[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 151 (Monday, August 6, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 40895-40898]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-19458]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[MI76-01-7285a, FRL-7023-2]


Approval and Promulgation of Maintenance Plan Revisions; Michigan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a March 
22, 2001, request from Michigan for a State Implementation Plan (SIP) 
revision of the Muskegon County ozone maintenance plan. The maintenance 
plan revision establishes a new transportation conformity Mobile 
Vehicle Emissions Budget (MVEB) for the year 2010. EPA is approving the 
allocation of a portion of the safety margin for Volatile Organic 
Compounds (VOC) and Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX) to the area's 
2010 MVEB for transportation conformity purposes. This allocation will 
still maintain the total emissions for the area at or below the 
attainment level required by the transportation conformity regulations.

DATES: This rule is effective on October 5, 2001, unless EPA receives 
adverse written comments by September 5, 2001. If EPA receives adverse 
comments, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the rule in the 
Federal Register and inform the public that the rule will not take 
effect.

ADDRESSES: You may inspect copies of the documents relevant to this 
action during normal business hours at the following location: 
Regulation Development Section,

[[Page 40896]]

Air Programs Branch, (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois, 60604.
    Please contact Michael Leslie at (312) 353-6680 before visiting the 
Region 5 office.
    Send written comments to: Carlton Nash, Chief, Regulation 
Development Section, Air Programs Branch, (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 
Illinois, 60604.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael G. Leslie, Environmental 
Engineer, Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson 
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353-6680.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This Supplementary Information section is 
organized as follows:

What action is EPA taking today?
Who Is affected by this action?
How did the State support this request?
What is transportation conformity?
What is an emissions budget?
What is a safety margin?
How does this action change the Muskegon County ozone maintenance 
plan?
Why is the request approvable?
When will EPA take comments on this action?
EPA Action
Administrative Requirements

What Action Is EPA Taking Today?

    EPA is approving a revision to the ozone maintenance plan for 
Muskegon County, Michigan. The revision will change the MVEB for VOC 
and NOX that is used for transportation conformity purposes. 
The revision will keep the total emissions for the area below the 
attainment level required by law. This action will allow state or local 
agencies to maintain air quality while providing for transportation 
growth.

Who Is Affected by This Action?

    Primarily, this revision will affect the transportation sector 
represented by West Michigan Regional Planning Commission, the Michigan 
Department of Transportation and persons traveling through Muskegon 
County. The conformity rule, provides that if a ``safety margin'' 
exists in a state's maintenance plan, then the state may allocate the 
safety margin to the transportation sector via the mobile source 
budget.

How Did the State Support This Request?

    On March 22, 2001, Michigan submitted to EPA a SIP revision request 
for the Muskegon County ozone maintenance area. The Michigan Department 
of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) held a public hearing on this proposal 
on March 1, 2001. No one from the public commented on the proposed 
revisions.
    In the submittal, Michigan requested a new 2010 MVEB for VOC and 
NOX for the Muskegon County, Michigan, ozone maintenance 
area. The State requested that 2.14 tons/day VOC and 3.27 tons/day of 
NOX be allocated from the maintenance plan's safety margin 
to the MVEB. The MVEB is used for transportation conformity purposes.

What Is Transportation Conformity?

    Transportation conformity means that the level of emissions from 
the transportation sector (cars, trucks and buses) must be consistent 
with the requirements in the SIP to attain and maintain the air quality 
standards. Section 176(c) of Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7506(c), that 
transportation plans, programs and projects conform to an effective 
implementation plan. On November 24, 1993, EPA published a final rule 
establishing criteria and procedures for determining whether 
transportation plans, programs and projects funded or approved under 
Title 23 of the U.S. Code or the Federal Transit Act conform to the 
SIP.
    The transportation conformity rules require an ozone maintenance 
area, such as Muskegon County, to compare the actual projected 
emissions from cars, trucks and buses on the highway network, to the 
MVEB established by a maintenance plan. The Muskegon County area has an 
approved ozone maintenance plan. Our approval of the maintenance plan 
established the MVEB for transportation conformity purposes.

What Is An Emissions Budget?

    An emissions budget is the level of controlled emissions from the 
transportation sector (mobile sources) projected by the state and 
included in the SIP. The SIP controls emissions through regulation, for 
example, of fuels and exhaust levels for cars. The emissions budget 
concept is further explained in the preamble to the November 24, 1993, 
transportation conformity rule (58 FR 62188). The preamble also 
describes how states establish the MVEB in the SIP and revise the 
emissions budget. The transportation conformity rule allows a state to 
change its MVEB as long as the total level of emissions from all 
sources remains below the attainment level.

What Is a Safety Margin?

    A ``safety margin'' is the difference between the attainment level 
of emissions (from all sources) and the projected level of emissions 
(from all sources) in the maintenance plan. The attainment level of 
emissions is the level of emissions during one of the years in which 
the area met the air quality health standard. For example: Muskegon 
County monitored attainment of the one hour ozone standard during the 
1996-1998 time period. The State used 1996 as the attainment level of 
emissions for Muskegon County. The emissions from point, area and 
mobile sources in 1996 equaled 32.54 tons per day of VOC and 32.21 tons 
per day of NOX. The MDEQ projected emissions out to the year 
2010 and projected a total of 24.36 tons per day of VOC and 25.93 tons 
per day of NOX from all sources in Muskegon County. The 
safety margin for Muskegon County is the difference between these 
amounts, or 8.18 tons per day of VOC and 6.28 tons per day of 
NOX.
    Tables 1 and 2 give detailed information on the estimated emissions 
from each source category and the safety margin calculation. The 2010 
emission projections reflect the point, area and mobile source 
reductions and are illustrated in Tables 1 and 2

             Table 1.--Muskegon County VOC Emissions Budget
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Source category                    1996          2010
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point.......................................          5             4
Area........................................         19            14
On-Road Mobile..............................          8.54          6.36
                                             ---------------------------
  Total.....................................         32.54         24.36
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Safety Margin = 1996 total emissions - 2010 total emissions = 8.18 
tons/day VOC

             Table 2.--Muskegon County NOX Emissions Budget
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Source category                    1996          2010
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point.......................................         16            15
Area........................................          6             4
On-Road Mobile..............................         10.21          6.93
                                             ---------------------------
  Total.....................................         32.21         25.93
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Safety Margin = 1996 total emissions - 2010 total emissions = 6.28 
tons/day NOX

    The emissions are projected to maintain the area's air quality 
consistent with the air quality health standard. Michigan requests that 
only a portion of the safety margin credit be allocated to the 
transportation sector. The total emission level, even with this

[[Page 40897]]

allocation, will be below the attainment level or safety level and, 
therefore, is acceptable.

How Does This Action Change the Muskegon County Ozone Maintenance 
Plan?

    Approval of Michigan's revised safety margin and MVEB raises the 
VOC and NOX emissions for the MVEB. The maintenance plan is 
designed to provide for future growth while still maintaining the ozone 
air quality standard. Growth in industries, population, and traffic is 
offset with reductions from cleaner cars and other emission reduction 
programs. Through the maintenance plan the state and local agencies can 
manage and maintain air quality while providing for growth.
    In the submittal, Michigan allocates part of the Muskegon County 
area's safety margin to the MVEB. The area's safety margin is the 
difference between the 1996 attainment inventory year and the 2010 
projected emissions inventory (8.18 tons/day VOC safety margin, and 
6.28 tons/day NOX safety margin) as shown in Tables 1 and 2. 
The SIP revision requests the allocation of 2.14 tons/day VOC and 3.27 
tons/day of NOX into the area's MVEB from the safety margin. 
The 2010 VOC and NOX MVEB budget showing the safety margin 
allocations that will be used for transportation conformity purposes 
are outlined in Tables 3 and 4.
    Tables 3 and 4, below, illustrate that the requested portion of the 
safety margin can be allocated to the 2010 mobile source budget and 
that total emissions will still remain below the 1996 attainment level 
of total emissions for the Muskegon County maintenance area. Since the 
area would still be below the 1996 attainment level for the total 
emissions, the conformity rule allows this allocation.

 Table 3.--Allocation of Safety Margin to the 2010 MVEB, Muskegon County
                        VOC Emissions (tons/day)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Source category                           2010
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point.....................................................          14
Area......................................................           4
On-Road Mobile............................................           8.5
                                                           -------------
  Total...................................................          26.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Remaining Safety Margin = 1996 total emissions - 2010 total emissions = 
6.04 tons/day VOC

 Table 4.--Allocation of Safety Margin to the 2010 MVEB, Muskegon County
                        NOX Emissions (tons/day)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Souce category                            2010
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point.....................................................          15
Area......................................................           4
On-Road Mobile............................................          10.2
                                                           -------------
  Total...................................................          29.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Remaining Safety Margin = 1996 total emissions - 2010 total emissions = 
3.01 tons/day VOC

Why Is the Request Approvable?

    The requested allocation of the safety margin for the Muskegon 
County area is approvable because the new MVEB for VOC and 
NOX maintains the total emissions for the area below the 
attainment year inventory level as required by the transportation 
conformity regulations. The conformity rule allows this allocation 
because the area would still be below the 1996 attainment level for the 
total emissions.
    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.

When Will EPA Take Comments on This Action?

    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 
adequacy and approval of the Muskegon 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.
    We will also announce our action on the Muskegon emissions budgets 
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'').

EPA Action

    EPA is approving the requested allocation of the safety margin to 
the VOC and NOX MVEB for the Muskegon County ozone 
maintenance area.
    EPA is publishing this action without prior proposal, because EPA 
views this as a noncontroversial revision and anticipates no adverse 
comments. However, in a separate document in this Federal Register 
publication, EPA is proposing to approve the SIP revision should 
adverse written comments be filed. This action will be effective 
without further notice unless EPA receives relevant adverse written 
comments by September 5, 2001. Should the Agency receive such comment, 
we will publish a final rule informing the public that this action will 
not take effect. Any parties interested in commenting on this action 
should do so at this time. If we do not receive comments, this action 
will be effective on October 5, 2001.

Administrative Requirements

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not 
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. This action 
merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and imposes 
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. 
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities 
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because 
this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does 
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by 
state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate, nor does it 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4). This rule also 
does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, 
on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, 
or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the 
Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 
13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it have substantial 
direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national 
government and the states, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified 
in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), 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 Act. This rule also is not subject 
to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is 
not economically significant.

[[Page 40898]]

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (NTTA), 15 U.S.C. 272, requires federal agencies to use 
technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary 
consensus to carry out policy objectives, so long as such standards are 
not inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impracticable. In 
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, 
provided that they meet the criteria of the Act. Absent a prior 
existing requirement for the state to use voluntary consensus 
standards, EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for 
failure to use such standards, and it would thus be inconsistent with 
applicable law for EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in place of 
a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Act. 
Therefore, the requirements of section 12(d) of the NTTA do not apply. 
As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 
7, 1996), in issuing this rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to 
eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, 
and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has 
complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by 
examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the 
Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk 
and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings'' issued under the executive 
order, and has determined that the rule's requirements do not 
constitute a taking. This rule does not impose an information 
collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act 
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
    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 has submitted 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. 
section 804(2). This rule will be effective October 5, 2001 unless EPA 
receives adverse written comments by September 5, 2001.
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for 
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court 
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 5, 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 in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons, 
Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Volatile Organic Compound, Transportation conformity.

    Dated: July 23, 2001.
David Ullrich,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

    Part 52, 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 YY--Michigan

    2. Section 52.1174 is amended by adding paragraph (u) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 52.1174  Control strategy: Ozone.

* * * * *
    (u) Approval--On March 22, 2001, Michigan submitted a revision to 
the ozone maintenance plan for the Muskegon County area. The revision 
consists of allocating a portion of the Muskegon County area's Volatile 
Organic Compounds (VOC) and Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX) safety 
margin to the transportation conformity Motor Vehicle Emission Budget 
(MVEB). The MVEB for transportation conformity purposes for the 
Muskegon County area are now: 8.5 tons per day of VOC emissions and 
10.2 tons per day of NOX emissions for the year 2010. This 
approval only changes the VOC and NOX transportation 
conformity MVEB for Muskegon County.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 01-19458 Filed 8-3-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P