[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 14 (Tuesday, January 23, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 2878]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-919]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[MI-88-1; FRL-8272-8]


Adequacy Status of Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for Four Areas 
in Michigan for Transportation Conformity Purposes

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of adequacy.

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

SUMMARY: In this action, EPA is notifying the public that EPA has found 
that the motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs) for four areas across 
the state of Michigan are adequate for conformity purposes. On March 2, 
1999, the D.C. Circuit Court ruled that submitted State Implementation 
Plans (SIPs) cannot be used for conformity determinations until EPA has 
affirmatively found them adequate. As a result of our finding, the 
Flint (consisting of Genesee and Lapeer Counties), Muskegon County, 
Berrien County, and Cass County areas can use the (MVEBs) for future 
conformity determinations. These budgets are effective February 7, 
2007. The finding and the response to comments will be available at 
EPA's conformity Web site: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/transp.htm, (once 
there, click on the ``Conformity'' button, then look for ``Adequacy 
Review of SIP Submissions for Conformity'').

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anthony Maietta, Life Scientist, 
Criteria Pollutant Section (AR-18J), Air Programs Branch, Air and 
Radiation Division, United States Environmental Protection Agency, 
Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 
353-8777, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, whenever ``we'', 
``us'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.

Background

    Today's action is simply an announcement of a finding that we have 
already made. EPA Region 5 sent a letter to the Michigan Department of 
Environmental Quality on November 29, 2006, stating that the 2018 
(MVEBs) in the Flint, Muskegon County, Berrien County, and Cass County 
areas are adequate. Michigan submitted the budgets as part of the 8-
hour ozone redesignation requests and maintenance plans for these 
areas. This finding was announced on EPA's conformity Web site, and 
received no comments: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/adequacy.htm, (once there, click on ``What SIP submissions are 
currently under EPA adequacy review?'').
    The 2018 (MVEBs), in tons per day, for volatile organic compounds 
and oxides of nitrogen for these areas are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           2018 VOC MVEB   2018 NOX MVEB
                  Area                         (tpd)           (tpd)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flint...................................           25.68           37.99
Muskegon County.........................            6.67           11.00
Berrien County..........................            9.16           15.19
Cass County.............................            2.76            3.40
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Transportation conformity is required by section 176(c) of the 
Clean Air Act. EPA's conformity rule requires that transportation 
plans, programs, and projects conform to state air quality 
implementation plans and establishes the criteria and procedures for 
determining whether or not they do. Conformity to a SIP means that 
transportation activities will not produce new air quality violations, 
worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of the national 
ambient air quality standards.
    The criteria by which we determine whether a SIP's motor vehicle 
emission budgets are adequate for conformity purposes are outlined in 
40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). Please note that an adequacy review is separate 
from EPA's completeness review, and it also should not be used to 
prejudge EPA's ultimate approval of the SIP. Even if we find a budget 
adequate, the SIP could later be disapproved.
    We've described our process for determining the adequacy of 
submitted SIP budgets in guidance (May 14, 1999 memo titled 
``Conformity Guidance on Implementation of March 2, 1999 Conformity 
Court Decision''). We followed this guidance in making our adequacy 
determination.

    Dated: January 11, 2007.
Mary A. Gade,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
 [FR Doc. E7-919 Filed 1-22-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P