[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 4 (Monday, January 8, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 699-711]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-22616]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0563; FRL-8266-5]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation 
of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Michigan; Redesignation of 
Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County 8-hour Ozone 
Nonattainment Areas to Attainment for Ozone

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to make determinations under the Clean Air 
Act (CAA) that the nonattainment areas of Flint (Genesee and Lapeer 
Counties), Muskegon (Muskegon County), Benton Harbor (Berrien County), 
and Cass County have attained the 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air 
Quality Standard (NAAQS). These determinations are based on three years 
of complete, quality-assured ambient air quality monitoring data for 
the 2004-2006 seasons that demonstrate that the 8-hour ozone NAAQS have 
been attained in the areas.
    EPA is proposing to approve requests from the State of Michigan to 
redesignate the Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas 
to attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. These requests were submitted 
by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) on June 13, 
2006, and supplemented on August 25, 2006, and November 30, 2006.
    In proposing to approve this request, EPA also is proposing to 
approve the State's plans for maintaining the 8-hour ozone NAAQS 
through 2018 in the areas as revisions to the Michigan State 
Implementation Plan (SIP). EPA also finds adequate and is proposing to 
approve the State's 2018 Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets (MVEBs) for the 
Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 7, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2006-0563, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 
instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail: [email protected].
     Fax: (312)886-5824.
     Mail: John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section, 
Air Programs Branch, (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
     Hand delivery: John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant 
Section, Air Programs Branch, (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 18th floor, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office normal 
hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for 
deliveries of boxed information. The Regional Office official hours of 
business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. excluding 
Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-
2006-0563. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included 
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at 
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information 
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be 
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you 
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site 
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your 
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of 
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without 
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be 
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is 
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you 
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name 
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any 
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to 
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA 
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid 
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of 
any defects or viruses. For additional instructions on submitting 
comments, go to Section I of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 
this document.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material,

[[Page 700]]

will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket 
materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection 
Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson 
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30 
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. We 
recommend that you telephone Charles Hatten, Environmental Engineer, at 
(312) 886-6031 before visiting the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles Hatten, Environmental 
Engineer, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 
Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6031, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,'' 
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information 
section is arranged as follows:

Table of Contents

I. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?
II. What Actions Is EPA Proposing To Take?
III. What Is the Background for These Actions?
IV. What Are the Criteria for Redesignation?
V. Why Is EPA Proposing To Take These Actions?
VI. What Is the Effect of These Actions?
VII. What Is EPA's Analysis of the Requests?
    i. Attainment Determination and Redesignation
    ii. Adequacy of Michigan's Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets
VIII. What Actions Are EPA Taking Today?
IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    When submitting comments, remember to:
    1. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying 
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    2. Follow directions--The EPA may ask you to respond to specific 
questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal 
Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    3. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and 
substitute language for your requested changes.
    4. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information 
and/or data that you used.
    5. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you 
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be 
reproduced.
    6. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and 
suggest alternatives.
    7. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of 
profanity or personal threats.
    8. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline 
identified.

II. What Actions Is EPA Proposing to Take?

    EPA is proposing to take several related actions. EPA is proposing 
to make determinations that the Flint (Genesee and Lapeer Counties), 
Muskegon (Muskegon County), Benton Harbor (Berrien County), and Cass 
County, Michigan nonattainment areas have attained the 8-hour ozone 
standard and that these areas have met the requirements for 
redesignation under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. EPA is thus 
proposing to approve Michigan's request to change the legal 
designations of the Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County 
areas from nonattainment to attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA 
is also proposing to approve Michigan's maintenance plan SIP revisions 
for the Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas (such 
approval being one of the CAA criteria for redesignation to attainment 
status). The maintenance plans are designed to keep the Flint, 
Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas in attainment of the 
ozone NAAQS through 2018. Additionally, EPA is announcing its action on 
the Adequacy Process for the newly-established 2018 MVEBs for the 
Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas. The adequacy 
comment period for the 2018 MVEBs began on August 4, 2006, with EPA's 
posting of the availability of these submittals on EPA's Adequacy Web 
site (at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/adequacy.htm). The adequacy comment period for these MVEBs ended on 
September 5, 2006. EPA did not receive any requests for these 
submittals, or adverse comments on these submittals during the adequacy 
comment period. Please see the Adequacy Section of this rulemaking for 
further explanation on this process. Therefore, we find adequate, and 
are proposing to approve, the State's 2018 MVEBs for transportation 
conformity purposes.

III. What Is the Background for These Actions?

    Ground-level ozone is not emitted directly by sources. Rather, 
emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOX) and volatile organic 
compounds (VOCs) react in the presence of sunlight to form ground-level 
ozone. NOX and VOCs are referred to as precursors of ozone.
    The CAA establishes a process for air quality management through 
the NAAQS. Before promulgation of the current 8-hour standard, the 
ozone NAAQS was based on a 1-hour standard. EPA revoked the 1-hour 
ozone NAAQS on June 15, 2005. At the time EPA revoked the 1-hour 
standard, the Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas 
were all designated as attainment under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.
    On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a new 8-hour ozone NAAQS of 0.08 
parts per million (ppm). This new standard is more stringent than the 
previous 1-hour standard. On April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23857), EPA 
published a final rule designating and classifying areas under the 8-
hour ozone NAAQS. These designations and classifications became 
effective June 15, 2004. The CAA required EPA to designate as 
nonattainment any area that was violating the 8-hour ozone NAAQS based 
on the three most recent years of air quality data, 2001-2003.
    The CAA contains two sets of provisions--subpart 1 and subpart 2--
that address planning and control requirements for nonattainment areas. 
(Both are found in title I, part D, 42 U.S.C. 7501-7509a and 7511-
7511f, respectively.) Subpart 1 (which EPA refers to as ``basic'' 
nonattainment) contains general, less prescriptive, requirements for 
nonattainment areas for any pollutant, including ozone, governed by a 
NAAQS. Subpart 2 (which EPA refers to as ``classified'' nonattainment) 
provides more specific requirements for ozone nonattainment areas. Some 
ozone nonattainment areas are subject only to the provisions of subpart 
1. Other ozone nonattainment areas are subject to the provisions of 
both subparts 1 and 2. Under EPA's 8-hour ozone implementation rule, 
signed on April 15, 2004 (69 FR 23951 (April 30, 2004)), an area was 
classified under subpart 2 based on its 8-hour ozone design value 
(i.e., the 3-year average annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour 
average ozone concentration), if it had a 1-hour design value at or 
above 0.121 ppm (the lowest 1-hour design value in Table 1 of subpart 
2) (69 FR 23954). All other areas were covered under Subpart 1, based 
upon their 8-hour design values (69 FR 23958). The Muskegon and Cass 
County areas were designated as subpart 2, 8-hour ozone moderate 
nonattainment areas by EPA on April 30, 2004, (69 FR 23857, 23911), 
based on air quality monitoring data from 2001-2003. The Flint and 
Benton

[[Page 701]]

Harbor areas were designated by EPA as subpart 1, 8-hour nonattainment 
areas (69 FR 23910--23911), based on 2001-2003 monitoring data.
    Under section 181(a)(4) of the CAA EPA may adjust the 
classification of an ozone nonattainment area to the next higher or 
lower classification if the design value for the area is within five 
percent of the cut off for that higher or lower classification. On 
September 22, 2004, EPA adjusted the classification of several 
nonattainment areas which had been designated and classified under 
subpart 2 on April 30, 2004. At that time, EPA adjusted the 
classifications of the Muskegon and Cass County nonattainment areas 
from moderate to marginal (69 FR 56697, 56708-5670).
    40 CFR 50.10 and 40 CFR part 50, Appendix I provide that the 8-hour 
ozone standard is attained when the 3-year average of the annual 
fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration is less 
than or equal to 0.08 ppm when rounded. The data completeness 
requirement is met when the average percent of days with valid ambient 
monitoring data is greater than 90%, and no single year has less than 
75% data completeness. See 40 CFR part 50, Appendix I, section 2.3(d).
    On June 13, 2006, Michigan requested that EPA redesignate the 
Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas to attainment for 
the 8-hour ozone standard. This submittal was supplemented on August 
25, 2006, and November 30, 2006. Michigan included complete, quality-
assured air monitoring data for the 2004 through 2006 ozone season, 
indicating the 8-hour NAAQS for ozone had been attained for the Flint, 
Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas. Under the CAA, a 
nonattainment area may be redesignated to attainment if sufficient 
complete, quality-assured air monitoring data are available for the 
Administrator to determine that the area has attained the standard, and 
the area meets the other CAA redesignation requirements in section 
107(d)(3)(E).

