SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. What actions did EPA propose in this SIP submission?

On September 29, 2020,^[1] EPA proposed to approve Ohio's SO₂ plan for the Muskingum River area submitted on April 3, 2015 and October 13, 2015, and supplemented on June 23, 2020. EPA also proposed to approve and incorporate by reference Ohio EPA's Director's Final Findings and Orders issued to Globe on June 23, 2020 (DFFOs), including emission limits and associated compliance monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements. In addition, EPA proposed to approve the base year emissions inventory and to affirm that the new source review requirements for the area had previously been met.

EPA's notice of proposed rulemaking provided an explanation of the provisions in the CAA and the measures and limitations identified in Ohio's attainment plan to satisfy these provisions. Ohio's plan was based on, among other things, the proposed acquisition by Globe of a tract of property to the north of the Globe facility that would have resulted in increased distance between the emissions source and the fenceline. EPA found that with the inclusion of this property within Globe's fenceline, Ohio's modeling results, based on modeling without receptors on fenced plant property and including the property proposed for purchase, were adequate to demonstrate that no ambient violations of the 1-hour SO₂ NAAQS would occur.

On June 1, 2021, EPA learned from Ohio EPA that Globe had decided not to purchase the land as anticipated by the attainment plan. As the attainment demonstration relied on the inclusion of this property within Globe's fenceline, failure to obtain the land renders the attainment demonstration invalid. Without a valid attainment demonstration, the proposed plan does ( printed page 67886) not meet the requirements for meeting RFP toward attainment of the NAAQS, RACM/RACT, emission limitations and control measures as necessary to attain the NAAQS, and contingency measures. EPA indicated to Ohio EPA and to Globe that final action to disapprove the attainment demonstration would start sanctions and Federal implementation plan (FIP) clocks for this area under CAA sections 179(a)-(b) and 110(c), respectively. EPA notes that approval of a revised attainment demonstration would remove the sanctions and FIP clocks, and such measures would be terminated by an EPA rulemaking approving a revised attainment demonstration.

II. What is EPA's response to comments received on the previous proposed rulemaking?

The proposed action described above provided a public comment period that closed on October 29, 2020. EPA received no relevant comments on the proposed action.

III. What action is EPA taking?

Based on the rationale set forth in the September 29, 2020 proposed rulemaking, EPA is proposing to approve the base year emissions inventory and affirming that the new source review requirements for the area have been met.

Because the area no longer has valid modeling showing attainment, EPA is proposing to disapprove Ohio's attainment demonstration for the Muskingum River SO₂ nonattainment area, including the DFFOs, as well as the requirements for meeting RFP toward attainment of the NAAQS, RACM/RACT, emission limitations and control measures as necessary to attain the NAAQS, and contingency measures. This disapproval will start sanctions clocks for this area under CAA section 179(a)-(b), including a requirement for 2-for-1 offsets for any major new sources or major modifications 18 months after the effective date of this action, and highway funding sanctions 6 months thereafter, as well as initiate an obligation for EPA to promulgate a FIP within 24 months, under CAA section 110(c), unless in the meantime EPA has approved a plan that satisfies the requirements that EPA is finding unsatisfied.

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. This action disapproves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:

• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have federalism implications as specified inExecutive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject toExecutive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject toExecutive 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, underExecutive 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).

86 FR 67885