82 FR 16770 - Montana Administrative Rule Revisions: 17.8.334
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 65 (April 6, 2017)
Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 65 (April 6, 2017)
| Page Range | 16770-16772 | |
| FR Document | 2017-06894 |
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 65 (Thursday, April 6, 2017)] [Proposed Rules] [Pages 16770-16772] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2017-06894] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R08-OAR-2016-0477; FRL-9960-70-Region 8] Montana Administrative Rule Revisions: 17.8.334 AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to fully approve a revision to Montana's State Implementation Plan (SIP). On July 6, 2016, the Governor of Montana submitted to the EPA a revision to the Montana SIP that removed one section of the Administrative Rules of Montana (ARM) pertaining to aluminum plants. In this action, the EPA is proposing to approve the removal of this section from the SIP because the provision is inconsistent with Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements, as explained in the EPA's June 12, 2015 startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) SIP call for Montana. Removal of this provision will correct certain deficiencies related to the treatment of excess emissions from aluminum plants. DATES: Written comments must be received on or before May 8, 2017. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08- OAR-2016-0477 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Adam Clark, Air Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. (303) 312-7104, [email protected]. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA? 1. Submitting Confidential Business Information (CBI). Do not submit CBI to the EPA through http://www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information on a disk or CD ROM that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments, remember to:Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register volume, date, and page number); Follow directions and organize your comments; Explain why you agree or disagree; Suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes; Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used; If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced; Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives; Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats; and, Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified. [[Page 16771]] II. Background On June 30, 2011, the Sierra Club (the Petitioner) filed a petition for rulemaking with the EPA Administrator, asking the EPA to take action on specific provisions in the SIPs of 39 states. The petition included interrelated requests concerning state rule treatment of excess emissions by sources during periods of SSM. Exemptions from emission limitations during periods of SSM exist in a number of state rules, some of which were adopted and approved into SIPs by the EPA many years ago. The petition alleged that SSM exemptions undermine the emission limitations in SIPs and threaten states' abilities to achieve and maintain compliance with national ambient air quality standards, thereby threatening public health and public welfare. The Petitioner requested that the EPA either (i) notify the states of the substantial inadequacies in their SIPs and finalize a rule requiring them to revise their plans pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(5) (referred to as a ``SIP call''), or (ii) determine that the EPA's action approving the implementation plan provisions was in error and revise those approvals so that the SIPs are brought into compliance with the requirements of the CAA pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(6). On February 22, 2013 (78 FR 12459), the EPA proposed an action that would either grant or deny the Sierra Club petition with respect to each of the SIP provisions alleged to be inconsistent with the CAA. That proposal summarizes the EPA's review of all of the provisions that were identified in the petition, providing a detailed analysis of each provision and explaining how each one either does or does not comply with the CAA with regard to excess emission events. For each SIP provision that appeared to be inconsistent with the CAA, the EPA proposed to find that the existing SIP provision was substantially inadequate to meet CAA requirements and thus proposed to issue a SIP call under CAA section 110(k)(5) of the CAA. On May 22, 2015, the EPA Administrator signed the final SSM SIP action. That action responds to the Sierra Club petition by granting it with respect to the provisions determined to be deficient and denying it with respect to the others. The final action responds to all public comments received on the proposed action and calls for 36 states to submit corrective SIP revisions by November 22, 2016, to bring specified provisions into compliance with the CAA. In addition, the final action reiterates the EPA's interpretation of the CAA regarding excess emissions during SSM periods and clarifies the EPA's longstanding SSM Policy as it applies to SIPs. With regard to the Montana SIP, the Petitioner objected to ARM 17.8.334.\1\ Specifically, the Petitioner argued that ARM 17.8.334 is inconsistent with the CAA and the EPA's interpretation of the CAA in the SSM Policy because it contained an automatic exemption for emissions during startup and shutdown events. ARM 17.8.334 stated, ``Operations during startup and shutdown shall not constitute representative conditions for the purposes of determining compliance with this rule,'' and further specified that, ``nor shall emissions in excess of the levels required in [two other ARM sections] during periods of startup and shutdown be considered a violation of [those sections].'' --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ 80 FR 33846 (June 12, 2015). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In accordance with the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(A), SIPs must contain enforceable emission limitations that, in accordance with the definition of ``emission limitation'' in CAA section 302(k), limit emissions of air pollutants on a continuous basis. CAA section 304 generally provides that any person may bring a civil action against any person who is alleged to have violated or to be in violation of an ``emission standard or limitation'' under the CAA, including SIP emission limitations. The EPA can similarly enforce against violations of SIP emission limitations under CAA section 113. Thus, SIP emission limitations can be enforced in a section 304 action or under section 113 and so must be enforceable. SIP provisions that create exemptions such that excess emissions during SSM and other conditions are not violations of the applicable emission limitations are inconsistent with these fundamental requirements of the CAA with respect to emission limitations in SIPs.\2\ Because ARM 17.8.334 exempts emissions occurring during periods of startup and shutdown from otherwise applicable SIP emission limitations, the EPA determined in its final SSM SIP action that this provision is inconsistent with CAA requirements. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\ For details regarding these legal requirements for SIP emission limitations, including EPA's interpretation of the cited CAA provisions and guidance for satisfying them, please see EPA's ``State Implementation Plans: Response to Petition for Rulemaking; Findings of Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP Calls To Amend Provisions Applying To Excess Emissions During Periods of Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction,'' (SSM SIP Action), 78 FR 12459 (Feb. 22, 2014) (proposal); 80 FR 33839 (June 12, 2015) (final). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Under CAA section 110(k)(5), Montana is required to revise the SIP as necessary to correct the inadequacies identified by the SSM SIP action within a period specified by the Administrator (not to exceed eighteen months); the SSM SIP action set a deadline of November 22, 2016 for the corrective SIP revision. On July 6, 2016, the Governor of Montana submitted to the EPA for approval a SIP revision that would remove ARM 17.8.334 from the SIP.\3\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\ The State rulemaking that repealed ARM 17.8.334 also repealed two other sections of Montana's rules, including ARM 17.8.335, which allowed aluminum plants to exceed applicable limitations during maintenance periods. ARM 17.8.335 was never approved into Montana's SIP and correspondingly was not identified in the final SSM SIP Action as substantially inadequate. As indicated by the cover letter from the Governor of Montana for the July 6, 2016 submission, the only portion of the rulemaking submitted for approval is the removal of ARM 17.8.334 from the SIP. Today's proposed action, if finalized, will complete the EPA's action on the entirety of the July 6, 2016 submission. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- III. Montana Revision and EPA Analysis Under CAA section 110(k), the EPA has the authority and responsibility to review SIP submissions to assure that they meet all applicable requirements. CAA section 110(l) prohibits the EPA from approving a SIP revision that would interfere with any applicable requirement of the CAA. In this instance, the State has elected to bring its existing SIP into compliance with CAA requirements by removing a previously approved provision that created unlawful exemptions from otherwise applicable emission limitations in the SIP during periods of startup and shutdown. As noted, the State proposed removing this provision, ARM 17.8.334, from the Montana SIP in its July 6, 2016 submission. We consider the removal of this provision sufficient to correct the inadequacies that the EPA's SSM SIP action identified in the Montana SIP.\4\ As a result of the removal from the SIP, the impermissible exemptions from emissions limitations contained within this provision will no longer be available to sources. As explained in the SSM SIP action, removal of an automatic exemption is an appropriate way to address the inadequacy. 80 FR at 33848. The EPA's proposed approval of this revision is consistent with CAA section 110(l) because approval will not interfere with any applicable requirement of the CAA. Specifically, by removing the unlawful exemptions created by ARM 17.8.334, the SIP is now more protective. Furthermore, this revision will render the revised [[Page 16772]] emission limitations consistent with the CAA requirement that emission limitations in SIPs must be continuously applicable and enforceable. Therefore, we are proposing to approve the removal of this provision from the SIP. Because removal of this provision would fully address the inadequacies that the SSM SIP action identified in the Montana SIP, this proposed action, if finalized, will satisfy Montana's obligations pursuant to the EPA's SSM SIP action. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\ For a more in-depth discussion on the inadequacies of ARM 17.8.334, see our proposed SSM SIP Action, 78 FR 12459, 12530-12531, February 22, 2013. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IV. The EPA's Proposed Action We are proposing to fully approve Montana's July 6, 2016 SIP submission, which removes ARM 17.8.334 from the Montana SIP. If finalized, our approval of this submission will fully correct the inadequacies in Montana's SIP that were identified in the EPA's SSM SIP action. V. Statutory and Executive Orders Review Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations (42 U.S.C. 7410(k), 40 CFR 52.02(a)). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements; this proposed action does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action: Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993); 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 an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); 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 Clean Air Act; and Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the 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). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Dated: January 30, 2017. Debra H. Thomas, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8. [FR Doc. 2017-06894 Filed 4-5-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
![16770 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 65 / Thursday, April 6, 2017 / Proposed Rules
TABLE TO § 165.506—Continued
[All coordinates listed in the Table to § 165.506 reference Datum NAD 1983]
Enforcement
No. Location Safety zone—regulated area
period(s) 1
13 ......... August—1st Tuesday .......... New River, Jacksonville, NC, Safety Zone All waters of the New River within a 300 yard radius of
the fireworks launch site in approximate position lati-
tude 34°44′45″ N., longitude 077°26′18″ W., approxi-
mately one half mile south of the Hwy 17 Bridge, Jack-
sonville, North Carolina.
14 ......... May—3rd or 4th Saturday; Bath Creek, Bath, NC, Safety Zone ........... All waters on Bath Creek within a 300 yard radius of po-
July 4th. sition 35°28′05″ N., 076°48′56″ W., Bath, NC.
15 ......... July 4th. October—2nd Sat- Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, All waters of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway within a
urday. Swansboro, NC, Safety Zone. 300 yard radius of approximate position latitude
34°41′02″ N., longitude 077°07′04″ W., located on Pel-
ican Island.
16 ......... September—4th or last Sat- Shallowbag Bay, Manteo, NC; Safety Zone All waters of Shallowbag Bay within a 200 yard radius of
urday. a fireworks barge anchored at latitude 35°54′31″ N.,
longitude 075°39′42″ W.
1 As noted in paragraph (d) of this section, the enforcement period for each of the listed safety zones is subject to change.
* * * * * ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08– mark the part or all of the information
§ 165.540 [Removed]
OAR–2016–0477 at http:// that you claim to be CBI. For CBI
■ 10. Remove § 165.540. www.regulations.gov. Follow the online information on a disk or CD ROM that
Dated: March 10, 2017. instructions for submitting comments. you mail to the EPA, mark the outside
Meredith L. Austin, Once submitted, comments cannot be of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, edited or removed from Regulations.gov. identify electronically within the disk or
Fifth Coast Guard District. The EPA may publish any comment CD ROM the specific information that is
[FR Doc. 2017–06728 Filed 4–5–17; 8:45 am] received to its public docket. Do not claimed as CBI. In addition to one
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P submit electronically any information complete version of the comment that
you consider to be Confidential includes information claimed as CBI, a
Business Information (CBI) or other copy of the comment that does not
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION information whose disclosure is contain the information claimed as CBI
AGENCY restricted by statute. Multimedia must be submitted for inclusion in the
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be public docket. Information so marked
40 CFR Part 52 accompanied by a written comment. will not be disclosed except in
The written comment is considered the accordance with procedures set forth in
[EPA–R08–OAR–2016–0477; FRL–9960–70–
Region 8] official comment and should include 40 CFR part 2.
discussion of all points you wish to 2. Tips for preparing your comments.
Montana Administrative Rule make. The EPA will generally not When submitting comments, remember
Revisions: 17.8.334 consider comments or comment to:
contents located outside of the primary • Identify the rulemaking by docket
AGENCY: Environmental Protection submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or number and other identifying
Agency (EPA). other file sharing system). For information (subject heading, Federal
ACTION: Proposed rule. additional submission methods, the full Register volume, date, and page
EPA public comment policy, number);
SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to fully • Follow directions and organize your
approve a revision to Montana’s State information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on comments;
Implementation Plan (SIP). On July 6, • Explain why you agree or disagree;
2016, the Governor of Montana making effective comments, please visit
http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ • Suggest alternatives and substitute
submitted to the EPA a revision to the language for your requested changes;
Montana SIP that removed one section commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
• Describe any assumptions and
of the Administrative Rules of Montana provide any technical information and/
(ARM) pertaining to aluminum plants. Adam Clark, Air Program, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency or data that you used;
In this action, the EPA is proposing to • If you estimate potential costs or
approve the removal of this section from (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P–AR,
burdens, explain how you arrived at
the SIP because the provision is 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado
your estimate in sufficient detail to
inconsistent with Clean Air Act (CAA) 80202–1129. (303) 312–7104,
allow for it to be reproduced;
clark.adam@epa.gov.
requirements, as explained in the EPA’s • Provide specific examples to
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
June 12, 2015 startup, shutdown, and SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: illustrate your concerns, and suggest
malfunction (SSM) SIP call for Montana. I. General Information alternatives;
Removal of this provision will correct • Explain your views as clearly as
certain deficiencies related to the What should I consider as I prepare my possible, avoiding the use of profanity
treatment of excess emissions from comments for EPA? or personal threats; and,
aluminum plants. 1. Submitting Confidential Business • Make sure to submit your
DATES: Written comments must be Information (CBI). Do not submit CBI to comments by the comment period
received on or before May 8, 2017. the EPA through http:// deadline identified.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:21 Apr 05, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06APP1.SGM 06APP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_16835/page/1.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 65 / Thursday, April 6, 2017 / Proposed Rules 16771
II. Background longstanding SSM Policy as it applies to a period specified by the Administrator
On June 30, 2011, the Sierra Club (the SIPs. (not to exceed eighteen months); the
Petitioner) filed a petition for With regard to the Montana SIP, the SSM SIP action set a deadline of
rulemaking with the EPA Administrator, Petitioner objected to ARM 17.8.334.1 November 22, 2016 for the corrective
asking the EPA to take action on specific Specifically, the Petitioner argued that SIP revision. On July 6, 2016, the
provisions in the SIPs of 39 states. The ARM 17.8.334 is inconsistent with the Governor of Montana submitted to the
petition included interrelated requests CAA and the EPA’s interpretation of the EPA for approval a SIP revision that
concerning state rule treatment of excess CAA in the SSM Policy because it would remove ARM 17.8.334 from the
emissions by sources during periods of contained an automatic exemption for SIP.3
SSM. Exemptions from emission emissions during startup and shutdown
events. ARM 17.8.334 stated, III. Montana Revision and EPA
limitations during periods of SSM exist Analysis
‘‘Operations during startup and
in a number of state rules, some of
shutdown shall not constitute Under CAA section 110(k), the EPA
which were adopted and approved into
representative conditions for the has the authority and responsibility to
SIPs by the EPA many years ago. The
purposes of determining compliance review SIP submissions to assure that
petition alleged that SSM exemptions
with this rule,’’ and further specified they meet all applicable requirements.
undermine the emission limitations in
that, ‘‘nor shall emissions in excess of CAA section 110(l) prohibits the EPA
SIPs and threaten states’ abilities to
the levels required in [two other ARM from approving a SIP revision that
achieve and maintain compliance with
sections] during periods of startup and would interfere with any applicable
national ambient air quality standards,
shutdown be considered a violation of requirement of the CAA.
thereby threatening public health and
[those sections].’’ In this instance, the State has elected
public welfare. The Petitioner requested In accordance with the requirements to bring its existing SIP into compliance
that the EPA either (i) notify the states of CAA section 110(a)(2)(A), SIPs must with CAA requirements by removing a
of the substantial inadequacies in their contain enforceable emission limitations previously approved provision that
SIPs and finalize a rule requiring them that, in accordance with the definition created unlawful exemptions from
to revise their plans pursuant to CAA of ‘‘emission limitation’’ in CAA section otherwise applicable emission
section 110(k)(5) (referred to as a ‘‘SIP 302(k), limit emissions of air pollutants limitations in the SIP during periods of
call’’), or (ii) determine that the EPA’s on a continuous basis. CAA section 304 startup and shutdown. As noted, the
action approving the implementation generally provides that any person may State proposed removing this provision,
plan provisions was in error and revise bring a civil action against any person ARM 17.8.334, from the Montana SIP in
those approvals so that the SIPs are who is alleged to have violated or to be its July 6, 2016 submission.
brought into compliance with the in violation of an ‘‘emission standard or We consider the removal of this
requirements of the CAA pursuant to limitation’’ under the CAA, including provision sufficient to correct the
CAA section 110(k)(6). On February 22, SIP emission limitations. The EPA can inadequacies that the EPA’s SSM SIP
2013 (78 FR 12459), the EPA proposed similarly enforce against violations of action identified in the Montana SIP.4
an action that would either grant or SIP emission limitations under CAA As a result of the removal from the SIP,
deny the Sierra Club petition with section 113. Thus, SIP emission the impermissible exemptions from
respect to each of the SIP provisions limitations can be enforced in a section emissions limitations contained within
alleged to be inconsistent with the CAA. 304 action or under section 113 and so this provision will no longer be
That proposal summarizes the EPA’s must be enforceable. SIP provisions that available to sources. As explained in the
review of all of the provisions that were create exemptions such that excess SSM SIP action, removal of an
identified in the petition, providing a emissions during SSM and other automatic exemption is an appropriate
detailed analysis of each provision and conditions are not violations of the way to address the inadequacy. 80 FR at
explaining how each one either does or applicable emission limitations are 33848. The EPA’s proposed approval of
does not comply with the CAA with inconsistent with these fundamental this revision is consistent with CAA
regard to excess emission events. For requirements of the CAA with respect to section 110(l) because approval will not
each SIP provision that appeared to be emission limitations in SIPs.2 Because interfere with any applicable
inconsistent with the CAA, the EPA ARM 17.8.334 exempts emissions requirement of the CAA. Specifically, by
proposed to find that the existing SIP occurring during periods of startup and removing the unlawful exemptions
provision was substantially inadequate shutdown from otherwise applicable created by ARM 17.8.334, the SIP is
to meet CAA requirements and thus SIP emission limitations, the EPA now more protective. Furthermore, this
proposed to issue a SIP call under CAA determined in its final SSM SIP action revision will render the revised
section 110(k)(5) of the CAA. that this provision is inconsistent with
On May 22, 2015, the EPA CAA requirements. 3 The State rulemaking that repealed ARM
Administrator signed the final SSM SIP Under CAA section 110(k)(5), 17.8.334 also repealed two other sections of
action. That action responds to the Montana is required to revise the SIP as Montana’s rules, including ARM 17.8.335, which
Sierra Club petition by granting it with necessary to correct the inadequacies allowed aluminum plants to exceed applicable
respect to the provisions determined to limitations during maintenance periods. ARM
identified by the SSM SIP action within 17.8.335 was never approved into Montana’s SIP
be deficient and denying it with respect and correspondingly was not identified in the final
to the others. The final action responds 1 80 FR 33846 (June 12, 2015). SSM SIP Action as substantially inadequate. As
to all public comments received on the 2 For details regarding these legal requirements indicated by the cover letter from the Governor of
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
proposed action and calls for 36 states for SIP emission limitations, including EPA’s Montana for the July 6, 2016 submission, the only
interpretation of the cited CAA provisions and portion of the rulemaking submitted for approval is
to submit corrective SIP revisions by guidance for satisfying them, please see EPA’s the removal of ARM 17.8.334 from the SIP. Today’s
November 22, 2016, to bring specified ‘‘State Implementation Plans: Response to Petition proposed action, if finalized, will complete the
provisions into compliance with the for Rulemaking; Findings of Substantial EPA’s action on the entirety of the July 6, 2016
CAA. In addition, the final action Inadequacy; and SIP Calls To Amend Provisions submission.
Applying To Excess Emissions During Periods of 4 For a more in-depth discussion on the
reiterates the EPA’s interpretation of the Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction,’’ (SSM SIP inadequacies of ARM 17.8.334, see our proposed
CAA regarding excess emissions during Action), 78 FR 12459 (Feb. 22, 2014) (proposal); 80 SSM SIP Action, 78 FR 12459, 12530–12531,
SSM periods and clarifies the EPA’s FR 33839 (June 12, 2015) (final). February 22, 2013.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:21 Apr 05, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06APP1.SGM 06APP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_16835/page/2.svg)
![16772 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 65 / Thursday, April 6, 2017 / Proposed Rules
emission limitations consistent with the • Is not a significant regulatory action revisions consist of a demonstration that
CAA requirement that emission subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR Connecticut meets the requirements of
limitations in SIPs must be 28355, May 22, 2001); reasonably available control technology
continuously applicable and • Is not subject to requirements of for the two precursors for ground-level
enforceable. Therefore, we are section 12(d) of the National ozone, oxides of nitrogen (NOX) and
proposing to approve the removal of this Technology Transfer and Advancement volatile organic compounds (VOCs), set
provision from the SIP. Because removal Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because forth by the Clean Air Act with respect
of this provision would fully address application of those requirements would to the 2008 ozone standards.
the inadequacies that the SSM SIP be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; Additionally, we are proposing approval
action identified in the Montana SIP, and of three related regulations that limit air
this proposed action, if finalized, will • Does not provide the EPA with the emissions of these pollutants from
satisfy Montana’s obligations pursuant discretionary authority to address, as sources within the State. This action is
to the EPA’s SSM SIP action. appropriate, disproportionate human being taken in accordance with sections
health or environmental effects, using 172, 182, and 184 of the Clean Air Act.
IV. The EPA’s Proposed Action
practicable and legally permissible DATES: Written comments must be
We are proposing to fully approve methods, under Executive Order 12898 received on or before May 8, 2017.
Montana’s July 6, 2016 SIP submission, (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
which removes ARM 17.8.334 from the The SIP is not approved to apply on identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R01–
Montana SIP. If finalized, our approval any Indian reservation land or in any OAR–2014–0611, at http://
of this submission will fully correct the other area where the EPA or an Indian www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
inadequacies in Montana’s SIP that were tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has instructions for submitting comments.
identified in the EPA’s SSM SIP action. jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian Once submitted, comments cannot be
country, the rule does not have tribal edited or removed from Regulations.gov.
V. Statutory and Executive Orders implications and will not impose
Review The EPA may publish any comment
substantial direct costs on tribal received to its public docket. Do not
Under the CAA, the Administrator is governments or preempt tribal law as submit electronically any information
required to approve a SIP submission specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 you consider to be Confidential
that complies with the provisions of the FR 67249, November 9, 2000). Business Information (CBI) or other
Act and applicable federal regulations List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 information whose disclosure is
(42 U.S.C. 7410(k), 40 CFR 52.02(a)). restricted by statute. Multimedia
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the Environmental protection, Air submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
EPA’s role is to approve state choices, pollution control, Carbon monoxide, accompanied by a written comment.
provided that they meet the criteria of Incorporation by reference, The written comment is considered the
the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed Intergovernmental relations, Lead, official comment and should include
action merely approves state law as Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate discussion of all points you wish to
meeting federal requirements; this matter, Reporting and recordkeeping make. The EPA will generally not
proposed action does not impose requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile consider comments or comment
additional requirements beyond those organic compounds. contents located outside of the primary
imposed by state law. For that reason, Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or
this proposed action: Dated: January 30, 2017. other file sharing system). For
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory Debra H. Thomas, additional submission methods, the full
action’’ subject to review by the Office EPA public comment policy,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8.
of Management and Budget under information about CBI or multimedia
[FR Doc. 2017–06894 Filed 4–5–17; 8:45 am]
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, submissions, and general guidance on
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
Oct. 4, 1993); making effective comments, please visit
• Does not impose an information http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/
collection burden under the provisions commenting-epa-dockets.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 AGENCY FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); McConnell, Air Quality Planning Unit,
• Is certified as not having a 40 CFR Part 52 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
significant economic impact on a EPA New England Regional Office, 5
[EPA–R01–OAR–2014–0611; FRL–9960–69– Post Office Square, Suite 100 (mail
substantial number of small entities Region 1]
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 code: OEP05–2), Boston, MA 02109–
U.S.C. 601 et seq.); Air Plan Approval; CT; Reasonably 3912, telephone number (617) 918–
1046, fax number (617) 918–0046, email
• Does not contain any unfunded Available Control Technology for the
2008 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient mcconnell.robert@epa.gov.
mandate or significantly or uniquely
Air Quality Standards SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Throughout this document whenever
AGENCY: Environmental Protection ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); Agency (EPA).
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
EPA. The following outline is provided
• Does not have Federalism ACTION: Proposed rule. to aid in locating information in this
implications as specified in Executive
preamble.
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, SUMMARY: EPA is proposing approval of
1999); I. Background and Purpose
State Implementation Plan (SIP) II. Summary of Connecticut’s SIP Revisions
• Is not an economically significant revisions submitted by the State of III. EPA’s Evaluation of Connecticut’s SIP
regulatory action based on health or Connecticut for purposes of Revisions
safety risks subject to Executive Order implementing the 2008 ozone National a. RACT Certification for the 2008 Ozone
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); Ambient Air Quality Standards. The SIP Standard
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:21 Apr 05, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06APP1.SGM 06APP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_16835/page/3.svg)
Document Created: 2017-04-06 01:46:53
Document Modified: 2017-04-06 01:46:53
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Proposed Rules | |
| Action | Proposed rule. | |
| Dates | Written comments must be received on or before May 8, 2017. | |
| Contact | Adam Clark, Air Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. (303) 312-7104, [email protected] | |
| FR Citation | 82 FR 16770 | |
| CFR Associated | Environmental Protection; Air Pollution Control; Carbon Monoxide; Incorporation by Reference; Intergovernmental Relations; Lead; Nitrogen Dioxide; Ozone; Particulate Matter; Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements; Sulfur Oxides and Volatile Organic Compounds |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR