Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 125 / Friday, July 2, 2021 / Proposed Rules 35247 

1EPA explains and elaborates on these 

ambiguities and its approach to address them in our 

September 13, 2013 Infrastructure SIP Guidance 

(available at https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/ 

urbanair/sipstatus/docs/Guidance_on_

Infrastructure_SIP_Elements_Multipollutant_

FINAL_Sept_2013.pdf), as well as in numerous 

agency actions, including EPA’s prior action on 

Minnesota’s infrastructure SIP to address the 2008 

ozone, 2010 nitrogen dioxide (NO2), 2010 sulfur 

dioxide (SO2), and 2012 fine particulate matter 

(PM2.5) NAAQS (80 FR 63436 (October 20, 2015)). 

2See U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 

decision in Montana Environmental Information 

Center v. EPA, No. 16–71933 (Aug. 30, 2018). 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

The SIP is not approved to apply on 

any Indian reservation land or in any 

other area where EPA or an Indian tribe 

has demonstrated that a tribe has 

jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 

country, the rule does not have tribal 

implications as specified by Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000), nor will it impose substantial 

direct costs on tribal governments or 

preempt tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: June 28, 2021. 

John Blevins, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2021–14175 Filed 7–1–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2019–0215; FRL–10025– 

47–Region 5] 

Air Plan Approval; Michigan; Partial 

Approval and Partial Disapproval for 

Infrastructure SIP Requirements for 

the 2015 Ozone NAAQS 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to partially 

approve and partially disapprove 

elements of a State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) submission from Michigan 

regarding the infrastructure 

requirements of section 110 of the Clean 

Air Act (CAA) for the 2015 ozone 

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. The 

disapproval portion of this action does 

not begin a new Federal Implementation 

Plan (FIP) clock, because the FIPs are 

already in place. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before August 2, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2019–0215 at http://

www.regulations.gov, or via email to 

leslie.michael@epa.gov. For comments 

submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. Once submitted, comments 

cannot be edited or removed from 

Regulations.gov. For either manner of 

submission, 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. 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, please contact the person 

identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section. For 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/docketgs/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Olivia Davidson, Environmental 

Scientist, Attainment Planning and 

Maintenance Section, Air Programs 

Branch (AR–18J), Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West 

Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 

60604, (312) 886–0266, 

davidson.olivia@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 is the background of this SIP 

submission? 

II. What is EPA’s analysis of this SIP 

submission? 

III. What action is EPA taking? 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What is the background of this SIP 

submission? 

In this rulemaking, EPA is proposing 

to approve most elements and 

disapprove one element of a March 8, 

2019 submission from Michigan’s 

Department of Environment, Great 

Lakes and Energy (EGLE) intended to 

address all applicable infrastructure 

requirements for the 2015 ozone 

NAAQS. EPA is disapproving the 

portion of the submission pertaining to 

the visibility protection requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) with respect to 

the 2015 ozone NAAQS. The 

disapproval portion of this action does 

not begin a new FIP clock, because the 

FIPs are already in place. EPA will take 

action in a separate rulemaking on the 

portion of the submission pertaining to 

the interstate transport requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to 

the 2015 ozone NAAQS. 

Whenever EPA promulgates a new or 

revised NAAQS, CAA section 110(a)(1) 

requires states to make SIP submissions 

to provide for the implementation, 

maintenance, and enforcement of the 

NAAQS. This type of SIP submission is 

commonly referred to as an 

‘‘infrastructure SIP.’’ These submissions 

must meet the various requirements of 

CAA section 110(a)(2), as applicable. 

Due to ambiguity in some of the 

language of CAA section 110(a)(2), EPA 

believes that it is appropriate to 

interpret these provisions in the specific 

context of acting on infrastructure SIP 

submissions. EPA has previously 

provided comprehensive guidance on 

the application of these provisions 

through our September 13, 2013 

Infrastructure SIP Guidance and through 

regional actions on infrastructure 

submissions (EPA’s 2013 Guidance).1

Unless otherwise noted below, we are 

following that existing approach in 

acting on this submission. In addition, 

in the context of acting on such 

infrastructure submissions, EPA 

evaluates the submitting state’s SIP for 

facial compliance with statutory and 

regulatory requirements, not for the 

state’s implementation of its SIP.2 EPA 

has other authority to address any issues 

concerning a state’s implementation of 

the rules, regulations, consent orders, 

etc. that comprise its SIP. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
35248 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 125 / Friday, July 2, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

II. What is EPA’s analysis of this SIP 

submission? 

Pursuant to section 110(a), states must 

provide reasonable notice and 

opportunity for public hearing for all 

infrastructure SIP submissions. On 

September 28, 2018, EGLE opened a 

five-week comment period and 

provided the opportunity for public 

hearing. Comments were integrated into 

the SIP submission. 

Michigan provided a detailed 

synopsis of how various components of 

its SIP meet each of the applicable 

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

2015 ozone NAAQS, as applicable. The 

following review evaluates the state’s 

submission. 

A. Section 110(a)(2)(A)—Emission 

Limits and Other Control Measures 

This section requires SIPs to include 

enforceable emission limitations and 

other control measures, means, or 

techniques, as well as schedules and 

timetables for compliance, as may be 

necessary or appropriate to meet the 

applicable requirements. This 

submission is required to demonstrate 

that the state of Michigan can comply 

with the implementation of the NAAQS 

2015 Ozone standard. 

Under Part 55 of the Natural 

Resources Protection Act, (PA 451) 

promulgated in 1994, Michigan 

Compiled Laws (MCL) Sections 

324.5503 and 324.5512 authorize the 

EGLE director to regulate the discharge 

of air pollutants, to create rules and to 

establish standards regarding air quality 

and emissions. 

EPA’s 2013 Guidance states that to 

satisfy section 110(a)(2)(A) 

requirements, ‘‘an air agency’s 

submission should identify existing 

EPA-approved SIP provisions or new 

SIP provisions that the air agency has 

adopted and submitted for EPA 

approval that limit emissions of 

pollutants relevant to the subject 

NAAQS, including precursors of the 

relevant NAAQS pollutant where 

applicable.’’ 

We believe that EGLE has the 

necessary components contained in its 

MCL and MAC to comply with the 2015 

NAAQS Ozone standard. Emission 

limits for ozone precursors are 

contained in Michigan Administrative 

Code (MAC) Rules 336.1101 through 

336.2908. Specifically, MAC Rules 

336.1601 through 336.1661 apply to 

existing sources of volatile organic 

compounds (VOC), Rules 336.1701 

through 336.1710 apply to new sources 

of VOCs, and Rules 336.1801 through 

1834 apply to oxides of nitrogen (NOX) 

from stationary sources. Methods of 

control and compliance are contained 

within these rules. 

In this rulemaking, EPA is not 

proposing to approve any new 

provisions in MCL Chapter 336 or MCL 

Chapter 324. EPA is also not proposing 

to approve or disapprove any existing 

state provisions or rules related to startup, shutdown or malfunction or 

director’s discretion in the context of 

section 110(a)(2)(A). EPA proposes that 

Michigan has met the infrastructure SIP 

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

with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS. 

B. Section 110(a)(2)(B)—Ambient Air 

Quality Monitoring/Data System 

This section requires SIPs to provide 

for installation and operation of devices 

used to monitor, compile, and analyze 

ambient air quality data, and upon 

request, make such data available to 

EPA. These requirements include 

monitoring air quality for the relevant 

NAAQS pollutants at the proper 

locations in accordance with network 

requirements (40 CFR parts 53 and 58), 

submitting said data to the Air Quality 

System (AQS) in a timely manner (40 

CFR part 58), providing the data with 

description of any discrepancies to the 

appropriate EPA Regional Office (40 

CFR 58.10) and obtaining EPA approval 

for any changes to monitoring sites or 

network plan. 

EGLE’s annual reporting requirements 

are contained in Rules 336.201 through 

336.205 of MAC. EGLE 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. An annual 

network review is submitted to EPA to 

ensure EGLE’s air monitoring operations 

comply with applicable Federal 

requirements, including the updated 

ozone NAAQS standard. The last 

submission to EPA was approved on 

October 28, 2020. EPA approved air 

quality monitors and monitor locations 

capable of detecting ozone and ozone 

precursors at the revised NAAQS level. 

EPA proposes that EGLE has met the 

infrastructure SIP requirements of 

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

2015 ozone NAAQS. 

C. Section 110(a)(2)(C)—Program for 

Enforcement of Control Measures; Minor 

NSR; PSD 

This section requires SIPs to set forth 

a program providing for enforcement of 

all SIP measures, and the regulation of 

construction of new and modified 

stationary sources to meet New Source 

Review (NSR) requirements under 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) and Nonattainment NSR (NNSR) 

programs. Part C of the CAA (sections 

160–169B) addresses PSD, while part D 

of the CAA (sections 171–193) addresses 

NNSR requirements. EPA’s 2013 

Guidance states that the NNSR 

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

generally outside the scope of 

infrastructure SIPs; however, a state 

must provide for regulation of minor 

sources and minor modifications (minor 

NSR). 

1. Program for Enforcement of Control 

Measures 

A state’s infrastructure SIP 

submission should identify the statutes, 

regulations, or other provisions in the 

SIP that provide for enforcement of 

emission limits and control measures. 

EGLE maintains this authority through 

MCL 324.5501–324.5542. The authority 

for rulemaking to establish emission 

limits and promulgate rules for permit 

programs is contained in MCL 324.5505 

and MCL 324.5506. MCL 324.5526 and 

324.5528 gives EGLE authority to 

reasonably inspect facilities and to 

enforce violations of the established 

rules, respectively. Civil action may be 

taken against any entity that violates 

these provisions under PA 451. 

Additional enforcement provisions 

including voluntary agreement of 

investigation, notice to discontinue 

pollution, power of investigation and 

inspection, and other violation rules are 

contained in MCL 324.5515, 324.5518 

and 324.5526–324.5532 respectively. 

EPA proposes that EGLE meets the 

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

respect to enforceability of control 

measures contained in its MCL 

regarding the 2015 ozone NAAQS. 

2. Minor NSR 

To satisfy the sub element for 

preconstruction regulation of the 

modification and construction of minor 

stationary sources and the minor 

modification of major stationary 

sources, an infrastructure SIP 

submission should identify the existing 

EPA approved SIP provisions and/or 

include new provisions that govern the 

minor source pre-construction program 

that regulates emissions of the relevant 

NAAQS pollutant(s). The EPA rules 

addressing SIP requirements for preconstruction regulatory programs that 

apply to minor sources and minor 

modifications are at 40 CFR 51.160 

through 51.164. 

The State of Michigan’s minor source 

permit to install rules are contained in 

Part 2 (Air Use Approval) of the 

Michigan Administrative Code. Changes 

to the Part 2 rules were submitted on 

November 12, 1993; May 16, 1996; April 

3, 1998; September 2, 2003; March 24, 

2009; and February 28, 2017. EPA 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 125 / Friday, July 2, 2021 / Proposed Rules 35249 

3PM2.5 refers to particles with an aerodynamic 

diameter of less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers, 

also referred to as ‘‘fine’’ particles. 

4PM10 refers to particles with an aerodynamic 

diameter of less than or equal to 10 micrometers. 

5 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 (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 (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 2015 ozone NAAQS. 

6Effective February 16, 2017, EPA updated the 

modeling appendix at 40 CFR part 51, appendix W 

(82 FR 5182). EPA proposed approval of Michigan 

Part 9 rules (86 FR 15837) on March 24, 2021 

incorporating the CFR update. The finalization of 

the rule update will dictate finalization of this 

element. 

7EPA notes that on January 4, 2013, the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the D.C. 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 (Natural 

Resources Defense Council v. EPA, No. 08–1250). 

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 subpart 2 

through 5 under part D, extending as far as 10 years 

following designations for some elements. 

approved changes to the Part 2 rules 

most recently in a final approval dated 

July 1, 2019 (84 FR 25180), and 

therefore proposes that Michigan has 

met this set of infrastructure SIP 

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

with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS. 

3. PSD 

To satisfy the sub element regarding 

the PSD program required by CAA title 

I part C, an infrastructure SIP 

submission should demonstrate that one 

or more air agencies have the authority 

to implement a comprehensive PSD 

permit program under CAA title I part 

C, for all PSD-subject sources located in 

areas that are designated attainment or 

unclassifiable for one or more NAAQS. 

The infrastructure SIP submission 

should also identify the existing SIP 

provisions that govern the major source 

PSD program. 

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 3 and identification 

of PM2.5 and PM10 4 condensables in the 

PSD program; (iv) PM2.5 increments in 

the PSD program; and, (v) greenhouse 

gas (GHG) permitting and the ‘‘Tailoring 

Rule.’’ 5

Sources in Michigan that install 

equipment that will emit ozone 

precursors are subject to permit-toinstall regulations under MAC Rules 

336.1201 through 336.1209 and include 

consideration of VOCs and NOX. PSD 

program regulations (MAC Rules 

336.2801 through R 336.2823) require 

any new major or modified source to 

undergo PSD review.6

a. 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. 

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 51.166.7. 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 2015 ozone NAAQS. 

b. 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).7

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 

PM10 in PSD permits beginning on or 

after January 1, 2011. This requirement 

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


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
35250 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 125 / Friday, July 2, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

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

to states’ PSD programs incorporating 

the inclusion of condensables were 

required to 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 2015 ozone NAAQS. 

c. 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 Table 

1 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 

2015 ozone NAAQS. 

d. GHG Permitting and the ‘‘Tailoring 

Rule’’ in the PSD Program 

With respect to the requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(C) as well as section 

110(a)(2)(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 section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) may also be satisfied 

by demonstrating that the air agency has 

a complete PSD permitting program 

correctly addressing all regulated NSR 

pollutants. EGLE 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. In the case Utility Air 

Regulatory Group v. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 134 S. Ct. 2427, the 

Supreme Court said that 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 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 accordance with the Court’s 

decision, on April 10, 2015, the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit (the D.C. Circuit) 

issued an amended judgment vacating 

the regulations that implemented Step 2 

of the EPA’s PSD and Title V GHG 

Tailoring Rule, but not the regulations 

that implement Step 1 of that rule. Step 

1 of the Tailoring Rule covers sources 

that are required to obtain a PSD permit 

based on emissions of pollutants other 

than GHGs. Step 2 applied to sources 

that emitted only GHGs above the 

thresholds triggering the requirement to 

obtain a PSD permit. The amended 

judgment preserves, without the need 

for additional rulemaking by the EPA, 

the application of the BACT 

requirement to GHG emissions from 

Step 1 or ‘‘anyway’’ sources. With 

respect to Step 2 sources, the D.C. 

Circuit’s amended judgment vacated the 

regulations at issue in the litigation, 

including 40 CFR 51.166(b)(48)(v), ‘‘to 

the extent they require a stationary 

source to obtain a PSD permit if 

greenhouse gases are the only pollutant 

(i) that the source emits or has the 

potential to emit above the applicable 

major source thresholds, or (ii) for 

which there is a significant emission 

increase from a modification.’’ 

EPA is planning to take additional 

steps to revise Federal PSD rules to 

address the Supreme Court’s opinion 

and subsequent D.C. Circuit’s ruling. 

Some states have begun to revise their 

existing SIP-approved PSD programs to 

address these court decisions, and some 

states may prefer not to initiate this 

process until they have more 

information about the planned revisions 

to EPA’s PSD regulations. EPA is not 

expecting states to have revised their 

PSD programs in anticipation of EPA’s 

planned actions to revise its PSD 

program rules in response to the court 

decisions. For purposes of infrastructure 

SIP submissions, EPA is only evaluating 

such submissions to ensure that the 

state’s program addresses GHGs 

consistent with both court decisions. 

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 2015 ozone 

NAAQS infrastructure SIP, 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, EGLE 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 

2015 ozone NAAQS. 

Certain sub elements in this section 

overlap with elements of section 

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


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 125 / Friday, July 2, 2021 / Proposed Rules 35251 

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

discussed in the appropriate areas 

below. EPA proposes that Michigan has 

met the infrastructure SIP requirements 

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

the 2015 ozone NAAQS. 

D. Section 110(a)(2)(D)—Interstate 

Transport 

Section 110(a)(2)(D) has two 

components: 110(a)(2)(D)(i) and 

110(a)(2)(D)(ii). Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) 

includes four distinct components, 

commonly referred to as ‘‘prongs,’’ that 

must be addressed in infrastructure SIP 

submissions. The first two prongs, 

which are codified in section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), prohibit any source or 

other type of emissions activity in one 

state from contributing significantly to 

nonattainment of the NAAQS in another 

state (prong 1) and from interfering with 

maintenance of the NAAQS in another 

state (prong 2). The third and fourth 

prongs, which are codified in section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), prohibit emissions 

activity in one state from interfering 

with measures required to prevent 

significant deterioration of air quality in 

another state (prong 3) or from 

interfering with measures to protect 

visibility in another state (prong 4). 

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 

significantly to nonattainment, or 

interfering with maintenance, of the 

NAAQS in another state. 

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. 

1. Significant Contribution to 

Nonattainment 

In this rulemaking, EPA is not 

evaluating section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

requirements relating to significant 

contribution to nonattainment for the 

2015 ozone NAAQS. Instead, EPA will 

evaluate these requirements in a 

separate rulemaking. 

2. Interference With Maintenance 

In this rulemaking, EPA is not 

evaluating section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

requirements relating to significant 

contribution to nonattainment for the 

2015 ozone NAAQS. Instead, EPA will 

evaluate these requirements in a 

separate rulemaking. 

3. Interference With PSD 

EPA notes that Michigan’s satisfaction 

of the applicable infrastructure SIP PSD 

requirements for the 2015 ozone 

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 

2015 ozone 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 Rules 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 the applicable PSD 

requirements for the 2015 ozone 

NAAQS for transport prong 3 related to 

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

4. Interference With Visibility 

Protection 

In this rulemaking, EPA is proposing 

to disapprove Michigan’s satisfaction of 

the visibility protection requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), transport 

prong 4, for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. 

Michigan has a partially approved 

Regional Haze Plan and is subject to 

FIPs for a few source categories. See 81 

FR 21672 (April 12, 2016) for more 

information on the FIPs that apply to 

this area. EPA is proposing to 

disapprove because Michigan does not 

have a fully approved Regional Haze 

SIP; however, because the FIP clocks 

were started by a different action, and 

the FIPs are already in place, no further 

action is needed as a result of this 

element. 

5. Interstate and International Pollution 

Abatement 

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

SIP to contain adequate provisions 

requiring compliance with the 

applicable requirements of section 126 

and section 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 EPA 

approved PSD program in Michigan 

Administrative Code Rule 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 2015 

ozone NAAQS. 

E. Section 110(a)(2)(E)—Adequate 

Authority and Resources; State Board 

Requirements 

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. 

1. Adequate Resources 

To satisfy the adequate resources 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E), the 

state should provide assurances that its 

air agency has adequate resources, 

personnel, and legal authority to 

implement the relevant NAAQS. 

EGLE’s SIP program is funded 

through 105 and 103 grants and 

matching funds from the state’s General 

Fund. As discussed in earlier sections, 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
35252 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 125 / Friday, July 2, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

8https://www.wmcac.org/todays-forecast. 

9https://www.airnow.gov/. 

10https://www.michigan.gov/egle/0,9429,7-135- 

3310_70316_4195-101321-,00.html#:∼:text=

EnviroFlash%20is%20a%

20free%20service,match%20expected%20air

%20quality%20conditions. 

11https://www.michigan.gov/egle/0,9429,7-135- 

3310-,00.html. 

EGLE has the legal authority to carry 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 2015 

ozone NAAQS. 

2. State Board Requirements 

In this rulemaking, EPA is not 

proposing to approve or disapprove 

Michigan’s satisfaction of the state 

board requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(E) for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. 

Instead, EPA will evaluate Michigan’s 

compliance with these requirements in 

a separate rulemaking. 

F. Section 110(a)(2)(F)—Stationary 

Source Monitoring System 

Section 110(a)(2)(F) contains several 

requirements, each of which are 

described below. 

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. 

EGLE 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 Rules 336.201 through 336.202 

and Rules 336.2011 through 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 

2015 ozone NAAQS. 

G. Section 110(a)(2)(G)—Emergency 

Episodes 

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. 

EGLE 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 2015 ozone 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. 

EGLE continues to update and 

implement needed revisions to 

Michigan’s SIP as necessary to meet 

ambient air quality standards. Authority 

for EGLE 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 2015 ozone NAAQS. 

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

Planning Requirements of 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 

Notification; PSD; Visibility Protection 

The evaluation of the submissions 

from Michigan with respect to the 

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

described below. 

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 Rule 

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 2015 ozone NAAQS. 

2. Public Notification 

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

states to notify the public if NAAQS are 

exceeded in an area and to enhance 

public awareness of measures that can 

be taken to prevent exceedances. 

EGLE notifies the public if there are 

NAAQS exceedances and of any public 

health hazards associated with those 

exceedances through CleanAirAction!,8

AirNow,9, and EnviroFlash 10 as well as 

posting on its website.11 EGLE 

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 2015 

ozone NAAQS. 

3. PSD 

States must meet applicable 

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

related to PSD. EGLE’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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 125 / Friday, July 2, 2021 / Proposed Rules 35253 

PSD associated with section 

110(a)(2)(D)(J) for the 2015 ozone 

NAAQS. 

4. 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 2015 ozone 

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. 

EGLE continues to review the 

potential impact of major, and some 

minor, new and modified sources using 

computer models. Effective February 16, 

2017, EPA updated the modeling 

appendix at 40 CFR part 51, appendix 

W (82 FR 5182). This action included 

enhancements to the formulation and 

application of the EPA’s preferred nearfield dispersion modeling system, 

AERMOD (American Meteorological 

Society (AMS)/EPA Regulatory Model), 

and the incorporation of a tiered 

demonstration approach to address the 

secondary chemical formation of ozone 

and PM2.5 associated with precursor 

emissions from single sources. EPA 

proposed approval of Michigan’s Part 9 

Rule Update on March 24, 2021 (86 FR 

15837) incorporating the CFR update. 

The finalization of the rule update will 

dictate finalization of this element. 

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 

2015 ozone NAAQS. 

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

EGLE implements and operates the 

title V permit program, which EPA 

approved on December 4, 2001 (66 FR 

62969) EPA approved revisions to the 

program on February 28, 2006 (71 FR 

9934). EGLE’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 2015 ozone 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. 

EGLE 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 

2015 ozone NAAQS. 

III. What action is EPA taking? 

EPA is proposing to approve most 

elements and disapprove one element of 

a submission from EGLE certifying that 

its current SIP is sufficient to meet the 

required infrastructure elements under 

sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2015 

ozone NAAQS. The disapproved prong 

4 does not begin a new FIP clock, as 

FIPs are already in place in response to 

those deficiencies. 

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 2015 Ozone 

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

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

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

(C)2—Minor NSR ................................................................................................................................................................................. A 

(C)3—PSD ........................................................................................................................................................................................... A 

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

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

(D)3—II Prong 3: Interstate transport—interference with PSD ........................................................................................................... A 

(D)4—II Prong 4: Interstate transport—interference with visibility protection ..................................................................................... D 

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

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

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

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

(G)—Emergency powers ..................................................................................................................................................................... A 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the above table, the key is as 

follows: 

A ...... Approve. 

D ....... Disapprove. 

NA .... No Action/Separate Rulemaking. 

* ....... Not germane to infrastructure SIPs. 

IV. 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
35254 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 125 / Friday, July 2, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

1On February 25, 2019 (effective April 17, 2019), 

EPA issued a decision to retain the existing NAAQS 

for SO2. See 84 FR 9866 (March 18, 2019). 

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 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, the SIP is not approved 

to apply on any Indian reservation land 

or in any other area where EPA or an 

Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the rule does not have 

tribal implications and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: June 28, 2021. 

Cheryl Newton, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 2021–14152 Filed 7–1–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 81 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2021–0322; FRL–10025– 

78–Region 4] 

Air Quality Designations; NC: 

Redesignation of the Brunswick 

County 2010 Sulfur Dioxide 

Unclassifiable Area 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a 

submission by the State of North 

Carolina, through the Department of Air 

Quality (DAQ), on April 23, 2021, to 

redesignate the Brunswick County, 

North Carolina, unclassifiable area 

(hereinafter referred to as the 

‘‘Brunswick County Area’’ or ‘‘Area’’) to 

attainment/unclassifiable for the 2010 

1-hour primary sulfur dioxide (SO2) 

national ambient air quality standard 

(hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘2010 SO2

1-hour NAAQS’’). Because EPA now has 

sufficient information to determine that 

the Brunswick County Area is attaining 

the 2010 1-hour SO2 national ambient 

air quality standards (NAAQS), the 

Agency is proposing to approve the 

State’s redesignation request, thereby 

redesignating the Area from 

unclassifiable to attainment/ 

unclassifiable for the 2010 1-hour SO2

NAAQS. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before August 2, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2021–0322 at http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 

EPA may publish any comment received 

to its public docket. Do not submit 

electronically any information you 

consider to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Multimedia submissions (audio, video, 

etc.) must be accompanied by a written 

comment. The written comment is 

considered the official comment and 

should include discussion of all points 

you wish to make. EPA will generally 

not consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or 

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, the full 

EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Evan Adams, Air Regulatory 

Management Section, Air Planning and 

Implementation Branch, Air and 

Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth 

Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. 

Mr. Adams can be reached by telephone 

at (404) 562–9009 or via electronic mail 

at adams.evan@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

The Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) 

establishes a process for air quality 

management through the establishment 

and implementation of the NAAQS. On 

June 2, 2010, EPA revised the primary 

SO2 NAAQS, establishing a new 1-hour 

SO2 standard of 75 parts per billion 

(ppb). See 75 FR 35520 (June 22, 2010).1

After the promulgation of a new or 

revised NAAQS, EPA is required to 

designate all areas of the country 

pursuant to section 107(d)(1)–(2) of the 

CAA. For the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, 

designations were based on EPA’s 

application of the nationwide analytical 

approach to, and technical assessment 

of, the weight of evidence for each area, 

including but not limited to available air 

quality monitoring data and air quality 

modeling results. In advance of 

designating the Brunswick County Area, 

EPA issued updated designations 

guidance through a March 20, 2015, 

memorandum from Stephen D. Page, 

Director, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, to Regional Air 

Division Directors, U.S. EPA Regions 

1–10, titled ‘‘Updated Guidance for Area 

Designations for the 2010 Primary 

Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard.’’ This document 

contains the factors that EPA evaluated 

in determining the appropriate 

designations and associated boundaries 

when designating the Brunswick County 

Area, including: (1) Air quality 

characterization via ambient monitoring 

or dispersion modeling results; (2) 

emissions-related data; (3) meteorology; 

(4) geography and topography; and (5) 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1