Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 231 / Monday, December 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 95121 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this action for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action may not 

be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements (see section 

307(b)(2)). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Greenhouse gases, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

oxides, Volatile organic compounds. 

Dated: November 22, 2024. 

KC Becker, 

Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, 40 CFR part 52 is amended as 

follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart TT—Utah 

■ 2. Amend § 52.2320 by 

■ a. In the table in paragraph (c) revising 

the entry ‘‘R307–110–28’’; and 

■ b. In the table in paragraph (e) revising 

the entry ‘‘Section XX.A. Executive 

Summary’’. 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 52.2320 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

Rule No. Rule title State effective 

date Final rule citation, date Comments 

*******

R307–110. General Requirements: State Implementation Plan 

*******

R307–110–28 ......... Regional Haze ....... 1/6/2022 [insert Federal Register citation], 12/2/ 

2024.

Except for long-term strategy, reasonable progress goals, and FLM consultation. 

*******

* * * * * (e) * * * 

Rule title State effective 

date Final rule citation, date Comments 

*******

XX. Regional Haze 

Section XX.A. Regional Haze Second 

Implementation Plan.

1/6/2022 [insert Federal Register citation], 12/2/ 

2024.

Except for long-term strategy, reasonable progress goals, and FLM consultation. 

* * * * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2024–27941 Filed 11–29–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2023–0489; FRL–12135– 

02–R8] 

Air Plan Partial Approval and Partial 

Disapproval; Wyoming; Regional Haze 

Plan for the Second Implementation 

Period 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is partially approving and 

partially disapproving a regional haze 

state implementation plan (SIP) revision 

submitted by the State of Wyoming on 

August 10, 2022 (Wyoming’s 2022 SIP 

submission), to address applicable 

requirements under the Clean Air Act 

(CAA) and the EPA’s Regional Haze 

Rule (RHR) for the regional haze 

program’s second implementation 

period. The EPA is taking this action 

pursuant to the CAA. 

DATES: This rule is effective on January 

2, 2025. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R08–OAR–2023–0489. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the https://www.regulations.gov 

website. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available through https://

www.regulations.gov, or please contact 

the person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section for 

additional availability information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jaslyn Dobrahner, Air and Radiation 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
95122 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 231 / Monday, December 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

1See 40 CFR part 81, subpart D. 2 89 FR 63030 (August 1, 2024). 3CAA section 169A(g)(1); 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i). 

Division, EPA, Region 8, Mailcode 

8ARD–IO, 1595 Wynkoop Street, 

Denver, Colorado 80202–1129, 

telephone number: (303) 312–6252; 

email address: dobrahner.jaslyn@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ means the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. What is being addressed in this document? 

II. Summary of the Proposed Action, Public 

Comments, and the EPA’s Rationale for 

Final Action 

III. Final Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What is being addressed in this 

document? 

The EPA is partially approving and 

partially disapproving Wyoming’s 

regional haze plan for the second 

implementation period. As required by 

section 169A of the CAA, the RHR calls 

for State and Federal agencies to work 

together to improve visibility in 156 

national parks and wilderness areas, 

known as mandatory Class I Federal 

areas.1 The rule requires the States, in 

coordination with the EPA, the National 

Park Service, the Fish and Wildlife 

Service, the Forest Service, and other 

interested parties, to develop and 

implement air quality protection plans 

to reduce the pollution that causes 

visibility impairment in mandatory 

Class I Federal areas. Visibility 

impairing pollutants include fine and 

coarse particulate matter (PM) (e.g., 

sulfates, nitrates, organic carbon, 

elemental carbon, and soil dust) and 

their precursors (e.g., sulfur dioxide 

(SO2), oxides of nitrogen (NOX), and, in 

some cases, volatile organic compounds 

(VOC) and ammonia (NH3)). As 

discussed in further detail in our 

proposed rule, this document, and the 

accompanying Response to Comments 

(RTC) document, the EPA finds that 

Wyoming submitted a regional haze SIP 

that does not meet all of the regional 

haze requirements for the second 

implementation period. The State’s 

submission, the proposed rule, and the 

RTC document can be found in the 

docket for this action. 

II. Summary of the Proposed Action, 

Public Comments, and the EPA’s 

Rationale for Final Action 

On August 10, 2022, Wyoming 

submitted a revision to its SIP to 

address regional haze for the second 

implementation period, in accordance 

with the requirements of the CAA’s 

regional haze program established by 

CAA sections 169A and 169B and 40 

CFR 51.308. 

On August 1, 2024, the EPA proposed 

to disapprove certain provisions of 

Wyoming’s 2022 SIP submission.2

Specifically, we proposed to disapprove 

the portions of Wyoming’s 2022 SIP 

submission relating to 40 CFR 

51.308(f)(2): long-term strategy; 40 CFR 

51.308(f)(3): reasonable progress goals; 

and 40 CFR 51.308(i): Federal Land 

Manager (FLM) consultation. We also 

proposed to approve the portions of 

Wyoming’s 2022 SIP submission 

relating to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1): 

calculations of baseline, current, and 

natural visibility conditions, progress to 

date, and the uniform rate of progress; 

40 CFR 51.308(f)(4): reasonably 

attributable visibility impairment; 40 

CFR 51.308(f)(5) and 40 CFR 51.308(g): 

progress report requirements; and 40 

CFR 51.308(f)(6): monitoring strategy 

and other implementation plan 

requirements. Consistent with section 

110(k)(3) of the CAA, the EPA may 

partially approve portions of a submittal 

if those elements meet all applicable 

requirements and may disapprove the 

remainder so long as the elements are 

fully separable. 

Our August 1, 2024 proposed rule 

provided background on the 

requirements of the CAA and RHR, a 

summary of Wyoming’s regional haze 

SIP submittals and related EPA actions, 

and the EPA’s rationale for its proposed 

action. That background and rationale 

will not be restated in full here, 

although we briefly summarize the 

reasons for our partial disapproval of 

Wyoming’s 2022 SIP submission in the 

paragraphs that follow. 

Our public comment period closed on 

September 3, 2024. During the public 

notice and comment period, we 

received more than 6,000 comments on 

our proposal. The full text of the 

comments received are included in the 

publicly posted docket associated with 

this action at https://

www.regulations.gov. Our RTC 

document, which is also included in the 

docket, provides full, detailed responses 

to all significant comments received and 

further explains the basis for our final 

action. 

In CAA section 169A(a)(1), Congress 

established the national goal of 

preventing any future and remedying 

any existing impairment of visibility in 

mandatory Class I Federal areas that 

results from manmade (anthropogenic) 

air pollution. The core component of a 

regional haze SIP submission for the 

second implementation period is a longterm strategy for making reasonable 

progress toward meeting that national 

goal. CAA section 169A(b)(2)(B), 40 CFR 

51.308(f)(2). A state’s long-term strategy 

must address regional haze in each 

Class I area within the state’s borders 

and each Class I area outside the state 

that may be affected by emissions 

originating from within the state. It 

‘‘must include the enforceable 

emissions limitations, compliance 

schedules, and other measures that are 

necessary to make reasonable progress, 

as determined pursuant to (f)(2)(i) 

through (iv).’’ 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2). The 

amount of progress that is ‘‘reasonable 

progress’’ is based on consideration of 

the four statutory factors in CAA section 

169A(g)(1)—the costs of compliance, the 

time necessary for compliance, the 

energy and non-air quality 

environmental impacts of compliance, 

and the remaining useful life of any 

potentially affected sources 3—in an 

evaluation of potential control measures 

for sources of visibility impairing 

pollutants, which is referred to as a 

‘‘four-factor’’ analysis. In developing its 

long-term strategy, the state must 

document the technical basis, including 

modeling, monitoring, cost, engineering, 

and emissions information, on which it 

is relying to determine the measures 

that are necessary to make reasonable 

progress. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii). 

Wyoming did not include any emission 

control measures, new or existing, in its 

long-term strategy for the regional haze 

second implementation period. 

As explained in section 3.A. of the 

RTC document, the CAA authorizes the 

EPA to substantively review states’ SIP 

submissions for compliance with the 

statute and RHR to ensure progress 

towards the national visibility goal for 

Class I areas. Congress charged the EPA 

with exercising ‘‘federal oversight’’ over 

SIP submissions and ‘‘review[ing] all 

SIPs to ensure that the plans comply 

with the statute.’’ Oklahoma v. EPA, 723 

F.3d 1201, 1204 (10th Cir. 2013). The 

‘‘EPA is left with more than the 

ministerial task of routinely approving 

SIP submissions.’’ North Dakota v. EPA, 

730 F.3d 750, 761 (8th Cir. 2013). 

Instead, the Agency’s ‘‘review of a SIP 

extends not only to whether the state 

considered the necessary factors in its 

determination, but also to whether the 

determination is one that is reasonably 

moored to the CAA’s provisions’’ and is 

‘‘based on ‘reasoned analysis.’ ’’ Id. at 

761, 766 (citing Alaska Dep’t of Envt. 

Conservation v. EPA, 540 U.S. 461 

(2004)); see also Wyoming v. EPA, 78 

F.4th 1171, 1180–81 (10th Cir. 2023) 

(noting that ‘‘the Act provides for 

substantive and careful EPA review’’ of 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 231 / Monday, December 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 95123 

4 89 FR at 63056–62; RTC document, sections 7, 

8, 14. 

5Q/d values represent the ratio of an individual 

source’s annual emissions of visibility-impairing 

emission precursors (NOX, SO2, and PM10) in 

combined tons (‘‘Q’’) divided by the distance in 

kilometers (‘‘d’’) between the source and a Class I 

area. The larger the Q/d value, the greater the 

source’s expected effect on visibility impairment in 

that Class I area. 

6Section 8.K. of the RTC document contains our 

full response to the comment we received on this 

issue. 

7See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii). 

8 89 FR at 63062–65; RTC document, sections 

3.C., 7, 8. 

SIP submissions and that ‘‘the EPA does 

not have to accept unreasonable 

analyses’’). For the reasons stated in the 

proposed rule, this document, and in 

the RTC document, the EPA determines 

that Wyoming’s 2022 SIP submission 

does not meet all of the requirements of 

the CAA and RHR. 

As detailed at length in our proposed 

rule and in the RTC document, we 

conclude that Wyoming’s long-term 

strategy does not meet the requirements 

of CAA section 169A(b)(2) and 40 CFR 

51.308(f)(2) on four independent 

grounds. First, Wyoming failed to 

consider the four statutory factors for 

the sources and associated units and 

pollutants listed in table 1, despite 

determining that these sources may 

contribute to visibility impairment at 

Class I areas. In some instances, 

Wyoming provided no justification for 

the lack of four-factor analysis. In 

others, Wyoming improperly relied on 

planned but unenforceable source 

retirements or on the presence of 

existing emission control measures at a 

source, without providing adequate 

technical documentation of the 

effectiveness of those existing controls 

or a sufficient indication that additional 

controls would not be cost-effective or 

reasonable. For the reasons detailed in 

our proposed rule and in the RTC 

document,4 the State’s reasoning does 

not justify its decision not to conduct 

four-factor analyses for these sources, as 

required under CAA section 169A(g)(1) 

and 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2). Therefore, we 

cannot conclude that Wyoming’s longterm strategy includes all the measures 

that are necessary to make reasonable 

progress. 

TABLE 1—SOURCES, UNITS, AND ASSOCIATED POLLUTANTS THAT MAY AFFECT VISIBILITY AT CLASS I AREAS WHERE NO

FOUR-FACTOR ANALYSIS WAS PERFORMED

Source Unit(s) Associated 

pollutant(s) 

Jim Bridger (PacifiCorp) .......................................................................................... 1, 2 ......................................................... NOX, SO2, PM. 

