36306 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 121 / Wednesday, June 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

‘‘(except increases described in the first 

sentence of § 51.20(d)(2) of this part)’’ 

and replace it with ‘‘(except increases 

described in the first sentence of this 

section).’’ 

Clarification 

In revising Subpart B—Obtaining 

Recognition and Certification for Per 

Diem Payments, the VA inadvertently 

left out instructions for § 51.41. This 

section is not changing and will remain 

in the CFR if this proposed rule is 

adopted. 

Approved: June 19, 2015. 

Michael P. Shores, 

Chief Impact Analyst, Office of Regulation 

Policy & Management. 

[FR Doc. 2015–15503 Filed 6–23–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8320–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R01–OAR–2014–0881; A–1–FRL– 

9925–87–Region 1] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Connecticut; Ambient Air Quality 

Standards 

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 

Connecticut. The revision updates state 

regulations containing ambient air 

quality standards (AAQS) to be 

consistent with EPA’s national ambient 

air quality standards (NAAQS). The 

intended effect of this action is to 

approve these regulations into the 

Connecticut SIP. This action is being 

taken in accordance with the Clean Air 

Act (CAA). 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before July 24, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R01–OAR–2014–0881 for comments by 

one of the following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: arnold.anne@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (617) 918–0047. 

4. Mail: ‘‘Docket Identification 

Number EPA–R01–OAR–2014–0881,’’ 

Anne Arnold, Manager, Air Quality 

Planning Unit, Office of Ecosystem 

Protection, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, EPA New England 

Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square— 

Suite 100, (Mail code OEP05–2), Boston, 

MA 02109–3912. 

5. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver 

your comments to: Anne Arnold, 

Manager, Air Quality Planning Unit, 

Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 

New England Regional Office, 5 Post 

Office Square—Suite 100, (Mail code 

OEP05–2), Boston, MA 02109–3912. 

Such deliveries are only accepted 

during the Regional Office’s normal 

hours of operation. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., excluding legal holidays. 

Please see the direct final rule which 

is located in the Rules Section of this 

Federal Register for detailed 

instructions on how to submit 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David Mackintosh, Air Quality Planning 

Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, New England Regional Office, 5 

Post Office Square—Suite 100, (Mail 

Code OEP05–02), Boston, MA 02109– 

3912, telephone 617–918–1584, 

facsimile 617–918–0584, email 

mackintosh.david@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

Final Rules Section of this Federal 

Register, EPA is approving the State’s 

SIP submittal as a direct final rule 

without prior proposal because the 

Agency views this as a noncontroversial 

submittal and anticipates no adverse 

comments. A detailed rationale for the 

approval is set forth in the direct final 

rule. If no adverse comments are 

received in response to this rule, no 

further activity is contemplated. If EPA 

receives adverse comments, the direct 

final rule will be withdrawn and all 

public comments received will be 

addressed in a subsequent final rule 

based on this proposed rule. EPA will 

not institute a second comment period. 

Any parties interested in commenting 

on this action should do so at this time. 

Please note that if EPA receives adverse 

comment on an amendment, paragraph, 

or section of this rule and if that 

provision may be severed from the 

remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt 

as final those provisions of the rule that 

are not the subject of an adverse 

comment. 

For additional information, see the 

direct final rule which is located in the 

Rules Section of this Federal Register. 

Dated: March 26, 2015. 

H. Curtis Spalding, 

Regional Administrator, EPA New England. 

[FR Doc. 2015–15462 Filed 6–23–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–RO5–OAR–2014–0657; FRL–9929–45- 

Region 5] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Michigan; Infrastructure SIP 

Requirements for the 2008 Ozone, 2010 

NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS; 

Michigan State Board Requirements 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

elements of state implementation plan 

(SIP) submissions from Michigan 

regarding the infrastructure 

requirements of section 110 of the Clean 

Air Act (CAA) for the 2008 ozone, 2010 

nitrogen dioxide (NO2), 2010 sulfur 

dioxide (SO2), and 2012 fine particulate 

(PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS). The infrastructure 

requirements are designed to ensure that 

the structural components of each 

state’s air quality management program 

are adequate to meet the state’s 

responsibilities under the CAA. EPA is 

also proposing to approve a submission 

from Michigan addressing the state 

board requirements under section 128 of 

the CAA. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before July 24, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2014–0657 by one of the following 

methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: aburano.douglas@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (312) 408–2279. 

4. Mail: Douglas Aburano, Chief, 

Attainment Planning and Maintenance 

Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. 

5. Hand Delivery: Douglas Aburano, 

Chief, Attainment Planning and 

Maintenance Section, Air Programs 

Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 

Such deliveries are only accepted 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 121 / Wednesday, June 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 36307 

during the Regional Office normal hours 

of operation, and special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. The Regional Office official 

hours of business are Monday through 

Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding 

Federal holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID. EPA–R05–OAR–2012–0991 

and EPA–R05–OAR–2013–0435. EPA’s 

policy is that all comments received 

will be included in the public docket 

without change and may be made 

available online at www.regulations.gov, 

including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes 

information claimed to be Confidential 

Business Information (CBI) or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Do not submit 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected through 

www.regulations.gov or email. The 

www.regulations.gov Web site is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an email comment directly 

to EPA without going through 

www.regulations.gov your email address 

will be automatically captured and 

included as part of the comment that is 

placed in the public docket and made 

available on the Internet. If you submit 

an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation 

Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is 

open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, excluding 

Federal holidays. We recommend that 

you telephone Sarah Arra, 

Environmental Scientist, at (312) 886– 

9401 before visiting the Region 5 office. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sarah Arra, Environmental Scientist, 

Attainment Planning and Maintenance 

Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–9401, 

arra.sarah@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

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

EPA. This supplementary information 

section is arranged as follows: 

I. What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments for EPA? 

II. What is the background of these SIP 

submissions? 

III. What guidance is EPA using to evaluate 

these SIP submissions? 

IV. What is the result of EPA’s review of 

these SIP submissions? 

V. What action is EPA taking? 

VI. Incorporation by Reference 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for EPA? 

When submitting comments, 

remember to: 

1. Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date, and page number). 

2. Follow directions—EPA may ask 

you to respond to specific questions or 

organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

3. Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

4. Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

5. If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

6. Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

7. Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

8. Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

II. What is the background of these SIP 

submissions? 

A. What state SIP submissions does this 

rulemaking address? 

This rulemaking addresses 

submissions from the Michigan 

Department of Environmental 

Management (MDEQ). The state 

submitted its infrastructure SIP for the 

2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 

2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, as well as state 

board requirements under section 128 

for incorporation into the SIP, on July 

10, 2014. 

B. Why did the state make these SIP 

submissions? 

Under sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the 

CAA, states are required to submit 

infrastructure SIPs to ensure that their 

SIPs provide for implementation, 

maintenance, and enforcement of the 

NAAQS, including the 2008 ozone, 

2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5

NAAQS. These submissions must 

contain any revisions needed for 

meeting the applicable SIP requirements 

of section 110(a)(2), or certifications that 

their existing SIPs for the NAAQS 

already meet those requirements. 

EPA highlighted this statutory 

requirement in an October 2, 2007, 

guidance document entitled ‘‘Guidance 

on SIP Elements Required Under 

Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 

8-hour Ozone and PM2.5 National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards’’ (2007 

Memo) and has issued additional 

guidance documents, the most recent on 

September 13, 2013, ‘‘Guidance on 

Infrastructure State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act 

Sections 110(a)(1) and (2)’’ (2013 

Memo). The SIP submissions referenced 

in this rulemaking pertain to the 

applicable requirements of section 

110(a)(1) and (2), and address the 2008 

ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 

PM2.5 NAAQS. To the extent that the 

prevention of significant deterioration 

(PSD) program is non-NAAQS specific, 

a narrow evaluation of other NAAQS 

will be included in the appropriate 

sections. 

C. What is the scope of this rulemaking? 

EPA is acting upon the SIP 

submissions from MDEQ that address 

the infrastructure requirements of CAA 

sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) for the 

2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 

2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. The requirement 

for states to make a SIP submission of 

this type arises out of CAA section 

110(a)(1). Pursuant to section 110(a)(1), 

states must make SIP submissions 

‘‘within 3 years (or such shorter period 

as the Administrator may prescribe) 

after the promulgation of a national 

primary ambient air quality standard (or 

any revision thereof),’’ and these SIP 

submissions are to provide for the 

‘‘implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement’’ of such NAAQS. The 

statute directly imposes on states the 

duty to make these SIP submissions, 

and the requirement to make the 

submissions is not conditioned upon 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
36308 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 121 / Wednesday, June 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

1See, e.g., EPA’s final rule on ‘‘National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards for Lead.’’ 73 FR 66964 at 

67034. 

EPA’s taking any action other than 

promulgating a new or revised NAAQS. 

Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of 

specific elements that ‘‘[e]ach such 

plan’’ submission must address. 

EPA has historically referred to these 

SIP submissions made for the purpose 

of satisfying the requirements of CAA 

section 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) as 

‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ submissions. 

Although the term ‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ 

does not appear in the CAA, EPA uses 

the term to distinguish this particular 

type of SIP submission from 

submissions that are intended to satisfy 

other SIP requirements under the CAA, 

such as ‘‘nonattainment SIP’’ or 

‘‘attainment plan SIP’’ submissions to 

address the nonattainment planning 

requirements of part D of title I of the 

CAA, ‘‘regional haze SIP’’ submissions 

required by EPA rule to address the 

visibility protection requirements of 

CAA section 169A, and nonattainment 

new source review (NNSR) permit 

program submissions to address the 

permit requirements of CAA, title I, part 

D. 

This rulemaking will not cover three 

substantive areas that are not integral to 

acting on a state’s infrastructure SIP 

submission: (i) Existing provisions 

related to excess emissions during 

periods of start-up, shutdown, or 

malfunction at sources, that may be 

contrary to the CAA and EPA’s policies 

addressing such excess emissions 

(SSM); (ii) existing provisions related to 

‘‘director’s variance’’ or ‘‘director’s 

discretion’’ that purport to permit 

revisions to SIP-approved emissions 

limits with limited public process or 

without requiring further approval by 

EPA, that may be contrary to the CAA 

(director’s discretion); and, (iii) existing 

provisions for PSD programs that may 

be inconsistent with current 

requirements of EPA’s ‘‘Final New 

Source Review (NSR) Improvement 

Rule,’’ 67 FR 80186 (December 31, 

2002), as amended by 72 FR 32526 (June 

13, 2007) (NSR Reform). Instead, EPA 

has the authority to address each one of 

these substantive areas in separate 

rulemakings. A detailed history, 

interpretation, and rationale as they 

relate to infrastructure SIP requirements 

can be found in EPA’s May 13, 2014, 

proposed rule entitled, ‘‘Infrastructure 

SIP Requirements for the 2008 Lead 

NAAQS’’ in the section, ‘‘What is the 

scope of this rulemaking?’’ (see 79 FR 

27241 at 27242–27245). 

III. What guidance is EPA using to 

evaluate these SIP submissions? 

EPA’s guidance for these 

infrastructure SIP submissions is 

embodied in the 2007 Memo. 

Specifically, attachment A of that 

memorandum (Required Section 110 

SIP Elements) identifies the statutory 

elements that states need to submit in 

order to satisfy the requirements for an 

infrastructure SIP submission. EPA 

issued additional guidance documents, 

the most recent being the 2013 Memo, 

which further clarifies aspects of 

infrastructure SIPs that are not NAAQS 

specific. 

IV. What is the result of EPA’s review 

of these SIP submissions? 

As noted in the 2013 Memo, pursuant 

to section 110(a), states must provide 

reasonable notice and opportunity for 

public hearing for all infrastructure SIP 

submissions. MDEQ provided the 

opportunity for public comment for 

these submittals that ended on May 7, 

2014. Additionally, MDEQ provided an 

opportunity for a public hearing. The 

state received comments and responded 

to them. EPA is also soliciting comment 

on our evaluation of the state’s 

infrastructure SIP submission in this 

notice of proposed rulemaking. MDEQ 

provided detailed synopses of how 

various components of its SIP meet each 

of the requirements in section 110(a)(2) 

for the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, 

and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, as applicable. 

The following review evaluates the 

state’s submissions. 

A. Section 110(a)(2)(A)—Emission 

Limits and Other Control Measures 

This section requires SIPs to include 

enforceable emission limits and other 

control measures, means or techniques, 

schedules for compliance, and other 

related matters. EPA has long 

interpreted emission limits and control 

measures for attaining the standards as 

being due when nonattainment 

planning requirements are due.1 In the 

context of an infrastructure SIP, EPA is 

not evaluating the existing SIP 

provisions for this purpose. Instead, 

EPA is only evaluating whether the 

state’s SIP has basic structural 

provisions for the implementation of the 

NAAQS. 

The Michigan Natural Resources and 

Environmental Protection Act, 1994 PA 

451, as amended (Act 451), sections 

324.5503 and 324.5512, provide the 

Director of MDEQ with the authority to 

regulate the discharge of air pollutants, 

and to promulgate rules to establish 

standards for emissions for ambient air 

quality and for emissions. To maintain 

the 2008 ozone NAAQS, Michigan 

implements controls and emission 

limits for nitrogen oxide (NOX), a 

precursor of ozone, in Michigan 

Administrative Code sections R 

336.1801 through R 336.1834; and 

controls and emission limits for volatile 

organic compounds (VOC), also a 

precursor of ozone, in sections R 

336.1601 through R 336.1661 and R 

336.1701 through R 336.1710. The NOX

controls in sections R 336.1801 through 

R 336.1834 also help to maintain the 

2010 NO2 NAAQS. To maintain the 

2010 SO2 NAAQS, Michigan 

implements SO2 controls and emission 

limits in sections R 336.1401 through R 

336.1420. To maintain the 2012 PM2.5

NAAQS, Michigan implements controls 

and emission limits for particulate 

matter sources in sections R 336.1301 

through R 336.1374. EPA proposes that 

Michigan has met the infrastructure SIP 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) 

with respect to the 2008 ozone, 2010 

NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

As previously noted, EPA is not 

proposing to approve or disapprove any 

existing state provisions or rules related 

to SSM or director’s discretion in the 

context of section 110(a)(2)(A). 

B. Section 110(a)(2)(B)—Ambient Air 

Quality Monitoring/Data System 

This section requires SIPs to include 

provisions to provide for establishing 

and operating ambient air quality 

monitors, collecting and analyzing 

ambient air quality data, and making 

these data available to EPA upon 

request. This review of the annual 

monitoring plan includes EPA’s 

determination that the state: (i) Monitors 

air quality at appropriate locations 

throughout the state using EPAapproved Federal Reference Methods or 

Federal Equivalent Method monitors; 

(ii) submits data to EPA’s Air Quality 

System (AQS) in a timely manner; and, 

(iii) provides EPA Regional Offices with 

prior notification of any planned 

changes to monitoring sites or the 

network plan. 

MDEQ’s authority to promulgate rules 

to establish ambient air quality standard 

are found in Michigan Compiled laws 

(MCL) 324.5503 and MCL 324.5512. 

MDEQ continues to operate an air 

monitoring network; EPA approved the 

state’s 2015 Annual Air Monitoring 

Network Plan on October 31, 2014, 

including the plan for ozone, NO2, SO2, 

and PM2.5. MDEQ enters air monitoring 

data into AQS, and the state provides 

EPA with prior notification when 

changes to its monitoring network or 

plan are being considered. EPA 

proposes that Michigan has met the 

infrastructure SIP requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(B) with respect to the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 121 / Wednesday, June 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 36309 

2PM10 refers to particles with diameters between 

2.5 and 10 microns, oftentimes referred to as 

‘‘coarse’’ particles. 

3 In EPA’s April 28, 2011, proposed rulemaking 

for infrastructure SIPS for the 1997 ozone and PM2.5

NAAQS, we stated that each state’s PSD program 

must meet applicable requirements for evaluation of 

all regulated NSR pollutants in PSD permits (see 76 

FR 23757 at 23760). This view was reiterated in 

EPA’s August 2, 2012, proposed rulemaking for 

infrastructure SIPs for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS (see 

77 FR 45992 at 45998). In other words, if a state 

lacks provisions needed to adequately address NOX

as a precursor to ozone, PM2.5 precursors, PM2.5 and 

PM10 condensables, PM2.5 increments, or the federal 

GHG permitting thresholds, the provisions of 

section 110(a)(2)(C) requiring a suitable PSD 

permitting program must be considered not to be 

met irrespective of the NAAQS that triggered the 

requirement to submit an infrastructure SIP, 

including the 2010 NO2 NAAQS. 

4EPA notes that on January 4, 2013, the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, in Natural 

Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428 

(D.C. Cir.), held that EPA should have issued the 

2008 NSR Rule in accordance with the CAA’s 

requirements for PM10 nonattainment areas (Title I, 

Part D, subpart 4), and not the general requirements 

for nonattainment areas under subpart 1. As the 

subpart 4 provisions apply only to nonattainment 

areas, EPA does not consider the portions of the 

2008 rule that address requirements for PM2.5

attainment and unclassifiable areas to be affected by 

the Court’s opinion. Moreover, EPA does not 

anticipate the need to revise any PSD requirements 

promulgated by the 2008 NSR Rule in order to 

comply with the Court’s decision. Accordingly, 

EPA’s approval of Michigan’s infrastructure SIP as 

to elements (C), (D)(i)(II), or (J) with respect to the 

PSD requirements promulgated by the 2008 

implementation rule does not conflict with the 

court’s opinion. 

The Court’s decision with respect to the 

nonattainment NSR requirements promulgated by 

the 2008 implementation rule also does not affect 

EPA’s action on the present infrastructure action. 

EPA interprets the CAA to exclude nonattainment 

area requirements, including requirements 

associated with a nonattainment NSR program, 

from infrastructure SIP submissions due three years 

after adoption or revision of a NAAQS. Instead, 

these elements are typically referred to as 

nonattainment SIP or attainment plan elements, 

which would be due by the dates statutorily 

prescribed under subparts 2 through 5 under part 

D, extending as far as 10 years following 

designations for some elements. 

2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 

2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

C. Section 110(a)(2)(C)—Program for 

Enforcement of Control Measures; PSD 

States are required to include a 

program providing for enforcement of 

all SIP measures and the regulation of 

construction of new or modified 

stationary sources to meet NSR 

requirements under PSD and NNSR 

programs. Part C of the CAA (sections 

160–169B) addresses PSD, while part D 

of the CAA (sections 171–193) addresses 

NNSR requirements. 

The evaluation of each state’s 

submission addressing the 

infrastructure SIP requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(C) covers: (i) 

Enforcement of SIP measures; (ii) PSD 

provisions that explicitly identify NOX

as a precursor to ozone in the PSD 

program; (iii) identification of 

precursors to PM2.5 and identification of 

PM2.5 and PM10 2 condensables in the 

PSD program; (iv) PM2.5 increments in 

the PSD program; and, (v) greenhouse 

gas (GHG) permitting and the ‘‘Tailoring 

Rule.’’ 3

Sub-Element 1: Enforcement of SIP 

Measures 

MDEQ maintains an enforcement 

program to ensure compliance with SIP 

requirements. Part 55 of Act 451, MCL 

324.5501 through 324.5542, gives 

MDEQ the authority to enforce emission 

limits and other control measures in 

rules, permits, and orders. In addition, 

MCL 324.5530 authorizes the Michigan 

Attorney General to commence a civil 

service action for appropriate relief for 

violations of or failure to comply with 

Part 55 of Act 451. The Clean Corporate 

Citizen Program is authorized through 

MCL 324.1401 through 324.1429. EPA 

proposes that Michigan has met the 

enforcement of SIP measures 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) 

with respect to the 2008 ozone, 2010 

NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Sub-Element 2: PSD Provisions That 

Explicitly Identify NOX as a Precursor to 

Ozone in the PSD Program 

EPA’s ‘‘Final Rule to Implement the 8- 

Hour Ozone National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard—Phase 2; Final Rule 

to Implement Certain Aspects of the 

1990 Amendments Relating to New 

Source Review and Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration as They Apply 

in Carbon Monoxide, Particulate Matter, 

and Ozone NAAQS; Final Rule for 

Reformulated Gasoline’’ (Phase 2 Rule) 

was published on November 29, 2005 

(see 70 FR 71612). Among other 

requirements, the Phase 2 Rule 

obligated states to revise their PSD 

programs to explicitly identify NOX as 

a precursor to ozone (70 FR 71612 at 

71679, 71699–71700). This requirement 

was codified in 40 CFR 51.166. 

The Phase 2 Rule required that states 

submit SIP revisions incorporating the 

requirements of the rule, including 

those identifying NOX as a precursor to 

ozone, by June 15, 2007 (see 70 FR 

71612 at 71683, November 29, 2005). 

EPA approved revisions to Michigan’s 

PSD SIP reflecting these requirements 

on April 4, 2014 (see 79 FR 18802), and 

therefore proposes that Michigan has 

met the set of infrastructure SIP 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) 

with respect to the 2008 ozone, 2010 

NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Sub-Element 3: Identification of 

Precursors to PM2.5 and the 

Identification of PM2.5 and PM10

Condensables in the PSD Program 

On May 16, 2008 (see 73 FR 28321), 

EPA issued the Final Rule on the 

‘‘Implementation of the New Source 

Review (NSR) Program for Particulate 

Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers 

(PM2.5)’’ (2008 NSR Rule). The 2008 

NSR Rule finalized several new 

requirements for SIPs to address sources 

that emit direct PM2.5 and other 

pollutants that contribute to secondary 

PM2.5 formation. One of these 

requirements is for NSR permits to 

address pollutants responsible for the 

secondary formation of PM2.5, otherwise 

known as precursors. In the 2008 rule, 

EPA identified precursors to PM2.5 for 

the PSD program to be SO2 and NOX

(unless the state demonstrates to the 

Administrator’s satisfaction or EPA 

demonstrates that NOX emissions in an 

area are not a significant contributor to 

that area’s ambient PM2.5

concentrations). The 2008 NSR Rule 

also specifies that VOCs are not 

considered to be precursors to PM2.5 in 

the PSD program unless the state 

demonstrates to the Administrator’s 

satisfaction or EPA demonstrates that 

emissions of VOCs in an area are 

significant contributors to that area’s 

ambient PM2.5 concentrations. 

The explicit references to SO2, NOX, 

and VOCs as they pertain to secondary 

PM2.5 formation are codified at 40 CFR 

51.166(b)(49)(i)(b) and 40 CFR 

52.21(b)(50)(i)(b). As part of identifying 

pollutants that are precursors to PM2.5,

the 2008 NSR Rule also required states 

to revise the definition of ‘‘significant’’ 

as it relates to a net emissions increase 

or the potential of a source to emit 

pollutants. Specifically, 40 CFR 

51.166(b)(23)(i) and 40 CFR 

52.21(b)(23)(i) define ‘‘significant’’ for 

PM2.5 to mean the following emissions 

rates: 10 tons per year (tpy) of direct 

PM2.5; 40 tpy of SO2; and 40 tpy of NOX

(unless the state demonstrates to the 

Administrator’s satisfaction or EPA 

demonstrates that NOX emissions in an 

area are not a significant contributor to 

that area’s ambient PM2.5

concentrations). The deadline for states 

to submit SIP revisions to their PSD 

programs incorporating these changes 

was May 16, 2011 (see 73 FR 28321 at 

28341).4

The 2008 NSR Rule did not require 

states to immediately account for gases 

that could condense to form particulate 

matter, known as condensables, in PM2.5

and PM10 emission limits in NSR 

permits. Instead, EPA determined that 

states had to account for PM2.5 and PM10

condensables for applicability 

determinations and in establishing 

emissions limitations for PM2.5 and 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
36310 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 121 / Wednesday, June 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

PM10 in PSD permits beginning on or 

after January 1, 2011. This requirement 

is codified in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(49)(i)(a) 

and 40 CFR 52.21(b)(50)(i)(a). Revisions 

to states’ PSD programs incorporating 

the inclusion of condensables were 

required be submitted to EPA by May 

16, 2011 (see 73 FR 28321 at 28341). 

EPA approved revisions to Michigan’s 

PSD SIP reflecting these requirements 

on April 4, 2014 (see 79 FR 18802), and 

therefore proposes that Michigan has 

met this set of infrastructure SIP 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) 

with respect to the 2008 ozone, 2010 

NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Sub-Element 4: PM2.5 Increments in the 

PSD Program 

On October 20, 2010, EPA issued the 

final rule on the ‘‘Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) for 

Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 

Micrometers (PM2.5)—Increments, 

Significant Impact Levels (SILs) and 

Significant Monitoring Concentration 

(SMC)’’ (2010 NSR Rule). This rule 

established several components for 

making PSD permitting determinations 

for PM2.5, including a system of 

‘‘increments’’ which is the mechanism 

used to estimate significant 

deterioration of ambient air quality for 

a pollutant. These increments are 

codified in 40 CFR 51.166(c) and 40 

CFR 52.21(c), and are included in the 

table below. 

TABLE 1—PM2.5 INCREMENTS ESTABLISHED BY THE 2010 NSR RULE IN

MICROGRAMS PER CUBIC METER

Annual 

arithmetic 

mean 

24-hour 

max 

Class I ............... 1 2 

Class II .............. 4 9 

Class III ............. 8 18 

The 2010 NSR Rule also established a 

new ‘‘major source baseline date’’ for 

PM2.5 as October 20, 2010, and a new 

trigger date for PM2.5 as October 20, 

2011. These revisions are codified in 40 

CFR 51.166(b)(14)(i)(c) and (b)(14)(ii)(c), 

and 40 CFR 52.21(b)(14)(i)(c) and 

(b)(14)(ii)(c). Lastly, the 2010 NSR Rule 

revised the definition of ‘‘baseline area’’ 

to include a level of significance of 0.3 

micrograms per cubic meter, annual 

average, for PM2.5. This change is 

codified in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(15)(i) and 

40 CFR 52.21(b)(15)(i). 

On April 4, 2014 (79 FR 18802), EPA 

finalized approval of the applicable 

infrastructure SIP PSD revisions; 

therefore, we are proposing that 

Michigan has met this set of 

infrastructure SIP requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to the 

2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 

2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Sub-Element 5: GHG Permitting and the 

‘‘Tailoring Rule’’ 

With respect to Elements C and J, EPA 

interprets the CAA to require each state 

to make an infrastructure SIP 

submission for a new or revised NAAQS 

that demonstrates that the air agency 

has a complete PSD permitting program 

meeting the current requirements for all 

regulated NSR pollutants. The 

requirements of Element D(i)(II) may 

also be satisfied by demonstrating the 

air agency has a complete PSD 

permitting program correctly addressing 

all regulated NSR pollutants. Michigan 

has shown that it currently has a PSD 

program in place that covers all 

regulated NSR pollutants, including 

GHGs. 

On June 23, 2014, the United States 

Supreme Court issued a decision 

addressing the application of PSD 

permitting requirements to GHG 

emissions. Utility Air Regulatory Group 

v. Environmental Protection Agency, 

134 S.Ct. 2427. The Supreme Court said 

that the EPA may not treat GHGs as an 

air pollutant for purposes of 

determining whether a source is a major 

source required to obtain a PSD permit. 

The Court also said that the EPA could 

continue to require that PSD permits, 

otherwise required based on emissions 

of pollutants other than GHGs, contain 

limitations on GHG emissions based on 

the application of Best Available 

Control Technology (BACT). 

In order to act consistently with its 

understanding of the Court’s decision 

pending further judicial action to 

effectuate the decision, the EPA is not 

continuing to apply EPA regulations 

that would require that SIPs include 

permitting requirements that the 

Supreme Court found impermissible. 

Specifically, EPA is not applying the 

requirement that a state’s SIP-approved 

PSD program require that sources obtain 

PSD permits when GHGs are the only 

pollutant (i) that the source emits or has 

the potential to emit above the major 

source thresholds, or (ii) for which there 

is a significant emissions increase and a 

significant net emissions increase from 

a modification (e.g. 40 CFR 

51.166(b)(48)(v)). 

EPA anticipates a need to revise 

Federal PSD rules in light of the 

Supreme Court opinion. In addition, 

EPA anticipates that many states will 

revise their existing SIP-approved PSD 

programs in light of the Supreme 

Court’s decision. The timing and 

content of subsequent EPA actions with 

respect to the EPA regulations and state 

PSD program approvals are expected to 

be informed by additional legal process 

before the United States Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit. At this juncture, EPA is not 

expecting states to have revised their 

PSD programs for purposes of 

infrastructure SIP submissions and is 

only evaluating such submissions to 

assure that the state’s program correctly 

addresses GHGs consistent with the 

Supreme Court’s decision. 

At present, EPA is proposing that 

Michigan’s SIP is sufficient to satisfy 

Elements C, D(i)(II), and J with respect 

to GHGs because the PSD permitting 

program previously approved by EPA 

into the SIP continues to require that 

PSD permits (otherwise required based 

on emissions of pollutants other than 

GHGs) contain limitations on GHG 

emissions based on the application of 

BACT. Although the approved Michigan 

PSD permitting program may currently 

contain provisions that are no longer 

necessary in light of the Supreme Court 

decision, this does not render the 

infrastructure SIP submission 

inadequate to satisfy Elements C, 

(D)(i)(II), and J. The SIP contains the 

necessary PSD requirements at this 

time, and the application of those 

requirements is not impeded by the 

presence of other previously-approved 

provisions regarding the permitting of 

sources of GHGs that EPA does not 

consider necessary at this time in light 

of the Supreme Court decision. 

For the purposes of the 2008 ozone, 

2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5

NAAQS infrastructure SIPs, EPA 

reiterates that NSR Reform regulations 

are not within the scope of these 

actions. Therefore, we are not taking 

action on existing NSR Reform 

regulations for Michigan. EPA approved 

Michigan’s minor NSR program on May 

6, 1980 (see 45 FR 29790); and since 

that date, MDEQ and EPA have relied 

on the existing minor NSR program to 

ensure that new and modified sources 

not captured by the major NSR 

permitting programs do not interfere 

with attainment and maintenance of the 

2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 

2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Certain sub-elements in this section 

overlap with elements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i), section 110(a)(2)(E) and 

section 110(a)(2)(J). These links will be 

discussed in the appropriate areas 

below. 

D. Section 110(a)(2)(D)—Interstate 

Transport 

Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires SIPs 

to include provisions prohibiting any 

source or other type of emissions 

activity in one state from contributing 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 121 / Wednesday, June 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 36311 

5The level of the 2010 NO2 NAAQS for is 100 

parts per billion (ppb) and the form is the 3-year 

average of the annual 98th percentile of the daily 

1-hour maximum. For the most recent design 

values, see http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/

values.html. 

6Michigan has an approved regional haze plan 

for most non-EGUs. Michigan’s plan for EGUs relied 

on the Clean Air Interstate Rule that has been 

recently superseded by the Cross State Air Pollution 

Rule to which Michigan EGU sources are also 

subject. 

significantly to nonattainment, or 

interfering with maintenance, of the 

NAAQS in another state. 

On February 17, 2012, EPA 

promulgated designations for the 2010 

NO2 NAAQS, stating for the entire 

country that, ‘‘The EPA is designating 

areas as ‘‘unclassifiable/attainment’’ to 

mean that available information does 

not indicate that the air quality in these 

areas exceeds the 2010 NO2 NAAQS’’ 

(see 77 FR 9532). For comparison 

purposes, EPA examined the design 

values 5 from NO2 monitors in Michigan 

and surrounding states. The highest 

design value based on data collected 

between 2011 and 2013 was 44 ppb at 

a monitor in Detroit, MI, compared to 

the standard which is 100 ppb for the 

2010 NO2 NAAQS. Additionally, 

Michigan has SIP approved rules that 

limit NOX emissions, including rules in 

Michigan Administrative Code sections 

R 336.1801 through R 336.1834. EPA 

believes that, in conjunction with the 

continued implementation of the state’s 

SIP-approved PSD and NNSR 

regulations, these low monitored values 

of NO2 will continue in and around 

Michigan. In other words, the NO2

emissions from Michigan are not 

expected to cause or contribute to a 

violation of the 2010 NO2 NAAQS in 

another state, and these emissions are 

not likely to interfere with the 

maintenance of the 2010 NO2 NAAQS 

in another state. Therefore, EPA 

proposes that Michigan has met 

transport prongs 1 and 2 related to 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010 

NO2 NAAQS. Michigan, as noted in its 

July 11, 2014, clarification letter, did not 

make submittals pertaining to section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 ozone, 

2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires that 

SIPs include provisions prohibiting any 

source or other type of emissions 

activity in one state from interfering 

with measures required to prevent 

significant deterioration of air quality or 

to protect visibility in another state. 

EPA notes that Michigan’s satisfaction 

of the applicable infrastructure SIP PSD 

requirements for the 2008 ozone, 2010 

NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS 

have been detailed in the section 

addressing section 110(a)(2)(C). EPA 

further notes that the proposed actions 

in that section related to PSD are 

consistent with the proposed actions 

related to PSD for section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), and they are reiterated 

below. 

EPA has previously approved 

revisions to Michigan’s SIP that meet 

certain requirements obligated by the 

Phase 2 Rule and the 2008 NSR Rule. 

These revisions included provisions 

that: Explicitly identify NOX as a 

precursor to ozone, explicitly identify 

SO2 and NOX as precursors to PM2.5, 

and regulate condensable PM2.5 and 

PM10 in applicability determinations 

and establishing emissions limits. EPA 

has also previously approved revisions 

to Michigan’s SIP that incorporate the 

PM2.5 increments and the associated 

implementation regulations including 

the major source baseline date, trigger 

date, and level of significance for PM2.5

per the 2010 NSR Rule. EPA is 

proposing that Michigan’s SIP contains 

provisions that adequately address the 

2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 

2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

States also have an obligation to 

ensure that sources located in 

nonattainment areas do not interfere 

with a neighboring state’s PSD program. 

One way that this requirement can be 

satisfied is through an NNSR program 

consistent with the CAA that addresses 

any pollutants for which there is a 

designated nonattainment area within 

the state. 

Michigan’s EPA-approved NNSR 

regulations found in Part 2 of the SIP, 

specifically in Michigan Administrative 

Code sections R 336.1220 and R 

336.1221, are consistent with 40 CFR 

51.165, or 40 CFR part 51, appendix S. 

Therefore, EPA proposes that Michigan 

has met all of the applicable PSD 

requirements for the 2008 ozone, 2010 

NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS 

for transport prong 3 related to section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). 

With regard to the applicable 

requirements for visibility protection of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), states are 

subject to visibility and regional haze 

program requirements under part C of 

the CAA (which includes sections 169A 

and 169B). The 2013 Memo states that 

these requirements can be satisfied by 

an approved SIP addressing reasonably 

attributable visibility impairment, if 

required, or an approved SIP addressing 

regional haze. 

In today’s rulemaking, EPA is not 

proposing to approve or disapprove 

Michigan’s satisfaction of the visibility 

protection requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), transport prong 4, for 

the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, 

and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. Instead, EPA 

will evaluate Michigan’s compliance 

with these requirements in a separate 

rulemaking.6

Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires that 

each SIP contains adequate provisions 

requiring compliance with the 

applicable requirements of sections 126 

and 115 (relating to interstate and 

international pollution abatement, 

respectively). 

Section 126(a) requires new or 

modified sources to notify neighboring 

states of potential impacts from the 

source. The statute does not specify the 

method by which the source should 

provide the notification. States with 

SIP-approved PSD programs must have 

a provision requiring such notification 

by new or modified sources. A lack of 

such a requirement in state rules would 

be grounds for disapproval of this 

element. 

Michigan has provisions in its EPAapproved PSD program in Michigan 

Administrative Code section R 336.2817 

requiring new or modified sources to 

notify neighboring states of potential 

negative air quality impacts, and has 

referenced this program as having 

adequate provisions to meet the 

requirements of section 126(a). EPA is 

proposing that Michigan has met the 

infrastructure SIP requirements of 

section 126(a). Michigan does not have 

any obligations under any other 

subsection of section 126, nor does it 

have any pending obligations under 

section 115. EPA, therefore, is proposing 

that Michigan has met all applicable 

infrastructure SIP requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) for the 2008 

ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

E. Section 110(a)(2)(E)—Adequate 

Resources 

This section requires each state to 

provide for adequate personnel, 

funding, and legal authority under state 

law to carry out its SIP, and related 

issues. Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) also 

requires each state to comply with the 

requirements respecting state boards 

under section 128. 

Sub-Element 1: Adequate Personnel, 

Funding, and Legal Authority Under 

State Law To Carry Out Its SIP, and 

Related Issues 

MDEQ’s SIP program is funded 

through 105 and 103 grants and 

matching funds from the state’s General 

Fund. As discussed in earlier sections, 

MDEQ has the legal authority to carry 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
36312 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 121 / Wednesday, June 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

out the Michigan SIP under Act 451 and 

the Executive Reorganization Order 

2011–1. Michigan’s PSD regulations 

provide adequate resources to permit 

GHG sources. EPA proposes that 

Michigan has met the infrastructure SIP 

requirements of this portion of section 

110(a)(2)(E) with respect to the 2008 

ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Sub-Element 2: State Board 

Requirements Under Section 128 of the 

CAA 

Section 110(a)(2)(E) also requires that 

each SIP contains provisions that 

comply with the state board 

requirements of section 128 of the CAA. 

That provision contains two explicit 

requirements: (i) That any board or body 

which approves permits or enforcement 

orders under this chapter shall have at 

least a majority of members who 

represent the public interest and do not 

derive any significant portion of their 

income from persons subject to permits 

and enforcement orders under this 

chapter, and (ii) that any potential 

conflicts of interest by members of such 

board or body or the head of an 

executive agency with similar powers be 

adequately disclosed. 

On July 10, 2014, MDEQ submitted 

rules from the Civil Service Rule at 2– 

8.3(a)(1) for incorporation into the SIP, 

pursuant to section 128 of the CAA. 

MDEQ does not have a state board. The 

authority to approve air permits and 

enforcement orders rest with the MDEQ 

Director and his designee. These 

authorities are found in MCL 324.5503, 

MCL 324.301(b), Executive Order No. 

1995–18, and delegation letter from the 

MDEQ Director to the Air Quality 

Division chief and supervisors. 

Therefore, section 128(a)(1) of the CAA 

is not applicable in Michigan. 

Under section 128(a)(2), the head of 

the executive agency with the power to 

approve enforcement orders or permits 

must adequately disclose any potential 

conflicts of interest. The Civil Service 

Rule 2–8.3(a)(1) contains provisions that 

adequately satisfy the requirements of 

section 128(a)(2). This provision 

requires that ‘‘At least annually, an 

employee shall disclose to the 

employee’s appointing authority all 

personal or financial interests of the 

employee or members of the employee’s 

immediate family in any business or 

entity with which the employee has 

direct contact while performing official 

duties as a classified employee’’ (Civil 

Service Rule 2–8.3(a)(1)). The Civil 

Service Rule 1–9.1 subjects the MDEQ 

Director and designees to this provision. 

Therefore, when evaluated together in 

the context of section 128(a)(2), the 

director of MDEQ or his/her designee 

must fully disclose any potential 

conflicts of interest relating to permits 

or enforcement orders under the CAA. 

As a result, we are proposing to approve 

Civil Service Rule 2–8.3(a)(1) into the 

SIP. On July 10, 2014, MDEQ requested 

that these rules satisfy not only the 

applicable requirements of section 128 

of the CAA, but that they satisfy any 

applicable requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(E) for the 2008 ozone, 2010 

NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Therefore, EPA is proposing that MDEQ 

has satisfied the applicable 

infrastructure SIP requirements for this 

section of 110(a)(2)(E) for the 2008 

ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

F. Section 110(a)(2)(F)—Stationary 

Source Monitoring System 

States must establish a system to 

monitor emissions from stationary 

sources and submit periodic emissions 

reports. Each plan shall also require the 

installation, maintenance, and 

replacement of equipment, and the 

implementation of other necessary 

steps, by owners or operators of 

stationary sources to monitor emissions 

from such sources. The state plan shall 

also require periodic reports on the 

nature and amounts of emissions and 

emissions-related data from such 

sources, and correlation of such reports 

by each state agency with any emission 

limitations or standards established 

pursuant to this chapter. Lastly, the 

reports shall be available at reasonable 

times for public inspection. 

MDEQ implements a stationary source 

monitoring program under the authority 

of MCL 324.5512 and MCL 324.5503 of 

Act 451. Additional emissions testing, 

sampling, and reporting requirements 

are found in Michigan Administrative 

Code sections R 336.201 through R 

336.202 and R 336.2011 through R 

336.2199. Emissions data is submitted 

to EPA through the National Emissions 

Inventory system and is available to the 

public online and upon request. EPA 

proposes that Michigan has satisfied the 

infrastructure SIP requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(F) with respect to the 

2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 

2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

G. Section 110(a)(2)(G)—Emergency 

Powers 

This section requires that a plan 

provide for authority that is analogous 

to what is provided in section 303 of the 

CAA, and adequate contingency plans 

to implement such authority. The 2013 

Memo states that infrastructure SIP 

submissions should specify authority, 

rested in an appropriate official, to 

restrain any source from causing or 

contributing to emissions which present 

an imminent and substantial 

endangerment to public health or 

welfare, or the environment. 

MDEQ has the authority to require 

immediate discontinuation of air 

contamination discharges that constitute 

an imminent and substantial 

endangerment to public health, safety, 

welfare, or the environment under MCL 

324.5518 of Act 451. MCL 324.5530 

provides for civil action by the 

Michigan Attorney General for a 

violation as just described. EPA 

proposes that Michigan has met the 

applicable infrastructure SIP 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(G) 

related to authority to implement 

measures to restrain sources from 

causing or contributing to emissions 

which present an imminent and 

substantial endangerment to public 

health or welfare, or the environment 

with respect to the 2008 ozone, 2010 

NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

H. Section 110(a)(2)(H)—Future SIP 

Revisions 

This section requires states to have 

the authority to revise their SIPs in 

response to changes in the NAAQS, 

availability of improved methods for 

attaining the NAAQS, or to an EPA 

finding that the SIP is substantially 

inadequate. 

MDEQ continues to update and 

implement needed revisions to 

Michigan’s SIP as necessary to meet 

ambient air quality standards. Authority 

for MDEQ to adopt emissions standards 

and compliance schedules is found at 

MCL 324.5512 and MCL 324.5503 of Act 

451. EPA proposes that Michigan has 

met the infrastructure SIP requirements 

of section 110(a)(2)(H) with respect to 

the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, 

and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

I. Section 110(a)(2)(I)—Nonattainment 

Area Plan or Plan Revisions Under Part 

D 

The CAA requires that each plan or 

plan revision for an area designated as 

a nonattainment area meet the 

applicable requirements of part D of the 

CAA. Part D relates to nonattainment 

areas. 

EPA has determined that section 

110(a)(2)(I) is not applicable to the 

infrastructure SIP process. Instead, EPA 

takes action on part D attainment plans 

through separate processes. 

J. Section 110(a)(2)(J)—Consultation 

With Government Officials; Public 

Notifications; PSD; Visibility Protection 

The evaluation of the submissions 

from Michigan with respect to the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 121 / Wednesday, June 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 36313 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(J) is 

described below. 

Sub-Element 1: Consultation With 

Government Officials 

States must provide a process for 

consultation with local governments 

and Federal Land Managers (FLMs) 

carrying out NAAQS implementation 

requirements. 

Michigan actively participates in the 

regional planning efforts that include 

business, community groups, state rule 

developers, representatives from the 

FLMs, and other affected stakeholders. 

Michigan Administrative Code section R 

336.2816 requires that FLMs are 

provided with notification of permit 

applications that may impact class I 

areas. Additionally, Michigan is an 

active member of the Lake Michigan Air 

Directors Consortium, which consists of 

collaboration with the States of Illinois, 

Wisconsin, Indiana, Minnesota, and 

Ohio. EPA proposes that Michigan has 

met the infrastructure SIP requirements 

of this portion of section 110(a)(2)(J) 

with respect to the 2008 ozone, 2010 

NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Sub-Element 2: Public Notification 

Section 110(a)(2)(J) also requires 

states to notify the public if NAAQS are 

exceeded in an area and must enhance 

public awareness of measures that can 

be taken to prevent exceedances. 

MDEQ notifies the public if there are 

NAAQS exceedances and of any public 

health hazards associated with those 

exceedances through CleanAirAction!, 

AirNow, and EnviroFlash as well as 

posting on its Web site. MDEQ 

published an annual air quality report 

comparing Michigan monitors to the 

NAAQS. EPA proposes that Michigan 

has met the infrastructure SIP 

requirements of this portion of section 

110(a)(2)(J) with respect to the 2008 

ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Sub-Element 3: PSD 

States must meet applicable 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) 

related to PSD. MDEQ’s PSD program in 

the context of infrastructure SIPs has 

already been discussed in the 

paragraphs addressing section 

110(a)(2)(C) and 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), and 

EPA notes that the proposed actions for 

those sections are consistent with the 

proposed actions for this portion of 

section 110(a)(2)(J). Therefore, EPA 

proposes that Michigan has met all of 

the infrastructure SIP requirements for 

PSD associated with section 

110(a)(2)(D)(J) for the 2008 ozone, 2010 

NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Sub-Element 4: Visibility Protection 

With regard to the applicable 

requirements for visibility protection, 

states are subject to visibility and 

regional haze program requirements 

under part C of the CAA (which 

includes sections 169A and 169B). In 

the event of the establishment of a new 

NAAQS, however, the visibility and 

regional haze program requirements 

under part C do not change. Thus, we 

find that there is no new visibility 

obligation ‘‘triggered’’ under section 

110(a)(2)(J) when a new NAAQS 

becomes effective. In other words, the 

visibility protection requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(J) are not germane to 

infrastructure SIPs for the 2008 ozone, 

2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5

NAAQS. 

K. Section 110(a)(2)(K)—Air Quality 

Modeling/Data 

SIPs must provide for performing air 

quality modeling for predicting effects 

on air quality of emissions of any 

NAAQS pollutant and submission of 

such data to EPA upon request. 

MDEQ continues to review the 

potential impact of major, and some 

minor, new and modified sources using 

computer models. Michigan’s rules 

regarding air quality modeling are 

contained in Michigan Administrative 

Code sections R 336.1240 and R 

336.1241. These modeling data are 

available to EPA or other interested 

parties upon request. EPA proposes that 

Michigan has met the infrastructure SIP 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(K) 

with respect to the 2008 ozone, 2010 

NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

L. Section 110(a)(2)(L)—Permitting Fees 

This section requires that SIPs 

mandate that each major stationary 

source pay permitting fees to cover the 

cost of reviewing, approving, 

implementing, and enforcing a permit. 

MDEQ implements and operates the 

title V permit program, which EPA 

approved on December 4, 2001 (66 FR 

62969); revisions to the program were 

approved on November 10, 2003 (68 FR 

63735). MDEQ’s authority to levy and 

collect an annual air quality fee from 

fee-subject facilities is found in section 

324.5522 of Act 451. EPA proposes that 

Michigan has met the infrastructure SIP 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(L) 

with respect to the 2008 ozone, 2010 

NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

M. Section 110(a)(2)(M)—Consultation/

Participation by Affected Local Entities 

States must consult with and allow 

participation from local political 

subdivisions affected by the SIP. 

MDEQ regularly works with local 

political subdivisions for attainment 

planning purposes and actively 

participates in regional planning 

organizations. Rulemaking is subject to 

notice, comment, and hearing 

requirements under the Michigan 

Administrative Procedures Act, 1969 PA 

306 and is authorized in MCL 324.5512. 

EPA proposes that Michigan has met the 

infrastructure SIP requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(M) with respect to the 

2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 

2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

V. What action is EPA taking? 

EPA is proposing to approve most 

elements of submissions from MDEQ 

certifying that its current SIP is 

sufficient to meet the required 

infrastructure elements under sections 

110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2008 ozone, 

2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5

NAAQS. In addition, EPA is proposing 

to approve a submission from Michigan 

intended to meet the state board 

requirements of section 128, specifically 

the Civil Service Rule 2–8.3(a)(1). 

EPA’s proposed actions for the state’s 

satisfaction of infrastructure SIP 

requirements, by element of section 

110(a)(2) are contained in the table 

below. 

Element 2008 

Ozone 

2010 

NO2

2010 

SO2

2012 

PM2.5

(A)—Emission limits and other control measures. .......................................................................................... A A A A 

(B)—Ambient air quality monitoring/data system. ........................................................................................... A A A A 

(C)1—Program for enforcement of control measures. .................................................................................... A A A A 

(C)2—PSD. ...................................................................................................................................................... A A A A 

(D)1—I Prong 1: Interstate transport—significant contribution. ....................................................................... NA A NA NA 

(D)2—I Prong 2: Interstate transport—interfere with maintenance. ................................................................ NA A NA NA 

(D)3—II Prong 3: Interstate transport—prevention of significant deterioration. .............................................. A A A A 

(D)4—II Prong 4: Interstate transport—protect visibility. ................................................................................. NA NA NA NA 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
36314 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 121 / Wednesday, June 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

Element 2008 

Ozone 

2010 

NO2

2010 

SO2

2012 

PM2.5

(D)5—Interstate and international pollution abatement. .................................................................................. A A A A 

(E)1—Adequate resources. ............................................................................................................................. A A A A 

(E)2—State board requirements. ..................................................................................................................... A A A A 

(F)—Stationary source monitoring system. ..................................................................................................... A A A A 

(G)—Emergency power. .................................................................................................................................. A A A A 

(H)—Future SIP revisions. ............................................................................................................................... A A A A 

(I)—Nonattainment planning requirements of part D. ..................................................................................... + + + + 

(J)1—Consultation with government officials. ................................................................................................. A A A A 

(J)2—Public notification. .................................................................................................................................. A A A A 

(J)3—PSD. ....................................................................................................................................................... A A A A 

(J)4—Visibility protection. ................................................................................................................................ + + + + 

(K)—Air quality modeling/data. ........................................................................................................................ A A A A 

(L)—Permitting fees. ........................................................................................................................................ A A A A 

(M)—Consultation and participation by affected local entities. ....................................................................... A A A A 

In the above table, the key is as follows: 

A = Approve 

NA = No Action/Separate Rulemaking 

+ = Not Germaine to Infrastructure. 

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 Michigan Civil Service Commission 

Rule 2–8.3(a)(1) entitled ‘‘Disclosure,’’ 

effective October 1, 2013. The EPA has 

made, and will continue to make, these 

documents generally available 

electronically through 

www.regulations.gov and/or in hard 

copy at the appropriate EPA office (see 

the ADDRESSES section of this preamble 

for more information). 

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 

CAA 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, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Public Law 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). 

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, Sulfur oxides. 

Dated: June 11, 2015. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 2015–15556 Filed 6–23–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 152 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2010–0305; FRL–9927–50] 

RIN 2070–AJ79 

Notification of Submission to the 

Secretaries of Agriculture and Health 

and Human Services; Pesticides; 

Revisions to Minimum Risk Exemption 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notification of submission to 

the Secretaries of Agriculture and 

Health and Human Services. 

SUMMARY: This document notifies the 

public as required by the Federal 

Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide 

Act (FIFRA) that the EPA Administrator 

has forwarded to the Secretary of the 

United States Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) and the Secretary of the United 

States Department of Health and Human 

Services (HHS) a draft regulatory 

document concerning the draft final rule 

entitled ‘‘Pesticides; Revisions to 

Minimum Risk Exemption.’’ The draft 

regulatory document is not available to 

the public until after it has been signed 

and made available by EPA. 

DATES: See Unit I. under SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION. 

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS