Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 8, 2016 / Proposed Rules 78529 

heading of this document. FDA will also 

place on public display any 

amendments to, or comments on, the 

petitioner’s environmental assessment 

without further announcement in the 

Federal Register. If, based on its review, 

the Agency finds that an environmental 

impact statement is not required and 

this petition results in a regulation, the 

notice of availability of the Agency’s 

finding of no significant impact and the 

evidence supporting that finding will be 

published with the regulation in the 

Federal Register in accordance with 21 

CFR 25.51(b). 

Dated: November 2, 2016. 

Tracey H. Forfa, 

Deputy Director, Center for Veterinary 

Medicine. 

[FR Doc. 2016–26922 Filed 11–7–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4164–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2012–0933; FRL–9954–92– 

Region 8] 

Promulgation of State Implementation 

Plan Revisions; Infrastructure 

Requirements for the 2008 Lead, 2008 

Ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 

PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards; Wyoming 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

elements of State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) revisions from the State of 

Wyoming to demonstrate the State 

meets infrastructure requirements of the 

Clean Air Act (Act or CAA) for the 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) promulgated for ozone on 

March 12, 2008, lead (Pb) on October 

15, 2008, nitrogen dioxide (NO2) on 

January 22, 2010, sulfur dioxide (SO2) 

on June 2, 2010, and fine particulate 

matter (PM2.5) on December 14, 2012. 

The EPA is also proposing to approve 

SIP revisions the State submitted 

regarding state boards. Section 110(a) of 

the CAA requires that each state submit 

a SIP for the implementation, 

maintenance and enforcement of each 

NAAQS promulgated by the EPA. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before December 8, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08– 

OAR–2012–0933 at http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

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: 

Abby Fulton, Air Program, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P–AR, 

1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 

80202–1129, (303) 312–6563, 

fulton.abby@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments for the EPA? 

1. Submitting Confidential Business 

Information (CBI). Do not submit CBI to 

the 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 March 12, 2008, the EPA 

promulgated a new NAAQS for ozone, 

revising the levels of the primary and 

secondary eight-hour ozone standards 

from 0.08 parts per million (ppm) to 

0.075 ppm (73 FR 16436, March 27, 

2008). Subsequently, on October 15, 

2008, the EPA revised the level of the 

primary and secondary Pb NAAQS from 

1.5 micrograms per cubic meter (mg/m3) 

to 0.15 mg/m3 (73 FR 66964, Nov. 12, 

2008). On January 22, 2010, the EPA 

promulgated a new one-hour primary 

NAAQS for NO2 at a level of 100 parts 

per billion (ppb) while retaining the 

annual standard of 53 ppb. The 2010 

NO2 NAAQS is expressed as the threeyear average of the 98th percentile of the 

annual distribution of daily maximum 

one-hour average concentrations. The 

secondary NO2 NAAQS remains 

unchanged at 53 ppb (75 FR 6474, Feb. 

9, 2010). On June 2, 2010, the EPA 

promulgated a revised primary SO2

standard at 75 ppb, based on a threeyear average of the annual 99th 

percentile of one-hour daily maximum 

concentrations (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). 

Under sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the 

CAA, states are required to submit 

infrastructure SIPs to ensure their SIPs 

provide for implementation, 

maintenance and enforcement of the 

NAAQS. These submissions must 

contain any revisions needed for 

meeting the applicable SIP requirements 

of section 110(a)(2), or certifications that 

their existing SIPs for PM2.5, ozone, Pb, 

NO2, and SO2 already meet those 

requirements. The EPA highlighted this 


Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
78530 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 8, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

1For example: Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) provides 

that states must provide assurances that they have 

adequate legal authority under state and local law 

to carry out the SIP; section 110(a)(2)(C) provides 

that states must have a SIP-approved program to 

address certain sources as required by part C of title 

I of the CAA; and section 110(a)(2)(G) provides that 

states must have legal authority to address 

emergencies as well as contingency plans that are 

triggered in the event of such emergencies. 

statutory requirement in an October 2, 

2007, guidance document entitled 

‘‘Guidance on SIP Elements Required 

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

1997 8-hour Ozone and PM2.5 National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards’’ (2007 

Memo). On September 25, 2009, the 

EPA issued an additional guidance 

document pertaining to the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS entitled ‘‘Guidance on SIP 

Elements Required Under Sections 

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

Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)’’ (2009 

Memo), followed by the October 14, 

2011, ‘‘Guidance on Infrastructure SIP 

Elements Required Under Sections 

110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2008 Lead (Pb) 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS)’’ (2011 Memo). Most recently, 

the EPA issued ‘‘Guidance on 

Infrastructure State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act 

Sections 110(a)(1) and (2)’’ on 

September 13, 2013 (2013 Memo). 

III. What is the scope of this 

rulemaking? 

The EPA is acting upon the SIP 

submissions from Wyoming that address 

the infrastructure requirements of CAA 

sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) for the 

2008 ozone, 2008 Pb, 2010 NO2, 2010 

SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. The 

requirement for states to make a SIP 

submission of this type arises out of 

CAA section 110(a)(1). Pursuant to 

section 110(a)(1), states must make SIP 

submissions ‘‘within three years (or 

such shorter period as the Administrator 

may prescribe) after the promulgation of 

a national primary ambient air quality 

standard (or any revision thereof),’’ and 

these SIP submissions are to provide for 

the ‘‘implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement’’ of such NAAQS. The 

statute directly imposes on states the 

duty to make these SIP submissions, 

and the requirement to make the 

submissions is not conditioned upon 

the EPA taking any action other than 

promulgating a new or revised NAAQS. 

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

specific elements that ‘‘[e]ach such 

plan’’ submission must address. 

The EPA has historically referred to 

these SIP submissions made for the 

purpose of satisfying the requirements 

of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) 

as ‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ submissions. 

Although the term ‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ 

does not appear in the CAA, the EPA 

uses the term to distinguish this 

particular type of SIP submission from 

submissions that are intended to satisfy 

other SIP requirements under the CAA, 

such as ‘‘nonattainment SIP’’ or 

‘‘attainment plan SIP’’ submissions to 

address the nonattainment planning 

requirements of part D of title I of the 

CAA; ‘‘regional haze SIP’’ submissions 

required by the EPA rule to address the 

visibility protection requirements of 

CAA section 169A; and nonattainment 

new source review (NSR) permit 

program submissions to address the 

permit requirements of CAA, title I, part 

D. 

Section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing 

and general requirements for 

infrastructure SIP submissions, and 

section 110(a)(2) provides more details 

concerning the required contents of 

these submissions. The list of required 

elements provided in section 110(a)(2) 

contains a wide variety of disparate 

provisions, some of which pertain to 

required legal authority, some of which 

pertain to required substantive program 

provisions, and some of which pertain 

to requirements for both authority and 

substantive program provisions.1 The 

EPA therefore believes that while the 

timing requirement in section 110(a)(1) 

is unambiguous, some of the other 

statutory provisions are ambiguous. In 

particular, the EPA believes that the list 

of required elements for infrastructure 

SIP submissions provided in section 

110(a)(2) contains ambiguities 

concerning what is required for 

inclusion in an infrastructure SIP 

submission. 

Examples of some of these 

ambiguities and the context in which 

the EPA interprets the ambiguous 

portions of section 110(a)(1) and 

110(a)(2) are discussed at length in our 

notice of proposed rulemaking: 

Promulgation of State Implementation 

Plan Revisions; Infrastructure 

Requirements for the 1997 and 2006 

PM2.5, 2008 Lead, 2008 Ozone, and 2010 

NO2 National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards; South Dakota (79 FR 71040, 

Dec. 1, 2014) under ‘‘III. What is the 

Scope of this Rulemaking?’’ 

With respect to certain other issues, 

the EPA does not believe that an action 

on a state’s infrastructure SIP 

submission is necessarily the 

appropriate type of action in which to 

address possible deficiencies in a state’s 

existing SIP. These issues include: (i) 

Existing provisions related to excess 

emissions from sources during periods 

of startup, shutdown, or malfunction 

(SSM) that may be contrary to the CAA 

and the EPA’s policies addressing such 

excess emissions; (ii) existing provisions 

related to ‘‘director’s variance’’ or 

‘‘director’s discretion’’ that may be 

contrary to the CAA because they 

purport to allow revisions to SIPapproved emissions limits while 

limiting public process or not requiring 

further approval by the EPA; and (iii) 

existing provisions for Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) 

programs that may be inconsistent with 

current requirements of the EPA’s 

‘‘Final NSR Improvement Rule,’’ 67 FR 

80186, Dec. 31, 2002, as amended by 72 

FR 32526, June 13, 2007 (‘‘NSR 

Reform’’). 

IV. What infrastructure elements are 

required under sections 110(a)(1) and 

(2)? 

