24090 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

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 

(Feb. 22, 2013). 

Personal information. We accept 

anonymous comments. Comments we 

post to https://www.regulations.gov will 

include any personal information you 

have provided. For more about privacy 

and submissions to the docket in 

response to this document, see DHS’s 

eRulemaking System of Records notice 

(85 FR 14226, March 11, 2020). 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, 

Waterways. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard is proposing 

to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows: 

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 165 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 

1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; 

Department of Homeland Security Delegation 

No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.2. 

■ 2. Add § 165.T01–0134 to read as 

follows: 

§ 165.T01–0134 Safety Zone; Falls Bridge 

Project, Blue Hill, ME. 

(a) Locations. The following area is a 

safety zone: All navigable waters from 

surface to bottom, within a 50-yard 

radius from the center of the Falls 

Bridge in Blue Hill, ME. 

(b) Definitions. As used in this 

section, designated representative 

means a Coast Guard Patrol 

Commander, including a Coast Guard 

coxswain, petty officer, or other officer 

operating a Coast Guard vessel and a 

Federal, State, and local officer 

designated by or assisting the Captain of 

the Port Northern New England (COTP) 

in the enforcement of the safety zone. 

(c) Regulations. (1) Under the general 

safety zone regulations in subpart C of 

this part, you may not enter the safety 

zone described in paragraph (a) of this 

section unless authorized by the COTP 

or the COTP’s designated representative. 

(2) To seek permission to enter, 

contact the COTP or the COTP’s 

representative via VHF–FM marine 

channel 16 or by contacting the Coast 

Guard Sector Northern New England 

Command Center at (207) 741–5465. 

Those in the safety zone must comply 

with all lawful orders or directions 

given to them by the COTP or the 

COTP’s designated representative. 

(d) Enforcement period. This section 

is effective from July 1, 2022, through 

June 30, 2024, and subject to 

enforcement 24 hours a day. The Coast 

Guard will use Broadcast Notice to 

Mariners and Local Notice to Mariners 

to notify the public of this safety zone. 

Dated: April 12, 2022. 

A.E. Florentino, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port Northern New England. 

[FR Doc. 2022–08630 Filed 4–21–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[R2–OAR–2021–0912; FRL–9613–01–R2] 

Approval of Air Quality Implementation 

Plans; New Jersey; Removal of Excess 

Emissions Provision 

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 State of New 

Jersey, through the New Jersey 

Department of Environmental 

Protection, on December 14, 2017. The 

revision submitted by New Jersey was in 

response to a finding of substantial 

inadequacy and a SIP call published on 

June 12, 2015, for a provision in the 

New Jersey SIP related to excess 

emissions during startup, shutdown, 

and malfunction (SSM) events. EPA is 

proposing approval of the SIP revision 

and proposing to determine that such 

SIP revision corrects the deficiency 

identified in the June 12, 2015, SIP call. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before May 23, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R02– 

OAR–2021–0912 at https://

www.regulations.gov. 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. Follow the online instructions for 

submitting comments. Once submitted, 

comments cannot be edited or removed 

from regulations.gov. EPA may publish 

any comment received to its public 

docket. Do not electronically submit 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. 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: 

Edward J. Linky, EPA Region 2, 290 

Broadway, 25th floor, New York, New 

York 10007–1866, at 212–637–3764; or 

email Linky.Edward@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document wherever 

‘‘we’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, it refers to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. Analysis of SIP Submission 

III. Proposed Action 

IV. Incorporation by Reference 

V. Statutory and Executive Orders Review 

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) 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 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 D.C. 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2022 / Proposed Rules 24091 

2October 9, 2020, memorandum ‘‘Inclusion of 

Provisions Governing Periods of Startup, 

Shutdown, and Malfunctions in State 

Implementation Plans,’’ from Andrew R. Wheeler, 

Administrator. 

3September 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 80 FR 33840, June 12, 2015. 

provisions and proposed SIP calls for 

those provisions where appropriate (79 

FR 55920, September 17, 2014). 

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. The detailed 

rationale for issuing the SIP call to New 

Jersey can be found in the 2015 SSM SIP 

Action and preceding proposed actions. 

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 New Jersey 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. 

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 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 this SIP 

submittal provided in response to the 

2015 SIP call. 

With regard to the New Jersey SIP, in 

the 2015 SSM SIP Action EPA 

determined that N.J. Admin. Code 7:27– 

7.2(k)(2) was substantially inadequate to 

meet CAA requirements (80 FR 33960). 

The provision provided industrial 

process units that have the potential to 

emit sulfur compounds an exemption 

from the otherwise applicable sulfur 

emission limitations where ‘‘the 

discharge from any stack or chimney 

[has] the sole function of relieving 

pressure of gas, vapor or liquid under 

abnormal emergency conditions’’ (N.J. 

Admin. Code 7:27–7.2(k)(2)). The 

rationale underlying EPA’s 

determination that the provision was 

substantially inadequate to meet CAA 

requirements, and therefore to issue a 

SIP call to New Jersey to remedy the 

provision, is detailed in the 2015 SSM 

SIP Action and the accompanying 

proposals. 

New Jersey submitted a SIP revision 

on December 14, 2017, in response to 

the SIP call issued in the 2015 SSM SIP 

Action. In its submission, New Jersey is 

requesting that EPA approve a revised 

N.J. Admin. Code 7:27–7.2(k), which 

deletes N.J. Admin. Code 7:27–7.2(k)(2) 

in its entirety, thereby removing the 

provision for which EPA issued a SIP 

call in 2015 from the New Jersey SIP. 

The December 14, 2017, SIP submittal 

also includes proposed revisions to 

other portions of the New Jersey SIP 

which will be addressed in a separate 

rulemaking action. 

II. Analysis of SIP Submission 

EPA is proposing to approve New 

Jersey’s December 14, 2017, SIP 

submission with respect to N.J. Admin. 

Code 7:27–7.2(k), which would remove 

the SIP called provision, N.J. Admin. 

Code 7:27–7.2(k)(2), from the New 

Jersey SIP. EPA proposes to find that 

New Jersey’s December 14, 2017, SIP 

submittal is consistent with CAA 

requirements and adequately addresses 

the specific deficiencies that EPA 

identified in the 2015 SSM SIP Action 

with respect to the New Jersey SIP. 

III. 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. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). EPA 

is proposing to approve New Jersey’s 

December 14, 2017 SIP submission 

requesting that EPA approve into the 

SIP a revised N.J. Admin. Code 7:27– 

7.2(k), which removes N.J. Admin. Code 

7:27–7.2(k)(2) from the New Jersey SIP. 

EPA is proposing approval of the SIP 

revision because we have determined 

that it is consistent with the 

requirements for SIP provisions under 

the CAA. EPA is further proposing to 

determine that such SIP revision 

corrects the deficiency identified in the 

June 12, 2015 SIP call. EPA is not 

reopening the 2015 SSM SIP Action and 

is only taking comment on whether this 

proposed SIP revision is consistent with 

CAA requirements. 

IV. Incorporation by Reference 

In this document, EPA is proposing to 

include in a final rule, regulatory text 

that includes incorporation by 

reference. In accordance with the 

requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is 

proposing to incorporate by reference 

revisions to portions of Title 7, Chapter 

27, Subchapter 7 of the New Jersey 

Administrative Code as discussed in 

section II of this preamble. EPA has 

made, and will continue to make, these 

documents generally available through 

https://www.regulations.gov and at EPA 

Region 2 Office (please contact the 

person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

preamble for more information). 

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 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
24092 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed 

action merely approves removal of State 

law not meeting Federal requirements 

and does not impose additional 

requirements beyond those already 

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, 

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, 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 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 New Jersey SIP does not 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, this rulemaking 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, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

oxides. 

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

Lisa Garcia, 

Regional Administrator, Region 2. 

[FR Doc. 2022–07529 Filed 4–21–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1