37918 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 135 / Monday, July 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

1 84 FR 70092 (December 20, 2019). 

2The four sets of NSR regulations include the 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration regulations 

at 40 CFR 51.166 and 52.21, and the Nonattainment 

NSR regulations at 40 CFR 51.165 and part 51 

Appendix S (also known as the Emission Offset 

Interpretative Ruling). 

Dated: July 14, 2021. 

Leon McClain, Jr., 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Alternate Captain 

of the Port Delaware Bay. 

[FR Doc. 2021–15292 Filed 7–16–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 51 and 52 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2019–0435; FRL–10017–29– 

OAR] 

RIN 2060–AU46 

New Source Review Regulations; 

Correction 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule; correction. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is amending several New 

Source Review (NSR) regulations by 

making the following types of changes: 

Correcting typographical and 

grammatical errors, removing court 

vacated rule language, removing or 

updating outdated or incorrect cross 

references, conforming certain 

provisions to changes contained in the 

1990 Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) 

Amendments, and removing certain 

outdated grandfathering or transitional 

exemptions. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

August 18, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action, identified by 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2019– 

0435. All documents in the docket are 

listed in the http://www.regulations.gov 

website. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., confidential business 

information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically in the 

docket or in hard copy at the EPA 

Docket Center Reading Room, WJC West 

Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution 

Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004. 

Out of an abundance of caution for 

members of the public and our staff, the 

EPA Docket Center and Reading Room 

are closed to the public, with limited 

exceptions, to reduce the risk of 

transmitting COVID–19. Our Docket 

Center staff will continue to provide 

remote customer service via email, 

phone, and webform. For further 

information on EPA Docket Center 

services and the current status, please 

visit us online at https://www.epa.gov/ 

dockets. The hours of operation at the 

EPA Docket Center Reading Room are 

8:30 a.m.–4:30 p.m., Monday–Friday. 

The telephone number for the EPA 

Docket Center is (202) 566–1744. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

general questions about this document, 

please contact Mr. Ben Garwood, New 

Source Review Group, Air Quality 

Policy Division, Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards (C504–03), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, 

27711; telephone number (919) 541– 

1358; fax number (919) 541–4028; email 

address: garwood.ben@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document wherever 

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

the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. Response to Comments 

III. Final Action 

IV. Removal of Vacated Ozone NAAQS 

Grandfathering and Ozone Interprecursor 

Trading Provisions 

V. Environmental Justice Considerations 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTA) 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA) 

L. Judicial Review 

VII. Statutory Authority 

I. Background 

The EPA published a notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on 

December 20, 2019 (‘‘2019 NPRM’’ or 

‘‘2019 proposal’’) 1 including revisions 

to four sets of NSR regulations.2 The 

proposed revisions were intended to 

correct various typographical and 

grammatical errors, remove regulatory 

provisions that have been vacated by the 

court, remove or update outdated or 

incorrect cross references, conform 

certain provisions to changes contained 

in the 1990 CAA Amendments, and 

remove outdated exemptions. 

The NSR regulations have undergone 

revisions and restructurings by the EPA 

during their long history as a result of 

statutory and policy changes, as well as 

numerous court decisions. These 

revisions and restructurings have 

sometimes introduced errors within 

those regulations. In this action, the 

EPA is finalizing revisions to address 

these inadvertent errors. The agency is 

also finalizing other revisions to reflect 

statutory changes enacted by Congress 

which have already been applied in 

practice or changes that have been 

necessitated by court decisions. Thus, 

the EPA considers this final rule to be 

administrative in nature. The EPA’s 

intent is to provide clarity to the 

affected NSR regulations, but not to alter 

the substantive requirements of those 

regulations. The NSR regulations 

affected by this action contain 

requirements for the preconstruction 

review of new major stationary sources 

and major modifications of existing 

major stationary sources. 

In response to the 2019 proposal, the 

EPA received 15 sets of comments: Five 

from industries and industry 

associations, five from anonymous 

commenters, four from state agencies, 

and one from an individual. The 

commenters generally agreed with most 

of the editorial and typographical 

changes that the EPA had proposed. 

Some commenters, however, disagreed 

with some of the proposed changes and 

made alternative recommendations for 

consideration in the final rule. In 

addition, some commenters identified 

additional regulatory text needing 

changes. The following section 

addresses some of the significant 

comments and provides the EPA’s 

responses. For a complete description of 

the comments received and the EPA’s 

responses, please refer to the Response 

to Comment (RTC) document that the 

EPA has placed in the docket for this 

rulemaking. 

In order to provide a clear description 

of the regulatory revisions contained in 

the 2019 proposal, the EPA also 

included a separate table in the 

rulemaking docket showing each of the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 135 / Monday, July 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 37919 

3See https://www.archives.gov/files/federalregister/write/handbook/ddh.pdf. 

4See 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B); 42 U.S.C. 7407(d)(1). 

For more information on the good cause exception 

to notice and comment rulemaking, see Section IV 

of this notice. 

5 68 FR 61248 (October 27, 2003). 

6For example, in 40 CFR 52.21, the following 

note was added: ‘‘NOTE TO PARAGRAPH 

(b)(2)(III)(a): ‘‘By court order on December 24, 2003, 

the second sentence of this paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(a) 

is stayed indefinitely. The stayed provisions will 

become effective immediately if the court 

terminates the stay. At that time, EPA will publish 

a document in the Federal Register advising the 

public of the termination of the stay.’’ 

proposed changes in a redline/strikeout 

(RLSO) format to clearly illustrate where 

and what changes were proposed. Some 

commenters correctly noted that there 

were some inconsistencies between the 

changes shown in the docketed table 

and the revised regulatory text in the 

2019 NPRM. These inconsistencies have 

been corrected in this final rule and the 

table has been revised to show all of the 

changes that are being made to the four 

sets of NSR regulations, including those 

that have been made since the 2019 

proposal. Further, the EPA has made 

some very minor, non-substantive rule 

language format conforming revisions in 

this final rule as required by Office of 

the Federal Register (OFR) guidelines 

for rule language publication in the 

Federal Register according to the 

Document Drafting Handbook.3 These 

rule language consistency edits from 

OFR are contained in the final rule 

language and the revised table. The 

revised table is available in the docket 

for this final rule (see Reference Table 

of New Source Review Error 

Corrections—Final Rule, in Docket ID. 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2019–0435). 

II. Response to Comments 

Based on the comments received, the 

EPA is not finalizing some of the 

proposed changes or is finalizing 

revised versions of the proposed 

changes. The following section provides 

a summary of many of the comments 

received and the EPA’s response to 

those comments, including our rationale 

for not finalizing some of the proposed 

changes or modifying changes that were 

originally proposed. All of comments 

and responses, including those not 

discussed in this preamble, are included 

in the RTC, which the EPA has placed 

in the docket for this rulemaking. 

Comments Received and the EPA’s 

Responses 

A. Typographical, grammatical and 

punctuation errors. The EPA proposed 

to correct misspelled words, such as 

those contained in 40 CFR 

51.165(a)(1)(viii) and 51.166(j)(4). No 

adverse comments were received 

concerning these types of corrections. 

The EPA did, however, receive 

comments providing notification of 

similar typographical errors, including 

the incorrect use of the word ‘‘and’’ in 

lieu of ‘‘through’’ in 40 CFR 

51.166(b)(48)(ii) and 52.21(b)(49)(ii), 

and is making these corrections along 

with similar proposed corrections such 

as the use of ‘‘that’’ in lieu of ‘‘than’’ in 

40 CFR 52.21(b)(1)(iii)(z). The EPA is 

also updating the rule language to 

correct other errors identified by 

commenters, including an inadvertent 

reference to ‘‘Class II’’ in the proposed 

revision to 40 CFR 52.21(u)(3), and 

other minor clarifying edits (see 40 CFR 

51.165(a)(1)(xxi)(A) through (D), 

51.165(a)(1)(xl), Appendix S II.A.12, 

Appendix S II.A.37, 51.166(b)(2)(iii)(a), 

51.166(b)(12), 51.166(b)(32)(i) through 

(iv), 51.166(b)(48)(ii), 51.166(j)(1), 

51.166(w)(9)(ii), 52.21(b)(12), 

52.21(b)(33)(i) through (iv), 

52.21(b)(49)(iii), and 52.21(j)(1)). These 

corrections are a logical outgrowth of 

the proposal but, in any event, the EPA 

also finds there is good cause to make 

these corrections without soliciting 

public comment on them because it 

would be unnecessary given that the 

changes are not substantive.4

In numerous instances, the EPA 

proposed to correct inappropriate words 

or punctuation, including 

capitalizations, commas and hyphens, 

such as those contained in 40 CFR 

51.165(a)(2)(iii), Appendix S II.A.4.(iii), 

and 52.21(b)(23)(ii). One adverse 

comment was received on an edit 

proposed to the definition of ‘‘emissions 

increase’’ to change ‘‘is’’ to ‘‘shall be’’ to 

make the language consistent 

throughout the paragraph. The EPA had 

only proposed this change in 40 CFR 

52.21. The commenter pointed out that 

the use of ‘‘is’’ is already consistent 

within the paragraph and raised concern 

that the proposed change could be seen 

as suggesting that the provision would 

function as a significant emissions rate 

even though the EPA has not yet 

completed a rulemaking to set a 

significance level for GHGs. See 81 FR 

68110 (October 3, 2016). Instead the 

commenter suggested deleting a comma 

to clarify the provision. The EPA agrees 

with the commenter and is not changing 

‘‘is’’ to ‘‘shall be’’ in 40 CFR 

52.21(b)(49)(iii) and 51.166(b)(48)(iii). 

Other errors identified by commenters 

or identified by the EPA subsequent to 

the 2019 proposal include the 

inadvertent capitalization of ‘‘for’’ in 40 

CFR 52.21(b)(48)(i)(c) and the incorrect 

pluralization of the term ‘‘standard’’ in 

40 CFR 51.166(j)(1). Correction of these 

errors is a logical outgrowth of the 

proposal but, in any event, the EPA also 

finds there is good cause to make these 

corrections without soliciting public 

comment because it would be 

unnecessary given that the changes are 

not substantive. 

B. Regulatory references. The EPA 

proposed to correct the way in which 

reference is made in one regulation to 

requirements contained in another 

regulation, such as references contained 

in 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(v)(C)(5)(i), 

51.166(b)(2)(iii)(e)(1), 51.166(b)(2)(iii)(f), 

Appendix S II.A.5.(iii)(e)(1), and 

Appendix S II.A.5.(iii)(f). In some cases, 

the references were outdated, while 

others simply referenced an incorrect 

paragraph. The EPA did not receive 

adverse comment on these changes and 

the EPA is finalizing them in this rule. 

The EPA is also updating a reference 

made in 40 CFR 51.165(a)(3)(ii)(D) in 

response to a comment requesting that 

a reference made within this regulation 

to a memorandum be updated to reflect 

the subsequent codification of the 

referenced language. The EPA is 

similarly amending a dated reference in 

40 CFR 51 Appendix S I. Introduction 

and correcting an erroneous cross 

reference in Paragraph IV.D from V to IV 

in response to comments received. 

These corrections are a logical 

outgrowth of the proposal but, in any 

event, the EPA also finds there is good 

cause to make these corrections without 

soliciting public comment given that the 

changes are not substantive. 

C. Court vacaturs. Some of the 

proposed changes involve the removal 

of text that the EPA needed to remove 

to implement the vacatur of the 

provision in a court ruling. These 

changes include the following: 

1. In 2003, the U.S. Court of Appeals 

for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. 

Circuit) indefinitely stayed the effective 

date of the NSR provision known as the 

Equipment Replacement Provision 

(ERP), which amended the NSR 

requirements in 2003 to add a Routine 

Maintenance, Repair, and Replacement 

Exclusion.5 The ERP allowed sources to 

avoid NSR when replacing equipment 

under certain circumstances. The stay of 

the affected paragraphs was 

subsequently noted in the CFR under 

the three affected NSR regulations, 40 

CFR 51.165, 51.166, 52.21.6 Later, in a 

2006 decision, the court vacated the 

ERP, concluding that the provision was 

‘‘contrary to the plain language of 

section 111(a)(4) of the Act.’’ New York 

v. EPA, 443 F.3d 880, 883 (D.C. Cir. 

2006) (‘‘New York II’’). The EPA is now 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
37920 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 135 / Monday, July 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

7There is language related to ‘‘process unit’’ that 

is only relevant to the ERP and was therefore not 

proposed to be retained within the definition of 

‘‘replacement unit.’’ 

8The EPA also notes that the ERP provisions and 

definition of ‘‘replacement unit’’ (promulgated 

under a separate rulemaking not affected by the 

court’s ERP vacatur) were not added to the NSR 

regulations at 40 CFR part 51 Appendix S when the 

EPA amended the other NSR regulations in 2003. 

To fix this omission of the replacement unit 

provision, the EPA proposed to add the definition 

of ‘‘replacement unit,’’ including the criteria for 

‘‘basic design parameters’’ and ‘‘process unit,’’ to 

Appendix S. See proposed paragraph II.A.37. In 

addition, a provision explaining that a replacement 

unit is considered to be an existing emissions unit 

was proposed to be added to the definition of 

‘‘emissions unit.’’ See proposed paragraph 

II.A.7.(ii). Together, these proposed changes were 

intended to make the Appendix S provisions 

concerning replacement units consistent with the 

other NSR regulations. 

removing the vacated ERP provisions 

consistent with New York II as well as 

the notes contained in the affected NSR 

regulations describing the indefinite 

stay of the various affected provisions. 

See proposed 40 CFR 

51.165(a)(1)(v)(C)(1), 51.165(h), 

51.166(b)(2)(iii)(a), 51.166(y), 

52.21(b)(2)(iii)(a), and 52.21(cc). 

Additionally, in the proposal, the EPA 

noted that two components of the 2003 

ERP rule, the criteria for ‘‘basic design 

parameters’’ (contained at 40 CFR 

51.165(h)(2), 51.166(y)(2), and 

52.21(cc)(2)), and ‘‘process units’’ 

(contained at 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(xliii), 

51.166(b)(53), and 52.21(b)(55)), are 

incorporated within the definition of 

‘‘replacement unit,’’ which was not part 

of the New York II decision. See 40 CFR 

51.165(a)(1)(xxi), 51.166(b)(32), and 

52.21(b)(33). The EPA proposed to move 

definitions and criteria for ‘‘basic design 

parameters’’ and ‘‘process unit,’’ into 

the definition of ‘‘replacement unit’’ in 

each of the three affected NSR 

regulations. See proposed 40 CFR 

51.165(a)(1)(xxi)(E)–(F), 

51.166(b)(32)(v)–(vi), and 

52.21(b)(33)(v)–(vi).7 The EPA’s 2019 

proposal to move this language to a 

different location in the regulation 

necessitated revising a cross reference 

made to the definition of ‘‘basic design 

parameters’’ to cite its new location. See 

proposed 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(xxi)(C), 

51.166(b)(32)(iii), and 52.21(b)(33)(iii).8

Commenters had a variety of different 

recommendations in response to the 

EPA’s 2019 proposal to relocate two 

definitions which the EPA did not 

consider to be subject to the court’s 

vacatur decision. Those 

recommendations introduced 

alternative language for these 

provisions. Some commenters 

questioned the EPA’s proposal to 

relocate certain components without 

also providing a more comprehensive 

rationale and opportunity for public 

comment. One commenter objected to 

moving the definition of ‘‘process unit’’ 

in an error corrections action, claiming 

that retaining provisions that were 

vacated by the court in a different 

location amounted to a substantive 

change because it ‘‘represents neither a 

statutory change nor a change required 

by a court decision.’’ The same 

commenter claimed that the EPA 

provided no rationale for why the 

vacated definition of ‘‘process unit’’ 

should be retained, and further stated 

that ‘‘[i]f EPA believes a definition is 

necessary, it should provide an analysis 

of why the specific definition it has 

proposed is appropriate, instead of 

simply relying on a definition included 

in a rule that was vacated by a federal 

court.’’ The commenter continued, 

however, that, should the EPA decide to 

define ‘‘process unit’’ as part of the 

definition of ‘‘replacement unit,’’ then 

‘‘[EPA] should clarify that this 

definition is limited to determining 

whether a unit meets the criteria for a 

replacement unit. This clarification 

would prevent confusion on the 

implication of this term.’’ Finally, the 

commenter recommended, as an 

alternative, that the EPA ‘‘could propose 

to eliminate the reference to process 

unit in the definition of ‘replacement 

unit’ and instead reference an 

‘emissions unit.’ ’’ 

Three commenters recommended that 

the EPA retain the definition of 

‘‘functionally equivalent component’’ 

(e.g., 40 CFR 52.21(b)(56)), which the 

EPA proposed to remove as part of the 

ERP vacatur component of this rule. 

One of the commenters recommended 

that the EPA incorporate the definition 

of ‘‘functionally equivalent component’’ 

into the definition of ‘‘replacement 

unit’’ ‘‘in order to retain the clarification 

that the ‘functionally equivalent 

component’ definition provides.’’ One 

of the commenters noted that ‘‘[t]he 

replacement unit provision was 

intended to recognize that identical 

replacement is not required and often is 

not possible, which is why EPA will 

look to the ‘function’ and the ‘basic 

design parameters.’ ’’ This commenter 

concluded that ‘‘[b]y deleting this 

definition, the intent of the replacement 

unit concept could be undermined.’’ 

Finally, one of the commenters also 

recommended that the EPA retain the 

definition of ‘‘functionally equivalent 

component,’’ as well as the definitions 

of ‘‘process unit’’ and ‘‘basic design 

parameters,’’ as separate definitions 

rather than as part of the definition of 

‘‘replacement unit.’’ 

A state commenter did not agree with 

the EPA’s 2019 proposal to relocate the 

three examples of ‘‘process units’’ for 

source categories, including refineries, 

municipal waste incinerators, and steam 

electric generating facilities. Another 

commenter recommended that if the 

EPA chose to retain an example of a 

process unit for a steam electric 

generating facility, the example should 

not include equipment that does not 

contribute to the production of 

electricity. The commenter claimed that 

‘‘EPA provides no explanation for the 

inconsistency between its example for a 

pulverized coal-fired facility and the 

proposed regulatory text for a steam 

electric generating facility, which states 

that only portions of the plant that 

contribute directly to the production of 

electricity would be included in the 

definition of ‘process unit.’’’ 

Another state agency commenter 

noted that in the 2019 proposal the EPA 

‘‘inadvertently’’ left out the paragraph 

describing ‘‘pollution control 

equipment,’’ which the commenter 

stated was supposed to have been 

included in the definition of ‘‘process 

unit’’ and therefore should have been 

included with the EPA’s proposal to 

relocate the definition of ‘‘process unit.’’ 

The affected provision, previously 

contained at 40 CFR 

51.165(a)(1)(xliii)(B), 51.166(b)(53)(ii), 

and 52.21(b)(55)(ii), reads as follows: 

‘‘Pollution control equipment is not part 

of the process unit, unless it serves a 

dual function as both process and 

control equipment. Administrative and 

warehousing facilities are not part of the 

process unit.’’ 

The EPA has carefully considered the 

adverse comments concerning the 

proposal to relocate certain provisions 

that were part of the 2003 ERP rule 

vacated by the court in 2006. Due to the 

concerns expressed in the comments, 

the EPA has decided to also remove 

provisions pertaining to ‘‘process unit’’ 

and ‘‘basic design parameters’’ in this 

final rule. Based upon comments 

received, we have been persuaded that 

the better interpretation of the judgment 

in New York II is that the court vacated 

the ERP rule in its entirety, such that the 

EPA should remove all of this content 

to effectuate the judgment. While the 

replacement unit definition was 

adopted in a separate 2003 rulemaking 

that was not vacated by the court, that 

rulemaking action (which pre-dated 

New York II) does not provide a 

sufficient basis to conclude that content 

from the ERP rule that is referenced in 

definition of the ‘‘replacement unit’’ 

survived the vacatur. Since this 

dynamic is not addressed in New York 

II and that opinion post-dates the 2003 

rule, the EPA believes New York II is 

best read as vacating all the content 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 135 / Monday, July 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 37921 

9 72 FR 32526 (June 13, 2007). 10 45 FR 52676 (August 7, 1980). 11 51 FR 40656 (November 7, 1986). 

adopted in the ERP rule. Therefore, at 

this time, the EPA is removing the 

entirety of the ERP rule from the NSR 

regulations and is not moving the 

definitions of ‘‘basic design parameters’’ 

and ‘‘process unit’’ into the 

‘‘replacement unit’’ definition in this 

final rule. For the same reason, the EPA 

is removing the definition of 

‘‘functionally equivalent component’’ as 

proposed. 

As a result of this action, the NSR 

regulations will lack a definition of 

‘‘basic design parameters’’ and ‘‘process 

unit’’ that can be applied in the context 

of identifying whether a unit is a 

‘‘replacement unit.’’ However, while not 

controlling, the EPA and stakeholders 

may continue to look to the vacated 

definitions from the ERP rule to guide 

their understanding of the definition of 

‘‘replacement unit.’’ The EPA will 

evaluate whether further rulemaking is 

needed to restore definitions of ‘‘basic 

design parameter’’ and ‘‘process unit.’’ If 

this need does arise, such a rulemaking 

would provide an opportunity for more 

targeted public input on the way such 

terms should be defined when applied 

in the specific context of defining a 

‘‘replacement unit’’ for purposes of 

determining the method of calculating 

the change in emissions from a project. 

2. In 2007, the EPA removed certain 

provisions pertaining to Clean Units 

(CU) and Pollution Control Projects 

(PCP), which were vacated by the D.C. 

Circuit in New York v. EPA, 413 F.3d 3 

(D.C. Cir. 2005) (‘‘New York I’’).9 The 

EPA explained that, although the court’s 

opinion addressed the CU and PCP 

provisions in 40 CFR 52.21, but not the 

corresponding provisions in 40 CFR 

51.165 and 51.166, ‘‘the plain language 

of the Court’s opinion clearly applies to 

the parallel constructions in those latter 

provisions . . . .’’ 72 FR 32526, 32527 

(June 13, 2007). Accordingly, the EPA’s 

2007 action was intended to remove the 

relevant provisions from all three NSR 

regulations, but the EPA only specified 

its removal from 40 CFR 51.165 and not 

40 CFR 51.166 and 52.21. Therefore, in 

the 2019 NPRM, the EPA proposed to 

remove the remaining CU and PCP 

provisions that were vacated in 

accordance with New York I. See 

proposed 40 CFR 51.166(b)(3)(iii)(c), 

52.21(b)(3)(iii)(b), and cross references 

to vacated PCP provisions 40 CFR 

51.165(a)(2)(ii)(A), 51.166(a)(7)(iv)(a), 

and 52.21(a)(2)(iv)(a). The EPA did not 

receive any adverse comments 

addressing this aspect of the 2007 

proposal and is therefore finalizing the 

changes to the regulatory text 

addressing the vacatur as proposed. 

D. Outdated and incorrect references. 

1. In 1980, the EPA made significant 

revisions to the PSD regulations under 

parts 51 and 52.10 One revision deleted 

existing paragraph (k) and redesignated 

paragraphs (l) through (s) as (k) through 

(r). The EPA proposed to correct 

incorrect references affected by the 1980 

redesignation of paragraphs (l) through 

(s). The EPA received no adverse 

comment on this proposed revision and 

will be finalizing this change. See 40 

CFR 51.166(r)(2) and 52.21(r)(4). 

2. In the same 1980 rulemaking, the 

EPA added a provision under the source 

obligation requirements at 40 CFR 

52.21(r)(2) applicable to stationary 

sources that might be granted a future 

relaxation of a preconstruction permit 

that previously enabled the source or 

modification to be regulated as a 

‘‘minor’’ rather than as a major 

stationary source. The provision 

requires the owner or operator of a 

source or modification obtaining a 

relaxation of the limits referenced to 

comply with the permit requirements 

for a major stationary source or major 

modification as if construction had not 

yet commenced on the source or 

modification. The provision references 

the permit requirements contained 

under paragraphs (j) through (s) of 40 

CFR 51.166. However, paragraph (s) 

contains discretionary provisions 

concerning the application of innovative 

control technology. In light of the nonmandatory nature of those provisions, it 

should not have been included in the 

reference to required permit elements. 

Accordingly, the EPA proposed to 

correct the source obligation 

requirement at 40 CFR 51.166(r)(2) by 

removing the reference to paragraph (s) 

and replacing it with a reference to 

paragraph (r). See proposed 40 CFR 

51.166(r)(2). The EPA received a 

comment supporting this proposed 

change, but no adverse comments, and 

will therefore finalize this change as 

proposed. 

3. The Nonattainment New Source 

Review (NNSR) regulations at 40 CFR 

51.165 and 40 CFR part 51 Appendix S 

contain a restriction which prohibits 

sources that replace one hydrocarbon 

compound with another of lesser 

reactivity from obtaining emissions 

credit for that replacement. See 40 CFR 

51.165(a)(3)(ii)(D) and part 51 Appendix 

S IV.C.4. At the same time, the 

provisions make it clear that a source 

may obtain an emissions credit, also 

referred to as an offset credit (when 

intended to be used as an emissions 

offset), in cases where a VOC is replaced 

by an organic compound that is not 

considered to be a VOC (i.e., recognized 

to have negligible photochemical 

reactivity). The EPA has now included 

as part of the regulatory definition of 

‘‘volatile organic compounds,’’ codified 

at 40 CFR 51.100(s), organic compounds 

that are not VOCs that the EPA included 

in the definition because they have 

negligible photochemical reactivity. 

Accordingly, we proposed to revise both 

sets of NNSR regulations to provide an 

updated reference to the organic 

compounds that the EPA does not 

define as VOC. 

Two commenters recommended that 

the EPA completely delete, rather than 

edit, these provisions, asserting that 

they are outdated offset conditions. One 

of the commenters, using CAA section 

173(c) as their basis, noted that ‘‘[w]hen 

the EPA changed from regulating 

hydrocarbons to regulating VOC as a 

single pollutant, the EPA no longer 

considered reactivity in the offsets 

provision.’’ 

The EPA recognizes that because of 

the shift in how the EPA regulates 

photochemically reactive compounds 

that form ozone, this restriction on 

offsets may no longer be necessary. 

However, the EPA did not provide a 

rationale for the wholesale removal of 

this restriction. Therefore, the EPA is 

making the proposed change, with some 

small variations. The provisions will be 

revised to update the list of negligible 

photochemical reactive compounds and 

to more clearly reflect the fact that the 

organic compounds listed with 

negligible photochemical reactivity are, 

by definition, not VOCs. At worst, the 

continued inclusion of this restriction 

on offsets is merely redundant. The EPA 

may consider whether to remove it in a 

future action. See 40 CFR 51.100(s)(1) 

and paragraph IV.C.4. at part 51 

Appendix S. 

4. In 1986, the NSR provisions in 40 

CFR 51.18 were moved in a 

restructuring rule that placed them 

under new subpart I of part 51.11 40 CFR 

51.18 is an obsolete reference to the 

NSR regulations that were applicable to 

minor sources, major sources locating in 

areas that do not meet the National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) (40 CFR 51.18(j)), and major 

sources locating in areas that meet the 

NAAQS, but significantly impact an 

area that is not meeting the NAAQS (40 

CFR 51.18(k)). Subpart I now contains 

the preconstruction review 

requirements for state minor NSR 

programs (40 CFR 51.160–164) as well 

as state major NNSR programs (40 CFR 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
37922 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 135 / Monday, July 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

12Subpart I of part 51 also contains the PSD 

regulations at 40 CFR 51.166, which were 

previously codified at 40 CFR 51.24. 

13 67 FR 80186 (December 31, 2002). 

14 72 FR 72607 (December 21, 2007). 

15Par. (1). Public Law 101–549, section 305(b) 

(1990). 

51.165) and state PSD programs (40 CFR 

51.166).12 The EPA proposed to update 

the reference to 40 CFR 51.18 in 

Appendix S V.A. by replacing it with a 

reference to 40 CFR 51.165, which 

includes NSR requirements for major 

stationary sources in nonattainment 

areas. See proposed section V.A. [2nd 

paragraph] of 40 CFR part 51, Appendix 

S. The EPA received two comments 

supporting this change as proposed and 

received no adverse comments 

regarding this proposed change. Upon 

review for the final rule, the EPA 

determined that the citation referencing 

40 CFR 51.165 should be changed to 40 

CFR 51.102 since the reference in 

Appendix S Paragraph V.A. concerns 

the proper public participation process 

for a state implementation revision if 

necessary to make an offset enforceable. 

40 CFR 51.102 addresses the public 

notice for the preparation, adoption and 

submittal of implementation plans and 

is therefore a more appropriate reference 

than the proposed reference to 40 CFR 

51.165. 

5. On December 31, 2002, the EPA 

amended its NSR regulations to add, 

among other things, provisions for 

Plantwide Applicability Limitations 

(PALs).13 In each of the NSR 

regulations, new provisions were added 

to require major stationary sources with 

PAL permits to monitor affected 

emissions units in accordance with 

monitoring requirements set forth 

elsewhere in the regulations. The PSD 

regulations at 40 CFR 51.166 incorrectly 

provided a reference to the 

recordkeeping requirements under 

paragraph (w)(13) instead of the 

intended monitoring requirements for 

PALs at paragraph (w)(12). The other 

NSR regulations provided the correct 

cross reference to the monitoring 

requirements. The EPA proposed to 

correctly reference the monitoring 

requirements for PALs in 40 CFR 

51.166(w)(7)(vii). The EPA received no 

adverse comments on this proposed 

change and will therefore finalize the 

change as proposed. 

