[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 169 (Wednesday, August 30, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 52651-52660]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-21913]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[MI43-7283; FRL-6851-5]


Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; Michigan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is 
adjusting the applicability date for reinstating the 1-hour ozone 
National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) in Muskegon County, 
Michigan and is determining that the area has attained the 1-hour ozone 
NAAQS. This determination is based on 3 consecutive years of complete, 
quality-assured, ambient air monitoring data for the 1997-1999 ozone 
seasons that demonstrate that area has attained the ozone NAAQS. On the 
basis of this determination, EPA is also determining that certain 
attainment demonstration requirements, and certain related requirements 
of part D of subchapter I of the Clean Air Act (CAA), do not apply to 
the Muskegon area.
    EPA is also approving the State of Michigan's request to 
redesignate Muskegon County to attainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. 
Michigan submitted the redesignation request for the Muskegon area on 
March 9, 1995, and submitted two updates to the request on June 14 and 
July 5, 2000. In approving this redesignation request, EPA is also 
approving the State's plan for maintaining the 1-hour ozone standard 
for the next 10 years as a revision to the Michigan State 
Implementation Plan (SIP). In this direct final rule, EPA is also 
notifying the public that we believe the motor vehicle emissions 
budgets for volatile organic compounds (VOC) and oxides of nitrogen 
(NOX) in the Muskegon, MI submitted maintenance plan are 
adequate for conformity purposes and approvable as part of the 
maintenance plan.
    In the proposed rules section of this Federal Register, EPA is 
proposing approval of, and soliciting comments on, this SIP revision. 
If we receive adverse comments on this action, we will withdraw this 
final rule and address the comments received in response to this action 
in a final rule based on the related proposed rule. We will not open a 
second public comment period. Parties interested in commenting on this 
action should do so at this time.

DATES: This ``direct final'' rule is effective October 18, 2000, unless 
EPA receives adverse written or critical comments by September 29, 
2000. If adverse comments are received, EPA will publish timely notice 
in the Federal Register and withdraw the rule.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to: Carlton T. Nash, Chief, Regulation 
Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), United States 
Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 
Illinois 60604. (We recommend that you telephone John Mooney at (312) 
886-6043 before visiting the Region 5 Office.)
    A copy of the SIP revision is available for inspection at the 
Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) Docket and Information Center (Air 
Docket 6102), Room M1500, United States Environmental Protection 
Agency, 401 M Street S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460, (202) 260-7548.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John M. Mooney, Regulation Development 
Section (AR-18J), Air Programs Branch, Air and Radiation Division, 
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West 
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6043.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:   

Table of Contents

1. Adjustment of Applicability Date for Reinstating the 1-Hour Ozone 
Standard
    A. Why did EPA revoke the 1-hour ozone standard in Muskegon?
    B. Why did EPA reinstate the 1-hour ozone standard in Muskegon?
    C. What does reinstatement mean for Muskegon?
II. Determination of Attainment
    A. What action is EPA taking?
    B. Why is EPA taking this action?
    C. What would be the effect of this action?
    D. What is the background for this action?
    E. Where is the public record and where do I send comments?
III. Redesignation Request
    A. What action is EPA taking?
    B. What would be the effect of the redesignation?
    C. What is the background for this action?
    D. What are the redesignation review criteria?
    E. What is EPA's analysis of the request?
    F. Where is the public record and where do I send comments?
IV. Disclaimer Language Approving SIP Revisions
V. What administrative requirements did EPA consider?
    A. Executive Order 12866
    B. Executive Order 13045
    C. Executive Order 13084
    D. Executive Order 13132
    E. Regulatory Flexibility
    F. Unfunded Mandates
    G. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General
    H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    I. Petitions for Judicial Review

I. Adjustment of Applicability Date for Reinstating the 1-Hour 
Ozone Standard

A. Why Did EPA Revoke the 1-Hour Ozone Standard in Muskegon?

    On June 5, 1998 (63 FR 31014), July 22, 1998 (63 FR 39432) and June 
9, 1999 (64 FR 30911), the EPA revoked the 1-hour ozone NAAQS in many 
areas around the country in anticipation of implementing the new 8-hour 
ozone NAAQS that was established in 1997. EPA revoked the 1-hour 
standard to allow areas that were showing attainment to redirect their 
focus toward meeting the new 8-hour standard. On June 9, 1999, the EPA 
revoked the 1-hour standard for the Muskegon area

[[Page 52652]]

because ozone monitors were showing attainment of the ozone NAAQS.

B. Why Did EPA Reinstate the 1-Hour Ozone Standard in Muskegon?

    On May 14, 1999, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of 
Columbia Circuit issued a decision on the 8-hour ozone NAAQS that 
blocked EPA's ability to implement the new standard. That action left 
nearly 3,000 U.S. counties without any Federal public health standard 
for ozone. To remedy this situation, on July 20, 2000, EPA published a 
final rulemaking action in the Federal Register (65 FR 45181) to 
reinstate the 1-hour standard in areas where it had been revoked, 
including Muskegon.

C. What Does Reinstatement Mean for Muskegon?

    For areas with clean air quality data, like Muskegon, the July 20, 
2000 rulemaking specifies that reinstating the nonattainment 
designation will occur 180 days after EPA published the rulemaking. EPA 
is giving these areas extra time to develop and submit redesignation 
requests and the rule specifies a procedure by which EPA can accelerate 
the effective date of the reinstatement and redesignate at the same 
time. EPA is using that procedure in this action.

II. Determination of Attainment

A. What Action is EPA Taking?

    The EPA is determining that the Muskegon moderate ozone 
nonattainment area has attained the NAAQS for ozone. On the basis of 
this determination, EPA is also determining that certain CAA 
requirements do not apply to the Muskegon area as long as it continues 
to attain the ozone NAAQS. These requirements are (section 172(c)(1)) 
attainment demonstration requirements, (section 172(c)(9)) contingency 
measure requirement, (section 182(b)(1)) 15 percent plan reasonable 
further progress (RFP) requirement, and (section 182(b)(1)) attainment 
demonstration requirement.

B. Why is EPA Taking This Action?

    The EPA believes it is reasonable to interpret provisions regarding 
attainment demonstrations and certain related provisions to not require 
SIP submissions, as described further below, if an ozone nonattainment 
area subject to those requirements is monitoring attainment of the 
ozone standard (i.e., attainment of the NAAQS is demonstrated with 
three consecutive years of complete, quality-assured, air quality 
monitoring data). The EPA is basing this determination upon three years 
of complete, quality-assured, ambient air monitoring data for the 1997 
to 1999 ozone seasons that demonstrate that the Muskegon area has 
attained the ozone NAAQS. Preliminary ozone monitoring data for 2000 
continue to show that the area is attaining the ozone NAAQS.

C. What Would Be the Effect of This Action?

    The requirements of sections 172(c)(1) and 182(b)(1) concerning the 
submission of a RFP plan and the ozone attainment demonstration and the 
requirements of section 172(c)(9) concerning contingency measures for 
RFP or attainment will not apply to the area.

D. What Is the Background for This Action?

    Subpart 2 of part D of Subchapter I of the CAA contains various air 
quality planning and SIP submission requirements for ozone 
nonattainment areas. The EPA believes it is reasonable to interpret 
provisions regarding RFP and attainment demonstrations and certain 
related provisions to not require SIP submissions if an ozone 
nonattainment area subject to those requirements is monitoring 
attainment of the ozone standard (i.e., attainment of the NAAQS 
demonstrated with three consecutive years of complete, quality-assured, 
air quality monitoring data). EPA has interpreted the general 
provisions of subpart 1 of part D of Subchapter I (sections 171 and 
172) to not require the submission of SIP revisions concerning RFP, 
attainment demonstrations, or contingency measures. As explained in a 
memorandum from John S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning 
and Standards, entitled ``Reasonable Further Progress, Attainment 
Demonstration, and Related Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment Areas 
Meeting the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard,'' dated May 
10, 1995, EPA believes it is appropriate to interpret the more specific 
attainment demonstration and related provisions of subpart 2 (section 
182) in the same manner. (See Sierra Club v. EPA, 99 F.3d 1551 (10th 
Cir. 1996))
    The attainment demonstration requirements of section 182(b)(1) are 
that the plan provide for ``such specific annual reductions in 
emissions * * * as necessary to attain the national primary ambient air 
quality standard by the attainment date applicable under the CAA.'' If 
an area has monitored attainment of the relevant NAAQS, EPA believes 
there is no need for the State to submit additional measures to achieve 
attainment. This is consistent with the interpretation of certain 
section 172(c) requirements provided by EPA in State Implementation 
Plans; General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean 
Air Act Amendments of 1990 (57 FR 13498). As EPA stated in the 
preamble, no other measures to provide for attainment would be needed 
by areas seeking redesignation to attainment since ``attainment will 
have been reached'' (57 FR 13564). Upon attaining the NAAQS, the focus 
of state planning efforts shifts to maintaining the NAAQS and 
developing a maintenance plan under section 175A.
    Similarly, the EPA has previously interpreted the contingency 
measure requirement of section 172(c)(9) as no longer applying once an 
area has attained the standard since those ``contingency measures are 
directed at ensuring RFP and attainment by the applicable date'' (57 FR 
13564).
    The state must continue to operate an appropriate air quality 
monitoring network, in accordance with 40 CFR part 58, to verify the 
attainment status of the area. The air quality data relied upon to 
determine that the area is attaining the ozone standard must be 
consistent with 40 CFR part 58 requirements and other relevant EPA 
guidance and recorded in EPA's Aerometric Information Retrieval System 
(AIRS).
    The determinations in this notice do not shield an area from future 
EPA action to require emissions reductions from sources in the area 
where there is evidence, such as photochemical grid modeling, showing 
that emissions from sources in the area contribute significantly to 
nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance by, any other states 
with respect to the NAAQS (see section 110(a)(2)(D)). The EPA has 
authority under sections 110(a)(2)(A) and 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA to 
require such emission reductions if necessary and appropriate to deal 
with transport situations.
    The EPA has reviewed the ambient air monitoring data for ozone 
(consistent with the requirements contained in 40 CFR part 58 and 
recorded in AIRS) for the Muskegon moderate ozone nonattainment area 
from the 1997 through 1999 ozone seasons. This data is summarized in 
Table 1 of this document covering EPA's analysis of the redesignation 
request. Preliminary monitoring data for 2000 show the area continues 
to attain the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. On the basis of this review, EPA 
determines that the area has attained the 1-hour ozone standard during 
the 1997-99 period, which is the

[[Page 52653]]

most recent three-year time period of air quality monitoring data. The 
State therefore is not required to submit an attainment demonstration, 
15 percent RFP, and a section 172(c)(9) contingency measure plan.

E. Where is the Public Record and Where Do I Send Comments?

    The official record for this direct final rule is located at the 
addresses in the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this document. 
The addresses for sending comments are also provided in the ADDRESSES 
section at the beginning of this document. If we receive adverse 
comments on this action, we will withdraw this final rule and address 
the comments received in response to this action in a final rule based 
on the related proposed rule. We will not open a second public comment 
period. Parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at 
this time.

III. Redesignation Request

A. What Action Is EPA Taking?

    The EPA is approving the redesignation request for the Muskegon 
area because three years of ambient monitoring data demonstrate that 
the ozone NAAQS has been attained and the area has satisfied the other 
requirements for redesignation. The EPA is approving the maintenance 
plan submitted by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality 
(MDEQ) as a revision to the SIP. The EPA is also notifying the public 
that we believe the motor vehicle emissions budgets for VOC and 
NOX are adequate for conformity purposes and approvable as 
part of the maintenance plan.

B. What Would Be the Effect of the Redesignation?

    The redesignation would change the official designation of Muskegon 
County from nonattainment to attainment for the 1-hour ozone standard. 
It would also put a plan in place to maintain the 1-hour ozone standard 
for the next 10 years. This plan includes contingency measures to 
correct any future violations of the 1-hour ozone standard. It also 
includes motor vehicle emissions budgets for VOC and NOX 
which would be used in any conformity determination that is effective 
on or after the effective date of the maintenance plan approval.

C. What Is the Background For This Action?

    The EPA originally designated the Muskegon area as an ozone 
nonattainment area under section 107 of the 1977 CAA on March 3, 1978 
(43 FR 8962). The EPA revisited this original designation in 1991 to 
reflect new designation requirements contained in the Clean Air Act 
Amendments of 1990 (1990 Act). The 1990 Act authorized the EPA to 
designate nonattainment areas according to degree of severity of the 
nonattainment problem. On November 6, 1991 (56 FR 56694), the EPA 
designated the Muskegon area as a serious ozone nonattainment area, and 
later corrected that action to designate the area as a moderate ozone 
nonattainment area on November 30, 1992 (57 FR 56762).
    The Muskegon area has since recorded three years of complete, 
quality-assured, ambient air quality monitoring data for 1997-1999, 
thereby demonstrating that the area has attained the 1-hour ozone 
NAAQS.
    On March 9, 1995, the State of Michigan submitted a redesignation 
request and section 175A maintenance plan for the Muskegon ozone 
nonattainment area. The State updated this 1995 submittal and submitted 
the revised plan to the EPA on June 14, 2000, and July 5, 2000. This 
revised plan included updated emissions inventory calculations and air 
quality monitoring data.

D. What Are the Redesignation Review Criteria?

    The CAA provides the requirements for redesignating a nonattainment 
area to attainment. Specifically, section 107(d)(3)(E) allows for 
redesignation providing that: (1) The Administrator determines that the 
area has attained the NAAQS; (2) the Administrator has fully approved 
the applicable implementation plan for the area under section 110(k); 
(3) the Administrator determines that the improvement in air quality is 
due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from 
implementation of the applicable state implementation plan and 
applicable Federal air pollutant control regulations and other 
permanent and enforceable reductions; (4) the Administrator has fully 
approved a maintenance plan for the area as meeting the requirements of 
section 175(A); and, (5) the State containing such area has met all 
requirements applicable to the area under section 110 and part D.
    The EPA provided guidance on redesignation in the State 
Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the Implementation of Title 
I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, on April 16, 1992 (57 FR 
13498) and supplemented the guidance on April 28, 1992 (57 FR 18070). 
The EPA has provided further guidance on processing redesignation 
requests in the following documents:
    1. ``Part D New Source Review (part D NSR) Requirements for Areas 
Requesting Redesignation to Attainment,'' Mary D. Nichols, Assistant 
Administrator for Air and Radiation, October 14, 1994. (Nichols, 
October 1994)
    2. ``Use of Actual Emissions in Maintenance Demonstrations for 
Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment Areas,'' D. Kent Berry, 
Acting Director, Air Quality Management Division, November 30, 1993.
    3. ``State Implementation Plan (SIP) Requirements for Areas 
Submitting Requests for Redesignation to Attainment of the Ozone and 
Carbon Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) on 
or after November 15, 1992,'' Michael H. Shapiro, Acting Assistant 
Administrator for Air and Radiation, September 17, 1993.
    4. ``State Implementation Plan (SIP) Actions Submitted in Response 
to Clean Air Act Deadlines,'' John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality 
Management Division, October 28, 1992. (Calcagni, October 1992)
    5. ``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to 
Attainment,'' John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, 
September 4, 1992.
    6. ``Contingency Measures for Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) 
Redesignations,'' G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs 
Branch, June 1, 1992.

