42018 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 20, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 

Follow the instructions for submitting 

comments. To ensure timely processing 

of comments, the Commission is no 

longer accepting comments submitted 

by electronic mail (e-mail) except 

through http://www.regulations.gov. 

Written Submissions 

Submit written submissions in the 

following way: 

Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for paper 

(preferably in five copies), disk, or CD– 

ROM submissions), to: Office of the 

Secretary, Consumer Product Safety 

Commission, Room 502, 4330 East West 

Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; 

telephone (301) 504–7923. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the agency name and 

docket number for this rulemaking. All 

comments received may be posted 

without change, including any personal 

identifiers, contact information, or other 

personal information provided, to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Do not 

submit confidential business 

information, trade secret information, or 

other sensitive or protected information 

electronically; if furnished at all, such 

information should be submitted in 

writing. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background comments or 

comments received, go to http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

information about submitting 

comments, call or write to Rockelle 

Hammond, Office of the Secretary, 

Consumer Product Safety Commission, 

Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone (301) 

504–6833. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April 

28, 2010, the Commission published a 

notice of proposed rulemaking (‘‘NPR’’) 

in the Federal Register titled, ‘‘Safety 

Standard for Bassinets and Cradles’’ (75 

FR 22303). The Commission issued the 

NPR pursuant to section 104(b) of the 

Consumer Product Safety Improvement 

Act of 2008 (‘‘CPSIA’’) which requires 

the Commission to promulgate 

consumer product safety standards for 

durable infant or toddler products. 

These standards are to be ‘‘substantially 

the same as’’ applicable voluntary 

standards or more stringent than the 

voluntary standard if the Commission 

concludes that more stringent 

requirements would further reduce the 

risk of injury associated with the 

product. The NPR proposed a more 

stringent safety standard for bassinets 

and cradles that will further reduce the 

risk of injury associated with these 

products. The NPR provided a 75-day 

public comment period which ended on 

July 12, 2010. 

Although the NPR was posted on the 

CPSC’s Web site at the same time it was 

published in the Federal Register, the 

NPR was not posted on the 

regulations.gov Web site until June 23, 

2010. Additionally, after publication of 

the NPR, Commission staff met with 

various parties concerning test methods 

described in the NPR. The Commission 

is placing summaries of those meetings 

into the administrative record. To 

ensure that all interested parties have 

adequate notice of this NPR and the 

meeting summaries and the ability to 

comment on them, the Commission is 

reopening the docket to continue to 

receive public comments until 

September 10, 2010. 

Dated: July 14, 2010. 

Todd A. Stevenson, 

Secretary, Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–17596 Filed 7–19–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6355–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2010–0477; FRL–9176–4] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans and Designation 

of Areas for Air Quality Planning 

Purposes; Michigan; Redesignation of 

the Allegan County Area to Attainment 

for Ozone 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

Michigan’s request to redesignate the 

Allegan County, Michigan 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment area to attainment for the 

1997 8-hour ozone standard, because 

the request meets the statutory 

requirements for redesignation under 

the Clean Air Act (CAA). The Michigan 

Department of Natural Resources and 

Environment (MDNRE) submitted this 

request on May 24, 2010 and 

supplemented it on June 16, 2010. 

This proposed approval involves 

several related actions. EPA is 

proposing to determine that the Allegan 

County area has attained the 8-hour 

ozone National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard (NAAQS). This determination 

is based on three years of complete, 

quality-assured ambient air quality 

monitoring data for the 2007–2009 

ozone seasons that demonstrate that the 

8-hour ozone NAAQS has been attained 

in the area. Preliminary data available 

for 2010 is consistent with continued 

attainment. EPA is also proposing to 

approve, as a revision to the Michigan 

State Implementation Plan (SIP), the 

State’s plan for maintaining the 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS through 2021 in the area. 

EPA is proposing to approve the 2005 

emissions inventory submitted with the 

redesignation request as meeting the 

comprehensive emissions inventory 

requirement of the CAA for the Allegan 

County area. Finally, EPA is proposing 

to find adequate and approve the State’s 

2021 Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets 

(MVEBs) for the Allegan County area. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before August 19, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2010–0477, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. E-mail: bortzer.jay@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (312) 692–2054. 

4. Mail: Jay Bortzer, Chief, Air 

Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. 

5. Hand delivery: Jay Bortzer, Chief, 

Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, 18th floor, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such deliveries 

are only accepted during the Regional 

Office normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. The 

Regional Office official hours of 

business are Monday through Friday, 

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

Federal holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R05–OAR–2010– 

0477. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http:// 

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 http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through http:// 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 20, 2010 / Proposed Rules 42019 

www.regulations.gov, your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional instructions on 

submitting comments, go to section I of 

this document, ‘‘What Should I Consider 

as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?’’ 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http:// 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We 

recommend that you telephone 

Kathleen D’Agostino, Environmental 

Engineer, at (312) 886–1767 before 

visiting the Region 5 office. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kathleen D’Agostino, Environmental 

Engineer, Attainment Planning and 

Maintenance Section, Air Programs 

Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West 

Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 

60604, (312) 886–1767, 

dagostino.kathleen@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

EPA. This supplementary information 

section is arranged as follows: 

Table of Contents 

I. What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments for EPA? 

II. What actions is EPA proposing to take? 

III. What is the background for these actions? 

A. What is the general background 

information? 

B. What are the impacts of the December 

22, 2006, and June 8, 2007, United States 

Court of Appeals Decisions regarding 

EPA’s Phase 1 Implementation Rule? 

IV. What are the criteria for redesignation? 

V. What is the effect of these actions? 

VI. What is EPA’s analysis of the request? 

A. Attainment Determination and 

Redesignation 

B. Adequacy of the MVEBs 

C. 2005 Comprehensive Emissions 

Inventory 

VII. What actions is EPA taking? 

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for EPA? 

When submitting comments, 

remember to: 

1. Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

2. Follow directions—EPA may ask 

you to respond to specific questions or 

organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

3. Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

4. Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

5. If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

6. Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

7. Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

8. Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

II. What actions is EPA proposing to 

take? 

EPA is proposing to take several 

related actions. EPA is proposing to 

determine that the Allegan County 

nonattainment area has attained the 

1997 8-hour ozone standard and that the 

area has met the requirements for 

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

of the CAA. EPA is thus proposing to 

approve the request from MDNRE to 

change the legal designation of the 

Allegan County area from 

nonattainment to attainment for the 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is also 

proposing to approve, as a revision to 

the Michigan SIP, the State’s 

maintenance plan (such approval being 

one of the CAA criteria for redesignation 

to attainment status). The maintenance 

plan is designed to keep the Allegan 

County area in attainment of the ozone 

NAAQS through 2021. EPA is proposing 

to approve the 2005 emissions inventory 

for the Allegan County area as meeting 

the comprehensive inventory 

requirements of section 172(c)(3) of the 

CAA. If EPA’s determination of 

attainment is finalized, under the 

provisions of 40 CFR 51.918, the 

requirement to submit certain planning 

SIPs related to attainment (the 

Reasonably Available Control Measure 

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

of the CAA, the Reasonable Further 

Progress (RFP) and attainment 

demonstration requirements of sections 

172(c)(2) and (6) of the CAA, and the 

requirement for contingency measures 

of section 172(c)(9) of the CAA) are not 

applicable to the area as long as it 

continues to attain the NAAQS and 

would cease to be applicable upon 

redesignation. In addition, as set forth in 

more detail below, in the context of 

redesignations, EPA has interpreted 

requirements related to attainment as 

not applicable for purposes of 

redesignation. Finally, EPA is proposing 

to find adequate and approve the newlyestablished 2021 MVEBs for the Allegan 

County area. The adequacy comment 

period for the MVEBs began on June 17, 

2010, with EPA’s posting of the 

availability of the submittal on EPA’s 

Adequacy Web site (at http:// 

www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/ 

transconf/adequacy.htm). The adequacy 

comment period for these MVEBs ends 

on July 19, 2010. Please see section VI. 

B. of this rulemaking, ‘‘Adequacy of the 

MVEBs,’’ for further explanation of this 

process. We are proposing to find 

adequate and approve the State’s 2021 

MVEBs for transportation conformity 

purposes. 

III. What is the background for these 

actions? 

A. What is the general background 

information? 

Ground-level ozone is not emitted 

directly by sources. Rather, emissions of 

nitrogen oxides (NOX) and volatile 

organic compounds (VOCs) react in the 

presence of sunlight to form groundlevel ozone. NOX and VOCs are referred 

to as precursors of ozone. 

The CAA establishes a process for air 

quality management through the 

NAAQS. Before promulgation of the 

8-hour standard, the ozone NAAQS was 

based on a 1-hour standard. EPA 

originally designated the Allegan 

County area as an ozone nonattainment 

area under section 107 of the 1977 CAA 

on March 3, 1978 (43 FR 8962). EPA 

revisited this original designation in 

1991 to reflect new designation 

requirements contained in the 1990 

CAA. On November 6, 1991 (56 FR 

56694), EPA retained the original 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
42020 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 20, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

nonattainment designation for Allegan. 

At the time of the 1991 designations, 

current monitoring data were not 

available for this area, nor had the State 

completed a redesignation request 

showing that it complied with the 

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

the CAA. Therefore, EPA designated the 

area as nonattainment, but did not 

establish a nonattainment classification, 

establishing the area as an incomplete 

data ozone nonattainment area. EPA 

subsequently redesignated the Allegan 

County area to attainment of the 1-hour 

standard effective January, 16 2001. (See 

65 FR 70490 (November 24, 2000)). This 

attainment designation was thus in 

effect at the time EPA revoked the 

1-hour ozone NAAQS, on June 15, 2005. 

On July 18, 1997 (62 FR 38856), EPA 

promulgated an 8-hour ozone standard 

of 0.08 parts per million parts (ppm). On 

April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23857), EPA 

published a final rule designating and 

classifying areas under the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. These designations and 

classifications became effective June 15, 

2004. EPA designated as nonattainment 

any area that was violating the 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS based on the three most 

recent years of air quality data, 2001– 

2003. 

The CAA contains two sets of 

provisions, subpart 1 and subpart 2, that 

address planning and control 

requirements for nonattainment areas. 

(Both are found in Title I, part D, of the 

CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7501–7509a and 7511– 

7511f, respectively.) Subpart 1 contains 

general requirements for nonattainment 

areas for any pollutant, including ozone, 

governed by a NAAQS. Subpart 2 

provides more specific requirements for 

ozone nonattainment areas. 

Under EPA’s implementation rule for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone standard (69 FR 

23951 (April 30, 2004)), an area was 

classified under subpart 2 based on its 

8-hour ozone design value (i.e. the 

three-year average annual fourth-highest 

daily maximum 8-hour average ozone 

concentration), if it had a 1-hour design 

value at the time of designation at or 

above 0.121 ppm (the lowest 1-hour 

design value in Table 1 of subpart 2) (69 

FR 23954). All other areas were covered 

under subpart 1, based upon their 

8-hour design values (69 FR 23958). The 

Allegan County area was designated as 

a subpart 1, 8-hour ozone nonattainment 

area by EPA on April 30, 2004 (69 FR 

23857 and 23910), based on air quality 

monitoring data from 2001–2003 (69 FR 

23860). 

40 CFR 50.10 and 40 CFR part 50, 

Appendix I provide that the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard is attained when the 

three-year average of the annual fourthhighest daily maximum 8-hour average 

ozone concentration is less than or 

equal to 0.08 ppm, when rounded. The 

data completeness requirement is met 

when the average percent of days with 

valid ambient monitoring data is greater 

than 90%, and no single year has less 

than 75% data completeness. See 40 

CFR part 50, Appendix I, section 2.3(d). 

The MDNRE submitted a request to 

redesignate the Allegan County area to 

attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard on May 12, 2010 and 

supplemented the submittal on June 16, 

2010. The redesignation request 

includes three years of complete, 

quality-assured data for the period of 

2007 through 2009, indicating the 

8-hour NAAQS for ozone, as 

promulgated in 1997, had been attained 

for the Allegan County area. Under the 

CAA, nonattainment areas may be 

redesignated to attainment if sufficient 

complete, quality-assured data are 

available for the Administrator to 

determine that the area has attained the 

standard, and the area meets the other 

redesignation requirements in section 

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

On March 27, 2008 (73 FR 16436), 

EPA promulgated a revised 8-hour 

ozone standard of 0.075 ppm. In May 

2008, States, environmental groups, and 

industry groups filed petitions with the 

DC Circuit Court of Appeals for review 

of the 2008 ozone standards. In March 

2009, the court granted EPA’s request to 

stay the litigation so EPA could review 

the standards and determine whether 

they should be reconsidered. On 

September 16, 2009, EPA announced 

reconsideration of our 2008 decision 

setting national standards for groundlevel ozone. The designation process for 

that standard has been stayed. On 

January 6, 2010, EPA proposed to set the 

level of the primary 8-hour ozone 

standard within the range of 0.060 to 

0.070 ppm, rather than at 0.075 ppm. 

We expect by September 2010 to have 

completed our reconsideration of the 

standard and also expect that thereafter 

we will proceed with designations. 

Therefore, the actions addressed in 

today’s proposed rulemaking relate only 

to the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. 

B. What are the impacts of the 

December 22, 2006, and June 8, 2007, 

United States Court of Appeals 

Decisions Regarding EPA’s Phase 1 

Implementation Rule? 

1. Summary of Court Decision 

On December 22, 2006, in South 

Coast Air Quality Management Dist. v. 

EPA (South Coast), the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit vacated EPA’s Phase 1 

Implementation Rule for the 8-hour 

Ozone Standard (69 FR 23951 (April 30, 

2004)). 472 F.3d 882 (DC Cir. 2006). On 

June 8, 2007, in response to several 

petitions for rehearing, the DC Circuit 

clarified that the Phase 1 Rule was 

vacated only with regard to those parts 

of the rule that had been successfully 

challenged. Id., Docket No. 04 1201. 

Therefore, several provisions of the 

Phase 1 Rule remain effective: 

provisions related to classifications for 

areas currently classified under subpart 

2 of Title I, part D, of the CAA as 8-hour 

nonattainment areas; the 8-hour 

attainment dates; and the timing for 

emissions reductions needed for 

attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

The June 8, 2007, decision also left 

intact the court’s rejection of EPA’s 

reasons for implementing the 8-hour 

standard in certain nonattainment areas 

under subpart 1 in lieu of subpart 2. By 

limiting the vacatur, the court let stand 

EPA’s revocation of the 1-hour standard 

and those anti-backsliding provisions of 

the Phase 1 Rule that had not been 

successfully challenged. The June 8, 

2007, decision reaffirmed the December 

22, 2006, decision that EPA had 

improperly failed to retain four 

measures required for 1-hour 

nonattainment areas under the antibacksliding provisions of the 

regulations: (1) Nonattainment area New 

Source Review (NSR) requirements 

based on an area’s 1-hour nonattainment 

classification; (2) section 185 penalty 

fees for 1-hour severe or extreme 

nonattainment areas; (3) measures to be 

implemented pursuant to section 

172(c)(9) or 182(c)(9) of the CAA, on the 

contingency of an area not making 

reasonable further progress toward 

attainment of the 1-hour NAAQS, or for 

failure to attain that NAAQS; and (4) 

certain transportation conformity 

requirements for certain types of Federal 

actions. The June 8, 2007, decision 

clarified that the court’s reference to 

conformity requirements was limited to 

requiring the continued use of 1-hour 

motor vehicle emissions budgets until 

8-hour budgets were available for 8-hour 

conformity determinations. 

This section sets forth EPA’s views on 

the potential effect of the court’s rulings 

on this proposed redesignation action. 

For the reasons set forth below, EPA 

does not believe that the court’s rulings 

alter any requirements relevant to this 

redesignation action so as to preclude 

redesignation or prevent EPA from 

proposing or ultimately finalizing this 

redesignation. EPA believes that the 

court’s December 22, 2006, and June 8, 

2007, decisions impose no impediment 

to moving forward with redesignation of 

this area to attainment, because even in 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 20, 2010 / Proposed Rules 42021 

light of the court’s decisions, 

redesignation is appropriate under the 

relevant redesignation provisions of the 

CAA and longstanding policies 

regarding redesignation requests. 

2. Requirements Under the 1997 8-Hour 

Standard 

With respect to the 1997 8-hour 

standard, the court’s ruling rejected 

EPA’s reasons for classifying areas 

under subpart 1 for the 8-hour standard, 

and remanded that matter to the 

Agency. In its January 16, 2009, 

proposed rulemaking in response to the 

South Coast decision, EPA has proposed 

to classify Allegan County under 

subpart 2 as a moderate area. 74 FR 

2936, 2944. If EPA finalizes this 

rulemaking, the requirements under 

subpart 2 will become applicable when 

they are due, a deadline that EPA has 

proposed to be one year after the 

effective date of a final rulemaking 

classifying areas as moderate or 

marginal. 74 FR 2940–2941. Although a 

future final decision by EPA to classify 

this area under subpart 2 would trigger 

additional future requirements for the 

area, EPA believes that this does not 

mean that redesignation cannot now go 

forward. This belief is based upon: (1) 

EPA’s longstanding policy of evaluating 

requirements in accordance with the 

requirements due at the time the request 

is submitted; and, (2) consideration of 

the inequity of applying retroactively 

any requirements that might be applied 

in the future. 

First, at the time the redesignation 

request was submitted, the Allegan 

County area was not classified under 

subpart 2, nor were there any subpart 2 

requirements yet due for this area. 

Under EPA’s longstanding 

interpretation of section 107(d)(3)(E) of 

the CAA, to qualify for redesignation, 

States requesting redesignation to 

attainment must meet only the relevant 

SIP requirements that came due prior to 

the submittal of a complete 

redesignation request. See September 4, 

1992, Calcagni memorandum 

(‘‘Procedures for Processing Requests to 

Redesignate Areas to Attainment,’’ 

Memorandum from John Calcagni, 

Director, Air Quality Management 

Division). See also Michael Shapiro 

Memorandum, September 17, 1993, and 

60 FR 12459, 12465–66 (March 7, 1995) 

(Redesignation of Detroit-Ann Arbor). 

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

(7th Cir. 2004), which upheld EPA’s 

redesignation rulemaking applying this 

interpretation. See also 68 FR 25418, 

25424, 25427 (May 12, 2003) 

(Redesignation of St. Louis). 

Moreover, it would be inequitable to 

retroactively apply any new SIP 

requirements that were not applicable at 

the time the request was submitted. The 

DC Circuit has recognized the inequity 

in such retroactive rulemaking. In Sierra 

Club v. Whitman, 285 F.3d 63 (DC Cir. 

2002), the DC Circuit upheld a district 

court’s ruling refusing to make 

retroactive an EPA determination of 

nonattainment that was past the 

statutory due date. Such a 

determination would have resulted in 

the imposition of additional 

requirements on the area. The court 

stated: ‘‘Although EPA failed to make 

the nonattainment determination within 

the statutory time frame, Sierra Club’s 

proposed solution only makes the 

situation worse. Retroactive relief would 

likely impose large costs on the States, 

which would face fines and suits for not 

implementing air pollution prevention 

plans in 1997, even though they were 

not on notice at the time.’’ Id. at 68. 

Similarly here it would be unfair to 

penalize the area by applying to it, for 

purposes of redesignation, additional 

SIP requirements under subpart 2 that 

were not in effect or yet due at the time 

it submitted its redesignation request. 

3. Requirements Under the 1-Hour 

Standard 

With respect to the 1-hour standard 

requirements, the Allegan County area 

was an attainment area subject to a CAA 

section 175A maintenance plan under 

the 1-hour standard at the time that the 

1-hour standard was revoked. Therefore, 

the DC Circuit’s decisions with respect 

to 1-hour nonattainment antibacksliding requirements do not impact 

redesignation requests for these types of 

areas, except to the extent that the court 

in its June 8, 2007, decision clarified 

that for those areas with 1-hour motor 

vehicle emissions budgets in their 

maintenance plans, anti-backsliding 

requires that those 1-hour budgets must 

be used for 8-hour conformity 

determinations until replaced by 8-hour 

budgets. To meet this requirement, 

conformity determinations in such areas 

must comply with the applicable 

requirements of EPA’s conformity 

regulations at 40 CFR part 93. 

With respect to the three other antibacksliding provisions for the 1-hour 

standard that the court found were not 

properly retained, the Allegan County 

area is an attainment area subject to a 

maintenance plan for the 1-hour 

standard, and the NSR, contingency 

measure (pursuant to section 172(c)(9) 

or 182(c)(9)), and fee provision 

requirements no longer apply to an area 

that has been redesignated to attainment 

of the 1-hour standard. 

Thus, the decision in South Coast Air 

Quality Management Dist. would not 

preclude EPA from finalizing the 

redesignation of this area. 

IV. What are the criteria for 

redesignation? 

The CAA provides the requirements 

for redesignating a nonattainment area 

to attainment. Specifically, section 

107(d)(3)(E) allows for redesignation 

provided that: (1) The Administrator 

determines that the area has attained the 

applicable NAAQS; (2) the 

Administrator has fully approved the 

applicable implementation plan for the 

area under section 110(k); (3) the 

Administrator determines that the 

improvement in air quality is due to 

permanent and enforceable reductions 

in emissions resulting from 

implementation of the applicable SIP 

and applicable Federal air pollutant 

control regulations and other permanent 

and enforceable reductions; (4) the 

Administrator has fully approved a 

maintenance plan for the area as 

meeting the requirements of section 

175A; and, (5) the State containing such 

area has met all requirements applicable 

to the area under section 110 and part 

D. 

EPA provided guidance on 

redesignation in the General Preamble 

for the Implementation of Title I of the 

CAA Amendments of 1990 on April 16, 

1992 (57 FR 13498), and supplemented 

this guidance on April 28, 1992 (57 FR 

18070). EPA has provided further 

guidance on processing redesignation 

requests in the following documents: 

‘‘Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Design 

Value Calculations,’’ Memorandum from 

William G. Laxton, Director, Technical 

Support Division, June 18, 1990; 

‘‘Maintenance Plans for Redesignation 

of Ozone and Carbon Monoxide 

Nonattainment Areas,’’ Memorandum 

from G. T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon 

Monoxide Programs Branch, April 30, 

1992; 

‘‘Contingency Measures for Ozone and 

Carbon Monoxide (CO) Redesignations,’’ 

Memorandum from G. T. Helms, Chief, 

Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs 

Branch, June 1, 1992; 

‘‘Procedures for Processing Requests 

to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,’’ 

Memorandum from John Calcagni, 

Director, Air Quality Management 

Division, September 4, 1992; 

‘‘State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

Actions Submitted in Response to Clean 

Air Act (ACT) Deadlines,’’ 

Memorandum from John Calcagni, 

Director, Air Quality Management 

Division, October 28, 1992; 

‘‘Technical Support Documents 

(TSDs) for Redesignation Ozone and 

Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment 

Areas,’’ Memorandum from G. T. Helms, 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
42022 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 20, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide 

Programs Branch, August 17, 1993; 

‘‘State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

Requirements for Areas Submitting 

Requests for Redesignation to 

Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon 

Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS) On or After 

November 15, 1992,’’ Memorandum 

from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting 

Assistant Administrator for Air and 

Radiation, September 17, 1993; 

‘‘Use of Actual Emissions in 

Maintenance Demonstrations for Ozone 

and CO Nonattainment Areas,’’ 

Memorandum from D. Kent Berry, 

Acting Director, Air Quality 

Management Division, to Air Division 

Directors, Regions 1–10, November 30, 

1993; 

‘‘Part D New Source Review (part D 

NSR) Requirements for Areas 

Requesting Redesignation to 

Attainment,’’ Memorandum from Mary 

D. Nichols, Assistant Administrator for 

Air and Radiation, October 14, 1994; 

and 

‘‘Reasonable Further Progress, 

Attainment Demonstration, and Related 

Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment 

Areas Meeting the Ozone National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard,’’ 

Memorandum from John S. Seitz, 

Director, Office of Air Quality Planning 

and Standards, May 10, 1995. 

V. What is the effect of these actions? 

Approval of the redesignation request 

would change the official designation of 

the Allegan County area for the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS found at 40 CFR 

part 81. It would also incorporate into 

the Michigan SIP a plan for maintaining 

the 8-hour ozone NAAQS through 2021. 

The maintenance plan includes 

contingency measures as required under 

CAA section 175A to remedy future 

violations of the 8-hour NAAQS. It also 

establishes MVEBs for the Allegan 

County area of 3.93 tons per day (tpd) 

VOC and 6.92 tpd NOX for 2021. 

VI. What is EPA’s analysis of the 

request? 

A. Attainment Determination and 

Redesignation 

EPA is proposing to determine that 

the Allegan County area has attained the 

1997 8-hour ozone standard and that the 

area has met all other applicable 

redesignation criteria under CAA 

section 107(d)(3)(E). The basis for EPA’s 

proposed approvals of the redesignation 

requests is as follows: 

1. The Area Has Attained the 8-Hour 

Ozone NAAQS (Section 107(d)(3)(E)(i)) 

EPA is proposing to make a 

determination that the Allegan County 

area has attained the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. Whether an area is considered 

to be attaining the 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

is determined in accordance with 40 

CFR 50.10 and part 50, Appendix I, 

based on three complete, consecutive 

calendar years of quality-assured air 

quality monitoring data. To attain the 

standard, the three-year average of the 

fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour 

average ozone concentrations measured 

at each monitor within an area over 

each year must not exceed 0.08 ppm. 

Based on the rounding convention 

described in 40 CFR part 50, Appendix 

I, the standard is attained if the design 

value is 0.084 ppm or below. The data 

must be collected and quality-assured in 

accordance with 40 CFR part 58, and 

recorded in the EPA’s Air Quality 

System (AQS). The monitors generally 

should have remained at the same 

location for the duration of the 

monitoring period required for 

determining attainment. 

Michigan included in its 

redesignation request certified ozone 

monitoring data for the 2007 to 2009 

ozone seasons. Michigan has qualityassured all of the ambient monitoring 

data in accordance with 40 CFR 58.10, 

and has recorded it in the AQS 

database. The data meet the 

completeness criteria in 40 CFR 50, 

Appendix I, which requires a minimum 

completeness of 75% annually and 90% 

over each three-year period. Monitoring 

data are presented in Table 1 below. 

TABLE 1—ANNUAL 4TH HIGH DAILY MAXIMUM 8-HOUR OZONE CONCENTRATION AND THREE-YEAR AVERAGES OF 4TH

HIGH DAILY MAXIMUM 8-HOUR OZONE CONCENTRATIONS

County Monitor 2007 4th high 

(ppm) 

2008 4th high 

(ppm) 

2009 4th high 

(ppm) 

2007–2009 

average (ppm) 

Allegan ................................................................................. 26–005–0003 0.094 0.073 0.076 0.081 

Preliminary data available for 2010 are 

consistent with continued attainment. 

In addition, as discussed below with 

respect to the maintenance plan, 

MDNRE has committed to continue to 

operate an EPA-approved monitoring 

network as necessary to show ongoing 

compliance with the NAAQS. MDNRE 

remains obligated to continue to qualityassure monitoring data in accordance 

with 40 CFR part 58 and to enter all data 

into AQS in accordance with Federal 

guidelines. In summary, EPA believes 

that the data show that the Allegan 

County area has attained the 1997 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS. 

2. The Area Has Met All Applicable 

Requirements Under Section 110 and 

Part D; and the Area Has a Fully 

Approved SIP Under Section 110(k) 

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

107(d)(3)(E)(ii)) 

We have determined that Michigan 

has met all currently applicable SIP 

requirements for purposes of 

redesignation for the Allegan County 

area under section 110 of the CAA 

(general SIP requirements). We are also 

proposing to determine that the 

Michigan SIP meets all SIP 

requirements currently applicable for 

purposes of redesignation under part D 

of Title I of the CAA (requirements 

specific to subpart 1 nonattainment 

areas), in accordance with section 

107(d)(3)(E)(v). In addition, with the 

exception of the emissions inventory 

under section 172(3), we have approved 

all applicable requirements of the 

Michigan SIP for purposes of 

redesignation, in accordance with 

section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii). As discussed 

below, in this action EPA is proposing 

to approve Michigan’s 2005 emissions 

inventory as meeting the section 

172(c)(3) comprehensive emissions 

inventory requirement. 

In proposing these determinations, we 

have ascertained which SIP 

requirements are applicable to the area 

for purposes of redesignation, and have 

determined that there are SIP measures 

meeting those requirements and that 

they are fully approved under section 

110(k) of the CAA. As discussed more 

fully below, for purposes of evaluating 

a redesignation request, SIPs must be 

fully approved only with respect to 

requirements that became due prior to 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 20, 2010 / Proposed Rules 42023 

1On October 27, 1998 (63 FR 57356), EPA issued 

a NOX SIP Call requiring the District of Columbia 

and 22 states to reduce emissions of NOX in order 

to reduce the transport of ozone and ozone 

precursors. In compliance with EPA’s NOX SIP Call, 

MDNRE has developed rules governing the control 

of NOX emissions from Electric Generating Units 

(EGUs), major non-EGU industrial boilers, major 

cement kilns, and internal combustion engines. 

EPA approved Michigan’s rules as fulfilling Phase 

I of the NOX SIP Call on May 4, 2005 (70 FR 23029) 

and as meeting Phase II of the NOX SIP Call on 

January 29, 2008 (73 FR 5101). 

the submission of the redesignation 

request. 

The September 4, 1992, Calcagni 

memorandum (see ‘‘Procedures for 

Processing Requests to Redesignate 

Areas to Attainment,’’ Memorandum 

from John Calcagni, Director, Air 

Quality Management Division, 

September 4, 1992) describes EPA’s 

interpretation of section 107(d)(3)(E) of 

the CAA. Under this interpretation, a 

State and the area it wishes to 

redesignate must meet the relevant CAA 

requirements that are due prior to the 

State’s submittal of a complete 

redesignation request for the area. See 

also the September 17, 1993, Michael 

Shapiro memorandum and 60 FR 12459, 

12465–12466 (March 7, 1995) 

(Redesignation of Detroit-Ann Arbor). 

Applicable requirements of the CAA 

that come due subsequent to the State’s 

submittal of a complete request remain 

applicable until a redesignation to 

attainment is approved, but are not 

required as a prerequisite to 

redesignation. See section 175A(c) of 

the CAA; Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 

537 (7th Cir. 2004). See also 68 FR 

25424, 25427 (May 12, 2003) 

(Redesignation of St. Louis). 

If EPA’s proposal to determine that 

the Allegan County area has attained the 

1997 8-hour ozone standard is finalized, 

pursuant to 40 CFR 51.918, the 

requirements to submit certain planning 

SIPs related to attainment, including 

attainment demonstration requirements 

(the RACM requirement of section 

172(c)(1) of the CAA, the RFP and 

attainment demonstration requirements 

of sections 172(c)(2) and (c)(6) of the 

CAA, and the requirement for 

contingency measures of section 

172(c)(9) of the CAA), will not be 

applicable to the area as long as it 

continues to attain the NAAQS and 

would cease to apply upon 

redesignation. In addition, in the 

context of redesignations, EPA has 

interpreted requirements related to 

attainment as not applicable for 

purposes of redesignation. For example, 

in the General Preamble, EPA stated 

that: 

[t]he section 172(c)(9) requirements are 

directed at ensuring RFP and attainment by 

the applicable date. These requirements no 

longer apply when an area has attained the 

standard and is eligible for redesignation. 

Furthermore, section 175A for maintenance 

plans * * * provides specific requirements 

for contingency measures that effectively 

supersede the requirements of section 

172(c)(9) for these areas. 

‘‘General Preamble for the Interpretation of 

Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 

1990,’’ (General Preamble) 57 FR 13498, 

13564 (April 16, 1992). 

See also Calcagni memorandum at 6 

(‘‘The requirements for reasonable 

further progress and other measures 

needed for attainment will not apply for 

redesignations because they only have 

meaning for areas not attaining the 

standard.’’) 

a. The Allegan County Area Has Met All 

Applicable Requirements for Purposes 

of Redesignation Under Section 110 and 

Part D of the CAA 

i. Section 110 General SIP Requirements 

Section 110(a) of Title I of the CAA 

contains the general requirements for a 

SIP. Section 110(a)(2) provides that the 

implementation plan submitted by a 

State must have been adopted by the 

State after reasonable public notice and 

hearing, and, among other things, must: 

Include enforceable emission 

limitations and other control measures, 

means or techniques necessary to meet 

the requirements of the CAA; provide 

for establishment and operation of 

appropriate devices, methods, systems, 

and procedures necessary to monitor 

ambient air quality; provide for 

implementation of a source permit 

program to regulate the modification 

and construction of any stationary 

source within the areas covered by the 

plan; include provisions for the 

implementation of part C, Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) and part 

D, NSR permit programs; include 

criteria for stationary source emission 

control measures, monitoring, and 

reporting; include provisions for air 

quality modeling; and provide for 

public and local agency participation in 

planning and emission control rule 

development. 

Section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA 

requires that SIPs contain measures to 

prevent sources in a State from 

significantly contributing to air quality 

problems in another State. To 

implement this provision, EPA has 

required certain States to establish 

programs to address transport of air 

pollutants (NOX SIP Call 1 and Clean Air 

Interstate Rule (CAIR) (70 FR 25162, 

May 12, 2005)). However, the section 

110(a)(2)(D) requirements for a State are 

not linked with a particular 

nonattainment area’s designation and 

classification. EPA believes that the 

requirements linked with a particular 

nonattainment area’s designation and 

classification are the relevant measures 

to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation 

request. The transport SIP submittal 

requirements, where applicable, 

continue to apply to a State regardless 

of the designation of any one particular 

area in the State. Thus, we believe that 

these requirements should not be 

construed to be applicable requirements 

for purposes of redesignation. 

Further, we believe that the other 

section 110 elements described above 

that are not connected with 

nonattainment plan submissions and 

not linked with an area’s attainment 

status are also not applicable 

requirements for purposes of 

redesignation. A State remains subject 

to these requirements after an area is 

redesignated to attainment. We 

conclude that only the section 110 and 

part D requirements that are linked with 

a particular area’s designation and 

classification are the relevant measures 

which we may consider in evaluating a 

redesignation request. This approach is 

consistent with EPA’s existing policy on 

applicability of conformity and 

oxygenated fuels requirements for 

redesignation purposes, as well as with 

section 184 ozone transport 

requirements. See Reading, 

Pennsylvania, proposed and final 

rulemakings (61 FR 53174–53176 

(October 10, 1996)) and (62 FR 24826 

(May 7, 1997)); Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, 

Ohio, final rulemaking (61 FR 20458 

(May 7, 1996)); and Tampa, Florida, 

final rulemaking (60 FR 62748 

(December 7, 1995)). See also the 

discussion on this issue in the 

Cincinnati, Ohio 1-hour ozone 

redesignation (65 FR 37890 (June 19, 

2000)), and in the Pittsburgh, 

Pennsylvania 1-hour ozone 

redesignation (66 FR 50399 (October 19, 

2001)). 

We have reviewed Michigan’s SIP and 

have concluded that it meets the general 

SIP requirements under section 110 of 

the CAA to the extent they are 

applicable for purposes of 

redesignation. EPA has previously 

approved provisions of the Michigan 

SIP addressing section 110 elements 

under the 1-hour ozone standard (40 

CFR 52.1170). Further, in submittals 

dated December 6, 2007, and September 

19, 2008, Michigan confirmed that the 

State continues to meet the section 110 

requirements for the 8-hour ozone 

standard. EPA has not yet taken 

rulemaking action on these submittals; 

however, such approval is not necessary 

for redesignation. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
42024 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 20, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

ii. Part D Requirements 

EPA has determined that, if EPA 

finalizes the approval of the emissions 

inventories discussed in section VI.C. of 

this rulemaking, the Michigan SIP will 

meet the applicable SIP requirements 

for the Allegan County area applicable 

for purposes of redesignation under part 

D of the CAA. Subpart 1 of part D, found 

in sections 172–176 of the CAA, sets 

forth the basic nonattainment 

requirements applicable to all 

nonattainment areas. Subpart 2 of part 

D, which includes section 182 of the 

CAA, establishes additional specific 

requirements depending on the area’s 

nonattainment classification. 

Since the Allegan County area was 

not classified under subpart 2, of Part D 

at the time its redesignation request was 

submitted, the subpart 2 requirements 

do not apply for purposes of evaluating 

the State’s redesignation request. The 

applicable subpart 1 requirements are 

contained in sections 172(c)(1)–(9) and 

in section 176. 

Subpart 1 Section 172 Requirements. 

For purposes of evaluating this 

redesignation request, the applicable 

section 172 SIP requirements for the 

Allegan County area are contained in 

sections 172(c)(1)-(9). A thorough 

discussion of the requirements 

contained in section 172 can be found 

in the General Preamble for 

Implementation of Title I (57 FR 13498 

(April 16, 1992)). 

Section 172(c)(1) requires the plans 

for all nonattainment areas to provide 

for the implementation of all RACM as 

expeditiously as practicable and to 

provide for attainment of the primary 

NAAQS. EPA interprets this 

requirement to impose a duty on all 

nonattainment areas to consider all 

available control measures and to adopt 

and implement such measures as are 

reasonably available for implementation 

in each area as components of the area’s 

attainment demonstration. Because 

attainment has been reached, no 

additional measures are needed to 

provide for attainment, and section 

172(c)(1) requirements are no longer 

considered to be applicable as long as 

the area continues to attain the standard 

until redesignation. 40 CFR 51.918. 

The RFP requirement under section 

172(c)(2) is defined as progress that 

must be made toward attainment. This 

requirement is not relevant for purposes 

of redesignation because the Allegan 

County area has monitored attainment 

of the ozone NAAQS. (General 

Preamble, 57 FR 13564). See also 40 

CFR 51.918. In addition, because the 

Allegan County area has attained the 

ozone NAAQS and is no longer subject 

to an RFP requirement, the requirement 

to submit the section 172(c)(9) 

contingency measures is not applicable 

for purposes of redesignation. Id. 

Section 172(c)(3) requires submission 

and approval of a comprehensive, 

accurate and current inventory of actual 

emissions. As part of Michigan’s 

redesignation request for the Allegan 

County area, the State submitted a 2005 

emissions inventory. As discussed 

below in section VI.C., EPA is proposing 

to approve the 2005 inventory, 

submitted by Michigan along with the 

redesignation request, as meeting the 

section 172(c)(3) emissions inventory 

requirement. 

Section 172(c)(4) requires the 

identification and quantification of 

allowable emissions for major new and 

modified stationary sources in an area, 

and section 172(c)(5) requires permits 

for the construction and operation of 

new and modified major stationary 

sources anywhere in the nonattainment 

area. EPA has determined that, since 

PSD requirements will apply after 

redesignation, areas being redesignated 

need not comply with the requirement 

that a nonattainment NSR program be 

approved prior to redesignation, 

provided that the area demonstrates 

maintenance of the NAAQS without 

part D NSR. A more detailed rationale 

for this view is described in a 

memorandum from Mary Nichols, 

Assistant Administrator for Air and 

Radiation, dated October 14, 1994, 

entitled, ‘‘Part D New Source Review 

Requirements for Areas Requesting 

Redesignation to Attainment.’’ Michigan 

has demonstrated that the Allegan 

County area will be able to maintain the 

standard without part D NSR in effect; 

therefore, the State need not have a fully 

approved part D NSR program prior to 

approval of the redesignation request. 

The State’s PSD program will become 

effective in the Allegan County area 

upon redesignation to attainment. See 

rulemakings for Detroit, Michigan (60 

FR 12467–12468 (March 7, 1995)); 

Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio (61 FR 

20458, 20469–20470 (May 7, 1996)); 

Louisville, Kentucky (66 FR 53665 

(October 23, 2001)); and Grand Rapids, 

Michigan (61 FR 31834–31837 (June 21, 

1996)). 

Section 172(c)(6) requires the SIP to 

contain control measures necessary to 

provide for attainment of the standard. 

Because attainment has been reached, 

no additional measures are needed to 

provide for attainment. 

Section 172(c)(7) requires the SIP to 

meet the applicable provisions of 

section 110(a)(2). As noted above, we 

believe the Michigan SIP meets the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2) 

applicable for purposes of 

redesignation. 

Subpart 1 Section 176 Conformity 

Requirements. 

Section 176(c) of the CAA requires 

States to establish criteria and 

procedures to ensure that Federallysupported or funded activities, 

including highway projects, conform to 

the air quality planning goals in the 

applicable SIPs. The requirement to 

determine conformity applies to 

transportation plans, programs and 

projects developed, funded or approved 

under Title 23 of the U.S. Code and the 

Federal Transit Act (transportation 

conformity) as well as to all other 

Federally-supported or funded projects 

(general conformity). State conformity 

revisions must be consistent with 

Federal conformity regulations relating 

to consultation, enforcement, and 

enforceability, which EPA promulgated 

pursuant to CAA requirements. 

EPA believes that it is reasonable to 

interpret the conformity SIP 

requirements as not applying for 

purposes of evaluating the redesignation 

request under section 107(d) for two 

reasons. First, the requirement to submit 

SIP revisions to comply with the 

conformity provisions of the CAA 

continues to apply to areas after 

redesignation to attainment, since such 

areas would be subject to a section 175A 

maintenance plan. Second, EPA’s 

Federal conformity rules require the 

performance of conformity analyses in 

the absence of Federally-approved State 

rules. Therefore, because areas are 

subject to the conformity requirements 

regardless of whether they are 

redesignated to attainment and, because 

they must implement conformity under 

Federal rules if State rules are not yet 

approved, EPA believes it is reasonable 

to view these requirements as not 

applying for purposes of evaluating a 

redesignation request. See Wall v. EPA, 

265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001), upholding 

this interpretation. See also 60 FR 

62748, 62749–62750 (Dec. 7, 1995) 

(Tampa, Florida). 

EPA approved Michigan’s general and 

transportation conformity SIPs on 

December 18, 1996 (61 FR 66607 and 61 

FR 66609, respectively). Section 176(c) 

of the CAA was amended by provisions 

contained in the Safe, Accountable, 

Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity 

Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEALU), 

which was signed into law on August 

10, 2005 (Pub. L. 109–59). Among the 

changes Congress made to this section 

of the CAA were streamlined 

requirements for State conformity SIPs. 

Michigan is in the process of updating 

its transportation conformity SIP to 

meet these new requirements. Michigan 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 20, 2010 / Proposed Rules 42025 

has submitted onroad motor vehicle 

budgets for the Allegan County area of 

3.93 tpd VOC and 6.92 tpd NOX for 

2021. The area must use the MVEBs 

from the maintenance plan in any 

conformity determination that is 

effective on or after the effective date of 

the maintenance plan approval. 

b. The Allegan County Area Has a Fully 

Approved Applicable SIP Under Section 

110(k) of the CAA 

If EPA issues a final approval of the 

emissions inventory under section 

172(c)(3), EPA will have fully approved 

the Michigan SIP for the Allegan County 

area under section 110(k) of the CAA for 

all requirements applicable for purposes 

of redesignation. EPA may rely on prior 

SIP approvals in approving a 

redesignation request (See page 3 of the 

September 4, 1992, John Calcagni 

memorandum; Southwestern 

Pennsylvania Growth Alliance v. 

Browner, 144 F.3d 984, 989–990 (6th 

Cir. 1998); Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 

(6th Cir. 2001)) plus any additional 

measures it may approve in conjunction 

with a redesignation action. See 68 FR 

25413, 25426 (May 12, 2003). Since the 

passage of the CAA of 1970, Michigan 

has adopted and submitted, and EPA 

has fully approved, provisions 

addressing various required SIP 

elements under the 1-hour ozone 

standard. In this action, EPA is 

proposing to approve Michigan’s 2005 

emissions inventory for the Allegan 

County area as meeting the requirement 

of section 172(c)(3) of the CAA. No 

Allegan County area SIP provisions are 

currently disapproved, conditionally 

approved, or partially approved. 

3. The Improvement in Air Quality Is 

Due to Permanent and Enforceable 

Reductions in Emissions Resulting From 

Implementation of the SIP and 

Applicable Federal Air Pollution 

Control Regulations and Other 

Permanent and Enforceable Reductions 

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

EPA finds that Michigan has 

demonstrated that the observed air 

quality improvement in the Allegan 

County area is due to permanent and 

enforceable reductions in emissions 

resulting from implementation of the 

SIP, Federal measures, and other Stateadopted measures. 

In making this demonstration, 

MDNRE has calculated the change in 

emissions between 2005 and 2008. 

Michigan is using the 2005 emissions 

inventory developed in conjunction 

with the Lake Michigan Air Directors 

Consortium (LADCO) as the 

nonattainment inventory. The State 

developed an attainment inventory for 

2008, one of the years the Allegan 

County area monitored attainment. The 

reduction in emissions and the 

corresponding improvement in air 

quality over this time period can be 

attributed to a number of regulatory 

control measures that Allegan County 

and upwind areas have implemented in 

recent years. 

a. Permanent and Enforceable Controls 

Implemented 

The following is a discussion of 

permanent and enforceable measures 

that have been implemented in the area: 

i. Stationary Source NOX Rules 

Michigan has developed rules 

governing the control of NOX emissions 

from Electric Generating Units (EGUs), 

major non-EGU industrial boilers, major 

cement kilns, and internal combustion 

engines. EPA approved Michigan’s rules 

as fulfilling Phase I of the NOX SIP Call 

on May 4, 2005 (70 FR 23029) and as 

meeting Phase II of the NOX SIP Call on 

January 29, 2008 (73 FR 5101). Michigan 

began complying with Phase I of this 

rule in 2004. Compliance with Phase II 

of the SIP Call, which requires the 

control NOX emissions from large 

internal combustion engines, began in 

2007. 

ii. Federal Emission Control Measures 

Reductions in VOC and NOX

emissions have occurred statewide and 

in upwind areas as a result of Federal 

emission control measures, with 

additional emission reductions expected 

to occur in the future. Federal emission 

control measures include the following. 

Tier 2 Emission Standards for 

Vehicles and Gasoline Sulfur Standards. 

These emission control requirements 

result in lower VOC and NOX emissions 

from new cars and light duty trucks, 

including sport utility vehicles. The 

Federal rules were phased in between 

2004 and 2009. The EPA has estimated 

that, by the end of the phase-in period, 

the following vehicle NOX emission 

reductions will occur nationwide: 

passenger cars (light duty vehicles) 

(77%); light duty trucks, minivans, and 

sports utility vehicles (86%); and, larger 

sports utility vehicles, vans, and heavier 

trucks (69 to 95%). VOC emission 

reductions are expected to range from 

12 to 18%, depending on vehicle class, 

over the same period. Some of these 

emission reductions had occurred by 

the 2006–2008 period used to 

demonstrate attainment, and additional 

emission reductions will occur during 

the maintenance period. 

Heavy-Duty Diesel Engine Rule. EPA 

issued this rule in July 2000. This rule, 

which went into effect in 2004, includes 

standards that limit the sulfur content of 

diesel fuel. A second phase, which took 

effect in 2007, further reduced the 

highway diesel fuel sulfur content to 15 

parts per million, leading to additional 

reductions in combustion NOX and VOC 

emissions. EPA expects this rule to 

achieve a 95% reduction in NOX

emissions from diesel trucks and busses. 

Non-Road Diesel Rule. EPA 

promulgated this rule in 2004. This rule 

applies to diesel engines used in 

industries, such as construction, 

agriculture, and mining. EPA estimates 

that compliance with this rule will cut 

NOX emissions from non-road diesel 

engines by up to 90%. This rule is 

currently achieving emission 

reductions, but will not be fully 

implemented until 2010. 

iii. Control Measures in Upwind Areas 

On October 27, 1998 (63 FR 57356), 

EPA issued a NOX SIP Call requiring the 

District of Columbia and 22 States to 

reduce emissions of NOX. Affected 

States were required to comply with 

Phase I of the SIP Call beginning in 

2004, and with Phase II beginning in 

2007. The reduction in NOX emissions 

has resulted in lower concentrations of 

transported ozone entering the Allegan 

County area. Between 2005 and 2008, 

units subject to Phase I of the NOX SIP 

Call have reduced ozone season 

emissions by 68,000 tons. In addition, 

under Phase II of the NOX SIP Call, EPA 

estimates that emissions from cement 

kilns have been reduced by 30% and 

emissions from internal combustion 

engines have been reduced by 80–91%. 

Emission reductions resulting from 

regulations developed in response to the 

NOX SIP Call are permanent and 

enforceable. 

b. Emission Reductions 

For the point, area and nonroad 

sectors, Michigan is using the 2005 

emissions inventory developed in 

conjunction with LADCO (Base M 

Round 5) as the nonattainment 

inventory. The main purpose of LADCO 

is to provide technical assessments for 

and assistance to its member States on 

problems of air quality. LADCO’s 

primary geographic focus is the area 

encompassed by its member States 

(Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, and 

Wisconsin) and any areas which affect 

air quality in its member States. In 

developing the 2005 nonattainment year 

inventory, MDNRE provided point and 

area source inventories to LADCO. 

LADCO processed these inventories 

through the Emission Modeling System 

to generate summer weekday emissions 

for VOC and NOX. The point source data 

provided to LADCO is a combination of 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
42026 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 20, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

EPA’s EGU inventory and source 

specific data reported to MDNRE for 

non-EGU sources. Area source 

emissions were estimated by MDNRE 

using published Emission Inventory 

Improvement Program methodologies or 

methodologies shared by other States. 

The methodology used for each area 

source category was documented. 

Nonroad mobile emissions were 

generated for LADCO using EPA’s 

National Mobile Inventory Model 

(NMIM), with the following exceptions: 

recreational motorboat populations and 

spatial surrogates were updated and 

emissions estimates were developed for 

commercial marine vessels, aircraft, and 

railroads (MAR), three nonroad 

categories not included in NMIM. 

Onroad mobile emissions were prepared 

by the Michigan Department of 

Transportation (MDOT) using the 

MOBILE6.2 emissions model. 

Michigan is using 2008 for the 

attainment year inventory. Michigan 

used linear regression analysis to 

extrapolate area source emissions 

estimates. Nonroad emissions were 

calcualted using NMIM, as described 

above, except that the MAR portion of 

the nonroad sector was interpolated 

from LADCO 2005, 2009, and 2018 

MAR emissions estimates. Point source 

emissions were calculated by MDNRE 

using the 2008 Michigan Air Emissions 

Reporting System point source 

inventory. Onroad mobile emissions 

were prepared by MDOT using the 

MOBILE6.2 emissions model. 

Using the inventories described above 

Michigan has documented changes in 

VOC and NOX emissions from 2005 to 

2008 for the Allegan County area. 

Emissions data are shown in Table 2, 

below. 

TABLE 2—COMPARISON OF 2005 AND 2008 VOC AND NOX EMISSIONS FOR THE ALLEGAN COUNTY AREA (TPD) 

VOC NOX

2005 2008 Net change 

(2005–2008) 2005 2008 Net change (2005–2008) 

Point ......................................................... 2.02 1.52 ¥0.50 2.33 3.45 1.12 

Area .......................................................... 10.00 9.33 ¥0.67 1.00 1.02 0.02 

Onroad ..................................................... 4.70 3.93 ¥0.77 8.43 6.92 ¥1.51 

Nonroad ................................................... 6.16 4.59 ¥1.57 4.44 4.55 0.11 

Total .................................................. 22.88 19.37 ¥3.51 16.20 15.94 ¥0.26 

Table 2 shows that the Allegan 

County area reduced VOC emissions by 

3.51 tpd and NOX emissions by 0.26 tpd 

between 2005 and 2008. Based on the 

information summarized above, 

Michigan has adequately demonstrated 

that the improvement in air quality is 

due to permanent and enforceable 

emissions reductions. 

4. The Area Has a Fully Approved 

Maintenance Plan Pursuant to Section 

175A of the CAA (Section 

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

In conjunction with its request to 

redesignate the Allegan County 

nonattainment area to attainment status, 

Michigan submitted a SIP revision to 

provide for the maintenance of the 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS in the area through 

2021. 

a. Maintenance Plan Requirements 

Section 175A of the CAA sets forth 

the required elements of a maintenance 

plan for areas seeking redesignation 

from nonattainment to attainment. 

Under section 175A, the plan must 

demonstrate continued attainment of 

the applicable NAAQS for at least ten 

years after the Administrator approves a 

redesignation to attainment. Eight years 

after the redesignation, the State must 

submit a revised maintenance plan 

which demonstrates that attainment will 

continue to be maintained for ten years 

following the initial ten-year 

maintenance period. To address the 

possibility of future NAAQS violations, 

the maintenance plan must contain 

contingency measures with a schedule 

for implementation as EPA deems 

necessary to assure prompt correction of 

any future 8-hour ozone violations. 

The September 4, 1992, John Calcagni 

memorandum provides additional 

guidance on the content of a 

maintenance plan. The memorandum 

clarifies that an ozone maintenance plan 

should address the following items: The 

attainment VOC and NOX emissions 

inventories, a maintenance 

demonstration showing maintenance for 

the ten years of the maintenance period, 

a commitment to maintain the existing 

monitoring network, factors and 

procedures to be used for verification of 

continued attainment of the NAAQS, 

and a contingency plan to prevent or 

correct future violations of the NAAQS. 

b. Attainment Inventory 

The MDNRE developed an emissions 

inventory for 2008, one of the years 

used to demonstrate monitored 

attainment of the 8-hour NAAQS, as 

described above. The attainment level of 

emissions is summarized in Table 2, 

above. 

c. Demonstration of Maintenance 

Along with the redesignation request, 

MDNRE submitted revisions to the 

Michigan 8-hour ozone SIP to include a 

maintenance plan for the Allegan 

County area, in compliance with section 

175A of the CAA. The demonstration 

shows maintenance of the 8-hour ozone 

standard through 2021 by showing that 

current and future emissions of VOC 

and NOX for the Allegan County area 

remain at or below attainment year 

emission levels. A maintenance 

demonstration need not be based on 

modeling. See Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 

426 (6th Cir. 2001), Sierra Club v. EPA, 

375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004). See also 66 

FR 53094, 53099–53100 (October 19, 

2001), 68 FR 25413, 25430–25432 (May 

12, 2003). 

Michigan is using emissions 

inventory projections for the years 2018 

and 2021 to demonstrate maintenance. 

MDOT calculated onroad emissions for 

2018 and 2021 using the MOBILE6.2 

emissions model. MDEQ used the 2018 

Base M, Round 5 emissions inventory 

developed by LADCO for the remaining 

source categories for 2018. For 2021, 

MDNRE estimated emissions for the 

remaining source categories using linear 

regression analysis. NOX reductions 

from CAIR are not included in the 2018 

and 2021 emissions estimates. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 20, 2010 / Proposed Rules 42027 

2There is more uncertainty about the use of SO2

allowances and future projections for SO2

emissions; thus, further review and discussion will 

be needed regarding the appropriateness of using 

these emission projections for future PM2.5 SIP 

approvals and redesignation requests. 

TABLE 3—COMPARISON OF 2008, 2018, AND 2021 VOC AND NOX EMISSIONS FOR THE ALLEGAN COUNTY AREA (TPD) 

VOC NOX

2008 2018 2021 

Net 

change 

(2008– 

2018) 

Net 

change 

(2008– 

2021) 

2008 2018 2021 

Net 

change 

(2008– 

2018) 

Net 

change 

(2008– 

2021) 

Point .......................................................... 1.52 2.79 2.91 1.27 1.39 4.45 2.10 2.13 ¥2.35 ¥2.32 

Area ........................................................... 9.33 8.61 8.16 ¥0.72 ¥1.17 1.02 1.09 1.11 0.07 0.09 

Onroad ...................................................... 3.93 2.53 2.28 ¥1.40 ¥1.65 6.92 3.10 2.71 ¥3.82 ¥4.21 

Nonroad ..................................................... 4.59 3.88 2.20 ¥0.71 ¥2.39 4.55 2.04 2.11 ¥2.51 ¥2.44 

Total ............................................ 19.37 17.81 15.55 ¥1.56 ¥3.82 16.94 8.33 8.06 ¥8.61 ¥8.88 

The emission projections show that 

Michigan does not expect emissions in 

the Allegan County area to exceed the 

level of the 2008 attainment year 

inventory during the maintenance 

period, even without implementation of 

CAIR. (See also discussion below). As 

shown in Table 3, VOC and NOX

emissions in the Allegan County area 

are projected to decrease by 3.82 tpd 

and 8.88 tpd, respectively, between 

2008 and 2021. 

In addition, LADCO performed a 

regional modeling analysis to address 

the effect of the recent court decision 

vacating CAIR. This analysis is 

documented in LADCO’s ‘‘Regional Air 

Quality Analyses for Ozone, PM2.5, and 

Regional Haze: Final Technical Support 

Document (Supplement), September 12, 

2008.’’ LADCO produced a base year 

inventory for 2005 and future year 

inventories for 2009, 2012, and 2018. To 

estimate future EGU NOX emissions 

without implementation of CAIR, 

LADCO projected 2007 EGU NOX

emissions for all States in the modeling 

domain based on Energy Information 

Administration growth rates by State 

and fuel type for the years 2009, 2012, 

and 2018. The assumed 2007–2018 

growth rates were 8.8% for Illinois, 

Iowa, Missouri, and Wisconsin; 13.5% 

for Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, and 

Ohio; and 15.1% for Minnesota. 

Emissions were adjusted by applying 

legally enforceable controls (e.g., 

consent decree or rule requirements). 

EGU NOX emissions projections for the 

States of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, 

Ohio, and Wisconsin are shown below 

in Table 4. The emission projections 

used for the modeling analysis do not 

account for certain relevant factors such 

as allowance trading and potential 

changes in operation of existing control 

devices. The NOX projections indicate 

that, due to the NOX SIP Call, certain 

State rules, consent decrees resulting 

from enforcement cases, and ongoing 

implementation of a number of mobile 

source rules, EGU NOX is not expected 

to increase in Michigan, or any of the 

States in the immediate region, and 

overall NOX emissions in Michigan and 

the nearby region are expected to 

decrease substantially between 2005 

and 2020.2 Total NOX emissions 

projections are shown in Table 5, below. 

TABLE 4—EGU NOX EMISSIONS FOR THE STATES OF ILLINOIS, INDIANA, MICHIGAN, OHIO, AND WISCONSIN (TPD) FOR

2007, 2009, 2012, AND 2018 

2007 2009 2012 2018 

EGU ................................................. 1,582 1,552 1,516 1,524 

TABLE 5—TOTAL NOX EMISSIONS FOR THE STATES OF ILLINOIS, INDIANA, MICHIGAN, OHIO, AND WISCONSIN (TPD) FOR

THE YEARS 2005, 2009, 2012, AND 2018 

2005 2009 2012 2018 

Total NOX ........................................ 8,260 6,778 6,076 4,759 

Given that 2007 is one of the years 

Michigan used to demonstrate 

monitored attainment of the 8-hour 

NAAQS, Table 4 shows that EGU NOX

emissions will remain below attainment 

levels through 2018. If the rate of 

emissions increase between 2012 and 

2018 continues through 2021, EGU NOX

emissions would still remain below 

attainment levels in 2020. Furthermore, 

as shown in Table 5, total NOX

emissions clearly continue to decrease 

substantially throughout the 

maintenance period. 

Ozone modeling performed by 

LADCO supports the conclusion that the 

Allegan County area will maintain the 

8-hour ozone standard throughout the 

maintenance period. Peak modeled 

ozone levels in the area for 2012 and 

2018 are 0.083 ppm and 0.078 ppm, 

respectively. These projected ozone 

levels were modeled applying only 

legally enforceable controls; e.g., 

consent decrees, rules, the NOX SIP 

Call, Federal motor vehicle control 

programs, etc. Because these programs 

will remain in place, emission levels, 

and therefore ozone levels, would not be 

expected to increase significantly 

between 2018 and 2021. Given that 

projected emissions and modeled ozone 

levels continue to decrease substantially 

through 2018, it is reasonable to infer 

that a 2021 modeling run would also 

show levels well below the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard. 

EPA has considered the relationship 

of the maintenance plans to the 

reductions required pursuant to CAIR. 

This rule was remanded to EPA, and the 

process of developing a replacement 

rule is ongoing. However, the remand of 

CAIR does not alter the requirements of 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
42028 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 20, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

the NOX SIP Call, and Michigan has 

demonstrated maintenance without any 

additional CAIR requirements (beyond 

those required by the NOX SIP Call). 

Therefore, EPA believes that Michigan’s 

demonstration of maintenance under 

sections 175A and 107(d)(3)(E) is valid. 

The NOX SIP Call requires States to 

make significant, specific emissions 

reductions. It also provided a 

mechanism, the NOX Budget Trading 

Program, which States could use to 

achieve those reductions. When EPA 

promulgated CAIR, it discontinued 

(starting in 2009) the NOX Budget 

Trading Program, 40 CFR 51.121(r), but 

created another mechanism, the CAIR 

ozone season trading program, which 

States could use to meet their SIP Call 

obligations (70 FR 25289–90). EPA notes 

that a number of States, when 

submitting SIP revisions to require 

sources to participate in the CAIR ozone 

season trading program, removed the 

SIP provisions that required sources to 

participate in the NOX Budget Trading 

Program. In addition, because the 

provisions of CAIR, including the ozone 

season NOX trading program, remain in 

place during the remand, EPA is not 

currently administering the NOX Budget 

Trading Program. Nonetheless, all 

States, regardless of the current status of 

their regulations that previously 

required participation in the NOX

Budget Trading Program, will remain 

subject to all of the requirements in the 

NOX SIP Call even if the existing CAIR 

ozone season trading program is 

withdrawn or altered. In addition, the 

anti-backsliding provisions of 40 CFR 

51.905(f) specifically provide that the 

provisions of the NOX SIP Call, 

including the statewide NOX emission 

budgets, continue to apply after 

revocation of the 1-hour standard. 

All NOX SIP Call States have SIPs that 

currently satisfy their obligations under 

the SIP Call, the SIP Call reduction 

requirements are being met, and EPA 

will continue to enforce the 

requirements of the NOX SIP Call even 

after any response to the CAIR remand. 

For these reasons, EPA believes that 

regardless of the status of the CAIR 

program, the NOX SIP Call requirements 

can be relied upon in demonstrating 

maintenance. Here, Michigan has 

demonstrated maintenance based in part 

on those requirements. 

As part of its maintenance plan, the 

State elected to include a ‘‘safety 

margin’’ for the area. A ‘‘safety margin’’ 

is the difference between the attainment 

level of emissions (from all sources) and 

the projected level of emissions (from 

all sources) in the maintenance plan 

which continues to demonstrate 

attainment of the standard. The 

attainment level of emissions is the 

level of emissions during one of the 

years in which the area met the NAAQS. 

The Allegan County area attained the 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS during the 2007– 

2009 time period. Michigan used 2008 

as the attainment level of emissions for 

the area. For the Allegan County area, 

the emissions from point, area, nonroad, 

and mobile sources in 2008 equaled 

19.37 tpd of VOC. In the maintenance 

plan, MDNRE projected emission levels 

for 2021 to be 15.55 tpd of VOC. The SIP 

submissions demonstrate that the 

Allegan County area will continue to 

maintain the standard with emissions at 

this level. The safety margin for VOC is 

calculated to be the difference between 

these amounts or, in this case, 3.82 tpd 

of VOC for 2021. By this same method, 

8.88 tpd (i.e., 16.94 tpd less 8.06 tpd) is 

the safety margin for NOX for 2021. The 

safety margin, or a portion thereof, can 

be allocated to any of the source 

categories, as long as the total 

attainment level of emissions is 

maintained. 

d. Monitoring Network 

Michigan currently operates one 

ozone monitor in Allegan County. In its 

redesignation request, MDNRE has 

committed to continue to operate an 

EPA-approved monitoring network as 

necessary to demonstrate ongoing 

compliance with the NAAQS. Michigan 

remains obligated to continue to quality 

assure monitoring data in accordance 

with 40 CFR part 58 and enter all data 

into the AQS in accordance with 

Federal guidelines. 

e. Verification of Continued Attainment 

Continued attainment of the ozone 

NAAQS in the Allegan County area 

depends, in part, on the State’s efforts 

toward tracking indicators of continued 

attainment during the maintenance 

period. Michigan’s plan for verifying 

continued attainment of the 8-hour 

standard in the Allegan County area 

consists of a plan to continue ambient 

ozone monitoring in accordance with 

the requirements of 40 CFR part 58. 

MDNRE will also continue to develop 

and submit periodic emission 

inventories as required by the Federal 

Consolidated Emissions Reporting Rule 

(67 FR 39602, June 10, 2002) to track 

future levels of emissions. 

f. Contingency Plan 

The contingency plan provisions are 

designed to promptly correct or prevent 

a violation of the NAAQS that might 

occur after redesignation of an area to 

attainment. Section 175A of the CAA 

requires that a maintenance plan 

include such contingency measures as 

EPA deems necessary to assure that the 

State will promptly correct a violation 

of the NAAQS that occurs after 

redesignation. The maintenance plan 

should identify the contingency 

measures to be adopted, a schedule and 

procedure for adoption and 

implementation of the contingency 

measures, and a time limit for action by 

the State. The State should also identify 

specific indicators to be used to 

determine when the contingency 

measures need to be adopted and 

implemented. The maintenance plan 

must include a requirement that the 

State will implement all measures with 

respect to control of the pollutant(s) that 

were contained in the SIP before 

redesignation of the area to attainment. 

See section 175A(d) of the CAA. 

As required by section 175A of the 

CAA, Michigan has adopted a 

contingency plan for the Allegan County 

area to address possible future ozone air 

quality problems. The contingency plan 

adopted by Michigan has two levels of 

response, an action level response and 

a contingency measure response. 

An action level response will be 

triggered when the two-year average of 

the annual fourth-highest daily peak 8- 

hour ozone concentration is 0.085 ppm 

or higher within the maintenance area. 

An action level response will consist of 

Michigan performing a review of the 

circumstances leading to the high 

monitored values. MDNRE will conduct 

this review within six months following 

the close of the ozone season. If MDNRE 

determines that contingency measure 

implementation is necessary to prevent 

a future violation of the NAAQS, 

MDNRE will select and implement a 

measure that can be implemented 

promptly. 

A contingency measure response will 

be triggered by a violation of the 1997 

8-hour ozone standard (a three-year 

average of the annual fourth-highest 

daily maximum 8-hour average ozone 

concentration of 0.085 ppm or greater). 

When a contingency measure response 

is triggered, Michigan will select one or 

more control measures for 

implementation. The timing for 

implementation of a contingency 

measure is dependent on the process 

needed for legal adoption and source 

compliance, which varies for each 

measure. MDNRE will expedite the 

process of adopting and implementing 

the selected measures, with a goal of 

having measures in place as 

expeditiously as practicable and within 

18 months after State certification of the 

violation. The State has confirmed 

EPA’s interpretation that this 

commitment means that the measure 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 20, 2010 / Proposed Rules 42029 

will be adopted and implemented 

within 18 months of being triggered. 

MDNRE included the following list of 

potential contingency measures in the 

maintenance plan: 

i. Reduced VOC content in 

architectural, industrial, and 

maintenance coating rule; 

ii. Auto body refinisher selfcertification audit program; 

iii. Reduced VOC degreasing/solvent 

cleaning rule; 

iv. Diesel retrofit program; 

v. Reduced idling program; 

vi. Portable fuel container 

replacement rule; 

vii. Food preparation flame broiler 

control rule; and 

viii. Lower Reid vapor pressure 

gasoline program. 

g. Provisions for Future Updates of the 

Ozone Maintenance Plan 

As required by section 175A(b) of the 

CAA, MDNRE commits to submit to the 

EPA an updated ozone maintenance 

plan eight years after redesignation of 

the Allegan County area to cover an 

additional ten-year period beyond the 

initial ten-year maintenance period. As 

required by section 175A of the CAA, 

Michigan has committed to retain the 

VOC and NOX control measures 

contained in the SIP prior to 

redesignation. 

EPA has concluded that the 

maintenance plan for Allegan County 

adequately addresses the five basic 

components of a maintenance plan: 

attainment inventory, maintenance 

demonstration, monitoring network, 

verification of continued attainment, 

and a contingency plan. Thus EPA 

proposes to find that the maintenance 

plan SIP revision submitted by 

Michigan for the Allegan County area 

meets the requirements of section 175A 

of the CAA. 

B. Adequacy of the MVEBs 

1. How are MVEBs developed and what 

are the MVEBs for the Allegan County 

area? 

Under the CAA, States are required to 

submit, at various times, control strategy 

SIP revisions and ozone maintenance 

plans for ozone nonattainment areas and 

for areas seeking redesignations to 

attainment of the ozone standard. These 

emission control strategy SIP revisions 

(e.g., RFP and attainment demonstration 

SIP revisions) and ozone maintenance 

plans may include MVEBs based on 

onroad mobile source emissions for 

criteria pollutants and/or their 

precursors to address pollution from 

cars and trucks. The MVEBs are the 

portions of the total allowable emissions 

that are allocated to highway and transit 

vehicle use that, together with 

emissions from other sources in the 

area, will provide for attainment or 

maintenance, as applicable. 

Under 40 CFR part 93, a MVEB for an 

area seeking a redesignation to 

attainment is established for the last 

year of the maintenance plan. The 

MVEB serves as a ceiling on emissions 

from an area’s planned transportation 

system. The MVEB concept is further 

explained in the preamble to the 

November 24, 1993, transportation 

conformity rule (58 FR 62188). 

Under section 176(c) of the CAA, new 

transportation projects, such as the 

construction of new highways, must 

‘‘conform’’ to (i.e., be consistent with) 

the SIP. Conformity to the SIP means 

that transportation activities will not 

cause new air quality violations, worsen 

existing air quality violations, or delay 

timely attainment of the NAAQS. If a 

transportation plan does not conform, 

most new transportation projects that 

would expand the capacity of roadways 

cannot go forward. Regulations at 40 

CFR part 93 set forth EPA policy, 

criteria, and procedures for 

demonstrating and assuring conformity 

of such transportation activities to a SIP. 

When reviewing SIP revisions 

containing MVEBs, including 

attainment strategies, rate-of-progress 

plans, and maintenance plans, EPA 

must affirmatively approve or find that 

the MVEBs are ‘‘adequate’’ for use in 

determining transportation conformity. 

Once EPA affirmatively approves or 

finds the submitted MVEBs to be 

adequate for transportation conformity 

purposes, the MVEBs must be used by 

State and Federal agencies in 

determining whether proposed 

transportation projects conform to the 

SIP as required by section 176(c) of the 

CAA. EPA’s substantive criteria for 

determining the adequacy of MVEBs are 

set out in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). 

EPA’s process for determining 

adequacy of a MVEB consists of three 

basic steps: (1) Providing public 

notification of a SIP submission; (2) 

providing the public the opportunity to 

comment on the MVEB during a public 

comment period; and, (3) EPA’s finding 

of adequacy. The process of determining 

the adequacy of submitted SIP MVEBs 

is codified at 40 CFR 93.118. 

The maintenance plan submitted by 

Michigan for the Allegan County area 

contains new VOC and NOX MVEBs for 

2021. The availability of the SIP 

submission with these 2021 MVEBs was 

announced for public comment on 

EPA’s Adequacy Web site on June 17, 

2010, at: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/ 

stateresources/transconf/currsips.htm. 

The EPA public comment period on 

adequacy of the 2021 MVEBs for the 

Allegan County area closes on July 19, 

2010. 

EPA, through this rulemaking, is 

proposing to approve the MVEBs for use 

to determine transportation conformity 

in the Allegan County area because the 

MVEBs submitted by MDNRE meet the 

adequacy requirements contained in 

EPA’s conformity rule (40 CFR 

93.118(e)(4)), and EPA has determined 

that the area can maintain attainment of 

the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the 

relevant maintenance period with 

mobile source emissions at the levels of 

the MVEBs. MDNRE has determined the 

2021 MVEBs for the Allegan County 

area to be 3.93 tpd for VOC and 6.92 tpd 

for NOX. These MVEBs exceed the 

onroad mobile source VOC and NOX

emissions projected by MDNRE for 

2021, as summarized in Table 3 above 

(‘‘onroad’’ source sector). MDNRE 

decided to include safety margins 

(described further below) of 1.65 tpd for 

VOC and 3.58 tpd for NOX in the 

MVEBs to provide for mobile source 

growth. Michigan has demonstrated that 

the Allegan County area can maintain 

the 8-hour ozone NAAQS with mobile 

source emissions of 3.93 tpd for VOC 

and 6.92 tpd for NOX, including the 

allocated safety margins, since total 

emissions will still remain under 

attainment year emission levels. 

2. What is a safety margin? 

A ‘‘safety margin’’ is the difference 

between the attainment level of 

emissions (from all sources) and the 

projected level of emissions (from all 

sources) in the maintenance plan. As 

noted in Table 3, the emissions in the 

Allegan County area are projected to 

have safety margins of 3.82 tpd for VOC 

and 8.88 tpd for NOX in 2021 (the 

difference between the attainment year, 

2008, emissions and the projected 2021 

emissions for all sources in the Allegan 

County area). Even if emissions reached 

the full level of the safety margin, the 

counties would still demonstrate 

maintenance since emission levels 

would equal those in the attainment 

year. 

The MVEBs requested by MDNRE 

contain safety margins for mobile 

sources smaller than the allowable 

safety margins reflected in the total 

emissions for the Allegan County area. 

The State is not requesting allocation to 

the MVEBs of the entire available safety 

margins reflected in the demonstration 

of maintenance. Therefore, even though 

the State is requesting MVEBs that 

exceed the projected onroad mobile 

source emissions for 2021 contained in 

the demonstration of maintenance, the 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
42030 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 20, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

increase in onroad mobile source 

emissions that can be considered for 

transportation conformity purposes is 

well within the safety margins of the 

ozone maintenance demonstration. 

Further, once allocated to mobile 

sources, these safety margins will not be 

available for use by other sources. 

C. 2005 Comprehensive Emissions 

Inventory 

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

of the CAA requires nonattainment 

areas to submit a comprehensive, 

accurate and current inventory of actual 

emissions. As part of Michigan’s 

redesignation request for the Allegan 

County area, the State submitted a 2005 

emissions inventory. This inventory is 

discussed above in section VI.A.3.b. and 

summarized in Table 2. EPA is 

proposing to approve this 2005 

inventory as meeting the section 

172(c)(3) emissions inventory 

requirement. 

VII. What actions is EPA taking? 

EPA is proposing to determine that 

the Allegan County, Michigan area has 

attained the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

redesignation of the Allegan County 

area from nonattainment to attainment 

for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

After evaluating the redesignation 

request submitted by Michigan, EPA 

believes that the request meets the 

redesignation criteria set forth in section 

107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. The final 

approval of this redesignation request 

would change the official designation 

for the Allegan County area from 

nonattainment to attainment for the 

1997 8-hour ozone standard. EPA is also 

proposing to approve the maintenance 

plan SIP revision for the Allegan County 

area. EPA’s proposed approval of the 

maintenance plan is based on the State’s 

demonstration that the plan meets the 

requirements of section 175A of the 

CAA, as described more fully above. 

EPA is proposing to approve MDNRE’s 

2005 emissions inventory for the 

Allegan County area as meeting the 

requirements of section 172(c)(3) of the 

CAA. Finally, EPA finds adequate and 

is proposing to approve the State’s 2021 

MVEBs for the Allegan County area. 

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, redesignation of an 

area to attainment and the 

accompanying approval of a 

maintenance plan under section 

107(d)(3)(E) are actions that affect the 

status of a geographical area and do not 

impose any additional regulatory 

requirements on sources beyond those 

imposed by State law. A redesignation 

to attainment does not in and of itself 

create any new requirements, but rather 

results in the applicability of 

requirements contained in the CAA for 

areas that have been redesignated to 

attainment. Moreover, the Administrator 

is required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

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

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve State choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, these 

actions merely do not impose additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

State law and the Clean Air Act. For that 

reason, these actions: 

• Are not ‘‘significant regulatory 

actions’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Do not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Are certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Do not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Do not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Are not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Are not subject to requirements of 

section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Do not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

Tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because 

redesignation is an action that affects 

the status of a geographical area and 

does not impose any new regulatory 

requirements on Tribes, impact any 

existing sources of air pollution on 

Tribal lands, nor impair the 

maintenance of ozone national ambient 

air quality standards in Tribal lands. 

However, because there are Tribal lands 

located in Allegan County, we provided 

the affected Tribe with the opportunity 

to consult with EPA on the 

redesignation. The affected Tribe raised 

no concerns with the proposed rule. 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Ozone, Nitrogen dioxides, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

40 CFR Part 81 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control. 

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

Dated: July 8, 2010. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 2010–17680 Filed 7–19–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 63 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0080; FRL–9176–6] 

RIN 2060–AQ26 

Amendments to National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants: Area Source Standards for 

Prepared Feeds Manufacturing 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing three 

amendments to the regulatory text in the 

prepared feeds manufacturing area 

source rule. First, this action would 

correct the date for new sources to 

submit a Notification of Compliance 

Status (NOCS) form. Second, this action 

would correct information that needs to 

be included in the Notification of 

Compliance Report for those small 

facilities that are not required to install 

cyclones on their pelleting operations. 

Third, this action would add language 

to the regulatory text requiring submittal 

of the annual compliance certification 

report that was inadvertently left out of 

the final rule. These corrections and 

clarifications would not change the 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1