Air Plan Approval; Air Plan Approval and Air Quality Designation; GA; Redesignation of the Atlanta, Georgia 2008 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area to Attainment, 25523-25529 [2017-10934]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 105 / Friday, June 2, 2017 / Rules and Regulations § 165.T09–0372 Special local regulation; Motor City Mile; Detroit River; Detroit, MI. nlaroche on DSK30NT082PROD with RULES (a) Location. A regulated area is established to encompass the following waterway: All waters of the Detroit River, Belle Isle Beach between the following two lines: The first line is drawn directly across the channel from position 42°20.517′ N., 082°59.159′ W. to 42°20.705′ N., 082°59.233′ W. (NAD 83); the second line, to the north, is drawn directly across the channel from position 42°20.754′ N., 082°58.681′ W. to 42°20.997′ N., 082°58.846″ W. (NAD 83). (b) Enforcement period. This section is effective and will be enforced from 7 a.m. until 12 p.m. on July 6, 2017. (c) Regulations. (1) Vessels transiting through the regulated area are to maintain the minimum speeds for safe navigation. (2) Vessel operators desiring to operate in the regulated area must contact the Coast Guard Patrol Commander to obtain permission to do so. The Captain of the Port Detroit (COTP) or his on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16 or at 313–568–9560. Vessel operators given permission to operate within the regulated area must comply with all directions given to them by the COTP or his on-scene representative. (3) The ‘‘on-scene representative’’ of the COTP Detroit is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer or a Federal, State, or local law enforcement officer designated by or assisting the Captain of the Port Detroit to act on his behalf. (4) Vessel operators shall contact the COTP Detroit or his on-scene representative to obtain permission to enter or operate within the special local regulation. The COTP Detroit or his onscene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16 or at 313–568– 9464. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the regulated area must comply with all directions given to them by the COTP Detroit or his onscene representative. Dated: May 26, 2017. Scott B. Lemasters, Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Detroit. [FR Doc. 2017–11465 Filed 6–1–17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110–04–P VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:07 Jun 01, 2017 Jkt 241001 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 [EPA–R04–OAR–2016–0583; FRL–9962–27– Region 4] Air Plan Approval; Air Plan Approval and Air Quality Designation; GA; Redesignation of the Atlanta, Georgia 2008 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area to Attainment Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Final rule. AGENCY: On July 18, 2016, the State of Georgia, through the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (GA EPD) of the Department of Natural Resources, submitted a request for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to redesignate the Atlanta, Georgia 2008 8-hour ozone nonattainment area (hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘Atlanta Area’’ or ‘‘Area’’) to attainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision containing a maintenance plan for the Area. EPA is approving the State’s maintenance plan, including the motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs) for nitrogen oxides (NOX) and volatile organic compounds (VOC) for the years 2014 and 2030 for the Area, and redesignating the Area to attainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Additionally, EPA finds the 2014 and 2030 MVEBs for the Atlanta Area adequate for the purposes of transportation conformity. DATES: This rule will be effective June 2, 2017. ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification No. EPA–R04–OAR– 2016–0583. All documents in the docket are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some information may not be publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business Information 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 through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. EPA SUMMARY: PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 25523 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 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jane Spann, Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, Region 4, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Ms. Spann can be reached by phone at (404) 562–9029 or via electronic mail at spann.jane@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background for Final Actions Effective July 20, 2012, EPA designated areas as unclassifiable/ attainment or nonattainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS that was promulgated on March 27, 2008. See 77 FR 30088 (May 21, 2012). The Atlanta Area was designated as nonattainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS and classified as a marginal nonattainment area.1 On July 14, 2016, EPA issued a determination that the Area had attained the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS (81 FR 45419). On July 18, 2016, Georgia requested that EPA redesignate the Atlanta Area to attainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS and submitted a SIP revision containing the State’s plan for maintaining attainment of the 2008 8-hour ozone standard in the Area, including 2014 and 2030 MVEBs for NOX and VOC for the Atlanta Area. In a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published on December 23, 2016 (81 FR 94283), EPA proposed to approve the maintenance plan, including the 2014 and 2030 MVEBs for NOX and VOC, and incorporate the plan into the Georgia SIP and to redesignate the Area to attainment for the 2008 8hour ozone NAAQS. In that notice, EPA also notified the public of the status of the Agency’s adequacy determination for the NOX and VOC MVEBs for the Atlanta Area. The details of Georgia’s submittal and the rationale for EPA’s actions are further explained in the NPRM. II. Response to Comments EPA received one set of comments on its December 23, 2016, proposed rulemaking actions. Specifically, EPA received adverse comments from the Sierra Club (‘‘Commenter’’). These 1 The Atlanta Area consists of Bartow, Cherokee, Clayton, Cobb, Coweta, DeKalb, Douglas, Fayette, Forsyth, Fulton, Gwinnett, Henry, Newton, Paulding and Rockdale Counties in Georgia. E:\FR\FM\02JNR1.SGM 02JNR1 nlaroche on DSK30NT082PROD with RULES 25524 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 105 / Friday, June 2, 2017 / Rules and Regulations comments are provided in the docket for this final action. See Docket number EPA–R04–OAR–2016–0583. A summary of the adverse comments and EPA’s responses are provided below. Comment 1: The Commenter contends that EPA may not approve Georgia’s request to redesignate the Atlanta Area to attainment because, according to the Commenter, the Atlanta Area failed to attain the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The Commenter believes that the Area failed to attain this NAAQS ‘‘by law’’ because the Cobb County ozone monitor did not meet the 75 percent data completeness requirement for 2014 or the 90 percent data completeness requirement for the 2013–2015 period. Response 1: EPA disagrees with the Commenter that the Area has not attained the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA issued a final determination of attainment on July 14, 2016, based on the same 2013–2015 air quality data it is using as the basis of this redesignation action. See 81 FR 45419. EPA took notice and comment on its determination of attainment and the Commenter could have raised its concern to the Agency regarding data from the Kennesaw National Guard monitor (also known as the Cobb County monitor) at that time, but failed to do so. In any case, EPA does not find reason to alter its conclusion that the Area has attained the 2008 ozone NAAQS based on concerns raised in the comment, and the most recent available data and information continues to support this finding. With regard to the Commenter’s concern regarding the 2014 ozone season data from the Kennesaw National Guard monitor, EPA’s technical analysis, available in a technical support document located in the docket for this rulemaking, demonstrates that the 2013–2015 design value would not have violated the standard even assuming the most conservative estimates for the missing data from that monitor. As described in greater detail in the technical support document, in EPA’s technical judgment, the Area has attained the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. In making its determination, EPA evaluated all valid certified monitoring data collected during 2013–2015 by monitors in or near the nonattainment area.2 EPA also conducted the additional technical analysis described in the technical support document for the Kennesaw National Guard monitor, which did not collect complete data 2 EPA retrieved data for the monitors in the Atlanta Area and the Georgia Station CASTNET monitoring site in Pike County near the Atlanta Area. VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:07 Jun 01, 2017 Jkt 241001 during 2014. The results of this technical analysis indicate that even under the most conservative estimates, it is very unlikely that the monitor would have violated the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS of 75 ppb. Following publication of the proposed redesignation, Georgia certified its 2016 data for the Atlanta Area which shows that the Area continues to attain the NAAQS with a 2014–2016 design value of 75 ppb.3 Incomplete data for the Kennesaw National Guard monitor in 2014 does not affect this conclusion because, as discussed above, EPA conducted an analysis and has concluded that it is very unlikely that the monitor would have violated the NAAQS if it had collected completed data.4 Comment 2: The Commenter argues that the interstate transport provision at CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) is an applicable requirement for the purposes of redesignation. Therefore, the Commenter does not believe that EPA can redesignate a nonattainment area to attainment unless the state has submitted, and EPA has approved, a SIP revision that contains adequate provisions prohibiting any source located in the state from emitting any air pollutant in amounts which will contribute significantly to nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance by, any other state with respect to any NAAQS. Because Georgia did not submit a SIP revision satisfying the good neighbor provision for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, the Commenter contends that Georgia has not met all applicable requirements for redesignation of the Area under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) (requiring the State to have met all applicable requirements under section 110 and Part D) and section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) (requiring the State to have a fully approved applicable SIP under section 110(k)). Response 2: As discussed in the NPRM and in numerous other redesignation actions, EPA has long interpreted the section 110(a)(2)(D) interstate transport requirements as not applicable for the purposes of redesignation. See, e.g., 81 FR 94283 (December 23, 2016), 78 FR 43096 (July 19, 2013), 76 FR 79579 (December 22, 2011), 74 FR 53198 (October 16, 2009), 72 FR 56312 (October 3, 2007). The Agency has consistently distinguished the section 110 and part D requirements that apply regardless of an area’s 3 The air quality data is located at https:// www.epa.gov/outdoor-air-quality-data. 4 The fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average value for 2016 at the Kennesaw National Guard monitor is 70 ppb. PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 attainment designation—such as 110(a)(2)(D) interstate transport requirements, 176(c) conformity requirements, section 184 ozone transport region measures, and section 211(m) oxygenated fuels requirements— from those requirements in section 110 and part D that are linked to the nonattainment designation of an area and thus no longer need be complied with upon redesignation to attainment status. If a requirement applies to an area regardless of whether its designation is nonattainment, maintenance, or attainment, and thus other parts of the CAA will continue to obligate the area to meet the requirement after redesignation, EPA has interpreted the requirement as not ‘‘applicable’’ for purposes of section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) or (v). See, e.g., 66 FR 53094 (October 19, 2001), 65 FR 37879 (June 19, 2000), 62 FR 24826 (May 7, 1997), 61 FR 53174 (October 10, 1996), 61 FR 20458 (May 7, 1996), 60 FR 62748 (December 7, 1995). Courts have upheld EPA’s authority to interpret what constitutes an ‘‘applicable’’ requirement under section 107(d)(3)(E), and have deferred to EPA’s interpretation that requirements that continue to apply after a redesignation are not ‘‘applicable’’ for purposes of section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and (v). See Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004); Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001). We note that EPA has acted consistently with this interpretation by issuing a number of actions outside the context of area redesignations to address CAA 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)’s transport provision. On October 26, 2016, EPA issued a final rulemaking (CSAPR Update) updating the regional NOx ozone season trading program established under the original 2011 Cross-State Air Pollution Rule. See 81 FR 74504. As described in more detail in the CSAPR Update, EPA conducted air quality modeling and concluded that Georgia did not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in other states. Therefore, even though, as the Commenter points out, EPA did issue a finding of failure to submit a 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) transport SIP to Georgia, the Agency later determined that the State had no substantive obligation to reduce its emissions to meet its transport obligations for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Comment 3: The Commenter claims that neither Georgia nor EPA have sufficiently shown that the improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable emissions reductions rather than to temporary E:\FR\FM\02JNR1.SGM 02JNR1 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 105 / Friday, June 2, 2017 / Rules and Regulations fluctuations in weather or the economy, from decreased electricity production in the Area, or from impermanent and unenforceable measures. The Commenter believes that EPA did nothing more than cite to and summarize certain applicable pollutant control regulations and that EPA must estimate the percent reduction achieved from each of the cited measures ‘‘in order to clearly show that the air quality improvements are indeed the result of implemented permanent and enforceable controls.’’ The Commenter also states that the Utility Mercury Air Toxics Standards (MATS), listed in the section of the NPRM discussing permanent and enforceable measures, cannot have improved air quality during the relevant time period and that MATS does not have any relevance for ozone. Response 3: EPA does not agree with the Commenter that the Agency has not properly determined that the Area’s attainment is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions, as required by CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii). EPA’s approach in this action is consistent with its longstanding interpretation that to satisfy that provision, as set forth in the Calcagni Memorandum cited by the Commenter, EPA must show that the improvement in air quality necessary for an area to attain the relevant NAAQS is reasonably attributable to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions.5 As recently affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, EPA’s approach to demonstrating that section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) has been met is a reasonable and appropriate method of meeting the CAA’s requirements. See Sierra Club v. EPA, 774 F.3d 383 (7th Cir. 2014). As noted by the court, it is not necessary for EPA to ‘‘prove causation to an absolute certainty,’’ and the Agency is entitled to deference when using its ‘‘experience, expertise, and professional judgment’’ in determining whether the improvement in air quality is reasonably attributable to permanent and enforceable measures. See Sierra Club, 774 F.3d at 395–96 (agreeing with EPA that its approach sufficed, and that an ‘‘elaborate analytical exercise is not required by the CAA’’). In this case, the Commenter claims that EPA’s demonstration is inadequate and charges that the Agency must estimate the percent reduction achieved from each of the permanent and enforceable measures in order for the Agency to redesignate an area. In fact, for the measures that were primarily responsible for the improvement in ozone concentrations in the Area, EPA did estimate the percentage reduction in emissions. The majority of ozone precursor emissions in the Area are generated by mobile sources, and the vast majority of emission reductions in the Area are similarly associated with the permanent and enforceable mobile source measures identified in the NPRM.6 Consistent with the Calcagni Memorandum, Georgia and EPA also took steps in the analysis, as outlined in the NPRM, to ensure that the improvement in air quality was not due to temporary weather conditions. Georgia provided and EPA evaluated ozone season temperature and precipitation data for the Area from 1930 through 2015. See 81 FR 94288. This data shows that the average temperature and precipitation in 2013 fluctuates around the average meteorological conditions; the years 2014 and 2015 were hotter than the 1930–2000 average temperature; and precipitation in 2014 was less than the 1930–2000 average. Therefore, EPA proposed to determine that the improvement in ozone air quality was not the result of unusually favorable 25525 weather conditions. The Commenter did not provide any climatological data to refute this proposed determination. Although the Commenter claims that EPA and the State must also demonstrate that the improvement in air quality was not due to the economy or decreased electricity production, EPA does not have any information indicating that the improvement was due to these factors and the Commenter has not provided any such information. Consistent with EPA’s long-standing practice and policy, a comparison of nonattainment period emissions with attainment period emissions is relevant in demonstrating permanent and enforceable emissions reductions. EPA has evaluated the ozone precursor emissions data in the Area and found that there were significant reductions in these emissions in multiple source categories from 2011 (a nonattainment year) to 2014 (an attainment year). During this time period, the emissions data show that non-road NOX and VOC emissions decreased, point source NOX emissions decreased, and mobile NOX and VOC emissions decreased. During this time period, mobile source emissions provided the greatest reductions, with NOX emissions decreasing by approximately 60 tons per summer day (tpsd) (equating to 72 percent of the total NOX emissions reductions) and mobile source VOC emissions decreased by approximately 34 tpsd (equating to 68 percent of the total VOC emissions reductions). It is not necessary for every change in emissions between the nonattainment year and the attainment year to be permanent and enforceable. Rather, as discussed above, the CAA requires that improvement in air quality necessary for an area to attain the relevant NAAQS must be reasonably attributable to permanent and enforceable emission reductions in emissions. TABLE 1—NOX EMISSIONS FOR THE ATLANTA 2008 8-HOUR OZONE NAAQS NONATTAINMENT AREA [Tons per summer day] 7 Year Point source nlaroche on DSK30NT082PROD with RULES 2011 ..................................................................................... 2014 ..................................................................................... 5 Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, to EPA regional air directors re: Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment (September 4, 1992), p.4. 6 In 2011, mobile sources accounted for approximately 84 percent of NOX emissions and 53 percent of VOC emissions in the Area. See 80 FR VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:07 Jun 01, 2017 Jkt 241001 Area source 54.63 31.36 4.63 4.88 48036 (August 11, 2015). In 2014, mobile sources accounted for approximately 87 percent of NOX emissions and 51 percent of VOC emissions. See 81 FR 94283. The comparison of the 2011 and 2014 emissions inventories in Table 2, below, shows that mobile source NOX emissions decreased by approximately 60 tons per summer day (tpsd) (equating to 72 percent of the total NOX emissions PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 On-road 214.98 170.15 Non-road 91.92 76.69 Total 366.16 283.08 reductions) and mobile source VOC emissions decreased by approximately 34 tpsd (equating to 68 percent of the total VOC emissions reductions). 7 For 2011, Georgia also reported 3.45 tpsd of biogenic emissions not included in this total; for 2014, the area source emissions total includes 0.01 tons per summer day of wild and prescribed fires. E:\FR\FM\02JNR1.SGM 02JNR1 25526 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 105 / Friday, June 2, 2017 / Rules and Regulations TABLE 2—VOC EMISSIONS FOR THE ATLANTA 2008 8-HOUR OZONE NAAQS NONATTAINMENT AREA [Tons per summer day] 8 Year Point source 2011 ..................................................................................... 2014 ..................................................................................... nlaroche on DSK30NT082PROD with RULES The State calculated the on-road and non-road mobile source emissions summarized in Tables 2 and 3 using EPA-approved models and procedures that account for fleet turnover, increased population, and the federal mobile source measures identified as permanent and enforceable measures in the NPRM such as the Tier 2 vehicle and fuel standards, the large non-road diesel engines rule,9 heavy-duty gasoline and diesel highway vehicle standards,10 medium and heavy duty vehicle fuel consumption and greenhouse gas (GHG) standards,11 nonroad spark-ignition engines and recreational engines standards,12 and the national program for GHG emissions and fuel economy standards.13 14 These mobile source measures have resulted in, and continue to result in, large reductions in NOX emissions over time due to fleet turnover (i.e., the replacement of older vehicles that predate the standards with newer vehicles that meet the standards). For example, implementation of the Tier 2 8 For 2011, Georgia also reported 914.88 tpsd of biogenic emissions that are not included in this total; for 2014, the area source emissions total includes 0.02 tpsd of wild and prescribed fires. 9 EPA estimated that compliance with this rule will cut NOX emissions from non-road diesel engines by up to 90 percent nationwide. 10 EPA projects a 2.6 million ton reduction in NOX emissions by 2030 when the heavy-duty vehicle fleet is completely replaced with newer heavy-duty vehicles that comply with these emission standards. 66 FR 5002, 5012 (January 18, 2001). 11 When fully implemented in 2018, this rule is expected to reduce NOX emissions from the covered vehicles by 20 percent. 12 When fully implemented, the standards will result in an 80 percent reduction in NOX by 2020. 13 Georgia used EPA’s MOVES2010b and MOVES2014a model to calculate on-road emissions factors and used the NEI2011 and MOVES2014a for non-road emissions. 14 Georgia used the interagency consultation process required by 40 CFR part 93 (known as the Transportation Conformity Rule) which requires EPA, the United States Department of Transportation, metropolitan planning organizations, state departments of transportation, and State and local air quality agencies to work together to develop applicable implementation plans. The on-road emissions were generated by an aggregate of the vehicle activity (generated from the travel demand model) on individual roadways multiplied by the appropriate emissions factor from MOVES2014. The assumptions which are included in the travel demand model, such as population, were reviewed through the interagency consultation process. VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:07 Jun 01, 2017 Jkt 241001 Area source 10.36 11.24 On-road 137.06 119.88 108.62 81.76 Non-road 60.56 53.38 Total 316.60 266.26 standards began in 2004, and as newer, cleaner cars enter the national fleet, these standards continue to significantly reduce NOX emissions. As discussed in the NPRM, EPA expects that these standards will reduce NOX emissions from vehicles by approximately 74 percent by 2030, translating to nearly 3 million tons annually by 2030.15 Regarding MATS, EPA acknowledges that it inadvertently included this rule as a permanent and enforceable measure. As the Commenter correctly notes, MATS did not result in permanent and enforceable emissions reductions in the Area during the relevant time period because the State extended the compliance date for the relevant sources in the Area to April 2016. The SIP-approved state measures resulting in permanent and enforceable emission reductions include Georgia Rule 391–3–1–.02(2)(yy)—Emissions of Nitrogen Oxides, Georgia Rule 391–3–1– .02(2)(jjj)—NOX from EGUs, Georgia Rule 391–3–1–.02(2)(lll)—NOX from Fuel Burning Equipment, Georgia Rule 391–3–1–.02(2)(nnn)—NOX from Stationary Gas Turbines, Georgia Rule 391–3–1–.02(2)(rrr)—NOX from Small Fuel Burning Equipment, and Georgia Rule Chapter 391–3–20—Enhanced Inspection and Maintenance. The federal measures resulting in permanent and enforceable emission reductions include the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR)/Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), Tier 2 vehicle and fuel standards, large non-road diesel engines rule, medium and heavy-duty vehicle fuel consumption and GHG standards, heavy-duty gasoline and diesel highway vehicle standards, nonroad sparkignition engines and recreational engines standards, national program for GHG emissions and fuel economy standards, and Boiler and Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engine (RICE) National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP). The inadvertent inclusion of the MATS Rule in the NPRM does not affect EPA’s conclusion that the improvement in ozone air quality is reasonably attributable to the remaining measures identified in the NPRM. Although MATS did not result in permanent and enforceable reductions until April 2016, it is expected to result in further reductions in NOx emissions during the maintenance period.16 Comment 4: The Commenter asserts that Georgia’s maintenance plan is inadequate to ensure maintenance of the 2008 8-hour ozone standard in the Area over the next ten years. The specific arguments offered by the Commenter in support of its assertion are summarized in Comments 4(a) through 4(c), below. Comment 4a: The Commenter states that neither Georgia nor EPA can be sure that the attainment inventory for 2014, the attainment year used by the State to demonstrate maintenance throughout the first 10-year maintenance period, is sufficient to attain the standard because ‘‘2014 is the year that the ozone season monitoring data for the Cobb County monitor failed to meet either of the statutory completeness requirements for an attainment designation.’’ Response 4a: As discussed above in response to Comment 1, EPA determined that the Area is attaining the standard and has conducted technical analyses to support this determination. For NAAQS based on a three-year averaging period, EPA allows states to develop attainment emissions inventories in their section 175A maintenance plans using any of the three years on which an attainment determination is based. See, e.g., 80 FR 54577 (July 30, 2015), 79 FR 16734 (March 26, 2014), 78 FR 72040 (December 2, 2013), 78 FR 38648 (June 27, 2013). This approach is consistent with the guidance provided to states in preparing attainment inventories for 110(a)(1) maintenance plans for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. See Memorandum from Lydia Wegman, Director, Air Quality Strategies and Standards Division, to Air Division Directors, re: Maintenance Plan Guidance Document for Certain 8-hour Ozone Areas under Section 110(a)(1) of 15 EPA, Regulatory Announcement, EPA420–F– 99–051 (December 1999), available at: https:// www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions-vehicles-andengines/regulations-greenhouse-gas-emissionspassenger-cars-and. 16 See Regulatory Impact Analysis for Final Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, EPA–452/R–11– 011/December 2011. Available at https:// www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-11/ documents/matsriafinal.pdf. PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02JNR1.SGM 02JNR1 nlaroche on DSK30NT082PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 105 / Friday, June 2, 2017 / Rules and Regulations Clean Air Act (May 20, 2005), p. 4. Therefore, it is appropriate to use 2014 as the attainment year in the maintenance demonstration for the Atlanta Area. Also, the Commenter has not raised any issues regarding the accuracy of the emissions inventory that was developed for 2014. Comment 4b: The Commenter claims that the implementation schedules in the maintenance plan for the Tier I and Tier II contingency measures, allowing for up to 24 months for implementation, are ‘‘unacceptably long and fail to satisfy the prompt response timing required by CAA Section 175A’’ to correct ‘‘potential monitored violations.’’ The Commenter believes that Georgia should commit to selecting and implementing Tier I and Tier II contingency measures within 12 months of a trigger. The Commenter also states that ‘‘[t]his issue is compounded by the fact that Georgia’s most recent ozone monitoring data from 2016 demonstrate that a number of the Atlanta Area monitors continues to record annual fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations above the NAAQS.’’ Response 4b: EPA disagrees with the Commenter’s contention that the maintenance plan’s implementation schedules for contingency measures fail to satisfy the ‘‘prompt response’’ requirement in CAA section 175A(d). This section of the CAA requires that a maintenance plan include such contingency provisions as the Administrator deems necessary to assure that the state will promptly correct a violation of the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation of an area. Thus, Congress gave EPA discretion to evaluate and determine the contingency measures that EPA ‘‘deems necessary’’ to assure that the state will promptly correct any subsequent violation. Section 175A does not establish any deadlines for implementation of contingency measures after redesignation to attainment. It also provides far more latitude than does section 172(c)(9), which applies to a different set of contingency measures applicable to nonattainment areas. Section 172(c)(9) contingency measures must ‘‘take effect . . . without further action by the State or [EPA].’’ By contrast, section 175A(d) allows EPA to take into account the need of a state to assess, adopt, and implement contingency measures if and when a violation occurs after an area’s redesignation to attainment. As noted by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Greenbaum v. EPA, 370 F.3d 527, 540 (6th Cir. 2004), EPA ‘‘has been granted broad discretion by Congress in VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:07 Jun 01, 2017 Jkt 241001 determining what is ‘necessary to assure’ prompt correction’’ under section 175A, and ‘‘no pre-determined schedule for adoption of the measures is necessary in each specific case.’’ In making this determination, EPA accounts for the time that is required for states to analyze data and address the causes and appropriate means of remedying a violation. EPA also considers the time required to adopt and implement appropriate measures in assessing what ‘‘promptly’’ means in this context. In the case of the Atlanta Area, EPA believes that the contingency measures set forth in the submittal, combined with the State’s commitment to implement contingency measures as expeditiously as practicable but no later than 24 months of a trigger, provide assurance that the State will promptly correct a future violation. Given the uncertainty regarding the nature of the contingency measures required to address a violation, the State may need up to 24 months to enact new statutes; develop new or modified regulations and complete notice and comment rulemaking; or take actions authorized by current state law that require the purchase and installation of equipment (e.g., diesel retrofits) or the development and implementation of new programs. In addition, EPA has previously approved implementation of contingency measures within 24 months of a violation to comply with the requirements of section 175A in several instances. See, e.g., 81 FR 76891 (November 4, 2016), 80 FR 61775 (October 14, 2015), 79 FR 67120 (November 12, 2014), 78 FR 44494 (July 24, 2013), 77 FR 34819 (June 12, 2012), 76 FR 59512 (Sept. 27, 2011), 75 FR 2091 (January 14, 2010). EPA also notes that the Commenter did not provide any rationale for concluding that a 12-month implementation period is necessary to satisfy section 175A and that the Tier I response is not subject to section 175A(d) because it is triggered before any violation has occurred. The Commenter’s statement that ‘‘this issue is compounded by’’ fourth-highest daily maximum 2016 ozone concentrations ‘‘above the NAAQS’’ is unclear. In accordance with 40 CFR part 50, appendix I, the determination as to whether the Area meets the NAAQS is based on the three-year average of the annual fourth-highest readings at a monitor, not on a monitor’s fourthhighest ozone value in a single year. No monitored value in a single year can itself be a violation. The Area has attained the NAAQS, as discussed in the response to Comment 1, and met the other criteria necessary for PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 25527 redesignation. Once the redesignation is effective, the State will follow its maintenance plan and implement contingency measures pursuant to that plan. If Georgia observes a fourth highest value of 0.076 ppm or greater at a single monitor for which the previous ozone season had a fourth highest value of 0.076 ppm or greater, a Tier 1 trigger will be activated and the State will take action consistent with the Tier I procedure described in the maintenance plan. Comment 4c: The Commenter believes that the maintenance plan is ‘‘likely inadequate’’ to maintain the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS because, according to the Commenter, the assumptions underlying Georgia’s maintenance determination ‘‘likely underestimate the level of ozone reductions actually required to maintain the standard in light of increasingly warming temperatures to come.’’ Response 4c: EPA does not agree that the maintenance plan is inadequate because it does not specifically consider the impacts of climate change on future ozone concentrations. EPA believes that the broad range of potential future climate outcomes and variability of projected response to these outcomes limits EPA’s ability to develop specific actionable SIP policies for any specific location. Additionally, EPA generally believes that the natural variability in meteorological patterns will have a larger influence on ozone concentrations than climate influences over the relatively short-term SIP maintenance period. Thus, EPA believes it is appropriate to rely upon the existing technical guidance and applicable CAA provisions to ensure that ozone maintenance areas do not violate the NAAQS. III. Final Action EPA is taking two separate, but related, final actions. First, EPA is approving the maintenance plan for the Atlanta Area, including the NOX and VOC MVEBs for 2014 and 2030, and incorporating it into the Georgia SIP. The maintenance plan demonstrates that the Area will continue to maintain the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and the MVEBs meet all of the adequacy criteria contained in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) and (5). Second, EPA is approving Georgia’s redesignation request for the 2008 8hour ozone NAAQS for the Atlanta Area. Approval of the redesignation request changes the official designation of Bartow County, Cherokee County, Clayton County, Cobb County, Coweta County, DeKalb County, Douglas County, Fayette County, Forsyth E:\FR\FM\02JNR1.SGM 02JNR1 25528 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 105 / Friday, June 2, 2017 / Rules and Regulations nlaroche on DSK30NT082PROD with RULES County, Fulton County, Gwinnett County, Henry County, Newton County, Paulding County, and Rockdale County in the Atlanta Area for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS from nonattainment to attainment, as found at 40 CFR part 81. EPA is also notifying the public that EPA finds the newly-established NOX and VOC MVEBs for the Atlanta Area adequate for the purpose of transportation conformity. Within 24 months from this final rule, the transportation partners will need to demonstrate conformity to the new NOX and VOC MVEBs pursuant to 40 CFR 93.104(e). EPA has determined that these actions are effective immediately upon publication under the authority of 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1) and (d)(3). The purpose of the 30-day waiting period prescribed in section 553(d) is to give affected parties a reasonable time to adjust their behavior and prepare before the final rule takes effect. Section 553(d)(1) allows an effective date less than 30 days after publication if a substantive rule ‘‘relieves a restriction.’’ These actions qualify for the exception under section 553(d)(1) because they relieve the State of various requirements for the Area. Furthermore, section 553(d)(3) allows an effective date less than 30 days after publication ‘‘as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found and published with the rule.’’ EPA finds good cause to make these actions effective immediately pursuant to section 553(d)(3) because they do not create any new regulatory requirements such that affected parties would need time to prepare before the actions take effect. IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under the CAA, redesignation of an area to attainment and the accompanying approval of a maintenance plan under section 107(d)(3)(E) are actions that affect the status of a geographical area and do not impose any additional regulatory requirements on sources beyond those imposed by state law. A redesignation to attainment does not in and of itself create any new requirements, but rather results in the applicability of requirements contained in the CAA for areas that have been redesignated to attainment. Moreover, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:07 Jun 01, 2017 Jkt 241001 the CAA. Accordingly, these actions merely approve state law as meeting federal requirements and do not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For this reason, these actions: • Are not significant regulatory actions subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011); • Do not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); • Are certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); • Do 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); • Do not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999); • Are not economically significant regulatory actions based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); • Are not significant regulatory actions subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); • Are not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and • Will not have disproportionate human health or environmental effects under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 report containing this action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 1, 2017. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2). List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds. 40 CFR Part 81 Environmental protection, Air pollution control. Dated: April 27, 2017. V. Anne Heard, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 40 CFR parts 52 and 81 are amended as follows: PART 52—APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: ■ Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Subpart L—Georgia 2. In § 52.570, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding the entry ‘‘2008 8-hour ozone Maintenance Plan for the Atlanta Area’’ at the end of the table to read as follows: ■ § 52.570 * Identification of plan. * * (e) * * * E:\FR\FM\02JNR1.SGM 02JNR1 * * 25529 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 105 / Friday, June 2, 2017 / Rules and Regulations EPA-APPROVED GEORGIA NON-REGULATORY PROVISIONS State submittal date/ effective date Name of nonregulatory SIP provision Applicable geographic or nonattainment area * 2008 8-hour ozone Maintenance Plan for the Atlanta Area. * * * Bartow, Cherokee, Clayton, Cobb, Coweta, DeKalb, Douglas, Fayette, Forsyth, Fulton, Gwinnett, Henry, Newton, Paulding and Rockdale Counties. PART 81—DESIGNATION OF AREAS FOR AIR QUALITY PLANNING PURPOSES 3. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows: ■ EPA approval date * 7/18/2016 Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq. Explanation * 6/2/2017, [insert Federal Register citation]. * by revising the entry for ‘‘Atlanta, GA: 2’’ to read as follows: 4. In § 81.311, the table entitled ‘‘Georgia—2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS (Primary and secondary)’’ is amended ■ § 81.311 * * Georgia. * * * GEORGIA—2008 8-HOUR OZONE NAAQS [Primary and secondary] Designation Classification Designated area Date 1 Atlanta, GA: 2 ................................................................................................... Bartow County .......................................................................................... Cherokee County ...................................................................................... Clayton County ......................................................................................... Cobb County ............................................................................................. Coweta County ......................................................................................... DeKalb County ......................................................................................... Douglas County ........................................................................................ Fayette County ......................................................................................... Forsyth County ......................................................................................... Fulton County ........................................................................................... Gwinnett County ....................................................................................... Henry County ............................................................................................ Newton County ......................................................................................... Paulding County ....................................................................................... Rockdale County ...................................................................................... * 1 This * * 6/2/2017 ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ * Date 1 Type Type Attainment. Attainment. Attainment. Attainment. Attainment. Attainment. Attainment. Attainment. Attainment. Attainment. Attainment. Attainment. Attainment. Attainment. Attainment. Attainment. * * * date is July 20, 2012, unless otherwise noted. Indian country located in each area, unless otherwise noted. 2 Excludes * * * * rule issued in the Federal Register on January 4, 2017, from June 5, 2017 to May 22, 2018. That rule addressed revisions to the Certification of Pesticide Applicators rule. * [FR Doc. 2017–10934 Filed 6–1–17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 171 [EPA–HQ–OPP–2011–0183; FRL–9963–34] nlaroche on DSK30NT082PROD with RULES Pesticides; Certification of Pesticide Applicators; Delay of Effective Date Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule; delay of effective date. With this action, EPA is delaying the effective date for the final VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:07 Jun 01, 2017 Jkt 241001 The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA–HQ–OPP–2011–0183, is available at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 ADDRESSES: AGENCY: SUMMARY: The effective date of the rule amending 40 CFR part 171 that published at 82 FR 952, January 4, 2017, delayed at 82 FR 8499, January 26, 2017, and 82 FR 14324, March 20, 2017, is further delayed until May 22, 2018. DATES: PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305–5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at https://www.epa.gov/dockets. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kevin Keaney, Field and External Affairs Division (7506P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (703) 305–5557; email address: keaney.kevin@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: E:\FR\FM\02JNR1.SGM 02JNR1

Agencies

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 105 (Friday, June 2, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 25523-25529]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-10934]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA-R04-OAR-2016-0583; FRL-9962-27-Region 4]

Air Plan Approval; Air Plan Approval and Air Quality Designation;
GA; Redesignation of the Atlanta, Georgia 2008 8-Hour Ozone
Nonattainment Area to Attainment

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: On July 18, 2016, the State of Georgia, through the Georgia
Environmental Protection Division (GA EPD) of the Department of Natural
Resources, submitted a request for the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) to redesignate the Atlanta, Georgia 2008 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area (hereinafter referred to as the ``Atlanta Area'' or
``Area'') to attainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) and to approve a State Implementation Plan
(SIP) revision containing a maintenance plan for the Area. EPA is
approving the State's maintenance plan, including the motor vehicle
emission budgets (MVEBs) for nitrogen oxides (NOX) and
volatile organic compounds (VOC) for the years 2014 and 2030 for the
Area, and redesignating the Area to attainment for the 2008 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. Additionally, EPA finds the 2014 and 2030 MVEBs for the
Atlanta Area adequate for the purposes of transportation conformity.

DATES: This rule will be effective June 2, 2017.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2016-0583. All documents in the docket
are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the
index, some information may not be publicly available, i.e.,
Confidential Business Information 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 through www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy at the Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and
Implementation 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 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
excluding federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jane Spann, Air Regulatory Management
Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, Region 4, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 61
Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Ms. Spann can be
reached by phone at (404) 562-9029 or via electronic mail at
spann.jane@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background for Final Actions

Effective July 20, 2012, EPA designated areas as unclassifiable/
attainment or nonattainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS that was
promulgated on March 27, 2008. See 77 FR 30088 (May 21, 2012). The
Atlanta Area was designated as nonattainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS and classified as a marginal nonattainment area.\1\ On July 14,
2016, EPA issued a determination that the Area had attained the 2008 8-
hour ozone NAAQS (81 FR 45419). On July 18, 2016, Georgia requested
that EPA redesignate the Atlanta Area to attainment for the 2008 8-hour
ozone NAAQS and submitted a SIP revision containing the State's plan
for maintaining attainment of the 2008 8-hour ozone standard in the
Area, including 2014 and 2030 MVEBs for NOX and VOC for the
Atlanta Area. In a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published on
December 23, 2016 (81 FR 94283), EPA proposed to approve the
maintenance plan, including the 2014 and 2030 MVEBs for NOX
and VOC, and incorporate the plan into the Georgia SIP and to
redesignate the Area to attainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. In
that notice, EPA also notified the public of the status of the Agency's
adequacy determination for the NOX and VOC MVEBs for the
Atlanta Area. The details of Georgia's submittal and the rationale for
EPA's actions are further explained in the NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ The Atlanta Area consists of Bartow, Cherokee, Clayton,
Cobb, Coweta, DeKalb, Douglas, Fayette, Forsyth, Fulton, Gwinnett,
Henry, Newton, Paulding and Rockdale Counties in Georgia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Response to Comments

EPA received one set of comments on its December 23, 2016, proposed
rulemaking actions. Specifically, EPA received adverse comments from
the Sierra Club (``Commenter''). These

[[Page 25524]]

comments are provided in the docket for this final action. See Docket
number EPA-R04-OAR-2016-0583. A summary of the adverse comments and
EPA's responses are provided below.
Comment 1: The Commenter contends that EPA may not approve
Georgia's request to redesignate the Atlanta Area to attainment
because, according to the Commenter, the Atlanta Area failed to attain
the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The Commenter believes that the Area
failed to attain this NAAQS ``by law'' because the Cobb County ozone
monitor did not meet the 75 percent data completeness requirement for
2014 or the 90 percent data completeness requirement for the 2013-2015
period.
Response 1: EPA disagrees with the Commenter that the Area has not
attained the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA issued a final determination
of attainment on July 14, 2016, based on the same 2013-2015 air quality
data it is using as the basis of this redesignation action. See 81 FR
45419. EPA took notice and comment on its determination of attainment
and the Commenter could have raised its concern to the Agency regarding
data from the Kennesaw National Guard monitor (also known as the Cobb
County monitor) at that time, but failed to do so. In any case, EPA
does not find reason to alter its conclusion that the Area has attained
the 2008 ozone NAAQS based on concerns raised in the comment, and the
most recent available data and information continues to support this
finding. With regard to the Commenter's concern regarding the 2014
ozone season data from the Kennesaw National Guard monitor, EPA's
technical analysis, available in a technical support document located
in the docket for this rulemaking, demonstrates that the 2013-2015
design value would not have violated the standard even assuming the
most conservative estimates for the missing data from that monitor.
As described in greater detail in the technical support document,
in EPA's technical judgment, the Area has attained the 2008 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. In making its determination, EPA evaluated all valid
certified monitoring data collected during 2013-2015 by monitors in or
near the nonattainment area.\2\ EPA also conducted the additional
technical analysis described in the technical support document for the
Kennesaw National Guard monitor, which did not collect complete data
during 2014. The results of this technical analysis indicate that even
under the most conservative estimates, it is very unlikely that the
monitor would have violated the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS of 75 ppb.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ EPA retrieved data for the monitors in the Atlanta Area and
the Georgia Station CASTNET monitoring site in Pike County near the
Atlanta Area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Following publication of the proposed redesignation, Georgia
certified its 2016 data for the Atlanta Area which shows that the Area
continues to attain the NAAQS with a 2014-2016 design value of 75
ppb.\3\ Incomplete data for the Kennesaw National Guard monitor in 2014
does not affect this conclusion because, as discussed above, EPA
conducted an analysis and has concluded that it is very unlikely that
the monitor would have violated the NAAQS if it had collected completed
data.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ The air quality data is located at https://www.epa.gov/outdoor-air-quality-data.
\4\ The fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average value for
2016 at the Kennesaw National Guard monitor is 70 ppb.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment 2: The Commenter argues that the interstate transport
provision at CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) is an applicable
requirement for the purposes of redesignation. Therefore, the Commenter
does not believe that EPA can redesignate a nonattainment area to
attainment unless the state has submitted, and EPA has approved, a SIP
revision that contains adequate provisions prohibiting any source
located in the state from emitting any air pollutant in amounts which
will contribute significantly to nonattainment in, or interfere with
maintenance by, any other state with respect to any NAAQS. Because
Georgia did not submit a SIP revision satisfying the good neighbor
provision for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, the Commenter contends that
Georgia has not met all applicable requirements for redesignation of
the Area under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) (requiring the State to have
met all applicable requirements under section 110 and Part D) and
section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) (requiring the State to have a fully approved
applicable SIP under section 110(k)).
Response 2: As discussed in the NPRM and in numerous other
redesignation actions, EPA has long interpreted the section
110(a)(2)(D) interstate transport requirements as not applicable for
the purposes of redesignation. See, e.g., 81 FR 94283 (December 23,
2016), 78 FR 43096 (July 19, 2013), 76 FR 79579 (December 22, 2011), 74
FR 53198 (October 16, 2009), 72 FR 56312 (October 3, 2007). The Agency
has consistently distinguished the section 110 and part D requirements
that apply regardless of an area's attainment designation--such as
110(a)(2)(D) interstate transport requirements, 176(c) conformity
requirements, section 184 ozone transport region measures, and section
211(m) oxygenated fuels requirements--from those requirements in
section 110 and part D that are linked to the nonattainment designation
of an area and thus no longer need be complied with upon redesignation
to attainment status. If a requirement applies to an area regardless of
whether its designation is nonattainment, maintenance, or attainment,
and thus other parts of the CAA will continue to obligate the area to
meet the requirement after redesignation, EPA has interpreted the
requirement as not ``applicable'' for purposes of section
107(d)(3)(E)(ii) or (v). See, e.g., 66 FR 53094 (October 19, 2001), 65
FR 37879 (June 19, 2000), 62 FR 24826 (May 7, 1997), 61 FR 53174
(October 10, 1996), 61 FR 20458 (May 7, 1996), 60 FR 62748 (December 7,
1995). Courts have upheld EPA's authority to interpret what constitutes
an ``applicable'' requirement under section 107(d)(3)(E), and have
deferred to EPA's interpretation that requirements that continue to
apply after a redesignation are not ``applicable'' for purposes of
section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and (v). See Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537
(7th Cir. 2004); Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001).
We note that EPA has acted consistently with this interpretation by
issuing a number of actions outside the context of area redesignations
to address CAA 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)'s transport provision. On October 26,
2016, EPA issued a final rulemaking (CSAPR Update) updating the
regional NOx ozone season trading program established under the
original 2011 Cross-State Air Pollution Rule. See 81 FR 74504. As
described in more detail in the CSAPR Update, EPA conducted air quality
modeling and concluded that Georgia did not significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS in other states. Therefore, even though, as the Commenter points
out, EPA did issue a finding of failure to submit a 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
transport SIP to Georgia, the Agency later determined that the State
had no substantive obligation to reduce its emissions to meet its
transport obligations for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
Comment 3: The Commenter claims that neither Georgia nor EPA have
sufficiently shown that the improvement in air quality is due to
permanent and enforceable emissions reductions rather than to temporary

[[Page 25525]]

fluctuations in weather or the economy, from decreased electricity
production in the Area, or from impermanent and unenforceable measures.
The Commenter believes that EPA did nothing more than cite to and
summarize certain applicable pollutant control regulations and that EPA
must estimate the percent reduction achieved from each of the cited
measures ``in order to clearly show that the air quality improvements
are indeed the result of implemented permanent and enforceable
controls.'' The Commenter also states that the Utility Mercury Air
Toxics Standards (MATS), listed in the section of the NPRM discussing
permanent and enforceable measures, cannot have improved air quality
during the relevant time period and that MATS does not have any
relevance for ozone.
Response 3: EPA does not agree with the Commenter that the Agency
has not properly determined that the Area's attainment is due to
permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions, as required by CAA
section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii). EPA's approach in this action is consistent
with its long-standing interpretation that to satisfy that provision,
as set forth in the Calcagni Memorandum cited by the Commenter, EPA
must show that the improvement in air quality necessary for an area to
attain the relevant NAAQS is reasonably attributable to permanent and
enforceable reductions in emissions.\5\ As recently affirmed by the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, EPA's approach to
demonstrating that section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) has been met is a
reasonable and appropriate method of meeting the CAA's requirements.
See Sierra Club v. EPA, 774 F.3d 383 (7th Cir. 2014). As noted by the
court, it is not necessary for EPA to ``prove causation to an absolute
certainty,'' and the Agency is entitled to deference when using its
``experience, expertise, and professional judgment'' in determining
whether the improvement in air quality is reasonably attributable to
permanent and enforceable measures. See Sierra Club, 774 F.3d at 395-96
(agreeing with EPA that its approach sufficed, and that an ``elaborate
analytical exercise is not required by the CAA''). In this case, the
Commenter claims that EPA's demonstration is inadequate and charges
that the Agency must estimate the percent reduction achieved from each
of the permanent and enforceable measures in order for the Agency to
redesignate an area. In fact, for the measures that were primarily
responsible for the improvement in ozone concentrations in the Area,
EPA did estimate the percentage reduction in emissions. The majority of
ozone precursor emissions in the Area are generated by mobile sources,
and the vast majority of emission reductions in the Area are similarly
associated with the permanent and enforceable mobile source measures
identified in the NPRM.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\5\ Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality
Management Division, to EPA regional air directors re: Procedures
for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment
(September 4, 1992), p.4.
\6\ In 2011, mobile sources accounted for approximately 84
percent of NOX emissions and 53 percent of VOC emissions
in the Area. See 80 FR 48036 (August 11, 2015). In 2014, mobile
sources accounted for approximately 87 percent of NOX
emissions and 51 percent of VOC emissions. See 81 FR 94283. The
comparison of the 2011 and 2014 emissions inventories in Table 2,
below, shows that mobile source NOX emissions decreased
by approximately 60 tons per summer day (tpsd) (equating to 72
percent of the total NOX emissions reductions) and mobile
source VOC emissions decreased by approximately 34 tpsd (equating to
68 percent of the total VOC emissions reductions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consistent with the Calcagni Memorandum, Georgia and EPA also took
steps in the analysis, as outlined in the NPRM, to ensure that the
improvement in air quality was not due to temporary weather conditions.
Georgia provided and EPA evaluated ozone season temperature and
precipitation data for the Area from 1930 through 2015. See 81 FR
94288. This data shows that the average temperature and precipitation
in 2013 fluctuates around the average meteorological conditions; the
years 2014 and 2015 were hotter than the 1930-2000 average temperature;
and precipitation in 2014 was less than the 1930-2000 average.
Therefore, EPA proposed to determine that the improvement in ozone air
quality was not the result of unusually favorable weather conditions.
The Commenter did not provide any climatological data to refute this
proposed determination. Although the Commenter claims that EPA and the
State must also demonstrate that the improvement in air quality was not
due to the economy or decreased electricity production, EPA does not
have any information indicating that the improvement was due to these
factors and the Commenter has not provided any such information.
Consistent with EPA's long-standing practice and policy, a
comparison of nonattainment period emissions with attainment period
emissions is relevant in demonstrating permanent and enforceable
emissions reductions. EPA has evaluated the ozone precursor emissions
data in the Area and found that there were significant reductions in
these emissions in multiple source categories from 2011 (a
nonattainment year) to 2014 (an attainment year). During this time
period, the emissions data show that non-road NOX and VOC
emissions decreased, point source NOX emissions decreased,
and mobile NOX and VOC emissions decreased. During this time
period, mobile source emissions provided the greatest reductions, with
NOX emissions decreasing by approximately 60 tons per summer
day (tpsd) (equating to 72 percent of the total NOX
emissions reductions) and mobile source VOC emissions decreased by
approximately 34 tpsd (equating to 68 percent of the total VOC
emissions reductions). It is not necessary for every change in
emissions between the nonattainment year and the attainment year to be
permanent and enforceable. Rather, as discussed above, the CAA requires
that improvement in air quality necessary for an area to attain the
relevant NAAQS must be reasonably attributable to permanent and
enforceable emission reductions in emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\7\ For 2011, Georgia also reported 3.45 tpsd of biogenic
emissions not included in this total; for 2014, the area source
emissions total includes 0.01 tons per summer day of wild and
prescribed fires.

Table 1--NOX Emissions for the Atlanta 2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS Nonattainment Area
[Tons per summer day] \7\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year Point source Area source On-road Non-road Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2011............................ 54.63 4.63 214.98 91.92 366.16
2014............................ 31.36 4.88 170.15 76.69 283.08
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 25526]]

Table 2--VOC Emissions for the Atlanta 2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS Nonattainment Area
[Tons per summer day] \8\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year Point source Area source On-road Non-road Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2011............................ 10.36 137.06 108.62 60.56 316.60
2014............................ 11.24 119.88 81.76 53.38 266.26
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The State calculated the on-road and non-road mobile source
emissions summarized in Tables 2 and 3 using EPA-approved models and
procedures that account for fleet turnover, increased population, and
the federal mobile source measures identified as permanent and
enforceable measures in the NPRM such as the Tier 2 vehicle and fuel
standards, the large non-road diesel engines rule,\9\ heavy-duty
gasoline and diesel highway vehicle standards,\10\ medium and heavy
duty vehicle fuel consumption and greenhouse gas (GHG) standards,\11\
non-road spark-ignition engines and recreational engines standards,\12\
and the national program for GHG emissions and fuel economy
standards.^{13 14} These mobile source measures have resulted
in, and continue to result in, large reductions in NOX
emissions over time due to fleet turnover (i.e., the replacement of
older vehicles that predate the standards with newer vehicles that meet
the standards). For example, implementation of the Tier 2 standards
began in 2004, and as newer, cleaner cars enter the national fleet,
these standards continue to significantly reduce NOX
emissions. As discussed in the NPRM, EPA expects that these standards
will reduce NOX emissions from vehicles by approximately 74
percent by 2030, translating to nearly 3 million tons annually by
2030.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\8\ For 2011, Georgia also reported 914.88 tpsd of biogenic
emissions that are not included in this total; for 2014, the area
source emissions total includes 0.02 tpsd of wild and prescribed
fires.
\9\ EPA estimated that compliance with this rule will cut
NOX emissions from non-road diesel engines by up to 90
percent nationwide.
\10\ EPA projects a 2.6 million ton reduction in NOX
emissions by 2030 when the heavy-duty vehicle fleet is completely
replaced with newer heavy-duty vehicles that comply with these
emission standards. 66 FR 5002, 5012 (January 18, 2001).
\11\ When fully implemented in 2018, this rule is expected to
reduce NOX emissions from the covered vehicles by 20
percent.
\12\ When fully implemented, the standards will result in an 80
percent reduction in NOX by 2020.
\13\ Georgia used EPA's MOVES2010b and MOVES2014a model to
calculate on-road emissions factors and used the NEI2011 and
MOVES2014a for non-road emissions.
\14\ Georgia used the interagency consultation process required
by 40 CFR part 93 (known as the Transportation Conformity Rule)
which requires EPA, the United States Department of Transportation,
metropolitan planning organizations, state departments of
transportation, and State and local air quality agencies to work
together to develop applicable implementation plans. The on-road
emissions were generated by an aggregate of the vehicle activity
(generated from the travel demand model) on individual roadways
multiplied by the appropriate emissions factor from MOVES2014. The
assumptions which are included in the travel demand model, such as
population, were reviewed through the interagency consultation
process.
\15\ EPA, Regulatory Announcement, EPA420-F-99-051 (December
1999), available at: https://www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions-vehicles-and-engines/regulations-greenhouse-gas-emissions-passenger-cars-and.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regarding MATS, EPA acknowledges that it inadvertently included
this rule as a permanent and enforceable measure. As the Commenter
correctly notes, MATS did not result in permanent and enforceable
emissions reductions in the Area during the relevant time period
because the State extended the compliance date for the relevant sources
in the Area to April 2016.
The SIP-approved state measures resulting in permanent and
enforceable emission reductions include Georgia Rule 391-3-
1-.02(2)(yy)--Emissions of Nitrogen Oxides, Georgia Rule 391-3-
1-.02(2)(jjj)--NOX from EGUs, Georgia Rule 391-3-
1-.02(2)(lll)--NOX from Fuel Burning Equipment, Georgia Rule
391-3-1-.02(2)(nnn)--NOX from Stationary Gas Turbines,
Georgia Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(rrr)--NOX from Small Fuel
Burning Equipment, and Georgia Rule Chapter 391-3-20--Enhanced
Inspection and Maintenance. The federal measures resulting in permanent
and enforceable emission reductions include the Clean Air Interstate
Rule (CAIR)/Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), Tier 2 vehicle and
fuel standards, large non-road diesel engines rule, medium and heavy-
duty vehicle fuel consumption and GHG standards, heavy-duty gasoline
and diesel highway vehicle standards, nonroad spark-ignition engines
and recreational engines standards, national program for GHG emissions
and fuel economy standards, and Boiler and Reciprocating Internal
Combustion Engine (RICE) National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP).
The inadvertent inclusion of the MATS Rule in the NPRM does not
affect EPA's conclusion that the improvement in ozone air quality is
reasonably attributable to the remaining measures identified in the
NPRM. Although MATS did not result in permanent and enforceable
reductions until April 2016, it is expected to result in further
reductions in NOx emissions during the maintenance period.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\16\ See Regulatory Impact Analysis for Final Mercury and Air
Toxics Standards, EPA-452/R-11-011/December 2011. Available at
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-11/documents/matsriafinal.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment 4: The Commenter asserts that Georgia's maintenance plan is
inadequate to ensure maintenance of the 2008 8-hour ozone standard in
the Area over the next ten years. The specific arguments offered by the
Commenter in support of its assertion are summarized in Comments 4(a)
through 4(c), below.
Comment 4a: The Commenter states that neither Georgia nor EPA can
be sure that the attainment inventory for 2014, the attainment year
used by the State to demonstrate maintenance throughout the first 10-
year maintenance period, is sufficient to attain the standard because
``2014 is the year that the ozone season monitoring data for the Cobb
County monitor failed to meet either of the statutory completeness
requirements for an attainment designation.''
Response 4a: As discussed above in response to Comment 1, EPA
determined that the Area is attaining the standard and has conducted
technical analyses to support this determination. For NAAQS based on a
three-year averaging period, EPA allows states to develop attainment
emissions inventories in their section 175A maintenance plans using any
of the three years on which an attainment determination is based. See,
e.g., 80 FR 54577 (July 30, 2015), 79 FR 16734 (March 26, 2014), 78 FR
72040 (December 2, 2013), 78 FR 38648 (June 27, 2013). This approach is
consistent with the guidance provided to states in preparing attainment
inventories for 110(a)(1) maintenance plans for the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. See Memorandum from Lydia Wegman, Director, Air Quality
Strategies and Standards Division, to Air Division Directors, re:
Maintenance Plan Guidance Document for Certain 8-hour Ozone Areas under
Section 110(a)(1) of

[[Page 25527]]

Clean Air Act (May 20, 2005), p. 4. Therefore, it is appropriate to use
2014 as the attainment year in the maintenance demonstration for the
Atlanta Area. Also, the Commenter has not raised any issues regarding
the accuracy of the emissions inventory that was developed for 2014.
Comment 4b: The Commenter claims that the implementation schedules
in the maintenance plan for the Tier I and Tier II contingency
measures, allowing for up to 24 months for implementation, are
``unacceptably long and fail to satisfy the prompt response timing
required by CAA Section 175A'' to correct ``potential monitored
violations.'' The Commenter believes that Georgia should commit to
selecting and implementing Tier I and Tier II contingency measures
within 12 months of a trigger. The Commenter also states that ``[t]his
issue is compounded by the fact that Georgia's most recent ozone
monitoring data from 2016 demonstrate that a number of the Atlanta Area
monitors continues to record annual fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour
average ozone concentrations above the NAAQS.''
Response 4b: EPA disagrees with the Commenter's contention that the
maintenance plan's implementation schedules for contingency measures
fail to satisfy the ``prompt response'' requirement in CAA section
175A(d). This section of the CAA requires that a maintenance plan
include such contingency provisions as the Administrator deems
necessary to assure that the state will promptly correct a violation of
the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation of an area. Thus, Congress
gave EPA discretion to evaluate and determine the contingency measures
that EPA ``deems necessary'' to assure that the state will promptly
correct any subsequent violation.
Section 175A does not establish any deadlines for implementation of
contingency measures after redesignation to attainment. It also
provides far more latitude than does section 172(c)(9), which applies
to a different set of contingency measures applicable to nonattainment
areas. Section 172(c)(9) contingency measures must ``take effect . . .
without further action by the State or [EPA].'' By contrast, section
175A(d) allows EPA to take into account the need of a state to assess,
adopt, and implement contingency measures if and when a violation
occurs after an area's redesignation to attainment. As noted by the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Greenbaum v. EPA, 370
F.3d 527, 540 (6th Cir. 2004), EPA ``has been granted broad discretion
by Congress in determining what is `necessary to assure' prompt
correction'' under section 175A, and ``no pre-determined schedule for
adoption of the measures is necessary in each specific case.'' In
making this determination, EPA accounts for the time that is required
for states to analyze data and address the causes and appropriate means
of remedying a violation. EPA also considers the time required to adopt
and implement appropriate measures in assessing what ``promptly'' means
in this context.
In the case of the Atlanta Area, EPA believes that the contingency
measures set forth in the submittal, combined with the State's
commitment to implement contingency measures as expeditiously as
practicable but no later than 24 months of a trigger, provide assurance
that the State will promptly correct a future violation. Given the
uncertainty regarding the nature of the contingency measures required
to address a violation, the State may need up to 24 months to enact new
statutes; develop new or modified regulations and complete notice and
comment rulemaking; or take actions authorized by current state law
that require the purchase and installation of equipment (e.g., diesel
retrofits) or the development and implementation of new programs. In
addition, EPA has previously approved implementation of contingency
measures within 24 months of a violation to comply with the
requirements of section 175A in several instances. See, e.g., 81 FR
76891 (November 4, 2016), 80 FR 61775 (October 14, 2015), 79 FR 67120
(November 12, 2014), 78 FR 44494 (July 24, 2013), 77 FR 34819 (June 12,
2012), 76 FR 59512 (Sept. 27, 2011), 75 FR 2091 (January 14, 2010). EPA
also notes that the Commenter did not provide any rationale for
concluding that a 12-month implementation period is necessary to
satisfy section 175A and that the Tier I response is not subject to
section 175A(d) because it is triggered before any violation has
occurred.
The Commenter's statement that ``this issue is compounded by''
fourth-highest daily maximum 2016 ozone concentrations ``above the
NAAQS'' is unclear. In accordance with 40 CFR part 50, appendix I, the
determination as to whether the Area meets the NAAQS is based on the
three-year average of the annual fourth-highest readings at a monitor,
not on a monitor's fourth-highest ozone value in a single year. No
monitored value in a single year can itself be a violation. The Area
has attained the NAAQS, as discussed in the response to Comment 1, and
met the other criteria necessary for redesignation. Once the
redesignation is effective, the State will follow its maintenance plan
and implement contingency measures pursuant to that plan. If Georgia
observes a fourth highest value of 0.076 ppm or greater at a single
monitor for which the previous ozone season had a fourth highest value
of 0.076 ppm or greater, a Tier 1 trigger will be activated and the
State will take action consistent with the Tier I procedure described
in the maintenance plan.
Comment 4c: The Commenter believes that the maintenance plan is
``likely inadequate'' to maintain the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS because,
according to the Commenter, the assumptions underlying Georgia's
maintenance determination ``likely underestimate the level of ozone
reductions actually required to maintain the standard in light of
increasingly warming temperatures to come.''
Response 4c: EPA does not agree that the maintenance plan is
inadequate because it does not specifically consider the impacts of
climate change on future ozone concentrations. EPA believes that the
broad range of potential future climate outcomes and variability of
projected response to these outcomes limits EPA's ability to develop
specific actionable SIP policies for any specific location.
Additionally, EPA generally believes that the natural variability in
meteorological patterns will have a larger influence on ozone
concentrations than climate influences over the relatively short-term
SIP maintenance period. Thus, EPA believes it is appropriate to rely
upon the existing technical guidance and applicable CAA provisions to
ensure that ozone maintenance areas do not violate the NAAQS.

III. Final Action

EPA is taking two separate, but related, final actions. First, EPA
is approving the maintenance plan for the Atlanta Area, including the
NOX and VOC MVEBs for 2014 and 2030, and incorporating it
into the Georgia SIP. The maintenance plan demonstrates that the Area
will continue to maintain the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and the MVEBs
meet all of the adequacy criteria contained in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) and
(5).
Second, EPA is approving Georgia's redesignation request for the
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the Atlanta Area. Approval of the
redesignation request changes the official designation of Bartow
County, Cherokee County, Clayton County, Cobb County, Coweta County,
DeKalb County, Douglas County, Fayette County, Forsyth

[[Page 25528]]

County, Fulton County, Gwinnett County, Henry County, Newton County,
Paulding County, and Rockdale County in the Atlanta Area for the 2008
8-hour ozone NAAQS from nonattainment to attainment, as found at 40 CFR
part 81.
EPA is also notifying the public that EPA finds the newly-
established NOX and VOC MVEBs for the Atlanta Area adequate
for the purpose of transportation conformity. Within 24 months from
this final rule, the transportation partners will need to demonstrate
conformity to the new NOX and VOC MVEBs pursuant to 40 CFR
93.104(e).
EPA has determined that these actions are effective immediately
upon publication under the authority of 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1) and (d)(3).
The purpose of the 30-day waiting period prescribed in section 553(d)
is to give affected parties a reasonable time to adjust their behavior
and prepare before the final rule takes effect. Section 553(d)(1)
allows an effective date less than 30 days after publication if a
substantive rule ``relieves a restriction.'' These actions qualify for
the exception under section 553(d)(1) because they relieve the State of
various requirements for the Area. Furthermore, section 553(d)(3)
allows an effective date less than 30 days after publication ``as
otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found and published
with the rule.'' EPA finds good cause to make these actions effective
immediately pursuant to section 553(d)(3) because they do not create
any new regulatory requirements such that affected parties would need
time to prepare before the actions take effect.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Under the CAA, redesignation of an area to attainment and the
accompanying approval of a maintenance plan under section 107(d)(3)(E)
are actions that affect the status of a geographical area and do not
impose any additional regulatory requirements on sources beyond those
imposed by state law. A redesignation to attainment does not in and of
itself create any new requirements, but rather results in the
applicability of requirements contained in the CAA for areas that have
been redesignated to attainment. Moreover, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions
of the Act and applicable federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k);
40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to
approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA.
Accordingly, these actions merely approve state law as meeting federal
requirements and do not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For this reason, these actions:
Are not significant regulatory actions subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
Do not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Are certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Do 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);
Do not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Are not economically significant regulatory actions based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Are not significant regulatory actions subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Are not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
Will not have disproportionate human health or
environmental effects under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February
16, 1994).
The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does
not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by August 1, 2017. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

40 CFR Part 81

Environmental protection, Air pollution control.

Dated: April 27, 2017.
V. Anne Heard,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

40 CFR parts 52 and 81 are amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart L--Georgia

0
2. In Sec. 52.570, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding the
entry ``2008 8-hour ozone Maintenance Plan for the Atlanta Area'' at
the end of the table to read as follows:

Sec. 52.570 Identification of plan.

* * * * *
(e) * * *

[[Page 25529]]

EPA-Approved Georgia Non-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State
Applicable submittal
Name of nonregulatory SIP geographic or date/ EPA approval date Explanation
provision nonattainment area effective
date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * * * *
2008 8-hour ozone Maintenance Bartow, Cherokee, 7/18/2016 6/2/2017, [insert
Plan for the Atlanta Area. Clayton, Cobb, Federal Register
Coweta, DeKalb, citation].
Douglas, Fayette,
Forsyth, Fulton,
Gwinnett, Henry,
Newton, Paulding
and Rockdale
Counties.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PART 81--DESIGNATION OF AREAS FOR AIR QUALITY PLANNING PURPOSES

0
3. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:

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

0
4. In Sec. 81.311, the table entitled ``Georgia--2008 8-Hour Ozone
NAAQS (Primary and secondary)'' is amended by revising the entry for
``Atlanta, GA: \2\'' to read as follows:

Sec. 81.311 Georgia.

* * * * *

Georgia--2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
[Primary and secondary]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Designation Classification
Designated area -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date \1\ Type Date \1\ Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atlanta, GA: \2\................ 6/2/2017 Attainment............
Bartow County............... .............. Attainment............
Cherokee County............. .............. Attainment............
Clayton County.............. .............. Attainment............
Cobb County................. .............. Attainment............
Coweta County............... .............. Attainment............
DeKalb County............... .............. Attainment............
Douglas County.............. .............. Attainment............
Fayette County.............. .............. Attainment............
Forsyth County.............. .............. Attainment............
Fulton County............... .............. Attainment............
Gwinnett County............. .............. Attainment............
Henry County................ .............. Attainment............
Newton County............... .............. Attainment............
Paulding County............. .............. Attainment............
Rockdale County............. .............. Attainment............

* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This date is July 20, 2012, unless otherwise noted.
\2\ Excludes Indian country located in each area, unless otherwise noted.

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2017-10934 Filed 6-1-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.