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
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 231 / Monday, December 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 95127 

3 89 FR 56693 (July 10, 2024). 4CAA section 169A(g)(1); 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i). 

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, in this document, and in 

the accompanying Response to 

Comments (RTC) document, the EPA 

finds that North Dakota submitted a 

regional haze SIP that does not meet all 

the statutory and regulatory 

requirements for the regional haze 

second planning 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 

Reasons for Final Action 

On August 11, 2022, North Dakota 

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 July 10, 2024, the EPA proposed 

to disapprove certain provisions of 

North Dakota’s 2022 SIP submission.3

Specifically, we proposed to disapprove 

the portions of North Dakota’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 

North Dakota’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 

(URP); 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 public comment 

period closed on August 9, 2024. Our 

July 10, 2024, proposed rule provided 

background on the requirements of the 

CAA and RHR, a summary of North 

Dakota’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 North Dakota’s 2022 SIP 

submission in the paragraphs that 

follow. 

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 applying 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 4—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). 

As detailed 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 EPA’s regulations 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); see also id. at 1207–08 

(citing CAA Sections 110(l), 110(a)(2)(J), 

and 169A(b)(2)). 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 

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 concludes 

that North Dakota’s 2022 SIP 

submission does not meet all the 

requirements of the CAA and RHR. 

As detailed at length in our proposed 

rule and in the RTC document, we 

conclude that North Dakota’s long-term 

strategy does not meet the requirements 

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

51.308(f)(2) on two independent 

grounds. First, North Dakota relied on 

the URP status of in-state Class I areas 

and a visibility improvement threshold 

that is inconsistent with the purpose of 

the CAA’s visibility program to 

unreasonably reject feasible and 

reasonably inexpensive controls it 

evaluated under the four statutory 

factors at Coyote Station and Antelope 

Valley. Second, North Dakota failed to 

consider the four statutory factors for 

NOX at Coal Creek and unreasonably 

rejected feasible and reasonably 

inexpensive controls it evaluated under 

the four statutory factors at Coal Creek 

and Leland Olds. Likewise, North 

Dakota did not meet the requirements of 

40 CFR 51.308(f)(3) because the 

deficiencies in its long-term strategy 

prevented the State from developing 

adequate reasonable progress goals 

(RPGs). Additionally, we are 

disapproving North Dakota’s FLM 

consultation under 40 CFR 51.308(i) 

because compliance with that 

requirement is dependent on fulfilling 

the substantive requirements of 40 CFR 

51.308(f)(2) (long-term strategy). 

During the public notice and 

comment period, we received 31 

comments on our proposal. The full text 

of comments received is included in the 

publicly posted docket associated with 

this action at https://

www.regulations.gov. Our RTC 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
95128 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 231 / Monday, December 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

5Some commenter tables and figures are 

excluded from this document. 

6CAA section 169A(a)(1), (g)(1). 

7EPA, Response 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). 

8 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i). 

9CAA section 169A(a)(1). 

10Censara AOI spreadsheet titled ‘‘Appendix C– 

1_AOI2016EI-tool.xlsx.’’ 

document, which is also included in the 

docket associated with this action, 

provides detailed responses to all 

significant comments received.5 Our 

RTC document is organized by topic. 

Therefore, if additional information is 

desired concerning how we addressed a 

particular comment, the reader should 

refer to the appropriate section in the 

RTC document. 

We received several comments on our 

proposed disapproval of North Dakota’s 

long-term strategy on the basis that 

North Dakota unreasonably considered 

visibility benefits to reject technically 

feasible and reasonably inexpensive 

controls based on an unreasonable 

interpretation of CAA 169A to select its 

visibility improvement threshold that 

essentially nullified the CAA 169A(g)(1) 

statutory factors. Below, we provide a 

summary and response to this issue 

including North Dakota’s interpretation 

that a change of RPG of 1.0 deciview 

(dv) visibility improvement (a change in 

visibility impairment visible to the 

naked eye) is needed to necessitate 

additional controls to make ‘‘reasonable 

progress.’’ This is inconsistent with the 

plain language and Congress’ explicitly 

stated national purpose of the CAA’s 

visibility provisions. 

In North Dakota’s SIP, North Dakota 

determined that because its visibility 

improvement analysis showed no 

‘‘significant’’ change in visibility after 

installation of potential controls, it 

would not be reasonable to require any 

additional controls to make reasonable 

progress for Coyote Station and 

Antelope Valley. We proposed 

disapproval due to North Dakota’s 

reliance on visibility considerations to 

reject cost-effect controls at Coyote 

Station and Antelope Valley. 

