9194 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 34 / Friday, February 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

lieu of a public meeting, will mail 

written notification of the tentative 

decision and the proposal to customers 

within the community and post a notice 

of the proposal in the retail service 

facility that would be affected by the 

proposal, seeking their written input on 

the proposal and providing an address 

to which the community and local 

officials may send written appeals of the 

tentative decision and comments on the 

proposal during the 30 days following 

that notification. An example of 

exceptional circumstances would be a 

proposal that would be implemented in 

a sparsely populated area remote from 

the seat of local government or any 

forum where the public meeting 

reasonably could be held. 

(i)(A) If the proposal concerns 

relocation, then the Postal Service will: 

(1) Discuss the reasons for relocating; 

(2) Identify the site or area, or both, 

to which the Postal Service anticipates 

relocating the retail services; and 

(3) Describe the anticipated size of the 

retail service facility for the relocated 

retail services, and the anticipated 

services to be offered at that site or in 

that area. 

(B) The Postal Service may identify 

more than one potential relocation site 

and/or area, for example, when the 

Postal Service has not selected among 

competing sites. 

(ii)(A) If the proposal concerns adding 

a new retail service facility for a 

community, then the Postal Service 

will: 

(1) Discuss the reasons for the 

addition; 

(2) Identify the site or area, or both, 

to which the Postal Service anticipates 

adding the retail service facility; 

(3) Describe the anticipated size of the 

added retail service facility, and the 

anticipated services to be offered; and 

(4) Outline any anticipated 

construction (e.g., of a stand-alone 

building or interior improvements to an 

existing building (or portion thereof) 

that will be leased by the Postal 

Service). 

(B) The Postal Service may identify 

more than one potential site and/or area, 

for example, when the Postal Service 

has not selected yet among competing 

sites. 

(4) Consider comments and appeals. 

After the 30-day comment and appeal 

period, the Postal Service will consider 

the comments and appeals received that 

identify reasons why the Postal 

Service’s tentative decision and 

proposal (e.g., to relocate to the selected 

site, or to add a new retail service 

facility) is, or is not, the optimal 

solution for the identified need. 

Following that consideration, the Postal 

Service will make a final decision to 

proceed with, modify, or cancel the 

proposal. The Postal Service then will 

inform local officials in writing of its 

final decision and send an initial news 

release announcing the final decision to 

local news media. If the community has 

a retail service facility, then the Postal 

Service also will post a copy of the 

information given to local officials or 

the news release in the public lobby of 

that retail service facility. The Postal 

Service then will implement the final 

decision. 

(5) Identify any new site or area. After 

the public meeting under paragraph 

(c)(3) of this section, if the Postal 

Service decides to use a site or area that 

it did not identify at the public meeting, 

and this section applies with respect to 

that new site or area, then the Postal 

Service will undertake the steps in 

paragraphs (c)(2) through (4) of this 

section with regard to the new site or 

area. 

(d) Effect on other obligations and 

policies. (1) Nothing in this section shall 

add to, reduce, or otherwise modify the 

Postal Service’s legal obligations or 

policies for compliance with: 

(i) Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act, 16 U.S.C. 470, 

Executive Order 12072, and Executive 

Order 13006; 

(ii) 39 U.S.C. 404(d) and 39 CFR 

241.3; or 

(iii) 39 U.S.C. 409(f); 

(2) These are independent policies or 

obligations of the Postal Service that are 

not dependent upon a relocation or 

addition of a retail service facility. 

Stanley F. Mires, 

Attorney, Federal Requirements. 

[FR Doc. 2015–03238 Filed 2–19–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–12–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2014–0761; FRL 9922–94– 

Region 8] 

Partial Approval and Partial 

Disapproval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Wyoming; Revisions to Wyoming Air 

Quality Standards and Regulations; 

Nonattainment Permitting 

Requirements and Chapter 3, General 

Emission Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking final action to 

disapprove a portion of State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions 

submitted by the State of Wyoming on 

May 10, 2011. This submittal revises the 

Wyoming Air Quality Standards and 

Regulations (WAQSR) that pertain to the 

issuance of Wyoming air quality permits 

for major sources in nonattainment 

areas. Also in this action, EPA is 

approving SIP revisions submitted by 

the State of Wyoming on February 13, 

2013, and on February 10, 2014. These 

submittals revise the WAQSR with 

respect to sulfur dioxide (SO2) limits 

and dates of incorporation by reference 

(IBR). This action is being taken under 

section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA). 

DATES: This final rule is effective March 

23, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R08–OAR–2014–0761. 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. EPA requests 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: 

Kevin Leone, Air Program, Mailcode 

8P–AR, Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop 

Street, Denver, Colorado 80202–1129, 

(303) 312–6227, or leone.kevin@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. What are the changes that EPA is taking 

final action to approve? 

III. What are the changes that EPA is taking 

final action to disapprove? 

IV. Response to Comments 

V. What action is EPA taking today? 

VI. Statutory and Executive Orders Review 

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. 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 34 / Friday, February 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 9195 

(ii) The initials BACT mean or refer to 

Best Available Control Technology. 

(iii) The initials CFR mean or refer to 

Code of Federal Regulations. 

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

mean or refer to the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency. 

(v) The initials FIP mean or refer to 

Federal Implementation Plan. 

(vi) The initials IBR mean or refer to 

incorporation by reference. 

(vii) The initials IAC mean or refer to 

the Iowa Administrative Code. 

(viii) The initials LAER mean or refer 

to Lowest Achievable Emissions Rate. 

(ix) The initials NAAQS mean or refer 

to National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards. 

(x) The initials NOX mean or refer to 

nitrogen oxides. 

(xi) The initials NSR mean or refer to 

New Source Review. 

(xii) The initials PM10 mean or refer 

to particulate matter with an 

aerodynamic diameter of less than or 

equal to 10 micrometers (coarse 

particulate matter). 

(xiii) The initials PSD mean or refer 

to Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration. 

(xiv) The initials SIP mean or refer to 

State Implementation Plan. 

(xv) The initials SO2 mean or refer to 

sulfur dioxide. 

(xvi) The words State or Wyoming 

mean the State of Wyoming, unless the 

context indicates otherwise. 

(xvii) The initials UGRB mean or refer 

to the Upper Green River Basin. 

(xviii) The initials VOC mean or refer 

to volatile organic compound. 

(xix) The initials WAQSR mean or 

refer to the Wyoming Air Quality 

Standards and Regulations. 

(xx) The initials WDEQ mean or refer 

to the Wyoming Department of 

Environmental Quality. 

I. Background 

In this final rulemaking, we are taking 

final action to disapprove the addition 

of Chapter 6, Section 13, Nonattainment 

permit requirements, to the WAQSR 

submitted by the State of Wyoming on 

May 10, 2011. This new section 

incorporated by reference 40 Code of 

Federal Regulations (CFR) section 

51.165 in its entirety, with the exception 

of paragraphs (a) and (a)(1), into 

Wyoming’s Chapter 6 Permitting 

Requirements. 

On March 27, 2008, EPA promulgated 

a revised National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard (NAAQS) for ozone with an 8- 

hour concentration limit of 0.075 parts 

per million (‘‘8-Hour Ozone NAAQS’’), 

and effective July 20, 2012, EPA 

designated the Upper Green River Basin 

area of Wyoming as ‘‘nonattainment’’ for 

the 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS. For 

nonattainment areas, states are required 

to submit SIP revisions, including a 

nonattainment NSR permitting program 

for the construction and operation of 

new or modified major stationary 

sources located in the nonattainment 

area. On May 10, 2011, before the formal 

designation of the Green River Basin 

Area as nonattainment for the 8-Hour 

Ozone NAAQS, Wyoming submitted a 

nonattainment new source review (NSR) 

permitting program SIP revision to EPA. 

Our final disapproval will start a twoyear clock under CAA section 110(c)(1) 

for our obligation to promulgate a 

federal implementation plan (FIP) to 

correct the deficiency and the 18-month 

clock for sanctions, as required by CAA 

section 179(a)(2). These deadlines will 

be removed when Wyoming submits 

and we approve a SIP revision 

addressing the deficiency. 

In this final rulemaking action, we are 

also taking final action to approve 

revisions submitted by Wyoming on 

February 13, 2013, and on February 10, 

2014. These revisions to the WAQSR 

include portions of rulemakings R–20 

and R–22(b), respectively, as revisions 

to Wyoming’s SIP. Specifically, 

Wyoming revised Chapter 3, General 

Emissions Standards, Section 4, 

Emission standards for sulfur oxides 

and Section 9, Incorporation by 

reference in rulemaking R–20; and then 

again revised Section 9, Incorporation 

by reference in rulemaking R–22(b). 

II. What are the changes that EPA is 

taking final action to approve? 

With respect to Wyoming’s February 

13, 2013, and February 10, 2014 

submittals, EPA is taking final action to 

approve revisions to WASQR Chapter 3, 

General Emissions Standards, Section 4, 

Emission standards for sulfur oxides, 

and Section 9, Incorporation by 

reference. Section 4 covers only sulfur 

oxide emissions from specific sulfuric 

acid production processes. These 

WAQSR changes and additions are 

consistent with the CAA and EPA 

regulations. 

In our November 4, 2014 proposed 

action (79 FR 65362), we proposed to 

approve the following revisions to the 

WASQR: Chapter 3, General Emissions 

Standards, section 4, Emission 

standards for sulfur oxides (in R–20); 

then subsequently amended (in R– 

22(b)), section 9, Incorporation by 

reference. 

III. What are the changes that EPA is 

taking final action to disapprove? 

EPA is taking final action to 

disapprove the portion of Wyoming’s 

May 10, 2011 submittal that adds a new 

section to the permitting requirements 

in WAQSR Chapter 6. The new Chapter 

6 Section 13, Nonattainment permit 

requirements, consists of one sentence: 

‘‘40 CFR part 51.165 is herein 

incorporated by reference, in its 

entirety, with the exception of 

paragraph (a) and paragraph (a)(1).’’ 

As explained in 79 FR 65362, these 

changes are not consistent with CAA 

and EPA regulations. Specifically: 

1. CAA section 110(a)(2)(C), which requires 

each state plan to include ‘‘a program to 

provide for . . . the regulation of the 

modification and construction of any 

stationary source within the areas covered by 

the plan as necessary to assure that the 

[NAAQS] are achieved, including a permit 

program as required in parts C and D of this 

subchapter.’’ 

2. CAA section 172(c)(5), which provides 

that the plan ‘‘shall require permits for the 

construction and operation of new or 

modified major stationary sources anywhere 

in the nonattainment area, in accordance 

with section [173].’’ 

3. CAA section 173, which lays out the 

requirements for obtaining a permit that must 

be included in the state’s SIP-approved 

permit program. Because language prefaced 

by phrases such as ‘‘the plan shall provide’’ 

or ‘‘the plan shall require’’ does not itself 

impose requirements on sources, the State’s 

proposed plan revision does not clearly 

satisfy the requirements of these statutory 

provisions. 

4. CAA section 110(a)(2)(A), which 

requires that SIPs contain enforceable 

emissions limitations and other control 

measures. Under section CAA section 

110(a)(2), the enforceability requirement in 

section 110(a)(2)(A) applies to all plans 

submitted by a state. 

5. CAA section 110(i), which (with certain 

limited exceptions) prohibits States from 

modifying SIP requirements for stationary 

sources except through the SIP revision 

process. 

6. CAA section 172(c)(7), which requires 

that nonattainment plans—including 

nonattainment NSR programs required by 

section 172(c)(5)—are required to meet the 

applicable provisions of section 110(a)(2), 

including the requirement in section 

110(a)(2)(A) for enforceable emission 

limitations and other control measures. 

7. CAA section 110(l), which provides that 

EPA cannot approve a SIP revision that 

interferes with any applicable requirement of 

the Act. As explained above, the addition of 

Chapter 6, Section 13 to the Wyoming SIP 

would interfere with section 110(a)(2) and 

110(i) of the Act. 

8. Nor does the SIP revision comply with 

the requirements of 40 CFR 51.165 as the 

plan fails to impose the regulatory 

requirements on individual sources, as 

required by the regulatory provisions. 

We provided a detailed explanation of 

the basis of approval and disapproval in 

our proposed rulemaking (see 79 FR 

65362). We invited comment on all 

aspects of our proposal and provided a 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
9196 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 34 / Friday, February 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

30-day comment period. The comment 

period ended on December 4, 2014. 

IV. Response to Comments 

We received two comment letters 

during the public comment period. One 

comment letter was submitted by Bruce 

Pendery of the Wyoming Outdoor 

Council and one was submitted by Todd 

Parfitt, Director of the Wyoming 

Department of Environmental Quality. 

Bruce Pendery of the Wyoming Outdoor 

Council 

Comment: The comment was in 

reference to WAQSR Chapter 6 Section 

13, nonattainment NSR permits for 

major sources locating in nonattainment 

areas. The comment stated that ‘‘. . . 

the State’s proposed SIP revision is 

deficient because while it establishes 

requirements for plans it does not 

establish unambiguous and enforceable 

emission limits on sources that would 

be subject to the regulation. These 

shortcomings fail to meet the regulatory 

requirement to impose emission 

requirements for sources and also does 

not meet the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(A) of the Clean Air Act. In 

addition, the State’s submission does 

not specify the procedures it will use to 

reduce emissions from major sources in 

nonattainment areas, bringing into 

question the enforceability of offset 

requirements. This violates section 

110(i) of the Clean Air Act.’’ 

Response: For the reasons explained 

in 79 FR 65362, we agree with the 

commenter that the addition of the 

sentence ‘‘40 CFR part 51.165 is herein 

incorporated by reference, in its 

entirety, with the exception of 

paragraph (a) and paragraph (a)(1)’’ in 

Chapter 6 Section 13, Nonattainment 

permit requirements, does not meet the 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(A) and CAA section 110(i). 

Todd Parfitt, Director of the Wyoming 

Department of Environmental Quality 

Comment: EPA’s failure to timely 

approve Wyoming’s plan effectively 

transferred new source permitting 

authority in the Upper Green River 

Basin (UGRB) nonattainment area from 

Wyoming to Region 8. In the absence of 

EPA-approved provisions, the Wyoming 

Department of Environmental Quality 

(WDEQ) has remained unable to permit 

new sources in the UGRB area. 

Response: We disagree. First, 

Wyoming has a SIP-approved minor 

NSR permit program and under that 

program can issue minor NSR permits 

within the UGRB, so we presume that 

the comment is intended to refer only to 

new major sources and major 

modifications locating in the UGRB. 

Second, Wyoming has a SIP-approved 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) program and under that program 

can issue permits in the UGRB ozone 

nonattainment area for new major 

sources of pollutants other than nitrogen 

oxides (NOX) and volatile organic 

compounds (VOCs), as ozone 

precursors, and modifications that are 

major for pollutants other than NOX or 

VOCs, as ozone precursors, so we also 

presume that the comment is intended 

to refer only to new major sources of 

NOX and VOCs and modifications that 

are major with respect to NOX and VOCs 

in the UGRB nonattainment area. 

Given this, EPA Region 8 has not 

assumed authority to permit new major 

sources of NOX and VOCs and 

modifications that are major with 

respect to NOX and VOCs in the UGRB 

nonattainment area. For EPA to have 

that authority, we would have had to 

issue a FIP under section 110(c)(1) of 

the CAA, and we have not done so or 

even proposed to do so; in fact, our 

proposal notice stated that the 

disapproval would start the two-year 

clock for EPA’s obligation to promulgate 

a FIP. 

Under 40 CFR 52.21(k), it is expected 

that the State will issue permits in 

accordance with Appendix S to 40 CFR 

part 51 until EPA has approved a SIP 

submittal meeting the requirements of 

part D of title I of the CAA (in particular, 

a SIP submittal meeting the plan 

requirements that are set out in 40 CFR 

51.165 as applicable to ozone 

nonattainment areas). If WDEQ has not 

been granted sufficient authority by the 

Wyoming legislature to issue permits 

under Appendix S prior to approval of 

a SIP revision, this would be a serious 

concern that should be addressed by the 

legislature, and this concern would exist 

in the period after designation 

regardless of how long it would take 

EPA to approve a nonattainment NSR 

program into the SIP. However, the 

comment did not provide any 

information to cause us to think that 

WDEQ lacks such authority. Even if it 

did, section 110(l) does not have an 

exception that allows EPA to approve a 

SIP revision that interferes with 

applicable requirements of the Act 

solely on the grounds that the State has 

been granted insufficient authority by 

its legislature to act in the interim prior 

to SIP approval. 

Finally, the comment did not identify 

any owners or operators that have been 

unable to construct a new major source 

or major modification in the UGRB 

nonattainment area due to WDEQ’s 

alleged lack of authority to issue 

permits. Nor did any owners or 

operators comment on our proposed 

disapproval. We also note that in order 

to meet nonattainment NSR 

requirements in the Sheridan coarse 

particulate matter (PM10) nonattainment 

area, Wyoming has had a construction 

ban in place and approved into the SIP 

for over twenty years (See WAQSR, 

Chapter 6, Section 2(c)(ii)(B)). While the 

facts and circumstances of the UGRB 

ozone nonattainment area may be 

different than those of the Sheridan 

PM10 nonattainment area, the comment 

does not explain why the State has a 

concern in the UGRB that it does not in 

Sheridan. 

Comment: EPA’s disapproval of 

Wyoming’s plan is arbitrary and 

capricious. It is arbitrary and capricious 

for an agency to respond to the same 

situation in a different way without any 

rational explanation. ‘‘Here, the Region 

8 Administrator proposes to disapprove 

Wyoming’s plan for including language 

that was already approved, and has been 

proposed to be approved, by the 

administrator of Regions 7 and 10.’’ 

The commenter references: Approval 

and Promulgation of Implementation 

Plans; Idaho, 79 FR 11711 (March 3, 

2014) (approving portions of Idaho’s 

plan that incorporated 40 CFR 51.165 by 

reference, without excluding any of the 

language referring to ‘‘the plan’’); 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Iowa, 79 FR 

27763 (May 15, 2014) (approving 

portions of Iowa’s SIP revisions that 

incorporate language from 40 CFR 

51.165, including the phrase ‘‘plan shall 

provide’’ three times and the phrase 

‘‘the plan shall require’’ five times); 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Alaska 

Nonattainment New Source Review, 79 

FR 65366 (November 4, 2014) 

(proposing to approve Alaska’s SIP 

revisions that incorporate portions of 40 

CFR 51.165 by reference, including the 

phrase ‘‘plan shall provide that’’ two 

times and the phrase ‘‘all plans shall 

use’’ one time). The commenter states 

that the Region 7 Administrator 

approved Iowa’s plan as a direct final 

rule because ‘‘the Agency views [it] as 

a noncontroversial revision amendment. 

The commenter states EPA may not 

declare that its own regulations, when 

incorporated by states in Region 7 and 

10, are approvable for use in a SIP, but, 

when incorporated by a state in Region 

8, are ambiguous, and therefore, do not 

contain enforceable emission 

limitations. The commenter concludes 

that EPA should approve Wyoming’s 

submittal in accordance with these 

previous actions. 

Response: We disagree that 

Wyoming’s submittal is approvable and 

with the commenter’s contention that 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 34 / Friday, February 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 9197 

1With respect to the particular notices cited by 

the commenter, none of them discuss the issues 

identified in our proposal notice. 

disapproval of Wyoming’s submittal is 

inconsistent with EPA’s approval of 

other SIP submissions. With respect to 

approval of the submittal, we noted in 

our proposal that, under section 110(l), 

EPA cannot approve any SIP revision 

that would interfere with any applicable 

requirement of the CAA. The comment 

does not dispute this basis for 

disapproval. We also noted in our 

proposal that certain provisions 

incorporated by Wyoming fail to specify 

procedures for determining the location 

of offsets and therefore violate section 

110(i) of the CAA, because the 

provisions as incorporated would allow 

Wyoming to define and modify those 

procedures without going through the 

SIP revision process. The comment does 

not dispute this basis for disapproval, 

either. Furthermore, we noted that the 

State’s incorporation by reference of 

language stating ‘‘the plan may provide’’ 

failed to create an enforceable obligation 

and also created ambiguity as to 

whether the SIP would actually include 

the provisions, thus violating the 

requirements in 110(a)(2)(A) regarding 

enforceability and the requirement in 

110(a)(2)(C) to have a nonattainment 

NSR permit program as specified in part 

D of Title I, specifically sections 

172(c)(5) and 173. The comment does 

not dispute the ambiguity of the 

language stating ‘‘the plan may 

provide.’’ Finally, we stated that the 

violation of sections 110(a)(2) 

(specifically 110(a)(2)(A) and (C)) and 

110(i)) would interfere with applicable 

requirements of the Act and therefore 

we could not approve the submittal. The 

comment does not dispute that 

110(a)(2)(A), 110(a)(2)(C), and 110(i) are 

applicable requirements and that 

approval of Wyoming’s submittal would 

interfere with those requirements with 

respect to the language regarding the 

permissible location of offsets and the 

optional provisions prefaced by ‘‘the 

plan may provide.’’ Therefore, even if 

we agreed that our approval of other SIP 

submittals was inconsistent with our 

disapproval of Wyoming’s submittal— 

which we do not—the deficiencies 

identified above would not allow us to 

approve the Wyoming submittal. 

Second, EPA notes that we take 

numerous actions every year on SIP 

submittals, each of which by itself can 

be voluminous and contain many 

technical and legal issues. On occasion, 

it is possible that EPA may have 

approved portions of SIP submittals that 

do not meet all the requirements of the 

Act because EPA did not notice that a 

particular issue was implicated by the 

SIP submittal.1 That this unfortunately 

and occasionally happens does not 

require that EPA must subsequently 

approve all SIP submittals that contain 

the same issue. To the contrary, section 

110(l) contains no exception that allows 

EPA to approve a SIP revision that 

interferes with applicable requirements 

of the CAA merely because in some 

other action EPA has failed to notice a 

similar issue with a similar SIP revision. 

Thus, even if the comment has 

characterized the other notices 

correctly—which EPA does not agree it 

has—, EPA cannot approve Wyoming’s 

SIP revision on the basis of those 

actions. If Wyoming is concerned about 

EPA’s approval of those submittals, the 

State could have commented on those 

EPA actions or petitioned EPA to 

address any alleged errors in EPA’s 

approval. However, it is not a remedy to 

the alleged inconsistencies to violate 

110(l) and approve a SIP revision that 

interferes with applicable requirements 

of the Act. In other words, the 

comment’s request that we approve the 

Wyoming submittal in fact requests that 

EPA take an action that is arbitrary and 

capricious. 

Generally speaking, EPA’s 

requirements for SIPs with respect to 

construction of new and modified 

sources, including the Part D 

nonattainment NSR permit program, are 

contained in 40 CFR part 51, subpart I, 

and specifically, in 40 CFR 51.160 

through 51.166. The requirements for 

SIPs for nonattainment areas are found 

in 51.165, but this section does not 

stand alone and is part of a series of 

sections that together, comprise the 

requirements for approvable SIP 

provisions (e.g., 51.161 spells out the 

requirements for public notice and 

comment; 51.164 the requirements for 

stack heights and dispersion 

techniques). The provisions of subpart I 

are not written in the form of an 

implementable permitting rule which 

applies to the owner or operator of 

sources who wish to construct or 

modify, but rather they are requirements 

that a state must meet in order to get its 

permitting rules approved as part of the 

SIP. In contrast to the requirements for 

nonattainment NSR, there are both SIP 

PSD requirements in 40 CFR 51.166 and 

a federal PSD program in 40 CFR 52.21, 

the latter being a permitting rule with 

enforceable source obligations that 

meets the requirements of 40 CFR 

51.166. For a variety of reasons, many 

states incorporate 40 CFR 52.21 into 

state rules as the state PSD program. 

However, EPA does not have a similar 

implementable nonattainment NSR 

permitting rule that can be directly 

incorporated by reference into state 

rules. As a result, some states have 

incorporated by reference all or parts of 

40 CFR 51.165 into state rules for 

purposes of nonattainment NSR, but 

such states generally integrate the 

portions of 51.165 into the states’ 

existing permit program in such a way 

that there is a nonattainment NSR 

permitting program with enforceable 

provisions. In particular, the permit 

programs for Alaska, Idaho, and Iowa 

cited by the commenter take this 

approach, as we detail below. 

In the case of Wyoming’s submittal, 

the submittal fails to integrate the 

incorporation by reference of 51.165 

into the State’s permit program. Under 

Wyoming’s SIP, the general construction 

permit program (i.e. minor NSR and 

certain procedures and requirements 

that are common to minor NSR and 

PSD) is set forth in WAQSR, Chapter 6, 

Section 2, and the PSD program is set 

forth in WAQSR, Chapter 6, Section 4. 

Notably, Wyoming’s submittal 

containing the incorporation by 

reference of 51.165 did not even modify 

Section 2. Thus, there is no indication 

in Wyoming’s permit program in 

Section 2 that any permit should be 

governed by the federal rules in 40 CFR 

51.165. This creates several specific 

issues that we next discuss, but the 

overarching problem is that Wyoming’s 

permit program fails, because it lacks 

any connection to Section 13, to impose 

nonattainment NSR requirements in the 

UGRB. 

First, WAQSR, Chapter 6, Section 

2(c)(v) provides that approval to 

construct cannot be granted until the 

permit applicant demonstrates that the 

facility will employ best available 

control technology (BACT). This 

conflicts with the requirement for 

nonattainment NSR that the facility be 

subject to the lowest achievable 

emission rate (LAER), which is 

determined by a different and generally 

speaking more stringent standard than 

BACT. Section 2 does not contain any 

provision stating that LAER instead of 

BACT should apply in the UGRB as to 

ozone precursor emissions. Thus, the 

submittal’s incorporation by reference of 

51.165 without corresponding updates 

to Section 2 fails to impose an 

enforceable obligation to meet the LAER 

requirement. 

Second, in the case of the Sheridan 

PM10 nonattainment area, which was 

designated after the 1990 CAA 

Amendments, the State met 

nonattainment NSR requirements by 

imposing a construction ban on new 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
9198 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 34 / Friday, February 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

2A memorandum with details of the Alaska 

program is provided in the docket for this action. 

3A memorandum with details of the Idaho 

program is provided in the docket for this action. 

major sources of PM10 and 

modifications that are major with 

respect to PM10. See 59 FR 60902 (Nov. 

29, 1994). This is imposed in the SIP 

and integrated into the permit program 

through Section 2(c)(ii)(B), which 

contains the details of the construction 

ban. In contrast, Section 2 is devoid of 

any mention that different requirements 

should apply in the UGRB. This creates 

two conflicts. First, there is no 

enforceable obligation in the permit 

program to satisfy nonattainment NSR 

requirements in the UGRB. In fact, 

under Section 2 the only requirements 

that apply in the UGRB are minor NSR 

or PSD, depending on applicability. 

Second, even if the State’s incorporation 

by reference of 51.165 could be 

understood to create a permit program, 

51.165 contains generally applicable 

requirements that on their face apply in 

all nonattainment areas and are not 

limited to the UGRB. Thus there would 

be two conflicting sets of requirements 

in the Sheridan PM10 nonattainment 

area: One a construction ban and the 

other a permission to construct if certain 

requirements (LAER, offsets, etc.) are 

met. 

Third, Chapter 6, Section 2(k) sets 

forth certain categories of sources that 

are entirely exempt from the obligation 

to get approval for construction. 

However, Section 2(k) correctly 

recognizes that the PSD program does 

not allow for source category-based 

exemptions and therefore states that, 

notwithstanding these exemptions: ‘‘any 

facility which is a major emitting 

facility pursuant to the definition in 

Chapter 6, Section 4 [i.e. PSD] shall 

comply with the requirements of both 

Chapter 6, Sections 2 and 4.’’ There is 

no corresponding provision for the 

incorporation by reference of 51.165 in 

Section 13. However, like PSD, the 

nonattainment NSR program does not 

allow for source category-based 

exemptions. Furthermore, Chapter 6, 

Section 2(k) states that any facility 

which is major under a state’s definition 

must comply with the PSD program. 

There is no mention that certain 

facilities in the UGRB must comply with 

the provisions of Section 13. 

The nonattainment NSR programs 

cited by the commenter do not contain 

the same approvability issues in 

Wyoming’s May 10, 2011 SIP submittal 

discussed above. In 79 FR 65366 

(November 4, 2014), EPA Region 10 

proposed to approve the Alaska Part D 

nonattainment NSR rules based on a 

finding that the Alaska nonattainment 

NSR rules in 18 AAC 50, Article 3, 

Section 311 ‘‘Nonattainment area major 

stationary source permits’’ and 18 AAC 

50.040(i) (incorporating by reference 

text from 40 CFR 51.165) met the 

requirements of the CAA and EPA’s 

regulations for SIP nonattainment NSR 

rules. 79 FR 65366. EPA Region 10 

noted that 18 AAC 50.311 had 

previously been approved into the 

Alaska SIP on August 14, 2007 (72 

FR45378) and had not been revised 

since that time. EPA further explained 

that the primary changes proposed for 

approval in the SIP revision were 

updating the effective dates of the 

federal regulations previously adopted 

by reference in the Alaska SIP for 

purposes of Alaska’s Part D 

nonattainment NSR program. 

Unlike the Wyoming rule, which 

simply incorporates by reference the 

planning requirements of 40 CFR 51.165 

and does not link the federal permitting 

requirements directly to Wyoming’s 

existing state permitting rules, Alaska 

has adopted a complete state permitting 

rule that includes provisions that are 

specifically applicable to sources 

locating in nonattainment areas, 

including state provisions specifying the 

permissible location of offsets (see 18 

AAC 50.311).2 This provision makes 

clear that no source may commence 

construction of a major stationary 

source, a major modification, or a 

‘‘PAL’’ major modification of a 

nonattainment pollutant in a 

nonattainment area without obtaining a 

construction permit from the Alaska 

Department of Environmental 

Conservation. 18 AAC 50.311 also 

specifies what must be included in an 

application for a Part D nonattainment 

NSR permit, such as a demonstration 

that emissions of the nonattainment 

pollutant will be controlled to a rate that 

represents the LAER, and 

documentation that proposed emission 

offsets will be sufficient, enforceable, 

and occur by the time the new or 

modified source begins operation. 

Finally, that provision also specifies 

that the permit can only be issued if the 

applicant demonstrates to the Alaska 

Department of Environmental 

Conservation that the permitting 

requirements of 40 CFR 51.165 that have 

been incorporated by reference in 

Alaska’s rules will be met. The Alaska 

incorporation by reference provision at 

18 AAC 50.040(i) explicitly states that it 

is adopting the text of the identified 

provisions of 40 CFR 51.165 ‘‘setting out 

provisions that a state implementation 

plan shall or may contain.’’ This makes 

clear that the incorporated provisions of 

40 CFR 51.165, including those 

specifying that a ‘‘state plan may 

contain . . .’’, are requirements of 

Alaska’s Part D nonattainment NSR 

permitting program. 

Because Alaska’s reliance on 40 CFR 

51.165 as part of its Part D 

nonattainment NSR program is part of 

an overall construction permitting 

program that imposes additional 

requirements on new and modified 

major sources located in nonattainment 

areas, and because Alaska’s 

incorporation by reference of text from 

40 CFR 51.165 is clear with respect to 

the intent of Alaska to adopt the 

permitting requirements as Alaska law 

applicable to sources locating in 

nonattainment areas, the Alaska 

program does not contain the issues 

identified above for Wyoming’s 

incorporation by reference of 40 CFR 

51.165. 

Idaho’s SIP approved Part D 

nonattainment NSR rules currently 

incorporate by reference 40 CFR 51.165 

(as well as all of 40 CFR part 51, subpart 

I) into IDAPA 58.01.01.107.03.3 As was 

the case in 79 FR 11711 (March 3, 2014), 

Idaho annually updates its adoption by 

reference of these EPA rules and EPA 

Region 10 has proposed to approve the 

State’s July 1, 2013, update to this 

incorporation by reference. 

Idaho has adopted a complete state 

permitting rule that includes provisions 

that are specifically applicable to 

sources locating in nonattainment areas, 

including state provisions specifying the 

permissible location of offsets (see 

IDAPA 58.01.01.200 through 228 and 

specifically 204 (PERMIT 

REQUIREMENTS FOR NEW MAJOR 

FACILITIES OR MAJOR 

MODIFICATIONS IN 

NONATTAINMENT AREAS). These 

provisions make clear that no source 

may commence construction of a new 

major facility or a major modification in 

a nonattainment area without obtaining 

a construction permit from the Idaho 

Department of Environmental Quality. 

IDAPA 58.01.01.204 also points to 

IDAPA 58.01.01.202 for application 

requirements and to IDAPA 

58.01.01.209 for administrative 

processing requirements. In addition, 

IDAPA 58.01.01.204 clearly states that 

‘‘The intent of Section 204 is to 

incorporate the federal nonattainment 

NSR rule requirements.’’ IDAPA 

58.01.01.204 then goes on in subsection 

.01 to specify exactly which provisions 

from 40 CFR 51.165 are incorporated by 

reference for the purposes of Section 

204. The effect of the statement of intent 

and the identification of specific 

provisions makes clear that these 

provisions of 40 CFR 51.165 are 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 34 / Friday, February 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 9199 

4As we did not propose any action on the SIPs 

cited by commenter, we are not making any 

determination in this final action with regards to 

those SIPs. 

requirements of Idaho’s Part D 

nonattainment NSR permitting program. 

Because Idaho’s reliance on 40 CFR 

51.165 as part of its Part D 

nonattainment NSR program is part of 

an overall construction permitting 

program that imposes additional 

requirements on new and modified 

major sources located in nonattainment 

areas, and because Idaho’s incorporation 

by reference of specific provisions from 

40 CFR 51.165 at IDAPA 58.01.01.204 is 

clear with respect to the intent of Idaho 

to adopt the permitting requirements as 

state law applicable to sources locating 

in nonattainment areas, the Idaho 

program does not contain the issues 

identified above for Wyoming’s 

incorporation by reference of 40 CFR 

51.165. 

Iowa’s SIP approved Part D 

nonattainment NSR rules were 

previously adopted by rule into Iowa 

Administrative Code (IAC) 567– 

22.5(455B). In an effort to streamline 

administrative rules and make them 

more user-friendly, Iowa consolidated 

the nonattainment NSR provisions into 

IAC 567.31 (Chapter 31, Nonattainment 

Areas) in its submittal acted on by EPA 

in 79 FR 27763 (May 15, 2014). In that 

submittal, the provisions of the previous 

approved rule were retained by the Iowa 

Department of Natural Resources, and 

were simply relocated to Chapter 31. 

The relocated rules for the most part 

mirror language in 40 CFR 51.165, with 

some modifications by the State. In fact, 

the public notice for Iowa’s rulemaking 

states: ‘‘The federal regulations include 

many instructions to the states that 

could be confusing for businesses if the 

federal regulations were adopted by 

directly referencing the federal 

regulations.’’ 

Iowa has adopted a complete state 

permitting rule that includes provisions 

that are specifically applicable to 

sources locating in nonattainment areas. 

Specifically, IAC 567–22.5(455B) (as 

revised in 79 FR 27763) and 567– 

31.1(455B) clearly state that no source 

may commence construction of a new 

major facility or a major modification in 

a nonattainment area without obtaining 

a construction permit from the Iowa 

Department of Natural Resources. IAC 

567–22.1(1)(455B) (Permits Required for 

New or Existing Stationary Sources) also 

requires compliance with 567– 

22.5(455B) and IAC 567–31.3(455B) for 

permits prior to construction in 

nonattainment areas, and IAC 567–20.1 

(Scope of Title—Definitions—Forms— 

Rules of Practice) is linked to 

requirements for areas designated as 

nonattainment. 

Because Iowa’s language mirroring 

that in 40 CFR 51.165 is part of an 

overall construction permitting program 

that imposes additional requirements on 

new and modified major sources located 

in nonattainment areas, the Iowa 

program does not contain the issues 

identified above for Wyoming’s 

incorporation by reference of 40 CFR 

51.165. 

EPA has reviewed the SIPs cited by 

the commenter. While some of them 

may have instances of language that are 

problematic, none of them appear to 

have the same approvability flaws that 

we have identified with Wyoming’s 

submittal.4 In particular, none of them 

fail to create an enforceable 

nonattainment NSR permitting program 

that we have described here. And in any 

case, under section 110(k)(3) we must 

either approve or disapprove 

Wyoming’s submittal, and under section 

110(l) we cannot approve it. Therefore 

we must disapprove. 

Comment: EPA’s proposed action 

depends on a strained interpretation of 

the CAA. The commenter states that 

once a state submits its SIP to EPA, 

EPA’s reviewing authority is limited to 

determining whether the SIP includes 

the requirements specified in Section 

110(a)(2), and that EPA may not 

substitute its own judgment for that of 

the state. The commenter states that 

EPA proposes to find that Wyoming’s 

plan is not enforceable because 

Wyoming’s incorporation by reference 

of federal regulations includes language 

such as ‘‘the plan shall provide’’ and 

‘‘the plan shall require’’. The 

commenter states that EPA claims that 

this imbues Wyoming’s plan with such 

ambiguity that it fails to create 

enforceable obligations for sources in 

contravention of the ‘‘enforceable 

emissions limitations’’ requirement of 

Section 110(a)(2)(A), and that this is a 

strained and illogical interpretation of 

carefully drafted federal regulations that 

were meant to provide specific guidance 

to states in issuing permits in 

nonattainment areas. According to the 

commenter, any member of the 

regulated community who sees that 

Wyoming’s regulations fully incorporate 

the federal regulations will understand 

that their operations are subject to the 

limits and restrictions imposed by the 

federal regulations. 

Response: We disagree. First, the 

commenter incorrectly characterizes 40 

CFR 51.165 as ‘‘federal regulations that 

were meant to provide specific guidance 

to States in issuing permits in 

nonattainment areas.’’ Instead, 40 CFR 

51.165 contains the minimum 

requirements (not ‘‘guidance’’) for states 

to meet in plan provisions (not ‘‘in 

issuing permits’’) for nonattainment 

areas. See 40 CFR 51.165(a). To use the 

commenter’s words, 51.165 is ‘‘carefully 

drafted’’ to define these minimum 

requirements while allowing state plans 

to vary from them so long as the 

minimum requirements are met. For 

example, 51.165(a)(1) provides that 

states may vary from the specific 

definitions in 51.165(a)(1) if the state 

demonstrates that the replacement 

definitions will be at least as stringent 

as all respects. 

We also disagree that the distinction 

between the minimum plan 

requirements for a permitting program 

and the permitting program itself is 

‘‘illogical.’’ The actual program that a 

state adopts may meet the minimum 

plan requirements in any number of 

ways. Wyoming should be familiar with 

this distinction: As discussed above, the 

State chose to impose a construction 

ban in the Sheridan PM10 nonattainment 

area instead of creating a full 

nonattainment NSR permit program. 

And for the State’s PSD program, the 

State properly did not incorporate by 

reference 51.166, but instead adopted 

language from federal rules. See 

WAQSR, Chapter 6, Section 4. 

The commenter inaccurately 

describes phrases such as ‘‘the plan 

shall provide’’ or ‘‘the plan shall 

require’’ as ‘‘isolated.’’ In fact, virtually 

every source obligation in 51.165(b) is 

prefaced by such a phrase. These are not 

‘‘isolated’’ instances; they are 

ubiquitous. 

We also disagree that it is ‘‘strained’’ 

to be concerned with the enforceability 

of the language that was incorporated. 

Faced with a lawsuit for violation of 

nonattainment NSR requirements, an 

owner or operator would naturally 

defend themselves by pointing out that 

the language literally does not impose 

requirements on owners and operators; 

instead it imposes requirements on state 

plans. While perhaps that defense 

would not always be successful, we do 

not think that Congress intended 

‘‘enforceable’’ in section 110(a)(2)(A) to 

mean ‘‘potentially enforceable 

depending on whether a court will agree 

with the plaintiff’s theory that the 

provision should not be read to mean 

what it literally says.’’ In other words, 

SIP provisions should not unnecessarily 

create defenses that make enforceability 

a matter of chance. Furthermore, we 

note that violations of nonattainment 

NSR program requirements can expose 

owners and operators to civil and 

criminal penalties. In such cases, courts 

have applied higher standards and 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
9200 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 34 / Friday, February 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

5The dicta quoted by the commenter from Train 

v. NRDC, 421 U.S. 60 (1975) referring to 110(a)(2) 

was discussing the 1970 version of the Clean Air 

Act. Section 110(l) was added in the 1990 

Amendments. The applicable requirement in 

section 110(i) was added in the 1977 Amendments. 

Applicable requirements for nonattainment NSR 

programs were added in the 1977 Amendments and 

revised in the 1990 Amendments. 

resolved ambiguities in favor of 

defendants. With respect to the 

comment’s unsupported argument that 

any member of the regulated community 

would necessarily understand the state’s 

intent to impose obligations on owners 

and operators, our response is first, that 

the literal language of the rule as 

incorporated does not support that 

intent. Second, the failure to integrate 

nonattainment NSR requirements into 

the permitting program, as detailed 

above, could create confusion. 

Finally, we are not ‘‘substituting our 

judgment for that of the state.’’ The State 

has not provided any binding 

interpretation of the provisions that 

would render them enforceable. If that 

were possible to do and the State had 

done so, this interpretation could have 

been incorporated into the plan and 

potentially resolved at least some of the 

issues. In response to the comment 

regarding our limited review authority, 

we reiterate: ‘‘The EPA may not approve 

any plan revision ‘if the revision would 

interfere with any applicable 

requirement concerning attainment and 

reasonable further progress . . . or any 

other applicable requirement of [the 

Clean Air Act].’ ’’ Oklahoma v. EPA, 723 

F.3d 1201, 1207 (10th Cir. 2013) 

(quoting section 110(l) of the Act). We 

note that the commenter is also 

mistaken in asserting that EPA is 

limited to review for compliance 

specifically with section 110(a)(2) of the 

Act 5—instead under 110(l) EPA must 

ensure compliance with all applicable 

requirements of the Act. In addition, the 

SIP revision interferes with sections 

110(a)(2)(A) and 110(a)(2)(C). 

Comment: The commenter states that 

EPA should not threaten the State of 

Wyoming with the loss of tens of 

millions of dollars in highway funding. 

According to the commenter, this is an 

extreme response to a disagreement over 

the proper method of incorporation by 

reference of federal regulations. The 

commenter states that, in response to its 

earlier commitment in a settlement, EPA 

now threatens Wyoming with highway 

sanctions. The commenter then details a 

number of serious concerns with 

highways. 

Response: We disagree that starting 

the sanctions clock is inappropriate. We 

noted in our proposal that, under 

section 179(a) of the CAA, our proposed 

disapproval would, if finalized, trigger 

the sanctions clock. The conditions that 

trigger the sanctions clock are set out in 

sections 179(a)(1) through (4). In this 

case, finalizing our disapproval creates 

the condition in 179(a)(2): Disapproval 

under section 110(k) of a submission for 

an area designated nonattainment (in 

this case the UGRB) based on the 

submission’s failure to meet one or more 

of the elements required by the Act that 

are applicable to the area (in this case, 

nonattainment NSR provisions 

identified above). When this condition 

is met, 179(a) requires the Administrator 

to apply one of the sanctions in 179(b) 

(highway and offset sanctions) unless 

the deficiency has been corrected within 

18 months, and to apply the other 

sanction in 179(b) if the deficiency is 

not corrected within the following six 

months. EPA’s approach to the 

sequencing of sanctions is set forth in 

the Order of Sanctions Rule. See 40 CFR 

52.31. Despite its tone, the comment 

does not dispute this point about the 

nondiscretionary operation of the Act 

and therefore provides no relevant 

reason that the sanctions clock should 

not be started by our disapproval. With 

respect to the comment’s concerns with 

the state highways, we recognize those 

as serious. However, Congress decided 

that certain means of highway funding 

should be contingent on avoiding the 

circumstances in section 179(a), which 

Wyoming can do by developing an 

approvable submittal. 

We also disagree with the comment’s 

characterization of EPA’s action. First, 

the comment inaccurately characterizes 

EPA as ‘‘threatening’’ highway 

sanctions. As explained above, section 

179(a) of the Act requires that the 

sanctions clock start after EPA’s 

disapproval of a required element of a 

nonattainment plan. As a simple matter 

of proper notice to the public, EPA had 

the responsibility in our proposal to 

inform the public of this potential 

consequence of our proposed 

disapproval. There was no ‘‘threat’’ 

involved in stating the basic 

nondiscretionary operation of the CAA. 

The comment also without any basis 

characterizes EPA’s action as a 

‘‘departure from EPA’s more measured 

response throughout the country when 

disagreements have arisen in the past.’’ 

The comment did not identify any 

actions where EPA disapproved a 

required nonattainment plan element 

and failed to start the sanctions clock, 

and in any case the Act requires that the 

clock be started. 

In general, EPA would prefer to work 

with states to develop approvable 

submittals instead of disapproving 

flawed submittals and (in the case of 

nonattainment plans) triggering clocks 

for sanctions and FIP obligations. In this 

case, we were subject to a court-ordered 

deadline to finalize action on the 

submittal. We are still happy to work 

with the State to develop an approvable 

submittal, and we note that, under the 

Order of Sanctions Rule, in certain 

circumstances EPA can stay sanctions if 

the State has done so even before EPA 

takes final action on the approvable 

submittal. See 40 CFR 52.31(d). 

V. What action is EPA taking today? 

We have fully considered the 

comments we received, and have 

concluded that no changes from our 

proposed rule are warranted. As 

discussed in our proposal and this 

notice, our action is based on an 

evaluation of Wyoming’s rules against 

the requirements of CAA sections 

110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(A), 110(i), 110(l), 

172(c)(5), 172(c)(7), 173, regulations at 

40 CFR 51.165, and other requirements 

discussed in section III of this action. 

As described in our proposed 

rulemaking, and in Section II of this 

notice, EPA is approving the SIP 

revisions submitted by Wyoming on 

February 13, 2013 and February 10, 

2014. 

As described in our proposed 

rulemaking, and in Section III of this 

notice, EPA is disapproving the portion 

of the SIP revisions submitted by 

Wyoming on May 10, 2011 that adds 

Chapter 6, Section 13 to the Wyoming 

SIP. 

We are sensitive to the concerns 

expressed in the State’s comments. We 

also understand the State’s goals in 

promulgating Chapter 6, Section 13, to 

have a SIP-approved permit program for 

sources located in nonattainment areas. 

We intend to work with the State to 

develop revised rules that are consistent 

with the State goals and consistent with 

the CAA and implementing regulations. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Orders 

Review 

Under the Clean Air Act, 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 Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this action merely 

approves state law as meeting federal 

requirements and does not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by state law. For that reason, 

this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 34 / Friday, February 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 9201 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• 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 in 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 Clean Air Act; 

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). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by April 21, 2015. 

Filing a petition for reconsideration by 

the Administrator of this final rule does 

not affect the finality of this action for 

the purposes of judicial review nor does 

it extend the time within which a 

petition for judicial review may be filed, 

and shall not postpone the effectiveness 

of such rule or action. This action may 

not be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See CAA 

section 307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: January 30, 2015. 

Debra H. Thomas, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart ZZ—Wyoming 

■ 2. In § 52.2620, the table in paragraph 

(c)(1) is amended under Chapter 3 by 

removing the entry for Section 4 and by 

adding the entry for Section 9 to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.2620 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(1) * * * 

State citation Title/subject 

State adopted 

and effective 

date 

EPA approval date and citation 1 Explanations 

*******

Chapter 3 

*******

Section 9 ........................ Incorporation by reference .............. 9/12/2013, 

11/22/2013 

2/20/2015, [insert Federal Register 

citation].

* * * * * * * 

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


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
9202 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 34 / Friday, February 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2015–03180 Filed 2–19–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2014–0504; FRL–9921–44– 

Region 5] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Illinois; 

VOM Definition 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving a request 

submitted by the Illinois Environmental 

Protection Agency (Illinois EPA) on 

June 10, 2014, to revise the Illinois State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). The 

submission amends the Illinois 

Administrative Code (IAC) by updating 

the definition of ‘‘volatile organic 

material (VOM) or volatile organic 

compound (VOC)’’ to add five 

compounds to the list of exempted 

compounds. These revisions are based 

on EPA rulemakings in 2013 which 

added these compounds to the list of 

chemical compounds that are excluded 

from the Federal definition of VOC 

because, in their intended uses, they 

make negligible contributions to 

tropospheric ozone formation. 

DATES: This direct final rule will be 

effective April 21, 2015, unless EPA 

receives adverse comments by March 

23, 2015. If adverse comments are 

received, EPA will publish a timely 

withdrawal of the direct final rule in the 

Federal Register informing the public 

that the rule will not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2014–0504, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: Aburano.Douglas@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (312)408–2279 

4. Mail: Douglas Aburano, Chief, 

Attainment Planning and Maintenance 

Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. 

5. Hand Delivery: Douglas Aburano, 

Chief, Attainment Planning and 

Maintenance Section, Air Programs 

Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 

Such deliveries are only accepted 

during the Regional Office normal hours 

of operation, and special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. The Regional Office official 

hours of business are Monday through 

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

Federal holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R05–OAR–2014– 

0504. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

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 www.regulations.gov 

or email. The 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 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. 

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 Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We 

recommend that you telephone Douglas 

Aburano, Section Chief at (312) 353– 

6960 before visiting the Region 5 office. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Douglas Aburano, Section Chief, 

Attainment Planning and Maintenance 

Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353–6960, 

Aburano.Douglas@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

EPA. This supplementary information 

section is arranged as follows: 

I. What is the background for this action? 

A. When did the State submit the SIP 

revision to EPA? 

B. Did Illinois hold public hearings on this 

SIP revision? 

II. What is EPA approving? 

III. What is EPA’s analysis of the SIP 

revision? 

IV. What action is the EPA taking? 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What is the background for this 

action? 

A. When did the State submit the SIP 

revision to EPA? 

The Illinois EPA submitted a revision 

to the Illinois SIP to EPA for approval 

on June 10, 2014. The SIP revision 

updates the definition of VOM or VOC 

at 35 IAC Part 211, Subpart B, Section 

211.7150(a). 

B. Did Illinois hold public hearings on 

this SIP revision? 

The Illinois Pollution Control Board 

held a public hearing on the proposed 

SIP revision on October 31, 2013. The 

Board received no comments. 

II. What is EPA approving? 

EPA is approving an Illinois SIP 

revision that updates the definition of 

VOM or VOC at 35 IAC Part 211, 

Subpart B, Section 211.7150(a) to add 

(difluoromethoxy) (difluoro)methane 

(CHF2OCHF2 or HFE–134), 

bis(difluoromethoxy) (difluoro)methane 

(CHF2OCF2OCHF2 or HFE–236cal2), 1- 

(difluoromethoxy)-2-[(difluoromethoxy) 

((difluoro)methoxy]-1,1,2,2- 

tetrafluoroethane 

(CHF2OCF2OCF2CF2OCHF2 or HFE–43– 

10pccc), 1,2-bis(difluoromethoxy)- 

1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethane 

(CHF2OCF2CF2OCHF2 or HFE– 

338pcc13), and trans 1-chloro-3,3,3- 

trifluoroprop-1-ene (CF3CHCHCl) to the 

list of excluded compounds at 35 IAC 

211.7150(a). Illinois took this action 

based on EPA’s 2013 rulemakings in 

which EPA determined these 

compounds have a negligible 

contribution to tropospheric ozone 

formation and thus should be excluded 

from the definition of VOC codified at 

40 CFR 51.100(s). (See 78 FR 9823 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES