Rule2024-27942
Air Plan Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval; Wyoming; Regional Haze Plan for the Second Implementation Period
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
December 2, 2024
Effective
January 2, 2025
Issuing agencies
Environmental Protection Agency
Abstract
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is partially approving and partially disapproving a regional haze state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Wyoming on August 10, 2022 (Wyoming's 2022 SIP submission), to address applicable requirements under the Clean Air Act (CAA) and the EPA's Regional Haze Rule (RHR) for the regional haze program's second implementation period. The EPA is taking this action pursuant to the CAA.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 89 Issue 231 (Monday, December 2, 2024)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 231 (Monday, December 2, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 95121-95126]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2024-27942]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R08-OAR-2023-0489; FRL-12135-02-R8]
Air Plan Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval; Wyoming;
Regional Haze Plan for the Second Implementation Period
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is partially
approving and partially disapproving a regional haze state
implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Wyoming on
August 10, 2022 (Wyoming's 2022 SIP submission), to address applicable
requirements under the Clean Air Act (CAA) and the EPA's Regional Haze
Rule (RHR) for the regional haze program's second implementation
period. The EPA is taking this action pursuant to the CAA.
DATES: This rule is effective on January 2, 2025.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2023-0489. All documents in the docket are
listed on the <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> website. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available through <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>, or please
contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section for additional availability information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jaslyn Dobrahner, Air and Radiation
[[Page 95122]]
Division, EPA, Region 8, Mailcode 8ARD-IO, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver,
Colorado 80202-1129, telephone number: (303) 312-6252; email address:
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#45212a2737242d2b20376b2f2436293c2b052035246b222a33"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6e0a010c1c0f06000b1c40040f1d0217002e0b1e0f40090118">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' and
``our'' means the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. What is being addressed in this document?
II. Summary of the Proposed Action, Public Comments, and the EPA's
Rationale for Final Action
III. Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What is being addressed in this document?
The EPA is partially approving and partially disapproving Wyoming's
regional haze plan for the second implementation period. As required by
section 169A of the CAA, the RHR calls for State and Federal agencies
to work together to improve visibility in 156 national parks and
wilderness areas, known as mandatory Class I Federal areas.\1\ The rule
requires the States, in coordination with the EPA, the National Park
Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Forest Service, and other
interested parties, to develop and implement air quality protection
plans to reduce the pollution that causes visibility impairment in
mandatory Class I Federal areas. Visibility impairing pollutants
include fine and coarse particulate matter (PM) (e.g., sulfates,
nitrates, organic carbon, elemental carbon, and soil dust) and their
precursors (e.g., sulfur dioxide (SO<INF>2</INF>), oxides of nitrogen
(NO<INF>X</INF>), and, in some cases, volatile organic compounds (VOC)
and ammonia (NH<INF>3</INF>)). As discussed in further detail in our
proposed rule, this document, and the accompanying Response to Comments
(RTC) document, the EPA finds that Wyoming submitted a regional haze
SIP that does not meet all of the regional haze requirements for the
second implementation period. The State's submission, the proposed
rule, and the RTC document can be found in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See 40 CFR part 81, subpart D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Summary of the Proposed Action, Public Comments, and the EPA's
Rationale for Final Action
On August 10, 2022, Wyoming submitted a revision to its SIP to
address regional haze for the second implementation period, in
accordance with the requirements of the CAA's regional haze program
established by CAA sections 169A and 169B and 40 CFR 51.308.
On August 1, 2024, the EPA proposed to disapprove certain
provisions of Wyoming's 2022 SIP submission.\2\ Specifically, we
proposed to disapprove the portions of Wyoming's 2022 SIP submission
relating to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2): long-term strategy; 40 CFR
51.308(f)(3): reasonable progress goals; and 40 CFR 51.308(i): Federal
Land Manager (FLM) consultation. We also proposed to approve the
portions of Wyoming's 2022 SIP submission relating to 40 CFR
51.308(f)(1): calculations of baseline, current, and natural visibility
conditions, progress to date, and the uniform rate of progress; 40 CFR
51.308(f)(4): reasonably attributable visibility impairment; 40 CFR
51.308(f)(5) and 40 CFR 51.308(g): progress report requirements; and 40
CFR 51.308(f)(6): monitoring strategy and other implementation plan
requirements. Consistent with section 110(k)(3) of the CAA, the EPA may
partially approve portions of a submittal if those elements meet all
applicable requirements and may disapprove the remainder so long as the
elements are fully separable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 89 FR 63030 (August 1, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our August 1, 2024 proposed rule provided background on the
requirements of the CAA and RHR, a summary of Wyoming's regional haze
SIP submittals and related EPA actions, and the EPA's rationale for its
proposed action. That background and rationale will not be restated in
full here, although we briefly summarize the reasons for our partial
disapproval of Wyoming's 2022 SIP submission in the paragraphs that
follow.
Our public comment period closed on September 3, 2024. During the
public notice and comment period, we received more than 6,000 comments
on our proposal. The full text of the comments received are included in
the publicly posted docket associated with this action at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. Our RTC document, which is also included in the
docket, provides full, detailed responses to all significant comments
received and further explains the basis for our final action.
In CAA section 169A(a)(1), Congress established the national goal
of preventing any future and remedying any existing impairment of
visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas that results from manmade
(anthropogenic) air pollution. The core component of a regional haze
SIP submission for the second implementation period is a long-term
strategy for making reasonable progress toward meeting that national
goal. CAA section 169A(b)(2)(B), 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2). A state's long-
term strategy must address regional haze in each Class I area within
the state's borders and each Class I area outside the state that may be
affected by emissions originating from within the state. It ``must
include the enforceable emissions limitations, compliance schedules,
and other measures that are necessary to make reasonable progress, as
determined pursuant to (f)(2)(i) through (iv).'' 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2).
The amount of progress that is ``reasonable progress'' is based on
consideration of the four statutory factors in CAA section 169A(g)(1)--
the costs of compliance, the time necessary for compliance, the energy
and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance, and the
remaining useful life of any potentially affected sources \3\--in an
evaluation of potential control measures for sources of visibility
impairing pollutants, which is referred to as a ``four-factor''
analysis. In developing its long-term strategy, the state must document
the technical basis, including modeling, monitoring, cost, engineering,
and emissions information, on which it is relying to determine the
measures that are necessary to make reasonable progress. 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(iii). Wyoming did not include any emission control
measures, new or existing, in its long-term strategy for the regional
haze second implementation period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ CAA section 169A(g)(1); 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As explained in section 3.A. of the RTC document, the CAA
authorizes the EPA to substantively review states' SIP submissions for
compliance with the statute and RHR to ensure progress towards the
national visibility goal for Class I areas. Congress charged the EPA
with exercising ``federal oversight'' over SIP submissions and
``review[ing] all SIPs to ensure that the plans comply with the
statute.'' Oklahoma v. EPA, 723 F.3d 1201, 1204 (10th Cir. 2013). The
``EPA is left with more than the ministerial task of routinely
approving SIP submissions.'' North Dakota v. EPA, 730 F.3d 750, 761
(8th Cir. 2013). Instead, the Agency's ``review of a SIP extends not
only to whether the state considered the necessary factors in its
determination, but also to whether the determination is one that is
reasonably moored to the CAA's provisions'' and is ``based on `reasoned
analysis.' '' Id. at 761, 766 (citing Alaska Dep't of Envt.
Conservation v. EPA, 540 U.S. 461 (2004)); see also Wyoming v. EPA, 78
F.4th 1171, 1180-81 (10th Cir. 2023) (noting that ``the Act provides
for substantive and careful EPA review'' of
[[Page 95123]]
SIP submissions and that ``the EPA does not have to accept unreasonable
analyses''). For the reasons stated in the proposed rule, this
document, and in the RTC document, the EPA determines that Wyoming's
2022 SIP submission does not meet all of the requirements of the CAA
and RHR.
