ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-R04-OAR-2009-0561-201006; FRL- ] Adequacy Status of the Hickory-Morganton-Lenoir, North Carolina 1997 PM?,5Attainment Demonstration Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget forTransportation Conformity Purposes AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) . ACTION

: Notice ofAdequacy. SUMMARY

: In this notice, EPA is notifying the public of its finding that the nitrogen oxides (NOx) motor vehicle emissions budget (MVEB) in the Hickory-Morganton-Lenoir, North Carolina (hereafter referred to as the Hickory Area) attainment demonstration for the 1997 PM2,5 standard, submitted on August 21, 2009, by the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR), is adequate fortransportation conformity purposes. EPAis also making an insignificance finding for direct particulate matter (PM) through the transportation conformity adequacy process for the Hickory Area. The Hickory Area is comprised of the entire county of Catawba in North Carolina. On March 2, 1999, the District of Columbia Circuit Court ruled that submitted state implementation plans (SIPs) cannot be used for transportation conformity determinations until EPAhas affirmatively found themadequate. As a result of EPA's finding, the Hickory Area must use the NOx MVEB fromthe submitted Hickory, North Carolina 1997 PM2

.5 attainment demonstration for future conformity determinations, and the Hickory Area is not required to perform a regional emissions analysis for direct PM2 .5 in future PM2,5 transportation conformity determinations for the 1997 annual PMZ.5 standard.DATES: The adequacy finding for the NOx MVEB and the insignificance finding for direct

PM2 .5 are effective [insert date 15 days after date of publication in the Federal Register ] . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amanetta Somerville, Environmental Scientist, U

.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, Air Planning Branch, Air Quality Modeling and Transportation Section, 61 Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303. Ms. Somerville can also be reached by telephone at (404) 562-9025, or via electronic mail at somerville.amanetta(&,epa.gov. The finding is available at EPA's conformity Web site: http ://www

.epa. ov/otaq/transp htm (once there, click on the "Transportation Conformity" text icon, then look for "Adequacy Review of SIP Submissions") . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : Background

Today's notice is simply an announcement of findings that EPAhas already made. EPARegion 4 sent a letter to NCDENR on January 20, 2010, stating that the 2009 NOx MVEB in the 1997 PM2,5attainment demonstration for Hickory, dated August 21, 2009, is adequate. The letter also states that direct PM2,5 is insignificant for the Hickory Area, therefore no regional emissions analysis is required. EPAposted the availability of the Hickory Area MVEBand insignificance demonstration on EPA's Web site on September 8, 2009, as part of the adequacy process, for the purpose of soliciting comments. The comment period ran fromSeptember 8, 2009, through October 8, 2009. EPA's findings have also been announced on EPA's conformity Web site: http ://www

.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/index .htm, (once there, click "TransportationConformity" text icon, then look for "Adequacy Review of SIP Submissions") . The adequate NOx MVEB is provided in the following table: HICKORY AREA NOx MVEB [kilograms per day] Catawba County 2009 2,887,955 Transportation conformity is required by section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990 . EPA's conformity rule requires that transportation plans, programs and projects conformto state air quality implementation plans and establishes the criteria and procedures for determining whether or not they do. Conformity to a SIP means that transportation activities will not produce new

air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) . The criteria by which EPAdetermines whether a SIP's MVEB is adequate for transportation conformity purposes are outlined in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 93.118(e)(4) . Additionally, the criteria by which EPAdetermines whether a particular pollutant/precursor is an insignificant contributor to the air quality problemin an area can be found at 40CFR93.109(k) . Insignificance findings are based on a number of factors, including the percentage of motor vehicle emissions in context of the total SIP inventory, the current state of air quality as determined by monitoring data for that NAAQS, the absence of SIP motor vehicle control measures, and historical trends and future projections of the growth of motor vehicle emissions. EPA's rationale for the allowance of insignificance findings can be found in the July 1, 2004, revision to the transportation conformity rule at 69 Federal Register (FR)40004

. Specifically, the rationale is explained on page 40061 under the subsection entitled "B. Areas With Insignificant Motor Vehicle Emissions." Please note that an adequacy reviewis separate fromEPA's completeness review, and it also should not be used to prejudge EPA's ultimate approval of the SIP . Even if EPA finds the MVEB adequate or makes an insignificance finding through the adequacy process, the Agency may later disapprove the SIP . EPAhas described the process for determining the adequacy of submitted SIP budgets in a May 14, 1999, memorandum entitled "Conformity Guidance on Implementation of March 2, 1999 Conformity Court Decision" . EPAhas followed this guidance in making this adequacy determination. This guidance is incorporated into EPA's July 1, 2004, final rulemaking entitled " Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments for the New 8-hour Ozone and PMz.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards and Miscellaneous Revisions for Existing Areas; Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments : Response to Court Decision and Additional Rule Changes" (69 FR 40004) . Within 24 months fromthe effective date of this notice, the transportation partners will need to demonstrate conformity to the newMVEB if the demonstration has not already been made, pursuant to 40CFR93.104(e) . (See 73 FR 4419 (January 24, 2008)) . Additionally, the Transportation Conformity Rule at 40CFR 93.109(k) states that a regional emissions analysis is no longer necessary for direct PM2 .5 if EPAfinds, through the adequacy or approval process, that regional motor vehicle emissions are an insignificant contributor to the air quality problem for that pollutant/precursor as demonstrated in the SIP . The insignificance finding should be noted in all future conformity determinations, and does not relieve the area of meeting all other transportation conformity requirements.Authority: 42 U .S .C. 7401 et seq.

Dated: 

## FEB 17 `t0i0

Feb 17, 2010 Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4 .11100 sTq)~s

o \\r// ;'~+r4< PROSI'lGS`O_ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 4 ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER 61 FORSYTHSTREET ATLANTA, GEORGIA30303-8860 January 20, 2010 B . KeithOvercash, Director Division ofAir Quality Department of Environment andNatural Resources 1601 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 

### Dear Mr. Overcash: The Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA) has reviewed the Hickory, North Carolina, 1997 Particulate Matter (PMZ,5) attainment demonstration and direct PM2 .5 insignificance finding, datedAugust 21, 2009, pursuant to section 93.118(e)(4) ofthe Transportation Conformity Rule (40 C.F.R . Part 93, Subpart A) . The Transportation Conformity Rule identifies limited technical and administrative criteria that must be used in determining adequacy of a submitted State Implementation Plan (SIP) motor vehicle emissions budget (MVEB) fortransportation conformity purposes. We have determined that the Hickory, North Carolina 1997 PM2 .5 nitrogen oxides (NOx) MVEB is adequate and we find that the submitted PM2 .5 SIPdemonstrates that direct PM2

.5 emissions are an insignificant contributor to the PM2 .5 air quality problem

. The Hickory, North Carolina 1997 PM2 .5attainment demonstration has a MVEBfor NOx for 2009 and an insignificance findingfor direct PMZ.5. The MVEBis 2,887,955 kilograms per day for NOx. This MVEB meets the standard requirement that any MVEB must meet before it can be used to determineconformity for atransportation improvement program or long range transportation plan. This adequacyfindingdoes not relate to themerits of the SIPsubmittal nor does it indicate whether the submittal meets the requirements for approval . The Transportation Conformity Rule in Section 93.109(k) states that a regional emissions analysis is no longer necessary for specific pollutants or precursors if EPAfinds through the adequacy or approval process that a SIPdemonstrates that regional motor vehicle emissions are an insignificant contributor to the airquality problem forthat pollutant/precursor . Afinding of insignificance does not change the requirement for a regional analysis for other pollutants or precursors and does not change the requirement for a hot spot analysis. EPAopened acomment period on the adequacy of the NOx MVEBand the PM2 .5 insignificance finding contained in the Hickory, North Carolina PM2 .5 attainrnent demonstration by posting it on ourwebsite on September 8, 2009 (See www .epa.g_ov/otaq/transp/conform/adequac .y htm) . The comment period closed on October 8, 2009. No comments were received during EPA's adequacy comment period.

Internet Address (URL) " http://www .epagov Racycled/Racyclabte . Printed withVegetable 00 Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum30% Postconsumet)EPAnotes that the D .C. Circuit issued a decision onJuly 11, 2008, vacating the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) . North Carolina v . EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D:C. Cir. 2008) . On September 24, 2008, EPAand other parties in the case filed motions for rehearing asking the D .C. Circuit to reconsider its decision in the case. On December 23, 2008, the court granted EPA's motion for rehearing to the extent it agreed to remand CAIRwithoutvacating it. However, the court made no other changesto the July 11 opinion, remanding the case to EPAfor further rulemaking consistent with this opinion. Therefore, the CAIR rule remains in place, but EPAmust promulgate another rule consistent with the court's July 11 opinion. EPAhas reviewed the submittal and the insignificance demonstration in light ofthe remand ofthe CAIR rule and concluded that the submittal andthe insignificance demonstration meets the conformity rule's criteria found at 40 CFR93.118(e)(4) and 93.109(k), respectively. In particular, the submitted SIPdemonstrates that it would be unreasonable to expect that this area would experience enough motorvehicle emissions growth such that a violation of the 1997 annual PMZ,5national ambient air quality standards would occur. EPAbases this conclusion on the overall emissions from

all sources in the nonattainment area, the low percentage of mobile source emissions contributing to the total emissions in the area, and the current state of air quality .More information on SIPs and adequacy reviews is available on the EPAweb site. EPA will soon publish anotice in the Federal Register announcing this adequacy finding . The Federal Register will also announce the date that the adequacy finding becomes effective. The 2009 NOx MVEBwill be available for use on the effective date. If you have any questions, please feel free tocall Amanetta Somerville ofthe EPARegion 4 staffat (404) 562-9025 or me at (404) 562-8570. Sincerely, Kenneth R

. Lapierre Acting Director Air, Pesticides, andToxics Management Division