Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 77 / Thursday, April 23, 2009 / Proposed Rules 18479 

Corrective actions are considered FAAapproved if they are approved by the State 

of Design Authority (or their delegated 

agent). You are required to assure the product 

is airworthy before it is returned to service. 

(3) Reporting Requirements: For any 

reporting requirement in this AD, under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act 

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) has 

approved the information collection 

requirements and has assigned OMB Control 

Number 2120–0056. 

Related Information 

(h) Refer to MCAI EASA AD No.: 2009– 

0031, dated February 18, 2009; and RUAG 

Aerospace Defence Technology Dornier 228 

Alert Service Bulletin ASB–228–279, dated 

December 19, 2008, for related information. 

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on April 

16, 2009. 

Kim Smith, 

Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft 

Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–9327 Filed 4–22–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2005–SC–0002–200535(b); 

FRL–8894–7] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; South Carolina; 

NOX SIP Call Phase II 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

a source-specific State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the 

South Carolina Department of Health 

and Environmental Control on April 14, 

2005. This revision responds to EPA’s 

regulation entitled, ‘‘Interstate Ozone 

Transport: Response to Court Decisions 

on the Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) SIP Call, 

NOX SIP Call Technical Amendments, 

and Section 126 Rules,’’ otherwise 

known as the ‘‘NOX SIP Call Phase II.’’ 

This revision meets the requirements of 

the NOX SIP Call Phase II, which 

requires South Carolina to submit NOX

SIP Call Phase II revisions necessary to 

achieve applicable, incremental 

reductions of NOX, including emission 

reductions from large internal 

combustion engines. Transcontinental 

Gas Pipeline Corporation Station 140 

(Transco) is the only facility in South 

Carolina affected by the NOX SIP Call 

Phase II. The intended effect of this SIP 

revision is to reduce emissions of NOX

originating in the State of South 

Carolina to help attain and maintain the 

national ambient air quality standard for 

ozone. This action is being taken 

pursuant to section 110 of the Clean Air 

Act. 

In the Final Rules Section of this 

Federal Register, EPA is approving the 

State’s source-specific SIP revision as a 

direct final rule without prior proposal 

because the Agency views this as a 

noncontroversial submittal and 

anticipates no adverse comments. A 

detailed rationale for the approval is set 

forth in the direct final rule. If no 

adverse comments are received in 

response to this rule, no further activity 

is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse 

comments, the direct final rule will be 

withdrawn and all public comments 

received will be addressed in a 

subsequent final rule based on this 

proposed rule. EPA will not institute a 

second comment period on this 

document. Any parties interested in 

commenting on this document should 

do so at this time. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before May 26, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2005–SC–0002, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. E-mail: ward.nacosta@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (404) 562–9019. 

4. Mail: ‘‘EPA–R04–OAR–2005–SC– 

0002,’’ Regulatory Development Section, 

Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and 

Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. 

5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Nacosta 

C. Ward, Regulatory Development 

Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, 

Pesticides and Toxics Management 

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, 

SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Regional Office’s normal hours of 

operation. The Regional Office’s official 

hours of business are Monday through 

Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding federal 

holidays. 

Please see the direct final rule which 

is located in the Rules section of this 

Federal Register for detailed 

instructions on how to submit 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Nacosta C. Ward, Regulatory 

Development Section, Air Planning 

Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 

Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. The 

telephone number is (404) 562–9140. 

Ms. Ward can also be reached via 

electronic mail at 

ward.nacosta@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For 

additional information see the direct 

final rule which is published in the 

Rules Section of this Federal Register. 

Dated: April 10, 2009. 

Beverly H. Banister, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. E9–9223 Filed 4–22–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2009–0219; FRL–8894–9] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans and Designation 

of Areas for Air Quality Planning 

Purposes; Michigan; Redesignation of 

the Detroit-Ann Arbor Area to 

Attainment for Ozone 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to make a 

determination under the Clean Air Act 

(CAA) that the Detroit-Ann Arbor 

nonattainment area has attained the 8- 

hour ozone National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard (NAAQS). The DetroitAnn Arbor area includes Lenawee, 

Livingston, Macomb, Monroe, Oakland, 

St. Clair, Washtenaw, and Wayne 

Counties. This determination is based 

on quality-assured ambient air quality 

monitoring data for the 2006–2008 

ozone seasons that demonstrate that the 

8-hour ozone NAAQS has been attained 

in the area. 

EPA is proposing to approve a request 

from the State of Michigan to 

redesignate the Detroit-Ann Arbor area 

to attainment of the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. The Michigan Department of 

Environmental Quality (MDEQ) 

submitted this request on March 6, 

2009. In proposing to approve this 

request EPA is also proposing to 

approve, as a revision to the Michigan 

State Implementation Plan (SIP), the 

State’s plan for maintaining the 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS through 2020 in the area. 

EPA is proposing to approve the 2005 

base year emissions inventory for the 

Detroit-Ann Arbor area as meeting the 

requirements of section 182(a)(1) of the 

CAA. EPA also finds adequate and is 

proposing to approve the State’s 2020 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
18480 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 77 / Thursday, April 23, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets 

(MVEBs) for the Detroit-Ann Arbor area. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before May 26, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2009–0219, by one of the 

following methods: 

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

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. E-mail: mooney.john@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (312) 692–2551. 

4. Mail: John M. Mooney, Chief, 

Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs 

Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 

5. Hand delivery: John M. Mooney, 

Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air 

Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, 18th Floor, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such deliveries 

are only accepted during the Regional 

Office normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. The 

Regional Office official hours of 

business are Monday through Friday, 

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

Federal holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R05–OAR–2009– 

0219. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 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:// 

www.regulations.gov, your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional instructions on 

submitting comments, go to Section I 

this document, ‘‘What Should I 

Consider as I Prepare My Comments for 

EPA?’’ 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http;// 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

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

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in 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, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air 

Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–1767, 

dagostino.kathleen@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

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

EPA. This supplementary information 

section is arranged as follows: 

Table of Contents 

I. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My 

Comments for EPA? 

II. What Action Is EPA Proposing To Take? 

III. What Is the Background for These 

Actions? 

A. What Is the General Background 

Information? 

B. What Are the Impacts of the December 

22, 2006 and June 8, 2007 United States 

Court of Appeals Decisions Regarding 

EPA’s Phase 1 Implementation Rule? 

IV. What Are the Criteria for Redesignation? 

V. Why Is EPA Proposing To Take These 

Actions? 

VI. What Is the Effect of These Actions? 

VII. What Is EPA’s Analysis of the Request? 

A. Attainment Determination and 

Redesignation 

B. Adequacy of Michigan’s MVEBs 

C. 2005 Base Year Emissions Inventory 

VIII. What Action Is EPA Taking? 

IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What Should I Consider as I Prepare 

My Comments for EPA? 

When submitting comments, 

remember to: 

1. Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

2. Follow directions—EPA may ask 

you to respond to specific questions or 

organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

3. Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

4. Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information 

and/or data that you used. 

5. If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

6. Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

7. Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

8. Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

II. What Action Is EPA Proposing To 

Take? 

EPA is proposing to take several 

related actions. EPA is proposing to 

make a determination that the DetroitAnn Arbor nonattainment area has 

attained the 8-hour ozone standard and 

that this area has met the requirements 

for redesignation under section 

107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. EPA is thus 

proposing to approve Michigan’s 

request to change the legal designation 

of the Detroit-Ann Arbor area from 

nonattainment to attainment for the 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is also 

proposing to approve Michigan’s 

maintenance plan SIP revision for 

Detroit-Ann Arbor (such approval being 

one of the CAA criteria for redesignation 

to attainment status). The maintenance 

plan is designed to keep the Detroit-Ann 

Arbor area in attainment of the ozone 

NAAQS through 2020. EPA is proposing 

to approve the 2005 base year emissions 

inventory for the Detroit-Ann Arbor area 

as meeting the requirements of section 

182(a)(1) of the CAA. Additionally, EPA 

is proposing to approve the newlyestablished 2020 MVEBs for the DetroitAnn Arbor area. The adequacy comment 

period for the MVEBs began on March 

12, 2009, with EPA’s posting of the 

availability of the submittal on EPA’s 

Adequacy Web site (at http:// 

www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/ 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 77 / Thursday, April 23, 2009 / Proposed Rules 18481 

transconf/adequacy.htm). The adequacy 

comment period for these MVEBs ended 

on April 13, 2009. EPA will address any 

comments in the final rule. Please see 

section VII. B. of this rulemaking, 

‘‘Adequacy of Michigan’s MVEBs,’’ for 

further explanation on this process. We 

are proposing to find adequate and 

approve, the State’s 2020 MVEBs for 

transportation conformity purposes. 

III. What Is the Background for These 

Actions? 

A. What Is the General Background 

Information? 

Ground-level ozone is not emitted 

directly by sources. Rather, emissions of 

nitrogen oxides (NOX) and volatile 

organic compounds (VOCs) react in the 

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

to as precursors of ozone. 

The CAA establishes a process for air 

quality management through the 

NAAQS. Before promulgation of the 

current 8-hour standard, the ozone 

NAAQS was based on a 1-hour 

standard. On November 6, 1991 (56 FR 

56693 and 56778), the Detroit-Ann 

Arbor area was designated as a moderate 

nonattainment area under the 1-hour 

ozone NAAQS. The area was 

subsequently redesignated to attainment 

of the 1-hour standard on March 7, 1995 

(60 FR 12459). At the time EPA revoked 

the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, on June 15, 

2005, the Detroit-Ann Arbor area was 

designated as attainment under the 1- 

hour ozone NAAQS. 

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

promulgated an 8-hour ozone standard 

of 0.08 parts per million (ppm). On 

April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23857), EPA 

published a final rule designating and 

classifying areas under the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. These designations and 

classifications became effective June 15, 

2004. EPA designated as nonattainment 

any area that was violating the 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS based on the three most 

recent years of air quality data, 2001– 

2003. 

The CAA contains two sets of 

provisions, subpart 1 and subpart 2, that 

address planning and control 

requirements for nonattainment areas. 

(Both are found in Title I, part D, 42 

U.S.C. 7501–7509a and 7511–7511f, 

respectively.) Subpart 1 contains general 

requirements for nonattainment areas 

for any pollutant, including ozone, 

governed by a NAAQS. Subpart 2 

provides more specific requirements for 

ozone nonattainment areas. 

Under EPA’s implementation rule for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, (69 FR 

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

classified under subpart 2 based on its 

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

three-year average annual fourth-highest 

daily maximum 8-hour average ozone 

concentration), if it had a 1-hour design 

value at the time of designation at or 

above 0.121 ppm (the lowest 1-hour 

design value in Table 1 of subpart 2) (69 

FR 23954). All other areas were covered 

under subpart 1, based upon their 8- 

hour design values (69 FR 23958). The 

Detroit-Ann Arbor area was designated 

as a subpart 2, 8-hour ozone moderate 

nonattainment area by EPA on April 30, 

2004 (69 FR 23857, 23910–23911) based 

on air quality monitoring data from 

2001–2003 (69 FR 23860). 

Under section 181(a)(4) of the CAA, 

EPA may adjust the classification of an 

ozone nonattainment area to the next 

higher or lower classification if the 

design value for the area is within five 

percent of the cut off for that higher or 

lower classification. On September 22, 

2004, EPA adjusted the classification of 

several nonattainment areas which had 

been designated and classified under 

subpart 2 on April 30, 2004. At that 

time, EPA adjusted the classification of 

the Detroit-Ann Arbor nonattainment 

area from moderate to marginal (69 FR 

56697, 56708–56709). 

40 CFR 50.10 and 40 CFR part 50, 

appendix I provide that the 8-hour 

ozone standard is attained when the 

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

ozone concentration is less than or 

equal to 0.08 ppm, when rounded. The 

data completeness requirement is met 

when the average percent of days with 

valid ambient monitoring data is greater 

than 90%, and no single year has less 

than 75% data completeness. See 40 

CFR part 50, appendix I, 2.3. 

On March 6, 2009, MDEQ requested 

that EPA redesignate the Detroit-Ann 

Arbor area to attainment for the 8-hour 

ozone standard. The redesignation 

request included three years of 

complete, quality-assured data for the 

period of 2006 through 2008, indicating 

the 8-hour NAAQS for ozone had been 

attained for the Detroit-Ann Arbor area. 

Under the CAA, nonattainment areas 

may be redesignated to attainment if 

sufficient complete, quality-assured data 

are available for the Administrator to 

determine that the area has attained the 

standard, and the area meets the other 

CAA redesignation requirements in 

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

On March 27, 2008 (73 FR 16436), 

EPA promulgated a revised 8-hour 

ozone standard of 0.075. EPA has not 

yet promulgated area designations for 

this standard. While both the 1997 and 

2008 8-hour ozone standards are 

currently in place, the actions addressed 

in this proposed rulemaking relate only 

to the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. 

B. What Are the Impacts of the 

December 22, 2006, and June 8, 2007, 

United States Court of Appeals 

Decisions Regarding EPA’s Phase 1 

Implementation Rule? 

1. Summary of Court Decision 

On December 22, 2006, in South 

Coast Air Quality Management Dist. v. 

EPA, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia Circuit vacated 

EPA’s Phase 1 Implementation Rule for 

the 8-hour ozone standard (69 FR 23951, 

April 30, 2004). 472 F.3d 882 (DC Cir. 

2006). On June 8, 2007, in response to 

several petitions for rehearing, the DC 

Circuit Court clarified that the Phase 1 

Rule was vacated only with regard to 

those parts of the rule that had been 

successfully challenged. Id., Docket No. 

04 1201. Therefore, several provisions of 

the Phase 1 Rule remain effective: 

Provisions related to classifications for 

areas currently classified under subpart 

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

nonattainment areas; the 8-hour 

attainment dates; and, the timing for 

emissions reductions needed for 

attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

The June 8, 2007 decision also left intact 

the Court’s rejection of EPA’s reasons 

for implementing the 8-hour standard in 

certain nonattainment areas under 

subpart 1 in lieu of subpart 2. By 

limiting the vacatur, the Court let stand 

EPA’s revocation of the 1-hour standard 

and those anti-backsliding provisions of 

the Phase 1 Rule that had not been 

successfully challenged. The June 8, 

2007 decision reaffirmed the December 

22, 2006, decision that EPA had 

improperly failed to retain four 

measures required for 1-hour 

nonattainment areas under the antibacksliding provisions of the 

regulations: (1) Nonattainment area New 

Source Review (NSR) requirements 

based on an area’s 1-hour nonattainment 

classification; (2) section 185 penalty 

fees for 1-hour severe or extreme 

nonattainment areas; (3) measures to be 

implemented pursuant to section 

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

contingency of an area not making 

reasonable further progress toward 

attainment of the 1-hour NAAQS, or for 

failure to attain that NAAQS; and (4) 

certain transportation conformity 

requirements for certain types of Federal 

actions. The June 8, 2007 decision 

clarified that the Court’s reference to 

conformity requirements was limited to 

requiring the continued use of 1-hour 

motor vehicle emissions budgets until 8- 

hour budgets were available for 8-hour 

conformity determinations. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
18482 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 77 / Thursday, April 23, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

This section sets forth EPA’s views on 

the potential effect of the Court’s rulings 

on this proposed redesignation action. 

For the reasons set forth below, EPA 

does not believe that the Court’s rulings 

alter any requirements relevant to this 

redesignation action so as to preclude 

redesignation or prevent EPA from 

proposing or ultimately finalizing this 

redesignation. EPA believes that the 

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

2007, decisions impose no impediment 

to moving forward with redesignation of 

this area to attainment, because even in 

light of the Court’s decisions, 

redesignation is appropriate under the 

relevant redesignation provisions of the 

CAA and longstanding policies 

regarding redesignation requests. 

2. Requirements Under the 8-Hour 

Standard 

With respect to the 8-hour standard, 

the Detroit-Ann Arbor area is classified 

under subpart 2. The June 8, 2007, 

opinion clarifies that the Court did not 

vacate the Phase 1 Rule’s provisions 

with respect to classifications for areas 

under subpart 2. The Court’s decision, 

therefore, upholds EPA’s classifications 

for those areas classified under subpart 

2 for the 8-hour ozone standard. 

3. Requirements Under the 1-Hour 

Standard 

With respect to the 1-hour standard 

requirements, the Detroit-Ann Arbor 

area was an attainment area subject to 

a CAA section 175A maintenance plan 

under the 1-hour standard. The Court’s 

decisions do not impact redesignation 

requests for these types of areas, except 

to the extent that the Court, in its June 

8, 2007 decision, clarified that for those 

areas with 1-hour motor vehicle 

emissions budgets in their maintenance 

plans, anti-backsliding requires that 

those 1-hour budgets must be used for 

8-hour conformity determinations until 

replaced by 8-hour budgets. To meet 

this requirement, conformity 

determinations in such areas must 

comply with the applicable 

requirements of EPA’s conformity 

regulations at 40 CFR part 93. 

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

standard that the Court found were not 

properly retained, the Detroit-Ann 

Arbor area is an attainment area subject 

to a maintenance plan for the 1-hour 

standard, and the NSR, contingency 

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

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

requirements no longer apply to an area 

that has been redesignated to attainment 

of the 1-hour standard. 

Thus, the decision in South Coast 

should not alter requirements that 

would preclude EPA from proposing or 

finalizing the redesignation of this area. 

IV. What Are the Criteria for 

Redesignation? 

The CAA provides the requirements 

for redesignating a nonattainment area 

to attainment. Specifically, section 

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

provided that: (1) The Administrator 

determines that the area has attained the 

applicable NAAQS; (2) the 

Administrator has fully approved the 

applicable implementation plan for the 

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

Administrator determines that the 

improvement in air quality is due to 

permanent and enforceable reductions 

in emissions resulting from 

implementation of the applicable SIP 

and applicable Federal air pollutant 

control regulations and other permanent 

and enforceable reductions; (4) the 

Administrator has fully approved a 

maintenance plan for the area as 

meeting the requirements of section 

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

area has met all requirements applicable 

to the area under section 110 and part 

D. 

EPA provided guidance on 

redesignation in the General Preamble 

for the Implementation of Title I of the 

CAA Amendments of 1990 on April 16, 

1992 (57 FR 13498), and supplemented 

this guidance on April 28, 1992 (57 FR 

18070). EPA has provided further 

guidance on processing redesignation 

requests in the following documents: 

‘‘Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Design 

Value Calculations,’’ Memorandum 

from William G. Laxton, Director 

Technical Support Division, June 18, 

1990; 

‘‘Maintenance Plans for Redesignation 

of Ozone and Carbon Monoxide 

Nonattainment Areas,’’ Memorandum 

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

Monoxide Programs Branch, April 30, 

1992; 

‘‘Contingency Measures for Ozone 

and Carbon Monoxide (CO) 

Redesignations,’’ Memorandum from G. 

T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon 

Monoxide Programs Branch, June 1, 

1992; 

‘‘Procedures for Processing Requests 

to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,’’ 

Memorandum from John Calcagni, 

Director, Air Quality Management 

Division, September 4, 1992; 

‘‘State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

Actions Submitted in Response to Clean 

Air Act (ACT) Deadlines,’’ 

Memorandum from John Calcagni, 

Director, Air Quality Management 

Division, October 28, 1992; 

‘‘Technical Support Documents 

(TSD’s) for Redesignation Ozone and 

Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment 

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

Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide 

Programs Branch, August 17, 1993; 

‘‘State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

Requirements for Areas Submitting 

Requests for Redesignation to 

Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon 

Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS) On or After 

November 15, 1992,’’ Memorandum 

from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting 

Assistant Administrator for Air and 

Radiation, September 17, 1993; 

‘‘Use of Actual Emissions in 

Maintenance Demonstrations for Ozone 

and CO Nonattainment Areas,’’ 

Memorandum from D. Kent Berry, 

Acting Director, Air Quality 

Management Division, to Air Division 

Directors, Regions 1–10, November 30, 

1993. 

‘‘Part D New Source Review (part D 

NSR) Requirements for Areas 

Requesting Redesignation to 

Attainment,’’ Memorandum from Mary 

D. Nichols, Assistant Administrator for 

Air and Radiation, October 14, 1994; 

and, 

‘‘Reasonable Further Progress, 

Attainment Demonstration, and Related 

Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment 

Areas Meeting the Ozone National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard,’’ 

Memorandum from John S. Seitz, 

Director, Office of Air Quality Planning 

and Standards, May 10, 1995. 

V. Why Is EPA Proposing To Take 

These Actions? 

On March 6, 2009, Michigan 

requested redesignation of the DetroitAnn Arbor area to attainment for the 8- 

hour ozone standard. EPA believes that 

the area has attained the standard and 

has met the requirements for 

redesignation set forth in section 

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

VI. What Is the Effect of These Actions? 

Approval of the redesignation request 

would change the official designation of 

the area for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

found at 40 CFR part 81. It would also 

incorporate into the Michigan SIP a plan 

for maintaining the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS through 2020. The maintenance 

plan includes contingency measures to 

remedy future violations of the 8-hour 

NAAQS. It also establishes MVEBs of 

106 tons per day (tpd) VOC and 274 tpd 

NOX for Livingston, Macomb, Monroe, 

Oakland, St. Clair, Washtenaw, and 

Wayne Counties (SEMCOG Region) and 

2.1 tpd VOC and 4.4 tpd NOX for 

Lenawee County. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 77 / Thursday, April 23, 2009 / Proposed Rules 18483 

VII. What Is EPA’s Analysis of the 

Request? 

A. Attainment Determination and 

Redesignation 

EPA is proposing to make a 

determination that the Detroit-Ann 

Arbor area has attained the 8-hour 

ozone standard and that the area has 

met all other applicable section 

107(d)(3)(E) redesignation criteria. The 

basis for EPA’s determination is as 

follows: 

1. The Area Has Attained the 8-Hour 

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

EPA is proposing to make a 

determination that the Detroit-Ann 

Arbor area has attained the 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. For ozone, an area may 

be considered to be attaining the 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS if there are no violations, 

as determined in accordance with 40 

CFR 50.10 and part 50, appendix I, 

based on three complete, consecutive 

calendar years of quality-assured air 

quality monitoring data. To attain this 

standard, the three-year average of the 

fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour 

average ozone concentrations measured 

at each monitor within an area over 

each year must not exceed 0.08 ppm. 

Based on the rounding convention 

described in 40 CFR part 50, appendix 

I, the standard is attained if the design 

value is 0.084 ppm or below. The data 

must be collected and quality-assured in 

accordance with 40 CFR part 58, and 

recorded in the Aerometric Information 

Retrieval System (AIRS). The monitors 

generally should have remained at the 

same location for the duration of the 

monitoring period required for 

demonstrating attainment. 

MDEQ submitted ozone monitoring 

data for the 2006 to 2008 ozone seasons. 

MDEQ quality-assured the ambient 

monitoring data in accordance with 40 

CFR 58.10, and recorded it in the AIRS 

database, thus making the data publicly 

available. The data meet the 

completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 50, 

appendix I, which requires a minimum 

completeness of 75 percent annually 

and 90 percent over each 3-year period. 

Monitoring data is presented in Table 1 

below. 

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

HIGH DAILY MAXIMUM 8-HOUR OZONE CONCENTRATIONS

County Monitor 2006 4th high 

(ppm) 

2007 4th high 

(ppm) 

2008 4th high 

(ppm) 

2006–2008 

average (ppm) 

Lenawee ............................................ Tecumseh 260910007 ..................... 0.074 0.081 0.072 0.076 

Macomb ............................................ New Haven 260990009 ................... 0.078 0.093 0.073 0.081 

Warren 260991003 .......................... 0.078 0.091 0.072 0.080 

Oakland ............................................. Oak Park 261250001 ....................... 0.072 0.086 0.074 0.077 

St. Clair ............................................. Port Huron 261470005 ..................... 0.078 0.089 0.067 0.078 

Washtenaw ....................................... Ypsilanti 261610008 ......................... 0.076 0.077 0.069 0.074 

Wayne ............................................... Allen Park 261630001 ...................... 0.068 0.079 0.067 0.071 

E–7 Mile 261630019 ........................ 0.078 0.092 0.078 0.082 

Linwood 261630016 ......................... 0.069 ........................ ........................ ........................

SW High School 261630015 ............ 0.067 ........................ ........................ ........................

In addition, as discussed below with 

respect to the maintenance plan, MDEQ 

has committed to continue to operate an 

EPA-approved monitoring network as 

necessary to demonstrate ongoing 

compliance with the NAAQS. MDEQ 

remains obligated to continue to quality 

assure monitoring data in accordance 

with 40 CFR part 58 and enter all data 

into the Air Quality System in 

accordance with Federal guidelines. In 

summary, EPA believes that the data 

submitted by Michigan provide an 

adequate demonstration that the DetroitAnn Arbor area has attained the 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. 

2. The Area Has Met All Applicable 

Requirements Under Section 110 and 

Part D; and the Area Has a Fully 

Approved SIP Under Section 110(k) 

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

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

We have determined that Michigan 

has met all currently applicable SIP 

requirements for purposes of 

redesignation for the Detroit-Ann Arbor 

area under section 110 of the CAA 

(general SIP requirements). We have 

also determined that the Michigan SIP 

meets all SIP requirements currently 

applicable for purposes of redesignation 

under part D of Title I of the CAA 

(requirements specific to marginal 

nonattainment areas), in accordance 

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

we have determined that the Michigan 

SIP is fully approved with respect to all 

applicable requirements for purposes of 

redesignation, in accordance with 

section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii). In making these 

determinations, we have ascertained 

what SIP requirements are applicable to 

the area for purposes of redesignation, 

and have determined that the portions 

of the SIP meeting these requirements 

are fully approved under section 110(k) 

of the CAA. As discussed more fully 

below, SIPs must be fully approved only 

with respect to currently applicable 

requirements of the CAA. 

The September 4, 1992, Calcagni 

memorandum (see ‘‘Procedures for 

Processing Requests to Redesignate 

Areas to Attainment,’’ Memorandum 

from John Calcagni, Director, Air 

Quality Management Division, 

September 4, 1992) describes EPA’s 

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

the CAA. Under this interpretation, a 

state and the area it wishes to 

redesignate must meet the relevant CAA 

requirements that are due prior to the 

state’s submittal of a complete 

redesignation request for the area. See 

also the September 17, 1993, Michael 

Shapiro memorandum and 60 FR 12459, 

12465–66 (March 7, 1995) 

(redesignation of Detroit-Ann Arbor, 

Michigan to attainment of the 1-hour 

ozone NAAQS). Applicable 

requirements of the CAA that come due 

subsequent to the state’s submittal of a 

complete request remain applicable 

until a redesignation to attainment is 

approved, but are not required as a 

prerequisite to redesignation. See 

section 175A(c) of the CAA. Sierra Club 

v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004). See 

also 68 FR 25424, 25427 (May 12, 2003) 

(redesignation of the St. Louis/East St. 

Louis area to attainment of the 1-hour 

ozone NAAQS). 

a. The Detroit-Ann Arbor Area Has Met 

All Applicable Requirements Under 

Section 110 and Part D of the CAA 

i. Section 110 General SIP Requirements 

Section 110(a) of title I of the CAA 

contains the general requirements for a 

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

implementation plan submitted by a 

state must have been adopted by the 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
18484 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 77 / Thursday, April 23, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

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, 

MDEQ has developed rules governing the control of 

NOX emissions from Electric Generating Units 

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

major cement kilns. EPA approved Michigan’s rules 

as fulfilling Phase I of the NOX SIP Call on May 4, 

2005 (70 FR 23029) and as fulfilling Phase II of the 

SIP Call on January 29, 2008 (73 FR 5101). 

state after reasonable public notice and 

hearing, and that, among other things, it: 

includes enforceable emission 

limitations and other control measures, 

means or techniques necessary to meet 

the requirements of the CAA; provides 

for establishment and operation of 

appropriate devices, methods, systems 

and procedures necessary to monitor 

ambient air quality; provides for 

implementation of a source permit 

program to regulate the modification 

and construction of any stationary 

source within the areas covered by the 

plan; includes provisions for the 

implementation of part C, Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) and part 

D, NSR permit programs; includes 

criteria for stationary source emission 

control measures, monitoring, and 

reporting; includes provisions for air 

quality modeling; and, provides for 

public and local agency participation in 

planning and emission control rule 

development. 

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

requires that SIPs contain measures to 

prevent sources in a state from 

significantly contributing to air quality 

problems in another state. To 

implement this provision, EPA has 

required certain states to establish 

programs to address transport of air 

pollutants (NOX SIP Call 1 and Clean Air 

Interstate Rule (CAIR) (70 FR 25162)). 

However, the section 110(a)(2)(D) 

requirements for a state are not linked 

with a particular nonattainment area’s 

designation and classification. EPA 

believes that the requirements linked 

with a particular nonattainment area’s 

designation and classification are the 

relevant measures to evaluate in 

reviewing a redesignation request. The 

transport SIP submittal requirements, 

where applicable, continue to apply to 

a state regardless of the designation of 

any one particular area in the state. 

Thus, we believe that these 

requirements should not be construed to 

be applicable requirements for purposes 

of redesignation. 

Further, we believe that the other 

section 110 elements described above 

that are not connected with 

nonattainment plan submissions and 

not linked with an area’s attainment 

status are also not applicable 

requirements for purposes of 

redesignation. A state remains subject to 

these requirements after an area is 

redesignated to attainment. We 

conclude that only the section 110 and 

part D requirements which are linked 

with a particular area’s designation and 

classification are the relevant measures 

which we may consider in evaluating a 

redesignation request. This approach is 

consistent with EPA’s existing policy on 

applicability of conformity and 

oxygenated fuels requirements for 

redesignation purposes, as well as with 

section 184 ozone transport 

requirements. See Reading, 

Pennsylvania, proposed and final 

rulemakings (61 FR 53174–53176, 

October 10, 1996), (62 FR 24826, May 7, 

1997); Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio, 

final rulemaking (61 FR 20458, May 7, 

1996); and Tampa, Florida, final 

rulemaking (60 FR 62748, December 7, 

1995). See also the discussion on this 

issue in the Cincinnati, Ohio ozone 

redesignation (65 FR 37890, June 19, 

2000), and in the Pittsburgh, 

Pennsylvania ozone redesignation (66 

FR 50399, October 19, 2001). 

We have reviewed Michigan’s SIP and 

have concluded that it meets the general 

SIP requirements under section 110 of 

the CAA. EPA has previously approved 

provisions of the Michigan SIP 

addressing section 110 elements under 

the 1-hour ozone standard (40 CFR 

52.1170). Further, in submittals dated 

December 6, 2007, and September 19, 

2008, Michigan confirmed that the State 

continues to meet the section 110 

requirements for the 8-hour ozone 

standard. 

ii. Part D Requirements 

EPA has determined that, with the 

approval of the base year emissions 

inventory discussed in section VII.C. of 

this rulemaking, the Michigan SIP will 

meet the applicable SIP requirements 

under part D of the CAA for the DetroitAnn Arbor area. Under part D of the 

CAA, an area’s classification determines 

the requirements to which it will be 

subject. Subpart 1 of part D, found in 

sections 172–176 of the CAA, sets forth 

the basic nonattainment requirements 

applicable to all nonattainment areas. 

Subpart 2 of part D, which includes 

section 182 of the CAA, establishes 

additional specific requirements 

depending on the area’s nonattainment 

classification. 

The Detroit-Ann Arbor area was 

classified as a marginal area under 

subpart 2, therefore the State must meet 

both the applicable requirements of 

subpart 1 and subpart 2 of part D. The 

applicable subpart 1 requirements are 

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

in section 176. The subpart 2 

requirements applicable to the DetroitAnn Arbor area are contained in section 

182(a) (marginal nonattainment area 

requirements). 

Subpart 1 Section 172 Requirements 

For purposes of evaluating this 

redesignation request, the applicable 

section 172 SIP requirements for the 

Detroit-Ann Arbor area are contained in 

sections 172(c)(1)–(9). A thorough 

discussion of the requirements 

contained in section 172 can be found 

in the General Preamble for 

Implementation of Title I (57 FR 13498, 

April 16, 1992). 

Section 172(c)(1) requires the plans 

for all nonattainment areas to provide 

for the implementation of all 

Reasonably Available Control Measures 

(RACM) as expeditiously as practicable. 

The EPA interprets this requirement to 

impose a duty on all nonattainment 

areas to consider all available control 

measures and to adopt and implement 

such measures as are reasonably 

available for implementation in the area 

as components of the areas attainment 

demonstration. Because attainment has 

been reached, no additional measures 

are needed to provide for attainment. 

The reasonable further progress (RFP) 

requirement under section 172(c)(2) is 

defined as progress that must be made 

toward attainment. This requirement is 

not relevant because the Detroit-Ann 

Arbor area has demonstrated monitored 

attainment of the ozone NAAQS. 

(General Preamble, 57 FR 13564). In 

addition, because the Detroit-Ann Arbor 

area has attained the ozone NAAQS and 

is no longer subject to an RFP 

requirement, the section 172(c)(9) 

contingency measures are not 

applicable. 

Section 172(c)(3) requires submission 

and approval of a comprehensive, 

accurate and current inventory of actual 

emissions. This requirement was 

superseded by the inventory 

requirement in section 182(a)(1). 

Section 172(c)(4) requires the 

identification and quantification of 

allowable emissions for major new and 

modified stationary sources to be 

allowed in an area, and section 172(c)(5) 

requires source permits for the 

construction and operation of new and 

modified major stationary sources 

anywhere in the nonattainment area. 

EPA has determined that, since PSD 

requirements will apply after 

redesignation, areas being redesignated 

need not comply with the requirement 

that a NSR program be approved prior 

to redesignation, provided that the area 

demonstrates maintenance of the 

NAAQS without part D NSR. A more 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 77 / Thursday, April 23, 2009 / Proposed Rules 18485 

detailed rationale for this view is 

described in a memorandum from Mary 

Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air 

and Radiation, dated October 14, 1994, 

entitled, ‘‘Part D New Source Review 

Requirements for Areas Requesting 

Redesignation to Attainment.’’ Michigan 

has demonstrated that the Detroit-Ann 

Arbor area will be able to maintain the 

standard without part D NSR in effect; 

therefore, EPA concludes that the State 

need not have a fully approved part D 

NSR program prior to approval of the 

redesignation request. The PSD program 

was delegated to the State of Michigan 

on September 10, 1979, and amended 

on November 7, 1983, and September 

26, 1988. In addition, on December 21, 

2006, MDEQ submitted, as a revision to 

its SIP, State rules to implement the 

PSD program. On September 16, 2008, 

EPA conditionally approved the 

majority of Michigan’s PSD program, 

and partially disapproved the 

subsection of Michigan’s rule 

corresponding to 40 CFR 51.166(p). On 

September 30, 2008, MDEQ submitted a 

revision to the SIP correcting the 

deficiencies cited in the conditional 

approval. The Federal delegation of 

authority allows Michigan to continue 

to implement 40 CFR 51.166(p). 

The State’s PSD program will become 

effective in the Detroit-Ann Arbor area 

upon redesignation to attainment. See 

rulemakings for Detroit, Michigan (60 

FR 12467–12468, March 7, 1995); 

Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio (61 FR 

20458, 20469–20470, May 7, 1996); 

Louisville, Kentucky (66 FR 53665, 

October 23, 2001); and Grand Rapids, 

Michigan (61 FR 31834–31837, June 21, 

1996). 

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

contain control measures necessary to 

provide for attainment of the standard. 

Because attainment has been reached, 

no additional measures are needed to 

provide for attainment. 

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

meet the applicable provisions of 

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

believe the Michigan SIP meets the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2). 

Subpart 1 Section 176 Conformity 

Requirements 

Section 176(c) of the CAA requires 

states to establish criteria and 

procedures to ensure that 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 666079 and 

61 FR 66609, respectively). Michigan 

has submitted onroad motor vehicle 

budgets for the SEMCOG portion of the 

Detroit-Ann Arbor area and Lenawee 

County of 106 tpd and 2.1 tpd VOC and 

274 tpd and 4.4 tpd NOx, respectively, 

for the year 2020. The area must use the 

MVEBs from the maintenance plan in 

any conformity determination that is 

effective on or after the effective date of 

the maintenance plan approval. 

Subpart 2 Section 182(a) Requirements 

As set forth in the September 4, 1992, 

and September 17, 1993, EPA guidance 

memoranda referenced in section IV of 

this action, ‘‘What are the Criteria for 

Redesignation?,’’ only those 

requirements which came due prior to 

Michigan’s submittal of a request to 

designate the Detroit-Ann Arbor area 

must be fully approved into the SIP 

before or at the time EPA approves the 

redesignation of the area to attainment. 

These requirements are discussed 

below. 

Base year emissions inventory. 

Section 182(a)(1) requires the 

submission of a base year emissions 

inventory. As part of Michigan’s 

redesignation request for the DetroitAnn Arbor area, the State submitted a 

2005 base year emissions inventory. 

EPA is proposing to approve the 2005 

base year inventory Michigan submitted 

with the redesignation request as 

meeting the section 182(a)(1) emissions 

inventory requirement. 

Emissions statements. EPA approved 

Michigan’s emission statement SIP, as 

required by section 182(a)(3)(B), on 

March 8, 1994 (59 FR 10752). 

Thus, the Detroit-Ann Arbor area has 

satisfied all applicable requirements 

under section 110 and part D of the 

CAA. 

b. The Detroit-Ann Arbor Area Has a 

Fully Approved Applicable SIP Under 

Section 110(k) of the CAA 

EPA has fully approved the Michigan 

SIP for the Detroit-Ann Arbor area 

under section 110(k) of the CAA for all 

requirements applicable for purposes of 

redesignation. EPA may rely on prior 

SIP approvals in approving a 

redesignation request (See page 3 of the 

September 4, 1992, John Calcagni 

memorandum; Southwestern 

Pennsylvania Growth Alliance v. 

Browner, 144 F.3d 984, 989–990 (6th 

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

(6th Cir. 2001)) plus any additional 

measures it may approve in conjunction 

with a redesignation action. See 68 FR 

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

passage of the CAA of 1970, Michigan 

has adopted and submitted, and EPA 

has fully approved, provisions 

addressing the various required SIP 

elements applicable to the Detroit-Ann 

Arbor County area under the 1-hour 

ozone standard. In this action, EPA is 

proposing to approve Michigan’s 2005 

base year emissions inventory for the 

Detroit-Ann Arbor area as meeting the 

requirement of section 182(a)(1) of the 

CAA. With the exception of Michigan’s 

PSD SIP, which is discussed above, no 

Detroit-Ann Arbor area SIP provisions 

are currently disapproved, conditionally 

approved, or partially approved. 

3. The Improvement in Air Quality Is 

Due to Permanent and Enforceable 

Reductions in Emissions Resulting From 

Implementation of the SIP and 

Applicable Federal Air Pollution 

Control Regulations and Other 

Permanent and Enforceable Reductions 

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

EPA finds that Michigan has 

demonstrated that the observed air 

quality improvement in the Detroit-Ann 

Arbor area is due to permanent and 

enforceable reductions in emissions 

resulting from implementation of the 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
18486 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 77 / Thursday, April 23, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

SIP, Federal measures, and other Stateadopted measures. 

In making this demonstration, the 

State has calculated the change in 

emissions between 2005 and 2007. 

Michigan used the 2005 nonattainment 

area base year emissions inventory 

required under section 182(a)(1) of the 

CAA as the nonattainment inventory for 

redesignation purposes. The State 

developed an attainment inventory for 

2007, one of the years the Detroit-Ann 

Arbor area monitored attainment. The 

reduction in emissions and the 

corresponding improvement in air 

quality over this time period can be 

attributed to a number of regulatory 

control measures that Detroit-Ann Arbor 

and upwind areas have implemented in 

recent years. 

a. Permanent and Enforceable Controls 

Implemented 

The following is a discussion of 

permanent and enforceable measures 

that have been implemented in the 

areas: 

i. VOC Controls. Michigan developed 

a rule to limit VOC emissions from 

consumer and commercial products. 

This rule was approved by EPA on 

October 26, 2007 (72 FR 60781). 

Michigan also adopted a lower Reid 

Vapor Pressure (RVP) fuel requirement 

for gasoline distributed in the DetroitAnn Arbor area. EPA approved the SIP 

revision on January 31, 2007 (72 FR 

4432). 

ii. NOX rules. MDEQ developed rules 

governing the control of NOX emissions 

from Electric Generating Units (EGUs), 

major non-EGU industrial boilers, and 

major cement kilns. EPA approved 

Michigan’s rules as fulfilling Phase I of 

the NOX SIP Call on May 4, 2005 (70 FR 

23029), and as fulfilling Phase II of the 

SIP Call on January 29, 2008 (73 FR 

5101). 

iii. Federal Emission Control 

Measures. Reductions in VOC and NOX

emissions have occurred statewide and 

in upwind areas as a result of Federal 

emission control measures, with 

additional emission reductions expected 

to occur in the future. Federal emission 

control measures include: the National 

Low Emission Vehicle (NLEV) program, 

Tier 2 emission standards for vehicles, 

gasoline sulfur limits, low sulfur diesel 

fuel standards, and heavy-duty diesel 

engine standards. In addition, in 2004, 

EPA issued the Clean Air Non-road 

Diesel Rule (69 FR 38958 (July 29, 

2004)). EPA expects this rule to reduce 

off-road diesel emissions through 2010, 

with emission reductions starting in 

2008. 

iv. Control Measures in Upwind 

Areas. On October 27, 1998 (63 FR 

57356), EPA issued a NOX SIP call 

requiring the District of Columbia and 

22 states to reduce emissions of NOX. 

The reduction in NOX emissions has 

resulted in lower concentrations of 

transported ozone entering the DetroitAnn Arbor area. Emission reductions 

resulting from regulations developed in 

response to the NOX SIP call are 

permanent and enforceable. 

b. Emission Reductions 

Michigan is using 2005 for the 

nonattainment inventory and 2007 for 

the attainment inventory. MDEQ 

provided a 2005 base year inventory to 

the Lake Michigan Air Directors 

Consortium (LADCO). The main 

purpose of LADCO is to provide 

technical assessments for and assistance 

to its member states on problems of air 

quality. LADCO’s primary geographic 

focus is the area encompassed by its 

member states (Illinois, Indiana, 

Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin) and 

any areas which affect air quality in its 

member states. The base year inventory 

was processed by LADCO to develop 

summer day emissions for use in 

regional air quality analyses and 

attainment demonstration modeling. 

The point source data was obtained 

from the Michigan Air Emissions 

Reporting System. Area source 

emissions were taken from the 2005 

emissions inventory developed by 

MDEQ to comply with the Consolidated 

Emission Reporting Rule for the EPA 

National Emissions Inventory (NEI). 

Nonroad mobile emissions were 

generated for LADCO using EPA’s 

National Mobile Inventory Model 

(NMIM), with the following exceptions: 

recreational motorboat populations and 

spatial surrogates were updated; 

emissions estimates were developed for 

aircraft, commercial marine vessels, and 

railroads, three nonroad categories not 

included in NMIM; and, onroad mobile 

emissions were calculated by the 

Southeast Michigan Council of 

Governments (SEMCOG) using the 

MOBILE6.2 emissions model. 

For the 2007 attainment year 

inventory, point source emissions were 

taken from the Michigan Air Emissions 

Reporting System. Onroad mobile 

emissions were calculated by SEMCOG 

using the MOBILE6.2 emissions model. 

For the remaining categories, MDEQ 

used the 2005 inventory described 

above along with 2002, 2009, and 2018 

emissions inventories developed by 

LADCO to interpolate point, area, and 

nonroad mobile emissions for 2007. For 

each combination of county and 

pollutant, a linear regression analysis 

was performed using the values from 

the established inventories for 2002, 

2005, 2009, and 2018. From the best-fit 

line established by the regression 

analysis, values for 2007 were obtained. 

Using the inventories described 

above, Michigan’s submittal documents 

changes in VOC and NOX emissions 

from 2005 to 2007 for the Detroit-Ann 

Arbor area. Emissions data are shown in 

Tables 3 through 5 below. 

TABLE 3—DETROIT-ANN ARBOR AREA VOC AND NOX EMISSIONS FOR NONATTAINMENT YEAR 2005 

[tpd] 

Point Area Onroad Nonroad Total 

VOC NOX VOC NOX VOC NOX VOC NOX VOC NOX

Livingston ..................................... 0.66 1.89 11.92 1.00 5.00 16.20 9.61 4.38 27.19 23.47 

Macomb ........................................ 9.62 2.30 38.72 2.36 16.50 40.60 23.12 19.27 87.96 64.53 

Monroe ......................................... 11.16 104.83 9.85 0.93 5.20 16.40 9.56 7.69 35.77 129.85 

Oakland ........................................ 9.80 3.10 55.34 4.19 34.00 88.90 46.35 25.52 145.49 121.71 

St. Clair ........................................ 5.55 68.97 5.20 0.67 4.70 11.60 11.35 7.83 26.80 89.07 

Washtenaw ................................... 1.42 3.82 17.23 0.97 10.30 30.90 12.47 9.99 41.42 45.68 

Wayne .......................................... 24.27 63.11 82.11 5.38 50.40 130.80 39.97 45.09 196.75 244.38 

Lenawee ....................................... 1.21 0.37 8.89 0.73 2.70 5.30 4.37 3.54 17.17 9.94 

Area Total ............................. 63.69 248.39 229.26 16.23 128.80 340.70 156.80 123.31 578.55 728.63 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 77 / Thursday, April 23, 2009 / Proposed Rules 18487 

TABLE 4—DETROIT-ANN ARBOR AREA VOC AND NOX EMISSIONS FOR ATTAINMENT YEAR 2007 

[tpd] 

Point Area Onroad Nonroad Total 

VOC NOX VOC NOX VOC NOX VOC NOX VOC NOX

Livingston ..................................... 0.86 2.55 8.94 0.79 4.40 13.50 9.07 3.97 23.27 20.81 

Macomb ........................................ 10.72 2.39 36.09 3.87 13.80 33.10 21.96 17.00 82.57 56.36 

Monroe ......................................... 9.41 65.79 9.92 0.73 4.50 13.60 9.02 6.91 32.85 87.03 

Oakland ........................................ 9.03 3.36 55.39 6.07 28.50 72.60 44.15 22.85 137.07 104.88 

St. Clair ........................................ 4.99 65.99 6.92 0.89 3.90 9.50 10.86 7.08 26.67 83.46 

Washtenaw ................................... 1.82 3.55 16.70 1.47 8.80 25.60 11.88 8.93 39.20 39.55 

Wayne .......................................... 21.67 65.19 79.20 8.58 41.80 105.90 38.63 40.27 181.30 219.94 

Lenawee ....................................... 1.28 0.35 6.05 0.55 2.10 4.40 4.13 3.32 13.56 8.62 

Area Total ............................. 59.78 209.17 219.21 22.95 107.80 278.20 149.70 110.33 536.49 620.65 

TABLE 5—COMPARISON OF DETROIT-ANN ARBOR AREA 2005 AND 2007 VOC AND NOX EMISSIONS

[tpd] 

VOC NOX

2005 2007 Net change 

(2005–2007) 2005 2007 Net change (2005–2007) 

Point ..................... 63.69 59.78 ¥3.91 248.39 209.17 ¥39.22 

Area ...................... 229.26 219.21 ¥10.05 16.23 22.95 6.72 

Onroad ................. 128.80 107.80 ¥21.00 340.70 278.20 ¥62.50 

Nonroad ............... 156.80 149.70 ¥7.10 123.31 110.33 ¥12.98 

Total .............. 578.55 536.49 ¥42.06 728.63 620.65 ¥107.98 

Table 5 shows that the Detroit-Ann 

Arbor area reduced VOC emissions by 

42.06 tpd and NOX emissions by 107.98 

tpd between 2005 and 2007. Based on 

the information summarized above, 

Michigan has adequately demonstrated 

that the improvement in air quality is 

due to permanent and enforceable 

emissions reductions. 

4. The Area Has a Fully Approved 

Maintenance Plan Pursuant to Section 

175a of the CAA (Section 

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

In conjunction with its request to 

redesignate the Detroit-Ann Arbor 

nonattainment area to attainment status, 

Michigan submitted a SIP revision to 

provide for the maintenance of the 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS in the area through 

2020. 

a. What Is Required in a Maintenance 

Plan? 

Section 175A of the CAA sets forth 

the required elements of a maintenance 

plan for areas seeking redesignation 

from nonattainment to attainment. 

Under section 175A, the plan must 

demonstrate continued attainment of 

the applicable NAAQS for at least ten 

years after the Administrator approves a 

redesignation to attainment. Eight years 

after the redesignation, the state must 

submit a revised maintenance plan 

which demonstrates that attainment will 

continue to be maintained for ten years 

following the initial ten-year 

maintenance period. To address the 

possibility of future NAAQS violations, 

the maintenance plan must contain 

contingency measures with a schedule 

for implementation as EPA deems 

necessary to assure prompt correction of 

any future 8-hour ozone violations. 

The September 4, 1992, John Calcagni 

memorandum provides additional 

guidance on the content of a 

maintenance plan. The memorandum 

clarifies that an ozone maintenance plan 

should address the following items: the 

attainment VOC and NOX emissions 

inventories, a maintenance 

demonstration showing maintenance for 

the ten years of the maintenance period, 

a commitment to maintain the existing 

monitoring network, factors and 

procedures to be used for verification of 

continued attainment of the NAAQS, 

and a contingency plan to prevent or 

correct future violations of the NAAQS. 

b. Attainment Inventory 

The MDEQ developed an emissions 

inventory for 2007, one of the years 

Michigan used to demonstrate 

monitored attainment of the 8-hour 

NAAQS, as described above. The 

attainment level of emissions is 

summarized in Table 4, above. 

c. Demonstration of Maintenance 

Along with the redesignation request, 

Michigan submitted a revision to the 8- 

hour ozone SIP to include a 

maintenance plan for the Detroit-Ann 

Arbor area, in compliance with section 

175A of the CAA. This demonstration 

shows maintenance of the 8-hour ozone 

standard through 2020 by assuring that 

current and future emissions of VOC 

and NOX for the Detroit-Ann Arbor area 

remain at or below attainment year 

emission levels. A maintenance 

demonstration need not be based on 

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

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

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

66 FR 53094, 53099–53100 (October 19, 

2001), 68 FR 25413, 25430–25432 (May 

12, 2003). 

Michigan is using emissions 

inventories for the years 2009 and 2020 

to demonstrate maintenance. Onroad 

mobile source emissions were estimated 

by SEMCOG using MOBILE6.2. For the 

2020 inventory, MDEQ used the 2005 

inventory described above along with 

2002, 2009, and 2018 emissions 

inventories developed by LADCO to 

interpolate emissions estimates for the 

remaining source sectors. For each 

combination of county and pollutant, a 

linear regression analysis was 

performed using the values from the 

established inventories for 2002, 2005, 

2009, and 2018. From the best-fit line 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
18488 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 77 / Thursday, April 23, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

established by the regression analysis, 

values for 2020 were obtained. 

Emissions estimates are presented in 

Table 6 below. 

TABLE 6—COMPARISON OF 2007—2020 VOC AND NOX EMISSIONS

[tpd] 

VOC NOX

2007 2009 2020 

Net 

change 

2007–2020 

2007 2009 2020 

Net 

change 

2007–2020 

Point ............................................................................... 59.78 52.48 59.37 ¥0.41 209.17 182.56 225.34 16.17 

Area ................................................................................ 219.21 211.95 219.56 0.35 22.95 26.04 27.50 4.55 

Onroad ........................................................................... 107.80 95.10 50.30 ¥57.50 278.20 226.40 69.30 ¥208.90 

Nonroad ......................................................................... 149.70 131.21 102.00 ¥47.70 110.33 100.80 62.29 ¥48.04 

Total ........................................................................ 536.49 490.74 431.23 ¥105.26 620.65 535.80 384.43 ¥236.22 

The emission projections show that 

MDEQ does not expect emissions in the 

Detroit-Ann Arbor area to exceed the 

level of the 2007 attainment year 

inventory during the maintenance 

period. In the Detroit-Ann Arbor area, 

MDEQ projects that VOC and NOX

emissions will decrease by 105.26 tpd 

and 236.22 tpd, respectively. 

As part of its maintenance plan, the 

State elected to include a ‘‘safety 

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

is the difference between the attainment 

level of emissions (from all sources) and 

the projected level of emissions (from 

all sources) in the maintenance plan 

which continues to demonstrate 

attainment of the standard. The 

attainment level of emissions is the 

level of emissions during one of the 

years in which the area met the NAAQS. 

The Detroit-Ann Arbor area attained the 

8-hour ozone NAAQS during the 2006– 

2008 time period. Michigan used 2007 

as the attainment level of emissions for 

the area. In the maintenance plan, 

MDEQ projected emission levels for 

2020. For the Detroit-Ann Arbor area, 

the emissions from point, area, nonroad, 

and mobile sources in 2007 equaled 

536.49 tpd of VOC. MDEQ projected 

VOC emissions for the year 2020 to be 

431.23 tpd of VOC. The SIP submission 

demonstrates that the Detroit-Ann Arbor 

area will continue to maintain the 

standard with emissions at this level. 

The safety margin for VOC is calculated 

to be the difference between these 

amounts or, in this case, 105.26 tpd of 

VOC for 2020. By this same method, 

236.22 tpd (i.e., 620.65 tpd less 384.43 

tpd) is the safety margin for NOX for 

2020. The safety margin, or a portion 

thereof, can be allocated to any of the 

source categories, as long as the total 

attainment level of emissions is 

maintained. 

d. Monitoring Network 

Michigan currently operates eight 

ozone monitors in the Detroit-Ann 

Arbor area. MDEQ has committed to 

continue to operate an EPA-approved 

monitoring network as necessary to 

demonstrate ongoing compliance with 

the NAAQS. MDEQ remains obligated to 

continue to quality assure monitoring 

data in accordance with 40 CFR part 58 

and enter all data into the Air Quality 

System in accordance with Federal 

guidelines. 

e. Verification of Continued Attainment 

Continued attainment of the ozone 

NAAQS in the Detroit-Ann Arbor area 

depends, in part, on the State’s efforts 

toward tracking indicators of continued 

attainment during the maintenance 

period. Michigan’s plan for verifying 

continued attainment of the 8-hour 

standard in the Detroit-Ann Arbor area 

consists of plans to continue ambient 

ozone monitoring in accordance with 

the requirements of 40 CFR part 58. 

MDEQ will also continue to develop 

and submit periodic emission 

inventories as required by the Federal 

Consolidated Emissions Reporting Rule 

(67 FR 39602) to track future levels of 

emissions. 

f. Contingency Plan 

The contingency plan provisions are 

designed to promptly correct or prevent 

a violation of the NAAQS that might 

occur after redesignation of an area to 

attainment. Section 175A of the CAA 

requires that a maintenance plan 

include such contingency measures as 

EPA deems necessary to assure that the 

state will promptly correct a violation of 

the NAAQS that occurs after 

redesignation. The maintenance plan 

should identify the contingency 

measures to be adopted, a schedule and 

procedure for adoption and 

implementation of the contingency 

measures, and a time limit for action by 

the state. The state should also identify 

specific indicators to be used to 

determine when the contingency 

measures need to be adopted and 

implemented. The maintenance plan 

must include a requirement that the 

state will implement all measures with 

respect to control of the pollutant(s) that 

were contained in the SIP before 

redesignation of the area to attainment. 

See section 175A(d) of the CAA. 

As required by section 175A of the 

CAA, Michigan has adopted a 

contingency plan for the Detroit-Ann 

Arbor area to address possible future 

ozone air quality problems. The 

contingency plan adopted by Michigan 

has two levels of response, depending 

on whether a violation of the 8-hour 

ozone standard is only threatened 

(Action Level Response) or has occurred 

(Contingency Measure Response). 

An Action Level Response will be 

triggered when a two-year average 

fourth-high monitored daily peak 8-hour 

ozone concentration of 0.085 ppm or 

higher is monitored within the 

maintenance area. An Action Level 

Response will consist of Michigan 

performing a review of the 

circumstances leading to the high 

monitored values. MDEQ will conduct 

this review within six months following 

the close of the ozone season. If MDEQ 

determines that contingency measure 

implementation is necessary to prevent 

a future violation of the NAAQS, MDEQ 

will select and implement a measure 

that can be implemented promptly. 

A Contingency Measure Response 

will be triggered by a violation of the 

standard (a three-year average of the 

annual fourth-highest daily maximum 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 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 77 / Thursday, April 23, 2009 / Proposed Rules 18489 

measure is dependent on the process 

needed for legal adoption and source 

compliance, which varies for each 

measure. MDEQ will expedite the 

process of adopting and implementing 

the selected measures, with a goal of 

having measures in place as 

expeditiously as practicable and within 

18 months. EPA is interpreting this 

commitment to mean that the measure 

will be in place within 18 months. 

MDEQ included the following list of 

potential contingency measures in the 

maintenance plan: 

i. Reduced VOC content in 

architectural, industrial, and 

maintenance (AIM) coatings rule; 

ii. Auto body refinisher selfcertification audit program; 

iii. Reduced VOC degreasing/solvent 

cleaning rule; 

iv. Diesel retrofit program; 

v. Reduced idling program; 

vi. Portable fuel container 

replacement rule; and, 

vii. Food preparation flame broiler 

control rule. 

g. Provisions for Future Updates of the 

Ozone Maintenance Plan 

As required by section 175A(b) of the 

CAA, Michigan commits to submit to 

the EPA an updated ozone maintenance 

plan eight years after redesignation of 

the Detroit-Ann Arbor area to cover an 

additional ten-year period beyond the 

initial ten-year maintenance period. As 

required by section 175(A) of the CAA, 

Michigan has committed to retain the 

VOC and NOX control measures 

contained in the SIP prior to 

redesignation. Michigan also commits to 

submitting to EPA any contingency 

measures adopted under the section 

175A maintenance plan. 

EPA has concluded that the 

maintenance plan adequately addresses 

the five basic components of a 

maintenance plan: attainment 

inventory, maintenance demonstration, 

monitoring network, verification of 

continued attainment, and a 

contingency plan. The maintenance 

plan SIP revision submitted by 

Michigan for the Detroit-Ann Arbor area 

meets the requirements of section 175A 

of the CAA. 

B. Adequacy of Michigan’s MVEBs 

1. How Are MVEBs Developed and 

What Are the MVEBs for the DetroitAnn Arbor Area? 

Under the CAA, states are required to 

submit, at various times, control strategy 

SIP revisions and ozone maintenance 

plans for ozone nonattainment areas and 

for areas seeking redesignations to 

attainment of the ozone standard. These 

emission control strategy SIP revisions 

(e.g., reasonable further progress SIP 

and attainment demonstration SIP 

revisions) and ozone maintenance plans 

create MVEBs based on onroad mobile 

source emissions for criteria pollutants 

and/or their precursors to address 

pollution from cars and trucks. The 

MVEBs are the portions of the total 

allowable emissions that are allocated to 

highway and transit vehicle use that, 

together with emissions from other 

sources in the area, will provide for 

attainment or maintenance. 

Under 40 CFR part 93, a MVEB for an 

area seeking a redesignation to 

attainment is established for the last 

year of the maintenance plan. The 

MVEB serves as a ceiling on emissions 

from an area’s planned transportation 

system. The MVEB concept is further 

explained in the preamble to the 

November 24, 1993, transportation 

conformity rule (58 FR 62188). The 

preamble also describes how to 

establish the MVEB in the SIP and how 

to revise the MVEB if needed. 

Under section 176(c) of the CAA, new 

transportation projects, such as the 

construction of new highways, must 

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

the part of the SIP that addresses 

emissions from cars and trucks. 

Conformity to the SIP means that 

transportation activities will not cause 

new air quality violations, worsen 

existing air quality violations, or delay 

timely attainment of the NAAQS. If a 

transportation plan does not conform, 

most new transportation projects that 

would expand the capacity of roadways 

cannot go forward. Regulations at 40 

CFR part 93 set forth EPA policy, 

criteria, and procedures for 

demonstrating and assuring conformity 

of such transportation activities to a SIP. 

When reviewing SIP revisions 

containing MVEBs, including 

attainment strategies, rate-of-progress 

plans, and maintenance plans, EPA 

must affirmatively find that the MVEBs 

are ‘‘adequate’’ for use in determining 

transportation conformity. Once EPA 

affirmatively finds the submitted 

MVEBs to be adequate for transportation 

conformity purposes, the MVEBs are 

used by state and Federal agencies in 

determining whether proposed 

transportation projects conform to the 

SIP as required by section 176(c) of the 

CAA. EPA’s substantive criteria for 

determining the adequacy of MVEBs are 

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

EPA’s process for determining 

adequacy of a MVEB consists of three 

basic steps: (1) Providing public 

notification of a SIP submission; (2) 

providing the public the opportunity to 

comment on the MVEB during a public 

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

of adequacy. The process of determining 

the adequacy of submitted SIP MVEBs 

was initially outlined in EPA’s May 14, 

1999, guidance, ‘‘Conformity Guidance 

on Implementation of March 2, 1999, 

Conformity Court Decision.’’ This 

guidance was codified in the 

Transportation Conformity Rule 

Amendments for the ‘‘New 8-Hour 

Ozone and PM 2.5 National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards and 

Miscellaneous Revisions for Existing 

Areas; Transportation Conformity Rule 

Amendments—Response to Court 

Decision and Additional Rule Change,’’ 

published on July 1, 2004 (69 FR 

40004). EPA follows this guidance and 

rulemaking in making its adequacy 

determinations. 

The Detroit-Ann Arbor area’s 

maintenance plan contains new VOC 

and NOX MVEBs for the year 2020. The 

availability of the SIP submission with 

these 2020 MVEBs was announced for 

public comment on EPA’s Adequacy 

Web site on March 12, 2009, at: 

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/ 

stateresources/transconf/currsips.htm. 

The EPA public comment period on 

adequacy of the 2020 MVEBs for the 

Detroit-Ann Arbor area closed on April 

13, 2009. EPA will address any 

comments in the final rule. 

EPA, through this rulemaking, is 

proposing to find adequate and approve 

the MVEBs for use to determine 

transportation conformity in the DetroitAnn Arbor area because EPA has 

determined that the area can maintain 

attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

for the relevant maintenance period 

with mobile source emissions at the 

levels of the MVEBs. In developing 

MVEBs for the Detroit-Ann Arbor Area, 

MDEQ has established separate MVEBS 

for the SEMCOG region (Livingston, 

Macomb, Monroe, Oakland, St. Clair, 

Washtenaw, and Wayne Counties) and 

for Lenawee County. MDEQ has 

determined the 2020 MVEBs for the 

SEMCOG region to be 106 tpd for VOC 

and 274 tpd for NOX. MDEQ has 

determined the 2020 MVEBs for 

Lenawee County to be 2.1 tpd for VOC 

and 4.4 tpd for NOX. These MVEBs 

exceed the onroad mobile source VOC 

and NOX emissions projected by MDEQ 

for 2020, as summarized in Table 6 

above (‘‘onroad’’ source sector). MDEQ 

decided to include safety margins 

(described further below) of 58.2 tpd for 

VOC (57 tpd and 1.2 tpd for the 

SEMCOG region and Lenawee County, 

respectively) and 211.1 tpd for NOX

(208 tpd and 3.1 tpd for the SEMCOG 

region and Lenawee County, 

respectively) MVEBs to provide for 

mobile source growth. Michigan has 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
18490 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 77 / Thursday, April 23, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

demonstrated that the Detroit-Ann 

Arbor area can maintain the 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS with mobile source 

emissions of 108.1 tpd of VOC (the sum 

of 106 tpd for the SEMCOG region and 

2.1 tpd for Lenawee County) and 278.4 

tpd for NOX (the sum of 274 tpd for the 

SEMCOG region and 4.4 tpd for 

Lenawee County), including the 

allocated safety margins, since 

emissions will still remain under 

attainment year emission levels. 

2. What Is a Safety Margin? 

A ‘‘safety margin’’ is the difference 

between the attainment level of 

emissions (from all sources) and the 

projected level of emissions (from all 

sources) in the maintenance plan. As 

noted in Table 6, the Detroit-Ann Arbor 

area emissions are projected to have 

safety margins of 105.26 tpd for VOC 

and 236.22 tpd for NOX in 2020 (the 

difference between the attainment year, 

2007, emissions and the projected 2020 

emissions for all sources in the DetroitAnn Arbor area). Even if emissions 

reached the full level of the safety 

margin, the counties would still 

demonstrate maintenance since 

emission levels would equal those in 

the attainment year. 

The MVEBs requested by MDEQ 

contain safety margins for mobile 

sources smaller than the allowable 

safety margins reflected in the total 

emissions for the Detroit-Ann Arbor 

area. The State is not requesting 

allocation of the entire available safety 

margins reflected in the demonstration 

of maintenance. Therefore, even though 

the State is requesting MVEBs that 

exceed the projected onroad mobile 

source emissions for 2020 contained in 

the demonstration of maintenance, the 

increase in onroad mobile source 

emissions that can be considered for 

transportation conformity purposes is 

well within the safety margins of the 

ozone maintenance demonstration. 

Further, once allocated to mobile 

sources, these safety margins will not be 

available for use by other sources. 

C. 2005 Base Year Emissions Inventory 

As discussed above, section 182(a)(1) 

of the CAA requires areas classified as 

marginal and above to submit a base 

year emissions inventory. As part of 

Michigan’s redesignation request for the 

Detroit-Ann Arbor area, the State 

submitted a 2005 base year emissions 

inventory. This inventory is discussed 

above and summarized in Table 3. EPA 

is proposing to approve this 2005 base 

year inventory as meeting the section 

182(a)(1) emissions inventory 

requirement. 

VIII. What Action Is EPA Taking? 

EPA is proposing to make a 

determination that the Detroit-Ann 

Arbor area has attained the 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. EPA is also proposing to 

approve the maintenance plan SIP 

revision for the Detroit-Ann Arbor area. 

EPA’s proposed approval of the 

maintenance plan is based on 

Michigan’s demonstration that the plan 

meets the requirements of section 175A 

of the CAA, as described more fully 

above. After evaluating Michigan’s 

redesignation request, EPA has 

determined that it meets the 

redesignation criteria set forth in section 

107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. Therefore, EPA 

is proposing to approve the 

redesignation of the Detroit-Ann Arbor 

area from nonattainment to attainment 

for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The final 

approval of this redesignation request 

would change the official designation 

for the Detroit-Ann Arbor area from 

nonattainment to attainment for the 8- 

hour ozone standard. EPA is proposing 

to approve the 2005 base year emissions 

inventory for the Detroit-Ann Arbor area 

as meeting the requirements of section 

182(a)(1) of the CAA. Finally, EPA also 

finds adequate and is proposing to 

approve the State’s 2020 Motor Vehicle 

Emission Budgets (MVEBs) for the 

Detroit-Ann Arbor area. 

IX. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the CAA and applicable 

Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 

40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP 

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve 

state choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, 

this action merely approves state law as 

meeting Federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. For 

that reason, this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, 

Volatile organic compounds. 

40 CFR Part 81 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, National parks, 

Wilderness areas. 

Dated: April 13, 2009. 

Walter W. Kovalick Jr., 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. E9–9217 Filed 4–22–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS