[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 170 (Friday, August 31, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 44485-44498]
[FR Doc No: 2018-18853]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2007-1092; FRL-9982-97--Region 5]

Air Plan Approval; Michigan; Minor New Source Review

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving certain
changes to the Michigan State Implementation Plan (SIP). This action
relates to changes to the Permit To Install (PTI) requirements of Part
2 of the Michigan Administrative Code (Part 2 Rules). Changes to the
Part 2 Rules were submitted on November 12, 1993; May 16, 1996; April
3, 1998; September 2, 2003; March 24, 2009; and February 28, 2017.

DATES: This final rule is effective on October 1, 2018.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R05-OAR-2007-1092. All documents in the docket are listed on
the www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
through www.regulations.gov or 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 Federal holidays. We recommend
that you telephone Rachel Rineheart, Environmental Engineer, at (312)
886-7017 before visiting the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rachel Rineheart, Environmental
Engineer, Air Permits Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J),
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER>, [email protected].

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 is the background of these SIP submissions?
II. What is our response to comments received on the proposed
rulemaking?
III. What action is EPA taking?
IV. Incorporation by Reference.
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews.

I. What is the background of these SIP submissions?

A. What state submissions does this rulemaking address?

    The State of Michigan's minor source PTI rules are contained in
Part 2 of the Michigan Administrative Code. EPA last approved changes
to the Part 2 rules in 1982. The Michigan Department of Environmental
Quality (MDEQ) has submitted several Part 2 revision packages since
that time; however, EPA has not taken a final action on any of the
submittals. The following table provides a summary of the various state
submittals with the most recent version of each section of the Michigan
Rule highlighted in bold.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     State
                   Submittal                    effective date  Submittal date      Rules submitted 336.1xxx
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.............................................      04/20/1989      11/12/1993  240, 241.
                                               ----------------                ---------------------------------
                                                    04/17/1992  ..............  201, 283.
                                               ----------------                ---------------------------------
                                                    11/18/1993  ..............  278, 279, 280, 281, 282, 284,
                                                                                285, 286, 287, 288, 289, 290.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.............................................      07/26/1995      05/16/1996  201, 205, 208 (rescinded), 209,
                                                                                219, 278, 279, 280, 281, 282,
                                                                                283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288,
                                                                                289, 290.
3.............................................      12/12/1996      04/03/1998  201a, 205.
4.............................................      06/13/1997      08/20/1998  278, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287,
                                                                                290.
5.............................................      07/01/2003      09/02/2003  201, 201a, 202, 203, 204, 205,
                                                                                206, 207, 212, 216, 219, 240,
                                                                                241, 278, 278a, 279
                                                                                (rescinded), 281, 282, 284,
                                                                                285, 287, 289, 299.
6.............................................      06/20/2008      03/24/2009  201, 202, 205, 207, 219, 240,
                                                                                241, 278, 281, 284, 285, 288,
                                                                                299.
7.............................................      12/20/2016       2/21/2017  278a, 280, 281, 282, 283, 284,
                                                                                285, 286, 287, 288, 289, 290.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA published a proposed approval of all changes, except the public
notice procedures in Michigan R. 336.1205, on August 15, 2017 (82 FR
38651), with a 30-day public comment period. EPA reopened the comment
period twice due to missing files in the docket on regulations.gov. The
comment period was reopened for an additional 30 days on November 2,
2017 (82 FR 50853), and an additional 15 days on January 9, 2018 (83 FR
1003). EPA is taking no action on Michigan R. 336.1205 at this time.

B. Why did the state make these SIP submissions?

    Section 110(a)(2)(C) of Clean Air Act (the Act) requires that each
SIP include a program to provide for the regulation of construction and
modification of stationary sources as necessary to assure that the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) are achieved. Specific
elements for an approvable construction permitting plan are found in
the implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 51, subpart I--Review of
New Sources and Modifications. Requirements relevant to minor
construction programs are 40 CFR 51.160-51.164. EPA regulations have
few specific criteria for state minor new source review (NSR) programs.
Generally, state programs must set forth legally enforceable procedures
that allow the state to prevent any planned construction activity that
would result in a violation of the state's SIP or a national standard.
    The revisions to Part 2 submitted by MDEQ are largely provisions
that strengthen the already approved minor NSR program adding greater
detail with respect to applicability, required application material,
and processing of applications; however, the revisions do include
changes to waiver provisions

and the addition of several categories of exemptions from the
requirement to obtain a PTI.

II. What is our response to comments received on the proposed
rulemaking?

    EPA received several comments during the public comment process.
EPA received four anonymous comments that were unrelated to the action,
and we will not be addressing those comments. EPA received adverse
comment on the proposed approval from the Sierra Club, the Great Lakes
Environmental Law Center, the Center for Biological Diversity, and the
Environmental Law & Policy Center. EPA received a letter from the
Environmental Law & Policy Center dated September 14, 2017, and a
letter from the Sierra Club, Great Lakes Environmental Law Center, and
the Center for Biological Diversity dated September 14, 2017, during
the original public comment period. Sierra Club and the Great Lakes
Environmental Law Center provided additional comment during the first
reopening in a letter dated December 4, 2017. Sierra Club, the Great
Lakes Environmental Law Center, and the Center for Biological Diversity
provided additional comments during the second reopening in a letter
dated January 24, 2018. A summary of the comments received and EPA's
response follow.

A. Michigan R. 336.1201a General PTIs

    Michigan R. 336.1201a gives the MDEQ the ability to create general
PTIs. A general permit is a permit document that contains standardized
requirements that multiple stationary sources can use. It may cover
categories of emission units or stationary sources that are similar in
nature. The purpose of a general permit is to ensure the protection of
air quality while simplifying the permit process for similar minor
sources. General permits allow the permitting authority to notify the
public through one notice that it intends to apply those requirements
to any eligible source that seeks coverage under the permit in the
future. This minimizes the burden on the reviewing authority's
resources by eliminating the need to issue separate permits for each
individual minor source within the source type or category covered by
the general permit. Use of a general permit also decreases the time
required for an individual minor source to obtain a preconstruction
permit because the application process is standardized.
    Michigan R. 336.1201a allows MDEQ to issue general PTIs for
categories of similar emission units or stationary sources. The rule
requires the general permits to contain limitations as necessary to
assure compliance with applicable requirements, and that limitations on
potential to emit be enforceable as a practical matter. The general
permits must also identify the criteria by which a stationary source or
emission unit may qualify for the permit. Finally, the rule requires
MDEQ to provide for public notice of the general permit.
    Comment 1: While EPA's Title V permitting rules provide for
issuance of general operating permits, the concept of a general
construction permit is not consistent with the requirements of Section
110(a)(2)(C) of the Act or 40 CFR 51.160-51.164.
    EPA Response: EPA disagrees that the lack of a specific allowance
for general permits under the permit program requirements of section
110(a)(2)(C) of the Act precludes the use of general permits for
construction as there is no provision that specifically disallows them.
In fact, the language in the Act concerning non-major activities simply
requires ``regulation of the modification and construction of any
stationary source within the areas covered by the plan as necessary to
assure that national ambient air quality standards are achieved.'' The
Act and the implementing regulations at 40 CFR 51.160 are structured to
allow the implementing authority flexibility in designing a minor
source program that meets the authority's individual needs while
assuring protection of ambient air. EPA has a well-established,
longstanding position that the use of general permits for construction
of minor sources is appropriate under the Act. The January 25, 1995,
memorandum ``Options for Limiting Potential to Emit (PTE) of a
Stationary Source Under Section 112 and Title V of the Clean Air Act,''
the January 25, 1995 memorandum, ``Guidance an Enforceability
Requirements for Limiting Potential to Emit through SIP and Sec.  112
Rules,'' and the April 14, 1998, memorandum, ``Potential to Emit (PTE)
Guidance for Specific Source Categories,'' all endorse the use of a
general permit program approved into the SIP pursuant to section
110(a)(2)(C) of the Act as a means of effectively establishing
limitations on the potential to emit of stationary sources. EPA allows
for the issuance of general permits to minor sources under its own
Federal Minor NSR Program in Indian Country at 40 CFR 49.156.
    Comment 2: The Michigan Rules do not define ``similar stationary
sources or emissions units.'' There is no requirement in the rules
that, to be similar, source or emission units must have similar
emissions and stack parameters. Sources with different stack parameters
and emission rates, even though similar sources, could have
significantly different impact on air pollutant concentrations.
Furthermore, no definition of ``similar source'' can adequately address
neighboring sources of air pollution which may cause ambient pollution
concentrations at or near the levels of a NAAQS.
    EPA Response: We disagree that there is a need to define ``similar
stationary sources or emissions units'' in this rule. The identified
terms have their common meaning in the context of the rule. In the case
of general permits, defining the scope of the stationary source and/or
emissions units covered by a particular general permit should be done
when establishing the terms of the general permit. All interested
parties will have the opportunity to provide input on the
appropriateness of the scope of a particular general permit during the
public comment period for that permit. The appropriate time to comment
is during the public comment period for a particular general permit.
    Comment 3: A general permit would not ensure that a specific new or
modified source would be prohibited from construction if it would
interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS or interfere with
the control strategy. The impact of a source's emissions on air
pollutant concentrations is dependent on a myriad of factors including
topography, other buildings in the vicinity, background pollutant
concentrations, and neighboring sources of pollution as well as stack
and plume characteristics.
    EPA Response: We disagree. Michigan R. 336.1207, which requires
MDEQ to deny an application that would interfere with the attainment or
maintenance of a NAAQS, would apply to any general permit issued by
MDEQ. There is still an application process for any source wanting
coverage under a general permit, and MDEQ does have the authority to
deny coverage under a general permit to any applicant. The potential
air quality impacts of a general permit should be considered during the
development of each general permit. Concerns regarding the adequacy of
permit terms or application requirements concerning potential impacts
on air quality are more appropriately raised during the public comment
period for each general permit developed by MDEQ.
    Comment 4: The concept of a general construction (or operating)
permit is that one permit can be issued for a source type, and similar
sources can request and be granted approval to construct and/or operate
under that

permit without having to apply for a new construction permit, thereby
avoiding all of the requirements that are part of the application
process including public notice and opportunity for comment.
    EPA Response: A source must apply for coverage under a general
permit, and each general permit must be made available for public
comment. EPA does not agree that the general permitting process would
allow a source to avoid any requirements of the application process. As
noted above, EPA has a well-established position in support of general
permits for construction and has determined that the notice and comment
required in the establishment of each general permit meets the public
notice requirements of 40 CFR 51.161.

B. Michigan R. 336.1202 Waivers of Approval

    Michigan R. 336.1202 provides the MDEQ with the authority to grant
a waiver from the requirement to obtain a permit prior to commencing
construction in certain limited circumstances. The PSD provisions of
the Act prohibit commencement of construction without first obtaining
the required permit authorizing construction; however, the requirement
only applies to major sources, and no such restriction is specified
under the minor NSR program requirements set forth in 40 CFR 51.160. In
addition, EPA has made determinations which further support that
limited construction may begin before a permit is issued for minor
sources. For example, EPA's October 10, 1978, memorandum from Edward E.
Reich to Thomas W. Devine in Region 1 discusses limited preconstruction
activities allowed at a site with both PSD and non-PSD sources. This
memo states that construction may begin on PSD-exempt projects before
the permit is issued. EPA has established its position that limited
waivers are acceptable for true minor sources in previous rulemaking.
(See 68 FR 2217 and 73 FR 12893.) As stated previously, the minor NSR
provisions at 40 CFR 51.160 require state programs to determine if
activities would violate an applicable SIP or national standard and to
prevent construction of an activity that would violate an applicable
SIP provision or national standard. Michigan R 336.1202(1) requires an
application for a waiver be submitted to MDEQ and requires MDEQ to act
on the request within 30 days. Construction may not proceed unless the
waiver is granted. The rule also indicates that the waiver does not
guarantee approval of the required PTI and any construction activity
would be at the owner/operator's risk. Michigan R. 336.1202(2) limits
the waiver to minor construction activities (i.e., activities not
subject to prevention of significant deterioration or nonattainment new
source review requirements), activities that are not considered
construction or reconstruction under a National Emission Standard for
Hazardous Air Pollutants of 40 CFR part 63, and activities that are not
considered construction or modification under a New Source Performance
Standard of 40 CFR part 61. It is also important to note that the
approved Part 2 rules currently included in the Michigan SIP already
have an approved waiver provision. The currently approved waiver
provision is much broader in scope, and the changes that EPA is
approving here narrow that scope bringing the MDEQ provisions in line
with other state programs.
    Comment 1: The commenters object to EPA's approval of waiver
provisions in general and argue that all of EPA's arguments for
approval of waiver provisions are flawed and do not in any way justify
approval.
    EPA Response: EPA has outlined its position on waivers for minor
source construction in previous rulemakings, as noted above, and will
not be revisiting this established policy in this rulemaking. EPA finds
that Michigan R. 336.1202 meets the criteria for approval outlined in
those rulemakings. Michigan's rule requires application for a waiver
and requires MDEQ to act upon the application for a waiver within 30
days. The waiver provision is limited to non-major construction
activities and the applicant must show a delay in construction would
result in hardship. Finally, the rule makes it clear that the source
may not operate until such time a final permit is issued and that
granting a waiver does not obligate MDEQ to issue a final permit.
    Comment 2: Michigan R. 336.1202 conflicts with EPA regulations
governing minor source review because it would allow a source to
circumvent the public participation requirements until after a source
or modification is constructed.
    EPA Response: EPA's position on limited waiver provisions in minor
NSR programs has already been established. As discussed above nothing
in 40 CFR 51.161 requires that the required public notice occur prior
to the commencement of construction activities for minor sources. MDEQ
must still adhere to the SIP approved public notice requirements when
issuing a permit.
    Comment 3: The Michigan waiver provision conflicts with EPA's
regulations governing major source review because it could apply to
modified major sources that would otherwise be subject to PSD or
nonattainment NSR. Although the Michigan waiver provision states that
it does not apply to ``any activity'' that is subject to major source
permitting requirements, the definition of ``activity'' under this rule
is not consistent with the EPA's aggregation policy. By defining
``activity'' as the ``concurrent and related installation,
construction, relocation, or modification of any process or process
equipment,'' MDEQ's definition is inconsistent with the much broader
policy that EPA has laid out in several policy memos in deciding when
projects should be aggregated. Importantly, EPA policy does not require
that projects be concurrently constructed to justify two or more
projects being related. There are also numerous other factors to take
into account to determine if two or more projects are related.
    EPA Response: Neither the Act nor current EPA rules specifically
addresses the basis upon which to aggregate changes for applicability
purposes. Instead, EPA has developed its aggregation policy through
statutory and regulatory interpretation and applicability
determinations. Current EPA policy is generally guided by our analysis
in memos such as the June 17, 1993 ``Applicability of New Source Review
Circumvention Guidance to 3M-Maplewood, Minnesota.'' In this memo, EPA
outlines criteria that a permitting authority might consider in
determining which activities should be aggregated. The guidance
suggests that a permitting authority should consider the timing of
projects, whether or not changes are technically related or dependent
upon one another, and any economic relationship between activities. EPA
policy directs permitting authorities to evaluate the timing and
relatedness of activities for aggregation. Since MDEQ has not defined
either ``concurrent'' or ``related'', we believe the language can be
interpreted broadly enough to be consistent with EPA policy.
Furthermore, the definition of activity here has no bearing on the
definition of project under the state's PSD and major non-attainment
NSR program. Applicability for PSD is defined in Michigan's Part 18
rules and applicability for major non-attainment NSR is defined in
Michigan's Part 19 rules, and is independent of any applicability
criteria established in Part 2. If an activity is subject to the Part
18 or Part 19 requirements either by itself or as part of a larger
project, it would be excluded from use of the waiver provisions.

    Comment 4: The waiver provision also conflicts with EPA regulations
governing new major source review because it could apply to a source
that ultimately requests limits on emissions to avoid major source or
major modification permitting requirements.
    EPA Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter's conclusions. The
rule prohibits use of the waiver by sources subject to the state's
major construction permitting programs. Any source that intends to take
synthetic minor restrictions to avoid major source permitting
requirements is major until a permit with enforceable restrictions is
issued, and would be disqualified from the use of the waiver. MDEQ has
made their position on this issue clear as well. In a public hearing
report dated February 20, 2003, which is included in attachment F of
the September 2003 submittal, MDEQ outlines how their rules would
prevent the use of restrictions that are not part of an enforceable
permit or order, thus limiting the waiver to true minors.
    Comment 5: The Michigan waiver provision does not meet the
requirements of the Act or 40 CFR 51.160(a) because it does not require
the source to submit its plans and specifications for approval before
MDEQ must act on a request for a waiver. Michigan R. 336.1202 indicates
that a source's ``pertinent plans and specifications'' can be submitted
after a waiver is granted and such plans are only required ``as soon as
is reasonably practical.'' Furthermore, MDEQ's rule is not comparable
to previously approved waiver provisions in Idaho and Wisconsin because
both programs require a complete application for construction with an
application for a waiver.
    EPA Response: While the approvals in Idaho and Wisconsin note the
submittal of a complete application for construction as additional
safeguards, EPA disagrees that the submittal of a complete application
for construction was established as a criterion for approval. Michigan
R. 336.1202 does require application to MDEQ for a waiver. EPA does not
agree that a complete application for construction is necessary, and
the commenter has not provided evidence that MDEQ does not require
adequate information with the waiver application. A check of MDEQ
policy does in fact show that a complete application is required with
an application for a waiver. Section 9-2 of MDEQ's ``Permit to Install
Workbook'' states that a PTI application must be submitted ``before, or
with, a construction waiver request.''
    Comment 6: Michigan R. 336.1202 conflicts with the Act and EPA
regulations governing minor source review because it essentially
amounts to a director's discretion provision to provide new exemptions
from the substantive requirements of the permit to install
requirements. That is because the source does not have to submit
relevant information about the new or modified source to determine if
it would interfere with the control strategy or cause or contribute to
a NAAQS violation until after construction has begun, the new or
modified source's proposed location and impact on air quality would not
have to be disclosed to the public until after construction has begun,
and if the source was planning on requesting enforceable emission
limitations to avoid major source permitting requirements, no review by
the MDEQ, the public, or EPA would be done until after construction has
begun.
    EPA Response: As discussed above, a complete application for a PTI
is required with an application for a waiver. Because any source
seeking synthetic minor or netting limitations is considered major
until such time as a permit with practically enforceable limitations is
issued, the rule would only allow a waiver for true minor actions.
Finally, the rule prohibits operation until a final permit is issued,
and that permit must meet the public notice procedures of the approved
SIP.

C. Michigan R. 336.1209 Use of Old Permits To Limit Potential to Emit

    Michigan R. 336.1209 allows a source to rely on a permit to install
or a permit to operate issued by MDEQ before May 6, 1980 (prior to
approval in the SIP), or issued by Wayne county before a delegation of
authority to Wayne county pursuant to state statute for the purposes of
applicability to Michigan R. 336.1210. Michigan R. 336.1210 is the
state's Title V operating permit program.
    Comment 1: This rule could allow a source to avoid the state's
Title V requirements by relying on emission limits in permits that the
state or Wayne County no longer have the ability to enforce due to the
permit being based on rules that are extremely out of date or no longer
on the books.
    EPA Response: Changes to rules do not invalidate permits already
issued. If the permits issued were non-expiring, they are still legally
binding regardless of changes to the state's permitting rules. EPA sees
this provision as reaffirming the state's authority to enforce these
permits.
    Comment 2: The provisions of Michigan Rule 336.1209 that allow
sources to rely on pre-1980 permits and permit limits may result in
permits that are inconsistent with EPA's criteria for ``practically
enforceable'' limits. Those criteria include the requirement that the
permit expressing the emission limits must identify the methods for
determining compliance with the limit and require monitoring,
recordkeeping and reporting. The commenter notes that neither Michigan
R. 336.1209 or Michigan R. 336.1205(1)(a) specifically require that the
permit to be used to avoid Title V requirements include these
compliance assurance requirements.
    EPA Response: Michigan R. 336.1209 requires that the permit contain
production and/or operational limits consistent with the requirements
of Michigan R. 336.1205(1)(a). Michigan R. 336.1205(1)(a) requires that
limits be enforceable as a practical matter. While Michigan R.
336.1205(1)(a) does provide some detail regarding the types of limits
that could be used and the timeframes for the limits, EPA does not see
the language in this rule as defining ``enforceable as a practical
matter'' and sees nothing in the language that would be inconsistent
with EPA policy on what makes a limit enforceable as a practical
matter. Furthermore, the commenter has not described how avoiding an
operating permit requirement would impact the state's preconstruction
permitting program.
    Comment 3: EPA has established certain criteria that need to be met
in order to establish enforceable limits on potential to emit, which
include among other things EPA and public notice and the opportunity to
comment on a potential to emit limit. (See 1/25/95 EPA Memo with
Subject ``Options for Limiting Potential to Emit (PTE) of a Stationary
Source Under Section 112 and Title V of the Clean Air Act (Act)'' at 3-
4.)
    EPA Response: The reference cited by the commenters is a discussion
regarding the criteria for SIP approval of a federally enforceable
state operating permit program (FESOP). As noted in the referenced
memo, a criterion for approval of a FESOP program is that permits ``be
issued in a process that provides for review and an opportunity for
comment by the public and by EPA.'' Michigan R. 336.1209 is not a FESOP
program, and the criteria for FESOP approval is not an appropriate
measure for this rule.
    Comment 4: To a large extent, EPA's criteria for creating
practically enforceable emission limits to avoid major source
permitting was developed pursuant to the 1987 Court decision United
States v. Louisiana Pacific, 682 F. Supp. 112(D. Colo. 1987), 682 F.

Supp. 1141 (D. Colo. 1988). By allowing Michigan sources to rely on
permits issued well before this Court decision and before May 6, 1980,
it seems highly doubtful that the Michigan or Wayne County permits upon
which a source might rely to avoid Title V permitting meet EPA's more
recent criteria for creating practically enforceable limits on
potential to emit. Until it is clear that EPA has undertaken a review
of these older programs and verified as such, as well as verified that
the state or Wayne County still has authority to enforce such permits,
EPA must not approve Michigan R. 336.1209 as part of the Michigan SIP.
    EPA Response: The commenter seems to suggest that any limit
predating the United States v. Louisiana Pacific decision and EPA's
subsequent guidance could not be enforceable as a practical matter.
Minor permit programs had been a part of state SIPs for nearly a decade
before the decision and EPA's subsequent guidance. The fact that the
EPA and the court found the Louisiana Pacific permit deficient is not
evidence that all prior permits were somehow deficient. The rule
requires that the old permit contain limits that are enforceable as a
practical matter and that the permittee continue to maintain records,
conduct monitoring, and submit reports to show that the source is in
compliance with those terms.

D. Michigan R. 336.1278 Exclusion From Exemption and Michigan R.
336.1278a Scope of Permit Exemptions

    Michigan R. 336.1278 and 336.1278a work together to define the
scope of the permit exemptions in Michigan R. 336.1280 through 336.1290
and to ensure that sources choosing to forgo a case-by-case permitting
decision collect and maintain data necessary to demonstrate that any
construction related activities qualified for the exemptions. Michigan
R. 336.1278 excludes major activities subject to either the PSD or
major non-attainment programs from using the exemptions. This rule also
affirms that the exemptions only apply to the requirement to obtain a
construction permit and that all other applicable requirements
including existing permit limitations must be met. Michigan R.
336.1278a requires sources using an exemption to maintain records that
demonstrate the applicability of the exemption including information
such as a description of equipment installed, date of installation,
identification of the specific exemption being applied and an analysis
that the exemption exclusions in Michigan R. 336.1278 do not apply.
    Comment 1: Michigan's PTI regulations are an umbrella permit
program that apply to new major sources and major modifications as well
as minor sources and modifications. Many of the PTI exemptions,
particularly the broadly-worded exemptions in Michigan R. 336.1285,
could allow otherwise major modifications to escape review, despite the
limitations in Michigan R. 336.1278 and 336.1278a. Thus, EPA is not
justified in relying on Michigan R. 336.1278 and R. 336.1278a for
assurance that all of the PTI exemptions in Michigan R. 336.1280
through Michigan R. 336.1290 will not allow a project to escape major
source permitting.
    EPA Response: EPA agrees with the commenter that the provisions in
Part 2 apply to both minor sources and major modifications. EPA
disagrees that the PTI regulations exemption would allow major
modifications to escape review. The commenter is correct to a certain
extent that the provisions in Part 2 apply to both major and minor
construction activities. For example, the Part 2 rules do address the
general requirement to obtain a permit, public notice procedures, and
grounds for permit denial of all construction permit programs. However,
the Part 2 rules do not define the applicability criteria for the
state's PSD and major non-attainment NSR programs. The state's PSD
rules in Part 18 and major non-attainment NSR rules in Part 19 define
the specific requirements, including applicability, of those major
source construction permitting programs. Michigan R. 336.1278 prohibits
the use of the exemptions if the activity would be subject to PSD or
major non-attainment permitting requirements. The applicability
procedures in Part 18 and Part 19 are independently applicable, and
nothing in Part 2 of the Michigan Rules would alter them; therefore,
EPA finds that the exclusion in Michigan R. 336.1278 is adequate.
    Comment 2: The specific provisions of Michigan R. 336.1278 fail to
ensure that projects that should be required to obtain a PSD or major
non-attainment permit will not be exempt from a PTI pursuant to the
exemptions in Michigan R. 336.1280 through R. 336.1290 because Michigan
R. 336.1278(1) does not use the same terms that are used in the PSD or
non-attainment NSR regulations for identifying what changes may trigger
NSR review. Specifically, the PSD and nonattainment NSR rules use the
term ``project'' which is defined as ``a physical change or change in
the method of operation of an existing major stationary source'' and
Michigan R. 336.1278 uses the term ``activity.'' Michigan R.
336.1278(1)(b) defines ``activity'' as ``the concurrent and related
installation, construction, reconstruction, relocation, or modification
of any process or process equipment.'' It does not appear that this
definition encompasses changes in the method of operation of any
process or process equipment. The commenter also asserts that the
definition of ``activity'' is inconsistent with EPA's aggregation
policy because EPA policy does not require that changes be concurrent.
    EPA Response: The MDEQ definition of ``activity'' includes
``modification of any process or process equipment.'' MDEQ defines
``modify'' in Michigan R. 336.1113(e). The definition of ``modify''
includes physical changes in, or changes in the method of operation of
an existing process or process equipment. MDEQ has not excluded changes
in the method of operation as suggested by the commenter. The commenter
made a similar comment with respect to aggregation in their comments on
the waiver provision at Michigan R. 336.1202. See EPA's response to
Comment 3 in Section II.B of this action.
    Comment 3: While Michigan R. 336.1278a(1)(c) does require an
analysis demonstrating that Michigan R. 336.1278 does not apply to the
process or process equipment, the rule does not clearly require such
analysis for modification to process equipment.
    EPA Response: EPA disagrees with this comment. It is clear that the
``exempt process or exempt process equipment'' in Michigan R. 336.1278a
is referencing the exempt activity as defined by each of the categories
of exemptions in Michigan R. 336.1280 through 336.1290. If the exempt
process or exempt process equipment as defined by a specific exemption
would include modifications to existing equipment, the facility
applying the exemption would be required to maintain an analysis that
the exemption applies to the modification of equipment.
    Comment 4: Michigan R. 336.1278a(1)(c) does not specify how the
analysis that Michigan R. 336.1278 does not apply should be done. Given
that the language and terms of Michigan R. 336.1278(1) are not
consistent with the terms and applicability procedures of the major NSR
rules, it is imperative that the recordkeeping rule at Michigan R.
336.1278a(1)(c) specify the applicability procedures in the major PSD
and non-attainment NSR rules. Given the complex procedures, how they
differ for new emissions units versus existing emissions units, and the
fact that Michigan R. 336.1278(1) uses different terminology than the
major

source permitting rules, this is a major omission.
    EPA Response: As explained previously, nothing in the Part 2 rules
impacts applicability under the state's major source permitting rules
in Part 18 and Part 19. EPA believes that the expectation of Michigan
R. 336.1278a(1)(c) is clear in that it requires a source applying any
of the exemptions to maintain an analysis and records that support that
(1) the project was not major pursuant to the requirements of the
approved Part 18 or Part 19 programs, and (2) that the process or
process equipment in question, meets the applicability criteria of
whichever specific exemption they are claiming as defined by that
exemption. Michigan very clearly states this in their May 15, 2012,
letter from Dan Wyant to Susan Hedman. In its explanation of how these
rules work to limit the scope of the exemptions, MDEQ states ``A source
must, therefore, first determine if it is excluded from exemption under
Rule 278 before evaluating whether it is eligible for one of the
specific exemptions in Rules 280 through 290.'' In other words, major
source permitting applicability must be determined before consideration
of the Part 2 exemptions.
    Comment 5: Michigan R. 336.1278a does not clearly require an
analysis demonstrating that the specific exemption being used applies
to the activity. Michigan R. 336.1278a must require an analysis
demonstrating the applicability of an exemption, not just a description
of the exempt process and an identification of the exemption being
applied as suggested by Michigan R. 336.1278a(1)(a) and (b).
    EPA Response: Michigan R. 336.1278a(1) states ``To be eligible for
a specific exemption listed in R 336.1280 to R 336.1291, any owner or
operator of an exempt process or exempt process equipment must be able
to provide information demonstrating the applicability of the
exemption.'' The language in Michigan R. 336.1278a(1)(a) and (b) are
examples of what that information might be and not an all-inclusive
list of required information. EPA believes that the intent of the rule
is clear in that a source opting to use an exemption must keep any data
required to demonstrate applicability of an exemption. The specifics of
the necessary data are determined by each exempt category. If the
exemption is based on size or capacity of a unit, the source must keep
data on the size of the emission unit. If the exemption is based on the
type of activity and associated emissions, the source would need to
maintain records describing the exact nature of the change and an
analysis of the resulting change in emissions. EPA does not agree that
further clarification in Michigan R. 336.1278a is necessary.
    Comment 6: The recordkeeping requirements of Michigan R. 336.1278a
are not sufficient to ensure that activities will not escape major NSR
permitting and are not adequate to ensure lawful implementation of all
the permit exemptions. The rule does not clearly require the
preparation of a demonstration at the time of the exemption. The rule
does not clearly require that any demonstration be prepared and
retained, instead it appears that it could be prepared once MDEQ
requests it. Finally, the commenter objects to the rule only requiring
submittal of records upon request by MDEQ arguing that the state will
not be able to ensure proper implementation without upfront approval of
the use of the exemptions by the state.
    EPA Response: The fact that the Michigan R. 336.1278a(2) has set a
deadline for responding to a written request by the state does not
equate to a requirement for no records until such time as the state
asks. The first requirement of every exemption is ``This rule does not
apply if prohibited by R 336.1278 and unless the requirements of R
336.1278a have been met.'' Because Michigan R. 336.1278a(1) requires
that ``to be eligible'' for an exemption, the owner/operator of a
source must be able to provide the information in Michigan R.
336.1278a(1) and each individual exemption requires that those rules
have been met, the clear intent is that the information demonstrating
the applicability of the exemption be developed before the change and
records kept immediately upon implementation. Finally, the commenter
seems to suggest that only a requirement for upfront permitting
authority approval is enforceable. 40 CFR 51.160(e) requires the
state's procedures to ``identify types and sizes of facilities,
buildings, structures, or installations which will be subject to
review.'' The application requirements of 40 CFR 51.160(c) only apply
to those activities subject to review. If the state had established
blanket tonnage thresholds, we would not expect that projects under
those thresholds would require a notice to the permitting authority and
that the permitting authority would affirm that those projects are
below the threshold. MDEQ has defined the types and sizes of facilities
subject to review--any construction activity not listed in the
categories of exemptions. Nothing in the Act or 40 CFR 51.160 would
require notice or application from a source not subject to review. With
respect to enforceability, like tonnage thresholds, the exemptions are
enforced through periodic inspection of facilities.

E. Michigan R. 336.1280-R. 336.1290 PTI Exemptions

    Michigan R. 336.1280-R. 336.1290 define the specific categories of
exemptions.
1. General comments on Michigan PTI exemptions and MDEQ and EPA
analysis of exemptions
    Comment 1: In the November 9, 1999, proposed disapproval, EPA
stated the state ``must demonstrate why these sources need not be
subject to review in accordance with Alabama Power de minimis or
administrative necessity criteria.'' EPA indicated such a demonstration
would likely include ``(1) an analysis of the types and quantities of
emissions from exempted sources, and (2) an analysis which shows that
exempting such facilities from permitting review will not interfere
with maintenance of the NAAQS or applicable control strategy, and
otherwise fulfills the purposes of the minor NSR regulations.'' With
respect to assuring that this SIP relaxation won't interfere with
attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS or otherwise fulfill the
requirements for minor new source review, EPA is relying on MDEQ's
submittals from 2003 and 2017 to show that the SIP revision won't
interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS. In those
submittals, MDEQ provided example emission estimates for a select set
of exemptions but not for all of the exemptions in Michigan R.
336.1280-336.1290.
    EPA Response: In our review of the 2003 and 2017 submittals, EPA
did not find any new exemption that was not sufficiently addressed by
MDEQ to demonstrate non-interference. The commenters have not provided
any specific examples. We think it is also important to note that in
1999 EPA did not conclude that any of the new exemptions were in fact a
relaxation of the existing SIP in the proposed disapproval. EPA's
finding was that MDEQ had failed to provide the required analysis
addressing the effect of the changes on the current SIP.
    Comment 2: MDEQ did not document the basis for its emission factors
used for its emission estimates, and it is not clear that MDEQ has used
realistic worst case emission factors.
    EPA Response: The commenters did not provide any specific examples
of undocumented emission factors. In our review of the emission
estimates

provided, MDEQ has used emission factors from AP-42 or other EPA
documents, manufacturer's data, stack testing, information from past
state permitting actions, data from the Michigan Air Emission Reporting
System, mass balance, or some combination of these sources to estimate
emissions. The data used is clearly documented by MDEQ for each
estimate. There are a few exemptions that do not result in emissions of
any criteria pollutant or any pollutant at all. In those circumstances,
MDEQ has provided an explanation of why those processes would not
result in emissions of a pollutant regulated under section 110 of the
Act. For example, Michigan R. 336.1285(2)(ii) exempts ``fuel cells that
use phosphoric acid, molten carbonate, proton exchange membrane, or
solid oxide or equivalent technologies.'' In their analysis, MDEQ does
not provide an emission calculation, but provides an explanation for
why no emissions of criteria pollutants are expected from this
technology. EPA finds that MDEQ has used appropriate sources for
emission factors and that the commenters have provided no evidence
supporting their claims.
    Comment 3: EPA's proposed approval of these exemptions fail to
fulfill the purpose of the minor NSR regulations. The December 31,
2002, major source permitting rule revisions significantly revised and
limited applicability to major source permitting for modifications at
major sources. In justifying that rulemaking, EPA cited to state's
minor NSR rules as providing the needed oversight of modifications at
existing major source in the cases where modifications at major sources
could more readily be considered minor modifications. For example, EPA
stated in the preamble to the 2002 rules that it anticipated a ``large
majority of the projects that are not major modifications may
nonetheless be required to undergo a permit action through States'
minor NSR permit programs'' and stated that such programs could provide
an opportunity to ensure that the permitting authority agrees with a
source's emission projections.
    EPA Response: EPA disagrees that the MDEQ minor NSR permitting
program will not address ``a large majority of the projects that are
not major modifications.'' In the 2002 rulemaking, EPA did not state
that every change that was no longer subject to the major source
permitting requirements due to NSR Reform would be picked up by the
state minor NSR programs, and statements in the preamble to NSR Reform
are not evidence that the Michigan minor NSR program is not part of a
program serving the intended purpose of section 110(a)(2)(C) of the Act
to prevent construction that would interfere with attainment and
maintenance of the NAAQS. MDEQ has been implementing these exemptions
for over a decade and EPA is not aware of a NAAQS violation resulting
from their use and the commenters have not presented any specific
evidence that they could result in a violation.
2. Rule Specific Comments
a. Michigan R. 336.1285(2)(a) PTI Exemptions
    Michigan R. 336.1285(2)(a) exempts ``routine maintenance, parts
replacement, or other repairs that are considered by the department to
be minor, or relocation of process equipment within the same
geographical site not involving any appreciable change in the quality,
nature, quantity, or impact of the emission of an air contaminant
therefrom.'' The rule also includes examples of changes that would be
covered by the exemption. These examples help to define the scope of
changes MDEQ intended the exemption to cover. EPA specifically noted
concerns with this exemption in a November 9, 1999, proposed
disapproval. This exemption is part of the approved SIP. Michigan had
made some fairly minor changes such as changing the word ``commission''
to ``Department.'' The only substantive change was the addition of the
word ``routine.'' Because it might be interpreted as defining ``routine
maintenance, repair and replacement'' under the major source permitting
rules, EPA was concerned that the ambiguity might lead to sources
inappropriately applying the exemption to major source permitting.
There have been significant changes to the structure of MDEQ's major
source permitting rules since 1999. At that time, PSD permits were
issued pursuant to a delegation of 40 CFR 52.21 through the general
requirements of the Part 2 rules. The state's major non-attainment
permitting rules were also included in Part 2 at that time. MDEQ now
has a SIP approved PSD program, and the major source permitting
requirements have been moved to separate sections of the Michigan
Administrative Code. The PSD rules are in Part 18 and the major NSR
rules are in Part 19. EPA believes the previously listed concerns are
effectively addressed by the requirements of Michigan R. 336.1278 and
336.1278a in conjunction with the move of major source applicability
criteria to separate rule sections.
    Comment 1: The terms ``minor'' and ``appreciable'' are vague,
undefined terms that are subject to varying interpretations. Given that
the facilities will be making the determinations of whether an activity
can be exempt under Michigan R. 336.1285(2)(a) and not MDEQ, the
likelihood of wide and varying interpretations of this provision are
great, and thus the limitations of this exemption are unenforceable.
The minor NSR provisions for SIPs at 40 CFR 51.160(a) and (e) require
the state to clearly define the sizes and types of sources subject to
review and to do so through legally enforceable procedures, and MDEQ
has not done so.
    EPA Response: EPA disagrees that the cited terms make the
limitations unenforceable. We believe that the terms, in context, have
their common meanings, and that MDEQ has satisfactorily described the
intent of these rules. For example, the state's interpretation of
``appreciable'' as stated in their May 15, 2012, letter is the common
definition of the word, ``capable of being perceived or measured.'' A
change in emissions that is capable of being measured is actually a
fairly restrictive limitation. EPA also believes that the state has
developed adequate policy for their permitting program and exemptions
to minimize the likelihood of misuse. More importantly, on page 11 of
the document ``Response to the United States Environmental Protection
Agency's May 12, 2014, Need for Additional 110(l) Analysis,'' included
in the 2017 submittal, MDEQ has clearly indicated that this exemption
``is in no way intended to define routine maintenance, repair and
replacement,'' and confirm their adherence to current EPA policy on the
matter.
    Comment 2: The fact that this rule allows ``relocation of process
equipment within the same geographical site is extremely problematic,
as any relocation of a source of air emission can change that source's
impact on air quality and can negate any prior air quality analyses
that have been done for the source.
    EPA Response: This is language that has already been approved into
the Michigan SIP, and is not open for comment through this action.
    Comment 3: This rule could be considered to redefine ``routine
maintenance, repair, and replacement'' under the major source PSD and
nonattainment NSR rules. This was a concern raised by EPA, to which
MDEQ responded to in part that its ``Part 2 exemptions are designed for
use by small emitting sources.'' However,

nothing in the PTI rules or exemptions limit those permit requirements
to ``small emitting sources.'' Indeed, the PTI program encompasses PSD
and nonattainment NSR requirements and activities at existing major
source subject to PTI requirements.
    EPA Response: As stated previously, EPA believes the additional
restrictions included in Michigan R. 336.1278 and R. 336.1278a have
adequately addressed these concerns. MDEQ clearly requires that a
source first determine that a change is not subject to major source
permitting requirements prior to implementing any of the listed
exemptions. Furthermore, MDEQ has confirmed their adherence to current
EPA guidance on routine maintenance, repair and replacement in the 2017
submittal as described above.
    Comment 4: While Michigan R. 336.1285(2)(a) gives examples of the
types of parts replacement it considers to be ``minor,'' some of those
examples could be construed as allowing component replacement that
should not be considered routine. Specifically, Michigan provides
examples that include replacement of fans, pumps, or motors ``that do
not alter the operation of the source,'' replacement of boiler tubes,
replacement of engines, compressor or turbines ``as part of a normal
maintenance program.''
    EPA Response: See response to comment 3 above.
b. Michigan R. 336.1285(2)(b) PTI Exemptions
    Michigan R. 336.1285(2)(b) exempts ``changes in a process or
process equipment which do not involve installing, constructing, or
reconstructing an emission unit and which do not involve any meaningful
change in the quality and nature or any meaningful increase in the
quantity of the emission of an air contaminant therefrom.''
    Comment 1: This rule has vague, undefined terms such as ``any
meaningful change,'' ``quality'' or ``nature'' of emissions, and ``any
meaningful increase in the quantity of emissions.'' It is unclear from
the rule how changes are to be evaluated and the criteria upon which
``meaningful'' would be judged. This provision is clearly not
enforceable and thus does not meet the minor NSR provisions of 40 CFR
51.160(a) and (e) to clearly define the sizes and types of sources
subject to review and to do so through legally enforceable procedures.
    EPA Response: EPA disagrees that the cited terms make the
limitations unenforceable. We believe that the terms, in context, have
their common meanings, and that that MDEQ has satisfactorily described
the intent of these rules. In its May 15, 2012, letter, MDEQ states
that ``meaningful'' would be defined as ``having meaning or purpose.''
In the context of a minor construction permitting program that would
include a change that would result in an increase that could interfere
with the NAAQS or increment. The rule also lists examples of changes
that could be allowed by the rule such as a change in supplier of a
particular raw material. While EPA agrees that there is some ambiguity
in the term ``meaningful,'' the examples in the rule itself are
adequate to appropriately narrow the scope of the exemption.
    Comment 2: Many of the examples of the types of changes identified
in the rule that might be allowable are concerning and could allow a
modification that should be reviewed for major NSR applicability. The
fact that the rule limits changes to those which do not involve
installing, constructing, or reconstructing an emission unit is not
sufficiently protective given that the exemption still allows modifying
an emissions unit. While the provisions of the rule are vague and
subject to interpretation, the examples given in the rule of the types
of process changes that could be exempt from a PTI show that emission
increases could occur without review. EPA itself recognized this when
it requested MDEQ complete an analysis under Section 110(l) of the Act.
    EPA Response: EPA's request for an analysis under section 110(l) of
the Act was in no way an indication that EPA believed this exemption
would allow major modifications to go unpermitted. States are obligated
to provide an analysis under Section 110(l) for any changes to coverage
under the approved SIP. As discussed previously in this action, EPA is
satisfied that the changes that MDEQ has made to Michigan R. 336.1278
and 336.1278a, will prevent the use of the exemptions for actions that
are subject to major construction permitting requirements. Major NSR
and/or PSD applicability must be determined pursuant to Michigan Rules
Part 18 and Part 19 before the exemptions in Part 2 can be applied.
c. Michigan R. 336.1285(2)(c) PTI Exemptions
    Michigan R. 336.1285(2)(c) exempts the following changes from minor
construction permitting:
    ``Changes in a process or process equipment that do not involve
installing, constructing, or reconstructing an emission unit and that
involve a meaningful change in the quality and nature or a meaningful
increase in the quantity of the emission of an air contaminant
resulting from any of the following:
    (i) Changes in the supplier or supply of the same type of virgin
fuel, such as coal, no. 2 fuel oil, no. 6 fuel oil, or natural gas.
    (ii) Changes in the location, within the storage area, or
configuration of a material storage pile or material handling
equipment.
    (iii) Changes in a process or process equipment to the extent that
such changes do not alter the quality and nature, or increase the
quantity, of the emission of the air contaminant beyond the level which
has been described in and allowed by an approved permit to install,
permit to operate, or order of the department.''
    Comment 1: EPA apparently decided no increase in emissions would
occur with this exemption; however, it is clear that actual emissions
could increase with this exemption. Further, if there are no allowable
emissions limits described for a pollutant or emissions unit in a
permit or MDEQ order, then it appears even allowable emissions could
increase under this exemption. Changes in types of coal burned can
significantly increase emissions and therefore could actually impact
the NAAQS.
    EPA Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter. Michigan R.
336.1285(2)(c)(i) is limited to a change in supplier or supply of the
same type of fuel. EPA would not expect state minor NSR programs create
limits on the supplier of a raw material and the potential impact on
emissions from a change in supplier is minimal. Nothing in this rule
would allow a facility to change the type of fuel combusted as
suggested by the commenter. Michigan R. 336.1285(2)(c)(ii) only allows
moving storage piles or equipment within the existing storage area. A
change in the location of equipment and storage piles should have no
impact on the quantity of emissions; furthermore, when modelling impact
on NAAQS from a storage area, total emissions from the storage area are
modeled as an area source. Specific locations of piles or handling
equipment are not modeled. Because the rule limits changes to the
existing storage area, we would not expect an impact on the NAAQS with
these types of changes either. Finally, Michigan R. 336.1285(2)(c)(iii)
specifically excludes changes that would increase the quantity of
emissions beyond that already allowed in a permit or order issued by
MDEQ. Therefore, a change in the type of fuel combusted that results in
an increase in emissions, as suggested by the

commenter, would be excluded from the use of this exemption.
    Comment 2: It must be pointed out that the exemptions in Michigan
R. 336.1285(2)(c), being based essentially on a comparison of
allowable-to-allowable emission increases, is based on an entirely
inconsistent emissions increase approach than the major source
permitting rules. The Courts have previously found that allowable-to-
allowable emissions test are not authorized under major source
permitting programs.
    EPA Response: As previously discussed in this document, nothing in
these rules impact applicability under major source permitting
programs. MDEQ clearly requires that a source first determine that a
change is not subject to major source permitting requirements prior to
implementing any of the listed exemptions. With respect to requirements
for applicability under minor NSR programs, the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(C) and 40 CFR 51.160 do not expressly require the use of any
particular applicability test, and therefore do not prohibit the use of
an allowable-to-allowable or actual-to-actual test.
    Comment 3: Michigan R. 336.1285(2)(c)(ii) could readily allow a
source to violate terms of an existing permit (including a major source
PSD or non-attainment NSR permit) by allowing changes in the location
or configuration of a material storage pile or material handling
equipment. Any air modeling analysis that was done for such a source
would have considered the location of material handling emissions in
relation to publicly accessible land and roads. Given that fugitive
emissions from material handling and/or storage piles have in many
cases been modeled to cause or contribute to violations of the NAAQS or
PSD increments for particulate matter (PM), particulate matter with an
aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 10 microns (PM10)
and particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal
to 2.5 microns (PM2.5), this cannot be considered as
protective of the NAAQS.
    EPA Response: Michigan R. 336.1278(4) states that the exemptions
only apply to the requirement to obtain a PTI and ``do not exempt any
source from complying with any other applicable requirement or existing
permit limitation.'' Therefore, no exemption in Michigan R. 336.1280
through 336.1290 would allow a source to violate terms of an existing
permit as suggested by the commenter. Furthermore, as discussed above,
the exemption limits relocation of equipment and piles to within the
existing storage area. Due to the way in which emissions from storage
areas are addressed in a modeling analysis this would result in no
impact on previous modeling.
d. Michigan R. 336.1285(2)(d)-(f)
    Michigan R. 336.1285(2)(d) exempts the replacement or
reconstruction of air pollution control equipment with equivalent or
more efficient control equipment. Michigan R. 336.1285(2)(e) exempts
the installation of control equipment required by a National Emission
Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants. Michigan R. 336.1285(2)(f)
exempts the installation and construction of air pollution control
equipment that does not result in a significant increase in a pollutant
from the pollution controls.
    Comment 1: EPA did not require a section 110(l) analysis for
Michigan R. 336.1285(d); however, this provision could allow for the
replacement of existing controls with controls that could create a new
source of emissions. For example, if a scrubber is installed at a unit
utilizing dry sorbent injection for sulfur dioxide (SO2)
control, the scrubber would add sources such as lime delivery and
storage for scrubber waste disposal. EPA should not have excluded this
provision from the requirement for a section 110(l) analysis.
    EPA Response: See EPA response to comments on the 110(l) analysis
in Section II. F. below.
e. Michigan R. 336.1285(2)(g)-(mm)
    Comment: Michigan R. 336.1285(2)(g)-(mm) provide for 33 specific
and diverse exemptions from the PTI requirements. There are certain
activities that seem as if they could be significant sources of air
emissions, especially because a company could claim multiple PTI
exemptions from these activities.
    EPA Response: As explained previously, EPA believes the limiting
language in Michigan R. 336.1278 and 336.1278a is sufficient to ensure
that projects subject to major construction permitting requirements are
excluded from the use of the exemptions. EPA has also previously
addressed the definition of activity in the rule and believes that the
rule requires the appropriate aggregation of multiple small changes
when making applicability decisions.
f. Michigan R. 336.1280-336.1284 and Michigan R. 336.1286-336.1290
    Comment: There are certain activities in Michigan R. 336.1280
through 336.1284 and Michigan R. 336.1286 through 336.1290 that seem as
if they could be significant sources of air emissions, especially
because a company could claim multiple PTI exemptions from these
activities.
    EPA Response: As explained previously, EPA believes the limiting
language in Michigan R. 336.1278 and 336.1278a is sufficient to ensure
that projects subject to major construction permitting requirements are
excluded from the use of the exemptions. EPA has also previously
addressed the definition of activity in the rule and believes that the
rule requires the appropriate aggregation of multiple small changes
when making applicability decisions.

F. Comments Concerning the 110(l) Demonstration

    EPA received several comments regarding the 110(l) analysis
provided by MDEQ. Section 110(l) of the CAA states that ``[t]he
Administrator shall not approve a revision of a plan if the revision
would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment
and reasonable further progress or any other applicable requirement of
this chapter.'' 42 U.S.C. 7410(l). EPA does not interpret section
110(l) to require a full attainment or maintenance demonstration before
any changes to a SIP may be approved. Generally, a SIP revision may be
approved under section 110(l) if EPA finds it will at least preserve
status quo air quality. See Kentucky Resources Council, Inc. v. EPA,
467 F.3d 986 (6th Cir. 2006); GHASP v. EPA, No. 06-61030 (5th Cir. Aug.
13, 2008); see also, e.g., 70 FR 53 (Jan. 3, 2005), 70 FR 28429 (May
18, 2005) (proposed and final rules, upheld in Kentucky Resources,
which discuss EPA's interpretation of section 110(l).
    In considering the new exemptions in Michigan R. 336.1280 through
Michigan R. 336.1290, EPA examined the emission projections provided by
MDEQ in the 2003 and 2017 submittals, the structure of the existing SIP
permitting rules and the structure of each new exemption, and in some
cases conservative air quality analysis (modeling or qualitative
analysis in the case of ozone) provided in the 2017 submittal. MDEQ's
currently approved permitting SIP generally requires a PTI for any
change resulting in an increase in a regulated pollutant unless the
particular change falls into one of the categories of exemptions
contained in Michigan R. 336.1280 through Michigan R. 336.1290. MDEQ's
revisions expand the exempt categories. Several of the exempt
categories would have no associated emissions of criteria pollutants.
Several other categories of

exemptions contain production and operation restrictions and function
as a permit by rule. Where the exemption did not contain enforceable
limitations on production and operation, and projected emission
increases were greater than 10 tons per year of a criteria pollutant,
MDEQ provided an air quality analysis. MDEQ and EPA have evaluated the
impacts of the proposed revisions, and determined that they do not
interfere with attainment of any NAAQS or any other CAA requirement
because the use of the exemption provides the same level of control
measures as the control measures that would be included in an
individual construction permit, the exemption would result in little or
no increase in emissions of a criteria pollutant, or MDEQ has provided
a suitable air quality analysis demonstrating no interference with
attainment, reasonable further progress, or any other requirement of
the Act.
    Comment 1: It appears that MDEQ and EPA assumed that, if emission
increases were less than the major source modification significance
levels, then the increase could not interfere with attainment or
maintenance of the NAAQS.
    EPA Response: EPA agrees that major source modification
significance levels alone would be insufficient to demonstrate non-
interference. As explained elsewhere in this action, MDEQ's non-
interference demonstration took into account factors in addition to the
significance levels, i.e., emission projections, the structure of the
existing SIP permitting rules and the structure of each new exemption,
and in some cases conservative air quality analysis (modeling or
qualitative analysis in the case of ozone) provided in the 2017
submittal. When evaluating the effect of the new exemptions, MDEQ and
EPA first considered the level of control required by the current SIP.
A permit issued under the currently approved SIP does not explicitly
require an air quality analysis be performed. The currently approved
program ensures the establishment of control measures in the permit. A
number of the exemptions are structured as prohibitory rules and as
such include control measures that are similar to the control measures
that would be included in an individual permit. These may include
restrictions on production and operation, restrictions on size of
equipment, required control technology, or limits on raw materials
used, in order to qualify for the exemption. Under these circumstances,
EPA finds that these prohibitory rules, or permits by rule, preserve
the status quo of the existing SIP. For other exemptions, MDEQ has
demonstrated that the exemption will not result in an increase in
emissions or have the potential to emit a criteria pollutant at all. If
the exemption has no associated criteria pollutant emissions, no
further analysis is necessary. For exemptions that could result in
small increases in criteria pollutants, generally less than 10 tons per
year, MDEQ has presented an analysis of the observed impacts from
eliminating the individual permit requirement. MDEQ has reviewed the
state emissions inventory to determine the amount and magnitude of
emissions from the sources that are being exempted, and they have
reviewed data from monitors within the state. MDEQ has not found that
moving away from an individual permit for these smaller exempted
sources have resulted in violations of the NAAQS. EPA has reviewed
MDEQ's analysis and agrees that no NAAQS violations would result from
these small emissions increases. Furthermore, the commenter has not
cited any example of an individual permit for these exempt categories
that would have established any additional control measures. Finally,
for the single exemption that would relax the current SIP and would
result in an increase of a criteria pollutant greater than 10 tons per
year, MDEQ provided a conservative modeling analysis demonstrating that
exempting from permitting sources of that type and size would be
unlikely to result in a violation of the NAAQS. EPA has also reviewed
this modeling analysis and agrees that it supports MDEQ's conclusion.
    Comment 2: The impact of an activity's emissions on air pollutant
concentrations is dependent on a myriad of factors including but not
limited to stack height, temperature, velocity, topography, other
buildings in the vicinity, and background pollutant concentrations;
therefore, no specific ton per year level of emissions can be
considered as protection of the NAAQS in all locations, and especially
for short term average NAAQS.
    EPA Response: EPA agrees that it is not possible to set a single
ton per year threshold for all situations that would prevent
interference. EPA disagrees that the rules set such a ton per year
threshold. As discussed elsewhere, tons per year was only one of the
factors MDEQ utilized to demonstrate non-interference. As previously
stated, EPA does not interpret section 110(l) to require a full
attainment or maintenance demonstration before any changes to a SIP may
be approved.
    Comment 3: MDEQ failed to evaluate emissions for the worst-case
scenario under each exemption. This is especially true for the broad
exemptions of Michigan R. 336.1285 where MDEQ just gave examples of
emission estimates for certain exemptions.
    EPA Response: There are a few exemptions where MDEQ did not provide
a worst-case analysis; however, in those cases, MDEQ has provided real
world examples of how the exemptions have been applied and the
resulting emissions increases that are representative of the larger
projects that would likely use the exemption. For example, for Michigan
R. 336.1285(2)(b)(i)(H), which exempts lengthening a paint drying oven
to allow for longer curing time, the emission estimates provided by
MDEQ are based on an actual project at a major auto manufacturer.
    Comment 4: MDEQ failed to evaluate the cumulative emissions
increases that could be exempt for a single source relying on multiple
exemptions (such as adding several oil-fired equipment of less than 20
MMBtu/hour pursuant to Michigan R. 336.1282(2)(b)).
    EPA Response: MDEQ has provided projected increases from each of
the exemptions, and EPA has found the analysis provided by MDEQ to be
reasonable. With respect to the specific example provided by the
commenter, the fuel burning exemption at Michigan R. 336.1282(2)(b) is
structured as a prohibitory rule. The limitations imposed by the rule
are equivalent to the types of limitations that would be included in a
permit under the currently approved SIP. Moving from an individual
permit system to a permit by rule system would preserve the status quo
of the existing SIP.
    Comment 5: EPA did not require a Section 110(l) analysis for
Michigan R. 336.1285(2)(d) which allows for replacement of an air
pollution control equipment with equivalent or more efficient
equipment. However, this provision could allow an increase in
emissions--for example, if a scrubber is installed at a unit utilizing
dry sorbent injection for SO2 control, the scrubber would
add sources such as lime delivery and storage and for waste disposal.
Thus, EPA should not have exempted this rule from a 110(l) analysis.
    EPA Response: EPA did not exempt this rule from 110(l)
requirements. EPA did determine that no additional analysis beyond the
analysis of the exemption included with the 2003 submittal was
necessary. As discussed above, EPA does not interpret 110(l) as
requiring a full attainment or maintenance demonstration. The exemption
is limited to the replacement

of existing controls with identical or more efficient controls. Some
form of add-on control technology must already exist to use this
exemption. In the example provided by the commenter, where a source
replaced a dry flue gas desulfurization unit with a wet flue gas
desulfurization unit, both the existing controls and the new controls
would have used lime in the process. The facility would have already
had sources associated with lime delivery and storage, and both
controls result in waste material.
    Comment 6: While EPA required a 110(l) analysis for Michigan R.
336.1285(2)(e) and (f), MDEQ simply evaluated the emission increase
from a couple of examples and did not estimate worst case emissions.
    EPA Response: EPA believes that the examples selected by MDEQ are
representative of the types of changes that would actually use the
exemptions.
    Comment 7: EPA and MDEQ have not demonstrated that permit
exemptions for activities with emission increases less than PSD
significance levels will not interfere with attainment or maintenance
of the NAAQS and will otherwise be consistent with the requirements of
the Act.
    EPA Response: EPA's conclusion that the changes to exempt
categories will not interfere with attainment or maintenance of the
NAAQS is not based on the assumption that increases less than the PSD
significance thresholds will not impact the NAAQS. As discussed above,
EPA does not interpret section 110(l) to require a full attainment or
maintenance demonstration before any changes to a SIP may be approved.
In considering the new exemptions in Michigan R. 336.1280 through
Michigan R. 336.1290, EPA examined the emission projections provided by
MDEQ in the 2003 and 2017 submittals, the structure of the existing SIP
permitting rules and the structure of each new exemption, and in some
cases conservative air quality analysis (modeling or qualitative
analysis in the case of ozone) provided in the 2017 submittal.
    Comment 8: MDEQ's modeling demonstrates that emission increases at
levels much lower than the PSD significance levels could threaten
attainment of the NAAQS and that other contributing factors such as
stack characteristics and background concentration of an area must also
be taken into account. Furthermore, because the modeling performed
shows modeled concentrations near the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS,
MDEQ's modeling demonstrates that Michigan R. 336.1285(p) could result
in a violation of a NAAQS.
    EPA Response: The modeling submitted in support of Michigan R.
336.1285(2)(p) is sufficiently conservative to demonstrate that the
exemption is unlikely to result in a violation of a NAAQS. While the
modeled concentration for larger tower dryers when combined with a
conservative background are approaching the 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS, this type of equipment is uncommon in the state of Michigan and
would be located in rural areas where background concentrations tend to
be lower. The more common column dryers would have a significantly
lower impact on PM2.5 concentrations.
    Comment 9: EPA cannot justify approving Michigan's minor source
review exemptions based on how such activities were previously
permitted by MDEQ.
    EPA Response: As stated above EPA does not interpret section 110(l)
to require a full attainment or maintenance demonstration before any
changes to a SIP may be approved. When evaluating the effect of any new
exemption, EPA must first consider the level of control required by the
current SIP. In this case, the evaluation concerns the effect of the
individual construction permit issued as required by the currently
approved permitting rules. A permit issued under the currently approved
SIP does not explicitly require an air quality analysis be performed.
What is assured under the currently approved program is the
establishment of control measures in the permit. A number of the
exemptions are structured as prohibitory rules and include control
measures that are similar to the control measures that would be
included in an individual permit. These may include restrictions on
production and operation, restrictions on size of equipment, required
control technology, or limits on raw materials used. Under these
circumstances, EPA finds that these prohibitory rules, or permits by
rule, preserve the status quo of the existing SIP.
    Comment 10: In the proposed approval EPA states, ``where an
exemption could result in an increase of a regulated pollutant in
amounts greater than 10 tons per year, MDEQ provided modeling, or in
the case of ozone, a qualitative analysis to demonstrate that the
emissions that could result from the exempt categories would have no
significant impact on compliance with the NAAQS.'' A modeling analysis
was only included for Michigan R. 336.1285(2)(p), yet a review of
Attachment H to the 2003 submittal shows several categories with
estimates exceeding 10 tons per year. Specifically, the commenter has
identified the fuel burning equipment exemptions in Michigan R.
336.1282(2)(b).
    EPA Response: EPA disagrees to the extent that the commenter is
suggesting that a demonstration of non-interference requires modeling
for all exemptions. As previously discussed, the fuel burning
exemptions in Michigan R. 336.1285(b) are structured as permits by rule
and contain enforceable restrictions on capacity and raw materials
which are equivalent to the controls that would be included in a permit
under the currently approved SIP. Moving from an individual permit
system to a permit by rule system would preserve the status quo of the
existing SIP. The only exemption that relaxes the current SIP
permitting requirements with a resulting increase greater than 10 tons
per year is the grain handling exemption at Michigan R. 336.1285(p),
for which MDEQ provided a modeling analysis showing that the revision
would not interfere with attainment of the NAAQS.

G. Comments Concerning the Docket

    Approximately a week before the end of the first comment period for
this rulemaking, EPA was informed of issues with the electronic docket
at regulations.gov. The docket incorrectly linked to numerous unrelated
documents. Additionally, upon review, EPA noted that certain documents
related to the rulemaking were not present. The interested parties
requested that the docket be fixed and that EPA extend the comment
period. Because of the lack of time remaining on the comment period,
EPA was unable to extend the comment period, and informed the
interested parties that EPA would address the docket issues and reopen
the comment period for an additional 30 days. The comments received
after the close of the first comment period noted the docket issues in
the comments. EPA added missing information to the docket in September
2017 and published a notice reopening the comment period for 30 days on
November 2, 2017.
    In comments received during the first reopening, commenters noted
that the electronic file for the September 2003 submittal from MDEQ was
missing an attachment. The missing information was added to the
electronic docket in November of 2017, and the interested parties were
informed that EPA would reopen the comment period for a second time for
a period of 15 days. The second reopening of the comment period was
published on January 9, 2017. EPA believes that the correction of the

electronic docket and the two notices reopening the comment period for
the rulemaking address all comments related to missing information in
the docket.
    The comments received during the first reopening also noted that
EPA had included copies of several MDEQ policy documents to the docket.
The commenters noted that if EPA is proposed to approve any of these
documents as part of the SIP, EPA must issue a revised proposed
rulemaking making clear to the public which documents it is proposing
to approve. EPA is not approving these documents into the SIP and the
summary of documents EPA is incorporating into the SIP in Section VI
``Incorporation by Reference'' in the proposed rulemaking is correct.
The policy documents were added because EPA thought they would be of
interest to the public. EPA is not relying on these documents to
support approval of the rules, and there is no need to re-propose based
on the addition of these documents to the docket as suggested by the
commenters.

III. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is approving all changes submitted by MDEQ except for changes
to Michigan R 336.1205 which includes provisions for public notice. EPA
will not be taking any action with respect to the changes in public
notice and will be addressing Michigan R 336.1205 in a separate action.
The already approved public notice procedures will remain in the SIP
until EPA takes action on Michigan R 336.1205.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the Michigan
Regulations described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth
below. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents
generally available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 5
Office (please contact the person identified in the For Further
Information Contact section of this preamble for more information).
Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion in
the State implementation plan, have been incorporated by reference by
EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110
and 113 of the Act as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of
EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference in the next
update to the SIP compilation.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act 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 Act. 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);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not 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 Act; 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).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by October 30, 2018. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

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 21, 2018.
Cathy Stepp,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

0
2. In Sec.  52.1170, the table in paragraph (c) is amended by revising
the entries under the heading ``Part 2. Air Use Approval'' to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.1170  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                        EPA-Approved Michigan Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        State
     Michigan citation                Title           effective      EPA approval date           Comments
                                                         date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Part 2--Air Use Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
R 336.1201.................  Permits to install....    6/20/2008  08/31/2018, [Insert
                                                                   Federal Register
                                                                   citation].
R 336.1201a................  General permits to        7/01/2003  08/31/2018, [Insert
                              install.                             Federal Register
                                                                   citation].
R 336.1202.................  Waivers of approval...    6/20/2008  08/31/2018, [Insert
                                                                   Federal Register
                                                                   citation].
R 336.1203.................  Information required..    7/26/1995  08/31/2018, [Insert
                                                                   Federal Register
                                                                   citation].
R 336.1204.................  Authority of agents...    7/26/1995  08/31/2018, [Insert
                                                                   Federal Register
                                                                   citation].
R 336.1206.................  Processing of             7/26/1995  08/31/2018, [Insert
                              applications for                     Federal Register
                              permits to install.                  citation].
R 336.1207.................  Denial of permits to      6/20/2008  08/31/2018, [Insert
                              install.                             Federal Register
                                                                   citation].
R 336.1209.................  Use of old permits to     7/26/1995  08/31/2018, [Insert
                              limit potential to                   Federal Register
                              emit.                                citation].
R 336.1212.................  Administratively          7/26/1995  08/31/2018, [Insert
                              complete                             Federal Register
                              applications;                        citation].
                              insignificant
                              activities;
                              streamlining
                              applicable
                              requirements;
                              emissions reporting
                              and fee calculations.
R 336.1216.................  Modifications to          7/26/1995  08/31/2018, [Insert
                              renewable operating                  Federal Register
                              permits.                             citation].
R 336.1219.................  Amendments for change     6/20/2008  08/31/2018, [Insert
                              of ownership or                      Federal Register
                              operational control.                 citation].
R 336.1221.................  Construction of           7/17/1980  1/12/1982, 47 FR 1292.
                              sources of
                              particulate matter,
                              sulfur dioxide, or
                              carbon monoxide in or
                              near nonattainment
                              areas; conditions for
                              approval.
R 336.1240.................  Required air quality      6/20/2008  08/31/2018, [Insert
                              models.                              Federal Register
                                                                   citation].
R 336.1241.................  Air quality modeling      6/20/2008  08/31/2018, [Insert
                              demonstration                        Federal Register
                              requirements.                        citation].
R 336.1278.................  Exclusion from            6/20/2008  08/31/2018, [Insert
                              exemption.                           Federal Register
                                                                   citation].
R 336.1278a................  Scope of permit          12/20/2016  08/31/2018, [Insert
                              exemptions.                          Federal Register
                                                                   citation].
R 336.1280.................  Permit to install        12/20/2016  08/31/2018, [Insert
                              exemptions; cooling                  Federal Register
                              and ventilating                      citation].
                              equipment.
R 336.1281.................  Permit to install        12/20/2016  08/31/2018, [Insert
                              exemptions; cleaning,                Federal Register
                              washing, and drying                  citation].
                              equipment.
R 336.1282.................  Permit to install        12/20/2016  08/31/2018, [Insert
                              exemptions; furnaces,                Federal Register
                              ovens, and heaters.                  citation].
R 336.1283.................  Permit to install        12/20/2016  08/31/2018, [Insert
                              exemptions; testing                  Federal Register
                              and inspection                       citation].
                              equipment.
R 336.1284.................  Permit to install        12/20/2016  08/31/2018, [Insert
                              exemptions;                          Federal Register
                              containers.                          citation].
R 336.1285.................  Permit to install        12/20/2016  08/31/2018, [Insert
                              exemptions;                          Federal Register
                              miscellaneous.                       citation].
R 336.1286.................  Permit to install        12/20/2016  08/31/2018, [Insert
                              exemptions; plastic                  Federal Register
                              processing equipment.                citation].
R 336.1287.................  Permit to install        12/20/2016  08/31/2018, [Insert
                              exemptions; surface                  Federal Register
                              coating equipment.                   citation].
R 336.1288.................  Permit to install        12/20/2016  08/31/2018, [Insert
                              exemptions; oil and                  Federal Register
                              gas processing                       citation].
                              equipment.
R 336.1289.................  Permit to install        12/20/2016  08/31/2018, [Insert
                              exemptions; asphalt                  Federal Register
                              and concrete                         citation].
                              production equipment.
R 336.1290.................  Permit to install        12/20/2016  08/31/2018, [Insert
                              exemptions; emission                 Federal Register
                              units with limited                   citation].
                              emissions.
R 336.1299.................  Adoption of standards     6/20/2008  08/31/2018, [Insert
                              by reference.                        Federal Register
                                                                   citation].

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2018-18853 Filed 8-30-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P