[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