6. On December 21, 2007, the EPA 

amended the NSR regulations by, among 

other things, adding new paragraphs to 

explain when a stationary source will 

have a ‘‘reasonable possibility’’ of 

causing a significant emissions 

increase.14 In 40 CFR 51.166(r)(6)(vi)(b), 

reference is incorrectly made to 

‘‘paragraph (a)(6)(vi)(a)’’ and 

‘‘paragraphs (a)(6)(ii) through (v).’’ Both 

references mistakingly reference 

paragraph (a), which is where similar 

references are made in the ‘‘reasonable 

possibility’’ provision contained in 40 

CFR 51.165(a)(6)(vi)(B). The EPA 

proposed to correct the references in 40 

CFR 51.166 by changing the language to 

reference the applicable subparagraphs 

under paragraph (r). The EPA did not 

receive any adverse comments on the 

proposed changes and will therefore 

finalize the changes as proposed. 

E. Clean Air Act Amendments. Some 

of the corrections result from new 

statutory requirements introduced in the 

1990 CAA Amendments, which the EPA 

did not address in subsequent 

rulemakings involving the affected NSR 

regulations. 

1. Major source threshold for 

municipal incinerators. The 1990 CAA 

Amendments amended the definition of 

‘‘major emitting facility’’ at section 

169(1) by striking out the words ‘‘two 

hundred and’’ as those words appeared 

in the phrase ‘‘municipal incinerators 

capable of charging more than two 

hundred and fifty tons of refuse per 

day.’’ 15 This amendment had the effect 

of lowering the charging capacity 

threshold for qualifying a municipal 

incinerator as a ‘‘major emitting facility’’ 

from 250 tons of refuse per day to 50 

tons per day when such incinerator 

emits or has the potential to emit at least 

100 tons per year of any regulated NSR 

pollutant. In the 2019 NPRM, the EPA 

proposed to revise all four sets of major 

NSR regulations to reflect this change 

with regards to the statutory definition 

of ‘‘major emitting facility’’ for 

municipal incinerators. See proposed 40 

CFR part 51 Appendix S II.A.4.(iii)(h), 

Appendix S II.F.8, 40 CFR 

51.165(a)(1)(iv)(C)(8), 51.165(a)(4)(viii), 

51.166(b)(1)(i)(a), 51.166(b)(1)(iii)(h), 

51.166(i)(1)(ii)(h), 52.21(b)(1)(i)(a), 

52.21(b)(1)(iii)(h), and 52.21(i)(1)(vii)(h). 

The EPA did not receive any adverse 

comments on the proposed changes and 

will finalize the changes as proposed. 

2. Standards under section 112 of the 

Act. The NSR regulations in several 

places refer to emissions standards 

established pursuant to 40 CFR part 61. 

See e.g., 40 CFR 51.166(b)(12). Part 61 

contains national emission standards for 

hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP), 

which the EPA promulgated based on 

the pre-1990 CAA Amendment version 

of section 112. The 1990 CAA 

Amendments revised section 112, 

causing the EPA to promulgate 

additional NESHAP, which are included 

in part 63. Accordingly, to ensure that 

the requirements associated with the 

section 112 standards are adequately 

addressed in the NSR regulations, the 

EPA proposed that each regulatory 

reference to part 61 should also include 

a reference to part 63. The EPA 

proposed to make the necessary updates 

in the affected NSR regulations. 

Several commenters recommended 

various options that differed from the 

2019 EPA proposal. A state agency 

commenter recommended that the EPA 

add reference to not only part 63 but 

also to part 62. This, the commenter 

noted, would ‘‘include all potentially 

applicable federal standards’’ to specific 

provisions under the affected NSR 

regulations. 40 CFR part 62 sets forth 

the Administrator’s approval and 

disapproval of state plans for the control 

of pollutants from facilities regulated 

under CAA 111(d) and 129 and the 

Administrator’s promulgation of such 

plans or portions of plans when a state 

has failed to provide an approvable plan 

or portions thereof. Plans under part 62 

contain standards of performance that 

apply to existing sources that would be 

subject to 40 CFR part 60 (standards of 

performance for new stationary sources) 

if such existing sources were new 

sources. Such plans are approved state 

plans or federal plans for each separate 

source category. 

Two commenters claimed that the 

EPA has incorrectly proposed to add 

reference to part 63 because the CAA at 

section 112(b)(6), added to the Act in 

1990, explicitly removes section 112 

hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) from 

the PSD program. One of the 

commenters noted that the NNSR 

program ‘‘inherently does not directly 

regulate a HAP as it is not a criteria 

pollutant with a national ambient air 

quality standard.’’ Thus, the 

commenters argued that the EPA was 

incorrect in proposing to add reference 

to part 63 and should additionally be 

removing reference to part 61, which 

also contains standards for HAPs. One 

of the commenters concluded that 

‘‘including part 61 and, as proposed, 

part 63 in various NSR definitions will 

give the mistaken impression that HAPs 

are regulated by the NSR programs.’’ 

The commenters acknowledged that the 

statutory definition of ‘‘best available 

control technology’’ did include a 

reference to standards promulgated 

pursuant to CAA section 112; therefore, 

one of the commenters recommended 

that ‘‘[i]n order to reduce confusion 

from the insertion of parts 61 and 63 to 

the PSD BACT requirements and to 

remain consistent with the 1991 

transitional guidance, EPA should 

clarify in the rule that BACT applies to 

a regulated NSR pollutant by adding the 

term ‘for a regulated NSR pollutant’ 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 135 / Monday, July 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 37923 

16Center for Biological Diversity v. EPA, 722 F.3d 

401 (D.C. Cir. 2013). 

after the term ‘major stationary source or 

major modification’ in 40 CFR 

51.166(j)(1) and 52.21(j)(1).’’ 

One commenter was concerned about 

the EPA’s 2019 proposal to add 

reference to part 63 to the definition of 

‘‘allowable emissions.’’ The commenter 

indicated that the addition of a 

reference to part 63 therein would 

indicate that Congress intended that 

compliance with limits issued under 

CAA section 112, as amended in 1990, 

should not be considered creditable 

reductions for netting purposes. The 

commenter further stated that ‘‘there is 

no indication that Congress intended 

Maximum Achievable Control 

Technology (‘MACT’) (or CAA section 

112(f)) reductions to be excluded under 

a creditability rationale.’’ Moreover, the 

commenter argued that ‘‘[i]f EPA 

intends this result . . . then the agency 

must do it in a more substantive 

rulemaking, not as part of this ‘error 

correction’ rulemaking.’’ 

In light of several commenters’ 

adverse comments expressing concerns 

about adding a reference to part 63 

emissions standards to the NSR 

regulations, the EPA has decided not to 

finalize the proposed changes 

concerning the part 63 reference, with 

one exception. The EPA agrees that 

additional assessment is needed to 

determine how including HAPs in the 

definitions of ‘‘allowable emissions’’ 

and ‘‘federally enforceable’’ would 

function in practice and whether the 

commenters’ concerns are justified. 

However, in one particular case—the 

definition of ‘‘BACT’’—the statute 

expressly requires the inclusion of 

emissions standards under CAA section 

112 in that definition (which includes 

emissions limitations contained in both 

40 CFR parts 61 and 63). By adding the 

restriction that BACT cannot allow 

emissions in excess of 112 standards, 

the EPA is not suggesting that HAPs are 

regulated under NSR. Rather, there are 

certain NSR regulated pollutants that 

inherently include HAP pollutants. For 

instance, PM may contain constituents 

that include HAPs, such as cadmium. 

By including the CAA section 112 

standards in the restriction in the 

definition of BACT, the EPA is ensuring 

that BACT cannot allow emissions of 

HAPs in excess of any applicable 

section 112 standard under 40 CFR parts 

61 and 63. See revised 40 CFR 

51.165(a)(1)(xl), 51.166(b)(12), part 51 

Appendix S II.A.34, and 52.21(b)(12). 

F. Outdated exemptions. The PSD 

regulations at 40 CFR 51.166 and 52.21 

contain various exemption provisions 

that allow certain permit applicants— 

e.g., portable stationary sources and 

nonprofit health or nonprofit 

educational institutions—to be exempt 

from all or a portion of the PSD 

preconstruction review requirements. In 

some cases, these provisions allowed 

permit applicants to be excluded from 

certain requirements—e.g., new or 

revised PM2.5 NAAQS or PSD 

increments—which became effective 

before a final permit could be issued, 

commonly known as PM2.5

grandfathering provisions (see 40 CFR 

51.166(i)(10) and 52.21(i)(11)). Some of 

the existing exemption provisions are 

outdated because the time in which they 

were relevant has long since passed. 

Accordingly, the EPA proposed to 

remove such outdated provisions, 

which allow for grandfathering or the 

implementation of alternative 

procedures for PSD permit applicants, 

under the regulations at 40 CFR 51.166 

and 52.21. 

The EPA received a few adverse 

comments concerning the proposed 

removal of outdated exemptions. One of 

these comments pertained to an 

exemption that the EPA did not actually 

propose to remove. The commenter 

correctly pointed out that the PSD 

exemption applicable to portable 

sources, 40 CFR 52.21(i)(1)(viii), 

continues to be relevant and should not 

be removed. The EPA acknowledges 

that the preamble text indicated that the 

EPA proposed to delete paragraphs 

(i)(1)(viii) through (x) of the 40 CFR 

52.21 PSD regulations, which include 

the portable source provision at 

paragraph (i)(1)(viii). However, it was 

not the EPA’s intention to delete 

paragraph (i)(1)(viii) and a review of the 

proposed regulatory text and the Error 

Corrections Table in the docket shows 

that the EPA did not actually include 

the deletion of this paragraph in the 

2019 proposal. Instead, the proposed 

regulatory text shows the deletion of 

only paragraphs (i)(1)(ix) and (x). 

Accordingly, the EPA is not deleting the 

portable source exemption provision at 

40 CFR 52.21(i)(1)(viii) in this final 

action. As proposed, the EPA is deleting 

the following outdated exemption 

provisions in the final rule: 40 CFR 

51.166(i)(6) through (11); 52.21(i)(1)(i) 

through (v), 52.21(i)(6) through (12), and 

52.21(m)(1)(v), and 52.21(m)(1)(vii) and 

(viii) and 52.21(i)(1)(ix) and (x). 

The EPA received one comment 

asking that the EPA retain the outdated 

exclusion of carbon dioxide emissions 

from biogenic material (the combustion 

or decomposition of non-fossilized and 

biodegradable organic material 

originating from plants, animals, or 

micro-organisms) from the definition of 

‘‘subject to regulation.’’ This temporary 

exclusion was vacated by a court in 

2013 16 and expired on its own terms on 

July 21, 2014. The commenter suggested 

that, because this expiration was 

relatively recent, ‘‘[r]etaining this 

language will aid regulatory personnel, 

owners/operators, and consultants in 

the future when trying to fully 

understand the basis for recent NSR 

permitting determinations based on 

EPA’s prior GHG requirements.’’ The 

EPA is not persuaded that this justifies 

retaining the vacated and outdated 

provision. If anyone seeks to understand 

the basis of older NSR permitting 

decisions, they can consult the version 

of the Code of Federal Regulations that 

applied at the time of those decisions. 

Therefore, the EPA is finalizing removal 

of the vacated and outdated exclusion of 

carbon dioxide emissions from biogenic 

material from the definition of ‘‘subject 

to regulation.’’ See 40 CFR 

51.166(b)(48)(ii)(a) and 

52.21(b)(49)(ii)(a). 

III. Final Action 

This final action corrects minor, 

inadvertent, and non-substantive errors 

in 40 CFR parts 51 and 52 which govern 

NSR permitting programs, and updates 

the regulatory text to reflect statutory 

changes and certain court decisions 

vacating elements of the regulatory text, 

but does not change the requirements 

within these programs. Based upon 

comments received, as noted in this 

preamble and the RTC document in the 

docket, the EPA is moving forward with 

the majority of the proposed minor edits 

without change. Additionally, regarding 

state SIP submittals, the 2019 NPRM 

proposed that states need not be subject 

to any deadline to make conforming 

changes. The EPA received one 

comment in support of this position and 

no adverse comments. The EPA is 

therefore reaffirming that states can 

have discretion as to when to make 

these changes and may choose to 

combine them with other SIP 

submittals. Also, please refer to the RTC 

for further discussion about comments 

which are not included in Section II of 

this final rule preamble. 

IV. Removal of Vacated Ozone NAAQS 

Grandfathering and Ozone 

Interprecursor Trading Provisions 

This final action removes an 

exemption in the PSD regulations 

vacated by the D.C. Circuit in 2019 as 

well as the ozone interprecursor trading 

(IPT provision in the NNSR regulations 

vacated by the D.C. Circuit in 2021. This 

section explains the court’s vacatur of 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
37924 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 135 / Monday, July 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

17 80 FR 65292 (October 26, 2015). 

18 Murray Energy Corp. v. EPA, 936 F.3d 597 (D.C. 

Cir. 2019). 

19 83 FR 62998 (December 6, 2018). 

20Sierra Club v. EPA, No. 15–1465 (D.C. Cir. 

2021). 

these provisions and the basis for their 

removal. 

On October 26, 2015, the EPA 

promulgated a final rule containing 

revised NAAQS for ozone and 

grandfathering provisions that enabled 

pending PSD permit applications to be 

issued on the basis of a demonstration 

that the proposed source would not 

cause or contribute to a violation of the 

prior ozone NAAQS in effect at the time 

the permit application was deemed to 

be complete or noticed for public 

comment.17 The PSD grandfathering 

provisions were promulgated as a 

transition plan to reduce delays to 

pending PSD permit applications that 

may have otherwise been caused by the 

revised ozone standards. The PSD 

regulations implement CAA section 

165(a)(3)(B) at 40 CFR 52.21(k)(1) and 

51.166(k)(1) and require that PSD permit 

applications include a demonstration 

that emissions from the proposed 

facility will not cause or contribute to a 

violation of any NAAQS, which 

generally means any NAAQS in effect 

on the date of a PSD permit issuance. 

Absent the PSD grandfathering 

provision, this demonstration 

requirement would have applied to the 

2015 ozone NAAQS in any PSD permit 

application pending at the time the 2015 

ozone NAAQS became effective. 

However, on August 23, 2019, the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit concluded that the 

EPA lacked the authority to grandfather 

pending PSD permit applications in this 

manner and vacated the ozone NAAQS 

grandfathering provisions in a decision 

resolving challenges brought by 

industry, state, and environmental and 

public health petitioners to the 2015 

primary and secondary ozone NAAQS 

and the PSD grandfathering provisions 

that were promulgated with these 

standards.18

On December 6, 2018, the EPA 

promulgated the final implementation 

rules for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, 

including provisions to address for 

ozone ground level ozone precursors 

Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX) and VOC. The 

provisions at 51.165(a)(11)(i) and Part 

51 Appendix S Paragraph IV.G.5. were 

promulgated to allow permit 

applications to use IPT to satisfy the 

NNSR offset requirement for ozone in 

nonattainment areas. The IPT provisions 

were designed to support the EPA’s 

long-standing policy allowing NNSR 

permit applicants to satisfy their offset 

obligation for ozone precursors 

substituting NOX for VOC, or vice versa, 

supported by a technical demonstration 

showing an equivalent, or greater, air 

quality benefit with respect to ground 

level ozone concentrations in the ozone 

nonattainment area.19 On January 29, 

2021, the D.C. Circuit concluded that 

Ozone IPT is not permissible under the 

CAA and vacated this part of the 2018 

regulation.20 Thus, in this action, EPA is 

removing the language allowing 

interprecursor trading for ozone and 

restoring the language in the NNSR 

regulations to the form it was in after 

the EPA’s 2008 PM2.5 implementation 

rule. 

The EPA did not include the removal 

of these court-vacated provisions at 40 

CFR 51.166(i)(11), 52.21(i)(12), 

51.165(a)(11) and Part 51 Appendix S 

Paragraph IV.G.5. in the proposal to this 

rule. However, the EPA is adding this 

action to this final rule without 

providing an opportunity for public 

comment or a public hearing because 

the EPA finds that the Administrative 

Procedure Act (APA) good cause 

exemption applies here. In general, the 

APA and section 307(d) of the CAA 

require that general notice of proposed 

rulemakings shall be published in the 

Federal Register. Such notice must 

provide an opportunity for public 

participation in the rulemaking process. 

However, the APA and section 307(d) of 

the CAA provide an avenue for an 

agency to directly issue a final 

rulemaking in certain specific instances. 

This may occur, in particular, when an 

agency for good cause finds (and 

incorporates the finding and a brief 

statement of reasons in the rule issued) 

that notice and public procedure 

thereon are impracticable, unnecessary 

or contrary to the public interest. See 5 

U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B); 42 U.S.C. 

7407(d)(1). The EPA has determined 

that it is not necessary to provide a 

public hearing or an opportunity for 

public comment on this action because 

amending the regulations to remove the 

vacated grandfathering and ozone IPT 

provisions is a necessary ministerial act. 

Since the court vacated these 

provisions, the EPA no longer has the 

authority to allow the use of the affected 

provisions. Therefore, in as much as this 

action to remove the affected regulatory 

text simply implements the decision of 

the court, providing an opportunity for 

public comment or a public hearing on 

this issue would serve no useful 

purpose. 

In addition, providing notice and 

comment would be contrary to the 

public interest because it would 

unnecessarily delay the removal of the 

unlawful grandfathering and ozone IPT 

provisions from the Code of Federal 

Regulations, which could result in 

confusion for the regulated industry and 

state, local, and tribal air agencies about 

the PSD and NNSR regulations and 

permitting. Promulgation of this rule 

serves to clarify that sources cannot 

continue to demonstrate their 

compliance with the PSD and NNSR 

requirements by relying on the prior 

ozone NAAQS, or ozone IPT, 

respectively, as was previously allowed. 

It is thus in the public interest for the 

EPA to remove the PSD Grandfathering 

and Ozone IPT provisions without 

delay. Consistent with the approach 

described in section III, the EPA is not 

establishing a deadline in this rule for 

states to remove these provisions form 

the SIPs. States thus have the discretion 

as to when they amend their SIPs to 

remove the Ozone PSD grandfathering 

and Ozone IPT provisions and may 

combine such changes with other SIP 

submittals. 

For these reasons, the EPA finds good 

cause to issue a final rulemaking to 

remove the ozone NAAQS 

grandfathering and ozone NNSR IPT 

provisions pursuant to section 553 of 

the APA, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). Therefore, 

the requirements of CAA section 307(d), 

including the requirement for public 

comment and hearing on proposed 

rulemakings, do not apply to this action. 

V. Environmental Justice 

Considerations 

This action corrects minor, 

inadvertent, and non-substantive errors 

in 40 CFR parts 51 and 52 governing 

NSR permitting programs and updates 

the regulatory text to reflect statutory 

changes and certain court decisions 

vacating elements of the regulatory text 

but does not change the requirements 

within these programs. Therefore, this 

final rule will not change the protection 

for all those residing, working, attending 

school, or otherwise present in the 

applicable areas, regardless of minority 

and economic status. Further, this 

action will not have potential 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority, low-income, or indigenous 

populations. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This action is not a significant 

regulatory action and was, therefore, not 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 135 / Monday, July 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 37925 

21 42 U.S.C. 7607(b)(1). 

22 42 U.S.C. 7607(d)(7)(B). 

submitted to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) for review. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

PRA. This action is clerical in nature 

and addresses non-controversial edits to 

errors in the NSR regulatory text. 

Therefore, this final rulemaking does 

not impose any new information 

collection burden under the PRA. OMB 

has previously approved the 

information collection activities 

contained in the existing regulations 

and has assigned OMB control number 

2060–0003. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

I certify that this action will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the RFA. In making this 

determination, the impact of concern is 

any significant adverse economic 

impact on small entities. An agency may 

certify that a rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities if 

the rule relieves regulatory burden, has 

no net burden or otherwise has a 

positive economic effect on the small 

entities subject to the rule. This action 

corrects minor, inadvertent and nonsubstantive errors in existing rules. We 

have therefore concluded that this 

action will have no net regulatory 

burden for all directly regulated small 

entities. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

This action does not contain any 

unfunded mandate as described in 

UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does 

not significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. The action imposes no 

enforceable duty on any state, local or 

tribal governments or the private sector. 

This action corrects minor, inadvertent 

and non-substantive errors in existing 

rules. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the states, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13175. This action only makes 

technical amendments to correct minor, 

inadvertent, and non-substantive errors 

in existing rules. None of these 

technical amendments has a substantial 

direct effect on any tribal land; thus, 

Executive Order 13175 does not apply 

to this action. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

The EPA interprets Executive Order 

13045 as applying only to those 

regulatory actions that concern 

environmental health or safety risks that 

the EPA has reason to believe may 

disproportionately affect children, per 

the definition of ‘‘covered regulatory 

action’’ in section 2–202 of the 

Executive Order. This action is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

because it does not concern an 

environmental health risk or safety risk. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, because it is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) 

This rulemaking does not involve 

technical standards. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

This action does not have 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority populations, low-income 

populations, and/or indigenous peoples, 

as specified in Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

The documentation for this decision 

is contained in Section IV of this 

preamble titled ‘‘Environmental Justice 

Considerations.’’ This action makes 

technical amendments to correct minor, 

inadvertent, and non-substantive errors 

to existing rules. 

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA) 

This action is subject to the CRA, and 

the EPA will submit a rule report to 

each House of the Congress and to the 

Comptroller General of the United 

States. This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ 

as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

L. Judicial Review 

Under CAA section 307(b)(1), 

petitions for judicial review of any 

nationally applicable regulation, or any 

action the Administrator ‘‘finds and 

publishes’’ as based on a determination 

of nationwide scope or effect must be 

filed in the United States Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit within 60 days of the date the 

promulgation, approval, or action 

appears in the Federal Register.21 These 

technical amendments are nationally 

applicable, as it corrects minor, 

inadvertent, and non-substantive errors 

to existing rules. As a result, petitions 

for review of this final action must be 

filed in the United States Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit by September 17, 2021. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final action does 

not affect the finality of this action for 

the purposes of judicial review nor does 

it extend the time within which a 

petition for judicial review must be filed 

and shall not postpone the effectiveness 

of this action.22

VII. Statutory Authority 

The statutory authority for this action 

is provided by 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq. 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 51 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards, New Source Review, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Preconstruction permitting, 

Sulfur oxides, Transportation, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, BACT, Carbon 

monoxide, Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards, New Source Review, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Preconstruction permitting, 

Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Michael S. Regan, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
37926 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 135 / Monday, July 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

PART 51—REQUIREMENTS FOR 

PREPARATION, ADOPTION AND 

SUBMITTAL OF IMPLEMENTATION 

PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 51 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart I—Review of New Sources and 

Modifications 

■ 2. Amend § 51.165 by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (a)(1)(iv)(C)(8); 

■ b. Revising paragraph (a)(1)(v)(C)(1); 

■ c. Revising paragraph (a)(1)(v)(C)(5)(i); 

■ d. Revising paragraph (a)(1)(v)(C)(6); 

■ e. Revising paragraph (a)(1)(viii); 

■ f. Revising paragraph (a)(1)(xxi)(A) 

through (D); 

■ g. Revising paragraph (a)(1)(xl); 

■ h. Removing paragraphs (a)(1)(xliii) 

through (xlvi); 

■ i. Revising paragraph (a)(2)(ii)(A); 

■ j. Adding paragraph (a)(2)(iii); 

■ k. Revising paragraph (a)(3)(ii)(D); 

■ l. Revising paragraph (a)(4)(viii); 

■ m. Revising paragraph (a)(11); and 

■ n. Removing and reserving paragraph 

(h); 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 51.165 Permit requirements. 

(a) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(iv) * * * 

(C) * * * 

(8) Municipal incinerators capable of 

charging more than 50 tons of refuse per 

day; 

* * * * * 

(v) * * * 

(C) * * * 

(1) Routine maintenance, repair and 

replacement; 

* * * * * 

(5) * * * 

(i) The source was capable of 

accommodating before December 21, 

1976, unless such change would be 

prohibited under any federally 

enforceable permit condition which was 

established after December 12, 1976, 

pursuant to 40 CFR 52.21 or under 

regulations approved pursuant to 40 

CFR part 51, subpart I. 

* * * * * 

(6) An increase in the hours of 

operation or in the production rate, 

unless such change is prohibited under 

any federally enforceable permit 

condition which was established after 

December 21, 1976, pursuant to 40 CFR 

52.21 or regulations approved pursuant 

to 40 CFR part 51, subpart I. 

* * * * * 

(viii) Secondary emissions means 

emissions which would occur as a result 

of the construction or operation of a 

major stationary source or major 

modification, but do not come from the 

major stationary source or major 

modification itself. For the purpose of 

this section, secondary emissions must 

be specific, well defined, quantifiable, 

and impact the same general area as the 

stationary source or modification which 

causes the secondary emissions. 

Secondary emissions include emissions 

from any offsite support facility which 

would not be constructed or increase its 

emissions except as a result of the 

construction or operation of the major 

stationary source or major modification. 

Secondary emissions do not include any 

emissions which come directly from a 

mobile source, such as emissions from 

the tailpipe of a motor vehicle, from a 

train, or from a vessel. 

* * * * * 

(xxi) * * * 

(A) The emissions unit is a 

reconstructed unit within the meaning 

of § 60.15(b)(1) of this chapter, or the 

emissions unit completely takes the 

place of an existing emissions unit; 

(B) The emissions unit is identical to 

or functionally equivalent to the 

replaced emissions unit; 

(C) The replacement does not alter the 

basic design parameters of the process 

unit; and 

(D) The replaced emissions unit is 

permanently removed from the major 

stationary source, otherwise 

permanently disabled, or permanently 

barred from operation by a permit that 

is enforceable as a practical matter. If 

the replaced emissions unit is brought 

back into operation, it shall constitute a 

new emissions unit. 

* * * * * 

(xl) Best available control technology 

(BACT) means an emissions limitation 

(including a visible emissions standard) 

based on the maximum degree of 

reduction for each regulated NSR 

pollutant which would be emitted from 

any proposed major stationary source or 

major modification which the reviewing 

authority, on a case-by-case basis, taking 

into account energy, environmental, and 

economic impacts and other costs, 

determines is achievable for such source 

or modification through application of 

production processes or available 

methods, systems, and techniques, 

including fuel cleaning or treatment or 

innovative fuel combustion techniques 

for control of such pollutant. In no event 

shall application of best available 

control technology result in emissions 

of any pollutant which would exceed 

the emissions allowed by any applicable 

standard under 40 CFR part 60, 61, or 

63. If the reviewing authority 

determines that technological or 

economic limitations on the application 

of measurement methodology to a 

particular emissions unit would make 

the imposition of an emissions standard 

infeasible, a design, equipment, work 

practice, operational standard, or 

combination thereof, may be prescribed 

instead to satisfy the requirement for the 

application of BACT. Such standard 

shall, to the degree possible, set forth 

the emissions reduction achievable by 

implementation of such design, 

equipment, work practice or operation, 

and shall provide for compliance by 

means which achieve equivalent results. 

* * * * * 

(2) * * * 

(ii) * * * 

(A) Except as otherwise provided in 

paragraph (a)(2)(iii) of this section, and 

consistent with the definition of major 

modification contained in paragraph 

(a)(1)(v)(A) of this section, a project is a 

major modification for a regulated NSR 

pollutant (as defined in paragraph 

(a)(1)(xxxvii) of this section) if it causes 

two types of emissions increases—a 

significant emissions increase (as 

defined in paragraph (a)(1)(xxvii) of this 

section) and a significant net emissions 

increase (as defined in paragraphs 

(a)(1)(vi) and (x) of this section). The 

project is not a major modification if it 

does not cause a significant emissions 

increase. If the project causes a 

significant emissions increase, then the 

project is a major modification only if it 

also results in a significant net 

emissions increase. 

* * * * * 

(iii) The plan shall require that for any 

major stationary source with a PAL for 

a regulated NSR pollutant, the major 

stationary source shall comply with 

requirements under paragraph (f) of this 

section. 

(3) * * * 

(ii) * * * 

(D) No emissions credit may be 

allowed for replacing one hydrocarbon 

compound with another of lesser 

reactivity, except that emissions credit 

may be allowed for the replacement 

with those compounds listed as having 

negligible photochemical reactivity in 

§ 51.100(s). 

* * * * * 

(4) * * * 

(viii) Municipal incinerators capable 

of charging more than 50 tons of refuse 

per day; 

* * * * * 

(11) The plan shall require that, in 

meeting the emissions offset 

requirements of paragraph (a)(3) of this 

section, the emissions offsets obtained 

shall be for the same regulated NSR 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 135 / Monday, July 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 37927 

pollutant, unless interprecursor 

offsetting is permitted for a particular 

pollutant as specified in this paragraph. 

The plan may allow the offset 

requirements in paragraph (a)(3) of this 

section for direct PM2.5 emissions or 

emissions of precursors of PM2.5 to be 

satisfied by offsetting reductions in 

direct PM2.5 emissions or emissions of 

any PM2.5 precursor identified under 

paragraph (a)(1)(xxxvii)(C) of this 

section if such offsets comply with the 

interprecursor trading hierarchy and 

ratio established in the approved plan 

for a particular nonattainment area. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Amend § 51.166 by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (a)(7) 

introductory text; 

■ b. Revising paragraph (a)(7)(iv)(a); 

■ c. Revising paragraph (a)(7)(v); 

■ d. Revising paragraphs (b)(1)(i)(a) and 

(c); 

■ e. Revising paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(h); 

■ f. Revising paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(z); 

■ g. Revising paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(a); 

■ h. Revising paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(e)(1); 

■ i. Revising paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(f); 

■ j. Removing and reserving paragraph 

(b)(3)(iii)(c); 

■ k. Revising paragraph (b)(12); 

■ l. Revising paragraph (b)(23)(ii); 

■ m. Revising paragraphs (b)(32)(i) 

through (iv); 

■ n. Revising paragraph (b)(48)(i); 

■ o. Revising paragraphs (b)(48)(ii) 

introductory text and (b)(48)(ii)(a); 

■ p. Revising paragraph (b)(48)(iii); 

■ q. Revising paragraph (b)(48)(iv)(b); 

■ r. Removing paragraphs (b)(53) 

through (56); 

■ s. Revising paragraph (g)(4); 

■ t. Revising paragraph (i)(1)(ii)(h); 

■ u. Removing and reserving paragraphs 

(i)(6) through (11); 

■ v. Revising paragraphs (j)(1) and (2); 

■ w. Revising paragraph (j)(4); 

■ x. Revising paragraph (k)(1) 

introductory text; 

■ y. Revising paragraph (m)(1)(iii); 

■ z. Revising paragraphs (p)(3) and (4); 

■ aa. Revising paragraphs (p)(5)(i) and 

(iii); 

■ bb. Revising paragraph (p)(6)(iii); 

■ cc. Revising paragraph (p)(7) 

introductory text; 

■ dd. Revising paragraph (r)(2); 

■ ee. Revising paragraph (r)(6)(vi)(b); 

■ ff. Revising paragraph (w)(7)(vii); 

■ gg. Revising paragraph (w)(9)(ii); and 

■ hh. Removing paragraph (y). 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 51.166 Prevention of significant 

deterioration of air quality. 

(a) * * * 

(7) Applicability. Each plan shall 

contain procedures that incorporate the 

requirements in paragraphs (a)(7)(i) 

through (v) of this section. 

* * * * * 

(iv) * * * 

(a) Except as otherwise provided in 

paragraph (a)(7)(v) of this section, and 

consistent with the definition of major 

modification contained in paragraph 

(b)(2) of this section, a project is a major 

modification for a regulated NSR 

pollutant if it causes two types of 

emissions increases—a significant 

emissions increase (as defined in 

paragraph (b)(39) of this section), and a 

significant net emissions increase (as 

defined in paragraphs (b)(3) and (23) of 

this section). The project is not a major 

modification if it does not cause a 

significant emissions increase. If the 

project causes a significant emissions 

increase, then the project is a major 

modification only if it also results in a 

significant net emissions increase. 

* * * * * 

(v) The plan shall require that for any 

major stationary source with a PAL for 

a regulated NSR pollutant, the major 

stationary source shall comply with 

requirements under paragraph (w) of 

this section. 

(b) * * * 

(1)(i) * * * 

(a) Any of the following stationary 

sources of air pollutants which emits, or 

has the potential to emit, 100 tons per 

year or more of any regulated NSR 

pollutant: Fossil fuel-fired steam electric 

plants of more than 250 million British 

thermal units per hour heat input, coal 

cleaning plants (with thermal dryers), 

kraft pulp mills, portland cement plants, 

primary zinc smelters, iron and steel 

mill plants, primary aluminum ore 

reduction plants (with thermal dryers), 

primary copper smelters, municipal 

incinerators capable of charging more 

than 50 tons of refuse per day, 

hydrofluoric, sulfuric, and nitric acid 

plants, petroleum refineries, lime 

plants, phosphate rock processing 

plants, coke oven batteries, sulfur 

recovery plants, carbon black plants 

(furnace process), primary lead smelters, 

fuel conversion plants, sintering plants, 

secondary metal production plants, 

chemical process plants (which does not 

include ethanol production facilities 

that produce ethanol by natural 

fermentation included in NAICS codes 

325193 or 312140), fossil-fuel boilers (or 

combinations thereof) totaling more 

than 250 million British thermal units 

per hour heat input, petroleum storage 

and transfer units with a total storage 

capacity exceeding 300,000 barrels, 

taconite ore processing plants, glass 

fiber processing plants, and charcoal 

production plants; 

* * * * * 

(c) Any physical change that would 

occur at a stationary source not 

otherwise qualifying under paragraph 

(b)(1) of this section as a major 

stationary source, if the change would 

constitute a major stationary source by 

itself. 

* * * * * 

(iii) * * * 

(h) Municipal incinerators capable of 

charging more than 50 tons of refuse per 

day; 

* * * * * 

(z) Fossil fuel-fired steam electric 

plants of more than 250 million British 

thermal units per hour heat input, and 

* * * * * 

(2) * * * 

(iii) * * * 

(a) Routine maintenance, repair and 

replacement; 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(1) The source was capable of 

accommodating before January 6, 1975, 

unless such change would be prohibited 

under any federally enforceable permit 

condition which was established after 

January 6, 1975, pursuant to 40 CFR 

52.21 or under regulations approved 

pursuant to 40 CFR part 51, subpart I. 

* * * * * 

(f) An increase in the hours of 

operation or in the production rate, 

unless such change would be prohibited 

under any federally enforceable permit 

condition which was established after 

January 6, 1975, pursuant to 40 CFR 

52.21 or under regulations approved 

pursuant to 40 CFR part 51, subpart I. 

* * * * * 

(12) Best available control technology 

means an emissions limitation 

(including a visible emissions standard) 

based on the maximum degree of 

reduction for each regulated NSR 

pollutant which would be emitted from 

any proposed major stationary source or 

major modification which the reviewing 

authority, on a case-by-case basis, taking 

into account energy, environmental, and 

economic impacts and other costs, 

determines is achievable for such source 

or modification through application of 

production processes or available 

methods, systems, and techniques, 

including fuel cleaning or treatment or 

innovative fuel combination techniques 

for control of such pollutant. In no event 

shall application of best available 

control technology result in emissions 

of any pollutant which would exceed 

the emissions allowed by any applicable 

standard under 40 CFR part 60, 61, or 

63. If the reviewing authority 

determines that technological or 

economic limitations on the application 

of measurement methodology to a 

particular emissions unit would make 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
37928 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 135 / Monday, July 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

the imposition of an emissions standard 

infeasible, a design, equipment, work 

practice, operational standard or 

combination thereof, may be prescribed 

instead to satisfy the requirement for the 

application of best available control 

technology. Such standard shall, to the 

degree possible, set forth the emissions 

reduction achievable by implementation 

of such design, equipment, work 

practice or operation, and shall provide 

for compliance by means which achieve 

equivalent results. 

* * * * * 

(23) * * * 

(ii) Significant means, in reference to 

a net emissions increase or the potential 

of a source to emit a regulated NSR 

pollutant that paragraph (b)(23)(i) of this 

section does not list, any emissions rate. 

* * * * * 

(32) * * * 

(i) The emissions unit is a 

reconstructed unit within the meaning 

of § 60.15(b)(1) of this chapter, or the 

emissions unit completely takes the 

place of an existing emissions unit; 

(ii) The emissions unit is identical to 

or functionally equivalent to the 

replaced emissions unit; 

(iii) The replacement does not change 

the basic design parameter(s) of the 

process unit;-and 

(iv) The replaced emissions unit is 

permanently removed from the major 

stationary source, otherwise 

permanently disabled, or permanently 

barred from operation by a permit that 

is enforceable as a practical matter. If 

the replaced emissions unit is brought 

back into operation, it shall constitute a 

new emissions unit. 

* * * * * 

(48) * * * 

(i) Greenhouse gases (GHGs), the air 

pollutant defined in § 86.1818–12(a) of 

this chapter as the aggregate group of six 

greenhouse gases: Carbon dioxide, 

nitrous oxide, methane, 

hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, 

and sulfur hexafluoride, shall not be 

subject to regulation except as provided 

in paragraph (b)(48)(iv) of this section. 

(ii) For purposes of paragraphs 

(b)(48)(iii) and (iv) of this section, the 

term tpy CO2 equivalent emissions 

(CO2e) shall represent an amount of 

GHGs emitted, and shall be computed as 

follows: 

(a) Multiplying the mass amount of 

emissions (tpy), for each of the six 

greenhouse gases in the pollutant GHGs, 

by the gas’s associated global warming 

potential published at Table A–1 to 

subpart A of part 98 of this chapter— 

Global Warming Potentials. 

* * * * * 

(iii) The term emissions increase as 

used in paragraph (b)(48)(iv) of this 

section shall mean that both a 

significant emissions increase (as 

calculated using the procedures in 

paragraph (a)(7)(iv) of this section) and 

a significant net emissions increase (as 

defined in paragraphs (b)(3) and (23) of 

this section) occur. For the pollutant 

GHGs, an emissions increase shall be 

based on tpy CO2e, and shall be 

calculated assuming the pollutant GHGs 

is a regulated NSR pollutant and 

‘‘significant’’ is defined as 75,000 tpy 

CO2e instead of applying the value in 

paragraph (b)(23)(ii) of this section. 

(iv) * * * 

(b) The stationary source is an 

existing major stationary source for a 

regulated NSR pollutant that is not 

GHGs, and also will have an emissions 

increase of a regulated NSR pollutant, 

and an emissions increase of 75,000 tpy 

CO2e or more. 

* * * * * 

(g) * * * 

(4) The plan shall provide that lands 

within the exterior boundaries of Indian 

Reservations may be redesignated only 

by the appropriate Indian Governing 

Body. The appropriate Indian Governing 

Body may submit to the Administrator 

a proposal to redesignate areas Class I, 

Class II, or Class III provided that: 

* * * * * 

(i) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(ii) * * * 

(h) Municipal incinerators capable of 

charging more than 50 tons of refuse per 

day; 

* * * * * 

(j) * * * 

(1) A major stationary source or major 

modification shall meet each applicable 

emissions limitation under the State 

implementation plan and each 

applicable emission standard-and 

standard of performance under 40 CFR 

part 60, 61, or 63. 

(2) A new major stationary source 

shall apply best available control 

technology for each regulated NSR 

pollutant that it would have the 

potential to emit in significant amounts. 

* * * * * 

(4) For phased construction projects, 

the determination of best available 

control technology shall be reviewed 

and modified as appropriate at the latest 

reasonable time which occurs no later 

than 18 months prior to commencement 

of construction of each independent 

phase of the project. At such time, the 

owner or operator of the applicable 

stationary source may be required to 

demonstrate the adequacy of any 

previous determination of best available 

control technology for the source. 

(k) * * * 

(1) Required demonstration. The plan 

shall provide that the owner or operator 

of the proposed source or modification 

shall demonstrate that allowable 

emission increases from the proposed 

source or modification, in conjunction 

with all other applicable emissions 

increases or reductions (including 

secondary emissions), would not cause 

or contribute to air pollution in 

violation of: 

* * * * * 

(m) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(iii) The plan shall provide that with 

respect to any such pollutant (other than 

nonmethane hydrocarbons) for which 

such a standard does exist, the analysis 

shall contain continuous air quality 

monitoring data gathered for purposes 

of determining whether emissions of 

that pollutant would cause or contribute 

to a violation of the standard or any 

maximum allowable increase. 

* * * * * 

(p) * * * 

(3) Denial—impact on air quality 

related values. The plan shall provide a 

mechanism whereby a Federal Land 

Manager of any such lands may present 

to the State, after the reviewing 

authority’s preliminary determination 

required under procedures developed in 

accordance with paragraph (q) of this 

section, a demonstration that the 

emissions from the proposed source or 

modification would have an adverse 

impact on the air quality-related values 

(including visibility) of any Federal 

mandatory Class I lands, 

notwithstanding that the change in air 

quality resulting from emissions from 

such source or modification would not 

cause or contribute to concentrations 

which would exceed the maximum 

allowable increases for a Class I area. If 

the State concurs with such 

demonstration, the reviewing authority 

shall not issue the permit. 

(4) Class I variances. The plan may 

provide that the owner or operator of a 

proposed source or modification may 

demonstrate to the Federal Land 

Manager that the emissions from such 

source would have no adverse impact 

on the air quality related values of such 

lands (including visibility), 

notwithstanding that the change in air 

quality resulting from emissions from 

such source or modification would 

cause or contribute to concentrations 

which would exceed the maximum 

allowable increases for a Class I area. If 

the Federal land manager concurs with 

such demonstration and so certifies to 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 135 / Monday, July 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 37929 

the State, the reviewing authority may, 

provided that the applicable 

requirements are otherwise met, issue 

the permit with such emission 

limitations as may be necessary to 

assure that emissions of sulfur dioxide, 

PM2.5, PM10, and nitrogen oxides would 

not exceed the following maximum 

allowable increases over minor source 

baseline concentration for such 

pollutants: 

(5) * * * 

(i) The owner or operator of a 

proposed source or modification which 

cannot be approved under procedures 

developed pursuant to paragraph (p)(4) 

of this section may demonstrate to the 

Governor that the source or 

modification cannot be constructed by 

reason of any maximum allowable 

increase for sulfur dioxide for periods of 

twenty-four hours or less applicable to 

any Class I area and, in the case of 

Federal mandatory Class I areas, that a 

variance under this clause would not 

adversely affect the air quality related 

values of the area (including visibility); 

* * * * * 

(iii) If such variance is granted, the 

reviewing authority may issue a permit 

to such source or modification in 

accordance with provisions developed 

pursuant to paragraph (p)(7) of this 

section provided that the applicable 

requirements of the plan are otherwise 

met. 

(6) * * * 

(iii) If such a variance is approved, the 

reviewing authority may issue a permit 

in accordance with provisions 

developed pursuant to the requirements 

of paragraph (p)(7) of this section 

provided that the applicable 

requirements of the plan are otherwise 

met. 

(7) Emission limitations for 

Presidential or gubernatorial variance. 

The plan shall provide that, in the case 

of a permit issued under procedures 

developed pursuant to paragraph (p)(5) 

or (6) of this section, the source or 

modification shall comply with 

emission limitations as may be 

necessary to assure that emissions of 

sulfur dioxide from the source or 

modification would not (during any day 

on which the otherwise applicable 

maximum allowable increases are 

exceeded) cause or contribute to 

concentrations which would exceed the 

following maximum allowable increases 

over the baseline concentration and to 

assure that such emissions would not 

cause or contribute to concentrations 

which exceed the otherwise applicable 

maximum allowable increases for 

periods of exposure of 24 hours or less 

for more than 18 days, not necessarily 

consecutive, during any annual period: 

* * * * * 

(r) * * * 

(2) The plan shall provide that at such 

time that a particular source or 

modification becomes a major stationary 

source or major modification solely by 

virtue of a relaxation in any enforceable 

limitation which was established after 

August 7, 1980, on the capacity of the 

source or modification otherwise to emit 

a pollutant, such as a restriction on 

hours of operation, then the 

requirements of paragraphs (j) through 

(r) of this section shall apply to the 

source or modification as though 

construction had not yet commenced on 

the source or modification. 

* * * * * 

(6) * * * 

(vi) * * * 

(b) A projected actual emissions 

increase that, added to the amount of 

emissions excluded under paragraph 

(b)(40)(ii)(c) of this section, sums to at 

least 50 percent of the amount that is a 

‘‘significant emissions increase,’’ as 

defined under paragraph (b)(39) of this 

section (without reference to the amount 

that is a significant net emissions 

increase), for the regulated NSR 

pollutant. For a project for which a 

reasonable possibility occurs only 

within the meaning of this paragraph 

(r)(6)(vi)(b), and not also within the 

meaning of paragraph (r)(6)(vi)(a) of this 

section, then the provisions under 

paragraphs (r)(6)(ii) through (v) of this 

section do not apply to the project. 

* * * * * 

(w) * * * 

(7) * * * 

(vii) A requirement that the major 

stationary source owner or operator 

monitor all emissions units in 

accordance with the provisions under 

paragraph (w)(12) of this section. 

* * * * * 

(9) * * * 

(ii) Each emissions unit(s) shall 

comply with the allowable emission 

limitation on a 12-month rolling basis. 

The reviewing authority may approve 

the use of monitoring systems (source 

testing, emission factors, etc.) other than 

CEMS, CERMS, PEMS, or CPMS to 

demonstrate compliance with the 

allowable emission limitation. 

* * * * * 

■ 4. Appendix S to part 51 is amended: 

■ a. In section I by revising the first two 

undesignated paragraphs; 

■ b. In section II by: 

■ i. Revising paragraph A.4.(i)(a); 

■ ii. Revising paragraphs A.4.(iii) 

introductory text and A.4.(iii)(h); 

■ iii. Revising paragraphs A.5.(iii)(e)(1) 

and (2) and (f); 

■ iv. Revising paragraphs A.7.(ii) and 

A.34 and 35; 

■ v. Adding paragraph A.37; 

■ vi. Revising paragraph B; 

■ vii. Revising paragraph F.(8); and 

■ viii. Revising paragraph II.G; 

■ c. In section III by: 

■ i. Revising paragraphs B and C; and 

■ ii. Revising paragraph D. Condition 1; 

■ d. In section IV by: 

■ i. Revising paragraphs A. Condition 1 

and Condition 4; 

■ ii. Revising paragraph B introductory 

text; 

■ iii. Revising paragraph B.(i).1; 

■ iv. Revising paragraph C.3.(i); 

■ v. Revising paragraphs C.3.(ii) 

introductory text and C.3.(ii)(2); 

■ vi. Revising paragraphs C.4 and 5; 

■ vii. Revising paragraphs D and G.1 

and 5; 

■ viii. Revising paragraph H; 

■ ix. Revising paragraph I.2; 

■ x. Revising paragraph J.6.(ii); and 

■ xi. Revising paragraph K.5 and 

paragraph K.14 introductory text; and 

■ e. In section V by revising paragraph 

A. 

The revisions read as follows: 

Appendix S to Part 51—Emission Offset 

Interpretative Ruling 

I. Introduction 

This appendix sets forth EPA’s 

Interpretative Ruling on the preconstruction 

review requirements for stationary sources of 

air pollution (not including indirect sources) 

under 40 CFR part 51, subpart I. A major new 

source or major modification which would 

locate in any area designated under section 

107(d) of the Act as attainment or 

unclassifiable for ozone that is located in an 

ozone transport region or which would locate 

in an area designated in 40 CFR part 81, 

subpart C, as nonattainment for a pollutant 

for which the source or modification would 

be major may be allowed to construct only 

if the stringent conditions set forth below are 

met. These conditions are designed to ensure 

that the new source’s emissions will be 

controlled to the greatest degree possible; 

that more than equivalent offsetting emission 

reductions (emission offsets) will be obtained 

from existing sources; and that there will be 

progress toward achievement of the NAAQS. 

For each area designated as exceeding a 

NAAQS (nonattainment area) under 40 CFR 

part 81, subpart C, or for any area designated 

under section 107(d) of the Act as attainment 

or unclassifiable for ozone that is located in 

an ozone transport region, this Interpretative 

Ruling will be superseded after June 30, 1979 

(a) by preconstruction review provisions of 

the revised SIP, if the SIP meets the 

requirements of part D, Title 1, of the Act; or 

(b) by a prohibition on construction under 

the applicable SIP and section 110(a)(2)(I) of 

the Act, if the SIP does not meet the 

requirements of part D. The Ruling will 

remain in effect to the extent not superseded 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
37930 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 135 / Monday, July 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

under the Act. This prohibition on major new 

source construction does not apply to a 

source whose permit to construct was 

applied for during a period when the SIP was 

in compliance with part D, or before the 

deadline for having a revised SIP in effect 

that satisfies part D. 

* * * * * 

II. Initial Screening Analyses and 

Determination of Applicable Requirements 

A. * * * 

4. (i) * * * 

(a) Any stationary source of air pollutants 

which emits, or has the potential to emit, 100 

tons per year or more of a regulated NSR 

pollutant (as defined in paragraph II.A.31 of 

this Ruling), except that lower emissions 

thresholds shall apply in areas subject to 

subpart 2, subpart 3, or subpart 4 of part D, 

title I of the Act, according to paragraphs 

II.A.4(i)(a)(1) through (8) of this Ruling. 

* * * * * 

(iii) The fugitive emissions of a stationary 

source shall not be included in determining 

for any of the purposes of this Ruling 

whether it is a major stationary source, 

unless the source belongs to one of the 

following categories of stationary sources: 

* * * * * 

(h) Municipal incinerators capable of 

charging more than 50 tons of refuse per day; 

* * * * * 

5. * * * 

(iii) * * * 

(e) * * * 

(1) The source was capable of 

accommodating before December 21, 1976, 

unless such change would be prohibited 

under any federally enforceable permit 

condition which was established after 

December 21, 1976, pursuant to 40 CFR 52.21 

or under regulations approved pursuant to 40 

CFR part 51, subpart I; or 

(2) The source is approved to use under 

any permit issued under this Ruling; 

* * * * * 

(f) An increase in the hours of operation or 

in the production rate, unless such change is 

prohibited under any federally enforceable 

permit condition which was established after 

December 21, 1976, pursuant to 40 CFR 52.21 

or under regulations approved pursuant to 40 

CFR part 51, subpart I; 

* * * * * 

7. * * * 

(ii) An existing emissions unit is any 

emissions unit that does not meet the 

requirements in paragraph II.A.7(i) of this 

Ruling. A replacement unit, as defined in 

paragraph II.A.37 of this Ruling, is an 

existing emissions unit. 

* * * * * 

34. Best available control technology 

(BACT) means an emissions limitation 

(including a visible emissions standard) 

based on the maximum degree of reduction 

for each regulated NSR pollutant which 

would be emitted from any proposed major 

stationary source or major modification 

which the reviewing authority, on a case-bycase basis, taking into account energy, 

environmental, and economic impacts and 

other costs, determines is achievable for such 

source or modification through application of 

production processes or available methods, 

systems, and techniques, including fuel 

cleaning or treatment or innovative fuel 

combustion techniques for control of such 

pollutant. In no event shall application of 

best available control technology result in 

emissions of any pollutant which would 

exceed the emissions allowed by any 

applicable standard under 40 CFR part 60, 

61, or 63. If the reviewing authority 

determines that technological or economic 

limitations on the application of 

measurement methodology to a particular 

emissions unit would make the imposition of 

an emissions standard infeasible, a design, 

equipment, work practice, operational 

standard, or combination thereof, may be 

prescribed instead to satisfy the requirement 

for the application of BACT. Such standard 

shall, to the degree possible, set forth the 

emissions reduction achievable by 

implementation of such design, equipment, 

work practice or operation, and shall provide 

for compliance by means which achieve 

equivalent results. 

35. Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) permit means any permit that is issued 

under a major source preconstruction permit 

program that has been approved by the 

Administrator and incorporated into the plan 

to implement the requirements of § 51.166, or 

under the program in § 52.21 of this chapter. 

* * * * * 

37. Replacement unit means an emissions 

unit for which all the criteria listed in 

paragraphs II.A.37(i) through (iv) of this 

Ruling are met. No creditable emission 

reductions shall be generated from shutting 

down the existing emissions unit that is 

replaced. 

(i) The emissions unit is a reconstructed 

unit within the meaning of § 60.15(b)(1) of 

this chapter, or the emissions unit 

completely takes the place of an existing 

emissions unit; 

(ii) The emissions unit is identical to or 

functionally equivalent to the replaced 

emissions unit; 

(iii) The replacement does not alter the 

basic design parameters of the process unit; 

and 

(iv) The replaced emissions unit is 

permanently removed from the major 

stationary source, otherwise permanently 

disabled, or permanently barred from 

operation by a permit that is enforceable as 

a practical matter. If the replaced emissions 

unit is brought back into operation, it shall 

constitute a new emissions unit. 

B. Review of all sources for emission 

limitation compliance. The reviewing 

authority must examine each proposed major 

new source and proposed major 

modification 1 to determine if such a source 

will meet all applicable emission 

requirements in the SIP, any applicable new 

source performance standard in part 60 of 

this chapter, or any national emission 

standard for hazardous air pollutants in part 

61 or 63 of this chapter. If the reviewing 

authority determines that the proposed major 

new source cannot meet the applicable 

emission requirements, the permit to 

construct must be denied. 

1Hereafter the term source will be used to 

denote both any source and any 

modification. 

* * * * * 

F. * * * 

(8) Municipal incinerators capable of 

charging more than 50 tons of refuse per day; 

* * * * * 

G. Secondary emissions. Secondary 

emissions need not be considered in 

determining whether the emission rates in 

section II.C. above would be exceeded. 

However, if a source is subject to this Ruling 

on the basis of the direct emissions from the 

source, the applicable conditions of this 

Ruling must also be met for secondary 

emissions. However, secondary emissions 

may be exempt from Conditions 1 and 2 of 

section IV of this Ruling. Also, since EPA’s 

authority to perform or require indirect 

source review relating to mobile sources 

regulated under Title II of the Act (motor 

vehicles and aircraft) has been restricted by 

statute, consideration of the indirect impacts 

of motor vehicles and aircraft traffic is not 

required under this Ruling. 

III. * * * 

B. Sources to which this section applies 

must meet Conditions 1, 2, and 4 of section 

IV.A. of this Ruling.2 However, such sources 

may be exempt from Condition 3 of section 

IV.A. of this Ruling. 2The discussion in this paragraph is a 

proposal, but represents EPA’s interim policy 

until final rulemaking is completed. 

C. Review of specified sources for air 

quality impact. For stable air pollutants (i.e., 

SO2, particulate matter and CO), the 

determination of whether a source will cause 

or contribute to a violation of a NAAQS 

generally should be made on a case-by-case 

basis as of the proposed new source’s startup date using the source’s allowable 

emissions in an atmospheric simulation 

model (unless a source will clearly impact on 

a receptor which exceeds a NAAQS). 

For sources of nitrogen oxides, the initial 

determination of whether a source would 

cause or contribute to a violation of the 

NAAQS for NO2 should be made using an 

atmospheric simulation model assuming all 

the nitric oxide emitted is oxidized to NO2

by the time the plume reaches ground level. 

The initial concentration estimates may be 

adjusted if adequate data are available to 

account for the expected oxidation rate. 

For ozone, sources of volatile organic 

compounds, locating outside a designated 

ozone nonattainment area, will be presumed 

to have no significant impact on the 

designated nonattainment area. If ambient 

monitoring indicates that the area of source 

location is in fact nonattainment, then the 

source may be permitted under the 

provisions of any State plan adopted 

pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(D) of the Act 

until the area is designated nonattainment 

and a State implementation plan revision is 

approved. If no State plan pursuant to section 

110(a)(2)(D) of the Act has been adopted and 

approved, then this Ruling shall apply. 

As noted above, the determination as to 

whether a source would cause or contribute 

to a violation of a NAAQS should be made 

as of the new source’s start-up date. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 135 / Monday, July 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 37931 

Therefore, if a designated nonattainment area 

is projected to be an attainment area as part 

of an approved SIP control strategy by the 

new source start-up date, offsets would not 

be required if the new source would not 

cause a new violation. 

D. * * * 

Condition 1. The new source is required to 

meet a more stringent emission limitation3

and/or the control of existing sources below 

allowable levels is required so that the source 

will not cause a violation of any NAAQS. 3 If the reviewing authority determines that 

technological or economic limitations on the 

application of measurement methodology to 

a particular class of sources would make the 

imposition of an enforceable numerical 

emission standard infeasible, the authority 

may instead prescribe a design, operational, 

or equipment standard. In such cases, the 

reviewing authority shall make its best 

estimate as to the emission rate that will be 

achieved and must specify that rate in the 

required submission to EPA (see part V of 

this Ruling). Any permits issued without an 

enforceable numerical emission standard 

must contain enforceable conditions which 

assure that the design characteristics or 

equipment will be properly maintained (or 

that the operational conditions will be 

properly performed) so as to continuously 

achieve the assumed degree of control. Such 

conditions shall be enforceable as emission 

limitations by private parties under section 

304. Hereafter, the term emission limitation 

shall also include such design, operational, 

or equipment standards. 

* * * * * 

IV. * * * 

A. * * * 

Condition 1. The new source is required to 

meet an emission limitation4 which specifies 

the lowest achievable emission rate for such 

source. 4 If the reviewing authority determines that 

technological or economic limitations on the 

application of measurement methodology to 

a particular class of sources would make the 

imposition of an enforceable numerical 

emission standard infeasible, the authority 

may instead prescribe a design, operational 

or equipment standard. In such cases, the 

reviewing authority shall make its best 

estimate as to the emission rate that will be 

achieved and must specify that rate in the 

required submission to EPA (see part V of 

this Ruling). Any permits issued without an 

enforceable numerical emission standard 

must contain enforceable conditions which 

assure that the design characteristics or 

equipment will be properly maintained (or 

that the operational conditions will be 

properly performed) so as to continuously 

achieve the assumed degree of control. Such 

conditions shall be enforceable as emission 

limitations by private parties under section 

304. Hereafter, the term emission limitation 

shall also include such design, operational, 

or equipment standards. 

* * * * * 

Condition 4. The emission offsets will 

provide a positive net air quality benefit in 

the affected area (see section IV.D. of this 

Ruling). Atmospheric simulation modeling is 

not necessary for volatile organic compounds 

and NOX. Fulfillment of Condition 3 under 

section IV.A. of this Ruling and the 

requirements under section IV.D. of this 

Ruling will be considered adequate to meet 

this condition. 

* * * * * 

B. Exemptions from certain conditions. 

The reviewing authority may exempt the 

following sources from Condition 1 under 

section III.D. of this Ruling or Conditions 3 

and 4 under section IV.A. of this Ruling: 

(i) * * * 

1. The applicant demonstrates that it made 

its best efforts to obtain sufficient emission 

offsets to comply with Condition 1 under 

section III.D. of this Ruling or Conditions 3 

and 4 under section IV.A. of this Ruling and 

that such efforts were unsuccessful; 

* * * * * 

C. * * * 

3. * * * 

(i) Emissions reductions achieved by 

shutting down an existing source or 

curtailing production or operating hours may 

be generally credited for offsets if they meet 

the requirements in paragraphs IV.C.3.(i)(1) 

and (2) of this Ruling. 

* * * * * 

(ii) Emissions reductions achieved by 

shutting down an existing source or 

curtailing production or operating hours and 

that do not meet the requirements in 

paragraphs IV.C.3.(i)(1) and (2) of this Ruling 

may be generally credited only if: 

* * * * * 

(2) The applicant can establish that the 

proposed new source is a replacement for the 

shutdown or curtailed source, and the 

emissions reductions achieved by the 

shutdown or curtailment met the 

requirements of paragraphs IV.C.3.(i)(1) and 

(2) of this Ruling. 

4. Credit for VOC substitution. No emission 

offset credit may be allowed for replacing one 

hydrocarbon compound with another of 

lesser reactivity, except that an emission 

credit may be allowed for the replacement 

with those compounds listed as having 

negligible photochemical reactivity in 

§ 51.100(s). 

5. ‘‘Banking’’ of emission offset credit. For 

new sources obtaining permits by applying 

offsets after January 16, 1979, the reviewing 

authority may allow offsets that exceed the 

requirements of reasonable progress toward 

attainment (Condition 3 under paragraph 

IV.A of this Ruling) to be ‘‘banked’’ (i.e., 

saved to provide offsets for a source seeking 

a permit in the future) for use under this 

Ruling. Likewise, the reviewing authority 

may allow the owner of an existing source 

that reduces its own emissions to bank any 

resulting reductions beyond those required 

by the SIP for use under this Ruling, even if 

none of the offsets are applied immediately 

to a new source permit. A reviewing 

authority may allow these banked offsets to 

be used under the preconstruction review 

program required by part D of the Act, as 

long as these banked emissions are identified 

and accounted for in the SIP control strategy. 

A reviewing authority may not approve the 

construction of a source using banked offsets 

if the new source would interfere with the 

SIP control strategy or if such use would 

violate any other condition set forth for use 

of offsets. To preserve banked offsets, the 

reviewing authority should identify them in 

either a SIP revision or a permit, and 

establish rules as to how and when they may 

be used. 

* * * * * 

D. Location of offsetting emissions. The 

owner or operator of a new or modified major 

stationary source may comply with any offset 

requirement in effect under this Ruling for 

increased emissions of any air pollutant only 

by obtaining emissions reductions of such air 

pollutant from the same source or other 

sources in the same nonattainment area, 

except that the reviewing authority may 

allow the owner or operator of a source to 

obtain such emissions reductions in another 

nonattainment area if the conditions under 

paragraphs IV.D.1 and 2 of this Ruling are 

met. 

* * * * * 

G. * * * 

1. In meeting the emissions offset 

requirements of Condition 3 under paragraph 

IV.A. of this Ruling, the ratio of total actual 

emissions reductions to the emissions 

increase shall be at least 1:1 unless an 

alternative ratio is provided for the 

applicable nonattainment area in paragraphs 

IV.G.2 through IV.G.4 of this Ruling. 

* * * * * 

5. Interpollutant offsetting. In meeting the 

emissions offset requirements of paragraph 

IV.A, Condition 3 of this Ruling, the 

emissions offsets obtained shall be for the 

same regulated NSR pollutant unless 

interpollutant offsetting is permitted for a 

particular pollutant as specified in this 

paragraph IV.G.5. The offset requirements of 

paragraph IV.A, Condition 3 of this Ruling 

for direct PM2.5 emissions or emissions of 

precursors of PM2.5 may be satisfied by 

offsetting reductions of direct PM2.5

emissions or emissions of any PM2.5

precursor identified under paragraph II.A.31 

(iii) of this Ruling if such offsets comply with 

an interprecursor trading hierarchy and ratio 

approved by the Administrator. 

* * * * * 

H. Additional provisions for emissions of 

nitrogen oxides in ozone transport regions 

and nonattainment areas. The requirements 

of this Ruling applicable to major stationary 

sources and major modifications of volatile 

organic compounds shall apply to nitrogen 

oxides emissions from major stationary 

sources and major modifications of nitrogen 

oxides in an ozone transport region or in any 

ozone nonattainment area, except in ozone 

nonattainment areas where the Administrator 

has granted a NOX waiver applying the 

standards set forth under section 182(f) of the 

Act and the waiver continues to apply 

I. * * * 

2. For any major stationary source with a 

PAL for a regulated NSR pollutant, the major 

stationary source shall comply with 

requirements under paragraph IV.K of this 

Ruling. 

J. * * * 

6. * * * 

(ii) A projected actual emissions increase 

that, added to the amount of emissions 

excluded under paragraph II.A.24(ii)(c) of 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
37932 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 135 / Monday, July 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

this Ruling, sums to at least 50 percent of the 

amount that is a ‘‘significant emissions 

increase,’’ as defined under paragraph II.A.23 

of this Ruling (without reference to the 

amount that is a significant net emissions 

increase), for the regulated NSR pollutant. 

For a project for which a reasonable 

possibility occurs only within the meaning of 

paragraph IV.J.6(ii) of this Ruling, and not 

also within the meaning of paragraph IV.J.6(i) 

of this Ruling, then provisions in paragraphs 

IV.J.2 through IV.J.5 of this Ruling do not 

apply to the project. 

* * * * * 

K. * * * 

5. Public participation requirement for 

PALs. PALs for existing major stationary 

sources shall be established, renewed, or 

increased through a procedure that is 

consistent with §§ 51.160 and 51.161. This 

includes the requirement that the reviewing 

authority provide the public with notice of 

the proposed approval of a PAL permit and 

at least a 30-day period for submittal of 

public comment. The reviewing authority 

must address all material comments before 

taking final action on the permit. 

* * * * * 

14. Reporting and notification 

requirements. The owner or operator shall 

submit semi-annual monitoring reports and 

prompt deviation reports to the reviewing 

authority in accordance with the applicable 

title V operating permit program. The reports 

shall meet the requirements in paragraphs 

IV.K.14(i) through (iii) of this Ruling. 

* * * * * 

V. * * * 

A. Source initiated emission offsets. A 

source may propose emission offsets which 

involve: 

(1) Reductions from sources controlled by 

the source owner (internal emission offsets); 

and/or (2) reductions from neighboring 

sources (external emission offsets). The 

source does not have to investigate all 

possible emission offsets. As long as the 

emission offsets obtained represent 

reasonable progress toward attainment, they 

will be acceptable. It is the reviewing 

authority’s responsibility to assure that the 

emission offsets will be as effective as 

proposed by the source. An internal emission 

offset will be considered enforceable if it is 

made a SIP requirement by inclusion as a 

condition of the new source permit and the 

permit is forwarded to the appropriate EPA 

Regional Office.7 An external emission offset 

will not be enforceable unless the affected 

source(s) providing the emission reductions 

is subject to a new SIP requirement to ensure 

that its emissions will be reduced by a 

specified amount in a specified time. Thus, 

if the source(s) providing the emission 

reductions does not obtain the necessary 

reduction, it will be in violation of a SIP 

requirement and subject to enforcement 

action by EPA, the State, and/or private 

parties. 7The emission offset will, therefore, be 

enforceable by EPA under section 113 of the 

Act as an applicable SIP requirement and 

will be enforceable by private parties under 

section 304 of the Act as an emission 

limitation. 

The form of the SIP revision may be a State 

or local regulation, operating permit 

condition, consent or enforcement order, or 

any other mechanism available to the State 

that is enforceable under the Clean Air Act. 

If a SIP revision is required, the public 

hearing on the revision may be substituted 

for the normal public comment procedure 

required for all major sources under § 51.102. 

The formal publication of the SIP revision 

approval in the Federal Register need not 

appear before the source may proceed with 

construction. To minimize uncertainty that 

may be caused by these procedures, EPA 

will, if requested by the State, propose a SIP 

revision for public comment in the Federal 

Register concurrently with the State public 

hearing process. Of course, any major change 

in the final permit/SIP revision submitted by 

the State may require a reproposal by EPA. 

* * * * * 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 5. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart A—General Provisions 

■ 6. Amend § 52.21 by: 

■ a. Revising paragraphs (a)(2)(iv)(a) 

and (f); 

■ c. Revising paragraphs (b)(1)(i)(a) 

through (c); 

■ d. Revising paragraphs (b)(1)(iii)(h) 

and (z); 

■ e. Revising paragraphs (b)(2)(iii)(a) 

and (b); 

■ f. Revising paragraphs (b)(2)(iii)(e)(1) 

and (f); 

■ g. Removing and reserving paragraph 

(b)(3)(iii)(b); 

■ h. Revising paragraph (b)(3)(vi)(c); 

■ i. Revising paragraph (b)(12); 

■ j. Revising paragraph (b)(23)(ii); 

■ k. Revising paragraphs (b)(33)(i) 

through (iv); 

■ l. Revising paragraph (b)(41)(ii)(c); 

■ m. Revising paragraph (b)(48)(i)(c); 

■ n. Revising paragraph (b)(48)(ii)(d); 

■ o. Revising paragraphs (b)(49)(i), 

(b)(49)(ii) introductory text, 

(b)(49)(ii)(a), and (b)(49)(iii); 

■ p. Revising paragraph (b)(49)(iv)(b); 

■ q. Revising paragraphs (b)(51); 

■ r. Removing paragraphs (b)(55) 

through (58); 

■ s. Revising paragraph (g)(4) 

introductory text; 

■ t. Removing and reserving paragraphs 

(i)(1)(i) through (v); 

■ u. Revising paragraph (i)(1)(vii)(h); 

■ v. Removing paragraphs (i)(1)(ix) and 

(x); 

■ w. Removing and reserving 

paragraphs (i)(6) through (12); 

■ x. Revising paragraph (j)(1); 

■ y. Revising paragraph (m)(1)(i)(a); 

■ z. Removing and reserving paragraphs 

(m)(1)(v), (vii), and (viii); 

■ aa. Revising paragraph (n)(1) 

introductory text; 

■ bb. Revising paragraphs (p)(5) 

introductory text, (p)(6) and (7), and 

(p)(8) introductory text; 

■ cc. Revising paragraph (r)(4); 

■ dd. Revising paragraphs (u)(2)(ii) and 

(u)(3); 

■ ee. Revising paragraph (w)(1); and 

■ ff. Removing paragraph (cc). 

The revisions read as follows: § 52.21 

Prevention of significant deterioration of 

air quality. 

(a) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(iv) * * * 

(a) Except as otherwise provided in 

paragraph (a)(2)(v) of this section, and 

consistent with the definition of major 

modification contained in paragraph 

(b)(2) of this section, a project is a major 

modification for a regulated NSR 

pollutant if it causes two types of 

emissions increases—a significant 

emissions increase (as defined in 

paragraph (b)(40) section) and a 

significant net emissions increase (as 

defined in paragraphs (b)(3) and (23) of 

this section). The project is not a major 

modification if it does not cause a 

significant emissions increase. If the 

project causes a significant emissions 

increase, then the project is a major 

modification only if it also results in a 

significant net emissions increase. 

* * * * * 

(f) Hybrid test for projects that involve 

multiple types of emissions units. A 

significant emissions increase of a 

regulated NSR pollutant is projected to 

occur if the sum of the difference for all 

emissions units, using the method 

specified in paragraphs (a)(2)(iv)(c) and 

(d) of this section as applicable with 

respect to each emissions unit, equals or 

exceeds the significant amount for that 

pollutant (as defined in paragraph 

(b)(23) of this section). 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1)(i) * * * 

(a) Any of the following stationary 

sources of air pollutants which emits, or 

has the potential to emit, 100 tons per 

year or more of any regulated NSR 

pollutant: Fossil fuel-fired steam electric 

plants of more than 250 million British 

thermal units per hour heat input, coal 

cleaning plants (with thermal dryers), 

kraft pulp mills, portland cement plants, 

primary zinc smelters, iron and steel 

mill plants, primary aluminum ore 

reduction plants (with thermal dryers), 

primary copper smelters, municipal 

incinerators capable of charging more 

than 50 tons of refuse per day, 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 135 / Monday, July 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 37933 

hydrofluoric, sulfuric, and nitric acid 

plants, petroleum refineries, lime 

plants, phosphate rock processing 

plants, coke oven batteries, sulfur 

recovery plants, carbon black plants 

(furnace process), primary lead smelters, 

fuel conversion plants, sintering plants, 

secondary metal production plants, 

chemical process plants (which does not 

include ethanol production facilities 

that produce ethanol by natural 

fermentation included in NAICS codes 

325193 or 312140), fossil-fuel boilers (or 

combinations thereof) totaling more 

than 250 million British thermal units 

per hour heat input, petroleum storage 

and transfer units with a total storage 

capacity exceeding 300,000 barrels, 

taconite ore processing plants, glass 

fiber processing plants, and charcoal 

production plants; 

(b) Notwithstanding the stationary 

source size specified in paragraph 

(b)(1)(i)(a) of this section, any stationary 

source which emits, or has the potential 

to emit, 250 tons per year or more of a 

regulated NSR pollutant; or 

(c) Any physical change that would 

occur at a stationary source not 

otherwise qualifying under paragraph 

(b)(1) of this section as a major 

stationary source, if the change would 

constitute a major stationary source by 

itself. 

* * * * * 

(iii) * * * 

(h) Municipal incinerators capable of 

charging more than 50 tons of refuse per 

day; 

* * * * * 

(z) Fossil fuel-fired steam electric 

plants of more than 250 million British 

thermal units per hour heat input, and 

* * * * * 

(2) * * * 

(iii) * * * 

(a) Routine maintenance, repair and 

replacement; 

(b) Use of an alternative fuel or raw 

material by reason of an order under 

sections 2(a) and (b) of the Energy 

Supply and Environmental 

Coordination Act of 1974 (or any 

superseding legislation) or by reason of 

a natural gas curtailment plan pursuant 

to the Federal Power Act; 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(1) The source was capable of 

accommodating before January 6, 1975, 

unless such change would be prohibited 

under any federally enforceable permit 

condition which was established after 

January 6, 1975, pursuant to 40 CFR 

52.21 or under regulations approved 

pursuant to 40 CFR part 51, subpart I; 

or 

* * * * * 

(f) An increase in the hours of 

operation or in the production rate, 

unless such change would be prohibited 

under any federally enforceable permit 

condition which was established after 

January 6, 1975, pursuant to 40 CFR 

52.21 or under regulations approved 

pursuant to 40 CFR part 51, subpart I. 

* * * * * 

(vi) * * * 

(c) It has approximately the same 

qualitative significance for public health 

and welfare as that attributed to the 

increase from the particular change. 

* * * * * 

(12) Best available control technology 

means an emissions limitation 

(including a visible emission standard) 

based on the maximum degree of 

reduction for each pollutant subject to 

regulation under the Act which would 

be emitted from any proposed major 

stationary source or major modification 

which the Administrator, on a case-bycase basis, taking into account energy, 

environmental, and economic impacts 

and other costs, determines is 

achievable for such source or 

modification through application of 

production processes or available 

methods, systems, and techniques, 

including fuel cleaning or treatment or 

innovative fuel combustion techniques 

for control of such pollutant. In no event 

shall application of best available 

control technology result in emissions 

of any pollutant which would exceed 

the emissions allowed by any applicable 

standard under 40 CFR part 60, 61, or 

63. If the Administrator determines that 

technological or economic limitations 

on the application of measurement 

methodology to a particular emissions 

unit would make the imposition of an 

emissions standard infeasible, a design, 

equipment, work practice, operational 

standard, or combination thereof, may 

be prescribed instead to satisfy the 

requirement for the application of best 

available control technology. Such 

standard shall, to the degree possible, 

set forth the emissions reduction 

achievable by implementation of such 

design, equipment, work practice or 

operation, and shall provide for 

compliance by means which achieve 

equivalent results. 

* * * * * 

(23) * * * 

(ii) Significant means, in reference to 

a net emissions increase or the potential 

of a source to emit a regulated NSR 

pollutant that paragraph (b)(23)(i) of this 

section does not list, any emissions rate. 

* * * * * 

(33) * * * 

(i) The emissions unit is a 

reconstructed unit within the meaning 

of § 60.15(b)(1) of this chapter, or the 

emissions unit completely takes the 

place of an existing emissions unit; 

(ii) The emissions unit is identical to 

or functionally equivalent to the 

replaced emissions unit; 

(iii) The replacement does not alter 

the basic design parameters of the 

process unit; and 

(iv) The replaced emissions unit is 

permanently removed from the major 

stationary source, otherwise 

permanently disabled, or permanently 

barred from operation by a permit that 

is enforceable as a practical matter. If 

the replaced emissions unit is brought 

back into operation, it shall constitute a 

new emissions unit. 

* * * * * 

(41) * * * 

(ii) * * * 

(c) Shall exclude, in calculating any 

increase in emissions that results from 

the particular project, that portion of the 

unit’s emissions following the project 

that an existing unit could have 

accommodated during the consecutive 

24-month period used to establish the 

baseline actual emissions under 

paragraph (b)(48) of this section and that 

are also unrelated to the particular 

project, including any increased 

utilization due to product demand 

growth; or 

* * * * * 

(48) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(c) For a regulated NSR pollutant, 

when a project involves multiple 

emissions units, only one consecutive 

24-month period must be used to 

determine the baseline actual emissions 

for the emissions units being changed. 

A different consecutive 24-month 

period can be used for each regulated 

pollutant. 

* * * * * 

(ii) * * * 

(d) For a regulated NSR pollutant, 

when a project involves multiple 

emissions units, only one consecutive 

24-month period must be used to 

determine the baseline actual emissions 

for all the emissions units being 

changed. A different consecutive 24- 

month period can be used for each 

regulated NSR pollutant. 

* * * * * 

(49) * * * 

(i) Greenhouse gases (GHGs), the air 

pollutant defined in § 86.1818–12(a) of 

this chapter as the aggregate group of six 

greenhouse gases: Carbon dioxide, 

nitrous oxide, methane, 

hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, 

and sulfur hexafluoride, shall not be 

subject to regulation except as provided 

in paragraph (b)(49)(iv) of this section 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
37934 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 135 / Monday, July 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

and shall not be subject to regulation if 

the stationary source maintains its total 

source-wide emissions below the GHG 

PAL level, meets the requirements in 

paragraphs (aa)(1) through (15) of this 

section, and complies with the PAL 

permit containing the GHG PAL. 

(ii) For purposes of paragraphs 

(b)(49)(iii) through (iv) of this section, 

the term tpy CO2 equivalent emissions 

(CO2e) shall represent an amount of 

GHGs emitted, and shall be computed as 

follows: 

(a) Multiplying the mass amount of 

emissions (tpy), for each of the six 

greenhouse gases in the pollutant GHGs, 

by the gas’s associated global warming 

potential published at Table A–1 to 

subpart A of part 98 of this chapter— 

Global Warming Potentials. 

* * * * * 

(iii) The term emissions increase as 

used in paragraph (b)(49)(iv) of this 

section shall mean that both a 

significant emissions increase (as 

calculated using the procedures in 

paragraph (a)(2)(iv) of this section) and 

a significant net emissions increase (as 

defined in paragraphs (b)(3) and (23) of 

this section) occur. For the pollutant 

GHGs, an emissions increase shall be 

based on tpy CO2e, and shall be 

calculated assuming the pollutant GHGs 

is a regulated NSR pollutant and 

‘‘significant’’ is defined as 75,000 tpy 

CO2e instead of applying the value in 

paragraph (b)(23)(ii) of this section. 

(iv) * * * 

(b) The stationary source is an 

existing major stationary source for a 

regulated NSR pollutant that is not 

GHGs, and also will have an emissions 

increase of a regulated NSR pollutant, 

and an emissions increase of 75,000 tpy 

CO2e or more. 

* * * * * 

(51) Reviewing authority means the 

State air pollution control agency, local 

agency, other State agency, Indian tribe, 

or other agency authorized by the 

Administrator to carry out a permit 

program under § 51.165 or § 51.166 of 

this chapter, or the Administrator in the 

case of EPA-implemented permit 

programs under this section. 

* * * * * 

(g) * * * 

(4) Lands within the exterior 

boundaries of Indian Reservations may 

be redesignated only by the appropriate 

Indian Governing Body. The appropriate 

Indian Governing Body may submit to 

the Administrator a proposal to 

redesignate areas Class I, Class II, or 

Class III provided that: 

* * * * * 

(i) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(vii) * * * 

(h) Municipal incinerators capable of 

charging more than 50 tons of refuse per 

day; 

* * * * * 

(j) * * * 

(1) A major stationary source or major 

modification shall meet each applicable 

emissions limitation under the State 

Implementation Plan and each 

applicable emissions standard and 

standard of performance under 40 CFR 

part 60, 61, or 63. 

* * * * * 

(m) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(a) For the source, each pollutant that 

it would have the potential to emit in a 

significant amount; 

* * * * * 

(n) * * * 

(1) With respect to a source or 

modification to which paragraphs (j), 

(k), (m), and (o) of this section apply, 

such information shall include: 

* * * * * 

(p) * * * 

(5) Class I variances. The owner or 

operator of a proposed source or 

modification may demonstrate to the 

Federal Land Manager that the 

emissions from such source or 

modification would have no adverse 

impact on the air quality related values 

of any such lands (including visibility), 

notwithstanding that the change in air 

quality resulting from emissions from 

such source or modification would 

cause or contribute to concentrations 

which would exceed the maximum 

allowable increases for a Class I area. If 

the Federal Land Manager concurs with 

such demonstration and he so certifies, 

the State may authorize the 

Administrator, provided that the 

applicable requirements of this section 

are otherwise met, to issue the permit 

with such emission limitations as may 

be necessary to assure that emissions of 

sulfur dioxide, PM2.5, PM10, and 

nitrogen oxides would not exceed the 

following maximum allowable increases 

over minor source baseline 

concentration for such pollutants: 

* * * * * 

(6) Sulfur dioxide variance by 

Governor with Federal Land Manager’s 

concurrence. The owner or operator of 

a proposed source or modification 

which cannot be approved under 

paragraph (p)(5) of this section may 

demonstrate to the Governor that the 

source cannot be constructed by reason 

of any maximum allowable increase for 

sulfur dioxide for a period of 24 hours 

or less applicable to any Class I area 

and, in the case of Federal mandatory 

Class I areas, that a variance under this 

clause would not adversely affect the air 

quality related values of the area 

(including visibility). The Governor, 

after consideration of the Federal Land 

Manager’s recommendation (if any) and 

subject to his concurrence, may, after 

notice and public hearing, grant a 

variance from such maximum allowable 

increase. If such variance is granted, the 

Administrator shall issue a permit to 

such source or modification pursuant to 

the requirements of paragraph (p)(8) of 

this section provided that the applicable 

requirements of this section are 

otherwise met. 

(7) Variance by the Governor with the 

President’s concurrence. In any case 

where the Governor recommends a 

variance with which the Federal Land 

Manager does not concur, the 

recommendations of the Governor and 

the Federal Land Manager shall be 

transmitted to the President. The 

President may approve the Governor’s 

recommendation if he finds that the 

variance is in the national interest. If the 

variance is approved, the Administrator 

shall issue a permit pursuant to the 

requirements of paragraph (p)(8) of this 

section provided that the applicable 

requirements of this section are 

otherwise met. 

(8) Emission limitations for 

Presidential or gubernatorial variance. 

In the case of a permit issued pursuant 

to paragraph (p)(6) or (7) of this section, 

the source or modification shall comply 

with such emission limitations as may 

be necessary to assure that emissions of 

sulfur dioxide from the source or 

modification would not (during any day 

on which the otherwise applicable 

maximum allowable increases are 

exceeded) cause or contribute to 

concentrations which would exceed the 

following maximum allowable increases 

over the baseline concentration and to 

assure that such emissions would not 

cause or contribute to concentrations 

which exceed the otherwise applicable 

maximum allowable increases for 

periods of exposure of 24 hours or less 

for more than 18 days, not necessarily 

consecutive, during any annual period: 

* * * * * 

(r) * * * 

(4) At such time that a particular 

source or modification becomes a major 

stationary source or major modification 

solely by virtue of a relaxation in any 

enforceable limitation which was 

established after August 7, 1980, on the 

capacity of the source or modification 

otherwise to emit a pollutant, such as a 

restriction on hours of operation, then 

the requirements of paragraphs (j) 

through (s) of this section shall apply to 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 135 / Monday, July 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 37935 

the source or modification as though 

construction had not yet commenced on 

the source or modification. 

* * * * * 

(u) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(ii) The delegate agency shall send a 

copy of any public comment notice 

required under paragraph (q) of this 

section to the Administrator through the 

appropriate Regional Office. 

(3) In the case of a source or 

modification which proposes to 

construct in a Class III area, emissions 

from which would cause or contribute 

to air quality exceeding the maximum 

allowable increase applicable if the area 

were designated a Class II area, and 

where no standard under section 111 of 

the Act has been promulgated for such 

source category, the Administrator must 

approve the determination of best 

available control technology as set forth 

in the permit. 

* * * * * 

(w) * * * 

(1) Any permit issued under this 

section or a prior version of this section 

shall remain in effect, unless and until 

it expires under paragraph (r)(2) of this 

section or is rescinded under this 

paragraph (w). 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2021–13905 Filed 7–16–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 73 

[MB Docket No. 21–178; RM–11905; DA 21– 

770; FR ID 36875] 

Television Broadcasting Services New 

Orleans, Louisiana 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: On April 21, 2021, the Media 

Bureau, Video Division (Bureau) issued 

a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(NPRM) in response to a petition for 

rulemaking filed by the Greater New 

Orleans Educational Television 

Foundation (Petitioner), the licensee of 

noncommercial educational PBS 

member station WYES–TV, channel 

*11, New Orleans, Louisiana, requesting 

the substitution of channel *28 for 

channel *11 at New Orleans in the DTV 

Table of Allotments. For the reasons set 

forth in the Report and Order referenced 

below, the Bureau amends FCC 

regulations to substitute channel *28 for 

channel *11 at New Orleans. 

DATES: Effective July 19, 2021. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Joyce Bernstein, Media Bureau, at (202) 

418–1647 or Joyce.Bernstein@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

proposed rule was published at 86 FR 

23340 on May 3, 2021. The Petitioner 

filed comments in support of the 

petition reaffirming its commitment to 

apply for channel *28. No other 

comments were filed. The Petitioner 

states that WYES–TV is the only station 

licensed to New Orleans operating on a 

VHF channel, and moving to a UHF 

channel would improve viewers’ access 

to WYES–TV’s PBS and other public 

television programming by improving 

indoor reception and resolving VHF 

reception issues. In addition, the 

Petitioner submitted an analysis, using 

the Commission’s TVStudy software 

analysis program, demonstrating that it 

will continue to serve all of the 

population located within the licensed 

channel *11 contour. 

This is a synopsis of the 

Commission’s Report and Order, MB 

Docket No. 21–178; RM–11905; DA 21– 

770, adopted July 2, 2021, and released 

July 2, 2021. The full text of this 

document is available for download at 

https://www.fcc.gov/edocs. To request 

materials in accessible formats for 

people with disabilities (braille, large 

print, electronic files, audio format), 

send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call 

the Consumer & Governmental Affairs 

Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice), 202– 

418–0432 (tty). 

This document does not contain 

information collection requirements 

subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995, Public Law 104–13. In addition, 

therefore, it does not contain any 

proposed information collection burden 

‘‘for small business concerns with fewer 

than 25 employees,’’ pursuant to the 

Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 

2002, Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 

3506(c)(4). Provisions of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601– 

612, do not apply to this proceeding. 

The Commission will send a copy of 

this Report and Order in a report to be 

sent to Congress and the Government 

Accountability Office pursuant to the 

Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 

801(a)(1)(A). 

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 

Television. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Thomas Horan, 

Chief of Staff, Media Bureau. 

Final Rule 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Federal Communications 

Commission amends 47 CFR part 73 as 

follows: 

PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST 

SERVICE 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 73 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 155, 301, 303, 

307, 309, 310, 334, 336, 339. 

■ 2. In § 73.622, in paragraph (i), amend 

the Post-Transition Table of DTV 

Allotments, under Louisiana, by 

revising the entry for ‘‘New Orleans’’ to 

read as follows: 

§ 73.622 Digital television table of 

allotments. 

* * * * * 

(i) * * * 

Community Channel No. 

* * * * * 

LOUISIANA 

* * * * * 

New Orleans .......................... 15, 21, 26, *28, 29, 

*31, 36, 43, 50 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2021–15260 Filed 7–16–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1