Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Michigan; Redesignation of the Detroit-Ann Arbor Area to Attainment for Ozone, 18479-18490 [E9-9217]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 77 / Thursday, April 23, 2009 / Proposed Rules
Corrective actions are considered FAAapproved if they are approved by the State
of Design Authority (or their delegated
agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
(3) Reporting Requirements: For any
reporting requirement in this AD, under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has
approved the information collection
requirements and has assigned OMB Control
Number 2120–0056.
Related Information
(h) Refer to MCAI EASA AD No.: 2009–
0031, dated February 18, 2009; and RUAG
Aerospace Defence Technology Dornier 228
Alert Service Bulletin ASB–228–279, dated
December 19, 2008, for related information.
Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on April
16, 2009.
Kim Smith,
Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. E9–9327 Filed 4–22–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R04–OAR–2005–SC–0002–200535(b);
FRL–8894–7]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; South Carolina;
NOX SIP Call Phase II
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve
a source-specific State Implementation
Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
South Carolina Department of Health
and Environmental Control on April 14,
2005. This revision responds to EPA’s
regulation entitled, ‘‘Interstate Ozone
Transport: Response to Court Decisions
on the Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) SIP Call,
NOX SIP Call Technical Amendments,
and Section 126 Rules,’’ otherwise
known as the ‘‘NOX SIP Call Phase II.’’
This revision meets the requirements of
the NOX SIP Call Phase II, which
requires South Carolina to submit NOX
SIP Call Phase II revisions necessary to
achieve applicable, incremental
reductions of NOX, including emission
reductions from large internal
combustion engines. Transcontinental
Gas Pipeline Corporation Station 140
(Transco) is the only facility in South
Carolina affected by the NOX SIP Call
Phase II. The intended effect of this SIP
revision is to reduce emissions of NOX
originating in the State of South
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:23 Apr 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
Carolina to help attain and maintain the
national ambient air quality standard for
ozone. This action is being taken
pursuant to section 110 of the Clean Air
Act.
In the Final Rules Section of this
Federal Register, EPA is approving the
State’s source-specific SIP revision as a
direct final rule without prior proposal
because the Agency views this as a
noncontroversial submittal and
anticipates no adverse comments. A
detailed rationale for the approval is set
forth in the direct final rule. If no
adverse comments are received in
response to this rule, no further activity
is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse
comments, the direct final rule will be
withdrawn and all public comments
received will be addressed in a
subsequent final rule based on this
proposed rule. EPA will not institute a
second comment period on this
document. Any parties interested in
commenting on this document should
do so at this time.
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before May 26, 2009.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04–
OAR–2005–SC–0002, by one of the
following methods:
1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the
on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
2. E-mail: ward.nacosta@epa.gov.
3. Fax: (404) 562–9019.
4. Mail: ‘‘EPA–R04–OAR–2005–SC–
0002,’’ Regulatory Development Section,
Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and
Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960.
5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Nacosta
C. Ward, Regulatory Development
Section, Air Planning Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street,
SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the
Regional Office’s normal hours of
operation. The Regional Office’s official
hours of business are Monday through
Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding federal
holidays.
Please see the direct final rule which
is located in the Rules section of this
Federal Register for detailed
instructions on how to submit
comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Nacosta C. Ward, Regulatory
Development Section, Air Planning
Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
18479
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. The
telephone number is (404) 562–9140.
Ms. Ward can also be reached via
electronic mail at
ward.nacosta@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For
additional information see the direct
final rule which is published in the
Rules Section of this Federal Register.
Dated: April 10, 2009.
Beverly H. Banister,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. E9–9223 Filed 4–22–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[EPA–R05–OAR–2009–0219; FRL–8894–9]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans and Designation
of Areas for Air Quality Planning
Purposes; Michigan; Redesignation of
the Detroit-Ann Arbor Area to
Attainment for Ozone
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to make a
determination under the Clean Air Act
(CAA) that the Detroit-Ann Arbor
nonattainment area has attained the 8hour ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standard (NAAQS). The DetroitAnn Arbor area includes Lenawee,
Livingston, Macomb, Monroe, Oakland,
St. Clair, Washtenaw, and Wayne
Counties. This determination is based
on quality-assured ambient air quality
monitoring data for the 2006–2008
ozone seasons that demonstrate that the
8-hour ozone NAAQS has been attained
in the area.
EPA is proposing to approve a request
from the State of Michigan to
redesignate the Detroit-Ann Arbor area
to attainment of the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. The Michigan Department of
Environmental Quality (MDEQ)
submitted this request on March 6,
2009. In proposing to approve this
request EPA is also proposing to
approve, as a revision to the Michigan
State Implementation Plan (SIP), the
State’s plan for maintaining the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS through 2020 in the area.
EPA is proposing to approve the 2005
base year emissions inventory for the
Detroit-Ann Arbor area as meeting the
requirements of section 182(a)(1) of the
CAA. EPA also finds adequate and is
proposing to approve the State’s 2020
E:\FR\FM\23APP1.SGM
23APP1
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
18480
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 77 / Thursday, April 23, 2009 / Proposed Rules
Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets
(MVEBs) for the Detroit-Ann Arbor area.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before May 26, 2009.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05–
OAR–2009–0219, by one of the
following methods:
1. https://www.regulations.gov: Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
2. E-mail: mooney.john@epa.gov.
3. Fax: (312) 692–2551.
4. Mail: John M. Mooney, Chief,
Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs
Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
5. Hand delivery: John M. Mooney,
Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air
Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 77
West Jackson Boulevard, 18th Floor,
Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such deliveries
are only accepted during the Regional
Office normal hours of operation, and
special arrangements should be made
for deliveries of boxed information. The
Regional Office official hours of
business are Monday through Friday,
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding
Federal holidays.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–R05–OAR–2009–
0219. EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change and may be
made available online at https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through https://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The
https://www.regulations.gov Web site is
an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which
means EPA will not know your identity
or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send an e-mail comment directly
to EPA without going through https://
www.regulations.gov, your e-mail
address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment
that is placed in the public docket and
made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA
recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, EPA may not be
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:23 Apr 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
able to consider your comment.
Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses. For additional instructions on
submitting comments, go to Section I
this document, ‘‘What Should I
Consider as I Prepare My Comments for
EPA?’’
Docket: All documents in the docket
are listed in the http;//
www.regulations.gov index. Although
listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material,
will be publicly available only in hard
copy. Publicly available docket
materials are available either
electronically in https://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604. This facility is open from
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We
recommend that you telephone
Kathleen D’Agostino, Environmental
Engineer, at (312) 886–1767 before
visiting the Region 5 office.
I. What Should I Consider as I Prepare
My Comments for EPA?
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kathleen D’Agostino, Environmental
Engineer, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air
Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–1767,
dagostino.kathleen@epa.gov.
II. What Action Is EPA Proposing To
Take?
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document whenever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:
Table of Contents
I. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My
Comments for EPA?
II. What Action Is EPA Proposing To Take?
III. What Is the Background for These
Actions?
A. What Is the General Background
Information?
B. What Are the Impacts of the December
22, 2006 and June 8, 2007 United States
Court of Appeals Decisions Regarding
EPA’s Phase 1 Implementation Rule?
IV. What Are the Criteria for Redesignation?
V. Why Is EPA Proposing To Take These
Actions?
VI. What Is the Effect of These Actions?
VII. What Is EPA’s Analysis of the Request?
A. Attainment Determination and
Redesignation
B. Adequacy of Michigan’s MVEBs
C. 2005 Base Year Emissions Inventory
VIII. What Action Is EPA Taking?
IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
When submitting comments,
remember to:
1. Identify the rulemaking by docket
number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal
Register date and page number).
2. Follow directions—EPA may ask
you to respond to specific questions or
organize comments by referencing a
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part
or section number.
3. Explain why you agree or disagree;
suggest alternatives and substitute
language for your requested changes.
4. Describe any assumptions and
provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
5. If you estimate potential costs or
burdens, explain how you arrived at
your estimate in sufficient detail to
allow for it to be reproduced.
6. Provide specific examples to
illustrate your concerns, and suggest
alternatives.
7. Explain your views as clearly as
possible, avoiding the use of profanity
or personal threats.
8. Make sure to submit your
comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
EPA is proposing to take several
related actions. EPA is proposing to
make a determination that the DetroitAnn Arbor nonattainment area has
attained the 8-hour ozone standard and
that this area has met the requirements
for redesignation under section
107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. EPA is thus
proposing to approve Michigan’s
request to change the legal designation
of the Detroit-Ann Arbor area from
nonattainment to attainment for the 8hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is also
proposing to approve Michigan’s
maintenance plan SIP revision for
Detroit-Ann Arbor (such approval being
one of the CAA criteria for redesignation
to attainment status). The maintenance
plan is designed to keep the Detroit-Ann
Arbor area in attainment of the ozone
NAAQS through 2020. EPA is proposing
to approve the 2005 base year emissions
inventory for the Detroit-Ann Arbor area
as meeting the requirements of section
182(a)(1) of the CAA. Additionally, EPA
is proposing to approve the newlyestablished 2020 MVEBs for the DetroitAnn Arbor area. The adequacy comment
period for the MVEBs began on March
12, 2009, with EPA’s posting of the
availability of the submittal on EPA’s
Adequacy Web site (at https://
www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/
E:\FR\FM\23APP1.SGM
23APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 77 / Thursday, April 23, 2009 / Proposed Rules
transconf/adequacy.htm). The adequacy
comment period for these MVEBs ended
on April 13, 2009. EPA will address any
comments in the final rule. Please see
section VII. B. of this rulemaking,
‘‘Adequacy of Michigan’s MVEBs,’’ for
further explanation on this process. We
are proposing to find adequate and
approve, the State’s 2020 MVEBs for
transportation conformity purposes.
III. What Is the Background for These
Actions?
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
A. What Is the General Background
Information?
Ground-level ozone is not emitted
directly by sources. Rather, emissions of
nitrogen oxides (NOX) and volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) react in the
presence of sunlight to form groundlevel ozone. NOX and VOCs are referred
to as precursors of ozone.
The CAA establishes a process for air
quality management through the
NAAQS. Before promulgation of the
current 8-hour standard, the ozone
NAAQS was based on a 1-hour
standard. On November 6, 1991 (56 FR
56693 and 56778), the Detroit-Ann
Arbor area was designated as a moderate
nonattainment area under the 1-hour
ozone NAAQS. The area was
subsequently redesignated to attainment
of the 1-hour standard on March 7, 1995
(60 FR 12459). At the time EPA revoked
the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, on June 15,
2005, the Detroit-Ann Arbor area was
designated as attainment under the 1hour ozone NAAQS.
On July 18, 1997 (62 FR 38856), EPA
promulgated an 8-hour ozone standard
of 0.08 parts per million (ppm). On
April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23857), EPA
published a final rule designating and
classifying areas under the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. These designations and
classifications became effective June 15,
2004. EPA designated as nonattainment
any area that was violating the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS based on the three most
recent years of air quality data, 2001–
2003.
The CAA contains two sets of
provisions, subpart 1 and subpart 2, that
address planning and control
requirements for nonattainment areas.
(Both are found in Title I, part D, 42
U.S.C. 7501–7509a and 7511–7511f,
respectively.) Subpart 1 contains general
requirements for nonattainment areas
for any pollutant, including ozone,
governed by a NAAQS. Subpart 2
provides more specific requirements for
ozone nonattainment areas.
Under EPA’s implementation rule for
the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, (69 FR
23951 (April 30, 2004)), an area was
classified under subpart 2 based on its
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:23 Apr 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
8-hour ozone design value (i.e. the
three-year average annual fourth-highest
daily maximum 8-hour average ozone
concentration), if it had a 1-hour design
value at the time of designation at or
above 0.121 ppm (the lowest 1-hour
design value in Table 1 of subpart 2) (69
FR 23954). All other areas were covered
under subpart 1, based upon their 8hour design values (69 FR 23958). The
Detroit-Ann Arbor area was designated
as a subpart 2, 8-hour ozone moderate
nonattainment area by EPA on April 30,
2004 (69 FR 23857, 23910–23911) based
on air quality monitoring data from
2001–2003 (69 FR 23860).
Under section 181(a)(4) of the CAA,
EPA may adjust the classification of an
ozone nonattainment area to the next
higher or lower classification if the
design value for the area is within five
percent of the cut off for that higher or
lower classification. On September 22,
2004, EPA adjusted the classification of
several nonattainment areas which had
been designated and classified under
subpart 2 on April 30, 2004. At that
time, EPA adjusted the classification of
the Detroit-Ann Arbor nonattainment
area from moderate to marginal (69 FR
56697, 56708–56709).
40 CFR 50.10 and 40 CFR part 50,
appendix I provide that the 8-hour
ozone standard is attained when the
three-year average of the annual fourthhighest daily maximum 8-hour average
ozone concentration is less than or
equal to 0.08 ppm, when rounded. The
data completeness requirement is met
when the average percent of days with
valid ambient monitoring data is greater
than 90%, and no single year has less
than 75% data completeness. See 40
CFR part 50, appendix I, 2.3.
On March 6, 2009, MDEQ requested
that EPA redesignate the Detroit-Ann
Arbor area to attainment for the 8-hour
ozone standard. The redesignation
request included three years of
complete, quality-assured data for the
period of 2006 through 2008, indicating
the 8-hour NAAQS for ozone had been
attained for the Detroit-Ann Arbor area.
Under the CAA, nonattainment areas
may be redesignated to attainment if
sufficient complete, quality-assured data
are available for the Administrator to
determine that the area has attained the
standard, and the area meets the other
CAA redesignation requirements in
section 107(d)(3)(E).
On March 27, 2008 (73 FR 16436),
EPA promulgated a revised 8-hour
ozone standard of 0.075. EPA has not
yet promulgated area designations for
this standard. While both the 1997 and
2008 8-hour ozone standards are
currently in place, the actions addressed
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
18481
in this proposed rulemaking relate only
to the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.
B. What Are the Impacts of the
December 22, 2006, and June 8, 2007,
United States Court of Appeals
Decisions Regarding EPA’s Phase 1
Implementation Rule?
1. Summary of Court Decision
On December 22, 2006, in South
Coast Air Quality Management Dist. v.
EPA, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit vacated
EPA’s Phase 1 Implementation Rule for
the 8-hour ozone standard (69 FR 23951,
April 30, 2004). 472 F.3d 882 (DC Cir.
2006). On June 8, 2007, in response to
several petitions for rehearing, the DC
Circuit Court clarified that the Phase 1
Rule was vacated only with regard to
those parts of the rule that had been
successfully challenged. Id., Docket No.
04 1201. Therefore, several provisions of
the Phase 1 Rule remain effective:
Provisions related to classifications for
areas currently classified under subpart
2 of Title I, part D, of the CAA as 8-hour
nonattainment areas; the 8-hour
attainment dates; and, the timing for
emissions reductions needed for
attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
The June 8, 2007 decision also left intact
the Court’s rejection of EPA’s reasons
for implementing the 8-hour standard in
certain nonattainment areas under
subpart 1 in lieu of subpart 2. By
limiting the vacatur, the Court let stand
EPA’s revocation of the 1-hour standard
and those anti-backsliding provisions of
the Phase 1 Rule that had not been
successfully challenged. The June 8,
2007 decision reaffirmed the December
22, 2006, decision that EPA had
improperly failed to retain four
measures required for 1-hour
nonattainment areas under the antibacksliding provisions of the
regulations: (1) Nonattainment area New
Source Review (NSR) requirements
based on an area’s 1-hour nonattainment
classification; (2) section 185 penalty
fees for 1-hour severe or extreme
nonattainment areas; (3) measures to be
implemented pursuant to section
172(c)(9) or 182(c)(9) of the CAA, on the
contingency of an area not making
reasonable further progress toward
attainment of the 1-hour NAAQS, or for
failure to attain that NAAQS; and (4)
certain transportation conformity
requirements for certain types of Federal
actions. The June 8, 2007 decision
clarified that the Court’s reference to
conformity requirements was limited to
requiring the continued use of 1-hour
motor vehicle emissions budgets until 8hour budgets were available for 8-hour
conformity determinations.
E:\FR\FM\23APP1.SGM
23APP1
18482
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 77 / Thursday, April 23, 2009 / Proposed Rules
This section sets forth EPA’s views on
the potential effect of the Court’s rulings
on this proposed redesignation action.
For the reasons set forth below, EPA
does not believe that the Court’s rulings
alter any requirements relevant to this
redesignation action so as to preclude
redesignation or prevent EPA from
proposing or ultimately finalizing this
redesignation. EPA believes that the
Court’s December 22, 2006, and June 8,
2007, decisions impose no impediment
to moving forward with redesignation of
this area to attainment, because even in
light of the Court’s decisions,
redesignation is appropriate under the
relevant redesignation provisions of the
CAA and longstanding policies
regarding redesignation requests.
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
2. Requirements Under the 8-Hour
Standard
With respect to the 8-hour standard,
the Detroit-Ann Arbor area is classified
under subpart 2. The June 8, 2007,
opinion clarifies that the Court did not
vacate the Phase 1 Rule’s provisions
with respect to classifications for areas
under subpart 2. The Court’s decision,
therefore, upholds EPA’s classifications
for those areas classified under subpart
2 for the 8-hour ozone standard.
3. Requirements Under the 1-Hour
Standard
With respect to the 1-hour standard
requirements, the Detroit-Ann Arbor
area was an attainment area subject to
a CAA section 175A maintenance plan
under the 1-hour standard. The Court’s
decisions do not impact redesignation
requests for these types of areas, except
to the extent that the Court, in its June
8, 2007 decision, clarified that for those
areas with 1-hour motor vehicle
emissions budgets in their maintenance
plans, anti-backsliding requires that
those 1-hour budgets must be used for
8-hour conformity determinations until
replaced by 8-hour budgets. To meet
this requirement, conformity
determinations in such areas must
comply with the applicable
requirements of EPA’s conformity
regulations at 40 CFR part 93.
With respect to the three other antibacksliding provisions for the 1-hour
standard that the Court found were not
properly retained, the Detroit-Ann
Arbor area is an attainment area subject
to a maintenance plan for the 1-hour
standard, and the NSR, contingency
measures (pursuant to section 172(c)(9)
or 182(c)(9)), and fee provision
requirements no longer apply to an area
that has been redesignated to attainment
of the 1-hour standard.
Thus, the decision in South Coast
should not alter requirements that
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:23 Apr 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
would preclude EPA from proposing or
finalizing the redesignation of this area.
IV. What Are the Criteria for
Redesignation?
The CAA provides the requirements
for redesignating a nonattainment area
to attainment. Specifically, section
107(d)(3)(E) allows for redesignation
provided that: (1) The Administrator
determines that the area has attained the
applicable NAAQS; (2) the
Administrator has fully approved the
applicable implementation plan for the
area under section 110(k); (3) the
Administrator determines that the
improvement in air quality is due to
permanent and enforceable reductions
in emissions resulting from
implementation of the applicable SIP
and applicable Federal air pollutant
control regulations and other permanent
and enforceable reductions; (4) the
Administrator has fully approved a
maintenance plan for the area as
meeting the requirements of section
175A; and, (5) the state containing such
area has met all requirements applicable
to the area under section 110 and part
D.
EPA provided guidance on
redesignation in the General Preamble
for the Implementation of Title I of the
CAA Amendments of 1990 on April 16,
1992 (57 FR 13498), and supplemented
this guidance on April 28, 1992 (57 FR
18070). EPA has provided further
guidance on processing redesignation
requests in the following documents:
‘‘Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Design
Value Calculations,’’ Memorandum
from William G. Laxton, Director
Technical Support Division, June 18,
1990;
‘‘Maintenance Plans for Redesignation
of Ozone and Carbon Monoxide
Nonattainment Areas,’’ Memorandum
from G. T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon
Monoxide Programs Branch, April 30,
1992;
‘‘Contingency Measures for Ozone
and Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Redesignations,’’ Memorandum from G.
T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon
Monoxide Programs Branch, June 1,
1992;
‘‘Procedures for Processing Requests
to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,’’
Memorandum from John Calcagni,
Director, Air Quality Management
Division, September 4, 1992;
‘‘State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Actions Submitted in Response to Clean
Air Act (ACT) Deadlines,’’
Memorandum from John Calcagni,
Director, Air Quality Management
Division, October 28, 1992;
‘‘Technical Support Documents
(TSD’s) for Redesignation Ozone and
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment
Areas,’’ Memorandum from G. T. Helms,
Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide
Programs Branch, August 17, 1993;
‘‘State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Requirements for Areas Submitting
Requests for Redesignation to
Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon
Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) On or After
November 15, 1992,’’ Memorandum
from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting
Assistant Administrator for Air and
Radiation, September 17, 1993;
‘‘Use of Actual Emissions in
Maintenance Demonstrations for Ozone
and CO Nonattainment Areas,’’
Memorandum from D. Kent Berry,
Acting Director, Air Quality
Management Division, to Air Division
Directors, Regions 1–10, November 30,
1993.
‘‘Part D New Source Review (part D
NSR) Requirements for Areas
Requesting Redesignation to
Attainment,’’ Memorandum from Mary
D. Nichols, Assistant Administrator for
Air and Radiation, October 14, 1994;
and,
‘‘Reasonable Further Progress,
Attainment Demonstration, and Related
Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment
Areas Meeting the Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standard,’’
Memorandum from John S. Seitz,
Director, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, May 10, 1995.
V. Why Is EPA Proposing To Take
These Actions?
On March 6, 2009, Michigan
requested redesignation of the DetroitAnn Arbor area to attainment for the 8hour ozone standard. EPA believes that
the area has attained the standard and
has met the requirements for
redesignation set forth in section
107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA.
VI. What Is the Effect of These Actions?
Approval of the redesignation request
would change the official designation of
the area for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS
found at 40 CFR part 81. It would also
incorporate into the Michigan SIP a plan
for maintaining the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS through 2020. The maintenance
plan includes contingency measures to
remedy future violations of the 8-hour
NAAQS. It also establishes MVEBs of
106 tons per day (tpd) VOC and 274 tpd
NOX for Livingston, Macomb, Monroe,
Oakland, St. Clair, Washtenaw, and
Wayne Counties (SEMCOG Region) and
2.1 tpd VOC and 4.4 tpd NOX for
Lenawee County.
E:\FR\FM\23APP1.SGM
23APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 77 / Thursday, April 23, 2009 / Proposed Rules
VII. What Is EPA’s Analysis of the
Request?
A. Attainment Determination and
Redesignation
EPA is proposing to make a
determination that the Detroit-Ann
Arbor area has attained the 8-hour
ozone standard and that the area has
met all other applicable section
107(d)(3)(E) redesignation criteria. The
basis for EPA’s determination is as
follows:
1. The Area Has Attained the 8-Hour
Ozone NAAQS (Section 107(d)(3)(E)(i))
EPA is proposing to make a
determination that the Detroit-Ann
Arbor area has attained the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. For ozone, an area may
be considered to be attaining the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS if there are no violations,
as determined in accordance with 40
CFR 50.10 and part 50, appendix I,
based on three complete, consecutive
calendar years of quality-assured air
quality monitoring data. To attain this
standard, the three-year average of the
fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour
average ozone concentrations measured
at each monitor within an area over
each year must not exceed 0.08 ppm.
Based on the rounding convention
described in 40 CFR part 50, appendix
I, the standard is attained if the design
value is 0.084 ppm or below. The data
must be collected and quality-assured in
accordance with 40 CFR part 58, and
18483
recorded in the Aerometric Information
Retrieval System (AIRS). The monitors
generally should have remained at the
same location for the duration of the
monitoring period required for
demonstrating attainment.
MDEQ submitted ozone monitoring
data for the 2006 to 2008 ozone seasons.
MDEQ quality-assured the ambient
monitoring data in accordance with 40
CFR 58.10, and recorded it in the AIRS
database, thus making the data publicly
available. The data meet the
completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 50,
appendix I, which requires a minimum
completeness of 75 percent annually
and 90 percent over each 3-year period.
Monitoring data is presented in Table 1
below.
TABLE 1—ANNUAL 4TH HIGH DAILY MAXIMUM 8-HOUR OZONE CONCENTRATION AND THREE-YEAR AVERAGES OF 4TH
HIGH DAILY MAXIMUM 8-HOUR OZONE CONCENTRATIONS
2006 4th high
(ppm)
County
Monitor
Lenawee ............................................
Macomb ............................................
2008 4th high
(ppm)
2006–2008
average (ppm)
0.074
0.078
0.078
0.072
0.078
0.076
0.068
0.078
0.069
0.067
0.081
0.093
0.091
0.086
0.089
0.077
0.079
0.092
........................
........................
0.072
0.073
0.072
0.074
0.067
0.069
0.067
0.078
........................
........................
0.076
0.081
0.080
0.077
0.078
0.074
0.071
0.082
........................
........................
Tecumseh 260910007 .....................
New Haven 260990009 ...................
Warren 260991003 ..........................
Oak Park 261250001 .......................
Port Huron 261470005 .....................
Ypsilanti 261610008 .........................
Allen Park 261630001 ......................
E–7 Mile 261630019 ........................
Linwood 261630016 .........................
SW High School 261630015 ............
Oakland .............................................
St. Clair .............................................
Washtenaw .......................................
Wayne ...............................................
In addition, as discussed below with
respect to the maintenance plan, MDEQ
has committed to continue to operate an
EPA-approved monitoring network as
necessary to demonstrate ongoing
compliance with the NAAQS. MDEQ
remains obligated to continue to quality
assure monitoring data in accordance
with 40 CFR part 58 and enter all data
into the Air Quality System in
accordance with Federal guidelines. In
summary, EPA believes that the data
submitted by Michigan provide an
adequate demonstration that the DetroitAnn Arbor area has attained the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS.
2. The Area Has Met All Applicable
Requirements Under Section 110 and
Part D; and the Area Has a Fully
Approved SIP Under Section 110(k)
(Sections 107(d)(3)(E)(v) and
107(d)(3)(E)(ii))
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
2007 4th high
(ppm)
We have determined that Michigan
has met all currently applicable SIP
requirements for purposes of
redesignation for the Detroit-Ann Arbor
area under section 110 of the CAA
(general SIP requirements). We have
also determined that the Michigan SIP
meets all SIP requirements currently
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:23 Apr 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
applicable for purposes of redesignation
under part D of Title I of the CAA
(requirements specific to marginal
nonattainment areas), in accordance
with section 107(d)(3)(E)(v). In addition,
we have determined that the Michigan
SIP is fully approved with respect to all
applicable requirements for purposes of
redesignation, in accordance with
section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii). In making these
determinations, we have ascertained
what SIP requirements are applicable to
the area for purposes of redesignation,
and have determined that the portions
of the SIP meeting these requirements
are fully approved under section 110(k)
of the CAA. As discussed more fully
below, SIPs must be fully approved only
with respect to currently applicable
requirements of the CAA.
The September 4, 1992, Calcagni
memorandum (see ‘‘Procedures for
Processing Requests to Redesignate
Areas to Attainment,’’ Memorandum
from John Calcagni, Director, Air
Quality Management Division,
September 4, 1992) describes EPA’s
interpretation of section 107(d)(3)(E) of
the CAA. Under this interpretation, a
state and the area it wishes to
redesignate must meet the relevant CAA
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
requirements that are due prior to the
state’s submittal of a complete
redesignation request for the area. See
also the September 17, 1993, Michael
Shapiro memorandum and 60 FR 12459,
12465–66 (March 7, 1995)
(redesignation of Detroit-Ann Arbor,
Michigan to attainment of the 1-hour
ozone NAAQS). Applicable
requirements of the CAA that come due
subsequent to the state’s submittal of a
complete request remain applicable
until a redesignation to attainment is
approved, but are not required as a
prerequisite to redesignation. See
section 175A(c) of the CAA. Sierra Club
v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004). See
also 68 FR 25424, 25427 (May 12, 2003)
(redesignation of the St. Louis/East St.
Louis area to attainment of the 1-hour
ozone NAAQS).
a. The Detroit-Ann Arbor Area Has Met
All Applicable Requirements Under
Section 110 and Part D of the CAA
i. Section 110 General SIP Requirements
Section 110(a) of title I of the CAA
contains the general requirements for a
SIP. Section 110(a)(2) provides that the
implementation plan submitted by a
state must have been adopted by the
E:\FR\FM\23APP1.SGM
23APP1
18484
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 77 / Thursday, April 23, 2009 / Proposed Rules
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
state after reasonable public notice and
hearing, and that, among other things, it:
includes enforceable emission
limitations and other control measures,
means or techniques necessary to meet
the requirements of the CAA; provides
for establishment and operation of
appropriate devices, methods, systems
and procedures necessary to monitor
ambient air quality; provides for
implementation of a source permit
program to regulate the modification
and construction of any stationary
source within the areas covered by the
plan; includes provisions for the
implementation of part C, Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) and part
D, NSR permit programs; includes
criteria for stationary source emission
control measures, monitoring, and
reporting; includes provisions for air
quality modeling; and, provides for
public and local agency participation in
planning and emission control rule
development.
Section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA
requires that SIPs contain measures to
prevent sources in a state from
significantly contributing to air quality
problems in another state. To
implement this provision, EPA has
required certain states to establish
programs to address transport of air
pollutants (NOX SIP Call 1 and Clean Air
Interstate Rule (CAIR) (70 FR 25162)).
However, the section 110(a)(2)(D)
requirements for a state are not linked
with a particular nonattainment area’s
designation and classification. EPA
believes that the requirements linked
with a particular nonattainment area’s
designation and classification are the
relevant measures to evaluate in
reviewing a redesignation request. The
transport SIP submittal requirements,
where applicable, continue to apply to
a state regardless of the designation of
any one particular area in the state.
Thus, we believe that these
requirements should not be construed to
be applicable requirements for purposes
of redesignation.
Further, we believe that the other
section 110 elements described above
that are not connected with
nonattainment plan submissions and
not linked with an area’s attainment
status are also not applicable
1 On October 27, 1998 (63 FR 57356), EPA issued
a NOx SIP call requiring the District of Columbia
and 22 states to reduce emissions of NOX in order
to reduce the transport of ozone and ozone
precursors. In compliance with EPA’s NOX SIP call,
MDEQ has developed rules governing the control of
NOX emissions from Electric Generating Units
(EGUs), major non-EGU industrial boilers, and
major cement kilns. EPA approved Michigan’s rules
as fulfilling Phase I of the NOX SIP Call on May 4,
2005 (70 FR 23029) and as fulfilling Phase II of the
SIP Call on January 29, 2008 (73 FR 5101).
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:23 Apr 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
requirements for purposes of
redesignation. A state remains subject to
these requirements after an area is
redesignated to attainment. We
conclude that only the section 110 and
part D requirements which are linked
with a particular area’s designation and
classification are the relevant measures
which we may consider in evaluating a
redesignation request. This approach is
consistent with EPA’s existing policy on
applicability of conformity and
oxygenated fuels requirements for
redesignation purposes, as well as with
section 184 ozone transport
requirements. See Reading,
Pennsylvania, proposed and final
rulemakings (61 FR 53174–53176,
October 10, 1996), (62 FR 24826, May 7,
1997); Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio,
final rulemaking (61 FR 20458, May 7,
1996); and Tampa, Florida, final
rulemaking (60 FR 62748, December 7,
1995). See also the discussion on this
issue in the Cincinnati, Ohio ozone
redesignation (65 FR 37890, June 19,
2000), and in the Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania ozone redesignation (66
FR 50399, October 19, 2001).
We have reviewed Michigan’s SIP and
have concluded that it meets the general
SIP requirements under section 110 of
the CAA. EPA has previously approved
provisions of the Michigan SIP
addressing section 110 elements under
the 1-hour ozone standard (40 CFR
52.1170). Further, in submittals dated
December 6, 2007, and September 19,
2008, Michigan confirmed that the State
continues to meet the section 110
requirements for the 8-hour ozone
standard.
ii. Part D Requirements
EPA has determined that, with the
approval of the base year emissions
inventory discussed in section VII.C. of
this rulemaking, the Michigan SIP will
meet the applicable SIP requirements
under part D of the CAA for the DetroitAnn Arbor area. Under part D of the
CAA, an area’s classification determines
the requirements to which it will be
subject. Subpart 1 of part D, found in
sections 172–176 of the CAA, sets forth
the basic nonattainment requirements
applicable to all nonattainment areas.
Subpart 2 of part D, which includes
section 182 of the CAA, establishes
additional specific requirements
depending on the area’s nonattainment
classification.
The Detroit-Ann Arbor area was
classified as a marginal area under
subpart 2, therefore the State must meet
both the applicable requirements of
subpart 1 and subpart 2 of part D. The
applicable subpart 1 requirements are
contained in sections 172(c)(1)–(9) and
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
in section 176. The subpart 2
requirements applicable to the DetroitAnn Arbor area are contained in section
182(a) (marginal nonattainment area
requirements).
Subpart 1 Section 172 Requirements
For purposes of evaluating this
redesignation request, the applicable
section 172 SIP requirements for the
Detroit-Ann Arbor area are contained in
sections 172(c)(1)–(9). A thorough
discussion of the requirements
contained in section 172 can be found
in the General Preamble for
Implementation of Title I (57 FR 13498,
April 16, 1992).
Section 172(c)(1) requires the plans
for all nonattainment areas to provide
for the implementation of all
Reasonably Available Control Measures
(RACM) as expeditiously as practicable.
The EPA interprets this requirement to
impose a duty on all nonattainment
areas to consider all available control
measures and to adopt and implement
such measures as are reasonably
available for implementation in the area
as components of the areas attainment
demonstration. Because attainment has
been reached, no additional measures
are needed to provide for attainment.
The reasonable further progress (RFP)
requirement under section 172(c)(2) is
defined as progress that must be made
toward attainment. This requirement is
not relevant because the Detroit-Ann
Arbor area has demonstrated monitored
attainment of the ozone NAAQS.
(General Preamble, 57 FR 13564). In
addition, because the Detroit-Ann Arbor
area has attained the ozone NAAQS and
is no longer subject to an RFP
requirement, the section 172(c)(9)
contingency measures are not
applicable.
Section 172(c)(3) requires submission
and approval of a comprehensive,
accurate and current inventory of actual
emissions. This requirement was
superseded by the inventory
requirement in section 182(a)(1).
Section 172(c)(4) requires the
identification and quantification of
allowable emissions for major new and
modified stationary sources to be
allowed in an area, and section 172(c)(5)
requires source permits for the
construction and operation of new and
modified major stationary sources
anywhere in the nonattainment area.
EPA has determined that, since PSD
requirements will apply after
redesignation, areas being redesignated
need not comply with the requirement
that a NSR program be approved prior
to redesignation, provided that the area
demonstrates maintenance of the
NAAQS without part D NSR. A more
E:\FR\FM\23APP1.SGM
23APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 77 / Thursday, April 23, 2009 / Proposed Rules
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
detailed rationale for this view is
described in a memorandum from Mary
Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air
and Radiation, dated October 14, 1994,
entitled, ‘‘Part D New Source Review
Requirements for Areas Requesting
Redesignation to Attainment.’’ Michigan
has demonstrated that the Detroit-Ann
Arbor area will be able to maintain the
standard without part D NSR in effect;
therefore, EPA concludes that the State
need not have a fully approved part D
NSR program prior to approval of the
redesignation request. The PSD program
was delegated to the State of Michigan
on September 10, 1979, and amended
on November 7, 1983, and September
26, 1988. In addition, on December 21,
2006, MDEQ submitted, as a revision to
its SIP, State rules to implement the
PSD program. On September 16, 2008,
EPA conditionally approved the
majority of Michigan’s PSD program,
and partially disapproved the
subsection of Michigan’s rule
corresponding to 40 CFR 51.166(p). On
September 30, 2008, MDEQ submitted a
revision to the SIP correcting the
deficiencies cited in the conditional
approval. The Federal delegation of
authority allows Michigan to continue
to implement 40 CFR 51.166(p).
The State’s PSD program will become
effective in the Detroit-Ann Arbor area
upon redesignation to attainment. See
rulemakings for Detroit, Michigan (60
FR 12467–12468, March 7, 1995);
Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio (61 FR
20458, 20469–20470, May 7, 1996);
Louisville, Kentucky (66 FR 53665,
October 23, 2001); and Grand Rapids,
Michigan (61 FR 31834–31837, June 21,
1996).
Section 172(c)(6) requires the SIP to
contain control measures necessary to
provide for attainment of the standard.
Because attainment has been reached,
no additional measures are needed to
provide for attainment.
Section 172(c)(7) requires the SIP to
meet the applicable provisions of
section 110(a)(2). As noted above, we
believe the Michigan SIP meets the
requirements of section 110(a)(2).
Subpart 1 Section 176 Conformity
Requirements
Section 176(c) of the CAA requires
states to establish criteria and
procedures to ensure that Federallysupported or funded activities,
including highway projects, conform to
the air quality planning goals in the
applicable SIPs. The requirement to
determine conformity applies to
transportation plans, programs and
projects developed, funded or approved
under Title 23 of the U.S. Code and the
Federal Transit Act (transportation
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:23 Apr 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
conformity), as well as to all other
Federally-supported or funded projects
(general conformity). State conformity
revisions must be consistent with
Federal conformity regulations relating
to consultation, enforcement, and
enforceability, which EPA promulgated
pursuant to CAA requirements.
EPA believes that it is reasonable to
interpret the conformity SIP
requirements as not applying for
purposes of evaluating the redesignation
request under section 107(d) for two
reasons. First, the requirement to submit
SIP revisions to comply with the
conformity provisions of the CAA
continues to apply to areas after
redesignation to attainment since such
areas would be subject to a section 175A
maintenance plan. Second, EPA’s
Federal conformity rules require the
performance of conformity analyses in
the absence of Federally-approved state
rules. Therefore, because areas are
subject to the conformity requirements
regardless of whether they are
redesignated to attainment and, because
they must implement conformity under
Federal rules if state rules are not yet
approved, EPA believes it is reasonable
to view these requirements as not
applying for purposes of evaluating a
redesignation request. See Wall v. EPA,
265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001), upholding
this interpretation. See also 60 FR
62748, 62749–62750 (Dec. 7, 1995)
(Tampa, Florida).
EPA approved Michigan’s general and
transportation conformity SIPs on
December 18, 1996 (61 FR 666079 and
61 FR 66609, respectively). Michigan
has submitted onroad motor vehicle
budgets for the SEMCOG portion of the
Detroit-Ann Arbor area and Lenawee
County of 106 tpd and 2.1 tpd VOC and
274 tpd and 4.4 tpd NOx, respectively,
for the year 2020. The area must use the
MVEBs from the maintenance plan in
any conformity determination that is
effective on or after the effective date of
the maintenance plan approval.
Subpart 2 Section 182(a) Requirements
As set forth in the September 4, 1992,
and September 17, 1993, EPA guidance
memoranda referenced in section IV of
this action, ‘‘What are the Criteria for
Redesignation?,’’ only those
requirements which came due prior to
Michigan’s submittal of a request to
designate the Detroit-Ann Arbor area
must be fully approved into the SIP
before or at the time EPA approves the
redesignation of the area to attainment.
These requirements are discussed
below.
Base year emissions inventory.
Section 182(a)(1) requires the
submission of a base year emissions
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
18485
inventory. As part of Michigan’s
redesignation request for the DetroitAnn Arbor area, the State submitted a
2005 base year emissions inventory.
EPA is proposing to approve the 2005
base year inventory Michigan submitted
with the redesignation request as
meeting the section 182(a)(1) emissions
inventory requirement.
Emissions statements. EPA approved
Michigan’s emission statement SIP, as
required by section 182(a)(3)(B), on
March 8, 1994 (59 FR 10752).
Thus, the Detroit-Ann Arbor area has
satisfied all applicable requirements
under section 110 and part D of the
CAA.
b. The Detroit-Ann Arbor Area Has a
Fully Approved Applicable SIP Under
Section 110(k) of the CAA
EPA has fully approved the Michigan
SIP for the Detroit-Ann Arbor area
under section 110(k) of the CAA for all
requirements applicable for purposes of
redesignation. EPA may rely on prior
SIP approvals in approving a
redesignation request (See page 3 of the
September 4, 1992, John Calcagni
memorandum; Southwestern
Pennsylvania Growth Alliance v.
Browner, 144 F.3d 984, 989–990 (6th
Cir. 1998); Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426
(6th Cir. 2001)) plus any additional
measures it may approve in conjunction
with a redesignation action. See 68 FR
25413, 25426 (May 12, 2003). Since the
passage of the CAA of 1970, Michigan
has adopted and submitted, and EPA
has fully approved, provisions
addressing the various required SIP
elements applicable to the Detroit-Ann
Arbor County area under the 1-hour
ozone standard. In this action, EPA is
proposing to approve Michigan’s 2005
base year emissions inventory for the
Detroit-Ann Arbor area as meeting the
requirement of section 182(a)(1) of the
CAA. With the exception of Michigan’s
PSD SIP, which is discussed above, no
Detroit-Ann Arbor area SIP provisions
are currently disapproved, conditionally
approved, or partially approved.
3. The Improvement in Air Quality Is
Due to Permanent and Enforceable
Reductions in Emissions Resulting From
Implementation of the SIP and
Applicable Federal Air Pollution
Control Regulations and Other
Permanent and Enforceable Reductions
(Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii))
EPA finds that Michigan has
demonstrated that the observed air
quality improvement in the Detroit-Ann
Arbor area is due to permanent and
enforceable reductions in emissions
resulting from implementation of the
E:\FR\FM\23APP1.SGM
23APP1
18486
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 77 / Thursday, April 23, 2009 / Proposed Rules
SIP, Federal measures, and other Stateadopted measures.
In making this demonstration, the
State has calculated the change in
emissions between 2005 and 2007.
Michigan used the 2005 nonattainment
area base year emissions inventory
required under section 182(a)(1) of the
CAA as the nonattainment inventory for
redesignation purposes. The State
developed an attainment inventory for
2007, one of the years the Detroit-Ann
Arbor area monitored attainment. The
reduction in emissions and the
corresponding improvement in air
quality over this time period can be
attributed to a number of regulatory
control measures that Detroit-Ann Arbor
and upwind areas have implemented in
recent years.
a. Permanent and Enforceable Controls
Implemented
The following is a discussion of
permanent and enforceable measures
that have been implemented in the
areas:
i. VOC Controls. Michigan developed
a rule to limit VOC emissions from
consumer and commercial products.
This rule was approved by EPA on
October 26, 2007 (72 FR 60781).
Michigan also adopted a lower Reid
Vapor Pressure (RVP) fuel requirement
for gasoline distributed in the DetroitAnn Arbor area. EPA approved the SIP
revision on January 31, 2007 (72 FR
4432).
ii. NOX rules. MDEQ developed rules
governing the control of NOX emissions
from Electric Generating Units (EGUs),
major non-EGU industrial boilers, and
major cement kilns. EPA approved
Michigan’s rules as fulfilling Phase I of
the NOX SIP Call on May 4, 2005 (70 FR
23029), and as fulfilling Phase II of the
SIP Call on January 29, 2008 (73 FR
5101).
iii. Federal Emission Control
Measures. Reductions in VOC and NOX
emissions have occurred statewide and
in upwind areas as a result of Federal
emission control measures, with
additional emission reductions expected
to occur in the future. Federal emission
control measures include: the National
Low Emission Vehicle (NLEV) program,
Tier 2 emission standards for vehicles,
gasoline sulfur limits, low sulfur diesel
fuel standards, and heavy-duty diesel
engine standards. In addition, in 2004,
EPA issued the Clean Air Non-road
Diesel Rule (69 FR 38958 (July 29,
2004)). EPA expects this rule to reduce
off-road diesel emissions through 2010,
with emission reductions starting in
2008.
iv. Control Measures in Upwind
Areas. On October 27, 1998 (63 FR
57356), EPA issued a NOX SIP call
requiring the District of Columbia and
22 states to reduce emissions of NOX.
The reduction in NOX emissions has
resulted in lower concentrations of
transported ozone entering the DetroitAnn Arbor area. Emission reductions
resulting from regulations developed in
response to the NOX SIP call are
permanent and enforceable.
b. Emission Reductions
Michigan is using 2005 for the
nonattainment inventory and 2007 for
the attainment inventory. MDEQ
provided a 2005 base year inventory to
the Lake Michigan Air Directors
Consortium (LADCO). The main
purpose of LADCO is to provide
technical assessments for and assistance
to its member states on problems of air
quality. LADCO’s primary geographic
focus is the area encompassed by its
member states (Illinois, Indiana,
Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin) and
any areas which affect air quality in its
member states. The base year inventory
was processed by LADCO to develop
summer day emissions for use in
regional air quality analyses and
attainment demonstration modeling.
The point source data was obtained
from the Michigan Air Emissions
Reporting System. Area source
emissions were taken from the 2005
emissions inventory developed by
MDEQ to comply with the Consolidated
Emission Reporting Rule for the EPA
National Emissions Inventory (NEI).
Nonroad mobile emissions were
generated for LADCO using EPA’s
National Mobile Inventory Model
(NMIM), with the following exceptions:
recreational motorboat populations and
spatial surrogates were updated;
emissions estimates were developed for
aircraft, commercial marine vessels, and
railroads, three nonroad categories not
included in NMIM; and, onroad mobile
emissions were calculated by the
Southeast Michigan Council of
Governments (SEMCOG) using the
MOBILE6.2 emissions model.
For the 2007 attainment year
inventory, point source emissions were
taken from the Michigan Air Emissions
Reporting System. Onroad mobile
emissions were calculated by SEMCOG
using the MOBILE6.2 emissions model.
For the remaining categories, MDEQ
used the 2005 inventory described
above along with 2002, 2009, and 2018
emissions inventories developed by
LADCO to interpolate point, area, and
nonroad mobile emissions for 2007. For
each combination of county and
pollutant, a linear regression analysis
was performed using the values from
the established inventories for 2002,
2005, 2009, and 2018. From the best-fit
line established by the regression
analysis, values for 2007 were obtained.
Using the inventories described
above, Michigan’s submittal documents
changes in VOC and NOX emissions
from 2005 to 2007 for the Detroit-Ann
Arbor area. Emissions data are shown in
Tables 3 through 5 below.
TABLE 3—DETROIT-ANN ARBOR AREA VOC AND NOX EMISSIONS FOR NONATTAINMENT YEAR 2005
[tpd]
Point
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
VOC
Area
NOX
VOC
Onroad
NOX
VOC
NOX
Nonroad
VOC
Total
NOX
VOC
NOX
Livingston .....................................
Macomb ........................................
Monroe .........................................
Oakland ........................................
St. Clair ........................................
Washtenaw ...................................
Wayne ..........................................
Lenawee .......................................
0.66
9.62
11.16
9.80
5.55
1.42
24.27
1.21
1.89
2.30
104.83
3.10
68.97
3.82
63.11
0.37
11.92
38.72
9.85
55.34
5.20
17.23
82.11
8.89
1.00
2.36
0.93
4.19
0.67
0.97
5.38
0.73
5.00
16.50
5.20
34.00
4.70
10.30
50.40
2.70
16.20
40.60
16.40
88.90
11.60
30.90
130.80
5.30
9.61
23.12
9.56
46.35
11.35
12.47
39.97
4.37
4.38
19.27
7.69
25.52
7.83
9.99
45.09
3.54
27.19
87.96
35.77
145.49
26.80
41.42
196.75
17.17
23.47
64.53
129.85
121.71
89.07
45.68
244.38
9.94
Area Total .............................
63.69
248.39
229.26
16.23
128.80
340.70
156.80
123.31
578.55
728.63
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:23 Apr 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\23APP1.SGM
23APP1
18487
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 77 / Thursday, April 23, 2009 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 4—DETROIT-ANN ARBOR AREA VOC AND NOX EMISSIONS FOR ATTAINMENT YEAR 2007
[tpd]
Point
VOC
Area
VOC
NOX
Onroad
NOX
VOC
Nonroad
NOX
VOC
Total
NOX
VOC
NOX
Livingston .....................................
Macomb ........................................
Monroe .........................................
Oakland ........................................
St. Clair ........................................
Washtenaw ...................................
Wayne ..........................................
Lenawee .......................................
0.86
10.72
9.41
9.03
4.99
1.82
21.67
1.28
2.55
2.39
65.79
3.36
65.99
3.55
65.19
0.35
8.94
36.09
9.92
55.39
6.92
16.70
79.20
6.05
0.79
3.87
0.73
6.07
0.89
1.47
8.58
0.55
4.40
13.80
4.50
28.50
3.90
8.80
41.80
2.10
13.50
33.10
13.60
72.60
9.50
25.60
105.90
4.40
9.07
21.96
9.02
44.15
10.86
11.88
38.63
4.13
3.97
17.00
6.91
22.85
7.08
8.93
40.27
3.32
23.27
82.57
32.85
137.07
26.67
39.20
181.30
13.56
20.81
56.36
87.03
104.88
83.46
39.55
219.94
8.62
Area Total .............................
59.78
209.17
219.21
22.95
107.80
278.20
149.70
110.33
536.49
620.65
TABLE 5—COMPARISON OF DETROIT-ANN ARBOR AREA 2005 AND 2007 VOC AND NOX EMISSIONS
[tpd]
VOC
2005
NOX
Net change
(2005–2007)
2007
2005
Net change
(2005–2007)
2007
Point .....................
Area ......................
Onroad .................
Nonroad ...............
63.69
229.26
128.80
156.80
59.78
219.21
107.80
149.70
¥3.91
¥10.05
¥21.00
¥7.10
248.39
16.23
340.70
123.31
209.17
22.95
278.20
110.33
¥39.22
6.72
¥62.50
¥12.98
Total ..............
578.55
536.49
¥42.06
728.63
620.65
¥107.98
Table 5 shows that the Detroit-Ann
Arbor area reduced VOC emissions by
42.06 tpd and NOX emissions by 107.98
tpd between 2005 and 2007. Based on
the information summarized above,
Michigan has adequately demonstrated
that the improvement in air quality is
due to permanent and enforceable
emissions reductions.
4. The Area Has a Fully Approved
Maintenance Plan Pursuant to Section
175a of the CAA (Section
107(d)(3)(E)(iv))
In conjunction with its request to
redesignate the Detroit-Ann Arbor
nonattainment area to attainment status,
Michigan submitted a SIP revision to
provide for the maintenance of the 8hour ozone NAAQS in the area through
2020.
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
a. What Is Required in a Maintenance
Plan?
Section 175A of the CAA sets forth
the required elements of a maintenance
plan for areas seeking redesignation
from nonattainment to attainment.
Under section 175A, the plan must
demonstrate continued attainment of
the applicable NAAQS for at least ten
years after the Administrator approves a
redesignation to attainment. Eight years
after the redesignation, the state must
submit a revised maintenance plan
which demonstrates that attainment will
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:23 Apr 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
continue to be maintained for ten years
following the initial ten-year
maintenance period. To address the
possibility of future NAAQS violations,
the maintenance plan must contain
contingency measures with a schedule
for implementation as EPA deems
necessary to assure prompt correction of
any future 8-hour ozone violations.
The September 4, 1992, John Calcagni
memorandum provides additional
guidance on the content of a
maintenance plan. The memorandum
clarifies that an ozone maintenance plan
should address the following items: the
attainment VOC and NOX emissions
inventories, a maintenance
demonstration showing maintenance for
the ten years of the maintenance period,
a commitment to maintain the existing
monitoring network, factors and
procedures to be used for verification of
continued attainment of the NAAQS,
and a contingency plan to prevent or
correct future violations of the NAAQS.
b. Attainment Inventory
The MDEQ developed an emissions
inventory for 2007, one of the years
Michigan used to demonstrate
monitored attainment of the 8-hour
NAAQS, as described above. The
attainment level of emissions is
summarized in Table 4, above.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
c. Demonstration of Maintenance
Along with the redesignation request,
Michigan submitted a revision to the 8hour ozone SIP to include a
maintenance plan for the Detroit-Ann
Arbor area, in compliance with section
175A of the CAA. This demonstration
shows maintenance of the 8-hour ozone
standard through 2020 by assuring that
current and future emissions of VOC
and NOX for the Detroit-Ann Arbor area
remain at or below attainment year
emission levels. A maintenance
demonstration need not be based on
modeling. See Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d
426 (6th Cir. 2001), Sierra Club v. EPA,
375 F. 3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004). See also
66 FR 53094, 53099–53100 (October 19,
2001), 68 FR 25413, 25430–25432 (May
12, 2003).
Michigan is using emissions
inventories for the years 2009 and 2020
to demonstrate maintenance. Onroad
mobile source emissions were estimated
by SEMCOG using MOBILE6.2. For the
2020 inventory, MDEQ used the 2005
inventory described above along with
2002, 2009, and 2018 emissions
inventories developed by LADCO to
interpolate emissions estimates for the
remaining source sectors. For each
combination of county and pollutant, a
linear regression analysis was
performed using the values from the
established inventories for 2002, 2005,
2009, and 2018. From the best-fit line
E:\FR\FM\23APP1.SGM
23APP1
18488
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 77 / Thursday, April 23, 2009 / Proposed Rules
established by the regression analysis,
values for 2020 were obtained.
Emissions estimates are presented in
Table 6 below.
TABLE 6—COMPARISON OF 2007—2020 VOC AND NOX EMISSIONS
[tpd]
VOC
NOX
Net
change
2007–2020
2009
2020
Point ...............................................................................
Area ................................................................................
Onroad ...........................................................................
Nonroad .........................................................................
59.78
219.21
107.80
149.70
52.48
211.95
95.10
131.21
59.37
219.56
50.30
102.00
Total ........................................................................
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
2007
536.49
490.74
431.23
The emission projections show that
MDEQ does not expect emissions in the
Detroit-Ann Arbor area to exceed the
level of the 2007 attainment year
inventory during the maintenance
period. In the Detroit-Ann Arbor area,
MDEQ projects that VOC and NOX
emissions will decrease by 105.26 tpd
and 236.22 tpd, respectively.
As part of its maintenance plan, the
State elected to include a ‘‘safety
margin’’ for the area. A ‘‘safety margin’’
is the difference between the attainment
level of emissions (from all sources) and
the projected level of emissions (from
all sources) in the maintenance plan
which continues to demonstrate
attainment of the standard. The
attainment level of emissions is the
level of emissions during one of the
years in which the area met the NAAQS.
The Detroit-Ann Arbor area attained the
8-hour ozone NAAQS during the 2006–
2008 time period. Michigan used 2007
as the attainment level of emissions for
the area. In the maintenance plan,
MDEQ projected emission levels for
2020. For the Detroit-Ann Arbor area,
the emissions from point, area, nonroad,
and mobile sources in 2007 equaled
536.49 tpd of VOC. MDEQ projected
VOC emissions for the year 2020 to be
431.23 tpd of VOC. The SIP submission
demonstrates that the Detroit-Ann Arbor
area will continue to maintain the
standard with emissions at this level.
The safety margin for VOC is calculated
to be the difference between these
amounts or, in this case, 105.26 tpd of
VOC for 2020. By this same method,
236.22 tpd (i.e., 620.65 tpd less 384.43
tpd) is the safety margin for NOX for
2020. The safety margin, or a portion
thereof, can be allocated to any of the
source categories, as long as the total
attainment level of emissions is
maintained.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:23 Apr 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
2009
¥0.41
0.35
¥57.50
¥47.70
209.17
22.95
278.20
110.33
182.56
26.04
226.40
100.80
225.34
27.50
69.30
62.29
16.17
4.55
¥208.90
¥48.04
¥105.26
620.65
535.80
384.43
¥236.22
d. Monitoring Network
Michigan currently operates eight
ozone monitors in the Detroit-Ann
Arbor area. MDEQ has committed to
continue to operate an EPA-approved
monitoring network as necessary to
demonstrate ongoing compliance with
the NAAQS. MDEQ remains obligated to
continue to quality assure monitoring
data in accordance with 40 CFR part 58
and enter all data into the Air Quality
System in accordance with Federal
guidelines.
e. Verification of Continued Attainment
Continued attainment of the ozone
NAAQS in the Detroit-Ann Arbor area
depends, in part, on the State’s efforts
toward tracking indicators of continued
attainment during the maintenance
period. Michigan’s plan for verifying
continued attainment of the 8-hour
standard in the Detroit-Ann Arbor area
consists of plans to continue ambient
ozone monitoring in accordance with
the requirements of 40 CFR part 58.
MDEQ will also continue to develop
and submit periodic emission
inventories as required by the Federal
Consolidated Emissions Reporting Rule
(67 FR 39602) to track future levels of
emissions.
f. Contingency Plan
The contingency plan provisions are
designed to promptly correct or prevent
a violation of the NAAQS that might
occur after redesignation of an area to
attainment. Section 175A of the CAA
requires that a maintenance plan
include such contingency measures as
EPA deems necessary to assure that the
state will promptly correct a violation of
the NAAQS that occurs after
redesignation. The maintenance plan
should identify the contingency
measures to be adopted, a schedule and
procedure for adoption and
implementation of the contingency
measures, and a time limit for action by
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2020
Net
change
2007–2020
2007
the state. The state should also identify
specific indicators to be used to
determine when the contingency
measures need to be adopted and
implemented. The maintenance plan
must include a requirement that the
state will implement all measures with
respect to control of the pollutant(s) that
were contained in the SIP before
redesignation of the area to attainment.
See section 175A(d) of the CAA.
As required by section 175A of the
CAA, Michigan has adopted a
contingency plan for the Detroit-Ann
Arbor area to address possible future
ozone air quality problems. The
contingency plan adopted by Michigan
has two levels of response, depending
on whether a violation of the 8-hour
ozone standard is only threatened
(Action Level Response) or has occurred
(Contingency Measure Response).
An Action Level Response will be
triggered when a two-year average
fourth-high monitored daily peak 8-hour
ozone concentration of 0.085 ppm or
higher is monitored within the
maintenance area. An Action Level
Response will consist of Michigan
performing a review of the
circumstances leading to the high
monitored values. MDEQ will conduct
this review within six months following
the close of the ozone season. If MDEQ
determines that contingency measure
implementation is necessary to prevent
a future violation of the NAAQS, MDEQ
will select and implement a measure
that can be implemented promptly.
A Contingency Measure Response
will be triggered by a violation of the
standard (a three-year average of the
annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8hour average ozone concentration of
0.085 ppm or greater). When a
Contingency Measure Response is
triggered, Michigan will select one or
more control measures for
implementation. The timing for
implementation of a contingency
E:\FR\FM\23APP1.SGM
23APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 77 / Thursday, April 23, 2009 / Proposed Rules
measure is dependent on the process
needed for legal adoption and source
compliance, which varies for each
measure. MDEQ will expedite the
process of adopting and implementing
the selected measures, with a goal of
having measures in place as
expeditiously as practicable and within
18 months. EPA is interpreting this
commitment to mean that the measure
will be in place within 18 months.
MDEQ included the following list of
potential contingency measures in the
maintenance plan:
i. Reduced VOC content in
architectural, industrial, and
maintenance (AIM) coatings rule;
ii. Auto body refinisher selfcertification audit program;
iii. Reduced VOC degreasing/solvent
cleaning rule;
iv. Diesel retrofit program;
v. Reduced idling program;
vi. Portable fuel container
replacement rule; and,
vii. Food preparation flame broiler
control rule.
g. Provisions for Future Updates of the
Ozone Maintenance Plan
As required by section 175A(b) of the
CAA, Michigan commits to submit to
the EPA an updated ozone maintenance
plan eight years after redesignation of
the Detroit-Ann Arbor area to cover an
additional ten-year period beyond the
initial ten-year maintenance period. As
required by section 175(A) of the CAA,
Michigan has committed to retain the
VOC and NOX control measures
contained in the SIP prior to
redesignation. Michigan also commits to
submitting to EPA any contingency
measures adopted under the section
175A maintenance plan.
EPA has concluded that the
maintenance plan adequately addresses
the five basic components of a
maintenance plan: attainment
inventory, maintenance demonstration,
monitoring network, verification of
continued attainment, and a
contingency plan. The maintenance
plan SIP revision submitted by
Michigan for the Detroit-Ann Arbor area
meets the requirements of section 175A
of the CAA.
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
B. Adequacy of Michigan’s MVEBs
1. How Are MVEBs Developed and
What Are the MVEBs for the DetroitAnn Arbor Area?
Under the CAA, states are required to
submit, at various times, control strategy
SIP revisions and ozone maintenance
plans for ozone nonattainment areas and
for areas seeking redesignations to
attainment of the ozone standard. These
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:23 Apr 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
emission control strategy SIP revisions
(e.g., reasonable further progress SIP
and attainment demonstration SIP
revisions) and ozone maintenance plans
create MVEBs based on onroad mobile
source emissions for criteria pollutants
and/or their precursors to address
pollution from cars and trucks. The
MVEBs are the portions of the total
allowable emissions that are allocated to
highway and transit vehicle use that,
together with emissions from other
sources in the area, will provide for
attainment or maintenance.
Under 40 CFR part 93, a MVEB for an
area seeking a redesignation to
attainment is established for the last
year of the maintenance plan. The
MVEB serves as a ceiling on emissions
from an area’s planned transportation
system. The MVEB concept is further
explained in the preamble to the
November 24, 1993, transportation
conformity rule (58 FR 62188). The
preamble also describes how to
establish the MVEB in the SIP and how
to revise the MVEB if needed.
Under section 176(c) of the CAA, new
transportation projects, such as the
construction of new highways, must
‘‘conform’’ to (i.e., be consistent with)
the part of the SIP that addresses
emissions from cars and trucks.
Conformity to the SIP means that
transportation activities will not cause
new air quality violations, worsen
existing air quality violations, or delay
timely attainment of the NAAQS. If a
transportation plan does not conform,
most new transportation projects that
would expand the capacity of roadways
cannot go forward. Regulations at 40
CFR part 93 set forth EPA policy,
criteria, and procedures for
demonstrating and assuring conformity
of such transportation activities to a SIP.
When reviewing SIP revisions
containing MVEBs, including
attainment strategies, rate-of-progress
plans, and maintenance plans, EPA
must affirmatively find that the MVEBs
are ‘‘adequate’’ for use in determining
transportation conformity. Once EPA
affirmatively finds the submitted
MVEBs to be adequate for transportation
conformity purposes, the MVEBs are
used by state and Federal agencies in
determining whether proposed
transportation projects conform to the
SIP as required by section 176(c) of the
CAA. EPA’s substantive criteria for
determining the adequacy of MVEBs are
set out in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4).
EPA’s process for determining
adequacy of a MVEB consists of three
basic steps: (1) Providing public
notification of a SIP submission; (2)
providing the public the opportunity to
comment on the MVEB during a public
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
18489
comment period; and, (3) EPA’s finding
of adequacy. The process of determining
the adequacy of submitted SIP MVEBs
was initially outlined in EPA’s May 14,
1999, guidance, ‘‘Conformity Guidance
on Implementation of March 2, 1999,
Conformity Court Decision.’’ This
guidance was codified in the
Transportation Conformity Rule
Amendments for the ‘‘New 8-Hour
Ozone and PM 2.5 National Ambient
Air Quality Standards and
Miscellaneous Revisions for Existing
Areas; Transportation Conformity Rule
Amendments—Response to Court
Decision and Additional Rule Change,’’
published on July 1, 2004 (69 FR
40004). EPA follows this guidance and
rulemaking in making its adequacy
determinations.
The Detroit-Ann Arbor area’s
maintenance plan contains new VOC
and NOX MVEBs for the year 2020. The
availability of the SIP submission with
these 2020 MVEBs was announced for
public comment on EPA’s Adequacy
Web site on March 12, 2009, at:
https://www.epa.gov/otaq/
stateresources/transconf/currsips.htm.
The EPA public comment period on
adequacy of the 2020 MVEBs for the
Detroit-Ann Arbor area closed on April
13, 2009. EPA will address any
comments in the final rule.
EPA, through this rulemaking, is
proposing to find adequate and approve
the MVEBs for use to determine
transportation conformity in the DetroitAnn Arbor area because EPA has
determined that the area can maintain
attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS
for the relevant maintenance period
with mobile source emissions at the
levels of the MVEBs. In developing
MVEBs for the Detroit-Ann Arbor Area,
MDEQ has established separate MVEBS
for the SEMCOG region (Livingston,
Macomb, Monroe, Oakland, St. Clair,
Washtenaw, and Wayne Counties) and
for Lenawee County. MDEQ has
determined the 2020 MVEBs for the
SEMCOG region to be 106 tpd for VOC
and 274 tpd for NOX. MDEQ has
determined the 2020 MVEBs for
Lenawee County to be 2.1 tpd for VOC
and 4.4 tpd for NOX. These MVEBs
exceed the onroad mobile source VOC
and NOX emissions projected by MDEQ
for 2020, as summarized in Table 6
above (‘‘onroad’’ source sector). MDEQ
decided to include safety margins
(described further below) of 58.2 tpd for
VOC (57 tpd and 1.2 tpd for the
SEMCOG region and Lenawee County,
respectively) and 211.1 tpd for NOX
(208 tpd and 3.1 tpd for the SEMCOG
region and Lenawee County,
respectively) MVEBs to provide for
mobile source growth. Michigan has
E:\FR\FM\23APP1.SGM
23APP1
18490
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 77 / Thursday, April 23, 2009 / Proposed Rules
demonstrated that the Detroit-Ann
Arbor area can maintain the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS with mobile source
emissions of 108.1 tpd of VOC (the sum
of 106 tpd for the SEMCOG region and
2.1 tpd for Lenawee County) and 278.4
tpd for NOX (the sum of 274 tpd for the
SEMCOG region and 4.4 tpd for
Lenawee County), including the
allocated safety margins, since
emissions will still remain under
attainment year emission levels.
2. What Is a Safety Margin?
A ‘‘safety margin’’ is the difference
between the attainment level of
emissions (from all sources) and the
projected level of emissions (from all
sources) in the maintenance plan. As
noted in Table 6, the Detroit-Ann Arbor
area emissions are projected to have
safety margins of 105.26 tpd for VOC
and 236.22 tpd for NOX in 2020 (the
difference between the attainment year,
2007, emissions and the projected 2020
emissions for all sources in the DetroitAnn Arbor area). Even if emissions
reached the full level of the safety
margin, the counties would still
demonstrate maintenance since
emission levels would equal those in
the attainment year.
The MVEBs requested by MDEQ
contain safety margins for mobile
sources smaller than the allowable
safety margins reflected in the total
emissions for the Detroit-Ann Arbor
area. The State is not requesting
allocation of the entire available safety
margins reflected in the demonstration
of maintenance. Therefore, even though
the State is requesting MVEBs that
exceed the projected onroad mobile
source emissions for 2020 contained in
the demonstration of maintenance, the
increase in onroad mobile source
emissions that can be considered for
transportation conformity purposes is
well within the safety margins of the
ozone maintenance demonstration.
Further, once allocated to mobile
sources, these safety margins will not be
available for use by other sources.
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
C. 2005 Base Year Emissions Inventory
As discussed above, section 182(a)(1)
of the CAA requires areas classified as
marginal and above to submit a base
year emissions inventory. As part of
Michigan’s redesignation request for the
Detroit-Ann Arbor area, the State
submitted a 2005 base year emissions
inventory. This inventory is discussed
above and summarized in Table 3. EPA
is proposing to approve this 2005 base
year inventory as meeting the section
182(a)(1) emissions inventory
requirement.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:23 Apr 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
VIII. What Action Is EPA Taking?
EPA is proposing to make a
determination that the Detroit-Ann
Arbor area has attained the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. EPA is also proposing to
approve the maintenance plan SIP
revision for the Detroit-Ann Arbor area.
EPA’s proposed approval of the
maintenance plan is based on
Michigan’s demonstration that the plan
meets the requirements of section 175A
of the CAA, as described more fully
above. After evaluating Michigan’s
redesignation request, EPA has
determined that it meets the
redesignation criteria set forth in section
107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. Therefore, EPA
is proposing to approve the
redesignation of the Detroit-Ann Arbor
area from nonattainment to attainment
for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The final
approval of this redesignation request
would change the official designation
for the Detroit-Ann Arbor area from
nonattainment to attainment for the 8hour ozone standard. EPA is proposing
to approve the 2005 base year emissions
inventory for the Detroit-Ann Arbor area
as meeting the requirements of section
182(a)(1) of the CAA. Finally, EPA also
finds adequate and is proposing to
approve the State’s 2020 Motor Vehicle
Emission Budgets (MVEBs) for the
Detroit-Ann Arbor area.
IX. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the
Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the
provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k);
40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP
submissions, EPA’s role is to approve
state choices, provided that they meet
the criteria of the CAA. 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 Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993);
• 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
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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 CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have
tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), because the SIP is
not approved to apply in Indian country
located in the state, and EPA notes that
it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt
tribal law.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone,
Volatile organic compounds.
40 CFR Part 81
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, National parks,
Wilderness areas.
Dated: April 13, 2009.
Walter W. Kovalick Jr.,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. E9–9217 Filed 4–22–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
E:\FR\FM\23APP1.SGM
23APP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 77 (Thursday, April 23, 2009)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 18479-18490]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-9217]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[EPA-R05-OAR-2009-0219; FRL-8894-9]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation
of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Michigan; Redesignation of
the Detroit-Ann Arbor Area to Attainment for Ozone
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to make a determination under the Clean Air
Act (CAA) that the Detroit-Ann Arbor nonattainment area has attained
the 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). The
Detroit-Ann Arbor area includes Lenawee, Livingston, Macomb, Monroe,
Oakland, St. Clair, Washtenaw, and Wayne Counties. This determination
is based on quality-assured ambient air quality monitoring data for the
2006-2008 ozone seasons that demonstrate that the 8-hour ozone NAAQS
has been attained in the area.
EPA is proposing to approve a request from the State of Michigan to
redesignate the Detroit-Ann Arbor area to attainment of the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ)
submitted this request on March 6, 2009. In proposing to approve this
request EPA is also proposing to approve, as a revision to the Michigan
State Implementation Plan (SIP), the State's plan for maintaining the
8-hour ozone NAAQS through 2020 in the area. EPA is proposing to
approve the 2005 base year emissions inventory for the Detroit-Ann
Arbor area as meeting the requirements of section 182(a)(1) of the CAA.
EPA also finds adequate and is proposing to approve the State's 2020
[[Page 18480]]
Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets (MVEBs) for the Detroit-Ann Arbor area.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 26, 2009.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2009-0219, by one of the following methods:
1. https://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
2. E-mail: mooney.john@epa.gov.
3. Fax: (312) 692-2551.
4. Mail: John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air
Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
5. Hand delivery: John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant
Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 18th Floor, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office normal
hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information. The Regional Office official hours of
business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding
Federal holidays.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-
2009-0219. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through https://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The https://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through https://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional instructions on submitting
comments, go to Section I this document, ``What Should I Consider as I
Prepare My Comments for EPA?''
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http;//
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in https://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal
holidays. We recommend that you telephone Kathleen D'Agostino,
Environmental Engineer, at (312) 886-1767 before visiting the Region 5
office.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathleen D'Agostino, Environmental
Engineer, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-1767,
dagostino.kathleen@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:
Table of Contents
I. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?
II. What Action Is EPA Proposing To Take?
III. What Is the Background for These Actions?
A. What Is the General Background Information?
B. What Are the Impacts of the December 22, 2006 and June 8,
2007 United States Court of Appeals Decisions Regarding EPA's Phase
1 Implementation Rule?
IV. What Are the Criteria for Redesignation?
V. Why Is EPA Proposing To Take These Actions?
VI. What Is the Effect of These Actions?
VII. What Is EPA's Analysis of the Request?
A. Attainment Determination and Redesignation
B. Adequacy of Michigan's MVEBs
C. 2005 Base Year Emissions Inventory
VIII. What Action Is EPA Taking?
IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?
When submitting comments, remember to:
1. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
2. Follow directions--EPA may ask you to respond to specific
questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
3. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
4. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
5. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
6. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
7. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
8. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline
identified.
II. What Action Is EPA Proposing To Take?
EPA is proposing to take several related actions. EPA is proposing
to make a determination that the Detroit-Ann Arbor nonattainment area
has attained the 8-hour ozone standard and that this area has met the
requirements for redesignation under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA.
EPA is thus proposing to approve Michigan's request to change the legal
designation of the Detroit-Ann Arbor area from nonattainment to
attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is also proposing to approve
Michigan's maintenance plan SIP revision for Detroit-Ann Arbor (such
approval being one of the CAA criteria for redesignation to attainment
status). The maintenance plan is designed to keep the Detroit-Ann Arbor
area in attainment of the ozone NAAQS through 2020. EPA is proposing to
approve the 2005 base year emissions inventory for the Detroit-Ann
Arbor area as meeting the requirements of section 182(a)(1) of the CAA.
Additionally, EPA is proposing to approve the newly-established 2020
MVEBs for the Detroit-Ann Arbor area. The adequacy comment period for
the MVEBs began on March 12, 2009, with EPA's posting of the
availability of the submittal on EPA's Adequacy Web site (at https://
www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/
[[Page 18481]]
transconf/adequacy.htm). The adequacy comment period for these MVEBs
ended on April 13, 2009. EPA will address any comments in the final
rule. Please see section VII. B. of this rulemaking, ``Adequacy of
Michigan's MVEBs,'' for further explanation on this process. We are
proposing to find adequate and approve, the State's 2020 MVEBs for
transportation conformity purposes.
III. What Is the Background for These Actions?
A. What Is the General Background Information?
Ground-level ozone is not emitted directly by sources. Rather,
emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOX) and volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) react in the presence of sunlight to form ground-level
ozone. NOX and VOCs are referred to as precursors of ozone.
The CAA establishes a process for air quality management through
the NAAQS. Before promulgation of the current 8-hour standard, the
ozone NAAQS was based on a 1-hour standard. On November 6, 1991 (56 FR
56693 and 56778), the Detroit-Ann Arbor area was designated as a
moderate nonattainment area under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. The area was
subsequently redesignated to attainment of the 1-hour standard on March
7, 1995 (60 FR 12459). At the time EPA revoked the 1-hour ozone NAAQS,
on June 15, 2005, the Detroit-Ann Arbor area was designated as
attainment under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.
On July 18, 1997 (62 FR 38856), EPA promulgated an 8-hour ozone
standard of 0.08 parts per million (ppm). On April 30, 2004 (69 FR
23857), EPA published a final rule designating and classifying areas
under the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. These designations and classifications
became effective June 15, 2004. EPA designated as nonattainment any
area that was violating the 8-hour ozone NAAQS based on the three most
recent years of air quality data, 2001-2003.
The CAA contains two sets of provisions, subpart 1 and subpart 2,
that address planning and control requirements for nonattainment areas.
(Both are found in Title I, part D, 42 U.S.C. 7501-7509a and 7511-
7511f, respectively.) Subpart 1 contains general requirements for
nonattainment areas for any pollutant, including ozone, governed by a
NAAQS. Subpart 2 provides more specific requirements for ozone
nonattainment areas.
Under EPA's implementation rule for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard,
(69 FR 23951 (April 30, 2004)), an area was classified under subpart 2
based on its 8-hour ozone design value (i.e. the three-year average
annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone
concentration), if it had a 1-hour design value at the time of
designation at or above 0.121 ppm (the lowest 1-hour design value in
Table 1 of subpart 2) (69 FR 23954). All other areas were covered under
subpart 1, based upon their 8-hour design values (69 FR 23958). The
Detroit-Ann Arbor area was designated as a subpart 2, 8-hour ozone
moderate nonattainment area by EPA on April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23857,
23910-23911) based on air quality monitoring data from 2001-2003 (69 FR
23860).
Under section 181(a)(4) of the CAA, EPA may adjust the
classification of an ozone nonattainment area to the next higher or
lower classification if the design value for the area is within five
percent of the cut off for that higher or lower classification. On
September 22, 2004, EPA adjusted the classification of several
nonattainment areas which had been designated and classified under
subpart 2 on April 30, 2004. At that time, EPA adjusted the
classification of the Detroit-Ann Arbor nonattainment area from
moderate to marginal (69 FR 56697, 56708-56709).
40 CFR 50.10 and 40 CFR part 50, appendix I provide that the 8-hour
ozone standard is attained when the three-year average of the annual
fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration is less
than or equal to 0.08 ppm, when rounded. The data completeness
requirement is met when the average percent of days with valid ambient
monitoring data is greater than 90%, and no single year has less than
75% data completeness. See 40 CFR part 50, appendix I, 2.3.
On March 6, 2009, MDEQ requested that EPA redesignate the Detroit-
Ann Arbor area to attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. The
redesignation request included three years of complete, quality-assured
data for the period of 2006 through 2008, indicating the 8-hour NAAQS
for ozone had been attained for the Detroit-Ann Arbor area. Under the
CAA, nonattainment areas may be redesignated to attainment if
sufficient complete, quality-assured data are available for the
Administrator to determine that the area has attained the standard, and
the area meets the other CAA redesignation requirements in section
107(d)(3)(E).
On March 27, 2008 (73 FR 16436), EPA promulgated a revised 8-hour
ozone standard of 0.075. EPA has not yet promulgated area designations
for this standard. While both the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone standards
are currently in place, the actions addressed in this proposed
rulemaking relate only to the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.
B. What Are the Impacts of the December 22, 2006, and June 8, 2007,
United States Court of Appeals Decisions Regarding EPA's Phase 1
Implementation Rule?
1. Summary of Court Decision
On December 22, 2006, in South Coast Air Quality Management Dist.
v. EPA, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
vacated EPA's Phase 1 Implementation Rule for the 8-hour ozone standard
(69 FR 23951, April 30, 2004). 472 F.3d 882 (DC Cir. 2006). On June 8,
2007, in response to several petitions for rehearing, the DC Circuit
Court clarified that the Phase 1 Rule was vacated only with regard to
those parts of the rule that had been successfully challenged. Id.,
Docket No. 04 1201. Therefore, several provisions of the Phase 1 Rule
remain effective: Provisions related to classifications for areas
currently classified under subpart 2 of Title I, part D, of the CAA as
8-hour nonattainment areas; the 8-hour attainment dates; and, the
timing for emissions reductions needed for attainment of the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. The June 8, 2007 decision also left intact the Court's
rejection of EPA's reasons for implementing the 8-hour standard in
certain nonattainment areas under subpart 1 in lieu of subpart 2. By
limiting the vacatur, the Court let stand EPA's revocation of the 1-
hour standard and those anti-backsliding provisions of the Phase 1 Rule
that had not been successfully challenged. The June 8, 2007 decision
reaffirmed the December 22, 2006, decision that EPA had improperly
failed to retain four measures required for 1-hour nonattainment areas
under the anti-backsliding provisions of the regulations: (1)
Nonattainment area New Source Review (NSR) requirements based on an
area's 1-hour nonattainment classification; (2) section 185 penalty
fees for 1-hour severe or extreme nonattainment areas; (3) measures to
be implemented pursuant to section 172(c)(9) or 182(c)(9) of the CAA,
on the contingency of an area not making reasonable further progress
toward attainment of the 1-hour NAAQS, or for failure to attain that
NAAQS; and (4) certain transportation conformity requirements for
certain types of Federal actions. The June 8, 2007 decision clarified
that the Court's reference to conformity requirements was limited to
requiring the continued use of 1-hour motor vehicle emissions budgets
until 8-hour budgets were available for 8-hour conformity
determinations.
[[Page 18482]]
This section sets forth EPA's views on the potential effect of the
Court's rulings on this proposed redesignation action. For the reasons
set forth below, EPA does not believe that the Court's rulings alter
any requirements relevant to this redesignation action so as to
preclude redesignation or prevent EPA from proposing or ultimately
finalizing this redesignation. EPA believes that the Court's December
22, 2006, and June 8, 2007, decisions impose no impediment to moving
forward with redesignation of this area to attainment, because even in
light of the Court's decisions, redesignation is appropriate under the
relevant redesignation provisions of the CAA and longstanding policies
regarding redesignation requests.
2. Requirements Under the 8-Hour Standard
With respect to the 8-hour standard, the Detroit-Ann Arbor area is
classified under subpart 2. The June 8, 2007, opinion clarifies that
the Court did not vacate the Phase 1 Rule's provisions with respect to
classifications for areas under subpart 2. The Court's decision,
therefore, upholds EPA's classifications for those areas classified
under subpart 2 for the 8-hour ozone standard.
3. Requirements Under the 1-Hour Standard
With respect to the 1-hour standard requirements, the Detroit-Ann
Arbor area was an attainment area subject to a CAA section 175A
maintenance plan under the 1-hour standard. The Court's decisions do
not impact redesignation requests for these types of areas, except to
the extent that the Court, in its June 8, 2007 decision, clarified that
for those areas with 1-hour motor vehicle emissions budgets in their
maintenance plans, anti-backsliding requires that those 1-hour budgets
must be used for 8-hour conformity determinations until replaced by 8-
hour budgets. To meet this requirement, conformity determinations in
such areas must comply with the applicable requirements of EPA's
conformity regulations at 40 CFR part 93.
With respect to the three other anti-backsliding provisions for the
1-hour standard that the Court found were not properly retained, the
Detroit-Ann Arbor area is an attainment area subject to a maintenance
plan for the 1-hour standard, and the NSR, contingency measures
(pursuant to section 172(c)(9) or 182(c)(9)), and fee provision
requirements no longer apply to an area that has been redesignated to
attainment of the 1-hour standard.
Thus, the decision in South Coast should not alter requirements
that would preclude EPA from proposing or finalizing the redesignation
of this area.
IV. What Are the Criteria for Redesignation?
The CAA provides the requirements for redesignating a nonattainment
area to attainment. Specifically, section 107(d)(3)(E) allows for
redesignation provided that: (1) The Administrator determines that the
area has attained the applicable NAAQS; (2) the Administrator has fully
approved the applicable implementation plan for the area under section
110(k); (3) the Administrator determines that the improvement in air
quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions
resulting from implementation of the applicable SIP and applicable
Federal air pollutant control regulations and other permanent and
enforceable reductions; (4) the Administrator has fully approved a
maintenance plan for the area as meeting the requirements of section
175A; and, (5) the state containing such area has met all requirements
applicable to the area under section 110 and part D.
EPA provided guidance on redesignation in the General Preamble for
the Implementation of Title I of the CAA Amendments of 1990 on April
16, 1992 (57 FR 13498), and supplemented this guidance on April 28,
1992 (57 FR 18070). EPA has provided further guidance on processing
redesignation requests in the following documents:
``Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Design Value Calculations,'' Memorandum
from William G. Laxton, Director Technical Support Division, June 18,
1990;
``Maintenance Plans for Redesignation of Ozone and Carbon Monoxide
Nonattainment Areas,'' Memorandum from G. T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon
Monoxide Programs Branch, April 30, 1992;
``Contingency Measures for Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Redesignations,'' Memorandum from G. T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon
Monoxide Programs Branch, June 1, 1992;
``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to
Attainment,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality
Management Division, September 4, 1992;
``State Implementation Plan (SIP) Actions Submitted in Response to
Clean Air Act (ACT) Deadlines,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni,
Director, Air Quality Management Division, October 28, 1992;
``Technical Support Documents (TSD's) for Redesignation Ozone and
Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment Areas,'' Memorandum from G. T.
Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, August 17, 1993;
``State Implementation Plan (SIP) Requirements for Areas Submitting
Requests for Redesignation to Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon
Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) On or
After November 15, 1992,'' Memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting
Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, September 17, 1993;
``Use of Actual Emissions in Maintenance Demonstrations for Ozone
and CO Nonattainment Areas,'' Memorandum from D. Kent Berry, Acting
Director, Air Quality Management Division, to Air Division Directors,
Regions 1-10, November 30, 1993.
``Part D New Source Review (part D NSR) Requirements for Areas
Requesting Redesignation to Attainment,'' Memorandum from Mary D.
Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, October 14,
1994; and,
``Reasonable Further Progress, Attainment Demonstration, and
Related Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment Areas Meeting the Ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standard,'' Memorandum from John S. Seitz,
Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, May 10, 1995.
V. Why Is EPA Proposing To Take These Actions?
On March 6, 2009, Michigan requested redesignation of the Detroit-
Ann Arbor area to attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. EPA
believes that the area has attained the standard and has met the
requirements for redesignation set forth in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the
CAA.
VI. What Is the Effect of These Actions?
Approval of the redesignation request would change the official
designation of the area for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS found at 40 CFR part
81. It would also incorporate into the Michigan SIP a plan for
maintaining the 8-hour ozone NAAQS through 2020. The maintenance plan
includes contingency measures to remedy future violations of the 8-hour
NAAQS. It also establishes MVEBs of 106 tons per day (tpd) VOC and 274
tpd NOX for Livingston, Macomb, Monroe, Oakland, St. Clair,
Washtenaw, and Wayne Counties (SEMCOG Region) and 2.1 tpd VOC and 4.4
tpd NOX for Lenawee County.
[[Page 18483]]
VII. What Is EPA's Analysis of the Request?
A. Attainment Determination and Redesignation
EPA is proposing to make a determination that the Detroit-Ann Arbor
area has attained the 8-hour ozone standard and that the area has met
all other applicable section 107(d)(3)(E) redesignation criteria. The
basis for EPA's determination is as follows:
1. The Area Has Attained the 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS (Section
107(d)(3)(E)(i))
EPA is proposing to make a determination that the Detroit-Ann Arbor
area has attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. For ozone, an area may be
considered to be attaining the 8-hour ozone NAAQS if there are no
violations, as determined in accordance with 40 CFR 50.10 and part 50,
appendix I, based on three complete, consecutive calendar years of
quality-assured air quality monitoring data. To attain this standard,
the three-year average of the fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour
average ozone concentrations measured at each monitor within an area
over each year must not exceed 0.08 ppm. Based on the rounding
convention described in 40 CFR part 50, appendix I, the standard is
attained if the design value is 0.084 ppm or below. The data must be
collected and quality-assured in accordance with 40 CFR part 58, and
recorded in the Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS). The
monitors generally should have remained at the same location for the
duration of the monitoring period required for demonstrating
attainment.
MDEQ submitted ozone monitoring data for the 2006 to 2008 ozone
seasons. MDEQ quality-assured the ambient monitoring data in accordance
with 40 CFR 58.10, and recorded it in the AIRS database, thus making
the data publicly available. The data meet the completeness criteria in
40 CFR part 50, appendix I, which requires a minimum completeness of 75
percent annually and 90 percent over each 3-year period. Monitoring
data is presented in Table 1 below.
Table 1--Annual 4th High Daily Maximum 8-Hour Ozone Concentration and Three-Year Averages of 4th High Daily
Maximum 8-Hour Ozone Concentrations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2006 4th high 2007 4th high 2008 4th high 2006-2008
County Monitor (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) average (ppm)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lenawee....................... Tecumseh 0.074 0.081 0.072 0.076
260910007.
Macomb........................ New Haven 0.078 0.093 0.073 0.081
260990009.
Warren 260991003 0.078 0.091 0.072 0.080
Oakland....................... Oak Park 0.072 0.086 0.074 0.077
261250001.
St. Clair..................... Port Huron 0.078 0.089 0.067 0.078
261470005.
Washtenaw..................... Ypsilanti 0.076 0.077 0.069 0.074
261610008.
Wayne......................... Allen Park 0.068 0.079 0.067 0.071
261630001.
E-7 Mile 0.078 0.092 0.078 0.082
261630019.
Linwood 0.069 .............. .............. ..............
261630016.
SW High School 0.067 .............. .............. ..............
261630015.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, as discussed below with respect to the maintenance
plan, MDEQ has committed to continue to operate an EPA-approved
monitoring network as necessary to demonstrate ongoing compliance with
the NAAQS. MDEQ remains obligated to continue to quality assure
monitoring data in accordance with 40 CFR part 58 and enter all data
into the Air Quality System in accordance with Federal guidelines. In
summary, EPA believes that the data submitted by Michigan provide an
adequate demonstration that the Detroit-Ann Arbor area has attained the
8-hour ozone NAAQS.
2. The Area Has Met All Applicable Requirements Under Section 110 and
Part D; and the Area Has a Fully Approved SIP Under Section 110(k)
(Sections 107(d)(3)(E)(v) and 107(d)(3)(E)(ii))
We have determined that Michigan has met all currently applicable
SIP requirements for purposes of redesignation for the Detroit-Ann
Arbor area under section 110 of the CAA (general SIP requirements). We
have also determined that the Michigan SIP meets all SIP requirements
currently applicable for purposes of redesignation under part D of
Title I of the CAA (requirements specific to marginal nonattainment
areas), in accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E)(v). In addition, we
have determined that the Michigan SIP is fully approved with respect to
all applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation, in
accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii). In making these
determinations, we have ascertained what SIP requirements are
applicable to the area for purposes of redesignation, and have
determined that the portions of the SIP meeting these requirements are
fully approved under section 110(k) of the CAA. As discussed more fully
below, SIPs must be fully approved only with respect to currently
applicable requirements of the CAA.
The September 4, 1992, Calcagni memorandum (see ``Procedures for
Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,'' Memorandum
from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division,
September 4, 1992) describes EPA's interpretation of section
107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. Under this interpretation, a state and the
area it wishes to redesignate must meet the relevant CAA requirements
that are due prior to the state's submittal of a complete redesignation
request for the area. See also the September 17, 1993, Michael Shapiro
memorandum and 60 FR 12459, 12465-66 (March 7, 1995) (redesignation of
Detroit-Ann Arbor, Michigan to attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS).
Applicable requirements of the CAA that come due subsequent to the
state's submittal of a complete request remain applicable until a
redesignation to attainment is approved, but are not required as a
prerequisite to redesignation. See section 175A(c) of the CAA. Sierra
Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004). See also 68 FR 25424, 25427
(May 12, 2003) (redesignation of the St. Louis/East St. Louis area to
attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS).
a. The Detroit-Ann Arbor Area Has Met All Applicable Requirements Under
Section 110 and Part D of the CAA
i. Section 110 General SIP Requirements
Section 110(a) of title I of the CAA contains the general
requirements for a SIP. Section 110(a)(2) provides that the
implementation plan submitted by a state must have been adopted by the
[[Page 18484]]
state after reasonable public notice and hearing, and that, among other
things, it: includes enforceable emission limitations and other control
measures, means or techniques necessary to meet the requirements of the
CAA; provides for establishment and operation of appropriate devices,
methods, systems and procedures necessary to monitor ambient air
quality; provides for implementation of a source permit program to
regulate the modification and construction of any stationary source
within the areas covered by the plan; includes provisions for the
implementation of part C, Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)
and part D, NSR permit programs; includes criteria for stationary
source emission control measures, monitoring, and reporting; includes
provisions for air quality modeling; and, provides for public and local
agency participation in planning and emission control rule development.
Section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA requires that SIPs contain measures
to prevent sources in a state from significantly contributing to air
quality problems in another state. To implement this provision, EPA has
required certain states to establish programs to address transport of
air pollutants (NOX SIP Call \1\ and Clean Air Interstate
Rule (CAIR) (70 FR 25162)). However, the section 110(a)(2)(D)
requirements for a state are not linked with a particular nonattainment
area's designation and classification. EPA believes that the
requirements linked with a particular nonattainment area's designation
and classification are the relevant measures to evaluate in reviewing a
redesignation request. The transport SIP submittal requirements, where
applicable, continue to apply to a state regardless of the designation
of any one particular area in the state. Thus, we believe that these
requirements should not be construed to be applicable requirements for
purposes of redesignation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ On October 27, 1998 (63 FR 57356), EPA issued a
NOx SIP call requiring the District of Columbia and 22
states to reduce emissions of NOX in order to reduce the
transport of ozone and ozone precursors. In compliance with EPA's
NOX SIP call, MDEQ has developed rules governing the
control of NOX emissions from Electric Generating Units
(EGUs), major non-EGU industrial boilers, and major cement kilns.
EPA approved Michigan's rules as fulfilling Phase I of the
NOX SIP Call on May 4, 2005 (70 FR 23029) and as
fulfilling Phase II of the SIP Call on January 29, 2008 (73 FR
5101).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, we believe that the other section 110 elements described
above that are not connected with nonattainment plan submissions and
not linked with an area's attainment status are also not applicable
requirements for purposes of redesignation. A state remains subject to
these requirements after an area is redesignated to attainment. We
conclude that only the section 110 and part D requirements which are
linked with a particular area's designation and classification are the
relevant measures which we may consider in evaluating a redesignation
request. This approach is consistent with EPA's existing policy on
applicability of conformity and oxygenated fuels requirements for
redesignation purposes, as well as with section 184 ozone transport
requirements. See Reading, Pennsylvania, proposed and final rulemakings
(61 FR 53174-53176, October 10, 1996), (62 FR 24826, May 7, 1997);
Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio, final rulemaking (61 FR 20458, May 7,
1996); and Tampa, Florida, final rulemaking (60 FR 62748, December 7,
1995). See also the discussion on this issue in the Cincinnati, Ohio
ozone redesignation (65 FR 37890, June 19, 2000), and in the
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania ozone redesignation (66 FR 50399, October 19,
2001).
We have reviewed Michigan's SIP and have concluded that it meets
the general SIP requirements under section 110 of the CAA. EPA has
previously approved provisions of the Michigan SIP addressing section
110 elements under the 1-hour ozone standard (40 CFR 52.1170). Further,
in submittals dated December 6, 2007, and September 19, 2008, Michigan
confirmed that the State continues to meet the section 110 requirements
for the 8-hour ozone standard.
ii. Part D Requirements
EPA has determined that, with the approval of the base year
emissions inventory discussed in section VII.C. of this rulemaking, the
Michigan SIP will meet the applicable SIP requirements under part D of
the CAA for the Detroit-Ann Arbor area. Under part D of the CAA, an
area's classification determines the requirements to which it will be
subject. Subpart 1 of part D, found in sections 172-176 of the CAA,
sets forth the basic nonattainment requirements applicable to all
nonattainment areas. Subpart 2 of part D, which includes section 182 of
the CAA, establishes additional specific requirements depending on the
area's nonattainment classification.
The Detroit-Ann Arbor area was classified as a marginal area under
subpart 2, therefore the State must meet both the applicable
requirements of subpart 1 and subpart 2 of part D. The applicable
subpart 1 requirements are contained in sections 172(c)(1)-(9) and in
section 176. The subpart 2 requirements applicable to the Detroit-Ann
Arbor area are contained in section 182(a) (marginal nonattainment area
requirements).
Subpart 1 Section 172 Requirements
For purposes of evaluating this redesignation request, the
applicable section 172 SIP requirements for the Detroit-Ann Arbor area
are contained in sections 172(c)(1)-(9). A thorough discussion of the
requirements contained in section 172 can be found in the General
Preamble for Implementation of Title I (57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992).
Section 172(c)(1) requires the plans for all nonattainment areas to
provide for the implementation of all Reasonably Available Control
Measures (RACM) as expeditiously as practicable. The EPA interprets
this requirement to impose a duty on all nonattainment areas to
consider all available control measures and to adopt and implement such
measures as are reasonably available for implementation in the area as
components of the areas attainment demonstration. Because attainment
has been reached, no additional measures are needed to provide for
attainment.
The reasonable further progress (RFP) requirement under section
172(c)(2) is defined as progress that must be made toward attainment.
This requirement is not relevant because the Detroit-Ann Arbor area has
demonstrated monitored attainment of the ozone NAAQS. (General
Preamble, 57 FR 13564). In addition, because the Detroit-Ann Arbor area
has attained the ozone NAAQS and is no longer subject to an RFP
requirement, the section 172(c)(9) contingency measures are not
applicable.
Section 172(c)(3) requires submission and approval of a
comprehensive, accurate and current inventory of actual emissions. This
requirement was superseded by the inventory requirement in section
182(a)(1).
Section 172(c)(4) requires the identification and quantification of
allowable emissions for major new and modified stationary sources to be
allowed in an area, and section 172(c)(5) requires source permits for
the construction and operation of new and modified major stationary
sources anywhere in the nonattainment area. EPA has determined that,
since PSD requirements will apply after redesignation, areas being
redesignated need not comply with the requirement that a NSR program be
approved prior to redesignation, provided that the area demonstrates
maintenance of the NAAQS without part D NSR. A more
[[Page 18485]]
detailed rationale for this view is described in a memorandum from Mary
Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, dated October
14, 1994, entitled, ``Part D New Source Review Requirements for Areas
Requesting Redesignation to Attainment.'' Michigan has demonstrated
that the Detroit-Ann Arbor area will be able to maintain the standard
without part D NSR in effect; therefore, EPA concludes that the State
need not have a fully approved part D NSR program prior to approval of
the redesignation request. The PSD program was delegated to the State
of Michigan on September 10, 1979, and amended on November 7, 1983, and
September 26, 1988. In addition, on December 21, 2006, MDEQ submitted,
as a revision to its SIP, State rules to implement the PSD program. On
September 16, 2008, EPA conditionally approved the majority of
Michigan's PSD program, and partially disapproved the subsection of
Michigan's rule corresponding to 40 CFR 51.166(p). On September 30,
2008, MDEQ submitted a revision to the SIP correcting the deficiencies
cited in the conditional approval. The Federal delegation of authority
allows Michigan to continue to implement 40 CFR 51.166(p).
The State's PSD program will become effective in the Detroit-Ann
Arbor area upon redesignation to attainment. See rulemakings for
Detroit, Michigan (60 FR 12467-12468, March 7, 1995); Cleveland-Akron-
Lorain, Ohio (61 FR 20458, 20469-20470, May 7, 1996); Louisville,
Kentucky (66 FR 53665, October 23, 2001); and Grand Rapids, Michigan
(61 FR 31834-31837, June 21, 1996).
Section 172(c)(6) requires the SIP to contain control measures
necessary to provide for attainment of the standard. Because attainment
has been reached, no additional measures are needed to provide for
attainment.
Section 172(c)(7) requires the SIP to meet the applicable
provisions of section 110(a)(2). As noted above, we believe the
Michigan SIP meets the requirements of section 110(a)(2).
Subpart 1 Section 176 Conformity Requirements
Section 176(c) of the CAA requires states to establish criteria and
procedures to ensure that Federally-supported or funded activities,
including highway projects, conform to the air quality planning goals
in the applicable SIPs. The requirement to determine conformity applies
to transportation plans, programs and projects developed, funded or
approved under Title 23 of the U.S. Code and the Federal Transit Act
(transportation conformity), as well as to all other Federally-
supported or funded projects (general conformity). State conformity
revisions must be consistent with Federal conformity regulations
relating to consultation, enforcement, and enforceability, which EPA
promulgated pursuant to CAA requirements.
EPA believes that it is reasonable to interpret the conformity SIP
requirements as not applying for purposes of evaluating the
redesignation request under section 107(d) for two reasons. First, the
requirement to submit SIP revisions to comply with the conformity
provisions of the CAA continues to apply to areas after redesignation
to attainment since such areas would be subject to a section 175A
maintenance plan. Second, EPA's Federal conformity rules require the
performance of conformity analyses in the absence of Federally-approved
state rules. Therefore, because areas are subject to the conformity
requirements regardless of whether they are redesignated to attainment
and, because they must implement conformity under Federal rules if
state rules are not yet approved, EPA believes it is reasonable to view
these requirements as not applying for purposes of evaluating a
redesignation request. See Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001),
upholding this interpretation. See also 60 FR 62748, 62749-62750 (Dec.
7, 1995) (Tampa, Florida).
EPA approved Michigan's general and transportation conformity SIPs
on December 18, 1996 (61 FR 666079 and 61 FR 66609, respectively).
Michigan has submitted onroad motor vehicle budgets for the SEMCOG
portion of the Detroit-Ann Arbor area and Lenawee County of 106 tpd and
2.1 tpd VOC and 274 tpd and 4.4 tpd NOx, respectively, for the year
2020. The area must use the MVEBs from the maintenance plan in any
conformity determination that is effective on or after the effective
date of the maintenance plan approval.
Subpart 2 Section 182(a) Requirements
As set forth in the September 4, 1992, and September 17, 1993, EPA
guidance memoranda referenced in section IV of this action, ``What are
the Criteria for Redesignation?,'' only those requirements which came
due prior to Michigan's submittal of a request to designate the
Detroit-Ann Arbor area must be fully approved into the SIP before or at
the time EPA approves the redesignation of the area to attainment.
These requirements are discussed below.
Base year emissions inventory. Section 182(a)(1) requires the
submission of a base year emissions inventory. As part of Michigan's
redesignation request for the Detroit-Ann Arbor area, the State
submitted a 2005 base year emissions inventory. EPA is proposing to
approve the 2005 base year inventory Michigan submitted with the
redesignation request as meeting the section 182(a)(1) emissions
inventory requirement.
Emissions statements. EPA approved Michigan's emission statement
SIP, as required by section 182(a)(3)(B), on March 8, 1994 (59 FR
10752).
Thus, the Detroit-Ann Arbor area has satisfied all applicable
requirements under section 110 and part D of the CAA.
b. The Detroit-Ann Arbor Area Has a Fully Approved Applicable SIP Under
Section 110(k) of the CAA
EPA has fully approved the Michigan SIP for the Detroit-Ann Arbor
area under section 110(k) of the CAA for all requirements applicable
for purposes of redesignation. EPA may rely on prior SIP approvals in
approving a redesignation request (See page 3 of the September 4, 1992,
John Calcagni memorandum; Southwestern Pennsylvania Growth Alliance v.
Browner, 144 F.3d 984, 989-990 (6th Cir. 1998); Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d
426 (6th Cir. 2001)) plus any additional measures it may approve in
conjunction with a redesignation action. See 68 FR 25413, 25426 (May
12, 2003). Since the passage of the CAA of 1970, Michigan has adopted
and submitted, and EPA has fully approved, provisions addressing the
various required SIP elements applicable to the Detroit-Ann Arbor
County area under the 1-hour ozone standard. In this action, EPA is
proposing to approve Michigan's 2005 base year emissions inventory for
the Detroit-Ann Arbor area as meeting the requirement of section
182(a)(1) of the CAA. With the exception of Michigan's PSD SIP, which
is discussed above, no Detroit-Ann Arbor area SIP provisions are
currently disapproved, conditionally approved, or partially approved.
3. The Improvement in Air Quality Is Due to Permanent and Enforceable
Reductions in Emissions Resulting From Implementation of the SIP and
Applicable Federal Air Pollution Control Regulations and Other
Permanent and Enforceable Reductions (Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii))
EPA finds that Michigan has demonstrated that the observed air
quality improvement in the Detroit-Ann Arbor area is due to permanent
and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation
of the
[[Page 18486]]
SIP, Federal measures, and other State-adopted measures.
In making this demonstration, the State has calculated the change
in emissions between 2005 and 2007. Michigan used the 2005
nonattainment area base year emissions inventory required under section
182(a)(1) of the CAA as the nonattainment inventory for redesignation
purposes. The State developed an attainment inventory for 2007, one of
the years the Detroit-Ann Arbor area monitored attainment. The
reduction in emissions and the corresponding improvement in air quality
over this time period can be attributed to a number of regulatory
control measures that Detroit-Ann Arbor and upwind areas have
implemented in recent years.
a. Permanent and Enforceable Controls Implemented
The following is a discussion of permanent and enforceable measures
that have been implemented in the areas:
i. VOC Controls. Michigan developed a rule to limit VOC emissions
from consumer and commercial products. This rule was approved by EPA on
October 26, 2007 (72 FR 60781). Michigan also adopted a lower Reid
Vapor Pressure (RVP) fuel requirement for gasoline distributed in the
Detroit-Ann Arbor area. EPA approved the SIP revision on January 31,
2007 (72 FR 4432).
ii. NOX rules. MDEQ developed rules governing the
control of NOX emissions from Electric Generating Units
(EGUs), major non-EGU industrial boilers, and major cement kilns. EPA
approved Michigan's rules as fulfilling Phase I of the NOX
SIP Call on May 4, 2005 (70 FR 23029), and as fulfilling Phase II of
the SIP Call on January 29, 2008 (73 FR 5101).
iii. Federal Emission Control Measures. Reductions in VOC and
NOX emissions have occurred statewide and in upwind areas as
a result of Federal emission control measures, with additional emission
reductions expected to occur in the future. Federal emission control
measures include: the National Low Emission Vehicle (NLEV) program,
Tier 2 emission standards for vehicles, gasoline sulfur limits, low
sulfur diesel fuel standards, and heavy-duty diesel engine standards.
In addition, in 2004, EPA issued the Clean Air Non-road Diesel Rule (69
FR 38958 (July 29, 2004)). EPA expects this rule to reduce off-road
diesel emissions through 2010, with emission reductions starting in
2008.
iv. Control Measures in Upwind Areas. On October 27, 1998 (63 FR
57356), EPA issued a NOX SIP call requiring the District of
Columbia and 22 states to reduce emissions of NOX. The
reduction in NOX emissions has resulted in lower
concentrations of transported ozone entering the Detroit-Ann Arbor
area. Emission reductions resulting from regulations developed in
response to the NOX SIP call are permanent and enforceable.
b. Emission Reductions
Michigan is using 2005 for the nonattainment inventory and 2007 for
the attainment inventory. MDEQ provided a 2005 base year inventory to
the Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium (LADCO). The main purpose of
LADCO is to provide technical assessments for and assistance to its
member states on problems of air quality. LADCO's primary geographic
focus is the area encompassed by its member states (Illinois, Indiana,
Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin) and any areas which affect air quality
in its member states. The base year inventory was processed by LADCO to
develop summer day emissions for use in regional air quality analyses
and attainment demonstration modeling. The point source data was
obtained from the Michigan Air Emissions Reporting System. Area source
emissions were taken from the 2005 emissions inventory developed by
MDEQ to comply with the Consolidated Emission Reporting Rule for the
EPA National Emissions Inventory (NEI). Nonroad mobile emissions were
generated for LADCO using EPA's National Mobile Inventory Model (NMIM),
with the following exceptions: recreational motorboat populations and
spatial surrogates were updated; emissions estimates were developed for
aircraft, commercial marine vessels, and railroads, three nonroad
categories not included in NMIM; and, onroad mobile emissions were
calculated by the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG)
using the MOBILE6.2 emissions model.
For the 2007 attainment year inventory, point source emissions were
taken from the Michigan Air Emissions Reporting System. Onroad mobile
emissions were calculated by SEMCOG using the MOBILE6.2 emissions
model. For the remaining categories, MDEQ used the 2005 inventory
described above along with 2002, 2009, and 2018 emissions inventories
developed by LADCO to interpolate point, area, and nonroad mobile
emissions for 2007. For each combination of county and pollutant, a
linear regression analysis was performed using the values from the
established inventories for 2002, 2005, 2009, and 2018. From the best-
fit line established by the regression analysis, values for 2007 were
obtained.
Using the inventories described above, Michigan's submittal
documents changes in VOC and NOX emissions from 2005 to 2007
for the Detroit-Ann Arbor area. Emissions data are shown in Tables 3
through 5 below.
TABLE 3--Detroit-Ann Arbor Area VOC and NOX Emissions for Nonattainment Year 2005
[tpd]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Area Onroad Nonroad Total
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC NOX VOC NOX VOC NOX VOC NOX VOC NOX
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Livingston.......................................... 0.66 1.89 11.92 1.00 5.00 16.20 9.61 4.38 27.19 23.47
Macomb.............................................. 9.62 2.30 38.72 2.36 16.50 40.60 23.12 19.27 87.96 64.53
Monroe.............................................. 11.16 104.83 9.85 0.93 5.20 16.40 9.56 7.69 35.77 129.85
Oakland............................................. 9.80 3.10 55.34 4.19 34.00 88.90 46.35 25.52 145.49 121.71
St. Clair........................................... 5.55 68.97 5.20 0.67 4.70 11.60 11.35 7.83 26.80 89.07
Washtenaw........................................... 1.42 3.82 17.23 0.97 10.30 30.90 12.47 9.99 41.42 45.68
Wayne............................................... 24.27 63.11 82.11 5.38 50.40 130.80 39.97 45.09 196.75 244.38
Lenawee............................................. 1.21 0.37 8.89 0.73 2.70 5.30 4.37 3.54 17.17 9.94
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Area Total...................................... 63.69 248.39 229.26 16.23 128.80 340.70 156.80 123.31 578.55 728.63
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 18487]]
Table 4--Detroit-Ann Arbor Area VOC and NOX Emissions for Attainment Year 2007
[tpd]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Area Onroad Nonroad Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC NOX VOC NOX VOC NOX VOC NOX VOC NOX
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Livingston.......................................... 0.86 2.55 8.94 0.79 4.40 13.50 9.07 3.97 23.27 20.81
Macomb.............................................. 10.72 2.39 36.09 3.87 13.80 33.10 21.96 17.00 82.57 56.36
Monroe.............................................. 9.41 65.79 9.92 0.73 4.50 13.60 9.02 6.91 32.85 87.03
Oakland............................................. 9.03 3.36 55.39 6.07 28.50 72.60 44.15 22.85 137.07 104.88
St. Clair........................................... 4.99 65.99 6.92 0.89 3.90 9.50 10.86 7.08 26.67 83.46
Washtenaw........................................... 1.82 3.55 16.70 1.47 8.80 25.60 11.88 8.93 39.20 39.55
Wayne............................................... 21.67 65.19 79.20 8.58 41.80 105.90 38.63 40.27 181.30 219.94
Lenawee............................................. 1.28 0.35 6.05 0.55 2.10 4.40 4.13 3.32 13.56 8.62
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Area Total...................................... 59.78 209.17 219.21 22.95 107.80 278.20 149.70 110.33 536.49 620.65
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 5--Comparison of Detroit-Ann Arbor Area 2005 and 2007 VOC and NOX Emissions
[tpd]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC NOX
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net change (2005- Net change (2005-
2005 2007 2007) 2005 2007 2007)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point................................. 63.69 59.78 -3.91 248.39 209.17 -39.22
Area.................................. 229.26 219.21 -10.05 16.23 22.95 6.72
Onroad................................ 128.80 107.80 -21.00 340.70 278.20 -62.50
Nonroad............................... 156.80 149.70 -7.10 123.31 110.33 -12.98
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................. 578.55 536.49 -42.06 728.63 620.65 -107.98
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 5 shows that the Detroit-Ann Arbor area reduced VOC emissions
by 42.06 tpd and NOX emissions by 107.98 tpd between 2005
and 2007. Based on the information summarized above, Michigan has
adequately demonstrated that the improvement in air quality is due to
permanent and enforceable emissions reductions.
4. The Area Has a Fully Approved Maintenance Plan Pursuant to Section
175a of the CAA (Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv))
In conjunction with its request to redesignate the Detroit-Ann
Arbor nonattainment area to attainment status, Michigan submitted a SIP
revision to provide for the maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in
the area through 2020.
a. What Is Required in a Maintenance Plan?
Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the required elements of a
maintenance plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to
attainment. Under section 175A, the plan must demonstrate continued
attainment of the applicable NAAQS for at least ten years after the
Administrator approves a redesignation to attainment. Eight years after
the redesignation, the state must submit a revised maintenance plan
which demonstrates that attainment will continue to be maintained for
ten years following the initial ten-year maintenance period. To address
the possibility of future NAAQS violations, the maintenance plan must
contain contingency measures with a schedule for implementation as EPA
deems necessary to assure prompt correction of any future 8-hour ozone
violations.
The September 4, 1992, John Calcagni memorandum provides additional
guidance on the content of a maintenance plan. The memorandum clarifies
that an ozone maintenance plan should address the following items: the
attainment VOC and NOX emissions inventories, a maintenance
demonstration showing maintenance for the ten years of the maintenance
period, a commitment to maintain the existing monitoring network,
factors and procedures to be used for verification of continued
attainment of the NAAQS, and a contingency plan to prevent or correct
future violations of the NAAQS.
b. Attainment Inventory
The MDEQ developed an emissions inventory for 2007, one of the
years Michigan used to demonstrate monitored attainment of the 8-hour
NAAQS, as described above. The attainment level of emissions is
summarized in Table 4, above.
c. Demonstration of Maintenance
Along with the redesignation request, Michigan submitted a revision
to the 8-hour ozone SIP to include a maintenance plan for the Detroit-
Ann Arbor area, in compliance with section 175A of the CAA. This
demonstration shows maintenance of the 8-hour ozone standard through
2020 by assuring that current and future emissions of VOC and
NOX for the Detroit-Ann Arbor area remain at or below
attainment year emission levels. A maintenance demonstration need not
be based on modeling. See Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001),
Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F. 3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004). See also 66 FR
53094, 53099-53100 (October 19, 2001), 68 FR 25413, 25430-25432 (May
12, 2003).
Michigan is using emissions inventories for the years 2009 and 2020
to demonstrate maintenance. Onroad mobile source emissions were
estimated by SEMCOG using MOBILE6.2. For the 2020 inventory, MDEQ used
the 2005 inventory described above along with 2002, 2009, and 2018
emissions inventories developed by LADCO to interpolate emissions
estimates for the remaining source sectors. For each combination of
county and pollutant, a linear regression analysis was performed using
the values from the established inventories for 2002, 2005, 2009, and
2018. From the best-fit line
[[Page 18488]]
established by the regression analysis, values for 2020 were obtained.
Emissions estimates are presented in Table 6 below.
Table 6--Comparison of 2007--2020 VOC and NOX Emissions
[tpd]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC NOX
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net change Net change
2007 2009 2020 2007-2020 2007 2009 2020 2007-2020
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point.......................... 59.78 52.48 59.37 -0.41 209.17 182.56 225.34 16.17
Area........................... 219.21 211.95 219.56 0.35 22.95 26.04 27.50 4.55
Onroad......................... 107.80 95.10 50.30 -57.50 278.20 226.40 69.30 -208.90
Nonroad........................ 149.70 131.21 102.00 -47.70 110.33 100.80 62.29 -48.04
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total...................... 536.49 490.74 431.23 -105.26 620.65 535.80 384.43 -236.22
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The emission projections show that MDEQ does not expect emissions
in the Detroit-Ann Arbor area to exceed the level of the 2007
attainment year inventory during the maintenance period. In the
Detroit-Ann Arbor area, MDEQ projects that VOC and NOX
emissions will decrease by 105.26 tpd and 236.22 tpd, respectively.
As part of its maintenance plan, the State elected to include a
``safety margin'' for the area. A ``safety margin'' is the difference
between the attainment level of emissions (from all sources) and the
projected level of emissions (from all sources) in the main