Commenters concluded that this meant 

the EPA was either prohibiting the State 

from considering visibility in the fourfactor analysis or that we ignored North 

Dakota’s visibility analysis. This is 

incorrect. The CAA’s cooperative 

federalism framework imposes on EPA 

a substantive role in determining if a 

SIP is approvable. See our RTC section 

3.A Cooperative Federalism and State 

Discretion for a detailed explanation. In 

particular, any approvable regional haze 

SIP must be consistent with Congress’ 

explicit statutory declaration of the 

‘‘national goal’’ for ‘‘the prevention of 

any future, and the remedying of any 

existing, impairment of visibility in 

mandatory Class I Federal areas which 

impairment results from manmade air 

pollution.’’ Additionally, in determining 

reasonable progress, states must 

‘‘consider the costs of compliance, the 

time necessary for compliance, and the 

energy and nonair quality 

environmental impacts of compliance, 

and the remaining useful life of any 

existing source subject to such 

requirements.’’ 6

The EPA has acknowledged that a 

state may reasonably consider factors 

beyond the explicit four CAA section 

169A(g)(1) factors, such as visibility, 

when assessing sources or source 

categories. In a response to comment on 

the 2017 RHR, EPA noted that a state 

that elects to consider an additional 

factor, such as visibility, must do so in 

a reasonable way that does not 

undermine or nullify the role of the four 

statutory factors.7

As this response to comment 

indicates, the consideration of any nonstatutory factor, including visibility, 

must be reasonable. See, e.g., North 

Dakota, 730 F.3d at 766 (‘‘EPA’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.’’). The reasonableness of a 

state’s visibility consideration in the 

four-factor analysis turns on whether 

the determination is reasonably moored 

to the CAA visibility provisions and 

how the state explained and supported 

its determination in the record. 

Here, we find that North Dakota’s 

consideration of visibility in its fourfactor analysis is unreasonable and 

inconsistent with the CAA and the RHR. 

Specifically, North Dakota rejected 

technically feasible and reasonably 

inexpensive controls at Coyote Station 

and Antelope Valley based on its 

unreasonable visibility improvement 

threshold in considering visibility as 

part of the four-factor analysis.8 In its 

SIP, North Dakota determined that no 

additional controls are required for 

Coyote Station and Antelope Valley due 

to ‘‘insignificant’’ visibility 

improvement when looking at the 

change in the RPG for a Class I area 

(Lostwood and Theodore Roosevelt) 

from the addition of potential controls. 

This determination was based on an 

interpretation that CAA section 169A 

requires a change in RPG of 1.0 dv 

improvement from the addition of 

controls at a single Class I area before 

that control is required to make 

‘‘reasonable progress.’’ However, this 

interpretation is unreasonable and 

inconsistent with the CAA. 

Congress mandated the national goal 

of remedying of existing and preventing 

future visibility impairment air 

pollution from anthropogenic sources.9

In American Corn Growers Ass’n v. 

EPA, 291 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2002), the 

D.C. Circuit stated that ‘‘[t]he statutory 

goal enunciated in § 169A(a)(1) is quite 

clear: ‘the prevention of any future, and 

the remedying of any existing, 

impairment of visibility.’ . . . 

[Therefore, agency] regulations that aim 

to remedy any existing impairment of 

visibility and prevent any future 

impairment—as the statute commands— 

will of necessity aim to achieve a state 

of natural visibility. There is no material 

inconsistency between the statutory and 

regulatory goals, for the latter merely 

elucidates the former.’’ Id. at 10. 

Therefore, as outlined throughout our 

proposal and this final document, the 

EPA is within its authority to 

disapprove North Dakota’s long-term 

strategy for not including the necessary 

measures. Specifically, North Dakota’s 

consideration of visibility requiring a 

change in RPG of 1.0 dv improvement 

at a single Class I area to necessitate the 

imposition of additional controls under 

reasonable progress effectively 

undermines and nullifies the 

Congressionally mandated national goal 

and the reasonable progress four-factor 

analysis requirements enumerated in 

CAA sections 169A(a)(1) and (g)(1). 

There are 56,025 anthropogenic 

industrial sources (electric generating 

units (EGU), oil and gas, and other 

industrial point (non-EGU) sources) in 

the United States that contribute to 

Lostwood, which is the closest Class I 

area to the sources evaluated by North 

Dakota.10 North Dakota rejected feasible 

and reasonably inexpensive ($400/ton– 

$1,800/ton) controls at Coyote Station 

and Antelope Valley under two control 

scenarios due to asserted non-visible 

and therefore ostensibly ‘‘insignificant’’ 

visibility improvement (less than 1.0 dv 

change in RPG visibility improvement) 

at a Class I area for the second planning 

period. However, North Dakota’s 

analysis showed that both potential 

control scenarios were feasible and 

reasonably inexpensive and resulted in 

either a 10% or 25% greater visibility 

improvement than existing on-the-books 

controls for this planning period at 

Lostwood. 

In particular, North Dakota’s visibility 

improvement analysis projected 

visibility improvement from existing 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 231 / Monday, December 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 95129 

11See the EPA’s Technical Appendix in the 

docket associated with this action. 

12 Id. 

13North Dakota’s EGU sources contribute ∼22% (a 

significant portion) of the total anthropogenic 

impairment (nitrate and sulfate combined) on mostimpaired days from all sources in the United States 

at Lostwood Wilderness Area. See Technical 

Appendix. 

14North Dakota’s EGU sources contribute ∼14% (a 

significant portion) of the total anthropogenic 

impairment (nitrate and sulfate combined) from all 

sources in the United States at Theodore Roosevelt 

National Park. See Technical Appendix. 

15 82 FR at 3093 (January 10, 2017). 

16 89 FR 56693, 56707–09 (July 10, 2024). 

controls in North Dakota to be 0.4 dv at 

Lostwood for this 10-year planning 

period. North Dakota considered two 

modeling runs to assess visibility 

impact of controls: Potential Additional 

Control Scenario 1 (‘‘PAC1:’’ 

Replacement of the SO2 absorber at 

$1,800/ton and installation of SNCR for 

NOX at $1,700/ton at Coyote Station as 

well as increasing the stoichiometric 

ratio on existing FGD for SO2 emission 

reductions at $700/ton at Antelope 

Valley) and Potential Additional Control 

Scenario 2 (‘‘PAC2:’’ FGD modification 

for SO2 emission reductions ($400/ton) 

at Coyote Station). Based on North 

Dakota’s analysis, PAC1 showed an 

additional 0.1 dv visibility improvement 

at Lostwood, with control costs ranging 

from $700/ton–$1,700/ton, resulting in a 

projected 25% visibility improvement at 

Lostwood for this planning period. 

Under PAC2, North Dakota’s SIP 

showed an additional 0.04 dv projected 

visibility improvement at $400/ton, 

which would result in a projected 10% 

visibility improvement at Lostwood for 

this planning period. North Dakota 

rejected both control scenarios due to 

their lack of ‘‘significant’’ visibility 

improvement or change in RPG. 

In response to comments on our 2017 

RHR, we reemphasized that achieving 

reasonable progress will depend upon 

obtaining aggregate reductions from 

possibly thousands of sources, and thus, 

rejecting a control measure because its 

effect on the RPG is subjectively 

assessed as ‘‘not meaningful’’ when that 

control is identified as feasible and 

relatively inexpensive under the four 

statutory factors would be 

inappropriate. We stated: 

The commenter’s second suggestion, 

that states should be able to reject 

‘‘costly’’ control measures if the RPG for 

the most impaired days is not 

‘‘meaningfully’’ different than current 

visibility conditions, is counterintuitive 

and at odds with the purpose of the 

visibility program. In this situation, the 

state should take a second look to see 

whether more effective controls or 

additional measures are available and 

reasonable. Whether the state takes this 

second look or not, it may not abandon 

the controls it has already determined 

are reasonable based on the four factors. 

Regional haze is visibility impairment 

that is caused by the emission of air 

pollutants from numerous sources 

located over a wide geographic area. At 

any given Class I area, hundreds or even 

thousands of individual sources may 

contribute to regional haze. Thus, it 

would not be appropriate for a state to 

reject a control measure (or measures) 

because its effect on the RPG is 

subjectively assessed as not 

‘‘meaningful.’’ Also, for Class I areas 

where visibility conditions are 

considerably worse than natural 

conditions because of continuing 

anthropogenic impairment from 

numerous sources, the logarithmic 

nature of the deciview index makes the 

effect of a control measure on the value 

of the RPG less than its effect would be 

if visibility conditions at the Class I area 

were better. Thus, if a state could reject 

a control measure based on its 

individual effect on the RPG, the state 

would be more likely to reject those 

measures that are necessary to make 

reasonable progress at the dirtiest Class 

I areas, which would thwart Congress’ 

national goal (82 FR 3078, 3093; Jan. 10, 

2017). 

