Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Michigan; Redesignation of the Allegan County Area to Attainment for Ozone, 42018-42030 [2010-17680]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
42018
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 20, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting
comments. To ensure timely processing
of comments, the Commission is no
longer accepting comments submitted
by electronic mail (e-mail) except
through https://www.regulations.gov.
Written Submissions
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
Submit written submissions in the
following way:
Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for paper
(preferably in five copies), disk, or CD–
ROM submissions), to: Office of the
Secretary, Consumer Product Safety
Commission, Room 502, 4330 East West
Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814;
telephone (301) 504–7923.
Instructions: All submissions received
must include the agency name and
docket number for this rulemaking. All
comments received may be posted
without change, including any personal
identifiers, contact information, or other
personal information provided, to
https://www.regulations.gov. Do not
submit confidential business
information, trade secret information, or
other sensitive or protected information
electronically; if furnished at all, such
information should be submitted in
writing.
Docket: For access to the docket to
read background comments or
comments received, go to https://
www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
information about submitting
comments, call or write to Rockelle
Hammond, Office of the Secretary,
Consumer Product Safety Commission,
Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone (301)
504–6833.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April
28, 2010, the Commission published a
notice of proposed rulemaking (‘‘NPR’’)
in the Federal Register titled, ‘‘Safety
Standard for Bassinets and Cradles’’ (75
FR 22303). The Commission issued the
NPR pursuant to section 104(b) of the
Consumer Product Safety Improvement
Act of 2008 (‘‘CPSIA’’) which requires
the Commission to promulgate
consumer product safety standards for
durable infant or toddler products.
These standards are to be ‘‘substantially
the same as’’ applicable voluntary
standards or more stringent than the
voluntary standard if the Commission
concludes that more stringent
requirements would further reduce the
risk of injury associated with the
product. The NPR proposed a more
stringent safety standard for bassinets
and cradles that will further reduce the
risk of injury associated with these
products. The NPR provided a 75-day
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:03 Jul 19, 2010
Jkt 220001
public comment period which ended on
July 12, 2010.
Although the NPR was posted on the
CPSC’s Web site at the same time it was
published in the Federal Register, the
NPR was not posted on the
regulations.gov Web site until June 23,
2010. Additionally, after publication of
the NPR, Commission staff met with
various parties concerning test methods
described in the NPR. The Commission
is placing summaries of those meetings
into the administrative record. To
ensure that all interested parties have
adequate notice of this NPR and the
meeting summaries and the ability to
comment on them, the Commission is
reopening the docket to continue to
receive public comments until
September 10, 2010.
Dated: July 14, 2010.
Todd A. Stevenson,
Secretary, Consumer Product Safety
Commission.
[FR Doc. 2010–17596 Filed 7–19–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6355–01–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[EPA–R05–OAR–2010–0477; FRL–9176–4]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans and Designation
of Areas for Air Quality Planning
Purposes; Michigan; Redesignation of
the Allegan County Area to Attainment
for Ozone
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve
Michigan’s request to redesignate the
Allegan County, Michigan 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area to attainment for the
1997 8-hour ozone standard, because
the request meets the statutory
requirements for redesignation under
the Clean Air Act (CAA). The Michigan
Department of Natural Resources and
Environment (MDNRE) submitted this
request on May 24, 2010 and
supplemented it on June 16, 2010.
This proposed approval involves
several related actions. EPA is
proposing to determine that the Allegan
County area has attained the 8-hour
ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS). This determination
is based on three years of complete,
quality-assured ambient air quality
monitoring data for the 2007–2009
ozone seasons that demonstrate that the
8-hour ozone NAAQS has been attained
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
in the area. Preliminary data available
for 2010 is consistent with continued
attainment. 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 2021 in the area.
EPA is proposing to approve the 2005
emissions inventory submitted with the
redesignation request as meeting the
comprehensive emissions inventory
requirement of the CAA for the Allegan
County area. Finally, EPA is proposing
to find adequate and approve the State’s
2021 Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets
(MVEBs) for the Allegan County area.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before August 19, 2010.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05–
OAR–2010–0477, by one of the
following methods:
1. https://www.regulations.gov: Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
2. E-mail: bortzer.jay@epa.gov.
3. Fax: (312) 692–2054.
4. Mail: Jay Bortzer, Chief, Air
Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 77
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604.
5. Hand delivery: Jay Bortzer, Chief,
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–2010–
0477. 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://
E:\FR\FM\20JYP1.SGM
20JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 20, 2010 / Proposed Rules
www.regulations.gov, your e-mail
address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment
that is placed in the public docket and
made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA
recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment.
Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses. For additional instructions on
submitting comments, go to section I of
this document, ‘‘What Should I Consider
as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?’’
Docket: All documents in the docket
are listed in the https://
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, Attainment Planning and
Maintenance 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.
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
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 actions 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:03 Jul 19, 2010
Jkt 220001
Court of Appeals Decisions regarding
EPA’s Phase 1 Implementation Rule?
IV. What are the criteria for redesignation?
V. What is the effect of these actions?
VI. What is EPA’s analysis of the request?
A. Attainment Determination and
Redesignation
B. Adequacy of the MVEBs
C. 2005 Comprehensive Emissions
Inventory
VII. What actions is EPA taking?
VIII. 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 actions is EPA proposing to
take?
EPA is proposing to take several
related actions. EPA is proposing to
determine that the Allegan County
nonattainment area has attained the
1997 8-hour ozone standard and that the
area has met the requirements for
redesignation under section 107(d)(3)(E)
of the CAA. EPA is thus proposing to
approve the request from MDNRE to
change the legal designation of the
Allegan County area from
nonattainment to attainment for the 8hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is also
proposing to approve, as a revision to
the Michigan SIP, the State’s
maintenance plan (such approval being
one of the CAA criteria for redesignation
to attainment status). The maintenance
plan is designed to keep the Allegan
County area in attainment of the ozone
NAAQS through 2021. EPA is proposing
to approve the 2005 emissions inventory
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
42019
for the Allegan County area as meeting
the comprehensive inventory
requirements of section 172(c)(3) of the
CAA. If EPA’s determination of
attainment is finalized, under the
provisions of 40 CFR 51.918, the
requirement to submit certain planning
SIPs related to attainment (the
Reasonably Available Control Measure
(RACM) requirement of section 172(c)(1)
of the CAA, the Reasonable Further
Progress (RFP) and attainment
demonstration requirements of sections
172(c)(2) and (6) of the CAA, and the
requirement for contingency measures
of section 172(c)(9) of the CAA) are not
applicable to the area as long as it
continues to attain the NAAQS and
would cease to be applicable upon
redesignation. In addition, as set forth in
more detail below, in the context of
redesignations, EPA has interpreted
requirements related to attainment as
not applicable for purposes of
redesignation. Finally, EPA is proposing
to find adequate and approve the newlyestablished 2021 MVEBs for the Allegan
County area. The adequacy comment
period for the MVEBs began on June 17,
2010, with EPA’s posting of the
availability of the submittal on EPA’s
Adequacy Web site (at https://
www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/
transconf/adequacy.htm). The adequacy
comment period for these MVEBs ends
on July 19, 2010. Please see section VI.
B. of this rulemaking, ‘‘Adequacy of the
MVEBs,’’ for further explanation of this
process. We are proposing to find
adequate and approve the State’s 2021
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 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
8-hour standard, the ozone NAAQS was
based on a 1-hour standard. EPA
originally designated the Allegan
County area as an ozone nonattainment
area under section 107 of the 1977 CAA
on March 3, 1978 (43 FR 8962). EPA
revisited this original designation in
1991 to reflect new designation
requirements contained in the 1990
CAA. On November 6, 1991 (56 FR
56694), EPA retained the original
E:\FR\FM\20JYP1.SGM
20JYP1
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
42020
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 20, 2010 / Proposed Rules
nonattainment designation for Allegan.
At the time of the 1991 designations,
current monitoring data were not
available for this area, nor had the State
completed a redesignation request
showing that it complied with the
requirements of section 107(d)(3)(E) of
the CAA. Therefore, EPA designated the
area as nonattainment, but did not
establish a nonattainment classification,
establishing the area as an incomplete
data ozone nonattainment area. EPA
subsequently redesignated the Allegan
County area to attainment of the 1-hour
standard effective January, 16 2001. (See
65 FR 70490 (November 24, 2000)). This
attainment designation was thus in
effect at the time EPA revoked the
1-hour ozone NAAQS, on June 15, 2005.
On July 18, 1997 (62 FR 38856), EPA
promulgated an 8-hour ozone standard
of 0.08 parts per million parts (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, of the
CAA, 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
Allegan County area was designated as
a subpart 1, 8-hour ozone nonattainment
area by EPA on April 30, 2004 (69 FR
23857 and 23910), based on air quality
monitoring data from 2001–2003 (69 FR
23860).
40 CFR 50.10 and 40 CFR part 50,
Appendix I provide that the 1997 8-hour
ozone standard is attained when the
three-year average of the annual fourthhighest daily maximum 8-hour average
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:03 Jul 19, 2010
Jkt 220001
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, section 2.3(d).
The MDNRE submitted a request to
redesignate the Allegan County area to
attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard on May 12, 2010 and
supplemented the submittal on June 16,
2010. The redesignation request
includes three years of complete,
quality-assured data for the period of
2007 through 2009, indicating the
8-hour NAAQS for ozone, as
promulgated in 1997, had been attained
for the Allegan County 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
redesignation requirements in section
107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA.
On March 27, 2008 (73 FR 16436),
EPA promulgated a revised 8-hour
ozone standard of 0.075 ppm. In May
2008, States, environmental groups, and
industry groups filed petitions with the
DC Circuit Court of Appeals for review
of the 2008 ozone standards. In March
2009, the court granted EPA’s request to
stay the litigation so EPA could review
the standards and determine whether
they should be reconsidered. On
September 16, 2009, EPA announced
reconsideration of our 2008 decision
setting national standards for groundlevel ozone. The designation process for
that standard has been stayed. On
January 6, 2010, EPA proposed to set the
level of the primary 8-hour ozone
standard within the range of 0.060 to
0.070 ppm, rather than at 0.075 ppm.
We expect by September 2010 to have
completed our reconsideration of the
standard and also expect that thereafter
we will proceed with designations.
Therefore, the actions addressed in
today’s 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 (South Coast), the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit vacated EPA’s Phase 1
Implementation Rule for the 8-hour
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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
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
8-hour budgets were available for 8-hour
conformity determinations.
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
E:\FR\FM\20JYP1.SGM
20JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 20, 2010 / Proposed Rules
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
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 1997 8-Hour
Standard
With respect to the 1997 8-hour
standard, the court’s ruling rejected
EPA’s reasons for classifying areas
under subpart 1 for the 8-hour standard,
and remanded that matter to the
Agency. In its January 16, 2009,
proposed rulemaking in response to the
South Coast decision, EPA has proposed
to classify Allegan County under
subpart 2 as a moderate area. 74 FR
2936, 2944. If EPA finalizes this
rulemaking, the requirements under
subpart 2 will become applicable when
they are due, a deadline that EPA has
proposed to be one year after the
effective date of a final rulemaking
classifying areas as moderate or
marginal. 74 FR 2940–2941. Although a
future final decision by EPA to classify
this area under subpart 2 would trigger
additional future requirements for the
area, EPA believes that this does not
mean that redesignation cannot now go
forward. This belief is based upon: (1)
EPA’s longstanding policy of evaluating
requirements in accordance with the
requirements due at the time the request
is submitted; and, (2) consideration of
the inequity of applying retroactively
any requirements that might be applied
in the future.
First, at the time the redesignation
request was submitted, the Allegan
County area was not classified under
subpart 2, nor were there any subpart 2
requirements yet due for this area.
Under EPA’s longstanding
interpretation of section 107(d)(3)(E) of
the CAA, to qualify for redesignation,
States requesting redesignation to
attainment must meet only the relevant
SIP requirements that came due prior to
the submittal of a complete
redesignation request. See September 4,
1992, Calcagni memorandum
(‘‘Procedures for Processing Requests to
Redesignate Areas to Attainment,’’
Memorandum from John Calcagni,
Director, Air Quality Management
Division). See also Michael Shapiro
Memorandum, September 17, 1993, and
60 FR 12459, 12465–66 (March 7, 1995)
(Redesignation of Detroit-Ann Arbor).
See Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537
(7th Cir. 2004), which upheld EPA’s
redesignation rulemaking applying this
interpretation. See also 68 FR 25418,
25424, 25427 (May 12, 2003)
(Redesignation of St. Louis).
Moreover, it would be inequitable to
retroactively apply any new SIP
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:03 Jul 19, 2010
Jkt 220001
requirements that were not applicable at
the time the request was submitted. The
DC Circuit has recognized the inequity
in such retroactive rulemaking. In Sierra
Club v. Whitman, 285 F.3d 63 (DC Cir.
2002), the DC Circuit upheld a district
court’s ruling refusing to make
retroactive an EPA determination of
nonattainment that was past the
statutory due date. Such a
determination would have resulted in
the imposition of additional
requirements on the area. The court
stated: ‘‘Although EPA failed to make
the nonattainment determination within
the statutory time frame, Sierra Club’s
proposed solution only makes the
situation worse. Retroactive relief would
likely impose large costs on the States,
which would face fines and suits for not
implementing air pollution prevention
plans in 1997, even though they were
not on notice at the time.’’ Id. at 68.
Similarly here it would be unfair to
penalize the area by applying to it, for
purposes of redesignation, additional
SIP requirements under subpart 2 that
were not in effect or yet due at the time
it submitted its redesignation request.
3. Requirements Under the 1-Hour
Standard
With respect to the 1-hour standard
requirements, the Allegan County area
was an attainment area subject to a CAA
section 175A maintenance plan under
the 1-hour standard at the time that the
1-hour standard was revoked. Therefore,
the DC Circuit’s decisions with respect
to 1-hour nonattainment antibacksliding requirements 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 Allegan County
area is an attainment area subject to a
maintenance plan for the 1-hour
standard, and the NSR, contingency
measure (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 Air
Quality Management Dist. would not
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
42021
preclude EPA from 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
(TSDs) for Redesignation Ozone and
Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment
Areas,’’ Memorandum from G. T. Helms,
E:\FR\FM\20JYP1.SGM
20JYP1
42022
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 20, 2010 / Proposed Rules
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. What is the effect of these actions?
Approval of the redesignation request
would change the official designation of
the Allegan County area for the 1997
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 2021.
The maintenance plan includes
contingency measures as required under
CAA section 175A to remedy future
violations of the 8-hour NAAQS. It also
establishes MVEBs for the Allegan
County area of 3.93 tons per day (tpd)
VOC and 6.92 tpd NOX for 2021.
VI. What is EPA’s analysis of the
request?
A. Attainment Determination and
Redesignation
EPA is proposing to determine that
the Allegan County area has attained the
1997 8-hour ozone standard and that the
area has met all other applicable
redesignation criteria under CAA
section 107(d)(3)(E). The basis for EPA’s
proposed approvals of the redesignation
requests 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 Allegan County
area has attained the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. Whether an area is considered
to be attaining the 8-hour ozone NAAQS
is 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 the
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 EPA’s Air Quality
System (AQS). The monitors generally
should have remained at the same
location for the duration of the
monitoring period required for
determining attainment.
Michigan included in its
redesignation request certified ozone
monitoring data for the 2007 to 2009
ozone seasons. Michigan has qualityassured all of the ambient monitoring
data in accordance with 40 CFR 58.10,
and has recorded it in the AQS
database. The data meet the
completeness criteria in 40 CFR 50,
Appendix I, which requires a minimum
completeness of 75% annually and 90%
over each three-year period. Monitoring
data are 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
Monitor
2007 4th high
(ppm)
2008 4th high
(ppm)
2009 4th high
(ppm)
2007–2009
average (ppm)
Allegan .................................................................................
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
County
26–005–0003
0.094
0.073
0.076
0.081
Preliminary data available for 2010 are
consistent with continued attainment.
In addition, as discussed below with
respect to the maintenance plan,
MDNRE has committed to continue to
operate an EPA-approved monitoring
network as necessary to show ongoing
compliance with the NAAQS. MDNRE
remains obligated to continue to qualityassure monitoring data in accordance
with 40 CFR part 58 and to enter all data
into AQS in accordance with Federal
guidelines. In summary, EPA believes
that the data show that the Allegan
County area has attained the 1997 8hour ozone NAAQS.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:03 Jul 19, 2010
Jkt 220001
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 Allegan County
area under section 110 of the CAA
(general SIP requirements). We are also
proposing to determine 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 subpart 1 nonattainment
areas), in accordance with section
107(d)(3)(E)(v). In addition, with the
exception of the emissions inventory
under section 172(3), we have approved
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
all applicable requirements of the
Michigan SIP for purposes of
redesignation, in accordance with
section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii). As discussed
below, in this action EPA is proposing
to approve Michigan’s 2005 emissions
inventory as meeting the section
172(c)(3) comprehensive emissions
inventory requirement.
In proposing these determinations, we
have ascertained which SIP
requirements are applicable to the area
for purposes of redesignation, and have
determined that there are SIP measures
meeting those requirements and that
they are fully approved under section
110(k) of the CAA. As discussed more
fully below, for purposes of evaluating
a redesignation request, SIPs must be
fully approved only with respect to
requirements that became due prior to
E:\FR\FM\20JYP1.SGM
20JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 20, 2010 / Proposed Rules
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
the submission of the redesignation
request.
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,
12465–12466 (March 7, 1995)
(Redesignation of Detroit-Ann Arbor).
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 St. Louis).
If EPA’s proposal to determine that
the Allegan County area has attained the
1997 8-hour ozone standard is finalized,
pursuant to 40 CFR 51.918, the
requirements to submit certain planning
SIPs related to attainment, including
attainment demonstration requirements
(the RACM requirement of section
172(c)(1) of the CAA, the RFP and
attainment demonstration requirements
of sections 172(c)(2) and (c)(6) of the
CAA, and the requirement for
contingency measures of section
172(c)(9) of the CAA), will not be
applicable to the area as long as it
continues to attain the NAAQS and
would cease to apply upon
redesignation. In addition, in the
context of redesignations, EPA has
interpreted requirements related to
attainment as not applicable for
purposes of redesignation. For example,
in the General Preamble, EPA stated
that:
[t]he section 172(c)(9) requirements are
directed at ensuring RFP and attainment by
the applicable date. These requirements no
longer apply when an area has attained the
standard and is eligible for redesignation.
Furthermore, section 175A for maintenance
plans * * * provides specific requirements
for contingency measures that effectively
supersede the requirements of section
172(c)(9) for these areas.
‘‘General Preamble for the Interpretation of
Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of
1990,’’ (General Preamble) 57 FR 13498,
13564 (April 16, 1992).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:03 Jul 19, 2010
Jkt 220001
See also Calcagni memorandum at 6
(‘‘The requirements for reasonable
further progress and other measures
needed for attainment will not apply for
redesignations because they only have
meaning for areas not attaining the
standard.’’)
a. The Allegan County Area Has Met All
Applicable Requirements for Purposes
of Redesignation 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
State after reasonable public notice and
hearing, and, among other things, must:
Include enforceable emission
limitations and other control measures,
means or techniques necessary to meet
the requirements of the CAA; provide
for establishment and operation of
appropriate devices, methods, systems,
and procedures necessary to monitor
ambient air quality; provide for
implementation of a source permit
program to regulate the modification
and construction of any stationary
source within the areas covered by the
plan; include provisions for the
implementation of part C, Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) and part
D, NSR permit programs; include
criteria for stationary source emission
control measures, monitoring, and
reporting; include provisions for air
quality modeling; and provide 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,
May 12, 2005)). However, the section
110(a)(2)(D) requirements for a State are
not linked with a particular
nonattainment area’s designation and
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,
MDNRE has developed rules governing the control
of NOX emissions from Electric Generating Units
(EGUs), major non-EGU industrial boilers, major
cement kilns, and internal combustion engines.
EPA approved Michigan’s rules as fulfilling Phase
I of the NOX SIP Call on May 4, 2005 (70 FR 23029)
and as meeting Phase II of the NOX SIP Call on
January 29, 2008 (73 FR 5101).
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
42023
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
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 that 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)) and (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 1-hour ozone
redesignation (65 FR 37890 (June 19,
2000)), and in the Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania 1-hour 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 to the extent they are
applicable for purposes of
redesignation. 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. EPA has not yet taken
rulemaking action on these submittals;
however, such approval is not necessary
for redesignation.
E:\FR\FM\20JYP1.SGM
20JYP1
42024
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 20, 2010 / Proposed Rules
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
ii. Part D Requirements
EPA has determined that, if EPA
finalizes the approval of the emissions
inventories discussed in section VI.C. of
this rulemaking, the Michigan SIP will
meet the applicable SIP requirements
for the Allegan County area applicable
for purposes of redesignation under part
D of the CAA. 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.
Since the Allegan County area was
not classified under subpart 2, of Part D
at the time its redesignation request was
submitted, the subpart 2 requirements
do not apply for purposes of evaluating
the State’s redesignation request. The
applicable subpart 1 requirements are
contained in sections 172(c)(1)–(9) and
in section 176.
Subpart 1 Section 172 Requirements.
For purposes of evaluating this
redesignation request, the applicable
section 172 SIP requirements for the
Allegan County 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 RACM as
expeditiously as practicable and to
provide for attainment of the primary
NAAQS. 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 each area as components of the area’s
attainment demonstration. Because
attainment has been reached, no
additional measures are needed to
provide for attainment, and section
172(c)(1) requirements are no longer
considered to be applicable as long as
the area continues to attain the standard
until redesignation. 40 CFR 51.918.
The RFP requirement under section
172(c)(2) is defined as progress that
must be made toward attainment. This
requirement is not relevant for purposes
of redesignation because the Allegan
County area has monitored attainment
of the ozone NAAQS. (General
Preamble, 57 FR 13564). See also 40
CFR 51.918. In addition, because the
Allegan County area has attained the
ozone NAAQS and is no longer subject
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:03 Jul 19, 2010
Jkt 220001
to an RFP requirement, the requirement
to submit the section 172(c)(9)
contingency measures is not applicable
for purposes of redesignation. Id.
Section 172(c)(3) requires submission
and approval of a comprehensive,
accurate and current inventory of actual
emissions. As part of Michigan’s
redesignation request for the Allegan
County area, the State submitted a 2005
emissions inventory. As discussed
below in section VI.C., EPA is proposing
to approve the 2005 inventory,
submitted by Michigan along with the
redesignation request, as meeting the
section 172(c)(3) emissions inventory
requirement.
Section 172(c)(4) requires the
identification and quantification of
allowable emissions for major new and
modified stationary sources in an area,
and section 172(c)(5) requires 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 nonattainment NSR program be
approved prior to redesignation,
provided that the area demonstrates
maintenance of the NAAQS without
part D NSR. A more 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 Allegan
County area will be able to maintain the
standard without part D NSR in effect;
therefore, the State need not have a fully
approved part D NSR program prior to
approval of the redesignation request.
The State’s PSD program will become
effective in the Allegan County 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)
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
applicable for purposes of
redesignation.
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
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 66607 and 61
FR 66609, respectively). Section 176(c)
of the CAA was amended by provisions
contained in the Safe, Accountable,
Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity
Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEALU),
which was signed into law on August
10, 2005 (Pub. L. 109–59). Among the
changes Congress made to this section
of the CAA were streamlined
requirements for State conformity SIPs.
Michigan is in the process of updating
its transportation conformity SIP to
meet these new requirements. Michigan
E:\FR\FM\20JYP1.SGM
20JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 20, 2010 / Proposed Rules
has submitted onroad motor vehicle
budgets for the Allegan County area of
3.93 tpd VOC and 6.92 tpd NOX for
2021. 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.
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
b. The Allegan County Area Has a Fully
Approved Applicable SIP Under Section
110(k) of the CAA
If EPA issues a final approval of the
emissions inventory under section
172(c)(3), EPA will have fully approved
the Michigan SIP for the Allegan County
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 various required SIP
elements under the 1-hour ozone
standard. In this action, EPA is
proposing to approve Michigan’s 2005
emissions inventory for the Allegan
County area as meeting the requirement
of section 172(c)(3) of the CAA. No
Allegan County 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 Allegan
County area is due to permanent and
enforceable reductions in emissions
resulting from implementation of the
SIP, Federal measures, and other Stateadopted measures.
In making this demonstration,
MDNRE has calculated the change in
emissions between 2005 and 2008.
Michigan is using the 2005 emissions
inventory developed in conjunction
with the Lake Michigan Air Directors
Consortium (LADCO) as the
nonattainment inventory. The State
developed an attainment inventory for
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:03 Jul 19, 2010
Jkt 220001
2008, one of the years the Allegan
County 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 Allegan County
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 area:
i. Stationary Source NOX Rules
Michigan has developed rules
governing the control of NOX emissions
from Electric Generating Units (EGUs),
major non-EGU industrial boilers, major
cement kilns, and internal combustion
engines. EPA approved Michigan’s rules
as fulfilling Phase I of the NOX SIP Call
on May 4, 2005 (70 FR 23029) and as
meeting Phase II of the NOX SIP Call on
January 29, 2008 (73 FR 5101). Michigan
began complying with Phase I of this
rule in 2004. Compliance with Phase II
of the SIP Call, which requires the
control NOX emissions from large
internal combustion engines, began in
2007.
42025
standards that limit the sulfur content of
diesel fuel. A second phase, which took
effect in 2007, further reduced the
highway diesel fuel sulfur content to 15
parts per million, leading to additional
reductions in combustion NOX and VOC
emissions. EPA expects this rule to
achieve a 95% reduction in NOX
emissions from diesel trucks and busses.
Non-Road Diesel Rule. EPA
promulgated this rule in 2004. This rule
applies to diesel engines used in
industries, such as construction,
agriculture, and mining. EPA estimates
that compliance with this rule will cut
NOX emissions from non-road diesel
engines by up to 90%. This rule is
currently achieving emission
reductions, but will not be fully
implemented until 2010.
iii. 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. Affected
States were required to comply with
Phase I of the SIP Call beginning in
2004, and with Phase II beginning in
2007. The reduction in NOX emissions
has resulted in lower concentrations of
transported ozone entering the Allegan
County area. Between 2005 and 2008,
units subject to Phase I of the NOX SIP
ii. Federal Emission Control Measures
Call have reduced ozone season
Reductions in VOC and NOX
emissions by 68,000 tons. In addition,
emissions have occurred statewide and
under Phase II of the NOX SIP Call, EPA
in upwind areas as a result of Federal
estimates that emissions from cement
emission control measures, with
kilns have been reduced by 30% and
additional emission reductions expected emissions from internal combustion
to occur in the future. Federal emission
engines have been reduced by 80–91%.
control measures include the following. Emission reductions resulting from
Tier 2 Emission Standards for
regulations developed in response to the
Vehicles and Gasoline Sulfur Standards. NOX SIP Call are permanent and
These emission control requirements
enforceable.
result in lower VOC and NOX emissions
b. Emission Reductions
from new cars and light duty trucks,
For the point, area and nonroad
including sport utility vehicles. The
sectors, Michigan is using the 2005
Federal rules were phased in between
emissions inventory developed in
2004 and 2009. The EPA has estimated
conjunction with LADCO (Base M
that, by the end of the phase-in period,
Round 5) as the nonattainment
the following vehicle NOX emission
inventory. The main purpose of LADCO
reductions will occur nationwide:
is to provide technical assessments for
passenger cars (light duty vehicles)
and assistance to its member States on
(77%); light duty trucks, minivans, and
sports utility vehicles (86%); and, larger problems of air quality. LADCO’s
sports utility vehicles, vans, and heavier primary geographic focus is the area
encompassed by its member States
trucks (69 to 95%). VOC emission
(Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, and
reductions are expected to range from
Wisconsin) and any areas which affect
12 to 18%, depending on vehicle class,
air quality in its member States. In
over the same period. Some of these
developing the 2005 nonattainment year
emission reductions had occurred by
inventory, MDNRE provided point and
the 2006–2008 period used to
area source inventories to LADCO.
demonstrate attainment, and additional
LADCO processed these inventories
emission reductions will occur during
through the Emission Modeling System
the maintenance period.
to generate summer weekday emissions
Heavy-Duty Diesel Engine Rule. EPA
for VOC and NOX. The point source data
issued this rule in July 2000. This rule,
which went into effect in 2004, includes provided to LADCO is a combination of
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\20JYP1.SGM
20JYP1
42026
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 20, 2010 / Proposed Rules
EPA’s EGU inventory and source
specific data reported to MDNRE for
non-EGU sources. Area source
emissions were estimated by MDNRE
using published Emission Inventory
Improvement Program methodologies or
methodologies shared by other States.
The methodology used for each area
source category was documented.
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 and
emissions estimates were developed for
commercial marine vessels, aircraft, and
railroads (MAR), three nonroad
categories not included in NMIM.
Onroad mobile emissions were prepared
by the Michigan Department of
Transportation (MDOT) using the
MOBILE6.2 emissions model.
Michigan is using 2008 for the
attainment year inventory. Michigan
used linear regression analysis to
extrapolate area source emissions
estimates. Nonroad emissions were
calcualted using NMIM, as described
above, except that the MAR portion of
the nonroad sector was interpolated
from LADCO 2005, 2009, and 2018
MAR emissions estimates. Point source
emissions were calculated by MDNRE
using the 2008 Michigan Air Emissions
Reporting System point source
inventory. Onroad mobile emissions
were prepared by MDOT using the
MOBILE6.2 emissions model.
Using the inventories described above
Michigan has documented changes in
VOC and NOX emissions from 2005 to
2008 for the Allegan County area.
Emissions data are shown in Table 2,
below.
TABLE 2—COMPARISON OF 2005 AND 2008 VOC AND NOX EMISSIONS FOR THE ALLEGAN COUNTY AREA (TPD)
VOC
2005
NOX
Net change
(2005–2008)
2008
2005
Net change
(2005–2008)
2008
Point .........................................................
Area ..........................................................
Onroad .....................................................
Nonroad ...................................................
2.02
10.00
4.70
6.16
1.52
9.33
3.93
4.59
¥0.50
¥0.67
¥0.77
¥1.57
2.33
1.00
8.43
4.44
3.45
1.02
6.92
4.55
1.12
0.02
¥1.51
0.11
Total ..................................................
22.88
19.37
¥3.51
16.20
15.94
¥0.26
Table 2 shows that the Allegan
County area reduced VOC emissions by
3.51 tpd and NOX emissions by 0.26 tpd
between 2005 and 2008. Based on the
information summarized above,
Michigan has adequately demonstrated
that the improvement in air quality is
due to permanent and enforceable
emissions reductions.
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
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 Allegan County
nonattainment area to attainment status,
Michigan submitted a SIP revision to
provide for the maintenance of the 8hour ozone NAAQS in the area through
2021.
a. Maintenance Plan Requirements
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 Mar<15>2010
15:03 Jul 19, 2010
Jkt 220001
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 MDNRE developed an emissions
inventory for 2008, one of the years
used to demonstrate monitored
attainment of the 8-hour NAAQS, as
described above. The attainment level of
emissions is summarized in Table 2,
above.
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
c. Demonstration of Maintenance
Along with the redesignation request,
MDNRE submitted revisions to the
Michigan 8-hour ozone SIP to include a
maintenance plan for the Allegan
County area, in compliance with section
175A of the CAA. The demonstration
shows maintenance of the 8-hour ozone
standard through 2021 by showing that
current and future emissions of VOC
and NOX for the Allegan County 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
inventory projections for the years 2018
and 2021 to demonstrate maintenance.
MDOT calculated onroad emissions for
2018 and 2021 using the MOBILE6.2
emissions model. MDEQ used the 2018
Base M, Round 5 emissions inventory
developed by LADCO for the remaining
source categories for 2018. For 2021,
MDNRE estimated emissions for the
remaining source categories using linear
regression analysis. NOX reductions
from CAIR are not included in the 2018
and 2021 emissions estimates.
E:\FR\FM\20JYP1.SGM
20JYP1
42027
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 20, 2010 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 3—COMPARISON OF 2008, 2018, AND 2021 VOC AND NOX EMISSIONS FOR THE ALLEGAN COUNTY AREA (TPD)
VOC
2008
2018
2021
NOX
Net
change
(2008–
2018)
Net
change
(2008–
2021)
2008
2018
2021
Net
change
(2008–
2018)
Net
change
(2008–
2021)
Point ..........................................................
Area ...........................................................
Onroad ......................................................
Nonroad .....................................................
1.52
9.33
3.93
4.59
2.79
8.61
2.53
3.88
2.91
8.16
2.28
2.20
1.27
¥0.72
¥1.40
¥0.71
1.39
¥1.17
¥1.65
¥2.39
4.45
1.02
6.92
4.55
2.10
1.09
3.10
2.04
2.13
1.11
2.71
2.11
¥2.35
0.07
¥3.82
¥2.51
¥2.32
0.09
¥4.21
¥2.44
Total ............................................
19.37
17.81
15.55
¥1.56
¥3.82
16.94
8.33
8.06
¥8.61
¥8.88
The emission projections show that
Michigan does not expect emissions in
the Allegan County area to exceed the
level of the 2008 attainment year
inventory during the maintenance
period, even without implementation of
CAIR. (See also discussion below). As
shown in Table 3, VOC and NOX
emissions in the Allegan County area
are projected to decrease by 3.82 tpd
and 8.88 tpd, respectively, between
2008 and 2021.
In addition, LADCO performed a
regional modeling analysis to address
the effect of the recent court decision
vacating CAIR. This analysis is
documented in LADCO’s ‘‘Regional Air
Quality Analyses for Ozone, PM2.5, and
Regional Haze: Final Technical Support
Document (Supplement), September 12,
2008.’’ LADCO produced a base year
inventory for 2005 and future year
inventories for 2009, 2012, and 2018. To
estimate future EGU NOX emissions
without implementation of CAIR,
LADCO projected 2007 EGU NOX
emissions for all States in the modeling
domain based on Energy Information
Administration growth rates by State
and fuel type for the years 2009, 2012,
and 2018. The assumed 2007–2018
growth rates were 8.8% for Illinois,
Iowa, Missouri, and Wisconsin; 13.5%
for Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, and
Ohio; and 15.1% for Minnesota.
Emissions were adjusted by applying
legally enforceable controls (e.g.,
consent decree or rule requirements).
EGU NOX emissions projections for the
States of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan,
Ohio, and Wisconsin are shown below
in Table 4. The emission projections
used for the modeling analysis do not
account for certain relevant factors such
as allowance trading and potential
changes in operation of existing control
devices. The NOX projections indicate
that, due to the NOX SIP Call, certain
State rules, consent decrees resulting
from enforcement cases, and ongoing
implementation of a number of mobile
source rules, EGU NOX is not expected
to increase in Michigan, or any of the
States in the immediate region, and
overall NOX emissions in Michigan and
the nearby region are expected to
decrease substantially between 2005
and 2020.2 Total NOX emissions
projections are shown in Table 5, below.
TABLE 4—EGU NOX EMISSIONS FOR THE STATES OF ILLINOIS, INDIANA, MICHIGAN, OHIO, AND WISCONSIN (TPD) FOR
2007, 2009, 2012, AND 2018
2007
2012
2018
1,582
EGU .................................................
2009
1,552
1,516
1,524
TABLE 5—TOTAL NOX EMISSIONS FOR THE STATES OF ILLINOIS, INDIANA, MICHIGAN, OHIO, AND WISCONSIN (TPD) FOR
THE YEARS 2005, 2009, 2012, AND 2018
2005
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
2012
2018
8,260
Total NOX ........................................
2009
6,778
6,076
4,759
Given that 2007 is one of the years
Michigan used to demonstrate
monitored attainment of the 8-hour
NAAQS, Table 4 shows that EGU NOX
emissions will remain below attainment
levels through 2018. If the rate of
emissions increase between 2012 and
2018 continues through 2021, EGU NOX
emissions would still remain below
attainment levels in 2020. Furthermore,
as shown in Table 5, total NOX
emissions clearly continue to decrease
substantially throughout the
maintenance period.
Ozone modeling performed by
LADCO supports the conclusion that the
Allegan County area will maintain the
8-hour ozone standard throughout the
maintenance period. Peak modeled
ozone levels in the area for 2012 and
2018 are 0.083 ppm and 0.078 ppm,
respectively. These projected ozone
levels were modeled applying only
legally enforceable controls; e.g.,
consent decrees, rules, the NOX SIP
Call, Federal motor vehicle control
programs, etc. Because these programs
will remain in place, emission levels,
and therefore ozone levels, would not be
expected to increase significantly
between 2018 and 2021. Given that
projected emissions and modeled ozone
levels continue to decrease substantially
through 2018, it is reasonable to infer
that a 2021 modeling run would also
show levels well below the 1997 8-hour
ozone standard.
EPA has considered the relationship
of the maintenance plans to the
reductions required pursuant to CAIR.
This rule was remanded to EPA, and the
process of developing a replacement
rule is ongoing. However, the remand of
CAIR does not alter the requirements of
2 There is more uncertainty about the use of SO
2
allowances and future projections for SO2
emissions; thus, further review and discussion will
be needed regarding the appropriateness of using
these emission projections for future PM2.5 SIP
approvals and redesignation requests.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:03 Jul 19, 2010
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\20JYP1.SGM
20JYP1
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
42028
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 20, 2010 / Proposed Rules
the NOX SIP Call, and Michigan has
demonstrated maintenance without any
additional CAIR requirements (beyond
those required by the NOX SIP Call).
Therefore, EPA believes that Michigan’s
demonstration of maintenance under
sections 175A and 107(d)(3)(E) is valid.
The NOX SIP Call requires States to
make significant, specific emissions
reductions. It also provided a
mechanism, the NOX Budget Trading
Program, which States could use to
achieve those reductions. When EPA
promulgated CAIR, it discontinued
(starting in 2009) the NOX Budget
Trading Program, 40 CFR 51.121(r), but
created another mechanism, the CAIR
ozone season trading program, which
States could use to meet their SIP Call
obligations (70 FR 25289–90). EPA notes
that a number of States, when
submitting SIP revisions to require
sources to participate in the CAIR ozone
season trading program, removed the
SIP provisions that required sources to
participate in the NOX Budget Trading
Program. In addition, because the
provisions of CAIR, including the ozone
season NOX trading program, remain in
place during the remand, EPA is not
currently administering the NOX Budget
Trading Program. Nonetheless, all
States, regardless of the current status of
their regulations that previously
required participation in the NOX
Budget Trading Program, will remain
subject to all of the requirements in the
NOX SIP Call even if the existing CAIR
ozone season trading program is
withdrawn or altered. In addition, the
anti-backsliding provisions of 40 CFR
51.905(f) specifically provide that the
provisions of the NOX SIP Call,
including the statewide NOX emission
budgets, continue to apply after
revocation of the 1-hour standard.
All NOX SIP Call States have SIPs that
currently satisfy their obligations under
the SIP Call, the SIP Call reduction
requirements are being met, and EPA
will continue to enforce the
requirements of the NOX SIP Call even
after any response to the CAIR remand.
For these reasons, EPA believes that
regardless of the status of the CAIR
program, the NOX SIP Call requirements
can be relied upon in demonstrating
maintenance. Here, Michigan has
demonstrated maintenance based in part
on those requirements.
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:03 Jul 19, 2010
Jkt 220001
attainment level of emissions is the
level of emissions during one of the
years in which the area met the NAAQS.
The Allegan County area attained the 8hour ozone NAAQS during the 2007–
2009 time period. Michigan used 2008
as the attainment level of emissions for
the area. For the Allegan County area,
the emissions from point, area, nonroad,
and mobile sources in 2008 equaled
19.37 tpd of VOC. In the maintenance
plan, MDNRE projected emission levels
for 2021 to be 15.55 tpd of VOC. The SIP
submissions demonstrate that the
Allegan County 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, 3.82 tpd
of VOC for 2021. By this same method,
8.88 tpd (i.e., 16.94 tpd less 8.06 tpd) is
the safety margin for NOX for 2021. 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.
d. Monitoring Network
Michigan currently operates one
ozone monitor in Allegan County. In its
redesignation request, MDNRE has
committed to continue to operate an
EPA-approved monitoring network as
necessary to demonstrate ongoing
compliance with the NAAQS. Michigan
remains obligated to continue to quality
assure monitoring data in accordance
with 40 CFR part 58 and enter all data
into the AQS in accordance with
Federal guidelines.
e. Verification of Continued Attainment
Continued attainment of the ozone
NAAQS in the Allegan County 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 Allegan County area
consists of a plan to continue ambient
ozone monitoring in accordance with
the requirements of 40 CFR part 58.
MDNRE will also continue to develop
and submit periodic emission
inventories as required by the Federal
Consolidated Emissions Reporting Rule
(67 FR 39602, June 10, 2002) 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
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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
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 Allegan County
area to address possible future ozone air
quality problems. The contingency plan
adopted by Michigan has two levels of
response, an action level response and
a contingency measure response.
An action level response will be
triggered when the two-year average of
the annual fourth-highest daily peak 8hour ozone concentration is 0.085 ppm
or higher within the maintenance area.
An action level response will consist of
Michigan performing a review of the
circumstances leading to the high
monitored values. MDNRE will conduct
this review within six months following
the close of the ozone season. If MDNRE
determines that contingency measure
implementation is necessary to prevent
a future violation of the NAAQS,
MDNRE will select and implement a
measure that can be implemented
promptly.
A contingency measure response will
be triggered by a violation of the 1997
8-hour ozone standard (a three-year
average of the annual fourth-highest
daily maximum 8-hour 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
measure is dependent on the process
needed for legal adoption and source
compliance, which varies for each
measure. MDNRE 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 after State certification of the
violation. The State has confirmed
EPA’s interpretation that this
commitment means that the measure
E:\FR\FM\20JYP1.SGM
20JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 20, 2010 / Proposed Rules
will be adopted and implemented
within 18 months of being triggered.
MDNRE included the following list of
potential contingency measures in the
maintenance plan:
i. Reduced VOC content in
architectural, industrial, and
maintenance coating 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;
vii. Food preparation flame broiler
control rule; and
viii. Lower Reid vapor pressure
gasoline program.
g. Provisions for Future Updates of the
Ozone Maintenance Plan
As required by section 175A(b) of the
CAA, MDNRE commits to submit to the
EPA an updated ozone maintenance
plan eight years after redesignation of
the Allegan County area to cover an
additional ten-year period beyond the
initial ten-year maintenance period. As
required by section 175A of the CAA,
Michigan has committed to retain the
VOC and NOX control measures
contained in the SIP prior to
redesignation.
EPA has concluded that the
maintenance plan for Allegan County
adequately addresses the five basic
components of a maintenance plan:
attainment inventory, maintenance
demonstration, monitoring network,
verification of continued attainment,
and a contingency plan. Thus EPA
proposes to find that the maintenance
plan SIP revision submitted by
Michigan for the Allegan County area
meets the requirements of section 175A
of the CAA.
B. Adequacy of the MVEBs
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
1. How are MVEBs developed and what
are the MVEBs for the Allegan County
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
emission control strategy SIP revisions
(e.g., RFP and attainment demonstration
SIP revisions) and ozone maintenance
plans may include 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:03 Jul 19, 2010
Jkt 220001
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, as applicable.
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).
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 SIP. 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 approve or find that
the MVEBs are ‘‘adequate’’ for use in
determining transportation conformity.
Once EPA affirmatively approves or
finds the submitted MVEBs to be
adequate for transportation conformity
purposes, the MVEBs must be 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
comment period; and, (3) EPA’s finding
of adequacy. The process of determining
the adequacy of submitted SIP MVEBs
is codified at 40 CFR 93.118.
The maintenance plan submitted by
Michigan for the Allegan County area
contains new VOC and NOX MVEBs for
2021. The availability of the SIP
submission with these 2021 MVEBs was
announced for public comment on
EPA’s Adequacy Web site on June 17,
2010, at: https://www.epa.gov/otaq/
stateresources/transconf/currsips.htm.
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
42029
The EPA public comment period on
adequacy of the 2021 MVEBs for the
Allegan County area closes on July 19,
2010.
EPA, through this rulemaking, is
proposing to approve the MVEBs for use
to determine transportation conformity
in the Allegan County area because the
MVEBs submitted by MDNRE meet the
adequacy requirements contained in
EPA’s conformity rule (40 CFR
93.118(e)(4)), and 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. MDNRE has determined the
2021 MVEBs for the Allegan County
area to be 3.93 tpd for VOC and 6.92 tpd
for NOX. These MVEBs exceed the
onroad mobile source VOC and NOX
emissions projected by MDNRE for
2021, as summarized in Table 3 above
(‘‘onroad’’ source sector). MDNRE
decided to include safety margins
(described further below) of 1.65 tpd for
VOC and 3.58 tpd for NOX in the
MVEBs to provide for mobile source
growth. Michigan has demonstrated that
the Allegan County area can maintain
the 8-hour ozone NAAQS with mobile
source emissions of 3.93 tpd for VOC
and 6.92 tpd for NOX, including the
allocated safety margins, since total
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 3, the emissions in the
Allegan County area are projected to
have safety margins of 3.82 tpd for VOC
and 8.88 tpd for NOX in 2021 (the
difference between the attainment year,
2008, emissions and the projected 2021
emissions for all sources in the Allegan
County 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 MDNRE
contain safety margins for mobile
sources smaller than the allowable
safety margins reflected in the total
emissions for the Allegan County area.
The State is not requesting allocation to
the MVEBs 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 2021 contained in
the demonstration of maintenance, the
E:\FR\FM\20JYP1.SGM
20JYP1
42030
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 20, 2010 / Proposed Rules
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.
C. 2005 Comprehensive Emissions
Inventory
As discussed above, section 172(c)(3)
of the CAA requires nonattainment
areas to submit a comprehensive,
accurate and current inventory of actual
emissions. As part of Michigan’s
redesignation request for the Allegan
County area, the State submitted a 2005
emissions inventory. This inventory is
discussed above in section VI.A.3.b. and
summarized in Table 2. EPA is
proposing to approve this 2005
inventory as meeting the section
172(c)(3) emissions inventory
requirement.
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
VII. What actions is EPA taking?
EPA is proposing to determine that
the Allegan County, Michigan area has
attained the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
EPA is proposing to approve the
redesignation of the Allegan County
area from nonattainment to attainment
for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
After evaluating the redesignation
request submitted by Michigan, EPA
believes that the request meets the
redesignation criteria set forth in section
107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. The final
approval of this redesignation request
would change the official designation
for the Allegan County area from
nonattainment to attainment for the
1997 8-hour ozone standard. EPA is also
proposing to approve the maintenance
plan SIP revision for the Allegan County
area. EPA’s proposed approval of the
maintenance plan is based on the State’s
demonstration that the plan meets the
requirements of section 175A of the
CAA, as described more fully above.
EPA is proposing to approve MDNRE’s
2005 emissions inventory for the
Allegan County area as meeting the
requirements of section 172(c)(3) of the
CAA. Finally, EPA finds adequate and
is proposing to approve the State’s 2021
MVEBs for the Allegan County area.
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the CAA, redesignation of an
area to attainment and the
accompanying approval of a
maintenance plan under section
107(d)(3)(E) are actions that affect the
status of a geographical area and do not
impose any additional regulatory
requirements on sources beyond those
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:03 Jul 19, 2010
Jkt 220001
imposed by State law. A redesignation
to attainment does not in and of itself
create any new requirements, but rather
results in the applicability of
requirements contained in the CAA for
areas that have been redesignated to
attainment. Moreover, 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 Clean Air Act. Accordingly, these
actions merely do not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by
State law and the Clean Air Act. For that
reason, these actions:
• Are not ‘‘significant regulatory
actions’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993);
• Do not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Are 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.);
• Do not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Do not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Are 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);
• Are 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 Clean Air Act;
and
• Do 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
redesignation is an action that affects
the status of a geographical area and
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
does not impose any new regulatory
requirements on Tribes, impact any
existing sources of air pollution on
Tribal lands, nor impair the
maintenance of ozone national ambient
air quality standards in Tribal lands.
However, because there are Tribal lands
located in Allegan County, we provided
the affected Tribe with the opportunity
to consult with EPA on the
redesignation. The affected Tribe raised
no concerns with the proposed rule.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Ozone, Nitrogen dioxides,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic
compounds.
40 CFR Part 81
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: July 8, 2010.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2010–17680 Filed 7–19–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0080; FRL–9176–6]
RIN 2060–AQ26
Amendments to National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Area Source Standards for
Prepared Feeds Manufacturing
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing three
amendments to the regulatory text in the
prepared feeds manufacturing area
source rule. First, this action would
correct the date for new sources to
submit a Notification of Compliance
Status (NOCS) form. Second, this action
would correct information that needs to
be included in the Notification of
Compliance Report for those small
facilities that are not required to install
cyclones on their pelleting operations.
Third, this action would add language
to the regulatory text requiring submittal
of the annual compliance certification
report that was inadvertently left out of
the final rule. These corrections and
clarifications would not change the
E:\FR\FM\20JYP1.SGM
20JYP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 138 (Tuesday, July 20, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 42018-42030]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-17680]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[EPA-R05-OAR-2010-0477; FRL-9176-4]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation
of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Michigan; Redesignation of
the Allegan County Area to Attainment for Ozone
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve Michigan's request to redesignate
the Allegan County, Michigan 8-hour ozone nonattainment area to
attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, because the request
meets the statutory requirements for redesignation under the Clean Air
Act (CAA). The Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Environment
(MDNRE) submitted this request on May 24, 2010 and supplemented it on
June 16, 2010.
This proposed approval involves several related actions. EPA is
proposing to determine that the Allegan County area has attained the 8-
hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). This
determination is based on three years of complete, quality-assured
ambient air quality monitoring data for the 2007-2009 ozone seasons
that demonstrate that the 8-hour ozone NAAQS has been attained in the
area. Preliminary data available for 2010 is consistent with continued
attainment. 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 2021 in the area.
EPA is proposing to approve the 2005 emissions inventory submitted
with the redesignation request as meeting the comprehensive emissions
inventory requirement of the CAA for the Allegan County area. Finally,
EPA is proposing to find adequate and approve the State's 2021 Motor
Vehicle Emission Budgets (MVEBs) for the Allegan County area.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 19, 2010.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2010-0477, by one of the following methods:
1. https://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
2. E-mail: bortzer.jay@epa.gov.
3. Fax: (312) 692-2054.
4. Mail: Jay Bortzer, Chief, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604.
5. Hand delivery: Jay Bortzer, Chief, 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-
2010-0477. 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://
[[Page 42019]]
www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact
information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you
submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to
consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special
characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses. For additional instructions on submitting comments, go to
section I of this document, ``What Should I Consider as I Prepare My
Comments for EPA?''
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the https://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, Attainment Planning and Maintenance 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 actions 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. What is the effect of these actions?
VI. What is EPA's analysis of the request?
A. Attainment Determination and Redesignation
B. Adequacy of the MVEBs
C. 2005 Comprehensive Emissions Inventory
VII. What actions is EPA taking?
VIII. 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 actions is EPA proposing to take?
EPA is proposing to take several related actions. EPA is proposing
to determine that the Allegan County nonattainment area has attained
the 1997 8-hour ozone standard and that the area has met the
requirements for redesignation under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA.
EPA is thus proposing to approve the request from MDNRE to change the
legal designation of the Allegan County area from nonattainment to
attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is also proposing to
approve, as a revision to the Michigan SIP, the State's maintenance
plan (such approval being one of the CAA criteria for redesignation to
attainment status). The maintenance plan is designed to keep the
Allegan County area in attainment of the ozone NAAQS through 2021. EPA
is proposing to approve the 2005 emissions inventory for the Allegan
County area as meeting the comprehensive inventory requirements of
section 172(c)(3) of the CAA. If EPA's determination of attainment is
finalized, under the provisions of 40 CFR 51.918, the requirement to
submit certain planning SIPs related to attainment (the Reasonably
Available Control Measure (RACM) requirement of section 172(c)(1) of
the CAA, the Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) and attainment
demonstration requirements of sections 172(c)(2) and (6) of the CAA,
and the requirement for contingency measures of section 172(c)(9) of
the CAA) are not applicable to the area as long as it continues to
attain the NAAQS and would cease to be applicable upon redesignation.
In addition, as set forth in more detail below, in the context of
redesignations, EPA has interpreted requirements related to attainment
as not applicable for purposes of redesignation. Finally, EPA is
proposing to find adequate and approve the newly-established 2021 MVEBs
for the Allegan County area. The adequacy comment period for the MVEBs
began on June 17, 2010, with EPA's posting of the availability of the
submittal on EPA's Adequacy Web site (at https://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/adequacy.htm). The adequacy comment period for
these MVEBs ends on July 19, 2010. Please see section VI. B. of this
rulemaking, ``Adequacy of the MVEBs,'' for further explanation of this
process. We are proposing to find adequate and approve the State's 2021
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 8-hour standard, the ozone NAAQS
was based on a 1-hour standard. EPA originally designated the Allegan
County area as an ozone nonattainment area under section 107 of the
1977 CAA on March 3, 1978 (43 FR 8962). EPA revisited this original
designation in 1991 to reflect new designation requirements contained
in the 1990 CAA. On November 6, 1991 (56 FR 56694), EPA retained the
original
[[Page 42020]]
nonattainment designation for Allegan. At the time of the 1991
designations, current monitoring data were not available for this area,
nor had the State completed a redesignation request showing that it
complied with the requirements of section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA.
Therefore, EPA designated the area as nonattainment, but did not
establish a nonattainment classification, establishing the area as an
incomplete data ozone nonattainment area. EPA subsequently redesignated
the Allegan County area to attainment of the 1-hour standard effective
January, 16 2001. (See 65 FR 70490 (November 24, 2000)). This
attainment designation was thus in effect at the time EPA revoked the
1-hour ozone NAAQS, on June 15, 2005.
On July 18, 1997 (62 FR 38856), EPA promulgated an 8-hour ozone
standard of 0.08 parts per million parts (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, of the CAA, 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
Allegan County area was designated as a subpart 1, 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area by EPA on April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23857 and 23910),
based on air quality monitoring data from 2001-2003 (69 FR 23860).
40 CFR 50.10 and 40 CFR part 50, Appendix I provide that the 1997
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, section 2.3(d).
The MDNRE submitted a request to redesignate the Allegan County
area to attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard on May 12, 2010
and supplemented the submittal on June 16, 2010. The redesignation
request includes three years of complete, quality-assured data for the
period of 2007 through 2009, indicating the 8-hour NAAQS for ozone, as
promulgated in 1997, had been attained for the Allegan County 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 redesignation requirements in section
107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA.
On March 27, 2008 (73 FR 16436), EPA promulgated a revised 8-hour
ozone standard of 0.075 ppm. In May 2008, States, environmental groups,
and industry groups filed petitions with the DC Circuit Court of
Appeals for review of the 2008 ozone standards. In March 2009, the
court granted EPA's request to stay the litigation so EPA could review
the standards and determine whether they should be reconsidered. On
September 16, 2009, EPA announced reconsideration of our 2008 decision
setting national standards for ground-level ozone. The designation
process for that standard has been stayed. On January 6, 2010, EPA
proposed to set the level of the primary 8-hour ozone standard within
the range of 0.060 to 0.070 ppm, rather than at 0.075 ppm. We expect by
September 2010 to have completed our reconsideration of the standard
and also expect that thereafter we will proceed with designations.
Therefore, the actions addressed in today's 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 (South Coast), 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 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.
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
[[Page 42021]]
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 1997 8-Hour Standard
With respect to the 1997 8-hour standard, the court's ruling
rejected EPA's reasons for classifying areas under subpart 1 for the 8-
hour standard, and remanded that matter to the Agency. In its January
16, 2009, proposed rulemaking in response to the South Coast decision,
EPA has proposed to classify Allegan County under subpart 2 as a
moderate area. 74 FR 2936, 2944. If EPA finalizes this rulemaking, the
requirements under subpart 2 will become applicable when they are due,
a deadline that EPA has proposed to be one year after the effective
date of a final rulemaking classifying areas as moderate or marginal.
74 FR 2940-2941. Although a future final decision by EPA to classify
this area under subpart 2 would trigger additional future requirements
for the area, EPA believes that this does not mean that redesignation
cannot now go forward. This belief is based upon: (1) EPA's
longstanding policy of evaluating requirements in accordance with the
requirements due at the time the request is submitted; and, (2)
consideration of the inequity of applying retroactively any
requirements that might be applied in the future.
First, at the time the redesignation request was submitted, the
Allegan County area was not classified under subpart 2, nor were there
any subpart 2 requirements yet due for this area. Under EPA's
longstanding interpretation of section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA, to
qualify for redesignation, States requesting redesignation to
attainment must meet only the relevant SIP requirements that came due
prior to the submittal of a complete redesignation request. See
September 4, 1992, Calcagni memorandum (``Procedures for Processing
Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,'' Memorandum from John
Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division). See also Michael
Shapiro Memorandum, September 17, 1993, and 60 FR 12459, 12465-66
(March 7, 1995) (Redesignation of Detroit-Ann Arbor). See Sierra Club
v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004), which upheld EPA's redesignation
rulemaking applying this interpretation. See also 68 FR 25418, 25424,
25427 (May 12, 2003) (Redesignation of St. Louis).
Moreover, it would be inequitable to retroactively apply any new
SIP requirements that were not applicable at the time the request was
submitted. The DC Circuit has recognized the inequity in such
retroactive rulemaking. In Sierra Club v. Whitman, 285 F.3d 63 (DC Cir.
2002), the DC Circuit upheld a district court's ruling refusing to make
retroactive an EPA determination of nonattainment that was past the
statutory due date. Such a determination would have resulted in the
imposition of additional requirements on the area. The court stated:
``Although EPA failed to make the nonattainment determination within
the statutory time frame, Sierra Club's proposed solution only makes
the situation worse. Retroactive relief would likely impose large costs
on the States, which would face fines and suits for not implementing
air pollution prevention plans in 1997, even though they were not on
notice at the time.'' Id. at 68. Similarly here it would be unfair to
penalize the area by applying to it, for purposes of redesignation,
additional SIP requirements under subpart 2 that were not in effect or
yet due at the time it submitted its redesignation request.
3. Requirements Under the 1-Hour Standard
With respect to the 1-hour standard requirements, the Allegan
County area was an attainment area subject to a CAA section 175A
maintenance plan under the 1-hour standard at the time that the 1-hour
standard was revoked. Therefore, the DC Circuit's decisions with
respect to 1-hour nonattainment anti-backsliding requirements 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
Allegan County area is an attainment area subject to a maintenance plan
for the 1-hour standard, and the NSR, contingency measure (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 Air Quality Management Dist.
would not preclude EPA from 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 (TSDs) for Redesignation Ozone and
Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment Areas,'' Memorandum from G. T.
Helms,
[[Page 42022]]
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. What is the effect of these actions?
Approval of the redesignation request would change the official
designation of the Allegan County area for the 1997 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 2021. The
maintenance plan includes contingency measures as required under CAA
section 175A to remedy future violations of the 8-hour NAAQS. It also
establishes MVEBs for the Allegan County area of 3.93 tons per day
(tpd) VOC and 6.92 tpd NOX for 2021.
VI. What is EPA's analysis of the request?
A. Attainment Determination and Redesignation
EPA is proposing to determine that the Allegan County area has
attained the 1997 8-hour ozone standard and that the area has met all
other applicable redesignation criteria under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E).
The basis for EPA's proposed approvals of the redesignation requests 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 Allegan County
area has attained the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Whether an area is
considered to be attaining the 8-hour ozone NAAQS is 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 the 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 EPA's Air Quality System
(AQS). The monitors generally should have remained at the same location
for the duration of the monitoring period required for determining
attainment.
Michigan included in its redesignation request certified ozone
monitoring data for the 2007 to 2009 ozone seasons. Michigan has
quality-assured all of the ambient monitoring data in accordance with
40 CFR 58.10, and has recorded it in the AQS database. The data meet
the completeness criteria in 40 CFR 50, Appendix I, which requires a
minimum completeness of 75% annually and 90% over each three-year
period. Monitoring data are 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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2007 4\th\ high 2008 4\th\ high 2009 4\th\ high 2007-2009
County Monitor (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) average (ppm)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allegan............................................................ 26-005-0003 0.094 0.073 0.076 0.081
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Preliminary data available for 2010 are consistent with continued
attainment.
In addition, as discussed below with respect to the maintenance
plan, MDNRE has committed to continue to operate an EPA-approved
monitoring network as necessary to show ongoing compliance with the
NAAQS. MDNRE remains obligated to continue to quality-assure monitoring
data in accordance with 40 CFR part 58 and to enter all data into AQS
in accordance with Federal guidelines. In summary, EPA believes that
the data show that the Allegan County area has attained the 1997 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 Allegan County
area under section 110 of the CAA (general SIP requirements). We are
also proposing to determine 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 subpart 1
nonattainment areas), in accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E)(v). In
addition, with the exception of the emissions inventory under section
172(3), we have approved all applicable requirements of the Michigan
SIP for purposes of redesignation, in accordance with section
107(d)(3)(E)(ii). As discussed below, in this action EPA is proposing
to approve Michigan's 2005 emissions inventory as meeting the section
172(c)(3) comprehensive emissions inventory requirement.
In proposing these determinations, we have ascertained which SIP
requirements are applicable to the area for purposes of redesignation,
and have determined that there are SIP measures meeting those
requirements and that they are fully approved under section 110(k) of
the CAA. As discussed more fully below, for purposes of evaluating a
redesignation request, SIPs must be fully approved only with respect to
requirements that became due prior to
[[Page 42023]]
the submission of the redesignation request.
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, 12465-12466 (March 7, 1995) (Redesignation
of Detroit-Ann Arbor). 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 St. Louis).
If EPA's proposal to determine that the Allegan County area has
attained the 1997 8-hour ozone standard is finalized, pursuant to 40
CFR 51.918, the requirements to submit certain planning SIPs related to
attainment, including attainment demonstration requirements (the RACM
requirement of section 172(c)(1) of the CAA, the RFP and attainment
demonstration requirements of sections 172(c)(2) and (c)(6) of the CAA,
and the requirement for contingency measures of section 172(c)(9) of
the CAA), will not be applicable to the area as long as it continues to
attain the NAAQS and would cease to apply upon redesignation. In
addition, in the context of redesignations, EPA has interpreted
requirements related to attainment as not applicable for purposes of
redesignation. For example, in the General Preamble, EPA stated that:
[t]he section 172(c)(9) requirements are directed at ensuring RFP
and attainment by the applicable date. These requirements no longer
apply when an area has attained the standard and is eligible for
redesignation. Furthermore, section 175A for maintenance plans * * *
provides specific requirements for contingency measures that
effectively supersede the requirements of section 172(c)(9) for
these areas.
``General Preamble for the Interpretation of Title I of the
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,'' (General Preamble) 57 FR 13498,
13564 (April 16, 1992).
See also Calcagni memorandum at 6 (``The requirements for reasonable
further progress and other measures needed for attainment will not
apply for redesignations because they only have meaning for areas not
attaining the standard.'')
a. The Allegan County Area Has Met All Applicable Requirements for
Purposes of Redesignation 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
State after reasonable public notice and hearing, and, among other
things, must: Include enforceable emission limitations and other
control measures, means or techniques necessary to meet the
requirements of the CAA; provide for establishment and operation of
appropriate devices, methods, systems, and procedures necessary to
monitor ambient air quality; provide for implementation of a source
permit program to regulate the modification and construction of any
stationary source within the areas covered by the plan; include
provisions for the implementation of part C, Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) and part D, NSR permit programs; include criteria
for stationary source emission control measures, monitoring, and
reporting; include provisions for air quality modeling; and provide 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, May 12, 2005)). 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, MDNRE has developed rules governing the
control of NOX emissions from Electric Generating Units
(EGUs), major non-EGU industrial boilers, major cement kilns, and
internal combustion engines. EPA approved Michigan's rules as
fulfilling Phase I of the NOX SIP Call on May 4, 2005 (70
FR 23029) and as meeting Phase II of the NOX 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 that 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)) and (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
1-hour ozone redesignation (65 FR 37890 (June 19, 2000)), and in the
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 1-hour 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 to the extent
they are applicable for purposes of redesignation. 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. EPA has not yet taken rulemaking action
on these submittals; however, such approval is not necessary for
redesignation.
[[Page 42024]]
ii. Part D Requirements
EPA has determined that, if EPA finalizes the approval of the
emissions inventories discussed in section VI.C. of this rulemaking,
the Michigan SIP will meet the applicable SIP requirements for the
Allegan County area applicable for purposes of redesignation under part
D of the CAA. 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.
Since the Allegan County area was not classified under subpart 2,
of Part D at the time its redesignation request was submitted, the
subpart 2 requirements do not apply for purposes of evaluating the
State's redesignation request. The applicable subpart 1 requirements
are contained in sections 172(c)(1)-(9) and in section 176.
Subpart 1 Section 172 Requirements.
For purposes of evaluating this redesignation request, the
applicable section 172 SIP requirements for the Allegan County 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 RACM as expeditiously as
practicable and to provide for attainment of the primary NAAQS. 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 each
area as components of the area's attainment demonstration. Because
attainment has been reached, no additional measures are needed to
provide for attainment, and section 172(c)(1) requirements are no
longer considered to be applicable as long as the area continues to
attain the standard until redesignation. 40 CFR 51.918.
The RFP requirement under section 172(c)(2) is defined as progress
that must be made toward attainment. This requirement is not relevant
for purposes of redesignation because the Allegan County area has
monitored attainment of the ozone NAAQS. (General Preamble, 57 FR
13564). See also 40 CFR 51.918. In addition, because the Allegan County
area has attained the ozone NAAQS and is no longer subject to an RFP
requirement, the requirement to submit the section 172(c)(9)
contingency measures is not applicable for purposes of redesignation.
Id.
Section 172(c)(3) requires submission and approval of a
comprehensive, accurate and current inventory of actual emissions. As
part of Michigan's redesignation request for the Allegan County area,
the State submitted a 2005 emissions inventory. As discussed below in
section VI.C., EPA is proposing to approve the 2005 inventory,
submitted by Michigan along with the redesignation request, as meeting
the section 172(c)(3) emissions inventory requirement.
Section 172(c)(4) requires the identification and quantification of
allowable emissions for major new and modified stationary sources in an
area, and section 172(c)(5) requires 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 nonattainment NSR program be
approved prior to redesignation, provided that the area demonstrates
maintenance of the NAAQS without part D NSR. A more 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
Allegan County area will be able to maintain the standard without part
D NSR in effect; therefore, the State need not have a fully approved
part D NSR program prior to approval of the redesignation request. The
State's PSD program will become effective in the Allegan County 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) applicable for
purposes of redesignation.
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 66607 and 61 FR 66609, respectively).
Section 176(c) of the CAA was amended by provisions contained in the
Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A
Legacy for Users (SAFETEALU), which was signed into law on August 10,
2005 (Pub. L. 109-59). Among the changes Congress made to this section
of the CAA were streamlined requirements for State conformity SIPs.
Michigan is in the process of updating its transportation conformity
SIP to meet these new requirements. Michigan
[[Page 42025]]
has submitted onroad motor vehicle budgets for the Allegan County area
of 3.93 tpd VOC and 6.92 tpd NOX for 2021. 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.
b. The Allegan County Area Has a Fully Approved Applicable SIP Under
Section 110(k) of the CAA
If EPA issues a final approval of the emissions inventory under
section 172(c)(3), EPA will have fully approved the Michigan SIP for
the Allegan County 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 various required SIP elements under the
1-hour ozone standard. In this action, EPA is proposing to approve
Michigan's 2005 emissions inventory for the Allegan County area as
meeting the requirement of section 172(c)(3) of the CAA. No Allegan
County 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 Allegan County area is due to permanent and
enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of
the SIP, Federal measures, and other State-adopted measures.
In making this demonstration, MDNRE has calculated the change in
emissions between 2005 and 2008. Michigan is using the 2005 emissions
inventory developed in conjunction with the Lake Michigan Air Directors
Consortium (LADCO) as the nonattainment inventory. The State developed
an attainment inventory for 2008, one of the years the Allegan County
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 Allegan
County 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 area:
i. Stationary Source NOX Rules
Michigan has developed rules governing the control of
NOX emissions from Electric Generating Units (EGUs), major
non-EGU industrial boilers, major cement kilns, and internal combustion
engines. EPA approved Michigan's rules as fulfilling Phase I of the
NOX SIP Call on May 4, 2005 (70 FR 23029) and as meeting
Phase II of the NOX SIP Call on January 29, 2008 (73 FR
5101). Michigan began complying with Phase I of this rule in 2004.
Compliance with Phase II of the SIP Call, which requires the control
NOX emissions from large internal combustion engines, began
in 2007.
ii. 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 following.
Tier 2 Emission Standards for Vehicles and Gasoline Sulfur
Standards. These emission control requirements result in lower VOC and
NOX emissions from new cars and light duty trucks, including
sport utility vehicles. The Federal rules were phased in between 2004
and 2009. The EPA has estimated that, by the end of the phase-in
period, the following vehicle NOX emission reductions will
occur nationwide: passenger cars (light duty vehicles) (77%); light
duty trucks, minivans, and sports utility vehicles (86%); and, larger
sports utility vehicles, vans, and heavier trucks (69 to 95%). VOC
emission reductions are expected to range from 12 to 18%, depending on
vehicle class, over the same period. Some of these emission reductions
had occurred by the 2006-2008 period used to demonstrate attainment,
and additional emission reductions will occur during the maintenance
period.
Heavy-Duty Diesel Engine Rule. EPA issued this rule in July 2000.
This rule, which went into effect in 2004, includes standards that
limit the sulfur content of diesel fuel. A second phase, which took
effect in 2007, further reduced the highway diesel fuel sulfur content
to 15 parts per million, leading to additional reductions in combustion
NOX and VOC emissions. EPA expects this rule to achieve a
95% reduction in NOX emissions from diesel trucks and
busses.
Non-Road Diesel Rule. EPA promulgated this rule in 2004. This rule
applies to diesel engines used in industries, such as construction,
agriculture, and mining. EPA estimates that compliance with this rule
will cut NOX emissions from non-road diesel engines by up to
90%. This rule is currently achieving emission reductions, but will not
be fully implemented until 2010.
iii. 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. Affected States were required to comply
with Phase I of the SIP Call beginning in 2004, and with Phase II
beginning in 2007. The reduction in NOX emissions has
resulted in lower concentrations of transported ozone entering the
Allegan County area. Between 2005 and 2008, units subject to Phase I of
the NOX SIP Call have reduced ozone season emissions by
68,000 tons. In addition, under Phase II of the NOX SIP
Call, EPA estimates that emissions from cement kilns have been reduced
by 30% and emissions from internal combustion engines have been reduced
by 80-91%. Emission reductions resulting from regulations developed in
response to the NOX SIP Call are permanent and enforceable.
b. Emission Reductions
For the point, area and nonroad sectors, Michigan is using the 2005
emissions inventory developed in conjunction with LADCO (Base M Round
5) as the nonattainment inventory. 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. In developing the 2005 nonattainment year inventory,
MDNRE provided point and area source inventories to LADCO. LADCO
processed these inventories through the Emission Modeling System to
generate summer weekday emissions for VOC and NOX. The point
source data provided to LADCO is a combination of
[[Page 42026]]
EPA's EGU inventory and source specific data reported to MDNRE for non-
EGU sources. Area source emissions were estimated by MDNRE using
published Emission Inventory Improvement Program methodologies or
methodologies shared by other States. The methodology used for each
area source category was documented. 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 and emissions estimates were developed
for commercial marine vessels, aircraft, and railroads (MAR), three
nonroad categories not included in NMIM. Onroad mobile emissions were
prepared by the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) using the
MOBILE6.2 emissions model.
Michigan is using 2008 for the attainment year inventory. Michigan
used linear regression analysis to extrapolate area source emissions
estimates. Nonroad emissions were calcualted using NMIM, as described
above, except that the MAR portion of the nonroad sector was
interpolated from LADCO 2005, 2009, and 2018 MAR emissions estimates.
Point source emissions were calculated by MDNRE using the 2008 Michigan
Air Emissions Reporting System point source inventory. Onroad mobile
emissions were prepared by MDOT using the MOBILE6.2 emissions model.
Using the inventories described above Michigan has documented
changes in VOC and NOX emissions from 2005 to 2008 for the
Allegan County area. Emissions data are shown in Table 2, below.
Table 2--Comparison of 2005 and 2008 VOC and NOX Emissions for the Allegan County Area (tpd)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC NOX
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net change Net change
2005 2008 (2005-2008) 2005 2008 (2005-2008)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point................................................... 2.02 1.52 -0.50 2.33 3.45 1.12
Area.................................................... 10.00 9.33 -0.67 1.00 1.02 0.02
Onroad.................................................. 4.70 3.93 -0.77 8.43 6.92 -1.51
Nonroad................................................. 6.16 4.59 -1.57 4.44 4.55 0.11
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................... 22.88 19.37 -3.51 16.20 15.94 -0.26
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2 shows that the Allegan County area reduced VOC emissions by
3.51 tpd and NOX emissions by 0.26 tpd between 2005 and
2008. 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 Allegan County
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 2021.
a. Maintenance Plan Requirements
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 MDNRE developed an emissions inventory for 2008, one of the
years used to demonstrate monitored attainment of the 8-hour NAAQS, as
described above. The attainment level of emissions is summarized in
Table 2, above.
c. Demonstration of Maintenance
Along with the redesignation request, MDNRE submitted revisions to
the Michigan 8-hour ozone SIP to include a maintenance plan for the
Allegan County area, in compliance with section 175A of the CAA. The
demonstration shows maintenance of the 8-hour ozone standard through
2021 by showing that current and future emissions of VOC and
NOX for the Allegan County 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 inventory projections for the years
2018 and 2021 to demonstrate maintenance. MDOT calculated onroad
emissions for 2018 and 2021 using the MOBILE6.2 emissions model. MDEQ
used the 2018 Base M, Round 5 emissions inventory developed by LADCO
for the remaining source categories for 2018. For 2021, MDNRE estimated
emissions for the remaining source categories using linear regression
analysis. NOX reductions from CAIR are not included in the
2018 and 2021 emissions estimates.
[[Page 42027]]
Table 3--Comparison of 2008, 2018, and 2021 VOC and NOX Emissions for the Allegan County Area (tpd)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC NOX
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net change Net change Net change Net change
2008 2018 2021 (2008-2018) (2008-2021) 2008 2018 2021 (2008-2018) (2008-2021)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point............................. 1.52 2.79 2.91 1.27 1.39 4.45 2.10 2.13 -2.35 -2.32
Area.............................. 9.33 8.61 8.16 -0.72 -1.17 1.02 1.09 1.11 0.07 0.09
Onroad............................ 3.93 2.53 2.28 -1.40 -1.65 6.92 3.10 2.71 -3.82 -4.21
Nonroad........................... 4.59 3.88 2.20 -0.71 -2.39 4.55 2.04 2.11 -2.51 -2.44
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total......................... 19.37 1
