Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 219 / Monday, November 13, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 67629

consistent with Department of Defense

implementing regulations, DOD 4140.1–

R and the Defense Federal Acquisition

Regulation Supplement, the Department

of the Navy is authorized in the

acquisition of new equipment to

exchange or sell similar items which are

not excess to its needs, and apply the

exchange allowance or proceeds of sale

in whole or part payment for the items

acquired.

Dated: October 31, 2000.

C.G. Carlson,

U.S. Marine Corps, Alternate Federal Register,

Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 00–28867 Filed 11–9–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3810–FF–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[CGD01–00–239]

Drawbridge Operation Regulations:

Danvers River, MA.

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation

from regulations.

SUMMARY: The Commander, First Coast

Guard District, has issued a temporary

deviation from the drawbridge operation

regulations governing the operation of

the Massachusetts Bay transportation

Authority (MBTA)/Amtrak Bridge, at

mile 0.05, across the Danvers River

between Beverly and Salem,

Massachusetts. This deviation allows

the bridge owner to keep the bridge in

the closed position from 6 a.m. on

Saturday November 18, 2000, through 6

p.m. on Sunday November 19, 2000.

This action is necessary to facilitate

replacement of the submarine power

cables at the bridge.

DATES: This deviation is effective from

November 18, 2000, to November 19,

2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John

McDonald, Project Officer, First Coast

Guard District, at (617) 223–8364.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

MBTA/Amtrak Bridge, at mile 0.05,

across the Danvers River, has a vertical

clearance of 3 feet at mean high water,

and 12 feet at mean low water in the

closed position. The existing

drawbridge operating regulations are

listed at 33 CFR 117.595(b).

The bridge owner requested a

temporary deviation from the

drawbridge operating regulations to

facilitate the necessary maintenance for

the replacement of the submarine power

cables at the bridge. This deviation from

the operating regulations allows the

bridge owner to keep the bridge in the

closed position from 6 a.m. on Saturday,

November 18, 2000, through 6 p.m. on

Sunday, November 19, 2000. Vessels

that can pass under the bridge without

an opening may do so at all times

during the closed period.

In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(c),

this work will be performed with all due

speed in order to return the bridge to

normal operation as soon as possible.

This deviation from the operating

regulations is authorized under 33 CFR

117.35.

Dated: October 31, 2000.

G.N. Naccara,

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard Commander,

First Coast Guard District.

[FR Doc. 00–28997 Filed 11–9–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–15–U

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[MI74–02–7282a; FRL–6896–3]

Approval and Promulgation of State

Implementation Plans; Michigan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) is adjusting the

applicability date for reinstating the 1-

hour ozone National Ambient Air

Quality Standard (NAAQS) in Genesee,

Bay, Midland, and Saginaw Counties,

Michigan and is determining that these

areas have attained the 1-hour ozone

NAAQS. This determination is based on

3 consecutive years of complete,

quality-assured, ambient air monitoring

data for the 1997–1999 ozone seasons

that demonstrate that the areas have

attained the ozone NAAQS. On the basis

of this determination, EPA is also

determining that certain attainment

demonstration requirements, and

certain related requirements of part D of

subchapter I of the Clean Air Act (CAA),

do not apply to Genesee, Bay, Midland,

and Saginaw Counties.

EPA is also approving the State of

Michigan’s request to redesignate

Genesee, Bay, Midland, and Saginaw

Counties to attainment for the 1-hour

ozone NAAQS. Michigan submitted the

redesignation request for these areas on

May 9, 2000. EPA is also approving the

State’s plan for maintaining the 1-hour

ozone standard for the next 10 years as

a revision to the Michigan State

Implementation Plan (SIP).

In the proposed rules section of this

Federal Register, EPA is proposing

approval of, and soliciting comments

on, this SIP revision. If we receive

adverse comments on this action, we

will withdraw this final rule and

address the comments received in

response to this action in a final rule on

the related proposed rule. We will not

open a second public comment period.

Parties interested in commenting on this

action should do so at this time.

DATES: This ‘‘direct final’’ rule is

effective January 16, 2001, unless EPA

receives adverse written or critical

comments by December 13, 2000. If the

rule is withdrawn, EPA will publish

timely notice in the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to:

Carlton T. Nash, Chief, Regulation

Development Section, Air Programs

Branch (AR–18J), United States

Environmental Protection Agency, 77

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,

Illinois 60604. (We recommend that you

telephone John Mooney at (312) 886–

6043 before visiting the Region 5

Office.)

A copy of the SIP revision is available

for inspection at the Office of Air and

Radiation (OAR) Docket and

Information Center (Air Docket 6102),

Room M1500, United States

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

M Street SW., Washington, DC 20460,

(202) 260–7548.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John

M. Mooney, 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,

(312) 886–6043.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Adjustment of Applicability Date for

Reinstating the 1-Hour Ozone Standard

A. Why did EPA revoke the 1-hour ozone

standard in Genessee, Saginaw, Midland,

and Bay Counties?

B. Why did EPA reinstate the 1-hour ozone

standard in Genessee, Saginaw, Midland,

and Bay Counties?

C. What does reinstatement mean for

Genessee, Saginaw, Midland, and Bay

Counties?

II. Determination of Attainment

A. What action is EPA taking?

B. Why is EPA taking this action?

C. What would be the effect of this action?

D. What is the background for this action?

E. Where is the public record and where

do I send comments?

III. Redesignation Request

A. What action is EPA taking?

B. What would be the effect of the

redesignation?

67630 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 219 / Monday, November 13, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

C. What is the background for this action?

D. What are the redesignation review

criteria?

E. What is EPA’s analysis of the request?

F. Where is the public record and where

do I send comments?

IV. Disclaimer Language Approving SIP

Revisions

V. What administrative requirements did

EPA consider?

A. Executive Order 12866

B. Executive Order 13045

C. Executive Order 13084

D. Executive Order 13132

E. Regulatory Flexibility

F. Unfunded Mandates

G. Submission to Congress and the

Comptroller General

H. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

I. Petitions for Judicial Review

I. Adjustment of Applicability Date for

Reinstating the 1-Hour Ozone Standard

A. Why Did EPA Revoke the 1-Hour

Ozone Standard in Genessee, Saginaw,

Midland, and Bay Counties?

On June 5, 1998 (63 FR 31014), July

22, 1998 (63 FR 39432) and June 9, 1999

(64 FR 30911), the EPA revoked the 1-

hour ozone NAAQS in many areas

around the country in anticipation of

implementing the new 8-hour ozone

NAAQS that was established in 1997.

EPA revoked the 1-hour standard to

allow areas that were showing

attainment to redirect their focus toward

meeting the new 8-hour standard. On

June 5, 1998, the EPA revoked the 1-

hour standard for Genessee, Saginaw,

Midland, and Bay Counties because

ozone monitors were showing

attainment of the ozone NAAQS.

B. Why Did EPA Reinstate the 1-Hour

Ozone Standard in Genessee, Saginaw,

Midland, and Bay Counties?

On May 14, 1999, the U.S. Court of

Appeals for the District of Columbia

Circuit issued a decision on the 8-hour

ozone NAAQS that blocked EPA’s

ability to implement the new standard.

That action left nearly 3,000 U.S.

counties without any Federal public

health standard for ozone. To remedy

this situation, on July 20, 2000, EPA

published a final rulemaking action in

the Federal Register (65 FR 45181) to

reinstate the 1-hour standard in areas

where it had been revoked, including

Genessee, Saginaw, Midland, and Bay

Counties.

C. What Does Reinstatement Mean for

Genesee, Saginaw, Midland, and Bay

Counties?

For areas with clean air quality data,

like Genessee, Saginaw, Midland, and

Bay Counties, the July 20, 2000

rulemaking (65 FR 45182) specifies that

reinstating the nonattainment

designation will occur 180 days after

EPA published the rulemaking, on

January 16, 2001. EPA believes that it is

appropriate to provide nonattainment

areas with clean air quality data since

revocation additional time to complete

the redesignation process. Therefore,

EPA delayed the applicability date of

the final rule for 180 days for areas that

were designated nonattainment at the

time of revocation and continue to have

clean data, to allow States to submit

redesignation requests and EPA time to

act on them prior to the January 16,

2001 applicability date. The July 20,

2000 rule specifies a procedure by

which EPA can synchronize the

effective date of the reinstatement and

redesignate at the same time. EPA is

using that procedure in this action.

II. Determination of Attainment

A. What Action Is EPA Taking?

The EPA is determining that the Flint

(Genesee County) transitional ozone

nonattainment area and the SaginawMidland-Bay City (Saginaw, Midland,

and Bay Counties) ozone nonattainment

area have attained the NAAQS for

ozone. On the basis of this

determination, EPA is also determining

that certain CAA requirements do not

apply to these areas as long as they

continue to attain the ozone NAAQS.

These requirements are section 172(c)(1)

attainment demonstration requirements

and section 172(c)(9) contingency

measure requirement.

B. Why Is EPA Taking This Action?

The EPA believes it is reasonable to

interpret provisions regarding

attainment demonstrations and certain

related provisions to not require SIP

submissions, as described further below,

if an ozone nonattainment area subject

to those requirements is monitoring

attainment of the ozone standard (i.e.,

attainment of the NAAQS is

demonstrated with three consecutive

years of complete, quality-assured, air

quality monitoring data). The EPA is

basing this determination upon three

years of complete, quality-assured,

ambient air monitoring data for the 1997

to 1999 ozone seasons recorded at the

Flint monitoring sites that demonstrate

that Genessee, Saginaw, Midland, and

Bay Counties have attained the ozone

NAAQS. Preliminary ozone monitoring

data for 2000 continue to show that

these areas are attaining the ozone

NAAQS.

C. What Would Be the Effect of This

Action?

The requirements of section 172(c)(1)

concerning the submission of a plan to

ensure reasonable further progress (RFP)

and the ozone attainment demonstration

and the requirements of section

172(c)(9) concerning contingency

measures for RFP or attainment will not

apply to the area.

D. What Is the Background for This

Action?

The EPA believes it is reasonable to

interpret provisions regarding RFP and

attainment demonstrations and certain

related provisions to not 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). EPA has

interpreted the general provisions of

subpart 1 of part D of Subchapter I

(sections 171 and 172) as not requiring

the submission of SIP revisions

concerning RFP, attainment

demonstrations, or contingency

measures, as explained in a

memorandum from John S. Seitz,

Director, Office of Air Quality Planning

and Standards, entitled ‘‘Reasonable

Further Progress, Attainment

Demonstration, and Related

Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment

Areas Meeting the Ozone National

Ambient Air Quality Standard,’’ dated

May 10, 1995 (See Sierra Club v. EPA,

99 F.3d 1551 (10th Cir. 1996)).

The attainment demonstration

requirements of section 182(b)(1) are

that the plan provide for ‘‘such specific

annual reductions in emissions * * * as

necessary to attain the national primary

ambient air quality standard by the

attainment date applicable under the

CAA.’’ If an area has in fact monitored

attainment of the relevant NAAQS, EPA

believes there is no need for an area to

make a further submission containing

additional measures to achieve

attainment. This is also consistent with

the interpretation of certain section

172(c) requirements provided by EPA in

the General Preamble to Title I of the

Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990

(1990 Act). As EPA stated in the

Preamble, no other measures to provide

for attainment would be needed by areas

seeking redesignation to attainment

since ‘‘attainment will have been

reached’’ (57 FR 13564). Upon

attainment of the NAAQS, the focus of

state planning efforts shifts to the

maintenance of the NAAQS and the

development of a maintenance plan

under section 175A.

Similarly, the EPA has previously

interpreted the contingency measure

requirement of section 172(c)(9) as no

longer applying once an area has

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 219 / Monday, November 13, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 67631

attained the standard since those

‘‘contingency measures are directed at

ensuring RFP and attainment by the

applicable date’’ (57 FR 13564). EPA has

exercised this policy most recently in

approvals for the Cincinnati, OH and

Muskegon, MI areas (65 FR 37879 and

65 FR 52651).

The state must continue to operate an

appropriate air quality monitoring

network, in accordance with 40 CFR

part 58, to verify the attainment status

of the area. The air quality data relied

upon to determine that the area is

attaining the ozone standard must be

consistent with 40 CFR part 58

requirements and other relevant EPA

guidance and recorded in EPA’s

Aerometric Information Retrieval

System (AIRS).

The determinations in this notice do

not shield an area from future EPA

action to require emissions reductions

from sources in the area where there is

evidence, such as photochemical grid

modeling, showing that emissions from

sources in the area contribute

significantly to nonattainment in, or

interfere with maintenance by, any

other states with respect to the NAAQS

(see section 110(a)(2)(D)). The EPA has

authority under sections 110(a)(2)(A)

and 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA to require

such emission reductions if necessary

and appropriate to deal with transport

situations.

The EPA has reviewed the ambient air

monitoring data for ozone (consistent

with the requirements contained in 40

CFR part 58 and recorded in AIRS) for

Genesee, Bay, Midland, and Saginaw

Counties from the 1997 through 1999

ozone seasons, as recorded at

monitoring sites in Genesee County.

This data is summarized in Table 1 of

this document covering EPA’s analysis

of the redesignation request.

Preliminary monitoring data for 2000

show the area continues to attain the 1-

hour ozone NAAQS. On the basis of this

review, EPA determines that these areas

have attained the 1-hour ozone standard

during the 1997–99 period, which is the

most recent 3 year time period of air

quality monitoring data. The State

therefore is not required to submit an

attainment demonstration, RFP, and a

section 172(c)(9) contingency measure

plan.

E. Where Is the Public Record and

Where Do I Send Comments?

The official record for this direct final

rule is at the addresses in the ADDRESSES

section at the beginning of this

document. The addresses for sending

comments are also provided in the

ADDRESSES section at the beginning of

this document. If we receive adverse

comments on this action, we will

withdraw this final rule and address the

comments received in response to this

action in a final rule on the related

proposed rule. We will not open a

second public comment period. Parties

interested in commenting on this action

should do so at this time.

III. Redesignation Request

A. What Action Is EPA Taking?

The EPA is approving the

redesignation request for Genesee, Bay,

Midland, and Saginaw Counties because

3 years of ambient monitoring data

demonstrate that these areas have

attained the ozone NAAQS, and the

areas have satisfied the other

requirements for redesignation. The

EPA is approving the maintenance plans

submitted by the Michigan Department

of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) as a

revision to the SIP.

B. What Would Be the Effect of the

Redesignation?

The redesignation would change the

official designation of Genesee, Bay,

Midland, and Saginaw Counties from

nonattainment to attainment for the 1-

hour ozone standard. It would also put

a plan in place to maintain the 1-hour

ozone standard for the next 10 years.

This plan includes contingency

measures to correct any future

violations of the 1-hour ozone standard.

C. What Is the Background for This

Action?

The EPA originally designated

Genesee, Bay, Midland, and Saginaw

Counties (Flint and Saginaw-MidlandBay City areas) as ozone nonattainment

areas under section 107 of the 1977 Act

on March 3, 1978 (43 FR 8962). The

EPA revisited this original designation

in 1991 to reflect new designation

requirements contained in the 1990 Act.

The 1990 Act authorized the EPA to

designate nonattainment areas

according to degree of severity of the

nonattainment problem. On November

6, 1991 (56 FR 56694), the EPA

designated Genesee, Bay, Midland, and

Saginaw Counties as ozone

nonattainment areas. At the time of the

1991 designations, air quality

monitoring data for the Flint area

showed that the area had not

experienced a violation of the ozone

NAAQS between 1988–1990, however,

the State had not completed a

redesignation request showing that it

had complied with the requirements of

section 107 of the Act. As a result, EPA

designated the area as nonattainment,

but did not establish a nonattainment

classification, establishing the area as a

transitional ozone nonattainment area.

The State discontinued ozone

monitoring in the Saginaw-Midland-Bay

City area prior to EPA’s 1991

designations. As a result, up to date

monitoring data was not available for

these areas, nor had the State completed

a redesignation request showing that it

complied with the requirements of

section 107 of the Act. Based on this,

the EPA designated the area as

nonattainment, but did not establish a

nonattainment classification,

establishing the area as an incomplete

data ozone nonattainment area. The

preamble for the original designation

contains more detail on this action (56

FR 56694).

Air quality monitors in Genesee

County have since recorded 3 years of

complete, quality-assured, ambient air

quality monitoring data for 1997–1999,

thereby demonstrating that the area has

attained the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.

While monitoring data is not available

for Bay, Midland, and Saginaw

Counties, the State has argued that the

data collected by the ozone monitors in

Genesee County are indicative of ozone

levels in Bay, Midland, and Saginaw

Counties, and should be used as an

indicator of this area’s attainment status.

As discussed in section E.1., below, EPA

agrees with Michigan’s assertion.

On May 9, 2000 Michigan submitted

a maintenance plan to ensure continued

attainment of the ozone standard for the

Flint and the Saginaw-Midland-Bay City

areas. The State also included materials

from the public hearing on the request

which it held in Saginaw on July 16,

1997.

D. What Are the Redesignation Review

Criteria?

The CAA provides the requirements

for redesignating a nonattainment area

to attainment. Specifically, section

107(d)(3)(E) allows for redesignation

provided that: (1) The Administrator

determines that the area has attained the

NAAQS; (2) the Administrator has fully

approved the applicable

implementation plan for the area under

section 110(k); (3) the Administrator

determines that the improvement in air

quality is due to permanent and

enforceable reductions in emissions

resulting from implementation of the

applicable State Implementation Plan

and applicable Federal air pollutant

control regulations and other permanent

and enforceable reductions; (4) the

Administrator has fully approved a

maintenance plan for the area as

meeting the requirements of section

175(A); and, (5) the State containing

such area has met all requirements of

67632 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 219 / Monday, November 13, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

section 110 and part D of the CAA

which are applicable to the area.

The EPA provided guidance on

redesignation in the State

Implementation Plans; General

Preamble for the Implementation of

Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments

of 1990, on April 16, 1992 (57 FR 13498)

and supplemented the guidance on

April 28, 1992 (57 FR 18070). The EPA

has provided further guidance on

processing redesignation requests in the

following documents:

1. ‘‘Part D New Source Review (part

D NSR) Requirements for Areas

Requesting Redesignation to

Attainment,’’ Mary D. Nichols, Assistant

Administrator for Air and Radiation,

October 14, 1994. (Nichols, October

1994)

2. ‘‘Limited Maintenance Plan Option

for Nonclassifiable Ozone

Nonattainment Areas,’’ Sally L. Shaver,

Director, Air Quality Strategies and

Standards Division, November 16, 1994.

3. ‘‘Use of Actual Emissions in

Maintenance Demonstrations for Ozone

and Carbon Monoxide (CO)

Nonattainment Areas,’’ D. Kent Berry,

Acting Director, Air Quality

Management Division, November 30,

1993.

4. ‘‘State Implementation Plan (SIP)

Requirements for Areas Submitting

Requests for Redesignation to

Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon

Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air

Quality Standards (NAAQS) on or after

November 15, 1992,’’ Michael H.

Shapiro, Acting Assistant Administrator

for Air and Radiation, September 17,

1993.

5. ‘‘State Implementation Plan (SIP)

Actions Submitted in Response to Clean

Air Act Deadlines,’’ John Calcagni,

Director, Air Quality Management

Division, October 28, 1992. (Calcagni,

October 1992)

6. ‘‘Procedures for Processing

Requests to Redesignate Areas to

Attainment,’’ John Calcagni, Director,

Air Quality Management Division,

September 4, 1992.

7. ‘‘Contingency Measures for Ozone

and Carbon Monoxide (CO)

Redesignations,’’ G.T. Helms, Chief,

Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs

Branch, June 1, 1992.

E. What Is EPA’s Analysis of the

Request?

1. The Area Must Be Attaining the 1-

Hour Ozone NAAQS

For ozone, an area may be considered

to be attaining the 1-hour ozone NAAQS

if there are no violations, as determined

in accordance with 40 CFR 50.9 and

Appendix H, based on three complete,

consecutive calendar years of quality

assured monitoring data. A violation of

the 1-hour ozone NAAQS occurs when

the annual average number of expected

daily exceedances is equal to or greater

than 1.05 per year at a monitoring site.

A daily exceedance occurs when the

maximum hourly ozone concentration

during a given day is 0.125 parts per

million (ppm) or higher. The data must

be collected and quality-assured in

accordance with 40 CFR part 58, and

recorded in AIRS. The monitors should

have remained at the same location for

the duration of the monitoring period

required for demonstrating attainment.

The Michigan request is based on an

analysis of quality-assured ozone air

quality data. Ambient air monitoring

data for calendar years 1997 through

calendar year 1999 show no violations

of the ozone NAAQS (40 CFR 50.9) in

Genesee County. The State collected

this data in an EPA approved, quality

assured, National Air Monitoring

System monitoring network. Table 1

below summarizes the air quality data.

TABLE 1.—1-HOUR OZONE

EXCEEDANCES IN GENESEE COUNTY

Site Year Exceedances

measured

Expected

exceedances

Flint

Monitor:

26–

049–

0021 1996 0 0

1997 0 0

1998 1 1

1999 0 0

Otisville

Monitor:

26–

049–

2001 1996 0 0

1997 0 0

1998 1 1

1999 1 1

As discussed in the State’s

redesignation submittal, ozone monitors

operated in Bay County from 1973–

1982, and from 1979–1981 in Saginaw

County. Due to new monitoring siting

criteria, as well as other changes in

ozone monitoring techniques, Michigan

discontinued monitoring in Bay and

Saginaw Counties in 1982. At that time,

the monitors had shown attainment of

the ozone NAAQS in the SaginawMidland-Bay City area since 1978. In

the redesignation request, the State

argues that recent data from the two

Flint monitors is representative of

current ozone levels in the SaginawMidland-Bay City area. The EPA

believes that this is appropriate given

the monitoring history of the area, the

proximity of the Flint monitors to the

Saginaw-Midland-Bay City area, and the

population and emissions information

that Michigan submitted with the

redesignation request. EPA agrees with

Michigan’s assertion that these monitors

are representative of ozone levels in the

Saginaw-Midland-Bay City area.

As a result, the area meets the first

statutory criterion for redesignation to

attainment of the ozone NAAQS. The

State has committed to continue to

operate a network of monitoring stations

in the areas in accordance with 40 CFR

part 58. The State will be subject to any

changes to the 40 CFR part 58

monitoring requirements if they are

changed. (If complete quality assured

data show violations of the ozone

NAAQS before the final EPA action on

this redesignation, the EPA will

disapprove the redesignation requests

for the Flint and Saginaw-Midland-Bay

City areas.

2. The Area Must Have a Fully

Approved SIP Under Section 110(k);

and the Area Must Have Met All

Applicable Requirements Under Section

110 and Part D

Before Genesee, Bay, Midland, and

Saginaw Counties may be redesignated

to attainment for ozone, the State must

have fulfilled the applicable

requirements of section 110 and part D.

The Calcagni memorandum dated

September 4, 1992, states that areas

requesting redesignation to attainment

must fully adopt rules and programs

that come due prior to the submittal of

a complete redesignation request.

Section 110 Requirements

General SIP elements are delineated

in section 110(a)(2) of the CAA. These

requirements include but are not limited

to the following: A SIP submittal

containing rules the State adopted after

reasonable notice and public hearing;

provisions to establish and operate

appropriate apparatus, methods,

systems and procedures necessary to

monitor ambient air quality; a permit

program to implement provisions of part

C, Prevention of Significant

Deterioration (PSD), and part D, New

Source Review (NSR) permit programs;

criteria for stationary source emission

control measures, monitoring and

reporting; provisions for modeling; and

provisions for public and local agency

participation.

For purposes of redesignation, EPA

reviewed the Michigan SIP to ensure

that it satisfied all requirements under

the amended CAA through approved

SIP provisions. A number of the

requirements did not change in

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 219 / Monday, November 13, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 67633

substance and, therefore, EPA believes

that the pre-amendment SIP met these

requirements. The EPA has analyzed the

Michigan SIP and determined that it is

consistent with the requirements of

amended section 110(a)(2). (See also 61

FR 20458 and Southwestern Growth

Alliance v. Browner, 144 F.3d 984 (6th

Cir. 1998)).

Part D: General Provisions for

Nonattainment Areas

Before Genesee, Bay, Midland, and

Saginaw Counties may be redesignated

to attainment, they must have fulfilled

the applicable requirements of part D.

Under part D, an area’s classification

indicates the requirements to which it is

subject. Subpart 1 of part D sets forth

the basic nonattainment requirements

applicable to all nonattainment areas,

classified as well as nonclassifiable.

Subpart 2 of part D establishes

additional requirements for ozone

nonattainment areas classified under

section 186 of the Act. As described in

the ‘‘General Preamble for the

Implementation of Title I of the Clean

Air Act Amendments of 1990,’’ specific

requirements of subpart 2 may override

subpart 1’s general provisions (57 FR

13501 (April 16, 1992)). However, as

noted in the General Preamble, the

subpart 2 requirements do not apply to

‘‘not classified’’ ozone nonattainment

areas (57 FR 13525). EPA designated

Genesee, Bay, Midland, and Saginaw

Counties as ‘‘not classified’’ ozone

nonattainment areas (56 FR 56694,

November 6, 1991), codified at 40 CFR

§ 81.323. Therefore, to be redesignated

to attainment, the State must meet the

applicable requirements of subpart 1 of

part D—specifically sections 172(c) and

176, but not the requirements of subpart

2 of part D.

Subpart 1 of Part D—Section 172(c)

Provisions

Section 172(c) sets forth general

requirements applicable to all

nonattainment areas. Under 172(b), the

section 172(c) requirements are

applicable as determined by the

Administrator, but no later than 3 years

from the date of the nonattainment

designation.

EPA has determined that Michigan’s

redesignation request for Genesee, Bay,

Midland, and Saginaw Counties has

satisfied all of the requirements under

section 172(c) necessary for the areas’

redesignation to attainment. Many of the

general requirements contained in

section 172(c) are addressed by the

State’s pre-amendment submittal which

EPA approved on May 6, 1980 (45 FR

29801). In part 2 of this rulemaking,

entitled ‘‘Determination of Attainment,’’

EPA determines that several of the

section 172(c) requirements do not

apply since the areas have attained the

ozone NAAQS. We address below the

requirements for emissions inventories

under section 172(c)(3) and permits

programs under section 172(c)(5), which

are necessary to redesignate the areas.

Section 172(c)(3) requires submission

and approval of a comprehensive,

accurate, and current inventory of actual

emissions. The base year emissions

inventory for Genesee, Bay, Midland,

and Saginaw Counties is satisfied by the

State’s submittal of the 1990 inventories

for these counties in the redesignation

request.

Section 172(c)(5) requires permits to

construct and operate new and modified

major stationary sources anywhere in

the nonattainment area (a NSR

program). The EPA has determined that

areas being redesignated do not need an

approved NSR program prior to

redesignation provided that the area

demonstrates maintenance of the

standard without a NSR program in

effect. A memorandum from Mary

Nichols dated October 14, 1994

describes the rationale for this decision.

See discussion in the Grand Rapids,

Michigan notice published on June 21,

1996 (61 FR 31831). EPA has also

applied this policy in redesignations of

Youngstown-Warren, Columbus,

Canton, Cleveland-Akron-Lorain,

Dayton-Springfield, Toledo, Preble

County, Columbiana County, Clinton

County, and Cincinnati Ohio, as well as

Detroit, Michigan. Additional

information on EPA’s rationale is in the

approval of the redesignation request for

the Cincinnati area (65 FR 37879).

The State has demonstrated that

Genesee, Bay, Midland, and Saginaw

Counties can maintain the standard

without a NSR program in effect, and,

therefore, the State need not have a fully

approved NSR program prior to

approval of the redesignation request for

Genesee, Bay, Midland, and Saginaw

Counties. The MDEQ’s federally

delegated PSD program will become

effective in Genesee, Bay, Midland, and

Saginaw Counties upon redesignation to

attainment.

Section 176 Conformity Requirements

Section 176(c) of the CAA requires

states to establish criteria and

procedures to ensure that federally

supported or funded projects conform to

the air quality planning goals in the

applicable SIP. This requirement

applies to transportation plans,

programs and projects developed,

funded or approved under title 23

U.S.C. and the Federal Transit Act

(‘‘transportation conformity’’), and to all

other federally supported or funded

projects (‘‘general conformity’’). EPA’s

conformity rule requires that

transportation plans, programs, and

projects conform to SIPs and establishes

the criteria and procedures for

determining whether or not they do.

Conformity to a SIP means that

transportation activities will not

produce new air quality violations,

worsen existing violations, or delay

timely attainment of the national

ambient air quality standards. Section

176 further provides that state

conformity revisions must be consistent

with Federal conformity regulations

promulgated by EPA pursuant to CAA

requirements. EPA approved Michigan’s

general and transportation SIPs on

December 18, 1996 (61 FR 66607).

As noted in more detail below, EPA’s

approval is based in part on a November

16, 1994, memorandum from Sally L.

Shaver, Director of the Air Quality

Strategies and Standards Division

entitled ‘‘Limited Maintenance Plan

Option for Nonclassifiable Ozone

Nonattainment Areas’’ (limited

maintenance plan memo), which

contains guidance related to the

conformity program. This memo allows

nonclassifiable ozone areas that are at or

below 85 percent of the ozone standard

to submit a less rigorous maintenance

plan. In these areas, there is no

requirement to project emissions over

the maintenance period. EPA believes it

is reasonable to expect that such an area

will not experience so much growth in

that period that a violation of the

NAAQS would occur. EPA believes that

Genesee, Bay, Midland, and Saginaw

Counties meet the criteria for limited

maintenance and therefore EPA is

approving their limited maintenance

plan.

The memo notes that the Federal

transportation conformity rule (58 FR

62188) and the Federal general

conformity rule (58 FR 63214) apply to

areas operating under maintenance

plans. Under either rule, one means by

which a maintenance area can

demonstrate conformity of Federal

actions is to indicate that expected

emissions from planned actions are

consistent with the emissions budget for

the area. Because EPA believes that an

area to which the limited maintenance

plan memo applies will not experience

so much growth during the maintenance

period that a violation of the NAAQS

would occur, emissions budgets are not

necessary to constrain emissions

growth, and need not be capped for the

maintenance period. In these cases, EPA

considers that Federal projects subject

which otherwise demonstrate

conformity satisfy the ‘‘budget test’’ of

67634 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 219 / Monday, November 13, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

the Federal conformity rules. While this

policy does not exempt an area from the

need to affirm conformity, it does allow

an area to demonstrate conformity

without regional emissions analysis.

The adequacy review period for this

SIP submission is concurrent with the

public comment period on this direct

final rule. Because limited maintenance

plans do not contain budgets, the

adequacy review period for this

maintenance plan serves to allow the

public to comment on whether limited

maintenance is appropriate for Genesee,

Bay, Midland, and Saginaw Counties.

Interested parties may comment on

the adequacy and approval of the

limited maintenance plan by submitting

their comments on this direct final rule.

If EPA receives adverse written

comments with respect to the adequacy

of the Genesee, Bay, Midland, and

Saginaw County limited maintenance

plan, 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 in our

final action or proceed with the

adequacy process as a separate action.

Our action on the Genesee, Bay,

Midland, and Saginaw County limited

maintenance plan will also be

announced on EPA’s conformity

website: http://www.epa.gov/oms/traq,

(once there, click on the ‘‘Conformity’’

button, then look for ‘‘Adequacy Review

of SIP Submissions for Conformity’’).

3. The Improvement in Air Quality Must

Be Due to Permanent and Enforceable

Reductions in Emissions

Several Federal and statewide rules

are in place which have significantly

improved the ambient air quality in the

Flint and Saginaw-Midland-Bay City

areas, since they last violated the

standard in 1988. Existing Federal

programs, such as the Federal Motor

Vehicle Control Program and the Reid

Vapor Pressure (RVP) limit of 9.0

pounds per square inch for gasoline,

will not be lifted upon redesignation.

These programs will counteract

emissions growth as the areas

experience economic growth over the

life of the maintenance plan.

The State has also adopted VOC rules

controlling the loading of gasoline into

existing stationary vessels at dispensing

facilities; existing cold cleaners; the use

of cutback paving asphalt; emissions of

VOC from existing metallic surface

coating lines; storage of organic

compounds in existing fixed roof

storage tanks; existing coating lines,

emissions of VOC from existing

automobile, light-duty truck, and other

product and material coating lines; and,

emission of volatile organic compounds

from existing graphic arts lines. These

rules will also remain in place in the

applicable areas. In addition, the PSD

permits program, and the Federal

Operating Permits program will help

limit emissions growth.

The EPA finds that the combination of

existing EPA-approved SIP and Federal

measures ensure the permanence and

enforceability of reductions in ambient

ozone levels that have allowed the area

to attain the NAAQS.

4. The Area Must Have a Fully

Approved Maintenance Plan Meeting

the Requirements of Section 175A

Section 175A of the CAA sets forth

the elements of a maintenance plan for

areas seeking redesignation from

nonattainment to attainment. The plan

must demonstrate continued attainment

of the applicable NAAQS for at least 10

years after the EPA approves a

redesignation to attainment. Eight years

after the redesignation, the State must

submit a revised maintenance plan

which demonstrates attainment for the

10 years following the initial 10 year

period. To address potential future

NAAQS violations, the maintenance

plan must contain contingency

measures, with a schedule for

implementation adequate to assure

prompt correction of any air quality

problems.

Section 175A(d) requires that the

contingency provisions include a

requirement that the State will

implement all control measures that

were in the SIP prior to redesignation as

an attainment area.

In the limited maintenance plan

memo noted above, EPA set forth new

guidance on maintenance plan

requirements for certain ozone

nonattainment areas. The limited

maintenance plan memo identified

criteria through which certain ‘‘not

classified’’ ozone nonattainment areas

could choose to submit less rigorous

maintenance plans. EPA used this

policy in the approval of the

maintenance plan for Victoria, Texas, on

March 7, 1995 (60 FR 12453). As noted

in the policy, areas whose design values

are calculated at or below 0.106 parts

per million (ppm) at the time of

redesignation, are no longer required to

project emissions over the maintenance

period. The 0.106 ppm represents 85

percent of the ozone exceedance level of

0.125 ppm. As explained in the limited

maintenance plan memo, the EPA

believes if an area begins the

maintenance period at or below 85

percent of the ozone exceedance level of

the NAAQS, the existing Federal and

SIP control measures, along with the

PSD program, will be adequate to assure

maintenance of the ozone NAAQS in

the area.

The method for calculating design

values is presented in the June 18, 1990

memorandum, ‘‘Ozone and Carbon

Monoxide Design Value Calculations,’’

from William G. Laxton, former Director

of the Office of Air Quality Planning

and Standards Technical Support

Division. Michigan developed the

redesignation request for the Flint and

Saginaw-Midland-Bay City areas in

1997. At that time, based on 1994–1996

monitoring data from the Flint ozone

network, the design value at the Flint

monitors was .106 ppm and the area

qualified for the limited maintenance

plan option.

After reviewing the redesignation

request, EPA finds that the design value

for the Flint monitoring network is no

longer within the .106 ppm threshold

specified in the limited maintenance

plan policy. Using monitoring data from

1997–1999, the Otisville monitoring

site, downwind of Flint, shows a design

value of .114 ppm, mainly due to two

unusually high exceedance days

recorded on May 15, 1998 and June 11,

1999.

The EPA performed an analysis of

meteorological conditions on these days

to determine the likely source of the

high ozone values. A detailed

discussion on this analysis is in EPA’s

TSD. Based on this analysis, the EPA

concludes that the two episode days in

question were unusual in that the winds

were blowing from south to southeast,

carrying emissions from urban areas in

Southeast Michigan into the Flint area.

Under more typical conditions, with

winds from the west/southwest,

emissions from the Flint urbanized area

are blown toward the Otisville

monitoring site. With winds from the

south/southeast, emissions sources from

upwind areas around Detroit are

responsible for the high ozone levels.

EPA’s analysis indicates that this was

the case on both episode days. As a

result, it appears that the high values

recorded on these days are primarily

due to the transport of ozone and ozone

forming emissions from areas outside of

Flint.

EPA’s limited maintenance plan

policy is based on an argument that

certain areas need not meet the full

maintenance plan requirements because

they have achieved air quality levels

well below the standard without the

application of control measures required

by the Act for classified ozone

nonattainment areas. Despite its current

design value, this argument is true for

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 219 / Monday, November 13, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 67635

the Flint area. In fact, the last monitored

violation in the Flint area was in 1975.

Exceedances of the 1-hour ozone

standard have been monitored only a

small number of times in the area over

the last two decades.

Furthermore, on October 27, 1998 (63

FR 57356) the EPA published a final

rule, known as the NOX SIP call,

requiring 22 States and the District of

Columbia to significantly reduce NOX

emissions in the eastern United States to

reduce the transport of ozone. In an

opinion delivered on March 3, 2000, the

Circuit Court for the District of

Columbia confirmed the applicability of

this regulation on numerous States,

including Michigan. As a result,

Michigan, and other Midwestern States,

must reduce NOX emissions on a

statewide basis to reduce background

ozone levels. In Michigan, many of the

largest NOX sources are in Southeast

Michigan and reductions from these

sources would be expected to directly

affect the type of situation that occurred

in Flint on May 15, 1998 and June 11,

1999.

Without the two transport related

exceedances, the design value in Flint

would drop to .106 ppm and the area

would qualify under the limited

maintenance policy. Since the high

values were caused by transport, and

since EPA has developed the NOX SIP

call to address the transport problem,

the EPA believes that it is appropriate

to apply the limited maintenance policy

in the Flint and Saginaw-Midland-Bay

City areas.

In this action, EPA is approving

Michigan’s limited maintenance plan

for the Genesee, Bay, Midland, and

Saginaw Counties because Michigan’s

submittal meets the requirements of

section 175A.

An ozone maintenance plan should

address the following five elements:

attainment inventory, demonstration of

maintenance, monitoring network,

verification of continued attainment,

and a contingency plan.

Attainment Inventory

The State has adequately developed

attainment emission inventories for

1990 that identify VOC and NOX

emissions for the Flint and SaginawMidland-Bay City nonattainment areas.

EPA has determined that 1990 is an

appropriate year on which to base

attainment level emissions because

monitors in the area showed attainment

of the ozone NAAQS at the time.

The methodologies used in

developing these inventories are

discussed in EPA’s TSD and in further

detail in the State’s redesignation

submittal. The State has adequately

developed an attainment emissions

inventory for 1990 that identifies the

levels of VOC and NOX emissions in the

areas sufficient to attain the NAAQS.

These emissions are summarized in

Tables 2 and 3 below:

TABLE 2.—1990 ATTAINMENT

INVENTORY—VOC EMISSIONS

[Tons per day]

Source type Flint Saginaw-Midland-Bay City

On-highway

motor vehicle .............. 30.05 34.64

Off-highway

motor vehicle .............. 12.05 14.63

Area .............. 22.07 25.15

Point .............. 18.52 38.90

Total .......... 83.15 113.3

TABLE 3.—1990 ATTAINMENT

INVENTORY—NOX EMISSIONS

[Tons per day]

Source type Flint Saginaw-Midland-Bay City

On-highway

motor vehicle .............. 31.27 38.91

Off-highway

motor vehicle .............. 10.89 39.69

Area .............. 7.84 2.34

Point .............. 12.11 209.64

Total .......... 62.11 290.58

Demonstration of Maintenance

Under the limited maintenance plan

policy, EPA considers air quality

monitoring data showing attainment of

the ozone standard as satisfying the

maintenance demonstration

requirement. As a result, areas are not

required to project emissions over the

maintenance period. EPA believes that

areas that qualify under the limited

maintenance policy will benefit enough

from the PSD program, any measures

that are in the SIP, and Federal

measures to ensure maintenance over

the initial 10 year maintenance period.

Monitoring Network

The State has committed to continue

to operate and maintain the network of

ambient ozone monitoring stations in

Genesee County in accordance with

provisions of 40 CFR part 58.

Verification of Continued Attainment

Tracking—Continued demonstration

of attainment of the ozone NAAQS in

Genesee, Bay, Midland, and Saginaw

Counties depends, in part, on the State’s

efforts toward tracking indicators of

continued attainment during the

maintenance period. The tracking plan

for Genesee, Bay, Midland, and Saginaw

Counties consists of continued ambient

ozone monitoring in the areas in

accordance with the requirements of 40

CFR part 58.

Triggers—The contingency plan

contains one trigger: A monitored air

quality violation of the ozone NAAQS

in any of the four counties, as defined

in 40 CFR 50.9. At this time, two ozone

monitors are in place in Genesee

County. As such, a violation at either of

these monitors would trigger the

implementation of contingency

measures in all four counties. The

trigger date will be the date that the

State certifies to the U.S. EPA that the

air quality data are quality assured,

which will be no later than 30 days after

monitoring an ambient air quality

violation.

Contingency Plan

Despite best efforts to maintain

compliance with the NAAQS, the

ambient air pollutant concentrations

may exceed or violate the NAAQS.

Therefore, as required by section 175A

of the Act, Michigan has provided

contingency measures with a schedule

for implementation if a future ozone air

quality problem occurs. Contingency

measures in the plan include Reid vapor

pressure controls on gasoline,

implementation of stage I vapor control

systems, and industrial cleanup solvent,

plastic parts coating, and wood

furniture coating regulations.

The State commits to adopting rules

or passing legislation for any selected

contingency measure within one year of

its selection and submit them to EPA for

approval. For the Reid vapor pressure

controls and stage I vapor recovery

control, the State will implement

programs within 2 years of its selection

as a contingency measure. For other

contingency measures, the State will

promulgate regulations within 12

months of selection, and implement the

measure within 12 months of adoption.

Commitment To Submit Subsequent

Maintenance Plan Revisions

In accordance with section 175A(b) of

the Act, the State has committed to

submitting a revised maintenance SIP 8

years after the area is redesignated to

attainment. Such revised SIP will

provide for maintenance for an

additional 10 years.

67636 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 219 / Monday, November 13, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

F. Where Is the Public Record and

Where Do I Send Comments?

The official record for this direct final

rule is located at the addresses in the

ADDRESSES section at the beginning of

this document. The addresses for

sending comments are also provided in

the ADDRESSES section at the beginning

of this document. If EPA receives

adverse written comments on this

action, we will withdraw this final rule

and address the comments received in

response to this action in a final rule on

the related proposed rule. We will not

open a second public comment period.

Parties interested in commenting on this

action should do so at this time.

If we receive adverse written

comments on the adequacy of the

limited maintenance plan, 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.

IV. Disclaimer Language Approving SIP

Revisions

Ozone SIPs are designed to satisfy the

requirements of part D of the CAA and

to provide for attainment and

maintenance of the ozone NAAQS. This

redesignation should not be interpreted

as authorizing the State to delete, alter,

or rescind any of the ozone emission

limitations and restrictions in the

approved ozone SIP. The State cannot

make changes to ozone SIP regulations

which will render them less stringent

than those in the EPA approved plan

unless it submits to EPA a revised plan

for attainment and maintenance and

EPA approves the revision.

Unauthorized relaxations, deletions,

and changes could result in both a

finding of nonimplementation (section

173(b) of the CAA) and in a SIP

deficiency call made pursuant to section

110(a)(2)(H) of the CAA.

V. What Administrative Requirements

Did EPA Consider?

A. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) has exempted this regulatory

action from Executive Order 12866,

entitled ‘‘Regulatory Planning and

Review.’’

B. Executive Order 13045

Protection of Children from

Environmental Health Risks and Safety

Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997),

applies to any rule that: (1) Is

determined to be ‘‘economically

significant’’ as defined under Executive

Order 12866, and (2) concerns an

environmental health or safety risk that

EPA has reason to believe may have a

disproportionate effect on children. If

the regulatory action meets both criteria,

the Agency must evaluate the

environmental health or safety effects of

the planned rule on children, and

explain why the planned regulation is

preferable to other potentially effective

and reasonably feasible alternatives

considered by the Agency.

This rule is not subject to Executive

Order 13045 because it does not involve

decisions intended to mitigate

environmental health or safety risks.

C. Executive Order 13084

Under Executive Order 13084, EPA

may not issue a regulation that is not

required by statute, that significantly

affects or uniquely affects the

communities of Indian tribal

governments, and that imposes

substantial direct compliance costs on

those communities, unless the Federal

government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by the tribal

governments, or EPA consults with

those governments. If EPA complies by

consulting, Executive Order 13084

requires EPA to provide to the Office of

Management and Budget, in a separately

identified section of the preamble to the

rule, a description of the extent of EPA’s

prior consultation with representatives

of affected tribal governments, a

summary of the nature of their concerns,

and a statement supporting the need to

issue the regulation. In addition,

Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to

develop an effective process permitting

elected officials and other

representatives of Indian tribal

governments ‘‘to provide meaningful

and timely input in the development of

regulatory policies on matters that

significantly or uniquely affect their

communities.’’

Today’s rule does not significantly or

uniquely affect the communities of

Indian tribal governments. This action

does not involve or impose any

requirements that affect Indian Tribes.

Accordingly, the requirements of

section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084

do not apply to this rule.

D. Executive Order 13132

Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10,

1999) revokes and replaces Executive

Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875

(Enhancing the Intergovernmental

Partnership). Executive Order 13132

requires EPA to develop an accountable

process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and

timely input by State and local officials

in the development of regulatory

policies that have federalism

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have

federalism implications’’ is defined in

the Executive Order to include

regulations that 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.’’ Under

Executive Order 13132, EPA may not

issue a regulation that has federalism

implications, that imposes substantial

direct compliance costs, and that is not

required by statute, unless the Federal

government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by State and local

governments, or EPA consults with state

and local officials early in the process

of developing the proposed regulation.

EPA also may not issue a regulation that

has federalism implications and that

preempts State law unless the Agency

consults with state and local officials

early in the process of developing the

proposed regulation.

This rule will not have substantial

direct effects on the States, on the

relationship between the national

government and the States, or on the

distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government, as specified in

Executive Order 13132, 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 CAA.

Thus, the requirements of section 6 of

the Executive Order do not apply to this

rule.

E. Regulatory Flexibility

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

generally requires an agency to conduct

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any

rule subject to notice and comment

rulemaking requirements unless the

agency certifies 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

small governmental jurisdictions.

This rule will not have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small

entities because SIP approvals under

section 110 and subchapter I, part D of

the CAA do not create any new

requirements but simply approve

requirements that the State is already

imposing. Therefore, because the

Federal SIP approval does not create

any new requirements, I certify that this

action will not have a significant

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 219 / Monday, November 13, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 67637

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. Moreover, due

to the nature of the Federal-State

relationship under the CAA, preparation

of flexibility analysis would constitute

Federal inquiry into the economic

reasonableness of state action. The CAA

forbids EPA to base its actions

concerning SIPs on such grounds.

Union Electric Co. v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S.

246, 255–66 (1976); 42 U.S.C.

7410(a)(2).

F. Unfunded Mandates

Under sections 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed

into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must

prepare a budgetary impact statement to

accompany any proposed or final rule

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. Under section

205, EPA must select the most costeffective and least burdensome

alternative that achieves the objectives

of the rule and is consistent with

statutory requirements. Section 203

requires EPA to establish a plan for

informing and advising any small

governments that may be significantly

or uniquely impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that the approval

action promulgated 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

approves pre-existing requirements

under State or local law, and imposes

no new requirements. Accordingly, no

additional costs to State, local, or tribal

governments, or to the private sector,

result from this action.

G. Submission to Congress and the

Comptroller General

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 will submit 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. 804(2). This rule

will be effective January 16, 2001 unless

EPA receives adverse written comments

by December 13, 2000.

H. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

Section 12 of the National Technology

Transfer and Advancement Act

(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal

agencies to evaluate existing technical

standards when developing a new

regulation. To comply with NTTAA,

EPA must consider and use ‘‘voluntary

consensus standards’’ (VCS) if available

and applicable when developing

programs and policies unless doing so

would be inconsistent with applicable

law or otherwise impractical.

The EPA believes that VCS are

inapplicable to this action. Today’s

action does not require the public to

perform activities conducive to the use

of VCS.

I. Petitions for Judicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA,

petitions for judicial review of this

action must be filed in the United States

Court of Appeals for the appropriate

circuit by January 12, 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

40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Intergovernmental

relations, Hydrocarbons, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile

organic compounds, Ozone.

40 CFR Part 81

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, National parks,

Wilderness areas.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671 et seq.

Dated: October 26, 2000.

Francis X. Lyons,

Regional Administrator, Region 5.

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 X—Michigan

2. Section 52.1174 is amended by

adding and reserving paragraph (r) and

adding paragraph (s) to read as follows:

§ 52.1174 Control strategy: Ozone.

* * * * *

(s) Approval—On May 9, 2000, the

State of Michigan submitted a revision

to the Michigan State Implementation

Plan for ozone containing a section

175A maintenance plan for the Flint

and Saginaw-Midland-Bay City areas as

part of Michigan’s request to redesignate

the areas from nonattainment to

attainment for ozone. Elements of the

section 175A maintenance plan include

a contingency plan, and an obligation to

submit a subsequent maintenance plan

revision in 8 years as required by the

Clean Air Act. If monitors in any of

these areas record a violation of the

ozone NAAQS (which must be

confirmed by the State), Michigan will

adopt, submit to EPA, and implement

one or more appropriate contingency

measure(s) which are in the contingency

plan and will submit a full maintenance

plan under section 175A of the Clean

Air Act. The menu of contingency

measures includes a low Reid vapor

pressure gasoline program, stage I

gasoline vapor recovery, and rules for

industrial cleanup solvents, plastic parts

coating, and wood furniture coating.

PART 81—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 81

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7871 et seq.

2. In § 81.323 the table entitled

‘‘Michigan—Ozone (1-hour standard)’’

is amended by revising the entries for

‘‘Flint Area: Genesee County,’’ and

‘‘Saginaw-Bay City Midland Area:’’

including ‘‘Bay County,’’ ‘‘Midland

County,’’ and Saginaw County to read as

follows:

§ 81.323 Michigan.

* * * * *

67638 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 219 / Monday, November 13, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

MICHIGAN—OZONE (1-HOUR STANDARD)

Designated areas

Designation Classification

Date1 Type Date1 Type

*******

Flint Area:

Genesee County .............................................................. January 16, 2001 ................... Attainment.

*******

Saginaw-Bay City-Midland Area:

Bay County ...................................................................... January 16, 2001 ................... Attainment.

Midland County ................................................................ January 16, 2001 ................... Attainment.

Saginaw County ............................................................... January 16, 2001 ................... Attainment.

*******

1This date is October 18, 2000, unless otherwise noted.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 00–28805 Filed 11–9–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–U

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 132

[FRL–6898–7]

RIN 2040–AD32

Final Rule To Amend the Final Water

Quality Guidance for the Great Lakes

System To Prohibit Mixing Zones for

Bioaccumulative Chemicals of

Concern

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: Today EPA is promulgating

the final rule to amend the Final Water

Quality Guidance for the Great Lakes

System (Guidance) to prohibit mixing

zones for bioaccumulative chemicals of

concern (BCCs) in the Great Lakes

System, subject to certain exceptions for

existing discharges. For existing

discharges, the regulation prohibits

mixing zones for BCCs starting 10 years

after the publication date of the final

BCC mixing zone rule. New discharges

of BCCs are subject to the mixing zone

prohibition immediately upon

commencing discharge. EPA had

promulgated a mixing zone provision

similar to this regulation on March 23,

1995, as part of the Guidance required

by section 118(c)(2) of the Clean Water

Act. The provision was vacated by the

U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of

Columbia Circuit in the case of

American Iron & Steel Institute v. EPA,

115 F.3d 979 (D.C. Cir. 1997), and was

remanded to the Agency for further

consideration. In response to the Court’s

remand, EPA published a proposal on

October 4, 1999, to amend the Guidance

to reinstate the provision to prohibit

mixing zones for BCCs (64 FR 53632).

EPA received many comments from

stakeholders throughout the United

States on its proposal to prohibit mixing

zones for BCCs in the Great Lakes Basin.

This final rule reflects EPA’s

reconsideration of the factual record in

response to the Court’s remand and

public comments received on its

proposal.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 13, 2000.

ADDRESSES: The public docket for this

rulemaking, including the proposed

rule, economic analysis, and other

supporting documents, are available for

inspection and copying at U.S. EPA

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Blvd.,

Chicago, IL 60604, by appointment only.

Appointments may be made by calling

Mary Willis Jackson at (312) 886–3717.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mark Morris (4301), U.S. EPA, Ariel

Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460

(202–260–0312).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Potentially Affected Entities

Entities potentially affected by today’s

action are those discharging or

intending to discharge BCCs to waters of

the United States in the Great Lakes

System. Categories and entities that may

ultimately be affected include the

following:

Category Examples of potentially

affected entities

Industry ............ Industries discharging or intending to discharge

BCCs to waters in the

Great Lakes System as

defined in 40 CFR 132.2.

Category Examples of potentially

affected entities

Municipalities ... Publicly owned treatment

works discharging or intending to discharge

BCCs to waters of the

Great Lakes System as

defined in 40 CFR 132.2

This table is not intended to be

exhaustive, but rather is presented to

provide a guide for readers regarding

regulated entities likely to be affected by

this action. Listed in the table are the

types of entities that EPA is now aware

could potentially be affected by this

action. Other types of entities not listed

in the table also could be affected. To

determine whether your facility is

affected by this action, you should

examine carefully the definition of

‘‘Great Lakes System’’ in 40 CFR 132.2

and examine the preamble to 40 CFR

part 132, which describes the part 132

regulations. If you have any questions

regarding the applicability of this action

to a particular entity, consult the person

listed in the preceding section titled FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

I. Legal Authority

This regulation is promulgated under

the authority of sections 118, 301, 303,

402, and 501 of the Clean Water Act

(CWA).

II. Introduction

Section 118(c)(2) of the CWA, as

amended by the Great Lakes Critical

Programs Act of 1990, required EPA to

publish proposed and final water

quality guidance on minimum water

quality standards, antidegradation

policies, and implementation

procedures for the Great Lakes System.

On March 23, 1995, EPA published a

final rule entitled ‘‘Final Water Quality

Guidance for the Great Lakes System’’

(Guidance) in order to satisfy this