[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 3 (Tuesday, January 6, 2004)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 558-565]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-211]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[AL-62-200403; FRL-7607-7]


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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: On November 19, 2003, the State of Alabama, through the 
Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM), submitted a 
request to redesignate the 1-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality 
Standard (NAAQS) nonattainment area of Birmingham, Alabama to 
attainment, and a request for EPA approval of a draft Alabama State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision containing a 10-year maintenance 
plan for the Birmingham area. Today, EPA is proposing approval of the 
1-hour ozone redesignation request and the draft maintenance plan SIP 
revision. EPA's proposed approval of the 1-hour ozone redesignation 
request is based on its determination that the Birmingham, Alabama area 
has met the five criteria for redesignation to attainment specified in 
the Clean Air Act, including a demonstration that the area has attained 
the 1-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard. EPA is parallel 
processing the draft maintenance plan SIP revision (a required 
component of any redesignation to attainment) and is proposing approval 
of this draft maintenance plan because EPA has determined that the 
draft plan complies with the requirements of section 175A of the Clean 
Air Act.
    Additionally, through this proposed action, EPA is providing the 
public an opportunity to review and comment on the adequacy of new 
volatile organic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen oxides (NOX) 
motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs) for purposes of determining 
transportation conformity. These new MVEBs are contained within the 
draft maintenance plan SIP revision for the Birmingham area. If EPA 
concludes, after reviewing any comments submitted, that Alabama's 
proposed new NOX and VOC MVEBs are adequate, and if Alabama 
submits a final maintenance plan SIP revision with no substantive 
changes that would affect EPA's adequacy determination, then the new 
MVEB budgets would be applicable for transportation conformity 
determinations after the effective date of an EPA adequacy 
determination (published in the Federal Register) or on the date of 
final rulemaking of an EPA approval of Alabama's maintenance plan SIP 
revision if EPA chooses to make its final adequacy determination in 
that maintenance plan final rulemaking notice.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before February 5, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted by mail to: Sean Lakeman, 
Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides 
and

[[Page 559]]

Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Comments 
may also be submitted electronically, or through hand delivery/courier. 
Please follow the detailed instructions described in sections VII.B.1. 
through 3. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kelly Sheckler, Air Quality Modeling 
and Transportation Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and 
Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The 
telephone number is (404) 562-9042. Ms. Sheckler can also be reached 
via electronic mail at [email protected].
    Sean Lakeman, Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, 
Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 
30303-8960. The telephone number is (404) 562-9043. Mr. Lakeman can 
also be reached via electronic mail at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. What action is EPA taking?
II. What is the background for this action?
III. Why is EPA taking this action?
IV. What evaluation criteria was used?
V. Proposed Action on the redesignation request and the draft 
maintenance plan SIP revision
VI. Public notice and request for comment on adequacy of Alabama's 
new 2015 NOX and VOC MVEB for transportation conformity 
purposes
VII. General information
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What Action Is EPA Taking?

    EPA is proposing to take two related actions and is providing 
public notice and seeking public comment on a third action. First, EPA 
is proposing to approve a change in the legal designation of the 
Birmingham area from nonattainment to attainment for the 1-hour ozone 
national ambient air quality standard. Second, in a related action, EPA 
is proposing to approve Alabama's draft maintenance plan SIP revision 
for the Birmingham area (such approval being a CAA criteria for 
redesignation to attainment status). The draft maintenance plan is 
designed to keep the Birmingham area in attainment for ozone for the 
next 10 years. Third, in support of the transportation conformity 
process, EPA is, through this proposal, providing public notice and 
taking public comment on Alabama's new draft VOC and NOX 
MVEBs for the year 2015 that are part of its draft maintenance plan SIP 
revision for the Birmingham area. The availability of the draft 
maintenance plan SIP revision with the MVEBs for 2015 was announced on 
EPA's web page on http://www.epa.gov/oms/transp (Once there, click on 
the ``Transportation Conformity'' link, then click on ``Adequacy Review 
of SIP Submissions''). More information on the MVEBs is contained in 
Section VI: Public notice and request for comment on adequacy of 
Alabama's new 2015 NOX and VOC MVEB for transportation 
conformity purposes.

II. What Is the Background for This Action?

    The CAA requires EPA to establish NAAQS for certain pollutants that 
cause or contribute to air pollution that is reasonably anticipated to 
endanger public health or welfare (CAA sections 108 and 109). In 1979, 
EPA promulgated the 1-hour 0.12 parts per million (ppm) ground-level 
ozone NAAQS (44 FR 8202 (February 8, 1979)). Ground-level ozone is not 
emitted directly by sources. Rather, emissions of NOX and 
VOC react in the presence of sunlight to form ground-level ozone. 
NOX and VOC are referred to as precursors of ozone.
    The CAA also required EPA to designate as nonattainment any area 
that was violating the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, generally based on air 
quality monitoring data from the three-year period from 1987-1989, or 
any area contributing to a violation (CAA section 107(d)(4); 56 FR 
56694 (November 6, 1991)). The CAA further classified these 
nonattainment areas, based on the area's design value (i.e., the 4th 
highest ozone value during the relevant three year period at the 
violating monitor with the highest ozone levels), as marginal, 
moderate, serious, severe or extreme (CAA section 181(a)), with 
marginal areas experiencing the least significant air pollution 
problems. The control requirements and dates by which attainment needs 
to be achieved vary with the area's classification. Marginal areas were 
subject to the fewest mandated control requirements and had the 
earliest attainment date. Marginal areas were required to attain the 1-
hour NAAQS by November 15, 1993 under section 181(a) of the Clean Air 
Act.
    Under EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 50, the 1-hour ozone standard 
is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with 
maximum hourly average ozone concentrations above 0.12 ppm or higher is 
equal to or less than 1, as determined in appendix H of part 50. Under 
Appendix H, the basic method is to record the number of exceedances of 
the standard monitored at each site in an area for each calendar year 
and then average the past three calendar years to determine if this 
average is less than or equal to one. In other words, an area has 
attained the 1-hour ozone NAAQS if there are three or fewer exceedances 
recorded over a three-year period at each of the monitoring sites 
within the area. If there are more than three exceedances over a three-
year period at any of the monitoring sites, the area has not attained 
the standard.
    The Birmingham area was originally designated as a 1-hour ozone 
nonattainment area by EPA on March 3, 1978 (43 FR 8962). At that time, 
the Birmingham nonattainment area was geographically defined as 
Jefferson County, Alabama. On November 6, 1991, by operation of law 
under section 181(a) of the CAA as amended in 1990, EPA classified the 
Birmingham nonattainment area as a marginal nonattainment area for 
ozone and added Shelby County to the nonattainment area (56 FR 56693). 
The 1991 classification for the Birmingham marginal 1-hour ozone 
nonattainment area was based on ambient air sampling measurements for 
ozone made during 1987-1989. As noted above, the area was required to 
attain the 1-hour ozone NAAQS by November 15, 1993.
    After the summer of 1993, Alabama had three years of air monitoring 
data (1991, 1992 and 1993) which demonstrated that the 1-hour ozone 
NAAQS was attained making the Birmingham nonattainment area eligible 
for redesignation to attainment. The State submitted a final 
redesignation request on March 16, 1995, that was deemed 
administratively complete by EPA on April 11, 1995. A direct final rule 
proposing approval of the redesignation request was signed by the 
Regional Administrator and forwarded to the Office of the Federal 
Register on August 15, 1995, for publication. Prior to publication of 
the document, a violation of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS occurred on August 
18, 1995. EPA directed the Office of the Federal Register to recall the 
proposed direct final rule from publication. The final action 
disapproving the redesignation request was published in the Federal 
Register on September 19, 1997, (62 FR 49154).
    Following EPA's 1997 disapproval of the Birmingham redesignation 
request, EPA proposed a SIP call to Alabama in the Federal Register on 
December 16, 1999 (64 FR 70205). In the SIP call, EPA

[[Page 560]]

proposed to require the State to submit an attainment demonstration SIP 
for Birmingham within six months after final action is taken on the SIP 
call and to implement controls by May 2003. The final rulemaking on the 
attainment demonstration SIP call was published October 28, 2000, with 
an effective date of November 27, 2000 (65 FR 64352).
    ADEM submitted its 1-hour ozone attainment demonstration for 
Birmingham to EPA on November 1, 2000. In the attainment demonstration 
SIP, ADEM elected to develop a control strategy based on photochemical 
grid modeling, even though such modeling is not required by the Clean 
Air Act for marginal nonattainment areas. EPA approved the Alabama's 
attainment demonstration SIP on November 7, 2001 (66 FR 56223).
    On November 19, 2003, Alabama requested redesignation of the ozone 
attainment status for the Birmingham area. This request is the subject 
of the current proposed rulemaking. The redesignation request included 
data for the period of 2001 through 2003, indicating the 1-hour NAAQS 
standard for ozone had been achieved for the Birmingham area. The data 
satisfies the CAA requirements of no more than one exceedance per 
annual monitoring period. Under the CAA, nonattainment areas may be 
redesignated to attainment if sufficient data is available to warrant 
the redesignation and the area meets the other four (4) CAA 
redesignation requirements.

III. Why Is EPA Taking This Action?

    The 1990 Amendments revised section 107(d)(3)(E) to provide five 
specific requirements that an area must meet in order to be 
redesignated from nonattainment to attainment: (1) The area has 
attained the applicable NAAQS; (2) the area has met all applicable 
requirements under section 110 and part D of the CAA; (3) the area has 
a fully approved SIP under section 110(k) of the CAA; (4) the air 
quality improvement is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in 
emissions resulting from implementation of the SIP and applicable 
Federal air pollution control regulations and other permanent and 
enforceable reductions, and (5) the area has a fully approved 
maintenance plan pursuant to section 175A of the CAA. Section 
107(d)(3)(D) allows a Governor to initiate the redesignation process 
for an area to apply for attainment status. On November 19, 2003, 
Alabama requested redesignation of the ozone attainment status for the 
Birmingham area.

IV. What Evaluation Criteria was Used?

    EPA is proposing to determine that the Birmingham nonattainment 
area has attained the 1-hour ozone standard because all five 
redesignation criteria have been met. The basis for EPA's proposed 
determination is as follows:
    1. Birmingham has attained the 1-hour ozone NAAQS: EPA has 
determined that the Birmingham area has attained the 1-hour ozone 
national ambient air quality standard. For ozone, an area may be 
considered attaining the 1-hour ozone NAAQS if there are no violations, 
as determined in accordance with 40 CFR 50.9 and Appendix H, based on 
three complete, consecutive calendar years of quality-assured air 
quality monitoring data. A violation of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS occurs 
when the annual average number of expected daily exceedances is equal 
to or greater than 1.05 per year at a monitoring site. A daily 
exceedance occurs when the maximum hourly ozone concentration during a 
given day is 0.125 parts per million (ppm) or higher. The data must be 
collected and quality-assured in accordance with 40 CFR part 58, and 
recorded in Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS). The 
monitors should have remained at the same location for the duration of 
the monitoring period required for demonstrating attainment.
    ADEM submitted ozone monitoring data for the April through October 
ozone season from 2001 to 2003. This data has been quality assured and 
is recorded in AIRS. During the 2001 to 2003 time period, the design 
value is 0.113 ppm. The average annual number of expected exceedances 
is 1.0 for that same time period. The State of Alabama's request is 
based on an analysis of quality-assured ozone air quality data which is 
relevant to the redesignation request. The data come from the State and 
Local Air Monitoring Station network. The request is based on ambient 
air ozone monitoring data collected for 3 consecutive years from 2001 
through 2003. In a letter dated December 3, 2003, ADEM certified the 
Shelby County 2003 data is accurate and in a letter dated December 3, 
2003, Jefferson County Department of Health certified the Jefferson 
County 2003 data is accurate. The exceedances are summarized in the 
following table:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Monitor                                County             2001-2003    2001     2002     2003
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fairfield..................................  Jefferson....................         0         0        0        0
McAdory....................................  Jefferson....................         1         1        0        0
Hoover.....................................  Jefferson....................         0         0        0        0
Pinson.....................................  Jefferson....................         0         0        0        0
Tarrant....................................  Jefferson....................         1         1        0        0
Corner.....................................  Jefferson....................         0         0        0        0
Providence.................................  Jefferson....................         0         0        0        0
N Birmingham...............................  Jefferson....................         0         0        0        0
Helena.....................................  Shelby.......................         2         1        1        0
Leeds......................................  Jefferson....................         1         0        1        0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, ADEM has committed to continue monitoring in these 
areas in accordance with 40 CFR part 58. In summary, EPA believes that 
the data submitted by Alabama provides an adequate demonstration that 
Birmingham area has attained the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.
    2. Birmingham has met all applicable requirements under section 110 
and part D of the CAA. EPA has determined that Alabama has met all 
applicable SIP requirements for the Birmingham area under section 110 
of the CAA (general SIP requirements). EPA has also determined that the 
Alabama SIP meets applicable SIP requirements under part D of the Clean 
Air Act (requirements specific to marginal nonattainment areas).
    General SIP requirements: Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA delineates 
the general requirements for a SIP, which include enforceable emission 
limitations and other control measures, means, or techniques, 
provisions for the establishment and operation of appropriate devices 
necessary to collect data on ambient air quality, and programs to 
enforce the limitations. These requirements are discussed in the 
following EPA documents: ``Procedures for Processing Requests to 
Redesignate

[[Page 561]]

Areas to Attainment,'' John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management 
Division, September 4, 1992; ``State Implementation Plan (SIP) Actions 
Submitted in Response to Clean Air Act (CAA) Deadlines,'' John 
Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, October 28, 1992; 
and ``State Implementation Plan (SIP) Requirements for Areas Submitting 
Requests for Redesignation to Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon 
Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) on or 
after November 15, 1992,'' Michael H. Shapiro, Acting Assistant 
Administrator, September 17, 1993. These documents are available at the 
address above.
    EPA has analyzed the Alabama SIP and determined that it is 
consistent with the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2). The SIP 
contains enforceable emission limitations; requires monitoring, 
compiling, and analyzing ambient air quality data; requires 
preconstruction review of new major stationary sources and major 
modifications to existing ones; provides for adequate funding, staff, 
and associated resources necessary to implement its requirements; and 
requires stationary source emissions monitoring and reporting.
    Part D requirements: EPA has also determined that the Alabama SIP 
meets applicable SIP requirements under part D of the Clean Air Act. 
Under part D, an area's classification (marginal, moderate, serious, 
severe, and extreme) indicates the requirements to which it will be 
subject. Subpart 1 of part D, found in sections 172-176 of the CAA, 
sets forth the basic nonattainment requirements applicable to all 
nonattainment areas. Subpart 2 of part D, found in section 182 of the 
CAA, establishes additional specific requirements depending on the 
area's nonattainment classification.
    Part D, Subpart 1 applicable requirements: EPA has determined that 
requirements of part D, subpart I, are not applicable requirements for 
the purpose of evaluating redesignations.
    Part D, subpart 2 applicable requirements: For purposes of 
evaluating this redesignation, the applicable part D, subpart 2 
requirements for the Birmingham marginal nonattainment area are 
contained in section 182(a)(1)-(4), and EPA is proposing to determine 
that these applicable requirements have been met for the reasons noted 
below:
    [sbull] 1990 Base Year Inventory--Alabama submitted this inventory 
on November 13, 1992. It was approved June 4, 1999 (64 FR 29958).
    [sbull] Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) 
Requirements--Alabama revised its RACT rules which were approved 
September 27, 1993 (62 FR 30991).
    [sbull] Saving Clause for Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance (I/
M)--A I/M program was not required or implemented in the Birmingham 
area prior to 1990, therefore, this provision was not applicable.
    [sbull] Permit Program--Alabama has an approved permit program.
    [sbull] Periodic Inventory--The most recent inventory for 
Birmingham was compiled for 1999. Alabama's emissions statements 
program was approved August 4, 1994 (59 FR 39683).
    [sbull] General Offset Requirement--Approval of Alabama's revised 
offsets program (for at least a 1.1 to 1.0 offset of new major sources 
of VOC emissions only) was granted on August 30, 1993 (58 FR 45439).
    3. The area has a fully approved SIP under section 110(k) of the 
CAA. EPA has fully approved the Alabama SIP for the Birmingham area 
under section 110(k) of the Clean Air Act. Following passage of the CAA 
of 1970, Alabama has adopted and submitted and EPA has fully approved 
at various times provisions addressing the various SIP elements 
applicable in the Birmingham area. No Birmingham area SIP provisions 
are currently disapproved, conditionally approved, or partially 
approved.
    (4) The air quality improvement in the Birmingham area is due to 
permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from 
implementation of the SIP and applicable Federal air pollution control 
regulations and other permanent and enforceable reductions. EPA 
approved Alabama's SIP control strategy for the Birmingham area, 
including rules and the emission reductions achieved as a result of 
those rules that are enforceable. Several Federal and Statewide rules 
are in place which have significantly improved the ambient air quality 
in these areas. Beginning in 2003, utility NOX controls on 
Alabama Power Company plants Gorgas and Miller will operate for the 
period May 1 to September 30 each year beginning in 2003. These 
controls will provide for 68.2 tons per day (tpd) reduction of 
NOX emissions. These emission limitations will be enforced 
by establishing a 0.21 lb/mmBtu NOX emission limit for the 
two plants based on a rolling 30 day average from May 1 through 
September 30 of each year. The limit is based on a two plant average 
and the rolling 30 day averages are based on a heat input-weighted 
average of NOX emissions from all units at the two plants.
    On November 1, 2000, the State of Alabama requested that EPA 
consider and approve their request for low-Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) 
and low-sulfur fuel controls to apply in both Jefferson and Shelby 
counties. The controls required that all gasoline sold during the 
control period (June 1 through September 15) in these counties contain 
a maximum RVP of 7.0 pounds per square inch and maximum sulfur levels 
of 150 parts per million volume-weighted average. The State provided 
the fuel rule and the necessary justification for this rule as a part 
of the Birmingham Attainment Demonstration (see appendix I and II of 
that document). The State control on sulfur applied only through the 
summer of 2003. After that time, the State control for sulfur 
terminated, and Federal controls on sulfur in gasoline (i.e., through 
EPA's 2004 Tier 2/Low Sulfur Rule--see 65 FR 6698) apply. The RVP 
controls for the Alabama fuel control area does not have a sunset date. 
On September 11, 2001, EPA proposed approval of the Birmingham fuel 
control program (66 FR 47142). The final rulemaking for EPA's approval 
was published in the Federal Register on November 7, 2001 (66 FR 
56218).
    Also, existing programs, such as the Federal Motor Vehicle Control 
Programs, the Federal Reid Vapor Pressure Control Program, Tier 2 Motor 
Vehicle Emissions Standards and Gasoline Sulfur Control Requirements 
and the Regional NOX Reduction Program, will not be lifted 
upon redesignation. These programs and others will counteract emissions 
growth as the areas experience economic growth over the life of their 
maintenance plans. The applicable RACT rules will also remain in place 
in Birmingham. In addition, the State permits program, the PSD permits 
program, and the Operating Permits program will help counteract 
emissions growth. EPA finds that the combination of existing EPA-
approved SIP and Federal measures ensure the permanence and 
enforceability of reductions in ambient ozone levels that have allowed 
the area to attain the NAAQS.
    (5) The area has a fully approved maintenance plan pursuant to 
section 175A of the CAA.
    In conjunction with its request to redesignate the Birmingham 
nonattainment area to attainment status, Alabama submitted a draft SIP 
revision to provide for the maintenance of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS in 
the Birmingham area for at least 10 years after redesignation. Because 
the maintenance plan SIP revision is not yet State-

[[Page 562]]

effective, Alabama requested that EPA ``parallel process'' the SIP 
revision. Under this procedure, the Regional Office works closely with 
Alabama while developing new or revised regulations. The State submits 
a copy of the proposed regulation or other revisions to EPA before 
conducting its public hearing. EPA reviews this proposed State action, 
and prepares a notice of proposed rulemaking. EPA's notice of proposed 
rulemaking is published in the Federal Register during the same time 
frame that Alabama is holding its public hearing. Alabama and EPA then 
provide for concurrent public comment periods on both the State action 
and the Federal action.
    After Alabama submits the formal State-effective SIP revision 
request (including a response to all public comments raised during the 
state's public participation process, and the approved Maintenance Plan 
for the Birmingham area), EPA will prepare a final rulemaking notice on 
the maintenance plan SIP revision. If Alabama's formal maintenance plan 
SIP revision contains changes which occur after EPA's notice of 
proposed rulemaking, such changes must be described in EPA's final 
rulemaking action. If Alabama's changes are significant, then EPA must 
decide whether it is appropriate to re-propose the State's maintenance 
plan SIP revision action. In addition, if Alabama's formal maintenance 
plan SIP revision changes significantly and is disapprovable in its 
final form, EPA will also propose disapproval of the Birmingham 
redesignation request because the existence of a fully EPA-approved 
maintenance plan is a necessary criteria for redesignation to 
attainment status.
    Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the elements of maintenance plan 
for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment. Under 
section 175A, the plan must demonstrate continued attainment of the 
applicable NAAQS for at least ten years after the Administrator 
approves a redesignation to attainment. Eight years after the 
redesignation, the State must submit a revised maintenance plan which 
demonstrates that attainment will continue to be maintained for the ten 
years following the initial ten-year period. To provide for the 
possibility of future NAAQS violations, the maintenance plan contains 
contingency measures, with a schedule for implementation, adequate to 
assure prompt correction of any future 1-hour ozone violations.
    On November 19, 2003, ADEM submitted its draft revision to the 
Alabama SIP to include a 10-year maintenance plan as required by 
section 175A of the Clean Air Act. The underlying strategy of the 
maintenance plan is to show compliance and maintenance of the 1-hour 
ozone standard by assuring that current and future emissions of VOC and 
NOX remain at or below attainment year (2003) emission 
levels. Using 2002 as the base year, the subsequent inventory years 
were generally chosen as 2003 (attainment year), an interim year set as 
2008 (to demonstrate continuing emission reductions) and 2015 which is 
the end of the 10 year maintenance plan.

                            NOX Emissions tpd
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Source
                County                 category   2002   2003   2008  2015
-------------------------------------------------------------------- ------
Total for the Birmingham Area:
  Point..............................      207     182    157    165
  Area...............................        4       4      4      5
  Mobile.............................       57      50     35     20
  Nonroad............................       25      25     26     29
                                      ----------------------------------
    Total............................      293     261    222    219
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Maintenance Plan Decrease from 2003:
    NOX Safety Margin: 42

                            VOC Emissions tpd
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           County/Source Category              2002   2003   2008   2015
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total for the Birmingham Area:
  Point.....................................     19     19     21     23
  Area......................................     55     55     58     63
  Mobile....................................     39     34     23     16
  Nonroad...................................     18     17     14     12
                                             ---------------------------
    Total...................................    131    125    116    114
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Maintenance Plan Decrease from 2003:
    VOC Safety Margin: 11
    A ``safety margin'' is the difference between the attainment level 
of emissions (from all sources) and the projected level of emissions 
(from all sources) in the maintenance plan. The attainment level of 
emissions is the level of emissions during one of the years in which 
the area met the NAAQS. For example, the Birmingham area attained the 
1-hour ozone NAAQS during the 2001-2003 time period. Alabama uses 2003 
as the attainment level of emissions for the area. The emissions from 
point, area, nonroad, and mobile sources in 2003 equaled 125 tpd of VOC 
for the Birmingham area. Projected VOC emissions out to the year 2015 
equaled 114 tpd of VOC. The safety margin for VOCs is calculated to be 
the difference between these amounts or, in this case, 11 tpd of VOC 
for 2015. By this same method, 42 tpd (i.e., 261 tpd less 219 tpd) is 
the safety margin for NOX for 2015. The emissions are 
projected to maintain the area's air quality consistent with the NAAQS. 
The safety margin is the extra emissions that can be allocated as long 
as the total attainment level of emissions is maintained. The credit, 
or a portion thereof, can be allocated to any of the source categories. 
The State of Alabama has also committed in the maintenance plan to the 
necessary continued operation of the ozone monitoring network in 
compliance with 40 CFR part 58.
    In addition, the maintenance plan includes the following 
contingency measures to correct any future violations of the 1-hour 
ozone standard and timeline for development:
    1. Identify potential stationary sources for reductions: 3 months.
    2. Identify applicable RACT: 3 months.
    3. Initiate a stakeholder process: 3 months.
    4. Draft SIP regulations: 3 months.
    5. Initiate rulemaking process (including public comment period, 
hearing, Commission adoption and final submission to EPA): 6 months.
    Completion no later than: 18 months.
    Based on Alabama's draft maintenance plan SIP revision submittal, 
EPA is proposing to approve the maintenance plan for the Birmingham 
area because it meets the requirements of section 175A.

V. Proposed Action on the Redesignation Request and the Draft 
Maintenance Plan SIP Revision

    EPA is proposing to approve the redesignation of Birmingham 
nonattainment area from nonattainment to attainment for the 1-hour 
ozone NAAQS. EPA has evaluated the State of Alabama's redesignation 
request and determined that it meets the five redesignation criteria 
set out in section 107(d) of the Clean Air Act. EPA believes that the 
redesignation request and monitoring data demonstrate that this area 
has attained the 1-hour ozone standard. The final approval of this 
redesignation request would change the official designation for the 
Birmingham area from nonattainment to attainment for the 1-hour ozone 
standard.
    EPA is also proposing to approve the draft maintenance plan SIP 
revision

[[Page 563]]

submitted by Alabama for the Birmingham area in conjunction with its 
redesignation request. EPA is proposing to approve the maintenance plan 
for the Birmingham area because it meets the requirements of section 
175A as described more fully above.

VI. Public Notice and Request for Comment on Adequacy of Alabama's New 
2015 NOX and VOC MVEB for Transportation Conformity Purposes

    Through this proposed rulemaking, EPA is also providing pubic 
notice and seeking public comment on the adequacy of Alabama's new 
proposed NOX and VOC motor vehicle emissions budget for the 
year 2015. The public comment period for commenting on the adequacy of 
Alabama's new proposed NOX and VOC MVEB is 30 days from the 
publication date of this notice. For further information on commenting, 
see section VII below.
    Under the CAA, States are required to submit, at various times, 
control strategy SIPs and maintenance plans in ozone areas. These 
control strategy SIPs (e.g. reasonable further progress SIPs and 
attainment demonstration SIPs) and maintenance plans create motor 
vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs) for criteria pollutants and/or their 
precurors to address pollution from cars and trucks. The MVEB is the 
portion of the total allowable emissions that is allocated to highway 
and transit vehicle use and emissions. The MVEB serves as a ceiling on 
emissions from an area's planned transportation system. The MVEB 
concept is further explained in the preamble to the November 24, 1993, 
transportation conformity rule (58 FR 62188). The preamble also 
describes how to establish the MVEB in the SIP and revise the MVEB.
    Under section 176(c) of the CAA, new transportation projects, such 
as the construction of new highways, must ``conform'' to (e.g. be 
consistent with) the part of the State's air quality plan that 
addresses pollution from cars and trucks. ``Conformity'' to the SIP 
means that transportation activities will not cause new air quality 
violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of 
the national ambient air quality standards. If a transportation plan 
does not ``conform,'' most projects that would expand the capacity of 
roadways cannot go forward. Regulations at 40 CFR part 93 set forth EPA 
policy, criteria, and procedures for demonstrating and assuring 
conformity of such transportation activities to a state implementation 
plan.
    When reviewing submitted ``control strategy'' SIPs or maintenance 
plans containing MVEBs, EPA must affirmatively find the MVEB budget 
contained therein ``adequate'' for use in determining transportation 
conformity. Once EPA affirmatively finds the submitted MVEB is adequate 
for transportation conformity purposes, that MVEB can be used by state 
and federal agencies in determining whether proposed transportation 
projects ``conform'' to the state implementation plan as required by 
section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act. EPA's substantive criteria for 
determining ``adequacy'' of an MVEB is set out in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4).
    EPA's process for determining ``adequacy'' consists of three basic 
steps: Public notification of a SIP submission, a public comment 
period, and EPA's adequacy finding. This process for determining the 
adequacy of submitted SIP MVEB budgets is set out in EPA's May 14, 1999 
guidance, ``Conformity Guidance on Implementation of March 2, 1999, 
Conformity Court Decision''. This guidance is incorporated into EPA's 
June 30, 2003, EPA proposed rulemaking entitled ``Transportation 
Conformity Rule Amendments: Response to Court Decision and Additional 
Rule Changes'' (68 FR 38974). EPA follows this guidance in making its 
adequacy determination.
    EPA's ``adequacy'' processing guidance allows EPA to ``parallel 
process'' a MVEB adequacy review. Under parallel processing, as noted 
above, a state submits a proposed SIP to EPA, and the state and EPA 
then request public comment on the proposed SIP and the adequacy of the 
MVEBs included in the SIP at the same time. If no significant adverse 
comments are received at either the state or Federal levels, EPA could 
then make an adequacy finding as soon as the state formally adopts the 
SIP and submits it to EPA, as long as no substantive changes to the SIP 
have occurred that would affect the adequacy of the MVEBs. However, if 
the formal maintenance plan submission changes in a way that affects 
the adequacy of the proposed MVEBs, the adequacy review process would 
start over: EPA would announce that we have a submitted SIP under 
adequacy review and reopen the comment period.
    Alabama's currently effective NOX and VOC MVEBs for 2003 
were submitted to EPA in its 1-hour ozone attainment demonstration SIP 
on November 1, 2000, and deemed adequate through a June 7, 2001, 
Federal Register notice (66 FR 30737) effective June 22, 2001. 
Alabama's new draft maintenance plan SIP revision that is the subject 
of this proposed notice and which was submitted to EPA on November 19, 
2003, contains Alabama's new proposed NOX and VOC MVEBs for 
transportation conformity purposes for the year 2015. The availability 
of the draft maintenance plan SIP revision with the MVEBs for 2015 was 
announced on EPA's Web page on:
http://www.epa.gov/oms/transp (Once there, click on the 
``Transportation Conformity'' link, then click on ``Adequacy Review of 
SIP Submissions''). The following table highlights the 2003 MVEB and 
defines the 2015 MVEB for Birmingham.

                   Birmingham Nonattainment Area MVEB
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             2003   2015
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX TPD...................................................     65     41
VOC TPD...................................................     52     23
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the year 2015, the available safety margin was 42 tpd for 
NOX and 11 tpd for VOC. After partial allocation of the 
safety margin to the MVEB, the remaining safety margins are 21 tpd for 
NOX and 4 tpd for VOC.
    EPA is parallel processing this 2015 NOX and VOC MVEB 
adequacy review. Because Alabama's maintenance plan is a draft 
submittal that contains these 2015 MVEBs, EPA is electing to use this 
proposed rulemaking (consistent with our May 14, 1999 Conformity 
Guidance) as a vehicle to provide public notice of, and request public 
comment on, the adequacy of the proposed new NOX and VOC 
MVEBs for transportation conformity purposes. EPA intends to finalize 
its adequacy determination for the new 2015 NOX and VOC 
MVEBs following a thorough review of all public comments received and 
an evaluation of whether the adequacy criteria have been met. If EPA 
concludes, after reviewing any comments submitted, that Alabama's 
proposed new 2015 NOX and VOC MVEBs are adequate, and if 
Alabama submits a final maintenance plan SIP revision with no 
substantive changes that would affect EPA's adequacy determination, 
then the new 2015 MVEB budgets would be applicable for transportation 
conformity determinations after the effective date of an EPA adequacy 
determination (published in the Federal Register) or on the date of 
final rulemaking of an EPA approval of Alabama's maintenance plan SIP 
revision if EPA chooses to make its final adequacy determination in 
that maintenance plan final rulemaking notice.

[[Page 564]]

VII. General Information

A. How Can I Get Copies Of This Document and Other Related Information?

    1. The Regional Office has established an official public 
rulemaking file available for inspection at the Regional Office. EPA 
has established an official public rulemaking file for this action 
under AL-62. The official public file consists of the documents 
specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, 
and other information related to this action. Although a part of the 
official docket, the public rulemaking file does not include 
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public rulemaking 
file is the collection of materials that is available for public 
viewing at the Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, 
Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 
30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the 
contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 
schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of 
business are Monday through Friday, 9 to 3:30, excluding federal 
holidays.
    2. Copies of the State submittal and EPA's technical support 
document are also available for public inspection during normal 
business hours, by appointment at the State Air Agency. Alabama 
Department of Environmental Management, 400 Coliseum Boulevard, 
Montgomery, Alabama 36110-2059.
    3. Electronic Access. You may access this Federal Register document 
electronically through the Regulation.gov Web site located at
http://www.regulations.gov where you can find, review, and submit 
comments on Federal rules that have been published in the Federal 
Register, the Government's legal newspaper, and are open for comment.
    For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is 
that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, 
will be made available for public viewing at the EPA Regional Office, 
as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains 
copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is 
restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing 
copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in 
the version of the comment that is placed in the official public 
rulemaking file. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted 
material, will be available at the Regional Office for public 
inspection.

B. How and To Whom Do I Submit Comments?

    You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or through hand 
delivery/courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the 
appropriate rulemaking identification number by including the text 
``Public comment on proposed rulemaking AL-62.'' in the subject line on 
the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your comments are 
submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after 
the close of the comment period will be marked ``late.'' EPA is not 
required to consider these late comments.
    1. Electronically. If you submit an electronic comment as 
prescribed below, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing 
address, and an e-mail address or other contact information in the body 
of your comment. Also include this contact information on the outside 
of any disk or CD ROM you submit, and in any cover letter accompanying 
the disk or CD ROM. This ensures that you can be identified as the 
submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA 
cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further 
information on the substance of your comment. EPA's policy is that EPA 
will not edit your comment, and any identifying or contact information 
provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the 
comment that is placed in the official public docket. If EPA cannot 
read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you 
for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.
    i. E-mail. Comments may be sent by electronic mail (e-mail) to 
[email protected], please include the text ``Public comment on 
proposed rulemaking AL-62.'' in the subject line. EPA's e-mail system 
is not an ``anonymous access'' system. If you send an e-mail comment 
directly without going through Regulations.gov, EPA's e-mail system 
automatically captures your e-mail address. E-mail addresses that are 
automatically captured by EPA's e-mail system are included as part of 
the comment that is placed in the official public docket.
    ii. Regulation.gov. Your use of Regulation.gov is an alternative 
method of submitting electronic comments to EPA. Go directly to 
Regulations.gov at http://www.regulations.gov, then select 
Environmental Protection Agency at the top of the page and use the go 
button. The list of current EPA actions available for comment will be 
listed. Please follow the online instructions for submitting comments. 
The system is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not 
know your identity, e-mail address, or other contact information unless 
you provide it in the body of your comment.
    iii. Disk or CD ROM. You may submit comments on a disk or CD ROM 
that you mail to the mailing address identified in section 2, directly 
below. These electronic submissions will be accepted in WordPerfect, 
Word or ASCII file format. Avoid the use of special characters and any 
form of encryption.
    2. By Mail. Send your comments to: Sean Lakeman, Regulatory 
Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 
Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 
Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Please include the 
text ``Public comment on proposed rulemaking AL-62.'' in the subject 
line on the first page of your comment.
    3. By Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to: Sean 
Lakeman, Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, 
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division 12th floor, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., 
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such deliveries are only accepted during 
the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional Office's 
official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 9 to 3:30, 
excluding federal holidays.

C. How Should I Submit CBI to the Agency?

    Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI 
electronically to EPA. You may claim information that you submit to EPA 
as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI (if you 
submit CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as 
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the 
specific information that is CBI). Information so marked will not be 
disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 
2.
    In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes 
any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not 
contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion 
in the official public regional rulemaking file. If you submit the copy 
that does not contain CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the

[[Page 565]]

outside of the disk or CD ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. 
Information not marked as CBI will be included in the public file and 
available for public inspection without prior notice. If you have any 
questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult 
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

D. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your 
comments:
    1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.
    2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
    3. Provide any technical information and/or data you used that 
support your views.
    4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you 
arrived at your estimate.
    5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
    6. Offer alternatives.
    7. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline 
identified.
    8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate 
regional file/rulemaking identification number in the subject line on 
the first page of your response. It would also be helpful if you 
provided the name, date, and Federal Register citation related to your 
comments.

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
proposed action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and 
therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and 
Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive 
Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect 
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This 
proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal 
requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those 
imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that 
this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule proposes to approve pre-
existing requirements under state law and does not impose any 
additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does 
not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect 
small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 
1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
    This proposed rule also does not have tribal implications because 
it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian 
tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian 
tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between 
the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive 
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not 
have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial 
direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified 
in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action 
merely proposes to approve 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 
proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection 
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.
    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. This proposed rule does 
not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

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

40 CFR Part 81

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

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

    Dated: December 23, 2003.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 04-211 Filed 1-5-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P