Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Tennessee; Redesignation of the Montgomery County, Tennessee Portion of the Clarksville-Hopkinsville 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area to Attainment, 55559-55568 [05-18953]
Download as PDF
55559
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 183 / Thursday, September 22, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
KENTUCKY-OZONE (8-HOUR STANDARD)
Designation a
Category/Classification
Designated area
Date 1
*
*
*
Clarksville-Hopkinsville, TN–KY Area:
Christian County ...............................................................
*
*
*
Date 1
Type
*
*
*
*
*
*
Type
*
10/24/05
Attainment.
*
a Includes
Indian Country located in each county or area, except as otherwise specified.
1 This date is June 15, 2004, unless otherwise noted.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 05–18959 Filed 9–21–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[R04–OAR–2005–TN–0007–200527(a) FRL–
7973–5]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans and Designation
of Areas for Air Quality Planning
Purposes; Tennessee; Redesignation
of the Montgomery County, Tennessee
Portion of the Clarksville-Hopkinsville
8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area to
Attainment
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: On August 10, 2005, the State
of Tennessee, through the Tennessee
Department of Environment and
Conservation (TDEC), Air Pollution
Control Division, submitted a final
request: To redesignate the Montgomery
County, Tennessee portion of the
Clarksville-Hopkinsville 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area to attainment for the
8-hour ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standard (NAAQS), and to
approve a Tennessee State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
containing a 12-year maintenance plan
for Montgomery County, Tennessee. The
interstate Clarksville-Hopkinsville 8hour ozone nonattainment area is
comprised of two counties (i.e.,
Christian County, Kentucky and
Montgomery County, Tennessee). EPA
is approving the 8-hour ozone
redesignation request for the
Montgomery County, Tennessee portion
of the Clarksville-Hopkinsville 8-hour
ozone nonattainment area. Additionally,
EPA is approving the 8-hour ozone
maintenance plan for Montgomery
County, Tennessee. This approval is
based on EPA’s determination that the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:53 Sep 21, 2005
Jkt 205001
State of Tennessee has demonstrated
that Montgomery County, Tennessee has
met the criteria for redesignation to
attainment specified in the Clean Air
Act (CAA), including the determination
that the entire Clarksville-Hopkinsville
8-hour ozone nonattainment area has
attained the 8-hour ozone standard. On
March 21, 2005, the Commonwealth of
Kentucky submitted a redesignation
request and maintenance plan for the
Christian County, Kentucky portion of
this area for EPA parallel processing. In
this action, EPA is also providing
information on the status of its
transportation conformity adequacy
determination for the new motor vehicle
emissions budgets (MVEBs) for the year
2016 that are contained in the 12-year
8-hour ozone maintenance plan for
Montgomery County, Tennessee. EPA is
approving such MVEBs.
DATES: This rule is effective on
November 21, 2005, without further
notice, unless EPA receives adverse
written comments by October 24, 2005.
If EPA receives such comments, it will
publish a timely withdrawal of the
direct final rule in the Federal Register
and inform the public that the rule will
not take effect.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Regional Material in
EDocket (RME) ID No. R04–OAR–2005–
TN–0007, by one of the following
methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal:
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
2. Agency Web site: https://
docket.epa.gov/rmepub/RME. EPA’s
electronic public docket and comment
system is EPA’s preferred method for
receiving comments. Once in the
system, select ‘‘quick search,’’ then key
in the appropriate RME Docket
identification number. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
3. E-mail:
hoffman.annemarie@epa.gov or
wood.amanetta@epa.gov.
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
4. Fax: (404) 562–9019.
5. Mail: ‘‘R04–OAR–2005–TN–0007,’’
Regulatory Development Section, Air
Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and
Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960.
6. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver
your comments to: Anne Marie Hoffman
or Amanetta Wood, Regulatory
Development Section, Air Planning
Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the
Regional Office’s normal hours of
operation. The Regional Office’s official
hours of business are Monday through
Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding Federal
holidays.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
RME ID No. R04–OAR–2005–TN–0007.
EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change and may be
made available online at https://
docket.epa.gov/rmepub/, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through RME, regulations.gov,
or e-mail. The EPA RME Web site and
the Federal regulations.gov Web site are
‘‘anonymous access’’ systems, which
means EPA will not know your identity
or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send an e-mail comment directly
to EPA without going through RME or
regulations.gov, your e-mail address
will be automatically captured and
included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made
available on the Internet. If you submit
an electronic comment, EPA
recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in
E:\FR\FM\22SER1.SGM
22SER1
55560
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 183 / Thursday, September 22, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment.
Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses.
Docket: All documents in the
electronic docket are listed in the RME
index at https://docket.epa.gov/rmepub/.
Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available,
i.e., CBI or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on
the Internet and will be publicly
available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically in RME or
in hard copy at the Regulatory
Development Section, Air Planning
Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. EPA
requests that if at all possible, you
contact the contact listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
schedule your inspection.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Anne Marie Hoffman of the Regulatory
Development Section or Amanetta
Wood of the Air Quality Modeling and
Transportation Section, Air Planning
Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. The
telephone number is (404) 562–9074 or
(404) 562–9025. Ms. Anne Marie
Hoffman can be reached via electronic
mail at hoffman.annemarie@epa.gov.
Ms. Amanetta Wood can also be reached
via electronic mail at
wood.amanetta@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. What are the Actions EPA is Taking?
II. What is the Background for the Actions?
III What are the Redesignation Review
Criteria?
IV. Why is EPA Taking These Actions?
V. What is the Effect of EPA’s Actions?
VI. What is EPA’s Analysis of the Request?
VII. What is an Adequacy Determination and
What is the Status of EPA’s Adequacy
Determination for the Montgomery
County’s Proposed New MVEB for the
Year 2016?
VIII. Action on the Redesignation Request,
the Maintenance Plan SIP Revision
Including Approval of the 2016 MVEBs
IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:53 Sep 21, 2005
Jkt 205001
I. What Are the Actions EPA Is Taking?
Through this rulemaking, EPA is
taking several related actions. EPA is
making the determination that the
Clarksville-Hopkinsville 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area has attained the 8hour ozone standard, and the
Montgomery County, Tennessee portion
has met the requirements for
redesignation under section 107(d)(3)(E)
of the CAA. The ClarksvilleHopkinsville area is a basic 8-hour
nonattainment ozone area. Montgomery
County is located in the ClarksvilleHopkinsville, Tennessee-Kentucky
Metropolitan Statistical Area, which
contains Christian County, Kentucky
and Montgomery County, Tennessee.
EPA is approving a request to change
the legal designation of Montgomery
County, Tennessee from nonattainment
to attainment for the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS.
EPA is also approving Tennessee’s 8hour ozone maintenance plan for
Montgomery County (such approval
being one of the CAA criteria for
redesignation to attainment status). The
maintenance plan is designed to help
keep the Clarksville-Hopkinsville area
(of which Montgomery County is a part)
in attainment for the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS for the next 12 years.
Additionally, through this
rulemaking, EPA is announcing its
action on the Adequacy Process for the
newly-established 2016 MVEBs for
Montgomery County, Tennessee. The
Adequacy comment period for the 2016
MVEBs began on July 12, 2005, with
EPA’s posting of the availability of this
submittal on EPA’s Adequacy Web site
(at https://www.epa.gov/otaq/transp/
conform/adequacy.htm). The Adequacy
comment period for these MVEBs closed
on August 11, 2005. No requests or
adverse comments on this submittal
were received during EPA’s Adequacy
comment period. Please see section VII
of this rulemaking for further
explanation of this process.
II. What Is the Background for the
Action?
Ground-level ozone is not emitted
directly by sources. Rather, emissions of
nitrogen oxides (NOX) and volatile
organic compounds (VOC) react in the
presence of sunlight to form groundlevel ozone. NOX and VOC are referred
to as precursors of ozone. The CAA
establishes a process for air quality
management through the NAAQS.
On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a
revised 8-hour ozone standard of 0.08
parts per million (ppm). This new
standard is more stringent than the
previous 1-hour ozone standard. Under
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 50, the
8-hour ozone standard is attained when
the 3-year average of the annual fourthhighest daily maximum 8-hour average
ambient air quality ozone
concentrations is less than or equal to
0.08 ppm (i.e. 0.084 ppm when
rounding is considered). (See 69 FR
23857 (April 30, 2004) for further
information). Ambient air quality
monitoring data for the 3-year period
must meet a data completeness
requirement. The ambient air quality
monitoring data completeness
requirement is met when the average
percent of days with valid ambient
monitoring data is greater than 90
percent, and no single year has less than
75 percent data completeness as
determined in Appendix I of part 50.
Specifically, section 2.3 of 40 CFR part
50, Appendix I,
‘‘Comparisons with the Primary and
Secondary Ozone Standards’’ states: ‘‘The
primary and secondary ozone ambient air
quality standards are met at an ambient air
quality monitoring site when the 3-year
average of the annual fourth-highest daily
maximum 8-hour average ozone
concentration is less than or equal to 0.08
ppm. The number of significant figures in the
level of the standard dictates the rounding
convention for comparing the computed 3year average annual fourth-highest daily
maximum 8-hour average ozone
concentration with the level of the standard.
The third decimal place of the computed
value is rounded, with values equal to or
greater than 5 rounding up. Thus, a
computed 3-year average ozone
concentration of 0.085 ppm is the smallest
value that is greater than 0.08 ppm.’’
The CAA required EPA to designate
as nonattainment any area that was
violating the 8-hour ozone NAAQS
based on the three most recent years of
ambient air quality data. The
Clarksville-Hopkinsville 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area was designated
using 2001 to 2003 ambient air quality
data. The Federal Register notice
making these designations was signed
on April 15, 2004, and published on
April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23857). The CAA
contains two sets of provisions—subpart
1 and subpart 2—that address planning
and control requirements for ozone
nonattainment areas. (Both are found in
title I, part D.) Subpart 1 (which covers
areas that EPA refers to as ‘‘basic’’
nonattainment) contains general, less
prescriptive, requirements for
nonattainment areas for any pollutant—
including ozone—governed by a
NAAQS. Subpart 2 (which covers areas
that EPA refers to as ‘‘classified’’
nonattainment) provides more specific
requirements for certain ozone
nonattainment areas. Some 8-hour
ozone nonattainment areas are subject
E:\FR\FM\22SER1.SGM
22SER1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 183 / Thursday, September 22, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
only to the provisions of subpart 1.
Other 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas
are also subject to the provisions of
subpart 2. Under EPA’s Phase-1 8-Hour
Ozone Implementation Rule, signed on
April 15, 2004, an area was to be
classified under subpart 2 based on its
8-hour ozone design value (i.e., the 3year average of the annual fourthhighest daily maximum 8-hour average
ozone concentrations), if it had a 1-hour
design value at or above 0.121 ppm (the
lowest 1-hour design value in Table 1 of
subpart 2). All other areas are covered
under subpart 1, based upon their 8hour ambient air quality design values.
The Clarksville-Hopkinsville area was
originally designated as a ‘‘basic’’ 8hour ozone nonattainment area by EPA
on April 30, 2004, (69 FR 23857) and is
subject to subpart 1 of part D. In 2004,
the ambient ozone data for the interstate
Clarksville-Hopkinsville nonattainment
area indicated no further violation of the
8-hour ozone standard, using data from
the 3-year period of 2002–2004 (with
the 2002–2004 design value of 0.082
ppm ), to demonstrate attainment.
Available preliminary monitoring data
through August 2005 indicates
continued attainment of the 8-hour
ozone standard.
On March 21, 2005, the
Commonwealth of Kentucky, through
the Kentucky Division for Air Quality
(KDAQ), submitted a request for parallel
processing and on May 20, 2005,
submitted a final request: (1) To
redesignate the Christian County,
Kentucky portion of the ClarksvilleHopkinsville 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area to attainment for the
8-hour ozone NAAQS, and (2) for EPA
approval of a Kentucky State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
containing a 12-year maintenance plan
for Christian County, Kentucky. EPA is
taking action on the request to
redesignate the Kentucky portion of the
area (i.e., Christian County) to
attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS
in a separate action.
On August 10, 2005, the State of
Tennessee requested redesignation to
attainment for the 8-hour ozone
standard for the Montgomery County,
Tennessee portion of the ClarksvilleHopkinsville interstate 8-hour ozone
area. The redesignation request includes
three years of complete, quality-assured
ambient air quality data for the ozone
seasons of 2002 through 2004,
indicating the 8-hour ozone NAAQS
had been achieved for the ClarksvilleHopkinsville area (of which
Montgomery County, Tennessee is a
part). The ozone season for this area is
from April 1 until September 30 of a
calendar year. Under the CAA,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:53 Sep 21, 2005
Jkt 205001
nonattainment areas may be
redesignated to attainment if sufficient,
complete, quality-assured data is
available for the Administrator to
determine that the area has attained the
standard and the area meets the other
CAA redesignation requirements in
section 107(d)(3)(E).
III. 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
providing that: (1) The Administrator
determines that the area has attained the
applicable 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 SIP
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
175A; and, (5) the State containing such
area has met all requirements applicable
to the area under section 110 and part
D.
EPA provided guidance on
redesignation in the General Preamble
for the Implementation of Title I of the
CAA Amendments of 1990, on April 16,
1992 (57 FR 13498), and supplemented
this guidance on April 28, 1992 (57 FR
18070). EPA has provided further
guidance on processing redesignation
requests in the following documents:
1. ‘‘Ozone and Carbon Monoxide
Design Value Calculations,’’
Memorandum from Bill Laxton, June 18,
1990;
2. ‘‘Maintenance Plans for
Redesignation of Ozone and Carbon
Monoxide Nonattainment Areas,’’
Memorandum from G.T. Helms, Chief,
Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs
Branch, April 30, 1992;
3. ‘‘Contingency Measures for Ozone
and Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Redesignations,’’ Memorandum from
G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon
Monoxide Programs Branch, June 1,
1992;
4. ‘‘Procedures for Processing
Requests to Redesignate Areas to
Attainment,’’ Memorandum from John
Calcagni, Director, Air Quality
Management Division, September 4,
1992;
5. ‘‘State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Actions Submitted in Response to Clean
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
55561
Air Act (ACT) Deadlines,’’
Memorandum from John Calcagni,
Director, Air Quality Management
Division, October 28, 1992;
6. ‘‘Technical Support Documents
(TSD’s) for Redesignation of Ozone and
Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment
Areas, Memorandum from G.T. Helms,
Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide
Programs Branch, August 17, 1993;
7. ‘‘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,’’ Memorandum
from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting
Assistant Administrator for Air and
Radiation, September 17, 1993;
8. ‘‘Use of Actual Emissions in
Maintenance Demonstrations for Ozone
and CO Nonattainment Areas,’’
Memorandum from D. Kent Berry,
Acting Director, Air Quality
Management Division, November 30,
1993;
9. ‘‘Part D New Source Review (Part
D NSR) Requirements for Areas
Requesting Redesignation to
Attainment,’’ Memorandum from Mary
D. Nichols, Assistant Administrator for
Air and Radiation, October 14, 1994;
and
10. ‘‘Reasonable Further Progress,
Attainment Demonstration, and Related
Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment
Areas Meeting the Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standard,’’
Memorandum from John S. Seitz,
Director, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, May 10, 1995.
IV. Why Is EPA Taking These Actions?
On August 10, 2005, the State of
Tennessee requested redesignation of
the Montgomery County, Tennessee
portion of the Clarksville-Hopkinsville
8-hour ozone nonattainment area to
attainment for the 8-hour ozone
standard. EPA believes that the State of
Tennessee has demonstrated that
Montgomery County, Tennessee (as part
of the Clarksville-Hopkinsville area) has
attained the standard and has met the
requirements for redesignation set forth
in section 107(d)(3)(E) of CAA.
V. What Is the Effect of EPA’s Actions?
Approval of this redesignation request
would change the official designation of
Montgomery County, Tennessee for the
8-hour ozone NAAQS found at 40 CFR
part 81. It would also incorporate into
the Tennessee SIP a plan for
maintaining the 8-hour ozone NAAQS
in the area through 2016. The
maintenance plan includes contingency
measures to remedy future violations of
E:\FR\FM\22SER1.SGM
22SER1
55562
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 183 / Thursday, September 22, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and would
establish MVEBs of 3.00 tons per day
(tpd) for VOC and 9.05 tpd for NOX for
the year 2016.
VI. What Is EPA’s Analysis of the
Request?
EPA is making the determination that
the Clarksville-Hopkinsville 8-hour
ozone nonattainment area has attained
the 8-hour ozone standard, and that all
other redesignation criteria have been
met. The basis for EPA’s determination
is as follows:
(1) The Clarksville-Hopkinsville area
has attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
EPA is making the determination that
the area has attained the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. For ozone, an area may be
considered to be attaining the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS if there are no violations,
as determined in accordance with 40
CFR 50.10 and appendix I of part 50,
based on three complete, consecutive
calendar years of quality-assured air
quality monitoring data. To attain this
standard, the 3-year average of the
fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour
average ozone concentrations measured
at each monitor within an area over
each year must not exceed 0.08 ppm.
Based on the rounding convention
described in 40 CFR part 50, appendix
I, the standard is attained if the design
value is 0.084 ppm or below. The data
must be collected and quality-assured in
accordance with 40 CFR part 58, and
recorded in the EPA Air Quality System
(AQS). The monitors generally should
have remained at the same location for
the duration of the monitoring period
required for demonstrating attainment.
KDAQ, on behalf of Tennessee,
submitted ozone monitoring data to EPA
for the ozone season from 2002 to 2004.
There is currently one monitor
measuring ozone, located within
Christian County, Kentucky, which
provides air quality data for the entire
Clarksville-Hopkinsville 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area. The State of
Tennessee relies on Kentucky’s
monitoring data for this area. This data
has been quality assured and is recorded
in AQS. The fourth-highest averages for
2002, 2003 and 2004, and the 3-year
average of these values (i.e., design
value), are summarized in the following
table:
County
2002
2003
2004
2002–2004
Christian .........................................................................................................................................................
0.093
0.080
0.074
0.082
Available preliminary monitoring
data through August 2005 indicates
continued attainment of the 8-hour
ozone standard. In addition, as
discussed below with respect to the
maintenance plan, KDAQ has
committed to continue monitoring in
these areas in accordance with 40 CFR
part 58. In summary, EPA believes that
the data submitted by Kentucky
provides an adequate demonstration
that the Clarksville-Hopkinsville 8-hour
ozone nonattainment area has attained
the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
(2) Tennessee has a fully approved
SIP under section 110(k) for
Montgomery County and (5) has met all
applicable requirements under section
110 and part D of the CAA. Below is a
summary of how these two criteria were
met.
EPA has determined that Tennessee
has met all applicable SIP requirements
for Montgomery County under section
110 of the CAA (general SIP
requirements). EPA has also determined
that the Tennessee SIP satisfies the
criterion that it meets applicable SIP
requirements under part D of title I of
the CAA (requirements specific to
subpart 1 basic 8-hour ozone
nonattainment areas) in accordance
with section 107(d)(3)(E)(v). In addition,
EPA has determined that the SIP is fully
approved with respect to all applicable
requirements in accordance with section
107(d)(3)(E)(ii). In making these
determinations, EPA ascertained which
requirements are applicable to the area
and that if applicable they are fully
approved under section 110(k). SIPs
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:53 Sep 21, 2005
Jkt 205001
must be fully approved only with
respect to applicable requirements.
a. Montgomery County, Tennessee has
met all applicable requirements under
section 110 and part D of the CAA. The
September 4, 1992, Calcagni
memorandum (see ‘‘Procedures for
Processing Requests to Redesignate
Areas to Attainment,’’ Memorandum
from John Calcagni, Director, Air
Quality Management Division,
September 4, 1992) describes EPA’s
interpretation of section 107(d)(3)(E).
Under this interpretation, to qualify for
redesignation, states requesting
redesignation to attainment must meet
only the relevant CAA requirements that
come due prior to the submittal of a
complete redesignation request. See also
Michael Shapiro memorandum,
September 17, 1993, and 60 FR 12459,
12465–66 (March 7, 1995)
(redesignation of Detroit-Ann Arbor,
MI). Applicable requirements of the
CAA that come due subsequent to the
area’s submittal of a complete
redesignation request remain applicable
until a redesignation is approved, but
are not required as a prerequisite to
redesignation. See section 175A(c) of
the CAA; Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d
537 (7th Cir. 2004). See also 68 FR
25424, 25427 (May 12, 2003)
(redesignation of St. Louis, MO).
General SIP requirements: Section
110(a)(2) of title I of the CAA delineates
the general requirements for a SIP,
which include enforceable emissions
limitations and other control measures,
means, or techniques, provisions for the
establishment and operation of
appropriate devices necessary to collect
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
data on ambient air quality, and
programs to enforce the limitations.
General SIP elements and requirements
are delineated in section 110(a)(2) of
title I, part A of the CAA. These
requirements include, but are not
limited to, the following: Submittal of a
SIP that has been adopted by the state
after reasonable public notice and
hearing; provisions for establishment
and operation of appropriate procedures
needed to monitor ambient air quality;
implementation of a source permit
program; provisions for the
implementation of part C requirement
(Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD)) and provisions for the
implementation of part D requirements
(New Source Review (NSR) permit
programs); provisions for air pollution
modeling; and provisions for public and
local agency participation in planning
and emission control rule development.
These requirements are discussed in the
following EPA documents: ‘‘Procedures
for Processing Requests to Redesignate
Areas to Attainment,’’ Memorandum
from John Calcagni, Director, Air
Quality Management Division,
September 4, 1992; ‘‘State
Implementation Plan (SIP) Actions
Submitted in Response to Clean Air Act
(CAA) Deadlines,’’ memorandum from
John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality
Management Division, October 28, 1992;
and ‘‘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,’’ Memorandum
E:\FR\FM\22SER1.SGM
22SER1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 183 / Thursday, September 22, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting
Assistant Administrator, September 17,
1993. See also guidance documents
listed in section III above.
Section 110(a)(2)(D) requires that SIPs
contain certain measures to prevent
sources in a state from significantly
contributing to air quality problems in
another state. To implement this
provision, EPA has required certain
states to establish programs to address
the transport of air pollutants (NOX SIP
Call, Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR)).
EPA has also found, generally, that
states have not submitted SIPs under
section 110(a)(1) to meet the interstate
transport requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i). However, the section
110(a)(2)(D) requirements for a state are
not linked with a particular
nonattainment area’s designation and
classification in that state. EPA believes
that the requirements linked with a
particular nonattainment area’s
designation and classification are the
relevant measures to evaluate in
reviewing a redesignation request. The
transport SIP submittal requirements,
where applicable, continue to apply to
a state regardless of the designation of
any one particular area in the state.
Thus, we do not believe that these
requirements should be construed to be
applicable requirements for purposes of
redesignation. In addition, EPA believes
that the other section 110 elements not
connected with nonattainment plan
submissions and not linked with an
area’s attainment status are not
applicable requirements for purposes of
redesignation. The State will still be
subject to these requirements after the
area is redesignated. The section 110
and part D requirements, which are
linked with a particular area’s
designation and classification, are the
relevant measures to evaluate in
reviewing a redesignation request. This
policy is consistent with EPA’s existing
policy on applicability (i.e., for
redesignations) of conformity and
oxygenated fuels requirements, as well
as with section 184 ozone transport
requirements. See Reading,
Pennsylvania, proposed and final
rulemakings (61 FR 53174–53176,
October 10, 1996), (62 FR 24826, May 7,
1997); Cleveland-Akron-Loraine, Ohio,
final rulemaking (61 FR 20458, May 7,
1996); and Tampa, Florida, final
rulemaking at (60 FR 62748, December
7, 1995). See also the discussion on this
issue in the Cincinnati redesignation (65
FR 37890, June 19, 2000), and in the
Pittsburgh redesignation (66 FR 50399,
October 19, 2001). In addition,
Tennessee’s response to the CAIR rule is
not due until September 2006.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:53 Sep 21, 2005
Jkt 205001
EPA believes that section 110
elements not linked to the area’s
nonattainment status are not applicable
for purposes of redesignation.
Nonetheless, EPA also notes that it has
previously approved provisions in the
Tennessee SIP addressing section 110
elements under the 1-hour standard (45
FR 53809, August 13, 1980; 47 FR
27267, June 24, 1982). EPA believes that
the section 110 SIP approved for the 1hour standard is sufficient to meet
requirements under the 8-hour standard
as well.
Part D requirements: EPA has also
determined that the Tennessee SIP
meets applicable SIP requirements
under part D of the CAA since no
requirements became due prior to the
submission of the area’s redesignation
request. Sections 172–176 of the CAA,
found in subpart 1 of part D, set forth
the basic nonattainment requirements
applicable to all nonattainment areas.
Section 182 of the CAA, found in
subpart 2 of part D, establishes
additional specific requirements
depending on the area’s nonattainment
classification. Subpart 2 is not
applicable to the ClarksvilleHopkinsville area.
Part D, subpart 1 applicable SIP
requirements: For purposes of
evaluating this redesignation request,
the applicable part D, subpart 1 SIP
requirements for all nonattainment areas
are contained in sections 172(c)(1)–(9).
A thorough discussion of the
requirements contained in section 172
can be found in the General Preamble
for Implementation of Title I (57 FR
13498). None of the requirements under
part D became due prior to the
submission of the redesignation request,
and therefore none are applicable to the
area for purposes of redesignation. For
example, the requirements for an
attainment demonstration that meets the
requirements of section 172(c)(1) are not
yet applicable, nor are the requirements
for Reasonably Achievable Control
Technology (RACT) and Reasonably
Available Control Measures (RACM)
(section 172(c)(1), reasonable further
progress (RFP) (section 172(c)(2)) and
contingency measures (section
172(c)(9)).
In addition to the fact that these part
D requirements did not become due
prior to submission of the redesignation
request and therefore are not applicable,
EPA believes it is reasonable to interpret
the conformity and new source review
requirements as not requiring approval
prior to redesignation.
Section 176 Conformity
Requirements: Section 176(c) of the
CAA requires states to establish criteria
and procedures to ensure that Federally
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
55563
supported or funded projects conform to
the air quality planning goals in the
applicable SIP. The requirement to
determine conformity applies to
transportation plans, programs and
projects developed, funded or approved
under title 23 of the United States Code
(U.S.C.) and the Federal Transit Act
(‘‘transportation conformity’’) as well as
to all other Federally supported or
funded projects (‘‘general conformity’’).
State conformity revisions must be
consistent with Federal conformity
regulations that the CAA required the
EPA to promulgate.
EPA believes it is reasonable to
interpret the conformity requirements as
not applying for purposes of evaluating
the redesignation request under section
107(d) because state conformity rules
are still required after redesignation and
Federal conformity rules apply where
state rules have not been approved. See
Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir.
2001), upholding this interpretation. See
also 60 FR 62748 (December 7, 1995,
Tampa, FL).
EPA has also determined that areas
being redesignated need not comply
with the requirement that a NSR
program be approved prior to
redesignation, provided that the area
demonstrates maintenance of the
standard without part D NSR in effect
since PSD requirements will apply after
redesignation. The rationale for this
view is described in a memorandum
from Mary Nichols, Assistant
Administrator for Air and Radiation,
dated October 14, 1994, entitled ‘‘Part D
New Source Review Requirements for
Areas Requesting Redesignation to
Attainment.’’ The State has
demonstrated that the area will be able
to maintain the standard without part D
NSR in effect, and therefore, the State
need not have a fully approved part D
NSR program prior to approval of the
redesignation request. The State’s PSD
program will become effective in the
area upon redesignation to attainment.
See rulemakings for Detroit, MI (60 FR
12467–12468, March 7, 1995);
Cleveland-Akron-Lorraine, OH (61 FR
20458, 20469–70, May 7, 1996);
Louisville, KY (66 FR 53665, October
23, 2001); Grand Rapids, Michigan (61
FR 31834–31837, June 21, 1996). Thus,
the area has satisfied all applicable
requirements under section 110 and part
D of the CAA.
b. The area has a fully approved
applicable SIP under section 110(k) of
the CAA. EPA has fully approved the
applicable Tennessee SIP for the
Montgomery County area under section
110(k) of the Clean Air Act. EPA may
rely on prior SIP approvals in approving
a redesignation request, Calcagni Memo
E:\FR\FM\22SER1.SGM
22SER1
55564
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 183 / Thursday, September 22, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
at p. 3; Southwestern Pennsylvania
Growth Alliance v. Browner, 144 F.3d
984, 989–90 (6th Cir. 1998); Wall v.
EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001), plus
any additional measures it may approve
in conjunction with a redesignation
action. See 68 FR 25426 (May 12, 2003)
and citations therein. Following passage
of the CAA of 1970, Tennessee has
adopted and submitted, and EPA has
fully approved at various times,
provisions addressing the various 1hour ozone standard SIP elements
applicable in the Montgomery County
area (45 FR 53809, August 13, 1980 and
49 FR 1342, January 11, 1984). As
indicated above, EPA believes that the
section 110 elements not connected
with nonattainment plan submissions
and not linked to the area’s
nonattainment status are not applicable
requirements for purposes of
redesignation. EPA also believes that
since the part D requirements did not
become due prior to submission of the
redesignation request, they also are
therefore not applicable requirements
for purposes of redesignation.
(3) The air quality improvement in the
Clarksville-Hopkinsville 8-hour ozone
area is due to permanent and
enforceable reductions in emissions
resulting from implementation of the
SIP and applicable Federal air pollution
control regulations and other permanent
and enforceable reductions.
EPA believes that the State has
demonstrated that the observed air
quality improvement in the area is due
to permanent and enforceable
reductions in emissions resulting from
implementation of the SIP, Federal
measures, and other state-adopted
measures. EPA has determined that the
implementation of the following
permanent and enforceable emissions
controls, that occurred from 2001–2004,
have reduced local VOC and NOX
emissions and brought the area into
attainment:
—Federal Motor Vehicle Control
Standards in Tennessee;
—EPA’s Tier 2/Low Sulfur Gasoline
program;
—EPA’s Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle
and Fuel Standards;
—Federal controls on certain nonroad
engines implemented during the
2002–2004 period;
—Reductions due to the NOX SIP Call;
In addition to the reductions
mentioned above, the State of Tennessee
is also relying on the following controls
to maintain the 8-hour standard:
—Prevention of Significant
Deterioration requirements;
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:53 Sep 21, 2005
Jkt 205001
—Federal controls on certain nonroad
engines after 2000;
—Federal control through Maximum
Achievable Control Technology
(MACT) of Hazardous Air Pollutants
emissions will also contribute to
maintaining the standard in the area.
The State has demonstrated that the
implementation of permanent and
enforceable emissions controls have
reduced local VOC and NOX emissions.
Most of the reductions are attributable
to Federal programs such as EPA’s Tier
2/Low Sulfur Gasoline program and
other national clean fuel programs that
began implementation in 2004.
Additionally, the State has indicated in
its submittal that the ClarksvilleHopkinsville area has benefited from
emissions reductions that have been
achieved and will continue to be
achieved through implementation of the
NOX SIP Call, beginning in 2002. The
State has also demonstrated that year-toyear meteorological changes and trends
are not the likely source of the overall,
long-term improvement in ozone levels.
Also, the following non-highway mobile
source reduction programs were
implemented during the 2002–2004
period: small spark-ignition engines,
large-spark ignition engines,
locomotives and land-based diesel
engines. EPA believes that permanent
and enforceable emissions reductions in
and surrounding the nonattainment area
are the cause of the long-term
improvement in ozone levels, and are
the cause of the area achieving
attainment of the ozone standard.
(4) The area has a fully approved
maintenance plan pursuant to section
175A of the CAA. In conjunction with
its request to redesignate the
Montgomery County, Tennessee portion
of the Clarksville-Hopkinsville 8-hour
ozone nonattainment area to attainment
status, TDEC submitted a SIP revision to
provide for the maintenance of the 8hour ozone NAAQS in the Montgomery
County area for at least 10 years after the
effective date of redesignation to
attainment.
a. What Is Required in a Maintenance
Plan?
Section 175A of the CAA sets forth
the elements of a maintenance plan for
areas seeking redesignation from
nonattainment to attainment. Under
section 175A, the plan must
demonstrate continued attainment of
the applicable NAAQS for at least 10
years after the Administrator approves a
redesignation to attainment. Eight years
after the redesignation, the State must
submit a revised maintenance plan
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
which demonstrates that attainment will
continue to be maintained for the 10
years following the initial 10-year
period. To address the possibility of
future NAAQS violations, the
maintenance plan must contain such
contingency measures, with a schedule
for implementation as EPA deems
necessary to assure prompt correction of
any future 8-hour ozone violations.
Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the
elements of a maintenance plan for
areas seeking redesignation from
nonattainment to attainment. The
Calcagni memorandum, dated
September 4, 1992, provides additional
guidance on the content of a
maintenance plan. An ozone
maintenance plan should address five
requirements: the attainment emissions
inventory, maintenance demonstration,
monitoring, verification of continued
attainment, and a contingency plan.
b. Attainment Emissions Inventory
The Clarksville-Hopkinsville area has
selected 2004 as ‘‘the attainment year’’
for purposes of demonstrating
attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
The 2004 VOC and NOX emissions for
the Montgomery County area were
developed consistent with EPA
guidance and are summarized in the
table in the following subsection.
c. Maintenance Demonstration
The August 10, 2005, submittal
includes a 12-year maintenance plan for
Montgomery County. This
demonstration:
(i) Shows compliance and
maintenance of the 8-hour ozone
standard by assuring that current and
future emissions of VOC and NOX
remain at or below attainment year 2004
emissions levels. The year 2004 was
chosen as the attainment year because it
is one of the most recent three years
(i.e., 2002, 2003, and 2004) for which
the Clarksville-Hopkinsville area has
clean air quality data for the 8-hour
ozone standard.
(ii) Uses 2004 as the attainment year
and includes future inventory projected
years for 2007, 2010, 2013, and 2016.
(iii) Identifies an ‘‘out year,’’ at least
10 years after the time necessary for
EPA to review and approve the
maintenance plan. Per 40 CFR part 93,
a MVEB was established for the last year
of the maintenance plan. See section VII
below.
(iv) Provides the following actual and
projected emissions inventories for
Montgomery County.
E:\FR\FM\22SER1.SGM
22SER1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 183 / Thursday, September 22, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
55565
NOX EMISSIONS (TPD) FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY
Source category
2004
2007
2010
2013
2016
Point .......................................................................................................................................
Area ........................................................................................................................................
Mobile .....................................................................................................................................
Nonroad .................................................................................................................................
0.79
1.26
12.39
4.22
0.90
1.27
10.52
3.95
0.99
1.26
8.54
3.63
1.08
1.27
6.38
3.33
1.18
1.27
4.88
2.99
Total ................................................................................................................................
18.66
16.65
14.42
12.06
10.32
Safety Margin .........................................................................................................................
..............
2.02
4.25
6.61
8.34
VOC EMISSIONS (TPD) FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY
Source category
2004
2007
2010
2013
2016
Point .......................................................................................................................................
Area ........................................................................................................................................
Mobile .....................................................................................................................................
Nonroad .................................................................................................................................
2.22
11.60
5.27
1.46
2.45
12.10
4.35
1.32
2.64
12.40
3.68
1.14
2.90
12.90
3.15
1.00
3.18
13.30
2.82
0.90
Total ................................................................................................................................
20.56
20.22
19.86
19.95
20.20
Safety Margin .........................................................................................................................
..............
0.34
0.70
0.61
0.36
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 NAAQS.
d. Monitoring Network
There is currently one monitor
measuring ozone, located within
Christian County, Kentucky, which
provides air quality data for the entire
Clarksville-Hopkinsville 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area. The
Commonwealth of Kentucky has
committed in its maintenance plan to
continue operation of the ozone monitor
in compliance with 40 CFR part 58, and
has addressed the requirement for
monitoring. Kentucky’s approved SIP
commitment satisfies Tennessee’s
obligation for continued monitoring for
the Clarksville-Hopkinsville area.
e. Verification of Continued Attainment
The State has the legal authority to
enforce and implement the
requirements of the ozone maintenance
plan for Montgomery County,
Tennessee. This includes the authority
to adopt, implement and enforce any
subsequent emissions control
contingency measures determined to be
necessary to correct future ozone
attainment problems.
Tennessee will track the progress of
the maintenance plan by performing
future reviews of actual emissions for
the area using the latest emissions
factors, models and methodologies. For
these periodic inventories the State will
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:53 Sep 21, 2005
Jkt 205001
review the assumptions made for the
purpose of the maintenance
demonstration concerning projected
growth of activity levels. If any of these
assumptions appear to have changed
substantially, the State will re-project
emissions.
g. Contingency Plan
The contingency plan provisions are
designed to promptly correct a violation
of the NAAQS that occurs after
redesignation. Section 175A of the CAA
requires that a maintenance plan
include such contingency measures as
EPA deems necessary to assure that the
State will promptly correct a violation
of the NAAQS that occurs after
redesignation. The maintenance plan
should identify the contingency
measures to be adopted, a schedule and
procedure for adoption and
implementation, and a time limit for
action by the state. A state should also
identify specific indicators to be used to
determine when the contingency
measures need to be implemented. The
maintenance plan must include a
requirement that a state will implement
all measures with respect to control of
the pollutant that were contained in the
SIP before redesignation of the area to
attainment in accordance with section
175A(d).
In the August 10, 2005, submittal,
Tennessee affirms that all programs
instituted by the State and EPA will
remain enforceable, and that sources are
prohibited from reducing emissions
controls following the redesignation of
the area. In the submittal, if there is a
measured violation of the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS in the Clarksville-Hopkinsville
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
nonattainment area, the State of
Tennessee commits to develop
regulations for at least one of the
following control measures for
submission to the EPA within nine
months. The State will also submit a
control plan to EPA within twelve
months. All regulatory programs will be
implemented in twenty-four months
from a measured violation. The State
will consider one or more of the
following contingency measures to reattain the standard.
• RACT for NOX sources.
• Programs or incentives to decrease
motor vehicle use.
• Trip reduction ordinances.
• Implementation of a program to
require additional emissions
reductions on stationary sources.
• Implementation of a program to
enhance inspection of stationary
sources to ensure emissions control
equipment is functioning properly.
• Implementation of fuel programs,
including incentives for alternative
fuels.
• Restrictions of certain roads or lanes
for, or construction of such roads or
lanes for use by, passenger buses or
high—occupancy vehicles.
• Employer-based transportation
management plans, including
incentives programs to limit or restrict
vehicle use in downtown areas, or
other areas of high emissions
concentration, particularly during
periods of peak use.
• Programs for new construction and
major reconstruction of paths for use
by pedestrians or by non-motorized
vehicles when economically feasible
and in the public interest.
E:\FR\FM\22SER1.SGM
22SER1
55566
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 183 / Thursday, September 22, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
In addition, the maintenance plan
provides that in the event that a
measured violation of the 8-hour ozone
design value occurs in any portion of
the maintenance area, or if periodic
emissions inventory updates reveal
excessive or unanticipated growth
greater than 10 percent in ozone
precursor emissions, the State will
evaluate existing control measures to
see if any further emissions reduction
measures should be implemented at that
time.
EPA has concluded that the
maintenance plan adequately addresses
the five basic components of a
maintenance plan: Attainment
inventory, maintenance demonstration,
monitoring network, verification of
continued attainment, and a
contingency plan. The maintenance
plan SIP revision submitted by
Tennessee for Montgomery County
meets the requirements of section 175A
of the CAA.
VII. What Is an Adequacy
Determination and What is the Status of
EPA’s Adequacy Determination for
Montgomery County’s Proposed New
MVEBs for the Year 2016?
Under the CAA, States are required to
submit, at various times, control strategy
SIPs and maintenance plans in ozone
areas. These control strategy SIPs (e.g.
reasonable further progress SIPs and
attainment demonstration SIPs) and
maintenance plans create MVEBs for
criteria pollutants and/or their
precursors to address pollution from
cars and trucks. Per 40 CFR part 93, a
MVEB is established for the last year of
the maintenance plan. The MVEB is the
portion of the total allowable emissions
in the maintenance demonstration that
is allocated to highway and transit
vehicle use and emissions. The MVEB
serves as a ceiling on emissions from an
area’s planned transportation system.
The MVEB concept is further explained
in the preamble to the November 24,
1993, transportation conformity rule (58
FR 62188). The preamble also describes
how to establish the MVEB in the SIP
and revise the MVEB.
Under section 176(c) of the CAA, new
transportation projects, such as the
construction of new highways, must
‘‘conform’’ to (i.e., be consistent with)
the part of the State’s air quality plan
that addresses pollution from cars and
trucks. ‘‘Conformity’’ to the SIP means
that transportation activities will not
cause new air quality violations, worsen
existing violations, or delay timely
attainment of the NAAQS. If a
transportation plan does not ‘‘conform,’’
most new projects that would expand
the capacity of roadways cannot go
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:53 Sep 21, 2005
Jkt 205001
forward. Regulations at 40 CFR part 93
set forth EPA policy, criteria, and
procedures for demonstrating and
assuring conformity of such
transportation activities to a SIP.
When reviewing submitted ‘‘control
strategy’’ SIPs or maintenance plans
containing MVEBs, EPA must
affirmatively find the MVEB contained
therein ‘‘adequate’’ for use in
determining transportation conformity.
Once EPA affirmatively finds the
submitted MVEB is adequate for
transportation conformity purposes, that
MVEB can be used by state and Federal
agencies in determining whether
proposed transportation projects
‘‘conform’’ to the SIP as required by
section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act.
EPA’s substantive criteria for
determining ‘‘adequacy’’ of an MVEB
are set out in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4).
EPA’s process for determining
‘‘adequacy’’ consists of three basic steps:
public notification of a SIP submission,
a public comment period, and EPA’s
adequacy finding. This process for
determining the adequacy of submitted
SIP MVEBs was initially outlined in
EPA’s May 14, 1999 guidance,
‘‘Conformity Guidance on
Implementation of March 2, 1999,
Conformity Court Decision.’’ This
guidance was finalized in the
Transportation Conformity Rule
Amendments for the ‘‘New 8-Hour
Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air
Quality Standards and Miscellaneous
Revisions for Existing Areas;
Transportation Conformity Rule
Amendments—Response to Court
Decision and Additional Rule Change’’
on July 1, 2004 (69 FR 40004). EPA
follows this guidance and rulemaking in
making its adequacy determinations.
Montgomery County’s 12-year
maintenance plan submission contained
new VOC and NOX MVEBs for the year
2016. The availability of the SIP
submission with the 2016 MVEBs was
announced for public comment on
EPA’s adequacy Web page on July 12,
2005, at: https://www.epa.gov/otaq/
transp/conform/currsips.htm. The EPA
public comment period on the adequacy
of the 2016 MVEBs for Montgomery
County, Tennessee closed on August 11,
2005. EPA did not receive any adverse
comments or requests for the submittal.
Through this rulemaking, EPA is
finding adequate and approving those
MVEBs for use to determine
transportation conformity because EPA
has determined that the area maintains
the standard with emissions at the
levels of the budgets. These MVEBs will
be separate state area budgets for the
Montgomery County, Tennessee area.
The Commonwealth of Kentucky has
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
established MVEBs for the Christian
County portion of the ClarksvilleHopkinsville area through the Kentucky
SIP. The following table defines the
2016 MVEBs for Montgomery County,
Tennessee.
MONTGOMERY COUNTY 8-HOUR
OZONE MAINTENANCE AREA MVEBS
2016
NOX (tpd) ........................................
VOC (tpd) .......................................
9.05
3.00
VIII. Action on the Redesignation
Request, the Maintenance Plan SIP
Revision Including Approval of the
2016 MVEBs
EPA is making the determination that
the Clarksville-Hopkinsville area has
attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA
is approving the redesignation of the
Montgomery County, Tennessee portion
of the area from nonattainment to
attainment for the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. After evaluating the State of
Tennessee’s redesignation request, EPA
has determined that it meets the
redesignation criteria set forth in section
107(d)(3)(E) of the Clean Air Act. EPA
believes that the redesignation request
and monitoring data demonstrate that
the Clarksville-Hopkinsville area (of
which Montgomery County is a part)
has attained the 8-hour ozone standard.
The final approval of this redesignation
request would change the official
designation for the Montgomery County
area from nonattainment to attainment
for the 8-hour ozone standard.
EPA is also approving the
maintenance plan SIP revision.
Approval of the maintenance plan for
Montgomery County is allowable,
because the State of Tennessee has
demonstrated that the plan meets the
requirements of section 175A as
described more fully in this rulemaking.
Additionally, EPA is finding adequate
and approving the new 2016 MVEBs,
submitted by Tennessee for
Montgomery County, in conjunction
with its redesignation request. Within
24 months from the effective date of this
action, the transportation partners will
need to demonstrate conformity to these
new MVEBs pursuant to 40 CFR
93.104(e). EPA is publishing this rule
without prior approval because the
Agency views this as noncontroversial
and anticipates no adverse comment.
However, in the Proposed Rules section
of today’s Federal Register EPA is
publishing a proposal to approve the
redesignation and maintenance plan
that will serve as the proposal if adverse
comments are filed. This rule will be
E:\FR\FM\22SER1.SGM
22SER1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 183 / Thursday, September 22, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
effective on November 21, 2005 unless
EPA receives adverse comments by
October 24, 2005. If EPA receives
adverse comment, EPA will publish a
timely withdrawal in the Federal
Register informing the public that the
rule will not take effect. EPA will
address the public comments in a
subsequent final rule based on the
proposed rule. EPA will not institute a
second comment period on this action.
Any parties interested in commenting
must do so at this time.
IX. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
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. For
this reason, this action is also not
subject to Executive Order 13211,
‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May
22, 2001). This action merely approves
state law as meeting Federal
requirements and imposes no additional
requirements beyond those imposed by
state law. Redesignation of an area to
attainment under section 107(d)(3)(E) of
the Clean Air 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 new regulatory
requirements on sources. 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 or
significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, as described in the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(Pub. L. 104–4).
This rule also does not have tribal
implications because it will 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). This
action also does not have Federalism
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:53 Sep 21, 2005
Jkt 205001
implications because it does 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 (64 FR 43255,
August 10, 1999). This action merely
affects the status of a geographical area,
does not impose any new requirements
on sources, or allows a state to avoid
adopting or implementing other
requirements, and does not alter the
relationship or the distribution of power
and responsibilities established in the
Clean Air Act. This rule also is not
subject to Executive Order 13045
‘‘Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997),
because it is not economically
significant and because the Agency does
not have reason to believe that the rule
concerns an environmental health risk
or safety risk that may
disproportionately affect children.
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s
role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the
absence of a prior existing requirement
for the State to use voluntary consensus
standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for
failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for
EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission,
to use VCS in place of a SIP submission
that otherwise satisfies the provisions of
the Clean Air Act. Redesignation is an
action that affects the status of a
geographical area but does not impose
any new requirements on sources. Thus,
the requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.
272 note) do not apply. 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 will submit a
report containing this rule and other
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
55567
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).
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 November 21, 2005. 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, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic
compounds.
40 CFR Part 81
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, National parks,
Wilderness areas.
Dated: September 13, 2005.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
40 CFR part 52 and 81 is amended as
follows:
I
PART 52—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart RR—Tennessee
2. Section 52.2220(e) is amended by
adding a new entry at the end of the
table for ‘‘8-Hour Ozone Maintenance
plan for the Montgomery County,
Tennessee area’’ to read as follows:
I
§ 52.2220
*
Identification of plan.
*
*
(e) * * *
E:\FR\FM\22SER1.SGM
22SER1
*
*
55568
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 183 / Thursday, September 22, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
EPA-APPROVED TENNESSEE NON-REGULATORY PROVISIONS
Name of nonregulatory SIP
provision
*
8-Hour Ozone Maintenance
plan for the Montgomery
County, Tennessee area.
Applicable geographic or
nonattainment area
*
State effective
date
*
Montgomery County .............
*
08/10/2005
EPA approval date
*
*
09/22/2005 [Insert first page
of publication]
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
PART 81—[AMENDED]
*
‘‘Clarksville-Hopkinsville, TN–KY:
Montgomery County’’ to read as follows:
2. In § 81.318, the table entitled
‘‘Tennessee-Ozone (8-Hour Standard)’’
is amended by revising the entry for
I
1. The authority citation for part 81
continues to read as follows:
I
Explanation
§ 81.343
*
*
Tennessee.
*
*
*
TENNESSEE—OZONE
[8-Hour Standard]
Designation a
Category/Classification
Designated area
Date b
*
*
*
Clarksville-Hopkinsville, TN–KY Area:
Montgomery County .........................................................
*
*
*
Date b
Type
*
*
October 24, 2005
Type
*
*
*
*
Attainment.
*
*
a Includes
b This
*
Indian Country located in each county or area, except as otherwise specified.
date is June 15, 2004, unless otherwise noted.
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 05–18953 Filed 9–21–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 60
[OAR–2003–0119; FRL–7971–9]
RIN 2060–AN31
Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources and Emission
Guidelines for Existing Sources:
Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste
Incineration Units
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule; amendments.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The EPA has completed its
reconsideration of certain regulatory
definitions that determine the type of
sources subject to EPA’s new source
performance standards (NSPS) and
emission guidelines (EG) for commercial
and industrial solid waste incineration
(CISWI) units under section 129 of the
Clean Air Act (CAA). With this action,
EPA is promulgating revised definitions
for the terms ‘‘solid waste,’’
‘‘commercial or industrial waste,’’ and
‘‘commercial and industrial solid waste
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:53 Sep 21, 2005
Jkt 205001
incineration unit.’’ The final CISWI
definitions of these terms promulgated
today are consistent with EPA’s
February 2004 reconsideration proposal
in that EPA will continue to identify
CISWI units based on whether such
units combust waste without energy
recovery. However, the revised
definitions promulgated today do not
include certain regulatory language
proposed in February 2004 to include
units with only waste heat recovery in
the CISWI source category. In a
subsequent rulemaking action, EPA
intends to propose additional regulatory
language to address units with only
waste heat recovery and assess the
impacts of the inclusion of these units
in the CISWI source category. As a
result of our action today on the CISWI
definitions, it is not necessary to make
any corresponding revisions to the
National Emissions Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for
Industrial, Commercial, and
Institutional Boilers and Process
Heaters.
DATES: The final rule is effective
September 22, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Docket: EPA has established
a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. OAR–2003–0119. All documents in
the docket are listed in the EDOCKET
index at https://www.epa.gov/edocket.
Although listed in the index, some
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
information is not publicly available,
i.e., CBI or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on
the Internet and will be publicly
available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically in
EDOCKET or in hard copy at the EPA
Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West
Building, Room B102, 1301 Constitution
Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number for the Public Reading Room is
(202) 566–1744, and the telephone
number for the EPA Docket Center is
(202) 566–1742.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Brian Shrager, Combustion Group,
Emission Standards Division (C439–01),
U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711; telephone number:
(919) 541–7689; e-mail address:
shrager.brian@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Judicial Review. Under section
307(b)(1) of the CAA, judicial review of
the final rule is available only by filing
a petition for review in the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the District of Columbia
by November 21, 2005. Under section
307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA, only an
E:\FR\FM\22SER1.SGM
22SER1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 183 (Thursday, September 22, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 55559-55568]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-18953]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[R04-OAR-2005-TN-0007-200527(a) FRL-7973-5]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation
of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Tennessee; Redesignation of
the Montgomery County, Tennessee Portion of the Clarksville-
Hopkinsville 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area to Attainment
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On August 10, 2005, the State of Tennessee, through the
Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC), Air
Pollution Control Division, submitted a final request: To redesignate
the Montgomery County, Tennessee portion of the Clarksville-
Hopkinsville 8-hour ozone nonattainment area to attainment for the 8-
hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS), and to
approve a Tennessee State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision containing
a 12-year maintenance plan for Montgomery County, Tennessee. The
interstate Clarksville-Hopkinsville 8-hour ozone nonattainment area is
comprised of two counties (i.e., Christian County, Kentucky and
Montgomery County, Tennessee). EPA is approving the 8-hour ozone
redesignation request for the Montgomery County, Tennessee portion of
the Clarksville-Hopkinsville 8-hour ozone nonattainment area.
Additionally, EPA is approving the 8-hour ozone maintenance plan for
Montgomery County, Tennessee. This approval is based on EPA's
determination that the State of Tennessee has demonstrated that
Montgomery County, Tennessee has met the criteria for redesignation to
attainment specified in the Clean Air Act (CAA), including the
determination that the entire Clarksville-Hopkinsville 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area has attained the 8-hour ozone standard. On March 21,
2005, the Commonwealth of Kentucky submitted a redesignation request
and maintenance plan for the Christian County, Kentucky portion of this
area for EPA parallel processing. In this action, EPA is also providing
information on the status of its transportation conformity adequacy
determination for the new motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs) for
the year 2016 that are contained in the 12-year 8-hour ozone
maintenance plan for Montgomery County, Tennessee. EPA is approving
such MVEBs.
DATES: This rule is effective on November 21, 2005, without further
notice, unless EPA receives adverse written comments by October 24,
2005. If EPA receives such comments, it will publish a timely
withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform
the public that the rule will not take effect.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Regional Material in
EDocket (RME) ID No. R04-OAR-2005-TN-0007, by one of the following
methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
2. Agency Web site: https://docket.epa.gov/rmepub/RME. EPA's
electronic public docket and comment system is EPA's preferred method
for receiving comments. Once in the system, select ``quick search,''
then key in the appropriate RME Docket identification number. Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
3. E-mail: hoffman.annemarie@epa.gov or wood.amanetta@epa.gov.
4. Fax: (404) 562-9019.
5. Mail: ``R04-OAR-2005-TN-0007,'' Regulatory Development Section,
Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
6. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to: Anne Marie
Hoffman or Amanetta Wood, Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning
Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such deliveries are only accepted during
the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional Office's
official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30,
excluding Federal holidays.
Instructions: Direct your comments to RME ID No. R04-OAR-2005-TN-
0007. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in
the public docket without change and may be made available online at
https://docket.epa.gov/rmepub/, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through RME, regulations.gov,
or e-mail. The EPA RME Web site and the Federal regulations.gov Web
site are ``anonymous access'' systems, which means EPA will not know
your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body
of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through RME or regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in
[[Page 55560]]
the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA
cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot
contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your
comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters,
any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
RME index at https://docket.epa.gov/rmepub/. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly
available docket materials are available either electronically in RME
or in hard copy at the Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning
Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you
contact the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to schedule your inspection.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anne Marie Hoffman of the Regulatory
Development Section or Amanetta Wood of the Air Quality Modeling and
Transportation Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61
Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number
is (404) 562-9074 or (404) 562-9025. Ms. Anne Marie Hoffman can be
reached via electronic mail at hoffman.annemarie@epa.gov. Ms. Amanetta
Wood can also be reached via electronic mail at wood.amanetta@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. What are the Actions EPA is Taking?
II. What is the Background for the Actions?
III What are the Redesignation Review Criteria?
IV. Why is EPA Taking These Actions?
V. What is the Effect of EPA's Actions?
VI. What is EPA's Analysis of the Request?
VII. What is an Adequacy Determination and What is the Status of
EPA's Adequacy Determination for the Montgomery County's Proposed
New MVEB for the Year 2016?
VIII. Action on the Redesignation Request, the Maintenance Plan SIP
Revision Including Approval of the 2016 MVEBs
IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What Are the Actions EPA Is Taking?
Through this rulemaking, EPA is taking several related actions. EPA
is making the determination that the Clarksville-Hopkinsville 8-hour
ozone nonattainment area has attained the 8-hour ozone standard, and
the Montgomery County, Tennessee portion has met the requirements for
redesignation under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. The Clarksville-
Hopkinsville area is a basic 8-hour nonattainment ozone area.
Montgomery County is located in the Clarksville-Hopkinsville,
Tennessee-Kentucky Metropolitan Statistical Area, which contains
Christian County, Kentucky and Montgomery County, Tennessee. EPA is
approving a request to change the legal designation of Montgomery
County, Tennessee from nonattainment to attainment for the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS.
EPA is also approving Tennessee's 8-hour ozone maintenance plan for
Montgomery County (such approval being one of the CAA criteria for
redesignation to attainment status). The maintenance plan is designed
to help keep the Clarksville-Hopkinsville area (of which Montgomery
County is a part) in attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the next
12 years.
Additionally, through this rulemaking, EPA is announcing its action
on the Adequacy Process for the newly-established 2016 MVEBs for
Montgomery County, Tennessee. The Adequacy comment period for the 2016
MVEBs began on July 12, 2005, with EPA's posting of the availability of
this submittal on EPA's Adequacy Web site (at https://www.epa.gov/otaq/
transp/conform/adequacy.htm). The Adequacy comment period for these
MVEBs closed on August 11, 2005. No requests or adverse comments on
this submittal were received during EPA's Adequacy comment period.
Please see section VII of this rulemaking for further explanation of
this process.
II. What Is the Background for the Action?
Ground-level ozone is not emitted directly by sources. Rather,
emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOX) and volatile organic
compounds (VOC) react in the presence of sunlight to form ground-level
ozone. NOX and VOC are referred to as precursors of ozone.
The CAA establishes a process for air quality management through the
NAAQS.
On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a revised 8-hour ozone standard
of 0.08 parts per million (ppm). This new standard is more stringent
than the previous 1-hour ozone standard. Under EPA regulations at 40
CFR part 50, the 8-hour ozone standard is attained when the 3-year
average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average
ambient air quality ozone concentrations is less than or equal to 0.08
ppm (i.e. 0.084 ppm when rounding is considered). (See 69 FR 23857
(April 30, 2004) for further information). Ambient air quality
monitoring data for the 3-year period must meet a data completeness
requirement. The ambient air quality monitoring data completeness
requirement is met when the average percent of days with valid ambient
monitoring data is greater than 90 percent, and no single year has less
than 75 percent data completeness as determined in Appendix I of part
50. Specifically, section 2.3 of 40 CFR part 50, Appendix I,
``Comparisons with the Primary and Secondary Ozone Standards''
states: ``The primary and secondary ozone ambient air quality
standards are met at an ambient air quality monitoring site when the
3-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour
average ozone concentration is less than or equal to 0.08 ppm. The
number of significant figures in the level of the standard dictates
the rounding convention for comparing the computed 3-year average
annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone
concentration with the level of the standard. The third decimal
place of the computed value is rounded, with values equal to or
greater than 5 rounding up. Thus, a computed 3-year average ozone
concentration of 0.085 ppm is the smallest value that is greater
than 0.08 ppm.''
The CAA required EPA to designate as nonattainment any area that
was violating the 8-hour ozone NAAQS based on the three most recent
years of ambient air quality data. The Clarksville-Hopkinsville 8-hour
ozone nonattainment area was designated using 2001 to 2003 ambient air
quality data. The Federal Register notice making these designations was
signed on April 15, 2004, and published on April 30, 2004 (69 FR
23857). The CAA contains two sets of provisions--subpart 1 and subpart
2--that address planning and control requirements for ozone
nonattainment areas. (Both are found in title I, part D.) Subpart 1
(which covers areas that EPA refers to as ``basic'' nonattainment)
contains general, less prescriptive, requirements for nonattainment
areas for any pollutant--including ozone--governed by a NAAQS. Subpart
2 (which covers areas that EPA refers to as ``classified''
nonattainment) provides more specific requirements for certain ozone
nonattainment areas. Some 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas are subject
[[Page 55561]]
only to the provisions of subpart 1. Other 8-hour ozone nonattainment
areas are also subject to the provisions of subpart 2. Under EPA's
Phase-1 8-Hour Ozone Implementation Rule, signed on April 15, 2004, an
area was to be classified under subpart 2 based on its 8-hour ozone
design value (i.e., the 3-year average of the annual fourth-highest
daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations), if it had a 1-hour
design value at or above 0.121 ppm (the lowest 1-hour design value in
Table 1 of subpart 2). All other areas are covered under subpart 1,
based upon their 8-hour ambient air quality design values. The
Clarksville-Hopkinsville area was originally designated as a ``basic''
8-hour ozone nonattainment area by EPA on April 30, 2004, (69 FR 23857)
and is subject to subpart 1 of part D. In 2004, the ambient ozone data
for the interstate Clarksville-Hopkinsville nonattainment area
indicated no further violation of the 8-hour ozone standard, using data
from the 3-year period of 2002-2004 (with the 2002-2004 design value of
0.082 ppm ), to demonstrate attainment. Available preliminary
monitoring data through August 2005 indicates continued attainment of
the 8-hour ozone standard.
On March 21, 2005, the Commonwealth of Kentucky, through the
Kentucky Division for Air Quality (KDAQ), submitted a request for
parallel processing and on May 20, 2005, submitted a final request: (1)
To redesignate the Christian County, Kentucky portion of the
Clarksville-Hopkinsville 8-hour ozone nonattainment area to attainment
for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and (2) for EPA approval of a Kentucky
State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision containing a 12-year
maintenance plan for Christian County, Kentucky. EPA is taking action
on the request to redesignate the Kentucky portion of the area (i.e.,
Christian County) to attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in a
separate action.
On August 10, 2005, the State of Tennessee requested redesignation
to attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard for the Montgomery County,
Tennessee portion of the Clarksville-Hopkinsville interstate 8-hour
ozone area. The redesignation request includes three years of complete,
quality-assured ambient air quality data for the ozone seasons of 2002
through 2004, indicating the 8-hour ozone NAAQS had been achieved for
the Clarksville-Hopkinsville area (of which Montgomery County,
Tennessee is a part). The ozone season for this area is from April 1
until September 30 of a calendar year. Under the CAA, nonattainment
areas may be redesignated to attainment if sufficient, complete,
quality-assured data is available for the Administrator to determine
that the area has attained the standard and the area meets the other
CAA redesignation requirements in section 107(d)(3)(E).
III. 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 providing that: (1) The Administrator determines that the
area has attained the applicable 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 SIP 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
175A; and, (5) the State containing such area has met all requirements
applicable to the area under section 110 and part D.
EPA provided guidance on redesignation in the General Preamble for
the Implementation of Title I of the CAA Amendments of 1990, on April
16, 1992 (57 FR 13498), and supplemented this guidance on April 28,
1992 (57 FR 18070). EPA has provided further guidance on processing
redesignation requests in the following documents:
1. ``Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Design Value Calculations,''
Memorandum from Bill Laxton, June 18, 1990;
2. ``Maintenance Plans for Redesignation of Ozone and Carbon
Monoxide Nonattainment Areas,'' Memorandum from G.T. Helms, Chief,
Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, April 30, 1992;
3. ``Contingency Measures for Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Redesignations,'' Memorandum from G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon
Monoxide Programs Branch, June 1, 1992;
4. ``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to
Attainment,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality
Management Division, September 4, 1992;
5. ``State Implementation Plan (SIP) Actions Submitted in Response
to Clean Air Act (ACT) Deadlines,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni,
Director, Air Quality Management Division, October 28, 1992;
6. ``Technical Support Documents (TSD's) for Redesignation of Ozone
and Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment Areas, Memorandum from G.T.
Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, August 17, 1993;
7. ``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,'' Memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro,
Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, September 17,
1993;
8. ``Use of Actual Emissions in Maintenance Demonstrations for
Ozone and CO Nonattainment Areas,'' Memorandum from D. Kent Berry,
Acting Director, Air Quality Management Division, November 30, 1993;
9. ``Part D New Source Review (Part D NSR) Requirements for Areas
Requesting Redesignation to Attainment,'' Memorandum from Mary D.
Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, October 14,
1994; and
10. ``Reasonable Further Progress, Attainment Demonstration, and
Related Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment Areas Meeting the Ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standard,'' Memorandum from John S. Seitz,
Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, May 10, 1995.
IV. Why Is EPA Taking These Actions?
On August 10, 2005, the State of Tennessee requested redesignation
of the Montgomery County, Tennessee portion of the Clarksville-
Hopkinsville 8-hour ozone nonattainment area to attainment for the 8-
hour ozone standard. EPA believes that the State of Tennessee has
demonstrated that Montgomery County, Tennessee (as part of the
Clarksville-Hopkinsville area) has attained the standard and has met
the requirements for redesignation set forth in section 107(d)(3)(E) of
CAA.
V. What Is the Effect of EPA's Actions?
Approval of this redesignation request would change the official
designation of Montgomery County, Tennessee for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS
found at 40 CFR part 81. It would also incorporate into the Tennessee
SIP a plan for maintaining the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the area through
2016. The maintenance plan includes contingency measures to remedy
future violations of
[[Page 55562]]
the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and would establish MVEBs of 3.00 tons per day
(tpd) for VOC and 9.05 tpd for NOX for the year 2016.
VI. What Is EPA's Analysis of the Request?
EPA is making the determination that the Clarksville-Hopkinsville
8-hour ozone nonattainment area has attained the 8-hour ozone standard,
and that all other redesignation criteria have been met. The basis for
EPA's determination is as follows:
(1) The Clarksville-Hopkinsville area has attained the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS.
EPA is making the determination that the area has attained the 8-
hour ozone NAAQS. For ozone, an area may be considered to be attaining
the 8-hour ozone NAAQS if there are no violations, as determined in
accordance with 40 CFR 50.10 and appendix I of part 50, based on three
complete, consecutive calendar years of quality-assured air quality
monitoring data. To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the
fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations
measured at each monitor within an area over each year must not exceed
0.08 ppm. Based on the rounding convention described in 40 CFR part 50,
appendix I, the standard is attained if the design value is 0.084 ppm
or below. The data must be collected and quality-assured in accordance
with 40 CFR part 58, and recorded in the EPA Air Quality System (AQS).
The monitors generally should have remained at the same location for
the duration of the monitoring period required for demonstrating
attainment.
KDAQ, on behalf of Tennessee, submitted ozone monitoring data to
EPA for the ozone season from 2002 to 2004. There is currently one
monitor measuring ozone, located within Christian County, Kentucky,
which provides air quality data for the entire Clarksville-Hopkinsville
8-hour ozone nonattainment area. The State of Tennessee relies on
Kentucky's monitoring data for this area. This data has been quality
assured and is recorded in AQS. The fourth-highest averages for 2002,
2003 and 2004, and the 3-year average of these values (i.e., design
value), are summarized in the following table:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
County 2002 2003 2004 2002-2004
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Christian.......................... 0.093 0.080 0.074 0.082
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Available preliminary monitoring data through August 2005 indicates
continued attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard. In addition, as
discussed below with respect to the maintenance plan, KDAQ has
committed to continue monitoring in these areas in accordance with 40
CFR part 58. In summary, EPA believes that the data submitted by
Kentucky provides an adequate demonstration that the Clarksville-
Hopkinsville 8-hour ozone nonattainment area has attained the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS.
(2) Tennessee has a fully approved SIP under section 110(k) for
Montgomery County and (5) has met all applicable requirements under
section 110 and part D of the CAA. Below is a summary of how these two
criteria were met.
EPA has determined that Tennessee has met all applicable SIP
requirements for Montgomery County under section 110 of the CAA
(general SIP requirements). EPA has also determined that the Tennessee
SIP satisfies the criterion that it meets applicable SIP requirements
under part D of title I of the CAA (requirements specific to subpart 1
basic 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas) in accordance with section
107(d)(3)(E)(v). In addition, EPA has determined that the SIP is fully
approved with respect to all applicable requirements in accordance with
section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii). In making these determinations, EPA
ascertained which requirements are applicable to the area and that if
applicable they are fully approved under section 110(k). SIPs must be
fully approved only with respect to applicable requirements.
a. Montgomery County, Tennessee has met all applicable requirements
under section 110 and part D of the CAA. The September 4, 1992,
Calcagni memorandum (see ``Procedures for Processing Requests to
Redesignate Areas to Attainment,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni,
Director, Air Quality Management Division, September 4, 1992) describes
EPA's interpretation of section 107(d)(3)(E). Under this
interpretation, to qualify for redesignation, states requesting
redesignation to attainment must meet only the relevant CAA
requirements that come due prior to the submittal of a complete
redesignation request. See also Michael Shapiro memorandum, September
17, 1993, and 60 FR 12459, 12465-66 (March 7, 1995) (redesignation of
Detroit-Ann Arbor, MI). Applicable requirements of the CAA that come
due subsequent to the area's submittal of a complete redesignation
request remain applicable until a redesignation is approved, but are
not required as a prerequisite to redesignation. See section 175A(c) of
the CAA; Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004). See also 68
FR 25424, 25427 (May 12, 2003) (redesignation of St. Louis, MO).
General SIP requirements: Section 110(a)(2) of title I of the CAA
delineates the general requirements for a SIP, which include
enforceable emissions limitations and other control measures, means, or
techniques, provisions for the establishment and operation of
appropriate devices necessary to collect data on ambient air quality,
and programs to enforce the limitations. General SIP elements and
requirements are delineated in section 110(a)(2) of title I, part A of
the CAA. These requirements include, but are not limited to, the
following: Submittal of a SIP that has been adopted by the state after
reasonable public notice and hearing; provisions for establishment and
operation of appropriate procedures needed to monitor ambient air
quality; implementation of a source permit program; provisions for the
implementation of part C requirement (Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD)) and provisions for the implementation of part D
requirements (New Source Review (NSR) permit programs); provisions for
air pollution modeling; and provisions for public and local agency
participation in planning and emission control rule development. These
requirements are discussed in the following EPA documents: ``Procedures
for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,''
Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management
Division, September 4, 1992; ``State Implementation Plan (SIP) Actions
Submitted in Response to Clean Air Act (CAA) Deadlines,'' memorandum
from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, October
28, 1992; and ``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,'' Memorandum
[[Page 55563]]
from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting Assistant Administrator, September 17,
1993. See also guidance documents listed in section III above.
Section 110(a)(2)(D) requires that SIPs contain certain measures to
prevent sources in a state from significantly contributing to air
quality problems in another state. To implement this provision, EPA has
required certain states to establish programs to address the transport
of air pollutants (NOX SIP Call, Clean Air Interstate Rule
(CAIR)). EPA has also found, generally, that states have not submitted
SIPs under section 110(a)(1) to meet the interstate transport
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). However, the section
110(a)(2)(D) requirements for a state are not linked with a particular
nonattainment area's designation and classification in that state. EPA
believes that the requirements linked with a particular nonattainment
area's designation and classification are the relevant measures to
evaluate in reviewing a redesignation request. The transport SIP
submittal requirements, where applicable, continue to apply to a state
regardless of the designation of any one particular area in the state.
Thus, we do not believe that these requirements should be construed
to be applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation. In
addition, EPA believes that the other section 110 elements not
connected with nonattainment plan submissions and not linked with an
area's attainment status are not applicable requirements for purposes
of redesignation. The State will still be subject to these requirements
after the area is redesignated. The section 110 and part D
requirements, which are linked with a particular area's designation and
classification, are the relevant measures to evaluate in reviewing a
redesignation request. This policy is consistent with EPA's existing
policy on applicability (i.e., for redesignations) of conformity and
oxygenated fuels requirements, as well as with section 184 ozone
transport requirements. See Reading, Pennsylvania, proposed and final
rulemakings (61 FR 53174-53176, October 10, 1996), (62 FR 24826, May 7,
1997); Cleveland-Akron-Loraine, Ohio, final rulemaking (61 FR 20458,
May 7, 1996); and Tampa, Florida, final rulemaking at (60 FR 62748,
December 7, 1995). See also the discussion on this issue in the
Cincinnati redesignation (65 FR 37890, June 19, 2000), and in the
Pittsburgh redesignation (66 FR 50399, October 19, 2001). In addition,
Tennessee's response to the CAIR rule is not due until September 2006.
EPA believes that section 110 elements not linked to the area's
nonattainment status are not applicable for purposes of redesignation.
Nonetheless, EPA also notes that it has previously approved provisions
in the Tennessee SIP addressing section 110 elements under the 1-hour
standard (45 FR 53809, August 13, 1980; 47 FR 27267, June 24, 1982).
EPA believes that the section 110 SIP approved for the 1-hour standard
is sufficient to meet requirements under the 8-hour standard as well.
Part D requirements: EPA has also determined that the Tennessee SIP
meets applicable SIP requirements under part D of the CAA since no
requirements became due prior to the submission of the area's
redesignation request. Sections 172-176 of the CAA, found in subpart 1
of part D, set forth the basic nonattainment requirements applicable to
all nonattainment areas. Section 182 of the CAA, found in subpart 2 of
part D, establishes additional specific requirements depending on the
area's nonattainment classification. Subpart 2 is not applicable to the
Clarksville-Hopkinsville area.
Part D, subpart 1 applicable SIP requirements: For purposes of
evaluating this redesignation request, the applicable part D, subpart 1
SIP requirements for all nonattainment areas are contained in sections
172(c)(1)-(9). A thorough discussion of the requirements contained in
section 172 can be found in the General Preamble for Implementation of
Title I (57 FR 13498). None of the requirements under part D became due
prior to the submission of the redesignation request, and therefore
none are applicable to the area for purposes of redesignation. For
example, the requirements for an attainment demonstration that meets
the requirements of section 172(c)(1) are not yet applicable, nor are
the requirements for Reasonably Achievable Control Technology (RACT)
and Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) (section 172(c)(1),
reasonable further progress (RFP) (section 172(c)(2)) and contingency
measures (section 172(c)(9)).
In addition to the fact that these part D requirements did not
become due prior to submission of the redesignation request and
therefore are not applicable, EPA believes it is reasonable to
interpret the conformity and new source review requirements as not
requiring approval prior to redesignation.
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. The requirement to determine
conformity applies to transportation plans, programs and projects
developed, funded or approved under title 23 of the United States Code
(U.S.C.) and the Federal Transit Act (``transportation conformity'') as
well as to all other Federally supported or funded projects (``general
conformity''). State conformity revisions must be consistent with
Federal conformity regulations that the CAA required the EPA to
promulgate.
EPA believes it is reasonable to interpret the conformity
requirements as not applying for purposes of evaluating the
redesignation request under section 107(d) because state conformity
rules are still required after redesignation and Federal conformity
rules apply where state rules have not been approved. See Wall v. EPA,
265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001), upholding this interpretation. See also
60 FR 62748 (December 7, 1995, Tampa, FL).
EPA has also determined that areas being redesignated need not
comply with the requirement that a NSR program be approved prior to
redesignation, provided that the area demonstrates maintenance of the
standard without part D NSR in effect since PSD requirements will apply
after redesignation. The rationale for this view is described in a
memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and
Radiation, dated October 14, 1994, entitled ``Part D New Source Review
Requirements for Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment.'' The
State has demonstrated that the area will be able to maintain the
standard without part D NSR in effect, and therefore, the State need
not have a fully approved part D NSR program prior to approval of the
redesignation request. The State's PSD program will become effective in
the area upon redesignation to attainment. See rulemakings for Detroit,
MI (60 FR 12467-12468, March 7, 1995); Cleveland-Akron-Lorraine, OH (61
FR 20458, 20469-70, May 7, 1996); Louisville, KY (66 FR 53665, October
23, 2001); Grand Rapids, Michigan (61 FR 31834-31837, June 21, 1996).
Thus, the area has satisfied all applicable requirements under section
110 and part D of the CAA.
b. The area has a fully approved applicable SIP under section
110(k) of the CAA. EPA has fully approved the applicable Tennessee SIP
for the Montgomery County area under section 110(k) of the Clean Air
Act. EPA may rely on prior SIP approvals in approving a redesignation
request, Calcagni Memo
[[Page 55564]]
at p. 3; Southwestern Pennsylvania Growth Alliance v. Browner, 144 F.3d
984, 989-90 (6th Cir. 1998); Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001),
plus any additional measures it may approve in conjunction with a
redesignation action. See 68 FR 25426 (May 12, 2003) and citations
therein. Following passage of the CAA of 1970, Tennessee has adopted
and submitted, and EPA has fully approved at various times, provisions
addressing the various 1-hour ozone standard SIP elements applicable in
the Montgomery County area (45 FR 53809, August 13, 1980 and 49 FR
1342, January 11, 1984). As indicated above, EPA believes that the
section 110 elements not connected with nonattainment plan submissions
and not linked to the area's nonattainment status are not applicable
requirements for purposes of redesignation. EPA also believes that
since the part D requirements did not become due prior to submission of
the redesignation request, they also are therefore not applicable
requirements for purposes of redesignation.
(3) The air quality improvement in the Clarksville-Hopkinsville 8-
hour ozone area is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in
emissions resulting from implementation of the SIP and applicable
Federal air pollution control regulations and other permanent and
enforceable reductions.
EPA believes that the State has demonstrated that the observed air
quality improvement in the area is due to permanent and enforceable
reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the SIP,
Federal measures, and other state-adopted measures. EPA has determined
that the implementation of the following permanent and enforceable
emissions controls, that occurred from 2001-2004, have reduced local
VOC and NOX emissions and brought the area into attainment:
--Federal Motor Vehicle Control Standards in Tennessee;
--EPA's Tier 2/Low Sulfur Gasoline program;
--EPA's Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle and Fuel Standards;
--Federal controls on certain nonroad engines implemented during the
2002-2004 period;
--Reductions due to the NOX SIP Call;
In addition to the reductions mentioned above, the State of
Tennessee is also relying on the following controls to maintain the 8-
hour standard:
--Prevention of Significant Deterioration requirements;
--Federal controls on certain nonroad engines after 2000;
--Federal control through Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT)
of Hazardous Air Pollutants emissions will also contribute to
maintaining the standard in the area.
The State has demonstrated that the implementation of permanent and
enforceable emissions controls have reduced local VOC and
NOX emissions. Most of the reductions are attributable to
Federal programs such as EPA's Tier 2/Low Sulfur Gasoline program and
other national clean fuel programs that began implementation in 2004.
Additionally, the State has indicated in its submittal that the
Clarksville-Hopkinsville area has benefited from emissions reductions
that have been achieved and will continue to be achieved through
implementation of the NOX SIP Call, beginning in 2002. The
State has also demonstrated that year-to-year meteorological changes
and trends are not the likely source of the overall, long-term
improvement in ozone levels. Also, the following non-highway mobile
source reduction programs were implemented during the 2002-2004 period:
small spark-ignition engines, large-spark ignition engines, locomotives
and land-based diesel engines. EPA believes that permanent and
enforceable emissions reductions in and surrounding the nonattainment
area are the cause of the long-term improvement in ozone levels, and
are the cause of the area achieving attainment of the ozone standard.
(4) The area has a fully approved maintenance plan pursuant to
section 175A of the CAA. In conjunction with its request to redesignate
the Montgomery County, Tennessee portion of the Clarksville-
Hopkinsville 8-hour ozone nonattainment area to attainment status, TDEC
submitted a SIP revision to provide for the maintenance of the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS in the Montgomery County area for at least 10 years after
the effective date of redesignation to attainment.
a. What Is Required in a Maintenance Plan?
Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the elements of a maintenance
plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment.
Under section 175A, the plan must demonstrate continued attainment of
the applicable NAAQS for at least 10 years after the Administrator
approves a redesignation to attainment. Eight years after the
redesignation, the State must submit a revised maintenance plan which
demonstrates that attainment will continue to be maintained for the 10
years following the initial 10-year period. To address the possibility
of future NAAQS violations, the maintenance plan must contain such
contingency measures, with a schedule for implementation as EPA deems
necessary to assure prompt correction of any future 8-hour ozone
violations. Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the elements of a
maintenance plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to
attainment. The Calcagni memorandum, dated September 4, 1992, provides
additional guidance on the content of a maintenance plan. An ozone
maintenance plan should address five requirements: the attainment
emissions inventory, maintenance demonstration, monitoring,
verification of continued attainment, and a contingency plan.
b. Attainment Emissions Inventory
The Clarksville-Hopkinsville area has selected 2004 as ``the
attainment year'' for purposes of demonstrating attainment of the 8-
hour ozone NAAQS. The 2004 VOC and NOX emissions for the
Montgomery County area were developed consistent with EPA guidance and
are summarized in the table in the following subsection.
c. Maintenance Demonstration
The August 10, 2005, submittal includes a 12-year maintenance plan
for Montgomery County. This demonstration:
(i) Shows compliance and maintenance of the 8-hour ozone standard
by assuring that current and future emissions of VOC and NOX
remain at or below attainment year 2004 emissions levels. The year 2004
was chosen as the attainment year because it is one of the most recent
three years (i.e., 2002, 2003, and 2004) for which the Clarksville-
Hopkinsville area has clean air quality data for the 8-hour ozone
standard.
(ii) Uses 2004 as the attainment year and includes future inventory
projected years for 2007, 2010, 2013, and 2016.
(iii) Identifies an ``out year,'' at least 10 years after the time
necessary for EPA to review and approve the maintenance plan. Per 40
CFR part 93, a MVEB was established for the last year of the
maintenance plan. See section VII below.
(iv) Provides the following actual and projected emissions
inventories for Montgomery County.
[[Page 55565]]
NOX Emissions (tpd) for Montgomery County
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source category 2004 2007 2010 2013 2016
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point......................................................... 0.79 0.90 0.99 1.08 1.18
Area.......................................................... 1.26 1.27 1.26 1.27 1.27
Mobile........................................................ 12.39 10.52 8.54 6.38 4.88
Nonroad....................................................... 4.22 3.95 3.63 3.33 2.99
-----------
Total..................................................... 18.66 16.65 14.42 12.06 10.32
===========
Safety Margin................................................. ........ 2.02 4.25 6.61 8.34
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC Emissions (tpd) for Montgomery County
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source category 2004 2007 2010 2013 2016
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point......................................................... 2.22 2.45 2.64 2.90 3.18
Area.......................................................... 11.60 12.10 12.40 12.90 13.30
Mobile........................................................ 5.27 4.35 3.68 3.15 2.82
Nonroad....................................................... 1.46 1.32 1.14 1.00 0.90
-----------
Total..................................................... 20.56 20.22 19.86 19.95 20.20
===========
Safety Margin................................................. ........ 0.34 0.70 0.61 0.36
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 NAAQS.
d. Monitoring Network
There is currently one monitor measuring ozone, located within
Christian County, Kentucky, which provides air quality data for the
entire Clarksville-Hopkinsville 8-hour ozone nonattainment area. The
Commonwealth of Kentucky has committed in its maintenance plan to
continue operation of the ozone monitor in compliance with 40 CFR part
58, and has addressed the requirement for monitoring. Kentucky's
approved SIP commitment satisfies Tennessee's obligation for continued
monitoring for the Clarksville-Hopkinsville area.
e. Verification of Continued Attainment
The State has the legal authority to enforce and implement the
requirements of the ozone maintenance plan for Montgomery County,
Tennessee. This includes the authority to adopt, implement and enforce
any subsequent emissions control contingency measures determined to be
necessary to correct future ozone attainment problems.
Tennessee will track the progress of the maintenance plan by
performing future reviews of actual emissions for the area using the
latest emissions factors, models and methodologies. For these periodic
inventories the State will review the assumptions made for the purpose
of the maintenance demonstration concerning projected growth of
activity levels. If any of these assumptions appear to have changed
substantially, the State will re-project emissions.
g. Contingency Plan
The contingency plan provisions are designed to promptly correct a
violation of the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation. Section 175A of
the CAA requires that a maintenance plan include such contingency
measures as EPA deems necessary to assure that the State will promptly
correct a violation of the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation. The
maintenance plan should identify the contingency measures to be
adopted, a schedule and procedure for adoption and implementation, and
a time limit for action by the state. A state should also identify
specific indicators to be used to determine when the contingency
measures need to be implemented. The maintenance plan must include a
requirement that a state will implement all measures with respect to
control of the pollutant that were contained in the SIP before
redesignation of the area to attainment in accordance with section
175A(d).
In the August 10, 2005, submittal, Tennessee affirms that all
programs instituted by the State and EPA will remain enforceable, and
that sources are prohibited from reducing emissions controls following
the redesignation of the area. In the submittal, if there is a measured
violation of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the Clarksville-Hopkinsville
nonattainment area, the State of Tennessee commits to develop
regulations for at least one of the following control measures for
submission to the EPA within nine months. The State will also submit a
control plan to EPA within twelve months. All regulatory programs will
be implemented in twenty-four months from a measured violation. The
State will consider one or more of the following contingency measures
to re-attain the standard.
RACT for NOX sources.
Programs or incentives to decrease motor vehicle use.
Trip reduction ordinances.
Implementation of a program to require additional emissions
reductions on stationary sources.
Implementation of a program to enhance inspection of
stationary sources to ensure emissions control equipment is functioning
properly.
Implementation of fuel programs, including incentives for
alternative fuels.
Restrictions of certain roads or lanes for, or construction of
such roads or lanes for use by, passenger buses or high--occupancy
vehicles.
Employer-based transportation management plans, including
incentives programs to limit or restrict vehicle use in downtown areas,
or other areas of high emissions concentration, particularly during
periods of peak use.
Programs for new construction and major reconstruction of
paths for use by pedestrians or by non-motorized vehicles when
economically feasible and in the public interest.
[[Page 55566]]
In addition, the maintenance plan provides that in the event that a
measured violation of the 8-hour ozone design value occurs in any
portion of the maintenance area, or if periodic emissions inventory
updates reveal excessive or unanticipated growth greater than 10
percent in ozone precursor emissions, the State will evaluate existing
control measures to see if any further emissions reduction measures
should be implemented at that time.
EPA has concluded that the maintenance plan adequately addresses
the five basic components of a maintenance plan: Attainment inventory,
maintenance demonstration, monitoring network, verification of
continued attainment, and a contingency plan. The maintenance plan SIP
revision submitted by Tennessee for Montgomery County meets the
requirements of section 175A of the CAA.
VII. What Is an Adequacy Determination and What is the Status of EPA's
Adequacy Determination for Montgomery County's Proposed New MVEBs for
the Year 2016?
Under the CAA, States are required to submit, at various times,
control strategy SIPs and maintenance plans in ozone areas. These
control strategy SIPs (e.g. reasonable further progress SIPs and
attainment demonstration SIPs) and maintenance plans create MVEBs for
criteria pollutants and/or their precursors to address pollution from
cars and trucks. Per 40 CFR part 93, a MVEB is established for the last
year of the maintenance plan. The MVEB is the portion of the total
allowable emissions in the maintenance demonstration that is allocated
to highway and transit vehicle use and emissions. The MVEB serves as a
ceiling on emissions from an area's planned transportation system. The
MVEB concept is further explained in the preamble to the November 24,
1993, transportation conformity rule (58 FR 62188). The preamble also
describes how to establish the MVEB in the SIP and revise the MVEB.
Under section 176(c) of the CAA, new transportation projects, such
as the construction of new highways, must ``conform'' to (i.e., be
consistent with) the part of the State's air quality plan that
addresses pollution from cars and trucks. ``Conformity'' to the SIP
means that transportation activities will not cause new air quality
violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of
the NAAQS. If a transportation plan does not ``conform,'' most new
projects that would expand the capacity of roadways cannot go forward.
Regulations at 40 CFR part 93 set forth EPA policy, criteria, and
procedures for demonstrating and assuring conformity of such
transportation activities to a SIP.
When reviewing submitted ``control strategy'' SIPs or maintenance
plans containing MVEBs, EPA must affirmatively find the MVEB contained
therein ``adequate'' for use in determining transportation conformity.
Once EPA affirmatively finds the submitted MVEB is adequate for
transportation conformity purposes, that MVEB can be used by state and
Federal agencies in determining whether proposed transportation
projects ``conform'' to the SIP as required by section 176(c) of the
Clean Air Act. EPA's substantive criteria for determining ``adequacy''
of an MVEB are set out in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4).
EPA's process for determining ``adequacy'' consists of three basic
steps: public notification of a SIP submission, a public comment
period, and EPA's adequacy finding. This process for determining the
adequacy of submitted SIP MVEBs was initially outlined in EPA's May 14,
1999 guidance, ``Conformity Guidance on Implementation of March 2,
1999, Conformity Court Decision.'' This guidance was finalized in the
Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments for the ``New 8-Hour Ozone
and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards and Miscellaneous
Revisions for Existing Areas; Transportation Conformity Rule
Amendments--Response to Court Decision and Additional Rule Change'' on
July 1, 2004 (69 FR 40004). EPA follows this guidance and rulemaking in
making its adequacy determinations.
Montgomery County's 12-year maintenance plan submission contained
new VOC and NOX MVEBs for the year 2016. The availability of
the SIP submission with the 2016 MVEBs was announced for public comment
on EPA's adequacy Web page on July 12, 2005, at: https://www.epa.gov/
otaq/transp/conform/currsips.htm. The EPA public comment period on the
adequacy of the 2016 MVEBs for Montgomery County, Tennessee closed on
August 11, 2005. EPA did not receive any adverse comments or requests
for the submittal.
Through this rulemaking, EPA is finding adequate and approving
those MVEBs for use to determine transportation conformity because EPA
has determined that the area maintains the standard with emissions at
the levels of the budgets. These MVEBs will be separate state area
budgets for the Montgomery County, Tennessee area. The Commonwealth of
Kentucky has established MVEBs for the Christian County portion of the
Clarksville-Hopkinsville area through the Kentucky SIP. The following
table defines the 2016 MVEBs for Montgomery County, Tennessee.
Montgomery County 8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Area MVEBs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2016
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX (tpd).................................................... 9.05
VOC (tpd).................................................... 3.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VIII. Action on the Redesignation Request, the Maintenance Plan SIP
Revision Including Approval of the 2016 MVEBs
EPA is making the determination that the Clarksville-Hopkinsville
area has attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is approving the
redesignation of the Montgomery County, Tennessee portion of the area
from nonattainment to attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. After
evaluating the State of Tennessee's redesignation request, EPA has
determined that it meets the redesignation criteria set forth in
section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Clean Air Act. EPA believes that the
redesignation request and monitoring data demonstrate that the
Clarksville-Hopkinsville area (of which Montgomery County is a part)
has attained the 8-hour ozone standard. The final approval of this
redesignation request would change the official designation for the
Montgomery County area from nonattainment to attainment for the 8-hour
ozone standard.
EPA is also approving the maintenance plan SIP revision. Approval
of the maintenance plan for Montgomery County is allowable, because the
State of Tennessee has demonstrated that the plan meets the
requirements of section 175A as described more fully in this
rulemaking. Additionally, EPA is finding adequate and approving the new
2016 MVEBs, submitted by Tennessee for Montgomery County, in
conjunction with its redesignation request. Within 24 months from the
effective date of this action, the transportation partners will need to
demonstrate conformity to these new MVEBs pursuant to 40 CFR 93.104(e).
EPA is publishing this rule without prior approval because the Agency
views this as noncontroversial and anticipates no adverse comment.
However, in the Proposed Rules section of today's Federal Register EPA
is publishing a proposal to approve the redesignation and maintenance
plan that will serve as the proposal if adverse comments are filed.
This rule will be
[[Page 55567]]
effective on November 21, 2005 unless EPA receives adverse comments by
October 24, 2005. If EPA receives adverse comment, EPA will publish a
timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that the
rule will not take effect. EPA will address the public comments in a
subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. EPA will not
institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties
interested in commenting must do so at this time.
IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
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. For this
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action
merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
Redesignation of an area to attainment under section 107(d)(3)(E) of
the Clean Air 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 new regulatory requirements
on sources. 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 or
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will
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). This action also does not have Federalism
implications because it does 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 (64
FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely affects the status of a
geographical area, does not impose any new requirements on sources, or
allows a state to avoid adopting or implementing other requirements,
and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule also is
not subject to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997), because it is not economically significant and because the
Agency does not have reason to believe that the rule concerns an
environmental health risk or safety risk that may disproportionately
affect children.
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the
State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Redesignation is an
action that affects the status of a geographical area but does not
impose any new requirements on sources. Thus, the requirements of
section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. 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 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).
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 November 21, 2005. 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, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
40 CFR Part 81
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks,
Wilderness areas.
Dated: September 13, 2005.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
0
40 CFR part 52 and 81 is amended as follows:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart RR--Tennessee
0
2. Section 52.2220(e) is amended by adding a new entry at the end of
the table for ``8-Hour Ozone Maintenance plan for the Montgomery
County, Tennessee area'' to read as follows:
Sec. 52.2220 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
[[Page 55568]]
EPA-Approved Tennessee Non-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicable
Name of nonregulatory SIP geographic or State effective EPA approval date Explanation
provision nonattainment area date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
8-Hour Ozone Maintenance plan Montgomery County.. 08/10/2005 09/22/2005 [Insert
for the Montgomery County, first page of
Tennessee area. publication]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PART 81--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
0
2. In Sec. 81.318, the table entitled ``Tennessee-Ozone (8-Hour
Standard)'' is amended by revising the entry for ``Clarksville-
Hopkinsville, TN-KY: Montgomery County'' to read as follows:
Sec. 81.343 Tennessee.
* * * * *
Tennessee--Ozone
[8-Hour Standard]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Designation \a\ Category/Classification
Des