[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 219 (Monday, November 13, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 67629-67638]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-28805]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[MI74-02-7282a; FRL-6896-3]


Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; Michigan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is adjusting the 
applicability date for reinstating the 1-hour ozone National Ambient 
Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) in Genesee, Bay, Midland, and Saginaw 
Counties, Michigan and is determining that these areas have 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 the areas have 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 Genesee, Bay, Midland, and Saginaw Counties.
    EPA is also approving the State of Michigan's request to 
redesignate Genesee, Bay, Midland, and Saginaw Counties to attainment 
for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. Michigan submitted the redesignation 
request for these areas on May 9, 2000. 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 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 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 January 16, 2001, unless 
EPA receives adverse written or critical comments by December 13, 2000. 
If the rule is withdrawn, EPA will publish timely notice in the Federal 
Register.

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 SW., Washington, DC 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

I. Adjustment of Applicability Date for Reinstating the 1-Hour Ozone 
Standard
    A. Why did EPA revoke the 1-hour ozone standard in Genessee, 
Saginaw, Midland, and Bay Counties?
    B. Why did EPA reinstate the 1-hour ozone standard in Genessee, 
Saginaw, Midland, and Bay Counties?
    C. What does reinstatement mean for Genessee, Saginaw, Midland, 
and Bay Counties?
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?

[[Page 67630]]

    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 Genessee, Saginaw, 
Midland, and Bay Counties?

    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 5, 1998, the EPA 
revoked the 1-hour standard for Genessee, Saginaw, Midland, and Bay 
Counties because ozone monitors were showing attainment of the ozone 
NAAQS.

B. Why Did EPA Reinstate the 1-Hour Ozone Standard in Genessee, 
Saginaw, Midland, and Bay Counties?

    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 Genessee, Saginaw, Midland, and Bay Counties.

C. What Does Reinstatement Mean for Genesee, Saginaw, Midland, and Bay 
Counties?

    For areas with clean air quality data, like Genessee, Saginaw, 
Midland, and Bay Counties, the July 20, 2000 rulemaking (65 FR 45182) 
specifies that reinstating the nonattainment designation will occur 180 
days after EPA published the rulemaking, on January 16, 2001. EPA 
believes that it is appropriate to provide nonattainment areas with 
clean air quality data since revocation additional time to complete the 
redesignation process. Therefore, EPA delayed the applicability date of 
the final rule for 180 days for areas that were designated 
nonattainment at the time of revocation and continue to have clean 
data, to allow States to submit redesignation requests and EPA time to 
act on them prior to the January 16, 2001 applicability date. The July 
20, 2000 rule specifies a procedure by which EPA can synchronize 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 Flint (Genesee County) transitional 
ozone nonattainment area and the Saginaw-Midland-Bay City (Saginaw, 
Midland, and Bay Counties) ozone nonattainment area have attained the 
NAAQS for ozone. On the basis of this determination, EPA is also 
determining that certain CAA requirements do not apply to these areas 
as long as they continue to attain the ozone NAAQS. These requirements 
are section 172(c)(1) attainment demonstration requirements and section 
172(c)(9) contingency measure 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 recorded at the Flint monitoring sites that 
demonstrate that Genessee, Saginaw, Midland, and Bay Counties have 
attained the ozone NAAQS. Preliminary ozone monitoring data for 2000 
continue to show that these areas are attaining the ozone NAAQS.

C. What Would Be the Effect of This Action?

    The requirements of section 172(c)(1) concerning the submission of 
a plan to ensure reasonable further progress (RFP) 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?

    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) as not requiring 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 (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 in fact monitored attainment of the relevant NAAQS, EPA 
believes there is no need for an area to make a further submission 
containing additional measures to achieve attainment. This is also 
consistent with the interpretation of certain section 172(c) 
requirements provided by EPA in the General Preamble to Title I of the 
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (1990 Act). 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 attainment of the NAAQS, the 
focus of state planning efforts shifts to the maintenance of the NAAQS 
and the development of 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

[[Page 67631]]

attained the standard since those ``contingency measures are directed 
at ensuring RFP and attainment by the applicable date'' (57 FR 13564). 
EPA has exercised this policy most recently in approvals for the 
Cincinnati, OH and Muskegon, MI areas (65 FR 37879 and 65 FR 52651).
    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 Genesee, Bay, Midland, and Saginaw Counties from 
the 1997 through 1999 ozone seasons, as recorded at monitoring sites in 
Genesee County. 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 these 
areas have attained the 1-hour ozone standard during the 1997-99 
period, which is the most recent 3 year time period of air quality 
monitoring data. The State therefore is not required to submit an 
attainment demonstration, 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 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 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 Genesee, Bay, 
Midland, and Saginaw Counties because 3 years of ambient monitoring 
data demonstrate that these areas have attained the ozone NAAQS, and 
the areas have satisfied the other requirements for redesignation. The 
EPA is approving the maintenance plans submitted by the Michigan 
Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) as a revision to the SIP.

B. What Would Be the Effect of the Redesignation?

    The redesignation would change the official designation of Genesee, 
Bay, Midland, and Saginaw Counties 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.

C. What Is the Background for This Action?

    The EPA originally designated Genesee, Bay, Midland, and Saginaw 
Counties (Flint and Saginaw-Midland-Bay City areas) as ozone 
nonattainment areas under section 107 of the 1977 Act on March 3, 1978 
(43 FR 8962). The EPA revisited this original designation in 1991 to 
reflect new designation requirements contained in the 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 Genesee, Bay, Midland, and Saginaw 
Counties as ozone nonattainment areas. At the time of the 1991 
designations, air quality monitoring data for the Flint area showed 
that the area had not experienced a violation of the ozone NAAQS 
between 1988-1990, however, the State had not completed a redesignation 
request showing that it had complied with the requirements of section 
107 of the Act. As a result, EPA designated the area as nonattainment, 
but did not establish a nonattainment classification, establishing the 
area as a transitional ozone nonattainment area. The State discontinued 
ozone monitoring in the Saginaw-Midland-Bay City area prior to EPA's 
1991 designations. As a result, up to date monitoring data was not 
available for these areas, nor had the State completed a redesignation 
request showing that it complied with the requirements of section 107 
of the Act. Based on this, the EPA designated the area as 
nonattainment, but did not establish a nonattainment classification, 
establishing the area as an incomplete data ozone nonattainment area. 
The preamble for the original designation contains more detail on this 
action (56 FR 56694).
    Air quality monitors in Genesee County have since recorded 3 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. While monitoring data is not available for Bay, Midland, 
and Saginaw Counties, the State has argued that the data collected by 
the ozone monitors in Genesee County are indicative of ozone levels in 
Bay, Midland, and Saginaw Counties, and should be used as an indicator 
of this area's attainment status. As discussed in section E.1., below, 
EPA agrees with Michigan's assertion.
    On May 9, 2000 Michigan submitted a maintenance plan to ensure 
continued attainment of the ozone standard for the Flint and the 
Saginaw-Midland-Bay City areas. The State also included materials from 
the public hearing on the request which it held in Saginaw on July 16, 
1997.

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 provided 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 of

[[Page 67632]]

section 110 and part D of the CAA which are applicable to the area.
    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. ``Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Nonclassifiable Ozone 
Nonattainment Areas,'' Sally L. Shaver, Director, Air Quality 
Strategies and Standards Division, November 16, 1994.
    3. ``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.
    4. ``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.
    5. ``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)
    6. ``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to 
Attainment,'' John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, 
September 4, 1992.
    7. ``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 to be 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 part 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.
    The Michigan request is based on an analysis of quality-assured 
ozone air quality data. Ambient air monitoring data for calendar years 
1997 through calendar year 1999 show no violations of the ozone NAAQS 
(40 CFR 50.9) in Genesee County. The State collected this data in an 
EPA approved, quality assured, National Air Monitoring System 
monitoring network. Table 1 below summarizes the air quality data.

          Table 1.--1-Hour Ozone Exceedances in Genesee County
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Exceedances    Expected
                  Site                    Year    measured   exceedances
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flint Monitor: 26-049-0021.............   1996          0            0
                                          1997          0            0
                                          1998          1            1
                                          1999          0            0
Otisville Monitor: 26-049-2001.........   1996          0            0
                                          1997          0            0
                                          1998          1            1
                                          1999          1            1
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in the State's redesignation submittal, ozone monitors 
operated in Bay County from 1973-1982, and from 1979-1981 in Saginaw 
County. Due to new monitoring siting criteria, as well as other changes 
in ozone monitoring techniques, Michigan discontinued monitoring in Bay 
and Saginaw Counties in 1982. At that time, the monitors had shown 
attainment of the ozone NAAQS in the Saginaw-Midland-Bay City area 
since 1978. In the redesignation request, the State argues that recent 
data from the two Flint monitors is representative of current ozone 
levels in the Saginaw-Midland-Bay City area. The EPA believes that this 
is appropriate given the monitoring history of the area, the proximity 
of the Flint monitors to the Saginaw-Midland-Bay City area, and the 
population and emissions information that Michigan submitted with the 
redesignation request. EPA agrees with Michigan's assertion that these 
monitors are representative of ozone levels in the Saginaw-Midland-Bay 
City area.
    As a result, the area meets the first statutory criterion for 
redesignation to attainment of the ozone NAAQS. The State has committed 
to continue to operate a network of monitoring stations in the areas in 
accordance with 40 CFR part 58. The State will be subject to any 
changes to the 40 CFR part 58 monitoring requirements if they are 
changed. (If complete quality assured data show violations of the ozone 
NAAQS before the final EPA action on this redesignation, the EPA will 
disapprove the redesignation requests for the Flint and Saginaw-
Midland-Bay City areas.
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 Genesee, Bay, Midland, and Saginaw Counties may be 
redesignated to attainment for ozone, the State 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 containing rules the State adopted after reasonable 
notice and public hearing; provisions to establish and operate 
appropriate apparatus, methods, systems and procedures necessary to 
monitor ambient air quality; a permit program to implement provisions 
of 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

[[Page 67633]]

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 Genesee, Bay, Midland, and Saginaw Counties may be 
redesignated to attainment, they must have fulfilled the applicable 
requirements of part D. Under part D, an area's classification 
indicates the requirements to which it is subject. Subpart 1 of part D 
sets forth the basic nonattainment requirements applicable to all 
nonattainment areas, classified as well as nonclassifiable. Subpart 2 
of part D establishes additional requirements for ozone nonattainment 
areas classified under section 186 of the Act. As described in the 
``General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air 
Act Amendments of 1990,'' specific requirements of subpart 2 may 
override subpart 1's general provisions (57 FR 13501 (April 16, 1992)). 
However, as noted in the General Preamble, the subpart 2 requirements 
do not apply to ``not classified'' ozone nonattainment areas (57 FR 
13525). EPA designated Genesee, Bay, Midland, and Saginaw Counties as 
``not classified'' ozone nonattainment areas (56 FR 56694, November 6, 
1991), codified at 40 CFR Sec. 81.323. Therefore, to be redesignated to 
attainment, the State must meet the applicable requirements of subpart 
1 of part D--specifically sections 172(c) and 176, but not the 
requirements of subpart 2 of part D.
Subpart 1 of Part D--Section 172(c) Provisions
    Section 172(c) sets forth general requirements applicable to all 
nonattainment areas. Under 172(b), the section 172(c) requirements are 
applicable as determined by the Administrator, but no later than 3 
years from the date of the nonattainment designation.
    EPA has determined that Michigan's redesignation request for 
Genesee, Bay, Midland, and Saginaw Counties has satisfied all of the 
requirements under section 172(c) necessary for the areas' 
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 determines 
that several of the section 172(c) requirements do not apply since the 
areas have attained the ozone NAAQS. We address below the requirements 
for emissions inventories under section 172(c)(3) and permits programs 
under section 172(c)(5), which are necessary to redesignate the areas.
    Section 172(c)(3) requires submission and approval of a 
comprehensive, accurate, and current inventory of actual emissions. The 
base year emissions inventory for Genesee, Bay, Midland, and Saginaw 
Counties is satisfied by the State's submittal of the 1990 inventories 
for these counties in the redesignation request.
    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 Genesee, Bay, Midland, and Saginaw 
Counties 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 Genesee, Bay, 
Midland, and Saginaw Counties. The MDEQ's federally delegated PSD 
program will become effective in Genesee, Bay, Midland, and Saginaw 
Counties 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 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. and the Federal 
Transit Act (``transportation conformity''), and to all other federally 
supported or funded projects (``general conformity''). EPA's conformity 
rule requires that transportation plans, programs, and projects conform 
to 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 
promulgated by EPA pursuant to CAA requirements. EPA approved 
Michigan's general and transportation SIPs on December 18, 1996 (61 FR 
66607).
    As noted in more detail below, EPA's approval is based in part on a 
November 16, 1994, memorandum from Sally L. Shaver, Director of the Air 
Quality Strategies and Standards Division entitled ``Limited 
Maintenance Plan Option for Nonclassifiable Ozone Nonattainment Areas'' 
(limited maintenance plan memo), which contains guidance related to the 
conformity program. This memo allows nonclassifiable ozone areas that 
are at or below 85 percent of the ozone standard to submit a less 
rigorous maintenance plan. In these areas, there is no requirement to 
project emissions over the maintenance period. EPA believes it is 
reasonable to expect that such an area will not experience so much 
growth in that period that a violation of the NAAQS would occur. EPA 
believes that Genesee, Bay, Midland, and Saginaw Counties meet the 
criteria for limited maintenance and therefore EPA is approving their 
limited maintenance plan.
    The memo notes that the Federal transportation conformity rule (58 
FR 62188) and the Federal general conformity rule (58 FR 63214) apply 
to areas operating under maintenance plans. Under either rule, one 
means by which a maintenance area can demonstrate conformity of Federal 
actions is to indicate that expected emissions from planned actions are 
consistent with the emissions budget for the area. Because EPA believes 
that an area to which the limited maintenance plan memo applies will 
not experience so much growth during the maintenance period that a 
violation of the NAAQS would occur, emissions budgets are not necessary 
to constrain emissions growth, and need not be capped for the 
maintenance period. In these cases, EPA considers that Federal projects 
subject which otherwise demonstrate conformity satisfy the ``budget 
test'' of

[[Page 67634]]

the Federal conformity rules. While this policy does not exempt an area 
from the need to affirm conformity, it does allow an area to 
demonstrate conformity without regional emissions analysis.
    The adequacy review period for this SIP submission is concurrent 
with the public comment period on this direct final rule. Because 
limited maintenance plans do not contain budgets, the adequacy review 
period for this maintenance plan serves to allow the public to comment 
on whether limited maintenance is appropriate for Genesee, Bay, 
Midland, and Saginaw Counties.
    Interested parties may comment on the adequacy and approval of the 
limited maintenance plan by submitting their comments on this direct 
final rule.
    If EPA receives adverse written comments with respect to the 
adequacy of the Genesee, Bay, Midland, and Saginaw County limited 
maintenance plan, 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 in 
our final action or proceed with the adequacy process as a separate 
action.
    Our action on the Genesee, Bay, Midland, and Saginaw County limited 
maintenance plan 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'').
3. The Improvement in Air Quality Must Be Due to Permanent and 
Enforceable Reductions in Emissions
    Several Federal and statewide rules are in place which have 
significantly improved the ambient air quality in the Flint and 
Saginaw-Midland-Bay City areas, since they last violated the standard 
in 1988. Existing Federal programs, such as the Federal Motor Vehicle 
Control Program and the Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) limit of 9.0 pounds 
per square inch for gasoline, will not be lifted upon redesignation. 
These programs will counteract emissions growth as the areas experience 
economic growth over the life of the maintenance plan.
    The State has also adopted VOC rules controlling the loading of 
gasoline into existing stationary vessels at dispensing facilities; 
existing cold cleaners; the use of cutback paving asphalt; emissions of 
VOC from existing metallic surface coating lines; storage of organic 
compounds in existing fixed roof storage tanks; existing coating lines, 
emissions of VOC from existing automobile, light-duty truck, and other 
product and material coating lines; and, emission of volatile organic 
compounds from existing graphic arts lines. These rules will also 
remain in place in the applicable areas. In addition, the PSD permits 
program, and the Federal Operating Permits program will help limit 
emissions growth.
    The EPA finds that the combination of existing EPA-approved SIP and 
Federal measures ensure the permanence and enforceability of reductions 
in ambient ozone levels that have allowed the area to attain the NAAQS.
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.
    In the limited maintenance plan memo noted above, EPA set forth new 
guidance on maintenance plan requirements for certain ozone 
nonattainment areas. The limited maintenance plan memo identified 
criteria through which certain ``not classified'' ozone nonattainment 
areas could choose to submit less rigorous maintenance plans. EPA used 
this policy in the approval of the maintenance plan for Victoria, 
Texas, on March 7, 1995 (60 FR 12453). As noted in the policy, areas 
whose design values are calculated at or below 0.106 parts per million 
(ppm) at the time of redesignation, are no longer required to project 
emissions over the maintenance period. The 0.106 ppm represents 85 
percent of the ozone exceedance level of 0.125 ppm. As explained in the 
limited maintenance plan memo, the EPA believes if an area begins the 
maintenance period at or below 85 percent of the ozone exceedance level 
of the NAAQS, the existing Federal and SIP control measures, along with 
the PSD program, will be adequate to assure maintenance of the ozone 
NAAQS in the area.
    The method for calculating design values is presented in the June 
18, 1990 memorandum, ``Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Design Value 
Calculations,'' from William G. Laxton, former Director of the Office 
of Air Quality Planning and Standards Technical Support Division. 
Michigan developed the redesignation request for the Flint and Saginaw-
Midland-Bay City areas in 1997. At that time, based on 1994-1996 
monitoring data from the Flint ozone network, the design value at the 
Flint monitors was .106 ppm and the area qualified for the limited 
maintenance plan option.
    After reviewing the redesignation request, EPA finds that the 
design value for the Flint monitoring network is no longer within the 
.106 ppm threshold specified in the limited maintenance plan policy. 
Using monitoring data from 1997-1999, the Otisville monitoring site, 
downwind of Flint, shows a design value of .114 ppm, mainly due to two 
unusually high exceedance days recorded on May 15, 1998 and June 11, 
1999.
    The EPA performed an analysis of meteorological conditions on these 
days to determine the likely source of the high ozone values. A 
detailed discussion on this analysis is in EPA's TSD. Based on this 
analysis, the EPA concludes that the two episode days in question were 
unusual in that the winds were blowing from south to southeast, 
carrying emissions from urban areas in Southeast Michigan into the 
Flint area. Under more typical conditions, with winds from the west/
southwest, emissions from the Flint urbanized area are blown toward the 
Otisville monitoring site. With winds from the south/southeast, 
emissions sources from upwind areas around Detroit are responsible for 
the high ozone levels. EPA's analysis indicates that this was the case 
on both episode days. As a result, it appears that the high values 
recorded on these days are primarily due to the transport of ozone and 
ozone forming emissions from areas outside of Flint.
    EPA's limited maintenance plan policy is based on an argument that 
certain areas need not meet the full maintenance plan requirements 
because they have achieved air quality levels well below the standard 
without the application of control measures required by the Act for 
classified ozone nonattainment areas. Despite its current design value, 
this argument is true for

[[Page 67635]]

the Flint area. In fact, the last monitored violation in the Flint area 
was in 1975. Exceedances of the 1-hour ozone standard have been 
monitored only a small number of times in the area over the last two 
decades.
    Furthermore, on October 27, 1998 (63 FR 57356) the EPA published a 
final rule, known as the NOX SIP call, requiring 22 States 
and the District of Columbia to significantly reduce NOX 
emissions in the eastern United States to reduce the transport of 
ozone. In an opinion delivered on March 3, 2000, the Circuit Court for 
the District of Columbia confirmed the applicability of this regulation 
on numerous States, including Michigan. As a result, Michigan, and 
other Midwestern States, must reduce NOX emissions on a 
statewide basis to reduce background ozone levels. In Michigan, many of 
the largest NOX sources are in Southeast Michigan and 
reductions from these sources would be expected to directly affect the 
type of situation that occurred in Flint on May 15, 1998 and June 11, 
1999.
    Without the two transport related exceedances, the design value in 
Flint would drop to .106 ppm and the area would qualify under the 
limited maintenance policy. Since the high values were caused by 
transport, and since EPA has developed the NOX SIP call to 
address the transport problem, the EPA believes that it is appropriate 
to apply the limited maintenance policy in the Flint and Saginaw-
Midland-Bay City areas.
    In this action, EPA is approving Michigan's limited maintenance 
plan for the Genesee, Bay, Midland, and Saginaw Counties because 
Michigan's submittal meets the requirements of section 175A.
    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 attainment emission inventories 
for 1990 that identify VOC and NOX emissions for the Flint 
and Saginaw-Midland-Bay City nonattainment areas. EPA has determined 
that 1990 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 and in further detail in the State's 
redesignation submittal. The State has adequately developed an 
attainment emissions inventory for 1990 that identifies the levels of 
VOC and NOX emissions in the areas sufficient to attain the 
NAAQS.
    These emissions are summarized in Tables 2 and 3 below:

           Table 2.--1990 Attainment Inventory--VOC Emissions
                             [Tons per day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Saginaw-
                 Source type                      Flint      Midland-Bay
                                                                City
------------------------------------------------------------------------
On-highway motor vehicle....................         30.05         34.64
Off-highway motor vehicle...................         12.05         14.63
Area........................................         22.07         25.15
Point.......................................         18.52         38.90
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Total.....................................         83.15        113.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------


           Table 3.--1990 Attainment Inventory--NOX Emissions
                             [Tons per day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Saginaw-
                 Source type                      Flint      Midland-Bay
                                                                City
------------------------------------------------------------------------
On-highway motor vehicle....................         31.27         38.91
Off-highway motor vehicle...................         10.89         39.69
Area........................................          7.84          2.34
Point.......................................         12.11        209.64
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Total.....................................         62.11        290.58
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Demonstration of Maintenance
    Under the limited maintenance plan policy, EPA considers air 
quality monitoring data showing attainment of the ozone standard as 
satisfying the maintenance demonstration requirement. As a result, 
areas are not required to project emissions over the maintenance 
period. EPA believes that areas that qualify under the limited 
maintenance policy will benefit enough from the PSD program, any 
measures that are in the SIP, and Federal measures to ensure 
maintenance over the initial 10 year maintenance period.
Monitoring Network
    The State has committed to continue to operate and maintain the 
network of ambient ozone monitoring stations in Genesee County in 
accordance with provisions of 40 CFR part 58.
Verification of Continued Attainment
    Tracking--Continued demonstration of attainment of the ozone NAAQS 
in Genesee, Bay, Midland, and Saginaw Counties depends, in part, on the 
State's efforts toward tracking indicators of continued attainment 
during the maintenance period. The tracking plan for Genesee, Bay, 
Midland, and Saginaw Counties consists of continued ambient ozone 
monitoring in the areas in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR 
part 58.
    Triggers--The contingency plan contains one trigger: A monitored 
air quality violation of the ozone NAAQS in any of the four counties, 
as defined in 40 CFR 50.9. At this time, two ozone monitors are in 
place in Genesee County. As such, a violation at either of these 
monitors would trigger the implementation of contingency measures in 
all four counties. The trigger date will be the date that the State 
certifies to the U.S. EPA that the air quality data are quality 
assured, which will be no later than 30 days after monitoring an 
ambient air quality violation.
Contingency Plan
    Despite best efforts to maintain 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 if a 
future ozone air quality problem occurs. Contingency measures in the 
plan include Reid vapor pressure controls on gasoline, implementation 
of stage I vapor control systems, and industrial cleanup solvent, 
plastic parts coating, and wood furniture coating regulations.
    The State commits to adopting rules or passing legislation for any 
selected contingency measure within one year of its selection and 
submit them to EPA for approval. For the Reid vapor pressure controls 
and stage I vapor recovery control, the State will implement programs 
within 2 years of its selection as a contingency measure. For other 
contingency measures, the State will promulgate regulations within 12 
months of selection, and implement the measure within 12 months of 
adoption.
Commitment To Submit Subsequent Maintenance Plan Revisions
    In accordance with section 175A(b) of the Act, the State has 
committed to submitting 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.

[[Page 67636]]

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 on the adequacy of the 
limited maintenance plan, 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?

A. 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 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

[[Page 67637]]

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 January 16, 2001 unless EPA 
receives adverse written comments by December 13, 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 January 12, 2001. 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, Intergovernmental 
relations, Hydrocarbons, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, 
Volatile organic compounds, Ozone.

 40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks, 
Wilderness areas.

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

    Dated: October 26, 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 et seq.

Subpart X--Michigan

    2. Section 52.1174 is amended by adding and reserving paragraph (r) 
and adding paragraph (s) to read as follows:


Sec. 52.1174  Control strategy: Ozone.

* * * * *
    (s) Approval--On May 9, 2000, the State of Michigan submitted a 
revision to the Michigan State Implementation Plan for ozone containing 
a section 175A maintenance plan for the Flint and Saginaw-Midland-Bay 
City areas as part of Michigan's request to redesignate the areas 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 monitors in any of these areas record a violation 
of the ozone NAAQS (which must be confirmed by the State), Michigan 
will adopt, submit to EPA, and implement one or more appropriate 
contingency measure(s) which are in the contingency plan and will 
submit a full maintenance plan under section 175A of the Clean Air Act. 
The menu of contingency measures includes a low Reid vapor pressure 
gasoline program, stage I gasoline vapor recovery, 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 entries for ``Flint Area: 
Genesee County,'' and ``Saginaw-Bay City Midland Area:'' including 
``Bay County,'' ``Midland County,'' and Saginaw County to read as 
follows:


Sec. 81.323  Michigan.

* * * * *

[[Page 67638]]



                                        Michigan--Ozone (1-Hour Standard)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Designation                        Classification
            Designated areas            ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Date\1\                      Type            Date\1\    Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
*                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *
                                                        *
Flint Area:
    Genesee County.....................  January 16, 2001..........  Attainment...............
 
*                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *
                                                        *
Saginaw-Bay City-Midland Area:
    Bay County.........................  January 16, 2001..........  Attainment...............
    Midland County.....................  January 16, 2001..........  Attainment...............
    Saginaw County.....................  January 16, 2001..........  Attainment...............
 
*                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *
                                                        *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This date is October 18, 2000, unless otherwise noted.

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 00-28805 Filed 11-9-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-U