IV. What Are the Criteria for Redesignation?

    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 applicable 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 SIP 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 
175A; and, (5) the state containing such area has met all requirements 
applicable to the area under section 110 and part D.
    EPA provided guidance on redesignation in the General Preamble for 
the Implementation of Title I of the CAA Amendments of 1990, on April 
16, 1992 (57 FR 13498), and supplemented this guidance on April 28, 
1992 (57 FR 18070). EPA has provided further guidance on processing 
redesignation requests in the following documents:
    ``Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Design Value Calculations'', Memorandum 
from William G. Laxton, Director Technical Support Division, June 18, 
1990;
    ``Maintenance Plans for Redesignation of Ozone and Carbon Monoxide 
Nonattainment Areas,'' Memorandum from G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon 
Monoxide Programs Branch, April 30, 1992;
    ``Contingency Measures for Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) 
Redesignations,'' Memorandum from G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon 
Monoxide Programs Branch, June 1, 1992;
    ``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to 
Attainment,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality 
Management Division, September 4, 1992;
    ``State Implementation Plan (SIP) Actions Submitted in Response to 
Clean Air Act (ACT) Deadlines,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni, 
Director, Air Quality Management Division, October 28, 1992;
    ``Technical Support Documents (TSD's) for Redesignation of Ozone 
and Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment Areas,'' Memorandum from G.T. 
Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, August 17, 1993;
    ``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,'' Memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting 
Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, September 17, 1993;
    ``Use of Actual Emissions in Maintenance Demonstrations for Ozone 
and CO Nonattainment Areas,'' Memorandum from D. Kent Berry, Acting 
Director, Air Quality Management Division, to Air Division Directors, 
Regions 1-10, dated November 30, 1993.
    ``Part D New Source Review (part D NSR) Requirements for Areas 
Requesting Redesignation to Attainment,'' Memorandum from Mary D. 
Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, October 14, 
1994; and
    ``Reasonable Further Progress, Attainment Demonstration, and 
Related Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment Areas Meeting the Ozone 
National Ambient Air Quality Standard,'' Memorandum from John S. Seitz, 
Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, May 10, 1995.

V. Why Is EPA Proposing to Take These Actions?

    On June 13, 2006, Michigan requested redesignation of the Flint, 
Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas to attainment for the 8-
hour ozone standard. Michigan supplemented its submittal on August 25, 
2006, and November 30, 2006. EPA believes that the areas have attained 
the standard and have met the requirements for redesignation set forth 
in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA.

VI. What Is the Effect of These Actions?

    Approval of the redesignation request would change the official 
designation of the areas for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS found at 40 CFR 
part 81. It would also incorporate into the Michigan SIP plans for 
maintaining the 8-hour ozone NAAQS through 2018. The maintenance plans 
include contingency measures to remedy future violations of the 8-hour 
NAAQS. They also establish MVEBs for the year 2018 of 25.68 tons per 
day (tpd) VOC and 37.99 tpd NOX for the Flint area, 6.67 tpd 
VOC and 11.00 tpd NOX for the Muskegon area, 9.16 tpd VOC 
and 15.19 tpd NOX for the Benton Harbor area, and 2.76 tpd 
VOC and 3.40 tpd NOX for the Cass County area.

VII. What Is EPA's Analysis of the Requests?

i. Attainment Determination and Redesignation

    EPA is proposing to make determinations that the Flint, Muskegon, 
Benton Harbor, and Cass County nonattainment areas have attained the 8-
hour ozone standard and that the areas have met all other applicable 
section 107(d)(3)(E) redesignation criteria. The basis for EPA's 
determinations is as follows:

[[Page 702]]

1. The Areas Have Attained the 8-hour Ozone NAAQS. (Section 
107(d)(3)(E)(i))
    EPA is proposing to make determinations that the Flint, Muskegon, 
Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas have attained the 8-hour ozone 
NAAQS. For ozone, an area may be considered to be attaining the 8-hour 
ozone NAAQS if there are no violations, as determined in accordance 
with 40 CFR 50.10 and part 50, Appendix I, based on three complete, 
consecutive calendar years of quality-assured air quality monitoring 
data. To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the fourth-highest 
daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations measured at each 
monitor within an area over each year must not exceed 0.08 ppm. Based 
on the rounding convention described in 40 CFR part 50, Appendix I, the 
standard is attained if the design value is 0.084 ppm or below. The 
data must be collected and quality-assured in accordance with 40 CFR 
part 58, and recorded in the Aerometric Information Retrieval System 
(AIRS). The monitors generally should have remained at the same 
location for the duration of the monitoring period required for 
demonstrating attainment.
    MDEQ submitted ozone monitoring data for the 2004 to 2006 ozone 
seasons. The MDEQ quality assured the ambient monitoring data in 
accordance with 40 CFR 58.10, and recorded it in the AIRS database, 
thus making the data publicly available. The data meets the 
completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 50, Appendix I, which requires a 
minimum completeness of 75 percent annually and 90 percent over each 
three year period. Monitoring data is presented in Table 1, below. Data 
completeness information is presented in Table 2, below.

      Table 1.--Annual 4th High Daily Maximum 8-hour Ozone Concentration and 3-Year Averages of 4th High Daily Maximum 8-Hour Ozone Concentrations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                           Design value
                                                                                        2004 4th     2005 4th     2006 4th    2004-2006    2006 rounded
                Area                          County                  Monitor         high  (ppm)  high  (ppm)  high  (ppm)  avg.  (ppm)   to 2 decimals
                                                                                                                                               (ppm)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flint...............................  Genesee...............  Flint 26-0490021......        0.075        0.079        0.075        0.076            0.08
                                      Lapeer................  Otisville 26-0490021..        0.077        0.080        0.075        0.077            0.08
Muskegon............................  Muskegon..............  Muskegon 26-1210039...        0.070        0.090        0.091        0.083            0.08
Benton Harbor.......................  Berrien...............  Coloma 26-0210014.....        0.073        0.090        0.077        0.080            0.08
Cass................................  Cass..................  Cassopolis 26-0270003.        0.077        0.086        0.073        0.078            0.08
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                       Table 2.--Data Completeness in Percent (%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     Annual Minimum of 75% Completeness    3-Year Period
                                                                                                  ---------------------------------------     Average
                                                                                                                                          Minimum of 90%
                  Area                               County                      Monitor                                                   Completeness
                                                                                                    2004  (%)    2005  (%)    2006  (%)  ---------------
                                                                                                                                             2004-2006
                                                                                                                                            average (%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flint...................................  Genesee....................  Flint 26-0490021..........          100           75           97              91
                                          Lapeer.....................  Otisville 26-0492001......          100           87          100              96
Muskegon................................  Muskegon...................  Muskegon 26-1210039.......           99           96           99              98
Benton Harbor...........................  Berrien....................  Coloma 26-0210014.........           98           98          100              99
Cass....................................  Cass.......................  Cassopolis................           92          100           98              97
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, as discussed below with respect to the maintenance 
plans, MDEQ has committed to continue operating an EPA approved 
monitoring network in accordance with 40 CFR part 58. In summary, EPA 
believes that the data submitted by Michigan provide an adequate 
demonstration that the Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County 
areas have attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
2. The Areas Have Met All Applicable Requirements Under Section 110 and 
Part D; and the Areas Have Fully Approved SIPs Under Section 110(k) 
(Sections 107(d)(3)(E)(v) and 107(d)(3)(E)(ii))
    We have determined that Michigan has met all currently applicable 
SIP requirements for purposes of redesignation for the Flint, Muskegon, 
Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas under Section 110 of the CAA 
(general SIP requirements). We have also determined that the Michigan 
SIP meets all SIP requirements currently applicable for purposes of 
redesignation under Part D of Title I of the CAA (requirements specific 
to Subpart 1 and Subpart 2 marginal nonattainment areas), in accordance 
with section 107(d)(3)(E)(v). In addition, we have determined that the 
Michigan SIP is fully approved with respect to all applicable 
requirements for purposes of redesignation, in accordance with section 
107(d)(3)(E)(ii). In making these determinations, we have ascertained 
what SIP requirements are applicable to the areas for purposes of 
redesignation, and have determined that the portions of the SIP meeting 
these requirements are fully approved under section 110(k) of the CAA. 
As discussed more fully below, SIPs must be fully approved only with 
respect to currently applicable requirements of the CAA.
    a. The Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas have 
met all applicable requirements under section 110 and part D of the 
CAA. The September 4, 1992, Calcagni memorandum (see ``Procedures for 
Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,'' Memorandum 
from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, 
September 4, 1992) describes EPA's interpretation of section 
107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. Under this interpretation, a state and the 
area it wishes to redesignate must meet the relevant CAA

[[Page 703]]

requirements that are due prior to the state's submittal of a complete 
redesignation request for the area. See also the September 17, 1993, 
Michael Shapiro memorandum and 60 FR 12459, 12465-66 (March 7, 1995) 
(redesignation of Detroit-Ann Arbor, Michigan to attainment of the 1-
hour ozone NAAQS). Applicable requirements of the CAA that come due 
subsequent to the state's submittal of a complete request remain 
applicable until a redesignation to attainment is approved, but are not 
required as a prerequisite to redesignation. See section 175A(c) of the 
CAA; Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004). See also 68 FR 
25424, 25427 (May 12, 2003) (redesignation of the St. Louis/East St. 
Louis area to attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS).
    General SIP requirements. Section 110(a) of title I of the CAA 
contains the general requirements for a SIP. Section 110(a)(2) provides 
that the implementation plan submitted by a state must have been 
adopted by the state after reasonable public notice and hearing, and 
that, among other things, it includes enforceable emission limitations 
and other control measures, means or techniques necessary to meet the 
requirements of the CAA; provides for establishment and operation of 
appropriate devices, methods, systems and procedures necessary to 
monitor ambient air quality; provides for implementation of a source 
permit program to regulate the modification and construction of any 
stationary source within the areas covered by the plan; includes 
provisions for the implementation of part C, Prevention of Significant 
Deterioration (PSD) and part D, New Source Review (NSR) permit 
programs; includes criteria for stationary source emission control 
measures, monitoring, and reporting; includes provisions for air 
quality modeling; and provides for public and local agency 
participation in planning and emission control rule development.
    Section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA requires that SIPs contain measures 
to prevent sources in a state from significantly contributing to air 
quality problems in another state. To implement this provision, EPA has 
required certain states to establish programs to address transport of 
air pollutants (NOX SIP Call,\1\ Clean Air Interstate Rule 
(CAIR)(70 FR 25162)). However, the section 110(a)(2)(D) requirements 
for a state are not linked with a particular nonattainment area's 
designation and classification. EPA believes that the requirements 
linked with a particular nonattainment area's designation and 
classification are the relevant measures to evaluate in reviewing a 
redesignation request. When the transport SIP submittal requirements 
are applicable to a state, they will continue to apply to the state 
regardless of the designation of any one particular area in the state. 
Therefore, we believe that these requirements should not be construed 
to be applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation. Further, 
we believe that the other section 110 elements described above that are 
not connected with nonattainment plan submissions and not linked with 
an area's attainment status are also not applicable requirements for 
purposes of redesignation. A state remains subject to these 
requirements after an area is redesignated to attainment. We conclude 
that only the section 110 and part D requirements which are linked with 
a particular area's designation and classification are the relevant 
measures which we may consider in evaluating a redesignation request. 
This approach is consistent with EPA's existing policy on applicability 
of conformity and oxygenated fuels requirements for redesignation 
purposes, as well as with section 184 ozone transport requirements. See 
Reading, Pennsylvania, proposed and final rulemakings (61 FR 53174-
53176, October 10, 1996), (62 FR 24826, May 7, 1997); Cleveland-Akron-
Lorain, Ohio, final rulemaking (61 FR 20458, May 7, 1996); and Tampa, 
Florida, final rulemaking (60 FR 62748, December 7, 1995). See also the 
discussion on this issue in the Cincinnati ozone redesignation (65 FR 
37890, June 19, 2000), and in the Pittsburgh ozone redesignation (66 FR 
50399, October 19, 2001).
    As discussed above, we believe that section 110 elements which are 
not linked to the area's nonattainment status are not applicable for 
purposes of redesignation. Because there are no section 110 
requirements that are linked to the part D requirements for 8-hour 
ozone nonattainment areas that have become due, as explained below, 
there are no Part D requirements applicable for purposes of 
redesignation under the 8-hour standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ On October 27, 1998 (63 FR 57356), EPA issued a 
NOX SIP call, requiring the District of Columbia and 22 
states, including portions of Michigan, to reduce emissions of 
NOX in order to reduce the transport of ozone and ozone 
precursors. In compliance with EPA's NOX SIP call, MDEQ 
has developed rules governing the control of NOX 
emissions from electric generating units (EGUs), major non-EGU 
industrial boilers, and major cement kilns. EPA approved Michigan's 
rules as fulfilling Phase I of the NOX SIP Call on May 4, 
2005 (70 FR 23029).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Part D Requirements. EPA has determined that the Michigan SIP meets 
applicable SIP requirements under part D of the CAA since no 
requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation became due for 
the 8-hour ozone standard prior to submission of the redesignation 
request for the Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas. 
Under part D, an area's classification determines the requirements to 
which it will be subject. Subpart 1 of part D, which includes sections 
172-176 of the CAA, sets forth the basic nonattainment requirements 
applicable to all nonattainment areas. Section 182 of the CAA, which is 
found in subpart 2 of part D, establishes additional specific 
requirements depending on the area's nonattainment classification. The 
Flint and Benton Harbor areas are both classified as subpart 1 
nonattainment areas and, therefore, subpart 2 requirements do not 
apply. The Muskegon and Cass County areas are classified as subpart 2 
marginal nonattainment areas and, therefore, both subpart 1 and subpart 
2 requirements apply.
    Part D, Subpart 1 applicable SIP requirements. For purposes of 
evaluating these redesignation requests, the applicable part D, subpart 
1 SIP requirements for Flint, Benton Harbor, Muskegon, and Cass County 
areas are contained in sections 172(c)(1)-(9). A thorough discussion of 
the requirements contained in section 172 can be found in the General 
Preamble for Implementation of Title I (General Preamble 57 FR 13498, 
April 16, 1992).
    Part D, Subpart 2 applicable SIP requirements. For purposes of 
evaluating these redesignation requests, the applicable part D, subpart 
2 SIP requirements for the Muskegon and Cass County areas are contained 
in section 182(a). A thorough discussion of the requirements contained 
in section 182(a) can be found in the General Preamble (57 FR 13498, 
13502-13507 (April 16, 1992)).
    No requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation under part 
D became due prior to submission of the redesignation request, and, 
therefore, none is applicable to the areas for purposes of 
redesignation. Since the State of Michigan has submitted complete ozone 
redesignation requests for the Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass 
County areas prior to the deadline for any submissions required for 
purposes of redesignation, we have determined that these requirements 
do not apply to the Flint, Muskegon,

[[Page 704]]

Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas for purposes of redesignation.
    Furthermore, EPA has determined that, since PSD requirements will 
apply after redesignation, areas redesignating need not comply with the 
requirement that a NSR program be approved prior to redesignation, 
provided that these areas demonstrate maintenance of the NAAQS without 
part D NSR. A more detailed rationale for this view is described in a 
memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and 
Radiation, dated October 14, 1994, entitled, ``Part D New Source Review 
Requirements for Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment.'' 
Michigan has demonstrated that the Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and 
Cass County areas will be able to maintain the standard without part D 
NSR in effect; and therefore, EPA concludes that the State need not 
have a fully approved part D NSR program prior to approval of the 
redesignation request. The State's PSD program will become effective in 
the Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas upon 
redesignation to attainment. See rulemakings for Detroit, Michigan (60 
FR 12467-12468, March 7, 1995); Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio (61 FR 
20458, 20469-20470, May 7, 1996); Louisville, Kentucky (66 FR 53665, 
October 23, 2001); and Grand Rapids, Michigan (61 FR 31834-31837, June 
21, 1996).
    Section 176 conformity requirements. Section 176(c) of the CAA 
requires states to establish criteria and procedures to ensure that 
federally-supported or funded activities, including highway projects, 
conform to the air quality planning goals in the applicable SIPs. The 
requirement to determine conformity applies to transportation plans, 
programs and projects developed, funded or approved under Title 23 of 
the U.S. Code and the Federal Transit Act (transportation conformity) 
as well as to all other federally-supported or funded projects (general 
conformity). State conformity revisions must be consistent with federal 
conformity regulations relating to consultation, enforcement and 
enforceability, which EPA promulgated pursuant CAA requirements.
    EPA believes that it is reasonable to interpret the conformity SIP 
requirements as not applying for purposes of evaluating the 
redesignation request under section 107(d) for two reasons. First, the 
requirement to submit SIP revisions to comply with the conformity 
provisions of the CAA continues to apply to areas after redesignation 
to attainment since such areas would be subject to a section 175A 
maintenance plan. Second, EPA's federal conformity rules require the 
performance of conformity analyses in the absence of federally-approved 
state rules. Therefore, because areas are subject to the conformity 
requirements regardless of whether they are redesignated to attainment 
and, because they must implement conformity under federal rules if 
state rules are not yet approved, EPA believes it is reasonable to view 
these requirements as not applying for purposes of evaluating a 
redesignation request. See Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001), 
upholding this interpretation. See also 60 FR 62748, 62749-62750 (Dec. 
7, 1995) (Tampa, Florida).
    EPA approved Michigan's general and transportation conformity SIPs 
on December 18, 1996 (61 FR 66607 and 61 FR 66609, respectively). 
Michigan has submitted on-highway motor vehicle budgets of 25.68 tons 
per day (tpd) VOC and 37.99 tpd NOX for the Flint area, 6.67 
tpd VOC and 11.00 tpd NOX for the Muskegon area, 9.16 tpd 
VOC and 15.19 tpd NOX for the Benton Harbor area, and 2.76 
tpd VOC and 3.40 tpd for NOX for the Cass County area based 
on the areas' projected 2018 emission levels. The Flint, Muskegon, 
Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas 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. Thus, the areas have satisfied all 
applicable requirements under section 110 and part D of the CAA.
    b. The Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas have a 
fully approved applicable SIP under section 110(k) of the CAA. EPA has 
fully approved the Michigan SIP for the Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, 
and Cass County areas under section 110(k) of the CAA for all 
requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation. EPA may rely on 
prior SIP approvals in approving a redesignation request (see the 
September 4, 1992 John Calcagni memorandum, page 3, Southwestern 
Pennsylvania Growth Alliance v. Browner, 144 F.3d 984, 989-990 (6th 
Cir. 1998), Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001)) plus any 
additional measures it may approve in conjunction with a redesignation 
action. See 68 FR 25413, 25426 (May 12, 2003). Since the passage of the 
CAA of 1970, Michigan has adopted and submitted, and EPA has fully 
approved, provisions addressing the various required SIP elements 
applicable to the Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas 
under the 1-hour ozone standard. No Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, or 
Cass County area SIP provisions are currently disapproved, 
conditionally approved, or partially approved.
3. The Improvement in Air Quality Is Due to Permanent and Enforceable 
Reductions in Emissions Resulting From Implementation of the SIP and 
Applicable Federal Air Pollution Control Regulations and Other 
Permanent and Enforceable Reductions (Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii))
    EPA finds that Michigan has demonstrated that the observed air 
quality improvement in the Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass 
County areas is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in 
emissions resulting from implementation of the SIP, federal measures, 
and other state-adopted measures.
    In making this demonstration, the State has calculated the change 
in emissions between 2002 and 2005, one of the years the Flint, 
Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas monitored attainment. 
The reduction in emissions and the corresponding improvement in air 
quality over this time period can be attributed to a number of 
regulatory control measures that Michigan and upwind areas have 
implemented in recent years. The Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and 
Cass County areas are all impacted, in varying degrees, by the 
transport of ozone and ozone precursors from upwind areas. Therefore, 
local controls as well as controls implemented in upwind counties are 
relevant to the improvement in air quality in the Flint, Muskegon, 
Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas.
    a. Permanent and enforceable controls implemented. The following is 
a discussion of permanent and enforceable measures that have been 
implemented in the areas:
    NOX rules. In compliance with EPA's NOX SIP 
call, Michigan developed rules to control NOX emissions from 
electric generating units (EGUs), major non-EGU industrial boilers, and 
major cement kilns. These rules required sources to begin reducing 
NOX emissions in 2004. From 2004 on, NOX 
emissions from EGUs have been capped at a statewide total well below 
pre-2002 levels. MDEQ expects that NOX emissions will 
further decline as the State meets the requirements of EPA's Phase II 
NOX SIP call (69 FR 21604; April 21, 2004).
    Federal Emission Control Measures. Reductions in VOC and 
NOX emissions have occurred statewide as a result of federal 
emission control measures, with additional emission reductions expected 
to occur in the future as the State

[[Page 705]]

implements additional emission controls. Federal emission control 
measures include: the National Low Emission Vehicle (NLEV) program, 
Tier 2 emission standards for vehicles, gasoline sulfur limits, low 
sulfur diesel fuel standards, and heavy-duty diesel engine standards. 
In addition, in 2004, EPA issued the Clean Air Non-road Diesel Rule (69 
FR 38958 (July 29, 2004)). EPA expects this rule will reduce off-road 
diesel emissions through 2010, with emission reductions starting in 
2008.
    Control Measures in Upwind Areas. Upwind ozone nonattainment areas 
in the Lake Michigan region, including Chicago, Illinois; Gary, 
Indiana; and Milwaukee, Wisconsin have continued to reduce emissions of 
VOC and NOX to meet their rate of progress obligations under 
the 1-hour ozone standard. Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin have all 
developed regulations to control NOX, Illinois and Indiana 
pursuant to the NOX SIP call and Wisconsin to meet rate of 
progress requirements. These upwind reductions in emissions have 
resulted in lower concentrations of transported ozone entering 
Michigan. The emission reductions resulting from these upwind control 
programs are permanent and enforceable.
    b. Emission reductions. Michigan is using 2002 for the 
nonattainment inventory and 2005, one of the years used to demonstrate 
monitored attainment of the NAAQS, for the attainment inventory. For 
2002, MDEQ used the Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium (LADCO) 2002 
base K inventory. This typical summer day inventory was developed by 
processing emissions data from the EPA final 2002 National Emissions 
Inventory (NEI). Nonroad emissions were estimated using the most 
current version of EPA's National Mobile Inventory Model (NMIM). For 
the 2005 inventory, Michigan interpolated between the 2002 LADCO base K 
inventory and the LADCO 2009 base K inventory to project emissions for 
the non-EGU point and area sectors. For EGU emissions, Michigan used 
2004 actual emissions as a better representation of 2005 than 
interpolating from 2009. For nonroad emissions, Michigan used the most 
current version of NMIM. For onroad emissions, Michigan used the 
Mobile6.2 model.
    Based on the inventories described above, Michigan's submittal 
documents changes in VOC and NOX emissions from 2002 to 2005 
for the Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas. The 
emissions reductions for both VOC and NOX, by county and by 
source category are shown below in Tables 3 through 7.

               Table 3.--Flint Area: Total VOC and NOX Emissions for Nonattainment Year 2002 (tpd)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Genesee                   Lapeer                     Total
                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        VOC          NOX          VOC          NOX          VOC          NOX
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point.............................         4.93         2.66         1.14         0.32         6.07         2.98
Area..............................        22.06         1.76         4.60         0.37        26.66         2.13
Nonroad...........................        33.74         8.72         6.81         2.97        40.55        11.69
Onroad............................        26.68        40.80         4.84         9.82        31.52        50.62
                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.........................        87.41        53.94        17.39        13.48        104.8        67.42
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                Table 4.--Flint Area: Total VOC and NOX Emissions for Attainment Year 2005 (tpd)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Genesee                   Lapeer                     Total
                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        VOC          NOX          VOC          NOX          VOC          NOX
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point.............................         4.38         2.61         0.95         0.30         5.33         2.91
Area..............................        21.63         1.80         4.60         0.38        26.23         2.18
Nonroad...........................        11.79         8.07         6.72         2.79        18.51        10.86
Onroad............................        17.71        29.98         3.39         6.10        21.10        36.08
                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.........................        55.51        42.46        15.66         9.57        71.17        52.03
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                  Table 5.--Flint Area: Comparison of 2002 and 2005 VOC and NOX Emissions (tpd)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 VOC                                       NOX
                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Sector                                         Net change                                Net change
                                  2002         2005       (2002-2005)       2002         2005       (2002-2005)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point.......................         6.07         5.33           -0.74         2.98         2.91           -0.07
Area........................        26.66        26.23           -0.43         2.13         2.18            0.05
Onroad......................        40.55        18.51          -22.04        11.69        10.86           -0.83
Nonroad.....................        31.52        21.10          -10.42        50.62        36.08          -14.54
                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...................       104.80        71.17          -33.63        67.42        52.03          -15.39
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 706]]


       Table 6.--Muskegon Area (Muskegon County): Comparison of 2002 and 2005 VOC and NOX Emissions (tpd)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 VOC                                       NOX
                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Sector                                         Net change                                Net change
                                  2002         2005       (2002-2005)       2002         2005       (2002-2005)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point.......................         1.77         1.73           -0.04        14.35        13.83           -0.52
Area........................         8.20         8.15           -0.05         0.81         0.83            0.02
Onroad......................         7.67         5.08           -2.59        11.93         8.91           -3.02
Nonroad.....................        10.41        10.26           -0.15         6.48         6.27           -0.21
                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...................        28.05        25.22           -2.83        33.57        29.84           -3.73
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


     Table 7.--Benton Harbor Area (Berrien County): Comparison of 2002 and 2005 VOC and NOX Emissions (tpd)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 VOC                                       NOX
                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Sector                                         Net change                                Net change
                                  2002         2005       (2002-2005)       2002         2005       (2002-2005)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point.......................         1.91         1.93            0.02         3.70         3.47           -0.23
Area........................         9.05         8.99           -0.06         0.79         0.81            0.02
Onroad......................        11.11         7.45           -3.66        20.45        14.49           -5.96
Nonroad.....................        11.67        10.98           -0.69         4.80         4.54           -0.26
                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...................        33.74        29.35           -4.39        29.74        23.31           -6.43
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


               Table 8.--Cass County Area: Comparison of 2002 and 2005 VOC and NOX Emissions (tpd)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 VOC                                       NOX
                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Sector                                         Net change                                Net change
                                  2002         2005       (2002-2005)       2002         2005       (2002-2005)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point.......................         0.31         0.34            0.03         0.20         0.20            0.00
Area........................         2.22         2.22            0.00         0.20         0.20            0.00
Onroad......................         2.45         1.66           -0.79         4.52         2.97           -1.55
Nonroad.....................         5.07         5.06           -0.01         2.06         1.92           -0.14
                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...................        10.05         9.28           -0.77         6.98         5.29           -1.69
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 5 shows that the Flint area reduced VOC emissions by 33.53 
tpd and NOX emissions by 15.39 tpd between 2002 and 2005.
    Table 6 shows that the Muskegon area reduced VOC emissions by 2.83 
tpd and NOX emissions by 3.73 tpd between 2002 and 2005. 
Table 7 shows that the Benton Harbor area reduced VOC emissions by 4.39 
tpd and NOX emissions by 6.43 tpd between 2002 and 2005. 
Table 8 shows that the Cass County area reduced VOC emissions by 0.77 
tpd and NOX emissions by 1.69 tpd between 2002 and 2005.
    Based on the information summarized above, Michigan has adequately 
demonstrated that the improvement in air quality is due to permanent 
and enforceable emissions reductions.
4. The Areas Have a Fully Approved Maintenance Plan Pursuant to Section 
175a of the CAA. (Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv))
    In conjunction with its requests to redesignate the Flint, 
Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County nonattainment areas to 
attainment status, Michigan submitted a SIP revision to provide for the 
maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in these areas for at least 10 
years after redesignation.
    a. What is required in a maintenance plan? Section 175A of the CAA 
sets forth the required elements of a maintenance plan for areas 
seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment. Under section 
175A, the plan must demonstrate continued attainment of the applicable 
NAAQS for at least ten years after the Administrator approves a 
redesignation to attainment. Eight years after the redesignation, the 
State must submit a revised maintenance plan which demonstrates that 
attainment will continue to be maintained for ten years following the 
initial ten-year maintenance period. To address the possibility of 
future NAAQS violations, the maintenance plan must contain contingency 
measures with a schedule for implementation as EPA deems necessary to 
assure prompt correction of any future 8-hour ozone violations.
    The September 4, 1992, John Calcagni memorandum provides additional 
guidance on the content of a maintenance plan. The memorandum clarifies 
that an ozone maintenance plan should address the following items: The 
attainment VOC and NOX emissions inventories, a maintenance 
demonstration showing maintenance for the ten years of the maintenance 
period, a commitment to maintain the existing monitoring network, 
factors and procedures to be used for verification of continued 
attainment of the NAAQS, and a contingency plan to prevent or correct 
future violations of the NAAQS.
    b. Attainment Inventory. As described above, the MDEQ developed 
attainment inventories for 2005, one of the years used to demonstrate 
monitored attainment of the 8-hour NAAQS. The 2005 attainment level of 
emissions is summarized, above, in Tables 4 to 8.
    c. Demonstration of Maintenance. Michigan submitted with the

[[Page 707]]

redesignation request revisions to the 8-hour ozone SIP to include 10-
year maintenance plans for the Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass 
County areas, as required by section 175A of the CAA. These 
demonstrations show maintenance of the 8-hour ozone standard by 
assuring that current and future emissions of VOC and NOX 
for the Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas remain at 
or below attainment year emission levels. A maintenance demonstration 
need not be based on modeling. See Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 
2001), Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F. 3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004). See also 66 
FR 53094, 53099-53100 (October 19, 2001), 68 FR 25413, 25430-25432 (May 
12, 2003).
    Michigan is using projected inventories developed by LADCO for the 
years 2009 and 2018. The exception to this is the 2018 onroad mobile 
source emissions estimates, which were prepared by the Michigan 
Department of Transportation. Using projected inventories prepared by 
LADCO will ensure that the inventories used for redesignation are 
consistent with regional attainment modeling performed in the future. 
These emission estimates are presented in Tables 9 to 12 below.

                                     Table 9.--Flint Area: Comparison of 2005-2018 Total VOC and NOX Emissions (tpd)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          VOC                                                 NOX
                                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Sector                                                               Net change                                          Net change
                                                      2005         2009         2018      2005-2018       2005         2009         2018      2005-2018
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point non-EGU...................................         5.27         4.35         4.83        -0.44         2.77         2.74         2.81         0.04
Point EGU.......................................         0.06         0.00         0.00        -0.06         0.14         0.00         0.01        -0.13
Point Total.....................................         5.33         4.35         4.83        -0.50         2.91         2.74         2.82        -0.09
Area............................................        26.23        25.65        26.01        -0.22         2.18         2.25         2.33         0.87
Onroad..........................................        21.10        18.18         9.76       -11.34        36.08        32.89        11.43       -24.65
Nonroad.........................................        18.51        16.35        12.88        -5.63        10.86         9.20        15.02        -4.16
                                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................        71.17        64.01        53.48       -17.69        52.03        47.08        22.51       -29.52
Safety Margin...................................  ...........  ...........  ...........        17.69  ...........  ...........  ...........        29.52
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                   Table 10.--Muskegon Area: Comparison of 2005-2018 Total VOC and NOX Emissions (tpd)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          VOC                                                 NOX
                                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Sector                                                               Net change                                          Net change
                                                      2005         2009         2018      2005-2018       2005         2009         2018      2005-2018
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Non-EGU...................................         1.63         1.59         2.02         0.39         4.75         4.75         5.14         0.39
Point EGU.......................................         0.10         0.10         0.12         0.02         9.08         6.23         7.17        -1.91
Point Total.....................................         1.73         1.69         2.14         0.41        13.83        10.98        12.31        -1.52
Area............................................         8.15         8.09         8.36         0.21         0.83         0.85         0.88         0.05
Onroad..........................................         5.08         4.66         2.27        -2.81         8.91         8.19         2.74        -6.17
Nonroad.........................................        10.26         9.52         7.56        -2.70         6.27         5.84         4.73        -1.54
                                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................        25.22        23.96        20.33        -4.89        29.84        25.86        20.66        -9.18
Safety Margin...................................  ...........  ...........  ...........         4.89  ...........  ...........  ...........         9.18
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                        Table 11.--Benton Harbor Area (Berrien County): Comparison of 2005-2018 Total VOC and NOX Emissions (tpd)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          VOC                                                 NOX
                                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Sector                                                               Net change                                          Net change
                                                      2005         2009         2018      2005-2018       2005         2009         2018      2005-2018
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Non-EGU...................................         1.93         1.95         2.40         0.47         3.47         3.17         3.22        -0.25
Point EGU.......................................         0.00         0.00         0.00         0.00         0.00         0.00         0.00         0.00
Point Total.....................................         1.93         1.95         2.40         0.47         3.47         3.17         3.22        -0.25
Area............................................         8.99         8.92         9.38         0.39         0.81         0.83         0.86         0.05
Onroad..........................................         7.45         6.54         3.44        -4.01        14.49        13.27         4.57        -9.92
Nonroad.........................................        10.98         9.86         7.77        -3.21         4.54         4.01         2.86        -1.68
                                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................        29.35        27.27        22.99        -6.36        23.31        21.28        11.51       -11.80
Safety Margin...................................  ...........  ...........  ...........         6.36  ...........  ...........  ...........        11.80
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 708]]


                                    Table 12.--Cass County Area: Comparison of 2005-2018 VOC and NOX Emissions (tpd)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          VOC                                                 NOX
                                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Sector                                                               Net change                                          Net change
                                                      2005         2009         2018      2005-2018       2005         2009         2018      2005-2018
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point non-EGU...................................         0.34         0.39         0.49         0.15         0.20         0.20         0.23         0.03
Point EGU.......................................         0.00         0.00         0.00         0.00         0.00         0.00         0.00         0.00
                                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Point Total.................................         0.34         0.39         0.49         0.15         0.20         0.20         0.23         0.03
Area............................................         2.22         2.22         2.31        -0.44         0.20         0.21         0.22         0.02
Onroad..........................................         1.66         1.47         0.74        -9.64         2.97         3.03         0.94        -2.03
Nonroad.........................................         5.06         4.70         3.50        -3.59         1.92         1.67         1.17        -0.75
                                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................         9.28         8.78         7.04        -2.24         5.29         5.11         2.56        -2.73
Safety Margin...................................  ...........  ...........  ...........         2.24  ...........  ...........  ...........         2.73
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The emission projections show that MDEQ does not expect emissions 
in the Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas to exceed 
the level of the 2005 attainment year inventory during the maintenance 
period. In the Flint area, MDEQ projects that VOC and NOX 
emissions will decrease by 17.69 tpd and 29.52 tpd, respectively. In 
the Muskegon area, MDEQ projects that VOC and NOX emissions 
will decrease by 4.89 tpd and 9.18 tpd, respectively. In the Benton 
Harbor area, MDEQ projects that VOC and NOX emissions will 
decrease by 6.36 tpd and 11.80 tpd, respectively. In the Cass County 
area, MDEQ projects that VOC and NOX emissions will decrease 
by 2.24 tpd and 2.73 tpd, respectively.
    As part of its maintenance plan, the State elected to include a 
``safety margin'' for the areas. 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 
which continues to demonstrate attainment of the standard. The 
attainment level of emissions is the level of emissions during one of 
the years in which the area met the NAAQS. The Flint, Muskegon, Benton 
Harbor, and Cass County areas attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS during 
the 2004-2006 time period. Michigan used 2005 as the attainment level 
of emissions for the areas. For Flint, the emissions from point, area, 
nonroad, and mobile sources in 2005 equaled 71.17 tpd of total VOC. 
MDEQ projected VOC emissions out to the year 2018 to be 53.48 tpd of 
total VOC. The SIP submission demonstrates that the Flint area will 
continue to maintain the standard with emissions at this level. The 
safety margin for VOC is calculated to be the difference between these 
amounts or, in this case, 17.69 tpd of total VOC for 2018. By this same 
method, 29.52 tpd (i.e., 52.03 tpd less 22.51 tpd) is the safety margin 
for NOX for 2018. For the Muskegon area, 4.89 tpd and 9.18 
tpd are the safety margins for VOC and NOX, respectively. 
For the Benton Harbor area, 6.36 tpd and 11.80 tpd are the safety 
margins for VOC and NOX, respectively. For the Cass County 
area, 2.24 tpd and 2.73 tpd are the safety margins for VOC and 
NOX, respectively. The safety margin, or a portion thereof, 
can be allocated to any of the source categories, as long as the total 
attainment level of emissions is maintained.
    d. Monitoring Network. Michigan currently operates two ozone 
monitors in the Flint area, and one ozone monitor each in Muskegon, 
Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas. MDEQ has committed to continue 
operating and maintaining an approved ozone monitor network in 
accordance with 40 CFR part 58.
    e. Verification of Continued Attainment. Continued attainment of 
the ozone NAAQS in the Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County 
areas depends, in part, on the State's efforts toward tracking 
indicators of continued attainment during the maintenance period. The 
State's plan for verifying continued attainment of the 8-hour standard 
in the Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas consists 
of plans to continue ambient ozone monitoring in accordance with the 
requirements of 40 CFR part 58. In addition, MDEQ will periodically 
review and revise if necessary the VOC and NOX emissions 
inventories for the Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County 
areas, as required by the Consolidated Emissions Reporting Rule (40 CFR 
part 51), to track levels of emissions in the future.
    f. Contingency Plan. The contingency plan provisions are designed 
to promptly correct or prevent a violation of the NAAQS that might 
occur after redesignation of an area to attainment. Section 175A of the 
CAA requires that a maintenance plan include such contingency measures 
as EPA deems necessary to assure that the state will promptly correct a 
violation of the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation. The maintenance 
plan should identify the contingency measures to be adopted, a schedule 
and procedure for adoption and implementation of the contingency 
measures, and a time limit for action by the state. The state should 
also identify specific indicators to be used to determine when the 
contingency measures need to be adopted and implemented. The 
maintenance plan must include a requirement that the state will 
implement all measures with respect to control of the pollutant(s) that 
were contained in the SIP before redesignation of the area to 
attainment. See section 175A(d) of the CAA.
    As required by section 175A of the CAA, Michigan has adopted a 
contingency plan for the Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass 
County areas to address possible future ozone air quality problems. The 
contingency plan adopted by Michigan has two levels of response, 
depending on whether a violation of the 8-hour ozone standard is only 
threatened (Action Level Response) or has occurred (Contingency Measure 
Response).
    An Action Level Response will occur when a two-year average fourth-
high monitored daily peak 8-hour ozone concentration of 85 ppb or 
higher is monitored within an ozone maintenance area. An Action Level 
Response will consist of Michigan performing a review of the 
circumstances leading to the high monitored values. MDEQ will conduct 
this review within six months following the close of the ozone season. 
If MDEQ determines that contingency measure implementation is necessary 
to prevent a future violation of the NAAQS, MDEQ will select and 
implement a measure that can be implemented promptly.
    A Contingency Measure Response will be triggered by a violation of 
the standard (a 3-year average of the annual

[[Page 709]]

fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration of 85 
ppb or greater). When a Contingency Measure Response is triggered, 
Michigan will select one or more control measures for implementation. 
The timing for implementation of a contingency measure is dependent on 
the process needed for legal adoption and source compliance which 
varies for each measure. MDEQ will expedite the process of adopting and 
implementing the selected measures, with a goal of having measures in 
place as expeditiously as practicable within 18 months. EPA is 
interpreting this commitment to mean that the contingency measure will 
be adopted and implemented within 18 months.
    Contingency measures contained in the maintenance plans are those 
emission controls or other measures that Michigan may choose to adopt 
and implement to correct possible air quality problems. These include 
the following:
    i. Lower Reid vapor pressure gasoline requirements;
    ii. Reduced VOC content in Architectural, Industrial, and 
Maintenance (AIM) coatings rule;
    iii. Auto body refinisher self-certification audit program;
    iv. Reduced VOC degreasing rule;
    v. Transit improvements;
    vi. Diesel retrofit program;
    vii. Reduced VOC content in commercial and consumer products rule;
    viii. Reduce idling program.
    g. Provisions for Future Updates of the Ozone Maintenance Plan. As 
required by section 175A(b) of the CAA, Michigan commits to submit to 
the EPA an updated ozone maintenance plan eight years after 
redesignation of the Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County 
areas to cover an additional 10-year period beyond the initial 10-year 
maintenance period. Michigan has committed to retain the control 
measures for VOC and NOX emissions that were contained in 
the SIP before redesignation of the areas to attainment, as required by 
section 175(A) of the CAA.
    EPA has concluded that the maintenance plan adequately addresses 
the five basic components of a maintenance plan: attainment inventory, 
maintenance demonstration, monitoring network, verification of 
continued attainment, and a contingency plan. The maintenance plan SIP 
revision submitted by Michigan for the Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, 
and Cass County areas meets the requirements of section 175A of the 
CAA.

ii. Adequacy of Michigan's Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets (MVEBs)

1. How Are MVEBs Developed and What Are the MVEBs for the Flint, 
Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass Areas?
    Under the CAA, states are required to submit, at various times, 
control strategy SIP revisions and ozone maintenance plans for ozone 
nonattainment areas and for areas seeking redesignations to attainment 
of the ozone standard. These emission control strategy SIP revisions 
(e.g., reasonable further progress SIP and attainment demonstration SIP 
revisions) and ozone maintenance plans create MVEBs based on onroad 
mobile source emissions for criteria pollutants and/or their precursors 
to address pollution from cars and trucks. The MVEBs are the portions 
of the total allowable emissions that are allocated to highway and 
transit vehicle use that, together with emissions from other sources in 
the area, will provide for attainment or maintenance.
    Under 40 CFR part 93, a MVEB for an area seeking a redesignation to 
attainment is established for the last year of the maintenance plan. 
The MVEB serves as a ceiling on emissions from an area's planned 
transportation system. The MVEB concept is further explained in the 
preamble to the November 24, 1993, transportation conformity rule (58 
FR 62188). The preamble also describes how to establish the MVEB in the 
SIP and how to revise the MVEB if needed.
    Under section 176(c) of the CAA, new transportation projects, such 
as the construction of new highways, must ``conform'' to (i.e., be 
consistent with) the part of the SIP that addresses emissions from cars 
and trucks. Conformity to the SIP means that transportation activities 
will not cause new air quality violations, worsen existing air quality 
violations, or delay timely attainment of the NAAQS. If a 
transportation plan does not conform, most new transportation projects 
that would expand the capacity of roadways cannot go forward. 
Regulations at 40 CFR part 93 set forth EPA policy, criteria, and 
procedures for demonstrating and assuring conformity of such 
transportation activities to a SIP.
    When reviewing SIP revisions containing MVEBs, including attainment 
strategies, rate-of-progress plans, and maintenance plans, EPA must 
affirmatively find that the MVEBs are ``adequate'' for use in 
determining transportation conformity. Once EPA affirmatively finds the 
submitted MVEBs to be adequate for transportation conformity purposes, 
the MVEBs are used by state and federal agencies in determining whether 
proposed transportation projects conform to the SIP as required by 
section 176(c) of the CAA. EPA's substantive criteria for determining 
the adequacy of MVEBs are set out in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4).
    EPA's process for determining adequacy of a MVEB consists of three 
basic steps: (1) Providing public notification of a SIP submission; (2) 
providing the public the opportunity to comment on the MVEB during a 
public comment period; and (3) EPA's finding of adequacy. The process 
of determining the adequacy of submitted SIP MVEBs was initially 
outlined in EPA's May 14, 1999, guidance, ``Conformity Guidance on 
Implementation of March 2, 1999, Conformity Court Decision.'' This 
guidance was codified in the Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments 
for the ``New 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality 
Standards and Miscellaneous Revisions for Existing Areas; 
Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments--Response to Court Decision 
and Additional Rule Change,'' published on July 1, 2004 (69 FR 40004). 
EPA follows this guidance and rulemaking in making its adequacy 
determinations.
    The Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas' 
maintenance plans contain new VOC and NOX MVEBs for the year 
2018. The availability of the SIP submission with these 2018 MVEBs was 
announced for public comment on EPA's Adequacy Web page on August 4, 
2006, at: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/currsips.htm. The EPA public comment period on 
adequacy of the 2018 MVEBs for the Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and 
Cass County areas closed on September 5, 2006. No requests for this 
submittal or adverse comments on this submittal were received during 
the adequacy comment period. In a November 29, 2006 letter, EPA 
informed MDEQ that we had found the 2018 MVEBs to be adequate for use 
in transportation conformity analyses.
    EPA, through this rulemaking, is proposing to approve the MVEBs for 
use to determine transportation conformity in the Flint, Muskegon, 
Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas because EPA has determined that 
the areas can maintain attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the 
relevant maintenance period with mobile source emissions at the levels 
of the MVEBs. MDEQ has determined the 2018 MVEBs for the Flint area to 
be 25.68 tpd for VOC and 37.99 tpd for NOX. These MVEBs 
exceed the onroad mobile source VOC and NOX emissions 
projected by MDEQ for 2018,

[[Page 710]]

as summarized in Table 9 (``onroad'' source sector), above, because 
MDEQ decided to include safety margins (described further below) of 
15.92 tpd of VOC and 26.56 tpd for NOX in the MVEBs to 
provide for mobile source growth. Michigan has demonstrated that the 
Flint area can maintain the 8-hour ozone NAAQS with mobile source 
emissions of 25.68 tpd of VOC and 37.99 tpd of NOX in 2018, 
including the allocated safety margins, since emissions will still 
remain under attainment year emission levels.
    MDEQ has determined the 2018 MVEBs for the Muskegon area to be 6.67 
tpd for VOC and 11.0 tpd for NOX. These MVEBs exceed the 
onroad mobile source VOC and NOX emissions projected by MDEQ 
for 2018, as summarized in Table 10 (``onroad'' source sector), above, 
because MDEQ decided to include safety margins of 4.40 tpd of VOC and 
8.26 tpd for NOX in the MVEBs to provide for mobile source 
growth. Michigan has demonstrated that the Muskegon area can maintain 
the 8-hour ozone NAAQS with mobile source emissions of 6.67 tpd of VOC 
and 11.0 tpd of NOX in 2018, including the allocated safety 
margins, since emissions will still remain under attainment year 
emission levels.
    MDEQ has determined the 2018 MVEBs for the Benton Harbor area to be 
9.16 tpd for VOC and 15.19 tpd for NOX. These MVEBs exceed 
the onroad mobile source VOC and NOX emissions projected by 
MDEQ for 2018, as summarized in Table 11 (``onroad'' source sector), 
above, because MDEQ decided to include safety margins of 5.72 tpd of 
VOC and 10.62 tpd for NOX in the MVEBs to provide for mobile 
source growth. Michigan has demonstrated that the Benton Harbor area 
can maintain the 8-hour ozone NAAQS with mobile source emissions of 
9.16 tpd of VOC and 15.19 tpd of NOX in 2018, including the 
allocated safety margins, since emissions will still remain under 
attainment year emission levels.
    MDEQ has determined the 2018 MVEBs for the Cass County area to be 
2.76 tpd for VOC and 3.40 tpd for NOX. It should be noted 
that these MVEBs exceed the onroad mobile source VOC and NOX 
emissions projected by MDEQ for 2018, as summarized in Table 12 
(``onroad'' source sector), above. MDEQ decided to include safety 
margins (described further below) of 2.02 tpd of VOC and 2.46 tpd for 
NOX in the MVEBs to provide for mobile source growth. 
Michigan has demonstrated that the Cass County area can maintain the 8-
hour ozone NAAQS with mobile source emissions of 2.76 tpd of VOC and 
3.40 tpd of NOX in 2018, including the allocated safety 
margins, since emissions will still remain under attainment year 
emission levels.
2. 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. As noted in Table 9, the 
Flint area total VOC and NOX emissions are projected to have 
safety margins of 17.69 tpd for VOC and 29.52 tpd for NOX in 
2018 (the difference between the attainment year, 2005, emissions and 
the 2018 emissions for all sources in the Flint area). As noted in 
Table 10, the Muskegon area VOC and NOX emissions are 
projected to have safety margins of 4.89 tpd and 9.18 tpd, 
respectively. As noted in Table 11, the Benton Harbor area VOC and 
NOX emissions are projected to have safety margins of 6.36 
tpd and 11.80 tpd, respectively. As noted in Table 12, the Cass County 
area VOC and NOX emissions are projected to have safety 
margins of 2.24 tpd and 2.73 tpd, respectively. Even if emissions 
reached the full level of the safety margin, the counties would still 
demonstrate maintenance, since emission levels would equal those in the 
attainment year.
    The MVEBs requested by MDEQ contain safety margins for mobile 
sources smaller than the allowable safety margins reflected in the 
total emissions for the Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County 
areas. The State is not requesting allocation of the entire available 
safety margins reflected in the demonstration of maintenance. 
Therefore, even though the State is requesting MVEBs that exceed the 
projected onroad mobile source emissions for 2018 contained in the 
demonstration of maintenance, the increase in onroad mobile source 
emissions that can be considered for transportation conformity purposes 
is well within the safety margins of the ozone maintenance 
demonstration. Further, once allocated to mobile sources, these safety 
margins will not be available for use by other sources.

VIII. What Actions Is EPA Taking Today?

    EPA is proposing to make determinations that the Flint, Muskegon, 
Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas have attained the 8-hour ozone 
NAAQS, and EPA is proposing to approve the redesignations of the Flint, 
Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas from nonattainment to 
attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. After evaluating Michigan's 
redesignation requests, EPA has determined that they meet the 
redesignation criteria set forth in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. 
The final approvals of these redesignation requests would change the 
official designations for the Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass 
County areas from nonattainment to attainment for the 8-hour ozone 
standard.
    EPA is also proposing to approve the maintenance plan SIP revisions 
for the Flint, Muskegon, Benton Harbor, and Cass County areas. EPA's 
proposed approval of the maintenance plans is based on Michigan's 
demonstration that the plans meet the requirements of section 175A of 
the CAA, as described more fully above. Additionally, EPA is finding 
adequate and proposing to approve the 2018 MVEBs submitted by Michigan 
in conjunction with the redesignation requests.

IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews.

Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    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.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposed 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.).

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as 
meeting federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements 
beyond those imposed by state law. Redesignation of an area to 
attainment under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Clean Air Act does not 
impose any new requirements on small entities. Redesignation is an 
action that affects the status of a geographical area and does not 
impose any new regulatory requirements on sources. 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.).

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Because this rule proposes to approve 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

[[Page 711]]

unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, 
as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4).

Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action also does not have Federalism implications because it 
does 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 (64 FR 43255, August 
10, 1999). Redesignation is an action that merely affects the status of 
a geographical area, does not impose any new requirements on sources, 
or allows a state to avoid adopting or implementing other requirements, 
and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and 
responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act.

Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal 
Governments

    Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) requires EPA 
to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely 
input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies 
that have tribal implications.'' This proposed rule also does not have 
tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175, because 
redesignation is an action that affects the status of a geographical 
area and does not impose any new regulatory requirements on tribes, 
impact any existing sources of air pollution on tribal lands, nor 
impair the maintenance of ozone national ambient air quality standards 
in tribal lands. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this 
rule.
    Although Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule, EPA met 
with interested tribes in Michigan to discuss the redesignation process 
and the impact of a change in designation status of these areas on the 
tribes.

Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health 
and Safety Risks

    This proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically 
significant.

Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use

    Because it is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under 
Executive Order 12866 or a ``significant energy action,'' this action 
is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning 
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or 
Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001).

National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

    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 program submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, 
provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Absent a 
prior existing requirement for the state to use voluntary consensus 
standards, EPA has no authority to disapprove a program 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 program submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the 
Act. Redesignation is an action that affects the status of a 
geographical area but does not impose any new requirements on sources. 
Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology 
Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: December 21, 2006.
Bharat Mathur,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. E6-22616 Filed 1-5-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P