Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 16, 2008 / Proposed Rules 53401 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2007–1043; FRL–8712–9] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Michigan; PSD Regulations 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to 

disapprove certain revisions to the State 

of Michigan’s prevention of significant 

deterioration (PSD) State 

Implementation Plan (SIP), and in the 

alternative to approve the revisions if 

the deficiencies in the rules involved 

are corrected, as proposed by Michigan, 

and approved by EPA. These revisions 

are included in Michigan Rule R 

336.2816, and set out the mechanisms 

which facilitate the participation of a 

potentially affected Federal Land 

Manager (FLM) in the State’s permitting 

process for purposes of protecting either 

the increment or the Air Quality-Related 

Values (AQRVs) associated with a Class 

I area from potential impacts from a 

proposed major source or major 

modification. The Michigan Department 

of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) 

submitted these revisions as part of the 

SIP package on December 21, 2006. In 

a separate action in today’s Federal 

Register, EPA is conditionally 

approving all other portions of 

Michigan’s PSD SIP revision 

submission. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before October 16, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2007–1043, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://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, (AR–18J), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. 

• Hand Delivery: Pamela Blakley, 

Chief, Air Permits Section, (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 http:// 

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 http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

http://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 

http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail 

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 http:// 

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 http:// 

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 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 

Proposing To Disapprove and To 

Approve? 

IV. What Action Is EPA Taking? 

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—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? 

MDEQ submitted Michigan Air 

Pollution Control Rules, Part 18, Rules 

R 336.2801 to R 336.2819 and R 

336.2823(1) to (14) (‘‘Part 18’’) to EPA 

on December 21, 2006, for EPA approval 

and inclusion into the Michigan SIP. 

Part 18 relates to Michigan’s PSD permit 

program. Michigan adopted revisions to 

Part 18 on December 4, 2006. Prior to 

approval of Michigan’s submitted PSD 

program, EPA delegated to Michigan 


ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS
53402 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 16, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

(via delegation letter dated September 

26, 1988) the authority to issue PSD 

permits through the Federal PSD rules 

at 40 CFR 52.21. 

On January 9, 2008, EPA proposed to 

conditionally approve Michigan’s PSD 

SIP rules under section 110 of the Clean 

Air Act (CAA). (73 FR 1570, January 9, 

2008). During the public comment 

period, EPA received a number of 

comments on our proposal. A summary 

of the comments and our answers are 

included in a separate action published 

in today’s Federal Register, in which 

EPA is conditionally approving the 

remainder of the SIP submittal. 

Michigan Rule R 336.2816 is based on 

40 CFR 51.166(p)(1)–(7), which sets out 

the mechanisms which facilitate the 

participation of the FLM in the State’s 

permitting process for purposes of 

protecting either the increment or the 

AQRVs associated with a Class I area 

from potential impacts from a proposed 

major source or major modification. 

EPA has determined that Michigan 

Rule R 336.2816, as submitted, is not 

consistent with 40 CFR 51.166(p). 

Specifically, Michigan Rule R 

332.2816(2)(a) does not include the 

requirements of 40 CFR 51.166(p)(3), 

under which a plan must provide a 

mechanism whereby the FLM may 

present to the state a demonstration of 

adverse impacts to AQRVs from a 

proposed source or modification, 

notwithstanding that the change in air 

quality resulting from this proposed 

source or modification would not cause 

or contribute to an exceedence of the 

maximum allowable increase for the 

Class I area. In such cases, where the 

state concurs with the FLM’s 

demonstration, the State does not issue 

a permit. Additionally, EPA sought 

clarification from the State as to how it 

planned to implement certain State 

rules corresponding to the variance 

provisions contained in 40 CFR 

51.166(p)(4), (5), and (6). 

On November 30, 2007, in a letter 

from Steven Chester, Director, MDEQ, to 

the Regional Administrator, Michigan 

committed, among other things, to 

making changes to Michigan Rule R 

336.2816 consistent with the 

requirements at 40 CFR 51.166(p). Based 

on this commitment, EPA proposed to 

conditionally approve Michigan Rule R 

336.2816. 

During the comment period, 

commenters raised concerns that, 

insofar as Michigan Rule R 336.2816 

does not fully implement the regulatory 

mechanism by which an FLM may 

participate in the State’s permitting 

process, EPA should act to ensure that 

the SIP contains these requirements 

until such time as the State promulgates 

consistent regulations. 

Because Michigan currently 

implements the Federal PSD program 

under EPA’s delegation of 40 CFR 52.21, 

a conditional approval of Michigan Rule 

R 336.2816 would have made the 

Michigan SIP less stringent than the 

currently applicable, Federally 

delegated program. Therefore, EPA is 

proposing to disapprove Michigan’s 

submittal as it relates to Michigan Rule 

R 336.2816. Michigan will retain its 

Federal delegation of authority under 40 

CFR 52.21(p) until such time as the 

State submits promulgated rules 

equivalent to 40 CFR 51.166(p) and 

those rules are approved into its SIP. 

Retention of the delegated program until 

such time as Michigan promulgates and 

EPA approves a corrective rule will 

ensure that the provisions of 40 CFR 

51.166(p) will continue to apply, 

thereby avoiding any regulatory gap, 

and ensuring full participation of the 

FLM, as appropriate, in State permitting 

decisions. 

In the alternative, EPA is proposing to 

approve Michigan’s revised Michigan 

Rule R 336.2816 if the rule is revised to 

meet the requirements set forth in 

Federal rule 40 CFR 51.166(p). In its 

letter to EPA dated November 30, 2007, 

Michigan has committed to make this 

revision to its rule. 

Michigan is not authorized to carry 

out its Federally approved air program 

in ‘‘Indian Country,’’ as defined in 18 

U.S.C. 1151. Indian Country includes: 

1. All lands within the exterior 

boundaries of Indian reservations 

within the State of Michigan; 2. Any 

land held in trust by the U.S. for an 

Indian tribe; and 3. Any other land, 

whether on or off an Indian reservation 

that qualifies as Indian Country. 

Therefore, EPA retains the authority to 

implement and administer the CAA 

program in Indian Country. 

III. What Are the Changes That EPA Is 

Proposing To Disapprove and To 

Approve? 

EPA is proposing to disapprove the 

following section of ‘‘Part 18, 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

of Air Quality’’ of Michigan’s Air 

Pollution Control Rules: ‘‘R 336.2816, 

Sources Impacting Federal Class I 

Areas—additional requirements.’’ In the 

alternative, EPA is proposing to approve 

this same section of Michigan’s Rule R 

336.2816, if the rule is revised to meet 

the requirements set forth in Federal 

rule 40 CFR 51.166(p), as Michigan has 

committed to do in its letter to EPA 

dated November 30, 2007. 

IV. What Action Is EPA Taking? 

For reasons stated above, EPA is 

proposing to disapprove certain 

revisions to Michigan’s SIP, specifically 

Michigan Rule R 336.2816, Sources 

Impacting Federal Class I Areas; 

additional requirements. EPA is, in the 

alternative, proposing to approve 

Michigan Rule R 336.2816 when the 

rule is revised to meet the requirements 

set forth in Federal rule 40 CFR 

51.166(p), as Michigan has committed to 

do in its letter to EPA dated November 

30, 2007. 

What Is the Effect of the Proposed 

Disapproval? 

Under section 110(k)(3) of the CAA, 

EPA may fully approve or disapprove a 

State submittal. Where portions of the 

State submittal are separable, EPA may 

approve portions of the submittal that 

meet the requirements of the CAA, and 

disapprove the portions of the submittal 

that do not meet the requirements of the 

CAA. (57 FR 13566, April 16, 1992.) 

Elsewhere in today’s Federal Register, 

EPA is conditionally approving the 

remaining elements of the State’s 

December 21, 2006 submittal. Under 

today’s proposed disapproval, Michigan 

will retain its Federal delegation of 

authority under 40 CFR 52.21(p) to 

administer Michigan Rule R 336.2816 

until such time as the State submits 

promulgated rules equivalent to 40 CFR 

51.166(p) and these rules are approved 

into its SIP. 

What Is Our Basis for Proposed 

Disapproval of Michigan’s Rules? 

The State’s current Michigan Rule R 

336.2816 is not consistent with 40 CFR 

51.166(p), which sets out the 

mechanisms which facilitate the 

participation of the FLM in the State’s 

permitting process for purposes of 

protecting either the increment or the 

AQRVs associated with a Class I area 

from potential impacts from a proposed 

major source or major modification. 

What Is Our Basis for Proposed 

Approval of Michigan’s Rules? 

The State has committed to revise 

current Michigan Rule R 336.2816, 

which sets out the mechanisms which 

facilitate the participation of the FLM in 

the State’s permitting process for 

purposes of protecting either the 

increment or the AQRVs associated with 

a Class I area from potential impacts 

from a proposed major source or major 

modification, by promulgating rules 

equivalent to 40 CFR 51.166(p). The 

State has formalized this commitment in 

a letter to EPA dated November 30, 

2007. EPA has reviewed the State’s 

proposed regulatory changes and has 


ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 16, 2008 / Proposed Rules 53403 

made a preliminary determination that 

they are consistent with 40 CFR 

51.166(p). Once properly promulgated 

by the State, EPA proposes to approve 

them into the State’s SIP. A copy of the 

proposed revised rules can be seen at 

http://www.regulations.gov (add the 

docket number EPA–R05–OAR–2007– 

1043 to Advanced Docket Search 

option). If Michigan submits these 

revised rules to EPA for final approval, 

EPA plans to finalize the approval 

without an additional comment period. 

Any party interested in commenting on 

whether Michigan’s proposed revision 

to Michigan Rule R 336.2816 meets the 

requirements of 40 CFR 51.166(p) 

should do so during the comment 

period on this action. 

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 

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). 

Nevertheless, EPA anticipates providing 

outreach to tribes located in Michigan 

and other potentially affected areas 

regarding this proposed rulemaking. 

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: August 25, 2008. 

Lynn Buhl, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. E8–21620 Filed 9–15–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2007–0603; FRL—8713–7] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Louisiana; Approval of Section 

110(a)(1) Maintenance Plan for the 

1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard for the 

New Orleans Ozone Maintenance Area 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

this revision to the Louisiana State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) concerning 

the maintenance plan addressing the 

1997 8-hour ozone standard for the New 

Orleans Ozone Maintenance Area. On 

June 29, 2007, the State of Louisiana 

submitted a maintenance plan for the 

New Orleans Ozone Maintenance Area, 

which includes the parishes of Jefferson, 

Orleans, St. Bernard and St. Charles, 

which ensures continued attainment of 

the 1997 8-hour ozone National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) 

through the year 2014. This 

maintenance plan meets the statutory 

and regulatory requirements, and is 

consistent with EPA’s guidance. EPA is 

approving the revisions pursuant to 

section 110 of the Federal Clean Air Act 

(CAA). On March 12, 2008, EPA issued 

a revised ozone standard. Today’s 

action, however, is being taken to 

address requirements under the 1997 

ozone standard. Requirements for the 

New Orleans area under the 2008 


ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS