Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Alabama; Redesignation of the Birmingham 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area to Attainment for Ozone, 4077-4087 [E6-907]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 2006 / Proposed Rules
PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS
DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
§ 39.13
[Amended]
2. The Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) amends § 39.13
by adding the following new
airworthiness directive (AD):
Alternative Methods of Compliance
(AMOCs)
(g)(1) The Manager, International Branch,
ANM–116, Transport Airplane Directorate,
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs
for this AD, if requested in accordance with
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2) Before using any AMOC approved in
accordance with § 39.19 on any airplane to
which the AMOC applies, notify the
appropriate principal inspector in the FAA
Flight Standards Certificate Holding District
Office.
Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A.
(EMBRAER): Docket No. FAA–2006–
23674; Directorate Identifier 2005–NM–
234–AD.
Related Information
(h) Brazilian airworthiness directive 2005–
10–03, dated November 3, 2005, also
addresses the subject of this AD.
Comments Due Date
Issued in Renton, Washington, on January
17, 2006.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate,
Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. E6–902 Filed 1–24–06; 8:45 am]
(a) The FAA must receive comments on
this AD action by February 24, 2006.
Affected ADs
(b) None.
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
Applicability
(c) This AD applies to EMBRAER Model
EMB–120, –120ER, –120FC, –120QC, and
–120RT airplanes, certificated in any
category; as identified in EMBRAER Service
Bulletin 120–55–0015, dated January 14,
2005.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
Unsafe Condition
[EPA–R04–OAR–2005–AL–0003–200539;
FRL–8024–6]
(d) This AD results from corrosion in
torque tubes of the elevators found during
scheduled maintenance. We are issuing this
AD to detect and correct corrosion in the
torque tubes of the elevators, which could
lead to an unbalanced elevator and result in
reduced controllability of the airplane.
Compliance
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans and Designation
of Areas for Air Quality Planning
Purposes; Alabama; Redesignation of
the Birmingham 8-Hour Ozone
Nonattainment Area to Attainment for
Ozone
AGENCY:
Detailed Inspection and Corrective Actions
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
(e) You are responsible for having the
actions required by this AD performed within
the compliance times specified, unless the
actions have already been done.
SUMMARY: On November 16, 2005, the
State of Alabama, through the Alabama
Department of Environmental
Management (ADEM), submitted a
request for parallel processing to
redesignate the Birmingham 8-hour
ozone nonattainment area (Birmingham
area) to attainment for the 8-hour ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS); and for EPA approval of an
Alabama draft State Implementation
Plan (SIP) revision containing a
maintenance plan with a 2017 end year
for the Birmingham area. The
Birmingham area is composed of two
counties, Jefferson and Shelby. EPA is
proposing to approve the 8-hour ozone
redesignation request for the
Birmingham area. Additionally, EPA is
parallel processing the redesignation
request and draft 8-hour ozone
maintenance plan SIP revision for the
Birmingham area (a required component
of any redesignation to attainment) and
(f) Within 4,000 flight hours or 730 days
after the effective date of this AD, whichever
is first: Do a detailed inspection of the
interior of the internal elevator torque tube of
each elevator control surface for oxidation
and corrosion, and the applicable corrective
actions, by accomplishing all of the
applicable actions specified in the
Accomplishment Instructions of EMBRAER
Service Bulletin 120–55–0015, dated January
14, 2005. The corrective actions must be
done before further flight after accomplishing
the inspection.
Note 1: For the purposes of this AD, a
detailed inspection is: ‘‘An intensive
examination of a specific item, installation,
or assembly to detect damage, failure, or
irregularity. Available lighting is normally
supplemented with a direct source of good
lighting at an intensity deemed appropriate.
Inspection aids such as mirror, magnifying
lenses, etc., may be necessary. Surface
cleaning and elaborate procedures may be
required.’’
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:04 Jan 24, 2006
Jkt 208001
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
4077
is proposing approval of this draft
maintenance plan because EPA has
determined that the draft plan complies
with the requirements of Section 175A
of the Clean Air Act (CAA).
This proposed approval is based on
EPA’s determination that Alabama has
demonstrated that the Birmingham area
has met the criteria for redesignation to
attainment specified in the CAA,
including the determination that the
entire Birmingham area has attained the
8-hour ozone standard. 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 2017 that
is contained in the 8-hour ozone
maintenance plan for the Birmingham
area. EPA is proposing to approve the
2017 MVEBs.
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before February 24, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified Docket ID No. EPA–R04–
OAR–2005–AL–0003, by one of the
following methods:
1. https://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
2. E-mail: lakeman.sean@epa.gov.
3. Fax: 404.562.9019.
4. Mail: ‘‘EPA–R04–OAR–2005–AL–
0003’’, 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.
5. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver
your comments to: Sean Lakeman
Regulatory Development Section, Air
Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and
Toxics Management Division 12th floor,
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
Docket ID No. ‘‘EPA–R04–OAR–2005–
AL–0003’’. 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://
www.regulations.gov, 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 through
www.regulations.gov or e-mail,
E:\FR\FM\25JAP1.SGM
25JAP1
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
4078
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 2006 / Proposed Rules
information that you consider to be CBI
or otherwise protected. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an
‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 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
www.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
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. For additional information
about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA
Docket Center homepage at https://
www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
Docket: All documents in the
electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. 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 https://
www.regulations.gov 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 person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
schedule your inspection. The Regional
Office’s official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30
excluding legal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Sean Lakeman, 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. The
telephone number is (404) 562–9043.
Mr. Lakeman can also be reached via
electronic mail at
lakeman.sean@epa.gov.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:04 Jan 24, 2006
Jkt 208001
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. What Proposed Actions Is EPA Taking?
II. What Is the Background for the Proposed
Actions?
III. What Are the Criteria for Redesignation?
IV. Why Is EPA Proposing These Actions?
V. What Is the Effect of EPA’s Proposed
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 Birmingham 8Hour Ozone Maintenance Area’s New
MVEBs for the Year 2017?
VIII. Proposed Actions on the Redesignation
Request and Maintenance Plan SIP
Revision Including Proposed Approval
of the 2017 MVEBs
IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What Proposed Actions Is EPA
Taking?
Through this rulemaking, EPA is
proposing to take several related
actions. The Birmingham area is a basic
8-hour nonattainment ozone area and is
composed of two counties, Jefferson and
Shelby. EPA is proposing to determine
that the Birmingham area has attained
the 8-hour ozone standard, and has met
the requirements for redesignation
under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA.
EPA is proposing to approve the
redesignation request to change the legal
designation of the Birmingham area
from nonattainment to attainment for
the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
EPA is also proposing to approve
Alabama’s 8-hour ozone maintenance
plan for the Birmingham area (such
approval being one of the CAA criteria
for redesignation to attainment status).
The maintenance plan is designed to
help keep the Birmingham area in
attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS
through 2017.
Additionally, through this
rulemaking, EPA is announcing the
status of EPA’s Adequacy Process for
the newly-established 2017 MVEBs for
the Birmingham area. The Adequacy
comment period for the 2017 MVEBs
began on November 17, 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 the 2017 MVEBs
closed on December 19, 2005. No
requests or adverse comments on this
submittal were received during EPA’s
Adequacy comment period. EPA is
proposing to approve the 2017 MVEBs.
Please see section VII of this rulemaking
for further explanation of this process.
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
II. What Is the Background for the
Proposed Actions?
Ground-level ozone is not emitted
directly by sources. Rather, emissions of
nitrogen oxides (NOX) and volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) 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
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
Birmingham 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area was designated
using 2001 to 2003 ambient air quality
data. The Federal Register document
making these designations was signed
on April 15, 2004, and published on
E:\FR\FM\25JAP1.SGM
25JAP1
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 2006 / Proposed Rules
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 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 EPA refers to as ‘‘classified’’
nonattainment) provides more specific
requirements for certain ozone
nonattainment areas. Some 8-hour
ozone nonattainment areas are subject
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 I 8-hour
ozone implementation rule (69 FR
23857), signed on April 15, 2004, an
area was 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 Birmingham 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 2005,
the ambient ozone data for the
Birmingham nonattainment area
indicated no further violations of the 8hour ozone standard, using data from
the 3-year period of 2003–2005 (with
the 2003–2005 design value of 0.084
ppm), to demonstrate attainment.
On November 16, 2005, Alabama
requested redesignation to attainment
for the 8-hour ozone standard for the
Birmingham area. The redesignation
request includes three years of
complete, quality-assured ambient air
quality data for the ozone seasons of
2003 through 2005, indicating the 8hour ozone NAAQS had been achieved
for the Birmingham area. The ozone
season for this area is from April 1 until
October 31 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 Criteria for
Redesignation?
The CAA provides the requirements
for redesignating a nonattainment area
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:04 Jan 24, 2006
Jkt 208001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
4079
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 Proposing These
Actions?
On November 16, 2005, Alabama
requested redesignation of the
Birmingham area to attainment for the
8-hour ozone standard. EPA believes
that Alabama has demonstrated that the
Birmingham area has attained the
standard and has met the requirements
for redesignation set forth in section
107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA.
V. What Is the Effect of EPA’s Proposed
Actions?
Approval of this redesignation request
would change the official designation of
the Birmingham area for the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS found at 40 CFR part 81.
It would also incorporate into the
Alabama SIP a plan for maintaining the
8-hour ozone NAAQS in the area
through 2017. The 8-hour ozone
maintenance plan includes contingency
measures to remedy future violations of
the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and
establishes MVEBs of 23 tons per day
(tpd) for VOC, and 42 tpd for NOX for
the year 2017.
VI. What Is EPA’s Analysis of the
Request?
EPA is proposing to determine that
the Birmingham 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area has attained the 8hour ozone standard, and that all
redesignation criteria have been met.
The basis for EPA’s determination is as
follows:
(1) The Birmingham area has attained
the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
EPA is proposing to determine 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
E:\FR\FM\25JAP1.SGM
25JAP1
4080
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 2006 / Proposed Rules
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.
ADEM submitted ozone monitoring
data from ten ambient ozone monitoring
stations in the Birmingham area for the
ozone seasons from 2003 to 2005. This
data has been quality assured and is
recorded in AQS. The fourth high
averages for 2003, 2004 and 2005, and
the 3-year average of these values (i.e.
design value), are summarized in the
following table:
8-HOUR OZONE
[Parts per million, ppm]
4th high 8-hr ozone average
Monitor
County
2003
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
Fairfield .............................................................
McAdory ............................................................
Hoover ..............................................................
Pinson ...............................................................
Tarrant ..............................................................
Corner ...............................................................
Providence ........................................................
N. Birmingham ..................................................
Leeds ................................................................
Helena ...............................................................
Jefferson ...........................................................
Jefferson ...........................................................
Jefferson ...........................................................
Jefferson ...........................................................
Jefferson ...........................................................
Jefferson ...........................................................
Jefferson ...........................................................
Jefferson ...........................................................
Jefferson ...........................................................
Shelby ...............................................................
The design value for an area is the
highest design value recorded at any
monitor in the area. Therefore, the
design value for the Birmingham area is
0.084 ppm, which meets the standard as
described above.
ADEM has also committed to
continue monitoring in these areas in
accordance with 40 CFR part 58. In
summary, EPA believes that the data
submitted by Alabama provides an
adequate demonstration that the
Birmingham 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area has attained the 8hour ozone NAAQS.
(2) Alabama has a fully approved SIP
under section 110(k) for the
Birmingham area and
(5) Alabama 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 Alabama has
met all applicable SIP requirements for
purposes of redesignation for the
Birmingham area under section 110 of
the CAA (general SIP requirements).
EPA has also determined that the
Alabama SIP satisfies the criterion that
it meets applicable SIP requirements for
purposes of redesignation 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 for purposes of
redesignation in accordance with
section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii). In making these
determinations, EPA ascertained which
requirements are applicable to the area
for purposes of redesignation and that if
applicable they are fully approved
under section 110(k). SIPs must be fully
approved only with respect to
applicable requirements.
a. Alabama 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, Missouri).
General SIP requirements: Section
110(a)(2) of title I of the CAA delineates
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:40 Jan 24, 2006
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
0.075
0.073
0.077
0.081
0.075
0.077
0.070
0.068
0.070
0.083
2004
0.070
0.073
0.077
0.068
0.068
0.068
0.070
0.070
0.073
0.084
2005
0.081
0.085
0.085
0.072
0.084
0.077
0.079
0.079
0.071
0.085
3-year
average
0.075
0.077
0.079
0.073
0.075
0.074
0.073
0.072
0.071
0.084
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 requirements
(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.
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)).
E:\FR\FM\25JAP1.SGM
25JAP1
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 2006 / Proposed Rules
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
approach is consistent with EPA’s
existing policy on applicability of
conformity (i.e. for redesignations) 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-Lorain, 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).
EPA believes that section 110
elements not linked to the area’s
nonattainment status are not applicable
for purposes of redesignation. Any
section 110 requirements that are linked
to the Part D requirements for 8-hour
ozone nonattainment areas are not yet
due, since, as explained below, no Part
D requirements applicable for purposes
of redesignation under the 8-hour
standard became due prior to
submission of the redesignation request.
Therefore, as discussed above, for
purposes of redesignation, they are not
considered applicable requirements.
EPA has previously approved general
requirements in the Alabama SIP
addressing section 110 elements (May
31, 1972, 37 FR 10842).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:04 Jan 24, 2006
Jkt 208001
Part D requirements: EPA has also
determined that the Alabama SIP meets
applicable SIP requirements under part
D of the CAA since no requirements
applicable for purposes of redesignation
became due prior to 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 Birmingham
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). No requirements applicable for
purposes of redesignation under part D
became due prior to submission of the
redesignation request, and therefore
none is 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 no part D
requirements applicable for purposes of
redesignation became due prior to
submission of the redesignation request
and therefore are not applicable, EPA
believes it is reasonable to interpret the
conformity and NSR 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
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
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
4081
consistent with Federal conformity
regulations relating to consultation,
enforcement and enforceability that the
CAA required the EPA to promulgate.
EPA believes it is reasonable to interpret
the conformity SIP 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 (Dec. 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.’’ Alabama has
demonstrated that the area will be able
to maintain the standard without part D
NSR in effect, and therefore, Alabama
need not have a fully approved part D
NSR program prior to approval of the
redesignation request. Alabama’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-Lorain, 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 requirements
applicable for purposes of redesignation
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
Alabama SIP for the Birmingham area
under section 110(k) of the Clean Air
Act for all requirements applicable for
purposes of redesignation. EPA may rely
on prior SIP approvals in approving a
redesignation request, see Calcagni
Memo 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.
E:\FR\FM\25JAP1.SGM
25JAP1
4082
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 2006 / Proposed Rules
Following passage of the CAA of 1970,
Alabama has adopted and submitted,
and EPA has fully approved at various
times, provisions addressing section 110
elements under the 1-hour standard
applicable in the Birmingham area (May
31, 1972, 37 FR 10842).
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 applicable
for purposes of redesignation 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
Birmingham 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 Alabama 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 have reduced local NOX and
VOC emissions and brought the area
into attainment during 2003–2005:
The Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP)
Control Program—gasoline sold from
June 1st until September 15th of each
year, in Jefferson and Shelby Counties
was required to have a RVP no greater
than 7.0 pounds per square inch (psi).
Since 2003, utility NOX controls on
Alabama Power Company plants Gorgas
(in Jefferson Co.) and Miller (in Shelby
Co.) have been required for the period
of May 1st to September 30th each year.
NOX emission limitations have been
established at 0.21 lb/mmbtu for the two
plants, based on a rolling 30-day
average.
Alabama’s NOX SIP Call established a
NOX budget from 2004 and beyond for
large industrial sources such as boilers,
turbines, and electric generating units
that are subject to the NOX SIP Call.
EPA has implemented several
programs that have resulted in reduced
emissions in recent years. For cars and
light trucks, EPA has instituted the
National Low Emissions Vehicles
(NLEV) program, which went into effect
nationally in 2001, and EPA’s Tier 2
rules, which went into effect in 2004. In
addition, Tier 2 standards for nonroad
diesel engines were phased in between
2001 and 2004. Over time the phase-in
of these programs has resulted in
reductions in emissions as new vehicles
have replaced older, higher-polluting
vehicles. Further reductions have
occurred as a result of further
implementation of EPA standards for
small spark-ignited engines (e.g.
lawnmowers) and locomotives. The
heavy duty highway truck engine rule
also implemented reductions beginning
in 2004.
EPA promulgated the Tier 2 Motor
Vehicle Emissions Standards and
Gasoline Sulfur Control Requirements
in 2000 (65 FR 6697).
In addition to the reductions
mentioned above, the State of Alabama
is also relying on the following controls
to maintain the 8-hour standard:
1. Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery
for Light-Duty Vehicles
2. Federal Non-road Diesel Engine
Standards
3. Federal Marine Engine Requirements
4. Federal Locomotive Requirements
5. Consumer Solvents Requirements
6. Architectural and Industrial
Maintenance Coatings Requirements
7. Automobile Refinishing
Requirements
8. The National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP);
the majority of which are also VOCs
9. Phase II Acid Rain Program for NOX
10. Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR)
11. NOX SIP Call Phase II
12. Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur
Requirements
Alabama has demonstrated that the
implementation of permanent and
enforceable emissions controls have
reduced local VOC and NOX emissions.
Alabama has also demonstrated that
year-to-year meteorological changes and
trends have an impact on ozone
precursor emissions and the formation
of ozone but, that they are not the likely
source of the overall, long-term
improvement in ozone levels. 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 resulted in the area
achieving attainment of the 8-hour
ozone standard. Jefferson County alone
has reduced point source NOX
emissions by 37 percent from 2002 to
2004 and will reduce them by 65
percent by 2017. The whole area has
reduced the total NOX emissions by 22
percent from 2002 to 2004 and will
reduce them by 45 percent by 2017.
Additional reductions from outside the
Birmingham area will be realized as the
above programs are implemented
throughout the State.
NOX EMISSIONS FROM 2002 TO 2004
[Tons per Summer Day, tpsd]
County/source category
2002
2004
110
3
18
69
3
17
Total ...........................................................................................................................................................................
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
Jefferson:
Point ..................................................................................................................................................................................
Area ..................................................................................................................................................................................
Non-road ...........................................................................................................................................................................
131
89
Shelby:
Point ..................................................................................................................................................................................
Area ..................................................................................................................................................................................
Non-road ...........................................................................................................................................................................
97
1
6
94
1
6
Total ...........................................................................................................................................................................
104
101
Total for the Birmingham area:
Point ..................................................................................................................................................................................
Area ..................................................................................................................................................................................
Mobile ...............................................................................................................................................................................
207
4
57
163
4
54
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:04 Jan 24, 2006
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\25JAP1.SGM
25JAP1
4083
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 2006 / Proposed Rules
NOX EMISSIONS FROM 2002 TO 2004—Continued
[Tons per Summer Day, tpsd]
County/source category
2002
2004
Non-road ...........................................................................................................................................................................
24
23
Total ...........................................................................................................................................................................
292
244
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
(4) The area has a fully approved
maintenance plan pursuant to section
175A of the CAA.
In conjunction with its request to
redesignate the Birmingham 8-hour
ozone nonattainment area to attainment
status, ADEM submitted a SIP revision
to provide for the maintenance of the 8hour ozone NAAQS in the Birmingham
area for at least 10 years after the
effective date of redesignation to
attainment. Alabama requested that EPA
‘‘parallel process’’ the redesignation
request and maintenance plan SIP
revision. Under this procedure, the
Regional Office works closely with
Alabama while developing new or
revised regulations. The State submits a
copy of the proposed regulation or other
revisions to EPA before conducting its
public hearing. EPA reviews this
proposed State action, and prepares a
notice of proposed rulemaking. EPA’s
notice of proposed rulemaking is
published in the Federal Register
between the time frame Alabama
submits its prehearing and final
submittal. Alabama and EPA then
provide for public comment periods on
both the State action and the Federal
action.
After Alabama submits the final
request and State-effective SIP revision
(including a response to all public
comments raised during the State’s
public participation process, and the
approved maintenance plan for the
Birmingham area), EPA will prepare a
final rulemaking notice on the
redesignation request and maintenance
plan SIP revision. If Alabama’s formal
maintenance plan SIP revision contains
changes which occur after EPA’s notice
of proposed rulemaking, such changes
must be described in EPA’s final
rulemaking action. If Alabama’s changes
are significant, then EPA must decide
whether it is appropriate to re-propose
the State’s maintenance plan SIP
revision action. In addition, if
Alabama’s final maintenance plan SIP
revision changes significantly and/or is
disapprovable in its final form, EPA will
also not take final action to approve the
Birmingham redesignation request
because the existence of a fully EPAapproved maintenance plan is a
necessary criterion for redesignation to
attainment status.
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, Alabama 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
Point source emissions were obtained
for calendar year 2004 as a result of the
annual data obtained from regulated
facilities and projected to 2009, 2015
and 2017. Non-road mobile emissions
were calculated using the most recent
non-road model. On-road mobile source
emissions were calculated using
MOBILE 6.2 for 2004 and three horizon
years, 2009, 2015 and 2017. Area source
emissions were grown from the 2002
National Emissions Inventory for 2004,
2009, 2015 and 2017. The maintenance
plan establishes an attainment inventory
for the year 2004. This attainment
inventory identifies the level of
emissions in the area which is sufficient
to attain the 8-hour ozone standard.
c. Maintenance Demonstration
The November 16, 2005, submittal
includes a maintenance plan with a
2017 end year for the Birmingham area.
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., 2003, 2004, and 2005) for which
the Birmingham 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 2009, 2015, and 2017.
(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, MVEBs were
established for the last year of the
maintenance plan. See section VII
below.
(iv) Provides the following actual and
projected emissions inventories for the
Birmingham area.
NOX EMISSIONS TPSD
County/source category
2004
Jefferson:
Point ..........................................................................................................................................
Area ..........................................................................................................................................
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:04 Jan 24, 2006
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\25JAP1.SGM
2009
69
3
25JAP1
2015
45
4
2017
48
4
49
4
4084
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 2006 / Proposed Rules
NOX EMISSIONS TPSD—Continued
County/source category
2004
2009
2015
2017
Non-road ...................................................................................................................................
17
14
11
10
Total ...................................................................................................................................
89
63
63
63
Shelby:
Point ..........................................................................................................................................
Area ..........................................................................................................................................
Non-road ...................................................................................................................................
94
1
6
69
1
5
72
1
4
73
1
4
Total ...................................................................................................................................
101
75
77
78
Total for the Birmingham area:
Point ..........................................................................................................................................
Area ..........................................................................................................................................
Mobile 1 .....................................................................................................................................
Non-road ...................................................................................................................................
163
4
54
23
114
5
39
19
120
5
24
15
122
5
21
14
Total ...................................................................................................................................
244
177
164
162
2004 NOX Safety Margin * ...............................................................................................................
................
67
80
82
* After assigning 21 tpsd of the NOX safety margin to the NOX MVEB, the revised 2017 NOX safety margin will be 61 tpsd.
1 Since the transportation network is based on the two-County (Jefferson and Shelby) area, mobile source emissions were not broken out by
county.
VOC EMISSIONS TPSD
County/source category
2004
2009
2015
2017
Jefferson:
Point ..........................................................................................................................................
Area ..........................................................................................................................................
Non-road ...................................................................................................................................
13
57
10
14
47
8
17
51
7
18
52
7
Total ...................................................................................................................................
80
69
75
77
Shelby:
Point ..........................................................................................................................................
Area ..........................................................................................................................................
Non-read ...................................................................................................................................
2
11
5
2
9
4
2
9
4
2
10
3
Total ...................................................................................................................................
18
15
15
15
Total for the Birmingham NA:
Point ..........................................................................................................................................
Area ..........................................................................................................................................
Mobile 2 .....................................................................................................................................
Non-road ...................................................................................................................................
15
68
32
15
16
56
28
12
19
60
20
11
20
62
19
10
Total ...................................................................................................................................
130
112
110
111
2004 VOC Safety Margin * ..............................................................................................................
................
18
20
19
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
* After assigning 4 tpsd of the VOC safety margin to the VOC MVEB, the revised 2017 VOC safety margin will be 15 tpsd.
2 Since the transportation network is based on the two-County (Jefferson and Shelby) area, mobile source emissions were not broken out by
county.
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 are currently ten monitors
measuring ozone, located within
Jefferson and Shelby Counties which
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:04 Jan 24, 2006
Jkt 208001
provide air quality data for the entire
Birmingham area. Alabama has
committed in the maintenance plan to
continue operation of the ozone
monitors in compliance with 40 CFR
part 58, and has addressed the
requirement for monitoring.
e. Verification of Continued Attainment
Alabama has the legal authority to
enforce and implement the
requirements of the ozone maintenance
plan for the Birmingham area. This
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
includes the authority to adopt,
implement and enforce any subsequent
emissions control contingency measures
determined to be necessary to correct
future ozone attainment problems.
Alabama 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 the
purpose of verifying continued
attainment based upon the emissions
inventory, major point sources of air
E:\FR\FM\25JAP1.SGM
25JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 2006 / Proposed Rules
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
pollution will continue to submit data
on an annual basis and area and mobile
sources will continue to be quantified
on a three-year cycle. The next overall
emissions inventory will be compiled
for 2005. For these periodic inventories,
Alabama will review the assumptions
made for the purpose of the
maintenance demonstration concerning
projected growth of activity levels. If
any of these assumptions result in
future growth greater than or equal to 10
percent, Alabama will re-project
emissions and reassess the area’s ability
to maintain attainment.
f. 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
Alabama 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 November 16, 2005, submittal,
Alabama commits to implement all
measures that were contained in the SIP
before the redesignation as
expeditiously as possible. Alabama also
affirms that all programs instituted by
Alabama and EPA will remain
enforceable, and that sources are
prohibited from reducing emissions
controls following the redesignation of
the area. In the submittal, Alabama
commits to adopt, within 18 months of
a violation, one or more contingency
measures as needed to re-attain the
standard. Alabama also identified that
in the event that any individual monitor
in the Birmingham area records an
annual fourth high reading of 0.085 ppm
or higher, Alabama will evaluate
existing control measures to determine
if further emission reduction measures
should be implemented. Also, if
periodic emissions inventory shows a
future growth greater than or equal to
ten percent, Alabama will re-project
emissions and reassess the area’s ability
to maintain attainment. Alabama notes
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:04 Jan 24, 2006
Jkt 208001
that all regulatory programs will be
implemented within 18 months of a
violation. The State will consider and
implement one or more of the following
contingency measures:
RACT for NOX sources—The State
would investigate other smaller point
sources of lower thresholds for specific
controls.
RACT for additional VOC sources—
Rules would be implemented for
application of RACT to additional VOC
sources not currently subject to RACT.
Schedule for Point Source Regulation
Development—A schedule for the
development of NOX and/or VOC
regulations from the time of a violation
of the 8-hour ozone standard or
inventory trigger of future growth
follows:
1. Identify potential stationary sources for
reductions—3 months
2. Identify applicable RACT—3 months
3. Initiate a stakeholder process—3 months
4. Draft SIP regulations—3 months
5. Initiate rulemaking process (including
public comment period, hearing,
Commission adoption and final submission
to EPA)—6 months
Completion no later than—18 months
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 Alabama
for the Birmingham area 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
the Birmingham 8-Hour Ozone
Maintenance Area’s New MVEBs for
the Year 2017?
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,
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
4085
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 MVEBs contained
therein ‘‘adequate’’ for use in
determining transportation conformity.
Once EPA affirmatively finds the
submitted MVEB is adequate for
transportation conformity purposes, that
MVEB must 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 CAA. EPA’s
substantive criteria for determining
‘‘adequacy’’ of MVEBs 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.
Alabama’s maintenance plan
submission contained new VOC and
NOX MVEBs for the year 2017. The
availability of the SIP submission with
these MVEBs was announced for public
comment on EPA’s adequacy Web page
E:\FR\FM\25JAP1.SGM
25JAP1
4086
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 2006 / Proposed Rules
on November 17, 2005, at: https://
www.epa.gov/otaq/transp/conform/
currsips.htm.
The EPA public comment period on
adequacy of the 2017 MVEBs for the
Birmingham area closed on December
19, 2005. EPA did not receive any
adverse comments or requests for the
submittal.
EPA intends to make its
determination of the adequacy of the
2017 MVEBs for the Birmingham area
for transportation conformity purposes
in the final rulemaking on the
Birmingham area 8-hour ozone
redesignation. If EPA finds the 2017
MVEBs adequate for transportation
conformity purposes prior to EPA’s final
approval, or finds the 2017 MVEBs
adequate and approves the 2017 MVEBs
in the final rulemaking action, the new
MVEBs must be used for future
transportation conformity
determinations. The new 2017 MVEBs,
if found adequate and approved in the
final rulemaking, will be effective the
date of publication of EPA’s final
rulemaking in the Federal Register. For
required regional emissions analysis
years that involve the year 2016 or
before, the applicable budget for the
purposes of conducting transportation
conformity will be the applicable
MVEBs from the Birmingham 1-hour
ozone attainment demonstration or the
1-hour ozone maintenance plan. The 1hour ozone attainment demonstration
established MVEBs for the year 2003 of
65 tpd for NOX and 52 tpd for VOCs.
The 1-hour ozone maintenance plan
established MVEBs for the year 2015 of
41 tpd for NOX and 23 tpd for VOCs. For
required regional emissions analysis
years that involve the year 2017 or
beyond, the applicable budget for the
purposes of conducting transportation
conformity analyses will be the 2017
VOC (23 tpsd) and NOX (42 tpsd) MVEB
for this maintenance area.
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
Birmingham Area 2017 MVEBs
NOX, tpsd—42
VOC, tpsd—23
EPA is proposing to approve the 2017
MVEBs because the maintenance plan
demonstrates that expected emissions
for the area in 2017, including the 2017
MVEBs plus the estimated emissions for
all other source categories, will continue
to maintain the 8-hour ozone standard.
VIII. Proposed Action on the
Redesignation Request, the
Maintenance Plan SIP Revision
Including Proposed Approval of the
2017 MVEBs
After evaluating Alabama’s
redesignation request, EPA has
determined that it meets the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:04 Jan 24, 2006
Jkt 208001
redesignation criteria set forth in section
107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. Based on the
discussion of compliance with the
redesignation criteria above, and on the
fact that Alabama is in the process of
completing the adoption of a
maintenance plan meeting the
requirements of section 175A, we
conclude that the area will comply with
the criteria for redesignation to
attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
Therefore we are proposing to approve
this redesignation request and
maintenance plan. If the State
substantially revises the maintenance
plan from the version proposed by the
State and reviewed here, this may result
in the need for additional proposed
rulemaking.
Additionally, EPA is providing the
status of its Adequacy Determination for
the 2017 MVEBs and is proposing to
approve the 2017 MVEBs, submitted by
Alabama for the Birmingham area, in
conjunction with its redesignation
request. Within 24 months from the
effective date of the final rule for this
action, the transportation partners will
need to demonstrate conformity to these
new MVEBs pursuant to 40 CFR
93.104(e) as effectively amended by new
section 172(c)(2)(E) of the CAA as added
by the Safe, Accountable, Flexible,
Efficient Transportation Equity Act–A
Legacy for Users (SAFETEA–LU), which
was signed into law on August 10, 2005.
IX. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed
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 proposed action merely
proposes to approve 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 CAA
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 proposed 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
proposes to approve pre-existing
requirements under state law and does
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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 proposed 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 allow 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 proposed 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 proposed
rule does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
E:\FR\FM\25JAP1.SGM
25JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 2006 / Proposed Rules
of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
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.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: January 17, 2006.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. E6–907 Filed 1–24–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[EPA–HQ–OPP–2005–0487; FRL–7754–8]
Pesticides: Minimal Risk Tolerance
Exemptions
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
This document proposes to
reorganize certain existing tolerance
exemptions. All of these chemical
substances were reviewed as part of the
tolerance reassessment process required
under the Food Quality Protection Act
of 1996 (FQPA). As a result of that
review, 13 chemical substances are now
classified as ‘‘minimal risk.’’ The
Agency intends to shift the existing
tolerance exemptions for these
chemicals to 40 CFR 180.950(e). The
Agency is merely moving certain
tolerance exemptions from one section
of the CFR to another section: No
tolerance exemptions are lost or added
as a result of this action.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before March 27, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by docket identification (ID)
number EPA–HQ–OPP–2005–0487, by
one of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
• Agency Website: https://
www.epa.gov/edocket/. EDOCKET,
EPA’s electronic public docket and
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:04 Jan 24, 2006
Jkt 208001
comment system, is EPA’s preferred
method for receiving comments. Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
• E-mail: Comments may be sent by
e-mail to opp-docket@epa.gov,
Attention: Docket ID number EPA–HQ–
OPP–2005–0487.
• Mail: Public Information and
Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB)
(7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs
(OPP), Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460–0001, Attention:
Docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP–2005–
0487.
• Hand delivery: Public Information
and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB),
Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm.
119, Crystal Mall #2, 1801 S. Bell St.,
Arlington, VA, Attention: Docket ID
number EPA–HQ–OPP–2005–0487.
Such deliveries are only accepted
during the Docket’s normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements
should be made for deliveries of boxed
information.
• Instructions: Direct your comments
to docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP–
2005–0487. 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://
www.epa.gov/edocket/, 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 EDOCKET,
regulations.gov, or e-mail. The EPA
EDOCKET and the regulations.gov
websites 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 EDOCKET 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 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. For additional information
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
4087
about EPA’s public docket visit
EDOCKET on-line or see the Federal
Register of May 31, 2002 (67 FR 38102)
(FRL–7181–7).
Docket: All documents in the docket
are listed in the EDOCKET index at
https://www.epa.gov/edocket/. 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 EDOCKET or in hard
copy at the Public Information and
Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm.
119, Crystal Mall #2, 1801 S. Bell St.,
Arlington, VA. This Docket Facility is
open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The Docket telephone number
is (703) 305–5805.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kathryn Boyle, Registration Division,
(7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,
DC 20460–0001; telephone number:
(703) 305–6304; fax number: (703) 305–
0599; e-mail address:
boyle.kathryn@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
A. Does this Action Apply to Me?
You may be potentially affected by
this action if you are an agricultural
producer, food manufacturer, or
pesticide manufacturer. Potentially
affected entities may include, but are
not limited to:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111)
• Animal production (NAICS code
112)
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code
311)
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS
code 32532)
This listing is not intended to be
exhaustive, but rather provides a guide
for readers regarding entities likely to be
affected by this action. Other types of
entities not listed in this unit could also
be affected. The North American
Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes have been provided to
assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to
certain entities. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of
this action to a particular entity, consult
the person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
E:\FR\FM\25JAP1.SGM
25JAP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 16 (Wednesday, January 25, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 4077-4087]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-907]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[EPA-R04-OAR-2005-AL-0003-200539; FRL-8024-6]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation
of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Alabama; Redesignation of
the Birmingham 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area to Attainment for Ozone
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On November 16, 2005, the State of Alabama, through the
Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM), submitted a
request for parallel processing to redesignate the Birmingham 8-hour
ozone nonattainment area (Birmingham area) to attainment for the 8-hour
ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS); and for EPA
approval of an Alabama draft State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
containing a maintenance plan with a 2017 end year for the Birmingham
area. The Birmingham area is composed of two counties, Jefferson and
Shelby. EPA is proposing to approve the 8-hour ozone redesignation
request for the Birmingham area. Additionally, EPA is parallel
processing the redesignation request and draft 8-hour ozone maintenance
plan SIP revision for the Birmingham area (a required component of any
redesignation to attainment) and is proposing approval of this draft
maintenance plan because EPA has determined that the draft plan
complies with the requirements of Section 175A of the Clean Air Act
(CAA).
This proposed approval is based on EPA's determination that Alabama
has demonstrated that the Birmingham area has met the criteria for
redesignation to attainment specified in the CAA, including the
determination that the entire Birmingham area has attained the 8-hour
ozone standard. 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 2017 that
is contained in the 8-hour ozone maintenance plan for the Birmingham
area. EPA is proposing to approve the 2017 MVEBs.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before February 24,
2006.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-
2005-AL-0003, by one of the following methods:
1. https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
2. E-mail: lakeman.sean@epa.gov.
3. Fax: 404.562.9019.
4. Mail: ``EPA-R04-OAR-2005-AL-0003'', 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.
5. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to: Sean Lakeman
Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides
and Toxics Management Division 12th floor, 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 Docket ID No. ``EPA-R04-OAR-
2005-AL-0003''. 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://www.regulations.gov, 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 through
www.regulations.gov or e-mail,
[[Page 4078]]
information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, 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 www.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 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. For additional
information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at https://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. 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 https://
www.regulations.gov 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 person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's
official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30
excluding legal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Lakeman, 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. The telephone number is (404)
562-9043. Mr. Lakeman can also be reached via electronic mail at
lakeman.sean@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. What Proposed Actions Is EPA Taking?
II. What Is the Background for the Proposed Actions?
III. What Are the Criteria for Redesignation?
IV. Why Is EPA Proposing These Actions?
V. What Is the Effect of EPA's Proposed 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 Birmingham 8-Hour Ozone
Maintenance Area's New MVEBs for the Year 2017?
VIII. Proposed Actions on the Redesignation Request and Maintenance
Plan SIP Revision Including Proposed Approval of the 2017 MVEBs
IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What Proposed Actions Is EPA Taking?
Through this rulemaking, EPA is proposing to take several related
actions. The Birmingham area is a basic 8-hour nonattainment ozone area
and is composed of two counties, Jefferson and Shelby. EPA is proposing
to determine that the Birmingham area has attained the 8-hour ozone
standard, and has met the requirements for redesignation under section
107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. EPA is proposing to approve the redesignation
request to change the legal designation of the Birmingham area from
nonattainment to attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
EPA is also proposing to approve Alabama's 8-hour ozone maintenance
plan for the Birmingham area (such approval being one of the CAA
criteria for redesignation to attainment status). The maintenance plan
is designed to help keep the Birmingham area in attainment for the 8-
hour ozone NAAQS through 2017.
Additionally, through this rulemaking, EPA is announcing the status
of EPA's Adequacy Process for the newly-established 2017 MVEBs for the
Birmingham area. The Adequacy comment period for the 2017 MVEBs began
on November 17, 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 the 2017
MVEBs closed on December 19, 2005. No requests or adverse comments on
this submittal were received during EPA's Adequacy comment period. EPA
is proposing to approve the 2017 MVEBs. Please see section VII of this
rulemaking for further explanation of this process.
II. What Is the Background for the Proposed Actions?
Ground-level ozone is not emitted directly by sources. Rather,
emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOX) and volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) 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 Birmingham 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area was designated using 2001 to 2003 ambient air
quality data. The Federal Register document making these designations
was signed on April 15, 2004, and published on
[[Page 4079]]
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 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 EPA refers to as ``classified'' nonattainment) provides more
specific requirements for certain ozone nonattainment areas. Some 8-
hour ozone nonattainment areas are subject 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 I 8-hour ozone
implementation rule (69 FR 23857), signed on April 15, 2004, an area
was 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 Birmingham 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 2005, the ambient ozone data for the Birmingham
nonattainment area indicated no further violations of the 8-hour ozone
standard, using data from the 3-year period of 2003-2005 (with the
2003-2005 design value of 0.084 ppm), to demonstrate attainment.
On November 16, 2005, Alabama requested redesignation to attainment
for the 8-hour ozone standard for the Birmingham area. The
redesignation request includes three years of complete, quality-assured
ambient air quality data for the ozone seasons of 2003 through 2005,
indicating the 8-hour ozone NAAQS had been achieved for the Birmingham
area. The ozone season for this area is from April 1 until October 31
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 Criteria for Redesignation?
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 Proposing These Actions?
On November 16, 2005, Alabama requested redesignation of the
Birmingham area to attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. EPA
believes that Alabama has demonstrated that the Birmingham area has
attained the standard and has met the requirements for redesignation
set forth in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA.
V. What Is the Effect of EPA's Proposed Actions?
Approval of this redesignation request would change the official
designation of the Birmingham area for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS found at
40 CFR part 81. It would also incorporate into the Alabama SIP a plan
for maintaining the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the area through 2017. The 8-
hour ozone maintenance plan includes contingency measures to remedy
future violations of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and establishes MVEBs of
23 tons per day (tpd) for VOC, and 42 tpd for NOX for the
year 2017.
VI. What Is EPA's Analysis of the Request?
EPA is proposing to determine that the Birmingham 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area has attained the 8-hour ozone standard, and that all
redesignation criteria have been met. The basis for EPA's determination
is as follows:
(1) The Birmingham area has attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
EPA is proposing to determine 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
[[Page 4080]]
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.
ADEM submitted ozone monitoring data from ten ambient ozone
monitoring stations in the Birmingham area for the ozone seasons from
2003 to 2005. This data has been quality assured and is recorded in
AQS. The fourth high averages for 2003, 2004 and 2005, and the 3-year
average of these values (i.e. design value), are summarized in the
following table:
8-Hour Ozone
[Parts per million, ppm]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4th high 8-hr ozone average
-------------------------------------------
Monitor County 3-year
2003 2004 2005 average
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fairfield............................... Jefferson................. 0.075 0.070 0.081 0.075
McAdory................................. Jefferson................. 0.073 0.073 0.085 0.077
Hoover.................................. Jefferson................. 0.077 0.077 0.085 0.079
Pinson.................................. Jefferson................. 0.081 0.068 0.072 0.073
Tarrant................................. Jefferson................. 0.075 0.068 0.084 0.075
Corner.................................. Jefferson................. 0.077 0.068 0.077 0.074
Providence.............................. Jefferson................. 0.070 0.070 0.079 0.073
N. Birmingham........................... Jefferson................. 0.068 0.070 0.079 0.072
Leeds................................... Jefferson................. 0.070 0.073 0.071 0.071
Helena.................................. Shelby.................... 0.083 0.084 0.085 0.084
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The design value for an area is the highest design value recorded
at any monitor in the area. Therefore, the design value for the
Birmingham area is 0.084 ppm, which meets the standard as described
above.
ADEM has also committed to continue monitoring in these areas in
accordance with 40 CFR part 58. In summary, EPA believes that the data
submitted by Alabama provides an adequate demonstration that the
Birmingham 8-hour ozone nonattainment area has attained the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS.
(2) Alabama has a fully approved SIP under section 110(k) for the
Birmingham area and
(5) Alabama 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 Alabama has met all applicable SIP
requirements for purposes of redesignation for the Birmingham area
under section 110 of the CAA (general SIP requirements). EPA has also
determined that the Alabama SIP satisfies the criterion that it meets
applicable SIP requirements for purposes of redesignation 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 for purposes of redesignation in
accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii). In making these
determinations, EPA ascertained which requirements are applicable to
the area for purposes of redesignation and that if applicable they are
fully approved under section 110(k). SIPs must be fully approved only
with respect to applicable requirements.
a. Alabama 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, Missouri).
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 requirements (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.
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)).
[[Page 4081]]
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 approach is consistent with EPA's existing
policy on applicability of conformity (i.e. for redesignations) 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-Lorain, 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).
EPA believes that section 110 elements not linked to the area's
nonattainment status are not applicable for purposes of redesignation.
Any section 110 requirements that are linked to the Part D requirements
for 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas are not yet due, since, as
explained below, no Part D requirements applicable for purposes of
redesignation under the 8-hour standard became due prior to submission
of the redesignation request. Therefore, as discussed above, for
purposes of redesignation, they are not considered applicable
requirements.
EPA has previously approved general requirements in the Alabama SIP
addressing section 110 elements (May 31, 1972, 37 FR 10842).
Part D requirements: EPA has also determined that the Alabama SIP
meets applicable SIP requirements under part D of the CAA since no
requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation became due prior
to 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 Birmingham 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). No requirements applicable for purposes of
redesignation under part D became due prior to submission of the
redesignation request, and therefore none is 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 no part D requirements applicable for
purposes of redesignation became due prior to submission of the
redesignation request and therefore are not applicable, EPA believes it
is reasonable to interpret the conformity and NSR 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
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 relating to consultation, enforcement
and enforceability that the CAA required the EPA to promulgate. EPA
believes it is reasonable to interpret the conformity SIP 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 (Dec. 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.''
Alabama has demonstrated that the area will be able to maintain the
standard without part D NSR in effect, and therefore, Alabama need not
have a fully approved part D NSR program prior to approval of the
redesignation request. Alabama'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-Lorain, 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 requirements applicable for purposes
of redesignation 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 Alabama SIP for the
Birmingham area under section 110(k) of the Clean Air Act for all
requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation. EPA may rely on
prior SIP approvals in approving a redesignation request, see Calcagni
Memo 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.
[[Page 4082]]
Following passage of the CAA of 1970, Alabama has adopted and
submitted, and EPA has fully approved at various times, provisions
addressing section 110 elements under the 1-hour standard applicable in
the Birmingham area (May 31, 1972, 37 FR 10842).
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 applicable for purposes of redesignation 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 Birmingham 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 Alabama 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 have reduced local NOX and VOC emissions
and brought the area into attainment during 2003-2005:
The Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) Control Program--gasoline sold from
June 1st until September 15th of each year, in Jefferson and Shelby
Counties was required to have a RVP no greater than 7.0 pounds per
square inch (psi).
Since 2003, utility NOX controls on Alabama Power
Company plants Gorgas (in Jefferson Co.) and Miller (in Shelby Co.)
have been required for the period of May 1st to September 30th each
year. NOX emission limitations have been established at 0.21
lb/mmbtu for the two plants, based on a rolling 30-day average.
Alabama's NOX SIP Call established a NOX
budget from 2004 and beyond for large industrial sources such as
boilers, turbines, and electric generating units that are subject to
the NOX SIP Call.
EPA has implemented several programs that have resulted in reduced
emissions in recent years. For cars and light trucks, EPA has
instituted the National Low Emissions Vehicles (NLEV) program, which
went into effect nationally in 2001, and EPA's Tier 2 rules, which went
into effect in 2004. In addition, Tier 2 standards for nonroad diesel
engines were phased in between 2001 and 2004. Over time the phase-in of
these programs has resulted in reductions in emissions as new vehicles
have replaced older, higher-polluting vehicles. Further reductions have
occurred as a result of further implementation of EPA standards for
small spark-ignited engines (e.g. lawnmowers) and locomotives. The
heavy duty highway truck engine rule also implemented reductions
beginning in 2004.
EPA promulgated the Tier 2 Motor Vehicle Emissions Standards and
Gasoline Sulfur Control Requirements in 2000 (65 FR 6697).
In addition to the reductions mentioned above, the State of Alabama
is also relying on the following controls to maintain the 8-hour
standard:
1. Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery for Light-Duty Vehicles
2. Federal Non-road Diesel Engine Standards
3. Federal Marine Engine Requirements
4. Federal Locomotive Requirements
5. Consumer Solvents Requirements
6. Architectural and Industrial Maintenance Coatings Requirements
7. Automobile Refinishing Requirements
8. The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP); the majority of which are also VOCs
9. Phase II Acid Rain Program for NOX
10. Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR)
11. NOX SIP Call Phase II
12. Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur Requirements
Alabama has demonstrated that the implementation of permanent and
enforceable emissions controls have reduced local VOC and
NOX emissions. Alabama has also demonstrated that year-to-
year meteorological changes and trends have an impact on ozone
precursor emissions and the formation of ozone but, that they are not
the likely source of the overall, long-term improvement in ozone
levels. 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 resulted in the area
achieving attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard. Jefferson County
alone has reduced point source NOX emissions by 37 percent
from 2002 to 2004 and will reduce them by 65 percent by 2017. The whole
area has reduced the total NOX emissions by 22 percent from
2002 to 2004 and will reduce them by 45 percent by 2017. Additional
reductions from outside the Birmingham area will be realized as the
above programs are implemented throughout the State.
NOX Emissions From 2002 to 2004
[Tons per Summer Day, tpsd]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
County/source category 2002 2004
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jefferson:
Point......................................... 110 69
Area.......................................... 3 3
Non-road...................................... 18 17
------------
Total..................................... 131 89
============
Shelby:
Point......................................... 97 94
Area.......................................... 1 1
Non-road...................................... 6 6
------------
Total..................................... 104 101
============
Total for the Birmingham area:
Point......................................... 207 163
Area.......................................... 4 4
Mobile........................................ 57 54
[[Page 4083]]
Non-road...................................... 24 23
------------
Total..................................... 292 244
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(4) The area has a fully approved maintenance plan pursuant to
section 175A of the CAA.
In conjunction with its request to redesignate the Birmingham 8-
hour ozone nonattainment area to attainment status, ADEM submitted a
SIP revision to provide for the maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS
in the Birmingham area for at least 10 years after the effective date
of redesignation to attainment. Alabama requested that EPA ``parallel
process'' the redesignation request and maintenance plan SIP revision.
Under this procedure, the Regional Office works closely with Alabama
while developing new or revised regulations. The State submits a copy
of the proposed regulation or other revisions to EPA before conducting
its public hearing. EPA reviews this proposed State action, and
prepares a notice of proposed rulemaking. EPA's notice of proposed
rulemaking is published in the Federal Register between the time frame
Alabama submits its prehearing and final submittal. Alabama and EPA
then provide for public comment periods on both the State action and
the Federal action.
After Alabama submits the final request and State-effective SIP
revision (including a response to all public comments raised during the
State's public participation process, and the approved maintenance plan
for the Birmingham area), EPA will prepare a final rulemaking notice on
the redesignation request and maintenance plan SIP revision. If
Alabama's formal maintenance plan SIP revision contains changes which
occur after EPA's notice of proposed rulemaking, such changes must be
described in EPA's final rulemaking action. If Alabama's changes are
significant, then EPA must decide whether it is appropriate to re-
propose the State's maintenance plan SIP revision action. In addition,
if Alabama's final maintenance plan SIP revision changes significantly
and/or is disapprovable in its final form, EPA will also not take final
action to approve the Birmingham redesignation request because the
existence of a fully EPA-approved maintenance plan is a necessary
criterion for redesignation to attainment status.
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, Alabama 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
Point source emissions were obtained for calendar year 2004 as a
result of the annual data obtained from regulated facilities and
projected to 2009, 2015 and 2017. Non-road mobile emissions were
calculated using the most recent non-road model. On-road mobile source
emissions were calculated using MOBILE 6.2 for 2004 and three horizon
years, 2009, 2015 and 2017. Area source emissions were grown from the
2002 National Emissions Inventory for 2004, 2009, 2015 and 2017. The
maintenance plan establishes an attainment inventory for the year 2004.
This attainment inventory identifies the level of emissions in the area
which is sufficient to attain the 8-hour ozone standard.
c. Maintenance Demonstration
The November 16, 2005, submittal includes a maintenance plan with a
2017 end year for the Birmingham area. 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., 2003, 2004, and 2005) for which the Birmingham 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 2009, 2015, and 2017.
(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, MVEBs were established for the last year of the
maintenance plan. See section VII below.
(iv) Provides the following actual and projected emissions
inventories for the Birmingham area.
NOX Emissions TPSD
------------------------------------------------------------------------
County/source category 2004 2009 2015 2017
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jefferson:
Point................... 69 45 48 49
Area.................... 3 4 4 4
[[Page 4084]]
Non-road................ 17 14 11 10
------------
Total............... 89 63 63 63
============
Shelby:
Point................... 94 69 72 73
Area.................... 1 1 1 1
Non-road................ 6 5 4 4
------------
Total............... 101 75 77 78
============
Total for the Birmingham
area:
Point................... 163 114 120 122
Area.................... 4 5 5 5
Mobile \1\.............. 54 39 24 21
Non-road................ 23 19 15 14
------------
Total............... 244 177 164 162
============
2004 NOX Safety Margin *.... ......... 67 80 82
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* After assigning 21 tpsd of the NOX safety margin to the NOX MVEB, the
revised 2017 NOX safety margin will be 61 tpsd.
\1\ Since the transportation network is based on the two-County
(Jefferson and Shelby) area, mobile source emissions were not broken
out by county.
VOC Emissions TPSD
------------------------------------------------------------------------
County/source category 2004 2009 2015 2017
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jefferson:
Point................... 13 14 17 18
Area.................... 57 47 51 52
Non-road................ 10 8 7 7
------------
Total............... 80 69 75 77
============
Shelby:
Point................... 2 2 2 2
Area.................... 11 9 9 10
Non-read................ 5 4 4 3
------------
Total............... 18 15 15 15
============
Total for the Birmingham NA:
Point................... 15 16 19 20
Area.................... 68 56 60 62
Mobile \2\.............. 32 28 20 19
Non-road................ 15 12 11 10
------------
Total............... 130 112 110 111
============
2004 VOC Safety Margin *.... ......... 18 20 19
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* After assigning 4 tpsd of the VOC safety margin to the VOC MVEB, the
revised 2017 VOC safety margin will be 15 tpsd.
\2\ Since the transportation network is based on the two-County
(Jefferson and Shelby) area, mobile source emissions were not broken
out by county.
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 are currently ten monitors measuring ozone, located within
Jefferson and Shelby Counties which provide air quality data for the
entire Birmingham area. Alabama has committed in the maintenance plan
to continue operation of the ozone monitors in compliance with 40 CFR
part 58, and has addressed the requirement for monitoring.
e. Verification of Continued Attainment
Alabama has the legal authority to enforce and implement the
requirements of the ozone maintenance plan for the Birmingham area.
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.
Alabama 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 the purpose of
verifying continued attainment based upon the emissions inventory,
major point sources of air
[[Page 4085]]
pollution will continue to submit data on an annual basis and area and
mobile sources will continue to be quantified on a three-year cycle.
The next overall emissions inventory will be compiled for 2005. For
these periodic inventories, Alabama will review the assumptions made
for the purpose of the maintenance demonstration concerning projected
growth of activity levels. If any of these assumptions result in future
growth greater than or equal to 10 percent, Alabama will re-project
emissions and reassess the area's ability to maintain attainment.
f. 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 Alabama 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 November 16, 2005, submittal, Alabama commits to implement
all measures that were contained in the SIP before the redesignation as
expeditiously as possible. Alabama also affirms that all programs
instituted by Alabama and EPA will remain enforceable, and that sources
are prohibited from reducing emissions controls following the
redesignation of the area. In the submittal, Alabama commits to adopt,
within 18 months of a violation, one or more contingency measures as
needed to re-attain the standard. Alabama also identified that in the
event that any individual monitor in the Birmingham area records an
annual fourth high reading of 0.085 ppm or higher, Alabama will
evaluate existing control measures to determine if further emission
reduction measures should be implemented. Also, if periodic emissions
inventory shows a future growth greater than or equal to ten percent,
Alabama will re-project emissions and reassess the area's ability to
maintain attainment. Alabama notes that all regulatory programs will be
implemented within 18 months of a violation. The State will consider
and implement one or more of the following contingency measures:
RACT for NOX sources--The State would investigate other
smaller point sources of lower thresholds for specific controls.
RACT for additional VOC sources--Rules would be implemented for
application of RACT to additional VOC sources not currently subject to
RACT.
Schedule for Point Source Regulation Development--A schedule for
the development of NOX and/or VOC regulations from the time
of a violation of the 8-hour ozone standard or inventory trigger of
future growth follows:
1. Identify potential stationary sources for reductions--3 months
2. Identify applicable RACT--3 months
3. Initiate a stakeholder process--3 months
4. Draft SIP regulations--3 months
5. Initiate rulemaking process (including public comment period,
hearing, Commission adoption and final submission to EPA)--6 months
Completion no later than--18 months
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 Alabama for the Birmingham area 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 the Birmingham 8-Hour Ozone Maintenance
Area's New MVEBs for the Year 2017?
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 MVEBs contained
therein ``adequate'' for use in determining transportation conformity.
Once EPA affirmatively finds the submitted MVEB is adequate for
transportation conformity purposes, that MVEB must 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
CAA. EPA's substantive criteria for determining ``adequacy'' of MVEBs
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.
Alabama's maintenance plan submission contained new VOC and
NOX MVEBs for the year 2017. The availability of the SIP
submission with these MVEBs was announced for public comment on EPA's
adequacy Web page
[[Page 4086]]
on November 17, 2005, at: https://www.epa.gov/otaq/transp/conform/
currsips.htm.
The EPA public comment period on adequacy of the 2017 MVEBs for the
Birmingham area closed on December 19, 2005. EPA did not receive any
adverse comments or requests for the submittal.
EPA intends to make its determination of the adequacy of the 2017
MVEBs for the Birmingham area for transportation conformity purposes in
the final rulemaking on the Birmingham area 8-hour ozone redesignation.
If EPA finds the 2017 MVEBs adequate for transportation conformity
purposes prior to EPA's final approval, or finds the 2017 MVEBs
adequate and approves the 2017 MVEBs in the final rulemaking action,
the new MVEBs must be used for future transportation conformity
determinations. The new 2017 MVEBs, if found adequate and approved in
the final rulemaking, will be effective the date of publication of
EPA's final rulemaking in the Federal Register. For required regional
emissions analysis years that involve the year 2016 or before, the
applicable budget for the purposes of conducting transportation
conformity will be the applicable MVEBs from the Birmingham 1-hour
ozone attainment demonstration or the 1-hour ozone maintenance plan.
The 1-hour ozone attainment demonstration established MVEBs for the
year 2003 of 65 tpd for NOX and 52 tpd for VOCs. The 1-hour
ozone maintenance plan established MVEBs for the year 2015 of 41 tpd
for NOX and 23 tpd for VOCs. For required regional emissions
analysis years that involve the year 2017 or beyond, the applicable
budget for the purposes of conducting transportation conformity
analyses will be the 2017 VOC (23 tpsd) and NOX (42 tpsd)
MVEB for this maintenance area.
Birmingham Area 2017 MVEBs
NOX, tpsd--42
VOC, tpsd--23
EPA is proposing to approve the 2017 MVEBs because the maintenance
plan demonstrates that expected emissions for the area in 2017,
including the 2017 MVEBs plus the estimated emissions for all other
source categories, will continue to maintain the 8-hour ozone standard.
VIII. Proposed Action on the Redesignation Request, the Maintenance
Plan SIP Revision Including Proposed Approval of the 2017 MVEBs
After evaluating Alabama's redesignation request, EPA has
determined that it meets the redesignation criteria set forth in
section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. Based on the discussion of compliance
with the redesignation criteria above, and on the fact that Alabama is
in the process of completing the adoption of a maintenance plan meeting
the requirements of section 175A, we conclude that the area will comply
with the criteria for redesignation to attainment of the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. Therefore we are proposing to approve this redesignation request
and maintenance plan. If the State substantially revises the
maintenance plan from the version proposed by the State and reviewed
here, this may result in the need for additional proposed rulemaking.
Additionally, EPA is providing the status of its Adequacy
Determination for the 2017 MVEBs and is proposing to approve the 2017
MVEBs, submitted by Alabama for the Birmingham area, in conjunction
with its redesignation request. Within 24 months from the effective
date of the final rule for this action, the transportation partners
will need to demonstrate conformity to these new MVEBs pursuant to 40
CFR 93.104(e) as effectively amended by new section 172(c)(2)(E) of the
CAA as added by the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act-A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), which was
signed into law on August 10, 2005.
IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
proposed 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
proposed action merely proposes to approve 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 CAA 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 proposed
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 proposes to approve 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 proposed 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 allow 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 proposed 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 chil
