[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 167 (Monday, August 28, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 52028-52040]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-21906]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[GA54--200025; FRL-6858-8]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans Georgia: 
Approval of Revisions for a Transportation Control Measure

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving revisions to the Georgia State Implementation 
Plan (SIP) for the Atlantic Steel Transportation Control Measure (TCM) 
submitted by the State through the Department of Natural Resources on 
March 29, 2000, and revised and resubmitted on August 1, 2000.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule will be effective September 27, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Materials relevant to this rulemaking are contained in 
Docket No. GA54-200025. The docket is available at the following 
address for inspection during normal business hours: Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region 4, Air Planning Branch, 61 Forsyth Street, 
SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Contact Dr. Robert W. Goodwin at 404/
562-9044.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Robert W. Goodwin at 404/562-9044, 
E-mail: [email protected].
    Information regarding Project XL and the Atlantic Steel Final 
Project Agreement is available via the Internet at the following 
location: ``http://www.epa.gov/ProjectXL''.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Today's action finalizes EPA's approval of the Atlantic Steel TCM 
into the Georgia SIP. A detailed description of the Atlantic Steel TCM 
may be found in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for today's action, 
which was published in the Federal Register on April 10, 2000 (65 FR 
18947). The proposal's comment period ended May 10, 2000. In addition, 
EPA and the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) held a public 
information meeting (PIM) on April 18, 2000, to provide updates on the 
proposed 17th Street bridge and Atlantic Steel redevelopment projects, 
and to provide an opportunity for public comment. EPA received one 
comment letter during the comment period from the Ansley Park Civic 
Association

[[Page 52029]]

(APCA) dated May 10, 2000, and one comment letter after the comment 
period closed from the Georgia Sierra Club Challenge to Sprawl Campaign 
dated May 16, 2000. EPA also received several individual comments at 
the PIM regarding the proposed TCM. Copies of the comments in their 
entirety may be obtained from the docket for this rule (see ADDRESSES).
    The City of Atlanta (sponsor of the TCM), Jacoby Atlantic 
Redevelopment (hereafter referred to as ``the developer''), and EPA 
collaborated to develop minor revisions to the TCM. The City submitted 
the revisions to the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (EPD) on 
July 27, 2000, and EPD submitted the SIP revisions to EPA on August 1, 
2000. EPA believes that the revisions help address concerns raised by 
commenters and strengthens the potential for superior environmental 
performance of the TCM. The revisions are described in detail in EPA's 
response to comments below.

II. Response to Comments

    1. Comment: ``Appropriate measures should be taken to protect 
surrounding neighborhoods from adverse traffic and air quality impacts 
generated by the Atlantic Steel development.''
    Response: EPA, in cooperation with the Federal Highway 
Administration and the Federal Transit Administration, has completed an 
Environmental Assessment (EA) of the Atlantic Steel redevelopment and 
17th Street bridge and associated interchange and roadway 
modifications. The EA has been prepared in accordance with the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) as amended; EPA's ``Policy and 
Procedures for Voluntary Preparation of NEPA Documents'' (63 FR 58045), 
generally following the procedures set out at 40 Code of Federal 
Regulations (CFR) Part 6, Subparts A through D; and the United States 
Department of Transportation's ``Environmental Impact and Related 
Procedures'' (23 CFR 771). The EA provides a summary of planning 
efforts associated with the development of concept alternatives, 
traffic studies, preliminary engineering analysis, and environmental 
impact assessments, all of which have been completed with opportunities 
for public comment and agency coordination, as part of the NEPA process 
as well as EPA's Project XL. The EA describes the potential impacts to 
existing environmental conditions in the study area, which includes the 
surrounding neighborhoods, as a result of the proposed 17th Street 
extension and Atlantic Steel redevelopment. The description of impacts 
focuses on the resources most affected by the proposed action, 
including localized traffic and air quality impacts, and mitigative 
measures are proposed where appropriate.
    Regarding traffic impacts on surrounding neighborhoods generated by 
the Atlantic Steel redevelopment, Atlantic Steel zoning condition #4 
requires the developer to work with the City of Atlanta and Home Park 
to limit cut-through traffic on residential streets perpendicular to 
and south of 16th Street by means of cul-de-sacs, speed humps, gates, 
control arms, and other traffic-calming devices, and to work with the 
City of Atlanta and Loring Heights neighborhood to limit cut-through 
traffic on Bishop Street. In addition, EPA Region 4 has drafted and is 
coordinating a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between EPA, the City 
of Atlanta, GDOT, the Georgia Regional Transportation Authority, and 
the developer which seeks the concurrence of the Midtown Alliance, 
APCA, the Home Park Community Improvement Association, and the Loring 
Heights Neighborhood Association to establish a community-based 
planning process to collect specific data on future trips associated 
with the redevelopment of the Atlantic Steel site and other projects in 
Midtown Atlanta in order to study the magnitude and cumulative effects 
of traffic in the neighborhoods and develop and implement means of 
minimizing these impacts.
    Regarding air quality impacts on surrounding neighborhoods 
generated by the Atlantic Steel redevelopment, EPA performed a carbon 
monoxide (CO) hotspot analysis, which is included in the docket for 
this rulemaking, and concluded that the Atlantic Steel redevelopment 
and associated roadway improvements would be extremely unlikely to 
create a localized violation of the National Ambient Air Quality 
Standards (NAAQS) for CO in the foreseeable future. In addition, EPA 
performed a regional emissions analysis, which is included in the 
docket for this rulemaking, and concluded that the Atlantic Steel 
redevelopment would produce fewer transportation-related emissions of 
volatile organic compounds and oxides of nitrogen, precursors to 
ground-level ozone formation, than a comparable amount of development 
built at other likely locations in the Atlanta region.
    In addition, the Atlantic Steel TCM contains four site design 
criteria and four performance targets which will collectively help 
ensure both that the redevelopment is designed and built with elements 
that encourage alternatives to single-occupancy automobile trips, and 
also that the project will perform up to its potential to lower 
vehicle-miles traveled and concomitant emissions. EPA believes that the 
EA, zoning conditions, MOU, localized and regional emissions studies, 
and site design criteria and performance targets identify and establish 
appropriate measures to protect surrounding neighborhoods from adverse 
traffic and air quality impacts generated by the Atlantic Steel 
redevelopment.
    2. Comment: ``The TCM Document freely acknowledges that this 
project could not go forward under existing statutory and regulatory 
requirements. Only because EPA has adopted Project XL which appears to 
be an exception to the legal regime within which EPA must operate is 
the project even being considered.''
    Response: EPA disagrees with this comment. There is no statutory or 
regulatory requirement that would prevent the Atlantic Steel project 
from being considered a TCM in the absence of Project XL. It is clear 
that by creating an illustrative list of potential TCMs in the Clean 
Air Act (CAA) that Congress intended that EPA should have the 
discretion to identify other types of TCMs than those listed in 42 
United States Code (U.S.C.) Sections 7408(f)(1)(A)(i)-(xvi). In fact, 
as EPA pointed out in the proposed rulemaking, there are many 
individual components of this project that could be considered TCMs as 
defined by the CAA and EPA's Transportation Conformity Rule (40 CFR 
93.101), including the bike and transit lanes on the proposed 17th 
Street bridge. The Atlantic Steel project is the first of its kind to 
combine these components, including site design and location, together 
as a TCM. In addition, EPA has traditionally relied on a ``build/no-
build'' analysis to estimate the emissions benefits of proposed TCMs, 
i.e., the emission reduction benefits would be estimated by comparing 
projected transportation-related emissions if the project is built to 
those if the project isn't built. However, EPA does not believe the 
traditional build/no-build analysis is appropriate for the Atlantic 
Steel TCM because the traditional no-build analysis would not take into 
account the probability and location of development that will occur in 
the absence of the Atlantic Steel redevelopment.
    Therefore, EPA is using the flexibility of Project XL for two 
reasons: (1) to view the redevelopment and associated transportation 
elements, including the bridge, together as a TCM; and (2) to

[[Page 52030]]

estimate the air quality benefit of the Atlantic Steel redevelopment 
relative to an equivalent amount of development at other likely sites 
in the region. EPA believes that this emissions analysis is appropriate 
for the Atlantic Steel project because EPA expects that the Atlanta 
region will continue to grow, and that at least part of the development 
represented by the Atlantic Steel project would be built at other 
potential sites in the region, if the Atlantic Steel TCM were not 
approved.
    EPA would like to clarify that it is only the 17th Street bridge 
and associated interchange modifications that could probably not 
proceed under existing Federal statutory and regulatory requirements 
during a transportation conformity lapse. Certainly, redevelopment of 
the Atlantic Steel site could proceed without Federal action. The 
City's zoning conditions require construction of the 17th Street 
bridge, and it is the 17th Street bridge and interchange modifications 
that require Federal action. However, without the bridge, the land 
would likely be re-zoned and redeveloped with a different design and 
mix of uses than what is currently proposed. The revised design would 
likely be much less transit and pedestrian-oriented and would not 
benefit from a direct connection to the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid 
Transit Authority (MARTA) Arts Center station afforded by the bridge. 
EPA therefore believes that, in the absence of the 17th Street bridge 
with the direct transit connection to the MARTA Arts Center station, 
the potential air quality benefits of the resulting redevelopment would 
be less than the current proposal.
    In addition, if the Atlantic Steel redevelopment and 17th Street 
bridge are not approved together as a TCM, the 17th Street bridge could 
still be approved separately after the transportation conformity lapse 
in Atlanta has been lifted, and many of the features of the 
redevelopment as described under Project XL would likely be lost. In an 
April 24, 2000, letter from the City of Atlanta to EPA, Commissioner 
Michael A. Dobbins wrote that in that case ``[the City] would expect 
the site to be developed * * * in pieces where it would be improbable 
that an overarching vision of a cohesive `village' or `town' would 
emerge. Transit linkages, and thus usage, would not be likely nor even 
to a large extent, possible. * * * In addition, other internal 
connections, like pedestrian continuity or provision of continuous 
streetscapes and usable green space would be problematic.'' 
Furthermore, ``components would be built as a series of single-use 
developments rather than comprehensively. As a consequence, the 
opportunities for intermixing these uses would be limited. Adjacent 
land uses probably would be less compatible and not as mutually 
supportive. Parking would be built on a per site needs basis with less 
opportunity for shared or coordinated parking strategies, resulting in 
more parking spaces overall.''
    EPA, through Project XL, worked with the developer and a well-known 
urban design planner to improve the initial site design. Without 
Project XL, and ultimately the TCM, EPA and other stakeholders would 
not have had as great an impact on the pedestrian/transit orientation 
of the project. The Project XL process provided many opportunities for 
community input. Stakeholder involvement in the regulatory process is 
typically much more limited than that provided through the Project XL 
and TCM processes.
    In this project, the use of flexibility to allow a major downtown 
redevelopment with associated transportation improvements to proceed 
during a conformity lapse raises complex legal, policy, and scientific 
issues and uncertainties. These issues and uncertainties will require 
extensive post-implementation analysis before EPA can determine whether 
such flexibility can or should be offered to other entities in the 
future. Therefore, as with all XL projects, the flexibility granted in 
connection with the approval of this SIP revision, in and of itself, 
establishes no precedent with regard to other redevelopment projects.
    3. Comment: ``We believe that because the Atlantic Steel 
redevelopment and related roadway construction (the `Atlantic Steel 
Project') admittedly is deficient under EPA's existing requirements for 
designation as a TCM, the Atlantic Steel Project must be subjected to a 
greater level of scrutiny to determine whether it is an appropriate 
exercise of EPA authority.''
    Response: In the proposed rulemaking, EPA identified six criteria 
established by EPA policy (``Transportation Control Measures: State 
Implementation Plan Guidance,'' U.S. EPA Office of Air Quality Planning 
and Standards, September 1990) that a proposed TCM must satisfy before 
it may be considered for inclusion in the SIP. The proposed rulemaking 
also contained detailed explanations of how the proposed Atlantic Steel 
TCM satisfied EPA's criteria. EPA has no statutory or regulatory 
responsibility to subject the Atlantic Steel TCM to a greater level of 
scrutiny than any other TCM. Nevertheless, it is the opinion of EPA 
that the Atlantic Steel TCM has indeed been subject to intense 
scrutiny, particularly in terms of satisfying EPA's six TCM criteria.
    4. Comment: ``The TCM Document does not cite any legal authority 
permitting EPA to adopt Project XL.''
    Response: EPA is approving the Atlantic Steel TCM into the Georgia 
SIP under the authority of sections 108(f) and 110 of the CAA. In 
Project XL, the EPA and state regulators utilize tools under existing 
statutory authority to provide appropriate flexibility from otherwise 
applicable regulatory requirements. As explained in the proposed 
rulemaking, EPA is approving the redevelopment as a TCM because its 
location, transit linkage, site design, and other transportation 
elements together comprise a measure for the purpose of reducing 
emissions or concentrations of air pollutants from transportation 
sources by reducing vehicle use or changing traffic flow or congestion 
conditions. In addition, the redevelopment includes specific elements 
listed in section 108(f). Under section 110 of the CAA, EPA approves 
measures into the SIP that contribute to attainment of the NAAQS.
    5. Comment: ``To approve the Atlantic Steel TCM, EPA must at a 
minimum ensure that it does not produce local pollution problems while 
reducing regional emissions, including carbon monoxide (CO) hot 
spots.''
    Response: EPA voluntarily undertook a CO hotspot analysis for the 
Atlantic Steel TCM and concluded that it would be extremely unlikely to 
create a violation of the NAAQS for CO in the foreseeable future. This 
type of analysis is required by EPA's Transportation Conformity Rule 
(40 CFR 93 Subpart A) only in CO and PM10 (particles with an 
aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10 micrometers) 
nonattainment and maintenance areas (40 CFR 93.116). EPA has designated 
Atlanta attainment under the NAAQS for CO and PM10.
    6. Comment: ``The CO local hotspot analysis is flawed and must be 
recomputed using accurate forecasts of travel demand behavior in the 
Midtown area. Consultants hired by EPA performed a CO impact assessment 
of the Atlantic Steel Project and concluded that `the project is 
extremely unlikely to create a violation of ambient air quality 
standards for carbon monoxide in the foreseeable future.' The CO Report 
indicates that it used data input files from a variety of sources, 
including the Atlanta Regional Commission's (ARC) TRANPLAN regional 
travel demand model. The ARC TRANPLAN model, however, projects that 
from 2000-10 Midtown will grow by 4,528 jobs and 193 residents. These 
projections are

[[Page 52031]]

fundamentally unsound. There is in excess of 4 million square feet of 
office space and 1,398 residential units currently under construction 
with another 892,700 square feet of office space and 1,243 residential 
units proposed for the Midtown area. When completed, this space could 
accommodate more than 17,000 office employees and 1,700 residents 
[assuming one employee per 300 square foot of office space and 1.5 
residents per residential unit]. By materially underestimating 
population and job growth in the Midtown area, TRANPLAN necessarily 
materially underestimates key information including, traffic volume and 
traffic congestion, required for the calculation of local CO emissions. 
The CO hotspot analysis is therefore fatally flawed and cannot support 
the conclusion that the Atlantic Steel Project will not produce any CO 
hotspots. Further analysis of the CO impacts of the Atlantic Steel 
Project is required before approval of the Atlantic Steel TCM may be 
granted.''
    Response: The traffic volume projections for the year 2025 used in 
the Atlantic Steel CO hotspot analysis consisted of two parts: (1) 
``Background'' traffic that would exist regardless of whether Atlantic 
Steel is redeveloped, and (2) additional traffic generated by the 
redevelopment. The commenter is concerned that the background traffic 
volumes for Midtown were underestimated due to perceived deficiencies 
in ARC's regional travel demand model. However, ARC's travel demand 
model was not used to generate the background or the redevelopment-
related traffic volumes in the CO hotspot analysis. ARC's travel model 
was used only to predict the origin and destinations and distribution 
of trips in the study area, not the total number of trips. The 2025 
background traffic volumes were generated by growing 1998 observed 
surface street traffic volumes by 2 percent per year and observed 
freeway traffic volumes by 1.5 percent per year. This is equivalent to 
a 71 percent increase in surface street traffic volumes and a 49 
percent increase in freeway traffic volumes in Midtown between 1998 and 
2025. The 2025 Atlantic Steel-related traffic volumes were based on 
Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) trip generation equations 
applied to the Atlantic Steel redevelopment build-out projections, 
reduced by 10 percent to account for internal capture and 15 percent 
for transit.
    In addition, the CO hotspot analysis was conservative in that it 
considered conditions most likely to produce CO hotspots in terms of 
meteorology, traffic congestion, and receptor location. Furthermore, 
the CO hotspot analysis was completed before EPA finalized its Tier 2 
tailpipe emissions and gasoline sulfur standards, which should reduce 
future motor vehicle CO emission rates below those assumed in the CO 
hotspot analysis.
    7. Comment: ``The travel and emissions analysis presented in the 
Hagler Bailly Report is inaccurate and unreliable. The travel and 
emissions analysis relies on inaccurate population and employment 
projections for the Midtown area. The Hagler Bailly Report purports 
that the Atlantic Steel Project performs better from a regional 
perspective both in terms of vehicle-miles traveled (VMT) and mobile 
source emissions when compared to a similar development located 
elsewhere in the metropolitan region. In calculating regional 
emissions, the Hagler Bailly Report indicates that they used the ARC 
regional transportation model TRANPLAN. This `models behavior given the 
population and employment projected and distributed for year 2015.' 
However, ARC projects that Midtown Atlanta will add only 4,528 jobs and 
193 residents between 2000 and 2010 (see Hagler Bailly Report at p. 7), 
which projections obviously and dramatically underestimate population 
and employment growth in the Midtown area, as discussed above. By 
materially underestimating population and employment growth in the 
Midtown area, the model necessarily underestimates key information used 
to calculate air quality emissions arising from the Atlantic Steel 
Project, including number of trips, traffic volumes and traffic speeds. 
The model output and the resulting comparative analysis of the travel 
and emissions projections for the Atlantic Steel site and alternative 
regional sites are therefore inaccurate and unreliable. Based on such 
materially flawed estimates, no rational administrative body can 
conclude that the Atlantic Steel Project produces the necessary air 
quality benefits to qualify for inclusion as a TCM in the State of 
Georgia State Implementation Plan.''
    Response: EPA utilized ARC's travel demand model to perform a 
comparative analysis of projected VMT and associated emissions 
generated by the proposed Atlantic Steel redevelopment and three other 
hypothetical developments of similar magnitude at other likely sites in 
the Atlanta region. The study analyzed the differences in regionwide 
VMT and emissions between the four scenarios. The effects of any 
inaccuracies in the Midtown population and employment growth 
assumptions in the ARC travel demand model would be present in all four 
scenarios and would probably tend to cancel each other to a certain 
extent in the comparative analysis.
    There is no reason to expect that using lower-than-expected 
background Midtown growth would bias the analysis in favor of the 
Atlantic Steel site. Rather, if Midtown grows faster than forecast, one 
would expect the regional travel and emissions benefits of the Atlantic 
Steel redevelopment to be even greater than forecast. The principal 
measure of the Atlantic Steel project's potential for reducing future 
transportation-related emissions is the reduction in VMT compared to 
the other scenarios. VMT, in turn, is predominantly a function of 
proximity to other origins and destinations. It is likely that if the 
Midtown employment and population estimates had been higher in ARC's 
model, given the relatively short travel distances and high transit and 
pedestrian accessibility between the Atlantic Steel project and 
Midtown, then the performance of Atlantic Steel Project would have been 
even better compared to the other scenarios in terms of its potential 
to reduce VMT and concomitant emissions.
    EPA would also like to clarify that ARC is the officially 
designated Metropolitan Planning Organization for the Atlanta region 
per 23 U.S.C. 134 and section 8 of the Federal Transit Act, and ARC is 
therefore responsible for developing population and employment 
forecasts for use in transportation and other planning activities for 
the region. As such, the population and employment growth forecasts 
contained in the ARC travel demand model for Midtown represented the 
most recent and best data available to EPA at the time of EPA's 
Atlantic Steel regional emissions analysis.
    8. Comment: ``The transit usage percentage assumptions used in the 
Hagler Bailly Report are unsupported and unreliable. The Hagler Bailly 
Report assumed a 37% transit share for the project (27.07% work and 
10.68% non-work, see p. 24). We have explained why that analysis is 
unsupported in our letter to Mr. Ben West at EPA dated April 26, 2000, 
and refer you to that letter, a copy of which is enclosed for your 
information. The transit share assumptions presented by Hagler Bailly 
are not supported. Since transit travel reduces VMT for a site, the 
size of the transit share assumption is a material component of the 
input data to the MOBILE5a model used by Hagler Bailly to calculate the 
projected emissions from the Atlantic Steel Project and

[[Page 52032]]

similar development at alternative regional locations. Hagler Bailly 
assumed that transit share was greatest at the Atlantic Steel site 
(37%), compared to 18.5% at the Perimeter/Sandy Springs site, 2.6% at 
the Fulton/Cobb site and no transit at the Henry County site. The 
Hagler Bailly Report purports that locating development at the Atlantic 
Steel site produces significant regional emissions benefits compared to 
locating the development at the alternative regional locations chosen 
based on the output of the MOBILE5a modeling (see Figure 6) using the 
above transit share input data.''
    Response: The transit shares in the regional emissions analysis 
were not assumed a priori, but rather they resulted from calculated 
forecasts using ARC's travel demand model. The model calculated a 27 
percent transit share for work-related trips and a 10 percent share for 
non-work trips. With respect to the assumptions used in the modeling, 
the model is based on travel surveys and calibrated to travel behavior 
in the Atlanta region. The model is the same one that is used for 
regulatory submissions for the Atlanta region. EPA can provide a full 
set of model documentation upon request.
    In addition, it is mathematically improper to add the two transit 
share numbers to obtain a total transit share. Because work trips are 
only around a quarter of the trips associated with the site, a weighted 
average is needed to obtain a total transit share of all trips. Such a 
calculation would yield something between 10 percent and 27 percent, 
with a result likely around 15 percent.
    EPA responds to the specific points regarding the Hagler Bailly 
transit usage percentage assumptions raised in APCA's April 26, 2000, 
letter to Mr. Ben West in response to comment #9 below.
    9. Comment: ``[The Hagler Bailly] study contains a chart (p. 23) 
stating that it estimated 27% of work-related trips and 11% of non-work 
related trips would be made by transit. The study explains those 
estimates as based on the Atlanta Regional Commission's transportation 
model (the `ARC model'). However, the Hagler Bailly study does not 
explain the assumptions plugged into the ARC model which resulted in 
the 27%/11% figures. Nor does the Concept Report. Moreover, Hagler 
Bailly estimated a regional average of 8% for work-related trips and 2% 
for non-work related trips. Thus, the ARC model estimated that transit 
use for Atlantic Steel would be 300% to 500% higher than the regional 
average, a dramatic difference which illustrates the importance of the 
failure to explain the 27%/11% estimates. Finally, the Hagler Bailly 
study acknowledged that the use of the ARC model included undefined 
`selective judgments' and that the ARC model usage was compromised 
insofar as the consultants lacked `information about households' in the 
affected areas and they were forced to use `regional average' 
socioeconomic data instead. Thus, the Concept Report provides no 
information, much less evidence, to support Hagler Bailly's use of the 
ARC model to arrive at the assumption of 27%/11% transit use. 
Therefore, the Hagler Bailly study presents no basis upon which a 
rational administrative decision could be predicated.''
    Response: EPA developed limited inputs to ARC's travel demand model 
in order to include the Atlantic Steel project in the regional 
emissions analysis. The inputs were specific to the project and were 
confined to the traffic analysis zones in which the development would 
be located. The inputs included: the total number of residents and 
employees; households stratified by income and number of occupants; the 
highway network link(s) representing the 17th Street bridge; and the 
transit network link(s) representing the transit service. EPA did not 
alter ARC's inputs for the socioeconomic data and transportation 
network for the remainder of the Atlanta region, or the variables 
internal to the model which describe travel behavior (e.g., trip 
generation rates, mode choice model).
    EPA assumed that the Atlantic Steel project would accommodate 6,000 
residents and 17,483 employees by the year 2015 (page 45 of the Hagler 
Bailly study). Due to variability in forecasts of the socioeconomic 
characteristics of the households in the redevelopment, EPA chose to 
use regional averages to distribute the 6,000 residents into households 
by income and number of residents per household. EPA would like to 
clarify that this assumption was used only for the Atlantic Steel 
redevelopment, and not for households in surrounding areas, for which 
the ARC inputs were used. EPA believes that this was a reasonable 
assumption for the purposes of the study. EPA consulted with the 
developer in order to classify the 17,483 employees by employment type 
(e.g., construction, manufacturing, retail, service) based on 
forecasted uses of the site. 17th Street was modeled with two general 
purpose lanes in each direction and one high-occupancy vehicle (HOV)/
transit lane in each direction stretching from Northside Drive to the 
west of the Atlantic Steel site through the site and bridging 
Interstate-75/85 to Spring, West Peachtree, and Peachtree Streets to 
the east. It also included (general purpose) connections from 
Interstate-75/85. The transit service was modeled as a bus route 
connecting the site and the MARTA Arts Center station, operating 10 
hours a day at 15 minute headways (time between buses), free of charge. 
EPA would like to point out that the developer has committed in the TCM 
to providing bus service which complements the hours of service and 
headways of the trains serving the MARTA Arts Center station. 
Currently, this means that the bus service would operate 18.5 to 20 
hours per day at four to eight minute headways. All of these 
assumptions are contained in the docket for this rulemaking.
    EPA executed ARC's travel demand model using the inputs described 
above, and the model predicted that 11 percent of non-work related 
trips associated with the Atlantic Steel redevelopment, and 27 percent 
of the work-related trips would take transit. Spot checks of transit 
mode splits predicted by ARC's model for areas surrounding the Atlantic 
Steel site were made and were found to be consistent with the 
predictions for the redevelopment. Furthermore, it is likely that the 
predicted transit mode splits for the Atlantic Steel redevelopment 
would have been even higher if the transit service had been modeled 
using the longer hours of service and shorter headways contained in the 
TCM. Finally, the reason the regional average transit mode share is 
much lower (8 percent for work-related trips and 2 percent for non-
work-related trips) is because it includes a significant number of 
areas that lack reasonable walk or drive access to transit, which 
lowers the average.
    10. Comment: ``In addition, the Hagler Bailly analysis assumes the 
existence of transit service for the entire period tested even though 
transit service is required to be provided only for a period of 10 
years after the 17th Street bridge opens to traffic.''
    Response: The Atlantic Steel TCM has been revised to include a 
commitment by the developer to provide the rubber-tired shuttle service 
for ten years from the date that the 17th Street bridge opens to 
traffic or until December 31, 2015, whichever is longer. The 
developer's obligation will cease if, during the period of obligation, 
an appropriate entity operates a fixed mass transit link providing a 
similar level of service. The commitment in the TCM is now consistent 
with the transit connection modeled in the regional emissions analysis.

[[Page 52033]]

    11. Comment: ``The critical finding of the TCM Document is based on 
that flawed analysis. Specifically, ``that the Atlanta region will 
continue to grow, and that redevelopment of the Atlantic Steel site 
will produce fewer air pollution emissions than an equivalent quantity 
of development that likely would occur at other potential sites in the 
region, if the Atlantic Steel redevelopment were not to occur.''
    Response: EPA believes that the findings of the regional emissions 
analysis are sufficient. First, based on historical trends and current 
projections it is reasonable to assume that the Atlanta region will 
continue to grow. According to ARC, since 1970 the population of the 
Atlanta region has more than doubled, and ARC projects that it will 
continue to grow by another 42 percent by the year 2025. Second, based 
on historical trends and current projections it is reasonable to assume 
that some fraction of the development represented by the Atlantic Steel 
redevelopment would locate outside of the urban core if it is not built 
at the Atlantic Steel site. According to ARC, while the regional 
population more than doubled since 1970, the population of the City of 
Atlanta, located at the core of the region, declined by roughly 14 
percent. In addition, since 1980, only 3 percent of the growth in jobs 
has occurred in the core. According to ARC projections, between 2000 
and 2025, 90 percent of new residents and 80 percent of new jobs in the 
region are expected to locate outside the City of Atlanta. Finally, EPA 
believes that it is reasonable to conclude that a high density, mixed-
use development, centrally located in the urban core and designed with 
high transit and pedestrian accessibility would create less VMT and 
concomitant emissions than a comparable development at a less 
regionally central, less transit and pedestrian accessible location.
    12. Comment: ``The unsupported transit share input data, together 
with the unwarranted assumption of continuous transit service for the 
period tested, invalidates the model output. Therefore, the Hagler 
Bailly comparison of projected emissions at the Atlantic Steel site and 
development at an alternative regional location (see Hagler Bailly 
Report at Figure 6, p. 21) does not present a rational basis for the 
above-quoted finding in the TCM Document and thus cannot support an 
administrative decision that the Atlantic Steel Project qualifies as a 
TCM for inclusion in the State of Georgia SIP.''
     Response: EPA explained in the responses to comments #8 and #9 
that the transit share data are outputs of the model and not input 
data, and that the developer has committed to supply the shuttle bus 
through the period considered in the regional emissions analysis.
    13. Comment: ``There is insufficient evidence that funding has been 
(or will be) obligated to implement the measure. EPA indicates that 
this is one of the six criteria required to be satisfied before 
designation of a measure as a TCM. While identifying the source of 
funding of all related construction costs for the Atlantic Steel TCM, 
the TCM Document fails to identify a source of funding to ensure that 
all performance targets are met. The TCM Document provides that if the 
performance targets for the project are not met, the developer must 
identify funding or fund a Transportation Management Association (TMA) 
for 20 years, if employers and property managers are not already 
participating in one. It is presently anticipated that employers and 
property managers will participate in the TMA being set up for the 
Midtown business district. As presently proposed, no further obligation 
to ensure compliance with the performance targets is imposed on the 
developer once initial funding for the TMA has been identified. 
Thereafter, the City of Atlanta, not the developer, must ensure that 
the performance targets are met at each evaluation period. The TCM 
fails to identify a source of funding for the obligations imposed on 
the City of Atlanta to monitor the effectiveness of the Atlantic Steel 
TCM and to take additional measures to ensure performance targets are 
met. These additional measures could include providing increased 
transit service or undertaking traffic calming measures involving 
construction on city streets, the costs of which are not discussed or 
identified. Neither the City of Atlanta Transportation Impact Fee 
Ordinance nor the Atlantic Steel Brownfield Area and Tax Allocation 
District Number Two, both identified as sources of funding for 
construction costs relating to the Atlantic Steel Project, contemplate 
use of such funds to provide transit service at the site or other 
measures to ensure TCM performance targets are met. To satisfy this EPA 
criterion for designation of the Atlantic Steel Project as a TCM, both 
the amount of funds that could reasonably be anticipated to meet these 
additional obligations and a source of such funds must be identified. 
This is particularly critical given the limited obligation to maintain 
transit at the site currently contemplated in the TCM Document.''
    Response: Regarding a source of funding for the obligations imposed 
on the City of Atlanta to monitor the effectiveness of the Atlantic 
Steel TCM, the developer has committed to monitoring and collecting the 
travel behavior data along with the City of Atlanta. This commitment 
includes funding. The Atlantic Steel TCM has been revised to include 
this commitment.
    EPA disagrees that the TCM must identify the amount and source of 
funds for as yet undetermined additional future strategies that might 
be necessary to meet the performance targets contained in the TCM. It 
is not possible to predict every possible outcome of the implementation 
of the Atlantic Steel TCM, however EPA believes that the mechanisms 
contained in the TCM are sufficient to ensure that the project will be 
monitored and potential problems will be identified and addressed as 
needed.
    EPA believes that the TCM performance targets will be met without 
any additional strategies. As a safeguard, the TCM includes both a 
monitoring program to assess whether the targets have been met and a 
commitment by the City of Atlanta to fund or identify funding for any 
additional strategies needed to meet the targets. The scope, design, 
and costs of any potential additional strategies will depend on the 
nature of the transportation problem(s) and on the associated travel 
behavior. The monitoring program for the Atlantic Steel TCM has been 
designed to collect the data that will form the basis for any 
additional strategies needed to meet the performance targets in the 
TCM. If and when the project fails to meet one or more of the 
performance targets in the TCM, it will be the federally-enforceable 
responsibility of the City of Atlanta, as sponsor of the Atlantic Steel 
TCM, to either identify the funding source(s) or fund the strategies 
necessary to meet the performance targets contained in the TCM.
    14. Comment: ``The monitoring program to assess the measure's 
effectiveness and to allow for necessary in-place corrections or 
alterations fails to include important and necessary elements. Site 
design criteria are insufficient because they omit a standard for 
traffic speeds in the development and a standard for pedestrian route 
directness. In the discussion of the relative merits of the three site 
designs analyzed, the TCM Document indicates that the Jacoby redesign 
and the Duany Plater-Zyberk & Co. (DPZ) design excel when compared to 
the original Jacoby design for three reasons. The site design criteria 
included in the TCM Document already

[[Page 52034]]

reflects two of those reasons but fails to include the third which is 
that `the pedestrian environment is improved through street design that 
includes more direct routing and slower traffic speeds.' Since EPA 
itself considers traffic speeds and pedestrian route directness 
important and because the City of Atlanta zoning conditions do not 
address these issues, they should be included as additional site design 
criteria in the TCM Document with appropriate targets.''
    Response: EPA believes that the site design criterion entitled 
``External Street Connectivity,'' which requires the average distance 
between site ingress/egress streets to be less than or equal to 1,000 
feet, serves as a surrogate for pedestrian route directness that is 
simpler to monitor and enforce. This criterion will ensure that the 
street network and associated sidewalks and bike paths in the 
redevelopment will be well integrated into the existing fabric of the 
surrounding neighborhoods, thereby enhancing pedestrian route 
directness. In addition, the original site plan, particularly the west 
side, was altered based on the DPZ design to better frame the 
pedestrian areas by creating clear progressions of pedestrian-oriented 
uses. Pedestrian-oriented retail has been added to the west side along 
16th Street and around a public plaza at the heart of the technology 
park (as depicted in the original design), now a reconfigured and newly 
defined ``Tech Village.'' Independent of the defined pedestrian route 
system along the community's streets, a secondary pedestrian route 
system is defined through a series of parks and plazas, not only 
linking the various uses within the redevelopment, but also linking the 
adjoining neighborhood to the south.
    In terms of traffic speeds, the external street connectivity 
criterion should also result in intersections that are spaced more 
closely together, which will have an inherent traffic calming effect. 
In addition, the developer incorporated site design recommendations 
made by DPZ that will reduce speeds. For example, to address the issue 
of high-speed geometries, block sizes were reduced and the road network 
was reconfigured to parallel the existing urban grid system. Building 
setbacks were eliminated where possible. In many cases, buildings start 
at the right-of-way line. Furthermore, on-street parking is a traffic 
calming device that is integral to an urban pedestrian streetscape, and 
the developer has committed in the XL Final Project Agreement to pursue 
on-street parking on all streets other than 17th Street within the 
development. 17th Street is the exception because initial discussions 
with GDOT and traffic engineers have identified the area around the 
lake and park as the only appropriate section of 17th Street to 
accommodate on-street parking.
    For these reasons, EPA believes that it is unnecessary to include 
detailed standards for traffic speeds and pedestrian route directness 
in the TCM.
    15. Comment: ``The proposed method of evaluation of the development 
as a transportation control measure is insufficient. Evaluation of the 
Atlantic Steel Project as a transportation control measure occurs 2, 
3\1/2\, and 5 years after the 17th Street bridge opens to traffic. At 
these intervals, VMT per resident, VMT per employee and mode split will 
be examined. The TCM Document imposes no further obligation on the 
developer if VMT per resident or VMT per employee is equal to or lower 
than the regional average or if the modal split is greater than or 
equal to the regional average. The Atlanta regional VMT averages are 
presently among the highest in the nation and the modal split is below 
8%. EPA has granted flexibility for this development under Project XL 
precisely because the project is expected to generate fewer vehicle 
miles of travel. Including targets that are merely equal to the 
regional averages is inconsistent with the justification provided by 
EPA for designation of the Atlantic Steel Project as a TCM. These 
evaluations should have average VMT for residents and employees that 
are lower than regional averages and decline gradually at each 
successive evaluation and a modal split target greater than regional 
averages and gradually increasing at each successive evaluation to 
justify the flexibility granted for the Atlantic Steel Project.''
    Response: EPA would like to clarify that monitoring of the TCM will 
start when the 17th Street bridge opens to traffic and will continue on 
an annual basis until ten years following redesignation by EPA of the 
Atlanta area to attainment under the NAAQS for ozone. In addition, the 
TCM will be evaluated by the City of Atlanta, EPD, and EPA using 
performance targets defined in the TCM for VMT per resident, VMT per 
employee, mode split, and total daily vehicle trips. If it is 
determined that the TCM is not meeting or beating the performance 
targets, then the developer will identify funding or fund the creation 
of a TMA for the site for a period of 20 years (if employers on the 
site aren't already participating in one), and the City of Atlanta will 
work with the TMA to develop and implement measures to help the TCM 
meet the performance targets. However, the manner of evaluating the 
performance of the TCM will differ slightly depending on whether it is 
done: (1) during the first five years following the opening of the 17th 
Street bridge to traffic, or (2) during the sixth year following the 
opening of the 17th Street bridge to traffic or thereafter.
    EPA expects the first five years following the opening of the 17th 
Street bridge to traffic to be an interim period during which the 
redevelopment will be undergoing construction and the numbers of 
residents, employees, and uses, and the associated transportation 
options, patterns, and behaviors on the site will be in a state of 
flux.
    Therefore, the data collected for the TCM during this period may 
not be representative of the ultimate performance of the project at 
build-out. Therefore EPA believes this interim period should provide 
some flexibility to meet the performance targets during the near term, 
as the site matures, while ensuring that the project demonstrates 
progress toward the final TCM performance targets for year six and 
thereafter.
    EPA agrees with the commenter that the performance targets for the 
interim period in the proposed rulemaking were insufficient. In the 
proposed rulemaking, the TCM was required to perform better than the 
regional averages for VMT per resident, VMT per employee, and mode 
split during the interim period, but it did not have to demonstrate 
progress toward meeting the final performance targets for year six and 
thereafter. Therefore, the TCM has been revised so that it is required 
to perform better than the regional averages and demonstrate progress 
toward meeting the final performance targets during the interim period. 
The TCM will be evaluated at two, three-and-a-half, and five years 
following the opening of the 17th Street bridge to traffic. As in the 
proposal, in year two, the TCM must perform better than the regional 
averages. However, in year three-and-a-half, the TCM must perform 
better than it does in year two (unless it is already meeting or 
beating the final performance targets), and in year five, it must 
perform better than it does in year three-and-a-half.
    Starting the sixth year after the 17th Street bridge opens to 
traffic, the performance of the TCM will be compared with the final TCM 
performance targets. EPA would not approve the Atlantic Steel TCM if it 
did not believe that the project has the potential to perform 
significantly better than the regional averages in terms of VMT per 
resident, VMT per employee,

[[Page 52035]]

and mode split. Therefore, the final Atlantic Steel TCM performance 
targets are set at levels that beat the current Atlanta regional 
averages by 20 percent or more, and EPA expects the project to easily 
attain the target values.
    16. Comment: ``The TCM Document fails to provide performance 
targets that capture the majority of projected trips generated by the 
site. In its analysis of trips generated by the Atlantic Steel site, 
the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) projected that retail 
trips, exclusive of office and residential trips, would account for 
approximately 45% of all weekday and 58% of all weekend trips generated 
by the site. The effectiveness of the site as a TCM depends largely on 
its ability to reduce the number of trips generated by the site, hence 
the inclusion of performance targets aimed at reducing resident and 
employee trips. However, if these account, as GDOT projects, for less 
than half of all trips generated by the site, a performance target of 
25% of all resident and employee trips represents only 13.7% of all 
projected weekday trips (25% of 55%), and 10.5% (25% of 42%) of all 
weekend trips generated by the site. Therefore, the performance targets 
account for only half of all projected trips generated by the site and 
cannot meaningfully measure whether the Atlantic Steel Project is 
performing effectively. Moreover, EPA's consultants projected that the 
Atlantic Steel location would perform better than development at 
alternative regional locations assuming a transit share of 37% of all 
trips generated by the site, 270-350% above that provided for in the 
performance targets specified in the TCM Document. Therefore, it is 
possible that the performance targets specified in the TCM Document 
could be met at the same time the Atlantic Steel Project produces 
significantly greater emissions of NOx, VOCs and CO, than 
those projected by the Hagler Bailly Report. The TCM Document fails to 
monitor the majority of trips generated by the site. As indicated 
above, the majority of trips generated by the site are projected to be 
retail trips. The TCM Document imposes an obligation on the City of 
Atlanta to collect and maintain data concerning travel behavior of 
residents and employees on the site but fails to require any 
information concerning retail trips. Failure to monitor the majority of 
trips to and from the site undermines the ability of the TMA to 
implement effective strategies to meet identified performance targets. 
Moreover, failure to monitor retail trips generated by the site 
prevents EPA from determining that the Atlantic Steel TCM is successful 
in producing regional emissions benefits even if performance targets 
for residents and employees are met. To justify designation as a TCM, 
the Atlantic Steel development must be able to demonstrate regional air 
quality emissions benefits. Without adequate information concerning 
retail trips, the EPA cannot rationally measure the effective of the 
measure as a TCM. For this reason, the TCM Document fails to comply 
with this EPA requirement for designation as a TCM.''
    Response: EPA does not believe that the effectiveness of the 
Atlantic Steel TCM depends largely on its ability to reduce trips 
generated by the site, but rather on: (1) its ability to reduce the 
average distance of trips to and from the site compared to the trips 
that might have occurred had the development been built at other likely 
areas in the region; (2) its ability to reduce the number of trips that 
leave the site (i.e., a high internal capture rate); and (3) its 
ability to shift the trips made to, from, and on the site to modes of 
transportation other than the single-occupancy vehicle (SOV). This is 
why the TCM contains site design criteria--to ensure that the site is 
built with the densities, mix of uses, and transit and pedestrian 
features to support a high internal capture rate and transit mode 
split--and performance targets for VMT per resident and VMT per 
employee and percentage of trips by non-SOV modes.
    At the same time, EPA recognizes that trips generated by and 
attracted to the redevelopment will have localized impacts that accrue 
with each additional trip. Therefore, a new performance measure has 
been added to the Atlantic Steel TCM to help limit the localized 
impacts due to trips to and from the redevelopment. The new performance 
measure addresses average daily total vehicle trips to and from the 
site, other than by transit, for all purposes combined, including 
retail trips. Daily total vehicle trips include those trips that have 
an on-site origin and an off-site destination, and trips that have an 
off-site origin and an on-site destination. It does not include trips 
that pass through the site but do not have an on-site origin or 
destination, and it does not include trips that have both an on-site 
origin and an on-site destination (i.e., internal capture). The target 
value for average daily total vehicle trips is 72,000 or less. This 
number is based on the predicted total vehicle trips for the site used 
in the CO hotspot analysis, EA, and 17th Street Concept Report. If the 
project exceeds this target, then the same contingencies take effect as 
in the case when any of the other performance targets is not met.
    The reason that the TCM performance measures target only the trips 
made by residents and employees of the redevelopment is because the 
characteristics of the retail trips would be difficult to measure. 
However, the TCM allows the City of Atlanta to request that other 
information, such as characteristics of retail trips, be collected as a 
part of the TCM monitoring process. The new total vehicle trips 
performance measure will help constrain the emissions impacts of all 
trips to and from the redevelopment, including retail trips.
    17. Comment: ``Further, the TCM Document acknowledges that without 
approval of an Information Collection Request (ICR) any component of 
the monitoring that requires a survey of ten or more people may not be 
enforceable. The TCM Document does not address the likelihood of 
obtaining such an approval. If the EPA is unable to enforce the 
monitoring requirements imposed in the TCM Document and thus unable to 
assess the effectiveness of the measure, designation of the Atlantic 
Steel site as a TCM cannot be rationally justified.''
    Response: Under the Paperwork Reduction Act and Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) regulations, OMB cannot approve a 
collection of information for a period longer than three years. (See 35 
U.S.C. 3507(g); 5 CFR 1320.11(j).) However, it will be several years 
before monitoring of the Atlantic Steel TCM performance will commence, 
and therefore it would serve no purpose to submit an ICR at this time, 
as it would likely expire before data collection begins. Instead, EPA 
will wait to submit an ICR to OMB until the time for monitoring (i.e., 
the opening of the 17th Street bridge to traffic) draws near. If, as a 
result of OMB review, EPA determines that revisions to the rule are 
appropriate, EPA will reopen its final rulemaking to ensure that the 
performance of the Atlantic Steel TCM will be adequately monitored.
    18. Comment: ``There is inadequate provision of transit to the site 
to justify its designation as a TCM. The TCM Document assumes the 
redevelopment plan includes a linkage to MARTA. The TCM Document, 
however, requires the developer to maintain the shuttle bus service to 
the MARTA station only for 10 years after the 17th Street bridge opens 
to traffic. After that time, there will be no transit servicing the 
site unless some other agency steps in. Except for the shuttle bus 
service the developer must provide, there is currently no commitment of 
funds for

[[Page 52036]]

the provision of transit service to the Atlantic Steel site. Further, 
the importance of transit servicing the site is evidenced by the high 
transit share assumption used by EPA's consultants in analyzing the 
positive estimated emissions benefits from the Atlantic Steel Project 
compared with alternative regional locations. Hagler Bailly assumed a 
transit share of 37% for the Atlantic Steel Project, a modal split that 
will be impossible to achieve if no transit service exists. For this 
additional reason, designation of the Atlantic Steel Project as a TCM 
cannot be supported by a rational administrative body.''
    Response: The TCM has been revised to include a commitment by the 
developer to provide the rubber-tired shuttle service at least until 
December 31, 2015, which could be longer than 10 years, unless an 
appropriate entity operates a fixed mass transit link providing a 
similar level of service before that date. (See response to comment 
#10.)
    Although currently there is no commitment of funds for transit 
service to the Atlantic Steel site beyond the developer's commitment, 
EPA believes it is reasonable to expect that transit will continue to 
serve the Atlantic Steel redevelopment after the developer's commitment 
expires. The 2025 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) for the Atlanta 
region adopted by ARC anticipates assigning $1,677,000,000 for the 
construction of a light rail line from the MARTA Arts Center station 
through the Atlantic Steel redevelopment and extending northwest to the 
Town Center area in Cobb County (RTP projects AR-251A, AR-251B, and AR-
251C). The first phase of the project, which would connect the MARTA 
Arts Center station to the Cumberland area through the Atlantic Steel 
redevelopment, is anticipated to be operational by 2010. The developer 
has committed in the TCM to provide without cost right of way in the 
development to MARTA or other acceptable entity for the construction of 
a transit linkage connecting the Atlantic Steel site to the MARTA Arts 
Center station.
    In addition, the RTP includes $1,000,000 for a downtown westside 
transit study (AR-325). One of the objectives of the Central Atlanta 
Transportation Study (CATS), currently underway, is to develop 
alternatives for mobility between the Atlantic Steel redevelopment and 
the Georgia World Congress Center and destinations between, including 
transit. EPA also believes that MARTA will expand or alter its existing 
bus routes to include service to the Atlantic Steel site once the 
redevelopment attains a transit-supportable level of residents, 
employees and other trip generators.
    For these reasons, EPA believes that the transit commitment 
supports approval of the Atlantic Steel TCM.
    19. Comment: ``The TCM Document fails to demonstrate that 
achievement of performance targets identified will result in improved 
regional emissions. The TCM Document includes a transit capture target 
of 25% to be measured after two-thirds build-out or six years after the 
17th Street bridge opens to traffic, whichever occurs first. In its 
comparative analysis of the Atlantic Steel Project with development at 
other regional locations, Hagler Bailly assumed a transit capture of 
37%. If a mode split of only 25% is achieved, the TCM Document does not 
indicate how this will impact regional air emissions or whether the 
underlying justification for designation of the Atlantic Steel Project 
as a TCM still applies nor does it indicate whether CO hotspots might 
result.''
    Response: The TCM includes a performance target that requires 25 
percent or more of all trips to, from and on the site made by residents 
and employees combined, to use modes other than SOV. This target is not 
restricted to transit, but may also include pedestrian, bike, and HOV 
modes. EPA anticipates, however, that roughly 15 percent of the trips 
will be made via transit. This is consistent with the regional 
emissions modeling performed for the TCM and the CO hotspot analysis.
    20. Comment: ``The TCM Document does not include accurate data on 
the plans for development of the site. The TCM Document describes the 
proposed development to occur on the site. At the public information 
meeting on April 18, 2000, the developer indicated that it planned to 
build in excess of 3,600 residential units on the site. The SIP 
revision should accurately reflect current plans for the development.''
    Response: The developer has revised the site plan to match the 
assumptions contained in the TCM. In addition, as discussed in response 
to comment #16, a new performance target for total vehicle trips has 
been added to the TCM to limit total vehicle trips to and from the 
redevelopment. The new performance target is designed to help limit 
localized traffic and air quality impacts without constraining the 
amount of development at the site. Therefore, any increase in the 
amount of development over the numbers contained in the TCM should not 
result in higher emissions than those projected in EPA's analyses.
    21. Comment: ``The number of lanes on the bridge must be reduced 
and the design speed must be 25 mph. We oppose any extension of the 
bridge's vehicular traffic lanes to West Peachtree Street and/or 
Peachtree Street. There is currently no 17th Street between Spring 
Street and West Peachtree Street which provides a buffer that protects 
the Ansley Park historic residential neighborhood. Creating a passage 
along 17th Street will funnel thousands of cars directly at Ansley Park 
and will invite drivers to use Ansley Park as an east-west cut-through 
to get not only to the Atlantic Steel site but also directly to the 
interstates.''
    Response: EPA encourages GDOT to design the 17th Street bridge and 
associated interchange and roadway projects to maximize pedestrian, 
bicycle and transit orientation while minimizing additional SOV 
capacity. However, GDOT is responsible for determining the safe and 
appropriate number of lanes and design speeds for this project. Details 
regarding GDOT's traffic studies may be found in the 17th Street 
Concept Report and in the EA for the 17th Street Extension and Atlantic 
Steel Redevelopment. These documents are included in the docket for 
this rulemaking.
    Regarding extension of the 17th Street to West Peachtree and 
Peachtree Streets, Spring and West Peachtree Streets form a north-south 
one-way pair, and therefore West Peachtree is a logical terminus of the 
extension of 17th Street. Once again, it is the responsibility of GDOT 
to design the roadways consistent with the need and purpose of this 
project. In addition, GDOT has determined that the design speed for 
17th Street will be 35 mph. However, the City of Atlanta will be 
responsible for posting and enforcing speed limits on 17th Street and 
surrounding roadways, and may set the speed limits lower than the 
design speeds.
    22. Comment: ``The Georgia Department of Transportation (Georgia 
DOT) has designed the bridge and related highway improvements to 
accommodate suburban style vehicular access to Midtown and the Atlantic 
Steel site. The size and design of the vehicular access is 
inappropriate for transit-oriented development. The health of citizens 
and the future economic vitality of the region require that we create 
places where riding transit and bikes, and walking are the preferred 
means of travel. Midtown is one of the few places in the region where 
we have the mix of uses, transit service and density to create true 
transit-pedestrian oriented living and working. The emphasis for this 
area

[[Page 52037]]

should be on improving transit and pedestrian access.''
    Response: The 17th Street bridge will include a transition into 
Midtown to connect with existing surface streets in the area. This will 
require modifications to several surface streets and intersections in 
the surrounding area (e.g., Spring Street, West Peachtree Street, 
Peachtree Street, Williams Street, 14th Street, 16th Street, Techwood 
Drive). The original design for 17th Street and its connection to 
existing surface streets and intersections was based primarily on 
capacity criteria related to accommodating future traffic volumes. 
However, the City of Atlanta and a number of public, community, and 
business leaders expressed significant concerns about the scope and 
extent of the proposed modifications.
    In response to these concerns, several key intersections and 
surface streets were redesigned. Additional urban design criteria were 
considered such as pedestrian safety and aesthetics, with less emphasis 
on accommodating future traffic volumes. The focus of the changes was 
to reduce: driving speeds, lane widths, the number of through and 
turning lanes, and turning radii of intersections. The ultimate 
objective was to balance the needs of cars, buses, bicycles, and 
pedestrians to better integrate 17th Street into the urban fabric of 
Midtown, and coordinate more closely with the vision for Midtown 
provided by the Midtown Alliance and ``Blueprint Midtown.'' Details 
regarding the redesign may be found in the 17th Street Concept Report 
and in the EA for the 17th Street extension and Atlantic Steel 
redevelopment. These documents are included in the docket for this 
rulemaking.
    23. Comment: ``The only additional vehicular access from the 
Interstate highways to Midtown and Atlantic Steel should be for high 
occupancy vehicles. Creating more access for SOVs creates a time 
disincentive for people to ride transit to the site. There are already 
three SOV ramps in each direction from the Interstates to Midtown, but 
there are no dedicated HOV ramps. In addition, the design of any 
vehicular access to Midtown should assume that vehicles exit the 
freeway at or below the posted speed for the Interstate. Excess speed 
on the Interstates and other roadways contribute significantly to the 
region's air pollution problems. GDOT has contributed to the speed 
problem by designing most Interstates in the region for an average 
speed of 70 mph. Any roadway improvements in the Midtown area should 
improve pedestrian access. Without high quality and continuous 
pedestrian facilities transit does not work. Turn radii and crosswalk 
lengths must be minimized. Finally, the construction of any roadway 
improvements should be staged to prevent excess capacity early from 
inducing additional vehicular travel, and to provide an incentive for 
using transit. Specifically, the bridge itself should have no more than 
one SOV lane in each direction. An additional lane in each direction 
should be reserved for buses only.''
    Response: Several alternatives were considered that would provide 
HOV access as part of the project. The first alternative considered 
direct HOV access to and from the 17th Street bridge. However, due to 
engineering and site constraints, it was determined that HOV access 
could be provided to the bridge, but no return access to the Interstate 
could be provided. In addition, provision of HOV access from the 
Interstate would significantly impact the future ability to redesign 
the Interstate-75 southbound to Interstate-85 northbound loop. 
Therefore, direct access to the 17th Street bridge was not considered 
further.
    Several additional HOV access alternatives were considered: (1) 
access at 5th Street and a new 12th Street HOV-only bridge; (2) HOV-
only bridge at 15th Street; and (3) reconfiguration of the 14th Street 
bridge to accommodate HOV access. However, due to the scope of these 
alternatives and based on the concerns raised by the public and other 
agencies, it was decided to separate out HOV access from this project. 
A future regional study examining the optimal location of HOV access 
into Midtown and potentially Atlantic Steel will be completed as a 
separate project. The design of the 17th Street bridge will not 
preclude any possible HOV access alternatives that may be identified in 
the future.
    As EPA explained in response to comment #21, GDOT is responsible 
for designing the 17th Street bridge and associated interchange and 
roadway modifications. However, as explained in response to comment 
#22, GDOT has responded to many of the commenter's concerns by 
redesigning several key intersections and surface streets in the 
project. Details regarding the redesign may be found in the 17th Street 
Concept Report and in the EA. These documents are included in the 
docket for this rulemaking.
    24. Comment: ``The developer is potentially held in jeopardy if the 
City of Atlanta and MARTA do not implement the transit service 
described in the agreement. The development at this site should only be 
allowed if there is a dedicated funding source for the transit service. 
Specifically, an increment of the increased taxes collected from 
development at and near the Atlantic Steel site be dedicated to transit 
service connecting the site to adjacent neighborhoods, downtown and the 
Arts Center rail station.''
    Response: It is the developer, not the City of Atlanta or MARTA, 
that has committed to provide the transit service described in the TCM. 
Therefore, the developer will be responsible for funding and 
implementing the transit service, whether it is through public or 
private sources, or a combination of the two. As suggested by the 
commenter, it is possible that a portion of the funds generated by the 
Brownfield Area Tax Allocation District #2, which includes the Atlantic 
Steel redevelopment, may be used to support the transit service.
    25. Comment: ``We are concerned that the proposed transportation 
improvements for the Atlantic Steel site do not meet the standards for 
transit service or transit oriented design necessary to justify the TCM 
designation for the highway improvements. We are especially concerned 
that the large highway improvements will undermine the developer's 
emphasis on transit accessibility.''
    Response: EPA believes that the transit components of the project 
support the TCM designation. In particular, the transit components 
include: a 10-plus year commitment by the developer to provide a 
shuttle bus connection to the site that will be well integrated into 
the MARTA Arts Center station; a high level of service with hours of 
operation and headways that complement the train schedule at the MARTA 
Arts Center station; a route that covers the site, including four 
stations and six stops; compliance with the Americans with Disabilities 
Act; dedicated transit lanes with possible signal prioritization; a 
transit-oriented site design criterion; a requirement that the 17th 
Street bridge be designed to accommodate future rail transit; and the 
developer's intention to utilize alternatively-fueled buses. EPA 
continues to encourage GDOT to design the associated roadway 
improvements to maximize the transit, pedestrian, and bicycle 
orientation of the project.
    26. Comment: ``We do not believe the Environmental Protection 
Agency has adequately responded to the concerns and suggestions made by 
the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) in a letter dated February 1, 
1999. In addition, the analysis of the TCM Document by APCA in a letter 
dated May 10, 2000, raises serious concerns about the technical 
adequacy of the transportation and development

[[Page 52038]]

analysis. Before approving the TCM for the 17th Street bridge and 
related highway improvements EPA should review the issues raised by EDF 
and APCA, correct deficiencies in the analysis and respond to the 
issues raised.''
    Response: EPA has responded to APCA's May 10, 2000, letter in the 
responses to comments #1 through #21. In addition, EPA collaborated 
with the City of Atlanta and the developer to revise the proposed TCM 
to help address concerns raised by APCA. EPA is approving the TCM and 
revisions.
    EPA responds to the issues raised in the February 1, 1999, EDF 
letter below.
    27. Comment: ``We want to be assured that, as a TCM, the package 
that includes the 17th Street bridge/interchange will demonstrate a 
contribution to better air quality, rely on rigorous evaluation and 
follow-up measures, be a real, permanent, and legally enforceable part 
of the SIP, and be subject to EPA approval, with opportunities for 
meaningful and substantive public involvement. Once the bridge, 
interchange, and related real estate development is built, it will not 
be possible to shut these down if they fail to meet their planned 
performance objectives.''
    Response: In the proposed rulemaking, EPA described in detail: the 
regional emissions analysis which indicates that implementation of the 
TCM will contribute to better air quality; the site design criteria, 
performance targets, and monitoring and evaluation plans which will 
help ensure that the TCM will meet the planned performance objectives; 
and the legal enforceability of the TCM. EPA believes that the public 
has had many opportunities for meaningful and substantive involvement 
in the development of the Atlantic Steel TCM through the Project XL, 
NEPA, and TCM processes. For example, as described earlier, the APCA's 
May 10, 2000, letter resulted in several revisions to the proposed TCM. 
In fact, as mentioned in the response to comment #2, EPA believes that 
there has been a much greater opportunity for public involvement in the 
Atlantic Steel TCM than there would be in the development of a typical 
TCM. A listing of public and interagency meetings regarding the 
Atlantic Steel project is contained in the docket for this rulemaking. 
In addition to the past opportunities for public involvement, the 
proposed TCM was revised to require that the developer and the City of 
Atlanta continue to meet with Neighborhood Planning Unit E and the 
Midtown Alliance as the Atlantic Steel site builds out to review the 
latest site plan and to discuss the preliminary results of the 
monitoring.
    28. Comment: ``Great care must be exercised in developing the 
project agreements, detailing realistic, but ambitious and enforceable 
quantitative criteria for transportation and environmental performance. 
These should include vehicle miles of travel, vehicle trip starts and 
trip ends, and mode share targets, as well as specific emission 
reduction objectives. These should be grounded in detailed analytic 
studies, with explication of supportive management and service 
strategies, and should be backed up by institutional and financial 
structures strong enough to guarantee compliance over time, with 
backstop arrangements. We suggest the project agreement and TCM package 
might be backed with a private performance bond that insures resources 
will be available to implement transit and TMA management measures as 
needed to meet the adopted performance criteria in the event of a 
financial default by the developer or failure of the TMA or transit 
service agreements to comply with the agreements.''
    Response: As described in the proposed rulemaking and in response 
to comment #16, the TCM contains performance targets for VMT per 
resident and employee, non-SOV mode split, and total vehicle trips to 
and from the site. These performance measures are based in part on the 
regional modeling performed by EPA using ARC's travel demand model. The 
TCM also includes an enforceable commitment by the City of Atlanta to 
coordinate with the TMA for the site to develop and implement 
additional measures to help the project meet the targets if necessary. 
However, as explained in response to comment #13, EPA believes that it 
is not necessary for the City of Atlanta to identify funding sources 
for potential additional measures until such time as they may be 
needed.
    29. Comment: ``The location alone is not an adequate basis for 
deeming this or other land-use related projects as TCMs or awarding air 
quality credit to them. There are several factors that will have a 
profound impact on the travel behavior and air quality impacts related 
to the redevelopment and the related Bridge/Interchange TCM package. 
These include: the quality, quantity, location, and design of transit 
services and connections of the proposed redevelopment site to MARTA 
stations and to other regional trip generators and attractors; the 
degree of pedestrian and bicycle friendliness of urban and street 
design in and around the Atlantic Steel site; the supply, location, and 
price of parking, and other travel prices and incentives offered to 
travelers to and from the site; the design of the Bridge/Interchange 
itself and the way in which it connects across the Interstate highway. 
The project agreement, and the package that is submitted to become a 
part of the TIP, RTP, and SIP must clearly define these elements.''
    Response: EPA agrees that location alone is not an adequate basis 
for deeming this project a TCM. EPA is approving this TCM for a variety 
of reasons in addition to its location, as described in the proposed 
rulemaking, including most of those mentioned by the commenter. EPA 
believes that the elements that make this project a TCM are clearly 
defined in the SIP and 17th Street Concept Report. These documents are 
included in the docket for this rulemaking.
    30. Comment: ``To meet these objectives, the project should include 
guaranteed funding mechanisms (such as a development district tax) for 
a Transportation Management Association (TMA) for the project and 
surrounding district. The TMA should be a public-private partnership 
with the power to influence key elements that shape travel behavior and 
emissions related to the Atlantic Steel site.''
    Response: The formation of a TMA for Midtown is currently underway. 
In the fourth quarter of 2000 the business plan will be refined, 
marketing materials designed and printed, programs developed, and base 
line data statistics established. The Midtown TMA will begin offering 
transit programs beginning in January 2001. The TMA will cover roughly 
the area bounded by Northside Drive to the west, Piedmont Road to the 
east, the Interstate-75/85 Brookwood Interchange to the north, and 
Ralph McGill Boulevard to the south. The TMA will be funded initially 
through the Midtown Community Improvement District (MID), ARC and the 
Atlanta Transportation Improvement Program. Long term funding is 
expected to be through the MID and through fees paid by members of the 
TMA who are not also contributing to the MID. It is expected that the 
developer of Atlantic Steel will be invited to sit on the Advisory 
Board for the Midtown TMA, and that employers on the Atlantic Steel 
site will join the TMA as they come on-line.
    31. Comment: ``We are concerned that while the Bridge and 
Interchange have undergone significant preliminary engineering, there 
is still little specificity about the transit service connections to be 
provided to the Atlantic Steel site. Without a specific

[[Page 52039]]

plan and financing arrangement, this missing key element seems enough 
to deem the project inadequately defined to make up an approvable TCM. 
And under current circumstances, unless the project is defined well 
enough to be an approvable TCM, we do not see how it can legally be 
approved as a part of the TIP, RTP, or SIP. We would hope to see a very 
high frequency transit connection between the Atlantic Steel site and 
MARTA, with service throughout the day and into the night that allows 
travelers to travel most of the time without worrying about scheduled 
connections. While light rail may be attractive, given the need for 
rapid deployment of a high quality transit link, flexible phasing of 
service, and currently limited financing, this context might be 
appropriate for application of a bus rapid transit system strategy, 
like that in Curitiba, Brazil, with high level boarding separate from 
fare collection, with designated stations, and potential to serve 
multiple trip origins.''
    Response: The proposed transit service for the Atlantic Steel 
redevelopment is described in detail in the December 16, 1999, report 
entitled ``Transit Connection Atlantic Steel Redevelopment Project to 
MARTA Arts Center Station Atlanta, Georgia.'' EPA believes that the 
proposed transit service incorporates many of the suggestions made by 
the commenter. The transit report is included in the docket for this 
rulemaking.
    32. Comment: EDF recommended several programs, incentives, and site 
design features (e.g., Employee Commuter Choice incentives, parking 
excise levies, bundling free or highly discounted annual regional 
transit passes with each residential unit, car sharing systems, real-
time ridesharing services, secure short and long term bicycle parking) 
for inclusion in the TCM that would influence travel choice to the 
site.
    Response: EPA will continue to encourage the City of Atlanta, the 
TMA (when it exists), and the developer to consider the kinds of 
programs, incentives, and design features suggested by EDF. However, 
EPA believes it is more appropriate that the City of Atlanta, the TMA, 
and the developer identify the most effective programs and detailed 
design features through evaluation of the data that will be collected 
as part of the monitoring requirements of the TCM, rather than 
prescribing them in the TCM.
    33. Comment: ``The choice of bridge design will have a major effect 
on the travel behavior in the area of Atlantic Steel and cannot be 
ignored in developing air quality agreements. The 17th Street bridge/
interchange Concept Report, dated December 21, 1998, offers a preferred 
alternative that would extend the freeway into the city on both sides 
of the Interstate. This preferred alternative should be rejected as 
inappropriate for designation as a TCM. The facility should be 
redesigned to extend the city's arterial street grid over the freeway, 
using the bridge as a buffer to the freeway that now slashes the city 
in half. A lower level facility that would allow 17th Street to 
intersect with Spring Street on the east of Interstate-75 and that 
would connect with the street grid as close as possible on the west 
side of Interstate-75, without the added collector-distributor 
connections between 14th Street and the freeways north of 17th Street, 
would be less oriented towards high speed vehicle movement but would 
enhance pedestrian connectivity. The preferred alternative with a high 
signature bridge would create a dehumanized environment oriented mostly 
toward cars. With that design few would choose to walk between the West 
Peachtree Street/Art Center MARTA station and the Atlantic Steel site. 
A better alternative would be a more horizontal engineering structure, 
like that in Seattle's Freeway Park, reconnecting the east and west 
side neighborhoods with a decked structure over the freeway for a good 
portion of the distance between 14th and 17th Streets. This could 
include landscaping, space for market stalls or kiosks, sculptural 
elements, and elements that would humanize and energize this as a safe 
and inviting pedestrian environment, with insulation from freeway noise 
and pollution.''
    Response: The 17th Street Concept Report has been revised since 
December 21, 1998, such that the preferred alternative for the 17th 
Street bridge now intersects with Spring Street on the east side of the 
interstate. As mentioned in the response to comment #22, the concept 
has also been revised to better balance the needs of cars, buses, 
bicycles, and pedestrians, to better integrate 17th Street into the 
urban fabric of Midtown, and to coordinate more closely with the vision 
for Midtown provided by the Midtown Alliance and ``Blueprint Midtown.'' 
Furthermore, the preferred alternative for the 17th Street bridge does 
not contain direct connections to the collector-distributor system 
between 14th Street and the freeways north of 17th Street. Although the 
preferred alternative does not envision the decked structure over the 
freeway suggested by EDF, the actual design of the 17th Street bridge 
has not been finalized. However, there is general agreement that the 
17th Street bridge should be designed as a ``gateway'' structure into 
the heart of Downtown Atlanta, if possible. Regardless, qualified 
landscape architects will work to ensure that aesthetic values and 
overall compatibility with existing and future Midtown streetscapes are 
achieved in the course of final bridge and roadway design. In addition, 
EPA will continue to encourage GDOT to design the bridge to maximize 
pedestrian, bicycle, and transit-friendly elements, such as those 
suggested by EDF.
    34. Comment: ``We are also concerned that the traffic analysis of 
the Interchange/Bridge prepared for GDOT is based simply on ITE trip 
generation rates, reduced by a 10% internal capture and a 15% transit 
share. We are unsure what is the basis for these assumptions. The 
traffic analysis should not drive the bridge and interchange design, 
but alternative designs should be considered with appropriate 
sensitivity to stated assumptions about travel incentives, transit 
service levels, pedestrian friendliness, and other factors.''
    Response: The traffic analysis of the 17th Street bridge and 
associated roadway improvements is based on ITE trip generation rates, 
and 1998 observed traffic counts in the study area, grown to the future 
analysis year, as described in response to comment #6. These 
assumptions were based on the professional judgment of GDOT, and they 
are consistent with the state of the practice for traffic analyses. 
Although the traffic analysis did drive much of the early concept for 
the 17th Street bridge and associated roadway improvements, as 
discussed in response to comment #22, GDOT has since revised the 
concept for several key intersections and surface streets to reduce: 
driving speeds, lane widths, the number of through and turning lanes, 
and turning radii of intersections. Details may be found in the 17th 
Street Concept Report and in the EA for the 17th Street extension and 
Atlantic Steel redevelopment, which are included in the docket for this 
rulemaking.

III. Final Action

    EPA is approving the Atlantic Steel TCM into the SIP under 
authority of section 110 of the CAA.

IV. Administrative Requirements

    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. This action 
merely approves state law as

[[Page 52040]]

meeting federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements 
beyond those imposed by state law. 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 
(Public Law 104-4). For the same reason, this rule also does not 
significantly or uniquely affect the communities of tribal governments, 
as specified by Executive Order 13084 (63 FR 27655, May 10, 1998). This 
rule will 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), because it merely approves a state rule implementing a 
federal standard, 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 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.
    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. 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. As required by section 3 
of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing 
this rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting 
errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a 
clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has complied with 
Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the 
takings implications of the rule in accordance with the ``Attorney 
General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and 
Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings'' issued under the Executive Order.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. section 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. 
section 804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for 
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court 
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 27, 2000. 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 in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 
Hydrocarbons, Ozone.

    Dated: August 16, 2000.
John H. Hankinson, Jr.,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.

    Part 52 of chapter I, title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, 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 L--Georgia

    2. In Sec. 52.570 paragraph (e), the table is amended by adding a 
new entry ``13.'' to read as follows:


Sec. 52.570  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Name of nonregulatory SIP      Applicable geographic     State submittal date/
             provision              or nonattainment area        effective date            EPA approval date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
*                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *
                                                        *
13. Atlantic Steel Transportation   Atlanta Metropolitan   March 29, 2000............  August 28, 2000
 Control Measure.                    Area.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 00-21906 Filed 8-25-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P