North Dakota’s approach in 

considering visibility under the fourfactor analysis effectively undermines 

and nullifies Congressional intent, since 

there is no scenario for this or 

subsequent planning periods under 

which controls to improve visibility 

would ever be required under the CAA 

visibility program, no matter how low 

the cost since no one source impairs 

visibility at a single Class I area (e.g. 

Lostwood and Theodore Roosevelt 

National Park) above 1.0 dv. This 

conflicts with the CAA’s stated national 

visibility goal of elimination of 

impairment from manmade sources and 

thus, North Dakota’s consideration of 

visibility is improper. Specifically, 

North Dakota’s determination to reject 

feasible and reasonably inexpensive 

controls at Coyote Station and Antelope 

Valley was improper. North Dakota’s 

own analysis shows significant visibility 

improvement from additional controls 

at Coyote Station and Antelope Valley 

compared against the visibility 

improvement from all sources that 

contribute to visibility impairment at 

Lostwood and/or Theodore Roosevelt 

National Park during this planning 

period. 

To explore this point further, the EPA 

included in the docket to this action a 

Technical Appendix, which examines, 

using Western Regional Air Partnership 

(WRAP) data, the total anthropogenic 

nitrate and sulfate visibility-impairment 

impacts on North Dakota Class I areas 

from the EGU sector in North Dakota. As 

shown in the Technical Appendix, 

North Dakota’s EGU sources contribute 

∼22% (a significant portion) of the total 

anthropogenic impairment (nitrate and 

sulfate combined) on most-impaired 

days from all sources in the United 

States at Lostwood Wilderness Area. 

When compared to natural conditions, 

this translates to 0.92 dv.11 North 

Dakota’s EGU sources contribute ∼14% 

(a significant portion) of the total 

anthropogenic impairment (nitrate and 

sulfate combined) from all sources in 

the United States at Theodore Roosevelt 

National Park. When compared to 

natural conditions, this translates to 

0.26 dv.12 These numbers demonstrate 

the unreasonableness of North Dakota’s 

position that controls must produce a 

perceptible impact to a Class I area RPG, 

or larger than 1.0 dv, to be necessary for 

reasonable progress. The EPA 

acknowledges the significant impact of 

the North Dakota EGU sector on 

visibility impairment at Lostwood 

Wilderness Area 13 and Theodore 

Roosevelt National Park,14 despite these 

impacts amounting to less than a 1.0 dv 

impact on the RPG at each Class I area. 

Thus, North Dakota’s threshold for 

determining whether visibility 

improvement on a Class I area RPG 

necessitates new controls plainly serves 

to nullify the result of a four-factor 

analysis, especially given the low cost of 

controls rejected at Antelope Valley and 

Coyote Station. 

Furthermore, as we have noted 

previously, regional haze is caused by 

hundreds or thousands of individual 

sources and very few remaining sources 

(or even none of them) will individually 

have impacts as large as a threshold that 

might be considered a ‘‘perceptible’’ or 

‘‘meaningful’’ impact. However, these 

sources still contribute to visibility 

impairment and have a meaningful 

impact in the aggregate.15 Under the 

CAA and the RHR, each state that 

impacts a Class I area must consider the 

four statutory factors to determine 

whether additional measures are 

necessary for reasonable progress. Based 

on the WRAP data evaluated in the 

proposed rule, in the Technical 

Appendix, and in the RTC document, 

North Dakota has significant impacts on 

both in-state and out-of-state Class I 

areas,16 which is one of the bases to 

consider additional measures. In its 

analysis of additional measures, North 

Dakota showed that, compared to 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
95130 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 231 / Monday, December 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

17North Dakota’s 2022 SIP Submission, appendix 

D.5–23. 

18 0.29/0.92 = ∼0.32 or a 32% reduction in 

impairment. 

19See the EPA’s Technical Appendix in the 

docket associated with this action. 

20North Dakota’s 2022 SIP Submission, appendix 

D.5–23. 

21 0.17/0.26 = ∼0.65 or a 65% reduction in 

impairment. 

22See the EPA’s Technical Appendix in the 

docket associated with this action. 

23As detailed in the RTC document, the technical 

flaws in North Dakota’s visibility improvement 

analysis included the comparison to a dirty 

background rather than natural conditions (North 

Dakota then provided updated numbers comparing 

to natural conditions in response to comment on 

the draft plan) and using the 20% most-impaired 

days rather than all days to assess impacts from 

individual sources. In addition, North Dakota did 

not consider the visibility benefits to out-of-state 

Class I areas when controls at Antelope Valley and 

Coyote Station also benefit those Class I areas 

identified by North Dakota under CAA 169A(b)(2). 

natural conditions, the controls rejected 

at Antelope Valley and Coyote Station 

would result in a 0.29 dv reduction at 

Lostwood Wilderness Area,17 the 

highest-impacted Class I area from ND 

sources. Comparing this to the total 

impairment resulting from North Dakota 

EGUs at Lostwood Wilderness Area, the 

controls North Dakota rejected at 

Antelope Valley and Coyote Station 

would result in a ∼32% reduction in 

visibility impairment from North 

Dakota’s EGU sector.18 Given that North 

Dakota is by far the largest contributor 

to impairment at Lostwood Wilderness 

Area,19 the EPA finds the reduction in 

visibility impairment associated with 

these controls to be significant. In its 

analysis of additional measures, North 

Dakota also showed that, compared to 

natural conditions, the feasible and 

reasonably inexpensive controls rejected 

at Antelope Valley and Coyote Station 

would result in a 0.17 dv reduction in 

impairment at Theodore Roosevelt 

National Park.20 Comparing this to the 

total impairment resulting from North 

Dakota EGUs at Theodore Roosevelt 

National Park, the controls North Dakota 

rejected at Antelope Valley and Coyote 

Station would result in a ∼65% 

reduction in visibility impairment from 

North Dakota’s EGU sector.21 Given that 

North Dakota is by far the largest 

contributor to impairment at Theodore 

Roosevelt National Park,22 the EPA 

finds that the reduction in visibility 

impairment associated with installation 

of these controls would be significant. 

In addition, North Dakota’s 

consideration of visibility included 

various technical flaws that 

individually, as well as collectively, 

underrepresented the actual visibility 

improvement that might be achieved 

from the addition of controls at Coyote 

Station and Antelope Valley. As more 

fully explained in the RTC document, 

these technical flaws 23 result in an 

overall underestimate of the potential 

visibility improvement that could be 

achieved by the imposition of controls 

selected through the consideration of 

the four reasonable progress factors set 

forth in CAA section 169A(g)(1) on 

which North Dakota based its 

determination. If those errors are 

corrected, the imposition of controls 

under either scenario at Coyote Station 

and/or Antelope Valley would be 

greater than the anticipated 10–25% 

visibility improvement from existing 

controls. 

As described in this preamble and in 

the RTC document, North Dakota’s 

consideration of visibility, namely, its 

selection and application of a 1.0 dv 

visibility improvement threshold to 

reject feasible and reasonably 

inexpensive controls for reasonable 

progress at Antelope Valley and Coyote 

Station, undermines and nullifies the 

results of the four-factor analyses 

performed by North Dakota. This is 

unreasonable and inconsistent with the 

CAA and the RHR. Thus, EPA is 

required to disapprove North Dakota’s 

long-term strategy, as well as the 

associated reasonable progress goals and 

FLM consultation. 

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 North 

Dakota’s 2022 SIP submission. 

We are disapproving the following 

components of North Dakota’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 North Dakota’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, 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 231 / Monday, December 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 95131 

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 

56693 (July 10, 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 

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 JJ—North Dakota 

■ 2. In § 52.1820, the table in paragraph 

(e) is amended by adding an entry for 

‘‘North Dakota State Implementation 

Plan for Regional Haze (Second 

Implementation Period)’’ at the end of 

the table to read as follows: 

§ 52.1820 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

Rule No. Rule title 

State 

effective 

date 

EPA 

effective 

date 

Final rule 

citation/date Comments 

*******

North Dakota State Implementation Plan For Regional Haze 

*******

North Dakota State Implementation Plan for 

Regional Haze (Second 

Implementation Period).

North Dakota State Implementation Plan for 

Regional Haze 

8/10/2022 1/2/2025 [insert Federal Register citation], 12/2/ 

2024 

Excluding the sections disapproved in 

this action. EPA disapproved the 

portions of North Dakota’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. 2024–27940 Filed 11–29–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2023–0368; FRL–12393–01– 

OCSPP] 

Fatty acids, C16–18 and C18-unsatd., 

esters With polyethylene glycol monoMe ether in Pesticide Formulations; 

Tolerance Exemption 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an 

exemption from the requirement of a 

tolerance for residues of fatty acids, 

C16–18 and C18-unsatd., esters with 

polyethylene glycol mono-Me ether 

(CAS Reg. No. 518299–31–5) when used 

as an inert ingredient (surfactant and 

related adjuvant of surfactant) on 

growing crops and raw agricultural 

commodities pre- and post-harvest 

limited to 25% by weight in pesticide 

formulations. Spring Regulatory 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1