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, 70915-70930 [E6-20639]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 235 / Thursday, December 7, 2006 / Proposed Rules
comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form
of encryption, and be free of any defects
or viruses.
Docket: All documents in the
electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although
listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material,
is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy
form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either
electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy during normal business
hours at the Air Protection Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
Copies of the State submittal are
available at the Delaware Department of
Natural Resources & Environmental
Control, 89 Kings Highway, P.O. Box
1401, Dover, Delaware 19903.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Rosemarie Nino, (215) 814–3377, or by
e-mail at nino.rose@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For
further information, please see the
information provided in the direct final
action, entitled Delaware; Revision for
Regulation 1102—Permits, that is
located in the ‘‘Rules and Regulations’’
section of this Federal Register
publication. Please note that if EPA
receives adverse comment on an
amendment, paragraph, or section of
this rule and if that provision may be
severed from the remainder of the rule,
EPA may adopt as final those provisions
of the rule that are not the subject of an
adverse comment.
Dated: November 21, 2006.
William T. Wisniewski,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. E6–20652 Filed 12–6–06; 8:45 am]
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:22 Dec 06, 2006
Jkt 211001
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 8Hour 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 threeyear periods of complete, qualityassured 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:
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
70915
• https://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–
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 email 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
E:\FR\FM\07DEP1.SGM
07DEP1
70916
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 235 / Thursday, December 7, 2006 / Proposed Rules
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,
dagostino.kathleen@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document whenever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:
Table of Contents
I. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My
Comments for EPA?
II. What Actions Is EPA Proposing To Take?
III. What Is the Background for These
Actions?
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
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:22 Dec 06, 2006
Jkt 211001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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 newlyestablished 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 https://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 groundlevel ozone. NOX and VOCs are referred
to as precursors of ozone.
The CAA establishes a process for air
quality management through the
NAAQS. Before promulgation of the
current 8-hour standard, the ozone
NAAQS was based on a 1-hour
standard. 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
E:\FR\FM\07DEP1.SGM
07DEP1
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 235 / Thursday, December 7, 2006 / Proposed Rules
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 8hour 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 3year average of the annual fourthhighest daily maximum 8-hour average
ozone concentration is less than or
equal to 0.08 ppm, when rounded. The
data completeness requirement is met
when the average percent of days with
valid ambient monitoring data is greater
than 90%, and no single year has less
than 75% data completeness. See 40
CFR Part 50, Appendix I, 2.3(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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:22 Dec 06, 2006
Jkt 211001
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;
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
70917
‘‘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
E:\FR\FM\07DEP1.SGM
07DEP1
70918
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 235 / Thursday, December 7, 2006 / Proposed Rules
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 qualityassured air quality monitoring data. To
attain this standard, the 3-year average
of the fourth-highest daily maximum 8hour 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 qualityassured 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
4th high
(ppm)
Area
County
Monitor
Grand Rapids ...............
Kent .....................
Grand Rapids 26–
0810020.
Evans 26–0810022 .....
Jenison 26–1390005 ...
Kalamazoo 26–
0770008.
Rose Lake 26–
0370001.
Lansing–East Lansing
26–0650012.
Frankfort 26–0190003
Harbor Beach 26–
0633006.
Scottville 26–1050007
Kalamazoo-Battle
Creek.
Lansing-East Lansing ..
Ottawa .................
Kalamazoo ...........
Clinton ..................
Ingham .................
Benzie ..........................
Huron ...........................
Benzie ..................
Huron ...................
Mason ..........................
Mason ..................
2003
4th high
(ppm)
2004
4th high
(ppm)
2005
4th high
(ppm)
2002–
2004
average
(ppm)
2003–
2005
average
(ppm)
0.087
0.085
0.068
0.083
0.080
0.079
0.088
0.093
0.090
0.093
0.090
0.085
0.072
0.069
0.068
0.083
0.086
0.086
0.084
0.084
0.081
0.083
0.082
0.080
0.085
0.086
0.070
0.078
0.080
0.078
0.088
0.085
0.068
0.082
0.080
0.078
0.086
0.087
0.089
0.086
0.075
0.068
0.086
0.077
0.083
0.080
0.083
0.077
0.089
0.087
0.071
0.085
0.082
0.081
TABLE 2.—DATA COMPLETENESS IN PERCENT (%)
2002
(%)
Area
County
Monitor
Grand Rapids ....................
Kent ..........................
...................................
Ottawa ......................
Kalamazoo ...............
Clinton ......................
Ingham .....................
Grand Rapids 26–0810020
Evans 26–0810022 ...........
Jenison 26–1390005 .........
Kalamazoo 26–0770008 ...
Rose Lake 26–0370001 ....
Lansing-East Lansing 26–
0650012.
Frankfort 26–0190003 .......
Harbor Beach 26–0633006
Scottville 26–1050007 .......
Kalamazoo-Battle Creek ....
Lansing-East Lansing ........
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Benzie ................................
Huron .................................
Mason ................................
Benzie ......................
Huron ........................
Mason .......................
In addition, as discussed below with
respect to the maintenance plans,
MDEQ has committed to continue
operating an EPA approved monitoring
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:22 Dec 06, 2006
Jkt 211001
2003
(%)
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2005
(%)
2002–
2004
average
(%)
2003–
2005
average
(%)
97
100
99
100
99
100
98
100
100
97
100
99
98
99
98
100
100
100
99
98
99
98
100
98
98
100
99
99
100
100
98
99
99
99
100
99
100
100
100
100
97
100
100
100
96
98
97
95
100
99
99
99
98
97
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
PO 00000
2004
(%)
Rapids, Kalamazoo-Battle Creek,
Lansing-East Lansing, Benzie County,
Huron County, and Mason County areas
have attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
E:\FR\FM\07DEP1.SGM
07DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 235 / Thursday, December 7, 2006 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
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, KalamazooBattle 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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:22 Dec 06, 2006
Jkt 211001
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
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).
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
70919
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).
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 8hour 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.
E:\FR\FM\07DEP1.SGM
07DEP1
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
70920
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 235 / Thursday, December 7, 2006 / Proposed Rules
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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:22 Dec 06, 2006
Jkt 211001
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 federallysupported or funded activities,
including highway projects, conform to
the air quality planning goals in the
applicable SIPs. The requirement to
determine conformity applies to
transportation plans, programs and
projects developed, funded or approved
under Title 23 of the U.S. Code and the
Federal Transit Act (transportation
conformity) as well as to all other
federally-supported or funded projects
(general conformity). State conformity
revisions must be consistent with
federal conformity regulations relating
to consultation, enforcement and
enforceability, which EPA promulgated
pursuant to CAA requirements.
EPA believes that it is reasonable to
interpret the conformity SIP
requirements as not applying for
purposes of evaluating the redesignation
request under section 107(d) for two
reasons. First, the requirement to submit
SIP revisions to comply with the
conformity provisions of the CAA
continues to apply to areas after
redesignation to attainment since such
areas would be subject to a section 175A
maintenance plan. Second, EPA’s
federal conformity rules require the
performance of conformity analyses in
the absence of federally-approved state
rules. Therefore, because areas are
subject to the conformity requirements
regardless of whether they are
redesignated to attainment and, because
they must implement conformity under
federal rules if state rules are not yet
approved, EPA believes it is reasonable
to view these requirements as not
applying for purposes of evaluating a
redesignation request. See Wall v. EPA,
265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001), upholding
this interpretation. See also 60 FR
62748, 62749–62750 (Dec. 7, 1995)
(Tampa, Florida).
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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, KalamazooBattle 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.
E:\FR\FM\07DEP1.SGM
07DEP1
70921
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 235 / Thursday, December 7, 2006 / Proposed Rules
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, KalamazooBattle 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 nonEGU 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
VOC
NOX
Point .........................................................................................................
Area ..........................................................................................................
Nonroad ...................................................................................................
Onroad .....................................................................................................
4,506
18,002
5,063
12,225
1,134
3,122
4,938
15,939
Total ..................................................................................................
39,796
25,133
VOC
Total
NOX
VOC
NOX
1,640
7,279
2,598
5,071
37,001
1,132
2,642
7,774
6,146
25,281
7,661
17,296
38,135
4,254
7,580
23,713
16,588
48,549
56,384
73,682
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
TABLE 4.—GRAND RAPIDS AREA: TOTAL VOC AND NOX EMISSIONS FOR ATTAINMENT YEAR 2002 (TPY)
Kent
VOC
Point .........................................................................................................
Area ..........................................................................................................
Nonroad ...................................................................................................
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:22 Dec 06, 2006
Jkt 211001
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
2,104
14,546
4,956
Sfmt 4702
Ottawa
NOX
769
2,862
4,932
VOC
NOX
1,375
6,896
2,563
E:\FR\FM\07DEP1.SGM
Total
07DEP1
VOC
NOX
17,690
1,216
2,629
3,479
21,442
7,519
18,459
4,078
7,561
70922
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 235 / Thursday, December 7, 2006 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 4.—GRAND RAPIDS AREA: TOTAL VOC AND NOX EMISSIONS FOR ATTAINMENT YEAR 2002 (TPY)—Continued
Kent
Ottawa
VOC
Total
NOX
VOC
NOX
Onroad .....................................................................................................
10,392
17,229
31,998
25,792
6,079
13,995
23,308
27,614
14,437
NOX
46,435
53,406
3,603
Total ..................................................................................................
VOC
TABLE 5.—GRAND RAPIDS AREA: COMPARISON OF 1999 AND 2002 VOC AND NOX EMISSIONS (TPY)
VOC
Sector
NOX
Net change
(1999–2002)
1999
2002
Point .........................................................................................
Area ..........................................................................................
Nonroad ...................................................................................
Onroad .....................................................................................
6,146
25,281
7,661
17,296
3,479
21,442
7,519
13,995
Total ..................................................................................
56,384
46,435
Net change
(1999–2002)
1999
2002
·2,667
·3,839
·142
·3,301
38,135
4,254
7,580
23,713
18,459
4,078
7,561
23,308
·19,676
·176
·19
·405
·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
VOC
Kalamazoo
NOX
VOC
Van Buren
NOX
VOC
Total
NOX
VOC
NOX
Point .................................................................
Area ..................................................................
Nonroad ...........................................................
Onroad .............................................................
499
5,077
1,026
3,633
1,036
649
982
5,702
547
7,709
1,986
5,410
2,202
944
1,640
7,489
32
3,699
1,105
1,777
42
423
543
3,582
1,078
16,485
4,117
10,820
3,280
2,016
3,165
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
VOC
Kalamazoo
NOX
VOC
Van Buren
NOX
VOC
Total
NOX
VOC
NOX
Point .................................................................
Area ..................................................................
Nonroad ...........................................................
Onroad .............................................................
580
3,071
1,007
3,158
817
666
973
5,560
470
8,739
1,907
4,796
816
1,033
1,620
7,958
22
2,373
1,133
1,583
36
303
535
2,953
1,072
14,183
4,047
9,537
1,669
2,002
3,128
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
Sector
NOX
Net change
(1999–2002)
1999
2002
Point .........................................................................................
Area ..........................................................................................
Nonroad ...................................................................................
Onroad .....................................................................................
1,078
16,485
4,117
10,820
1,072
14,183
4,047
9,537
Total ..................................................................................
32,500
28,839
Net Change
(1999–2002)
1999
2002
·6
·2,302
·70
·1,283
3,280
2,016
3,165
16,773
1,669
2,002
3,128
16,471
·1,611
·14
·37
·302
·3,661
25,234
23,270
·1,964
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
TABLE 9.—LANSING-EAST LANSING AREA: TOTAL VOC AND NOX EMISSIONS FOR NONATTAINMENT YEAR 1999 (TPY)
Clinton
VOC
Point .................................................................
Area ..................................................................
Nonroad ...........................................................
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:22 Dec 06, 2006
Jkt 211001
PO 00000
188
2,421
879
Frm 00015
Eaton
NOX
117
213
783
Fmt 4702
VOC
99
3,348
796
Sfmt 4702
Ingham
NOX
2,583
356
876
VOC
NOX
1,668
6,706
1,558
E:\FR\FM\07DEP1.SGM
Total
07DEP1
6,133
1,293
1,520
VOC
1,955
12,475
3,233
NOX
8,833
1,862
3,179
70923
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 235 / Thursday, December 7, 2006 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 9.—LANSING-EAST LANSING AREA: TOTAL VOC AND NOX EMISSIONS FOR NONATTAINMENT YEAR 1999 (TPY)—
Continued
Clinton
VOC
Eaton
NOX
VOC
Ingham
NOX
VOC
Total
NOX
VOC
NOX
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
VOC
Eaton
NOX
VOC
Ingham
NOX
VOC
Total
NOX
VOC
NOX
Point .................................................................
Area ..................................................................
Nonroad ...........................................................
Onroad .............................................................
197
1,645
875
1,870
168
232
755
3,432
56
2,205
779
2,052
1,919
416
847
3,670
2,092
3,879
1,541
4,678
6,150
1,043
1,509
7,892
2,345
7,729
3,195
8,600
8,237
1,691
3,111
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
Sector
1999
NOX
Net change
(1999–2002)
2002
1999
2002
Net change
(1999–2002)
Point .........................................................................................
Area ..........................................................................................
Nonroad ...................................................................................
Onroad .....................................................................................
1,955
12,475
3,233
10,191
2,345
7,729
3,195
8,600
390
·4,746
·38
·1,591
8,833
1,862
3,179
15,316
8,237
1,691
3,111
14,994
·596
·171
·68
·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
Sector
1999
NOX
Net change
(1999–2002)
2002
1999
2002
Net change
(1999–2002)
Point .........................................................................................
Area ..........................................................................................
Nonroad ...................................................................................
Onroad .....................................................................................
3
1,005
1,536
314
1
783
1,643
323
·2
·222
107
9
4
78
186
595
7
73
182
584
3
·5
·4
·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
Sector
1999
NOX
Net change
(1999–2002)
2002
1999
2002
Net change
(1999–2002)
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Point .........................................................................................
Area ..........................................................................................
Nonroad ...................................................................................
Onroad .....................................................................................
36
2,222
1,428
660
76
1,008
1,452
509
40
·1,214
24
·151
1,282
300
1,040
1,245
1,468
174
1,018
908
186
·126
·22
·337
Total ..................................................................................
4,346
3,045
·1,301
3,867
3,568
·299
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:22 Dec 06, 2006
Jkt 211001
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\07DEP1.SGM
07DEP1
70924
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 235 / Thursday, December 7, 2006 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 14.—MASON COUNTY AREA: COMPARISON OF 1999 AND 2002 VOC AND NOX EMISSIONS (TPY)
VOC
Sector
1999
NOX
Net change
(1999–2002)
2002
1999
Net change
(1999–2002)
2002
Point .........................................................................................
Area ..........................................................................................
Nonroad ...................................................................................
Onroad .....................................................................................
174
1551
1382
536
108
1021
1532
435
·66
·530
150
·101
587
157
288
895
280
147
287
758
·307
·10
·1
·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
VOC
Ottawa
NOX
VOC
Total
NOX
VOC
NOX
Point .........................................................................................................
Area ..........................................................................................................
Nonroad ...................................................................................................
Onroad .....................................................................................................
7.67
28.73
12.42
31.13
2.16
3.61
14.26
46.94
4.74
12.18
5.32
10.82
52.08
1.51
7.96
18.00
12.41
40.91
17.74
41.95
54.24
5.12
22.22
64.94
Total ..................................................................................................
79.95
66.97
33.06
79.55
113.01
146.52
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
TABLE 16.—KALAMAZOO-BATTLE CREEK AREA: TOTAL VOC AND NOX EMISSIONS FOR ATTAINMENT YEAR 2002 (TPD)
Calhoun
VOC
Point .................................................................
Area ..................................................................
Nonroad ...........................................................
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:22 Dec 06, 2006
Jkt 211001
PO 00000
1.67
7.66
2.62
Frm 00017
Kalamazoo
NOX
2.41
0.75
4.49
Fmt 4702
VOC
1.58
12.46
4.89
Sfmt 4702
Van Buren
NOX
2.09
1.19
6.97
VOC
NOX
0.09
4.16
2.87
E:\FR\FM\07DEP1.SGM
Total
07DEP1
0.17
0.31
1.80
VOC
3.34
24.28
10.38
NOX
4.67
2.25
13.26
70925
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 235 / Thursday, December 7, 2006 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 16.—KALAMAZOO-BATTLE CREEK AREA: TOTAL VOC AND NOX EMISSIONS FOR ATTAINMENT YEAR 2002 (TPD)—
Continued
Calhoun
VOC
Kalamazoo
NOX
VOC
Van Buren
NOX
VOC
Total
NOX
VOC
NOX
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
VOC
Eaton
NOX
VOC
Ingham
NOX
VOC
Total
NOX
VOC
NOX
Point .................................................................
Area ..................................................................
Nonroad ...........................................................
Onroad .............................................................
0.66
3.01
2.24
6.10
0.56
0.24
2.84
11.91
0.21
5.04
1.80
6.48
6.51
0.45
3.30
11.86
7.55
13.69
4.29
13.90
19.14
1.23
6.16
22.96
8.42
21.74
8.33
26.48
26.21
1.92
12.30
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
VOC
Huron
NOX
VOC
Mason
NOX
VOC
NOX
Point .........................................................................................................
Area ..........................................................................................................
Nonroad ...................................................................................................
Onroad .....................................................................................................
0.01
1.54
4.05
1.08
0.03
0.06
0.61
2.10
0.27
2.18
3.29
1.68
6.16
0.20
5.73
3.31
0.39
1.89
2.88
1.39
0.79
0.16
1.97
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
2002
2009
2018
Net change
(2002–2018)
2002
2009
2018
Net change
(2002–2018)
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Point .................................................
Area ..................................................
Nonroad ...........................................
Onroad .............................................
12.41
40.91
17.74
41.95
12.50
41.28
12.03
25.39
15.35
43.98
9.95
13.39
2.94
3.07
·7.79
·28.56
54.24
5.12
22.22
64.94
21.61
5.37
16.57
44.38
24.39
5.59
9.55
14.38
·29.85
0.47
·12.67
·50.56
Total ..........................................
113.01
91.20
82.67
·30.34
146.52
87.93
53.91
·92.61
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:22 Dec 06, 2006
Jkt 211001
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\07DEP1.SGM
07DEP1
70926
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 235 / Thursday, December 7, 2006 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 20.—KALAMAZOO-BATTLE CREEK AREA: COMPARISON OF 2002–2018 VOC AND NOX EMISSIONS (TPD)
VOC
NOX
Sector
2002
2009
2018
Net change
(2002–2018)
2002
2009
2018
Net change
(2002–2018)
Point .................................................
Area ..................................................
Nonroad ...........................................
Onroad .............................................
3.34
24.28
10.38
29.22
3.34
24.01
7.39
17.53
4.06
25.12
6.08
9.05
0.72
0.84
·4.30
·20.17
4.67
2.25
13.26
51.51
4.52
2.37
8.84
34.24
4.75
2.46
5.28
10.75
0.08
0.21
·7.98
·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
2002
2009
2018
Net change
(2002–2018)
2002
2009
2018
Net change
(2002–2018)
Point .................................................
Area ..................................................
Nonroad ...........................................
Onroad .............................................
8.42
21.74
8.33
26.48
6.70
21.34
5.99
15.88
7.49
22.06
4.88
8.37
·0.93
0.32
·3.45
·18.11
26.21
1.92
12.30
46.73
18.16
2.02
8.97
31.13
21.85
2.08
5.34
9.69
·4.36
0.16
·6.96
·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
2002
2009
2018
Net change
(2002–2018)
2002
2009
2018
Net change
(2002–2018)
Point .................................................
Area ..................................................
Nonroad ...........................................
Onroad .............................................
0.01
1.54
4.05
1.08
0.01
1.42
4.31
0.65
0.01
1.37
2.85
0.31
0.00
·0.17
·1.20
·0.77
0.03
0.06
0.61
2.10
0.03
0.07
0.55
1.40
0.03
0.07
0.53
0.37
0.00
0.01
·0.08
·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
2002
2009
2018
Net change
(2002–2018)
2002
2009
2018
Net change
(2002–2018)
Point .................................................
Area ..................................................
Nonroad ...........................................
Onroad .............................................
0.27
2.18
3.29
1.68
0.29
2.13
3.27
1.01
0.33
2.19
2.39
0.55
0.06
0.01
·0.90
·1.13
6.16
0.20
5.73
3.31
1.39
0.21
5.95
2.21
1.69
0.22
5.20
0.65
·4.47
0.02
·0.53
·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
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
2002
2009
2018
Net change
(2002–2018)
2002
2009
2018
Net change
(2002–2018)
Point .................................................
Area ..................................................
Nonroad ...........................................
Onroad .............................................
0.39
1.89
2.88
1.39
0.49
1.86
3.03
0.83
0.65
1.92
2.02
0.43
0.26
0.03
·0.86
·0.96
0.79
0.16
1.97
2.48
0.35
0.17
1.68
1.66
0.45
0.17
1.52
0.51
·0.34
0.01
·0.45
·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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:22 Dec 06, 2006
Jkt 211001
Grand Rapids, Kalamazoo-Battle Creek,
Lansing-East Lansing, Benzie County,
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Huron County, and Mason County areas
to exceed the level of the 2002
E:\FR\FM\07DEP1.SGM
07DEP1
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 235 / Thursday, December 7, 2006 / Proposed Rules
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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:22 Dec 06, 2006
Jkt 211001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
70927
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 selfcertification audit program;
iv. Reduced VOC degreasing rule;
v. Transit improvements;
E:\FR\FM\07DEP1.SGM
07DEP1
70928
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 235 / Thursday, December 7, 2006 / Proposed Rules
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)
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:22 Dec 06, 2006
Jkt 211001
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,’’
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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: https://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
E:\FR\FM\07DEP1.SGM
07DEP1
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 235 / Thursday, December 7, 2006 / Proposed Rules
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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:22 Dec 06, 2006
Jkt 211001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
70929
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
E:\FR\FM\07DEP1.SGM
07DEP1
70930
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 235 / Thursday, December 7, 2006 / Proposed Rules
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).
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:22 Dec 06, 2006
Jkt 211001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Federal Emergency Management
Agency
44 CFR Part 67
[Docket No. FEMA–B–7700]
Proposed Flood Elevation
Determinations
AGENCY: Federal Emergency
Management Agency, DHS.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: Technical information or
comments are requested on the
proposed Base (1% annual chance)
Flood Elevations (BFEs) and proposed
BFE modifications for the communities
listed below. The BFEs are the basis for
the floodplain management measures
that the community is required either to
adopt or to show evidence of being
already in effect in order to qualify or
remain qualified for participation in the
National Flood Insurance Program
(NFIP).
DATES: The comment period is ninety
(90) days following the second
publication of this proposed rule in a
newspaper of local circulation in each
community.
ADDRESSES: The proposed BFEs for each
community are available for inspection
at the office of the Chief Executive
Officer of each community. The
E:\FR\FM\07DEP1.SGM
07DEP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 235 (Thursday, December 7, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 70915-70930]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing 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:
https://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-
2006-0517. 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, dagostino.kathleen@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:
Table of Contents
I. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?
II. What Actions Is EPA Proposing To Take?
III. What Is the Background for These Actions?
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 https://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
--------
