96-15881. Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; State of Michigan  

  • [Federal Register Volume 61, Number 121 (Friday, June 21, 1996)]
    [Rules and Regulations]
    [Pages 31831-31850]
    From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
    [FR Doc No: 96-15881]
    
    
    
    =======================================================================
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
    
    40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
    
    [MI43-03-7258; FRL-5525-4]
    
    
    Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation 
    of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; State of Michigan
    
    AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
    
    ACTION: Final rule.
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    SUMMARY: On April 2, 1996 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 
    published a proposal to approve the redesignation to attainment and 
    associated section 175A maintenance plan for the ozone National Ambient 
    Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for the two-county Grand Rapids, Michigan 
    area as a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision. The 30-day comment 
    period concluded on May 2, 1996. A total of 1 comment letter was 
    received in response to the April 2, 1996 proposal. On May 1, 1996, the 
    EPA published a 14-day partial extension of the comment period on the 
    redesignation request and section 175A maintenance plan, limited to the 
    State's April 11, 1996 revision to the section 175A maintenance plan 
    which was not available in EPA's docket prior to April 15, 1996. The 
    reopened comment period concluded on May 16, 1996. One additional 
    comment letter was received in response to the May 1, 1996, extension 
    of public comment period. This final rule summarizes all comments and 
    EPA's responses, and finalizes the approval of the redesignation to 
    attainment for ozone and associated section 175A maintenance plan for 
    the Grand Rapids area.
    
    EFFECTIVE DATE: This action will be effective June 21, 1996.
    
    ADDRESSES: Copies of the SIP revisions, public comments and EPA's 
    responses are available for inspection at the following address: (It is 
    recommended that you telephone Jacqueline Nwia at (312) 886-6081 before 
    visiting the Region 5 Office.) United States Environmental Protection 
    Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson 
    Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
    
    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jacqueline Nwia, Regulation 
    Development Section (AR-18J), Air Programs Branch, Air and Radiation 
    Division, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 
    West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, Telephone Number (312) 
    886-6081.
    
    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    
    I. Background Information
    
        The redesignation request and maintenance plan for the Grand Rapids 
    and Muskegon moderate ozone nonattainment areas discussed in this rule 
    were submitted on March 9, 1995 and May 1, 1995 (with a revision on 
    April 11, 1996), by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality 
    (MDEQ). However, the April 2, 1996 proposal and this final rule address 
    only the Grand Rapids area, which consists of Kent and Ottawa Counties. 
    On April 2, 1996, (61 FR 14522) the EPA published a proposal to approve 
    the redesignation request and associated section 175A maintenance plan 
    as a revision to the Michigan ozone SIP. On May 1, 1996 (61 FR 19233), 
    the EPA published a partial 14-day extension of the comment period on 
    the redesignation request and section 175A maintenance plan, limited to 
    the State's April 11, 1996 revision to the section 175A maintenance 
    plan, which was not available in EPA's docket prior to April 15, 1996. 
    The reopened comment period concluded on May 16, 1996. Adverse comments 
    were received regarding the proposed rule. The final rule contained in 
    this Federal Register addresses the comments which were received during 
    the public comment periods and announces EPA's final action regarding 
    the redesignation and section 175A maintenance plan for the Grand 
    Rapids
    
    [[Page 31832]]
    
    area. A more detailed discussion in response to each comment is 
    contained in the EPA's Technical Support Document (TSD), dated XXX, 
    1995 from Jacqueline Nwia to the Docket, entitled ``Response to 
    Comments on the April 2, 1996 Proposal to Approve the Redesignation to 
    Attainment for Ozone and Section 175A Maintenance Plan for the Grand 
    Rapids Area,'' which is available from the Region 5 office listed 
    above.
    
    II. Public Comments and EPA Responses and Final Rulemaking Actions
    
        The following discussion summarizes and responds to the comments 
    received regarding the redesignation of the Grand Rapids area to 
    attainment for ozone.
        Comment: The commentor requested additional time to review and 
    provide comments on the proposed redesignation because: the proposal 
    was contingent on Michigan's submittal of a revision to the section 
    175A maintenance plan which was not available for public review until 
    April 15, 1996; the proposed action concerns the public health of many 
    of the requestor's members; and the proposed action incorporates new 
    guidance and policy which have broad implications throughout the Lake 
    Michigan basin and beyond. The commentor requested a minimum of 30 days 
    beyond the date of Michigan's most recent submittal or May 15, 1996.
        Response: EPA extended the public comment period only for those 
    portions of the redesignation and section 175A maintenance plan 
    pertaining to Michigan's April 11, 1996 maintenance plan SIP that did 
    not become available in EPA's docket until April 15, 1996. The 14-day 
    extension concluded on May 16, 1996. The EPA believes this provides the 
    commentor with an adequate opportunity to review and submit comments on 
    the subject of this rulemaking action.
        Comment: The commentor notes that the proposed redesignation 
    violates the specific and general intent of Congress in specifying 
    requirements for redesignation. The commentor elaborates by stating 
    that the proposed approval violates redesignation requirements of the 
    Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (Act) by lowering the threshold for 
    redesignation of these areas by reinterpretation of longstanding 
    redesignation guidance and granting of waivers and exemptions of 
    applicable statutory requirements. The waivers granted to the Grand 
    Rapids area include: waiver from adoption of volatile organic compounds 
    (VOC) reasonably available control technology (RACT) rules; waiver of 
    the reasonable further progress (RFP) requirement; waiver of the part D 
    New Source Review (NSR) requirement and waiver from the adoption of 
    conformity rules.
        Response: At the outset, EPA rejects the contention that its 
    actions violate the redesignation requirements of the Act. The EPA has 
    not granted the Grand Rapids area ``waivers,'' or ``exemptions'' from, 
    nor reinterpreted longstanding guidance pertaining to, RFP requirements 
    or conformity. The EPA did propose an exception to current policy 
    regarding the need to adopt certain VOC RACT rules prior to 
    redesignation and applied the October 14, 1994 memorandum from Mary 
    Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation entitled ``Part 
    D New Source Review (part D NSR) Requirements for Areas Requesting 
    Redesignation to Attainment,'' 1 regarding the requirements for 
    part D NSR.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \1\ Hereinafter referred to as ``October 1994 Nichols 
    memorandum.''
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        With respect to the RFP requirement, on July 20, 1995, the EPA made 
    a determination regarding the applicability of certain RFP and 
    attainment demonstration requirements. This final rule determined that 
    since the Grand Rapids area had demonstrated attainment of the ozone 
    standard, a factual determination based on 3 years of complete quality 
    assured monitoring data, certain provisions of the Act, whose explicit 
    purpose is to achieve attainment of the standard, do not require SIP 
    revisions to be made by the State for so long as the area continues to 
    attain the standard. Those provisions include RFP, the section 
    172(c)(9) contingency measures and attainment demonstration. The EPA 
    believes it is reasonable to interpret provisions regarding RFP and 
    attainment demonstrations, along with certain other related provisions, 
    so as not to require SIP submissions if an ozone nonattainment area 
    subject to those requirements is monitoring attainment of the ozone 
    standard (i.e., attainment of the NAAQS demonstrated with three 
    consecutive years of complete, quality-assured, air quality monitoring 
    data). As explained in a memorandum from John S. Seitz, Director, 
    Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, entitled ``RFP, 
    Attainment Demonstration, and Related Requirements for Ozone 
    Nonattainment Areas Meeting the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality 
    Standard,'' dated May 10, 1995,2 EPA believes it is appropriate to 
    interpret the more specific RFP, attainment demonstration and related 
    provisions of subpart 2 in the same manner as EPA had previously 
    interpreted the general provisions of subpart 1 of part D of Title I 
    (sections 171 and 172).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \2\ Hereinafter referred to as ``May 1995 Seitz memorandum.''
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        EPA has explained at length in other notices, including the July 
    20, 1995 determination of attainment regarding the Grand Rapids area 
    (60 FR 37366), its rationale for the reasonableness of that 
    interpretation of the Act and incorporates those explanations by 
    reference here. See Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans 
    and Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Ohio, 61 FR 
    20458 (May 7, 1996); Determination of Attainment of Ozone Standard for 
    Salt Lake and Davis Counties, Utah, 60 FR 36723 (July 18, 1995). EPA 
    emphasizes that it has not suspended or granted the Grand Rapids area 
    an exemption from any applicable requirements. Rather, EPA has 
    interpreted the requirements of sections 182(b)(1)(A)(I) and 172(c)(9) 
    as not being applicable once an area has attained the standard, as long 
    as it continues to do so. This is not a waiver of requirements that by 
    their terms clearly apply; it is a determination that certain 
    requirements are written so as to be operative only if the area is not 
    attaining the standard.
        The May 1995 Seitz memorandum was clear about the consequences of 
    the policy for redesignations. First, it made plain that a 
    determination of attainment is not tantamount to a redesignation of an 
    area to attainment. Attainment is only one of the criteria set forth in 
    section 107(d)(3)(E). To be redesignated, the State must satisfy all of 
    the criteria of section 107(d)(3)(E), including the requirement of a 
    demonstration that the improvement in the area's air quality is due to 
    permanent and enforceable reductions, and the requirements that the 
    area have a fully-approved SIP which meets all of the applicable 
    section 110 and part D requirements, and a fully approved maintenance 
    plan.
        Upon a determination of attainment, however, the section 
    182(b)(1)(A)(I) requirements of RFP and attainment plans, and the 
    section 172(c)(9) requirement of contingency plans are no longer 
    considered applicable requirements under section 107(d)(3)(E). They 
    would no longer be included among those measures whose approval is part 
    of the requirement of having a fully approved SIP.
        EPA is not diluting the redesignation requirements of section 
    107(d). What EPA has done is make a determination that since the area 
    is attaining the standard, which is a factual determination, certain 
    provisions of the
    
    [[Page 31833]]
    
    Act, whose express purpose is to achieve attainment of the standard, do 
    not require SIP revisions to be made by the State for so long as the 
    area continues to attain the standard. This has long been EPA's policy 
    with respect to the section 172(c)(9) contingency measures and section 
    172(c)(2) RFP requirement. See general preamble at 57 FR 13498. EPA has 
    also made determinations regarding section 182(f) NOX waivers at 
    or before the redesignation of an area and therefore not required 
    NOX RACT submissions to approve such redesignations. See the Bay 
    Area redesignation at 59 FR 49361 and Detroit-Ann Arbor redesignation 
    at 60 FR 12459.
        EPA's statutory analysis was explained in detail in the July 20, 
    1995 final rulemaking and in the May 1995 Seitz memorandum. To the 
    extent here pertinent, such portions of that notice, including the 
    responses to comments, are incorporated herein by reference.
        Thus, EPA disagrees with the commentors' view that EPA is not 
    complying with all the redesignation requirements of section 
    107(d)(3)(E). EPA has interpreted SIP submission requirements of 
    section 182(b)(1) regarding reasonable further progress and attainment 
    demonstration plans, and of section 172(c)(9) regarding contingency 
    measures to be implemented in the event an area fails to make 
    reasonable further progress or attain the standard by the attainment 
    date, not to apply for so long as the area continues to attain the 
    standard. Since they are not applicable, fulfillment of these 
    requirements is not necessary to meet the redesignation criteria of 
    section 107(d)(3)(E).
        The commentor challenges EPA's authority to determine certain SIP 
    requirements inapplicable, and then bootstraps that argument to 
    complain that since Grand Rapids has not met these requirements, the 
    redesignation request only partially fulfills section 107(d)(E)(v). The 
    commentor argues that this is because the State has not met all 
    ``applicable'' requirements under section 110 and part D; but the 
    requirements it points to are the very ones that EPA has determined are 
    inapplicable.
        EPA rejects this kind of circular argument. Since EPA has 
    determined that the statute does not require certain submissions so 
    long as the area is in attainment, those inapplicable requirements 
    cannot serve as the basis for concluding that the redesignation request 
    is defective. Under the criteria of section 107(d)(E)(3) itself, a 
    State need only meet all applicable requirements, and have a fully 
    approved plan that contains all required elements. Thus EPA's 
    interpretation is fully consistent with the criteria of section 
    107(d)(3). Since EPA has determined that the 15 percent, attainment 
    demonstration, and section 172(c)(9) contingency plan requirements are 
    not applicable to Grand Rapids, and has found the SIP to be fully 
    approvable without them, the Grand Rapids area has fairly met the 
    criteria of section 107(d)(3). Certainly EPA, after determining that 
    these requirements are inapplicable, could not in good faith conclude 
    that the redesignation request is defective because it fails to meet 
    them.
        Thus EPA concludes that, where it has made a determination of 
    attainment that results in the suspension of requirements, it may rely 
    on that determination and its consequences in considering the 
    approvability of a redesignation request.
        For the reasons stated above and elsewhere in this document, in the 
    July 20, 1995 Federal Register notice (60 FR 37366) pertaining to the 
    Grand Rapids area, in the May 1995 Seitz memorandum, in the Utah notice 
    (60 FR 36723, July 18, 1995) and in the Cleveland-Akron-Lorain notice 
    (May 7, 1996, 61 FR 20468), EPA does not believe that the rulemaking 
    violates any section of the Act, nor does it dilute the redesignation 
    requirements under section 107(d)(3)(E).
        With respect to the full adoption of VOC RACT rules, it should 
    first be noted that Michigan has submitted and EPA has approved all of 
    the sections 182(b)(2)(B) and 182(b)(2)(C) VOC RACT requirements 
    applicable to the Grand Rapids area on September 7, 1994 (59 FR 46182) 
    and October 23, 1995 (60 FR 54308). Therefore, the EPA assumes that the 
    commentor is concerned about the section 182(b)(2)(A) requirement of 
    the Act which requires States to develop VOC RACT rules for sources 
    ``covered by a CTG document issued by the Administrator between 
    November 15, 1990, and the date of attainment'' for moderate and above 
    ozone nonattainment areas. The EPA has not granted the Grand Rapids 
    area a ``waiver'' or ``exemption'' from this requirement either. In 
    fact, EPA's proposed rulemaking action acknowledges the applicability 
    of these rules in light of current EPA guidance (See ``Procedures for 
    Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,'' from John 
    Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, dated September 4, 
    1992),3 since the due date for the CTG RACT rules at issue 
    preceded the submission of the redesignation request, and consequently, 
    generally require full adoption, submission and approval of these rules 
    prior to approval of the redesignation request.4
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \3\ Hereinafter referred to as ``September 1992 Calcagni 
    memorandum.''
        \4\ The EPA also notes that the Synthetic Organic Chemical 
    Manufacturing (SOCMI) Distillation and Reactor CTG was issued on 
    November 15, 1993, prior to the submission of the Grand Rapids 
    redesignation request. That CTG, however, established a due date for 
    State submittal of the SOCMI Distillation and Reactor rules of March 
    23, 1995 (See March 23, 1994, 59 FR 13717), a date after submission 
    of a request to redesignation Grand Rapids to attainment. Thus, 
    those rules are not applicable for purposes of this redesignation.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        The EPA does, however, believe that in the context of the 
    particular circumstances of this redesignation, that it is reasonable 
    and permissible to depart from that policy and instead accept a 
    commitment to implement these RACT rules as contingency measures in the 
    maintenance plan rather than require full adoption and approval of the 
    rules prior to approval of the redesignation. The reasons justifying 
    this departure from EPA's general policy were explained in the proposed 
    action and are presented below.
        EPA believes that several factors in combination justify allowing 
    this exception to current EPA policy with respect to the Grand Rapids 
    redesignation. First, the RACT rules at issue came due after the end of 
    the ozone season in which Grand Rapids attained the standard and were 
    not needed to bring about attainment of the ozone standard in Grand 
    Rapids. Second, the State has demonstrated continued maintenance of the 
    ozone standard through 2007 without the implementation of these 
    measures. Third, the State has placed other contingency measures in the 
    maintenance plan that would bring about far greater emission reductions 
    than the VOC RACT rules and would therefore be substantially more 
    effective in terms of correcting violations attributable to local 
    emissions from the Grand Rapids area that may occur after 
    redesignation. EPA's analysis of the emission reductions shows that the 
    implementation of enhanced inspection and maintenance (I/M), Stage II 
    or low Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) (to 7.8 psi) programs would bring 
    about greater reductions than VOC RACT rules for wood furniture 
    coating, plastic parts coating and industrial clean-up solvents in 
    aggregate, and substantially greater reductions than any of these RACT 
    rules individually. Consequently, EPA believes that the other, more 
    effective contingency measures, should and
    
    [[Page 31834]]
    
    would be implemented first even if the RACT rules were to be fully 
    adopted prior to redesignation. The detailed analysis of these emission 
    reduction estimates is contained in the TSD for the proposed rulemaking 
    action dated March 20, 1996 entitled ``TSD for the Request to 
    Redesignate the Grand Rapids, Michigan Moderate Nonattainment Area to 
    Attainment for Ozone and Proposed Revision to the Michigan Ozone SIP 
    for a Section 175A Maintenance Plan'' and TSD for this action dated XX, 
    1996, entitled ``Response to Comments on the April 2, 1996 Proposal to 
    Approve the Redesignation to Attainment for Ozone and Section 175A 
    Maintenance Plan for the Grand Rapids Area.''
        EPA emphasizes that even under this departure from its policy 
    regarding this action, the requirement for these RACT rules remains an 
    applicable requirement for purposes of evaluating the redesignation 
    request since it predated the submission of the request. The 
    requirement, however, is met in the form of the submission and full 
    approval of a commitment to adopt and implement these rules as 
    contingency measures in the maintenance plan. (Under EPA's existing 
    policy, contingency measures in maintenance plans may consist of 
    commitments to adopt and implement measures upon a violation of the 
    standard. See September 1992 Calcagni Memorandum.)
        EPA further notes that even without this exception to its general 
    policy, the State would have been able to have the RACT rules become a 
    part of the contingency measures in the maintenance plan upon approval 
    of the redesignation. That could have occurred only after or upon EPA's 
    full approval of the adopted RACT rules, however. Thus, the only 
    difference between EPA's general policy and the exception to that 
    policy described in this action is that a commitment to adopt and 
    implement the RACT rules in an expeditious manner, rather than fully-
    adopted RACT rules, would be among the contingency measures in the 
    maintenance plan. In light of the combination of factors discussed 
    above, including in particular the inclusion of other, significantly 
    more effective, contingency measures in the maintenance plan, EPA 
    believes that this difference has no significant environmental 
    consequence and that it is permissible to approve the Grand Rapids 
    redesignation on this basis. The EPA believes that this exception to 
    its general policy is legally permissible under the statutory 
    provisions governing redesignations. As noted above, the VOC RACT 
    requirements remain applicable requirements under section 107 and EPA 
    believes that their treatment in the contingency plan as commitments is 
    consistent with the manner in which EPA has accepted other commitments 
    to adopt and implement contingency measures in maintenance plans under 
    section 175A.
        The EPA believes that the Grand Rapids area may be redesignated to 
    attainment notwithstanding the lack of a fully-approved part D NSR 
    program meeting the requirements of the 1990 Act amendments and the 
    absence of such a part D NSR program from the contingency plan. This 
    view has been set forth by the EPA as its policy in the 1994 Nichols 
    memorandum.
        The EPA believes that its decision not to insist on a fully-
    approved part D NSR program as a pre-requisite to redesignation is 
    justifiable as an exercise of the Agency's general authority to 
    establish de minimis exceptions to statutory requirements. See Alabama 
    Power Co. v. Costle, 636 F.2d 323, 360-61 (D.C. Cir. 1979). Under 
    Alabama Power, Co. v. Costle, the EPA has the authority to establish de 
    minimis exceptions to statutory requirements where the application of 
    the statutory requirements would be of trivial or no environmental 
    value. See also EDF v. EPA, Nos. 94-1044 and 94-1062, Slip Op. at 28-29 
    (D.C. Cir. April 19, 1996).
        Plainly, the part D NSR provisions of section 110 and part D are 
    requirements that were applicable to the Grand Rapids area at the time 
    of the submission of the request for redesignation. Thus, on its face, 
    section 107(d)(3)(E) would seem to require that the State have 
    submitted and the EPA have fully-approved a part D NSR program meeting 
    the requirements of the Act before the areas could be redesignated to 
    attainment.
        Under the EPA's de minimis authority, however, it may establish an 
    exception to an otherwise plain statutory requirement if its 
    fulfillment would be of little or no environmental value. In this 
    context, it is necessary to determine what would be achieved by 
    insisting that there be a fully-approved part D NSR program in place 
    prior to the redesignation of the Grand Rapids area. For the following 
    reasons, the EPA believes that requiring the adoption and full-approval 
    of a part D NSR program prior to redesignation would not be of 
    significant environmental value in this case.
        The Grand Rapids area has demonstrated that maintenance of the 
    ozone NAAQS will occur even if the emission reductions expected to 
    result from the part D NSR program do not occur. The emission 
    projections to demonstrate maintenance of the NAAQS considered growth 
    in point source emissions (along with growth for other source 
    categories) and were premised on the assumption that the Prevention of 
    Significant Deterioration (PSD) program, rather than the part D NSR, 
    would be in effect, during the maintenance period. Under part D NSR, 
    significant point source emissions growth would not occur. Michigan 
    assumed that part D NSR would not apply after redesignation to 
    attainment and instead assumed source growth factors based on projected 
    growth in the economy and in the area's population. (It should be noted 
    that the growth factors assumed may be overestimates under PSD, which 
    would restrain source growth through the application of best available 
    control techniques.) Thus, Michigan has demonstrated that there is no 
    need to retain the part D NSR as an operative program in the SIP during 
    the maintenance period to provide for continued maintenance of the 
    ozone NAAQS.
        The other purpose that requiring the full-approval of a part D NSR 
    program might serve would be to ensure that part D NSR would become a 
    contingency provision in the maintenance plan required for these areas 
    by sections 107(d)(3)(E)(iv) and 175A(d). These provisions require 
    that, for an area to be redesignated to attainment, it must receive 
    full approval of a maintenance plan containing ``such contingency 
    provisions as the Administrator deems necessary to assure that the 
    State will promptly correct any violation of the standard which occurs 
    after the redesignation of the area as an attainment area. Such 
    provisions shall include a requirement that the State will implement 
    all measures with respect to the control of the air pollutant concerned 
    which were contained in the SIP for the area before redesignation of 
    the area as an attainment area.'' Based on this language, it is 
    apparent that whether an approved part D NSR program must be included 
    as a contingency provision depends on whether it is a ``measure'' for 
    the control of the pertinent air pollutants.
        The term ``measure'' is not defined in section 175A(d) and Congress 
    utilized that term differently in different provisions of the Act with 
    respect to the part C PSD and part D NSR permitting programs. For 
    example, in section 110(a)(2)(A), Congress required that SIPs include 
    ``enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, means, 
    or techniques * * * as may be necessary or appropriate to meet the 
    applicable requirements of the Act.'' In section 110(a)(2)(C), Congress 
    required
    
    [[Page 31835]]
    
    that SIPs include ``a program to provide for the enforcement of the 
    measures described in subparagraph (A), and regulation of the 
    modification and construction of any stationary source within the areas 
    covered by the plan as necessary to assure that NAAQS are achieved, 
    including a permit program as required in parts C and D.'' (Emphasis 
    added.) If the term measures as used in sections 110(a)(2) (A) and (C) 
    had been intended to include part C PSD and part D NSR there would have 
    been no point to requiring that SIPs include both measures and 
    preconstruction review under parts C and D (PSD or NSR). Unless 
    ``measures'' referred to something other than preconstruction review 
    under parts C and D, the reference to preconstruction review programs 
    in section 110(a)(2)(C) would be rendered mere surplusage. Thus, in 
    sections 110(a)(2) (A) and (C), it is apparent that Congress 
    distinguished ``measures'' from preconstruction review. On the other 
    hand, in other provisions of the Act, such as section 161, Congress 
    appeared to include PSD within the scope of the term ``measures.''
        The EPA believes that the fact that Congress used the undefined 
    term ``measure'' differently in different sections of the Act is 
    germane. This indicates that the term is susceptible to more than one 
    interpretation and that the EPA has the discretion to interpret it in a 
    reasonable manner in the context of section 175A. Inasmuch as Congress 
    itself has used the term in a manner that excluded part C PSD and part 
    D NSR from its scope, the EPA believes it is reasonable to interpret 
    ``measure,'' as used in section 175A(d), not to include part D NSR. 
    That this is a reasonable interpretation is further supported by the 
    fact that PSD, a program that is the corollary of part D NSR for 
    attainment areas, goes into effect in lieu of part D NSR.5 This 
    distinguishes part D NSR from other required programs under the Act, 
    such as inspection and maintenance and RACT programs, which have no 
    corollary for attainment areas. Moreover, the EPA believes that those 
    other required programs are clearly within the scope of the term 
    ``measure.'' 6
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \5\ The EPA is not suggesting that part D NSR and prevention of 
    significant (PSD) are equivalent, but merely that they are the same 
    type of program. The PSD program is a requirement in attainment 
    areas and designed to allow new source permitting, yet contains 
    adequate provisions to protect the NAAQS. If any information 
    including preconstruction monitoring, indicates that an area is not 
    continuing to meet the NAAQS after redesignation to attainment, 40 
    CFR 51 appendix S (Interpretive Offset Rule) or a 40 CFR 51.165(b) 
    program would apply. The EPA believes that in any area that is 
    designated or redesignated as attainment under section 107, but 
    experiences violations of the NAAQS, these provisions should be 
    interpreted as requiring major new or modified sources to obtain VOC 
    emission offsets of at least a 1:1 ratio, and as presuming that 1:1 
    oxides of nitrogen (NOX) offsets are necessary. See October 
    1994 Nichols memorandum.
        \6\ The EPA also notes that in the case of the Michigan area, 
    all permits to install for major offset sources and major offset 
    modifications issued by the State in the moderate nonattainment 
    areas since November 15, 1992 have complied with the 1.15 to 1.0 
    offset ratio. In addition, permits to install cannot be issued under 
    the PSD program unless the applicant can demonstrate that the 
    increased emissions from the new or modified source will not result 
    in a violation of the NAAQS. Michigan's Rule 702, which is part of 
    the SIP, requires the installation of Best Available Control 
    Technology regardless of size or location of all new and modified 
    sources in the State. In addition, Michigan's Rule 207, also 
    approved in the SIP, requires denial of any permit to install if 
    operation of the equipment will interfere with attainment or 
    maintenance of the NAAQS.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        The EPA's logic in treating part D NSR in this manner does not mean 
    that other applicable part D requirements, including those that have 
    been previously met and previously relied upon in demonstrating 
    attainment, could be eliminated without an analysis demonstrating that 
    maintenance would be protected. As noted above, Michigan has 
    demonstrated that maintenance would be protected with PSD in effect, 
    rather than part D NSR. Thus, the EPA is not permitting part D NSR to 
    be removed without a demonstration that maintenance of the standard 
    will be achieved. Moreover, the EPA has not amended its policy with 
    respect to the conversion of other SIP elements to contingency 
    provisions, which is that they may be converted to contingency 
    provisions only upon a showing that maintenance will be achieved 
    without them being in effect. Finally, as noted above, the EPA believes 
    that the part D NSR requirement differs from other requirements, and 
    does not believe that the rationale for the part D NSR exception 
    extends to other required programs.
        As noted above, this change in policy was detailed in the October 
    1994 Nichols memorandum 7. The position taken in this action is 
    consistent with the EPA's current national policy detailed in the 
    October 1994 Nichols memorandum. That policy permits redesignation to 
    proceed without otherwise required part D NSR programs having been 
    fully approved and converted to contingency provisions provided that 
    the area demonstrates, as has been done in this case, that maintenance 
    will be achieved with the application of PSD rather than part D NSR.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \7\ Which has been applied in other areas such as Detroit, 
    Michigan, Preble, Columbiana, Clinton, Youngstown, Columbus, Canton, 
    Cleveland, Toledo and Dayton, Ohio.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        The EPA has not ``waived'' the requirement for adoption and 
    implementation of conformity regulations. Rather, EPA has determined 
    that those requirements will continue to apply after the area is 
    redesignated, and therefore need not be fulfilled as a condition of 
    redesignation. The State of Michigan, in fact, has submitted 
    transportation and general conformity SIP revisions on November 24, 
    1994 and November 29, 1994, respectively. The issue is full approval of 
    these rules prior to redesignation. As presented in the April 2, 1996 
    (61 FR 14522) proposal, the EPA believes that it is reasonable to 
    interpret the conformity requirement as not being applicable for 
    purpose of redesignation under section 107(d). The rationale for this 
    is based on a combination of two factors. First, the requirement to 
    submit SIP revisions to comply with the conformity provisions of the 
    Act continue to apply to areas after redesignation to attainment, since 
    such areas would be subject to a section 175A maintenance plan. 
    Therefore, the State remains obligated to adopt the transportation and 
    general conformity rules even after redesignation and would risk 
    sanctions for failure to do so. While a redesignation of an area to 
    attainment enables the area to avoid further compliance with most 
    requirements of section 110 and part D, since those requirements are 
    linked to the nonattainment status of an area, the conformity 
    requirements apply to both nonattainment and maintenance areas. Second, 
    EPA's federal conformity rules require the performance of conformity 
    analyses in the absence of state-adopted rules. Therefore, a delay in 
    adopting State rules does not relieve an area from the obligation to 
    implement conformity requirements.
        Because areas are subject to the conformity requirements regardless 
    of whether they are redesignated to attainment and must implement 
    conformity under Federal rules if State rules are not yet adopted, the 
    EPA believes it is reasonable to view these requirements as not being 
    applicable requirements for purposes of evaluating a redesignation 
    request.
        For the reasons just discussed, the EPA believes that the ozone 
    redesignation request for the Grand Rapids area may be approved 
    notwithstanding the lack of fully approved State transportation and 
    general conformity rules. This policy was also exercised in the Tampa, 
    Florida and Cleveland-Akron-Lorain ozone redesignations finalized on
    
    [[Page 31836]]
    
    December 7, 1995 (60 FR 52748) and May 7, 1996 (61 FR 20458), 
    respectively.
        According to the Federal transportation and general conformity 
    rules, conformity applies to nonattainment areas as well as maintenance 
    areas. Once redesignated, the Grand Rapids area will be a maintenance 
    area and will be required to conduct emission analyses to determine 
    that the VOC and NOX emissions remain below the motor vehicle 
    emission budget established in the maintenance plan. The Conformity 
    General Preamble to the conformity regulations further clarifies this 
    issue, particularly as it pertains to areas requesting and obtaining a 
    section 182(f) NOX exemption. Michigan has established a motor 
    vehicle emission budget for NOX in the area's maintenance plan.
        Comment: The commentor notes that between December 1, 1990 and June 
    1, 1995, EPA has redesignated 54 areas from nonattainment to 
    attainment. Several of these redesignated areas, such as Kansas City, 
    Kansas/Missouri, Detroit, Michigan, San Francisco, California, 
    Charlotte, North Carolina; Huntington-Ashland, West Virginia/Kentucky 
    violated the ozone standard after redesignation. The commentor states 
    that the EPA's ``permissive'' SIP revision requirements for these areas 
    made future violations inevitable and ensure that inadequate 
    contingency measures are adopted. The commentor also notes that the 
    Grand Rapids and Muskegon areas observed 5 exceedances each after 
    receiving a determination of attainment.
        Response: To date the EPA has redesignated a total of 41 areas 
    8 to attainment for ozone. Of these areas, only 4, Detroit, 
    Michigan, Memphis, Tennessee, San Francisco, California, and Kansas 
    City, Kansas-Missouri, subsequently violated monitored violations of 
    the ozone standard. EPA believes that this, in fact, demonstrates that 
    for the vast majority of instances the redesignation policy is 
    appropriate since most of the redesignated areas have not violated the 
    ozone NAAQS to date. Furthermore, the Act and Congress contemplated 
    that such events may occur and therefore, required that the 
    Administrator fully approve a maintenance plan for the area consistent 
    with the requirements of section 175A before the area can be 
    redesignated to attainment. Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv). Section 175A(d) 
    requires that a maintenance plan contain contingency provisions deemed 
    necessary by the Administrator to assure that the State will promptly 
    correct a violation of the standard which occurs after the 
    redesignation of the area to attainment. Clearly, the Act and Congress 
    anticipated that areas redesignated to attainment may violate the NAAQS 
    in the future and ensured that control measures to remedy the violation 
    are available. Areas redesignated to attainment have approved 
    maintenance plans with contingency measures that are and will be 
    implemented in order to address the violations monitored in the area 
    after redesignation. The maintenance plans for these areas were deemed 
    appropriate and adequate for purposes of addressing a future violation 
    as they were fully approved into the area's SIPs. Furthermore, if the 
    contingency measures implemented by the State do not address future 
    violations of the NAAQS, EPA has the authority to call for a plan 
    revision requiring the adoption of additional control measures and/or 
    redesignate the area to nonattainment which in turn would require the 
    area to adopt and implement additional control measures appropriate for 
    its classification. See sections 110(k)(5) and 107(d)(3).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \8\ This includes 28 classified and 13 nonclassified areas. The 
    28 classified areas include the Ohio portion of the Youngstown-
    Warren-Sharon area.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        With respect to the adequacy of the maintenance plan for Grand 
    Rapids, the EPA would like to note that all aspects of the maintenance 
    plan were reviewed and deemed appropriate. The commentor does not 
    provide any specific arguments to support the comment.
        For clarification purposes, the number of exceedances cited by the 
    commentor is the total number of exceedances monitored in the Grand 
    Rapids area and Muskegon area. The Grand Rapids area monitored one 
    exceedance at each of the three monitors located within the two-county 
    area in 1995. Taken into account with the previous two years, 1994 and 
    1993, the Grand Rapids area continues to demonstrate attainment of the 
    ozone NAAQS with a number of expected exceedances less than or equal to 
    1.0.
        Comment: The commentor states that the April 2, 1996 proposal 
    jeopardizes the efforts currently being undertaken by the Ozone 
    Transport Assessment Group (OTAG).
        Response: The commentor's statement is unsupported. In the April 2, 
    1996 proposal, the EPA specifically stated that the redesignation of 
    the Grand Rapids area to attainment in no way removes the State's 
    obligation to get further reductions in emissions to address the 
    broader transport phenomenon currently being investigated as part of 
    the OTAG process. The issue of transported ozone and ozone precursors 
    is being addressed by the OTAG which is composed of industry, 
    environmental groups and Federal, State and local governments from the 
    eastern part of the United States. The Lake Michigan States of 
    Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin and Michigan are all participating, at 
    some level, in the OTAG process (Phase I/Phase II attainment 
    demonstrations as provided for in the March 2, 1995 memorandum from 
    Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, entitled 
    ``Ozone Attainment Demonstrations''). Phase II of this analysis will 
    assess the need for regional control strategies and refine local 
    control strategies. Phase II will also provide the States and EPA the 
    opportunity to determine appropriate regional strategies to resolve 
    transport issues including any impacts the Grand Rapids area may have 
    on ozone concentrations in its downwind areas. The EPA has the 
    authority under sections 110(a)(2)(A) and 110(a)(2)(D) of the Act to 
    require emission reductions where appropriate based on the results of 
    this effort or any other relevant information.
        Comment: The commentor stated that exempting ozone nonattainment 
    areas from compliance with part D NSR regulations presents special 
    problems since PSD and preconstruction review rules ``do not fully 
    address how emissions of ozone precursors should be treated to assure 
    that major new or modified sources do not cause or contribute to a 
    NAAQS violation.'' In addition, the commentor contends that the Alabama 
    Power Co. v. Costle 9 court cautioned that ``to exempt de minimis 
    situations from a statutory command is not an ability to depart from 
    the statute, but rather a tool to be used in implementing the 
    legislative design.''
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \9\ EPA's policy to redesignate areas notwithstanding the 
    absence of fully adopted and approved part D NSR SIP is based, in 
    part, on EPA's authority to establish de minimis exceptions to 
    statutory requirements when the requirement would be of trivial or 
    no value environmentally under the Alabama Power Co. v. Costle court 
    decision.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        Response: EPA emphasizes that contrary to the commentor's 
    contention, ozone nonattainment areas are not exempt from compliance 
    with part D NSR regulations. The October 1994 Nichols memorandum 
    suggests that areas that are otherwise eligible for redesignation need 
    not have a fully approved part D NSR program as a prerequisite to 
    redesignation since the part C PSD program would apply once the area 
    has been redesignated to attainment. The part D NSR program
    
    [[Page 31837]]
    
    requirements apply to the area until the area is redesignated to 
    attainment.
        The October 1994 Nichols memorandum's statement that EPA 
    regulations (40 CFR 51.165(b)(3) and appendix S) ``do not fully address 
    how ozone precursor emissions should be treated to ensure that major 
    new or modified sources do not cause or contribute to an ozone NAAQS 
    violation'' is based on the difficulty in modeling the impact of 
    emissions from specific sources on ozone formation. The policy, 
    however, also states that for areas with preconstruction monitoring or 
    other information that indicate that the area is not meeting the ozone 
    standard after redesignation to attainment, Appendix S or 40 CFR 
    51.165(b) apply. These areas should then require major new or modified 
    sources to obtain VOC emission offsets of at least 1:1 ratio. In 
    addition, the PSD program allows BACT in place of LAER if the less 
    stringent control technology can be justified based on an economic, 
    energy and environmental impacts analysis. Consequently, the State may 
    impose a more stringent level of control other than what may be 
    selected as BACT in an area redesignated to attainment but not meeting 
    the NAAQS. With these elements, the preconstruction review programs can 
    assure that major new or modified sources achieve the statutory goals 
    of part D NSR.
        With respect to the cautions of the Costle court of the Alabama 
    Power decision, EPA believes that the exercise of its de minimis 
    authority in this instance is fully consistent with them. EPA is using 
    its authority to facilitate the implementation of the statute and the 
    legislative design behind it. EPA also notes that the D.C. Circuit, the 
    court that decided the Alabama Power case, recently decided another 
    case upholding EPA's exercise of its de minimis authority under the 
    Act. Referring to EPA's authority to create de minimis exceptions as 
    being inherent in the statutory scheme, the court stated that ``the 
    same deference due to an agency's reasonable interpretation of an 
    ambiguous statute may also be due to an agency's creation of a de 
    minimis exception.'' EDF v. EPA, Nos. 94-1044 and 94-1062, Slip Op. at 
    28-29 (D.C. Cir. April 19, 1996).
        Comment: The commentor contends that the EPA cannot use the May 
    1995 Seitz memorandum to substitute its own criteria for redesignation 
    over congressional instruction. The commentor rationalizes that the 
    part D requirements are defined by the nonattainment or attainment 
    designation of an area. The EPA, therefore, does not have the 
    ``authority to modify the operation of the Act, and substitute its own 
    judgement for that of Congress.'' Furthermore, SIP requirements are 
    joined to the classification of a nonattainment area (see sections 182 
    and 181).
        Response: The May 1995 Seitz memorandum does not substitute EPA's 
    criteria for congressional instruction. Instead, the May 1995 Seitz 
    memorandum presents EPA's interpretation of the statutory language of 
    the Act regarding RFP and related provisions as they relate to areas 
    demonstrating attainment of the ozone NAAQS.
        With respect to the commentor's statement that SIP requirements are 
    joined to the classification of a nonattainment area, the EPA would 
    note that the commentor is equating the designation of an area as 
    attainment or nonattainment with the fact finding of whether an area is 
    attaining the standard, regardless of its designation. EPA believes 
    that these are two distinct issues. Title I of the Act, including part 
    D, contains provisions that distinguish between the concept of 
    attainment of a NAAQS shown through monitoring data, and an area's 
    designation as attainment or nonattainment.
        The fact that only one of the five criteria for redesignation of a 
    nonattainment area to attainment is the determination that the area 
    ``has attained the national ambient air quality standard,'' 
    demonstrates that section 107(d)(3)(E)(I) itself recognizes this 
    distinction. Clearly, the Act anticipates there will be areas 
    designated nonattainment that are attaining the standard, that there 
    could be a nonattainment area that meets the air quality criterion for 
    redesignation to attainment without satisfying the other criteria. Such 
    an area would need to remain designated nonattainment even though it 
    was attaining the standard.
        In addition, the distinction between attaining the standard and the 
    designation of an area as attainment or nonattainment is again 
    demonstrated in the part D provision of section 182(f), which 
    authorizes EPA to waive the NOX reduction requirements that apply 
    to ozone nonattainment areas if EPA determines that the NOX 
    reductions would ``not contribute to attainment of the'' ozone NAAQS. 
    This provision has been applied on numerous occasions to waive NOX 
    emission reduction requirements for areas that have attained the 
    standard, since such reductions in areas that have already attained the 
    standard would not contribute to attainment. Thus, this provision 
    clearly contemplates that areas designated nonattainment that have 
    attained the standard may have certain specified requirements waived.
        In conclusion, the Act does not equate the factual issue of whether 
    an area is attaining the standard with the area's designation status as 
    attainment or nonattainment. It explicitly expects situations in which 
    areas designated nonattainment may be attaining the standard. Thus, the 
    definition of ``nonattainment area'' in section 171(2), which provides 
    that, for purposes of part D, a nonattainment area means an area that 
    ``is designated ``nonattainment'' with respect to [a particular] 
    pollutant within the meaning of section 107(d)'' does not contradict 
    EPA's interpretation of the language of section 171(1) defining ``RFP'' 
    requirements in terms of reductions for the purpose of ``ensuring 
    attainment.''
        EPA believes that, in general, the classification of an area 
    designated nonattainment for ozone determines the set of requirements 
    of subpart 2 to which the area is subject.
        The issue becomes the substance of some of those requirements. In 
    general, section 182(b)(1) and section 172(c)(9) apply to moderate 
    ozone nonattainment areas. EPA, however, has interpreted section 
    182(b)(1) and 172(c)(9) such that additional SIP submission 
    requirements are not necessary for an area classified as a moderate 
    ozone nonattainment area that is attaining the ozone standard, for so 
    long as the area continues to attain the standard. This is not a waiver 
    of the requirement that by their terms clearly apply; it is a 
    determination that certain requirements are written so as to be 
    applicable only if the area is not attaining the standard. If prior to 
    the redesignation of such an area to attainment, the area violated the 
    ozone NAAQS, that determination would no longer apply. That area will 
    once again be faced with an obligation to submit SIP revisions pursuant 
    to sections 172(c)(9) and 182(b)(1).
        Finally, other requirements of part D that are not written in such 
    a way continue to apply solely by virtue of the area's classification 
    and designation as a moderate ozone nonattainment area. For example, 
    the VOC RACT requirement of section 182(a)(2) applies regardless of 
    whether an area is attaining the standard. Similarly, the requirements 
    of part D new source review continue to apply to areas designated 
    nonattainment solely by virtue of their continuing nonattainment 
    designation.
        Comment: The Administrative Procedures Act (APA) requires that 
    ``substantive rules of general applicability'' be subjected to public 
    comment before promulgation. EPA's
    
    [[Page 31838]]
    
    guidance interpreting section 107(d)(3)(E) requirements constitutes 
    substantive rules of general applicability and thus, required to be 
    subjected to public comment.
        Response: EPA's reference to and reliance on guidance documents 
    interpreting section 107(d)(3)(E),10 all of which are either 
    published or publicly available and a part of the record of the July 
    20, 1995 rulemaking and this rulemaking, is in no way illegal under 
    provisions of either the Act or the APA. The commentor cites the APA's 
    requirement that ``substantive rules of general applicability'' be 
    published in the Federal Register and subject to public comment before 
    promulgation. These documents do not purport to be anything but 
    guidance. That is precisely why EPA performed the July 20, 1995 
    rulemaking, and this rulemaking action, a notice and comment rulemaking 
    to take comment on its statutory interpretations and factual 
    determinations in order to make a binding and enforceable determination 
    regarding the Grand Rapids area. The April 2, 1996 notice referred to 
    EPA's policy memorandum not as binding the Agency to adopt the 
    interpretations being proposed therein, but rather as useful 
    descriptions of rationale underlying those proposed interpretations. 
    EPA has explained the legal and factual basis for its rulemaking in the 
    April 2, 1996 rulemaking and afforded the public a full opportunity to 
    comment on EPA's proposed interpretation and determination fully 
    consistent with the applicable procedural requirements of the APA.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \10\ It is presumed that the commentor is referring to such 
    documents as the October 1994 Nichols, May 1995 Seitz, and September 
    1992 Calcagni memoranda as well as the General Preamable (April 16, 
    1992, 57 FR 13498).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        Comment: The 1993 Nichols and 1995 Seitz memoranda are inconsistent 
    with earlier redesignation guidance (General Preamble, Calcagni and 
    Shapiro memoranda) pertaining to required SIP revisions for 
    redesignations.
        Response: The October 1994 Nichols memorandum and the May 1995 
    Seitz memorandum represented modifications of earlier policies. That 
    does not necessarily mean these memoranda were by any means completely 
    inconsistent with prior policies. For example, the May 1995 Seitz 
    memorandum interpreted the more specific RFP requirements of section 
    182(b)(1) in a manner consistent with EPA's previous interpretation of 
    the more general section 171 and 172 requirements. Furthermore, EPA 
    notes that it is permissible to revise its policies provided that the 
    revised policies, as is the case with these, are legally justified and 
    reasonable.
        Comment: The commentor contends that ozone remains a significant 
    public health threat in Grand Rapids since it fails to demonstrate 
    attainment of the ozone NAAQS. The commentor proceeds to discuss an 
    analysis of eight hour ozone concentration averages in the Grand Rapids 
    Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area for 1995. The commentor 
    states that on 26 days at least one monitor recorded ozone 
    concentrations at or above 80 parts per billion (ppb) and represent 
    days when at-risk populations were exposed to unhealthy levels of air 
    pollution. The commentor states that by examining ground level wind 
    directions and speeds and comparing results of monitors upwind (Jenison 
    or Parnell) from Grand Rapids to downwind observations (Parnell or 
    Jenison), the commentor has determined that 18 of these episodes 
    indicate that local emissions significantly exacerbate the formation of 
    unhealthy levels of ozone.
        Response: The EPA determines attainment and nonattainment based on 
    the current NAAQS of 0.12 parts per million (ppm) not 80 ppb. 
    Therefore, the EPA must evaluate the eligibility for redesignation on 
    the basis of the current, health based standard. The EPA agrees with 
    the commentor's contention that ozone and ozone precursor emissions 
    from the Grand Rapids urbanized area may contribute to ozone 
    concentrations in downwind areas (downwind areas are relative to wind 
    directions) by virtue of the fact that the area is an urbanized area. 
    Nonetheless, the Grand Rapids area has demonstrated attainment of the 
    current ozone NAAQS in the three year period 1992-1994, and continues 
    to demonstrate attainment for the period 1993-1995.
        The EPA evaluated the winds on July 13, 1995, where exceedances of 
    the ozone NAAQS were recorded at all 3 monitors in the Grand Rapids 
    area: Jenison at 0.133 ppm; Grand Rapids at 0.163 ppm; and Parnell at 
    0.134 ppm. Given that the winds were predominantly from the southwest 
    and west/southwest, one would deduce that the exceedances were a result 
    of ozone transport into the area. This is especially likely in view of 
    the fact that the Jenison monitor, which is the Grand Rapids upwind 
    monitor,11 recorded an ozone concentration of 0.133 ppm.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \11\ An upwind monitor would indicate background levels of ozone 
    entering an area.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        Comment: The commentor acknowledges that emissions from the 
    Milwaukee-Chicago-Gary corridor were transported north out of the basin 
    on June 16, 1994, under high south/south-southeasterly winds. However, 
    the commentor attributes an exceedance recorded in Grand Rapids on June 
    17, 1994, at a level of 149 ppb, to emissions from the Grand Rapids 
    area since winds were still to light.
        Response: The EPA acknowledges that local emissions, those from the 
    Grand Rapids urbanized area, may affect ozone concentrations in the 
    area and any downwind area. However, the extent of any contribution to 
    ozone levels from the Grand Rapids area cannot be determined with any 
    degree of certainty based on the information provided by the commentor, 
    particularly in light of indications that the Grand Rapids area is the 
    recipient of significant levels of transported ozone. Regardless of its 
    origin, this exceedance does not constitute a violation of the ozone 
    NAAQS. Thus, the area continues to be eligible for redesignation based 
    on monitoring data showing no violations of the ozone NAAQS for the 
    periods 1992-1994 and 1993-1995.
        Comment: The commentor suggests that the 1992-1994 period cannot be 
    used to demonstrate improvements in air quality due to permanent and 
    enforceable emission reductions. Otherwise, the Chicago-Milwaukee-Gary 
    severe-17 ozone nonattainment area could be downgraded to moderate 
    ozone nonattainment. The commentor also alludes to the Detroit's 
    assessment of contingency measures necessary to reduce domain-wide 
    peaks in Tiverton, Ontario (Canada) below 200 ppb.
        Response: The November 6, 1991 (56 FR 56694) classifications served 
    to determine a control strategy adequate to achieve emissions 
    reductions that would improve the air quality in an area to a level 
    that would demonstrate attainment of the NAAQS. Consequently as an area 
    implemented its control strategy it is anticipated that the air quality 
    would continually improve until the area demonstrated attainment of the 
    NAAQS. Upon demonstration of attainment, an area could request 
    redesignation pursuant to section 107(d)(3) of the Act. The EPA has not 
    allowed any area to reclassify based on 1992-1994 monitoring data or 
    any other data sets outside of the data sets used in the November 1991 
    designations and classifications. Furthermore, pursuant to the General 
    Preamble (April 16, 1992, 57 FR 13498), it is appropriate to 
    redesignate any area to attainment based on the most recent consecutive 
    3 years of air quality data demonstrating attainment of the ozone NAAQS 
    if the area satisfies the other redesignation criteria of section 
    107(d)(3)(E) including a demonstration that the improvement
    
    [[Page 31839]]
    
    in air quality was due to permanent and enforceable emission 
    reductions. Since the Grand Rapids area demonstrated attainment of the 
    ozone NAAQS in the period 1992-1994, it is an appropriate period to be 
    used as the basis for redesignation of the area to attainment 
    particularly since the area has also satisfied the other section 
    107(d)(3) redesignation criteria including a reasonable demonstration 
    that of permanent and enforceable emission reductions were the cause of 
    the improvement in air quality in the area. The Grand Rapids area 
    achieved 0.6 and 2.4 tons per day of VOC and NOX emission 
    reductions between 1991 and 1994. In addition, since the Grand Rapids 
    area is the recipient of significant levels of transported ozone, 
    Michigan also attributes the improvement in air quality, in part, to 
    emission reductions achieved throughout the Lake Michigan region.
        The comment regarding Detroit, Michigan is unclear and irrelevant 
    to this rulemaking action.
        Comment: Based on a table comparing number of days with 
    temperatures above 90 degrees and number of monitored exceedances in 
    Chicago, the commentor states that the years for which the Grand Rapids 
    area demonstrated attainment, 1992-1994, fail the requirement that 
    attainment can not be due to ``unusually favorable meteorology'' since 
    that time period represents ``a statistically significant (Chi 
    square=14.6, Alpha=0.005) negative deviation'' from the number of days 
    conducive to formation of ozone or days with temperatures above 90 
    degrees.
        Response: Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) requires that, for the EPA to 
    approve a redesignation, it must determine that the improvement in air 
    quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions. 
    The September 1992 Calcagni memorandum, at page 4, clarifies this 
    requirement by stating that ``[attainment resulting from temporary 
    reductions in emission rates (e.g., reduced production or shutdown due 
    to temporary adverse economic conditions) or unusually favorable 
    meteorology would not qualify as an air quality improvement due to 
    permanent and enforceable emission reductions.'' As discussed in the 
    April 2, 1996 Federal Register notice, the Grand Rapids area has 
    reasonably demonstrated that permanent and enforceable emission 
    reductions are responsible for the recent improvement in air quality. 
    This demonstration was accomplished through an estimate of the 
    reductions (from a nonattainment year, 1991 to an attainment year, 
    1994) of VOC and NOX achieved primarily through implementation of 
    the Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program (FMVCP) from 1991-1994, in 
    line with the September 1992 Calcagni memorandum. The total reductions 
    achieved from 1991 to 1994 were 0.6 tons of VOC and 2.4 tons of 
    NOX per day. The State claimed credit only for emission reductions 
    achieved as a result of implementation of this federally enforceable 
    control measure. The emission reductions claimed are conservative since 
    they do not include the emission reductions resulting from other 
    control measures and programs implemented during this time period, such 
    as the VOC RACT fix-ups and catch-ups. The State, therefore, adequately 
    demonstrated that the improvement in air quality is due to permanent 
    and enforceable emission reductions. Furthermore, the State has always 
    maintained that the Grand Rapids area is significantly affected by 
    ozone transported from the Chicago-Milwaukee-Gary severe-17 ozone 
    nonattainment area. Consequently, emission reductions occurring in 
    these areas are also attributable to the improvement in air quality in 
    the Grand Rapids area.
        With respect to the commentor's contention that meteorological 
    conditions were not conducive to ozone production during the 1992-1994 
    period, the commentor provided an analysis of the number of days with 
    temperatures equal to or greater than 90 degrees Fahrenheit at 
    Chicago's O'Hare airport and the total number of monitored exceedance 
    days from 1981-1995 throughout the Lake Michigan area. Since, the data 
    is not limited to the Grand Rapids area, i.e. the number of 90 degree 
    days in Chicago not Grand Rapids and the number of monitored exceedance 
    days throughout the Lake Michigan area not only Grand Rapids, it would 
    not be accurate to conduct a statistical analysis or draw conclusions 
    pertaining to the Grand Rapids area based on this data, particularly in 
    light of the transport phenomena affecting Grand Rapids. EPA, however, 
    conducted a general statistical analysis of the meteorological 
    parameters in the Grand Rapids area of maximum monthly temperatures and 
    days with temperatures greater than 90 degrees Fahrenheit for the 
    periods of April through September, 1992 through 1994, with the 10-year 
    (1982-1991) averages for these parameters. The 1992-1994 averages for 
    these parameters agreed with those for the 10-year averages with only 
    minor differences. Based on averaged parameters, it can be concluded 
    that the 1992-1994 period was typically conducive to ozone formation. 
    Finally, the EPA notes that the Grand Rapids area has been in 
    attainment for the two 3-year periods (1992-1994, and 1993-1995), and 
    that this, along with the fact that real emission reductions have 
    occurred, indicates that attainment is not due to unusually favorable, 
    temporary meteorological conditions.
        Comment: The commentor contends that the Ottawa County ozone 
    monitoring network is inadequate to permit redesignation. The commentor 
    notes that every monitor located on the eastern shoreline of Lake 
    Michigan recorded a violation of the NAAQS in 1995, and finds it 
    inconceivable that residents of southeastern Ottawa County were not 
    exposed to ozone at levels above the NAAQS. This, the commentor 
    concludes, should compel the EPA to require the State to site a monitor 
    along the lakeshore in Ottawa County. The commentor is particularly 
    concerned that EPA refuses to acknowledge that violations recorded at 
    the Holland monitor, in Allegan County, which it contends, indicates 
    violations of the NAAQS in Ottawa County. The commentor further states 
    that it agrees with Michigan's contention that the Holland monitor ``* 
    * * is representative of the conditions in Ottawa County.''
        Response: As discussed in detail in the April 2, 1996, EPA believes 
    that the monitoring network for the Grand Rapids area satisfies the 
    requirements of 40 CFR part 58, appendix D. Michigan established a 
    number of monitors on the west side of the State for purposes of 
    gathering field data for the Lake Michigan Ozone Study (LMOS) during 
    1989-1991. Based on the field study data, the State decided to locate 
    an ozone monitor in Holland, an urbanized area in Allegan County (just 
    south of Ottawa County). However, at the encouragement of EPA, the 
    State reestablished a monitor in Ottawa County, i.e. the Jenison site, 
    in 1994. This in addition to the two monitors that already exist in 
    Kent County. Thus, an ozone monitor is established in Ottawa County, 
    however, the monitor is not at the lakeshore but inland and represents 
    background ozone concentrations for the Grand Rapids urban area. The 
    EPA has not taken any action to disapprove the network, but continually 
    works with the State to improve the quality of the ambient monitoring 
    network throughout the State. The fact that EPA and the State undertake 
    actions that may result in improvements to the network, does not mean 
    that EPA views the monitoring
    
    [[Page 31840]]
    
    data which shows attainment of the standard in the Grand Rapids area as 
    being inadequate or unreliable. EPA continually reviews monitoring 
    networks to determine how they can be improved. However, the fact that 
    a monitoring network is susceptible to improvement does not mean that 
    the existing network does not meet EPA's regulations, nor does it mean 
    that the data collected from the existing network should be ignored or 
    discounted. EPA believes that the monitoring data fully supports a 
    determination that the Grand Rapids area has attained the standard and 
    is, therefore, eligible for redesignation to attainment. EPA does not 
    believe that there is a basis for discounting the data which shows 
    attainment of the standard.
        EPA further notes that the additional monitor established in Ottawa 
    County as part of the ongoing network improvements did not monitor an 
    exceedance in 1992 when it operated for part of the ozone season, and 
    has monitored only one exceedance since the monitor was reestablished 
    in 1994. While that monitor has yet to be in operation for three full 
    years, those initial results support the finding that the area has 
    attained the standard. As a violation does not occur unless four 
    exceedances occur at a single monitor over a three-year period, the 
    data from the Grand Rapids area support the determination that the area 
    has attained the standard and is, therefore, eligible for 
    redesignation.
        Michigan contends that the Holland monitor ``* * * data is included 
    in this request as representative of levels of transported ozone coming 
    into the area.'' This can be interpreted to mean that the Holland 
    monitor is representative of ozone that is being transported into 
    Ottawa County. However, as explained in the proposal, the Allegan 
    monitor cannot be considered part of the Grand Rapids area since it is 
    outside the two county nonattainment area and the State of Michigan has 
    never formally requested that it be made part of the Grand Rapids 
    area's monitoring network. Furthermore, the Holland monitor is not 
    representative of ozone concentrations resulting from ozone precursor 
    emissions from the Grand Rapids area. The EPA is making its conclusion 
    about the air quality data that has been collected from the valid 
    network that currently exists in the Grand Rapids area.
        Comment: The commentor is concerned about the validity of 
    monitoring data collected at the Jenison monitor, specifically, the 
    commentor alleges that of the years 1992-1994 only the 1994 data set is 
    usable and is supplemented with 1995. In addition, the commentor 
    questions the interpretation of the missing daily ozone value for July 
    14, 1995, from the Ottawa County ozone monitor. The commentor suggests 
    that the missing daily ozone value for July 14, 1995 cannot be assumed 
    to be less than the level of the standard since the maximum ozone 
    concentration on the preceding day exceeded the standard.
        Response: The Jenison monitor is one of three monitors in the Grand 
    Rapids area. The other two monitors have operated in Kent County since 
    1980 and recorded a complete data set for 1992-1994 that demonstrate 
    attainment of the ozone NAAQS consistent with EPA guidance including 
    the September 1992 Calcagni memorandum and January 1979 document 
    entitled ``Guideline for the Interpretation of Ozone Air Quality 
    Standards''. The April 2, 1996 proposal noted that the Jenison monitor 
    operated for 63 percent of the 1992 ozone season with no exceedances of 
    the ozone NAAQS. The monitor was relocated to Holland, as discussed 
    previously, based on the LMOS. However, at the encouragement of EPA, 
    the State reestablished a monitor in Ottawa County, i.e. at Jenison, in 
    1994. Thus, the Jenison monitor has partial 1992 data and complete data 
    for 1994 and 1995. No exceedances of the ozone NAAQS were recorded in 
    1992 and 1994 and one was recorded in 1995 at 0.133 ppm. As noted in 
    the April 2, 1996 proposal, the ``Guideline for the Interpretation of 
    Ozone Air Quality Standards'' suggests that evaluation ozone data 
    requires the use of all ozone data collected at a site during the past 
    3 calendar years. If no data are available for a particular year then 
    the remaining years are used. Since 1992 data is incomplete and 1993 
    data is unavailable for this monitor, it would suffice to use ozone 
    monitoring data for the remaining most recent calendar years, 1992-
    1995. The Ottawa County monitor demonstrates attainment of the ozone 
    NAAQS with the average number of expected exceedances of 0.5, a value 
    less than 1.0.
        It is unclear to EPA why the commentor believes that the missing 
    daily ozone value for July 14, 1995 has been assumed to be less than 
    the level of the standard. AIRS reports consistently show that there 
    were no missing days assumed to be less than the standard for the 
    Ottawa County monitor for 1995. The monitor captured 179 of a potential 
    183 days of monitoring data (98 percent data completeness). The 4 
    missing days (183-179=4) were not assumed to be less than the standard, 
    but rather were accounted for in the calculation of the number of 
    expected exceedances consistent with 40 CFR 51 (appendix H). The four 
    missing days of data included July 14, 1995.
        Comment: The commentor states that Michigan fails to comply with 
    the section 176 conformity requirements and provides discussion to 
    support the comment.
        Response: This specific comment was submitted by the commentor to 
    EPA in response to the EPA's February 2, 1996 (61 FR 3815-3817) direct 
    final rulemaking to approve Michigan's general conformity SIP. As a 
    result the EPA withdrew the direct final rulemaking in an action 
    published on March 25, 1996 (61 FR 12030). This comment is not relevant 
    to redesignation and therefore, will be addressed in the final 
    rulemaking action on Michigan's general conformity SIP. See also the 
    discussion above in the response on conformity requirements as they 
    pertain to redesignation.
        Comment: The commentor states that the Michigan City, Indiana ozone 
    monitor (18-091-0005) in LaPorte County in northeastern Indiana 
    recorded six exceedances during 1995, including daily ozone values of 
    0.154 ppm and 0.149 ppm. The commentor argues that several of the 
    exceedances recorded in the Michigan City area are attributable, in 
    part, to ozone and precursors originating in west Michigan.
        The commentor notes that in response to EPA's June 2, 1995 proposed 
    rulemaking pertaining to the determination of attainment for the Grand 
    Rapids area, they submitted a comment regarding LMOS modeling for June 
    20-21 (Episode 4) which confirms that emissions from western Michigan 
    contribute to exceedances of the ozone NAAQS. The commentor further 
    notes that Episode 4 conditions are ``associated with a lesser, yet 
    significant, number of historical ozone episodes.''
        The commentor suggests that EPA stated that it has an ``affirmative 
    responsibility'' to address transported emissions from upwind areas 
    that significantly contribute to air quality problems in downwind 
    areas. See 60 FR 37368.
        The commentor notes that Michigan only cites LMOS modeling which 
    shows that ozone and ozone precursors are transported into the Grand 
    Rapids area. The commentor is concerned that Michigan refuses to 
    acknowledge LMOS modeling that indicates that ozone and precursor 
    emissions originating from Grand Rapids under certain meteorological 
    conditions which occur with regular frequency, contribute to
    
    [[Page 31841]]
    
    exceedances in downwind areas, including Michigan City, Indiana.
        Response: The EPA has reviewed wind speeds and wind directions in 
    Grand Rapids and Michigan City, Indiana for the 6 days on which 
    exceedances were recorded in Michigan City, Indiana in 1995. The winds 
    on the days at issue in Grand Rapids were predominantly from the south/
    southwest, i.e. into the Grand Rapids area with the exception of June 
    15, 1995, when the winds in Grand Rapids were predominantly from the 
    easterly. The winds in Michigan City on the same days were also 
    predominately from the south/southwest. Since Michigan City, Indiana is 
    south-southwest of the Grand Rapids area, the exceedances on these days 
    in 1995 were clearly not attributable to emissions from the Grand 
    Rapids area but likely from the Chicago-Gary severe-17 nonattainment 
    area.
        The commentor has not clearly indicated what version of the 
    modeling is used as the basis of their comment. It must be emphasized 
    that the version of the LMOS modeling approved for regulatory purposes 
    by EPA on December 15, 1994, for Episode 4 (June 20-21), does not 
    clearly indicate the extent of the contribution of emissions from the 
    Grand Rapids area to exceedances in the Michigan City, Indiana or any 
    other downwind area. Since the extent of Grand Rapids' contribution to 
    exceedances downwind cannot be determined with any degree of certainty 
    given the information currently available, it would be premature for 
    EPA to issue a finding pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(D). The commentor 
    does not provide any additional information that would cause the EPA to 
    determine that the imposition of additional control requirements in the 
    area is warranted at this time. As further information becomes 
    available, however, such a finding may be warranted.
        In light of the preliminary information currently available, EPA 
    does not believe that it would be justifiable to disapprove the 
    redesignation request on the basis of concerns regarding transported 
    emissions. The redesignation does not mean, however, that the Grand 
    Rapids area might not have to achieve additional reductions pursuant to 
    other provisions of the Act if it is determined in the future that such 
    reductions are necessary to deal with transport from the Grand Rapids 
    area to downwind areas. Finally, EPA would note that the issue of 
    transported ozone and ozone precursors is being addressed by EPA 
    through the OTAG which is composed of industry, environmental groups, 
    Federal, State and Local governments from the eastern half of the 
    United States. The Lake Michigan States of Illinois, Indiana, 
    Wisconsin, and Michigan are all participating, at some level, in the 
    OTAG process (Phase I/Phase II attainment demonstrations as provided 
    for in the March 2, 1995 memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant 
    Administrator for Air and Radiation, entitled ``Ozone Attainment 
    Demonstrations''). In addition, Phase II of this analysis will assess 
    the need for regional control strategies and refine local control 
    strategies. Phase II will also provide the States and EPA the 
    opportunity to determine appropriate regional strategies to resolve 
    transport issues including any impacts the Grand Rapids area may have 
    on ozone concentrations in its downwind areas.
        The commentor references the July 20, 1995 final rule regarding the 
    determination of applicability of certain RFP and attainment 
    demonstration requirements to the Grand Rapids area, and claims that 
    EPA stated that it has an ``affirmative responsibility'' to address 
    transported emissions from upwind areas that significantly contribute 
    to air quality problems in downwind areas. EPA was, in fact, responding 
    to a comment from the same commentor regarding the impacts of Grand 
    Rapids on downwind areas. The EPA stated that it has the authority 
    under sections 110(a)(2)(A) and 110(a)(2)(D) of the Act to ensure that 
    the required and necessary reductions are achieved in Grand Rapids, 
    should subsequent modeling become available, such as the modeling that 
    will be available through completion of the Phase II analysis, or any 
    other subsequent modeling data. The EPA acknowledged in that final rule 
    and in the April 2, 1996 proposal to redesignate Grand Rapids that 
    preliminary modeling indicates that western Michigan is the recipient 
    of transported ozone and that the area may also contribute to ozone 
    concentrations in downwind areas. However, the LMOS modeling is being 
    refined and is intertwined with the OTAG Phase I/Phase II process. 
    Indeed, should the Phase II or any other modeling become available that 
    demonstrates that reductions in ozone precursor emissions from the 
    Grand Rapids area are necessary, the EPA has the authority to ensure 
    that these emission reductions are achieved. In summary, currently no 
    technically supportable basis exists for EPA to exercise its 
    responsibility to take appropriate action to seek additional emission 
    reductions in the Grand Rapids area.
        Finally, Michigan submitted LMOS modeling which illustrated ozone 
    and ozone precursor transport into the Grand Rapids area in the context 
    of an overwhelming transport petition. Since Episode 4 models 
    northeasterly wind patterns, it would not be relevant in demonstrating 
    overwhelming transport into the area.
        Comment: The commentor states that the maintenance plan submitted 
    by Michigan is inadequate because Michigan's attainment emission 
    inventory does not comply with EPA requirements and implies that there 
    are insufficient enforceable pollution control measures available to 
    ensure attainment and promptly correct any violations. The commentor 
    appears to be saying that the SIP revision requirements of section 110 
    and part D should initially reduce ozone pollution, and subsequently 
    maintain the improvement in air quality. The commentor also suggest 
    that the emission inventory projections in the maintenance plan 
    underestimate emissions growth in Grand Rapids.
        Response: The commentor does not provide support for the contention 
    that the attainment emission inventory does not comply with EPA 
    requirements. EPA has reviewed Michigan's attainment emission inventory 
    and believes that the inventory, in fact, is sufficient and meets EPA's 
    requirements and guidance regarding emission inventories. With respect 
    to the sufficiency of control measures necessary to ensure attainment 
    and promptly correct a violation, the EPA would note first that 
    Michigan has included inspection and maintenance, Stage II, low Reid 
    Vapor Pressure fuel at 7.8 psi, and VOC RACT for major plastic parts 
    coating, wood furniture coating and industrial clean-up solvents as 
    control measures to be implemented to address a violation not 
    attributable to transport. EPA believes that these control measures are 
    adequate for purposes of contingency measures. The control measures 
    already implemented in the area were obviously sufficient to allow the 
    area to attain the ozone standard. Furthermore, the State has 
    demonstrated that VOC and NOX emissions will continue to decrease 
    from the 1991 atttainment year levels through the 10 year maintenance 
    period.
        EPA agrees with the commentor that emission controls under section 
    110 and part D should reduce ozone pollution and subsequently maintain 
    improvements in air quality. Although Michigan did not claim permanent 
    and enforceable emission reductions credit for emission reductions 
    achieved as a result of implementing section 110 and part D 
    requirements, the State must continue to implement these programs even 
    after redesignation.
    
    [[Page 31842]]
    
        It should be recognized that approval of the redesignation is not 
    expected to result in an increase in ozone precursor emissions. In 
    fact, a decrease in both VOC and NOX emissions from the Grand 
    Rapids area is expected over the 10-year maintenance period. See 61 FR 
    14522, April 2, 1996. It should be noted that redesignation does not 
    allow States to automatically remove control programs which have 
    contributed to an area's attainment of a NAAQS for any pollutant. The 
    EPA's general policy is that a State may not relax the adopted and 
    implemented SIP for an area upon the area's redesignation to 
    attainment, unless an appropriate demonstration, based on modeling 
    12 or adequate justification 13, is approved by the EPA. In 
    this case no previously implemented control strategies are being 
    relaxed as part of this redesignation.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \12\ Such a demonstration must show that removal of a control 
    program will not interfere with maintenance of the ozone NAAQS and 
    would entail submittal of an attainment modeling demonstration with 
    the EPA's current Guideline on Air Quality Models.
        \13\ See September 1992 Calcagni memorandum.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        Further, apart from Title I requirements related to the cessation 
    of the Grand Rapids area's status as an ozone nonattainment area, the 
    area is and will continue to be, required to satisfy all Act 
    requirements. Other control programs required by the Act will be 
    implemented in the area, regardless of the ozone designation, such as 
    Title IV NOX controls, section 112 toxic controls and FMVCP 
    requirements.
        The commentor does not provide any support for its contention that 
    the emissions growth projections in the maintenance plan are 
    underestimated for the Grand Rapids area. The emissions projections in 
    the maintenance plan are based on the 1991 emission inventory developed 
    for the LMOS modeling effort. The projections are based on growth 
    factors extracted from the EPA's Economic Growth Analysis System and 
    supplemental information used in the development of emission 
    projections. Point source growth factors for utilities are based on 
    source specific data provided by the utility companies. Area source 
    growth factors were supplemented with population and gasoline sales/
    marketing data. The stationary source emission estimates (point and 
    area) were developed using the geocoded emissions modeling and 
    projections system (GEMAP) which employs projection methodologies 
    equivalent to those in the EPA's Emissions Projections System. EPA's 
    MOBILE5a model was used to develop the mobile source emission 
    estimates. Therefore, the emission projections methods are consistent 
    with EPA's guidance.
        Comment: The commentor cites two separate provisions of the Act, 
    sections 182(c)(9) and 175A(d) that demand that maintenance plans 
    include ``specific measures to be undertaken if the area fails to meet 
    any applicable milestone. Such measures shall be included in the plan 
    revision as contingency measures to take effect without further action 
    by the State or Administrator upon a failure by the State to meet the 
    applicable milestone.'' Section 182(c)(9). The commentor argues that 
    Michigan's triggering mechanism is patently illegal and unacceptable 
    under the Act.
        The commentor states that the triggering mechanism defeats the 
    meaning and purpose of the ozone standard (40 CFR 50.9) in that the 
    ozone standard does not account for transport, i.e. an area is either 
    in attainment or nonattainment due to observed ozone violations and 
    that the designation and classification are purely a function of 
    observed ozone values and not a function of the origin of ozone.
        The commentor also questions the evaluation criteria utilized by 
    Michigan, calling it ``extremely suspect.''
        Response: Section 182(c)(9) contains the requirements for serious 
    and above areas to adopt contingency measures pertaining to RFP, and is 
    not relevant to this redesignation. Section 175A(d), however, is 
    relevant and states that `` * * * plan revision submitted under this 
    section shall contain such contingency provisions as the Administrator 
    deems necessary to assure that the State will promptly correct any 
    violation of the standard which occurs after the redesignation of the 
    area as an attainment area.'' The mechanism that would trigger the 
    implementation of contingency measures in the Grand Rapids area is ``an 
    actual monitored ozone violation of the NAAQS, as defined in 40 CFR 
    50.9, determined not to be attributable to transport from upwind 
    areas.'' The EPA believes that this triggering mechanism is appropriate 
    for the Grand Rapids area, given the overwhelming evidence 
    demonstrating that the area is the recipient of transported ozone and 
    ozone precursors from the Milwaukee-Chicago-Gary severe-17 
    nonattainment areas. EPA believes that this triggering mechanism 
    satisfies the requirement of section 175A(d), because if a violation is 
    due to transport, then control measures implemented in the Grand Rapids 
    area will not likely correct the violation. Thus, when violations are 
    occurring as a result of transport, an attempt to impose control 
    measures in the Grand Rapids area would be futile. EPA believes that it 
    is implicit in the Act that the purpose of control measures is to 
    achieve attainment.
        Because violations due to transport are not accounted for in the 
    ozone NAAQS at 40 CFR 50.9 does not mean that transport cannot be taken 
    into account for purposes of implementing a control strategy to correct 
    a violation. Although areas are designated and classified based on 
    monitored violations, regardless of their origin, areas redesignated to 
    attainment will be provided an opportunity to implement contingency 
    measures to correct the violation before EPA would exercise its 
    authority to redesignate the area back to nonattainment.
        As part of the contingency plan for the Grand Rapids area, Michigan 
    will conduct a technical analysis of meteorological conditions leading 
    up to and during the exceedances contributing to a violation in order 
    to determine local culpability. The commentor is concerned about the 
    criteria to be used to evaluate transport, although the commentor does 
    not provide any specifics about what criteria they are concerned. 
    Furthermore, EPA notes that any analysis conducted by Michigan to 
    determine local culpability will be subject to a public process. As 
    part of the contingency plan, Michigan has incorporated procedures to 
    involve EPA and afford the public the opportunity to review and 
    participate in the determination of whether transport or local sources 
    are reasonable for a violation.
        Comment: The commentor contends that the only contingency measure 
    actually adopted by Michigan is low RVP to 7.8 psi during the ozone 
    season. The commentor notes that implementation of the I/M program was 
    stayed by the Governor of Michigan on December 29, 1994, and that the 
    Michigan legislature rescinded implementation of the Stage II vapor 
    recovery program once the EPA promulgated its on board canister rule.
        Response: The Grand Rapids moderate ozone nonattainment area was 
    required to adopt and implement a basic I/M program. An enhanced I/M 
    program was adopted by Michigan and fully approved by EPA into the SIP 
    on October 11, 1994 (59 FR 51379), and was to have commenced operation 
    on January 1, 1995. By the end of 1994, the Grand Rapids area had 
    attained the ozone standard and was therefore, eligible for 
    redesignation. The January 5, 1995 (60 FR 1735) revisions to the 
    national I/M rule stipulate that areas
    
    [[Page 31843]]
    
    otherwise eligible for redesignation may submit the following in order 
    to satisfy the I/M component of the SIP: legislative authority for 
    basic I/M; a provision in the SIP providing that I/M be placed in the 
    contingency measure portion of the maintenance plan; and an enforceable 
    schedule and commitment by the Governor or his designee for adoption 
    and implementation of a basic I/M program upon a triggering event. 
    Also, see September 17, 1993 memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting 
    Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, entitled, ``SIP 
    Requirements for Areas Submitting Requests for Redesignation to 
    Attainment of the Ozone, Carbon Monoxide NAAQS on or after November 15, 
    1992,'' 14 memorandum. With this, the Governor stayed the 
    implementation of the I/M program in the Grand Rapids area. The Grand 
    Rapids area, therefore, only needs to satisfy the items noted above. 
    The legislative authority to implement an I/M program is contained in 
    Michigan's Enrolled House Bill No. 4165, which provides that I/M may be 
    implemented as a contingency measure consistent with an area's 
    maintenance plan if it is not necessary for maintenance. The section 
    175A maintenance plan provides for the implementation of I/M as a 
    contingency measure and also provides an enforceable schedule for the 
    implementation of I/M as a contingency measure.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \14\ Hereinafter referred to as the ``September 1993 Shapiro 
    memorandum.''
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        With respect to the commentor's concern regarding the rescission of 
    Stage II, section 10c(3) of Michigan's Enrolled Senate Bill No. 726 for 
    Stage II suspends implementation of the Stage II program once EPA has 
    promulgated the final onboard rule. However, section 10c(3) also 
    retains the authority to implement Stage II as a contingency measure in 
    a maintenance plan for an area redesignated to attainment. Thus, once 
    Grand Rapids is redesignated to attainment, Stage II may be implemented 
    by the State as a contingency measure pursuant to the maintenance plan.
        In conclusion, the State has adopted legislative authority to 
    implement I/M, Stage II and low RVP to 7.8 psi as contingency measures.
        Comment: The commentor notes that the January 24, 1996 letter from 
    Dennis Drake, Chief of the Air Quality Division, Michigan Department of 
    Environmental Quality to Valdas Adamkus, Regional Administrator, Region 
    5, and the State's April 11, 1996 contingency plan SIP revision imply 
    that the VOC non-CTG RACT rules were at least adopted when in fact they 
    were not.
        Response: The January 24, 1996 letter merely notified EPA of the 
    State's intention to revise the Grand Rapids area's maintenance plan to 
    include a commitment to adopt and implement non-CTG VOC RACT rules for 
    major sources of plastic parts coating, wood furniture coating and 
    industrial clean-up solvents as contingency measures for the Grand 
    Rapids area. The actual revision to the maintenance plan SIP, dated 
    April 11, 1996, states that rules to apply non-CTG RACT to major 
    sources of plastic parts coating, wood furniture coating and industrial 
    clean up solvents have been ``drafted.'' The State specifically notes 
    that the promulgation process requires additional steps including 
    ``approval of the proposed rules by the Office of Regulatory Reform, 
    the Legislative Services Bureau, and the Joint Legislative Committee on 
    Administrative Rules.'' The State clearly indicated that the rules are 
    draft and additional steps are necessary for promulgation. Furthermore, 
    EPA explained in the April 2, 1996 proposal that the contingency 
    measure for this element is that the State would commit to adopt and 
    implement non-CTG VOC RACT rules for the three source categories noted 
    previously.
        Comment: The commentor suggests that the State's failure to adopt 
    and implement the VOC non-CTG RACT rules in accordance with section 
    182(b)(2)(A) of the Act violates the sections 110 and 107(d)(3)(E)(v) 
    requirements. Section 107(d)(3)(E) requires the State to adopt a 
    complete part D nonattainment plan, which these non-CTG VOC RACT rules 
    are part of, prior to redesignation.
        Response: In the April 2, 1996 proposal, the EPA acknowledges that 
    the section 182(b)(2)(A) requirement for non-CTG VOC RACT rules is an 
    applicable requirement and that current EPA redesignation policy 
    requires that these rules be fully adopted, and if not necessary for 
    maintenance of the NAAQS, be moved to the contingency plan portion of 
    the maintenance plan. However, the EPA, in this instance, proposed an 
    exception to this policy based on a combination of three factors as 
    previously discussed. The commentor, however, has not provided comments 
    specific to the rationale used as the basis of the exception.
        EPA emphasizes that, even without this exception to its general 
    policy, the State would have been able to have the RACT rules become a 
    part of the contingency measures in the maintenance plan upon approval 
    of the redesignation. However, that could have occurred only after or 
    upon EPA's full approval of the adopted RACT rules. Therefore, the only 
    difference between EPA's general policy and the exception to that 
    policy proposed for Grand Rapids is that a commitment to adopt and 
    implement the RACT rules in an expeditious manner, rather than fully-
    adopted RACT rules, would be among the contingency measures in the 
    maintenance plan. As previously discussed, the EPA believes that this 
    exception to its general policy is legally permissible under the 
    statutory provisions governing redesignation. The VOC RACT requirements 
    remain applicable requirements under section 107 and EPA believes that 
    their treatment in the contingency plan as commitments is consistent 
    with the manner in which EPA has accepted other commitments to adopt 
    and implement contingency measures in maintenance plans under section 
    175A.
        Comment: The commentor states that the contingency measures 
    provided for in the maintenance plan are inadequate and illusory. The 
    commentor further elaborates that none of the contingency measures are 
    adopted with the necessary legislative authority or described with 
    sufficient specificity, nor do they include milestones to insure prompt 
    implementation as required by section 175A(d) or EPA guidance.
        Response: Contrary to the commentor's statement, legislative 
    authority is adopted for three of the contingency measures, I/M, Stage 
    II and low RVP to 7.8 psi. Further, the State has submitted an 
    enforceable commitment to implement the three non-CTG VOC RACT rules. 
    Neither the Act nor redesignation guidance require milestones to track 
    the State's compliance with adoption and implementation of contingency 
    measures. The September 1992 Calcagni memorandum suggests that the 
    contingency plan identify the contingency measure to be adopted, 
    provide a schedule and procedure for adoption and implementation, and 
    provide a specific time limit for action by the State. The Grand Rapids 
    area's contingency plan identifies the measure to be adopted, provides 
    a procedure for adoption of the non-CTG VOC RACT rules (``promulgation 
    involves * * * additional steps * * * approval of the proposed rules by 
    the Office of Regulatory Reform, the Legislative Services Bureau * * * 
    '' See April 11, 1996, SIP revision) and provides a schedule for 
    implementation (e.g. 20 months from the Governor's decision to employ 
    these rules as contingency measures). It is noted that the critical 
    component of this schedule is not the
    
    [[Page 31844]]
    
    State's internal schedule for adoption of the rule(s) but the schedule 
    for full implementation.
        It is further noted that the contingency measure implementation 
    schedules for the Grand Rapids area were derived from the Act, and 
    applicable State and Federal regulations. The schedule established for 
    the implementation of contingency measures provides for the 
    implementation of such measures as soon as within 1 year of a violation 
    15. The EPA believes that this schedule satisfies the criterion of 
    section 175A regarding the need for contingency measures to promptly 
    correct violations of the standard occurring during the maintenance 
    period.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \15\ Phased in implementation of Stage II commences within 6 
    months of the Governor's decision to employ Stage II or one year of 
    a monitored violation.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        Comment: The commentor states that EPA guidance requires that a 
    maintenance plan ``ensure prompt correction of any violation of the 
    NAAQS.'' Yet the Grand Rapids maintenance plan SIP revision of April 
    11, 1996 allows implementation of the non-CTG RACT rules within 26 
    months of an ozone violation. The commentor is concerned that 26 months 
    for implementation of the non-CTG VOC RACT rules does not ensure prompt 
    correction of a violation. In addition, the maintenance plan lacks 
    adequate milestones to track the State's compliance.
        Response: The 26-month schedule to implement the non-CTG VOC RACT 
    rules takes into account 6 months to quality assure the monitoring data 
    indicating a violation of the ozone NAAQS, conduct an analysis to 
    determine local culpability with respect to a violation, and to afford 
    the public an opportunity to participate in the determination of local 
    culpability, 8 months for full adoption of any of the non-CTG RACT 
    rule(s) chosen as a contingency measure, and 12 months for full 
    implementation.16 The EPA believes that this is an expeditious 
    schedule for adoption and implementation of these rules.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \16\ See March 16, 1989 memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, 
    Air Quality Management Division and John Seitz, Director, Stationary 
    Source Compliance Division entitled ``Compliance Schedules for 
    Volatile Organic Compounds.'' This memorandum clarifies that the 
    ``presumptive norm'' for source compliance with a new or revised 
    rule is recommended to be 1 year or less.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        Furthermore, neither the Act nor redesignation guidance requires 
    milestones to track the State's compliance with adoption and 
    implementation of contingency measures. The September 1992 Calcagni 
    memorandum suggests that the contingency plan identify the contingency 
    measure to be adopted, provide a schedule and procedure for adoption 
    and implementation, and provide a specific time limit for action by the 
    State. The Grand Rapids area's contingency plan identifies the measure 
    to be adopted, provides a procedure for adoption of the non-CTG VOC 
    RACT rules (``promulgation involves * * * additional steps * * * 
    approval of the proposed rules by the Office of Regulatory Reform, the 
    Legislative Services Bureau * * * '' See April 11, 1996, SIP revision) 
    and provides a schedule for implementation (e.g. 20 months from the 
    Governor's decision to employ these rules as contingency measures). The 
    critical component of this schedule is not the State's internal 
    schedule for adoption of the rule(s) but the schedule for full 
    implementation.
        Finally, there are other more effective contingency measures than 
    the non-CTG VOC RACT rules that could be implemented more expeditiously 
    such as Stage II and low RVP gasoline (to 7.8 psi).
        Comment: The commentor states that allowing the State to commit to 
    subsequent adoption of the three required VOC non-CTG RACT rules as 
    contingency measures is ``extraordinary and prohibited * * * 
    preferential treatment'' for Michigan and is inconsistent with EPA 
    guidance and recent actions on other moderate area redesignation 
    requests. The commentor believes that such preferential treatment 
    rewards the State for its failure to satisfy Act requirements. This is 
    particularly so, since the EPA penalized adjacent States that did not 
    adopt and implement these non-CTG VOC RACT rules and other control 
    measures. Preferential treatment is ``illegal'' and undermines the 
    cooperation of other States implementing future control measures to 
    reduce ozone and ozone precursor emissions and other efforts such as 
    LMOS and OTAG. The commentor further states that the EPA's preferential 
    treatment is especially evident in its allowing Michigan to determine 
    the need for implementation of contingency measures based on parameters 
    developed by Michigan.
        Response: EPA again notes that, even without the exception to its 
    general policy proposed in the April 2, 1996 rulemaking, the State 
    would have been able to have the RACT rules become a part of the 
    contingency measures in the maintenance plan upon approval of the 
    redesignation. However, that could have occurred only after or upon 
    EPA's full approval of the adopted RACT rules. Consequently, the only 
    difference between EPA's general policy and the exception to that 
    policy described in the proposal is that a commitment to adopt and 
    implement the RACT rules in an expeditious manner, rather than fully-
    adopted RACT rules, would be among the contingency measures in the 
    maintenance plan. EPA would also note that, in general, contingency 
    measures need not be fully adopted. See September 1992 Calcagni 
    memorandum. Thus, EPA is acknowledging that allowing Michigan to 
    incorporate these non-CTG VOC RACT measures into the contingency plan 
    without fully adopted rule is an exception to policy. The commentor, 
    however, has not provided any basis to dispute the rationale for this 
    exception and factors presented in the April 2, 1996 proposal.
        The EPA disagrees with the commentor's contention that EPA is 
    affording Michigan ``preferential treatment.'' EPA guidance and 
    policies have been, or can be, applied to all areas, including Grand 
    Rapids, in an equitable manner. EPA periodically will make an exception 
    to policy where an exception is warranted and appropriate. Allowing an 
    exception to policy for a particular area does not constitute 
    preferential treatment for that area but instead is a neutral 
    determination that is available to other areas that could also 
    demonstrate circumstances that would warrant the same exception. This 
    is the first instance that the issue of full adoption of these 
    particular non-CTG VOC RACT rules has arisen in the context of 
    redesignation. As such, it is in this action that the exception to 
    policy is being exercised.
        The commentor does not cite any instances, nor is EPA aware of any 
    instances, where EPA penalized an adjacent State that did not adopt and 
    implement these non-CTG VOC RACT rules. The commentor does not specify 
    the ``other control measures'' referred to.
        In addition, with respect to the Grand Rapids maintenance plan, 
    Michigan has incorporated a process not only to involve the EPA but to 
    afford the public an opportunity to participate in the process to 
    determine the necessity to select and implement contingency measures 
    based on a technical analysis to determine local culpability. Thus, 
    although Michigan will be conducting the analysis an opportunity for 
    the public review and participate will be provided.
        Comment: The commentor states that the non-CTG VOC RACT rules 
    should have been adopted and implemented by November 15, 1994. The 
    commentor also notes that neither Michigan nor EPA acknowledges this. 
    The commentor adds that EPA has failed to enforce
    
    [[Page 31845]]
    
    sections 182(b)(2)(A) at that time and is failing to enforce section 
    175A of the Act, now.
        Response: Although EPA's general redesignation policy requires that 
    rules and programs for requirements that come due prior to submittal of 
    a complete redesignation request be adopted and fully approved into the 
    area's SIP, it also allows for these measures to be moved into the 
    area's maintenance plan as contingency measures if they are not yet 
    implemented and not necessary for maintenance of the standard. 
    September 1993 Shapiro memorandum. Thus, the non-CTG VOC RACT rules 
    should have been adopted but not necessarily implemented. The rules 
    would have been moved over into the area's maintenance plan since they 
    were not needed for maintenance.
        The April 2, 1996 proposal to approve the Grand Rapids 
    redesignation does, in fact, acknowledge that the non-CTG VOC RACT 
    rules were required to be submitted to EPA by November 15, 1994 and 
    implemented by November 15, 1995. See 61 FR 14526. The State's April 
    11, 1996 submittal also acknowledges that these rules were due on 
    November 15, 1994.
        For the reasons explained above, however, EPA believes that its 
    treatment of these rules in this redesignation is justifiable and 
    appropriate.
        Comment: The commentor is concerned that Michigan's contingency 
    plan lacks milestones and is inconsistent with the specificity that the 
    EPA required of contingency plans in other areas such as the Toledo, 
    Ohio contingency plan, which included a number of milestones to gauge 
    the State's progress.
        Response: Neither the Act nor redesignation guidance require 
    milestones to track the State's compliance with adoption and 
    implementation of contingency measures. The September 1992 Calcagni 
    memorandum suggests that the contingency plan identify the contingency 
    measure to be adopted, provide a schedule and procedure for adoption 
    and implementation, and provide a specific time limit for action by the 
    State. The Grand Rapids area's contingency plan identifies the measure 
    to be adopted, provides a procedure for adoption of the non-CTG VOC 
    RACT rules (``promulgation involves * * * additional steps * * * 
    approval of the proposed rules by the Office of Regulatory Reform, the 
    Legislative Services Bureau * * * '' See April 11, 1996, SIP revision) 
    and provides a schedule for implementation (e.g. 20 months from the 
    Governor's decision to employ these rules as contingency measures). The 
    critical component of this schedule is not the State's internal 
    schedule for adoption of the rule(s), but the schedule for full 
    implementation.
        Comment: The commentor is concerned that the schedule for 
    implementation of the non-CTG VOC RACT rules for the three source 
    categories identified would not ``promptly correct any violation of the 
    standard'' since it allows over 2 years after an ozone violation before 
    adopting and implementing a selected contingency measure.
        Response: As noted previously, the 26-month schedule to implement 
    the non-CTG VOC RACT rules takes into account: 6 months to quality 
    assure the monitoring data indicating a violation of the ozone NAAQS, 
    conduct an analysis to determine local culpability with respect to the 
    violation, and afford the public an opportunity to participate in the 
    determination of local culpability; 8 months for full adoption of any 
    of the non-CTG RACT rule(s) chosen as a contingency measure; and 12 
    months for full implementation. The EPA believes that this is an 
    adequate and expeditious schedule for adoption and implementation of 
    these rules. In addition, the contingency plan contains other measures 
    that provide for implementation of a measure as soon as within 1 year 
    of a violation.17
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \17\ See footnote 15.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        Comment: The commentor suggests that the September 1992 Calcagni 
    memorandum requires States to implement all the control measures prior 
    to redesignation but that a revision to the SIP to remove measures may 
    be submitted. The commentor interprets this to mean that the State must 
    have adopted and implemented the ``applicable control measures'' in the 
    area. The commentor notes that Michigan did not adopt and implement the 
    non-CTG VOC RACT rules for plastic parts coating, wood furniture 
    coating and clean-up solvents as required by section 182(b)(2)(A). In 
    addition, Michigan did not adopt rules for non-CTG source categories 
    which it deemed unnecessary due to the absence of existing sources.
        Response: The September 1992 Calcagni memorandum interprets section 
    175A(d) as requiring the continued implementation of all measures 
    contained in the area's part D nonattainment plan and that removal of 
    these implemented measures would require a demonstration that the 
    measures are not necessary for attainment or maintenance. In addition, 
    once removed those measures are required to be incorporated into the 
    area's contingency plan as contingency measures. The non-CTG VOC RACT 
    rules, however, were not adopted by the State or approved by EPA into 
    the area's part D nonattainment SIP. As such, the non-CTG VOC RACT 
    rules were not required to be implemented as a prerequisite for 
    redesignation since they were not incorporated into the part D 
    nonattainment SIP. Furthermore, EPA's general redesignation policy does 
    not require the implementation of all measures that were applicable to 
    the area instead, it allows unimplemented measures to be moved into an 
    area's maintenance plan as contingency measures if they are not 
    necessary for maintenance. See Detroit redesignation with respect to 
    Stage I (March 7, 1995, 60 FR 12459).
        It is unclear to EPA why the commentor would be concerned that the 
    State did not adopt rules applicable to sources which do not exist in 
    the State. Appendix E of the supplement to the General Preamble (April 
    28, 1992, 57 FR 18070) stipulated that the States submit a list of 
    major stationary sources that are expected to be subject to one of the 
    11 source categories for which EPA was to issue a CTG. Michigan 
    submitted such a list on November 15, 1992. States have not been 
    required to adopt rules for non-CTG source categories for which no 
    sources exist in the State.
        Comment: The commentor states that EPA noted to Michigan, in its 
    preliminary review of the Grand Rapids area's redesignation request, 
    that adopted rules for the applicable source categories in Appendix E 
    should be submitted. In response, the State committed to adopt these 
    non-CTG VOC RACT rules as contingency measures should they be chosen as 
    contingency measures. The commentor believes this is an ``inadequate 
    and unacceptable substitute'' for adoption and implementation of these 
    rules.
        Response: EPA's comments merely represented a preliminary review of 
    the State's redesignation request. As discussed in the April 2, 1996 
    proposal, current EPA policy, in fact, would require the State to have 
    submitted adopted non-CTG VOC RACT rules for the 3 source categories at 
    issue before the area could be redesignated to attainment. As discussed 
    previously, however, EPA proposed to make an exception to policy in 
    this instance for several reasons, including the fact that the RACT 
    rules at issue came due after the end of the ozone season in which 
    Grand Rapids attained the standard and were not needed to bring about 
    attainment of the ozone standard in Grand Rapids. In addition, the 
    State has
    
    [[Page 31846]]
    
    demonstrated continued maintenance of the ozone standard through 2007 
    without the implementation of these measures and other contingency 
    measures are included in the maintenance plan that would bring about 
    far greater emission reductions than the VOC RACT rules, and would 
    therefore be substantially more effective in terms of correcting 
    violations attributable to local emissions from the Grand Rapids area 
    that may occur after redesignation. Again, the commentor does not 
    challenge the rational used to make the exception to policy pertaining 
    to the non-CTG RACT rules.
        EPA's general redesignation policy requires that rules and programs 
    for requirements that come due prior to submittal of a complete 
    redesignation request be adopted and fully approved into the area's 
    SIP. The policy also allows for these measures to be moved into the 
    area's maintenance plan as contingency measures if they are not 
    necessary for maintenance of the standard. September 1993 Shapiro 
    memorandum. Thus, the non-CTG VOC RACT rules should have been adopted 
    but may have been moved over into the area's maintenance plan, if the 
    area demonstrated that the measure(s) was not necessary for 
    maintenance.
        Comment: The commentor submits that the EPA is prohibited from 
    accepting commitments by a State to adopt and implement contingency 
    measures in place of fully adopted and implemented rules as required 
    for SIP revisions pursuant to section 110(k)(4). Natural Resources 
    Defense Counsel (NRDC) v. U.S. EPA.
        Response: EPA does not believe that the D.C. Circuit's decision in 
    NRDC v. U.S. EPA, 22 F.3d 1125 (D.C. Cir. 1994) concerning the use of 
    commitments under section 110(k)(4) prohibits EPA from fully approving 
    commitments by a State to adopt and implement contingency measures in a 
    section 175A maintenance plan. The NRDC decision concerned the use of 
    the section 110(k)(4) conditional approval mechanism, which 
    contemplates the conversion of a conditional approval to a disapproval 
    if a State fails to comply with a commitment to adopt specific 
    enforceable measures by a date certain, which may be no later than one 
    year after the conditional approval. In contrast, the commitments 
    regarding contingency measures in a section 175A maintenance plan 
    become enforceable commitments once they are fully-approved into the 
    maintenance plan. As these commitments are fully approved into the SIP, 
    they, like other provisions of a fully-approved plan, are enforceable 
    pursuant to the provisions of the Act. See September 1992 Calcagni 
    memorandum at p. 12 (stating that ``the contingency plan is considered 
    to be an enforceable part of the SIP''). EPA notes that it has not 
    relied on the section 110(k)(4) conditional approval mechanism for 
    dealing with commitments regarding maintenance plan contingency 
    measures either before or after the NRDC decision, but has consistently 
    fully-approved such commitments, thereby making them an enforceable 
    part of the SIP. In sum, EPA does not believe that its authority to 
    accept such commitments was affected by the NRDC decision.
        Comment: The commentor cites the September 1992 Calcagni memorandum 
    which provides that, ``for purposes of section 175A, a State is not 
    required to have fully adopted contingency measures that will take 
    effect without further action by the State in order for the maintenance 
    plan to be approved,'' and interprets this language to imply that 
    contingency measures need not be self-executing and provides the State 
    discretion in selection of a contingency measure from a host of 
    ``adopted contingency measures.''
        Response: The September 1992 Calcagni memorandum citation noted by 
    the commentor is valid. However, the September 1992 Calcagni memorandum 
    goes on to say in the next sentences that ``the contingency plan * * * 
    should ensure that the contingency measures are adopted expediently 
    once they are triggered.'' Clearly, this indicates that contingency 
    measures need not be fully adopted since the contingency plan should 
    ensure expeditious adoption of contingency measures.
        Comment: The commentor is concerned that the State did not 
    implement an enhanced I/M program as scheduled in December 1994 and 
    that the State has partially rescinded the legal authority for the I/M 
    program.
        Response:The Grand Rapids moderate ozone nonattainment area was 
    required to adopt and implement a basic I/M program. An enhanced I/M 
    program was adopted by Michigan and fully approved by EPA into the SIP 
    on October 11, 1994 (59 FR 51379) and was to have commenced 
    implementation on January 1, 1995. By the end of 1994, the Grand Rapids 
    area had attained the ozone standard and therefore, was eligible for 
    redesignation. The January 5, 1995 (60 FR 1735) revisions to the 
    national I/M rule stipulate that areas otherwise eligible for 
    redesignation, may submit the following in order to satisfy the I/M 
    component of the SIP: legislative authority for basic I/M; a provision 
    in the SIP providing that I/M be placed in the contingency measure 
    portion of the maintenance plan; and an enforceable schedule and 
    commitment by the Governor or his designee for adoption and 
    implementation of a basic I/M program upon a triggering event. Also, 
    see September 1993 Shapiro memorandum. With this, the Governor stayed 
    the implementation of the I/M program in the Grand Rapids area. In 
    order to satisfy the I/M component of the SIP, therefore, the State 
    needs to satisfy only the items noted above. The legislative authority 
    to implement an I/M program is contained in Michigan's Enrolled House 
    Bill No. 4165 which provides that I/M may be implemented as a 
    contingency measure consistent with an area's maintenance plan if it is 
    not necessary for maintenance. The 175A maintenance plan provides for 
    the implementation of I/M as a contingency measure, and also provides 
    an enforceable schedule for the implementation of I/M as a contingency 
    measure.
        Finally, EPA is not aware of any revocation of the legal authority 
    of the I/M program. In fact, discussions with the State verified that 
    Michigan's Enrolled House Bill No. 4165 has not been revoked or 
    repealed but is still valid.
        Comment:The commentor conducted an analysis of 1995 ambient 
    monitoring data and concluded that the emissions from the Grand Rapids 
    area produces tropospheric ozone. Adoption and implementation of the 
    non-CTG VOC RACT rules for plastic parts coating, wood furniture 
    coating and industrial clean-up solvents would have achieved 
    considerable, cost-effective reduction in local VOC emissions as well 
    as lessened the exposure of the community to toxic air pollutants. The 
    commentor states that, if EPA had enforced part D nonattainment plan 
    requirements for the Grand Rapids area, significant VOC emission 
    reductions would have occurred.
        Response: The EPA does not dispute the commentor's contention that 
    ozone and ozone precursor emissions from the Grand Rapids urbanized 
    area contribute to the formation of ozone nor that implementation of 
    the non-CTG VOC RACT rules for the three source categories would have 
    achieved reductions in local VOC emissions. Based on the current ozone 
    standard, 0.12 ppm, however, the Grand Rapids area has demonstrated 
    attainment of the current ozone NAAQS in the three year period 1992-
    1994 and continues to demonstrate attainment for the period 1993-1995 
    even without the implementation of these rules.
        With respect to the EPA's enforcement of part D nonattainment
    
    [[Page 31847]]
    
    plan requirements, EPA's general redesignation policy provides that 
    part D nonattainment plan requirements that have been adopted but 
    unimplemented may be moved into the area's maintenance plan as 
    contingency measures if the area demonstrates that these rules are not 
    necessary for maintenance of the ozone NAAQS. Even if EPA had made a 
    finding of failure to submit after the State of Michigan's failure to 
    submit the non-CTG VOC RACT rules at issue, there is no assurance that 
    those rules would have been adopted and implemented prior to 
    redesignation of the Grand Rapids area. Assuming that the State of 
    Michigan would have adopted and submitted such rules to EPA after a 
    finding of failure to submit, such rules would not have had to have 
    been implemented prior to this redesignation. Indeed, as explained 
    above, since maintenance of the standard has been demonstrated in the 
    Grand Rapids area without such rules, the State would probably have 
    simply included such rules on the list of contingency measures in the 
    maintenance plan and not implemented them prior to the redesignation. 
    In sum, no environmental benefit, and no reduction of emissions would 
    have been realized by EPA's enforcement of section 182(b)(2)(A) in this 
    case.
        The commentor's calculations of emission reductions resulting from 
    the implementation of non-CTG VOC RACT in the plastic parts, wood 
    furniture and industrial clean up solvents are somewhat unclear and 
    inaccurate. However, the EPA agrees with the commentor's assumption 
    that in the calculations to determine the emissions on a tons per day 
    basis from a tons per year basis, the tons per year figure should be 
    divided by 365 days. Since the tons per year figures were based on a 
    theoretical emission value, assuming the facilities are operating 365 
    days per year, dividing by 365 is more accurate and appropriate than 
    dividing by 250. In its original calculations, the EPA erroneously 
    divided by 250 days assuming that the tons per year figure was based on 
    actual emissions and the facilities only operated on weekdays and not 
    on weekends or holidays.
        The commentor references two documents as the basis of its 
    calculations, the ``Lake Michigan Ozone Control Program Evaluation of 
    Possible Control Measures: Control of Surface Coating of Plastic Parts; 
    Control of Emissions from Wood Furniture Coating [VOC], Evaluation of 
    Possible Control Measures for Solvent Metal Cleaning,'' developed 
    through the Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium, April 16,
    1993 \18\ and ``Meeting the 15-Percent Rate-of-Progress Requirement 
    Under the Clean Air Act: A Menu of Options,'' from STAPPA/ALAPCO, 
    September 1993.\19\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \18\ Hereinafter referred to as ``LADCO document.''
        \19\ Hereinafter referred to as ``STAPPA/ALAPCO document.''
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        In calculating potential emission reductions for the plastic parts 
    coating source category, EPA believes that the commentor assumed a 95 
    percent reduction in emissions. This value appears to be based on the 
    LADCO document, which estimates a potential 40-95 percent emission 
    reduction depending on the level of control applied to the source 
    category. The 95 percent reduction assumes that these sources are 
    uncontrolled and that the State's rule would require the most stringent 
    of three control options that represent RACT. Since Michigan has a rule 
    applicable to plastic parts coating sources, the emission reductions 
    would be far less than the 95 percent assumed by the commentor. In 
    fact, according to Michigan's calculations, a non-CTG VOC RACT rule 
    would achieve, approximately, an additional 7 percent reduction to the 
    reductions already achieved by Michigan's Rule 632. The 7 percent 
    reduction represents the additional reductions that would be achieved 
    from the level of controls required by Michigan's current Rule 632 and 
    a level of RACT between the first and second control options available 
    in the draft CTG for this source category.
        With respect to the wood furniture source category, the commentor 
    assumed a 70 percent emission reduction. It appears that this value, 
    again, was based on the LADCO document, which estimates a 50-70 percent 
    emission reduction in the wood furniture coating source category. In 
    its calculation of the emission reductions for this source category, 
    EPA assumed a 30 percent emission reduction. This was based on an 
    emission reduction estimate from the non-CTG document ``Control of 
    Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Wood Furniture Manufacturing 
    Operations,'' September 7, 1995. Furthermore, the STAPPA/ALAPCO 
    document referred to by the commentor also estimates an emission 
    reduction of approximately 36 percent. While EPA's assumption is not as 
    optimistic as that assumed by the commentor, EPA believes that the 30 
    percent emission reduction is a reasonable assumption based on EPA 
    guidance and documentation, which estimates a range of reductions 
    between 20 and 47 percent depending on the process being controlled. 
    Furthermore, even if the optimistic 70 percent emission reduction is 
    assumed, emission reductions from the implementation of I/M or low RVP 
    (to 7.8 psi), at various time intervals, would achieve greater 
    reductions than the plastic parts coating, wood furniture coating and 
    industrial clean-up solvents in aggregate. In addition, emission 
    reductions from the implementation of I/M, low RVP or Stage II would 
    bring about far greater reductions than any of these non-CTG VOC RACT 
    rules individually, even with the 70 percent emission reduction assumed 
    by the commentor.
        The commentor appears to be assuming a 15 percent emission 
    reduction for the industrial clean-up solvents source category. The EPA 
    based its calculations on an assumption of 25 percent reduction. Since 
    the basis of the 15 percent assumption is unclear and EPA assumed a 
    higher percentage emission reduction than did the commentor, this does 
    not appear to be an issue of contention.
        Consequently, EPA's conclusion that the other, more effective 
    contingency measures, should and would be implemented first even if 
    these RACT rules were to be fully adopted prior to redesignation, is 
    not affected.
    
    III. Final Rulemaking Action
    
        The EPA approves the redesignation of the Grand Rapids, Michigan 
    ozone area to attainment and the section 175A maintenance plan as a 
    revision to the Michigan SIP. The State of Michigan has satisfied all 
    of the necessary requirements of the Act.
        EPA finds that there is good cause for this redesignation to 
    attainment, and SIP revision to become effective immediately upon 
    publication because a delayed effective date is unnecessary due to the 
    nature of a redesignation to attainment which relieves the area from 
    certain Clean Air Act requirements that would other wise apply to it. 
    The immediate effective date for this redesignation is authorized under 
    both 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1), which provides that rulemaking actions may 
    become effective less than 30 days after publication if the rule 
    ``grants or recognizes an exemption or relieves a restriction'' and 
    section 553(d)(3), which allows an effective date less than 30 days 
    after publication ``as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause 
    found and published with the rule.''
        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 any SIP shall be 
    considered separately in light of specific
    
    [[Page 31848]]
    
    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 final 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 EPA approved plan cannot be 
    made unless a revised plan for attainment and maintenance is submitted 
    to and approved by EPA. 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.
        This action has been classified as a Table 3 action by the Regional 
    Administrator under the procedures published in the Federal Register on 
    January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by a July 10, 1995, 
    memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and 
    Radiation. The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this 
    regulatory action from Executive Order 12866 review.
        Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA 
    must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of 
    any proposed or final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604. 
    Alternatively, EPA may certify that the rule will not have a 
    significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
    Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit 
    enterprises, and government entities with jurisdiction over populations 
    of less than 50,000. This determination does not create any new 
    requirements, but suspends the indicated requirements. Therefore, 
    because this action does not impose any new requirements, I certify 
    that it does not have a significant impact on small entities affected.
        The EPA has determined that today's final action does not include a 
    Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or 
    more to either State, local or tribal governments in the aggregate, or 
    to the private sector. This Federal action imposes no new Federal 
    requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or 
    tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.
        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 EPA to base its actions 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 
    7401(a)(2).
        Under section 801(a)(1)(A) of the APA as amended by the Small 
    Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, EPA submitted a 
    report constraining this rule and other required information to the 
    U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representative and the Comptroller 
    General of the General Accounting Office prior to publication of the 
    rule in today's Federal Register. This rule is not a ``major rule'' as 
    defined by section 804(2) of the APA as amended.
        Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
    (``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, the EPA 
    must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or 
    final rulemaking that includes a Federal mandate that may result in 
    estimated costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the 
    aggregate; or to the private sector, of $100 million or more. Section 
    203 requires the EPA to establish a plan for informing and advising any 
    small governments that may be significantly or uniquely impacted by the 
    rule. Under section 205, the EPA must select the most cost-effective 
    and least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the 
    rule and is consistent with statutory requirements.
        Redesignation of an area to attainment under section 107(d)(3)(E) 
    of the 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 regulatory requirements on sources. The 
    Administrator certifies that the approval of the redesignation request 
    will not affect a substantial number of small entities.
        Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act, petitions for judicial review 
    of this final action must be filed in the United States Court of 
    Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 20, 1996. Filing a 
    petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule 
    does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial 
    review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial 
    review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such 
    rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings 
    to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).
    
    List of Subjects
    
    40 CFR Part 52
    
        Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 
    Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, 
    Volatile organic compounds, Motor vehicle pollution, and reporting and 
    record keeping requirements.
    
    40 CFR Part 81
    
        Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 
    National parks, Wilderness areas, Hydrocarbons, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, 
    and Volatile organic compounds.
    
        Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
    
        Dated: June 17, 1996.
    David A. Ullrich,
    Acting Regional Administrator.
    
        Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is 
    amended as follows:
    
    PART 52--[AMENDED]
    
    Subpart X--Michigan
    
        1. The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as follows:
    
        Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
    
        2. Section 52.1170 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(106) to read 
    as follows:
    
    
    Sec. 52.1170   Identification of plan.
    
    * * * * *
        (c) * * *
        (106) On March 9, 1995, the State of Michigan submitted as a 
    revision to the Michigan State Implementation Plan for ozone a State 
    Implementation Plan for a section 175A maintenance plan for the Grand 
    Rapids area as part of Michigan's request to redesignate the area from 
    moderate nonattainment to attainment for ozone. Elements of the section 
    175A maintenance plan include an attainment emission inventory for 
    NOX and VOC, a demonstration of maintenance of the ozone NAAQS 
    with projected emission inventories to the year 2007 for NOX and 
    VOC, a plan to verify continued attainment, a contingency plan, and a 
    commitment to submit a subsequent maintenance plan revision in 8 years 
    as required by the Clean Air Act. If a violation of the ozone NAAQS,
    
    [[Page 31849]]
    
    determined not to be attributable to transport from upwind areas, is 
    monitored, Michigan will implement one or more appropriate contingency 
    measure(s) contained in the contingency plan. Once a violation of the 
    ozone NAAQS is recorded, the State will notify EPA, review the data for 
    quality assurance, and conduct a technical analysis, including an 
    analysis of meteorological conditions leading up to and during the 
    exceedances contributing to the violation, to determine local 
    culpability. This preliminary analysis will be submitted to EPA and 
    subjected to public review and comment. The State will solicit and 
    consider EPA's technical advice and analysis before making a final 
    determination on the cause of the violation. The Governor or his 
    designee will select the contingency measure(s) to be implemented 
    within six months of a monitored violation attributable to ozone and 
    ozone precursors from the Grand Rapids area. The menu of contingency 
    measures includes a motor vehicle inspection and maintenance program, 
    Stage II vapor recovery, gasoline RVP reduction to 7.8 psi, RACT on 
    major non-CTG VOC sources in the categories of coating of plastics, 
    coating of wood furniture, and industrial cleaning solvents. Michigan 
    submitted legislation or rules for I/M in House Bill No 4165, signed by 
    Governor John Engler on November 13, 1993; Stage II in Senate Bill 726 
    signed by Governor John Engler on November 13, 1993; and RVP reduction 
    to 7.8 psi in House Bill 4898 signed by Governor John Engler on 
    November 13, 1993.
        (i) Incorporation by reference.
        (A) State of Michigan House Bill No. 4165 signed by the Governor 
    and effective on November 13, 1993.
        (B) State of Michigan Senate Bill 726 signed by the Governor and 
    effective on November 13, 1993.
        (C) State of Michigan House Bill No. 4898 signed by the Governor 
    and effective on November 13, 1993.
        2. Section 52.1174 is amended by adding paragraph (o) to read as 
    follows:
    
    
    Sec. 52.1174   Control strategy: Ozone.
    
    * * * * *
        (o) Approval--On March 9, 1996, the Michigan Department of 
    Environmental Quality submitted a request to redesignate the Grand 
    Rapids ozone nonattainment area (consisting of Kent and Ottawa 
    Counties) to attainment for ozone. As part of the redesignation 
    request, the State submitted a maintenance plan as required by 175A of 
    the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990. Elements of the section 175A 
    maintenance plan include an attainment emission inventory for NOX 
    and VOC, a demonstration of maintenance of the ozone NAAQS with 
    projected emission inventories to the year 2007 for NOX and VOC, a 
    plan to verify continued attainment, a contingency plan, and a 
    commitment to submit a subsequent maintenance plan revision in 8 years 
    as required by the Clean Air Act. If a violation of the ozone NAAQS, 
    determined not to be attributable to transport from upwind areas, is 
    monitored, Michigan will implement one or more appropriate contingency 
    measure(s) contained in the contingency plan. Once a violation of the 
    ozone NAAQS is recorded, the State will notify EPA, review the data for 
    quality assurance, and conduct a technical analysis, including an 
    analysis of meteorological conditions leading up to and during the 
    exceedances contributing to the violation, to determine local 
    culpability. This preliminary analysis will be submitted to EPA and 
    subjected to public review and comment. The State will solicit and 
    consider EPA's technical advice and analysis before making a final 
    determination on the cause of the violation. The Governor or his 
    designee will select the contingency measure(s) to be implemented 
    within 6 months of a monitored violation attributable to ozone and 
    ozone precursors from the Grand Rapids area. The menu of contingency 
    measures includes a motor vehicle inspection and maintenance program, 
    Stage II vapor recovery, RVP reduction to 7.8 psi, RACT on major non-
    CTG VOC sources in the categories of coating of plastics, coating of 
    wood furniture, and industrial cleaning solvents. The redesignation 
    request and maintenance plan meet the redesignation requirements in 
    section 107(d)(3)(E) and 175A of the Act as amended in 1990, 
    respectively. The redesignation meets the Federal requirements of 
    section 182(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act as a revision to the Michigan 
    Ozone State Implementation Plan for the above mentioned counties.
    
        Part 81, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is 
    amended as follows:
    
    PART 81--[AMENDED]
    
        1. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:
    
        Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7871q.
    
        2. Section 81.323 is amended by revising the attainment status 
    designation table entry for the Grand Rapids area for ozone to read as 
    follows:
    
    
    Sec. 81.323   Michigan.
    
    * * * * *
    
                                                                         Michigan--Ozone                                                                    
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Designation                                               Classification                   
             Designated areas         ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Date \1\                          Type                            Date                       Type        
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                                            
                       *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  
    Grand Rapids Area:                                                                                                                                      
        Kent County..................  June 21, 1996..................  Attainment...................                                                       
        Ottawa County................  June 21, 1996..................  Attainment...................                                                       
                                                                                                                                                            
                    *                  *                  *                  *                  *                      *                  *                 
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \1\This date is November 15, 1990, unless otherwise noted.                                                                                             
    
    
    [[Page 31850]]
    
    
    [FR Doc. 96-15881 Filed 6-20-96; 8:45 am]
    BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    
    

Document Information

Effective Date:
6/21/1996
Published:
06/21/1996
Department:
Environmental Protection Agency
Entry Type:
Rule
Action:
Final rule.
Document Number:
96-15881
Dates:
This action will be effective June 21, 1996.
Pages:
31831-31850 (20 pages)
Docket Numbers:
MI43-03-7258, FRL-5525-4
PDF File:
96-15881.pdf
CFR: (3)
40 CFR 52.1170
40 CFR 52.1174
40 CFR 81.323