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

[Federal Register: October 3, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 191)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 56312-56325]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr03oc07-20]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[EPA-R04-OAR-2007-0601-200730; FRL-8477-2]

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: On June 7, 2007, the State of North Carolina, through the
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(NCDENR), submitted a request to redesignate the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel
Hill 8-hour ozone nonattainment area to attainment for the 8-hour ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS); and to approve a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision containing a maintenance plan for
the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill Area. The Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill 8-
hour ozone nonattainment area (the ``Triangle Area'') is comprised of
Durham, Franklin, Granville, Johnston, Orange, Person and Wake Counties
in their entireties, and Baldwin, Center, New Hope and Williams
Townships in Chatham County. In this action, EPA is proposing to
approve the 8-hour ozone redesignation request for the Triangle Area.
Additionally, EPA is proposing to approve the 8-hour ozone maintenance
plan for the Triangle Area, including the motor vehicle emissions
budgets (MVEBs) for nitrogen oxides (NO_X) and an
insignificance determination for volatile organic compounds (VOC)
emissions from motor vehicles. This proposed approval of North
Carolina's redesignation request is based on EPA's determination that
North Carolina has demonstrated that the Triangle Area has met the
criteria for redesignation to attainment specified in the Clean Air Act
(CAA), including the determination that the entire Triangle 8-hour
ozone nonattainment area has attained the 8-hour ozone standard.
Further, in this action, EPA is also describing the status of its
transportation conformity adequacy determination for the new 2008 and
2017 MVEBs for NO_X, and for the insignificance determination
for VOC contribution from motor vehicle emissions to the 8-hour ozone
pollution, that are contained in the 8-hour ozone maintenance plan for
the Triangle Area.

[[Page 56313]]

DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 2, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2007-0601, by one of the following methods:
(a) http://www.regulations.gov Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
(b) E-mail: ward.nacosta@epa.gov.
(c) Fax: (404) 562-9019.
(d) Mail: EPA-R04-OAR-2007-0601, 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.
(e) Hand Delivery or Courier: Nacosta C. 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. 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-
2007-0601. 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: Ms. Nacosta C. Ward of the Regulatory
Development Section, in the Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and
Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The
telephone number is (404) 562-9140. Ms. Nacosta Ward can be reached via
electronic mail at ward.nacosta@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. What Proposed Actions Are 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 Subarea NO_X MVEBs
for the Triangle Area?
VIII. What Is an Adequacy Determination?
IX. What Is the Status of EPA's Adequacy Determination for the
Proposed Subarea NO_X MVEBs for the Years 2008 and 2017,
and the VOC Insignificance Determination?
X. Proposed Action on the Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan
SIP Revision Including Proposed Approval of the 2008 and 2017
Subarea NO_X MVEBs, and the Proposed VOC Insignificance
Determination for the Triangle Area
XI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What Proposed Actions Are EPA Taking?

EPA is proposing to take two related actions, which are summarized
below and described in greater detail throughout this notice of
proposed rulemaking: (1) To redesignate the Triangle Area to attainment
for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS; and (2) to approve North Carolina's 8-hour
ozone maintenance plan into the North Carolina SIP, including the
associated MVEBs for NO_X and the VOC insignificance
determination. 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 Triangle Area subarea \1\ NO_X MVEBs
and the insignificance determination for VOC emission contribution from
motor vehicles to 8-hour ozone pollution in the Triangle Area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ The term ``subarea'' refers to the portion of the area, in a
nonattainment or maintenance area, for which the MVEB applies. In
this case, the ``subareas'' are established at the county level so
this indicates that the MVEBs cover individual counties and also
indicates to transportation conformity implementers in this area
that there are separate county-level MVEBs for each county in this
area. EPA's Companion Guidance for the July 1, 2004, Final
Transportation Conformity Rule: Conformity Implementation in Multi-
Jurisdictional Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas for Existing and
New Air Quality Standards explains more about the possible
geographical extent of a MVEB, how these geographical areas are
defined, and how transportation conformity is implemented in these
different geographical areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

First, EPA is proposing to determine that the Triangle Area has
attained the 8-hour ozone standard, and that the Triangle 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 Triangle Area from nonattainment to attainment for
the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
Second, EPA is proposing to approve North Carolina's 8-hour ozone
maintenance plan for the Triangle Area (such approval being one of the
CAA criteria for redesignation to attainment status). The maintenance
plan is designed to help keep the Triangle Area in attainment of the 8-
hour ozone NAAQS through 2017. Consistent with the CAA, the maintenance
plan that EPA is proposing to approve today also includes 2008 and 2017
subarea MVEBs for NO_X, and an insignificance determination
regarding the contribution of VOC emissions from

[[Page 56314]]

motor vehicles to the ozone pollution in the Triangle Area. Today, EPA
is proposing to approve (into the North Carolina SIP) the 2008 and 2017
subarea NO_X MVEBs and the VOC insignificance determination,
that are included as part of North Carolina's maintenance plan for the
Triangle Area for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The VOC insignificance
determination applies to the entire Triangle Area, whereas the
NO_X MVEBs are subarea MVEBs that apply to individual
counties within the Triangle Area. Please see Section V of this
rulemaking for a listing of the MVEBs for these individual counties.
Third, EPA is also notifying the public of the status of EPA's
adequacy process for the newly-established 2008 and 2017 subarea
NO_X MVEBs, and its insignificance determination for VOC for
the Triangle Area. The adequacy comment period for the Triangle Area's
2008 and 2017 subarea NO_X MVEBs, and the VOC insignificance
determination began on March 21, 2007, with EPA's posting of the
availability of North Carolina's maintenance plan submittal on EPA's
Adequacy Web site (http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/
currsips.htm). The adequacy comment period for these subarea MVEBs, and
the VOC insignificance determination closed on April 20, 2007. No
adverse comments were received during the adequacy public comment
period. Please see section VIII of this proposed rulemaking for further
explanation of this process, and for more details on the MVEBs and the
VOC insignificance determination.
Today's notice of proposed rulemaking is in response to North
Carolina's June 7, 2007, SIP submittal, which supersedes North
Carolina's March 12, 2007, submittal that included a request for
parallel processing. The June 7, 2007, submittal requests the
redesignation of the Triangle 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 emitted directly by sources. Rather,
emissions of NO_X and VOC react in the presence of sunlight
to form ground-level ozone. NO_X 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). This new standard is more stringent
than the previous 1-hour ozone standard. Under EPA regulations at 40
CFR part 50, the 8-hour ozone standard is attained when the 3-year
average of the annual fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour average
ambient air quality ozone concentrations is less than or equal to 0.08
ppm (i.e., 0.084 ppm when rounding is considered). (See, 69 FR 23857
(April 30, 2004) for further information.) Ambient air quality
monitoring data for the 3-year period must meet a data completeness
requirement. The ambient air quality monitoring data completeness
requirement is met when the average percent of days with valid ambient
monitoring data is greater than 90 percent, and no single year has less
than 75 percent data completeness as determined in Appendix I of part
50. Specifically, section 2.3 of 40 CFR part 50, Appendix I,
``Comparisons with the Primary and Secondary Ozone Standards'' states:

The primary and secondary ozone ambient air quality standards
are met at an ambient air quality monitoring site when the 3-year
average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average
ozone concentration is less than or equal to 0.08 ppm. The number of
significant figures in the level of the standard dictates the
rounding convention for comparing the computed 3-year average annual
fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration with
the level of the standard. The third decimal place of the computed
value is rounded, with values equal to or greater than 5 rounding
up. Thus, a computed 3-year average ozone concentration of 0.085 ppm
is the smallest value that is greater than 0.08 ppm.

The CAA required EPA to designate as nonattainment any area that
was violating the 8-hour ozone NAAQS based on the three most recent
years of ambient air quality data. The Triangle 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 8-hour ozone nonattainment
areas are subject only to the provisions of subpart 1. Other 8-hour
ozone nonattainment areas are also subject to the provisions of subpart
2. Under EPA's Phase 1 8-hour ozone implementation rule (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 are covered under subpart 1, based upon
their 8-hour ambient air quality design values.
Durham and Wake Counties, and the Dutchville Township portion of
Granville County were originally designated as a moderate nonattainment
area for the 1-hour ozone standard on November 6, 1991 (56 FR 56694).
Durham and Wake Counties, and the Dutchville Township portion of
Granville County were redesignated as attainment for the 1-hour ozone
standard on April 18, 1994 (59 FR 18300). On April 30, 2004, EPA
designated the Triangle Area (of which Durham and Wake Counties, and
the Dutchville Township portion of Granville County are a part) as a
``basic'' 8-hour ozone nonattainment area (see, 69 FR 23857, April 30,
2004). Thus, on June 7, 2007, when North Carolina submitted its final
redesignation request, the Triangle Area was classified under subpart 1
of the CAA, and was obligated to meet only the subpart 1 requirements.
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 8-hour
nonattainment areas, the 8-hour attainment dates and the timing for
emissions reductions needed for attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS
remain effective. The June 8th decision left intact the Court's
rejection of EPA's reasons for implementing the 8-hour standard in
certain nonattainment areas

[[Page 56315]]

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, or for failure to attain that 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 Triangle 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 8-hour standard, the Court's ruling rejected
EPA's reasons for classifying areas under subpart 1 for the 8-hour
standard, and remanded that matter to the Agency. Consequently, it is
possible that this Area could, during a remand to EPA, be reclassified
under subpart 2. Although any future decision by EPA to classify this
area under subpart 2 might trigger additional future requirements for
the area, 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
Triangle Area was classified under subpart 1 and was obligated to meet
only subpart 1 requirements. 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 the 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, e.g. 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, (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 time 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
purposes of redesignation, additional SIP requirements under subpart 2
that were not in effect at the time it submitted its redesignation request.
With respect to the requirements under the 1-hour standard ozone
standard, only the Durham and Wake Counties, and the Dutchville
Township portion of Granville County of the Triangle Area were
originally designated as a moderate nonattainment area for the 1-hour
ozone standard on November 6, 1991 (56 FR 56694); the remainder of the
Triangle Area was designated as attainment. Durham and Wake Counties,
and the Dutchville Township portion of Granville County were
redesignated as attainment for the 1-hour ozone standard on April 18,
2004 (59 FR 18300). Therefore, the entire Triangle Area was
redesignated to attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard prior to its
nonattainment designation for the 8-hour ozone standard. As a result,
the Triangle Area is considered to be a 1-hour attainment area subject
to a CAA section 175A maintenance plan for the 1-hour standard. 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 conformity determinations until they are
replaced by 8-hour budgets. To meet this requirement, conformity
determinations in such areas must comply with the applicable
requirements of EPA's conformity regulations at 40 CFR part 93.
First, there are no conformity requirements relevant for the
Triangle Area redesignation 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). See also, 60 FR 62748
(Dec. 7, 1995) (redesignation of Tampa, Florida). Durham and Wake
Counties, and the Dutchville Township portion of Granville County,
currently have a fully approved 1-hour ozone transportation conformity
SIP, which was approved on December 27, 2002 (67 FR 78983).
Second, with regard to the three other anti-backsliding provisions
for the 1-hour standard that the D.C. Circuit Court found were not
properly retained, Durham and Wake Counties, and the Dutchville
Township portion of Granville County comprise an attainment area
subject to a maintenance plan for the 1-hour standard, and the NSR,
contingency measure (pursuant to section 172(c)(9) or 182(c)(9)), and
fee provision

[[Page 56316]]

requirements no longer apply to this area because it was redesignated
to attainment of the 1-hour standard. As a result, the decisions in
SCAQMD should not alter any requirements that would preclude EPA from
finalizing the redesignation of the Triangle Area to attainment for the
8-hour ozone standard.
As noted earlier, in 2006, the ambient ozone data for the Triangle
Area indicated no further violations of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, using
data from the 3-year period of 2004-2006 to demonstrate attainment. As
a result, on June 7, 2007, North Carolina requested redesignation of
the Triangle Area to attainment for the 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 2004-2006, indicating that the 8-hour ozone NAAQS has been
achieved for the entire Triangle 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).

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?

On June 7, 2007, North Carolina requested redesignation of the
Triangle 8-hour ozone nonattainment area to attainment for the 8-hour
ozone standard. EPA's evaluation indicates that North Carolina has
demonstrated that the Triangle 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 2008 and 2017 subarea NO_X
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. Approval
of North Carolina's redesignation request would change the legal
designation of the Durham, Franklin, Granville, Johnston, Orange,
Person and Wake Counties in their entireties, and Baldwin, Center, New
Hope and Williams Townships in Chatham County for the 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
Triangle Area for maintaining the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the Area
through 2017. This maintenance plan includes contingency measures to
remedy future violations of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The maintenance
plan also establishes subarea NO_X MVEBs and provides a VOC
insignificance determination for the Triangle Area. The following Table
identifies the subarea NO_X MVEBs for the year 2008 and 2017
for this Area.

Table 1.--Triangle Subarea NOX MVEBS
[Kilograms per day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
County 2008 2017
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chatham............................................. 1,565 948
Durham.............................................. 13,106 4,960
Franklin............................................ 2,048 1,139
Graham.............................................. 4,649 1,714
Johnston............................................ 12,583 5,958
Orange.............................................. 9,933 3,742
Person.............................................. 1,359 791
Wake................................................ 36,615 16,352
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Approval of North Carolina's maintenance plan would also result in
approval of the subarea NO_X MVEBs, and the VOC
insignificance determination. Additionally, EPA is

[[Page 56317]]

notifying the public of the status of its adequacy determination for
the 2008 and 2017 subarea NO_X MVEBs, and its VOC
insignificance determination, 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 Triangle Area
has attained the 8-hour ozone standard, and that all other
redesignation criteria have been met for the Triangle Area. The basis
for EPA's determination for the area is discussed in greater detail below.

Criteria (1)--The Triangle Area Has Attained the 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS

EPA is proposing to determine that the Triangle Area has attained
the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. For ozone, an area may be considered to be
attaining the 8-hour ozone NAAQS if there are no violations, as
determined in accordance with 40 CFR 50.10 and Appendix I of part 50,
based on three complete, consecutive calendar years of quality-assured
air quality monitoring data. To attain this standard, the 3-year
average of the fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone
concentrations measured at each monitor within an area over each year
must not exceed 0.08 ppm. Based on the rounding convention described in
40 CFR part 50, Appendix I, the standard is attained if the design
value is 0.084 ppm or below. The data must be collected and quality-
assured in accordance with 40 CFR part 58, and recorded in the EPA Air
Quality System (AQS). The monitors generally should have remained at
the same location for the duration of the monitoring period required
for demonstrating attainment.
EPA reviewed ozone monitoring data from ambient ozone monitoring
stations in the Triangle Area for the ozone season from 2004-2006. This
data has been quality assured and is recorded in AQS. The fourth high
averages for 2004, 2005 and 2006, and the 3-year average of these
values (i.e., design values), are summarized in the following Table:

Table 2.--Annual 4th Max High and Design Value Concentration for 8-Hour Ozone for the Triangle Area
[In parts per million]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COUNTY Chatham Durham Franklin Granville Johnston Person Wake
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pittsboro ( Duke Street ( Franklinton ( Butner (#37- West Johnston (# Bushy Fork ( Millbrook ( Fuquay Varina (
MONITOR (AIRS ID) #37-037-0004) #37-063-0013) #37-069-0001) 077-0001) #37-101-0002) #37-145-0003) #37-183-0014) i>37-183-0016)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2004.................................... 0.068 0.074 0.077 0.081 0.074 0.076 0.075 0.077
2005.................................... 0.079 0.076 0.080 0.085 0.083 0.079 0.082 0.085
2006.................................... 0.066 0.075 0.074 0.075 0.072 0.071 0.078 0.072
Design Value............................ 0.071 0.075 0.077 0.080 0.076 0.075 0.078 0.078
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As discussed above, the design value for an area is the highest
design value recorded at any monitor in the area. Therefore, the design
value for the Triangle Area is 0.080 ppm, which meets the standard as
described above. As 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 Triangle Area has attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

Criteria (2)--North Carolina has a Fully Approved SIP Under Section
110(k) for the Triangle 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 Triangle 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). 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 Triangle Area has met all Applicable Requirements Under Section
110 and Part D of the CAA
The September 4, 1992, Calcagni Memorandum (see ``Procedures for
Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,'' Memorandum
from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division,
September 4, 1992) describes EPA's interpretation of section
107(d)(3)(E). Under this interpretation, to qualify for redesignation,
states requesting redesignation to attainment must meet only the
relevant CAA requirements that come due prior to the submittal of a
complete redesignation request. See also, Michael Shapiro Memorandum,
(``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

[[Page 56318]]

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 (NO_X SIP Call, 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
purposes of redesignation.
In addition, EPA believes that the other section 110 elements not
connected with nonattainment plan submissions and not linked with an
area's attainment status are not applicable requirements for purposes
of redesignation. The 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.
Any section 110 requirements that are linked to the Part D requirements
for 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas are not yet due, since, as
explained below, no part D requirements for 8-hour standard became due
prior to submission of the redesignation request. Therefore, as
discussed above, for purposes of redesignation, they are not considered
applicable requirements. Nonetheless, 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).
EPA believes that the section 110 SIP approved for the 1-hour ozone
NAAQS is also sufficient to meet the requirements under the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS (as well as satisfying the issues raised by the D.C.
Circuit Court in the SCAQMD case).
Part D requirements. EPA has also determined that the North
Carolina SIP meets applicable SIP requirements under part D of the CAA
since no requirements became due prior to the submission of the Area's
redesignation request. Sections 172-176 of the CAA, found in subpart 1
of part D, set forth the basic nonattainment requirements applicable to
all nonattainment areas. Section 182 of the CAA, found in subpart 2 of
part D, establishes additional specific requirements depending on the
area's nonattainment classification. Subpart 2 is not applicable to the
Triangle Area.
Part D, subpart 1 applicable SIP requirements. For purposes of
evaluating this redesignation request, the applicable part D, subpart 1
SIP requirements for all nonattainment areas are contained in sections
172(c)(1)-(9). A thorough discussion of the requirements contained in
section 172 can be found in the General Preamble for Implementation of
title I (57 FR 13498). No requirements applicable for purposes of
redesignation under part D became due prior to the submission of the
redesignation request, and therefore none are applicable to the Area
for purposes of redesignation. For example, the requirements for an
attainment demonstration that meets the requirements of section
172(c)(1) are not yet applicable, nor are the requirements for
Reasonably Achievable Control Technology (RACT) and Reasonably
Available Control Measures (RACM) (section 172(c)(1)), reasonable
further progress (RFP) (section 172(c)(2)), and contingency measures
(section 172(c)(9)).
In addition to the fact that no part D requirements applicable for
purposes of redesignation became due prior to submission of the
redesignation request and therefore are not applicable, EPA believes it
is reasonable to interpret the conformity and NSR requirements as not
requiring approval prior to redesignation.
Section 176 Conformity Requirements. Section 176(c) of the CAA
requires states to establish criteria and procedures to ensure that
Federally supported or funded projects conform to the air quality
planning goals in the applicable SIP. The requirement to determine
conformity applies to transportation plans, programs and projects
developed, funded or approved under title 23 of the United States Code
(U.S.C.) and the Federal Transit Act (transportation conformity) as
well as to all other Federally supported or funded projects (general
conformity). State conformity revisions must be consistent with Federal
conformity regulations relating to consultation, enforcement and
enforceability that the CAA required the 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 a 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 Triangle 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. North Carolina's PSD program
will become effective in the Triangle Area upon redesignation to
attainment. See, rulemakings for Detroit, Michigan

[[Page 56319]]

(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 Triangle Area has satisfied all applicable
requirements for purposes of redesignation under section 110 and part D
of the CAA.
b. The Triangle Area Has a Fully Approved Applicable SIP Under Section
110(k) of the CAA
EPA has fully approved the applicable North Carolina SIP for the
Triangle 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 Triangle
Area (59 FR 18300, April 18, 1994; and 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
requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation did not become
due prior to submission of the redesignation request, they also are
therefore not applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation.

Criteria (3)--The air quality improvement in the Triangle 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 Triangle Area is due to permanent and
enforceable reductions in emissions 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.

Table 3.--Triangle Area Emission Reductions Programs
------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mobile Sources
• Tier 2 Vehicle Standards
• Heavy Duty Gasoline and Diesel Highway Vehicle Standards
Nonroad Mobile Sources
• Large Nonroad Diesel Engines Rule
• Spark Ignition Engines and Recreational Standards
State and Local Measures
• Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) Program in Clean Air Bill
• NOX SIP Call
• Clean Smokestacks Act
• Opening Burning Ban
• Air Toxics Control Program
• Prevention of Significant Deterioration
• Heavy Duty Diesel Engine Gap Filling Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Criteria (4)--The area has a fully approved maintenance plan pursuant
to section 175A of the CAA

In its request to redesignate the Triangle Area to attainment,
North Carolina submitted a SIP revision to provide for the maintenance
of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS 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
Triangle Area for the purposes of demonstrating attainment of the 8-
hour ozone NAAQS. This attainment inventory identifies the level of
emissions in the area, which is sufficient to attain the 8-hour ozone
standard. North Carolina began development of this attainment inventory
by first developing a baseline emissions inventory for the Triangle
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, and 2017. Nonroad
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 NO_X emissions, as
well as the emissions for other years, for the Triangle Area were
developed consistent with EPA guidance, and are summarized in Tables 4
and 5 in the following subsection.
c. Maintenance Demonstration
The June 7, 2007, final submittal includes a maintenance plan for
the Triangle Area. This demonstration:
(i) Shows compliance and maintenance of the 8-hour ozone standard
by providing information to support the demonstration that current and
future emissions of VOC and NO_X 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 Triangle Area has clean air quality
data for the 8-hour ozone standard.
(ii) Uses 2005 as the attainment year and includes future emission
inventory projections for 2008, 2011, 2014, and 2017.
(iii) Identifies an ``out year,'' at least 10 years after the time
necessary for EPA to review and approve the maintenance plan. Per 40
CFR part 93, subarea NO_X MVEBs were established for the last
year (2017) of the maintenance plan. Additionally, North Carolina
chose, through interagency consultation, to establish subarea MVEBs for
the year 2008 for NO_X, and to determine insignificance for VOC for

[[Page 56320]]

the Triangle Area. See, section VII below.
(iv) Provides the following actual and projected emissions
inventories, in tons per day (tpd) for the Triangle Area. See, Tables 4
and 5.

Table 4.--Triangle Area Emissions of VOC
[Tons per day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source category 2005 2008 2011 2014 2017
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point......................................................... 12.28 13.24 14.45 15.61 16.94
Area.......................................................... 67.26 72.94 78.01 82.80 87.80
Mobile *...................................................... 47.47 39.71 35.13 30.24 27.18
Nonroad **.................................................... 30.78 26.24 23.99 23.28 23.01
-------------------------------------------------
Total..................................................... 157.79 152.13 151.58 151.93 154.93
=================================================
Safety Margin................................................. N/A 5.66 6.21 5.86 2.86
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Calculated using MOBILE 6.2.
** Calculated using NONROAD2005c.

Table 5.--Triangle Area NOX Emissions
[tons per day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source category 2005 2008 2011 2014 2017
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point......................................................... 38.37 33.55 34.50 35.43 35.04
Area.......................................................... 13.02 13.65 14.24 14.87 15.55
Mobile *...................................................... 101.68 81.66 59.00 42.78 32.59
Nonroad **.................................................... 38.42 34.90 31.09 26.52 22.25
-------------------------------------------------
Total..................................................... 191.49 163.76 138.83 119.60 105.43
=================================================
Safety Margin................................................. N/A 27.73 52.66 71.89 86.06
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Calculated using MOBILE 6.2.
** Calculated using NONROAD2005c.

A safety margin is the difference between the attainment level of
emissions (from all sources) and the projected level of emissions (from
all sources) in the maintenance plan. The attainment level of emissions
is the level of emissions during one of the years in which the area met
the NAAQS. North Carolina has decided to allocate a portion of the
available safety margin to the subarea NO_X MVEBs for the
years 2008 and 2017 for the Triangle Area, and has calculated the
safety margin in its submittal. See, Tables 4 and 5, above. This
allocation and the resulting available safety margin for the Triangle
Area are discussed further in section VII of this proposed rulemaking.
d. Monitoring Network
There are currently eight monitors measuring ozone in the Triangle
Area. North Carolina has committed in the maintenance plan to continue
operation of these monitors 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 Triangle 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 June 7, 2007, submittal, North Carolina affirms that all
programs instituted by the State and EPA will remain enforceable, and
that sources are prohibited from reducing emissions controls following
the redesignation of the 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 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 any of the Triangle Area monitors. 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

[[Page 56321]]

0.085 ppm. The secondary trigger will apply where no actual violation
of the 8-hour ozone standard has occurred, but where the State finds
monitored ozone levels indicating that an 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
a single monitor within the Triangle 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 a monitor for which the previous season had a
fourth-highest value of 0.085 ppm or greater. Similarly, the tertiary
trigger is a first alert to a potential air quality problem in the
future and will not be an actual violation of the 8-hour ozone
standard. The trigger will be activated when a monitor in the Triangle
Area has a fourth-highest value of 0.085 ppm or greater, starting the
first year after the maintenance plan has been approved. 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 any monitor.
In the submittal, if there is a measured violation of the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS in the Triangle Area, contingency measures would be adopted
and implemented as expeditiously as possible, but no later than
eighteen to twenty four months after the triggering event. Once the
primary or secondary trigger is activated, the proposed schedule for
these actions would be as follows:
• NCDENR will begin analyses, including trajectory analyses
of high ozone days, and emissions inventory assessment to determine
required emission control measures for attaining or maintaining the 8-
hour ozone standard;
• By May 1st of the year following the ozone season in which
the primary (a violation of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS occurs) or secondary
trigger has been activated, NCDENR will complete sufficient analyses to
begin adoption of necessary rules for ensuring attainment and
maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS; and
• Rules would become State-effective by the following
January 1st, unless legislative review is required.
North Carolina will consider one or more of the following
contingency measures to re-attain the standard:
• NO_X RACT on stationary sources in the Triangle Area;
• Diesel inspection and maintenance program \2\;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ At this time, there is not an approved method for
determining emission reductions from a Diesel Inspection and
Maintenance program. Therefore, there is no technical basis to award
emission credits for a heavy duty diesel inspection and maintenance
program in the SIP. However, we do not want to preclude future
technical changes that may make awarding such emission credits
possible. If it is necessary to implement contingency measures for
this area, North Carolina, in coordination with EPA, will evaluate
the feasibility of this program as a contingency measure at that
time. If a technical basis for emission credits is not available,
other contingency measures will need to be implemented.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

• Implementation of diesel retrofits programs, including
incentives for performing retrofits; and
• Additional controls in upwind areas.
Once the tertiary trigger is activated, NCDENR will commence
analyses including meteorological evaluation, trajectory analyses of
high ozone days, and an emissions inventory assessment to understand
why a fourth highest exceedance of the standard has occurred. NCDENR
will then work with the local awareness program and develop an outreach
plan to identify any additional voluntary measures that can be
implemented. If the fourth highest exceedance occurs early in the
season, NCDENR will work with entities identified in the outreach plan
to determine if the measures can be implemented during the ozone
season. Otherwise, NCDENR will work with the local air awareness
coordinator to implement the plan for the following ozone season.
EPA has concluded that the maintenance plan adequately addresses
the five basic components of a maintenance plan: Attainment inventory,
maintenance demonstration, monitoring network, verification of
continued attainment, and a contingency plan. The maintenance plan SIP
revision submitted by North Carolina for the Triangle Area meets the
requirements of section 175A of the CAA and is approvable.

VII. What Is EPA's Analysis of North Carolina's Proposed VOC
Insignificance Determination and the Proposed Subarea NO_X
MVEBs for the Triangle 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 in the Triangle Area is
insignificant. The result of this finding, if finalized, is that North
Carolina need not develop an MVEB for VOC for the Triangle Area. See
below for further information on the insignificance determination.
Second, EPA is proposing to approve the subarea NO_X MVEBs
for the Triangle Area.

A. Proposed VOC Insignificance Determination

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 Triangle Area, EPA intends to
make its finding as part of EPA's final action on the redesignation
request of North Carolina for the Triangle 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

[[Page 56322]]

precursors for which EPA has not made a finding of insignificance.
The maintenance plan for the Triangle Area, included as part of the
SIP revision, contains MVEBs for NO_X and an insignificance
determination for VOC contribution from motor vehicles to the 8-hour
ozone pollution in the Triangle Area. As part of the preparation for
its redesignation request, North Carolina consulted with the
interagency consultation group for the Triangle Area regarding the
insignificance determination 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 Triangle Area as insignificant. 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.
The future on-road VOC emissions are projected to be less than 10
percent in the Triangle Area, in the context of the total SIP
inventory. According to information provided by North Carolina,
biogenic emissions account for approximately 90 percent of the VOC
emissions in future years in the Triangle Area. Support for these
percentages is found in Figure 4.1.6-3, located in Appendix C.3--Mobile
Source Inventory Documentation on pages 4-36 of North Carolina's
submittal (available in the Docket for this proposed rulemaking) which
also indicates on-road VOC emissions declining by about 50 percent by
2017 and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) going up by about 25 to 30
percent by 2017. In addition, North Carolina conducted a sensitivity
analysis (a photochemical model) that indicated that 8-hour ozone
levels in the Triangle Area were not impacted by reductions in man-made
VOC emissions (i.e., reductions from motor vehicles). Specifically, the
photochemical model was run for a 39-day scenario with a modeled 30
percent reduction in man-made VOC emissions. According to the
photochemical model, in the year 2009, even with anticipated increases
in VMT, the mobile source inventory is still projected to be less than
6 percent of the total inventory for VOC emissions. In comparison,
biogenic emissions are expected to account for at least 84 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 90 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 Triangle
Area. The I/M program was not added to the North Carolina SIP as a VOC
control measure, but rather, a NO_X control measure. The I/M
program is currently being implemented in all but one of the counties
(Person County) in the Triangle Area. Implementation of the I/M program
in the Triangle Area began from July 2002 through July 2004, 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 NO_X emissions, and that while there
are incidental VOC emission reductions (approximately 2 tons per day in
2005) as a result of implementing this program in the Triangle Area,
the program was not implemented to reduce VOC emissions from motor
vehicles. As a result, the existence of this program in the SIP for the
purpose of NO_X 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 Triangle Area is insignificant. 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 Subarea 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, etc.) 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 Triangle Area, has elected to develop
county-level subarea MVEBs for NO_X. North Carolina is
developing these MVEBs, as required, for the last year of its
maintenance plan, 2017, and for an additional year, 2008. The MVEBs
reflect the total on-road emissions for 2008 and 2017, plus an
allocation from the available NO_X safety margin for each
year. Under 40 CFR 93.101, the term safety margin is the difference
between the attainment level (from all sources) and the projected level
of emissions (from all sources) in the maintenance plan. The safety
margin can be allocated to the transportation sector; however, the
total emissions must remain below the attainment level. These MVEBs and
allocation from the safety margin were developed in consultation with
the transportation partners and were added to account for uncertainties
in population growth, changes in model VMT and new emission factor
models. The subarea NO_X MVEBs for the Triangle Area are
defined in Table 6 below.

Table 6.--Triangle Subarea NOX MVEBs *
[Kilograms per day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
County 2008 2017
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chatham............................................. 1,565 948
Durham.............................................. 13,106 4,960
Franklin............................................ 2,048 1,139
Graham.............................................. 4,649 1,714
Johnston............................................ 12,583 5,958
Orange.............................................. 9,933 3,742
Person.............................................. 1,359 791
Wake................................................ 36,615 16,352
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Includes an allocation from the available NOX safety margins (see
Table 7).

As mentioned above, North Carolina has chosen to allocate a portion
of the available safety margin to the 2008 and 2017 subarea
NO_X MVEBs. The following table identifies the amount of

[[Page 56323]]

the NO_X safety margin that was allotted to the 2008 and 2017
subarea NO_X MVEBs.

Table 7.--NOX Safety Margin Allocation
[Kilograms per day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
County 2008 2017
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chatham............................................. 204 190
Durham.............................................. 1,191 827
Franklin............................................ 186 190
Graham.............................................. 606 343
Johnston............................................ 1,144 993
Orange.............................................. 903 624
Person.............................................. 177 158
Wake................................................ 3,329 2,725
-------------------
Total........................................... 7,741 6,049
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The total allocation is 7,741 kg/day (8.53 tpd) in 2008 and 6,049
kg/day (6.67 tpd) in 2017 for NO_X. The remaining
NO_X safety margin after allocation of some of the safety
margin to the MVEBs for the Triangle Area is 19.20 tpd in 2008 and
79.39 tpd in 2017.
Through this rulemaking, EPA is proposing to approve the 2008 and
2017 subarea MVEBs for NO_X for the Triangle Area because EPA
has determined that the Area maintains the 8-hour ozone standard with
the emissions at the levels of the budgets. As mentioned above, these
MVEBs are subarea MVEBs for each individual county in the Triangle
Area. Once the new subarea MVEBs for the Triangle 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 NO_X 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 Subarea
NO_X MVEBs for the Years 2008 and 2017, and the VOC
Insignificance Determination?

As discussed earlier, North Carolina's maintenance plan submission
includes new county-level subarea NO_X MVEBs for the Triangle
Area for the years 2008 and 2017. Additionally, the maintenance plan
included a VOC insignificance determination for the entire Triangle
Area, and therefore, no MVEB for VOC is included as part of the SIP
revision. EPA reviewed both the NO_X MVEBs and the VOC
insignificance determination through the adequacy process. The North
Carolina SIP submission, including the Triangle subarea NO_X
MVEBs and the VOC insignificance determination, was open for public
comment on EPA's adequacy Web site on March 21, 2007, found at:
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/currsips.htm.
The EPA public
comment period on adequacy of the 2008 and 2017 subarea NO_X
MVEBs, and VOC insignificance determination closed on April 20, 2007.
EPA did not receive any comments on the adequacy of the MVEBs or the
VOC insignificance determination, nor did EPA receive any requests for
the SIP submittal.
EPA intends to make its determination on the adequacy of the 2008
and 2017 subarea NO_X MVEBs, and the VOC insignificance
determination for the Triangle Area for transportation conformity
purposes in the final rulemaking on the redesignation of the Triangle
Area. If EPA finds the 2008 and 2017 subarea NO_X 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 NO_X must be used, and the VOC
insignificance determination should be noted, for future transportation
conformity determinations. If the new 2008 and 2017 subarea
NO_X MVEBs are

[[Page 56324]]

found adequate, and both the NO_X MVEBs and the related VOC
insignificance determination are approved in the final rulemaking, the
NO_X 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 2016 or before, the applicable budget for the purposes
of conducting transportation conformity will be the new 2008 subarea
NO_X MVEBs for the Triangle Area. For required regional
emissions analysis years that involve 2017 or beyond, the applicable
budgets will be the new 2017 subarea NO_X MVEBs. Both the
2008 and 2017 subarea NO_X 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 2008 and 2017 Subarea
NO_X MVEBs, and the Proposed VOC Insignificance Determination
for the Triangle Area

EPA is proposing to make the determination that the Triangle Area
has met the criteria for redesignation from nonattainment to attainment
for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Further, EPA is proposing to approve North
Carolina's June 7, 2006, SIP submittal including the redesignation
request for the Triangle Area. EPA believes that the redesignation
request and monitoring data demonstrate that the Triangle Area has
attained, and will continue to maintain the 8-hour ozone standard.
EPA is also proposing to approve the maintenance plan for the
Triangle Area included as part of the June 7, 2006, SIP revision. The
maintenance plan includes subarea NO_X MVEBs for 2008 and
2017, 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 2008 and 2017 subarea
NO_X MVEBs for the Triangle Area because the maintenance plan
demonstrates that in light of expected emissions for all other source
categories, the Triangle Area will continue to maintain the 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 Triangle Area.
Further as part of today's action, EPA is describing the status of
its adequacy determination for the 2008 and 2017 subarea NO_X
MVEBs, and VOC insignificance determination, in accordance with 40 CFR
93.118(f)(1). Within 24 months from the effective date of EPA's
adequacy finding for the MVEBs, or the publication date for the final
rule for this action, the transportation partners will need to
demonstrate conformity to the new subarea NO_X MVEBs pursuant
to 40 CFR 93.104(e) as effectively amended by section 172(c)(2)(E) of
the CAA as added by the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act--A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), which was
signed into law on August 10, 2005. 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
(Public Law 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 (59 FR 22951, 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, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

[[Page 56325]]

40 CFR Part 81

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

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

Dated: September 25, 2007.
J.I. Palmer, Jr.,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. E7-19513 Filed 10-2-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

Notices For
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994

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

Local Navigation