53198 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 199 / Friday, October 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2009–0455(b); FRL–8969– 

8] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; South 

Carolina; Clean Air Interstate Rule 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

a revision to the South Carolina State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by 

the State of South Carolina through the 

South Carolina Department of Health 

and Environmental Control on 

December 4, 2008. This revision 

addresses the requirements of EPA’s 

Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). 

Although the District of Columbia 

Circuit Court found CAIR to be flawed, 

the rule was remanded without vacatur 

and thus remains in place. Thus, EPA is 

continuing to approve CAIR provisions 

into SIPs as appropriate. CAIR, as 

promulgated, requires states to reduce 

emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and 

nitrogen oxides (NOX) that significantly 

contribute to, or interfere with 

maintenance of, the national ambient air 

quality standards for fine particulates 

and/or ozone in any downwind state. 

CAIR establishes budgets for SO2 and 

NOX for states that contribute 

significantly to nonattainment in 

downwind States and requires the 

significantly contributing states to 

submit SIP revisions that implement 

these budgets. States have the flexibility 

to choose which control measures to 

adopt to achieve the budgets, including 

participation in EPA-administered capand-trade programs addressing SO2, 

NOX annual, and NOX ozone season 

emissions. In the full SIP revision that 

EPA is proposing to approve, South 

Carolina will meet CAIR requirements 

by participating in these cap-and-trade 

programs. EPA is proposing to approve 

the full SIP revision, as interpreted and 

clarified herein, as fully implementing 

the CAIR requirements for South 

Carolina. Consequently, this action will 

also cause the CAIR Federal 

Implementation Plans (CAIR FIPs) 

concerning SO2, NOX annual, and NOX

ozone season emissions by South 

Carolina sources to be automatically 

withdrawn. This action is being taken 

pursuant to section 110 of the Clean Air 

Act. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before November 16, 

2009. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2009–0455, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. E-mail: benjamin.lynorae@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: 404–562–9019. 

4. Mail: EPA–R04–OAR–2009–0455, 

Regulatory Development Section, Air 

Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and 

Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. 

5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae 

Benjamin, Chief, Regulatory 

Development Section, Air Planning 

Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 

Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Regional Office’s normal hours of 

operation. The Regional Office’s official 

hours of business are Monday through 

Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding Federal 

holidays. 

Please see the direct final rule which 

is located in the Rules section of this 

Federal Register for detailed 

instructions on how to submit 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Steven Scofield, Regulatory 

Development Section, Air Planning 

Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 

Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. The 

telephone number is (404) 562–9034. 

Mr. Scofield can also be reached via 

electronic mail at 

scofield.steve@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For 

additional information see the direct 

final rule which is published in the 

Rules Section of this Federal Register. 

In the Final Rules Section of this 

Federal Register, EPA is approving the 

State’s SIP revision as a direct final rule 

without prior proposal because the 

Agency views this as a noncontroversial 

submittal and anticipates no adverse 

comments. A detailed rationale for the 

approval is set forth in the direct final 

rule. If no adverse comments are 

received in response to this rule, no 

further activity is contemplated. If EPA 

receives adverse comments, the direct 

final rule will be withdrawn and all 

public comments received will be 

addressed in a subsequent final rule 

based on this proposed rule. EPA will 

not institute a second comment period 

on this document. Any parties 

interested in commenting on this 

document should do so at this time. 

Dated: October 9, 2009. 

A. Stanley Meiburg, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. E9–25052 Filed 10–15–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2009–0338; FRL–8968–9] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans and 

Designations of Areas for Air Quality 

Planning Purposes; North Carolina: 

Redesignation of Great Smoky 

Mountains National Park 1997 8-Hour 

Ozone Nonattainment Area to 

Attainment 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The State of North Carolina 

through the North Carolina Department 

of Environment and Natural Resources, 

Division of Air Quality (NC DAQ) 

submitted, on July 24, 2009, a request to 

redesignate the Great Smoky Mountains 

National Park (GSMNP) 1997 8-hour 

ozone nonattainment area to attainment 

for the 1997 8-hour ozone national 

ambient air quality standards (NAAQS); 

and to approve a State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) revision containing a 

maintenance plan with a 2020 end year 

for the GSMNP Area. The GSMNP Area 

is composed of portions of Haywood 

and Swain Counties in North Carolina. 

In this action, EPA is proposing to 

approve the 1997 8-hour ozone 

redesignation request for the GSMNP 

Area. Additionally, EPA is proposing to 

approve the emission inventory and the 

1997 8-hour ozone maintenance plan for 

the GSMNP Area, including motor 

vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs) for 

nitrogen oxides (NOX) and an 

insignificance determination for 

conformity for volatile organic 

compounds (VOC) emissions from 

motor vehicles. Further, in this action, 

EPA is also describing the status of its 

transportation conformity adequacy 

determination for the new 2011 and 

2020 MVEBs for NOX, and for the 

insignificance determination for VOC 

contribution from motor vehicle 

emissions to the 8-hour ozone pollution 

for the 1997 NAAQS, that are contained 

in the 1997 8-hour ozone maintenance 

plan for the GSMNP Area. On March 12, 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 199 / Friday, October 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules 53199 

2008, EPA issued a revised ozone 

standard. The current action, however, 

is being taken to address requirements 

under the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

Requirements for the GSMNP Area 

under the 2008 standard will be 

addressed in the future. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before November 16, 

2009. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2009–0338, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. E-mail: benjamin.lynorae@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (404) 562–9019. 

4. Mail: EPA–R04–OAR–2009–0338 

Regulatory Development Section, Air 

Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and 

Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. 

5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae 

Benjamin, Chief, Regulatory 

Development Section, Air Planning 

Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 

Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Regional Office’s normal hours of 

operation. The Regional Office’s official 

hours of business are Monday through 

Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding federal 

holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R04–OAR–2009– 

0338. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail, 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected. The http:// 

www.regulations.gov Web site is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

http://www.regulations.gov index. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

i.e., CBI or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Regulatory Development Section, 

Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and 

Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. EPA 

requests that if at all possible, you 

contact the person listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

schedule your inspection. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, 

excluding federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jane 

Spann or Nacosta Ward, Regulatory 

Development Section, Air Planning 

Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 

Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Jane 

Spann may be reached by phone at (404) 

562–9029 or via electronic mail at 

spann.jane@epa.gov. The telephone 

number for Ms. Ward is (404) 562–9140 

and the electronic mail at 

ward.nacosta@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. What Proposed Actions Is EPA Taking? 

II. What Is the Background for EPA’s 

Proposed Actions? 

III. What Are the Criteria for Redesignation? 

IV. Why Is EPA Proposing These Actions? 

V. What Is the Effect of EPA’s Proposed 

Actions? 

VI. What Is EPA’s Analysis of the Request? 

VII. What Is EPA’s Analysis of North 

Carolina’s Proposed VOC Insignificance 

Finding and the Proposed Regional NOX

MVEBs for the GSMNP Area? 

VIII. What Is an Adequacy Determination? 

IX. What Is the Status of EPA’s Adequacy 

Determination for the Proposed Regional 

NOX MVEBs for the Years 2011 and 

2020, and the VOC Insignificance 

Determination? 

X. Proposed Action on the Redesignation 

Request and Maintenance Plan SIP 

Revision Including Proposed Approval 

of the 2011 and 2020 Regional NOX

MVEBs, and the Proposed VOC 

Insignificance Determination for the 

GSMNP Area 

XI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What Proposed Actions Is EPA 

Taking? 

EPA is proposing to take several 

related actions, which are summarized 

below and described in greater detail 

throughout this notice of proposed 

rulemaking: (1) To redesignate the 

GSMNP Area to attainment for the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS; (2) to approve 

the emissions inventory submitted with 

the maintenance plan (under the Clean 

Air Act (CAA) section 172(c)(3)); and (3) 

to approve North Carolina’s 1997 8-hour 

ozone maintenance plan into the North 

Carolina SIP, including the associated 

MVEBs for NOX and the VOC 

insignificance determination for VOC 

emission contribution from motor 

vehicles. In addition, and related to 

today’s proposed actions, EPA is also 

notifying the public of the status of 

EPA’s adequacy determination for the 

GSMNP Area NOX MVEBs. 

First, EPA is proposing to determine 

that the GSMNP Area has attained the 

1997 8-hour ozone standard, and that 

the GSMNP Area has met the other 

requirements for redesignation under 

section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. EPA is 

now proposing to approve a request to 

change the legal designation of the 

GSMNP Area from nonattainment to 

attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. 

Second, EPA is proposing to approve 

North Carolina’s 1997 emissions 

inventory (under section 172(c)(3)). 

North Carolina selected 2005 as ‘‘the 

attainment year’’ for the GSMNP Area 

for the purpose of demonstrating 

attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. This attainment inventory 

identifies the level of emissions in the 

area, which is sufficient to attain the 

1997 8-hour ozone standard. 

Third, EPA is proposing to approve 

North Carolina’s 1997 8-hour ozone 

maintenance plan for the GSMNP Area 

(such approval being one of the CAA 

criteria for redesignation to attainment 

status). The maintenance plan is 

designed to help keep the GSMNP Area 

in attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
53200 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 199 / Friday, October 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

NAAQS through 2020. Consistent with 

the CAA, the maintenance plan that 

EPA is proposing to approve today also 

includes 2011 and 2020 MVEBs for 

NOX, and a VOC insignificance 

determination for transportation 

conformity. Today, EPA is proposing to 

approve (into the North Carolina SIP) 

the 2011 and 2020 NOX MVEBs, and the 

VOC insignificance determination for 

conformity, that are included as part of 

North Carolina’s maintenance plan for 

the GSMNP Area for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. 

EPA is also notifying the public of the 

status of EPA’s adequacy process for the 

newly-established 2011 and 2020 NOX

MVEBs, and of its insignificance 

determination for VOC for 

transportation conformity purposes for 

the GSMNP Area. 

Today’s notice of proposed 

rulemaking is in response to North 

Carolina’s May 15, 2009, proposed SIP 

submittal, which was submitted in draft 

form for parallel processing, and then 

again in final form on July 24, 2009. The 

July 24, 2009, submittal requests 

redesignation of the GSMNP Area, and 

includes a SIP revision addressing the 

specific issues summarized above and 

the necessary elements for redesignation 

described in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the 

CAA. 

II. What Is the Background for EPA’s 

Proposed Actions? 

Ground level ozone is not directly 

emitted by sources. Rather, emissions of 

NOX and VOC react in the presence of 

sunlight to form ground-level ozone. 

NOX and VOC are referred to as 

precursors of ozone. The CAA 

establishes a process for air quality 

management through the NAAQS. On 

July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a 

revised 8-hour ozone standard of 0.08 

parts per million (ppm). The 1997 

standard was more stringent than the 

previous 1-hour ozone standard. Under 

EPA’s regulations at 40 CFR part 50, the 

1997 8-hour ozone standard is attained 

when the 3-year average of the annual 

fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour 

average ambient air quality ozone 

concentrations is less than or equal to 

0.08 ppm (i.e., 0.084 ppm when 

rounding is considered). (See 69 FR 

23857, April 30, 2004, for further 

information.) Ambient air quality 

monitoring data for the 3-year period 

must meet a data completeness 

requirement. The ambient air quality 

monitoring data completeness 

requirement is met when the average 

percent of days with valid ambient 

monitoring data is greater than 90 

percent, and no single year has less than 

75 percent data completeness as 

determined in Appendix I of part 50. 

Specifically, section 2.3 of 40 CFR part 

50, Appendix I, ‘‘Comparisons with the 

Primary and Secondary Ozone 

Standards’’ states: 

‘‘The primary and secondary ozone 

ambient air quality standards are met at 

an ambient air quality monitoring site 

when the 3-year average of the annual 

fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour 

average ozone concentrations is less 

than or equal to 0.08 ppm. The number 

of significant figures in the level of the 

standard dictates the rounding 

convention for comparing the computed 

3-year average annual fourth-highest 

daily maximum 8-hour average ozone 

concentrations with the level of the 

standard. The third decimal place of the 

computed value is rounded, with values 

equal to or greater than 5 rounding up. 

Thus, a computed 3-year average ozone 

concentration of 0.085 ppm is the 

smallest value that is greater than 0.08 

ppm.’’ 

The CAA required EPA to designate 

as nonattainment any area that was 

violating the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

based on the three most recent years of 

ambient air quality data. The GSMNP 

1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment area 

was designated using 2001–2003 

ambient air quality data. The Federal 

Register document making these 

designations was signed on April 15, 

2004, and published on April 30, 2004 

(69 FR 23857). 

The CAA contains two sets of 

provisions, subpart 1 and subpart 2 that 

address planning and control 

requirements for ozone nonattainment 

areas. (Both are found in title I, part D.) 

Subpart 1 (which EPA refers to as 

‘‘basic’’ nonattainment) contains 

general, less prescriptive, requirements 

for nonattainment areas for any 

pollutant, including ozone, governed by 

a NAAQS. Subpart 2 (which EPA refers 

to as ‘‘classified’’ nonattainment) 

provides more specific requirements for 

certain ozone nonattainment areas. 

Some 1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment 

areas were subject only to the provisions 

of subpart 1. Other 1997 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment areas were classified as 

subpart 2 areas and were subject to the 

provisions of subpart 2 in addition to 

subpart 1. Under EPA’s phase 1 8-hour 

ozone implementation rule (69 FR 

23857) (Phase 1 Rule), signed on April 

15, 2004, and published April 30, 2004, 

an area was classified under subpart 2 

based on its 8-hour ozone design value 

(i.e., the 3-year average of the annual 

fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour 

average ozone concentrations), if it had 

a 1-hour design value at or above 0.121 

ppm (the lowest 1-hour design value in 

Table 1 of subpart 2). All other areas 

were covered under subpart 1, based 

upon their 8-hour ambient air quality 

design values. 

The GSMNP Area was designated 

attainment for the 1-hour ozone 

standard. On April 30, 2004, EPA 

designated the GSMNP Area as a 

‘‘basic’’ 8-hour ozone nonattainment 

area or subpart 1 nonattainment area 

(see, 69 FR 23857, April 30, 2004). 

When North Carolina submitted its 

redesignation request, the GSMNP Area 

was attaining the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard. The area has continued to 

attain since that time. 

Various aspects of EPA’s Phase 1 Rule 

were challenged in court. On December 

22, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for 

the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. 

Circuit Court) vacated EPA’s Phase 1 

Rule (69 FR 23951, April 30, 2004). 

South Coast Air Quality Management 

Dist. (SCAQMD) v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882 

(D.C. Cir. 2006). On June 8, 2007, in 

response to several petitions for 

rehearing, the D.C. Circuit Court 

clarified that the Phase 1 Rule was 

vacated only with regard to those parts 

of the Rule that had been successfully 

challenged. Therefore, the Phase 1 Rule 

provisions related to classifications for 

areas currently classified under subpart 

2 of title I, part D of the CAA as 1997 

8-hour nonattainment areas, the 1997 8- 

hour attainment dates and the timing for 

emissions reductions needed for 

attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS remain effective. The June 8th 

decision left intact the Court’s rejection 

of EPA’s reason for implementing the 

1997 8-hour ozone standard in certain 

nonattainment areas under subpart 1 in 

lieu of subpart 2. By limiting the 

vacatur, the Court let stand EPA’s 

revocation of the 1-hour standard and 

those anti-backsliding provisions of the 

Phase 1 Rule that had not been 

successfully challenged. The June 8th 

decision reaffirmed the December 22, 

2006, decision that EPA had improperly 

failed to retain measures required for 1- 

hour nonattainment areas under the 

anti-backsliding provisions of the 

regulations: (1) Nonattainment area New 

Source Review (NSR) requirements 

based on an area’s 1-hour nonattainment 

classification; (2) section 185 penalty 

fees for 1-hour severe or extreme 

nonattainment areas; and (3) measures 

to be implemented pursuant to section 

172(c)(9) or 182 (c)(9) of the CAA, on 

the contingency of an area not making 

reasonable further progress toward 

attainment of the 1-hour NAAQS. The 

June 8th decision clarified that the 

Court’s reference to conformity 

requirements for anti-backsliding 

purposes was limited to requiring the 

continued use of 1-hour motor vehicle 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 199 / Friday, October 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules 53201 

emissions budgets until 8-hour budgets 

were available for 8-hour conformity 

determinations, which is already 

required under EPA’s conformity 

regulations. The Court thus clarified 

that 1-hour conformity determinations 

are not required for anti-backsliding 

purposes. 

This section sets forth EPA’s views on 

the potential effect of the Court’s rulings 

on this proposed redesignation action. 

For the reasons set forth below, EPA 

does not believe that the Court’s rulings 

alter any requirements relevant to this 

redesignation action so as to preclude 

redesignation, and do not prevent EPA 

from proposing or ultimately finalizing 

this redesignation. EPA believes that the 

Court’s December 22, 2006, and June 8, 

2007, decisions impose no impediment 

to moving forward with redesignation of 

the GSMNP Area to attainment, because 

even in light of the Court’s decisions, 

redesignation is appropriate under the 

relevant redesignation provisions of the 

CAA and longstanding policies 

regarding redesignation requests. 

With respect to the 1997 8-hour 

standard, the Court’s ruling rejected 

EPA’s reasons for classifying areas 

under subpart 1 for the 1997 8-hour 

standard, and remanded that matter to 

the Agency. In its January 16, 2009, 

proposed rulemaking in response to the 

SCAQMD decision, EPA has proposed 

to classify GSMNP under subpart 2 as a 

marginal area. See 74 FR 2936, 2944. If 

EPA finalizes this rulemaking, the 

requirements under subpart 2 will 

become applicable when they are due, 

a deadline that EPA has proposed to be 

one year after the effective date of a final 

rulemaking classifying areas as marginal 

or moderate. See 74 FR 2940–41. 

Although the final rulemaking to 

classify this area under subpart 2 has 

not yet been made, EPA believes that 

this does not mean that redesignation 

cannot now go forward. This belief is 

based upon (1) EPA’s longstanding 

policy of evaluating requirements in 

accordance with the requirements due 

at the time the request is submitted and 

(2) consideration of the inequity of 

applying retroactively any requirements 

that might in the future be applied. 

First, at the time the redesignation 

request was submitted, the GSMNP Area 

was not classified under subpart 2, nor 

were there any subpart 2 requirements 

yet due for this Area. Under EPA’s 

longstanding interpretation of section 

107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA, to qualify for 

redesignation, states requesting 

redesignation to attainment must meet 

only the relevant SIP requirements that 

came due prior to submittal of a 

complete redesignation request. 

September 4, 1992, Calcagni 

Memorandum (‘‘Procedures for 

Processing Requests to Redesignate 

Areas to Attainment,’’ Memorandum 

from John Calcagni, Director, Air 

Quality Management Division). (See 

also Michael Shapiro Memorandum, 

September 17, 1993, and 60 FR 12459, 

12465–66 (March 7, 1995) 

(Redesignation of Detroit—Ann Arbor, 

Michigan). See Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 

F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004) (upholding this 

interpretation). See also 68 FR 25418, 

25424, 25427 (May 12, 2003) 

(redesignation of St. Louis, Missouri). 

Moreover, it would be inequitable to 

retroactively apply any new SIP 

requirements that were not applicable at 

the time the request was submitted. The 

D.C. Circuit Court has recognized the 

inequity in such retroactive rulemaking 

(See Sierra Club v. Whitman 285 F.3d 

63 (D.C. Cir. 2002)), in which the Court 

upheld a district court’s ruling refusing 

to make retroactive, an EPA 

determination of nonattainment that 

was past the statutory due date. Such a 

determination would have resulted in 

the imposition of additional 

requirements on the area. The Court 

stated: ‘‘Although EPA failed to make 

the nonattainment determination within 

the statutory frame, Sierra Club’s 

proposed solution only makes the 

situation worse. Retroactive relief would 

likely impose large costs on the states, 

which would face fines and suits for not 

implementing air pollution prevention 

plans in 1997, even though they were 

not on notice at the time.’’ Id. at 68. 

Similarly here, it would be unfair to 

penalize the area by applying to it for 

purpose of redesignation, additional SIP 

requirements under subpart 2 that were 

not in effect or yet due at the time it 

submitted its redesignation request, or 

the time that the Area attained the 

standard. 

With respect to the requirements 

under the 1-hour ozone standard, the 

GSMNP Area was designated 

attainment. The D.C. Circuit Court’s 

decisions do not impact redesignation 

requests for these types of areas, except 

to the extent that the Court, in its June 

8th decision, clarified that for those 

areas with 1-hour MVEBs in their 

maintenance plans, anti-backsliding 

requires that those 1-hour budgets must 

be used for 8-hour budgets. Since this 

Area was attainment for the 1-hour 

ozone standard, there were no 

preexisting 1-hour MVEBs to consider 

for 8-hour conformity requirements. 

First, there are no conformity 

requirements relevant for the GSMNP 

Area request, such as a transportation 

conformity SIP. It is EPA’s longstanding 

policy that it is reasonable to interpret 

the conformity SIP requirements as not 

applying for purposes of evaluating a 

redesignation request under section 

107(d) because state conformity rules 

are still required after redesignation, 

and Federal conformity rules apply 

where state rules have not been 

approved. See 40 CFR 51.390; see also 

Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 

2001) (upholding EPA’s interpretation); 

60 FR 62748 (Dec. 7, 1995) 

(Redesignation of Tampa, Florida). 

Second, with regard to the three other 

anti-backsliding provisions for the 1- 

hour ozone standard that the D.C. 

Circuit Court found were not properly 

retained, the GSMNP Area has always 

been an attainment area for the 1-hour 

ozone standard, and the NSR, 

contingency measures pursuant to 

section 172(c)(9) or 182(c)(9), and fee 

provision requirements do not apply to 

this area. As a result, the decisions in 

SCAQMD should not alter any 

requirements that would preclude EPA 

from finalizing the redesignation of the 

GSMNP Area to attainment for the 1997 

8-hour ozone standard. 

As noted earlier, in 2008, the ambient 

ozone data for the GSMNP Area 

indicated no further violations of the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, using the 

data from the 3-year period of 2006– 

2008 to demonstrate attainment. As a 

result, on May 15, 2009, North Carolina 

requested parallel processing of its 

request for redesignation of the GSMNP 

Area to attainment for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. The redesignation 

request included three years of 

complete, quality-assured ambient air 

quality data for the ozone seasons (April 

1st until October 31st) of 2006–2008, 

indicating that the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS had been achieved for the 

entire GSMNP Area. Under the CAA, 

nonattainment areas may be 

redesignated to attainment if sufficient, 

complete, quality-assured data is 

available for the Administrator to 

determine that the area has attained the 

standard and the area meets the other 

CAA redesignation requirements in 

section 107(d)(3)(E). While EPA did not 

have the opportunity to parallel process 

this draft submittal, EPA did begin the 

adequacy process for the newlyestablished MVEBs. Also, while EPA 

can initiate the adequacy process with 

a draft submittal, EPA cannot conclude 

this process until a final submittal is 

received. On July 24, 2009, North 

Carolina submitted to EPA a final SIP 

revision. This final submittal included 

MVEBs for 2011 and 2020. 

III. What Are the Criteria for 

Redesignation? 

The CAA provides the requirements 

for redesignating a nonattainment area 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
53202 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 199 / Friday, October 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

to attainment. Specifically, section 

107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA allows for 

redesignation providing that: (1) The 

Administrator determines that the area 

has attained the applicable NAAQS; (2) 

the Administrator has fully approved 

the applicable implementation plan for 

the area under section 110(k); (3) the 

Administrator determines that the 

improvement in air quality is due to 

permanent and enforceable reductions 

in emissions resulting from 

implementation of the applicable SIP 

and applicable Federal air pollutant 

control regulations and other permanent 

and enforceable reductions; (4) the 

Administrator has fully approved a 

maintenance plan for the area as 

meeting the requirements of section 

175A; and, (5) the state containing such 

area has met all requirements applicable 

to the area under section 110 and part 

D of the CAA. 

EPA provided guidance on 

redesignation in the General Preamble 

for the Implementation of Title I of the 

CAA Amendments of 1990, on April 16, 

1992 (57 FR 13498), and supplemented 

this guidance on April 28, 1992 (57 FR 

18070). EPA has provided further 

guidance on processing redesignation 

requests in the following documents: 

1. ‘‘Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Design 

Value Calculations,’’ Memorandum from 

Bill Laxton, Director, Technical Support 

Division, June 18, 1990; 

2. ‘‘Maintenance Plans for Redesignation of 

Ozone and Carbon Monoxide 

Nonattainment Areas,’’ Memorandum 

from G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon 

Monoxide Programs Branch, April 30, 

1992; 

3. ‘‘Contingency Measures for Ozone and 

Carbon Monoxide (CO) Redesignations,’’ 

Memorandum from G. T. Helms, Chief, 

Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs 

Branch, June 1, 1992; 

4. ‘‘Procedures for Processing Requests to 

Redesignate Areas to Attainment,’’ 

Memorandum from John Calcagni, 

Director, Air Quality Management 

Division, September 4, 1992 (hereafter 

referred to as the ‘‘Calcagni 

Memorandum’’); 

5. ‘‘State Implementation Plan (SIP) Actions 

Submitted in Response to Clean Air Act 

(ACT) Deadlines,’’ Memorandum from 

John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality 

Management Division, October 28, 1992; 

6. ‘‘Technical Support Documents (TSD’s) for 

Redesignation of Ozone and Carbon 

Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment Areas,’’ 

Memorandum from G. T. Helms, Chief, 

Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs 

Branch, August 17, 1993; 

7. ‘‘State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

Requirements for Areas Submitting 

Requests for Redesignation to 

Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon 

Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS) On or After 

November 15, 1992,’’ Memorandum from 

Michael H. Shapiro, Acting Assistant 

Administrator for Air and Radiation, 

September 17, 1993; 

8. ‘‘Use of Actual Emissions in Maintenance 

Demonstrations for Ozone and CO 

Nonattainment Areas,’’ Memorandum 

from D. Kent Berry, Acting Director, Air 

Quality Management Division, 

November 30, 1993; 

9. ‘‘Part D New Source Review (Part D NSR) 

Requirements for Areas Requesting 

Redesignation to Attainment,’’ 

Memorandum from Mary D. Nichols, 

Assistant Administrator for Air and 

Radiation, October 14, 1994; and 

10. ‘‘Reasonable Further Progress, Attainment 

Demonstration, and Related 

Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment 

Areas Meeting the Ozone National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard,’’ 

Memorandum from John S. Seitz, 

Director, Office of Air Quality Planning 

and Standards, May 10, 1995. 

IV. Why Is EPA Proposing These 

Actions? 

North Carolina submitted a final SIP 

revision on July 24, 2009, with a request 

for redesignation of the GSMNP Area to 

attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard. EPA’s preliminary evaluation 

indicates that North Carolina has 

demonstrated that the GSMNP Area has 

attained the standard and has met the 

requirements for redesignation set forth 

in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. EPA 

is also announcing the status of its 

adequacy determination for the 2011 

and 2020 NOx MVEBs, and the VOC 

insignificance determination, which are 

relevant to the requested redesignation. 

V. What Is the Effect of EPA’s Proposed 

Actions? 

EPA’s proposed actions establish the 

bases upon which EPA may take final 

action on the issues being proposed for 

approval today. Final approval of the 

emissions inventory would determine 

that it satisfies the requirements of 

section 172(c)(3) of the CAA. Approval 

of North Carolina’s redesignation 

request would change the legal 

designation for the portions of Haywood 

and Swain Counties included in the 

GSMNP Area for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS found at 40 CFR part 81. 

Approval of North Carolina’s request 

would also incorporate into the North 

Carolina SIP, a plan for the GSMNP 

Area for maintaining the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS in the Area through 

2020. This maintenance plan includes 

contingency measures to remedy future 

violations of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. The maintenance plan also 

establishes regional NOX MVEBs and 

provides a VOC insignificance 

determination for the GSMNP Area. The 

following Table identifies the NOX

MVEBs for the years 2011 and 2020 for 

this Area. 

TABLE 1—GSMNP AREA MVEBS

[Kilograms per day 1] 

2011 2020 

NOX MVEB ............... 179.9 127.0 

1 North Carolina has provided the conversion factor of 907.1847 kilograms per ton, 

rounded to two decimal places for tons to 

allow for comparison of the MVEBs to the 

emissions inventory (expressed in tons per 

day) in this Area. 

Approval of North Carolina’s 

maintenance plan would also result in 

approval of the regional NOX MVEBs, 

and the VOC insignificance 

determination for conformity purposes. 

Additionally, EPA is notifying the 

public of the status of its adequacy 

determination for the 2011 and 2020 

NOX MVEBs, and its VOC insignificance 

determination for conformity, pursuant 

to 40 CFR 93.118(f)(1). 

VI. What Is EPA’s Analysis of the 

Request? 

EPA is proposing to make the 

determination that the GSMNP Area has 

attained the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard, and that all other 

redesignation criteria have been met for 

the GSMNP Area. The basis for EPA’s 

determination for this Area is discussed 

in greater detail below. 

Criteria (1)—The GSMNP Area Has 

Attained the 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS 

EPA is proposing to determine that 

the GSMNP Area has attained the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS. For ozone, an 

area may be considered to be attaining 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS if there 

are no violations, as determined in 

accordance with 40 CFR 50.10 and 

Appendix I of part 50, based on three 

complete, consecutive calendar years of 

quality-assured air quality monitoring 

data. To attain this standard, the 3-year 

average of the fourth-highest daily 

maximum 8-hour average ozone 

concentrations measured at each 

monitor within an area over each year 

must not exceed 0.08 ppm. Based on the 

rounding convention described in 40 

CFR part 50, Appendix I, the standard 

is attained if the design value is 0.084 

ppm or below. The data must be 

collected and quality-assured in 

accordance with 40 CFR part 58, and 

recorded in the EPA Air Quality System 

(AQS). The monitors generally should 

have remained at the same location for 

the duration of the monitoring period 

required for demonstrating attainment. 

EPA reviewed ozone monitoring data 

from the ambient ozone monitoring 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 199 / Friday, October 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules 53203 

station in the GSMNP Area for the 

ozone season from 2006–2008. These 

data have been quality assured and is 

recorded in AQS. The fourth highest 8- 

hour averages for 2006, 2007 and 2008, 

and the 3-year average of these values 

(i.e., design values), are summarized in 

the following table: 

TABLE 2—ANNUAL 4TH HIGHEST MAXIMUM AND DESIGN VALUE CONCENTRATION FOR 8-HOUR OZONE

FOR THE GSMNP AREA

Year 

Fourth 

highest 

8-hour 

ozone 

value 

(ppm) 

Design 

value 

(ppm) 

2006– 

2008 

2006 .......................... 0.073 0.077 

2007 .......................... 0.078 ................

2008 .......................... 0.080 ................

As discussed above, the design value 

for an area is the 3-year average of the 

annual 4th highest 8-hour ozone value 

recorded at the monitor in the area. 

Therefore, the design value for the 

GSMNP Area is 0.077 ppm, which 

meets the standard as described above. 

Currently available data show that the 

Area continues to attain the standard. If 

the Area does not continue to attain 

until EPA finalizes the redesignation, 

EPA will not go forward with the 

redesignation. It is important to note 

that this area has been in attainment of 

the 1997 standard since 2004. The 

design value for the Area with 2002– 

2004 data was 0.082 ppm. See below for 

a historical trend of design values for 

this Area. 

TABLE 3—GSMNP AREA HISTORIC DESIGN VALUES

[1999–2007] 

Monitor 

Design value (ppm) 

99–01 00–02 01–03 02–04 03–05 04–06 05–07 

Purchase Knob, AIRS ID #37–087–0036, Haywood County ............ 0.087 0.087 0.085 0.082 0.078 0.076 0.078 

Note: Bolded values represent violations of the 8-hour ozone standard. 

As is discussed in more detail below, 

North Carolina has committed to 

continue monitoring in this Area in 

accordance with 40 CFR part 58. The 

data submitted by North Carolina 

provides an adequate demonstration 

that the GSMNP Area has attained the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

Criteria (2)—North Carolina Has a Fully 

Approved SIP Under Section 110(k) for 

the GSMNP Area and Criteria (5)—Has 

Met All Applicable Requirements Under 

Section 110 and Part D of the CAA 

Below is a summary of how these two 

criteria were met. 

EPA has determined that North 

Carolina has met all applicable SIP 

requirements for the GSMNP Area 

under section 110 of the CAA (general 

SIP requirements). EPA has also 

determined that the North Carolina SIP 

satisfies the criterion that it meet 

applicable SIP requirements under part 

D of title I of the CAA (requirements 

specific to subpart 1 basic 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment areas) in accordance 

with section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) and 110(l). 

In addition, EPA has determined that 

the SIP is fully approved with respect to 

all applicable requirements in 

accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii). 

In making these determinations, EPA 

ascertained which requirements are 

applicable to the area and that if 

applicable, they are fully approved 

under section 110(k). SIPs must be fully 

approved only with respect to 

applicable requirements. 

a. The GSMNP Area Has Met All 

Applicable Requirements Under Section 

110 and Part D of the CAA 

The September 4, 1992, Calcagni 

Memorandum describes EPA’s 

interpretation of section 107(d)(3)(E). 

Under this interpretation, to qualify for 

redesignation, states requesting 

redesignation to attainment must meet 

only the relevant CAA requirements that 

come due prior to the submittal of a 

complete redesignation request. See also 

Michael Shapiro Memorandum, (‘‘SIP 

Requirements for Areas Submitting 

Requests for Redesignation to 

Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon 

Monoxide NAAQS On or After 

November 15, 1992,’’ September 17, 

1993); and 60 FR 12459, 12465–66 

(March 7, 1995) (redesignation of 

Detroit-Ann Arbor, Michigan). 

Applicable requirements of the CAA 

that come due subsequent to the area’s 

submittal of a complete redesignation 

request remain applicable until a 

redesignation is approved, but are not 

required as a prerequisite to 

redesignation. See section 175A(c) of 

the CAA; Sierra Club, 375 F.3d 537; see 

also 68 FR 25424, 25427 (May 12, 2003) 

(redesignation of St. Louis, Missouri). 

General SIP requirements. Section 

110(a)(2) of title I of the CAA delineates 

the general requirements for a SIP, 

which include enforceable emissions 

limitations and other control measures, 

means, or techniques, provisions for the 

establishment and operation of 

appropriate devices necessary to collect 

data on ambient air quality, and 

programs to enforce the limitations. 

General SIP elements and requirements 

are delineated in section 110(a)(2) of 

title I, part A of the CAA. These 

requirements include, but are not 

limited to, the following: Submittal of a 

SIP that has been adopted by the state 

after reasonable public notice and 

hearing; provisions for establishment 

and operation of appropriate procedures 

needed to monitor ambient air quality; 

implementation of a source permit 

program; provisions for the 

implementation of part C requirements 

(Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD)) and provisions for the 

implementation of part D requirements 

(NSR permit programs); provisions for 

air pollution modeling; and provisions 

for public and local agency participation 

in planning and emission control rule 

development. 

Section 110(a)(2)(D) requires that SIPs 

contain certain measures to prevent 

sources in a state from significantly 

contributing to air quality problems in 

another state. To implement this 

provision, EPA has required certain 

states to establish programs to address 

the transport of air pollutants (the NOX

SIP Call, the Clean Air Interstate Rule 

(CAIR)). EPA has also found, generally, 

that states have not submitted timely 

SIPs under section 110(a)(1) to meet the 

interstate transport requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). However, the 

section 110(a)(2)(D) requirements for a 

state are not linked with a particular 

nonattainment area’s designation and 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
53204 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 199 / Friday, October 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

classification in that state. EPA believes 

that the requirements linked with a 

particular nonattainment area’s 

designation and classifications are the 

relevant measures to evaluate in 

reviewing a redesignation request. The 

transport SIP submittal requirements, 

where applicable, continue to apply to 

a state regardless of the designation of 

any one particular area in the state. 

Thus, we do not believe that the CAA’s 

interstate transport requirements should 

be construed to be applicable 

requirements for the purpose of 

redesignation. 

In addition, EPA believes that other 

section 110 elements not connected 

with nonattainment plan submissions 

and not linked with an area’s attainment 

status are not applicable requirements 

for purposes of redesignation. The area 

will still be subject to these 

requirements after the area is 

redesignated. The section 110 and part 

D requirements, which are linked with 

a particular area’s designation and 

classification, are the relevant measures 

to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation 

request. This approach is consistent 

with EPA’s existing policy on 

applicability (i.e., for redesignations) of 

conformity and oxygenated fuels 

requirements, as well as with section 

184 ozone transport requirements. See 

Reading, Pennsylvania, proposed and 

final rulemakings (61 FR 53174–53176, 

October 10, 1996), (62 FR 24826, May 7, 

1997); Cleveland-Akron-Loraine, Ohio, 

final rulemaking (61 FR 20458, May 7, 

1996); and Tampa, Florida, final 

rulemaking at (60 FR 62748, December 

7, 1995). See also the discussion on this 

issue in the Cincinnati, Ohio 

redesignation (65 FR 37890, June 19, 

2000), and in the Pittsburgh, 

Pennsylvania redesignation (66 FR 

50399, October 19, 2001). 

EPA believes that section 110 

elements not linked to the area’s 

nonattainment status are not applicable 

for purposes of redesignation. EPA notes 

it has previously approved provisions in 

the North Carolina SIP addressing 

section 110 elements under the 1-hour 

ozone NAAQS (See 51 FR 19834, June 

3, 1986). The State has submitted a 

letter, dated December 12, 2007, setting 

forth its belief that the section 110 SIP 

approved for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS 

is also sufficient to meet the 

requirements under the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. EPA has not yet 

approved these submissions, but such 

approval is not necessary for purposes 

of redesignation. 

Part D requirements. EPA proposes 

that if EPA approves the base year 

emissions inventory, which is part of 

the maintenance plan submittal, the 

North Carolina SIP will meet applicable 

SIP requirements under part D of the 

CAA. The 2005 VOC and NOX

emissions, as well as the emissions for 

other years, for the GSMNP Area were 

developed consistent with EPA 

guidance for emission inventories and 

the choice of the 2005 base year is 

appropriate because it represents the 

2004–2006 period when the 1997 8 hour 

ozone NAAQS was not violated. 

Part D, subpart 1 applicable SIP 

requirements. For purposes of 

evaluating this redesignation request, 

the applicable part D, subpart 1 SIP 

requirements for all nonattainment areas 

are contained in sections 172–176. A 

thorough discussion of the requirements 

contained in section 172 can be found 

in the General Preamble for 

Implementation of title I (57 FR 13498). 

EPA is proposing here to determine 

that the Area has attained the 1997 8- 

hour ozone standard, under 40 CFR 

51.918. If that determination is 

finalized, the requirements to submit 

certain planning SIPs related to 

attainment, including attainment 

demonstration requirements, the 

Reasonably Available Control Measure 

(RACM) requirement of section 172(c)(1) 

of the CAA, the Reasonable Further 

Progress (RFP) and attainment 

demonstration requirements of sections 

172(c)(2) and (6) of the CAA, and the 

requirement for contingency measures 

of section 172(c)(9) of the CAA, would 

not be applicable to the Area as long as 

it continues to attain the NAAQS and 

would cease to apply upon 

redesignation. In addition, in the 

context of redesignations, EPA has 

interpreted requirements related to 

attainment as not applicable for 

purposes of redesignation. For example, 

in the General Preamble, EPA stated 

that: [t]he section 172(c)(9) requirements 

are directed at ensuring RFP and 

attainment by the applicable date. These 

requirements no longer apply to an area 

that has attained the standard and is 

eligible for redesignation. Furthermore, 

section 175A for maintenance plans 

provide specific requirements for 

contingency measures that effectively 

supersede the requirements of section 

172 (c)(9) for these areas. ‘‘General 

Preamble for the Interpretation of Title 

I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 

1990’’ (‘‘General Preamble’’), 57 FR 

13498, 13564 (April 16, 1992). See also 

Calcagni memorandum at page 6 (‘‘The 

requirements for reasonable further 

progress and other measures for 

attainment will not apply for 

redesignations because they only have 

meaning for areas not attaining the 

standard.’’) Since the GSMNP area was 

not classified under subpart 2 at the 

time the redesignation request was 

submitted, the subpart 2 requirements 

do not apply for purposes of 

redesignation. EPA believes it is 

reasonable to interpret the conformity 

and NSR requirements as not requiring 

approval prior to redesignation. 

Section 176 Conformity 

Requirements. Section 176(c) of the 

CAA requires states to establish criteria 

and procedures to ensure that Federally 

supported or funded projects conform to 

the air quality planning goals in the 

applicable SIP. The requirement to 

determine conformity applies to 

transportation plans, programs and 

projects developed, funded or approved 

under title 23 of the United States Code 

(U.S.C.) and the Federal Transit Act 

(transportation conformity) as well as to 

all other Federally supported or funded 

projects (general conformity). State 

conformity revisions must be consistent 

with Federal conformity regulations 

relating to consultation, enforcement 

and enforceability that the CAA 

required EPA to promulgate. 

EPA believes it is reasonable to 

interpret the conformity SIP 

requirements as not applying for 

purposes of evaluating the redesignation 

request under section 107(d) because 

state conformity rules are still required 

after redesignation and Federal 

conformity rules apply where state rules 

have not been approved. See Wall, 265 

F.3d 426 (upholding this interpretation). 

See also 60 FR 62748 (December 7, 

1995, Tampa, Florida). 

NSR Requirements. EPA has also 

determined that areas being 

redesignated need not comply with the 

requirement that an NSR program be 

approved prior to redesignation, 

provided that the area demonstrates 

maintenance of the standard without a 

part D NSR program in effect, since PSD 

requirements will apply after 

redesignation. The rationale for this 

view is described in a memorandum 

from Mary Nichols, Assistant 

Administrator for Air and Radiation, 

dated October 14, 1994, entitled ‘‘Part D 

New Source Review (Part D NSR) 

Requirements for Areas Requesting 

Redesignation to Attainment.’’ North 

Carolina has demonstrated that the 

GSMNP Area will be able to maintain 

the standard without a part D NSR 

program in effect, and therefore, North 

Carolina need not have a fully approved 

part D NSR program prior to approval of 

the redesignation request. Since there 

are no major sources in GSMNP and 

none planned, the Area has 

demonstrated maintenance without the 

need for a part D NSR program in this 

Area. North Carolina’s PSD program 

will become effective in the GSMNP 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 199 / Friday, October 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules 53205 

Area upon redesignation to attainment. 

See rulemakings for Detroit, Michigan 

(60 FR 12467–12468, March 7, 1995); 

Cleveland-Akron-Lorraine, Ohio (61 FR 

20458, 20469–70, May 7, 1996); 

Louisville, Kentucky (66 FR 53665, 

October 23, 2001); Grand Rapids, 

Michigan (61 FR 31834–31837, June 21, 

1996). Thus, the GSMNP Area has 

satisfied all applicable requirements for 

purposes of redesignation under section 

110 and part D of the CAA. 

b. The GSMNP Area Has a Fully 

Approved Applicable SIP Under Section 

110(k) of the CAA 

If EPA issues a final approval of the 

base year emissions inventory under 

section 172(c)(3), EPA will have fully 

approved the applicable North Carolina 

SIP for the GSMNP Area, under section 

110(k) of the CAA for all requirements 

applicable for purposes of 

redesignation. EPA may rely on prior 

SIP approvals in approving a 

redesignation request, see Calcagni 

Memorandum at p. 3; Southwestern 

Pennsylvania Growth Alliance v. 

Browner, 144 F.3d 984, 989–90 (6th Cir. 

1998); Wall, 265 F.3d 426, plus any 

additional measures it may approve in 

conjunction with a redesignation action. 

See 68 FR 25426 (May 12, 2003) and 

citations therein. Following passage of 

the CAA of 1970, North Carolina has 

adopted and submitted, and EPA has 

fully approved at various times, 

provisions addressing the various 1- 

hour ozone standard SIP elements 

applicable in the GSMNP Area (58 FR 

47391, September 9, 1993; 59 FR 18300, 

April 18, 1994; 60 FR 34859, July 5, 

1995; 69 FR 56163, September 20, 

2004). 

As indicated above, EPA believes that 

the section 110 elements not connected 

with nonattainment plan submissions 

and not linked to the area’s 

nonattainment status are not applicable 

requirements for purposes of 

redesignation. EPA also believes that 

since the part D subpart 2 requirements 

did not become due prior to submission 

of the redesignation request, they also 

are therefore not applicable 

requirements for purposes of 

redesignation. Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 

F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004); 68 FR 25424, 

25427 (May 12, 2003) (redesignation of 

the St. Louis-East St. Louis Area to 

attainment of the 1-hour ozone 

NAAQS). With the approval of the 

emissions inventory, EPA will have 

approved all Part D subpart 1 

requirements applicable for purposes of 

redesignation. 

Criteria (3)—The Air Quality 

Improvement in the GSMNP Area Is Due 

to Permanent and Enforceable 

Reductions in Emissions Resulting From 

Implementation of the SIP and 

Applicable Federal Air Pollution 

Control Regulations and Other 

Permanent and Enforceable Reductions 

EPA believes that North Carolina has 

demonstrated that the observed air 

quality improvement in the GSMNP 

Area is due to permanent and 

enforceable reductions in emissions in 

the region surrounding the GSMNP Area 

resulting from implementation of the 

SIP, Federal measures, and other state 

adopted measures. Additionally, new 

emissions control programs for fuels 

and motor vehicles will help ensure a 

continued decrease in emissions 

throughout the region and continued 

maintenance of the ozone standard. 

The overwhelming abundance of 

biogenic VOC emissions makes the 

majority of North Carolina a NOX

limited environment for the formation 

of ozone. This holds especially true in 

the North Carolina GSMNP 

nonattainment area. The NOX emissions 

within the North Carolina GSMNP 

nonattainment area are extremely low; 

total manmade emissions are currently 

about a quarter ton per day (tpd) of 

NOX. NC DAQ has provided a 

demonstration that the GSMNP manmade emissions are not the primary 

cause of the ozone exceedances within 

the GSMNP. North Carolina’s 

demonstration indicates that emission 

reductions in the GSMNP itself have 

only a limited impact on the observed 

ozone values within the GSMNP; and 

thus concludes these reductions 

primarily must come from sources 

upwind of the nonattainment area. 

There are numerous State and Federal 

measures that have been enacted in 

recent years that are resulting in 

permanent and enforceable regional 

emissions reductions. A list of those 

measures that contributed to the 

permanent and enforceable regional 

emission reductions that resulted in 

attainment or will contribute to future 

maintenance of the ozone standard are 

listed in Table 4. 

TABLE 4—REGION-WIDE EMISSION REDUCTIONS PROGRAMS IN THE

GSMNP AREA

Federal Control Measures 

Tier 2 Vehicle Standards. 

Heavy-Duty Gasoline and Diesel Highway 

Vehicles Standards. 

Large Nonroad Diesel Engines Rule. 

Nonroad Spark-Ignition Engines and Recreational Engines Standard. 

NOX SIP Call in Surrounding States. 

Clean Air Interstate Rule in Surrounding 

States. 

State Control Measures 

Clean Air Bill. 

NOX SIP Call/Clean Air Interstate Rule. 

Clean Smokestacks Act. 

Open Burning Bans. 

Air Toxics Control Program. 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration. 

Heavy Duty Diesel Engine Gap Filling Requirements. 

Air Awareness Program. 

Two of the measures of consideration 

included by North Carolina in its 

maintenance plan submittal were CAIR 

in surrounding states and the NOX SIP 

Call in surrounding states. Because of 

the uncertainty introduced by the recent 

court actions affecting CAIR and the 

NOX SIP Call, EPA undertook an 

analysis of the changes in NOX expected 

during the ten year maintenance period 

across a broader region. Of particular 

significance are reductions in NOX

emissions from large power plants in 

the region since they were responsible 

for the preponderance of the NOX in the 

GSMNP Area. There are seven facilities 

located in North Carolina and four 

facilities located in Tennessee in the 

Region around the GSMNP Area. Table 

5 displays the NOX emission reductions, 

as the result of the NOX SIP Call rule, 

from power plants that most likely 

impact the North Carolina GSMNP 

nonattainment area in 2002 through 

2007. This data is from the EPA’s Clean 

Air Markets Division and represents the 

second and third quarters of the year 

(April through September), the period 

during which ozone levels are the 

highest. It is clearly demonstrated that 

the emissions from these facilities have 

significantly decreased during the ozone 

season since 2002, with 52,431 tons of 

NOX reductions in the 2007 ozone 

season compared to 2002. This is a 67 

percent reduction in utility NOX

emissions that are permanent and 

enforceable and implemented prior to 

CAIR coming into effect. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
53206 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 199 / Friday, October 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 5—APRIL–SEPTEMBER NOX EMISSIONS FOR UTILITIES IMPACTING THE GSMNP AREA

[tons/period] 

Facility 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 

North Carolina Sources 

Asheville ........................................................................... 2,252 2,158 2,205 2,156 1,931 598 

Belews Creek ................................................................... 21,269 13,871 7,102 3,803 3,769 1,559 

Buck ................................................................................. 1,084 1,468 1,089 1,286 1,262 870 

Cliffside ............................................................................ 1,944 2,149 1,738 1,782 1,540 1,311 

G G Allen ......................................................................... 5,011 3,643 4,002 3,589 3,001 3,053 

Marshall ............................................................................ 9,283 9,101 8,243 7,558 6,370 7,253 

River Bend ....................................................................... 2,556 2,703 1,844 1,379 1,417 1,296 

Total NC .................................................................... 43,399 35,093 26,223 21,553 19,290 15,940 

Tennessee Sources 

Bull Run ........................................................................... 10,554 9,234 1,670 2,468 692 1,513 

Gallatin ............................................................................. 5,894 6,043 4,556 3,933 3,647 3,124 

John Sevier ...................................................................... 5,438 4,911 5,343 4,437 4,504 4,187 

Kingston ........................................................................... 13,335 13,882 5,660 3,444 1,344 1,425 

Total TN .................................................................... 35,221 34,070 17,229 14,282 10,187 10,249 

Total Combined ................................................. 78,620 69,163 43,452 35,835 29,477 26,189 

These reductions are primarily the 

result of the NOX SIP Call (63 FR 57356) 

that set ozone season NOX budgets for 

the purpose of reducing regional 

transport of ozone. This rule called for 

ozone season controls to be put on 

utility and industrial boilers, as well as 

internal combustion engines in 22 states 

in the Eastern United States. A NOX

emissions budget was set for each state 

and the states were required to develop 

rules that would allow the state to meet 

their budget. The emission budgets were 

to be met by the beginning of 2004, prior 

to the adoption of CAIR. The amount of 

ozone season NOX emissions from 

power plants has decreased significantly 

in and around North Carolina as a result 

and are expected to be maintained at 

these levels throughout the maintenance 

period. 

Georgia power plants were the only 

ones in a nearby state not affected by the 

NOX SIP Call. While no NOX reductions 

were achieved during the period 

GSMNP demonstrated attainment, 

Georgia enacted regulations pursuant to 

the Georgia multi-pollutant bill in the 

summer 2007 to require coal fired 

power plants in Georgia to reduce NOX, 

approximately 50 percent, by 2015. 

Reductions will affect 21 units at seven 

facilities. The rule requires specific 

controls on specific units according to a 

specific schedule and will assure that 

NOX emissions will not increase during 

the maintenance period. 

Besides controls on electrical 

generating units (EGUs), substantial 

additional reductions in NOX are 

expected due to controls being imposed 

on fuels and off road and on road motor 

vehicles. To evaluate NOX changes 

expected to occur during the 

maintenance period to other NOX

sources in the region, we reviewed 

projections made for Regional Haze for 

2009 and 2018. This is the latest regionwide assessment available done for 

emissions for the regional area. 

As summarized in Tables 6 and 7, all 

point sources are expected to further 

decrease during this period by 337,742 

tons per year (tpy) or 24 percent. 

However mobile sources are projected to 

decrease by an even greater amount, 

decreasing by 751,038 tpy or 53 percent 

during this period and non-road 

emissions are expected to decrease 

166,687 tpy or 22 percent. The only 

category showing an increase is area 

source emissions which are projected to 

grow 6 percent, an increase of 21,146 

tpy. In total, non point source NOX

emissions in the region are expected to 

decrease by 896,579 tpy from 2009 to 

2018. Region-wide, annual emissions of 

NOX are expected to decrease 39 percent 

from 2009 to 2018. Every state in the 10 

state Visibility Improvement State and 

Tribal Association of the Southeast 

(VISTAS) planning area projects 

reductions of NOX emissions from 2009 

to 2018. 

Even if the projected point source 

reductions from CAIR are not 

considered and EGU emissions are held 

at 2009 levels, annual emissions of NOX

are still projected to decrease 23 

percent. Since both North Carolina and 

Georgia have rules requiring EGUs to 

reduce NOX independent of CAIR and a 

number of other facilities in the region 

are controlling NOX emissions due to 

consent decrees, this assumption of no 

regional reductions in EGU emissions 

during this period is very conservative. 

These regional projections of 

emissions data have only been prepared 

through 2018. However, since mobile 

and non-road emissions continue to 

decrease long after a rule is adopted as 

the engine population is gradually 

replaced by newer engines, it is 

reasonable to assume that this projected 

decrease in regional NOX emissions 

from mobile and non-road sources 

should continue through 2020 and 

assure that ozone in the GSMNP will 

continue to decline throughout the 10- 

year maintenance period. Hence we 

believe the projected regional NOX

reductions are adequate to assure that 

the GSMNP will continue 

demonstrating maintenance throughout 

the 10-year maintenance period. 

TABLE 6—VISTAS 2009 BASE ANNUAL EMISSION INVENTORY SUMMARY FOR NOX * 

States Point Non-road Area Mobile Total 

AL ............................................................................................................. 151,714 56,862 35,831 101,831 346,238 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 199 / Friday, October 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules 53207 

TABLE 6—VISTAS 2009 BASE ANNUAL EMISSION INVENTORY SUMMARY FOR NOX *—Continued 

States Point Non-road Area Mobile Total 

FL ............................................................................................................. 132,185 163,794 47,979 315,840 659,798 

GA ............................................................................................................ 148,809 85,733 51,925 209,349 495,816 

KY ............................................................................................................ 129,779 94,752 43,548 101,182 369,261 

MS ............................................................................................................ 92,409 80,567 8,048 70,743 251,767 

NC ............................................................................................................ 101,236 70,997 45,382 201,609 419,224 

SC ............................................................................................................ 86,934 43,235 25,259 92,499 247,927 

TN ............................................................................................................ 124,274 86,641 20,717 151,912 383,544 

VA ............................................................................................................ 288,213 54,993 53,596 134,232 531,034 

WV ........................................................................................................... 124,359 30,133 14,384 35,635 204,511 

Total .................................................................................................. 1,379,912 767,707 346,669 1,414,832 3,909,120 

TABLE 7—VISTAS 2018 BASE ANNUAL EMISSION INVENTORY SUMMARY FOR NOX * 

States Point Non-road Area Mobile Total 

AL ............................................................................................................. 141,178 43,779 36,945 47,298 269,200 

FL ............................................................................................................. 110,243 127,885 50,499 150,180 438,807 

GA ............................................................................................................ 125,083 64,579 55,518 102,179 347,359 

KY ............................................................................................................ 100,774 79,392 45,806 52,263 278,235 

MS ............................................................................................................ 71,988 68,252 8,322 30,619 179,181 

NC ............................................................................................................ 94,276 49,046 49,514 87,791 280,627 

SC ............................................................................................................ 94,089 31,758 26,491 43,490 195,828 

TN ............................................................................................................ 93,443 70,226 21,810 69,385 254,864 

VA ............................................................................................................ 116,560 40,393 57,137 63,342 277,432 

WV ........................................................................................................... 94,536 25,710 15,773 17,247 153,266 

Total .................................................................................................. 1,042,170 601,020 367,815 663,794 2,674,799 

* From North Carolina Regional Haze Plan, December 17, 2007, pages Appendix D.3–10 & 11. 

EPA has considered the relationship 

of the GSMNP Area’s maintenance plan 

to the reductions currently required 

pursuant to CAIR. CAIR was remanded 

to EPA, and the process of developing 

a replacement rule is ongoing. However, 

the remand of CAIR does not alter the 

requirements of the NOX SIP Call and 

the State has now demonstrated that the 

GSMNP Area can maintain without any 

additional requirements (beyond those 

required by the NOX SIP Call). 

Therefore, EPA believes that the State’s 

demonstration of maintenance under 

sections 175A and 107(d)(3)(E) remains 

valid. 

The NOX SIP Call requires states to 

make significant, specific emissions 

reductions. It also provides a 

mechanism, the NOX Budget Trading 

Program, that states could use to achieve 

those reductions. When EPA 

promulgated CAIR, it discontinued 

(starting in 2009) the NOX Budget 

Trading Program, 40 CFR 51.121(r), but 

created another mechanism—the CAIR 

ozone season trading program—which 

states could use to meet their SIP Call 

obligations, 70 FR 25289–90. EPA notes 

that a number of states, when 

submitting SIP revisions to require 

sources to participate in the CAIR ozone 

season trading program, removed the 

SIP provisions that required sources to 

participate in the NOX Budget Trading 

Program. In addition, because the 

provisions of CAIR including the ozone 

season NOX trading program remain in 

place during the remand, EPA is not 

currently administering the NOX Budget 

Trading Program. Nonetheless, all states 

regardless of the current status of their 

regulations that previously required 

participation in the NOX Budget Trading 

Program, will remain subject to all of 

the requirements in the NOX SIP Call 

even if the existing CAIR ozone season 

trading program is withdrawn or 

altered. In addition, the anti-backsliding 

provisions of 40 CFR 51.905(f) 

specifically provide that the provisions 

of the NOX SIP Call, including the 

statewide NOX emission budgets, 

continue to apply after revocation of the 

1-hour standard. 

All NOX SIP Call states have SIPs that 

currently satisfy their obligations under 

the NOX SIP Call; the NOX SIP Call 

reduction requirements are being met; 

and EPA will continue to enforce the 

requirements of the NOX SIP Call even 

after any response to the CAIR remand. 

For these reasons, EPA believes that 

regardless of the status of the CAIR 

program, the NOX SIP Call requirements 

can be relied upon in demonstrating 

maintenance. Here, the State has 

demonstrated maintenance based in part 

on those requirements. 

Criteria (4)—The Area Has a Fully 

Approved Maintenance Plan Pursuant 

to Section 175A of the CAA 

In conjunction with its request to 

redesignate the GSMNP 1997 8-hour 

ozone nonattainment area to attainment 

status, NC DAQ submitted a SIP 

revision to provide for the maintenance 

of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the 

GSMNP Area for at least 10 years after 

the effective date of redesignation to 

attainment. 

a. What is required in a maintenance 

plan? 

Section 175A of the CAA sets forth 

the elements of a maintenance plan for 

areas seeking redesignation from 

nonattainment to attainment. Under 

section 175A, the plan must 

demonstrate continued attainment of 

the applicable NAAQS for at least 10 

years after the Administrator approves a 

redesignation to attainment. Eight years 

after the redesignation, the State of 

North Carolina must submit a revised 

maintenance plan, which demonstrates 

that attainment will continue to be 

maintained for the 10 years following 

the initial 10-year period. To address 

the possibility of future NAAQS 

violations, the maintenance plan must 

contain such contingency measures, 

with a schedule for implementation as 

EPA deems necessary to assure prompt 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
53208 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 199 / Friday, October 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

correction of any future 8-hour ozone 

violations. Section 175A of the CAA sets 

forth the elements of a maintenance 

plan for areas seeking redesignation 

from nonattainment to attainment. The 

Calcagni Memorandum provides 

additional guidance on the content of a 

maintenance plan. The Calcagni 

Memorandum explains that an ozone 

maintenance plan should address five 

requirements: the attainment emissions 

inventory, maintenance demonstration, 

monitoring, verification of continued 

attainment, and a contingency plan. As 

is discussed more fully below, North 

Carolina’s maintenance plan includes 

all the necessary components and is 

approvable as part of the redesignation 

request. 

b. Attainment Emissions Inventory 

North Carolina selected 2005 as ‘‘the 

attainment year’’ for the GSMNP Area 

for the purpose of demonstrating 

attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. This attainment inventory 

identifies the level of emissions in the 

area, which is sufficient to attain the 

1997 8-hour ozone standard. North 

Carolina began development of this 

attainment inventory by first developing 

a baseline emissions inventory for the 

GSMNP Area. The year 2005 was 

chosen as the base year for developing 

a comprehensive ozone precursor 

emissions inventory for which projected 

emissions could be developed for 2008, 

2011, 2014, 2017 and 2020. Non-road 

mobile emissions estimates were based 

on the EPA’s NONROAD2005c model. 

On-road mobile source emissions were 

calculated using EPA’s MOBILE6.2 

emission factors model. The 2005 VOC 

and NOX emissions, as well as the 

emissions for other years, for the 

GSMNP Area were developed consistent 

with EPA guidance, and are 

summarized in Tables 8 and 9. 

TABLE 8—GSMNP AREA VOC EMISSIONS (TPD) 

Source category 2005 2008 2011 2014 2017 2020 

Area .......................................................................................................... 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 

Mobile ....................................................................................................... 0.41 0.36 0.32 0.27 0.24 0.22 

Nonroad ................................................................................................... 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Total ......................................................................................................... 0.58 0.53 0.49 0.44 0.41 0.39 

TABLE 9—GSMNP AREA NOX EMISSIONS (TPD) 

Source category 2005 2008 2011 2014 2017 2020 

Area .......................................................................................................... 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Mobile ....................................................................................................... 0.26 0.23 0.20 0.17 0.15 0.14 

Nonroad ................................................................................................... 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Total ......................................................................................................... 0.26 0.23 0.20 0.17 0.15 0.14 

Biogenic emissions are estimated 

using models developed by EPA. The 

biogenic emissions were obtained from 

modeling using available data a typical 

summer day’s emissions and 2002 

meteorology. Biogenic emissions are not 

expected to vary significantly year to 

year. Since these emissions are reported 

at the county level, the biogenic 

emissions for the GSMNP Area were 

estimated by taking the county area 

fraction of the GSMNP Area in 

Haywood and Swain Counties, 

respectively. Biogenic VOC emissions 

are estimated to be 48.50 tpd. 

c. Maintenance Demonstration 

The July 24, 2009, submittal includes 

a maintenance plan for the GSMNP 

Area. This demonstration: 

(i) Shows compliance with and 

maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard by providing information to 

support the demonstration that current 

and future emissions of VOC and NOX

remain at or below attainment year 2005 

emissions levels. The year 2005 was 

chosen as the attainment year because it 

is one of the most recent three years (i.e. 

2004, 2005, and 2006) for which the 

GSMNP Area has clean air quality data 

for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. 

(ii) Uses 2005 as the attainment year 

and includes future emission inventory 

projections for 2008, 2011, 2014, 2017 

and 2020. 

(iii) Identifies an ‘‘out year,’’ at least 

10 years after the time necessary for 

EPA to review and approve the 

maintenance plan. Per 40 CFR part 93, 

regional NOX MVEBs were established 

for the last year (2020) of the 

maintenance plan. Additionally, North 

Carolina chose, through interagency 

consultation, to establish MVEBs for the 

year 2011 for NOX, and to determine 

insignificance for VOC for the GSMNP 

Area. See, section VII below. 

(iv) Provides actual and projected 

emissions inventories, in tpd for the 

GSMNP Area. See Tables 8 and 9. 

d. Monitoring Network 

There is currently one monitor 

measuring ozone in the GSMNP Area. 

North Carolina has committed in the 

maintenance plan to continue the 

operation of this monitor in compliance 

with 40 CFR part 58, and has addressed 

the requirement for monitoring. 

e. Verification of Continued Attainment 

North Carolina has the legal authority 

to enforce and implement the 

requirements of the ozone maintenance 

plan for the GSMNP Area. This includes 

the authority to adopt, implement and 

enforce any subsequent emissions 

control contingency measures 

determined to be necessary to correct 

future ozone attainment problems. 

North Carolina will track the progress of 

the maintenance plan by performing 

future reviews of actual emissions for 

the Area using the latest emissions 

factors, models and methodologies. For 

these periodic inventories, North 

Carolina will review the assumptions 

made for the purpose of the 

maintenance demonstration concerning 

projected growth of activity levels. If 

any of these assumptions appear to have 

changed substantially, North Carolina 

will re-project emissions. 

f. Contingency Plan 

The contingency plan provisions are 

designed to promptly correct a violation 

of the NAAQS that occurs after 

redesignation. Section 175A of the CAA 

requires that a maintenance plan 

include such contingency measures as 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 199 / Friday, October 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules 53209 

EPA deems necessary to assure that the 

state will promptly correct a violation of 

the NAAQS that occurs after 

redesignation. The maintenance plan 

should identify the contingency 

measures to be adopted, a schedule and 

procedure for adoption and 

implementation, and a time limit for 

action by the state. A state should also 

identify specific indicators to be used to 

determine when the contingency 

measures need to be implemented. The 

maintenance plan must include a 

requirement that a state will implement 

all measures with respect to control of 

the pollutant that were contained in the 

SIP before redesignation of the area to 

attainment in accordance with section 

175A(d). 

In the July 24, 2009, submittal, North 

Carolina affirms that all programs 

instituted by the State and EPA will 

remain enforceable, and there are no 

permitted point sources within the 

GSMNP Area. The contingency plan 

included in the submittal provides 

tracking and triggering mechanisms to 

determine when contingency measures 

are needed and a process of developing 

and adopting appropriate control 

measures. The primary trigger of the 

contingency plan will be a violation of 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS or when 

the three-year average of the fourthhighest value is equal to or greater than 

0.085 ppm at the monitor. The trigger 

date will be 60 days from the date that 

the State observes a fourth-highest value 

that, when averaged with the two 

previous ozone seasons’ fourth highest 

values, would result in a three-year 

average equal to or greater than 0.085 

ppm. 

The secondary trigger will apply 

where no actual violation of the 1997 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 fourthhighest values are 0.085 ppm or greater 

at the monitor within the GSMNP Area. 

The trigger date will be 60 days from 

the date that the State observes a fourthhighest value of 0.085 ppm or greater at 

the monitor for which the previous 

season had a fourth-highest value of 

0.085 ppm or greater. Once one of the 

triggers is activated, the Planning 

Section of the NC DAQ shall commence 

analyses including trajectory analyses of 

high ozone days, and emissions 

inventory assessment to determine the 

cause of the ozone transport into the 

GSMNP Area. 

The NC DAQ considered what 

additional measures could be 

implemented; however, as mentioned 

earlier, exceedances are at night and are 

the result of ozone transported into the 

nonattainment area from outside 

regions. Additionally, the GSMNP Area 

is already taking measures to reduce 

emissions within the Park to include 

Stage I vapor recovery on gasoline 

stations located in the Park, along with 

having an Air Quality Action Day 

Program in place that includes the 

following measures: 

a. Encouraging employees to decrease 

vehicle use by car pooling and reducing 

the number of non-essential trips; 

b. Fuel switching using biodiesel; 

c. Postponing or decreasing the use of 

mowers and other gasoline engine 

equipment until ozone levels drop; 

d. Encouraging refueling of vehicles 

in the early morning or late evening 

hours. Additionally, should one of the 

triggers occur, the NC DAQ will 

commence discussion amongst the 

stakeholders in the maintenance area 

regarding additional measures that 

could be implemented before the next 

ozone season. Such measures would 

likely relate to mobile sources within 

the maintenance area. 

Furthermore, the State will commence 

discussion with regulatory authorities 

responsible for upwind sources to 

determine additional actions to be 

implemented. 

These actions may include one or 

more of the following measures: 

* RACM for sources of NOX

* Reasonably Available Control 

Technology for existing point sources of 

NOX

* Mobile Source Measures 

* Additional NOX reduction 

measures yet to be identified. 

If the cause of the ozone transport is 

due to sources within North Carolina, 

by May 1st of the year following the 

ozone season in which the trigger has 

been activated, North Carolina will 

complete sufficient analyses to begin 

adoption of necessary rules for ensuring 

attainment and maintenance of the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS. The rules would 

become State effective by the following 

January 1st, unless legislative review is 

required. It is the States’ aim to ensure 

that at least one of these measures be 

implemented within 18 to 24 months 

from the trigger being activated. 

If the cause of the ozone transport is 

from sources outside of North Carolina, 

then the NC DAQ will begin working 

with neighboring states to resolve the 

ozone transport issue. North Carolina 

has already filed a section 126 petition 

in order to ensure that adjacent states 

reduce their utility emissions in a 

timely manner. 

VII. What Is EPA’s Analysis of North 

Carolina’s Proposed VOC Insignificance 

Determination for Conformity and the 

Proposed NOX MVEBs for the GSMNP 

Area? 

Today’s actions address two related 

elements regarding on-road motor 

vehicle emissions and the requirement 

to establish MVEBs. First, EPA is 

proposing to find that the VOC emission 

contribution from motor vehicles to 8- 

hour ozone pollution for the 1997 

standard in the GSMNP Area is 

insignificant for transportation 

conformity. The result of this finding, if 

finalized, is that North Carolina need 

not develop an MVEB for VOC for the 

GSMNP Area. See below for further 

information on the insignificance 

determination. Second, EPA is 

proposing to approve the NOX MVEBs 

for the GSMNP Area. 

A. Proposed VOC Insignificance 

Determination for Transportation 

Conformity 

In certain instances, the 

Transportation Conformity Rule allows 

areas not to establish an MVEB where it 

is demonstrated that the regional motor 

vehicle emissions for a particular 

pollutant/precursor is an insignificant 

contributor to the air quality problem in 

an area. The general criteria for 

insignificance findings can be found in 

40 CFR 93.109(k). Insignificance 

determinations are based on a number 

of factors, including (1) the percentage 

of motor vehicle emissions in context of 

the total SIP inventory; (2) the current 

state of air quality as determined by 

monitoring data for that NAAQS; (3) the 

absence of SIP motor vehicle control 

measures; and (4) historical trends and 

future projections of the growth of 

motor vehicle emissions. EPA’s 

rationale for the providing for 

insignificance determinations is 

described in the July 1, 2004, revision 

to the Transportation Conformity Rule 

at 69 FR 40004. Specifically, the 

rationale is explained on page 40061 

under the subsection entitled ‘‘XXIII. B. 

Areas With Insignificant Motor Vehicle 

Emissions.’’ Any insignificance 

determination under review of EPA is 

subject to the adequacy and approval 

process for EPA’s action on the SIP. 

Through the adequacy and SIP 

approval process, EPA may find that a 

SIP demonstrates that regional motor 

vehicle emissions are an insignificant 

contributor to the air quality problem 

for the pollutant/precursor at issue. In 

the case of the GSMNP Area, EPA 

intends to make its finding as part of 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
53210 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 199 / Friday, October 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

EPA’s final action on this redesignation 

request of North Carolina for the 

GSMNP Area. Upon the effective date of 

EPA’s adequacy finding or the 

publication date of the final rule for this 

SIP revision (i.e., which includes the 

VOC insignificance determination), 

federal regulations waive the regional 

emissions analysis requirements (for the 

purpose of transportation conformity 

implementation) for the relevant 

pollutant or precursor. Areas with 

insignificant regional motor vehicle 

emissions for a pollutant or precursor 

are still required to make a conformity 

determination that satisfies other 

relevant requirements. Additionally, 

such areas are required to satisfy the 

regional emissions analysis 

requirements for pollutants or 

precursors for which EPA has not made 

a finding of insignificance. 

The maintenance plan for the GSMNP 

Area, included as part of the SIP 

revision, contains MVEBs for NOX and 

an insignificance determination for 

conformity for the VOC contribution 

from motor vehicles to the 8-hour ozone 

pollution for the 1997 standard in the 

GSMNP Area. As part of the preparation 

for its redesignation request, North 

Carolina consulted with the interagency 

consultation group for the GSMNP Area 

regarding the insignificance 

determination for transportation 

conformity for VOC. For the purposes of 

regional emissions analysis, the 

information provided by North Carolina 

supports EPA’s proposal to determine 

VOC contribution to 8-hour ozone 

pollution from motor vehicles in the 

GSMNP Area as insignificant for 

conformity. The information provided 

by North Carolina to EPA as part of the 

SIP revision addresses each of the 

factors listed in 40 CFR 93.109(k), and 

is summarized below. 

According to information provided by 

North Carolina, biogenic emissions 

account for approximately 99 percent of 

the VOC emissions in future years in the 

GSMNP Area. On-road VOC emissions 

are projected to decline by about 54 

percent by 2020 despite vehicle miles 

traveled going up by about 25 to 30 

percent by 2020 and total non 

anthropogenic VOC are projected to 

decline from 0.58 to 0.39 tpd by 2020. 

Similarly, the current state of air quality 

in the GSMNP Area is steadily 

improving. The current ozone design 

value in the GSMNP Area is 0.077 ppm 

based on data from 2006–2008. This is 

well below the NAAQS of 0.084 ppm. 

In addition, North Carolina conducted 

a sensitivity analysis (a photochemical 

model) that indicated that 8-hour ozone 

levels in the GSMNP Area were not 

impacted by reductions in man-made 

VOC emissions (i.e., reductions from 

motor vehicles). Specifically, the 

photochemical model was run with a 

modeled 30 percent reduction in manmade VOC emissions, which is 

equivalent to a 33 percent highway 

mobile VOC reduction in 2009 for a 39- 

day period (June 1–July 9). In all 39 

days of the modeling simulation, the 8- 

hour ozone maximum concentrations 

were not changed in Haywood and 

Swain Counties, which is a clear 

indication that highway mobile VOC is 

an insignificant contributor to ozone 

formation in that Area. In comparison, 

biogenic emissions are expected to 

account for at least 98 percent of the 

total inventory for VOC emissions. As 

discussed in North Carolina’s submittal, 

the biogenic sector is the most abundant 

source of VOC in North Carolina and 

accounts for approximately 98 percent 

of the total VOC emissions statewide. As 

a result, the information provided by 

North Carolina indicates that VOC 

contribution to 8-hour ozone pollution 

from motor vehicle emissions is 

insignificant. 

With regard to the factor relating to 

the absence of motor vehicle control 

measures in the SIP, EPA considered the 

existence of an inspection and 

maintenance (I/M) program in the North 

Carolina SIP, and its implementation in 

the individual counties comprising the 

GSMNP Area. The I/M program was not 

added to the North Carolina SIP as a 

VOC control measure, but rather, a NOX

control measure. The I/M program is 

currently being implemented in one of 

the counties (i.e. Haywood County) in 

the GSMNP Area. Implementation of the 

I/M program in the GSMNP Area began 

from July 2005, and continues to be 

ongoing in the Area. In North Carolina’s 

SIP submittal, the State explains that the 

I/M program was established to achieve 

additional reductions in NOX emissions. 

As a result, the existence of this 

program in the SIP for the purpose of 

NOX reductions does not prohibit EPA 

from finding the VOC contribution to 8- 

hour ozone pollution from motor 

vehicles insignificant. 

After evaluating the information 

provided by North Carolina and 

weighing the factors for the 

insignificance determination outlined in 

40 CFR 93.109(k), particularly the 

biogenic contribution to the overall VOC 

inventory, EPA is now proposing to 

approve North Carolina’s determination 

that the VOC contribution from motor 

vehicle emissions to the 8-hour ozone 

pollution for the GSMNP Area is 

insignificant for purposes of conformity. 

If this finding is completed through the 

adequacy process (see Section VIII 

below) or approved through the final 

rulemaking on this SIP submission, the 

insignificance determination should be 

considered and specifically noted in the 

transportation conformity document 

that is prepared for this Area. 

B. Proposed Regional NOX MVEBs 

Under the CAA, states are required to 

submit, at various times, control strategy 

SIPs and maintenance plans in ozone 

areas. These control strategy SIPs 

(reasonable further progress and 

attainment demonstration) and 

maintenance plans create MVEBs for 

criteria pollutants and/or their 

precursors to address pollution from 

cars and trucks. Per 40 CFR part 93, an 

MVEB is established for the last year of 

the maintenance plan. A state may 

adopt MVEBs for other years as well. 

The MVEB is the portion of the total 

allowable emissions in the maintenance 

demonstration that is allocated to 

highway and transit vehicle use and 

emissions. See, 40 CFR 93.101. The 

MVEB serves as a ceiling on emissions 

from an area’s planned transportation 

system. The MVEB concept is further 

explained in the preamble to the 

November 24, 1993, transportation 

conformity rule (58 FR 62188). The 

preamble also describes how to 

establish the MVEB in the SIP and how 

to revise the MVEB. 

North Carolina, after interagency 

consultation with the transportation 

partners for the GSMNP Area, has 

elected to develop regional MVEBs for 

NOX. North Carolina is developing these 

MVEBs, as required, for the last year of 

its maintenance plan, 2020, and for an 

additional year, 2011. The NOX MVEBs 

for the GSMNP Area are defined in 

Table 10 below. 

TABLE 10—GSMNP AREA NOX

MVEBS (KILOGRAMS PER DAY) 

2011 2020 

NOX MVEB ....................... 179.9 127.0 

Through this rulemaking, EPA is 

proposing to approve the 2011 and 2020 

MVEBs for NOX for the GSMNP Area 

because EPA has determined that the 

Area maintains the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard with the emissions at the 

levels of the budgets. As mentioned 

above, these MVEBs are for the entire 

GSMNP Area in North Carolina. Once 

the new MVEBs for the GSMNP Area 

(the subject of this rulemaking) are 

approved or found adequate (whichever 

is done first), they must be used for 

future conformity determinations. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 199 / Friday, October 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules 53211 

VIII. What Is an Adequacy 

Determination? 

As discussed above, the MVEB is the 

portion of the total allowable emissions 

in the maintenance demonstration that 

is allocated to highway and transit 

vehicle use and emissions. The MVEB 

concept is further explained in the 

preamble to the November 24, 1993, 

transportation conformity rule (58 FR 

62188). The preamble also describes 

how to establish the MVEB in the SIP 

and how to revise the MVEB. 

Additionally, the transportation 

conformity rule (see 93.109(k)) allows 

for areas not to establish a MVEB for a 

particular pollutant or precursor if it can 

be demonstrated that motor vehicle 

emissions contributions do not 

significantly contribute to an area’s 

pollution. North Carolina’s submittal for 

this area establishes MVEBs for NOX

and provides an insignificance 

determination for VOC contribution. 

Under section 176(c) of the CAA, new 

transportation projects, such as the 

construction of new highways, must 

‘‘conform’’ to (i.e., be consistent with) 

the part of the state’s air quality plan 

that addresses pollution from cars and 

trucks. ‘‘Conformity’’ to the SIP means 

that transportation activities will not 

cause new air quality violations, worsen 

existing violations, or delay timely 

attainment of the NAAQS. If a 

transportation plan does not ‘‘conform,’’ 

most new projects that would expand 

the capacity of roadways cannot go 

forward. Regulations at 40 CFR part 93 

set forth EPA policy, criteria, and 

procedures for demonstrating and 

assuring conformity of such 

transportation activities to a SIP. The 

regional emissions analysis is one, but 

not the only requirement for 

implementing transportation 

conformity. Transportation conformity 

is a requirement for nonattainment and 

maintenance areas. Maintenance areas 

are areas that were previously 

nonattainment for a particular NAAQS 

but have since been redesignated to 

attainment with a maintenance plan for 

that NAAQS. 

When reviewing submitted ‘‘control 

strategy’’ SIPs or maintenance plans 

containing MVEBs, EPA must 

affirmatively find the MVEB contained 

therein ‘‘adequate’’ for use in 

determining transportation conformity. 

Once EPA affirmatively finds the 

submitted MVEB is adequate for 

transportation conformity purposes, that 

MVEB can be used by State and Federal 

agencies in determining whether 

proposed transportation projects 

‘‘conform’’ to the SIP as required by 

section 176(c) of the CAA. 

EPA’s substantive criteria for 

determining ‘‘adequacy’’ of an MVEB, 

including EPA’s determination that an 

MVEB need not be established because 

of an insignificance determination, are 

set out in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). The 

process for determining ‘‘adequacy’’ 

consists of three basic steps: Public 

notification of a SIP submission, a 

public comment period, and EPA’s 

adequacy finding. This process for 

determining the adequacy of submitted 

SIP MVEBs was initially outlined in 

EPA’s May 14, 1999, guidance, 

‘‘Conformity Guidance on 

Implementation of March 2, 1999, 

Conformity Court Decision.’’ This 

guidance was finalized in the 

Transportation Conformity Rule 

Amendments for the ‘‘New 8-Hour 

Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards and Miscellaneous 

Revisions for Existing Areas; 

transportation conformity rule 

amendments—Response to Court 

Decision and Additional Rule Change,’’ 

on July 1, 2004 (69 FR 40004). EPA 

follows this guidance and rulemaking in 

making its adequacy determinations. 

EPA must also use a similar process to 

determine the adequacy of an 

insignificance determination that is 

submitted by a state as a part of a 

control strategy SIP or maintenance 

plan. Additional information on the 

adequacy process for both MVEBs and 

insignificance determinations is 

available in the proposed rule entitled, 

‘‘Transportation Conformity Rule 

Amendments: Response to Court 

Decision and Additional Rule Changes,’’ 

68 FR 38974, 38984 (June 30, 2003). 

IX. What Is the Status of EPA’s 

Adequacy Determination for the 

Regional NOX MVEBs for the Years 

2011 and 2020, and the VOC 

Insignificance Determination? 

As discussed earlier, North Carolina’s 

maintenance plan submission includes 

new NOX MVEBs for the GSMNP Area 

for the years 2011 and 2020. 

Additionally, the maintenance plan 

included a VOC insignificance 

determination for the entire GSMNP 

Area, and therefore, no MVEB for VOC 

is included as part of the SIP revision. 

EPA is reviewing both the NOX MVEBs 

and the VOC insignificance 

determination through the adequacy 

process. The North Carolina SIP 

submission, including the GSMNP Area 

NOX MVEBs and the VOC insignificance 

determination, was open for public 

comment on EPA’s adequacy Web site 

on May 18, 2009, found at: http:// 

www.epa.gov/ataq/stateresoures/ 

transconf/currsips.htm. The EPA public 

comment period on adequacy of the 

2011 and 2020 NOX MVEBs, and VOC 

insignificance determination closed on 

June 17, 2009. There were no comments 

on the North Carolina submission. 

EPA intends to make its 

determination on the adequacy of the 

2011 and 2020 NOX MVEBs, and the 

VOC insignificance determination for 

the GSMNP Area for transportation 

conformity purposes in the final 

rulemaking on the redesignation of the 

GSMNP Area. If EPA finds the 2011 and 

2020 NOX MVEBs, and the VOC 

insignificance determination adequate 

or approves these MVEBs and the VOC 

insignificance determination in the final 

rulemaking action, the new MVEBs for 

NOX must be used, and the VOC 

insignificance determination should be 

noted, for future transportation 

conformity determinations. If the new 

2011 and 2020 NOX MVEBs are found 

adequate, and both the NOX MVEBs and 

the related VOC insignificance 

determination are approved in the final 

rulemaking, the NOX MVEBs and the 

VOC insignificance determination will 

be effective on the date of publication of 

EPA’s final rulemaking in the Federal 

Register. For required regional 

emissions analysis years that involve 

the year 2019 or before, the applicable 

budget for the purposes of conducting 

transportation conformity will be the 

new 2011 NOX MVEBs for the GSMNP 

Area. For required regional emissions 

analysis years that involve 2020 or 

beyond, the applicable budgets will be 

the new 2020 NOX MVEBs. Both the 

2011 and 2020 NOX MVEBs are defined 

in section VII of this proposed 

rulemaking. More detail on the VOC 

insignificance determination can be 

found in section VII of this proposed 

rulemaking as well. 

X. Proposed Action on the 

Redesignation Request and 

Maintenance Plan SIP Revision 

Including Proposed Approval of the 

2011 and 2020 NOX MVEBs, and the 

Proposed VOC Insignificance 

Determination for the GSMNP Area 

EPA is proposing to make the 

determination that the GSMNP Area has 

met the criteria for redesignation from 

nonattainment to attainment for the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. This 

proposed approval of North Carolina’s 

redesignation request is based on EPA’s 

determination that North Carolina has 

demonstrated that the GSMNP Area has 

met the criteria for redesignation to 

attainment specified in the CAA, 

including the determination that the 

entire GSMNP 1997 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment area has attained the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
53212 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 199 / Friday, October 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

Specifically, EPA is proposing to 

approve the maintenance plan for the 

GSMNP Area included as part of the 

July 24, 2009, SIP revision. The 

maintenance plan includes NOX MVEBs 

for 2011 and 2020, and a VOC 

insignificance determination for motor 

vehicles’ contribution to the ozone 

pollution in this Area, among other 

requirements. EPA is proposing to 

approve the 2011 and 2020 regional 

NOX MVEBs for the GSMNP Area 

because the maintenance plan 

demonstrates that even with expected 

emissions for all other source categories, 

the GSMNP Area will continue to 

maintain the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard. EPA is also proposing to 

approve the insignificance 

determination for the VOC contribution 

from motor vehicle emissions to the 8- 

hour ozone pollution for the 1997 

standard for the GSMNP Area. 

Further as part of today’s action, EPA 

is describing the status of its adequacy 

determination for the 2011 and 2020 

NOX MVEBs, and VOC insignificance 

determination, in accordance with 40 

CFR 93.118(f)(1). If transportation 

conformity is needed to be implemented 

in this Area, the transportation partners 

will need to demonstrate conformity to 

the new NOX MVEBs pursuant to 40 

CFR 93.104(e). Additionally, the 

transportation partners should note 

EPA’s finding of adequacy and approval 

for the VOC insignificance 

determination for future conformity 

determinations. 

XI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed 

action is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ and therefore is not subject to 

review by the Office of Management and 

Budget. For this reason, this action is 

also not subject to Executive Order 

13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001). This proposed action merely 

proposes to approve state law as 

meeting Federal requirements and 

imposes no additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. 

Redesignation of an area to attainment 

under section 107(d)(3)(e) of the CAA 

does not impose any new requirements 

on small entities. Redesignation is an 

action that affects the status of a 

geographical area and does not impose 

any new regulatory requirements on 

sources. Accordingly, the Administrator 

certifies that this proposed rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule 

proposes to approve pre-existing 

requirements under state law and does 

not impose any additional enforceable 

duty beyond that required by state law, 

it does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4). 

This proposed rule also does not have 

tribal implications because it will not 

have a substantial direct effect on one or 

more Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes, 

as specified by Executive Order 13175 

(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This 

action also does not have Federalism 

implications because it does not have 

substantial direct effects on the states, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999). This action merely 

affects the status of a geographical area, 

does not impose any new requirements 

on sources, or allow a state to avoid 

adopting or implementing other 

requirements and does not alter the 

relationship or the distribution of power 

and responsibilities established in the 

CAA. This proposed rule also is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

‘‘Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

because it is not economically 

significant and because the Agency does 

not have reason to believe that the rule 

concerns an environmental health risk 

or safety risk that may 

disproportionately affect children. 

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s 

role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. In this context, in the absence 

of a prior existing requirement for the 

State to use voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 

to disapprove a SIP submission for 

failure to use VCS. It would thus be 

inconsistent with applicable law for 

EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission; 

to use VCS in place of a SIP submission 

that otherwise satisfies the provisions of 

the CAA. Redesignation is an action that 

affects the status of a geographical area 

but does not impose any new 

requirements on sources. Thus, the 

requirements of section 12(d) of the 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 

272 note) do not apply. This proposed 

rule does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Incorporation by reference, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

40 CFR Part 81 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, National parks, 

Wilderness areas. 

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

Dated: September 29, 2009 

Beverly H. Banister, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. E9–24818 Filed 10–15–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS