39654 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 2, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2011–0673; FRL–9830–2] 

Approval, and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Michigan; Redesignation of the DetroitAnn Arbor Area to Attainment of the 

1997 Annual Standard and the 2006 24- 

Hour Standard for Fine Particulate 

Matter 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: On July 5, 2011, the Michigan 

Department of Environmental Quality 

(MDEQ) submitted a request for EPA to 

redesignate the Detroit-Ann Arbor 

Michigan nonattainment area 

(Livingston, Macomb, Monroe, Oakland, 

St. Clair, Washtenaw, and Wayne 

Counties), referred to as the Detroit-Ann 

Arbor area, to attainment of the Clean 

Air Act (CAA or Act) 1997 annual and 

the 2006 24-hour national ambient air 

quality standards (NAAQS or standard) 

for fine particulate matter (PM2.5). EPA 

is proposing to redesignate the area. 

EPA is also proposing several additional 

related actions. EPA is proposing to 

determine that the entire Detroit-Ann 

Arbor area continues to attain both the 

annual and 24-hour PM2.5 standards. 

EPA is proposing to approve, as 

revisions to the Michigan state 

implementation plan (SIP), the state’s 

plan for maintaining the 1997 annual 

and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS 

through 2022 in the area. EPA 

previously approved the base year 

emissions inventory for the Detroit-Ann 

Arbor area, which met the 

comprehensive emissions inventory 

requirement of the Act. Michigan’s 

maintenance plan submission includes 

a budget for the mobile source 

contribution of PM2.5 and nitrogen 

oxides (NOX) to the Detroit-Ann Arbor 

Michigan PM2.5 area for transportation 

conformity purposes, which EPA is 

proposing to approve. EPA is proposing 

to take this action in accordance with 

the CAA and EPA’s implementation 

regulations regarding the 1997 and the 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before August 1, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2011–0673, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: blakley.pamela@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (312) 886–4447. 

4. Mail: Pamela Blakley, Chief, 

Control Strategies Section (AR–18J), 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. 

5. Hand Delivery: Pamela Blakley, 

Chief, Control Strategies Section (AR– 

18J), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such deliveries 

are only accepted during the Regional 

Office normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. The 

Regional Office official hours of 

business are Monday through Friday, 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. excluding Federal 

holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R05–OAR–2011– 

0673. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

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 www.regulations.gov 

or email. The 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 email 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through www.regulations.gov your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional instructions on 

submitting comments, go to Section I of 

the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

of this document. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the 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 

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 Carolyn 

Persoon, Environmental Engineer, at 

(312) 353–8290 before visiting the 

Region 5 office. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Carolyn Persoon, Environmental 

Engineer, Control Strategies Section, Air 

Programs Branch (AR–18J), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353–8290, 

persoon.carolyn@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

supplementary information section is 

arranged as follows: 

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? 

IV. What are the criteria for redesignation to 

attainment? 

V. What is EPA’s analysis of the state’s 

request? 

1. Attainment 

2. The Area Has Met All Applicable 

Requirements Under Section 110 and 

Part D and Has a Fully Approved SIP 

Under Section 110(k) (Section 

107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and (v)) 

3. The Improvement in Air Quality Is Due 

to Permanent and Enforceable 

Reductions in Emissions Resulting From 

Implementation of the SIPs and 

Applicable Federal Air Pollution Control 

Regulations and Other Permanent and 

Enforceable Reductions (Section 

107(d)(3)(E)(iii)) 

4. Michigan Has a Fully Approved 

Maintenance Plan Pursuant to Section 

175A of the CAA (Section 

107(d)(3)(E)(iv)) 

5. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget 

(MVEBs) for the Mobile Source 

Contribution to PM2.5 and NOX

6. 2005 Comprehensive Emissions 

Inventory 

7. Summary of Proposed Actions 

VI. What are the effects of EPA’s proposed 

actions? 

VII. 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). 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 2, 2013 / Proposed Rules 39655 

2. Follow directions—The 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 

actions related to redesignation of the 

Detroit-Ann Arbor area to attainment for 

the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS. 

EPA is proposing to approve 

Michigan’s PM2.5 maintenance plan for 

the Detroit-Ann Arbor area as a revision 

to the Michigan SIP, including the 

motor vehicles emissions budget for 

PM2.5 and NOX for the mobile source 

contribution of the Michigan portion of 

the Detroit-Ann Arbor PM2.5 area. EPA’s 

analysis for this proposed action is 

discussed in Section V. of today’s 

proposed rulemaking. 

EPA has previously approved (77 FR 

66547) the 2005 primary PM2.5, NOX, 

volatile organic compounds (VOCs), 

ammonia, and sulfur dioxide (SO2) base 

year emissions inventory which 

satisfied the requirement in section 

172(c)(3) for a current, accurate and 

comprehensive emission inventory. 

EPA also is proposing to find that 

Michigan meets the requirements for 

redesignation of the Detroit-Ann Arbor 

area to attainment of the 1997 annual 

and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS 

under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. 

EPA is thus proposing to grant 

Michigan’s request to change the 

designation of its portion of the DetroitAnn Arbor area from nonattainment to 

attainment for the 1997 annual and the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

III. What is the background for these 

actions? 

Fine particulate pollution can be 

emitted directly from a source (primary 

PM2.5) or formed secondarily through 

chemical reactions in the atmosphere 

involving precursor pollutants emitted 

from a variety of sources. Sulfates are a 

type of secondary particulate formed 

from SO2 emissions from power plants 

and industrial facilities. Nitrates, 

another common type of secondary 

particulate, are formed from combustion 

emissions of NOX from power plants, 

mobile sources, and other combustion 

sources. 

The first air quality standards for 

PM2.5 were promulgated on July 18, 

1997, at 62 FR 38652. EPA promulgated 

an annual standard at a level of 15 

micrograms per cubic meter (mg/m3) of 

ambient air, based on a three-year 

average of the annual mean PM2.5

concentrations at each monitoring site. 

In the same rulemaking, EPA 

promulgated a 24-hour PM2.5 standard 

of 65 mg/m3, based on a three-year 

average of the annual 98th percentile of 

24-hour PM2.5 concentrations at each 

monitoring site. 

On January 5, 2005, at 70 FR 944, EPA 

published air quality area designations 

for the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard 

based on air quality data for calendar 

years 2001–2003. In that rulemaking, 

EPA designated the Detroit-Ann Arbor 

area (Livingston, Macomb, Monroe, 

Oakland, St. Clair, Washtenaw, and 

Wayne Counties) as nonattainment for 

the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard. 

On October 17, 2006, (71 FR 61144), 

EPA promulgated a 24-hour standard of 

35 mg/m3 based on a 3-year average of 

the 98th percentile of 24-hour 

concentration, as set forth at 40 CFR 

50.13. On December 13, 2009, (74 FR 

58688), EPA made designation 

determinations, as required by CAA 

section 107(d)(1), for the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS. In that action, EPA 

designated the Detroit-Ann Arbor area 

as nonattainment for the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

EPA’s rulemaking promulgating the 

revised 24-hour standard retained as the 

2006 annual PM2.5 standard the 1997 

annual standard of 15 mg/m3 (2006 

annual PM2.5 standard). In response to 

legal challenges of the 2006 annual 

PM2.5 standard, the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for District of Columbia Circuit 

(D.C. Circuit or Court) remanded this 

standard to EPA for further 

consideration. See American Farm 

Bureau Federation and National Pork 

Producers Council, et al. v. EPA, 559 

F.3d 512 (D.C. Cir. 2009). However, 

given that the 1997 and 2006 annual 

PM2.5 standards are essentially 

identical, attainment of the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 standard would also indicate 

attainment of the remanded 2006 annual 

standard. Since the Detroit-Ann Arbor 

area is designated only for 1997 annual 

standard and not the 2006 annual 

standard, today’s proposed actions 

address the 1997 annual and the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 standards. 

In this proposed redesignation, EPA 

takes into account two decisions of the 

D.C. Circuit. On August 21, 2012, in 

EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. 

EPA, 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012), the 

D.C. Circuit vacated and remanded the 

Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) 

and ordered EPA to continue 

administering the Clean Air Interstate 

Rule (CAIR) ‘‘pending . . . development 

of a valid replacement.’’ EME Homer 

City at 38. The D.C. Circuit denied all 

petitions for rehearing on January 24, 

2013. In the second decision, on January 

4, 2013, the D.C. Circuit remanded to 

EPA the ‘‘Final Clean Air Fine Particle 

Implementation Rule’’ (72 FR 20586, 

April 25, 2007) and the 

‘‘Implementation of the New Source 

Review (NSR) Program for Particulate 

Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers 

(PM2.5)’’ final rule (73 FR 28321, May 

16, 2008). Natural Resources Defense 

Council v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 

2013). 

IV. What are the criteria for 

redesignation to attainment? 

The CAA sets forth the requirements 

for redesignating a nonattainment area 

to attainment. Specifically, section 

107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA allows for 

redesignation provided that: (1) The 

Administrator determines that the area 

has attained the applicable NAAQS 

based on current air quality data; (2) the 

Administrator has fully approved an 

applicable SIP for the area under section 

110(k) of the CAA; (3) the Administrator 

determines that the improvement in air 

quality is due to permanent and 

enforceable emission reductions 

resulting from implementation of the 

applicable SIP, Federal air pollution 

control regulations, or other permanent 

and enforceable emission reductions; (4) 

the Administrator has fully approved a 

maintenance plan for the area meeting 

the requirements of section 175A of the 

CAA; and (5) the state containing the 

area has met all requirements applicable 

to the area for purposes of redesignation 

under section 110 and part D of the 

CAA. 

V. What is EPA’s analysis of the state’s 

request? 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

redesignation of the Detroit-Ann Arbor 

area to attainment of the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS and is proposing to 

approve Michigan’s maintenance plan 

for the area and other related SIP 

revisions. The bases for these actions 

follow. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
39656 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 2, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

1. Attainment 

In accordance with section 179(c) of 

the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7509(c) and 40 CFR 

51.1004(c), EPA is proposing to 

determine that Detroit-Ann Arbor 

Michigan has attained the 1997 annual 

and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

This proposed determination is based 

upon complete, quality-assured, and 

certified ambient air monitoring data for 

the 2009–2011 and 2010–2012 

monitoring period that shows this area 

has monitored attainment of both PM2.5

NAAQS. 

Under EPA’s regulations at 40 CFR 

50.7, the annual primary and secondary 

PM2.5 standards are met when the 

annual arithmetic mean concentration, 

as determined in accordance with 40 

CFR part 50, appendix N, is less than or 

equal to 15.0 mg/m3 at all relevant 

monitoring sites in the area. Under EPA 

regulations in 40 CFR 50.13 and in 

accordance with 40 CFR part 50, 

appendix N, the 24-hour primary and 

secondary PM2.5 standards are met when 

the 98th percentile 24-hour 

concentration is less than or equal to 35 

mg/m3. 

EPA has reviewed the ambient air 

quality monitoring data in the DetroitAnn Arbor area, consistent with the 

requirements contained at 40 CFR part 

50. EPA’s review focused on data 

recorded in the EPA Air Quality System 

(AQS) database for the Detroit-Ann 

Arbor area for PM2.5 nonattainment area 

from 2009–2011 and 2010–2012. 

The Detroit-Ann Arbor area had 

fourteen monitors located in Macomb, 

Monroe, Oakland, St. Clair, Washtenaw, 

and Wayne Counties that reported 

design values from 2010–2012 for PM2.5

that ranged from 8.4 to 11.5 mg/m3 for 

the 1997 annual standard and 22 to 28 

mg/m3 for the 2006 24-hour standard, as 

shown in Table 1. 

All monitors in the Detroit-Ann Arbor 

area recorded complete data in 

accordance with criteria set forth by 

EPA in 40 CFR part 50 appendix N, 

where a complete year of air quality 

data comprises four calendar quarters, 

with each quarter containing data from 

at least 75% capture of the scheduled 

sampling days. Data available are 

considered to be sufficient for 

comparison to the NAAQS if three 

consecutive complete years of data 

exist. Recently state certified data for 

2010–2012 show the area continues to 

attain. 

TABLE 1—ANNUAL AND 24-HOUR PM2.5 DESIGN VALUES FOR DETROIT-ANN ARBOR AREA MONITORS WITH COMPLETE

DATA FOR THE 2009–2011 AND 2010–2012 DESIGN VALUES IN μG/M3

County Monitor 

Annual 

standard 2009– 

2011 

(μg/m3) 

24-Hour 

standard 2009– 

2011 

(μg/m3) 

Annual 

standard 2010– 

2012 

(μg/m3) 

24-Hour 

standard 2010– 

2012 

(μg/m3) 

Macomb ................... New Haven 260990009 ............................. 9.0 25 8.4 22 

Monroe ..................... Luna Pier 261150005 ................................ 9.9 24 9.2 24 

Oakland ................... Oak Park 261250001 ................................ 9.4 27 8.8 24 

St. Clair .................... Port Huron 261470005 .............................. 9.3 26 9.6 25 

Washtenaw .............. Ypsilanti 261610008 .................................. 9.6 25 9.3 25 

Wayne ...................... Allen Park 261630001 ............................... 10.5 27 9.2 24 

Dearborn 261630033 ................................. 11.6 32 9.3 23 

E 7 Mile 261630019 .................................. 9.9 27 10.2 25 

FIA 261630039 .......................................... 10.4 28 10.9 25 

Linwood 261630016 .................................. 10.1 28 10.0 26 

Livonia 261630025 .................................... 9.5 26 9.7 28 

Newberry 261630038 ................................ 10.3 27 9.4 24 

SW HS 261630015 .................................... 10.9 28 11.5 28 

Wyandotte 261630036 .............................. 9.6 24 9.2 22 

EPA has found that the Detroit-Ann 

Arbor area has attained both the 1997 

annual and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQs, and has attained the standards 

by the attainment date. 

2. The Area Has Met All Applicable 

Requirements Under Section 110 and 

Part D and Has a Fully Approved SIP 

Under Section 110(k) (Section 

107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and (v)) 

We have determined that Michigan 

has met all currently applicable SIP 

requirements for purposes of 

redesignation for the Detroit-Ann Arbor 

area under section 110 of the CAA 

(general SIP requirements). We are also 

proposing to find that the Michigan 

submittal meets all SIP requirements 

currently applicable for purposes of 

redesignation under part D of title I of 

the CAA, in accordance with section 

107(d)(3)(E)(v). In addition, we are 

proposing to find that all applicable 

requirements of the Michigan SIP for 

purposes of redesignation have been 

approved, in accordance with section 

107(d)(3)(E)(ii). As discussed above, 

EPA previously approved Michigan’s 

2005 emissions inventory as meeting the 

section 172(c)(3) comprehensive 

emissions inventory requirement. 

In making these proposed 

determinations, we have ascertained 

which SIP requirements are applicable 

for purposes of redesignation, and 

concluded that the Michigan SIP 

includes measures meeting those 

requirements and that they are fully 

approved under section 110(k) of the 

CAA. 

a. Michigan Has Met All Applicable 

Requirements for Purposes of 

Redesignation of the Detroit-Ann Arbor 

Area 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 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 2, 2013 / Proposed Rules 39657 

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. EPA believes 

that the requirements linked with a 

particular nonattainment area’s 

designation 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 are the 

relevant measures which we may 

consider in evaluating a redesignation 

request. See Reading, Pennsylvania, 

proposed and final rulemakings (61 FR 

53174–53176 (October 10, 1996)) and 

(62 FR 24826 (May 7, 1997)); ClevelandAkron-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 the Michigan 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 Michigan’s SIP 

addressing section 110 requirements 

(including provisions addressing 

particulate matter), at 40 CFR 52.1173. 

On December 6, 2007, September 19, 

2008, and April 6, 2011, Michigan made 

submittals addressing ‘‘infrastructure 

SIP’’ elements required under CAA 

section 110(a)(2). EPA finalized 

approval of the December 6, 2007, 

submittal on July 13, 2011, at 76 FR 

41075. An August 15, 2011, submittal 

for the 2006 standard was approved on 

October 29, 2012 (77 FR 65478). The 

requirements of section 110(a)(2), 

however, are statewide requirements 

that are not linked to the PM2.5

nonattainment status of the Detroit-Ann 

Arbor area. Therefore, EPA believes that 

these SIP elements are not applicable 

requirements for purposes of review of 

the state’s PM2.5 redesignation request. 

ii. Part D Requirements 

EPA has determined that, upon 

approval of the base year emissions 

inventories discussed in section IV.C. of 

this rulemaking, the Michigan SIP will 

meet the applicable SIP requirements 

for the Detroit-Ann Arbor 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. 

1. Subpart 1 

(a) Section 172 Requirements 

For purposes of evaluating this 

redesignation request, the applicable 

section 172 SIP requirements for the 

Detroit-Ann Arbor area are contained in 

sections 172(c)(1)–(9). A thorough 

discussion of the requirements 

contained in section 172 can be found 

in the General Preamble for 

Implementation of Title I (57 FR 13498, 

April 16, 1992). 

Section 172(c)(1) requires the plans 

for all nonattainment areas to provide 

for the implementation of all reasonably 

available control measures (RACM) as 

expeditiously as practicable and to 

provide for attainment of the primary 

NAAQS. EPA interprets this 

requirement to impose a duty on all 

states to consider all available control 

measures for all nonattainment areas 

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 the Detroit-Ann 

Arbor area has reached attainment, 

Michigan does not need to address 

additional measures 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 reasonable further progress (RFP) 

requirement under section 172(c)(2) is 

defined as progress that must be made 

toward attainment. This requirement is 

not relevant for purposes of the DetroitAnn Arbor redesignation because the 

area has monitored attainment of the 

1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. (General 

Preamble, 57 FR 13564). See also 40 

CFR 51.918. The requirement to submit 

the section 172(c)(9) contingency 

measures is similarly 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. Michigan submitted a 2005 

base year emissions inventory in the 

required attainment plan. As discussed 

previously, and below in section IV.C., 

EPA approved the 2005 base year 

inventory as meeting the section 

172(c)(3) emissions inventory 

requirement for the Detroit-Ann Arbor 

area on November 6,2012 (77 FR 66547). 

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 source 

permits for the construction and 

operation of new and modified major 

stationary sources anywhere in the 

nonattainment area. EPA approved 

Michigan’s current NSR program on 

January 27, 1982 (47 FR 3764), but has 

not approved updates since that time. 

Nonetheless, since PSD requirements 

will apply after redesignation, the area 

need not have a fully-approved NSR 

program for purposes of redesignation, 

provided that the area demonstrates 

maintenance of the NAAQS without 

part D NSR. A detailed rationale for this 

view is described in a memorandum 

from Mary Nichols, Assistant 

Administrator for Air and Radiation, 

dated October 14, 1994, entitled, ‘‘Part 

D New Source Review Requirements for 

Areas Requesting Redesignation to 

Attainment.’’ Michigan has 

demonstrated that the Detroit-Ann 

Arbor area will be able to maintain the 

standard without part D NSR in effect; 

therefore, 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 Detroit-Ann Arbor area 

upon redesignation to attainment. See 

rulemakings for Detroit, Michigan (60 

FR 12467–12468, March 7, 1995); 

Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio (61 FR 

20458, 20469–20470, May 7, 1996); 

Louisville, Kentucky (66 FR 53665, 

October 23, 2001); and Grand Rapids, 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
39658 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 2, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

1Applicable requirements of the CAA that come 

due subsequent to the area’s submittal of a complete 

redesignation request remain applicable until a 

redesignation is approved, but are not required as 

a prerequisite to redesignation. Section 175A(c) of 

the CAA. 

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’s SIP meets the 

applicable requirements of section 

110(a)(2) for purposes of redesignation. 

(b) 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 

transportation conformity regulations 

must be consistent with Federal 

conformity regulations relating to 

consultation, enforcement, and 

enforceability, which EPA promulgated 

pursuant to CAA requirements. 

EPA approved Michigan’s general and 

transportation conformity SIPs on 

December 18, 1996 (61 FR 666079 and 

61 FR 66609, respectively). Michigan 

has submitted an on-road motor vehicle 

emissions budget (MVEB) for the 

Detroit-Ann Arbor area calculated by 

the local metropolitan planning 

organization (MPO), SEMCOG. The area 

must use the MVEB from the 

maintenance plan in any conformity 

determination that is effective on or 

after the effective date of the 

maintenance plan approval. 

2. Effect of the January 4, 2013, DC 

Circuit Decision Regarding PM2.5

Implementation Under Subpart 4 

a. Background 

As discussed above, on January 4, 

2013, in Natural Resources Defense 

Council v. EPA, the DC Circuit 

remanded to EPA the ‘‘Final Clean Air 

Fine Particle Implementation Rule’’ (72 

FR 20586, April 25, 2007) and the 

‘‘Implementation of the New Source 

Review (NSR) Program for Particulate 

Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers 

(PM2.5)’’ final rule (73 FR 28321, May 

16, 2008) (collectively, ‘‘1997 PM2.5

Implementation Rule’’). 706 F.3d 428 

(DC Cir. 2013). The Court found that 

EPA erred in implementing the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS pursuant to the general 

implementation provisions of subpart 1 

of part D of title I of the CAA, rather 

than the particulate-matter-specific 

provisions of subpart 4 of part D of title 

I. Although the Court’s ruling did not 

directly address the 2006 PM2.5

standard, EPA is taking into account the 

Court’s position on subpart 4 and the 

1997 PM2.5 standard in evaluating 

redesignations for the 2006 standard. 

b. Proposal on This Issue 

EPA is proposing to determine that 

the Court’s January 4, 2013, decision 

does not prevent EPA from 

redesignating the Detroit-Ann Arbor 

area to attainment. Even in light of the 

Court’s decision, redesignation for this 

area is appropriate under the CAA and 

EPA’s longstanding interpretations of 

the CAA’s provisions regarding 

redesignation. EPA’s longstanding 

interpretation is that requirements that 

are imposed, or that become due, after 

a complete redesignation request is 

submitted for an area that is attaining 

the standard are not applicable for 

purposes of evaluating a redesignation 

request. Second, even if EPA applies the 

subpart 4 requirements to the DetroitAnn Arbor redesignation request and 

disregards the provisions of its 1997 

PM2.5 implementation rule recently 

remanded by the Court, the state’s 

request for redesignation of this area 

still qualifies for approval. EPA’s 

discussion takes into account the effect 

of the Court’s ruling on the area’s 

maintenance plan, which EPA views as 

approvable when subpart 4 

requirements are considered. 

i. Applicable Requirements for Purposes 

of Evaluating the Redesignation Request 

With respect to the 1997 PM2.5

Implementation Rule, the Court’s 

January 4, 2013, ruling rejected EPA’s 

reasons for implementing the PM2.5

NAAQS solely in accordance with the 

provisions of subpart 1, and remanded 

that matter to EPA, so that it could 

address implementation of the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS under subpart 4 of part D 

of the CAA, in addition to subpart 1. For 

the purposes of evaluating Michigan’s 

redesignation request for the area, to the 

extent that implementation under 

subpart 4 would impose additional 

requirements for areas designated 

nonattainment, EPA believes that those 

requirements are not ‘‘applicable’’ for 

the purposes of CAA section 

107(d)(3)(E), and thus EPA is not 

required to consider subpart 4 

requirements with respect to the DetroitAnn Arbor redesignation. Under its 

longstanding interpretation of the CAA, 

EPA has interpreted section 107(d)(3)(E) 

to mean that the part D provisions 

which are ‘‘applicable’’ and which must 

be approved in order for EPA to 

redesignate an area include only those 

which came due prior to a state’s 

submittal of a complete redesignation 

request. See ‘‘Procedures for Processing 

Requests to Redesignate Areas to 

Attainment,’’ Memorandum from John 

Calcagni, Director, Air Quality 

Management Division, September 4, 

1992 (Calcagni memorandum). See also 

‘‘State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

Requirements for Areas Submitting 

Requests for Redesignation to 

Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon 

Monoxide (CO) NAAQS on or after 

November 15, 1992,’’ Memorandum 

from Michael Shapiro, Acting Assistant 

Administrator, Air and Radiation, 

September 17, 1993 (Shapiro 

memorandum); Final Redesignation of 

Detroit-Ann Arbor, (60 FR 12459, 

12465–66, March 7, 1995); Final 

Redesignation of St. Louis, Missouri, (68 

FR 25418, 25424–27, May 12, 2003); 

Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537, 541 

(7th Cir. 2004) (upholding EPA’s 

redesignation rulemaking applying this 

interpretation and expressly rejecting 

Sierra Club’s view that the meaning of 

‘‘applicable’’ under the statute is 

‘‘whatever should have been in the plan 

at the time of attainment rather than 

whatever actually was in the plan and 

already implemented or due at the time 

of attainment’’).1 In this case, at the time 

that Michigan submitted its 

redesignation request, requirements 

under subpart 4 were not due, (and 

indeed, were not yet known to apply.) 

EPA’s view that, for purposes of 

evaluating the Detroit-Ann Arbor 

redesignation, the subpart 4 

requirements were not due at the time 

the state submitted the redesignation 

request is in keeping with the EPA’s 

interpretation of subpart 2 requirements 

for subpart 1 ozone areas redesignated 

subsequent to the D.C. Circuit’s decision 

in South Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. 

v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 2006). 

In South Coast, the Court found that 

EPA was not permitted to implement 

the 1997 8-hour ozone standard solely 

under subpart 1, and held that EPA was 

required under the statute to implement 

the standard under the ozone-specific 

requirements of subpart 2 as well. 

Subsequent to the South Coast decision, 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 2, 2013 / Proposed Rules 39659 

2Sierra Club v. Whitman was discussed and 

distinguished in a recent D.C. Circuit decision that 

addressed retroactivity in a quite different context, 

where, unlike the situation here, EPA sought to give 

its regulations retroactive effect. National 

Petrochemical and Refiners Ass’n v. EPA. 630 F.3d 

145, 163 (D.C. Cir. 2010), rehearing denied 643 F.3d 

958 (D.C. Cir. 2011), cert denied 132 S. Ct. 571 

(2011). 

3PM10 refers to particulates nominally 10 

micrometers in diameter or smaller. 

in evaluating and acting upon 

redesignation requests for the 1997 8- 

hour ozone standard that were 

submitted to EPA for areas under 

subpart 1, EPA applied its longstanding 

interpretation of the CAA that 

‘‘applicable requirements’’, for purposes 

of evaluating a redesignation, are those 

that had been due at the time the 

redesignation request was submitted. 

See, e.g., Proposed Redesignation of 

Manitowoc County and Door County 

Nonattainment Areas (75 FR 22047, 

22050, April 27, 2010). In those actions, 

EPA therefore did not consider subpart 

2 requirements to be ‘‘applicable’’ for 

the purposes of evaluating whether the 

area should be redesignated under 

section 107(d)(3)(E). 

EPA’s interpretation derives from the 

provisions of CAA Section 107(d)(3). 

Section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) states that, for an 

area to be redesignated, a state must 

meet ‘‘all requirements ‘applicable’ to 

the area under section 110 and part D.’’ 

Section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) provides that the 

EPA must have fully approved the 

‘‘applicable’’ SIP for the area seeking 

redesignation. These two sections read 

together support EPA’s interpretation of 

‘‘applicable’’ as only those requirements 

that came due prior to submission of a 

complete redesignation request. First, 

holding states seeking redesignation to 

an ongoing obligation to adopt new 

CAA requirements that arose after the 

state submitted its redesignation request 

would make it problematic or 

impossible for EPA to act on 

redesignation requests in accordance 

with the 18-month deadline Congress 

set for EPA action in section 

107(d)(3)(D). If ‘‘applicable 

requirements’’ were interpreted to be a 

continuing flow of requirements with no 

reasonable limitation, states, after 

submitting a redesignation request, 

would be forced continuously to make 

additional SIP submissions that in turn 

would require EPA to undertake further 

notice-and-comment rulemaking actions 

to act on those submissions. This would 

create a regime of unceasing rulemaking 

that would delay action on the 

redesignation request beyond the 18- 

month timeframe provided by the CAA 

for this purpose. 

Second, a fundamental premise for 

redesignating a nonattainment area to 

attainment is that the area has attained 

the relevant NAAQS due to emission 

reductions from existing controls. Thus, 

an area for which a redesignation 

request has been submitted would have 

already attained the NAAQS as a result 

of satisfying statutory requirements that 

came due prior to the submission of the 

request. Absent a showing that 

unadopted and unimplemented 

requirements are necessary for future 

maintenance, it is reasonable to view 

the requirements applicable for 

purposes of evaluating the redesignation 

request as including only those SIP 

requirements that have already come 

due. These are the requirements that led 

to attainment of the NAAQS. To require, 

for redesignation approval, that a state 

also satisfy additional SIP requirements 

coming due after the state submits its 

complete redesignation request, and 

while EPA is reviewing it, would 

compel the state to do more than is 

necessary to attain the NAAQS, without 

a showing that the additional 

requirements are necessary for 

maintenance. 

In the context of this redesignation, 

the timing and nature of the Court’s 

January 4, 2013, decision in NRDC v. 

EPA compound the consequences of 

imposing requirements that come due 

after the redesignation request is 

submitted. The state submitted its 

redesignation request on July 5, 2011, 

but the Court did not issue its decision 

remanding EPA’s 1997 PM2.5

implementation rule concerning the 

applicability of the provisions of 

subpart 4 until January 2013. 

To require the state’s fully-completed 

and pending redesignation request to 

comply now with requirements of 

subpart 4 that the Court announced only 

in January 2013, would be to give 

retroactive effect to such requirements 

when the state had no notice that it was 

required to meet them. The D.C. Circuit 

recognized the inequity of this type of 

retroactive impact in Sierra Club v. 

Whitman, 285 F.3d 63 (D.C. Cir. 2002),2

where it upheld the District Court’s 

ruling refusing to make retroactive 

EPA’s determination that the St. Louis 

area did not meet its attainment 

deadline. In that case, petitioners urged 

the Court to make EPA’s nonattainment 

determination effective as of the date 

that the statute required, rather than the 

later date on which EPA actually made 

the determination. The Court rejected 

this view, stating that applying it 

‘‘would likely impose large costs on 

states, which would face fines and suits 

for not implementing air pollution 

prevention plans . . . even though they 

were not on notice at the time.’’ Id. at 

68. Similarly, it would be unreasonable 

to penalize the state of Michigan by 

rejecting its redesignation request for an 

area that is already attaining the 1997 

PM2.5 standard and that met all 

applicable requirements known to be in 

effect at the time of the request. For EPA 

now to reject the redesignation request 

solely because the state did not 

expressly address subpart 4 

requirements of which it had no notice, 

would inflict the same unfairness 

condemned by the Court in Sierra Club 

v. Whitman. 

ii. Subpart 4 Requirements and 

Michigan Redesignation Request 

Even if EPA were to take the view that 

the Court’s January 4, 2013, decision 

requires that, in the context of pending 

redesignations, subpart 4 requirements 

were due and in effect at the time the 

state submitted its redesignation 

request, EPA proposes to determine that 

the Detroit-Ann Arbor area still qualifies 

for redesignation to attainment. As 

explained below, EPA believes that the 

redesignation request for the DetroitAnn Arbor area, though not expressed 

in terms of subpart 4 requirements, 

substantively meets the requirements of 

that subpart for purposes of 

redesignating the area to attainment. 

With respect to evaluating the 

relevant substantive requirements of 

subpart 4 for purposes of redesignating 

the Detroit-Ann Arbor area, EPA notes 

that subpart 4 incorporates components 

of subpart 1 of part D, which contains 

general air quality planning 

requirements for areas designated as 

nonattainment. See Section 172(c). 

Subpart 4, itself, contains specific 

planning and scheduling requirements 

for PM10 3 nonattainment areas, and 

under the Court’s January 4, 2013, 

decision in NRDC v. EPA, these same 

statutory requirements also apply for 

PM2.5 nonattainment areas. EPA has 

longstanding general guidance that 

interprets the 1990 amendments to the 

CAA, making recommendations to states 

for meeting the statutory requirements 

for SIPs for nonattainment areas. See, 

‘‘State Implementation Plans; General 

Preamble for the Implementation of 

Title I of the Clear Air Act Amendments 

of 1990,’’ 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992) 

(the ‘‘General Preamble’’). In the General 

Preamble, EPA discussed the 

relationship of subpart 1 and subpart 4 

SIP requirements, and pointed out that 

subpart 1 requirements were, to an 

extent, ‘‘subsumed by, or integrally 

related to, the more specific PM–10 

requirements.’’ 57 FR 13538 (April 16, 

1992). The subpart 1 requirements 

include, among other things, provisions 

for attainment demonstrations, RACM, 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
39660 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 2, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

4The potential effect of section 189(e) on section 

189(a)(1)(A) for purposes of evaluating this 

redesignation is discussed below. 

5 I.e., attainment demonstration, RFP, RACM, 

milestone requirements, contingency measures. 

6As EPA has explained above, we do not believe 

that the Court’s January 4, 2013 decision should be 

interpreted so as to impose these requirements on 

the states retroactively. Sierra Club v. Whitman, 

supra. 

RFP, emissions inventories, and 

contingency measures. 

For the purposes of this redesignation, 

in order to identify any additional 

requirements which would apply under 

subpart 4, we are considering the 

Detroit-Ann Arbor area to be a 

‘‘moderate’’ PM2.5 nonattainment area. 

Under section 188 of the CAA, all areas 

designated nonattainment areas under 

subpart 4 would initially be classified 

by operation of law as ‘‘moderate’’ 

nonattainment areas, and would remain 

moderate nonattainment areas unless 

and until EPA reclassifies the area as a 

‘‘serious’’ nonattainment area. 

Accordingly, EPA believes that it is 

appropriate to limit the evaluation of 

the potential impact of subpart 4 

requirements to those that would be 

applicable to moderate nonattainment 

areas. Section 189(a) and (c) of subpart 

4 applies to moderate nonattainment 

areas and includes the following: (1) An 

approved permit program for 

construction of new and modified major 

stationary sources (section 189(a)(1)(A)); 

(2) an attainment demonstration (section 

189(a)(1)(B)); (3) provisions for RACM 

(section 189(a)(1)(C)); and (4) 

quantitative milestones demonstrating 

RFP toward attainment by the 

applicable attainment date (section 

189(c)). 

The permit requirements of subpart 4, 

as contained in section 189(a)(1)(A), 

refer to and apply the subpart 1 permit 

provisions requirements of sections 172 

and 173 to PM10, without adding to 

them. Consequently, EPA believes that 

section 189(a)(1)(A) does not itself 

impose for redesignation purposes any 

additional requirements for moderate 

areas beyond those contained in subpart 

1.4 In any event, in the context of 

redesignation, EPA has long relied on 

the interpretation that a fully approved 

nonattainment new source review 

program is not considered an applicable 

requirement for redesignation, provided 

the area can maintain the standard with 

a PSD program after redesignation. A 

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.’’ See also 

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). 

With respect to the specific 

attainment planning requirements under 

subpart 4,5 when EPA evaluates a 

redesignation request under subpart 1 

and/or 4, any area that is attaining the 

PM2.5 standard is viewed as having 

satisfied the attainment planning 

requirements for these subparts. For 

redesignations, EPA has for many years 

interpreted attainment-linked 

requirements as not applicable for areas 

attaining the standard. In the General 

Preamble, EPA stated that: 

The requirements for RFP will not apply in 

evaluating a request for redesignation to 

attainment since, at a minimum, the air 

quality data for the area must show that the 

area has already attained. Showing that the 

State will make RFP towards attainment will, 

therefore, have no meaning at that point. 

‘‘General Preamble for the 

Interpretation of Title I of the CAA 

Amendments of 1990’’; (57 FR 13498, 

13564, April 16, 1992). 

The General Preamble also explained 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. 

Id. 

EPA similarly stated in its 1992 

Calcagni memorandum that, ‘‘[t]he 

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.’’ 

It is evident that, even if we were to 

consider the Court’s January 4, 2013, 

decision in NRDC v. EPA to mean that 

attainment-related requirements specific 

to subpart 4 should be imposed 

retroactively 6 and thus are now past 

due, those requirements do not apply to 

an area that is attaining the 1997 and 

2006 PM2.5 standard, for the purpose of 

evaluating a pending request to 

redesignate the area to attainment. EPA 

has consistently enunciated this 

interpretation of applicable 

requirements under section 107(d)(3)(E) 

since the General Preamble was 

published more than twenty years ago. 

Courts have recognized the scope of 

EPA’s authority to interpret ‘‘applicable 

requirements’’ in the redesignation 

context. See Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 

F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004). 

Moreover, even outside the context of 

redesignations, EPA has viewed the 

obligation to submit attainment-related 

SIP planning requirements of subpart 4 

as inapplicable for areas that EPA 

determines are attaining the standard. 

EPA’s prior ‘‘Clean Data Policy’’ 

rulemakings for the PM10 NAAQS, also 

governed by the requirements of subpart 

4, explain EPA’s reasoning. They 

describe the effects of a determination of 

attainment on the attainment-related SIP 

planning requirements of subpart 4. See 

‘‘Determination of Attainment for Coso 

Junction Nonattainment Area,’’ (75 FR 

27944, May 19, 2010). See also Coso 

Junction proposed PM10 redesignation, 

(75 FR 36023, 36027, June 24, 2010); 

Proposed and Final Determinations of 

Attainment for San Joaquin 

Nonattainment Area (71 FR 40952, 

40954–55, July 19, 2006; and 71 FR 

63641, 63643–47 October 30, 2006). In 

short, EPA in this context has also long 

concluded that to require states to meet 

superfluous SIP planning requirements 

is not necessary and not required by the 

CAA, so long as those areas continue to 

attain the relevant NAAQS. 

Elsewhere in this notice, EPA 

proposes to determine that the area has 

attained the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

standards. Under its longstanding 

interpretation, EPA is proposing to 

determine here that the area meets the 

attainment-related plan requirements of 

subparts 1 and 4. 

Thus, EPA is proposing to conclude 

that the requirements to submit an 

attainment demonstration under 

189(a)(1)(B), a RACM determination 

under sections 172(c)1 and 189(a)(1)(c), 

a RFP demonstration under section 

189(c)(1), and contingency measure 

requirements under section 172(c)(9) are 

satisfied for purposes of evaluating the 

redesignation request. 

iii. Subpart 4 and Control of PM2.5

Precursors 

The D.C. Circuit in NRDC v. EPA 

remanded to EPA the two rules at issue 

in the case with instructions to EPA to 

re-promulgate them consistent with the 

requirements of subpart 4. In this 

section, EPA addresses the Court’s 

opinion with respect to PM2.5

precursors. While past implementation 

of subpart 4 for PM10 has allowed for 

control of PM10 precursors, such as NOX,

from major stationary, mobile, and area 

sources in order to attain the standard 

as expeditiously as practicable, CAA 

section 189(e) specifically provides that 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 2, 2013 / Proposed Rules 39661 

7Under either subpart 1 or subpart 4, for 

purposes of demonstrating attainment as 

expeditiously as practicable, a state is required to 

evaluate all economically and technologically 

feasible control measures for direct PM emissions 

and precursor emissions, and adopt those measures 

that are deemed reasonably available. 

8The Detroit-Ann Arbor area has reduced VOC 

emissions through the implementation of various 

SIP approved VOC control programs and various 

on-road and nonroad motor vehicle control 

programs. 

control requirements for major 

stationary sources of direct PM10 shall 

also apply to PM10 precursors from 

those sources, except where EPA 

determines that major stationary sources 

of such precursors ‘‘do not contribute 

significantly to PM10 levels which 

exceed the standard in the area.’’ 

EPA’s 1997 PM2.5 implementation 

rule, remanded by the D.C. Circuit, 

contained rebuttable presumptions 

concerning certain PM2.5 precursors 

applicable to attainment plans and 

control measures related to those plans. 

Specifically, in 40 CFR 51.1002, EPA 

provided, among other things, that a 

state was ‘‘not required to address VOC 

[and ammonia] as . . . PM2.5 attainment 

plan precursor[s] and to evaluate 

sources of VOC [and ammonia] 

emissions in the State for control 

measures.’’ EPA intended these to be 

rebuttable presumptions. EPA 

established these presumptions at the 

time because of uncertainties regarding 

the emission inventories for these 

pollutants and the effectiveness of 

specific control measures in various 

regions of the country in reducing PM2.5

concentrations. EPA also left open the 

possibility for such regulation of VOC 

and ammonia in specific areas where 

that was necessary. 

The Court in its January 4, 2013 

decision made reference to both section 

189(e) and 40 CFR 51. 1002, and stated 

that, ‘‘[i]n light of our disposition, we 

need not address the petitioners’ 

challenge to the presumptions in [40 

CFR 51.1002] that volatile organic 

compounds and ammonia are not PM2.5

precursors, as subpart 4 expressly 

governs precursor presumptions.’’ 

NRDC v. EPA, at 27, n.10. 

Elsewhere in the Court’s opinion, 

however, the Court observed: 

[a]mmonia is a precursor to fine particulate 

matter, making it a precursor to both PM2.5

and PM10. For a PM10 nonattainment area 

governed by subpart 4, a precursor is 

presumptively regulated. See 42 U.S.C. 

§ 7513a(e) [section 189(e)]. 

Id. at 21, n.7. For a number of reasons, 

EPA believes that its proposed 

redesignation of the Detroit-Ann Arbor 

area is consistent with the Court’s 

decision on this aspect of subpart 4. 

First, while the Court, citing section 

189(e), stated that ‘‘for a PM10 area 

governed by subpart 4, a precursor is 

‘presumptively regulated,’ ’’ the Court 

expressly declined to decide the specific 

challenge to EPA’s 1997 PM2.5

implementation rule provisions 

regarding ammonia and VOC as 

precursors. The Court had no occasion 

to reach whether and how it was 

substantively necessary to regulate any 

specific precursor in a particular PM2.5

nonattainment area, and did not address 

what might be necessary for purposes of 

acting upon a redesignation request. 

However, even if EPA takes the view 

that the requirements of subpart 4 were 

deemed applicable at the time the state 

submitted the redesignation request, 

and disregards the implementation 

rule’s rebuttable presumptions regarding 

ammonia and VOC as PM2.5 precursors 

(and any similar provisions reflected in 

the guidance for the 2006 PM2.5

standard), the regulatory consequence 

would be to consider the need for 

regulation of all precursors from any 

sources in the area to demonstrate 

attainment and to apply the section 

189(e) provisions to major stationary 

sources of precursors. In the case of 

Detroit-Ann Arbor, EPA believes that 

doing so is consistent with proposing 

redesignation of the area for the 1997 

PM2.5 standard. The Detroit-Ann Arbor 

area has attained both standards without 

any specific additional controls of VOC 

and ammonia emissions from any 

sources in the area. 

Precursors in subpart 4 are 

specifically regulated under the 

provisions of section 189(e), which 

requires, with important exceptions, 

control requirements for major 

stationary sources of PM10 precursors.7

Under subpart 1 and EPA’s prior 

implementation rule, all major 

stationary sources of PM2.5 precursors 

were subject to regulation, with the 

exception of ammonia and VOC. Thus, 

we must address here whether 

additional controls of ammonia and 

VOC from major stationary sources are 

required under section 189(e) of subpart 

4 in order to redesignate the area for the 

1997 PM2.5 standard. As explained 

below, we do not believe that any 

additional controls of ammonia and 

VOC are required in the context of this 

redesignation. 

In the General Preamble, EPA 

discusses its approach to implementing 

section 189(e). See 57 FR 13538–13542. 

With regard to precursor regulation 

under section 189(e), the General 

Preamble explicitly stated that control 

of VOCs under other Act requirements 

may suffice to relieve a state from the 

need to adopt precursor controls under 

section 189(e) (57 FR 13542). EPA in 

this proposal proposes to determine that 

Michigan has met the provisions of 

section 189(e) with respect to ammonia 

and VOCs as precursors. This proposed 

supplemental determination is based on 

our findings that (1) the Detroit-Ann 

Arbor area contains no major stationary 

sources of ammonia, and (2) existing 

major stationary sources of VOC are 

adequately controlled under other 

provisions of the CAA regulating the 

ozone NAAQS.8 In the alternative, EPA 

proposes to determine that, under the 

express exception provisions of section 

189(e), and in the context of the 

redesignation of the area, which is 

attaining the 1997 annual PM2.5

standard, at present ammonia and VOC 

precursors from major stationary 

sources do not contribute significantly 

to levels exceeding the 1997 PM2.5

standard in the Detroit-Ann Arbor area. 

See 57 FR 13539–42. 

EPA notes that its 1997 PM2.5

implementation rule provisions in 40 

CFR 51.1002 were not directed at 

evaluation of PM2.5 precursors in the 

context of redesignation, but at SIP 

plans and control measures required to 

bring a nonattainment area into 

attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS. By contrast, redesignation to 

attainment primarily requires the area to 

have already attained due to permanent 

and enforceable emission reductions, 

and to demonstrate that controls in 

place can continue to maintain the 

standard. Thus, even if we regard the 

Court’s January 4, 2013, decision as 

calling for ‘‘presumptive regulation’’ of 

ammonia and VOC for PM2.5 under the 

attainment planning provisions of 

subpart 4, those provisions in and of 

themselves do not require additional 

controls of these precursors for an area 

that already qualifies for redesignation. 

Nor does EPA believe that requiring 

Michigan to address precursors 

differently than it has already would 

result in a substantively different 

outcome. 

Although, as EPA has emphasized, its 

consideration here of precursor 

requirements under subpart 4 is in the 

context of a redesignation to attainment, 

EPA’s existing interpretation of subpart 

4 requirements with respect to 

precursors in attainment plans for PM10

contemplates that states may develop 

attainment plans that regulate only 

those precursors that are necessary for 

purposes of attainment in the area in 

question, i.e., states may determine that 

only certain precursors need be 

regulated for attainment and control 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
39662 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 2, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

9See, e.g., ‘‘Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans for California—San Joaquin 

Valley PM–10 Nonattainment Area; Serious Area 

Plan for Nonattainment of the 24-Hour and Annual 

PM–10 Standards,’’ 69 FR 30006 (May 26, 2004) 

(approving a PM10 attainment plan that impose 

controls on direct PM10 and NOX emissions and did 

not impose controls on SO2, VOC, or ammonia 

emissions). 

10See, e.g., Assoc. of Irritated Residents v. EPA 

et al., 423 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2005). 

purposes.9 Courts have upheld this 

approach to the requirements of subpart 

4 for PM10.10 EPA believes that 

application of this approach to PM2.5

precursors under subpart 4 is 

reasonable. Because the Detroit-Ann 

Arbor area has already attained the 1997 

annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS 

with its current approach to regulation 

of PM2.5 precursors, EPA believes that it 

is reasonable to conclude in the context 

of this redesignation that there is no 

need to revisit the attainment control 

strategy with respect to the treatment of 

precursors. Even if the Court’s decision 

is construed to impose an obligation to 

consider additional precursors under 

subpart 4 in evaluating this 

redesignation request, it would not 

affect EPA’s approval here of Michigan’s 

request for redesignation of the DetroitAnn Arbor area. In the context of a 

redesignation, the area has shown that 

it has attained both standards. 

Moreover, the state has shown, and EPA 

has proposed to determine, that 

attainment in this area is due to 

permanent and enforceable emissions 

reductions on all precursors necessary 

to provide for continued attainment. It 

follows logically that no further control 

of additional precursors is necessary. 

Accordingly, EPA does not view the 

January 4, 2013, decision of the Court as 

precluding redesignation of the DetroitAnn Arbor area to attainment for the 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS at this time. 

In sum, even if Michigan were 

required to address precursors for the 

Detroit-Ann Arbor area under subpart 4 

rather than under subpart 1, as 

interpreted in EPA’s remanded PM2.5

implementation rule, EPA would still 

conclude that the area had met all 

applicable requirements for purposes of 

redesignation in accordance with 

section 107(d)(3(E)(ii) and (v). 

b. Michigan Has a Fully Approved 

Applicable SIP Under Section 110(k) of 

the CAA 

EPA has found that Michigan has a 

fully approved SIP under section 110(k) 

of the CAA for all requirements 

applicable for purposes of redesignation 

to attainment for the 1997 annual and 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 standards. 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 particulate matter 

standards. EPA previously approved 

Michigan’s 2005 base year emissions 

inventory for the Detroit-Ann Arbor area 

as meeting the requirement of section 

172(c)(3) of the CAA for the 1997 annual 

and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standards. 

c. Nonattainment Requirements 

Under section 172, states with 

nonattainment areas must submit plans 

providing for timely attainment and 

meeting a variety of other requirements. 

On April 5, 2008, Michigan submitted a 

state-wide attainment demonstration for 

the 1997 annual standard for PM2.5, 

including the Detroit-Ann Arbor area. 

However, pursuant to 40 CFR 

51.1004(c), EPA’s determination that the 

area has attained the 1997 annual and 

the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standards 

suspends the requirement to submit 

certain planning SIPs related to 

attainment, including attainment 

demonstration requirements, the 

Reasonably Available Control 

Technology (RACT)—RACM 

requirement of section 172(c)(1) of the 

CAA, the RFP and attainment 

demonstration requirements of sections 

172(c)(2) and (6) and 182(b)(1) of the 

CAA, and the requirement for 

contingency measures of section 

172(c)(9) of the CAA. The attainment 

demonstration requirement for the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 standard has a deadline 

of December 14, 2012, and, therefore, 

this action relieves Michigan of the 

requirement to submit an attainment 

demonstration for the 2006 24-hour 

standard. 

As a result, the only remaining 

requirement under section 172 to be 

considered is the emissions inventory 

required under section 172(c)(3). As 

discussed previously, EPA approved the 

inventory that Michigan submitted as 

part of its attainment plan as satisfying 

this requirement on November 6, 2012 

(77 FR 66547). This approval included 

inventories for all four precursors (SO2, 

NOX, VOCs, and ammonia). 

No SIP provisions applicable for 

redesignation of the Detroit-Ann Arbor 

area are currently disapproved, 

conditionally approved, or partially 

approved. Michigan has, to date, a fully 

approved SIP for all requirements 

applicable for purposes of 

redesignation. 

3. The Improvement in Air Quality Is 

Due to Permanent and Enforceable 

Reductions in Emissions Resulting From 

Implementation of the SIPs and 

Applicable Federal Air Pollution 

Control Regulations and Other 

Permanent and Enforceable Reductions 

(Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii)) 

EPA believes that Michigan has 

demonstrated that the observed air 

quality improvement in the Detroit-Ann 

Arbor area is due to permanent and 

enforceable reductions in emissions 

resulting from implementation of the 

SIPs, Federal measures, and other stateadopted measures. 

In making this demonstration, 

Michigan has calculated the change in 

emissions between 2005, one of the 

years used to designate the area as 

nonattainment, and 2008, one of the 

years the Detroit-Ann Arbor area 

monitored attainment. The reduction in 

emissions and the corresponding 

improvement in air quality over this 

time period can be attributed to a 

number of regulatory control measures 

that the Detroit-Ann Arbor area and 

contributing 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. Federal Emission Control Measures 

Reductions in direct emissions of fine 

particles and in emissions of fine 

particle precursors 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 NOX and SO2 emissions 

from new cars and light duty trucks, 

including sport utility vehicles. 

Emission standards established under 

EPA’s rules became effective between 

2004 and 2009. The EPA has estimated 

that, emissions of NOX from new 

vehicles have decreased by the 

following percentages: 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%. EPA expects fleet-wide average 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 2, 2013 / Proposed Rules 39663 

emissions to decline by similar 

percentages as new vehicles replace 

older vehicles. The Tier 2 standards also 

reduced the sulfur content of gasoline to 

30 parts per million (ppm) beginning in 

January 2006. Most gasoline sold in 

Michigan prior to January 2006 had a 

sulfur content of about 500 ppm. 

Heavy-Duty Diesel Engine Rule. EPA 

issued this rule in July 2000. This rule, 

which went into effect in 2004, includes 

standards limiting the sulfur content of 

diesel fuel. A second phase, which took 

effect in 2007, reduced fine particle 

emissions from heavy-duty highway 

engines and further reduced the 

highway diesel fuel sulfur content to 15 

ppm. The total program is estimated to 

have achieved a 90% reduction in direct 

PM2.5 emissions and a 95% reduction in 

NOX emissions for new engines using 

low sulfur diesel, compared to 

previously existing engines using higher 

sulfur content diesel. The reduction in 

fuel sulfur content also yielded an 

immediate reduction in sulfate particle 

emissions from all diesel vehicles. 

Nonroad Diesel Rule. In May 2004, 

EPA promulgated a new rule for large 

nonroad diesel engines, such as those 

used in construction, agriculture, and 

mining equipment, to be phased in 

between 2008 and 2014. The rule 

reduces the sulfur content in nonroad 

diesel fuel by over 99%. Prior to 2006, 

nonroad diesel fuel averaged 

approximately 3,400 ppm sulfur. This 

rule limited nonroad diesel sulfur 

content to 500 ppm by 2006, with a 

further reduction to 15 ppm by 2010. 

The combined engine and fuel rules will 

reduce NOX and PM emissions from 

large nonroad diesel engines by over 

90%, compared to nonroad engines 

using higher sulfur content diesel. It is 

estimated that compliance with this rule 

will cut NOX emissions from nonroad 

diesel engines by up to 90%. This rule 

achieved some emission reductions by 

2008 and was fully implemented by 

2010. The reduction in fuel sulfur 

content also yielded an immediate 

reduction in sulfate particle emissions 

from all diesel vehicles. 

Nonroad Large Spark-Ignition Engine 

and Recreational Engine Standards. In 

November 2002, EPA promulgated 

emission standards for groups of 

previously unregulated nonroad 

engines. These engines include large 

spark-ignition engines such as those 

used in forklifts and airport groundservice equipment; recreational vehicles 

using spark-ignition engines such as offhighway motorcycles, all-terrain 

vehicles, and snowmobiles; and 

recreational marine diesel engines. 

Emission standards from large sparkignition engines were implemented in 

two tiers, with Tier 1 starting in 2004 

and Tier 2 in 2007. Recreational vehicle 

emission standards were phased in 

between 2006 and 2012. Marine Diesel 

engine standards were phased in from 

2006 through 2009. With full 

implementation of the entire nonroad 

spark-ignition engine and recreational 

engine standards, EPA expects an 80% 

reduction in NOX emissions by 2020. 

Some of these emission reductions 

occurred by the 2008–2010 period used 

to demonstrate attainment, and 

additional emission reductions will 

occur during the maintenance period. 

ii. Control Measures in Contributing 

Areas 

Given the significance of sulfates and 

nitrates in the Detroit-Ann Arbor area, 

the area’s air quality is strongly affected 

by regulated emissions from power 

plants. 

NOX SIP Call. 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 Phase II 

beginning in 2007. Emission reductions 

resulting from regulations developed in 

response to the NOX SIP Call are 

permanent and enforceable. 

CAIR. On May 12, 2005, EPA 

promulgated CAIR, which requires 

significant reductions in emissions of 

SO2 and NOX from electric generating 

units to limit the interstate transport of 

these pollutants and the ozone and fine 

particulate matter they form in the 

atmosphere. See 76 FR 70093. The Court 

initially vacated CAIR, North Carolina 

v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008), 

but ultimately remanded the rule to EPA 

without vacatur to preserve the 

environmental benefits provided by 

CAIR, North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 

1176, 1178 (D.C. Cir. 2008). In response 

to the court’s decision, EPA 

promulgated CSAPR to address 

interstate transport of NOX and SO2 in 

the eastern United States. See 76 FR 

48208 (August 8, 2011). 

On December 30, 2011, the D.C. 

Circuit issued an order addressing the 

status of CSAPR and CAIR in response 

to motions filed by numerous parties 

seeking a stay of CSAPR pending 

judicial review. In that order, the Court 

stayed CSAPR pending resolution of the 

petitions for review of that rule. The 

Court also indicated that EPA was 

expected to continue to administer 

CAIR in the interim until judicial 

review of CSAPR was completed. 

On August 21, 2012, the D.C. Circuit 

issued a decision to vacate CSAPR. In 

that decision, it also ordered EPA to 

continue administering CAIR ‘‘pending 

the promulgation of a valid 

replacement.’’ EME Homer City, 696 

F.3d at 38. The D.C. Circuit denied all 

petitions for rehearing on January 24, 

2013. EPA and other parties have filed 

petitions for certiorari to the U.S. 

Supreme Court, but those petitions have 

not been acted on to date. 

In light of these unique circumstances 

and for the reasons explained below, to 

the extent that attainment is due to 

emission reductions associated with 

CAIR, EPA is here proposing to 

determine that those reductions are 

sufficiently permanent and enforceable 

for purposes of CAA sections 

107(d)(3)(E)(iii) and 175A. EPA 

therefore proposes to approve the 

redesignation request and the related 

SIP revision for Livingston, Macomb, 

Monroe, Oakland, St. Clair, Washtenaw, 

and Wayne Counties in Michigan, 

including Michigan’s plan for 

maintaining attainment of the PM2.5

standard in the Detroit-Ann Arbor area. 

As directed by the D.C. Circuit, CAIR 

remains in place and enforceable until 

substituted by a valid replacement rule. 

Michigan’s SIP revision, which lists 

CAIR as a control measure, was 

approved by EPA on December 20, 2007 

(72 FR 72256), for the purpose of 

reducing SO2 and NOX emissions. CAIR 

was thus in place and getting emission 

reductions when the Detroit-Ann Arbor 

began monitoring attainment of the 1997 

annual and 2006 24-hour NAAQS. The 

quality-assured, certified monitoring 

data used to demonstrate the area’s 

attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS by the April 2010 attainment 

deadline was also impacted by CAIR. 

To the extent that the Detroit-Ann 

Arbor area relies on CAIR to maintain 

the standards, the recent directive from 

the D.C. Circuit in EME Homer City 

ensures that the reductions associated 

with CAIR will be permanent and 

enforceable for the necessary time 

period. EPA has been ordered by the 

Court to develop a new rule to address 

interstate transport to replace CSAPR 

and the opinion makes clear that after 

promulgating that new rule EPA must 

provide states an opportunity to draft 

and submit SIPs to implement that rule. 

Thus, CAIR will remain in place until 

EPA has promulgated a final rule 

through a notice-and-comment 

rulemaking process, states have had an 

opportunity to draft and submit SIPs, 

EPA has reviewed the SIPs to determine 

if they can be approved, and EPA has 

taken action on the SIPs, including 

promulgating a FIP if appropriate. The 

Court’s clear instruction to EPA that it 

must continue to administer CAIR until 

a valid replacement exists provides an 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
39664 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 2, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

11Periodic emission inventories are derived by 

states every three years and reported to the EPA. 

These periodic emission inventories are required by 

the Federal Consolidated Emissions Reporting Rule, 

codified at 40 CFR Subpart A. EPA revised these 

and other emission reporting requirements in a final 

rule published on December 17, 2008, at 73 FR 

76539. 

additional backstop: By definition, any 

rule that replaces CAIR and meets the 

Court’s direction would require upwind 

states to have SIPs that eliminate 

significant contributions to downwind 

nonattainment and prevent interference 

with maintenance in downwind areas. 

Further, in vacating CSAPR and 

requiring EPA to continue administering 

CAIR, the D.C. Circuit emphasized that 

the consequences of vacating CAIR 

‘‘might be more severe now in light of 

the reliance interests accumulated over 

the intervening four years.’’ EME Homer 

City, 696 F.3d at 38. The accumulated 

reliance interests include the interests of 

states that reasonably assumed they 

could rely on reductions associated with 

CAIR which brought certain 

nonattainment areas into attainment 

with the NAAQS. If EPA were 

prevented from relying on reductions 

associated with CAIR in redesignation 

actions, states would be forced to 

impose additional, redundant 

reductions on top of those achieved by 

CAIR. EPA believes this is precisely the 

type of irrational result the Court sought 

to avoid by ordering EPA to continue 

administering CAIR. For these reasons, 

EPA believes it is appropriate to allow 

states to rely on CAIR, and the existing 

emissions reductions achieved by CAIR, 

as sufficiently permanent and 

enforceable for purposes such as 

redesignation. Following promulgation 

of the replacement rule, EPA will 

review SIPs as appropriate to identify 

whether there are any issues that need 

to be addressed. 

iii. Consent Decrees and Permanent 

Shutdowns 

Michigan has also submitted multiple 

permanent and enforceable measures to 

address PM2.5 and precursors at single 

sources, by retiring credits from permits 

once an emissions source has shut 

down. A discussion of single source 

shutdowns and their emissions are 

found in the Appendix to Michigan’s 

submission. These single site emission 

reductions include multiple facility 

shutdowns, which have resulted in the 

retirement of permitted emission 

credits, including the following 

facilities: Ajax Materials Corporation, 

Edison Energy Services, Great Lakes 

Petroleum Terminal, LLC, and M-Lok 

Incorporated. These facility shutdowns 

resulted in an estimated reduction of 

over 100 tpy of NOX and over 4 tpy of 

direct PM2.5. Michigan has also 

attributed emission reductions to 

various permanent and enforceable 

controls required at multiple point 

source facilities in the Detroit-Ann 

Arbor area. Controls required on 

facilities through permanent and 

Federally enforceable construction 

permits and consent orders through 

enforcement actions include: Baghouse 

controls on several blast furnace 

operations the basic oxygen furnace at 

Severstal steel mill (permit #182–05B) 

and baghouse upgrades on blast 

furnaces at US Steel (Consent Order 1– 

2005). 

b. Emission Reductions 

Michigan developed an emissions 

inventory for NOX, direct PM2.5, and 

SO2 for 2005, one of the years used to 

designate the area as nonattainment, 

and 2008, one of the years the DetroitAnn Arbor area monitored attainment of 

the standard. EPA previously approved 

the emissions inventory for the 2005 

base year on November 6, 2012 (77 FR 

66547). 

Emissions of SO2 and NOX from 

electric generating units (EGUs) were 

derived from EPA’s Clean Air Market’s 

acid rain database. These emissions 

reflect Michigan NOX emission budgets 

resulting from EPA’s NOX SIP call. All 

other point source emissions were 

obtained from Michigan’s source facility 

emissions reporting. 

Area source emissions the DetroitAnn Arbor area for 2005 were taken 

from periodic emissions inventories.11

These 2005 area source emission 

estimates were extrapolated to 2008. 

Source growth factors were supplied by 

the Lake Michigan Air Directors 

Consortium (LADCO). 

Nonroad mobile source emissions 

were extrapolated from nonroad mobile 

source emissions reported in EPA’s 

2005 National Emissions Inventory 

(NEI). Contractors were employed by 

LADCO to estimate emissions for 

commercial marine vessels and 

railroads. 

On-road mobile source emissions 

were calculated using EPA’s mobile 

source emission factor model, 

MOVES2010a, in conjunction with 

transportation model results developed 

by local Metropolitan Planning 

Organization SEMCOG. 

All emissions estimates discussed 

below were documented in the 

submittals and appendices to 

Michigan’s redesignation request 

submittal of July 5, 2011. For these data 

and additional emissions inventory 

data, the reader is referred to EPA’s 

digital docket for this rule, http:// 

www.regulations.gov, for docket number 

EPA–R05–OAR–2011–0673, which 

includes a digital copy of Michigan’s 

submittal. 

Emissions data in tons per year (tpy) 

for the Detroit-Ann Arbor area are 

shown in Tables 2, 3, and 4 below. 

TABLE 2—COMPARISON OF 2005 EMISSIONS FROM THE NONATTAINMENT YEAR AND 2008 EMISSIONS FOR AN

ATTAINMENT YEAR FOR NOX IN THE DETROIT-ANN ARBOR AREA (TPY) 

2005 2008 Net change 

(2005–2008) 

Point (EGU) ..................................................................................................................... 69,756.71 70,008.00 251.29 

Non-EGU ......................................................................................................................... 18,684.20 18,817.18 132.98 

Area ................................................................................................................................. 15,949.67 17,157.57 1,207.90 

Nonroad ........................................................................................................................... 28,829.50 24,065.61 ¥4,763.89 

Marine, Air, and Rail ........................................................................................................ 7,380.89 6,380.17 ¥1,000.72 

On-road ............................................................................................................................ 154,294.00 119,194.00 ¥35,100.00 

Total .......................................................................................................................... 294,894.98 255,622.53 ¥39,272.45 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 2, 2013 / Proposed Rules 39665 

TABLE 3—COMPARISON OF 2005 EMISSIONS FROM THE NONATTAINMENT YEAR AND 2008 EMISSIONS FOR AN

ATTAINMENT YEAR FOR SO2 IN THE DETROIT-ANN ARBOR AREA (TPY) 

2005 2008 Net change 

(2005–2008) 

Point (EGU) ..................................................................................................................... 227,751.98 233,870.64 6,118.66 

Non-EGU ......................................................................................................................... 16,240.13 19,793.49 3,553.36 

Area ................................................................................................................................. 4,629.99 5,702.94 1,072.95 

Nonroad ........................................................................................................................... 2,739.34 426.61 ¥2,312.73 

Marine, Air, and Rail ........................................................................................................ 681.42 588.82 ¥92.60 

On-road ............................................................................................................................ 3,809.00 1,066.00 ¥2,743.00 

Total .......................................................................................................................... 255,851.86 261,448.50 5,596.64 

TABLE 4—COMPARISON OF 2005 EMISSIONS FROM THE NONATTAINMENT YEAR AND 2008 EMISSIONS FOR AN

ATTAINMENT YEAR FOR DIRECT PM2.5 IN THE DETROIT-ANN ARBOR AREA (TPY) 

2005 2008 Net change 

(2005–2008) 

Point (EGU) ..................................................................................................................... 1,105.51 1,375.31 269.80 

Non-EGU ......................................................................................................................... 2,454.95 1,605.72 ¥849.23 

Area ................................................................................................................................. 5,456.25 5,406.06 ¥50.19 

Nonroad ........................................................................................................................... 2,203.67 1,773.31 ¥430.36 

MAR ................................................................................................................................. 193.09 165.62 ¥27.47 

On-road ............................................................................................................................ 5,323.00 4,360.00 ¥963.00 

Total .......................................................................................................................... 16,736.47 14,686.02 ¥2,050.45 

Table 2 and 4 show reductions in both 

NOX and direct PM2.5 emissions for the 

Detroit-Ann Arbor area by 39,272.45 tpy 

for NOX, and 2,050.45 tpy for direct 

PM2.5 between 2005, a nonattainment 

year and 2008, an attainment year. 

Although Table 3 shows an increase 

in SO2 emissions of 5,596.64 tpy, the 

state submission includes sufficient 

evidence to show that, even with the 

increase in SO2, the area has reached 

attainment of the 1997 annual and 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and will 

continue to maintain that designation 

into the future due to multiple actions 

by the state. The evidence submitted by 

the state contains modeling, monitoring, 

and trend analysis. Based on monitoring 

data, the trend analysis for the area 

shows a steady decline in PM2.5

emissions, with a significant drop in 

concentrations beginning in 2006. Since 

meteorology can play a large part in 

dispersion of PM2.5, which can greatly 

affect monitored concentrations, 

LADCO and the state have normalized 

the data to remove meteorological 

effects using a statistical analysis, and 

the state has shown in its submission 

that the concentrations observed are due 

to real reductions in PM2.5 and its 

precursors, not just meteorological 

effects. 

The state has also submitted 

monitored data showing PM2.5

composition. PM2.5 can be classified by 

its chemical composition, allowing the 

state and EPA to discern what 

percentage each major precursor 

contributes to PM2.5 concentrations in 

the Detroit-Ann Arbor area. PM2.5

composition attributed to SO2 is, on 

average, 20–30% of total PM2.5

monitored concentrations, so, although 

SO2 emissions have increased, NOX and 

PM2.5 emissions (which contribute 60– 

75% of the total PM2.5 monitored 

concentrations, and are both significant 

contributors under EPA guidance) have 

each been reduced by more than 10%, 

and PM2.5 emissions have declined. 

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. Michigan Has a Fully Approved 

Maintenance Plan Pursuant to Section 

175A of the CAA (Section 

107(d)(3)(E)(iv)) 

In conjunction with Michigan’s 

request to redesignate the Detroit-Ann 

Arbor nonattainment area to attainment 

status, Michigan has submitted a SIP 

revision to provide for maintenance of 

the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS in the area through 2022. 

a. What is required in a maintenance 

plan? 

Section 175A of the CAA sets forth 

the required elements of a maintenance 

plan for areas seeking redesignation 

from nonattainment to attainment. 

Under section 175A, the plan must 

demonstrate continued attainment of 

the applicable NAAQS for at least ten 

years after EPA approves a 

redesignation to attainment. Eight years 

after 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 PM2.5 violations. 

The September 4, 1992, Calcagni 

memorandum provides additional 

guidance on the content of a 

maintenance plan. The memorandum 

states that a maintenance plan should 

address the following items: The 

attainment emissions inventory, 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. 

Section 175A requires a state seeking 

redesignation to attainment to submit a 

SIP revision to provide for the 

maintenance of the NAAQS in the area 

‘‘for at least 10 years after the 

redesignation.’’ EPA has interpreted this 

as a showing of maintenance ‘‘for a 

period of ten years following 

redesignation.’’ Calcagni memorandum, 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
39666 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 2, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

p. 9. Where the emissions inventory 

method of showing maintenance is 

used, its purpose is to show that 

emissions during the maintenance 

period will not increase over the 

attainment year inventory. Calcagni 

Memorandum, pp. 9–10. 

As discussed in detail in the section 

below, the state’s maintenance plan 

submission expressly documents that 

the area’s emissions inventories will 

remain below the attainment year 

inventories through 2022. In addition, 

for the reasons set forth below, EPA 

believes that the state’s submission, in 

conjunction with additional supporting 

information, further demonstrates that 

the area will continue to maintain the 

1997 annual and 2006 24-hour NAAQS 

at least through 2023. Thus, any EPA 

action to finalize its proposed approval 

of the redesignation request and 

maintenance plans in 2013, will be 

based on a showing, in accordance with 

section 175A, that the state’s 

maintenance plan provides for 

maintenance for at least ten years after 

redesignation. 

b. Attainment Inventory 

Michigan developed an emissions 

inventory for NOX, direct PM2.5, and 

SO2 for 2008, one of the years in the 

period during which the Detroit-Ann 

Arbor area monitored attainment of the 

1997 annual PM2.5 standard, as 

described previously. The attainment 

level of emissions is summarized in 

Tables 2, 3, and 4, above. 

c. Demonstration of Maintenance 

Along with the redesignation request, 

Michigan submitted a revision to its 

PM2.5 SIP to include a maintenance plan 

for the Detroit-Ann Arbor area, as 

required by section 175A of the CAA. 

Michigan’s plan demonstrates 

maintenance of the 1997 annual and 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard through 

2022 by showing that current and future 

emissions of NOX, directly emitted 

PM2.5 and SO2 in the area remain at or 

below attainment year emission levels. 

Section 175A requires a state seeking 

redesignation to attainment to submit a 

SIP revision to provide for the 

maintenance of the NAAQS in the area 

‘‘for at least 10 years after the 

redesignation.’’ EPA has interpreted this 

as a showing of maintenance ‘‘for a 

period of ten years following 

redesignation.’’ Calcagni memorandum, 

p. 9. Where the emissions inventory 

method of showing maintenance is 

used, its purpose is to show that 

emissions during the maintenance 

period will not increase over the 

attainment year inventory. Calcagni 

Memorandum, pp. 9–10. 

As discussed in detail in the section 

below, the state’s maintenance plan 

submission expressly documents that 

the area’s emissions inventories will 

remain below the attainment year 

inventories through 2022. In addition, 

for the reasons set forth below, EPA 

believes that the state’s submission, in 

conjunction with additional supporting 

information, further demonstrates that 

the area will continue to maintain the 

PM2.5 standard at least through 2023. 

Thus, if EPA finalizes its proposed 

approval of the redesignation request 

and maintenance plans in 2013, it will 

be based on a showing, in accordance 

with section 175A, that the state’s 

maintenance plan provides for 

maintenance for at least ten years after 

redesignation. 

Michigan’s plan demonstrates 

maintenance of the 1997 annual and 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS through 

2022 by showing that current and future 

emissions of NOX, directly emitted 

PM2.5 and SO2 for the area remain at or 

below attainment year emission levels. 

The rate of decline in emissions of 

PM2.5, NOX, and SO2 from the 

attainment year 2008 through 2022 

indicates that emissions inventory 

levels not only significantly decline 

between 2008 and 2022, but that the 

reductions will continue in 2023 and 

beyond. The average annual rate of 

decline is 1,367 tpy for SO2, 8,495 tpy 

of NOX, and 264 tpy of direct PM. These 

rates of decline are consistent with 

monitored and projected air quality 

trends, emissions reductions achieved 

through emissions controls and 

regulations that will remain in place 

beyond 2023 and through fleet turnover 

that will continue beyond 2023, among 

other factors. We are proposing to find 

the mobile source contribution to these 

emissions is expected to remain 

insignificant in 2023 and beyond 

because of fleet turnover in upcoming 

years that will result in cleaner vehicles 

and cleaner fuels. 

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 

uses emissions inventory projections for 

the years 2018 and 2022 to demonstrate 

maintenance for the entire Detroit-Ann 

Arbor area. The projected emissions 

were estimated by Michigan, with 

assistance from LADCO and SEMCOG, 

who used the MOVES2010a model for 

mobile source projections. Projection 

modeling of inventory emissions was 

done for the 2018 interim year 

emissions using estimates based on the 

2009 and 2018 LADCO modeling 

inventory, using LADCO’s growth 

factors, for all sectors. The 2022 

maintenance year emission estimates 

were based on emissions estimates from 

the 2018 LADCO modeling. Table 5 

shows the 2008 attainment base year 

emission estimates and the 2018 and 

2022 emission projections for the 

Detroit-Ann Arbor area, taken from 

Michigan’s July 5, 2011, submission. 

TABLE 5—COMPARISON OF 2008, 2018 AND 2022 NOX, DIRECT PM2.5, AND SO2 EMISSION TOTALS (TPY) FOR THE

DETROIT-ANN ARBOR AREA

SO2 NOX PM2.5

2008 (baseline) ................................................................................................................ 261,447.50 255,622.53 14,686.02 

2018 ................................................................................................................................. 231,218.01 146,017.66 11,363.91 

2022 ................................................................................................................................. 242,301.62 136,679.11 10,976.30 

Net Change (2008–2022) ................................................................................................ ¥19,145.88 ¥118,943.42 ¥3,709.72 

8% decrease 47% decrease 26% decrease 

Table 5 shows that, for the period 

between 2008 and the maintenance 

projection for 2022, the Detroit-Ann 

Arbor area will reduce NOX emissions 

by 118,943.42 tpy; direct PM2.5

emissions by 3,709.72 tpy; and SO2

emissions by 19,145.88 tpy. The 2022 

projected emissions levels are 

significantly below attainment year 

inventory levels, and, based on the rate 

of decline, it is highly improbable that 

any increases in these levels will occur 

in 2023 and beyond. Thus, the 

emissions inventories set forth in Table 

5 show that the area will continue to 

maintain the annual and 24-hour PM2.5

standards during the maintenance 

period and at least through 2023. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 2, 2013 / Proposed Rules 39667 

12These emissions estimates were taken from the 

emissions inventories developed for the RIA for the 

2012 PM2.5 NAAQS which can be found in the 

docket. 

As Table 1 demonstrates, monitored 

PM2.5 design value concentrations in 

Detroit-Ann Arbor are well below the 

NAAQS in the years beyond 2008, an 

attainment year for the area. Further, 

those values are trending downward as 

time progresses. Based on the future 

projections of emissions in 2015 and 

2022 showing significant emissions 

reductions in direct PM2.5, NOX, and 

SO2, it is very unlikely that monitored 

PM2.5 values in 2023 and beyond will 

show violations of the NAAQS. 

Additionally, the 2009–2011 design 

values of 11.6 and 32 mg/m3 (annual and 

24-hour, respectively) provide a 

sufficient margin in the unlikely event 

emissions rise slightly in the future. 

Maintenance Plan Evaluation of 

Ammonia and VOCs 

With regard to the redesignation of 

the Detroit-Ann Arbor area, in 

evaluating the effect of the Court’s 

remand of EPA’s implementation rule, 

which included presumptions against 

consideration of VOC and ammonia as 

PM2.5 precursors, EPA in this proposal 

is also considering the impact of the 

decision on the maintenance plan 

required under sections 175A and 

107(d)(3)(E)(iv). To begin with, EPA 

notes that the area has attained the 1997 

and 2006 PM2.5 standards and that the 

state has shown that attainment of those 

standards is due to permanent and 

enforceable emission reductions. 

EPA proposes to determine that the 

state’s maintenance plan shows 

continued maintenance of the standards 

by tracking the levels of the precursors 

whose control brought about attainment 

of the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 standard in 

the Detroit-Ann Arbor area. EPA 

therefore believes that the only 

additional consideration related to the 

maintenance plan requirements that 

results from the Court’s January 4, 2013, 

decision is that of assessing the 

potential role of VOC and ammonia in 

demonstrating continued maintenance 

in this area. As explained below, based 

upon documentation provided by the 

state and supporting information, EPA 

believes that the maintenance plan for 

the Detroit-Ann Arbor area need not 

include any additional emission 

reductions of VOC or ammonia in order 

to provide for continued maintenance of 

the standard. 

First, as noted above in EPA’s 

discussion of section 189(e), VOC 

emission levels in this area have 

historically been well-controlled under 

SIP requirements related to ozone and 

other pollutants. Second, total ammonia 

emissions throughout the Detroit-Ann 

Arbor area are very low, estimated to be 

less than 7,000 tpy. See Table 6 below. 

This amount of ammonia emissions 

appears especially small in comparison 

to the total amounts of SO2, NOX, and 

even direct PM2.5 emissions from 

sources in the area. Third, as described 

below, available information shows that 

no precursor, including VOC and 

ammonia, is expected to increase over 

the maintenance period so as to 

interfere with or undermine the state’s 

maintenance demonstration. 

Michigan’s maintenance plan shows 

that emissions of direct PM2.5, SO2, and 

NOX are projected to decrease by 

3,709.72 tpy, 19,145.88 tpy, and 

118,943.42 tpy, respectively, over the 

maintenance period. See Table 5 above. 

In addition, emissions inventories used 

in the regulatory impact analysis (RIA) 

for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS show that 

VOC and ammonia emissions are 

projected to decrease by 61,993 tpy and 

577 tpy, respectively between 2007 and 

2020. See Table 6 below. While the RIA 

emissions inventories are only projected 

out to 2020, there is no reason to believe 

that this downward trend would not 

continue through 2022. Given that the 

Detroit-Ann Arbor area is already 

attaining the 1997 annual and 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS even with the 

current level of emissions from sources 

in the area, the downward trend of 

emissions inventories would be 

consistent with continued attainment. 

Indeed, projected emissions reductions 

for the precursors that the state is 

addressing for purposes of the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS indicate that the area 

should continue to attain the NAAQS 

following the precursor control strategy 

that the state has already elected to 

pursue. Even if VOC and ammonia 

emissions were to increase 

unexpectedly between 2020 and 2022, 

the overall emissions reductions 

projected in direct PM2.5, SO2, and NOX

would be sufficient to offset any 

increases. For these reasons, EPA 

believes that local emissions of all of the 

potential PM2.5 precursors will not 

increase to the extent that they will 

cause monitored PM2.5 levels to violate 

the 1997 or the 2006 PM2.5 standard 

during the maintenance period. 

TABLE 6—COMPARISON OF 2007 AND 2020 VOC AND AMMONIA EMISSION TOTALS BY SOURCE SECTOR (TPY) FOR THE

DETROIT-ANN ARBOR AREA 12

Sector 

VOC Ammonia 

2007 2020 Net change 

2007–2020 2007 2020 Net change 2007–2020 

Point ......................................................... 15,250 15,324 73 210 566 356 

Area .......................................................... 64,265 60,714 ¥3,552 4,531 4,627 96 

Nonroad ................................................... 25,717 13,823 ¥11,894 28 35 6 

On-road .................................................... 67,242 20,682 ¥46,561 2,119 1,104 ¥1,015 

Fires ......................................................... 124 124 0 344 349 6 

Total .................................................. 172,599 110,666 ¥61,933 6,897 6,341 ¥557 

In addition, available air quality 

modeling analyses show continued 

maintenance of the standard during the 

maintenance period. The current air 

quality annual and 24-hour design 

values for the area are 11.6 and 32 mg/ 

m3 (based on 2009–11 air quality data), 

which are well below the 1997 annual 

and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS of 15 

and 35 mg/m3. Moreover, the modeling 

analysis conducted for the RIA for the 

2012 PM2.5 NAAQS indicates that the 

design values for this area are expected 

to continue to decline through 2020. In 

the RIA analysis, the highest 2020 

modeled design value for the DetroitAnn Arbor area is 11.6 mg/m3. Given 

that precursor emissions are projected to 

decrease through 2022, it is reasonable 

to conclude that monitored PM2.5 levels 

in this area will also continue to 

decrease through 2022. 

Thus, EPA believes that there is 

ample justification to conclude that the 

Detroit-Ann Arbor area should be 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
39668 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 2, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

redesignated, even taking into 

consideration the emissions of other 

precursors potentially relevant to PM2.5. 

After consideration of the D.C. Circuit’s 

January 4, 2013 decision, and for the 

reasons set forth in this notice, EPA 

proposes to approve the state’s 

maintenance plan and its request to 

redesignate the Detroit-Ann Arbor area 

to attainment for the PM2.5 1997 annual 

and 2006 24-hour NAAQS. 

Based on the information summarized 

above, Michigan has adequately 

demonstrated maintenance of both 

PM2.5 standards in this area for a period 

extending in excess of ten years from 

expected final action on Michigan’s 

redesignation request. 

d. Monitoring Network 

Michigan’s maintenance plan 

includes additional elements. 

Michigan’s plan includes a commitment 

to continue to operate its EPA-approved 

monitoring network, as necessary to 

demonstrate ongoing compliance with 

the NAAQS. Michigan currently 

operates 14 PM2.5 monitors in the 

Detroit-Ann Arbor Michigan. 

e. Verification of Continued Attainment 

Michigan remains obligated to 

continue to quality-assure monitoring 

data and enter all data into the AQS in 

accordance with Federal guidelines. 

Michigan will use these data, 

supplemented with additional 

information as necessary, to assure that 

the area continues to attain the 

standard. Michigan 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. Both of these 

actions will help to verify continued 

attainment in accordance with 40 CFR 

part 58. 

f. Contingency Plan 

The contingency plan provisions are 

designed to promptly correct or prevent 

a violation of the NAAQS that might 

occur after redesignation of an area to 

attainment. Section 175A of the CAA 

requires that a maintenance plan 

include such contingency measures as 

EPA deems necessary to assure that the 

state will promptly correct a violation of 

the NAAQS that occurs after 

redesignation. The maintenance plan 

should identify the contingency 

measures to be adopted, a schedule and 

procedure for adoption and 

implementation of the contingency 

measures, and a time limit for action by 

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 pollution 

control measures that were contained in 

the SIP before redesignation of the area 

to attainment. See section 175A(d) of 

the CAA. 

Michigan’s contingency plan defines 

an Action Level Response. The Action 

Level Response will be prompted by 

standard two-year annual average of 15 

mg/m3 or higher (annual standard) and 

a two-year 98th percentile average 

monitored value of 35 mg/m3 or higher 

(24-hour standard) within the 

maintenance area. If an Action Level 

Response is triggered, Michigan will 

adopt and implement appropriate 

control measures within 18 months 

from the end of the year in which 

monitored air quality triggering a 

response occurs. 

Michigan’s candidate contingency 

measures include the following: 

i. Wood stove change-out program; 

ii. Steel mill controls; 

iii. Coke battery controls; 

iv. Diesel retrofit program; 

v. Reduced idling program; 

vi. ICI boiler controls; 

vii. Food preparation flame broiler 

control and; 

viii. EGU controls. 

Michigan further commits to conduct 

ongoing review of its data, and if 

monitored concentrations or emissions 

are trending upward, Michigan commits 

to take appropriate steps to avoid a 

violation if possible. Michigan commits 

to continue implementing SIP 

requirements upon and after 

redesignation. EPA believes that 

Michigan’s contingency measures, as 

well as the commitment to continue 

implementing any SIP requirements, 

satisfy the pertinent requirements of 

section 175A(d). 

As required by section 175A(b) of the 

CAA, Michigan commits to submit to 

the EPA an updated PM2.5 maintenance 

plan eight years after redesignation of 

the Detroit-Ann Arbor area to cover an 

additional ten year period beyond the 

initial ten year maintenance period. As 

required by section 175A of the CAA, 

Michigan has also committed to retain 

the PM2.5 control measures contained in 

the SIP prior to redesignation. 

For all of the reasons set forth above, 

EPA is proposing to approve Michigan’s 

1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5

maintenance plan for the Detroit-Ann 

Arbor area as meeting the requirements 

of CAA section 175A. 

5. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget 

(MVEBs) for the Mobile Source 

Contribution to PM2.5 and NOX

a. How are MVEBs developed and what 

are the MVEBs for the Detroit-Ann 

Arbor area? 

Under the CAA, states are required to 

submit, at various times, control strategy 

SIP revisions and maintenance plans for 

PM2.5 nonattainment areas and for areas 

seeking redesignation to attainment of 

the PM2.5 standards. These emission 

control strategy SIP revisions (e.g., RFP 

and attainment demonstration SIP 

revisions) and maintenance plans create 

MVEBs based on on-road mobile source 

emissions for criteria pollutants and/or 

their precursors to address pollution 

from on-road transportation sources. 

The MVEBs are the portions of the total 

allowable emissions that are allocated to 

highway and transit vehicle use that, 

together with emissions from other 

sources in the area, will provide for 

attainment, RFP, 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 and could 

also be established for an interim year 

or years. 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 plans and transportation 

improvement programs (TIPs) must be 

evaluated to determine if they conform 

to the purpose of the area’s 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 or any 

required interim milestone. If a 

transportation plan or TIP does not 

conform, most new transportation 

projects that would expand the capacity 

of roadways cannot go forward. 

Regulations at 40 CFR part 93 set forth 

EPA policy, criteria, and procedures for 

demonstrating and assuring conformity 

of such transportation activities to a SIP. 

When reviewing SIP revisions 

containing MVEBs, including 

attainment strategies, rate-of-progress 

plans, and maintenance plans, EPA 

must affirmatively find adequate and/or 

approve the MVEBs for use in 

determining transportation conformity 

before the MVEBs can be used. Once 

EPA affirmatively approves and/or finds 

the submitted MVEBs to be adequate for 

transportation conformity purposes, the 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 2, 2013 / Proposed Rules 39669 

13EPA described the circumstances under which 

an area would be required to use MOVES in 

transportation conformity determinations in its 

March 2, 2010, Federal Register notice officially 

releasing MOVES2010 for use in SIPs and 

transportation conformity determinations. (75 FR 

9413) 

14EPA described the circumstances under which 

an area would be required to use MOVES in 

transportation conformity determinations in its 

March 2, 2010 Federal Register notice officially 

releasing MOVES2010 for use in SIPs and 

transportation conformity determinations. (75 FR 

9413) 

MVEBs must be used by state and 

Federal agencies in determining 

whether proposed transportation plans 

and TIPs 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). Additionally, to 

approve a motor vehicle emissions 

budget EPA must complete a thorough 

review of the SIP, in this case the PM2.5

maintenance plans, and conclude that 

the SIP will achieve its overall purpose, 

in this case providing for maintenance 

of the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 standards in the Detroit-Ann 

Arbor area. 

The maintenance plans submitted by 

Michigan for the area contains new 

primary PM2.5 and NOX MVEBs for the 

area for the year 2022. Michigan 

calculated the MVEBs using 

MOVES2010(a). After approval of the 

MVEBs becomes effective, the budgets 

will have to be used in future 

conformity determinations and regional 

emissions analyses prepared by the 

SEMCOG, and will have to be based on 

the use of MOVES2010a or the most 

recent version of MOVES required to be 

used in transportation conformity 

determinations.13 The state has 

determined the 2022 MVEBs for the 

Detroit-Ann Arbor area to be 4,360 tpy 

for primary PM2.5 and 119,194 tpy for 

NOX. The budget for the Detroit-Ann 

Arbor area is equal to the mobile source 

emissions calculated for the attainment 

year of 2008. Michigan has decided to 

include ‘‘safety margins’’ as provided 

for in 40 CFR 93.124(a) (described 

below) of 3,049 tpy for primary PM2.5

and 91,183 tpy for NOX in the 2022 

MVEBs, respectively, to provide for onroad mobile source growth. Michigan 

did not provide emission budgets for 

SO2, VOCs, and ammonia because it 

concluded, consistent with EPA’s 

presumptions regarding these 

precursors, that emissions of these 

precursors from on-road motor vehicles 

are not significant contributors to the 

area’s PM2.5 air quality problem. 

In the Detroit-Ann Arbor area, the 

motor vehicle budgets including the 

safety margins and motor vehicle 

emission projections for both NOX and 

PM2.5 are equal to the levels in the 

attainment year. 

EPA has reviewed the submitted 

budgets for 2022 including the added 

safety margins using the conformity 

rule’s adequacy criteria found at 40 CFR 

93.118(e)(4) and the conformity rule’s 

requirements for safety margins found at 

40 CFR 93.124(a). EPA has also 

completed a thorough review of the 

maintenance plan for the Detroit-Ann 

Arbor area. Based on the results of this 

review of the budgets and the 

maintenance plans, EPA is approving 

the 2022 direct PM2.5 and NOX budgets, 

including the requested safety margins 

for the Detroit-Ann Arbor area. 

Additionally, EPA, through this 

rulemaking, has found the submitted 

budgets to be adequate for use to 

determine transportation conformity in 

the Detroit-Ann Arbor area, because 

EPA has determined that the area can 

maintain the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS 

for the relevant maintenance period 

with on-road mobile source emissions at 

the levels of the MVEBs including the 

requested safety margins. These budgets 

must be used in conformity 

determinations made on or after the 

effective date of the final rulemaking (40 

CFR 93.118(f)(iii)). Additionally, 

transportation conformity 

determinations made after the effective 

date of this notice must be based on 

regional emissions analyses using 

MOVES2010a or a more recent version 

of MOVES that has been approved for 

use in conformity determinations.14

b. 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 

shown in Table 5, overall emissions in 

the Detroit-Ann Arbor area are projected 

to decline by 118,943.42 tpy and 

3,709.72 tpy for NOX and PM2.5 in 2022, 

respectively, which is greater than the 

MVEB safety margin of 91,183 tpy for 

NOX and 3,049 for primary PM2.5. 

The transportation conformity rule 

allows areas to allocate all or a portion 

of a ‘‘safety margin’’ to the area’s motor 

vehicle emissions budgets (40 CFR 

92.124(a)). The MVEBs requested by 

Michigan contain NOX and PM2.5 safety 

margins for mobile sources in 2022, 

which are much smaller than the 

allowable safety margins reflected in the 

total emissions for the Detroit-Ann 

Arbor 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 on-road mobile source 

emissions for 2022 contained in the 

demonstration of maintenance, the 

increase in on-road mobile source 

emissions that can be considered for 

transportation conformity purposes is 

within the safety margins of the overall 

PM2.5 maintenance demonstration. As 

discussed above, EPA is proposing that 

if this approval is finalized in 2013, the 

area will continue to maintain the 1997 

annual and 2006 24-hour NAAQS 

through at least 2023. Consistent with 

this proposal, EPA is proposing to 

approve the motor vehicle emissions 

budgets submitted by the state in its July 

5, 2011, maintenance plan for the 

Detroit-Ann Arbor area. EPA is 

proposing that the submitted budgets 

are consistent with maintenance of the 

1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS through 2023, specifically 

because the area is using the attainment 

year emissions as the MVEB for the 

future, which would remain the same 

into 2023. 

Therefore, EPA believes that the 

requested budgets, including the 

requested portion of the safety margins, 

provide for a quantity of mobile source 

emissions that would be expected to 

maintain the PM2.5 standard. Once 

allocated to mobile sources, these 

portions of the safety margins will not 

be available for use by other sources. 

c. What action is EPA taking on the 

submitted motor vehicle emissions 

budgets? 

EPA, through this rulemaking, is 

proposing to find adequate and is 

approving the MVEBs for use to 

determine transportation conformity in 

the Detroit-Ann Arbor area, because 

EPA has determined that the area can 

maintain attainment of the 1997 annual 

and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS for the 

relevant maintenance period with 

mobile source emissions at the levels of 

the MVEBs including the requested 

safety margins. (40 CFR 93.118(f)(iii)) 

6. 2005 Comprehensive Emissions 

Inventory 

As discussed above, section 172(c)(3) 

of the CAA requires areas to submit a 

comprehensive emissions inventory 

including direct PM and all four 

precursors (SO2, NOX, VOCs, and 

ammonia). EPA approved the Michigan 

2005 base year emissions inventory on 

November 6, 2012 (77 FR 66547), 

fulfilling this requirement. Emissions 

contained in the submittals cover the 

general source categories of point 

sources, area sources, on-road mobile 

sources, and nonroad mobile sources. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
39670 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 2, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

Based upon EPA’s previous action, 

the 2005 emissions inventory was 

complete and accurate, and met the 

requirement of CAA section 172(c)(3). 

7. Summary of Proposed Actions 

EPA is proposing to determine that 

the Detroit-Ann Arbor area is attaining 

and will continue to attain the 1997 

annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5

standards. EPA is proposing to approve 

Michigan’s PM2.5 maintenance plan for 

the Detroit-Ann Arbor area as a revision 

to the Michigan SIP because the plan 

meets the requirements of section 175A 

of the CAA. EPA is further proposing 

that the Detroit-Ann Arbor area has met 

the requirements for redesignation 

under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. 

Therefore, EPA is proposing to grant the 

request from Michigan to change the 

legal designation of the Detroit-Ann 

Arbor area from nonattainment to 

attainment for the 1997 annual and 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Finally, for 

transportation conformity purposes EPA 

is also proposing to approve Michigan’s 

MVEBs for the Detroit-Ann Arbor area. 

VI. What are the effects of EPA’s 

proposed actions? 

If finalized, approval of the 

redesignation request would change the 

official designation of the Michigan 

portion of the Detroit-Ann Arbor area 

for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS, found at 40 CFR part 81, 

from nonattainment to attainment. If 

finalized, EPA’s proposal would 

approve as a revision to the Michigan 

SIP for the Detroit-Ann Arbor area, the 

maintenance plan for the 1997 annual 

and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard. 

VII. 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 

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 

Act and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely proposes to approve state law as 

meeting Federal requirements and, if 

finalized, will not impose additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

state law. For that reason, these actions: 

• Are not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• 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 economically significant 

regulatory actions based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• are not significant regulatory 

actions 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 the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Particulate matter. 

40 CFR Part 81 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, National parks, 

Wilderness areas. 

Dated: June 19, 2013. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 2013–15887 Filed 7–1–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

[Docket No. CDC–2013–0012] 

42 CFR Part 88 

RIN 0920–AA54 

World Trade Center Health Program; 

Addition of Prostate Cancer to the List 

of WTC-Related Health Conditions 

AGENCY: Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention, HHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: On May 2, 2013, the 

Administrator of the World Trade 

Center (WTC) Health Program received 

a petition (Petition 002) requesting the 

addition of prostate cancer to the List of 

WTC-Related Health Conditions (List) 

covered in the WTC Health Program. 

The Administrator has determined to 

publish a proposed rule adding 

malignant neoplasm of the prostate 

(prostate cancer) to the List in the WTC 

Health Program regulations. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

August 1, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Written Comments: You 

may submit comments by any of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail: NIOSH Docket Office, Robert 

A. Taft Laboratories, MS–C34, 4676 

Columbia Parkway, Cincinnati, OH 

45226. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the agency name (Centers 

for Disease Control and Prevention, 

HHS) and docket number (CDC–2013– 

0012) or Regulation Identifier Number 

(0920–AA54) for this rulemaking. All 

relevant comments, including any 

personal information provided, will be 

posted without change to http:// 

www.regulations.gov. For detailed 

instructions on submitting public 

comments, see the ‘‘Public 

Participation’’ heading of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS