Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designations of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; North Carolina: Redesignation of Great Smoky Mountains National Park 1997 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area to Attainment, 53198-53212 [E9-24818]
Download as PDF
53198
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 199 / Friday, October 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R04–OAR–2009–0455(b); FRL–8969–
8]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; South
Carolina; Clean Air Interstate Rule
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
EPA is proposing to approve
a revision to the South Carolina State
Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by
the State of South Carolina through the
South Carolina Department of Health
and Environmental Control on
December 4, 2008. This revision
addresses the requirements of EPA’s
Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR).
Although the District of Columbia
Circuit Court found CAIR to be flawed,
the rule was remanded without vacatur
and thus remains in place. Thus, EPA is
continuing to approve CAIR provisions
into SIPs as appropriate. CAIR, as
promulgated, requires states to reduce
emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and
nitrogen oxides (NOX) that significantly
contribute to, or interfere with
maintenance of, the national ambient air
quality standards for fine particulates
and/or ozone in any downwind state.
CAIR establishes budgets for SO2 and
NOX for states that contribute
significantly to nonattainment in
downwind States and requires the
significantly contributing states to
submit SIP revisions that implement
these budgets. States have the flexibility
to choose which control measures to
adopt to achieve the budgets, including
participation in EPA-administered capand-trade programs addressing SO2,
NOX annual, and NOX ozone season
emissions. In the full SIP revision that
EPA is proposing to approve, South
Carolina will meet CAIR requirements
by participating in these cap-and-trade
programs. EPA is proposing to approve
the full SIP revision, as interpreted and
clarified herein, as fully implementing
the CAIR requirements for South
Carolina. Consequently, this action will
also cause the CAIR Federal
Implementation Plans (CAIR FIPs)
concerning SO2, NOX annual, and NOX
ozone season emissions by South
Carolina sources to be automatically
withdrawn. This action is being taken
pursuant to section 110 of the Clean Air
Act.
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before November 16,
2009.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:01 Oct 15, 2009
Jkt 220001
Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04–
OAR–2009–0455, by one of the
following methods:
1. https://www.regulations.gov: Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
2. E-mail: benjamin.lynorae@epa.gov.
3. Fax: 404–562–9019.
4. Mail: EPA–R04–OAR–2009–0455,
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: Lynorae
Benjamin, Chief, 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.
Please see the direct final rule which
is located in the Rules section of this
Federal Register for detailed
instructions on how to submit
comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Steven Scofield, Regulatory
Development Section, Air Planning
Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. The
telephone number is (404) 562–9034.
Mr. Scofield can also be reached via
electronic mail at
scofield.steve@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For
additional information see the direct
final rule which is published in the
Rules Section of this Federal Register.
In the Final Rules Section of this
Federal Register, EPA is approving the
State’s SIP revision as a direct final rule
without prior proposal because the
Agency views this as a noncontroversial
submittal and anticipates no adverse
comments. A detailed rationale for the
approval is set forth in the direct final
rule. If no adverse comments are
received in response to this rule, no
further activity is contemplated. If EPA
receives adverse comments, the direct
final rule will be withdrawn and all
public comments received will be
addressed in a subsequent final rule
based on this proposed rule. EPA will
not institute a second comment period
ADDRESSES:
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
on this document. Any parties
interested in commenting on this
document should do so at this time.
Dated: October 9, 2009.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. E9–25052 Filed 10–15–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[EPA–R04–OAR–2009–0338; FRL–8968–9]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans and
Designations of Areas for Air Quality
Planning Purposes; North Carolina:
Redesignation of Great Smoky
Mountains National Park 1997 8-Hour
Ozone Nonattainment Area to
Attainment
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: The State of North Carolina
through the North Carolina Department
of Environment and Natural Resources,
Division of Air Quality (NC DAQ)
submitted, on July 24, 2009, a request to
redesignate the Great Smoky Mountains
National Park (GSMNP) 1997 8-hour
ozone nonattainment area to attainment
for the 1997 8-hour ozone national
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS);
and to approve a State Implementation
Plan (SIP) revision containing a
maintenance plan with a 2020 end year
for the GSMNP Area. The GSMNP Area
is composed of portions of Haywood
and Swain Counties in North Carolina.
In this action, EPA is proposing to
approve the 1997 8-hour ozone
redesignation request for the GSMNP
Area. Additionally, EPA is proposing to
approve the emission inventory and the
1997 8-hour ozone maintenance plan for
the GSMNP Area, including motor
vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs) for
nitrogen oxides (NOX) and an
insignificance determination for
conformity for volatile organic
compounds (VOC) emissions from
motor vehicles. Further, in this action,
EPA is also describing the status of its
transportation conformity adequacy
determination for the new 2011 and
2020 MVEBs for NOX, and for the
insignificance determination for VOC
contribution from motor vehicle
emissions to the 8-hour ozone pollution
for the 1997 NAAQS, that are contained
in the 1997 8-hour ozone maintenance
plan for the GSMNP Area. On March 12,
E:\FR\FM\16OCP1.SGM
16OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 199 / Friday, October 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules
2008, EPA issued a revised ozone
standard. The current action, however,
is being taken to address requirements
under the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
Requirements for the GSMNP Area
under the 2008 standard will be
addressed in the future.
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before November 16,
2009.
Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04–
OAR–2009–0338, by one of the
following methods:
1. https://www.regulations.gov: Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
2. E-mail: benjamin.lynorae@epa.gov.
3. Fax: (404) 562–9019.
4. Mail: EPA–R04–OAR–2009–0338
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: Lynorae
Benjamin, Chief, 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–2009–
0338. 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 https://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail,
information that you consider to be CBI
or otherwise protected. The https://
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 https://
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
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
ADDRESSES:
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:01 Oct 15, 2009
Jkt 220001
submit an electronic comment, EPA
recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment.
Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses. For additional information
about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA
Docket Center homepage at https://
www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
Docket: All documents in the
electronic docket are listed in the
https://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 federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jane
Spann or Nacosta Ward, 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. Jane
Spann may be reached by phone at (404)
562–9029 or via electronic mail at
spann.jane@epa.gov. The telephone
number for Ms. Ward is (404) 562–9140
and the electronic mail at
ward.nacosta@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. What Proposed Actions Is EPA Taking?
II. What Is the Background for EPA’s
Proposed Actions?
III. What Are the Criteria for Redesignation?
IV. Why Is EPA Proposing These Actions?
V. What Is the Effect of EPA’s Proposed
Actions?
VI. What Is EPA’s Analysis of the Request?
VII. What Is EPA’s Analysis of North
Carolina’s Proposed VOC Insignificance
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
53199
Finding and the Proposed Regional NOX
MVEBs for the GSMNP Area?
VIII. What Is an Adequacy Determination?
IX. What Is the Status of EPA’s Adequacy
Determination for the Proposed Regional
NOX MVEBs for the Years 2011 and
2020, and the VOC Insignificance
Determination?
X. Proposed Action on the Redesignation
Request and Maintenance Plan SIP
Revision Including Proposed Approval
of the 2011 and 2020 Regional NOX
MVEBs, and the Proposed VOC
Insignificance Determination for the
GSMNP Area
XI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What Proposed Actions Is EPA
Taking?
EPA is proposing to take several
related actions, which are summarized
below and described in greater detail
throughout this notice of proposed
rulemaking: (1) To redesignate the
GSMNP Area to attainment for the 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS; (2) to approve
the emissions inventory submitted with
the maintenance plan (under the Clean
Air Act (CAA) section 172(c)(3)); and (3)
to approve North Carolina’s 1997 8-hour
ozone maintenance plan into the North
Carolina SIP, including the associated
MVEBs for NOX and the VOC
insignificance determination for VOC
emission contribution from motor
vehicles. In addition, and related to
today’s proposed actions, EPA is also
notifying the public of the status of
EPA’s adequacy determination for the
GSMNP Area NOX MVEBs.
First, EPA is proposing to determine
that the GSMNP Area has attained the
1997 8-hour ozone standard, and that
the GSMNP Area has met the other
requirements for redesignation under
section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. EPA is
now proposing to approve a request to
change the legal designation of the
GSMNP Area from nonattainment to
attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS.
Second, EPA is proposing to approve
North Carolina’s 1997 emissions
inventory (under section 172(c)(3)).
North Carolina selected 2005 as ‘‘the
attainment year’’ for the GSMNP Area
for the purpose of demonstrating
attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. This attainment inventory
identifies the level of emissions in the
area, which is sufficient to attain the
1997 8-hour ozone standard.
Third, EPA is proposing to approve
North Carolina’s 1997 8-hour ozone
maintenance plan for the GSMNP Area
(such approval being one of the CAA
criteria for redesignation to attainment
status). The maintenance plan is
designed to help keep the GSMNP Area
in attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone
E:\FR\FM\16OCP1.SGM
16OCP1
53200
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 199 / Friday, October 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
NAAQS through 2020. Consistent with
the CAA, the maintenance plan that
EPA is proposing to approve today also
includes 2011 and 2020 MVEBs for
NOX, and a VOC insignificance
determination for transportation
conformity. Today, EPA is proposing to
approve (into the North Carolina SIP)
the 2011 and 2020 NOX MVEBs, and the
VOC insignificance determination for
conformity, that are included as part of
North Carolina’s maintenance plan for
the GSMNP Area for the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS.
EPA is also notifying the public of the
status of EPA’s adequacy process for the
newly-established 2011 and 2020 NOX
MVEBs, and of its insignificance
determination for VOC for
transportation conformity purposes for
the GSMNP Area.
Today’s notice of proposed
rulemaking is in response to North
Carolina’s May 15, 2009, proposed SIP
submittal, which was submitted in draft
form for parallel processing, and then
again in final form on July 24, 2009. The
July 24, 2009, submittal requests
redesignation of the GSMNP Area, and
includes a SIP revision addressing the
specific issues summarized above and
the necessary elements for redesignation
described in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the
CAA.
II. What Is the Background for EPA’s
Proposed Actions?
Ground level ozone is not directly
emitted by sources. Rather, emissions of
NOX and VOC react in the presence of
sunlight to form ground-level ozone.
NOX and VOC are referred to as
precursors of ozone. The CAA
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). The 1997
standard was more stringent than the
previous 1-hour ozone standard. Under
EPA’s regulations at 40 CFR part 50, the
1997 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
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:01 Oct 15, 2009
Jkt 220001
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 concentrations 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
concentrations 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 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS
based on the three most recent years of
ambient air quality data. The GSMNP
1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment area
was designated using 2001–2003
ambient air quality data. The Federal
Register document making these
designations was signed on April 15,
2004, and published on April 30, 2004
(69 FR 23857).
The CAA contains two sets of
provisions, subpart 1 and subpart 2 that
address planning and control
requirements for ozone nonattainment
areas. (Both are found in title I, part D.)
Subpart 1 (which EPA refers to as
‘‘basic’’ nonattainment) contains
general, less prescriptive, requirements
for nonattainment areas for any
pollutant, including ozone, governed by
a NAAQS. Subpart 2 (which EPA refers
to as ‘‘classified’’ nonattainment)
provides more specific requirements for
certain ozone nonattainment areas.
Some 1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment
areas were subject only to the provisions
of subpart 1. Other 1997 8-hour ozone
nonattainment areas were classified as
subpart 2 areas and were subject to the
provisions of subpart 2 in addition to
subpart 1. Under EPA’s phase 1 8-hour
ozone implementation rule (69 FR
23857) (Phase 1 Rule), signed on April
15, 2004, and published April 30, 2004,
an area was classified under subpart 2
based on its 8-hour ozone design value
(i.e., the 3-year average of the annual
fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour
average ozone concentrations), if it had
a 1-hour design value at or above 0.121
ppm (the lowest 1-hour design value in
Table 1 of subpart 2). All other areas
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
were covered under subpart 1, based
upon their 8-hour ambient air quality
design values.
The GSMNP Area was designated
attainment for the 1-hour ozone
standard. On April 30, 2004, EPA
designated the GSMNP Area as a
‘‘basic’’ 8-hour ozone nonattainment
area or subpart 1 nonattainment area
(see, 69 FR 23857, April 30, 2004).
When North Carolina submitted its
redesignation request, the GSMNP Area
was attaining the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard. The area has continued to
attain since that time.
Various aspects of EPA’s Phase 1 Rule
were challenged in court. On December
22, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C.
Circuit Court) vacated EPA’s Phase 1
Rule (69 FR 23951, April 30, 2004).
South Coast Air Quality Management
Dist. (SCAQMD) v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882
(D.C. Cir. 2006). On June 8, 2007, in
response to several petitions for
rehearing, the D.C. Circuit Court
clarified that the Phase 1 Rule was
vacated only with regard to those parts
of the Rule that had been successfully
challenged. Therefore, the Phase 1 Rule
provisions related to classifications for
areas currently classified under subpart
2 of title I, part D of the CAA as 1997
8-hour nonattainment areas, the 1997 8hour attainment dates and the timing for
emissions reductions needed for
attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS remain effective. The June 8th
decision left intact the Court’s rejection
of EPA’s reason for implementing the
1997 8-hour ozone standard in certain
nonattainment areas under subpart 1 in
lieu of subpart 2. By limiting the
vacatur, the Court let stand EPA’s
revocation of the 1-hour standard and
those anti-backsliding provisions of the
Phase 1 Rule that had not been
successfully challenged. The June 8th
decision reaffirmed the December 22,
2006, decision that EPA had improperly
failed to retain measures required for 1hour nonattainment areas under the
anti-backsliding provisions of the
regulations: (1) Nonattainment area New
Source Review (NSR) requirements
based on an area’s 1-hour nonattainment
classification; (2) section 185 penalty
fees for 1-hour severe or extreme
nonattainment areas; and (3) measures
to be implemented pursuant to section
172(c)(9) or 182 (c)(9) of the CAA, on
the contingency of an area not making
reasonable further progress toward
attainment of the 1-hour NAAQS. The
June 8th decision clarified that the
Court’s reference to conformity
requirements for anti-backsliding
purposes was limited to requiring the
continued use of 1-hour motor vehicle
E:\FR\FM\16OCP1.SGM
16OCP1
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 199 / Friday, October 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules
emissions budgets until 8-hour budgets
were available for 8-hour conformity
determinations, which is already
required under EPA’s conformity
regulations. The Court thus clarified
that 1-hour conformity determinations
are not required for anti-backsliding
purposes.
This section sets forth EPA’s views on
the potential effect of the Court’s rulings
on this proposed redesignation action.
For the reasons set forth below, EPA
does not believe that the Court’s rulings
alter any requirements relevant to this
redesignation action so as to preclude
redesignation, and do not prevent EPA
from proposing or ultimately finalizing
this redesignation. EPA believes that the
Court’s December 22, 2006, and June 8,
2007, decisions impose no impediment
to moving forward with redesignation of
the GSMNP Area to attainment, because
even in light of the Court’s decisions,
redesignation is appropriate under the
relevant redesignation provisions of the
CAA and longstanding policies
regarding redesignation requests.
With respect to the 1997 8-hour
standard, the Court’s ruling rejected
EPA’s reasons for classifying areas
under subpart 1 for the 1997 8-hour
standard, and remanded that matter to
the Agency. In its January 16, 2009,
proposed rulemaking in response to the
SCAQMD decision, EPA has proposed
to classify GSMNP under subpart 2 as a
marginal area. See 74 FR 2936, 2944. If
EPA finalizes this rulemaking, the
requirements under subpart 2 will
become applicable when they are due,
a deadline that EPA has proposed to be
one year after the effective date of a final
rulemaking classifying areas as marginal
or moderate. See 74 FR 2940–41.
Although the final rulemaking to
classify this area under subpart 2 has
not yet been made, EPA believes that
this does not mean that redesignation
cannot now go forward. This belief is
based upon (1) EPA’s longstanding
policy of evaluating requirements in
accordance with the requirements due
at the time the request is submitted and
(2) consideration of the inequity of
applying retroactively any requirements
that might in the future be applied.
First, at the time the redesignation
request was submitted, the GSMNP Area
was not classified under subpart 2, nor
were there any subpart 2 requirements
yet due for this Area. Under EPA’s
longstanding interpretation of section
107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA, to qualify for
redesignation, states requesting
redesignation to attainment must meet
only the relevant SIP requirements that
came due prior to submittal of a
complete redesignation request.
September 4, 1992, Calcagni
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:01 Oct 15, 2009
Jkt 220001
Memorandum (‘‘Procedures for
Processing Requests to Redesignate
Areas to Attainment,’’ Memorandum
from John Calcagni, Director, Air
Quality Management Division). (See
also Michael Shapiro Memorandum,
September 17, 1993, and 60 FR 12459,
12465–66 (March 7, 1995)
(Redesignation of Detroit—Ann Arbor,
Michigan). See Sierra Club v. EPA, 375
F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004) (upholding this
interpretation). See also 68 FR 25418,
25424, 25427 (May 12, 2003)
(redesignation of St. Louis, Missouri).
Moreover, it would be inequitable to
retroactively apply any new SIP
requirements that were not applicable at
the time the request was submitted. The
D.C. Circuit Court has recognized the
inequity in such retroactive rulemaking
(See Sierra Club v. Whitman 285 F.3d
63 (D.C. Cir. 2002)), in which the Court
upheld a district court’s ruling refusing
to make retroactive, an EPA
determination of nonattainment that
was past the statutory due date. Such a
determination would have resulted in
the imposition of additional
requirements on the area. The Court
stated: ‘‘Although EPA failed to make
the nonattainment determination within
the statutory frame, Sierra Club’s
proposed solution only makes the
situation worse. Retroactive relief would
likely impose large costs on the states,
which would face fines and suits for not
implementing air pollution prevention
plans in 1997, even though they were
not on notice at the time.’’ Id. at 68.
Similarly here, it would be unfair to
penalize the area by applying to it for
purpose of redesignation, additional SIP
requirements under subpart 2 that were
not in effect or yet due at the time it
submitted its redesignation request, or
the time that the Area attained the
standard.
With respect to the requirements
under the 1-hour ozone standard, the
GSMNP Area was designated
attainment. The D.C. Circuit Court’s
decisions do not impact redesignation
requests for these types of areas, except
to the extent that the Court, in its June
8th decision, clarified that for those
areas with 1-hour MVEBs in their
maintenance plans, anti-backsliding
requires that those 1-hour budgets must
be used for 8-hour budgets. Since this
Area was attainment for the 1-hour
ozone standard, there were no
preexisting 1-hour MVEBs to consider
for 8-hour conformity requirements.
First, there are no conformity
requirements relevant for the GSMNP
Area request, such as a transportation
conformity SIP. It is EPA’s longstanding
policy that it is reasonable to interpret
the conformity SIP requirements as not
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
53201
applying for purposes of evaluating a
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 40 CFR 51.390; see also
Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir.
2001) (upholding EPA’s interpretation);
60 FR 62748 (Dec. 7, 1995)
(Redesignation of Tampa, Florida).
Second, with regard to the three other
anti-backsliding provisions for the 1hour ozone standard that the D.C.
Circuit Court found were not properly
retained, the GSMNP Area has always
been an attainment area for the 1-hour
ozone standard, and the NSR,
contingency measures pursuant to
section 172(c)(9) or 182(c)(9), and fee
provision requirements do not apply to
this area. As a result, the decisions in
SCAQMD should not alter any
requirements that would preclude EPA
from finalizing the redesignation of the
GSMNP Area to attainment for the 1997
8-hour ozone standard.
As noted earlier, in 2008, the ambient
ozone data for the GSMNP Area
indicated no further violations of the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, using the
data from the 3-year period of 2006–
2008 to demonstrate attainment. As a
result, on May 15, 2009, North Carolina
requested parallel processing of its
request for redesignation of the GSMNP
Area to attainment for the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. The redesignation
request included three years of
complete, quality-assured ambient air
quality data for the ozone seasons (April
1st until October 31st) of 2006–2008,
indicating that the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS had been achieved for the
entire GSMNP Area. Under the CAA,
nonattainment areas may be
redesignated to attainment if sufficient,
complete, quality-assured data is
available for the Administrator to
determine that the area has attained the
standard and the area meets the other
CAA redesignation requirements in
section 107(d)(3)(E). While EPA did not
have the opportunity to parallel process
this draft submittal, EPA did begin the
adequacy process for the newlyestablished MVEBs. Also, while EPA
can initiate the adequacy process with
a draft submittal, EPA cannot conclude
this process until a final submittal is
received. On July 24, 2009, North
Carolina submitted to EPA a final SIP
revision. This final submittal included
MVEBs for 2011 and 2020.
III. What Are the Criteria for
Redesignation?
The CAA provides the requirements
for redesignating a nonattainment area
E:\FR\FM\16OCP1.SGM
16OCP1
53202
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 199 / Friday, October 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
to attainment. Specifically, section
107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA allows for
redesignation providing that: (1) The
Administrator determines that the area
has attained the applicable NAAQS; (2)
the Administrator has fully approved
the applicable implementation plan for
the area under section 110(k); (3) the
Administrator determines that the
improvement in air quality is due to
permanent and enforceable reductions
in emissions resulting from
implementation of the applicable SIP
and applicable Federal air pollutant
control regulations and other permanent
and enforceable reductions; (4) the
Administrator has fully approved a
maintenance plan for the area as
meeting the requirements of section
175A; and, (5) the state containing such
area has met all requirements applicable
to the area under section 110 and part
D of the CAA.
EPA provided guidance on
redesignation in the General Preamble
for the Implementation of Title I of the
CAA Amendments of 1990, on April 16,
1992 (57 FR 13498), and supplemented
this guidance on April 28, 1992 (57 FR
18070). EPA has provided further
guidance on processing redesignation
requests in the following documents:
1. ‘‘Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Design
Value Calculations,’’ Memorandum from
Bill Laxton, Director, Technical Support
Division, June 18, 1990;
2. ‘‘Maintenance Plans for Redesignation of
Ozone and Carbon Monoxide
Nonattainment Areas,’’ Memorandum
from G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon
Monoxide Programs Branch, April 30,
1992;
3. ‘‘Contingency Measures for Ozone and
Carbon Monoxide (CO) Redesignations,’’
Memorandum from G. T. Helms, Chief,
Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs
Branch, June 1, 1992;
4. ‘‘Procedures for Processing Requests to
Redesignate Areas to Attainment,’’
Memorandum from John Calcagni,
Director, Air Quality Management
Division, September 4, 1992 (hereafter
referred to as the ‘‘Calcagni
Memorandum’’);
5. ‘‘State Implementation Plan (SIP) Actions
Submitted in Response to Clean Air Act
(ACT) Deadlines,’’ Memorandum from
John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality
Management Division, October 28, 1992;
6. ‘‘Technical Support Documents (TSD’s) for
Redesignation of Ozone and Carbon
Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment Areas,’’
Memorandum from G. T. Helms, Chief,
Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs
Branch, August 17, 1993;
7. ‘‘State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Requirements for Areas Submitting
Requests for Redesignation to
Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon
Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) On or After
November 15, 1992,’’ Memorandum from
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:01 Oct 15, 2009
Jkt 220001
Michael H. Shapiro, Acting Assistant
Administrator for Air and Radiation,
September 17, 1993;
8. ‘‘Use of Actual Emissions in Maintenance
Demonstrations for Ozone and CO
Nonattainment Areas,’’ Memorandum
from D. Kent Berry, Acting Director, Air
Quality Management Division,
November 30, 1993;
9. ‘‘Part D New Source Review (Part D NSR)
Requirements for Areas Requesting
Redesignation to Attainment,’’
Memorandum from Mary D. Nichols,
Assistant Administrator for Air and
Radiation, October 14, 1994; and
10. ‘‘Reasonable Further Progress, Attainment
Demonstration, and Related
Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment
Areas Meeting the Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standard,’’
Memorandum from John S. Seitz,
Director, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, May 10, 1995.
IV. Why Is EPA Proposing These
Actions?
North Carolina submitted a final SIP
revision on July 24, 2009, with a request
for redesignation of the GSMNP Area to
attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard. EPA’s preliminary evaluation
indicates that North Carolina has
demonstrated that the GSMNP Area has
attained the standard and has met the
requirements for redesignation set forth
in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. EPA
is also announcing the status of its
adequacy determination for the 2011
and 2020 NOx MVEBs, and the VOC
insignificance determination, which are
relevant to the requested redesignation.
V. What Is the Effect of EPA’s Proposed
Actions?
EPA’s proposed actions establish the
bases upon which EPA may take final
action on the issues being proposed for
approval today. Final approval of the
emissions inventory would determine
that it satisfies the requirements of
section 172(c)(3) of the CAA. Approval
of North Carolina’s redesignation
request would change the legal
designation for the portions of Haywood
and Swain Counties included in the
GSMNP Area for the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS found at 40 CFR part 81.
Approval of North Carolina’s request
would also incorporate into the North
Carolina SIP, a plan for the GSMNP
Area for maintaining the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS in the Area through
2020. This maintenance plan includes
contingency measures to remedy future
violations of the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. The maintenance plan also
establishes regional NOX MVEBs and
provides a VOC insignificance
determination for the GSMNP Area. The
following Table identifies the NOX
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
MVEBs for the years 2011 and 2020 for
this Area.
TABLE 1—GSMNP AREA MVEBS
[Kilograms per day 1]
2011
NOX MVEB ...............
2020
179.9
127.0
1 North
Carolina has provided the conversion factor of 907.1847 kilograms per ton,
rounded to two decimal places for tons to
allow for comparison of the MVEBs to the
emissions inventory (expressed in tons per
day) in this Area.
Approval of North Carolina’s
maintenance plan would also result in
approval of the regional NOX MVEBs,
and the VOC insignificance
determination for conformity purposes.
Additionally, EPA is notifying the
public of the status of its adequacy
determination for the 2011 and 2020
NOX MVEBs, and its VOC insignificance
determination for conformity, pursuant
to 40 CFR 93.118(f)(1).
VI. What Is EPA’s Analysis of the
Request?
EPA is proposing to make the
determination that the GSMNP Area has
attained the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard, and that all other
redesignation criteria have been met for
the GSMNP Area. The basis for EPA’s
determination for this Area is discussed
in greater detail below.
Criteria (1)—The GSMNP Area Has
Attained the 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
EPA is proposing to determine that
the GSMNP Area has attained the 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS. For ozone, an
area may be considered to be attaining
the 1997 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.
EPA reviewed ozone monitoring data
from the ambient ozone monitoring
E:\FR\FM\16OCP1.SGM
16OCP1
53203
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 199 / Friday, October 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules
station in the GSMNP Area for the
ozone season from 2006–2008. These
data have been quality assured and is
recorded in AQS. The fourth highest 8hour averages for 2006, 2007 and 2008,
and the 3-year average of these values
(i.e., design values), are summarized in
the following table:
TABLE 2—ANNUAL 4TH HIGHEST MAXIMUM AND DESIGN VALUE CONCENTRATION FOR 8-HOUR OZONE
FOR THE GSMNP AREA
Fourth
highest
8-hour
ozone
value
(ppm)
Year
2006 ..........................
2007 ..........................
2008 ..........................
Design
value
(ppm)
2006–
2008
0.073
0.078
0.080
0.077
................
................
As discussed above, the design value
for an area is the 3-year average of the
annual 4th highest 8-hour ozone value
recorded at the monitor in the area.
Therefore, the design value for the
GSMNP Area is 0.077 ppm, which
meets the standard as described above.
Currently available data show that the
Area continues to attain the standard. If
the Area does not continue to attain
until EPA finalizes the redesignation,
EPA will not go forward with the
redesignation. It is important to note
that this area has been in attainment of
the 1997 standard since 2004. The
design value for the Area with 2002–
2004 data was 0.082 ppm. See below for
a historical trend of design values for
this Area.
TABLE 3—GSMNP AREA HISTORIC DESIGN VALUES
[1999–2007]
Design value (ppm)
Monitor
99–01
Purchase Knob, AIRS ID #37–087–0036, Haywood County ............
00–02
01–03
02–04
03–05
04–06
05–07
0.087
0.087
0.085
0.082
0.078
0.076
0.078
Note: Bolded values represent violations of the 8-hour ozone standard.
As is discussed in more detail below,
North Carolina has committed to
continue monitoring in this Area in
accordance with 40 CFR part 58. The
data submitted by North Carolina
provides an adequate demonstration
that the GSMNP Area has attained the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Criteria (2)—North Carolina Has a Fully
Approved SIP Under Section 110(k) for
the GSMNP Area and Criteria (5)—Has
Met All Applicable Requirements Under
Section 110 and Part D of the CAA
Below is a summary of how these two
criteria were met.
EPA has determined that North
Carolina has met all applicable SIP
requirements for the GSMNP Area
under section 110 of the CAA (general
SIP requirements). EPA has also
determined that the North Carolina SIP
satisfies the criterion that it meet
applicable SIP requirements under part
D of title I of the CAA (requirements
specific to subpart 1 basic 8-hour ozone
nonattainment areas) in accordance
with section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) and 110(l).
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.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:01 Oct 15, 2009
Jkt 220001
a. The GSMNP Area Has Met All
Applicable Requirements Under Section
110 and Part D of the CAA
The September 4, 1992, Calcagni
Memorandum describes EPA’s
interpretation of section 107(d)(3)(E).
Under this interpretation, to qualify for
redesignation, states requesting
redesignation to attainment must meet
only the relevant CAA requirements that
come due prior to the submittal of a
complete redesignation request. See also
Michael Shapiro Memorandum, (‘‘SIP
Requirements for Areas Submitting
Requests for Redesignation to
Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon
Monoxide NAAQS On or After
November 15, 1992,’’ September 17,
1993); and 60 FR 12459, 12465–66
(March 7, 1995) (redesignation of
Detroit-Ann Arbor, Michigan).
Applicable requirements of the CAA
that come due subsequent to the area’s
submittal of a complete redesignation
request remain applicable until a
redesignation is approved, but are not
required as a prerequisite to
redesignation. See section 175A(c) of
the CAA; Sierra Club, 375 F.3d 537; see
also 68 FR 25424, 25427 (May 12, 2003)
(redesignation of St. Louis, Missouri).
General SIP requirements. Section
110(a)(2) of title I of the CAA delineates
the general requirements for a SIP,
which include enforceable emissions
limitations and other control measures,
means, or techniques, provisions for the
establishment and operation of
appropriate devices necessary to collect
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
data on ambient air quality, and
programs to enforce the limitations.
General SIP elements and requirements
are delineated in section 110(a)(2) of
title I, part A of the CAA. These
requirements include, but are not
limited to, the following: Submittal of a
SIP that has been adopted by the state
after reasonable public notice and
hearing; provisions for establishment
and operation of appropriate procedures
needed to monitor ambient air quality;
implementation of a source permit
program; provisions for the
implementation of part C requirements
(Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD)) and provisions for the
implementation of part D requirements
(NSR permit programs); provisions for
air pollution modeling; and provisions
for public and local agency participation
in planning and emission control rule
development.
Section 110(a)(2)(D) requires that SIPs
contain certain measures to prevent
sources in a state from significantly
contributing to air quality problems in
another state. To implement this
provision, EPA has required certain
states to establish programs to address
the transport of air pollutants (the NOX
SIP Call, the Clean Air Interstate Rule
(CAIR)). EPA has also found, generally,
that states have not submitted timely
SIPs under section 110(a)(1) to meet the
interstate transport requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). However, the
section 110(a)(2)(D) requirements for a
state are not linked with a particular
nonattainment area’s designation and
E:\FR\FM\16OCP1.SGM
16OCP1
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
53204
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 199 / Friday, October 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules
classification in that state. EPA believes
that the requirements linked with a
particular nonattainment area’s
designation and classifications are the
relevant measures to evaluate in
reviewing a redesignation request. The
transport SIP submittal requirements,
where applicable, continue to apply to
a state regardless of the designation of
any one particular area in the state.
Thus, we do not believe that the CAA’s
interstate transport requirements should
be construed to be applicable
requirements for the purpose of
redesignation.
In addition, EPA believes that 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 area
will still be subject to these
requirements after the area is
redesignated. The section 110 and part
D requirements, which are linked with
a particular area’s designation and
classification, are the relevant measures
to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation
request. This approach is consistent
with EPA’s existing policy on
applicability (i.e., for redesignations) of
conformity and oxygenated fuels
requirements, as well as with section
184 ozone transport requirements. See
Reading, Pennsylvania, proposed and
final rulemakings (61 FR 53174–53176,
October 10, 1996), (62 FR 24826, May 7,
1997); Cleveland-Akron-Loraine, Ohio,
final rulemaking (61 FR 20458, May 7,
1996); and Tampa, Florida, final
rulemaking at (60 FR 62748, December
7, 1995). See also the discussion on this
issue in the Cincinnati, Ohio
redesignation (65 FR 37890, June 19,
2000), and in the Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania redesignation (66 FR
50399, October 19, 2001).
EPA believes that section 110
elements not linked to the area’s
nonattainment status are not applicable
for purposes of redesignation. EPA notes
it has previously approved provisions in
the North Carolina SIP addressing
section 110 elements under the 1-hour
ozone NAAQS (See 51 FR 19834, June
3, 1986). The State has submitted a
letter, dated December 12, 2007, setting
forth its belief that the section 110 SIP
approved for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS
is also sufficient to meet the
requirements under the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. EPA has not yet
approved these submissions, but such
approval is not necessary for purposes
of redesignation.
Part D requirements. EPA proposes
that if EPA approves the base year
emissions inventory, which is part of
the maintenance plan submittal, the
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:01 Oct 15, 2009
Jkt 220001
North Carolina SIP will meet applicable
SIP requirements under part D of the
CAA. The 2005 VOC and NOX
emissions, as well as the emissions for
other years, for the GSMNP Area were
developed consistent with EPA
guidance for emission inventories and
the choice of the 2005 base year is
appropriate because it represents the
2004–2006 period when the 1997 8 hour
ozone NAAQS was not violated.
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 172–176. 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).
EPA is proposing here to determine
that the Area has attained the 1997 8hour ozone standard, under 40 CFR
51.918. If that determination is
finalized, the requirements to submit
certain planning SIPs related to
attainment, including attainment
demonstration requirements, the
Reasonably Available Control Measure
(RACM) requirement of section 172(c)(1)
of the CAA, the Reasonable Further
Progress (RFP) and attainment
demonstration requirements of sections
172(c)(2) and (6) of the CAA, and the
requirement for contingency measures
of section 172(c)(9) of the CAA, would
not be applicable to the Area as long as
it continues to attain the NAAQS and
would cease to apply upon
redesignation. In addition, in the
context of redesignations, EPA has
interpreted requirements related to
attainment as not applicable for
purposes of redesignation. For example,
in the General Preamble, EPA stated
that: [t]he section 172(c)(9) requirements
are directed at ensuring RFP and
attainment by the applicable date. These
requirements no longer apply to an area
that has attained the standard and is
eligible for redesignation. Furthermore,
section 175A for maintenance plans
provide specific requirements for
contingency measures that effectively
supersede the requirements of section
172 (c)(9) for these areas. ‘‘General
Preamble for the Interpretation of Title
I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of
1990’’ (‘‘General Preamble’’), 57 FR
13498, 13564 (April 16, 1992). See also
Calcagni memorandum at page 6 (‘‘The
requirements for reasonable further
progress and other measures for
attainment will not apply for
redesignations because they only have
meaning for areas not attaining the
standard.’’) Since the GSMNP area was
not classified under subpart 2 at the
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
time the redesignation request was
submitted, the subpart 2 requirements
do not apply for purposes of
redesignation. EPA believes it is
reasonable to interpret the conformity
and NSR requirements as not requiring
approval prior to redesignation.
Section 176 Conformity
Requirements. Section 176(c) of the
CAA requires states to establish criteria
and procedures to ensure that Federally
supported or funded projects conform to
the air quality planning goals in the
applicable SIP. The requirement to
determine conformity applies to
transportation plans, programs and
projects developed, funded or approved
under title 23 of the United States Code
(U.S.C.) and the Federal Transit Act
(transportation conformity) as well as to
all other Federally supported or funded
projects (general conformity). State
conformity revisions must be consistent
with Federal conformity regulations
relating to consultation, enforcement
and enforceability that the CAA
required EPA to promulgate.
EPA believes it is reasonable to
interpret the conformity SIP
requirements as not applying for
purposes of evaluating the redesignation
request under section 107(d) because
state conformity rules are still required
after redesignation and Federal
conformity rules apply where state rules
have not been approved. See Wall, 265
F.3d 426 (upholding this interpretation).
See also 60 FR 62748 (December 7,
1995, Tampa, Florida).
NSR Requirements. EPA has also
determined that areas being
redesignated need not comply with the
requirement that an NSR program be
approved prior to redesignation,
provided that the area demonstrates
maintenance of the standard without a
part D NSR program in effect, since PSD
requirements will apply after
redesignation. The rationale for this
view is described in a memorandum
from Mary Nichols, Assistant
Administrator for Air and Radiation,
dated October 14, 1994, entitled ‘‘Part D
New Source Review (Part D NSR)
Requirements for Areas Requesting
Redesignation to Attainment.’’ North
Carolina has demonstrated that the
GSMNP Area will be able to maintain
the standard without a part D NSR
program in effect, and therefore, North
Carolina need not have a fully approved
part D NSR program prior to approval of
the redesignation request. Since there
are no major sources in GSMNP and
none planned, the Area has
demonstrated maintenance without the
need for a part D NSR program in this
Area. North Carolina’s PSD program
will become effective in the GSMNP
E:\FR\FM\16OCP1.SGM
16OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 199 / Friday, October 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules
Area upon redesignation to attainment.
See rulemakings for Detroit, Michigan
(60 FR 12467–12468, March 7, 1995);
Cleveland-Akron-Lorraine, Ohio (61 FR
20458, 20469–70, May 7, 1996);
Louisville, Kentucky (66 FR 53665,
October 23, 2001); Grand Rapids,
Michigan (61 FR 31834–31837, June 21,
1996). Thus, the GSMNP Area has
satisfied all applicable requirements for
purposes of redesignation under section
110 and part D of the CAA.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
b. The GSMNP Area Has a Fully
Approved Applicable SIP Under Section
110(k) of the CAA
If EPA issues a final approval of the
base year emissions inventory under
section 172(c)(3), EPA will have fully
approved the applicable North Carolina
SIP for the GSMNP Area, under section
110(k) of the CAA for all requirements
applicable for purposes of
redesignation. EPA may rely on prior
SIP approvals in approving a
redesignation request, see Calcagni
Memorandum at p. 3; Southwestern
Pennsylvania Growth Alliance v.
Browner, 144 F.3d 984, 989–90 (6th Cir.
1998); Wall, 265 F.3d 426, plus any
additional measures it may approve in
conjunction with a redesignation action.
See 68 FR 25426 (May 12, 2003) and
citations therein. Following passage of
the CAA of 1970, North Carolina has
adopted and submitted, and EPA has
fully approved at various times,
provisions addressing the various 1hour ozone standard SIP elements
applicable in the GSMNP Area (58 FR
47391, September 9, 1993; 59 FR 18300,
April 18, 1994; 60 FR 34859, July 5,
1995; 69 FR 56163, September 20,
2004).
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 subpart 2 requirements
did not become due prior to submission
of the redesignation request, they also
are therefore not applicable
requirements for purposes of
redesignation. Sierra Club v. EPA, 375
F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004); 68 FR 25424,
25427 (May 12, 2003) (redesignation of
the St. Louis-East St. Louis Area to
attainment of the 1-hour ozone
NAAQS). With the approval of the
emissions inventory, EPA will have
approved all Part D subpart 1
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:01 Oct 15, 2009
Jkt 220001
requirements applicable for purposes of
redesignation.
Criteria (3)—The Air Quality
Improvement in the GSMNP 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 North Carolina has
demonstrated that the observed air
quality improvement in the GSMNP
Area is due to permanent and
enforceable reductions in emissions in
the region surrounding the GSMNP Area
resulting from implementation of the
SIP, Federal measures, and other state
adopted measures. Additionally, new
emissions control programs for fuels
and motor vehicles will help ensure a
continued decrease in emissions
throughout the region and continued
maintenance of the ozone standard.
The overwhelming abundance of
biogenic VOC emissions makes the
majority of North Carolina a NOX
limited environment for the formation
of ozone. This holds especially true in
the North Carolina GSMNP
nonattainment area. The NOX emissions
within the North Carolina GSMNP
nonattainment area are extremely low;
total manmade emissions are currently
about a quarter ton per day (tpd) of
NOX. NC DAQ has provided a
demonstration that the GSMNP manmade emissions are not the primary
cause of the ozone exceedances within
the GSMNP. North Carolina’s
demonstration indicates that emission
reductions in the GSMNP itself have
only a limited impact on the observed
ozone values within the GSMNP; and
thus concludes these reductions
primarily must come from sources
upwind of the nonattainment area.
There are numerous State and Federal
measures that have been enacted in
recent years that are resulting in
permanent and enforceable regional
emissions reductions. A list of those
measures that contributed to the
permanent and enforceable regional
emission reductions that resulted in
attainment or will contribute to future
maintenance of the ozone standard are
listed in Table 4.
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
53205
TABLE 4—REGION-WIDE EMISSION REDUCTIONS
PROGRAMS IN THE
GSMNP AREA
Federal Control Measures
Tier 2 Vehicle Standards.
Heavy-Duty Gasoline and Diesel Highway
Vehicles Standards.
Large Nonroad Diesel Engines Rule.
Nonroad Spark-Ignition Engines and Recreational Engines Standard.
NOX SIP Call in Surrounding States.
Clean Air Interstate Rule in Surrounding
States.
State Control Measures
Clean Air Bill.
NOX SIP Call/Clean Air Interstate Rule.
Clean Smokestacks Act.
Open Burning Bans.
Air Toxics Control Program.
Prevention of Significant Deterioration.
Heavy Duty Diesel Engine Gap Filling Requirements.
Air Awareness Program.
Two of the measures of consideration
included by North Carolina in its
maintenance plan submittal were CAIR
in surrounding states and the NOX SIP
Call in surrounding states. Because of
the uncertainty introduced by the recent
court actions affecting CAIR and the
NOX SIP Call, EPA undertook an
analysis of the changes in NOX expected
during the ten year maintenance period
across a broader region. Of particular
significance are reductions in NOX
emissions from large power plants in
the region since they were responsible
for the preponderance of the NOX in the
GSMNP Area. There are seven facilities
located in North Carolina and four
facilities located in Tennessee in the
Region around the GSMNP Area. Table
5 displays the NOX emission reductions,
as the result of the NOX SIP Call rule,
from power plants that most likely
impact the North Carolina GSMNP
nonattainment area in 2002 through
2007. This data is from the EPA’s Clean
Air Markets Division and represents the
second and third quarters of the year
(April through September), the period
during which ozone levels are the
highest. It is clearly demonstrated that
the emissions from these facilities have
significantly decreased during the ozone
season since 2002, with 52,431 tons of
NOX reductions in the 2007 ozone
season compared to 2002. This is a 67
percent reduction in utility NOX
emissions that are permanent and
enforceable and implemented prior to
CAIR coming into effect.
E:\FR\FM\16OCP1.SGM
16OCP1
53206
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 199 / Friday, October 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 5—APRIL–SEPTEMBER NOX EMISSIONS FOR UTILITIES IMPACTING THE GSMNP AREA
[tons/period]
Facility
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
North Carolina Sources
Asheville ...........................................................................
Belews Creek ...................................................................
Buck .................................................................................
Cliffside ............................................................................
G G Allen .........................................................................
Marshall ............................................................................
River Bend .......................................................................
2,252
21,269
1,084
1,944
5,011
9,283
2,556
2,158
13,871
1,468
2,149
3,643
9,101
2,703
2,205
7,102
1,089
1,738
4,002
8,243
1,844
2,156
3,803
1,286
1,782
3,589
7,558
1,379
1,931
3,769
1,262
1,540
3,001
6,370
1,417
598
1,559
870
1,311
3,053
7,253
1,296
Total NC ....................................................................
43,399
35,093
26,223
21,553
19,290
15,940
Tennessee Sources
10,554
5,894
5,438
13,335
9,234
6,043
4,911
13,882
1,670
4,556
5,343
5,660
2,468
3,933
4,437
3,444
692
3,647
4,504
1,344
1,513
3,124
4,187
1,425
Total TN ....................................................................
35,221
34,070
17,229
14,282
10,187
10,249
Total Combined .................................................
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Bull Run ...........................................................................
Gallatin .............................................................................
John Sevier ......................................................................
Kingston ...........................................................................
78,620
69,163
43,452
35,835
29,477
26,189
These reductions are primarily the
result of the NOX SIP Call (63 FR 57356)
that set ozone season NOX budgets for
the purpose of reducing regional
transport of ozone. This rule called for
ozone season controls to be put on
utility and industrial boilers, as well as
internal combustion engines in 22 states
in the Eastern United States. A NOX
emissions budget was set for each state
and the states were required to develop
rules that would allow the state to meet
their budget. The emission budgets were
to be met by the beginning of 2004, prior
to the adoption of CAIR. The amount of
ozone season NOX emissions from
power plants has decreased significantly
in and around North Carolina as a result
and are expected to be maintained at
these levels throughout the maintenance
period.
Georgia power plants were the only
ones in a nearby state not affected by the
NOX SIP Call. While no NOX reductions
were achieved during the period
GSMNP demonstrated attainment,
Georgia enacted regulations pursuant to
the Georgia multi-pollutant bill in the
summer 2007 to require coal fired
power plants in Georgia to reduce NOX,
approximately 50 percent, by 2015.
Reductions will affect 21 units at seven
facilities. The rule requires specific
controls on specific units according to a
specific schedule and will assure that
NOX emissions will not increase during
the maintenance period.
Besides controls on electrical
generating units (EGUs), substantial
additional reductions in NOX are
expected due to controls being imposed
on fuels and off road and on road motor
vehicles. To evaluate NOX changes
expected to occur during the
maintenance period to other NOX
sources in the region, we reviewed
projections made for Regional Haze for
2009 and 2018. This is the latest regionwide assessment available done for
emissions for the regional area.
As summarized in Tables 6 and 7, all
point sources are expected to further
decrease during this period by 337,742
tons per year (tpy) or 24 percent.
However mobile sources are projected to
decrease by an even greater amount,
decreasing by 751,038 tpy or 53 percent
during this period and non-road
emissions are expected to decrease
166,687 tpy or 22 percent. The only
category showing an increase is area
source emissions which are projected to
grow 6 percent, an increase of 21,146
tpy. In total, non point source NOX
emissions in the region are expected to
decrease by 896,579 tpy from 2009 to
2018. Region-wide, annual emissions of
NOX are expected to decrease 39 percent
from 2009 to 2018. Every state in the 10
state Visibility Improvement State and
Tribal Association of the Southeast
(VISTAS) planning area projects
reductions of NOX emissions from 2009
to 2018.
Even if the projected point source
reductions from CAIR are not
considered and EGU emissions are held
at 2009 levels, annual emissions of NOX
are still projected to decrease 23
percent. Since both North Carolina and
Georgia have rules requiring EGUs to
reduce NOX independent of CAIR and a
number of other facilities in the region
are controlling NOX emissions due to
consent decrees, this assumption of no
regional reductions in EGU emissions
during this period is very conservative.
These regional projections of
emissions data have only been prepared
through 2018. However, since mobile
and non-road emissions continue to
decrease long after a rule is adopted as
the engine population is gradually
replaced by newer engines, it is
reasonable to assume that this projected
decrease in regional NOX emissions
from mobile and non-road sources
should continue through 2020 and
assure that ozone in the GSMNP will
continue to decline throughout the 10year maintenance period. Hence we
believe the projected regional NOX
reductions are adequate to assure that
the GSMNP will continue
demonstrating maintenance throughout
the 10-year maintenance period.
TABLE 6—VISTAS 2009 BASE ANNUAL EMISSION INVENTORY SUMMARY FOR NOX *
States
Point
AL .............................................................................................................
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:01 Oct 15, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Non-road
151,714
Sfmt 4702
56,862
E:\FR\FM\16OCP1.SGM
Area
35,831
16OCP1
Mobile
101,831
Total
346,238
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 199 / Friday, October 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules
53207
TABLE 6—VISTAS 2009 BASE ANNUAL EMISSION INVENTORY SUMMARY FOR NOX *—Continued
States
Point
Non-road
Area
Mobile
Total
FL .............................................................................................................
GA ............................................................................................................
KY ............................................................................................................
MS ............................................................................................................
NC ............................................................................................................
SC ............................................................................................................
TN ............................................................................................................
VA ............................................................................................................
WV ...........................................................................................................
132,185
148,809
129,779
92,409
101,236
86,934
124,274
288,213
124,359
163,794
85,733
94,752
80,567
70,997
43,235
86,641
54,993
30,133
47,979
51,925
43,548
8,048
45,382
25,259
20,717
53,596
14,384
315,840
209,349
101,182
70,743
201,609
92,499
151,912
134,232
35,635
659,798
495,816
369,261
251,767
419,224
247,927
383,544
531,034
204,511
Total ..................................................................................................
1,379,912
767,707
346,669
1,414,832
3,909,120
TABLE 7—VISTAS 2018 BASE ANNUAL EMISSION INVENTORY SUMMARY FOR NOX *
States
Point
Non-road
Area
Mobile
Total
AL .............................................................................................................
FL .............................................................................................................
GA ............................................................................................................
KY ............................................................................................................
MS ............................................................................................................
NC ............................................................................................................
SC ............................................................................................................
TN ............................................................................................................
VA ............................................................................................................
WV ...........................................................................................................
141,178
110,243
125,083
100,774
71,988
94,276
94,089
93,443
116,560
94,536
43,779
127,885
64,579
79,392
68,252
49,046
31,758
70,226
40,393
25,710
36,945
50,499
55,518
45,806
8,322
49,514
26,491
21,810
57,137
15,773
47,298
150,180
102,179
52,263
30,619
87,791
43,490
69,385
63,342
17,247
269,200
438,807
347,359
278,235
179,181
280,627
195,828
254,864
277,432
153,266
Total ..................................................................................................
1,042,170
601,020
367,815
663,794
2,674,799
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
* From North Carolina Regional Haze Plan, December 17, 2007, pages Appendix D.3–10 & 11.
EPA has considered the relationship
of the GSMNP Area’s maintenance plan
to the reductions currently required
pursuant to CAIR. CAIR was remanded
to EPA, and the process of developing
a replacement rule is ongoing. However,
the remand of CAIR does not alter the
requirements of the NOX SIP Call and
the State has now demonstrated that the
GSMNP Area can maintain without any
additional requirements (beyond those
required by the NOX SIP Call).
Therefore, EPA believes that the State’s
demonstration of maintenance under
sections 175A and 107(d)(3)(E) remains
valid.
The NOX SIP Call requires states to
make significant, specific emissions
reductions. It also provides a
mechanism, the NOX Budget Trading
Program, that states could use to achieve
those reductions. When EPA
promulgated CAIR, it discontinued
(starting in 2009) the NOX Budget
Trading Program, 40 CFR 51.121(r), but
created another mechanism—the CAIR
ozone season trading program—which
states could use to meet their SIP Call
obligations, 70 FR 25289–90. EPA notes
that a number of states, when
submitting SIP revisions to require
sources to participate in the CAIR ozone
season trading program, removed the
SIP provisions that required sources to
participate in the NOX Budget Trading
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:01 Oct 15, 2009
Jkt 220001
Program. In addition, because the
provisions of CAIR including the ozone
season NOX trading program remain in
place during the remand, EPA is not
currently administering the NOX Budget
Trading Program. Nonetheless, all states
regardless of the current status of their
regulations that previously required
participation in the NOX Budget Trading
Program, will remain subject to all of
the requirements in the NOX SIP Call
even if the existing CAIR ozone season
trading program is withdrawn or
altered. In addition, the anti-backsliding
provisions of 40 CFR 51.905(f)
specifically provide that the provisions
of the NOX SIP Call, including the
statewide NOX emission budgets,
continue to apply after revocation of the
1-hour standard.
All NOX SIP Call states have SIPs that
currently satisfy their obligations under
the NOX SIP Call; the NOX SIP Call
reduction requirements are being met;
and EPA will continue to enforce the
requirements of the NOX SIP Call even
after any response to the CAIR remand.
For these reasons, EPA believes that
regardless of the status of the CAIR
program, the NOX SIP Call requirements
can be relied upon in demonstrating
maintenance. Here, the State has
demonstrated maintenance based in part
on those requirements.
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Criteria (4)—The Area Has a Fully
Approved Maintenance Plan Pursuant
to Section 175A of the CAA
In conjunction with its request to
redesignate the GSMNP 1997 8-hour
ozone nonattainment area to attainment
status, NC DAQ submitted a SIP
revision to provide for the maintenance
of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the
GSMNP 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 of
North Carolina 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
E:\FR\FM\16OCP1.SGM
16OCP1
53208
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 199 / Friday, October 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules
correction of any future 8-hour ozone
violations. Section 175A of the CAA sets
forth the elements of a maintenance
plan for areas seeking redesignation
from nonattainment to attainment. The
Calcagni Memorandum provides
additional guidance on the content of a
maintenance plan. The Calcagni
Memorandum explains that an ozone
maintenance plan should address five
requirements: the attainment emissions
inventory, maintenance demonstration,
monitoring, verification of continued
attainment, and a contingency plan. As
is discussed more fully below, North
Carolina’s maintenance plan includes
all the necessary components and is
approvable as part of the redesignation
request.
b. Attainment Emissions Inventory
North Carolina selected 2005 as ‘‘the
attainment year’’ for the GSMNP Area
for the purpose of demonstrating
attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. This attainment inventory
identifies the level of emissions in the
area, which is sufficient to attain the
1997 8-hour ozone standard. North
Carolina began development of this
attainment inventory by first developing
a baseline emissions inventory for the
GSMNP Area. The year 2005 was
chosen as the base year for developing
a comprehensive ozone precursor
emissions inventory for which projected
emissions could be developed for 2008,
2011, 2014, 2017 and 2020. Non-road
mobile emissions estimates were based
on the EPA’s NONROAD2005c model.
On-road mobile source emissions were
calculated using EPA’s MOBILE6.2
emission factors model. The 2005 VOC
and NOX emissions, as well as the
emissions for other years, for the
GSMNP Area were developed consistent
with EPA guidance, and are
summarized in Tables 8 and 9.
TABLE 8—GSMNP AREA VOC EMISSIONS (TPD)
Source category
2005
2008
2011
2014
2017
2020
Area ..........................................................................................................
Mobile .......................................................................................................
Nonroad ...................................................................................................
0.17
0.41
0.00
0.17
0.36
0.00
0.17
0.32
0.00
0.17
0.27
0.00
0.17
0.24
0.00
0.17
0.22
0.00
Total .........................................................................................................
0.58
0.53
0.49
0.44
0.41
0.39
TABLE 9—GSMNP AREA NOX EMISSIONS (TPD)
Source category
2005
2008
2011
2014
2017
2020
Area ..........................................................................................................
Mobile .......................................................................................................
Nonroad ...................................................................................................
0.00
0.26
0.00
0.00
0.23
0.00
0.00
0.20
0.00
0.00
0.17
0.00
0.00
0.15
0.00
0.00
0.14
0.00
Total .........................................................................................................
0.26
0.23
0.20
0.17
0.15
0.14
Biogenic emissions are estimated
using models developed by EPA. The
biogenic emissions were obtained from
modeling using available data a typical
summer day’s emissions and 2002
meteorology. Biogenic emissions are not
expected to vary significantly year to
year. Since these emissions are reported
at the county level, the biogenic
emissions for the GSMNP Area were
estimated by taking the county area
fraction of the GSMNP Area in
Haywood and Swain Counties,
respectively. Biogenic VOC emissions
are estimated to be 48.50 tpd.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
c. Maintenance Demonstration
The July 24, 2009, submittal includes
a maintenance plan for the GSMNP
Area. This demonstration:
(i) Shows compliance with and
maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard by providing information to
support the demonstration 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.
2004, 2005, and 2006) for which the
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:01 Oct 15, 2009
Jkt 220001
GSMNP Area has clean air quality data
for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.
(ii) Uses 2005 as the attainment year
and includes future emission inventory
projections for 2008, 2011, 2014, 2017
and 2020.
(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,
regional NOX MVEBs were established
for the last year (2020) of the
maintenance plan. Additionally, North
Carolina chose, through interagency
consultation, to establish MVEBs for the
year 2011 for NOX, and to determine
insignificance for VOC for the GSMNP
Area. See, section VII below.
(iv) Provides actual and projected
emissions inventories, in tpd for the
GSMNP Area. See Tables 8 and 9.
d. Monitoring Network
e. Verification of Continued Attainment
North Carolina has the legal authority
to enforce and implement the
requirements of the ozone maintenance
plan for the GSMNP 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, North
Carolina 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, North Carolina
will re-project emissions.
There is currently one monitor
measuring ozone in the GSMNP Area.
North Carolina has committed in the
maintenance plan to continue the
operation of this monitor in compliance
with 40 CFR part 58, and has addressed
the requirement for monitoring.
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
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\16OCP1.SGM
16OCP1
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 199 / Friday, October 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules
EPA deems necessary to assure that the
state will promptly correct a violation of
the NAAQS that occurs after
redesignation. The maintenance plan
should identify the contingency
measures to be adopted, a schedule and
procedure for adoption and
implementation, and a time limit for
action by the state. A state should also
identify specific indicators to be used to
determine when the contingency
measures need to be implemented. The
maintenance plan must include a
requirement that a state will implement
all measures with respect to control of
the pollutant that were contained in the
SIP before redesignation of the area to
attainment in accordance with section
175A(d).
In the July 24, 2009, submittal, North
Carolina affirms that all programs
instituted by the State and EPA will
remain enforceable, and there are no
permitted point sources within the
GSMNP Area. The contingency plan
included in the submittal 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 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS or when
the three-year average of the fourthhighest value is equal to or greater than
0.085 ppm at the monitor. 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 seasons’ fourth highest
values, would result in a three-year
average equal to or greater than 0.085
ppm.
The secondary trigger will apply
where no actual violation of the 1997 8hour ozone standard has occurred, but
where the State finds monitored ozone
levels indicating that an ozone NAAQS
violation may be imminent. An
imminent violation exists where there is
a pattern. A pattern will be deemed to
exist when there are two consecutive
ozone seasons in which the fourthhighest values are 0.085 ppm or greater
at the monitor within the GSMNP Area.
The trigger date will be 60 days from
the date that the State observes a fourthhighest value of 0.085 ppm or greater at
the monitor for which the previous
season had a fourth-highest value of
0.085 ppm or greater. Once one of the
triggers is activated, the Planning
Section of the NC DAQ shall commence
analyses including trajectory analyses of
high ozone days, and emissions
inventory assessment to determine the
cause of the ozone transport into the
GSMNP Area.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:01 Oct 15, 2009
Jkt 220001
The NC DAQ considered what
additional measures could be
implemented; however, as mentioned
earlier, exceedances are at night and are
the result of ozone transported into the
nonattainment area from outside
regions. Additionally, the GSMNP Area
is already taking measures to reduce
emissions within the Park to include
Stage I vapor recovery on gasoline
stations located in the Park, along with
having an Air Quality Action Day
Program in place that includes the
following measures:
a. Encouraging employees to decrease
vehicle use by car pooling and reducing
the number of non-essential trips;
b. Fuel switching using biodiesel;
c. Postponing or decreasing the use of
mowers and other gasoline engine
equipment until ozone levels drop;
d. Encouraging refueling of vehicles
in the early morning or late evening
hours. Additionally, should one of the
triggers occur, the NC DAQ will
commence discussion amongst the
stakeholders in the maintenance area
regarding additional measures that
could be implemented before the next
ozone season. Such measures would
likely relate to mobile sources within
the maintenance area.
Furthermore, the State will commence
discussion with regulatory authorities
responsible for upwind sources to
determine additional actions to be
implemented.
These actions may include one or
more of the following measures:
* RACM for sources of NOX
* Reasonably Available Control
Technology for existing point sources of
NOX
* Mobile Source Measures
* Additional NOX reduction
measures yet to be identified.
If the cause of the ozone transport is
due to sources within North Carolina,
by May 1st of the year following the
ozone season in which the trigger has
been activated, North Carolina will
complete sufficient analyses to begin
adoption of necessary rules for ensuring
attainment and maintenance of the 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS. The rules would
become State effective by the following
January 1st, unless legislative review is
required. It is the States’ aim to ensure
that at least one of these measures be
implemented within 18 to 24 months
from the trigger being activated.
If the cause of the ozone transport is
from sources outside of North Carolina,
then the NC DAQ will begin working
with neighboring states to resolve the
ozone transport issue. North Carolina
has already filed a section 126 petition
in order to ensure that adjacent states
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
53209
reduce their utility emissions in a
timely manner.
VII. What Is EPA’s Analysis of North
Carolina’s Proposed VOC Insignificance
Determination for Conformity and the
Proposed NOX MVEBs for the GSMNP
Area?
Today’s actions address two related
elements regarding on-road motor
vehicle emissions and the requirement
to establish MVEBs. First, EPA is
proposing to find that the VOC emission
contribution from motor vehicles to 8hour ozone pollution for the 1997
standard in the GSMNP Area is
insignificant for transportation
conformity. The result of this finding, if
finalized, is that North Carolina need
not develop an MVEB for VOC for the
GSMNP Area. See below for further
information on the insignificance
determination. Second, EPA is
proposing to approve the NOX MVEBs
for the GSMNP Area.
A. Proposed VOC Insignificance
Determination for Transportation
Conformity
In certain instances, the
Transportation Conformity Rule allows
areas not to establish an 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
determinations are based on a number
of factors, including (1) the percentage
of motor vehicle emissions in context of
the total SIP inventory; (2) the current
state of air quality as determined by
monitoring data for that NAAQS; (3) the
absence of SIP motor vehicle control
measures; and (4) historical trends and
future projections of the growth of
motor vehicle emissions. EPA’s
rationale for the providing for
insignificance determinations is
described 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 ‘‘XXIII. B.
Areas With Insignificant Motor Vehicle
Emissions.’’ Any insignificance
determination under review of EPA is
subject to the adequacy and approval
process for EPA’s action on the SIP.
Through the adequacy and SIP
approval process, EPA may find that a
SIP demonstrates that regional motor
vehicle emissions are an insignificant
contributor to the air quality problem
for the pollutant/precursor at issue. In
the case of the GSMNP Area, EPA
intends to make its finding as part of
E:\FR\FM\16OCP1.SGM
16OCP1
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
53210
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 199 / Friday, October 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules
EPA’s final action on this redesignation
request of North Carolina for the
GSMNP Area. Upon the effective date of
EPA’s adequacy finding or the
publication date of the final rule for this
SIP revision (i.e., which includes the
VOC insignificance determination),
federal regulations waive the regional
emissions analysis requirements (for the
purpose of transportation conformity
implementation) for the relevant
pollutant or precursor. 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,
such areas are required to satisfy the
regional emissions analysis
requirements for pollutants or
precursors for which EPA has not made
a finding of insignificance.
The maintenance plan for the GSMNP
Area, included as part of the SIP
revision, contains MVEBs for NOX and
an insignificance determination for
conformity for the VOC contribution
from motor vehicles to the 8-hour ozone
pollution for the 1997 standard in the
GSMNP Area. As part of the preparation
for its redesignation request, North
Carolina consulted with the interagency
consultation group for the GSMNP Area
regarding the insignificance
determination for transportation
conformity for VOC. For the purposes of
regional emissions analysis, the
information provided by North Carolina
supports EPA’s proposal to determine
VOC contribution to 8-hour ozone
pollution from motor vehicles in the
GSMNP Area as insignificant for
conformity. The information provided
by North Carolina to EPA as part of the
SIP revision addresses each of the
factors listed in 40 CFR 93.109(k), and
is summarized below.
According to information provided by
North Carolina, biogenic emissions
account for approximately 99 percent of
the VOC emissions in future years in the
GSMNP Area. On-road VOC emissions
are projected to decline by about 54
percent by 2020 despite vehicle miles
traveled going up by about 25 to 30
percent by 2020 and total non
anthropogenic VOC are projected to
decline from 0.58 to 0.39 tpd by 2020.
Similarly, the current state of air quality
in the GSMNP Area is steadily
improving. The current ozone design
value in the GSMNP Area is 0.077 ppm
based on data from 2006–2008. This is
well below the NAAQS of 0.084 ppm.
In addition, North Carolina conducted
a sensitivity analysis (a photochemical
model) that indicated that 8-hour ozone
levels in the GSMNP Area were not
impacted by reductions in man-made
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:01 Oct 15, 2009
Jkt 220001
VOC emissions (i.e., reductions from
motor vehicles). Specifically, the
photochemical model was run with a
modeled 30 percent reduction in manmade VOC emissions, which is
equivalent to a 33 percent highway
mobile VOC reduction in 2009 for a 39day period (June 1–July 9). In all 39
days of the modeling simulation, the 8hour ozone maximum concentrations
were not changed in Haywood and
Swain Counties, which is a clear
indication that highway mobile VOC is
an insignificant contributor to ozone
formation in that Area. In comparison,
biogenic emissions are expected to
account for at least 98 percent of the
total inventory for VOC emissions. As
discussed in North Carolina’s submittal,
the biogenic sector is the most abundant
source of VOC in North Carolina and
accounts for approximately 98 percent
of the total VOC emissions statewide. As
a result, the information provided by
North Carolina indicates that VOC
contribution to 8-hour ozone pollution
from motor vehicle emissions is
insignificant.
With regard to the factor relating to
the absence of motor vehicle control
measures in the SIP, EPA considered the
existence of an inspection and
maintenance (I/M) program in the North
Carolina SIP, and its implementation in
the individual counties comprising the
GSMNP Area. The I/M program was not
added to the North Carolina SIP as a
VOC control measure, but rather, a NOX
control measure. The I/M program is
currently being implemented in one of
the counties (i.e. Haywood County) in
the GSMNP Area. Implementation of the
I/M program in the GSMNP Area began
from July 2005, and continues to be
ongoing in the Area. In North Carolina’s
SIP submittal, the State explains that the
I/M program was established to achieve
additional reductions in NOX emissions.
As a result, the existence of this
program in the SIP for the purpose of
NOX reductions does not prohibit EPA
from finding the VOC contribution to 8hour ozone pollution from motor
vehicles insignificant.
After evaluating the information
provided by North Carolina and
weighing the factors for the
insignificance determination outlined in
40 CFR 93.109(k), particularly the
biogenic contribution to the overall VOC
inventory, EPA is now proposing to
approve North Carolina’s determination
that the VOC contribution from motor
vehicle emissions to the 8-hour ozone
pollution for the GSMNP Area is
insignificant for purposes of conformity.
If this finding is completed through the
adequacy process (see Section VIII
below) or approved through the final
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
rulemaking on this SIP submission, the
insignificance determination should be
considered and specifically noted in the
transportation conformity document
that is prepared for this Area.
B. Proposed Regional NOX MVEBs
Under the CAA, states are required to
submit, at various times, control strategy
SIPs and maintenance plans in ozone
areas. These control strategy SIPs
(reasonable further progress and
attainment demonstration) and
maintenance plans create MVEBs for
criteria pollutants and/or their
precursors to address pollution from
cars and trucks. Per 40 CFR part 93, an
MVEB is established for the last year of
the maintenance plan. 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. See, 40 CFR 93.101. The
MVEB serves as a ceiling on emissions
from an area’s planned transportation
system. The MVEB concept is further
explained in the preamble to the
November 24, 1993, transportation
conformity rule (58 FR 62188). The
preamble also describes how to
establish the MVEB in the SIP and how
to revise the MVEB.
North Carolina, after interagency
consultation with the transportation
partners for the GSMNP Area, has
elected to develop regional MVEBs for
NOX. North Carolina is developing these
MVEBs, as required, for the last year of
its maintenance plan, 2020, and for an
additional year, 2011. The NOX MVEBs
for the GSMNP Area are defined in
Table 10 below.
TABLE 10—GSMNP AREA NOX
MVEBS (KILOGRAMS PER DAY)
2011
NOX MVEB .......................
2020
179.9
127.0
Through this rulemaking, EPA is
proposing to approve the 2011 and 2020
MVEBs for NOX for the GSMNP Area
because EPA has determined that the
Area maintains the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard with the emissions at the
levels of the budgets. As mentioned
above, these MVEBs are for the entire
GSMNP Area in North Carolina. Once
the new MVEBs for the GSMNP Area
(the subject of this rulemaking) are
approved or found adequate (whichever
is done first), they must be used for
future conformity determinations.
E:\FR\FM\16OCP1.SGM
16OCP1
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 199 / Friday, October 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules
VIII. What Is an Adequacy
Determination?
As discussed above, 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
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 how to revise the MVEB.
Additionally, the transportation
conformity rule (see 93.109(k)) allows
for areas not to establish a MVEB for a
particular pollutant or precursor if it can
be demonstrated that motor vehicle
emissions contributions do not
significantly contribute to an area’s
pollution. North Carolina’s submittal for
this area establishes MVEBs for NOX
and provides an insignificance
determination for VOC contribution.
Under section 176(c) of the CAA, new
transportation projects, such as the
construction of new highways, must
‘‘conform’’ to (i.e., be consistent with)
the part of the state’s air quality plan
that addresses pollution from cars and
trucks. ‘‘Conformity’’ to the SIP means
that transportation activities will not
cause new air quality violations, worsen
existing violations, or delay timely
attainment of the NAAQS. If a
transportation plan does not ‘‘conform,’’
most new projects that would expand
the capacity of roadways cannot go
forward. Regulations at 40 CFR part 93
set forth EPA policy, criteria, and
procedures for demonstrating and
assuring conformity of such
transportation activities to a SIP. The
regional emissions analysis is one, but
not the only requirement for
implementing transportation
conformity. Transportation conformity
is a requirement for nonattainment and
maintenance areas. Maintenance areas
are areas that were previously
nonattainment for a particular NAAQS
but have since been redesignated to
attainment with a maintenance plan for
that NAAQS.
When reviewing submitted ‘‘control
strategy’’ SIPs or maintenance plans
containing MVEBs, EPA must
affirmatively find the MVEB contained
therein ‘‘adequate’’ for use in
determining transportation conformity.
Once EPA affirmatively finds the
submitted MVEB is adequate for
transportation conformity purposes, that
MVEB can be used by State and Federal
agencies in determining whether
proposed transportation projects
‘‘conform’’ to the SIP as required by
section 176(c) of the CAA.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:01 Oct 15, 2009
Jkt 220001
EPA’s substantive criteria for
determining ‘‘adequacy’’ of an MVEB,
including EPA’s determination that an
MVEB need not be established because
of an insignificance determination, are
set out in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). The
process for determining ‘‘adequacy’’
consists of three basic steps: Public
notification of a SIP submission, a
public comment period, and EPA’s
adequacy finding. This process for
determining the adequacy of submitted
SIP MVEBs was initially outlined in
EPA’s May 14, 1999, guidance,
‘‘Conformity Guidance on
Implementation of March 2, 1999,
Conformity Court Decision.’’ This
guidance was finalized in the
Transportation Conformity Rule
Amendments for the ‘‘New 8-Hour
Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air
Quality Standards and Miscellaneous
Revisions for Existing Areas;
transportation conformity rule
amendments—Response to Court
Decision and Additional Rule Change,’’
on July 1, 2004 (69 FR 40004). EPA
follows this guidance and rulemaking in
making its adequacy determinations.
EPA must also use a similar process to
determine the adequacy of an
insignificance determination that is
submitted by a state as a part of a
control strategy SIP or maintenance
plan. Additional information on the
adequacy process for both MVEBs and
insignificance determinations is
available in the proposed rule entitled,
‘‘Transportation Conformity Rule
Amendments: Response to Court
Decision and Additional Rule Changes,’’
68 FR 38974, 38984 (June 30, 2003).
IX. What Is the Status of EPA’s
Adequacy Determination for the
Regional NOX MVEBs for the Years
2011 and 2020, and the VOC
Insignificance Determination?
As discussed earlier, North Carolina’s
maintenance plan submission includes
new NOX MVEBs for the GSMNP Area
for the years 2011 and 2020.
Additionally, the maintenance plan
included a VOC insignificance
determination for the entire GSMNP
Area, and therefore, no MVEB for VOC
is included as part of the SIP revision.
EPA is reviewing both the NOX MVEBs
and the VOC insignificance
determination through the adequacy
process. The North Carolina SIP
submission, including the GSMNP Area
NOX MVEBs and the VOC insignificance
determination, was open for public
comment on EPA’s adequacy Web site
on May 18, 2009, found at: https://
www.epa.gov/ataq/stateresoures/
transconf/currsips.htm. The EPA public
comment period on adequacy of the
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
53211
2011 and 2020 NOX MVEBs, and VOC
insignificance determination closed on
June 17, 2009. There were no comments
on the North Carolina submission.
EPA intends to make its
determination on the adequacy of the
2011 and 2020 NOX MVEBs, and the
VOC insignificance determination for
the GSMNP Area for transportation
conformity purposes in the final
rulemaking on the redesignation of the
GSMNP Area. If EPA finds the 2011 and
2020 NOX MVEBs, and the VOC
insignificance determination adequate
or approves these MVEBs and the VOC
insignificance determination in the final
rulemaking action, the new MVEBs for
NOX must be used, and the VOC
insignificance determination should be
noted, for future transportation
conformity determinations. If the new
2011 and 2020 NOX MVEBs are found
adequate, and both the NOX MVEBs and
the related VOC insignificance
determination are approved in the final
rulemaking, the NOX MVEBs and the
VOC insignificance determination will
be effective on the date of publication of
EPA’s final rulemaking in the Federal
Register. For required regional
emissions analysis years that involve
the year 2019 or before, the applicable
budget for the purposes of conducting
transportation conformity will be the
new 2011 NOX MVEBs for the GSMNP
Area. For required regional emissions
analysis years that involve 2020 or
beyond, the applicable budgets will be
the new 2020 NOX MVEBs. Both the
2011 and 2020 NOX MVEBs are defined
in section VII of this proposed
rulemaking. More detail on the VOC
insignificance determination can be
found in section VII of this proposed
rulemaking as well.
X. Proposed Action on the
Redesignation Request and
Maintenance Plan SIP Revision
Including Proposed Approval of the
2011 and 2020 NOX MVEBs, and the
Proposed VOC Insignificance
Determination for the GSMNP Area
EPA is proposing to make the
determination that the GSMNP Area has
met the criteria for redesignation from
nonattainment to attainment for the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. This
proposed approval of North Carolina’s
redesignation request is based on EPA’s
determination that North Carolina has
demonstrated that the GSMNP Area has
met the criteria for redesignation to
attainment specified in the CAA,
including the determination that the
entire GSMNP 1997 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area has attained the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
E:\FR\FM\16OCP1.SGM
16OCP1
53212
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 199 / Friday, October 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules
Specifically, EPA is proposing to
approve the maintenance plan for the
GSMNP Area included as part of the
July 24, 2009, SIP revision. The
maintenance plan includes NOX MVEBs
for 2011 and 2020, and a VOC
insignificance determination for motor
vehicles’ contribution to the ozone
pollution in this Area, among other
requirements. EPA is proposing to
approve the 2011 and 2020 regional
NOX MVEBs for the GSMNP Area
because the maintenance plan
demonstrates that even with expected
emissions for all other source categories,
the GSMNP Area will continue to
maintain the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard. EPA is also proposing to
approve the insignificance
determination for the VOC contribution
from motor vehicle emissions to the 8hour ozone pollution for the 1997
standard for the GSMNP Area.
Further as part of today’s action, EPA
is describing the status of its adequacy
determination for the 2011 and 2020
NOX MVEBs, and VOC insignificance
determination, in accordance with 40
CFR 93.118(f)(1). If transportation
conformity is needed to be implemented
in this Area, the transportation partners
will need to demonstrate conformity to
the new NOX MVEBs pursuant to 40
CFR 93.104(e). Additionally, the
transportation partners should note
EPA’s finding of adequacy and approval
for the VOC insignificance
determination for future conformity
determinations.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
XI. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed
action is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ and therefore is not subject to
review by the Office of Management and
Budget. For this reason, this action is
also not subject to Executive Order
13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations
That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May
22, 2001). This proposed action merely
proposes to approve state law as
meeting Federal requirements and
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:01 Oct 15, 2009
Jkt 220001
imposes no additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law.
Redesignation of an area to attainment
under section 107(d)(3)(e) of the CAA
does not impose any new requirements
on small entities. Redesignation is an
action that affects the status of a
geographical area and does not impose
any new regulatory requirements on
sources. Accordingly, the Administrator
certifies that this proposed rule will not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule
proposes to approve pre-existing
requirements under state law and does
not impose any additional enforceable
duty beyond that required by state law,
it does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4).
This proposed rule also does not have
tribal implications because it will not
have a substantial direct effect on one or
more Indian tribes, on the relationship
between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes,
as specified by Executive Order 13175
(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This
action also does not have Federalism
implications because it does not have
substantial direct effects on the states,
on the relationship between the national
government and the states, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,
August 10, 1999). This action merely
affects the status of a geographical area,
does not impose any new requirements
on sources, or allow a state to avoid
adopting or implementing other
requirements and does not alter the
relationship or the distribution of power
and responsibilities established in the
CAA. This proposed rule also is not
subject to Executive Order 13045
‘‘Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
because it is not economically
significant and because the Agency does
not have reason to believe that the rule
concerns an environmental health risk
or safety risk that may
disproportionately affect children.
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s
role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. In this context, in the absence
of a prior existing requirement for the
State to use voluntary consensus
standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for
failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for
EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission;
to use VCS in place of a SIP submission
that otherwise satisfies the provisions of
the CAA. Redesignation is an action that
affects the status of a geographical area
but does not impose any new
requirements on sources. Thus, the
requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.
272 note) do not apply. This proposed
rule does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Incorporation by reference,
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.
40 CFR Part 81
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, National parks,
Wilderness areas.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: September 29, 2009
Beverly H. Banister,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. E9–24818 Filed 10–15–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
E:\FR\FM\16OCP1.SGM
16OCP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 199 (Friday, October 16, 2009)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 53198-53212]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-24818]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[EPA-R04-OAR-2009-0338; FRL-8968-9]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and
Designations of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; North
Carolina: Redesignation of Great Smoky Mountains National Park 1997 8-
Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area to Attainment
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The State of North Carolina through the North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Air
Quality (NC DAQ) submitted, on July 24, 2009, a request to redesignate
the Great Smoky Mountains National Park (GSMNP) 1997 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area to attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone national
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS); and to approve a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision containing a maintenance plan with a
2020 end year for the GSMNP Area. The GSMNP Area is composed of
portions of Haywood and Swain Counties in North Carolina. In this
action, EPA is proposing to approve the 1997 8-hour ozone redesignation
request for the GSMNP Area. Additionally, EPA is proposing to approve
the emission inventory and the 1997 8-hour ozone maintenance plan for
the GSMNP Area, including motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs) for
nitrogen oxides (NOX) and an insignificance determination
for conformity for volatile organic compounds (VOC) emissions from
motor vehicles. Further, in this action, EPA is also describing the
status of its transportation conformity adequacy determination for the
new 2011 and 2020 MVEBs for NOX, and for the insignificance
determination for VOC contribution from motor vehicle emissions to the
8-hour ozone pollution for the 1997 NAAQS, that are contained in the
1997 8-hour ozone maintenance plan for the GSMNP Area. On March 12,
[[Page 53199]]
2008, EPA issued a revised ozone standard. The current action, however,
is being taken to address requirements under the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. Requirements for the GSMNP Area under the 2008 standard will be
addressed in the future.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before November 16,
2009.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2009-0338, by one of the following methods:
1. https://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
2. E-mail: benjamin.lynorae@epa.gov.
3. Fax: (404) 562-9019.
4. Mail: EPA-R04-OAR-2009-0338 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: Lynorae Benjamin, Chief, 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-
2009-0338. 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 https://www.regulations.gov or e-mail, information that you consider to be CBI
or otherwise protected. The https://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 https://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at https://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
https://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 federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jane Spann or Nacosta Ward, 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. Jane Spann may be
reached by phone at (404) 562-9029 or via electronic mail at
spann.jane@epa.gov. The telephone number for Ms. Ward is (404) 562-9140
and the electronic mail at ward.nacosta@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. What Proposed Actions Is EPA Taking?
II. What Is the Background for EPA's Proposed Actions?
III. What Are the Criteria for Redesignation?
IV. Why Is EPA Proposing These Actions?
V. What Is the Effect of EPA's Proposed Actions?
VI. What Is EPA's Analysis of the Request?
VII. What Is EPA's Analysis of North Carolina's Proposed VOC
Insignificance Finding and the Proposed Regional NOX
MVEBs for the GSMNP Area?
VIII. What Is an Adequacy Determination?
IX. What Is the Status of EPA's Adequacy Determination for the
Proposed Regional NOX MVEBs for the Years 2011 and 2020,
and the VOC Insignificance Determination?
X. Proposed Action on the Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan
SIP Revision Including Proposed Approval of the 2011 and 2020
Regional NOX MVEBs, and the Proposed VOC Insignificance
Determination for the GSMNP Area
XI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What Proposed Actions Is EPA Taking?
EPA is proposing to take several related actions, which are
summarized below and described in greater detail throughout this notice
of proposed rulemaking: (1) To redesignate the GSMNP Area to attainment
for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS; (2) to approve the emissions inventory
submitted with the maintenance plan (under the Clean Air Act (CAA)
section 172(c)(3)); and (3) to approve North Carolina's 1997 8-hour
ozone maintenance plan into the North Carolina SIP, including the
associated MVEBs for NOX and the VOC insignificance
determination for VOC emission contribution from motor vehicles. In
addition, and related to today's proposed actions, EPA is also
notifying the public of the status of EPA's adequacy determination for
the GSMNP Area NOX MVEBs.
First, EPA is proposing to determine that the GSMNP Area has
attained the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, and that the GSMNP Area has
met the other requirements for redesignation under section 107(d)(3)(E)
of the CAA. EPA is now proposing to approve a request to change the
legal designation of the GSMNP Area from nonattainment to attainment
for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
Second, EPA is proposing to approve North Carolina's 1997 emissions
inventory (under section 172(c)(3)). North Carolina selected 2005 as
``the attainment year'' for the GSMNP Area for the purpose of
demonstrating attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. This
attainment inventory identifies the level of emissions in the area,
which is sufficient to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.
Third, EPA is proposing to approve North Carolina's 1997 8-hour
ozone maintenance plan for the GSMNP Area (such approval being one of
the CAA criteria for redesignation to attainment status). The
maintenance plan is designed to help keep the GSMNP Area in attainment
of the 1997 8-hour ozone
[[Page 53200]]
NAAQS through 2020. Consistent with the CAA, the maintenance plan that
EPA is proposing to approve today also includes 2011 and 2020 MVEBs for
NOX, and a VOC insignificance determination for
transportation conformity. Today, EPA is proposing to approve (into the
North Carolina SIP) the 2011 and 2020 NOX MVEBs, and the VOC
insignificance determination for conformity, that are included as part
of North Carolina's maintenance plan for the GSMNP Area for the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS.
EPA is also notifying the public of the status of EPA's adequacy
process for the newly-established 2011 and 2020 NOX MVEBs,
and of its insignificance determination for VOC for transportation
conformity purposes for the GSMNP Area.
Today's notice of proposed rulemaking is in response to North
Carolina's May 15, 2009, proposed SIP submittal, which was submitted in
draft form for parallel processing, and then again in final form on
July 24, 2009. The July 24, 2009, submittal requests redesignation of
the GSMNP Area, and includes a SIP revision addressing the specific
issues summarized above and the necessary elements for redesignation
described in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA.
II. What Is the Background for EPA's Proposed Actions?
Ground level ozone is not directly emitted by sources. Rather,
emissions of NOX and VOC react in the presence of sunlight
to form ground-level ozone. NOX and VOC are referred to as
precursors of ozone. The CAA 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). The 1997
standard was more stringent than the previous 1-hour ozone standard.
Under EPA's regulations at 40 CFR part 50, the 1997 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
concentrations 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 concentrations 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 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS based on the three most
recent years of ambient air quality data. The GSMNP 1997 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area was designated using 2001-2003 ambient air quality
data. The Federal Register document making these designations was
signed on April 15, 2004, and published on April 30, 2004 (69 FR
23857).
The CAA contains two sets of provisions, subpart 1 and subpart 2
that address planning and control requirements for ozone nonattainment
areas. (Both are found in title I, part D.) Subpart 1 (which EPA refers
to as ``basic'' nonattainment) contains general, less prescriptive,
requirements for nonattainment areas for any pollutant, including
ozone, governed by a NAAQS. Subpart 2 (which EPA refers to as
``classified'' nonattainment) provides more specific requirements for
certain ozone nonattainment areas. Some 1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment
areas were subject only to the provisions of subpart 1. Other 1997 8-
hour ozone nonattainment areas were classified as subpart 2 areas and
were subject to the provisions of subpart 2 in addition to subpart 1.
Under EPA's phase 1 8-hour ozone implementation rule (69 FR 23857)
(Phase 1 Rule), signed on April 15, 2004, and published April 30, 2004,
an area was classified under subpart 2 based on its 8-hour ozone design
value (i.e., the 3-year average of the annual fourth highest daily
maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations), if it had a 1-hour design
value at or above 0.121 ppm (the lowest 1-hour design value in Table 1
of subpart 2). All other areas were covered under subpart 1, based upon
their 8-hour ambient air quality design values.
The GSMNP Area was designated attainment for the 1-hour ozone
standard. On April 30, 2004, EPA designated the GSMNP Area as a
``basic'' 8-hour ozone nonattainment area or subpart 1 nonattainment
area (see, 69 FR 23857, April 30, 2004). When North Carolina submitted
its redesignation request, the GSMNP Area was attaining the 1997 8-hour
ozone standard. The area has continued to attain since that time.
Various aspects of EPA's Phase 1 Rule were challenged in court. On
December 22, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit Court) vacated EPA's Phase 1 Rule (69 FR
23951, April 30, 2004). South Coast Air Quality Management Dist.
(SCAQMD) v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 2006). On June 8, 2007, in
response to several petitions for rehearing, the D.C. Circuit Court
clarified that the Phase 1 Rule was vacated only with regard to those
parts of the Rule that had been successfully challenged. Therefore, the
Phase 1 Rule provisions related to classifications for areas currently
classified under subpart 2 of title I, part D of the CAA as 1997 8-hour
nonattainment areas, the 1997 8-hour attainment dates and the timing
for emissions reductions needed for attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS remain effective. The June 8th decision left intact the Court's
rejection of EPA's reason for implementing the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard in certain nonattainment areas under subpart 1 in lieu of
subpart 2. By limiting the vacatur, the Court let stand EPA's
revocation of the 1-hour standard and those anti-backsliding provisions
of the Phase 1 Rule that had not been successfully challenged. The June
8th decision reaffirmed the December 22, 2006, decision that EPA had
improperly failed to retain measures required for 1-hour nonattainment
areas under the anti-backsliding provisions of the regulations: (1)
Nonattainment area New Source Review (NSR) requirements based on an
area's 1-hour nonattainment classification; (2) section 185 penalty
fees for 1-hour severe or extreme nonattainment areas; and (3) measures
to be implemented pursuant to section 172(c)(9) or 182 (c)(9) of the
CAA, on the contingency of an area not making reasonable further
progress toward attainment of the 1-hour NAAQS. The June 8th decision
clarified that the Court's reference to conformity requirements for
anti-backsliding purposes was limited to requiring the continued use of
1-hour motor vehicle
[[Page 53201]]
emissions budgets until 8-hour budgets were available for 8-hour
conformity determinations, which is already required under EPA's
conformity regulations. The Court thus clarified that 1-hour conformity
determinations are not required for anti-backsliding purposes.
This section sets forth EPA's views on the potential effect of the
Court's rulings on this proposed redesignation action. For the reasons
set forth below, EPA does not believe that the Court's rulings alter
any requirements relevant to this redesignation action so as to
preclude redesignation, and do not prevent EPA from proposing or
ultimately finalizing this redesignation. EPA believes that the Court's
December 22, 2006, and June 8, 2007, decisions impose no impediment to
moving forward with redesignation of the GSMNP Area to attainment,
because even in light of the Court's decisions, redesignation is
appropriate under the relevant redesignation provisions of the CAA and
longstanding policies regarding redesignation requests.
With respect to the 1997 8-hour standard, the Court's ruling
rejected EPA's reasons for classifying areas under subpart 1 for the
1997 8-hour standard, and remanded that matter to the Agency. In its
January 16, 2009, proposed rulemaking in response to the SCAQMD
decision, EPA has proposed to classify GSMNP under subpart 2 as a
marginal area. See 74 FR 2936, 2944. If EPA finalizes this rulemaking,
the requirements under subpart 2 will become applicable when they are
due, a deadline that EPA has proposed to be one year after the
effective date of a final rulemaking classifying areas as marginal or
moderate. See 74 FR 2940-41. Although the final rulemaking to classify
this area under subpart 2 has not yet been made, EPA believes that this
does not mean that redesignation cannot now go forward. This belief is
based upon (1) EPA's longstanding policy of evaluating requirements in
accordance with the requirements due at the time the request is
submitted and (2) consideration of the inequity of applying
retroactively any requirements that might in the future be applied.
First, at the time the redesignation request was submitted, the
GSMNP Area was not classified under subpart 2, nor were there any
subpart 2 requirements yet due for this Area. Under EPA's longstanding
interpretation of section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA, to qualify for
redesignation, states requesting redesignation to attainment must meet
only the relevant SIP requirements that came due prior to submittal of
a complete redesignation request. September 4, 1992, Calcagni
Memorandum (``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas
to Attainment,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality
Management Division). (See also Michael Shapiro Memorandum, September
17, 1993, and 60 FR 12459, 12465-66 (March 7, 1995) (Redesignation of
Detroit--Ann Arbor, Michigan). See Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537
(7th Cir. 2004) (upholding this interpretation). See also 68 FR 25418,
25424, 25427 (May 12, 2003) (redesignation of St. Louis, Missouri).
Moreover, it would be inequitable to retroactively apply any new
SIP requirements that were not applicable at the time the request was
submitted. The D.C. Circuit Court has recognized the inequity in such
retroactive rulemaking (See Sierra Club v. Whitman 285 F.3d 63 (D.C.
Cir. 2002)), in which the Court upheld a district court's ruling
refusing to make retroactive, an EPA determination of nonattainment
that was past the statutory due date. Such a determination would have
resulted in the imposition of additional requirements on the area. The
Court stated: ``Although EPA failed to make the nonattainment
determination within the statutory frame, Sierra Club's proposed
solution only makes the situation worse. Retroactive relief would
likely impose large costs on the states, which would face fines and
suits for not implementing air pollution prevention plans in 1997, even
though they were not on notice at the time.'' Id. at 68. Similarly
here, it would be unfair to penalize the area by applying to it for
purpose of redesignation, additional SIP requirements under subpart 2
that were not in effect or yet due at the time it submitted its
redesignation request, or the time that the Area attained the standard.
With respect to the requirements under the 1-hour ozone standard,
the GSMNP Area was designated attainment. The D.C. Circuit Court's
decisions do not impact redesignation requests for these types of
areas, except to the extent that the Court, in its June 8th decision,
clarified that for those areas with 1-hour MVEBs in their maintenance
plans, anti-backsliding requires that those 1-hour budgets must be used
for 8-hour budgets. Since this Area was attainment for the 1-hour ozone
standard, there were no preexisting 1-hour MVEBs to consider for 8-hour
conformity requirements.
First, there are no conformity requirements relevant for the GSMNP
Area request, such as a transportation conformity SIP. It is EPA's
longstanding policy that it is reasonable to interpret the conformity
SIP requirements as not applying for purposes of evaluating a
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 40 CFR
51.390; see also Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001) (upholding
EPA's interpretation); 60 FR 62748 (Dec. 7, 1995) (Redesignation of
Tampa, Florida).
Second, with regard to the three other anti-backsliding provisions
for the 1-hour ozone standard that the D.C. Circuit Court found were
not properly retained, the GSMNP Area has always been an attainment
area for the 1-hour ozone standard, and the NSR, contingency measures
pursuant to section 172(c)(9) or 182(c)(9), and fee provision
requirements do not apply to this area. As a result, the decisions in
SCAQMD should not alter any requirements that would preclude EPA from
finalizing the redesignation of the GSMNP Area to attainment for the
1997 8-hour ozone standard.
As noted earlier, in 2008, the ambient ozone data for the GSMNP
Area indicated no further violations of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS,
using the data from the 3-year period of 2006-2008 to demonstrate
attainment. As a result, on May 15, 2009, North Carolina requested
parallel processing of its request for redesignation of the GSMNP Area
to attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The redesignation
request included three years of complete, quality-assured ambient air
quality data for the ozone seasons (April 1st until October 31st) of
2006-2008, indicating that the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS had been
achieved for the entire GSMNP Area. Under the CAA, nonattainment areas
may be redesignated to attainment if sufficient, complete, quality-
assured data is available for the Administrator to determine that the
area has attained the standard and the area meets the other CAA
redesignation requirements in section 107(d)(3)(E). While EPA did not
have the opportunity to parallel process this draft submittal, EPA did
begin the adequacy process for the newly-established MVEBs. Also, while
EPA can initiate the adequacy process with a draft submittal, EPA
cannot conclude this process until a final submittal is received. On
July 24, 2009, North Carolina submitted to EPA a final SIP revision.
This final submittal included MVEBs for 2011 and 2020.
III. What Are the Criteria for Redesignation?
The CAA provides the requirements for redesignating a nonattainment
area
[[Page 53202]]
to attainment. Specifically, section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA allows for
redesignation providing that: (1) The Administrator determines that the
area has attained the applicable NAAQS; (2) the Administrator has fully
approved the applicable implementation plan for the area under section
110(k); (3) the Administrator determines that the improvement in air
quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions
resulting from implementation of the applicable SIP and applicable
Federal air pollutant control regulations and other permanent and
enforceable reductions; (4) the Administrator has fully approved a
maintenance plan for the area as meeting the requirements of section
175A; and, (5) the state containing such area has met all requirements
applicable to the area under section 110 and part D of the CAA.
EPA provided guidance on redesignation in the General Preamble for
the Implementation of Title I of the CAA Amendments of 1990, on April
16, 1992 (57 FR 13498), and supplemented this guidance on April 28,
1992 (57 FR 18070). EPA has provided further guidance on processing
redesignation requests in the following documents:
1. ``Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Design Value Calculations,''
Memorandum from Bill Laxton, Director, Technical Support Division,
June 18, 1990;
2. ``Maintenance Plans for Redesignation of Ozone and Carbon
Monoxide Nonattainment Areas,'' Memorandum from G.T. Helms, Chief,
Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, April 30, 1992;
3. ``Contingency Measures for Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Redesignations,'' Memorandum from G. T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon
Monoxide Programs Branch, June 1, 1992;
4. ``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to
Attainment,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality
Management Division, September 4, 1992 (hereafter referred to as the
``Calcagni Memorandum'');
5. ``State Implementation Plan (SIP) Actions Submitted in Response
to Clean Air Act (ACT) Deadlines,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni,
Director, Air Quality Management Division, October 28, 1992;
6. ``Technical Support Documents (TSD's) for Redesignation of Ozone
and Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment Areas,'' Memorandum from G.
T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, August 17,
1993;
7. ``State Implementation Plan (SIP) Requirements for Areas
Submitting Requests for Redesignation to Attainment of the Ozone and
Carbon Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
On or After November 15, 1992,'' Memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro,
Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, September 17,
1993;
8. ``Use of Actual Emissions in Maintenance Demonstrations for Ozone
and CO Nonattainment Areas,'' Memorandum from D. Kent Berry, Acting
Director, Air Quality Management Division, November 30, 1993;
9. ``Part D New Source Review (Part D NSR) Requirements for Areas
Requesting Redesignation to Attainment,'' Memorandum from Mary D.
Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, October 14,
1994; and
10. ``Reasonable Further Progress, Attainment Demonstration, and
Related Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment Areas Meeting the Ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standard,'' Memorandum from John S.
Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, May
10, 1995.
IV. Why Is EPA Proposing These Actions?
North Carolina submitted a final SIP revision on July 24, 2009,
with a request for redesignation of the GSMNP Area to attainment for
the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. EPA's preliminary evaluation indicates
that North Carolina has demonstrated that the GSMNP Area has attained
the standard and has met the requirements for redesignation set forth
in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. EPA is also announcing the status
of its adequacy determination for the 2011 and 2020 NOx MVEBs, and the
VOC insignificance determination, which are relevant to the requested
redesignation.
V. What Is the Effect of EPA's Proposed Actions?
EPA's proposed actions establish the bases upon which EPA may take
final action on the issues being proposed for approval today. Final
approval of the emissions inventory would determine that it satisfies
the requirements of section 172(c)(3) of the CAA. Approval of North
Carolina's redesignation request would change the legal designation for
the portions of Haywood and Swain Counties included in the GSMNP Area
for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS found at 40 CFR part 81. Approval of
North Carolina's request would also incorporate into the North Carolina
SIP, a plan for the GSMNP Area for maintaining the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS in the Area through 2020. This maintenance plan includes
contingency measures to remedy future violations of the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. The maintenance plan also establishes regional
NOX MVEBs and provides a VOC insignificance determination
for the GSMNP Area. The following Table identifies the NOX
MVEBs for the years 2011 and 2020 for this Area.
Table 1--GSMNP Area MVEBs
[Kilograms per day \1\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2011 2020
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX MVEB........................................ 179.9 127.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North Carolina has provided the conversion factor of 907.1847
kilograms per ton, rounded to two decimal places for tons to allow for
comparison of the MVEBs to the emissions inventory (expressed in tons
per day) in this Area.
Approval of North Carolina's maintenance plan would also result in
approval of the regional NOX MVEBs, and the VOC
insignificance determination for conformity purposes. Additionally, EPA
is notifying the public of the status of its adequacy determination for
the 2011 and 2020 NOX MVEBs, and its VOC insignificance
determination for conformity, pursuant to 40 CFR 93.118(f)(1).
VI. What Is EPA's Analysis of the Request?
EPA is proposing to make the determination that the GSMNP Area has
attained the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, and that all other
redesignation criteria have been met for the GSMNP Area. The basis for
EPA's determination for this Area is discussed in greater detail below.
Criteria (1)--The GSMNP Area Has Attained the 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
EPA is proposing to determine that the GSMNP Area has attained the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. For ozone, an area may be considered to be
attaining the 1997 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.
EPA reviewed ozone monitoring data from the ambient ozone
monitoring
[[Page 53203]]
station in the GSMNP Area for the ozone season from 2006-2008. These
data have been quality assured and is recorded in AQS. The fourth
highest 8-hour averages for 2006, 2007 and 2008, and the 3-year average
of these values (i.e., design values), are summarized in the following
table:
Table 2--Annual 4th Highest Maximum and Design Value Concentration for 8-
Hour Ozone for the GSMNP Area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fourth
highest 8- Design
hour value
Year ozone (ppm)
value 2006-2008
(ppm)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2006.............................................. 0.073 0.077
2007.............................................. 0.078 .........
2008.............................................. 0.080 .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed above, the design value for an area is the 3-year
average of the annual 4th highest 8-hour ozone value recorded at the
monitor in the area. Therefore, the design value for the GSMNP Area is
0.077 ppm, which meets the standard as described above. Currently
available data show that the Area continues to attain the standard. If
the Area does not continue to attain until EPA finalizes the
redesignation, EPA will not go forward with the redesignation. It is
important to note that this area has been in attainment of the 1997
standard since 2004. The design value for the Area with 2002-2004 data
was 0.082 ppm. See below for a historical trend of design values for
this Area.
Table 3--GSMNP Area Historic Design Values
[1999-2007]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Design value (ppm)
Monitor ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
99-01 00-02 01-03 02-04 03-05 04-06 05-07
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Purchase Knob, AIRS ID 37- 0.087 0.087 0.085 0.082 0.078 0.076 0.078
087-0036, Haywood County..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Bolded values represent violations of the 8-hour ozone standard.
As is discussed in more detail below, North Carolina has committed
to continue monitoring in this Area in accordance with 40 CFR part 58.
The data submitted by North Carolina provides an adequate demonstration
that the GSMNP Area has attained the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
Criteria (2)--North Carolina Has a Fully Approved SIP Under Section
110(k) for the GSMNP Area and Criteria (5)--Has Met All Applicable
Requirements Under Section 110 and Part D of the CAA
Below is a summary of how these two criteria were met.
EPA has determined that North Carolina has met all applicable SIP
requirements for the GSMNP Area under section 110 of the CAA (general
SIP requirements). EPA has also determined that the North Carolina SIP
satisfies the criterion that it meet applicable SIP requirements under
part D of title I of the CAA (requirements specific to subpart 1 basic
8-hour ozone nonattainment areas) in accordance with section
107(d)(3)(E)(v) and 110(l). In addition, EPA has determined that the
SIP is fully approved with respect to all applicable requirements in
accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii). In making these
determinations, EPA ascertained which requirements are applicable to
the area and that if applicable, they are fully approved under section
110(k). SIPs must be fully approved only with respect to applicable
requirements.
a. The GSMNP Area Has Met All Applicable Requirements Under Section 110
and Part D of the CAA
The September 4, 1992, Calcagni Memorandum describes EPA's
interpretation of section 107(d)(3)(E). Under this interpretation, to
qualify for redesignation, states requesting redesignation to
attainment must meet only the relevant CAA requirements that come due
prior to the submittal of a complete redesignation request. See also
Michael Shapiro Memorandum, (``SIP Requirements for Areas Submitting
Requests for Redesignation to Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon
Monoxide NAAQS On or After November 15, 1992,'' September 17, 1993);
and 60 FR 12459, 12465-66 (March 7, 1995) (redesignation of Detroit-Ann
Arbor, Michigan). Applicable requirements of the CAA that come due
subsequent to the area's submittal of a complete redesignation request
remain applicable until a redesignation is approved, but are not
required as a prerequisite to redesignation. See section 175A(c) of the
CAA; Sierra Club, 375 F.3d 537; see also 68 FR 25424, 25427 (May 12,
2003) (redesignation of St. Louis, Missouri).
General SIP requirements. Section 110(a)(2) of title I of the CAA
delineates the general requirements for a SIP, which include
enforceable emissions limitations and other control measures, means, or
techniques, provisions for the establishment and operation of
appropriate devices necessary to collect data on ambient air quality,
and programs to enforce the limitations. General SIP elements and
requirements are delineated in section 110(a)(2) of title I, part A of
the CAA. These requirements include, but are not limited to, the
following: Submittal of a SIP that has been adopted by the state after
reasonable public notice and hearing; provisions for establishment and
operation of appropriate procedures needed to monitor ambient air
quality; implementation of a source permit program; provisions for the
implementation of part C requirements (Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD)) and provisions for the implementation of part D
requirements (NSR permit programs); provisions for air pollution
modeling; and provisions for public and local agency participation in
planning and emission control rule development.
Section 110(a)(2)(D) requires that SIPs contain certain measures to
prevent sources in a state from significantly contributing to air
quality problems in another state. To implement this provision, EPA has
required certain states to establish programs to address the transport
of air pollutants (the NOX SIP Call, the Clean Air
Interstate Rule (CAIR)). EPA has also found, generally, that states
have not submitted timely SIPs under section 110(a)(1) to meet the
interstate transport requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). However,
the section 110(a)(2)(D) requirements for a state are not linked with a
particular nonattainment area's designation and
[[Page 53204]]
classification in that state. EPA believes that the requirements linked
with a particular nonattainment area's designation and classifications
are the relevant measures to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation
request. The transport SIP submittal requirements, where applicable,
continue to apply to a state regardless of the designation of any one
particular area in the state. Thus, we do not believe that the CAA's
interstate transport requirements should be construed to be applicable
requirements for the purpose of redesignation.
In addition, EPA believes that 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 area will still be subject to these requirements
after the area is redesignated. The section 110 and part D
requirements, which are linked with a particular area's designation and
classification, are the relevant measures to evaluate in reviewing a
redesignation request. This approach is consistent with EPA's existing
policy on applicability (i.e., for redesignations) of conformity and
oxygenated fuels requirements, as well as with section 184 ozone
transport requirements. See Reading, Pennsylvania, proposed and final
rulemakings (61 FR 53174-53176, October 10, 1996), (62 FR 24826, May 7,
1997); Cleveland-Akron-Loraine, Ohio, final rulemaking (61 FR 20458,
May 7, 1996); and Tampa, Florida, final rulemaking at (60 FR 62748,
December 7, 1995). See also the discussion on this issue in the
Cincinnati, Ohio redesignation (65 FR 37890, June 19, 2000), and in the
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania redesignation (66 FR 50399, October 19, 2001).
EPA believes that section 110 elements not linked to the area's
nonattainment status are not applicable for purposes of redesignation.
EPA notes it has previously approved provisions in the North Carolina
SIP addressing section 110 elements under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS (See
51 FR 19834, June 3, 1986). The State has submitted a letter, dated
December 12, 2007, setting forth its belief that the section 110 SIP
approved for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS is also sufficient to meet the
requirements under the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA has not yet
approved these submissions, but such approval is not necessary for
purposes of redesignation.
Part D requirements. EPA proposes that if EPA approves the base
year emissions inventory, which is part of the maintenance plan
submittal, the North Carolina SIP will meet applicable SIP requirements
under part D of the CAA. The 2005 VOC and NOX emissions, as
well as the emissions for other years, for the GSMNP Area were
developed consistent with EPA guidance for emission inventories and the
choice of the 2005 base year is appropriate because it represents the
2004-2006 period when the 1997 8 hour ozone NAAQS was not violated.
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
172-176. 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).
EPA is proposing here to determine that the Area has attained the
1997 8-hour ozone standard, under 40 CFR 51.918. If that determination
is finalized, the requirements to submit certain planning SIPs related
to attainment, including attainment demonstration requirements, the
Reasonably Available Control Measure (RACM) requirement of section
172(c)(1) of the CAA, the Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) and
attainment demonstration requirements of sections 172(c)(2) and (6) of
the CAA, and the requirement for contingency measures of section
172(c)(9) of the CAA, would not be applicable to the Area as long as it
continues to attain the NAAQS and would cease to apply upon
redesignation. In addition, in the context of redesignations, EPA has
interpreted requirements related to attainment as not applicable for
purposes of redesignation. For example, in the General Preamble, EPA
stated that: [t]he section 172(c)(9) requirements are directed at
ensuring RFP and attainment by the applicable date. These requirements
no longer apply to an area that has attained the standard and is
eligible for redesignation. Furthermore, section 175A for maintenance
plans provide specific requirements for contingency measures that
effectively supersede the requirements of section 172 (c)(9) for these
areas. ``General Preamble for the Interpretation of Title I of the
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990'' (``General Preamble''), 57 FR 13498,
13564 (April 16, 1992). See also Calcagni memorandum at page 6 (``The
requirements for reasonable further progress and other measures for
attainment will not apply for redesignations because they only have
meaning for areas not attaining the standard.'') Since the GSMNP area
was not classified under subpart 2 at the time the redesignation
request was submitted, the subpart 2 requirements do not apply for
purposes of redesignation. EPA believes it is reasonable to interpret
the conformity and NSR requirements as not requiring approval prior to
redesignation.
Section 176 Conformity Requirements. Section 176(c) of the CAA
requires states to establish criteria and procedures to ensure that
Federally supported or funded projects conform to the air quality
planning goals in the applicable SIP. The requirement to determine
conformity applies to transportation plans, programs and projects
developed, funded or approved under title 23 of the United States Code
(U.S.C.) and the Federal Transit Act (transportation conformity) as
well as to all other Federally supported or funded projects (general
conformity). State conformity revisions must be consistent with Federal
conformity regulations relating to consultation, enforcement and
enforceability that the CAA required EPA to promulgate.
EPA believes it is reasonable to interpret the conformity SIP
requirements as not applying for purposes of evaluating the
redesignation request under section 107(d) because state conformity
rules are still required after redesignation and Federal conformity
rules apply where state rules have not been approved. See Wall, 265
F.3d 426 (upholding this interpretation). See also 60 FR 62748
(December 7, 1995, Tampa, Florida).
NSR Requirements. EPA has also determined that areas being
redesignated need not comply with the requirement that an NSR program
be approved prior to redesignation, provided that the area demonstrates
maintenance of the standard without a part D NSR program in effect,
since PSD requirements will apply after redesignation. The rationale
for this view is described in a memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant
Administrator for Air and Radiation, dated October 14, 1994, entitled
``Part D New Source Review (Part D NSR) Requirements for Areas
Requesting Redesignation to Attainment.'' North Carolina has
demonstrated that the GSMNP Area will be able to maintain the standard
without a part D NSR program in effect, and therefore, North Carolina
need not have a fully approved part D NSR program prior to approval of
the redesignation request. Since there are no major sources in GSMNP
and none planned, the Area has demonstrated maintenance without the
need for a part D NSR program in this Area. North Carolina's PSD
program will become effective in the GSMNP
[[Page 53205]]
Area upon redesignation to attainment. See rulemakings for Detroit,
Michigan (60 FR 12467-12468, March 7, 1995); Cleveland-Akron-Lorraine,
Ohio (61 FR 20458, 20469-70, May 7, 1996); Louisville, Kentucky (66 FR
53665, October 23, 2001); Grand Rapids, Michigan (61 FR 31834-31837,
June 21, 1996). Thus, the GSMNP Area has satisfied all applicable
requirements for purposes of redesignation under section 110 and part D
of the CAA.
b. The GSMNP Area Has a Fully Approved Applicable SIP Under Section
110(k) of the CAA
If EPA issues a final approval of the base year emissions inventory
under section 172(c)(3), EPA will have fully approved the applicable
North Carolina SIP for the GSMNP Area, under section 110(k) of the CAA
for all requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation. EPA may
rely on prior SIP approvals in approving a redesignation request, see
Calcagni Memorandum at p. 3; Southwestern Pennsylvania Growth Alliance
v. Browner, 144 F.3d 984, 989-90 (6th Cir. 1998); Wall, 265 F.3d 426,
plus any additional measures it may approve in conjunction with a
redesignation action. See 68 FR 25426 (May 12, 2003) and citations
therein. Following passage of the CAA of 1970, 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 GSMNP Area (58 FR 47391, September 9, 1993; 59 FR
18300, April 18, 1994; 60 FR 34859, July 5, 1995; 69 FR 56163,
September 20, 2004).
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
subpart 2 requirements did not become due prior to submission of the
redesignation request, they also are therefore not applicable
requirements for purposes of redesignation. Sierra Club v. EPA, 375
F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004); 68 FR 25424, 25427 (May 12, 2003)
(redesignation of the St. Louis-East St. Louis Area to attainment of
the 1-hour ozone NAAQS). With the approval of the emissions inventory,
EPA will have approved all Part D subpart 1 requirements applicable for
purposes of redesignation.
Criteria (3)--The Air Quality Improvement in the GSMNP 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 North Carolina has demonstrated that the observed
air quality improvement in the GSMNP Area is due to permanent and
enforceable reductions in emissions in the region surrounding the GSMNP
Area resulting from implementation of the SIP, Federal measures, and
other state adopted measures. Additionally, new emissions control
programs for fuels and motor vehicles will help ensure a continued
decrease in emissions throughout the region and continued maintenance
of the ozone standard.
The overwhelming abundance of biogenic VOC emissions makes the
majority of North Carolina a NOX limited environment for the
formation of ozone. This holds especially true in the North Carolina
GSMNP nonattainment area. The NOX emissions within the North
Carolina GSMNP nonattainment area are extremely low; total manmade
emissions are currently about a quarter ton per day (tpd) of
NOX. NC DAQ has provided a demonstration that the GSMNP man-
made emissions are not the primary cause of the ozone exceedances
within the GSMNP. North Carolina's demonstration indicates that
emission reductions in the GSMNP itself have only a limited impact on
the observed ozone values within the GSMNP; and thus concludes these
reductions primarily must come from sources upwind of the nonattainment
area.
There are numerous State and Federal measures that have been
enacted in recent years that are resulting in permanent and enforceable
regional emissions reductions. A list of those measures that
contributed to the permanent and enforceable regional emission
reductions that resulted in attainment or will contribute to future
maintenance of the ozone standard are listed in Table 4.
Table 4--Region-Wide Emission Reductions Programs in the GSMNP Area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Control Measures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier 2 Vehicle Standards.
Heavy-Duty Gasoline and Diesel Highway Vehicles Standards.
Large Nonroad Diesel Engines Rule.
Nonroad Spark-Ignition Engines and Recreational Engines Standard.
NOX SIP Call in Surrounding States.
Clean Air Interstate Rule in Surrounding States.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Control Measures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clean Air Bill.
NOX SIP Call/Clean Air Interstate Rule.
Clean Smokestacks Act.
Open Burning Bans.
Air Toxics Control Program.
Prevention of Significant Deterioration.
Heavy Duty Diesel Engine Gap Filling Requirements.
Air Awareness Program.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two of the measures of consideration included by North Carolina in
its maintenance plan submittal were CAIR in surrounding states and the
NOX SIP Call in surrounding states. Because of the
uncertainty introduced by the recent court actions affecting CAIR and
the NOX SIP Call, EPA undertook an analysis of the changes
in NOX expected during the ten year maintenance period
across a broader region. Of particular significance are reductions in
NOX emissions from large power plants in the region since
they were responsible for the preponderance of the NOX in
the GSMNP Area. There are seven facilities located in North Carolina
and four facilities located in Tennessee in the Region around the GSMNP
Area. Table 5 displays the NOX emission reductions, as the
result of the NOX SIP Call rule, from power plants that most
likely impact the North Carolina GSMNP nonattainment area in 2002
through 2007. This data is from the EPA's Clean Air Markets Division
and represents the second and third quarters of the year (April through
September), the period during which ozone levels are the highest. It is
clearly demonstrated that the emissions from these facilities have
significantly decreased during the ozone season since 2002, with 52,431
tons of NOX reductions in the 2007 ozone season compared to
2002. This is a 67 percent reduction in utility NOX
emissions that are permanent and enforceable and implemented prior to
CAIR coming into effect.
[[Page 53206]]
Table 5--April-September NOX Emissions for Utilities Impacting the GSMNP Area
[tons/period]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facility 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
North Carolina Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Asheville......................... 2,252 2,158 2,205 2,156 1,931 598
Belews Creek...................... 21,269 13,871 7,102 3,803 3,769 1,559
Buck.............................. 1,084 1,468 1,089 1,286 1,262 870
Cliffside......................... 1,944 2,149 1,738 1,782 1,540 1,311
G G Allen......................... 5,011 3,643 4,002 3,589 3,001 3,053
Marshall.......................... 9,283 9,101 8,243 7,558 6,370 7,253
River Bend........................ 2,556 2,703 1,844 1,379 1,417 1,296
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total NC...................... 43,399 35,093 26,223 21,553 19,290 15,940
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tennessee Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bull Run.......................... 10,554 9,234 1,670 2,468 692 1,513
Gallatin.......................... 5,894 6,043 4,556 3,933 3,647 3,124
John Sevier....................... 5,438 4,911 5,343 4,437 4,504 4,187
Kingston.......................... 13,335 13,882 5,660 3,444 1,344 1,425
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total TN...................... 35,221 34,070 17,229 14,282 10,187 10,249
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Combined............ 78,620 69,163 43,452 35,835 29,477 26,189
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These reductions are primarily the result of the NOX SIP
Call (63 FR 57356) that set ozone season NOX budgets for the
purpose of reducing regional transport of ozone. This rule called for
ozone season controls to be put on utility and industrial boilers, as
well as internal combustion engines in 22 states in the Eastern United
States. A NOX emissions budget was set for each state and
the states were required to develop rules that would allow the state to
meet their budget. The emission budgets were to be met by the beginning
of 2004, prior to the adoption of CAIR. The amount of ozone season
NOX emissions from power plants has decreased significantly
in and around North Carolina as a result and are expected to be
maintained at these levels throughout the maintenance period.
Georgia power plants were the only ones in a nearby state not
affected by the NOX SIP Call. While no NOX
reductions were achieved during the period GSMNP demonstrated
attainment, Georgia enacted regulations pursuant to the Georgia multi-
pollutant bill in the summer 2007 to require coal fired power plants in
Georgia to reduce NOX, approximately 50 percent, by 2015.
Reductions will affect 21 units at seven facilities. The rule requires
specific controls on specific units according to a specific schedule
and will assure that NOX emissions will not increase during
the maintenance period.
Besides controls on electrical generating units (EGUs), substantial
additional reductions in NOX are expected due to controls
being imposed on fuels and off road and on road motor vehicles. To
evaluate NOX changes expected to occur during the
maintenance period to other NOX sources in the region, we
reviewed projections made for Regional Haze for 2009 and 2018. This is
the latest region-wide assessment available done for emissions for the
regional area.
As summarized in Tables 6 and 7, all point sources are expected to
further decrease during this period by 337,742 tons per year (tpy) or
24 percent. However mobile sources are projected to decrease by an even
greater amount, decreasing by 751,038 tpy or 53 percent during this
period and non-road emissions are expected to decrease 166,687 tpy or
22 percent. The only category showing an increase is area source
emissions which are projected to grow 6 percent, an increase of 21,146
tpy. In total, non point source NOX emissions in the region
are expected to decrease by 896,579 tpy from 2009 to 2018. Region-wide,
annual emissions of NOX are expected to decrease 39 percent
from 2009 to 2018. Every state in the 10 state Visibility Improvement
State and Tribal Association of the Southeast (VISTAS) planning area
projects reductions of NOX emissions from 2009 to 2018.
Even if the projected point source reductions from CAIR are not
considered and EGU emissions are held at 2009 levels, annual emissions
of NOX are still projected to decrease 23 percent. Since
both North Carolina and Georgia have rules requiring EGUs to reduce
NOX independent of CAIR and a number of other facilities in
the region are controlling NOX emissions due to consent
decrees, this assumption of no regional reductions in EGU emissions
during this period is very conservative.
These regional projections of emissions data have only been
prepared through 2018. However, since mobile and non-road emissions
continue to decrease long after a rule is adopted as the engine
population is gradually replaced by newer engines, it is reasonable to
assume that this projected decrease in regional NOX
emissions from mobile and non-road sources should continue through 2020
and assure that ozone in the GSMNP will continue to decline throughout
the 10-year maintenance period. Hence we believe the projected regional
NOX reductions are adequate to assure that the GSMNP will
continue demonstrating maintenance throughout the 10-year maintenance
period.
Table 6--VISTAS 2009 Base Annual Emission Inventory Summary for NOX *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
States Point Non-road Area Mobile Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AL............................................. 151,714 56,862 35,831 101,831 346,238
[[Page 53207]]
FL............................................. 132,185 163,794 47,979 315,840 659,798
GA............................................. 148,809 85,733 51,925 209,349 495,816
KY............................................. 129,779 94,752 43,548 101,182 369,261
MS............................................. 92,409 80,567 8,048 70,743 251,767
NC............................................. 101,236 70,997 45,382 201,609 419,224
SC............................................. 86,934 43,235 25,259 92,499 247,927
TN............................................. 124,274 86,641 20,717 151,912 383,544
VA............................................. 288,213 54,993 53,596 134,232 531,034
WV............................................. 124,359 30,133 14,384 35,635 204,511
----------------------------------------------------------------
Total...................................... 1,379,912 767,707 346,669 1,414,832 3,909,120
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 7--VISTAS 2018 Base Annual Emission Inventory Summary for NOX *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
States Point Non-road Area Mobile Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AL............................................. 141,178 43,779 36,945 47,298 269,200
FL............................................. 110,243 127,885 50,499 150,180 438,807
GA............................................. 125,083 64,579 55,518 102,179 347,359
KY............................................. 100,774 79,392 45,806 52,263 278,235
MS............................................. 71,988 68,252 8,322 30,619 179,181
NC............................................. 94,276 49,046 49,514 87,791 280,627
SC............................................. 94,089 31,758 26,491 43,490 195,828
TN............................................. 93,443 70,226 21,810 69,385 254,864
VA............................................. 116,560 40,393 57,137 63,342 277,432
WV............................................. 94,536 25,710 1