```

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 231 (Monday, December 2, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 95117-95121]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-27941]

[[Page 95117]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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: 
[email protected].

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 40 CFR part 81, subpart D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 89 FR 67208 (August 19, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 95118]]

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 long-term 
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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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) mass-based 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 mass-based emission 
limits over SCR for the Hunter and Huntington power plants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 89 FR at 67240-43; RTC document, section 5.C.iv.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 95119]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
    \7\ 89 FR at 67244; RTC document, sections 5.C.iv-v.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 
mass-based 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ All 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Q/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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 long-
term strategy includes all the measures necessary to make reasonable 
progress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 89 FR at 67249-50; RTC document, section 5.D.i.
    \15\ 89 FR at 67250; RTC document, section 5.D.iii.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 89 FR at 67248-49.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 
long-term strategy provisions in 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 89 FR 67208 (August 19, 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 89 FR at 67253-54.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Final Action

    For the reasons stated in the proposed rule, in the RTC document, 
and in this document, we are partially approving

[[Page 95120]]

and partially disapproving Utah's regional haze SIP submission.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Based 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 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

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart TT--Utah

0
2. Amend Sec.  52.2320 by
0
a. In the table in paragraph (c) revising the entry ``R307-110-28''; 
and
0
b. In the table in paragraph (e) revising the entry ``Section XX.A. 
Executive Summary''.
    The revisions read as follows:

Sec.  52.2320  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             State           Final rule
             Rule No.                   Rule title      effective date     citation, date          Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            R307-110. General Requirements: State Implementation Plan
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
R307-110-28......................  Regional Haze......        1/6/2022  [insert Federal      Except for long-
                                                                         Register             term strategy,
                                                                         citation], 12/2/     reasonable
                                                                         2024.                progress goals,
                                                                                              and FLM
                                                                                              consultation.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               State
               Rule title                 effective date   Final rule citation, date           Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                XX. Regional Haze
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section XX.A. Regional Haze Second              1/6/2022  [insert Federal Register    Except for long-term
 Implementation Plan.                                      citation], 12/2/2024.       strategy, reasonable
                                                                                       progress goals, and FLM
                                                                                       consultation.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2024-27941 Filed 11-29-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```