Jim Bridger (PacifiCorp) .......................................................................................... 3, 4 ......................................................... SO2, PM. 

Naughton (PacifiCorp) ............................................................................................. 1, 2 ......................................................... NOX, SO2, PM. 

Naughton (PacifiCorp) ............................................................................................. 3 ............................................................. NOX, PM. 

Dave Johnston (PacifiCorp) .................................................................................... 1, 2 ......................................................... NOX, SO2, PM. 

Dave Johnston (PacifiCorp) .................................................................................... 4 ............................................................. PM. 

Wyodak (PacifiCorp) ............................................................................................... 1 ............................................................. NOX, SO2, PM. 

Laramie River Station (Basin Electric) .................................................................... 1–3 ......................................................... PM. 

Laramie Portland Cement (Mountain Cement Company) ...................................... Kilns 1, 2 ................................................ SO2. 

Elk Basin Gas Plant (Contango Resources, Inc.) ................................................... Engines (9) and incinerator ................... PM. 

Elk Basin Gas Plant (Contango Resources, Inc.) ................................................... Engines (9) ............................................ SO2. 

Elk Basin Gas Plant (Contango Resources, Inc.) ................................................... Incinerator .............................................. NOX. 

Although we stated in our proposed 

rule that Wyoming failed to justify the 

lack of a four-factor analysis of NOX and 

PM emission control measures for Lost 

Cabin Gas Plant, we are not carrying 

that finding forward into our final rule. 

Based on our consideration of a 

comment we received and on our 

further review of Wyoming’s 2022 SIP 

submission, we conclude that because 

the State’s Q/d analysis 5 shows that the 

possible impact of the facility’s NOX

and PM emissions on visibility at Class 

I areas is very small, Wyoming 

reasonably elected to conduct a fourfactor analysis only for SO2 control 

measures for this facility, and not for 

NOX and PM control measures. 

Therefore, the lack of a four-factor 

analysis of NOX and PM emissions 

controls for Lost Cabin Gas Plant is not 

a reason for our disapproval of the 

State’s long-term strategy.6

Second, Wyoming relied on 

unsupported rationales and failed to 

document the technical basis (including 

cost, engineering, and emissions 

information) 7 of its decision not to 

include any emission control measures 

in its long-term strategy for the sources 

listed in table 2. In evaluating the cost 

of potential control measures for some 

of these sources, Wyoming used 

unsubstantiated cost inputs, relied on 

unjustifiably low estimates of control 

technology efficiencies, and 

miscalculated the level of achievable 

emission reductions. These 

methodological errors undercut the 

technical support for Wyoming’s cost 

analyses and the State’s resulting 

determinations that control measures for 

these sources would not be costeffective. In other instances, the State 

provided no reasoning, technical data, 

or cost information to support its 

conclusions. For the reasons detailed in 

our proposed rule and in the RTC 

document,8 these methodological errors 

and unsupported technical bases, 

considered collectively, prevent the 

EPA from determining that the State’s 

long-term strategy is adequate to make 

reasonable progress toward meeting the 

national visibility goal. 

TABLE 2—SOURCES, UNITS, AND ASSOCIATED POLLUTANTS WHERE THE STATE FAILED TO DOCUMENT THE TECHNICAL

BASIS OF ITS DETERMINATIONS OF THE EMISSION REDUCTION MEASURES NECESSARY TO MAKE REASONABLE PROGRESS

Source Unit(s) Associated 

pollutant(s) 

Dave Johnston (PacifiCorp) .................................................................................... 4 ............................................................. SO2. 

