1570 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132. The proposed 

change only corrects and simplifies one 

error in Appendix N of part 50 

(Interpretation of the National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards for PM2.5); thus, 

Executive Order 13132 does not apply 

to this proposed rule. In the spirit of 

Executive Order 13132, and consistent 

with EPA policy to promote 

communications between EPA and State 

and local governments, EPA specifically 

solicits comment on this proposed rule 

from State and local officials. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

Executive Order 13175, entitled 

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA 

to develop an accountable process to 

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by 

tribal officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have tribal 

implications.’’ This proposed rule does 

not have tribal implications, as specified 

in Executive Order 13175. The proposed 

change only corrects and simplifies one 

error in Appendix N of part 50 

(Interpretation of the National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards for PM2.5). Thus, 

Executive Order 13175 does not apply 

to this proposed rule. 

EPA specifically solicits additional 

comment on this proposed rule from 

tribal officials. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

Executive Order 13045: ‘‘Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, 

April 23,1997) applies to any rule that: 

(1) Is determined to be ‘‘economically 

significant’’ as defined under Executive 

Order 12866, and (2) concerns an 

environmental health or safety risk that 

EPA has reason to believe may have a 

disproportionate effect on children. If 

the regulatory action meets both criteria, 

the Agency must evaluate the 

environmental health or safety effects of 

the planned rule on children, and 

explain why the planned regulation is 

preferable to other potentially effective 

and reasonably feasible alternatives 

considered by the Agency. 

EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 

as applying only to those regulatory 

actions that are based on health or safety 

risks, such that the analysis required 

under section 5–501 of the Order has 

the potential to influence the regulation. 

This proposed rule is not subject to 

Executive Order 13045 because, while it 

is based on the need for monitoring data 

to characterize risk, this proposed rule 

itself does not establish an 

environmental standard intended to 

mitigate health or safety risks. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This proposed rule is not subject to 

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

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

22, 2001)) because it is not a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer Advancement Act 

of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104–113, 

section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 

directs EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities 

unless to do so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. Voluntary consensus 

standards are technical standards (e.g., 

materials specifications, test methods, 

sampling procedures, and business 

practices) that are developed or adopted 

by voluntary consensus standards 

bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to 

provide Congress, through OMB, 

explanations when the Agency decides 

not to use available and applicable 

voluntary consensus standards. 

This proposed rulemaking does not 

involve any new technical standards for 

environmental monitoring and 

measurement. Ambient air 

concentrations of PM 2.5 are currently 

measured by the Federal reference 

method in 40 CFR part 50, Appendix L 

(Reference Method for the 

Determination of Fine Particulate as 

PM 2.5 in the Atmosphere) or by Federal 

Reference Method or Federal Equivalent 

Method that meet the requirements in 

40 CFR part 53. 

EPA welcomes comments on this 

aspect of the proposed rulemaking and, 

specifically, invites the public to 

identify potentially-applicable 

voluntary standards and to explain why 

such standards should be used in this 

regulation. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 

(Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

EPA has determined that this 

proposed rule will not have 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority or low-income populations 

because it does not affect the level of 

protection provided to human health or 

the environment. The proposed rule 

merely amends the October 17, 2006, 

final PM NAAQS rule (71 FR 61144) by 

correcting and simplifying existing 

PM 2.5 data handling conventions and 

computations. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 50 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: November 29, 2007. 

Stephen L. Johnson, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 07–5953 Filed 1–8–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2007–1043; FRL–8514–4] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Michigan; PSD Regulations 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to 

conditionally approve revisions to 

Michigan’s State Implementation plan 

(SIP) to add the prevention of significant 

deterioration (PSD) construction permit 

program under the Federal Clean Air 

Act (CAA). This program affects major 

stationary sources in Michigan that are 

subject to or potentially subject to the 

PSD construction permit program. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before February 8, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05–


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 1571 

OAR–2007–1043, by one of the 

following methods: 

• www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-mail: blakley.pamela@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (312) 886–5824. 

• Mail: Pamela Blakley, Chief, Air 

Permits Section, Air Programs Branch 

(AR–18J), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 

• Hand Delivery: Pamela Blakley, 

Chief, Air Permits 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 No. EPA–R05–OAR–2007–

1043. 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 e-mail. 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 e-mail 

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. For additional instructions 

on submitting comments, go to Section 

I of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section of this document. 

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 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 legal 

holidays. We recommend that you 

telephone Laura Cossa, Environmental 

Engineer, at (312) 886–0661 before 

visiting the Region 5 office. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Laura Cossa, Environmental Engineer, 

Air Permits Section, Air Programs 

Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West 

Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 

60604, (312) 886–0661, 

cossa.laura@epa.gov. 

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 Being Addressed in This 

Document? 

III. What Are the Changes That EPA Is 

Conditionally Approving? 