As detailed at length in our proposed rule and in the RTC document,
we conclude that Wyoming's long-term strategy does not meet the
requirements of CAA section 169A(b)(2) and 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2) on four
independent grounds. First, Wyoming failed to consider the four
statutory factors for the sources and associated units and pollutants
listed in table 1, despite determining that these sources may
contribute to visibility impairment at Class I areas. In some
instances, Wyoming provided no justification for the lack of four-
factor analysis. In others, Wyoming improperly relied on planned but
unenforceable source retirements or on the presence of existing
emission control measures at a source, without providing adequate
technical documentation of the effectiveness of those existing controls
or a sufficient indication that additional controls would not be cost-
effective or reasonable. For the reasons detailed in our proposed rule
and in the RTC document,\4\ the State's reasoning does not justify its
decision not to conduct four-factor analyses for these sources, as
required under CAA section 169A(g)(1) and 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2).
Therefore, we cannot conclude that Wyoming's long-term strategy
includes all the measures that are necessary to make reasonable
progress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 89 FR at 63056-62; RTC document, sections 7, 8, 14.
Table 1--Sources, Units, and Associated Pollutants That May Affect
Visibility at Class I Areas Where No Four-Factor Analysis Was Performed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Associated
Source Unit(s) pollutant(s)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Bridger (PacifiCorp)........ 1, 2.............. NOX, SO2, PM.
Jim Bridger (PacifiCorp)........ 3, 4.............. SO2, PM.
Naughton (PacifiCorp)........... 1, 2.............. NOX, SO2, PM.
Naughton (PacifiCorp)........... 3................. NOX, PM.
Dave Johnston (PacifiCorp)...... 1, 2.............. NOX, SO2, PM.
Dave Johnston (PacifiCorp)...... 4................. PM.
Wyodak (PacifiCorp)............. 1................. NOX, SO2, PM.
Laramie River Station (Basin 1-3............... PM.
Electric).
Laramie Portland Cement Kilns 1, 2........ SO2.
(Mountain Cement Company).
Elk Basin Gas Plant (Contango Engines (9) and PM.
Resources, Inc.). incinerator.
Elk Basin Gas Plant (Contango Engines (9)....... SO2.
Resources, Inc.).
Elk Basin Gas Plant (Contango Incinerator....... NOX.
Resources, Inc.).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although we stated in our proposed rule that Wyoming failed to
justify the lack of a four-factor analysis of NO<INF>X</INF> and PM
emission control measures for Lost Cabin Gas Plant, we are not carrying
that finding forward into our final rule. Based on our consideration of
a comment we received and on our further review of Wyoming's 2022 SIP
submission, we conclude that because the State's Q/d analysis \5\ shows
that the possible impact of the facility's NO<INF>X</INF> and PM
emissions on visibility at Class I areas is very small, Wyoming
reasonably elected to conduct a four-factor analysis only for
SO<INF>2</INF> control measures for this facility, and not for
NO<INF>X</INF> and PM control measures. Therefore, the lack of a four-
factor analysis of NO<INF>X</INF> and PM emissions controls for Lost
Cabin Gas Plant is not a reason for our disapproval of the State's
long-term strategy.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Q/d values represent the ratio of an individual source's
annual emissions of visibility-impairing emission precursors
(NO<INF>X</INF>, SO<INF>2</INF>, and PM<INF>10</INF>) in combined
tons (``Q'') divided by the distance in kilometers (``d'') between
the source and a Class I area. The larger the Q/d value, the greater
the source's expected effect on visibility impairment in that Class
I area.
\6\ Section 8.K. of the RTC document contains our full response
to the comment we received on this issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, Wyoming relied on unsupported rationales and failed to
document the technical basis (including cost, engineering, and
emissions information) \7\ of its decision not to include any emission
control measures in its long-term strategy for the sources listed in
table 2. In evaluating the cost of potential control measures for some
of these sources, Wyoming used unsubstantiated cost inputs, relied on
unjustifiably low estimates of control technology efficiencies, and
miscalculated the level of achievable emission reductions. These
methodological errors undercut the technical support for Wyoming's cost
analyses and the State's resulting determinations that control measures
for these sources would not be cost-effective. In other instances, the
State provided no reasoning, technical data, or cost information to
support its conclusions. For the reasons detailed in our proposed rule
and in the RTC document,\8\ these methodological errors and unsupported
technical bases, considered collectively, prevent the EPA from
determining that the State's long-term strategy is adequate to make
reasonable progress toward meeting the national visibility goal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii).
\8\ 89 FR at 63062-65; RTC document, sections 3.C., 7, 8.
Table 2--Sources, Units, and Associated Pollutants Where the State
Failed To Document the Technical Basis of Its Determinations of the
Emission Reduction Measures Necessary To Make Reasonable Progress
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Associated
Source Unit(s) pollutant(s)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Johnston (PacifiCorp)...... 4................. SO2.
Laramie Portland Cement Kilns 1, 2........ NOX.
(Mountain Cement Company).
[[Page 95124]]
Green River Works (TATA Calciner 1, NOX, PM.
Chemicals). Calciner 2.
Elk Basin Gas Plant (Contango Engines (9)....... NOX.
Resources, Inc.).
Elk Basin Gas Plant (Contango Incinerator....... SO2.
Resources, Inc.).
Lost Cabin Gas Plant (Burlington Trains 2, 3....... SO2.
Resources).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Third, Wyoming unreasonably rejected emission control measures for
Elk Basin Gas Plant and Cheyenne Fertilizer Facility (listed in table
3). Wyoming made no determination that these control measures were not
cost-effective (based on the cost per ton of emissions reduced); \9\
nor did it explain why these measures were otherwise unwarranted under
the four statutory factors.\10\ The cost-effectiveness values of these
control measures are below the level that the EPA and the states
generally found to be reasonable in the first implementation period,
even without adjusting for inflation. Instead of justifying its
rejection of these control measures based on the four statutory
factors, Wyoming cited declining emission trends, its belief that these
sources will not increase their emissions during the second
implementation period, and the presence of existing control
technologies at the facilities (which the State notably did not
determine to be effective for purposes of making reasonable
progress).\11\ As we explained in the context of the 2017 Regional Haze
Rule revisions, ``a state that elects to consider an additional factor
. . . must consider it in a reasonable way that does not undermine or
nullify the role of the four statutory factors in determining what
controls are necessary to make reasonable progress.'' \12\ Wyoming
improperly relied on these other considerations to reject controls that
its four-factor analyses showed to be cost-effective and otherwise
reasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ For the Cheyenne Fertilizer Facility, as with Elk Basin Gas
Plant, Wyoming did not determine that the cost/ton values of the
NO<INF>X</INF> and PM measures it evaluated were unreasonable.
However, Wyoming concluded that the capital costs of installing PM
controls (upgraded mist eliminators) on two cooling towers were not
justified given what the State determined--without explanation--to
be the ``minute'' amount of PM reductions at stake. Wyoming 2022 SIP
submission at 191. We do not find this justification to be
sufficient in light of the mist eliminators' cost-effectiveness
values (i.e., cost per ton of emissions reduced), which align with
the cost/ton values that were generally found to be reasonable
during the first implementation period. See 89 FR at 63065 & n.158.
Nor did Wyoming explain why the reduction in PM emissions that could
be achieved by upgraded mist eliminators was not necessary to make
reasonable progress. As we explained in the 2019 Guidance, capital
costs considered in isolation may not provide complete information
about the potential reasonableness of a control measure. 2019
Guidance at 39. Indeed, Wyoming itself conceded that ``[b]ased on
this four-factor analysis, this facility may warrant further
analysis of emission controls to reach reasonable progress.''
Wyoming 2022 SIP submission at 191.
\10\ For Elk Basin Gas Plant, Wyoming did not explicitly
determine, based on its four-factor analysis, that NO<INF>X</INF>
controls are not necessary to make reasonable progress. Wyoming 2022
SIP submission at 172 (``Considering the four factors above, as well
as emission trends and permit conditions, this facility may warrant
further analysis of emission controls to reach reasonable
progress.''). For NO<INF>X</INF> and PM controls at the Cheyenne
Fertilizer Facility, Wyoming asserted that ``[o]verall, considering
the four factors discussed above, the Division does not believe that
additional emissions control technology on the Cooper Engines . . .
or Cooling Towers is necessary to make reasonable progress at this
time.'' Wyoming 2022 SIP submission at 191. However, aside from
pointing to the capital costs of PM control measures, Wyoming did
not explain how it reached that conclusion.
\11\ Wyoming 2022 SIP submission at 171-72, 191. Wyoming also
noted that the engines at the Cheyenne Fertilizer Facility are
natural gas-fired. Id. at 191. However, Wyoming did not explain how
combustion of natural gas mitigates the need for NO<INF>X</INF>
emissions reductions measures or why low-emission combustion (the
control technology for these engines that the State evaluated
through four-factor analysis) is not necessary to make reasonable
progress. As detailed in sections 7.B. and 8.A.ii. of the RTC
document, combustion of natural gas does not itself render a source
effectively controlled for NO<INF>X</INF> emissions.
\12\ EPA, Responses to Comments on Protection of Visibility:
Amendments to Requirements for State Plans; Proposed Rule, December
2016, at 186 (available in the docket for this action).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Within its 2022 SIP submission, Wyoming conceded that based on the
four-factor analyses it conducted for Elk Basin Gas Plant and Cheyenne
Fertilizer Facility, these sources may warrant further analysis of the
measures necessary to make reasonable progress.\13\ Wyoming stated it
would submit more detailed analyses in the context of its regional haze
second implementation progress report due in 2025. However, nothing in
the CAA or RHR allows states to avoid their obligation to determine the
measures necessary to make reasonable progress through consideration of
the four statutory factors by delaying decision-making to a future
date.\14\ For these reasons, and as further detailed in our proposed
rule and in the RTC document,\15\ we find that Wyoming's long-term
strategy does not include the measures necessary to make reasonable
progress because Wyoming unreasonably rejected control measures for Elk
Basin Gas Plant and Cheyenne Fertilizer Facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Wyoming 2022 SIP submission at 172, 191.
\14\ Cf. NRDC v. EPA, 22 F.3d 1125, 1134 (D.C. Cir. 1994)
(noting that SIPs must ``contain[ ] something more than a mere
promise to take appropriate but unidentified measures in the
future''). In addition, because progress reports due in 2025 will
not take the form of SIP revisions that must be approved or
disapproved by the EPA, it is not clear how Wyoming could evaluate
and potentially impose federally enforceable emission reduction
measures at these sources through that process. See generally 40 CFR
51.308(g).
\15\ 89 FR at 63065; RTC document, sections 5, 8.I., 8.L.
Table 3--Sources, Units, and Associated Pollutants and Emission Control Technology Where the State Unreasonably
Rejected Emission Reduction Measures
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Associated Emission control
Source Unit(s) pollutant(s) technology
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Elk Basin Gas Plant (Contango Engines (9)............. NOX Low emission
Resources, Inc.). combustion.
Cheyenne Fertilizer Facility (Dyno ENG004, ENG005 (engines) NOX Low emission
Nobel, Inc.). combustion.
Cheyenne Fertilizer Facility (Dyno CTW001, CTW003 (cooling PM Upgraded Mist
Nobel, Inc.). towers). Eliminators.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 95125]]
Fourth, as explained in our proposed rule and in the RTC
document,\16\ the overarching justifications that Wyoming provided for
not including any emission control measures in its long-term strategy
are either not adequately supported or lack foundation in the CAA and
RHR. Following its evaluation and rejection of emission control
measures for individual sources, Wyoming explained its overall
reasoning for not including any measures in its long-term strategy to
make reasonable progress for the regional haze second implementation
period.\17\ The State asserted that such measures could impose economic
hardships on sources, negatively affect rural communities, force energy
producers out of the market, harm ratepayers, and cause grid
instability. However, the State's reliance on these purported economic
impacts does not reflect reasoned analysis because Wyoming provided no
analyses, data, or other evidence to support its generalized and
unsubstantiated assertions. Similarly, Wyoming provided no support for
its declaration that requiring additional controls would not lead to
visibility improvements at Class I areas. Finally, Wyoming pointed to
contributions to visibility impairment from sources outside its
control; past and projected emission reductions resulting from other
regulatory programs; and that the State's Class I areas are below the
adjusted uniform rate of progress (a tracking metric to help states
assess the amount of progress they are making towards the national
visibility goal over time in each Class I area). As further explained
in our proposed rule and in the RTC document, Wyoming's consideration
of those factors was not reasonably moored to the statute and
regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ 89 FR at 63065-67; RTC document, sections 3.B., 3.G., 4,
and 9.
\17\ Wyoming 2022 SIP submission, Chapter 13: Decisions on What
Control Measures are Necessary to Make Reasonable Progress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to disapproving the State's long-term strategy, we are
disapproving Wyoming's reasonable progress goals under 40 CFR
51.308(f)(3) and its consultation with Federal Land Managers under 40
CFR 51.308(i). As detailed in our proposed rule and in the RTC
document,\18\ compliance with these requirements is dependent on
compliance with the long-term strategy provisions in 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ 89 FR at 63067-68; RTC document, sections 3.B., 10
(reasonable progress goals). 89 FR at 63069-70; RTC document,
sections 3.E., 11 (FLM consultation).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Final Action
For the reasons stated in the proposed rule, in the RTC document,
and in this document, we are partially approving and partially
disapproving Wyoming's 2022 SIP submission.
We are disapproving the following components of Wyoming's 2022 SIP
submission relating to CAA section 169A:
<bullet> Long-term strategy (40 CFR 51.308(f)(2));
<bullet> Reasonable progress goals (40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)); and
<bullet> FLM consultation (40 CFR 51.308(i)).
We are approving the following components of Wyoming's 2022 SIP
submission relating to CAA section 169A:
<bullet> Calculations of baseline, current, and natural visibility
conditions, progress to date, and uniform rate of progress (40 CFR
51.308(f)(1));
<bullet> Reasonably attributable visibility impairment (40 CFR
51.308(f)(4));
<bullet> Progress report requirements (40 CFR 51.308(f)(5) and 40
CFR 51.308(g)); and
<bullet> Monitoring strategy and other implementation plan
requirements (40 CFR 51.308(f)(6)).
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action partially approves and partially disapproves state law as
meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this
action:
<bullet> 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 14094 (88 FR 21879, April 11, 2023);
<bullet> Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
<bullet> 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.);
<bullet> 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);
<bullet> Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
<bullet> Is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997) because it approves a state program;
<bullet> Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
<bullet> 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.
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian Tribe has
demonstrated that a Tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the 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).
Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629,
Feb. 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address
``disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects'' of their actions on communities with environmental justice
(EJ) concerns to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law.
Executive Order 14096 (Revitalizing Our Nation's Commitment to
Environmental Justice for All, 88 FR 25251, April 26, 2023) builds on
and supplements E.O. 12898 and defines EJ as, among other things, the
just treatment and meaningful involvement of all people, regardless of
income, race, color, national origin, or Tribal affiliation, or
disability in agency decision-making and other Federal activities that
affect human health and the environment.
The State did not evaluate EJ considerations as part of its SIP
submittal; the CAA and applicable implementing regulations neither
prohibit nor require such an evaluation. EPA performed an EJ analysis,
as is described in the proposed action 89 FR 63030 (August 1, 2024) in
the section titled, ``Environmental Justice.'' The analysis was done
for the purpose of providing additional context and information about
this rulemaking to the public, not as a basis of the action. In
addition, there is no information in the record upon which this
decision is based inconsistent with the stated goal
[[Page 95126]]
of E.O. 12898/14096 of achieving EJ for communities with EJ concerns.
This action is subject to the Congressional Review Act, and EPA
will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the
Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a ``major
rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
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 January 31, 2025. 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 section 307(b)(2)).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Greenhouse gases, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental
relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic
compounds.
Dated: November 22, 2024.
KC Becker,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental
Protection Agency is amending 40 CFR part 52 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. In Sec. 52.2620, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding
and entry for ``(36) XXXVI'' at the end of the table to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.2620 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State effective EPA effective Final rule citation/
Rule No. Rule title date date date Comments
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
(36) XXXVI........................... Wyoming State 2022 1/2/2025 [insert Federal Excluding the following:
Implementation Plan, Register citation], 12/ Chapters 3.4, 7, 8, 10, 11,
Second Planning Period. 2/2024. 12, 13, 14, 15, and
appendix C-E, G-M. EPA
disapproved the portions of
Wyoming's 2022 SIP
submission relating to CAA
section 169A and 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2): long-term
strategy; 40 CFR
51.308(f)(3): reasonable
progress goals; and 40 CFR
51.308(i): FLM
consultation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2024-27942 Filed 11-29-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on December 2, 2024.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.