82 FR 43205 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; State of Utah; Revisions to the Utah Division of Administrative Rules, R307-300 Series; Area Source Rule for Attainment of Fine Particulate Matter Standards
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 177 (September 14, 2017)
Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 177 (September 14, 2017)
| Page Range | 43205-43208 | |
| FR Document | 2017-19574 |
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 177 (Thursday, September 14, 2017)] [Proposed Rules] [Pages 43205-43208] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2017-19574] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R08-OAR-2017-0469; FRL-9967-67-Region 8] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; State of Utah; Revisions to the Utah Division of Administrative Rules, R307-300 Series; Area Source Rule for Attainment of Fine Particulate Matter Standards AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve portions of the fine particulate matter (PM2.5 ) State Implementation Plan (SIP) and related rule revisions submitted by the State of Utah. The EPA is proposing to approve revisions submitted on May 9, 2013 and August 25, 2017 for Utah's fugitive dust control rule, and to approve the State's associated reasonable available control measures (RACM) determination, submitted on December 16, 2014. This action is being taken under section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act). DATES: Written comments must be received on or before October 16, 2017. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08- OAR-2017-0469 at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from https://www.regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to the public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information, the disclosure of which 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 https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Crystal Ostigaard, Air Program, EPA, Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202- 1129, (303) 312-6602, [email protected]. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information a. Submitting CBI. Do not submit CBI to the EPA through https://www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in 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. b. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments, remember to: i. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number). ii. Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number. iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes. iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used. v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced. vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives. vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats. viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified. II. Background A. Regulatory Background On October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61144), the EPA strengthened the level of the 24-hour PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), lowering the primary and secondary standards from 65 micrograms per cubic meter [[Page 43206]] ([micro]g/m\3\), the 1997 standard, to 35[micro]g/m\3\. On November 13, 2009 (74 FR 58688), the EPA designated three nonattainment areas in Utah for the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS of 35 [micro]g/m\3\. These are the Salt Lake City, Utah; Provo, Utah; and Logan, Utah (UT)-Idaho (ID) nonattainment areas. The EPA originally designated these areas under CAA title I, part D, subpart 1, which required Utah to submit an attainment plan for each area no later than three years from the date of their nonattainment designations. These plans needed to provide for the attainment of the PM2.5 standard as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than five years from the date the areas were designated nonattainment. Subsequently, on January 4, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia held that the EPA should have implemented the 2006 PM2.5 24-hour standard based on both CAA title I, part D, subpart 1 and subpart 4. NRDC v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013). Under subpart 4, nonattainment areas are initially classified as Moderate, and Moderate area attainment plans must address the requirements of subpart 4 as well as subpart 1. Additionally, CAA subpart 4 sets a different SIP submittal due date and attainment year. For a Moderate area, the attainment SIP is due 18 months after designation, and the attainment year is the end of the sixth calendar year after designation. On June 2, 2014 (79 FR 31566), the EPA finalized the Identification of Nonattainment Classification and Deadlines for Submission of State Implementation Plan (SIP) Provisions for the 1997 Fine Particulate (PM2.5 ) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS (``the Classification and Deadline Rule''). This rule classified to Moderate the areas that were designated in 2009 as nonattainment, and set the attainment SIP submittal due date for those areas at December 31, 2014. On August 24, 2016, the EPA finalized the Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards: State Implementation Plan Requirements (``PM2.5 Implementation Rule''), 81 FR 58010, which partially addressed the January 4, 2013 court ruling. The final implementation rule details how air agencies can meet the statutory SIP requirements under subparts 1 and 4 that apply to areas designated nonattainment for any PM2.5 NAAQS, such as: General requirements for attainment plan due dates and attainment demonstrations; provisions for demonstrating reasonable further progress (RFP); quantitative milestones; contingency measures; Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) permitting programs; and RACM (including reasonably available control technology (RACT)). The statutory attainment planning requirements of subparts 1 and 4 were established to ensure that the following goals of the CAA are met: (i) That states implement measures that provide for attainment of the PM2.5 NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable; and, (ii) that states adopt emissions reduction strategies that will be the most effective at reducing PM2.5 levels in nonattainment areas. B. RACT and RACM Requirements for PM2.5 Attainment Plans Section 172(c)(1) of the Act (from subpart 1) requires that attainment plans, in general, shall provide for the implementation of all RACM (including RACT) as expeditiously as practicable and shall provide for attainment of the national primary ambient air quality standards. CAA section 189(a)(1)(C) (from subpart 4) requires Moderate area attainment plans to contain provisions to assure that RACM is implemented no later than four years after designation. The EPA stated its interpretation of the RACT and RACM requirements of subparts 1 and 4 in the 1992 General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the CAA Amendments of 1990, 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992). For RACT, the EPA followed its ``historic definition of RACT as the lowest emission limitation that a particular source is capable of meeting by the application of control technology that is reasonably available considering technological and economic feasibility.'' 57 FR 13541, April 16, 1992. Like RACT, the EPA has historically considered RACM to consist of control measures that are reasonably available, considering technological and economic feasibility. See PM2.5 Implementation Rule, 81 FR 58010, August 24, 2016. C. Utah's PM2.5 Attainment Plan Submittals Prior to the January 4, 2013 decision of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, Utah developed a PM2.5 attainment plan intended to meet the requirements of subpart 1. The EPA submitted written comments dated November 1, 2012, to the Utah Division of Air Quality (UDAQ) on Utah's draft PM2.5 SIP, technical support document (TSD), and area source and other rules. After the court's decision, Utah amended its attainment plan to address requirements of subpart 4. The EPA's comment letter can be found within the docket for this action on www.regulations.gov. We are proposing to act on revisions to R307-309, Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas for PM10 and PM2.5 : Fugitive Emissions and Fugitive Dust submitted by Utah on May 9, 2013 and August 25, 2017. This rule is applicable to the Utah SIPs for PM2.5 nonattainment areas. III. EPA's Evaluation of Utah's Submittals The State of Utah submitted SIP revisions for R307-309 on May 9, 2013, and August 25, 2017. However, the EPA identified issues with R307-309 relating to director's discretion, ambiguous language, and other general language issues. In response, Utah submitted a letter dated September 30, 2016, that committed to revise R307-309 in specific ways to address these issues. Before the EPA could conditionally approve Utah's September 30, 2016 committed revisions, Utah submitted the specific revisions on August 25, 2017. Thus, the EPA is proposing to approve the submittals and to approve the corresponding RACM determination for R307-309 in the December 16, 2014 submittal for Utah's Moderate PM2.5 SIPs. The following is a summary of the EPA's evaluation of the rule revisions. In general, we reviewed the rule for: Enforceability; RACM requirements (for those rules submitted as RACM); and other applicable requirements of the Act, including those found in 40 CFR part 51. 1. R307-309, Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas for PM10 and PM2.5 : Fugitive Emissions and Fugitive Dust The area source rule and corresponding RACM analysis from Utah's PM2.5 Moderate SIPs is R307-309--Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas for PM10 and PM2.5 : Fugitive Emissions and Fugitive Dust, which we are proposing to approve in this action. Rule R307-309 is an existing rule that was part of the PM10 SIP approved by the EPA on July 8, 1994 (59 FR 35036). This rule establishes minimum work practice and emission standards for sources of fugitive emissions and fugitive dust. R307-309 applies to all sources of fugitive dust and fugitive emissions, except as specified in R307-309-3(2), that are located in PM10 and PM2.5 nonattainment and maintenance areas. The rule requires any person owning or operating a new or existing source of fugitive dust one-quarter acre or greater in size to submit a fugitive dust control plan to UDAQ. Sources of fugitive dust include: Storage, hauling or handling operations, earthmoving, excavation, and moving trucks or construction equipment, among many others. Activities regulated by R307-309 may [[Page 43207]] not commence before the fugitive dust control plan is approved either electronically or by hard copy. UDAQ submitted the format for the fugitive dust control plan to the EPA and the document can be found in the docket for this action. The rule also sets a generally applicable opacity limit of 10% at property boundaries and 20% onsite, except during high wind events. During these events, the owner or operator must continue to follow the fugitive dust control plan and take one or more specified actions. Under Utah's August 25, 2017 SIP, the actions are: (1) Pre-event watering; (2) hourly watering; (3) adding additional chemical stabilization; and/or (4) ceasing or reducing fugitive dust producing operations to the extent practicable. The rule contains additional requirements regarding roads, mining activities, and tailings ponds and piles. R307-309 was previously approved for PM10 nonattainment areas and amended in 2012 to include the PM2.5 nonattainment counties. UDAQ reviewed other western state programs (including South Coast & San Joaquin Valley, California; Washoe & Clark Counties, Nevada; and Maricopa, Arizona) for the RACM analysis on R307-309. Based on this review, UDAQ updated R307-309 as follows: (1) Re-wording the high wind provision in R307-309 so that it is clear that sources must continue to implement control measures; (2) requiring a high wind contingency plan; (3) removal of the 30-day dust plan filing window; (4) requiring that dust generating activities may not commence before obtaining an approved dust plan; (5) developing best management practices (BMPs) for all dust source categories; (6) replacing the suggested control measures language in R307-309 with a requirement to implement BMPs; and (7) creating a one-stop shop for a storm-water permit and fugitive dust control plan filing. UDAQ noted that the number of dust complaints has significantly decreased since 2008 and only a very small number of complaints were related to an exceedance of the PM2.5 standard. From 2009 to 2012 there were a total of 2,126 inspections done by UDAQ resulting in only eight violations of the relevant dust control plan. The RACM and rule analysis can be found within Chapter 5 of the PM2.5 Moderate SIP TSD. For construction, buildings, single family residential, double unit residential, multiple units, and non-residential industries, UDAQ expects control efficiency (CE), rule effectiveness (RE) and rule penetration (RP) to be 37%, 80%, and 95%, respectively. The calculated PM2.5 reduction for the affected sources in Box Elder, Cache, Davis, Tooele and Weber Counties would be 28%.\1\ For sand and gravel and related industries, UDAQ expects CE, RE and RP to be 40%, 80% and 95%, respectively, with a calculated PM2.5 reduction of 30% for the affected sources in Box Elder, Cache, Davis, Tooele and Weber Counties. No reductions were taken in Utah County and Salt Lake County as the program was in place as part of the PM10 SIP. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Control Efficiency (CE), Rule Effectiveness (RE), and Rule Penetration (RP) are described in the December 16, 2014, Utah Moderate PM2.5 SIP TSD in Chapter 5--Control Strategies, Section b--Area Sources, pages 5.b.1-2 to 5.b.1-6. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- On July 11, 2012, the Air Quality Board proposed for public comment revisions to R307-309. The public comment period was held from August 1 to August 31, 2012, with a public hearing being held on August 15, 2012. Comments were submitted by industry, environmental associations, and the EPA. The EPA submitted written comments dated November 1, 2012, on Utah's draft PM2.5 SIP and TSD, which included revisions and RACM analysis for R307-309. UDAQ made changes to R307-309 based on comments that were received and the rule became effective on January 1, 2013. Compliance with the rule was required for Salt Lake County, Utah County and the city of Ogden by January 1, 2013. The compliance date for the remaining affected sources began either 30 or 90 days after January 1, 2013, depending on the applicable portion of the rule. On May 9, 2013, UDAQ submitted these revisions to R307-309 to the EPA; however, the EPA identified additional issues with R307-309 relating to director's discretion provisions, ambiguous language, and other general language issues. UDAQ committed to correct the identified issues in a commitment letter dated September 30, 2016, which can be found in the docket for this proposed rulemaking. On May 3, 2017, the Air Quality Board proposed for public comment revisions found in the September 30, 2016 commitment letter to R307-309. The comment period was held from June 1 to July 3, 2017, with no public hearing being requested. Comments were submitted by an environmental association and the EPA. The EPA submitted a comment on June 1, 2017, specifying the proposed revisions represented revisions committed to in the September 30, 2016 commitment letter. The rule became effective on August 4, 2017. On August 25, 2017, UDAQ submitted these revisions to R307-309 to the EPA. As stated previously, Utah submitted the specific revisions found in the September 30, 2016 commitment letter before the EPA could conditionally approve R307-309; thus, the EPA will be proposing to approve R307-309 and proposing approval of Utah's determination that R307-309 constitutes RACM. IV. What action is EPA proposing? The EPA is proposing to approve revisions to R307-309 submitted on May 9, 2013, and August 25, 2017, and proposing to approve Utah's determination in their December 16, 2014 submittal that R307-309 constitutes RACM for Utah's Moderate PM2.5 SIPs. We are not proposing to determine that Utah's PM2.5 attainment plan has met all requirements regarding RACM under subparts 1 and 4 of part D, title I of the Act. V. Consideration of Section 110(l) of the CAA Under section 110(l) of the CAA, the EPA cannot approve a SIP revision if the revision would interfere with any applicable requirements concerning attainment and RFP toward attainment of the NAAQS, or any other applicable requirement of the Act. In addition, section 110(l) requires that each revision to an implementation plan submitted by a state shall be adopted by the state after reasonable notice and public hearing. The Utah SIP revisions that the EPA is proposing to approve do not interfere with any applicable requirements of the Act. The Utah Division of Administrative Rules (DAR) section R307-300 Series revisions submitted by the UDAQ on May 9, 2013, and August 25, 2017, are intended to strengthen the SIP and to serve as RACM for certain area sources for the Utah PM2.5 SIP. Therefore, CAA section 110(l) requirements are satisfied. VI. Incorporation by Reference In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the UDAQ rules promulgated in the DAR, R307-300 Series as discussed in section III of this preamble. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through https://www.regulations.gov and/or at the EPA Region 8 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information). [[Page 43208]] VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 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 action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting federal requirements and 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 Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 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 CAA; 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). In addition, 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 proposed 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, Intergovernmental relations, Incorporation by reference, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organization compounds. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Dated: August 31, 2017. Debra H. Thomas, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8. [FR Doc. 2017-19574 Filed 9-13-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
![Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 177 / Thursday, September 14, 2017 / Proposed Rules 43205
jurisdiction, and will not impose ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Region 8, Mailcode 8P–AR, 1595
substantial direct costs on tribal AGENCY Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado
governments or preempt tribal law. 80202–1129, (303) 312–6602,
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 40 CFR Part 52 ostigaard.crystal@epa.gov.
apply to this action. [EPA–R08–OAR–2017–0469; FRL–9967–67– SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Region 8]
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of I. General Information
Children From Environmental Health Approval and Promulgation of Air a. Submitting CBI. Do not submit CBI
Risks and Safety Risks Quality Implementation Plans; State of to the EPA through https://
The EPA interprets Executive Order Utah; Revisions to the Utah Division of www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly
13045 as applying only to those Administrative Rules, R307–300 mark the part or all of the information
regulatory actions that concern Series; Area Source Rule for that you claim to be CBI. For CBI
Attainment of Fine Particulate Matter information in a disk or CD–ROM that
environmental health or safety risks that
Standards you mail to the EPA, mark the outside
the EPA has reason to believe may
disproportionately affect children, per AGENCY: Environmental Protection of the disk or CD–ROM as CBI and then
the definition of ‘‘covered regulatory Agency (EPA). identify electronically within the disk or
action’’ in section 2–202 of the CD–ROM the specific information that
ACTION: Proposed rule.
Executive Order. This action is not is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
subject to Executive Order 13045 SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection complete version of the comment that
because it does not impose additional Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve includes information claimed as CBI, a
requirements beyond those imposed by portions of the fine particulate matter copy of the comment that does not
state law. (PM2.5) State Implementation Plan (SIP) contain the information claimed as CBI
and related rule revisions submitted by must be submitted for inclusion in the
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That the State of Utah. The EPA is proposing public docket. Information so marked
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, to approve revisions submitted on May will not be disclosed except in
Distribution, or Use 9, 2013 and August 25, 2017 for Utah’s accordance with procedures set forth in
fugitive dust control rule, and to 40 CFR part 2.
This action is not subject to Executive approve the State’s associated b. Tips for Preparing Your Comments.
Order 13211, because it is not a reasonable available control measures When submitting comments, remember
significant regulatory action under (RACM) determination, submitted on to:
Executive Order 12866. December 16, 2014. This action is being i. Identify the rulemaking by docket
I. National Technology Transfer and taken under section 110 of the Clean Air number and other identifying
Advancement Act (NTTAA) Act (CAA or Act). information (subject heading, Federal
DATES: Written comments must be Register date and page number).
Section 12(d) of the NTTAA directs received on or before October 16, 2017. ii. Follow directions—The agency
the EPA to use voluntary consensus ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, may ask you to respond to specific
standards in its regulatory activities identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08– questions or organize comments by
unless to do so would be inconsistent OAR–2017–0469 at https:// referencing a Code of Federal
with applicable law or otherwise www.regulations.gov. Follow the online Regulations (CFR) part or section
impractical. The EPA believes that this instructions for submitting comments. number.
action is not subject to the requirements Once submitted, comments cannot be iii. Explain why you agree or disagree;
of section 12(d) of the NTTAA because edited or removed from https:// suggest alternatives and substitute
application of those requirements would www.regulations.gov. The EPA may language for your requested changes.
be inconsistent with the CAA. publish any comment received to the iv. Describe any assumptions and
public docket. Do not submit provide any technical information and/
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal electronically any information you or data that you used.
Actions To Address Environmental consider to be Confidential Business v. If you estimate potential costs or
Justice in Minority Populations and Information (CBI) or other information, burdens, explain how you arrived at
Low-Income Population the disclosure of which is restricted by your estimate in sufficient detail to
statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, allow for it to be reproduced.
The EPA lacks the discretionary vi. Provide specific examples to
authority to address environmental video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment illustrate your concerns, and suggest
justice in this rulemaking. alternatives.
is considered the official comment and
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 should include discussion of all points vii. Explain your views as clearly as
you wish to make. The EPA will possible, avoiding the use of profanity
Environmental protection, Air generally not consider comments or or personal threats.
pollution control, Incorporation by comment contents located outside of the viii. Make sure to submit your
reference, Intergovernmental relations, primary submission (i.e., on the web, comments by the comment period
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate cloud, or other file sharing system). For deadline identified.
asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Matter, Reporting and recordkeeping additional submission methods, the full II. Background
requirements. EPA public comment policy,
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. information about CBI or multimedia A. Regulatory Background
submissions, and general guidance on On October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61144),
Dated: August 31, 2017.
making effective comments, please visit the EPA strengthened the level of the
Deborah Jordan, https://www.epa.gov/dockets/ 24-hour PM2.5 National Ambient Air
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. commenting-epa-dockets. Quality Standards (NAAQS), lowering
[FR Doc. 2017–19451 Filed 9–13–17; 8:45 am] FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: the primary and secondary standards
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P Crystal Ostigaard, Air Program, EPA, from 65 micrograms per cubic meter
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:07 Sep 13, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14SEP1.SGM 14SEP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_43382/page/1.svg)
![43208 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 177 / Thursday, September 14, 2017 / Proposed Rules
VII. Statutory and Executive Order specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Reviews FR 67249, November 9, 2000). Multimedia submissions (audio, video,
Under the CAA, the Administrator is etc.) must be accompanied by a written
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
required to approve a SIP submission comment. The written comment is
Environmental protection, Air considered the official comment and
that complies with the provisions of the pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Act and applicable federal regulations. should include discussion of all points
Intergovernmental relations, you wish to make. The EPA will
42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Incorporation by reference, Lead,
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the generally not consider comments or
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate comment contents located outside of the
EPA’s role is to approve state choices, matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
provided that they meet the criteria of primary submission (i.e., on the web,
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile cloud, or other file sharing system).
the CAA. Accordingly, this action organization compounds.
merely proposes to approve state law as Docket: All documents in the docket
meeting federal requirements and does Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. are listed in the www.regulations.gov
not impose additional requirements Dated: August 31, 2017. index. Publicly available docket
beyond those imposed by state law. For Debra H. Thomas, materials are available either
that reason, this proposed action: electronically in www.regulations.gov or
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8.
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory [FR Doc. 2017–19574 Filed 9–13–17; 8:45 am]
in hard copy at the Air Program,
action’’ subject to review by the Office Environmental Protection Agency
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
of Management and Budget under (EPA), Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street,
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, Denver, Colorado 80202–1129. The EPA
October 4, 1993); requests that you contact the individual
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
• does not impose an information AGENCY
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
collection burden under the provisions CONTACT section to view the hard copy
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 40 CFR Part 52 of the docket. You may view the hard
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); copy of the docket Monday through
[EPA–R08–OAR–2017–0339; FRL–9967–65–
• is certified as not having a Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., excluding
Region 8] federal holidays. For additional
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities Montana Second 10-Year Carbon submission methods, the full EPA
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 Monoxide Maintenance Plan for public comment policy, information
U.S.C. 601 et seq.); Missoula about CBI or multimedia submissions,
• does not contain any unfunded and general guidance on making
mandate or significantly or uniquely AGENCY: Environmental Protection effective comments, please visit http://
affect small governments, as described Agency (EPA). www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act ACTION: Proposed rule. epa-dockets.
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
• does not have federalism SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a Adam Clark, Air Program, EPA, Region
implications as specified in Executive 8, Mailcode 8P–AR, 1595 Wynkoop,
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision submitted to the EPA by the Denver, Colorado 80202–1129, (303)
1999); 312–7104, clark.adam@epa.gov.
• is not an economically significant State of Montana. On September 19,
regulatory action based on health or 2016, the Governor of Montana’s SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the
safety risks subject to Executive Order designee submitted a Clean Air Act ‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ section of
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); (CAA) section 175A(b) second 10-year today’s Federal Register, the EPA is
• is not a significant regulatory action limited maintenance plan for the approving Montana’s SIP revision as a
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR Missoula area for the carbon monoxide direct final rule without prior proposal
28355, May 22, 2001); (CO) National Ambient Air Quality because the Agency views this as a
• is not subject to requirements of Standard (NAAQS). This limited noncontroversial SIP revision and
Section 12(d) of the National maintenance plan addresses anticipates no adverse comments. A
Technology Transfer and Advancement maintenance of the CO NAAQS for a detailed rationale for the approval is set
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because second 10-year period beyond the forth in the preamble to the direct final
application of those requirements would original redesignation. This action is rule. If the EPA receives no adverse
be inconsistent with the CAA; and being taken under sections 110 and comments, the EPA will not take further
• does not provide the EPA with the 175A of the CAA. action on this proposed rule. If the EPA
discretionary authority to address, as DATES: Comments must be received on receives adverse comments, the EPA
appropriate, disproportionate human or before October 16, 2017. will withdraw the direct final rule and
health or environmental effects, using ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, it will not take effect. The EPA will
practicable and legally permissible identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08– address all public comments in a
methods, under Executive Order 12898 OAR–2017–0339 at https:// subsequent final rule based on this
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). www.regulations.gov. Follow the online proposed rule. The EPA will not
asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
In addition, the SIP is not approved instructions for submitting comments. institute a second comment period on
to apply on any Indian reservation land Once submitted, comments cannot be this action. Any parties interested in
or in any other area where the EPA or edited or removed from commenting must do so at this time. For
an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a www.regulations.gov. The EPA may additional information, see the direct
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of publish any comment received to its final action, with the same title, that is
Indian country, the proposed rule does public docket. Do not submit located in the ‘‘Rules and Regulations’’
not have tribal implications and will not electronically any information you section of this issue of the Federal
impose substantial direct costs on tribal consider to be Confidential Business Register.
governments or preempt tribal law as Information (CBI) or other information Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:07 Sep 13, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14SEP1.SGM 14SEP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_43382/page/4.svg)
Document Created: 2017-09-13 23:48:57
Document Modified: 2017-09-13 23:48:57
| 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 October 16, 2017. | |
| Contact | Crystal Ostigaard, Air Program, EPA, Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202- 1129, (303) 312-6602, [email protected] | |
| FR Citation | 82 FR 43205 | |
| CFR Associated | Environmental Protection; Air Pollution Control; Carbon Monoxide; Intergovernmental Relations; Incorporation by Reference; Lead; Nitrogen Dioxide; Ozone; Particulate Matter; Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements; Sulfur Oxides and Volatile Organization Compounds |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR