[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 216 (Wednesday, November 7, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 55656-55665]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-24372]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

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


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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

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

[[Page 55657]]

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

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

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Aaron Worstell, Air Program, EPA, 
Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-
1129, (303) 312-6073, [email protected].

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

Table of Contents

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

I. General Information

A. Definitions

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

    \1\ Although states and tribes may designate as Class I 
additional areas which they consider to have visibility as an 
important value, the requirements of the visibility program set 
forth in section 169A of the CAA apply only to ``mandatory Class I 
Federal areas.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

B. Docket

    All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov 
index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly 
available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is 
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted 
material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly 
available docket materials are available either electronically in 
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Program, Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, 
Colorado 80202-1129. The EPA requests that if at all possible, you 
contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT 
section to view the hard copy of the docket. You may view the hard copy 
of the docket Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., excluding 
federal holidays.

II. Background

A. Requirements of the Clean Air Act and the EPA's Regional Haze Rule

    In section 169A of the 1977 Amendments to the CAA, Congress created 
a program for protecting visibility in the nation's national parks and 
wilderness areas. This section of the CAA establishes ``as a national 
goal the prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing, 
impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas which 
impairment results from manmade air pollution.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

[[Page 55658]]

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

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

B. Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)

    Section 169A of the CAA directs states as part of their SIPs to 
evaluate the use of retrofit controls at certain larger, often 
uncontrolled, older stationary sources in order to address visibility 
impacts from these sources. Specifically, section 169A(b)(2)(A) of the 
CAA requires states' implementation plans to contain such measures as 
may be necessary to make reasonable progress toward the natural 
visibility goal, including a requirement that certain categories of 
existing major stationary sources built between 1962 and 1977 procure, 
install, and operate the ``Best Available Retrofit Technology'' as 
determined by the states through their SIPs. Under the RHR, states (or 
the EPA) are directed to conduct BART determinations for such ``BART-
eligible'' sources that may reasonably be anticipated to cause or 
contribute to any visibility impairment in a Class I area.\8\ Rather 
than requiring source-specific BART controls, states also have the 
flexibility to adopt an emissions trading program or other alternative 
program as long as the alternative provides greater reasonable progress 
towards improving visibility than BART.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

C. BART Alternatives

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

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

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

D. Reasonable Progress Requirements

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

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

E. Consultation With Federal Land Managers (FLMs)

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

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

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

    The EPA's RHR provides two paths to address regional haze. One is 
40 CFR 51.308, requiring states to perform individual point source BART 
determinations and evaluate the need for other control strategies. The 
other method for addressing regional haze is through 40 CFR 51.309, and 
is an option for nine states termed the ``Transport Region States,'' 
which include: Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, New 
Mexico, Oregon, Utah and Wyoming. By meeting the requirements under 40 
CFR 51.309, a Transport Region State can be deemed to be making 
reasonable progress toward the

[[Page 55659]]

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

    \14\ The Colorado Plateau is a high, semi-arid tableland in 
southeast Utah, northern Arizona, northwest New Mexico, and western 
Colorado. The 16 mandatory Class I areas are: Grand Canyon National 
Park, Mount Baldy Wilderness, Petrified Forest National Park, 
Sycamore Canyon Wilderness, Black Canyon of the Gunnison National 
Park Wilderness, Flat Tops Wilderness, Maroon Bells Wilderness, Mesa 
Verde National Park, Weminuche Wilderness, West Elk Wilderness, San 
Pedro Park Wilderness, Arches National Park, Bryce Canyon National 
Park, Canyonlands National Park, Capital Reef National Park and Zion 
National Park.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 309 requires those Transport Region States that choose to 
participate to adopt regional haze strategies that are based on 
recommendations from the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission 
(GCVTC) for protecting the 16 Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau. 
The purpose of the GCVTC was to assess information about the adverse 
impacts on visibility in and around the 16 Class I areas on the 
Colorado Plateau and to provide policy recommendations to the EPA to 
address such impacts. The GCVTC determined that all Transport Region 
States could potentially impact the Class I areas on the Colorado 
Plateau. The GCVTC submitted a report to the EPA in 1996 for protecting 
visibility for the Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau, and the EPA 
codified these recommendations as an option available to states as part 
of the RHR.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The EPA determined that the GCVTC strategies would provide for 
reasonable progress in mitigating regional haze if supplemented by an 
annex containing quantitative emission reduction milestones and 
provisions for a trading program or other alternative measure.\16\ In 
September 2000, the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP), which is 
the successor organization to the GCVTC, submitted an annex to the EPA. 
The annex contained SO2 emissions reduction milestones and 
detailed provisions of a backstop trading program to be implemented 
automatically if voluntary measures failed to achieve the 
SO2 milestones. The EPA codified the annex on June 5, 2003 
at 40 CFR 51.309(h).\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 55660]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

III. The SIP Revision for Naughton Unit 3

A. Summary of the SIP Revision

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

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

B. The EPA's Evaluation of the SIP Revision

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 55661]]

alternative program along with the BART source category.

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

[[Page 55662]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 55663]]

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

IV. Clean Air Act Section 110(l)

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

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

V. Consultation With FLMs

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

VI. The EPA's Proposed Action

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

VII. Incorporation by Reference

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

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

[[Page 55664]]

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

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

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart ZZ--Wyoming

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


Sec.  52.2620   Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *

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

    (e) * * *

[[Page 55665]]



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                           Final rule citation
             Rule No.                      Rule title         State effective date   EPA effective date           date                  Comments
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
(32) XXXII.......................  Wyoming State              November 28, 2017...  December 7, 2018....  [Federal Register     Only includes Appendix
                                    Implementation Plan 5-                                                 citation], November   B: Alternative to BART
                                    Year Progress Report for                                               7, 2018.              for NOX and PM for
                                    Regional Haze, Appendix                                                                      PacifiCorp Naughton
                                    B: Alternative to BART                                                                       Unit 3.
                                    for NOX and PM for
                                    PacifiCorp Naughton Unit
                                    3.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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


Sec.  52.2636   Implementation plan for regional haze.

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

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

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