Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 177 / Thursday, September 14, 2017 / Proposed Rules 43205 

jurisdiction, and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this action. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

The EPA interprets Executive Order 

13045 as applying only to those 

regulatory actions that concern 

environmental health or safety risks that 

the EPA has reason to believe may 

disproportionately affect children, per 

the definition of ‘‘covered regulatory 

action’’ in section 2–202 of the 

Executive Order. This action is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

because it does not impose additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

state law. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, because it is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) 

Section 12(d) of the NTTAA directs 

the EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities 

unless to do so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. The EPA believes that this 

action is not subject to the requirements 

of section 12(d) of the NTTAA because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Population 

The EPA lacks the discretionary 

authority to address environmental 

justice in this rulemaking. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

Matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

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

Dated: August 31, 2017. 

Deborah Jordan, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2017–19451 Filed 9–13–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2017–0469; FRL–9967–67– 

Region 8] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; State of 

Utah; Revisions to the Utah Division of 

Administrative Rules, R307–300 

Series; Area Source Rule for 

Attainment of Fine Particulate Matter 

Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

portions of the fine particulate matter 

(PM2.5) State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

and related rule revisions submitted by 

the State of Utah. The EPA is proposing 

to approve revisions submitted on May 

9, 2013 and August 25, 2017 for Utah’s 

fugitive dust control rule, and to 

approve the State’s associated 

reasonable available control measures 

(RACM) determination, submitted on 

December 16, 2014. This action is being 

taken under section 110 of the Clean Air 

Act (CAA or Act). 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before October 16, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08– 

OAR–2017–0469 at https://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from https://

www.regulations.gov. The EPA may 

publish any comment received to the 

public docket. Do not submit 

electronically 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. The EPA will 

generally not consider comments or 

comment contents located outside of the 

primary submission (i.e., on the web, 

cloud, or other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, the full 

EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

https://www.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Crystal Ostigaard, Air Program, EPA, 

Region 8, Mailcode 8P–AR, 1595 

Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 

80202–1129, (303) 312–6602, 

ostigaard.crystal@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

a. Submitting CBI. Do not submit CBI 

to the EPA through https://

www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly 

mark the part or all of the information 

that you claim to be CBI. For CBI 

information in a disk or CD–ROM that 

you mail to the EPA, mark the outside 

of the disk or CD–ROM as CBI and then 

identify electronically within the disk or 

CD–ROM the specific information that 

is claimed as CBI. In addition to one 

complete version of the comment that 

includes information claimed as CBI, a 

copy of the comment that does not 

contain the information claimed as CBI 

must be submitted for inclusion in the 

public docket. Information so marked 

will not be disclosed except in 

accordance with procedures set forth in 

40 CFR part 2. 

b. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. 

When submitting comments, remember 

to: 

i. Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

ii. Follow directions—The agency 

may ask you to respond to specific 

questions or organize comments by 

referencing a Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) part or section 

number. 

iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

iv. Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

v. If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

vi. Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

vii. Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

viii. Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

II. Background 

A. Regulatory Background 

On October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61144), 

the EPA strengthened the level of the 

24-hour PM2.5 National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS), lowering 

the primary and secondary standards 

from 65 micrograms per cubic meter 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
43206 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 177 / Thursday, September 14, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

(mg/m3), the 1997 standard, to 35mg/m3. 

On November 13, 2009 (74 FR 58688), 

the EPA designated three nonattainment 

areas in Utah for the 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS of 35 mg/m3. These are the Salt 

Lake City, Utah; Provo, Utah; and 

Logan, Utah (UT)-Idaho (ID) 

nonattainment areas. The EPA originally 

designated these areas under CAA title 

I, part D, subpart 1, which required Utah 

to submit an attainment plan for each 

area no later than three years from the 

date of their nonattainment 

designations. These plans needed to 

provide for the attainment of the PM2.5

standard as expeditiously as practicable, 

but no later than five years from the date 

the areas were designated 

nonattainment. 

Subsequently, on January 4, 2013, the 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia held that the EPA should 

have implemented the 2006 PM2.5 24- 

hour standard based on both CAA title 

I, part D, subpart 1 and subpart 4. NRDC 

v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013). 

