Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Michigan; Redesignation of Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County 8-hour Ozone Nonattainment Areas to Attainment for Ozone, 699-711 [E6-22616]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 4 / Monday, January 8, 2007 / Proposed Rules
change and may be made available
online at www.regulations.gov,
including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes
Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Information that
you consider CBI or otherwise protected
should be clearly identified as such and
should not be submitted through
www.regulations.gov or e-mail.
www.regulations.gov is an ‘‘anonymous
access’’ system, and EPA will not know
your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send e-mail
directly to EPA, your e-mail address
will be automatically captured and
included as part of the public comment.
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.
Docket: The index to the docket for
this action is available electronically at
www.regulations.gov and in hard copy
at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street,
San Francisco, California. While all
documents in the docket are listed in
the index, some information may be
publicly available only at the hard copy
location (e.g., copyrighted material), and
some may not be publicly available in
either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the
hard copy materials, please schedule an
appointment during normal business
hours with the contact listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julie
Rose, EPA Region IX, (415) 947–4126,
Rose.Julie@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On
December 18, 2006, EPA proposed the
following revisions to the Nevada State
Implementation Plan (SIP). Both of
these revisions relate to excess
emissions provisions.
Rule No.
NAC 445.677
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
NAQR Article
2.5.4.
Proposed action
Approve requested rescission.
Disapprove rule previously
approved in error.
The proposed action provided a 30day public comment period. In response
to a request from Leo M. Drozdoff, P.E.,
Administrator, Nevada Division of
Environmental Protection (NDEP),
submitted by letter on December 21,
2006, EPA is extending the comment
period for an additional 30 days.
Dated: December 26, 2006.
Jane Diamond,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. E7–18 Filed 1–5–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:21 Jan 05, 2007
Jkt 211001
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R05–OAR–2006–0563; FRL–8266–5]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans and Designation
of Areas for Air Quality Planning
Purposes; Michigan; Redesignation of
Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and
Cass County 8-hour Ozone
Nonattainment Areas to Attainment for
Ozone
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to make
determinations under the Clean Air Act
(CAA) that the nonattainment areas of
Flint (Genesee and Lapeer Counties),
Muskegon (Muskegon County), Benton
Harbor (Berrien County), and Cass
County have attained the 8-hour ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS). These determinations are
based on three years of complete,
quality-assured ambient air quality
monitoring data for the 2004–2006
seasons that demonstrate that the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS have been attained in the
areas.
EPA is proposing to approve requests
from the State of Michigan to
redesignate the Flint, Muskegon, Benton
Harbor, and Cass County areas to
attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
These requests were submitted by the
Michigan Department of Environmental
Quality (MDEQ) on June 13, 2006, and
supplemented on August 25, 2006, and
November 30, 2006.
In proposing to approve this request,
EPA also is proposing to approve the
State’s plans for maintaining the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS through 2018 in the areas
as revisions to the Michigan State
Implementation Plan (SIP). EPA also
finds adequate and is proposing to
approve the State’s 2018 Motor Vehicle
Emission Budgets (MVEBs) for the Flint,
Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass
County areas.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before February 7, 2007.
Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05OAR–2006–0563, 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
ADDRESSES:
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
699
Branch, (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
• Hand delivery: John M. Mooney,
Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air
Programs Branch, (AR–18J), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 77
West Jackson Boulevard, 18th floor,
Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such deliveries
are only accepted during the Regional
Office normal hours of operation, and
special arrangements should be made
for deliveries of boxed information. The
Regional Office official hours of
business are Monday through Friday,
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. excluding Federal
holidays.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–R05–OAR–2006–
0563. EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change and may be
made available online at https://
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 https://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The
https://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 https://
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 https://
www.regulations.gov index. Although
listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material,
E:\FR\FM\08JAP1.SGM
08JAP1
700
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 4 / Monday, January 8, 2007 / Proposed Rules
will be publicly available only in hard
copy. Publicly available docket
materials are available either
electronically in https://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604. This facility is open from
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. We
recommend that you telephone Charles
Hatten, Environmental Engineer, at
(312) 886–6031 before visiting the
Region 5 office.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Charles Hatten, Environmental
Engineer, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air
Programs Branch (AR–18J),
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–6031,
hatten.charles@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document whenever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:
Table of Contents
I. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My
Comments for EPA?
II. What Actions Is EPA Proposing To Take?
III. What Is the Background for These
Actions?
IV. What Are the Criteria for Redesignation?
V. Why Is EPA Proposing To Take These
Actions?
VI. What Is the Effect of These Actions?
VII. What Is EPA’s Analysis of the Requests?
i. Attainment Determination and
Redesignation
ii. Adequacy of Michigan’s Motor Vehicle
Emission Budgets
VIII. What Actions Are EPA Taking Today?
IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
I. What Should I Consider as I Prepare
My Comments for EPA?
When submitting comments,
remember to:
1. Identify the rulemaking by docket
number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal
Register date and page number).
2. Follow directions—The EPA may
ask you to respond to specific questions
or organize comments by referencing a
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part
or section number.
3. Explain why you agree or disagree;
suggest alternatives and substitute
language for your requested changes.
4. Describe any assumptions and
provide any technical information and/
or data that you used.
5. If you estimate potential costs or
burdens, explain how you arrived at
your estimate in sufficient detail to
allow for it to be reproduced.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:21 Jan 05, 2007
Jkt 211001
6. Provide specific examples to
illustrate your concerns, and suggest
alternatives.
7. Explain your views as clearly as
possible, avoiding the use of profanity
or personal threats.
8. Make sure to submit your
comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
II. What Actions Is EPA Proposing to
Take?
EPA is proposing to take several
related actions. EPA is proposing to
make determinations that the Flint
(Genesee and Lapeer Counties),
Muskegon (Muskegon County), Benton
Harbor (Berrien County), and Cass
County, Michigan nonattainment areas
have attained the 8-hour ozone standard
and that these areas have met the
requirements for redesignation under
section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. EPA is
thus proposing to approve Michigan’s
request to change the legal designations
of the Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor,
and Cass County areas from
nonattainment to attainment for the 8hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is also
proposing to approve Michigan’s
maintenance plan SIP revisions for the
Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and
Cass County areas (such approval being
one of the CAA criteria for redesignation
to attainment status). The maintenance
plans are designed to keep the Flint,
Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass
County areas in attainment of the ozone
NAAQS through 2018. Additionally,
EPA is announcing its action on the
Adequacy Process for the newlyestablished 2018 MVEBs for the Flint,
Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass
County areas. The adequacy comment
period for the 2018 MVEBs began on
August 4, 2006, with EPA’s posting of
the availability of these submittals on
EPA’s Adequacy Web site (at https://
www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/
transconf/adequacy.htm). The adequacy
comment period for these MVEBs ended
on September 5, 2006. EPA did not
receive any requests for these
submittals, or adverse comments on
these submittals during the adequacy
comment period. Please see the
Adequacy Section of this rulemaking for
further explanation on this process.
Therefore, we find adequate, and are
proposing to approve, the State’s 2018
MVEBs for transportation conformity
purposes.
III. What Is the Background for These
Actions?
Ground-level ozone is not emitted
directly by sources. Rather, emissions of
nitrogen oxides (NOX) and volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) react in the
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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. EPA revoked the 1-hour ozone
NAAQS on June 15, 2005. At the time
EPA revoked the 1-hour standard, the
Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and
Cass County areas were all designated as
attainment under the 1-hour ozone
NAAQS.
On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a
new 8-hour ozone NAAQS of 0.08 parts
per million (ppm). This new standard is
more stringent than the previous 1-hour
standard. On April 30, 2004 (69 FR
23857), EPA published a final rule
designating and classifying areas under
the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. These
designations and classifications became
effective June 15, 2004. The CAA
required EPA to designate as
nonattainment any area that was
violating the 8-hour ozone NAAQS
based on the three most recent years of
air quality data, 2001–2003.
The CAA contains two sets of
provisions—subpart 1 and subpart 2—
that address planning and control
requirements for nonattainment areas.
(Both are found in title I, part D, 42
U.S.C. 7501–7509a and 7511–7511f,
respectively.) Subpart 1 (which EPA
refers to as ‘‘basic’’ nonattainment)
contains general, less prescriptive,
requirements for nonattainment areas
for any pollutant, including ozone,
governed by a NAAQS. Subpart 2
(which EPA refers to as ‘‘classified’’
nonattainment) provides more specific
requirements for ozone nonattainment
areas. Some ozone nonattainment areas
are subject only to the provisions of
subpart 1. Other ozone nonattainment
areas are subject to the provisions of
both subparts 1 and 2. Under EPA’s 8hour ozone implementation rule, signed
on April 15, 2004 (69 FR 23951 (April
30, 2004)), an area was classified under
subpart 2 based on its 8-hour ozone
design value (i.e., the 3-year average
annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8hour average ozone concentration), if it
had a 1-hour design value at or above
0.121 ppm (the lowest 1-hour design
value in Table 1 of subpart 2) (69 FR
23954). All other areas were covered
under Subpart 1, based upon their 8hour design values (69 FR 23958). The
Muskegon and Cass County areas were
designated as subpart 2, 8-hour ozone
moderate nonattainment areas by EPA
on April 30, 2004, (69 FR 23857, 23911),
based on air quality monitoring data
from 2001–2003. The Flint and Benton
E:\FR\FM\08JAP1.SGM
08JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 4 / Monday, January 8, 2007 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Harbor areas were designated by EPA as
subpart 1, 8-hour nonattainment areas
(69 FR 23910—23911), based on 2001–
2003 monitoring data.
Under section 181(a)(4) of the CAA
EPA may adjust the classification of an
ozone nonattainment area to the next
higher or lower classification if the
design value for the area is within five
percent of the cut off for that higher or
lower classification. On September 22,
2004, EPA adjusted the classification of
several nonattainment areas which had
been designated and classified under
subpart 2 on April 30, 2004. At that
time, EPA adjusted the classifications of
the Muskegon and Cass County
nonattainment areas from moderate to
marginal (69 FR 56697, 56708–5670).
40 CFR 50.10 and 40 CFR part 50,
Appendix I provide that the 8-hour
ozone standard is attained when the 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, section 2.3(d).
On June 13, 2006, Michigan requested
that EPA redesignate the Flint,
Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass
County areas to attainment for the 8hour ozone standard. This submittal
was supplemented on August 25, 2006,
and November 30, 2006. Michigan
included complete, quality-assured air
monitoring data for the 2004 through
2006 ozone season, indicating the 8hour NAAQS for ozone had been
attained for the Flint, Muskegon, Benton
Harbor, and Cass County areas. Under
the CAA, a nonattainment area may be
redesignated to attainment if sufficient
complete, quality-assured air
monitoring data are available for the
Administrator to determine that the area
has attained the standard, and the area
meets the other CAA redesignation
requirements in section 107(d)(3)(E).
IV. What Are the Criteria for
Redesignation?
The CAA provides the requirements
for redesignating a nonattainment area
to attainment. Specifically, section
107(d)(3)(E) allows for redesignation
provided that: (1) The Administrator
determines that the area has attained the
applicable NAAQS; (2) the
Administrator has fully approved the
applicable implementation plan for the
area under section 110(k); (3) the
Administrator determines that the
improvement in air quality is due to
permanent and enforceable reductions
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:21 Jan 05, 2007
Jkt 211001
in emissions resulting from
implementation of the applicable SIP
and applicable federal air pollutant
control regulations and other permanent
and enforceable reductions; (4) the
Administrator has fully approved a
maintenance plan for the area as
meeting the requirements of section
175A; and, (5) the state containing such
area has met all requirements applicable
to the area under section 110 and part
D.
EPA provided guidance on
redesignation in the General Preamble
for the Implementation of Title I of the
CAA Amendments of 1990, on April 16,
1992 (57 FR 13498), and supplemented
this guidance on April 28, 1992 (57 FR
18070). EPA has provided further
guidance on processing redesignation
requests in the following documents:
‘‘Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Design
Value Calculations’’, Memorandum
from William G. Laxton, Director
Technical Support Division, June 18,
1990;
‘‘Maintenance Plans for Redesignation
of Ozone and Carbon Monoxide
Nonattainment Areas,’’ Memorandum
from G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon
Monoxide Programs Branch, April 30,
1992;
‘‘Contingency Measures for Ozone
and Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Redesignations,’’ Memorandum from
G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon
Monoxide Programs Branch, June 1,
1992;
‘‘Procedures for Processing Requests
to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,’’
Memorandum from John Calcagni,
Director, Air Quality Management
Division, September 4, 1992;
‘‘State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Actions Submitted in Response to Clean
Air Act (ACT) Deadlines,’’
Memorandum from John Calcagni,
Director, Air Quality Management
Division, October 28, 1992;
‘‘Technical Support Documents
(TSD’s) for Redesignation of Ozone and
Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment
Areas,’’ Memorandum from G.T. Helms,
Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide
Programs Branch, August 17, 1993;
‘‘State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Requirements for Areas Submitting
Requests for Redesignation to
Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon
Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) On or After
November 15, 1992,’’ Memorandum
from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting
Assistant Administrator for Air and
Radiation, September 17, 1993;
‘‘Use of Actual Emissions in
Maintenance Demonstrations for Ozone
and CO Nonattainment Areas,’’
Memorandum from D. Kent Berry,
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
701
Acting Director, Air Quality
Management Division, to Air Division
Directors, Regions 1–10, dated
November 30, 1993.
‘‘Part D New Source Review (part D
NSR) Requirements for Areas
Requesting Redesignation to
Attainment,’’ Memorandum from Mary
D. Nichols, Assistant Administrator for
Air and Radiation, October 14, 1994;
and
‘‘Reasonable Further Progress,
Attainment Demonstration, and Related
Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment
Areas Meeting the Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standard,’’
Memorandum from John S. Seitz,
Director, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, May 10, 1995.
V. Why Is EPA Proposing to Take These
Actions?
On June 13, 2006, Michigan requested
redesignation of the Flint, Muskegon,
Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas
to attainment for the 8-hour ozone
standard. Michigan supplemented its
submittal on August 25, 2006, and
November 30, 2006. EPA believes that
the areas have attained the standard and
have met the requirements for
redesignation set forth in section
107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA.
VI. What Is the Effect of These Actions?
Approval of the redesignation request
would change the official designation of
the areas for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS
found at 40 CFR part 81. It would also
incorporate into the Michigan SIP plans
for maintaining the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS through 2018. The maintenance
plans include contingency measures to
remedy future violations of the 8-hour
NAAQS. They also establish MVEBs for
the year 2018 of 25.68 tons per day (tpd)
VOC and 37.99 tpd NOX for the Flint
area, 6.67 tpd VOC and 11.00 tpd NOX
for the Muskegon area, 9.16 tpd VOC
and 15.19 tpd NOX for the Benton
Harbor area, and 2.76 tpd VOC and 3.40
tpd NOX for the Cass County area.
VII. What Is EPA’s Analysis of the
Requests?
i. Attainment Determination and
Redesignation
EPA is proposing to make
determinations that the Flint,
Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass
County nonattainment areas have
attained the 8-hour ozone standard and
that the areas have met all other
applicable section 107(d)(3)(E)
redesignation criteria. The basis for
EPA’s determinations is as follows:
E:\FR\FM\08JAP1.SGM
08JAP1
702
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 4 / Monday, January 8, 2007 / Proposed Rules
1. The Areas Have Attained the 8-hour
Ozone NAAQS. (Section 107(d)(3)(E)(i))
EPA is proposing to make
determinations that the Flint,
Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass
County areas have attained the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. For ozone, an area may
be considered to be attaining the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS if there are no violations,
as determined in accordance with 40
CFR 50.10 and part 50, Appendix I,
based on three complete, consecutive
calendar years of quality-assured air
quality monitoring data. To attain this
standard, the 3-year average of the
fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour
average ozone concentrations measured
at each monitor within an area over
each year must not exceed 0.08 ppm.
Based on the rounding convention
described in 40 CFR part 50, Appendix
I, the standard is attained if the design
value is 0.084 ppm or below. The data
must be collected and quality-assured in
accordance with 40 CFR part 58, and
recorded in the Aerometric Information
Retrieval System (AIRS). The monitors
generally should have remained at the
same location for the duration of the
monitoring period required for
demonstrating attainment.
MDEQ submitted ozone monitoring
data for the 2004 to 2006 ozone seasons.
The MDEQ quality assured the ambient
monitoring data in accordance with 40
CFR 58.10, and recorded it in the AIRS
database, thus making the data publicly
available. The data meets the
completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 50,
Appendix I, which requires a minimum
completeness of 75 percent annually
and 90 percent over each three year
period. Monitoring data is presented in
Table 1, below. Data completeness
information is presented in Table 2,
below.
TABLE 1.—ANNUAL 4TH HIGH DAILY MAXIMUM 8-HOUR OZONE CONCENTRATION AND 3-YEAR AVERAGES OF 4TH HIGH
DAILY MAXIMUM 8-HOUR OZONE CONCENTRATIONS
2004 4th
high
(ppm)
Area
County
Monitor
Flint ..........................
Muskegon ................
Genesee ..................
Lapeer .....................
Muskegon ................
Benton Harbor .........
Cass .........................
Berrien .....................
Cass ........................
Flint 26–0490021 .....
Otisville 26–0490021
Muskegon 26–
1210039.
Coloma 26–0210014
Cassopolis 26–
0270003.
2005 4th
high
(ppm)
2006 4th
high
(ppm)
2004–2006
avg.
(ppm)
Design value
2006 rounded
to 2 decimals
(ppm)
0.075
0.077
0.070
0.079
0.080
0.090
0.075
0.075
0.091
0.076
0.077
0.083
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.073
0.077
0.090
0.086
0.077
0.073
0.080
0.078
0.08
0.08
TABLE 2.—DATA COMPLETENESS IN PERCENT (%)
Annual Minimum of 75% Completeness
Area
County
Flint ...............................
Muskegon .....................
Benton Harbor ..............
Cass ..............................
Monitor
Genesee .......................
Lapeer ...........................
Muskegon .....................
Berrien ..........................
Cass ..............................
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
In addition, as discussed below with
respect to the maintenance plans,
MDEQ has committed to continue
operating an EPA approved monitoring
network in accordance with 40 CFR part
58. In summary, EPA believes that the
data submitted by Michigan provide an
adequate demonstration that the Flint,
Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass
County areas have attained the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS.
2. The Areas Have Met All Applicable
Requirements Under Section 110 and
Part D; and the Areas Have Fully
Approved SIPs Under Section 110(k)
(Sections 107(d)(3)(E)(v) and
107(d)(3)(E)(ii))
We have determined that Michigan
has met all currently applicable SIP
requirements for purposes of
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:21 Jan 05, 2007
Jkt 211001
2004
(%)
Flint 26–0490021 ..................
Otisville 26–0492001 ............
Muskegon 26–1210039 ........
Coloma 26–0210014 ............
Cassopolis ............................
2005
(%)
100
100
99
98
92
redesignation for the Flint, Muskegon,
Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas
under Section 110 of the CAA (general
SIP requirements). We have also
determined that the Michigan SIP meets
all SIP requirements currently
applicable for purposes of redesignation
under Part D of Title I of the CAA
(requirements specific to Subpart 1 and
Subpart 2 marginal nonattainment
areas), in accordance with section
107(d)(3)(E)(v). In addition, we have
determined that the Michigan SIP is
fully approved with respect to all
applicable requirements for purposes of
redesignation, in accordance with
section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii). In making these
determinations, we have ascertained
what SIP requirements are applicable to
the areas for purposes of redesignation,
and have determined that the portions
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2006
(%)
75
87
96
98
100
3-Year Period
Average Minimum of 90%
Completeness
2004–2006
average (%)
97
100
99
100
98
91
96
98
99
97
of the SIP meeting these requirements
are fully approved under section 110(k)
of the CAA. As discussed more fully
below, SIPs must be fully approved only
with respect to currently applicable
requirements of the CAA.
a. The Flint, Muskegon, Benton
Harbor, and Cass County areas have
met all applicable requirements under
section 110 and part D of the CAA. The
September 4, 1992, Calcagni
memorandum (see ‘‘Procedures for
Processing Requests to Redesignate
Areas to Attainment,’’ Memorandum
from John Calcagni, Director, Air
Quality Management Division,
September 4, 1992) describes EPA’s
interpretation of section 107(d)(3)(E) of
the CAA. Under this interpretation, a
state and the area it wishes to
redesignate must meet the relevant CAA
E:\FR\FM\08JAP1.SGM
08JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 4 / Monday, January 8, 2007 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
requirements that are due prior to the
state’s submittal of a complete
redesignation request for the area. See
also the September 17, 1993, Michael
Shapiro memorandum and 60 FR 12459,
12465–66 (March 7, 1995)
(redesignation of Detroit-Ann Arbor,
Michigan to attainment of the 1-hour
ozone NAAQS). Applicable
requirements of the CAA that come due
subsequent to the state’s submittal of a
complete request remain applicable
until a redesignation to attainment is
approved, but are not required as a
prerequisite to redesignation. See
section 175A(c) of the CAA; Sierra Club
v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004). See
also 68 FR 25424, 25427 (May 12, 2003)
(redesignation of the St. Louis/East St.
Louis area to attainment of the 1-hour
ozone NAAQS).
General SIP requirements. Section
110(a) of title I of the CAA contains the
general requirements for a SIP. Section
110(a)(2) provides that the
implementation plan submitted by a
state must have been adopted by the
state after reasonable public notice and
hearing, and that, among other things, it
includes enforceable emission
limitations and other control measures,
means or techniques necessary to meet
the requirements of the CAA; provides
for establishment and operation of
appropriate devices, methods, systems
and procedures necessary to monitor
ambient air quality; provides for
implementation of a source permit
program to regulate the modification
and construction of any stationary
source within the areas covered by the
plan; includes provisions for the
implementation of part C, Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) and part
D, New Source Review (NSR) permit
programs; includes criteria for
stationary source emission control
measures, monitoring, and reporting;
includes provisions for air quality
modeling; and provides for public and
local agency participation in planning
and emission control rule development.
Section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA
requires that SIPs contain measures to
prevent sources in a state from
significantly contributing to air quality
problems in another state. To
implement this provision, EPA has
required certain states to establish
programs to address transport of air
pollutants (NOX SIP Call,1 Clean Air
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),
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:21 Jan 05, 2007
Jkt 211001
Interstate Rule (CAIR)(70 FR 25162)).
However, the section 110(a)(2)(D)
requirements for a state are not linked
with a particular nonattainment area’s
designation and classification. EPA
believes that the requirements linked
with a particular nonattainment area’s
designation and classification are the
relevant measures to evaluate in
reviewing a redesignation request.
When the transport SIP submittal
requirements are applicable to a state,
they will continue to apply to the state
regardless of the designation of any one
particular area in the state. Therefore,
we believe that these requirements
should not be construed to be applicable
requirements for purposes of
redesignation. Further, we believe that
the other section 110 elements
described above that are not connected
with nonattainment plan submissions
and not linked with an area’s attainment
status are also not applicable
requirements for purposes of
redesignation. A state remains subject to
these requirements after an area is
redesignated to attainment. We
conclude that only the section 110 and
part D requirements which are linked
with a particular area’s designation and
classification are the relevant measures
which we may consider in evaluating a
redesignation request. This approach is
consistent with EPA’s existing policy on
applicability of conformity and
oxygenated fuels requirements for
redesignation purposes, as well as with
section 184 ozone transport
requirements. See Reading,
Pennsylvania, proposed and final
rulemakings (61 FR 53174–53176,
October 10, 1996), (62 FR 24826, May 7,
1997); Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio,
final rulemaking (61 FR 20458, May 7,
1996); and Tampa, Florida, final
rulemaking (60 FR 62748, December 7,
1995). See also the discussion on this
issue in the Cincinnati ozone
redesignation (65 FR 37890, June 19,
2000), and in the Pittsburgh ozone
redesignation (66 FR 50399, October 19,
2001).
As discussed above, we believe that
section 110 elements which are not
linked to the area’s nonattainment status
are not applicable for purposes of
redesignation. Because there are no
section 110 requirements that are linked
to the part D requirements for 8-hour
ozone nonattainment areas that have
become due, as explained below, there
are no Part D requirements applicable
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 00044
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
703
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 submission of the
redesignation request for the Flint,
Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass
County areas. Under part D, an area’s
classification determines the
requirements to which it will be subject.
Subpart 1 of part D, which includes
sections 172–176 of the CAA, sets forth
the basic nonattainment requirements
applicable to all nonattainment areas.
Section 182 of the CAA, which is found
in subpart 2 of part D, establishes
additional specific requirements
depending on the area’s nonattainment
classification. The Flint and Benton
Harbor areas are both classified as
subpart 1 nonattainment areas and,
therefore, subpart 2 requirements do not
apply. The Muskegon and Cass County
areas are classified as subpart 2
marginal nonattainment areas and,
therefore, both subpart 1 and subpart 2
requirements apply.
Part D, Subpart 1 applicable SIP
requirements. For purposes of
evaluating these redesignation requests,
the applicable part D, subpart 1 SIP
requirements for Flint, Benton Harbor,
Muskegon, and Cass County areas are
contained in sections 172(c)(1)–(9). A
thorough discussion of the requirements
contained in section 172 can be found
in the General Preamble for
Implementation of Title I (General
Preamble 57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992).
Part D, Subpart 2 applicable SIP
requirements. For purposes of
evaluating these redesignation requests,
the applicable part D, subpart 2 SIP
requirements for the Muskegon and Cass
County areas are contained in section
182(a). A thorough discussion of the
requirements contained in section
182(a) can be found in the General
Preamble (57 FR 13498, 13502–13507
(April 16, 1992)).
No requirements applicable for
purposes of redesignation under part D
became due prior to submission of the
redesignation request, and, therefore,
none is applicable to the areas for
purposes of redesignation. Since the
State of Michigan has submitted
complete ozone redesignation requests
for the Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor,
and Cass County areas prior to the
deadline for any submissions required
for purposes of redesignation, we have
determined that these requirements do
not apply to the Flint, Muskegon,
E:\FR\FM\08JAP1.SGM
08JAP1
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
704
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 4 / Monday, January 8, 2007 / Proposed Rules
Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas
for purposes of redesignation.
Furthermore, EPA has determined
that, since PSD requirements will apply
after redesignation, areas redesignating
need not comply with the requirement
that a NSR program be approved prior
to redesignation, provided that these
areas demonstrate maintenance of the
NAAQS without part D NSR. A more
detailed rationale for this view is
described in a memorandum from Mary
Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air
and Radiation, dated October 14, 1994,
entitled, ‘‘Part D New Source Review
Requirements for Areas Requesting
Redesignation to Attainment.’’ Michigan
has demonstrated that the Flint,
Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass
County areas will be able to maintain
the standard without part D NSR in
effect; and therefore, EPA concludes
that the State need not have a fully
approved part D NSR program prior to
approval of the redesignation request.
The State’s PSD program will become
effective in the Flint, Muskegon, Benton
Harbor, and Cass County areas upon
redesignation to attainment. See
rulemakings for Detroit, Michigan (60
FR 12467–12468, March 7, 1995);
Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio (61 FR
20458, 20469–20470, May 7, 1996);
Louisville, Kentucky (66 FR 53665,
October 23, 2001); and Grand Rapids,
Michigan (61 FR 31834–31837, June 21,
1996).
Section 176 conformity requirements.
Section 176(c) of the CAA requires
states to establish criteria and
procedures to ensure that 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 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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:21 Jan 05, 2007
Jkt 211001
maintenance plan. Second, EPA’s
federal conformity rules require the
performance of conformity analyses in
the absence of federally-approved state
rules. Therefore, because areas are
subject to the conformity requirements
regardless of whether they are
redesignated to attainment and, because
they must implement conformity under
federal rules if state rules are not yet
approved, EPA believes it is reasonable
to view these requirements as not
applying for purposes of evaluating a
redesignation request. See Wall v. EPA,
265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001), upholding
this interpretation. See also 60 FR
62748, 62749–62750 (Dec. 7, 1995)
(Tampa, Florida).
EPA approved Michigan’s general and
transportation conformity SIPs on
December 18, 1996 (61 FR 66607 and 61
FR 66609, respectively). Michigan has
submitted on-highway motor vehicle
budgets of 25.68 tons per day (tpd) VOC
and 37.99 tpd NOX for the Flint area,
6.67 tpd VOC and 11.00 tpd NOX for the
Muskegon area, 9.16 tpd VOC and 15.19
tpd NOX for the Benton Harbor area, and
2.76 tpd VOC and 3.40 tpd for NOX for
the Cass County area based on the areas’
projected 2018 emission levels. The
Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and
Cass County areas must use the motor
vehicle emissions budgets from the
maintenance plan in any conformity
determination that is effective on or
after the effective date of the
maintenance plan approval. Thus, the
areas have satisfied all applicable
requirements under section 110 and part
D of the CAA.
b. The Flint, Muskegon, Benton
Harbor, and Cass County areas have a
fully approved applicable SIP under
section 110(k) of the CAA. EPA has fully
approved the Michigan SIP for the Flint,
Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass
County areas under section 110(k) of the
CAA for all requirements applicable for
purposes of redesignation. EPA may rely
on prior SIP approvals in approving a
redesignation request (see the
September 4, 1992 John Calcagni
memorandum, page 3, Southwestern
Pennsylvania Growth Alliance v.
Browner, 144 F.3d 984, 989–990 (6th
Cir. 1998), Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426
(6th Cir. 2001)) plus any additional
measures it may approve in conjunction
with a redesignation action. See 68 FR
25413, 25426 (May 12, 2003). Since the
passage of the CAA of 1970, Michigan
has adopted and submitted, and EPA
has fully approved, provisions
addressing the various required SIP
elements applicable to the Flint,
Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass
County areas under the 1-hour ozone
standard. No Flint, Muskegon, Benton
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Harbor, or Cass County area SIP
provisions are currently disapproved,
conditionally approved, or partially
approved.
3. The Improvement in Air Quality Is
Due to Permanent and Enforceable
Reductions in Emissions Resulting From
Implementation of the SIP and
Applicable Federal Air Pollution
Control Regulations and Other
Permanent and Enforceable Reductions
(Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii))
EPA finds that Michigan has
demonstrated that the observed air
quality improvement in the Flint,
Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass
County areas is due to permanent and
enforceable reductions in emissions
resulting from implementation of the
SIP, federal measures, and other stateadopted measures.
In making this demonstration, the
State has calculated the change in
emissions between 2002 and 2005, one
of the years the Flint, Muskegon, Benton
Harbor, and Cass County areas
monitored attainment. The reduction in
emissions and the corresponding
improvement in air quality over this
time period can be attributed to a
number of regulatory control measures
that Michigan and upwind areas have
implemented in recent years. The Flint,
Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass
County areas are all impacted, in
varying degrees, by the transport of
ozone and ozone precursors from
upwind areas. Therefore, local controls
as well as controls implemented in
upwind counties are relevant to the
improvement in air quality in the Flint,
Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass
County areas.
a. Permanent and enforceable controls
implemented. The following is a
discussion of permanent and
enforceable measures that have been
implemented in the areas:
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.
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
E:\FR\FM\08JAP1.SGM
08JAP1
705
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 4 / Monday, January 8, 2007 / Proposed Rules
implements additional emission
controls. Federal emission control
measures include: the National Low
Emission Vehicle (NLEV) program, Tier
2 emission standards for vehicles,
gasoline sulfur limits, low sulfur diesel
fuel standards, and heavy-duty diesel
engine standards. In addition, in 2004,
EPA issued the Clean Air Non-road
Diesel Rule (69 FR 38958 (July 29,
2004)). EPA expects this rule will
reduce off-road diesel emissions
through 2010, with emission reductions
starting in 2008.
Control Measures in Upwind Areas.
Upwind ozone nonattainment areas in
the Lake Michigan region, including
Chicago, Illinois; Gary, Indiana; and
Milwaukee, Wisconsin have continued
to reduce emissions of VOC and 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,
(NMIM). For the 2005 inventory,
Michigan interpolated between the 2002
LADCO base K inventory and the
LADCO 2009 base K inventory to project
emissions for the non-EGU point and
area sectors. For EGU emissions,
Michigan used 2004 actual emissions as
a better representation of 2005 than
interpolating from 2009. For nonroad
emissions, Michigan used the most
current version of NMIM. For onroad
emissions, Michigan used the Mobile6.2
model.
Based on the inventories described
above, Michigan’s submittal documents
changes in VOC and NOX emissions
from 2002 to 2005 for the Flint,
Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass
County areas. The emissions reductions
for both VOC and NOX, by county and
by source category are shown below in
Tables 3 through 7.
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 2002 for the nonattainment
inventory and 2005, one of the years
used to demonstrate monitored
attainment of the NAAQS, for the
attainment inventory. For 2002, MDEQ
used the Lake Michigan Air Directors
Consortium (LADCO) 2002 base K
inventory. This typical summer day
inventory was developed by processing
emissions data from the EPA final 2002
National Emissions Inventory (NEI).
Nonroad emissions were estimated
using the most current version of EPA’s
National Mobile Inventory Model
TABLE 3.—FLINT AREA: TOTAL VOC AND NOX EMISSIONS FOR NONATTAINMENT YEAR 2002 (TPD)
Genesee
VOC
Lapeer
NOX
VOC
Total
NOX
VOC
NOX
Point .................................................................................
Area ..................................................................................
Nonroad ...........................................................................
Onroad .............................................................................
4.93
22.06
33.74
26.68
2.66
1.76
8.72
40.80
1.14
4.60
6.81
4.84
0.32
0.37
2.97
9.82
6.07
26.66
40.55
31.52
2.98
2.13
11.69
50.62
Total ..........................................................................
87.41
53.94
17.39
13.48
104.8
67.42
TABLE 4.—FLINT AREA: TOTAL VOC AND NOX EMISSIONS FOR ATTAINMENT YEAR 2005 (TPD)
Genesee
VOC
Lapeer
NOX
VOC
Total
NOX
VOC
NOX
Point .................................................................................
Area ..................................................................................
Nonroad ...........................................................................
Onroad .............................................................................
4.38
21.63
11.79
17.71
2.61
1.80
8.07
29.98
0.95
4.60
6.72
3.39
0.30
0.38
2.79
6.10
5.33
26.23
18.51
21.10
2.91
2.18
10.86
36.08
Total ..........................................................................
55.51
42.46
15.66
9.57
71.17
52.03
TABLE 5.—FLINT AREA: COMPARISON OF 2002 AND 2005 VOC AND NOX EMISSIONS (TPD)
VOC
Sector
2002
2005
NOX
Net change
(2002–2005)
2002
2005
Net change
(2002–2005)
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Point .........................................................................
Area ..........................................................................
Onroad .....................................................................
Nonroad ...................................................................
6.07
26.66
40.55
31.52
5.33
26.23
18.51
21.10
¥0.74
¥0.43
¥22.04
¥10.42
2.98
2.13
11.69
50.62
2.91
2.18
10.86
36.08
¥0.07
0.05
¥0.83
¥14.54
Total ..................................................................
104.80
71.17
¥33.63
67.42
52.03
¥15.39
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:21 Jan 05, 2007
Jkt 211001
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\08JAP1.SGM
08JAP1
706
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 4 / Monday, January 8, 2007 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 6.—MUSKEGON AREA (MUSKEGON COUNTY): COMPARISON OF 2002 AND 2005 VOC AND NOX EMISSIONS (TPD)
VOC
Sector
2002
2005
NOX
Net change
(2002–2005)
2002
2005
Net change
(2002–2005)
Point .........................................................................
Area ..........................................................................
Onroad .....................................................................
Nonroad ...................................................................
1.77
8.20
7.67
10.41
1.73
8.15
5.08
10.26
¥0.04
¥0.05
¥2.59
¥0.15
14.35
0.81
11.93
6.48
13.83
0.83
8.91
6.27
¥0.52
0.02
¥3.02
¥0.21
Total ..................................................................
28.05
25.22
¥2.83
33.57
29.84
¥3.73
TABLE 7.—BENTON HARBOR AREA (BERRIEN COUNTY): COMPARISON OF 2002 AND 2005 VOC AND NOX EMISSIONS
(TPD)
VOC
Sector
2002
2005
NOX
Net change
(2002–2005)
2002
2005
Net change
(2002–2005)
Point .........................................................................
Area ..........................................................................
Onroad .....................................................................
Nonroad ...................................................................
1.91
9.05
11.11
11.67
1.93
8.99
7.45
10.98
0.02
¥0.06
¥3.66
¥0.69
3.70
0.79
20.45
4.80
3.47
0.81
14.49
4.54
¥0.23
0.02
¥5.96
¥0.26
Total ..................................................................
33.74
29.35
¥4.39
29.74
23.31
¥6.43
TABLE 8.—CASS COUNTY AREA: COMPARISON OF 2002 AND 2005 VOC AND NOX EMISSIONS (TPD)
VOC
Sector
2002
2005
NOX
Net change
(2002–2005)
2002
2005
Net change
(2002–2005)
Point .........................................................................
Area ..........................................................................
Onroad .....................................................................
Nonroad ...................................................................
0.31
2.22
2.45
5.07
0.34
2.22
1.66
5.06
0.03
0.00
¥0.79
¥0.01
0.20
0.20
4.52
2.06
0.20
0.20
2.97
1.92
0.00
0.00
¥1.55
¥0.14
Total ..................................................................
10.05
9.28
¥0.77
6.98
5.29
¥1.69
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Table 5 shows that the Flint area
reduced VOC emissions by 33.53 tpd
and NOX emissions by 15.39 tpd
between 2002 and 2005.
Table 6 shows that the Muskegon area
reduced VOC emissions by 2.83 tpd and
NOX emissions by 3.73 tpd between
2002 and 2005. Table 7 shows that the
Benton Harbor area reduced VOC
emissions by 4.39 tpd and NOX
emissions by 6.43 tpd between 2002 and
2005. Table 8 shows that the Cass
County area reduced VOC emissions by
0.77 tpd and NOX emissions by 1.69 tpd
between 2002 and 2005.
Based on the information summarized
above, Michigan has adequately
demonstrated that the improvement in
air quality is due to permanent and
enforceable emissions reductions.
4. The Areas Have a Fully Approved
Maintenance Plan Pursuant to Section
175a of the CAA. (Section
107(d)(3)(E)(iv))
In conjunction with its requests to
redesignate the Flint, Muskegon, Benton
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:21 Jan 05, 2007
Jkt 211001
Harbor, and Cass County nonattainment
areas to attainment status, Michigan
submitted a SIP revision to provide for
the maintenance of the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS in these areas for at least 10
years after redesignation.
a. What is required in a maintenance
plan? Section 175A of the CAA sets
forth the required elements of a
maintenance plan for areas seeking
redesignation from nonattainment to
attainment. Under section 175A, the
plan must demonstrate continued
attainment of the applicable NAAQS for
at least ten years after the Administrator
approves a redesignation to attainment.
Eight years after the redesignation, the
State must submit a revised
maintenance plan which demonstrates
that attainment will continue to be
maintained for ten years following the
initial ten-year maintenance period. To
address the possibility of future NAAQS
violations, the maintenance plan must
contain contingency measures with a
schedule for implementation as EPA
deems necessary to assure prompt
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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. As described
above, the MDEQ developed attainment
inventories for 2005, one of the years
used to demonstrate monitored
attainment of the 8-hour NAAQS. The
2005 attainment level of emissions is
summarized, above, in Tables 4 to 8.
c. Demonstration of Maintenance.
Michigan submitted with the
E:\FR\FM\08JAP1.SGM
08JAP1
707
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 4 / Monday, January 8, 2007 / Proposed Rules
redesignation request revisions to the 8hour ozone SIP to include 10-year
maintenance plans for the Flint,
Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass
County areas, as required by section
175A of the CAA. These demonstrations
show maintenance of the 8-hour ozone
standard by assuring that current and
future emissions of VOC and NOX for
the Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor,
and Cass County areas remain at or
below attainment year emission levels.
A maintenance demonstration need not
be based on modeling. See Wall v. EPA,
265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001), Sierra Club
v. EPA, 375 F. 3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004).
See also 66 FR 53094, 53099–53100
(October 19, 2001), 68 FR 25413, 25430–
25432 (May 12, 2003).
Michigan is using projected
inventories developed by LADCO for
the years 2009 and 2018. The exception
to this is the 2018 onroad mobile source
emissions estimates, which were
prepared by the Michigan Department of
Transportation. Using projected
inventories prepared by LADCO will
ensure that the inventories used for
redesignation are consistent with
regional attainment modeling performed
in the future. These emission estimates
are presented in Tables 9 to 12 below.
TABLE 9.—FLINT AREA: COMPARISON OF 2005–2018 TOTAL VOC AND NOX EMISSIONS (TPD)
VOC
NOX
Sector
2005
2009
2018
Net change
2005–2018
2005
2009
2018
Net change
2005–2018
Point non-EGU .................
Point EGU ........................
Point Total ........................
Area ..................................
Onroad .............................
Nonroad ...........................
5.27
0.06
5.33
26.23
21.10
18.51
4.35
0.00
4.35
25.65
18.18
16.35
4.83
0.00
4.83
26.01
9.76
12.88
¥0.44
¥0.06
¥0.50
¥0.22
¥11.34
¥5.63
2.77
0.14
2.91
2.18
36.08
10.86
2.74
0.00
2.74
2.25
32.89
9.20
2.81
0.01
2.82
2.33
11.43
15.02
0.04
¥0.13
¥0.09
0.87
¥24.65
¥4.16
Total ..........................
Safety Margin ...................
71.17
....................
64.01
....................
53.48
....................
¥17.69
17.69
52.03
....................
47.08
....................
22.51
....................
¥29.52
29.52
TABLE 10.—MUSKEGON AREA: COMPARISON OF 2005–2018 TOTAL VOC AND NOX EMISSIONS (TPD)
VOC
NOX
Sector
2005
2009
2018
Net change
2005–2018
2005
2009
2018
Net change
2005–2018
Point Non-EGU ................
Point EGU ........................
Point Total ........................
Area ..................................
Onroad .............................
Nonroad ...........................
1.63
0.10
1.73
8.15
5.08
10.26
1.59
0.10
1.69
8.09
4.66
9.52
2.02
0.12
2.14
8.36
2.27
7.56
0.39
0.02
0.41
0.21
¥2.81
¥2.70
4.75
9.08
13.83
0.83
8.91
6.27
4.75
6.23
10.98
0.85
8.19
5.84
5.14
7.17
12.31
0.88
2.74
4.73
0.39
¥1.91
¥1.52
0.05
¥6.17
¥1.54
Total ..........................
Safety Margin ...................
25.22
....................
23.96
....................
20.33
....................
¥4.89
4.89
29.84
....................
25.86
....................
20.66
....................
¥9.18
9.18
TABLE 11.—BENTON HARBOR AREA (BERRIEN COUNTY): COMPARISON OF 2005–2018 TOTAL VOC AND NOX EMISSIONS
(TPD)
VOC
NOX
Sector
2005
2009
2018
Net change
2005–2018
2005
2009
2018
Net change
2005–2018
1.93
0.00
1.93
8.99
7.45
10.98
1.95
0.00
1.95
8.92
6.54
9.86
2.40
0.00
2.40
9.38
3.44
7.77
0.47
0.00
0.47
0.39
¥4.01
¥3.21
3.47
0.00
3.47
0.81
14.49
4.54
3.17
0.00
3.17
0.83
13.27
4.01
3.22
0.00
3.22
0.86
4.57
2.86
¥0.25
0.00
¥0.25
0.05
¥9.92
¥1.68
Total ..........................
Safety Margin ...................
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Point Non-EGU ................
Point EGU ........................
Point Total ........................
Area ..................................
Onroad .............................
Nonroad ...........................
29.35
....................
27.27
....................
22.99
....................
¥6.36
6.36
23.31
....................
21.28
....................
11.51
....................
¥11.80
11.80
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:21 Jan 05, 2007
Jkt 211001
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\08JAP1.SGM
08JAP1
708
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 4 / Monday, January 8, 2007 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 12.—CASS COUNTY AREA: COMPARISON OF 2005–2018 VOC AND NOX EMISSIONS (TPD)
VOC
NOX
Sector
2005
2009
2018
Net change
2005–2018
2005
2009
2018
Net change
2005–2018
0.34
0.00
0.39
0.00
0.49
0.00
0.15
0.00
0.20
0.00
0.20
0.00
0.23
0.00
0.03
0.00
Point Total .................
Area ..................................
Onroad .............................
Nonroad ...........................
0.34
2.22
1.66
5.06
0.39
2.22
1.47
4.70
0.49
2.31
0.74
3.50
0.15
¥0.44
¥9.64
¥3.59
0.20
0.20
2.97
1.92
0.20
0.21
3.03
1.67
0.23
0.22
0.94
1.17
0.03
0.02
¥2.03
¥0.75
Total ..........................
Safety Margin ...................
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Point non-EGU .................
Point EGU ........................
9.28
....................
8.78
....................
7.04
....................
¥2.24
2.24
5.29
....................
5.11
....................
2.56
....................
¥2.73
2.73
The emission projections show that
MDEQ does not expect emissions in the
Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and
Cass County areas to exceed the level of
the 2005 attainment year inventory
during the maintenance period. In the
Flint area, MDEQ projects that VOC and
NOX emissions will decrease by 17.69
tpd and 29.52 tpd, respectively. In the
Muskegon area, MDEQ projects that
VOC and NOX emissions will decrease
by 4.89 tpd and 9.18 tpd, respectively.
In the Benton Harbor area, MDEQ
projects that VOC and NOX emissions
will decrease by 6.36 tpd and 11.80 tpd,
respectively. In the Cass County area,
MDEQ projects that VOC and NOX
emissions will decrease by 2.24 tpd and
2.73 tpd, respectively.
As part of its maintenance plan, the
State elected to include a ‘‘safety
margin’’ for the areas. A ‘‘safety margin’’
is the difference between the attainment
level of emissions (from all sources) and
the projected level of emissions (from
all sources) in the maintenance plan
which continues to demonstrate
attainment of the standard. The
attainment level of emissions is the
level of emissions during one of the
years in which the area met the NAAQS.
The Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor,
and Cass County areas attained the 8hour ozone NAAQS during the 2004–
2006 time period. Michigan used 2005
as the attainment level of emissions for
the areas. For Flint, the emissions from
point, area, nonroad, and mobile
sources in 2005 equaled 71.17 tpd of
total VOC. MDEQ projected VOC
emissions out to the year 2018 to be
53.48 tpd of total VOC. The SIP
submission demonstrates that the Flint
area will continue to maintain the
standard with emissions at this level.
The safety margin for VOC is calculated
to be the difference between these
amounts or, in this case, 17.69 tpd of
total VOC for 2018. By this same
method, 29.52 tpd (i.e., 52.03 tpd less
22.51 tpd) is the safety margin for NOX
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:21 Jan 05, 2007
Jkt 211001
for 2018. For the Muskegon area, 4.89
tpd and 9.18 tpd are the safety margins
for VOC and NOX, respectively. For the
Benton Harbor area, 6.36 tpd and 11.80
tpd are the safety margins for VOC and
NOX, respectively. For the Cass County
area, 2.24 tpd and 2.73 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 the Flint area, and one ozone monitor
each in Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and
Cass County areas. MDEQ has
committed to continue operating and
maintaining an approved ozone monitor
network in accordance with 40 CFR part
58.
e. Verification of Continued
Attainment. Continued attainment of
the ozone NAAQS in the Flint,
Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass
County areas depends, in part, on the
State’s efforts toward tracking indicators
of continued attainment during the
maintenance period. The State’s plan for
verifying continued attainment of the 8hour standard in the Flint, Muskegon,
Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas
consists of plans to continue ambient
ozone monitoring in accordance with
the requirements of 40 CFR part 58. In
addition, MDEQ will periodically
review and revise if necessary the VOC
and NOX emissions inventories for the
Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and
Cass County areas, as required by the
Consolidated Emissions Reporting Rule
(40 CFR part 51), to track levels of
emissions in the future.
f. Contingency Plan. The contingency
plan provisions are designed to
promptly correct or prevent a violation
of the NAAQS that might occur after
redesignation of an area to attainment.
Section 175A of the CAA requires that
a maintenance plan include such
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
contingency measures as EPA deems
necessary to assure that the state will
promptly correct a violation of the
NAAQS that occurs after redesignation.
The maintenance plan should identify
the contingency measures to be adopted,
a schedule and procedure for adoption
and implementation of the contingency
measures, and a time limit for action by
the state. The state should also identify
specific indicators to be used to
determine when the contingency
measures need to be adopted and
implemented. The maintenance plan
must include a requirement that the
state will implement all measures with
respect to control of the pollutant(s) that
were contained in the SIP before
redesignation of the area to attainment.
See section 175A(d) of the CAA.
As required by section 175A of the
CAA, Michigan has adopted a
contingency plan for the Flint,
Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass
County areas to address possible future
ozone air quality problems. The
contingency plan adopted by Michigan
has two levels of response, depending
on whether a violation of the 8-hour
ozone standard is only threatened
(Action Level Response) or has occurred
(Contingency Measure Response).
An Action Level Response will occur
when a two-year average fourth-high
monitored daily peak 8-hour ozone
concentration of 85 ppb or higher is
monitored within an ozone maintenance
area. An Action Level Response will
consist of Michigan performing a review
of the circumstances leading to the high
monitored values. MDEQ will conduct
this review within six months following
the close of the ozone season. If MDEQ
determines that contingency measure
implementation is necessary to prevent
a future violation of the NAAQS, MDEQ
will select and implement a measure
that can be implemented promptly.
A Contingency Measure Response
will be triggered by a violation of the
standard (a 3-year average of the annual
E:\FR\FM\08JAP1.SGM
08JAP1
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 4 / Monday, January 8, 2007 / Proposed Rules
fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour
average ozone concentration of 85 ppb
or greater). When a Contingency
Measure Response is triggered,
Michigan will select one or more control
measures for implementation. The
timing for implementation of a
contingency measure is dependent on
the process needed for legal adoption
and source compliance which varies for
each measure. MDEQ will expedite the
process of adopting and implementing
the selected measures, with a goal of
having measures in place as
expeditiously as practicable within 18
months. EPA is interpreting this
commitment to mean that the
contingency measure will be adopted
and implemented within 18 months.
Contingency measures contained in
the maintenance plans are those
emission controls or other measures that
Michigan may choose to adopt and
implement to correct possible air quality
problems. These include the following:
i. Lower Reid vapor pressure gasoline
requirements;
ii. Reduced VOC content in
Architectural, Industrial, and
Maintenance (AIM) coatings rule;
iii. Auto body refinisher selfcertification audit program;
iv. Reduced VOC degreasing rule;
v. Transit improvements;
vi. Diesel retrofit program;
vii. Reduced VOC content in
commercial and consumer products
rule;
viii. Reduce idling program.
g. Provisions for Future Updates of the
Ozone Maintenance Plan. As required
by section 175A(b) of the CAA,
Michigan commits to submit to the EPA
an updated ozone maintenance plan
eight years after redesignation of the
Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and
Cass County areas to cover an additional
10-year period beyond the initial 10year 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 plan adequately addresses
the five basic components of a
maintenance plan: attainment
inventory, maintenance demonstration,
monitoring network, verification of
continued attainment, and a
contingency plan. The maintenance
plan SIP revision submitted by
Michigan for the Flint, Muskegon,
Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas
meets the requirements of section 175A
of the CAA.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:21 Jan 05, 2007
Jkt 211001
ii. Adequacy of Michigan’s Motor
Vehicle Emissions Budgets (MVEBs)
1. How Are MVEBs Developed and
What Are the MVEBs for the Flint,
Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass
Areas?
Under the CAA, states are required to
submit, at various times, control strategy
SIP revisions and ozone maintenance
plans for ozone nonattainment areas and
for areas seeking redesignations to
attainment of the ozone standard. These
emission control strategy SIP revisions
(e.g., reasonable further progress SIP
and attainment demonstration SIP
revisions) and ozone maintenance plans
create MVEBs based on onroad mobile
source emissions for criteria pollutants
and/or their precursors to address
pollution from cars and trucks. The
MVEBs are the portions of the total
allowable emissions that are allocated to
highway and transit vehicle use that,
together with emissions from other
sources in the area, will provide for
attainment or maintenance.
Under 40 CFR part 93, a MVEB for an
area seeking a redesignation to
attainment is established for the last
year of the maintenance plan. The
MVEB serves as a ceiling on emissions
from an area’s planned transportation
system. The MVEB concept is further
explained in the preamble to the
November 24, 1993, transportation
conformity rule (58 FR 62188). The
preamble also describes how to
establish the MVEB in the SIP and how
to revise the MVEB if needed.
Under section 176(c) of the CAA, new
transportation projects, such as the
construction of new highways, must
‘‘conform’’ to (i.e., be consistent with)
the part of the SIP that addresses
emissions from cars and trucks.
Conformity to the SIP means that
transportation activities will not cause
new air quality violations, worsen
existing air quality violations, or delay
timely attainment of the NAAQS. If a
transportation plan does not conform,
most new transportation projects that
would expand the capacity of roadways
cannot go forward. Regulations at 40
CFR part 93 set forth EPA policy,
criteria, and procedures for
demonstrating and assuring conformity
of such transportation activities to a SIP.
When reviewing SIP revisions
containing MVEBs, including
attainment strategies, rate-of-progress
plans, and maintenance plans, EPA
must affirmatively find that the MVEBs
are ‘‘adequate’’ for use in determining
transportation conformity. Once EPA
affirmatively finds the submitted
MVEBs to be adequate for transportation
conformity purposes, the MVEBs are
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
709
used by state and federal agencies in
determining whether proposed
transportation projects conform to the
SIP as required by section 176(c) of the
CAA. EPA’s substantive criteria for
determining the adequacy of MVEBs are
set out in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4).
EPA’s process for determining
adequacy of a MVEB consists of three
basic steps: (1) Providing public
notification of a SIP submission; (2)
providing the public the opportunity to
comment on the MVEB during a public
comment period; and (3) EPA’s finding
of adequacy. The process of determining
the adequacy of submitted SIP MVEBs
was initially outlined in EPA’s May 14,
1999, guidance, ‘‘Conformity Guidance
on Implementation of March 2, 1999,
Conformity Court Decision.’’ This
guidance was codified in the
Transportation Conformity Rule
Amendments for the ‘‘New 8-Hour
Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air
Quality Standards and Miscellaneous
Revisions for Existing Areas;
Transportation Conformity Rule
Amendments—Response to Court
Decision and Additional Rule Change,’’
published on July 1, 2004 (69 FR
40004). EPA follows this guidance and
rulemaking in making its adequacy
determinations.
The Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor,
and Cass County areas’ maintenance
plans contain new VOC and NOX
MVEBs for the year 2018. The
availability of the SIP submission with
these 2018 MVEBs was announced for
public comment on EPA’s Adequacy
Web page on August 4, 2006, at: https://
www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/
transconf/currsips.htm. The EPA public
comment period on adequacy of the
2018 MVEBs for the Flint, Muskegon,
Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas
closed on September 5, 2006. No
requests for this submittal or adverse
comments on this submittal were
received during the adequacy comment
period. In a November 29, 2006 letter,
EPA informed MDEQ that we had found
the 2018 MVEBs to be adequate for use
in transportation conformity analyses.
EPA, through this rulemaking, is
proposing to approve the MVEBs for use
to determine transportation conformity
in the Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor,
and Cass County areas because EPA has
determined that the areas can maintain
attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS
for the relevant maintenance period
with mobile source emissions at the
levels of the MVEBs. MDEQ has
determined the 2018 MVEBs for the
Flint area to be 25.68 tpd for VOC and
37.99 tpd for NOX. These MVEBs exceed
the onroad mobile source VOC and NOX
emissions projected by MDEQ for 2018,
E:\FR\FM\08JAP1.SGM
08JAP1
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
710
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 4 / Monday, January 8, 2007 / Proposed Rules
as summarized in Table 9 (‘‘onroad’’
source sector), above, because MDEQ
decided to include safety margins
(described further below) of 15.92 tpd of
VOC and 26.56 tpd for NOX in the
MVEBs to provide for mobile source
growth. Michigan has demonstrated that
the Flint area can maintain the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS with mobile source
emissions of 25.68 tpd of VOC and
37.99 tpd of 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 Muskegon area to be 6.67
tpd for VOC and 11.0 tpd for NOX.
These MVEBs exceed the onroad mobile
source VOC and NOX emissions
projected by MDEQ for 2018, as
summarized in Table 10 (‘‘onroad’’
source sector), above, because MDEQ
decided to include safety margins of
4.40 tpd of VOC and 8.26 tpd for NOX
in the MVEBs to provide for mobile
source growth. Michigan has
demonstrated that the Muskegon area
can maintain the 8-hour ozone NAAQS
with mobile source emissions of 6.67
tpd of VOC and 11.0 tpd of 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 Benton Harbor area to be
9.16 tpd for VOC and 15.19 tpd for NOX.
These MVEBs exceed the onroad mobile
source VOC and NOX emissions
projected by MDEQ for 2018, as
summarized in Table 11 (‘‘onroad’’
source sector), above, because MDEQ
decided to include safety margins of
5.72 tpd of VOC and 10.62 tpd for NOX
in the MVEBs to provide for mobile
source growth. Michigan has
demonstrated that the Benton Harbor
area can maintain the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS with mobile source emissions
of 9.16 tpd of VOC and 15.19 tpd of
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 Cass County area to be
2.76 tpd for VOC and 3.40 tpd for NOX.
It should be noted that these MVEBs
exceed the onroad mobile source VOC
and NOX emissions projected by MDEQ
for 2018, as summarized in Table 12
(‘‘onroad’’ source sector), above. MDEQ
decided to include safety margins
(described further below) of 2.02 tpd of
VOC and 2.46 tpd for NOX in the
MVEBs to provide for mobile source
growth. Michigan has demonstrated that
the Cass County area can maintain the
8-hour ozone NAAQS with mobile
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:21 Jan 05, 2007
Jkt 211001
source emissions of 2.76 tpd of VOC and
3.40 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 9, the Flint area total
VOC and NOX emissions are projected
to have safety margins of 17.69 tpd for
VOC and 29.52 tpd for NOX in 2018 (the
difference between the attainment year,
2005, emissions and the 2018 emissions
for all sources in the Flint area). As
noted in Table 10, the Muskegon area
VOC and NOX emissions are projected
to have safety margins of 4.89 tpd and
9.18 tpd, respectively. As noted in Table
11, the Benton Harbor area VOC and
NOX emissions are projected to have
safety margins of 6.36 tpd and 11.80
tpd, respectively. As noted in Table 12,
the Cass County area VOC and NOX
emissions are projected to have safety
margins of 2.24 tpd and 2.73 tpd,
respectively. Even if emissions reached
the full level of the safety margin, the
counties would still demonstrate
maintenance, since emission levels
would equal those in the attainment
year.
The MVEBs requested by MDEQ
contain safety margins for mobile
sources smaller than the allowable
safety margins reflected in the total
emissions for the Flint, Muskegon,
Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas.
The State is not requesting allocation of
the entire available safety margins
reflected in the demonstration of
maintenance. Therefore, even though
the State is requesting MVEBs that
exceed the projected onroad mobile
source emissions for 2018 contained in
the demonstration of maintenance, the
increase in onroad mobile source
emissions that can be considered for
transportation conformity purposes is
well within the safety margins of the
ozone maintenance demonstration.
Further, once allocated to mobile
sources, these safety margins will not be
available for use by other sources.
VIII. What Actions Is EPA Taking
Today?
EPA is proposing to make
determinations that the Flint,
Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass
County areas have attained the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS, and EPA is proposing to
approve the redesignations of the Flint,
Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass
County areas from nonattainment to
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
attainment for the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. After evaluating Michigan’s
redesignation requests, EPA has
determined that they meet the
redesignation criteria set forth in section
107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. The final
approvals of these redesignation
requests would change the official
designations for the Flint, Muskegon,
Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas
from nonattainment to attainment for
the 8-hour ozone standard.
EPA is also proposing to approve the
maintenance plan SIP revisions for the
Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and
Cass County areas. EPA’s proposed
approval of the maintenance plans is
based on Michigan’s demonstration that
the plans meet the requirements of
section 175A of the CAA, as described
more fully above. Additionally, EPA is
finding adequate and proposing to
approve the 2018 MVEBs submitted by
Michigan in conjunction with the
redesignation requests.
IX. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews.
Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993), this action is
not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’
and, therefore, is not subject to review
by the Office of Management and
Budget.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed rule does not impose
an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.).
Regulatory Flexibility Act
This proposed action merely proposes
to approve state law as meeting federal
requirements and imposes no additional
requirements beyond those imposed by
state law. Redesignation of an area to
attainment under section 107(d)(3)(E) of
the Clean Air Act does not impose any
new requirements on small entities.
Redesignation is an action that affects
the status of a geographical area and
does not impose any new regulatory
requirements on sources. Accordingly,
the Administrator certifies that this rule
will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Because this rule proposes to approve
pre-existing requirements under state
law, and does not impose any additional
enforceable duty beyond that required
by state law, it does not contain any
E:\FR\FM\08JAP1.SGM
08JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 4 / Monday, January 8, 2007 / Proposed Rules
unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as
described in the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4).
Executive Order 13211: Actions That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action also does not have
Federalism implications because it does
not have substantial direct effects on the
states, on the relationship between the
national government and the states, or
on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,
August 10, 1999). Redesignation is an
action that merely affects the status of
a geographical area, does not impose
any new requirements on sources, or
allows a state to avoid adopting or
implementing other requirements, and
does not alter the relationship or the
distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the Clean
Air Act.
Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000) requires EPA to
develop an accountable process to
ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by
tribal officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have tribal
implications.’’ This proposed rule also
does not have tribal implications, as
specified in Executive Order 13175,
because redesignation is an action that
affects the status of a geographical area
and does not impose any new regulatory
requirements on tribes, impact any
existing sources of air pollution on
tribal lands, nor impair the maintenance
of ozone national ambient air quality
standards in tribal lands. Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply
to this rule.
Although Executive Order 13175 does
not apply to this rule, EPA met with
interested tribes in Michigan to discuss
the redesignation process and the
impact of a change in designation status
of these areas on the tribes.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risks
Because it is not a ‘‘significant
regulatory action’’ under Executive
Order 12866 or a ‘‘significant energy
action,’’ this action is also not subject to
Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May
22, 2001).
National Technology Transfer
Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTA), 15 U.S.C. 272,
requires Federal agencies to use
technical standards that are developed
or adopted by voluntary consensus to
carry out policy objectives, so long as
such standards are not inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise
impracticable. In reviewing program
submissions, EPA’s role is to approve
state choices, provided that they meet
the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Absent
a prior existing requirement for the state
to use voluntary consensus standards,
EPA has no authority to disapprove a
program submission for failure to use
such standards, and it would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for
EPA to use voluntary consensus
standards in place of a program
submission that otherwise satisfies the
provisions of the Act. Redesignation is
an action that affects the status of a
geographical area but does not impose
any new requirements on sources. Thus,
the requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.
272 note) do not apply.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: December 21, 2006.
Bharat Mathur,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. E6–22616 Filed 1–5–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
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.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:21 Jan 05, 2007
Jkt 211001
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
711
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[EPA–R05–OAR–2006–0891; FRL–8266–4]
Redesignation of Jefferson County,
Ohio To Attainment of the 8-Hour
Ozone Standard
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: On July 31, 2006, and
supplemented on October 3, 2006, the
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
(Ohio EPA) submitted: a request for EPA
approval of redesignation of Jefferson
County to attainment of the 8-hour
ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS), and a request for
EPA approval of a State Implementation
Plan (SIP) revision for the ozone
maintenance plan for Jefferson County.
Jefferson County is the Ohio portion of
the Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH 8hour ozone nonattainment area. EPA is
proposing to determine that this area
has attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS,
based on three years of complete,
quality-assured ambient air quality
monitoring data. Preliminary, nonquality assured data for the 2006 ozone
season show that the area continues to
attain the NAAQS. EPA is also
proposing approval of Ohio’s ozone
maintenance plan for Jefferson County
as a revision to the Ohio SIP and the
State’s request to redesignate Jefferson
County to attainment of the 8-hour
ozone NAAQs. Finally, EPA is
proposing to approve the Volatile
Organic Compounds (VOC) and
Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) Motor Vehicle
Emission Budgets (MVEBs) for Jefferson
County, as supported by the ozone
maintenance plan for this County, for
purposes of conformity determinations.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before February 7, 2007. Submit your
comments, identified by Docket ID No.
EPA–R05–OAR–2006–0891, by one of
the following methods:
• 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, Chicago,
E:\FR\FM\08JAP1.SGM
08JAP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 4 (Monday, January 8, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 699-711]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-22616]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0563; FRL-8266-5]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation
of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Michigan; Redesignation of
Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County 8-hour Ozone
Nonattainment Areas to Attainment for Ozone
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to make determinations under the Clean Air
Act (CAA) that the nonattainment areas of Flint (Genesee and Lapeer
Counties), Muskegon (Muskegon County), Benton Harbor (Berrien County),
and Cass County have attained the 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standard (NAAQS). These determinations are based on three years
of complete, quality-assured ambient air quality monitoring data for
the 2004-2006 seasons that demonstrate that the 8-hour ozone NAAQS have
been attained in the areas.
EPA is proposing to approve requests from the State of Michigan to
redesignate the Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas
to attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. These requests were submitted
by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) on June 13,
2006, and supplemented on August 25, 2006, and November 30, 2006.
In proposing to approve this request, EPA also is proposing to
approve the State's plans for maintaining the 8-hour ozone NAAQS
through 2018 in the areas as revisions to the Michigan State
Implementation Plan (SIP). EPA also finds adequate and is proposing to
approve the State's 2018 Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets (MVEBs) for the
Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 7, 2007.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2006-0563, by one of the following methods:
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-
2006-0563. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
https://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 https://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The https://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 https://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 https://
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material,
[[Page 700]]
will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in https://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. We
recommend that you telephone Charles Hatten, Environmental Engineer, at
(312) 886-6031 before visiting the Region 5 office.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles Hatten, Environmental
Engineer, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J),
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6031, hatten.charles@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:
Table of Contents
I. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?
II. What Actions Is EPA Proposing To Take?
III. What Is the Background for These Actions?
IV. What Are the Criteria for Redesignation?
V. Why Is EPA Proposing To Take These Actions?
VI. What Is the Effect of These Actions?
VII. What Is EPA's Analysis of the Requests?
i. Attainment Determination and Redesignation
ii. Adequacy of Michigan's Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets
VIII. What Actions Are EPA Taking Today?
IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?
When submitting comments, remember to:
1. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
2. Follow directions--The EPA may ask you to respond to specific
questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
3. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
4. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
5. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
6. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
7. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
8. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline
identified.
II. What Actions Is EPA Proposing to Take?
EPA is proposing to take several related actions. EPA is proposing
to make determinations that the Flint (Genesee and Lapeer Counties),
Muskegon (Muskegon County), Benton Harbor (Berrien County), and Cass
County, Michigan nonattainment areas have attained the 8-hour ozone
standard and that these areas have met the requirements for
redesignation under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. EPA is thus
proposing to approve Michigan's request to change the legal
designations of the Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County
areas from nonattainment to attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA
is also proposing to approve Michigan's maintenance plan SIP revisions
for the Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas (such
approval being one of the CAA criteria for redesignation to attainment
status). The maintenance plans are designed to keep the Flint,
Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas in attainment of the
ozone NAAQS through 2018. Additionally, EPA is announcing its action on
the Adequacy Process for the newly-established 2018 MVEBs for the
Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas. The adequacy
comment period for the 2018 MVEBs began on August 4, 2006, with EPA's
posting of the availability of these submittals on EPA's Adequacy Web
site (at https://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/
adequacy.htm). The adequacy comment period for these MVEBs ended on
September 5, 2006. EPA did not receive any requests for these
submittals, or adverse comments on these submittals during the adequacy
comment period. Please see the Adequacy Section of this rulemaking for
further explanation on this process. Therefore, we find adequate, and
are proposing to approve, the State's 2018 MVEBs for transportation
conformity purposes.
III. What Is the Background for These Actions?
Ground-level ozone is not emitted directly by sources. Rather,
emissions of nitrogen oxides (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. EPA revoked the 1-hour
ozone NAAQS on June 15, 2005. At the time EPA revoked the 1-hour
standard, the Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas
were all designated as attainment under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.
On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a new 8-hour ozone NAAQS of 0.08
parts per million (ppm). This new standard is more stringent than the
previous 1-hour standard. On April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23857), EPA
published a final rule designating and classifying areas under the 8-
hour ozone NAAQS. These designations and classifications became
effective June 15, 2004. The CAA required EPA to designate as
nonattainment any area that was violating the 8-hour ozone NAAQS based
on the three most recent years of air quality data, 2001-2003.
The CAA contains two sets of provisions--subpart 1 and subpart 2--
that address planning and control requirements for nonattainment areas.
(Both are found in title I, part D, 42 U.S.C. 7501-7509a and 7511-
7511f, respectively.) Subpart 1 (which EPA refers to as ``basic''
nonattainment) contains general, less prescriptive, requirements for
nonattainment areas for any pollutant, including ozone, governed by a
NAAQS. Subpart 2 (which EPA refers to as ``classified'' nonattainment)
provides more specific requirements for ozone nonattainment areas. Some
ozone nonattainment areas are subject only to the provisions of subpart
1. Other ozone nonattainment areas are subject to the provisions of
both subparts 1 and 2. Under EPA's 8-hour ozone implementation rule,
signed on April 15, 2004 (69 FR 23951 (April 30, 2004)), an area was
classified under subpart 2 based on its 8-hour ozone design value
(i.e., the 3-year average annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour
average ozone concentration), if it had a 1-hour design value at or
above 0.121 ppm (the lowest 1-hour design value in Table 1 of subpart
2) (69 FR 23954). All other areas were covered under Subpart 1, based
upon their 8-hour design values (69 FR 23958). The Muskegon and Cass
County areas were designated as subpart 2, 8-hour ozone moderate
nonattainment areas by EPA on April 30, 2004, (69 FR 23857, 23911),
based on air quality monitoring data from 2001-2003. The Flint and
Benton
[[Page 701]]
Harbor areas were designated by EPA as subpart 1, 8-hour nonattainment
areas (69 FR 23910--23911), based on 2001-2003 monitoring data.
Under section 181(a)(4) of the CAA EPA may adjust the
classification of an ozone nonattainment area to the next higher or
lower classification if the design value for the area is within five
percent of the cut off for that higher or lower classification. On
September 22, 2004, EPA adjusted the classification of several
nonattainment areas which had been designated and classified under
subpart 2 on April 30, 2004. At that time, EPA adjusted the
classifications of the Muskegon and Cass County nonattainment areas
from moderate to marginal (69 FR 56697, 56708-5670).
40 CFR 50.10 and 40 CFR part 50, Appendix I provide that the 8-hour
ozone standard is attained when the 3-year average of the annual
fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration is less
than or equal to 0.08 ppm when rounded. The data completeness
requirement is met when the average percent of days with valid ambient
monitoring data is greater than 90%, and no single year has less than
75% data completeness. See 40 CFR part 50, Appendix I, section 2.3(d).
On June 13, 2006, Michigan requested that EPA redesignate the
Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas to attainment for
the 8-hour ozone standard. This submittal was supplemented on August
25, 2006, and November 30, 2006. Michigan included complete, quality-
assured air monitoring data for the 2004 through 2006 ozone season,
indicating the 8-hour NAAQS for ozone had been attained for the Flint,
Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas. Under the CAA, a
nonattainment area may be redesignated to attainment if sufficient
complete, quality-assured air monitoring data are available for the
Administrator to determine that the area has attained the standard, and
the area meets the other CAA redesignation requirements in section
107(d)(3)(E).
IV. What Are the Criteria for Redesignation?
The CAA provides the requirements for redesignating a nonattainment
area to attainment. Specifically, section 107(d)(3)(E) allows for
redesignation provided that: (1) The Administrator determines that the
area has attained the applicable NAAQS; (2) the Administrator has fully
approved the applicable implementation plan for the area under section
110(k); (3) the Administrator determines that the improvement in air
quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions
resulting from implementation of the applicable SIP and applicable
federal air pollutant control regulations and other permanent and
enforceable reductions; (4) the Administrator has fully approved a
maintenance plan for the area as meeting the requirements of section
175A; and, (5) the state containing such area has met all requirements
applicable to the area under section 110 and part D.
EPA provided guidance on redesignation in the General Preamble for
the Implementation of Title I of the CAA Amendments of 1990, on April
16, 1992 (57 FR 13498), and supplemented this guidance on April 28,
1992 (57 FR 18070). EPA has provided further guidance on processing
redesignation requests in the following documents:
``Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Design Value Calculations'', Memorandum
from William G. Laxton, Director Technical Support Division, June 18,
1990;
``Maintenance Plans for Redesignation of Ozone and Carbon Monoxide
Nonattainment Areas,'' Memorandum from G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon
Monoxide Programs Branch, April 30, 1992;
``Contingency Measures for Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Redesignations,'' Memorandum from G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon
Monoxide Programs Branch, June 1, 1992;
``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to
Attainment,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality
Management Division, September 4, 1992;
``State Implementation Plan (SIP) Actions Submitted in Response to
Clean Air Act (ACT) Deadlines,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni,
Director, Air Quality Management Division, October 28, 1992;
``Technical Support Documents (TSD's) for Redesignation of Ozone
and Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment Areas,'' Memorandum from G.T.
Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, August 17, 1993;
``State Implementation Plan (SIP) Requirements for Areas Submitting
Requests for Redesignation to Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon
Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) On or
After November 15, 1992,'' Memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting
Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, September 17, 1993;
``Use of Actual Emissions in Maintenance Demonstrations for Ozone
and CO Nonattainment Areas,'' Memorandum from D. Kent Berry, Acting
Director, Air Quality Management Division, to Air Division Directors,
Regions 1-10, dated November 30, 1993.
``Part D New Source Review (part D NSR) Requirements for Areas
Requesting Redesignation to Attainment,'' Memorandum from Mary D.
Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, October 14,
1994; and
``Reasonable Further Progress, Attainment Demonstration, and
Related Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment Areas Meeting the Ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standard,'' Memorandum from John S. Seitz,
Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, May 10, 1995.
V. Why Is EPA Proposing to Take These Actions?
On June 13, 2006, Michigan requested redesignation of the Flint,
Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas to attainment for the 8-
hour ozone standard. Michigan supplemented its submittal on August 25,
2006, and November 30, 2006. EPA believes that the areas have attained
the standard and have met the requirements for redesignation set forth
in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA.
VI. What Is the Effect of These Actions?
Approval of the redesignation request would change the official
designation of the areas for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS found at 40 CFR
part 81. It would also incorporate into the Michigan SIP plans for
maintaining the 8-hour ozone NAAQS through 2018. The maintenance plans
include contingency measures to remedy future violations of the 8-hour
NAAQS. They also establish MVEBs for the year 2018 of 25.68 tons per
day (tpd) VOC and 37.99 tpd NOX for the Flint area, 6.67 tpd
VOC and 11.00 tpd NOX for the Muskegon area, 9.16 tpd VOC
and 15.19 tpd NOX for the Benton Harbor area, and 2.76 tpd
VOC and 3.40 tpd NOX for the Cass County area.
VII. What Is EPA's Analysis of the Requests?
i. Attainment Determination and Redesignation
EPA is proposing to make determinations that the Flint, Muskegon,
Benton Harbor, and Cass County nonattainment areas have attained the 8-
hour ozone standard and that the areas have met all other applicable
section 107(d)(3)(E) redesignation criteria. The basis for EPA's
determinations is as follows:
[[Page 702]]
1. The Areas Have Attained the 8-hour Ozone NAAQS. (Section
107(d)(3)(E)(i))
EPA is proposing to make determinations that the Flint, Muskegon,
Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas have attained the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. For ozone, an area may be considered to be attaining the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS if there are no violations, as determined in accordance
with 40 CFR 50.10 and part 50, Appendix I, based on three complete,
consecutive calendar years of quality-assured air quality monitoring
data. To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the fourth-highest
daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations measured at each
monitor within an area over each year must not exceed 0.08 ppm. Based
on the rounding convention described in 40 CFR part 50, Appendix I, the
standard is attained if the design value is 0.084 ppm or below. The
data must be collected and quality-assured in accordance with 40 CFR
part 58, and recorded in the Aerometric Information Retrieval System
(AIRS). The monitors generally should have remained at the same
location for the duration of the monitoring period required for
demonstrating attainment.
MDEQ submitted ozone monitoring data for the 2004 to 2006 ozone
seasons. The MDEQ quality assured the ambient monitoring data in
accordance with 40 CFR 58.10, and recorded it in the AIRS database,
thus making the data publicly available. The data meets the
completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 50, Appendix I, which requires a
minimum completeness of 75 percent annually and 90 percent over each
three year period. Monitoring data is presented in Table 1, below. Data
completeness information is presented in Table 2, below.
Table 1.--Annual 4th High Daily Maximum 8-hour Ozone Concentration and 3-Year Averages of 4th High Daily Maximum 8-Hour Ozone Concentrations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Design value
2004 4th 2005 4th 2006 4th 2004-2006 2006 rounded
Area County Monitor high (ppm) high (ppm) high (ppm) avg. (ppm) to 2 decimals
(ppm)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flint............................... Genesee............... Flint 26-0490021...... 0.075 0.079 0.075 0.076 0.08
Lapeer................ Otisville 26-0490021.. 0.077 0.080 0.075 0.077 0.08
Muskegon............................ Muskegon.............. Muskegon 26-1210039... 0.070 0.090 0.091 0.083 0.08
Benton Harbor....................... Berrien............... Coloma 26-0210014..... 0.073 0.090 0.077 0.080 0.08
Cass................................ Cass.................. Cassopolis 26-0270003. 0.077 0.086 0.073 0.078 0.08
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2.--Data Completeness in Percent (%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual Minimum of 75% Completeness 3-Year Period
--------------------------------------- Average
Minimum of 90%
Area County Monitor Completeness
2004 (%) 2005 (%) 2006 (%) ---------------
2004-2006
average (%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flint................................... Genesee.................... Flint 26-0490021.......... 100 75 97 91
Lapeer..................... Otisville 26-0492001...... 100 87 100 96
Muskegon................................ Muskegon................... Muskegon 26-1210039....... 99 96 99 98
Benton Harbor........................... Berrien.................... Coloma 26-0210014......... 98 98 100 99
Cass.................................... Cass....................... Cassopolis................ 92 100 98 97
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, as discussed below with respect to the maintenance
plans, MDEQ has committed to continue operating an EPA approved
monitoring network in accordance with 40 CFR part 58. In summary, EPA
believes that the data submitted by Michigan provide an adequate
demonstration that the Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County
areas have attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
2. The Areas Have Met All Applicable Requirements Under Section 110 and
Part D; and the Areas Have Fully Approved SIPs Under Section 110(k)
(Sections 107(d)(3)(E)(v) and 107(d)(3)(E)(ii))
We have determined that Michigan has met all currently applicable
SIP requirements for purposes of redesignation for the Flint, Muskegon,
Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas under Section 110 of the CAA
(general SIP requirements). We have also determined that the Michigan
SIP meets all SIP requirements currently applicable for purposes of
redesignation under Part D of Title I of the CAA (requirements specific
to Subpart 1 and Subpart 2 marginal nonattainment areas), in accordance
with section 107(d)(3)(E)(v). In addition, we have determined that the
Michigan SIP is fully approved with respect to all applicable
requirements for purposes of redesignation, in accordance with section
107(d)(3)(E)(ii). In making these determinations, we have ascertained
what SIP requirements are applicable to the areas for purposes of
redesignation, and have determined that the portions of the SIP meeting
these requirements are fully approved under section 110(k) of the CAA.
As discussed more fully below, SIPs must be fully approved only with
respect to currently applicable requirements of the CAA.
a. The Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas have
met all applicable requirements under section 110 and part D of the
CAA. The September 4, 1992, Calcagni memorandum (see ``Procedures for
Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,'' Memorandum
from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division,
September 4, 1992) describes EPA's interpretation of section
107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. Under this interpretation, a state and the
area it wishes to redesignate must meet the relevant CAA
[[Page 703]]
requirements that are due prior to the state's submittal of a complete
redesignation request for the area. See also the September 17, 1993,
Michael Shapiro memorandum and 60 FR 12459, 12465-66 (March 7, 1995)
(redesignation of Detroit-Ann Arbor, Michigan to attainment of the 1-
hour ozone NAAQS). Applicable requirements of the CAA that come due
subsequent to the state's submittal of a complete request remain
applicable until a redesignation to attainment is approved, but are not
required as a prerequisite to redesignation. See section 175A(c) of the
CAA; Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004). See also 68 FR
25424, 25427 (May 12, 2003) (redesignation of the St. Louis/East St.
Louis area to attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS).
General SIP requirements. Section 110(a) of title I of the CAA
contains the general requirements for a SIP. Section 110(a)(2) provides
that the implementation plan submitted by a state must have been
adopted by the state after reasonable public notice and hearing, and
that, among other things, it includes enforceable emission limitations
and other control measures, means or techniques necessary to meet the
requirements of the CAA; provides for establishment and operation of
appropriate devices, methods, systems and procedures necessary to
monitor ambient air quality; provides for implementation of a source
permit program to regulate the modification and construction of any
stationary source within the areas covered by the plan; includes
provisions for the implementation of part C, Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) and part D, New Source Review (NSR) permit
programs; includes criteria for stationary source emission control
measures, monitoring, and reporting; includes provisions for air
quality modeling; and provides for public and local agency
participation in planning and emission control rule development.
Section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA requires that SIPs contain measures
to prevent sources in a state from significantly contributing to air
quality problems in another state. To implement this provision, EPA has
required certain states to establish programs to address transport of
air pollutants (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 designation of any one particular area in the state.
Therefore, we believe that these requirements should not be construed
to be applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation. Further,
we believe that the other section 110 elements described above that are
not connected with nonattainment plan submissions and not linked with
an area's attainment status are also not applicable requirements for
purposes of redesignation. A state remains subject to these
requirements after an area is redesignated to attainment. We conclude
that only the section 110 and part D requirements which are linked with
a particular area's designation and classification are the relevant
measures which we may consider in evaluating a redesignation request.
This approach is consistent with EPA's existing policy on applicability
of conformity and oxygenated fuels requirements for redesignation
purposes, as well as with section 184 ozone transport requirements. See
Reading, Pennsylvania, proposed and final rulemakings (61 FR 53174-
53176, October 10, 1996), (62 FR 24826, May 7, 1997); Cleveland-Akron-
Lorain, Ohio, final rulemaking (61 FR 20458, May 7, 1996); and Tampa,
Florida, final rulemaking (60 FR 62748, December 7, 1995). See also the
discussion on this issue in the Cincinnati ozone redesignation (65 FR
37890, June 19, 2000), and in the Pittsburgh ozone redesignation (66 FR
50399, October 19, 2001).
As discussed above, we believe that section 110 elements which are
not linked to the area's nonattainment status are not applicable for
purposes of redesignation. Because there are no section 110
requirements that are linked to the part D requirements for 8-hour
ozone nonattainment areas that have become due, as explained below,
there are no Part D requirements applicable for purposes of
redesignation under the 8-hour standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ On October 27, 1998 (63 FR 57356), EPA issued a
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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part D Requirements. EPA has determined that the Michigan SIP meets
applicable SIP requirements under part D of the CAA since no
requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation became due for
the 8-hour ozone standard prior to submission of the redesignation
request for the Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas.
Under part D, an area's classification determines the requirements to
which it will be subject. Subpart 1 of part D, which includes sections
172-176 of the CAA, sets forth the basic nonattainment requirements
applicable to all nonattainment areas. Section 182 of the CAA, which is
found in subpart 2 of part D, establishes additional specific
requirements depending on the area's nonattainment classification. The
Flint and Benton Harbor areas are both classified as subpart 1
nonattainment areas and, therefore, subpart 2 requirements do not
apply. The Muskegon and Cass County areas are classified as subpart 2
marginal nonattainment areas and, therefore, both subpart 1 and subpart
2 requirements apply.
Part D, Subpart 1 applicable SIP requirements. For purposes of
evaluating these redesignation requests, the applicable part D, subpart
1 SIP requirements for Flint, Benton Harbor, Muskegon, and Cass County
areas are contained in sections 172(c)(1)-(9). A thorough discussion of
the requirements contained in section 172 can be found in the General
Preamble for Implementation of Title I (General Preamble 57 FR 13498,
April 16, 1992).
Part D, Subpart 2 applicable SIP requirements. For purposes of
evaluating these redesignation requests, the applicable part D, subpart
2 SIP requirements for the Muskegon and Cass County areas are contained
in section 182(a). A thorough discussion of the requirements contained
in section 182(a) can be found in the General Preamble (57 FR 13498,
13502-13507 (April 16, 1992)).
No requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation under part
D became due prior to submission of the redesignation request, and,
therefore, none is applicable to the areas for purposes of
redesignation. Since the State of Michigan has submitted complete ozone
redesignation requests for the Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass
County areas prior to the deadline for any submissions required for
purposes of redesignation, we have determined that these requirements
do not apply to the Flint, Muskegon,
[[Page 704]]
Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas for purposes of redesignation.
Furthermore, EPA has determined that, since PSD requirements will
apply after redesignation, areas redesignating need not comply with the
requirement that a NSR program be approved prior to redesignation,
provided that these areas demonstrate maintenance of the NAAQS without
part D NSR. A more detailed rationale for this view is described in a
memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and
Radiation, dated October 14, 1994, entitled, ``Part D New Source Review
Requirements for Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment.''
Michigan has demonstrated that the Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and
Cass County areas will be able to maintain the standard without part D
NSR in effect; and therefore, EPA concludes that the State need not
have a fully approved part D NSR program prior to approval of the
redesignation request. The State's PSD program will become effective in
the Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas upon
redesignation to attainment. See rulemakings for Detroit, Michigan (60
FR 12467-12468, March 7, 1995); Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio (61 FR
20458, 20469-20470, May 7, 1996); Louisville, Kentucky (66 FR 53665,
October 23, 2001); and Grand Rapids, Michigan (61 FR 31834-31837, June
21, 1996).
Section 176 conformity requirements. Section 176(c) of the CAA
requires states to establish criteria and procedures to ensure that
federally-supported or funded activities, including highway projects,
conform to the air quality planning goals in the applicable SIPs. The
requirement to determine conformity applies to transportation plans,
programs and projects developed, funded or approved under Title 23 of
the U.S. Code and the Federal Transit Act (transportation conformity)
as well as to all other federally-supported or funded projects (general
conformity). State conformity revisions must be consistent with federal
conformity regulations relating to consultation, enforcement and
enforceability, which EPA promulgated pursuant CAA requirements.
EPA believes that it is reasonable to interpret the conformity SIP
requirements as not applying for purposes of evaluating the
redesignation request under section 107(d) for two reasons. First, the
requirement to submit SIP revisions to comply with the conformity
provisions of the CAA continues to apply to areas after redesignation
to attainment since such areas would be subject to a section 175A
maintenance plan. Second, EPA's federal conformity rules require the
performance of conformity analyses in the absence of federally-approved
state rules. Therefore, because areas are subject to the conformity
requirements regardless of whether they are redesignated to attainment
and, because they must implement conformity under federal rules if
state rules are not yet approved, EPA believes it is reasonable to view
these requirements as not applying for purposes of evaluating a
redesignation request. See Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001),
upholding this interpretation. See also 60 FR 62748, 62749-62750 (Dec.
7, 1995) (Tampa, Florida).
EPA approved Michigan's general and transportation conformity SIPs
on December 18, 1996 (61 FR 66607 and 61 FR 66609, respectively).
Michigan has submitted on-highway motor vehicle budgets of 25.68 tons
per day (tpd) VOC and 37.99 tpd NOX for the Flint area, 6.67
tpd VOC and 11.00 tpd NOX for the Muskegon area, 9.16 tpd
VOC and 15.19 tpd NOX for the Benton Harbor area, and 2.76
tpd VOC and 3.40 tpd for NOX for the Cass County area based
on the areas' projected 2018 emission levels. The Flint, Muskegon,
Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas must use the motor vehicle
emissions budgets from the maintenance plan in any conformity
determination that is effective on or after the effective date of the
maintenance plan approval. Thus, the areas have satisfied all
applicable requirements under section 110 and part D of the CAA.
b. The Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas have a
fully approved applicable SIP under section 110(k) of the CAA. EPA has
fully approved the Michigan SIP for the Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor,
and Cass County areas under section 110(k) of the CAA for all
requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation. EPA may rely on
prior SIP approvals in approving a redesignation request (see the
September 4, 1992 John Calcagni memorandum, page 3, Southwestern
Pennsylvania Growth Alliance v. Browner, 144 F.3d 984, 989-990 (6th
Cir. 1998), Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001)) plus any
additional measures it may approve in conjunction with a redesignation
action. See 68 FR 25413, 25426 (May 12, 2003). Since the passage of the
CAA of 1970, Michigan has adopted and submitted, and EPA has fully
approved, provisions addressing the various required SIP elements
applicable to the Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas
under the 1-hour ozone standard. No Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, or
Cass County area SIP provisions are currently disapproved,
conditionally approved, or partially approved.
3. The Improvement in Air Quality Is Due to Permanent and Enforceable
Reductions in Emissions Resulting From Implementation of the SIP and
Applicable Federal Air Pollution Control Regulations and Other
Permanent and Enforceable Reductions (Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii))
EPA finds that Michigan has demonstrated that the observed air
quality improvement in the Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass
County areas is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in
emissions resulting from implementation of the SIP, federal measures,
and other state-adopted measures.
In making this demonstration, the State has calculated the change
in emissions between 2002 and 2005, one of the years the Flint,
Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas monitored attainment.
The reduction in emissions and the corresponding improvement in air
quality over this time period can be attributed to a number of
regulatory control measures that Michigan and upwind areas have
implemented in recent years. The Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and
Cass County areas are all impacted, in varying degrees, by the
transport of ozone and ozone precursors from upwind areas. Therefore,
local controls as well as controls implemented in upwind counties are
relevant to the improvement in air quality in the Flint, Muskegon,
Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas.
a. Permanent and enforceable controls implemented. The following is
a discussion of permanent and enforceable measures that have been
implemented in the areas:
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. 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
[[Page 705]]
implements additional emission controls. Federal emission control
measures include: the National Low Emission Vehicle (NLEV) program,
Tier 2 emission standards for vehicles, gasoline sulfur limits, low
sulfur diesel fuel standards, and heavy-duty diesel engine standards.
In addition, in 2004, EPA issued the Clean Air Non-road Diesel Rule (69
FR 38958 (July 29, 2004)). EPA expects this rule will reduce off-road
diesel emissions through 2010, with emission reductions starting in
2008.
Control Measures in Upwind Areas. Upwind ozone nonattainment areas
in the Lake Michigan region, including Chicago, Illinois; Gary,
Indiana; and Milwaukee, Wisconsin have continued to reduce emissions of
VOC and 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 2002 for the
nonattainment inventory and 2005, one of the years used to demonstrate
monitored attainment of the NAAQS, for the attainment inventory. For
2002, MDEQ used the Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium (LADCO) 2002
base K inventory. This typical summer day inventory was developed by
processing emissions data from the EPA final 2002 National Emissions
Inventory (NEI). Nonroad emissions were estimated using the most
current version of EPA's National Mobile Inventory Model (NMIM). For
the 2005 inventory, Michigan interpolated between the 2002 LADCO base K
inventory and the LADCO 2009 base K inventory to project emissions for
the non-EGU point and area sectors. For EGU emissions, Michigan used
2004 actual emissions as a better representation of 2005 than
interpolating from 2009. For nonroad emissions, Michigan used the most
current version of NMIM. For onroad emissions, Michigan used the
Mobile6.2 model.
Based on the inventories described above, Michigan's submittal
documents changes in VOC and NOX emissions from 2002 to 2005
for the Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas. The
emissions reductions for both VOC and NOX, by county and by
source category are shown below in Tables 3 through 7.
Table 3.--Flint Area: Total VOC and NOX Emissions for Nonattainment Year 2002 (tpd)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Genesee Lapeer Total
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC NOX VOC NOX VOC NOX
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point............................. 4.93 2.66 1.14 0.32 6.07 2.98
Area.............................. 22.06 1.76 4.60 0.37 26.66 2.13
Nonroad........................... 33.74 8.72 6.81 2.97 40.55 11.69
Onroad............................ 26.68 40.80 4.84 9.82 31.52 50.62
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total......................... 87.41 53.94 17.39 13.48 104.8 67.42
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4.--Flint Area: Total VOC and NOX Emissions for Attainment Year 2005 (tpd)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Genesee Lapeer Total
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC NOX VOC NOX VOC NOX
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point............................. 4.38 2.61 0.95 0.30 5.33 2.91
Area.............................. 21.63 1.80 4.60 0.38 26.23 2.18
Nonroad........................... 11.79 8.07 6.72 2.79 18.51 10.86
Onroad............................ 17.71 29.98 3.39 6.10 21.10 36.08
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total......................... 55.51 42.46 15.66 9.57 71.17 52.03
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 5.--Flint Area: Comparison of 2002 and 2005 VOC and NOX Emissions (tpd)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC NOX
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sector Net change Net change
2002 2005 (2002-2005) 2002 2005 (2002-2005)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point....................... 6.07 5.33 -0.74 2.98 2.91 -0.07
Area........................ 26.66 26.23 -0.43 2.13 2.18 0.05
Onroad...................... 40.55 18.51 -22.04 11.69 10.86 -0.83
Nonroad..................... 31.52 21.10 -10.42 50.62 36.08 -14.54
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................... 104.80 71.17 -33.63 67.42 52.03 -15.39
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 706]]
Table 6.--Muskegon Area (Muskegon County): Comparison of 2002 and 2005 VOC and NOX Emissions (tpd)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC NOX
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sector Net change Net change
2002 2005 (2002-2005) 2002 2005 (2002-2005)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point....................... 1.77 1.73 -0.04 14.35 13.83 -0.52
Area........................ 8.20 8.15 -0.05 0.81 0.83 0.02
Onroad...................... 7.67 5.08 -2.59 11.93 8.91 -3.02
Nonroad..................... 10.41 10.26 -0.15 6.48 6.27 -0.21
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................... 28.05 25.22 -2.83 33.57 29.84 -3.73
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 7.--Benton Harbor Area (Berrien County): Comparison of 2002 and 2005 VOC and NOX Emissions (tpd)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC NOX
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sector Net change Net change
2002 2005 (2002-2005) 2002 2005 (2002-2005)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point....................... 1.91 1.93 0.02 3.70 3.47 -0.23
Area........................ 9.05 8.99 -0.06 0.79 0.81 0.02
Onroad...................... 11.11 7.45 -3.66 20.45 14.49 -5.96
Nonroad..................... 11.67 10.98 -0.69 4.80 4.54 -0.26
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................... 33.74 29.35 -4.39 29.74 23.31 -6.43
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 8.--Cass County Area: Comparison of 2002 and 2005 VOC and NOX Emissions (tpd)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC NOX
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sector Net change Net change
2002 2005 (2002-2005) 2002 2005 (2002-2005)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point....................... 0.31 0.34 0.03 0.20 0.20 0.00
Area........................ 2.22 2.22 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00
Onroad...................... 2.45 1.66 -0.79 4.52 2.97 -1.55
Nonroad..................... 5.07 5.06 -0.01 2.06 1.92 -0.14
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................... 10.05 9.28 -0.77 6.98 5.29 -1.69
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 5 shows that the Flint area reduced VOC emissions by 33.53
tpd and NOX emissions by 15.39 tpd between 2002 and 2005.
Table 6 shows that the Muskegon area reduced VOC emissions by 2.83
tpd and NOX emissions by 3.73 tpd between 2002 and 2005.
Table 7 shows that the Benton Harbor area reduced VOC emissions by 4.39
tpd and NOX emissions by 6.43 tpd between 2002 and 2005.
Table 8 shows that the Cass County area reduced VOC emissions by 0.77
tpd and NOX emissions by 1.69 tpd between 2002 and 2005.
Based on the information summarized above, Michigan has adequately
demonstrated that the improvement in air quality is due to permanent
and enforceable emissions reductions.
4. The Areas Have a Fully Approved Maintenance Plan Pursuant to Section
175a of the CAA. (Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv))
In conjunction with its requests to redesignate the Flint,
Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County nonattainment areas to
attainment status, Michigan submitted a SIP revision to provide for the
maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in these areas for at least 10
years after redesignation.
a. What is required in a maintenance plan? Section 175A of the CAA
sets forth the required elements of a maintenance plan for areas
seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment. Under section
175A, the plan must demonstrate continued attainment of the applicable
NAAQS for at least ten years after the Administrator approves a
redesignation to attainment. Eight years after the redesignation, the
State must submit a revised maintenance plan which demonstrates that
attainment will continue to be maintained for ten years following the
initial ten-year maintenance period. To address the possibility of
future NAAQS violations, the maintenance plan must contain contingency
measures with a schedule for implementation as EPA deems necessary to
assure prompt correction of any future 8-hour ozone violations.
The September 4, 1992, John Calcagni memorandum provides additional
guidance on the content of a maintenance plan. The memorandum clarifies
that an ozone maintenance plan should address the following items: The
attainment VOC and 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. As described above, the MDEQ developed
attainment inventories for 2005, one of the years used to demonstrate
monitored attainment of the 8-hour NAAQS. The 2005 attainment level of
emissions is summarized, above, in Tables 4 to 8.
c. Demonstration of Maintenance. Michigan submitted with the
[[Page 707]]
redesignation request revisions to the 8-hour ozone SIP to include 10-
year maintenance plans for the Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass
County areas, as required by section 175A of the CAA. These
demonstrations show maintenance of the 8-hour ozone standard by
assuring that current and future emissions of VOC and NOX
for the Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas remain at
or below attainment year emission levels. A maintenance demonstration
need not be based on modeling. See Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir.
2001), Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F. 3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004). See also 66
FR 53094, 53099-53100 (October 19, 2001), 68 FR 25413, 25430-25432 (May
12, 2003).
Michigan is using projected inventories developed by LADCO for the
years 2009 and 2018. The exception to this is the 2018 onroad mobile
source emissions estimates, which were prepared by the Michigan
Department of Transportation. Using projected inventories prepared by
LADCO will ensure that the inventories used for redesignation are
consistent with regional attainment modeling performed in the future.
These emission estimates are presented in Tables 9 to 12 below.
Table 9.--Flint Area: Comparison of 2005-2018 Total VOC and NOX Emissions (tpd)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC NOX
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sector Net change Net change
2005 2009 2018 2005-2018 2005 2009 2018 2005-2018
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point non-EGU................................... 5.27 4.35 4.83 -0.44 2.77 2.74 2.81 0.04
Point EGU....................................... 0.06 0.00 0.00 -0.06 0.14 0.00 0.01 -0.13
Point Total..................................... 5.33 4.35 4.83 -0.50 2.91 2.74 2.82 -0.09
Area............................................ 26.23 25.65 26.01 -0.22 2.18 2.25 2.33 0.87
Onroad.......................................... 21.10 18.18 9.76 -11.34 36.08 32.89 11.43 -24.65
Nonroad......................................... 18.51 16.35 12.88 -5.63 10.86 9.20 15.02 -4.16
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................................... 71.17 64.01 53.48 -17.69 52.03 47.08 22.51 -29.52
Safety Margin................................... ........... ........... ........... 17.69 ........... ........... ........... 29.52
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 10.--Muskegon Area: Comparison of 2005-2018 Total VOC and NOX Emissions (tpd)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC NOX
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sector Net change Net change
2005 2009 2018 2005-2018 2005 2009 2018 2005-2018
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Non-EGU................................... 1.63 1.59 2.02 0.39 4.75 4.75 5.14 0.39
Point EGU....................................... 0.10 0.10 0.12 0.02 9.08 6.23 7.17 -1.91
Point Total..................................... 1.73 1.69 2.14 0.41 13.83 10.98 12.31 -1.52
Area............................................ 8.15 8.09 8.36 0.21 0.83 0.85 0.88 0.05
Onroad.......................................... 5.08 4.66 2.27 -2.81 8.91 8.19 2.74 -6.17
Nonroad......................................... 10.26 9.52 7.56 -2.70 6.27 5.84 4.73 -1.54
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................................... 25.22 23.96 20.33 -4.89 29.84 25.86 20.66 -9.18
Safety Margin................................... ........... ........... ........... 4.89 ........... ........... ........... 9.18
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 11.--Benton Harbor Area (Berrien County): Comparison of 2005-2018 Total VOC and NOX Emissions (tpd)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC NOX
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sector Net change Net change
2005 2009 2018 2005-2018 2005 2009 2018 2005-2018
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Non-EGU................................... 1.93 1.95