CAA section 110(a)(1) provides the 

procedural and timing requirements for 

SIP submissions after a new or revised 

NAAQS is promulgated. Section 

110(a)(2) lists specific elements the SIP 

must contain or satisfy. These 

infrastructure elements include 

requirements such as modeling, 

monitoring and emissions inventories, 

which are designed to assure attainment 

and maintenance of the NAAQS. The 

elements that are the subject of this 

action are listed below. 

• 110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and 

other control measures. 

• 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality 

monitoring/data system. 

• 110(a)(2)(C): Program for 

enforcement of control measures. 

• 110(a)(2)(D): Interstate transport. 

• 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate resources 

and authority, conflict of interest, and 

oversight of local governments and 

regional agencies. 

• 110(a)(2)(F): Stationary source 

monitoring and reporting. 

• 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency powers. 

• 110(a)(2)(H): Future SIP revisions. 

• 110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with 

government officials; public 

notification; and PSD and visibility 

protection. 

• 110(a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling/ 

data. 

• 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees. 

• 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/ 

participation by affected local entities. 

A detailed discussion of each of these 

elements is contained in the next 

section. 

Two elements identified in section 

110(a)(2) are not governed by the threeyear submission deadline of section 

110(a)(1) and are therefore not 

addressed in this action. These elements 

relate to part D of Title I of the CAA, and 

submissions to satisfy them are not due 

within three years after promulgation of 

a new or revised NAAQS, but rather are 


Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 8, 2016 / Proposed Rules 78531 

2Steven Herman, Assistant Administrator for 

Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, and 

Robert Perciasepe, Assistant Administrator for Air 

and Radiation, Memorandum to the EPA Air 

Division Directors, ‘‘State Implementation Plans 

(SIPs): Policy Regarding Emissions During 

Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown.’’ (September 

20, 1999). 

due at the same time nonattainment area 

plan requirements are due under section 

172. The two elements are: (1) Section 

110(a)(2)(C) to the extent it refers to 

permit programs (known as 

‘‘nonattainment NSR’’) required under 

part D, and (2) section 110(a)(2)(I), 

pertaining to the nonattainment 

planning requirements of part D. As a 

result, this action does not address 

infrastructure elements related to the 

nonattainment NSR portion of section 

110(a)(2)(C) or related to 110(a)(2)(I). 

Furthermore, the EPA interprets the 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) provision on 

visibility as not being triggered by a new 

NAAQS because the visibility 

requirements in part C, title 1 of the 

CAA are not changed by a new NAAQS. 

V. How did Wyoming address the 

infrastructure elements of sections 

110(a)(1) and (2)? 

The Wyoming Department of 

Environmental Quality (Department or 

WDEQ) submitted certification of 

Wyoming’s infrastructure SIP for the 

2008 Pb NAAQS on October 12, 2011; 

2008 ozone NAAQS on February 6, 

2014; 2010 NO2 NAAQS on January 24, 

2014; 2010 SO2 NAAQS on March 6, 

2015; and 2012 PM2.5 on June 24, 2016. 

Infrastructure SIPs were taken out for 

public notice and Wyoming provided an 

opportunity for public hearing, as 

indicated in the cover letter of each 

certification (available within this 

docket). Wyoming’s infrastructure 

certifications demonstrate how the 

State, where applicable, has plans in 

place that meet the requirements of 

section 110 for the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 

2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5

NAAQS. These plans reference the 

Wyoming Air Quality Standards and 

Regulations (WAQSR) and Wyoming 

Statutes. These submittals are available 

within the electronic docket for today’s 

proposed action at www.regulations.gov. 

The WAQSR and Wyoming Statutes 

referenced in the submittals are publicly 

available at http://soswy.state.wy.us/ 

Rules/default.aspx and http://

legisweb.state.wy.us/LSOWEB/ 

wyStatutes.aspx. Air pollution control 

regulations and statutes that have been 

previously approved by the EPA and 

incorporated into the Wyoming SIP can 

be found at 40 CFR 52.2620. 

VI. Analysis of the State Submittals 

1. Emission limits and other control 

measures: Section 110(a)(2)(A) requires 

SIPs to include enforceable emission 

limitations and other control measures, 

means, or techniques (including 

economic incentives such as fees, 

marketable permits, and auctions of 

emissions rights), as well as schedules 

and timetables for compliance as may be 

necessary or appropriate to meet the 

applicable requirements of this Act. 

The State’s submissions for the 2008 

Pb, 2008 ozone 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, 

and 2012 p.m.2.5 infrastructure 

requirements cite three non-regulatory 

documents (e.g., Control Strategy, 

Source Surveillance, and Compliance 

Schedule) which were approved by EPA 

on May 31, 1972 (37 FR 10842). The 

State’s submissions also cite regulatory 

documents included in Chapters 1, 3, 4, 

8, 10 and 13 of the WAQSR. The SIP 

approved non-regulatory documents 

cited in combination with multiple SIPapproved state air quality regulations 

within WAQSR and cited in Wyoming’s 

certifications, provide enforceable 

emission limitations and other control 

measures, means of techniques, 

schedules for compliance, and other 

related matters necessary to meet the 

requirements of the CAA section 

110(a)(2)(A) for the 2008 Pb, 2008 

ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2 and 2012 

PM2.5 NAAQS, subject to the following 

clarifications. 

First, this infrastructure element does 

not require the submittal of regulations 

or emission limitations developed 

specifically for attaining the 2008 Pb, 

2008 ozone 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2 and 

2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. Wyoming’s 

certifications (contained within this 

docket) generally list provisions and 

enforceable control measures within its 

SIP which regulate pollutants through 

various programs. This includes its 

stationary source permit program which 

requires sources to demonstrate that 

emissions will not cause or contribute to 

a violation of any NAAQS. This suffices, 

in the case of Wyoming, to meet the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) for 

the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone 2010 NO2, 2010 

SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Second, as previously discussed, the 

EPA is not proposing to approve or 

disapprove any existing state rules with 

regard to director’s discretion or 

variance provisions. A number of states 

have such provisions which are contrary 

to the CAA and existing EPA guidance 

(52 FR 45109, Nov. 24, 1987), and the 

agency plans to take action in the future 

to address such state regulations. In the 

meantime, the EPA encourages any state 

having a director’s discretion or 

variance provision which is contrary to 

the CAA and EPA guidance to take steps 

to correct the deficiency as soon as 

possible. 

Finally, in this action, the EPA is also 

not proposing to approve or disapprove 

any existing state provision with regard 

to excess emissions during SSM of 

operations at a facility. A number of 

states have SSM provisions which are 

contrary to the CAA and existing EPA 

guidance 2 and the agency is addressing 

such state regulations separately (80 FR 

33840, June 12, 2015). 

Therefore, the EPA is proposing to 

approve Wyoming’s infrastructure SIP 

for the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone 2010 NO2, 

2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS with 

respect to the general requirement in 

section 110(a)(2)(A) to include 

enforceable emission limitations and 

other control measures, means, or 

techniques to meet the applicable 

requirements of this element. 

2. Ambient air quality monitoring/ 

data system: Section 110(a)(2)(B) 

requires SIPs to ‘‘provide for 

establishment and operation of 

appropriate devices, methods, systems, 

and procedures necessary’’ to ‘‘(i) 

monitor, compile, and analyze data on 

ambient air quality, and (ii) upon 

request, make such data available to the 

Administrator.’’ 

The State’s submissions cite five nonregulatory documents (e.g., Air Quality 

Surveillance, Air Quality Surveillance 

Network, Implementation Plan for Lead, 

Wyoming Ambient Air Monitoring 

Network Plan, and the EPA Performance 

Partnership Agreement). The State’s 

submissions also cite regulatory 

documents included in Chapters 1 and 

2 of the WAQSR. Provisions contained 

in Chapter 6, Section 2(b)(i) of the 

WAQSR provide the legal authority and 

framework for the Air Quality Division 

(AQD) Administrator to require that 

permit applicants submit adequate 

monitoring data. Additionally, Chapter 

6, Section 2(f)(iv) enables the AQD 

Administrator to impose reasonable 

conditions upon an approval to 

construct, modify, or operate, including 

ambient air quality monitoring. 

Additionally, the State of Wyoming 

submits data to the EPA’s Air Quality 

System database in accordance with 40 

CFR 58.16. Finally, Wyoming’s 2015 

Annual Monitoring Network Plan was 

approved through a letter dated 

September 24, 2015 (available within 

the docket). The State provides the EPA 

with prior notification when changes to 

its monitoring network or plan are being 

considered. 

We find that Wyoming’s SIP and 

practices are adequate for the ambient 

air quality monitoring and data system 

requirements and therefore propose to 

approve the infrastructure SIP for the 


Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
78532 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 8, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

3See 40 CFR 52.2620(e), Rule No. (02) II; 41 FR 

36652 (Aug. 31, 1976) (approving Wyoming’s 

revisions to its SIP). 

4See 77 FR 41066 (July 12, 2012) (rulemaking for 

definition of ‘‘anyway’’ sources). 

2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 

SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS for this 

element. 

3. Program for enforcement of control 

measures: Section 110(a)(2)(C) requires 

SIPs to ‘‘include a program to provide 

for the enforcement of the measures 

described in subparagraph (A), and 

regulation of the modification and 

construction of any stationary source 

within the areas covered by the plan as 

necessary to assure that [NAAQS] are 

achieved, including a permit program as 

required in parts C and D.’’ 

To generally meet the requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(C), the State is 

required to have SIP-approved PSD, 

nonattainment NSR, and minor NSR 

permitting programs that are adequate to 

implement the 2008 Pb, 2010 NO2, 2010 

SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. The EPA 

already proposed approval of section 

110(a)(2)(C) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS 

in a separate rulemaking at 81 FR 53365 

(Aug. 12, 2016). As explained elsewhere 

in this action, the EPA is not evaluating 

nonattainment related provisions, such 

as the nonattainment NSR program 

required by part D of the Act. The EPA 

is evaluating the State’s PSD program as 

required by part C of the Act, and the 

State’s minor NSR program as required 

by section 110(a)(2)(C). 

Enforcement of Control Measures 

Requirement 

Wyoming’s Rule (02) II, Legal 

Authority, which the EPA approved into 

Wyoming’s SIP,3 allows the State to 

enforce applicable laws, regulations, 

and standards; to seek injunctive relief; 

and to provide authority to prevent 

construction, modification, or operation 

of any stationary source at any location 

where emissions from such source will 

prevent the attainment or maintenance 

of a national standard or interfere with 

prevention of significant deterioration 

requirements. 

PSD Requirements 

With respect to Elements (C) and (J), 

the EPA interprets the CAA to require 

each state to make an infrastructure SIP 

submission for a new or revised NAAQS 

demonstrating that the air agency has a 

complete PSD permitting program 

meeting the current requirements for all 

regulated NSR pollutants. The 

requirements of Element D(i)(II) prong 3 

may also be satisfied by demonstrating 

the air agency has a complete PSD 

permitting program that applies to all 

regulated NSR pollutants. Wyoming has 

shown that it currently has a PSD 

program in place that covers all 

regulated NSR pollutants, including 

greenhouse gases (GHGs). 

On July 25, 2011 (76 FR 44265), we 

approved a revision to the Wyoming 

PSD program that addressed the PSD 

requirements of the Phase 2 Ozone 

Implementation Rule promulgated on 

November 29, 2005 (70 FR 71612). As a 

result, the approved Wyoming PSD 

program meets the current requirements 

for ozone. 

With respect to GHGs, on June 23, 

2014, the United States Supreme Court 

addressed the application of PSD 

permitting requirements to GHG 

emissions. Utility Air Regulatory Group 

v. Environmental Protection Agency, 

134 S.Ct. 2427 (2014). The Supreme 

Court held that the EPA may not treat 

GHGs as an air pollutant for purposes of 

determining whether a source is a major 

source required to obtain a PSD permit. 

The Court also held that the EPA could 

continue to require that PSD permits, 

otherwise required based on emissions 

of pollutants other than GHGs, (anyway 

sources) contain limitations on GHG 

emissions based on the application of 

Best Available Control Technology 

(BACT). 

In accordance with the Supreme 

Court decision, on April 10, 2015, the 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit (the D.C. Circuit) in 

Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. 

EPA, 606 F. App’x. 6, at *7–8 (D.C. Cir. 

April 10, 2015), issued an amended 

judgment vacating the regulations that 

implemented Step 2 of the EPA’s PSD 

and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring 

Rule, but not the regulations that 

implement Step 1 of that rule. Step 1 of 

the Tailoring Rule covers sources that 

are required to obtain a PSD permit 

based on emissions of pollutants other 

than GHGs. Step 2 applied to sources 

that emitted only GHGs above the 

thresholds triggering the requirement to 

obtain a PSD permit. The amended 

judgment preserves, without the need 

for additional rulemaking by the EPA, 

the application of the BACT 

requirement to GHG emissions from 

Step 1 or ‘‘anyway sources.’’ 4 With 

respect to Step 2 sources, the D.C. 

Circuit’s amended judgment vacated the 

regulations at issue in the litigation, 

including 40 CFR 51.166(b)(48)(v), ‘‘to 

the extent they require a stationary 

source to obtain a PSD permit if 

greenhouse gases are the only pollutant 

(i) that the source emits or has the 

potential to emit above the applicable 

major source thresholds, or (ii) for 

which there is a significant emission 

increase from a modification.’’ 

The EPA is planning to take 

additional steps to revise the federal 

PSD rules in light of the Supreme Court 

and subsequent D.C. Circuit opinion. 

Some states have begun to revise their 

existing SIP-approved PSD programs in 

light of these court decisions, and some 

states may prefer not to initiate this 

process until they have more 

information about the planned revisions 

to the EPA’s PSD regulations. The EPA 

is not expecting states to have revised 

their PSD programs in anticipation of 

the EPA’s planned actions to revise its 

PSD program rules in response to the 

court decisions. 

At present, the EPA has determined 

that Wyoming’s SIP is sufficient to 

satisfy Elements (C), (D)(i)(II) prong 3 

and (J) with respect to GHGs. This is 

because the PSD permitting program 

previously approved by the EPA into 

the SIP continues to require that PSD 

permits issued to ‘‘anyway sources’’ 

contain limitations on GHG emissions 

based on the application of BACT. The 

EPA most recently approved revisions 

to Wyoming’s PSD program on 

December 6, 2013 (78 FR 73445). The 

approved Wyoming PSD permitting 

program still contains some provisions 

regarding Step 2 sources that are no 

longer necessary in light of the Supreme 

Court decision and D.C. Circuit’s 

amended judgment. Nevertheless, the 

presence of these provisions in the 

previously-approved plan does not 

render the infrastructure SIP submission 

inadequate to satisfy Elements (C), 

(D)(i)(II) prong 3 and (J). The SIP 

contains the PSD requirements for 

applying the BACT requirement to 

greenhouse gas emissions from ‘‘anyway 

sources’’ that are necessary at this time. 

The application of those requirements is 

not impeded by the presence of other 

previously-approved provisions 

regarding the permitting of Step 2 

sources. Accordingly, the Supreme 

Court decision and subsequent D.C. 

Circuit judgment do not prevent the 

EPA’s approval of Wyoming’s 

infrastructure SIP as to the requirements 

of Elements (C), (D)(i)(II) prong 3, and 

(J). 

Finally, we evaluate the PSD program 

with respect to current requirements for 

PM2.5. In particular, on May 16, 2008, 

the EPA promulgated the rule, 

‘‘Implementation of the New Source 

Review Program for Particulate Matter 

Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)’’ (73 

FR 28321) (2008 Implementation Rule). 

On October 20, 2010 the EPA 

promulgated the rule, ‘‘Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) for 

Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 


Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 8, 2016 / Proposed Rules 78533 

5See 2013 Memo at 31. 

Micrometers (PM2.5)—Increments, 

Significant Impact Levels (SILs) and 

Significant Monitoring Concentration 

(SMC)’’ (75 FR 64864). The EPA regards 

adoption of these PM2.5 rules as a 

necessary requirement when assessing a 

PSD program for the purposes of 

Element (C). 

On January 4, 2013, the U.S. Court of 

Appeals, in Natural Resources Defense 

Council v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 

2013), issued a judgment that remanded 

the EPA’s 2007 and 2008 rules 

implementing the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

The court ordered the EPA to 

‘‘repromulgate these rules pursuant to 

Subpart 4 consistent with this opinion.’’ 

Id. at 437. Subpart 4 of part D, Title 1 

of the CAA establishes additional 

provisions for particulate matter 

nonattainment areas. 

The 2008 Implementation Rule 

addressed by Natural Resources Defense 

Council, ‘‘Implementation of New 

Source Review (NSR) Program for 

Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 

Micrometers (PM2.5),’’ (73 FR 28321, 

May 16, 2008), promulgated NSR 

requirements for implementation of 

PM2.5 in nonattainment areas 

(nonattainment NSR) and attainment/ 

unclassifiable areas (PSD). As the 

requirements of Subpart 4 only pertain 

to nonattainment areas, the EPA does 

not consider the portions of the 2008 

Implementation Rule that address 

requirements for PM2.5 attainment and 

unclassifiable areas to be affected by the 

court’s opinion. Moreover, the EPA does 

not anticipate the need to revise any 

PSD requirements promulgated in the 

2008 Implementation Rule in order to 

comply with the court’s decision. 

