Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 7, 2022 / Proposed Rules 34609 

G. Protest Activities 

The Coast Guard respects the First 

Amendment rights of protesters. 

Protesters are asked to call or email the 

person listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

coordinate protest activities so that your 

message can be received without 

jeopardizing the safety or security of 

people, places, or vessels. 

V. Public Participation and Request for 

Comments 

We view public participation as 

essential to effective rulemaking, and 

will consider all comments and material 

received during the comment period. 

Your comment can help shape the 

outcome of this rulemaking. If you 

submit a comment, please include the 

docket number for this rulemaking, 

indicate the specific section of this 

document to which each comment 

applies, and provide a reason for each 

suggestion or recommendation. 

Submitting comments. We encourage 

you to submit comments through the 

Federal Decision Making Portal at 

https://www.regulations.gov. To do so, 

go to https://www.regulations.gov, type 

USCG–2022–0333 in the search box and 

click ‘‘Search.’’ Next, look for this 

document in the Search Results column, 

and click on it. Then click on the 

Comment option. If you cannot submit 

your material by using https://

www.regulations.gov, call or email the 

person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section of this proposed rule 

for alternate instructions. 

Viewing material in docket. To view 

documents mentioned in this proposed 

rule as being available in the docket, 

find the docket as described in the 

previous paragraph, and then select 

‘‘Supporting & Related Material’’ in the 

Document Type column. Public 

comments will also be placed in our 

online docket and can be viewed by 

following instructions on the https://

www.regulations.gov Frequently Asked 

Questions web page. We review all 

comments received, but we will only 

post comments that address the topic of 

the proposed rule. We may choose not 

to post off-topic, inappropriate, or 

duplicate comments that we receive. 

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 § 165.846 to read as follows: 

§ 165.846 Security Zone; Lower 

Mississippi River, Mile Marker 94 to 97 

Above Head of Passes, New Orleans, LA. 

(a) Location. The following area is a 

security zone: All navigable waters of 

Lower Mississippi River from mile 

marker (MM) 94 (29°57′32′′ N, 90°03′05′′ 

W) to MM 97 (29°55′19′′ N, 90°04′00′′ 

W), NAD83 datum, Above Head of 

Passes in New Orleans, LA. 

(b) Enforcement period. The security 

zone established by this section will be 

enforced only upon notice of the 

Captain of the Port New Orleans 

(COTP). In accordance with subpart A of 

this part, for each enforcement of the 

security zone established under this 

section, the COTP will publish a 

notification of enforcement in the 

Federal Register as early as is 

practicable. In addition, the COTP will 

also inform the public of the 

enforcement area and times of this 

section as indicated in paragraph (d) of 

this section. 

(c) Regulations. (1) Under the general 

security zone regulations in subpart D of 

this part, no person or vessel may enter 

the security zone described in paragraph 

(a) of this section unless authorized by 

the COTP or a designated 

representative. A designated 

representative means any Coast Guard 

commissioned, warrant, or petty officer 

of the U.S. Coast Guard assigned to 

units under the operational control of 

Sector New Orleans; to include a 

Federal, State, and/or local officer 

designated by or assisting the COTP in 

the enforcement of the security zone. 

(2) To seek permission to enter, 

contact the COTP or a designated 

representative by telephone at (504) 

365–2545 or VHF–FM Channel 16 or 67. 

Those in the security zone must transit 

at their slowest speed and comply with 

all lawful orders or directions given to 

them by the COTP or a designated 

representative. 

(d) Information broadcasts. The COTP 

or a designated representative will 

inform the public of the enforcement 

period of this security zone through 

Vessel Traffic Service Advisories, 

Broadcast Notices to Mariners (BNMs), 

Local Notice to Mariners (LNMs), and/ 

or Marine Safety Information Bulletins 

(MSIBs) as appropriate. 

Dated: May 27, 2022. 

K.K. Denning, 

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

Port New Orleans. 

[FR Doc. 2022–11977 Filed 6–6–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

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 

www.regulations.gov. 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 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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
34610 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 7, 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 

(February 22, 2013). 

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. 

4See 80 FR 33839, 33985. 

5EPA approved the non-substantive 

recodification of MDEQ’s rules in a letter notice on 

February 21, 2020. See 85 FR 10070. 

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 

www2.epa.gov/dockets/commentingepa-dockets. 

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 akers.brad@epa.gov 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). 

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. 

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. 

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

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, 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 7, 2022 / Proposed Rules 34611 

6See 80 FR 33839, 33980 (recommending seven 

specific criteria as appropriate considerations for 

developing emission limitations in SIP provisions 

that apply during startup and shutdown). 

7The 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. 

8On 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. 

9See 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). 

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

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. 

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 www.regulations.gov 

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). 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
34612 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 7, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

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: 

• 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 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 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R4–OAR–2022–0225; FRL–9912–01– 

R4] 

Air Plan Approval; Kentucky; Removal 

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 Kentucky 

Energy and Environment Cabinet 

(Cabinet), on November 17, 2016, on 

behalf of the Commonwealth of 

Kentucky (Commonwealth). The 

revision was submitted in response to 

the 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 Kentucky SIP. EPA is 

proposing to approve 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–R4– 

OAR–2022–0225 at https://

www.regulations.gov. 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 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. 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 www2.epa.gov/ 

dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Estelle Bae, Air Permitting Section, Air 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1