[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 121 (Wednesday, June 24, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 36306-36314]
[FR Doc No: 2015-15556]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-RO5-OAR-2014-0657; FRL-9929-45-Region 5]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Michigan; Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 2008 Ozone, 2010
NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS;
Michigan State Board Requirements

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve elements of state implementation plan (SIP) submissions from
Michigan regarding the infrastructure requirements of section 110 of
the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 2008 ozone, 2010 nitrogen dioxide
(NO2), 2010 sulfur dioxide (SO2), and 2012 fine
particulate (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS). The infrastructure requirements are designed to ensure that
the structural components of each state's air quality management
program are adequate to meet the state's responsibilities under the
CAA. EPA is also proposing to approve a submission from Michigan
addressing the state board requirements under section 128 of the CAA.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 24, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2014-0657 by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: Douglas Aburano, Chief, Attainment Planning and
Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
    5. Hand Delivery: Douglas Aburano, Chief, Attainment Planning and
Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
Such deliveries are only accepted

during the Regional Office normal hours of operation, and special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The
Regional Office official hours of business are Monday through Friday,
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID. EPA-R05-OAR-2012-
0991 and EPA-R05-OAR-2013-0435. EPA's policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public docket without change and may
be made available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed
to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information
that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through
www.regulations.gov or email. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an
``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without
going through www.regulations.gov your email address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the U.S. 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. We recommend that you telephone Sarah Arra, Environmental
Scientist, at<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sarah Arra, Environmental Scientist,
Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-
18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:

I. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
II. What is the background of these SIP submissions?
III. What guidance is EPA using to evaluate these SIP submissions?
IV. What is the result of EPA's review of these SIP submissions?
V. What action is EPA taking?
VI. Incorporation by Reference
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    When submitting comments, remember to:
    1. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date, and page number).
    2. Follow directions--EPA may ask you to respond to specific
questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    3. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    4. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    5. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    6. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
    7. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    8. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline
identified.

II. What is the background of these SIP submissions?

A. What state SIP submissions does this rulemaking address?

    This rulemaking addresses submissions from the Michigan Department
of Environmental Management (MDEQ). The state submitted its
infrastructure SIP for the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010
SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, as well as state board
requirements under section 128 for incorporation into the SIP, on July
10, 2014.

B. Why did the state make these SIP submissions?

    Under sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA, states are required to
submit infrastructure SIPs to ensure that their SIPs provide for
implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS, including
the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS. These submissions must contain any revisions
needed for meeting the applicable SIP requirements of section
110(a)(2), or certifications that their existing SIPs for the NAAQS
already meet those requirements.
    EPA highlighted this statutory requirement in an October 2, 2007,
guidance document entitled ``Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under
Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-hour Ozone and
PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards'' (2007 Memo)
and has issued additional guidance documents, the most recent on
September 13, 2013, ``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation
Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and (2)''
(2013 Memo). The SIP submissions referenced in this rulemaking pertain
to the applicable requirements of section 110(a)(1) and (2), and
address the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. To the extent that the prevention of
significant deterioration (PSD) program is non-NAAQS specific, a narrow
evaluation of other NAAQS will be included in the appropriate sections.

C. What is the scope of this rulemaking?

    EPA is acting upon the SIP submissions from MDEQ that address the
infrastructure requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) for
the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS. The requirement for states to make a SIP
submission of this type arises out of CAA section 110(a)(1). Pursuant
to section 110(a)(1), states must make SIP submissions ``within 3 years
(or such shorter period as the Administrator may prescribe) after the
promulgation of a national primary ambient air quality standard (or any
revision thereof),'' and these SIP submissions are to provide for the
``implementation, maintenance, and enforcement'' of such NAAQS. The
statute directly imposes on states the duty to make these SIP
submissions, and the requirement to make the submissions is not
conditioned upon

EPA's taking any action other than promulgating a new or revised NAAQS.
Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of specific elements that ``[e]ach
such plan'' submission must address.
    EPA has historically referred to these SIP submissions made for the
purpose of satisfying the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(1) and
110(a)(2) as ``infrastructure SIP'' submissions. Although the term
``infrastructure SIP'' does not appear in the CAA, EPA uses the term to
distinguish this particular type of SIP submission from submissions
that are intended to satisfy other SIP requirements under the CAA, such
as ``nonattainment SIP'' or ``attainment plan SIP'' submissions to
address the nonattainment planning requirements of part D of title I of
the CAA, ``regional haze SIP'' submissions required by EPA rule to
address the visibility protection requirements of CAA section 169A, and
nonattainment new source review (NNSR) permit program submissions to
address the permit requirements of CAA, title I, part D.
    This rulemaking will not cover three substantive areas that are not
integral to acting on a state's infrastructure SIP submission: (i)
Existing provisions related to excess emissions during periods of
start-up, shutdown, or malfunction at sources, that may be contrary to
the CAA and EPA's policies addressing such excess emissions (SSM); (ii)
existing provisions related to ``director's variance'' or ``director's
discretion'' that purport to permit revisions to SIP-approved emissions
limits with limited public process or without requiring further
approval by EPA, that may be contrary to the CAA (director's
discretion); and, (iii) existing provisions for PSD programs that may
be inconsistent with current requirements of EPA's ``Final New Source
Review (NSR) Improvement Rule,'' 67 FR 80186 (December 31, 2002), as
amended by 72 FR 32526 (June 13, 2007) (NSR Reform). Instead, EPA has
the authority to address each one of these substantive areas in
separate rulemakings. A detailed history, interpretation, and rationale
as they relate to infrastructure SIP requirements can be found in EPA's
May 13, 2014, proposed rule entitled, ``Infrastructure SIP Requirements
for the 2008 Lead NAAQS'' in the section, ``What is the scope of this
rulemaking?'' (see 79 FR 27241 at 27242-27245).

III. What guidance is EPA using to evaluate these SIP submissions?

    EPA's guidance for these infrastructure SIP submissions is embodied
in the 2007 Memo. Specifically, attachment A of that memorandum
(Required Section 110 SIP Elements) identifies the statutory elements
that states need to submit in order to satisfy the requirements for an
infrastructure SIP submission. EPA issued additional guidance
documents, the most recent being the 2013 Memo, which further clarifies
aspects of infrastructure SIPs that are not NAAQS specific.

IV. What is the result of EPA's review of these SIP submissions?

    As noted in the 2013 Memo, pursuant to section 110(a), states must
provide reasonable notice and opportunity for public hearing for all
infrastructure SIP submissions. MDEQ provided the opportunity for
public comment for these submittals that ended on May 7, 2014.
Additionally, MDEQ provided an opportunity for a public hearing. The
state received comments and responded to them. EPA is also soliciting
comment on our evaluation of the state's infrastructure SIP submission
in this notice of proposed rulemaking. MDEQ provided detailed synopses
of how various components of its SIP meet each of the requirements in
section 110(a)(2) for the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010
SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, as applicable. The
following review evaluates the state's submissions.

A. Section 110(a)(2)(A)--Emission Limits and Other Control Measures

    This section requires SIPs to include enforceable emission limits
and other control measures, means or techniques, schedules for
compliance, and other related matters. EPA has long interpreted
emission limits and control measures for attaining the standards as
being due when nonattainment planning requirements are due.\1\ In the
context of an infrastructure SIP, EPA is not evaluating the existing
SIP provisions for this purpose. Instead, EPA is only evaluating
whether the state's SIP has basic structural provisions for the
implementation of the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See, e.g., EPA's final rule on ``National Ambient Air
Quality Standards for Lead.'' 73 FR 66964 at 67034.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Michigan Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act,
1994 PA 451, as amended (Act 451), sections 324.5503 and 324.5512,
provide the Director of MDEQ with the authority to regulate the
discharge of air pollutants, and to promulgate rules to establish
standards for emissions for ambient air quality and for emissions. To
maintain the 2008 ozone NAAQS, Michigan implements controls and
emission limits for nitrogen oxide (NOX), a precursor of
ozone, in Michigan Administrative Code sections R 336.1801 through R
336.1834; and controls and emission limits for volatile organic
compounds (VOC), also a precursor of ozone, in sections R 336.1601
through R 336.1661 and R 336.1701 through R 336.1710. The
NOX controls in sections R 336.1801 through R 336.1834 also
help to maintain the 2010 NO2 NAAQS. To maintain the 2010
SO2 NAAQS, Michigan implements SO2 controls and
emission limits in sections R 336.1401 through R 336.1420. To maintain
the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, Michigan implements controls and
emission limits for particulate matter sources in sections R 336.1301
through R 336.1374. EPA proposes that Michigan has met the
infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) with respect to
the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS.
    As previously noted, EPA is not proposing to approve or disapprove
any existing state provisions or rules related to SSM or director's
discretion in the context of section 110(a)(2)(A).

B. Section 110(a)(2)(B)--Ambient Air Quality Monitoring/Data System

    This section requires SIPs to include provisions to provide for
establishing and operating ambient air quality monitors, collecting and
analyzing ambient air quality data, and making these data available to
EPA upon request. This review of the annual monitoring plan includes
EPA's determination that the state: (i) Monitors air quality at
appropriate locations throughout the state using EPA-approved Federal
Reference Methods or Federal Equivalent Method monitors; (ii) submits
data to EPA's Air Quality System (AQS) in a timely manner; and, (iii)
provides EPA Regional Offices with prior notification of any planned
changes to monitoring sites or the network plan.
    MDEQ's authority to promulgate rules to establish ambient air
quality standard are found in Michigan Compiled laws (MCL) 324.5503 and
MCL 324.5512. MDEQ continues to operate an air monitoring network; EPA
approved the state's 2015 Annual Air Monitoring Network Plan on October
31, 2014, including the plan for ozone, NO2, SO2,
and PM2.5. MDEQ enters air monitoring data into AQS, and the
state provides EPA with prior notification when changes to its
monitoring network or plan are being considered. EPA proposes that
Michigan has met the infrastructure SIP requirements of section
110(a)(2)(B) with respect to the

2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS.

C. Section 110(a)(2)(C)--Program for Enforcement of Control Measures;
PSD

    States are required to include a program providing for enforcement
of all SIP measures and the regulation of construction of new or
modified stationary sources to meet NSR requirements under PSD and NNSR
programs. Part C of the CAA (sections 160-169B) addresses PSD, while
part D of the CAA (sections 171-193) addresses NNSR requirements.
    The evaluation of each state's submission addressing the
infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) covers: (i)
Enforcement of SIP measures; (ii) PSD provisions that explicitly
identify NOX as a precursor to ozone in the PSD program;
(iii) identification of precursors to PM2.5 and
identification of PM2.5 and PM10 \2\ condensables
in the PSD program; (iv) PM2.5 increments in the PSD
program; and, (v) greenhouse gas (GHG) permitting and the ``Tailoring
Rule.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ PM10 refers to particles with diameters between
2.5 and 10 microns, oftentimes referred to as ``coarse'' particles.
    \3\ In EPA's April 28, 2011, proposed rulemaking for
infrastructure SIPS for the 1997 ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS,
we stated that each state's PSD program must meet applicable
requirements for evaluation of all regulated NSR pollutants in PSD
permits (see 76 FR 23757 at 23760). This view was reiterated in
EPA's August 2, 2012, proposed rulemaking for infrastructure SIPs
for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS (see 77 FR 45992 at 45998). In
other words, if a state lacks provisions needed to adequately
address NOX as a precursor to ozone, PM2.5
precursors, PM2.5 and PM10 condensables,
PM2.5 increments, or the federal GHG permitting
thresholds, the provisions of section 110(a)(2)(C) requiring a
suitable PSD permitting program must be considered not to be met
irrespective of the NAAQS that triggered the requirement to submit
an infrastructure SIP, including the 2010 NO2 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sub-Element 1: Enforcement of SIP Measures
    MDEQ maintains an enforcement program to ensure compliance with SIP
requirements. Part 55 of Act 451, MCL 324.5501 through 324.5542, gives
MDEQ the authority to enforce emission limits and other control
measures in rules, permits, and orders. In addition, MCL 324.5530
authorizes the Michigan Attorney General to commence a civil service
action for appropriate relief for violations of or failure to comply
with Part 55 of Act 451. The Clean Corporate Citizen Program is
authorized through MCL 324.1401 through 324.1429. EPA proposes that
Michigan has met the enforcement of SIP measures requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to the 2008 ozone, 2010
NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
Sub-Element 2: PSD Provisions That Explicitly Identify NOX
as a Precursor to Ozone in the PSD Program
    EPA's ``Final Rule to Implement the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standard--Phase 2; Final Rule to Implement Certain Aspects
of the 1990 Amendments Relating to New Source Review and Prevention of
Significant Deterioration as They Apply in Carbon Monoxide, Particulate
Matter, and Ozone NAAQS; Final Rule for Reformulated Gasoline'' (Phase
2 Rule) was published on November 29, 2005 (see 70 FR 71612). Among
other requirements, the Phase 2 Rule obligated states to revise their
PSD programs to explicitly identify NOX as a precursor to
ozone (70 FR 71612 at 71679, 71699-71700). This requirement was
codified in 40 CFR 51.166.
    The Phase 2 Rule required that states submit SIP revisions
incorporating the requirements of the rule, including those identifying
NOX as a precursor to ozone, by June 15, 2007 (see 70 FR
71612 at 71683, November 29, 2005).
    EPA approved revisions to Michigan's PSD SIP reflecting these
requirements on April 4, 2014 (see 79 FR 18802), and therefore proposes
that Michigan has met the set of infrastructure SIP requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to the 2008 ozone, 2010
NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
Sub-Element 3: Identification of Precursors to PM2.5 and the
Identification of PM2.5 and PM10 Condensables in
the PSD Program
    On May 16, 2008 (see 73 FR 28321), EPA issued the Final Rule on the
``Implementation of the New Source Review (NSR) Program for Particulate
Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)'' (2008 NSR Rule).
The 2008 NSR Rule finalized several new requirements for SIPs to
address sources that emit direct PM2.5 and other pollutants
that contribute to secondary PM2.5 formation. One of these
requirements is for NSR permits to address pollutants responsible for
the secondary formation of PM2.5, otherwise known as
precursors. In the 2008 rule, EPA identified precursors to
PM2.5 for the PSD program to be SO2 and
NOX (unless the state demonstrates to the Administrator's
satisfaction or EPA demonstrates that NOX emissions in an
area are not a significant contributor to that area's ambient
PM2.5 concentrations). The 2008 NSR Rule also specifies that
VOCs are not considered to be precursors to PM2.5 in the PSD
program unless the state demonstrates to the Administrator's
satisfaction or EPA demonstrates that emissions of VOCs in an area are
significant contributors to that area's ambient PM2.5
concentrations.
    The explicit references to SO2, NOX, and VOCs
as they pertain to secondary PM2.5 formation are codified at
40 CFR 51.166(b)(49)(i)(b) and 40 CFR 52.21(b)(50)(i)(b). As part of
identifying pollutants that are precursors to PM2.5, the
2008 NSR Rule also required states to revise the definition of
``significant'' as it relates to a net emissions increase or the
potential of a source to emit pollutants. Specifically, 40 CFR
51.166(b)(23)(i) and 40 CFR 52.21(b)(23)(i) define ``significant'' for
PM2.5 to mean the following emissions rates: 10 tons per
year (tpy) of direct PM2.5; 40 tpy of SO2; and 40
tpy of NOX (unless the state demonstrates to the
Administrator's satisfaction or EPA demonstrates that NOX
emissions in an area are not a significant contributor to that area's
ambient PM2.5 concentrations). The deadline for states to
submit SIP revisions to their PSD programs incorporating these changes
was May 16, 2011 (see 73 FR 28321 at 28341).\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ EPA notes that on January 4, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the DC Circuit, in Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 706
F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir.), held that EPA should have issued the 2008 NSR
Rule in accordance with the CAA's requirements for PM10
nonattainment areas (Title I, Part D, subpart 4), and not the
general requirements for nonattainment areas under subpart 1. As the
subpart 4 provisions apply only to nonattainment areas, EPA does not
consider the portions of the 2008 rule that address requirements for
PM2.5 attainment and unclassifiable areas to be affected
by the Court's opinion. Moreover, EPA does not anticipate the need
to revise any PSD requirements promulgated by the 2008 NSR Rule in
order to comply with the Court's decision. Accordingly, EPA's
approval of Michigan's infrastructure SIP as to elements (C),
(D)(i)(II), or (J) with respect to the PSD requirements promulgated
by the 2008 implementation rule does not conflict with the court's
opinion.
    The Court's decision with respect to the nonattainment NSR
requirements promulgated by the 2008 implementation rule also does
not affect EPA's action on the present infrastructure action. EPA
interprets the CAA to exclude nonattainment area requirements,
including requirements associated with a nonattainment NSR program,
from infrastructure SIP submissions due three years after adoption
or revision of a NAAQS. Instead, these elements are typically
referred to as nonattainment SIP or attainment plan elements, which
would be due by the dates statutorily prescribed under subparts 2
through 5 under part D, extending as far as 10 years following
designations for some elements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2008 NSR Rule did not require states to immediately account for
gases that could condense to form particulate matter, known as
condensables, in PM2.5 and PM10 emission limits
in NSR permits. Instead, EPA determined that states had to account for
PM2.5 and PM10 condensables for applicability
determinations and in establishing emissions limitations for
PM2.5 and

PM10 in PSD permits beginning on or after January 1, 2011.
This requirement is codified in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(49)(i)(a) and 40 CFR
52.21(b)(50)(i)(a). Revisions to states' PSD programs incorporating the
inclusion of condensables were required be submitted to EPA by May 16,
2011 (see 73 FR 28321 at 28341).
    EPA approved revisions to Michigan's PSD SIP reflecting these
requirements on April 4, 2014 (see 79 FR 18802), and therefore proposes
that Michigan has met this set of infrastructure SIP requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to the 2008 ozone, 2010
NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
Sub-Element 4: PM2.5 Increments in the PSD Program
    On October 20, 2010, EPA issued the final rule on the ``Prevention
of Significant Deterioration (PSD) for Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5
Micrometers (PM2.5)--Increments, Significant Impact Levels
(SILs) and Significant Monitoring Concentration (SMC)'' (2010 NSR
Rule). This rule established several components for making PSD
permitting determinations for PM2.5, including a system of
``increments'' which is the mechanism used to estimate significant
deterioration of ambient air quality for a pollutant. These increments
are codified in 40 CFR 51.166(c) and 40 CFR 52.21(c), and are included
in the table below.

 Table 1--PM[ihel2].[ihel5] Increments Established by the 2010 NSR Rule
                      in Micrograms per Cubic Meter
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Annual
                                                 arithmetic  24-hour max
                                                    mean
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class I.......................................            1            2
Class II......................................            4            9
Class III.....................................            8           18
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2010 NSR Rule also established a new ``major source baseline
date'' for PM2.5 as October 20, 2010, and a new trigger date
for PM2.5 as October 20, 2011. These revisions are codified
in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(14)(i)(c) and (b)(14)(ii)(c), and 40 CFR
52.21(b)(14)(i)(c) and (b)(14)(ii)(c). Lastly, the 2010 NSR Rule
revised the definition of ``baseline area'' to include a level of
significance of 0.3 micrograms per cubic meter, annual average, for
PM2.5. This change is codified in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(15)(i)
and 40 CFR 52.21(b)(15)(i).
    On April 4, 2014 (79 FR 18802), EPA finalized approval of the
applicable infrastructure SIP PSD revisions; therefore, we are
proposing that Michigan has met this set of infrastructure SIP
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to the 2008 ozone,
2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS.
Sub-Element 5: GHG Permitting and the ``Tailoring Rule''
    With respect to Elements C and J, EPA interprets the CAA to require
each state to make an infrastructure SIP submission for a new or
revised NAAQS that demonstrates that the air agency has a complete PSD
permitting program meeting the current requirements for all regulated
NSR pollutants. The requirements of Element D(i)(II) may also be
satisfied by demonstrating the air agency has a complete PSD permitting
program correctly addressing all regulated NSR pollutants. Michigan has
shown that it currently has a PSD program in place that covers all
regulated NSR pollutants, including GHGs.
    On June 23, 2014, the United States Supreme Court issued a decision
addressing the application of PSD permitting requirements to GHG
emissions. Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection
Agency, 134 S.Ct. 2427. The Supreme Court said that the EPA may not
treat GHGs as an air pollutant for purposes of determining whether a
source is a major source required to obtain a PSD permit. The Court
also said that the EPA could continue to require that PSD permits,
otherwise required based on emissions of pollutants other than GHGs,
contain limitations on GHG emissions based on the application of Best
Available Control Technology (BACT).
    In order to act consistently with its understanding of the Court's
decision pending further judicial action to effectuate the decision,
the EPA is not continuing to apply EPA regulations that would require
that SIPs include permitting requirements that the Supreme Court found
impermissible. Specifically, EPA is not applying the requirement that a
state's SIP-approved PSD program require that sources obtain PSD
permits when GHGs are the only pollutant (i) that the source emits or
has the potential to emit above the major source thresholds, or (ii)
for which there is a significant emissions increase and a significant
net emissions increase from a modification (e.g. 40 CFR
51.166(b)(48)(v)).
    EPA anticipates a need to revise Federal PSD rules in light of the
Supreme Court opinion. In addition, EPA anticipates that many states
will revise their existing SIP-approved PSD programs in light of the
Supreme Court's decision. The timing and content of subsequent EPA
actions with respect to the EPA regulations and state PSD program
approvals are expected to be informed by additional legal process
before the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit. At this juncture, EPA is not expecting states to have revised
their PSD programs for purposes of infrastructure SIP submissions and
is only evaluating such submissions to assure that the state's program
correctly addresses GHGs consistent with the Supreme Court's decision.
    At present, EPA is proposing that Michigan's SIP is sufficient to
satisfy Elements C, D(i)(II), and J with respect to GHGs because the
PSD permitting program previously approved by EPA into the SIP
continues to require that PSD permits (otherwise required based on
emissions of pollutants other than GHGs) contain limitations on GHG
emissions based on the application of BACT. Although the approved
Michigan PSD permitting program may currently contain provisions that
are no longer necessary in light of the Supreme Court decision, this
does not render the infrastructure SIP submission inadequate to satisfy
Elements C, (D)(i)(II), and J. The SIP contains the necessary PSD
requirements at this time, and the application of those requirements is
not impeded by the presence of other previously-approved provisions
regarding the permitting of sources of GHGs that EPA does not consider
necessary at this time in light of the Supreme Court decision.
    For the purposes of the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010
SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS infrastructure SIPs,
EPA reiterates that NSR Reform regulations are not within the scope of
these actions. Therefore, we are not taking action on existing NSR
Reform regulations for Michigan. EPA approved Michigan's minor NSR
program on May 6, 1980 (see 45 FR 29790); and since that date, MDEQ and
EPA have relied on the existing minor NSR program to ensure that new
and modified sources not captured by the major NSR permitting programs
do not interfere with attainment and maintenance of the 2008 ozone,
2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS.
    Certain sub-elements in this section overlap with elements of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), section 110(a)(2)(E) and section 110(a)(2)(J).
These links will be discussed in the appropriate areas below.

D. Section 110(a)(2)(D)--Interstate Transport

    Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires SIPs to include provisions
prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity in one state
from contributing

significantly to nonattainment, or interfering with maintenance, of the
NAAQS in another state.
    On February 17, 2012, EPA promulgated designations for the 2010
NO2 NAAQS, stating for the entire country that, ``The EPA is
designating areas as ``unclassifiable/attainment'' to mean that
available information does not indicate that the air quality in these
areas exceeds the 2010 NO2 NAAQS'' (see 77 FR 9532). For
comparison purposes, EPA examined the design values \5\ from
NO2 monitors in Michigan and surrounding states. The highest
design value based on data collected between 2011 and 2013 was 44 ppb
at a monitor in Detroit, MI, compared to the standard which is 100 ppb
for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS. Additionally, Michigan has SIP
approved rules that limit NOX emissions, including rules in
Michigan Administrative Code sections R 336.1801 through R 336.1834.
EPA believes that, in conjunction with the continued implementation of
the state's SIP-approved PSD and NNSR regulations, these low monitored
values of NO2 will continue in and around Michigan. In other
words, the NO2 emissions from Michigan are not expected to
cause or contribute to a violation of the 2010 NO2 NAAQS in
another state, and these emissions are not likely to interfere with the
maintenance of the 2010 NO2 NAAQS in another state.
Therefore, EPA proposes that Michigan has met transport prongs 1 and 2
related to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010 NO2
NAAQS. Michigan, as noted in its July 11, 2014, clarification letter,
did not make submittals pertaining to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for
the 2008 ozone, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The level of the 2010 NO2 NAAQS for is 100 parts
per billion (ppb) and the form is the 3-year average of the annual
98th percentile of the daily 1-hour maximum. For the most recent
design values, see http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/values.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires that SIPs include provisions
prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity in one state
from interfering with measures required to prevent significant
deterioration of air quality or to protect visibility in another state.
    EPA notes that Michigan's satisfaction of the applicable
infrastructure SIP PSD requirements for the 2008 ozone, 2010
NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS
have been detailed in the section addressing section 110(a)(2)(C). EPA
further notes that the proposed actions in that section related to PSD
are consistent with the proposed actions related to PSD for section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), and they are reiterated below.
    EPA has previously approved revisions to Michigan's SIP that meet
certain requirements obligated by the Phase 2 Rule and the 2008 NSR
Rule. These revisions included provisions that: Explicitly identify
NOX as a precursor to ozone, explicitly identify
SO2 and NOX as precursors to PM2.5,
and regulate condensable PM2.5 and PM10 in
applicability determinations and establishing emissions limits. EPA has
also previously approved revisions to Michigan's SIP that incorporate
the PM2.5 increments and the associated implementation
regulations including the major source baseline date, trigger date, and
level of significance for PM2.5 per the 2010 NSR Rule. EPA
is proposing that Michigan's SIP contains provisions that adequately
address the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
    States also have an obligation to ensure that sources located in
nonattainment areas do not interfere with a neighboring state's PSD
program. One way that this requirement can be satisfied is through an
NNSR program consistent with the CAA that addresses any pollutants for
which there is a designated nonattainment area within the state.
    Michigan's EPA-approved NNSR regulations found in Part 2 of the
SIP, specifically in Michigan Administrative Code sections R 336.1220
and R 336.1221, are consistent with 40 CFR 51.165, or 40 CFR part 51,
appendix S. Therefore, EPA proposes that Michigan has met all of the
applicable PSD requirements for the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2,
2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS for transport
prong 3 related to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).
    With regard to the applicable requirements for visibility
protection of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), states are subject to
visibility and regional haze program requirements under part C of the
CAA (which includes sections 169A and 169B). The 2013 Memo states that
these requirements can be satisfied by an approved SIP addressing
reasonably attributable visibility impairment, if required, or an
approved SIP addressing regional haze.
    In today's rulemaking, EPA is not proposing to approve or
disapprove Michigan's satisfaction of the visibility protection
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), transport prong 4, for the
2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS. Instead, EPA will evaluate Michigan's
compliance with these requirements in a separate rulemaking.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Michigan has an approved regional haze plan for most non-
EGUs. Michigan's plan for EGUs relied on the Clean Air Interstate
Rule that has been recently superseded by the Cross State Air
Pollution Rule to which Michigan EGU sources are also subject.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires that each SIP contains adequate
provisions requiring compliance with the applicable requirements of
sections 126 and 115 (relating to interstate and international
pollution abatement, respectively).
    Section 126(a) requires new or modified sources to notify
neighboring states of potential impacts from the source. The statute
does not specify the method by which the source should provide the
notification. States with SIP-approved PSD programs must have a
provision requiring such notification by new or modified sources. A
lack of such a requirement in state rules would be grounds for
disapproval of this element.
    Michigan has provisions in its EPA-approved PSD program in Michigan
Administrative Code section R 336.2817 requiring new or modified
sources to notify neighboring states of potential negative air quality
impacts, and has referenced this program as having adequate provisions
to meet the requirements of section 126(a). EPA is proposing that
Michigan has met the infrastructure SIP requirements of section 126(a).
Michigan does not have any obligations under any other subsection of
section 126, nor does it have any pending obligations under section
115. EPA, therefore, is proposing that Michigan has met all applicable
infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) for the
2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS.

E. Section 110(a)(2)(E)--Adequate Resources

    This section requires each state to provide for adequate personnel,
funding, and legal authority under state law to carry out its SIP, and
related issues. Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) also requires each state to
comply with the requirements respecting state boards under section 128.
Sub-Element 1: Adequate Personnel, Funding, and Legal Authority Under
State Law To Carry Out Its SIP, and Related Issues
    MDEQ's SIP program is funded through 105 and 103 grants and
matching funds from the state's General Fund. As discussed in earlier
sections, MDEQ has the legal authority to carry

out the Michigan SIP under Act 451 and the Executive Reorganization
Order 2011-1. Michigan's PSD regulations provide adequate resources to
permit GHG sources. EPA proposes that Michigan has met the
infrastructure SIP requirements of this portion of section 110(a)(2)(E)
with respect to the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010
SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
Sub-Element 2: State Board Requirements Under Section 128 of the CAA
    Section 110(a)(2)(E) also requires that each SIP contains
provisions that comply with the state board requirements of section 128
of the CAA. That provision contains two explicit requirements: (i) That
any board or body which approves permits or enforcement orders under
this chapter shall have at least a majority of members who represent
the public interest and do not derive any significant portion of their
income from persons subject to permits and enforcement orders under
this chapter, and (ii) that any potential conflicts of interest by
members of such board or body or the head of an executive agency with
similar powers be adequately disclosed.
    On July 10, 2014, MDEQ submitted rules from the Civil Service Rule
at 2-8.3(a)(1) for incorporation into the SIP, pursuant to section 128
of the CAA. MDEQ does not have a state board. The authority to approve
air permits and enforcement orders rest with the MDEQ Director and his
designee. These authorities are found in MCL 324.5503, MCL 324.301(b),
Executive Order No. 1995-18, and delegation letter from the MDEQ
Director to the Air Quality Division chief and supervisors. Therefore,
section 128(a)(1) of the CAA is not applicable in Michigan.
    Under section 128(a)(2), the head of the executive agency with the
power to approve enforcement orders or permits must adequately disclose
any potential conflicts of interest. The Civil Service Rule 2-8.3(a)(1)
contains provisions that adequately satisfy the requirements of section
128(a)(2). This provision requires that ``At least annually, an
employee shall disclose to the employee's appointing authority all
personal or financial interests of the employee or members of the
employee's immediate family in any business or entity with which the
employee has direct contact while performing official duties as a
classified employee'' (Civil Service Rule 2-8.3(a)(1)). The Civil
Service Rule 1-9.1 subjects the MDEQ Director and designees to this
provision. Therefore, when evaluated together in the context of section
128(a)(2), the director of MDEQ or his/her designee must fully disclose
any potential conflicts of interest relating to permits or enforcement
orders under the CAA. As a result, we are proposing to approve Civil
Service Rule 2-8.3(a)(1) into the SIP. On July 10, 2014, MDEQ requested
that these rules satisfy not only the applicable requirements of
section 128 of the CAA, but that they satisfy any applicable
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E) for the 2008 ozone, 2010
NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
Therefore, EPA is proposing that MDEQ has satisfied the applicable
infrastructure SIP requirements for this section of 110(a)(2)(E) for
the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS.

F. Section 110(a)(2)(F)--Stationary Source Monitoring System

    States must establish a system to monitor emissions from stationary
sources and submit periodic emissions reports. Each plan shall also
require the installation, maintenance, and replacement of equipment,
and the implementation of other necessary steps, by owners or operators
of stationary sources to monitor emissions from such sources. The state
plan shall also require periodic reports on the nature and amounts of
emissions and emissions-related data from such sources, and correlation
of such reports by each state agency with any emission limitations or
standards established pursuant to this chapter. Lastly, the reports
shall be available at reasonable times for public inspection.
    MDEQ implements a stationary source monitoring program under the
authority of MCL 324.5512 and MCL 324.5503 of Act 451. Additional
emissions testing, sampling, and reporting requirements are found in
Michigan Administrative Code sections R 336.201 through R 336.202 and R
336.2011 through R 336.2199. Emissions data is submitted to EPA through
the National Emissions Inventory system and is available to the public
online and upon request. EPA proposes that Michigan has satisfied the
infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(F) with respect to
the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS.

G. Section 110(a)(2)(G)--Emergency Powers

    This section requires that a plan provide for authority that is
analogous to what is provided in section 303 of the CAA, and adequate
contingency plans to implement such authority. The 2013 Memo states
that infrastructure SIP submissions should specify authority, rested in
an appropriate official, to restrain any source from causing or
contributing to emissions which present an imminent and substantial
endangerment to public health or welfare, or the environment.
    MDEQ has the authority to require immediate discontinuation of air
contamination discharges that constitute an imminent and substantial
endangerment to public health, safety, welfare, or the environment
under MCL 324.5518 of Act 451. MCL 324.5530 provides for civil action
by the Michigan Attorney General for a violation as just described. EPA
proposes that Michigan has met the applicable infrastructure SIP
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(G) related to authority to implement
measures to restrain sources from causing or contributing to emissions
which present an imminent and substantial endangerment to public health
or welfare, or the environment with respect to the 2008 ozone, 2010
NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

H. Section 110(a)(2)(H)--Future SIP Revisions

    This section requires states to have the authority to revise their
SIPs in response to changes in the NAAQS, availability of improved
methods for attaining the NAAQS, or to an EPA finding that the SIP is
substantially inadequate.
    MDEQ continues to update and implement needed revisions to
Michigan's SIP as necessary to meet ambient air quality standards.
Authority for MDEQ to adopt emissions standards and compliance
schedules is found at MCL 324.5512 and MCL 324.5503 of Act 451. EPA
proposes that Michigan has met the infrastructure SIP requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(H) with respect to the 2008 ozone, 2010
NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

I. Section 110(a)(2)(I)--Nonattainment Area Plan or Plan Revisions
Under Part D

    The CAA requires that each plan or plan revision for an area
designated as a nonattainment area meet the applicable requirements of
part D of the CAA. Part D relates to nonattainment areas.
    EPA has determined that section 110(a)(2)(I) is not applicable to
the infrastructure SIP process. Instead, EPA takes action on part D
attainment plans through separate processes.

J. Section 110(a)(2)(J)--Consultation With Government Officials; Public
Notifications; PSD; Visibility Protection

    The evaluation of the submissions from Michigan with respect to the

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(J) is described below.
Sub-Element 1: Consultation With Government Officials
    States must provide a process for consultation with local
governments and Federal Land Managers (FLMs) carrying out NAAQS
implementation requirements.
    Michigan actively participates in the regional planning efforts
that include business, community groups, state rule developers,
representatives from the FLMs, and other affected stakeholders.
Michigan Administrative Code section R 336.2816 requires that FLMs are
provided with notification of permit applications that may impact class
I areas. Additionally, Michigan is an active member of the Lake
Michigan Air Directors Consortium, which consists of collaboration with
the States of Illinois, Wisconsin, Indiana, Minnesota, and Ohio. EPA
proposes that Michigan has met the infrastructure SIP requirements of
this portion of section 110(a)(2)(J) with respect to the 2008 ozone,
2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS.
Sub-Element 2: Public Notification
    Section 110(a)(2)(J) also requires states to notify the public if
NAAQS are exceeded in an area and must enhance public awareness of
measures that can be taken to prevent exceedances.
    MDEQ notifies the public if there are NAAQS exceedances and of any
public health hazards associated with those exceedances through
CleanAirAction!, AirNow, and EnviroFlash as well as posting on its Web
site. MDEQ published an annual air quality report comparing Michigan
monitors to the NAAQS. EPA proposes that Michigan has met the
infrastructure SIP requirements of this portion of section 110(a)(2)(J)
with respect to the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010
SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
Sub-Element 3: PSD
    States must meet applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C)
related to PSD. MDEQ's PSD program in the context of infrastructure
SIPs has already been discussed in the paragraphs addressing section
110(a)(2)(C) and 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), and EPA notes that the proposed
actions for those sections are consistent with the proposed actions for
this portion of section 110(a)(2)(J). Therefore, EPA proposes that
Michigan has met all of the infrastructure SIP requirements for PSD
associated with section 110(a)(2)(D)(J) for the 2008 ozone, 2010
NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
Sub-Element 4: Visibility Protection
    With regard to the applicable requirements for visibility
protection, states are subject to visibility and regional haze program
requirements under part C of the CAA (which includes sections 169A and
169B). In the event of the establishment of a new NAAQS, however, the
visibility and regional haze program requirements under part C do not
change. Thus, we find that there is no new visibility obligation
``triggered'' under section 110(a)(2)(J) when a new NAAQS becomes
effective. In other words, the visibility protection requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(J) are not germane to infrastructure SIPs for the
2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS.

K. Section 110(a)(2)(K)--Air Quality Modeling/Data

    SIPs must provide for performing air quality modeling for
predicting effects on air quality of emissions of any NAAQS pollutant
and submission of such data to EPA upon request.
    MDEQ continues to review the potential impact of major, and some
minor, new and modified sources using computer models. Michigan's rules
regarding air quality modeling are contained in Michigan Administrative
Code sections R 336.1240 and R 336.1241. These modeling data are
available to EPA or other interested parties upon request. EPA proposes
that Michigan has met the infrastructure SIP requirements of section
110(a)(2)(K) with respect to the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010
SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

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

    This section requires that SIPs mandate that each major stationary
source pay permitting fees to cover the cost of reviewing, approving,
implementing, and enforcing a permit.
    MDEQ implements and operates the title V permit program, which EPA
approved on December 4, 2001 (66 FR 62969); revisions to the program
were approved on November 10, 2003 (68 FR 63735). MDEQ's authority to
levy and collect an annual air quality fee from fee-subject facilities
is found in section 324.5522 of Act 451. EPA proposes that Michigan has
met the infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(L) with
respect to the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2,
and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

M. Section 110(a)(2)(M)--Consultation/Participation by Affected Local
Entities

    States must consult with and allow participation from local
political subdivisions affected by the SIP.
    MDEQ regularly works with local political subdivisions for
attainment planning purposes and actively participates in regional
planning organizations. Rulemaking is subject to notice, comment, and
hearing requirements under the Michigan Administrative Procedures Act,
1969 PA 306 and is authorized in MCL 324.5512. EPA proposes that
Michigan has met the infrastructure SIP requirements of section
110(a)(2)(M) with respect to the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010
SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

V. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is proposing to approve most elements of submissions from MDEQ
certifying that its current SIP is sufficient to meet the required
infrastructure elements under sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2008
ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS. In addition, EPA is proposing to approve a
submission from Michigan intended to meet the state board requirements
of section 128, specifically the Civil Service Rule 2-8.3(a)(1).
    EPA's proposed actions for the state's satisfaction of
infrastructure SIP requirements, by element of section 110(a)(2) are
contained in the table below.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   2008    2010 NO2  2010 SO2     2012
            Element                Ozone                         PM2.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A)--Emission limits and other         A         A         A          A
 control measures..............
(B)--Ambient air quality               A         A         A          A
 monitoring/data system........
(C)1--Program for enforcement          A         A         A          A
 of control measures...........
(C)2--PSD......................        A         A         A          A
(D)1--I Prong 1: Interstate           NA         A        NA         NA
 transport--significant
 contribution..................
(D)2--I Prong 2: Interstate           NA         A        NA         NA
 transport--interfere with
 maintenance...................
(D)3--II Prong 3: Interstate           A         A         A          A
 transport--prevention of
 significant deterioration.....
(D)4--II Prong 4: Interstate          NA        NA        NA         NA
 transport--protect visibility.

(D)5--Interstate and                   A         A         A          A
 international pollution
 abatement.....................
(E)1--Adequate resources.......        A         A         A          A
(E)2--State board requirements.        A         A         A          A
(F)--Stationary source                 A         A         A          A
 monitoring system.............
(G)--Emergency power...........        A         A         A          A
(H)--Future SIP revisions......        A         A         A          A
(I)--Nonattainment planning            +         +         +          +
 requirements of part D........
(J)1--Consultation with                A         A         A          A
 government officials..........
(J)2--Public notification......        A         A         A          A
(J)3--PSD......................        A         A         A          A
(J)4--Visibility protection....        +         +         +          +
(K)--Air quality modeling/data.        A         A         A          A
(L)--Permitting fees...........        A         A         A          A
(M)--Consultation and                  A         A         A          A
 participation by affected
 local entities................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the above table, the key is as follows:
 A = Approve
 NA = No Action/Separate Rulemaking
 + = Not Germaine to Infrastructure.

VI. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the 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, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference the Michigan Civil Service Commission Rule 2-8.3(a)(1)
entitled ``Disclosure,'' effective October 1, 2013. The EPA has made,
and will continue to make, these documents generally available
electronically through www.regulations.gov and/or in hard copy at the
appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for
more information).

VII. 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 (Public Law 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
oxides.

    Dated: June 11, 2015.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2015-15556 Filed 6-23-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: May 5, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 86)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 24400-24402]
[DOCID:fr05my10-10]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2009-0249]
RIN 1625-AA09

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; CSX Railroad, Trout River, Mile
0.9, Jacksonville, FL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is changing the regulation governing the
operation of the CSX Railroad Bridge across the Trout River, mile 0.9,
Jacksonville, Florida. This rule will allow the bridge to operate using
an automated system, without an onsite bridge tender. Currently, the
bridge is required to open on signal from 6 a.m. until 10 p.m.; and
from 10 p.m. until 6 a.m. the draw shall open on signal if at least 12
hours notice is given.

DATES: This rule is effective June 4, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Comments and related materials received from the public, as
well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the
docket, are part of docket USCG-2009-0249 and are available online by
going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2009-0249 in the
``Keyword'' box, and then clicking ``Search.'' This material is also
available for inspection or copying at the Docket Management

Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC
20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed
rule, call or e-mail Mr. Michael Lieberum<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Seventh Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch, 909 S.E. 1st Ave., Miami,
FL 33131, telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>. If you have questions on
viewing the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket
Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    On June 4, 2009, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) entitled CSX Railroad, Trout River, mile 0.9, Jacksonville, FL
in the Federal Register (74 FR 106). We received no comments on the
proposed rule. No public meeting was requested, and none was held.

Background and Purpose

    The bridge owner, CSX Railroad, has requested that the Coast Guard
remove the existing regulations governing the operation of the CSX
Railroad Bridge over the Trout River and allow the bridge to operate
utilizing an automated system. The request is made because there are
only four train transits per day that are short in duration. Under the
proposed rule, the bridge would remain in the open position to vessel
traffic at all times, closing only to accommodate train traffic.
    The CSX Railroad Bridge is located on the Trout River, mile 0.9,
Jacksonville, Florida. The current regulation governing the operation
of the CSX Railroad Bridge is published in 33 CFR 117.337 and requires
the bridge to open on signal from 6 a.m. until 10 p.m.; and from 10
p.m. until 6 a.m. the draw shall open on signal if at least 12 hours
notice is given.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not
require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order. This rule will provide less restrictive
vessel traffic flow as the bridge will be in the open position and only
lowered when a train approaches the bridge.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
    This rule will have less of an impact on small entities as the
bridge will be in the open position and will be closed for short
periods of time as trains transit across this bridge.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), in the NPRM we offered to
assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could
better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking
process.

Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under
that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for
federalism.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any
one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we
do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not affect a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might
disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency

provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an
explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials,
performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures;
and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted
by voluntary consensus standards bodies.
    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded
that this action is one of a category of actions which do not
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1,
paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction.
    Under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, an
environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion
determination are not required for this rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

    Bridges.

0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR part 117 as follows:

PART 117--DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland
Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Revise Sec.  117.337 as follows:

Sec.  117.337  Trout River.

    The draw of the CSX Railroad Bridge across the Trout River, mile
0.9 at Jacksonville, operates as follows:
    (a) The bridge is not tended.
    (b) The draw is normally in the fully open position, displaying
green lights to indicate that vessels may pass.
    (c) As a train approaches, provided the scanners do not detect a
vessel under the draw, the lights change to flashing red and a horn
continuously sounds while the draw closes. The draw remains closed
until the train passes.
    (d) After the train clears the bridge, the lights continue to flash
red and the horn again continuously sounds while the draw opens, until
the draw is fully open and the lights return to green.

    Dated: April 21, 2010.
R.S. Branham,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Seventh Coast Guard
District.
[FR Doc. 2010-10497 Filed 5-4-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P