Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 231 / Monday, December 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 95117 

1See 40 CFR part 81, subpart D. 2 89 FR 67208 (August 19, 2024). 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2024–0389; FRL–12173– 

02–R8] 

Air Plan Partial Approval and Partial 

Disapproval; Utah; Regional Haze 

State Implementation Plan for the 

Second Implementation Period; Air 

Plan Disapproval; Utah; Prong 4 

(Visibility) for the 2015 8-Hour Ozone 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

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 Utah on 

August 2, 2022 (Utah’s regional haze 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. Additionally, the EPA is 

disapproving the visibility transport 

‘‘Prong 4’’ portion of Utah’s 

infrastructure SIP submission submitted 

on January 9, 2020, for the 2015 Ozone 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

(NAAQS). The EPA is taking these 

actions 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–2024–0389. 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: 

Clayton Bean, Air and Radiation 

Division, EPA, Region 8, Mailcode 

8ARD–IO, 1595 Wynkoop Street, 

Denver, Colorado 80202–1129, 

telephone number: (303) 312–6143, 

email address: bean.clayton@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 

A. Regional Haze Plan for the Second 

Implementation Period 

B. Prong 4 (Visibility) of the 2015 Ozone 

NAAQS Infrastructure SIP 

III. Final Action 

IV. Incorporation by Reference 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What is being addressed in this 

document? 

The EPA is partially approving and 

partially disapproving Utah’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 

Utah submitted a regional haze SIP that 

does not meet all of the statutory and 

regulatory requirements for the regional 

haze second implementation period. 

Additionally, the EPA is disapproving 

a portion of Utah’s January 9, 2020, 

infrastructure SIP submission for the 

2015 ozone NAAQS that addresses 

interstate transport of visibility 

impairing pollutants. Utah submitted 

this SIP submission to address the 

applicable requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2) for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. 

We are disapproving the portion of the 

infrastructure SIP submission 

addressing interstate transport of 

visibility impairing pollutants for not 

meeting the requirements of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (‘‘Prong 4’’). 

The State’s submissions, 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 

Our notice of proposed rulemaking 

was published on August 19, 2024. 89 

FR 67208. Our public comment period 

closed on September 18, 2024. During 

the public notice and comment period, 

we received more than 5,600 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 

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. 

A. Regional Haze Plan for the Second 

Implementation Period 

On August 2, 2022, Utah 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 19, 2024, the EPA 

proposed to disapprove certain 

provisions of Utah’s regional haze SIP 

submission.2 Specifically, we proposed 

to disapprove the portions of Utah’s 

regional haze 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 

Utah’s regional haze 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 19, 2024, proposed rule 

provided background on the 

requirements of the CAA and RHR, a 

summary of Utah’s regional haze SIP 

submittals and related EPA actions, and 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
95118 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 231 / Monday, December 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

3CAA section 169A(g)(1); 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i). 

4 89 FR at 67234–37. Table 13 and figures 2–3 in 

the proposed rule show that both power plants’ 

recent actual (2014–2021) NOX emissions were, in 

many years, lower than the initial (2022), interim 

(2025), and/or final (2028) mass-based emission 

limits. Table 12 shows that the final (2028) massbased emission limits, which are the most stringent, 

will result in a net increase in NOX emissions of 

8 tons per year from Hunter and Huntington 

combined, compared to the emissions projections 

based on an ‘‘on the books’’ (no additional controls) 

scenario for 2028 that Utah relied on in its SIP 

development. 

5 89 FR at 67240–43; RTC document, section 

5.C.iv. 

6 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) provides that if a state 

concludes that a control measure cannot reasonably 

be installed and become operational until after the 

end of the implementation period, the state may not 

consider this fact in determining whether the 

measure is necessary to make reasonable progress. 

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 

Utah’s regional haze 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 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). 

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). 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 Utah’s regional haze 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 Utah’s long-term strategy 

does not meet the requirements of CAA 

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

51.308(f)(2) on three independent 

grounds. Our first basis for disapproval 

of Utah’s long-term strategy is the 

State’s unreasonable rejection of NOX

emission reduction measures at the 

Hunter and Huntington power plants. 

Based on its evaluation of the four 

statutory factors, Utah concluded that 

installation of selective catalytic 

reduction (SCR) or other physical NOX

pollution controls is not necessary to 

achieve reasonable progress toward 

Congress’s national visibility goal. 

Instead, Utah established plantwide 

mass-based NOX emission limits, which 

cap the total amount of NOX the Hunter 

and Huntington power plants can emit 

during a 12-month rolling period at 

levels that are similar to the status quo.4

Utah’s determination that the 

plantwide mass-based NOX emission 

limits for Hunter and Huntington are all 

that is necessary to make reasonable 

progress is not grounded in a reasoned 

evaluation of the four statutory factors 

or a defensible technical analysis. 

Utah’s assessment of the costs of 

compliance, one of the four statutory 

factors, hinged on its finding that 

physical controls that cost more than 

$5,750/ton are not cost-effective for the 

plants; a determination that likely 

reductions in the future utilization of 

Hunter and Huntington would reduce 

the cost-effectiveness of SCR; and 

concern about various affordability 

considerations associated with the 

installation of SCR, including an 

unsubstantiated conclusion that a 

requirement to install SCR may cause 

the plants to close early. As detailed in 

the proposed rule and in the RTC 

document,5 Utah did not provide 

adequate support for its analysis of and 

conclusions regarding the costs of 

compliance. Therefore, we find that 

Utah did not justify its conclusion that 

the costs of compliance favored massbased emission limits over SCR for the 

Hunter and Huntington power plants. 

We also find that Utah’s evaluation of 

the other three statutory factors (the 

time necessary for compliance, the 

energy and non-air quality 

environmental impacts of compliance, 

and the remaining useful life of any 

potentially affected anthropogenic 

source of visibility impairment) was 

unreasonable. Utah did not take into 

consideration the factual information 

supplied by the operator of the plants or 

the regulation governing how time 

necessary for compliance may be 

considered when concluding that the 

time necessary for compliance favored 

mass-based emission limits over SCR.6

For the energy and non-air quality 

impacts of SCR, Utah provided no 

analysis or documentation to support its 

assertion that because Hunter and 

Huntington are projected to assist in a 

transition toward intermittent 

renewable energy generation (e.g., wind 

and solar), a requirement to install SCR 

could lead to early plant closures and 

thereby negatively affect renewable 

energy deployment. In considering the 

plants’ remaining useful lives, Utah did 

not adequately substantiate its concerns 

about early plant closures or its 

assessment that Hunter and Huntington 

would retire before the 30-year 

amortization period for SCR, further 

reducing SCR’s cost-effectiveness. Utah 

also relied on the plants’ projected 

retirement dates from the owner’s 

resource plans, which frequently change 

and are not federally enforceable. For 

the reasons detailed in the proposed 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 231 / Monday, December 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 95119 

7 89 FR at 67244; RTC document, sections 5.C.ivv. 

8All else equal, lower plant utilization results in 

physical controls such as SCR becoming relatively 

less cost-effective, because the cost per ton of 

emissions reduced increases as plant utilization 

decreases. 

9 89 FR at 67241–43; RTC document, section 

5.C.iv.b. 

10 89 FR at 67244; RTC document, section 5.C.vi. 

11 89 FR at 67240–44; RTC document, section 5.C. 

12Q/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. 

13 89 FR at 67245–48; RTC document, sections 

4.B., 11. 

14 89 FR at 67249–50; RTC document, section 

5.D.i. 

15 89 FR at 67250; RTC document, section 5.D.iii. 

16 89 FR at 67248–49. 

17 89 FR at 67251; RTC document, sections 3.B., 

6 (reasonable progress goals). 89 FR at 67253; RTC 

document, sections 3.C., 7 (FLM consultation). 

18 89 FR 67208 (August 19, 2024). 

19 89 FR at 67253–54. 

rule and in the RTC document,7 we find 

that Utah unreasonably concluded that 

the remaining three statutory factors 

support its determination that 

plantwide mass-based emission limits 

for the Hunter and Huntington power 

plants, instead of SCR, are all that is 

necessary to make reasonable progress 

toward the national visibility goal. 

Furthermore, the specific parameters 

of the mass-based emission limits that 

Utah established do not reflect reasoned 

analysis. In rejecting SCR, Utah relied 

on its unsupported conclusion that 

future utilization of Hunter and 

Huntington was likely to decrease, 

thereby eroding the cost-effectiveness of 

SCR.8 However, Utah then set the massbased emission limits at levels premised 

on increased plant utilization, without 

acknowledging or reconciling the 

conflict in its treatment of plant 

utilization within its SIP submission.9

Nor did Utah adequately support its 

determination that mass-based emission 

limits that apply over the course of a 12- 

month rolling period, as opposed to a 

shorter time period such as monthly or 

seasonally, are sufficient to make 

reasonable progress.10 For all of these 

reasons, and as further detailed in our 

proposed rule and RTC document,11 we 

are disapproving Utah’s long-term 

strategy because the State did not 

reasonably evaluate the NOX emission 

reduction measures for Hunter and 

Huntington that are necessary to make 

reasonable progress toward Congress’s 

national visibility goal. See CAA section 

169A(g)(1); 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2). 

Our second basis for disapproval of 

Utah’s long-term strategy is the State’s 

unjustified decision not to evaluate 

whether emission reduction measures at 

CCI Paradox Lisbon Natural Gas Plant 

are necessary for reasonable progress. 

Utah relied on inaccurately calculated 

2020 emissions data and an incorrect 

determination that anomalously high 

SO2 emissions in 2014 and 2015 had 

caused the facility to exceed Utah’s Q/ 

d threshold 12 for requiring four-factor 

analysis. In its comments on the 

proposed rule, Utah conceded that it 

had erroneously calculated the facility’s 

Q/d value based on incorrect 2020 

emissions data and noted its intention 

to submit a SIP revision or SIP 

supplement to address this issue. 

Because this deficiency has not been 

rectified, and as further detailed in our 

proposed rule and in the RTC 

document,13 we are disapproving Utah’s 

long-term strategy because the State did 

not consider the emission reduction 

measures at CCI Paradox Lisbon Natural 

Gas Plant that are necessary to make 

reasonable progress toward the national 

visibility goal, as required by CAA 

section 169A(g)(1) and 40 CFR 

51.308(f)(2). 

Our third basis for disapproval of 

Utah’s long-term strategy is the State’s 

unreasonable rejection of SO2 emission 

reduction measures at Sunnyside 

Cogeneration and its incorporation of 

unsupported emission limits for that 

facility into its SIP. As explained in our 

proposed rule and in the RTC 

document, Utah unreasonably rejected 

dry scrubbing (also known as dry 

sorbent injection), a technically feasible 

SO2 control, without providing adequate 

technical documentation.14 After 

rejecting dry scrubbing, Utah 

determined that the facility’s existing 

emission limits are necessary to achieve 

reasonable progress and incorporated 

those emission limits into its SIP.15

However, the SIP incorporates two 

separate emission limits for both NOX

and SO2: one that applies during normal 

boiler operation and a higher limit that 

applies during startup, shutdown, and 

malfunction (SSM) events. Utah did not 

include a definition of the term ‘‘normal 

boiler operations’’ and did not provide 

any documentation of the frequency of 

normal boiler operations versus SSM 

events. Utah also did not explain how 

often the facility operates at the higher 

SSM emission limits and did not 

provide adequate technical 

documentation addressing how those 

higher limits relate to the State’s 

obligation to make reasonable progress. 

In sum, due to Utah’s unreasonable 

rejection of SO2 emission reduction 

measures and its inclusion of 

unsupported emission limits for 

Sunnyside Cogeneration into its SIP, we 

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

necessary to make reasonable progress. 

Our proposed rule identified a fourth 

basis for disapproval of Utah’s long-term 

strategy: Utah’s improper inclusion of 

automatic exemptions for SSM events in 

the emission restrictions for 

Intermountain power plant.16 After 

careful consideration of comments, we 

are not relying on this issue as a basis 

for our disapproval of Utah’s long-term 

strategy in our final rule. Section 5.F.i. 

of the RTC document sets forth our 

rationale and contains our full 

responses to the comments we received 

regarding the SSM provisions for 

Intermountain power plant. 

Finally, in addition to disapproving 

the State’s long-term strategy, we are 

disapproving Utah’s reasonable progress 

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

consultation with FLMs under 40 CFR 

51.308(i). As detailed in our proposed 

rule and in the RTC document,17

compliance with these requirements is 

dependent on compliance with the longterm strategy provisions in 40 CFR 

51.308(f)(2). 

B. Prong 4 (Visibility) of the 2015 Ozone 

NAAQS Infrastructure SIP 

On January 9, 2020, Utah submitted 

its infrastructure SIP for the 2015 ozone 

NAAQS to address the applicable 

requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2). 

Subsequently, on August 19, 2024, the 

EPA proposed to disapprove the portion 

of Utah’s January 9, 2020, infrastructure 

SIP submission for the 2015 ozone 

NAAQS that addressed interference 

with visibility protection (‘‘Prong 4’’).18

Our public comment period closed on 

September 18, 2024. 

Our August 19, 2024, proposed rule 

provided background on the 

requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2) 

for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, a summary 

of the portion of Utah’s infrastructure 

SIP submittal being acted on and related 

EPA actions, and the EPA’s rationale for 

its proposed action. That background 

and rationale will not be restated here. 

For the reasons stated in the proposed 

rule 19 and in section 12 of the 

accompanying RTC document, the EPA 

concludes that the Prong 4 portion of 

Utah’s January 9, 2020, infrastructure 

SIP submission does not meet the 

requirements of CAA section 

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

III. Final Action 

For the reasons stated in the proposed 

rule, in the RTC document, and in this 

document, we are partially approving 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
95120 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 231 / Monday, December 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

20Based on Utah’s specific titles in the regional 

haze SIP submission, we are disapproving: (1) 

Section IX.H.21: General Requirements: Control 

measures for Area and Point Sources, Emission 

Limits and Operating Practices, Regional Haze 

Requirements; (2) Section IX.H.23. Source Specific 

Emission Limitations Regional Haze Requirements, 

Reasonable Progress Controls; and (3) R307–110–17. 

General Requirements: State Implementation Plan, 

Section IX, Control Measures for Area and Point 

Sources, Part H, Emission Limits. Additionally, 

based on Utah’s specific titles in the regional haze 

SIP submission, and identified by the bullet list 

below, we are partially approving and partially 

disapproving: (1) Section XX.A: Regional Haze 

Second Implementation Period; and (2) R307–110– 

28. General Requirements: State Implementation 

Plan, Regional Haze. 21 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997). 

and partially disapproving Utah’s 

regional haze SIP submission.20

We are disapproving the following 

components of Utah’s regional haze 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 Utah’s regional haze 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)). 

Additionally, as a consequence of our 

partial disapproval of Utah’s regional 

haze SIP submission for the second 

implementation period, the EPA is 

disapproving the Prong 4 portion of 

Utah’s January 9, 2020, infrastructure 

SIP for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, 

pursuant to CAA section 

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

IV. Incorporation by Reference 

In this document, the EPA is 

finalizing regulatory text that includes 

incorporation by reference. In 

accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 

51.5, the EPA is finalizing the 

incorporation by reference of R307– 

110–28, excluding long-term strategy, 

reasonable progress goals, and FLM 

consultation. The EPA has made, and 

will continue to make, this material 

generally available through https://

www.regulations.gov and at the EPA 

Region 8 Office (please contact the 

person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

preamble for more information). 

Therefore, this material has been 

approved by the EPA for inclusion in 

Utah’s SIP, has been incorporated by 

reference by the EPA into that plan, is 

fully federally enforceable under 

sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of 

the effective date of the final rulemaking 

of the EPA’s approval, and will be 

incorporated by reference in the next 

update to the SIP compilation.21

V. 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. 

Utah evaluated EJ considerations as 

part of its SIP submittal even though the 

CAA and applicable implementing 

regulations neither prohibit nor require 

an evaluation. A summary of Utah’s EJ 

considerations is contained in section 

VIII. of the proposed rule. The EPA also 

performed an EJ analysis, as described 

in the proposed rule. Both Utah’s and 

the EPA’s analyses were done for the 

purpose of providing additional context 

and information about this rulemaking 

to the public, not as a basis of the 

action. The EPA is taking action under 

the CAA on bases independent of Utah’s 

evaluation of EJ. In addition, there is no 

information in the record upon which 

this decision is based that is 

inconsistent with the stated goal of E.O. 

12898 of achieving EJ for people of 

color, low-income populations, and 

Indigenous peoples. 

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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
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