E. What is EPA's Analysis of the Request?

1. The Area Must Be Attaining the 1-Hour Ozone NAAQS
    For ozone, an area may be considered attaining the 1-hour ozone 
NAAQS if there are no violations, as determined in accordance with 40 
CFR 50.9 and Appendix H, based on three complete, consecutive calendar 
years of quality assured monitoring data. A violation of the 1-hour 
ozone NAAQS occurs when the annual average number of expected daily 
exceedances is equal to or greater than 1.05 per year at a monitoring 
site. A daily exceedance occurs when the maximum hourly ozone 
concentration during a given day is 0.125 parts per million (ppm) or 
higher. The data must be collected and quality-assured in accordance 
with 40 CFR 58, and recorded in AIRS. The monitors should have remained 
at the same location for the duration of the monitoring period required 
for demonstrating attainment.

[[Page 52654]]

    The MDEQ submitted ozone monitoring data for the 1996-1998 and the 
1997-1999 ozone seasons. Table 1 below summarizes the air quality data.

         Table 1--1-Hour Ozone Exceedances in the Muskegon Area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Exceedances        Expected
             Site                Year       measured       exceedances
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Muskegon......................    1996               1                1
                                  1997               0                0
Monitor: 26-121-0039..........    1998               0                0
                                  1999               1                1
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This data has been quality assured and is recorded in AIRS. During 
the 1997-1999 time period, the monitor recorded only one exceedance of 
the ozone NAAQS, resulting in a three year average of .3 exceedances 
per year. Preliminary 2000 ambient air quality monitoring data 
indicates that the area continues to meet the ozone NAAQS, although an 
exceedance may have occurred on June 9, 2000. If this June 9, 2000 
exceedance is confirmed, the area would still show attainment of the 1-
hour standard.
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 Muskegon area may be redesignated to attainment for 
ozone, it must have fulfilled the applicable requirements of section 
110 and part D. The Calcagni memorandum dated September 4, 1992, states 
that areas requesting redesignation to attainment must fully adopt 
rules and programs that come due prior to the submittal of a complete 
redesignation request.

Section 110 Requirements

    General SIP elements are delineated in section 110(a)(2) of the 
CAA. These requirements include but are not limited to the following: a 
SIP submittal that has been adopted by the state after reasonable 
notice and public hearing; provisions to establish and operate 
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 part 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, EPA reviewed the Michigan SIP to 
ensure that it satisfied all requirements under the amended CAA through 
approved SIP provisions. A number of the requirements did not change in 
substance and, therefore, EPA believes that the pre-amendment SIP met 
these requirements. The EPA has analyzed the Michigan SIP and 
determined that it is consistent with the requirements of amended 
section 110(a)(2). (See also 61 FR 20458 and Southwestern Growth 
Alliance v. Browner, 144 F.3d 984 (6th Cir. 1998)).

Part D: General Provisions for Nonattainment Areas

    Before the Muskegon area may be redesignated to attainment, it must 
have fulfilled the applicable requirements of part D. Under part D, an 
area's 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 EPA's general preamble 
for the implementing of Title 1 of the 1990 Act, specific requirements 
of subpart 2 may override subpart 1's general provisions (57 FR 13501, 
April 16, 1992). EPA classified the Muskegon area as moderate ozone 
nonattainment on November 6, 1991 (56 FR 56694). Therefore, to 
redesignate the Muskegon area, the State must meet the applicable 
requirements of subpart 1 of part D--specifically sections 172(c) and 
176, and the applicable requirements of subpart 2 of part D.

Section 172(c) Requirements

    EPA has determined that MDEQ's redesignation request for the 
Muskegon area has satisfied all of the requirements under section 
172(c) necessary for the area's redesignation to attainment. Many of 
the general requirements contained in section 172(c) are addressed by 
the State's pre-amendment submittal which EPA approved on May 6, 1980 
(45 FR 29801). In part 2 of this rulemaking, entitled ``Determination 
of Attainment,'' EPA is determining that several of the section 172(c) 
requirements do not apply since the area has attained the ozone NAAQS. 
The requirements for emissions inventories uinder section 172(c)(3) and 
permits programs under section(c)(5) still need to be addressed in 
order to redesignate the area.
    Section 172(c)(3) requires submission and approval of a 
comprehensive, accurate, and current inventory of actual emissions. EPA 
approved the base year emissions inventory for Muskegon on July 26, 
1994 (59 FR 37947).
    Section 172(c)(5) requires permits to construct and operate new and 
modified major stationary sources anywhere in the nonattainment area (a 
NSR program). The EPA has determined that areas being redesignated do 
not need an approved NSR program prior to redesignation provided that 
the area demonstrates maintenance of the standard without a NSR program 
in effect. A memorandum from Mary Nichols dated October 14, 1994 
describes the rationale for this decision. See discussion in the Grand 
Rapids, Michigan notice published on June 21, 1996 (61 FR 31831). EPA 
has also applied this policy in redesignations of Youngstown-Warren, 
Columbus, Canton, Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Dayton-Springfield, Toledo, 
Preble County, Columbiana County, Clinton County, and Cincinnati Ohio, 
as well as Detroit, Michigan. Additional information on EPA's rationale 
is in the approval of the redesignation request for the Cincinnati area 
(65 FR 37879).
    The State has demonstrated that the Muskegon area can maintain the 
standard without a NSR program in effect, and, therefore, the State 
need not have a fully approved NSR program prior to approval of the 
redesignation request for the Muskegon area. The MDEQ's federally 
delegated PSD program will become effective in the Muskegon area upon 
redesignation to attainment.

Section 176 Conformity Requirements

    Section 176(c) of the CAA requires states to establish criteria and 
procedures to ensure that Federally supported or funded projects 
conform to

[[Page 52655]]

the air quality planning goals in the applicable SIP. This requirement 
applies to transportation plans, programs and projects developed, 
funded or approved under title 23 U.S.C. of the Federal Transit Act 
(``transportation conformity''), and to all other Federally supported 
or funded projects (``general conformity''). Section 176(c) of the CAA 
requires transportation conformity. EPA's conformity rule requires that 
transportation plans, programs, and projects conform to state air 
quality implementation plans (SIPs) and establishes the criteria and 
procedures for determining whether or not they do. Conformity to a SIP 
means that transportation activities will not produce new air quality 
violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of 
the national ambient air quality standards. Section 176 further 
provides that state conformity revisions must be consistent with 
Federal conformity regulations that the CAA required the EPA to 
promulgate. EPA approved Michigan's general and transportation SIPs on 
December 18, 1996 (61 FR 66607).
    The on-highway motor vehicle budgets for Muskegon are 7 tons of 
NOX/day and 5 tons of VOC/day, based on the area's 2010 
level of emissions. Muskegon, MI must use the motor vehicle emissions 
budgets from the maintenance plan in any conformity determination that 
is effective on or after the effective date of the maintenance plan 
approval.
    The EPA believes the motor vehicle emissions budgets for VOC and 
NOX are adequate for conformity purposes and approvable as 
part of the maintenance plan. Interested parties may comment on the 
adequacy and approval of the budgets by submitting their comments on 
this direct final rule.
    If EPA receives adverse written comments with respect to the 
approval of the Muskegon emissions budgets, or any other aspect of our 
approval of this SIP, by the time the comment period closes, we will 
publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule informing the 
public that the rule will not take effect. In this case, we will either 
respond to the comments on the emissions budgets in our final action or 
proceed with the adequacy process as a separate action.
    Our action on the Muskegon emissions budgets will also be announced 
on EPA's conformity website: http://www.epa.gov/oms/traq, (once there, 
click on the ``Conformity'' button, then look for ``Adequacy Review of 
SIP Submissions for Conformity'').

Subpart 2 Section 182 Requirements

    The Muskegon area is classified moderate nonattainment; therefore, 
part D, subpart 2, section 182(b) requirements apply. In accordance 
with the September 17, 1993, EPA guidance memorandum, the requirements 
which came due before MDEQ submitted the redesignation request must be 
fully approved into the SIP before or at the time of the request to 
redesignate the area to attainment. Those requirements are discussed 
below:

1990 Base Year Inventory

    The 1990 base year emission inventory was due on November 15, 1992. 
EPA approved the State's submittal on July 26, 1994 (59 FR 37994).

Emission Statements

    EPA approved the emission statement SIP required by section 
182(a)(3)(B) on March 8, 1994 (59 FR 10752).

15 Percent Plan

    As noted above, the 15 percent RFP plan for VOC reductions does not 
apply because the area has attained the standard.

VOC RACT Requirements

    SIP revisions requiring RACT for three classes of VOC sources are 
required under section 182(b)(2). The categories are: (1) All sources 
covered by a Control Technique Guideline (CTG) document issued between 
November 15, 1990 and the date of attainment; (2) all sources covered 
by a CTG issued prior to November 15, 1990; (3) all other major non-CTG 
stationary sources. EPA approved the RACT corrections required by 
section 182(a)(2)(A) and 182(b)(2)(B) on September 7, 1994 (59 FR 
46182) \1\). Appendix E of EPA's general preamble for implementing 
Title I of the 1990 CAA 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 Muskegon area does not 
contain sources in any of the relevant source categories. The state 
submitted negative declarations for these source categories in the 
redesignation request. As a result, this requirement is not relevant 
for the area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA issued the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing 
Industry (SOCMI) Distillation and Reactor CTG on November 15, 1993, 
prior to the submission of the Muskegon 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 Muskegon to attainment. Thus, those rules are not 
applicable requirements for purposes of this redesignation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Stage II Vapor Recovery

    EPA promulgated onboard rules on April 6, 1994 (59 FR 16292); 
therefore, pursuant to section 202(a)(6) of the CAA, Stage II is no 
longer required, and a fully approved program is not a prerequisite for 
redesignation. Additional information on EPA's policies regarding the 
Stage II vapor recovery program is in the approval of the redesignation 
request for the Cincinnati, OH area (65 FR 37879).

Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance (I/M)

    Section 182(a)(2)(B) motor vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) 
requirement does not apply to Muskegon since the area was not required 
to implement I/M prior to the enactment of the 1990 Amendments. The 
motor vehicle I/M requirement to satisfy section 182(b)(4) does not 
apply to the Muskegon area, since Muskegon is below the population 
threshold specified in EPA's I/M rule (51 CFR part 350).

NOX Requirement

    On July 13, 1994, Michigan submitted 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 Muskegon. The EPA approved the section 182(f) petition 
on January 26, 1996 (61 FR 2428).
3. The Improvement in Air Quality Must Be Due to Permanent and 
Enforceable Reductions in Emissions
    Michigan maintains that the Muskegon area is the recipient of 
overwhelming amounts of ozone transported from the upwind Gary-Chicago-
Milwaukee severe ozone nonattainment areas as demonstrated by its 
November 14, 1994 petition. The overwhelming transport demonstration 
includes UAM which shows that there is minimal to no change in ozone 
concentrations in Western Michigan even when the Grand Rapids and 
Muskegon VOC and NOX emissions are entirely eliminated. The 
State, therefore, concludes 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 Muskegon is largely due to emission 
reductions

[[Page 52656]]

achieved throughout the Lake Michigan region.
    Nonetheless, the redesignation request demonstrates that permanent 
and enforceable emission reductions have occurred in the Muskegon area 
as a result of the Federal Motor Vehicle Emission Control Program 
(FMVCP) and controls on industrial sources. The submittal provides a 
general discussion of developing of the emission inventories for ozone 
precursors from 1991-1996 which the Lake Michigan Air Directors 
Consortium (LADCO) prepared 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. The 1996 
emission inventory is provided as the attainment year emission 
inventory.
    Based on the State's analysis, Muskegon County reduced VOC 
emissions by 2 tons per day and NOX emissions by 3 tons per 
day between 1991 and 1996. The emission reductions are due to a 
combination of FMVCP and industrial source controls.
4. The Area Must Have a Fully Approved Maintenance Plan Meeting the 
Requirements of Section 175A
    Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the elements of a maintenance 
plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment. 
The plan must demonstrate continued attainment of the applicable NAAQS 
for at least 10 years after the EPA approves a redesignation to 
attainment. 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. To address potential future 
NAAQS violations, the maintenance plan must contain contingency 
measures, with a schedule for implementation adequate to assure prompt 
correction of any air quality problems.
    Section 175A(d) requires that the contingency provisions include a 
requirement that the State will implement all control measures that 
were in the SIP prior to redesignation as an attainment area.
    An ozone maintenance plan should address the following five 
elements: attainment inventory, demonstration of maintenance, 
monitoring network, verification of continued attainment, and a 
contingency plan.

Attainment Inventory

    The State has adequately developed an attainment emissions 
inventory for 1996 that identifies VOC and NOX emissions for 
the Muskegon nonattainment area. EPA has determined that 1996 is an 
appropriate year on which to base attainment level emissions because 
monitors in the area showed attainment of the ozone NAAQS at the time. 
The methodologies used in developing these inventories are discussed in 
EPA's TSD, dated July 31, 2000 and in further detail in the State's 
redesignation submittal.
    The attainment level of emissions are summarized below:

Table 2.--Muskegon 1996 Attainment Inventory--VOC and NOX (tons per day)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Source type                          VOC     NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Onroad mobile...........................................      5       8
Area....................................................     19       6
Point...................................................      5      16
                                                         ---------------
    Total...............................................     29      30
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Demonstration of Maintenance

    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 State has also made adjustments to the inventory to 
project emissions levels for 2010. These adjustments were made using 
2010 growth factors generated by the Economic Growth Analysis (EGAS) 
model for stationary sources (for point, stationary area, and nonroad 
mobile source categories). The State made onroad mobile estimates for 
2010 using the 1996 LADCO modeling inventory, local speeds and vehicle 
miles traveled estimates for 2010, and EPA's MOBILE 5a emissions model. 
Detailed information on the assumptions made in the inventory 
calculations are found in EPA's TSD and in the State's submittal.
    To demonstrate continued attainment, the State projected 
anthropogenic 1991 emissions of VOC and NOX to the years 
1996, 2007, and 2010. These emission estimates are 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 show that emissions 
will be reduced from 1996 levels by 6 tons of VOC and 4 tons of 
NOX per day by 2010 in the Muskegon area. These emission 
reductions will result from the implementation of FMVCP, Federal on-
board vapor recovery rules, 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. These estimates are conservative as 
they do not reflect additional Federal regulations on motor vehicles 
and fuels that will be in place prior to 2010, nor do they include 
NOX reductions that would result from EPA's October 27, 1998 
(63 FR 57356) rulemaking which requires states to reduce statewide 
NOX emissions to address the regional transport of ground 
level ozone (NOX SIP call).

     Table 3.--Muskegon: VOC Maintenance Emission Inventory Summary
                             [tons per day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Year
               Source type               -------------------------------
                                           1991    1996    2007    2010
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point...................................       7       5       8       4
Area....................................      18      19      15      14
Onroad Mobile...........................       6       5       5       5
                                         -------------------------------
    Total...............................      31      29      28      23
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 52657]]


     Table 4.--Muskegon: NOX Maintenance Emission Inventory Summary
                             [tons per day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Year
               Source type               -------------------------------
                                           1991    1996    2007    2010
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point...................................      20      16      14      15
Area....................................       5       6       5       4
Onroad Mobile...........................       8       8       7       7
                                         -------------------------------
    Total...............................      33      30      26      26
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.

Monitoring network

    The State has committed to operate the ozone monitoring network in 
the Muskegon area in accordance with 40 CFR part 58.

Verification of Continued Attainment

    Tracking--Continued attainment of the ozone NAAQS in the Muskegon 
area depends, in part, on the State's efforts toward tracking 
indicators of continued attainment during the maintenance period. The 
tracking plan for the Muskegon area consists of continued ambient ozone 
monitoring in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR part 58.
    Triggers--Michigan contends that the high concentrations of ozone 
monitored and modeled in the Muskegon area are due to transport from 
upwind areas such as Chicago and Milwaukee. The State also submits that 
modeling to date indicates that total elimination of anthropogenic VOC 
and NOX emission sources in Muskegon would not 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 
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 June 14, 2000, supplement to the redesignation 
request establishes that if the State monitors a violation, 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 State air quality 
data are quality assured, and that the State has determined the 
exceedances contributing to the violation are not attributable to 
transport from upwind areas. The trigger date will be within 120 days 
after the violation is monitored.
    If 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.

Contingency Plan

    Despite the best efforts to demonstrate continued compliance with 
the NAAQS, the ambient air pollutant concentrations may exceed or 
violate the NAAQS. Therefore, as required by section 175A of the CAA, 
Michigan has provided contingency measures with a schedule for 
implementation if a future ozone air quality problem occurs. Once the 
triggering event is confirmed, the State will implement one or more 
appropriate contingency measures. The Governor or the Governor's 
designee will select the contingency measure within 6 months of the 
triggering event. Contingency measures contained in the plan include a 
motor vehicle I/M program, gasoline RVP reduction to 7.8 pounds per 
square inch (psi), Stage II gasoline vapor recovery, an industrial 
cleanup solvent rule, a plastic parts coating rule, and a wood 
furniture coating rule. The State has provided legislative authority 
for implementation of the first three measures. In addition, the State 
will develop rules for the three additional measures should they be 
necessary to address a violation of the ozone NAAQS. The State provided 
following schedule for implementation of contingency measures:

        Table 5--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.
Implement VOC RACT rules for plastic     20 months from Governor's
 parts coating, wood furniture coating,   decision to implement one or
 or industrial cleanup solvents.          more of the measures.

[[Page 52658]]

 
Implement 7.8 RVP gasoline during        No later than 12 months after
 summer ozone season.                     decision to employ 7.8 RVP or
                                          no later than 18 months from
                                          triggering event.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commitment to Submit Subsequent Maintenance Plan Revisions

    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.

F. Where Is the Public Record and Where Do I Send Comments?

    The official record for this direct final rule is located at the 
addresses in the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this document. 
The addresses for sending comments are also provided in the ADDRESSES 
section at the beginning of this document. If EPA receives adverse 
written comments on this action, we will withdraw this final rule and 
address the comments received in response to this action in a final 
rule on the related proposed rule. We will not open a second public 
comment period. Parties interested in commenting on this action should 
do so at this time.
    If we receive adverse written comments with respect to the approval 
of the Muskegon emissions budgets, or any other aspect of our approval 
of this SIP, by the time the comment period closes, we will publish a 
timely withdrawal of the direct final rule informing the public that 
the rule will not take effect. In this case, we will either respond to 
the comments on the emissions budgets in our final action or proceed 
with the adequacy process as a separate action.

IV. Disclaimer Language Approving SIP Revisions

    Ozone SIPs are designed to satisfy the requirements of part D of 
the CAA and to provide for attainment and maintenance of the ozone 
NAAQS. This redesignation should not be interpreted as authorizing the 
State to delete, alter, or rescind any of the ozone emission 
limitations and restrictions in the approved ozone SIP. The State 
cannot make changes to ozone SIP regulations which will render them 
less stringent than those in the EPA approved plan unless it submits to 
EPA a revised plan for attainment and maintenance and EPA approves the 
revision. Unauthorized relaxations, deletions, and changes could result 
in both a finding of nonimplementation (section 173(b) of the CAA) and 
in a SIP deficiency call made pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(H) of the 
CAA.

V. What Administrative Requirements Did EPA Consider?

    1. Executive Order 12866
    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this 
regulatory action from Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory 
Planning and Review.''

B. Executive Order 13045

    Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) Is 
determined to be ``economically significant'' as defined under 
Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or 
safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate 
effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the 
Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the 
planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is 
preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible 
alternatives considered by the Agency.
    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does 
not involve decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or 
safety risks.

C. Executive Order 13084

    Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is 
not required by statute, that significantly affects or uniquely affects 
the communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes 
substantial direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the 
Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct 
compliance costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults 
with those governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 
13084 requires EPA to provide to the Office of Management and Budget, 
in a separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a 
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with 
representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature 
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the 
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop 
an effective process permitting elected officials and other 
representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful 
and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters 
that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.''
    Today's rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the 
communities of Indian tribal governments. This action does not involve 
or impose any requirements that affect Indian Tribes. Accordingly, the 
requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to 
this rule.

D. Executive Order 13132 

    Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and replaces 
Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 (Enhancing the 
Intergovernmental Partnership). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to 
develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input 
by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies 
that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism 
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations 
that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on the 
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government.'' Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a 
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless 
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct 
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA 
consults with state and local officials early in the process of 
developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation 
that has federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the 
Agency consults with state and local officials early in the process of 
developing the proposed regulation.
    This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, 
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or 
on the distribution of power and

[[Page 52659]]

responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified 
in Executive Order 13132, because it merely approves a state rule 
implementing a federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or 
the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA. 
Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply 
to this rule.

E. Regulatory Flexibility

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency 
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies 
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small 
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental 
jurisdictions.
    This rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial 
number of small entities because SIP approvals under section 110 and 
subchapter I, part D of the CAA do not create any new requirements but 
simply approve requirements that the State is already imposing. 
Therefore, because the Federal SIP approval does not create any new 
requirements, I certify that this action will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Moreover, 
due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under the CAA, 
preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute Federal inquiry 
into the economic reasonableness of state action. The CAA forbids EPA 
to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric Co. 
v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

F. Unfunded Mandates

    Under sections 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA 
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or 
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated 
costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to 
the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA 
must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative 
that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with 
statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan 
for informing and advising any small governments that may be 
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
    EPA has determined that the approval action promulgated does not 
include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 
million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the 
aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action approves pre-
existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new 
requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or 
tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.

G. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other 
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2). This rule will be effective October 18, 2000 unless EPA 
receives adverse written comments by September 29, 2000.

H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 
(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing 
technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with 
NTTAA, EPA must consider and use ``voluntary consensus standards'' 
(VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies 
unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise 
impractical.
    The EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. Today's 
action does not require the public to perform activities conducive to 
the use of VCS.

I. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review 
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for 
the appropriate circuit by October 30, 2000. Filing a petition for 
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect 
the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does 
it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be 
filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. 
This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its 
requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Hydrocarbons, Ozone, Volatile 
organic compounds.

40 CFR Part 81

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

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671 et seq.

    Dated: August 14, 2000.
Francis X. Lyons,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
    Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended 
as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

Subpart X--Michigan

    2. Section 52.1170 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(113) to read 
as follows:


Sec. 52.1170  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (113) On March 9, 1995, the State of Michigan submitted a revision 
to the Michigan State Implementation Plan for ozone containing a 
section 175A maintenance plan for the Muskegon County area as part of 
Michigan's request to redesignate the area from nonattainment to 
attainment for ozone. Elements of the section 175A maintenance plan 
include a contingency plan, and an obligation to submit a subsequent 
maintenance plan revision in 8 years as required by the Clean Air Act. 
If the area records a violation of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, determined 
not to be attributable to transport from upwind areas, Michigan will 
implement one or more appropriate contingency measure(s) which are in 
the contingency plan. The menu of contingency measures includes a motor 
vehicle inspection and maintenance program, stage II vapor recovery, a 
low Reid vapor

[[Page 52660]]

pressure gasoline program, and rules for industrial cleanup solvents, 
plastic parts coating, and wood furniture coating.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) State of Michigan House Bill No. 4165 signed by the Governor 
and effective on November 13, 1993.
    (B) State of Michigan House Bill No. 726 signed by the Governor and 
effective on November 13, 1993.
    (C) State of Michigan House Bill No. 4898 signed by the Governor 
and effective on November 13, 1993.

    3. Section 52.1174 is amended by adding paragraph (r) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 52.1174  Control strategy: Ozone.

* * * * *
    (r) Approval--On March 9, 1995, the Michigan Department of 
Environmental Quality submitted a request to redesignate the Muskegon 
County ozone nonattainment area to attainment. As part of the 
redesignation request, the State submitted a maintenance plan as 
required by 175A of the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990. Elements of 
the section 175A maintenance plan include a contingency plan, and an 
obligation to submit a subsequent maintenance plan revision in 8 years 
as required by the Clean Air Act. If the area records a violation of 
the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, determined not to be attributable to transport 
from upwind areas, Michigan will implement one or more appropriate 
contingency measure(s) which are in the contingency plan. The menu of 
contingency measures includes a motor vehicle inspection and 
maintenance program, stage II vapor recovery, a low Reid vapor pressure 
gasoline program, and rules for industrial cleanup solvents, plastic 
parts coating, and wood furniture coating.

PART 81--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7871 et seq.
    2. In Sec. 81.323 the table entitled ``Michigan--Ozone (1-hour 
standard)'' is amended by revising the entry for ``Muskegon Area: 
Muskegon County'' to read as follows:


Sec. 81.323  Michigan.

* * * * *

                                                 Michigan--Ozone
                                                [1-Hour Standard]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Designation                            Classification
       Designated areas        ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Date\1\            Type               Date\1\                  Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
*                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *
                                                        *
Muskegon Area:
Muskegon County...............  October 18, 2000  Attainment......
 
*                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *
                                                        *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This date is October 18, 2000, unless otherwise noted.

* * * * * * *
[FR Doc. 00-21913 Filed 8-29-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P