[Date Prev][Date Next][Date Index]

E-M:/ More on Muskegon



-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enviro-Mich message from "Alex J. Sagady & Associates" <ajs@sagady.com>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Federal Register: August 6, 2001 (Volume 66, Number 151)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 40895-40898]
 >From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr06au01-22]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

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


Approval and Promulgation of Maintenance Plan Revisions; Michigan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a March
22, 2001, request from Michigan for a State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision of the Muskegon County ozone maintenance plan. The maintenance
plan revision establishes a new transportation conformity Mobile
Vehicle Emissions Budget (MVEB) for the year 2010. EPA is approving the
allocation of a portion of the safety margin for Volatile Organic
Compounds (VOC) and Oxides of Nitrogen (NO<SUB>X</SUB>) to the area's
2010 MVEB for transportation conformity purposes. This allocation will
still maintain the total emissions for the area at or below the
attainment level required by the transportation conformity regulations.

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

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

[[Page 40896]]

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

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

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

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

What Action Is EPA Taking Today?

     EPA is approving a revision to the ozone maintenance plan for
Muskegon County, Michigan. The revision will change the MVEB for VOC
and NO<SUB>X</SUB> that is used for transportation conformity purposes.
The revision will keep the total emissions for the area below the
attainment level required by law. This action will allow state or local
agencies to maintain air quality while providing for transportation
growth.

Who Is Affected by This Action?

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

How Did the State Support This Request?

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

What Is Transportation Conformity?

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

What Is An Emissions Budget?

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

What Is a Safety Margin?

     A ``safety margin'' is the difference between the attainment level
of emissions (from all sources) and the projected level of emissions
(from all sources) in the maintenance plan. The attainment level of
emissions is the level of emissions during one of the years in which
the area met the air quality health standard. For example: Muskegon
County monitored attainment of the one hour ozone standard during the
1996-1998 time period. The State used 1996 as the attainment level of
emissions for Muskegon County. The emissions from point, area and
mobile sources in 1996 equaled 32.54 tons per day of VOC and 32.21 tons
per day of NO<SUB>X</SUB>. The MDEQ projected emissions out to the year
2010 and projected a total of 24.36 tons per day of VOC and 25.93 tons
per day of NO<SUB>X</SUB> from all sources in Muskegon County. The
safety margin for Muskegon County is the difference between these
amounts, or 8.18 tons per day of VOC and 6.28 tons per day of
NO<SUB>X</SUB>.
     Tables 1 and 2 give detailed information on the estimated emissions
from each source category and the safety margin calculation. The 2010
emission projections reflect the point, area and mobile source
reductions and are illustrated in Tables 1 and 2

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

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

              Table 2.--Muskegon County NO<SUB>X</SUB> Emissions Budget
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Source category                    1996          2010
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point.......................................         16            15
Area........................................          6             4
On-Road Mobile..............................         10.21          6.93
                                              ---------------------------
   Total.....................................         32.21         25.93
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Safety Margin = 1996 total emissions - 2010 total emissions = 6.28
tons/day NO<SUB>X</SUB>

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

[[Page 40897]]

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

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

     Approval of Michigan's revised safety margin and MVEB raises the
VOC and NO<SUB>X</SUB> emissions for the MVEB. The maintenance plan is
designed to provide for future growth while still maintaining the ozone
air quality standard. Growth in industries, population, and traffic is
offset with reductions from cleaner cars and other emission reduction
programs. Through the maintenance plan the state and local agencies can
manage and maintain air quality while providing for growth.
     In the submittal, Michigan allocates part of the Muskegon County
area's safety margin to the MVEB. The area's safety margin is the
difference between the 1996 attainment inventory year and the 2010
projected emissions inventory (8.18 tons/day VOC safety margin, and
6.28 tons/day NO<SUB>X</SUB> safety margin) as shown in Tables 1 and 2.
The SIP revision requests the allocation of 2.14 tons/day VOC and 3.27
tons/day of NO<SUB>X</SUB> into the area's MVEB from the safety margin.
The 2010 VOC and NO<SUB>X</SUB> MVEB budget showing the safety margin
allocations that will be used for transportation conformity purposes
are outlined in Tables 3 and 4.
     Tables 3 and 4, below, illustrate that the requested portion of the
safety margin can be allocated to the 2010 mobile source budget and
that total emissions will still remain below the 1996 attainment level
of total emissions for the Muskegon County maintenance area. Since the
area would still be below the 1996 attainment level for the total
emissions, the conformity rule allows this allocation.

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

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

  Table 4.--Allocation of Safety Margin to the 2010 MVEB, Muskegon County
                         NO<SUB>X</SUB> Emissions (tons/day)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Souce category                            2010
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point.....................................................          15
Area......................................................           4
On-Road Mobile............................................          10.2
                                                            -------------
   Total...................................................          29.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Why Is the Request Approvable?

     The requested allocation of the safety margin for the Muskegon
County area is approvable because the new MVEB for VOC and
NO<SUB>X</SUB> maintains the total emissions for the area below the
attainment year inventory level as required by the transportation
conformity regulations. The conformity rule allows this allocation
because the area would still be below the 1996 attainment level for the
total emissions.
     The EPA believes the motor vehicle emissions budgets for VOC and
NO<SUB>X</SUB> are adequate for conformity purposes and approvable as
part of the maintenance plan.

When Will EPA Take Comments on This Action?

     Interested parties may comment on the adequacy and approval of the
budgets by submitting their comments on this direct final rule.
     If EPA receives adverse written comments with respect to the
adequacy and approval of the Muskegon budgets, or any other aspect of
our approval of this SIP, by the time the comment period closes, we
will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule informing the
public that the rule will not take effect. In this case, we will either
respond to the comments on the emissions budgets in our final action or
proceed with the adequacy process as a separate action.
     We will also announce our action on the Muskegon emissions budgets
on EPA's conformity website: <A 
HREF="http://www.epa.gov/oms/traq">http://www.epa.gov/oms/traq</A>, (once 
there,
click on the ``Conformity'' button, then look for ``Adequacy Review of
SIP Submissions for Conformity'').

EPA Action

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

Administrative Requirements

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

[[Page 40898]]

     Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTA), 15 U.S.C. 272, requires federal agencies to use
technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary
consensus to carry out policy objectives, so long as such standards are
not inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impracticable. In
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the Act. Absent a prior
existing requirement for the state to use voluntary consensus
standards, EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for
failure to use such standards, and it would thus be inconsistent with
applicable law for EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in place of
a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Act.
Therefore, the requirements of section 12(d) of the NTTA do not apply.
As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February
7, 1996), in issuing this rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to
eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation,
and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has
complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by
examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the
Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk
and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings'' issued under the executive
order, and has determined that the rule's requirements do not
constitute a taking. This rule does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
     The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA has submitted a report containing this rule and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
section 804(2). This rule will be effective October 5, 2001 unless EPA
receives adverse written comments by September 5, 2001.
     Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 5, 2001. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review, nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

     Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

     1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

     Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart YY--Michigan

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


Sec. 52.1174  Control strategy: Ozone.

* * * * *
     (u) Approval--On March 22, 2001, Michigan submitted a revision to
the ozone maintenance plan for the Muskegon County area. The revision
consists of allocating a portion of the Muskegon County area's Volatile
Organic Compounds (VOC) and Oxides of Nitrogen (NO<SUB>X</SUB>) safety
margin to the transportation conformity Motor Vehicle Emission Budget
(MVEB). The MVEB for transportation conformity purposes for the
Muskegon County area are now: 8.5 tons per day of VOC emissions and
10.2 tons per day of NO<SUB>X</SUB> emissions for the year 2010. This
approval only changes the VOC and NO<SUB>X</SUB> transportation
conformity MVEB for Muskegon County.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 01-19458 Filed 8-3-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alex J. Sagady & Associates        Email:  ajs@sagady.com

Environmental Enforcement, Permits/Technical Review, Public Policy and
Communications on Air, Water and Waste Issues
and Community Environmental Protection

PO Box 39  East Lansing, MI  48826-0039
(517) 332-6971 (voice); (517) 332-8987 (fax)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------



==============================================================
ENVIRO-MICH:  Internet List and Forum for Michigan Environmental
and Conservation Issues and Michigan-based Citizen Action.   Archives at
http://www.great-lakes.net/lists/enviro-mich/

Postings to:  enviro-mich@great-lakes.net      For info, send email to
majordomo@great-lakes.net  with a one-line message body of  "info enviro-mich"
==============================================================