ozone control strategy that also demonstrates adequate visibility
improvement. Wyoming's effort goes beyond the first planning period,
and is in accordance with the RHR. Wyoming respectfully requests that
EPA acknowledge that Wyoming participation in the regional inventory
development process satisfies reasonable progress for this first
planning period.
    Response: We do commend the State for the work it is doing on
developing more comprehensive information on oil and gas emissions
although we disagree with this comment. As we stated in our

proposed notice, we disagree with the State's reasoning for not
adopting reasonable progress controls for oil and gas sources. If the
State determined that additional information on emission data from oil
and gas sources was needed to potentially control oil and gas sources,
the State should have developed the information in time for
incorporation into their SIP.
    Comment: Wyoming's booming oil and gas industry has a significant
and growing impact on visibility in the State's national parks and
wilderness areas. Given the close proximity of some of Wyoming's
largest planned oil and gas fields to the Bridger and Fitzpatrick
wilderness areas--between just 10 and 200 miles--these magnificent
lands in western Wyoming suffer the greatest visibility impairment due
to oil and gas activities. The 4,399 additional approved wells in the
Pinedale Anticline Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Project
alone are projected to degrade visibility in the Bridger Wilderness by
up to 6.1 deciviews, and to cause impacts greater than 1.0 deciview on
45 days of each year. This impact is in addition to the impairment
caused by the existing 1,819 wells in the Pinedale Anticline area, and
the impacts from the numerous other existing and planned oil and gas
fields in the region.
    Wyoming and EPA are obligated to reduce haze-causing emissions from
the State's oil and gas industry to achieve ``reasonable progress''
toward the national goal of eliminating human-caused visibility
impairment in Class I areas, 42 U.S.C. 7491(b)(2)(B), and doing so by a
target year of 2064, 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(B), (ii). See also 42
U.S.C. 7491(b) (requiring ``measures as may be necessary to make
reasonable progress toward meeting the national [visibility] goal'').
Under Wyoming's Regional Haze SIP, natural visibility conditions would
not be reached in Wyoming's Bridger and Fitzpatrick Wilderness Areas
until 2165--more than 100 years past the 2064 goal set by EPA. Wyo.
309(g) SIP at 115. Although EPA's proposed FIP includes additional
measures that would hasten visibility improvement, EPA projects that
Wyoming Class I areas still will not achieve the URP necessary to
restore natural visibility by 2064. 78 FR 34788. Thus, EPA must
demonstrate the reasonableness of its decision not to require emissions
reductions from oil and gas activities that could make greater progress
toward restoring natural visibility. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(ii).
    Both Wyoming and EPA have failed to demonstrate that regulating
emissions from Wyoming oil and gas development activities is not
reasonable, in light of the facts that pollution-control technologies
are technologically feasible, cost effective, and would improve
significantly visibility across several affected Class I areas. EPA
properly ``disagree[s] with the State's reasoning for not adopting
reasonable progress controls for oil and gas sources.'' 78 FR 34765.
Specifically, EPA rejects the State's view that it needs more time to
collect information before it regulates the industry, stating ``[i]f
the State determined that additional information was needed to
potentially control oil and gas sources, the State should have
developed the information.'' Id. EPA also rejects Wyoming's claim that
it needs up to two years to develop necessary regulations, because
``[i]f regulations are needed to implement reasonable progress
controls, the State must develop them as part of the regional haze
SIP.'' See also id. at 34764 n.43. The Conservation Organizations agree
that Wyoming is not excused from regulatory requirements to commit
reasonable emissions reductions from the oil and gas industry in the
current planning period simply because Wyoming thinks more information
about oil and gas activity emissions would be desirable. See 78 FR
34765. As we pointed out in previous comments, ample information about
oil and gas industry emissions and their visibility impacts has already
been developed and published in numerous state and federal
environmental impact statements.
    Response: EPA disagrees with the portions of this comment that take
issue with our proposed action. We acknowledge the comment's support
for our statement that Wyoming could not rely on the lack of data for
the State's determination for oil and gas sources. With respect to the
projected visibility impacts of future oil and gas production, we note
that the analysis cited by the commenter relied on a background ammonia
level of 1 ppb to determine visibility impacts on the Bridger
Wilderness. Elsewhere, we explain why we reconsidered use of a
background ammonia level of 2 ppb for modeling visibility impacts to
the Bridger Wilderness; as a result we remodeled using both a monitored
monthly varying concentration and an IWAQM default of 0.5 ppb for
background ammonia. Thus, the analysis cited by the commenter may
overstate visibility impacts. Furthermore, modeling of the visibility
impacts alone does not quantify the potential visibility benefits of
the controls the commenter supports.
    The comment cites 40 CFR 51.308(d)(ii), which requires states (or
EPA in this instance) to demonstrate, when the RPGs fall short of the
URP, that the RPGs are reasonable and achieving the URP is
unreasonable. As we stated in our proposal, we found this to be the
case due to the results of the four-factor analyses along with
emissions from sources outside the WRAP domain. The commenter does not
take issue with the latter, and we explain elsewhere that we continue
to think that the controls considered by Wyoming are not so cost-
effective that it was necessarily unreasonable for Wyoming to require
them.
    Comment: Although Wyoming's January 2011 SIP identified in
particular a need for the WRAP to complete its ``Phase III'' inventory
of Wyoming oil and gas emissions before requiring additional
regulations of the industry, that inventory was completed in November
2012. WRAP prepared technical memorandums specific to three areas in
Wyoming--the Powder River Basin, the Wind River Basin, and the Greater
Green River Basin--identifying both baseline emissions in 2006 and
projected emissions in 2015. Indeed, WRAP even has completed ``Phase
IV'' of its emissions inventory project, updating oil and gas industry
baseline emissions as of 2009 for specific regions, including all three
regions of Wyoming that were evaluated in Phase III. Thus, Wyoming has
no justification based on incomplete data for refusing to identify oil
and gas emissions control technology to satisfy reasonable progress
requirements. And there should be no reason for EPA to accept Wyoming's
invalid and outdated claim that more emissions information is needed
when that information was available for more than six months prior to
EPA's most recent Wyoming regional haze proposal.
    Response: We disagree with this comment to the extent that it
argues we should not approve Wyoming's decision to not impose controls
on oil and gas sources. We did state in our proposal that the lack of
emissions data was not an appropriate justification for Wyoming's
decision to not impose controls on oil and gas sources. Instead, we
proposed to approve Wyoming's decision based on the cost of controls
and on the application of minor source BACT. The comment does not
identify anything in the November 2012 data that affects that rationale
and does not explain how emissions data would change the cost of
controls or the application of the SIP-approved minor source BACT
provisions. Thus the comment does not give a reason for us to change
our decision.
    Comment: While EPA rejects Wyoming's rationale for refusing to
limit haze causing pollutants from this

booming industry, EPA provides insufficient rationale of its own to
justify the omission. EPA provides two reasons for proposing to accept
the State's plan not to require NOX emissions reductions
from Wyoming oil and gas sources. First, ``the most reasonable controls
are for compressor engines, which the State already controls through
its minor source BACT requirements.'' 78 FR 34765 & n.25 (citing
Wyoming Air Quality Standards and Regulations, Chapter 6, Section 2).
Second, ``while the costs of some controls are within the range of cost
effectiveness values Wyoming, other states, and we have considered as
reasonable in the BART context, they are not so low that we are
prepared to disapprove the State's conclusion in the reasonable
progress context.'' Id. at 34765. Neither contention is supportable.
    EPA is wrong that compressor engine NOX emissions are
regulated through Wyoming's minor source BACT requirements. Wyoming's
minor source BACT guidelines for the oil and gas industry only regulate
VOC and hazardous air pollutants, not NOX. The guidelines
make no provisions for NOX controls at all. See State of
Wyoming, Oil and Gas Production Facilities Chapter 6, Section 2
Permitting Guidance (presenting controls that apply to VOC and
hazardous air pollutants, but not NOX).
    Moreover, EPA's singular focus on compressor engines overlooks the
numerous other opportunities to significantly reduce haze-causing
emissions from oil and gas operations. As even Wyoming's analysis
demonstrates, cost-effective options are available to achieve high
control efficiency of NOX emissions from drill rig engines,
turbines, and process heaters. See 78 FR 34764 (Table 26).
    Response: We disagree with this comment. Chapter 6, Sections 2 and
4, which are approved into the State's SIP, both require BACT for new
source compressor engines for regulated pollutants, which includes
NOX and VOC. These regulatory requirements should not be
confused with the State's oil and gas permitting guidance, which is not
part of the SIP. The State guidance document provides additional
compliance information for select sources of oil and gas VOC emissions,
such as dehydration units, pumps and tanks. There are many sources
which are regulated by the State's SIP and required to apply controls
that are not included in the oil and gas permitting guidance.
    We also explained the reason we discussed compressor engines in
particular: the cost of controls for those sources was the most
reasonable. For other oil and gas sources, the costs were generally
higher. As we stated in our proposal, those costs were not so low that
EPA could find it necessarily unreasonable for the State to not have
adopted them. The comment gives us no reason to think otherwise.
    Comment: EPA's justification that the costs of available controls
are reasonable, but not so low that EPA is willing to require them, is
both arbitrary and factually flawed. See 78 FR 34765 (``the costs of
some controls are within the range of cost effectiveness values
Wyoming, other states, and we have considered as reasonable in the BART
context''). EPA's justification is arbitrary because it has not
identified any objective threshold or rationale for reaching the
determination that costs, although low, are still too high to justify
modifying Wyoming's SIP determination.
    Indeed, EPA rejected Wyoming's determination not to require
reasonable progress controls for Dave Johnston Units 1 and 2, where the
controls would cost approximately $1,000/ton of NOX removed.
See id. at 34788 (``Given predicted visibility improvement of
approximately 0.30 deciviews per unit at the most impacted Class I area
and the fact that Wyoming's RPGs will not meet the URP, we find that it
was unreasonable for the State to reject these very inexpensive
controls.''). EPA's statement that control technologies with similar--
and even lower--costs were not justified for the oil and gas industry
cannot be squared with this determination for Dave Johnston Units 1 and
2. See id. at 34765. As shown in Table 26 (of the proposed FIP),
emissions controls for compressor engines are available in the $16 to
$1,200/ton range. Id. at 34764. Enhanced NOX-control
technologies for drill rigs have cost-effectiveness values of $900 to
$1,000/ton. Id.
