[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 235 (Thursday, December 7, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 70915-70930]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-20639]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0517; FRL-8251-7]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation
of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; MI; Redesignation of Grand
Rapids, Kalamazoo-Battle Creek, Lansing-East Lansing, Benzie County,
Huron County, and Mason County 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Areas to
Attainment for Ozone
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to make determinations under the Clean Air
Act (CAA) that the nonattainment areas of Grand Rapids (Kent and Ottawa
Counties), Kalamazoo-Battle Creek (Calhoun, Kalamazoo, and Van Buren
Counties), Lansing-East Lansing (Clinton, Eaton, and Ingham Counties),
Benzie County, Huron County, and Mason County have attained the 8-hour
ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). These
determinations are based on two three-year periods of complete,
quality-assured ambient air quality monitoring data for the 2002-2004
seasons and the 2003-2005 seasons that demonstrate that the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS have been attained in the areas.
EPA is proposing to approve requests from the State of Michigan to
redesignate the Grand Rapids, Kalamazoo-Battle Creek, Lansing-East
Lansing, Benzie County, Huron County, and Mason County areas to
attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The Michigan Department of
Environmental Quality (MDEQ) submitted these requests on May 9, 2006
and supplemented them on May 26, 2006 and August 25, 2006. In proposing
to approve these requests, EPA is also proposing to approve, as
revisions to the Michigan State Implementation Plan (SIP), the State's
plans for maintaining the 8-hour ozone NAAQS through 2018 in the areas.
EPA also finds adequate and is proposing to approve the State's 2018
Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets (MVEBs) for the Grand Rapids, Kalamazoo-
Battle Creek, Lansing-East Lansing, Benzie County, Huron County, and
Mason County areas.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 8, 2007.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2006-0517, by one of the following methods:
http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
E-mail: [email protected].
Fax: (312) 886-5824.
Mail: John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section,
Air Programs Branch, (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
Hand delivery: John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant
Section, Air Programs Branch, (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 18th floor, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office normal
hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information. The Regional Office official hours of
business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. excluding
Federal holidays.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-
2006-0517. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or e-mail.
The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through 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 the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov
[[Page 70916]]
index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly
available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly
available docket materials are available either electronically in
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. We
recommend that you telephone Kathleen D'Agostino, Environmental
Engineer, at (312) 886-1767 before visiting the Region 5 office.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathleen D'Agostino, Environmental
Engineer, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J),
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-1767, [email protected].
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?
IV. What Are the Criteria for Redesignation?
V. Why Is EPA Proposing To Take These Actions?
VI. What Is the Effect of These Actions?
VII. What Is EPA's Analysis of the Requests?
i. Attainment Determination and Redesignation
ii. Adequacy of Michigan's Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets
VIII. What Actions Is EPA Taking Today?
IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?
A. Submitting CBI
Do not submit this information to EPA through www.regulations.gov
or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you
claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD ROM that you mail
to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify
electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that
is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment
that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that
does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for
inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be
disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part
2.
B. Tips for Preparing Your Comments
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--The EPA may ask you to respond to specific
questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
3. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
4. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
5. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
6. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
7. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
8. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline
identified.
II. What Actions Is EPA Proposing To Take?
EPA is proposing to take several related actions. EPA is proposing
to make determinations that the Grand Rapids (Kent and Ottawa
Counties), Kalamazoo-Battle Creek (Calhoun, Kalamazoo and Van Buren
Counties), Lansing-East Lansing (Clinton, Eaton, and Ingham Counties),
Benzie County, Huron County, and Mason County, Michigan nonattainment
areas have attained the 8-hour ozone standard and that these areas have
met the requirements for redesignation under section 107(d)(3)(E) of
the CAA. EPA is thus proposing to approve Michigan's requests to change
the legal designations of the Grand Rapids, Kalamazoo-Battle Creek,
Lansing-East Lansing, Benzie County, Huron County, and Mason County
areas from nonattainment to attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA
is also proposing to approve Michigan's maintenance plan SIP revisions
for Grand Rapids, Kalamazoo-Battle Creek, Lansing-East Lansing, Benzie
County, Huron County, and Mason County (such approvals being one of the
CAA criteria for redesignation to attainment status). The maintenance
plans are designed to keep the Grand Rapids, Kalamazoo-Battle Creek,
Lansing-East Lansing, Benzie County, Huron County, and Mason County
areas in attainment of the ozone NAAQS through 2018. Additionally, EPA
is announcing its action on the Adequacy Process for the newly-
established 2018 MVEBs for the Grand Rapids, Kalamazoo-Battle Creek,
Lansing-East Lansing, Benzie County, Huron County, and Mason County
areas. The adequacy comment periods for the 2018 MVEBs began on June 1,
2006, with EPA's posting of the availability of these submittals on
EPA's Adequacy Web site (at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/adequacy.htm). The adequacy
comment periods for these MVEBs ended on July 3, 2006. EPA did not
receive any requests for these submittals or adverse comments on these
submittals during the adequacy comment periods. Please see the Adequacy
section of this rulemaking for further explanation on this process.
Therefore, we find adequate and are proposing to approve the State's
2018 MVEBs for transportation conformity purposes.
III. What Is the Background for These Actions?
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 current 8-hour standard, the
ozone NAAQS was based on a 1-hour standard. At the time EPA revoked the
1-hour ozone NAAQS, on June 15, 2005, the Grand Rapids, Kalamazoo-
Battle Creek, Lansing-East Lansing, Benzie County, Huron County, and
Mason County areas were all designated as attainment under the 1-hour
ozone NAAQS.
On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a revised 8-hour ozone standard
of 0.08 parts per million (ppm). This new standard is more stringent
than the previous 1-hour standard. 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. The CAA required EPA to designate 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
[[Page 70917]]
address planning and control requirements for nonattainment areas.
(Both are found in title I, part D, 42 U.S.C. 7501-7509a and 7511-
7511f, respectively.) Subpart 1 (which EPA refers to as ``basic''
nonattainment) contains general requirements for nonattainment areas
for any pollutant, including ozone, governed by a NAAQS. Subpart 2
(which EPA refers to as ``classified'' nonattainment) provides more
specific requirements for ozone nonattainment areas. Some ozone
nonattainment areas are subject only to the provisions of subpart 1.
Other ozone nonattainment areas are subject to the provisions of both
subparts 1 and 2. Under EPA's 8-hour ozone implementation rule, (69 FR
23951 (April 30, 2004)), an area was classified under subpart 2 based
on its 8-hour ozone design value (i.e., the 3-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 are covered under subpart 1, based upon their
8-hour design values (69 FR 23958). The Grand Rapids, Kalamazoo-Battle
Creek, Lansing-East Lansing, Benzie County, Huron County, and Mason
County areas were all designated as subpart 1, 8-hour ozone
nonattainment areas by EPA on April 30, 2004, (69 FR 23857, 23910-
23911) 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 8-hour
ozone standard is attained when the 3-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, 2.3(d).
On May 9, 2006, Michigan requested that EPA redesignate the Grand
Rapids, Kalamazoo-Battle Creek, Lansing-East Lansing, Benzie County,
Huron County, and Mason County areas to attainment for the 8-hour ozone
standard. The redesignation requests included three years of complete,
quality-assured data for the period of 2002 through 2004, as well as
complete quality assured data for 2005, indicating the 8-hour NAAQS for
ozone had been attained for all of the areas covered by the request.
Under the CAA, nonattainment areas may be redesignated to attainment if
sufficient complete, quality-assured data are available for the
Administrator to determine that the area has attained the standard, and
the area meets the other CAA redesignation requirements in section
107(d)(3)(E).
IV. What Are the Criteria for Redesignation?
The CAA provides the requirements for redesignating a nonattainment
area to attainment. Specifically, section 107(d)(3)(E) allows for
redesignation provided that: (1) The Administrator determines that the
area has attained the applicable NAAQS; (2) the Administrator has fully
approved the applicable implementation plan for the area under section
110(k); (3) the Administrator determines that the improvement in air
quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions
resulting from implementation of the applicable SIP and applicable
federal air pollutant control regulations and other permanent and
enforceable reductions; (4) the Administrator has fully approved a
maintenance plan for the area as meeting the requirements of section
175A; and (5) the state containing such area has met all requirements
applicable to the area under section 110 and part D.
