[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 139 (Thursday, July 21, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-17556]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: July 21, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[M118-01-5767, M121-01-6241; AMS-FRL-5014-8]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation
of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes: State of Michigan
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The USEPA proposes to approve revisions to the Michigan State
Implementation Plan (SIP) for attainment and maintenance of the
National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone. These
revisions pertain to the Detroit-Ann Arbor moderate ozone nonattainment
area which includes the following counties: Livingston, Macomb, Monroe,
Oakland, Saint Clair, Washtenaw, and Wayne. The revisions being
proposed for approval are the 1990 base year emission inventory, basic
vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M), and redesignation of the
Detroit-Ann Arbor area to attainment for ozone and corresponding 175A
maintenance plan.
DATES: Comments on these proposed actions must be received in writing
by August 22, 1994 and will be considered before taking final action on
these SIP revisions.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to Carlton T. Nash, Chief,
Regulation Development Section, Air Toxics and Radiation Branch (AT-
18J), United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois, 60604. Copies of these SIP
revisions and USEPA's analyses are available for inspection at the
above address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jacqueline Nwia, Environmental
Engineer, Regulation Development Section, Air Toxics and Radiation
Branch (AT-18J), United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region
5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6081.
Anyone wishing to come to Region 5 offices should contact Jacqueline
Nwia first.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document contains a number of
submittals for which the USEPA is proposing action. For purposes of
clarity, the following Table of Contents is provided as a guide for
this action.
Table of Contents
A. 1990 Base Year Emission Inventory
I. Background
II. Review of the State Submittal
III. Proposed Action
B. Inspection and Maintenance
I. Background and Review Criteria
II. Finding of USEPA Review
III. Proposed Action
C. Redesignation
I. Background
II. Evaluation Criteria
III. Review of State Submittal
1. Attainment of the Ozone NAAQS
2. Meeting Applicable Requirements of Section 110 and Part D
(A) Section 110 Requirements
(B) Part D Requirements
(B1) Subpart 1 of Part D--Section 172(c) Provisions
(B2) Subpart 1 of Part D--Section 176 Conformity Provisions
(B3) Subpart 2 Requirements
3. Fully Approved SIP Under Section 110(k) of the Act.
4. Improvement in Air Quality Due to Permanent and Enforceable
Measures.
5. Fully Approved Maintenance Plan Under Section 175A.
(A) Emissions Inventory--Base Year Inventory
(B) Demonstration of Maintenance--Projected Inventories
(C) Verification of Continued Attainment
(D) Contingency Plan
(E) Subsequent Maintenance Plan Revisions
IV. Proposed Action
D. Procedural Background
E. Regulatory Process
A. Emissions Inventory
The inventory was submitted by the State to satisfy certain Federal
requirements for an approvable nonattainment area ozone SIP for the
Detroit/Ann Arbor area in Michigan.
A detailed analysis of Michigan's 1990 Base Year Emission Inventory
SIP submittal is contained in the USEPA's technical support document
(TSD), dated January 27, 1994 from Jeanette Marrero to the Docket,
entitled ``TSD for Proposed Revision to Michigan's Ozone SIP for the
1990 Base Year Emissions Inventory for Areas Designated Nonattainment
for Ozone'' (Emission Inventory TSD), which is available from the
Region 5 office listed above.
I. Background
Under the Act, States have the responsibility to inventory
emissions contributing to NAAQS nonattainment, to track these emissions
over time, and to ensure that control strategies are being implemented
that reduce emissions and move areas towards attainment. The Act
requires ozone nonattainment areas designated as moderate, serious,
severe, and extreme to submit a plan within 3 years of 1990 to reduce
volatile organic compounds (VOC) emissions by 15 percent within 6 years
after 1990. The baseline level of emissions, from which the 15 percent
reduction is calculated, is determined by adjusting the base year
inventory to exclude biogenic emissions and certain emission reductions
not creditable towards the 15 percent. The 1990 base year emissions
inventory is the primary inventory from which the periodic inventory,
the reasonable further progress (RFP) projection inventory, and the
modeling inventory are derived. Further information on these
inventories and their purpose can be found in the ``Emission Inventory
Requirements for Ozone SIP,'' USEPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards (OAQPS), Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, March 1991.
The base year inventory may also serve as part of statewide inventories
for purposes of regional modeling in transport areas. The base year
inventory plays an important role in modeling demonstrations for areas
classified as moderate and above outside transport regions.
The air quality planning requirements for marginal to extreme ozone
nonattainment areas are set out in section 182(a)-(e) of title I of the
Act. Further, the USEPA has issued a General Preamble describing
USEPA's preliminary views on how USEPA intends to review SIP revisions
submitted under title I of the Act, including requirements for the
preparation of the 1990 base year inventory (57 FR 13502, April 16,
1992 and 57 FR 18070, April 28, 1992). Because USEPA is describing its
interpretations here only in broad terms, the reader should refer to
the General Preamble for a more detailed discussion of the
interpretations of title I advanced in this proposal and the supporting
rationale. In this rulemaking action on the Michigan ozone base year
emissions inventory, USEPA is proposing to apply its interpretations
taking into consideration the specific factual issues presented. Thus,
USEPA will consider any comments submitted within the comment period
before taking final action on this proposal.
Those States containing ozone nonattainment areas classified as
marginal to extreme are required under section 182(a)(1) of the Act to
submit a final, comprehensive, accurate, and current inventory of
actual ozone season, weekday emissions from all sources within 2 years
of enactment (November 15, 1992). This inventory is for calendar year
1990 and is denoted as the base year inventory. It includes both
anthropogenic and biogenic sources of volatile organic compounds (VOC),
nitrogen oxides (NOX), and carbon monoxide (CO). The inventory is
to address actual VOC, NOX, and CO emissions for the area during
peak ozone season, which is generally comprised of the summer months.
All stationary point and area sources, as well as highway mobile
sources within the nonattainment area, are to be included in the
compilation. Available guidance for preparing emission inventories is
provided in the General Preamble (57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992).
The inventory was submitted by the State to USEPA on January 5,
1993 as a proposed revision to the SIP. The State of Michigan held a
public hearing on August 2, 1993 to receive public comment on the 1990
base year emission inventory for Detroit/Ann Arbor nonattainment areas
and certified the hearing to the USEPA in a submittal on November 15,
1993. Supplemental information was also submitted on November 29, 1993.
The emission inventory was reviewed by USEPA to determine
completeness shortly after its submittal, in accordance with the
completeness criteria set out at 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
part 51, appendix V, as amended by 57 FR 42216 (August 26, 1991). The
submittal was found to be complete on March 16, 1993 with the exception
of evidence of a public hearing. After receiving evidence of the public
hearing, a letter from David Kee, Director, Air and Radiation Division,
USEPA, Region 5, dated January 7, 1994 was sent to the Governor's
designee indicating the completeness of the submittal and the next
steps to be taken in the review process.
II. Review of State Submittal
When reviewing the final inventory, USEPA used the Level I, II, and
III, ozone nonattainment inventory quality review checklists provided
by the OAQPS to determine the acceptance and approvability of the final
emission inventory.
Level I is essentially the initial level of broad review that USEPA
performs in order to determine if the inventory preparation guidance
requirements found in the report ``Emission Inventory Requirements for
Ozone SIPs'' (EPA-450/4-91-011) have been met. The Level II review
addresses completeness, procedures and consistency for each of the four
general source types in the inventory: stationary point and area
sources, highway mobile sources, and non-highway mobile sources. The
data quality is also evaluated. Detailed Level I and II review
procedures can be found in the following document: ``Quality Review
Guidelines for 1990 Base Year Emission Inventories,'' USEPA, OAQPS,
Research Triangle Park, NC, July 27, 1992.
Level III review procedures are specified in a memorandum from J.
David Mobley, Chief, Emissions Inventory Branch, and G. T. Helms,
Chief, Ozone/CO Programs Branch, to Air Branch Chiefs, Region I-X,
``1990 Ozone/CO SIP Emission Inventory Level III Acceptance Criteria,''
October 7, 1992 and revised in a memorandum from John Seitz, Director,
OAQPS, to Regional Air Division Directors, Region I-X, ``Emission
Inventory Issues,'' June 24, 1993. The Level III review process is
outlined here and consists of 10 points that the inventory must
include. For a base year emission inventory to be acceptable it must
pass all of the following acceptance criteria:
1. An approved Inventory Preparation Plan (IPP) was provided and
the Quality Assurance program contained in the IPP was performed and
its implementation documented.
2. Adequate documentation was provided that enabled the reviewer to
determine the emission estimation procedures and the data sources used
to develop the inventory.
3. The point source inventory must be complete.
4. Point source emissions must have been prepared or calculated
according to the current USEPA guidance.
5. The area source inventory must be complete.
6. The area source emissions must have been prepared or calculated
according to the current USEPA guidance.
7. Biogenic emissions must have been prepared according to current
USEPA guidance or another approved technique.
8. The method (e.g., Highway Performance Monitoring System or a
network transportation planning model) used to develop Vehicle Miles
Traveled (VMT)\1\ estimates must follow USEPA guidance, which is
detailed in the document, ``Procedures for Emission Inventory
Preparation, volume IV: Mobile Sources,'' USEPA, Office of Mobile
Sources and OAQPS, Ann Arbor, Michigan, and Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina, December 1992. The VMT development methods were
adequately described and documented in the inventory report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\VMT is the number of miles traveled by vehicles of various
types, preferably for each link of the highway system. The VMT is
estimated using various models and/or methods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. The MOBILE model was correctly used to produce emission factors
for each of the vehicle classes.
10. Non-road mobile emissions were prepared according to current
USEPA guidance for all of the source categories.
The base year emission inventory will be approved if it passes
Levels I, II, and III of the review process.
The USEPA reviewed the State submittal using the Level I, II and
III criteria noted above. These findings are discussed further in the
Emission Inventory TSD.
III. Proposed Action
The USEPA is proposing to fully approve the ozone emission
inventory SIP submitted to USEPA for the Detroit/Ann Arbor area as
meeting the section 182(a)(1) requirements of the Act for emission
inventories. The State has submitted a complete inventory containing
point, area, biogenic, on-road, and non-road mobile source data, and
accompanying documentation. Emissions from these groupings of sources
are presented in the following tables:
Daily VOC Emissions From All Sources--Tons/Summer Weekday
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On-road Non-road
Point Area source mobile mobile Biogenic Total
Ozone nonattainment area source emissions source source emissions emissions
emissions emissions emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Detroit/Ann Arbor................. 167.08 252.27 327.00 531.03 113.90 1391.28
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daily CO Emissions From All Sources--Tons/Summer Weekday
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On-road Non-road
Point Area source mobile mobile Total
Ozone nonattainment area source emissions source source emissions
emissions emissions emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Detroit/Ann Arbor.............................. 146.28 45.22 3058.00 862.54 4112.04
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daily NOX Emissions From All Sources--Tons/Summer Weekday
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On-road Non-road
Point Area source mobile mobile Total
Ozone nonattainment area source emissions source source emissions
emissions emissions emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Detroit/Ann Arbor.............................. 734.62 56.36 437.00 108.22 1336.20
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Detailed information on how each of the above source category
groupings was determined is included in the Emission Inventory TSD.
B. Inspection and Maintenance
A detailed analysis of the Michigan I/M SIP submittal is contained
in the USEPA's TSD, dated February 1, 1994 from Brad Beeson to the
Docket, entitled ``Technical Review of the Michigan SIP Submittal to
Revise the I/M Program in Southeast Michigan'' (I/M TSD), which is
available from the Region 5 office listed above.
I. Background and Review Criteria
The Act requires States to make changes to improve existing I/M
programs or implement new ones. Section 182(a)(2)(B)(i) requires States
to submit SIP revisions for any ozone nonattainment area which has been
classified as marginal, pursuant to section 181(a) of the Act, with an
existing I/M program that was part of a SIP prior to enactment of the
Act, or any area that was required by the Clean Air Act, as amended in
1977 (1977 Act) to have an I/M program, to bring the program up to the
level required in pre-1990 USEPA guidance, or to what had been
committed to previously in the SIP, whichever was more stringent. Areas
classified as moderate and worse ozone nonattainment areas were also
subject to this requirement to improve programs to this level.
On November 15, 1993 the Michigan Department of Natural Resources
(MDNR) submitted to the USEPA a revision to the Michigan SIP which was
intended to address the requirements for an I/M program in the Detroit-
Ann Arbor area. The revision included legislation which was signed into
law by Governor Engler on November 13, 1993.2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\In addition to legislation revising the I/M program in the
Detroit-Ann Arbor area, the State also submitted adopted legislation
establishing an I/M program on the west side of the State. For
reasons of clarity, however, that program will be the subject of a
future Federal Register notice. Today's rulemaking only addresses
the State's submittal related to the program in the Detroit-Ann
Arbor area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the same time as this legislation was being developed, the MDNR
was also in the process of developing a redesignation request from
nonattainment to attainment for the Detroit-Ann Arbor moderate ozone
nonattainment area.
Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Act states that an area can be
redesignated to attainment if certain conditions are met. One of these
conditions is that the USEPA has fully approved the applicable
implementation plan under section 110(k) and that the State has met all
applicable requirements of section 110 and part D. The USEPA's current
approvability criteria for I/M in part require fully adopted rules for
all aspects of the proposed SIP revision. In addition, all SIPs
submitted must be subject to public hearing before they can be
approved.
On November 5, 1992 (57 FR 52950), the USEPA published a final rule
(I/M Rule) establishing I/M requirements pursuant to section 182. On
June 28, 1994 the USEPA published a proposal to amend requirements
pertaining to SIP submissions for areas required to implement a basic
I/M program that submit, and otherwise qualify for approval of, a
redesignation request (``Proposed I/M Redesignation Rule''). The
authority for that amendment is discussed in that proposal.
The I/M Redesignation Rule proposes to allow areas that have
requested redesignation to attainment, and are otherwise eligible to
obtain approval of the request, to defer adoption and implementation of
otherwise applicable requirements established in the originally
promulgated I/M rule. For such areas, the USEPA does not believe it is
necessary to revise or adopt new regulations which are not essential
for clean air, and which would not be implemented after redesignation
occurred because they are not necessary for maintenance. The proposed
rule applies only to areas that by virtue of their air quality
classification are required to implement a basic I/M program and that
submit and obtain approval of a redesignation request.
For such areas, the I/M Redesignation Rule proposes that the I/M
component of the I/M SIP contain the following four criteria:
(1) Legislative authority for basic I/M meeting all the
requirements of subpart S such that implementing regulations can be
adopted without any further legislative action,
(2) A provision in the SIP providing that basic I/M be placed in
the contingency measures portion of the maintenance plan upon
redesignation,
(3) a contingency measure consisting of a commitment by the
Governor or his/her designee to adopt regulations to implement the I/M
program in response to a specified triggering event, and
(4) a commitment that includes an enforceable schedule for the
adoption and implementation of a basic I/M program including
appropriate milestones in the event the contingency measure is
triggered.
In this rulemaking, the USEPA is considering Michigan's I/M
submittal based on the proposed I/M requirements for areas otherwise
eligible for redesignation. If the State's redesignation request is not
otherwise eligible for approval at the time the USEPA takes final
action on it, or if the proposed I/M requirements for redesignation are
not codified, Michigan's submittal will be judged by the current I/M
approvability criteria as detailed in the USEPA's final I/M rule
promulgated on November 5, 1992.
As discussed in the Proposed I/M Redesignation Rule, while the
USEPA considers the redesignation request, the State continues to be
required to meet all the current SIP submission requirements including
fully adopted rules and specific implementation deadlines as required
under 40 CFR Sec. 51.372 of the I/M Rule. If the State does not comply
with these requirements, it could be subject to sanctions pursuant to
section 179. If the redesignation request is approved, any sanctions
already imposed or any sanctions clock already triggered would be
terminated.
II. Finding of USEPA Review
On November 15, 1993 the State submitted a redesignation request
including I/M as a contingency measure for the Detroit-Ann Arbor area
to the USEPA.
Using the proposed I/M Redesignation Rule criteria for areas
redesignating from nonattainment to attainment, Michigan's I/M SIP
submittal for the Detroit-Ann Arbor area is acceptable. The State held
public hearings on the State's submittal February 14, 1994 in Detroit,
Michigan.
With respect to the first element of the four criteria, the
proposed I/M Redesignation Rule requires ``legislative authority for
basic I/M such that implementing regulations can be adopted without any
further legislative action.'' The legislation adopted by Michigan as a
whole includes all the essential elements of a satisfactory basic I/M
program. The essential elements include:
Describing the network type (``test and repair'').3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\The parenthetical information refers to the specifics in the
Detroit-Ann Arbor, Michigan legislation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Listing of geographic coverage of program (Wayne, Oakland,
Macomb, and possibly Washtenaw if redesignated, or Wayne, Oakland,
Macomb, Washtenaw, St. Clair, Livingston, and Monroe if not
redesignated).
Specifying the test type and procedure (idle test with BAR
90 equipment).
Listing of other applicable testing procedures (visual
tampering inspection).
Defining subject vehicle population (1975 and later).
Specifying testing frequency (every 12 months).
Granting authority to a State agency to develop necessary
rules (MDNR).
Establishing the enforceable obligation in the rule
(persons shall not drive a motor vehicle without a valid emissions
certificate of compliance or waiver).
In addition to defining the elements essential to the definition of
an I/M program, the legislation grants the authority to MDNR to develop
the rest of the language necessary to make the program complete,
including technical and administrative details. No further legislative
action is necessary to authorize or implement the program.
In the event of redesignation, the USEPA believes that the States's
approach to implement I/M in the counties of Wayne, Oakland, Macomb,
and Washtenaw counties is acceptable and meets the population
requirements (geographic coverage) specified in the I/M rule (40 CFR
51.350).
Because the State has authorized and provided the essentials of an
I/M program in its adopted legislation, the first element of the
criteria proposed in the I/M Redesignation Rule is satisfied.
The second element of the I/M Redesignation Rule proposes to
require ``a provision in the SIP providing that basic I/M be placed in
the contingency measures portion of the maintenance plan upon
redesignation.'' This requirement is satisfied by the provision of
section 8(2)(a) which requires a basic I/M program to be implemented as
a contingency measure.
The third and fourth elements of the proposed I/M Redesignation
Rule require an enforceable schedule and commitment by the Governor or
his/her designee for the adoption and implementation of a basic I/M
program upon a specified, appropriate triggering event. These elements
are satisfied based on language submitted to the USEPA on November 15,
1993 under separate cover, within the State's redesignation
application. Section 6.8.3 of the State's Southeast Michigan
Redesignation TSD states ``implementation of the contingency measure[s]
will be completed in a time-frame consistent with schedules of
implementation required for SIPs under title I of the Act and
corresponding regulations.'' This commitment was submitted to the USEPA
on November 15, 1993 under the signature of Roland Harmes, the
Governor's designee. The USEPA assumes that the effective date of the
basic I/M legislation as a contingency measure is the date that the
State determines that a basic I/M program is necessary, as shown by the
urban airshed model (UAM), to correct a violation of the ozone NAAQS.
The USEPA further assumes that the basic I/M program will be
implemented in the Detroit-Ann Arbor area as a contingency measure 1
year from the effective date of the legislation as stipulated in the I/
M rule 40 CFR 51.373(b).4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\Title 40 CFR 51.373(b) specifies the implementation of a
basic I/M program within 1 year of obtaining legal authority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the USEPA is proposing approval of the State's I/M submittal
based on the criteria proposed in the I/M Redesignation Rule, if the
State's redesignation request is not approved, or if the alternative
approval criteria applicable to redesignation is not codified as
proposed, the State's submittal must be judged against the current I/M
approvability criteria which require fully adopted rules for all
aspects of the program, as detailed in USEPA's final I/M rule of
promulgated on November 5, 1992. The State's submittal would then not
be approvable because the submittal does not include detailed rules,
including cut points, test procedures and standards, quality control
procedures, waiver provisions, and program compliance and oversight.
III. Proposed Action
Because the State's submittal meets the I/M approvability criteria
for areas redesignating from nonattainment to attainment, USEPA is
proposing to approve the I/M plan for the Detroit-Ann Arbor area that
was submitted as a revision to the Michigan SIP. Alternatively, USEPA
is proposing to disapprove the State's I/M SIP for the Detroit-Ann
Arbor area if the State's redesignation request is ultimately not
approved or if the I/M Redesignation Rule is not codified as proposed
in USEPA's I/M rule before the USEPA finalizes its approval of the
redesignation.
C. Redesignation
Under the Act, nonattainment areas can be redesignated to
attainment if sufficient data are available to warrant such changes and
the area satisfies other criteria contained in section 107(d)(3) of the
Act. On November 12, 1993 the State submitted a redesignation request
and section 175A maintenance plan. If approved, the section 175A
maintenance plan would become a federally enforceable part of the SIP
for the Detroit-Ann Arbor area.
A detailed analysis of the Michigan Redesignation Request and
section 175A Maintenance Plan SIP submittal for the Detroit-Ann Arbor
area is contained in the USEPA's TSD, dated February 24, 1994 from
Jacqueline Nwia to the Docket, entitled ``TSD for the Request to
Redesignate the Detroit/Ann Arbor, Michigan Moderate Nonattainment Area
to Attainment for Ozone and the Proposed Revision to the Michigan Ozone
SIP for a 175A Maintenance Plan'' and ``Amendments to the February 24,
1994 TSD for the Request to Redesignate the Detroit/Ann Arbor, Michigan
Moderate Nonattainment Area to Attainment for Ozone and the Proposed
Revision to the Michigan Ozone SIP for a 175A Maintenance Plan,'' dated
June 21, 1994 (Redesignation/Maintenance Plan TSD), which are available
from the Region 5 office listed above.
I. Background
The 1977 Act required areas that were designated nonattainment
based on a failure to meet the ozone NAAQS, to develop SIPs with
sufficient control measures to expeditiously attain and maintain the
standard. The Detroit-Ann Arbor area was designated under section 107
of the 1977 Act as nonattainment with respect to the ozone NAAQS (43 FR
8962, March 3, 1978 and 43 FR 45993, October 5, 1978).
After enactment of the amended Act on November 15, 1990 the
nonattainment designation of the Detroit-Ann Arbor area continued by
operation of law according to section 107(d)(1)(C)(i) of the Act;
furthermore, it was classified by operation of law as moderate for
ozone pursuant to section 181(a)(1) (56 FR 56694, November 6, 1991 and
57 FR 56762, November 30, 1992), codified at 40 CFR 81.323.
The Detroit-Ann Arbor area more recently has ambient monitoring
data that show no violations of the ozone NAAQS, during the period from
1991 through 1993. The area, therefore, became eligible for
redesignation from nonattainment to attainment consistent with the
amended Act, and to ensure continued attainment of the ozone standard,
Michigan also submitted an ozone maintenance SIP for the Detroit-Ann
Arbor on November 12, 1993. On November 12, 1993 Michigan requested
redesignation of the area to attainment with respect to the ozone
NAAQS. On October 22, 1993 Michigan held a public hearing on the
maintenance plan component of the redesignation request.
II. Evaluation Criteria
The 1990 Amendments revised section 107(d)(3)(E) to provide five
specific requirements that an area must meet in order to be
redesignated from nonattainment to attainment.
1. The area must have attained the applicable NAAQS;
2. The area has met all relevant requirements under section 110 and
part D of the Act;
3. The area has a fully approved SIP under section 110(k) of the
Act;
4. The air quality improvement must be permanent and enforceable;
5. The area must have a fully approved maintenance plan pursuant to
section 175A of the Act.
III. Review of State Submittal
The Michigan redesignation request for the Detroit-Ann Arbor area
will meet the five requirements of section 107(d)(3)(E), noted above,
if the VOC RACT ``fix-up,''5 and ``catch-up,''6 and major
non-CTG submittals7, the 1990 base year emission inventory, basic
I/M, and the section 182(f) NOX exemption petition are also fully
approved by the USEPA.8 Because the maintenance plan is a critical
element of the redesignation request, USEPA will discuss its evaluation
of the maintenance plan under its analysis of the redesignation
request. USEPA's Redesignation/Maintenance Plan TSD contains a more in-
depth analysis of the submittal with respect to certain of these
evaluation criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\Section 182(b)(2) of the Act requires that moderate and above
ozone nonattainment areas adopt RACT rules for three types of
sources or source categories, i.e. RACT for source categories
covered by the CTGs and for major sources that are not subject to a
CTG, regardless of time of nonattainment designation.
\6\Section 182(a)(2)(A) of the Act requires that ozone
nonattainment areas submit rules and corrections to existing VOC
rules that were required under the section 172(b)(3) RACT provision
of the pre-amended Act (and related guidance).
\7\Rules for major non-CTG sources are a requirement under the
Section 182(b)(2) catch-ups.
\8\The emission statement program was fully approved in a final
rulemaking action on March 8, 1994 (59 FR 10752).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Attainment of the ozone NAAQS
The Michigan request is based on an analysis of quality-assured
ozone air quality data which is relevant to the maintenance plan and to
the redesignation request. Ambient air ozone monitoring data for
calendar year 1991 through calendar year 19939 show an expected
exceedance rate for the ozone standard of less than 1.0 per year of the
ozone NAAQS in the Detroit-Ann Arbor area (40 CFR 50.9 and appendix H).
Because the Detroit-Ann Arbor area has complete quality-assured data
showing no violations of the standard over the most recent consecutive
three calendar year period, the Detroit-Ann Arbor area has met the
first statutory criterion of attainment of the ozone NAAQS. The State
committed to continue monitoring in this area in accordance with 40 CFR
part 58. (If, however, complete quality assured data shows violations
of the ozone NAAQS before the final USEPA action on this redesignation,
the USEPA proposes that it disapprove the redesignation request.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\The redesignation request documentation presents 1990-1992
ambient air quality monitoring data demonstrating that the Detroit-
Ann Arbor area attained the ozone NAAQS. In order to submit the
redesignation request before November 15, 1993, Michigan prepared
most of this documentation during the 1993 ozone season, when the
1993 ozone data was not available. However, the USEPA reviewed the
ambient monitoring data for 1993 contained in AIRS which
demonstrates that the area continues to attain the ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Meeting Applicable Requirements of Section 110 and Part D
On May 6, 1980 (45 FR 29801) and February 7, 1985 (50 FR 5250),
USEPA fully approved Michigan's SIP for the Detroit-Ann Arbor area as
meeting the requirements of section 110(a)(2) and part D of the 1977
Act with the exception that Michigan must meet the part D RACT
requirements for the ozone SIP. The 1990 Act, however, modified section
110(a)(2) and, under part D, revised section 172 and added new
requirements for all nonattainment areas. Therefore, for purposes of
redesignation, to satisfy the requirement that the SIP meet all
applicable requirements under the 1990 Act, USEPA has reviewed the SIP
to ensure that it contains all measures that were due under the amended
1990 Act prior to or at the time Michigan submitted its redesignation
request for the Detroit-Ann Arbor area. The USEPA interprets section
107(d)(3)(E)(v) to mean that for a redesignation request to be
approved, the State has met all requirements that applied to the
subject area prior to or at the time of the submission of a complete
redesignation request. Requirements of the Act that come due
subsequently, continue to be applicable to the area at those later
dates [see section 175A(c)] and, if the redesignation of the area is
disapproved, the State remains obligated to fulfill those requirements.
(A.) Section 110 Requirements. Although section 110 was amended by
the Act, the Detroit-Ann Arbor area SIP meets the requirements of
amended section 110(a)(2). A number of the requirements did not change
in substance and, therefore, USEPA believes that the pre-amendment SIP
met these requirements. As to those requirements that were amended (57
FR 27936 and 23939, June 23, 1993) many are duplicative of other
requirements of the Act. The USEPA has analyzed the SIP and determined
that it is consistent with the requirements of amended section
110(a)(2).
(B.) Part D Requirements. Before the Detroit-Ann Arbor area may be
redesignated to attainment, it must have fulfilled the applicable
requirements of part D. Under part D, an area's classification
indicates the requirements to which it will be subject. Subpart 1 of
part D sets forth the basic nonattainment requirements applicable to
all nonattainment areas, classified as well as nonclassifiable. Subpart
2 of part D establishes additional requirements for nonattainment areas
classified under table 1 of section 181(a). As described in the General
Preamble for the Implementation of title 1, specific requirements of
subpart 2 may override subpart 1's general provisions (57 FR 13501
(April 16, 1992)). The Detroit-Ann Arbor area was classified as
moderate (56 FR 56694, November 6, 1991), codified at 40 CFR 81.323.
Therefore, in order to be redesignated to attainment, the State must
meet the applicable requirements of subpart 1 of part D--specifically
sections 172(c) and 176 as well as the applicable requirements of
subpart 2 of part D.
(B1.) Subpart 1 of Part D--Section 172(c) Provisions. Section
172(c) sets forth general requirements applicable to all nonattainment
areas. Under 172(b), the section 172(c) requirements are applicable as
determined by the Administrator, but no later than 3 years after an
area has been designated as nonattainment under the amended Act. The
USEPA has not determined that these requirements are applicable to
ozone nonattainment areas on or before November 12, 1993--the date the
State submitted a complete redesignation request for the Detroit-Ann
Arbor area. Therefore, the State was not required to meet these
requirements for redesignation purposes. In addition, as discussed
below, Michigan has either satisfied the section 172(c) requirements
or, as is the case for several of them, they lose their continued force
once an area has demonstrated attainment and maintenance of the ozone
NAAQS.
(1) RFP is defined as progress that a nonattainment area must make
each year toward attainment of the ozone NAAQS. This requirement only
has relevance during the time it takes an area to attain the NAAQS.
Because the Detroit-Ann Arbor area has attained the ozone NAAQS, its
SIP has already achieved the necessary RFP toward that goal.
(2) In addition, because the Detroit-Ann Arbor has attained the
ozone NAAQS and is no longer subject to an RFP requirement, the section
172(c)(9) contingency measures are not applicable unless the
redesignation request and maintenance plan are not finally approved.
Such contingency measures must take effect if the area fails to meet an
RFP milestone or fails to attain the ozone NAAQS; the Detroit-Ann Arbor
area no longer has RFP milestones and has already attained the NAAQS.
However, section 175A contingency measures still apply.
(3) Similarly, once an area is redesignated to attainment,
nonattainment new source review (NSR) requirements are not generally
applicable. The area then becomes subject to prevention of significant
deterioration (PSD) requirements instead of the NSR program (57 FR
13564). The State has an acceptable program for review of new sources
(45 FR 29790, May 6, 1980 and 47 FR 3765, February 7, 1985). The PSD
program was delegated to the State of Michigan on September 10, 1979
and amended on November 7, 1983 and September 26, 1988. Moreover, as
discussed with respect to the NSR requirements of part D, the USEPA
believes that the applicability of the part C PSD program to
maintenance areas makes it unnecessary to require that an area have
obtained full approval of the NSR revisions required by part D in order
to be redesignated.
(4) The 172(c)(3) requirement for an emissions inventory has been
met by submission and proposed approval of the 1990 base year emission
inventory required by section 182(a)(1).
(5) No additional Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM)
controls beyond what may already be required in the SIP are necessary
upon redesignation to attainment. The General Preamble (57 FR 13560,
April 16, 1992) explains that section 172(c)(1) requires the plans for
all nonattainment areas to provide for the implementation of all RACM
as expeditiously as practicable. The EPA interprets this requirement to
impose a duty on all nonattainment areas to consider all available
control measures and to adopt and implement such measures as are
reasonably available for implementation in the area as components of
the areas attainment demonstration. Because attainment has been
reached, no additional measures are needed to provide for attainment.
(6) For purposes of redesignation, the Michigan SIP was reviewed to
ensure that all requirements of section 110(a)(2), containing general
SIP elements, under the Act were satisfied. Title 40 CFR 52.1172
evidences that the Michigan SIP was approved under section 110 of the
Act, and further that it satisfies all part D, title I (as amended in
1977) requirements on May 6, 1980 (45 FR 29801) and February 7, 1985
(50 FR 5250) with the exception that Michigan must meet the part D RACT
requirements for the ozone SIP.
(B2.) Subpart 1 of Part D--Section 176 Conformity Provisions.
Section 176(c) of the Act requires States to revise their SIPs to
establish criteria and procedures to ensure that Federal actions,
before they are taken, conform to the air quality planning goals in the
applicable State SIP. The requirement to determine conformity applies
to transportation plans, programs and projects developed, funded or
approved under title 23 U.S.C. or the Federal Transit Act
(``transportation conformity''), as well as to all other Federal
actions (``general conformity''). Section 176 further provides that the
conformity revisions to be submitted by States must be consistent with
Federal conformity regulations that the Act required the USEPA to
promulgate. Congress provided for the State revisions to be submitted
on year after the date for promulgation of the final USEPA conformity
regulations. When that date passed without such promulgation, USEPA's
General Preamble for the implementation of title I informed States that
its conformity regulations would establish a submittal date [see 57 FR
13498, 13557 (April 16, 1992)]. The USEPA promulgated final
transportation conformity regulations on November 24, 1993 (58 FR
62188) and general conformity regulations on November 30, 1993 (58 FR
63214). These conformity rules require that States adopt both
transportation and general conformity provisions in the SIP for areas
designated nonattainment or subject to a maintenance plan approved
under section 175A of the Act. Pursuant to section 51.396 of the
transportation conformity rule and section 51.851 of the general
conformity rule, the State of Michigan is required to submit a SIP
revisions containing transportation and general conformity criteria and
procedures consistent with those established in the Federal rule by
November 25 and 30, 1994, respectively. Because the deadline for such
submittals has not yet come due, it is not an applicable requirement,
under section 107(d)(3)(E)(v), for approval of this redesignation
request.
(B3.) Subpart 2 Requirements. Detroit-Ann Arbor is a moderate ozone
nonattainment area. Under subpart 2, as of the date the State submitted
a complete redesignation request, it is required to have met the
requirements of section 182(a)(1), (2), and (3), section 182(b)(2), and
(4), and section 182(f). The State has submitted SIP revisions which
have not yet been approved by the USEPA but must be in order to find
that the State has met all the applicable requirements of the following
sections of the Act: Section 182(a)(1) 1990 base year emission
inventory, section 182(a)(2)(A) VOC RACT ``fix-ups,'' section
182(a)(2)(B) I/M fix-ups, section 182(b)(2) (``catch-ups'') VOC RACT
for each VOC source covered by a CTG issued between enactment of the
Act and the attainment date (since the due date for these rules is
November 15, 1994 which has not come due yet, it is not a requirement
for approval of this redesignation request), all VOC sources covered by
any CTG issued before the date of enactment of the Act, and all other
major stationary sources of VOC located in the area, section 182(b)(4)
basic I/M, and section 182(f) NOX requirements. Section 182(b)(3)
Stage II vapor recovery was also an applicable requirement. However,
the ``onboard rule''10 was published on April 6, 1994 and section
202(a)(6) of the Act provides that once onboard rules are promulgated,
Stage II vapor recovery will no longer be a requirement. In addition,
Michigan's emission statement program SIP submitted to satisfy the
section 182(a)(3)(B) requirement was fully approved in a final USEPA
rulemaking on March 8, 1994 (59 FR 10752). The USEPA is proposing to
approve this redesignation request notwithstanding the lack of fully-
approved provisions submitted in compliance with the NSR requirements
of part D, section 182(b)(5) of the CAA. The USEPA believes, as
suggested by the General Preamble at 57 FR 13564 (April 16, 1992), that
the applicability of the part C PSD program to maintenance areas makes
it unnecessary to require that an area have obtained full approval of
NSR revisions required by part D in order to be redesignated. The USEPA
believes that this interpretation of the Act is appropriate
notwithstanding section 175A(d)'s requirements that the contingency
provisions of a maintenance plan include a commitment on the part of
the State to implement all measures, to control the relevant air
pollutant, that were contained in the SIP prior to redesignation. The
term ``measure'' is not defined in section 175A(d) and it appears that
Congress utilized the terms ``measure'' or ``control measure''
differently in different provisions of the CAA that concern the PSD and
NSR permitting programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\The rule which was published by the USEPA on April 6, 1994
requires a vehicle based (onboard) system for the control of vehicle
refueling emissions. Gasoline vapors which are normally vented to
the atmosphere, are captured in a carbon canister and stored for
later use by the vehicle's engine.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compare section 110(a)(2)(A) and (C) with section 161. In light of
this ambiguity in the use of the term ``measure,'' the USEPA believes
that the term ``measure'' as used in section 175A(d) may be interpreted
so as not to include NSR permitting programs. That this is an
appropriate interpretation is further supported by USEPA's historical
practice dating back even before the 1990 CAA, of not requiring
redesignating areas to demonstrate through modeling or otherwise a
justification for replacing the nonattainment NSR program with the PSD
program once an area was redesignated. Rather the USEPA has
historically allowed the NSR program to be automatically replaced by
the PSD program upon redesignation. Michigan has presented an adequate
demonstration that the State has met all the requirements applicable to
the area under section 110 and part D. The final approval of this
redesignation request is contingent on the final approval of the SIP
submittals as noted above. These requirements, their applicability and
status are discussed in more detail in the USEPA's Redesignation/
Maintenance Plan TSD.
3. Fully Approved SIP Under Section 110(k) of the Act
In other sections of this action, USEPA is proposing approval of
the 1990 base year emission inventory and basic I/M (meeting the
criteria of the June 28, 1994 proposed I/M Redesignation Rule). The SIP
submittals for satisfying the requirements for VOC RACT catch-ups, and
fix-ups are being acted upon in a separate action. The 182(f) NOX
exemption petition also is being acted upon in a separate action. Once
USEPA fully approves these submittals, the State will have a fully
approved SIP under section 110(k), which also meets the applicable
requirements of section 110 and part D as discussed above.
4. Improvement in Air Quality Due to Permanent and Enforceable Measures
Under the pre-amended Act, USEPA approved the Michigan SIP control
strategy for the Detroit-Ann Arbor nonattainment area, satisfied that
the rules and the emission reductions achieved as a result of those
rules were enforceable. Furthermore, numerous Federal measures apply to
the Detroit-Ann Arbor area. The State provided a detailed discussion of
the development of the emission reductions of ozone precursors (VOC and
NOX) from 1988-1993. The State attributed the improvement in air
quality that led to attainment of the ozone NAAQS to the federally
enforceable Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program (FMVCP) and lower
Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP)11 control measures. The emission
reductions achieved from 1988 through 1993 are 226 tons VOC (21
percent) and 45 tons of NOX (3.4 percent) per day. In association
with its emission inventory discussed below, the State demonstrated
that point source VOC emissions were not artificially low due to local
economic downturn. This was accomplished by setting all growth factors
at a minimum value of 1.0 for 1990 and beyond. The USEPA finds that the
combination of existing USEPA-approved SIP and Federal measures
contribute to the permanence and enforceability of reduction in ambient
ozone levels that have allowed the area to attain the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\1VOC emission reductions, in part, resulted from RVP
reductions from 11.0 psi in 1988 to 9.0 psi in 1993.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Fully Approved Maintenance Plan Under Section 175A
Section 175A of the Act sets forth the elements of a maintenance
plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment.
The plan must demonstrate continued attainment of the applicable NAAQS
for at least 10 years after the Administrator approves a redesignation
to attainment. Eight years after the redesignation, the State must
submit a revised maintenance plan which demonstrates attainment for the
10 years following the initial 10-year period. To provide for the
possibility of future NAAQS violations, the maintenance plan must
contain contingency measures, with a schedule for implementation,
adequate to assure prompt correction of any air quality problems.
Section 175A(d) requires that the contingency provisions include a
requirement that the State will implement all control measures that
were contained in the SIP prior to redesignation as an attainment area.
In this action, USEPA is proposing approval of the State of Michigan's
maintenance plan for the Detroit-Ann Arbor area because USEPA finds
that Michigan's submittal meets the requirements of section 175A
provided that the State's contingency measures that were required as
SIP revisions prior to the submission of the redesignation request are
fully approved. If USEPA determines after notice and comment that it
should give final approval to the maintenance plan, the Detroit-Ann
Arbor nonattainment area will have a fully approved maintenance plan in
accordance with section 175A.
(A) Emissions Inventory--Base Year Inventory. The State has
adequately developed an attainment emission inventory for 1993 that
identifies 790 tons of VOC and 1336 tons of NOx per day as the
level of emissions in the area sufficient to attain the ozone NAAQS.
The 1993 attainment inventory was based on the comprehensive
inventories of VOC and NOX emissions from area, stationary, and
mobile sources for 1990. Consistent with emission inventory guidance,
the 1990 base year emission inventory represents 1990 average summer
day actual emissions for the Detroit-Ann Arbor area. Since the
projected 1993 emissions are lower than the actual 1990 emissions
(providing a more stringent attainment inventory) and 1993 is the
attainment year, it is appropriate to utilize projected 1993 emissions
for the attainment year inventory. Furthermore, the 1990 base year
emission inventory was prepared in accordance with USEPA guidance.
USEPA's TSDs prepared for the 1990 base year emission inventory
(Emission Inventory TSD) SIP revision and the redesignation request
(Redesignation/Maintenance Plan TSD) contain more in-depth details
regarding the emission inventories for the Detroit-Ann Arbor area.
The 1990 base year emission inventory also served as the basis for
calculations to demonstrate maintenance by projecting emissions forward
to the years 1993, 1996, 2000, and 2005. Projections are based on
growth factors extracted from the Southeast Michigan Council of
Governments Regional Development Forecast (RDF). Supplemental
information used in the development of emission projections include
source-specific data for electric utilities, automobile manufacturing,
aircraft, and gasoline marketing.
Growth factors are derived from employment forecasts by two-digit
Source Industrial Code by county. In addition, product output data was
used to develop growth factors for motor vehicle manufacturing, and
utilities. The area source growth factors used from RDF were based on
population or housing data. Furthermore, all growth factors that were
less than 1.0 were set equal to 1.0 for 1990 and beyond to offset any
effects of negative growth possibly due to economic downturns.
In developing the mobile source emission estimates, the MOBILE5a
model was used. The significant input parameters for the MOBILE5a model
are analyzed in detail in the Redesignation/Maintenance Plan TSD.
The stationary source emission estimates (point and area) were
developed using the geocoded emissions modeling and projections system
(GEMAP). This emission projection model and supporting documentation
were reviewed by Region 5 and the Emission Inventory Branch of the
OAQPS during the developmental stages of the redesignation request and
appear to be acceptable since GEMAP employs methodologies equivalent to
the applicable USEPA guidance on emission projections (June 21, 1993
letter to John Schroeder and August 3, 1993 Record of Conversation with
OAQPS, RADIAN and Region 5).
(B.) Demonstration of Maintenance--Projected Inventories. In order
to demonstrate continued attainment, the State projected anthropogenic
1990 actual emissions of VOC and NOX emissions to the years 1993,
1996, 2000, and 2005. These emission estimates are presented in the
tables below and demonstrate that the VOC and NOX emissions will
remain below the attainment year emissions (1993). In fact, the
emissions projections through the year 2005 show that emissions will be
reduced from 1993 levels by 21 tons of VOC and 98 tons of NOX per
day by 2005. These emission reductions are primarily the result of the
implementation of FMVCP. It is noted that the emission projections are
conservative since they do not account for emission reductions that
will result from the anticipated implementation of other control
measures and programs during this time period.
VOC Emission Inventory Summary (Tons Per Day)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1990 1993 1996 2000 2005
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point...................... 153 154 155 156 157
Area....................... 377 382 390 402 416
Mobile..................... 326 254 234 214 196
--------------------------------------------
Total................ 856 790 779 772 769
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX Emission Inventory Summary (Tons Per Day)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1990 1993 1996 2000 2005
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point...................... 711 735 756 685 725
Area....................... 195 199 203 206 210
Mobile..................... 437 402 362 326 303
--------------------------------------------
Total................ 1,343 1,336 1,321 1,217 1,238
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The emission projection methodologies used for the maintenance
demonstration are the same as those used for the attainment inventory
and discussed above.
The emission projections show that the emissions are not expected
to exceed the level of the base year 1993 inventory during the 10-year
maintenance period. Further emission reductions that will occur during
this maintenance demonstration that are not accounted for in the
emission projections presented in the tables above such as title III
maximum achievable control technology for air toxics, and onboard
refueling vapor recovery. The projected emission inventories were
prepared in accordance with USEPA guidance. Finally, USEPA's
Redesignation/Maintenance Plan TSD contains more in-depth details
regarding the projected emission inventories for the Detroit-Ann Arbor
area.
To demonstrate maintenance out to the year 2005 following
redesignation, the State did not rely on certain SIP-approved measures.
The State now requests that these measures (discussed below) be moved
from the applicable SIP into the maintenance plan as contingency
measures.
The State has demonstrated maintenance without basic I/M, Stage I
expansion12, Stage II and NOX RACT. The Act required a SIP
submittal for these control measures prior to the submittal of the
redesignation request, and consequently, they are required to be fully
adopted and fully approved into the SIP prior to or at the time of full
approval of the redesignation request. However, since the State has
demonstrated attainment and maintenance without these programs these
measures can be incorporated into the area's maintenance plan as
contingency measures (see, e.g., September 17, 1993 Shapiro
memorandum). The June 28, 1994 Proposed I/M Redesignation Rule proposes
to allow basic I/M to be included as a contingency measure in the form
of enabling legislation. Stage I must be fully adopted since it is a
SIP element that was due prior to the submittal of the redesignation
request. Stage II, however, does not have to be fully adopted. In fact,
since the ``onboard rule'' was published on April 6, 1994 Stage II is
no longer a requirement (section 202(a)(6) of the Act). However, if the
State chooses to include this program as a contingency measure,
enabling legislation would suffice. Michigan has chosen to retain Stage
II as a contingency measure in the maintenance plan. Finally, the State
submitted to USEPA a section 182(f) NOX exemption petition based
on 1991-1993 ambient air quality data that demonstrates that the area
is attaining the ozone NAAQS. The USEPA is currently taking action on
this submittal. Since the Detroit-Ann Arbor area has demonstrated that
it can maintain the standard without the implementation of these
programs, USEPA proposes that the maintenance plan be approved with
these elements as contingency measures. In addition, based on the
maintenance demonstration, the USEPA plans to propose approval of the
basic I/M enabling legislation (based on the June 28, 1994 proposed I/M
Redesignation Rule), and the Stage I rule and 182(f) NOX exemption
petition in a separate FR action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\2The expanded applicability of Stage I to county boundaries
of each nonattainment area classified as moderate and above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Verification of Continued Attainment
Continued attainment of the ozone NAAQS in the Detroit-Ann Arbor
area depends, in part, on the State's efforts toward tracking
indicators of continued attainment during the maintenance period. The
tracking plan for the Detroit-Ann Arbor area consists of two
components; continued ambient ozone monitoring and inventory updates.
To demonstrate ongoing compliance with the NAAQS, Michigan will
continue to monitor ozone levels throughout the area. The State will
also conduct periodic inventories for the redesignated area every 3
years using the most recent emission factors, models and methodologies.
The inventories will begin in 1996 with completion of the 1996
inventory by July 1, 1998. Periodic inventories for 1999, 2002, and
2005 will be completed with submittal to the USEPA on the first of
October 2 years after the inventory year. The periodic inventory will
consist of reviewing the assumptions of the maintenance demonstration
such as VMT, population, employment, etc. If substantial changes are
discovered, the State will reproject the emissions for the maintenance
period.
The contingency plan contains only one trigger, a monitored air
quality violation of the ozone NAAQS, as defined in 40 CFR 50.9. The
trigger date will be the date that the State certifies to the USEPA
that the air quality data are quality assured and no later than 30 days
after an ambient air quality violation is monitored.
D. Contingency Plan
The level of VOC and NOX emissions in the Detroit-Ann Arbor
area will largely determine its ability to stay in compliance with the
ozone NAAQS in the future. Despite best efforts to demonstrate
continued compliance with the NAAQS, the ambient air pollutant
concentrations may exceed or violate the NAAQS. Therefore, as required
by section 175A of the Act, Michigan has provided contingency measures
with a schedule for implementation in the event of a future ozone air
quality problem. Contingency measures contained in the plan include
basic I/M, NOX RACT, Stage I expansion, Stage II, RVP reduction to
7.8 psi and intensified RACT for degreasing operations. In instances
where the contingency measures must be actually adopted and
implemented, the schedules specified for these SIPs in the Act and any
corresponding regulations will be observed, with the exception of
implementation of 7.8 RVP and intensified degreasing rules which will
commence 12 months after the decision to employ these measures. Once
the triggering event, a violation of the ozone NAAQS, is confirmed, the
State will implement one or more appropriate contingency measure.
Selection of the contingency measure(s) will be based on a technical
analysis using UAM. The Governor will select the contingency measures
within 6 months of a triggering event. The adoption and implementation
schedules for the selected contingency measure(s) will be submitted to
the USEPA with the UAM analysis. The USEPA understands, on the basis of
the State's submission, that the adoption and implementation schedules
specified in the Act and any corresponding regulations would be
observed; therefore, the following schedules will be applicable for the
contingency measures specified in the contingency plan:
Basic I/M would be implemented as a contingency measure 1
year from the effective date of the legislation, which would be the
date of the decision to employ a basic I/M program to correct a
violation of the ozone NAAQS. Part 40 CFR 51.373(b) stipulates
implementation of basic I/M within 1 year of obtaining legal authority.
NOX RACT rules would be submitted 2 years from date
of the decision to employ NOx RACT as a contingency measure. The
NOX RACT rules would be implemented 30.5 months from the date NOx
RACT rules are submitted to the USEPA or 54.5 months from the date of
the decision to employ NOX RACT as a contingency measure. This
schedule is consistent with section 182(b)(2)(C) which is the schedule
applicable to the adoption and implementation of NOX RACT as
specified by section 182(f).
Implementation of Stage I expansion to the entire seven
county Detroit-Ann Arbor area (currently, Stage I is implemented in
Wayne, Oakland and Macomb counties) would be in accordance with the
schedule contained in Michigan's Stage I legislation (Senate Bill 726,
section 9i). Gasoline dispensing facilities of any size constructed
after November 15, 1990 must implement Stage I within 6 months of the
decision to employ Stage I as a contingency measure. Existing
facilities dispensing 100,000 gallons or more of gasoline a month must
implement Stage I within 1 year and facilities dispensing less than
100,000 gallons of gasoline a month must implement Stage I within 2
years of the decision to employ Stage I as a contingency measure.
Stage II would be implemented according to the same
schedule set forth for Stage I, since they are contained in the same
legislation (Senate Bill 726), but will only be implemented in the
counties of Wayne, Oakland, Macomb and Washtenaw.
Under separate cover, the State has submitted to the USEPA, as SIP
revisions, fully adopted legislation allowing implementation of a basic
I/M program, Stage I, and Stage II in the Detroit-Ann Arbor area. The
legislation provide for implementation of these programs as contingency
measures within areas redesignated to attainment for ozone.
The USEPA's Redesignation/Maintenance Plan TSD provides a more
detailed discussion of each contingency measure.
The USEPA finds that the five contingency measures provided in the
State submittal meet the requirements of section 175A(d) of the Act
since they would promptly correct any violation of the ozone NAAQS.
E. Subsequent Maintenance Plan Revisions
In accordance with section 175A(b) of the Act, the State has agreed
to submit a revised maintenance SIP 8 years after the area is
redesignated to attainment. Such revised SIP will provide for
maintenance for an additional 10 years.
IV. Proposed Action
The USEPA proposes to approve the Detroit-Ann Arbor ozone
maintenance plan as a SIP revision meeting the requirements of section
175A if there is full and final approval of the outstanding VOC RACT
requirements previously discussed, 1990 base year emission inventory,
basic I/M (meeting the criteria of the June 28, 1994 proposed I/M
Redesignation Rule), and the section 182(f) NOX exemption
petition. In addition, the USEPA is proposing approval of the
redesignation request for the Detroit-Ann Arbor area, subject to final
approval of the maintenance plan, because the State has demonstrated
compliance with the requirements of section 107(d)(3)(E) for
redesignation pending full approval of the SIP elements listed above.
(In the alternative, if ambient air quality violations occur before
USEPA takes final action on the proposed redesignation or if the USEPA
does not fully approve any of the SIP revisions listed above, the USEPA
proposes to disapprove this redesignation request.)
Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for
revision to any SIP. Each request for revision to the SIP shall be
considered separately in light of specific technical, economic, and
environmental factors and in relation to relevant statutory and
regulatory requirements.
Ozone SIPs are designed to satisfy the requirements of part D of
the Act and to provide for attainment and maintenance of the ozone
NAAQS. This proposed redesignation should not be interpreted as
authorizing the State to delete, alter, or rescind any of the VOC or
NOX emission limitations and restrictions contained in the
approved ozone SIP. Changes to ozone SIP VOC regulations rendering them
less stringent than those contained in the USEPA approved plan cannot
be made unless a revised plan for attainment and maintenance is
submitted to and approved by USEPA. Unauthorized relaxations,
deletions, and changes could result in both a finding of
nonimplementation [section 173(b) of the Act] and in a SIP deficiency
call made pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(H) of the Act.
D. Procedural Background
This action has been classified as a Table 2 Action by the Regional
Administrator under the procedures published in the Federal Register on
January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225). A revision to the SIP processing
review tables was approved by the Acting Assistant Administrator for
Office of Air and Radiation on October 4, 1993 (Michael Shapiro's
memorandum to Regional Administrators). A future action will inform the
general public of these tables. On January 6, 1989, the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) waived Table 2 and 3 SIP revisions from the
requirement of section 3 of Executive Order 12291 for a period of 2
years (54 FR 2222). The USEPA has submitted a request for a permanent
waiver for Table 2 and Table 3 SIP revisions. OMB has agreed to
continue the waiver until such time as it rules on USEPA's request.
This request continued in effect under Executive Order 12866 which
superseded Executive order 12291 on September 30, 1993.
E. Regulatory Process
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. section 600 et seq.,
the USEPA must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the
impact of any proposed or final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C.
section 603 and 604. Alternatively, the USEPA may certify that the rule
will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit
enterprises, and government entities with jurisdiction over populations
of less than 50,000.
The SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the
Act do not create any new requirements, but simply approve requirements
that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP
approval does not impose any new requirements, I certify that it does
not have a significant impact on any small entities affected. Moreover,
due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under the Act,
preparation of a regulatory flexibility analysis would constitute
Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of State action. The
Act forbids USEPA to base its actions concerning SIP's on such grounds.
Union Electric Co. v. U.S.E.P.A., 427 U.S. 246, 256-66 (S.Ct. 1976); 42
U.S.C. section 7410(a)(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by September 19, 1994. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this rule does not affect the
finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it
extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be
filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such a rule. This
action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its
requirements. (section 307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Nitrogen oxides,
Ozone, Volatile organic compounds, Hydrocarbons, Intergovernmental
relations, Carbon monoxide, Motor vehicle pollution, Particulate
matter, Reporting and record keeping requirements.
40 CFR Part 81
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks,
Wilderness areas.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Dated: June 24, 1994.
David A. Ullrich,
Acting Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 94-17556 Filed 7-20-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P