Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 183 / Thursday, September 22, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 55559 

KENTUCKY-OZONE (8-HOUR STANDARD) 

Designated area 

Designation a Category/Classification 

Date 1 Type Date 1 Type 

* * * * * * * 

Clarksville-Hopkinsville, TN–KY Area: 

Christian County ............................................................... 10/24/05 Attainment.

* * * * * * * 

a Includes Indian Country located in each county or area, except as otherwise specified. 

1This date is June 15, 2004, unless otherwise noted. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 05–18959 Filed 9–21–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[R04–OAR–2005–TN–0007–200527(a) FRL–

7973–5] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans and Designation 

of Areas for Air Quality Planning 

Purposes; Tennessee; Redesignation 

of the Montgomery County, Tennessee 

Portion of the Clarksville-Hopkinsville 

8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area to 

Attainment 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: On August 10, 2005, the State 

of Tennessee, through the Tennessee 

Department of Environment and 

Conservation (TDEC), Air Pollution 

Control Division, submitted a final 

request: To redesignate the Montgomery 

County, Tennessee portion of the 

Clarksville-Hopkinsville 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment area to attainment for the 

8-hour ozone National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard (NAAQS), and to 

approve a Tennessee State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision 

containing a 12-year maintenance plan 

for Montgomery County, Tennessee. The 

interstate Clarksville-Hopkinsville 8- 

hour ozone nonattainment area is 

comprised of two counties (i.e., 

Christian County, Kentucky and 

Montgomery County, Tennessee). EPA 

is approving the 8-hour ozone 

redesignation request for the 

Montgomery County, Tennessee portion 

of the Clarksville-Hopkinsville 8-hour 

ozone nonattainment area. Additionally, 

EPA is approving the 8-hour ozone 

maintenance plan for Montgomery 

County, Tennessee. This approval is 

based on EPA’s determination that the 

State of Tennessee has demonstrated 

that Montgomery County, Tennessee has 

met the criteria for redesignation to 

attainment specified in the Clean Air 

Act (CAA), including the determination 

that the entire Clarksville-Hopkinsville 

8-hour ozone nonattainment area has 

attained the 8-hour ozone standard. On 

March 21, 2005, the Commonwealth of 

Kentucky submitted a redesignation 

request and maintenance plan for the 

Christian County, Kentucky portion of 

this area for EPA parallel processing. In 

this action, EPA is also providing 

information on the status of its 

transportation conformity adequacy 

determination for the new motor vehicle 

emissions budgets (MVEBs) for the year 

2016 that are contained in the 12-year 

8-hour ozone maintenance plan for 

Montgomery County, Tennessee. EPA is 

approving such MVEBs. 

DATES: This rule is effective on 

November 21, 2005, without further 

notice, unless EPA receives adverse 

written comments by October 24, 2005. 

If EPA receives such comments, it will 

publish a timely withdrawal of the 

direct final rule in the Federal Register 

and inform the public that the rule will 

not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Regional Material in 

EDocket (RME) ID No. R04–OAR–2005–

TN–0007, by one of the following 

methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Agency Web site: http:// 

docket.epa.gov/rmepub/RME. EPA’s 

electronic public docket and comment 

system is EPA’s preferred method for 

receiving comments. Once in the 

system, select ‘‘quick search,’’ then key 

in the appropriate RME Docket 

identification number. Follow the online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

3. E-mail: 

hoffman.annemarie@epa.gov or 

wood.amanetta@epa.gov. 

4. Fax: (404) 562–9019. 

5. Mail: ‘‘R04–OAR–2005–TN–0007,’’

Regulatory Development Section, Air 

Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and 

Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. 

6. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver 

your comments to: Anne Marie Hoffman 

or Amanetta Wood, Regulatory 

Development Section, Air Planning 

Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 

Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Regional Office’s normal hours of 

operation. The Regional Office’s official 

hours of business are Monday through 

Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding Federal 

holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

RME ID No. R04–OAR–2005–TN–0007. 

EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http:// 

docket.epa.gov/rmepub/, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through RME, regulations.gov, 

or e-mail. The EPA RME Web site and 

the Federal regulations.gov Web site are 

‘‘anonymous access’’ systems, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through RME or 

regulations.gov, your e-mail address 

will be automatically captured and 

included as part of the comment that is 

placed in the public docket and made 

available on the Internet. If you submit 

an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

55560 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 183 / Thursday, September 22, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the RME 

index at http://docket.epa.gov/rmepub/. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

i.e., CBI or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically in RME or 

in hard copy at the Regulatory 

Development Section, Air Planning 

Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 

Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. EPA 

requests that if at all possible, you 

contact the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

schedule your inspection. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Anne Marie Hoffman of the Regulatory 

Development Section or Amanetta 

Wood of the Air Quality Modeling and 

Transportation Section, Air Planning 

Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 

Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. The 

telephone number is (404) 562–9074 or 

(404) 562–9025. Ms. Anne Marie 

Hoffman can be reached via electronic 

mail at hoffman.annemarie@epa.gov. 

Ms. Amanetta Wood can also be reached 

via electronic mail at 

wood.amanetta@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. What are the Actions EPA is Taking? 

II. What is the Background for the Actions? 

III What are the Redesignation Review 

Criteria? 

IV. Why is EPA Taking These Actions? 

V. What is the Effect of EPA’s Actions? 

VI. What is EPA’s Analysis of the Request? 

VII. What is an Adequacy Determination and 

What is the Status of EPA’s Adequacy 

Determination for the Montgomery 

County’s Proposed New MVEB for the 

Year 2016? 

VIII. Action on the Redesignation Request, 

the Maintenance Plan SIP Revision 

Including Approval of the 2016 MVEBs 

IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What Are the Actions EPA Is Taking? 

Through this rulemaking, EPA is 

taking several related actions. EPA is 

making the determination that the 

Clarksville-Hopkinsville 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment area has attained the 8- 

hour ozone standard, and the 

Montgomery County, Tennessee portion 

has met the requirements for 

redesignation under section 107(d)(3)(E) 

of the CAA. The ClarksvilleHopkinsville area is a basic 8-hour 

nonattainment ozone area. Montgomery 

County is located in the ClarksvilleHopkinsville, Tennessee-Kentucky 

Metropolitan Statistical Area, which 

contains Christian County, Kentucky 

and Montgomery County, Tennessee. 

EPA is approving a request to change 

the legal designation of Montgomery 

County, Tennessee from nonattainment 

to attainment for the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. 

EPA is also approving Tennessee’s 8- 

hour ozone maintenance plan for 

Montgomery County (such approval 

being one of the CAA criteria for 

redesignation to attainment status). The 

maintenance plan is designed to help 

keep the Clarksville-Hopkinsville area 

(of which Montgomery County is a part) 

in attainment for the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS for the next 12 years. 

Additionally, through this 

rulemaking, EPA is announcing its 

action on the Adequacy Process for the 

newly-established 2016 MVEBs for 

Montgomery County, Tennessee. The 

Adequacy comment period for the 2016 

MVEBs began on July 12, 2005, with 

EPA’s posting of the availability of this 

submittal on EPA’s Adequacy Web site 

(at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/transp/ 

conform/adequacy.htm). The Adequacy 

comment period for these MVEBs closed 

on August 11, 2005. No requests or 

adverse comments on this submittal 

were received during EPA’s Adequacy 

comment period. Please see section VII 

of this rulemaking for further 

explanation of this process. 

II. What Is the Background for the 

Action? 

Ground-level ozone is not emitted 

directly by sources. Rather, emissions of 

nitrogen oxides (NOX) and volatile 

organic compounds (VOC) react in the 

presence of sunlight to form groundlevel ozone. NOX and VOC are referred 

to as precursors of ozone. The CAA 

establishes a process for air quality 

management through the NAAQS. 

On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a 

revised 8-hour ozone standard of 0.08 

parts per million (ppm). This new 

standard is more stringent than the 

previous 1-hour ozone standard. Under 

EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 50, the 

8-hour ozone standard is attained when 

the 3-year average of the annual fourthhighest daily maximum 8-hour average 

ambient air quality ozone 

concentrations is less than or equal to 

0.08 ppm (i.e. 0.084 ppm when 

rounding is considered). (See 69 FR 

23857 (April 30, 2004) for further 

information). Ambient air quality 

monitoring data for the 3-year period 

must meet a data completeness 

requirement. The ambient air quality 

monitoring data completeness 

requirement is met when the average 

percent of days with valid ambient 

monitoring data is greater than 90 

percent, and no single year has less than 

75 percent data completeness as 

determined in Appendix I of part 50. 

Specifically, section 2.3 of 40 CFR part 

50, Appendix I, 

‘‘Comparisons with the Primary and 

Secondary Ozone Standards’’ states: ‘‘The 

primary and secondary ozone ambient air 

quality standards are met at an ambient air 

quality monitoring site when the 3-year 

average of the annual fourth-highest daily 

maximum 8-hour average ozone 

concentration is less than or equal to 0.08 

ppm. The number of significant figures in the 

level of the standard dictates the rounding 

convention for comparing the computed 3- 

year average annual fourth-highest daily 

maximum 8-hour average ozone 

concentration with the level of the standard. 

The third decimal place of the computed 

value is rounded, with values equal to or 

greater than 5 rounding up. Thus, a 

computed 3-year average ozone 

concentration of 0.085 ppm is the smallest 

value that is greater than 0.08 ppm.’’

The CAA required EPA to designate 

as nonattainment any area that was 

violating the 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

based on the three most recent years of 

ambient air quality data. The 

Clarksville-Hopkinsville 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment area was designated 

using 2001 to 2003 ambient air quality 

data. The Federal Register notice 

making these designations was signed 

on April 15, 2004, and published on 

April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23857). The CAA 

contains two sets of provisions—subpart 

1 and subpart 2—that address planning 

and control requirements for ozone 

nonattainment areas. (Both are found in 

title I, part D.) Subpart 1 (which covers 

areas that EPA refers to as ‘‘basic’’

nonattainment) contains general, less 

prescriptive, requirements for 

nonattainment areas for any pollutant—

including ozone—governed by a 

NAAQS. Subpart 2 (which covers areas 

that EPA refers to as ‘‘classified’’

nonattainment) provides more specific 

requirements for certain ozone 

nonattainment areas. Some 8-hour 

ozone nonattainment areas are subject 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 183 / Thursday, September 22, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 55561 

only to the provisions of subpart 1. 

Other 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas 

are also subject to the provisions of 

subpart 2. Under EPA’s Phase-1 8-Hour 

Ozone Implementation Rule, signed on 

April 15, 2004, an area was to be 

classified under subpart 2 based on its 

8-hour ozone design value (i.e., the 3- 

year average of the annual fourthhighest daily maximum 8-hour average 

ozone concentrations), if it had a 1-hour 

design value at or above 0.121 ppm (the 

lowest 1-hour design value in Table 1 of 

subpart 2). All other areas are covered 

under subpart 1, based upon their 8- 

hour ambient air quality design values. 

The Clarksville-Hopkinsville area was 

originally designated as a ‘‘basic’’ 8- 

hour ozone nonattainment area by EPA 

on April 30, 2004, (69 FR 23857) and is 

subject to subpart 1 of part D. In 2004, 

the ambient ozone data for the interstate 

Clarksville-Hopkinsville nonattainment 

area indicated no further violation of the 

8-hour ozone standard, using data from 

the 3-year period of 2002–2004 (with 

the 2002–2004 design value of 0.082 

ppm ), to demonstrate attainment. 

Available preliminary monitoring data 

through August 2005 indicates 

continued attainment of the 8-hour 

ozone standard. 

On March 21, 2005, the 

Commonwealth of Kentucky, through 

the Kentucky Division for Air Quality 

(KDAQ), submitted a request for parallel 

processing and on May 20, 2005, 

submitted a final request: (1) To 

redesignate the Christian County, 

Kentucky portion of the ClarksvilleHopkinsville 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment area to attainment for the 

8-hour ozone NAAQS, and (2) for EPA 

approval of a Kentucky State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision 

containing a 12-year maintenance plan 

for Christian County, Kentucky. EPA is 

taking action on the request to 

redesignate the Kentucky portion of the 

area (i.e., Christian County) to 

attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

in a separate action. 

On August 10, 2005, the State of 

Tennessee requested redesignation to 

attainment for the 8-hour ozone 

standard for the Montgomery County, 

Tennessee portion of the ClarksvilleHopkinsville interstate 8-hour ozone 

area. The redesignation request includes 

three years of complete, quality-assured 

ambient air quality data for the ozone 

seasons of 2002 through 2004, 

indicating the 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

had been achieved for the ClarksvilleHopkinsville area (of which 

Montgomery County, Tennessee is a 

part). The ozone season for this area is 

from April 1 until September 30 of a 

calendar year. Under the CAA, 

nonattainment areas may be 

redesignated to attainment if sufficient, 

complete, quality-assured data is 

available for the Administrator to 

determine that the area has attained the 

standard and the area meets the other 

CAA redesignation requirements in 

section 107(d)(3)(E). 

III. What Are the Redesignation Review 

Criteria? 

The CAA provides the requirements 

for redesignating a nonattainment area 

to attainment. Specifically, section 

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

providing that: (1) The Administrator 

determines that the area has attained the 

applicable NAAQS; (2) the 

Administrator has fully approved the 

applicable implementation plan for the 

area under section 110(k); (3) the 

Administrator determines that the 

improvement in air quality is due to 

permanent and enforceable reductions 

in emissions resulting from 

implementation of the applicable SIP 

and applicable Federal air pollutant 

control regulations and other permanent 

and enforceable reductions; (4) the 

Administrator has fully approved a 

maintenance plan for the area as 

meeting the requirements of section 

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

area has met all requirements applicable 

to the area under section 110 and part 

D. 

EPA provided guidance on 

redesignation in the General Preamble 

for the Implementation of Title I of the 

CAA Amendments of 1990, on April 16, 

1992 (57 FR 13498), and supplemented 

this guidance on April 28, 1992 (57 FR 

18070). EPA has provided further 

guidance on processing redesignation 

requests in the following documents: 

1. ‘‘Ozone and Carbon Monoxide 

Design Value Calculations,’’

Memorandum from Bill Laxton, June 18, 

1990; 

2. ‘‘Maintenance Plans for 

Redesignation of Ozone and Carbon 

Monoxide Nonattainment Areas,’’

Memorandum from G.T. Helms, Chief, 

Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs 

Branch, April 30, 1992; 

3. ‘‘Contingency Measures for Ozone 

and Carbon Monoxide (CO) 

Redesignations,’’ Memorandum from 

G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon 

Monoxide Programs Branch, June 1, 

1992; 

4. ‘‘Procedures for Processing 

Requests to Redesignate Areas to 

Attainment,’’ Memorandum from John 

Calcagni, Director, Air Quality 

Management Division, September 4, 

1992; 

5. ‘‘State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

Actions Submitted in Response to Clean 

Air Act (ACT) Deadlines,’’

Memorandum from John Calcagni, 

Director, Air Quality Management 

Division, October 28, 1992; 

6. ‘‘Technical Support Documents 

(TSD’s) for Redesignation of Ozone and 

Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment 

Areas, Memorandum from G.T. Helms, 

Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide 

Programs Branch, August 17, 1993; 

7. ‘‘State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

Requirements for Areas Submitting 

Requests for Redesignation to 

Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon 

Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS) On or After 

November 15, 1992,’’ Memorandum 

from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting 

Assistant Administrator for Air and 

Radiation, September 17, 1993; 

8. ‘‘Use of Actual Emissions in 

Maintenance Demonstrations for Ozone 

and CO Nonattainment Areas,’’

Memorandum from D. Kent Berry, 

Acting Director, Air Quality 

Management Division, November 30, 

1993; 

9. ‘‘Part D New Source Review (Part 

D NSR) Requirements for Areas 

Requesting Redesignation to 

Attainment,’’ Memorandum from Mary 

D. Nichols, Assistant Administrator for 

Air and Radiation, October 14, 1994; 

and 

10. ‘‘Reasonable Further Progress, 

Attainment Demonstration, and Related 

Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment 

Areas Meeting the Ozone National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard,’’

Memorandum from John S. Seitz, 

Director, Office of Air Quality Planning 

and Standards, May 10, 1995. 

IV. Why Is EPA Taking These Actions? 

On August 10, 2005, the State of 

Tennessee requested redesignation of 

the Montgomery County, Tennessee 

portion of the Clarksville-Hopkinsville 

8-hour ozone nonattainment area to 

attainment for the 8-hour ozone 

standard. EPA believes that the State of 

Tennessee has demonstrated that 

Montgomery County, Tennessee (as part 

of the Clarksville-Hopkinsville area) has 

attained the standard and has met the 

requirements for redesignation set forth 

in section 107(d)(3)(E) of CAA. 

V. What Is the Effect of EPA’s Actions? 

Approval of this redesignation request 

would change the official designation of 

Montgomery County, Tennessee for the 

8-hour ozone NAAQS found at 40 CFR 

part 81. It would also incorporate into 

the Tennessee SIP a plan for 

maintaining the 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

in the area through 2016. The 

maintenance plan includes contingency 

measures to remedy future violations of 

55562 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 183 / Thursday, September 22, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and would 

establish MVEBs of 3.00 tons per day 

(tpd) for VOC and 9.05 tpd for NOX for 

the year 2016. 

VI. What Is EPA’s Analysis of the 

Request? 

EPA is making the determination that 

the Clarksville-Hopkinsville 8-hour 

ozone nonattainment area has attained 

the 8-hour ozone standard, and that all 

other redesignation criteria have been 

met. The basis for EPA’s determination 

is as follows: 

(1) The Clarksville-Hopkinsville area 

has attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

EPA is making the determination that 

the area has attained the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. For ozone, an area may be 

considered to be attaining the 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS if there are no violations, 

as determined in accordance with 40 

CFR 50.10 and appendix I of part 50, 

based on three complete, consecutive 

calendar years of quality-assured air 

quality monitoring data. To attain this 

standard, the 3-year average of the 

fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour 

average ozone concentrations measured 

at each monitor within an area over 

each year must not exceed 0.08 ppm. 

Based on the rounding convention 

described in 40 CFR part 50, appendix 

I, the standard is attained if the design 

value is 0.084 ppm or below. The data 

must be collected and quality-assured in 

accordance with 40 CFR part 58, and 

recorded in the EPA Air Quality System 

(AQS). The monitors generally should 

have remained at the same location for 

the duration of the monitoring period 

required for demonstrating attainment. 

KDAQ, on behalf of Tennessee, 

submitted ozone monitoring data to EPA 

for the ozone season from 2002 to 2004. 

There is currently one monitor 

measuring ozone, located within 

Christian County, Kentucky, which 

provides air quality data for the entire 

Clarksville-Hopkinsville 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment area. The State of 

Tennessee relies on Kentucky’s 

monitoring data for this area. This data 

has been quality assured and is recorded 

in AQS. The fourth-highest averages for 

2002, 2003 and 2004, and the 3-year 

average of these values (i.e., design 

value), are summarized in the following 

table: 

County 2002 2003 2004 2002–2004 

Christian ......................................................................................................................................................... 0.093 0.080 0.074 0.082 

Available preliminary monitoring 

data through August 2005 indicates 

continued attainment of the 8-hour 

ozone standard. In addition, as 

discussed below with respect to the 

maintenance plan, KDAQ has 

committed to continue monitoring in 

these areas in accordance with 40 CFR 

part 58. In summary, EPA believes that 

the data submitted by Kentucky 

provides an adequate demonstration 

that the Clarksville-Hopkinsville 8-hour 

ozone nonattainment area has attained 

the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

(2) Tennessee has a fully approved 

SIP under section 110(k) for 

Montgomery County and (5) has met all 

applicable requirements under section 

110 and part D of the CAA. Below is a 

summary of how these two criteria were 

met. 

EPA has determined that Tennessee 

has met all applicable SIP requirements 

for Montgomery County under section 

110 of the CAA (general SIP 

requirements). EPA has also determined 

that the Tennessee SIP satisfies the 

criterion that it meets applicable SIP 

requirements under part D of title I of 

the CAA (requirements specific to 

subpart 1 basic 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment areas) in accordance 

with section 107(d)(3)(E)(v). In addition, 

EPA has determined that the SIP is fully 

approved with respect to all applicable 

requirements in accordance with section 

107(d)(3)(E)(ii). In making these 

determinations, EPA ascertained which 

requirements are applicable to the area 

and that if applicable they are fully 

approved under section 110(k). SIPs 

must be fully approved only with 

respect to applicable requirements. 

a. Montgomery County, Tennessee has 

met all applicable requirements under 

section 110 and part D of the CAA. The 

September 4, 1992, Calcagni 

memorandum (see ‘‘Procedures for 

Processing Requests to Redesignate 

Areas to Attainment,’’ Memorandum 

from John Calcagni, Director, Air 

Quality Management Division, 

September 4, 1992) describes EPA’s 

interpretation of section 107(d)(3)(E). 

Under this interpretation, to qualify for 

redesignation, states requesting 

redesignation to attainment must meet 

only the relevant CAA requirements that 

come due prior to the submittal of a 

complete redesignation request. See also 

Michael Shapiro memorandum, 

September 17, 1993, and 60 FR 12459, 

12465–66 (March 7, 1995) 

(redesignation of Detroit-Ann Arbor, 

MI). Applicable requirements of the 

CAA that come due subsequent to the 

area’s submittal of a complete 

redesignation request remain applicable 

until a redesignation is approved, but 

are not required as a prerequisite to 

redesignation. See section 175A(c) of 

the CAA; Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 

537 (7th Cir. 2004). See also 68 FR 

25424, 25427 (May 12, 2003) 

(redesignation of St. Louis, MO). 

General SIP requirements: Section 

110(a)(2) of title I of the CAA delineates 

the general requirements for a SIP, 

which include enforceable emissions 

limitations and other control measures, 

means, or techniques, provisions for the 

establishment and operation of 

appropriate devices necessary to collect 

data on ambient air quality, and 

programs to enforce the limitations. 

General SIP elements and requirements 

are delineated in section 110(a)(2) of 

title I, part A of the CAA. These 

requirements include, but are not 

limited to, the following: Submittal of a 

SIP that has been adopted by the state 

after reasonable public notice and 

hearing; provisions for establishment 

and operation of appropriate procedures 

needed to monitor ambient air quality; 

implementation of a source permit 

program; provisions for the 

implementation of part C requirement 

(Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD)) and provisions for the 

implementation of part D requirements 

(New Source Review (NSR) permit 

programs); provisions for air pollution 

modeling; and provisions for public and 

local agency participation in planning 

and emission control rule development. 

These requirements are discussed in the 

following EPA documents: ‘‘Procedures 

for Processing Requests to Redesignate 

Areas to Attainment,’’ Memorandum 

from John Calcagni, Director, Air 

Quality Management Division, 

September 4, 1992; ‘‘State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) Actions 

Submitted in Response to Clean Air Act 

(CAA) Deadlines,’’ memorandum from 

John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality 

Management Division, October 28, 1992; 

and ‘‘State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

Requirements for Areas Submitting 

Requests for Redesignation to 

Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon 

Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS) on or after 

November 15, 1992,’’ Memorandum 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 183 / Thursday, September 22, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 55563 

from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting 

Assistant Administrator, September 17, 

1993. See also guidance documents 

listed in section III above. 

Section 110(a)(2)(D) requires that SIPs 

contain certain measures to prevent 

sources in a state from significantly 

contributing to air quality problems in 

another state. To implement this 

provision, EPA has required certain 

states to establish programs to address 

the transport of air pollutants (NOX SIP 

Call, Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR)). 

EPA has also found, generally, that 

states have not submitted SIPs under 

section 110(a)(1) to meet the interstate 

transport requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i). However, the section 

110(a)(2)(D) requirements for a state are 

not linked with a particular 

nonattainment area’s designation and 

classification in that state. EPA believes 

that the requirements linked with a 

particular nonattainment area’s 

designation and classification are the 

relevant measures to evaluate in 

reviewing a redesignation request. The 

transport SIP submittal requirements, 

where applicable, continue to apply to 

a state regardless of the designation of 

any one particular area in the state. 

Thus, we do not believe that these 

requirements should be construed to be 

applicable requirements for purposes of 

redesignation. In addition, EPA believes 

that the other section 110 elements not 

connected with nonattainment plan 

submissions and not linked with an 

area’s attainment status are not 

applicable requirements for purposes of 

redesignation. The State will still be 

subject to these requirements after the 

area is redesignated. The section 110 

and part D requirements, which are 

linked with a particular area’s 

designation and classification, are the 

relevant measures to evaluate in 

reviewing a redesignation request. This 

policy is consistent with EPA’s existing 

policy on applicability (i.e., for 

redesignations) of conformity and 

oxygenated fuels requirements, as well 

as with section 184 ozone transport 

requirements. See Reading, 

Pennsylvania, proposed and final 

rulemakings (61 FR 53174–53176, 

October 10, 1996), (62 FR 24826, May 7, 

1997); Cleveland-Akron-Loraine, Ohio, 

final rulemaking (61 FR 20458, May 7, 

1996); and Tampa, Florida, final 

rulemaking at (60 FR 62748, December 

7, 1995). See also the discussion on this 

issue in the Cincinnati redesignation (65 

FR 37890, June 19, 2000), and in the 

Pittsburgh redesignation (66 FR 50399, 

October 19, 2001). In addition, 

Tennessee’s response to the CAIR rule is 

not due until September 2006. 

EPA believes that section 110 

elements not linked to the area’s 

nonattainment status are not applicable 

for purposes of redesignation. 

Nonetheless, EPA also notes that it has 

previously approved provisions in the 

Tennessee SIP addressing section 110 

elements under the 1-hour standard (45 

FR 53809, August 13, 1980; 47 FR 

27267, June 24, 1982). EPA believes that 

the section 110 SIP approved for the 1- 

hour standard is sufficient to meet 

requirements under the 8-hour standard 

as well. 

Part D requirements: EPA has also 

determined that the Tennessee SIP 

meets applicable SIP requirements 

under part D of the CAA since no 

requirements became due prior to the 

submission of the area’s redesignation 

request. Sections 172–176 of the CAA, 

found in subpart 1 of part D, set forth 

the basic nonattainment requirements 

applicable to all nonattainment areas. 

Section 182 of the CAA, found in 

subpart 2 of part D, establishes 

additional specific requirements 

depending on the area’s nonattainment 

classification. Subpart 2 is not 

applicable to the ClarksvilleHopkinsville area. 

Part D, subpart 1 applicable SIP 

requirements: For purposes of 

evaluating this redesignation request, 

the applicable part D, subpart 1 SIP 

requirements for all nonattainment areas 

are contained in sections 172(c)(1)–(9). 

A thorough discussion of the 

requirements contained in section 172 

can be found in the General Preamble 

for Implementation of Title I (57 FR 

13498). None of the requirements under 

part D became due prior to the 

submission of the redesignation request, 

and therefore none are applicable to the 

area for purposes of redesignation. For 

example, the requirements for an 

attainment demonstration that meets the 

requirements of section 172(c)(1) are not 

yet applicable, nor are the requirements 

for Reasonably Achievable Control 

Technology (RACT) and Reasonably 

Available Control Measures (RACM) 

(section 172(c)(1), reasonable further 

progress (RFP) (section 172(c)(2)) and 

contingency measures (section 

172(c)(9)). 

In addition to the fact that these part 

D requirements did not become due 

prior to submission of the redesignation 

request and therefore are not applicable, 

EPA believes it is reasonable to interpret 

the conformity and new source review 

requirements as not requiring approval 

prior to redesignation. 

Section 176 Conformity 

Requirements: Section 176(c) of the 

CAA requires states to establish criteria 

and procedures to ensure that Federally 

supported or funded projects conform to 

the air quality planning goals in the 

applicable SIP. The requirement to 

determine conformity applies to 

transportation plans, programs and 

projects developed, funded or approved 

under title 23 of the United States Code 

(U.S.C.) and the Federal Transit Act 

(‘‘transportation conformity’’) as well as 

to all other Federally supported or 

funded projects (‘‘general conformity’’). 

State conformity revisions must be 

consistent with Federal conformity 

regulations that the CAA required the 

EPA to promulgate. 

EPA believes it is reasonable to 

interpret the conformity requirements as 

not applying for purposes of evaluating 

the redesignation request under section 

107(d) because state conformity rules 

are still required after redesignation and 

Federal conformity rules apply where 

state rules have not been approved. See 

Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 

2001), upholding this interpretation. See 

also 60 FR 62748 (December 7, 1995, 

Tampa, FL). 

EPA has also determined that areas 

being redesignated need not comply 

with the requirement that a NSR 

program be approved prior to 

redesignation, provided that the area 

demonstrates maintenance of the 

standard without part D NSR in effect 

since PSD requirements will apply after 

redesignation. The rationale for this 

view is described in a memorandum 

from Mary Nichols, Assistant 

Administrator for Air and Radiation, 

dated October 14, 1994, entitled ‘‘Part D 

New Source Review Requirements for 

Areas Requesting Redesignation to 

Attainment.’’ The State has 

demonstrated that the area will be able 

to maintain the standard without part D 

NSR in effect, and therefore, the State 

need not have a fully approved part D 

NSR program prior to approval of the 

redesignation request. The State’s PSD 

program will become effective in the 

area upon redesignation to attainment. 

See rulemakings for Detroit, MI (60 FR 

12467–12468, March 7, 1995); 

Cleveland-Akron-Lorraine, OH (61 FR 

20458, 20469–70, May 7, 1996); 

Louisville, KY (66 FR 53665, October 

23, 2001); Grand Rapids, Michigan (61 

FR 31834–31837, June 21, 1996). Thus, 

the area has satisfied all applicable 

requirements under section 110 and part 

D of the CAA. 

b. The area has a fully approved 

applicable SIP under section 110(k) of 

the CAA. EPA has fully approved the 

applicable Tennessee SIP for the 

Montgomery County area under section 

110(k) of the Clean Air Act. EPA may 

rely on prior SIP approvals in approving 

a redesignation request, Calcagni Memo 

55564 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 183 / Thursday, September 22, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

at p. 3; Southwestern Pennsylvania 

Growth Alliance v. Browner, 144 F.3d 

984, 989–90 (6th Cir. 1998); Wall v. 

EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001), plus 

any additional measures it may approve 

in conjunction with a redesignation 

action. See 68 FR 25426 (May 12, 2003) 

and citations therein. Following passage 

of the CAA of 1970, Tennessee has 

adopted and submitted, and EPA has 

fully approved at various times, 

provisions addressing the various 1- 

hour ozone standard SIP elements 

applicable in the Montgomery County 

area (45 FR 53809, August 13, 1980 and 

49 FR 1342, January 11, 1984). As 

indicated above, EPA believes that the 

section 110 elements not connected 

with nonattainment plan submissions 

and not linked to the area’s 

nonattainment status are not applicable 

requirements for purposes of 

redesignation. EPA also believes that 

since the part D requirements did not 

become due prior to submission of the 

redesignation request, they also are 

therefore not applicable requirements 

for purposes of redesignation. 

(3) The air quality improvement in the 

Clarksville-Hopkinsville 8-hour ozone 

area is due to permanent and 

enforceable reductions in emissions 

resulting from implementation of the 

SIP and applicable Federal air pollution 

control regulations and other permanent 

and enforceable reductions. 

EPA believes that the State has 

demonstrated that the observed air 

quality improvement in the area is due 

to permanent and enforceable 

reductions in emissions resulting from 

implementation of the SIP, Federal 

measures, and other state-adopted 

measures. EPA has determined that the 

implementation of the following 

permanent and enforceable emissions 

controls, that occurred from 2001–2004, 

have reduced local VOC and NOX

emissions and brought the area into 

attainment: 

—Federal Motor Vehicle Control 

Standards in Tennessee; 

—EPA’s Tier 2/Low Sulfur Gasoline 

program; 

—EPA’s Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle 

and Fuel Standards; 

—Federal controls on certain nonroad 

engines implemented during the 

2002–2004 period; 

—Reductions due to the NOX SIP Call; 

In addition to the reductions 

mentioned above, the State of Tennessee 

is also relying on the following controls 

to maintain the 8-hour standard: 

—Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration requirements; 

—Federal controls on certain nonroad 

engines after 2000; 

—Federal control through Maximum 

Achievable Control Technology 

(MACT) of Hazardous Air Pollutants 

emissions will also contribute to 

maintaining the standard in the area. 

The State has demonstrated that the 

implementation of permanent and 

enforceable emissions controls have 

reduced local VOC and NOX emissions. 

Most of the reductions are attributable 

to Federal programs such as EPA’s Tier 

2/Low Sulfur Gasoline program and 

other national clean fuel programs that 

began implementation in 2004. 

Additionally, the State has indicated in 

its submittal that the ClarksvilleHopkinsville area has benefited from 

emissions reductions that have been 

achieved and will continue to be 

achieved through implementation of the 

NOX SIP Call, beginning in 2002. The 

State has also demonstrated that year-toyear meteorological changes and trends 

are not the likely source of the overall, 

long-term improvement in ozone levels. 

Also, the following non-highway mobile 

source reduction programs were 

implemented during the 2002–2004 

period: small spark-ignition engines, 

large-spark ignition engines, 

locomotives and land-based diesel 

engines. EPA believes that permanent 

and enforceable emissions reductions in 

and surrounding the nonattainment area 

are the cause of the long-term 

improvement in ozone levels, and are 

the cause of the area achieving 

attainment of the ozone standard. 

(4) The area has a fully approved 

maintenance plan pursuant to section 

175A of the CAA. In conjunction with 

its request to redesignate the 

Montgomery County, Tennessee portion 

of the Clarksville-Hopkinsville 8-hour 

ozone nonattainment area to attainment 

status, TDEC submitted a SIP revision to 

provide for the maintenance of the 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS in the Montgomery 

County area for at least 10 years after the 

effective date of redesignation to 

attainment. 

a. What Is Required in a Maintenance 

Plan? 

Section 175A of the CAA sets forth 

the elements of a maintenance plan for 

areas seeking redesignation from 

nonattainment to attainment. Under 

section 175A, the plan must 

demonstrate continued attainment of 

the applicable NAAQS for at least 10 

years after the Administrator approves a 

redesignation to attainment. Eight years 

after the redesignation, the State must 

submit a revised maintenance plan 

which demonstrates that attainment will 

continue to be maintained for the 10 

years following the initial 10-year 

period. To address the possibility of 

future NAAQS violations, the 

maintenance plan must contain such 

contingency measures, with a schedule 

for implementation as EPA deems 

necessary to assure prompt correction of 

any future 8-hour ozone violations. 

Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the 

elements of a maintenance plan for 

areas seeking redesignation from 

nonattainment to attainment. The 

Calcagni memorandum, dated 

September 4, 1992, provides additional 

guidance on the content of a 

maintenance plan. An ozone 

maintenance plan should address five 

requirements: the attainment emissions 

inventory, maintenance demonstration, 

monitoring, verification of continued 

attainment, and a contingency plan. 

b. Attainment Emissions Inventory 

The Clarksville-Hopkinsville area has 

selected 2004 as ‘‘the attainment year’’

for purposes of demonstrating 

attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

The 2004 VOC and NOX emissions for 

the Montgomery County area were 

developed consistent with EPA 

guidance and are summarized in the 

table in the following subsection. 

c. Maintenance Demonstration 

The August 10, 2005, submittal 

includes a 12-year maintenance plan for 

Montgomery County. This 

demonstration: 

(i) Shows compliance and 

maintenance of the 8-hour ozone 

standard by assuring that current and 

future emissions of VOC and NOX

remain at or below attainment year 2004 

emissions levels. The year 2004 was 

chosen as the attainment year because it 

is one of the most recent three years 

(i.e., 2002, 2003, and 2004) for which 

the Clarksville-Hopkinsville area has 

clean air quality data for the 8-hour 

ozone standard. 

(ii) Uses 2004 as the attainment year 

and includes future inventory projected 

years for 2007, 2010, 2013, and 2016. 

(iii) Identifies an ‘‘out year,’’ at least 

10 years after the time necessary for 

EPA to review and approve the 

maintenance plan. Per 40 CFR part 93, 

a MVEB was established for the last year 

of the maintenance plan. See section VII 

below. 

(iv) Provides the following actual and 

projected emissions inventories for 

Montgomery County. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 183 / Thursday, September 22, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 55565 

NOX EMISSIONS (TPD) FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY

Source category 2004 2007 2010 2013 2016 

Point ....................................................................................................................................... 0.79 0.90 0.99 1.08 1.18 

Area ........................................................................................................................................ 1.26 1.27 1.26 1.27 1.27 

Mobile ..................................................................................................................................... 12.39 10.52 8.54 6.38 4.88 

Nonroad ................................................................................................................................. 4.22 3.95 3.63 3.33 2.99 

Total ................................................................................................................................ 18.66 16.65 14.42 12.06 10.32 

Safety Margin ......................................................................................................................... .............. 2.02 4.25 6.61 8.34 

VOC EMISSIONS (TPD) FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY

Source category 2004 2007 2010 2013 2016 

Point ....................................................................................................................................... 2.22 2.45 2.64 2.90 3.18 

Area ........................................................................................................................................ 11.60 12.10 12.40 12.90 13.30 

Mobile ..................................................................................................................................... 5.27 4.35 3.68 3.15 2.82 

Nonroad ................................................................................................................................. 1.46 1.32 1.14 1.00 0.90 

Total ................................................................................................................................ 20.56 20.22 19.86 19.95 20.20 

Safety Margin ......................................................................................................................... .............. 0.34 0.70 0.61 0.36 

A safety Margin is the difference 

between the attainment level of 

emissions (from all sources) and the 

projected level of emissions (from all 

sources) in the maintenance plan. The 

attainment level of emissions is the 

level of emissions during one of the 

years in which the area met the NAAQS. 

d. Monitoring Network 

There is currently one monitor 

measuring ozone, located within 

Christian County, Kentucky, which 

provides air quality data for the entire 

Clarksville-Hopkinsville 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment area. The 

Commonwealth of Kentucky has 

committed in its maintenance plan to 

continue operation of the ozone monitor 

in compliance with 40 CFR part 58, and 

has addressed the requirement for 

monitoring. Kentucky’s approved SIP 

commitment satisfies Tennessee’s 

obligation for continued monitoring for 

the Clarksville-Hopkinsville area. 

e. Verification of Continued Attainment 

The State has the legal authority to 

enforce and implement the 

requirements of the ozone maintenance 

plan for Montgomery County, 

Tennessee. This includes the authority 

to adopt, implement and enforce any 

subsequent emissions control 

contingency measures determined to be 

necessary to correct future ozone 

attainment problems. 

Tennessee will track the progress of 

the maintenance plan by performing 

future reviews of actual emissions for 

the area using the latest emissions 

factors, models and methodologies. For 

these periodic inventories the State will 

review the assumptions made for the 

purpose of the maintenance 

demonstration concerning projected 

growth of activity levels. If any of these 

assumptions appear to have changed 

substantially, the State will re-project 

emissions. 

g. Contingency Plan 

The contingency plan provisions are 

designed to promptly correct a violation 

of the NAAQS that occurs after 

redesignation. Section 175A of the CAA 

requires that a maintenance plan 

include such contingency measures as 

EPA deems necessary to assure that the 

State will promptly correct a violation 

of the NAAQS that occurs after 

redesignation. The maintenance plan 

should identify the contingency 

measures to be adopted, a schedule and 

procedure for adoption and 

implementation, and a time limit for 

action by the state. A state should also 

identify specific indicators to be used to 

determine when the contingency 

measures need to be implemented. The 

maintenance plan must include a 

requirement that a state will implement 

all measures with respect to control of 

the pollutant that were contained in the 

SIP before redesignation of the area to 

attainment in accordance with section 

175A(d). 

In the August 10, 2005, submittal, 

Tennessee affirms that all programs 

instituted by the State and EPA will 

remain enforceable, and that sources are 

prohibited from reducing emissions 

controls following the redesignation of 

the area. In the submittal, if there is a 

measured violation of the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS in the Clarksville-Hopkinsville 

nonattainment area, the State of 

Tennessee commits to develop 

regulations for at least one of the 

following control measures for 

submission to the EPA within nine 

months. The State will also submit a 

control plan to EPA within twelve 

months. All regulatory programs will be 

implemented in twenty-four months 

from a measured violation. The State 

will consider one or more of the 

following contingency measures to reattain the standard. 

• RACT for NOX sources. 

• Programs or incentives to decrease 

motor vehicle use. 

• Trip reduction ordinances. 

• Implementation of a program to 

require additional emissions 

reductions on stationary sources. 

• Implementation of a program to 

enhance inspection of stationary 

sources to ensure emissions control 

equipment is functioning properly. 

• Implementation of fuel programs, 

including incentives for alternative 

fuels. 

• Restrictions of certain roads or lanes 

for, or construction of such roads or 

lanes for use by, passenger buses or 

high—occupancy vehicles. 

• Employer-based transportation 

management plans, including 

incentives programs to limit or restrict 

vehicle use in downtown areas, or 

other areas of high emissions 

concentration, particularly during 

periods of peak use. 

• Programs for new construction and 

major reconstruction of paths for use 

by pedestrians or by non-motorized 

vehicles when economically feasible 

and in the public interest. 

55566 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 183 / Thursday, September 22, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

In addition, the maintenance plan 

provides that in the event that a 

measured violation of the 8-hour ozone 

design value occurs in any portion of 

the maintenance area, or if periodic 

emissions inventory updates reveal 

excessive or unanticipated growth 

greater than 10 percent in ozone 

precursor emissions, the State will 

evaluate existing control measures to 

see if any further emissions reduction 

measures should be implemented at that 

time. 

EPA has concluded that the 

maintenance plan adequately addresses 

the five basic components of a 

maintenance plan: Attainment 

inventory, maintenance demonstration, 

monitoring network, verification of 

continued attainment, and a 

contingency plan. The maintenance 

plan SIP revision submitted by 

Tennessee for Montgomery County 

meets the requirements of section 175A 

of the CAA. 

VII. What Is an Adequacy 

Determination and What is the Status of 

EPA’s Adequacy Determination for 

Montgomery County’s Proposed New 

MVEBs for the Year 2016? 

Under the CAA, States are required to 

submit, at various times, control strategy 

SIPs and maintenance plans in ozone 

areas. These control strategy SIPs (e.g. 

reasonable further progress SIPs and 

attainment demonstration SIPs) and 

maintenance plans create MVEBs for 

criteria pollutants and/or their 

precursors to address pollution from 

cars and trucks. Per 40 CFR part 93, a 

MVEB is established for the last year of 

the maintenance plan. The MVEB is the 

portion of the total allowable emissions 

in the maintenance demonstration that 

is allocated to highway and transit 

vehicle use and emissions. The MVEB 

serves as a ceiling on emissions from an 

area’s planned transportation system. 

The MVEB concept is further explained 

in the preamble to the November 24, 

1993, transportation conformity rule (58 

FR 62188). The preamble also describes 

how to establish the MVEB in the SIP 

and revise the MVEB. 

Under section 176(c) of the CAA, new 

transportation projects, such as the 

construction of new highways, must 

‘‘conform’’ to (i.e., be consistent with) 

the part of the State’s air quality plan 

that addresses pollution from cars and 

trucks. ‘‘Conformity’’ to the SIP means 

that transportation activities will not 

cause new air quality violations, worsen 

existing violations, or delay timely 

attainment of the NAAQS. If a 

transportation plan does not ‘‘conform,’’

most new projects that would expand 

the capacity of roadways cannot go 

forward. Regulations at 40 CFR part 93 

set forth EPA policy, criteria, and 

procedures for demonstrating and 

assuring conformity of such 

transportation activities to a SIP. 

When reviewing submitted ‘‘control 

strategy’’ SIPs or maintenance plans 

containing MVEBs, EPA must 

affirmatively find the MVEB contained 

therein ‘‘adequate’’ for use in 

determining transportation conformity. 

Once EPA affirmatively finds the 

submitted MVEB is adequate for 

transportation conformity purposes, that 

MVEB can be used by state and Federal 

agencies in determining whether 

proposed transportation projects 

‘‘conform’’ to the SIP as required by 

section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act. 

EPA’s substantive criteria for 

determining ‘‘adequacy’’ of an MVEB 

are set out in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). 

EPA’s process for determining 

‘‘adequacy’’ consists of three basic steps: 

public notification of a SIP submission, 

a public comment period, and EPA’s 

adequacy finding. This process for 

determining the adequacy of submitted 

SIP MVEBs was initially outlined in 

EPA’s May 14, 1999 guidance, 

‘‘Conformity Guidance on 

Implementation of March 2, 1999, 

Conformity Court Decision.’’ This 

guidance was finalized in the 

Transportation Conformity Rule 

Amendments for the ‘‘New 8-Hour 

Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards and Miscellaneous 

Revisions for Existing Areas; 

Transportation Conformity Rule 

Amendments—Response to Court 

Decision and Additional Rule Change’’

on July 1, 2004 (69 FR 40004). EPA 

follows this guidance and rulemaking in 

making its adequacy determinations. 

Montgomery County’s 12-year 

maintenance plan submission contained 

new VOC and NOX MVEBs for the year 

2016. The availability of the SIP 

submission with the 2016 MVEBs was 

announced for public comment on 

EPA’s adequacy Web page on July 12, 

2005, at: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/ 

transp/conform/currsips.htm. The EPA 

public comment period on the adequacy 

of the 2016 MVEBs for Montgomery 

County, Tennessee closed on August 11, 

2005. EPA did not receive any adverse 

comments or requests for the submittal. 

Through this rulemaking, EPA is 

finding adequate and approving those 

MVEBs for use to determine 

transportation conformity because EPA 

has determined that the area maintains 

the standard with emissions at the 

levels of the budgets. These MVEBs will 

be separate state area budgets for the 

Montgomery County, Tennessee area. 

The Commonwealth of Kentucky has 

established MVEBs for the Christian 

County portion of the ClarksvilleHopkinsville area through the Kentucky 

SIP. The following table defines the 

2016 MVEBs for Montgomery County, 

Tennessee. 

MONTGOMERY COUNTY 8-HOUR

OZONE MAINTENANCE AREA MVEBS

2016 

NOX (tpd) ........................................ 9.05 

VOC (tpd) ....................................... 3.00 

VIII. Action on the Redesignation 

Request, the Maintenance Plan SIP 

Revision Including Approval of the 

2016 MVEBs 

EPA is making the determination that 

the Clarksville-Hopkinsville area has 

attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA 

is approving the redesignation of the 

Montgomery County, Tennessee portion 

of the area from nonattainment to 

attainment for the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. After evaluating the State of 

Tennessee’s redesignation request, EPA 

has determined that it meets the 

redesignation criteria set forth in section 

107(d)(3)(E) of the Clean Air Act. EPA 

believes that the redesignation request 

and monitoring data demonstrate that 

the Clarksville-Hopkinsville area (of 

which Montgomery County is a part) 

has attained the 8-hour ozone standard. 

The final approval of this redesignation 

request would change the official 

designation for the Montgomery County 

area from nonattainment to attainment 

for the 8-hour ozone standard. 

EPA is also approving the 

maintenance plan SIP revision. 

Approval of the maintenance plan for 

Montgomery County is allowable, 

because the State of Tennessee has 

demonstrated that the plan meets the 

requirements of section 175A as 

described more fully in this rulemaking. 

Additionally, EPA is finding adequate 

and approving the new 2016 MVEBs, 

submitted by Tennessee for 

Montgomery County, in conjunction 

with its redesignation request. Within 

24 months from the effective date of this 

action, the transportation partners will 

need to demonstrate conformity to these 

new MVEBs pursuant to 40 CFR 

93.104(e). EPA is publishing this rule 

without prior approval because the 

Agency views this as noncontroversial 

and anticipates no adverse comment. 

However, in the Proposed Rules section 

of today’s Federal Register EPA is 

publishing a proposal to approve the 

redesignation and maintenance plan 

that will serve as the proposal if adverse 

comments are filed. This rule will be 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 183 / Thursday, September 22, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 55567 

effective on November 21, 2005 unless 

EPA receives adverse comments by 

October 24, 2005. If EPA receives 

adverse comment, EPA will publish a 

timely withdrawal in the Federal 

Register informing the public that the 

rule will not take effect. EPA will 

address the public comments in a 

subsequent final rule based on the 

proposed rule. EPA will not institute a 

second comment period on this action. 

Any parties interested in commenting 

must do so at this time. 

IX. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is 

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and 

therefore is not subject to review by the 

Office of Management and Budget. For 

this reason, this action is also not 

subject to Executive Order 13211, 

‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001). This action merely approves 

state law as meeting Federal 

requirements and imposes no additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

state law. Redesignation of an area to 

attainment under section 107(d)(3)(E) of 

the Clean Air Act does not impose any 

new requirements on small entities. 

Redesignation is an action that affects 

the status of a geographical area and 

does not impose any new regulatory 

requirements on sources. Accordingly, 

the Administrator certifies that this rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this 

rule approves pre-existing requirements 

under state law and does not impose 

any additional enforceable duty beyond 

that required by state law, it does not 

contain any unfunded mandate or 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments, as described in the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(Pub. L. 104–4). 

This rule also does not have tribal 

implications because it will not have a 

substantial direct effect on one or more 

Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes, 

as specified by Executive Order 13175 

(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This 

action also does not have Federalism 

implications because it does not have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999). This action merely 

affects the status of a geographical area, 

does not impose any new requirements 

on sources, or allows a state to avoid 

adopting or implementing other 

requirements, and does not alter the 

relationship or the distribution of power 

and responsibilities established in the 

Clean Air Act. This rule also is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

‘‘Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

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

because it is not economically 

significant and because the Agency does 

not have reason to believe that the rule 

concerns an environmental health risk 

or safety risk that may 

disproportionately affect children. 

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s 

role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the 

absence of a prior existing requirement 

for the State to use voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 

to disapprove a SIP submission for 

failure to use VCS. It would thus be 

inconsistent with applicable law for 

EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, 

to use VCS in place of a SIP submission 

that otherwise satisfies the provisions of 

the Clean Air Act. Redesignation is an 

action that affects the status of a 

geographical area but does not impose 

any new requirements on sources. Thus, 

the requirements of section 12(d) of the 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 

272 note) do not apply. This rule does 

not impose an information collection 

burden under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this rule and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

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

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by November 21, 2005. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this rule for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action may not 

be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2)). 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

40 CFR Part 81 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, National parks, 

Wilderness areas. 

Dated: September 13, 2005. 

A. Stanley Meiburg, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

■ 40 CFR part 52 and 81 is amended as 

follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart RR—Tennessee 

■ 2. Section 52.2220(e) is amended by 

adding a new entry at the end of the 

table for ‘‘8-Hour Ozone Maintenance 

plan for the Montgomery County, 

Tennessee area’’ to read as follows: 

§ 52.2220 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

55568 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 183 / Thursday, September 22, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

EPA-APPROVED TENNESSEE NON-REGULATORY PROVISIONS

Name of nonregulatory SIP 

provision 

Applicable geographic or 

nonattainment area 

State effective 

date EPA approval date Explanation 

* * * * * * * 

8-Hour Ozone Maintenance 

plan for the Montgomery 

County, Tennessee area.

Montgomery County ............. 08/10/2005 09/22/2005 [Insert first page 

of publication] 

PART 81—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 81 

continues to read as follows: 

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

■ 2. In § 81.318, the table entitled 

‘‘Tennessee-Ozone (8-Hour Standard)’’

is amended by revising the entry for 

‘‘Clarksville-Hopkinsville, TN–KY: 

Montgomery County’’ to read as follows: 

§ 81.343 Tennessee. 

* * * * * 

TENNESSEE—OZONE

[8-Hour Standard] 

Designated area 

Designation a Category/Classification 

Date b Type Date b Type 

* * * * * * * 

Clarksville-Hopkinsville, TN–KY Area: 

Montgomery County ......................................................... October 24, 2005 Attainment. 

* * * * * * * 

a Includes Indian Country located in each county or area, except as otherwise specified. 

bThis date is June 15, 2004, unless otherwise noted. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 05–18953 Filed 9–21–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 60 

[OAR–2003–0119; FRL–7971–9] 

RIN 2060–AN31 

Standards of Performance for New 

Stationary Sources and Emission 

Guidelines for Existing Sources: 

Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste 

Incineration Units 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule; amendments. 

SUMMARY: The EPA has completed its 

reconsideration of certain regulatory 

definitions that determine the type of 

sources subject to EPA’s new source 

performance standards (NSPS) and 

emission guidelines (EG) for commercial 

and industrial solid waste incineration 

(CISWI) units under section 129 of the 

Clean Air Act (CAA). With this action, 

EPA is promulgating revised definitions 

for the terms ‘‘solid waste,’’

‘‘commercial or industrial waste,’’ and 

‘‘commercial and industrial solid waste 

incineration unit.’’ The final CISWI 

definitions of these terms promulgated 

today are consistent with EPA’s 

February 2004 reconsideration proposal 

in that EPA will continue to identify 

CISWI units based on whether such 

units combust waste without energy 

recovery. However, the revised 

definitions promulgated today do not 

include certain regulatory language 

proposed in February 2004 to include 

units with only waste heat recovery in 

the CISWI source category. In a 

subsequent rulemaking action, EPA 

intends to propose additional regulatory 

language to address units with only 

waste heat recovery and assess the 

impacts of the inclusion of these units 

in the CISWI source category. As a 

result of our action today on the CISWI 

definitions, it is not necessary to make 

any corresponding revisions to the 

National Emissions Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for 

Industrial, Commercial, and 

Institutional Boilers and Process 

Heaters. 

DATES: The final rule is effective 

September 22, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: Docket: EPA has established 

a docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. OAR–2003–0119. All documents in 

the docket are listed in the EDOCKET 

index at http://www.epa.gov/edocket. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

i.e., CBI or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically in 

EDOCKET or in hard copy at the EPA 

Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West 

Building, Room B102, 1301 Constitution 

Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public 

Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays. The telephone 

number for the Public Reading Room is 

(202) 566–1744, and the telephone 

number for the EPA Docket Center is 

(202) 566–1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Brian Shrager, Combustion Group, 

Emission Standards Division (C439–01), 

U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, North 

Carolina 27711; telephone number: 

(919) 541–7689; e-mail address: 

shrager.brian@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Judicial Review. Under section 

307(b)(1) of the CAA, judicial review of 

the final rule is available only by filing 

a petition for review in the U.S. Court 

of Appeals for the District of Columbia 

by November 21, 2005. Under section 

307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA, only an