Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; North Carolina; Redesignation of the Rocky Mount 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area to Attainment, 64891-64902 [E6-18584]

Download as PDF 64891 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 214 / Monday, November 6, 2006 / Rules and Regulations EPA-APPROVED MISSOURI REGULATIONS Missouri citation State effective date Title EPA approval date Explanation Missouri Department of Natural Resources * * * * * * Chapter 5—Air Quality Standards and Air Pollution Control Regulations for the St. Louis Metropolitan Area * * 10–5.510 ........................................ * * * * * Control of Emissions of Nitrogen Oxides. * * * * * [FR Doc. E6–18567 Filed 11–3–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 [EPA–R04–OAR–2006–0676–200622(a); FRL–8239–5] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; North Carolina; Redesignation of the Rocky Mount 8Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area to Attainment Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Direct final rule. cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES AGENCY: SUMMARY: On June 19, 2006, the State of North Carolina, through the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR), Division of Air Quality, submitted a final request: to redesignate the Rocky Mount 8-hour ozone nonattainment area to attainment for the 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS), and to approve a North Carolina State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision containing a maintenance plan for Rocky Mount, North Carolina. The Rocky Mount 8-hour ozone nonattainment area is comprised of two counties, Edgecombe and Nash. EPA is approving the 8-hour ozone redesignation request for the Rocky Mount 8-hour ozone nonattainment area. Additionally, EPA is approving the 8-hour ozone maintenance plan for Rocky Mount, North Carolina. This approval is based on EPA’s determination that the State of North Carolina has demonstrated that the Rocky Mount area has met the criteria for redesignation to attainment specified in the Clean Air Act (CAA), including VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:17 Nov 03, 2006 Jkt 211001 * 05/30/06 * * 11/06/06 [insert FR page number where the document begins]. * the determination that the entire Rocky Mount 8-hour ozone nonattainment area has attained the 8-hour ozone standard. In this action, EPA is also finding adequate and approving the 2008 and 2017 motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs) for nitrogen oxides (NOX) (for both Edgecombe and Nash counties) that are contained in the 8-hour ozone maintenance plan for the Rocky Mount nonattainment area. North Carolina has established subarea MVEBs at the county level so each county must consider its individual subarea MVEBs for the purposes of implementing transportation conformity. Further, in this action, EPA is finding adequate and approving the insignificance determination for volatile organic compounds’ (VOCs) contribution from motor vehicle emissions to the 8-hour ozone pollution in the Rocky Mount, North Carolina area. DATES: This rule is effective on January 5, 2007, without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse written comments by December 6, 2006. If EPA receives such comments, it will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform the public that the rule will not take effect. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No EPA–R04– OAR–2006–0676, by one of the following methods: 1. http://www.regulations.gov : Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. 2. E-mail: ward.nacosta@epa.gov or wood.amanetta@epa.gov. 3. Fax: 404–562–9019. 4. Mail: ‘‘EPA–R04–OAR–2006– 0676’’, Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. 5. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to: Nacosta C. Ward or Amanetta Wood, Regulatory PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 * * * * Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office’s normal hours of operation. The Regional Office’s official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding Federal holidays. Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No.: ‘‘EPA–R04–OAR–2006– 0676’’. EPA’s policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through www.regulations.gov or e-mail, information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of E:\FR\FM\06NOR1.SGM 06NOR1 64892 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 214 / Monday, November 6, 2006 / Rules and Regulations cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http:// www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in http:// www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office’s official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding legal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nacosta C. Ward of the Regulatory Development Section or Amanetta Wood of the Air Quality Modeling and Transportation Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. The telephone number is (404) 562–9140 or (404) 562–9025. Ms. Nacosta Ward can be reached via electronic mail at ward.nacosta@epa.gov. Ms. Amanetta Wood can also be reached via electronic mail at wood.amanetta@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. What Are the Actions EPA Is Taking? II. What Is the Background for the Actions? III What Are the Criteria for Redesignation? IV. Why Is EPA Taking These Actions? V. What Is the Effect of EPA’s Actions? VI. What Is EPA’s Analysis of the Request? VII. What Is an Adequacy Determination? VIII. What Is the Status of EPA’s Adequacy Determination for the Rocky Mount Area’s Proposed New NOX Subarea MVEBs for the Years 2008 and 2017? IX. What Is the Status of EPA’s Adequacy Determination for the Rocky Mount Area’s Proposed Insignificance Finding for VOCs from Motor Vehicles? X. Final Action on the Redesignation Request, the Maintenance Plan SIP Revision Including Approval of the 2008 and 2017 NOX MVEBs, and the VOCs Insignificance Finding. VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:39 Nov 03, 2006 Jkt 211001 XI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. What Are the Actions EPA Is Taking? Through this rulemaking, EPA is taking several related actions. EPA is making the determination that the Rocky Mount 8-hour ozone nonattainment area has attained the 8hour ozone standard, and has met the requirements for redesignation under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. The Rocky Mount area is a basic 8-hour ozone nonattainment area. The Rocky Mount 8-hour ozone nonattainment area is comprised of Edgecombe and Nash counties. EPA is approving a request to change the legal designation of the Rocky Mount area from nonattainment to attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is also approving North Carolina’s 8-hour ozone maintenance plan for the Rocky Mount area (such approval being one of the CAA criteria for redesignation to attainment status). The maintenance plan is designed to help keep the Rocky Mount area in attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the next 12 years, and includes an insignificance finding for VOCs for the entire Rocky Mount, North Carolina area, and new NOX subarea MVEBs for the years 2008 and 2017 for Edgecombe and Nash counties. Additionally, through this rulemaking, EPA is announcing its action on the Adequacy Process for the newly-established 2008 and 2017 NOX MVEBs for the Rocky Mount 8-hour ozone area. Further, EPA is announcing its action on the Adequacy Process for the insignificance finding related to VOCs from motor vehicles for the Rocky Mount 8-hour ozone area. The Adequacy comment period for the new NOX MVEBs and the VOCs insignificance finding began on August 8, 2006, with EPA’s posting of the availability of this submittal on EPA’s Adequacy Web site (at http:// www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/ transconf/currsips.htm). The Adequacy comment period for these MVEBs and VOCs insignificance finding closed on September 7, 2006. No requests or adverse comments on this submittal were received during EPA’s Adequacy comment period. Please see section VII of this rulemaking for further explanation of this process. II. What Is the Background for the Actions? Ground-level ozone is not emitted directly by sources. Rather, emissions of NOX and VOCs react in the presence of sunlight to form ground-level ozone. NOX and VOCs are referred to as precursors of ozone. The CAA PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 establishes a process for air quality management through the NAAQS. On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a revised 8-hour ozone standard of 0.08 parts per million (ppm). This new standard is more stringent than the previous 1-hour ozone standard. Under EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 50, the 8-hour ozone standard is attained when the 3-year average of the annual fourthhighest daily maximum 8-hour average ambient air quality ozone concentrations is less than or equal to 0.08 ppm (i.e. 0.084 ppm when rounding is considered). (See 69 FR 23857 (April 30, 2004) for further information). Ambient air quality monitoring data for the 3-year period must meet a data completeness requirement. The ambient air quality monitoring data completeness requirement is met when the average percent of days with valid ambient monitoring data is greater than 90 percent, and no single year has less than 75 percent data completeness as determined in Appendix I of part 50. Specifically, section 2.3 of 40 CFR part 50, Appendix I, ‘‘Comparisons with the Primary and Secondary Ozone Standards’’ states: ‘‘The primary and secondary ozone ambient air quality standards are met at an ambient air quality monitoring site when the 3-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration is less than or equal to 0.08 ppm. The number of significant figures in the level of the standard dictates the rounding convention for comparing the computed 3-year average annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8hour average ozone concentration with the level of the standard. The third decimal place of the computed value is rounded, with values equal to or greater than 5 rounding up. Thus, a computed 3-year average ozone concentration of 0.085 ppm is the smallest value that is greater than 0.08 ppm.’’ The CAA required EPA to designate as nonattainment any area that was violating the 8-hour ozone NAAQS based on the three most recent years of ambient air quality data. The Rocky Mount 8-hour ozone nonattainment area was designated using 2001 to 2003 ambient air quality data. The Federal Register notice making these designations was signed on April 15, 2004, and published on April 30, 2004, (69 FR 23857). The CAA contains two sets of provisions—subpart 1 and subpart 2—that address planning and control requirements for ozone nonattainment areas. (Both are found in title I, part D.) Subpart 1 (which covers areas that EPA refers to as ‘‘basic’’ nonattainment) contains general, less E:\FR\FM\06NOR1.SGM 06NOR1 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 214 / Monday, November 6, 2006 / Rules and Regulations prescriptive, requirements for nonattainment areas for any pollutant— including ozone—governed by a NAAQS. Subpart 2 (which covers areas that EPA refers to as ‘‘classified’’ nonattainment) provides more specific requirements for certain ozone nonattainment areas. Some 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas are subject only to the provisions of subpart 1. Other 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas are also subject to the provisions of subpart 2. Under EPA’s Phase 1 8-hour Ozone Implementation Rule, signed on April 15, 2004, an area was to be classified under subpart 2 based on its 8-hour ozone design value (i.e., the 3year average of the annual fourthhighest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations), if it had a 1-hour design value at or above 0.121 ppm (the lowest 1-hour design value in Table 1 of subpart 2). All other areas are covered under subpart 1, based upon their 8hour ambient air quality design values. The Rocky Mount area was originally designated as a ‘‘basic’’ 8-hour ozone nonattainment area by EPA on April 30, 64893 2004, (69 FR 23857) and is subject to subpart 1 of part D. In 2005, the ambient ozone data for the Rocky Mount nonattainment area indicated no further violation of the 8-hour ozone standard, using data from the 3-year period of 2003–2005 (with the 2003–2005 design value of 0.079 ppm), to demonstrate attainment. Available monitoring data through July 2006 indicates continued attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard. These data are depicted in Table 1 below: TABLE 1.—CURRENT AIR QUALITY DATA IN THE ROCKY MOUNT, NC AREA Air Quality System Monitoring Data for Edgecombe County (Leggett monitor AIRS ID #37–065–0099) April 2006 May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 .074 .077 .074 .068 Monthly Maximum 8-hour ozone Values (ppm) .............................................. On June 19, 2006, the State of North Carolina requested redesignation to attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard for the Rocky Mount, North Carolina 8-hour ozone nonattainment area. The redesignation request includes three years of complete, quality-assured ambient air quality data for the ozone seasons of 2003 through 2005, indicating the 8-hour ozone NAAQS had been achieved for the Rocky Mount area. The ozone season for this area is from April 1 until October 31 of a calendar year. Under the CAA, nonattainment areas may be redesignated to attainment if sufficient, complete, quality-assured data is available for the Administrator to determine that the area has attained the standard and the area meets the other CAA redesignation requirements in section 107(d)(3)(E). cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES III. What Are the Criteria for Redesignation? The CAA provides the requirements for redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment. Specifically, section 107(d)(3)(E) allows for redesignation providing that: (1) The Administrator determines that the area has attained the applicable NAAQS; (2) the Administrator has fully approved the applicable implementation plan for the area under section 110(k); (3) the Administrator determines that the improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the applicable SIP and applicable Federal air pollutant control regulations and other permanent and enforceable reductions; (4) the Administrator has fully approved a maintenance plan for the area as VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:39 Nov 03, 2006 Jkt 211001 meeting the requirements of section 175A; and, (5) the State containing such area has met all requirements applicable to the area under section 110 and part D. EPA provided guidance on redesignation in the General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the CAA Amendments of 1990, on April 16, 1992 (57 FR 13498), and supplemented this guidance on April 28, 1992 (57 FR 18070). EPA has provided further guidance on processing redesignation requests in the following documents: 1. ‘‘Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Design Value Calculations,’’ Memorandum from Bill Laxton, June 18, 1990; 2. ‘‘Maintenance Plans for Redesignation of Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Nonattainment Areas,’’ Memorandum from G. T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, April 30, 1992; 3. ‘‘Contingency Measures for Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) Redesignations,’’ Memorandum from G. T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, June 1, 1992; 4. ‘‘Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,’’ Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, September 4, 1992; 5. ‘‘State Implementation Plan (SIP) Actions Submitted in Response to Clean Air Act (ACT) Deadlines,’’ Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, October 28, 1992; 6. ‘‘Technical Support Documents (TSD’s) for Redesignation of Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment Areas, Memorandum from G. T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, August 17, 1993; 7. ‘‘State Implementation Plan (SIP) Requirements for Areas Submitting Requests for Redesignation to Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) On or After November 15, 1992,’’ Memorandum PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, September 17, 1993; 8. ‘‘Use of Actual Emissions in Maintenance Demonstrations for Ozone and CO Nonattainment Areas,’’ Memorandum from D. Kent Berry, Acting Director, Air Quality Management Division, November 30, 1993; 9. ‘‘Part D New Source Review (Part D NSR) Requirements for Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment,’’ Memorandum from Mary D. Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, October 14, 1994; and 10. ‘‘Reasonable Further Progress, Attainment Demonstration, and Related Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment Areas Meeting the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard,’’ Memorandum from John S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, May 10, 1995. IV. Why Is EPA Taking These Actions? On June 19, 2006, the State of North Carolina requested redesignation of the Rocky Mount 8-hour ozone nonattainment area to attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. EPA believes that the State of North Carolina has demonstrated that the Rocky Mount area has attained the standard and has met the requirements for redesignation set forth in section 107(d)(3)(E) of CAA. V. What Is the Effect of EPA’s Actions? Approval of this redesignation request would change the official designation of Edgecombe and Nash counties in North Carolina for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS found at 40 CFR part 81. It would also incorporate into the North Carolina SIP a plan for maintaining the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the area through 2017. The maintenance plan includes contingency measures to remedy future violations of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and establishes MVEBs of 2,756 kilograms E:\FR\FM\06NOR1.SGM 06NOR1 64894 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 214 / Monday, November 6, 2006 / Rules and Regulations per day (kg/d) (3.03 tons per day (tpd)), and 9,757 kg/d (10.77 tpd) for NOX for the year 2008 for Edgecombe and Nash counties, respectively. For the year 2017, the NOX MVEBs for Edgecombe and Nash counties are 1,383 kg/d (1.53 tpd) and 4,558 kg/d (5.03 tpd), respectively. Additionally, the maintenance plan includes an insignificance finding for VOCs’ contribution from motor vehicles to the 8-hour ozone pollution in the Rocky Mount, North Carolina area. EPA’s affirmative adequacy finding and approval for this insignificance determination waives the regional emissions analysis requirement (not the transportation conformity requirement) for VOCs for this area. The regional emissions analysis is one, but not the only, requirement for implementing transportation conformity. VI. What Is EPA’s Analysis of the Request? EPA is making the determination that the Rocky Mount 8-hour ozone nonattainment area has attained the 8hour ozone standard, and that all other redesignation criteria have been met. The basis for EPA’s determination is as follows: (1) The Rocky Mount area has attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is making the determination that the area has attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. For ozone, an area may be considered to be attaining the 8-hour ozone NAAQS if there are no violations, as determined in accordance with 40 CFR 50.10 and Appendix I of part 50, based on three complete, consecutive calendar years of quality-assured air quality monitoring data. To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations measured at each monitor within an area over each year must not exceed 0.08 ppm. Based on the rounding convention described in 40 CFR part 50, Appendix I, the standard is attained if the design value is 0.084 ppm or below. The data must be collected and quality-assured in accordance with 40 CFR part 58, and recorded in the EPA Air Quality System (AQS). The monitors generally should have remained at the same location for the duration of the monitoring period required for demonstrating attainment. NCDENR submitted ozone monitoring data to EPA for the ozone season from 2003 to 2005. There is currently one monitor measuring ozone, located in the town of Leggett in Edgecombe County, which provides air quality data for the entire Rocky Mount 8-hour ozone nonattainment area. This data has been quality assured and is recorded in AQS. The fourth-highest averages for 2003, 2004 and 2005, and the 3-year average of these values (i.e. design value), are summarized in Table 2: TABLE 2.—QUALITY ASSURED MONITORING DATA IN THE ROCKY MOUNT, NC AREA FOR 2003–2005 4th Highest 8-hour ozone values (ppm) County Design Value (ppm) 2003 cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES Edgecombe (Leggett Monitor) ......................................................................... In addition, as discussed below with respect to the maintenance plan, NCDENR has indicated a commitment to continue monitoring in the Rocky Mount area in accordance with 40 CFR part 58 by requiring the use of the data from the monitor in Edgecombe County to verify continued maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. On September 11, 2006, NCDENR submitted a letter to EPA clarifying this commitment. NCDENR will operate and continue monitoring at the Leggett ozone monitor throughout the maintenance period and until there is a change approved by EPA to discontinue operation, relocate or otherwise affect the ambient monitoring network in place. In summary, EPA believes that the data submitted by North Carolina provides an adequate demonstration that the Rocky Mount 8hour ozone nonattainment area has attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. (2) North Carolina has a fully approved SIP under section 110(k) for Edgecombe and Nash Counties and (5) has met all applicable requirements under section 110 and part D of the CAA. Below is a summary of how these two criteria were met. EPA has determined that North Carolina has met all applicable SIP VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:39 Nov 03, 2006 Jkt 211001 2004 2005 2003–2005 0.088 0.072 0.079 0.079 requirements for the Rocky Mount area under section 110 of the CAA (general SIP requirements). EPA has also determined that the North Carolina SIP satisfies the criterion that it meets applicable SIP requirements under part D of title I of the CAA (requirements specific to subpart 1 basic 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas) in accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E)(v). In addition, EPA has determined that the SIP is fully approved with respect to all applicable requirements in accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii). In making these determinations, EPA ascertained which requirements are applicable to the area and that if applicable they are fully approved under section 110(k). SIPs must be fully approved only with respect to applicable requirements. a. Rocky Mount, North Carolina has met all applicable requirements under section 110 and part D of the CAA. The September 4, 1992, Calcagni memorandum (see ‘‘Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,’’ Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, September 4, 1992) describes EPA’s interpretation of section 107(d)(3)(E). Under this interpretation, to qualify for redesignation, states requesting PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 redesignation to attainment must meet only the relevant CAA requirements that come due prior to the submittal of a complete redesignation request. See also Michael Shapiro memorandum, September 17, 1993, and 60 FR 12459, 12465–66 (March 7, 1995) (redesignation of Detroit-Ann Arbor, MI). Applicable requirements of the CAA that come due subsequent to the area’s submittal of a complete redesignation request remain applicable until a redesignation is approved, but are not required as a prerequisite to redesignation. See section 175A(c) of the CAA; Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004). See also 68 FR 25424, 25427 (May 12, 2003) (redesignation of St. Louis, MO). General SIP requirements: Section 110(a)(2) of title I of the CAA delineates the general requirements for a SIP, which include enforceable emissions limitations and other control measures, means, or techniques, provisions for the establishment and operation of appropriate devices necessary to collect data on ambient air quality, and programs to enforce the limitations. General SIP elements and requirements are delineated in section 110(a)(2) of title I, part A of the CAA. These requirements include, but are not E:\FR\FM\06NOR1.SGM 06NOR1 cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 214 / Monday, November 6, 2006 / Rules and Regulations limited to, the following: Submittal of a SIP that has been adopted by the state after reasonable public notice and hearing; provisions for establishment and operation of appropriate procedures needed to monitor ambient air quality; implementation of a source permit program; provisions for the implementation of part C requirements (Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and provisions for the implementation of part D requirements (New Source Review (NSR) permit programs); provisions for air pollution modeling; and provisions for public and local agency participation in planning and emission control rule development. These requirements are discussed in the following EPA documents: ‘‘Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,’’ Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, September 4, 1992; ‘‘State Implementation Plan (SIP) Actions Submitted in Response to Clean Air Act (CAA) Deadlines,’’ memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, October 28, 1992; and ‘‘State Implementation Plan (SIP) Requirements for Areas Submitting Requests for Redesignation to Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) on or after November 15, 1992,’’ Memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting Assistant Administrator, September 17, 1993. See also guidance documents listed in section III above. Section 110(a)(2)(D) requires that SIPs contain certain measures to prevent sources in a state from significantly contributing to air quality problems in another state. To implement this provision, EPA has required certain states to establish programs to address the transport of air pollutants (NOX SIP Call, Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR)). North Carolina’s final CAIR submittal was received by EPA on August 15, 2006. However, the section 110(a)(2)(D) requirements for a state are not linked with a particular nonattainment area’s designation and classification in that state. EPA believes that the requirements linked with a particular nonattainment area’s designation and classification are the relevant measures to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation request. The transport SIP submittal requirements, where applicable, continue to apply to a state regardless of the designation of any one particular area in the state. Thus, we do not believe that the CAA’s interstate transport requirements should be construed to be applicable requirements for purposes of VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:39 Nov 03, 2006 Jkt 211001 redesignation. In addition, EPA believes that the other section 110 elements not connected with nonattainment plan submissions and not linked with an area’s attainment status are not applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation. The State will still be subject to these requirements after the area is redesignated. The section 110 and part D requirements, which are linked with a particular area’s designation and classification, are the relevant measures to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation request. This approach is consistent with EPA’s existing policy on applicability (i.e., for redesignations) of conformity and oxygenated fuels requirements, as well as with section 184 ozone transport requirements. See Reading, Pennsylvania, proposed and final rulemakings (61 FR 53174–53176, October 10, 1996), (62 FR 24826, May 7, 1997); Cleveland-Akron-Loraine, Ohio, final rulemaking (61 FR 20458, May 7, 1996); and Tampa, Florida, final rulemaking at (60 FR 62748, December 7, 1995). See also the discussion on this issue in the Cincinnati redesignation (65 FR 37890, June 19, 2000), and in the Pittsburgh redesignation (66 FR 50399, October 19, 2001). EPA believes that section 110 elements not linked to the area’s nonattainment status are not applicable for purposes of redesignation. Any section 110 requirements that are linked to the part D requirements for 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas are not yet due, since, as explained below, no part D requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation under the 8-hour ozone standard became due prior to the submission of the redesignation request. Therefore, as discussed above, for purposes of redesignation, they are not considered applicable requirements. Nonetheless, EPA notes that it has previously approved provisions in the North Carolina SIP addressing section 110 elements under the 1-hour ozone standard (51 FR 19834, June 3, 1986). EPA believes that the section 110 SIP approved for the 1-hour ozone standard is sufficient to meet requirements under the 8-hour ozone standard as well. Part D requirements: EPA has also determined that the North Carolina SIP meets applicable SIP requirements under part D of the CAA since no requirements became due prior to the submission of the area’s redesignation request. Sections 172–176 of the CAA, found in subpart 1 of part D, set forth the basic nonattainment requirements applicable to all nonattainment areas. Section 182 of the CAA, found in subpart 2 of part D, establishes additional specific requirements PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 64895 depending on the area’s nonattainment classification. Subpart 2 is not applicable to the Rocky Mount area. Part D, subpart 1 applicable SIP requirements: For purposes of evaluating this redesignation request, the applicable part D, subpart 1 SIP requirements for all nonattainment areas are contained in sections 172(c)(1)–(9). A thorough discussion of the requirements contained in section 172 can be found in the General Preamble for Implementation of Title I (57 FR 13498). No requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation under part D became due prior to the submission of the redesignation request, and therefore none are applicable to the area for purposes of redesignation. For example, the requirements for an attainment demonstration that meets the requirements of section 172(c)(1) are not yet applicable, nor are the requirements for Reasonably Achievable Control Technology (RACT) and Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) (section 172(c)(1)), reasonable further progress (RFP) (section 172(c)(2)), and contingency measures (section 172(c)(9)). In addition to the fact that no part D requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation became due prior to submission of the redesignation request and therefore are not applicable, EPA believes it is reasonable to interpret the conformity and NSR requirements as not requiring approval prior to redesignation. Section 176 Conformity Requirements: Section 176(c) of the CAA requires states to establish criteria and procedures to ensure that Federally supported or funded projects conform to the air quality planning goals in the applicable SIP. The requirement to determine conformity applies to transportation plans, programs and projects developed, funded or approved under title 23 of the United States Code (U.S.C.) and the Federal Transit Act (‘‘transportation conformity’’) as well as to all other Federally supported or funded projects (‘‘general conformity’’). State conformity revisions must be consistent with Federal conformity regulations that the CAA required the EPA to promulgate. EPA believes it is reasonable to interpret the conformity requirements as not applying for purposes of evaluating the redesignation request under section 107(d) because state conformity rules are still required after redesignation and Federal conformity rules apply where state rules have not been approved. See Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001), upholding this interpretation. See E:\FR\FM\06NOR1.SGM 06NOR1 cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES 64896 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 214 / Monday, November 6, 2006 / Rules and Regulations also 60 FR 62748 (Dec. 7, 1995, Tampa, FL). EPA has also determined that areas being redesignated need not comply with the requirement that a NSR program be approved prior to redesignation, provided that the area demonstrates maintenance of the standard without part D NSR in effect since PSD requirements will apply after redesignation. The rationale for this view is described in a memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, dated October 14, 1994, entitled ‘‘Part D New Source Review (Part D NSR) Requirements for Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment.’’ North Carolina has demonstrated that the area will be able to maintain the standard without part D NSR in effect, and therefore, the State need not have a fully approved part D NSR program prior to approval of the redesignation request. The State’s PSD program will become effective in the area upon redesignation to attainment. See rulemakings for Detroit, MI (60 FR 12467–12468, March 7, 1995); Cleveland-Akron-Lorraine, OH (61 FR 20458, 20469–20470, May 7, 1996); Louisville, KY (66 FR 53665, October 23, 2001); Grand Rapids, Michigan (61 FR 31834–31837, June 21, 1996). Thus, the area has satisfied all applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation under section 110 and part D of the CAA. b. The area has a fully approved applicable SIP under section 110(k) of the CAA. EPA has fully approved the applicable North Carolina SIP for the Rocky Mount area under section 110(k) of the Clean Air Act for all requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation. EPA may rely on prior SIP approvals in approving a redesignation request, see Calcagni Memo at p. 3; Southwestern Pennsylvania Growth Alliance v. Browner, 144 F.3d 984, 989–90 (6th Cir. 1998); Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001), plus any additional measures it may approve in conjunction with a redesignation action. See 68 FR 25426 (May 12, 2003) and citations therein. Following passage of the CAA of 1970, North Carolina has adopted and submitted, and EPA has fully approved at various times, provisions addressing the various 1-hour ozone standard SIP elements applicable in the Rocky Mount area (51 FR 19834, June 3, 1986). As indicated above, EPA believes that the section 110 elements not connected with nonattainment plan submissions and not linked to the area’s nonattainment status are not applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation. EPA also believes that VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:39 Nov 03, 2006 Jkt 211001 since the part D requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation did not become due prior to submission of the redesignation request, they also are therefore not applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation. (3) The air quality improvement in the Rocky Mount 8-hour ozone area is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the SIP and applicable Federal air pollution control regulations and other permanent and enforceable reductions. EPA believes that the State has demonstrated that the observed air quality improvement in the area is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the SIP, Federal measures, and other state-adopted measures. EPA has determined that the implementation of the following permanent and enforceable emissions controls, that occurred from 2002–2005, have reduced local VOC and NOX emissions and brought the area into attainment: • EPA’s Tier 2 Vehicle Standards; • EPA’s Heavy-Duty Gasoline and Diesel Highway and Vehicle Standards; • Federal controls on non-road spark ignition engines and recreational engine standard engines in 2003; • State Clean Air Bill; • State NOX SIP Call rule; • State Clean Smokestacks Act; • State Open Burning Ban; • State Air Toxics Control Program; • Prevention of Significant Deterioration; • State Heavy Duty Diesel Gap Filling Rule. In addition to the reductions mentioned above, the State of North Carolina has implemented an Air Awareness Program which is a public outreach program to reduce air pollution through voluntary action by individuals and organizations. The State has demonstrated that the implementation of permanent and enforceable emissions controls have reduced local VOC and NOX emissions. Most of the reductions are attributable to Federal programs such as EPA’s Tier 2/Low Sulfur Gasoline program and other national clean fuel programs that began implementation in 2004. Additionally, the State has indicated in its submittal that the Rocky Mount area has benefited from emissions reductions that have been achieved and will continue to be achieved through implementation of the NOX SIP Call, beginning in 2002. The State has also demonstrated that year-to-year meteorological changes and trends are not the likely source of the overall, long- PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 term improvement in ozone levels. Also, the following non-highway mobile source reduction programs were implemented during the 2002–2005 period: small spark-ignition engines, large-spark ignition engines, locomotives and land-based diesel engines. EPA believes that permanent and enforceable emissions reductions in and surrounding the nonattainment area are the cause of the long-term improvement in ozone levels, and are the cause of the area achieving attainment of the ozone standard. (4) The area has a fully approved maintenance plan pursuant to section 175A of the CAA. In its request to redesignate the Rocky Mount 8-hour ozone nonattainment area to attainment status, NCDENR submitted a SIP revision to provide for the maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the Rocky Mount area for at least 10 years after the effective date of redesignation to attainment. a. What Is Required in a Maintenance Plan? Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the elements of a maintenance plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment. Under section 175A, the plan must demonstrate continued attainment of the applicable NAAQS for at least 10 years after the Administrator approves a redesignation to attainment. Eight years after the redesignation, the State must submit a revised maintenance plan which demonstrates that attainment will continue to be maintained for the 10 years following the initial 10-year period. To address the possibility of future NAAQS violations, the maintenance plan must contain such contingency measures, with a schedule for implementation as EPA deems necessary to assure prompt correction of any future 8-hour ozone violations. Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the elements of a maintenance plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment. The Calcagni memorandum, dated September 4, 1992, provides additional guidance on the content of a maintenance plan. An ozone maintenance plan should address five requirements: the attainment emissions inventory, maintenance demonstration, monitoring, verification of continued attainment, and a contingency plan. b. Attainment Emissions Inventory The Rocky Mount area has selected 2005 as ‘‘the attainment year’’ for purposes of demonstrating attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The 2005 VOC and NOX emissions for the Rocky E:\FR\FM\06NOR1.SGM 06NOR1 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 214 / Monday, November 6, 2006 / Rules and Regulations Mount area were developed consistent with EPA guidance and are summarized in the table in the following subsection. c. Maintenance Demonstration The June 19, 2006, submittal includes a 12-year maintenance plan for the Rocky Mount area. This demonstration: (i) shows compliance and maintenance of the 8-hour ozone standard by assuring that current and future emissions of VOC and NOX remain at or below attainment year 2005 emissions levels. The year 2005 was chosen as the attainment year because it is one of the most recent three years (i.e., 2003, 2004, and 2005) for which the Rocky Mount area has clean air quality data for the 8-hour ozone standard. (ii) uses 2005 as the attainment year and includes future inventory projected years for 2008, 2011, 2014, and 2017. 64897 (iii) identifies an ‘‘out year,’’ at least 10 years after the time necessary for EPA to review and approve the maintenance plan. Per 40 CFR part 93, a MVEB was established for the last year of the maintenance plan. See sections VIII and IX below. (iv) provides the following actual and projected emissions inventories for the Rocky Mount area depicted in Tables 3 through 8: TABLE 3.— NOX EMISSIONS (TPD) FOR EDGECOMBE COUNTY* Source category 2005 2008 2011 2014 2017 Point ..................................................................................... Area ...................................................................................... On-Road Mobile ................................................................... Nonroad ............................................................................... 2.95 0.53 3.36 2.35 2.68 0.54 2.73 2.10 2.70 0.55 2.14 1.82 2.73 0.56 1.62 1.60 2.76 0.57 1.27 1.40 Total Emissions ............................................................ 9.19 8.05 7.21 6.51 6.00 *The total emissions in the tables above only include man-made emissions and not biogenic emissions. TABLE 4.— NOX EMISSIONS (TPD) FOR NASH COUNTY* Source category 2005 2008 2011 2014 2017 Point ..................................................................................... Area ...................................................................................... On-Road Mobile ................................................................... Nonroad ............................................................................... 0.60 1.08 12.07 2.10 0.60 1.12 9.70 1.90 0.63 1.16 7.42 1.69 0.69 1.20 5.39 1.48 0.72 1.24 4.16 1.29 Total Emissions ............................................................ 15.85 13.32 10.90 8.76 7.41 *The total emissions in the tables above only include man-made emissions and not biogenic emissions. TABLE 5.—TOTAL NOX EMISSIONS (TPD) FOR EDGECOMBE AND NASH COUNTIES* Source category 2005 2008 2011 2014 2017 Point ..................................................................................... Area ...................................................................................... On-Road Mobile ................................................................... Nonroad ............................................................................... 3.55 1.61 15.43 4.45 3.28 1.66 12.43 4.00 3.33 1.71 9.56 3.51 3.42 1.76 7.01 3.08 3.48 1.81 5.43 2.69 Total Emissions ............................................................ 25.04 21.37 18.11 15.27 13.41 Safety Margin** .................................................................... n/a 3.67 6.93 9.77 11.63 * The total emissions in the tables above only include man-made emissions and not biogenic emissions. ** 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. North Carolina has calculated the NOX safety margin for the Rocky Mount area in its submittal which is summarized in Table 5. TABLE 6.—VOC EMISSIONS (TPD) FOR EDGECOMBE COUNTY* Source category 2005 2008 2011 2014 2017 Point ..................................................................................... Area ...................................................................................... On-Road Mobile ................................................................... Nonroad ............................................................................... 3.86 5.62 2.50 0.95 4.35 5.88 2.08 0.78 4.74 6.12 1.83 0.70 5.20 6.35 1.50 0.68 5.65 6.58 1.27 0.65 Total Emissions ............................................................ 12.93 13.09 13.39 13.73 14.15 cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES * The total emissions in the tables above only include man-made emissions and not biogenic emissions. TABLE 7.—VOC EMISSIONS (TPD) FOR NASH COUNTY* Source category 2005 Point ..................................................................................... Area ...................................................................................... VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:17 Nov 03, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 2008 1.35 7.04 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 2011 1.45 7.43 E:\FR\FM\06NOR1.SGM 2014 1.56 7.79 06NOR1 2017 1.65 8.14 1.78 8.52 64898 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 214 / Monday, November 6, 2006 / Rules and Regulations TABLE 7.—VOC EMISSIONS (TPD) FOR NASH COUNTY*—Continued Source category 2005 2008 2011 2014 2017 On-Road Mobile ................................................................... Nonroad ............................................................................... 5.98 1.39 4.96 1.17 4.37 1.07 4.05 1.05 3.09 1.08 Total Emissions ............................................................ 15.76 15.01 14.79 14.89 14.47 * The total emissions in the tables above only include man-made emissions and not biogenic emissions. TABLE 8.—TOTAL VOC EMISSIONS (TPD) FOR EDGECOMBE AND NASH COUNTIES* Source category 2005 2008 2011 2014 2017 Point ..................................................................................... Area ...................................................................................... On-Road Mobile ................................................................... Nonroad ............................................................................... 5.21 12.66 8.48 2.34 5.80 13.31 7.04 1.95 6.30 13.91 6.20 1.77 6.85 14.49 5.55 1.73 7.43 15.10 4.36 1.73 Total Emissions ............................................................ 28.69 28.10 28.18 28.62 28.62 Safety Margin*** ................................................................... n/a 0.59 0.51 0.07 0.07 * The total emissions in the tables above only include man-made emissions and not biogenic emissions. *** 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. North Carolina has calculated the VOC safety margin for the Rocky Mount area in its submittal which is summarized in Table 8. North Carolina has decided to allocate a portion of the available safety margin to the NOX subarea MVEBs for 2008 and 2017. This allocation and the resulting available safety margin is discussed further in section VIII of this rulemaking. d. Monitoring Network There is currently one monitor measuring ozone, the Leggett monitor, located within Edgecombe County, North Carolina, which provides air quality data for the entire Rocky Mount 8-hour nonattainment area. North Carolina has committed to continue operation of the Leggett ozone monitor in compliance with 40 CFR part 58, and has addressed the requirement for monitoring. cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES e. Verification of Continued Attainment The State has the legal authority to enforce and implement the requirements of the ozone maintenance plan for the Rocky Mount area. This includes the authority to adopt, implement and enforce any subsequent emissions control contingency measures determined to be necessary to correct future ozone attainment problems. North Carolina will track the progress of the maintenance plan by performing future reviews of actual emissions for the area using the latest emissions factors, models and methodologies. For these periodic inventories the State will review the assumptions made for the purpose of the maintenance demonstration concerning projected growth of activity levels. If any of these assumptions appear to have changed VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:39 Nov 03, 2006 Jkt 211001 substantially, the State will re-project emissions. f. Contingency Plan The contingency plan provisions are designed to promptly correct a violation of the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation. Section 175A of the CAA requires that a maintenance plan include such contingency measures as EPA deems necessary to assure that a state will promptly correct a violation of the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation. The maintenance plan should identify the contingency measures to be adopted, a schedule and procedure for adoption and implementation, and a time limit for action by a state. A state should also identify specific indicators to be used to determine when the contingency measures need to be implemented. The maintenance plan must include a requirement that a state will implement all measures with respect to control of the pollutant that were contained in the SIP before redesignation of the area to attainment in accordance with section 175A(d). This requirement is met because all SIP measures are retained for maintenance. In the June 19, 2006, submittal, North Carolina affirms that a combination of all programs instituted by the State and EPA have resulted in cleaner air in the Rocky Mount area and the anticipated future benefits from these programs are expected to result in continued maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in this area. This submittal also includes a contingency plan which provides tracking and triggering PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 mechanisms to determine when contingency measures are needed and a process of developing and adopting appropriate control measures. The primary trigger of the contingency plan will be a violation of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS at the Leggett monitor, or when the three-year average of the fourthhighest values is equal to or greater than 0.085 ppm. The trigger date will be 60 days from the date that the State observes a fourth-highest value that, when averaged with the two previous ozone season’s fourth highest values, would result in a three-year average equal to or greater than 0.085 ppm. The second trigger will apply where no actual violation of the 8-hour ozone standard has occurred, but where the State finds monitored ozone levels indicating that an actual ozone NAAQS violation may be imminent. A pattern will be deemed to exist when there are two consecutive ozone seasons in which the fourth-highest values are 0.085 ppm or greater. The trigger date will be 60 days from the date that the State observes a fourth-highest value of 0.085 ppm or greater, following a season in which the fourth-highest value was 0.085 ppm or greater. Once the primary or secondary trigger is activated, North Carolina will commence analyses including trajectory analyses of high ozone days, and emissions inventory assessment to determine those emission control measures that will be required for attainment and maintaining the 8-hour ozone standard. North Carolina commits that by May 1 of the year following the ozone season in which the primary (a E:\FR\FM\06NOR1.SGM 06NOR1 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 214 / Monday, November 6, 2006 / Rules and Regulations violation of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS occurs) or secondary trigger has been activated, that they will complete sufficient analyses to begin adoption of necessary rules for ensuring attainment and maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. North Carolina also commits that such rules would become Stateeffective by the following January 1, unless legislative review is required. Specifically, the State will consider one or more of the following contingency measures to re-attain the standard: • RACT for NOX on stationary sources in Nash and Edgecombe counties; • Diesel inspection and maintenance program 1; • Implementation of diesel retrofit programs, including incentives for performing retrofits; • Implementation of additional controls in upwind areas. In addition to the measures listed above, the future Consolidated Emissions Reporting Rule inventories that coincide with the attainment, interim, and final year inventories will be compared to determine if additional steps are necessary for continued maintenance of the 8-hour ozone standard in this area. EPA has concluded that the maintenance plan adequately addresses the five basic components of a maintenance plan: attainment inventory, maintenance demonstration, monitoring network, verification of continued attainment, and a contingency plan. The maintenance plan SIP revision submitted by North Carolina for the Rocky Mount area meets the requirements of section 175A of the CAA. VII. What Is an Adequacy Determination? cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES Under the CAA, states are required to submit, at various times, control strategy SIPs and maintenance plans in ozone areas. These control strategy SIPs (e.g., reasonable further progress SIPs and attainment demonstration SIPs) and maintenance plans create MVEBs for criteria pollutants and/or their precursors to address pollution from 1 At this time, there is not an approved method for determining emission reductions from a Diesel Inspection and Maintenance program. Therefore, there is no technical basis to award emission credits for a heavy duty diesel inspection and maintenance program in the SIP. However, we do not want to preclude future technical changes that may make awarding such emission credits possible. If it is necessary to implement contingency measures for this area, North Carolina, in coordination with EPA, will evaluate the feasibility of this program as a contingency measure at that time. If a technical basis for emission credits is not available, other contingency measures will need to be implemented. VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:39 Nov 03, 2006 Jkt 211001 cars and trucks. Per 40 CFR part 93, a MVEB is established for the last year of the maintenance plan. A state may adopt MVEBs for other years as well. The MVEB is the portion of the total allowable emissions in the maintenance demonstration that is allocated to highway and transit vehicle use and emissions. The MVEB serves as a ceiling on emissions from an area’s planned transportation system. The MVEB concept is further explained in the preamble to the November 24, 1993, transportation conformity rule (58 FR 62188). The preamble also describes how to establish the MVEB in the SIP and revise the MVEB. Under section 176(c) of the CAA, new transportation projects, such as the construction of new highways, must ‘‘conform’’ to (i.e., be consistent with) the part of the State’s air quality plan that addresses pollution from cars and trucks. ‘‘Conformity’’ to the SIP means that transportation activities will not cause new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of the NAAQS. If a transportation plan does not ‘‘conform,’’ most new projects that would expand the capacity of roadways cannot go forward. Regulations at 40 CFR part 93 set forth EPA policy, criteria, and procedures for demonstrating and assuring conformity of such transportation activities to a SIP. When reviewing submitted ‘‘control strategy’’ SIPs or maintenance plans containing MVEBs, EPA must affirmatively find the MVEB contained therein ‘‘adequate’’ for use in determining transportation conformity. Once EPA affirmatively finds the submitted MVEB is adequate for transportation conformity purposes, that MVEB can be used by state and federal agencies in determining whether proposed transportation projects ‘‘conform’’ to the SIP as required by section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act. EPA’s substantive criteria for determining ‘‘adequacy’’ of an MVEB are set out in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). EPA’s process for determining ‘‘adequacy’’ consists of three basic steps: public notification of a SIP submission, a public comment period, and EPA’s adequacy finding. This process for determining the adequacy of submitted SIP MVEBs was initially outlined in EPA’s May 14, 1999 guidance, ‘‘Conformity Guidance on Implementation of March 2, 1999, Conformity Court Decision.’’ This guidance was finalized in the Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments for the ‘‘New 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards and Miscellaneous PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 64899 Revisions for Existing Areas; Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments—Response to Court Decision and Additional Rule Change’’ on July 1, 2004 (69 FR 40004). EPA follows this guidance and rulemaking in making its adequacy determinations. In addition, in certain instances, the transportation conformity rule allows areas not to establish a MVEB where it is demonstrated that the regional motor vehicle emissions for a particular pollutant/precursor is an insignificant contributor to the air quality problem in an area. The general criteria for insignificance findings can be found in 40 CFR 93.109(k). Insignificance findings are based on a number of factors, including the percentage of motor vehicle emissions in context of the total SIP inventory, the current state of air quality as determined by monitoring data for that NAAQS, the absence of SIP motor vehicle control measures, and historical trends and future projections of the growth of motor vehicle emissions. EPA’s rationale for the allowance of insignificance findings can be found in the July 1, 2004, revision to the transportation conformity rule at 69 FR 40004. Specifically, the rationale is explained on page 40061 under the subsection entitled ‘‘B. Areas With Insignificant Motor Vehicle Emissions.’’ Any insignificance finding that EPA makes is subject to the adequacy and approval process for EPA’s action on the SIP. In summary, upon the effective date of EPA’s adequacy finding or approval of such a SIP, an insignificance finding waives the regional emissions analysis requirements (for the purpose of transportation conformity implementation) for an insignificant pollutant or precursor in areas where EPA finds that the SIP’s motor vehicle emissions for a pollutant or precursor for a given standard are an insignificant contributor to an area’s regional air quality problem. Areas with insignificant regional motor vehicle emissions for a pollutant or precursor are still required to make a conformity determination that satisfies other relevant requirements. Additionally, areas are required to satisfy the regional emissions analysis requirements for pollutants or precursors for which EPA has not made a finding of insignificance. For the Rocky Mount area, EPA is making an insignificance finding with regard to VOCs. This insignificance finding is discussed in more detail in Section IX below. E:\FR\FM\06NOR1.SGM 06NOR1 64900 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 214 / Monday, November 6, 2006 / Rules and Regulations VIII. What Is the Status of EPA’s Adequacy Determination for the Rocky Mount Area’s Proposed New NOX Subarea MVEBs for the Years 2008 and 2017? The Rocky Mount area’s maintenance plan submission contains new NOX subarea MVEBs for the years 2008 and 2017 for Edgecombe and Nash counties. The availability of the SIP submission with the 2008 and 2017 NOX subarea MVEBs was announced for public comment on EPA’s adequacy Web page on August 7, 2006, at: http:// www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/ transconf/currsips.htm. The EPA public comment period on the adequacy of the 2008 and 2017 NOX subarea MVEBs for the Edgecombe and Nash counties closed on September 7, 2006. EPA did not receive any adverse comments or requests for the submittal. Through this rulemaking, EPA is finding adequate and approving those MVEBs for use to determine transportation conformity because EPA has determined that the area maintains the standard with emissions at the levels of the budgets. Tables 9 and 10 below define the 2008 and 2017 NOX subarea MVEBs for both Edgecombe and Nash counties in the Rocky Mount, North Carolina area. TABLE 9.—EDGECOMBE COUNTY 8-HOUR OZONE MAINTENANCE AREA MVEBS FOR NOX 2008 kg/day On-Road Mobile Emissions ............................................................................. Safety Margin Allocated to MVEB ................................................................... NOX MVEB ...................................................................................................... 2017 tpd 2,483 273 2,756 kg/day 2.73 0.30 3.03 tpd 1,143 240 1,383 1.27 0.26 1.53 TABLE 10.—NASH COUNTY 8-HOUR OZONE MAINTENANCE AREA MVEBS FOR NOX 2008 kg/day On-Road Mobile Emissions ............................................................................. Safety Margin Allocated to MVEB ................................................................... NOX MVEB ...................................................................................................... A total of 1,240 kg (1.37 tpd) and 1,031kg (1.14 tpd) of the 2008 and 2017 safety margin, respectively, were added to the MVEB for the Rocky Mount area. As the tables above indicate, for Edgecombe County, this equates to an allocation of 273 kg/day (0.30 tpd) and 204 kg/day (0.26 tpd) for NOX in the years 2008 and 2017, respectively; for Nash County, this equates to 967 kg/day (1.07 tpd) and 791 kg/day (0.87 tpd) for NOX in the years 2008 and 2017, respectively. Thus, after this allocation, the available NOX safety margin for the Rocky Mount area in 2008 is 2.30 tpd and in 2017 is 10.49 tpd. cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES IX. What Is the Status of EPA’s Adequacy Determination for the Rocky Mount Area’s Proposed Insignificance Finding for VOCs From Motor Vehicles? In addition to NOX subarea MVEBs, the Rocky Mount area’s maintenance plan submission contains a finding of insignificance for VOCs’ contribution from motor vehicles to the 8-hour ozone pollution in the Rocky Mount area. The availability of the SIP submission with the VOC insignificance finding was announced for public comment on EPA’s adequacy Web page on August 7, 2006, at: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/ stateresources/transconf/currsips.htm. The EPA public comment period on the adequacy of the VOC insignificance finding for the Rocky Mount, North VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:39 Nov 03, 2006 Jkt 211001 Frm 00020 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 tpd 8,790 967 9,757 Carolina, area closed on September 7, 2006. EPA did not receive any adverse comments or requests for the submittal. For the purposes of transportation conformity, EPA agrees with the State of North Carolina’s insignificance finding for VOCs’ contribution from motor vehicles in the Rocky Mount, North Carolina area. EPA finds that North Carolina’s SIP submittal meets the criteria in the transportation conformity rule for an insignificance finding for VOCs considering the high level of biogenic emissions in the area. That is, EPA finds that the SIP submittal demonstrates that, as to VOCs, regional motor vehicle emissions are an insignificant contributor to 8-hour ozone pollution in the Rocky Mount area. This finding is based on the following: (1) The on-road VOC emissions are less than 10 percent in the future in both Edgecombe and Nash counties, and the biogenic emissions account for about 90 percent of the VOC emissions in future years; (2) figures 4.1.6–5 and 4.1.6–6, located in Appendix C.3—Mobile Source Inventory Documentation on pages 4–24 and 4–25 show on-road VOC emissions declining by about 50 percent by 2017 and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) going up by about 25 to 30 percent by 2017; and (3) the sensitivity analysis that was done, where the State ran a photochemical model for a 39-day PO 00000 2017 kg/day 9.70 1.07 10.77 3,767 791 4,558 tpd 4.16 0.87 5.03 scenario with a modeled 30 percent reduction in man-made VOC emissions, showed that 8-hour ozone levels were not affected by this reduction in VOC emissions. In the year 2009, even with anticipated growth in VMT, the mobile source inventory is less than 8 percent of the total inventory for VOC emissions, whereas biogenic emissions account for at least 84 percent of the total inventory for VOC emissions. As noted in North Carolina’s submittal, the biogenic sector is the most abundant source of VOCs in North Carolina and accounts for approximately 90 percent of the total VOCs statewide. EPA agrees with North Carolina that VOC emissions are due to the overwhelming abundance of biogenic VOCs in the area and throughout North Carolina. EPA also considered the implementation of an inspection and maintenance program (I/ M) in Edgecombe and Nash counties as of January 1, 2005. The total amount of VOC emission reductions achieved by this I/M program in Edgecombe and Nash counties, as a whole, is 0.51 tpd in 2008 and 0.89 tpd in 2017. Weighing all the factors for an insignificance finding, particularly the biogenic contribution to the overall VOC inventory, EPA has determined that VOCs’ contribution from motor vehicle emissions to the 8-hour ozone pollution for this area are insignificant. Based on the information described above, EPA is E:\FR\FM\06NOR1.SGM 06NOR1 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 214 / Monday, November 6, 2006 / Rules and Regulations cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES finding adequate and approving the insignificance finding for VOCs’ contribution from motor vehicle emissions to the 8-hour ozone pollution for the Rocky Mount, North Carolina area. EPA’s insignificance finding should be considered and specifically noted in the transportation conformity documentation that is prepared for this area. X. Final Action on the Redesignation Request, the Maintenance Plan SIP Revision Including Approval of the 2008 and 2017 NOX MVEBs, and the VOCs Insignificance Finding EPA is making the determination that the Rocky Mount area has attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is approving the redesignation of the Rocky Mount area from nonattainment to attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. After evaluating the State of North Carolina’s redesignation request, EPA has determined that it meets the redesignation criteria set forth in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. EPA believes that the redesignation request and monitoring data demonstrate that the Rocky Mount area has attained the 8hour ozone standard. The final approval of this redesignation request changes the official designation for the Rocky Mount, North Carolina area from nonattainment to attainment for the 8hour ozone standard. EPA is also approving the maintenance plan SIP revision. Approval of the maintenance plan for the Rocky Mount area is appropriate, because the State of North Carolina has demonstrated that the plan meets the requirements of section 175A as described more fully in this rulemaking. Additionally, EPA is finding adequate and approving the new 2008 and 2017 NOX MVEBs. Within 24 months from the effective date of this action, the transportation partners will need to demonstrate conformity to these new MVEBs pursuant to 40 CFR 93.104(e), as amended by new section 172(c)(2)(E) of the CAA (added by the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act—A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA–LU), which was signed into law on August 10, 2005). Further, EPA is approving the State of North Carolina’s insignificance finding for VOCs’ contribution from motor vehicles to Rocky Mount, North Carolina’s 8-hour ozone pollution. EPA is publishing this rule without prior approval because the Agency views this as noncontroversial and anticipates no adverse comment. However, in the Proposed Rules section of today’s Federal Register EPA is publishing a proposal to approve the redesignation VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:39 Nov 03, 2006 Jkt 211001 and maintenance plan that will serve as the proposal if adverse comments are filed. This rule will be effective on January 5, 2007 unless EPA receives adverse comments by December 6, 2006. If EPA receives adverse comment, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take effect. EPA will address the public comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public is advised that this rule will be effective on January 5, 2007 and no further action will be taken on the proposed rule. XI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Redsignation of an area to attainment under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA does not impose any new requirements on small entities. Redesignation is an action that affects the status of a geographical area and does not impose any new regulatory requirements on sources. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4). This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 64901 implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely affects the status of a geographical area, does not impose any new requirements on sources, or allow a state to avoid adopting or implementing other requirements, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 ‘‘Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant and because the Agency does not have reason to believe that the rule concerns an environmental health risk or safety risk that may disproportionately affect children. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). E:\FR\FM\06NOR1.SGM 06NOR1 64902 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 214 / Monday, November 6, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 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 January 5, 2007. 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 PART 52—[AMENDED] 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds. 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: I Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Subpart II—North Carolina 2. Section 52.1770(e), is amended by adding a new entry at the end of the table for ‘‘8-Hour Ozone Maintenance plan for the Rocky Mount, North Carolina area’’ to read as follows: I 40 CFR Part 81 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas. Dated: October 24, 2006. A. Stanley Meiburg, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. § 52.1770 * 40 CFR parts 52 and 81 is amended as follows: I Identification of plan. * * (e) * * * * * EPA-APPROVED NORTH CAROLINA NON-REGULATORY PROVISIONS Provision State effective date EPA approval date * * * 8-Hour Ozone Maintenance plan for the Rocky Mount, North Carolina area (Edgecombe and Nash Counties). * 06/19/2006 ......................... * 11/06/2006 [Insert first page of publication]. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. PART 81—[AMENDED] 2. In section 81.334, the table entitled ‘‘North Carolina-Ozone (8-Hour Standard)’’ is amended under ‘‘Rocky Mount, NC’’ by revising the entries for I 1. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows: I Federal Register citation * * ‘‘Edgecombe County’’ and ‘‘Nash County’’ to read as follows: § 81.334 * North Carolina. * * * * NORTH CAROLINA-OZONE (8-HOUR STANDARD) Designation a Category/ classification Designated area Date1 Type Date1 * * * Rocky Mount, NC: Edgecombe County ............................................................. Nash County ........................................................................ * * * * * January 5, 2007 ....................... January 5, 2007 ....................... * * * * Indian Country located in each county or area, except as otherwise specified. 1 This date is June 15, 2004, unless otherwise noted. * * * * [FR Doc. E6–18584 Filed 11–3–06; 8:45 am] cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES BILLING CODE 6560–50–P VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:39 Nov 03, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 * Attainment. Attainment. a Includes * * E:\FR\FM\06NOR1.SGM 06NOR1 Type

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 214 (Monday, November 6, 2006)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 64891-64902]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-18584]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA-R04-OAR-2006-0676-200622(a); FRL-8239-5]


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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: On June 19, 2006, the State of North Carolina, through the 
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources 
(NCDENR), Division of Air Quality, submitted a final request: to 
redesignate the Rocky Mount 8-hour ozone nonattainment area to 
attainment for the 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard 
(NAAQS), and to approve a North Carolina State Implementation Plan 
(SIP) revision containing a maintenance plan for Rocky Mount, North 
Carolina. The Rocky Mount 8-hour ozone nonattainment area is comprised 
of two counties, Edgecombe and Nash. EPA is approving the 8-hour ozone 
redesignation request for the Rocky Mount 8-hour ozone nonattainment 
area. Additionally, EPA is approving the 8-hour ozone maintenance plan 
for Rocky Mount, North Carolina. This approval is based on EPA's 
determination that the State of North Carolina has demonstrated that 
the Rocky Mount area has met the criteria for redesignation to 
attainment specified in the Clean Air Act (CAA), including the 
determination that the entire Rocky Mount 8-hour ozone nonattainment 
area has attained the 8-hour ozone standard. In this action, EPA is 
also finding adequate and approving the 2008 and 2017 motor vehicle 
emissions budgets (MVEBs) for nitrogen oxides (NOX) (for 
both Edgecombe and Nash counties) that are contained in the 8-hour 
ozone maintenance plan for the Rocky Mount nonattainment area. North 
Carolina has established subarea MVEBs at the county level so each 
county must consider its individual subarea MVEBs for the purposes of 
implementing transportation conformity. Further, in this action, EPA is 
finding adequate and approving the insignificance determination for 
volatile organic compounds' (VOCs) contribution from motor vehicle 
emissions to the 8-hour ozone pollution in the Rocky Mount, North 
Carolina area.

DATES: This rule is effective on January 5, 2007, without further 
notice, unless EPA receives adverse written comments by December 6, 
2006. If EPA receives such comments, it will publish a timely 
withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform 
the public that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No EPA-R04-
OAR-2006-0676, by one of the following methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov : Follow the online instructions for 
submitting comments.
    2. E-mail: ward.nacosta@epa.gov or wood.amanetta@epa.gov.
    3. Fax: 404-562-9019.
    4. Mail: ``EPA-R04-OAR-2006-0676'', Regulatory Development Section, 
Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., 
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to: Nacosta C. 
Ward or Amanetta Wood, Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning 
Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., 
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such deliveries are only accepted during 
the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional Office's 
official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, 
excluding Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No.: ``EPA-R04-OAR-
2006-0676''. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be 
included in the public docket without change and may be made available 
online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal 
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed 
to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through 
www.regulations.gov or e-mail, information that you consider to be CBI 
or otherwise protected. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an 
``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your 
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of 
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without 
going through www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be 
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is 
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you 
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name 
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any 
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to 
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA 
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid 
the use of special characters, any form of

[[Page 64892]]

encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional 
information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center 
homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the 
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be 
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket 
materials are available either electronically in http://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Regulatory Development 
Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management 
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth 
Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all 
possible, you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's 
official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, 
excluding legal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nacosta C. Ward of the Regulatory 
Development Section or Amanetta Wood of the Air Quality Modeling and 
Transportation Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 
Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 
Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number 
is (404) 562-9140 or (404) 562-9025. Ms. Nacosta Ward can be reached 
via electronic mail at ward.nacosta@epa.gov. Ms. Amanetta Wood can also 
be reached via electronic mail at wood.amanetta@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. What Are the Actions EPA Is Taking?
II. What Is the Background for the Actions?
III What Are the Criteria for Redesignation?
IV. Why Is EPA Taking These Actions?
V. What Is the Effect of EPA's Actions?
VI. What Is EPA's Analysis of the Request?
VII. What Is an Adequacy Determination?
VIII. What Is the Status of EPA's Adequacy Determination for the 
Rocky Mount Area's Proposed New NOX Subarea MVEBs for the 
Years 2008 and 2017?
IX. What Is the Status of EPA's Adequacy Determination for the Rocky 
Mount Area's Proposed Insignificance Finding for VOCs from Motor 
Vehicles?
X. Final Action on the Redesignation Request, the Maintenance Plan 
SIP Revision Including Approval of the 2008 and 2017 NOX 
MVEBs, and the VOCs Insignificance Finding.
XI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What Are the Actions EPA Is Taking?

    Through this rulemaking, EPA is taking several related actions. EPA 
is making the determination that the Rocky Mount 8-hour ozone 
nonattainment area has attained the 8-hour ozone standard, and has met 
the requirements for redesignation under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the 
CAA. The Rocky Mount area is a basic 8-hour ozone nonattainment area. 
The Rocky Mount 8-hour ozone nonattainment area is comprised of 
Edgecombe and Nash counties. EPA is approving a request to change the 
legal designation of the Rocky Mount area from nonattainment to 
attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
    EPA is also approving North Carolina's 8-hour ozone maintenance 
plan for the Rocky Mount area (such approval being one of the CAA 
criteria for redesignation to attainment status). The maintenance plan 
is designed to help keep the Rocky Mount area in attainment for the 8-
hour ozone NAAQS for the next 12 years, and includes an insignificance 
finding for VOCs for the entire Rocky Mount, North Carolina area, and 
new NOX subarea MVEBs for the years 2008 and 2017 for 
Edgecombe and Nash counties.
    Additionally, through this rulemaking, EPA is announcing its action 
on the Adequacy Process for the newly-established 2008 and 2017 
NOX MVEBs for the Rocky Mount 8-hour ozone area. Further, 
EPA is announcing its action on the Adequacy Process for the 
insignificance finding related to VOCs from motor vehicles for the 
Rocky Mount 8-hour ozone area. The Adequacy comment period for the new 
NOX MVEBs and the VOCs insignificance finding began on 
August 8, 2006, with EPA's posting of the availability of this 
submittal on EPA's Adequacy Web site (at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/
stateresources/transconf/currsips.htm). The Adequacy comment period for 
these MVEBs and VOCs insignificance finding closed on September 7, 
2006. No requests or adverse comments on this submittal were received 
during EPA's Adequacy comment period. Please see section VII of this 
rulemaking for further explanation of this process.

II. What Is the Background for the Actions?

    Ground-level ozone is not emitted directly by sources. Rather, 
emissions of NOX and VOCs react in the presence of sunlight 
to form ground-level ozone. NOX and VOCs are referred to as 
precursors of ozone. The CAA establishes a process for air quality 
management through the NAAQS.
    On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a revised 8-hour ozone standard 
of 0.08 parts per million (ppm). This new standard is more stringent 
than the previous 1-hour ozone standard. Under EPA regulations at 40 
CFR part 50, the 8-hour ozone standard is attained when the 3-year 
average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average 
ambient air quality ozone concentrations is less than or equal to 0.08 
ppm (i.e. 0.084 ppm when rounding is considered). (See 69 FR 23857 
(April 30, 2004) for further information). Ambient air quality 
monitoring data for the 3-year period must meet a data completeness 
requirement. The ambient air quality monitoring data completeness 
requirement is met when the average percent of days with valid ambient 
monitoring data is greater than 90 percent, and no single year has less 
than 75 percent data completeness as determined in Appendix I of part 
50. Specifically, section 2.3 of 40 CFR part 50, Appendix I, 
``Comparisons with the Primary and Secondary Ozone Standards'' states: 
``The primary and secondary ozone ambient air quality standards are met 
at an ambient air quality monitoring site when the 3-year average of 
the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone 
concentration is less than or equal to 0.08 ppm. The number of 
significant figures in the level of the standard dictates the rounding 
convention for comparing the computed 3-year average annual fourth-
highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration with the level 
of the standard. The third decimal place of the computed value is 
rounded, with values equal to or greater than 5 rounding up. Thus, a 
computed 3-year average ozone concentration of 0.085 ppm is the 
smallest value that is greater than 0.08 ppm.''
    The CAA required EPA to designate as nonattainment any area that 
was violating the 8-hour ozone NAAQS based on the three most recent 
years of ambient air quality data. The Rocky Mount 8-hour ozone 
nonattainment area was designated using 2001 to 2003 ambient air 
quality data. The Federal Register notice making these designations was 
signed on April 15, 2004, and published on April 30, 2004, (69 FR 
23857). The CAA contains two sets of provisions--subpart 1 and subpart 
2--that address planning and control requirements for ozone 
nonattainment areas. (Both are found in title I, part D.) Subpart 1 
(which covers areas that EPA refers to as ``basic'' nonattainment) 
contains general, less

[[Page 64893]]

prescriptive, requirements for nonattainment areas for any pollutant--
including ozone--governed by a NAAQS. Subpart 2 (which covers areas 
that EPA refers to as ``classified'' nonattainment) provides more 
specific requirements for certain ozone nonattainment areas. Some 8-
hour ozone nonattainment areas are subject only to the provisions of 
subpart 1. Other 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas are also subject to 
the provisions of subpart 2. Under EPA's Phase 1 8-hour Ozone 
Implementation Rule, signed on April 15, 2004, an area was to be 
classified under subpart 2 based on its 8-hour ozone design value 
(i.e., the 3-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-
hour average ozone concentrations), if it had a 1-hour design value at 
or above 0.121 ppm (the lowest 1-hour design value in Table 1 of 
subpart 2). All other areas are covered under subpart 1, based upon 
their 8-hour ambient air quality design values. The Rocky Mount area 
was originally designated as a ``basic'' 8-hour ozone nonattainment 
area by EPA on April 30, 2004, (69 FR 23857) and is subject to subpart 
1 of part D. In 2005, the ambient ozone data for the Rocky Mount 
nonattainment area indicated no further violation of the 8-hour ozone 
standard, using data from the 3-year period of 2003-2005 (with the 
2003-2005 design value of 0.079 ppm), to demonstrate attainment. 
Available monitoring data through July 2006 indicates continued 
attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard. These data are depicted in 
Table 1 below:

                         Table 1.--Current Air Quality Data in the Rocky Mount, NC Area
     Air Quality System Monitoring Data for Edgecombe County (Leggett monitor AIRS ID 37-065-0099)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 April 2006        May 2006        June 2006        July 2006
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monthly Maximum 8-hour ozone Values (ppm)...            .074             .077             .074             .068
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 19, 2006, the State of North Carolina requested 
redesignation to attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard for the Rocky 
Mount, North Carolina 8-hour ozone nonattainment area. The 
redesignation request includes three years of complete, quality-assured 
ambient air quality data for the ozone seasons of 2003 through 2005, 
indicating the 8-hour ozone NAAQS had been achieved for the Rocky Mount 
area. The ozone season for this area is from April 1 until October 31 
of a calendar year. Under the CAA, nonattainment areas may be 
redesignated to attainment if sufficient, complete, quality-assured 
data is available for the Administrator to determine that the area has 
attained the standard and the area meets the other CAA redesignation 
requirements in section 107(d)(3)(E).

III. What Are the Criteria for Redesignation?

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

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

IV. Why Is EPA Taking These Actions?

    On June 19, 2006, the State of North Carolina requested 
redesignation of the Rocky Mount 8-hour ozone nonattainment area to 
attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. EPA believes that the State 
of North Carolina has demonstrated that the Rocky Mount area has 
attained the standard and has met the requirements for redesignation 
set forth in section 107(d)(3)(E) of CAA.

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

    Approval of this redesignation request would change the official 
designation of Edgecombe and Nash counties in North Carolina for the 8-
hour ozone NAAQS found at 40 CFR part 81. It would also incorporate 
into the North Carolina SIP a plan for maintaining the 8-hour ozone 
NAAQS in the area through 2017. The maintenance plan includes 
contingency measures to remedy future violations of the 8-hour ozone 
NAAQS, and establishes MVEBs of 2,756 kilograms

[[Page 64894]]

per day (kg/d) (3.03 tons per day (tpd)), and 9,757 kg/d (10.77 tpd) 
for NOX for the year 2008 for Edgecombe and Nash counties, 
respectively. For the year 2017, the NOX MVEBs for Edgecombe 
and Nash counties are 1,383 kg/d (1.53 tpd) and 4,558 kg/d (5.03 tpd), 
respectively. Additionally, the maintenance plan includes an 
insignificance finding for VOCs' contribution from motor vehicles to 
the 8-hour ozone pollution in the Rocky Mount, North Carolina area. 
EPA's affirmative adequacy finding and approval for this insignificance 
determination waives the regional emissions analysis requirement (not 
the transportation conformity requirement) for VOCs for this area. The 
regional emissions analysis is one, but not the only, requirement for 
implementing transportation conformity.

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

    EPA is making the determination that the Rocky Mount 8-hour ozone 
nonattainment area has attained the 8-hour ozone standard, and that all 
other redesignation criteria have been met. The basis for EPA's 
determination is as follows:
    (1) The Rocky Mount area has attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
    EPA is making the determination that the area has attained the 8-
hour ozone NAAQS. For ozone, an area may be considered to be attaining 
the 8-hour ozone NAAQS if there are no violations, as determined in 
accordance with 40 CFR 50.10 and Appendix I of part 50, based on three 
complete, consecutive calendar years of quality-assured air quality 
monitoring data. To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the 
fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations 
measured at each monitor within an area over each year must not exceed 
0.08 ppm. Based on the rounding convention described in 40 CFR part 50, 
Appendix I, the standard is attained if the design value is 0.084 ppm 
or below. The data must be collected and quality-assured in accordance 
with 40 CFR part 58, and recorded in the EPA Air Quality System (AQS). 
The monitors generally should have remained at the same location for 
the duration of the monitoring period required for demonstrating 
attainment.
    NCDENR submitted ozone monitoring data to EPA for the ozone season 
from 2003 to 2005. There is currently one monitor measuring ozone, 
located in the town of Leggett in Edgecombe County, which provides air 
quality data for the entire Rocky Mount 8-hour ozone nonattainment 
area. This data has been quality assured and is recorded in AQS. The 
fourth-highest averages for 2003, 2004 and 2005, and the 3-year average 
of these values (i.e. design value), are summarized in Table 2:

               Table 2.--Quality Assured Monitoring Data in the Rocky Mount, NC Area for 2003-2005
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    4th Highest 8-hour ozone values (ppm)          Design Value
                                             ---------------------------------------------------      (ppm)
                   County                                                                       ----------------
                                                    2003             2004             2005          2003-2005
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edgecombe (Leggett Monitor).................           0.088            0.072            0.079            0.079
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, as discussed below with respect to the maintenance 
plan, NCDENR has indicated a commitment to continue monitoring in the 
Rocky Mount area in accordance with 40 CFR part 58 by requiring the use 
of the data from the monitor in Edgecombe County to verify continued 
maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. On September 11, 2006, NCDENR 
submitted a letter to EPA clarifying this commitment. NCDENR will 
operate and continue monitoring at the Leggett ozone monitor throughout 
the maintenance period and until there is a change approved by EPA to 
discontinue operation, relocate or otherwise affect the ambient 
monitoring network in place. In summary, EPA believes that the data 
submitted by North Carolina provides an adequate demonstration that the 
Rocky Mount 8-hour ozone nonattainment area has attained the 8-hour 
ozone NAAQS.
    (2) North Carolina has a fully approved SIP under section 110(k) 
for Edgecombe and Nash Counties and (5) has met all applicable 
requirements under section 110 and part D of the CAA.
    Below is a summary of how these two criteria were met.
    EPA has determined that North Carolina has met all applicable SIP 
requirements for the Rocky Mount area under section 110 of the CAA 
(general SIP requirements). EPA has also determined that the North 
Carolina SIP satisfies the criterion that it meets applicable SIP 
requirements under part D of title I of the CAA (requirements specific 
to subpart 1 basic 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas) in accordance with 
section 107(d)(3)(E)(v). In addition, EPA has determined that the SIP 
is fully approved with respect to all applicable requirements in 
accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii). In making these 
determinations, EPA ascertained which requirements are applicable to 
the area and that if applicable they are fully approved under section 
110(k). SIPs must be fully approved only with respect to applicable 
requirements.
    a. Rocky Mount, North Carolina has met all applicable requirements 
under section 110 and part D of the CAA.
    The September 4, 1992, Calcagni memorandum (see ``Procedures for 
Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,'' Memorandum 
from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, 
September 4, 1992) describes EPA's interpretation of section 
107(d)(3)(E). Under this interpretation, to qualify for redesignation, 
states requesting redesignation to attainment must meet only the 
relevant CAA requirements that come due prior to the submittal of a 
complete redesignation request. See also Michael Shapiro memorandum, 
September 17, 1993, and 60 FR 12459, 12465-66 (March 7, 1995) 
(redesignation of Detroit-Ann Arbor, MI). Applicable requirements of 
the CAA that come due subsequent to the area's submittal of a complete 
redesignation request remain applicable until a redesignation is 
approved, but are not required as a prerequisite to redesignation. See 
section 175A(c) of the CAA; Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 
2004). See also 68 FR 25424, 25427 (May 12, 2003) (redesignation of St. 
Louis, MO).
    General SIP requirements: Section 110(a)(2) of title I of the CAA 
delineates the general requirements for a SIP, which include 
enforceable emissions limitations and other control measures, means, or 
techniques, provisions for the establishment and operation of 
appropriate devices necessary to collect data on ambient air quality, 
and programs to enforce the limitations. General SIP elements and 
requirements are delineated in section 110(a)(2) of title I, part A of 
the CAA. These requirements include, but are not

[[Page 64895]]

limited to, the following: Submittal of a SIP that has been adopted by 
the state after reasonable public notice and hearing; provisions for 
establishment and operation of appropriate procedures needed to monitor 
ambient air quality; implementation of a source permit program; 
provisions for the implementation of part C requirements (Prevention of 
Significant Deterioration (PSD) and provisions for the implementation 
of part D requirements (New Source Review (NSR) permit programs); 
provisions for air pollution modeling; and provisions for public and 
local agency participation in planning and emission control rule 
development. These requirements are discussed in the following EPA 
documents: ``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to 
Attainment,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality 
Management Division, September 4, 1992; ``State Implementation Plan 
(SIP) Actions Submitted in Response to Clean Air Act (CAA) Deadlines,'' 
memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management 
Division, October 28, 1992; and ``State Implementation Plan (SIP) 
Requirements for Areas Submitting Requests for Redesignation to 
Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air 
Quality Standards (NAAQS) on or after November 15, 1992,'' Memorandum 
from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting Assistant Administrator, September 17, 
1993. See also guidance documents listed in section III above.
    Section 110(a)(2)(D) requires that SIPs contain certain measures to 
prevent sources in a state from significantly contributing to air 
quality problems in another state. To implement this provision, EPA has 
required certain states to establish programs to address the transport 
of air pollutants (NOX SIP Call, Clean Air Interstate Rule 
(CAIR)). North Carolina's final CAIR submittal was received by EPA on 
August 15, 2006. However, the section 110(a)(2)(D) requirements for a 
state are not linked with a particular nonattainment area's designation 
and classification in that state. EPA believes that the requirements 
linked with a particular nonattainment area's designation and 
classification are the relevant measures to evaluate in reviewing a 
redesignation request. The transport SIP submittal requirements, where 
applicable, continue to apply to a state regardless of the designation 
of any one particular area in the state.
    Thus, we do not believe that the CAA's interstate transport 
requirements should be construed to be applicable requirements for 
purposes of redesignation. In addition, EPA believes that the other 
section 110 elements not connected with nonattainment plan submissions 
and not linked with an area's attainment status are not applicable 
requirements for purposes of redesignation. The State will still be 
subject to these requirements after the area is redesignated. The 
section 110 and part D requirements, which are linked with a particular 
area's designation and classification, are the relevant measures to 
evaluate in reviewing a redesignation request. This approach is 
consistent with EPA's existing policy on applicability (i.e., for 
redesignations) of conformity and oxygenated fuels requirements, as 
well as with section 184 ozone transport requirements. See Reading, 
Pennsylvania, proposed and final rulemakings (61 FR 53174-53176, 
October 10, 1996), (62 FR 24826, May 7, 1997); Cleveland-Akron-Loraine, 
Ohio, final rulemaking (61 FR 20458, May 7, 1996); and Tampa, Florida, 
final rulemaking at (60 FR 62748, December 7, 1995). See also the 
discussion on this issue in the Cincinnati redesignation (65 FR 37890, 
June 19, 2000), and in the Pittsburgh redesignation (66 FR 50399, 
October 19, 2001).
    EPA believes that section 110 elements not linked to the area's 
nonattainment status are not applicable for purposes of redesignation. 
Any section 110 requirements that are linked to the part D requirements 
for 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas are not yet due, since, as 
explained below, no part D requirements applicable for purposes of 
redesignation under the 8-hour ozone standard became due prior to the 
submission of the redesignation request. Therefore, as discussed above, 
for purposes of redesignation, they are not considered applicable 
requirements. Nonetheless, EPA notes that it has previously approved 
provisions in the North Carolina SIP addressing section 110 elements 
under the 1-hour ozone standard (51 FR 19834, June 3, 1986). EPA 
believes that the section 110 SIP approved for the 1-hour ozone 
standard is sufficient to meet requirements under the 8-hour ozone 
standard as well.
    Part D requirements: EPA has also determined that the North 
Carolina SIP meets applicable SIP requirements under part D of the CAA 
since no requirements became due prior to the submission of the area's 
redesignation request. Sections 172-176 of the CAA, found in subpart 1 
of part D, set forth the basic nonattainment requirements applicable to 
all nonattainment areas. Section 182 of the CAA, found in subpart 2 of 
part D, establishes additional specific requirements depending on the 
area's nonattainment classification. Subpart 2 is not applicable to the 
Rocky Mount area.
    Part D, subpart 1 applicable SIP requirements: For purposes of 
evaluating this redesignation request, the applicable part D, subpart 1 
SIP requirements for all nonattainment areas are contained in sections 
172(c)(1)-(9). A thorough discussion of the requirements contained in 
section 172 can be found in the General Preamble for Implementation of 
Title I (57 FR 13498). No requirements applicable for purposes of 
redesignation under part D became due prior to the submission of the 
redesignation request, and therefore none are applicable to the area 
for purposes of redesignation. For example, the requirements for an 
attainment demonstration that meets the requirements of section 
172(c)(1) are not yet applicable, nor are the requirements for 
Reasonably Achievable Control Technology (RACT) and Reasonably 
Available Control Measures (RACM) (section 172(c)(1)), reasonable 
further progress (RFP) (section 172(c)(2)), and contingency measures 
(section 172(c)(9)).
    In addition to the fact that no part D requirements applicable for 
purposes of redesignation became due prior to submission of the 
redesignation request and therefore are not applicable, EPA believes it 
is reasonable to interpret the conformity and NSR requirements as not 
requiring approval prior to redesignation.
    Section 176 Conformity Requirements: Section 176(c) of the CAA 
requires states to establish criteria and procedures to ensure that 
Federally supported or funded projects conform to the air quality 
planning goals in the applicable SIP. The requirement to determine 
conformity applies to transportation plans, programs and projects 
developed, funded or approved under title 23 of the United States Code 
(U.S.C.) and the Federal Transit Act (``transportation conformity'') as 
well as to all other Federally supported or funded projects (``general 
conformity''). State conformity revisions must be consistent with 
Federal conformity regulations that the CAA required the EPA to 
promulgate.
    EPA believes it is reasonable to interpret the conformity 
requirements as not applying for purposes of evaluating the 
redesignation request under section 107(d) because state conformity 
rules are still required after redesignation and Federal conformity 
rules apply where state rules have not been approved. See Wall v. EPA, 
265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001), upholding this interpretation. See

[[Page 64896]]

also 60 FR 62748 (Dec. 7, 1995, Tampa, FL).
    EPA has also determined that areas being redesignated need not 
comply with the requirement that a NSR program be approved prior to 
redesignation, provided that the area demonstrates maintenance of the 
standard without part D NSR in effect since PSD requirements will apply 
after redesignation. The rationale for this view is described in a 
memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and 
Radiation, dated October 14, 1994, entitled ``Part D New Source Review 
(Part D NSR) Requirements for Areas Requesting Redesignation to 
Attainment.'' North Carolina has demonstrated that the area will be 
able to maintain the standard without part D NSR in effect, and 
therefore, the State need not have a fully approved part D NSR program 
prior to approval of the redesignation request. The State's PSD program 
will become effective in the area upon redesignation to attainment. See 
rulemakings for Detroit, MI (60 FR 12467-12468, March 7, 1995); 
Cleveland-Akron-Lorraine, OH (61 FR 20458, 20469-20470, May 7, 1996); 
Louisville, KY (66 FR 53665, October 23, 2001); Grand Rapids, Michigan 
(61 FR 31834-31837, June 21, 1996). Thus, the area has satisfied all 
applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation under section 110 
and part D of the CAA.
    b. The area has a fully approved applicable SIP under section 
110(k) of the CAA.
    EPA has fully approved the applicable North Carolina SIP for the 
Rocky Mount area under section 110(k) of the Clean Air Act for all 
requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation. EPA may rely on 
prior SIP approvals in approving a redesignation request, see Calcagni 
Memo at p. 3; Southwestern Pennsylvania Growth Alliance v. Browner, 144 
F.3d 984, 989-90 (6th Cir. 1998); Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 
2001), plus any additional measures it may approve in conjunction with 
a redesignation action. See 68 FR 25426 (May 12, 2003) and citations 
therein. Following passage of the CAA of 1970, North Carolina has 
adopted and submitted, and EPA has fully approved at various times, 
provisions addressing the various 1-hour ozone standard SIP elements 
applicable in the Rocky Mount area (51 FR 19834, June 3, 1986).
    As indicated above, EPA believes that the section 110 elements not 
connected with nonattainment plan submissions and not linked to the 
area's nonattainment status are not applicable requirements for 
purposes of redesignation. EPA also believes that since the part D 
requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation did not become 
due prior to submission of the redesignation request, they also are 
therefore not applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation.
    (3) The air quality improvement in the Rocky Mount 8-hour ozone 
area is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions 
resulting from implementation of the SIP and applicable Federal air 
pollution control regulations and other permanent and enforceable 
reductions.
    EPA believes that the State has demonstrated that the observed air 
quality improvement in the area is due to permanent and enforceable 
reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the SIP, 
Federal measures, and other state-adopted measures. EPA has determined 
that the implementation of the following permanent and enforceable 
emissions controls, that occurred from 2002-2005, have reduced local 
VOC and NOX emissions and brought the area into attainment:
     EPA's Tier 2 Vehicle Standards;
     EPA's Heavy-Duty Gasoline and Diesel Highway and Vehicle 
Standards;
     Federal controls on non-road spark ignition engines and 
recreational engine standard engines in 2003;
     State Clean Air Bill;
     State NOX SIP Call rule;
     State Clean Smokestacks Act;
     State Open Burning Ban;
     State Air Toxics Control Program;
     Prevention of Significant Deterioration;
     State Heavy Duty Diesel Gap Filling Rule.
    In addition to the reductions mentioned above, the State of North 
Carolina has implemented an Air Awareness Program which is a public 
outreach program to reduce air pollution through voluntary action by 
individuals and organizations.
    The State has demonstrated that the implementation of permanent and 
enforceable emissions controls have reduced local VOC and 
NOX emissions. Most of the reductions are attributable to 
Federal programs such as EPA's Tier 2/Low Sulfur Gasoline program and 
other national clean fuel programs that began implementation in 2004. 
Additionally, the State has indicated in its submittal that the Rocky 
Mount area has benefited from emissions reductions that have been 
achieved and will continue to be achieved through implementation of the 
NOX SIP Call, beginning in 2002. The State has also 
demonstrated that year-to-year meteorological changes and trends are 
not the likely source of the overall, long-term improvement in ozone 
levels. Also, the following non-highway mobile source reduction 
programs were implemented during the 2002-2005 period: small spark-
ignition engines, large-spark ignition engines, locomotives and land-
based diesel engines. EPA believes that permanent and enforceable 
emissions reductions in and surrounding the nonattainment area are the 
cause of the long-term improvement in ozone levels, and are the cause 
of the area achieving attainment of the ozone standard.
    (4) The area has a fully approved maintenance plan pursuant to 
section 175A of the CAA.
    In its request to redesignate the Rocky Mount 8-hour ozone 
nonattainment area to attainment status, NCDENR submitted a SIP 
revision to provide for the maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in 
the Rocky Mount area for at least 10 years after the effective date of 
redesignation to attainment.

a. What Is Required in a Maintenance Plan?

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

b. Attainment Emissions Inventory

    The Rocky Mount area has selected 2005 as ``the attainment year'' 
for purposes of demonstrating attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The 
2005 VOC and NOX emissions for the Rocky

[[Page 64897]]

Mount area were developed consistent with EPA guidance and are 
summarized in the table in the following subsection.

c. Maintenance Demonstration

    The June 19, 2006, submittal includes a 12-year maintenance plan 
for the Rocky Mount area. This demonstration:
    (i) shows compliance and maintenance of the 8-hour ozone standard 
by assuring that current and future emissions of VOC and NOX 
remain at or below attainment year 2005 emissions levels. The year 2005 
was chosen as the attainment year because it is one of the most recent 
three years (i.e., 2003, 2004, and 2005) for which the Rocky Mount area 
has clean air quality data for the 8-hour ozone standard.
    (ii) uses 2005 as the attainment year and includes future inventory 
projected years for 2008, 2011, 2014, and 2017.
    (iii) identifies an ``out year,'' at least 10 years after the time 
necessary for EPA to review and approve the maintenance plan. Per 40 
CFR part 93, a MVEB was established for the last year of the 
maintenance plan. See sections VIII and IX below.
    (iv) provides the following actual and projected emissions 
inventories for the Rocky Mount area depicted in Tables 3 through 8:

                              Table 3.-- NOX Emissions (tpd) for Edgecombe County*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Source category               2005            2008            2011            2014            2017
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point...........................            2.95            2.68            2.70            2.73            2.76
Area............................            0.53            0.54            0.55            0.56            0.57
On-Road Mobile..................            3.36            2.73            2.14            1.62            1.27
Nonroad.........................            2.35            2.10            1.82            1.60            1.40
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Emissions.............            9.19            8.05            7.21            6.51            6.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*The total emissions in the tables above only include man-made emissions and not biogenic emissions.


                                 Table 4.-- NOX Emissions (tpd) for Nash County*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Source category               2005            2008            2011            2014            2017
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point...........................            0.60            0.60            0.63            0.69            0.72
Area............................            1.08            1.12            1.16            1.20            1.24
On-Road Mobile..................           12.07            9.70            7.42            5.39            4.16
Nonroad.........................            2.10            1.90            1.69            1.48            1.29
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Emissions.............           15.85           13.32           10.90            8.76            7.41
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*The total emissions in the tables above only include man-made emissions and not biogenic emissions.


                      Table 5.--Total NOX Emissions (tpd) for Edgecombe and Nash Counties*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Source category               2005            2008            2011            2014            2017
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point...........................            3.55            3.28            3.33            3.42            3.48
Area............................            1.61            1.66            1.71            1.76            1.81
On-Road Mobile..................           15.43           12.43            9.56            7.01            5.43
Nonroad.........................            4.45            4.00            3.51            3.08            2.69
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Emissions.............           25.04           21.37           18.11           15.27           13.41
================================================================================================================
Safety Margin**.................             n/a            3.67            6.93            9.77           11.63
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The total emissions in the tables above only include man-made emissions and not biogenic emissions.
** 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. North Carolina has calculated
  the NOX safety margin for the Rocky Mount area in its submittal which is summarized in Table 5.


                               Table 6.--VOC Emissions (tpd) for Edgecombe County*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Source category               2005            2008            2011            2014            2017
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point...........................            3.86            4.35            4.74            5.20            5.65
Area............................            5.62            5.88            6.12            6.35            6.58
On-Road Mobile..................            2.50            2.08            1.83            1.50            1.27
Nonroad.........................            0.95            0.78            0.70            0.68            0.65
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Emissions.............           12.93           13.09           13.39           13.73           14.15
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The total emissions in the tables above only include man-made emissions and not biogenic emissions.


                                 Table 7.--VOC Emissions (tpd) for Nash County*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Source category               2005            2008            2011            2014            2017
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point...........................            1.35            1.45            1.56            1.65            1.78
Area............................            7.04            7.43            7.79            8.14            8.52

[[Page 64898]]

 
On-Road Mobile..................            5.98            4.96            4.37            4.05            3.09
Nonroad.........................            1.39            1.17            1.07            1.05            1.08
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Emissions.............           15.76           15.01           14.79           14.89          14.47
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The total emissions in the tables above only include man-made emissions and not biogenic emissions.


                      Table 8.--Total VOC Emissions (tpd) for Edgecombe and Nash Counties*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Source category               2005            2008            2011            2014            2017
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point...........................            5.21            5.80            6.30            6.85            7.43
Area............................           12.66           13.31           13.91           14.49           15.10
On-Road Mobile..................            8.48            7.04            6.20            5.55            4.36
Nonroad.........................            2.34            1.95            1.77            1.73            1.73
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Emissions.............           28.69           28.10           28.18           28.62           28.62
================================================================================================================
Safety Margin***................             n/a            0.59            0.51            0.07           0.07
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The total emissions in the tables above only include man-made emissions and not biogenic emissions.
*** 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. North Carolina has calculated
  the VOC safety margin for the Rocky Mount area in its submittal which is summarized in Table 8.

    North Carolina has decided to allocate a portion of the available 
safety margin to the NOX subarea MVEBs for 2008 and 2017. 
This allocation and the resulting available safety margin is discussed 
further in section VIII of this rulemaking.

d. Monitoring Network

    There is currently one monitor measuring ozone, the Leggett 
monitor, located within Edgecombe County, North Carolina, which 
provides air quality data for the entire Rocky Mount 8-hour 
nonattainment area. North Carolina has committed to continue operation 
of the Leggett ozone monitor in compliance with 40 CFR part 58, and has 
addressed the requirement for monitoring.

e. Verification of Continued Attainment

    The State has the legal authority to enforce and implement the 
requirements of the ozone maintenance plan for the Rocky Mount area. 
This includes the authority to adopt, implement and enforce any 
subsequent emissions control contingency measures determined to be 
necessary to correct future ozone attainment problems.
    North Carolina will track the progress of the maintenance plan by 
performing future reviews of actual emissions for the area using the 
latest emissions factors, models and methodologies. For these periodic 
inventories the State will review the assumptions made for the purpose 
of the maintenance demonstration concerning projected growth of 
activity levels. If any of these assumptions appear to have changed 
substantially, the State will re-project emissions.

f. Contingency Plan

    The contingency plan provisions are designed to promptly correct a 
violation of the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation. Section 175A of 
the CAA requires that a maintenance plan include such contingency 
measures as EPA deems necessary to assure that a state will promptly 
correct a violation of the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation. The 
maintenance plan should identify the contingency measures to be 
adopted, a schedule and procedure for adoption and implementation, and 
a time limit for action by a state. A state should also identify 
specific indicators to be used to determine when the contingency 
measures need to be implemented. The maintenance plan must include a 
requirement that a state will implement all measures with respect to 
control of the pollutant that were contained in the SIP before 
redesignation of the area to attainment in accordance with section 
175A(d). This requirement is met because all SIP measures are retained 
for maintenance.
    In the June 19, 2006, submittal, North Carolina affirms that a 
combination of all programs instituted by the State and EPA have 
resulted in cleaner air in the Rocky Mount area and the anticipated 
future benefits from these programs are expected to result in continued 
maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in this area. This submittal also 
includes a contingency plan which provides tracking and triggering 
mechanisms to determine when contingency measures are needed and a 
process of developing and adopting appropriate control measures. The 
primary trigger of the contingency plan will be a violation of the 8-
hour ozone NAAQS at the Leggett monitor, or when the three-year average 
of the fourth-highest values is equal to or greater than 0.085 ppm. The 
trigger date will be 60 days from the date that the State observes a 
fourth-highest value that, when averaged with the two previous ozone 
season's fourth highest values, would result in a three-year average 
equal to or greater than 0.085 ppm. The second trigger will apply where 
no actual violation of the 8-hour ozone standard has occurred, but 
where the State finds monitored ozone levels indicating that an actual 
ozone NAAQS violation may be imminent. A pattern will be deemed to 
exist when there are two consecutive ozone seasons in which the fourth-
highest values are 0.085 ppm or greater. The trigger date will be 60 
days from the date that the State observes a fourth-highest value of 
0.085 ppm or greater, following a season in which the fourth-highest 
value was 0.085 ppm or greater.
    Once the primary or secondary trigger is activated, North Carolina 
will commence analyses including trajectory analyses of high ozone 
days, and emissions inventory assessment to determine those emission 
control measures that will be required for attainment and maintaining 
the 8-hour ozone standard. North Carolina commits that by May 1 of the 
year following the ozone season in which the primary (a

[[Page 64899]]

violation of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS occurs) or secondary trigger has 
been activated, that they will complete sufficient analyses to begin 
adoption of necessary rules for ensuring attainment and maintenance of 
the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. North Carolina also commits that such rules 
would become State-effective by the following January 1, unless 
legislative review is required. Specifically, the State will consider 
one or more of the following contingency measures to re-attain the 
standard:
     RACT for NOX on stationary sources in Nash and 
Edgecombe counties;
     Diesel inspection and maintenance program \1\;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ At this time, there is not an approved method for 
determining emission reductions from a Diesel Inspection and 
Maintenance program. Therefore, there is no technical basis to award 
emission credits for a heavy duty diesel inspection and maintenance 
program in the SIP. However, we do not want to preclude future 
technical changes that may make awarding such emission credits 
possible. If it is necessary to implement contingency measures for 
this area, North Carolina, in coordination with EPA, will evaluate 
the feasibility of this program as a contingency measure at that 
time. If a technical basis for emission credits is not available, 
other contingency measures will need to be implemented.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Implementation of diesel retrofit programs, including 
incentives for performing retrofits;
     Implementation of additional controls in upwind areas.
    In addition to the measures listed above, the future Consolidated 
Emissions Reporting Rule inventories that coincide with the attainment, 
interim, and final year inventories will be compared to determine if 
additional steps are necessary for continued maintenance of the 8-hour 
ozone standard in this area.
    EPA has concluded that the maintenance plan adequately addresses 
the five basic components of a maintenance plan: attainment inventory, 
maintenance demonstration, monitoring network, verification of 
continued attainment, and a contingency plan. The maintenance plan SIP 
revision submitted by North Carolina for the Rocky Mount area meets the 
requirements of section 175A of the CAA.

VII. What Is an Adequacy Determination?

    Under the CAA, states are required to submit, at various times, 
control strategy SIPs and maintenance plans in ozone areas. These 
control strategy SIPs (e.g., reasonable further progress SIPs and 
attainment demonstration SIPs) and maintenance plans create MVEBs for 
criteria pollutants and/or their precursors to address pollution from 
cars and trucks. Per 40 CFR part 93, a MVEB is established for the last 
year of the maintenance plan. A state may adopt MVEBs for other years 
as well. The MVEB is the portion of the total allowable emissions in 
the maintenance demonstration that is allocated to highway and transit 
vehicle use and emissions. The MVEB serves as a ceiling on emissions 
from an area's planned transportation system. The MVEB concept is 
further explained in the preamble to the November 24, 1993, 
transportation conformity rule (58 FR 62188). The preamble also 
describes how to establish the MVEB in the SIP and revise the MVEB.
    Under section 176(c) of the CAA, new transportation projects, such 
as the construction of new highways, must ``conform'' to (i.e., be 
consistent with) the part of the State's air quality plan that 
addresses pollution from cars and trucks. ``Conformity'' to the SIP 
means that transportation activities will not cause new air quality 
violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of 
the NAAQS. If a transportation plan does not ``conform,'' most new 
projects that would expand the capacity of roadways cannot go forward. 
Regulations at 40 CFR part 93 set forth EPA policy, criteria, and 
procedures for demonstrating and assuring conformity of such 
transportation activities to a SIP.
    When reviewing submitted ``control strategy'' SIPs or maintenance 
plans containing MVEBs, EPA must affirmatively find the MVEB contained 
therein ``adequate'' for use in determining transportation conformity. 
Once EPA affirmatively finds the submitted MVEB is adequate for 
transportation conformity purposes, that MVEB can be used by state and 
federal agencies in determining whether proposed transportation 
projects ``conform'' to the SIP as required by section 176(c) of the 
Clean Air Act. EPA's substantive criteria for determining ``adequacy'' 
of an MVEB are set out in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4).
    EPA's process for determining ``adequacy'' consists of three basic 
steps: public notification of a SIP submission, a public comment 
period, and EPA's adequacy finding. This process for determining the 
adequacy of submitted SIP MVEBs was initially outlined in EPA's May 14, 
1999 guidance, ``Conformity Guidance on Implementation of March 2, 
1999, Conformity Court Decision.'' This guidance was finalized in the 
Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments for the ``New 8-Hour Ozone 
and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards and Miscellaneous 
Revisions for Existing Areas; Transportation Conformity Rule 
Amendments--Response to Court Decision and Additional Rule Change'' on 
July 1, 2004 (69 FR 40004). EPA follows this guidance and rulemaking in 
making its adequacy determinations.
    In addition, in certain instances, the transportation conformity 
rule allows areas not to establish a MVEB where it is demonstrated that 
the regional motor vehicle emissions for a particular pollutant/
precursor is an insignificant contributor to the air quality problem in 
an area. The general criteria for insignificance findings can be found 
in 40 CFR 93.109(k). Insignificance findings are based on a number of 
factors, including the percentage of motor vehicle emissions in context 
of the total SIP inventory, the current state of air quality as 
determined by monitoring data for that NAAQS, the absence of SIP motor 
vehicle control measures, and historical trends and future projections 
of the growth of motor vehicle emissions. EPA's rationale for the 
allowance of insignificance findings can be found in the July 1, 2004, 
revision to the transportation conformity rule at 69 FR 40004. 
Specifically, the rationale is explained on page 40061 under the 
subsection entitled ``B. Areas With Insignificant Motor Vehicle 
Emissions.'' Any insignificance finding that EPA makes is subject to 
the adequacy and approval process for EPA's action on the SIP.
    In summary, upon the effective date of EPA's adequacy finding or 
approval of such a SIP, an insignificance finding waives the regional 
emissions analysis requirements (for the purpose of transportation 
conformity implementation) for an insignificant pollutant or precursor 
in areas where EPA finds that the SIP's motor vehicle emissions for a 
pollutant or precursor for a given standard are an insignificant 
contributor to an area's regio