[Federal Register: July 20, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 138)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 42018-42030]
[DOCID:fr20jy10-23]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    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://

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<PHONE_NUMBER> 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,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:

Table of Contents

I. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
II. What actions is EPA proposing to take?
III. What is the background for these actions?
    A. What is the general background information?
    B. What are the impacts of the December 22, 2006, and June 8,
2007, United States Court of Appeals Decisions regarding EPA's Phase
1 Implementation Rule?
IV. What are the criteria for redesignation?
V. What is the effect of these actions?
VI. What is EPA's analysis of the request?
    A. Attainment Determination and Redesignation
    B. Adequacy of the MVEBs
    C. 2005 Comprehensive Emissions Inventory
VII. What actions is EPA taking?
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    When submitting comments, remember to:
    1. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    2. Follow directions--EPA may ask you to respond to specific
questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    3. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    4. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    5. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    6. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
    7. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    8. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline
identified.

II. What actions is EPA proposing to take?

    EPA is proposing to take several related actions. EPA is proposing
to determine that the Allegan County nonattainment area has attained
the 1997 8-hour ozone standard and that the area has met the
requirements for redesignation under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA.
EPA is thus proposing to approve the request from MDNRE to change the
legal designation of the Allegan County area from nonattainment to
attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is also proposing to
approve, as a revision to the Michigan SIP, the State's maintenance
plan (such approval being one of the CAA criteria for redesignation to
attainment status). The maintenance plan is designed to keep the
Allegan County area in attainment of the ozone NAAQS through 2021. EPA
is proposing to approve the 2005 emissions inventory for the Allegan
County area as meeting the comprehensive inventory requirements of
section 172(c)(3) of the CAA. If EPA's determination of attainment is
finalized, under the provisions of 40 CFR 51.918, the requirement to
submit certain planning SIPs related to attainment (the Reasonably
Available Control Measure (RACM) requirement of section 172(c)(1) of
the CAA, the Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) and attainment
demonstration requirements of sections 172(c)(2) and (6) of the CAA,
and the requirement for contingency measures of section 172(c)(9) of
the CAA) are not applicable to the area as long as it continues to
attain the NAAQS and would cease to be applicable upon redesignation.
In addition, as set forth in more detail below, in the context of
redesignations, EPA has interpreted requirements related to attainment
as not applicable for purposes of redesignation. Finally, EPA is
proposing to find adequate and approve the newly-established 2021 MVEBs
for the Allegan County area. The adequacy comment period for the MVEBs
began on June 17, 2010, with EPA's posting of the availability of the
submittal on EPA's Adequacy Web site (at 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 ground-level
ozone. NOX and VOCs are referred to as precursors of ozone.
    The CAA establishes a process for air quality management through
the NAAQS. Before promulgation of the 8-hour standard, the ozone NAAQS
was based on a 1-hour standard. EPA originally designated the Allegan
County area as an ozone nonattainment area under section 107 of the
1977 CAA on March 3, 1978 (43 FR 8962). EPA revisited this original
designation in 1991 to reflect new designation requirements contained
in the 1990 CAA. On November 6, 1991 (56 FR 56694), EPA retained the
original

nonattainment designation for Allegan. At the time of the 1991
designations, current monitoring data were not available for this area,
nor had the State completed a redesignation request showing that it
complied with the requirements of section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA.
Therefore, EPA designated the area as nonattainment, but did not
establish a nonattainment classification, establishing the area as an
incomplete data ozone nonattainment area. EPA subsequently redesignated
the Allegan County area to attainment of the 1-hour standard effective
January, 16 2001. (See 65 FR 70490 (November 24, 2000)). This
attainment designation was thus in effect at the time EPA revoked the
1-hour ozone NAAQS, on June 15, 2005.
    On July 18, 1997 (62 FR 38856), EPA promulgated an 8-hour ozone
standard of 0.08 parts per million parts (ppm). On April 30, 2004 (69
FR 23857), EPA published a final rule designating and classifying areas
under the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. These designations and classifications
became effective June 15, 2004. EPA designated as nonattainment any
area that was violating the 8-hour ozone NAAQS based on the three most
recent years of air quality data, 2001-2003.
    The CAA contains two sets of provisions, subpart 1 and subpart 2,
that address planning and control requirements for nonattainment areas.
(Both are found in Title I, part D, of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7501-7509a
and 7511-7511f, respectively.) Subpart 1 contains general requirements
for nonattainment areas for any pollutant, including ozone, governed by
a NAAQS. Subpart 2 provides more specific requirements for ozone
nonattainment areas.
    Under EPA's implementation rule for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard
(69 FR 23951 (April 30, 2004)), an area was classified under subpart 2
based on its 8-hour ozone design value (i.e. the three-year average
annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone
concentration), if it had a 1-hour design value at the time of
designation at or above 0.121 ppm (the lowest 1-hour design value in
Table 1 of subpart 2) (69 FR 23954). All other areas were covered under
subpart 1, based upon their 8-hour design values (69 FR 23958). The
Allegan County area was designated as a subpart 1, 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area by EPA on April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23857 and 23910),
based on air quality monitoring data from 2001-2003 (69 FR 23860).
    40 CFR 50.10 and 40 CFR part 50, Appendix I provide that the 1997
8-hour ozone standard is attained when the three-year average of the
annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration
is less than or equal to 0.08 ppm, when rounded. The data completeness
requirement is met when the average percent of days with valid ambient
monitoring data is greater than 90%, and no single year has less than
75% data completeness. See 40 CFR part 50, Appendix I, section 2.3(d).
    The MDNRE submitted a request to redesignate the Allegan County
area to attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard on May 12, 2010
and supplemented the submittal on June 16, 2010. The redesignation
request includes three years of complete, quality-assured data for the
period of 2007 through 2009, indicating the 8-hour NAAQS for ozone, as
promulgated in 1997, had been attained for the Allegan County area.
Under the CAA, nonattainment areas may be redesignated to attainment if
sufficient complete, quality-assured data are available for the
Administrator to determine that the area has attained the standard, and
the area meets the other redesignation requirements in section
107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA.
    On March 27, 2008 (73 FR 16436), EPA promulgated a revised 8-hour
ozone standard of 0.075 ppm. In May 2008, States, environmental groups,
and industry groups filed petitions with the DC Circuit Court of
Appeals for review of the 2008 ozone standards. In March 2009, the
court granted EPA's request to stay the litigation so EPA could review
the standards and determine whether they should be reconsidered. On
September 16, 2009, EPA announced reconsideration of our 2008 decision
setting national standards for ground-level ozone. The designation
process for that standard has been stayed. On January 6, 2010, EPA
proposed to set the level of the primary 8-hour ozone standard within
the range of 0.060 to 0.070 ppm, rather than at 0.075 ppm. We expect by
September 2010 to have completed our reconsideration of the standard
and also expect that thereafter we will proceed with designations.
Therefore, the actions addressed in today's proposed rulemaking relate
only to the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.

B. What are the impacts of the December 22, 2006, and June 8, 2007,
United States Court of Appeals Decisions Regarding EPA's Phase 1
Implementation Rule?

1. Summary of Court Decision
    On December 22, 2006, in South Coast Air Quality Management Dist.
v. EPA (South Coast), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit vacated EPA's Phase 1 Implementation Rule for the 8-
hour Ozone Standard (69 FR 23951 (April 30, 2004)). 472 F.3d 882 (DC
Cir. 2006). On June 8, 2007, in response to several petitions for
rehearing, the DC Circuit clarified that the Phase 1 Rule was vacated
only with regard to those parts of the rule that had been successfully
challenged. Id., Docket No. 04 1201. Therefore, several provisions of
the Phase 1 Rule remain effective: provisions related to
classifications for areas currently classified under subpart 2 of Title
I, part D, of the CAA as 8-hour nonattainment areas; the 8-hour
attainment dates; and the timing for emissions reductions needed for
attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The June 8, 2007, decision also
left intact the court's rejection of EPA's reasons for implementing the
8-hour standard in certain nonattainment areas under subpart 1 in lieu
of subpart 2. By limiting the vacatur, the court let stand EPA's
revocation of the 1-hour standard and those anti-backsliding provisions
of the Phase 1 Rule that had not been successfully challenged. The June
8, 2007, decision reaffirmed the December 22, 2006, decision that EPA
had improperly failed to retain four measures required for 1-hour
nonattainment areas under the anti-backsliding provisions of the
regulations: (1) Nonattainment area New Source Review (NSR)
requirements based on an area's 1-hour nonattainment classification;
(2) section 185 penalty fees for 1-hour severe or extreme nonattainment
areas; (3) measures to be implemented pursuant to section 172(c)(9) or
182(c)(9) of the CAA, on the contingency of an area not making
reasonable further progress toward attainment of the 1-hour NAAQS, or
for failure to attain that NAAQS; and (4) certain transportation
conformity requirements for certain types of Federal actions. The June
8, 2007, decision clarified that the court's reference to conformity
requirements was limited to requiring the continued use of 1-hour motor
vehicle emissions budgets until 8-hour budgets were available for 8-
hour conformity determinations.
    This section sets forth EPA's views on the potential effect of the
court's rulings on this proposed redesignation action. For the reasons
set forth below, EPA does not believe that the court's rulings alter
any requirements relevant to this redesignation action so as to
preclude redesignation or prevent EPA from proposing or ultimately
finalizing this redesignation. EPA believes that the court's December
22, 2006, and June 8, 2007, decisions impose no impediment to moving
forward with redesignation of this area to attainment, because even in

light of the court's decisions, redesignation is appropriate under the
relevant redesignation provisions of the CAA and longstanding policies
regarding redesignation requests.
2. Requirements Under the 1997 8-Hour Standard
    With respect to the 1997 8-hour standard, the court's ruling
rejected EPA's reasons for classifying areas under subpart 1 for the 8-
hour standard, and remanded that matter to the Agency. In its January
16, 2009, proposed rulemaking in response to the South Coast decision,
EPA has proposed to classify Allegan County under subpart 2 as a
moderate area. 74 FR 2936, 2944. If EPA finalizes this rulemaking, the
requirements under subpart 2 will become applicable when they are due,
a deadline that EPA has proposed to be one year after the effective
date of a final rulemaking classifying areas as moderate or marginal.
74 FR 2940-2941. Although a future final decision by EPA to classify
this area under subpart 2 would trigger additional future requirements
for the area, EPA believes that this does not mean that redesignation
cannot now go forward. This belief is based upon: (1) EPA's
longstanding policy of evaluating requirements in accordance with the
requirements due at the time the request is submitted; and, (2)
consideration of the inequity of applying retroactively any
requirements that might be applied in the future.
    First, at the time the redesignation request was submitted, the
Allegan County area was not classified under subpart 2, nor were there
any subpart 2 requirements yet due for this area. Under EPA's
longstanding interpretation of section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA, to
qualify for redesignation, States requesting redesignation to
attainment must meet only the relevant SIP requirements that came due
prior to the submittal of a complete redesignation request. See
September 4, 1992, Calcagni memorandum (``Procedures for Processing
Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,'' Memorandum from John
Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division). See also Michael
Shapiro Memorandum, September 17, 1993, and 60 FR 12459, 12465-66
(March 7, 1995) (Redesignation of Detroit-Ann Arbor). See Sierra Club
v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004), which upheld EPA's redesignation
rulemaking applying this interpretation. See also 68 FR 25418, 25424,
25427 (May 12, 2003) (Redesignation of St. Louis).
    Moreover, it would be inequitable to retroactively apply any new
SIP requirements that were not applicable at the time the request was
submitted. The DC Circuit has recognized the inequity in such
retroactive rulemaking. In Sierra Club v. Whitman, 285 F.3d 63 (DC Cir.
2002), the DC Circuit upheld a district court's ruling refusing to make
retroactive an EPA determination of nonattainment that was past the
statutory due date. Such a determination would have resulted in the
imposition of additional requirements on the area. The court stated:
``Although EPA failed to make the nonattainment determination within
the statutory time frame, Sierra Club's proposed solution only makes
the situation worse. Retroactive relief would likely impose large costs
on the States, which would face fines and suits for not implementing
air pollution prevention plans in 1997, even though they were not on
notice at the time.'' Id. at 68. Similarly here it would be unfair to
penalize the area by applying to it, for purposes of redesignation,
additional SIP requirements under subpart 2 that were not in effect or
yet due at the time it submitted its redesignation request.
3. Requirements Under the 1-Hour Standard
    With respect to the 1-hour standard requirements, the Allegan
County area was an attainment area subject to a CAA section 175A
maintenance plan under the 1-hour standard at the time that the 1-hour
standard was revoked. Therefore, the DC Circuit's decisions with
respect to 1-hour nonattainment anti-backsliding requirements do not
impact redesignation requests for these types of areas, except to the
extent that the court in its June 8, 2007, decision clarified that for
those areas with 1-hour motor vehicle emissions budgets in their
maintenance plans, anti-backsliding requires that those 1-hour budgets
must be used for 8-hour conformity determinations until replaced by 8-
hour budgets. To meet this requirement, conformity determinations in
such areas must comply with the applicable requirements of EPA's
conformity regulations at 40 CFR part 93.
    With respect to the three other anti-backsliding provisions for the
1-hour standard that the court found were not properly retained, the
Allegan County area is an attainment area subject to a maintenance plan
for the 1-hour standard, and the NSR, contingency measure (pursuant to
section 172(c)(9) or 182(c)(9)), and fee provision requirements no
longer apply to an area that has been redesignated to attainment of the
1-hour standard.
    Thus, the decision in South Coast Air Quality Management Dist.
would not preclude EPA from finalizing the redesignation of this area.

IV. What are the criteria for redesignation?

    The CAA provides the requirements for redesignating a nonattainment
area to attainment. Specifically, section 107(d)(3)(E) allows for
redesignation provided that: (1) The Administrator determines that the
area has attained the applicable NAAQS; (2) the Administrator has fully
approved the applicable implementation plan for the area under section
110(k); (3) the Administrator determines that the improvement in air
quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions
resulting from implementation of the applicable SIP and applicable
Federal air pollutant control regulations and other permanent and
enforceable reductions; (4) the Administrator has fully approved a
maintenance plan for the area as meeting the requirements of section
175A; and, (5) the State containing such area has met all requirements
applicable to the area under section 110 and part D.
    EPA provided guidance on redesignation in the General Preamble for
the Implementation of Title I of the CAA Amendments of 1990 on April
16, 1992 (57 FR 13498), and supplemented this guidance on April 28,
1992 (57 FR 18070). EPA has provided further guidance on processing
redesignation requests in the following documents:
    ``Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Design Value Calculations,'' Memorandum
from William G. Laxton, Director, Technical Support Division, June 18,
1990;
    ``Maintenance Plans for Redesignation of Ozone and Carbon Monoxide
Nonattainment Areas,'' Memorandum from G. T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon
Monoxide Programs Branch, April 30, 1992;
    ``Contingency Measures for Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Redesignations,'' Memorandum from G. T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon
Monoxide Programs Branch, June 1, 1992;
    ``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to
Attainment,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality
Management Division, September 4, 1992;
    ``State Implementation Plan (SIP) Actions Submitted in Response to
Clean Air Act (ACT) Deadlines,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni,
Director, Air Quality Management Division, October 28, 1992;
    ``Technical Support Documents (TSDs) for Redesignation Ozone and
Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment Areas,'' Memorandum from G. T.
Helms,

Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, August 17, 1993;
    ``State Implementation Plan (SIP) Requirements for Areas Submitting
Requests for Redesignation to Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon
Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) On or
After November 15, 1992,'' Memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting
Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, September 17, 1993;
    ``Use of Actual Emissions in Maintenance Demonstrations for Ozone
and CO Nonattainment Areas,'' Memorandum from D. Kent Berry, Acting
Director, Air Quality Management Division, to Air Division Directors,
Regions 1-10, November 30, 1993;
    ``Part D New Source Review (part D NSR) Requirements for Areas
Requesting Redesignation to Attainment,'' Memorandum from Mary D.
Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, October 14,
1994; and
    ``Reasonable Further Progress, Attainment Demonstration, and
Related Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment Areas Meeting the Ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standard,'' Memorandum from John S. Seitz,
Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, May 10, 1995.

V. What is the effect of these actions?

    Approval of the redesignation request would change the official
designation of the Allegan County area for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS
found at 40 CFR part 81. It would also incorporate into the Michigan
SIP a plan for maintaining the 8-hour ozone NAAQS through 2021. The
maintenance plan includes contingency measures as required under CAA
section 175A to remedy future violations of the 8-hour NAAQS. It also
establishes MVEBs for the Allegan County area of 3.93 tons per day
(tpd) VOC and 6.92 tpd NOX for 2021.

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

A. Attainment Determination and Redesignation

    EPA is proposing to determine that the Allegan County area has
attained the 1997 8-hour ozone standard and that the area has met all
other applicable redesignation criteria under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E).
The basis for EPA's proposed approvals of the redesignation requests is
as follows:
1. The Area Has Attained the 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS (Section
107(d)(3)(E)(i))
    EPA is proposing to make a determination that the Allegan County
area has attained the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Whether an area is
considered to be attaining the 8-hour ozone NAAQS is determined in
accordance with 40 CFR 50.10 and part 50, Appendix I, based on three
complete, consecutive calendar years of quality-assured air quality
monitoring data. To attain the standard, the three-year average of the
fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations
measured at each monitor within an area over each year must not exceed
0.08 ppm. Based on the rounding convention described in 40 CFR part 50,
Appendix I, the standard is attained if the design value is 0.084 ppm
or below. The data must be collected and quality-assured in accordance
with 40 CFR part 58, and recorded in the EPA's Air Quality System
(AQS). The monitors generally should have remained at the same location
for the duration of the monitoring period required for determining
attainment.
    Michigan included in its redesignation request certified ozone
monitoring data for the 2007 to 2009 ozone seasons. Michigan has
quality-assured all of the ambient monitoring data in accordance with
40 CFR 58.10, and has recorded it in the AQS database. The data meet
the completeness criteria in 40 CFR 50, Appendix I, which requires a
minimum completeness of 75% annually and 90% over each three-year
period. Monitoring data are presented in Table 1 below.

     Table 1--Annual 4th High Daily Maximum 8-Hour Ozone Concentration and Three-Year Averages of 4th High Daily Maximum 8-Hour Ozone Concentrations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                2007 4\th\ high  2008 4\th\ high  2009 4\th\ high     2007-2009
                               County                                    Monitor           (ppm)            (ppm)            (ppm)        average (ppm)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allegan............................................................     26-005-0003            0.094            0.073            0.076            0.081
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Preliminary data available for 2010 are consistent with continued
attainment.
    In addition, as discussed below with respect to the maintenance
plan, MDNRE has committed to continue to operate an EPA-approved
monitoring network as necessary to show ongoing compliance with the
NAAQS. MDNRE remains obligated to continue to quality-assure monitoring
data in accordance with 40 CFR part 58 and to enter all data into AQS
in accordance with Federal guidelines. In summary, EPA believes that
the data show that the Allegan County area has attained the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS.
2. The Area Has Met All Applicable Requirements Under Section 110 and
Part D; and the Area Has a Fully Approved SIP Under Section 110(k)
(Sections 107(d)(3)(E)(v) and 107(d)(3)(E)(ii))
    We have determined that Michigan has met all currently applicable
SIP requirements for purposes of redesignation for the Allegan County
area under section 110 of the CAA (general SIP requirements). We are
also proposing to determine that the Michigan SIP meets all SIP
requirements currently applicable for purposes of redesignation under
part D of Title I of the CAA (requirements specific to subpart 1
nonattainment areas), in accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E)(v). In
addition, with the exception of the emissions inventory under section
172(3), we have approved all applicable requirements of the Michigan
SIP for purposes of redesignation, in accordance with section
107(d)(3)(E)(ii). As discussed below, in this action EPA is proposing
to approve Michigan's 2005 emissions inventory as meeting the section
172(c)(3) comprehensive emissions inventory requirement.
    In proposing these determinations, we have ascertained which SIP
requirements are applicable to the area for purposes of redesignation,
and have determined that there are SIP measures meeting those
requirements and that they are fully approved under section 110(k) of
the CAA. As discussed more fully below, for purposes of evaluating a
redesignation request, SIPs must be fully approved only with respect to
requirements that became due prior to

the submission of the redesignation request.
    The September 4, 1992, Calcagni memorandum (see ``Procedures for
Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,'' Memorandum
from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division,
September 4, 1992) describes EPA's interpretation of section
107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. Under this interpretation, a State and the
area it wishes to redesignate must meet the relevant CAA requirements
that are due prior to the State's submittal of a complete redesignation
request for the area. See also the September 17, 1993, Michael Shapiro
memorandum and 60 FR 12459, 12465-12466 (March 7, 1995) (Redesignation
of Detroit-Ann Arbor). Applicable requirements of the CAA that come due
subsequent to the State's submittal of a complete request remain
applicable until a redesignation to attainment is approved, but are not
required as a prerequisite to redesignation. See section 175A(c) of the
CAA; Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004). See also 68 FR
25424, 25427 (May 12, 2003) (Redesignation of St. Louis).
    If EPA's proposal to determine that the Allegan County area has
attained the 1997 8-hour ozone standard is finalized, pursuant to 40
CFR 51.918, the requirements to submit certain planning SIPs related to
attainment, including attainment demonstration requirements (the RACM
requirement of section 172(c)(1) of the CAA, the RFP and attainment
demonstration requirements of sections 172(c)(2) and (c)(6) of the CAA,
and the requirement for contingency measures of section 172(c)(9) of
the CAA), will not be applicable to the area as long as it continues to
attain the NAAQS and would cease to apply upon redesignation. In
addition, in the context of redesignations, EPA has interpreted
requirements related to attainment as not applicable for purposes of
redesignation. For example, in the General Preamble, EPA stated that:

[t]he section 172(c)(9) requirements are directed at ensuring RFP
and attainment by the applicable date. These requirements no longer
apply when an area has attained the standard and is eligible for
redesignation. Furthermore, section 175A for maintenance plans * * *
provides specific requirements for contingency measures that
effectively supersede the requirements of section 172(c)(9) for
these areas.
    ``General Preamble for the Interpretation of Title I of the
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,'' (General Preamble) 57 FR 13498,
13564 (April 16, 1992).

See also Calcagni memorandum at 6 (``The requirements for reasonable
further progress and other measures needed for attainment will not
apply for redesignations because they only have meaning for areas not
attaining the standard.'')
a. The Allegan County Area Has Met All Applicable Requirements for
Purposes of Redesignation Under Section 110 and Part D of the CAA
i. Section 110 General SIP Requirements
    Section 110(a) of Title I of the CAA contains the general
requirements for a SIP. Section 110(a)(2) provides that the
implementation plan submitted by a State must have been adopted by the
State after reasonable public notice and hearing, and, among other
things, must: Include enforceable emission limitations and other
control measures, means or techniques necessary to meet the
requirements of the CAA; provide for establishment and operation of
appropriate devices, methods, systems, and procedures necessary to
monitor ambient air quality; provide for implementation of a source
permit program to regulate the modification and construction of any
stationary source within the areas covered by the plan; include
provisions for the implementation of part C, Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) and part D, NSR permit programs; include criteria
for stationary source emission control measures, monitoring, and
reporting; include provisions for air quality modeling; and provide for
public and local agency participation in planning and emission control
rule development.
    Section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA requires that SIPs contain measures
to prevent sources in a State from significantly contributing to air
quality problems in another State. To implement this provision, EPA has
required certain States to establish programs to address transport of
air pollutants (NOX SIP Call \1\ and Clean Air Interstate
Rule (CAIR) (70 FR 25162, May 12, 2005)). However, the section
110(a)(2)(D) requirements for a State are not linked with a particular
nonattainment area's designation and classification. EPA believes that
the requirements linked with a particular nonattainment area's
designation and classification are the relevant measures to evaluate in
reviewing a redesignation request. The transport SIP submittal
requirements, where applicable, continue to apply to a State regardless
of the designation of any one particular area in the State. Thus, we
believe that these requirements should not be construed to be
applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ On October 27, 1998 (63 FR 57356), EPA issued a
NOX SIP Call requiring the District of Columbia and 22
states to reduce emissions of NOX in order to reduce the
transport of ozone and ozone precursors. In compliance with EPA's
NOX SIP Call, MDNRE has developed rules governing the
control of NOX emissions from Electric Generating Units
(EGUs), major non-EGU industrial boilers, major cement kilns, and
internal combustion engines. EPA approved Michigan's rules as
fulfilling Phase I of the NOX SIP Call on May 4, 2005 (70
FR 23029) and as meeting Phase II of the NOX SIP Call on
January 29, 2008 (73 FR 5101).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, we believe that the other section 110 elements described
above that are not connected with nonattainment plan submissions and
not linked with an area's attainment status are also not applicable
requirements for purposes of redesignation. A State remains subject to
these requirements after an area is redesignated to attainment. We
conclude that only the section 110 and part D requirements that are
linked with a particular area's designation and classification are the
relevant measures which we may consider in evaluating a redesignation
request. This approach is consistent with EPA's existing policy on
applicability of conformity and oxygenated fuels requirements for
redesignation purposes, as well as with section 184 ozone transport
requirements. See Reading, Pennsylvania, proposed and final rulemakings
(61 FR 53174-53176 (October 10, 1996)) and (62 FR 24826 (May 7, 1997));
Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio, final rulemaking (61 FR 20458 (May 7,
1996)); and Tampa, Florida, final rulemaking (60 FR 62748 (December 7,
1995)). See also the discussion on this issue in the Cincinnati, Ohio
1-hour ozone redesignation (65 FR 37890 (June 19, 2000)), and in the
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 1-hour ozone redesignation (66 FR 50399
(October 19, 2001)).
    We have reviewed Michigan's SIP and have concluded that it meets
the general SIP requirements under section 110 of the CAA to the extent
they are applicable for purposes of redesignation. EPA has previously
approved provisions of the Michigan SIP addressing section 110 elements
under the 1-hour ozone standard (40 CFR 52.1170). Further, in
submittals dated December 6, 2007, and September 19, 2008, Michigan
confirmed that the State continues to meet the section 110 requirements
for the 8-hour ozone standard. EPA has not yet taken rulemaking action
on these submittals; however, such approval is not necessary for
redesignation.

ii. Part D Requirements
    EPA has determined that, if EPA finalizes the approval of the
emissions inventories discussed in section VI.C. of this rulemaking,
the Michigan SIP will meet the applicable SIP requirements for the
Allegan County area applicable for purposes of redesignation under part
D of the CAA. Subpart 1 of part D, found in sections 172-176 of the
CAA, sets forth the basic nonattainment requirements applicable to all
nonattainment areas. Subpart 2 of part D, which includes section 182 of
the CAA, establishes additional specific requirements depending on the
area's nonattainment classification.
    Since the Allegan County area was not classified under subpart 2,
of Part D at the time its redesignation request was submitted, the
subpart 2 requirements do not apply for purposes of evaluating the
State's redesignation request. The applicable subpart 1 requirements
are contained in sections 172(c)(1)-(9) and in section 176.
    Subpart 1 Section 172 Requirements.
    For purposes of evaluating this redesignation request, the
applicable section 172 SIP requirements for the Allegan County area are
contained in sections 172(c)(1)-(9). A thorough discussion of the
requirements contained in section 172 can be found in the General
Preamble for Implementation of Title I (57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992)).
    Section 172(c)(1) requires the plans for all nonattainment areas to
provide for the implementation of all RACM as expeditiously as
practicable and to provide for attainment of the primary NAAQS. EPA
interprets this requirement to impose a duty on all nonattainment areas
to consider all available control measures and to adopt and implement
such measures as are reasonably available for implementation in each
area as components of the area's attainment demonstration. Because
attainment has been reached, no additional measures are needed to
provide for attainment, and section 172(c)(1) requirements are no
longer considered to be applicable as long as the area continues to
attain the standard until redesignation. 40 CFR 51.918.
    The RFP requirement under section 172(c)(2) is defined as progress
that must be made toward attainment. This requirement is not relevant
for purposes of redesignation because the Allegan County area has
monitored attainment of the ozone NAAQS. (General Preamble, 57 FR
13564). See also 40 CFR 51.918. In addition, because the Allegan County
area has attained the ozone NAAQS and is no longer subject to an RFP
requirement, the requirement to submit the section 172(c)(9)
contingency measures is not applicable for purposes of redesignation.
Id.
    Section 172(c)(3) requires submission and approval of a
comprehensive, accurate and current inventory of actual emissions. As
part of Michigan's redesignation request for the Allegan County area,
the State submitted a 2005 emissions inventory. As discussed below in
section VI.C., EPA is proposing to approve the 2005 inventory,
submitted by Michigan along with the redesignation request, as meeting
the section 172(c)(3) emissions inventory requirement.
    Section 172(c)(4) requires the identification and quantification of
allowable emissions for major new and modified stationary sources in an
area, and section 172(c)(5) requires permits for the construction and
operation of new and modified major stationary sources anywhere in the
nonattainment area. EPA has determined that, since PSD requirements
will apply after redesignation, areas being redesignated need not
comply with the requirement that a nonattainment NSR program be
approved prior to redesignation, provided that the area demonstrates
maintenance of the NAAQS without part D NSR. A more detailed rationale
for this view is described in a memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant
Administrator for Air and Radiation, dated October 14, 1994, entitled,
``Part D New Source Review Requirements for Areas Requesting
Redesignation to Attainment.'' Michigan has demonstrated that the
Allegan County area will be able to maintain the standard without part
D NSR in effect; therefore, the State need not have a fully approved
part D NSR program prior to approval of the redesignation request. The
State's PSD program will become effective in the Allegan County area
upon redesignation to attainment. See rulemakings for Detroit, Michigan
(60 FR 12467-12468 (March 7, 1995)); Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio (61
FR 20458, 20469-20470 (May 7, 1996)); Louisville, Kentucky (66 FR 53665
(October 23, 2001)); and Grand Rapids, Michigan (61 FR 31834-31837
(June 21, 1996)).
    Section 172(c)(6) requires the SIP to contain control measures
necessary to provide for attainment of the standard. Because attainment
has been reached, no additional measures are needed to provide for
attainment.
    Section 172(c)(7) requires the SIP to meet the applicable
provisions of section 110(a)(2). As noted above, we believe the
Michigan SIP meets the requirements of section 110(a)(2) applicable for
purposes of redesignation.
    Subpart 1 Section 176 Conformity Requirements.
    Section 176(c) of the CAA requires States to establish criteria and
procedures to ensure that Federally-supported or funded activities,
including highway projects, conform to the air quality planning goals
in the applicable SIPs. The requirement to determine conformity applies
to transportation plans, programs and projects developed, funded or
approved under Title 23 of the U.S. Code and the Federal Transit Act
(transportation conformity) as well as to all other Federally-supported
or funded projects (general conformity). State conformity revisions
must be consistent with Federal conformity regulations relating to
consultation, enforcement, and enforceability, which EPA promulgated
pursuant to CAA requirements.
    EPA believes that it is reasonable to interpret the conformity SIP
requirements as not applying for purposes of evaluating the
redesignation request under section 107(d) for two reasons. First, the
requirement to submit SIP revisions to comply with the conformity
provisions of the CAA continues to apply to areas after redesignation
to attainment, since such areas would be subject to a section 175A
maintenance plan. Second, EPA's Federal conformity rules require the
performance of conformity analyses in the absence of Federally-approved
State rules. Therefore, because areas are subject to the conformity
requirements regardless of whether they are redesignated to attainment
and, because they must implement conformity under Federal rules if
State rules are not yet approved, EPA believes it is reasonable to view
these requirements as not applying for purposes of evaluating a
redesignation request. See Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001),
upholding this interpretation. See also 60 FR 62748, 62749-62750 (Dec.
7, 1995) (Tampa, Florida).
    EPA approved Michigan's general and transportation conformity SIPs
on December 18, 1996 (61 FR 66607 and 61 FR 66609, respectively).
Section 176(c) of the CAA was amended by provisions contained in the
Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A
Legacy for Users (SAFETEALU), which was signed into law on August 10,
2005 (Pub. L. 109-59). Among the changes Congress made to this section
of the CAA were streamlined requirements for State conformity SIPs.
Michigan is in the process of updating its transportation conformity
SIP to meet these new requirements. Michigan

has submitted onroad motor vehicle budgets for the Allegan County area
of 3.93 tpd VOC and 6.92 tpd NOX for 2021. The area must use
the MVEBs from the maintenance plan in any conformity determination
that is effective on or after the effective date of the maintenance
plan approval.
b. The Allegan County Area Has a Fully Approved Applicable SIP Under
Section 110(k) of the CAA
    If EPA issues a final approval of the emissions inventory under
section 172(c)(3), EPA will have fully approved the Michigan SIP for
the Allegan County area under section 110(k) of the CAA for all
requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation. EPA may rely on
prior SIP approvals in approving a redesignation request (See page 3 of
the September 4, 1992, John Calcagni memorandum; Southwestern
Pennsylvania Growth Alliance v. Browner, 144 F.3d 984, 989-990 (6th
Cir. 1998); Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001)) plus any
additional measures it may approve in conjunction with a redesignation
action. See 68 FR 25413, 25426 (May 12, 2003). Since the passage of the
CAA of 1970, Michigan has adopted and submitted, and EPA has fully
approved, provisions addressing various required SIP elements under the
1-hour ozone standard. In this action, EPA is proposing to approve
Michigan's 2005 emissions inventory for the Allegan County area as
meeting the requirement of section 172(c)(3) of the CAA. No Allegan
County area SIP provisions are currently disapproved, conditionally
approved, or partially approved.
3. The Improvement in Air Quality Is Due to Permanent and Enforceable
Reductions in Emissions Resulting From Implementation of the SIP and
Applicable Federal Air Pollution Control Regulations and Other
Permanent and Enforceable Reductions (Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii))
    EPA finds that Michigan has demonstrated that the observed air
quality improvement in the Allegan County area is due to permanent and
enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of
the SIP, Federal measures, and other State-adopted measures.
    In making this demonstration, MDNRE has calculated the change in
emissions between 2005 and 2008. Michigan is using the 2005 emissions
inventory developed in conjunction with the Lake Michigan Air Directors
Consortium (LADCO) as the nonattainment inventory. The State developed
an attainment inventory for 2008, one of the years the Allegan County
area monitored attainment. The reduction in emissions and the
corresponding improvement in air quality over this time period can be
attributed to a number of regulatory control measures that Allegan
County and upwind areas have implemented in recent years.
a. Permanent and Enforceable Controls Implemented
    The following is a discussion of permanent and enforceable measures
that have been implemented in the area:
i. Stationary Source NOX Rules
    Michigan has developed rules governing the control of
NOX emissions from Electric Generating Units (EGUs), major
non-EGU industrial boilers, major cement kilns, and internal combustion
engines. EPA approved Michigan's rules as fulfilling Phase I of the
NOX SIP Call on May 4, 2005 (70 FR 23029) and as meeting
Phase II of the NOX SIP Call on January 29, 2008 (73 FR
5101). Michigan began complying with Phase I of this rule in 2004.
Compliance with Phase II of the SIP Call, which requires the control
NOX emissions from large internal combustion engines, began
in 2007.
ii. Federal Emission Control Measures
    Reductions in VOC and NOX emissions have occurred
statewide and in upwind areas as a result of Federal emission control
measures, with additional emission reductions expected to occur in the
future. Federal emission control measures include the following.
    Tier 2 Emission Standards for Vehicles and Gasoline Sulfur
Standards. These emission control requirements result in lower VOC and
NOX emissions from new cars and light duty trucks, including
sport utility vehicles. The Federal rules were phased in between 2004
and 2009. The EPA has estimated that, by the end of the phase-in
period, the following vehicle NOX emission reductions will
occur nationwide: passenger cars (light duty vehicles) (77%); light
duty trucks, minivans, and sports utility vehicles (86%); and, larger
sports utility vehicles, vans, and heavier trucks (69 to 95%). VOC
emission reductions are expected to range from 12 to 18%, depending on
vehicle class, over the same period. Some of these emission reductions
had occurred by the 2006-2008 period used to demonstrate attainment,
and additional emission reductions will occur during the maintenance
period.
    Heavy-Duty Diesel Engine Rule. EPA issued this rule in July 2000.
This rule, which went into effect in 2004, includes standards that
limit the sulfur content of diesel fuel. A second phase, which took
effect in 2007, further reduced the highway diesel fuel sulfur content
to 15 parts per million, leading to additional reductions in combustion
NOX and VOC emissions. EPA expects this rule to achieve a
95% reduction in NOX emissions from diesel trucks and
busses.
    Non-Road Diesel Rule. EPA promulgated this rule in 2004. This rule
applies to diesel engines used in industries, such as construction,
agriculture, and mining. EPA estimates that compliance with this rule
will cut NOX emissions from non-road diesel engines by up to
90%. This rule is currently achieving emission reductions, but will not
be fully implemented until 2010.
iii. Control Measures in Upwind Areas
    On October 27, 1998 (63 FR 57356), EPA issued a NOX SIP
Call requiring the District of Columbia and 22 States to reduce
emissions of NOX. Affected States were required to comply
with Phase I of the SIP Call beginning in 2004, and with Phase II
beginning in 2007. The reduction in NOX emissions has
resulted in lower concentrations of transported ozone entering the
Allegan County area. Between 2005 and 2008, units subject to Phase I of
the NOX SIP Call have reduced ozone season emissions by
68,000 tons. In addition, under Phase II of the NOX SIP
Call, EPA estimates that emissions from cement kilns have been reduced
by 30% and emissions from internal combustion engines have been reduced
by 80-91%. Emission reductions resulting from regulations developed in
response to the NOX SIP Call are permanent and enforceable.
b. Emission Reductions
    For the point, area and nonroad sectors, Michigan is using the 2005
emissions inventory developed in conjunction with LADCO (Base M Round
5) as the nonattainment inventory. The main purpose of LADCO is to
provide technical assessments for and assistance to its member States
on problems of air quality. LADCO's primary geographic focus is the
area encompassed by its member States (Illinois, Indiana, Michigan,
Ohio, and Wisconsin) and any areas which affect air quality in its
member States. In developing the 2005 nonattainment year inventory,
MDNRE provided point and area source inventories to LADCO. LADCO
processed these inventories through the Emission Modeling System to
generate summer weekday emissions for VOC and NOX. The point
source data provided to LADCO is a combination of

EPA's EGU inventory and source specific data reported to MDNRE for non-
EGU sources. Area source emissions were estimated by MDNRE using
published Emission Inventory Improvement Program methodologies or
methodologies shared by other States. The methodology used for each
area source category was documented. Nonroad mobile emissions were
generated for LADCO using EPA's National Mobile Inventory Model (NMIM),
with the following exceptions: recreational motorboat populations and
spatial surrogates were updated and emissions estimates were developed
for commercial marine vessels, aircraft, and railroads (MAR), three
nonroad categories not included in NMIM. Onroad mobile emissions were
prepared by the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) using the
MOBILE6.2 emissions model.
    Michigan is using 2008 for the attainment year inventory. Michigan
used linear regression analysis to extrapolate area source emissions
estimates. Nonroad emissions were calcualted using NMIM, as described
above, except that the MAR portion of the nonroad sector was
interpolated from LADCO 2005, 2009, and 2018 MAR emissions estimates.
Point source emissions were calculated by MDNRE using the 2008 Michigan
Air Emissions Reporting System point source inventory. Onroad mobile
emissions were prepared by MDOT using the MOBILE6.2 emissions model.
    Using the inventories described above Michigan has documented
changes in VOC and NOX emissions from 2005 to 2008 for the
Allegan County area. Emissions data are shown in Table 2, below.

                              Table 2--Comparison of 2005 and 2008 VOC and NOX Emissions for the Allegan County Area (tpd)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                VOC                                             NOX
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Net change                                      Net change
                                                               2005            2008         (2005-2008)        2005            2008         (2005-2008)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point...................................................            2.02            1.52           -0.50            2.33            3.45            1.12
Area....................................................           10.00            9.33           -0.67            1.00            1.02            0.02
Onroad..................................................            4.70            3.93           -0.77            8.43            6.92           -1.51
Nonroad.................................................            6.16            4.59           -1.57            4.44            4.55            0.11
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................................           22.88           19.37           -3.51           16.20           15.94           -0.26
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 2 shows that the Allegan County area reduced VOC emissions by
3.51 tpd and NOX emissions by 0.26 tpd between 2005 and
2008. Based on the information summarized above, Michigan has
adequately demonstrated that the improvement in air quality is due to
permanent and enforceable emissions reductions.
4. The Area Has a Fully Approved Maintenance Plan Pursuant to Section
175A of the CAA (Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv))
    In conjunction with its request to redesignate the Allegan County
nonattainment area to attainment status, Michigan submitted a SIP
revision to provide for the maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in
the area through 2021.
a. Maintenance Plan Requirements
    Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the required elements of a
maintenance plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to
attainment. Under section 175A, the plan must demonstrate continued
attainment of the applicable NAAQS for at least ten years after the
Administrator approves a redesignation to attainment. Eight years after
the redesignation, the State must submit a revised maintenance plan
which demonstrates that attainment will continue to be maintained for
ten years following the initial ten-year maintenance period. To address
the possibility of future NAAQS violations, the maintenance plan must
contain contingency measures with a schedule for implementation as EPA
deems necessary to assure prompt correction of any future 8-hour ozone
violations.
    The September 4, 1992, John Calcagni memorandum provides additional
guidance on the content of a maintenance plan. The memorandum clarifies
that an ozone maintenance plan should address the following items: The
attainment VOC and NOX emissions inventories, a maintenance
demonstration showing maintenance for the ten years of the maintenance
period, a commitment to maintain the existing monitoring network,
factors and procedures to be used for verification of continued
attainment of the NAAQS, and a contingency plan to prevent or correct
future violations of the NAAQS.
b. Attainment Inventory
    The MDNRE developed an emissions inventory for 2008, one of the
years used to demonstrate monitored attainment of the 8-hour NAAQS, as
described above. The attainment level of emissions is summarized in
Table 2, above.
c. Demonstration of Maintenance
    Along with the redesignation request, MDNRE submitted revisions to
the Michigan 8-hour ozone SIP to include a maintenance plan for the
Allegan County area, in compliance with section 175A of the CAA. The
demonstration shows maintenance of the 8-hour ozone standard through
2021 by showing that current and future emissions of VOC and
NOX for the Allegan County area remain at or below
attainment year emission levels. A maintenance demonstration need not
be based on modeling. See Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001),
Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004). See also 66 FR 53094,
53099-53100 (October 19, 2001), 68 FR 25413, 25430-25432 (May 12,
2003).
    Michigan is using emissions inventory projections for the years
2018 and 2021 to demonstrate maintenance. MDOT calculated onroad
emissions for 2018 and 2021 using the MOBILE6.2 emissions model. MDEQ
used the 2018 Base M, Round 5 emissions inventory developed by LADCO
for the remaining source categories for 2018. For 2021, MDNRE estimated
emissions for the remaining source categories using linear regression
analysis. NOX reductions from CAIR are not included in the
2018 and 2021 emissions estimates.

                           Table 3--Comparison of 2008, 2018, and 2021 VOC and NOX Emissions for the Allegan County Area (tpd)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               VOC                                                        NOX
                                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Net change   Net change                                    Net change   Net change
                                       2008       2018       2021    (2008-2018)  (2008-2021)     2008       2018       2021    (2008-2018)  (2008-2021)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point.............................       1.52       2.79       2.91        1.27         1.39        4.45       2.10       2.13       -2.35        -2.32
Area..............................       9.33       8.61       8.16       -0.72        -1.17        1.02       1.09       1.11        0.07         0.09
Onroad............................       3.93       2.53       2.28       -1.40        -1.65        6.92       3.10       2.71       -3.82        -4.21
Nonroad...........................       4.59       3.88       2.20       -0.71        -2.39        4.55       2.04       2.11       -2.51        -2.44
                                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.........................      19.37      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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ There 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 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

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

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 self-certification 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

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


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 146 (Tuesday, July 30, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 45938]
[FR Doc No: 2013-18259]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2013-0002]

Final Flood Hazard Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Final notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or
modifications of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths,
Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or
regulatory floodways on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) and where
applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports have
been made final for the communities listed in the table below.
    The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management
measures that a community is required either to adopt or to show
evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified
for participation in the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's)
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS
report are used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate
flood insurance premium rates for buildings and the contents of those
buildings.

DATES: The effective date of December 17, 2013 which has been
established for the FIRM and, where applicable, the supporting FIS
report showing the new or modified flood hazard information for each
community.

ADDRESSES: The FIRM, and if applicable, the FIS report containing the
final flood hazard information for each community is available for
inspection at the respective Community Map Repository address listed in
the tables below and will be available online through the FEMA Map
Service Center at www.msc.fema.gov by the effective date indicated
above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering
Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration,
FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
(email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or visit the FEMA Map Information
eXchange (FMIX) online at www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below for the new or
modified flood hazard information for each community listed.
Notification of these changes has been published in newspapers of local
circulation and ninety (90) days have elapsed since that publication.
The Deputy Associate Adminstrator for Mitigation has resolved any
appeals resulting from this notification.
    This final notice is issued in accordance with section 110 of the
Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part
67. FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone
areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.
    Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to
review the new or revised FIRM and FIS report available at the address
cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service
Center at www.msc.fema.gov.
    The flood hazard determinations are made final in the watersheds
and/or communities listed in the table below.
    I. Non-watershed-based studies:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Community map repository
               Community                             address
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Kay County, Oklahoma and Incorporated Areas
                         Docket No.: FEMA-B-1272
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Ponca City.....................  City Hall, 516 East Grand
                                          Avenue, Ponca City, OK 74607.
Unincorporated Areas of Kay County.....  Kay County Courthouse, 201
                                          South Main Street, Newkirk, OK
                                          74647.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Osage County, Oklahoma and Incorporated Areas
                         Docket No.: FEMA-B-1272
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unincorporated Areas of Osage County...  Osage County Planning and
                                          Zoning, 628 Kihekah Avenue,
                                          Pawhuska, OK 74056.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ``Flood
Insurance.'')

    Dated: July 12, 2013.
Roy E. Wright,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation, Department of Homeland
Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2013-18259 Filed 7-29-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P