Accordingly, the EPA’s proposed 

approval of Wyoming’s infrastructure 

SIP as to Elements (C), (D)(i)(II) prong 3, 

and (J) with respect to the PSD 

requirements promulgated by the 2008 

Ozone Implementation rule does not 

conflict with the court’s opinion. 

The court’s decision with respect to 

the nonattainment NSR requirements 

promulgated by the 2008 

Implementation Rule also does not 

affect the EPA’s action on the present 

infrastructure action. The EPA 

interprets the Act to exclude 

nonattainment area requirements, 

including requirements associated with 

a nonattainment NSR program, from 

infrastructure SIP submissions due three 

years after adoption or revision of a 

NAAQS. Instead, these elements are 

typically referred to as nonattainment 

SIP or attainment plan elements, which 

would be due by the dates statutorily 

prescribed under subpart 2 through 5 

under part D, extending as far as 10 

years following designations for some 

elements. 

The second PSD requirement for 

PM2.5 is contained in the EPA’s October 

20, 2010 rule, ‘‘Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) for Particulate 

Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers 

(PM2.5)—Increments, Significant Impact 

Levels (SILs) and Significant Monitoring 

Concentration (SMC)’’ (75 FR 64864). 

The EPA regards adoption of the PM2.5

increments as a necessary requirement 

when assessing a PSD program for the 

purposes of Element (C). On July 25, 

2011 (76 FR 44265), the EPA approved 

SIP revisions that revised Wyoming’s 

PSD program which incorporated the 

2008 Implementation Rule. The EPA 

approved revisions to reflect the 2010 

PM2.5 Increment Rule on December 6, 

2013 (78 FR 73445). Therefore, 

Wyoming’s SIP approved PSD program 

meets current requirements for PM2.5. 

Therefore, the EPA is proposing to 

approve Wyoming’s infrastructure SIP 

for the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2,

2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS with 

respect to the requirement in section 

110(a)(2)(C) to include a PSD permitting 

program in the SIP that covers the 

requirements for all regulated NSR 

pollutants as required by part C of the 

Act. 

Minor NSR 

The State has a SIP-approved minor 

NSR program, adopted under section 

110(a)(2)(C) of the Act. The minor NSR 

program is found in Chapter 6, Section 

2 of the WAQSR. The EPA previously 

approved Wyoming’s minor NSR 

program into the SIP (at that time as 

Chapter 1, Section 21), and has 

subsequently approved revisions to the 

program, and at those times there were 

no objections to the provisions of this 

program. (See, for example, 47 FR 5892, 

February 9, 1982). Since then, the State 

and the EPA have relied on the State’s 

existing minor NSR program to assure 

that new and modified sources not 

captured by the major NSR permitting 

program do not interfere with 

attainment and maintenance of the 

NAAQS. 

The EPA is proposing to approve 

Wyoming’s infrastructure SIP for the 

2008 Pb, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2 and 2012 

PM2.5 NAAQS with respect to the 

general requirement in section 

110(a)(2)(C) to include a program in the 

SIP that regulates the enforcement of 

control measures in the SIP, and the 

modification and construction of any 

stationary source as necessary to assure 

that the NAAQS are achieved. 

4. Interstate transport: The interstate 

transport provisions in CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) require each state to 

submit a SIP that prohibits emissions 

that will have certain adverse air quality 

effects in other states. CAA section 

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

prongs related to the impacts of air 

pollutants transported across state lines. 

The two prongs under 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

require SIPs to contain adequate 

provisions to prohibit any source or 

other type of emissions activity within 

the state from emitting air pollutants 

that will (prong 1) contribute 

significantly to nonattainment in any 

other state with respect to any such 

national primary or secondary NAAQS, 

and (prong 2) interfere with 

maintenance by any other state with 

respect to the same NAAQS. The two 

prongs under 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) require 

SIPs to contain adequate provisions to 

prohibit emissions that will interfere 

with measures required to be included 

in the applicable implementation plan 

for any other state under part C (prong 

3) to prevent significant deterioration of 

air quality or (prong 4) to protect 

visibility. In this action, the EPA is only 

addressing prong 3 of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 2008 Pb, 2010 

SO2, 2010 NO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

All other transport prongs will be 

addressed in separate rulemaking 

actions. 

Evaluation of Interference With 

Measures To Prevent Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) 

With regard to the PSD portion of 

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

requirement may be met by a state’s 

confirmation in an infrastructure SIP 

submission that new major sources and 

major modifications in the state are 

subject to a comprehensive EPAapproved PSD permitting program in 

the SIP that applies to all regulated NSR 

pollutants and that satisfies the 

requirements of the EPA’s PSD 

implementation rules.5 As noted in the 

discussion for infrastructure element (C) 

earlier in this notice, the EPA is 

proposing to approve CAA section 

110(a)(2) element (C) for Wyoming’s 

infrastructure SIP for the 2008 Pb, 2010 

NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS 

with respect to PSD requirements. As 

discussed in detail in that section, 

Wyoming’s SIP meets the current PSDrelated requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(C). For this reason, we are also 

proposing to approve Wyoming’s 

infrastructure SIP as meeting the 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) prong 3 (PSD) 

requirements for the 2008 Pb, 2010 NO2, 

2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

In-state sources not subject to PSD for 

a particular NAAQS because they are in 


Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
78534 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 8, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

6 Id. at 31. 

7See WAQSR Chapter 6, Section 13. 

8See WAQSR Chapter 6, Section 2. 

a nonattainment area for that standard 

may also have the potential to interfere 

with PSD in an attainment or 

unclassifiable area of another state.6

One way a state may satisfy prong 3 

with respect to these sources is by citing 

an air agency’s EPA-approved 

nonattainment NSR provisions 

addressing any pollutants for which the 

state has designated nonattainment 

areas. Wyoming has a SIP-approved 

nonattainment NSR program which 

ensures regulation of major sources and 

major modifications in nonattainment 

areas, and therefore satisfies prong 3 

with regard to this requirement.7

The EPA is proposing to approve the 

infrastructure SIP submission with 

regard to the requirements of prong 3 of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 2008 

Pb, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5

NAAQS. 

5. Interstate and International 

transport provisions: CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires SIPs to include 

provisions ensuring compliance with 

the applicable requirements of CAA 

sections 126 and 115 (relating to 

interstate and international pollution 

abatement, respectively). Specifically, 

section 126(a) of the CAA requires major 

new or modified sources to notify 

affected, nearby states of the source’s 

potential impacts on air pollution. 

Sections 126(b) and (c) pertain to 

petitions affected states may seek from 

the Administrator of the EPA 

(Administrator) regarding sources 

violating the ‘‘interstate transport’’ 

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

Section 115 of the CAA similarly 

pertains to international transport of air 

pollution. 

As required by 40 CFR 

51.166(q)(2)(iv), Wyoming’s SIPapproved PSD program requires major 

new or modified sources to provide 

notice to states whose air quality may be 

impacted by the emissions of sources 

subject to PSD.8 This suffices to meet 

the notice requirement of section 126(a). 

Wyoming has no pending obligations 

under sections 126(c) or 115(b) of the 

CAA; therefore, its SIP currently meets 

the requirements of those sections. In 

summary, the SIP meets the 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(ii), and the EPA is therefore 

proposing approval of this element for 

the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 

2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

6. Adequate resources: Section 

110(a)(2)(E)(i) requires states to provide 

‘‘necessary assurances that the state 

[. . .] will have adequate personnel, 

funding, and authority under State law 

to carry out [the SIP] (and is not 

prohibited by any provision of federal or 

state law from carrying out the SIP or 

portion thereof).’’ Section 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii) also requires each state 

to ‘‘comply with the requirements 

respecting state boards’’ under CAA 

section 128. Section 110(a)(2)(E)(iii) 

requires states to provide ‘‘necessary 

assurances that, where the State has 

relied on a local or regional government, 

agency, or instrumentality for the 

implementation of any [SIP] provision, 

the State has responsibility for ensuring 

adequate implementation of such [SIP] 

provision.’’ 

a. Sub-Elements (i) and (iii): Adequate 

Personnel, Funding, and Legal 

Authority Under State Law To Carry 

Out Its SIP, and Related Issues 

The provisions contained in Articles 

1 and 2 of the Wyoming Environmental 

Quality Act (WEQA) (Chapter 11, Title 

35 of the Wyoming Statutes) give the 

State adequate authority to carry out its 

SIP obligations with respect to the 2008 

Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2

and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

With respect to funding, the State 

receives sections 103 and 105 grant 

funds through its Performance 

Partnership Grant along with required 

state matching funds to provide funding 

necessary to carry out Wyoming’s SIP 

requirements. 

Wyoming’s Performance Partnership 

Agreement (available within the docket) 

with the EPA documents resources 

needed to carry out agreed upon 

environmental program goals, measures, 

and commitments, including developing 

and implementing appropriate SIPs for 

all areas of the State. Annually, states 

update these grant commitments based 

on current SIP requirements, air quality 

planning, and applicable requirements 

related to the NAAQS. Wyoming 

satisfactorily met all commitments 

agreed to in the Air Planning Agreement 

for fiscal year 2015. Furthermore, 

WAQSR Chapter 6, Section 2(a)(v), 

Permit for construction, modification, 

and operation, requires the owner and 

operator of each new major source or 

major modification to pay a fee 

sufficient to cover the cost of reviewing 

and acting on permit applications. 

Collectively, these rules and 

commitments provide evidence that the 

Wyoming DEQ has adequate personnel 

(see non-regulatory document, 

Resources Document, cited in 

Wyoming’s certifications), funding, and 

legal authority to carry out the State’s 

implementation plan and related issues. 

With respect to section 

110(a)(2)(E)(iii), the State does not rely 

upon any other local or regional 

government, agency or instrumentality 

for implementation of the SIP. 

Therefore, we propose to approve 

Wyoming’s SIP as meeting the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) 

and (E)(iii) for the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 

2010 NO2, 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5

NAAQS. 

b. Sub-Element (ii): State Boards 

Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) requires each 

state’s SIP to contain provisions that 

comply with the requirements of section 

128 of the CAA. Section 128 contains 

two explicit requirements: (i) That ‘‘any 

board or body which approves permits 

or enforcement orders under [the CAA] 

shall have at least a majority of members 

who represent the public interest and do 

not derive any significant portion of 

their income from persons subject to 

permits or enforcement orders’’ under 

the CAA; and (ii) that ‘‘any potential 

conflicts of interest by members of such 

board or body or the head of an 

executive agency with similar powers be 

adequately disclosed.’’ 

In our December 6, 2013 (78 FR 

73445) action, we disapproved 

Wyoming’s March 26, 2008 and August 

19, 2011 infrastructure SIP submissions 

for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS for 

CAA Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) because the 

Wyoming SIP did not contain 

provisions meeting requirements of 

CAA section 128(a)(1) or (2). Under 

section 110(c)(1)(B), this disapproval 

started a two-year clock for the EPA to 

promulgate a federal implementation 

plan (FIP) to address the deficiency. 

On May 31, 2016, the EPA received a 

submission from the State of Wyoming 

to address the requirements of section 

128 by adopting revisions to Chapter 1, 

Section 16 of the Wyoming Department 

of Environmental Quality General Rules 

of Practice and Procedure. The 

Wyoming Environmental Quality 

Council approved these revisions on 

March 2, 2016. A copy of the 

submission, which includes as 

revisions, the addition of Section 16, Air 

Quality Division, State Implementation 

Plan, to Chapter 1, is available within 

this docket. These rules address board 

composition and conflict of interest 

requirements of section 128(a)(1) and 

(2). We propose to approve this new 

rule language as meeting the 

requirements of section 128 for the 

reasons explained in more detail below. 

Because this revision meets the 

requirements of section 128, we also 

propose to approve the State’s 

infrastructure SIP submissions for 

element 110(a)(2)(E)(ii). The State 

submitted the provisions to meet section 

128 separately, but section 128 is not 


Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 8, 2016 / Proposed Rules 78535 

9Memorandum from David O. Bickart, Deputy 

General Counsel, to Regional Air Directors, 

Guidance to States for Meeting Conflict of Interest 

Requirements of Section 128 (Mar. 2, 1978). 

10H.R. Rep. 95–564 (1977), reprinted in 3 

Legislative History of the Clean Air Act 

Amendments of 1977, 526–27 (1978). 

NAAQS-specific and once the State has 

met the requirements of section 128, 

that is sufficient for purposes of section 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii) for all NAAQS. If we 

finalize this proposed approval for the 

2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 

SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, this will 

also resolve the prior disapproval for 

element 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) for the 1997 and 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS and terminate the 

EPA’s FIP obligation. 

We are proposing to approve the 

State’s May 31, 2016 SIP submission as 

meeting the requirements of section 128 

because we believe that it complies with 

the statutory requirements and is 

consistent with the EPA’s guidance 

recommendations concerning section 

128. In 1978, the EPA issued a guidance 

memorandum recommending ways 

states could meet the requirements of 

section 128, including suggested 

interpretations of certain key terms in 

section 128.9 In this proposed notice, 

we discuss additional relevant aspects 

of section 128. We first note that, in the 

conference report of the 1977 

amendments to the CAA, the conference 

committee stated, ‘‘[i]t is the 

responsibility of each state to determine 

the specific requirements to meet the 

general requirements of [section 

128].’’ 10 This legislative history 

indicates that Congress intended states 

to have some latitude in adopting SIP 

provisions with respect to section 128, 

so long as states meet the statutory 

requirements of the section. We also 

note that Congress explicitly provided 

in section 128 that states could elect to 

adopt more stringent requirements, as 

long as the minimum requirements of 

section 128 are met. 

In implementing section 128, the EPA 

has identified a number of key 

considerations relevant to evaluation of 

a SIP submission. The EPA has 

identified these considerations in the 

1978 guidance and in subsequent 

rulemaking actions on SIP submissions 

relevant to section 128, whether as SIP 

revisions for this specific purpose or as 

an element of broader actions on 

infrastructure SIP submissions for one 

or more NAAQS. 

Each state must meet the 

requirements of section 128 through 

provisions that the EPA approves into 

the state’s SIP and are thus made 

federally enforceable. Section 128 

explicitly mandates that each SIP ‘‘shall 

contain requirements’’ that satisfy 

subsections 128(a)(1) and 128(a)(2). A 

mere narrative description of state 

statutes or rules, or of a state’s current 

or past practice in constituting a board 

or body and in disclosing potential 

conflicts of interest, is not a requirement 

contained in the SIP and does not 

satisfy the plain text of section 128. 

Subsection 128(a)(1) applies only to 

states that have a board or body that is 

composed of multiple individuals and 

that, among its duties, approves permits 

or enforcement orders under the CAA. 

It does not apply in states that have no 

such multi-member board or body that 

performs these functions, and where 

instead a single head of an agency or 

other similar official approves permits 

or enforcement orders under the CAA. 

This flows from the text of section 128, 

for two reasons. First, as subsection 

128(a)(1) refers to a majority of members 

of the board or body in the plural, we 

think it reasonable to read subsection 

128(a)(1) as not creating any 

requirements for an individual with sole 

authority for approving permits or 

enforcement orders under the CAA. 

Second, subsection 128(a)(2) explicitly 

applies to the head of an executive 

agency with ‘‘similar powers’’ to a board 

or body that approves permits or 

enforcement orders under the CAA, 

while subsection 128(a)(1) omits any 

reference to heads of executive agencies. 

We infer that subsection 128(a)(1) 

should not apply to heads of executive 

agencies who approve permits or 

enforcement orders. States with no 

multi-member board or body that 

performs these functions, and instead 

have a single head of an agency or other 

similar official who approves CAA 

permits or enforcement orders, can 

satisfy the requirements of CAA 

128(a)(1) with a negative declaration to 

that effect. 

Subsection 128(a)(2) applies to all 

states, regardless of whether the state 

has a multi-member board or body that 

approves permits or enforcement orders 

under the CAA. Although the title of 

section 128 is ‘‘State boards,’’ the 

language of subsection 128(a)(2) 

explicitly applies where the head of an 

executive agency, rather than a board or 

body, approves permits or enforcement 

orders. In instances where the head of 

an executive agency delegates his or her 

power to approve permits or 

enforcement orders, or where statutory 

authority to approve permits or 

enforcement orders is nominally vested 

in another state official, the requirement 

to adequately disclose potential 

conflicts of interest still applies. In other 

words, the EPA interprets section 

128(a)(2) to apply to all states, 

regardless of whether a state board or 

body approves permits or enforcement 

orders under the CAA or whether a head 

of a state agency (or his/her delegates) 

performs these duties. Thus, all state 

SIPs must contain provisions that 

require adequate disclosure of potential 

conflicts of interest in order to meet the 

requirements of subsection 128(a)(2). 

The question of which entities or parties 

must be subject to such disclosure 

requirements must be evaluated by 

states and the EPA in light of the 

specific facts and circumstances of each 

state’s regulatory structure. 

A state may satisfy the requirements 

of section 128 by submitting for 

adoption into the SIP a provision of 

state law that closely tracks or mirrors 

the language of the applicable 

provisions of section 128. A state may 

take this approach in two ways. First, 

the state may adopt the language of 

subsections 128(a)(1) and 128(a)(2) 

verbatim. Under this approach, the state 

will be able to meet the continuing 

requirements of section 128 without any 

additional, future SIP revisions, even if 

the state adds or removes authority, 

either at the state or local level, to 

individual or to boards or bodies to 

approve permits or enforcement orders 

under the CAA so long as the state 

continues to meet section 128 

requirements. 

Second, the state may modify the 

language of subsections 128(a)(1) (if 

applicable) and 128(a)(2) to name the 

particular board, body, or individual 

official with approval authority. In this 

case, if the state subsequently modifies 

that authority, the state may have to 

submit a corresponding SIP revision to 

meet the continuing requirements of 

section 128. If the state chooses to not 

mirror the language of section 128, the 

state may adopt state statutes and/or 

regulations that functionally impose the 

same requirements as those of section 

128, including definitions for key terms 

such as those recommended in the 

EPA’s 1978 guidance. While either of 

these approaches would meet the 

minimum requirements of section 128, 

the statute also explicitly authorizes 

states to adopt more stringent 

requirements, for example, to impose 

additional requirements for recusal of 

board members from decisions, above 

and beyond the explicit board 

composition requirements. Although 

such recusal alone does not meet the 

requirements of section 128, states have 

the authority to require such recusal 

over and above the explicit 

requirements of section 128. These 

approaches give states flexibility in 

implementing section 128, while still 

ensuring consistency with the statute. 


Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
78536 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 8, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

11See, e.g., 78 FR 32613 (May 31, 2013), for a 

discussion of the phrase ‘‘board or body which 

approves permits or enforcement orders.’’ 

12A discussion of the requirements for meeting 

CAA section 303 is provided in our notice of 

proposed rulemaking: Promulgation of State 

Implementation Plan Revisions; Infrastructure 

Requirements for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5, 2008 

Lead, 2008 Ozone, and 2010 NO2 National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards; South Dakota (79 FR 71040, 

Dec. 1, 2014) under ‘‘VI. Analysis of State 

Submittals, 8. Emergency powers.’’ 

As previously explained, the EPA 

interprets subsection 128(a)(1) to apply 

only to states that have a board or body 

with multiple members that, among its 

duties, approves permits or enforcement 

orders under the Act. Wyoming’s 

Environmental Quality Act establishes 

the Environmental Quality Council 

(EQC or Council), a separate agency of 

state government. See Wyoming Statutes 

35–11–111(a). The members of the 

Council are appointed by the Governor. 

Among the duties of the Council are 

conducting hearings in any case 

contesting the administration or 

enforcement of any law, rule, regulation, 

standard or order issued or 

administered by DEQ or by any division 

of DEQ. Id. at 35–11–112(a)(iii). In 

particular, a person subject to a DEQ 

order may request a hearing before the 

Council. Id. at 35–11–701(c)(ii)–(iv). 

The Council must also conduct hearings 

in any case contesting the grant, denial, 

suspension, revocation or renewal of 

any permit authorized or required by 

the Environmental Quality Act. Id. at 

35–11–112(a)(iv). Under Article 2, Air 

Quality, and Article 8, Permits, of the 

Environmental Quality Act, any 

applicant for an air permit may petition 

the Council for a hearing to contest 

DEQ’s decision on the permit. See id. at 

35–11–208; 35–11–802. 

Given the duties and authorities of the 

Council, the Council appears to be a 

‘‘board or body which approves permits 

or enforcement orders’’ under the 

CAA.11 As the EPA has explained in 

other rulemaking actions, e.g., 78 FR 

32613 (May 31, 2013), we interpret 

section 128(a)(1) to mean that boards 

that are the potential final 

decisionmaker via permit and 

enforcement order appeals ‘‘approve’’ 

those permits and enforcement orders. 

For example, by being the final 

decisionmaker with respect to questions 

such as whether a source receives a 

permit and the specific contents of such 

a permit, the Council is an entity that 

approves the permit within the meaning 

of 128(a)(1). Thus, the EQC is subject to 

the requirements of 128(a)(1). 

Wyoming’s May 31, 2016 submission 

includes a provision in the Wyoming 

DEQ Chapter 1, General Rules of 

Practice and Procedure Section 16(a)(i), 

Air Quality Division, State 

Implementation Plan, which provides 

that the Council ‘‘shall have at least a 

majority of members who represent the 

public interest and do not derive a 

significant portion of their income from 

persons subject to Air Quality permits 

or enforcement orders, as required by 

the Clean Air Act, Section 128(a)(1).’’ 

We propose to approve this submission 

as satisfying the requirements of 

subsection 128(a)(1). 

The State’s May 31, 2016 submittal 

includes requirements that Council 

members ‘‘disclose any potential 

conflicts of interest in a public meeting 

of the Council as required by the Clean 

Air Act, Section 128(a)(2).’’ Thus, 

Wyoming’s submittal addresses 

disclosure of potential conflicts of 

interest from Council members that 

approve permits and enforcement orders 

under the Act. We therefore propose to 

approve this submission as satisfying 

the requirements of subsection 

128(a)(2). 

In summary, the EPA proposes to 

approve Wyoming’s May 31, 2016 

submittal into the SIP to meet the 

requirements of section 128 of the Act. 

We also propose to approve Wyoming’s 

infrastructure SIP with respect to the 

requirements of Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) 

for 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 

SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

7. Stationary source monitoring 

system: Section 110(a)(2)(F) requires: (i) 

‘‘The installation, maintenance, and 

replacement of equipment, and the 

implementation of other necessary 

steps, by owners or operators of 

stationary sources to monitor emissions 

from such sources; (ii) periodic reports 

on the nature and amounts of emissions 

and emissions-related data from such 

sources; and (iii) correlation of such 

reports by the State agency with any 

emission limitations or standards 

established pursuant to [the Act], which 

reports shall be available at reasonable 

times for public inspection.’’ 

Wyoming’s SIP approved monitoring 

provision cited by Wyoming in its 

certifications (WAQSR Chapter 6, 

Section 2, Permit requirements for 

construction, modification, and 

operation), pertains to its program of 

periodic emissions testing and plant 

inspections of stationary sources, and 

related testing requirements and 

protocols (including periodic reporting) 

to assure compliance with emissions 

limits. Additionally, WAQSR Chapter 7, 

Section 2 (Continuous monitoring 

requirements for existing sources), 

requires certain sources to install and 

maintain continuous emission monitors 

to assure compliance with emission 

limitations. 

Furthermore, Wyoming is required to 

submit emissions data to the EPA for 

purposes of the National Emissions 

Inventory (NEI). The NEI is the EPA’s 

central repository for air emissions data. 

The EPA published the Air Emissions 

Reporting Rule (AERR) on December 5, 

2008, which modified the requirements 

for collecting and reporting air 

emissions data (73 FR 76539). The 

AERR shortened the time states had to 

report emissions data from 17 to 12 

months, giving states one calendar-year 

to submit emissions data. All states are 

required to submit a comprehensive 

emissions inventory every three years 

and report emissions for certain larger 

sources annually through the EPA’s 

online Emissions Inventory System. 

States report emissions data for the six 

criteria pollutants and their associated 

precursors—nitrogen oxides, sulfur 

dioxide, ammonia, lead, carbon 

monoxide, particulate matter and 

volatile organic compounds. Many 

states also voluntarily report emissions 

of hazardous air pollutants. Wyoming 

made its latest update to the NEI in May 

2016. The EPA compiles the emissions 

data, supplementing it where necessary, 

and releases it to the general public 

through the Web site https://

www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories. 

Based on the analysis above, we 

propose to approve the Wyoming SIP as 

meeting the requirements of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(F) for the 2008 Pb, 

2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2 and 

2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

8. Emergency powers: Section 

110(a)(2)(G) of the CAA requires 

infrastructure SIPs to ‘‘provide for 

authority comparable to that in [CAA 

section 303] and adequate contingency 

plans to implement such authority[.]’’ 

Under CAA section 303, the EPA 

Administrator has authority to bring suit 

to immediately restrain an air pollution 

source that presents an ‘‘imminent and 

substantial endangerment to public 

health or welfare, or the 

environment.’’ 12 If such action may not 

practicably assure prompt protection, 

then the Administrator has authority to 

issue temporary administrative orders to 

protect the public health or welfare, or 

the environment, and such orders can 

be extended if the EPA subsequently 

files a civil suit. We propose to find that 

Wyoming’s infrastructure SIP submittals 

provide for authority for the State 

comparable to that granted to the EPA 

Administrator to act in the face of an 

imminent and substantial endangerment 

to the public’s health or welfare, or the 

environment. 


Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 8, 2016 / Proposed Rules 78537 

13The EPA has not yet promulgated regulations 

for ambient levels pertaining to priority levels for 

PM2.5 under the 2012 NAAQS (2013 Memo, p. 47). 

The EPA’s September 25, 2009 Memo (available 

within the docket) suggested that states with areas 

that have had a PM2.5 exceedance greater than 140.4 

mg/m3 should develop and submit an emergency 

episode plan. If no such concentration was recorded 

in the last three years, the guidance suggested that 

the State can rely on its general emergency 

authorities. In this rulemaking, we continue to view 

these suggestions as appropriate in assessing 

Wyoming’s SIP for this element. Wyoming has not 

had such a recorded PM2.5 level and thus an 

emergency episode plan for PM2.5 is not necessary. 

The SIP therefore meets the requirements of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(G) for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

14As stated in Wyoming’s 2012 PM2.5

infrastructure SIP certification, ‘‘WAQSR Chapter 

12, Emergency Controls, establishes a basis for the 

Division to issue air pollution alerts, warnings, or 

emergencies in order to prevent the occurrence of 

an air pollution emergency stemming from the 

effects of air pollutants on the health of persons. 

While guidance for the issuance of alerts, warnings, 

or emergencies is established specifically for PM10

and SO2, the chapter does not limit its purview to 

these two pollutants—and could encompass other 

pollutants such as PM2.5.’’ Furthermore, Wyoming 

is not required to have a specific contingency plan 

for particulate matter, ozone, NO2, or SO2 (see 40 

CFR 52.2621). 

15October 14, 2011, ‘‘Guidance on Infrastructure 

SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) 

and (2) for the 2008 Lead (Pb) National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS).’’ 

Wyoming’s SIP certifications with 

regard to the section 110(a)(2)(G) 

emergency order requirements cite EPA 

approved provisions (WAQSR Chapter 

12, Section 2, Air pollution emergency 

episodes) which establish a basis for the 

Division to issue notices to the public 

relating to levels of air pollution from 

‘‘alerts,’’ ‘‘warnings,’’ and 

‘‘emergencies’’ to prevent ‘‘a substantial 

threat to the health of persons’’ if ‘‘such 

[pollution] levels are sustained or 

exceeded’’ in places that are attaining or 

have attained such pollution levels. 

WAQSR Chapter 12, Section 2(a) allows 

for the broad application of this 

provision to ‘‘air pollutants’’ beyond 

PM10 and SO2. Sections 35–11–115(a) 

and (b) of the WEQA also provides the 

Director power to issue emergency 

orders ‘‘to reduce or discontinue 

immediately the actions causing the 

condition of pollution’’ and institute ‘‘a 

civil action for immediate injunctive 

relief to halt any activity’’ presenting an 

‘‘immediate and substantial danger to 

human or animal health or safety.’’ 

Furthermore, as stated in Wyoming’s 

2012 PM2.5 certification, WEQA Section 

35–11–901(a) authorizes the DEQ to 

seek a penalty or injunction from a court 

of competent jurisdiction for ‘‘[a]ny 

person who violates, or any director, 

officer or agent of a corporate permittee 

who willfully and knowingly 

authorizes, orders or carries out the 

violation of any provision of this act, or 

any rule, regulation, standard or permit 

adopted hereunder or who violates any 

determination or order of the council 

pursuant to this act or any rule, 

regulation, standard permit, license or 

variance. . .’’ 

While no single Wyoming statute 

mirrors the authorities of CAA section 

303, we propose to find that the 

combination of WEQA and WAQSR 

provisions previously discussed provide 

for authority comparable to section 303. 

Section 303 authorizes the 

Administrator to immediately bring suit 

to restrain and issue emergency orders 

when necessary, and to take prompt 

administrative action against any person 

causing or contributing to air pollution 

that presents an imminent and 

substantial endangerment to public 

health or welfare, or the environment. 

Therefore, we propose that Wyoming’s 

SIP submittals sufficiently meet the 

requirements of CAA 110(a)(2)(G) 

because they demonstrate that Wyoming 

has authority comparable to CAA 

section 303. 

States must also have adequate 

contingency plans adopted into their 

SIP to implement the air agency’s 

emergency episode authority (as 

previously discussed). This can be done 

by submitting a plan that meets the 

applicable requirements of 40 CFR part 

51, subpart H for the relevant NAAQS 

if the NAAQS is covered by those 

regulations. The EPA approved 

Wyoming’s Emergency Episode Plan on 

February 9, 1982 at 47 FR 5892. We find 

that Wyoming’s Emergency Episode 

Plan and air pollution emergency rules 

(WAQSR Chapter 12, Section 2, Air 

pollution emergency episodes) include 

PM10 13 and SO2 14; establish stages of 

episode criteria; provide for public 

announcement whenever any episode 

stage has been determined to exist; and 

specify emission control actions to be 

taken at each episode stage, consistent 

with the EPA emergency episode SIP 

requirements set forth at 40 CFR part 51 

subpart H (prevention of air pollution 

emergency episode) for particulate 

matter, ozone, NO2, and SO2. 

As noted in the 2011 Memo ‘‘based on 

[the] EPA’s experience to date with the 

Pb NAAQS and designating Pb 

nonattainment areas, [the] EPA expects 

that an emergency episode associated 

with Pb emissions would be unlikely 

and, if it were to occur, would be the 

result of a malfunction or other 

emergency situation at a relatively large 

source of Pb’’ (page 14).15 Accordingly, 

the EPA believes the central 

components of a contingency plan 

would be to reduce emissions from the 

source at issue and communicate with 

the public as needed. We note that 40 

CFR part 51, subpart H (51.150–51.152) 

and 40 CFR part 51, appendix L do not 

apply to Pb. 

Based on the above analysis, we 

propose approval of Wyoming’s SIP as 

meeting the requirements of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(G) for the 2008 Pb, 

2008 ozone, and 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2

and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

9. Future SIP revisions: Section 

110(a)(2)(H) requires that SIPs provide 

for revision of such plan: (i) ‘‘[f]rom 

time to time as may be necessary to take 

account of revisions of such national 

primary or secondary ambient air 

quality standard or the availability of 

improved or more expeditious methods 

of attaining such standard[;] and (ii) 

except as provided in paragraph (3)(C), 

whenever the Administrator finds on 

the basis of information available to the 

Administrator that the [SIP] is 

substantially inadequate to attain the 

[NAAQS] which it implements or to 

otherwise comply with any additional 

requirements under this [Act].’’ 

The general provisions in Article 1 of 

the WEQA (Article 1, Chapter 11, Title 

35 of the Wyoming Statutes) and the 

particular provision in Article 2, section 

35–11–202 of the Wyoming Statutes, 

gives the Director sufficient authority to 

meet the requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(H). Therefore, we propose to 

approve Wyoming’s SIP as meeting the 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(H). 

10. Consultation with government 

officials, public notification, PSD and 

visibility protection: Section 110(a)(2)(J) 

requires that each SIP ‘‘meet the 

applicable requirements of section 121 

of this title (relating to consultation), 

section 127 of this title (relating to 

public notification), and part C of this 

subchapter (relating to PSD of air 

quality and visibility protection).’’ 

In its certifications, the State cites one 

non-regulatory document relative to 

consultation with government officials 

(e.g., Consultation, approved by EPA 

July 2, 1979 (44 FR 38473)) to meet the 

requirements of CAA section 121. The 

State has demonstrated that it has the 

authority and rules in place to provide 

a process of consultation with general 

purpose local governments, designated 

organizations of elected officials of local 

governments and any Federal Land 

Manager having authority over federal 

land to which the SIP applies, 

consistent with the requirements of 

CAA section 121 (see Wyoming’s nonregulatory document, Intergovernmental 

Cooperation). Furthermore, the nonregulatory document, Public 

Notification of Air Quality, approved by 

EPA July 2, 1979 (44 FR 38473), cited 

by Wyoming, meets the general 

requirements of CAA section 127 to 


Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
78538 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 8, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

16See Email from Michael Morris ‘‘Question 

Regarding iSIP Element K- Submission of Air 

Quality Modeling Data’’ September 15, 2016, 

available within docket. 

notify the public when the NAAQS have 

been exceeded. 

Wyoming’s SIP regulations for its PSD 

program were first federally-approved 

and made part of the SIP on September 

6, 1979 (44 FR 51977). The EPA has 

further evaluated the State’s SIPapproved PSD program in section VI.3 

which discusses element 110(a)(2)(C) of 

this proposed action. As explained in 

that section, we propose to approve 

Wyoming’s infrastructure SIPs for the 

2008 Pb, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2 and 2012 

PM2.5 NAAQS with respect to the 

requirement in element (C) to have a 

permit program as required by Part C of 

the Act. We similarly propose to 

approve the infrastructure SIPs for the 

2008 Pb, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2 and 2012 

PM2.5 NAAQS with respect to the 

requirement in element (J) that the SIP 

meet the applicable requirements of Part 

C with respect to PSD. 

Finally, with regard to the applicable 

requirements for visibility protection, 

the EPA recognizes states are subject to 

visibility and regional haze program 

requirements under part C of the Act. In 

the event of the establishment of a new 

NAAQS, however, the visibility and 

regional haze program requirements 

under part C do not change. Thus, we 

find that there are no applicable 

visibility requirements under section 

110(a)(2)(J) when a new NAAQS 

becomes effective. 

Based on the above analysis, we 

propose to approve the Wyoming SIP as 

meeting the requirements of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(J) for the 2008 Pb, 2008 

ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2 and 2012 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

11. Air quality and modeling/data: 

Section 110(a)(2)(K) requires each SIP to 

provide for: (i) ‘‘the performance of such 

air quality modeling as the 

Administrator may prescribe for the 

purpose of predicting the effect on 

ambient air quality of any emissions of 

any air pollutant for which the 

Administrator has established a 

[NAAQS]; and (ii) the submission, upon 

request, of data related to such air 

quality modeling to the Administrator.’’ 

Wyoming’s PSD program requires that 

estimates of ambient air concentrations 

be based on applicable air quality 

models specified in appendix W of 40 

CFR part 51, and that modification or 

substitution of a model specified in 

appendix W must be approved by the 

Administrator (see WAQSR Chapter 6, 

Section 2(b)(iv)). Additionally, WAQSR 

Chapter 6, Section 2(f)(iv) authorizes the 

AQD Administrator to impose any 

reasonable conditions upon an approval 

to construct, modify or operate, 

including modeling ‘‘. . . to determine 

the effect which emissions from a 

source may have, or is having, on air 

quality in any area which may be 

affected by emissions from such 

source.’’ Furthermore, the WEQA 35– 

11–1101(b) and Wyoming’s PPA provide 

Wyoming with the authority to submit 

air quality modeling date to the 

Administrator.16 As a result, the SIP 

provides for such air quality modeling 

as the Administrator has prescribed. 

Therefore, we propose to approve the 

Wyoming SIP as meeting CAA section 

110(a)(2)(K) for the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone,

2010 NO2, 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5

NAAQS. 

12. Permitting fees: Section 

110(a)(2)(L) requires ‘‘the owner or 

operator of each major stationary source 

to pay to the permitting authority, as a 

condition of any permit required under 

this [Act], a fee sufficient to cover[:] (i) 

the reasonable costs of reviewing and 

acting upon any application for such a 

permit[;] and (ii) if the owner or 

operator receives a permit for such 

source, the reasonable costs of 

implementing and enforcing the terms 

and conditions of any such permit (not 

including any court costs or other costs 

associated with any enforcement 

action), until such fee requirement is 

superseded with respect to such sources 

by the Administrator’s approval of a fee 

program under [title] V.’’ 

WAQSR Chapter 6, Section 2, 

paragraph (o) and WEQA sections 35– 

11–211(a), Fees, require applicants of 

construction permits to pay the costs for 

DEQ to review and act on the permit 

applications. We also note that fees 

collected under Wyoming’s approved 

title V permit program (64 FR 8523, Feb, 

22, 1990) are sufficient to implement 

and enforce the program (see 59 FR 

48802, Sept. 23, 1994). Therefore we 

propose to approve the submissions as 

submitted by the State for the 2008 Pb, 

2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2 and 

2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

13. Consultation/participation by 

affected local entities: Section 

110(a)(2)(M) requires states to ‘‘provide 

for consultation and participation [in 

SIP development] by local political 

subdivisions affected by [the SIP].’’ 

The non-regulatory document, 

Intergovernmental Cooperation, cited in 

Wyoming’s submittals meets the 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(M). We propose to approve 

Wyoming’s SIP as meeting these 

requirements for the 2008 Pb, 2008 

ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2 and 2012 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

VII. What action is the EPA taking? 

In this action, the EPA is proposing to 

approve infrastructure elements for the 

2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 

SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS from the 

State’s certifications as shown in Table 

1. Elements we propose no action on are 

reflected in Table 2. Finally, the EPA is 

proposing to approve a new Wyoming 

DEQ General Rules of Practice and 

Procedures submitted on May 31, 2016 

to satisfy requirements of element 

(E)(ii),which refers to requirements 

related to state boards. 

A comprehensive summary of 

infrastructure elements, and additions 

to the Wyoming DEQ Rules of Practice 

and Procedures organized by the EPA’s 

proposed rule action are provided in 

Table 1 and Table 2. 

TABLE 1—LIST OF WYOMING INFRASTRUCTURE ELEMENTS AND REVISIONS THAT THE EPA IS PROPOSING TO APPROVE

Proposed for approval 

October 12, 2011 submittal—2008 Pb NAAQS: (A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II) prong 3, (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L) and (M). 

March 6, 2015 submittal—2010 SO2 NAAQS: (A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II) prong 3, (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L) and (M). 

February 6, 2014 submittal—2008 Ozone NAAQS: (A), (B), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L) and (M). 

January 24, 2014 submittal—2010 NO2 NAAQS: (A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II) prong 3, (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L) and (M). 

June 24, 2016 submittal—2012 PM2.5 NAAQS: (A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II) prong 3, (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L) and (M). 

May 31, 2016 submittal—New Rules to Wyoming DEQ General Rules of Practice and Procedure, CAA Section 128: Chapter 1, General Provisions, Section 16, Air Program State Implementation Plan. 


Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 8, 2016 / Proposed Rules 78539 

TABLE 2—LIST OF WYOMING INFRASTRUCTURE ELEMENTS AND REVISIONS THAT THE EPA IS PROPOSING TO TAKE NO

ACTION ON

Proposed for no action 

(revision to be made in separate rulemaking action.) 

January 19, 2012 submittal—2008 Pb NAAQS: (D)(i)(I) prongs 1 and 2, (D)(i)(II) prong 4. 

February 6, 2014 submittal—2008 Ozone NAAQS: (D)(i) prongs 1–4 and (C) (proposed action on (D)(i)(II) prong 3 and (C) at 81 FR 53365, 

Aug. 12, 2016). 

January 31, 2013 submittal—2010 NO2 NAAQS: (D)(i)(I) prongs 1 and 2, (D)(i)(II) prong 4. 

June 2, 2013 submittal—2010 SO2 NAAQS: (D)(i)(I) prongs 1 and 2, (D)(i)(II) prong 4. 

December 22, 2015 submittal—2012 PM2.5 NAAQS: (D)(i)(I) prongs 1 and 2, (D)(i)(II) prong 4. 

VIII. Incorporation by Reference 

In this rulemaking, the EPA is 

proposing to include in a final EPA rule 

regulatory text that includes 

incorporation by reference. In 

accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 

51.5, the EPA is proposing to 

incorporate by reference the Wyoming 

Department of Environmental Quality 

General Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, Chapter 1, General 

Provisions, Section 16, Air Program 

State Implementation Plan Chapter 1, 

General Provisions, Section 16, Air 

Program State Implementation Plan 

pertaining to state board requirements 

VI.6. b. Sub-element (ii): State boards, of 

this preamble. The EPA has made, and 

will continue to make, these documents 

generally available through 

www.regulations.gov and/or at the EPA 

Region 8 office (please contact the 

person identified in the ‘‘For Further 

Information Contact’’ section of this 

preamble for more information). 

IX. Statutory and Executive Orders 

Review 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable federal regulations 

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

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed 

action merely approves some state law 

as meeting federal requirements and 

disapproves other state law because it 

does not meet federal requirements; this 

proposed action does not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by state law. For that reason, 

this proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

Oct. 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 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, Aug. 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and, 

• Does not provide the EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, Feb. 16, 1994). 

The SIP is not approved to apply on 

any Indian reservation land or in any 

other area where the EPA or an Indian 

tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has 

jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 

country, the 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, 

Greenhouse gases, 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: October 20, 2016. 

Shaun L. McGrath, 

Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

[FR Doc. 2016–26860 Filed 11–7–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Parts 10 and 11 

[PS Docket No. 15–91; PS Docket No. 15– 

94; FCC 16–127] 

Wireless Emergency Alerts; 

Amendments to the Commission’s 

Rules Regarding the Emergency Alert 

System 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: This document proposes 

revisions to Wireless Emergency Alert 

(WEA) rules to improve WEA, 

leveraging advancements in technology 

to improve WEA’s multimedia, 

multilingual and geo-targeting 

capabilities, as well as lessons learned 

from alert originators’ experience since 

WEA was initially deployed. This 

document also proposes steps to 

improve the availability of information 

about WEA, both to empower 

consumers to make informed choices 

about the emergency information that 

they will receive, as well as to promote 

transparency for emergency 

management agencies and other WEA 

stakeholders. By this action, the 

Commission affords interested parties 

an opportunity to participate more fully 

in WEA, and to enhance the utility of 

WEA as an alerting tool. 

DATES: Comments are due on or before 

December 8, 2016 and reply comments 

are due on or before January 9, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by PS Docket No. 15–91, P.S. 

Docket No. 15–94, FCC 16–127, by any 

of the following methods: 


Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS