Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Michigan; Redesignation of Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County 8-hour Ozone Nonattainment Areas to Attainment for Ozone

[Federal Register: January 8, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 4)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 699-711]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr08ja07-24]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0563; FRL-8266-5]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation
of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Michigan; Redesignation of
Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass 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 Flint (Genesee and Lapeer
Counties), Muskegon (Muskegon County), Benton Harbor (Berrien County),
and Cass County have attained the 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standard (NAAQS). These determinations are based on three years
of complete, quality-assured ambient air quality monitoring data for
the 2004-2006 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 Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas
to attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. These requests were submitted
by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) on June 13,
2006, and supplemented on August 25, 2006, and November 30, 2006.
In proposing to approve this request, EPA also is proposing to
approve the State's plans for maintaining the 8-hour ozone NAAQS
through 2018 in the areas as revisions to the Michigan State
Implementation Plan (SIP). EPA also finds adequate and is proposing to
approve the State's 2018 Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets (MVEBs) for the
Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 7, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2006-0563, by one of the following methods:
? http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
? E-mail: mooney.john@epa.gov.
? 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-
2006-0563. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov
or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional instructions on submitting
comments, go to Section I of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material,

[[Page 700]]

will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in
http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. We
recommend that you telephone Charles Hatten, Environmental Engineer, at
(312) 886-6031 before visiting the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles Hatten, Environmental
Engineer, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J),
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6031, hatten.charles@epa.gov.

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

Table of Contents

I. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?
II. What Actions Is EPA Proposing To Take?
III. What Is the Background for These Actions?
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 Emission Budgets
VIII. What Actions Are EPA Taking Today?
IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

When submitting comments, remember to:
1. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
2. Follow directions--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 Flint (Genesee and Lapeer Counties),
Muskegon (Muskegon County), Benton Harbor (Berrien County), and Cass
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 request to change the legal
designations of the Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass 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 the Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas (such
approval being one of the CAA criteria for redesignation to attainment
status). The maintenance plans are designed to keep the Flint,
Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass 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
Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas. The adequacy
comment period for the 2018 MVEBs began on August 4, 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 period for these MVEBs ended on
September 5, 2006. EPA did not receive any requests for these
submittals, or adverse comments on these submittals during the adequacy
comment period. 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 (NO_X) and volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) react in the presence of sunlight to form ground-level
ozone. NO_X 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. EPA revoked the 1-hour
ozone NAAQS on June 15, 2005. At the time EPA revoked the 1-hour
standard, the Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas
were all designated as attainment under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.
On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a new 8-hour ozone NAAQS 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 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, less prescriptive, 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,
signed on April 15, 2004 (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 or
above 0.121 ppm (the lowest 1-hour design value in Table 1 of subpart
2) (69 FR 23954). All other areas were covered under Subpart 1, based
upon their 8-hour design values (69 FR 23958). The Muskegon and Cass
County areas were designated as subpart 2, 8-hour ozone moderate
nonattainment areas by EPA on April 30, 2004, (69 FR 23857, 23911),
based on air quality monitoring data from 2001-2003. The Flint and Benton

[[Page 701]]

Harbor areas were designated by EPA as subpart 1, 8-hour nonattainment
areas (69 FR 23910--23911), based on 2001-2003 monitoring data.
Under section 181(a)(4) of the CAA EPA may adjust the
classification of an ozone nonattainment area to the next higher or
lower classification if the design value for the area is within five
percent of the cut off for that higher or lower classification. On
September 22, 2004, EPA adjusted the classification of several
nonattainment areas which had been designated and classified under
subpart 2 on April 30, 2004. At that time, EPA adjusted the
classifications of the Muskegon and Cass County nonattainment areas
from moderate to marginal (69 FR 56697, 56708-5670).
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, section 2.3(d).
On June 13, 2006, Michigan requested that EPA redesignate the
Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas to attainment for
the 8-hour ozone standard. This submittal was supplemented on August
25, 2006, and November 30, 2006. Michigan included complete, quality-
assured air monitoring data for the 2004 through 2006 ozone season,
indicating the 8-hour NAAQS for ozone had been attained for the Flint,
Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas. Under the CAA, a
nonattainment area may be redesignated to attainment if sufficient
complete, quality-assured air monitoring 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 of 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 June 13, 2006, Michigan requested redesignation of the Flint,
Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas to attainment for the 8-
hour ozone standard. Michigan supplemented its submittal on August 25,
2006, and November 30, 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 request 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 25.68 tons per
day (tpd) VOC and 37.99 tpd NO_X for the Flint area, 6.67 tpd
VOC and 11.00 tpd NO_X for the Muskegon area, 9.16 tpd VOC
and 15.19 tpd NO_X for the Benton Harbor area, and 2.76 tpd
VOC and 3.40 tpd NO_X for the Cass County area.

VII. What Is EPA's Analysis of the Requests?

i. Attainment Determination and Redesignation

EPA is proposing to make determinations that the Flint, Muskegon,
Benton Harbor, and Cass 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:

[[Page 702]]

1. The Areas Have Attained the 8-hour Ozone NAAQS. (Section 107(d)(3)(E)(i))
EPA is proposing to make determinations that the Flint, Muskegon,
Benton Harbor, and Cass 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 2004 to 2006 ozone
seasons. The MDEQ quality assured the ambient monitoring data in
accordance with 40 CFR 58.10, and recorded it in the AIRS database,
thus making the data publicly available. The data 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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Design value
2004 4th 2005 4th 2006 4th 2004-2006 2006 rounded
Area County Monitor high (ppm) high (ppm) high (ppm) avg. (ppm) to 2 decimals
(ppm)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flint............................... Genesee............... Flint 26-0490021...... 0.075 0.079 0.075 0.076 0.08
Lapeer................ Otisville 26-0490021.. 0.077 0.080 0.075 0.077 0.08
Muskegon............................ Muskegon.............. Muskegon 26-1210039... 0.070 0.090 0.091 0.083 0.08
Benton Harbor....................... Berrien............... Coloma 26-0210014..... 0.073 0.090 0.077 0.080 0.08
Cass................................ Cass.................. Cassopolis 26-0270003. 0.077 0.086 0.073 0.078 0.08
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 2.--Data Completeness in Percent (%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual Minimum of 75% Completeness 3-Year Period
--------------------------------------- Average
Minimum of 90%
Area County Monitor Completeness
2004 (%) 2005 (%) 2006 (%) ---------------
2004-2006
average (%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flint................................... Genesee.................... Flint 26-0490021.......... 100 75 97 91
Lapeer..................... Otisville 26-0492001...... 100 87 100 96
Muskegon................................ Muskegon................... Muskegon 26-1210039....... 99 96 99 98
Benton Harbor........................... Berrien.................... Coloma 26-0210014......... 98 98 100 99
Cass.................................... Cass....................... Cassopolis................ 92 100 98 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 Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County
areas have attained the 8-hour ozone 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 Flint, Muskegon,
Benton Harbor, and Cass 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 and Subpart 2 marginal nonattainment areas), in accordance
with section 107(d)(3)(E)(v). In addition, we have determined that the
Michigan SIP is fully approved with respect to all applicable
requirements for purposes of redesignation, in accordance with section
107(d)(3)(E)(ii). In making these determinations, we have ascertained
what SIP requirements are applicable to the 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 Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass 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

[[Page 703]]

requirements that are due prior to the state's submittal of a complete
redesignation request for the area. See also the September 17, 1993,
Michael Shapiro memorandum and 60 FR 12459, 12465-66 (March 7, 1995)
(redesignation of Detroit-Ann Arbor, Michigan to attainment of the 1-
hour ozone NAAQS). Applicable requirements of the CAA that come due
subsequent to the state's submittal of a complete request remain
applicable until a redesignation to attainment is approved, but are not
required as a prerequisite to redesignation. See section 175A(c) of the
CAA; Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004). See also 68 FR
25424, 25427 (May 12, 2003) (redesignation of the St. Louis/East St.
Louis area to attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS).
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 (NO_X 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 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).
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 that are 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ On October 27, 1998 (63 FR 57356), EPA issued a
NO_X SIP call, requiring the District of Columbia and 22
states, including portions of Michigan, to reduce emissions of
NO_X in order to reduce the transport of ozone and ozone
precursors. In compliance with EPA's NO_X SIP call, MDEQ
has developed rules governing the control of NO_X
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 NO_X SIP Call on May 4,
2005 (70 FR 23029).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 submission of the redesignation
request for the Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas.
Under part D, an area's classification determines the requirements to
which it will be subject. Subpart 1 of part D, which includes sections
172-176 of the CAA, sets forth the basic nonattainment requirements
applicable to all nonattainment areas. Section 182 of the CAA, which is
found in subpart 2 of part D, establishes additional specific
requirements depending on the area's nonattainment classification. The
Flint and Benton Harbor areas are both classified as subpart 1
nonattainment areas and, therefore, subpart 2 requirements do not
apply. The Muskegon and Cass County areas are classified as subpart 2
marginal nonattainment areas and, therefore, both subpart 1 and subpart
2 requirements apply.
Part D, Subpart 1 applicable SIP requirements. For purposes of
evaluating these redesignation requests, the applicable part D, subpart
1 SIP requirements for Flint, Benton Harbor, Muskegon, and Cass 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 (General Preamble 57 FR 13498,
April 16, 1992).
Part D, Subpart 2 applicable SIP requirements. For purposes of
evaluating these redesignation requests, the applicable part D, subpart
2 SIP requirements for the Muskegon and Cass County areas are contained
in section 182(a). A thorough discussion of the requirements contained
in section 182(a) can be found in the General Preamble (57 FR 13498,
13502-13507 (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 is applicable to the areas for purposes of
redesignation. Since the State of Michigan has submitted complete ozone
redesignation requests for the Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass
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 Flint, Muskegon,

[[Page 704]]

Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas for purposes of redesignation.
Furthermore, EPA has determined that, since PSD requirements will
apply after redesignation, areas redesignating need not comply with the
requirement that a NSR program be approved prior to redesignation,
provided that these areas demonstrate 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 Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and
Cass County areas will be able to maintain the standard without part D
NSR in effect; and 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 Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass 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 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 25.68 tons
per day (tpd) VOC and 37.99 tpd NO_X for the Flint area, 6.67
tpd VOC and 11.00 tpd NO_X for the Muskegon area, 9.16 tpd
VOC and 15.19 tpd NO_X for the Benton Harbor area, and 2.76
tpd VOC and 3.40 tpd for NO_X for the Cass County area based
on the areas' projected 2018 emission levels. The Flint, Muskegon,
Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas must use the motor vehicle
emissions budgets from the maintenance plan 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 Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas have a
fully approved applicable SIP under section 110(k) of the CAA. EPA has
fully approved the Michigan SIP for the Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor,
and Cass 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 Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas
under the 1-hour ozone standard. No Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, or
Cass County area SIP provisions are currently disapproved,
conditionally approved, or partially approved.
3. The Improvement in Air Quality Is Due to Permanent and Enforceable
Reductions in Emissions Resulting From Implementation of the SIP and
Applicable Federal Air Pollution Control Regulations and Other
Permanent and Enforceable Reductions (Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii))
EPA finds that Michigan has demonstrated that the observed air
quality improvement in the Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass
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 2002 and 2005, one of the years the Flint,
Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass 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 Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and
Cass 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 Flint, Muskegon,
Benton Harbor, and Cass 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:
NO_X rules. In compliance with EPA's NO_X SIP
call, Michigan developed rules to control NO_X emissions from
electric generating units (EGUs), major non-EGU industrial boilers, and
major cement kilns. These rules required sources to begin reducing
NO_X emissions in 2004. From 2004 on, NO_X
emissions from EGUs have been capped at a statewide total well below
pre-2002 levels. MDEQ expects that NO_X emissions will
further decline as the State meets the requirements of EPA's Phase II
NO_X SIP call (69 FR 21604; April 21, 2004).
Federal Emission Control Measures. Reductions in VOC and
NO_X 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

[[Page 705]]

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 will 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 NO_X to meet their rate of progress obligations under
the 1-hour ozone standard. Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin have all
developed regulations to control NO_X, Illinois and Indiana
pursuant to the NO_X 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 2002 for the
nonattainment inventory and 2005, one of the years used to demonstrate
monitored attainment of the NAAQS, for the attainment inventory. For
2002, MDEQ used the Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium (LADCO) 2002
base K inventory. This typical summer day inventory was developed by
processing emissions data from the EPA final 2002 National Emissions
Inventory (NEI). Nonroad emissions were estimated using the most
current version of EPA's National Mobile Inventory Model (NMIM). For
the 2005 inventory, Michigan interpolated between the 2002 LADCO base K
inventory and the LADCO 2009 base K inventory to project emissions for
the non-EGU point and area sectors. For EGU emissions, Michigan used
2004 actual emissions as a better representation of 2005 than
interpolating from 2009. For nonroad emissions, Michigan used the most
current version of NMIM. For onroad emissions, Michigan used the
Mobile6.2 model.
Based on the inventories described above, Michigan's submittal
documents changes in VOC and NO_X emissions from 2002 to 2005
for the Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas. The
emissions reductions for both VOC and NO_X, by county and by
source category are shown below in Tables 3 through 7.

Table 3.--Flint Area: Total VOC and NOX Emissions for Nonattainment Year 2002 (tpd)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Genesee Lapeer Total
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC NOX VOC NOX VOC NOX
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point............................. 4.93 2.66 1.14 0.32 6.07 2.98
Area.............................. 22.06 1.76 4.60 0.37 26.66 2.13
Nonroad........................... 33.74 8.72 6.81 2.97 40.55 11.69
Onroad............................ 26.68 40.80 4.84 9.82 31.52 50.62
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total......................... 87.41 53.94 17.39 13.48 104.8 67.42
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 4.--Flint Area: Total VOC and NOX Emissions for Attainment Year 2005 (tpd)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Genesee Lapeer Total
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC NOX VOC NOX VOC NOX
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point............................. 4.38 2.61 0.95 0.30 5.33 2.91
Area.............................. 21.63 1.80 4.60 0.38 26.23 2.18
Nonroad........................... 11.79 8.07 6.72 2.79 18.51 10.86
Onroad............................ 17.71 29.98 3.39 6.10 21.10 36.08
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total......................... 55.51 42.46 15.66 9.57 71.17 52.03
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 5.--Flint Area: Comparison of 2002 and 2005 VOC and NOX Emissions (tpd)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC NOX
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sector Net change Net change
2002 2005 (2002-2005) 2002 2005 (2002-2005)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point....................... 6.07 5.33 -0.74 2.98 2.91 -0.07
Area........................ 26.66 26.23 -0.43 2.13 2.18 0.05
Onroad...................... 40.55 18.51 -22.04 11.69 10.86 -0.83
Nonroad..................... 31.52 21.10 -10.42 50.62 36.08 -14.54
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................... 104.80 71.17 -33.63 67.42 52.03 -15.39
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 706]]

Table 6.--Muskegon Area (Muskegon County): Comparison of 2002 and 2005 VOC and NOX Emissions (tpd)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC NOX
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sector Net change Net change
2002 2005 (2002-2005) 2002 2005 (2002-2005)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point....................... 1.77 1.73 -0.04 14.35 13.83 -0.52
Area........................ 8.20 8.15 -0.05 0.81 0.83 0.02
Onroad...................... 7.67 5.08 -2.59 11.93 8.91 -3.02
Nonroad..................... 10.41 10.26 -0.15 6.48 6.27 -0.21
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................... 28.05 25.22 -2.83 33.57 29.84 -3.73
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 7.--Benton Harbor Area (Berrien County): Comparison of 2002 and 2005 VOC and NOX Emissions (tpd)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC NOX
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sector Net change Net change
2002 2005 (2002-2005) 2002 2005 (2002-2005)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point....................... 1.91 1.93 0.02 3.70 3.47 -0.23
Area........................ 9.05 8.99 -0.06 0.79 0.81 0.02
Onroad...................... 11.11 7.45 -3.66 20.45 14.49 -5.96
Nonroad..................... 11.67 10.98 -0.69 4.80 4.54 -0.26
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................... 33.74 29.35 -4.39 29.74 23.31 -6.43
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 8.--Cass County Area: Comparison of 2002 and 2005 VOC and NOX Emissions (tpd)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC NOX
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sector Net change Net change
2002 2005 (2002-2005) 2002 2005 (2002-2005)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point....................... 0.31 0.34 0.03 0.20 0.20 0.00
Area........................ 2.22 2.22 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00
Onroad...................... 2.45 1.66 -0.79 4.52 2.97 -1.55
Nonroad..................... 5.07 5.06 -0.01 2.06 1.92 -0.14
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................... 10.05 9.28 -0.77 6.98 5.29 -1.69
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 5 shows that the Flint area reduced VOC emissions by 33.53
tpd and NO_X emissions by 15.39 tpd between 2002 and 2005.
Table 6 shows that the Muskegon area reduced VOC emissions by 2.83
tpd and NO_X emissions by 3.73 tpd between 2002 and 2005.
Table 7 shows that the Benton Harbor area reduced VOC emissions by 4.39
tpd and NO_X emissions by 6.43 tpd between 2002 and 2005.
Table 8 shows that the Cass County area reduced VOC emissions by 0.77
tpd and NO_X emissions by 1.69 tpd between 2002 and 2005.
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 Flint,
Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County nonattainment areas to
attainment status, Michigan submitted a SIP revision to provide for the
maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in these areas for at least 10
years after redesignation.
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 NO_X 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. As described above, the MDEQ developed
attainment inventories for 2005, one of the years used to demonstrate
monitored attainment of the 8-hour NAAQS. The 2005 attainment level of
emissions is summarized, above, in Tables 4 to 8.
c. Demonstration of Maintenance. Michigan submitted with the

[[Page 707]]

redesignation request revisions to the 8-hour ozone SIP to include 10-
year maintenance plans for the Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass
County areas, as required by section 175A of the CAA. These
demonstrations show maintenance of the 8-hour ozone standard by
assuring that current and future emissions of VOC and NO_X
for the Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass 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 9 to 12 below.

Table 9.--Flint Area: Comparison of 2005-2018 Total VOC and NOX Emissions (tpd)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC NOX
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sector Net change Net change
2005 2009 2018 2005-2018 2005 2009 2018 2005-2018
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point non-EGU................................... 5.27 4.35 4.83 -0.44 2.77 2.74 2.81 0.04
Point EGU....................................... 0.06 0.00 0.00 -0.06 0.14 0.00 0.01 -0.13
Point Total..................................... 5.33 4.35 4.83 -0.50 2.91 2.74 2.82 -0.09
Area............................................ 26.23 25.65 26.01 -0.22 2.18 2.25 2.33 0.87
Onroad.......................................... 21.10 18.18 9.76 -11.34 36.08 32.89 11.43 -24.65
Nonroad......................................... 18.51 16.35 12.88 -5.63 10.86 9.20 15.02 -4.16
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................................... 71.17 64.01 53.48 -17.69 52.03 47.08 22.51 -29.52
Safety Margin................................... ........... ........... ........... 17.69 ........... ........... ........... 29.52
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 10.--Muskegon Area: Comparison of 2005-2018 Total VOC and NOX Emissions (tpd)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC NOX
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sector Net change Net change
2005 2009 2018 2005-2018 2005 2009 2018 2005-2018
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Non-EGU................................... 1.63 1.59 2.02 0.39 4.75 4.75 5.14 0.39
Point EGU....................................... 0.10 0.10 0.12 0.02 9.08 6.23 7.17 -1.91
Point Total..................................... 1.73 1.69 2.14 0.41 13.83 10.98 12.31 -1.52
Area............................................ 8.15 8.09 8.36 0.21 0.83 0.85 0.88 0.05
Onroad.......................................... 5.08 4.66 2.27 -2.81 8.91 8.19 2.74 -6.17
Nonroad......................................... 10.26 9.52 7.56 -2.70 6.27 5.84 4.73 -1.54
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................................... 25.22 23.96 20.33 -4.89 29.84 25.86 20.66 -9.18
Safety Margin................................... ........... ........... ........... 4.89 ........... ........... ........... 9.18
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 11.--Benton Harbor Area (Berrien County): Comparison of 2005-2018 Total VOC and NOX Emissions (tpd)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC NOX
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sector Net change Net change
2005 2009 2018 2005-2018 2005 2009 2018 2005-2018
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Non-EGU................................... 1.93 1.95 2.40 0.47 3.47 3.17 3.22 -0.25
Point EGU....................................... 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Point Total..................................... 1.93 1.95 2.40 0.47 3.47 3.17 3.22 -0.25
Area............................................ 8.99 8.92 9.38 0.39 0.81 0.83 0.86 0.05
Onroad.......................................... 7.45 6.54 3.44 -4.01 14.49 13.27 4.57 -9.92
Nonroad......................................... 10.98 9.86 7.77 -3.21 4.54 4.01 2.86 -1.68
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................................... 29.35 27.27 22.99 -6.36 23.31 21.28 11.51 -11.80
Safety Margin................................... ........... ........... ........... 6.36 ........... ........... ........... 11.80
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 708]]

Table 12.--Cass County Area: Comparison of 2005-2018 VOC and NOX Emissions (tpd)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC NOX
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sector Net change Net change
2005 2009 2018 2005-2018 2005 2009 2018 2005-2018
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point non-EGU................................... 0.34 0.39 0.49 0.15 0.20 0.20 0.23 0.03
Point EGU....................................... 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Total................................. 0.34 0.39 0.49 0.15 0.20 0.20 0.23 0.03
Area............................................ 2.22 2.22 2.31 -0.44 0.20 0.21 0.22 0.02
Onroad.......................................... 1.66 1.47 0.74 -9.64 2.97 3.03 0.94 -2.03
Nonroad......................................... 5.06 4.70 3.50 -3.59 1.92 1.67 1.17 -0.75
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................................... 9.28 8.78 7.04 -2.24 5.29 5.11 2.56 -2.73
Safety Margin................................... ........... ........... ........... 2.24 ........... ........... ........... 2.73
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The emission projections show that MDEQ does not expect emissions
in the Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas to exceed
the level of the 2005 attainment year inventory during the maintenance
period. In the Flint area, MDEQ projects that VOC and NO_X
emissions will decrease by 17.69 tpd and 29.52 tpd, respectively. In
the Muskegon area, MDEQ projects that VOC and NO_X emissions
will decrease by 4.89 tpd and 9.18 tpd, respectively. In the Benton
Harbor area, MDEQ projects that VOC and NO_X emissions will
decrease by 6.36 tpd and 11.80 tpd, respectively. In the Cass County
area, MDEQ projects that VOC and NO_X emissions will decrease
by 2.24 tpd and 2.73 tpd, respectively.
As part of its maintenance plan, 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 Flint, Muskegon, Benton
Harbor, and Cass County areas attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS during
the 2004-2006 time period. Michigan used 2005 as the attainment level
of emissions for the areas. For Flint, the emissions from point, area,
nonroad, and mobile sources in 2005 equaled 71.17 tpd of total VOC.
MDEQ projected VOC emissions out to the year 2018 to be 53.48 tpd of
total VOC. The SIP submission demonstrates that the Flint 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, 17.69 tpd of total VOC for 2018. By this same
method, 29.52 tpd (i.e., 52.03 tpd less 22.51 tpd) is the safety margin
for NO_X for 2018. For the Muskegon area, 4.89 tpd and 9.18
tpd are the safety margins for VOC and NO_X, respectively.
For the Benton Harbor area, 6.36 tpd and 11.80 tpd are the safety
margins for VOC and NO_X, respectively. For the Cass County
area, 2.24 tpd and 2.73 tpd are the safety margins for VOC and
NO_X, 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 the Flint area, and one ozone monitor each in Muskegon,
Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas. 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 Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass 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 Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass 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 if necessary the VOC and NO_X emissions
inventories for the Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass 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 a
contingency plan for the Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass
County areas to address possible future ozone air quality problems. The
contingency plan adopted by Michigan has two levels of response,
depending on whether a violation of the 8-hour ozone standard is only
threatened (Action Level Response) or has occurred (Contingency Measure
Response).
An Action Level Response will 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 six months following the close of the ozone season.
If MDEQ determines that contingency measure implementation is necessary
to prevent a future violation of the NAAQS, MDEQ will select and
implement a measure that can be implemented promptly.
A Contingency Measure Response will be triggered by a violation of
the standard (a 3-year average of the annual

[[Page 709]]

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 contingency measure will
be adopted and implemented 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;
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 an updated ozone maintenance plan eight years after
redesignation of the Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass 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 NO_X 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 plan adequately addresses
the five basic components of a maintenance plan: attainment inventory,
maintenance demonstration, monitoring network, verification of
continued attainment, and a contingency plan. The maintenance plan SIP
revision submitted by Michigan for the Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor,
and Cass County areas meets 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 Flint,
Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass 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, a MVEB for an area seeking a redesignation to
attainment is established for the last year of the maintenance plan.
The MVEB serves as a ceiling on emissions from an area's planned
transportation system. The MVEB concept is further explained in the
preamble to the November 24, 1993, transportation conformity rule (58
FR 62188). The preamble also describes how to establish the MVEB in the
SIP and how to revise the MVEB if needed.
Under section 176(c) of the CAA, new transportation projects, such
as the construction of new highways, must ``conform'' to (i.e., be
consistent with) the part of the SIP that addresses emissions from cars
and trucks. Conformity to the SIP means that transportation activities
will not cause new air quality violations, worsen existing air quality
violations, or delay timely attainment of the NAAQS. If a
transportation plan does not conform, most new transportation projects
that would expand the capacity of roadways cannot go forward.
Regulations at 40 CFR part 93 set forth EPA policy, criteria, and
procedures for demonstrating and assuring conformity of such
transportation activities to a SIP.
When reviewing SIP revisions containing MVEBs, including attainment
strategies, rate-of-progress plans, and maintenance plans, EPA must
affirmatively find that the MVEBs are ``adequate'' for use in
determining transportation conformity. Once EPA affirmatively finds the
submitted MVEBs to be adequate for transportation conformity purposes,
the MVEBs are used by state and federal agencies in determining whether
proposed transportation projects conform to the SIP as required by
section 176(c) of the CAA. EPA's substantive criteria for determining
the adequacy of MVEBs are set out in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4).
EPA's process for determining adequacy of a MVEB consists of three
basic steps: (1) Providing public notification of a SIP submission; (2)
providing the public the opportunity to comment on the MVEB during a
public comment period; and (3) EPA's finding of adequacy. The process
of determining the adequacy of submitted SIP MVEBs was initially
outlined in EPA's May 14, 1999, guidance, ``Conformity Guidance on
Implementation of March 2, 1999, Conformity Court Decision.'' This
guidance was codified in the Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments
for the ``New 8-Hour Ozone and 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 Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas'
maintenance plans contain new VOC and NO_X MVEBs for the year
2018. The availability of the SIP submission with these 2018 MVEBs was
announced for public comment on EPA's Adequacy Web page on August 4,
2006, at: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/
currsips.htm. The EPA public comment period on
adequacy of the 2018 MVEBs for the Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and
Cass County areas closed on September 5, 2006. No requests for this
submittal or adverse comments on this submittal were received during
the adequacy comment period. In a November 29, 2006 letter, EPA
informed MDEQ that we had found the 2018 MVEBs to be adequate for use
in transportation conformity analyses.
EPA, through this rulemaking, is proposing to approve the MVEBs for
use to determine transportation conformity in the Flint, Muskegon,
Benton Harbor, and Cass 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 Flint area to
be 25.68 tpd for VOC and 37.99 tpd for NO_X. These MVEBs
exceed the onroad mobile source VOC and NO_X emissions
projected by MDEQ for 2018,

[[Page 710]]

as summarized in Table 9 (``onroad'' source sector), above, because
MDEQ decided to include safety margins (described further below) of
15.92 tpd of VOC and 26.56 tpd for NO_X in the MVEBs to
provide for mobile source growth. Michigan has demonstrated that the
Flint area can maintain the 8-hour ozone NAAQS with mobile source
emissions of 25.68 tpd of VOC and 37.99 tpd of NO_X 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 Muskegon area to be 6.67
tpd for VOC and 11.0 tpd for NO_X. These MVEBs exceed the
onroad mobile source VOC and NO_X emissions projected by MDEQ
for 2018, as summarized in Table 10 (``onroad'' source sector), above,
because MDEQ decided to include safety margins of 4.40 tpd of VOC and
8.26 tpd for NO_X in the MVEBs to provide for mobile source
growth. Michigan has demonstrated that the Muskegon area can maintain
the 8-hour ozone NAAQS with mobile source emissions of 6.67 tpd of VOC
and 11.0 tpd of NO_X 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 Benton Harbor area to be
9.16 tpd for VOC and 15.19 tpd for NO_X. These MVEBs exceed
the onroad mobile source VOC and NO_X emissions projected by
MDEQ for 2018, as summarized in Table 11 (``onroad'' source sector),
above, because MDEQ decided to include safety margins of 5.72 tpd of
VOC and 10.62 tpd for NO_X in the MVEBs to provide for mobile
source growth. Michigan has demonstrated that the Benton Harbor area
can maintain the 8-hour ozone NAAQS with mobile source emissions of
9.16 tpd of VOC and 15.19 tpd of NO_X 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 Cass County area to be
2.76 tpd for VOC and 3.40 tpd for NO_X. It should be noted
that these MVEBs exceed the onroad mobile source VOC and NO_X
emissions projected by MDEQ for 2018, as summarized in Table 12
(``onroad'' source sector), above. MDEQ decided to include safety
margins (described further below) of 2.02 tpd of VOC and 2.46 tpd for
NO_X in the MVEBs to provide for mobile source growth.
Michigan has demonstrated that the Cass County area can maintain the 8-
hour ozone NAAQS with mobile source emissions of 2.76 tpd of VOC and
3.40 tpd of NO_X 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 9, the
Flint area total VOC and NO_X emissions are projected to have
safety margins of 17.69 tpd for VOC and 29.52 tpd for NO_X in
2018 (the difference between the attainment year, 2005, emissions and
the 2018 emissions for all sources in the Flint area). As noted in
Table 10, the Muskegon area VOC and NO_X emissions are
projected to have safety margins of 4.89 tpd and 9.18 tpd,
respectively. As noted in Table 11, the Benton Harbor area VOC and
NO_X emissions are projected to have safety margins of 6.36
tpd and 11.80 tpd, respectively. As noted in Table 12, the Cass County
area VOC and NO_X emissions are projected to have safety
margins of 2.24 tpd and 2.73 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 Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass 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 Flint, Muskegon,
Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas have attained the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS, and EPA is proposing to approve the redesignations of the Flint,
Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass 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 approvals of these redesignation requests would change the
official designations for the Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass
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 Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass 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 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

[[Page 711]]

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 (59 FR 22951, 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 in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.

Dated: December 21, 2006.
Bharat Mathur,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. E6-22616 Filed 1-5-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

Notices For
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Michigan; Redesignation of Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County 8-hour Ozone Nonattainment Areas to Attainment for Ozone

Local Navigation