Document ID: EPA-R04-OAR-2007-0549-0001
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designations of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Georgia: Redesignation of the Murray County 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area to Attainment for Ozone
Posted Date: 2007-08-29T04:00Z

[Federal Register: August 29, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 167)]
[Proposed Rules]               
[Page 49679-49689]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr29au07-19]                         

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA-R04-OAR-2007-0549-200727; FRL-8461-7]

 
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and 
Designations of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Georgia: 
Redesignation of the Murray County 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area to 
Attainment for Ozone

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: On June 15, 2007, the State of Georgia, through the Georgia 
Environmental Protection Division (EPD), submitted a request to 
redesignate the Murray County 8-hour ozone nonattainment area (Murray 
County Area) to attainment for the 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air 
Quality Standard (NAAQS); and to approve a State Implementation Plan 
(SIP) revision containing a maintenance plan for the Murray County 
Area. The Murray County 8-hour nonattainment ozone area is a partial 
county area, comprised of the portion of Murray County that makes up 
the Chattahoochee National Forest. In this action, EPA is proposing to 
approve Georgia's 8-hour ozone redesignation request for the Murray 
County Area. Additionally, EPA is proposing to approve the 8-hour ozone 
maintenance plan for the Murray County Area, including the regional 
motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs) for nitrogen oxides 
(NOX) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). This proposed 
approval of Georgia's redesignation request is based on EPA's 
determination that Georgia has demonstrated that the Murray County Area 
has met the criteria for redesignation to attainment specified in the 
Clean Air Act (CAA), including the determination that the Murray County 
8-hour ozone nonattainment area has attained the 8-hour ozone standard. 
In this action, EPA is also describing the status of its transportation 
conformity adequacy determination for the new regional MVEBs for 2018 
that are contained in the 8-hour ozone maintenance plan for the Murray 
County Area.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 28, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2007-0549, by one of the following methods:
    (a) http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for 

submitting comments.
    (b) E-mail: Harder.Stacy@epa.gov.
    (c) Fax: (404) 562-9019.
    (d) Mail: EPA-R04-OAR-2007-0549, 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.
    (e) Hand Delivery or Courier: Stacy Harder, 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 Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-
2007-0549. 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
.

[[Page 49680]]

    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 
federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Stacy Harder of the Regulatory 
Development Section at the Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and 
Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Ms. 
Harder's telephone number is (404) 562-9042. She can also be reached 
via electronic mail at harder.stacy@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. What Proposed Actions is EPA Taking?
II. What Is the Background for EPA's 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 Are the Proposed Regional MVEBs for the Murray County 
Area?
VIII. What Is the Status of EPA's Adequacy Determination for MVEBs 
for the Year 2018 for the Murray County Area?
IX. Proposed Action on the Redesignation Request and Maintenance 
Plan SIP Revision Including Proposed Approval of the 2018 MVEBs
X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What Proposed Actions Is EPA Taking?

    EPA is proposing to take two related actions, which are summarized 
below and described in greater detail throughout this notice of 
proposed rulemaking: (1) to redesignate the Murray County Area to 
attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS; and (2) to approve Georgia's 8-
hour ozone maintenance plan into the Georgia SIP, including the 
associated MVEBs. EPA is also notifying the public of the status of 
EPA's adequacy determination for the Murray County Area MVEBs.
    First, EPA is proposing to determine that the Murray County Area 
has attained the 8-hour ozone standard, and that the Murray County Area 
has met the requirements for redesignation under section 107(d)(3)(E) 
of the CAA. EPA is now proposing to approve a request to change the 
legal designation of the Murray County Area from nonattainment to 
attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
    Second, EPA is proposing to approve Georgia's 8-hour ozone 
maintenance plan for the Murray County Area (such approval being one of 
the CAA criteria for redesignation to attainment status). The 
maintenance plan is designed to help keep the Murray County Area in 
attainment with the 8-hour ozone NAAQS through 2018. Consistent with 
the CAA, the maintenance plan that EPA is proposing to approve today 
also includes 2018 regional MVEBs for NOX and VOCs. 
Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve into the Georgia SIP the 2018 
regional MVEBs that are included as part of Georgia's maintenance plan. 
These regional MVEBs apply to the Murray County Area.
    In this proposed rulemaking, EPA is notifying the public of the 
status of EPA's adequacy process for the newly established 2018 MVEBs 
for the Murray County Area. The adequacy comment period for the Murray 
County Area's 2018 MVEBs began on June 21, 2007, with EPA's posting of 
the availability of this submittal on EPA's Adequacy Web Site (http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/currsips.htm
). The adequacy 

comment period for these MVEBs closed on July 23, 2007. No adverse 
comments were received on this submittal during the adequacy public 
comment period. Please see section VIII of this proposed rulemaking for 
further explanation of this process, and for more details on the MVEBs.
    Today's notice of proposed rulemaking is in response to Georgia's 
June 15, 2007, SIP submittal. The June 15, 2007, submittal requests 
redesignation of the Murray County Area, and included a SIP revision 
addressing the specific issues summarized above and the necessary 
elements for redesignation described in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the 
CAA.

II. What Is the Background for EPA's Proposed Actions?

    Ground-level ozone is not emitted directly by sources. Rather, 
emissions of NOX and VOCs react in the presence of sunlight 
to form ground-level ozone. NOX and VOCs 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 Murray County 8-hour ozone 
nonattainment area was designated using 2001-2003 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

[[Page 49681]]

``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 1 8-hour ozone implementation rule (69 FR 23857) 
(Phase 1 Rule), signed on April 15, 2004, and published April 30, 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.
    On April 30, 2004, EPA designated the Murray County Area as a 
``basic'' 8-hour ozone nonattainment area (see, 69 FR 23857, April 30, 
2004). Thus, on June 15, 2007, when Georgia submitted its final 
redesignation request, the Murray County Area was classified under 
subpart 1 of the CAA, and was obligated to meet only the subpart 1 
requirements.
    Various aspects of EPA's Phase 1 8-hour ozone implementation rule 
were challenged in court. On December 22, 2006, the U.S. Court of 
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit Court) 
vacated EPA's Phase 1 Implementation Rule for the 8-hour Ozone Standard 
(69 FR 23951, April 30, 2004). South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. 
(SCAQMD) v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (D.C.Cir. 2006). On June 8, 2007, in 
response to several petitions for rehearing, the D.C. Circuit Court 
clarified that the Phase 1 Rule was vacated only with regard to those 
parts of the Rule that had been successfully challenged. Therefore, the 
Phase 1 Rule provisions related to classifications for areas currently 
classified under subpart 2 of title I, part D of the CAA as 8-hour 
nonattainment areas, the 8-hour attainment dates and the timing for 
emissions reductions needed for attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS 
remain effective. The June 8th decision left intact the Court's 
rejection of EPA's reasons for implementing the 8-hour standard in 
certain nonattainment areas under subpart 1 in lieu of subpart 2. By 
limiting the vacatur, the Court let stand EPA's revocation of the 1-
hour standard and those anti-backsliding provisions of the Phase 1 Rule 
that had not been successfully challenged. The June 8th decision 
reaffirmed the December 22, 2006, decision that EPA had improperly 
failed to retain measures required for 1-hour nonattainment areas under 
the anti-backsliding provisions of the regulations: (1) Nonattainment 
area New Source Review (NSR) requirements based on an area's 1-hour 
nonattainment classification; (2) Section 185 penalty fees for 1-hour 
severe or extreme nonattainment areas; and (3) measures to be 
implemented pursuant to section 172(c)(9) or 182(c)(9) of the CAA, on 
the contingency of an area not making reasonable further progress 
toward attainment of the 1-hour NAAQS, or for failure to attain that 
NAAQS. The June 8th decision clarified that the Court's reference to 
conformity requirements for anti-backsliding purposes was limited to 
requiring the continued use of 1-hour MVEBs until 8-hour budgets were 
available for 8-hour conformity determinations, which is already 
required under EPA's conformity regulations. The Court thus clarified 
that 1-hour conformity determinations are not required for anti-
backsliding purposes.
    This section sets forth EPA's views on the potential effect of the 
Court's rulings on this proposed redesignation action. For the reasons 
set forth below, EPA does not believe that the Court's rulings alter 
any requirements relevant to this redesignation action so as to 
preclude redesignation, and do not prevent EPA from proposing or 
ultimately finalizing this redesignation. EPA believes that the Court's 
December 22, 2006, and June 8, 2007, decisions impose no impediment to 
moving forward with redesignation of the Murray County Area to 
attainment. Even in light of the Court's decisions, redesignation is 
appropriate under the relevant redesignation provisions of the CAA and 
longstanding policies regarding redesignation requests.
    With respect to the 8-hour standard, the Court's ruling rejected 
EPA's reasons for classifying areas under subpart 1 for the 8-hour 
standard, and remanded that matter to the Agency. Consequently, it is 
possible that this Area could, during a remand to EPA, be reclassified 
under subpart 2. Although any future decision by EPA to classify this 
area under subpart 2 might trigger additional future requirements for 
the area, EPA believes that this does not mean that redesignation of 
the area cannot now go forward. This belief is based upon (1) EPA's 
longstanding policy of evaluating redesignation requests in accordance 
with the requirements due at the time the request is submitted; and (2) 
consideration of the inequity of applying retroactively any 
requirements that might in the future be applied.
    First, at the time the redesignation request was submitted, the 
Murray County Area was classified under subpart 1 and was obligated to 
meet only subpart 1 requirements. Under EPA's longstanding 
interpretation of section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA, to qualify for 
redesignation, states requesting redesignation to attainment must meet 
only the relevant SIP requirements that came due prior to the submittal 
of a complete redesignation request. See, September 4, 1992, Calcagni 
Memorandum (``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas 
to Attainment,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality 
Management Division). See also, Michael Shapiro Memorandum, September 
17, 1993, and 60 FR 12459, 12465-66 (March 7, 1995) (Redesignation of 
Detroit-Ann Arbor, Michigan). See, Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 
(7th Cir. 2004), which upheld this interpretation. See, e.g. also, 68 
FR 25418, 25424, 25427 (May 12, 2003) (redesignation of St. Louis, 
Missouri).
    Moreover, it would be inequitable to retroactively apply any new 
SIP requirements that were not applicable at the time the request was 
submitted. The D.C. Circuit Court has recognized the inequity in such 
retroactive rulemaking (Sierra Club v. Whitman, 285 F.3d 63 (D.C. Cir. 
2002)), in which the Court upheld a district court's ruling refusing to 
make retroactive an EPA determination of nonattainment that was past 
the statutory due date. Such a determination would have resulted in the 
imposition of additional requirements on the area. The Court stated, 
``Although EPA failed to make the nonattainment determination within 
the statutory time frame, Sierra Club's proposed solution only makes 
the situation worse. Retroactive relief would likely impose large costs 
on the States, which would face fines and suits for not implementing 
air pollution prevention plans in 1997, even though they were not on 
notice at the time.'' Id. at 68. Similarly here, it would be unfair to 
penalize the area by applying to it for purposes of redesignation, 
additional SIP requirements under subpart 2 that were not in effect at 
the time it submitted its redesignation request.
    As noted earlier, in 2004, the ambient ozone data for the Murray 
County Area indicated no further violations of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, 
using data from the 3-year period of 2002-2004 to demonstrate 
attainment. As a result, on June 15, 2007, Georgia requested 
redesignation of the Murray County

[[Page 49682]]

Area to attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The redesignation 
request included three years of complete, quality-assured ambient air 
quality data for the ozone seasons (March 1st until October 31st) of 
2002-2004, indicating that the 8-hour ozone NAAQS has been achieved for 
the Murray County Area. 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) of the CAA 
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 of the 
CAA.
    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, Director, Technical Support Division, 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 (hereafter referred to as the 
``Calcagni Memorandum'');
    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 June 15, 2007, Georgia requested redesignation of the Murray 
County 8-hour ozone nonattainment area to attainment for the 8-hour 
ozone standard. EPA's evaluation indicates that Georgia has 
demonstrated that the Murray County Area has attained the standard and 
has met the requirements for redesignation set forth in section 
107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. EPA is also announcing the status of its 
adequacy determination for the 2018 regional MVEBs, which is relevant 
to the requested redesignation.

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

    EPA's proposed actions establish the basis upon which EPA may take 
final action on the issues being proposed for approval today. Approval 
of Georgia's redesignation request would change the legal designation 
of the Murray County Area for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS found at 40 CFR 
part 81. Approval of Georgia's request would also incorporate into the 
Georgia SIP, a plan for the Murray County Area for maintaining the 8-
hour ozone NAAQS in the area through 2018. This maintenance plan 
includes contingency measures to remedy future violations of the 8-hour 
ozone NAAQS. The maintenance plan also establishes regional MVEBs for 
the year 2018 of 0.0117 tons per day (tpd) for VOCs and 0.0129 tpd for 
NOX, for the Murray County Area. Approval of Georgia's 
maintenance plan would also result in approval of the regional MVEBs. 
Additionally, EPA is notifying the public of the status of its adequacy 
determination for the 2018 regional MVEBs, pursuant to 40 CFR 
93.118(f)(1).

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

    EPA is proposing to make the determination that the Murray County 
Area has attained the 8-hour ozone standard, and that all other 
redesignation criteria have been met for the Murray County Area. The 
basis for EPA's determination for the area is discussed in greater 
detail below.

Criteria (1)--The Murray County Area Has Attained the 8-Hour Ozone 
NAAQS

    EPA is proposing to determine that the Murray County 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

[[Page 49683]]

should have remained at the same location for the duration of the 
monitoring period required for demonstrating attainment.
    EPA reviewed ozone monitoring data from the ambient ozone 
monitoring station in the Murray County Area for the ozone season from 
2002--2004. This data has been quality assured and is recorded in AQS. 
The fourth high average for 2002, 2003, and 2004, and the 3-year 
average of these values (i.e., design values), are summarized in the 
following table:

             Table 1.--Annual 4th Max High and Design Value Concentration for 8-Hour Ozone for the Murray County Area (In Parts per Million)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                            4th highest value (ppm)                              3-year
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------  average
                            Site name                                                                                                         ----------
                                                                     2000       2001       2002       2003       2004       2005       2006    2002-2004
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fort Mountain...................................................      0.091      0.080      0.092      0.085      0.074      0.080      0.074      0.084
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above, the design value for an area is the highest 
design value recorded at any monitor in the area. Therefore, the design 
value for the Murray County Area is 0.084 ppm, which meets the standard 
as described above. As discussed in more detail below, Georgia has 
committed to continue monitoring in this area in accordance with 40 CFR 
part 58. The data submitted by Georgia provides an adequate 
demonstration that the Murray County Area has attained the 8-hour ozone 
NAAQS. Additional data for 2005 and 2006 show continued attainment; 
however, the analysis for EPD's submittal was initiated prior to the 
certification of 2005 and 2006 data, which provides an even greater 
margin of compliance.

Criteria (2)--Georgia Has a Fully Approved SIP Under Section 110(k) For 
the Murray County Area and Criteria (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 Georgia has met all applicable SIP 
requirements for the Murray County Area under section 110 of the CAA 
(general SIP requirements). EPA has also determined that the Georgia 
SIP satisfies the criterion that it meet 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. The Murray County Area 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, 
(``SIP Requirements for Areas Submitting Requests for Redesignation to 
Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon Monoxide NAAQS On or After November 
15, 1992,'' September 17, 1993), and 60 FR 12459, 12465-66 (March 7, 
1995) (redesignation of Detroit-Ann Arbor, Michigan). 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, 375 F.3d 
537; 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 (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)). 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 classifications 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 the CAA's interstate transport 
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

[[Page 49684]]

submissions and not linked with an area's attainment status are not 
applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation. The area 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 
(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, Ohio 
redesignation (65 FR 37890, June 19, 2000), and in the Pittsburgh, 
Pennsylvania 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 for 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. Nonetheless, EPA notes it has previously 
approved provisions in the Georgia SIP addressing section 110 elements 
under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS (See, 70 FR 34660, June 15, 2005). EPA 
believes that the section 110 SIP approved for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS 
is also sufficient to meet the requirements under the 8-hour ozone 
NAAQS (as well as satisfying the issues raised by the D.C. Circuit 
Court in the SCAQMD case).
    Part D requirements. EPA has also determined that the Georgia 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 
Murray County 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 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 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 
(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 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 (December 7, 1995, Tampa, Florida).
    NSR Requirements. 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 a part D NSR program 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 (Part D NSR) Requirements for Areas 
Requesting Redesignation to Attainment.'' Georgia has demonstrated that 
the Murray County Area will be able to maintain the standard without a 
part D NSR program in effect, and therefore, Georgia need not have a 
fully approved part D NSR program prior to approval of the 
redesignation request. Georgia's PSD program will become effective in 
the Murray County Area upon redesignation to attainment. See, 
rulemakings for Detroit, Michigan (60 FR 12467-12468, March 7, 1995); 
Cleveland-Akron-Lorraine, Ohio (61 FR 20458, 20469-70, May 7, 1996); 
Louisville, Kentucky (66 FR 53665, October 23, 2001); Grand Rapids, 
Michigan (61 FR 31834-31837, June 21, 1996). Thus, the Murray County 
Area has satisfied all applicable requirements 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 Georgia SIP for the portion 
of Murray County affected by today's proposed redesignation, under 
section 110(k) of the CAA for all requirements applicable for purposes 
of redesignation. EPA may rely on prior SIP approvals in approving a 
redesignation request, see Calcagni Memorandum at p. 3; Southwestern 
Pennsylvania Growth Alliance v. Browner, 144 F.3d 984, 989-90 (6th Cir. 
1998); Wall, 265 F.3d 426, 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, 
Georgia has adopted and submitted, and EPA has fully approved at 
various times, provisions addressing the various 1-hour ozone standard 
SIP elements applicable in Murray County, Georgia (See, 70 FR 34660, 
June 15, 2005).
    As indicated above, EPA believes that the section 110 elements not 
connected

[[Page 49685]]

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.

Criteria (3)--The Air Quality Improvement in the Murray County 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 Georgia has demonstrated that the observed air 
quality improvement in the Murray County Area is due to permanent and 
enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of 
the SIP, Federal measures, and other state-adopted measures. 
Additionally, new emissions control programs for fuels and motor 
vehicles will help ensure a continued decrease in emissions throughout 
the region.

                                 Table 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Murray county area emission reductions programs
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery for Light-Duty Vehicles.
Architectural and Industrial Maintenance Coatings.
Automobile Refinishing.
The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP);
 the majority of which are also VOCs.
Phase II Acid Rain Program for NOX.
Tier 2 Motor Vehicle Emissions Standards and Gasoline Sulfur Control
 Requirements.
Regional NOX SIP Call.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although the NOX SIP Call is stayed in Georgia, this 
regional program implemented in neighboring states, has resulted in 
measurable emissions reductions that have lowed pollution transported 
into Murray County.

Criteria (4)--The Area Has a Fully Approved Maintenance Plan Pursuant 
to Section 175A of the CAA

    In its request to redesignate the Murray County Area to attainment, 
EPD submitted a SIP revision to provide for the maintenance of the 8-
hour ozone NAAQS 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 of Georgia 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 provides additional guidance on the 
content of a maintenance plan. The Calcagni Memorandum explains that an 
ozone maintenance plan should address five requirements: the attainment 
emissions inventory, maintenance demonstration, monitoring, 
verification of continued attainment, and a contingency plan. As is 
discussed more fully below, Georgia's maintenance plan includes all the 
necessary components and is approvable as part of the redesignation 
request.
b. Attainment Emissions Inventory
    Georgia selected 2004 as ``the attainment year'' for the Murray 
County Area for the purposes of demonstrating attainment of the 8-hour 
ozone NAAQS. This attainment inventory identifies the level of 
emissions in the area, which is sufficient to attain the 8-hour ozone 
standard. Georgia began development of this attainment inventory by 
first developing a baseline emissions inventory for the Murray County 
Area. The year 2002 was chosen as the base year for developing a 
comprehensive ozone precursor emissions inventory for which projected 
emissions could be developed for 2002, 2009, and 2018. Non-road mobile 
emissions estimates were based on EPA's NONROAD2005 model. On-road 
mobile source emissions were calculated using EPA's MOBILE6.2 emission 
factors model. The 2004 VOCs and NOX emissions, as well as 
the emissions for other years, for the Murray County Area were 
developed consistent with EPA guidance, and are summarized in Tables 3 
and 4 in the following subsection.
c. Maintenance Demonstration
    The June 15, 2007, final submittal includes a maintenance plan for 
the Murray County Area. This demonstration:
    (i) Shows compliance and maintenance of the 8-hour ozone standard 
by providing information to support the demonstration that current and 
future emissions of VOCs 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 Murray County Area has clean air 
quality data for the 8-hour ozone standard.
    (ii) Uses 2004 as the attainment year and includes future emission 
inventory projections for 2002, 2009, and 2018.
    (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 (2018) of the 
maintenance plan. See, section VII below.
    (iv) Provides the following actual and projected emissions 
inventories for the Murray County Area. See, Tables 3 and 4.

[[Page 49686]]

             Table 3.--Murray County Area Emissions of VOCs
                          [Tons per summer day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Source category                2002          2009       2018
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Area*.............................  0.0209........     0.0204     0.0240
Mobile**..........................  0.0171........     0.0126     0.0075
Nonroad...........................  0.0050........     0.0033     0.0031
                                   -------------------------------------
    Total.........................  0.0430........     0.0363     0.0346
Safety Margin***..................  N/A...........     0.0067     0.0084
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Scaled according to the population of the partial county area.
** Calculated using MOBILE6.2.
*** After assigning 0.0042 TPD of the 2018 VOCs safety margin to the
  MVEB, the revised 2018 safety margin will be 0.0042 TPD.

               Table 4.--Murray County Area NOX Emissions
                          [Tons per summer day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Source category                 2002       2009       2018
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Area*..................................     0.0070     0.0072     0.0076
Mobile**...............................     0.0156     0.0119     0.0073
Nonroad................................     0.0054     0.0040     0.0020
                                        --------------------------------
    Total..............................     0.0280     0.0231     0.0169
Safety Margin***.......................        N/A     0.0049     0.0111
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Scaled according to the population of the partial county area.
** Calculated using MOBILE6.2.
*** After assigning 0.0056 TPD of the 2018 NOX safety margin to the
  MVEB, the revised 2018 safety margin will be 0.0055 TPD.

    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. Georgia has decided to allocate a portion of the available 
safety margin to the regional 2018 MVEBs for NOX and VOCs 
for the Murray County Area, and has calculated the safety margin in its 
submittal. See, Tables 3 and 4 above. This allocation and the resulting 
available safety margin for the Murray County Area are discussed 
further in section VII of this proposed rulemaking.
d. Monitoring Network
    There is currently one monitor measuring ozone in the Murray County 
Area. Murray County has committed in the maintenance plan to continue 
operation of this monitor in compliance with 40 CFR part 58, and has 
addressed the requirement for monitoring.
e. Verification of Continued Attainment
    Georgia has the legal authority to enforce and implement the 
requirements of the ozone maintenance plan for the Murray County 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.
    Georgia 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 Georgia 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, Georgia will re-project emissions.
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 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 June 15, 2007, submittal, Georgia 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 Murray County Area. In the submittal, if there is 
a measured violation of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the Murray County 
Area, contingency measures would be adopted and implemented as 
expeditiously as possible, but no later than eighteen to twenty four 
months after the triggering event. The proposed schedule for these 
actions would be as follows:
     Six months to perform a comprehensive analysis;
     Three months to identify potential sources for reductions;
     Three months to identify applicable control measures;
     Three months to initiate a stakeholder process;
     Three months to draft SIP regulations; and
     Six months to initiate the rulemaking process. This step 
would include the time required to hold a public comment period, 
hearing, and board adoption, and submit the final plans to EPA. This 
process may be initiated simultaneously with drafting the regulations.
    Georgia will consider one or more of the following contingency 
measures to re-attain the standard.
     RACM for all sources of NOX

[[Page 49687]]

     RACT for all existing point sources of NOX
     Expansion of RACM/RACT to area(s) of transport within the 
State
     Mobile Source Measures
     Additional NOX reduction measures yet to be 
identified
    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 Georgia for the Murray County Area meets the 
requirements of section 175A of the CAA and is approvable.

VII. What Are the Proposed Regional MVEBs for the Murray County Area?

    Under the CAA, states are required to submit, at various times, 
control strategy SIPs and maintenance plans in ozone areas. These 
control strategy SIPs (reasonable further progress SIPs and attainment 
demonstration SIPs, etc.) and maintenance plans create MVEBs for 
criteria pollutants and/or their precursors to address pollution from 
cars and trucks. Per 40 CFR part 93, an 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. See, 40 CFR 93.101. 
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.
    Georgia, after interagency consultation with the transportation 
partners for the Murray County Area, has elected to develop regional 
MVEBs for NOX and VOCs for this Area. Georgia is developing 
these MVEBs, as required, for the last year of its maintenance plan 
(2018). The MVEBs reflect the total on-road emissions for 2018, plus an 
allocation from the available VOCs and NOX safety margin. 
Under 40 CFR 93.101, the term safety margin is the difference between 
the attainment level (from all sources) and the projected level of 
emissions (from all sources) in the maintenance plan. The safety margin 
can be allocated to the transportation sector; however, the total 
emissions must remain below the attainment level. These MVEBs and 
allocation from the safety margin were developed in consultation with 
the transportation partners and were added to account for uncertainties 
in population growth, changes in model vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and 
new emission factor models. The regional MVEBs for the Murray County 
Area are defined in Table 5 below.

                   Table 5.--Murray County Area MVEBs
                             [Tons per day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 2018*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX..........................................................     0.0129
VOCs.........................................................    0.0117
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Includes an allocation for the available NOX and VOCs safety margins.

    As mentioned above, Georgia has chosen to allocate a portion of the 
available safety margin to the 2018 MVEBs. This allocation is 0.0056 
tpd for NOX and 0.0042 tpd for VOCs. The 2018 regional MVEBs 
are derived as follows for NOX: (0.0073 tpd for total mobile 
emissions) + (0.0056 tpd from available safety margin) = 0.0129 tpd; 
and for VOCs: (0.0075 tpd for total mobile emissions) + (0.0042 tpd 
from available safety margin) = 0.0117 tpd. Thus, the remaining safety 
margin in 2018 is 0.0055 tpd for NOX and 0.0042 tpd for 
VOCs.
    Through this rulemaking, EPA is proposing to approve the 2018 
regional MVEBs for NOX and VOCs for the Murray County Area 
because EPA has determined that the Area maintains the 8-hour ozone 
standard with the emissions at the levels of the budgets. As mentioned 
above, these MVEBs are regional MVEBs for the Murray County Area. Once 
the new regional MVEBs for the Murray County Area (the subject of this 
rulemaking) are approved or found adequate (whichever is done first), 
they must be used for future conformity determinations. As is discussed 
in greater detail below, EPA is also announcing the status of its 
adequacy determination for the proposed 2018 MVEBs for the Murray 
County Area pursuant to 40 CFR 93.118(f)(1).

VIII. What Is the Status of EPA's Adequacy Determination for MVEBs for 
the Year 2018 for the Murray County Area?

    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. The regional emissions analysis is 
one, but not the only, requirement for implementing transportation 
conformity. Transportation conformity is a requirement for 
nonattainment and maintenance areas. Maintenance areas are areas that 
were previously nonattainment for a particular NAAQS but have since 
been redesignated to attainment with a maintenance plan for that NAAQS.
    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). The 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.
    Georgia's maintenance plan submission contained new regional MVEBs 
for VOCs and NOX for the Murray County Area for the year 
2018. The availability of the Georgia SIP submission with the Murray 
County MVEBs was available for public comment on EPA's adequacy Web 

[[Page 49688]]

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/currsips.htm. The EPA public 

comment period on adequacy of the 2018 regional MVEBs for the Murray 
County Area closed on July 23, 2007. EPA did not receive any comments, 
or requests for the submittal.
    EPA intends to make its determination of the adequacy of the 2018 
MVEBs for the Murray County Area for transportation conformity purposes 
in the final rulemaking on the redesignation of the Murray County Area. 
If EPA finds the 2018 MVEBs adequate and approves these MVEBs in the 
final rulemaking action, the new MVEBs must be used for future 
transportation conformity determinations. The new 2018 MVEBs, if found 
adequate and approved in the final rulemaking, will be effective on the 
date of publication of EPA's final rulemaking in the Federal Register. 
For required regional emissions analysis years that involve the year 
2017 or before, the State will use the interagency consultation group 
for this Area to determine the appropriate interim test to use to 
demonstrate conformity. For required regional emissions analysis years 
that involve 2018 or beyond, the applicable budgets will be the new 
2018 MVEBs. The 2018 MVEBs are defined in section VII of this 
rulemaking.

IX. Proposed Actions on the Redesignation Request and the Maintenance 
Plan SIP Revision Including Proposed Approval of the 2018 MVEBs

    EPA is proposing to make the determination that the Murray County 
Area has met the criteria for redesignation from nonattainment to 
attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Further, EPA is proposing to 
approve Georgia's redesignation request for the Murray County Area. 
After evaluating Georgia's SIP submittal requesting redesignation, EPA 
has determined that it meets the redesignation criteria set forth in 
section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. EPA believes that the redesignation 
request and monitoring data demonstrate that the Murray County Area has 
attained, and will continue to maintain the 8-hour ozone standard.
    EPA is also proposing to approve the June 15, 2007, SIP revision 
containing Georgia's 8-hour ozone maintenance plan for the Murray 
County Area. The maintenance plan includes regional MVEBs for 2018, 
among other requirements. EPA is proposing to approve the 2018 MVEBs 
for the Murray County Area, because the maintenance plan demonstrates 
that expected emissions for all other source categories will continue 
to maintain the 8-hour ozone standard.
    Further, as part of today's action, EPA is describing the status of 
its adequacy determination for the 2018 MVEBs in accordance with 40 CFR 
93.118(f)(1). If transportation conformity is implemented in this Area, 
the transportation partners will need to use these new MVEBs pursuant 
to 40 CFR 93.104(e) as effectively amended by 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.

X. 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 CAA. 
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 CAA. 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 CAA. 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.

[[Page 49689]]

    Dated: August 16, 2007.
J.I. Palmer, Jr.,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. E7-17133 Filed 8-28-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P