Air Plan Approval; Michigan; Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval of the Detroit SO2, 14827-14832 [2021-05508]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
14827
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 52 / Friday, March 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
(b) Sponsor. See No. 066104 in
§ 510.600(c) of this chapter for use of
product described in paragraph (a)(1) of
this section as in paragraph (d) of this
section; for use of product described in
paragraph (a)(2) of this section as in
paragraph (e) of this section.
*
*
*
*
*
95. In § 558.575, revise paragraph (b)
introductory text to read as follows:
■
§ 558.575 Sulfadimethoxine and
ormetoprim.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Sponsors. See sponsors in
§ 510.600(c) of this chapter as follows:
*
*
*
*
*
96. In § 558.600, revise paragraphs (a)
and (d) to read as follows:
■
§ 558.600
Thiabendazole.
(a) Specifications. Dry Type A
medicated articles containing 22, 44.1,
66.1, or 88.2 percent thiabendazole.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) Special considerations. (1) The
66.1 percent Type A medicated article is
solely for the manufacture of cane
molasses liquid Type B feed, which is
mixed in dry feeds.
(2) The 88.2 percent Type A
medicated article is used solely for the
manufacture of an aqueous slurry for
adding to a Type C dry cattle feed.
(3) Do not use in Type B or Type C
medicated feed containing bentonite.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 97. In § 558.612, revise paragraph (b)
to read as follows:
§ 558.612
*
Tiamulin.
*
*
*
*
(b) Sponsor. See No. 058198 in
§ 510.600(c) of this chapter.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 98. In § 558.618, revise paragraph (b)
to read as follows:
§ 558.618
Tilmicosin.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Sponsor. See Nos. 016592 and
058198 in § 510.600(c) of this chapter.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 99. In § 558.680, revise paragraphs (b),
(d)(1)(i) and (v), and (d)(2)(i) to read as
follows:
§ 558.680
Zoalene.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Sponsors. See Nos. 054771 and
058198 in § 510.600(c) of this chapter.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
Zoalene in
grams/ton
Combination in
grams per ton
Indications for use
Limitations
(i) 36.3 to 113.5 .....
..............................
Replacement chickens: For development of active immunity to
coccidiosis.
Feed continuously as sole ration. Grower ration not to be fed to birds
over 14 weeks of age. Starter ration not to be fed to laying birds.
Growing conditions
Starter ration
grams per ton
Severe exposure ...........................
Light to moderate exposure ..........
113.5 (0.0125%) .........................................................
75.4–113.5 (0.0083%–0.0125%) ................................
Zoalene in
grams/ton
Combination in
grams per ton
*
(v) 113.5 .................
*
054771
058198
Grower ration
grams per ton
75.4–113.5 (0.0083%–0.0125%)
36.3–75.4 (0.004%–0.0083%)
Indications for use
Limitations
*
*
.............................. Broiler chickens: For prevention
and control of coccidiosis.
*
Sponsor
Sponsor
*
*
*
Feed continuously as sole ration. Not to be fed to laying birds
*
*
*
*
*
054771
058198
*
(2) * * *
Zoalene in
grams/ton
Combination in
grams per ton
Indications for use
Limitations
(i) 113.5 to 170.3 ..
............................
Growing turkeys: For prevention
and control of coccidiosis.
Feed continuously as sole ration. For turkeys grown for meat purposes
only. Not to be fed to laying birds..
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Dated: March 4, 2021.
Lauren K. Roth,
Acting Principal Associate Commissioner for
Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021–05203 Filed 3–18–21; 8:45 a.m.]
*
*
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R05–OAR–2016–0321; FRL–10021–
50–Region 5]
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
BILLING CODE 4164–01–P
Air Plan Approval; Michigan; Partial
Approval and Partial Disapproval of
the Detroit SO2 Nonattainment Area
Plan
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
AGENCY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:22 Mar 18, 2021
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4700
Sponsor
Sfmt 4700
*
ACTION:
054771
058198
*
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is partially approving and
partially disapproving a revision to the
Michigan State Implementation Plan
(SIP) for attaining the 2010 1-hour
primary sulfur dioxide (SO2) national
ambient air quality standard (NAAQS or
‘‘standard’’) for the Detroit SO2
nonattainment area (NAA). This SIP
revision (hereinafter called the ‘‘Detroit
SO2 plan’’ or ‘‘plan’’) includes
Michigan’s attainment demonstration
and other elements required under the
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\19MRR1.SGM
19MRR1
14828
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 52 / Friday, March 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
Clean Air Act (CAA). EPA is approving
the base year emissions inventory and
affirming that the nonattainment new
source review (NNSR) requirements for
the area have been met. EPA is
disapproving the attainment
demonstration, as well as the
requirements for meeting reasonable
further progress (RFP) toward
attainment of the NAAQS, reasonably
available control measures and
reasonably available control technology
(RACM/RACT), and contingency
measures. Finally, EPA is disapproving
the plan’s control measures for two
facilities as not demonstrating
attainment and is approving the
enforceable control measures for two
facilities as SIP strengthening.
DATES: This final rule is effective on
April 19, 2021.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA–R05–OAR–2016–0321. All
documents in the docket are listed on
the www.regulations.gov website.
Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available,
i.e., 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 through
www.regulations.gov or at the
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604. This facility is open from
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding Federal holidays and
facility closures due to COVID–19. We
recommend that you telephone Sarah
Arra, Environmental Scientist, at (312)
886–9401 before visiting the Region 5
office.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Sarah Arra, Environmental Scientist,
Attainment Planning and Maintenance
Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J),
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–9401,
Arra.Sarah@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document whenever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
EPA.
I. What actions did EPA propose on this
SIP submission?
On September 18, 2020, 1 EPA
proposed to partially approve and
1 85
FR 58315.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
partially disapprove a revision to the
Michigan SIP submitted on May 31,
2016, supplemented on June 30, 2016.
EPA proposed to take the following
actions:
(1) EPA proposed to disapprove
Michigan Administrative Code (MAC)
336.1430 (‘‘Rule 430’’) because the
Michigan Court of Claims invalidated
Rule 430 on October 4, 2017. Therefore,
there is no enforceable rule remaining at
the state level for EPA to incorporate
into the SIP.
(2) EPA proposed to disapprove the
Detroit SO2 attainment plan pursuant to
172(c) and 192(a), because it relied on
Rule 430 to demonstrate attainment,
which can no longer be relied on as an
enforceable mechanism.
(3) Because of the lack of enforceable
measures from Rule 430, the remaining
control strategies can no longer be
assessed as a part of a complete
attainment demonstration. Instead, EPA
proposed to approve two permits as SIP
strengthening, Carmeuse Lime’s Permit
to Install 193–14A and DTE Energy—
Trenton Channel’s Permit to Install 125–
11C. SIP strengthening is appropriate for
limits that improve air quality but do
not meet a specific CAA requirement.
(4) EPA proposed to disapprove the
DTE River Rouge permit, Permit to
Install 40–08H, because it was recently
superseded by a new permit to install,
not included in the SIP package, that
corrected an error in the long-term
averaging calculation for the superseded
permit.
(5) EPA proposed to approve the 2012
baseline inventory as meeting the
requirements of CAA section 172(c)(3)
and (4) for the Detroit SO2 NAA.
(6) EPA proposed to affirm that the
new source review requirements for the
area have been met because Michigan
has a fully approved NNSR Program.2
(7) Because the Detroit plan is missing
enforceable measures for some major
sources of SO2 and is therefore not able
to demonstrate attainment, EPA
proposed to disapprove the following:
—The requirements in CAA sections
172(c)(1) and (6) to adopt and submit
all RACM/RACT and emissions
limitations or control measures as
needed to attain the standard as
expeditiously as practicable.
—The requirement in section 172(c)(2)
to provide for RFP toward attainment
in the Detroit SO2 NAA.
—The requirement in section 172(c)(9)
to provide for contingency measures
to be undertaken if the area fails to
make RFP or to attain NAAQS by the
attainment date.
2 78
16:22 Mar 18, 2021
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
FR 76064 (December 16, 2013).
Frm 00022
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
EPA’s action to disapprove portions of
the Detroit attainment plan will start
new sanctions clocks under CAA
section 179(a)–(b) which can be stopped
only if the conditions of EPA’s
regulations at 40 CFR 52.31 3 are met.
Only a full SIP approval or EPA’s
promulgation of a Federal
implementation plan (FIP) under CAA
section 110(c)(1) can stop FIP clocks, so
this action does not have any effect on
the FIP clock that started April 18,
2016.4
II. What is our response to comments
received on the proposed rulemaking?
The proposed action described above
had a public comment period that
closed October 19, 2020, and then by
request, was reopened until November
16, 2020. This action received 21
supportive comments, nine comments
not directly relevant to the rulemaking,
and a joint comment letter from Sierra
Club and Earth Justice that was partially
adverse. This joint comment letter is
summarized below along with EPA’s
responses.
Comment: The commenters contend
that the state’s modeling contains
several flaws and the modeling
methodology should be explicitly
disapproved. The commenters went on
to point out several elements with
which they took issue in the modeling.
The commenters additionally provided
their own modeling demonstration
showing further reductions needed from
several sources in the area.
Response: The state’s modeling is part
of the attainment demonstration which
is being disapproved as part of this
action. Because the attainment
demonstration is not approvable due to
enforceability issues, it is not necessary
for EPA to determine whether or not the
modeling supports attainment, when the
modeling relies on limits that no longer
exist. However, EPA has taken note of
the modeling concerns in this comment
letter and will include them for
consideration during the continued
attainment planning efforts for this area.
Comment: The commenters pointed
out that the reason for the invalidation
of Rule 430 was because Michigan does
not have authority to impose facilityspecific limits. The commenters
contend that EPA should consider
whether a SIP-call under CAA section
110(k)(5) is needed due to Michigan
appearing to not meet the requirement
of section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) to have
adequate authority to carry out its
implementation plan. EPA should also
3 EPA’s regulations regarding the implementation
of sanctions requirements required by 179(a).
4 81 FR 14736 (March 18, 2016).
E:\FR\FM\19MRR1.SGM
19MRR1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 52 / Friday, March 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
move forward with a FIP if the state
lacks proper authority.
Response: Although prohibitions on
adoption of individual facility limits in
state rules is not uncommon, in this
situation it resulted in some of the
State’s submitted SIP limits being
invalidated under state law, which
precludes approval of the attainment
demonstration and of those limits. EPA
expects now that Michigan will draft
future rules to avoid this prohibition
which resulted in invalid limits and
make necessary efforts to properly
implement the NAAQS. Additionally,
EPA is actively working on continued
attainment planning efforts for this area,
and the result of this SIP disapproval
action will be to impose CAA section
179 sanctions if the State does not take
necessary steps to correct the
deficiencies giving rise to the
disapproval. Consequently, in this final
action EPA is not prepared to exercise
its discretion to issue a CAA section
110(k)(5) SIP Call to Michigan regarding
this issue, and notes that the State is
already obligated to remedy the
deficiencies that would be addressed by
any additional SIP Call under section
110(k)(5), which, if issued, would occur
under its own separate notice and
comment process. In addition, in this
final action EPA is not able to
additionally promulgate a FIP under
CAA section 110(c), as that requires its
own notice and comment rulemaking
process pursuant to CAA section 307(d).
Consequently, this final action to
partially approve and partially
disapprove the submitted SIP does not
include any final action under section
110(k)(5) regarding whether to issue a
SIP Call, or under section 110(c) to
promulgate a FIP.
Comment: The commenters
recommended that EPA not approve the
Trenton Channel permit as SIP
strengthening because the limit is above
the plant’s actual current emissions and,
therefore, does not immediately
improve air quality. Additionally, the
commenters contend that if included,
the limits should undergo a robust
analysis on how the 30-day average is
appropriate to meet the one-hour
standard.
Response: EPA disagrees with both
points. The permit’s inclusion into the
SIP does improve air quality because it
restricts the facility’s potential to emit at
higher levels in the future compared to
currently allowable levels, even if the
facility is not currently emitting at the
permit’s levels or the even higher levels
allowed under the current SIP.
Additionally, the 30-day average does
not need to be evaluated as to whether
it is sufficient to provide attainment
under the one-hour NAAQS, because
the permit is not currently being
approved as part of a strategy to meet
that standard. However, if the permit is
relied on in future attainment planning
efforts, a robust analysis of the 30-day
averaging limit (and any other limits
relied upon in such a future
demonstration) will be provided. In this
action, EPA makes no final judgment on
whether the 30-day limit combined with
other future possible limits will provide
for NAAQS attainment.
Comment: The commenters stated
that EPA should not approve the 2012
base year inventory because it does not
meet the CAA section 172(c)(3)
requirements of being ‘‘comprehensive,
accurate, [and] current’’. The
commenters attempted to demonstrate
this by showing emission increases at
two sources when comparing 2012 to
2018 annual emissions.
Response: During the attainment
planning and eventual redesignation
14829
process, three different inventories are
considered and approved: Base year,
attainment year, and future maintenance
year. This action is only approving the
base year inventory. Base year
inventories are a nonattainment year
upon which all future attainment work
is based. Regarding the commenters’
claim that the 2012 inventory is out of
date, when Michigan began their
attainment planning, 2012 was the most
current year with available emissions
data. EPA would not expect a base year
inventory to be amended because time
has passed since the submittal date. The
2018 data would not have been
available until 2019 at the earliest,
which was three years after the state’s
submittal. EPA disagrees with the
commenters’ second issue, that the 2012
inventory is inaccurate. The
commenters’ examples of 2018
emissions are from the Michigan Air
Emissions Reporting System (MAERS),
publicly available annual emissions
data for all major sources in Michigan.
The commenters compared the
emissions increase at two sources
between 2012 and 2018 to show
inaccuracy in the base year inventory.
EPA disagrees that this data proves
inaccuracies, but rather demonstrates
the variability of emissions over time,
generally due to economic factors, i.e.
increased affordability of natural gas
lowering emissions and increased
manufacturing due to economic
demands increasing emissions. When
comparing all the sources in the
inventory from 2012 to 2018, total
emissions have decreased by 82 percent,
shown in Table 1 below as tons per year
(tpy) of SO2 emissions.
TABLE 1—DETROIT AREA 2012 AND 2018 EMISSIONS COMPARISON
2012
Emissions
(tpy)
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
Source
2018
Emissions
(tpy)
River Rouge .............................................................................................................................................................
Trenton Channel ......................................................................................................................................................
Monroe .....................................................................................................................................................................
Carmeuse Lime .......................................................................................................................................................
Severstal Steel .........................................................................................................................................................
DIG ...........................................................................................................................................................................
Marathon ..................................................................................................................................................................
U.S. Steel .................................................................................................................................................................
EES Coke ................................................................................................................................................................
8,202.52
22,426.12
49,150.63
699.69
677.12
597.88
137.34
2,874.30
1,900.77
2,118.48
3,114.04
3,854.35
482.79
571.74
820.17
168.39
1,482.91
3,253.76
Total ..................................................................................................................................................................
86,666.37
15,866.63
Emissions inventories are always
likely to vary year to year, but that does
not deem a previous year’s inventory
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:22 Mar 18, 2021
Jkt 253001
inaccurate. As an example, Dearborn
Industrial Generation (DIG), one of the
sources pointed out by the commenters
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
as increasing emissions between 2012
and 2018, varies greatly year to year.
Looking at data over the most recent 15
E:\FR\FM\19MRR1.SGM
19MRR1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
14830
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 52 / Friday, March 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
years in MAERS, 2003 to 2018, DIG had
a lowest value of 364.61 tpy in 2009 and
a highest value of 1,038.72 tpy in 2016,
showing that the 2012 and 2018 years
are both in the middle of the normal
annual fluctuations. The eventual action
to approve or disapprove an attainment
year inventory will consider changes in
emissions levels during the attainment
planning period, including the
differences pointed out in the comment
between 2012 and 2018, and additional
reductions needed to bring the area into
attainment. However, the eventual
development of an attainment year
inventory will not change the factual
basis of the base year inventory. The
attainment planning process will
account for these possible fluctuations
by focusing on potential to emit rather
than the actual inventories of any given
year. Therefore, EPA believes 2012 is
appropriate for a base year inventory,
and that the submitted 2012 base year
inventory is approvable for its purposes
of charactering what emissions were in
that base year.
Comment: The commenters pointed to
the language from EPA’s proposed
approval stating, ‘‘EPA modeling
demonstrates that attainment at
violating receptors can be achieved
when the emission limits in the DTE
Trenton Channel Permit are analyzed
together with those contained in a
recently issued permit for the DTE River
Rouge facility (Permit to Install 40–08I)’’
and contended that EPA should not
finalize a finding that revisions to the
DTE Trenton Channel and River Rouge
permits would be enough to achieve
attainment.
Response: EPA is not finalizing a
finding that revisions to the DTE
Trenton Channel and River Rouge
permits would be enough to achieve
attainment of the one-hour standard.
Such a final determination could be
made only upon approval of the state’s
attainment plan or as part of EPA’s
promulgation of a FIP. EPA meant this
discussion to explain the reasoning for
DTE River Rouge alone to obtain a new
permit in response to a calculation error
found in both the River Rouge and
Trenton Channel 30-day averaging
limits. EPA is clarifying that these
changes alone do not prejudge whether
these or any other measures will or will
not result in attainment for the entire
Detroit area.
Comment: The commenters are
supportive of the disapproval of the
RACT/RACM, RFP, and contingency
measure elements and recommended
EPA finalize as expeditiously as
possible. The commenters additionally
supplied recommendations for next
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:22 Mar 18, 2021
Jkt 253001
steps in replacing the disapproved
portions of this plan.
Response: In addition to the modeling
recommendations, EPA will also
consider the ‘‘next steps’’
recommendations in this letter as a part
of the ongoing attainment planning
efforts.
III. What action is EPA taking?
EPA is finalizing the following actions
as proposed: EPA is approving the base
year inventory and affirming that the
new source review requirements for the
area have been met. EPA is also
approving the DTE Trenton Channel
and Carmeuse Lime permits as SIP
strengthening. EPA is proposing to
disapprove the attainment
demonstration, as well as the
requirement for meeting RFP toward
attainment of the NAAQS, RACM/
RACT, contingency measures, the
invalidated Rule 430 related to U.S.
Steel, and the superseded 2016 permit
related to DTE River Rouge. This
disapproval will start new sanctions
clocks for this area under CAA section
179(a)–(b).
IV. Incorporation by Reference
In this rule, EPA is finalizing
regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In
accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation
by reference of the Michigan
Regulations described in the
amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth
below. EPA has made, and will continue
to make, these documents generally
available through www.regulations.gov,
and at the EPA Region 5 Office (please
contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this preamble for more information).
Therefore, these materials have been
approved by EPA for inclusion in the
State implementation plan, have been
incorporated by reference by EPA into
that plan, are fully federally enforceable
under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA
as of the effective date of the final
rulemaking of EPA’s approval, and will
be incorporated by reference in the next
update to the SIP compilation.5
V. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the
CAA and applicable Federal regulations.
42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions,
EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
5 62
PO 00000
FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
Frm 00024
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
the CAA. Accordingly, this action
merely approves state law as meeting
Federal requirements and does not
impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law. For that
reason, this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget under
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011);
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• Does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved
to apply on any Indian reservation land
or in any other area where EPA or an
Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have
tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report, which includes a
copy of the rule, to each House of the
E:\FR\FM\19MRR1.SGM
19MRR1
14831
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 52 / Friday, March 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. EPA will submit a
report containing this action and other
required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication of the rule in
the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it
is published in the Federal Register.
This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA,
petitions for judicial review of this
action must be filed in the United States
Court of Appeals for the appropriate
circuit by May 18, 2021. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the
Administrator of this final rule 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 may be filed, and
shall not postpone the effectiveness of
such rule or action. This action may not
be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section
307(b)(2).)
PART 52—APPROVAL AND
PROMULGATION OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides.
Dated: March 11, 2021.
Cheryl Newton,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
For the reasons stated in the
preamble, EPA amends title 40 CFR part
52 as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
2. Amend § 52.1170 by:
a. In the table in paragraph (d) adding
in alphabetic order entries for
‘‘Carmeuse Lime, Wayne County’’ and
‘‘DTE Energy—Trenton Channel, Wayne
County’’;
■ b. In the table in paragraph (e) adding
an entry for ‘‘2010 SO2 Standard 2012
base year’’ after the entry for ‘‘2008 lead
(Pb) 2013 base year’’ under the subheading ‘‘Emissions Inventories’’.
The additions read as follows:
■
■
§ 52.1170
*
Identification of plan.
