81712 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 223 / Friday, November 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 

The EPA may publish any comment 

received to its public docket. Do not 

submit electronically any information 

you consider to be Confidential 

Business Information (CBI) or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. The EPA will generally not 

consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

submission (i.e., on the Web, Cloud, or 

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, the full 

EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

additional information on this action, 

contact Jessica Montan ̃ ez, Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards, 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(C504–03), Research Triangle Park, 

North Carolina 27711; telephone 

number (919) 541–3407; fax number 

(919) 541–5509; email address: 

montanez.jessica@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: After 

considering the request to extend the 

public comment period, the EPA has 

decided to extend the public comment 

period by 2 weeks, until December 16, 

2016. This extension will ensure that 

the public has additional time to review 

the proposed rule and its supporting 

documents. 

Dated: November 9, 2016. 

Mary Henigin, 

Acting Director, Office of Air Quality Planning 

and Standards. 

[FR Doc. 2016–27670 Filed 11–17–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2016–0521; FRL–9955–31– 

Region 8] 

Approval and Disapproval and 

Promulgation of Air Quality 

Implementation Plans; Interstate 

Transport for Wyoming 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing action on the 

portions of six submissions from the 

State of Wyoming that are intended to 

demonstrate that the State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) meets certain 

interstate transport requirements of the 

Clean Air Act (Act or CAA). These 

submissions address the 2006 and 2012 

fine particulate matter (PM2.5) National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS), 2008 ozone NAAQS, 2008 

lead (Pb) NAAQS, 2010 sulfur dioxide 

(SO2) NAAQS and 2010 nitrogen 

dioxide (NO2) NAAQS. The interstate 

transport requirements under the CAA 

consist of four elements: Significant 

contribution to nonattainment (prong 1) 

and interference with maintenance 

(prong 2) of the NAAQS in other states; 

and interference with measures required 

to be included in the plan for other 

states to prevent significant 

deterioration of air quality (prong 3) or 

to protect visibility (prong 4). 

Specifically, the EPA is proposing to 

approve interstate transport prongs 1 

and 2 for the 2008 Pb and 2010 NO2

NAAQS, and proposing to approve 

prong 1 and disapprove prong 2 for the 

2008 ozone NAAQS. The EPA is also 

proposing to approve interstate 

transport prong 4 for the 2008 Pb and 

2010 SO2 NAAQS, and proposing to 

disapprove prong 4 for the 2006 PM2.5, 

2008 ozone, 2010 NO2 and 2012 PM2.5

NAAQS. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before December 19, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08– 

OAR–2016–0521 at http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from 

www.regulations.gov. The EPA may 

publish any comment received to its 

public docket. Do not submit 

electronically any information you 

consider to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Multimedia submissions (audio, video, 

etc.) must be accompanied by a written 

comment. The written comment is 

considered the official comment and 

should include discussion of all points 

you wish to make. The EPA will 

generally not consider comments or 

comment contents located outside of the 

primary submission (i.e., on the web, 

cloud, or other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, the full 

EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Adam Clark, Air Program, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 8, Mail Code 8P–AR, 1595 

Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 

80202–1129. (303) 312–7104, 

clark.adam@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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 on a disk or 

CD–ROM that you mail to the 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 volume, date, and page 

number); 

• Follow directions and organize your 

comments; 

• 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; and 

• Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

II. Background 

On September 21, 2006, the EPA 

revised the primary 24-hour NAAQS for 

PM2.5 to 35 micrograms per cubic meter 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 223 / Friday, November 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 81713 

1For discussion of other infrastructure elements, 

see EPA’s ‘‘Guidance on Infrastructure State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean 

Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and (2),’’ September 13, 

2013. 2The State also provided census data and 

geographic information to support their assertion 

regarding prongs 1 and 2 in the February 6, 2014 

submittal. 3The Denver area, including 7 full counties and 

2 partial counties, was designated as a marginal 

nonattainment area in a final action dated May 21, 

2012. See 77 FR 30110. 

4See, e.g., Clean Air Interstate Rule, 70 FR 25162, 

25265 (May 12, 2005) (‘‘As to impacts, CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D) refers only to prevention of 

‘nonattainment’ in other States, not to prevention of 

nonattainment in designated nonattainment areas or 

Continued 

(mg/m3). 71 FR 61144 (Oct. 17, 2006). On 

March 12, 2008, the EPA revised the 

levels of the primary and secondary 8- 

hour ozone standards to 0.075 parts per 

million (ppm). 73 FR 16436 (Mar. 27, 

2008). On October 15, 2008, the EPA 

revised the level of the primary and 

secondary Pb NAAQS to 0.15 mg/m3. 73 

FR 66964 (Nov. 12, 2008). On January 

22, 2010, the EPA promulgated a new 1- 

hour primary NAAQS for NO2 at a level 

of 100 parts per billion (ppb) while 

retaining the annual standard of 53 ppb. 

75 FR 6474 (Feb. 9, 2010). The 

secondary NO2 NAAQS remains 

unchanged at 53 ppb. On June 2, 2010, 

the EPA promulgated a revised primary 

1-hour SO2 standard at 75 ppb. 75 FR 

35520 (June 22, 2010). Finally, on 

December 14, 2012, the EPA 

promulgated a revised annual PM2.5

standard by lowering the level to 12.0 

mg/m3 and retaining the 24-hour PM2.5

standard at a level of 35 mg/m3. 78 FR 

3086 (Jan. 15, 2013). 

Pursuant to section 110(a)(1) of the 

CAA, states are required to submit SIPs 

meeting the applicable requirements of 

section 110(a)(2) within three years after 

promulgation of a new or revised 

NAAQS or within such shorter period 

as the EPA may prescribe. Section 

110(a)(2) requires states to address 

structural SIP elements such as 

requirements for monitoring, basic 

program requirements, and legal 

authority that are designed to provide 

for implementation, maintenance and 

enforcement of the NAAQS. The SIP 

submission required by these provisions 

is referred to as the ‘‘infrastructure’’ SIP. 

Section 110(a) imposes the obligation 

upon states to make a SIP submission to 

the EPA for a new or revised NAAQS, 

but the contents of individual state 

submissions may vary depending upon 

the facts and circumstances. 

CAA Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires 

SIPs to include provisions prohibiting 

any source or other type of emissions 

activity in one state from emitting any 

air pollutant in amounts that will 

contribute significantly to 

nonattainment, or interfere with 

maintenance, of the NAAQS in another 

state. The two provisions of this section 

are referred to as prong 1 (significant 

contribution to nonattainment) and 

prong 2 (interfere with maintenance). 

Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires 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 to 

prevent significant deterioration of air 

quality (prong 3) or to protect visibility 

(prong 4). 

The Wyoming Department of 

Environmental Quality (Department or 

WDEQ) submitted the following: A 

certification of Wyoming’s 

infrastructure SIP for the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS on August 19, 2011; a 

certification of Wyoming’s 

infrastructure SIP for the 2008 Pb SIP on 

October 12, 2011; a certification of 

Wyoming’s infrastructure SIP for the 

2008 ozone NAAQS on February 6, 

2014; a certification of Wyoming’s 

infrastructure SIP for the 2010 NO2

NAAQS on January 24, 2014; a 

certification of Wyoming’s 

infrastructure SIP for the 2010 SO2

NAAQS on March 6, 2015; and a 

certification of Wyoming’s 

infrastructure SIP for the 2012 PM2.5 on 

June 24, 2016. 

Each of these infrastructure 

certifications addressed all of the 

infrastructure elements including 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), referred to as 

infrastructure element (D).1 In this 

action, we are only addressing element 

(D) prongs 1, 2 and 4 for the 2008 Pb 

certification, 2008 ozone certification 

and 2010 NO2 certification, and prong 4 

from the 2010 SO2 and 2006 and 2012 

PM2.5 certifications. All other 

infrastructure elements from these 

certifications, including element (D) 

prong 3 (prevent significant 

deterioration of air quality), have been 

or will be addressed in separate actions. 

III. Evaluation of Significant 

Contribution to Nonattainment and 

Interference With Maintenance of the 

NAAQS 

2008 Ozone NAAQS 

In its February 6, 2014 infrastructure 

submittal for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, 

WDEQ addressed 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

prongs 1 and 2 by presenting ambient 

monitoring and wind rose data, among 

other information,2 to determine that 

emissions from Wyoming do not 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS 

in any other state. WDEQ focused its 

analysis on nearby designated 

nonattainment areas, and in particular, 

on a nonattainment area in and around 

Denver, Colorado.3 Specifically, WDEQ 

pointed to the attaining ozone data at a 

Cheyenne, Wyoming monitor, which is 

the monitor in Wyoming that is 

geographically located closest to the 

Denver, Colorado 2008 ozone 

nonattainment area. WDEQ also 

provided wind rose data in Cheyenne, 

Wyoming, which showed that 

prevailing winds in Cheyenne came 

from the west and northwest, which 

WDEQ asserts indicates the transport of 

air pollutants is away from the Denver 

nonattainment area, which is located 30 

miles south of the southeastern 

Wyoming border. WDEQ concludes that 

the combination of low ozone monitor 

values in Cheyenne, Wyoming, and 

prevailing winds provided evidence that 

emissions from Wyoming do not 

significantly influence air quality in the 

Denver ozone nonattainment area. 

WDEQ also noted that downwind states 

Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota and 

South Dakota did not contain 

nonattainment areas to which Wyoming 

could significantly contribute. 

Accordingly, WDEQ concludes that 

emissions from Wyoming do not 

contribute to nonattainment or interfere 

with maintenance for the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS in any other state. 

WDEQ’s approach to evaluating its 

compliance with the CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) as to the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS is incomplete for two reasons. 

First, transported emissions may cause 

an area to measure exceedances of the 

standard even if that area is not formally 

designated nonattainment by the EPA. 

While WDEQ considered its potential 

impact to the Denver nonattainment 

area based on general wind patterns, the 

State did not provide analysis showing 

that it did not contribute to ozone levels 

in the Denver nonattainment area on the 

particular days with measured 

exceedances. Moreover, while the State 

considered whether there were 

designated nonattainment areas in four 

of several nearby states, WDEQ did not 

evaluate whether it contributed to ozone 

levels elsewhere in Colorado or in other 

nearby states (e.g., in Utah) on the days 

with measured exceedances, whether or 

not those exceedances occurred in 

designated nonattainment areas. The 

EPA has routinely interpreted the 

obligation to prohibit emissions that 

‘‘significantly contribute to 

nonattainment’’ of the NAAQS in 

downwind states to be independent of 

formal designations because 

exceedances can happen in any area.4

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS

81714 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 223 / Friday, November 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

any similar formulation requiring that designations 

for downwind nonattainment areas must first have 

occurred.’’); Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, 76 FR 

48208, 48211 (Aug. 8, 2011) (evaluating 

nonattainment and maintenance concerns based on 

modeled projections); Brief for Respondents U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency at 23–24, EME 

Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, Case No. 11– 

1302 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 16, 2015), ECF No. 1532516 

(defending the EPA’s identification of air quality 

problems in CSAPR independent of area 

designations). Cf. Final Response to Petition from 

New Jersey Regarding SO2 Emissions From the 

Portland Generating Station, 76 FR 69052 (Nov. 7, 

2011) (finding facility in violation of the 

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

respect to the 2010 SO2 NAAQS prior to issuance 

of designations for that standard). 

5 531 F.3d 896, 910–11 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (holding 

that the EPA must give ‘‘independent significance’’ 

to each prong of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)). 

6 81 FR 74504 (Oct. 26, 2016). 

7For purposes of the CSAPR Update, ‘‘eastern’’ 

states refer to all contiguous states east of the Rocky 

Mountains, specifically not including: Montana, 

Wyoming, Colorado and New Mexico. 

Thus, WDEQ did not fully evaluate 

whether emissions from the State 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment in other states as 

required by prong 1 of element (D). 

Second, WDEQ’s submission does not 

provide any technical analysis 

demonstrating that the SIP contains 

adequate provisions prohibiting 

emissions that will interfere with 

maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS 

in any other state (prong 2). In 

remanding the Clean Air Interstate Rule 

(CAIR) to the EPA in North Carolina v. 

EPA, the D.C. Circuit explained that the 

regulating authority must give the 

‘‘interfere with maintenance’’ clause of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) ‘‘independent 

significance’’ by evaluating the impact 

of upwind state emissions on 

downwind areas that, while currently in 

attainment, are at risk of future 

nonattainment, considering historic 

variability.5 Wyoming does not give the 

‘‘interfere with maintenance’’ clause of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) independent 

significance because its analysis did not 

evaluate the potential impact of 

Wyoming emissions on areas that are 

currently measuring clean data, but that 

may have issues maintaining that air 

quality. 

The EPA developed technical 

information and a related analysis to 

assist states with meeting section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for the 

2008 ozone NAAQS, and used this 

technical analysis to support the 

recently finalized Cross-State Air 

Pollution Rule Update for the 2008 

Ozone NAAQS (‘‘CSAPR Update’’).6 As 

explained below, this analysis supports 

the conclusions of WDEQ’s analysis for 

prong 1 and contradicts the conclusions 

of WDEQ’s analysis regarding prong 2. 

In the technical analysis supporting 

the CSAPR Update, the EPA used 

detailed air quality analyses to 

determine where projected 

nonattainment or maintenance areas 

would be and whether emissions from 

an eastern state contribute to downwind 

air quality problems at those projected 

nonattainment or maintenance 

receptors.7 Specifically, the EPA 

determined whether a state’s 

contributing emissions were at or above 

a specific threshold (i.e., one percent of 

the ozone NAAQS). If a state’s 

contribution did not exceed the one 

percent threshold, the state was not 

considered ‘‘linked’’ to identified 

downwind nonattainment and 

maintenance receptors and was 

therefore not considered to significantly 

contribute to nonattainment or interfere 

with maintenance of the standard in 

those downwind areas. If a state’s 

contribution was equal to or exceeded 

the one percent threshold, that state was 

considered ‘‘linked’’ to the downwind 

nonattainment or maintenance 

receptor(s) and the state’s emissions 

were further evaluated, taking into 

account both air quality and cost 

considerations, to determine what, if 

any, emissions reductions might be 

necessary to address the state’s 

obligation pursuant to CAA section 

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

As discussed in the CSAPR Update, 

the air quality modeling contained in 

the EPA’s technical analysis (1) 

identified locations in the U.S. where 

the EPA anticipates nonattainment or 

maintenance issues in 2017 for the 2008 

ozone NAAQS (these are identified as 

nonattainment and maintenance 

receptors), and (2) quantified the 

projected contributions from emissions 

from upwind states to downwind ozone 

concentrations at the receptors in 2017. 

See CSAPR Update at 81 FR 74526. This 

modeling used the Comprehensive Air 

Quality Model with Extensions (CAMx 

version 6.11) to model the 2011 base 

year, and the 2017 future base case 

emissions scenarios to identify 

projected nonattainment and 

maintenance sites with respect to the 

2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in 2017. The 

EPA used nationwide state-level ozone 

source apportionment modeling (the 

CAMx Ozone Source Apportionment 

Technology/Anthropogenic Precursor 

Culpability Analysis technique) to 

quantify the contribution of 2017 base 

case nitrogen oxides (NOX) and volatile 

organic compounds (VOC) emissions 

from all sources in each state to the 

2017 projected receptors. The air quality 

model runs were performed for a 

modeling domain that covers the 48 

contiguous states in the U.S. and 

adjacent portions of Canada and 

Mexico. Id. at 81 FR 74526 through 

74527. The updated modeling data 

released to support the final CSAPR 

Update are the most up-to-date 

information the EPA has developed to 

inform our analysis of upwind state 

linkages to downwind air quality 

problems for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 

See ‘‘Air Quality Modeling Final Rule 

Technical Support Document for the 

Final CSAPR Update’’ in the docket for 

this action for more details regarding the 

EPA’s modeling analysis. 

Consistent with the framework 

established in the original CSAPR 

rulemaking, the EPA’s technical 

analysis in support of the CSAPR 

Update applied a threshold of one 

percent of the 2008 ozone NAAQS of 75 

ppb (0.75 ppb) to identify linkages 

between upwind states and the 

downwind nonattainment and 

maintenance receptors. See CSAPR 

Update at 81 FR 74518 through 74519. 

The EPA considered eastern states 

whose contributions to a specific 

receptor meet or exceed the threshold 

‘‘linked’’ to that receptor and we 

analyzed these states further to 

determine if emissions reductions might 

be required from each state to address 

the downwind air quality problem. The 

EPA determined that one percent was 

an appropriate threshold to use in that 

analysis because there were important, 

even if relatively small, contributions to 

identified nonattainment and 

maintenance receptors from multiple 

upwind states. In response to 

commenters who advocated a higher or 

lower threshold than one percent, the 

EPA compiled the contribution 

modeling results for the CSAPR Update 

to analyze the impact of different 

possible thresholds for the eastern 

United States. The EPA’s analysis 

showed that the one percent threshold 

captures a high percentage of the total 

pollution transport affecting downwind 

states. The EPA’s analysis further 

showed that the application of a lower 

threshold would result in relatively 

modest increases in the overall 

percentage of ozone transport pollution 

captured, while the use of higher 

thresholds would result in a relatively 

large reduction in the overall percentage 

of ozone pollution transport captured 

relative to the levels captured at one 

percent at the majority of the receptors. 

Id.; See also Air Quality Modeling Final 

Rule Technical Support Document for 

the Final CSAPR Update, Appendix F, 

Analysis of Contribution Thresholds. 

This approach is consistent with the use 

of a one percent threshold to identify 

those states ‘‘linked’’ to air quality 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 223 / Friday, November 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 81715 

8Please see the spreadsheet titled ‘‘Final CSAPR 

Update—Ozone Design Values & Contributions,’’ in 

the docket for this action. 

problems with respect to the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS in the original CSAPR 

rulemaking, wherein the EPA noted that 

there are adverse health impacts 

associated with ambient ozone even at 

low levels. 76 FR 48208, 48236 through 

48237 (August 8, 2011). 

As to western states, the EPA noted in 

the CSAPR Update that there may be 

geographically specific factors to 

consider in evaluating interstate 

transport, and given the near-term 2017 

implementation timeframe, the EPA 

focused the final CSAPR Update on 

eastern states. See CSAPR Update at 81 

FR 74523. Consistent with our 

statements in the CSAPR Update, the 

EPA intends to address western states, 

like Wyoming, on a case-by-case basis. 

The EPA’s air quality modeling as 

updated for the final CSAPR Update 

projects that for the Western U.S. 

(outside of California), there are no 

nonattainment receptors and only three 

maintenance receptors located in the 

Denver, Colorado area. Wyoming 

emissions are projected to contribute 

above one percent of the NAAQS at one 

of these receptors (the ‘‘Douglas County 

maintenance receptor’’; see Table 1, 

below). The modeling also shows that 

multiple upwind states would 

collectively contribute to the projected 

Douglas County maintenance receptor 

in Colorado. The EPA found that the 

contribution to ozone concentrations 

from all states upwind of the Douglas 

County maintenance receptor in 

Colorado is about 9.7 percent.8 Thus, 

the collective contribution of emissions 

from upwind states represents a large 

portion of the ozone concentrations at 

the projected Douglas County 

maintenance receptor in Colorado. 

As noted, the Agency has historically 

found that the one percent threshold is 

appropriate for identifying interstate 

transport linkages for states collectively 

contributing to downwind ozone 

nonattainment or maintenance problems 

because that threshold captures a high 

percentage of the total pollution 

transport affecting downwind receptors. 

The EPA believes contribution from an 

individual state equal to or above one 

percent of the NAAQS could be 

considered significant where the 

collective contribution of emissions 

from one or more upwind states is 

responsible for a considerable portion of 

the downwind air quality problem 

regardless of where the receptor is 

geographically located. In this case, 

three states contributing to the Douglas 

County maintenance receptor, including 

Wyoming, contribute emissions greater 

than or equal to one percent of the 2008 

ozone NAAQS. Given these data, the 

EPA is proposing to find that the one 

percent threshold is also appropriate to 

determine the linkage from Wyoming to 

the Douglas County maintenance 

receptor in Colorado with respect to the 

2008 ozone NAAQS. 

The EPA is not necessarily 

determining that one percent of the 

NAAQS is always an appropriate 

threshold for identifying interstate 

transport linkages for all states in the 

West. For example, the EPA recently 

evaluated the impact of emissions from 

Arizona on two projected nonattainment 

receptors identified in California and 

concluded that even though Arizona’s 

modeled contribution was greater than 

one percent of the 2008 ozone NAAQS, 

Arizona did not significantly contribute 

to nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance at those receptors. See 

Proposed Rule, 81 FR 15202 (March 22, 

2016); Final Rule, 81 FR 31513 (May 19, 

2016). The EPA evaluated the nature of 

the ozone nonattainment problem at the 

California receptors and determined 

that, unlike the receptors identified in 

the East and unlike the Douglas County 

maintenance receptor to which 

Wyoming contributes, only one state— 

Arizona—contributed above the one 

percent threshold to the California 

receptors and that the total contribution 

from all states linked to the receptors 

was negligible. See 81 FR at 15203. 

Considering this information, along 

with emissions inventories and 

emissions projections showing Arizona 

emissions decreasing over time, the EPA 

determined that Arizona had satisfied 

the requirements of section 

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

2008 ozone NAAQS. Id. Accordingly, 

where the facts and circumstances 

support a different conclusion, the EPA 

has not directly applied the one percent 

threshold to identify states which may 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS 

in other states. 

Likewise, the EPA is not determining 

that because Wyoming contributes 

above the one percent threshold, it is 

necessarily making a significant 

contribution that warrants further 

reductions in emissions. As noted 

above, the one percent threshold 

identifies a state as ‘‘linked,’’ prompting 

further inquiry into whether the 

contributions are significant and 

whether there are cost-effective controls 

that can be employed. That inquiry with 

regard to Wyoming’s SIP submittal is 

provided below. 

In summary, Table 1 shows the air 

quality modeling results from the final 

modeling in support of the CSAPR 

Update. The modeling indicates that 

Wyoming contributes emissions above 

the one percent threshold of 0.75 ppb 

with respect to the Douglas County 

maintenance receptor in the Denver, 

Colorado area. 

TABLE 1—MAINTENANCE RECEPTOR

WITH WYOMING CONTRIBUTION

MODELED ABOVE

Monitor 

I.D. State County 

Wyoming 

modeled 

contribution 

(ppb) 

80350004 Colorado ..... Douglas .. 1.18 

Wyoming’s largest contribution to any 

projected downwind maintenance-only 

site is 1.18 ppb, which is approximately 

1.57% of the 2008 ozone NAAQS of 75 

ppb. Thus, the final modeling in 

support of the CSAPR Update indicates 

that the contributions from Wyoming 

are above the one percent threshold of 

0.75 ppb with respect to the Douglas 

County maintenance receptor in the 

Denver, Colorado area, and the State’s 

emissions require further evaluation, 

taking into account both air quality and 

cost considerations, to determine what, 

if any, emissions reductions might be 

necessary to address the State’s 

emission reduction obligation pursuant 

to 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). However, WDEQ in 

its SIP submittal neither identified nor 

included any ozone or ozone precursor 

emission reduction measures that the 

EPA could evaluate to determine 

whether the state has fully addressed 

these transport impacts. Accordingly, 

the EPA cannot conclude that 

Wyoming’s SIP contains sufficient 

provisions to prohibit emissions that 

will interfere with maintenance of the 

2008 ozone NAAQS in the Denver, 

Colorado area. 

WDEQ’s analysis regarding prong 1 is 

also incomplete as previously described, 

but the EPA’s modeling indicates that 

Wyoming does not contribute above the 

one percent threshold to any 

nonattainment receptors. As discussed 

above, while the EPA is not necessarily 

determining that one percent of the 

NAAQS is always an appropriate 

threshold for identifying interstate 

transport linkages for all states in the 

West, this low level of contribution 

suggests that Wyoming does not 

contribute significantly to 

nonattainment of the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS in any other state. Thus, the 

EPA is proposing that the Wyoming SIP 

meets the 110(a)(2)(D)(i) prong 1 

requirement for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS

81716 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 223 / Friday, November 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

9There is not an NO2 design value presented for 

Nebraska, as none is available in EPA’s Air Trends 

or AirData Web sites. 

10The design values for Montana and Utah were 

derived using EPA’s AirData Web site at https://

www3.epa.gov/airdata/ad_rep_mon.html. These are 

not official design values. 

11https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-qualitydesign-values. 

Based on WDEQ’s SIP submittal and 

the EPA’s most recent modeling, the 

EPA proposes to approve prong 1 and 

disapprove the prong 2 portion of the 

February 6, 2014, 2008 ozone NAAQS 

infrastructure submittal. The EPA is 

soliciting public comments on this 

proposed action and will consider 

public comments received during the 

comment period. 

2008 Pb NAAQS 

WDEQ’s analysis of potential 

interstate transport for the 2008 Pb 

NAAQS discussed the lack of sources 

with significant Pb emissions near the 

State’s borders. As noted in our October 

14, 2011 Infrastructure Guidance Memo, 

there is a sharp decrease in Pb 

concentrations, at least in the coarse 

fraction, as the distance from a Pb 

source increases. See ‘‘Guidance on 

Infrastructure SIP Elements Required 

Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 

2008 Lead (Pb) National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS).’’ October 

14, 2011 at 8. For this reason, the EPA 

found that the requirements of 

subsection 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) (prongs 1 

and 2) could be satisfied through a 

state’s assessment as to whether or not 

emissions from Pb sources located in 

close proximity to their state borders 

have emissions that impact the 

neighboring state such that they 

contribute significantly to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance in that state. Id. at 8. In 

that guidance document, the EPA 

further specified that any source 

appeared unlikely to contribute 

significantly to nonattainment unless it 

was located less than two miles from a 

state border and emitted at least 0.5 tons 

per year of Pb. WDEQ’s 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

analysis noted that there are no Pb 

sources within two miles of the State’s 

borders. The EPA concurs with the 

Department’s analysis and conclusion 

that no Wyoming sources have the 

combination of Pb emission levels and 

proximity to nearby nonattainment or 

maintenance areas to contribute 

significantly to nonattainment in or 

interfere with maintenance by other 

states for this NAAQS. Since Wyoming’s 

SIP is therefore adequate to ensure that 

such impacts do not occur, the EPA is 

proposing to approve WDEQ’s submittal 

with regard to the requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) prongs 1 and 2 for 

the 2008 Pb NAAQS. 

2010 NO2 NAAQS 

Wyoming’s 2010 NO2 transport 

analysis for elements 1 and 2 of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) describes how all NO2

monitors within the State and elsewhere 

in the U.S. showed no violations of the 

NO2 NAAQS. WDEQ asserted that 

because the entire country had been 

designated unclassifiable/attainment for 

the 2010 NO2 NAAQS, Wyoming 

sources do not contribute significantly 

to nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the NAAQS in other 

states. The Department’s analysis is 

available in the docket for this action. 

The EPA does not agree with the 

Wyoming’s reliance on area 

designations for purposes of 

determining whether the State has met 

the requirements of section 

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

2010 NO2 NAAQS. As noted above, the 

EPA has routinely interpreted the 

obligation to prohibit emissions that 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the NAAQS in 

downwind states to be independent of 

formal designations because 

exceedances can happen in any area. 

However, for the reasons explained 

below, the EPA concurs with the 

conclusion that emissions from the state 

do not significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 2010 NO2 NAAQS 

in any other state. 

Due to the State’s limited technical 

analysis, the EPA evaluated NO2

monitoring data from Wyoming and 

surrounding states in reaching its 

conclusion. The EPA notes that the 

highest monitored NO2 design values in 

each state bordering or near Wyoming 

are significantly below the NAAQS (see 

Table 2).9 The EPA has determined that 

this information supports the State’s 

contention that it does not significantly 

contribute to nonattainment or interfere 

with maintenance of the NO2 NAAQS. 

As shown in Table 2, the maximum 

design values in states bordering 

Wyoming are well below the 2010 NO2

NAAQS. As the states near Wyoming 

are not only attaining, but also 

maintaining the NAAQS, there are no 

areas to which Wyoming could 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 2010 NO2 NAAQS. 

TABLE 2—HIGHEST MONITORED 2010 

NO2 NAAQS DESIGN VALUES

State 

2013–2015 

design value 

(ppb) 

% of 

NAAQS 

(100 ppb) 

Colorado .................. 72 72 

TABLE 2—HIGHEST MONITORED 2010 

NO2 NAAQS DESIGN VALUES— 

Continued 

State 

2013–2015 

design value 

(ppb) 

% of 

NAAQS 

(100 ppb) 

Idaho ....................... 43 43 

Montana .................. 10 29 29 

South Dakota .......... 37 37 

Utah ......................... 65 65 

*Source: https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-qualitydesign-values. 

In addition to the monitored levels of 

NO2 in states near Wyoming being well 

below the NAAQS, Wyoming’s highest 

official design value from 2013–2015 

was also significantly below this 

NAAQS¥49 ppb, compared to the 

NAAQS level of 100 ppb.11

Based on all of these factors, EPA 

concurs with the State’s conclusion that 

Wyoming does not contribute 

significantly to nonattainment or 

interfere with maintenance of the 2010 

NO2 NAAQS in other states. The EPA is 

therefore proposing to determine that 

Wyoming’s SIP includes adequate 

provisions to prohibit sources or other 

emission activities within the State from 

emitting NO2 in amounts that will 

contribute significantly to 

nonattainment in or interfere with 

maintenance by any other state with 

respect to the NO2 NAAQS. 

IV. Evaluation of Interference With 

Measures To Protect Visibility 

State Submissions 

In Wyoming’s 2008 ozone, 2010 SO2, 

2010 NO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS 

infrastructure certifications, the 

Department pointed to both its Regional 

Haze SIP and Wyoming Air Quality 

Standards and Regulations (WAQSR) 

Chapter 9, Section 2, ‘‘Visibility,’’ to 

certify that the State meets the visibility 

requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (prong 4). As 

explained below, this information is 

relevant in determining whether 

Wyoming’s SIP will achieve the 

emission reductions that the Western 

Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) states 

mutually agreed are necessary to avoid 

interstate visibility impacts in Class I 

areas. See ‘‘Guidance on Infrastructure 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 

110(a)(1) and (2),’’ September 13, 2013, 

(‘‘2013 Guidance’’) at 34. 

WDEQ addressed visibility for the 

2008 Pb NAAQS by pointing to the lack 

of significant sources of Pb in Wyoming 

near the State’s border. Id. at 33. The 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 223 / Friday, November 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 81717 

12Wyoming’s ‘‘Western Backstop Sulfur Dioxide 

Trading Program’’ can be found in Wyoming Air 

Quality Standards and Regulations (WAQSR) 

Chapter 14, Section 2. 

13See id. at 34, and also 76 FR 22036 (April 20, 

2011) containing EPA’s approval of the visibility 

requirement of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) based on a 

demonstration by Colorado that did not rely on the 

Colorado Regional Haze SIP. 

14Specifically, the State is required to reach its 

‘‘emissions milestone’’ for this program by keeping 

its SO2 emissions below 141,849 tons/SO2 in 2018 

and each year thereafter. 

15The Visibility section of WAQSR Chapter 9, 

Section 2 does not address NOx emissions 

reductions. 

State did not point to any visibilityrelated state regulations in its 2006 

PM2.5, certification, but generally 

indicated that they met this 

requirement. 

Wyoming’s Regional Haze SIP 

As stated in the EPA’s 2013 Guidance, 

‘‘[o]ne way in which prong 4 may be 

satisfied for any relevant NAAQS is 

through an air agency’s confirmation in 

its infrastructure SIP submission that it 

has an approved regional haze SIP that 

fully meets the requirements of 40 CFR 

51.308 or 51.309. 40 CFR 51.308 and 

51.309 specifically require that a state 

participating in a regional planning 

process include all measures needed to 

achieve its apportionment of emission 

reduction obligations agreed upon 

through that process.’’ Id. at 33. 

On January 12, 2011 and April 19, 

2012, Wyoming submitted to the EPA 

SIP revisions to address the 

requirements of the regional haze 

program. The EPA approved Wyoming’s 

April 19, 2012 submittal and partially 

approved Wyoming’s January 12, 2011 

submittal in a final action published 

December 12, 2012. 77 FR 73926. This 

included EPA approval of Wyoming’s 

BART alternative for SO2, which relied 

on the State’s participation in the 

backstop SO2 trading program under 40 

CFR 51.309.12 In a separate action, the 

EPA partially approved and partially 

disapproved the remainder of 

Wyoming’s January 12, 2011 SIP 

revision. 79 FR 5032 (Jan. 30, 2014). In 

that action, the EPA disapproved the 

following portions of the submittal: 

Wyoming’s NOX Best Available Retrofit 

Technology (BART) determinations for 

five units at three facilities; the State’s 

reasonable progress goals; monitoring, 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements; portions of the long term 

strategy, and; the provisions necessary 

to review reasonably attributable 

visibility improvement. Id. at 5038. The 

EPA also promulgated a final federal 

implementation plan (FIP) to address 

these deficiencies. Id. 

EPA’s Assessment 

The 2013 Guidance states that section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)’s prong 4 requirements 

can be satisfied by approved SIP 

provisions that the EPA has found to 

adequately address a state’s contribution 

to visibility impairment in other states. 

The EPA interprets prong 4 to be 

pollutant-specific, such that the 

infrastructure SIP submission need only 

address the potential for interference 

with protection of visibility caused by 

the pollutant (including precursors) to 

which the new or revised NAAQS 

applies. See 2013 Guidance at 33. 

The 2013 Guidance lays out two ways 

in which a state’s infrastructure SIP 

submittal may satisfy prong 4. As 

explained above, one way is through a 

state’s confirmation in its infrastructure 

SIP submittal that it has an EPA 

approved regional haze SIP in place. 

Alternatively, in the absence of a fully 

approved regional haze SIP, a state can 

make a demonstration in its 

infrastructure SIP submittal that 

emissions within its jurisdiction do not 

interfere with other states’ plans to 

protect visibility. Such a submittal 

should point to measures in the state’s 

SIP that limit visibility-impairing 

pollutants and ensure that the resulting 

reductions conform to any mutually 

agreed emission reductions under the 

relevant regional haze regional planning 

organization (RPO) process.13

WDEQ worked through its RPO, the 

WRAP, to develop strategies to address 

regional haze. To help states in 

establishing reasonable progress goals 

for improving visibility in Class I areas, 

the WRAP modeled future visibility 

conditions based on the mutually agreed 

emissions reductions from each state. 

The WRAP states then relied on this 

modeling in setting their respective 

reasonable progress goals. As a result, 

we consider emissions reductions from 

measures in Wyoming’s SIP that 

conform with the level of emission 

reductions the State agreed to include in 

the WRAP modeling to meet the 

visibility requirement of CAA section 

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

With regard to the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, 

the EPA proposes to find that the State’s 

implementation of the Western 

Backstop Sulfur Dioxide Trading 

Program and the agreed upon SO2

reductions achieved through that 

program sufficient to meet the 

requirements of prong 4.14 Under 40 

CFR 51.309, certain states, including 

Wyoming, can satisfy their SO2 BART 

requirements by adopting an alternative 

program consisting of SO2 emission 

milestones and a backstop trading 

program. See 40 CFR 51.309. Wyoming 

Air Quality Standards and Regulations 

(WAQSR) Chapter 14, section 2 

implements the backstop trading 

program provisions and the EPA has 

approved the State’s rules, including the 

SO2 reduction milestones, as satisfying 

its regional haze SO2 obligations. 77 FR 

73926 (Dec. 12, 2012). Wyoming’s SIP 

thus contains measures requiring 

reductions of SO2 consistent with what 

the State agreed to achieve under the 

WRAP process in order to protect 

visibility. As a result, the EPA is 

proposing to approve 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) 

prong 4 for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. 

The EPA is also proposing to approve 

Wyoming’s prong 4 SIP submittal for the 

2008 Pb NAAQS. The EPA has found 

that significant impacts from Pb 

emissions from stationary sources are 

expected to be limited to short distances 

from the source. The State noted that it 

does not have any major sources of Pb 

located near any bordering state. 

Further, when evaluating the extent to 

which Pb could impact visibility, the 

EPA has found Pb-related visibility 

impacts insignificant (e.g., less than 0.10 

percent). See 2013 Guidance, at 33. The 

EPA proposes to approve prong 4 for the 

2008 Pb NAAQS based on Wyoming’s 

conclusion that it does not have any 

significant sources of lead emissions 

near another state’s border and that it, 

therefore, does not have emissions of Pb 

that would interfere with the 

requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) with respect to 

visibility. 

The EPA is proposing to disapprove 

Wyoming’s prong 4 infrastructure SIP 

submittals for the 2006 PM2.5, 2008 

ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2012 PM2.5

NAAQS. The EPA’s disapproval of 

Wyoming’s NOX BART determination in 

our January 30, 2014 final rulemaking 

included the specific disapproval of the 

NOx control measures the State 

submitted for PacifiCorp Dave Johnston 

Unit 3, PacifiCorp Wyodak Unit 1, and 

Basin Electric Laramie River Units 1, 2 

and 3. See 79 FR 5038. 

As noted, Wyoming referenced both 

its Regional Haze SIP and WAQSR 

Chapter 9, Section 2 as justification for 

the approvability of prong 4 for the 2008 

ozone, 2010 NO2 and 2012 PM2.5

NAAQS. Because the Department did 

not provide an alternative 

demonstration that its SIP contains 

measures to limit NOX emissions in 

accordance with the emission 

reductions it agreed to under the 

WRAP,15 the EPA’s disapproval of 

portions of Wyoming’s NOx BART 

determination means that Wyoming’s 

SIP does not include measures needed 

to ensure that its emissions will not 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS

81718 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 223 / Friday, November 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

interfere with other states’ plans to 

protect visibility from the effects of 

NAAQS pollutants impacted by NOx. 

Specifically, NOx is a precursor of PM2.5

and ozone, and is also a term which 

refers to both NO (nitrogen oxide) and 

NO2. The EPA is therefore proposing to 

disapprove prong 4 of Wyoming’s 

infrastructure certifications with regard 

to the 2006 PM2.5, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2

and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

If the EPA disapproves an 

infrastructure SIP submission for prong 

4, as we are proposing for the 2006 

PM2.5, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2 and 2012 

PM2.5 NAAQS, a FIP obligation will be 

created. However, as noted previously, 

the EPA has promulgated a FIP for 

Wyoming that corrects all regional haze 

SIP deficiencies. 79 FR 5032. Therefore, 

there will be no additional practical 

consequences from the disapproval for 

WDEQ, the sources within its 

jurisdiction, or the EPA, and the EPA 

will not be required to take further 

action with respect to these prong 4 

disapprovals, if finalized, because the 

FIP already in place would satisfy the 

requirements with respect to prong 4. 

See 2013 Guidance at 34–35. 

Additionally, since the infrastructure 

SIP submission is not required in 

response to a SIP call under CAA 

section 110(k)(5), mandatory sanctions 

under CAA section 179 would not apply 

because the deficiencies are not with 

respect to a submission that is required 

under CAA title I part D. Id. 

V. Proposed Action 

The EPA is proposing to approve CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) prongs 1, 2 and 

4 for the 2008 Pb NAAQS, prong 1 for 

the 2008 ozone NAAQS, and prong 4 for 

the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, as shown in 

Table 3, below. The EPA is also 

proposing to disapprove prong 4 for the 

2006 PM2.5, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2 and 

2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, and prong 2 for the 

2008 ozone NAAQS, as shown in Table 

4. The EPA is soliciting public 

comments on this proposed action and 

will consider public comments received 

during the comment period. 

TABLE 3—LIST OF WYOMING INTERSTATE TRANSPORT PRONGS THAT

THE EPA IS PROPOSING TO APPROVE

Proposed approval 

February 6, 2014 submittal—2008 Ozone NAAQS: 

(D)(i)(I) prong 1. 

October 12, 2011 submittal—2008 Pb NAAQS: 

(D)(i)(I) prongs 1 and 2, (D)(i)(II) prong 4. 

January 24, 2014 submittal—2010 NO2 NAAQS: 

(D)(i)(I) prongs 1 and 2. 

March 6, 2015 submittal—2010 SO2 NAAQS: 

(D)(i)(II) prong 4. 

TABLE 4—LIST OF WYOMING INTERSTATE TRANSPORT PRONGS THAT

THE EPA IS PROPOSING TO DISAPPROVE

Proposed disapproval 

August 19, 2011 submittal—2006 PM2.5 NAAQS: 

(D)(i)(II) prong 4. 

February 6, 2014 submittal—2008 Ozone NAAQS: 

(D)(i)(I) prong 2, (D)(i)(II) prong 4. 

January 24, 2014 submittal—2010 NO2 NAAQS: 

(D)(i)(II) prong 4. 

June 24, 2016 submittal—2012 PM2.5 NAAQS: 

(D)(i)(II) prong 4. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the 

EPA’s role is to approve state actions, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this 

proposed action merely proposes 

approval of some state law as meeting 

federal requirements and proposes 

disapproval of other state law because it 

does not meet federal requirements; this 

proposed action does not propose 

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 Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide the EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, the SIP does not apply on 

any Indian reservation land or in any 

other area where the EPA or an Indian 

tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has 

jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 

country, the proposed rule does not 

have tribal implications and will not 

impose substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, 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: November 9, 2016. 

Shaun L. McGrath, 

Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

[FR Doc. 2016–27672 Filed 11–17–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS