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
<![CDATA[
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. https://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
https://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 https://
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 https://
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 https://
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: https://
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: https://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. https://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 https://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 https://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 https://
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 https://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
