[Federal Register: January 25, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 16)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 4077-4087]
[DOCID:fr25ja06-26]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA-R04-OAR-2005-AL-0003-200539; FRL-8024-6]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation
of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Alabama; Redesignation of
the Birmingham 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area to Attainment for Ozone

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: On November 16, 2005, the State of Alabama, through the
Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM), submitted a
request for parallel processing to redesignate the Birmingham 8-hour
ozone nonattainment area (Birmingham area) to attainment for the 8-hour
ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS); and for EPA
approval of an Alabama draft State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
containing a maintenance plan with a 2017 end year for the Birmingham
area. The Birmingham area is composed of two counties, Jefferson and
Shelby. EPA is proposing to approve the 8-hour ozone redesignation
request for the Birmingham area. Additionally, EPA is parallel
processing the redesignation request and draft 8-hour ozone maintenance
plan SIP revision for the Birmingham area (a required component of any
redesignation to attainment) and is proposing approval of this draft
maintenance plan because EPA has determined that the draft plan
complies with the requirements of Section 175A of the Clean Air Act
(CAA).
    This proposed approval is based on EPA's determination that Alabama
has demonstrated that the Birmingham area has met the criteria for
redesignation to attainment specified in the CAA, including the
determination that the entire Birmingham area has attained the 8-hour
ozone standard. In this action, EPA is also providing information on
the status of its transportation conformity adequacy determination for
the new motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs) for the year 2017 that
is contained in the 8-hour ozone maintenance plan for the Birmingham
area. EPA is proposing to approve the 2017 MVEBs.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before February 24,
2006.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-
2005-AL-0003, by one of the following methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for

submitting comments.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: ``EPA-R04-OAR-2005-AL-0003'', Regulatory Development
Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to: Sean Lakeman
Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides
and Toxics Management Division 12th floor, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional
Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional Office's official
hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding
Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. ``EPA-R04-OAR-
2005-AL-0003''. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal

information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed
to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through
http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail,

information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected. The
http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which

means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment
directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail

address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.

    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov
 or in hard copy at the Regulatory Development

Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all
possible, you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's
official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30
excluding legal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Lakeman, Regulatory Development
Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is (404)
562-9043. Mr. Lakeman can also be reached via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. What Proposed Actions Is EPA Taking?
II. What Is the Background for the Proposed Actions?
III. What Are the Criteria for Redesignation?
IV. Why Is EPA Proposing These Actions?
V. What Is the Effect of EPA's Proposed Actions?
VI. What Is EPA's Analysis of the Request?
VII. What Is An Adequacy Determination and What Is the Status of
EPA's Adequacy Determination for the Birmingham 8-Hour Ozone
Maintenance Area's New MVEBs for the Year 2017?
VIII. Proposed Actions on the Redesignation Request and Maintenance
Plan SIP Revision Including Proposed Approval of the 2017 MVEBs
IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What Proposed Actions Is EPA Taking?

    Through this rulemaking, EPA is proposing to take several related
actions. The Birmingham area is a basic 8-hour nonattainment ozone area
and is composed of two counties, Jefferson and Shelby. EPA is proposing
to determine that the Birmingham area has attained the 8-hour ozone
standard, and has met the requirements for redesignation under section
107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. EPA is proposing to approve the redesignation
request to change the legal designation of the Birmingham area from
nonattainment to attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
    EPA is also proposing to approve Alabama's 8-hour ozone maintenance
plan for the Birmingham area (such approval being one of the CAA
criteria for redesignation to attainment status). The maintenance plan
is designed to help keep the Birmingham area in attainment for the 8-
hour ozone NAAQS through 2017.
    Additionally, through this rulemaking, EPA is announcing the status
of EPA's Adequacy Process for the newly-established 2017 MVEBs for the
Birmingham area. The Adequacy comment period for the 2017 MVEBs began
on November 17, 2005, with EPA's posting of the availability of this
submittal on EPA's Adequacy Web site (at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/transp/conform/adequacy.htm
). The Adequacy comment period for the 2017

MVEBs closed on December 19, 2005. No requests or adverse comments on
this submittal were received during EPA's Adequacy comment period. EPA
is proposing to approve the 2017 MVEBs. Please see section VII of this
rulemaking for further explanation of this process.

II. What Is the Background for the Proposed Actions?

    Ground-level ozone is not emitted directly by sources. Rather,
emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOX) and volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) react in the presence of sunlight to form ground-level
ozone. NOX and VOC are referred to as precursors of ozone.
The CAA establishes a process for air quality management through the
NAAQS.
    On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a revised 8-hour ozone standard
of 0.08 parts per million (ppm). This new standard is more stringent
than the previous 1-hour ozone standard. Under EPA regulations at 40
CFR part 50, the 8-hour ozone standard is attained when the 3-year
average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average
ambient air quality ozone concentrations is less than or equal to 0.08
ppm (i.e. 0.084 ppm when rounding is considered). (See 69 FR 23857
(April 30, 2004) for further information). Ambient air quality
monitoring data for the 3-year period must meet a data completeness
requirement. The ambient air quality monitoring data completeness
requirement is met when the average percent of days with valid ambient
monitoring data is greater than 90 percent, and no single year has less
than 75 percent data completeness as determined in Appendix I of part
50. Specifically, section 2.3 of 40 CFR part 50, Appendix I,
``Comparisons with the Primary and Secondary Ozone Standards'' states:

    The primary and secondary ozone ambient air quality standards
are met at an ambient air quality monitoring site when the 3-year
average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average
ozone concentration is less than or equal to 0.08 ppm. The number of
significant figures in the level of the standard dictates the
rounding convention for comparing the computed 3-year average annual
fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration with
the level of the standard. The third decimal place of the computed
value is rounded, with values equal to or greater than 5 rounding
up. Thus, a computed 3-year average ozone concentration of 0.085 ppm
is the smallest value that is greater than 0.08 ppm.

    The CAA required EPA to designate as nonattainment any area that
was violating the 8-hour ozone NAAQS based on the three most recent
years of ambient air quality data. The Birmingham 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area was designated using 2001 to 2003 ambient air
quality data. The Federal Register document making these designations
was signed on April 15, 2004, and published on

April 30, 2004, (69 FR 23857). The CAA contains two sets of
provisions--subpart 1 and subpart 2--that address planning and control
requirements for ozone nonattainment areas. (Both are found in title I,
part D.) Subpart 1 (which EPA refers to as ``basic'' nonattainment)
contains general, less prescriptive, requirements for nonattainment
areas for any pollutant--including ozone--governed by a NAAQS. Subpart
2 (which EPA refers to as ``classified'' nonattainment) provides more
specific requirements for certain ozone nonattainment areas. Some 8-
hour ozone nonattainment areas are subject only to the provisions of
subpart 1. Other 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas are also subject to
the provisions of subpart 2. Under EPA's Phase I 8-hour ozone
implementation rule (69 FR 23857), signed on April 15, 2004, an area
was classified under subpart 2 based on its 8-hour ozone design value
(i.e., the 3-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-
hour average ozone concentrations), if it had a 1-hour design value at
or above 0.121 ppm (the lowest 1-hour design value in Table 1 of
subpart 2). All other areas are covered under subpart 1, based upon
their 8-hour ambient air quality design values. The Birmingham area was
originally designated as a ``basic'' 8-hour ozone nonattainment area by
EPA on April 30, 2004, (69 FR 23857) and is subject to subpart 1 of
part D. In 2005, the ambient ozone data for the Birmingham
nonattainment area indicated no further violations of the 8-hour ozone
standard, using data from the 3-year period of 2003-2005 (with the
2003-2005 design value of 0.084 ppm), to demonstrate attainment.
    On November 16, 2005, Alabama requested redesignation to attainment
for the 8-hour ozone standard for the Birmingham area. The
redesignation request includes three years of complete, quality-assured
ambient air quality data for the ozone seasons of 2003 through 2005,
indicating the 8-hour ozone NAAQS had been achieved for the Birmingham
area. The ozone season for this area is from April 1 until October 31
of a calendar year. Under the CAA, nonattainment areas may be
redesignated to attainment if sufficient, complete, quality-assured
data is available for the Administrator to determine that the area has
attained the standard and the area meets the other CAA redesignation
requirements in section 107(d)(3)(E).

III. What Are the Criteria for Redesignation?

    The CAA provides the requirements for redesignating a nonattainment
area to attainment. Specifically, section 107(d)(3)(E) allows for
redesignation providing that: (1) The Administrator determines that the
area has attained the applicable NAAQS; (2) the Administrator has fully
approved the applicable implementation plan for the area under section
110(k); (3) the Administrator determines that the improvement in air
quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions
resulting from implementation of the applicable SIP and applicable
Federal air pollutant control regulations and other permanent and
enforceable reductions; (4) the Administrator has fully approved a
maintenance plan for the area as meeting the requirements of section
175A; and, (5) the State containing such area has met all requirements
applicable to the area under section 110 and part D.
    EPA provided guidance on redesignation in the General Preamble for
the Implementation of Title I of the CAA Amendments of 1990, on April
16, 1992 (57 FR 13498), and supplemented this guidance on April 28,
1992 (57 FR 18070). EPA has provided further guidance on processing
redesignation requests in the following documents:

1. ``Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Design Value Calculations,''
Memorandum from Bill Laxton, June 18, 1990;
2. ``Maintenance Plans for Redesignation of Ozone and Carbon
Monoxide Nonattainment Areas,'' Memorandum from G.T. Helms, Chief,
Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, April 30, 1992;
3. ``Contingency Measures for Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Redesignations,'' Memorandum from G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon
Monoxide Programs Branch, June 1, 1992;
4. ``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to
Attainment,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality
Management Division, September 4, 1992;
5. ``State Implementation Plan (SIP) Actions Submitted in Response
to Clean Air Act (ACT) Deadlines,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni,
Director, Air Quality Management Division, October 28, 1992;
6. ``Technical Support Documents (TSD's) for Redesignation of Ozone
and Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment Areas,'' Memorandum from G.T.
Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, August 17,
1993;
7. ``State Implementation Plan (SIP) Requirements for Areas
Submitting Requests for Redesignation to Attainment of the Ozone and
Carbon Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
On or After November 15, 1992,'' Memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro,
Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, September
17,1993;
8. ``Use of Actual Emissions in Maintenance Demonstrations for Ozone
and CO Nonattainment Areas,'' Memorandum from D. Kent Berry, Acting
Director, Air Quality Management Division, November 30, 1993;
9. ``Part D New Source Review (Part D NSR) Requirements for Areas
Requesting Redesignation to Attainment,'' Memorandum from Mary D.
Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, October 14,
1994; and
10. ``Reasonable Further Progress, Attainment Demonstration, and
Related Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment Areas Meeting the Ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standard,'' Memorandum from John S.
Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, May
10, 1995.

IV. Why Is EPA Proposing These Actions?

    On November 16, 2005, Alabama requested redesignation of the
Birmingham area to attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. EPA
believes that Alabama has demonstrated that the Birmingham area has
attained the standard and has met the requirements for redesignation
set forth in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA.

V. What Is the Effect of EPA's Proposed Actions?

    Approval of this redesignation request would change the official
designation of the Birmingham area for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS found at
40 CFR part 81. It would also incorporate into the Alabama SIP a plan
for maintaining the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the area through 2017. The 8-
hour ozone maintenance plan includes contingency measures to remedy
future violations of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and establishes MVEBs of
23 tons per day (tpd) for VOC, and 42 tpd for NOX for the
year 2017.

VI. What Is EPA's Analysis of the Request?

    EPA is proposing to determine that the Birmingham 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area has attained the 8-hour ozone standard, and that all
redesignation criteria have been met. The basis for EPA's determination
is as follows:
    (1) The Birmingham area has attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
    EPA is proposing to determine that the area has attained the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. For ozone, an area may be considered to be attaining the
8-hour ozone NAAQS if there are no violations, as determined in
accordance with 40 CFR 50.10 and Appendix I of part 50, based on three
complete, consecutive calendar years of quality-assured air quality
monitoring data. To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the
fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations
measured at each monitor within an area over

each year must not exceed 0.08 ppm. Based on the rounding convention
described in 40 CFR part 50, Appendix I, the standard is attained if
the design value is 0.084 ppm or below. The data must be collected and
quality-assured in accordance with 40 CFR part 58, and recorded in the
EPA Air Quality System (AQS). The monitors generally should have
remained at the same location for the duration of the monitoring period
required for demonstrating attainment.
    ADEM submitted ozone monitoring data from ten ambient ozone
monitoring stations in the Birmingham area for the ozone seasons from
2003 to 2005. This data has been quality assured and is recorded in
AQS. The fourth high averages for 2003, 2004 and 2005, and the 3-year
average of these values (i.e. design value), are summarized in the
following table:

                                                  8-Hour Ozone
                                            [Parts per million, ppm]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              4th high 8-hr ozone average
                                                                     -------------------------------------------
                 Monitor                            County                                               3-year
                                                                         2003       2004       2005     average
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fairfield...............................  Jefferson.................      0.075      0.070      0.081      0.075
McAdory.................................  Jefferson.................      0.073      0.073      0.085      0.077
Hoover..................................  Jefferson.................      0.077      0.077      0.085      0.079
Pinson..................................  Jefferson.................      0.081      0.068      0.072      0.073
Tarrant.................................  Jefferson.................      0.075      0.068      0.084      0.075
Corner..................................  Jefferson.................      0.077      0.068      0.077      0.074
Providence..............................  Jefferson.................      0.070      0.070      0.079      0.073
N. Birmingham...........................  Jefferson.................      0.068      0.070      0.079      0.072
Leeds...................................  Jefferson.................      0.070      0.073      0.071      0.071
Helena..................................  Shelby....................      0.083      0.084      0.085      0.084
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The design value for an area is the highest design value recorded
at any monitor in the area. Therefore, the design value for the
Birmingham area is 0.084 ppm, which meets the standard as described
above.
    ADEM has also committed to continue monitoring in these areas in
accordance with 40 CFR part 58. In summary, EPA believes that the data
submitted by Alabama provides an adequate demonstration that the
Birmingham 8-hour ozone nonattainment area has attained the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS.
    (2) Alabama has a fully approved SIP under section 110(k) for the
Birmingham area and
    (5) Alabama has met all applicable requirements under section 110
and part D of the CAA.
    Below is a summary of how these two criteria were met.
    EPA has determined that Alabama has met all applicable SIP
requirements for purposes of redesignation for the Birmingham area
under section 110 of the CAA (general SIP requirements). EPA has also
determined that the Alabama SIP satisfies the criterion that it meets
applicable SIP requirements for purposes of redesignation under part D
of title I of the CAA (requirements specific to subpart 1 basic 8-hour
ozone nonattainment areas) in accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E)(v).
In addition, EPA has determined that the SIP is fully approved with
respect to all applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation in
accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii). In making these
determinations, EPA ascertained which requirements are applicable to
the area for purposes of redesignation and that if applicable they are
fully approved under section 110(k). SIPs must be fully approved only
with respect to applicable requirements.
    a. Alabama has met all applicable requirements under section 110
and part D of the CAA.
    The September 4, 1992, Calcagni memorandum (see ``Procedures for
Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,'' Memorandum
from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division,
September 4, 1992) describes EPA's interpretation of section
107(d)(3)(E). Under this interpretation, to qualify for redesignation,
states requesting redesignation to attainment must meet only the
relevant CAA requirements that come due prior to the submittal of a
complete redesignation request. See also Michael Shapiro memorandum,
September 17, 1993, and 60 FR 12459, 12465-66 (March 7, 1995)
(redesignation of Detroit-Ann Arbor, MI). Applicable requirements of
the CAA that come due subsequent to the area's submittal of a complete
redesignation request remain applicable until a redesignation is
approved, but are not required as a prerequisite to redesignation. See
section 175A(c) of the CAA; Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir.
2004). See also 68 FR 25424, 25427 (May 12, 2003) (redesignation of St.
Louis, Missouri).
    General SIP requirements: Section 110(a)(2) of title I of the CAA
delineates the general requirements for a SIP, which include
enforceable emissions limitations and other control measures, means, or
techniques, provisions for the establishment and operation of
appropriate devices necessary to collect data on ambient air quality,
and programs to enforce the limitations. General SIP elements and
requirements are delineated in section 110(a)(2) of title I, part A of
the CAA. These requirements include, but are not limited to, the
following: Submittal of a SIP that has been adopted by the state after
reasonable public notice and hearing; provisions for establishment and
operation of appropriate procedures needed to monitor ambient air
quality; implementation of a source permit program; provisions for the
implementation of part C requirements (Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD)) and provisions for the implementation of part D
requirements (New Source Review (NSR) permit programs); provisions for
air pollution modeling; and provisions for public and local agency
participation in planning and emission control rule development.
    Section 110(a)(2)(D) requires that SIPs contain certain measures to
prevent sources in a state from significantly contributing to air
quality problems in another state. To implement this provision, EPA has
required certain states to establish programs to address the transport
of air pollutants (NOX SIP Call, Clean Air Interstate Rule
(CAIR)).

However, the section 110(a)(2)(D) requirements for a state are not
linked with a particular nonattainment area's designation and
classification in that state. EPA believes that the requirements linked
with a particular nonattainment area's designation and classification
are the relevant measures to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation
request. The transport SIP submittal requirements, where applicable,
continue to apply to a state regardless of the designation of any one
particular area in the state.
    Thus, we do not believe that these requirements should be construed
to be applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation. In
addition, EPA believes that the other section 110 elements not
connected with nonattainment plan submissions and not linked with an
area's attainment status are not applicable requirements for purposes
of redesignation. The State will still be subject to these requirements
after the area is redesignated. The section 110 and part D
requirements, which are linked with a particular area's designation and
classification, are the relevant measures to evaluate in reviewing a
redesignation request. This approach is consistent with EPA's existing
policy on applicability of conformity (i.e. for redesignations) and
oxygenated fuels requirements, as well as with section 184 ozone
transport requirements. See Reading, Pennsylvania, proposed and final
rulemakings (61 FR 53174-53176, October 10, 1996), (62 FR 24826, May 7,
1997); Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio, final rulemaking (61 FR 20458, May
7, 1996); and Tampa, Florida, final rulemaking at (60 FR 62748,
December 7, 1995). See also the discussion on this issue in the
Cincinnati redesignation (65 FR 37890, June 19, 2000), and in the
Pittsburgh redesignation (66 FR 50399, October 19, 2001).
    EPA believes that section 110 elements not linked to the area's
nonattainment status are not applicable for purposes of redesignation.
Any section 110 requirements that are linked to the Part D requirements
for 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas are not yet due, since, as
explained below, no Part D requirements applicable for purposes of
redesignation under the 8-hour standard became due prior to submission
of the redesignation request. Therefore, as discussed above, for
purposes of redesignation, they are not considered applicable
requirements.
    EPA has previously approved general requirements in the Alabama SIP
addressing section 110 elements (May 31, 1972, 37 FR 10842).
    Part D requirements: EPA has also determined that the Alabama SIP
meets applicable SIP requirements under part D of the CAA since no
requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation became due prior
to submission of the area's redesignation request. Sections 172-176 of
the CAA, found in subpart 1 of part D, set forth the basic
nonattainment requirements applicable to all nonattainment areas.
Section 182 of the CAA, found in subpart 2 of part D, establishes
additional specific requirements depending on the area's nonattainment
classification. Subpart 2 is not applicable to the Birmingham area.
    Part D, subpart 1 applicable SIP requirements: For purposes of
evaluating this redesignation request, the applicable part D, subpart 1
SIP requirements for all nonattainment areas are contained in sections
172(c)(1)-(9). A thorough discussion of the requirements contained in
section 172 can be found in the General Preamble for Implementation of
Title I (57 FR 13498). No requirements applicable for purposes of
redesignation under part D became due prior to submission of the
redesignation request, and therefore none is applicable to the area for
purposes of redesignation. For example, the requirements for an
attainment demonstration that meets the requirements of section
172(c)(1) are not yet applicable, nor are the requirements for
Reasonably Achievable Control Technology (RACT) and Reasonably
Available Control Measures (RACM) (section 172(c)(1)), Reasonable
Further Progress (RFP) (section 172(c)(2)), and contingency measures
(section 172(c)(9)).
    In addition to the fact that no part D requirements applicable for
purposes of redesignation became due prior to submission of the
redesignation request and therefore are not applicable, EPA believes it
is reasonable to interpret the conformity and NSR requirements as not
requiring approval prior to redesignation.
    Section 176 Conformity Requirements: Section 176(c) of the CAA
requires states to establish criteria and procedures to ensure that
Federally supported or funded projects conform to the air quality
planning goals in the applicable SIP. The requirement to determine
conformity applies to transportation plans, programs and projects
developed, funded or approved under title 23 of the United States Code
and the Federal Transit Act (``transportation conformity'') as well as
to all other Federally supported or funded projects (``general
conformity''). State conformity revisions must be consistent with
Federal conformity regulations relating to consultation, enforcement
and enforceability that the CAA required the EPA to promulgate. EPA
believes it is reasonable to interpret the conformity SIP requirements
as not applying for purposes of evaluating the redesignation request
under section 107(d) because state conformity rules are still required
after redesignation and Federal conformity rules apply where state
rules have not been approved. See Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir.
2001), upholding this interpretation. See also 60 FR 62748 (Dec. 7,
1995, Tampa, FL).
    EPA has also determined that areas being redesignated need not
comply with the requirement that a NSR program be approved prior to
redesignation, provided that the area demonstrates maintenance of the
standard without part D NSR in effect since PSD requirements will apply
after redesignation. The rationale for this view is described in a
memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and
Radiation, dated October 14, 1994, entitled ``Part D New Source Review
Requirements for Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment.''
Alabama has demonstrated that the area will be able to maintain the
standard without part D NSR in effect, and therefore, Alabama need not
have a fully approved part D NSR program prior to approval of the
redesignation request. Alabama's PSD program will become effective in
the area upon redesignation to attainment. See rulemakings for Detroit,
MI (60 FR 12467-12468, March 7, 1995); Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, OH (61
FR 20458, 20469-70, May 7, 1996); Louisville, KY (66 FR 53665, October
23, 2001); Grand Rapids, Michigan (61 FR 31834-31837, June 21, 1996).
Thus, the area has satisfied all requirements applicable for purposes
of redesignation under section 110 and part D of the CAA.
    b. The area has a fully approved applicable SIP under section
110(k) of the CAA.
    EPA has fully approved the applicable Alabama SIP for the
Birmingham area under section 110(k) of the Clean Air Act for all
requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation. EPA may rely on
prior SIP approvals in approving a redesignation request, see Calcagni
Memo at p. 3; Southwestern Pennsylvania Growth Alliance v. Browner, 144
F.3d 984, 989-90 (6th Cir. 1998); Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir.
2001); plus any additional measures it may approve in conjunction with
a redesignation action. See 68 FR 25426 (May 12, 2003) and citations
therein.

Following passage of the CAA of 1970, Alabama has adopted and
submitted, and EPA has fully approved at various times, provisions
addressing section 110 elements under the 1-hour standard applicable in
the Birmingham area (May 31, 1972, 37 FR 10842).
    As indicated above, EPA believes that the section 110 elements not
connected with nonattainment plan submissions and not linked to the
area's nonattainment status are not applicable requirements for
purposes of redesignation. EPA also believes that since the part D
requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation did not become
due prior to submission of the redesignation request, they also are
therefore not applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation.
    (3) The air quality improvement in the Birmingham 8-hour ozone area
is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting
from implementation of the SIP and applicable Federal air pollution
control regulations and other permanent and enforceable reductions.
    EPA believes that Alabama has demonstrated that the observed air
quality improvement in the area is due to permanent and enforceable
reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the SIP,
Federal measures, and other state-adopted measures. EPA has determined
that the implementation of the following permanent and enforceable
emissions controls have reduced local NOX and VOC emissions
and brought the area into attainment during 2003-2005:
    The Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) Control Program--gasoline sold from
June 1st until September 15th of each year, in Jefferson and Shelby
Counties was required to have a RVP no greater than 7.0 pounds per
square inch (psi).
    Since 2003, utility NOX controls on Alabama Power
Company plants Gorgas (in Jefferson Co.) and Miller (in Shelby Co.)
have been required for the period of May 1st to September 30th each
year. NOX emission limitations have been established at 0.21
lb/mmbtu for the two plants, based on a rolling 30-day average.
    Alabama's NOX SIP Call established a NOX
budget from 2004 and beyond for large industrial sources such as
boilers, turbines, and electric generating units that are subject to
the NOX SIP Call.
    EPA has implemented several programs that have resulted in reduced
emissions in recent years. For cars and light trucks, EPA has
instituted the National Low Emissions Vehicles (NLEV) program, which
went into effect nationally in 2001, and EPA's Tier 2 rules, which went
into effect in 2004. In addition, Tier 2 standards for nonroad diesel
engines were phased in between 2001 and 2004. Over time the phase-in of
these programs has resulted in reductions in emissions as new vehicles
have replaced older, higher-polluting vehicles. Further reductions have
occurred as a result of further implementation of EPA standards for
small spark-ignited engines (e.g. lawnmowers) and locomotives. The
heavy duty highway truck engine rule also implemented reductions
beginning in 2004.
    EPA promulgated the Tier 2 Motor Vehicle Emissions Standards and
Gasoline Sulfur Control Requirements in 2000 (65 FR 6697).
    In addition to the reductions mentioned above, the State of Alabama
is also relying on the following controls to maintain the 8-hour
standard:

1. Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery for Light-Duty Vehicles
2. Federal Non-road Diesel Engine Standards
3. Federal Marine Engine Requirements
4. Federal Locomotive Requirements
5. Consumer Solvents Requirements
6. Architectural and Industrial Maintenance Coatings Requirements
7. Automobile Refinishing Requirements
8. The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP); the majority of which are also VOCs
9. Phase II Acid Rain Program for NOX
10. Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR)
11. NOX SIP Call Phase II
12. Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur Requirements

    Alabama has demonstrated that the implementation of permanent and
enforceable emissions controls have reduced local VOC and
NOX emissions. Alabama has also demonstrated that year-to-
year meteorological changes and trends have an impact on ozone
precursor emissions and the formation of ozone but, that they are not
the likely source of the overall, long-term improvement in ozone
levels. EPA believes that permanent and enforceable emissions
reductions in and surrounding the nonattainment area are the cause of
the long-term improvement in ozone levels, and resulted in the area
achieving attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard. Jefferson County
alone has reduced point source NOX emissions by 37 percent
from 2002 to 2004 and will reduce them by 65 percent by 2017. The whole
area has reduced the total NOX emissions by 22 percent from
2002 to 2004 and will reduce them by 45 percent by 2017. Additional
reductions from outside the Birmingham area will be realized as the
above programs are implemented throughout the State.

                     NOX Emissions From 2002 to 2004
                       [Tons per Summer Day, tpsd]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              County/source category                   2002       2004
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jefferson:
    Point.........................................        110         69
    Area..........................................          3          3
    Non-road......................................         18         17
                                                   ------------
        Total.....................................        131         89
                                                   ============
Shelby:
    Point.........................................         97         94
    Area..........................................          1          1
    Non-road......................................          6          6
                                                   ------------
        Total.....................................        104        101
                                                   ============
Total for the Birmingham area:
    Point.........................................        207        163
    Area..........................................          4          4
    Mobile........................................         57         54

    Non-road......................................         24         23
                                                   ------------
        Total.....................................        292        244
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (4) The area has a fully approved maintenance plan pursuant to
section 175A of the CAA.
    In conjunction with its request to redesignate the Birmingham 8-
hour ozone nonattainment area to attainment status, ADEM submitted a
SIP revision to provide for the maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS
in the Birmingham area for at least 10 years after the effective date
of redesignation to attainment. Alabama requested that EPA ``parallel
process'' the redesignation request and maintenance plan SIP revision.
Under this procedure, the Regional Office works closely with Alabama
while developing new or revised regulations. The State submits a copy
of the proposed regulation or other revisions to EPA before conducting
its public hearing. EPA reviews this proposed State action, and
prepares a notice of proposed rulemaking. EPA's notice of proposed
rulemaking is published in the Federal Register between the time frame
Alabama submits its prehearing and final submittal. Alabama and EPA
then provide for public comment periods on both the State action and
the Federal action.
    After Alabama submits the final request and State-effective SIP
revision (including a response to all public comments raised during the
State's public participation process, and the approved maintenance plan
for the Birmingham area), EPA will prepare a final rulemaking notice on
the redesignation request and maintenance plan SIP revision. If
Alabama's formal maintenance plan SIP revision contains changes which
occur after EPA's notice of proposed rulemaking, such changes must be
described in EPA's final rulemaking action. If Alabama's changes are
significant, then EPA must decide whether it is appropriate to re-
propose the State's maintenance plan SIP revision action. In addition,
if Alabama's final maintenance plan SIP revision changes significantly
and/or is disapprovable in its final form, EPA will also not take final
action to approve the Birmingham redesignation request because the
existence of a fully EPA-approved maintenance plan is a necessary
criterion for redesignation to attainment status.

a. What Is Required in a Maintenance Plan?

    Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the elements of a maintenance
plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment.
Under section 175A, the plan must demonstrate continued attainment of
the applicable NAAQS for at least 10 years after the Administrator
approves a redesignation to attainment. Eight years after the
redesignation, Alabama must submit a revised maintenance plan which
demonstrates that attainment will continue to be maintained for the 10
years following the initial 10-year period. To address the possibility
of future NAAQS violations, the maintenance plan must contain such
contingency measures, with a schedule for implementation as EPA deems
necessary to assure prompt correction of any future 8-hour ozone
violations. Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the elements of a
maintenance plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to
attainment. The Calcagni memorandum, dated September 4, 1992, provides
additional guidance on the content of a maintenance plan. An ozone
maintenance plan should address five requirements: the attainment
emissions inventory, maintenance demonstration, monitoring,
verification of continued attainment, and a contingency plan.

b. Attainment Emissions Inventory

    Point source emissions were obtained for calendar year 2004 as a
result of the annual data obtained from regulated facilities and
projected to 2009, 2015 and 2017. Non-road mobile emissions were
calculated using the most recent non-road model. On-road mobile source
emissions were calculated using MOBILE 6.2 for 2004 and three horizon
years, 2009, 2015 and 2017. Area source emissions were grown from the
2002 National Emissions Inventory for 2004, 2009, 2015 and 2017. The
maintenance plan establishes an attainment inventory for the year 2004.
This attainment inventory identifies the level of emissions in the area
which is sufficient to attain the 8-hour ozone standard.

c. Maintenance Demonstration

    The November 16, 2005, submittal includes a maintenance plan with a
2017 end year for the Birmingham area. This demonstration:
    (i) Shows compliance and maintenance of the 8-hour ozone standard
by assuring that current and future emissions of VOC and NOX
remain at or below attainment year 2004 emissions levels. The year 2004
was chosen as the attainment year because it is one of the most recent
three years (i.e., 2003, 2004, and 2005) for which the Birmingham area
has clean air quality data for the 8-hour ozone standard.
    (ii) Uses 2004 as the attainment year and includes future inventory
projected years for 2009, 2015, and 2017.
    (iii) Identifies an ``out year'' at least 10 years after the time
necessary for EPA to review and approve the maintenance plan. Per 40
CFR part 93, MVEBs were established for the last year of the
maintenance plan. See section VII below.
    (iv) Provides the following actual and projected emissions
inventories for the Birmingham area.

                           NOX Emissions TPSD
------------------------------------------------------------------------
   County/source category        2004       2009       2015       2017
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jefferson:
    Point...................         69         45         48         49
    Area....................          3          4          4          4

    Non-road................         17         14         11         10
                             ------------
        Total...............         89         63         63         63
                             ============
Shelby:
    Point...................         94         69         72         73
    Area....................          1          1          1          1
    Non-road................          6          5          4          4
                             ------------
        Total...............        101         75         77         78
                             ============
Total for the Birmingham
 area:
    Point...................        163        114        120        122
    Area....................          4          5          5          5
    Mobile \1\..............         54         39         24         21
    Non-road................         23         19         15         14
                             ------------
        Total...............        244        177        164        162
                             ============
2004 NOX Safety Margin *....  .........         67         80        82
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* After assigning 21 tpsd of the NOX safety margin to the NOX MVEB, the
  revised 2017 NOX safety margin will be 61 tpsd.
\1\ Since the transportation network is based on the two-County
  (Jefferson and Shelby) area, mobile source emissions were not broken
  out by county.

                           VOC Emissions TPSD
------------------------------------------------------------------------
   County/source category        2004       2009       2015       2017
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jefferson:
    Point...................         13         14         17         18
    Area....................         57         47         51         52
    Non-road................         10          8          7          7
                             ------------
        Total...............         80         69         75         77
                             ============
Shelby:
    Point...................          2          2          2          2
    Area....................         11          9          9         10
    Non-read................          5          4          4          3
                             ------------
        Total...............         18         15         15         15
                             ============
Total for the Birmingham NA:
    Point...................         15         16         19         20
    Area....................         68         56         60         62
    Mobile \2\..............         32         28         20         19
    Non-road................         15         12         11         10
                             ------------
        Total...............        130        112        110        111
                             ============
2004 VOC Safety Margin *....  .........         18         20        19
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* After assigning 4 tpsd of the VOC safety margin to the VOC MVEB, the
  revised 2017 VOC safety margin will be 15 tpsd.
\2\ Since the transportation network is based on the two-County
  (Jefferson and Shelby) area, mobile source emissions were not broken
  out by county.

    A safety margin is the difference between the attainment level of
emissions (from all sources) and the projected level of emissions (from
all sources) in the maintenance plan. The attainment level of emissions
is the level of emissions during one of the years in which the area met
the NAAQS.

d. Monitoring Network

    There are currently ten monitors measuring ozone, located within
Jefferson and Shelby Counties which provide air quality data for the
entire Birmingham area. Alabama has committed in the maintenance plan
to continue operation of the ozone monitors in compliance with 40 CFR
part 58, and has addressed the requirement for monitoring.

e. Verification of Continued Attainment

    Alabama has the legal authority to enforce and implement the
requirements of the ozone maintenance plan for the Birmingham area.
This includes the authority to adopt, implement and enforce any
subsequent emissions control contingency measures determined to be
necessary to correct future ozone attainment problems.
    Alabama will track the progress of the maintenance plan by
performing future reviews of actual emissions for the area using the
latest emissions factors, models and methodologies. For the purpose of
verifying continued attainment based upon the emissions inventory,
major point sources of air

pollution will continue to submit data on an annual basis and area and
mobile sources will continue to be quantified on a three-year cycle.
The next overall emissions inventory will be compiled for 2005. For
these periodic inventories, Alabama will review the assumptions made
for the purpose of the maintenance demonstration concerning projected
growth of activity levels. If any of these assumptions result in future
growth greater than or equal to 10 percent, Alabama will re-project
emissions and reassess the area's ability to maintain attainment.

f. Contingency Plan

    The contingency plan provisions are designed to promptly correct a
violation of the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation. Section 175A of
the CAA requires that a maintenance plan include such contingency
measures as EPA deems necessary to assure that Alabama will promptly
correct a violation of the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation. The
maintenance plan should identify the contingency measures to be
adopted, a schedule and procedure for adoption and implementation, and
a time limit for action by the state. A state should also identify
specific indicators to be used to determine when the contingency
measures need to be implemented. The maintenance plan must include a
requirement that a state will implement all measures with respect to
control of the pollutant that were contained in the SIP before
redesignation of the area to attainment in accordance with section
175A(d).
    In the November 16, 2005, submittal, Alabama commits to implement
all measures that were contained in the SIP before the redesignation as
expeditiously as possible. Alabama also affirms that all programs
instituted by Alabama and EPA will remain enforceable, and that sources
are prohibited from reducing emissions controls following the
redesignation of the area. In the submittal, Alabama commits to adopt,
within 18 months of a violation, one or more contingency measures as
needed to re-attain the standard. Alabama also identified that in the
event that any individual monitor in the Birmingham area records an
annual fourth high reading of 0.085 ppm or higher, Alabama will
evaluate existing control measures to determine if further emission
reduction measures should be implemented. Also, if periodic emissions
inventory shows a future growth greater than or equal to ten percent,
Alabama will re-project emissions and reassess the area's ability to
maintain attainment. Alabama notes that all regulatory programs will be
implemented within 18 months of a violation. The State will consider
and implement one or more of the following contingency measures:
    RACT for NOX sources--The State would investigate other
smaller point sources of lower thresholds for specific controls.
    RACT for additional VOC sources--Rules would be implemented for
application of RACT to additional VOC sources not currently subject to
RACT.
    Schedule for Point Source Regulation Development--A schedule for
the development of NOX and/or VOC regulations from the time
of a violation of the 8-hour ozone standard or inventory trigger of
future growth follows:

1. Identify potential stationary sources for reductions--3 months
2. Identify applicable RACT--3 months
3. Initiate a stakeholder process--3 months
4. Draft SIP regulations--3 months
5. Initiate rulemaking process (including public comment period,
hearing, Commission adoption and final submission to EPA)--6 months
    Completion no later than--18 months

    EPA has concluded that the maintenance plan adequately addresses
the five basic components of a maintenance plan: Attainment inventory,
maintenance demonstration, monitoring network, verification of
continued attainment, and a contingency plan. The maintenance plan SIP
revision submitted by Alabama for the Birmingham area meets the
requirements of section 175A of the CAA.

VII. What Is an Adequacy Determination and What Is the Status of EPA's
Adequacy Determination for the Birmingham 8-Hour Ozone Maintenance
Area's New MVEBs for the Year 2017?

    Under the CAA, states are required to submit, at various times,
control strategy SIPs and maintenance plans in ozone areas. These
control strategy SIPs (e.g., reasonable further progress SIPs and
attainment demonstration SIPs) and maintenance plans create MVEBs for
criteria pollutants and/or their precursors to address pollution from
cars and trucks. Per 40 CFR part 93, a MVEB is established for the last
year of the maintenance plan. The MVEB is the portion of the total
allowable emissions in the maintenance demonstration that is allocated
to highway and transit vehicle use and emissions. The MVEB serves as a
ceiling on emissions from an area's planned transportation system. The
MVEB concept is further explained in the preamble to the November 24,
1993, transportation conformity rule (58 FR 62188). The preamble also
describes how to establish the MVEB in the SIP and revise the MVEB.
    Under section 176(c) of the CAA, new transportation projects, such
as the construction of new highways, must ``conform'' to (i.e., be
consistent with) the part of the State's air quality plan that
addresses pollution from cars and trucks. ``Conformity'' to the SIP
means that transportation activities will not cause new air quality
violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of
the NAAQS. If a transportation plan does not ``conform,'' most new
projects that would expand the capacity of roadways cannot go forward.
Regulations at 40 CFR part 93 set forth EPA policy, criteria, and
procedures for demonstrating and assuring conformity of such
transportation activities to a SIP.
    When reviewing submitted ``control strategy'' SIPs or maintenance
plans containing MVEBs, EPA must affirmatively find the MVEBs contained
therein ``adequate'' for use in determining transportation conformity.
Once EPA affirmatively finds the submitted MVEB is adequate for
transportation conformity purposes, that MVEB must be used by state and
federal agencies in determining whether proposed transportation
projects ``conform'' to the SIP as required by section 176(c) of the
CAA. EPA's substantive criteria for determining ``adequacy'' of MVEBs
are set out in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4).
    EPA's process for determining ``adequacy'' consists of three basic
steps: public notification of a SIP submission, a public comment
period, and EPA's adequacy finding. This process for determining the
adequacy of submitted SIP MVEBs was initially outlined in EPA's May 14,
1999 guidance, ``Conformity Guidance on Implementation of March 2,
1999, Conformity Court Decision.'' This guidance was finalized in the
Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments for the ``New 8-Hour Ozone
and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards and Miscellaneous
Revisions for Existing Areas; Transportation Conformity Rule
Amendments--Response to Court Decision and Additional Rule Change'' on
July 1, 2004 (69 FR 40004). EPA follows this guidance and rulemaking in
making its adequacy determinations.
    Alabama's maintenance plan submission contained new VOC and
NOX MVEBs for the year 2017. The availability of the SIP
submission with these MVEBs was announced for public comment on EPA's
adequacy Web page

on November 17, 2005, at: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/transp/conform/currsips.htm
.

    The EPA public comment period on adequacy of the 2017 MVEBs for the
Birmingham area closed on December 19, 2005. EPA did not receive any
adverse comments or requests for the submittal.
    EPA intends to make its determination of the adequacy of the 2017
MVEBs for the Birmingham area for transportation conformity purposes in
the final rulemaking on the Birmingham area 8-hour ozone redesignation.
If EPA finds the 2017 MVEBs adequate for transportation conformity
purposes prior to EPA's final approval, or finds the 2017 MVEBs
adequate and approves the 2017 MVEBs in the final rulemaking action,
the new MVEBs must be used for future transportation conformity
determinations. The new 2017 MVEBs, if found adequate and approved in
the final rulemaking, will be effective the date of publication of
EPA's final rulemaking in the Federal Register. For required regional
emissions analysis years that involve the year 2016 or before, the
applicable budget for the purposes of conducting transportation
conformity will be the applicable MVEBs from the Birmingham 1-hour
ozone attainment demonstration or the 1-hour ozone maintenance plan.
The 1-hour ozone attainment demonstration established MVEBs for the
year 2003 of 65 tpd for NOX and 52 tpd for VOCs. The 1-hour
ozone maintenance plan established MVEBs for the year 2015 of 41 tpd
for NOX and 23 tpd for VOCs. For required regional emissions
analysis years that involve the year 2017 or beyond, the applicable
budget for the purposes of conducting transportation conformity
analyses will be the 2017 VOC (23 tpsd) and NOX (42 tpsd)
MVEB for this maintenance area.

Birmingham Area 2017 MVEBs

NOX, tpsd--42
VOC, tpsd--23

    EPA is proposing to approve the 2017 MVEBs because the maintenance
plan demonstrates that expected emissions for the area in 2017,
including the 2017 MVEBs plus the estimated emissions for all other
source categories, will continue to maintain the 8-hour ozone standard.

VIII. Proposed Action on the Redesignation Request, the Maintenance
Plan SIP Revision Including Proposed Approval of the 2017 MVEBs

    After evaluating Alabama's redesignation request, EPA has
determined that it meets the redesignation criteria set forth in
section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. Based on the discussion of compliance
with the redesignation criteria above, and on the fact that Alabama is
in the process of completing the adoption of a maintenance plan meeting
the requirements of section 175A, we conclude that the area will comply
with the criteria for redesignation to attainment of the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. Therefore we are proposing to approve this redesignation request
and maintenance plan. If the State substantially revises the
maintenance plan from the version proposed by the State and reviewed
here, this may result in the need for additional proposed rulemaking.
    Additionally, EPA is providing the status of its Adequacy
Determination for the 2017 MVEBs and is proposing to approve the 2017
MVEBs, submitted by Alabama for the Birmingham area, in conjunction
with its redesignation request. Within 24 months from the effective
date of the final rule for this action, the transportation partners
will need to demonstrate conformity to these new MVEBs pursuant to 40
CFR 93.104(e) as effectively amended by new section 172(c)(2)(E) of the
CAA as added by the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act-A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), which was
signed into law on August 10, 2005.

IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
proposed action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and
therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and
Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive
Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This
proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. Redesignation of an area to attainment under
section 107(d)(3)(e) of the CAA does not impose any new requirements on
small entities. Redesignation is an action that affects the status of a
geographical area and does not impose any new regulatory requirements
on sources. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this proposed
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.
601 et seq.). Because this rule proposes to approve pre-existing
requirements under state law and does not impose any additional
enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain
any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(Pub. L. 104-4).
    This proposed rule also does not have tribal implications because
it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian
tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian
tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not
have federalism implications because it does not have substantial
direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the National
Government and the states, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified
in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action
merely affects the status of a geographical area, does not impose any
new requirements on sources, or allow a state to avoid adopting or
implementing other requirements and does not alter the relationship or
the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean
Air Act. This proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order
13045 ``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and
Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not
economically significant and because the Agency does not have reason to
believe that the rule concerns an environmental health risk or safety
risk that may disproportionately affect children.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the
State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Redesignation is an
action that affects the status of a geographical area but does not
impose any new requirements on sources. Thus, the requirements of
section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This proposed rule does not
impose an information collection burden under the provisions

of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

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

40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks,
Wilderness areas.

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

    Dated: January 17, 2006.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. E6-907 Filed 1-24-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Page 1 of 2 PRODUCT CHEMISTRY CHAPTER A. Chemical Overview Phenol is a constituent of coal tar, and is formed during the natural decomposition of organic materials. The major part of phenol present in the environment, however, is of anthropogenic origin. Production and use of phenol and its products, especially phenolic resins and caprolactam, exhaust gases, residential wood burning and cigarette smoke are potential sources.

B. Chemical Identification ° Name: Phenol ° Chemical Family: Phenols ° Synonyms: Phenol; Carbolic Acid; Hydroxybenzene ° CAS Number: 108 95 2 ° Molecular Formula: C 6 H 6 0 C. Physical/ Chemical Properties The following characteristics have been reported for phenol: Technical Grade Active Ingredient ( TGAI):

° Molecular Weight: 94.11 ° Color: Colorless to light pink ° Physical State: Crystalline solid ° Specific gravity: 1.07 at 20oC ° Acid Dissociation Constant ( pK a): 9.9 at 25oC ° Dissociation Constant in water ( K a) 1.28 × 10 10 ° pH: Mildly acidic ° Stability: Stable at normal conditions ° Melting point: 43.0oC 40.9oC ( ultra pure material) ° Boiling point 181.8oC at 760 mm Hg ° Water Solubility: 67g/ L in water at 16oC ° Log K OW 1.46 at 25oC ° Vapor Pressure: 0.341mm of Hg at 25oC 2.48mm of Hg at 50oC 41.3mm of Hg at 100o C ° Relative Vapor Density ( air = 1): 3.24 ° Saturation concentration in air: 0.77g/ m3 at 20oC Page 2 of 2 A. Chemical Overview B. Chemical Identification ° Name: Sodium Phenate ° Chemical Family: Phenols ° Synonyms: Sodium Phenate; Sodium Phenolate; Phenol, Sodium Salt ° CAS Number: 139 02 6 ° Molecular Formula: C 6 H 6 0Na C. Physical/ Chemical Properties The following characteristics have been reported for sodium phenate: Technical Grade Active Ingredient ( TGAI):

° Molecular Weight: 116.10 ° Color: White to reddish ° Physical State: Crystalline needles or rods ° pH: Alkaline in aqueous solution ° Stability: stable at normal conditions ° Solubility: Highly soluble in water.


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 240 (Tuesday, December 15, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 77696-77697]
[FR Doc No: 2015-31409]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Sixth Meeting: RTCA Special Committee (230) Airborne Weather
Detection Systems

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of Sixth RTCA Special Committee 230 Meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of the
Sixth RTCA Special Committee 230 meeting.

DATES: The meeting will be held January 12-14, 2016 from 09:00 a.m.-
5:00 p.m.

ADDRESSES:  The meeting will be held at RTCA, Inc., 1150 18th Street
NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036, Tel:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street
NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036, or by telephone at (202) 833-
9339, fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or Web site at http://www.rtca.org or
Harold Moses, Program Director, RTCA, Inc<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(202) 330-
0654.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a) (2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is
hereby given for a meeting of RTCA Special Committee 230. The agenda
will include the following:

Tuesday, January 12, 2016

1. Welcome/Introductions/Administrative Remarks--9:00 a.m.-9:30 a.m.
(RTCA)
2. Agenda Overview--9:30 a.m.-9:35 a.m. (Finley/Gidner)
3. Meeting #5 Minutes approval--9:35 a.m.-9:40 a.m.

4. Review of FRAC findings from DO-220--10:40 a.m.-12:00 p.m.
5. Lunch 12:00 p.m.-1:00 p.m.
6. Review of FRAC findings from DO-220--1:00 p.m.-5:00 p.m.

Wednesday, January 13, 2016

1. Review FRAC findings from DO-213--9:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m.
2. Lunch 12:00 p.m.-1:00 p.m.
3. Review of FRAC findings from DO-213--1:00 p.m.-5:00 p.m.

Thursday, January 14, 2016

1. Review FRAC findings from DO-213 draft--9:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m.
2. Lunch 12:00 p.m.-1:00 p.m.
3. Review status of Joint RTCA/EUROCAE HAIC working group--1:00 p.m.-
2:00 p.m.
4. Action item review--2:00 p.m.-2:30 p.m.
5. Approve Final Revisions to DO-220 and DO-213 for PMC--2:30 p.m.-3:00
p.m.
6. Adjourn 3:00 p.m.

    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space
availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public
may present oral statements at the meeting. Plenary information will be
provided upon request. Persons who wish to present statements or obtain
information should contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may present a
written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on December 9, 2015.
Latasha Robinson,
Management & Program Analyst, Next Generation, Enterprise Support
Services Division, Federal Aviation Administration.
[FR Doc. 2015-31409 Filed 12-14-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 98 (Tuesday, May 21, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 29808]
[FR Doc No: 2013-12023]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. PE-2013-20]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of petition for exemption received.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
from specified requirements of 14 CFR. The purpose of this notice is to
improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, this aspect of
the FAA's regulatory activities. Neither publication of this notice nor
the inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to
affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.

DATES: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket
number involved and must be received on or before June 10, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA-2013-
0238 using any of the following methods:
     Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to the Docket Management Facility;
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
     Fax: Fax comments to the Docket Management Facility at
202-493-2251.
     Hand Delivery: Bring comments to the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Privacy: We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. Using the search function of our docket Web site, anyone can
find and read the comments received into any of our dockets, including
the name of the individual sending the comment (or signing the comment
for an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).
    Docket: To read background documents or comments received, go to
http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Katherine L. Haley, ARM-203, Federal
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, 800 Independence Ave.
SW., Washington, DC 20591; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(202) 493-
5708.
    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 15, 2013.
Lirio Liu,
Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2013-0238.
    Petitioner: Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation.
    Section of 14 CFR Affected: 14 CFR 61.57(b).
    Description of Relief Sought: The relief sought would allow
Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation to operate a BE-1900 (a type rated
aircraft requiring one pilot crewmember by type certification) with a
two-pilot flight crew that may not meet the night takeoff and landing
experience requirements of Sec.  61.57(b). Northrup Grumman Systems
Corporation has requested the relief from Sec.  61.57(b) by meeting the
exception criteria found in Sec.  61.57(e)(3), as appropriate with a
two pilot crew.

[FR Doc. 2013-12023 Filed 5-20-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P