Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; North Carolina: Clean Smokestacks Act, 36468-36471 [2011-15636]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
36468
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
visibility as required by CAA Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).
VI. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the
Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission 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 Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely
approves State law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose
additional requirements beyond those
imposed by State law. For that reason,
this action:
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993);
• 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, August 10,
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 Clean Air Act;
and
• Does not interfere with Executive
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16,
1994)) because EPA lacks the
discretionary authority to address
environmental justice in this
rulemaking.
In addition, this rule does not have
Tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), because the SIP is
not approved to apply in Indian country
located in the State, and EPA notes that
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:53 Jun 21, 2011
Jkt 223001
it will not impose substantial direct
costs on Tribal governments or preempt
Tribal law.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen oxides, Sulfur
dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements,
Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: June 9, 2011.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region 9.
[FR Doc. 2011–15238 Filed 6–21–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R04–OAR–2011–0386–201137; FRL9322–5]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; North
Carolina: Clean Smokestacks Act
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
EPA is proposing to approve
a State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision submitted by the State of North
Carolina for the purpose of establishing
in North Carolina’s SIP the system-wide
emission limitations from the North
Carolina Clean Smokestacks Act (CSA).
On August 21, 2009, the State of North
Carolina, through the North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (NC DENR), Division of Air
Quality (DAQ), submitted an attainment
demonstration for the HickoryMorganton-Lenoir and GreensboroWinston Salem-High Point 1997 fine
particulate matter (PM2.5) nonattainment
areas. That submittal includes a request
that the system-wide emission
limitations from the North Carolina CSA
be incorporated into the State’s
Federally approved SIP. EPA proposes
to determine that the SIP revision is
approvable pursuant to the Clean Air
Act (CAA or Act).
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before July 22, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04–
OAR–2011–0386, by one of the
following methods:
1. https://www.regulations.gov: Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
2. E-mail: spann.jane@epa.gov.
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00083
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
3. Fax: (404) 562–9029.
4. Mail: EPA–R04–OAR–2011–0386,
Regulatory Development Section, Air
Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and
Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960.
5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Jane
Spann, Acting Chief, Regulatory
Development Section, Air Planning
Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the
Regional Office normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements
should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The Regional Office official
hours of business are Monday through
Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding Federal
holidays.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. ‘‘EPA–R04–OAR–2011–
0386.’’ EPA’s policy is that all
comments received will be included in
the public docket without change and
may be made available online at
https://www.regulations.gov, including
any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes
information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit
information that you consider to be CBI
or otherwise protected through https://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The
https://www.regulations.gov Web site is
an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which
means EPA will not know your identity
or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send an e-mail comment directly
to EPA without going through https://
www.regulations.gov, your e-mail
address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment
that is placed in the public docket and
made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA
recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment.
Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses. For additional information
about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA
Docket Center homepage at https://
www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
E:\FR\FM\22JNP1.SGM
22JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules
Docket: All documents in the
electronic docket are listed in the
https://www.regulations.gov index.
Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available,
i.e., CBI or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on
the Internet and will be publicly
available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically in https://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the Regulatory Development Section,
Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and
Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. EPA
requests that, if at all possible, you
contact the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
schedule your inspection. The Regional
Office’s official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30,
excluding Federal holidays.
Joel
Huey or Nacosta C. Ward, Regulatory
Development Section, Air Planning
Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Mr. Huey
may be reached by phone at (404) 562–
9104. Mr. Huey can also be reached via
electronic mail at huey.joel@epa.gov.
Ms. Ward may be reached by phone at
(404) 562–9140 or via electronic mail at
ward.nacosta@epa.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. What action is EPA proposing to take?
II. What is the background of North
Carolina’s CSA?
III. What are the general requirements of
North Carolina’s CSA?
IV. Why is EPA proposing this action?
V. Proposed Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What action is EPA proposing to
take?
EPA is proposing to approve a
revision to the North Carolina SIP to
incorporate the system-wide emission
limitations (or caps) from the State’s
CSA. The specific provisions being
incorporated into the SIP are paragraphs
(a) through (e) of Section 1 of Session
Law 2002–4, Senate Bill 1078 (hereafter
‘‘Senate Bill 1078’’) enacted June 20,
2002. This proposed approval does not
include incorporation into the North
Carolina SIP of paragraphs (f) through (j)
of Section 1 of Senate Bill 1078 nor any
of Section 2 of Senate Bill 1078. Please
refer to the docket for this rulemaking
for the complete text of these
provisions.
II. What is the background of North
Carolina’s CSA?
In June 2002, the General Assembly of
North Carolina, Session 2001, passed
Session Law 2002–4, also known as
Senate Bill 1078. This legislation,
entitled ‘‘An Act to Improve Air Quality
in the State by Imposing Limits on the
Emission of Certain Pollutants from
Certain Facilities that Burn Coal to
Generate Electricity and to Provide for
Recovery by Electric Utilities of the
Costs of Achieving Compliance with
Those Limits,’’ requires significant
actual emission reductions from coalfired power plants in North Carolina.
The State expected that emission
reductions from the CSA would have
significant health benefits for the
citizens of North Carolina and other
states.
North Carolina’s CSA includes a
schedule of system-wide caps on
emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOX) and
sulfur dioxide (SO2) from coal-fired
power plants in the State, the first of
which became effective in 2007. The
State expected the resulting emission
reductions would serve as a significant
step towards meeting the 1997 PM2.5
and 8-hour ozone national ambient air
quality standards (NAAQS), among
other NAAQS, improving visibility in
the mountains and other scenic vistas,
36469
and reducing acid rain. Reducing NOX
and SO2 emissions, using certain
technologies, also has the co-benefit of
reducing mercury emissions. EPA notes
that all areas in the State that were
designated nonattainment for the 1997
PM2.5 and 8-hour ozone NAAQS are
now attaining the standards. Although
the Hickory-Morganton-Lenoir and
Greensboro-Winston Salem-High Point
nonattainment areas for the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS have not yet been redesignated
to attainment, EPA determined that
these areas had attaining data based on
the three-year period 2006–2008.1 Also,
although the Charlotte 1997 8-hour
ozone nonattainment area is still
designated nonattainment, EPA has
issued a proposed determination that
the Area has attaining data based on the
2008–2010 design value period. See 76
FR 20293 (April 12, 2011). North
Carolina has identified the CSA as part
of its plan to attain and maintain the
NAAQS. Because North Carolina is
relying on emissions reductions from
the CSA to demonstrate attainment and
maintenance for certain areas in the
State, North Carolina is now formally
seeking that the CSA be included in the
SIP so that the CSA’s requirements may
be considered ‘‘permanent and
enforceable.’’
III. What are the general requirements
of North Carolina’s CSA?
North Carolina’s CSA applies to the
two investor-owned public utilities in
North Carolina that own or operate coalfired generating units with the capacity
to generate 25 or more megawatts of
electricity: Progress Energy Carolinas,
Inc. (Progress Energy) and Duke Power,
a division of Duke Energy Corporation
(Duke Energy). Although the emission
caps apply collectively to each investorowned public utility, the CSA has no
provision for the trading of pollution
credits from one utility to another.
Tables 1 and 2 below summarize the
schedule for implementation of the NOX
and SO2 emission caps required by the
CSA.
TABLE 1—NOX EMISSION CAPS FOR INVESTOR-OWNED PUBLIC UTILITIES THAT OWN OR OPERATE COAL-FIRED
GENERATING UNITS
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Investor-owned public utilities that collectively emitted in calendar year
2000
Collective calendar year emission
caps beginning January 1, 2007
Collective calendar year emission
caps beginning January 1, 2009
More than 75,000 tons of NOX ...............................................................
Equal to or less than 75,000 tons of NOX ..............................................
35,000 tons of NOX .......................
25,000 tons of NOX .......................
31,000 tons of NOX.
Unchanged from 2007 cap.
1 EPA’s determination that the HickoryMorganton-Lenoir and Greensboro-Winston SalemHigh Point PM2.5 nonattainment areas have attained
the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS is not equivalent to the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:53 Jun 21, 2011
Jkt 223001
redesignation of the areas to attainment. The
designation status of the areas remains
nonattainment for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS until
such time as EPA determines that the areas meet all
PO 00000
Frm 00084
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
of the CAA requirements for redesignation to
attainment. See 75 FR 54 (January 4, 2010) and 75
FR 230 (January 5, 2010), respectively.
E:\FR\FM\22JNP1.SGM
22JNP1
36470
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 2—SO2 EMISSION CAPS FOR INVESTOR-OWNED PUBLIC UTILITIES THAT OWN OR OPERATE COAL-FIRED
GENERATING UNITS
Investor-owned public utilities that collectively emitted in calendar year
2000
Collective calendar year emission
caps beginning January 1, 2009
Collective calendar year emission
caps beginning January 1, 2013
More than 225,000 tons of SO2 ..............................................................
Equal to or less than 225,000 tons of SO2 .............................................
150,000 tons of SO2 ......................
100,000 tons of SO2 ......................
80,000 tons of SO2.
50,000 tons of SO2.
According to documentation
submitted by North Carolina, applicable
utilities in North Carolina subject to the
CSA must: (1) Reduce actual emissions
of NOX from 245,000 tons in 1998 to
56,000 tons by 2009 (a 77 percent
reduction); and (2) reduce actual SO2
emissions from 489,000 tons in 1998 to
250,000 tons by 2009 (a 49 percent
reduction) and to 130,000 tons by 2013
(a 73 percent reduction). This represents
about a one-third reduction of the total
NOX emissions and a one-half reduction
of the total SO2 emissions from all
sources in North Carolina. Table 3
below lists the coal-fired power plants
in North Carolina subject to the CSA.
TABLE 3—COAL-FIRED POWER PLANTS SUBJECT TO NORTH CAROLINA’S CSA
Parent company
Allen ......................................................................................
Belews Creek ........................................................................
Buck ......................................................................................
Cliffside .................................................................................
Dan River ..............................................................................
Marshall .................................................................................
Riverbend ..............................................................................
Ashville ..................................................................................
Cape Fear .............................................................................
Lee ........................................................................................
Mayo .....................................................................................
Roxborro ...............................................................................
L.V. Sutton ............................................................................
Weatherspoon .......................................................................
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Plant
Duke Energy ........................................................................
Duke Energy ........................................................................
Duke Energy ........................................................................
Duke Energy ........................................................................
Duke Energy ........................................................................
Duke Energy ........................................................................
Duke Energy ........................................................................
Progress Energy ..................................................................
Progress Energy ..................................................................
Progress Energy ..................................................................
Progress Energy ..................................................................
Progress Energy ..................................................................
Progress Energy ..................................................................
Progress Energy ..................................................................
As noted above, this proposed
approval does not include incorporation
into the North Carolina SIP paragraphs
(f) through (j) of Section 1 of Senate Bill
1078. These provisions of the State’s
law, which North Carolina did not
request to be incorporated into the
State’s Federally-approved SIP, stipulate
requirements regarding several aspects
of implementation of the CSA. In brief,
those requirements provide that: (1)
Affected utilities may determine how
compliance with the collective
emissions limitations may be achieved
and that CSA does not alter obligations
to comply with any other Federal or
state law or the authority of the
Commission to impose specific
limitations on the emissions of NOX and
SO2; (2) a subject emission unit shall
remain subject to the collective
emissions limitations whether or not it
continues to be owned or operated by an
investor-owned public utility; (3) any
permit or modified permit issued for a
subject unit shall include conditions
that provide for testing, monitoring,
record keeping, and reporting adequate
to assure compliance with the CSA
requirements; (4) the Governor may
enter into an agreement with an
investor-owned public utility for the
purpose of transferring to the State any
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:53 Jun 21, 2011
Jkt 223001
trading program emission allowances
that result from compliance with the
CSA; and (5) a subject investor-owned
public utility shall submit to the State
an annual verified statement providing
details of activities related to
compliance with CSA. As also noted
above, this proposed approval does not
include incorporation into the North
Carolina SIP any of Section 2 of Senate
Bill 1078, which stipulates the
permitting requirements for all air
contaminant sources in the State of
North Carolina. Nonetheless, the
emission reductions are the key
component of the CSA, and North
Carolina relies on the reductions to
demonstrate attainment and
maintenance with the NAAQS. Thus,
inclusion of the emission reductions
into the SIP serves the purpose of
making the reductions permanent and
enforceable as well as providing a
Federal source of applicable
requirements for title V permitting and
other purposes.
IV. Why is EPA proposing this action?
The purpose of today’s proposed
approval is to make the CSA emissions
reductions Federally enforceable (and
permanent) because those reductions
are part of North Carolina’s plan to
PO 00000
Frm 00085
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Location
Belmont.
Walnut Cove.
Salisbury.
Cliffside.
Eden.
Terrell.
Mount Holly.
Arden.
Moncure.
Goldsboro.
Roxboro.
Semora.
Wilmington.
Lumberton.
attain and maintain the NAAQS. NC
DENR requested that specific provisions
of the CSA be formally adopted into the
North Carolina SIP in support of its
attainment demonstrations for the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS for both the HickoryMorganton-Lenoir and GreensboroWinston Salem-High Point
nonattainment areas. Such inclusion is
consistent with the requirements of the
CAA. Under section 110(l) of the CAA,
EPA may not approve a revision to a SIP
if it would interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning NAAQS
attainment and reasonable further
progress, or any other applicable
requirement of the CAA. In reducing
system-wide NOX and SO2 emissions
allowed by coal-fired power plants in
the State, the CSA is clearly a
strengthening of the North Carolina’s
SIP and will not interfere with CAA
requirements. In addition, Federal
approval of the CSA will ensure the
State may take credit for the associated
NOX and SO2 emission reductions when
pertinent to SIP submittals for other
CAA requirements.
V. Proposed Action
EPA is proposing to approve the
portion of North Carolina’s August 21,
2009, SIP revision which incorporates
E:\FR\FM\22JNP1.SGM
22JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
the system-wide emission caps from the
State legislation entitled, ‘‘An Act to
Improve Air Quality in the State by
Imposing Limits on the Emission of
Certain Pollutants from Certain
Facilities that Burn Coal to Generate
Electricity and to Provide for Recovery
by Electric Utilities of the Costs of
Achieving Compliance with Those
Limits.’’ The specific provisions being
proposed for incorporation into the SIP
are paragraphs (a) through (e) of Section
1 of Session Law 2002–4, Senate Bill
1078 enacted June 20, 2002. Once this
provision is adopted into the SIP, the
collective emission caps applicable to
each investor-owned public utility will
be permanent and Federally
enforceable.
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, this rule does not have
Tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), because the SIP is
not approved to apply in Indian country
located in the state, and EPA notes that
it will not impose substantial direct
costs on Tribal governments or preempt
Tribal law.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the
Act and applicable Federal regulations.
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 approves state law as
meeting Federal requirements and does
not 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 Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993);
• 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, August 10,
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
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:53 Jun 21, 2011
Jkt 223001
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
oxides.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: June 9, 2011.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2011–15636 Filed 6–21–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R03–OAR–2011–0411; FRL–9321–6]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia;
Adoption of the Revised Nitrogen
Dioxide Standard
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
EPA proposes to approve the
State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision submitted by the
Commonwealth of Virginia for the
purpose of adding the new 1-hour
nitrogen dioxide (NO2) standard at a
level of 100 parts per billion (ppb) and
updating the list of Federal documents
incorporated by reference. In the Final
Rules section of this Federal Register,
EPA is approving the Commonwealth’s
SIP submittal as a direct final rule
without prior proposal because the
Agency views this as a noncontroversial
submittal and anticipates no adverse
comments. A detailed rationale for the
approval is set forth in the direct final
rule. If no adverse comments are
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00086
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
36471
received in response to this action, no
further activity is contemplated. If EPA
receives adverse comments, the direct
final rule will be withdrawn and all
public comments received will be
addressed in a subsequent final rule
based on this proposed rule. EPA will
not institute a second comment period.
Any parties interested in commenting
on this action should do so at this time.
DATES: Comments must be received in
writing by July 22, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID Number EPA–
R03–OAR–2011–0411 by one of the
following methods:
A. https://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
B. E-mail:
fernandez.cristina@epa.gov.
C. Mail: EPA–R03–OAR–2011–0411,
Cristina Fernandez, Associate Director,
Office of Air Program Planning,
Mailcode 3AP30, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region III, 1650
Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
19103.
D. Hand Delivery: At the previouslylisted EPA Region III address. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the
Docket’s normal hours of operation, and
special arrangements should be made
for deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–R03–OAR–2011–
0411. EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change, and may be
made available online at https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through https://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The
https://www.regulations.gov Web site is
an anonymous access system, which
means EPA will not know your identity
or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send an e-mail comment directly
to EPA without going through https://
www.regulations.gov, your e-mail
address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment
that is placed in the public docket and
made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA
recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA
cannot read your comment due to
E:\FR\FM\22JNP1.SGM
22JNP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 120 (Wednesday, June 22, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 36468-36471]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-15636]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R04-OAR-2011-0386-201137; FRL- 9322-5]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
North Carolina: Clean Smokestacks Act
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision submitted by the State of North Carolina for the purpose of
establishing in North Carolina's SIP the system-wide emission
limitations from the North Carolina Clean Smokestacks Act (CSA). On
August 21, 2009, the State of North Carolina, through the North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NC DENR),
Division of Air Quality (DAQ), submitted an attainment demonstration
for the Hickory-Morganton-Lenoir and Greensboro-Winston Salem-High
Point 1997 fine particulate matter (PM2.5) nonattainment
areas. That submittal includes a request that the system-wide emission
limitations from the North Carolina CSA be incorporated into the
State's Federally approved SIP. EPA proposes to determine that the SIP
revision is approvable pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act).
DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 22, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2011-0386, by one of the following methods:
1. https://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
2. E-mail: spann.jane@epa.gov.
3. Fax: (404) 562-9029.
4. Mail: EPA-R04-OAR-2011-0386, Regulatory Development Section, Air
Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Jane Spann, Acting Chief, Regulatory
Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61
Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such deliveries are
only accepted during the Regional Office normal hours of operation, and
special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The Regional Office official hours of business are Monday
through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding Federal holidays.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. ``EPA-R04-OAR-
2011-0386.'' EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed
to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information
that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through https://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The https://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through https://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at https://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
[[Page 36469]]
Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
https://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in https://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Regulatory Development
Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that, if at all
possible, you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's
official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30,
excluding Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joel Huey or Nacosta C. Ward,
Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides
and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Mr. Huey
may be reached by phone at (404) 562-9104. Mr. Huey can also be reached
via electronic mail at huey.joel@epa.gov. Ms. Ward may be reached by
phone at (404) 562-9140 or via electronic mail at ward.nacosta@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. What action is EPA proposing to take?
II. What is the background of North Carolina's CSA?
III. What are the general requirements of North Carolina's CSA?
IV. Why is EPA proposing this action?
V. Proposed Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What action is EPA proposing to take?
EPA is proposing to approve a revision to the North Carolina SIP to
incorporate the system-wide emission limitations (or caps) from the
State's CSA. The specific provisions being incorporated into the SIP
are paragraphs (a) through (e) of Section 1 of Session Law 2002-4,
Senate Bill 1078 (hereafter ``Senate Bill 1078'') enacted June 20,
2002. This proposed approval does not include incorporation into the
North Carolina SIP of paragraphs (f) through (j) of Section 1 of Senate
Bill 1078 nor any of Section 2 of Senate Bill 1078. Please refer to the
docket for this rulemaking for the complete text of these provisions.
II. What is the background of North Carolina's CSA?
In June 2002, the General Assembly of North Carolina, Session 2001,
passed Session Law 2002-4, also known as Senate Bill 1078. This
legislation, entitled ``An Act to Improve Air Quality in the State by
Imposing Limits on the Emission of Certain Pollutants from Certain
Facilities that Burn Coal to Generate Electricity and to Provide for
Recovery by Electric Utilities of the Costs of Achieving Compliance
with Those Limits,'' requires significant actual emission reductions
from coal-fired power plants in North Carolina. The State expected that
emission reductions from the CSA would have significant health benefits
for the citizens of North Carolina and other states.
North Carolina's CSA includes a schedule of system-wide caps on
emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOX) and sulfur dioxide
(SO2) from coal-fired power plants in the State, the first
of which became effective in 2007. The State expected the resulting
emission reductions would serve as a significant step towards meeting
the 1997 PM2.5 and 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS), among other NAAQS, improving visibility in the
mountains and other scenic vistas, and reducing acid rain. Reducing
NOX and SO2 emissions, using certain
technologies, also has the co-benefit of reducing mercury emissions.
EPA notes that all areas in the State that were designated
nonattainment for the 1997 PM2.5 and 8-hour ozone NAAQS are
now attaining the standards. Although the Hickory-Morganton-Lenoir and
Greensboro-Winston Salem-High Point nonattainment areas for the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS have not yet been redesignated to attainment,
EPA determined that these areas had attaining data based on the three-
year period 2006-2008.\1\ Also, although the Charlotte 1997 8-hour
ozone nonattainment area is still designated nonattainment, EPA has
issued a proposed determination that the Area has attaining data based
on the 2008-2010 design value period. See 76 FR 20293 (April 12, 2011).
North Carolina has identified the CSA as part of its plan to attain and
maintain the NAAQS. Because North Carolina is relying on emissions
reductions from the CSA to demonstrate attainment and maintenance for
certain areas in the State, North Carolina is now formally seeking that
the CSA be included in the SIP so that the CSA's requirements may be
considered ``permanent and enforceable.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ EPA's determination that the Hickory-Morganton-Lenoir and
Greensboro-Winston Salem-High Point PM2.5 nonattainment
areas have attained the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS is not
equivalent to the redesignation of the areas to attainment. The
designation status of the areas remains nonattainment for the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS until such time as EPA determines that the
areas meet all of the CAA requirements for redesignation to
attainment. See 75 FR 54 (January 4, 2010) and 75 FR 230 (January 5,
2010), respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. What are the general requirements of North Carolina's CSA?
North Carolina's CSA applies to the two investor-owned public
utilities in North Carolina that own or operate coal-fired generating
units with the capacity to generate 25 or more megawatts of
electricity: Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. (Progress Energy) and Duke
Power, a division of Duke Energy Corporation (Duke Energy). Although
the emission caps apply collectively to each investor-owned public
utility, the CSA has no provision for the trading of pollution credits
from one utility to another. Tables 1 and 2 below summarize the
schedule for implementation of the NOX and SO2
emission caps required by the CSA.
Table 1--NOX Emission Caps for Investor-Owned Public Utilities That Own
or Operate Coal-Fired Generating Units
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Collective Collective
Investor-owned public utilities calendar year calendar year
that collectively emitted in emission caps emission caps
calendar year 2000 beginning January beginning January
1, 2007 1, 2009
------------------------------------------------------------------------
More than 75,000 tons of NOX.... 35,000 tons of NOX 31,000 tons of
NOX.
Equal to or less than 75,000 25,000 tons of NOX Unchanged from
tons of NOX. 2007 cap.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 36470]]
Table 2--SO2 Emission Caps for Investor-Owned Public Utilities That Own
or Operate Coal-Fired Generating Units
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Collective Collective
Investor-owned public utilities calendar year calendar year
that collectively emitted in emission caps emission caps
calendar year 2000 beginning January beginning January
1, 2009 1, 2013
------------------------------------------------------------------------
More than 225,000 tons of SO2... 150,000 tons of 80,000 tons of
SO2. SO2.
Equal to or less than 225,000 100,000 tons of 50,000 tons of
tons of SO2. SO2. SO2.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to documentation submitted by North Carolina, applicable
utilities in North Carolina subject to the CSA must: (1) Reduce actual
emissions of NOX from 245,000 tons in 1998 to 56,000 tons by
2009 (a 77 percent reduction); and (2) reduce actual SO2
emissions from 489,000 tons in 1998 to 250,000 tons by 2009 (a 49
percent reduction) and to 130,000 tons by 2013 (a 73 percent
reduction). This represents about a one-third reduction of the total
NOX emissions and a one-half reduction of the total
SO2 emissions from all sources in North Carolina. Table 3
below lists the coal-fired power plants in North Carolina subject to
the CSA.
Table 3--Coal-Fired Power Plants Subject to North Carolina's CSA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plant Parent company Location
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allen.................................... Duke Energy................. Belmont.
Belews Creek............................. Duke Energy................. Walnut Cove.
Buck..................................... Duke Energy................. Salisbury.
Cliffside................................ Duke Energy................. Cliffside.
Dan River................................ Duke Energy................. Eden.
Marshall................................. Duke Energy................. Terrell.
Riverbend................................ Duke Energy................. Mount Holly.
Ashville................................. Progress Energy............. Arden.
Cape Fear................................ Progress Energy............. Moncure.
Lee...................................... Progress Energy............. Goldsboro.
Mayo..................................... Progress Energy............. Roxboro.
Roxborro................................. Progress Energy............. Semora.
L.V. Sutton.............................. Progress Energy............. Wilmington.
Weatherspoon............................. Progress Energy............. Lumberton.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted above, this proposed approval does not include
incorporation into the North Carolina SIP paragraphs (f) through (j) of
Section 1 of Senate Bill 1078. These provisions of the State's law,
which North Carolina did not request to be incorporated into the
State's Federally-approved SIP, stipulate requirements regarding
several aspects of implementation of the CSA. In brief, those
requirements provide that: (1) Affected utilities may determine how
compliance with the collective emissions limitations may be achieved
and that CSA does not alter obligations to comply with any other
Federal or state law or the authority of the Commission to impose
specific limitations on the emissions of NOX and
SO2; (2) a subject emission unit shall remain subject to the
collective emissions limitations whether or not it continues to be
owned or operated by an investor-owned public utility; (3) any permit
or modified permit issued for a subject unit shall include conditions
that provide for testing, monitoring, record keeping, and reporting
adequate to assure compliance with the CSA requirements; (4) the
Governor may enter into an agreement with an investor-owned public
utility for the purpose of transferring to the State any trading
program emission allowances that result from compliance with the CSA;
and (5) a subject investor-owned public utility shall submit to the
State an annual verified statement providing details of activities
related to compliance with CSA. As also noted above, this proposed
approval does not include incorporation into the North Carolina SIP any
of Section 2 of Senate Bill 1078, which stipulates the permitting
requirements for all air contaminant sources in the State of North
Carolina. Nonetheless, the emission reductions are the key component of
the CSA, and North Carolina relies on the reductions to demonstrate
attainment and maintenance with the NAAQS. Thus, inclusion of the
emission reductions into the SIP serves the purpose of making the
reductions permanent and enforceable as well as providing a Federal
source of applicable requirements for title V permitting and other
purposes.
IV. Why is EPA proposing this action?
The purpose of today's proposed approval is to make the CSA
emissions reductions Federally enforceable (and permanent) because
those reductions are part of North Carolina's plan to attain and
maintain the NAAQS. NC DENR requested that specific provisions of the
CSA be formally adopted into the North Carolina SIP in support of its
attainment demonstrations for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS for both
the Hickory-Morganton-Lenoir and Greensboro-Winston Salem-High Point
nonattainment areas. Such inclusion is consistent with the requirements
of the CAA. Under section 110(l) of the CAA, EPA may not approve a
revision to a SIP if it would interfere with any applicable requirement
concerning NAAQS attainment and reasonable further progress, or any
other applicable requirement of the CAA. In reducing system-wide
NOX and SO2 emissions allowed by coal-fired power
plants in the State, the CSA is clearly a strengthening of the North
Carolina's SIP and will not interfere with CAA requirements. In
addition, Federal approval of the CSA will ensure the State may take
credit for the associated NOX and SO2 emission
reductions when pertinent to SIP submittals for other CAA requirements.
V. Proposed Action
EPA is proposing to approve the portion of North Carolina's August
21, 2009, SIP revision which incorporates
[[Page 36471]]
the system-wide emission caps from the State legislation entitled, ``An
Act to Improve Air Quality in the State by Imposing Limits on the
Emission of Certain Pollutants from Certain Facilities that Burn Coal
to Generate Electricity and to Provide for Recovery by Electric
Utilities of the Costs of Achieving Compliance with Those Limits.'' The
specific provisions being proposed for incorporation into the SIP are
paragraphs (a) through (e) of Section 1 of Session Law 2002-4, Senate
Bill 1078 enacted June 20, 2002. Once this provision is adopted into
the SIP, the collective emission caps applicable to each investor-owned
public utility will be permanent and Federally enforceable.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 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 approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not 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 Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
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, August 10, 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, this rule does not have Tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: June 9, 2011.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2011-15636 Filed 6-21-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
