Section Break  
Other Comments – mixed in support and opposition:  
1. May 22, 2024  
Michigan Manufacturers Association  
Caroline Liethen  
EGLE-AQD-RULES  
From:  
Sent:  
To:  
McDonald, Tracey (EGLE)  
Wednesday, May 22, 2024 5:30 PM  
EGLE-AQD-RULES  
Subject:  
Attachments:  
FW: MMA Part 1/8/9 Comments  
MMA Part 1, 8, 9 Rule Comments.pdf  
From: Caroline Liethen <[email protected]>  
Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2024 4:47 PM  
To: McDonald, Tracey (EGLE) <[email protected]>  
Cc: Vaerten, Marissa (EGLE) <[email protected]>; Lillian Woolley <[email protected]>; Cindy Grostick  
<grostick@mimfg.org>  
Subject: MMA Part 1/8/9 Comments  
CAUTION: This is an External email. Please send suspicious emails to abuse@michigan.gov  
Good afternoon,  
I’m writing to submit the attached comments on behalf of the Michigan Manufacturers Association. We appreciate  
the work you put into the drafts and your consideration of our recommendations. Please contact me if you have  
questions or would like to discuss any recommendations further.  
Sincerely,  
Caroline  
Caroline Liethen | Director of Environmental and Regulatory Policy | Michigan Manufacturers Association  
620 S. Capitol Ave Lansing Michigan 48933  
Tel: 517.487.8543 | Fax: 517.853.3343 | Email: [email protected]  
<="" p="">  
1
May 22, 2024  
Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy  
Attention: Trace McDonald  
P.O. Box 30260  
Lansing, MI 48909-7760  
Re: MMA Comments on the Combined Part 1, 8, and 9 Rules  
Dear Mr. McDonald:  
I am writing on behalf of the Michigan Manufacturers Association to provide comments on the combined  
draft Parts 1 (definitions), 8 (NOx RACT & NOx SIP call revisions), and 9 (adoption by reference) rulesets.  
MMA has served manufacturers and related industries for nearly 120 years. Our membership represents  
approximately 1,700 manufacturers located in every corner of the state including small, medium, and large  
manufacturers. Manufacturing represents Michigan’s largest economic sector generating nearly 20 percent  
of the state gross domestic product. It drives Michigan’s economy and provides livelihoods for more than  
635,000 Michigan citizens and their families. Through our work, MMA and its members share a common goal  
to be good neighbors to the communities we support and where we work.  
MMA appreciates your work on these rules and the consideration of member feedback. We continue to  
appreciate your and Marissa Vaerten’s efforts to write fair and coherent rules. We also continue our support  
for the Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy’s Air Quality Division (EGLE-AQD) to increase  
resources devoted to developing Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) rules in comparison to  
programs unrelated to Clean Air Act requirements. Further, we appreciate our ability to participate in the  
EGLE-AQD RACT Workgroup. In the future, the process would be improved by being more collaborative in  
nature, including sharing draft versions of the rules as they are developed. Members have been unable to  
anticipate and plan for requirements as they were not provided access to updated versions of the rules for  
over a calendar year.  
The following comments are in reference to the Part 1 ruleset:  
MMA supports the proposed revisions to the definition of “Carcinogen” in Part 1 of the Michigan Air Pollution  
Control Rules, specifically 336.1103(c)(i). The proposed revision in Rule 103(c)(i) promotes consistency and  
clarifies a facility’s compliance status under state and federal laws by aligning the definition of “Carcinogen”  
with the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA) Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk  
Assessment. We commend EGLE on this important rulemaking, and respectfully offer the following  
comments to ensure that EGLE accomplishes its stated goal of improving clarity through definitions.  
MMA recommends that EGLE delete revised Section (c)(ii) of Rule 103, which states that a “Carcinogen  
means either of the following(ii) Any chemical that has been determined to be a carcinogen using another  
generally accepted guideline for carcinogen risk assessment based on sound scientific and defensible  
evidence.” Unlike Section (c)(i) that provides clarity, Section (c)(ii) introduces uncertainty by defining  
“carcinogen” through reference to unspecified guidelines. This is problematic for several reasons. First, a  
facility will not know whether it has consulted all relevant guidelines in determining whether a chemical is a  
620 South Capitol Avenue • Lansing, MI 48933 • Phone: 517-372-5900 mimfg.org  
Manufacturing Focused. Member Driven.  
carcinogen. Second, the proposed definition under Section 103(c)(ii) does not define what constitutes “sound  
science” or “defensible evidence” thereby inviting debate and ambiguity. Finally, EGLE has already  
harmonized the federal and state definition of carcinogen through its revised Section (c)(i) such that revised  
Section (c)(ii) does not provide any additional protection of the health, safety, and welfare of Michigan  
citizens nor does it add any clarity for a facility in making its determination.  
Accordingly, MMA recommends the following amendments with language in bold:  
(c) "Carcinogen" means either of the following:  
(i) Bbelonging to a category of “carcinogenic to humans,” “likely to be carcinogenic to humans,” or  
“suggestive evidence of carcinogenic potential” using the weight of evidence narrative approach as described  
in United States Environmental Protection Agency’s “Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment” as adopted  
by reference in R 336.1902.  
(ii) Any chemical that has been determined to be a carcinogen using another generally accepted guideline  
for carcinogen risk assessment based on sound scientific and defensible evidence.  
The following comments are in reference to the Part 8 ruleset:  
RULE 841  
Under Rule 841(2), MMA recommends amendments to clarify sources subject to the rule with language in  
bold:  
(2) Unless exempt pursuant to Subsection (3) or when complying with a Plan under Rule 845, a  
person is subject to this rule and shall not cause or allow the emission of NOx from the combustion of  
fuels in an engine or its replacement unit in excess of the requirements of this rule at facilities meeting  
either of the following criteria:  
(a) Located in the 2015 ozone nonattainment areas and either of the following:  
(i) A stationary source with a potential to emit 100 tons per year or greater of NOx from all combined NOx  
sources on March 1, 2024, or upon the effective date of this rule, whichever is later.  
(ii) Any engine manufactured after the effective date of this rule at a facility whose potential emissions  
exceed 100 tpy.  
Additional changes include to include for Section 3 include an addition to Section (3)(f):  
(f) Engines with a federally enforceable limit of 100 hours per 12-month rolling time period except for actual  
emergencies.  
Under Rule 841(7)(5)(b)(3)(B), a monitoring plan is required, but no guidance is provided on the types of  
monitoring that would be approved. For engines, subject to Rule 841, periodic engine stack testing is allowed  
for demonstrating compliance with monitoring requirements. Periodic stack testing should be allowed for  
engines subject to Rule 841. For certified engines, simply maintaining the engine in a certified condition  
should be adequate to demonstrate compliance with monitoring requirements.  
2
Under Rule 841(7), emission limits are reduced when the area is “bumped up”, though it’s unclear when  
specifically, the reduced emission limits would be effective are reduced. MMA recommends changing the  
language to the following:  
(7) A person that generates NOx emissions from the use of an engine located in the 2015 ozone  
nonattainment area shall meet the following limits within table 841a 12 months after the effective date of a  
final determination by the USEPA, under section 182(c)(9) of the clean air act, 42 USC 7511a, for either of the  
following elements of the 2015 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard:  
(a) The USEPA issues a determination that reasonable further progress as described in Michigan’s approved  
state implementation plan was not achieved.  
(b) The USEPA issues a finding of failure to attain the standard by the applicable attainment date.  
redesignates the area as severe nonattainment area with respect to ozone.  
RULE 842  
Under Rule 842, sections of the rule are confusing. For example, under Rule 842(2)(b) it’s unclear when and  
whether exemptions can be used. MMA recommends the following addition:  
(2) Unless exempt pursuant to Subsection 3 or when complying with a Plan under Rule 845, a person shall  
not cause or allow the emission of NOx from the combustion of fuels in boilers in excess of the requirements of  
this rule at facilities meeting either of the following criteria:  
We would also recommend changing Rule 842(2)(a)(ii) to indicate that the rule only applies to facilities whose  
potential emissions exceed 100 tpy NOx:  
(a) Located in the 2015 ozone nonattainment areas and either of either of the following:  
(i) A stationary source with a potential to emit 100 tons per year or greater of NOx from all combined  
NOx sources on March 1, 2024, or upon the effective date of this rule, whichever is later.  
(ii) A emission unit installed after the effective date of this rule at a facility whose potential emissions  
exceed 100 tpy NOx.  
MMA further recommends similar changes to Rule 842(2)(b) as we are unsure which boilers this limit applied  
to:  
(42)(b) A boiler installed after March 1, 2024, or the effective date of this rule, whichever is later, must utilize  
a low NOx burner, equivalent technology, or better technology, at facilities whose potential emissions exceed  
100 tpy NOx.  
Under Rule 842(7)(b), a monitoring plan is required. In most cases, periodic stack testing and fuel monitoring  
should be sufficient to demonstrate compliance with the NOx limit and should not require approval via a  
specific monitoring plan.  
Under Rule 842(9)(b), emission limits are reduced when the area is “bumped up”, though it’s unclear when  
specifically, the reduced emission limits would be effective are reduced. MMA recommends changing the  
language to the following:  
3
(9) A person that generates NOx emissions from the use of an boiler located in the 2015 ozone nonattainment  
area shall meet the following limits within table 841a 12 months after the effective date of a final  
determination by the USEPA, under section 182(c)(9) of the clean air act, 42 USC 7511a, for either of the  
following elements of the 2015 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard:  
(a) The USEPA issues a determination that reasonable further progress as described in Michigan’s approved  
state implementation plan was not achieved.  
(b) The USEPA issues a finding of failure to attain the standard by the applicable attainment date.  
redesignates the area as severe nonattainment area with respect to ozone.  
RULE 843  
Similar changes are being requested in Rules 843 (turbines) in Rule 843(2):  
(2) Unless exempt pursuant to Subrule 3 or when complying with a Plan under Rule 845, a person is subject  
to this rule and shall not cause or allow the emission of NOx from the combustion of fuels in turbines in excess  
of the requirements of this rule at facilities meeting either of the following criteria:  
(a) Located in the 2015 ozone nonattainment areas and either of the following:  
(i) A stationary source with a potential to emit of 100 tons per year or greater of NOx from all  
combined NOx sources on March 1, 2024, or upon the effective date of this rule, whichever is  
later.  
(ii) An emission unit installed after the effective date of this rule at a facility whose potential  
emissions exceed 100 tpy NOx.  
Under Rule 843(56)(b), a monitoring plan is required. In most cases, periodic stack testing and fuel  
monitoring should be sufficient to demonstrate compliance with the NOx limit and should not require  
approval via a specific monitoring plan.  
Under Rule 843(6)(b)(ii) and (iii), the term boiler, should be “turbine”.  
(i) A parametric monitoring program that specifies operating parameters, and their ranges, that  
provides reasonable assurance each turbine’s emissions are consistent with the requirements of this rule.  
(ii) A predictive emissions measurement system that relies on automated data collection from  
instruments. If a boiler turbine is equipped with a predictive emission monitoring system, compliance  
with the applicable emissions limit must be determined based on the 30-day rolling average of the hourly  
arithmetic average emissions rates.  
(iii) A continuous emission monitoring system that complies with 40 CFR part 60 or part 75, both adopted  
by reference in R 336.1902. If a boiler turbine is equipped with a continuous emission monitoring system,  
compliance with the applicable emissions limit must be determined based on the 30-day rolling average  
of the hourly arithmetic average emissions rates.  
RULE 844  
Additional confusion comes from similar language in 844(b)(2):  
4
(b)(2) Unless exempt under Subsection 3 or when complying with a Plan under Rule 845, a person is subject  
to this rule and shall not cause or allow the emission of NOx from the combustion of fuels in asphalt plants,  
process heaters, engine test cells and stands, lime kilns, or glass manufacturing units in excess of the  
allowable emissions, including the limitations of this rule at facilities meeting either of the following criteria:  
(a) Located in the 2015 ozone nonattainment areas and either of the following:  
(i)  
A stationary source with a potential to emit 100 tons per year or greater of NOx from all combined  
NOx sources on March 1, 2024, or the effective date of this rule, whichever is later.  
(ii) An emission unit installed after the effective date of this rule at a facility whose potential emissions  
exceed 100 tpy NOx.  
Under Rule 844(5), we would like to suggest the following change to clarify which facilities must comply with  
the rule:  
(5) A process heater subject to an emission limit in Table 844 and installed at a facility whose potential  
emissions of NOx exceed 100 tpy, after March 1, 2024, or the effective date of the rule, whichever is later,  
must utilize a low-NOx burner, equivalent technology, or better.  
Under Rule 844(5), a monitoring plan is required. In most cases, periodic stack testing and fuel monitoring  
should be sufficient to demonstrate compliance with the NOx limit and should not require approval via a  
specific monitoring plan.  
Under Rule 844(6)(c)(ii). (B) and (C), the term boiler, should be “emission unit”.  
(A) A parametric monitoring program that specifies operating parameters, and their ranges, that will  
provide reasonable assurance each emission unit’s emissions are consistent with the requirements of this  
rule.  
(B) A predictive emissions measurement system that relies on automated data collection from  
instruments. If an emission unit boiler is equipped with a predictive emission monitoring system,  
compliance with the applicable emissions limit is determined based on the 30-day rolling average of the  
hourly arithmetic average emissions rates.  
(C) A continuous emission monitoring system that complies with 40 CFR part 60 or 40 CFR part 75, both  
adopted by reference in R 336.1902. If an emission unit boiler is equipped with a continuous emission  
monitoring system, compliance with the applicable emissions limit shall be determined based on the 30-  
day rolling average emissions rates.  
Under Rule 844(8), it’s unclear exactly when the reduced emission limits would take effect be effective. MMA  
recommends the following change:  
(8) A person that generates NOx emissions from the use of a process heater located in the 2015 ozone  
nonattainment area shall meet the following limits within table 844b 12 months after the effective date of a  
final determination by the USEPA, pursuant to section 182(c)(9) of the clean air act 42 USC 7511a, for either of  
the following elements of the 2015 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard:  
(a) The USEPA issues a determination that reasonable further progress as described in Michigan’s approved  
state implementation plan was not achieved.  
5
(b) The USEPA issues a finding of failure to attain the standard by the applicable attainment date.  
redesignates the area as severe nonattainment area with respect to ozone.  
RULE 845  
Rule 845(a)(iv) is confusing  
(i) A document containing quantitative or qualitative analyses demonstrating that the emission  
contributions from the applicable emission unit shall not contribute to the overall achievement of  
the ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard in the nonattainment area. This may include, but  
is not limited to, modeling, calculations based on throughput and control efficiency, or other  
quantitative evaluations to similar insignificant units.  
Finally, exempt emission sources within Rules 841-845 should not be pulled into Rule 846 for evaluation of  
miscellaneous large sources.  
MMA has no comments in reference to the Part 9 ruleset.  
Thank you for your consideration of our comments and the extensive economic impact these rules would  
have on the largest sector of Michigan’s economy. These regulatory changes have significant economic  
implications for Michigan, and we will continue to provide information to assist the department in its  
decision-making. Please feel free to contact me should you need clarification or wish to discuss our input  
further.  
Sincerely,  
Caroline Liethen  
Director of Environmental and Regulatory Policy  
6
;