Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 28 / Thursday, February 10, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 7725 

1State 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). 

EPA-APPROVED ALASKA REGULATIONS AND STATUTES—Continued 

State citation Title/subject State effective 

date EPA approval date Explanations 

*******

18 AAC 50.311 ..................................... Nonattainment Area Major 

Stationary Source Permits.

11/7/2020 2/10/2022, [INSERT Federal Register CITATION].

*******

18 AAC 50—Article 5. Minor Permits 

18 AAC 50.502 ..................................... Minor Permits for Air Quality Protection.11/7/2020 2/10/2022, [INSERT Federal Register CITATION].

* * * * * * * 

18 AAC 50.540 ..................................... Minor Permit: Application .. 11/7/2020 2/10/2022, [INSERT Federal Register CITATION].

18 AAC 50.542 ..................................... Minor Permit: Review and 

Issuance.

11/7/2020 2/10/2022, [INSERT Federal Register CITATION].

* * * * * * * 

18 AAC 50—Article 9. General Provisions 

*******

18 AAC 50.990 ..................................... Definitions .......................... 11/7/2020 2/10/2022, [INSERT Federal Register CITATION].

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2022–02763 Filed 2–9–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2016–0477; FRL–9543–01– 

R8] 

Air Plan Approval; Montana; 

Administrative Rule Revisions: 

17.8.334 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA or Agency) is taking final 

action to approve a revision to 

Montana’s State Implementation Plan 

(SIP). On July 6, 2016, the Governor of 

Montana submitted to EPA a revision to 

the Montana SIP that removed one 

section of the Administrative Rules of 

Montana (ARM) pertaining to aluminum 

plants. In this document, EPA is 

finalizing approval of the removal of 

this section from the SIP. EPA 

determined the provision was 

inconsistent with Clean Air Act (CAA) 

requirements and EPA issued a SIP call 

for the State to revise the provision on 

June 12, 2015. Removal of this provision 

corrects the deficiencies identified in 

2015 related to the treatment of excess 

emissions from aluminum plants and 

fully satisfies the SIP call issued to 

Montana. 

DATES: This rule is effective on March 

14, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R08–OAR–2016–0477. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the https://www.regulations.gov 

website. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., confidential business 

information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available through https://

www.regulations.gov, or please contact 

the person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section for 

additional availability information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Ellen Schmitt, Air and Radiation 

Division, EPA, Region 8, Mail Code 

8ARD–IO, 1595 Wynkoop Street, 

Denver, Colorado 80202–1129, 

telephone number: (303) 312–6728, 

email address: schmitt.ellen@epa.gov. 

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 startup, shutdown, 

or malfunction (SSM). EPA analyzed 

specific SSM SIP provisions and 

explained how each one either did or 

did not comply with the CAA 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 was substantially inadequate 

to meet CAA requirements and thus 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
7726 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 28 / Thursday, February 10, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

2The 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 and ARM 

17.8.772, which pertained to mercury allowance 

allocations under cap and trade budgets. Neither 

ARM 17.8.335 nor ARM 17.8.772 were approved 

into the SIP and therefore were not included in 

Montana’s July 6, 2016 SIP submittal to EPA to 

remove them from the SIP. Therefore, neither ARM 

17.8.335 nor ARM 17.8.772 are not at issue in this 

action. 

3 80 FR 33840. 

4October 9, 2020, memorandum ‘‘Inclusion of 

Provisions Governing Periods of Startup, 

Shutdown, and Malfunctions in State 

Implementation Plans,’’ from Andrew R. Wheeler, 

Administrator. 

5September 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. 

6 80 FR 33985. 

proposed to issue a SIP call under CAA 

section 110(k)(5). 

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), hereafter 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 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. With regard to Montana, in the 

2015 SSM Action EPA issued a SIP call 

for ARM 17.8.334 because the Agency 

determined that it was inconsistent with 

CAA requirements because it contained 

an automatic exemption for emissions 

during startup and shutdown events. 

The detailed rationale for issuing the 

SIP call to Montana can be found in the 

2015 SSM SIP Action and preceding 

proposed action. 

On July 6, 2016, the Governor of 

Montana submitted a SIP revision to 

EPA for approval that would remove 

ARM 17.8.334 from the SIP.2 In a 

document published on April 6, 2017, 

EPA proposed to approve Montana’s SIP 

revision.3 As discussed in the proposal, 

EPA’s proposed approval of the removal 

of ARM 17.8.334 from the Montana SIP 

was consistent with the Agency’s 2015 

SSM SIP Policy. A more detailed 

discussion of EPA’s determination that 

Montana’s SIP revision was adequate to 

correct the deficiency identified in the 

2015 SSM SIP Action can be found in 

the proposed rule. 

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.4 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 Montana in 2015. It also did 

not alter EPA’s prior proposal from 2017 

to approve the Montana SIP revision at 

issue in this action. 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. 

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).5 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.6 The 2021 Memorandum 

also retracted the prior statement from 

the 2020 Memorandum of 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 Montana’s 

SIP submittal provided in response to 

the 2015 SIP call for which EPA has 

already proposed approval. Consistent 

with that stated EPA intent and the 

return to the policy outlined in the 2015 

SSM SIP Action, EPA is proceeding to 

take final action on its 2017 proposal to 

approve the Montana submittal, as 

described in the remainder of this 

document. 

II. EPA Response to Comments 

The comment period for EPA’s April 

6, 2017 notice of proposed rulemaking 

was open for 30 days. Notably, although 

over four years have elapsed since the 

comment period closed, EPA is taking 

this final action based on comments 

received during that comment period. 

No additional comment period is 

needed because nothing in the 

intervening time period—including the 

issuance and subsequent withdrawal of 

the 2020 Memorandum changed the 

basis for EPA’s proposed action. 

Accordingly, the April 6, 2017 

document provided the public with a 

full opportunity to comment on the 

issues raised by the proposed action. 

EPA received one adverse comment on 

this proposed action from a group called 

‘‘The SSM Coalition.’’ EPA also received 

a comment from an anonymous 

commenter expressing support for 

approval of the proposed action. 

Comment: The SSM Coalition did not 

discuss the details of EPA’s proposed 

action on Montana’s SIP, but more 

generally argued that it would be 

inappropriate for EPA to take final 

action on any SIP revision driven by the 

interpretations set forth in the 2015 

SSM SIP Action, including the Montana 

proposal. The commenter referenced 

consolidated challenges to the 2015 

SSM SIP Action filed in the D.C. Circuit 

(Walter Coke, Inc., et al. v. EPA, D.C. 

Cir. No. 15–1166), specifically citing 

EPA’s April 18, 2017 motion asking the 

court to indefinitely postpone the oral 

argument so that new-at-the-time EPA 

political leadership would have 

adequate time to fully review the 2015 

SSM SIP Action. The commenter 

asserted that EPA should defer action on 

the Montana SIP because, at the time of 

EPA’s proposed approval of the 

Montana submission, EPA was 

reviewing the 2015 SSM SIP Action and 

the D.C. Circuit had not ruled on the 

challenges to the rule. The SSM 

Coalition’s full comment can be found 

in the docket for this action. 

EPA response: The Agency 

acknowledges that there exist pending 

challenges to the 2015 SSM SIP Action 

in the court. However, there is no 

requirement or expectation that EPA 

must postpone action while awaiting a 

court decision. Montana has submitted 

a SIP revision to the Agency that is fully 

approvable for the reasons outlined in 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 28 / Thursday, February 10, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 7727 

7Sierra Club v. Johnson 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. 

Cir.2008). 

8See Declaration of Joseph Goffman, Sierra Club 

v. EPA, No. 20–1115 (DC Cir. November 3, 2021), 

included in the docket for this action. 9 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997). 

the proposal document. As a result, EPA 

has determined that it is appropriate to 

take action to approve the State’s SIP 

revision in accordance with applicable 

CAA requirements. Under the CAA, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the CAA and applicable 

Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 

40 CFR 52.02(a). The commenter has 

pointed to no alleged deficiency or other 

aspect that would lead the Agency to 

determine that the SIP revision should 

be disapproved or that full approval of 

the SIP revision is not otherwise 

appropriate. 

As outlined in EPA’s 2015 SSM SIP 

Action, and recently reaffirmed in the 

2021 Memorandum, EPA is 

implementing policy consistent with 

that outlined in the 2015 SSM SIP 

Action. That policy aligns with previous 

court decisions, including the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit-issued ruling in 2008 

that found that inclusion of SSM 

exemptions in CAA section 112 

standards is not allowed under the CAA 

due to the generally applicable 

definition of emission limitations.7 It 

was in light of the 2008 court case, as 

well as concerns about the public health 

impacts of SSM, that led EPA in its 2015 

action to clarify and update its SSM 

policy (2015 SSM Policy) to indicate 

that automatic exemptions like the one 

at issue in today’s action will generally 

be viewed as inconsistent with CAA 

requirements. 

As the commenter noted, an April 18, 

2017 motion by EPA asked the court to 

indefinitely postpone the oral argument 

so that new-at-the-time EPA political 

leadership would have adequate time to 

fully review the 2015 SSM SIP Action. 

The comments regarding EPA’ 2017 

motion indicating that it is reviewing 

the 2015 SSM action are now moot. The 

D.C. Circuit lifted the abeyance on the 

litigation concerning the 2015 SSM SIP 

Action on December 17, 2021. As 

outlined in EPA’s request to lift the 

abeyance 8 and in the 2021 

Memorandum, EPA is no longer 

reviewing the 2015 SSM Action. Under 

the 2021 Memorandum, EPA reinstated 

its prior policy that SIP provisions that 

contain exemptions or affirmative 

defense provisions are not consistent 

with CAA requirements and, therefore, 

generally would not be approvable if 

included in a SIP submission. The 2021 

Memorandum notes, among other 

provisions, CAA section 110(l)’s 

procedural requirements governing SIP 

amendments, section 302(k)’s 

requirement that all emission 

limitations apply on a ‘‘continuous’’ 

basis, and the substantive stringency 

requirements applicable to emission 

limitations pursuant to sections 165, 

172, and 173. 

III. Final Action 

For the reasons explained in the 2017 

proposal, EPA is fully approving 

Montana’s July 6, 2016 SIP submission 

removing ARM 17.8.334 from the 

Montana SIP. The Agency’s approval of 

this submission fully corrects the 

inadequacies in Montana’s SIP that were 

identified in the EPA’s 2015 SSM SIP 

Action. 

IV. Incorporation by Reference 

In this document, EPA is finalizing 

regulatory text that includes 

incorporation by reference. In 

accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 

51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation 

by reference ARM regarding the removal 

of 17.8.334 from Montana’s SIP, as 

discussed in section I of this preamble. 

EPA has made, and will continue to 

make, these materials generally 

available through www.regulations.gov 

and at the EPA Region 8 Office (please 

contact the person identified in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of 

this preamble for more information). 

Therefore, these materials have been 

approved by EPA for inclusion in the 

State implementation plan, have been 

incorporated by reference by EPA into 

that plan, are fully federally enforceable 

under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA 

as of the effective date of the final 

rulemaking of EPA’s approval, and will 

be incorporated by reference in the next 

update to the SIP compilation.9

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, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• 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, 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 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 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). 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
7728 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 28 / Thursday, February 10, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

1 Document ID EPA–R02–OAR–2012–0457–0007 

and EPA–R02–OAR–2012–0457–0008 in docket 

EPA–R02–OAR–2012–0457. 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by April 11, 2022. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this action for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action may not 

be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements (see section 

307(b)(2)). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: February 4, 2022. 

KC Becker, 

Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

For the resons set out in the preamble, 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart BB—Montana 

§ 52.1370 [Amended] 

■ 2. In § 52.1370, the table in paragraph 

(c) is amended by removing the entry 

‘‘17.8.334’’ under the heading ‘‘(ii) 

Administrative Rules of Montana, 

Subchapter 03, Emission Standards’’. 

[FR Doc. 2022–02737 Filed 2–9–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R02–OAR–2020–0438; FRL–9315–02– 

R2] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; United 

States Virgin Islands; Regional Haze 

Federal Implementation Plan; 

Correction 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: On October 22, 2012, the EPA 

published a final rule in the Federal 

Register promulgating a Federal 

Implementation Plan (FIP) to address 

regional haze obligations for the 

Territory of the United States Virgin 

Islands. However, at that time, EPA 

erroneously failed to incorporate into 

the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 

certain emission limits that had been 

determined to be necessary to satisfy 

those obligations and that had been 

proposed and included in the docket for 

the action. EPA is correcting this error 

by incorporating the previously noticed 

limits into the CFR. EPA has not 

reopened any of the previous, 

underlying determinations in this 

action. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

March 14, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

Number EPA–R02–OAR–2020–0438. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the https://www.regulations.gov 

website. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available electronically through https:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Omar Hammad, Air Planning Section, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 290 

Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New 

York 10007–1866, (212) 637–3347, 

email address: Hammad.Omar@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document wherever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

the EPA. 

The SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section is arranged as follows: 

Table of Contents: 

I. What is the background for the action? 

II. What comments were received in response 

to the EPA’s proposed correction? 

III. What action is the EPA taking? 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What is the background for this 

action? 

On February 19, 2021 (86 FR 10227), 

the Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) published a Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NPRM) in which the EPA 

proposed to make a technical correction 

adding into the CFR the inadvertently 

omitted Best Available Retrofit 

Technology (BART) table containing the 

potential to emit (PTE) limits necessary 

to satisfy the Virgin Islands’ BART 

obligation. 

On October 22, 2012, EPA published 

a final rule promulgating a Federal 

Implementation Plan (FIP) to address 

regional haze obligations for the 

Territory of the United States Virgin 

Islands. (77 FR 64414). EPA determined 

that certain emission limits for sources 

of visibility impairing pollutants in the 

Virgin Islands were necessary to satisfy 

the requirements of the Clean Air Act 

and EPA’s rules concerning progress 

towards the national goal of preventing 

any future and remedying any existing 

man-made impairment of visibility in 

mandatory Class I areas (also referred to 

as the ‘‘regional haze program’’). In that 

action, however, EPA erroneously failed 

to incorporate into the CFR certain 

emission limits that had been noticed in 

the proposed rule (77 FR 37842, June 

25, 2012) and which were included in 

docket EPA–R02–OAR–2012–0457 

accompanying that proposed rule.1

Specifically, EPA had determined that 

no additional controls were needed to 

satisfy the Best Available Retrofit 

Technology (BART) requirement of the 

Regional Haze Rule, and therefore that 

the subject-to-BART units’ existing PTE 

limits would be incorporated into the 

Virgin Islands’ FIP. See 77 FR 37856. 

EPA is now making a technical 

correction to incorporate the table 

containing the PTE limits necessary to 

satisfy the Virgin Islands’ BART 

obligation into the CFR. 

This rule does not reopen the 

previous determination that the PTE 

limits contained in the docket for the 

2012 final rule represent BART for the 

units determined to be subject-to-BART; 

this action merely corrects an 

inadvertent omission in a previous 

rulemaking. This correction is not 

intended to address current or changed 

circumstances at the subject-to-BART 

units, but merely clarifies what was 

intended to be included in the CFR 

pursuant to the 2012 FIP. 

II. What comments were received in 

response to the EPA’s proposed 

correction? 

In response to the EPA’s February 19, 

2021 proposed correction of the Virgin 

Islands’ FIP, the EPA received 

comments from one commenter, 

Limetree Bay Refining, LLC and 

Limetree Bay Terminals, LLC (together 

‘‘Limetree’’ or ‘‘the commenter’’) and is 

providing responses to the comments 

that were received. The specific 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1