Federal Register Vol. 80, No.98,

Comments Invited

We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2015-0900; Directorate Identifier 2015-NE-12-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments.

We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA AD 2015-0049, dated March 17, 2015 (Corrected May 7, 2015) (referred to hereinafter as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-0900.

Turbomeca S.A. has issued Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB) No. 319 79 4834, Version B, dated October 21, 2014. The MSB describes procedures for inspecting the oil pump driver assembly on the oil pump shaft, the pump driver splines, and the oil pump splines. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section of this NPRM.

This product has been approved by the aviation authority of France, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the European Community, EASA has notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by EASA and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. This proposed AD would require inspection, and if necessary, replacement before further flight, of the oil pump driver assembly and/or the oil pump shaft, or the oil pump itself.

We estimate that this proposed AD affects about 96 engines installed on helicopters of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about two hours per product to comply with this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per hour. Required parts would cost about $17,312 per engine. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $1,678,272.

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect 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.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),

(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction, and

(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

Comments Invited

Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2015-1394/Airspace Docket No. 15-ACE-4.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the office of the Central Service Center, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137.

Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking (202) 267-9677, to request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application procedure.

This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.9Y, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014. FAA Order 7400.9Y is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this proposed rule. FAA Order 7400.9Y lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

This action proposes to amend Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), Part 71 by modifying Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface to within a 6.4-mile radius of Tekamah Municipal Airport, Tekamah, NE., reconfiguring the airspace for standard instrument approach procedures at the airport. The Tekamah VOR facility has been decommissioned and its associated SIAPs have been canceled. Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of IFR operations for other SIAPs at the airport.

Class E airspace areas are published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9Y, dated August 6, 2014 and effective September 15, 2014, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore, (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would amend controlled airspace at the Iowa airports listed in this NPRM.

This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

Any final order will be published in the Federal Register and may not be effective prior to June 22, 2015.

The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) implements and enforces titles II and III of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, as amended. 21 U.S.C. 801-971. Titles II and III are referred to as the “Controlled Substances Act” and the “Controlled Substances Import and Export Act,” respectively, and are collectively referred to as the “Controlled Substances Act” or the “CSA” for the purpose of this action. The DEA publishes the implementing regulations for these statutes in title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), chapter II. The CSA and its implementing regulations are designed to prevent, detect, and eliminate the diversion of controlled substances and listed chemicals into the illicit market while providing for the legitimate medical, scientific, research, and industrial needs of the United States. Controlled substances have the potential for abuse and dependence and are controlled to protect the public health and safety.

Under the CSA, every controlled substance is classified into one of five schedules based upon its potential for abuse, its currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and the degree of dependence the drug or other substance may cause. 21 U.S.C. 812. The initial schedules of controlled substances established by Congress are found at 21 U.S.C. 812(c), and the current list of all scheduled substances is published at 21 CFR part 1308. 21 U.S.C. 812(a).

Section 201 of the CSA, 21 U.S.C. 811, provides the Attorney General with the authority to temporarily place a substance into schedule I of the CSA for two years without regard to the requirements of 21 U.S.C. 811(b) if he or she finds that such action is necessary to avoid imminent hazard to the public safety. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(1). In addition, if proceedings to control a substance are initiated under 21 U.S.C. 811(a)(1), the Attorney General may extend the temporary scheduling for up to one year. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(2).

Where the necessary findings are made, a substance may be temporarily scheduled if it is not listed in any other schedule under section 202 of the CSA, 21 U.S.C. 812, or if there is no exemption or approval in effect for the substance under section 505 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), 21 U.S.C. 355. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(1). The Attorney General has delegated scheduling authority under 21 U.S.C. 811 to the Administrator of the DEA. 28 CFR 0.100.

Section 201(h)(4) of the CSA, 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(4), requires the Administrator to notify the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) of her intention to temporarily place a substance into schedule I of the CSA.1 The Administrator transmitted notice of her intent to place acetyl fentanyl in schedule I on a temporary basis to the Assistant Secretary by letter dated April 7, 2015. Any comments submitted by the Assistant Secretary in response to the notice transmitted to the Assistant Secretary shall be taken into consideration before a final order is published. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(4).

To find that placing a substance temporarily into schedule I of the CSA is necessary to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety, the Administrator is required to consider three of the eight factors set forth in section 201(c) of the CSA, 21 U.S.C. 811(c): The substance's history and current pattern of abuse; the scope, duration and significance of abuse; and what, if any, risk there is to the public health. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(3). Consideration of these factors includes actual abuse, diversion from legitimate channels, and clandestine importation, manufacture, or distribution. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(3).

A substance meeting the statutory requirements for temporary scheduling may only be placed in schedule I. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(1). Substances in schedule I are those that have a high potential for abuse, no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision. 21 U.S.C. 812(b)(1).

Available data and information for acetyl fentanyl indicate that this opioid substance has a high potential for abuse, no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision.

Clandestinely produced substances structurally related to the schedule II opioid analgesic fentanyl were trafficked and abused on the West Coast in the late 1970s and 1980s. These clandestinely produced fentanyl-like substances were commonly known as designer drugs and recently, there has been a reemergence in the trafficking and abuse of designer drug substances including fentanyl-like substances. Alpha-methylfentanyl, the first fentanyl analogue identified in California, was placed into schedule I of the CSA in September 1981. Following the control of alpha-methylfentanyl, the DEA identified several other fentanyl analogues (3-methylthiofentanyl, acetyl-alpha-methylfentanyl, beta-hydroxy-3-methylfentanyl, alpha-methylthiofentanyl, thiofentanyl, beta-hydroxyfentanyl, para-fluorofentanyl and 3-methylfentanyl) in submissions to forensic laboratories. These substances were temporarily controlled under schedule I of the CSA after finding that they posed an imminent hazard to public safety and were subsequently permanently placed in schedule I of the CSA.

The National Forensic Laboratory Information System (NFLIS) is a national drug forensic laboratory reporting system that systematically collects results from drug chemistry analyses conducted by State and local forensic laboratories across the country. The first laboratory submission of acetyl fentanyl was recorded in Maine in April 2013 according to NFLIS. NFLIS registered eight reports containing acetyl fentanyl in 2013 in Louisiana, Maine, and North Dakota; and 30 reports in 2014 in Florida, Illinois, Louisiana, Maine, New Jersey, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.

The System to Retrieve Information from Drug Evidence (STRIDE) is a database of drug exhibits sent to DEA laboratories for analysis. Exhibits from the database are from the DEA, other Federal agencies, and some local law enforcement agencies. Acetyl fentanyl was first reported to STRIDE in September 2013 from exhibits obtained through a controlled purchase in Louisiana. In October 2013, an exhibit collected from a controlled purchase of suspected oxycodone tablets in Rhode Island contained acetyl fentanyl as the primary substance. In 2014, STARLiMS (a web-based, commercial laboratory information management system that is in transition to replace STRIDE) and STRIDE reported eight additional seizures in Colorado, Florida, Georgia, and Washington.

In August 2013, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) published an article in its Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report documenting a series of 14 fatalities related to acetyl fentanyl that occurred between March and May 2013. In December 2013, another fatality associated with acetyl fentanyl was reported in Rhode Island for a total of 15 fatalities. In February 2014, the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services issued a health advisory related to acetyl fentanyl following at least three deaths related to this synthetic drug. Toxicologists at the North Carolina Office of the Chief Medical Examiner detected acetyl fentanyl in specimens associated with deaths that occurred in January 2014 in Sampson, Person, and Transylvania counties. In July and August 2014, four additional fatalities involving acetyl fentanyl were reported for a total of seven fatalities in North Carolina. Deaths involving acetyl fentanyl have also been reported in California (1), Louisiana (14), Oregon (1), and Pennsylvania (1).

A significant seizure of acetyl fentanyl occurred in April 2013 during a law enforcement investigation in Montreal, Canada. Approximately three kilograms of acetyl fentanyl in powder form and approximately 11,000 tablets containing acetyl fentanyl were seized. Given that a typical dose of acetyl fentanyl is in the microgram range, a three kilogram quantity could potentially produce millions of dosage units. In the United States, tablets that mimic pharmaceutical opioid products have been reported in multiple states, including Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Rhode Island, and Washington. Recent reports indicate that acetyl fentanyl in powder form is available over the Internet and has been imported to addresses within the United States.

Evidence also suggests that the pattern of abuse of fentanyl analogues, including acetyl fentanyl, parallels that of heroin and prescription opioid analgesics. Seizures of acetyl fentanyl have been encountered both in powder and in tablet form. It is also known to have caused many fatal overdoses, in which intravenous routes of administration and histories of drug abuse are documented.

DEA is currently aware of at least 39 fatalities associated with acetyl fentanyl. These deaths have been reported in 2013 and 2014 from six states including California, Louisiana, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island. STARLiMS and STRIDE, databases capturing drug evidence information from DEA forensic laboratories, have a total of 10 drug reports in which acetyl fentanyl was identified in six cases for analyzed drugs submitted from January 2010—December 2014 from Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Rhode Island, and Washington. It is likely that the prevalence of acetyl fentanyl in opioid analgesic-related emergency room admissions and deaths is underreported as standard immunoassays cannot differentiate acetyl fentanyl from fentanyl.

The population likely to abuse acetyl fentanyl overlaps with the populations abusing prescription opioid analgesics and heroin. This is evidenced by the routes of administration and drug use history documented in acetyl fentanyl fatal overdose cases. Because abusers of acetyl fentanyl are likely to obtain the drug through illicit sources, the identity, purity, and quantity is uncertain and inconsistent, thus posing significant adverse health risks to its abusers. This risk is particularly heightened by the fact that acetyl fentanyl is a highly potent opioid (15.7-fold more than that of morphine as tested in mice using an acetic acid writhing method). Thus small changes in the amount and purity of the substance could potentially lead to overdose and death.

Acetyl fentanyl exhibits a pharmacological profile similar to that of fentanyl and other opioid analgesic compounds and it is a potent opioid analgesic reported to be 1/3 as potent as fentanyl and 15.7 times as potent as morphine in mice tested in an acetic acid writhing method. In addition, studies also showed that the range between the effective dose (ED50) and the lethal dose (LD50) of acetyl fentanyl is narrower than that of morphine and fentanyl, increasing the risk of fatal overdose. Thus, its abuse is likely to pose quantitatively greater risks to the public health and safety than abuse of traditional opioid analgesics such as morphine.

Based on the above pharmacological data, the abuse of acetyl fentanyl at least leads to the same qualitative public health risks as heroin, fentanyl and other opioid analgesic compounds. The public health risks attendant to the abuse of heroin and opioid analgesics are well established. The abuse of opioid analgesics has resulted in large numbers of drug treatment admissions, emergency department visits, and fatal overdoses.

Acetyl fentanyl has been associated with numerous fatalities. At least 39 overdose deaths due to acetyl fentanyl abuse have been reported in six states in 2013 and 2014, including California, Louisiana, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island. This indicates that acetyl fentanyl poses an imminent hazard to public safety.

Based on the above summarized data and information, the continued uncontrolled manufacture, distribution, importation, exportation, and abuse of acetyl fentanyl pose an imminent hazard to the public safety. The DEA is not aware of any currently accepted medical uses for this substance in the United States. A substance meeting the statutory requirements for temporary scheduling, 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(1), may only be placed in schedule I. Substances in schedule I are those that have a high potential for abuse, no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision. Available data and information for acetyl fentanyl indicate that this substance has a high potential for abuse, no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision. As required by section 201(h)(4) of the CSA, 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(4), the Administrator, through a letter dated April 7, 2015, notified the Assistant Secretary of the DEA's intention to temporarily place this substance in schedule I.

This notice of intent initiates an expedited temporary scheduling action and provides the 30-day notice pursuant to section 201(h) of the CSA, 21 U.S.C. 811(h). In accordance with the provisions of section 201(h) of the CSA, 21 U.S.C. 811(h), the Administrator considered available data and information, herein set forth the grounds for her determination that it is necessary to temporarily schedule acetyl fentanyl in schedule I of the CSA, and finds that placement of this opioid substance into schedule I of the CSA is necessary in order to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety.

Because the Administrator hereby finds that it is necessary to temporarily place this synthetic opioid into schedule I to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety, any subsequent final order temporarily scheduling these substances will be effective on the date of publication in the Federal Register, and will be in effect for a period of two years, with a possible extension of one additional year, pending completion of the regular (permanent) scheduling process. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(1) and (2). It is the intention of the Administrator to issue such a final order as soon as possible after the expiration of 30 days from the date of publication of this notice. Acetyl fentanyl will then be subject to the regulatory controls and administrative, civil, and criminal sanctions applicable to the manufacture, distribution, possession, importation, exportation, research, and conduct of instructional activities of a schedule I controlled substance.

The CSA sets forth specific criteria for scheduling a drug or other substance. Regular scheduling actions in accordance with 21 U.S.C. 811(a) are subject to formal rulemaking procedures done “on the record after opportunity for a hearing” conducted pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 556 and 557. 21 U.S.C. 811. The regular scheduling process of formal rulemaking affords interested parties with appropriate process and the government with any additional relevant information needed to make a determination. Final decisions that conclude the regular scheduling process of formal rulemaking are subject to judicial review. 21 U.S.C. 877. Temporary scheduling orders are not subject to judicial review. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(6).

Section 201(h) of the CSA, 21 U.S.C. 811(h), provides for an expedited temporary scheduling action where such action is necessary to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety. As provided in this subsection, the Attorney General may, by order, schedule a substance in schedule I on a temporary basis. Such an order may not be issued before the expiration of 30 days from (1) the publication of a notice in the Federal Register of the intention to issue such order and the grounds upon which such order is to be issued, and (2) the date that notice of the proposed temporary scheduling order is transmitted to the Assistant Secretary of HHS. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(1).

Inasmuch as section 201(h) of the CSA directs that temporary scheduling actions be issued by order and sets forth the procedures by which such orders are to be issued, the DEA believes that the notice and comment requirements of section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553, do not apply to this notice of intent. In the alternative, even assuming that this notice of intent might be subject to section 553 of the APA, the Administrator finds that there is good cause to forgo the notice and comment requirements of section 553, as any further delays in the process for issuance of temporary scheduling orders would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest in view of the manifest urgency to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety.

Although the DEA believes this notice of intent to issue a temporary scheduling order is not subject to the notice and comment requirements of section 553 of the APA, the DEA notes that in accordance with 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(4), the Administrator will take into consideration any comments submitted by the Assistant Secretary with regard to the proposed temporary scheduling order.

Further, the DEA believes that this temporary scheduling action is not a “rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 601(2), and, accordingly, is not subject to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The requirements for the preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis in 5 U.S.C. 603(a) are not applicable where, as here, the DEA is not required by section 553 of the APA or any other law to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking.

Additionally, this action is not a significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), section 3(f), and, accordingly, this action has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

This action will 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. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) it is determined that this action does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

For the reasons set out above, the DEA proposes to amend 21 CFR part 1308 as follows:

Table of Contents I. What is being proposed? II. What is the background of the Charlotte area? III. What is the history of the gasoline volatility requirement? IV. What are the section 110(l) requirements? V. What is EPA's analysis of North Carolina's submittal? VI. Proposed Action VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. What is being proposed?

This rulemaking proposes to approve North Carolina's April 16, 2015, SIP revision in support of the State's request that EPA relax the Federal RVP requirement from 7.8 pounds per square inch (psi) to 9.0 psi for gasoline sold between June 1 and September 15 of each year (i.e., during high ozone season) in Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties. Specifically, EPA is proposing to approve the State's technical demonstration that changing the federal RVP requirements in Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi will not interfere with attainment or maintenance of any national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) or with any other applicable requirement of the CAA.1 In a separate SIP revision which is currently under EPA review, DAQ is requesting that EPA redesignate the North Carolina portion of the Charlotte 2008 8-hour Ozone Area to attainment.2 Final action to approve North Carolina's requested change to the Federal RVP requirement for Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties is contingent, in part, on EPA's final action to approve North Carolina's redesignation request for the North Carolina portion of the Charlotte 2008 8-hour Ozone Area. With its redesignation request, the State included a maintenance demonstration plan that estimates emissions through 2026 using a 7.8 psi RVP requirement rather than the 9.0 psi RVP requirement. However, through the April 16, 2015 RVP-related SIP revision (the subject of this proposed rulemaking), DAQ updated the mobile emissions for that maintenance plan (including the MVEBs) to reflect the State's request for EPA to change the Federal RVP requirement for Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties to 9.0 psi. The updates are summarized on page 24 of the State's submittal titled “Charlotte 2008 Ozone Redesignation and Maintenance SIP_with_RVP_Demo_Final_04-16-15”, and may be accessed at www.regulations.gov using Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0260. This proposed action would also update that maintenance plan to reflect the change for mobile emissions and the associated MVEBs due to the proposed change in the Federal RVP requirements for Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties.

As mentioned above, North Carolina is requesting the removal of the Federal 7.8 psi RVP requirement for Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties and, as part of that request, has evaluated whether removal of this requirement would interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS. To make this demonstration, North Carolina completed a technical analysis to estimate the change in emissions that would result from a switch to 9.0 psi RVP fuel. EPA has reviewed this technical analysis and is proposing to find that North Carolina's technical demonstration supports the conclusion that the use of gasoline with an RVP of 9.0 psi in Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties will not interfere with attainment or maintenance of any NAAQS or with any other applicable requirement of the CAA in the Charlotte Area.3 In addition to proposing to approve DAQ's noninterference demonstration, EPA is also proposing to approve the update to the maintenance plan and MVEBs associated with the State's request to redesignate the North Carolina portion of the Charlotte 2008 8-hour Ozone Area to reflect the requested change in the Federal RVP requirements for Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties.

This preamble is hereinafter organized into five parts. Section II provides the background of the Charlotte Area designation status with respect to the various ozone NAAQS. Section III describes the applicable history of federal gasoline regulation. Section IV provides the Agency's policy regarding relaxation of the volatility standards. Section V provides EPA's analysis of the information submitted by North Carolina to support a change to the Federal RVP standard in Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties.

The Charlotte Area was originally designated as a 1-hour ozone nonattainment area by EPA on March 3, 1978 (43 FR 8962) and was geographically defined as Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. On November 6, 1991, by operation of law under section 181(a) of the CAA, EPA classified the Charlotte Area as a moderate nonattainment area for ozone and added Gaston County to the nonattainment area. See 56 FR 56693. Among the requirements applicable to nonattainment areas for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS was the requirement to meet certain volatility standards (known as Reid Vapor Pressure or RVP) for gasoline sold commercially. See 55 FR 23658 (June 11, 1990). As discussed in section III, below, a 7.8 psi Federal RVP requirement first applied to Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties during the high ozone season given its status as a nonattainment area for the 1-hour ozone standard.

DAQ requested a redesignation of the Charlotte Area to attainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS in 1993. The Area attained the 1-hour ozone NAAQS and was redesignated to attainment for the 1-hour ozone on July 5, 1995, based on 1990-1993 ambient air quality monitoring data. See 60 FR 34859. North Carolina's 1-hour ozone redesignation request did not include a request to relax the 7.8 psi Federal RVP standard.

On April 30, 2004, EPA designated and classified areas for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS that was promulgated on July 18, 1997, as unclassifiable/attainment or nonattainment for the new 8-hour ozone NAAQS. See 69 FR 23857. The Charlotte Area was designated as nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS with a design value of 0.100 parts per million (ppm).4 Subsequently, the Charlotte Area attained the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS with a design value of 0.082 ppm using three years of quality assured data for the years of 2008-2010. The Charlotte Area was redesignated to attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in a final rulemaking on December 2, 2013. See 78 FR 72036. North Carolina's 1997 8-hour ozone redesignation request did not include a request for the removal of the 7.8 psi Federal RVP standard for the Charlotte Area, and thus modeled 7.8 psi for Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties to support the maintenance demonstration.

On May 21, 2012, EPA designated and classified areas for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS that was promulgated on March 27, 2008, as unclassifiable/attainment or nonattainment for the new 8-hour ozone NAAQS. See 77 FR 30088. The Charlotte Area was designated as nonattainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS with a design value of 0.079 ppm.5 On April 16, 2015, DAQ submitted a redesignation request and maintenance plan for the North Carolina portion of the Charlotte 2008 8-hour Ozone Area for EPA's approval. In that submittal, the State included a maintenance demonstration that estimates emissions using a 7.8 psi RVP requirement for Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties for the 2008 8-hour ozone redesignation request and maintenance plan. EPA is taking action on the aforementioned redesignation request and maintenance plan in a separate rulemaking. However, also on April 16, 2015, to support its request for EPA to change the Federal RVP requirement for Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties, DAQ submitted a SIP revision that contains a noninterference demonstration that included updated modeling assuming 9.0 psi for RVP for Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties and updates the maintenance plan submission and associated MVEBs for the North Carolina portion of the Charlotte 2008 8-hour Ozone Area.

On August 19, 1987 (52 FR 31274), EPA determined that gasoline nationwide had become increasingly volatile, causing an increase in evaporative emissions from gasoline-powered vehicles and equipment. Evaporative emissions from gasoline, referred to as volatile organic compounds (VOCs), are precursors to the formation of tropospheric ozone and contribute to the nation's ground-level ozone problem. Exposure to ground-level ozone can reduce lung function (thereby aggravating asthma or other respiratory conditions), increase susceptibility to respiratory infection, and may contribute to premature death in people with heart and lung disease.

The most common measure of fuel volatility that is useful in evaluating gasoline evaporative emissions is RVP. Under section 211(c) of CAA, EPA promulgated regulations on March 22, 1989 (54 FR 11868), that set maximum limits for the RVP of gasoline sold during the high ozone season. These regulations constituted Phase I of a two-phase nationwide program, which was designed to reduce the volatility of commercial gasoline during the summer ozone control season. On June 11, 1990 (55 FR 23658), EPA promulgated more stringent volatility controls as Phase II of the volatility control program. These requirements established maximum RVP standards of 9.0 psi or 7.8 psi (depending on the State, the month, and the area's initial ozone attainment designation with respect to the 1-hour ozone NAAQS during the high ozone season).

The 1990 CAA Amendments established a new section, 211(h), to address fuel volatility. Section 211(h) requires EPA to promulgate regulations making it unlawful to sell, offer for sale, dispense, supply, offer for supply, transport, or introduce into commerce gasoline with an RVP level in excess of 9.0 psi during the high ozone season. Section 211(h) prohibits EPA from establishing a volatility standard more stringent than 9.0 psi in an attainment area, except that EPA may impose a lower (more stringent) standard in any former ozone nonattainment area redesignated to attainment.

On December 12, 1991 (56 FR 64704), EPA modified the Phase II volatility regulations to be consistent with section 211(h) of the CAA. The modified regulations prohibited the sale of gasoline with an RVP above 9.0 psi in all areas designated attainment for ozone, beginning in 1992. For areas designated as nonattainment, the regulations retained the original Phase II standards published on June 11, 1990 (55 FR 23658). A current listing of the RVP requirements for states can be found at 40 CFR 80.27(a)(2) as well as on EPA's Web site at: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/fuels/gasolinefuels/volatility/standards.htm.

As explained in the December 12, 1991 (56 FR 64704), Phase II rulemaking, EPA believes that relaxation of an applicable RVP standard is best accomplished in conjunction with the redesignation process. In order for an ozone nonattainment area to be redesignated as an attainment area, section 107(d)(3) of the Act requires the state to make a showing, pursuant to section 175A of the Act, that the area is capable of maintaining attainment for the ozone NAAQS for ten years after redesignation. Depending on the area's circumstances, this maintenance plan will either demonstrate that the area is capable of maintaining attainment for ten years without the more stringent volatility standard or that the more stringent volatility standard may be necessary for the area to maintain its attainment with the ozone NAAQS. Therefore, in the context of a request for redesignation, EPA will not change the volatility standard unless the state requests a change and the maintenance plan demonstrates, to the satisfaction of EPA, that the area will maintain attainment for ten years without the need for the more stringent volatility standard.

As noted above, North Carolina did not request a change of the applicable 7.8 psi Federal RVP standard when the Charlotte Area was redesignated to attainment for the either the 1-hour or the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The State, in conjunction with its request to redesignate the North Carolina portion of the Charlotte 2008 8-hour Ozone Area to attainment,6 is now requesting a change of the Federal RVP requirement from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi. EPA's consideration of this requested change for the Federal RVP requirements for Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties is contingent, in part, upon EPA approving North Carolina's redesignation request and maintenance plan for the North Carolina portion of the Charlotte 2008 8-hour Ozone Area. To make the requested change in the Federal RVP requirements for Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties, EPA would also have to approve the updates to North Carolina's maintenance plan and MVEBs included with the State's April 16, 2015, RVP-related SIP revision.7

To support North Carolina's request to relax the Federal RVP requirement for Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties, the State must demonstrate that the requested change will satisfy section 110(l) of the CAA. Section 110(l) requires that a revision to the SIP not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (as defined in section 171), or any other applicable requirement of the Act. EPA's criterion for determining the approvability of North Carolina's April 16, 2015, RVP-related SIP revision is whether the noninterference demonstration associated with the relaxation request satisfies section 110(l).

EPA evaluates each section 110(l) noninterference demonstration on a case-by-case basis considering the circumstances of each SIP revision. EPA interprets 110(l) as applying to all NAAQS that are in effect, including those that have been promulgated but for which the EPA has not yet made designations. The degree of analysis focused on any particular NAAQS in a noninterference demonstration varies depending on the nature of the emissions associated with the proposed SIP revision. EPA's analysis of North Carolina's April 16, 2015, SIP revision pursuant to section 110(l) is provided below.

As previously mentioned, EPA is proposing three actions in relation to the State's April 16, 2015, noninterference demonstration. First, EPA is proposing to approve North Carolina's update to the maintenance plan associated with the State's redesignation request for the North Carolina portion of the Charlotte 2008 8-hour Ozone Area to reflect modeling of 9.0 psi for RVP for Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties. Second, EPA is proposing to approve the revised MVEBs that result from the updated mobile modeling to reflect the change in RVP for Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties. Third, EPA is proposing to approve the State's technical demonstration that the switch to the sale of gasoline with an RVP of 9.0 psi in Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties during the high ozone season will not interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS and to amend the SIP to include this demonstration. Consistent with CAA section 211(h) and the Phase II volatility regulations, a separate rulemaking is required to change the current Federal requirement to use gasoline with a 7.8 psi RVP in Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties.

On April 16, 2015, DAQ submitted a noninterference demonstration to support the State's request to modify the RVP summertime gasoline requirement from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi for Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties. This demonstration includes an evaluation of the impact that the removal of the 7.8 psi RVP requirement for these counties would have on the Area's ability to attain or maintain the 1997 and 2008 ozone standards or other NAAQS in the Charlotte Area.8 North Carolina's noninterference analysis evaluated the impact of the change in RVP on the Area's ability to attain or maintain the ozone, particulate matter (PM),9 Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and carbon monoxide (CO) NAAQS.

DAQ's noninterference analysis utilized EPA's 2014 Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES) emission modeling system to estimate emissions for mobile sources. These mobile source emissions are used as part of the evaluation of the potential impacts to the NAAQS that might result exclusively from changing the high ozone season RVP requirement from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi. As summarized in Tables 1 and 2, below, the MOVES model predicted minor increases in on-road mobile source NOX and VOC emissions in the North Carolina portion of the Charlotte 2008 8-hour Ozone Area due to relaxation of the RVP requirement. Daily on-road mobile NOX emissions are projected to increase by 0.11 ton in 2015 down to an increase of 0.01 ton in 2026 during the ozone season. Daily on-road mobile VOC emissions are projected to increase by 0.18 ton in 2015 down to an increase of 0.04 ton in 2026 during the ozone season.

Table 3, below, shows the total estimated anthropogenic emissions of NOX and VOC from area, point, on-road, and nonroad source categories for the North Carolina Portion of the Charlotte 2008 8-hour Ozone Area. Emissions reported for 2014 assume the use of 7.8 psi RVP fuel for Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties whereas emissions from 2015 through 2026 assume the use of 9.0 psi RVP fuel. NOX and VOC emissions are projected to continue to decrease in the Charlotte 8-hour Ozone Area using 9.0 psi RVP fuel in the entire Area for years 2015 through 2026. DAQ's analysis also estimates that RVP relaxation could increase anthropogenic VOC emissions by 0.42 tpd in 2015 and 0.32 tpd in 2026 and could increase anthropogenic NOX emissions by 0.11 tpd in 2015 and 0.01 tpd in 2026.

As discussed above, the Charlotte Area is currently designated as attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and in a separate action, EPA is considering the State's redesignation request for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Although the Charlotte Area was previously designated as nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, the Charlotte Area was redesignated to attainment for that NAAQS on December 2, 2014. See 78 FR 72036.

Table 4, below, shows the safety margins 10 from a 2014 base year with 7.8 psi RVP fuel to the years 2015, 2018, 2022, and 2026 with 9.0 psi RVP fuel for the entire Charlotte 2008 8-hour Ozone Area. The safety margins identified in Table 4 indicate that the switch to 9.0 psi RVP fuel in Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties will not interfere with the Area's ability to attain or maintain the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.11

Because the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS is more stringent than the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, North Carolina's April 16, 2015, noninterference demonstration for the ozone NAAQS is focused on the 2008 8-hour ozone standard. The 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS is met when the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average concentration, averaged over 3 years is 0.075 ppm or less. As shown in Table 5, all of the ozone monitors in the Charlotte 2008 8-hour Ozone Area are currently below the 2008 8-hour ozone standard.

Table 5 also shows that there is an overall downward trend in ozone concentrations in the Charlotte 2008 8-hour Ozone Area. This decline can be attributed to Federal and State programs that have led to significant emissions reductions in ozone precursors. Given this downward trend, the current ozone concentrations in the Charlotte 2008 8-hour Ozone Area, and the results of North Carolina's emissions analysis, EPA has preliminarily determined that a change to 9.0 psi RVP fuel for Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties would not interfere with the Area's ability to attain or maintain the 1997 or 2008 ozone NAAQS in the Charlotte Area.

Over the course of several years, EPA has reviewed and revised the PM2.5 NAAQS a number of times. On July 16, 1997, EPA established an annual PM2.5 NAAQS of 15.0 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3), based on a 3-year average of annual mean PM2.5 concentrations, and a 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS of 65 μg/m3, based on a 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations. See 62 FR 36852 (July 18, 1997). On September 21, 2006, EPA retained the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS of 15.0 μg/m3 but revised the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS to 35 μg/m3, based again on a 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations. See 71 FR 61144 (October 17, 2006). On December 14, 2012, EPA retained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS of 35 μg/m3 but revised the annual primary PM2.5 NAAQS to 12.0 μg/m3, based again on a 3-year average of annual mean PM2.5 concentrations. See 78 FR 3086 (January 15, 2013).

EPA promulgated designations for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS on January 5, 2005 (70 FR 944), and April 14, 2005 (70 FR 19844). The Charlotte Area was designated unclassifiable/attainment for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 standards. As mentioned above, EPA revised the Annual PM2.5 NAAQS in December 2012. EPA completed designations for the 2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS for most areas on December 14, 2015, and designated counties in the Charlotte Area as unclassifiable/attainment. See 80 FR 2206 (January 15, 2015).

In 2013, the Charlotte Area PM2.5 design values were 9.8 μg/m3 for the Annual PM2.5 NAAQS and 22 μg/m3 for the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. North Carolina's MOVES2014 modeling predicted slight reductions of direct PM2.5 emissions (0.23 percent reduction in 2015 and a 0.61 percent reduction in 2026) after changing the model inputs to reflect the proposed use of 9.0 psi RVP fuel in Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties. As discussed above, the MOVES2014 modeling also predicted small increases in NOX and VOC emissions due to the proposed RVP relaxation. However, EPA believes that any resulting increase in ambient PM2.5 concentrations resulting from these changes would not cause interference with the PM2.5 NAAQS because the NOX and VOC mobile emission increases would be small in relation to the current total emissions and because ambient PM2.5 concentrations in the southeastern U.S. tend to be impacted more significantly by direct PM2.5 and SO2 emissions than by NOX and anthropogenic VOC emissions.13 As discussed below, the MOVES2014 model did not predict any impact on SO2 emissions due to RVP relaxation in Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties. Given the current PM2.5 concentrations in the Charlotte Area and the results of North Carolina's emissions analysis, EPA has preliminarily determined that a change to 9.0 psi RVP fuel for Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties would not interfere with maintenance of the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS or the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in the Charlotte Area.14

On February 17, 2012, EPA designated all counties in North Carolina as unclassifiable/attainment for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS. See 77 FR 9532. Based on the technical analysis in North Carolina's April 16, 2015, RVP-related SIP revision, the projected increase in total anthropogenic NOX emissions associated with the change to 9.0 psi RVP fuel for Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties is approximately 0.11 tpd in 2015 and 0.01 tpd in 2026. Given the current unclassifiable/attainment designation and the results of North Carolina's emissions analysis, EPA has preliminarily determined that a change to 9.0 psi RVP fuel for Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties would not interfere with maintenance of the 2010 NO2 NAAQS in the Charlotte Area.

In November 6, 1991, Mecklenburg County was classified as “not classified” for the 1971 8-hour CO NAAQS of 9 ppm. See 56 FR 56694. Mecklenburg County was redesignated to attainment for the 8-hour CO NAAQS on August 2, 1995. See 60 FR 39258. On August 31, 2011, EPA retained the 8-hour standard and 1-hour standard. See 76 FR 54294. Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties remain in attainment for the 1971 and 2011 1-hour and 8-hour CO NAAQS.

North Carolina's MOVES2014 modeling projected an increase in total on-road mobile source CO emissions of approximately 2.78 tpd in 2015 and 1.44 tpd in 2026 (0.71 percent and 0.60 percent of estimated total on-road mobile source emissions in those years, respectively) after changing the model inputs to reflect the proposed use of 9.0 psi RVP fuel in Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties. The 2012 and 2013 ambient monitoring data showed maximum 8-hour concentration of 1.2 ppm for the 8-hour CO. Additionally, 2012 and 2013 ambient monitoring data showed maximum 1-hour CO concentrations of 2.3 and 1.7 ppm, respectively, well below the 35 ppm 1-hour CO NAAQS. Given the current unclassifiable/attainment designation, ambient monitoring data, and the results of North Carolina's emissions analysis, EPA has preliminarily determined that a change to 9.0 psi RVP fuel for Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties would not interfere with maintenance of the 1971 1-hour and 8-hour CO NAAQS in the Charlotte Area.

On June 22, 2010, EPA revised the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS to 75 parts per billion (ppb) which became effective on August 23, 2010. See 75 FR 35520. On August 5, 2013, EPA designated nonattainment only in areas with violating 2009-2011 monitoring data. EPA did not designate any county in North Carolina for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS as part of the initial designation. See 78 FR 47191. On March 2, 2015, a Consent Decree was issued by the United States District Court for the Northern District of California stipulating the time and method for designating the remaining areas in the Country.15

North Carolina's MOVES2014 modeling did not predict any change in SO2 emissions due to RVP relaxation. The Charlotte Area had a design value of 10 ppb, about 13 percent of the SO2 NAAQS. Additionally, 3 percent of total SO2 is derived from on-road, nonroad and area sources combined and the remaining 97 percent from point sources.16 For these reasons, EPA has preliminarily determined that a change to 9.0 psi RVP fuel for Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties would not interfere with maintenance of the 2012 SO2 NAAQS in the Charlotte Area.

EPA is proposing to approve the State of North Carolina's noninterference demonstration, submitted on April 16, 2015, in support of the State's request that EPA change the Federal RVP requirements for Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi. Specifically, EPA is proposing to find that this change in the RVP requirements for Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties will not interfere with attainment or maintenance of any NAAQS or with any other applicable requirement of the CAA. North Carolina's April 16, 2015, SIP revision also updates its maintenance plan and the associated MVEBs related to the State's redesignation request for the North Carolina portion of the 2008 Charlotte 8-hour Ozone Area to reflect emissions changes for the requested change to the Federal RVP requirements. EPA is proposing to approve those changes to update the maintenance plan and the MVEBs. As previously mentioned, final action on North Carolina's noninterference demonstration is contingent upon EPA approving the State's redesignation request and maintenance plan for the North Carolina portion of Charlotte 2008 8-hour Ozone Area.

EPA has preliminarily determined that North Carolina's April 16, 2015, RVP-related SIP revision is consistent with the applicable provisions of the CAA. EPA is not proposing action today to remove the Federal 7.8 psi RVP requirement for Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties. Any such proposal would occur in a separate and subsequent rulemaking.

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submittal that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations. 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. Accordingly, this proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not propose to impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:

• Is not a significant regulatory action 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);

• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);

• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);

• 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);

• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, October 7, 1999);

• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

• Is 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

• Does 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).

In addition, the SIP is not approved 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 proposed 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.

EPA is proposing to take four separate but related actions, one of which involves multiple elements: (1) To approve the base year inventory for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the Knoxville Area into the Tennessee SIP; (2) to determine that the Knoxville Area is attaining the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS; (3) to approve Tennessee's plan for maintaining the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS (maintenance plan), including the associated MVEBs, into the SIP; and (4) to redesignate the Knoxville Area to attainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is also notifying the public of the status of EPA's adequacy determination for the Knoxville Area MVEBs. These actions are summarized below and described in greater detail throughout this notice of proposed rulemaking.

Based on the 2008 8-hour ozone nonattainment designation for the Knoxville Area, Tennessee was required to develop a nonattainment SIP revision addressing certain CAA requirements. Specifically, pursuant to CAA section 182(a)(3)(B) and section 182(a)(1), the Knoxville Area was required to submit a SIP revision addressing emissions statements and emissions inventory requirements, respectively. EPA approved the emissions statements requirements for the Area into the SIP in a separate action. See 80 FR 11974 (March 5, 2015). Today, EPA is proposing to determine that the base year emissions inventory, as submitted in the State's November 14, 2014, SIP revision, meets the requirements of sections 110 and 182(a)(1) of the CAA and proposing to approve this emissions inventory into the SIP.

EPA is also making the preliminarily determination that the Knoxville Area is attaining the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS based on recent air quality data and proposing to approve Tennessee's 2008 ozone NAAQS maintenance plan for the Knoxville Area as meeting the requirements of section 175A of the CAA (such approval being one of the CAA criteria for redesignation to attainment status). The maintenance plan is designed to keep the Knoxville Area in attainment of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS through 2026. Additionally, EPA is proposing to approve the 2011 and 2026 NOX and VOC MVEBs that are included as part of Tennessee's 2008 ozone NAAQS maintenance plan for the Knoxville Area.

EPA is also notifying the public of the status of EPA's adequacy process for the NOX and VOC MVEBs for the years 2011 and 2026 for the Knoxville Area. The public comment period for Adequacy began on December 4, 2014, with EPA's posting of the availability of this submittal on EPA's Adequacy Web site (http://www.tn.gov/environment/ppo/docs/air/knoxville-redesignation-request-2014.pdf). The Adequacy comment period for these MVEBs closed on January 5, 2015. No comments, adverse or otherwise, were received during EPA's adequacy process for the MVEBs associated with Tennessee's 2008 8-hour ozone maintenance plan. Please see section VII of this proposed rulemaking for further explanation of this process and for more details on the MVEBs.

In summary, today's notice of proposed rulemaking is in response to Tennessee's November 14, 2014, redesignation request and associated SIP submittal that address the specific issues summarized above and the necessary elements described in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA for redesignation of the Knoxville Area to attainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. More detail regarding the rationale for EPA's proposed actions is discussed below.

On March 12, 2008, EPA promulgated a revised 8-hour ozone NAAQS of 0.075 parts per million (ppm). See 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008). Under EPA's regulations at 40 CFR part 50, the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS 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 0.075 ppm. See 40 CFR 50.15. 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.

Upon promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, the CAA requires EPA to designate as nonattainment any area that is violating the NAAQS, based on the three most recent years of ambient air quality data at the conclusion of the designation process. The Knoxville Area was designated nonattainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS on May 21, 2012 (effective July 20, 2012) using 2009-2011 ambient air quality data. See 77 FR 30088 (May 21, 2012). At the time of designation, the Knoxville Area was classified as a marginal nonattainment area for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. In the final implementation rule for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS (SIP Implementation Rule),1 EPA established ozone nonattainment area attainment dates based on Table 1 of section 181(a) of the CAA. This established an attainment date three years after the July 20, 2012, effective date for areas classified as marginal areas for the 2008 8-hour ozone nonattainment designations. Therefore, the Knoxville Area's attainment date is July 20, 2015.

The CAA provides the requirements for redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment. Specifically, section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA allows for redesignation providing that: (1) The Administrator determines that the area has attained the applicable NAAQS; (2) the Administrator has fully approved the applicable implementation plan for the area under section 110(k); (3) the Administrator determines that the improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the applicable SIP and applicable federal air pollutant control regulations and other permanent and enforceable reductions; (4) the Administrator has fully approved a maintenance plan for the area as meeting the requirements of section 175A; and (5) the state containing such area has met all requirements applicable to the area for purposes of redesignation under section 110 and part D of the CAA.

On April 16, 1992, EPA provided guidance on redesignation in the General Preamble for the Implementation of title I of the CAA Amendments of 1990 (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:

On November 14, 2014, the State of Tennessee, through TDEC, requested that EPA redesignate the Knoxville Area to attainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA's evaluation indicates that the Knoxville Area has attained the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS and that the Knoxville Area meets the requirements for redesignation set forth in section 107(d)(3)(E), including the maintenance plan requirements under section 175A of the CAA and associated MVEBs. Also, based on Tennessee's November 14, 2014, submittal, EPA is also proposing to approve the base year emissions inventory, included in Tennessee's November 14, 2014, submittal, into the SIP. Approval of the base year inventory is a prerequisite to redesignating an ozone nonattainment area to attainment.

As stated above, in accordance with the CAA, EPA proposes in today's action to: (1) Approve the 2008 8-hour ozone base year emissions inventory for the Knoxville Area into the Tennessee SIP; (2) determine that the Knoxville Area is attaining the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS; (3) approve the Knoxville Area's 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS maintenance plan, including the associated sub-area MVEBs, into the Tennessee SIP; and (4) redesignate the Knoxville Area to attainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Approval of the 2008 8-hour ozone base year inventory is a required prerequisite action before the Area can be redesignated to attainment. The five redesignation criteria provided under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) are discussed in greater detail for the Area following the discussion below on the Knoxville emissions inventory.

Section 182(a)(1) of the CAA requires states to submit a comprehensive, accurate, and current inventory of actual emissions from all sources of the relevant pollutant or pollutants in each ozone nonattainment area. The section 182(a)(1) base year inventory is defined in the SIP Requirements Rule as “a comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of actual emissions from sources of VOC and NOX emitted within the boundaries of the nonattainment area as required by CAA section 182(a)(1).” See 40 CFR 51.1100(bb). The inventory year must be selected consistent with the baseline year for the RFP plan as required by 40 CFR 51.1110(b),2 and the inventory must include actual ozone season day emissions as defined in 40 CFR 51.1100(cc) 3 and contain data elements consistent with the detail required by 40 CFR part 51, subpart A. See 40 CFR 51.1115(a), (c), (e). In addition, the point source emissions included in the inventory must be reported according to the point source emissions thresholds of the Air Emissions Reporting Requirements (AERR) in 40 CFR part 51, subpart A. 40 CFR 51.1115(d).

Knoxville selected 2011 as the base year for the section 182(a)(1) emissions inventory which is the year corresponding with the first triennial inventory under 40 CFR part 51, subpart A. This base year is one of the three years of ambient data used to determine attainment and therefore represents emissions associated with attainment conditions. The emissions inventory is based on data developed and submitted by TDEC and Knox County Division of Air Quality Management to TDEC to EPA's 2011 National Emissions Inventory (NEI), and it contains data elements consistent with the detail required by 40 CFR part 51, subpart A.4

Knoxville's emissions inventory for its portion of the Area provides 2011 emissions data for NOX and VOCs for the following general source categories: Stationary point, area, non-road mobile, and on-road mobile. A detailed discussion of the inventory development is located in Attachment A, Emission Inventory, in Tennessee's November 14, 2014, SIP submittal which is provided in the docket for this action. The table below provides a summary of the emissions inventory.

The emissions inventory includes all anthropogenic VOC and NOX sources for all of Blount and Knox Counties, as well as the portion of Anderson County included in the Area. NOX and VOC emissions were calculated for a typical summer July day, taking into account the seasonal adjustment factor for summer operations. The inventory contains point source emissions data for facilities located within the Blount and Knox Counties as well as the portion of Anderson County included in the Area based on Geographic Information Systems (GIS) mapping. For Blount and Knox County, the emissions for the entire county are provided. More detail on the inventory emissions for individual sources categories is provided below and in the Attachment A to Tennessee's November 14, 2014, SIP submittal.

Point sources are large, stationary, identifiable sources of emissions that release pollutants into the atmosphere. The inventory contains point source emissions data for facilities located within the Blount and Knox Counties as well as the portion of Anderson County included in the Area based on GIS mapping. Each facility was required to update the previous Emission Database Layout (EDL) file with information for the requested year and return the updated EDL to the TDEC emission inventory mailbox. For this submittal, point source emissions were obtained from EDL for facilities in the nonattainment counties. The point source emissions inventory for Blount and Knox County as well as the portion of Anderson County included in the Area is located in the docket for today's action.

Area sources are small emission stationary sources which, due to their large number, collectively have significant emissions (e.g., dry cleaners, service stations). Emissions for these sources were estimated by multiplying an emission factor by such indicators of collective emissions activity as production, number of employees, or population. These emissions were estimated at the county level. Tennessee developed its inventory using EPA Nonpoint files located on EPA's CHIEF Emission Inventory Web site for the 2011 NEI and subtracted available activity data for area sources that may have a point source contribution to eliminate double counting. Tennessee developed its inventory according to the current EPA emissions inventory guidance for area sources.5

On-road mobile sources include vehicles used on roads for transportation of passengers or freight. Tennessee developed its on-road emissions inventory using EPA's Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES) model for each ozone nonattainment county.6 County level on-road modeling was conducted using county-specific vehicle population and other local data. Tennessee developed its inventory according to the current EPA emissions inventory guidance for on-road mobile sources using MOVES version 2014.7

Non-road mobile sources include vehicles, engines, and equipment used for construction, agriculture, recreation, and other purposes that do not use roadways (e.g., lawn mowers, construction equipment, railroad locomotives, and aircraft). Tennessee calculated emissions for most of the non-road mobile sources using EPA's NONROAD2008a model 8 and developed its non-road mobile source inventory according to the current EPA emissions inventory guidance for non-road mobile sources.9

For the reasons discussed above, EPA has preliminarily determined that Tennessee's emissions inventory meets the requirements under CAA section 182(a)(1) and the SIP Requirements Rule for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Approval of Tennessee's redesignation request and associated maintenance plan is contingent upon EPA's final approval of the base year emission inventory for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

The five redesignation criteria provided under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) are discussed in greater detail for the Knoxville Area in the following paragraphs of this section.

For redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment, the CAA requires EPA to determine that the area has attained the applicable NAAQS (CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(i)). For ozone, an area may be considered to be attaining the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS if it meets the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, as determined in accordance with 40 CFR 50.15 and Appendix I of part 50, based on three complete, consecutive calendar years of quality-assured air quality monitoring data. To attain the NAAQS, 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 0.075 ppm. Based on the data handling and reporting convention described in 40 CFR part 50, Appendix I, the NAAQS are attained if the design value is 0.075 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.

In this action, EPA is preliminarily determining that the Knoxville Area is attaining the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA reviewed the available ozone monitoring data from monitoring stations in the Knoxville Area for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS for 2011-2013. These data have been quality-assured, are recorded in Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS-AQS), and indicate that the Area is attaining the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The fourth-highest 8-hour ozone values at each monitor for 2011, 2012, and 2013, and the 3-year averages for 2011-2013 (i.e., design values), are summarized in Table 1, below.

The 3-year design value for 2011-2013 is 0.074 ppm,10 which meets the NAAQS. This data has been certified and quality-assured. In today's action, EPA is proposing to determine that the Area is attaining the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA will not take final action to approve the redesignation if the 3-year design value exceeds the NAAQS after proposal. Preliminary 2014 data indicates that this Area will continue to attain the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.11 As discussed in more detail below, the State of Tennessee has committed to continue monitoring in this Area in accordance with 40 CFR part 58.

For redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment, the CAA requires EPA to determine that the state has met all applicable requirements under section 110 and part D of title I of the CAA (CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(v)) and that the state has a fully approved SIP under section 110(k) for the area (CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii)). EPA proposes to find that Tennessee has met all applicable SIP requirements for the Knoxville Area under section 110 of the CAA (general SIP requirements) for purposes of redesignation. Additionally, EPA proposes to find that the Tennessee SIP satisfies the criterion that it meets applicable SIP requirements for purposes of redesignation under part D of title I of the CAA (requirements specific to 2008 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas) in accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E)(v). Further, EPA proposes to determine that the SIP is fully approved with respect to all requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation in accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii). In making these proposed determinations, EPA ascertained which requirements are applicable to the Area and, if applicable, that they are fully approved under section 110(k). SIPs must be fully approved only with respect to requirements that were applicable prior to submittal of the complete redesignation request.

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 interstate transport of air pollutants. The section 110(a)(2)(D) requirements for a state are not linked with a particular nonattainment area's designation and classification in that state. EPA believes that the requirements linked with a particular nonattainment area's designation and classifications are the relevant measures to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation request. The transport SIP submittal requirements, where applicable, continue to apply to a state regardless of the designation of any one particular area in the state. Thus, EPA does not believe that the CAA's interstate transport requirements should be construed to be applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation.

In addition, EPA believes other section 110 elements that are neither connected with nonattainment plan submissions nor linked with an area's attainment status are 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, 2008); 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).

Title I, Part D, applicable SIP requirements. Section 172(c) of the CAA sets forth the basic requirements of attainment plans for nonattainment areas that are required to submit them pursuant to section 172(b). Subpart 2 of part D, which includes section 182 of the CAA, establishes specific requirements for ozone nonattainment areas depending on the area's nonattainment classification. As provided in Subpart 2, a marginal ozone nonattainment area, such as the Knoxville Area, must submit an emissions inventory that complies with section 172(c)(3), but the specific requirements of section 182(a) apply in lieu of the demonstration of attainment (and contingency measures) required by section 172(c). See 42 U.S.C. 7511a(a). A thorough discussion of the requirements contained in sections 172(c) and 182 can be found in the General Preamble for Implementation of Title I (57 FR 13498).

Section 182(a) Requirements. Section 182(a)(1) requires states to submit a comprehensive, accurate, and current inventory of actual emissions from sources of VOC and NOx emitted within the boundaries of the ozone nonattainment area. Tennessee provided an emissions inventory for the Knoxville Area to EPA in a November 14, 2014 SIP submission. Specifically, Tennessee addressed this requirement by submitting a 2011 base year emissions inventory for the Knoxville Area. EPA is proposing approval of Tennessee's 2011 base year inventory in this action (see Section V.A. above). Tennessee's section 182(a)(1) inventory must be incorporated into the SIP before EPA can take final action to approve the State's redesignation request for the Knoxville Area.

Under section 182(a)(2)(A), states with ozone nonattainment areas that were designated prior to the enactment of the 1990 CAA amendments were required to submit, within six months of classification, all rules and corrections to existing VOC RACT rules that were required under section 172(b)(3) of the CAA (and related guidance) prior to the 1990 CAA amendments. The Knoxville Area is not subject to the section 182(a)(2) RACT “fix up” because it was designated as nonattainment after the enactment of the 1990 CAA amendments.

Section 182(a)(2)(B) requires each state with a marginal ozone nonattainment area that implemented, or was required to implement, an inspection and maintenance (I/M) program prior to the 1990 CAA amendments to submit a SIP revision providing for an I/M program no less stringent than that required prior to the 1990 amendments or already in the SIP at the time of the amendments, whichever is more stringent. The Knoxville Area is not subject to the section 182(a)(2)(B) because it was designated as nonattainment after the enactment of the 1990 CAA amendments and did not have an I/M program in place prior to those amendments.

Regarding the permitting and offset requirements of section 182(a)(2)(C) and section 182(a)(4), Tennessee currently has a fully-approved part D NSR program in place. However, EPA has determined that areas being redesignated need not comply with the requirement that a NSR program be approved prior to redesignation, provided that the area demonstrates maintenance of the NAAQS without part D NSR, because PSD requirements will apply after redesignation. A more detailed 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 Requirements for Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment.” Tennessee's PSD program will become applicable in the Knoxville Area upon redesignation to attainment.

Section 182(a)(3) requires states to submit periodic inventories and emissions statements. Section 182(a)(3)(A) requires states to submit a periodic inventory every three years. As discussed below in the section of this notice titled Criteria (4)(e), Verification of Continued Attainment, the State will continue to update its emissions inventory at least once every three years. Under section 182(a)(3)(B), each state with an ozone nonattainment area must submit a SIP revision requiring emissions statements to be submitted to the state by sources within that nonattainment area. EPA approved Tennessee's emissions statements requirement on March 5, 2015 (80 FR 11887).

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 that are 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 transportation conformity SIP revisions must be consistent with federal conformity regulations relating to consultation, enforcement and enforceability that EPA promulgated pursuant to its authority under the CAA.

EPA interprets the conformity SIP requirements 12 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 Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001) (upholding this interpretation); see also 60 FR 62748 (December 7, 1995) (redesignation of Tampa, Florida). Nonetheless, Tennessee has an approved conformity SIP for the Knoxville Area. See 78 FR 29027 (May 17, 2013). Thus, the Knoxville Area has satisfied all applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation under section 110 and part D of title I of the CAA.

EPA has fully approved the applicable Tennessee SIP for the Knoxville 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). Tennessee has adopted and submitted, and EPA has approved at various times, provisions addressing the various SIP elements applicable for the ozone NAAQS. See 78 FR 14450 (March 16, 2013).

As indicated above, EPA believes that the section 110 elements that are neither connected with nonattainment plan submissions nor linked to an area's nonattainment status are not applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation. With the exception of the emissions inventory requirement, which is addressed in this action, EPA has approved all part D requirements applicable for purposes of this redesignation.

For redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment, the CAA requires EPA to determine that the air quality improvement in the 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 (CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii)). EPA has preliminarily determined that Tennessee has demonstrated that the observed air quality improvement in its portion of the Knoxville Area is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from federal measures and from state measures adopted into the SIP. EPA does not have any information to suggest that the decrease in ozone concentrations in the Knoxville Area is due to unusually favorable meteorological conditions.

State and Federal measures enacted in recent years have resulted in permanent emission reductions. Most of these emission reductions are enforceable through regulations. A few non-regulatory measures also result in emission reductions. The state and local measures that have been implemented to date and relied upon by Tennessee to demonstrate attainment and/or maintenance in the Knoxville Area include the Statewide Motor Vehicle Anti-Tampering Rule and Stage I Gasoline Vapor Recovery. These measures are approved in the federally-approved SIP and thus are permanent and enforceable. The Federal measures that have been implemented include the following:

Tier 2 Vehicle Standards. Implementation began in 2004 and requires all passenger vehicles in any manufacturer's fleet to meet an average standard of 0.07 grams of NOX per mile. Additionally, in January 2006 the sulfur content of gasoline was required to be on average 30 ppm which assists in lowering the NOX emissions.13

Heavy-duty gasoline and diesel highway vehicle standards and Ultra Low-Sulfur Diesel Rule. EPA issued this rule on January 18, 2001 (66 FR 5002). This rule includes standards limiting the sulfur content of diesel fuel, which began to take effect in 2004. A second phase took effect in 2007, which further reduced the highway diesel fuel sulfur content to 15 ppm, leading to additional reductions in combustion NOX and VOC emissions. This rule is expected to achieve a 95 percent reduction in NOX emissions from diesel trucks and buses.

Nonroad spark-ignition engines and recreational engines standards. The nonroad spark-ignition and recreational engine standards, effective in July 2003, regulate NOX, hydrocarbons, and carbon monoxide from groups of previously unregulated nonroad engines. These engine standards apply to large spark-ignition engines (e.g., forklifts and airport ground service equipment), recreational vehicles (e.g., off-highway motorcycles and all-terrain-vehicles), and recreational marine diesel engines sold in the United States and imported after the effective date of these standards. When all of the nonroad spark-ignition and recreational engine standards are fully implemented, an overall 72 percent reduction in hydrocarbons, 80 percent reduction in NOX, and 56 percent reduction in carbon monoxide emissions are expected by 2020. These controls reduce ambient concentrations of ozone, carbon monoxide, and fine particulate matter.

Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS). On February 16, 2012, EPA promulgated maximum achievable control technology regulations for coal-and oil-fired EGUs, intended to reduce hazardous air pollutants emissions from EGUs. Although the MATS rule is not targeted at NOX emissions, it is expected to result in additional NOX reductions due to the retirement of older coal-fired units.

Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) Consent Decree/Federal Facilities Compliance Agreement. On April 14, 2011, TVA entered into a consent decree with Tennessee, Alabama, Kentucky, and North Carolina to resolve allegations of CAA violations at TVA's coal-fired power plants. The relief obtained in this consent decree was also secured in a Federal Facilities Compliance Agreement (FFCA) between EPA and TVA. The consent decree and FFCA establish system-wide caps on NOX and SO2emissions at TVA's coal-fired facilities, declining to permanent levels of 52,000 tons of NOX in 2018 and 110,000 tons of SO2 in 2019, and require TVA to meet specific control requirements.14

NO X SIP Call. On October 27, 1998 (63 FR 57356), EPA issued the NOX SIP Call requiring the District of Columbia and 22 states to reduce emissions of NOX, a precursor to ozone pollution, and providing a mechanism (the NOX Budget Trading Program) that states could use to achieve those reductions. Affected states were required to comply with Phase I of the SIP Call beginning in 2004 and Phase II beginning in 2007. By the end of 2008, ozone season emissions from sources subject to the NOX SIP Call dropped by 62 percent from 2000 emissions levels. 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. Emission reductions resulting from regulations developed in response to the NOX SIP Call are therefore permanent and enforceable for the purposes of today's action.

CAIR/CSAPR. CAIR created regional cap-and-trade programs to reduce SO2 and NOX emissions in 27 eastern states, including Tennessee. See 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005). EPA approved Tennessee's CAIR regulations into the Tennessee SIP on November 25, 2009. See 74 FR 61535. In 2009, the CAIR ozone season NOX trading program superseded the NOX Budget Trading Program, although the emission reduction obligations of the NOX SIP Call were not rescinded. See 40 CFR 51.121(r) and 51.123(aa). In 2008, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) initially vacated CAIR, North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008), but ultimately remanded the rule to EPA without vacatur to preserve the environmental benefits provided by CAIR, North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176, 1178 (D.C. Cir. 2008). On August 8, 2011 (76 FR 48208), acting on the D.C. Circuit's remand, EPA promulgated CSAPR to address interstate transport of emissions and resulting secondary air pollutants and to replace CAIR. CSAPR requires substantial reductions of SO2 and NOX emissions from electric generating units (EGUs) in 28 states in the Eastern United States.

Implementation of CSAPR was scheduled to begin on January 1, 2012, when CSAPR's cap-and-trade programs would have superseded the CAIR cap and trade programs. Numerous parties filed petitions for review of CSAPR, and on December 30, 2011, the D.C. Circuit issued an order staying CSAPR pending resolution of the petitions and directing EPA to continue to administer CAIR. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, No. 11-1302 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 30, 2011), Order at 2.

On August 21, 2012, the D.C. Circuit issued its ruling, vacating and remanding CSAPR to EPA and once again ordering continued implementation of CAIR. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7, 38 (D.C. Cir. 2012). The D.C. Circuit subsequently denied EPA's petition for rehearing en banc. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, No. 11-1302, 2013 WL 656247 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 24, 2013), at *1. EPA and other parties then petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, and the Supreme Court granted the petitions on June 24, 2013. EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 133 S. Ct. 2857 (2013).

On April 29, 2014, the Supreme Court vacated and reversed the D.C. Circuit Court's decision regarding CSAPR, and remanded that decision to the D.C. Circuit Court to resolve remaining issues in accordance with its ruling. EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct. 1584 (2014). EPA moved to have the stay of CSAPR lifted in light of the Supreme Court decision. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, Case No. 11-1302, Document No. 1499505 (D.C. Cir. filed June 26, 2014). In its motion, EPA asked the D.C. Circuit to toll CSAPR's compliance deadlines by three years so that the Phase 1 emissions budgets apply in 2015 and 2016 (instead of 2012 and 2013), and the Phase 2 emissions budgets apply in 2017 and beyond (instead of 2014 and beyond). On October 23, 2014, the D.C. Circuit granted EPA's motion and lifted the stay of CSAPR which was imposed on December 30, 2011. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, No. 11-1302 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 23, 2014), Order at 3. On December 3, 2014, EPA issued an interim final rule to clarify how EPA will implement CSAPR consistent with the D.C. Circuit Court's order granting EPA's motion requesting lifting the stay and tolling the rule's deadlines. See 79 FR 71663 (December 3, 2014) (interim final rulemaking). Consistent with that rule, EPA began implementing CSAPR on January 1, 2015. EPA expects that the implementation of CSAPR will preserve the reductions achieved by CAIR and result in additional SO2 and NOX emission reductions throughout the maintenance period.

As mentioned above, the State measures that have been implemented include the following:

Statewide Motor Vehicle Anti-Tampering Rule. Tennessee promulgated a statewide motor vehicle anti-tampering rule in 2005 to reduce air pollution caused by tampering with a motor vehicle's emissions control system. The rule defines tampering as modifying, removing, or rendering inoperative any air pollution emission control device which results in an increase in emissions beyond established federal motor vehicle standards. EPA approved this rule into the Tennessee SIP on August 26, 2005 (70 FR 50199); therefore it is both state and federally enforceable.

Stage I Gasoline Vapor Recovery. Tennessee promulgated rules for Stage I Gasoline Vapor Recovery for several counties throughout Tennessee, including Anderson, Blount, Jefferson, Knox, Loudon Counties in the Knoxville Area. Gasoline dispensing stations in these counties that were contributing sources on December 29, 2004, were required to comply by March 1, 2006. EPA approved these rules into the Tennessee SIP on August 26, 2005 (70 FR 50199).

For redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment, the CAA requires EPA to determine that the area has a fully approved maintenance plan pursuant to section 175A of the CAA (CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv)). In conjunction with its request to redesignate the Knoxville Area to attainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, TDEC submitted a SIP revision to provide for the maintenance of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS for at least 10 years after the effective date of redesignation to attainment. EPA has made the preliminary determination that this maintenance plan meets the requirements for approval under section 175A of the CAA.

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 must submit a revised maintenance plan which demonstrates that attainment will continue to be maintained for the remainder of the 20-year period following the initial 10-year period. To address the possibility of future NAAQS violations, the maintenance plan must contain contingency measures as EPA deems necessary to assure prompt correction of any future 2008 8-hour ozone violations. The Calcagni Memorandum provides further guidance on the content of a maintenance plan, explaining that a 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, EPA proposes to find that Tennessee's maintenance plan includes all the necessary components and is thus proposing to approve it as a revision to the Tennessee SIP.

EPA is proposing to determine that the Knoxville Area has attained the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS based on monitoring data for the 3-year period from 2011-2013. Tennessee selected 2011 as the base year (i.e., attainment emissions inventory year) for developing a comprehensive emissions inventory for NOX and VOC, for which projected emissions could be developed for 2014, 2017, 2020, 2023 and 2026. The attainment inventory identifies a level of emissions in the Area that is sufficient to attain the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Tennessee began development of the attainment inventory by first generating a baseline emissions inventory for the Knoxville Area.

The attainment year emissions were projected to future years separately using different methods by source categories, including: Point sources; area sources; on-road mobile sources; non-road mobile sources including commercial marine vessels, locomotives and air craft (MLA); and non-road mobile sources excluding MLA. The emissions were projected for 2014, 2017, 2020, 2023 and 2026 using 2011 emissions and growth factors developed from the methodology from SESARM Metro4, Inc. Growth factors were developed using the U.S. Energy Information Administration's 2014 Annual Energy Outlook (AEO2014) energy consumption and production forecasts.

Tennessee's 2011 emissions inventory, prepared by TDEC, was used as a source of base year emissions for Blount and Knox Counties, as well as the part of Anderson County included in the Area. NOX and VOC emissions were calculated for a typical summer July day, taking in to account the seasonal adjustment factor for summer operations of facilities. Future-year emissions were projected for 2014, 2017, 2020, 2023, and 2026. Growth factors were developed using the methodology in the SESARM Metro4, Inc. document prepared by AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc., titled “Development of the 2018 Projection Point Source Emission Inventory for the SESARM Region,” February 11, 2014. Point source units were categorized as electric generating units (EGU) or non-EGU sources. Data obtained from the U.S. Energy Information Administration on either fuel use projections or industrial output projections were used to develop the growth factors used to generate the emissions inventory.

Nonpoint sources captured in the inventory include stationary sources whose emissions levels of NOX, SO2, and particulate matter are each less than 25 tons per year. Emissions from nonpoint sources in 2011 were obtained from NEI2011 ozone season daily emissions for area sources were calculated using the SMOKE temporal profiles as described for non-EGU point sources.

The 2011 NOX and VOC emissions for the Knoxville Area, as well as the emissions for other years, were developed consistent with EPA guidance and are summarized in Tables 3 through 5 of the following subsection discussing the maintenance demonstration.

The November 14, 2014, final SIP revision includes a maintenance plan for the Knoxville Area. The maintenance plan:

(i). Shows compliance with and maintenance of the 8-hour ozone standard by providing information to support the demonstration that current and future emissions of NOX and VOC remain at or below 2011 emissions levels.

(ii). Uses 2011 as the attainment year and includes future emissions inventory projections and national growth factors for 2014, 2017, 2020, 2023, and 2026.

(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, NOX and VOC MVEBs were established for the last year (2026) of the maintenance plan (see section VI below). Through the interagency consultation process, it was also decided that MVEBs would be adopted for the year 2011.

(iv). Provides actual (2011) and projected emissions inventories, in tons per day (tpd), for the Knoxville Area, as shown in Tables 3 and 4, below.

In situations where local emissions are the primary contributor to nonattainment, such as the Knoxville Area, if the future projected emissions in the nonattainment area remain at or below the baseline emissions in the nonattainment area, then the ambient air quality standard should not be exceeded in the future. Tennessee has projected emissions as described previously and determined that emissions in the Knoxville Area will remain below those in the attainment year inventory for the duration of the maintenance plan.

As discussed in section VI of this proposed rulemaking, a safety margin is the difference between the attainment level of emissions (from all sources) and the projected level of emissions (from all sources) in the maintenance plan. The attainment level of emissions is the level of emissions during one of the years in which the area met the NAAQS. Tennessee selected 2011 as the attainment emissions inventory year for the Knoxville Area and calculated a safety margin for 2026. The State has decided to allocate a portion of this 2026 safety margin to the 2026 MVEB for the Knoxville Area. Specifically, Tennessee has decided to allocate 8.53 tpd to the 2026 NOX MVEB and 3.49 tpd to the 2026 VOC MVEB. After allocation of the available safety margin, the remaining safety margin was calculated as 25.30 tpd for NOX and 10.59 tpd for VOC. The MVEB to be used for transportation conformity proposes is discussed in section VI. This allocation and the resulting available safety margin for the Knoxville Area are discussed further in section VI of this proposed rulemaking.

There are currently three monitors measuring ozone in the Knoxville Area. The State of Tennessee, through TDEC, has committed to continue operation of the monitors in Knoxville Area in compliance with 40 CFR part 58 and have thus addressed the requirement for monitoring. EPA approved the ozone portion of Tennessee's 2012 annual ambient air monitoring network plan on June 15, 2012.

The State of Tennessee, through TDEC, has the legal authority to enforce and implement the requirements of the maintenance plan for the Knoxville 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.

Verification of continued attainment is accomplished through operation of the ambient ozone monitoring network and the periodic updates of the Area's emissions inventory. As discussed above, TDEC will continue to operate the current monitors located in the Knoxville Area. There are no plans to discontinue operation, relocate, or otherwise change the existing ambient monitoring network. Tennessee will continue to update its emissions inventory at least once every three years.

The Consolidated Emissions Reporting Rule (CERR) was promulgated by EPA on June 10, 2002. The CERR was replaced by the Annual Emissions Reporting Requirements (AERR) rule on December 17, 2008. The most recent triennial inventory for Tennessee was compiled for 2011. The larger point sources of air pollution will continue to submit data on their emissions on an annual basis as required by the AERR. Emissions from the rest of the point sources, the nonpoint source portion, and the on-road and nonroad mobile sources continue to be quantified on a three-year cycle. The inventory will be updated and maintained on a three-year cycle. As required by the AERR, the next overall emissions inventory will be compiled for 2014.

Section 175A of the CAA requires that a maintenance plan include such contingency measures as EPA deems necessary to assure that the state will promptly correct a violation of the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation. The maintenance plan should identify the contingency measures to be adopted, a schedule and procedure for adoption and implementation, and a time limit for action by the state. A state should also identify specific indicators to be used to determine when the contingency measures need to be implemented. The maintenance plan must include a requirement that a state will implement all measures with respect to control of the pollutant that were contained in the SIP before redesignation of the area to attainment in accordance with section 175A(d).

The contingency plan included in Tennessee's SIP revision includes a triggering mechanism to determine when contingency measures are needed and a process of developing and implementing appropriate control measures. The State of Tennessee will use actual ambient monitoring data and emissions inventory data as the indicators to determine whether a trigger has been activated and whether contingency measures should be implemented.

Tennessee has identified a primary trigger (Tier I) that will be activated when any quality-assured/quality controlled 8-hour ozone monitoring reading exceeds 0.075 ppm at an ambient monitoring station located in the Knoxville Area or if the periodic emission inventory updates reveal excessive or unanticipated growth greater than 10 percent in emissions of NOX or VOC over the attainment or intermediate emissions inventories for the Knoxville Area (as determined by the triennial emission reporting required by AERR). The State of Tennessee, in conjunction with the Knox County Department of Air Quality Management (DAQM), will conduct an evaluation as expeditiously as practicable to determine what additional measures will be necessary to attain or maintain the 8-hour ozone standard. If it is determined that additional emission reductions are necessary, Tennessee and Knox County DAQM, will adopt and implement any required measures in accordance with the schedule and procedure for adoption and implementation of contingency measures.

The ozone trigger concentrations described above apply to each monitor in the maintenance area. TDEC will evaluate a Tier I condition, if it occurs, as expeditiously as practicable to determine the cause(s) of the ambient ozone or emissions inventory increase and to determine if a Tier II condition (see below) is likely to occur.

A secondary trigger (Tier II) is activated when any violation of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS at any of the ambient monitoring stations in the Knoxville Area is recorded, based on quality-assured monitoring data. In the event that a Tier II trigger is activated, Tennessee and Knox County DAQM will conduct a comprehensive study to determine the cause(s) of the ambient ozone increase and will implement any required measures as expeditiously as practicable, taking into consideration the ease of implementation and the technical and economic feasibility of selected measures.

Tennessee and Knox County DAQM will, in the event of: (1) A Tier II trigger condition, or (2) a Tier I condition in which Tennessee has determined that a Tier II condition is likely to occur, conduct a comprehensive study to determine what contingency measure(s) are required for the maintenance of the ozone standard. Since the Knoxville Area may be influenced by emissions from outside the maintenance area, the study will attempt to determine whether the trigger condition is due to local emissions, emissions from elsewhere, or a combination of the previous. Selected emission control measures will be subject to public review and the State will seek public input prior to selecting new emission control measures.

The comprehensive study will be completed and submitted to EPA for review as expeditiously as practical, but no later than nine months after the Tier I or Tier II trigger is activated. When Tennessee and Knox County DAQM determines, through the comprehensive study, what contingency measure(s) are required for the maintenance of the ozone standard, appropriate corrective measures will be adopted and implemented within 18 to 24 months after the Tier I or II trigger occurs. The proposed schedule for these actions include:

• Six months to identify appropriate contingency measures;

• Three to six months to initiate stakeholder process; and

• Nine to twelve months to implement the contingency measures.

Section 175A(d) requires that state maintenance plans shall include a requirement that the state will implement all measures with respect to the control of the air pollutant concerned which were contained in the SIP for the area before redesignation of the area to attainment. Currently all such measures are in effect for the Knoxville Area. Contingency measure(s) will be selected from the following types of measures or from any other measure deemed appropriate and effective at the time the selection is made:

• Implementation of diesel retrofit programs, including incentives for performing retrofits.

• Reasonable Available Control Technology (RACT) for NOX sources in nonattainment counties.

• Programs or incentives to decrease motor vehicle use, including employer-based programs, additional park and ride services, enhanced transit service and encouragement of flexible work hours/compressed work week/telecommuting.

• Trip reduction ordinances.

• Additional emissions reductions on stationary sources.

• Enhanced stationary source inspection to ensure that emissions control equipment is functioning properly.

• Voluntary fuel programs including incentives for alternative fuels.

• Construction of high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes, or restriction of certain roads or lanes for HOV.

• Programs for new construction and major reconstruction of bicycle and pedestrian facilities, including shared use paths, sidewalks and bicycle lanes.

• Expand Air Quality Action Day activities/Clean Air Partners public education outreach.

• Expansion of E-Government services at State and local level.

• Additional Enforcement or outreach on driver observance of reduce speed limits.

• Land use/transportation policies.

• Promotion of non-motorized transportation.

• Promotion or tree-planting standards that favor trees with low VOC biogenic emissions.

• Promotion if energy saving plans for local government.

• Gas can and lawnmower replacement programs.

• Seasonal open burning ban in nonattainment counties.

• Evaluation of anti-idling rules and/or policy.

• Additional controls in upwind areas, if necessary.

EPA has preliminarily concluded that the maintenance plan adequately addresses the five basic components of a maintenance plan: The attainment emissions inventory, maintenance demonstration, monitoring, verification of continued attainment, and a contingency plan. Therefore, the maintenance plan for the Knoxville Area meets the requirements of section 175A of the CAA and is approvable.

Under section 176(c) of the CAA, new transportation plans, programs, and 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 or any interim milestones. 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 an approved maintenance plan for that NAAQS.

Under the CAA, states are required to submit, at various times, control strategy SIPs and maintenance plans for nonattainment areas. These control strategy SIPs (including RFP and attainment demonstration requirements) and maintenance plans create MVEBs for criteria pollutants and/or their precursors to address pollution from cars and trucks. Per 40 CFR part 93, a MVEB must be 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.

After interagency consultation with the transportation partners for the Knoxville Area, Tennessee has developed MVEBs for NOX and VOC for the Knoxville Area. Tennessee is developing these MVEBs, as required, for the last year of its maintenance plan, 2026. Additionally, Tennessee is establishing MVEBs for the year 2011. The 2011 MVEBs reflect the total on-road emissions for 2011. The 2026 MVEBs reflect the total on-road emissions 2026, plus an allocation from the available NOX and VOC safety margins. Under 40 CFR 93.101, the term “safety margin” is the difference between the attainment level (from all sources) and the projected level of emissions (from all sources) in the maintenance plan. The safety margin can be allocated to the transportation sector; however, the total emissions must remain below the attainment level. The NOX and VOC MVEBs and allocation from the safety margin were developed in consultation with the transportation partners and were added to account for uncertainties in population growth, changes in model vehicle miles traveled and new emission factor models. The NOX and VOC MVEBs for the Knoxville Area are defined in Table 5 below.

As mentioned above, Tennessee has chosen to allocate a portion of the available safety margin to the NOX and VOC MVEBs for the Knoxville Area. This allocation is 8.53 tpd and 3.49 tpd for NOX and VOC, respectively. Thus, the remaining safety margins for 2026 are 25.30 tpd and 10.59 tpd NOX and VOC, respectively.

Through this rulemaking, EPA is proposing to approve the MVEBs for NOX and VOC for 2011 and 2026 for the Knoxville Area because EPA has preliminarily determined that the Area maintains the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS with the emissions at the levels of the budgets. Once the MVEBs for the Knoxville Area are approved or found adequate (whichever is completed first), they must be used for future conformity determinations. After thorough review, EPA has preliminarily determined that the budgets meet the adequacy criteria, as outlined in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4), and is proposing to approve the budgets because they are consistent with maintenance of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS through 2026.

When reviewing submitted “control strategy” SIPs or maintenance plans containing MVEBs, EPA may 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 must 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 a MVEB 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 determination. This process for determining the adequacy of submitted MVEBs for transportation conformity purposes was initially outlined in EPA's May 14, 1999, guidance, “Conformity Guidance on Implementation of March 2, 1999, Conformity Court Decision.” EPA adopted regulations to codify the adequacy process 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). Additional information on the adequacy process for transportation conformity purposes 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).

As discussed earlier, Tennessee's maintenance plan includes NOX and VOC MVEBs for the Knoxville Area for 2026, the last year of the maintenance plan, and for 2011. EPA reviewed the NOX and VOC MVEBs through the adequacy process. Tennessee's November 14, 2015, SIP submission, including the Knoxville Area NOX and VOC MVEBs, was open for public comment on EPA's adequacy Web site on December 4, 2014, found at: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/currsips.htm#knx-tn. The EPA public comment period on adequacy for the MVEBs for 2011 and 2026 for the Knoxville Area closed on January 5, 2015. No comments, adverse or otherwise, were received during EPA's adequacy process for the MVEBs associated with Tennessee's maintenance plan.

EPA intends to make its determination on the adequacy of the 2011 and 2026 MVEBs for the Knoxville Area for transportation conformity purposes in the near future by completing the adequacy process that was started on December 4, 2014. After EPA finds the 2011 and 2026 MVEBs adequate or approves them, the new MVEBs for NOX and VOC must be used for future transportation conformity determinations. For required regional emissions analysis years for 2026 and beyond, the applicable budgets will be the new 2026 MVEBs established in the maintenance plan, as defined in section VI of this proposed rulemaking. The 2011 MVEBs will be used for any analysis year prior to 2026.

EPA's proposed actions establish the basis upon which EPA may take final action on the issues being proposed for approval today. Approval of Tennessee's redesignation request would change the legal designation of Blount and Knox Counties and the portion of Anderson County included in the Knoxville Area, found at 40 CFR part 81, from nonattainment to attainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Approval of Tennessee's associated SIP revision would also incorporate a plan for maintaining the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the Knoxville Area through 2026 and a section 182(a)(1) base year emissions inventory into the Tennessee SIP. The maintenance plan establishes NOX and VOC MVEBs for 2011 and 2026 for the Knoxville Area and includes contingency measures to remedy any future violations of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS and procedures for evaluation of potential violations. The NOX MVEB for 2011 is 41.62 tpd, and for 2026 is 17.69 tpd. The VOC MVEB is 19.71 for 2011 and 10.49 tpd for 2026. Additionally, EPA is notifying the public of the status of EPA's adequacy determination for the newly-established NOX and VOC MVEBs for 2026 for the Knoxville Area.

EPA is now proposing to take four separate but related actions regarding the Knoxville Area's redesignation and maintenance of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. First, EPA is proposing to approve Tennessee's section 182(a)(1) base year emissions inventory for the 2008 8-hour ozone standard for the Knoxville Area into the SIP. Approval of the base year inventory is a prerequisite for EPA to redesignate the Area from nonattainment to attainment.

Second, EPA is proposing to determine that the Knoxville Area is attaining the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS based on complete, quality-assured and certified monitoring data for the 2011-2013 monitoring period. Preliminary 2012-2014 data in AQS indicates that the Area is continuing to attain the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

Third, EPA is proposing to approve the maintenance plan for the Knoxville Area, including the NOX and VOC MVEBs for 2011 and 2026, into the Tennessee SIP (under CAA section 175A). The maintenance plan demonstrates that the Area will continue to maintain the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and the budgets meet all of the adequacy criteria contained in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) and (5). Further, as part of today's action, EPA is describing the status of its adequacy determination for the NOX and VOC MVEBs for 2011 and 2026 in accordance with 40 CFR 93.118(f)(1). Within 24 months from the publication date of EPA's adequacy determination for the MVEBs or the effective date for the final rule for this action, whichever is earlier, the transportation partners will need to demonstrate conformity to the new NOX and VOC MVEBs pursuant to 40 CFR 93.104(e).

Finally, EPA is proposing to determine that Tennessee has met the criteria under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) for the Knoxville Area for redesignation from nonattainment to attainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. On this basis, EPA is proposing to approve Tennessee's redesignation request for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the Knoxville Area. If finalized, approval of the redesignation request would change the official designation of Blount and Knox Counties and the portion of Anderson County in the Knoxville Area for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS from nonattainment to attainment, as found at 40 CFR part 81.

Under the CAA, redesignation of an area to attainment and the accompanying approval of a maintenance plan under section 107(d)(3)(E) are actions that affect the status of a geographical area and do not impose any additional regulatory requirements on sources beyond those imposed by state law. A redesignation to attainment does not in and of itself create any new requirements, but rather results in the applicability of requirements contained in the CAA for areas that have been redesignated to attainment. Moreover, 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. Accordingly, these proposed actions merely propose to approve state law as meeting federal requirements and do not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, these proposed actions:

• Are not a 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 an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);

• are certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);

• do 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);

• 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 a significant regulatory action 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).

The SIP is not approved 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.

Table of Contents I. What are the actions EPA is proposing to take? 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 EPA's analysis of the request? VI. What is EPA's analysis of North Carolina's proposed NOX and VOC sub-area MVEBs for the North Carolina portion of the area? VII. What is the status of EPA's adequacy determination for the proposed NOX and VOC sub-area MVEBs for 2014 and 2026 for the North Carolina portion of the area? VIII. What is the effect of EPA's proposed actions? IX. Proposed Actions X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. What are the actions EPA is proposing to take?

EPA is proposing to take the following three separate but related actions, one of which involves multiple elements: (1) To determine that the bi-Charlotte Area is attaining the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS; (2) to approve North Carolina's plan for maintaining the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS (maintenance plan), including the associated sub-area MVEBs for the North Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area, into the SIP; and (3) to redesignate the North Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area to attainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is also notifying the public of the status of EPA's adequacy determination for the sub-area MVEBs for the North Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area. The bi-state Charlotte Area consists of Mecklenburg County in its entirety and portions of Cabarrus, Gaston, Iredell, Lincoln, Rowan and Union Counties, North Carolina; and a portion of York County, South Carolina. On April 17, 2015, the State of South Carolina, through the South Carolina Department of Health and Control (SC DHEC), provided a redesignation request and maintenance plan for its portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area. EPA will address South Carolina's request and maintenance plan in a separate action. These proposed actions are summarized below and described in greater detail throughout this notice of proposed rulemaking.

EPA is also making the preliminarily determination that the bi-state Charlotte Area is attaining the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS based on recent air quality data and proposing to approve North Carolina's maintenance plan for its portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area as meeting the requirements of section 175A (such approval being one of the CAA criteria for redesignation to attainment status). The maintenance plan is designed to keep the bi-state Charlotte Area in attainment of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS through 2026. The maintenance plan includes 2014 and 2026 sub-area MVEBs for NOX and VOC for the North Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area for transportation conformity purposes. EPA is proposing to approve these sub-area MVEBs and incorporate them into the North Carolina SIP.

EPA also proposes to determine that the North Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area has met the requirements for redesignation under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. Accordingly, in this action, EPA is proposing to approve a request to change the legal designation of Mecklenburg County in its entirety and the following portions of:

• Cabarrus County (Central Cabarrus Township, Concord Township, Georgeville Township, Harrisburg Township, Kannapolis Township, Midland Township, Mount Pleasant Township, New Gilead Township, Odell Township, Poplar Tent Township, Rimertown Township),

• Gaston County (Crowders Mountain Township, Dallas Township, Gastonia Township, Riverbend Township, South Point Township),

• Iredell County (Davidson Township, Coddle Creek Township),

• Lincoln County (Catawba Springs Township, Ironton Township, Lincolnton Township),

• Rowan County (Atwell Township, China Grove Township, Franklin Township, Gold Hill Township, Litaker Township, Locke Township, Providence Township, Salisbury Township, Steele Township, Unity Township), and

• Union County (Goose Creek Township, Marshville Township, Monroe Township, Sandy Ridge Township, Vance Township), in North Carolina from nonattainment to attainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

EPA is also notifying the public of the status of EPA's adequacy process for the 2014 and 2026 NOX and VOC sub-area MVEBs for the North Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area. The Adequacy comment period began on March 17, 2015, with EPA's posting of the availability of North Carolina's submissions on EPA's Adequacy Web site (http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/currsips.htm#north-carolina). The Adequacy comment period for these sub-area MVEBs closed on April 16, 2015. No comments, adverse or otherwise, were received through the Adequacy process. Please see section VII of this proposed rulemaking for further explanation of this process and for more details on the sub-area MVEBs.

In summary, this notice of proposed rulemaking is in response to North Carolina's April 16, 2015, redesignation request and associated SIP submission that address the specific issues summarized above and the necessary elements described in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA for redesignation of the North Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area to attainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

On March 12, 2008, EPA promulgated a revised 8-hour ozone NAAQS of 0.075 parts per million (ppm). See 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008). Under EPA's regulations at 40 CFR part 50, the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS 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 0.075 ppm. See 40 CFR 50.15. 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.

Upon promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, the CAA requires EPA to designate as nonattainment any area that is violating the NAAQS, based on the three most recent years of complete, quality assured, and certified ambient air quality data at the conclusion of the designation process. The bi-state Charlotte Area was designated nonattainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS on May 21, 2012 (effective July 20, 2012) using 2009-2011 ambient air quality data. See 77 FR 30088 (May 21, 2012). At the time of designation, the bi-state Charlotte Area was classified as a marginal nonattainment area for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. In the final implementation rule for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS (SIP Implementation Rule),1 EPA established ozone nonattainment area attainment dates based on Table 1 of section 181(a) of the CAA. This established an attainment date three years after the July 20, 2012, effective date for areas classified as marginal areas for the 2008 8-hour ozone nonattainment designations. Therefore, the bi-state Charlotte Area's attainment date is July 20, 2015.

The CAA provides the requirements for redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment. Specifically, section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA allows for redesignation providing that: (1) The Administrator determines that the area has attained the applicable NAAQS; (2) the Administrator has fully approved the applicable implementation plan for the area under section 110(k); (3) the Administrator determines that the improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the applicable SIP and applicable Federal air pollutant control regulations and other permanent and enforceable reductions; (4) the Administrator has fully approved a maintenance plan for the area as meeting the requirements of section 175A; and, (5) the state containing such area has met all requirements applicable to the area for purposes of redesignation under section 110 and part D of the CAA.

On April 16, 1992, EPA provided guidance on redesignation in the General Preamble for the Implementation of title I of the CAA Amendments of 1990 (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:

On April 16, 2015, the State of North Carolina, through NC DAQ, requested that EPA redesignate the North Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area to attainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA's evaluation indicates that the entire bi-state Charlotte Area has attained the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and that the North Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area meets the requirements for redesignation as set forth in section 107(d)(3)(E), including the maintenance plan requirements under section 175A of the CAA. As a result, EPA is proposing to take the three related actions summarized in section I of this document.

As stated above, in accordance with the CAA, EPA proposes in this action to: (1) Determine that the bi-state Charlotte Area is attaining the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS; (2) approve the North Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area's 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS maintenance plan, including the associated sub-area MVEBs, into the North Carolina SIP; and (3) redesignate the North Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area to attainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The five redesignation criteria provided under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) are discussed in greater detail for the Area in the following paragraphs of this section.

For redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment, the CAA requires EPA to determine that the area has attained the applicable NAAQS (CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(i)). For ozone, an area may be considered to be attaining the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS if it meets the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, as determined in accordance with 40 CFR 50.15 and Appendix I of part 50, based on three complete, consecutive calendar years of quality-assured air quality monitoring data. To attain the NAAQS, 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 0.075 ppm. Based on the data handling and reporting convention described in 40 CFR part 50, Appendix I, the NAAQS are attained if the design value is 0.075 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.

In this action, EPA is preliminarily determining that the bi-state Charlotte Area is attaining the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA reviewed ozone monitoring data from monitoring stations in the bi-state Charlotte Area for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS for 2012-2014. These data have been quality-assured, are recorded in Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS-AQS), and indicate that the Area is attaining the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The fourth-highest 8-hour ozone values at each monitor for 2012, 2013, 2014, and the 3-year averages of these values (i.e., design values), are summarized in Table 1, below.

The 3-year design value for 2012-2014 for the bi-state Charlotte Area is 0.073 ppm,2 which meets the NAAQS. In this action, EPA is proposing to determine that the bi-state Charlotte Area is attaining the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA will not take final action to approve the redesignation if the 3-year design value exceeds the NAAQS prior to EPA finalizing the redesignation. As discussed in more detail below, the State of North Carolina has committed to continue monitoring in this Area in accordance with 40 CFR part 58.

For redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment, the CAA requires EPA to determine that the state has met all applicable requirements under section 110 and part D of title I of the CAA (CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(v)) and that the state has a fully approved SIP under section 110(k) for the area (CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii)). EPA proposes to find that North Carolina has met all applicable SIP requirements for the North Carolina portion of the Area under section 110 of the CAA (general SIP requirements) for purposes of redesignation. Additionally, EPA proposes to find that the North Carolina SIP satisfies the criterion that it meets applicable SIP requirements for purposes of redesignation under part D of title I of the CAA in accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E)(v). Further, EPA proposes to determine that the SIP is fully approved with respect to all requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation in accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii). In making these determinations, EPA ascertained which requirements are applicable to the Area and, if applicable, that they are fully approved under section 110(k). SIPs must be fully approved only with respect to requirements that were applicable prior to submittal of the complete redesignation request.

General SIP requirements. 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 interstate transport of air pollutants. The section 110(a)(2)(D) requirements for a state are not linked with a particular nonattainment area's designation and classification in that state. EPA believes that the requirements linked with a particular nonattainment area's designation and classifications are the relevant measures to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation request. The transport SIP submittal requirements, where applicable, continue to apply to a state regardless of the designation of any one particular area in the state. Thus, EPA does not believe that the CAA's interstate transport requirements should be construed to be applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation.

In addition, EPA believes other section 110 elements that are neither connected with nonattainment plan submissions nor linked with an area's attainment status are 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, 2008); 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).

Title I, Part D, applicable SIP requirements. Section 172(c) of the CAA sets forth the basic requirements of attainment plans for nonattainment areas that are required to submit them pursuant to section 172(b). Subpart 2 of part D, which includes section 182 of the CAA, establishes specific requirements for ozone nonattainment areas depending on the area's nonattainment classification. As provided in Subpart 2, a marginal ozone nonattainment area, such as the bi-state Charlotte Area, must submit an emissions inventory that complies with section 172(c)(3), but the specific requirements of section 182(a) apply in lieu of the demonstration of attainment (and contingency measures) required by section 172(c). 42 U.S.C. 7511a(a). A thorough discussion of the requirements contained in sections 172(c) and 182 can be found in the General Preamble for Implementation of Title I (57 FR 13498).

Section 182(a) Requirements. Section 182(a)(1) requires states to submit a comprehensive, accurate, and current inventory of actual emissions from sources of VOC and NOX emitted within the boundaries of the ozone nonattainment area. North Carolina provided an emissions inventory for the bi-state Charlotte Area to EPA in a July 7, 2014 SIP submission. On April 21, 2015, EPA published a direct final rule to approve this emissions inventory into the SIP.3 See 80 FR 22107 (direct final rule) and 80 FR 22147 (associated proposed rule). North Carolina's section 182(a)(1) inventory must be incorporated into the SIP before EPA can take final action to approve the State's redesignation request for the bi-state Charlotte Area.

Under section 182(a)(2)(A), states with ozone nonattainment areas that were designated prior to the enactment of the 1990 CAA amendments were required to submit, within six months of classification, all rules and corrections to existing VOC RACT rules that were required under section 172(b)(3) of the CAA (and related guidance) prior to the 1990 CAA amendments. On June 23, 1994, EPA determined that North Carolina met the section 182(a)(2) RACT “fix up” requirements. See, e.g., 59 FR 32363.

Section 182(a)(2)(B) requires each state with a marginal ozone nonattainment area that implemented, or was required to implement, an inspection and maintenance (I/M) program prior to the 1990 CAA amendments to submit a SIP revision providing for an I/M program no less stringent than that required prior to the 1990 amendments or already in the SIP at the time of the amendments, whichever is more stringent. On June 2, 1995, EPA determined that North Carolina met requirements of section 182(a)(2)(B). See 60 FR 28720.

Regarding the permitting and offset requirements of section 182(a)(2)(C) and section 182(a)(4), North Carolina currently has a fully-approved part D NSR program in place. However, EPA has determined that areas being redesignated need not comply with the requirement that a NSR program be approved prior to redesignation, provided that the area demonstrates maintenance of the NAAQS without part D NSR, because PSD requirements will apply after redesignation. A more detailed 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 Requirements for Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment.” North Carolina's PSD program will become applicable in the bi-state Charlotte Area upon redesignation to attainment.

Section 182(a)(3) requires states to submit periodic inventories and emissions statements. Section 182(a)(3)(A) requires states to submit a periodic inventory every three years. As discussed below in the section of this document titled Criteria (4)(e), Verification of Continued Attainment, the State will continue to update its emissions inventory at least once every three years. Under section 182(a)(3)(B), each state with an ozone nonattainment area must submit a SIP revision requiring emissions statements to be submitted to the state by sources within that nonattainment area. North Carolina provided a SIP revision to EPA on July 7, 2014, addressing the section 182(a)(3)(B) emissions statements requirement, and on April 21, 2015, EPA published a direct final rule to approve this SIP revision.4 See 80 FR 22107 (direct final rule) and 80 FR 22147 (associated proposed rule). North Carolina's emissions statements must be incorporated into the SIP before EPA can take final action to approve the State's redesignation request for the bi-state Charlotte Area.

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 that are 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 transportation conformity SIP revisions must be consistent with Federal conformity regulations relating to consultation, enforcement, and enforceability that EPA promulgated pursuant to its authority under the CAA.

EPA interprets the conformity SIP requirements 5 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 Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001) (upholding this interpretation); see also 60 FR 62748 (December 7, 1995) (redesignation of Tampa, Florida). Nonetheless, North Carolina has an approved conformity SIP for the Charlotte Area. See 78 FR 73266 (February 24, 2014). Thus, the North Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area has satisfied all applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation under section 110 and part D of title I of the CAA.

EPA has fully approved the applicable North Carolina SIP for the bi-state Charlotte 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). North Carolina has adopted and submitted, and EPA has fully approved at various times, provisions addressing the various SIP elements applicable for the ozone NAAQS. See 77 FR 5703 (February 6, 2012).

As indicated above, EPA believes that the section 110 elements that are neither connected with nonattainment plan submissions nor linked to an area's nonattainment status are not applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation. EPA has approved all part D requirements applicable for purposes of this redesignation. As noted above, this action to propose approval of North Carolina's redesignation request for the North Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area is contingent upon EPA taking final action to approve the July, 7, 2014, emissions inventory and emissions statements SIP revision, which was published as direct final and proposed rules on April 21, 2015. See 80 FR 22107 and 80 FR 22147.

For redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment, the CAA requires EPA to determine that the air quality improvement in the area is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the SIP, applicable Federal air pollution control regulations, and other permanent and enforceable reductions (CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii)). EPA has preliminarily determined that North Carolina has demonstrated that the observed air quality improvement in the bi-state Charlotte Area is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from Federal measures and from state measures adopted into the SIP. EPA does not have any information to suggest that the decrease in ozone concentrations in the bi-state Charlotte Area is due to unusually favorable meteorological conditions.

State and Federal measures enacted in recent years have resulted in permanent emission reductions. Most of these emission reductions are enforceable through regulations. A few non-regulatory measures also result in emission reductions. The state and local measures that have been implemented to date and relied upon by North Carolina to demonstrate attainment and/or maintenance include the Clean Air Bill I/M program and North Carolina's Clean Smokestacks Act. These measures are approved in the federally-approved SIP and thus are permanent and enforceable. The Federal measures that have been implemented include the following:

Tier 2 vehicle and fuel standards. Implementation began in 2004 and requires all passenger vehicles in any manufacturer's fleet to meet an average standard of 0.07 grams of NOX per mile. Additionally, in January 2006 the sulfur content of gasoline was required to be on average 30 ppm which assists in lowering the NOX emissions. Most gasoline sold in North Carolina prior to January 2006 had a sulfur content of about 300 ppm.6

Large non-road diesel engines rule. This rule was promulgated in 2004, and is being phased in between 2008 through 2014. This rule will also reduce the sulfur content in the nonroad diesel fuel. When fully implemented, this rule will reduce NOX, VOC, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide. These emission reductions are federally enforceable. EPA issued this rule in June 2004, which applies to diesel engines used in industries, such as construction, agriculture, and mining. It is estimated that compliance with this rule will cut NOX emissions from non-road diesel engines by up to 90 percent nationwide. The non-road diesel rule was fully implemented by 2010.

Heavy-duty gasoline and diesel highway vehicle standards. EPA issued this rule in January 2001 (66 FR 5002). This rule includes standards limiting the sulfur content of diesel fuel, which went into effect in 2004. A second phase took effect in 2007, which further reduced the highway diesel fuel sulfur content to 15 ppm, leading to additional reductions in combustion NOX and VOC emissions. This rule is expected to achieve a 95 percent reduction in NOX emissions from diesel trucks and buses.

Medium and heavy duty vehicle fuel consumption and GHG standards. These standards require on-road vehicles to achieve a 7 percent to 20 percent reduction in CO2 emissions and fuel consumption by 2018. The decrease in fuel consumption will result in a 7 percent to 20 percent decrease in NOX emissions.

Nonroad spark-ignition engines and recreational engines standards. The nonroad spark-ignition and recreational engine standards, effective in July 2003, regulate NOX, hydrocarbons, and carbon monoxide from groups of previously unregulated nonroad engines. These engine standards apply to large spark-ignition engines (e.g., forklifts and airport ground service equipment), recreational vehicles (e.g., off-highway motorcycles and all-terrain-vehicles), and recreational marine diesel engines sold in the United States and imported after the effective date of these standards. When all of the nonroad spark-ignition and recreational engine standards are fully implemented, an overall 72 percent reduction in hydrocarbons, 80 percent reduction in NOX, and 56 percent reduction in carbon monoxide emissions are expected by 2020. These controls reduce ambient concentrations of ozone, carbon monoxide, and fine particulate matter.

National Program for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and Fuel Economy Standards. The federal GHG and fuel economy standards apply to light-duty cars and trucks in model years 2012-2016 (phase 1) and 2017-2025 (phase 2). The final standards are projected to result in an average industry fleet-wide level of 163 grams/mile of carbon dioxide (CO2) which is equivalent to 54.5 miles per gallon (mpg) if achieved exclusively through fuel economy improvements. The fuel economy standards result in less fuel being consumed, and therefore less NOX emissions released.

Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) Consent Decree/Federal Facilities Compliance Agreement. On April 14, 2011, TVA entered into a consent decree with Tennessee, Alabama, Kentucky, and North Carolina to resolve allegations of CAA violations at TVA's coal-fired power plants. The relief obtained in this consent decree was also secured in a Federal Facilities Compliance Agreement (FFCA) between EPA and TVA. The consent decree and FFCA establish system-wide caps on NOX and SO2 emissions at TVA's coal-fired facilities, declining to permanent levels of 52,000 tons of NOX in 2018 and 110,000 tons of SO2 in 2019, and require TVA to meet specific control requirements.7

Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engine (RICE) National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP). 8 The RICE NESHAP is expected to result in a small decrease in VOC emissions. RICE owners and operators had to comply with the NESHAP by May 3, 2013.

Utility Mercury Air Toxics Standards (MATS) and New Source Performance Standards (NSPS). On February 16, 2012, EPA promulgated maximum achievable control technology regulations for coal- and oil-fired EGUs, intended to reduce hazardous air pollutants emissions from EGUs. Although the MATS rule is not targeted at NOX emissions, it is expected to result in additional NOX reductions due to the retirement of older coal-fired units.

NO X SIP Call. On October 27, 1998 (63 FR 57356), EPA issued the NOX SIP Call requiring the District of Columbia and 22 states to reduce emissions of NOX, a precursor to ozone pollution, and providing a mechanism (the NOX Budget Trading Program) that states could use to achieve those reductions. Affected states were required to comply with Phase I of the SIP Call beginning in 2004 and Phase II beginning in 2007. By the end of 2008, ozone season emissions from sources subject to the NOX SIP Call dropped by 62 percent from 2000 emissions levels. 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. Emission reductions resulting from regulations developed in response to the NOX SIP Call are therefore permanent and enforceable for the purposes of this action. There are four facilities located within the North Carolina portion of the Area that are subject to the NOX SIP Call. These facilities are located in Gaston, Lincoln, and Rowan Counties. Two coal-fired power plants (Buck and Riverbend) were retired on April 1, 2013, which resulted in additional emissions reductions. There is also a facility west of the Area, Cliffside, located in Cleveland County, and a facility north of the Area, Marshall, located in Catawba County which are also subject to the NOX SIP Call.

CAIR/CSAPR. CAIR created regional cap-and-trade programs to reduce SO2 and NOX emissions in 27 eastern states, including North Carolina. See 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005). EPA approved North Carolina's CAIR regulations into the North Carolina SIP on October 5, 2007. See 72 FR 56914. In 2009, the CAIR ozone season NOX trading program superseded the NOX Budget Trading Program, although the emission reduction obligations of the NOX SIP Call were not rescinded. See 40 CFR 51.121(r) and 51.123(aa). In 2008, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) initially vacated CAIR, North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008), but ultimately remanded the rule to EPA without vacatur to preserve the environmental benefits provided by CAIR, North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176, 1178 (D.C. Cir. 2008). On August 8, 2011 (76 FR 48208), acting on the D.C. Circuit's remand, EPA promulgated CSAPR to address interstate transport of emissions and resulting secondary air pollutants and to replace CAIR. CSAPR requires substantial reductions of SO2 and NOX emissions from electric generating units (EGUs) in 28 states in the Eastern United States.

Implementation of CSAPR was scheduled to begin on January 1, 2012, when CSAPR's cap-and-trade programs would have superseded the CAIR cap and trade programs. Numerous parties filed petitions for review of CSAPR, and on December 30, 2011, the D.C. Circuit Court issued an order staying CSAPR pending resolution of the petitions and directing EPA to continue to administer CAIR. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, No. 11-1302 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 30, 2011), Order at 2.

On August 21, 2012, the D.C. Circuit issued its ruling, vacating and remanding CSAPR to EPA and once again ordering continued implementation of CAIR. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7, 38 (D.C. Cir. 2012). The D.C. Circuit subsequently denied EPA's petition for rehearing en banc. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, No. 11-1302, 2013 WL 656247 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 24, 2013), at *1. EPA and other parties then petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, and the Supreme Court granted the petitions on June 24, 2013. EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 133 S. Ct. 2857 (2013).

On April 29, 2014, the Supreme Court vacated and reversed the D.C. Circuit's decision regarding CSAPR, and remanded that decision to the D.C. Circuit Court to resolve remaining issues in accordance with its ruling. EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct. 1584 (2014). EPA moved to have the stay of CSAPR lifted in light of the Supreme Court decision. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, Case No. 11-1302, Document No. 1499505 (D.C. Cir. filed June 26, 2014). In its motion, EPA asked the D.C. Circuit to toll CSAPR's compliance deadlines by three years so that the Phase 1 emissions budgets apply in 2015 and 2016 (instead of 2012 and 2013), and the Phase 2 emissions budgets apply in 2017 and beyond (instead of 2014 and beyond). On October 23, 2014, the D.C. Circuit granted EPA's motion and lifted the stay of CSAPR which was imposed on December 30, 2011. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, No. 11-1302 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 23, 2014), Order at 3. On December 3, 2014, EPA issued an interim final rule to clarify how EPA will implement CSAPR consistent with the D.C. Circuit Court's order granting EPA's motion requesting lifting the stay and tolling the rule's deadlines. See 79 FR 71663 (December 3, 2014) (interim final rulemaking). Consistent with that rule, EPA began implementing CSAPR on January 1, 2015. EPA expects that the implementation of CSAPR will preserve the reductions achieved by CAIR and result in additional SO2 and NOX emission reductions throughout the maintenance period.

As mentioned above, the State measures that have been implemented include the following:

Vehicle Emissions Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) Program. In 1999, the North Carolina State Legislation passed the Clean Air Bill that expanded the on-road vehicle I/M program from 9 to 48 counties. It was phased-in in the Charlotte nonattainment area from July 1, 2002, through January 1, 2004. This program reduces NOX, VOC, and CO emissions. The I/M program was submitted to EPA for adoption into the SIP in August 2002 and was federally approved in October 2002. Therefore, these emission reductions are both state and federally enforceable.

On February 5, 2015, EPA approved a change to North Carolina's I/M rules triggered by a state law which exempted plug-in vehicles and the three newest model year vehicles with less than 70,000 miles on their odometers from emission inspection in all areas in North Carolina where I/M is required. In North Carolina's section 110(l) demonstration, the State showed that the change in the compliance rate from 95 percent to 96 percent more than compensates for the NOX and VOC emissions increase. EPA-approved change to the I/M rules was effective March 9, 2015, and are state and federally enforceable.

Clean Smokestacks Act. This state law requires coal-fired power plants to reduce annual NOX emissions by 77 percent by 2009, and to reduce annual SO2 emissions by 49 percent by 2009 and 73 percent by 2013. This law set a NOX emissions cap of 56,000 tons/year for 2009 and SO2 emissions caps of 250,000 tons/year and 130,000 tons/year for 2009 and 2013, respectively. The public utilities cannot meet these emission caps by purchasing emission credits. EPA approved the statewide emissions caps as part of the North Carolina SIP on September 26, 2011. In 2013, the power plants subject to this law had combined NOX emissions of 38,857 tons per year, well below the 56,000 tons per year cap. The emissions cap has been met in all subsequent years as well and is enforceable at both the federal and state level.

For redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment, the CAA requires EPA to determine that the area has a fully approved maintenance plan pursuant to section 175A of the CAA (CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv)). In conjunction with its request to redesignate the North Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area to attainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, NC DAQ submitted a SIP revision to provide for the maintenance of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS for at least 10 years after the effective date of redesignation to attainment. EPA believes that this maintenance plan meets the requirements for approval under section 175A of the CAA.

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 must submit a revised maintenance plan demonstrating 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 contingency measures as EPA deems necessary to assure prompt correction of any future 2008 8-hour ozone violations. The Calcagni Memorandum provides further guidance on the content of a maintenance plan, explaining that a 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, EPA has preliminarily determined that North Carolina's maintenance plan includes all the necessary components and is thus proposing to approve it as a revision to the North Carolina SIP.

EPA is proposing to determine that the bi-state Charlotte Area has attained the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS based on quality-assured monitoring data for the 3-year period from 2012-2014. North Carolina selected 2014 as the base year (i.e., attainment emissions inventory year) for developing a comprehensive emissions inventory for NOX and VOC, for which projected emissions could be developed for 2015, 2018, 2022, and 2026. The attainment inventory identifies a level of emissions in the Area that is sufficient to attain the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. North Carolina began development of the attainment inventory by first generating a baseline emissions inventory for the State's portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area. The projected summer day emission inventories have been estimated using projected rates of growth in population, traffic, economic activity, and other parameters. Naturally occurring emissions (i.e., biogenic emissions) are not included in the emissions inventory comparison, as these emissions are outside the State's control. In addition to comparing the final year of the plan (2026) to the base year (2014), North Carolina compared interim years to the baseline to demonstrate that these years are also expected to show continued maintenance of the 2008 8-hour ozone standard.

The emissions inventory is composed of four major types of sources: Point, area, on-road mobile, and non-road mobile. The complete descriptions of how the inventories were developed are discussed in the Appendix B of the April 16, 2015, submittal, which can be found in the docket for this action. Point source emissions are tabulated from data collected by direct on-site measurements of emissions or from mass balance calculations utilizing emission factors from EPA's AP-42 or stack test results. For each projected year's inventory, point sources are adjusted by growth factors based on Standard Industrial Classification codes generated using growth patterns obtained from County Business Patterns. For the electric generating utility sources, the estimated projected future year emissions were based on information provided by the utility company. For the sources that report to the EPA's Clean Air Markets Division, the actual 2014 average July day emissions were used. For the other Title V sources, the latest data available (2013) was used to represent 2014 base year emissions. For sources emitting less than 25 tons per year and subject to the emissions statement requirements, the most recently reported data (2013) was used to represent 2014 base year emissions. For the small sources that only report emissions every 5 years, the most recently reported data (2013) was used to represent 2014 base year emission, since emissions from these sources do not vary much from year to year. Rail yard and airport emissions reported were obtained from the EPA's 2011 National Emission Inventory.

For area sources, emissions are estimated by multiplying an emission factor by some known indicator of collective activity such as production, number of employees, or population. For each projected year's inventory, area source emissions are changed by population growth, projected production growth, or estimated employment growth.

The non-road mobile sources emissions are calculated using EPA's NONROAD2008a model, with the exception of the railroad locomotives which were estimated by taking activity and multiplying by an emission factor. For each projected year's inventory, the emissions are estimated using EPA's NONROAD2008a model with activity input such as projected landing and takeoff data for aircraft.

For on-road mobile sources, EPA's Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES2014) mobile model is run to generate emissions. The MOVES2014 model includes the road class vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as an input file and can directly output the estimated emissions. For each projected year's inventory, the on-road mobile sources emissions are calculated by running the MOVES mobile model for the future year with the projected VMT to generate emissions that take into consideration expected Federal tailpipe standards, fleet turnover, and new fuels.

The 2014 NOX and VOC emissions for the North Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area, as well as the emissions for other years, were developed consistent with EPA guidance and are summarized in Tables 2 through 4 of the following subsection discussing the maintenance demonstration. See Appendix B of the April 16, 2015, submission for more detailed information on the emissions inventory.

The maintenance plan associated with the redesignation request includes a maintenance demonstration that:

(i) Shows compliance with and maintenance of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS by providing information to support the demonstration that current and future emissions of NOX and VOC remain at or below 2014 emissions levels.

(ii) Uses 2014 as the attainment year and includes future emissions inventory projections for 2015, 2018, 2022, and 2026.

(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, NOX and VOC MVEBs were established for the last year (2026) of the maintenance plan (see section VII below). Additionally, NC DAQ opted to establish sub-area MVEBs for an interim year (2014).

(iv) Provides actual (2014) and projected emissions inventories, in tons per day (tpd), for the North Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area, as shown in Tables 2 through 4, below.

In situations where local emissions are the primary contributor to nonattainment, such as the bi-state Charlotte Area, if the future projected emissions in the nonattainment area remain at or below the baseline emissions in the nonattainment area, then the ambient air quality standard should not be exceeded in the future. North Carolina has projected emissions as described previously and determined that emissions in the North Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area will remain below those in the attainment year inventory for the duration of the maintenance plan.

As discussed in section VI of this proposed rulemaking, a safety margin is the difference between the attainment level of emissions (from all sources) and the projected level of emissions (from all sources) in the maintenance plan. The attainment level of emissions is the level of emissions during one of the years in which the area met the NAAQS. North Carolina selected 2014 as the attainment emissions inventory year for the North Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area. North Carolina calculated safety margins in its submittal for years 2015, 2018, 2022, and 2026. Because the initial sub-area MVEB year of 2014 is also the base year for the maintenance plan inventory, there is no safety margin, therefore, no adjustments were made to the sub-area MVEBs for 2014. The State has allocated a portion of the 2026 safety margin to the 2026 sub-area MVEBs for the bi-state Charlotte Area.

The State has decided to allocate a portion of the 2026 safety margin to the 2026 sub-area MVEBs to allow for unanticipated growth in VMT, changes and uncertainty in vehicle mix assumptions, etc., that will influence the emission estimations. NC DAQ developed and implemented a five-step approach for determining a factor to use to calculate the amount of safety margin to apply to the sub-area MVEBs. Based on this approach, NC DAQ has allocated 2.93 tpd (2650 kg/day) to the 2026 NOX MVEB and 2.83 tpd (2,569 kg/day) to the 2026 VOC MVEB. After allocation of the available safety margin, the remaining safety margin was calculated as 59.72 tpd for NOX and 10.15 tpd for VOC. This allocation and the resulting available safety margin for the North Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area are discussed further in section VI of this proposed rulemaking along with the sub-area MVEBs to be used for transportation conformity proposes.

There are currently seven monitors measuring ozone in the North Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area. NC DAQ operates four of the monitors in the Area, whereas the Mecklenburg County Air Quality (MCAQ) Office operates three of the monitors in Mecklenburg County. The State of North Carolina, through NC DAQ, has committed to continue operation of all monitors in the North Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area in compliance with 40 CFR part 58 and have thus addressed the requirement for monitoring. EPA approved North Carolina's monitoring plan on November 25, 2013.

The State of North Carolina, through NC DAQ, has the legal authority to enforce and implement the maintenance plan for the North Carolina portion of the 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.

Large stationary sources are required to submit an emissions inventory annually to NC DAQ or MCAQ. NC DAQ commits to review these emissions inventories to determine if any unexpected growth in NOX emissions in the Area may endanger the maintenance of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Additionally, as new VMT data are provided by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NC DOT), NC DAQ commits to review these data and determine if any unexpected growth in VMT may endanger the maintenance of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

Additionally, under the Consolidated Emissions Reporting Rule (CERR) and Air Emissions Reporting Requirements (AERR), NC DAQ is required to develop a comprehensive, annual, statewide emissions inventory every three years that is due twelve to eighteen months after the completion of the inventory year. The AERR inventory years match the base year and final year of the inventory for the maintenance plan, and are within one or two years of the interim inventory years of the maintenance plan. Therefore, NC DAQ commits to compare the CERR and AERR inventories as they are developed with the maintenance plan to determine if additional steps are necessary for continued maintenance of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in this Area.

Section 175A of the CAA requires that a maintenance plan include such contingency measures as EPA deems necessary to assure that the state will promptly correct a violation of the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation. The maintenance plan should identify the contingency measures to be adopted, a schedule and procedure for adoption and implementation, and a time limit for action by the state. A state should also identify specific indicators to be used to determine when the contingency measures need to be implemented. The maintenance plan must include a requirement that a state will implement all measures with respect to control of the pollutant that were contained in the SIP before redesignation of the area to attainment in accordance with section 175A(d).

In the April 16, 2015, submittal, North Carolina affirms that all programs instituted by the State and EPA will remain enforceable and that sources are prohibited from reducing emissions controls following the redesignation of the Area. The contingency plan included in the submittal includes a triggering mechanism to determine when contingency measures are needed and a process of developing and implementing appropriate control measures. The primary trigger of the contingency plan will be a violation of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS (i.e., when the three-year average of the 4th highest values is equal to or greater than 0.076 ppm at a monitor in the Area). The trigger date will be 60 days from the date that the State observes a 4th 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 0.076 ppm.

The secondary trigger will apply where no actual violation of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS has occurred, but where the State finds monitored ozone levels indicating that an actual ozone NAAQS violation may be imminent. A pattern will be deemed to exist when there are two consecutive ozone seasons in which the 4th highest values are 0.076 ppm or greater at a single monitor within the Area. The trigger date will be 60 days from the date that the State observes a 4th highest value of 0.076 ppm or greater at a monitor for which the previous season had a 4th highest value of 0.076 ppm or greater.

Once the primary or secondary trigger is activated, the Planning Section of the NC DAQ, in consultation with SC DHEC and MCAQ, shall commence analyses including trajectory analyses of high ozone days and an emissions inventory assessment to determine those emission control measures that will be required for attaining or maintaining the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. By May 1 of the year following the ozone season in which the primary or secondary trigger has been activated, North Carolina will complete sufficient analyses to begin adoption of necessary rules for ensuring attainment and maintenance of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The rules would become State effective by the following January 1, unless legislative review is required.

At least one of the following contingency measures will be adopted and implemented upon a primary triggering event:

• NOX Reasonably Available Control Technology on stationary sources with a potential to emit less than 100 tons per year in the North Carolina portion of the Charlotte nonattainment area;

• diesel inspection and maintenance program;

• implementation of diesel retrofit programs, including incentives for performing retrofits;

• additional controls in upwind areas.

The NC DAQ commits to implement within 24 months of a primary or secondary trigger,9 at least one of the control measures listed above or other contingency measures that may be determined to be more appropriate based on the analyses performed.

North Carolina has also developed a tertiary trigger that will be a first alert as to a potential air quality problem on the horizon. This trigger will be activated when a monitor in the Area has a 4th highest value of 0.076 ppm or greater, starting the first year after the maintenance plan has been approved. The trigger date will be 60 days from the date that the State observes a 4th highest value of 0.076 ppm or greater at any monitor.

Once the tertiary trigger is activated, the Planning Section of the NC DAQ, in consultation with the SC DHEC and MCAQ, shall commence analyses including meteorological evaluation, trajectory analyses of high ozone days, and emissions inventory assessment to understand why a 4th highest exceedance of the standard has occurred. Once the analyses are completed, the NC DAQ will work with SC DHEC, MCAQ and the local air awareness program to develop an outreach plan identifying any additional voluntary measures that can be implemented. If the 4th highest exceedance occurs early in the season, the NC DAQ will work with entities identified in the outreach plan to determine if the measures can be implemented during the current season; otherwise, NC DAQ will work with SC DHEC, MCAQ, and the local air awareness coordinator to implement the plan for the following ozone season.

EPA has concluded that the maintenance plan adequately addresses the five basic components of a maintenance plan: The attainment emissions inventory, maintenance demonstration, monitoring, verification of continued attainment, and a contingency plan. Therefore, the maintenance plan SIP revision submitted by North Carolina for the State's portion of the Area meets the requirements of section 175A of the CAA and is approvable.

Under section 176(c) of the CAA, new transportation plans, programs, and 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 or any interim milestones. 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 an approved maintenance plan for that NAAQS.

Under the CAA, states are required to submit, at various times, control strategy SIPs and maintenance plans for nonattainment areas. These control strategy SIPs (including RFP and attainment demonstration requirements) and maintenance plans create MVEBs (or in this case sub-area MVEBs) for criteria pollutants and/or their precursors to address pollution from cars and trucks. Per 40 CFR part 93, a MVEB must be 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.

As part of the interagency consultation process on setting sub-area MVEBs, the DAQ held three conference calls with the Charlotte Regional Transportation Planning Organization (CRTPO)—Rocky River Rural Planning Organization (RRRPO), Gaston-Cleveland-Lincoln Metropolitan Planning Organization (GCLMPO), and Cabarrus Rowan Metropolitan Planning Organization (CRMPO) to determine what years to set sub-area MVEBs for the Charlotte maintenance plan. According to the transportation conformity rule, a maintenance plan must establish MVEBs for the last year of the maintenance plan (in this case, 2026). See 40 CFR 93.118. The consensus formed during the interagency consultation process was that another MVEB should be set for the Charlotte maintenance plan base year of 2014.

Accordingly, NC DAQ established separate sub-area MVEBs based on the latest Metropolitan Planning Organization jurisdictional boundaries such that sub-area MVEBs are established for the CRMPO (Cabarrus and Rowan Counties), for the CRTPO-RRRPO (Iredell, Mecklenburg and Union Counties), and for the GCLMPO (Gaston and Lincoln Counties) subareas. Although Cleveland County is included in the GCLMPO, it is not included in the Charlotte ozone nonattainment area.

Tables 6 through 8 below provide the NOX and VOC sub-area MVEBs in kilograms per day (kg/day),10 for 2014 and 2026.

The use and availability of plastic pipe have changed over the years with technological innovations in the products and best practices used in plastic pipe installations. Progress in the design and manufacture of plastic pipe and components has resulted in materials with higher strength characteristics. Manufacturers are instituting new practices related to traceability. Operators are incorporating best practices. Together, these measures have the potential to improve with pipeline safety and integrity. Some of these strides have been highlighted in petitions that are detailed below. The pipeline safety regulations have not stayed current with some of these products; this rulemaking is an effort to propose a number of revisions to incorporate these changes in the interest of pipeline safety.

PHMSA has received several rulemaking petitions involving plastic pipe. Copies of these petitions have been placed in the docket (PHMSA-2014-0098) for this rulemaking in addition to the docket that may have been initially established for the petition. This proposed rule will address the following petitions:

• American Gas Association (AGA)—(Docket No. PHMSA 2010-0011)—Petition to increase design factor 0.32 to 0.4 and incorporate updated ASTM D2513 (standard for Polyethylene (PE) pipe).

• Evonik Industries (Evonik) and UBE Industries (UBE)—(Docket No. PHMSA 2010-0009)—Petition to allow use of Polyamide (PA-12) pipe.

• Arkema—(Docket No. PHMSA 2013-0227)—Petition to allow use of Polyamide (PA-11) pipe at higher pressures.

• Gas Piping Technology Committee (GPTC)—Petition to allow above-ground, encased plastic pipe for regulator and metering stations.

While there has been much progress, both Federal and State inspectors, have noticed some issues related to the installation of plastic pipe that should be addressed in the pipeline safety regulations. In an effort to address these issues, respond to petitions and update the regulations with respect to the products and practices used in plastic pipe system without compromising safety, PHMSA is proposing revisions to the Federal Pipeline Safety Regulations (PSR) in 49 CFR part 192. This focus will limit these proposals to plastic pipelines in gas service and subsequently to new, repaired, and replaced pipes. These issues are addressed and detailed below as follows: