Montana Administrative Rule Revisions: 17.8.334, 16770-16772 [2017-06894]
Download as PDF
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]
No.
Enforcement
period(s) 1
Location
Safety zone—regulated area
13 .........
August—1st Tuesday ..........
New River, Jacksonville, NC, Safety Zone
14 .........
May—3rd or 4th Saturday;
July 4th.
July 4th. October—2nd Saturday.
Bath Creek, Bath, NC, Safety Zone ...........
September—4th or last Saturday.
Shallowbag Bay, Manteo, NC; Safety Zone
All waters of the New River within a 300 yard radius of
the fireworks launch site in approximate position latitude 34°44′45″ N., longitude 077°26′18″ W., approximately one half mile south of the Hwy 17 Bridge, Jacksonville, North Carolina.
All waters on Bath Creek within a 300 yard radius of position 35°28′05″ N., 076°48′56″ W., Bath, NC.
All waters of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway within a
300 yard radius of approximate position latitude
34°41′02″ N., longitude 077°07′04″ W., located on Pelican Island.
All waters of Shallowbag Bay within a 200 yard radius of
a fireworks barge anchored at latitude 35°54′31″ N.,
longitude 075°39′42″ W.
15 .........
16 .........
1 As
*
noted in paragraph (d) of this section, the enforcement period for each of the listed safety zones is subject to change.
*
§ 165.540
■
Atlantic
Intracoastal
Waterway,
Swansboro, NC, Safety Zone.
*
*
*
[Removed]
10. Remove § 165.540.
Dated: March 10, 2017.
Meredith L. Austin,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander,
Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2017–06728 Filed 4–5–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R08–OAR–2016–0477; FRL–9960–70–
Region 8]
Montana Administrative Rule
Revisions: 17.8.334
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
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.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:21 Apr 05, 2017
Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08–
OAR–2016–0477 at https://
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
https://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,
clark.adam@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
ADDRESSES:
Jkt 241001
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 https://
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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.
E:\FR\FM\06APP1.SGM
06APP1
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 65 / Thursday, April 6, 2017 / Proposed Rules
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:21 Apr 05, 2017
Jkt 241001
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].’’
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.
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
1 80
FR 33846 (June 12, 2015).
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).
2 For
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
16771
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
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
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.
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.
E:\FR\FM\06APP1.SGM
06APP1
16772
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 65 / Thursday, April 6, 2017 / Proposed Rules
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.
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.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
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);
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:21 Apr 05, 2017
Jkt 241001
• 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
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R01–OAR–2014–0611; FRL–9960–69–
Region 1]
Air Plan Approval; CT; Reasonably
Available Control Technology for the
2008 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standards
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
EPA is proposing approval of
State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revisions submitted by the State of
Connecticut for purposes of
implementing the 2008 ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standards. The SIP
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
revisions consist of a demonstration that
Connecticut meets the requirements of
reasonably available control technology
for the two precursors for ground-level
ozone, oxides of nitrogen (NOX) and
volatile organic compounds (VOCs), set
forth by the Clean Air Act with respect
to the 2008 ozone standards.
Additionally, we are proposing approval
of three related regulations that limit air
emissions of these pollutants from
sources within the State. This action is
being taken in accordance with sections
172, 182, and 184 of the Clean Air Act.
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before May 8, 2017.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R01–
OAR–2014–0611, at https://
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
https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob
McConnell, Air Quality Planning Unit,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
EPA New England Regional Office, 5
Post Office Square, Suite 100 (mail
code: OEP05–2), Boston, MA 02109–
3912, telephone number (617) 918–
1046, fax number (617) 918–0046, email
mcconnell.robert@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document whenever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
EPA. The following outline is provided
to aid in locating information in this
preamble.
I. Background and Purpose
II. Summary of Connecticut’s SIP Revisions
III. EPA’s Evaluation of Connecticut’s SIP
Revisions
a. RACT Certification for the 2008 Ozone
Standard
E:\FR\FM\06APP1.SGM
06APP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 65 (Thursday, April 6, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 16770-16772]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[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 https://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 https://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,
clark.adam@epa.gov.
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 https://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