```

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 231 (Monday, December 2, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 95121-95126]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-27942]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 95122]]

Division, EPA, Region 8, Mailcode 8ARD-IO, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, 
Colorado 80202-1129, telephone number: (303) 312-6252; 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
III. Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is being addressed in this document?

    The EPA is partially approving and partially disapproving Wyoming's 
regional haze plan for the second implementation period. As required by 
section 169A of the CAA, the RHR calls for State and Federal agencies 
to work together to improve visibility in 156 national parks and 
wilderness areas, known as mandatory Class I Federal areas.\1\ The rule 
requires the States, in coordination with the EPA, the National Park 
Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Forest Service, and other 
interested parties, to develop and implement air quality protection 
plans to reduce the pollution that causes visibility impairment in 
mandatory Class I Federal areas. Visibility impairing pollutants 
include fine and coarse particulate matter (PM) (e.g., sulfates, 
nitrates, organic carbon, elemental carbon, and soil dust) and their 
precursors (e.g., sulfur dioxide (SO2), oxides of nitrogen 
(NOX), and, in some cases, volatile organic compounds (VOC) 
and ammonia (NH3)). As discussed in further detail in our 
proposed rule, this document, and the accompanying Response to Comments 
(RTC) document, the EPA finds that Wyoming submitted a regional haze 
SIP that does not meet all of the regional haze requirements for the 
second implementation period. The State's submission, the proposed 
rule, and the RTC document can be found in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

II. Summary of the Proposed Action, Public Comments, and the EPA's 
Rationale for Final Action

    On August 10, 2022, Wyoming submitted a revision to its SIP to 
address regional haze for the second implementation period, in 
accordance with the requirements of the CAA's regional haze program 
established by CAA sections 169A and 169B and 40 CFR 51.308.
    On August 1, 2024, the EPA proposed to disapprove certain 
provisions of Wyoming's 2022 SIP submission.\2\ Specifically, we 
proposed to disapprove the portions of Wyoming's 2022 SIP submission 
relating to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2): long-term strategy; 40 CFR 
51.308(f)(3): reasonable progress goals; and 40 CFR 51.308(i): Federal 
Land Manager (FLM) consultation. We also proposed to approve the 
portions of Wyoming's 2022 SIP submission relating to 40 CFR 
51.308(f)(1): calculations of baseline, current, and natural visibility 
conditions, progress to date, and the uniform rate of progress; 40 CFR 
51.308(f)(4): reasonably attributable visibility impairment; 40 CFR 
51.308(f)(5) and 40 CFR 51.308(g): progress report requirements; and 40 
CFR 51.308(f)(6): monitoring strategy and other implementation plan 
requirements. Consistent with section 110(k)(3) of the CAA, the EPA may 
partially approve portions of a submittal if those elements meet all 
applicable requirements and may disapprove the remainder so long as the 
elements are fully separable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 89 FR 63030 (August 1, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our August 1, 2024 proposed rule provided background on the 
requirements of the CAA and RHR, a summary of Wyoming's regional haze 
SIP submittals and related EPA actions, and the EPA's rationale for its 
proposed action. That background and rationale will not be restated in 
full here, although we briefly summarize the reasons for our partial 
disapproval of Wyoming's 2022 SIP submission in the paragraphs that 
follow.
    Our public comment period closed on September 3, 2024. During the 
public notice and comment period, we received more than 6,000 comments 
on our proposal. The full text of the comments received are included in 
the publicly posted docket associated with this action at https://www.regulations.gov. Our RTC document, which is also included in the 
docket, provides full, detailed responses to all significant comments 
received and further explains the basis for our final action.
    In CAA section 169A(a)(1), Congress established the national goal 
of preventing any future and remedying any existing impairment of 
visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas that results from manmade 
(anthropogenic) air pollution. The core component of a regional haze 
SIP submission for the second implementation period is a 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). Wyoming did not include any emission control 
measures, new or existing, in its long-term strategy for the regional 
haze second implementation period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    As explained in section 3.A. of the RTC document, the CAA 
authorizes the EPA to substantively review states' SIP submissions for 
compliance with the statute and RHR to ensure progress towards the 
national visibility goal for Class I areas. Congress charged the EPA 
with exercising ``federal oversight'' over SIP submissions and 
``review[ing] all SIPs to ensure that the plans comply with the 
statute.'' Oklahoma v. EPA, 723 F.3d 1201, 1204 (10th Cir. 2013). The 
``EPA is left with more than the ministerial task of routinely 
approving SIP submissions.'' North Dakota v. EPA, 730 F.3d 750, 761 
(8th Cir. 2013). Instead, the Agency's ``review of a SIP extends not 
only to whether the state considered the necessary factors in its 
determination, but also to whether the determination is one that is 
reasonably moored to the CAA's provisions'' and is ``based on `reasoned 
analysis.' '' Id. at 761, 766 (citing Alaska Dep't of Envt. 
Conservation v. EPA, 540 U.S. 461 (2004)); see also Wyoming v. EPA, 78 
F.4th 1171, 1180-81 (10th Cir. 2023) (noting that ``the Act provides 
for substantive and careful EPA review'' of

[[Page 95123]]

SIP submissions and that ``the EPA does not have to accept unreasonable 
analyses''). For the reasons stated in the proposed rule, this 
document, and in the RTC document, the EPA determines that Wyoming's 
2022 SIP submission does not meet all of the requirements of the CAA 
and RHR.
    As detailed at length in our proposed rule and in the RTC document, 
we conclude that Wyoming's long-term strategy does not meet the 
requirements of CAA section 169A(b)(2) and 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2) on four 
independent grounds. First, Wyoming failed to consider the four 
statutory factors for the sources and associated units and pollutants 
listed in table 1, despite determining that these sources may 
contribute to visibility impairment at Class I areas. In some 
instances, Wyoming provided no justification for the lack of four-
factor analysis. In others, Wyoming improperly relied on planned but 
unenforceable source retirements or on the presence of existing 
emission control measures at a source, without providing adequate 
technical documentation of the effectiveness of those existing controls 
or a sufficient indication that additional controls would not be cost-
effective or reasonable. For the reasons detailed in our proposed rule 
and in the RTC document,\4\ the State's reasoning does not justify its 
decision not to conduct four-factor analyses for these sources, as 
required under CAA section 169A(g)(1) and 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2). 
Therefore, we cannot conclude that Wyoming's long-term strategy 
includes all the measures that are necessary to make reasonable 
progress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 89 FR at 63056-62; RTC document, sections 7, 8, 14.

   Table 1--Sources, Units, and Associated Pollutants That May Affect
 Visibility at Class I Areas Where No Four-Factor Analysis Was Performed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Associated
             Source                     Unit(s)          pollutant(s)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Bridger (PacifiCorp)........  1, 2..............  NOX, SO2, PM.
Jim Bridger (PacifiCorp)........  3, 4..............  SO2, PM.
Naughton (PacifiCorp)...........  1, 2..............  NOX, SO2, PM.
Naughton (PacifiCorp)...........  3.................  NOX, PM.
Dave Johnston (PacifiCorp)......  1, 2..............  NOX, SO2, PM.
Dave Johnston (PacifiCorp)......  4.................  PM.
Wyodak (PacifiCorp).............  1.................  NOX, SO2, PM.
Laramie River Station (Basin      1-3...............  PM.
 Electric).
Laramie Portland Cement           Kilns 1, 2........  SO2.
 (Mountain Cement Company).
Elk Basin Gas Plant (Contango     Engines (9) and     PM.
 Resources, Inc.).                 incinerator.
Elk Basin Gas Plant (Contango     Engines (9).......  SO2.
 Resources, Inc.).
Elk Basin Gas Plant (Contango     Incinerator.......  NOX.
 Resources, Inc.).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although we stated in our proposed rule that Wyoming failed to 
justify the lack of a four-factor analysis of NOX and PM 
emission control measures for Lost Cabin Gas Plant, we are not carrying 
that finding forward into our final rule. Based on our consideration of 
a comment we received and on our further review of Wyoming's 2022 SIP 
submission, we conclude that because the State's Q/d analysis \5\ shows 
that the possible impact of the facility's NOX and PM 
emissions on visibility at Class I areas is very small, Wyoming 
reasonably elected to conduct a four-factor analysis only for 
SO2 control measures for this facility, and not for 
NOX and PM control measures. Therefore, the lack of a four-
factor analysis of NOX and PM emissions controls for Lost 
Cabin Gas Plant is not a reason for our disapproval of the State's 
long-term strategy.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 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.
    \6\ Section 8.K. of the RTC document contains our full response 
to the comment we received on this issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, Wyoming relied on unsupported rationales and failed to 
document the technical basis (including cost, engineering, and 
emissions information) \7\ of its decision not to include any emission 
control measures in its long-term strategy for the sources listed in 
table 2. In evaluating the cost of potential control measures for some 
of these sources, Wyoming used unsubstantiated cost inputs, relied on 
unjustifiably low estimates of control technology efficiencies, and 
miscalculated the level of achievable emission reductions. These 
methodological errors undercut the technical support for Wyoming's cost 
analyses and the State's resulting determinations that control measures 
for these sources would not be cost-effective. In other instances, the 
State provided no reasoning, technical data, or cost information to 
support its conclusions. For the reasons detailed in our proposed rule 
and in the RTC document,\8\ these methodological errors and unsupported 
technical bases, considered collectively, prevent the EPA from 
determining that the State's long-term strategy is adequate to make 
reasonable progress toward meeting the national visibility goal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii).
    \8\ 89 FR at 63062-65; RTC document, sections 3.C., 7, 8.

   Table 2--Sources, Units, and Associated Pollutants Where the State
   Failed To Document the Technical Basis of Its Determinations of the
    Emission Reduction Measures Necessary To Make Reasonable Progress
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Associated
             Source                     Unit(s)          pollutant(s)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Johnston (PacifiCorp)......  4.................  SO2.
Laramie Portland Cement           Kilns 1, 2........  NOX.
 (Mountain Cement Company).

[[Page 95124]]

 
Green River Works (TATA           Calciner 1,         NOX, PM.
 Chemicals).                       Calciner 2.
Elk Basin Gas Plant (Contango     Engines (9).......  NOX.
 Resources, Inc.).
Elk Basin Gas Plant (Contango     Incinerator.......  SO2.
 Resources, Inc.).
Lost Cabin Gas Plant (Burlington  Trains 2, 3.......  SO2.
 Resources).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Third, Wyoming unreasonably rejected emission control measures for 
Elk Basin Gas Plant and Cheyenne Fertilizer Facility (listed in table 
3). Wyoming made no determination that these control measures were not 
cost-effective (based on the cost per ton of emissions reduced); \9\ 
nor did it explain why these measures were otherwise unwarranted under 
the four statutory factors.\10\ The cost-effectiveness values of these 
control measures are below the level that the EPA and the states 
generally found to be reasonable in the first implementation period, 
even without adjusting for inflation. Instead of justifying its 
rejection of these control measures based on the four statutory 
factors, Wyoming cited declining emission trends, its belief that these 
sources will not increase their emissions during the second 
implementation period, and the presence of existing control 
technologies at the facilities (which the State notably did not 
determine to be effective for purposes of making reasonable 
progress).\11\ As we explained in the context of the 2017 Regional Haze 
Rule revisions, ``a state that elects to consider an additional factor 
. . . must consider it in a reasonable way that does not undermine or 
nullify the role of the four statutory factors in determining what 
controls are necessary to make reasonable progress.'' \12\ Wyoming 
improperly relied on these other considerations to reject controls that 
its four-factor analyses showed to be cost-effective and otherwise 
reasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ For the Cheyenne Fertilizer Facility, as with Elk Basin Gas 
Plant, Wyoming did not determine that the cost/ton values of the 
NOX and PM measures it evaluated were unreasonable. 
However, Wyoming concluded that the capital costs of installing PM 
controls (upgraded mist eliminators) on two cooling towers were not 
justified given what the State determined--without explanation--to 
be the ``minute'' amount of PM reductions at stake. Wyoming 2022 SIP 
submission at 191. We do not find this justification to be 
sufficient in light of the mist eliminators' cost-effectiveness 
values (i.e., cost per ton of emissions reduced), which align with 
the cost/ton values that were generally found to be reasonable 
during the first implementation period. See 89 FR at 63065 & n.158. 
Nor did Wyoming explain why the reduction in PM emissions that could 
be achieved by upgraded mist eliminators was not necessary to make 
reasonable progress. As we explained in the 2019 Guidance, capital 
costs considered in isolation may not provide complete information 
about the potential reasonableness of a control measure. 2019 
Guidance at 39. Indeed, Wyoming itself conceded that ``[b]ased on 
this four-factor analysis, this facility may warrant further 
analysis of emission controls to reach reasonable progress.'' 
Wyoming 2022 SIP submission at 191.
    \10\ For Elk Basin Gas Plant, Wyoming did not explicitly 
determine, based on its four-factor analysis, that NOX 
controls are not necessary to make reasonable progress. Wyoming 2022 
SIP submission at 172 (``Considering the four factors above, as well 
as emission trends and permit conditions, this facility may warrant 
further analysis of emission controls to reach reasonable 
progress.''). For NOX and PM controls at the Cheyenne 
Fertilizer Facility, Wyoming asserted that ``[o]verall, considering 
the four factors discussed above, the Division does not believe that 
additional emissions control technology on the Cooper Engines . . . 
or Cooling Towers is necessary to make reasonable progress at this 
time.'' Wyoming 2022 SIP submission at 191. However, aside from 
pointing to the capital costs of PM control measures, Wyoming did 
not explain how it reached that conclusion.
    \11\ Wyoming 2022 SIP submission at 171-72, 191. Wyoming also 
noted that the engines at the Cheyenne Fertilizer Facility are 
natural gas-fired. Id. at 191. However, Wyoming did not explain how 
combustion of natural gas mitigates the need for NOX 
emissions reductions measures or why low-emission combustion (the 
control technology for these engines that the State evaluated 
through four-factor analysis) is not necessary to make reasonable 
progress. As detailed in sections 7.B. and 8.A.ii. of the RTC 
document, combustion of natural gas does not itself render a source 
effectively controlled for NOX emissions.
    \12\ EPA, Responses to Comments on Protection of Visibility: 
Amendments to Requirements for State Plans; Proposed Rule, December 
2016, at 186 (available in the docket for this action).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Within its 2022 SIP submission, Wyoming conceded that based on the 
four-factor analyses it conducted for Elk Basin Gas Plant and Cheyenne 
Fertilizer Facility, these sources may warrant further analysis of the 
measures necessary to make reasonable progress.\13\ Wyoming stated it 
would submit more detailed analyses in the context of its regional haze 
second implementation progress report due in 2025. However, nothing in 
the CAA or RHR allows states to avoid their obligation to determine the 
measures necessary to make reasonable progress through consideration of 
the four statutory factors by delaying decision-making to a future 
date.\14\ For these reasons, and as further detailed in our proposed 
rule and in the RTC document,\15\ we find that Wyoming's long-term 
strategy does not include the measures necessary to make reasonable 
progress because Wyoming unreasonably rejected control measures for Elk 
Basin Gas Plant and Cheyenne Fertilizer Facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Wyoming 2022 SIP submission at 172, 191.
    \14\ Cf. NRDC v. EPA, 22 F.3d 1125, 1134 (D.C. Cir. 1994) 
(noting that SIPs must ``contain[ ] something more than a mere 
promise to take appropriate but unidentified measures in the 
future''). In addition, because progress reports due in 2025 will 
not take the form of SIP revisions that must be approved or 
disapproved by the EPA, it is not clear how Wyoming could evaluate 
and potentially impose federally enforceable emission reduction 
measures at these sources through that process. See generally 40 CFR 
51.308(g).
    \15\ 89 FR at 63065; RTC document, sections 5, 8.I., 8.L.

 Table 3--Sources, Units, and Associated Pollutants and Emission Control Technology Where the State Unreasonably
                                      Rejected Emission Reduction Measures
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Associated            Emission control
                Source                          Unit(s)               pollutant(s)              technology
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Elk Basin Gas Plant (Contango          Engines (9).............  NOX                     Low emission
 Resources, Inc.).                                                                        combustion.
Cheyenne Fertilizer Facility (Dyno     ENG004, ENG005 (engines)  NOX                     Low emission
 Nobel, Inc.).                                                                            combustion.
Cheyenne Fertilizer Facility (Dyno     CTW001, CTW003 (cooling   PM                      Upgraded Mist
 Nobel, Inc.).                          towers).                                          Eliminators.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 95125]]

    Fourth, as explained in our proposed rule and in the RTC 
document,\16\ the overarching justifications that Wyoming provided for 
not including any emission control measures in its long-term strategy 
are either not adequately supported or lack foundation in the CAA and 
RHR. Following its evaluation and rejection of emission control 
measures for individual sources, Wyoming explained its overall 
reasoning for not including any measures in its long-term strategy to 
make reasonable progress for the regional haze second implementation 
period.\17\ The State asserted that such measures could impose economic 
hardships on sources, negatively affect rural communities, force energy 
producers out of the market, harm ratepayers, and cause grid 
instability. However, the State's reliance on these purported economic 
impacts does not reflect reasoned analysis because Wyoming provided no 
analyses, data, or other evidence to support its generalized and 
unsubstantiated assertions. Similarly, Wyoming provided no support for 
its declaration that requiring additional controls would not lead to 
visibility improvements at Class I areas. Finally, Wyoming pointed to 
contributions to visibility impairment from sources outside its 
control; past and projected emission reductions resulting from other 
regulatory programs; and that the State's Class I areas are below the 
adjusted uniform rate of progress (a tracking metric to help states 
assess the amount of progress they are making towards the national 
visibility goal over time in each Class I area). As further explained 
in our proposed rule and in the RTC document, Wyoming's consideration 
of those factors was not reasonably moored to the statute and 
regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 89 FR at 63065-67; RTC document, sections 3.B., 3.G., 4, 
and 9.
    \17\ Wyoming 2022 SIP submission, Chapter 13: Decisions on What 
Control Measures are Necessary to Make Reasonable Progress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to disapproving the State's long-term strategy, we are 
disapproving Wyoming's reasonable progress goals under 40 CFR 
51.308(f)(3) and its consultation with Federal Land Managers under 40 
CFR 51.308(i). As detailed in our proposed rule and in the RTC 
document,\18\ compliance with these requirements is dependent on 
compliance with the long-term strategy provisions in 40 CFR 
51.308(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 89 FR at 63067-68; RTC document, sections 3.B., 10 
(reasonable progress goals). 89 FR at 63069-70; RTC document, 
sections 3.E., 11 (FLM consultation).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Final Action

    For the reasons stated in the proposed rule, in the RTC document, 
and in this document, we are partially approving and partially 
disapproving Wyoming's 2022 SIP submission.
    We are disapproving the following components of Wyoming's 2022 SIP 
submission relating to CAA section 169A:
     Long-term strategy (40 CFR 51.308(f)(2));
     Reasonable progress goals (40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)); and
     FLM consultation (40 CFR 51.308(i)).
    We are approving the following components of Wyoming's 2022 SIP 
submission relating to CAA section 169A:
     Calculations of baseline, current, and natural visibility 
conditions, progress to date, and uniform rate of progress (40 CFR 
51.308(f)(1));
     Reasonably attributable visibility impairment (40 CFR 
51.308(f)(4));
     Progress report requirements (40 CFR 51.308(f)(5) and 40 
CFR 51.308(g)); and
     Monitoring strategy and other implementation plan 
requirements (40 CFR 51.308(f)(6)).

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP 
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable 
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in 
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, 
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this 
action partially approves and partially disapproves state law as 
meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional 
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this 
action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review 
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 14094 (88 FR 21879, April 11, 2023);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, 
April 23, 1997) because it approves a state program;
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the CAA.
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian 
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian Tribe has 
demonstrated that a Tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 
country, the rule does not have Tribal implications and will not impose 
substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law as 
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions To Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629, 
Feb. 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address 
``disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 
effects'' of their actions on communities with environmental justice 
(EJ) concerns to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law. 
Executive Order 14096 (Revitalizing Our Nation's Commitment to 
Environmental Justice for All, 88 FR 25251, April 26, 2023) builds on 
and supplements E.O. 12898 and defines EJ as, among other things, the 
just treatment and meaningful involvement of all people, regardless of 
income, race, color, national origin, or Tribal affiliation, or 
disability in agency decision-making and other Federal activities that 
affect human health and the environment.
    The State did not evaluate EJ considerations as part of its SIP 
submittal; the CAA and applicable implementing regulations neither 
prohibit nor require such an evaluation. EPA performed an EJ analysis, 
as is described in the proposed action 89 FR 63030 (August 1, 2024) in 
the section titled, ``Environmental Justice.'' The analysis was done 
for the purpose of providing additional context and information about 
this rulemaking to the public, not as a basis of the action. In 
addition, there is no information in the record upon which this 
decision is based inconsistent with the stated goal

[[Page 95126]]

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

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

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

Subpart ZZ--Wyoming

0
2. In Sec.  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:

Sec.  52.2620  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 State effective   EPA effective     Final rule citation/
               Rule No.                       Rule title               date             date                 date                     Comments
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
(36) XXXVI...........................  Wyoming State                       2022         1/2/2025   [insert Federal          Excluding the following:
                                        Implementation Plan,                                        Register citation], 12/  Chapters 3.4, 7, 8, 10, 11,
                                        Second Planning Period.                                     2/2024.                  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
```