EPA provided guidance on redesignation in the General Preamble for
the Implementation of Title I of the CAA Amendments of 1990, on April
16, 1992 (57 FR 13498), and supplemented this guidance on April 28,
1992 (57 FR 18070). EPA has provided further guidance on processing
redesignation requests in the following documents:
``Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Design Value Calculations'', Memorandum
from William G. Laxton, Director Technical Support Division, June 18,
1990;
``Maintenance Plans for Redesignation of Ozone and Carbon Monoxide
Nonattainment Areas,'' Memorandum from G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon
Monoxide Programs Branch, April 30, 1992;
``Contingency Measures for Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Redesignations,'' Memorandum from G. T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon
Monoxide Programs Branch, June 1, 1992;
``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to
Attainment,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality
Management Division, September 4, 1992;
``State Implementation Plan (SIP) Actions Submitted in Response to
Clean Air Act (ACT) Deadlines,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni,
Director, Air Quality Management Division, October 28, 1992;
``Technical Support Documents (TSD's) for Redesignation Ozone and
Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment Areas,'' Memorandum from G. T.
Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, August 17, 1993;
``State Implementation Plan (SIP) Requirements for Areas Submitting
Requests for Redesignation to Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon
Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) On or
After November 15, 1992,'' Memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting
Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, September 17, 1993;
``Use of Actual Emissions in Maintenance Demonstrations for Ozone
and CO Nonattainment Areas,'' Memorandum from D. Kent Berry, Acting
Director, Air Quality Management Division, to Air Division Directors,
Regions 1-10, dated November 30, 1993.
``Part D New Source Review (part D NSR) Requirements for Areas
Requesting Redesignation to Attainment,'' Memorandum from Mary D.
Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, October 14,
1994; and
``Reasonable Further Progress, Attainment Demonstration, and
Related Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment Areas Meeting the Ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standard,'' Memorandum from John S. Seitz,
Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, May 10, 1995.
V. Why Is EPA Proposing To Take These Actions?
On May 9, 2006, Michigan requested redesignation of the Grand
Rapids, Kalamazoo-Battle Creek, Lansing-East Lansing, Benzie County,
Huron County, and Mason County areas to attainment for the 8-hour ozone
standard. Michigan supplemented their submittal on May 26, 2006. EPA
believes that the areas have attained the standard and have met the
requirements for redesignation set forth in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the
CAA.
VI. What Is the Effect of These Actions?
Approval of the redesignation requests would change the official
designation of the areas for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS found at 40 CFR
part 81. It would also incorporate into the Michigan SIP plans for
maintaining the 8-hour ozone NAAQS through 2018. The maintenance plans
include contingency measures to remedy future violations of the 8-hour
NAAQS. They also establish MVEBs for the year 2018 of 40.70 tons per
day (tpd) VOC and 97.87 tpd NOX for the Grand Rapids area,
29.67 tpd VOC and 54.36 tpd NOX
[[Page 70918]]
for the Kalamazoo-Battle Creek area, 28.32 tpd VOC and 53.07 tpd
NOX for the Lansing-East Lansing area, 2.24 tpd VOC and 1.99
tpd NOX for the Benzie County area, 2.34 tpd VOC and 7.53
tpd NOX for the Huron County area, and 1.81 tpd VOC and 2.99
tpd NOX for the Mason County area.
VII. What Is EPA's Analysis of the Requests?
i. Attainment Determination and Redesignation
EPA is proposing to make determinations that the Grand Rapids,
Kalamazoo-Battle Creek, Lansing-East Lansing, Benzie County, Huron
County, and Mason County nonattainment areas have attained the 8-hour
ozone standard and that the areas have met all other applicable section
107(d)(3)(E) redesignation criteria. The basis for EPA's determinations
is as follows:
1. The Areas Have Attained the 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS (Section
107(d)(3)(E)(i))
EPA is proposing to make determinations that the Grand Rapids,
Kalamazoo-Battle Creek, Lansing-East Lansing, Benzie County, Huron
County, and Mason County areas have attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
For ozone, an area may be considered to be attaining the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS if there are no violations, as determined in accordance with 40
CFR 50.10 and Part 50, Appendix I, based on three complete, consecutive
calendar years of quality-assured air quality monitoring data. To
attain this standard, the 3-year average of the fourth-highest daily
maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations measured at each monitor
within an area over each year must not exceed 0.08 ppm. Based on the
rounding convention described in 40 CFR Part 50, Appendix I, the
standard is attained if the design value is 0.084 ppm or below. The
data must be collected and quality-assured in accordance with 40 CFR
part 58, and recorded in the Aerometric Information Retrieval System
(AIRS). The monitors generally should have remained at the same
location for the duration of the monitoring period required for
demonstrating attainment.
MDEQ submitted ozone monitoring data for the 2002 to 2004 ozone
seasons. They also submitted data for the 2005 ozone season. The MDEQ
quality assured the ambient monitoring in accordance with 40 CFR 58.10,
and recorded it in the AIRS database, thus making the data publicly
available. The data meets the completeness criteria in 40 CFR Part 50,
Appendix I, which requires a minimum completeness of 75 percent
annually and 90 percent over each three year period. Monitoring data is
presented in Table 1 below. Data completeness information is presented
in Table 2 below.
Table 1.--Annual 4th High Daily Maximum 8-Hour Ozone Concentration and 3-Year Averages of 4th High Daily Maximum 8-Hour Ozone Concentrations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002- 2003-
2002 4th 2003 4th 2004 4th 2005 4th 2004 2005
Area County Monitor high high high high average average
(ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grand Rapids........................ Kent................... Grand Rapids 26-0810020 0.087 0.085 0.068 0.083 0.080 0.079
Evans 26-0810022....... 0.088 0.093 0.072 0.083 0.084 0.083
Ottawa................. Jenison 26-1390005..... 0.093 0.090 0.069 0.086 0.084 0.082
Kalamazoo-Battle Creek.............. Kalamazoo.............. Kalamazoo 26-0770008... 0.090 0.085 0.068 0.086 0.081 0.080
Lansing-East Lansing................ Clinton................ Rose Lake 26-0370001... 0.085 0.086 0.070 0.078 0.080 0.078
Ingham................. Lansing-East Lansing 26- 0.088 0.085 0.068 0.082 0.080 0.078
0650012.
Benzie.............................. Benzie................. Frankfort 26-0190003... 0.086 0.089 0.075 0.086 0.083 0.083
Huron............................... Huron.................. Harbor Beach 26-0633006 0.087 0.086 0.068 0.077 0.080 0.077
Mason............................... Mason.................. Scottville 26-1050007.. 0.089 0.087 0.071 0.085 0.082 0.081
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2.--Data Completeness in Percent (%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002-2004 2003-2005
Area County Monitor 2002 2003 2004 2005 average average
(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grand Rapids........................... Kent...................... Grand Rapids 26-0810020.. 97 98 98 99 98 98
.......................... Evans 26-0810022......... 100 100 99 98 100 99
Ottawa.................... Jenison 26-1390005....... 99 100 98 99 99 99
Kalamazoo-Battle Creek................. Kalamazoo................. Kalamazoo 26-0770008..... 100 97 100 98 99 99
Lansing-East Lansing................... Clinton................... Rose Lake 26-0370001..... 99 100 100 100 100 100
Ingham.................... Lansing-East Lansing 26- 100 99 100 98 100 99
0650012.
Benzie................................. Benzie.................... Frankfort 26-0190003..... 100 100 100 98 100 99
Huron.................................. Huron..................... Harbor Beach 26-0633006.. 100 97 100 97 99 98
Mason.................................. Mason..................... Scottville 26-1050007.... 100 100 96 95 99 97
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, as discussed below with respect to the maintenance
plans, MDEQ has committed to continue operating an EPA approved
monitoring network in accordance with 40 CFR part 58. In summary, EPA
believes that the data submitted by Michigan provide an adequate
demonstration that the Grand Rapids, Kalamazoo-Battle Creek, Lansing-
East Lansing, Benzie County, Huron County, and Mason County areas have
attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
[[Page 70919]]
Furthermore, preliminary monitoring data for the 2006 ozone season show
that the areas continue to attain the NAAQS.
2. The Areas Have Met All Applicable Requirements Under Section 110 and
Part D; and the Areas Have Fully Approved SIPs 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 Grand Rapids,
Kalamazoo-Battle Creek, Lansing-East Lansing, Benzie County, Huron
County, and Mason County areas under Section 110 of the CAA (general
SIP requirements). We have also determined that the Michigan SIP meets
all SIP requirements currently applicable for purposes of redesignation
under Part D of Title I of the CAA (requirements specific to Subpart 1
nonattainment areas), in accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E)(v). In
addition, we have determined that the Michigan SIP is fully approved
with respect to all applicable requirements for purposes of
redesignation, in accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii). In making
these determinations, we have ascertained what SIP requirements are
applicable to the areas for purposes of redesignation, and have
determined that the portions of the SIP meeting these requirements are
fully approved under section 110(k) of the CAA. As discussed more fully
below, SIPs must be fully approved only with respect to currently
applicable requirements of the CAA.
a. The Grand Rapids, Kalamazoo-Battle Creek, Lansing-East Lansing,
Benzie County, Huron County, and Mason County areas have met all
applicable requirements under section 110 and part D of the CAA. The
September 4, 1992 Calcagni memorandum (see ``Procedures for Processing
Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,'' Memorandum from John
Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, September 4, 1992)
describes EPA's interpretation of section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA.
Under this interpretation, a state and the area it wishes to
redesignate must meet the relevant CAA requirements that are due prior
to the state's submittal of a complete redesignation request for the
area. See also the September 17, 1993 Michael Shapiro memorandum and 60
FR 12459, 12465-12466 (March 7, 1995) (redesignation of Detroit-Ann
Arbor, Michigan to attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS). Applicable
requirements of the CAA that come due subsequent to the state's
submittal of a complete request remain applicable until a redesignation
to attainment is approved, but are not required as a prerequisite to
redesignation. See section 175A(c) of the CAA. Sierra Club v. EPA, 375
F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004). See also 68 FR 25424, 25427 (May 12, 2003)
(redesignation of the St. Louis/East St. Louis area to attainment of
the 1-hour ozone NAAQS).
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
that, among other things, it includes enforceable emission limitations
and other control measures, means or techniques necessary to meet the
requirements of the CAA; provides for establishment and operation of
appropriate devices, methods, systems and procedures necessary to
monitor ambient air quality; provides for implementation of a source
permit program to regulate the modification and construction of any
stationary source within the areas covered by the plan; includes
provisions for the implementation of part C, Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) and part D, New Source Review (NSR) permit
programs; includes criteria for stationary source emission control
measures, monitoring, and reporting; includes provisions for air
quality modeling; and provides for public and local agency
participation in planning and emission control rule development.
Section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA requires that SIPs contain measures
to prevent sources in a state from significantly contributing to air
quality problems in another state. To implement this provision, EPA has
required certain states to establish programs to address transport of
air pollutants (NOX SIP Call,\1\ Clean Air Interstate Rule
(CAIR) (70 FR 25162)). However, the section 110(a)(2)(D) requirements
for a state are not linked with a particular nonattainment area's
designation and classification. EPA believes that the requirements
linked with a particular nonattainment area's designation and
classification are the relevant measures to evaluate in reviewing a
redesignation request. When the transport SIP submittal requirements
are applicable to a state, they will continue to apply to the state
regardless of the attainment designation of any one particular area in
the state. Therefore, we believe that these requirements should not be
construed to be applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation.
Further, we believe that the other section 110 elements described above
that are not connected with nonattainment plan submissions and not
linked with an area's attainment status are also not applicable
requirements for purposes of redesignation. A state remains subject to
these requirements after an area is redesignated to attainment. We
conclude that only the section 110 and part D requirements which are
linked with a particular area's designation and classification are the
relevant measures which we may consider in evaluating a redesignation
request. This approach is consistent with EPA's existing policy on
applicability of conformity and oxygenated fuels requirements for
redesignation purposes, as well as with section 184 ozone transport
requirements. See Reading, Pennsylvania, proposed and final rulemakings
(61 FR 53174-53176, October 10, 1996), (62 FR 24826, May 7, 1997);
Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio, final rulemaking (61 FR 20458, May 7,
1996); and Tampa, Florida, final rulemaking (60 FR 62748, December 7,
1995). See also the discussion on this issue in the Cincinnati ozone
redesignation (65 FR 37890, June 19, 2000), and in the Pittsburgh ozone
redesignation (66 FR 50399, October 19, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ On October 27, 1998 (63 FR 57356), EPA issued a
NOX SIP call requiring the District of Columbia and 22
states, including portions of Michigan, to reduce emissions of
NOX in order to reduce the transport of ozone and ozone
precursors. In compliance with EPA's NOX SIP call, MDEQ
has developed rules governing the control of NOX
emissions from Electric Generating Units (EGUs), major non-EGU
industrial boilers, and major cement kilns. EPA approved Michigan's
rules as fulfilling Phase I of the NOX SIP Call on May 4,
2005 (70 FR 23029).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed above, we believe that section 110 elements which are
not linked to the area's nonattainment status are not applicable for
purposes of redesignation. Because there are no section 110
requirements linked to the part D requirements for 8-hour ozone
nonattainment areas that have become due, as explained below, there are
no Part D requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation under
the 8-hour standard.
Part D Requirements. EPA has determined that the Michigan SIP meets
applicable SIP requirements under part D of the CAA, since no
requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation became due for
the 8-hour ozone standard prior to MDEQ's submission of the
redesignation request for the Grand Rapids, Kalamazoo-Battle Creek,
Lansing-East Lansing, Benzie County, Huron County, and Mason County
areas.
[[Page 70920]]
Under part D, an area's classification determines the requirements to
which it will be subject. Subpart 1 of part D, found in sections 172-
176 of the CAA, sets forth the basic nonattainment requirements
applicable to all nonattainment areas. Section 182 of the CAA, found in
subpart 2 of part D, establishes additional specific requirements
depending on the area's nonattainment classification. The Grand Rapids,
Kalamazoo-Battle Creek, Lansing-East Lansing, Benzie County, Huron
County, and Mason County areas were all classified as subpart 1
nonattainment areas, and, therefore, subpart 2 requirements do not
apply.
Part D, Subpart 1 applicable SIP requirements. For purposes of
evaluating these redesignation requests, the applicable part D, subpart
1 SIP requirements for the Grand Rapids, Kalamazoo-Battle Creek,
Lansing-East Lansing, Benzie County, Huron County, and Mason County
areas 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).
No requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation under part
D became due prior to submission of the redesignation request, and,
therefore, none are applicable to the areas for purposes of
redesignation. Since the State of Michigan has submitted complete ozone
redesignation requests for the Grand Rapids, Kalamazoo-Battle Creek,
Lansing-East Lansing, Benzie County, Huron County, and Mason County
areas prior to the deadline for any submissions required for purposes
of redesignation, we have determined that these requirements do not
apply to the Grand Rapids, Kalamazoo-Battle Creek, Lansing-East
Lansing, Benzie County, Huron County, and Mason County areas for
purposes of redesignation.
Furthermore, EPA has determined that, since PSD requirements will
apply after redesignation, areas being redesignated need not comply
with the requirement that a NSR program be approved prior to
redesignation, provided that the area demonstrates maintenance of the
NAAQS without part D NSR. A more 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 areas to be
redesignated will be able to maintain the standard without part D NSR
in effect; therefore, EPA concludes that the State need not have a
fully approved part D NSR program prior to approval of the
redesignation request. The State's PSD program will become effective in
the Grand Rapids, Kalamazoo-Battle Creek, Lansing-East Lansing, Benzie
County, Huron County, and Mason County areas 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 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).
Michigan has submitted on-highway motor vehicle budgets of 40.70 tons
per day (tpd) VOC and 97.87 tpd NOX for the Grand Rapids
area, 29.67 tpd VOC and 54.36 tpd NOX for the Kalamazoo-
Battle Creek area, 28.32 tpd VOC and 53.07 tpd NOX for the
Lansing-East Lansing area, 2.24 tpd VOC and 1.99 tpd NOX for
the Benzie County area, 2.34 tpd VOC and 7.53 tpd NOX for
the Huron County area, and 1.81 tpd VOC and 2.99 tpd NOX for
the Mason County area, based on the areas' projected 2018 emissions
levels. The Grand Rapids, Kalamazoo-Battle Creek, Lansing-East Lansing,
Benzie County, Huron County, and Mason County areas must use the motor
vehicle emissions budgets from the maintenance plans in any conformity
determination that is effective on or after the effective date of the
maintenance plan approval. Thus, the areas have satisfied all
applicable requirements under section 110 and part D of the CAA.
b. The Grand Rapids, Kalamazoo-Battle Creek, Lansing-East Lansing,
Benzie County, Huron County, and Mason County areas have a fully
approved applicable SIP under section 110(k) of the CAA. EPA has fully
approved the Michigan SIP for the Grand Rapids, Kalamazoo-Battle Creek,
Lansing-East Lansing, Benzie County, Huron County, and Mason County
areas 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 the September 4, 1992 John
Calcagni memorandum, page 3, Southwestern Pennsylvania Growth Alliance
v. Browner, 144 F.3d 984, 989-990 (6th Cir. 1998), Wall v. EPA, 265
F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001)) plus any additional measures it may approve
in conjunction with a redesignation action. See 68 FR 25413, 25426 (May
12, 2003). Since the passage of the CAA of 1970, Michigan has adopted
and submitted, and EPA has fully approved, provisions addressing the
various required SIP elements applicable to the Grand Rapids,
Kalamazoo-Battle Creek, Lansing-East Lansing, Benzie County, Huron
County, and Mason County areas under the 1-hour ozone standard. No
Grand Rapids, Kalamazoo-Battle Creek, Lansing-East Lansing, Benzie
County, Huron County, or Mason County area SIP provisions are currently
disapproved, conditionally approved, or partially approved.
[[Page 70921]]
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 Grand Rapids, Kalamazoo-Battle Creek,
Lansing-East Lansing, Benzie County, Huron County, and Mason County
areas 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, the State has calculated the change
in emissions between 1999 and 2002, one of the years the Grand Rapids,
Kalamazoo-Battle Creek, Lansing-East Lansing, Benzie County, Huron
County, and Mason County areas 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 Michigan and upwind areas have implemented in recent
years. The Grand Rapids, Kalamazoo-Battle Creek, Lansing-East Lansing,
Benzie County, Huron County, and Mason County areas are all impacted,
in varying degrees, by the transport of ozone and ozone precursors from
upwind areas. Therefore, local controls as well as controls implemented
in upwind counties are relevant to the improvement in air quality in
the Grand Rapids, Kalamazoo-Battle Creek, Lansing-East Lansing, Benzie
County, Huron County, and Mason County areas.
a. Permanent and enforceable controls implemented. The following is
a discussion of permanent and enforceable measures that have been
implemented in the areas:
NOX rules. In compliance with EPA's NOX SIP call,
Michigan developed rules to control NOX emissions from
Electric Generating Units (EGUs), major non-EGU industrial boilers, and
major cement kilns. These rules required sources to begin reducing
NOX emissions in 2004. However, statewide NOX
emissions actually had begun to decline before 2004, as sources phased
in emission controls needed to comply with the State's NOX
emission control regulations. From 2004 on, NOX emissions
from EGUs have been capped at a statewide total well below pre-2002
levels. MDEQ expects that NOX emissions will further decline
as the State meets the requirements of EPA's Phase II NOX
SIP call (69 FR 21604 (April 21, 2004)).
Federal Emission Control Measures. Reductions in VOC and
NOX emissions have occurred statewide as a result of federal
emission control measures, with additional emission reductions expected
to occur in the future as the state implements additional emission
controls. Federal emission control measures include: the National Low
Emission Vehicle (NLEV) program, Tier 2 emission standards for
vehicles, gasoline sulfur limits, low sulfur diesel fuel standards, and
heavy-duty diesel engine standards. In addition, in 2004, EPA issued
the Clean Air Non-road Diesel Rule (69 FR 38958 (July 29, 2004)). EPA
expects this rule to reduce off-road diesel emissions through 2010,
with emission reductions starting in 2008.
Control Measures in Upwind Areas. Upwind ozone nonattainment areas
in the Lake Michigan region, including Chicago, Illinois; Gary,
Indiana; and Milwaukee, Wisconsin have continued to reduce emissions of
VOC and NOX to meet their rate of progress obligations under
the 1-hour ozone standard. Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin have all
developed regulations to control NOX: Illinois and Indiana
pursuant to the NOX SIP call and Wisconsin to meet rate of
progress requirements. These upwind reductions in emissions have
resulted in lower concentrations of transported ozone entering
Michigan. The emission reductions resulting from these upwind control
programs are permanent and enforceable.
b. Emission reductions. Michigan is using 1999 for the
nonattainment inventory and 2002, one of the years used to demonstrate
monitored attainment of the NAAQS, for the attainment inventory. MDEQ
took emissions estimates, with the exception of the nonroad sector,
from EPA's final 1999 and 2002 National Emissions Inventories (NEI).
NEI emissions estimates for the nonroad sector were generated using
different versions of EPA's NONROAD model for 1999 and 2002. To provide
consistency, Michigan estimated nonroad emissions for both 1999 and
2002 using the most current version of EPA's National Mobile Inventory
Model (NMIM).
Based on the inventories described above, Michigan's submittal
documents changes in VOC and NOX emissions from 1999 to 2002
for the Grand Rapids, Kalamazoo-Battle Creek, Lansing-East Lansing,
Benzie County, Huron County, and Mason County areas. Emissions data are
shown in Tables 3 through 14 below.
Table 3.--Grand Rapids Area: Total VOC and NOX Emissions for Nonattainment Year 1999 in Tons per Year (tpy)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kent Ottawa Total
-----------------------------------------------------------------
VOC NOX VOC NOX VOC NOX
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point......................................... 4,506 1,134 1,640 37,001 6,146 38,135
Area.......................................... 18,002 3,122 7,279 1,132 25,281 4,254
Nonroad....................................... 5,063 4,938 2,598 2,642 7,661 7,580
Onroad........................................ 12,225 15,939 5,071 7,774 17,296 23,713
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Total..................................... 39,796 25,133 16,588 48,549 56,384 73,682
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4.--Grand Rapids Area: Total VOC and NOX Emissions for Attainment Year 2002 (tpy)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kent Ottawa Total
-----------------------------------------------------------------
VOC NOX VOC NOX VOC NOX
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point......................................... 2,104 769 1,375 17,690 3,479 18,459
Area.......................................... 14,546 2,862 6,896 1,216 21,442 4,078
Nonroad....................................... 4,956 4,932 2,563 2,629 7,519 7,561
[[Page 70922]]
Onroad........................................ 10,392 17,229 3,603 6,079 13,995 23,308
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Total..................................... 31,998 25,792 14,437 27,614 46,435 53,406
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 5.--Grand Rapids Area: Comparison of 1999 and 2002 VOC and NOX Emissions (tpy)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC NOX
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sector Net change Net change
1999 2002 (1999-2002) 1999 2002 (1999-2002)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point............................... 6,146 3,479 -2,667 38,135 18,459 -19,676
Area................................ 25,281 21,442 -3,839 4,254 4,078 -176
Nonroad............................. 7,661 7,519 -142 7,580 7,561 -19
Onroad.............................. 17,296 13,995 -3,301 23,713 23,308 -405
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total........................... 56,384 46,435 -9,949 73,682 53,406 -20,276
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 6.--Kalamazoo-Battle Creek Area: Total VOC and NOX Emissions for Nonattainment Year 1999 (tpy)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calhoun Kalamazoo Van Buren Total
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC NOX VOC NOX VOC NOX VOC NOX
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point........................................................... 499 1,036 547 2,202 32 42 1,078 3,280
Area............................................................ 5,077 649 7,709 944 3,699 423 16,485 2,016
Nonroad......................................................... 1,026 982 1,986 1,640 1,105 543 4,117 3,165
Onroad.......................................................... 3,633 5,702 5,410 7,489 1,777 3,582 10,820 16,773
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 10,235 8,369 15,652 12,275 6,613 4,590 32,500 25,234
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 7.--Kalamazoo-Battle Creek Area: Total VOC and NOX Emissions for Attainment Year 2002 (tpy)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calhoun Kalamazoo Van Buren Total
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC NOX VOC NOX VOC NOX VOC NOX
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point........................................................... 580 817 470 816 22 36 1,072 1,669
Area............................................................ 3,071 666 8,739 1,033 2,373 303 14,183 2,002
Nonroad......................................................... 1,007 973 1,907 1,620 1,133 535 4,047 3,128
Onroad.......................................................... 3,158 5,560 4,796 7,958 1,583 2,953 9,537 16,471
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 7,816 8,016 15,912 11,427 5,111 3,827 28,839 23,270
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 8.--Kalamazoo-Battle Creek Area: Comparison of 1999 and 2002 VOC and NOX Emissions (tpy)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC NOX
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sector Net change Net Change
1999 2002 (1999-2002) 1999 2002 (1999-2002)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point............................... 1,078 1,072 -6 3,280 1,669 -1,611
Area................................ 16,485 14,183 -2,302 2,016 2,002 -14
Nonroad............................. 4,117 4,047 -70 3,165 3,128 -37
Onroad.............................. 10,820 9,537 -1,283 16,773 16,471 -302
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total........................... 32,500 28,839 -3,661 25,234 23,270 -1,964
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 9.--Lansing-East Lansing Area: Total VOC and NOX Emissions for Nonattainment Year 1999 (tpy)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clinton Eaton Ingham Total
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC NOX VOC NOX VOC NOX VOC NOX
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point........................................................... 188 117 99 2,583 1,668 6,133 1,955 8,833
Area............................................................ 2,421 213 3,348 356 6,706 1,293 12,475 1,862
Nonroad......................................................... 879 783 796 876 1,558 1,520 3,233 3,179
[[Page 70923]]
Onroad.......................................................... 1,638 3,035 2,335 3,921 6,218 8,360 10,191 15,316
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 5,126 4,148 6,578 7,736 16,150 17,306 27,854 29,190
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 10.--Lansing-East Lansing Area: Total VOC and NOX; Emissions for Attainment Year 2002 (tpy)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clinton Eaton Ingham Total
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC NOX VOC NOX VOC NOX VOC NOX
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point........................................................... 197 168 56 1,919 2,092 6,150 2,345 8,237
Area............................................................ 1,645 232 2,205 416 3,879 1,043 7,729 1,691
Nonroad......................................................... 875 755 779 847 1,541 1,509 3,195 3,111
Onroad.......................................................... 1,870 3,432 2,052 3,670 4,678 7,892 8,600 14,994
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 4,587 4,587 5,092 6,852 12,190 16,594 21,869 28,033
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 11.--Lansing-East Lansing Area: Comparison of 1999 and 2002 VOC and NOX Emissions (tpy)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC NOX
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sector Net change Net change
1999 2002 (1999-2002) 1999 2002 (1999-2002)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point............................... 1,955 2,345 390 8,833 8,237 -596
Area................................ 12,475 7,729 -4,746 1,862 1,691 -171
Nonroad............................. 3,233 3,195 -38 3,179 3,111 -68
Onroad.............................. 10,191 8,600 -1,591 15,316 14,994 -322
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total........................... 27,854 21,869 -5,985 29,190 28,033 -1,157
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 12.--Benzie County Area: Comparison of 1999 and 2002 VOC and NOX Emissions (tpy)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC NOX
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sector Net change Net change
1999 2002 (1999-2002) 1999 2002 (1999-2002)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point............................... 3 1 -2 4 7 3
Area................................ 1,005 783 -222 78 73 -5
Nonroad............................. 1,536 1,643 107 186 182 -4
Onroad.............................. 314 323 9 595 584 -11
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total........................... 2,858 2,750 -108 863 846 -17
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 13.--Huron County Area: Comparison of 1999 and 2002 VOC and NOX Emissions (tpy)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC NOX
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sector Net change Net change
1999 2002 (1999-2002) 1999 2002 (1999-2002)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point............................... 36 76 40 1,282 1,468 186
Area................................ 2,222 1,008 -1,214 300 174 -126
Nonroad............................. 1,428 1,452 24 1,040 1,018 -22
Onroad.............................. 660 509 -151 1,245 908 -337
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total........................... 4,346 3,045 -1,301 3,867 3,568 -299
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 70924]]
Table 14.--Mason County Area: Comparison of 1999 and 2002 VOC and NOX Emissions (tpy)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC NOX
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sector Net change Net change
1999 2002 (1999-2002) 1999 2002 (1999-2002)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point............................... 174 108 -66 587 280 -307
Area................................ 1551 1021 -530 157 147 -10
Nonroad............................. 1382 1532 150 288 287 -1
Onroad.............................. 536 435 -101 895 758 -137
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total........................... 3643 3096 -547 1927 1472 -455
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 5 shows that the Grand Rapids area reduced VOC emissions by
9,949 tpy and NOX emissions by 20,276 tpy between 1999 and
2002. Table 8 shows that the Kalamazoo-Battle Creek area reduced VOC
emissions by 3,661 tpy and NOX emissions by 1,964 tpy
between 1999 and 2002. Table 11 shows that the Lansing-East Lansing
area reduced VOC emissions by 5,985 tpy and NOX emissions by
1,157 tpy between 1999 and 2002. Table 12 shows that the Benzie County
area reduced VOC emissions by 108 tpy and NOX emissions by
17 tpy between 1999 and 2002. Table 13 shows that the Huron County area
reduced VOC emissions by 1,301 tpy and NOX emissions by 299
tpy between 1999 and 2002. Table 14 shows that the Mason County area
reduced VOC emissions by 547 tpy and NOX emissions by 455
tpy between 1999 and 2002.
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 Areas Have a Fully Approved Maintenance Plan Pursuant to Section
175a of the CAA. (Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv))
In conjunction with its requests to redesignate the Grand Rapids,
Kalamazoo-Battle Creek, Lansing-East Lansing, Benzie County, Huron
County, and Mason County nonattainment areas to attainment status,
Michigan submitted SIP revisions to provide for the maintenance of the
8-hour ozone NAAQS in these areas through 2018.
a. What is required in a maintenance plan? Section 175A of the CAA
sets forth the required elements of a maintenance plan for areas
seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment. Under section
175A, the plan must demonstrate continued attainment of the applicable
NAAQS for at least ten years after the Administrator approves a
redesignation to attainment. Eight years after the redesignation, the
State must submit a revised maintenance plan which demonstrates that
attainment will continue to be maintained for ten years following the
initial ten-year maintenance period. To address the possibility of
future NAAQS violations, the maintenance plan must contain contingency
measures with a schedule for implementation as EPA deems necessary to
assure prompt correction of any future 8-hour ozone violations.
The September 4, 1992 John Calcagni memorandum provides additional
guidance on the content of a maintenance plan. The memorandum clarifies
that an ozone maintenance plan should address the following items: the
attainment VOC and NOX emissions inventories, a maintenance
demonstration showing maintenance for the ten years of the maintenance
period, a commitment to maintain the existing monitoring network,
factors and procedures to be used for verification of continued
attainment of the NAAQS, and a contingency plan to prevent or correct
future violations of the NAAQS.
b. Attainment Inventory. The MDEQ developed a baseline emissions
inventory for 2002, one of the years MDEQ used to demonstrate monitored
attainment of the 8-hour NAAQS, as required by the EPA Consolidated
Emissions Reporting Rule (40 CFR Part 51). MDEQ provided full
documentation of the methodologies it used in its submittal. The
attainment level of emissions is summarized in Tables 15 to 18, below.
Table 15.--Grand Rapids Area: Total VOC and NOX Emissions for Attainment Year 2002 (tpd)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kent Ottawa Total
-----------------------------------------------------------------
VOC NOX VOC NOX VOC NOX
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point......................................... 7.67 2.16 4.74 52.08 12.41 54.24
Area.......................................... 28.73 3.61 12.18 1.51 40.91 5.12
Nonroad....................................... 12.42 14.26 5.32 7.96 17.74 22.22
Onroad........................................ 31.13 46.94 10.82 18.00 41.95 64.94
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Total..................................... 79.95 66.97 33.06 79.55 113.01 146.52
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 16.--Kalamazoo-Battle Creek Area: Total VOC and NOX Emissions for Attainment Year 2002 (tpd)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calhoun Kalamazoo Van Buren Total
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC NOX VOC NOX VOC NOX VOC NOX
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point........................................................... 1.67 2.41 1.58 2.09 0.09 0.17 3.34 4.67
Area............................................................ 7.66 0.75 12.46 1.19 4.16 0.31 24.28 2.25
Nonroad......................................................... 2.62 4.49 4.89 6.97 2.87 1.80 10.38 13.26
[[Page 70925]]
Onroad.......................................................... 9.76 17.83 14.29 22.52 5.17 11.16 29.22 51.51
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 21.71 25.48 33.22 32.77 12.29 13.44 67.22 71.69
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 17.--Lansing-East Lansing Area: Total VOC and NOX Emissions for Attainment Year 2002 (tpd)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clinton Eaton Ingham Total
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC NOX VOC NOX VOC NOX VOC NOX
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point........................................................... 0.66 0.56 0.21 6.51 7.55 19.14 8.42 26.21
Area............................................................ 3.01 0.24 5.04 0.45 13.69 1.23 21.74 1.92
Nonroad......................................................... 2.24 2.84 1.80 3.30 4.29 6.16 8.33 12.30
Onroad.......................................................... 6.10 11.91 6.48 11.86 13.90 22.96 26.48 46.73
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 12.01 15.55 13.53 22.12 39.43 49.49 64.97 87.16
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 18.--Benzie County, Huron County, and Mason County Areas: Total VOC and NOX Emissions for Attainment Year
2002 (tpd)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benzie Huron Mason
-----------------------------------------------------------------
VOC NOX VOC NOX VOC NOX
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point......................................... 0.01 0.03 0.27 6.16 0.39 0.79
Area.......................................... 1.54 0.06 2.18 0.20 1.89 0.16
Nonroad....................................... 4.05 0.61 3.29 5.73 2.88 1.97
Onroad........................................ 1.08 2.10 1.68 3.31 1.39 2.48
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Total..................................... 6.68 2.80 7.42 15.40 6.55 5.40
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Demonstration of Maintenance. Michigan submitted with the
redesignation requests revisions to the 8-hour ozone SIP to include 12-
year maintenance plans for the Grand Rapids, Kalamazoo-Battle Creek,
Lansing-East Lansing, Benzie County, Huron County, and Mason County
areas, in compliance with section 175A of the CAA. This demonstration
shows maintenance of the 8-hour ozone standard by assuring that current
and future emissions of VOC and NOX for the Grand Rapids,
Kalamazoo-Battle Creek, Lansing-East Lansing, Benzie County, Huron
County, and Mason County areas 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 projected inventories developed by LADCO for the
years 2009 and 2018. The exception to this is the 2018 onroad mobile
source emissions estimates, which were prepared by the Michigan
Department of Transportation. Using projected inventories prepared by
LADCO will ensure that the inventories used for redesignation are
consistent with regional attainment modeling performed in the future.
These emission estimates are presented in Tables 19 to 24 below.
Table 19.--Grand Rapids Area: Comparison of 2002-2018 VOC and NOX Emissions (tpd)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC NOX
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sector Net change Net change
2002 2009 2018 (2002-2018) 2002 2009 2018 (2002-2018)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point................................................. 12.41 12.50 15.35 2.94 54.24 21.61 24.39 -29.85
Area.................................................. 40.91 41.28 43.98 3.07 5.12 5.37 5.59 0.47
Nonroad............................................... 17.74 12.03 9.95 -7.79 22.22 16.57 9.55 -12.67
Onroad................................................ 41.95 25.39 13.39 -28.56 64.94 44.38 14.38 -50.56
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................. 113.01 91.20 82.67 -30.34 146.52 87.93 53.91 -92.61
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 70926]]
Table 20.--Kalamazoo-Battle Creek Area: Comparison of 2002-2018 VOC and NOX Emissions (tpd)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC NOX
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sector Net change Net change
2002 2009 2018 (2002-2018) 2002 2009 2018 (2002-2018)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point................................................. 3.34 3.34 4.06 0.72 4.67 4.52 4.75 0.08
Area.................................................. 24.28 24.01 25.12 0.84 2.25 2.37 2.46 0.21
Nonroad............................................... 10.38 7.39 6.08 -4.30 13.26 8.84 5.28 -7.98
Onroad................................................ 29.22 17.53 9.05 -20.17 51.51 34.24 10.75 -40.76
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................. 67.22 52.89 44.36 -22.86 71.69 49.97 23.24 -48.45
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 21.--Lansing-East Lansing Area: Comparison of 2002-2018 VOC and NOX Emissions (tpd)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC NOX
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sector Net change Net change
2002 2009 2018 (2002-2018) 2002 2009 2018 (2002-2018)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point................................................. 8.42 6.70 7.49 -0.93 26.21 18.16 21.85 -4.36
Area.................................................. 21.74 21.34 22.06 0.32 1.92 2.02 2.08 0.16
Nonroad............................................... 8.33 5.99 4.88 -3.45 12.30 8.97 5.34 -6.96
Onroad................................................ 26.48 15.88 8.37 -18.11 46.73 31.13 9.69 -37.04
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................. 64.97 49.91 42.80 -22.17 87.16 60.28 38.96 -48.20
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 22.--Benzie County Area: Comparison of 2002-2018 VOC and NOX Emissions (tpd)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC NOX
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sector Net change Net change
2002 2009 2018 (2002-2018) 2002 2009 2018 (2002-2018)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point................................................. 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.00
Area.................................................. 1.54 1.42 1.37 -0.17 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.01
Nonroad............................................... 4.05 4.31 2.85 -1.20 0.61 0.55 0.53 -0.08
Onroad................................................ 1.08 0.65 0.31 -0.77 2.10 1.40 0.37 -1.73
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................. 6.68 6.39 4.54 -2.14 2.80 2.05 1.00 -1.80
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 23.--Huron County Area: Comparison of 2002-2018 VOC and NOX Emissions (tpd)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC NOX
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sector Net change Net change
2002 2009 2018 (2002-2018) 2002 2009 2018 (2002-2018)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point................................................. 0.27 0.29 0.33 0.06 6.16 1.39 1.69 -4.47
Area.................................................. 2.18 2.13 2.19 0.01 0.20 0.21 0.22 0.02
Nonroad............................................... 3.29 3.27 2.39 -0.90 5.73 5.95 5.20 -0.53
Onroad................................................ 1.68 1.01 0.55 -1.13 3.31 2.21 0.65 -2.66
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................. 7.42 6.70 5.46 -1.96 15.40 9.76 7.76 -7.64
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 24.--Mason County Area: Comparison of 2002-2018 VOC and NOX Emissions (tpd)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC NOX
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sector Net change Net change
2002 2009 2018 (2002-2018) 2002 2009 2018 (2002-2018)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point................................................. 0.39 0.49 0.65 0.26 0.79 0.35 0.45 -0.34
Area.................................................. 1.89 1.86 1.92 0.03 0.16 0.17 0.17 0.01
Nonroad............................................... 2.88 3.03 2.02 -0.86 1.97 1.68 1.52 -0.45
Onroad................................................ 1.39 0.83 0.43 -0.96 2.48 1.66 0.51 -1.97
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................. 6.55 6.21 5.02 -1.53 5.40 3.86 2.65 -2.75
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The emission projections show that MDEQ does not expect emissions
in the Grand Rapids, Kalamazoo-Battle Creek, Lansing-East Lansing,
Benzie County, Huron County, and Mason County areas to exceed the level
of the 2002
[[Page 70927]]
attainment year inventory during the maintenance period. In the Grand
Rapids area, MDEQ projects that VOC and NOX emissions will
decrease by 30.34 tpd and 92.61 tpd, respectively. In the Kalamazoo-
Battle Creek area, MDEQ projects that VOC and NOX emissions
will decrease by 22.86 tpd and 48.45 tpd, respectively. In the Lansing-
East Lansing area, MDEQ projects that VOC and NOX emissions
will decrease by 22.17 tpd and 48.20 tpd, respectively. In the Benzie
County area, MDEQ projects that VOC and NOX emissions will
decrease by 2.14 tpd and 1.80 tpd, respectively. In the Huron County
area, MDEQ projects that VOC and NOX emissions will decrease
by 1.96 tpd and 7.64 tpd, respectively. In the Mason County area, MDEQ
projects that VOC and NOX emissions will decrease by 1.53
tpd and 2.75 tpd, respectively.
As part of its maintenance plans, the State elected to include a
``safety margin'' for the areas. 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 Grand Rapids, Kalamazoo-
Battle Creek, Lansing-East Lansing, Benzie County, Huron County, and
Mason County areas attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS during the 2002-2004
time period. Michigan used 2002 as the attainment level of emissions
for the areas. In the maintenance plans, MDEQ projected emission levels
for 2018. For Grand Rapids, the emissions from point, area, nonroad,
and mobile sources in 2002 equaled 113.01 tpd of VOC. MDEQ projected
VOC emissions for the year 2018 to be 82.67 tpd of VOC. The SIP
submission demonstrates that the Grand Rapids 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, 30.34 tpd of VOC for 2018. By this same method, 92.61 tpd
(i.e., 146.52 tpd less 53.91 tpd) is the safety margin for
NOX for 2018. For the Kalamazoo-Battle Creek area, 22.86 tpd
and 48.45 tpd are the safety margins for VOC and NOX,
respectively. For the Lansing-East Lansing area, 22.17 tpd and 48.20
tpd are the safety margins for VOC and NOX, respectively.
For the Benzie County area, 2.14 tpd and 1.80 tpd are the safety
margins for VOC and NOX, respectively. For the Huron County
area, 1.96 tpd and 7.64 tpd are the safety margins for VOC and
NOX, respectively. For the Mason County area, 1.53 tpd and
2.75 tpd are the safety margins for VOC and NOX,
respectively. 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 two ozone
monitors in Kent County and one ozone monitor each in Ottawa,
Kalamazoo, Clinton, Ingham, Benzie, Huron, and Mason Counties. MDEQ has
committed to continue operating and maintaining an approved ozone
monitor network in accordance with 40 CFR part 58.
e. Verification of Continued Attainment. Continued attainment of
the ozone NAAQS in the Grand Rapids, Kalamazoo-Battle Creek, Lansing-
East Lansing, Benzie County, Huron County, and Mason County areas
depends, in part, on the State's efforts toward tracking indicators of
continued attainment during the maintenance period. The State's plan
for verifying continued attainment of the 8-hour standard in the Grand
Rapids, Kalamazoo-Battle Creek, Lansing-East Lansing, Benzie County,
Huron County, and Mason County areas consists of plans to continue
ambient ozone monitoring in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR
part 58. In addition, MDEQ will periodically review and revise the VOC
and NOX emissions inventories for the Grand Rapids,
Kalamazoo-Battle Creek, Lansing-East Lansing, Benzie County, Huron
County, and Mason County areas, as required by the Consolidated
Emissions Reporting Rule (40 CFR part 51), to track levels of emissions
in the future.
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
contingency plans for the Grand Rapids, Kalamazoo-Battle Creek,
Lansing-East Lansing, Benzie County, Huron County, and Mason County
areas to address possible future ozone air quality problems. The
contingency plans adopted by Michigan have two levels of response,
depending on whether a violation of the 8-hour ozone standard is only
threatened (Action Level Response) or has occurred (Contingency Measure
Response).
An Action Level Response will occur when a two-year average fourth-
high monitored daily peak 8-hour ozone concentration of 85 ppb or
higher is monitored within an ozone maintenance area. An Action Level
Response will consist of Michigan performing a review of the
circumstances leading to the high monitored values. MDEQ will conduct
this review within 6 months following the close of the ozone season. If
MDEQ determines that contingency measure implementation is necessary to
prevent a future violation of the NAAQS, MDEQ will select and implement
a measure that can be implemented promptly.
A Contingency Measure Response will be triggered by a violation of
the standard (a 3-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily
maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration of 85 ppb 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. MDEQ will expedite the process of adopting and implementing
the selected measures, with a goal of having measures in place as
expeditiously as practicable within 18 months. EPA is interpreting this
commitment to mean that the measure will be in place within 18 months.
Contingency measures contained in the maintenance plans are those
emission controls or other measures that Michigan may choose to adopt
and implement to correct possible air quality problems. These include
the following:
i. Lower Reid vapor pressure gasoline requirements;
ii. Reduced VOC content in Architectural, Industrial, and
Maintenance (AIM) coatings rule;
iii. Auto body refinisher self-certification audit program;
iv. Reduced VOC degreasing rule;
v. Transit improvements;
[[Page 70928]]
vi. Diesel retrofit program;
vii. Reduced VOC content in commercial and consumer products rule;
viii. Reduce idling program.
g. Provisions for Future Updates of the Ozone Maintenance Plan. As
required by section 175A(b) of the CAA, Michigan commits to submit to
the EPA updated ozone maintenance plans eight years after redesignation
of the Grand Rapids, Kalamazoo-Battle Creek, Lansing-East Lansing,
Benzie County, Huron County, and Mason County areas to cover an
additional 10-year period beyond the initial 10-year maintenance
period. Michigan has committed to retain the control measures for VOC
and NOX emissions that were contained in the SIP before
redesignation of the areas to attainment, as required by section 175(A)
of the CAA.
EPA has concluded that the maintenance plans adequately address the
five basic components of a maintenance plan: attainment inventory,
maintenance demonstration, monitoring network, verification of
continued attainment, and a contingency plan. The maintenance plan SIP
revisions submitted by Michigan for the Grand Rapids, Kalamazoo-Battle
Creek, Lansing-East Lansing, Benzie County, Huron County, and Mason
County areas meet the requirements of section 175A of the CAA.
ii. Adequacy of Michigan's Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets (MVEBs)
1. How Are MVEBs Developed and What Are the MVEBs for the Grand Rapids,
Kalamazoo-Battle Creek, Lansing-East Lansing, Benzie County, Mason
County, and Huron County Areas?
Under the CAA, states are required to submit, at various times,
control strategy SIP revisions and ozone maintenance plans for ozone
nonattainment areas and for areas seeking redesignations to attainment
of the ozone standard. These emission control strategy SIP revisions
(e.g., reasonable further progress SIP and attainment demonstration SIP
revisions) and ozone maintenance plans create MVEBs based on onroad
mobile source emissions for criteria pollutants and/or their precursors
to address pollution from cars and trucks. The MVEBs are the portions
of the total allowable emissions that are allocated to highway and
transit vehicle use that, together with emissions from other sources in
the area, will provide for attainment or maintenance.
Under 40 CFR Part 93, an MVEB for an area seeking a redesignation
to attainment is established for the last year of the maintenance plan.
The MVEB serves as a ceiling on emissions from an area's planned
transportation system. The MVEB concept is further explained in the
preamble to the November 24, 1993, transportation conformity rule (58
FR 62188). The preamble also describes how to establish the MVEB in the
SIP and how to revise the MVEB if needed.
Under section 176(c) of the CAA, new transportation projects, such
as the construction of new highways, must ``conform'' to (i.e., be
consistent with) the part of the SIP that addresses emissions from cars
and trucks. Conformity to the SIP means that transportation activities
will not cause new air quality violations, worsen existing air quality
violations, or delay timely attainment of the NAAQS. If a
transportation plan does not conform, most new transportation projects
that would expand the capacity of roadways cannot go forward.
Regulations at 40 CFR part 93 set forth EPA policy, criteria, and
procedures for demonstrating and assuring conformity of such
transportation activities to a SIP.
When reviewing SIP revisions containing MVEBs, including attainment
strategies, rate-of-progress plans, and maintenance plans, EPA must
affirmatively find that the MVEBs are ``adequate'' for use in
determining transportation conformity. Once EPA affirmatively finds the
submitted MVEBs to be adequate for transportation conformity purposes,
the MVEBs are used by state and federal agencies in determining whether
proposed transportation projects conform to the SIP as required by
section 176(c) of the CAA. EPA's substantive criteria for determining
the adequacy of MVEBs are set out in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4).
EPA's process for determining adequacy of an MVEB consists of three
basic steps: (1) Providing public notification of a SIP submission; (2)
providing the public the opportunity to comment on the MVEB during a
public comment period; and (3) EPA's finding of adequacy. The process
of determining the adequacy of submitted SIP MVEBs was initially
outlined in EPA's May 14, 1999 guidance, ``Conformity Guidance on
Implementation of March 2, 1999, Conformity Court Decision.'' This
guidance was codified in the Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments
for the ``New 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality
Standards and Miscellaneous Revisions for Existing Areas;
Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments--Response to Court Decision
and Additional Rule Change,'' published on July 1, 2004 (69 FR 40004).
EPA follows this guidance and rulemaking in making its adequacy
determinations.
The Grand Rapids, Kalamazoo-Battle Creek, Lansing-East Lansing,
Benzie County, Huron County, and Mason County areas' maintenance plans
contain new VOC and NOX MVEBs for the year 2018. The
availability of the SIP submissions with these 2018 MVEBs was announced
for public comment on EPA's Adequacy Web page on June 1, 2006, at:
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/currsips.htm. The EPA public comment period on adequacy of the 2018
MVEBs for the Grand Rapids, Kalamazoo-Battle Creek, and Lansing-East
Lansing, Benzie County, Huron County, and Mason County areas closed on
July 3, 2006. No requests for these submittals or adverse comments on
these submittals were received during the adequacy comment period. In
letters dated July 1, 2006 and July 3, 2006, EPA informed MDEQ that we
had found the 2018 MVEBs to be adequate for use in transportation
conformity analyses.
EPA, through this rulemaking, is approving the MVEBs for use to
determine transportation conformity in the Grand Rapids, Kalamazoo-
Battle Creek, Lansing-East Lansing, Benzie County, Huron County, and
Mason County areas because EPA has determined that the areas can
maintain attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the relevant
maintenance period with mobile source emissions at the levels of the
MVEBs. MDEQ has determined the 2018 MVEBs for the Grand Rapids area to
be 40.70 tpd for VOC and 97.87 tpd for NOX. These MVEBs
exceed the onroad mobile source VOC and NOX emissions
projected by MDEQ for 2018, as summarized in Table 19 above (``onroad''
source sector). MDEQ decided to include safety margins (described
further below) of 27.31 tpd for VOC and 83.49 tpd for NOX in
the MVEBs to provide for mobile source growth. Michigan has
demonstrated that the Grand Rapids area can maintain the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS with mobile source emissions of 40.70 tpd of VOC and 97.87 tpd of
NOX in 2018, including the allocated safety margins, since
emissions will still remain under attainment year emission levels.
MDEQ has determined the 2018 MVEBs for the Kalamazoo-Battle Creek
area to be 29.67 tpd for VOC and 54.36 tpd for NOX. Again,
these MVEBs exceed the onroad mobile source VOC and NOX
emissions projected by MDEQ for 2018, as summarized in Table 20 above
(``onroad'' source sector). MDEQ
[[Page 70929]]
decided to include safety margins of 20.62 tpd for VOC and 43.61 tpd
for NOX in the MVEBs to provide for mobile source growth.
Michigan has demonstrated that the Kalamazoo-Battle Creek area can
maintain the 8-hour ozone NAAQS with mobile source emissions of 29.67
tpd of VOC and 54.36 tpd of NOX in 2018, including the
allocated safety margins, since emissions will still remain under
attainment year emission levels.
MDEQ has determined the 2018 MVEBs for the Lansing-East Lansing
area to be 28.32 tpd for VOC and 53.07 tpd for NOX. These
MVEBs exceed the onroad mobile source VOC and NOX emissions
projected by MDEQ for 2018, as summarized in Table 21 above (``onroad''
source sector) because MDEQ decided to include safety margins of 19.95
tpd for VOC and 43.38 tpd for NOX in the MVEBs to provide
for mobile source growth. Michigan has demonstrated that the Lansing-
East Lansing area can maintain the 8-hour ozone NAAQS with mobile
source emissions of 28.32 tpd of VOC and 53.07 tpd of NOX in
2018, including the allocated safety margins, since emissions will
still remain under attainment year emission levels.
MDEQ has determined the 2018 MVEBs for the Benzie County area to be
2.24 tpd for VOC and 1.99 tpd for NOX. These MVEBs exceed
the onroad mobile source VOC and NOX emissions projected by
MDEQ for 2018, as summarized in Table 22 above (``onroad'' source
sector) because MDEQ decided to include safety margins of 1.93 tpd for
VOC and 1.62 tpd for NOX in the MVEBs to provide for mobile
source growth. Michigan has demonstrated that the Benzie County area
can maintain the 8-hour ozone NAAQS with mobile source emissions of
2.24 tpd of VOC and 1.99 tpd of NOX in 2018, including the
allocated safety margins, since emissions will still remain under
attainment year emission levels.
MDEQ has determined the 2018 MVEBs for the Huron County area to be
2.34 tpd for VOC and 7.53 tpd for NOX. These MVEBs exceed
the onroad mobile source VOC and NOX emissions projected by
MDEQ for 2018, as summarized in Table 23 above (``onroad'' source
sector) because MDEQ decided to include safety margins of 1.79 tpd for
VOC and 6.88 tpd for NOX in the MVEBs to provide for mobile
source growth. Michigan has demonstrated that the Huron County area can
maintain the 8-hour ozone NAAQS with mobile source emissions of 2.34
tpd of VOC and 7.53 tpd of NOX in 2018, including the
allocated safety margins, since emissions will still remain under
attainment year emission levels.
MDEQ has determined the 2018 MVEBs for the Mason County area to be
1.81 tpd for VOC and 2.99 tpd for NOX. These MVEBs exceed
the onroad mobile source VOC and NOX emissions projected by
MDEQ for 2018, as summarized in Table 24 above (``onroad'' source
sector) because MDEQ decided to include safety margins of 1.38 tpd for
VOC and 2.48 tpd for NOX in the MVEBs to provide for mobile
source growth. Michigan has demonstrated that the Mason County area can
maintain the 8-hour ozone NAAQS with mobile source emissions of 1.81
tpd of VOC and 2.99 tpd of NOX in 2018, including the
allocated safety margins, since emissions will still remain under
attainment year emission levels.
2. What Is a Safety Margin?
A ``safety margin'' is the difference between the attainment level
of emissions (from all sources) and the projected level of emissions
(from all sources) in the maintenance plan. As noted in Table 19, the
Grand Rapids area VOC and NOX emissions are projected to
have safety margins of 30.34 tpd for VOC and 92.61 tpd for
NOX in 2018 (the difference between the attainment year,
2002, emissions and the projected 2018 emissions for all sources in the
Grand Rapids area). As noted in Table 20, the Kalamazoo-Battle Creek
area VOC and NOX emissions are projected to have safety
margins of 22.86 tpd and 48.45 tpd, respectively. As noted in Table 21,
the Lansing-East Lansing area VOC and NOX emissions are
projected to have safety margins of 22.17 tpd and 48.20 tpd,
respectively. As noted in Table 22, the Benzie County area VOC and
NOX emissions are projected to have safety margins of 2.14
tpd and 1.80 tpd, respectively. As noted in Table 23, the Huron County
area VOC and NOX emissions are projected to have safety
margins of 1.96 tpd and 7.64 tpd, respectively. As noted in Table 24,
the Mason County area VOC and NOX emissions are projected to
have safety margins of 1.53 tpd and 2.75 tpd, respectively. Even if
emissions reached the full level of the safety margin, the counties
would still demonstrate maintenance since emission levels would equal
those in the attainment year.
The MVEBs requested by MDEQ contain safety margins for mobile
sources smaller than the allowable safety margins reflected in the
total emissions for the Grand Rapids, Kalamazoo-Battle Creek, Lansing-
East Lansing, Benzie County, Huron County, and Mason County areas. The
State is not requesting allocation of the entire available safety
margins reflected in the demonstration of maintenance. Therefore, even
though the State is requesting MVEBs that exceed the projected onroad
mobile source emissions for 2018 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.
VIII. What Actions Is EPA Taking Today?
EPA is proposing to make determinations that the Grand Rapids,
Kalamazoo-Battle Creek, Lansing-East Lansing, Benzie County, Huron
County, and Mason County areas have attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS,
and EPA is proposing to approve the redesignations of the Grand Rapids,
Kalamazoo-Battle Creek, Lansing-East Lansing, Benzie County, Huron
County, and Mason County areas from nonattainment to attainment for the
8-hour ozone NAAQS. After evaluating Michigan's redesignation requests,
EPA has determined that they meet the redesignation criteria set forth
in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. The final approval of these
redesignation requests would change the official designations for the
Grand Rapids, Kalamazoo-Battle Creek, Lansing-East Lansing, Benzie
County, Huron County, and Mason County areas from nonattainment to
attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard.
EPA is also proposing to approve the maintenance plan SIP revisions
for the Grand Rapids, Kalamazoo-Battle Creek, Lansing-East Lansing,
Benzie County, Huron County, and Mason County areas. EPA's proposed
approval of the maintenance plans is based on Michigan's demonstration
that the plans meet the requirements of section 175A of the CAA, as
described more fully above. Additionally, EPA is finding adequate and
proposing to approve the 2018 MVEBs submitted by Michigan in
conjunction with the redesignation requests.
IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Executive Order 12866; Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is
[[Page 70930]]
not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed rule does not impose an information collection burden
under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.).
Regulatory Flexibility Act
This proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as
meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law. Redesignation of an area to
attainment under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Clean Air Act does not
impose any new requirements on small entities. Redesignation is an
action that affects the status of a geographical area and does not
impose any new regulatory requirements on sources. Accordingly, the
Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Because this rule proposes to approve pre-existing requirements
under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty
beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as
described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
Executive Order 13132 Federalism
This action also does not have Federalism implications because it
does not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the
relationship between the national government and the states, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999). Redesignation is an action that merely affects the status of
a geographical area, does not impose any new requirements on sources,
or allows a state to avoid adopting or implementing other requirements,
and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act.
Executive Order 13175 Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) requires EPA
to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely
input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies
that have tribal implications.'' This proposed rule also does not have
tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175, 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. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this
rule.
Although Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule, EPA met
with interested tribes in Michigan to discuss the redesignation process
and the impact of a change in designation status of these areas on the
tribes.
Executive Order 13045 Protection of Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risks
This proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically
significant.
Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
Because it is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866 or a ``significant energy action,'' this action
is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001).
National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTA), 15 U.S.C. 272, requires Federal agencies to use
technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary
consensus to carry out policy objectives, so long as such standards are
not inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impracticable. In
reviewing program submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Absent a
prior existing requirement for the state to use voluntary consensus
standards, EPA has no authority to disapprove a program submission for
failure to use such standards, and it would thus be inconsistent with
applicable law for EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in place of
a program submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the
Act.
Redesignation is an action that affects the status of a
geographical area but does not impose any new requirements on sources.
Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.
40 CFR Part 81
Environmental protection, Air Pollution Control, National parks,
Wilderness areas.
Dated: November 21, 2006.
Mary A. Gade,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. E6-20639 Filed 12-6-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P