[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 64 (Tuesday, April 2, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 14522-14531]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-8004]



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


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[MI43-01-7043; AMS-FRL-5451-3]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation 
of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes: State of Michigan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA proposes to approve Michigan's request to redesignate 
the Grand Rapids (Kent and Ottawa Counties) moderate ozone 
nonattainment area to attainment for ozone. In addition, the EPA 
proposes to approve the associated section 175A maintenance plan as 
part of the Michigan State Implementation Plan (SIP) for attainment and 
maintenance of the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for 
ozone.

DATES: Comments on this proposed action must be received in writing by 
May 2, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to Carlton T. Nash, Chief, 
Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), United 
States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson 
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Copies of this SIP revision and 
EPA's analysis are available for inspection at the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jacqueline Nwia, Environmental 
Engineer, Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), 
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West 
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6081. Anyone 
wishing to come to Region 5 offices should contact Jacqueline Nwia 
first.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990 
(Act), nonattainment areas can be redesignated to attainment if 
sufficient data are available to warrant such changes and the area 
satisfies other criteria contained in section 107(d)(3) of the Act. On 
March 9, 1995, Michigan submitted a redesignation request and section 
175A maintenance plan for the Grand Rapids and Muskegon moderate ozone 
nonattainment areas. On May 1, 1995, Michigan submitted a supplement to 
the March 9, 1995, request which included documentation of public 
comment and hearing which was held on April 10, 1995. Further, on 
January 24, 1996, the State submitted a letter advising EPA of its 
intent to revise the section 175A maintenance plan for Grand Rapids to 
add control measures to the list of contingency measures in the 
contingency plan. Specifically, the State will include as contingency 
measures reasonably available control technology (RACT) for volatile 
organic compounds (VOC) sources in the wood furniture coating, plastic 
parts coating, and industrial clean-up solvents source categories. In 
the event one or more of these measures is selected to be implemented 
as contingency measures, the State will adopt rules and submit them as 
a revision to the SIP. The State must submit this maintenance plan SIP 
revision before the EPA could take final action to approve its 
redesignation request. If approved, the section 175A maintenance plan 
would become a federally enforceable part of the SIP for this area. On 
March 15, 1996, the State submitted a supplement to the redesignation 
request qualifying that the

[[Page 14523]]
process by which a transport effected violation will be determined will 
include a public participation process and consultation with the EPA.
    A detailed analysis of the redesignation request and section 175A 
maintenance plan SIP submittal for Grand Rapids is contained in the 
EPA's Technical Support Document (TSD), dated March 20, 1996, from 
Jacqueline Nwia to the Docket, entitled ``TSD for the Request to 
Redesignate the Grand Rapids, Michigan Moderate Nonattainment Area to 
Attainment for Ozone and the Proposed Revision to the Michigan Ozone 
SIP for a 175A Maintenance Plan,'' which is available from the Region 5 
office listed above.

I. Background

    The 1977 Clean Air Act required areas that were designated 
nonattainment, based on a failure to meet the ozone National Ambient 
Air Quality Standard (NAAQS), to develop SIPs with sufficient control 
measures to expeditiously attain and maintain the NAAQS. The Grand 
Rapids area was designated under section 107 of the 1977 Act as 
nonattainment with respect to the ozone NAAQS (43 FR 8962, March 3, 
1978 and 43 FR 45993, October 5, 1978).
    After enactment of the amended Act on November 15, 1990, the 
nonattainment designation of the Grand Rapids area continued by 
operation of law in accordance with section 107(d)(1)(C)(i) of the Act; 
furthermore, this area was classified by operation of law as moderate 
for ozone pursuant to section 181(a)(1) (56 FR 56694, November 6, 
1991), codified at 40 CFR Sec. 81.323.
    The Grand Rapids area, more recently, has collected ambient 
monitoring data that show no violations of the ozone NAAQS during the 
period from 1992 through 1994. The area, therefore, became eligible for 
redesignation from nonattainment to attainment consistent with the Act. 
Quality assured data for 1995 shows that the area continues to monitor 
attainment. On March 9, 1995, Michigan requested redesignation of the 
area to attainment with respect to the ozone NAAQS and submitted a 
section 175A ozone maintenance SIP for the Grand Rapids area to ensure 
continued attainment of the ozone NAAQS. On April 10, 1995, Michigan 
held a public hearing on the maintenance plan component of the 
redesignation request. On May 1, 1995, Michigan submitted supplemental 
materials and technical materials to support the redesignation request, 
and evidence that the required opportunities for public comment were 
provided by the State on April 10, 1995. Public comments received 
during the State's public comment period and public hearing and the 
State's response to each are presented in Appendix B of Michigan's May 
1, 1995, submittal. The EPA deemed the submittal complete on May 15, 
1995. On January 24, 1996, the State submitted a letter advising EPA of 
its intent to revise the section 175A maintenance plan for Grand Rapids 
to incorporate 3 additional contingency measures. The State must submit 
this maintenance plan SIP revision before the EPA can take final action 
to approve its redesignation request. On March 15, 1996, the State 
submitted a supplement to the redesignation request qualifying that the 
process by which a transport effected violation will be determined will 
include a public participation process and consultation with the EPA. 
In order to accommodate these additional steps, the schedule for a 
final determination was extended from 30 days to 120 days.

II. Evaluation Criteria

    The 1990 Amendments revised section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Act to 
provide five specific requirements that an area must meet in order to 
be redesignated from nonattainment to attainment. Specifically, section 
107(d)(3)(E) provides for redesignation if: (i) The Administrator 
determines that the area has attained the NAAQS; (ii) The Administrator 
has fully approved the applicable implementation plan for the area 
under section 110(k); (iii) The Administrator determines that the 
improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable 
reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the applicable 
implementation plan and applicable Federal air pollutant control 
regulations and other permanent and enforceable reductions; (iv) The 
Administrator has fully approved a maintenance plan for the area as 
meeting the requirements of section 175A; and (v) The State containing 
such area has met all requirements applicable to the area under section 
110 and part D.

III. Review of State Submittal

    The Michigan redesignation request for the Grand Rapids area will 
meet the five requirements of section 107(d)(3)(E), noted above, once 
the State submits the revision to the maintenance plan noted 
previously, as discussed in more detail below. Because the maintenance 
plan is a critical element of the redesignation request, EPA will 
discuss its evaluation of the maintenance plan under its analysis of 
the redesignation request.

1. The Area Must Have Attained the Ozone NAAQS

    For ozone, an area is considered attaining the NAAQS if there are 
no violations, as determined in accordance with the regulation codified 
at 40 CFR Sec. 50.9, based on three (3) consecutive calendar years of 
complete, quality assured monitoring data. A violation occurs when the 
ozone air quality monitoring data show greater than one (1) average 
expected exceedance per year at any site in the area at issue. An 
exceedance occurs when the maximum hourly ozone concentration exceeds 
0.124 parts per million (ppm). The data should be collected and 
quality-assured in accordance with 40 CFR Part 58, and recorded in the 
Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS) in order for it to be 
available to the public for review.
    The redesignation request for the Grand Rapids area relies on ozone 
monitoring data for the years 1992 through 1994, to show that the area 
is meeting the NAAQS for ozone. The area must also demonstrate 
continued attainment until the area is redesignated to attainment, i.e. 
the area must also demonstrate attainment for the period 1993-1995.
    Since the population of the urban area within the Grand Rapids 
nonattainment area is about 688,000, NAMS monitor specifications are 
applicable. NAMS requirements of 40 CFR Part 58, Appendix D specify 
that an area with a population of greater than 200,000 must have, at a 
minimum, two NAMS monitors, one urban and one neighborhood scale 
monitor. Since 1980, two NAMS monitors have operated in Kent County. 
These monitors, are cited according to EPA guidelines set forth in 40 
CFR Part 58, Appendix D as follows; an urban scale monitor in Grattan 
township (26-081-2001), just northeast of the city of Grand Rapids 
urban area, measures the highest ozone concentrations resulting from 
ozone precursor emissions generated by the Grand Rapids urban area and 
a neighborhood scale monitor, just on the northeast limits of the city 
of Grand Rapids (26-081-0020), measures the population exposure to high 
ozone concentrations. Both monitors are situated in the direction of 
prevailing winds during the ozone season, i.e. southwest. The data from 
these monitors was the basis of the 1991 ozone nonattainment 
designation and moderate classification for Grand Rapids. Two 
exceedances of the ozone NAAQS have been monitored since 1992 in Kent 
County, both of these occurred at the Grand Rapids monitor (26-081-
0020). At this site, the first

[[Page 14524]]
exceedance of 0.156 ppm occurred in 1993, and the second exceedance of 
0.149 ppm occurred in 1994. Quality assured AIRS data was used to 
determine that the annual average expected exceedances for the years 
1992, 1993, and 1994 for each monitor in Kent County is 0.7 and 0, both 
values less than 1.0. In addition, the area must demonstrate that it 
continues to attain the ozone NAAQS until the area is redesignated to 
attainment. Quality assured AIRS data for the period 1993-1995 
demonstrates that the monitors in Kent County continue to attain the 
ozone NAAQS with an annual average expected exceedances for the years 
1993, 1994, and 1995 for each monitor in Kent County is 1.0 and 0.3, 
both values less than or equal to 1.0.
    In 1989, the State established an ozone monitor in Ottawa County, 
26-139-0005 (Jenison), which operated through part of 1992. The Jenison 
site recorded two exceedances during each of the years 1989, 1990, and 
1991. The monitor operated for 63 percent of the 1992 ozone season with 
no exceedances of the ozone NAAQS. Based on the Lake Michigan Ozone 
Study (LMOS) field study, which showed that higher ozone concentrations 
are recorded along the Lake Michigan shoreline, the State relocated the 
Jenison monitor to Holland, a lakeside urbanized area in Allegan 
County. However, the Allegan County monitor cannot be considered part 
of the Grand Rapids area since it is outside the two county area. In 
addition, two Special Purpose monitors, 26-139-0006 (Borculo) and 26-
139-0007 (Holland) operated in Ottawa County during a portion of the 
1991 ozone season as part of the LMOS field study. The Borculo and 
Holland monitors recorded 3 and 5 exceedances, respectively, during 
1991. The State discontinued these monitors after the 1991 LMOS field 
study. At the encouragement of the EPA, the State reestablished a 
monitor in Ottawa County, i.e. the Jenison site, in 1994. NAMS 
monitoring specifications are not applicable in Ottawa County since it 
does not contain an urbanized area. The Jenison site will provide 
useful background ozone concentrations for the Grand Rapids urban area.
    The EPA acknowledges that multiple exceedances of the ozone NAAQS 
were recorded at the various monitors in Ottawa county during 1989-
1991. The redesignation, however, is based on the 3 year period 1992-
1994. Consequently, monitoring data prior to 1992 would not be taken 
into account in the determination of attainment. The Jenison site has 
partial 1992 data, and complete data for 1994 and 1995. No exceedances 
of the ozone NAAQS were recorded at the Jenison monitor during its 
operation in 1992 or 1994 and one exceedance was recorded in 1995 at 
0.133 ppm. The January 1979 document entitled Guideline for the 
Interpretation of Ozone Air Quality Standards (p. 13) suggests that 
evaluating ozone data requires the use of all ozone data collected at 
the site during the past 3 calendar years. If no data are available for 
a particular year then the remaining years are used. Consequently, 
since 1992 data for this monitor is incomplete and 1993 data is 
unavailable for this monitor, it would suffice to use ozone monitoring 
data for the remaining most recent calendar years, i.e. 1994-1995. 
Therefore, for the years 1994-1995, the Ottawa County monitor, Jenison, 
demonstrates attainment of the ozone NAAQS with an average number of 
expected exceedances of 0.5, a value less than 1.0. The EPA, therefore, 
believes that the more recent monitoring data for Ottawa county 
demonstrates that the area is attaining the ozone NAAQS.
    In summary, the Grand Rapids area's 1991 nonattainment designation 
and moderate classification was based on the two monitors in Kent 
County which have complete quality assured data for the periods 1992-
1994 and 1993-1995 demonstrating attainment of the NAAQS. Although 
multiple exceedances of the ozone NAAQS were recorded in Ottawa County 
in 1989-1991, more recent monitoring data demonstrates an improvement 
in air quality and even attainment of the ozone NAAQS.
    Since the annual average number of expected exceedances for each 
monitor during the most recent three years is equal to or less than 
1.0, at all monitors in the Grand Rapids area, the area has attained 
the NAAQS.
    Because the Grand Rapids area has complete quality-assured data 
showing no violations of the standard over the most recent consecutive 
three calendar year period, the Grand Rapids area has met the first 
statutory criterion of attainment of the ozone NAAQS. The State has 
committed to continue monitoring in this area in accordance with 40 CFR 
part 58.

2. The Area Must Have a Fully Approved SIP Under Section 110(k); and 
the Area Must Have Met All Applicable Requirements Under Section 110 
and Part D.

    Before the Grand Rapids area may be redesignated to attainment for 
ozone, it must have fulfilled the applicable requirements of section 
110 and part D. The memorandum from John Calcagni, September 4, 1992, 
Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment 
(September Calcagni) state that areas requesting redesignation to 
attainment had to fully adopt rules and programs that come due prior to 
the submittal of a complete redesignation request. If unimplemented, 
these rules/programs may be rolled over into the area's maintenance 
plan as contingency measures. As described below in the section of this 
notice addressing VOC RACT rules, however, the EPA is allowing an 
exception to this policy. While all requirements that come due prior to 
the submission of the redesignation request remain applicable 
requirements, the EPA believes it appropriate, in this instance, to 
allow an exception to policy to provide that the requirement for 
certain VOC RACT rules may be complied with simply through their 
incorporation among the contingency measures in the maintenance plan. 
For reasons described later in this action, these measures need not be 
fully adopted and approved prior to redesignation. Furthermore, 
requirements of the Act that come due subsequent to the area's 
submittal of a complete redesignation request would continue to be 
applicable to the area (see section 175A(c)) until a redesignation is 
approved, but not required as a prerequisite for redesignation. If the 
redesignation is disapproved, the State remains obligated to fulfill 
those requirements.

Section 110 Requirements

    General SIP elements are delineated in section 110(a)(2) of Title 
I, part A. These requirements include but are not limited to the 
following: submittal of a SIP that has been adopted by the State after 
reasonable notice and public hearing, provisions for establishment and 
operation of appropriate apparatus, methods, systems and procedures 
necessary to monitor ambient air quality, implementation of a permit 
program, provisions for Part C (Prevention of Significant Deterioration 
(PSD)) and D (New Source Review (NSR)) permit programs, criteria for 
stationary source emission control measures, monitoring, and reporting, 
provisions for modeling, and provisions for public and local agency 
participation. For purposes of redesignation, the Michigan SIP was 
reviewed to ensure that all requirements under the amended Act were 
satisfied. On May 6, 1980 (45 FR 29801) and February 7, 1985 (50 FR 
5250), the EPA fully approved Michigan's SIP as meeting the 
requirements of section 110(a)(2) and part D of the 1977 Act

[[Page 14525]]
with the exception that Michigan must meet the part D RACT requirements 
for the ozone SIP. See 40 CFR 52.1172. Michigan submitted, and the EPA 
approved into the SIP, all part D VOC RACT requirements for the ozone 
SIP.
    Although section 110 of the Act was amended in 1990, the Grand 
Rapids area SIP meets the requirements of amended section 110(a)(2). A 
number of the requirements did not change in substance and, therefore, 
EPA believes that the pre-amendment SIP met these requirements. As to 
those requirements that were amended (57 FR 27936 and 27939, June 23, 
1992) many are duplicative of other requirements of the Act. The EPA 
has analyzed the SIP and determined that it is consistent with the 
requirements of amended section 110(a)(2).

Part D Requirements

    Under part D, an area's nonattainment classification determines the 
requirements to which it is subject. Subpart 1 of part D sets forth the 
basic nonattainment requirements applicable to all nonattainment areas. 
Subpart 2 of part D establishes additional requirements for 
nonattainment areas classified under table 1 of section 181(a). As 
described in the General Preamble for the Implementation of Title 1, 
specific requirements of subpart 2 may override subpart 1's general 
provisions (57 FR 13501, April 16, 1992). The Grand Rapids area was 
classified as moderate (56 FR 56694, November 6, 1991), codified at 40 
CFR 81.323. Therefore, in order to be redesignated, the State must meet 
the applicable requirements of subpart 1 of part D--specifically 
sections 172(c) and 176, as well as the applicable requirements of 
subpart 2 of part D that apply to moderate areas such as Grand Rapids.

(a) Section 172(c) Requirements

    Section 172(c) sets forth general requirements applicable to all 
nonattainment areas. Under section 172(b), the section 172(c) 
requirements are applicable as determined by the Administrator, but 
must be met no later than 3 years after an area has been designated as 
nonattainment under the amended Act. Furthermore, as noted above, some 
of these section 172(c) requirements are superseded by more specific 
requirements in subpart 2 of part D. In the case of the Grand Rapids 
area, the State has satisfied all of the section 172(c) requirements 
necessary for these areas to be redesignated.
    For moderate ozone nonattainment areas, the section 172(c)(1) 
Reasonably Available Control Measures requirement was superseded by 
section 182(a)(2) RACT requirements. Section 182(a)(2) requires 
moderate ozone nonattainment areas that were previously designated 
nonattainment to submit RACT corrections. See General Preamble for the 
Implementation of Title I, 57 FR at 13503. The VOC RACT fix-up SIP was 
fully approved on September 7, 1994 (59 FR 46182).
    Since the Grand Rapids area has attained the ozone NAAQS, the 
Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) requirement is no longer relevant. A 
May 10, 1995 memorandum from John Seitz to Regional Division Directors 
entitled Reasonable Further Progress, Attainment Demonstration, and 
Related Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment Areas Meeting the National 
Ambient Air Quality Standard indicates that the RFP, attainment 
demonstration and 179(c)(9) contingency measure SIPs would not be 
required for approval of a redesignation request for those areas which 
the EPA determines have attained the ozone NAAQS. The EPA made such 
determinations for the Grand Rapids area on July 20, 1995 (60 FR 37366) 
which also halted the sanctions clocks started January 21, 1994, for 
the 15 percent plans (RFP) and 179(c)(9) contingency measures. Also, 
see General Preamble for Implementation of Title I, 57 FR at 13564.
    The section 172(c)(3) emission inventory requirement has been met 
by the State's submission and EPA's approval on July 26, 1994, of the 
1990 base year emission inventory required by section 182(a)(1). See 59 
FR 37944.
    As for the section 172(c)(5) NSR requirement, the EPA has 
determined that areas being redesignated need not comply with the NSR 
requirement prior to redesignation provided that the area demonstrates 
maintenance of the NAAQS without part D NSR in effect. A memorandum 
from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, dated 
October 14, 1994, entitled Part D New Source Review (part D NSR) 
Requirements for Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment, fully 
describes the rationale for this view, and is based on the Agency's 
authority to establish de minimis exceptions to statutory requirements. 
See Alabama Power Co. v. Costle, 636 F. 2d 323, 360-61 (D.C. Cir. 
1979). As discussed below, the State of Michigan has demonstrated that 
the Grand Rapids area will be able to maintain the NAAQS without part D 
NSR in effect and, therefore, the State need not have a fully-approved 
part D NSR program prior to approval of the redesignation request for 
Grand Rapids. Once the area is redesignated to attainment, the PSD 
program, which has been delegated to Michigan, will become effective 
immediately. The PSD program was delegated to Michigan on September 10, 
1979, and amended on November 7, 1983, and September 26, 1988.
    The section 172(c)(9) contingency measures requirements also are no 
longer relevant since the Grand Rapids area has attained the ozone 
NAAQS and is no longer subject to RFP requirements. These contingency 
measures are intended to be applied only if the area fails to meet an 
RFP milestone or fails to attain the ozone NAAQS; the Grand Rapids area 
no longer has RFP milestones and has already attained the NAAQS. A May 
10, 1995, memorandum from John Seitz to Regional Division Directors 
entitled Reasonable Further Progress, Attainment Demonstration, and 
Related Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment Areas Meeting the National 
Ambient Air Quality Standard indicates that the RFP, attainment 
demonstration and 179(c)(9) contingency measure SIPs would not be 
required for approval of a redesignation request for those areas which 
the EPA determines have attained the ozone NAAQS. The EPA made such 
determinations for the Grand Rapids area on July 20, 1995, (60 FR 
37366) which also halted the sanctions clocks started January 21, 1994, 
for the 15 percent plans (RFP) and 179(c)(9) contingency measures. 
Section 175A contingency measures, however, still apply.
    Finally, for purposes of redesignation, the Michigan SIP was 
reviewed to ensure that all requirements of section 110(a)(2), 
containing general SIP elements, were satisfied. As noted above, the 
EPA believes the SIP satisfies all of those requirements.

(b) Section 176 Conformity Requirements

    Section 176(c) of the Act requires States to revise their SIPs to 
establish criteria and procedures to ensure that Federal actions, 
before they are taken, conform to the air quality planning goals in the 
applicable SIP. The requirement to determine conformity applies to 
transportation plans, programs and projects developed, funded or 
approved under Title 23 U.S.C. or the Federal Transit Act 
(``transportation conformity''), as well as to all other Federal 
actions (``general conformity''). Section 176 further provides that the 
conformity revisions to be submitted by the States must be consistent 
with Federal conformity regulations that the Act required the EPA to 
promulgate. Congress provided

[[Page 14526]]
for the State revisions to be submitted one year after the date of 
promulgation of final EPA conformity regulations.
    The EPA promulgated final transportation conformity regulations on 
November 24, 1993 (58 FR 62188), and general conformity regulations on 
November 30, 1993 (58 FR 63214). These conformity rules require that 
States adopt both transportation and general conformity provisions in 
the SIP for areas designated nonattainment or subject to a maintenance 
plan approved under section 175A of the Act. Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.396 
of the transportation conformity rule and 40 CFR section 51.851 of the 
general conformity rule, the State of Michigan is required to submit a 
SIP revision containing transportation conformity criteria and 
procedures consistent with those established in the Federal rule by 
November 25, 1994, and November 30, 1994, respectively. Michigan 
submitted transportation and general conformity SIP revisions on 
November 24, 1994 and November 29, 1994, respectively. The EPA has not 
yet approved these rules as part of the SIP.
    Although this redesignation request was submitted to EPA after the 
due dates for the SIP revisions for transportation conformity and 
general conformity rules, the EPA believes it is reasonable to 
interpret the conformity requirements as not being applicable 
requirements for purposes of evaluating the redesignation request under 
section 107(d). The rationale for this is based on a combination of two 
factors. First, the requirement to submit SIP revisions to comply with 
the conformity provisions of the Act continue to apply to areas after 
redesignation to attainment, since such areas would be subject to a 
section 175A maintenance plan. Therefore, the State remains obligated 
to adopt the transportation and general conformity rules even after 
redesignation and would risk sanctions for failure to do so. While 
redesignation of an area to attainment enables the area to avoid 
further compliance with most requirements of section 110 and part D, 
since those requirements are linked to the nonattainment status of an 
area, the conformity requirements apply to both nonattainment and 
maintenance areas. Second, EPA's federal conformity rules require the 
performance of conformity analyses in the absence of state-adopted 
rules. Therefore, a delay in adopting State rules does not relieve an 
area from the obligation to implement conformity requirements.
    Because areas are subject to the conformity requirements regardless 
of whether they are redesignated to attainment and must implement 
conformity under Federal rules if State rules are not yet adopted, the 
EPA believes it is reasonable to view these requirements as not being 
applicable requirements for purposes of evaluating a redesignation 
request.
    For the reasons just discussed, the EPA believes that the ozone 
redesignation request for the Grand Rapids area may be approved 
notwithstanding the lack of fully approved State transportation and 
general conformity rules. This policy was also exercised in the Tampa, 
Florida ozone redesignation finalized on December 7, 1995 (60 FR 
62748).

(c) Subpart 2 Requirements

    Grand Rapids is a moderate ozone nonattainment area and is subject 
to the section 182(a), 182(b) and 182(f) requirements. Under subpart 2, 
Grand Rapids is required to have met the requirements of section 
182(a)(1), (2), and (3), section 182(b)(1), (2), (3), and (4), and 
section 182(f). The following discussion describes each of these 
requirements.
    The emission inventory required by section 182(a)(1) was approved 
on July 26, 1994 (59 FR 37944). The RACT corrections required by 
section 182(a)(2)(A) were approved on September 7, 1994, and the 
section 182(a)(2)(B) motor vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) 
requirement is superseded by the section 182(b)(4) requirement 
discussed below. The emission statement SIP required by section 
182(a)(3)(B) was approved on March 8, 1994 (59 FR 10752).
    The RFP and attainment demonstration requirements of section 
182(b)(1) are no longer applicable, as noted previously, since the area 
has attained the ozone NAAQS.\1\

    \1\ A May 10, 1995 memorandum from John Seitz to Regional 
Division Directors entitled Reasonable Further Progress, Attainment 
Demonstration, and Related Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment 
Areas Meeting the National Ambient Air Quality Standard indicates 
that the RFP, attainment demonstration and 179(c)(9) contingency 
measure SIPs would not be required for approval of a redesignation 
request for those areas which the USEPA determines have attained the 
ozone NAAQS. The USEPA made such determinations for the Grand Rapids 
area on July 20, 1995 (60 FR 37366) which also concluded the 
sanctions process started January 21, 1994 for the 15 percent plans 
(RFP) and 179(c)(9) contingency measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 182(b)(2)(A) of the Act requires States to develop RACT 
rules for sources ``covered by a CTG document issued by the 
Administrator between November 15, 1990, and the date of attainment'' 
for moderate and above ozone nonattainment areas. With Appendix E of 
the General Preamble, EPA published a CTG document setting a timetable 
for the adoption, submittal, and implementation of certain newly-listed 
CTG source categories. (57 FR 13513, April 16, 1992; 57 FR 18077, April 
28, 1992.) Appendix E provided that if EPA did not issue CTGs for those 
source categories by November 15, 1993, States were to submit RACT 
rules for those source categories by November 15, 1994, which were to 
be implemented by November 15, 1995.
    The Grand Rapids area contains sources in three (Plastic Parts 
Coating, Wood Furniture Coating and Industrial Clean-up Solvents) of 
the source categories subject to the deadlines established in Appendix 
E. As EPA did not issue CTGs covering those source categories, the due 
date for the submission of RACT rules for those source categories was 
November 15, 1994, a date preceding the submission of the redesignation 
request for Grand Rapids.
    Under EPA's policy regarding redesignations, since the due date for 
the CTG RACT rules at issue preceded the submission of the 
redesignation request, EPA would require full adoption, submission and 
approval of these rules prior to approval of the redesignation request. 
EPA believes, however, that, in the context of the particular 
circumstances of this redesignation, that it is permissible to depart 
from that policy and instead accept a commitment to implement these 
RACT rules as contingency measures in the maintenance plan rather than 
require full adoption and approval of the rules prior to approval of 
the redesignation. The State of Michigan has submitted a letter to EPA 
indicating its intent to revise the Grand Rapids maintenance plan so as 
to include a commitment to adopt and implement these RACT rules as 
contingency measures and, provided that the State completes its 
proposed revision to the maintenance plan, EPA may take final action to 
approve the Grand Rapids redesignation. The reasons justifying this 
exception to EPA's general policy are explained below.
    EPA believes that several factors in combination justify this 
approach with respect to the Grand Rapids redesignation. First, the 
RACT rules at issue in this redesignation proceeding came due after the 
end of the ozone season in which Grand Rapids attained the standard and 
were not needed to bring about attainment of the standard in Grand 
Rapids. Second, the State has demonstrated continued maintenance of the 
ozone standard through 2007 without the implementation of these 
measures. Third, the State has placed other contingency measures in the

[[Page 14527]]
maintenance plan that would bring about far greater emission reductions 
than the RACT rules and would therefore be substantially more effective 
in terms of correcting violations attributable to local emissions from 
the Grand Rapids area that may occur after redesignation. As presented 
in more detail in the EPA's March 20, 1996 TSD, an analysis of emission 
reduction estimates, at various time intervals, shows that the 
implementation of enhanced I/M, Stage II or low Reid Vapor Pressure 
(RVP) (to 7.8 psi) programs would bring about greater reductions than 
VOC RACT rules for wood furniture coating, plastic parts coating and 
industrial clean-up solvents in aggregate, and substantially greater 
reductions than any of these RACT rules individually. As a consequence, 
EPA believes that the other, more effective contingency measures, 
should and would be implemented first even if the RACT rules were to be 
fully adopted prior to redesignation.
    EPA emphasizes that even under the exception to its policy proposed 
herein, the requirement for these RACT rules remains an applicable 
requirement for purposes of evaluating the redesignation request since 
it predated the submission of the request. The requirement, however, 
would be met in the form of the submission and full approval of a 
commitment to adopt and implement these rules as contingency measures 
in the maintenance plan. (Under EPA's existing policy, contingency 
measures in maintenance plans may consist of commitments to adopt and 
implement measures upon a violation of the standard. See September 
Calcagni Memorandum.)
    EPA further notes that even without this exception to its general 
policy, the State would have been able to have the RACT rules become a 
part of the contingency measures in the maintenance plan upon approval 
of the redesignation. That could have occurred only after or upon EPA's 
full approval of the adopted RACT rules, however. Thus, the only 
difference between EPA's general policy and the exception to that 
policy described in this proposal is that a commitment to adopt and 
implement the RACT rules in an expeditious manner, rather than fully-
adopted RACT rules, would be among the contingency measures in the 
maintenance plan. In light of the combination of factors discussed 
above, including in particular the presence of other, significantly 
more effective, contingency measures in the maintenance plan, EPA 
believes that this difference has no significant environmental 
consequence and that it is permissible to approve the Grand Rapids 
redesignation on this basis.
    The VOC RACT requirements of section 182(b)(2)(B) and (C) were 
approved on September 7, 1994 (59 FR 46182) and October 23, 1995 (60 FR 
54308) 2. The section 182(b)(3) Stage II gasoline vapor recovery 
was also an applicable requirement. However, the ``onboard rule'' 
3 was published on April 6, 1994, and section 202(a)(6) of the Act 
provides that once onboard rules are promulgated, Stage II gasoline 
vapor recovery will no longer be a requirement. The motor vehicle I/M 
requirement to satisfy section 182(b)(4) for the Grand Rapids area was 
approved on October 11, 1994 (59 FR 51379). The State need not comply 
with the requirements of section 182(a) and 182(b) concerning revisions 
to the part D NSR program in order for the Grand Rapids area to be 
redesignated for the reasons explained above in connection with the 
discussion of the section 172(c)(5) NSR requirement. With respect to 
the section 182(f) oxides of nitrogen (NOx) requirements, on July 
13, 1994, Michigan submitted, along with Illinois, Indiana and 
Wisconsin, a section 182(f) NOX petition to be relieved of the 
section 182(f) NOX requirements based on urban airshed modeling 
(UAM). The modeling demonstrates that NOX emission reductions 
would not contribute to attainment of the NAAQS for ozone in the 
modeled area, which includes Grand Rapids. Refer to section 
182(f)(1)(A) of the Act. The EPA approved the section 182(f) petition 
on January 26, 1996 (61 FR 2428) in a final rulemaking action.

    \2\ The USEPA also notes that the Synthetic Organic Chemical 
Manufacturing Industry (SOCMI) Distillation and Reactor CTG was 
issued on November 15, 1993, prior to the submission of the Grad 
Rapids redesignation request. That CTG, however, established a due 
date for State submittal of the SOCMI Distillation and Reactor rules 
of March 23, 1995 (See March 23, 1994, 59 FR 13717), a date after 
submission of a request to redesignate Grand Rapids to attainment. 
Thus, those rules are not applicable requirements for purposes of 
this redesignation.
    \3\ The rule which was published by the USEPA on April 6, 1994 
requires a vehicle based (onboard) system for the control of vehicle 
refueling emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Michigan has presented an adequate demonstration that the State has 
met all the requirements applicable to the area under section 110 and 
part D. The final approval of this redesignation request is contingent 
on the State's submittal of a revision to the SIP incorporating into 
the maintenance plan, a commitment to adopt and implement the relevant 
section 182(b)(2)(A) VOC RACT rules as contingency measures.

3. The Improvement in Air Quality Must Be Due to Permanent and 
Enforceable Reductions in Emissions Resulting From the SIP, Federal 
Measures and Other Permanent and Enforceable Reductions

    Michigan maintains that the Grand Rapids area is the recipient of 
overwhelming amounts of ozone transported from the upwind Gary-Chicago-
Milwaukee severe nonattainment areas as demonstrated by their November 
14, 1994 petition.4 The overwhelming transport demonstration 
includes UAM which shows that there is minimal to no change in ozone 
concentrations in the two Western Michigan areas even when the Grand 
Rapids and Muskegon VOC and NOX emissions are entirely eliminated. 
The State, therefore, concluded that emission reductions within the 
Grand Rapids and Muskegon areas would have little or no impact on ozone 
concentrations within these two areas. The State maintains that the 
improvement in air quality in Grand Rapids is largely due to emission 
reductions achieved throughout the Lake Michigan region.

    \4\ Consistent with USEPA's September 1, 1994, memorandum from 
Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, 
entitled Ozone Attainment Dates for Areas Affected by Overwhelming 
Transport.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nonetheless, the redesignation request demonstrates that permanent 
and enforceable emission reductions have occurred in the Grand Rapids 
area as a result of the Federal Motor Vehicle Emission Control Program 
(FMVCP). The submittal provides a general discussion of the development 
of the emission inventories for ozone precursors, VOC and NOX, 
from 1991-1996 which were prepared by the Lake Michigan Air Directors 
Consortium (LADCO) for use in the Lake Michigan Ozone Study (LMOS). 
Although 1991 was not one of the years used to designate and classify 
the area, it was a nonattainment year. The VOC and NOX emission 
inventories for the years 1991 and 1996 submitted by the State show a 
declining trend in emissions. Based on this declining trend, it may be 
deduced that the VOC and NOX emissions from 1991 were at least 
equal to or lower than those of the design value year. This would 
demonstrate that the test of permanent and enforceable emission 
reductions from 1991 is at least equal to or more stringent than that 
from the design value year to an attainment year. With this, the EPA 
believes that the use of a 1987-1989 emission inventory for Grand 
Rapids would not have affected the conclusion that reductions in 
emissions from permanent and

[[Page 14528]]
enforceable programs have contributed to improvements in air quality in 
the area and proposes to accept 1991 as the nonattainment year for 
purposes of demonstrating permanent and enforceable emission 
reductions.
    A 1996 emission inventory is provided as the attainment year 
emission inventory. The State maintains that the differential between 
the 1996 and 1994 emissions inventories for the purpose of 
demonstrating permanent and enforceable emission reductions is 
inconsequential. Michigan states that the 1996 emission inventory will 
further hold the State to a more stringent inventory for general and 
transportation conformity purposes. Although this may be true, future 
year emission reductions from FMVCP, and Title IV Phase I NOx 
controls which were not implemented during the years used to 
demonstrate attainment of the ozone NAAQS, i.e. 1992-1994, cannot be 
included as permanent and enforceable emission reductions since those 
reductions have not yet occurred. Consequently, the EPA prepared 1994 
emission inventories for the Grand Rapids area based on the emission 
inventories and documentation submitted by the State with the 
redesignation request.
    Based on EPA's analysis, VOC emissions were reduced by 0.6 tons 
(0.4 percent) and NOx emissions were reduced by 2.4 tons (1.1 
percent) per day in Grand Rapids between 1991 and 1994. The emission 
reductions are due to FMVCP.

4. The Area Must Have a Fully Approved Maintenance Plan Meeting the 
Requirements of Section 175A

    Section 175A of the Act sets forth the elements of a maintenance 
plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment. 
The maintenance plan is a SIP revision which provides for maintenance 
of the relevant NAAQS in the area for at least 10 years after 
redesignation to attainment. The September Calcagni memorandum 
regarding redesignation provides further guidance on the required 
content of a maintenance plan.
    An ozone maintenance plan should address the following five 
elements: the attainment inventory, maintenance demonstration, 
monitoring network, verification of continued attainment and a 
contingency plan. The attainment emissions inventory identifies the 
emissions level in the area which is sufficient to attain the ozone 
NAAQS, and includes emissions during the time period which had no 
monitored violations. Maintenance is demonstrated by showing that 
future emissions will not exceed the level established by the 
attainment inventory. Provisions for continued operation of an 
appropriate air quality monitoring network are to be included in the 
maintenance plan. The State must show how it will track and verify the 
progress of the maintenance plan. Finally, the maintenance plan must 
include contingency measures which ensure prompt correction of any 
violation of the ozone NAAQS. Eight years after the redesignation, the 
State must submit a revised maintenance plan which demonstrates 
attainment for the 10 years following the initial 10-year period. See 
section 175A(b) of the Act.
    The State has submitted an attainment emission inventory for 1996 
that identifies 160 tons of VOC and 203 tons of NOx per day as the 
level of emissions in the area sufficient to attain the ozone NAAQS in 
the Grand Rapids area. The 1996 attainment inventory was based on an 
inventory of VOC and NOx emissions from area, stationary, and 
mobile sources for 1991. The September Calcagni memorandum states that 
generally the attainment inventory would be the inventory at the time 
the area attained the NAAQS and should include the emissions during the 
time period associated with the monitoring data showing attainment. 
Under a strict interpretation of this policy, the 1996 emission 
inventory presented by the State would not qualify as an attainment 
year inventory. A comparison of the 1994 (an attainment year) emission 
inventory prepared by the EPA and the 1996 emission inventory submitted 
by the State and found the emission differential to be 0.25 percent for 
VOC and 6.21 percent for NOx for Grand Rapids. Considering the 
small differential and the fact that the 1996 emission inventory would 
hold the Grand Rapids area to a more stringent attainment emission 
inventory due to the declining trend and additional VOC and NOx 
emission reductions accounted for in the 1996 emission inventory, the 
EPA proposes to accept the 1996 emission inventory as the attainment 
year inventory.
    The 1991 emission inventory developed by LADCO for the LMOS 
modeling effort also served as the basis for calculations to 
demonstrate maintenance by projecting emissions forward to the years 
1996 and 2007. The 1991 nonattainment year emission inventory 
represents hot summer weekday actual emissions for the Grand Rapids 
area. Point and area projections are based on growth factors extracted 
from the EPA's Economic Growth Analysis System and supplemental 
information used in the development of emission projections. Point 
source growth factors for utilities were based on source specific data 
provided by the utility companies. Area source growth factors were 
supplemented with population and gasoline sales/marketing data. The 
stationary source emission estimates (point and area) were developed 
using the geocoded emissions modeling and projections system (GEMAP). 
GEMAP employs projection methodologies equivalent to those in the EPA's 
Emissions Projections System. In developing the mobile source emission 
estimates, the MOBILE5a model was used with day specific temperatures 
(for June 26, 1991). The input parameters for the MOBILE5a model are 
provided in Appendix D of the submittal. The gasoline RVP used for all 
inventories was 9.0 pounds per square inch (psi). The methodologies 
employed in developing the on-highway mobile source emissions included 
the Federal Highway Administration highway performance monitoring 
system (HPMS) traffic count for 1991 vehicle miles traveled (VMT), 
supplemental traffic count data obtained from the Michigan Department 
of Transportation, projection of VMT to projection years using a 
transportation model calibrated with HPMS VMT data, MOBILE5a emission 
factors and estimating emissions with modeled VMT and MOBILE5a.
    The EPA's TSD prepared for the redesignation request contains 
additional details regarding the emission inventories for the Grand 
Rapids area for all the analyses described within this notice. It 
should be noted that use of the emission inventories prepared by LADCO 
within this redesignation request and SIP revision does not constitute 
approval of the emission inventories or methodologies for all the 
States participating in the Lake Michigan Ozone Study, particularly for 
purposes of UAM modeling.
    In order to demonstrate continued attainment, the State projected 
anthropogenic 1991 emissions of VOC and NOx to the years 1996 and 
2007. These emission estimates are presented in the tables below and 
demonstrate that the VOC and NOx emissions will decrease in future 
years. The results of this analysis show that the area is expected to 
maintain the air quality standard for at least ten years into the 
future. In fact, the emissions projections through the year 2007 show 
that emissions will be reduced from 1996 levels by 10 tons of VOC and 6 
tons of NOx per day by 2007 in the Grand Rapids area. These 
emission reductions would be the result of the implementation of FMVCP, 
on-board

[[Page 14529]]
vapor recovery, Title IV NOx controls, and other Federal rules 
expected to be promulgated for nonroad engines, autobody refinishing, 
commercial/consumer solvents, and architectural and industrial 
maintenance coatings.

    Table 1. Grand Rapids: VOC Maintenance Emission Inventory Summary   
                             [Tons per day]                             
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          1991    1996     2001    2007 
-----------------------------------------------------------\1\----------
Point..................................      39      41       44      48
Area...................................      58      62       57      51
Mobile.................................      64      57       54      51
                                        --------------------------------
      Total............................     161     160      155     150
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ These estimates were developed by the USEPA based on a linear       
  interpolation between 1996 and 2007.                                  


    Table 2. Grand Rapids: NOx Maintenance Emission Inventory Summary   
                             [Tons per day]                             
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          1991    1996   2001\1\   2007 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point..................................     126     115      117     120
Area...................................      31      32       29      26
Mobile.................................      61      56       54      51
                                        --------------------------------
      Total............................     218     203      200    197 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ These estimates were developed by the USEPA based on a linear       
  interpolation between 1996 and 2007.                                  

    The emission projections show that the emissions are not expected 
to exceed the level of the base year 1996 inventory during the 10-year 
maintenance period.
    To demonstrate maintenance out to the year 2007 following 
redesignation, the State did not rely on a certain SIP-approved 
measure. The State now requests that this measure (discussed below) be 
moved from the applicable SIP into the maintenance plan as a 
contingency measure.
    The State has demonstrated maintenance without an I/M program. This 
required SIP submittal is fully adopted and fully approved into the 
SIP. However, since the State has demonstrated attainment and 
maintenance without this program, this measure can be incorporated into 
the area's maintenance plan as a contingency measure. See September 17, 
1993, memorandum from Michael Shapiro, Acting Assistant Administrator 
for Air and Radiation, entitled SIP Requirements for Areas Submitting 
Request for Redesignation to Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon 
Monoxide NAAQS on or after November 15, 1992. Since the Grand Rapids 
area has demonstrated that it can maintain the standard without 
implementation of this program, EPA proposes that the maintenance plan 
be approved with this element as a contingency measure.
    Continued attainment of the ozone NAAQS in the Grand Rapids area 
depends, in part, on the State's efforts toward tracking indicators of 
continued attainment during the maintenance period. The tracking plan 
for the Grand Rapids area consists of continued ambient ozone 
monitoring. To demonstrate ongoing compliance with the NAAQS, Michigan 
will continue to monitor ozone levels throughout the Grand Rapids area 
in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR part 58 as necessary to 
demonstrate ongoing compliance with the NAAQS.
    Michigan contends that the high concentrations of ozone monitored 
and modeled in the Grand Rapids area are due to transport from upwind 
areas such as Chicago and Milwaukee. The State also submits that 
preliminary modeling to date indicates that total elimination of 
anthropogenic VOC and NOX emission sources in Grand Rapids would 
not significantly affect ozone concentrations in the area. The State 
concludes that continued maintenance of the ozone NAAQS is dependent on 
continued emission reductions from upwind areas. Consequently, the 
State identifies an actual monitored ozone violation of the NAAQS, as 
defined in 40 CFR Sec. 50.9, determined not to be attributable to 
transport from upwind areas, as the triggering event that will cause 
implementation of a contingency measure. The State's March 15, 1996, 
supplement to the redesignation request qualifies, that as such, if a 
violation is monitored, the State will inform EPA that a violation has 
occurred, review data for quality assurance, and conduct a technical 
analysis including an analysis of meteorological conditions leading up 
to and during the exceedances contributing to the violation to 
determine local culpability. The State will submit a preliminary 
analysis to the EPA and afford the public the opportunity for review 
and comment. The State will also solicit and consider EPA's technical 
advice and analysis before making a final determination on the cause of 
the violation. The trigger date will be the date that the State 
certifies to the EPA that the air quality data are quality assured, and 
that the exceedances contributing to the violation are determined not 
to be attributable to transport from upwind areas which will be no 
later than 120 days after the violation is monitored.
    In the event, the EPA disagrees with the State's final 
determination and believes that the violation was not attributable to 
transport, but to the area's own emissions, authority exists under 
section 179(a) and 110(k), to require the area to implement contingency 
measures, and section 107, to redesignate the area to nonattainment. In 
addition, the redesignation of the Grand Rapids area to attainment, in 
no way removes the State's obligation to get further reductions in 
emissions to address the broader transport phenomenon, which is being 
investigated as part of the Ozone Transport Assessment Group (OTAG) 
process.
    The level of VOC and NOX emissions in the Grand Rapids area 
and region wide will largely determine its ability to stay in 
compliance with the ozone NAAQS in the future. Despite the best efforts 
to demonstrate continued

[[Page 14530]]
compliance with the NAAQS, the ambient air pollutant concentrations may 
exceed or violate the NAAQS. Therefore, as required by section 175A of 
the Act, Michigan has provided contingency measures with a schedule for 
implementation in the event of a future ozone air quality problem. Once 
the triggering event, a violation of the ozone NAAQS determined not to 
be attributable to transport from upwind areas, is confirmed, the State 
will implement one or more appropriate contingency measure. The 
contingency measure will be selected by the Governor or the Governor's 
designee within 6 months of a triggering event, a monitored violation 
determined not to be attributable to transport. Contingency measures 
contained in the plan include a motor vehicle I/M program, gasoline RVP 
reduction to 7.8 pounds per square inch (psi), and Stage II gasoline 
vapor recovery. Legislative authority for implementation of these 
measures as contingency measures in maintenance areas has been provided 
by the State. In addition, the State intends to add three additional 
measures as contingency measures, namely, a commitment to adopt and 
implement VOC non-CTG RACT rules for plastic parts coating, wood 
furniture coating and clean-up solvents, should they be necessary to 
address a violation of the ozone NAAQS. The State is in the process of 
revising the maintenance plan SIP revision which must be submitted to 
the EPA before the EPA can take final action to redesignate the area to 
attainment. The following schedule is provided by the State for 
implementation of I/M, 7.8 psi RVP, and Stage II as contingency 
measures:

                            Table 3.--Schedule for Contingency Measure Implementation                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Measure                                                    Date                                 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stage II...............................  6 months from decision to employ Stage II or 12 months from triggering 
                                          event at gasoline dispensing facilities of any size constructed after 
                                          November 15, 1990.                                                    
                                         12 months from decision to employ Stage II or 18 months from triggering
                                          event at existing gasoline dispensing facilities dispensing 100,000   
                                          gallons of gasoline per month.                                        
                                         24 months from decision to employ Stage II or 30 months from triggering
                                          event at existing gasoline dispensing facilities dispensing less than 
                                          100,000 gallons of gasoline a month.                                  
Vehicle emissions testing will commence  24 months from decision to employ I/M or 30 months from triggering     
                                          event.                                                                
Implement 7.8 RVP gasoline during        No later than 12 months after decision to employ 7.8 RVP or no later   
 summer ozone season.                     than 18 months from triggering event.                                 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA finds that the contingency measures provided for in the 
State submittals, including the commitment to adopt and implement VOC 
non-CTG RACT rules for plastic parts coating, wood furniture coating 
and clean-up solvents, meet the requirements of section 175A(d) of the 
Act since they would promptly correct any violation of the ozone NAAQS 
attributable to the area's own emissions.
    In accordance with section 175A(b) of the Act, the State has 
committed to submit a revised maintenance SIP 8 years after the area is 
redesignated to attainment. Such revised SIP will provide for 
maintenance for an additional 10 years.

Urban Airshed Modeling

    The EPA acknowledges that the Lake Michigan States of Michigan, 
Wisconsin, Illinois and Indiana are conducting UAM which is being 
coordinated by LADCO. The modeling will be used for purposes of 
demonstrating attainment throughout the Lake Michigan region. 
Preliminary modeling results indicate that the Grand Rapids area is the 
recipient of transported ozone and that the area may contribute to 
ozone concentrations in downwind areas. The modeling, however, is not 
complete and is being further refined. The EPA recognizes the 
importance of the modeling effort and subsequent results. The EPA would 
like to note that the Lake Michigan States are participating in the 
OTAG process (Phase I/Phase II analysis) as provided for within the 
March 2, 1995, memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator 
for Air and Radiation, entitled Ozone Attainment Demonstrations. Phase 
II of the analysis will assess the need for regional control strategies 
and refine the local control strategies. Phase II will also provide the 
States and EPA the opportunity to determine appropriate regional 
strategies to resolve transport issues including any impacts the Grand 
Rapids area may have on ozone concentrations in its downwind areas. The 
EPA has the authority under sections 126 and/or 110 of the Act to 
ensure that the required and necessary reductions are achieved in the 
Grand Rapids area should subsequent modeling become available such as 
the modeling that will be available through completion of the Phase II 
analysis, or any other subsequent modeling data.

IV. Proposed Action

    The EPA proposes to approve the Grand Rapids redesignation request 
and ozone maintenance plan as a SIP revision meeting the requirements 
of section 175A once the States submits a revision to the maintenance 
plan for Grand Rapids to incorporate the three additional contingency 
measures, pursuant to the State's January 24, 1996, letter. In 
addition, the EPA is proposing approval of the redesignation request 
for the Grand Rapids areas, subject to final approval of the 
maintenance plan, because the State has demonstrated compliance with 
the requirements of section 107(d)(3)(E) for redesignation pending full 
approval of the maintenance plan SIP revision previously noted.
    Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or 
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for 
revision to any SIP. Each request for revision to the SIP shall be 
considered separately in light of specific technical, economic, and 
environmental factors and in relation to relevant statutory and 
regulatory requirements.
    Ozone SIPs are designed to satisfy the requirements of part D of 
the Act and to provide for attainment and maintenance of the ozone 
NAAQS. This proposed redesignation should not be interpreted as 
authorizing the State to delete, alter, or rescind any of the VOC or 
NOX emission limitations and restrictions contained in the 
approved ozone SIP. Changes to ozone SIP VOC regulations rendering them 
less stringent than those contained in the EPA approved plan cannot be 
made unless a revised plan for attainment and maintenance is submitted 
to and approved by EPA. Unauthorized relaxations, deletions, and 
changes could result in both a finding of nonimplementation [section 
173(b) of the Act] and in a SIP

[[Page 14531]]
deficiency call made pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(H) of the Act.
    This action has been classified as a Table 3 Action by the Regional 
Administrator under the procedures published in the Federal Register on 
January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by a July 10, 1995, 
memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and 
Radiation. The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this 
regulatory action from Executive Order 12866 review.
    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. section 600 et seq, 
the EPA must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the 
impact of any proposed or final rule on small entities. (5 U.S.C. 
section 603 and 604.) Alternatively, the EPA may certify that the rule 
will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit 
enterprises, and government entities with jurisdiction over populations 
of less than 50,000.
    Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (``Unfunded 
Mandates Act'') (signed into law on March 22, 1995) requires that the 
Agency prepare a budgetary impact statement before promulgating a rule 
that includes a Federal mandate that may result in expenditure by 
State, local, and tribal governments, in aggregate, or by the private 
sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Section 203 requires 
the Agency to establish a plan for obtaining input from and informing, 
educating, and advising any small governments that may be significantly 
or uniquely affected by the rule.
    Under section 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Act, the Agency must 
identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives 
before promulgating a rule for which a budgetary impact statement must 
be prepared. The Agency must select from those alternatives the least 
costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that 
achieves the objectives of the rule, unless the Agency explains why 
this alternative is not selected or the selection of this alternative 
is inconsistent with law.
    Because this proposed rule is estimated to result in the 
expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments or the private 
sector of less than $100 million in any one year, the Agency has not 
prepared a budgetary impact statement or specifically addressed the 
selection of the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome 
alternative. Because small governments will not be significantly or 
uniquely affected by this rule, the Agency is not required to develop a 
plan with regard to small governments.
    The SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the 
Act do not create any new requirements, but simply approve requirements 
that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP 
approval does not impose any new requirements, I certify that it does 
not have a significant impact on any small entities affected. Moreover, 
due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under the Act, 
preparation of a regulatory flexibility analysis would constitute 
Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of State action. The 
Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIP's on such grounds. 
Union Electric Co. v. U.S.E.P.A., 427 U.S. 246, 256-66 (S.Ct. 1976); 42 
U.S.C. section 7410(a)(2).
    Redesignation of an area to attainment under Section 107(d)(3)(E) 
of the 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 regulatory requirements on sources. The 
Administrator certifies that the approval of the redesignation request 
will not affect a substantial number of small entities.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons, 
Motor vehicle pollution, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Volatile organic 
compounds.

40 CFR Part 81

    Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
    Dated: March 22, 1996.
Valdas V. Adamkus,
Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-8004 Filed 4-1-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P