impacts natural gas conversion could have on local economies.
    Response: As stated above, the CAA and RHR require consideration of
the five statutory factors. Based on our consideration of these
factors, EPA determined the appropriate emission limit for BART for
each unit. Sources have the choice of how to meet that limit, including
conversion to natural gas. EPA's action does not require any source to
convert to natural gas, as all of the requirements in our FIP can be
met with combustion and post-combustion control technology.
    Comment: One commenter stated that coal-fired plants in Wyoming
have installed over one billion dollars in additional air quality
controls and that, according to EPA standards, Wyoming has better
visibility than virtually any other state in the country. Therefore, it
seems unreasonable, illogical and, frankly, irrational that the EPA
would demand Wyoming businesses and homeowners foot the bill for
another one billion dollars in emission controls that have little
probability of improving the quality of lives or the livelihoods of our
citizens and, in fact, has a great potential to harm our people and our
state.
    Response: EPA disagrees with this comment. EPA carefully considered
the five statutory factors and determined that there are additional,
cost-effective controls that will result in significant visibility
improvement in Wyoming's Class I areas, and that these controls
represent BART.
    Comment: One commenter was concerned that the investments mandated
under the FIP will have significant adverse impacts on the quality and
reliability of service provided to Wyoming ratepayers. The SIP is a
well vetted plan by the State and its stakeholders that, in association
with other regulatory requirements such as the construction authority
process, assures that Wyoming utilities will be able to comply with its
requirements with the least amount of impact to customers. The FIP, on
the other hand, with its more stringent control requirements and
accelerated compliance deadlines, will assure not only that compliance
is needlessly expensive, but that it is also rushed, that scheduled
outages cannot be timed to minimize the cost of replacement power, and
that third party vendors will have free reign in determining how much a
particular project costs. To the extent that schedules cannot be met,
non-compliant plants will be forced out of service until the work is
done. Such outages will necessitate the purchase of replacement power
in the market and will result in diminishing system reserves, all of
which will jeopardize system reliability and increase costs for
ratepayers.
    Response: We appreciate the commenter's concerns, but note that the
commenter has provided no data to support these assertions.
    Comment: The companies working with Wyoming have scheduled shutdown
and installation on a schedule that will allow them to maintain service
to their customers. The new timeline demanded in the re-proposal would
threaten both service interruptions and an increased risk of having to
spot purchase energy which would be an additional increase of costs to
residential, business, manufacturing, and agricultural customers.
    Response: We appreciate the commenter's concerns, but note that the
commenter has provided no data to support these assertions.
Additionally, CAA section 169A(b)(2)(A) requires subject-to-BART
sources to install BART and comply with any applicable emission limits
``as expeditiously as practicable.'' The Act defines this term to mean
``as expeditiously as practicable but in no event later than five years
after . . . the date of promulgation.'' CAA section 169A(g)(4).
Consequently, the final rule appropriately provides that the BART units
must comply with the emission limits as expeditiously as practicable
but in no event later than five years after the date of promulgation of
the final rulemaking.
4. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
    Comment: The EPA is duty-bound to ensure that the proposed SIP does
not interfere with attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS, in
accordance with section 110(l) of the CAA. Thus, the EPA must ensure
that the proposed SIP and the proposed FIP adequately limit air
pollution in order to safeguard public health.
    In this case, we are concerned that in proposing to approve
portions of Wyoming's regional haze plan, the EPA has not demonstrated
that the proposal adequately safeguards the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS
(see 40 CFR 50.15), the newly promulgated 1-hour nitrogen dioxide
(``NO2'') NAAQS (see 40 CFR 50.11(b)), the newly promulgated
1-hour SO2 NAAQS (see 40 CFR 50.17), the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS (see 40 CFR 50.13), and the 2012 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS (see 78 FR 3086 (Jan. 15, 2013)).
    We are particularly concerned that the EPA overlooked its 110(l)
obligations under the CAA given that, although the Proposed Rule may
lead to emission reductions, no analysis or assessment has been
prepared to demonstrate that even after these emission reductions, the
recently promulgated NAAQS will be met. In this case, we are
particularly concerned that the recently promulgated 1-hour
NO2 and SO2 NAAQS could be jeopardized, as well
as the recently promulgated 2012 PM2.5 annual NAAQS. Indeed,
many, if not most, of the proposed emission rates are based on 30-day
rolling averages. There is no indication that meeting emission rates on
a 30-day rolling average will ensure that 1-hour NAAQS will be
sufficiently protected. Indeed, a source could comply with a 30-day
rolling average limit, yet still emit enough pollution on

an hourly basis to cause or contribute to violations of the NAAQS,
thereby interfering with attainment or maintenance. Further, there has
been no analysis at all as to whether the recently promulgated
revisions to the annual PM2.5 NAAQS will be protected.
    In this case, the EPA must either disapprove the Wyoming SIP over
the State's failure to perform a 110(l) analysis or prepare its own
110(l) analysis to demonstrate that the SIP will not interfere with
attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS. Furthermore, the EPA must
demonstrate that its FIP will not interfere with attainment or
maintenance of the NAAQS. The EPA has not done so, rendering its
proposed rule substantively flawed.
    Response: CAA section 110(l) provides that EPA ``shall not approve
a revision of a plan if the revision would interfere with any
applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further
progress . . ., or any other applicable requirement of'' the CAA. The
commenter has not provided any evidence that the Wyoming Regional Haze
SIP will interfere with any applicable requirement concerning
attainment and reasonable progress or any other applicable requirement
of the CAA, or that further analysis under 110(l) is necessary. To the
contrary, the commenter acknowledges that the Regional Haze SIP
revision will lead to emission reductions.
    The commenter asserts that it is not enough that the SIP will lead
to emission reductions and that EPA must determine that the SIP will
ensure the NAAQS are met. We disagree. The CAA and EPA's regulations
require regional haze SIPs to address visibility impairment in
mandatory Class I areas; attainment of the NAAQS is provided for
through a separate SIP process. It is EPA's consistent interpretation
of section 110(l) that a SIP does not interfere with attainment and
maintenance of the NAAQS if the SIP at least preserves the status quo
air quality by not relaxing or removing any existing emissions
limitation or other SIP requirements. EPA does not interpret section
110(l) to require a full attainment or maintenance demonstration for
each NAAQS for every SIP revision. See, e.g., Kentucky Resources
Council, Inc., v. EPA, 467 F.3d 986 (6th Cir. 2006); see also, 61 FR
16050, 16051 (April 11, 1996) (actions on which the Kentucky Resources
Council case were based).
    Thus, in this action, we need not determine whether a 30-day limit
is adequate to protect a shorter-term NAAQS because the regional haze
SIP is not required to ensure attainment of the NAAQS. The fact that
the regional haze SIP specifies 30-day limits will not preclude Wyoming
from adopting limits with a shorter averaging time, if at some future
date such limits are found to be necessary and required by the CAA to
protect the NAAQS.
5. Other
    Comment: We received over 250 comments in a general mass mailer
campaign in support of our action. We received over 220 mass mailer
comments on behalf of National Parks Conservation Association in
support of our action. We also received numerous general comments from
individuals and organizations in support of our action.
    Response: We acknowledge the commenters' support of our proposed
action.
    Comment: We received over 850 mass mailer comments opposed to our
action. We also received numerous general comments from individuals and
organizations in opposition to our action.
    Response: We note the commenters' opposition to our proposed
action.
    Comment: We received numerous general comments in opposition to our
action that stated that the State's plan was good enough, that it would
achieve appropriate emission reductions, and that it represented a
balanced approach.
    Response: We note the commenters' opposition to our proposed
action.
    Comment: We received numerous general comments in opposition to our
FIP that stated that the visibility in Wyoming is not hazy and that
Wyoming has some of the best air quality in the country.
    Response: We note the commenters' general qualitative observations,
but note that the commenters did not provide any quantitative
information to substantiate their comment.
    Comment: We received numerous comments that we should approve
Wyoming's SIP because it represents collaboration between the State,
industry, local governments, and the public.
    Response: We note the commenters' points, but as stated earlier,
EPA can only approve a state's SIP if it meets the requirements of the
CAA and EPA's implementing regulations.
    Comment: We received numerous comments that EPA's FIP will only
reduce NOX by 2,900 tpy more than the Wyoming's SIP, which
reduces NOX by 63,000 tpy. Other commenters went on to say
that EPA's FIP will basically achieve the same emission reductions the
State's SIP would by 2022.
    Response: We disagree with this comment. EPA's calculations show
that our proposed FIP will result in approximately 17,000 tpy more
NOX reductions than the State's SIP, through 2022 and
beyond.
    Comment: We received numerous comments that the proposed FIP, along
with other EPA regulations, are in support of EPA's hidden agenda to
kill the coal industry and shut down coal-fired power plants.
    Response: As stated earlier, EPA's proposed action was based on its
careful consideration of the five statutory factors in the CAA and
related statutory and regulatory requirements.
    Comment: We received numerous comments that the State's SIP was
created through coordination with PacifiCorp and other Wyoming
industries and that it is based on sound science that complies with the
CAA and provides a balance between achieving compliance with the RHR
while ensuring reliable, affordable electricity.
    Response: We note the commenters' points, but as stated earlier,
EPA can only approve a state's SIP if it meets the requirements of the
CAA and EPA's implementing regulations.
    Comment: We received a comment that it is generally more hazy now
than it was ten years ago and that the commenter was supportive of
reducing haze.
    Response: We note the commenter's support.
    Comment: We received a comment that provided data that showed
voters in Wyoming were supportive of continued implementation of the
CAA and environmental protections for our environment. The commenter
went on to say that the majority of voters thought environmental
protection and a good economy were compatible and encouraged EPA to
finalize its proposed action. The commenter urged EPA to ignore
negative media attention its action has drawn, stating that the
negative publicity was being driven by economic interests.
    Response: We note the commenter's support of our proposed rule.
    Comment: EPA has applied selective comment response to the
development of its re-proposal and the public comment process, which is
inappropriate. EPA's process has lacked transparency, particularly to
the State. EPA has not acknowledged the Governor's comments submitted
last year. The EPA has not acknowledged the DEQ's comments submitted
last year. DEQ was not consulted in the re-proposal process. It would
appear that EPA only considered select comments that support its
predetermined agenda.

    Response: Consistent with our statutory obligations, we have
evaluated all written and oral comments on the proposal rulemaking
(placing all the comments received in the docket for this action at
www.regulations.gov); determined whether any revisions to the proposed
rule are warranted; and prepared the final rulemaking and supporting
information. The final rulemaking decisions are accompanied by the
bases for the decisions, explanations of major changes from the
proposals, and a response to each of the significant comments submitted
in written or oral presentations during the comment period, which
includes responses to such comments submitted by the Governor and DEQ.
    Comment: For years, Wyoming has pursued developing a collaborative
and professional relationship with the EPA, but with the regional haze
SIP process, the EPA has not reciprocated the same cooperative effort.
This lack of effort on the part of the EPA does not represent the
intent of what performance partnership agreements are put in place to
accomplish.
    Wyoming is a leader in collaboration. Whether it is hydraulic
fracturing, Sage Grouse Core Area Development, or carbon sequestration,
Wyoming has demonstrated a willingness, and really eagerness, to work
with federal agencies, local government, and industry to create
solutions that not only minimize detrimental impact, but may actually
do the opposite: Encouraging sustainable economic growth in Wyoming.
    EPA's imposition of the FIP would pour a bucket of cold water on
the solutions resulting from this type of collaboration. In its place,
EPA risks disenfranchising ratepayers when industry has little choice
but to transfer the costs associated with retrofitting the EGUs.
Moreover, because EPA failed to consider the primary cause of regional
haze in Wyoming and the Interior West--smoke from wildfires--it risks
alienating local government and state cooperating agencies who will
perceive EPA as being out of touch with the regulated community.
    Response: We disagree with this comment. EPA values its
relationship with the State of Wyoming and prior to our proposed action
had numerous meetings with State and industry representatives to
explore ways in which the State could have addressed our long standing
concerns with the approvability of the State's Regional Haze SIP.
Regrettably, we were unable to find a path forward during those
discussions that could have resulted in the submission of a fully
approvable regional haze SIP. Nevertheless, we remain committed to
working collaboratively with the State on future regional haze actions
and encourage the State to submit a SIP revision that could potentially
replace all or a portion of our FIP. We do note that in a previous
action we finalized full approval of the State's 309 (SO2)
portion of the Regional Haze SIP. In this action we will also be
finalizing approval of many aspects of the State's 309g (NOX
and PM) portion of the regional haze plan.
    Comment: We received numerous comments that the regulation of
regional haze is focused on improving visibility, not public health.
    Response: We agree with the commenter that the CAA's visibility
program and the RHR are focused on improving visibility and not public
health.
    Comment: The Conservation Organizations submitted comments on July
23, 2012 urging EPA not to finalize its proposal to approve Wyoming's
participation in a Western Backstop Trading Program in lieu of
satisfying BART requirements for SO2. Under 40 CFR 51.309,
states within the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport region, including
Wyoming, may adopt a BART-alternative for the state's SO2
emissions provided that, among other things, the program is shown to
provide for greater reasonable progress than would be achieved by
application of BART pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2). Wyoming`s
alternative program does not satisfy this requirement. Accordingly,
Wyoming must comply with BART requirements for all haze-causing
pollutants, including SO2.
    Response: We finalized approval of the State's 309 SIP that
includes the requirements for the Western Backstop Trading Program on
December 12, 2012 (77 FR 73926). Because this comment pertains to that
final rulemaking, it is not germane to this final rulemaking action.
    Comment: Unlike other programs, the regional haze program requires
regular updates and reviews to ensure that reasonable progress is being
made towards the ultimate goal ending in 2064. In fact, the State will
be required to submit a progress report to EPA in 2013 and a new
regional haze SIP in 2018. EPA should approve the Wyoming Regional Haze
SIP, and reserve most of its arguments and concerns expressed in its
regional haze FIP for consideration in Wyoming's 2018 regional haze SIP
submittals. In the meantime, EPA can be assured that the significant
emission reductions required under the Wyoming Regional Haze SIP,
nearly all of which already have been installed, will continue to
contribute to visibility improvement.
    Response: Because we have found that the State's Regional Haze SIP
did not adequately satisfy the RHR requirements in full, we have a duty
to promulgate a FIP during this planning period that meets those
requirements.
    Comment: EPA pays undue attention to the ``health'' issues in its
FIP. For reasons it does not explain, EPA's FIP discusses the asserted
health impacts of fine particulates, when health impacts are not part
of the BART analysis. The regional haze program is not a health-based
program; rather, it is focused on aesthetics.
    Response: We disagree with this comment. In our proposed notice, we
stated that ``PM2.5 can also cause serious health effects
and mortality in humans and contributes to environmental effects such
as acid deposition and eutrophication.'' 78 FR 34741. The commenter
suggests that this brief informational statement somehow means that we
based our BART determinations in part on the health impacts of
PM2.5. This is not the case, as we clearly based our BART
determinations on the five statutory factors, as required by section
169(a) of the CAA and the RHR.
    Comment: In light of EPA's apparent coordination with the special
interest groups and the particular influence those groups seemed to be
exerting over EPA's regional haze program, Wyoming and eleven other
states submitted to EPA a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request
seeking communications between EPA and the special interest groups
related to EPA action on regional haze SIPs. See Letter from P. Clayton
Eubanks, Deputy Solicitor General, Office of Oklahoma Attorney General,
to FOIA Officer, EPA (Feb. 6, 2013) (FOIA Request). EPA denied the
states' public records request on the ground that the states' fee
waiver request was invalid because the states ``have not expressed a
specific intent to disseminate the information to the public.'' Letter
from Larry F. Gottesman, National FOIA Office, EPA, to Clayton Eubanks,
Deputy Solicitor General, Office of Oklahoma Attorney General (Feb. 22,
2013). But see FOIA Request, at 5-9 (Feb. 6, 2013) (describing in
detail the states' intent to disseminate the information to the
public).
    The states appealed that plainly erroneous decision. See Letter
from P. Clayton Eubanks, Deputy Solicitor General, Office of Oklahoma
Attorney General, to National FOIA Officer, EPA (March 15, 2013)
(Exhibit 4). On May 2, 2013, EPA's Office of General Counsel informed
the states that it needed ``a

brief extension of time''--until May 15, 2013--to respond to the
states' appeal. Electronic mail from Lynn Kelly, Attorney-Advisor, EPA
Office of General Counsel, to P. Clayton Eubanks, Deputy Solicitor
General, Office of Oklahoma Attorney General. Two weeks later, EPA
again informed the states that it needed more time to review the
appeal, promising a decision by May 31, 2013. Electronic mail from Lynn
Kelly, Attorney-Advisor, EPA Office of General Counsel, to P. Clayton
Eubanks, Deputy Solicitor General, Office of Oklahoma Attorney General
(May 15, 2013).
    On that date, EPA denied the states' FOIA request, claiming the
states' request ``fails to adequately describe the records sought[.]''
Letter from Kevin M. Miller, Assistant General Counsel, EPA Office of
General Counsel, to P. Clayton Eubanks, Deputy Solicitor General,
Office of Oklahoma Attorney General, at 1 (May 31, 20 13). But see FOIA
Request, at 1-3 (describing in detail the records sought). In the face
of EPA's blatant attempts to frustrate the states' right to access
public records directly related to matters of great importance to the
states and the public, the states sued EPA in federal court. Compl.,
Oklahoma v. EPA, No. 5:13-cv-00726-M (W.D. Okla. July 16, 2013).
    In related litigation seeking the documents that the states
requested, as well as others, a federal judge has questioned EPA's
truthfulness and concluded ``that leaders in EPA may have purposefully
attempted to skirt disclosure under the FOIA.'' Mem. Op., at 13,
Landmark Legal Found. v. EPA, No. 12-1726 (D.D.C. Aug. 14, 2013). One
cannot help but to similarly question EPA's honesty and wonder what EPA
is trying to hide.
    Response: EPA disagrees with this comment. EPA has not coordinated
with environmental organizations regarding the outcome of this action.
As we explain elsewhere, nothing in the consent decree requires any
particular substantive outcome concerning Wyoming's Regional Haze SIP.
With respect to the allegations made relating to FOIA litigation, EPA
has fully responded to those claims in federal court. In any case, the
issues in the FOIA litigation mentioned by the commenter, such as
whether the FOIA requester reasonably described the records sought, are
unrelated to the commenter's unsupported allegations of coordination
with environmental organizations.
    With respect to the commenter's insinuations of bias, EPA firmly
rejects them. We have given careful consideration to all comments and
views submitted, regardless of their origin. In response to some
comments--both from industry and from environmental organizations--we
have acknowledged the merits of the comments and accordingly adjusted
not only our technical analyses, but also our final determinations. We
have also, at our discretion, considered comments from both industry
and from environmental organizations that were submitted after the
close of the comment period. It is hard to imagine what better evidence
there could be that EPA is willing and able to rationally consider
arguments and does not have an unalterably closed mind on the issues in
this action. See Air Transp. Ass'n of Am., Inc. v. Nat'l Mediation Bd.,
663 F.3d 476, 487 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (standard for prejudgment of
rulemaking issues) (citing Ass'n of Nat'l Advertisers, Inc. v. FTC, 627
F.2d 1151 (D.C. Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 447 U.S. 921 (1980)).

VI. Non-Relevant Comments From EPA's Original Proposal

    The following is a summary of the significant comments, criticisms,
and new data we received on our initial June 4, 2012 proposed
rulemaking, which we are not responding to because they are no longer
relevant to the action we proposed on June 10, 2013, or the specific
regional haze related action we are taking in this final rulemaking.

A. General Comments

    Comment: EPA is proposing to calculate compliance with tons per
year (tpy) BART emissions limits on a rolling 12-month basis. Based on
EPA's proposal, the owner/operator is to calculate and record a new 12-
month rolling average emission rate from the arithmetic average of all
valid hourly emission rates from the continuous emissions monitoring
systems for the current month and the previous 11 months, and to report
the result in tons. The calculation and compliance determination shall
be performed at the end of each calendar month.
    Wyoming established BART emissions limits based on a 30-day rolling
average in accordance with 40 CFR part 51 Appendix Y. Wyoming also
established annual emissions limits for units with BART limits. For all
units with BART limits, except Units 1 through 3 at Basin Electric's
Laramie River Station, Wyoming based the annual emissions limits on the
30-day averaged lb/hr emissions limit and full-time operation for 8,760
hours per year.
    Wyoming deliberately established these limits on a calendar year
basis to reduce recordkeeping and reporting burdens, without being any
less stringent than what was prescribed under Appendix Y. Every year,
when the Title V emissions inventory is submitted for each of these
facilities, the reported annual emissions can be compared to the annual
BART limits established in the State permits to determine compliance.
Requiring compliance with a 12-month rolling average will result in
unnecessary monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting, as the 12-month
rolling emissions limit would be based on full-time operation of the
unit and the more stringent 30-day averaged lb/hr value.
    Comment: We received a comment from a coalition of physicians that
expressed concerns over the health impacts from air pollution,
particularly particulate matter and ozone.
    Comment: We received a comment from a member of the public that
points out the amount of coal production in Wyoming and its
contribution to carbon dioxide and climate change.

B. Basin Electric Laramie River

    Comment: Wyoming has overestimated the ability of SNCR to reduce
emissions. EPA is basing its BART determination on the assumption that
LNB+OFA+SNCR can achieve 0.12 lb/MMBtu on a 30-day rolling average.
This means that addition of SNCR must reduce NOX emissions
from the LNB+OFA strategy by another 48%. Given the sensitivity of SNCR
to boiler operation, size, and configuration, we are concerned that
SNCR may not be able to achieve the proposed level of performance on a
consistent basis. For example, our query of CAMD data for 2011 found no
EGUs with SNCR (out of 3,621 coal-fired EGUs) that met 0.12 lb/MMBtu
each month.
    Comment: EPA should ensure that SNCR plus LNBs/OFA are capable of
meeting the proposed NOX limit of 0.12 lb/MMBtu, which would
reflect a 43% NOX removal efficiency for SNCR. This level of
removal is approximately twice that considered for other Wyoming
facilities, as well as facilities in other state BART analyses.
Further, in commenting on EPA's BART proposal for Montana's Colstrip
Units 1 and 2, the NPS researched 3,621 coal-fired EGUs with SNCR and
found only two units that could meet 0.15 lb/MMBtu consistently on a
monthly basis. Accordingly, we question whether SNCR plus combustion
controls can achieve a 0.12 lb/MMBtu NOX limit at Laramie
River Station Units 1-3. Should EPA find that this level of control
with SNCR is achievable, and fail to impose adequate BART limits
reflective of SCR capabilities; we request the EPA ensure the proposed
NOX limits are made

enforceable as a backstop and that if greater removal efficiencies are
achievable, rates be revised downwards within a 12-month period from
the date the technology becomes operable. We also request that level of
ammonia slip not exceed 5ppm, and such limit likewise be made
enforceable.
    Comment: EPA's BART analysis for Laramie River Station Units 1-3
improperly relied on cost estimates from Basin Electric that
overestimated capital costs and significantly underestimated operation
and maintenance costs for SNCR. Particularly, Basin Electric
underestimated the cost of reagent. We corrected these errors in our
revised cost calculation using the Sargent & Lundy SNCR cost module
from the IPM, and evaluated the cost of SNCR to reduce NOX
from the 0.21 lb/MMBtu Wyoming BART limit for LNBs/OFA down to EPA's
proposed FIP limit of 0.12 lb/MMBtu which reflects a NOX
reduction across the SNCR of 43%. We also evaluated the cost
effectiveness for an SNCR system designed to achieve 20% NOX
removal, which would equate to a NOX rate of 0.17 lb/MMBtu.
Our revised estimates show the cost effectiveness of SNCR plus
combustion controls is between $2,435/ton and $2,623/ton to meet a 0.12
lb/MMBtu NOX rate (or between $2,062/ton and $2,368/ton to
meet a 0.17 lb/MMBtu NOX rate). These corrected cost
effectiveness values for meeting a 0.12 lb/MMBtu NOX rate
with SNCR are higher than the cost effectiveness values, between
$2,056/ton and $2,109/ton, assumed by EPA.
    Comment: EPA relied on SCR cost estimates provided by Basin
Electric that failed to include LNBs/OFA and therefore assumed
unreasonably high construction and operation costs for the SCR.
    Comment: A comparison of SCR to EPA's preferred LNB+OFA+SNCR option
shows incremental costs less than $4,000/ton which are well below
values EPA typically accepts. For example, in its proposal to
disapprove part of the North Dakota plan, EPA cited the ``. . .
relatively low incremental cost effectiveness between the two control
options ($4,855 per ton) . . .'' For Laramie River Station, the
National Park Service (NPS) estimates of incremental costs of SCR are
only slightly greater than SCR's average costs, which are reasonable
when compared to costs accepted by other states and EPA.
    Comment: Although Basin Electric opposes EPA's SIP disapproval and
FIP, it supports the agency's decision not to require SCR at Laramie
River Station in its proposed FIP. EPA eliminated the option of LNBs/
OFA plus SCR from consideration as BART for the Laramie River Station
because ``the cost effectiveness value is significantly higher than
LNBs with OFA and there is a comparatively small incremental visibility
improvement over LNBs with OFA.'' Basin Electric agrees with and
supports the EPA on this issue.
    Comment: EPA's analysis for Basin Electric's Laramie River Station
acknowledged that additional emissions reductions from LNB and OFA were
proposed in the SIP, but did not assess the benefit of these lower
emissions rates. The short term mass emissions rate was reduced to
1,220 lb/hr for Laramie River Station on Units 1 and 2, and reduced to
1,254 lb/hr for Laramie River Station Unit 3. EPA explained that since
the State did not provide additional cost information for the lower
limits, revised modeling based on 0.21 lb/MMBtu was not performed, nor
did EPA perform a revised cost analysis.
    The reduced mass emissions are based on a performance level of 0.19
lb/MMBtu, which will be achieved by the installation of LNB with OFA at
no additional cost. Accounting for additional reduction in emissions,
without changing the control costs, yields a significantly higher
incremental cost, approximately $3,300, between LNB with OFA and SNCR.
If EPA had accounted for additional reduction from LNB and OFA and
resulting smaller incremental visibility improvement (less than 0.23
delta deciviews), the State anticipates that SNCR would not have been
BART. This conclusion is based on EPA's determination in the proposed
FIP for Montana that ``. . . the cost of SOFA+SCR ($3,195/ton) [lower
than the incremental cost of SNCR] is not justified by the visibility
improvement of 0.404 deciviews at Theodore Roosevelt National Park and
0.378 deciviews at UL Bend.'' 77 FR 24027.
    When evaluating Wyoming's 309(g) Regional Haze SIP, EPA should have
considered the additional NOX emissions reductions achieved
in the SIP before making a final determination on the approvability of
the SIP.
    Comment: EPA's comparison of annual emissions from the installation
of SNCR to the annual emissions cap established in a settlement is not
consistent. Operation of SNCR on Laramie River Station Units 1 through
3 is anticipated to result in annual emissions of 8,468 tons per year.
The State established an annual facility emissions cap of 12,773 tons
per year in a permit. The 8,468 tons per year value is based on an
average of 2001-2003 actual heat input for each boiler, while the
12,773 tons of NOX is a facility cap on potential emissions.
Typically, actual emissions are notably less than potential emissions
in order to maintain a margin of compliance. It is the State's
expectation that the emissions difference between EPA's SNCR
determination and the State's reduced facility emissions cap will be
less than the calculated 4,305 tons per year. A more direct comparison
would be to base the difference on the potential to emit for each of
the three Laramie River Station units (0.12 lb/MMBtu times the maximum
heat input rate times 8,760 hours of operation) which yields an annual
facility NOX emission rate of 10,218 tons per year, and a
difference from the State's emission cap of 2,555 tons.
    Comment: EPA states ``We find it was unreasonable for the State not
to determine that LNBs with OFA plus SNCR was NOX BART for
LRS Units 1-3.'' This statement provides no insight into the agency's
reasons for disapproving the State's NOX BART for Laramie
River Station.

C. Jim Bridger Units 1-4

    Comment: In its regional haze FIP, EPA identifies the relatively
high incremental cost effectiveness of SCR ($5,721 per ton) for the
Bridger units. Nevertheless, EPA does not account for this number in
its own BART decision making. EPA also fails to accord any deference to
Wyoming's consideration of these same costs. Such action is arbitrary
and contrary to EPA's actions in other states. Here, EPA erred by not
considering any incremental costs for Bridger, and by not honoring
Wyoming's consideration of costs for the Bridger units.
    Comment: In response to EPA's request for comment on alternative
approaches for the Jim Bridger BART determination, EPA received general
comments in favor of our third proposal in the alternative. Although
these commenters supported our third proposal in the alternative, the
commenters did not provide quantitative information to support their
position.
    Comment: EPA is seeking comment on an alternative that would allow
PacifiCorp to install SCR at Jim Bridger Units 3 and 4 within 5 years
from the date of EPA's final action. EPA's reasoning is that this
alternative would allow PacifiCorp the flexibility to determine the
implementation schedule for BART controls on all four Jim Bridger
units. Because EPA's initial proposal to require BART installation by
2016 best complies with the statutory requirement that BART be
installed and operated as expeditiously as practicable, 42 U.S.C.
7491(b)(2)(A), we support EPA's proposal over the alternative.

    Comment: EPA likely underestimated the visibility benefits
attributable to SCR to control NOX emissions in other ways.
First, EPA failed to follow its BART guidelines in estimating pre- and
post-control emissions. EPA's baseline for modeling included the PM and
SO2 limits that will be established by the regional haze
plan, rather than using a pre-SIP baseline (typically from the time
period of 2001-2004) as required by EPA's BART guidelines. This
approach resulted in an understatement of visibility improvement from
NOX BART controls. Further, EPA deviated from its BART
guidelines by modeling baseline emissions that were based on allowable
emission rates rather than actual maximum 24-hour rates. As a result,
EPA's baseline is based on long-term average emissions that mask actual
maximum visibility impairment. Further, EPA greatly overestimates the
ammonia slip (SO4 emissions) associated with SCR. For
example, actual increases in SO4 emissions due to operation
of SCR at each of the Jim Bridger units are 7.89 lb/hr per unit, far
lower than EPA's assumed increase in SO4 emissions of 54.0
lb/hr per unit. This error, too, likely caused EPA to understate the
visibility benefits of SCR.
    The Conservation Organizations conducted modeling analyses to
examine how widespread the impacts from each BART-subject source were
and to analyze the widespread visibility improvements that would result
if all units were required to install SCR along with combustion
controls at 0.05 lb/MMBtu limits routinely achieved to meet
NOX BART. The Conservation Organizations did not attempt to
address all of EPA`s errors in their supplemental modeling of
visibility impacts. Had the Conservation Organizations done so (i.e.,
changed baseline to reflect pre-SIP emissions of SO2, PM as
well as NOX, and reduced the projected increase in sulfates
to more reasonable levels), we assume that even greater visibility
benefits would have been demonstrated with SCR required as BART at all
BART-subject units.

D. Dave Johnston Units 3 and 4

    Comment: EPA relied on Wyoming's cost-effectiveness analysis of SCR
plus LNBs/OFA at Dave Johnston Unit 3, which significantly
overestimates the cost of this technology. While EPA presented a cost
effectiveness of $3,243/ton, our revised cost-effectiveness calculation
using the Sargent & Lundy SCR cost module shows that SCR plus LNBs/OFA
at Dave Johnston Unit 3 to meet a NOX limit of 0.05 lb/MMBtu
is much lower: $1,632/ton.
    Comment: EPA relied on Wyoming's dramatic underestimation of the
cost for SNCR at Dave Johnson Unit 3. Wyoming's BART analysis used
costs provided by PacifiCorp, which greatly underestimated reagent
costs for SNCR. Further, although PacifiCorp's SNCR cost analysis was
based on achieving a NOX rate of 0.22 lb/MMBtu, Wyoming
stated that SNCR was assumed to meet a NOX rate of 0.19 lb/
MMBtu. This skewed the cost-effectiveness results by making SNCR appear
less costly and more effective. Our revised analysis using the Sargent
& Lundy SNCR cost module from the IPM to achieve a 0.22 lb/MMBtu
NOX rate (20% removal across the SNCR) demonstrated that
SNCR has a higher cost-effectiveness value than is presented in the
proposed rule. While EPA presented and relied on a cost effectiveness
for SNCR of $721/ton, correcting the flaws in that analysis
demonstrates a cost effectiveness for SNCR of $1,443/ton. Based on
these corrected cost calculations, the cost of SCR plus LNBs/OFA is
$1,632/ton, not appreciably higher than the cost of SNCR at $1,443/ton.
    Comment: EPA makes the same errors in its BART analysis for Dave
Johnston Unit 4 as it did for Unit 3. EPA has proposed to approve
Wyoming's NOX BART determination for Dave Johnston Unit 4,
requiring LNBs with advanced OFA to achieve a NOX emission
limit of 0.15 lb/MMBtu. Although the cost effectiveness of SCR plus
LNBs with OFA at Dave Johnston Unit 4 presented by Wyoming and relied
upon by EPA was abundantly reasonable at $2,210 per ton of
NOX removed, EPA apparently agreed with Wyoming that the
incremental cost effectiveness of these controls compared to LNBs/OFA
was too high to justify SCR as BART.
    Wyoming calculated the cost effectiveness of SCR plus LNBs/OFA to
be $2,210/ton with a projected maximum visibility improvement of 0.97
deciviews. In comparison, Wyoming and EPA found that these same
controls constitute BART at Naughton Unit 3, even though the cost was
greater, $2,830/ton, and the projected maximum visibility improvement
was roughly the same, 1.0 deciviews. Wyoming and EPA also found that
SCR plus LNBs and SOFA met BART for Jim Bridger Units 3 and 4 at a cost
effectiveness of $2,258/ton and a projected visibility improvement of
0.80 and 0.82 deciviews, respectively. Further, EPA found that SCR plus
LNBs and SOFA met BART for Jim Bridger Units 1 and 2 at a cost
effectiveness of $2,258/ton and a visibility improvement of 0.76
deciviews and 0.82 deciviews, respectively. EPA's contrary conclusion
for Dave Johnston Unit 4 is arbitrary and inconsistent with EPA's other
decisions.
    Comment: Although EPA's data in the proposed rule demonstrated that
SCR plus LNBs/OFA is cost effective at $2,210/ton of NOX
removed, EPA overestimated the cost of SCR for Dave Johnston Unit 4 in
the same way it did for Dave Johnston Unit 3. We recalculated the cost
effectiveness of SCR plus combustion controls at Dave Johnston Unit 4
using the Sargent & Lundy SCR IPM Cost Module to meet a NOX
rate of 0.05 lb/MMBtu. The revised cost analysis shows a cost
effectiveness of $1,837/ton for these controls.
    Comment: EPA appears to have placed undue weight on incremental
costs. In its proposal to disapprove part of the North Dakota plan, EPA
cited the ``. . . relatively low incremental cost effectiveness between
the two control options ($4,855 per ton) . . .'' For Johnston units 3
and 4, the NPS estimates of incremental costs of SCR are two--three
times greater than LNB+OFA+SCR's average costs, which are reasonable
when compared to costs accepted by other states and EPA.

E. Naughton Units 1-3

    Comment: We received comments that the cost analysis of SCR at
Naughton is over inflated. One commenter estimated that, using a
capital cost of $266/kW, LNB+OFA+SCR for Unit 1 would remove 3,249 tpy
and cost $2,098/ton. The commenter went on to say that they estimated
the cost for the addition of SCR to Unit 2 and Unit 3 would be $2,037
and $2,844/ton. A commenter estimated the costs for the addition of SCR
to Unit 3 would be $1,788/ton. Another commenter estimated the cost of
SCR of $1,550/ton for Naughton Unit 1 and $1,501/ton for Naughton Unit
2.
    Comment: Even taken at face value, the $2,750 and $2,848 costs per
ton estimated by Wyoming for LNB+OFA+ SCR on Naughton Units 1 and 2,
respectively, are similar to or lower than the cost/ton values accepted
as reasonable in other BART analyses, including Wyoming's and EPA's
conclusion that addition of OFA+SCR at $2,830/ton is reasonable for
Naughton Unit 3.
    Comment: Despite our concerns with the visibility modeling
conducted by EPA, taken at face value, the annual costs and visibility
improvements (presented by EPA) associated with the addition of SCR
result in cost-effectiveness of $9.6 million/deciview for Naughton Unit
1, $11.5 million/deciview for Unit 2, and $15.7 million/deciview for
Unit 3 (which EPA deemed reasonable) at the nearest Class I area.