    Controls for NOX emissions from turbines are very cost
effective at around $560/ton. Id. All of these costs are at or below
the costs that were deemed ``very reasonable'' at the Dave Johnston
power plant and which led to EPA rejecting the State's reasonable
progress control proposal. If finalized, EPA's contrary proposal for
the Wyoming oil and gas industry would be arbitrary.
    Response: EPA disagrees with this comment. The comparison with the
costs of controls at Dave Johnston Units 1 and 2 is not apropos. First,
as explained elsewhere, certain oil and gas sources are subject to the
State's SIP-approved construction permit program, including the
requirement for minor source BACT. On the other hand, as explained
below in response to PacifiCorp's comments, PacifiCorp did not identify
(nor is EPA aware of) any NOX control measures for Dave
Johnston Units 1 and 2. Second, we did not propose to reject the
State's determination for these units solely on the basis of the cost-
effectiveness of controls. In addition, the State relied on
impermissible factors to disregard the results of its own four-factor
analysis. Third, to assist in determining whether the state's
determination for Dave Johnston Units 1 and 2 was reasonable or not, we
have quantified the visibility benefits of controls and decided that
the State's determination was not so unreasonable that we were prepared
to disapprove it. Neither the commenter nor EPA has equivalent data for
the oil and gas sources that the commenter mentions. The visibility
benefits of the commenter's suggested controls would of course vary
considerably depending on the location of the source and other factors,
and the data the commenter cites elsewhere regarding the bulk
visibility impacts of oil and gas development do not address visibility
benefits. Thus, the comparison with Dave Johnston gives no reason to
change our decision. Finally, the RHR does not require EPA to establish
a hard-and-fast dollar per ton threshold or other numeric criteria for
determining when a State's decision to not impose controls on
reasonable progress sources is unreasonable; rather all four factors
are to be considered under the reasonable progress provisions of the
RHR.
    Comment: Control technologies to reduce oil and gas industry
NOX emissions are inexpensive and justified. Wyoming did not
identify the cost of available controls as an impediment to their
implementation, and Wyoming's own analysis demonstrated that cost-
effective controls to reduce oil and gas industry emissions are
available. See Wyo. 309(g) SIP at 123-26. In addition to Wyoming's
generic analysis, the Conservation Organizations have identified
available control technology. For example, the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) recommended basic pollution-reduction strategies such
as replacing internal combustion engines for compressors with gas
turbines, installing SCR on drilling rig engines, using electric or
natural gas-powered drilling rigs, and centralizing production
facilities to reduce truck traffic. The cost-effectiveness of such
technologies is a reason for requiring them as reasonable progress
measures; costs are not a basis for allowing Wyoming to avoid
requirements to

reduce the large impact of the State's oil and gas industry on Class I-
area visibility.
    Response: EPA disagrees with this comment. First, the commenter
incorrectly suggests that a ``generic'' analysis, rather than a source-
specific analysis, of the cost of controls for oil and gas sources
violates the RHR. In the reasonable progress context, the cost-of-
compliance factor can be interpreted to encompass either the cost of
compliance for individual sources or the cost of compliance for source
categories. The language of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A), cited by the
commenter, does not explicitly require a source-specific analysis of
the costs of compliance, contrary to the commenter's assertion. With
respect to the control measures identified by BLM and referred to by
the commenter, neither the comment, nor the letter cited in the
comment, nor the records of decisions by the BLM cited by the letter,
provide any data on the cost-effectiveness of these measures. The
comment has no basis to describe the control measures identified by BLM
as cost-effective.
    Comment: When a SIP fails to establish an emissions reduction
strategy that would achieve natural visibility conditions by 2064, as
is the case in Wyoming, the state must demonstrate that the underlying
``uniform rate of progress'' is ``not reasonable[,] and that the
progress goal adopted by the State is reasonable.'' 40 CFR
51.308(d)(1)(ii); see also EPA, Guidance for Setting Reasonable
Progress Goals Under the Regional Haze Program, at 2-3 (June 1, 2007)
(demonstration should ``identify and analyze the measures aimed at
achieving the uniform rate of progress and . . . determine whether
these measures are reasonable''). EPA proposes RPGs that leave
visibility impaired in Wyoming's affected Class I areas well beyond the
2064 goal set by EPA. See 78 FR 34788. In light of EPA's rejection of
every one of Wyoming's justifications for its conclusion that
reasonable progress controls on the oil and gas industry are not
reasonable, and EPA's lack of any valid rationale of its own to
conclude that such measures are not reasonable, the failure to adopt
any measures to reduce haze-causing emissions from the oil and gas
industry cannot be supported and must be changed in the final rule.
    Response: EPA disagrees with this comment. In our proposal we
specifically stated our rationale for agreeing with Wyoming's
determination to not impose controls on oil and gas sources during this
planning period. We respond elsewhere to the commenter's disagreement
with that rationale. Because we are disapproving the State's RPGs, as
part of our FIP we are imposing RPGs that are consistent with the
controls in our FIP and the controls that we are approving in the
State's SIP. We stated in our proposal that it was reasonable for the
RPGs to fall short of the URP based not only on our consideration of
the four statutory reasonable progress factors, but also based on
emissions from sources outside the WRAP domain, which the commenter
does not take issue with.
    Comment: EPA proposes to approve Wyoming's reasonable progress
determinations for oil and gas sources. 78 FR 34765. However, EPA
states that it ``disagree[s] with the State's reasoning for not
adopting reasonable progress controls for oil and gas sources.'' Id.
Wyoming explained in its SIP that it required additional information
before it can determine whether and to what extent additional controls
are necessary for oil and gas sources. Id. EPA thinks Wyoming should
have obtained the additional information before submitting its SIP,
though, EPA does not hold itself to this same standard. Nonetheless,
EPA has previously recognized Wyoming's expertise and leadership in
regulating the air quality impacts of oil and gas development. 76 FR
52738, 52757 (Aug. 23, 2011). In light of Wyoming's leadership in
regulating air pollution from oil and gas development, EPA should
approve Wyoming's reasonable progress determination for oil and gas
sources.
    Response: EPA disagrees with this comment. We are approving
Wyoming's reasonable progress determination for oil and gas sources,
although not on the State's basis. The notice cited in the comment
relates to EPA's development of new source performance standards for
oil and gas sources, which is not relevant to this action. As we
explained in our proposal and elsewhere in these responses, the RHR
sets certain requirements for reasonable progress for the first
planning period and does not provide for deferring those requirements
to later planning periods; thus, the State's basis for its reasonable
progress determination for oil and gas sources is invalid. Finally,
while we did not re-run the WRAP modeling to quantify our RPGs, the
State did not modify its RPGs or re-run the WRAP modeling to reflect
the controls the State selected.
    Comment: We received numerous comments urging EPA to require
pollution controls on the oil and gas industry.
    Response: There are a number of provisions in the CAA that
potentially apply to oil and gas sources. With respect to the
requirements of the RHR for those sources, we have evaluated Wyoming's
submittal and we are approving it.
b. Dave Johnston Units 1 and 2
    Comment: Wyoming did not evaluate the effectiveness of the
LNB+OFA+SCR option. Instead, Wyoming assumed addition of SCR to these
currently uncontrolled EGUs would only reduce NOX emissions
by 79% down to 0.12 lb/MMBtu on an annual average basis, although it is
generally assumed that SCR can reduce NOX emissions by 90%
or down to 0.05 lb/MMBtu (or lower). Wyoming has not provided any
documentation or justification to support the higher emission rates
used in its analyses. Such an approach at Johnston adversely biases the
cost-benefit analysis and is inconsistent with other EPA analyses.
    Response: The commenter has incorrectly assumed that a 90% control
efficiency can be achieved in all SCR applications regardless of the
input NOX emission rate or other parameters. In addition, we
note that the emission rate analyzed by Wyoming, 0.07 lb/MMBtu, was on
a 30-day rolling average basis, not an annual basis. Regardless, we
agree that SCR can in most cases achieve a performance rate of 0.05 lb/
MMBtu on an annual basis. (See section IV.C.4 of this rulemaking for
more information on the control effectiveness of SCR.) We have revised
the SCR costs for Dave Johnston Units 1 and 2 accordingly. However, as
explained elsewhere, the revised costs for SCR have not led us to
change our determination that the State was reasonable in not selecting
SCR for Units 1 and 2.
    Comment: Wyoming has assumed that Dave Johnston Unit 1 and Unit 2
emitted at 0.57 lb/MMBtu on an annual basis and used this as the
baseline condition from which to calculate the control efficiency it
used for each control option. However, our review of CAMD data back to
2000 shows that the highest annual NOX emission rate for
Unit 1 was 0.474 lb/MMBtu (2002) and 0.460 lb/MMBtu for Unit 2 (2006).
For the 2001-2003 baseline period, annual NOX emissions were
0.46 and 0.44 lb/MMBtu for Johnston Unit 1 and Unit 2, respectively.
Thus, Wyoming's proposal to reduce NOX to 0.20 lb/MMBtu with
LNB+OFA represents a 56% reduction instead of 65% assumed by Wyoming.
    Response: In our revised cost analysis, we used baseline emissions
for Dave Johnston Units 1 and 2 that reflect annual average emissions
between 2001 and 2003, as found in the CAMD emissions system. These
baseline rates

are 0.45 lb/MMbtu and 0.41 lb/MMBtu, respectively. This corresponds to
a 56.0% and 54.6% reduction, respectively.\238\ Therefore, our revised
cost analysis has addressed the concern raised by the commenter. As
explained elsewhere, our revised costs have been taken into account,
along with our revised visibility modeling, in our decision to approve
the State's determination to not impose controls at Units 1 and 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \238\ Staudt memo, Tables 2 and 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: The Conservation Organizations agree with EPA that
reasonable progress controls for NOX emissions are needed
for Dave Johnston Units 1 and 2. EPA correctly found that it was
unreasonable for Wyoming to reject cost effective NOX
controls that would improve visibility. EPA proposes to require only
LNBs/OFA to achieve a NOX emission limit of 0.20 lb/MMBtu
(30-day rolling average). While we commend EPA for proposing a FIP to
reduce NOX emissions from Dave Johnston Units 1 and 2, we
urge EPA to require SCR plus LNBs/OFA to meet a NOX emission
limit of 0.05 lb/MMBtu to achieve reasonable progress. Although EPA
concluded that the cost of SCR is not justified by the projected
visibility improvement, EPA's analysis unreasonably assumed that SCR
would only achieve a NOX emission rate of 0.12 lb/MMBtu,
even though an emission rate of 0.05 lb/MMBtu is readily achievable.
Correcting for this error, it appears that SCR at Dave Johnston Units 1
and 2 is very cost effective at $2,001 and $1,987/ton of NOX
removed, respectively. Accordingly, EPA should reconsider requiring SCR
at Dave Johnston Units 1 and 2 to meet reasonable progress
requirements.
    Response: As discussed in our proposed rulemaking, we have revised
the SCR cost analysis for Dave Johnston Units 1 and 2 to reflect the
installation of LNB and OFA. However, our revised cost effectiveness
values of $3,496/ton and $3,672/ton, respectively, are much higher than
those suggested by the commenter. We also note that the incremental
costs for this option are high, at $9,798 and $9,588 per ton,
respectively. In light of this, and our revised modeling results, we do
not find it unreasonable for the State to not have imposed SCR on these
units.
    Comment: EPA's conclusion that the addition of SCR is not justified
due to the ``small incremental visibility improvement'' is based upon a
flawed visibility analysis that over-values the addition of LNB + OFA
and under-values the addition of SCR. Furthermore, the degree of
visibility improvement is not one of the four statutory factors to be
considered under the reasonable progress provisions of the RHR.
Incremental visibility improvement is not mentioned anywhere in the
reasonable progress provisions or BART Guidelines and EPA cannot create
a new criterion for the sole purpose of eliminating a control option
that is reasonably cost-effective and would yield a significant
visibility improvement.
    Response: As discussed elsewhere in this rulemaking, we have
corrected the modeling analysis for Dave Johnston Units 1 and 2, and
the commenter's concerns regarding our methodology have been addressed.
Our revised modeling analysis shows that the visibility improvement
associated with SCR with LNB and OFA at Units 1 and 2 is 0.18 deciviews
and 0.18 deciviews, respectively. The visibility improvement associated
with LNB and OFA is 0.12 deciviews and 0.11 deciviews, respectively. We
continue to find that the additional visibility improvement is not
significant enough to warrant selection of SCR with LNB and OFA for
these reasonable progress sources. As discussed earlier, we also find
that the visibility improvement from LNBs and OFA does not justify us
requiring reasonable progress controls on these two units. While it is
true that incremental visibility improvement is not among the four
statutory reasonable progress factors, the RHR does not prohibit EPA
from assessing visibility improvement, in addition to the four
statutory reasonable progress factors, when considering controls at
potentially affected sources. We did not create a new criterion for the
sole purpose of eliminating SCR at Dave Johnston Units 1 and 2;
instead, we think it appropriate to consider visibility improvement
when assessing control options for reasonable progress, especially when
taking into account the purposes of the RHR. In comparing control
options and selecting one, it is appropriate to compare the visibility
improvement (that is, to compute the incremental visibility
improvement) for each option.
    Comment: EPA is proposing that the FIP NOX BART for Dave
Johnston Units 1 and 2 is LNBs with OFA at an emission limit of 0.22
lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling average). EPA provided no reason for rejecting
addition of SCR even though: (1) Cost/ton was $3,300-$3,400, which is
less than the $3,900/ton accepted at Laramie River Unit 3; (2)
Visibility at the most-impacted Class I area would improve by more than
0.4 deciview (which is greater than the 0.3 deciview improvement for
EPA's proposal; (3) Cumulative visibility improvement would exceed 0.6
deciviews (versus EPA's proposed 0.43 deciview improvement for Dave
Johnston Unit 2 at Wind Cave and Badlands); (4) Cost-effectiveness is
$15 million/deciview at Wind Cave (versus $27,798,246/deciview at
Badlands due to application of SCR to Laramie River Unit 3); (5)
Cumulative cost-effectiveness is less than $10 million/deciview (versus
$10,140,825/cumulative deciview due to application of SCR to Laramie
River Unit 2.)
    We believe that SCR is Reasonable Progress for Dave Johnston Units
1 and 2. Under the EPA proposal, Dave Johnston Units 1 and 2 would each
contribute over 0.9 deciview impairment at Wind Cave National Park (and
0.7 deciviews at Badlands National Park). With the addition of SCR,
impairment would drop to less than 0.5 deciviews for each unit.
    Response: We disagree with this comment. We have responded in
detail to the use of a $/deciview metric in section V.D.1.b of this
final rulemaking action. In addition, as stated above, our revised
modeling analysis shows that the visibility improvement associated with
SCR with LNB and OFA is 0.18 deciviews and 0.18 deciviews,
respectively. By contrast, the visibility improvement associated with
LNB and OFA, is 0.12 deciviews and 0.11 deciviews, respectively. We
continue to find that the additional visibility improvement is not
significant enough to warrant selection of SCR with LNB and OFA for
these reasonable progress sources, and as discussed earlier in our
response to comments, we do not find the visibility improvement, when
considered with the other reasonable progress factors, from LNBs and
OFA warrants the implementation of reasonable progress controls. In
addition, as we discuss above, the revised incremental costs for SCR
that we present above are sufficiently high for us to conclude that it
is reasonable to not impose SCR on Dave Johnston Units 1 and 2.
    Comment: EPA acknowledged that, for a reasonable progress analysis,
only four factors must be analyzed. Indeed, the CAA clearly requires
only four factors be analyzed. 42 U.S.C. 7491(g)(1). EPA employed the
four-factor reasonable progress analysis for the other two Wyoming
reasonable progress sources: oil and gas sources and the Mountain
Cement Company plant. EPA has approved other regional haze SIPs where
the state employed this same four-factor analysis, including Nevada.
For both the oil and gas sources and the Mountain Cement Company

plant, EPA disagreed with Wyoming's reasonable progress analysis and
found ``cost effective'' NOX controls could be employed, but
EPA did not require those NOX controls because the costs
were ``not so low that we are prepared to disapprove the State's
conclusion in the reasonable progress context.'' If EPA found the
NOX controls ``cost effective'', then PacifiCorp is unclear
what additional cost analysis was performed, or what the statutory or
regulatory basis for EPA's additional cost analysis may be. EPA does
not differentiate PacifiCorp's Dave Johnston Units 1 and 2 from the oil
and gas sources or the Mountain Cement Company plant.
    Also, EPA has approved other reasonable progress SIPs where the
state is not meeting the URP, but has determined that no reasonable
progress controls are required for the initial planning period. (See 77
FR 30248, 30256-30257; SIP Approval for Idaho). Here, EPA admitted that
Wyoming ``provided a four factor analyses that adequately evaluated the
required factors'' for Dave Johnston Units 1 and 2, but then
arbitrarily concluded ``it is also appropriate for this facility to
consider a fifth factor for evaluating potential reasonable progress
control options--the degree of visibility improvement that may
reasonably be anticipated from the use of reasonable progress
controls.''
    EPA justified its decision by citing to EPA guidance on states
setting reasonable progress goals. However, the referenced guidance
does not support EPA's position for several reasons:
     The guidance concedes it is ``merely guidance and that
States or the . . . [EPA] may elect to follow or deviate from this
guidance, as appropriate.'' EPA cannot find Wyoming acted
``unreasonably'' when it chose not to apply discretionary guidance.
     The guidance identifies several factors that EPA did not
include in its proposed regional haze FIP, such as the ``control
measures and associated emission reductions that are expected to result
from compliance with existing rules.'' EPA cannot criticize Wyoming for
not following the guidance when EPA itself chose not to apply part of
the same guidance in the EPA regional haze FIP.
     The guidance suggests that air quality models be used to
estimate ``the improvement in visibility that would result from the
implementation of the control measures you have found to be reasonable
and compare this to the uniform rate of progress.'' Here, EPA has no
``modeling results'' demonstrating the alleged improvement in
visibility from the suggested NOX controls and the impact on
the URP.
     The States, not EPA, are to determine the
``reasonableness'' of RPGs and are given flexibility to do so.
     The guidance clearly indicates that a state must support
its RPGs ``based on the statutory factors,'' which EPA admits Wyoming
did.
     Finally, the guidance explains that no additional
reasonable progress controls may be needed for the first planning
period.
    Response: EPA disagrees with this comment. With respect to the
reasonable progress determination for the Mountain Cement facility, the
cost effectiveness of potential controls is generally higher than the
controls we proposed for Dave Johnston Units 1 and 2. As we stated in
our proposal, although the costs for potential controls for the
Mountain Cement facility might be considered reasonable in the BART
context, in the reasonable progress context those costs were not so low
that we were prepared to disapprove the State's determination to not
impose controls. That was not the case for Dave Johnston Units 1 and 2,
for which combustion controls were significantly more cost-effective.
Similar reasoning applies to the cost-effectiveness of controls for the
oil and gas sources; in addition, as we noted in the proposal, Wyoming
generally applies minor source BACT to these sources.
    As a result, EPA determined that we should perform visibility
modeling to assess the visibility benefits of controls on Dave Johnston
Units 1 and 2. As explained elsewhere, we considered it appropriate to
assess, in addition to the four statutory reasonable progress factors,
the visibility improvement from potential controls at these units,
particularly in light of the purposes of the RHR. In this instance, the
revised visibility modeling has confirmed that the State's decision to
not impose controls on Dave Johnston Units 1 and 2 (although not the
State's rationale) was not so unreasonable that EPA is compelled to
disapprove it.
    EPA also disagrees that EPA's proposal was inconsistent with the
cited notice proposing action on the Idaho Regional Haze SIP. In that
notice, EPA stated, ``EPA agrees with Idaho's conclusion that
additional controls of non-BART point sources for reasonable progress
purposes are not reasonable at this time, because even though there are
cost effective controls identified, visibility improvement is
anticipated to be relatively small.'' (77 FR 30248, 30256, May 22,
2012) (emphasis added). To derive that conclusion, EPA examined the
modeled visibility impacts for the BART eligible sources and noted
that, in Idaho's case, the sources with a Q/d of less than 26 had
visibility impacts of less than 0.5 deciviews. EPA conservatively
inferred from this that other potentially affected sources in Idaho
with a Q/d of less than 20 would likely also have visibility impacts of
less than 0.5 deciviews. In contrast, our original proposal showed
modeled benefits at each unit of 0.3 deciviews from combustion
controls. As a result, we reject the comparison with the notice
proposing action on the Idaho Regional Haze SIP. Nonetheless, based on
our revised modeling we have reconsidered our proposed determination to
require LNBs and OFA on these two units, and now do not find the
State's decision to not impose controls to be unreasonable.
    Furthermore, we are not disapproving the State's determination of
which sources should be considered potentially affected sources.
Wyoming reasonably used a Q/d threshold of 10 for determining the set
of potentially affected sources, and the State selected (among others)
Dave Johnston Units 1 and 2. That Idaho used a different threshold does
not show that Wyoming's choice was unreasonable. However, even if EPA
in the first instance was selecting potentially affected sources, we
might also consider it reasonable to select Dave Johnston 1 and 2 based
on a Q/d threshold.
    We disagree that we cited our reasonable progress guidance as part
or whole of our basis for proposing to disapprove the State's
reasonable progress determination for Dave Johnston Units 1 and 2.
Instead, we briefly cited the guidance for the unremarkable proposition
that the State must at a minimum consider the four statutory reasonable
progress factors but could also take into account other relevant
factors. Our proposed disapproval was not based on that proposition,
but was based on the State's inadequately supported determination to
not impose controls, which relied on impermissible factors. Although
the commenter argues that it is the State, and not EPA, that should
determine reasonable progress, as explained above we are required to
evaluate the State's reasonable progress determinations. 40 CFR
51.308(d)(1)(iii).
    We disagree with the commenter's other statements regarding the
guidance. While the State did assess the four statutory reasonable
progress factors for Dave Johnston Units 1 and 2, the guidance does not
suggest that a state may ignore the results of that assessment for
impermissible reasons such as a claimed lack of authority. The

guidance also does not suggest that a state may per se choose to impose
no reasonable progress controls regardless of the state's assessment of
the four statutory factors.
    Guidance aside, both the Act and the RHR explicitly require the
state to consider the four factors for potentially affected sources.
CAA section 169A(g)(1) (``shall be taken into consideration''); 40 CFR
51.308(d)(1)(i)(A). Assessing the four factors but ignoring the results
of that assessment for invalid reasons such as lack of authority to
impose controls does not amount to considering the factors and violates
the explicit requirements of the Act and the RHR.
    With respect to control measures expected to result from compliance
with existing rules, the commenter did not identify any such
NOX control measures for Dave Johnston Units 1 and 2, nor
are we aware of any. Finally, we did independently run CALPUFF to model
the visibility improvement from potential controls at Dave Johnston
Units 1 and 2 and it is part of the basis for our final decision.

F. General Comments

1. Replacement of FIP Elements With SIP
    Comment: EPA has proposed to disapprove the monitoring,
recordkeeping, reporting, and RAVI portions of Wyoming's SIP. 78 FR
34788. Wyoming acknowledges these deficiencies in its SIP and commits
to making the necessary revisions. However, Wyoming will revise its SIP
in a manner that comports with statutory and regulatory processes.
Unlike EPA, Wyoming will not shortcut legal processes designed to
ensure FLM consultation and public participation to meet an arbitrary
deadline EPA has established with special interest groups in litigation
to which Wyoming was not a party. Such arbitrary deadlines defeat the
cooperative federalism Congress intended to guide CAA implementation by
needlessly expediting the process, tying EPA's hands, and precluding
the State from an opportunity to revise its SIP. In this context, EPA's
promise--to ``propose approval of a SIP revision as expeditiously as
practicable if the State submits such a revision and the revision
matches the terms of our proposed FIP,'' id. 34738--rings hollow.
    Response: We appreciated the State's willingness to make the SIP
revisions necessary to correct the deficiencies with the monitoring,
recordkeeping, reporting, and RAVI requirements. Once EPA receives the
SIP revisions from the State, EPA will work as expeditiously as
practicable to review such revisions and approve the State's revisions
if they meet the terms of our FIP. We have responded to other comments
elsewhere in this document.
2. Public Comment
    Comment: DEQ and Governor Mead requested that EPA defer its hearing
until sixty days after the date EPA first released its proposal, with
an additional thirty days of comment after the hearing. See, e.g.,
Letter from Todd Parfitt, Director, DEQ, to Shaun McGrath, Region 8
Administrator, EPA (June 14, 2013). Although EPA agreed to hold two
additional public hearings and provide an additional thirty days for
public comment, EPA did not provide the time for public participation
that Wyoming requested, evidently because EPA wanted to meet the
deadline for final action it established with the special interest
groups. Thus, while EPA did not hesitate to extend that deadline on
multiple occasions when it benefitted EPA and the special interest
groups, EPA refused to provide the additional time Wyoming requested
for the benefit of the State.
    We also received comments from other parties that we should extend
the public comment period so that there is more time to review and
comment on our action. Some commenters specifically requested a 60-day
extension of the comment period. One commenter noted that if the
driving force for the short timeframe in this instance is a consent
decree to which the EPA is a party, that no agreement between an agency
and any interested party, whether as part of litigation or not, should
or can modify requirements of law for a meaningful opportunity for
public comment.
    Response: EPA took several steps to provide the opportunity for
meaningful public comment. In addition to the initial 60-day public
comment period, we extended the public comment period from August 9,
2013, until August 26, 2013. In doing so, we took into consideration
how an extension might affect our ability to consider comments received
on the proposed action and still comply with the terms of the consent
decree deadline,\239\ which at the time required our final action
signed by the Administrator on or before November 21, 2013.
Additionally, we could not extend the comment period any further and
still have time to respond to the immense amount of public comments we
anticipated receiving. As the commenter notes, EPA also added two
public hearings and we received substantial comments at these
additional hearings. We find that the comment period provided for the
Wyoming Regional Haze SIP and FIP exceeds CAA requirements and is
reasonable and consistent with what the Agency has provided on other
FIP and SIP actions. For example, EPA provided a 60-day comment period
for both the Montana and North Dakota regional haze actions (see 77 FR
23988 and 76 FR 58570, respectively.) In addition, in our first
proposal on Wyoming regional haze (77 FR 33022), we provided a 60-day
comment period with no objections from interested parties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \239\ WildEarth Guardians v. McCarthy, Case No. 1:11-cv-0001-
CJA-MEH.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the State and impacted sources have had many years to
prepare and submit an approvable SIP to EPA. As detailed in the Docket
for this action, the State received numerous detailed comment letters
from EPA on many issues and also participated in meetings with EPA.
Indeed, the fact that the State was able to prepare an extensive 33-
page document and provide extensive comments at the various public
hearings, all within the allotted time period, supports EPA's
contention that the 77-day time period for this proposed rulemaking was
reasonable.\240\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \240\ In fact, the State received the proposed notice on May 28,
2013, two business days after the proposal was signed, and the
proposed notice was posted on the Region's Internet site on May 28,
2013, well in advance of the Federal Register publication on June
10, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Economic Concerns
    Comment: We received numerous comments that the FIP will cost
anywhere from an additional $300 million to $1 billion more than the
State's SIP, but provide no perceptible improvement in visibility when
compared with the SIP. We received numerous comments that EPA's FIP
would lead to higher electricity costs to consumers and job losses at a
time when the economy and people cannot afford an additional burden.
    Response: We disagree with these comments. We have addressed the
issue of perceptible visibility improvement in section V.C.5 of this
final rulemaking. In addition, it is not EPA's intention to endanger
the economic viability of or to place an undue burden on PacifiCorp or
Basin Electric's customers. EPA has considered the comments on these
issues very carefully. Regarding the legal basis for our decision,
neither the CAA nor the RHR requires states or EPA to consider the
affordability of controls or ratepayer impacts as part of a BART
analysis. Rather, the CAA and RHR require consideration of the
following factors, which as detailed elsewhere in

our notice, we have fully considered: ``The costs of compliance, the
energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance, any
existing pollution control technology in use at the source, the
remaining useful life of the source, and the degree of improvement in
visibility which may reasonably be anticipated to result from the use
of such technology.''
    Comment: One commenter noted that visitors to Wyoming's parks
notice when the air is dirty, which can have a direct impact on
tourism, the second largest business in the State. According to
Wyoming's Office of Tourism, the travel and tourism industry in Wyoming
creates 30,000 jobs and generates $730 million in employment earnings
and $2.8 billion in travel expenditures annually. Over 3.5 million
people visit Yellowstone National Park each year. The Commenter also
indicated that the proposed plan will also reduce health care costs in
the State. Combined, coal plants in Wyoming emit over 60,000 tons of
NOX pollution and almost 65,000 tons of SO2
pollution annually. The Clean Air Task Force estimates that coal plant
pollution in the State results in over $850 million in preventable
health care costs.
    Response: We acknowledge the commenter's points.
    Comment: We received a comment that EPA failed to calculate the
costs of the proposed rule that will be passed on to residential and
business customers.
    Response: Explained elsewhere in this document, we have taken these
costs into consideration.
    Comment: We received numerous comments that EPA's action could have
the potential to shift the energy balance in favor of gas, rather than
coal, and that this shift may force utilities to convert their power
plants from coal to natural gas. Commenters expressed particular
concern over the potential conversion of Naughton Unit 3, and possibly
Naughton Units 1 and 2. Commenters expressed concern over the potential