Laramie Portland Cement (Mountain Cement Company) ...................................... Kilns 1, 2 ................................................ NOX. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
95124 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 231 / Monday, December 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

9For the Cheyenne Fertilizer Facility, as with Elk 

Basin Gas Plant, Wyoming did not determine that 

the cost/ton values of the NOX and PM measures 

it evaluated were unreasonable. However, Wyoming 

concluded that the capital costs of installing PM 

controls (upgraded mist eliminators) on two cooling 

towers were not justified given what the State 

determined—without explanation—to be the 

‘‘minute’’ amount of PM reductions at stake. 

Wyoming 2022 SIP submission at 191. We do not 

find this justification to be sufficient in light of the 

mist eliminators’ cost-effectiveness values (i.e., cost 

per ton of emissions reduced), which align with the 

cost/ton values that were generally found to be 

reasonable during the first implementation period. 

See 89 FR at 63065 & n.158. Nor did Wyoming 

explain why the reduction in PM emissions that 

could be achieved by upgraded mist eliminators 

was not necessary to make reasonable progress. As 

we explained in the 2019 Guidance, capital costs 

considered in isolation may not provide complete 

information about the potential reasonableness of a 

control measure. 2019 Guidance at 39. Indeed, 

Wyoming itself conceded that ‘‘[b]ased on this fourfactor analysis, this facility may warrant further 

analysis of emission controls to reach reasonable 

progress.’’ Wyoming 2022 SIP submission at 191. 

10For Elk Basin Gas Plant, Wyoming did not 

explicitly determine, based on its four-factor 

analysis, that NOX controls are not necessary to 

make reasonable progress. Wyoming 2022 SIP 

submission at 172 (‘‘Considering the four factors 

above, as well as emission trends and permit 

conditions, this facility may warrant further 

analysis of emission controls to reach reasonable 

progress.’’). For NOX and PM controls at the 

Cheyenne Fertilizer Facility, Wyoming asserted that 

‘‘[o]verall, considering the four factors discussed 

above, the Division does not believe that additional 

emissions control technology on the Cooper 

Engines . . . or Cooling Towers is necessary to 

make reasonable progress at this time.’’ Wyoming 

2022 SIP submission at 191. However, aside from 

pointing to the capital costs of PM control 

measures, Wyoming did not explain how it reached 

that conclusion. 

11Wyoming 2022 SIP submission at 171–72, 191. 

Wyoming also noted that the engines at the 

Cheyenne Fertilizer Facility are natural gas-fired. 

Id. at 191. However, Wyoming did not explain how 

combustion of natural gas mitigates the need for 

NOX emissions reductions measures or why lowemission combustion (the control technology for 

these engines that the State evaluated through fourfactor analysis) is not necessary to make reasonable 

progress. As detailed in sections 7.B. and 8.A.ii. of 

the RTC document, combustion of natural gas does 

not itself render a source effectively controlled for 

NOX emissions. 

12EPA, Responses to Comments on Protection of 

Visibility: Amendments to Requirements for State 

Plans; Proposed Rule, December 2016, at 186 

(available in the docket for this action). 

13Wyoming 2022 SIP submission at 172, 191. 

14Cf. NRDC v. EPA, 22 F.3d 1125, 1134 (D.C. Cir. 

1994) (noting that SIPs must ‘‘contain[ ] something 

more than a mere promise to take appropriate but 

unidentified measures in the future’’). In addition, 

because progress reports due in 2025 will not take 

the form of SIP revisions that must be approved or 

disapproved by the EPA, it is not clear how 

Wyoming could evaluate and potentially impose 

federally enforceable emission reduction measures 

at these sources through that process. See generally 

40 CFR 51.308(g). 

15 89 FR at 63065; RTC document, sections 5, 8.I., 

8.L. 

TABLE 2—SOURCES, UNITS, AND ASSOCIATED POLLUTANTS WHERE THE STATE FAILED TO DOCUMENT THE TECHNICAL

BASIS OF ITS DETERMINATIONS OF THE EMISSION REDUCTION MEASURES NECESSARY TO MAKE REASONABLE

PROGRESS—Continued 

Source Unit(s) Associated 

pollutant(s) 

Green River Works (TATA Chemicals) ................................................................... Calciner 1, Calciner 2 ............................ NOX, PM. 

