Air Plan Approval; Michigan; Revisions to Part 1 and 2 Rules, 31677-31680 [2024-08798]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 81 / Thursday, April 25, 2024 / Proposed Rules waived at the discretion of the Commission. § 3006.304 Procedure for assessing and collecting fees. (a) Advance payment may be required if the requester failed to pay previous bills in a timely fashion or when the fees are likely to exceed $250. (1) Where the requester has previously failed to pay within 30 days of the billing date, the Commission may require the requester to pay an advance payment of the estimated fee together with either the past due fees (plus applicable interest) or proof that the past fees were paid. (2) When advance payment is required, the administrative time limits prescribed in 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(6) (§ 3006.201) begin only after such payment has been received. (b) Interest at the rate published by the Secretary of the Treasury as prescribed in 31 U.S.C. 3717 will be charged on unpaid fee bills starting on the 31st day after the bill was sent. Receipt of a fee by the Commission, whether processed or not, will stay the accrual of interest. By the Commission. Erica A. Barker, Secretary. [FR Doc. 2024–08715 Filed 4–24–24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710–FW–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA–R05–OAR–2022–0295; FRL–10162– 06–R5] Air Plan Approval; Michigan; Revisions to Part 1 and 2 Rules Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. AGENCY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve revisions to Michigan Air Pollution Control rules Part 2 Air Use Approval for inclusion in the Michigan State Implementation Plan (SIP). DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 28, 2024. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– OAR–2022–0295 at https:// www.regulations.gov, or via email to damico.genevieve@epa.gov. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1 SUMMARY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:45 Apr 24, 2024 Jkt 262001 from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/ commenting-epa-dockets. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Constantine Blathras, Air Permit Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–0671, blathras.constantine@epa.gov. The EPA Region 5 office 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. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean EPA. I. Background Section 110(a)(2)(C) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires that the SIP include a program to provide for the ‘‘regulation of the modification and construction of any stationary source within the areas covered by the plan as necessary to assure that National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQs) are achieved.’’ This includes a program for permitting construction and modification of both major and minor sources that the state deems necessary to protect air quality. The State of Michigan’s minor source permit to install rules are contained in Part 2, Air Use Approval, R. 336.1201 to R. 336.1299 of the Michigan Administrative Code. Changes to the Part 2 rules were submitted on November 12, 1993; May 16, 1996; April 3, 1998; September 2, 2003; March 24, 2009; February 28, 2017; and March 8, 2022. EPA approved changes to the Part PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 31677 2 rules most recently in a final approval dated April 27, 2023 (88 FR 25498). On September 27, 2022 (87 FR 58471), EPA proposed approval, via a direct final rule, of the Michigan SIP revisions submitted on March 8, 2022. During the public comment period, EPA received an adverse comment on the Michigan rule revisions to R 336.1285 ‘‘Permit to install exemptions; miscellaneous’’ and R 336.1291, ‘‘Permit to install exemptions; emission units with ‘de minimis’ emissions’’. On November 14, 2022 (87 FR 68634), EPA withdrew the direct final rule. EPA approved the revisions to the Michigan rule revision which did not receive adverse comment (88 FR 25498, April 27, 2023). As explained in that action, we did not consider the comments received to be germane or relevant to EPA’s proposal to approve portions of Michigan’s Part 1 and Part 2 rules beyond the permit exemption rules, and therefore not adverse to approving them into the Michigan SIP. EPA is now proposing to approve Michigan’s rules R 336.1285(2)(oo) and R 336.1291 into the Michigan SIP. On November 14, 2023, Michigan submitted a supplement to the original March 8, 2022, submittal by supplying additional information regarding the approval of Michigan rules R 336.1285(2)(oo) and R 336.1291 in response to comments we received on the rulemaking. These rules exempt certain processes and/or equipment from Michigan’s minor New Source Review permitting program. The November 14, 2023, Michigan supplemental submittal as well as the original March 8, 2022, submittal are available with the docket for this rulemaking action. Michigan Rule R 336.1285(2)(oo) Michigan rule R 336.1285(2)(oo) exempts vapor intrusion mitigation systems. Specifically, this exemption applies to equipment or systems, or both, used exclusively to mitigate vapor intrusion of an indoor space that is not on the property where the release of the hazardous substance occurred, and which has an exhaust that meets all of the following requirements: i. Unobstructed vertically upward. ii. At least 12 inches above the nearest eave of the roof or at least 12 inches above the surface of the roof at the point of penetration. iii. More than 10 feet above the ground. iv. More than 2 feet above or more than 10 feet away from windows, doors, other buildings, and other air intakes. E:\FR\FM\25APP1.SGM 25APP1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1 31678 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 81 / Thursday, April 25, 2024 / Proposed Rules Michigan Rule R 336.1291 Michigan rule R 336.1291 exempts emission units with ‘‘de minimis’’ emissions. Specifically, rule R 336.1291 requires that records be maintained providing a description of the emission unit(s), and documentation and/or calculations identifying the quality, nature, and quantity of the air contaminant emissions are maintained in sufficient detail to demonstrate that the potential emissions are less than those listed in the table of air contaminants applicable to this exemption. Michigan’s rule R 336.1291 exemption is based on the units’ potential to emit. Potential to emit is defined in Michigan’s rule 336.2801(hh) as: ‘‘(T)he maximum capacity of a stationary source to emit a pollutant under its physical and operational design. A physical or operational limitation on the capacity of the source to emit a pollutant, including air pollution control equipment and restrictions on hours of operation or on the type or amount of material combusted, stored, or processed, shall be treated as part of its design if the limitation or the effect it would have on emissions is legally enforceable and enforceable as a practical matter by the state, local air pollution control agency, or United States Environmental Protection Agency. Secondary emissions do not count in determining the potential to emit of a stationary source.’’ In Michigan’s November 14, 2023, supplemental submittal, Michigan provides an analysis of the rule revisions and addresses comments raised in the October 27, 2022, letter. Michigan’s analysis included responses to the commenter’s points including: 1) the section 110(l) analysis must consider the program as a whole; 2) Michigan cannot rely on the Tribal rule thresholds; 3) Michigan did not demonstrate that annual potential to emit limitations sufficiently protect short-term NAAQS; 4) Michigan’s justification for not having more stringent thresholds in non-attainment areas does not hold up; and 5) Michigan’s representation of its actual emission exemptions are insufficient. To demonstrate that the two exemptions would not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning the attainment and reasonable further progress, or any other applicable requirement, Michigan reviewed its Michigan Air Emissions Reporting System (MAERS). The Michigan rule 291 exemption has been in effect in the state since 2016. The MAERS data contains information on a specific VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:45 Apr 24, 2024 Jkt 262001 subset of emission units that are exempt. As described in the table of emission unit and pollutant levels for various exemptions in Michigan’s supplemental submittal, of those facilities that are reporting, Michigan rule 291 emission units are responsible for less than 0.9 percent of volatile organic compound emissions from all units reported to MAERS, and less than 3.6 percent of volatile organic compound emissions from exempt units reported in MAERS. Requiring Michigan to permit these exempt units would not contribute to Michigan’s plan for attainment or reasonable further progress, but would rather divert Michigan air permitting program resources from addressing other more significant air pollutant emitters. The air permit exemptions have been in effect for several years and have had no measurable impact on attainment or reasonable further progress. Section 110(l) Demonstration As part of the SIP revision request supplemental submittal, Michigan submitted a 110(l) demonstration. Section 110(l) of the CAA governs the submittal of SIP revisions. Each revision to an implementation plan submitted by a State shall be adopted by the State after reasonable notice and public hearing. The Administrator shall not approve a revision of a plan if the revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning the attainment and reasonable further progress (as defined by 40 CFR 7501), or any other applicable requirement of this chapter. As part of its 110(l) demonstration, Michigan provided an analysis of the emission exemptions impacts, using the Modeled Emission Rates for Precursors as a Tier 1 Demonstration Tool to demonstrate ozone and fine particulate (PM2.5) impacts from single sources on secondary pollutants for the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permitting program, from the sources using Michigan rule 291 exemption air emissions. Michigan evaluated the air quality impact that Michigan Rule 291 would have on ozone and secondary PM2.5 formation. Michigan used the method set forth in EPA’s April 30, 2019, Guidance on the Development of Modeled Emission Rates for Precursors (MERPs) as a Tier 1 Demonstration Tool for Ozone and PM2.5 under the PSD Permitting Program (MERPs guidance) to estimate source specific contributions to ozone and secondary PM2.5 formation. As part of its analysis, Michigan utilized hypothetical source modeling PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 that EPA used to illustrate the framework established in the MERPs guidance. Hypothetical sources, modeled emission rates, and modeled air quality impacts were obtained using EPA’s MERPs View Qlik tool. For its analysis, Michigan considered hypothetical sources located in Michigan. A hypothetical source was selected for this analysis if the hypothetical source has the lowest MERP for a given precursor pollutant. For a given precursor pollutant, a lower MERP suggests that the precursor pollutant more readily forms the secondary pollutant. As a result, choosing a lower MERP more conservatively estimates the air quality impacts for the secondary pollutant since the source has a higher modeled air quality impact for a given modeled emission rate. For all precursor pollutants except VOC as a precursor to ozone, Michigan utilized modeling results from the Montcalm County, Michigan hypothetical source. For VOC as a precursor to ozone, Michigan utilized the Marquette County, Michigan, hypothetical source. For all precursor pollutants, Michigan chose the hypothetical source in Michigan with the lowest MERP for a given precursor pollutant. Using the modeled results for the Marquette and Montcalm County, Michigan, hypothetical sources, Michigan evaluated the air quality impacts associated with the emission thresholds for Michigan Rule 291 using a method that was consistent with the framework recommended in the MERPs guidance. For the single emission unit impact analysis, Michigan evaluated a proposed project that would emit 10 tons per year of sulfur dioxide (SO2), 10 tons per year of nitrogen oxides (NOX), and 5 tons per year of volatile organic compounds (VOC). This is the maximum emission rate that would be allowed for a single emission unit under Michigan Rule 291. Based on its single emission unit impact analysis, Michigan determined that ozone impacts would be 0.047 parts per billion (ppb), annual PM2.5 impacts would be 0.000413 micrograms per cubic meter (mg/m3), and 24-hour PM2.5 impacts would be 0.0155 mg/m3. For the multiple emission unit impact analysis, Michigan evaluated a proposed project that would emit 40 tons of SO2, 40 tons per year of NOX, and 40 tons per year of VOC. This is the maximum emission rate that would be allowed for multiple emission units that are part of the same project without being considered significant as defined under Michigan Rule 119(e). Based on its multiple emission unit impact analysis, Michigan determined that 8-hour ozone E:\FR\FM\25APP1.SGM 25APP1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 81 / Thursday, April 25, 2024 / Proposed Rules impacts would be 0.20 ppb, annual PM2.5 impacts would be 0.00165 mg/m3, and 24-hour PM2.5 impacts would be 0.062 mg/m3. EPA believes that Michigan’s goal of reducing permitting workload on Michigan permitting staff by utilizing these permit exemptions would not interfere with Michigan’s air program since any permitting of these exempt units would not impose any additional air pollution controls due to the de minimus level of the exempted unit’s air emissions. The amount of emissions from these exempt units do not interfere with continued Michigan’s attainment nor reasonable further progress, or any other applicable requirement of the NAAQs. The 110(l) demonstration in the SIP revision request adequately addresses this requirement and will have no effect on Michigan’s NAAQS attainment status, or any backsliding on achieved improvements. The Michigan air permit exemptions do not apply to any activity that is subject to PSD of air quality regulations or new source review for major sources in non-attainment areas regulations. As Michigan has stated in its supplemental submittal, the exemptions have not had any measurable or discernable impact on attainment. The exemptions specified do not apply to the construction, modification, or reconstruction of a new major source of hazardous air pollutants as defined in the Federal requirements of 40 CFR parts 61 and 63, or any other applicable requirement or existing program limitation. By including such language in Michigan’s minor source regulations, Michigan has attempted to address any sources that may have significant emissions and the potential to negatively impact ambient air quality. This approach ensures that sources that might otherwise be exempt from permitting are subject to minor NSR permitting. States must develop minor NSR programs to attain and maintain the NAAQS and the Federal requirements for state minor NSR programs are outlined in 40 CFR 51.160 through 51.164. These Federal requirements for minor NSR programs are considerably less prescriptive than those for major sources and, as a result, there is a larger variation of requirements across the state minor NSR programs. The air permit exemptions allow Michigan to allocate its limited resources to address sources in air permitting by avoiding the permitting of small sources with no perceivable impact on attainment. Michigan’s November 14, 2023, supplemental submittal demonstrates that its minor NSR program will adequately protect VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:45 Apr 24, 2024 Jkt 262001 the NAAQs with the additional exemptions to the already approved air permit rule exemptions in its SIP. II. What Action is EPA Taking? EPA is proposing approval of revisions to Michigan’s Part 2 regulations, specifically Michigan Air Pollution Control Rules R 336.1285(2)(oo) and R 336.1291. III. Incorporation by Reference In this rule, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference Michigan rules R 336.1285(2)(oo) and R 336.1291, effective 1/2/2019 and 12/20/ 2016 respectively, discussed in section I. of this preamble. 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). IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not 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 14094 (88 FR 21879, April 11, 2023); • 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 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 31679 Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999); • Is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it approves a state program; • Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and • 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. 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). Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address ‘‘disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects’’ of their actions on minority populations and low-income populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law. EPA defines environmental justice (EJ) as ‘‘the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.’’ EPA further defines the term fair treatment to mean that ‘‘no group of people should bear a disproportionate burden of environmental harms and risks, including those resulting from the negative environmental consequences of industrial, governmental, and commercial operations or programs and policies.’’ EGLE did not evaluate environmental justice considerations as part of its SIP submittal; the CAA and applicable implementing regulations neither prohibit nor require such an evaluation. EPA did not perform an EJ analysis and did not consider EJ in this action. Consideration of EJ is not required as part of this action, and there is no information in the record inconsistent with the stated goal of E.O. 12898 of achieving environmental justice for people of color, low-income populations, and Indigenous peoples. E:\FR\FM\25APP1.SGM 25APP1 31680 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 81 / Thursday, April 25, 2024 / Proposed Rules please check https:// www.regulations.gov, approximately two to three days after submission to verify posting. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Jon Snyder, telephone 703–945–5341. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds. Dated: April 18, 2024. Debra Shore, Regional Administrator, Region 5. [FR Doc. 2024–08798 Filed 4–24–24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Defense Acquisition Regulations System 48 CFR Part 206 [Docket DARS–2024–0014] RIN 0750–AL65 Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Modification of Prize Authority for Advanced Technology Achievements (DFARS Case 2022–D014) Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD). ACTION: Proposed rule. AGENCY: DoD is proposing to amend the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to implement a section of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022 that provides procedures and approval and reporting requirements for contracts awarded as prizes for advanced technology achievements. DATES: Comments on the proposed rule should be submitted in writing to the address shown below on or before June 24, 2024, to be considered in the formation of a final rule. ADDRESSES: Submit comments identified by DFARS Case 2022–D014, using either of the following methods: Æ Federal eRulemaking Portal: https:// www.regulations.gov. Search for DFARS Case 2022–D014. Select ‘‘Comment’’ and follow the instructions to submit a comment. Please include ‘‘DFARS Case 2022–D014’’ on any attached documents. Æ Email: osd.dfars@mail.mil. Include DFARS Case 2022–D014 in the subject line of the message. Comments received generally will be posted without change to https:// www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. To confirm receipt of your comment(s), lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1 SUMMARY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:45 Apr 24, 2024 Jkt 262001 I. Background DoD is proposing to revise the DFARS to implement section 822 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2022 (Pub. L. 117–81), which amends 10 U.S.C. 4025. Section 822 provides the authority to carry out advanced technology prize programs to award contracts to recognize outstanding achievements in basic, advanced, and applied research; technology development; and prototype development. Section 822 specifies the award of a contract as a prize is a competitive procedure if the solicitation is widely advertised. Section 822 also requires approval of such awards that exceed $10,000 and congressional reporting for contracts that exceed $10 million. II. Discussion and Analysis This proposed rule includes changes to the DFARS to implement section 822 of the NDAA for FY 2022. Changes are proposed to DFARS 206.102–70, Other competitive procedures, to provide that the award of a contract, for the competitive selection of prize recipients, is a competitive procedure, when the solicitation is widely advertised including through the Governmentwide point of entry (https:// sam.gov). III. Applicability to Contracts at or Below the Simplified Acquisition Threshold (SAT), for Commercial Products (Including Commercially Available Off-the-Shelf (COTS) Items), and for Commercial Services This proposed rule does not create any new solicitation provisions or contract clauses. It does not impact any existing solicitation provisions or contract clauses or their applicability to contracts valued at or below the simplified acquisition threshold, for commercial products including COTS items, or for commercial services. IV. Expected Impact of the Rule Prior to the enactment of the NDAA for FY 2022, 10 U.S.C. 4025 (formerly 10 U.S.C. 2374a) did not provide for the award of contracts as prizes for outstanding achievements in basic, advanced, and applied research; technology development; and prototype development. This proposed rule will implement the authority to award PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 contracts as prizes under certain conditions. DoD expects this proposed rule, when finalized, may increase participation in prize competitions and decrease the lead time to deliver to the warfighter achievements in basic, advanced, and applied research; technology development; and prototype development. This proposed rule may help to expand the defense industrial base by providing a way for entities that are new to DoD procurement to obtain DoD contracts. It may also streamline the competitive process, which could reduce Government administrative costs associated with competitive negotiated acquisitions. For this reason, the difference in the cost of managing a contract instead of another type of prize is expected to be negligible. Data provided from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering indicates there were a total of 809 cash prizes awarded from FY 2021 to FY 2023, or approximately 270 per year, worth a total of about $3.5 million annually. DoD estimates 20 percent of these 270 historical cash prize awards, or 54 cash prize awards worth a total of approximately $700,000, would be converted to contracts. Therefore, DoD estimates that approximately 54 entities per year would be awarded contracts or a combination of contracts, other agreements (e.g., grants, cooperative agreements, other transaction agreements), and cash prizes as a result of the changes in this proposed rule. V. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as amended. VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act DoD does not expect this proposed rule, when finalized, to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., because DoD estimates that E:\FR\FM\25APP1.SGM 25APP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 81 (Thursday, April 25, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31677-31680]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-08798]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2022-0295; FRL-10162-06-R5]


Air Plan Approval; Michigan; Revisions to Part 1 and 2 Rules

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
approve revisions to Michigan Air Pollution Control rules Part 2 Air 
Use Approval for inclusion in the Michigan State Implementation Plan 
(SIP).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 28, 2024.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2022-0295 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to 
[email protected]. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, 
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, 
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either 
manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its 
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you 
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other 
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia 
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written 
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and 
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will 
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of 
the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing 
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person 
identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full 
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia 
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please 
visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Constantine Blathras, Air Permit 
Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, 
Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 
886-0671, [email protected]. The EPA Region 5 office 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.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,'' 
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.

I. Background

    Section 110(a)(2)(C) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires that the 
SIP include a program to provide for the ``regulation of the 
modification and construction of any stationary source within the areas 
covered by the plan as necessary to assure that National Ambient Air 
Quality Standards (NAAQs) are achieved.'' This includes a program for 
permitting construction and modification of both major and minor 
sources that the state deems necessary to protect air quality. The 
State of Michigan's minor source permit to install rules are contained 
in Part 2, Air Use Approval, R. 336.1201 to R. 336.1299 of the Michigan 
Administrative Code. Changes to the Part 2 rules were submitted on 
November 12, 1993; May 16, 1996; April 3, 1998; September 2, 2003; 
March 24, 2009; February 28, 2017; and March 8, 2022. EPA approved 
changes to the Part 2 rules most recently in a final approval dated 
April 27, 2023 (88 FR 25498).
    On September 27, 2022 (87 FR 58471), EPA proposed approval, via a 
direct final rule, of the Michigan SIP revisions submitted on March 8, 
2022. During the public comment period, EPA received an adverse comment 
on the Michigan rule revisions to R 336.1285 ``Permit to install 
exemptions; miscellaneous'' and R 336.1291, ``Permit to install 
exemptions; emission units with `de minimis' emissions''. On November 
14, 2022 (87 FR 68634), EPA withdrew the direct final rule. EPA 
approved the revisions to the Michigan rule revision which did not 
receive adverse comment (88 FR 25498, April 27, 2023). As explained in 
that action, we did not consider the comments received to be germane or 
relevant to EPA's proposal to approve portions of Michigan's Part 1 and 
Part 2 rules beyond the permit exemption rules, and therefore not 
adverse to approving them into the Michigan SIP.
    EPA is now proposing to approve Michigan's rules R 336.1285(2)(oo) 
and R 336.1291 into the Michigan SIP. On November 14, 2023, Michigan 
submitted a supplement to the original March 8, 2022, submittal by 
supplying additional information regarding the approval of Michigan 
rules R 336.1285(2)(oo) and R 336.1291 in response to comments we 
received on the rulemaking. These rules exempt certain processes and/or 
equipment from Michigan's minor New Source Review permitting program. 
The November 14, 2023, Michigan supplemental submittal as well as the 
original March 8, 2022, submittal are available with the docket for 
this rulemaking action.

Michigan Rule R 336.1285(2)(oo)

    Michigan rule R 336.1285(2)(oo) exempts vapor intrusion mitigation 
systems. Specifically, this exemption applies to equipment or systems, 
or both, used exclusively to mitigate vapor intrusion of an indoor 
space that is not on the property where the release of the hazardous 
substance occurred, and which has an exhaust that meets all of the 
following requirements:
    i. Unobstructed vertically upward.
    ii. At least 12 inches above the nearest eave of the roof or at 
least 12 inches above the surface of the roof at the point of 
penetration.
    iii. More than 10 feet above the ground.
    iv. More than 2 feet above or more than 10 feet away from windows, 
doors, other buildings, and other air intakes.

[[Page 31678]]

Michigan Rule R 336.1291

    Michigan rule R 336.1291 exempts emission units with ``de minimis'' 
emissions. Specifically, rule R 336.1291 requires that records be 
maintained providing a description of the emission unit(s), and 
documentation and/or calculations identifying the quality, nature, and 
quantity of the air contaminant emissions are maintained in sufficient 
detail to demonstrate that the potential emissions are less than those 
listed in the table of air contaminants applicable to this exemption. 
Michigan's rule R 336.1291 exemption is based on the units' potential 
to emit. Potential to emit is defined in Michigan's rule 336.2801(hh) 
as:
    ``(T)he maximum capacity of a stationary source to emit a pollutant 
under its physical and operational design. A physical or operational 
limitation on the capacity of the source to emit a pollutant, including 
air pollution control equipment and restrictions on hours of operation 
or on the type or amount of material combusted, stored, or processed, 
shall be treated as part of its design if the limitation or the effect 
it would have on emissions is legally enforceable and enforceable as a 
practical matter by the state, local air pollution control agency, or 
United States Environmental Protection Agency. Secondary emissions do 
not count in determining the potential to emit of a stationary 
source.''
    In Michigan's November 14, 2023, supplemental submittal, Michigan 
provides an analysis of the rule revisions and addresses comments 
raised in the October 27, 2022, letter. Michigan's analysis included 
responses to the commenter's points including: 1) the section 110(l) 
analysis must consider the program as a whole; 2) Michigan cannot rely 
on the Tribal rule thresholds; 3) Michigan did not demonstrate that 
annual potential to emit limitations sufficiently protect short-term 
NAAQS; 4) Michigan's justification for not having more stringent 
thresholds in non-attainment areas does not hold up; and 5) Michigan's 
representation of its actual emission exemptions are insufficient.
    To demonstrate that the two exemptions would not interfere with any 
applicable requirement concerning the attainment and reasonable further 
progress, or any other applicable requirement, Michigan reviewed its 
Michigan Air Emissions Reporting System (MAERS). The Michigan rule 291 
exemption has been in effect in the state since 2016. The MAERS data 
contains information on a specific subset of emission units that are 
exempt. As described in the table of emission unit and pollutant levels 
for various exemptions in Michigan's supplemental submittal, of those 
facilities that are reporting, Michigan rule 291 emission units are 
responsible for less than 0.9 percent of volatile organic compound 
emissions from all units reported to MAERS, and less than 3.6 percent 
of volatile organic compound emissions from exempt units reported in 
MAERS. Requiring Michigan to permit these exempt units would not 
contribute to Michigan's plan for attainment or reasonable further 
progress, but would rather divert Michigan air permitting program 
resources from addressing other more significant air pollutant 
emitters. The air permit exemptions have been in effect for several 
years and have had no measurable impact on attainment or reasonable 
further progress.

Section 110(l) Demonstration

    As part of the SIP revision request supplemental submittal, 
Michigan submitted a 110(l) demonstration. Section 110(l) of the CAA 
governs the submittal of SIP revisions. Each revision to an 
implementation plan submitted by a State shall be adopted by the State 
after reasonable notice and public hearing. The Administrator shall not 
approve a revision of a plan if the revision would interfere with any 
applicable requirement concerning the attainment and reasonable further 
progress (as defined by 40 CFR 7501), or any other applicable 
requirement of this chapter.
    As part of its 110(l) demonstration, Michigan provided an analysis 
of the emission exemptions impacts, using the Modeled Emission Rates 
for Precursors as a Tier 1 Demonstration Tool to demonstrate ozone and 
fine particulate (PM2.5) impacts from single sources on 
secondary pollutants for the Prevention of Significant Deterioration 
(PSD) permitting program, from the sources using Michigan rule 291 
exemption air emissions.
    Michigan evaluated the air quality impact that Michigan Rule 291 
would have on ozone and secondary PM2.5 formation. Michigan 
used the method set forth in EPA's April 30, 2019, Guidance on the 
Development of Modeled Emission Rates for Precursors (MERPs) as a Tier 
1 Demonstration Tool for Ozone and PM2.5 under the PSD 
Permitting Program (MERPs guidance) to estimate source specific 
contributions to ozone and secondary PM2.5 formation.
    As part of its analysis, Michigan utilized hypothetical source 
modeling that EPA used to illustrate the framework established in the 
MERPs guidance. Hypothetical sources, modeled emission rates, and 
modeled air quality impacts were obtained using EPA's MERPs View Qlik 
tool. For its analysis, Michigan considered hypothetical sources 
located in Michigan. A hypothetical source was selected for this 
analysis if the hypothetical source has the lowest MERP for a given 
precursor pollutant. For a given precursor pollutant, a lower MERP 
suggests that the precursor pollutant more readily forms the secondary 
pollutant. As a result, choosing a lower MERP more conservatively 
estimates the air quality impacts for the secondary pollutant since the 
source has a higher modeled air quality impact for a given modeled 
emission rate. For all precursor pollutants except VOC as a precursor 
to ozone, Michigan utilized modeling results from the Montcalm County, 
Michigan hypothetical source. For VOC as a precursor to ozone, Michigan 
utilized the Marquette County, Michigan, hypothetical source. For all 
precursor pollutants, Michigan chose the hypothetical source in 
Michigan with the lowest MERP for a given precursor pollutant. Using 
the modeled results for the Marquette and Montcalm County, Michigan, 
hypothetical sources, Michigan evaluated the air quality impacts 
associated with the emission thresholds for Michigan Rule 291 using a 
method that was consistent with the framework recommended in the MERPs 
guidance.
    For the single emission unit impact analysis, Michigan evaluated a 
proposed project that would emit 10 tons per year of sulfur dioxide 
(SO2), 10 tons per year of nitrogen oxides (NOX), 
and 5 tons per year of volatile organic compounds (VOC). This is the 
maximum emission rate that would be allowed for a single emission unit 
under Michigan Rule 291. Based on its single emission unit impact 
analysis, Michigan determined that ozone impacts would be 0.047 parts 
per billion (ppb), annual PM2.5 impacts would be 0.000413 
micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\), and 24-hour PM2.5 
impacts would be 0.0155 [mu]g/m\3\.
    For the multiple emission unit impact analysis, Michigan evaluated 
a proposed project that would emit 40 tons of SO2, 40 tons 
per year of NOX, and 40 tons per year of VOC. This is the 
maximum emission rate that would be allowed for multiple emission units 
that are part of the same project without being considered significant 
as defined under Michigan Rule 119(e). Based on its multiple emission 
unit impact analysis, Michigan determined that 8-hour ozone

[[Page 31679]]

impacts would be 0.20 ppb, annual PM2.5 impacts would be 
0.00165 [mu]g/m\3\, and 24-hour PM2.5 impacts would be 0.062 
[mu]g/m\3\.
    EPA believes that Michigan's goal of reducing permitting workload 
on Michigan permitting staff by utilizing these permit exemptions would 
not interfere with Michigan's air program since any permitting of these 
exempt units would not impose any additional air pollution controls due 
to the de minimus level of the exempted unit's air emissions. The 
amount of emissions from these exempt units do not interfere with 
continued Michigan's attainment nor reasonable further progress, or any 
other applicable requirement of the NAAQs.
    The 110(l) demonstration in the SIP revision request adequately 
addresses this requirement and will have no effect on Michigan's NAAQS 
attainment status, or any backsliding on achieved improvements. The 
Michigan air permit exemptions do not apply to any activity that is 
subject to PSD of air quality regulations or new source review for 
major sources in non-attainment areas regulations. As Michigan has 
stated in its supplemental submittal, the exemptions have not had any 
measurable or discernable impact on attainment. The exemptions 
specified do not apply to the construction, modification, or 
reconstruction of a new major source of hazardous air pollutants as 
defined in the Federal requirements of 40 CFR parts 61 and 63, or any 
other applicable requirement or existing program limitation. By 
including such language in Michigan's minor source regulations, 
Michigan has attempted to address any sources that may have significant 
emissions and the potential to negatively impact ambient air quality. 
This approach ensures that sources that might otherwise be exempt from 
permitting are subject to minor NSR permitting. States must develop 
minor NSR programs to attain and maintain the NAAQS and the Federal 
requirements for state minor NSR programs are outlined in 40 CFR 51.160 
through 51.164. These Federal requirements for minor NSR programs are 
considerably less prescriptive than those for major sources and, as a 
result, there is a larger variation of requirements across the state 
minor NSR programs. The air permit exemptions allow Michigan to 
allocate its limited resources to address sources in air permitting by 
avoiding the permitting of small sources with no perceivable impact on 
attainment. Michigan's November 14, 2023, supplemental submittal 
demonstrates that its minor NSR program will adequately protect the 
NAAQs with the additional exemptions to the already approved air permit 
rule exemptions in its SIP.

II. What Action is EPA Taking?

    EPA is proposing approval of revisions to Michigan's Part 2 
regulations, specifically Michigan Air Pollution Control Rules R 
336.1285(2)(oo) and R 336.1291.

III. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule 
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance 
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by 
reference Michigan rules R 336.1285(2)(oo) and R 336.1291, effective 1/
2/2019 and 12/20/2016 respectively, discussed in section I. of this 
preamble. 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).

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP 
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable 
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in 
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, 
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this 
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and 
does not 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 14094 (88 FR 21879, April 11, 2023);
     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 subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, 
April 23, 1997) because it approves a state program;
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
     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.
    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).
    Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions To Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629, 
February 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address 
``disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 
effects'' of their actions on minority populations and low-income 
populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law. 
EPA defines environmental justice (EJ) as ``the fair treatment and 
meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, 
national origin, or income with respect to the development, 
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and 
policies.'' EPA further defines the term fair treatment to mean that 
``no group of people should bear a disproportionate burden of 
environmental harms and risks, including those resulting from the 
negative environmental consequences of industrial, governmental, and 
commercial operations or programs and policies.''
    EGLE did not evaluate environmental justice considerations as part 
of its SIP submittal; the CAA and applicable implementing regulations 
neither prohibit nor require such an evaluation. EPA did not perform an 
EJ analysis and did not consider EJ in this action. Consideration of EJ 
is not required as part of this action, and there is no information in 
the record inconsistent with the stated goal of E.O. 12898 of achieving 
environmental justice for people of color, low-income populations, and 
Indigenous peoples.

[[Page 31680]]

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 
Incorporation by reference, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, 
Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: April 18, 2024.
Debra Shore,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2024-08798 Filed 4-24-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.