All three of these estimates are below or within the range of average
cost/deciview accepted as ``reasonable''.
    Comment: EPA relied solely on an incremental cost-benefit rationale
to reject SCR as BART for Naughton Units 1 and 2. This conclusion is
improper where SCR plus combustion controls is cost effective, even
using EPA's inflated numbers, and its visibility benefit would be
significant. Indeed, the costs and visibility benefits of SCR at Units
1 and 2 are nearly identical to the costs and visibility benefits of
SCR at Unit 3, at which EPA found SCR to be BART. Specifically, SCR at
Naughton Units 1 and 2 has a cost effectiveness of $2,750/$2,848 per
ton of NOX removed and results in maximum visibility
improvements of 1.07/1.10 deciviews. Given these very similar numbers,
EPA's determination that SCR is BART at Unit 3 but SCR is not BART at
Units 1 and 2 is arbitrary.
    Comment: EPA has placed undue emphasis on incremental cost
effectiveness is even more improper considering its inaccuracy. EPA
stated incorrectly the incremental cost effectiveness of LNBs/OFA plus
SCR compared to LNBs/OFA as $8,000/ton. However, this calculation
actually refers to the incremental cost effectiveness of the SCR option
compared to the SNCR BART option. The incremental cost effectiveness
between the SCR option and the LNB/OFA option based on Wyoming's cost
and emission estimates provided in its BART Application Analyses are
$6,665/ton for Unit 1 and $6,518/ton for Unit 2.

F. Wyodak

    Comment: We received comments that the costs for SCR were
overinflated. One commenter estimated that LNB+OFA+SCR would remove
3,773 tpy and cost $3,475/ton. Another commenter estimated that based
on the Sargent & Lundy SCR cost module, the revised cost estimate for
these controls to meet a NOX limit of 0.05 lb/MMBtu is
$2,602/ton of NOX removed.
    Comment: As it did for Dave Johnston Unit 3, EPA also relied on
Wyoming's gross underestimate of the costs of SNCR. Rather than the
$958/ton of NOX removed assumed by EPA, the more accurate
cost effectiveness of SNCR based on the Sargent & Lundy SNCR IPM cost
module is $3,139/ton. Thus, SCR is more cost effective than SNCR to
control NOX at Wyodak.
    Comment: EPA has placed undue weight on incremental costs and
incremental benefits. Our analysis of the LNB+OFA+SCR option shows an
incremental cost of $3,726/ton for adding SCR to LNB+OFA. Our estimates
of incremental costs of SCR are only slightly greater than
LNB+OFA+SCR's average costs, which are reasonable when compared to
costs accepted by other states and EPA.

G. Dave Johnston Units 1 and 2

    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.
    Comment: EPA deviated from the BART Guidelines in the way it
estimated the emission rates it used in its modeling analyses. For Dave
Johnston Unit 1 and Unit 2, EPA assumed that NOX emissions
would drop from 1,012.5 lb/hr (base case) to 354.375 lb/hr with the
addition of LNB+OFA and to 202.5 lb/hr with addition of SCR. However,
our review of 2001-2003 daily CAMD data found that daily NOX
emissions from Johnston Unit 1 and Unit 2 during 2001-2003 never
exceeded 680 lb/hr. EPA modeling analysis cannot be relied upon to
estimate ``a comparatively small incremental visibility improvement''
because the emissions modeled are incorrect.
    Comment: The EPA 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 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.

H. Modeling

    Comment: EPA conducted visibility impact modeling from the Wyoming
sources for its BART and reasonable progress analyses. Unfortunately,
EPA failed to present and/or fully explain the results of its modeling
to the public, thus preventing a complete analysis of the benefits of
installation of SCR on the Wyoming sources. Accordingly, we request
that EPA provide clarification on the following issues: (1) Please
clarify whether the spreadsheet provided in response to our FOIA
request represents EPA's complete and final modeling results. If not,
we request that EPA post all final visibility modeling results to the
docket for this rulemaking, including any post-processing of modeling
results, and allow the public to submit comment on the modeling
results; (2) Please describe and clarify any discrepancies between
EPA's proposed rule and its final modeling results; (3) Please explain
how EPA calculated the visibility results presented in its proposed
rule and provide all data upon which these calculations were made. In
addition, we request that EPA re-run its visibility impact modeling for
years 2001-2003 and incorporate all proposed changes to its modeling
provided in this comment letter, in the TSD, and in the Expert Report
of Howard Gebhart, including, but not limited to utilization of the
correct version of the model, correct emission rates, and compressive
inclusion of impacted Class I areas. We also request that EPA post its
new corrected modeling results to the docket for this rulemaking and
provide the public with an adequate opportunity to respond and comment
on the new visibility impact modeling.
    Comment: Wyoming DEQ evaluated visibility improvements at the three
nearest Class I areas--Bridger, Fitzpatrick, and Mount Zirkel
Wilderness Areas--and reported the ``cumulative 3-year averaged
visibility improvement from Post-Control Scenario A across the three
Class I areas . . .'' We requested to DEQ that the other eight Class I
areas within 300 km of Bridger (Grand Teton National Park, Yellowstone
National Park, Rocky Mountain National Park, Washakie

Wilderness Area, Teton Wilderness Area, Flat Tops Wilderness Area,
Rawah Wilderness Area, and Eagles Nest Wilderness Area) be included in
the modeling analysis. However, instead of expanding the modeling
analysis, EPA R8 reported results for only the Mount Zirkel Wilderness
Area.
    Comment: EPA R8 has incorrectly estimated visibility improvement
from all NOX control options: WY DEQ evaluated visibility
improvements at the four nearest Class I areas and reported the ``The
cumulative 3-year averaged 98th percentile visibility improvement from
Post-Control Scenario A summed across all four Class I areas achieved
with Post-Control Scenario B was 0.754 delta deciviews from Unit 3 and
0.405 delta from Unit 4.'' EPA R8 reported results for only one Class I
area. PacifiCorp apparently considered cost a useful metric when it
made the following statements for its Unit 3 BART proposal:
``the incremental cost effectiveness for Scenario 1 compared to the
Baseline is reasonable at $0.4 million per day and $14.4 million per
deciview to improve visibility at Badlands NP'' and for its Unit
4 BART proposal, ``the incremental cost effectiveness for
Scenario 1 compared to the Baseline is reasonable at about $800,000 per
day and $31.7 million per deciview.'' PacifiCorp's conclusions are
consistent with those reached across the country that the average cost
per deciview proposed by either a state or a BART source is $14-$18
million, with a maximum of almost $50 million per deciview proposed by
Colorado at the Martin Drake power plant. Combining the modeling
results provided by EPA R8 (which we believe have underestimated SCR
benefits) and Wyoming DEQ's cost analyses (which we believe have
overestimated SCR costs), addition of SCR at Dave Johnston Unit 3 would
improve visibility by 1.16 deciview at a cost of $14 million per
deciview at the most-impacted Class I area. Likewise, addition of SCR
at Dave Johnston Unit 4 would improve visibility by 0.97 deciview at a
cost of $17 million per deciview. Not only is addition of SCR cost-
effective (even by PacifiCorp's criteria), it would be even more cost-
effective if the issues we have noted above are addressed. By
overestimating costs of SCR and underestimating control efficiency and
visibility benefits, EPA R8 concluded that combustion controls plus
SNCR is BART for Unit 3 and combustion controls are BART for Unit 4,
rather than SCR.
    Comment: EPA states that a change of 1.0 deciview is perceptible
and causes visibility impairment and a change of 0.5 deciviews,
although not perceptible, is considered to contribute to visibility
impairment. 40 CFR part 51, App. Y, section III.A.1, 70 FR 39120.
Sources that do not have an impact of 0.5 deciviews or more may be
exempted from BART altogether. 40 CFR part 51, App. Y, section III.A.1.
In Wyoming, EPA approved the State's selection of a 0.5 deciview
threshold for exempting sources from BART, based on the ``relatively
limited impact on visibility'' from sources under the threshold.
    In Colorado, the state established criteria that SNCR would be
required as BART only if the cost effectiveness for SNCR was less than
$5,000/ton and the visibility improvement was greater than 0.2
deciviews. Although EPA stated it did ``not necessarily agree'' that
these criteria would always be appropriate for determining BART, it
proposed to approve all BART determinations the state made using these
criteria.
    The modeled visibility improvement using the final BART permit
levels that would be achieved with SNCR at Laramie River is one-tenth
of what EPA contends is humanly perceptible, one-fifth of the level
used to exempt Wyoming sources from BART due to relatively limited
visibility impact, and one-half the SNCR threshold used by Colorado to
establish limits that EPA proposed to approve. This de minimis
improvement rebuts EPA's disapproval of the State's NOX BART
for Laramie River, and supports the State's final BART determination.
Even if EPA were entitled to disapprove a state's BART determination
based on a standard of ``unreasonableness,'' it cannot be unreasonable
for the state to fail to require additional SNCR controls that would
offer tiny and imperceptible visibility improvements at enormous cost.
However one characterizes the facts, millions of dollars would be spent
every year to install and operate SNCR.
    Moreover, the modeled visibility improvements for the Jim Bridger
units resulting from the requirement to install SCR (as BART under the
EPA regional haze FIP and as part of the LTS under the Wyoming Regional
Haze SIP) are too small to justify the overall expense of requiring
these controls. Spending hundreds of millions of dollars for
imperceptible visibility changes does not meet the intent, or purpose,
of the regional haze program.
    Comment: EPA has improperly failed to account for the very few
number of days of visibility impacts or the seasonal timing of when
those few impacts occur. EPA is proposing to accelerate the timeline
for installing the Jim Bridger Unit 1 SCR from 2022 to 2017 and the Jim
Bridger Unit 2 SCR from 2021 to 2017. Even when relying on the CALPUFF
models that significantly overestimate the visibility impacts, EPA's
proposal will only result in imperceptible visibility improvements for
only eleven days a year until the SCRs would have been installed as
required by the State's plan.
    In a similar manner, the days of impacts need to be considered when
evaluating the additional controls that EPA proposes to install on
Wyodak and Dave Johnston Unit 3. EPA's modeling of Wyodak indicates
that installing and incurring the additional costs for the SNCR will
not only result in an imperceptible 0.15 deciview of visibility
improvement, but the days per year the unit is modeled to impact the
park by greater than 0.5 deciviews will be reduced from sixteen to
twelve days; a benefit of only four days per year.
    EPA's modeling of Dave Johnston Unit 3 indicates that installing
and incurring the additional costs for SNCR will result not only in an
imperceptible 0.17 deciview improvement, but the days per year the unit
is modeled to impact the park by greater than 0.5 deciviews will only
be reduced from nine to six days; a benefit of only three days per
year. None of these imperceptible modeled visibility improvements
occurring during only a few days a year justify the tremendous cost of
controls required under EPA's regional haze FIP.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

    This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is
therefore not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
(76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011). As discussed in section C below, the
final FIP applies to only three facilities and five BART units.\241\ It
is therefore not a rule of general applicability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \241\ Dave Johnston Unit 3, Laramie River units 1, 2, and 3, and
the unit at Wyodak.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). Because the final FIP applies to
just three facilities, the Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply. See
5 CFR 1320(c).

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's final rule on
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as
defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13
CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government
of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated
and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's final rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Regional
Haze FIP that EPA is finalizing for purposes of the regional haze
program consists of imposing federal controls to meet the BART
requirement for NOX emissions on five specific BART units at
three facilities in Wyoming. The net result of this FIP action is that
EPA is finalizing direct emission controls on selected units at only
three sources. The sources in question are each large electric
generating plants that are not owned by small entities, and therefore
are not small entities. The final partial approval of the SIP merely
approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose
additional requirements. See, e.g., Mid-Tex Electric Cooperative, Inc.
v. FERC, 773 F.2d 327 (D.C. Cir. 1985)(hereinafter Mid-Tex).

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that may result in
expenditures to State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or to the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted for
inflation) in any one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a
written statement is needed, section 205 of UMRA generally requires EPA
to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives
and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome
alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of
section 205 of UMRA do not apply when they are inconsistent with
applicable law. Moreover, section 205 of UMRA allows EPA to adopt an
alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective, or least
burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final
rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA
establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, including Tribal governments, it
must have developed under section 203 of UMRA a small government agency
plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small
governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have
meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory
actions with significant federal intergovernmental mandates, and
informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with
the regulatory requirements.
    Under Title II of UMRA, EPA has determined that this final rule
does not contain a federal mandate that may result in expenditures that
exceed the inflation-adjusted UMRA threshold of $100 million ($150 in
2013 when adjusted for inflation) by State, local, or Tribal
governments or the private sector in any one year. The private sector
expenditures that will result from the FIP, including BART controls for
Basin Electric Laramie River Station Units 1-3 ($67,128,584 per year)
\242\, and PacifiCorp Dave Johnston Unit 3 ($11,680,144 per year) \243\
and Wyodak ($15,073,502) \244\, are $93,882,230 per year. This
calculation assumes that PacifiCorp would choose to install SCR on Dave
Johnston Unit 3, and not to otherwise voluntarily retire the unit, an
option which the FIP allows. Additionally, we do not foresee
significant costs (if any) for state and local governments. Thus,
because the annual expenditures associated with the FIP are less than
the inflation-adjusted threshold of $150 million in any one year, this
rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of UMRA.
This rule is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of
UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \242\ Andover Technology Partners, ``Cost of NOX
Controls on Wyoming EGUs'', October 28, 2013; Wyoming EGU BART and
Reasonable Progress Costs--10/2013.
    \243\ Andover Technology Partners, ``Cost of NOX
Controls on Wyoming EGUs'', October 28, 2013; Wyoming EGU BART and
Reasonable Progress Costs--10/2013.
    \244\ Andover Technology Partners, ``Cost of NOX
Controls on Wyoming EGUs'', October 28, 2013; Wyoming EGU BART and
Reasonable Progress Costs--10/2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

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

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

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994), establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
    We have determined that this final action will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it increases the
level of environmental protection for all affected populations without
having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on any population, including any minority or low-
income population. This final rule limits emissions of NOX
from three facilities and five BART units in Wyoming. The partial
approval of the SIP merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law.

K. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. Section 804 exempts from section 801 the following types
of rules (1) rules of particular applicability; (2) rules relating to
agency management or personnel; and (3) rules of agency organization,
procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect the rights or
obligations of non-agency parties. 5 U.S. 804(3). EPA is not required
to submit a rule report regarding today's action under section 801
because this is a rule of particular applicability. This rule finalizes
a FIP for three sources.

L. Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by March 31, 2014. Pursuant to CAA section
307(d)(1)(B), this action is subject to the requirements of CAA section
307(d) as it promulgates a FIP under CAA section 110(c). Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. See CAA section 307(b)(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: January 10, 2014.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator, U.S. EPA.
    40 CFR part 52 is amended to read as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart ZZ--Wyoming

0
2. Section 52.2620, in the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding
an entry for ``XXIII. Wyoming State Implementation Plan for Regional
Haze for 309(g)'' at the end of the table.

Sec.  52.2620  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Name of nonregulatory SIP       Applicable geographic or  State submittal date/    EPA approval date
             provision                  nonattainment area          adopted date        and citation \3\                    Explanations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
XXIII. Wyoming State                Statewide................  Submitted:             1/30/14, [Insert      Excluding portions of the following: Chapter
 Implementation Plan for Regional                               1/12/2011...........   Federal Register      6.4, Chapter 6.5.5, Chapter 6.5.7, Chapter
 Haze for 309(g).                                                                      page number where     6.5.8, and Chapter 7.5. We are excluding
                                                                                the document          portions of these chapters because EPA
                                                                                begins.].             disapproved: (1) The NOX BART
                                                                                determinations for: (1) Laramie River Units
                                                                                1-3, Dave Johnston Unit 3, and Wyodak Unit
                                                                                1; (2) the State's monitoring,
                                                                                recordkeeping, and reporting requirements
                                                                                for BART units; (3) the State's reasonable
                                                                                progress goals.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    \3\ In order to determine the EPA effective date for a specific
provision listed in this table, consult the Federal Register notice
cited in this column for the particular provision.

0
3. Add Sec.  52.2636 to subpart ZZ to read as follows:

Sec.  52.2636  Implementation plan for regional haze.

    (a) Applicability. (1) This section applies to each owner and
operator of the following emissions units in the State of Wyoming for
which EPA approved the State's BART determination:
    (i) FMC Westvaco Trona Plant Units NS-1A and NS-1B (PM and
NOX);
    (ii) TATA Chemicals Partners (previously General Chemical) Boilers
C and D (PM and NOX);
    (iii) Basin Electric Power Cooperative Laramie River Station Units
1, 2, and 3 (PM);
    (iv) PacifiCorp Dave Johnston Power Plant Unit 3 (PM);
    (v) PacifiCorp Dave Johnston Power Plant Unit 4 (PM and
NOX);
    (vi) PacifiCorp Jim Bridger Power Plant Units 1, 2, 3, and 4 (PM
and NOX);
    (vii) PacifiCorp Naughton Power Plant Units 1, 2, and 3 (PM and
NOX); and
    (viii) PacifiCorp Wyodak Power Plant Unit 1 (PM).
    (2) This section also applies to each owner and operator of the
following emissions units in the State of Wyoming for which EPA
disapproved the State's BART determination and issued a NOX
BART Federal Implementation Plan:
    (i) Basin Electric Power Cooperative Laramie River Station Units 1,
2, and 3;
    (ii) PacifiCorp Dave Johnston Unit 3; and
    (iii) PacifiCorp Wyodak Power Plant Unit 1.
    (b) Definitions. Terms not defined below shall have the meaning
given them in the Clean Air Act or EPA's regulations implementing the
Clean Air Act. For purposes of this section:
    (1) BART means Best Available Retrofit Technology.
    (2) BART unit means any unit subject to a Regional Haze emission
limit in Table 1 and Table 2 of this section.
    (3) CAM means Compliance Assurance Monitoring as required by 40 CFR
part 64.
    (4) Continuous emission monitoring system or CEMS means the
equipment required by this section to sample, analyze, measure, and
provide, by means of readings recorded at least once every 15 minutes
(using an automated data acquisition and handling system (DAHS)), a
permanent record of NOX emissions, diluent, or stack gas
volumetric flow rate.
    (5) FIP means Federal Implementation Plan.
    (6) The term lb/hr means pounds per hour.
    (7) The term lb/MMBtu means pounds per million British thermal
units of heat input to the fuel-burning unit.
    (8) NOX means nitrogen oxides.
    (9) Operating day means a 24-hour period between 12 midnight and
the following midnight during which any fuel is combusted at any time
in the BART unit. It is not necessary for fuel to be combusted for the
entire 24-hour period.
    (10) The owner/operator means any person who owns or who operates,
controls, or supervises a unit identified in paragraph (a) of this
section.
    (11) PM means filterable total particulate matter.
    (12) Unit means any of the units identified in paragraph (a) of
this section.
    (c) Emissions limitations. (1) The owners/operators of emissions
units subject to this section shall not emit, or cause to be emitted,
PM or NOX in excess of the following limitations:

                                            Table 1 to Sec.   52.2636
 [Emission limits for BART units for which EPA approved the State's BART and Reasonable Progress determinations]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                NOX emission
                                                                                PM emission      limits-- lb/
                            Source name/BART unit                             limits--lb/MMBtu    MMBtu (30-day
                                                                                rolling average)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FMC Westvaco Trona Plant/Unit NS-1A.........................................              0.05              0.35
FMC Westvaco Trona Plant/Unit NS-1B.........................................              0.05              0.35
TATA Chemicals Partners (General Chemical) Green River Trona Plant/Boiler C.              0.09              0.28
TATA Chemicals Partners (General Chemical) Green River Trona Plant/Boiler D.              0.09              0.28
Basin Electric Power Cooperative Laramie River Station/Unit 1...............              0.03               N/A
Basin Electric Power Cooperative Laramie River Station/Unit 2...............              0.03               N/A
Basin Electric Power Cooperative Laramie River Station/Unit 3...............              0.03               N/A
PacifiCorp Dave Johnston Power Plant/Unit 3.................................             0.015               N/A

PacifiCorp Dave Johnston Power Plant/Unit 4.................................             0.015              0.15
PacifiCorp Jim Bridger Power Plant/Unit 1 \1\...............................              0.03         0.26/0.07
PacifiCorp Jim Bridger Power Plant/Unit 2 \1\...............................              0.03         0.26/0.07
PacifiCorp Jim Bridger Power Plant/Unit 3 \1\...............................              0.03         0.26/0.07
PacifiCorp Jim Bridger Power Plant/Unit 4 \1\...............................              0.03         0.26/0.07
PacifiCorp Naughton Power Plant/Unit 1......................................              0.04              0.26
PacifiCorp Naughton Power Plant/Unit 2......................................              0.04              0.26
PacifiCorp Naughton Power Plant/Unit 3......................................             0.015              0.07
PacifiCorp Wyodak Power Plant/Unit 1........................................             0.015               N/A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The owners and operators of PacifiCorp Jim Bridger Units 1, 2, 3, and 4 shall comply with the NOX emission
  limit for BART of 0.26 lb/MMBtu and PM emission limit for BART of 0.03 lb/MMBtu and other requirements of this
  section by March 4, 2019. The owners and operators of PacifiCorp Jim Bridger Units 1, 2, 3 and 4 shall comply
  with the NOX emission limit for reasonable progress of 0.07 lb/MMBtu by: December 31, 2022 for Unit 1,
  December 31, 2021 for Unit 2, December 31, 2015, for Unit 3, and December 31, 2016, for Unit 4.

                        Table 2 to Sec.   52.2636
  [Emission limits for BART units for which EPA disapproved the State's
                BART determination and implemented a FIP]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 NOX
                                                               emission
                                                              limit--lb/
                   Source name/BART unit                      MMBtu (30-
                                                                 day
                                                               rolling
                                                               average)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basin Electric Power Cooperative Laramie River Station/Unit         0.07
 1.........................................................
Basin Electric Power Cooperative Laramie River Station/Unit         0.07
 2.........................................................
Basin Electric Power Cooperative Laramie River Station/Unit         0.07
 3.........................................................
PacifiCorp Dave Johnston Unit 3............................        *0.07
PacifiCorp Wyodak Power Plant/Unit 1.......................         0.07
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* (or 0.28 and shut-down-by December 31, 2027).

    (2) These emission limitations shall apply at all times, including
startups, shutdowns, emergencies, and malfunctions.
    (d) Compliance date. (1) The owners and operators of PacifiCorp Jim
Bridger Units 1, 2, 3, and 4 shall comply with the NOX
emission limit of 0.26 lb/MMBtu and PM emission limit of 0.03 lb/MMBtu
and other requirements of this section by March 4, 2019. The owners and
operators of PacifiCorp Jim Bridger Units 1, 2, 3 and 4 shall comply
with the NOX emission limit of 0.07 lb/MMBtu by: December
31, 2022 for Unit 1, December 31, 2021 for Unit 2, December 31, 2015,
for Unit 3, and December 31, 2016, for Unit 4.
    (2) The owners and operators of the other BART sources subject to
this section shall comply with the emissions limitations and other
requirements of this section by March 4, 2019.
    (3) Compliance alternatives for PacifiCorp Dave Johnston Unit 3.
(i) The owners and operators of PacifiCorp Dave Johnston Unit 3 will
meet a NOX emission limit of 0.07 lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling
average) by March 4, 2019; or
    (ii) Alternatively, the owners and operators of PacifiCorp Dave
Johnston Unit 3 will permanently cease operation of this unit on or
before December 31, 2027.
    (e) Compliance determinations for NOX. (1) For all BART units other
than Trona Plant units:
    (i) CEMS. At all times after the earliest compliance date specified
in paragraph (d) of this section, the owner/operator of each unit shall
maintain, calibrate, and operate a CEMS, in full compliance with the
requirements found at 40 CFR part 75, to accurately measure
NOX, diluent, and stack gas volumetric flow rate from each
unit. The CEMS shall be used to determine compliance with the emission
limitations in paragraph (c) of this section for each unit.
    (ii) Method. (A) For any hour in which fuel is combusted in a unit,
the owner/operator of each unit shall calculate the hourly average
NOX emission rate in lb/MMBtu at the CEMS in accordance with
the requirements of 40 CFR part 75. At the end of each operating day,
the owner/operator shall calculate and record a new 30-day rolling
average emission rate in lb/MMBtu from the arithmetic average of all
valid hourly emission rates from the CEMS for the current operating day
and the previous 29 successive operating days.
    (B) An hourly average NOX emission rate in lb/MMBtu is
valid only if the minimum number of data points, as specified in 40 CFR
part 75, is acquired by both the pollutant concentration monitor
(NOX) and the diluent monitor (O2 or
CO2).
    (C) Data reported to meet the requirements of this section shall
not include data substituted using the missing data substitution
procedures of subpart D of 40 CFR part 75, nor shall the data have been
bias adjusted according to the procedures of 40 CFR part 75.
    (2) For all Trona Plant BART units:
    (i) CEMS. At all times after the compliance date specified in
paragraph (d) of this section, the owner/operator of each unit shall
maintain, calibrate, and operate a CEMS, in full compliance with

the requirements found at 40 CFR part 60, to accurately measure
NOX, diluent, and stack gas volumetric flow rate from each
unit, including the CEMS quality assurance requirements in appendix F
of 40 CFR part 60. The CEMS shall be used to determine compliance with
the emission limitations in paragraph (c) of this section for each
unit.
    (ii) Method. (A) For any hour in which fuel is combusted in a unit,
the owner/operator of each unit shall calculate the hourly average
NOX emission rate in lb/MMBtu at the CEMS in accordance with
the requirements of 40 CFR part 60. At the end of each operating day,
the owner/operator shall calculate and record a new 30-day rolling
average emission rate in lb/MMBtu from the arithmetic average of all
valid hourly emission rates from the CEMS for the current operating day
and the previous 29 successive operating days.
    (B) An hourly average NOX emission rate in lb/MMBtu is
valid only if the minimum number of data points, as specified in 40 CFR
part 60, is acquired by both the pollutant concentration monitor
(NOX) and the diluent monitor (O2 or
CO2).
    (f) Compliance determinations for particulate matter. Compliance
with the particulate matter emission limit for each BART unit shall be
determined from annual performance stack tests. Within 60 days of the
compliance deadline specified in paragraph (d) of this section, and on
at least an annual basis thereafter, the owner/operator of each unit
shall conduct a stack test on each unit to measure particulate
emissions using EPA Method 5, 5B, 5D, or 17, as appropriate, in 40 CFR
part 60, Appendix A. A test shall consist of three runs, with each run
at least 120 minutes in duration and each run collecting a minimum
sample of 60 dry standard cubic feet. Results shall be reported in lb/
MMBtu. In addition to annual stack tests, the owner/operator shall
monitor particulate emissions for compliance with the BART emission
limits in accordance with the applicable Compliance Assurance
Monitoring (CAM) plan developed and approved by the State in accordance
with 40 CFR part 64.
    (g) Recordkeeping. The owner/operator shall maintain the following
records for at least five years:
    (1) All CEMS data, including the date, place, and time of sampling
or measurement; parameters sampled or measured; and results.
    (2) Records of quality assurance and quality control activities for
emissions measuring systems including, but not limited to, any records
required by 40 CFR part 75. Or, for Trona Plant units, records of
quality assurance and quality control activities for emissions
measuring systems including, but not limited to appendix F of 40 CFR
part 60.
    (3) Records of all major maintenance activities conducted on
emission units, air pollution control equipment, and CEMS.
    (4) Any other CEMS records required by 40 CFR part 75. Or, for
Trona Plant units, any other CEMs records required by 40 CFR part 60.
    (5) Records of all particulate stack test results.
    (6) All data collected pursuant to the CAM plan.
    (h) Reporting. All reports under this section shall be submitted to
the Director, Office of Enforcement, Compliance and Environmental
Justice, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, Mail Code
8ENF-AT, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129.
    (1) The owner/operator of each unit shall submit quarterly excess
emissions reports for NOX BART units no later than the 30th
day following the end of each calendar quarter. Excess emissions means
emissions that exceed the emissions limits specified in paragraph (c)
of this section. The reports shall include the magnitude, date(s), and
duration of each period of excess emissions, specific identification of
each period of excess emissions that occurs during startups, shutdowns,
and malfunctions of the unit, the nature and cause of any malfunction
(if known), and the corrective action taken or preventative measures
adopted.
    (2) The owner/operator of each unit shall submit quarterly CEMS
performance reports, to include dates and duration of each period
during which the CEMS was inoperative (except for zero and span
adjustments and calibration checks), reason(s) why the CEMS was
inoperative and steps taken to prevent recurrence, and any CEMS repairs
or adjustments. The owner/operator of each unit shall also submit
results of any CEMS performance tests required by 40 CFR part 75. Or,
for Trona Plant units, the owner/operator of each unit shall also
submit results of any CEMs performance test required appendix F of 40
CFR part 60 (Relative Accuracy Test Audits, Relative Accuracy Audits,
and Cylinder Gas Audits).
    (3) When no excess emissions have occurred or the CEMS has not been
inoperative, repaired, or adjusted during the reporting period, such
information shall be stated in the quarterly reports required by
paragraphs (h)(1) and (2) of this section.
    (4) The owner/operator of each unit shall submit results of any
particulate matter stack tests conducted for demonstrating compliance
with the particulate matter BART limits in paragraphs (c) of this
section, within 60 calendar days after completion of the test.
    (5) The owner/operator of each unit shall submit semi-annual
reports of any excursions under the approved CAM plan in accordance
with the schedule specified in the source's title V permit.
    (i) Notifications. (1) The owner/operator shall promptly submit
notification of commencement of construction of any equipment which is
being constructed to comply with the NOX emission limits in
paragraph (c) of this section.
    (2) The owner/operator shall promptly submit semi-annual progress
reports on construction of any such equipment.
    (3) The owner/operator shall promptly submit notification of
initial startup of any such equipment.
    (j) Equipment operation. At all times, the owner/operator shall
maintain each unit, including associated air pollution control
equipment, in a manner consistent with good air pollution control
practices for minimizing emissions.
    (k) Credible evidence. Nothing in this section shall preclude the
use, including the exclusive use, of any credible evidence or
information, relevant to whether a source would have been in compliance
with requirements of this section if the appropriate performance or
compliance test procedures or method had been performed.

0
4. Add Sec.  52.2637 to subpart ZZ to read as follows:

Sec.  52.2637  Federal implementation plan for reasonable attributable
visibility impairment long-term strategy.

    As required by 40 CFR 41.306(c), EPA will ensure that the review of
the State's reasonably attributable visibility impairment long-term
strategy is coordinated with the regional haze long-term strategy under
40 CFR 51.308(g). EPA's review will be in accordance with the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.306(c).

[FR Doc. 2014-00930 Filed 1-29-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


                      List of files in supplemental data

Folder "IECCU models" contains 36 IECCU model files. The format of the file names is
                                nn-Bx-My-Sz.IEC
where	nn is the serial number (See Table 3.1),
	Bx is the building type,
 	My is the method for estimating Q12,
	Sz is the emission scenario number.

For example, file 12-B1-M2-S3.IEC is the 12[th] simulation; it is for building type 1; Q12 was estimated by method 2; the 1-BP source is emissions scenario 3.

Folder "Emission profiles" contains nine text files for hourly emission rates. They are part of the input to the IECCU models.
Folder "Input_output" contains 36 Excel files (.xlsx) for model input and output. The file names are the same as their corresponding model files.
Folder "calculations" contains spreadsheets for calculating TWAs, doses, and other parameters.

	calc_8-h TWA and dose.xlsx	maximum 8-h TWA concentrations and dose
      Calc_7-day TWA and dose.xlsx	adjusted consecutive 7-day TWA concentrations and dose
      calc_adjusted annual TWA.xlsx	adjusted annual TWA concentrations
      calc_ADD and LADD.xlsx		adjusted daily dose and lifetime adjusted daily dose
      calc_breathing rate.xlsx		spreadsheet for calculating weighted inhalation rate
      calc_hourly emission rates.xlsx	converting 1-min emission rates to hourly emission rates
      calc_stack effect.xlsx	 	spreadsheet for estimating Q12 based on the stack effect


[Federal Register: June 8, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 109)]
[Notices]
[Page 32483-32484]
[DOCID:fr08jn10-108]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2010-N-0128]

Prescription Drug User Fee Act; Meetings on Reauthorization;
Request for Notification of Stakeholder Intention to Participate

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice; request for notification of participation.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is issuing this notice
to request that public stakeholders--including patient and consumer
advocacy groups, health care professionals, and scientific and academic
experts--notify FDA of their intent to participate in periodic
consultation meetings on reauthorization of the Prescription Drug User
Fee Act (PDUFA). The statutory authority for PDUFA expires in September
2012. At that time, new legislation will be required for FDA to
continue collecting user fees for the prescription drug program. The
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) requires that FDA
consult with a range of stakeholders in developing recommendations for
the next PDUFA program. The act also requires that FDA hold continued
discussions with patient and consumer advocacy groups at least monthly
during FDA's negotiations with the regulated industry. The purpose of
this request for notification is to ensure continuity and progress in
these discussions by establishing consistent stakeholder
representation.

DATES: Submit notification of intention to participate by June 25,
2010. The first stakeholder meeting will be held on July 1, 2010, from
9 a.m. to 11 a.m. Stakeholder discussions will continue at least
monthly during reauthorization negotiations with the regulated
industry.

ADDRESSES: Submit notification of intention to participate in monthly
stakeholder meetings by e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>The
first stakeholder meeting will be held at the FDA White Oak Campus,
10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31, rm. 1503C, Silver Spring, MD 20993.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrick Frey, Food and Drug
Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, rm. 1174, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-
3844, FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

    The authority for PDUFA expires in September 2012. Without new
legislation to reauthorize the program, FDA will no longer be able to
collect user fees to fund the human drug review process. Section
736B(d)(1) (21 U.S.C. 379h-2(d)(1)) of the act requires that FDA
consult with a range of groups in developing recommendations for the
next PDUFA program, including scientific and academic experts, health
care professionals, and representatives from patient and consumer
groups. FDA initiated this process of consultation on April 12, 2010,
by holding a public meeting where stakeholders and other members of the
public were given an opportunity to present their views on
reauthorization (75 FR 12555, March 16, 2010). This meeting and written
comments submitted to the docket have provided critical input as the
Agency prepares for reauthorization discussions. Section 736B(d)(3) of
the act further requires that FDA continue meeting with these
stakeholders at least once every month during negotiations with the
regulated industry to continue discussions of their views on the
reauthorization, including suggested changes to the PDUFA program.
    FDA is issuing this Federal Register notice to request that
stakeholders--including patient and consumer advocacy groups, health
care professionals, and scientific and academic experts--notify FDA of
their intent to participate in periodic consultation meetings on
reauthorization of PDUFA. FDA believes that consistent stakeholder
representation at these meetings will be important to ensuring progress
in these discussions. If you wish to participate in this part of the
reauthorization process, please designate one or more representatives
from your organization who will commit to attending these meetings and
preparing for the discussions as needed. Stakeholders who identify
themselves through this notice will be included in all future
stakeholder discussions while FDA

negotiates with the regulated industry. If a stakeholder decides to
participate in these monthly meetings at a later time, they may still
participate in remaining monthly meetings by notifying FDA (see
ADDRESSES). These stakeholder discussions will satisfy the requirement
in section 736B(d)(3) of the act.

II. Additional Information on PDUFA

    There are several sources of information on FDA's Web site that may
serve as useful resources for stakeholders participating in the
periodic consultation meetings:
     Information on the April 2010 public meeting on PDUFA
Reauthorization, the Federal Register notice announcing the meeting,
and the transcript of the meeting are available at http://www.fda.gov/
ForIndustry/UserFees/PrescriptionDrugUserFee/ucm117890.htm. The slide
presentations from the meeting can be found at http://
www.regulations.gov using Docket No. FDA-2010-N-0128.
     FDA created a webinar on the PDUFA program, drug
development, and FDA's drug review in PDUFA IV. These presentations are
available at http://www.fda.gov/ForIndustry/UserFees/
PrescriptionDrugUserFee/ucm207597.htm.
     Key Federal Register documents, PDUFA-related guidances,
legislation, performance reports, and financial reports and plans are
posted at http://www.fda.gov/ForIndustry/UserFees/
PrescriptionDrugUserFee/default.htm.
     The Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007
(FDAAA)-specific information is available at: http://www.fda.gov/
RegulatoryInformation/Legislation/FederalFoodDrugandCosmeticActFDCAct/
SignificantAmendmentstotheFDCAct/
FoodandDrugAdministrationAmendmentsActof2007/default.htm

III. Notification of Intent to Participate in Periodic Consultation
Meetings

    If you intend to participate in continued periodic stakeholder
consultation meetings regarding PDUFA Reauthorization, please provide
notification by e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>by June 25,
2010. Your e-mail should contain complete contact information,
including name, title, affiliation, address, e-mail address, phone
number, and notice of any special accommodations required because of
disability. Stakeholders will receive confirmation and additional
information about the first meeting once FDA receives their
notification.

    Dated: June 2, 2010.
Leslie Kux,
Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2010-13671 Filed 6-7-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-S