7970 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 29 / Friday, February 11, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

accident avoidance. FAA experience has 

clearly established that an ASAP can 

produce safety-related data that is not 

available from any other source. For 

example, ASAP reports concerning 

altitude deviations have identified 

common causal factors that produce 

such incidents. Receipt of this 

previously unavailable information has 

provided the FAA with an improved 

basis for modifying procedures, policies, 

and regulations in order to improve 

safety and efficiency. 

E. Summary of why withholding such 

information from disclosure would be 

consistent with the FAA’s safety and 

security responsibilities, including a 

statement as to the circumstances under 

which, and a summary of why, 

withholding such information from 

disclosure would not be consistent with 

the FAA’s safety and security 

responsibilities, as described in 14 CFR 

193.9. 

Withholding ASAP information from 

disclosure is consistent with the FAA’s 

safety and security responsibilities 

because, unless the FAA can provide 

assurance that it will not be disclosed, 

the FAA will likely not receive the 

information. If the FAA does not receive 

the information, the FAA will be 

hampered in efforts to understand 

safety-related issues within an eligible 

entity’s operational environment and 

ensure safety improvements that receipt 

of the information otherwise enables. 

The FAA may disclose information 

submitted to the agency that is 

designated as protected under part 193 

when withholding it would not be 

consistent with the FAA’s safety and 

security responsibilities under the 

circumstances described in 14 CFR 

193.9(a)(1)–(4). For example, to explain 

the need for changes in FAA policies, 

procedures, and regulations, the FAA 

may disclose de-identified (i.e., no 

eligible entity or employee identity) and 

summarized information that has been 

derived from ASAP information or 

extracted from reports under ASAP. The 

FAA may disclose de-identified or 

summarized ASAP information that 

identifies a systemic problem in the 

aviation system when other people need 

to be advised of the problem in order to 

take corrective action. 

F. Summary of how the FAA will 

distinguish information protected under 

part 193 from information the FAA 

receives from other sources. 

The process for distinguishing 

information from the eligible entities as 

protected will remain unchanged. All 

employee ASAP reports are clearly 

labeled as such. A single report must be 

signed by all employees seeking the 

enforcement incentives available under 

an ASAP for the event. Any such 

employee must submit a separate signed 

report. 

Any other information received by the 

FAA from the eligible entity concerning 

the content of ASAP reports (such as 

statistical analyses, program review 

reports, and trend information), must be 

clearly labeled as follows in order to be 

protected under this designation: 

WARNING: The information in this 

document may be protected from 

disclosure under 49 U.S.C., section 

40123 and 14 CFR part 193. 

G. Proposed Designation. 

Accordingly, the FAA hereby 

proposes to designate the previously 

described information to be protected 

from disclosure in accordance with 49 

U.S.C. 40123 and 14 CFR part 193, 

when submitted pursuant to an 

approved ASAP program. 

V. Comments Invited 

The FAA invites interested persons to 

comment on the proposed amended 

designation by submitting written 

comments, data, views. The Agency also 

invites comments relating to the 

economic, environmental, energy, or 

federalism, impacts that might result 

from adopting the proposal in this 

notice. 

The FAA will file in the docket all 

comments it receives, as well as a report 

summarizing each substantive public 

contact with FAA personnel concerning 

this proposed designation. Before taking 

action on this proposed designation, the 

FAA will consider all comments it 

receives on or before the closing date for 

comments. The FAA will consider 

comments filed after the comment 

period has closed if it is possible to do 

so without incurring expense or delay. 

The Agency may change this proposal 

in light of the comments it receives. 

VI. Availability of Proposed 

Designation 

An electronic copy of the proposed 

designation may be obtained from the 

internet by— 

1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking 

Portal (https://www.regulations.gov); 

2. Visiting the FAA’s Regulations and 

Policies web page at https://

www.faa.gov/regulations_policies; or 

3. Accessing the Government 

Publishing Office’s web page at https:// 

www.govinfo.gov. 

Issued in Washington, DC. 

Robert C. Carty, 

Acting Executive Director, Flight Standards 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2022–02726 Filed 2–10–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2021–0062; FRL–9504–01– 

R4] 

Air Plan Approval; NC; Great Smoky 

Mountains National Park, RaleighDurham-Chapel Hill and Rocky Mount 

Areas Limited Maintenance Plans for 

the 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

state implementation plan (SIP) 

revisions submitted by the State of 

North Carolina, through the North 

Carolina Department of Environment 

and Natural Resources, Division of Air 

Quality (NCDAQ), in a letter dated 

September 22, 2020. The SIP revisions 

include the 1997 8-hour ozone national 

ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) 

Limited Maintenance Plans (LMPs) for 

the Great Smoky Mountains National 

Park (GSMNP), Raleigh-Durham-Chapel 

Hill (Triangle) and Rocky Mount, North 

Carolina Areas (collectively, ‘‘Areas’’). 

EPA is proposing to approve the LMPs 

for the Areas because each LMP 

provides for the maintenance of the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS within each 

of the Areas through the end of the 

second 10-year portion of the 

maintenance period. The effect of this 

action would be to make certain 

commitments related to maintenance of 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the 

Areas federally-enforceable as part of 

the North Carolina SIP. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received at the address below on or 

before March 14, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2021–0062 at https://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 

EPA may publish any comment received 

to its public docket. Do not submit 

electronically any information you 

consider to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Multimedia submissions (audio, video, 

etc.) must be accompanied by a written 

comment. The written comment is 

considered the official comment and 

should include discussion of all points 

you wish to make. EPA will generally 

not consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 29 / Friday, February 11, 2022 / Proposed Rules 7971 

1See 69 FR 23857. 

2See 72 FR 72948 (December 26, 2007), 74 FR 

63995 (December 7, 2009), and 71 FR 64891 

(November 6, 2006). 

3See ‘‘Fact Sheet, Proposal to Revise the National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone,’’ January 

6, 2010, and 75 FR 2938 (January 19, 2010). 

4 In March 2008, EPA completed another review 

of the primary and secondary ozone NAAQS and 

tightened them further by lowering the level for 

both to 0.075 ppm. See 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 

2008). Additionally, in October 2015, EPA 

completed a review of the primary and secondary 

ozone NAAQS and tightened them by lowering the 

level for both to 0.070 ppm. See 80 FR 65292 

(October 26, 2015). 

5See 69 FR 23858. 

6See 77 FR 30088. 

7See 82 FR 54232. 

8Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA sets out the 

requirements for redesignating a nonattainment area 

to attainment. They include attainment of the 

NAAQS, full approval of the applicable SIP 

pursuant to CAA section 110(k), determination that 

improvement in air quality is a result of permanent 

and enforceable reductions in emissions, 

demonstration that the state has met all applicable 

section 110 and part D requirements, and a fully 

Continued 

submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or 

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, the full 

EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Dianna Myers, Air Regulatory 

Management Section, Air Planning and 

Implementation Branch, Air and 

Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth 

Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. 

The telephone number is (404) 562– 

9207. Ms. Myers can also be reached via 

electronic mail at myers.dianna@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Summary of EPA’s Proposed Action 

II. Background 

III. North Carolina’s SIP Submittals 

IV. EPA’s Evaluation of North Carolina’s SIP 

Submittals 

A. Attainment Emissions Inventory 

B. Maintenance Demonstration 

C. Monitoring Network and Verification of 

Continued Attainment 

D. Contingency Plan 

E. Conclusion 

V. Transportation Conformity and General 

Conformity 

VI. Proposed Action 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Summary of EPA’s Proposed Action 

In accordance with the Clean Air Act 

(CAA or Act), EPA is proposing to 

approve the GSMNP, Triangle and 

Rocky Mount LMPs for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS, adopted and submitted 

by NCDAQ as revisions to the North 

Carolina SIP on September 22, 2020. On 

April 15, 2004, EPA published a final 

rule designating the GSMNP, Triangle 

and Rocky Mount Areas nonattainment 

for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.1

Subsequently, EPA approved 

maintenance plans and redesignated the 

Triangle, GSMNP, and Rocky Mount 

Areas attainment for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS.2

The Areas’ LMPs for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS, submitted by NCDAQ 

on September 22, 2020, are designed to 

maintain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

within the GSMNP, Triangle and Rocky 

Mount Areas through the end of the 

second 10-year portion of the 

maintenance period beyond 

redesignation. EPA is proposing to 

approve the plans because they meet all 

applicable requirements under CAA 

sections 110 and 175A. 

As a general matter, the GSMNP, 

Triangle and Rocky Mount LMPs for the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS rely on the 

same control measures and contingency 

provisions to maintain the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS during the second 10- 

year portion of each area’s maintenance 

period as the maintenance plans 

submitted by NCDAQ for the first 10- 

year period. 

II. Background 

Ground-level ozone is formed when 

oxides of nitrogen (NOX) and volatile 

organic compounds (VOC) react in the 

presence of sunlight. These two 

pollutants, referred to as ozone 

precursors, are emitted by many types of 

pollution sources, including on- and offroad motor vehicles and engines, power 

plants and industrial facilities, and 

smaller area sources such as lawn and 

garden equipment and paints. Scientific 

evidence indicates that adverse public 

health effects occur following exposure 

to ozone, particularly in children and 

adults with lung disease. Breathing air 

containing ozone can reduce lung 

function and inflame airways, which 

can increase respiratory symptoms and 

aggravate asthma and other lung 

diseases. 

Ozone exposure also has been 

associated with increased susceptibility 

to respiratory infections, medication 

use, doctor visits, and emergency 

department visits and hospital 

admissions for individuals with lung 

disease. Children are at increased risk 

from exposure to ozone because their 

lungs are still developing and they are 

more likely to be active outdoors, which 

increases their exposure.3

In 1979, under section 109 of the 

CAA, EPA established primary and 

secondary NAAQS for ozone at 0.12 

parts per million (ppm), averaged over 

a 1-hour period. See 44 FR 8202 

(February 8, 1979). On July 18, 1997, 

EPA revised the primary and secondary 

NAAQS for ozone to set the acceptable 

level of ozone in the ambient air at 0.08 

ppm, averaged over an 8-hour period. 

See 62 FR 38856 (July 18, 1997).4 EPA 

set the 8-hour ozone NAAQS based on 

scientific evidence demonstrating that 

ozone causes adverse health effects at 

lower concentrations and over longer 

periods of time than was understood 

when the pre-existing 1-hour ozone 

NAAQS was set. EPA determined that 

the 8-hour ozone NAAQS would be 

more protective of human health, 

especially in children and adults who 

are active outdoors, and individuals 

with a pre-existing respiratory disease, 

such as asthma. 

Following promulgation of a new or 

revised NAAQS, EPA is required by the 

CAA to designate areas throughout the 

nation as attaining or not attaining the 

NAAQS. On April 15, 2004, EPA 

designated the GSMNP, Triangle and 

Rocky Mount Areas nonattainment for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The 

GSMNP nonattainment area included 

portions of Haywood and Swain 

Counties. The Triangle nonattainment 

area included Durham, Franklin, 

Granville, Johnston, Orange, Person and 

Wake Counties in their entirety and the 

Townships of Baldwin, Center, New 

Hope and Williams in Chatham County. 

The Rocky Mount nonattainment area 

included Edgecombe and Nash Counties 

in their entirety. The designations 

became effective on June 15, 2004.5

Similarly, on May 21, 2012, EPA 

designated areas as unclassifiable/ 

attainment or nonattainment for the 

2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA 

designated the counties and townships 

that comprised the Areas as 

unclassifiable/attainment for the 2008 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS. These designations 

became effective on July 20, 2012.6 In 

addition, on November 16, 2017, areas 

were designated for the 2015 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. The counties and 

townships that comprised the Areas 

were designated as attainment/ 

unclassifiable for the 2015 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS, with an effective date on 

January 16, 2018.7

A state may submit a request to 

redesignate a nonattainment area that is 

attaining a NAAQS, and, if the area has 

met other required criteria described in 

section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA, EPA 

may approve the area’s redesignation to 

attainment.8 One of the criteria for 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
7972 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 29 / Friday, February 11, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

approved maintenance plan under CAA section 

175A. 

9See John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality 

Management Division, EPA Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, ‘‘Procedures for Processing 

Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,’’ 

September 4, 1992 (Calcagni memo). 

11See ‘‘Limited Maintenance Plan Option for 

Nonclassifiable Ozone Nonattainment Areas’’ from 

Sally L. Shaver, Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards (OAQPS), dated November 16, 1994; 

‘‘Limited Maintenance Plan Option for 

Nonclassifiable CO Nonattainment Areas’’ from 

Joseph Paisie, OAQPS, dated October 6, 1995; and 

‘‘Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Moderate 

PM10 Nonattainment Areas’’ from Lydia Wegman, 

OAQPS, dated August 9, 2001. Copies of these 

guidance memoranda can be found in the docket for 

this proposed rulemaking. 

12The prior memos addressed: Unclassifiable 

areas under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, 

nonattainment areas for the PM10 (particulate matter 

with an aerodynamic diameter less than 10 

microns) NAAQS, and nonattainment for the carbon 

monoxide (CO) NAAQS. 

13See, e.g., 79 FR 41900 (July 18, 2014) (Approval 

of second ten-year LMP for Grant County 1971 SO2

maintenance area). 

14See 74 FR 63995 (December 7, 2009). 

15See 72 FR 72948 (December 26, 2007). 

16See 71 FR 64891 (November 6, 2006). 

17See 80 FR 12264, 12315 (March 6, 2015). 

redesignation is to have an approved 

maintenance plan under CAA section 

175A. The maintenance plan must 

demonstrate that the area will continue 

to maintain the NAAQS for the period 

extending 10 years after redesignation, 

and it must contain such additional 

measures as necessary to ensure 

maintenance and such contingency 

provisions as necessary to assure that 

violations of the NAAQS will be 

promptly corrected. At the end of the 

eighth year after the effective date of 

redesignation, the state must also 

submit a second maintenance plan to 

ensure ongoing maintenance of the 

NAAQS for an additional ten years 

pursuant to CAA section 175A(b) (i.e., 

ensuring maintenance for 20 years after 

redesignation). 

EPA has published long-standing 

guidance for states on developing 

maintenance plans.9 The Calcagni 

memo provides that states may 

generally demonstrate maintenance by 

either performing air quality modeling 

to show that the future mix of sources 

and emission rates will not cause a 

violation of the NAAQS or by showing 

that projected future emissions of a 

pollutant and its precursors will not 

exceed the level of emissions during a 

year when the area was attaining the 

NAAQS (i.e., attainment year 

inventory). See Calcagni memo at page 

9. EPA clarified in three subsequent 

guidance memos that certain areas 

could meet the CAA section 175A 

requirement to provide for maintenance 

by showing that the area was unlikely 

to violate the NAAQS in the future, 

using information such as the area’s 

design value 10 being well below the 

standard and the area having a 

historically stable design value.11 EPA 

refers to a maintenance plan containing 

this streamlined demonstration as an 

LMP. 

EPA has interpreted CAA section 

175A as permitting the LMP option 

because section 175A of the Act does 

not define how areas may demonstrate 

maintenance, and in EPA’s experience 

implementing the various NAAQS, 

areas that qualify for an LMP and have 

approved LMPs have rarely, if ever, 

experienced subsequent violations of 

the NAAQS. As noted in the LMP 

guidance memoranda, states seeking an 

LMP must still submit the other 

maintenance plan elements outlined in 

the Calcagni memo, including: An 

attainment emissions inventory, 

provisions for the continued operation 

of the ambient air quality monitoring 

network, verification of continued 

attainment, and a contingency plan in 

the event of a future violation of the 

NAAQS. Moreover, states seeking an 

LMP must still submit their section 

175A maintenance plan as a revision to 

their SIP, with all attendant notice and 

comment procedures. While the LMP 

guidance memoranda were originally 

written with respect to certain 

NAAQS,12 EPA has extended the LMP 

interpretation of section 175A to other 

NAAQS and pollutants not specifically 

covered by the previous guidance 

memos.13

In this case, EPA is proposing to 

approve the Areas’ LMPs for the 1997 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS, because the State 

has made a showing, consistent with 

EPA’s prior LMP guidance, that the 

Areas’ ozone concentrations are well 

below the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

and have been historically stable and 

that it has met the other maintenance 

plan requirements. NCDAQ has 

submitted the LMPs for the GSMNP, 

Triangle and Rocky Mount 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS maintenance areas to 

fulfill the second maintenance plan 

requirement in the Act. EPA’s 

evaluation of the Areas’ LMPs for the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS is presented 

below. 

On July 24, 2009, NCDAQ submitted 

to EPA a request to redesignate the 

GSMNP Area to attainment for the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS. This submittal 

included a plan to provide for 

maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS in the GSMNP Area through 

2020 as a revision to the North Carolina 

SIP. EPA approved the GSMNP 

Maintenance Plan and the State’s 

request to redesignate the GSMNP Area 

to attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS effective January 6, 2010.14 On 

June 7, 2007, NCDAQ submitted to EPA 

a request to redesignate the Triangle 

Area to attainment for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. This submittal included 

a plan to provide for maintenance of the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the 

Triangle Area through 2017 as a revision 

to the North Carolina SIP. EPA 

approved the Triangle Maintenance 

Plan and the State’s request to 

redesignate the Triangle Area to 

attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS effective December 26, 2007.15

On June 19, 2006, NCDAQ submitted to 

EPA a request to redesignate the Rocky 

Mount Area to attainment for the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS. This submittal 

included a plan to provide for 

maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS in the Rocky Mount Area 

through 2017 as a revision to the North 

Carolina SIP. EPA approved the Rocky 

Mount Maintenance Plan and the State’s 

request to redesignate the Rocky Mount 

Area to attainment for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS effective January 5, 

2007.16

Under CAA section 175A(b), states 

must submit a revision to the first 

maintenance plan eight years after 

redesignation to provide for 

maintenance of the NAAQS for ten 

additional years following the end of the 

first 10-year period. EPA’s final 

implementation rule for the 2008 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS revoked the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS and stated that one 

consequence of revocation was that 

areas that had been redesignated to 

attainment (i.e., maintenance areas) for 

the 1997 NAAQS no longer needed to 

submit second 10-year maintenance 

plans under CAA section 175A(b).17

In South Coast Air Quality 

Management District v. EPA, the United 

States Court of Appeals for the District 

of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) 

vacated EPA’s interpretation that, 

because of the revocation of the 1997 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS, second 

maintenance plans were not required for 

‘‘orphan maintenance areas,’’ i.e., areas 

that had been redesignated to 

attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS maintenance areas and were 

designated attainment for the 2008 

ozone NAAQS. South Coast, 882 F.3d 

1138 (D.C. Cir. 2018). Thus, states with 

these ‘‘orphan maintenance areas’’ 

under the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

must submit maintenance plans for the 

second maintenance period. 

Accordingly, on September 22, 2020, 

North Carolina submitted a second 

maintenance plan for the GSMNP, 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 29 / Friday, February 11, 2022 / Proposed Rules 7973 

18On September 25, 2018, EPA approved removal 

of 26 counties from North Carolina’s expanded 

Inspection and Maintenance program. The removal 

affected the following counties subject to this 

action: Haywood, Granville, Orange, Chatham, 

Edgecombe, and Nash. See 83 FR 48383. On 

September 11, 2019, EPA published a final rule 

approving revisions to North Carolina’s expanded 

Inspection and Maintenance model year coverage 

for vehicles in 22 counties. The revision affected 

the following counties subject to this action: 

Durham, Johnston, Franklin and Wake. See 84 FR 

47889. 

19See 79 FR 23414 (April 28, 2014). 

20See Calcagni memo. 

Triangle and Rocky Mount Areas that 

show that the Areas are expected to 

remain in attainment of the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS through the following 

dates: GSMNP Area through January 6, 

2030; Rocky Mount Area through 

January 5, 2027; and Triangle Area 

through December 26, 2027. 

In recognition of the continuing 

record of air quality monitoring data 

showing ambient 8-hour ozone 

concentrations in the Areas are well 

below the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, 

NCDAQ chose the LMP option for the 

development of the Areas’ second 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS maintenance 

plans. On September 22, 2020, NCDAQ 

adopted and submitted the second 10- 

year 1997 8-hour ozone maintenance 

plans to EPA as revisions to the North 

Carolina SIP. 

III. North Carolina’s SIP Submittals 

As mentioned above, on September 

22, 2020, NCDAQ submitted the 

GSMNP, Triangle and Rocky Mount 

LMPs for the 1997 8-Hour ozone 

NAAQS to EPA as revisions to the North 

Carolina SIP. The submittal includes the 

LMPs, air quality data, emissions 

inventory information, and appendices, 

as well as evidence of adoption of the 

plan by NCDAQ. Appendices to the 

plan include comments and responses 

between EPA and NCDAQ; 

documentation of notice, hearing, and 

public participation prior to adoption of 

the plan by NCDAQ on September 22, 

2020; and an explanation that North 

Carolina’s LMP submittals for the 

remainder of the 20-year maintenance 

period for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS in the remaining GSMNP, 

Triangle and Rocky Mount 1997 8-hour 

ozone areas are in response to the Court 

overturning aspects of EPA’s 

Implementation Plan rule. In addition, 

the LMPs went through interagency 

consultation. 

The GSMNP, Triangle and Rocky 

Mount LMPs for the 1997 8-Hour ozone 

NAAQS each include same or similar 

emission reduction strategies as each 

Area’s first 10-year Maintenance Plan, 

as well as additional emissions 

reduction measures to provide for the 

maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS through the following dates: 

GSMNP Area through January 6, 2030; 

Rocky Mount Area through January 5, 

2027; and Triangle Area through 

December 26, 2027. Specifically, the 

measures upon which the second 10- 

year LMPs for the Areas rely include the 

continuation of the Clean Air Bill/ 

Vehicle Emissions Inspection and 

Maintenance Program,18 Clean 

Smokestacks Act, and the Open Burning 

Rule found in Chapter 15A NCAC 

02D.1903. Each Area’s LMP also relies 

on continued implementation of federal 

measures (e.g., Tier 2 Motor Vehicle 

Emission and Fuel Standards; Heavyduty Gasoline and Diesel Highway 

Vehicle Standards; Large Nonroad 

Diesel Engine Standards; Nonroad 

Spark-Ignition Engine and Recreational 

Engine Standards; Tier 3 Motor Vehicle 

Emission and Fuel Standards; 19 and the 

Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) 

Consent Decree). 

IV. EPA’s Evaluation of North 

Carolina’s SIP Submittals 

EPA has reviewed the Areas’ LMPs for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, which 

is designed to maintain the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS within the Areas through 

the end of the 20-year period beyond 

redesignation, as required under CAA 

section 175A(b). The following is a 

summary of EPA’s interpretation of the 

section 1745A requirements 20 and 

EPA’s evaluation of how each 

requirement is met. 

A. Attainment Emissions Inventory 

For maintenance plans, a state should 

develop a comprehensive, accurate 

inventory of actual emissions for an 

attainment year to identify the level of 

emissions which is sufficient to 

maintain the NAAQS. A state should 

develop this inventory consistent with 

EPA’s most recent guidance on 

emissions inventory development. For 

ozone, the inventory should be based on 

typical summer day emissions of VOCs 

and NOX, as these pollutants are 

precursors to ozone formation. The 

GSMNP, Triangle and Rocky Mount 

LMPs include an ozone attainment 

inventory for each of the Areas that 

reflect typical summer day emissions for 

2014. Table 1 presents a summary of the 

inventory for 2014 contained in the 

LMPs. 

TABLE 1—AVERAGE SUMMER DAY 2014 NOX AND VOC EMISSIONS BY SECTOR (TONS/DAY) IN GSMNP, TRIANGLE AND

ROCKY MOUNT

Maintenance area Sector 

2014 

NOX VOC 

GSMNP ......................................................................... Fire ................................................................................ 0.000 0.000 

Nonpoint ....................................................................... 0.000 0.039 

Nonroad ........................................................................ 0.002 0.029 

Onroad .......................................................................... 0.184 0.245 

Point .............................................................................. 0.000 0.000 

Total ....................................................................... 0.186 0.313 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
7974 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 29 / Friday, February 11, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

21The totals represented in the table may be 

slightly different than the inventories in the LMPs 

based on rounding convention. 

22U.S. EPA, ‘‘1997 Ozone NAAQS Air Quality 

Monitoring and Modeling Data’’ downloaded from 

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018- 

11/ozone_1997_naaqs_air_qual_monitoring_and_

modeling_data_nov_19_2018_1.xlsx, accessed April 

2020. 

23U.S. EPA, ‘‘Air Emissions Modeling, 2014 

Version 7.1 Platform,’’ is available from https://

www.epa.gov/air-emissions-modeling/2014-version71-platform, accessed April 2020 (note that the 

version 7 platform, which included 2028 

projections is not available on EPA’s website). 

24NCDAQ also coordinated with the National 

Park Service for the GSMNP area. 

25See Calcagni Memo. 26EPA set the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in ppm. 

To convert ppm to ppb the decimal is moved three 

places to the right (i.e., 0.084 ppm is equal to 84 

ppb). NCDAQ provided the values in ppb for easy 

reference. 

TABLE 1—AVERAGE SUMMER DAY 2014 NOX AND VOC EMISSIONS BY SECTOR (TONS/DAY) IN GSMNP, TRIANGLE AND

ROCKY MOUNT—Continued 

Maintenance area Sector 

2014 

NOX VOC 

Rocky Mount ................................................................. Fire ................................................................................ 0.005 0.055 

Nonpoint ....................................................................... 1.382 5.895 

Nonroad ........................................................................ 1.453 0.946 

Onroad .......................................................................... 8.841 4.391 

Point .............................................................................. 2.938 1.576 

Total ....................................................................... 14.619 12.863 

Triangle ......................................................................... Fire ................................................................................ 0.014 0.146 

Nonpoint ....................................................................... 6.103 51.294 

Nonroad ........................................................................ 14.970 15.782 

Onroad .......................................................................... 64.856 32.603 

Point .............................................................................. 40.457 7.383 

Total 21 ................................................................... 126.400 107.208 

The Emissions Inventory section of 

the LMPs for the GSMNP, Triangle and 

Rocky Mount Areas describes the 

methods, models and assumptions used 

to develop the attainment inventory. 

These estimates were derived from 

emissions values provided by EPA for 

use in developing maintenance plans for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.22 For 

the Rocky Mount Area, NCDAQ used 

the emissions summaries generated by 

EPA from the 2014 Version 7.1 

modeling platform.23 Because EPA’s 

emissions estimates are provided at the 

county level and the GSMNP and 

Triangle Areas include one or more 

partial counties, NCDAQ developed 

methodologies to estimate the 

proportion of county emissions 

occurring in these maintenance areas. 

These methodologies utilize a 

combination of more specific locational 

data as well as local expert judgment.24

The emissions data in the 2014v7.1 

platform are primarily based on the 

2014NEIv1 for point sources, nonpoint 

sources, commercial marine vessels 

(CMV), onroad and nonroad mobile 

sources, and fires. The GSMNP and 

Triangle area estimates reflect some 

adjustments to EPA’s estimates as 

described on pages 11 through 16 of the 

submittal. 

Based on our review of the methods, 

models, and assumptions used by DAQ 

to develop the VOC and NOX estimates, 

we propose to find that the Areas’ LMPs 

include a comprehensive, reasonably 

accurate inventory of actual ozone 

precursor emissions in attainment year 

2014, and propose to conclude that the 

plans’ inventories are acceptable for the 

purposes of a subsequent maintenance 

plan under CAA section 175A(b). 

B. Maintenance Demonstration 

The maintenance demonstration 

requirement is considered to be satisfied 

in an LMP if the state can provide 

sufficient weight of evidence indicating 

that air quality in the area is well below 

the level of the NAAQS, that past air 

quality trends have been shown to be 

stable, and that the probability of the 

area experiencing a violation over the 

second 10-year maintenance period is 

low.25 These criteria are evaluated 

below with regard to the GSMNP, 

Triangle and Rocky Mount Areas. 

1. Evaluation of Ozone Air Quality 

Levels 

To attain the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS, the three-year average of the 

fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour 

average ozone concentrations (design 

value) at each monitor within an area 

must not exceed 0.08 ppm. Based on the 

rounding convention described in 40 

CFR part 50, Appendix I, the NAAQS is 

attained if the design value is 0.084 ppm 

(84 parts per billion or ‘‘ppb’’) 26 or 

below. EPA has evaluated the quality 

assured and certified 2017–2019 

monitoring data (which was the most 

recent data at the time of submission) 

and determined that the 2017–2019 

design values for the Areas are as 

follows: 63 ppb, or 75 percent of the 

level of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

for the GSMNP Area; 64 ppb, or 74 

percent of the level of the NAAQS for 

the Triangle Area; and 61 ppb, or 73 

percent of the level of the NAAQS for 

the Rocky Mount Area. In addition, EPA 

evaluated the quality assured and 

certified 2018–2020 monitoring data 

(which is the current most recent 

monitoring data) and determined that 

the 2018–2020 design values for the 

Areas are as follows: 62 ppb, or 74 

percent of the level of the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS for the GSMNP Area; 60 

ppb, or 71 percent of the level of the 

NAAQS for the Triangle Area; and 58 

ppb, or 69 percent of the level of the 

NAAQS for the Rocky Mount Area. 

Consistent with prior guidance, EPA 

believes that if the most recent air 

quality design value for the area is at a 

level that is well below the NAAQS 

(e.g., below 85 percent of the NAAQS, 

or in this case below 71 ppb), then EPA 

considers the state to have met the 

section 175A requirement for a 

demonstration that the area will 

maintain the NAAQS for the requisite 

period. Such a demonstration assumes 

continued applicability of prevention of 

significant deterioration requirements 

and any control measures already in the 

SIP, and that Federal measures will 

remain in place through the end of the 

second 10-year maintenance period, 

absent a showing consistent with 

section 110(l) that such measures are 

not necessary to assure maintenance. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 29 / Friday, February 11, 2022 / Proposed Rules 7975 

27NCDAQ provided monitoring data for years 

2001 through 2019 and projected 2023 design 

values for each monitor as supporting weight of 

evidence. The values can be found on Page 8 of the 

submittal. The monitoring data shows the general 

downward trend in design values at the monitoring 

sites. The data also shows the highest design value 

projected in 2023 is 53.8 ppb, 57.5 ppb and 51.3 

ppb for GSMNP, Triangle and Rocky Mount, 

respectively. 

28The 2017 NEI is currently available, however 

the 2014 NEI was the most recent NEI available at 

the time the second maintenance plan was 

developed by the State, and therefore, the 2014 NEI 

was used. 

Table 2 presents the design values for 

each monitor in the GSMNP, Triangle 

and Rocky Mount Areas over the 2011– 

2020 period.27 As shown in Table 2, all 

sites have been well below the level of 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS since the 

2009–2011 design value, and the most 

current design value for each of the 

Areas is below 85 percent of the 

NAAQS, consistent with prior LMP 

guidance. 

TABLE 2—1997 8-HOUR OZONE NAAQS DESIGN VALUES (ppb) AT MONITORING SITES IN THE GSMNP, TRIANGLE AND

ROCKY MOUNT AREAS FOR THE 2011–2020 TIME PERIOD

Location County 1997 Ozone 

NAAQS area AQS Site ID 

2009– 

2011 

DV 

2010– 

2012 

DV 

2011– 

2013 

DV 

2012– 

2014 

DV 

2013– 

2015 

DV 

2014– 

2016 

DV 

2015– 

2017 

DV 

2016– 

2018 

DV 

2017– 

2019 

DV 

2018– 

2020 

DV 

SW Corner of Roof 

Haywood Co 

Health Department 

Building.

Haywood ............ GSMNP ................ 37–087–0004 (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) 

Waynesville School ... Haywood ............ GSMNP ................ 37–087–0008 a 65 a 65 61 60 60 62 61 61 59 58 

Frying Pan Mountain Haywood ............ GSMNP ................ 37–087–0035 (* b) (* b) (* b) 67 65 66 64 63 62 61 

Purchase Knob ......... Haywood ............ GSMNP ................ 37–087–0036 67 68 65 65 64 65 64 64 63 62 

Bryson City ............... Swain ................. GSMNP ................ 37–173–0002 62 62 58 57 57 60 60 60 58 56 

Acquoni Rd ............... Swain ................. GSMNP ................ 37–173–0007 (*) (*) (*) 58 59 61 58 58 (* c) 58 

Pittsboro .................... Chatham ............ Triangle ................ 37–037–0004 66 65 61 59 58 (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 

Duke Street d ............. Durham .............. Triangle ................ 37–063–0013 (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 

Durham d Armory ...... Durham .............. Triangle ................ 37–063–0015 70 72 68 66 61 62 61 62 61 59 

Franklinton ................ Franklin .............. Triangle ................ 37–069–0001 69 71 68 64 61 (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 

Butner ....................... Granville ............ Triangle ................ 37–077–0001 72 72 69 66 63 64 64 65 64 60 

West Johnston Co .... Johnston ............ Triangle ................ 37–101–0002 71 74 70 67 63 65 63 63 61 59 

Bushy Fork ................ Person ............... Triangle ................ 37–145–0003 70 74 69 66 61 63 61 62 62 59 

Millbrook School ....... Wake ................. Triangle ................ 37–183–0014 71 72 68 65 63 65 66 66 64 60 

Fuquay-Varina .......... Wake ................. Triangle ................ 37–183–0016 73 75 71 65 62 (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 

Leggett ...................... Edgecombe ....... Rocky Mount ........ 37–065–0099 70 71 69 65 62 (* b) 62 62 61 58 

aThe monitor at the Haywood County Health Department building was discontinued in 2011 due to remodeling. The monitor was moved across the street to an elementary school (the Waynesville School monitor). EPA approved combining the data from the two sites to provide design values for 2009–2011 and 2010–2012. bThis design value did not meet the three–year completeness requirement of 90%. 

cThis design value did not meet the three–year completeness requirement of 90% due to instrument malfunctions with various components of the analytic system 

during much of July and August 2017. dThe DAQ decided to consolidate the Duke Street ozone monitor and Durham Health PM monitors at one site, located across the street from the Duke Street location. EPA approved combining the data from the two sites to provide design values for 2005–2007 and 2006–2008. 

* These monitors were either discontinued or had incomplete data. 

Therefore, the GSMNP, Triangle and 

Rocky Mount Areas are eligible for the 

LMP option, and EPA proposes to find 

that the long record of monitored ozone 

concentrations that attain the NAAQS, 

together with the continuation of 

existing VOC and NOX emissions 

control programs, adequately provide 

for the maintenance of the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS in the Areas through the 

second 10-year maintenance period and 

beyond. 

2. Stability of Ozone Levels 

As discussed above, the GSMNP, 

Triangle and Rocky Mount Areas have 

maintained air quality well below the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS over the 

past ten years. Additionally, the design 

value data shown within Table 2 

illustrates that ozone levels have been 

relatively stable over this timeframe, 

with a modest downward trend. For 

example, the data within Table 2 

indicates that the largest, year over year 

change in design value in these ten 

years was 4 ppb for the GSMNP Area, 

which occurred between the 2012 

design value and 2013 design value at 

monitor 37–087–0008 (Waynesville 

School) and at monitor 37–173–0002 

(Bryson City), representing 

approximately a 6 percent decrease; 6 

ppb for the Triangle Area, which 

occurred between the 2013 design value 

and 2014 design value at monitor 37– 

183–0016 (Fuquay-Varina), representing 

approximately an 8 percent decrease; 

and 4 ppb for the Rocky Mount Area, 

which occurred between the 2013 

design value and 2014 design value at 

monitor 37–065–0099 (Leggett), 

representing approximately a 6 percent 

decrease. 

Furthermore, overall trends in design 

values for the Areas between 2011–2020 

indicates decreases in the monitored 

ozone concentrations. See, e.g., Table 2, 

above. The overall downward trend in 

design values for the GSMNP Area for 

monitor 37–087–0036 (Purchase Knob) 

was from 67 ppb to 62 ppb, a 7 percent 

decrease; the overall downward trend in 

the Triangle Area for monitor 37–077– 

0001 (Butner) was from 72 ppb to 60 

ppb, a 17 percent decrease; and the 

overall downward trend for the only 

Rocky Mount monitor 37–065–0099 

(Leggett) was from 70 ppb to 58 ppb, a 

17 percent decrease. 

The downward trend in ozone levels, 

coupled with the relatively small, yearover-year variation in ozone design 

values, makes it reasonable to conclude 

that the GSMNP, Triangle and Rocky 

Mount Areas will not exceed the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS during the second 

10-year maintenance period. 

3. Projected Emissions 

Although under the LMP option there 

is no requirement to project emissions 

over the maintenance period, NCDAQ 

included an analysis of ozone precursor 

emissions trends expected over the 

course of the second maintenance 

period. NCDAQ provided a VOC and 

NOX emissions trends analysis from 

2014 to 2028. The year 2014 was 

selected as a baseline for the projection 

because that is the most recent year for 

which a complete set of data is available 

from the EPA’s National Emissions 

Inventory (NEI) database.28 Projected 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
7976 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 29 / Friday, February 11, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

29https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-modeling/ 

2014-2016-version-7-air-emissions-modelingplatforms. EPA’s emissions projections to 2028 

were made from the 2011 NEI, as that iteration of 

the NEI was the most recently available version 

when the projection work was performed. Although 

this projection does not correspond exactly with the 

end of the second ten-year maintenance period, it 

provides additional support for EPA’s proposed 

finding that the Area will maintain the NAAQS due 

to its low and historically stable design values. See 

the Emissions Inventory section of the LMP for 

additional information regarding the 2028 

projections. 

30The inventory documentation for this platform 

can be found here: https://www.epa.gov/airemissionsmodeling/2011-version-63-platform. 

31The DAQ replaced the 2028 fire sector 

emissions, which reflected estimates carried 

forward from the 2011 NEI, with values carried 

forward from the 2014 NEI. 

32The totals represented in the table may be 

slightly different based on rounding convention. 

33On April 30, 2021, EPA published the final 

Revised CSAPR Update using updated modeling 

that focused on analytic years 2023 and 2028 and 

an interpolation analysis of these modeling results 

to generate air quality and contribution values for 

the 2021 analytic year. See 86 FR 23054. https://

www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-04-30/pdf/ 

2021-05705.pdf. 

34The letter approving the network plan is in the 

docket for this proposed rulemaking. 

emissions data for the year 2028 were 

obtained from EPA.29

The emissions projection trends show 

that between 2014 and 2028, VOC 

emissions are estimated to fall by 67 

percent within the GSMNP Area; 28 

percent in the Triangle Area; and 27 

percent in the Rocky Mount Area. The 

emissions projection trends show that 

between 2014 and 2028, NOX emissions 

are estimated to fall by 80 percent in the 

GSMNP Area; 52 percent in the Triangle 

Area; and 68 percent in the Rocky 

Mount Area. These projected declining 

emissions trends further support the 

proposed conclusion that it is unlikely 

that the Areas would violate the 1997 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS in the future. Table 

3 presents a summary of projected 

emissions for 2028 contained in the 

maintenance plan.30

TABLE 3—AVERAGE SUMMER DAY PROJECTED 2028 NOX AND VOC EMISSIONS BY SECTOR

[Tons/year] 

Maintenance area Sector 

2028 

NOX VOC 

GSMNP ......................................................................... Fire 31 ............................................................................ 0.000 0.000 

Nonpoint ....................................................................... 0.000 0.032 

Nonroad ........................................................................ 0.001 0.017 

Onroad .......................................................................... 0.036 0.055 

Point .............................................................................. 0.000 0.000 

Total ....................................................................... 0.037 0.104 

Rocky Mount ................................................................. Fire ................................................................................ 0.005 0.055 

Nonpoint ....................................................................... 1.133 6.667 

Nonroad ........................................................................ 0.807 0.903 

Onroad .......................................................................... 1.804 0.983 

Point .............................................................................. 0.892 0.774 

Total ....................................................................... 4.641 9.382 

Triangle ......................................................................... Fire ................................................................................ 0.012 0.128 

Nonpoint ....................................................................... 5.867 45.769 

Nonroad ........................................................................ 9.167 14.533 

Onroad .......................................................................... 15.113 10.646 

Point .............................................................................. 30.654 5.631 

Total 32 ................................................................... 60.813 76.707 

In addition to the long history of 

monitored ozone concentrations in 

these Areas that are well-below the 

NAAQS, additional supporting 

information that the Areas are expected 

to continue to maintain the NAAQS can 

be found in an analysis of future year 

design values that EPA recently 

completed for the Revised Cross-State 

Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) Update for 

the 2008 Ozone NAAQS.33 The 

modeled-projected analysis for monitors 

in the GSMNP, Triangle and Rocky 

Mount Areas, made for the year 2023, 

resulted in fewer than five days with 

modeled ozone concentrations greater 

than or equal to 60 ppb, indicating that 

future-year design values are expected 

to remain well below the NAAQS. EPA 

is not proposing to make any finding in 

this action regarding interstate transport 

obligations for any state. 

C. Monitoring Network and Verification 

of Continued Attainment 

EPA periodically reviews the ozone 

monitoring network that NCDAQ 

operates and maintains in accordance 

with 40 CFR part 58. This network plan, 

which is submitted annually to EPA, is 

consistent with the ambient air quality 

monitoring network assessment. The 

annual network plan developed by 

NCDAQ follows a public notification 

and review process. EPA has reviewed 

and approved the 2020 Ambient Air 

Monitoring Network Plan (‘‘2020 

Annual Network Plan’’).34

To verify the attainment status of the 

Areas over the maintenance period, the 

maintenance plan should contain 

provisions for continued operation of an 

appropriate, EPA-approved monitoring 

network in accordance with 40 CFR part 

58. As noted above, NCDAQ’s 

monitoring network in the Areas have 

been approved by EPA in accordance 

with 40 CFR part 58, and the State has 

committed to continue to maintain a 

network in accordance with EPA 

requirements. EPA proposes to find that 

NCDAQ’s monitoring network is 

adequate to verify continued attainment 

of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in 

each of the Areas. 

D. Contingency Plan 

Section 175A(d) of the CAA requires 

that a maintenance plan include 

contingency provisions. The purpose of 

such contingency provisions is to 

prevent future violations of the NAAQS 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 29 / Friday, February 11, 2022 / Proposed Rules 7977 

35See the Contingency Plan Section of each LMP 

for further information regarding the contingency 

plan, including measures that North Carolina will 

consider for adoption if any of the triggers are 

activated. 

36NCDAQ submitted a SIP revision to update the 

MVEBs for the Rocky Mount Area on February 7, 

2011. EPA approved the updated MVEBs on 

September 27, 2012. See 77 FR 59335. The approval 

was made through direct final rulemaking and 

became effective on November 26, 2012. 

or to promptly remedy any NAAQS 

violations that might occur during the 

maintenance period. These contingency 

measures are required to be 

implemented expeditiously once they 

are triggered by a future violation of the 

NAAQS or some other trigger. The state 

should identify specific triggers which 

will be used to determine when the 

contingency measures need to be 

implemented. 

The LMPs state that the two main 

elements of the North Carolina 

contingency plans are tracking and 

triggering mechanisms to determine 

when control measures are needed, and 

a process for developing and adopting 

appropriate control measures. There are 

three potential triggers for the 

contingency plans. The primary trigger 

of each plan will be a violation of the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS at any of the 

maintenance area monitors. The 

secondary trigger will be a monitored air 

quality pattern that suggests an actual 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS violation 

may be imminent. The tertiary trigger 

will be a monitored fourth highest 

exceedance of the NAAQS. Upon either 

the primary or secondary triggers being 

activated, NCDAQ will commence 

analyses to determine what additional 

measures, if any, will be necessary to 

attain or maintain the ozone standard. If 

activation of either the primary or 

secondary triggers occurs, each plan 

provides a regulatory adoption process 

for revising emission control strategies. 

Activation of the tertiary trigger will 

result in an analysis to understand the 

cause of the exceedance and to identify 

voluntary measures if needed. The 

primary trigger date will be 60 days 

from the date on which an ozone 

monitor in a maintenance area records 

a 4th highest value that, when averaged 

with the two previous ozone seasons’ 

fourth highest values, results in a 3-year 

average equal to or greater than 85 ppb. 

The secondary trigger date will be 60 

days from the date on which an ozone 

monitor in a maintenance area records 

a 4th highest value of 85 ppb or greater 

for which the previous season had a 4th 

highest value of 85 ppb or greater. The 

tertiary trigger date will be 60 days from 

the date on which an ozone monitor in 

a maintenance area records a 4th highest 

value of 85 ppb or greater.35

The DAQ commits to begin 

implementing as expeditiously as 

practicable, but no later than 24 months 

of the primary or secondary trigger, at 

least one control measure that is 

determined to be most appropriate for 

reducing NOX emissions to attain and 

maintain the standard based on the 

analyses performed. 

EPA proposes to find that the 

contingency provisions in North 

Carolina’s second maintenance plans for 

the 1997 8-hour Ozone NAAQS meet 

the requirements of the CAA section 

175A(d). 

E. Conclusion 

EPA proposes to find that the 

GSMNP, Triangle and Rocky Mount 

LMPs for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS include an approvable update 

of the various elements (including 

attainment inventory, assurance of 

adequate monitoring and verification of 

continued attainment, and contingency 

provisions) of the initial EPA-approved 

Maintenance Plans for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. EPA also proposes to 

find that the GSMNP, Triangle and 

Rocky Mount Areas, qualify for the LMP 

option, and adequately demonstrate 

maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS through the documentation of 

monitoring data showing maximum 

1997 8-hour ozone levels well below the 

NAAQS and historically stable design 

values. EPA believes the GSMNP, 

Triangle and Rocky Mount LMPs for the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, which 

retain all existing control measures, are 

sufficient to provide for maintenance of 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in each 

of the Areas over the second 

maintenance period (i.e., through 

January 6, 2030 for the GSMNP Area, 

through January 5, 2027 for the Rocky 

Mount Area, and through December 26, 

2027 for the Triangle Area) and thereby 

satisfy the requirements for such plans 

under CAA section 175A(b). EPA is 

therefore proposing to approve North 

Carolina’s September 22, 2020, 

submission of each Area’s LMP for the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS as a revision 

to the North Carolina SIP. 

V. Transportation Conformity and 

General Conformity 

Transportation conformity is required 

by section 176(c) of the CAA. 

Conformity to a SIP means that 

transportation activities will not 

produce new air quality violations, 

worsen existing violations or delay 

timely attainment of the NAAQS. See 

CAA 176(c)(1)(A) and (B). EPA’s 

transportation conformity rule at 40 CFR 

part 93 subpart A requires that 

transportation plans, programs and 

projects conform to SIPs and establishes 

the criteria and procedures for 

determining whether they conform. The 

conformity rule generally requires a 

demonstration that emissions from the 

Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and 

the Transportation Improvement 

Program (TIP) are consistent with the 

motor vehicles emissions budget 

(MVEB) contained in the control 

strategy SIP revision or maintenance 

plan. See 40 CFR 93.101, 93.118, and 

93.124. A MVEB is defined as ‘‘the 

portion of the total allowable emissions 

defined in the submitted or approved 

control strategy implementation plan 

revision or maintenance plan for a 

certain date for the purpose of meeting 

reasonable further progress milestones 

or demonstrating attainment or 

maintenance of the NAAQS, for any 

criteria pollutant or its precursors, 

allocated to highway and transit vehicle 

use and emissions’’ See 40 CFR 93.101. 

Under the conformity rule, LMP areas 

may demonstrate conformity without a 

regional emissions analysis. See 40 CFR 

93.109(e). EPA made findings that the 

MVEBs in the first 10-years of the 1997 

8-hour zone maintenance plan for the 

GSMNP, Triangle and Rocky Mount 

Areas were adequate for transportation 

conformity purposes. In a Federal 

Register notice published on December 

7, 2009, EPA notified the public of the 

adequacy finding for the GSMNP Area 

through final rulemaking; the adequacy 

determination for GSMNP Area became 

effective on January 6, 2010. See 74 FR 

63995. In a Federal Register notice 

published on December 26, 2007, EPA 

notified the public of the adequacy 

finding for the Triangle Area through 

final rulemaking; the adequacy 

determination for the Triangle Area 

became effective on December 26, 2007. 

See 72 FR 72948. In a Federal Register 

notice published on November 6, 2006, 

EPA notified the public of the adequacy 

finding for the Rocky Mount Area 

through direct final rulemaking; the 

adequacy determination for the Rocky 

Mount Area became effective on January 

5, 2007. See 71 FR 64891.36

After approval of or an adequacy 

finding for each of these LMPs, there is 

no requirement to meet the budget test 

pursuant to the transportation 

conformity rule for the respective 

maintenance area. All actions that 

would require a transportation 

conformity determination for the 

GSMNP, Triangle and Rocky Mount 

Areas under EPA’s transportation 

conformity rule provisions are 

considered to have already satisfied the 

regional emissions analysis and ‘‘budget 

test’’ requirements in 40 CFR 93.118 as 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
7978 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 29 / Friday, February 11, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

37A conformity determination that meets other 

applicable criteria in Table 1 of paragraph (b) of this 

section (93.109(e)) is still required, including the 

hot-spot requirements for projects in CO, PM10, and 

fine particulate matter (PM2.5) areas. 

a result of EPA’s adequacy finding for 

these LMPs. See 69 FR 40004 (July 1, 

2004). 

However, because LMP areas are still 

maintenance areas, certain aspects of 

transportation conformity 

determinations still will be required for 

transportation plans, programs, and 

projects. Specifically, for such 

determinations, RTPs, TIPs and 

transportation projects still will have to 

demonstrate that they are fiscally 

constrained (40 CFR 93.108), meet the 

criteria for consultation (40 CFR 93.105) 

and Transportation Control Measure 

implementation in the conformity rule 

provisions (40 CFR 93.113), as well as 

meet the hot-spot requirements for 

projects (40 CFR 93.116).37

Additionally, conformity 

determinations for RTPs and TIPs must 

be determined no less frequently than 

every four years, and conformity of plan 

and TIP amendments and transportation 

projects is demonstrated in accordance 

with the timing requirements specified 

in 40 CFR 93.104. In addition, in order 

for projects to be approved they must 

come from a currently conforming RTP 

and TIP. See 40 CFR 93.114 and 40 CFR 

93.115. 

VI. Proposed Actions 

Under sections 110(k) and 175A of the 

CAA and for the reasons set forth above, 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

GSMNP, Triangle and Rocky Mount 

LMPs for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS, submitted by NCDAQ on 

September 22, 2020, as revisions to the 

North Carolina SIP. EPA is proposing to 

approve the LMPs because each LMP 

includes an acceptable update of the 

various elements of the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS Maintenance Plans 

approved by EPA for the first 10-year 

period (including emissions inventory, 

assurance of adequate monitoring and 

verification of continued attainment, 

and contingency provisions), and 

retains the relevant portions of the SIP. 

EPA also finds that the GSMNP, 

Triangle and Rocky Mount Areas, 

former nonattainment areas for the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS, qualify for the 

LMP option, and therefore, the Areas’ 

LMPs adequately demonstrate 

maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS through documentation of 

monitoring data showing maximum 

1997 8-hour ozone levels well below the 

NAAQS and continuation of existing 

control measures. EPA believes each of 

the Areas’ 1997 8-Hour Ozone LMPs to 

be sufficient to provide for maintenance 

of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS over 

the second 10-year maintenance periods 

(which extends through January 6, 2030 

for the GSMNP Area, through January 5, 

2027 for the Rocky Mount Area; and 

through December 26, 2027 for the 

Triangle Area), and thereby satisfy the 

requirements for such a plan under CAA 

section 175A(b). 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable Federal regulations. 

See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. These actions merely propose 

to approve state law as meeting Federal 

requirements and does not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by state law. For that reason, 

these proposed actions: 

• Are not significant regulatory 

actions subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• Do not impose information 

collection burdens under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Are certified as not having 

significant economic impacts on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Do not contain any unfunded 

mandates or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Do not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Are not economically significant 

regulatory actions based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Are not significant regulatory 

actions subject to Executive Order 

13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Are not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Do not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

These SIP revisions are not proposed 

to apply on any Indian reservation land 

or in any other area where EPA or an 

Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), nor will it impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: February 3, 2022. 

Daniel Blackman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2022–02718 Filed 2–10–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2021–0949; FRL–9532–01– 

R5] 

Air Plan Approval; Ohio; 

Redesignation of the Ohio Portion of 

the Cincinnati, Ohio-Kentucky Area to 

Attainment of the 2015 Ozone Standard 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to find that 

the Cincinnati, Ohio-Kentucky area 

(Area) is attaining the 2015 8-hour 

ozone National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard (NAAQS or standard) and to 

approve a request from the Ohio 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(OEPA) to redesignate the Ohio portion 

of the Area to attainment for the 2015 

ozone NAAQS because the request 

meets the statutory requirements for 

redesignation under the Clean Air Act 

(CAA). The Area includes Butler, 

Clermont, Hamilton, and Warren 

Counties in Ohio and Boone, Campbell, 

and Kenton Counties in Kentucky. 

OEPA submitted this request on 

December 21, 2021. EPA is also 

proposing to approve, as a revision to 

the Ohio State Implementation Plan 

(SIP), the state’s plan for maintaining 

the 2015 8-hour ozone standard through 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1