Proposed Rule2022-12068
Air Plan Approval; Mississippi; Revision of Excess Emissions Provisions
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
June 7, 2022
Issuing agencies
Environmental Protection Agency
Abstract
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) on November 17, 2016, on behalf of the State of Mississippi. The revision was submitted in response to EPA's SIP call published on June 12, 2015, concerning excess emissions during startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) events. The submittal requests the revision of provisions identified in the 2015 SIP call for the Mississippi SIP. EPA is proposing approval of the SIP revision and proposing to determine that such SIP revision corrects the deficiencies identified in the June 12, 2015, SIP call.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 87 Issue 109 (Tuesday, June 7, 2022)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 109 (Tuesday, June 7, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 34609-34612]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2022-12068]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R04-OAR-2022-0219; FRL-9911-01-R4]
Air Plan Approval; Mississippi; Revision of Excess Emissions
Provisions
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) on November 17,
2016, on behalf of the State of Mississippi. The revision was submitted
in response to EPA's SIP call published on June 12, 2015, concerning
excess emissions during startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM)
events. The submittal requests the revision of provisions identified in
the 2015 SIP call for the Mississippi SIP. EPA is proposing approval of
the SIP revision and proposing to determine that such SIP revision
corrects the deficiencies identified in the June 12, 2015, SIP call.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 7, 2022.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2022-0219 at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>. Follow the online instructions
for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or
removed from <a href="http://Regulations.gov">Regulations.gov</a>. 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
[[Page 34610]]
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. 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 <a href="http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets">www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets</a>.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: D. Brad Akers, Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air and
Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61
Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Mr. Akers can be
reached via electronic mail at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#82e3e9e7f0f1ace0f0e3e6c2e7f2e3ace5edf4"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="9efff5fbecedb0fcecfffadefbeeffb0f9f1e8">[email protected]</span></a> or via telephone at
(404) 562-9089.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On February 22, 2013, EPA issued a Federal Register notice of
proposed rulemaking outlining EPA's policy at the time with respect to
SIP provisions related to periods of SSM. EPA analyzed specific SSM SIP
provisions and explained how each one either did or did not comply with
the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) with regard to excess emission
events.\1\ For each SIP provision that EPA determined to be
inconsistent with the CAA, EPA proposed to find that the existing SIP
provision--an exemption or director's discretion provision--was
substantially inadequate to meet CAA requirements and thus proposed to
issue a SIP call under CAA section 110(k)(5). On September 17, 2014,
EPA issued a document supplementing and revising what the Agency had
previously proposed on February 22, 2013, in light of a United States
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit decision that
determined the CAA precludes authority of EPA to create affirmative
defense provisions applicable to private civil suits. EPA outlined its
updated policy that affirmative defense SIP provisions are not
consistent with CAA requirements. EPA proposed in the supplemental
proposal document to apply its revised interpretation of the CAA to
specific affirmative defense SIP provisions and proposed SIP calls for
those provisions where appropriate. See 79 FR 55920 (September 17,
2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 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, 78 FR 12460 (February 22, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 12, 2015, pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(5), EPA finalized
``State Implementation Plans: Response to Petition for Rulemaking;
Restatement and Update of EPA's SSM Policy Applicable to SIPs; Findings
of Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP Calls To Amend Provisions Applying
to Excess Emissions During Periods of Startup, Shutdown and
Malfunction,'' 80 FR 33839 (June 12, 2015), hereinafter referred to as
the ``2015 SSM SIP Action.'' The 2015 SSM SIP Action clarified,
restated, and updated EPA's interpretation that SSM exemption and
affirmative defense SIP provisions are inconsistent with CAA
requirements. The 2015 SSM SIP Action found that certain SIP provisions
in 36 states, including Mississippi, were substantially inadequate to
meet CAA requirements and issued a SIP call to those states to submit
SIP revisions to address the inadequacies. EPA established an 18-month
deadline by which the affected states had to submit such SIP revisions.
States were required to submit corrective revisions to their SIPs in
response to the SIP calls by November 22, 2016.
EPA issued a memorandum in October 2020 (2020 Memorandum), which
stated that certain provisions governing SSM periods in SIPs could be
viewed as consistent with CAA requirements.\2\ Importantly, the 2020
Memorandum stated that it ``did not alter in any way the determinations
made in the 2015 SSM SIP Action that identified specific state SIP
provisions that were substantially inadequate to meet the requirements
of the Act.'' Accordingly, the 2020 Memorandum had no direct impact on
the SIP call issued to Mississippi in 2015. The 2020 Memorandum did,
however, indicate EPA's intent at the time to review SIP calls that
were issued in the 2015 SSM SIP Action to determine whether EPA should
maintain, modify, or withdraw particular SIP calls through future
agency actions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ October 9, 2020, memorandum ``Inclusion of Provisions
Governing Periods of Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunctions in State
Implementation Plans,'' from Andrew R. Wheeler, Administrator.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On September 30, 2021, EPA's Deputy Administrator withdrew the 2020
Memorandum and announced EPA's return to the policy articulated in the
2015 SSM SIP Action (2021 Memorandum).\3\ As articulated in the 2021
Memorandum, SIP provisions that contain exemptions or affirmative
defense provisions are not consistent with CAA requirements and,
therefore, generally are not approvable if contained in a SIP
submission. This policy approach is intended to ensure that all
communities and populations, including minority, low-income and
indigenous populations overburdened by air pollution, receive the full
health and environmental protections provided by the CAA.\4\ The 2021
Memorandum also retracted the prior statement from the 2020 Memorandum
regarding EPA's plans to review and potentially modify or withdraw
particular SIP calls. That statement no longer reflects EPA's intent.
EPA intends to implement the principles laid out in the 2015 SSM SIP
Action as the Agency takes action on SIP submissions, including the
November 17, 2016, SIP submittal provided by MDEQ in response to the
2015 SIP call.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ September 30, 2021, memorandum ``Withdrawal of the October
9, 2020, Memorandum Addressing Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunctions
in State Implementation Plans and Implementation of the Prior
Policy,'' from Janet McCabe, Deputy Administrator.
\4\ See 80 FR 33839, 33985.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With regard to the Mississippi SIP, in the 2015 SSM SIP Action, EPA
determined that 11-1-2 Miss. Code R. 10, Provisions for Upsets,
Startups, and Shutdowns, at sections 10.1, 10.2, and 10.3, were
substantially inadequate to meet CAA requirements. See 80 FR 33839,
33963 (June 12, 2015). These provisions have since been recodified as
Title 11 of the Mississippi Administrative Code, Part 2, Chapter 1,
Rule (11 Miss. Admin. Code, Pt. 2, Ch.1, R.) 1.10, Provisions for
Upsets, Startups, and Shutdowns, at sections 1.10.A, 1.10.B, and
1.10.C.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ EPA approved the non-substantive recodification of MDEQ's
rules in a letter notice on February 21, 2020. See 85 FR 10070.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the existing SIP, Rule 1.10.A, Upsets, generally provides that
the occurrence of an ``upset,'' which is consistent with EPA's
description of ``malfunction'' in the 2015 SSM SIP Action,
``constitutes an affirmative defense to an enforcement action brought
for noncompliance with emission standards or other requirements of
Applicable Rules and Regulations or any applicable permit if the source
demonstrates through properly signed contemporaneous operating logs, or
other relevant evidence that include'' specific information listed in
the Rule. Next, in the existing SIP, Rule 1.10.B, Startups and
Shutdowns, generally provides that ``[e]missions limitations applicable
to normal operation apply during startups and shutdowns'' except in
circumstances outlined in the Rule,
[[Page 34611]]
including ``infrequent'' periods of startups and shutdowns for which
the ``duration of excess emissions is brief.'' Finally, in the existing
SIP, Rule 1.10.C generally provides that while maintenance should be
performed during planned shutdown or repair, ``[u]navoidable
maintenance that results in brief periods of excess emissions and that
is necessary to prevent or minimize emergency conditions or equipment
malfunctions constitutes an affirmative defense to an enforcement
action brought for noncompliance with emission standards, or other
regulatory requirements'' if the source can demonstrate that certain
criteria in the Rule are met. The rationale underlying EPA's
determination that the provisions were substantially inadequate to meet
CAA requirements, and its decision to therefore issue a SIP call to
Mississippi to remedy the deficiencies, is detailed in the 2015 SSM SIP
Action and the accompanying proposals.
Mississippi submitted a SIP revision on November 17, 2016, in
response to the SIP call issued in the 2015 SSM SIP Action. In its
submission, Mississippi is requesting that EPA revise the Mississippi
SIP by: (1) Removing Rule 1.10.A from the Mississippi SIP; (2) revising
Rule 1.10.B by deleting exemptions for excess emissions during periods
of startup or shutdown, instead providing that emission limitations
apply at all times, including startups and shutdowns, unless
alternative emission limitations (AELs) are developed for such periods
in accordance with requirements in the rule, including that AELs must
be incorporated into a permit and are effective for State purposes only
until incorporated into Rule 1.10.B and approved by EPA into the SIP;
and (3) removing Rule 1.10.C from the Mississippi SIP.
II. Analysis of the November 17, 2016, SIP Submission
Regarding Rule 1.10.A, Mississippi is requesting that this
provision be removed in its entirety from the SIP. Mississippi is
retaining Rule 1.10.A for state law purposes only, with revisions to,
among other things, clarify that the upset provisions of Rule 1.10.A
apply to enforcement actions by the State (specifically, the
Mississippi Commission on Environmental Quality) only and ``are not
intended to prohibit EPA or third-party enforcement actions.''
Mississippi provided the text of Rule 1.10.A in the November 17, 2016
SIP submission solely for informational purposes to show a complete
record of the changes adopted; the State does not request approval of
the revised provision into the SIP. Based on Mississippi's request to
remove Rule 1.10.A from the Mississippi SIP, EPA proposes to approve
that removal because it is consistent with CAA requirements and
adequately addresses the specific deficiencies that EPA identified in
the 2015 SSM SIP Action with respect to this provision.
Regarding the changes to Rule 1.10.B, the revised rule included for
incorporation into Mississippi's SIP provides at B(1) that emission
limitations apply during startups and shutdowns ``unless source
specific emission limitations or work practice standards for startups
and shutdowns are defined by an applicable rule, regulation, or
permit.'' Rule 1.10.B(2) goes on to provide that where a source is
unable to comply with existing SIP emission limitations during startups
and shutdowns, MDEQ may establish source-specific emission limitations
or work practice standards, i.e., AELs, which would be effective for
State purposes only until submitted to and approved by EPA as SIP
revisions. Paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of Rule 1.10.B(2) set forth
requirements to which any such AELs are subject. These requirements
(e.g., minimization of the frequency and duration of operation in
startup and shutdown mode) are consistent with the criteria EPA
recommended in the 2015 SSM SIP Action for such AELs.\6\ Last, Rule
1.10.B(3), as revised, simply notes that if an ``upset'' occurs during
a startup or shutdown period, the upset provisions of Rule 1.10.A
apply. As noted previously, MDEQ is requesting that upset provisions be
removed from the SIP, is retaining them for state law purposes only,
and is not submitting the revised upset provisions for approval in the
SIP. Thus, the existing Rule 1.10.B(3) \7\ is requested to be removed
from the SIP, and the revised Rule 1.10.B(3) is not being requested for
SIP approval.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See 80 FR 33839, 33980 (recommending seven specific criteria
as appropriate considerations for developing emission limitations in
SIP provisions that apply during startup and shutdown).
\7\ The existing SIP-called version of Rule 1.10.B(3) provides
that if Rule 1.10.B conflicts with other requirements for startup
and shutdown, then the more stringent requirement applies.
\8\ On April 19, 2022, EPA received email confirmation from MDEQ
that Rule 1.10.B(3), as revised, is not submitted for approval into
the SIP. See the document titled ``MS-52 SSM SIP Call Response Email
Clarification_4-19-2022.pdf'' in the docket for this proposed
action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Taken together, the changes to Rule 1.10.B(1) and (2) provide that
emission limitations in the Mississippi SIP apply at all times,
including periods of startup and shutdown, and that AELs can be
developed in specific circumstances for inclusion in the SIP as source-
specific AELs, which the State refers to as ``source specific emission
limitations or work practice standards.'' Moreover, Rule 1.10.B(2)
provides that these AELs must be developed using considerations
consistent with EPA guidance discussed in the 2015 SSM SIP Action.\9\
SIP emission limitations remain federally enforceable during periods of
startup and shutdown unless and until source specific alternative
limitations are established by an applicable rule, regulation, or
permit and are approved into the SIP. Therefore, based on Mississippi's
changes to Rule 1.10.B and the State's request to include the revised
language in the Mississippi SIP, EPA proposes to find that
Mississippi's November 17, 2016, SIP revision is consistent with CAA
requirements and adequately addresses the specific deficiencies that
EPA identified in the 2015 SSM SIP Action with respect to this
provision in the Mississippi SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See Memorandum to EPA Regional Administrators, Regions I-X
from Steven A. Herman and Robert Perciasepe, USEPA, ``State
Implementation Plans: Policy Regarding Excess Emissions During
Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown'' (September 20, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, regarding the changes to Rule 1.10.C, Mississippi
requested that EPA remove this provision from the Mississippi SIP and
removed it from the Mississippi Administrative Code. Based on
Mississippi's request to remove Rule 1.10.C from the Mississippi SIP,
EPA proposes to find that Mississippi's November 17, 2016, SIP revision
is consistent with CAA requirements and adequately addresses the
specific deficiencies that EPA identified in the 2015 SSM SIP Action
with respect to this provision in the Mississippi SIP.
III. Incorporation by Reference
In this document, 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, as discussed in Sections I and II of
this preamble, EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference 11
Mississippi Administrative Code, Part 2, Chapter 1, Rule 1.10,
Provisions for Upsets, Startups, and Shutdowns, state effective
December 10, 2016, except for Rule 1.10.A and 1.10.B(3), which MDEQ is
not requesting EPA incorporate into the SIP. EPA has made, and will
continue to make, these materials generally available through
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> and at the EPA Region 4 office (please contact the
person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this preamble for more information).
[[Page 34612]]
IV. Proposed Action
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). EPA is
proposing to approve Mississippi's November 17, 2016, SIP submission
requesting changes to 11 Mississippi Administrative Code, Part 2,
Chapter 1, Rule 1.10, Provisions for Upsets, Startups, and Shutdowns,
into the Mississippi SIP. Specifically, EPA is proposing to remove Rule
1.10.A and Rule 1.10.C from the Mississippi SIP, and to approve the
revised version of Rule 1.10.B into the Mississippi SIP, except for
Rule 1.10.B(3), which EPA is proposing to remove from the SIP. EPA is
proposing approval of the SIP revision because the Agency has
determined that it is consistent with the requirements for SIP
provisions under the CAA. EPA is further proposing to determine that
such SIP revision adequately addresses the specific deficiencies that
EPA identified in the 2015 SSM SIP Action with respect to the
Mississippi SIP. EPA is not reopening the 2015 SSM SIP Action and is
taking comment only on whether this SIP revision is consistent with CAA
requirements and whether it addresses the substantial inadequacy in the
specific Mississippi SIP provisions (originally 11-1-2 Miss. Code R.
sections 10.1, 10.2, and 10.3, since recodified as 11 Miss. Admin.
Code, Pt. 2, Ch. 1, R. 1.10, sections 1.10.A, 1.10.B, and 1.10.C)
identified in the 2015 SSM SIP Action.
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. 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:
<bullet> Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
<bullet> Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
<bullet> 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.);
<bullet> 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);
<bullet> Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
<bullet> Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
<bullet> Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
<bullet> 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
<bullet> Does not provide 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 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 as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
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: May 31, 2022.
Daniel Blackman,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2022-12068 Filed 6-6-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on June 7, 2022.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.