IV. What Action Is EPA Taking Today? 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What Should I Consider as I Prepare 

My Comments for EPA? 

1. Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

2. Follow directions—The 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 Being Addressed in This 

Document? 

EPA is proposing to conditionally 

approve revisions to Michigan’s SIP to 

add the PSD construction permit 

program. Approval of the proposed state 

rules would allow Michigan to obtain a 

full CAA New Source Review (NSR) 

SIP. Current state SIP rules implement 

the major NSR permitting program for 

sources located in counties not attaining 

air quality standards, but not the PSD 

permitting program for sources located 

in counties attaining air quality 

standards. Prior to Michigan’s 

development of the submitted PSD 

program, EPA delegated to Michigan the 

authority to issue PSD permits through 

the Federal PSD rules at 40 CFR 52.21 

(via delegation letter dated September 

26, 1988). 

The new state PSD rules reflect the 

requirements of CAA 42 Sections 

110(a)(2)(c) and 165. The state PSD rules 

also reflect recent changes to 40 CFR 

51.166, following the June 24, 2005, 

United States Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia Circuit ruling on 

the Federal PSD and non-attainment 

NSR regulation revisions. These 

revisions are commonly referred to as 

‘‘NSR Reform’’ regulations, and became 

effective on March 3, 2003. Michigan 

adopted the PSD rules on December 4, 

2006. The rules took effect immediately 

at the state level. The Michigan 

Department of Environmental Quality 

(MDEQ) submitted to EPA a final 

request for approval of these rules into 

the SIP on December 21, 2006. On 

February 12, 2007, EPA notified the 

state that the submittal satisfied the 

completeness criteria set forth at 40 CFR 

51, Appendix V. 

III. What Are the Changes That EPA Is 

Conditionally Approving? 

Michigan Air Pollution Control Rules, 

Part 18, Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration of Air Quality, Rules R 

336.2801 to R 336.2819 and R 336.2823 

(1) to (14). 

The following subsections discuss the 

elements of the proposed state rules and 

how they compare to Federal 

requirements: 

R 336.2801 Definitions 

Actual Emissions 

Michigan has established the 

definition of ‘‘actual emissions’’ in R 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS-1
1572 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

336.2801(a). This definition is 

consistent with the definition in 40 CFR 

51.166(b)(21). 

Baseline Actual Emissions 

Michigan has established the 

definition of ‘‘baseline actual 

emissions’’ in R 336.2801 (b). This 

definition is consistent with the 

definition in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(47). 

Baseline Area 

Michigan has established the 

definition of ‘‘baseline area’’ in R 

336.2801(c). The definition is consistent 

with the definition in 40 CFR 

51.166(b)(15). The reference to 

nonattainment area regulations in state 

rule R 336.2801(c)(ii)(b) is irrelevant for 

the purposes of this PSD SIP submittal. 

Baseline Concentration 

Michigan has established the 

definition of ‘‘baseline concentration’’

in R 336.2801(d). This definition is 

consistent with the definition in 40 CFR 

51.166(b)(13). 

Begin Actual Construction 

Michigan has established the 

definition of ‘‘begin actual 

construction’’ in R 336.2801 (e). This 

definition is consistent with the 

definition in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(11). 

Best Available Control Technology or 

‘‘BACT’’

Michigan has established the 

definition of ‘‘BACT’’ in R 336.2801(f). 

This definition is consistent with the 

definition in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(12). 

Building, Structure, Facility, or 

Installation 

Michigan has established the 

definition of ‘‘building, structure, 

facility, or installation’’—in R 336.2801 

(g). This definition is consistent with 

the definition in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(6). 

Clean Coal Technology 

Michigan has established the 

definition of ‘‘clean coal technology’’ in 

R 336.2801 (h). This definition is 

consistent with the definition in 40 CFR 

51.166(b)(33). 

Clean Coal Technology 

Demonstration Project 

Michigan has established the 

definition of ‘‘clean coal technology 

demonstration project’’ in R 336.2801(i). 

This definition is consistent with the 

definition in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(34). 

Commence 

Michigan has established the 

definition of ‘‘commence’’ in R 

336.2801(k). This definition is 

consistent with the definition in 40 CFR 

51.166(b)(9). 

Complete 

Michigan has established the 

definition of ‘‘complete’’—in reference 

to an application to a permit—in R 

336.2801(l). This definition is consistent 

with the definition in 40 CFR 

51.166(b)(22). 

Construction 

Michigan has established the 

definition of ‘‘construction’’ in R 

336.2801(m). This definition is 

consistent with the definition in 40 CFR 

51.166(b)(8). 

Continuous Emissions Monitoring 

System or ‘‘CEMS’’ 

Michigan has established the 

definition of ‘‘CEMS’’ in R 336.2801(n). 

This definition is consistent with the 

definition in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(43). 

Continuous Emissions Rate 

Monitoring System or ‘‘CERMS’’ 

Michigan has established the 

definition of ‘‘CERMS’’ in R 

336.2801(o). This definition is 

consistent with the definition in 40 CFR 

51.166(b)(46). 

Continuous Parameter Monitoring 

System or ‘‘CPMS’’ 

Michigan has established the 

definition of ‘‘CPMS’’ in R 336.2801(p). 

This definition is consistent with the 

definition in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(45). 

Electric Utility Steam Generating Unit 

Michigan has established the 

definition of ‘‘electric utility steam 

generating unit’’ in R 336.2801(q). This 

definition is consistent with the 

definition in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(30). 

Emissions Unit 

Michigan has established the 

definition of ‘‘emissions unit’’ in R 

336.2801(r). This is consistent with the 

definition in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(7). 

Included in both the Federal and state 

definitions is the statement that a 

replacement unit is considered an 

existing unit under this definition. 

However, Michigan’s rules do not define 

‘‘replacement unit,’’ which is included 

in the Federal rule at 40 CFR 

51.166(b)(7). In a letter sent to EPA on 

May 17, 2007, Michigan agreed to 

follow the Federal definition of 

‘‘replacement unit’’ in its 

implementation of these rules, and 

committed to add the definition in a 

future rulemaking. In a subsequent letter 

to EPA, dated November 30, 2007, 

MDEQ committed to add this definition 

in the rules not later than one year after 

EPA’s conditional approval of this plan. 

Based on this commitment, and the 

understanding that Michigan will follow 

the Federal definition of ‘‘replacement 

unit’’ in its implementation of the rules 

in the interim, EPA is proposing to 

conditionally approve this rule. 

Federal Land Manager 

Michigan has established the 

definition of ‘‘federal land manager’’ in 

R 336.2801(s). This definition is 

consistent with the definition in 40 CFR 

51.166(b)(24). 

High Terrain 

Michigan has established the 

definition of ‘‘high terrain’’ in R 

336.2801(t). This definition is consistent 

with the definition in 40 CFR 

51.166(b)(25). 

Hydrocarbon Combustion Flare 

Michigan has established the 

definition of ‘‘hydrocarbon combustion 

flare’’ in R 336.2801(u). This definition 

is consistent with the definition in 40 

CFR 51.166(b)(31)(iv). 

Indian Reservation 

Michigan has established the 

definition of ‘‘Indian reservation’’ in R 

336.2801(v). This definition is 

consistent with the definition in 40 CFR 

51.166(b)(27). 

Indian Governing Body 

Michigan has established the 

definition of ‘‘Indian governing body’’

in R 336.2801(w). This definition is 

consistent with the definition in 40 CFR 

51.166(b)(28). 

Innovative Control Technology 

Michigan has established the 

definition of ‘‘innovative control 

technology’’ in R 336.2801(x). This 

definition is consistent with the 

definition in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(19). 

Low Terrain 

Michigan has established the 

definition of ‘‘low terrain’’ in R 

336.2801(y). This definition is 

consistent with the definition in 40 CFR 

51.166(b)(26). 

‘‘Lowest Achievable Emission Rate’’ or 

‘‘LAER’’ 

Michigan has established the 

definition of ‘‘LAER’’ in R 336.2801(z). 

This definition is consistent with the 

definition in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(52). 

Major Modification 

Michigan has established the 

definition of ‘‘major modification’’ in R 

336.2801(aa). This definition is 

consistent with the definition in 40 CFR 

51.166(b)(2). 

Major and Minor Source Baseline 

Date 

Michigan has established the 

definition of ‘‘major source baseline 

date’’ and ‘‘minor source baseline date’’

in R 336.2801(bb). This definition is 

consistent with the definition in 40 CFR 

51.166(b)(14). 

Major Stationary Source 

Michigan has established the 

definition of ‘‘major stationary source’’

in R 336.2801(cc). This definition is 

consistent with the definition in 40 CFR 

51.166(b)(1). 

Necessary Preconstruction Approvals 

or Permits 

Michigan has established the 

definition of ‘‘necessary preconstruction 

approvals or permits’’ in R 

336.2801(dd). This definition is 

consistent with the definition in 40 CFR 

51.166(b)(10). 

Net Emissions Increase 

Michigan has established the 

definition of ‘‘net emissions increase’’ in 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 1573 

R 336.2801(ee). This definition exceeds 

the requirements of 40 CFR 51.166(b)(3). 

As described in 40 CFR 51.166(b), states 

can use definitions that are more 

stringent than the corresponding 

definitions listed in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(1) 

to (56). However, in a letter dated May 

17, 2007, Michigan declined intent for 

a more stringent definition, and stated 

that the definition of ‘‘net emissions 

increase’’ is being rewritten under a 

state rulemaking, so that it will follow 

the same requirements as the Federal 

rule. Michigan indicates that the 

definition of ‘‘net emissions increase’’ as 

currently set forth in R 336.2801(ee) will 

be applied until the state rules are 

revised. EPA finds that the rule is 

approvable as currently promulgated, 

and as proposed to be revised to match 

the Federal definition. Therefore we 

propose to approve the definition of 

‘‘net emissions increase’’ as part of the 

SIP. 

Pollution Prevention 

Michigan has established the 

definition of ‘‘pollution prevention’’ in 

R 336.2801(gg). This definition is 

consistent with the definition in 40 CFR 

51.166(b)(38). 

Potential to Emit or ‘‘PTE’’ 

‘‘Michigan has established the 

definition of ‘‘PTE’’ in R 336.2801(hh). 

This definition is consistent with the 

definition in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(4), 

except instead of ‘‘federally 

enforceable,’’ vacated in Chemical 

Manufacturers Assn v. EPA, No. 89–

1514 (D.C. Cir. Sept. 15, 1995) the 

Michigan rules use the more general 

term ‘‘legally enforceable.’’ See EPA 

Interim Policy on Federally Enforceable 

Requirement for Limitations on PTE, 

dated January 22, 1996 (‘‘Interim 

Policy’’). EPA proposes to find the use 

of the term ‘‘legally enforceable’’

approvable as part of the definition of 

‘‘PTE’’ because Michigan agrees to apply 

the term ‘‘legally enforceable’’ in 

accordance with the Interim Policy to 

mean legally and practically enforceable 

by a state or local air pollution control 

agency, as well as by the EPA. In 

general, practicable enforceability for a 

source-specific permit means that the 

permit’s provisions must specify: (1) A 

technically-accurate limitation and the 

portions of the source subject to the 

limitation; (2) the time period for the 

limitation (hourly, daily, monthly, and 

annual limits such as rolling annual 

limits); and (3) the method to determine 

compliance including appropriate 

monitoring, recordkeeping, and 

reporting. For rules and general permits 

that apply to categories of sources, 

practicable enforceability additionally 

requires that the provisions: (1) Identify 

the types or categories of sources that 

are covered by the rule; (2) where 

coverage is optional, provide for notice 

to the permitting authority of the 

source’s election to be covered by the 

rule; and (3) specify the enforcement 

consequences relevant to the rule. 

Michigan has committed in a letter 

dated September 11, 2007, to apply the 

term ‘‘legally enforceable’’ consistent 

with the above, and to revise the rule to 

make it consistent with this 

understanding. In a subsequent letter to 

EPA, dated November 30, 2007, MDEQ 

committed to add this definition in the 

rules not later than one year after EPA’s 

conditional approval of this plan. 

Therefore EPA is proposing to 

conditionally approve this rule. 

Predictive Emissions Monitoring 

System or ‘‘PEMS’’ 

Michigan has established the 

definition of ‘‘PEMS’’ in R 336.2801(ii). 

This definition is consistent with the 

definition in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(44). 

Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration Program or ‘‘PSD’’

Michigan has established the 

definition of ‘‘PSD’’ in R 336.2801(jj). 

This definition is consistent with the 

definition in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(42). 

Project 

Michigan has established the 

definition of ‘‘project’’ in R 

336.2801(kk). This definition is 

consistent with the definition in 40 CFR 

51.166(b)(51). 

Projected Actual Emissions 

Michigan has established the 

definition of ‘‘projected actual 

emissions’’ in R 336.2801(ll). This 

definition is consistent with the 

definition in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(40). 

Reactivation of a Very Clean CoalFired Electric Utility Steam Generating 

Unit 

Michigan has established the 

definition of ‘‘reactivation of a very 

clean coal-fired electric utility steam 

generating unit’’ in R 336.2801 (mm). 

This definition is consistent with the 

definition in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(37). 

Regulated New Source Review 

Pollutant 

Michigan has established the 

definition of ‘‘regulated new source 

review pollutant’’ in R 336.2801(nn). 

This definition is consistent with the 

definition in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(49). 

Repowering 

Michigan has established the 

definition of ‘‘repowering’’ in R 

336.2801(oo). This definition is 

consistent with the definition in 40 CFR 

51.166(b)(36). 

Secondary Emissions 

Michigan has established the 

definition of ‘‘secondary emissions’’ in 

R 336.2801(pp). This definition is 

consistent with the definition in 40 CFR 

51.166(b)(18). 

Significant 

Michigan has established the 

definition of ‘‘significant’’ in R 

336.2801(qq). This definition is 

consistent with the definition in 40 CFR 

51.166(b)(23). 

Significant Emissions Increase 

Michigan has established the 

definition of ‘‘significant emissions 

increase’’ in R 336.2801(rr). This 

definition is consistent with the 

definition in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(39). 

Stationary source 

Michigan has established the 

definition of ‘‘stationary source’’ in R 

336.2801(ss). This definition is 

consistent with the definition in 40 CFR 

51.166(b)(5). 

Temporary Clean Coal Technology 

Demonstration Project 

Michigan has established the 

definition of ‘‘temporary clean coal 

technology demonstration project’’ in R 

336.2801(tt). This definition is 

consistent with the definition in 40 CFR 

51.166(b)(35). 

Definitions Not Included in the PSD 

SIP 

The following 40 CFR 51.166(b) 

definitions are not included in the 

submitted SIP rules: ‘‘allowable 

emissions’’, ‘‘federally enforceable’’, and 

‘‘fugitive emissions’’. The definitions of 

‘‘allowable emissions’’ and ‘‘fugitive 

emissions’’ are included in previously 

approved SIP programs in Michigan’s 

air rules (R 336.1101(j) and R 

336.1106(h)), and are consistent with 

the definitions in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(16) 

and 40 CFR 51.166(b)(20). EPA is 

proposing to approve the rules based on 

Michigan’s commitment that, in its 

implementation of the PSD rules, the 

State will follow the definitions of 

‘‘allowable emissions’’ and ‘‘fugitive 

emissions’’ as included in previously 

approved SIP programs in Michigan’s 

air rules (R 336.1101(j) and R 

336.1106(h)), and as consistent with the 

definitions in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(16) and 

40 CFR 51.166(b)(20). 

The definition of ‘‘federally 

enforceable’’ is not required for the PSD 

SIP. See discussion above in 

conjunction with the definition of 

‘‘PTE.’’ Instead of ‘‘federally 

enforceable,’’ the Michigan rules use the 

term ‘‘legally enforceable.’’ Consistent 

with the Interim Policy, EPA proposes 

to find the term ‘‘legally enforceable’’

conditionally approvable as part of the 

rules’ definition of ‘‘PTE’’ (R 

336.2801(hh)) as long as Michigan 

agrees to apply the term ‘‘legally 

enforceable’’ in accordance with the 

Interim Policy to mean legally and 

practically enforceable by the EPA, a 

state or local air pollution control 

agency,’’ as discussed above. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS-1
1574 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

R 336.2802 Applicability 

The Michigan rule defines the 

applicability of the PSD permitting 

program. The rule states that new major 

sources or major modifications at 

existing major sources of air pollution 

must obtain a PSD permit before 

construction begins. The rule also states 

that major modifications occur when a 

project causes a significant increase in 

an air pollutant. The rule then goes on 

to provide four methods of determining 

whether a significant increase occurs: 

(1) Baseline actual emissions v. future 

potential emissions (applies to new or 

existing sources); (2) baseline actual 

emissions v. projected actual emissions 

(applies to existing sources only); (3) 

hybrid combination (for projects 

involving new and existing sources); 

and (4) Plantwide Applicability 

Limitations. Rule R 336.2802 is 

consistent with 40 CFR 51.166(a)(7). 

R 336.2803 Ambient Air Increments 

This rule contains the ambient air 

increment requirements (acceptable 

maximum impacts that may be caused 

by a new source of air pollution). Rule 

R 336.2803 is consistent with 40 CFR 

51.166(c). 

R 336.2804 Ambient Air Ceilings 

This rule sets forth ambient air 

increment requirements to ensure that 

no source may cause the concentration 

of air pollutants in the ambient air to 

exceed the National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS). Rule R 

336.2804 is consistent with 40 CFR 

51.166(d). 

R 336.2805 Restrictions on Area 

Classifications 

This rule contains the ambient air 

ceiling requirements for certain Class I 

areas (such as national parks and 

national wildlife areas). All other areas 

of the state are Class II areas. The 

Federal and state PSD rules allow 

greater impacts from air pollutants in 

Class III areas, but Michigan does not 

currently contain any Class III areas. If 

Michigan were to seek to establish any 

Class III areas, then this rule would 

need to be consistent with Class III 

requirements at that time. Rule R 

336.2805 is consistent with 40 CFR 

51.166(e). 

R 336.2806 Exclusions From 

Increment Consumption 

This rule specifies concentrations 

which shall be excluded from 

determining compliance with maximum 

allowable increments. Rule R 336.2806 

is consistent with 40 CFR 51.166(f). 

R 336.2807 Redesignation 

This rule contains provisions for 

obtaining waivers from normal 

increment consumption requirements. 

Rule R 336.2807 is consistent with 40 

CFR 51.166(g). 

R 336.2808 Stack Heights 

This rule contains stack heights 

requirements. Rule R 336.2808 is 

consistent with 40 CFR 51.166(h). 

R 336.2809 Exemptions 

This rule exempts certain sources 

from applicable technology review, air 

quality monitoring, and projected 

emission impact modeling 

requirements. Rule R 336.2809 is 

consistent with 40 CFR 51.166(i). 

R 336.2810 Control Technology 

Review 

This rule requires permit applicants 

to include the BACT on proposed new 

major sources or major modifications at 

existing major sources. Rule R 336.2810 

is consistent with 40 CFR 51.166(j). 

R 336.2811 Source Impact Analysis 

This rule requires permit applicants 

to demonstrate that their proposed 

emissions will not cause a violation of 

the NAAQS or the air quality increment. 

Rule R 336.2811 is consistent with 40 

CFR 51.166(k). 

R 336.2812 Air Quality Models 

This rule provides requirements for 

acceptable computer models which may 

be used in an air quality impact 

demonstration. Rule R 336.2812 is 

consistent with 40 CFR 51.166(l). 

R 336.2813 Air Quality Analysis 

This rule requires that a PSD permit 

applicant analyze the existing condition 

of the ambient air at the proposed site 

both before and after construction 

(sometimes referred to as 

preconstruction and post-construction 

monitoring). Rule R 336.2813 is 

consistent with 40 CFR 51.166(m). 

R 336.2814 Source Information 

This rule contains minimum 

information content requirements for 

PSD permit applications. Rule R 

336.2814 is consistent with 40 CFR 

51.166(n). 

R 336.2815 Additional Impact 

Analyses 

This rule requires that the PSD permit 

applicant evaluate additional 

environmental impacts, like the 

impairment of visibility, soils, or 

vegetation. Rule R 336.2815 is 

consistent with 40 CFR 51.166(o). 

R 336.2816 Sources Impacting Federal 

Class I Areas; Additional Requirements 

This rule establishes alternative 

increment requirements for sources 

impacting Class I areas. Rule R 

336.2816, as submitted, is not consistent 

with 40 CFR 51.166(p). Specifically, 

state rule R 332.2816(2)(a) does not 

include the requirements of 

51.166(p)(3), under which a plan must 

provide a mechanism whereby the 

Federal Land Manager may present to 

the state a demonstration of impacts of 

air quality-related values from proposed 

source/modification where maximum 

allowable increases for a Class I area are 

not violated, in which case if the state 

concurs, the state does not issue a 

permit. In a letter to EPA dated 

November 30, 2007, MDEQ committed 

to include these requirements in a 

future rule-making revision, to be 

completed no later than one year after 

EPA’s conditional approval. 

Additionally, the state committed to 

clarify Rules R 332.2816 to more closely 

comport with 40 CFR 51.166(p). The 

proposed language, included in the 

November 30, 2007, letter is acceptable. 

Therefore EPA is proposing to 

conditionally approve this rule. 

R 336.2817 Public Participation 

This rule establishes the minimum 

acceptable opportunities for public 

comment on a proposed PSD permit. In 

its rules, Michigan is foregoing the right 

to one full year to act on a complete 

permit application, and is bound, 

instead, under the rules to act within 

120 days. We approve this change. Rule 

R 336.2817 is consistent with 40 CFR 

51.166(q). 

R 336.2818 Source Obligation 

This rule places additional 

requirements upon the PSD permit 

applicant, including recordkeeping 

requirements for applicants using 

certain methods for determining if a 

project results in a significant increase. 

On December 31, 2002, EPA 

published revisions to the Federal PSD 

and non-attainment NSR regulations. 

These revisions are commonly referred 

to as ‘‘NSR Reform’’ regulations and 

became effective on March 3, 2003. 

These regulatory revisions include 

provisions for baseline emissions 

determinations, actual-to-future actual 

methodology, Plantwide Applicability 

Limits (PALs), Clean Units, and 

Pollution Control Projects (PCP). The 

Federal rules require a source to follow 

the recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements in this section if there is 

a ‘‘reasonable possibility’’ that a source 

may exceed the projected actual 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 1575 

1Currently, the MDEQ’s minor source permitting 

program—Rule R 336.1201—requires this 

information to be submitted for all sources as part 

of a complete Permit to Install application before 

beginning actual construction on the proposed 

project (not just where there is a ‘‘reasonable 

possibility’’ that the source may exceed the 

projected actual emissions). Because this is more 

stringent than the Federal requirement, we approve 

this approach. 

emissions (40 CFR 51.166(r)(6)). The 

‘‘reasonable possibility’’ clause of this 

provision of the Federal rule has been 

remanded to EPA in the June 24, 2005, 

D.C. Circuit Court ruling in State of New 

York et al. v. EPA, 413 F.3d 3 (D.C. Cir. 

2005). On December 14, 2007, EPA 

issued a final rule that provides 

additional explanation and more 

detailed criteria to clarify the 

’’reasonable possibility’’ recordkeeping 

and reporting standard of the 2002 NSR 

reform rules. This final action will 

require recordkeeping and reporting 

when the projected increase in 

emissions to which the ‘‘reasonable 

possibility’’ test applies equals or 

exceeds 50 percent of the CAA’s NSR 

significance levels for any pollutant.1

MDEQ must submit a notice to EPA 

within 1 year from this conditional 

approval—before EPA takes final action 

to approve this aspect of the SIP—to 

acknowledge the rule change and that 

the PSD regulations will continue to 

follow the ‘‘reasonable possibility’’

provisions in a manner that is consistent 

with EPA’s final rule. All the 

requirements of rule R 336.2818 are 

consistent with 40 CFR 51.166(r). 

R 336.2819 Innovative Control 

Technology 

This rule contains provisions 

allowing a PSD permit applicant to 

experiment with new control 

technologies to satisfy the BACT 

requirement. Rule R 336.2819 is 

consistent with 40 CFR 51.166(s). 

R 336.2823 (1) to (14) Actuals 

Plantwide Applicability Limits (PALs) 

This rule contains an alternate 

applicability method for determining if 

a source requires a PSD permit. Rule R 

336.2823(1) to (14) is consistent with 40 

CFR 51.166(w). 

Rules Not Included in the PSD SIP 

Subrule R 336.1823(15) contains 

provisions synchronizing the Michigan 

minor permit to install program with the 

new PAL provisions. This subrule is 

mainly concerned with state air toxics 

provisions and was not submitted as 

part of Michigan’s PSD SIP. Therefore, 

EPA is not taking action on rule R 

336.1823(15) as part of this rulemaking 

action. 

Rule R 336.2830 is intended to 

provide a parallel appeal procedure to 

the procedure that is currently in place 

for the Federal PSD program in 

Michigan under the regulation at 40 

CFR 124. The rule creates a right to an 

administrative hearing before a state 

administrative law judge that is similar 

to the current appeal rights under the 

Federal PSD permitting program. This 

rule is not submitted as part of 

Michigan’s PSD SIP. Therefore, EPA is 

not taking action on rule R 336.2830. 

IV. What Action Is EPA Taking Today? 

EPA is proposing to conditionally 

approve revisions to the SIP to include 

the PSD construction permit programs 

of the State of Michigan. 

Conditions for Conditional Approval 

As noted above, EPA has identified 

several minor deficiencies that are 

necessary to correct in Michigan’s rules 

so that the rules are approvable. The 

areas of concern are discussed in more 

detail above. In a letter to EPA dated 

May 17, 2007, Michigan committed to 

follow the federal definition of 

‘‘replacement unit’’ (40 CFR 

51.166(b)(7)) in its implementation of 

these rules, and to add the definition to 

the state rules in a future rulemaking. 

For the definition of ‘‘PTE’’ (Rule 

336.2801(hh)), Michigan follows the 

federal definition, except instead of 

‘‘federally enforceable’’, the Michigan 

rules use the more general term ‘‘legally 

enforceable’’. Michigan has committed, 

in a letter to EPA dated September 11, 

2007, to apply the term legally 

enforceable to mean legally and 

practically enforceable by the EPA, a 

state or local air pollution agency, 

consistent with the Interim Policy dated 

January 22, 1996. 

The state’s current Rule 336.2816 

does not include a mechanism under 

which the Federal Land Manager may 

present to the state a demonstration of 

impacts of air quality-related values 

from proposed source/modification 

where maximum allowable increases for 

a Class I area are not violated, and if the 

state concurs it does not issue the 

permit (as per 40 CFR 51.166(p) (3)). In 

order to add the missing requirement for 

sources impacting federal Class I areas, 

MDEQ committed, in a letter to EPA 

dated November 30, 2007, to add these 

requirements through a future rulemaking revision. Additionally, the state 

committed to clarify this state rule to 

more closely comport with federal 

requirements (The deficiencies being 

addressed are described in more detail 

above in Part III of this document 

entitled ‘‘What Are The Changes That 

EPA is Conditionally Approving?’’). 

Under section 110(k)(4) of the CAA, 

EPA may conditionally approve a SIP 

revision based on a commitment from 

the state to adopt specific enforceable 

measures by a date certain that is no 

more than one year from the date of 

conditional approval. In this action, we 

are proposing to approve the SIP 

revision that Michigan has submitted on 

the condition that the specified 

deficiencies in the SIP revision are 

corrected, as noted above, within a year 

of a final conditional approval of the 

rules. 

If this condition is not fulfilled within 

one year of the effective date of final 

rulemaking by correction of all of the 

specified deficiencies, the conditional 

approval for the uncorrected sections of 

the state rules will automatically revert 

to disapproval, as of the deadline for 

meeting the conditions, without further 

action from the EPA. EPA would 

subsequently publish a notice in the 

Federal Register providing notice and 

details of such disapproval. 

If Michigan submits final and 

effective rule revisions correcting the 

deficiencies, as discussed above, within 

one year from this conditional approval 

becoming final and effective, EPA will 

publish a subsequent notice in the 

Federal Register to acknowledge 

conversion of the conditional approval 

to a full approval. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews. 

Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, September 30, 1993), this action 

is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

and therefore is not subject to review by 

the Office of Management and Budget. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This proposed rule does not impose 

an information collection burden under 

the provisions of the Paperwork 

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

et seq.). 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

This proposed action merely proposes 

to approve state law as meeting Federal 

requirements and imposes no additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

state law. Accordingly, the 

Administrator certifies that this 

proposed rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities under the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 

et seq.). 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Because this rule proposes to approve 

pre-existing requirements under state 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS-1
1576 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

law and does not impose any additional 

enforceable duty beyond that required 

by state law, it 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). 

Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action also does not have 

Federalism implications because it does 

not have substantial direct effects on the 

states, on the relationship between the 

national government and the states, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999). This action merely 

proposes to approve a state rule 

implementing a Federal standard, and 

does not alter the relationship or the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities established in the CAA. 

Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This proposed rule also does not have 

tribal implications because it will 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, 

as specified by Executive Order 13175 

(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

This proposed rule also is not subject 

to Executive Order 13045 ‘‘Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997), because it proposes 

approval of a state rule implementing a 

Federal Standard. 

Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

Because it is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under Executive 

Order 12866 or a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action,’’ this action is also not subject to 

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

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

22, 2001). 

National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (NTTAA), 15 U.S.C. 272, 

requires Federal agencies to use 

technical standards that are developed 

or adopted by voluntary consensus to 

carry out policy objectives, so long as 

such standards are not inconsistent with 

applicable law or otherwise impractical. 

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s 

role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Absent a prior existing 

requirement for the state to use 

voluntary consensus standards, EPA has 

no authority to disapprove a SIP 

submission for failure to use such 

standards, and it would thus be 

inconsistent with applicable law for 

EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in place of a program 

submission that otherwise satisfies the 

provisions of the CAA. Therefore, the 

requirements of section 12(d) of the 

NTTAA do not apply. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: December 27, 2007. 

Gary Gulezian, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. E8–186 Filed 1–8–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 73 

[DA 07–5037; MB Docket No. 07–279; RM–

11411] 

Radio Broadcasting Services; Iola, TX 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: This document requests 

comments on a petition for rulemaking 

filed by Charles Crawford (‘‘Petitioner’’) 

proposing the allotment of Channel 

299A at Iola, Texas, as the first FM 

broadcast service at Iola. The proposed 

coordinates are 30–40–42 NL and 96–

09–30 WL with a site restriction of 13.1 

kilometers (8.1 miles) southwest of Iola, 

Texas. 

DATES: Comments must be filed on or 

before February 11, 2008, and reply 

comments on or before February 26, 

2008. 

ADDRESSES: Secretary, Federal 

Communications Commission, 445 

Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20554. In addition to filing comments 

with the FCC, interested parties should 

serve the Petitioner and his counsel as 

follows: Charles Crawford; 4553 

Bordeaux Ave.; Dallas, Texas 75295; 

and Gene A. Bechtel, Law Office of 

Gene Bechtel; 1050 17th Street, NW., 

Suite 600; Washington, DC 20036. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: R. 

Barthen Gorman, Media Bureau, (202) 

418–2180. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Notice of 

Proposed Rule Making, MB Docket No. 

07–279, adopted December 19, 2007, 

and released December 21, 2007. The 

full text of this Commission decision is 

available for inspection and copying 

during normal business hours in the 

Commission’s Reference Information 

Center, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20554. This document 

may also be purchased from the 

Commission’s duplicating contractors, 

Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th 

Street, SW., Room CY–B402, 

Washington, DC 20554, telephone 

1–800–378–3160 or http:// 

www.BCPIWEB.com. This document 

does not contain proposed information 

collection requirements subject to the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 

Public Law 104–13. In addition, 

therefore, it does not contain any 

proposed information collection burden 

‘‘for small business concerns with fewer 

than 25 employees,’’ pursuant to the 

Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 

2002, Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 

3506(c)(4). 

Provisions of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to 

this proceeding. 

Members of the public should note 

that from the time a Notice of Proposed 

Rule Making is issued until the matter 

is no longer subject to Commission 

consideration or court review, all ex 

parte contacts are prohibited in 

Commission proceedings, such as this 

one, which involve channel allotments. 

See 47 CFR Section 1.1204(b) for rules 

governing permissible ex parte contact. 

For information regarding proper 

filing procedures for comments, see 47 

CFR Sections 1.415 and 1.420. 

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 

Radio, Radio broadcasting. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Federal Communications 

Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR 

part 73 as follows: 

PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST 

SERVICES 

1. The authority citation for part 73 

continues to read as follows: 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS-1