Elk Basin Gas Plant (Contango Resources, Inc.) ................................................... Engines (9) ............................................ NOX. 

Elk Basin Gas Plant (Contango Resources, Inc.) ................................................... Incinerator .............................................. SO2. 

Lost Cabin Gas Plant (Burlington Resources) ........................................................ Trains 2, 3 ............................................. SO2. 

Third, Wyoming unreasonably 

rejected emission control measures for 

Elk Basin Gas Plant and Cheyenne 

Fertilizer Facility (listed in table 3). 

Wyoming made no determination that 

these control measures were not costeffective (based on the cost per ton of 

emissions reduced); 9 nor did it explain 

why these measures were otherwise 

unwarranted under the four statutory 

factors.10 The cost-effectiveness values 

of these control measures are below the 

level that the EPA and the states 

generally found to be reasonable in the 

first implementation period, even 

without adjusting for inflation. Instead 

of justifying its rejection of these control 

measures based on the four statutory 

factors, Wyoming cited declining 

emission trends, its belief that these 

sources will not increase their emissions 

during the second implementation 

period, and the presence of existing 

control technologies at the facilities 

(which the State notably did not 

determine to be effective for purposes of 

making reasonable progress).11 As we 

explained in the context of the 2017 

Regional Haze Rule revisions, ‘‘a state 

that elects to consider an additional 

factor . . . must consider it in a 

reasonable way that does not undermine 

or nullify the role of the four statutory 

factors in determining what controls are 

necessary to make reasonable 

progress.’’ 12 Wyoming improperly 

relied on these other considerations to 

reject controls that its four-factor 

analyses showed to be cost-effective and 

otherwise reasonable. 

Within its 2022 SIP submission, 

Wyoming conceded that based on the 

four-factor analyses it conducted for Elk 

Basin Gas Plant and Cheyenne Fertilizer 

Facility, these sources may warrant 

further analysis of the measures 

necessary to make reasonable 

progress.13 Wyoming stated it would 

submit more detailed analyses in the 

context of its regional haze second 

implementation progress report due in 

2025. However, nothing in the CAA or 

RHR allows states to avoid their 

obligation to determine the measures 

necessary to make reasonable progress 

through consideration of the four 

statutory factors by delaying decisionmaking to a future date.14 For these 

reasons, and as further detailed in our 

proposed rule and in the RTC 

document,15 we find that Wyoming’s 

long-term strategy does not include the 

measures necessary to make reasonable 

progress because Wyoming 

unreasonably rejected control measures 

for Elk Basin Gas Plant and Cheyenne 

Fertilizer Facility. 

TABLE 3—SOURCES, UNITS, AND ASSOCIATED POLLUTANTS AND EMISSION CONTROL TECHNOLOGY WHERE THE STATE

UNREASONABLY REJECTED EMISSION REDUCTION MEASURES

Source Unit(s) Associated 

pollutant(s) 

Emission control 

technology 

Elk Basin Gas Plant (Contango Resources, Inc.) .... Engines (9) .............................................. NOX Low emission combustion. 

Cheyenne Fertilizer Facility (Dyno Nobel, Inc.) ........ ENG004, ENG005 (engines) .................. NOX Low emission combustion. 

Cheyenne Fertilizer Facility (Dyno Nobel, Inc.) ........ CTW001, CTW003 (cooling towers) ....... PM Upgraded Mist Eliminators. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 231 / Monday, December 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 95125 

16 89 FR at 63065–67; RTC document, sections 

3.B., 3.G., 4, and 9. 

17Wyoming 2022 SIP submission, Chapter 13: 

Decisions on What Control Measures are Necessary 

to Make Reasonable Progress. 

18 89 FR at 63067–68; RTC document, sections 

3.B., 10 (reasonable progress goals). 89 FR at 63069– 

70; RTC document, sections 3.E., 11 (FLM 

consultation). 

Fourth, as explained in our proposed 

rule and in the RTC document,16 the 

overarching justifications that Wyoming 

provided for not including any emission 

control measures in its long-term 

strategy are either not adequately 

supported or lack foundation in the 

CAA and RHR. Following its evaluation 

and rejection of emission control 

measures for individual sources, 

Wyoming explained its overall 

reasoning for not including any 

measures in its long-term strategy to 

make reasonable progress for the 

regional haze second implementation 

period.17 The State asserted that such 

measures could impose economic 

hardships on sources, negatively affect 

rural communities, force energy 

producers out of the market, harm 

ratepayers, and cause grid instability. 

However, the State’s reliance on these 

purported economic impacts does not 

reflect reasoned analysis because 

Wyoming provided no analyses, data, or 

other evidence to support its 

generalized and unsubstantiated 

assertions. Similarly, Wyoming 

provided no support for its declaration 

that requiring additional controls would 

not lead to visibility improvements at 

Class I areas. Finally, Wyoming pointed 

to contributions to visibility impairment 

from sources outside its control; past 

and projected emission reductions 

resulting from other regulatory 

programs; and that the State’s Class I 

areas are below the adjusted uniform 

rate of progress (a tracking metric to 

help states assess the amount of 

progress they are making towards the 

national visibility goal over time in each 

Class I area). As further explained in our 

proposed rule and in the RTC 

document, Wyoming’s consideration of 

those factors was not reasonably moored 

to the statute and regulations. 

In addition to disapproving the State’s 

long-term strategy, we are disapproving 

Wyoming’s reasonable progress goals 

under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3) and its 

consultation with Federal Land 

Managers under 40 CFR 51.308(i). As 

detailed in our proposed rule and in the 

RTC document,18 compliance with 

these requirements is dependent on 

compliance with the long-term strategy 

provisions in 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2). 

III. Final Action 

For the reasons stated in the proposed 

rule, in the RTC document, and in this 

document, we are partially approving 

and partially disapproving Wyoming’s 

2022 SIP submission. 

We are disapproving the following 

components of Wyoming’s 2022 SIP 

submission relating to CAA section 

169A: 

• Long-term strategy (40 CFR 

51.308(f)(2)); 

• Reasonable progress goals (40 CFR 

51.308(f)(3)); and 

• FLM consultation (40 CFR 

51.308(i)). 

We are approving the following 

components of Wyoming’s 2022 SIP 

submission relating to CAA section 

169A: 

• Calculations of baseline, current, 

and natural visibility conditions, 

progress to date, and uniform rate of 

progress (40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)); 

• Reasonably attributable visibility 

impairment (40 CFR 51.308(f)(4)); 

• Progress report requirements (40 

CFR 51.308(f)(5) and 40 CFR 51.308(g)); 

and 

• Monitoring strategy and other 

implementation plan requirements (40 

CFR 51.308(f)(6)). 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

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

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

partially approves and partially 

disapproves state law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this action: 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 14094 (88 FR 

21879, April 11, 2023); 

• 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 subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) 

because it approves a state program; 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); and 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA. 

In addition, the SIP is not approved 

to apply on any Indian reservation land 

or in any other area where EPA or an 

Indian Tribe has demonstrated that a 

Tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the rule does not have 

Tribal implications and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on Tribal 

governments or preempt Tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

Executive Order 12898 (Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629, 

Feb. 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies 

to identify and address 

‘‘disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects’’ 

of their actions on communities with 

environmental justice (EJ) concerns to 

the greatest extent practicable and 

permitted by law. Executive Order 

14096 (Revitalizing Our Nation’s 

Commitment to Environmental Justice 

for All, 88 FR 25251, April 26, 2023) 

builds on and supplements E.O. 12898 

and defines EJ as, among other things, 

the just treatment and meaningful 

involvement of all people, regardless of 

income, race, color, national origin, or 

Tribal affiliation, or disability in agency 

decision-making and other Federal 

activities that affect human health and 

the environment. 

The State did not evaluate EJ 

considerations as part of its SIP 

submittal; the CAA and applicable 

implementing regulations neither 

prohibit nor require such an evaluation. 

EPA performed an EJ analysis, as is 

described in the proposed action 89 FR 

63030 (August 1, 2024) in the section 

titled, ‘‘Environmental Justice.’’ The 

analysis was done for the purpose of 

providing additional context and 

information about this rulemaking to the 

public, not as a basis of the action. In 

addition, there is no information in the 

record upon which this decision is 

based inconsistent with the stated goal 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
95126 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 231 / Monday, December 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

1The EPA uses the terms ‘‘implementation 

period’’ and ‘‘planning period’’ interchangeably. 

2See 40 CFR part 81, subpart D. 

of E.O. 12898/14096 of achieving EJ for 

communities with EJ concerns. 

This action is subject to the 

Congressional Review Act, and EPA will 

submit a rule report to each House of 

the Congress and to the Comptroller 

General of the United States. This action 

is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 

U.S.C. 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by January 31, 2025. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this action for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action may not 

be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements (see section 

307(b)(2)). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Greenhouse gases, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

oxides, Volatile organic compounds. 

Dated: November 22, 2024. 

KC Becker, 

Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, the Environmental Protection 

Agency is amending 40 CFR part 52 as 

follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart ZZ—Wyoming 

■ 2. In § 52.2620, the table in paragraph 

(e) is amended by adding and entry for 

‘‘(36) XXXVI’’ at the end of the table to 

read as follows: 

§ 52.2620 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

Rule No. Rule title 

State 

effective 

date 

EPA 

effective 

date 

Final rule 

citation/date Comments 

*******

(36) XXXVI .............. Wyoming State Implementation 

Plan, Second 

Planning Period.

2022 1/2/2025 [insert Federal Register citation], 12/ 

2/2024.

Excluding the following: Chapters 3.4, 7, 

8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and appendix C–E, G–M. EPA disapproved the 

portions of Wyoming’s 2022 SIP submission relating to CAA section 169A 

and 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2): long-term 

strategy; 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3): reasonable progress goals; and 40 CFR 

51.308(i): FLM consultation. 

[FR Doc. 2024–27942 Filed 11–29–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2023–0495; FRL–12052– 

02–R8] 

Air Plan Partial Approval and Partial 

Disapproval; North Dakota; Regional 

Haze State Implementation Plan for the 

Second Implementation Period 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is partially approving and 

partially disapproving a regional haze 

state implementation plan (SIP) revision 

submitted by the State of North Dakota 

on August 11, 2022 (North Dakota’s 

2022 SIP submission) to address 

applicable requirements under the 

Clean Air Act (CAA) and the EPA’s 

Regional Haze Rule (RHR) for the 

regional haze program’s second 

implementation period. The EPA is 

taking this action pursuant to the CAA. 

DATES: This rule is effective January 2, 

2025. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R08–OAR–2023–0495. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the https://www.regulations.gov 

website. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available through https://

www.regulations.gov, or please contact 

the person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section for 

additional availability information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joe 

Stein, Air and Radiation Division, EPA, 

Region 8, Mailcode 8ARD–IO, 1595 

Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 

80202–1129, telephone number: (303) 

312–7078, email address: stein.joseph@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ means the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. What is being addressed in this document? 

II. Summary of the Proposed Action, Public 

Comments, and the EPA’s Reasons for 

Final Action 

III. Final Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What is being addressed in this 

document? 

The EPA is partially approving and 

partially disapproving North Dakota’s 

regional haze plan for the second 

planning period.1 As required by 

section 169A of the CAA, the RHR calls 

for State and Federal agencies to work 

together to improve visibility in 156 

national parks and wilderness areas, 

known as mandatory Class I Federal 

areas.2 The rule requires the States, in 

coordination with the EPA, the National 

Park Service, the Fish and Wildlife 

Service, the Forest Service, and other 

interested parties, to develop and 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1