Under subpart 4, nonattainment areas 

are initially classified as Moderate, and 

Moderate area attainment plans must 

address the requirements of subpart 4 as 

well as subpart 1. Additionally, CAA 

subpart 4 sets a different SIP submittal 

due date and attainment year. For a 

Moderate area, the attainment SIP is due 

18 months after designation, and the 

attainment year is the end of the sixth 

calendar year after designation. On June 

2, 2014 (79 FR 31566), the EPA finalized 

the Identification of Nonattainment 

Classification and Deadlines for 

Submission of State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) Provisions for the 1997 Fine 

Particulate (PM2.5) National Ambient 

Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) and 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS (‘‘the Classification 

and Deadline Rule’’). This rule 

classified to Moderate the areas that 

were designated in 2009 as 

nonattainment, and set the attainment 

SIP submittal due date for those areas at 

December 31, 2014. 

On August 24, 2016, the EPA 

finalized the Fine Particulate Matter 

National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards: State Implementation Plan 

Requirements (‘‘PM2.5 Implementation 

Rule’’), 81 FR 58010, which partially 

addressed the January 4, 2013 court 

ruling. The final implementation rule 

details how air agencies can meet the 

statutory SIP requirements under 

subparts 1 and 4 that apply to areas 

designated nonattainment for any PM2.5

NAAQS, such as: General requirements 

for attainment plan due dates and 

attainment demonstrations; provisions 

for demonstrating reasonable further 

progress (RFP); quantitative milestones; 

contingency measures; Nonattainment 

New Source Review (NNSR) permitting 

programs; and RACM (including 

reasonably available control technology 

(RACT)). The statutory attainment 

planning requirements of subparts 1 and 

4 were established to ensure that the 

following goals of the CAA are met: (i) 

That states implement measures that 

provide for attainment of the PM2.5

NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable; 

and, (ii) that states adopt emissions 

reduction strategies that will be the 

most effective at reducing PM2.5 levels 

in nonattainment areas. 

B. RACT and RACM Requirements for 

PM2.5 Attainment Plans 

Section 172(c)(1) of the Act (from 

subpart 1) requires that attainment 

plans, in general, shall provide for the 

implementation of all RACM (including 

RACT) as expeditiously as practicable 

and shall provide for attainment of the 

national primary ambient air quality 

standards. CAA section 189(a)(1)(C) 

(from subpart 4) requires Moderate area 

attainment plans to contain provisions 

to assure that RACM is implemented no 

later than four years after designation. 

The EPA stated its interpretation of 

the RACT and RACM requirements of 

subparts 1 and 4 in the 1992 General 

Preamble for the Implementation of 

Title I of the CAA Amendments of 1990, 

57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992). For 

RACT, the EPA followed its ‘‘historic 

definition of RACT as the lowest 

emission limitation that a particular 

source is capable of meeting by the 

application of control technology that is 

reasonably available considering 

technological and economic feasibility.’’ 

57 FR 13541, April 16, 1992. Like 

RACT, the EPA has historically 

considered RACM to consist of control 

measures that are reasonably available, 

considering technological and economic 

feasibility. See PM2.5 Implementation 

Rule, 81 FR 58010, August 24, 2016. 

C. Utah’s PM2.5 Attainment Plan 

Submittals 

Prior to the January 4, 2013 decision 

of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, 

Utah developed a PM2.5 attainment plan 

intended to meet the requirements of 

subpart 1. The EPA submitted written 

comments dated November 1, 2012, to 

the Utah Division of Air Quality 

(UDAQ) on Utah’s draft PM2.5 SIP, 

technical support document (TSD), and 

area source and other rules. After the 

court’s decision, Utah amended its 

attainment plan to address requirements 

of subpart 4. The EPA’s comment letter 

can be found within the docket for this 

action on www.regulations.gov. We are 

proposing to act on revisions to R307– 

309, Nonattainment and Maintenance 

Areas for PM10 and PM2.5: Fugitive 

Emissions and Fugitive Dust submitted 

by Utah on May 9, 2013 and August 25, 

2017. This rule is applicable to the Utah 

SIPs for PM2.5 nonattainment areas. 

III. EPA’s Evaluation of Utah’s 

Submittals 

The State of Utah submitted SIP 

revisions for R307–309 on May 9, 2013, 

and August 25, 2017. However, the EPA 

identified issues with R307–309 relating 

to director’s discretion, ambiguous 

language, and other general language 

issues. In response, Utah submitted a 

letter dated September 30, 2016, that 

committed to revise R307–309 in 

specific ways to address these issues. 

Before the EPA could conditionally 

approve Utah’s September 30, 2016 

committed revisions, Utah submitted 

the specific revisions on August 25, 

2017. Thus, the EPA is proposing to 

approve the submittals and to approve 

the corresponding RACM determination 

for R307–309 in the December 16, 2014 

submittal for Utah’s Moderate PM2.5

SIPs. 

The following is a summary of the 

EPA’s evaluation of the rule revisions. 

In general, we reviewed the rule for: 

Enforceability; RACM requirements (for 

those rules submitted as RACM); and 

other applicable requirements of the 

Act, including those found in 40 CFR 

part 51. 

1. R307–309, Nonattainment and 

Maintenance Areas for PM10 and PM2.5: 

Fugitive Emissions and Fugitive Dust 

The area source rule and 

corresponding RACM analysis from 

Utah’s PM2.5 Moderate SIPs is R307– 

309—Nonattainment and Maintenance 

Areas for PM10 and PM2.5: Fugitive 

Emissions and Fugitive Dust, which we 

are proposing to approve in this action. 

Rule R307–309 is an existing rule that 

was part of the PM10 SIP approved by 

the EPA on July 8, 1994 (59 FR 35036). 

This rule establishes minimum work 

practice and emission standards for 

sources of fugitive emissions and 

fugitive dust. R307–309 applies to all 

sources of fugitive dust and fugitive 

emissions, except as specified in R307– 

309–3(2), that are located in PM10 and 

PM2.5 nonattainment and maintenance 

areas. 

The rule requires any person owning 

or operating a new or existing source of 

fugitive dust one-quarter acre or greater 

in size to submit a fugitive dust control 

plan to UDAQ. Sources of fugitive dust 

include: Storage, hauling or handling 

operations, earthmoving, excavation, 

and moving trucks or construction 

equipment, among many others. 

Activities regulated by R307–309 may 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 177 / Thursday, September 14, 2017 / Proposed Rules 43207 

1Control Efficiency (CE), Rule Effectiveness (RE), 

and Rule Penetration (RP) are described in the 

December 16, 2014, Utah Moderate PM2.5 SIP TSD 

in Chapter 5—Control Strategies, Section b—Area 

Sources, pages 5.b.1–2 to 5.b.1–6. 

not commence before the fugitive dust 

control plan is approved either 

electronically or by hard copy. UDAQ 

submitted the format for the fugitive 

dust control plan to the EPA and the 

document can be found in the docket for 

this action. 

The rule also sets a generally 

applicable opacity limit of 10% at 

property boundaries and 20% onsite, 

except during high wind events. During 

these events, the owner or operator must 

continue to follow the fugitive dust 

control plan and take one or more 

specified actions. Under Utah’s August 

25, 2017 SIP, the actions are: (1) Preevent watering; (2) hourly watering; (3) 

adding additional chemical 

stabilization; and/or (4) ceasing or 

reducing fugitive dust producing 

operations to the extent practicable. The 

rule contains additional requirements 

regarding roads, mining activities, and 

tailings ponds and piles. 

R307–309 was previously approved 

for PM10 nonattainment areas and 

amended in 2012 to include the PM2.5

nonattainment counties. UDAQ 

reviewed other western state programs 

(including South Coast & San Joaquin 

Valley, California; Washoe & Clark 

Counties, Nevada; and Maricopa, 

Arizona) for the RACM analysis on 

R307–309. Based on this review, UDAQ 

updated R307–309 as follows: (1) Rewording the high wind provision in 

R307–309 so that it is clear that sources 

must continue to implement control 

measures; (2) requiring a high wind 

contingency plan; (3) removal of the 30- 

day dust plan filing window; (4) 

requiring that dust generating activities 

may not commence before obtaining an 

approved dust plan; (5) developing best 

management practices (BMPs) for all 

dust source categories; (6) replacing the 

suggested control measures language in 

R307–309 with a requirement to 

implement BMPs; and (7) creating a 

one-stop shop for a storm-water permit 

and fugitive dust control plan filing. 

UDAQ noted that the number of dust 

complaints has significantly decreased 

since 2008 and only a very small 

number of complaints were related to an 

exceedance of the PM2.5 standard. From 

2009 to 2012 there were a total of 2,126 

inspections done by UDAQ resulting in 

only eight violations of the relevant dust 

control plan. The RACM and rule 

analysis can be found within Chapter 5 

of the PM2.5 Moderate SIP TSD. 

For construction, buildings, single 

family residential, double unit 

residential, multiple units, and nonresidential industries, UDAQ expects 

control efficiency (CE), rule 

effectiveness (RE) and rule penetration 

(RP) to be 37%, 80%, and 95%, 

respectively. The calculated PM2.5

reduction for the affected sources in Box 

Elder, Cache, Davis, Tooele and Weber 

Counties would be 28%.1 For sand and 

gravel and related industries, UDAQ 

expects CE, RE and RP to be 40%, 80% 

and 95%, respectively, with a calculated 

PM2.5 reduction of 30% for the affected 

sources in Box Elder, Cache, Davis, 

Tooele and Weber Counties. No 

reductions were taken in Utah County 

and Salt Lake County as the program 

was in place as part of the PM10 SIP. 

On July 11, 2012, the Air Quality 

Board proposed for public comment 

revisions to R307–309. The public 

comment period was held from August 

1 to August 31, 2012, with a public 

hearing being held on August 15, 2012. 

Comments were submitted by industry, 

environmental associations, and the 

EPA. The EPA submitted written 

comments dated November 1, 2012, on 

Utah’s draft PM2.5 SIP and TSD, which 

included revisions and RACM analysis 

for R307–309. UDAQ made changes to 

R307–309 based on comments that were 

received and the rule became effective 

on January 1, 2013. Compliance with 

the rule was required for Salt Lake 

County, Utah County and the city of 

Ogden by January 1, 2013. The 

compliance date for the remaining 

affected sources began either 30 or 90 

days after January 1, 2013, depending 

on the applicable portion of the rule. On 

May 9, 2013, UDAQ submitted these 

revisions to R307–309 to the EPA; 

however, the EPA identified additional 

issues with R307–309 relating to 

director’s discretion provisions, 

ambiguous language, and other general 

language issues. 

UDAQ committed to correct the 

identified issues in a commitment letter 

dated September 30, 2016, which can be 

found in the docket for this proposed 

rulemaking. On May 3, 2017, the Air 

Quality Board proposed for public 

comment revisions found in the 

September 30, 2016 commitment letter 

to R307–309. The comment period was 

held from June 1 to July 3, 2017, with 

no public hearing being requested. 

Comments were submitted by an 

environmental association and the EPA. 

The EPA submitted a comment on June 

1, 2017, specifying the proposed 

revisions represented revisions 

committed to in the September 30, 2016 

commitment letter. The rule became 

effective on August 4, 2017. On August 

25, 2017, UDAQ submitted these 

revisions to R307–309 to the EPA. As 

stated previously, Utah submitted the 

specific revisions found in the 

September 30, 2016 commitment letter 

before the EPA could conditionally 

approve R307–309; thus, the EPA will 

be proposing to approve R307–309 and 

proposing approval of Utah’s 

determination that R307–309 constitutes 

RACM. 

IV. What action is EPA proposing? 

The EPA is proposing to approve 

revisions to R307–309 submitted on 

May 9, 2013, and August 25, 2017, and 

proposing to approve Utah’s 

determination in their December 16, 

2014 submittal that R307–309 

constitutes RACM for Utah’s Moderate 

PM2.5 SIPs. We are not proposing to 

determine that Utah’s PM2.5 attainment 

plan has met all requirements regarding 

RACM under subparts 1 and 4 of part 

D, title I of the Act. 

V. Consideration of Section 110(l) of the 

CAA 

Under section 110(l) of the CAA, the 

EPA cannot approve a SIP revision if the 

revision would interfere with any 

applicable requirements concerning 

attainment and RFP toward attainment 

of the NAAQS, or any other applicable 

requirement of the Act. In addition, 

section 110(l) requires that each revision 

to an implementation plan submitted by 

a state shall be adopted by the state after 

reasonable notice and public hearing. 

The Utah SIP revisions that the EPA 

is proposing to approve do not interfere 

with any applicable requirements of the 

Act. The Utah Division of 

Administrative Rules (DAR) section 

R307–300 Series revisions submitted by 

the UDAQ on May 9, 2013, and August 

25, 2017, are intended to strengthen the 

SIP and to serve as RACM for certain 

area sources for the Utah PM2.5 SIP. 

Therefore, CAA section 110(l) 

requirements are satisfied. 

VI. Incorporation by Reference 

In this rule, the 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, the EPA is 

proposing to incorporate by reference 

the UDAQ rules promulgated in the 

DAR, R307–300 Series as discussed in 

section III of this preamble. The EPA 

has made, and will continue to make, 

these materials generally available 

through https://www.regulations.gov 

and/or at the EPA Region 8 Office 

(please contact the person identified in 

the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section of this preamble for more 

information). 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
43208 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 177 / Thursday, September 14, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

VII. 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. 

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

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this 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 Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• does not have federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• does not provide the EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, the SIP is not approved 

to apply on any Indian reservation land 

or in any other area where the EPA or 

an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the proposed rule does 

not have tribal implications and will not 

impose substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Intergovernmental relations, 

Incorporation by reference, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organization compounds. 

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

Dated: August 31, 2017. 

Debra H. Thomas, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

[FR Doc. 2017–19574 Filed 9–13–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2017–0339; FRL–9967–65– 

Region 8] 

Montana Second 10-Year Carbon 

Monoxide Maintenance Plan for 

Missoula 

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 to the EPA by the 

State of Montana. On September 19, 

2016, the Governor of Montana’s 

designee submitted a Clean Air Act 

(CAA) section 175A(b) second 10-year 

limited maintenance plan for the 

Missoula area for the carbon monoxide 

(CO) National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard (NAAQS). This limited 

maintenance plan addresses 

maintenance of the CO NAAQS for a 

second 10-year period beyond the 

original redesignation. This action is 

being taken under sections 110 and 

175A of the CAA. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before October 16, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08– 

OAR–2017–0339 at https://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from 

www.regulations.gov. The EPA may 

publish any comment received to its 

public docket. Do not submit 

electronically any information you 

consider to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Multimedia submissions (audio, video, 

etc.) must be accompanied by a written 

comment. The written comment is 

considered the official comment and 

should include discussion of all points 

you wish to make. The EPA will 

generally not consider comments or 

comment contents located outside of the 

primary submission (i.e., on the web, 

cloud, or other file sharing system). 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy at the Air Program, 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, 

Denver, Colorado 80202–1129. The EPA 

requests that you contact the individual 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section to view the hard copy 

of the docket. You may view the hard 

copy of the docket Monday through 

Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., excluding 

federal holidays. 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 http:// 

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Adam Clark, Air Program, EPA, Region 

8, Mailcode 8P–AR, 1595 Wynkoop, 

Denver, Colorado 80202–1129, (303) 

312–7104, clark.adam@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ section of 

today’s Federal Register, the EPA is 

approving Montana’s SIP revision as a 

direct final rule without prior proposal 

because the Agency views this as a 

noncontroversial SIP revision and 

anticipates no adverse comments. A 

detailed rationale for the approval is set 

forth in the preamble to the direct final 

rule. If the EPA receives no adverse 

comments, the EPA will not take further 

action on this proposed rule. If the EPA 

receives adverse comments, the EPA 

will withdraw the direct final rule and 

it will not take effect. The EPA will 

address all public comments in a 

subsequent final rule based on this 

proposed rule. The EPA will not 

institute a second comment period on 

this action. Any parties interested in 

commenting must do so at this time. For 

additional information, see the direct 

final action, with the same title, that is 

located in the ‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ 

section of this issue of the Federal 

Register. 

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


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with PROPOSALS