*
*
(d) * * *
*
*
EPA—APPROVED MICHIGAN SOURCE-SPECIFIC PROVISIONS
Name of source
State effective
date
Order number
*
*
Carmeuse Lime, Wayne County ...
*
*
Permit 193–14A ............................
*
*
DTE Energy—Trenton Channel,
Wayne County.
*
*
Permit 125–11C ............................ April 29, 2016
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
March 18,
2016
*
EPA approval date
Comments
*
*
March 19, 2021, [INSERT Federal
Register CITATION].
*
*
*
March 19, 2021, [INSERT Federal
Register CITATION].
*
*
*
*
(e) * * *
EPA—APPROVED MICHIGAN NONREGULATORY AND QUASI-REGULATORY PROVISIONS
Name of nonregulatory
SIP provision
*
Applicable geographic or
nonattainment area
*
*
*
*
2010 SO2 Standard .......................
2012 base year
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
*
VerDate Sep<11>2014
*
Emission Inventories
*
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
*
Frm 00025
Fmt 4700
EPA approval date
*
*
*
Detroit area (Wayne County, part)
May 31, 2016
*
17:18 Mar 18, 2021
State submittal
date
*
*
*
March 19, 2021, [INSERT Federal
Register CITATION].
*
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\19MRR1.SGM
*
19MRR1
Comments
*
*
*
14832
*
*
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 52 / Friday, March 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
*
*
*
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 81
[EPA–R09–OAR–2019–0145; FRL–10019–
97–Region 9]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; Designation of
Areas for Air Quality Planning
Purposes; California; South Coast
Moderate Area Plan and
Reclassification as Serious
Nonattainment for the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS; Correcting Amendment
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Correcting amendment.
AGENCY:
On November 9, 2020, the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
issued a final rule titled ‘‘Approval and
Promulgation of Implementation Plans;
Designation of Areas for Air Quality
Planning Purposes; California; South
Coast Moderate Area Plan and
Reclassification as Serious
Nonattainment for the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS.’’ That publication
inadvertently omitted from the
description of the Riverside County
portion of the designated area, language
indicating that the lands of the Santa
Rosa Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians
and Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission
Indians of the Pechanga Reservation are
excluded from that portion of the Los
Angeles-South Coast Air Basin
nonattainment area for the 2012
national ambient air quality standard
(NAAQS) for fine particulate matter
(PM2.5). This document corrects the
error in the regulatory text.
DATES: This rule is effective on March
19, 2021.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA–R09–OAR–2019–0145. 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
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:22 Mar 18, 2021
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:
Ashley Graham, Air Planning Office
(AIR–2), EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne
Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, (415)
972–3877 or by email at
graham.ashleyr@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On
November 9, 2020, the EPA issued a
final rule titled ‘‘Approval and
Promulgation of Implementation Plans;
Designation of Areas for Air Quality
Planning Purposes; California; South
Coast Moderate Area Plan and
Reclassification as Serious
Nonattainment for the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS.’’ 1 That publication
inadvertently omitted from the
description of the Riverside County
portion of the designated area, language
indicating that the lands of the Santa
Rosa Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians
and Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission
Indians of the Pechanga Reservation are
excluded from that portion of the Los
Angeles-South Coast Air Basin
nonattainment area for the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS. This action corrects the
omission and revises the entry as
intended in the November 9, 2020 final
rule.
The EPA has determined that this
action falls under the ‘‘good cause’’
exemption in section 553(b)(3)(B) of the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA)
which, upon finding ‘‘good cause,’’
authorizes agencies to dispense with
public participation where public notice
and comment procedures are
impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary
to the public interest. Public notice and
comment for this action are unnecessary
because the underlying rule for which
this correcting amendment has been
prepared was already subject to a 30-day
comment period, and this action merely
corrects an error in the rule text.
Further, this action is consistent with
the purpose and rationale of the final
rule, which is corrected herein. Because
this action does not change the EPA’s
analyses or overall actions, no purpose
would be served by additional public
notice and comment. Consequently,
additional public notice and comment
are unnecessary.
The EPA also finds that there is good
cause under APA section 553(d)(3) for
this correction to become effective on
INFORMATION CONTACT
[FR Doc. 2021–05508 Filed 3–18–21; 8:45 am]
Jkt 253001
1 85
PO 00000
FR 71264.
Frm 00026
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
the date of publication of this action.
Section 553(d)(3) of the APA allows an
effective date of less than 30 days after
publication ‘‘as otherwise provided by
the agency for good cause found and
published with the rule.’’ 5 U.S.C.
553(d)(3). The purpose of the 30-day
waiting period prescribed in APA
section 553(d)(3) is to give affected
parties a reasonable time to adjust their
behavior and prepare before the final
rule takes effect. This rule does not
create any new regulatory requirements
such that affected parties would need
time to prepare before the rule takes
effect. This action merely corrects an
error in a previous rulemaking. For
these reasons, the EPA finds good cause
under APA section 553(d)(3) for this
correction to become effective on the
date of publication of this action.
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);
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Is not subject to the regulatory
flexibility provisions of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• Is not subject to sections 202 and
205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not impose a significant
intergovernmental mandate or
significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, as described in sections
203 and 204 of the UMRA;
• Does not have federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
this error correction action does not
involve technical standards; and
• Does not involve special
consideration of environmental justice
related issues as required by Executive
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16,
1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved
to apply on any Indian reservation land
E:\FR\FM\19MRR1.SGM
19MRR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 52 (Friday, March 19, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 14827-14832]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-05508]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R05-OAR-2016-0321; FRL-10021-50-Region 5]
Air Plan Approval; Michigan; Partial Approval and Partial
Disapproval of the Detroit SO2 Nonattainment Area Plan
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is partially
approving and partially disapproving a revision to the Michigan State
Implementation Plan (SIP) for attaining the 2010 1-hour primary sulfur
dioxide (SO2) national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS
or ``standard'') for the Detroit SO2 nonattainment area
(NAA). This SIP revision (hereinafter called the ``Detroit
SO2 plan'' or ``plan'') includes Michigan's attainment
demonstration and other elements required under the
[[Page 14828]]
Clean Air Act (CAA). EPA is approving the base year emissions inventory
and affirming that the nonattainment new source review (NNSR)
requirements for the area have been met. EPA is disapproving the
attainment demonstration, as well as the requirements for meeting
reasonable further progress (RFP) toward attainment of the NAAQS,
reasonably available control measures and reasonably available control
technology (RACM/RACT), and contingency measures. Finally, EPA is
disapproving the plan's control measures for two facilities as not
demonstrating attainment and is approving the enforceable control
measures for two facilities as SIP strengthening.
DATES: This final rule is effective on April 19, 2021.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R05-OAR-2016-0321. All documents in the docket are listed on
the www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., 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
through www.regulations.gov or at the Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays and facility
closures due to COVID-19. We recommend that you telephone Sarah Arra,
Environmental Scientist, at (312) 886-9401 before visiting the Region 5
office.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sarah Arra, Environmental Scientist,
Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-
18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-9401, [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.
I. What actions did EPA propose on this SIP submission?
On September 18, 2020, \1\ EPA proposed to partially approve and
partially disapprove a revision to the Michigan SIP submitted on May
31, 2016, supplemented on June 30, 2016. EPA proposed to take the
following actions:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 85 FR 58315.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) EPA proposed to disapprove Michigan Administrative Code (MAC)
336.1430 (``Rule 430'') because the Michigan Court of Claims
invalidated Rule 430 on October 4, 2017. Therefore, there is no
enforceable rule remaining at the state level for EPA to incorporate
into the SIP.
(2) EPA proposed to disapprove the Detroit SO2
attainment plan pursuant to 172(c) and 192(a), because it relied on
Rule 430 to demonstrate attainment, which can no longer be relied on as
an enforceable mechanism.
(3) Because of the lack of enforceable measures from Rule 430, the
remaining control strategies can no longer be assessed as a part of a
complete attainment demonstration. Instead, EPA proposed to approve two
permits as SIP strengthening, Carmeuse Lime's Permit to Install 193-14A
and DTE Energy--Trenton Channel's Permit to Install 125-11C. SIP
strengthening is appropriate for limits that improve air quality but do
not meet a specific CAA requirement.
(4) EPA proposed to disapprove the DTE River Rouge permit, Permit
to Install 40-08H, because it was recently superseded by a new permit
to install, not included in the SIP package, that corrected an error in
the long-term averaging calculation for the superseded permit.
(5) EPA proposed to approve the 2012 baseline inventory as meeting
the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(3) and (4) for the Detroit
SO2 NAA.
(6) EPA proposed to affirm that the new source review requirements
for the area have been met because Michigan has a fully approved NNSR
Program.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 78 FR 76064 (December 16, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(7) Because the Detroit plan is missing enforceable measures for
some major sources of SO2 and is therefore not able to
demonstrate attainment, EPA proposed to disapprove the following:
--The requirements in CAA sections 172(c)(1) and (6) to adopt and
submit all RACM/RACT and emissions limitations or control measures as
needed to attain the standard as expeditiously as practicable.
--The requirement in section 172(c)(2) to provide for RFP toward
attainment in the Detroit SO2 NAA.
--The requirement in section 172(c)(9) to provide for contingency
measures to be undertaken if the area fails to make RFP or to attain
NAAQS by the attainment date.
EPA's action to disapprove portions of the Detroit attainment plan
will start new sanctions clocks under CAA section 179(a)-(b) which can
be stopped only if the conditions of EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 52.31
\3\ are met. Only a full SIP approval or EPA's promulgation of a
Federal implementation plan (FIP) under CAA section 110(c)(1) can stop
FIP clocks, so this action does not have any effect on the FIP clock
that started April 18, 2016.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ EPA's regulations regarding the implementation of sanctions
requirements required by 179(a).
\4\ 81 FR 14736 (March 18, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. What is our response to comments received on the proposed
rulemaking?
The proposed action described above had a public comment period
that closed October 19, 2020, and then by request, was reopened until
November 16, 2020. This action received 21 supportive comments, nine
comments not directly relevant to the rulemaking, and a joint comment
letter from Sierra Club and Earth Justice that was partially adverse.
This joint comment letter is summarized below along with EPA's
responses.
Comment: The commenters contend that the state's modeling contains
several flaws and the modeling methodology should be explicitly
disapproved. The commenters went on to point out several elements with
which they took issue in the modeling. The commenters additionally
provided their own modeling demonstration showing further reductions
needed from several sources in the area.
Response: The state's modeling is part of the attainment
demonstration which is being disapproved as part of this action.
Because the attainment demonstration is not approvable due to
enforceability issues, it is not necessary for EPA to determine whether
or not the modeling supports attainment, when the modeling relies on
limits that no longer exist. However, EPA has taken note of the
modeling concerns in this comment letter and will include them for
consideration during the continued attainment planning efforts for this
area.
Comment: The commenters pointed out that the reason for the
invalidation of Rule 430 was because Michigan does not have authority
to impose facility-specific limits. The commenters contend that EPA
should consider whether a SIP-call under CAA section 110(k)(5) is
needed due to Michigan appearing to not meet the requirement of section
110(a)(2)(E)(i) to have adequate authority to carry out its
implementation plan. EPA should also
[[Page 14829]]
move forward with a FIP if the state lacks proper authority.
Response: Although prohibitions on adoption of individual facility
limits in state rules is not uncommon, in this situation it resulted in
some of the State's submitted SIP limits being invalidated under state
law, which precludes approval of the attainment demonstration and of
those limits. EPA expects now that Michigan will draft future rules to
avoid this prohibition which resulted in invalid limits and make
necessary efforts to properly implement the NAAQS. Additionally, EPA is
actively working on continued attainment planning efforts for this
area, and the result of this SIP disapproval action will be to impose
CAA section 179 sanctions if the State does not take necessary steps to
correct the deficiencies giving rise to the disapproval. Consequently,
in this final action EPA is not prepared to exercise its discretion to
issue a CAA section 110(k)(5) SIP Call to Michigan regarding this
issue, and notes that the State is already obligated to remedy the
deficiencies that would be addressed by any additional SIP Call under
section 110(k)(5), which, if issued, would occur under its own separate
notice and comment process. In addition, in this final action EPA is
not able to additionally promulgate a FIP under CAA section 110(c), as
that requires its own notice and comment rulemaking process pursuant to
CAA section 307(d). Consequently, this final action to partially
approve and partially disapprove the submitted SIP does not include any
final action under section 110(k)(5) regarding whether to issue a SIP
Call, or under section 110(c) to promulgate a FIP.
Comment: The commenters recommended that EPA not approve the
Trenton Channel permit as SIP strengthening because the limit is above
the plant's actual current emissions and, therefore, does not
immediately improve air quality. Additionally, the commenters contend
that if included, the limits should undergo a robust analysis on how
the 30-day average is appropriate to meet the one-hour standard.
Response: EPA disagrees with both points. The permit's inclusion
into the SIP does improve air quality because it restricts the
facility's potential to emit at higher levels in the future compared to
currently allowable levels, even if the facility is not currently
emitting at the permit's levels or the even higher levels allowed under
the current SIP. Additionally, the 30-day average does not need to be
evaluated as to whether it is sufficient to provide attainment under
the one-hour NAAQS, because the permit is not currently being approved
as part of a strategy to meet that standard. However, if the permit is
relied on in future attainment planning efforts, a robust analysis of
the 30-day averaging limit (and any other limits relied upon in such a
future demonstration) will be provided. In this action, EPA makes no
final judgment on whether the 30-day limit combined with other future
possible limits will provide for NAAQS attainment.
Comment: The commenters stated that EPA should not approve the 2012
base year inventory because it does not meet the CAA section 172(c)(3)
requirements of being ``comprehensive, accurate, [and] current''. The
commenters attempted to demonstrate this by showing emission increases
at two sources when comparing 2012 to 2018 annual emissions.
Response: During the attainment planning and eventual redesignation
process, three different inventories are considered and approved: Base
year, attainment year, and future maintenance year. This action is only
approving the base year inventory. Base year inventories are a
nonattainment year upon which all future attainment work is based.
Regarding the commenters' claim that the 2012 inventory is out of date,
when Michigan began their attainment planning, 2012 was the most
current year with available emissions data. EPA would not expect a base
year inventory to be amended because time has passed since the
submittal date. The 2018 data would not have been available until 2019
at the earliest, which was three years after the state's submittal. EPA
disagrees with the commenters' second issue, that the 2012 inventory is
inaccurate. The commenters' examples of 2018 emissions are from the
Michigan Air Emissions Reporting System (MAERS), publicly available
annual emissions data for all major sources in Michigan. The commenters
compared the emissions increase at two sources between 2012 and 2018 to
show inaccuracy in the base year inventory. EPA disagrees that this
data proves inaccuracies, but rather demonstrates the variability of
emissions over time, generally due to economic factors, i.e. increased
affordability of natural gas lowering emissions and increased
manufacturing due to economic demands increasing emissions. When
comparing all the sources in the inventory from 2012 to 2018, total
emissions have decreased by 82 percent, shown in Table 1 below as tons
per year (tpy) of SO2 emissions.
Table 1--Detroit Area 2012 and 2018 Emissions Comparison
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012 2018
Source Emissions Emissions
(tpy) (tpy)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
River Rouge............................. 8,202.52 2,118.48
Trenton Channel......................... 22,426.12 3,114.04
Monroe.................................. 49,150.63 3,854.35
Carmeuse Lime........................... 699.69 482.79
Severstal Steel......................... 677.12 571.74
DIG..................................... 597.88 820.17
Marathon................................ 137.34 168.39
U.S. Steel.............................. 2,874.30 1,482.91
EES Coke................................ 1,900.77 3,253.76
-------------------------------
Total............................... 86,666.37 15,866.63
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emissions inventories are always likely to vary year to year, but
that does not deem a previous year's inventory inaccurate. As an
example, Dearborn Industrial Generation (DIG), one of the sources
pointed out by the commenters as increasing emissions between 2012 and
2018, varies greatly year to year. Looking at data over the most recent
15
[[Page 14830]]
years in MAERS, 2003 to 2018, DIG had a lowest value of 364.61 tpy in
2009 and a highest value of 1,038.72 tpy in 2016, showing that the 2012
and 2018 years are both in the middle of the normal annual
fluctuations. The eventual action to approve or disapprove an
attainment year inventory will consider changes in emissions levels
during the attainment planning period, including the differences
pointed out in the comment between 2012 and 2018, and additional
reductions needed to bring the area into attainment. However, the
eventual development of an attainment year inventory will not change
the factual basis of the base year inventory. The attainment planning
process will account for these possible fluctuations by focusing on
potential to emit rather than the actual inventories of any given year.
Therefore, EPA believes 2012 is appropriate for a base year inventory,
and that the submitted 2012 base year inventory is approvable for its
purposes of charactering what emissions were in that base year.
Comment: The commenters pointed to the language from EPA's proposed
approval stating, ``EPA modeling demonstrates that attainment at
violating receptors can be achieved when the emission limits in the DTE
Trenton Channel Permit are analyzed together with those contained in a
recently issued permit for the DTE River Rouge facility (Permit to
Install 40-08I)'' and contended that EPA should not finalize a finding
that revisions to the DTE Trenton Channel and River Rouge permits would
be enough to achieve attainment.
Response: EPA is not finalizing a finding that revisions to the DTE
Trenton Channel and River Rouge permits would be enough to achieve
attainment of the one-hour standard. Such a final determination could
be made only upon approval of the state's attainment plan or as part of
EPA's promulgation of a FIP. EPA meant this discussion to explain the
reasoning for DTE River Rouge alone to obtain a new permit in response
to a calculation error found in both the River Rouge and Trenton
Channel 30-day averaging limits. EPA is clarifying that these changes
alone do not prejudge whether these or any other measures will or will
not result in attainment for the entire Detroit area.
Comment: The commenters are supportive of the disapproval of the
RACT/RACM, RFP, and contingency measure elements and recommended EPA
finalize as expeditiously as possible. The commenters additionally
supplied recommendations for next steps in replacing the disapproved
portions of this plan.
Response: In addition to the modeling recommendations, EPA will
also consider the ``next steps'' recommendations in this letter as a
part of the ongoing attainment planning efforts.
III. What action is EPA taking?
EPA is finalizing the following actions as proposed: EPA is
approving the base year inventory and affirming that the new source
review requirements for the area have been met. EPA is also approving
the DTE Trenton Channel and Carmeuse Lime permits as SIP strengthening.
EPA is proposing to disapprove the attainment demonstration, as well as
the requirement for meeting RFP toward attainment of the NAAQS, RACM/
RACT, contingency measures, the invalidated Rule 430 related to U.S.
Steel, and the superseded 2016 permit related to DTE River Rouge. This
disapproval will start new sanctions clocks for this area under CAA
section 179(a)-(b).
IV. Incorporation by Reference
In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the Michigan
Regulations described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth
below. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents
generally available through www.regulations.gov, and at the EPA Region
5 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).
Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion in
the State implementation plan, have been incorporated by reference by
EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110
and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of
EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference in the next
update to the SIP compilation.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the
[[Page 14831]]
Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will
submit a report containing this action and other required information
to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the
Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the
rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60
days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not
a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by May 18, 2021. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule 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 may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides.
Dated: March 11, 2021.
Cheryl Newton,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA amends title 40 CFR
part 52 as follows:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
0
2. Amend Sec. 52.1170 by:
0
a. In the table in paragraph (d) adding in alphabetic order entries for
``Carmeuse Lime, Wayne County'' and ``DTE Energy--Trenton Channel,
Wayne County'';
0
b. In the table in paragraph (e) adding an entry for ``2010
SO2 Standard 2012 base year'' after the entry for ``2008
lead (Pb) 2013 base year'' under the sub-heading ``Emissions
Inventories''.
The additions read as follows:
Sec. 52.1170 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
EPA--Approved Michigan Source-Specific Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State
Name of source Order number effective date EPA approval date Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Carmeuse Lime, Wayne County...... Permit 193-14A..... March 18, 2016 March 19, 2021, ...................
[INSERT Federal
Register CITATION].
* * * * * * *
DTE Energy--Trenton Channel, Permit 125-11C..... April 29, 2016 March 19, 2021, ...................
Wayne County. [INSERT Federal
Register CITATION].
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
(e) * * *
EPA--Approved Michigan Nonregulatory and Quasi-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicable
Name of nonregulatory SIP geographic or State EPA approval date Comments
provision nonattainment area submittal date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Emission Inventories
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
2010 SO2 Standard................ Detroit area (Wayne May 31, 2016 March 19, 2021, ...................
2012 base year................... County, part). [INSERT Federal
Register CITATION].
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 14832]]
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2021-05508 Filed 3-18-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
