30420 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–C 

The temporary deviation is necessary 

to gather data on a possible permanent 

solution: 

From 7 a.m. on May 26, 2022 through 

7 p.m. on September 6, 2022 the US41 

Bridge, mile 16.0, over the Kewanee 

Waterway, shall open on signal: Except 

that from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Monday 

through Friday, less federal holidays, 

the draw only need to be opened on the 

the hour and half-hour for any vessel. 

Between midnight and 4 a.m. the draw 

shall be placed in the intermediate 

position and opened if a 2-hour advance 

notice is given. The bridge shall be 

opened on signal to pass any vessel over 

300 feet in length or at any time 5 or 

more vessels gather at the bridge 

requesting an opening. All other 

provisions of 33 CFR 117.635 shall 

remain in effect. 

The Coast Guard will also inform the 

users of the waterways through our 

Local Broadcast Notices to Mariners of 

the change in operating schedule for the 

bridge so that vessel operators can 

arrange their transits to minimize any 

impact caused by the temporary 

deviation. 

In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), 

the drawbridge must return to its regular 

operating schedule immediately at the 

end of the effective period of this 

temporary deviation. This deviation 

from the operating regulations is 

authorized under 33 CFR 117.35. 

II. Public Participation and Request for 

Comments 

We view public participation as 

essential to effective rulemaking, and 

will consider all comments and material 

received during the comment period. 

Your comment can help shape the 

outcome of this rulemaking. If you 

submit a comment, please include the 

docket number for this rulemaking, 

indicate the specific section of this 

document to which each comment 

applies, and provide a reason for each 

suggestion or recommendation. 

We encourage you to submit 

comments through the Federal Decision 

Making Portal at https://

www.regulations.gov. To do so, go to 

https://www.regulations.gov, type 

USCG–2022–0237 in the search box and 

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

document in the Search Results column, 

and click on it. Then click on the 

Comment option. If your material 

cannot be submitted using https://

www.regulations.gov, contact the person 

in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section of this document for 

alternate instructions. 

To view documents mentioned in this 

rule as being available in the docket, 

find the docket as described in the 

previous paragraph, and then select 

‘‘Supporting & Related Material’’ in the 

Document Type column. Public 

comments will also be placed in our 

online docket and can be viewed by 

following instructions on the https://

www.regulations.gov Frequently Asked 

Questions web page. We review all 

comments received, but we will only 

post comments that address the topic of 

the proposed rule. We may choose not 

to post off-topic, inappropriate, or 

duplicate comments that we receive. 

We accept anonymous comments. 

Comments we post to https://

www.regulations.gov will include any 

personal information you have 

provided. For more about privacy and 

submissions in response to this 

document, see DHS’s eRulemaking 

System of Records notice (85 FR 14226, 

March 11, 2020). 

M.J. Johnston, 

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, 

Ninth Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. 2022–10564 Filed 5–18–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2019–0215; FRL–8999–03– 

R5] 

Air Plan Approval; Michigan; Partial 

Approval and Partial Disapproval for 

Infrastructure SIP Requirements for 

the 2015 Ozone NAAQS; Correction 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule; correction. 

SUMMARY: This action corrects an 

omission of timely comment and 

response in the September 28, 2021, 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

partial approval/partial disapproval of 

elements of a State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) submission from Michigan to 

address the infrastructure requirements 

of section 110 of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA) for the 2015 ozone National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS). Accordingly, this action 

amends the effective date of the final 

approval to reflect EPA’s current 

response to the previously omitted 

comment. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

May 19, 2022. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1ER19MY22.018</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 30421 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Olivia Davidson, Environmental 

Scientist, Attainment Planning and 

Maintenance Section, Air Programs 

Branch (AR18J), Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West 

Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 

60604, (312) 886–0266, 

davidson.olivia@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July 2, 

2021 (86 FR 35247), EPA proposed to 

approve most elements and disapprove 

an element of a SIP submission from the 

Michigan Department of Environment, 

Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE) to 

address the required infrastructure 

elements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2), as 

applicable, for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. 

EPA provided an explanation of the 

CAA requirements, a detailed analysis 

of the submission, and EPA’s reasons for 

proposing approval, in the notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NPRM) and will 

not be restated here. The public 

comment period for this proposed rule 

ended on August 2, 2021. In the final 

rule published in the Federal Register 

on September 28, 2021 (86 FR 53550), 

EPA mistakenly omitted comments 

submitted by Sierra Club in our 

response to comments. EPA received the 

comment letter on August 2, 2021 

shortly before the end of the comment 

period. This comment letter submitted 

by Sierra Club is summarized below 

along with EPA’s responses. 

Comment: Sierra Club commented 

that EPA should examine whether 

Michigan has met the requirement of 

CAA sections 110(a)(2)(A) and 

110(a)(2)(E)(i), 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2)(A) 

and 7410(a)(2)(E)(i), in light of a 2017 

Michigan Court of Claims opinion, 

United States Steel Corp. v. Dept. of 

Environmental Quality, No. 16–000202– 

MZ, 2017 WL 5974195 (Mich. Ct. Cl. 

Oct. 4, 2017), that invalidated Michigan 

Administrative Code (MAC) 336.1430 

(‘‘Rule 430’’). The commenter noted that 

Michigan promulgated Rule 430 in an 

effort to bring the Detroit area into 

attainment with the 2010 1-hour 

primary sulfur dioxide (SO2) NAAQS, 

by placing SO2 emission limits on a 

single facility. The commenter further 

noted that the Court invalidated Rule 

430 because the limits applied to a 

single facility, thus failing the ‘‘general 

applicability’’ requirement of 

Michigan’s Administrative Procedures 

Act, MCL 24.201 et seq. The implication 

of this comment is that Michigan lacks 

legal authority to regulate sources as 

necessary to implement the 2015 Ozone 

NAAQS, as required by CAA sections 

110(a)(2)(A) and 110(a)(2)(E)(i). 

Response: EPA disagrees with the 

commenter’s concern that the Michigan 

Court of Claims decision in United 

States Steel Corp. v. Dept. of 

Environmental Quality, indicates that 

Michigan lacks legal authority to 

regulate sources as required by CAA 

sections 110(a)(2)(A) and 110(a)(2)(E)(i). 

As an initial matter, EPA notes that the 

state court decision at issue pertained to 

implementation of the 2010 1-hour 

primary SO2 NAAQS, not the 2015 

Ozone NAAQS. For most purposes, EPA 

normally evaluates infrastructure SIP 

submissions for purposes of the specific 

NAAQS that is at issue. In this instance, 

however, the implications of the state 

court decision could potentially affect 

the state’s ability to implement control 

measures with respect to other NAAQS 

as well. 

In this light, EPA has evaluated 

whether the Michigan Court of Claims 

decision in question precludes the state 

from regulating specific sources as 

needed for purposes of meeting 

nonattainment plan requirements to 

result in attainment and maintenance of 

the NAAQS. Based on this review, EPA 

concludes that the court only decided 

that the state had improperly sought to 

impose emissions controls on the 

sources at issue through a rule that did 

not meet state law requirements for a 

‘‘rule of general applicability’’ in 

violation of relevant state administrative 

procedures act requirements. By naming 

the specific affected source by name, 

rather than drafting the requirements in 

a form that would apply to all similar 

sources in the state, the court reasoned 

that the state law could not pass muster 

as a rule of general applicability. 

Instead, the court reasoned that the 

objective the state sought to achieve 

‘‘sounds more in the nature of that 

which is ordinarily only allowed after a 

contested case hearing or in the permit 

process.’’ Moreover, the court noted that 

it was ‘‘not unmindful of the facts that 

led to the promulgation of Rule 430 or 

situation that DEQ sought to address.’’ 

Although the court expressly declined 

to advise how the state could properly 

impose emission limits on the source at 

issue via other means, elsewhere in the 

decision the court noted that the state 

and other sources ‘‘agreed to revise 

pertinent DEQ permits.’’ 

EPA interprets these statements by the 

court to indicate that the state does have 

authority under Michigan law to impose 

necessary emission limitations on 

sources, as required to meet CAA 

requirements, via other legal 

mechanisms such as permits. EPA notes 

that in order to meet CAA SIP 

requirements, such as nonattainment 

plan requirements, the state would need 

to submit the emission limitations and 

other related permit terms (e.g., 

monitoring, reporting, and record 

keeping requirements) to EPA for 

approval into the federally enforceable 

SIP for Michigan. 

In addition, to the extent that the state 

prefers to proceed via generally 

applicable state regulations rather than 

permits, EPA expects that Michigan will 

draft future rules to avoid the concerns 

raised by the court which resulted in 

invalid SO2 limits and make necessary 

efforts to implement the 2015 Ozone 

NAAQS via other means consistent with 

state law and meeting CAA 

requirements for SIP provisions. 

Although the commenters expressed 

concern that the decision of the court in 

United States Steel Corp. v. Dept. of 

Environmental Quality indicated that 

the state lacks requisite authority to 

implement its SIP consistent with CAA 

requirements, EPA does not interpret 

the decision so broadly. 

Additionally, EPA also disagrees with 

the commenter that Michigan’s SIP does 

not include ‘‘enforceable emission 

limitations and other control measures 

. . . as may be necessary or appropriate 

to meet the applicable requirements’’ 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) with respect to 

the 2015 ozone NAAQS more broadly. 

As stated in the July 2, 2021 proposed 

rule (86 FR 35247), under Part 55 of the 

Natural Resources Protection Act, (PA 

451) promulgated in 1994, Michigan 

Compiled Laws (MCL) Sections 

324.5503 and 324.5512 authorize the 

EGLE director to regulate the discharge 

of air pollutants, to create rules and to 

establish standards regarding air quality 

and emissions. Specifically, MCL 

Section 324.5503 states ‘‘The 

department may . . . Promulgate rules 

to establish standards for ambient air 

quality and for emissions . . . Issue 

permits . . . subject to enforceable 

emission limitations and standards and 

other conditions reasonably necessary 

to assure compliance with all applicable 

requirements of this part, rules 

promulgated under this part, and the 

clean air act.’’ and MCL Section 

324.5512 states ‘‘(1) . . . department 

shall promulgate rules for purposes of 

doing all of the following: (a) 

Controlling or prohibiting air pollution. 

(b) Complying with the clean air act 

...’’ 

Michigan also imposes emission 

limits for ozone precursors in MAC 

Rules 336.1101 through 336.2908. 

Specifically, MAC Rules 336.1601 

through 336.1661 apply to existing 

sources of volatile organic compounds 

(VOC), Rules 336.1701 through 

336.1710 apply to new sources of VOCs, 

and Rules 336.1801 through 1834 apply 

to oxides of nitrogen (NOX) from 

stationary sources. Methods of control 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
30422 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

1Effective February 16, 2017 (82 FR 5182), EPA 

updated the modeling appendix at 40 CFR part 51, 

appendix W. EPA proposed approval of Michigan 

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

incorporating the CFR update. The finalization of 

the rule update will dictate finalization of this 

element. 

and compliance are contained within 

these rules and incorporate EPA’s New 

Source Performance Review standards 

and NOX budget trading program. 

Further, sources in Michigan that install 

equipment that will emit ozone 

precursors are subject to permit-toinstall regulations under MAC Rules 

336.1201 through 336.1209 and include 

consideration of VOCs and NOX. 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) program regulations (MAC Rules 

336.2801 through Rule 336.2823) 

require any new major or modified 

source to undergo PSD review.1 EPA 

believes the emission limits for ozone 

and its precursors contained in these 

rules, in conjunction with the 

authorization to promulgate rules to 

assure compliance with the CAA in 

MCL Sections 324.5503 and 324.5512, 

satisfy the requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(A) with respect to 

infrastructure SIP requirements for 

purposes of the 2015 ozone NAAQS. 

Lastly, EPA reiterates that Michigan 

has provided necessary assurances that 

it has ‘‘adequate . . . authority under 

State . . . law to carry out the 

implementation plan . . . and is not 

prohibited by any Provision of Federal 

or State law, from carrying out such 

implementation plan.’’ As EPA noted in 

the July 2, 2021, proposed rule (86 FR 

35247), EGLE stated in the SIP 

submission that it has the legal 

authority to carry out the Michigan SIP 

under Act 451 and the Executive 

Reorganization Order 2011–1. In 

addition, EGLE indicated that MCL 

324.5503 provides it with authority to 

enforce the Michigan SIP. Specifically, 

MCL 324.5503(f) gives EGLE the power 

to enforce permits, air quality fee 

requirements, and the requirements to 

obtain a permit, while 324.5503(g) gives 

EGLE the authority to institute 

proceedings to compel compliance. 

EGLE also provided a delegation letter 

in the submission from the Governor to 

the EGLE director that delegates 

authority to EGLE to ‘‘. . . make any 

submittal, request, or application under 

the federal CAA, including the ability to 

carry out SIP requirements.’’ This letter 

is included in the docket of this ruling. 

Therefore, EPA believes that Michigan 

has met the infrastructure SIP 

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

110(a)(2)(E)(i) with respect to the 2015 

Ozone NAAQS. 

This action amends the regulatory text 

to correct the effective date of our final 

approval to reflect our response to these 

additional comments, in addition to 

correcting the CFR citation to reflect 

that EGLE’s submission meets the 

requirements of Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i), 

which was detailed in the July 2, 2021, 

proposed approval (86 FR 35247), but 

mistakenly omitted in the CFR table. 

Section 553 of the Administrative 

Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), 

provides that, when an agency for good 

cause finds that notice and public 

procedure are impracticable, 

unnecessary or contrary to the public 

interest, the agency may issue a rule 

without providing notice and an 

opportunity for public comment. We 

have determined that there is good 

cause for making this rule final without 

prior proposal and opportunity for 

comment because we are merely 

correcting incorrect element approval 

citations and incorrect effective date 

citations in the related previous actions 

to address mistakenly omitted 

comments. 

Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

This action is not a significant 

regulatory action subject to review by 

the Office of Management and Budget 

under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 

FR 3821, January 21, 2011). This action 

does not impose an information 

collection burden under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 

et seq.). Because the agency has made a 

‘‘good cause’’ finding that this action is 

not subject to notice-and-comment 

requirements under the Administrative 

Procedures Act or any other statute as 

indicated in the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section above, it is not 

subject to the regulatory flexibility 

provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), or to sections 

202 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 

104–4). This action 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 governments, as specified by 

E.O. 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999). In addition, the SIP is not 

approved to apply on any Indian 

reservation land or in any other area 

where EPA or an Indian tribe has 

demonstrated that a tribe has 

jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 

country, the rule does not have tribal 

implications and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by E.O. 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000). This action is not 

subject to E.O. 13045 (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997), because it is not 

economically significant. This action is 

also not subject to E.O. 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001). This technical correction 

action does not involve technical 

standards; thus the requirements of 

section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not 

apply. The action also does not involve 

special consideration of environmental 

justice related issues as required by E.O. 

12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

This action is subject to the 

Congressional Review Act (CRA), and 

EPA will submit a rule report to each 

House of the Congress and to the 

Comptroller General of the United 

States. Section 808 allows the issuing 

agency to make a rule effective sooner 

than otherwise provided by the CRA if 

the agency makes a good cause finding 

that notice and public procedure is 

impracticable, unnecessary or contrary 

to the public interest. This 

determination must be supported by a 

brief statement. 5 U.S.C. 808(2). As 

stated previously, EPA had made such 

a good cause finding, including the 

reasons therefore, and established an 

effective date of May 19, 2022. This 

correction to 40 CFR part 52 for 

Michigan is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: May 12, 2022. 

Debra Shore, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR part 52 

as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

■ 2. In § 52.1170, the table in paragraph 

(e) is amended by revising the entry for 

‘‘Section 110(a)(2) infrastructure 

requirements for the 2015 ozone 

NAAQS’’ to read as follows: 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 30423 

§ 52.1170 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED MICHIGAN NONREGULATORY AND QUASI-REGULATORY PROVISIONS

Name of nonregulatory SIP 

provision 

Applicable 

geographic or 

nonattainment 

area 

State 

submittal 

date 

EPA approval date Comments 

*******

Infrastructure 

*******

Section 110(a)(2) infrastructure 

requirements for the 2015 

ozone NAAQS.

Statewide ............. 3/8/2019 5/19/2022, [INSERT 

Federal Register 

CITATION].

Approved CAA elements: 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), 

(D)(i)(II) Prong 3, D(ii), (E)(i), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), 

(L), and (M). Disapproved CAA element 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) Prong 4. No action on CAA element 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and 110(1)(2)(E)(ii). 

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2022–10671 Filed 5–18–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2022–0106; FRL–9527–01– 

R9] 

Air Plan Approval; Nevada; Clark 

County Department of Environment 

and Sustainability 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking final action to 

approve revisions to the Clark County 

Department of Environment and 

Sustainability (DES) portion of the 

Nevada State Implementation Plan 

(SIP). These revisions concern the title 

change of the Clark County Department 

of Air Quality to the Department of 

Environment and Sustainability. 

DATES: These rules will be effective on 

June 21, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R09–OAR–2022–0106. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the https://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 through https://

www.regulations.gov, or please contact 

the person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section for 

additional availability information. If 

you need assistance in a language other 

than English or if you are a person with 

disabilities who needs a reasonable 

accommodation at no cost to you, please 

contact the person identified in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Christine Vineyard, EPA Region IX, 75 

Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 

94105. By phone: (415) 947–4125 or by 

email at vineyard.christine@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Proposed Action 

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses 

III. EPA Action 

IV. Incorporation by Reference 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Proposed Action 

On February 22, 2022 (87 FR 9475), 

the EPA proposed to approve the 

following rules into the Nevada SIP. 

Local agency Rule No. Rule title Amended Submitted 

DES ................... Section 2 .......... Procedures for Adoption and Revision of Regulations and for Inclusion 

of those Regulations in the State Implementation Plan.

1/21/20 3/16/20 

DES ................... Section 33 ........ Chlorine in Chemical Processes ............................................................... 1/21/20 3/16/20 

DES ................... Section 41 ........ Fugitive Dust ............................................................................................. 1/21/20 3/16/20 

DES ................... Section 53 ........ Oxygenated Gasoline Program ................................................................. 1/21/20 3/16/20 

DES ................... Section 90 ........ Fugitive Dust from Open Areas and Vacant Lots ..................................... 1/21/20 3/16/20 

DES ................... Section 93 ........ Fugitive Dust from Paved Roads and Street Sweeping Equipment ......... 1/21/20 3/16/20 

DES ................... Section 94 ........ Permitting and Dust Control for Construction Activities ............................ 1/21/20 3/16/20 

We proposed to approve these rules 

because we determined that they 

comply with the relevant CAA 

requirements. Our proposed action 

contains more information on the rules 

and our evaluation. 

II. Public Comments and EPA 

Responses 

The EPA’s proposed action provided 

a 30-day public comment period. During 

this period, we received no adverse 

comments. We received one comment 

that did not object to the proposed 

action but expressed concerns about 

regional haze and air quality in Clark 

County. We do not consider the 

comment to be relevant to the specifics 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1