Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 95 / Monday, May 18, 2015 / Proposed Rules 28209 

effect on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government. We have 

analyzed this proposed rule under that 

Order and determined that this rule 

does not have implications for 

federalism. 

6. Protest Activities 

The Coast Guard respects the First 

Amendment rights of protesters. 

Protesters are asked to contact the 

person listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

coordinate protest activities so that your 

message can be received without 

jeopardizing the safety or security of 

people, places or vessels. 

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their discretionary regulatory actions. In 

particular, the Act addresses actions 

that may result in the expenditure by a 

State, local, or tribal government, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector of 

$100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or 

more in any one year. Though this 

proposed rule would not result in such 

an expenditure, we do discuss the 

effects of this rule elsewhere in this 

preamble. 

8. Taking of Private Property 

This proposed rule would not cause a 

taking of private property or otherwise 

have taking implications under 

Executive Order 12630, Governmental 

Actions and Interference with 

Constitutionally Protected Property 

Rights. 

9. Civil Justice Reform 

This proposed rule meets applicable 

standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of 

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice 

Reform, to minimize litigation, 

eliminate ambiguity, and reduce 

burden. 

10. Protection of Children From 

Environmental Health Risks 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Executive Order 13045, 

Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks. This rule is not an economically 

significant rule and would not create an 

environmental risk to health or risk to 

safety that might disproportionately 

affect children. 

11. Indian Tribal Governments 

This proposed rule does not have 

tribal implications under Executive 

Order 13175, Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments, because it would not have 

a substantial direct effect on one or 

more Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes. 

12. Energy Effects 

This proposed rule is not a 

‘‘significant energy action’’ under 

Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use. 

13. Technical Standards 

This proposed rule does not use 

technical standards. Therefore, we did 

not consider the use of voluntary 

consensus standards. 

14. Environment 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Department of Homeland 

Security Management Directive 023–01 

and Commandant Instruction 

M16475.lD, which guide the Coast 

Guard in complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have made a preliminary determination 

that this action is one of a category of 

actions that do not individually or 

cumulatively have a significant effect on 

the human environment. This proposed 

rule involves a temporary safety zone 

around a fireworks display in Friday 

Harbor. This rule is categorically 

excluded from further review under 

paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2–1 of the 

Commandant Instruction. A preliminary 

environmental analysis checklist 

supporting this determination and a 

Categorical Exclusion Determination are 

available in the docket where indicated 

under ADDRESSES. We seek any 

comments or information that may lead 

to the discovery of a significant 

environmental impact from this 

proposed rule. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, 

Waterways. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to 

amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows: 

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 165 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 

33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; 

Department of Homeland Security Delegation 

No. 0170.1. 

■ 2. Add § 165.T13–286 to read as 

follows: 

§ 165.T13–286 Safety Zone; San Juan 

Island Independence Day Celebration; 

Friday Harbor, WA. 

(a) Location. The following area is 

designated as a temporary safety zone: 

(1) All waters within a 200 yard 

radius around the point 48°32.471′ N, 

123°0.714′ W. 

(2) [Reserved] 

(b) Regulations. In accordance with 

the general regulations in 33 CFR part 

165, subpart C, no vessel operator may 

enter, transit, moor, or anchor within 

this safety zone, except for vessels 

authorized by the Captain of the Port or 

Designated Representatives. Designated 

Representatives are Coast Guard 

Personnel authorized by the Captain 

of the Port to grant persons or vessels 

permission to enter or remain in the 

safety zone created by this section. See 

33 CFR part 165, subpart C, for 

additional information and 

requirements. 

(c) Authorization. All vessel operators 

who desire to enter the safety zone must 

obtain permission from the Captain of 

the Port or Designated representative by 

contacting either the on-scene patrol 

craft on VHF Ch 13 or Ch 16 or the 

Coast guard Sector Puget Sound Joint 

Harbor Operations Center (JHOC) via 

telephone at (206) 217–6002. 

(d) Enforcement Period. This rule is 

effective from 5:00 p.m. on July 4, 2015, 

until 1:00 a.m. on July 5, 2015. 

Dated: May 1, 2015. 

M.W. Raymond, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port, Puget Sound. 

[FR Doc. 2015–11939 Filed 5–15–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2012–0351; FRL–9927–81– 

Region 8] 

Approval and Promulgation of State 

Implementation Plans; State of 

Wyoming; Interstate Transport of 

Pollution for the 2006 24-Hour PM2.5

NAAQS 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
28210 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 95 / Monday, May 18, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to 

approve portions of an August 19, 2011 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

submission from the State of Wyoming 

that are intended to demonstrate that its 

SIP meets certain interstate transport 

requirements of the Clean Air Act (Act 

or CAA) for the 2006 24-hour fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5) National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS). This submission addresses 

the requirement that Wyoming’s SIP 

contain adequate provisions prohibiting 

air emissions that will have certain 

adverse air quality effects in other 

states. Specifically, EPA is proposing to 

approve the portion of the Wyoming SIP 

submission that addresses the 

significant contribution to 

nonattainment and interference with 

maintenance transport requirements for 

the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is 

also proposing to approve the 

interference with prevention of 

significant deterioration (PSD) of air 

quality transport requirement for this 

NAAQS, and is not proposing action on 

the interference with visibility transport 

requirement at this time. EPA will 

address the visibility requirement for 

this NAAQS in a separate future action. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before June 17, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08– 

OAR–2012–0351, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: clark.adam@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (303) 312–6064 (please alert 

the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing 

comments). 

• Mail: Director, Air Program, 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P–AR, 

1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 

80202–1129. 

• Hand Delivery: Director, Air 

Program, Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P– 

AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, 

Colorado 80202–1129. Such deliveries 

are only accepted Monday through 

Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding 

federal holidays. Special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R08–OAR–2012– 

0351. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http://

www.regulations.gov or email. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an email comment directly 

to EPA, without going through http://

www.regulations.gov, your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional instructions on 

submitting comments, go to Section I, 

General Information of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http://

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 http://

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air Program, Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 

Mailcode 8P–AR, 1595 Wynkoop, 

Denver, Colorado 80202–1129. EPA 

requests that if at all possible, you 

contact the individual listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

view the hard copy of the docket. You 

may view the hard copy of the docket 

Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 

4:00 p.m., excluding federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Adam Clark, Air Program, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 8, Mailcode 8P–AR, 1595 

Wynkoop, Denver, Colorado 80202– 

1129, (303) 312–7104, clark.adam@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Definitions 

For the purpose of this document, we 

are giving meaning to certain words or 

initials as follows: 

(i) The words or initials Act or CAA 

mean or refer to the Clean Air Act, 

unless the context indicates otherwise. 

(ii) The initials CAIR mean or refer to 

the Clean Air Interstate Rule. 

(iii) The initials CSAPR mean or refer 

to the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule. 

(iv) The words EPA, we, us or our 

mean or refer to the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency. 

(v) The initials NAAQS mean or refer 

to the National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards. 

(vi) The initials NSR mean or refer to 

New Source Review. 

(vii) The initials PM2.5 mean or refer 

to fine particulate matter. 

(viii) The initials PSD mean or refer 

to Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration. 

(ix) The initials SIP mean or refer to 

State Implementation Plan. 

(x) The initials TSD mean or refer to 

Technical Support Document. 

(xi) The initial ug/m3 mean or refer to 

micrograms per cubic meter. 

(xii) The initials WDEQ mean or refer 

to the Wyoming Department of 

Environmental Quality. 

(xiii) The words Wyoming and State 

mean the State of Wyoming, unless the 

context indicates otherwise. 

Table of Contents 

I. General Information 

II. Background 

A. 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS and Interstate 

Transport 

B. Rules Addressing Interstate Transport 

for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 

C. EPA Guidance 

III. Wyoming’s Submittal 

IV. EPA’s Evaluation 

A. Identification of Nonattainment and 

Maintenance Receptors 

B. Evaluation of Significant Contribution to 

Nonattainment 

C. Evaluation of Interference With 

Maintenance 

D. Evaluation of Interference With 

Measures To Prevent Significant 

Deterioration 

V. Proposed Action 

VI. Statutory and Executive Orders Review 

I. General Information 

What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments for EPA? 

1. Submitting confidential business 

information (CBI). Do not submit CBI to 

EPA through http://www.regulations.gov 

or email. Clearly mark the part or all of 

the information that you claim to be 

CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 95 / Monday, May 18, 2015 / Proposed Rules 28211 

1See NOX SIP Call, 63 FR 57371 (October 27, 

1998); Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), 70 FR 

25172 (May 12, 2005); and Transport Rule or CrossState Air Pollution Rule, 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 

2011). 

2CAIR addressed the 1997 annual and 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS, and the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

It did not address the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

3See Memorandum from William T. Harnett 

entitled ‘‘Guidance on SIP Elements Required 

Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24- 

Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS),’’ September 25, 2009, 

available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t1/

memoranda/20090925_harnett_pm25_sip_

110a12.pdf. 

4The 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS Infrastructure Guidance 

stated that EPA was working on a new rule to 

replace CAIR that would address issues raised by 

the court in the North Carolina case and that would 

Continued 

ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the 

outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI 

and then identify electronically within 

the disk or CD ROM the specific 

information that is claimed as CBI. In 

addition to one complete version of the 

comment that includes information 

claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment 

that does not contain the information 

claimed as CBI must be submitted for 

inclusion in the public docket. 

Information so marked will not be 

disclosed except in accordance with 

procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 

2. Tips for preparing your comments. 

When submitting comments, remember 

to: 

• Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

• Follow directions—The agency may 

ask you to respond to specific questions 

or organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

• Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

• Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

• If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

• Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

• Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

• Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

II. Background 

A. 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS and Interstate 

Transport 

On September 21, 2006, EPA 

promulgated a final rule revising the 

1997 24-hour primary and secondary 

NAAQS for PM2.5 from 65 micrograms 

per cubic meter (mg/m3) to 35 mg/m3

(October 17, 2006, 71 FR 61144). 

Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires 

each state to submit to EPA, within 

three years (or such shorter period as 

the Administrator may prescribe) after 

the promulgation of a primary or 

secondary NAAQS or any revision 

thereof, a SIP that provides for the 

‘‘implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement’’ of such NAAQS. EPA 

refers to these specific submittals as 

‘‘infrastructure’’ SIPs because they are 

intended to address basic structural SIP 

requirements for new or revised 

NAAQS. For the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS, these infrastructure SIPs were 

due on September 21, 2009. CAA 

section 110(a)(2) includes a list of 

specific elements that ‘‘[e]ach such plan 

submission’’ must meet. 

The interstate transport provisions in 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) (also called 

‘‘good neighbor’’ provisions) require 

each state to submit a SIP that prohibits 

emissions that will have certain adverse 

air quality effects in other states. CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) identifies four 

distinct elements related to the impacts 

of air pollutants transported across state 

lines. The two elements under 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) require SIPs to contain 

adequate provisions to prohibit any 

source or other type of emissions 

activity within the state from emitting 

air pollutants that will (element 1) 

contribute significantly to 

nonattainment in any other state with 

respect to any such national primary or 

secondary NAAQS, and (element 2) 

interfere with maintenance by any other 

state with respect to the same NAAQS. 

The two elements under 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) require SIPs to contain 

adequate provisions to prohibit 

emissions that will interfere with 

measures required to be included in the 

applicable implementation plan for any 

other state under part C (element 3) to 

prevent significant deterioration of air 

quality or (element 4) to protect 

visibility. In this action, EPA is 

addressing elements one, two and three 

of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). 

B. Rules Addressing Interstate Transport 

for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 

EPA has previously addressed the 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) in past regulatory 

actions.1 Most recently, EPA published 

the final Cross State Air Pollution Rule 

(CSAPR or ‘‘Transport Rule’’) to address 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) in the 

eastern portion of the United States with 

respect to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, the 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, and the 1997 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS (August 8, 2011, 76 

FR 48208). CSAPR replaces the earlier 

Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) which 

was judicially remanded.2 See North 

Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 

2008). On August 21, 2012, the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit 

issued a decision vacating CSAPR, see 

EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. 

EPA, 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012), and 

ordering EPA to continue implementing 

CAIR in the interim. However, on April 

29, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court 

reversed and remanded the D.C. 

Circuit’s ruling and upheld EPA’s 

approach in the CSAPR. EPA v. EME 

Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 S.Ct. 

1584, 1610 (2014). After the U.S. 

Supreme Court decision, EPA filed a 

motion to lift the stay on CSAPR and 

asked the D.C. Circuit to toll CSAPR’s 

compliance deadlines by three years. On 

October 23, 2014 the D.C. Circuit 

granted EPA’s motion and lifted the stay 

on CSAPR. EME Homer City Generation, 

L.P. v. EPA, No. 11–1302 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 

23, 2014), Order at 3. EPA began CSAPR 

implementation on January 1, 2015 

pursuant to the D.C. Circuit’s directive 

lifting the stay. The State of Wyoming 

was not covered by CSAPR, and EPA 

made no determinations in the rule 

regarding whether emissions from 

sources in Wyoming significantly 

contribute to nonattainment or interfere 

with maintenance of the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS in another state. 

C. EPA Guidance 

On September 25, 2009, EPA issued a 

guidance memorandum that provides 

recommendations to states for making 

submissions to meet the requirements of 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2006 

PM2.5 standards (‘‘2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 

Infrastructure Guidance’’ or 

‘‘Guidance’’).3 With respect to element 1 

of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) to 

prohibit emissions that will contribute 

significantly to nonattainment of the 

NAAQS in any other state, the 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS Infrastructure Guidance 

advised states to include in their section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIP submissions an 

adequate technical analysis to support 

their conclusions regarding interstate 

pollution transport, e.g., information 

concerning emissions in the state, 

meteorological conditions in the state 

and in potentially impacted states, 

monitored ambient pollutant 

concentrations in the state and in 

potentially impacted states, distances to 

the nearest areas not attaining the 

NAAQS in other states, and air quality 

modeling.4


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
28212 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 95 / Monday, May 18, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

provide guidance to states in addressing the 

requirements related to interstate transport in CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS. It also noted that states could not rely on 

the CAIR rule for section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

submissions for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS 

because the CAIR rule did not address this NAAQS. 

See 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS Infrastructure Guidance 

at 3. 

5See ‘‘Guidance on Infrastructure State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean 

Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and (2)’’ dated September 

13, 2013, in the docket for this action. 

6WDEQ’s certification letter, dated August 19, 

2011 is included in the docket for this action. 

7Wyoming’s clarification letter is available in the 

docket for this action. Wyoming’s May 3rd, 2007 

Interstate Transport SIP can be found in the docket 

for that action (EPA–R08–OAR–2007–0648). 

With respect to element 2 of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) to prohibit 

emissions that would interfere with 

maintenance of the NAAQS by any 

other state, the Guidance stated that SIP 

submissions must address this 

independent and distinct requirement of 

the statute and provide technical 

information appropriate to support the 

State’s conclusions, and suggested 

consideration of the same technical 

information that would be appropriate 

for element 1 of this CAA requirement. 

In this action, EPA is proposing to use 

the conceptual approach to evaluating 

interstate pollution transport under 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) that EPA 

explained in the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 

Infrastructure Guidance and CSAPR. As 

such, we find that the CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIP submission from 

Wyoming may be evaluated using a 

‘‘weight of evidence’’ approach that 

takes into account available relevant 

information, including the factors 

recommended in the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS Infrastructure Guidance. These 

submissions can rely on modeling when 

acceptable modeling technical analyses 

are available, but EPA does not believe 

that modeling is necessarily required if 

other available information is sufficient 

to evaluate the presence or degree of 

interstate transport in a given situation. 

With respect to the requirements in 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) which address 

elements 3 (PSD) and 4 (visibility), EPA 

most recently issued an infrastructure 

guidance memo on September 13, 2013 

that included guidance on these two 

elements.5 For the purposes of this 

action, this memo will hereon be 

referred to as the ‘‘2013 I–SIP 

Guidance.’’ 

III. Wyoming’s Submittal 

On August 19, 2011, the Wyoming 

Department of Environmental Quality 

(WDEQ) made a submission certifying 

that Wyoming’s SIP is adequate to 

implement the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS for all the ‘‘infrastructure’’ 

requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2). 

In this analysis, WDEQ simply listed the 

regulatory and non-regulatory 

documents that it felt demonstrated the 

Wyoming SIP’s adequacy to meet the 

110(a)(2) requirements with respect to 

the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.6

To meet the requirements of CAA 

sections 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) (elements 1 

and 2), WDEQ’s submission referenced 

the State’s May 3, 2007 interstate 

transport SIP. The May 3, 2007 SIP was 

determined by EPA to meet the 

interstate transport requirements of 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 

ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS, and was 

therefore approved by EPA on May 8, 

2008 (73 FR 26019). However, 

Wyoming’s May 3, 2007 SIP did not 

address the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

On April 23, 2015, WDEQ sent EPA a 

letter clarifying that it considered the 

factors relied upon as part of the May 3, 

2007 submittal to also be applicable to 

a transport analysis for the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS.7

To meet the element 3 (PSD) 

requirement of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i), Wyoming referenced 

Wyoming Air Quality Standards and 

Regulations (WAQSR) Chapter 6, 

section 2, Permit requirements for 

construction, modification, and 

operation, as well as its May 3, 2007 

Interstate Transport SIP. In its April 23, 

2015 letter to EPA, Wyoming clarified 

its element 3 submittal by indicating 

that it will issue permits to sources 

locating in nonattainment areas 

pursuant to 40 CFR part 51, appendix S 

until it has a SIP-approved 

nonattainment NSR program. 

IV. EPA’s Evaluation 

To determine whether the CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirement is 

satisfied, EPA first determines whether 

a state’s emissions contribute 

significantly to nonattainment or 

interfere with maintenance in other 

states. If a state is determined not to 

have such contribution or interference, 

then section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) does not 

require any changes to that state’s SIP. 

Consistent with the first step of EPA’s 

approach in the 1998 NOX SIP call, the 

2005 CAIR, and the 2011 CSAPR, EPA 

evaluated impacts of emissions from 

Wyoming with respect to specific 

ambient air monitors identified as 

having nonattainment and/or 

maintenance problems, which we refer 

to as ‘‘receptors.’’ To evaluate these 

impacts, and in the absence of relevant 

modeling of Wyoming emissions, EPA 

examined factors suggested by the 2006 

Guidance such as monitoring data, 

topography, and meteorology. EPA 

notes that no single piece of information 

is by itself dispositive of the issue. 

Instead, the total weight of all the 

evidence taken together is used to 

evaluate significant contributions to 

nonattainment or interference with 

maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS in another state. 

As noted above, Wyoming’s August 

19, 2011 submission does not include a 

technical demonstration specific to the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Rather, the 

State relied on the transport analysis it 

conducted for a previous PM2.5 NAAQS, 

later clarifying that it had considered 

parts of this analysis to be relevant for 

the purposes of the 2006 PM2.5 standard. 

While EPA does not agree with the 

State’s position that the analysis from its 

May 3, 2007 is also applicable to the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, we agree 

with Wyoming’s determination that the 

existing SIP has adequate provisions to 

meet the CAA requirements based on 

EPA’s supplemental evaluation. For this 

reason, we propose to approve the 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) portion of the 

submission based on EPA’s 

supplemental evaluation of relevant 

technical information. Our evaluation 

demonstrates that emissions from 

Wyoming do not significantly contribute 

to nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS in any other state and that the 

existing Wyoming SIP is, therefore, 

adequate to meet the requirements of 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Our supplemental evaluation 

considers several factors, including 

identification of the ambient air 

monitors in other states that are 

appropriate ‘‘nonattainment receptors’’ 

or ‘‘maintenance receptors,’’ consistent 

with EPA’s approach in the CSAPR, and 

additional technical information to 

evaluate whether emissions from 

Wyoming contribute significantly to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS at these receptors. 

Our Technical Support Document 

(TSD) contains a detailed evaluation 

and is available in the public docket for 

this rulemaking, which may be accessed 

online at http://www.regulations.gov, 

docket number EPA–R08–OAR–2012– 

0351. Below, we provide a summary of 

our analysis. 

A. Identification of Nonattainment and 

Maintenance Receptors 

EPA evaluated data from existing 

monitors over three overlapping 3-year 

periods (i.e., 2009–2011, 2010–2012, 

and 2011–2013) to determine which 

areas are expected to be violating the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and which 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 95 / Monday, May 18, 2015 / Proposed Rules 28213 

8As noted, the State of Wyoming was not 

included in the CSAPR modeling domain. 

9EPA also considered potential PM2.5 transport 

from Wyoming to the nearest nonattainment and 

maintenance receptors located in the eastern, 

midwestern and southern states covered by CSAPR 

and believes it is reasonable to conclude that, given 

the significant distance from Wyoming to the 

nearest such receptor (in Wisconsin) and the 

relatively insignificant amount of emissions from 

Wyoming that could potentially be transported such 

a distance when compared to downwind states 

whose contribution was modeled for CSAPR, 

emissions from Wyoming sources do not 

significantly contribute to nonattainment or 

interfere with maintenance of the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS at this location. These same factors 

also support a finding that emissions from 

Wyoming sources neither contribute significantly to 

nonattainment nor interfere with maintenance of 

the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS at any location 

further east. See TSD at section I.B.3. 

10Because CAIR did not cover states in the 

Western United States, these data are not 

significantly impacted by the remanded CAIR and 

thus could be considered in this analysis. In 

contrast, recent air quality data in the eastern, 

midwestern and southern states are significantly 

impacted by reductions associated with CAIR and 

because CSAPR was developed to replace CAIR, 

EPA could not consider reductions associated with 

the CAIR in the base case transport analysis for 

those states. See 76 FR at 48223–24. 

areas might have difficulty maintaining 

attainment of the standard. If a 

monitoring site measured a violation of 

the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS during 

the most recent 3-year period (2011– 

2013), then that monitor location was 

evaluated for purposes of the significant 

contribution to nonattainment (element 

1) of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). If, on the 

other hand, a monitoring site shows 

attainment of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS during the most recent 3-year 

period (2011–2013) but a violation in at 

least one of the previous two 3-year 

periods (2010–2012 or 2009–2011), then 

that monitor location was evaluated for 

purposes of the interfere with 

maintenance (element 2) of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i). 

This approach is similar to that used 

in the modeling done during the 

development of CSAPR, but differs in 

that it relies on monitoring data (rather 

than modeling) for the western states 

not included in the CSAPR modeling 

domain.8 By this method, EPA has 

identified those areas with monitors to 

be considered ‘‘nonattainment 

receptors’’ or ‘‘maintenance receptors’’ 

for evaluating whether the emissions 

from sources in another state could 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment in, or interfere with 

maintenance in, that particular area. 

EPA continues to believe that the 

more widespread and serious transport 

problems in the eastern United States 

are analytically distinct. For the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA believes 

that nonattainment and maintenance 

problems in the western United States 

are relatively local in nature with only 

limited impacts from interstate 

transport. In CSAPR, EPA did not 

calculate the portion of any downwind 

state’s predicted PM2.5 concentrations 

that would result from emissions from 

individual western states, such as 

Wyoming. Accordingly, EPA believes 

that section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIP 

submissions for states outside the 

geographic area analyzed to develop 

CSAPR may be evaluated using a 

‘‘weight of evidence’’ approach that 

takes into account available relevant 

information, such as that recommended 

by the EPA in the Guidance. Such 

information may include, but is not 

limited to, the amount of emissions in 

the state relevant to the NAAQS in 

question, the meteorological conditions 

in the area, the distance from the state 

to the nearest monitors in other states 

that are appropriate receptors, or such 

other information as may be probative to 

consider as to whether sources in the 

state may contribute significantly to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS in other states. These 

submissions can rely on modeling when 

acceptable modeling technical analyses 

are available, but EPA does not believe 

that modeling is necessarily required if 

other available information is sufficient 

to evaluate the presence or degree of 

interstate transport in a given situation. 

B. Evaluation of Significant 

Contribution to Nonattainment 

EPA reviewed technical information 

to evaluate the potential for Wyoming 

emissions to contribute significantly to 

nonattainment of the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS at specified monitoring 

sites in the Western U.S.9 EPA first 

identified as ‘‘nonattainment receptors’’ 

all monitoring sites in the western states 

that had recorded PM2.5 design values 

above the level of the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS (35 mg/m3) during the 

years 2011–2013.10 See Section III of our 

TSD for more a more detailed 

description of EPA’s methodology for 

selection of nonattainment receptors. 

Because geographic distance is a 

relevant factor in the assessment of 

potential pollution transport, EPA first 

reviewed information related to 

potential transport of PM2.5 pollution 

from Wyoming to the nonattainment 

receptors in states bordering Wyoming, 

which were located in Idaho, Montana 

and Utah. As detailed in our TSD, the 

following factors support a finding that 

emissions from Wyoming do not 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment of the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS in Idaho, Montana and 

Utah: (1) Technical information, such as 

data from monitors in the vicinity of 

these nonattainment receptors, related 

to the nature of local emissions; (2) 

topographical considerations such as 

intervening mountain ranges which 

tend to create physical impediments for 

pollution transport; and (3) 

meteorological considerations such as 

prevailing winds. While none of these 

factors by itself would necessarily show 

non-contribution, when taken together 

in a weight-of-evidence assessment they 

are sufficient for EPA to determine that 

emissions from Wyoming do not 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment at the Idaho, Montana 

and Utah receptors. 

EPA also evaluated potential PM2.5

transport to nonattainment receptors in 

the more distant western states of 

Oregon and California. The following 

factors support a finding that emissions 

from Wyoming do not significantly 

contribute to nonattainment of the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in any of these 

states: (1) The significant distance from 

Wyoming to the nonattainment 

receptors in these states; (2) technical 

information, such as data from nearby 

monitors related to the nature of local 

emissions; and (3) the presence of 

intervening mountain ranges, which 

tend to impede pollution transport. 

Based on our evaluation, we propose 

to conclude that emissions of direct 

PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors from sources 

in the State of Wyoming do not 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment of the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 standards in any other state, that 

the existing SIP for the State of 

Wyoming is adequate to satisfy the 

‘‘significant contribution’’ requirements 

of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with 

respect to the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

standards, and that the State of 

Wyoming therefore does not need to 

adopt additional controls for purposes 

of implementing the ‘‘significant 

contribution to nonattainment’’ 

requirement of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with 

respect to that NAAQS at this time. 

C. Evaluation of Interference With 

Maintenance 

We also reviewed technical 

information to evaluate the potential for 

Wyoming emissions to interfere with 

maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

standards at specified monitoring sites 

in the Western U.S. EPA first identified 

as ‘‘maintenance receptors’’ all 

monitoring sites in the western states 

that had recorded PM2.5 design values 

above the level of the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS (35 mg/m3) during the 

2009–2011 and/or 2010–2012 periods 

but below this standard during the 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
28214 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 95 / Monday, May 18, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

11See 2013 I–SIP Guidance. 

12As described in the proposed action (78 FR 

54828, September 6, 2013) for the final December 

6, 2013 rulemaking, EPA did not approve certain 

portions of the State’s incorporation of the 2010 

PM2.5 Increment Rule because these portions were 

ultimately removed from EPA’s PSD regulations. 

13EPA notes that the State’s application of 

appendix S would only currently apply to the 

Upper Green River Basin 2008 ozone nonattainment 

area. Wyoming has had a construction ban in place 

and approved into the SIP for over twenty years in 

order to meet nonattainment NSR requirements in 

the Sheridan coarse particulate matter (PM10) 

nonattainment area (See WAQSR, Chapter 6, 

section 2(c)(ii)(B)). 

2011–2013 period. See section III of our 

TSD for more information regarding 

EPA’s methodology for selection of 

maintenance receptors. All of the 

maintenance receptors in the western 

states are located in California, Utah and 

Montana. EPA therefore evaluated the 

potential for transport of Wyoming 

emissions to the maintenance receptors 

located in these states. As detailed in 

our TSD, the following factors support 

a finding that emissions from Wyoming 

do not interfere with maintenance of the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in those 

states: (1) Technical information, such 

as data from monitors near maintenance 

receptors, relating to the nature of local 

emissions, and (2) the significant 

distance between Wyoming and these 

maintenance receptors. 

Based on this evaluation, EPA 

proposes to conclude that emissions of 

direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors from 

sources in the State of Wyoming do not 

interfere with maintenance of the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 standards in any other 

state, that the existing SIP for the State 

of Wyoming is adequate to satisfy the 

‘‘interfere with maintenance’’ 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), and that the State of 

Wyoming therefore does not need to 

adopt additional controls for purposes 

of implementing the ‘‘interfere with 

maintenance’’ requirements of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to 

that NAAQS at this time. 

D. Evaluation of Interference With 

Measures To Prevent Significant 

Deterioration 

With regard to the PSD portion of 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), this 

requirement may be met by a state’s 

confirmation in an infrastructure SIP 

submission that new major sources and 

major modifications in the state are 

subject to a comprehensive EPAapproved PSD permitting program in 

the SIP that applies to all regulated new 

source review (NSR) pollutants and that 

satisfies the requirements of EPA’s PSD 

implementation rules.11 On December 6, 

2013, EPA approved CAA section 

110(a)(2) elements (C) and (J) for 

Wyoming’s infrastructure SIP for the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS with 

respect to PSD requirements for 

regulated NSR pollutants (78 FR 73445). 

As discussed in detail in the proposed 

rulemaking for that final action, the 

concurrent approval of PSD-related 

revisions which incorporated certain 

requirements of the 2010 PM2.5

Increment Rule to the Wyoming SIP 

action ensured that Wyoming’s SIPapproved PSD program meets the 

current structural requirements of 

110(a)(2)(C) and (J) to have a PSD 

program that applies to all regulated 

NSR pollutants.12

As stated in the 2013 I–SIP Guidance, 

in-state sources not subject to PSD for 

any one or more of the pollutants 

subject to regulation under the CAA 

because they are in a nonattainment 

area for a NAAQS related to those 

particular pollutants may also have the 

potential to interfere with PSD in an 

attainment or unclassifiable area of 

another state. One way a state may 

satisfy element 3 with respect to these 

sources is by citing an air agency’s EPAapproved nonattainment NSR 

provisions addressing any pollutants for 

which the state has designated 

nonattainment areas. Alternatively, if an 

air agency makes a submission 

indicating that it issues permits 

pursuant to 40 CFR part 51, appendix S 

in a nonattainment area because a 

nonattainment NSR program for a 

particular NAAQS pollutant has not yet 

been approved by EPA for that area, that 

permitting program may generally be 

considered adequate for purposes of 

meeting the requirements of element 3 

with respect to sources and pollutants 

subject to such program. Where neither 

of the circumstances described above 

exist, it may also be possible for EPA to 

find, given the facts of the situation, that 

other SIP provisions and/or physical 

conditions are adequate to prohibit 

interference by such sources with other 

air agencies’ measures to prevent 

significant deterioration of air quality. 

EPA recently finalized a rulemaking 

which disapproved a portion of 

Wyoming’s May 10, 2011 SIP revision 

that attempted to add nonattainment 

NSR permitting requirements to the 

state plan for the first time (80 FR 9194, 

February 20, 2015). In this partial 

disapproval, EPA found that this SIP 

revision failed to create unambiguous 

and enforceable obligations for sources 

that would be subject to the 

nonattainment NSR requirements. 

Accordingly, the State does not 

currently have any SIP-approved 

nonattainment NSR permitting 

provisions which would subject sources 

locating in nonattainment areas in the 

State to regulation. The State has 

confirmed, via a clarification letter sent 

to EPA on April 23, 2015, that it will 

issue permits to sources locating in such 

nonattainment areas pursuant to 40 CFR 

part 51, appendix S until it has a SIPapproved nonattainment NSR 

program.13

Because the State has committed to 

applying appendix S until it has a SIPapproved nonattainment NSR program, 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

infrastructure SIP submission with 

regard to the requirements of element 3 

of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

V. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) portion of Wyoming’s 

August 19, 2011 submission. We 

propose to approve elements 1 and 2 of 

this portion of the submission based on 

EPA’s supplemental evaluation of 

relevant technical information, which 

supports a finding that emissions from 

Wyoming do not significantly contribute 

to nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS in any other state and that the 

existing Wyoming SIP is, therefore, 

adequate to meet the requirements of 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

EPA is also proposing to approve 

element 3 of 110(a)(2)(D)(i) from 

Wyoming’s August 19, 2011 submission, 

based on a finding that the Wyoming 

SIP is adequate to meet the PSD 

requirement of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). 

VI. Statutory and Executive Orders 

Review 

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, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed 

action merely approves state law as 

meeting federal requirements; this 

proposed action does not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by state law. For that reason, 

this proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 95 / Monday, May 18, 2015 / Proposed Rules 28215 

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 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). 

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). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

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

Dated: May 1, 2015. 

Shaun L. McGrath, 

Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

[FR Doc. 2015–11782 Filed 5–15–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2015–0227; FRL–9927–69– 

Region 8] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; State of 

Utah; Utah County—Trading of Motor 

Vehicle Emission Budgets for PM10

Transportation Conformity 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revision submitted by the State of Utah. 

On March 9, 2015, the Governor of Utah 

submitted a revision to the Utah SIP, 

adding a new rule regarding trading of 

motor vehicle emission budgets for Utah 

County. The rule allows trading from 

the motor vehicle emissions budget for 

primary particulate matter of 10 microns 

or less in diameter (PM10) to the motor 

vehicle emissions budget for nitrogen 

oxides (NOX) which is a PM10 precursor. 

The resulting motor vehicle emissions 

budgets for NOX and PM10 may then be 

used to demonstrate transportation 

conformity with the SIP. The EPA is 

proposing approval of this SIP revision 

in accordance with the requirements of 

section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA). 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before June 17, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08– 

OAR–2015–0227, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: russ.tim@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (303) 312–6064 (please alert 

the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing 

comments). 

• Mail: Carl Daly, Director, Air 

Program, EPA, Region 8, Mailcode 8P– 

AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, 

Colorado 80202–1129. 

• Hand Delivery: Carl Daly, Director, 

Air Program, EPA, Region 8, Mailcode 

8P–AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, 

Colorado 80202–1129. Such deliveries 

are only accepted Monday through 

Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding 

federal holidays. Special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. 

Please see the direct final rule which 

is located in the Rules Section of this 

Federal Register for detailed instruction 

on how to submit comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim 

Russ, Air Program, EPA, Region 8, 

Mailcode 8P–AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, 

Denver, Colorado 80202–1129, (303) 

312–6479, russ.tim@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ section of this 

Federal Register, EPA is approving the 

State’s SIP revision as a direct final rule 

without prior proposal because the 

Agency views this as a noncontroversial 

SIP revision and anticipates no adverse 

comments. A detailed rationale for the 

approval is set forth in the preamble to 

the direct final rule. 

If EPA receives no adverse comments, 

EPA will not take further action on this 

proposed rule. If EPA receives adverse 

comments, EPA will withdraw the 

direct final rule and it will not take 

effect. EPA will address all public 

comments in a subsequent final rule 

based on this proposed rule. 

EPA will not institute a second 

comment period on this action. Any 

parties interested in commenting must 

do so at this time. For further 

information, please see the ADDRESSES

section of this notice. 

Please note that if EPA receives 

adverse comment on a distinct 

provision of this rule and if that 

provision may be severed from the 

remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt 

as final those provisions of the rule that 

are not the subject of an adverse 

comment. See the information provided 

in the Direct Final action of the same 

title which is located in the Rules and 

Regulations Section of this Federal 

Register. 

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

Dated: May 1, 2015. 

Shaun L. McGrath, 

Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

[FR Doc. 2015–11783 Filed 5–15–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 60 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0750; FRL–9927–58– 

OAR] 

RIN 2060–AQ60 

Reconsideration Petition From Dyno 

Nobel Inc. on the New Source 

Performance Standards Review for 

Nitric Acid Plants; Final Action 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of final action denying 

petition for reconsideration. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS