[Federal Register: October 16, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 199)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 53198-53212]
[DOCID:fr16oc09-23]

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

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,

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. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    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
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through http://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail, information that you consider to be CBI
or otherwise protected. The http://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 http://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 http://www.epa.gov/
epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in http://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Regulatory Development
Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all
possible, you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's
official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30,
excluding 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<PHONE_NUMBER> or via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>The telephone number for Ms. Ward is<PHONE_NUMBER>
and the electronic mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

                  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

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       15,773       17,247      153,266
                                                ----------------------------------------------------------------
    Total......................................    1,042,170      601,020      367,815      663,794    2,674,799
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* 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 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.

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

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..........................................       0.17       0.17       0.17       0.17       0.17       0.17
Mobile........................................       0.41       0.36       0.32       0.27       0.24       0.22
Nonroad.......................................       0.00       0.00       0.00       0.00       0.00       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..........................................       0.00       0.00       0.00       0.00       0.00       0.00
Mobile........................................       0.26       0.23       0.20       0.17       0.15       0.14
Nonroad.......................................       0.00       0.00       0.00       0.00       0.00       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.
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 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
    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.
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.
f. Contingency Plan
    The contingency plan provisions are designed to promptly correct a
violation of the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation. Section 175A of
the CAA requires that a maintenance plan include such contingency
measures as

EPA deems necessary to assure that 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 fourth-
highest 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 8-hour 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 fourth-highest 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 fourth-highest 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.
    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
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 8-hour 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

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 VOC emissions
(i.e., reductions from motor vehicles). Specifically, the photochemical
model was run with a modeled 30 percent reduction in man-made VOC
emissions, which is equivalent to a 33 percent highway mobile VOC
reduction in 2009 for a 39-day period (June 1-July 9). In all 39 days
of the modeling simulation, the 8-hour 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 8-hour 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
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      2020
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX MVEB............................................    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.

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.
    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: http://www.epa.gov/ataq/
stateresoures/transconf/currsips.htm. The EPA public comment period on
adequacy of the 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.

    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 8-hour 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.

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 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
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