Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation of Areas; North Carolina; Redesignation of the Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, 1997 8-Hour Ozone Moderate Nonattainment Area to Attainment, 45152-45167 [2013-17834]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
45152
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 144 / Friday, July 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules
Dated: July 12, 2013.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2013–18026 Filed 7–25–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[EPA–R04–OAR–2013–0129; FRL–9835–8]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans and Designation
of Areas; North Carolina;
Redesignation of the CharlotteGastonia-Rock Hill, 1997 8-Hour Ozone
Moderate Nonattainment Area to
Attainment
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
On November 2, 2011, and
supplemented on March 28, 2013, the
State of North Carolina, through the
North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources,
Department of Air Quality (NC DAQ),
submitted a request for EPA to
redesignate the portion of North
Carolina that is within the bi-state
Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, North
Carolina-South Carolina 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area (hereafter referred to
as the ‘‘bi-state Charlotte Area,’’ ‘‘Area,’’
or ‘‘Metrolina nonattainment area’’) to
attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS); and to approve a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
containing a maintenance plan for the
Area. EPA is proposing to approve the
redesignation request for the Area, along
with the related SIP revisions, including
North Carolina’s plan for maintaining
attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard in the Area. EPA is also
proposing to approve a supplemental
SIP revision, submitted to EPA on
March 28, 2013, extending the
maintenance plan to the year 2025 and
updating motor vehicle emission
budgets (MVEBs) for nitrogen oxides
(NOX) and volatile organic compounds
(VOC) for the years 2013 and 2025 for
the North Carolina portion of the Area.
These actions are being proposed
pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA or
Act) and its implementing regulations.
EPA finalized action to redesignate the
South Carolina portion of the Area,
including approval of South Carolina’s
maintenance plan for the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS, in a separate action.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before August 26, 2013.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:22 Jul 25, 2013
Jkt 229001
Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04–
OAR–2013–0129, by one of the
following methods:
1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the
on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
2. Email: R4-RDS@epa.gov.
3. Fax: (404) 562–9019.
4. Mail: EPA–R04–OAR–2013–0129,
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: Ms.
Lynorae Benjamin, Chief, Regulatory
Development Section, Air Planning
Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the
Regional Office’s normal hours of
operation. The Regional Office’s official
hours of business are Monday through
Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding
Federal holidays.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–R04–OAR–2013–
0129. EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change and may be
made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit through
www.regulations.gov or email,
information that you consider to be CBI
or otherwise protected. The
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 email comment directly
to EPA without going through
www.regulations.gov, your email
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
ADDRESSES:
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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.
Docket: All documents in the
electronic docket are listed in the
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 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 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jane
Spann or Sara Waterson of the
Regulatory Development Section, in the
Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and
Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Ms.
Spann may be reached by phone at (404)
562–9029, or via electronic mail at
spann.jane@epa.gov. Ms. Waterson may
be reached by phone at (404) 562–9061,
or via electronic mail at
waterson.sara@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
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
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 MVEBs for 2013 and 2025 for the
North Carolina portion of the area?
VIII. Proposed Action on the Redesignation
Request and Maintenance Plan SIP
Revision Including Proposed Approval
of the 2013 and 2025 NOX and VOC
MVEBs for the North Carolina Portion of
the Area
E:\FR\FM\26JYP1.SGM
26JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 144 / Friday, July 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules
IX. What is the effect of EPA’s proposed
actions?
X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
I. What are the actions EPA is
proposing to take?
EPA is proposing to take the following
two separate but related actions, one of
which involves multiple elements: (1)
To redesignate the North Carolina
portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area to
attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS; and (2) to approve into the
North Carolina SIP, under section 175A
of the CAA, North Carolina’s plan for
maintaining the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS (1997 ozone NAAQS
maintenance plan). EPA’s proposed
action for the maintenance plan also
includes proposed approval of the
associated MVEBs. Through today’s
rulemaking, EPA is also notifying the
public of the status of EPA’s adequacy
determination for the MVEBs for the
North Carolina portion of the bi-state
Charlotte Area. The bi-state Charlotte
Area consists of Cabarrus, Gaston,
Lincoln, Mecklenburg, Rowan, Union
and a portion of Iredell County
(Davidson and Coddle Creek
Townships), North Carolina; and a
portion of York County, South Carolina.
These actions are summarized below
and described in greater detail
throughout this notice of proposed
rulemaking.
First, EPA proposes to determine that
the North Carolina portion of the bistate 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
Cabarrus, Gaston, Iredell, Lincoln,
Mecklenburg, Rowan and Union
Counties in their entireties, and a
portion of Iredell County (Davidson and
Coddle Creek Townships) in North
Carolina from nonattainment to
attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS.
Second, EPA is proposing to approve
North Carolina’s November 2, 2011, SIP
revision (as supplemented by a March
28, 2013, SIP submittal) for the 1997 8hour ozone NAAQS maintenance plan
for the North Carolina portion of the bistate 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
help keep the bi-state Charlotte Area in
attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS through 2025. Consistent with
the CAA, EPA is proposing to take
action to approve the 2013 and 2025
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:22 Jul 25, 2013
Jkt 229001
MVEBs in North Carolina’s March 28,
2013, SIP revision.
EPA is also notifying the public of the
status of EPA’s adequacy process for the
newly-established NOX and VOC
MVEBs for 2013 and 2025 for the North
Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte
Area. The Adequacy comment period
for the 2013 and 2025 MVEBs for the
North Carolina portion of the bi-state
Charlotte Area began on February 21,
2013, with EPA’s posting of the
availability of North Carolina’s
submissions on EPA’s Adequacy Web
site (https://www.epa.gov/otaq/
stateresources/transconf/
currsips.htm#charlotte1111). The
Adequacy comment period for these
MVEBs closed on March 25, 2013.
Please see section VII of this proposed
rulemaking for further explanation of
this process and for more details on the
MVEBs.
Today’s notice of proposed
rulemaking is in response to North
Carolina’s November 2, 2011, SIP
revision (as supplemented by a March
28, 2013, SIP submission). These SIP
revisions 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 of the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS.
II. What is the background for EPA’s
proposed actions?
On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a
revised 8-hour ozone NAAQS of 0.08
parts per million (ppm). Under EPA’s
regulations at 40 CFR part 50, the 1997
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
0.08 ppm (i.e., 0.084 ppm when
rounding is considered) (69 FR 23857,
April 30, 2004). 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
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
45153
Charlotte Area was designated
nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS on April 30, 2004
(effective June 15, 2004) using 2001–
2003 ambient air quality data (69 FR
23857, April 30, 2004). At the time of
designation, the bi-state Charlotte Area
was classified as a moderate
nonattainment area for the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. In the April 30, 2004,
Phase I Ozone Implementation Rule,
EPA established ozone nonattainment
area attainment dates based on Table 1
of section 181(a) of the CAA. This
established an attainment date six years
after the June 15, 2004, effective date for
areas classified as moderate areas for the
1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment
designations. Section 181 of the CAA
explains that the attainment date for
moderate nonattainment areas shall be
as expeditiously as practicable, but no
later than six years after designation, or
June 15, 2010. Therefore, the bi-state
Charlotte Area’s original attainment date
was June 15, 2010. See 69 FR 23951,
April 30, 2004.
On November 12, 2009,1 North
Carolina submitted an attainment
demonstration and associated
reasonably available control measures
(RACM), a reasonable further progress
(RFP) plan, 2 contingency measures, a
2002 base year emissions inventory, and
other planning SIP revisions related to
attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS in the North Carolina portion of
the Area. North Carolina submitted a
supplement to the attainment
demonstration on April 5, 2010, which
provided supplemental information
including the 2009 ambient air quality
data (showing that the area qualified for
a one-year extension to the attainment
date).
The bi-state Charlotte Area did not
attain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS by
June 15, 2010 (the applicable attainment
date for moderate nonattainment areas);
however, the Area qualified for an
extension of the attainment date. Under
certain circumstances, the CAA allows
for extensions of the attainment dates
prescribed at the time of the original
nonattainment designation. In
accordance with CAA section 181(a)(5),
EPA may grant up to two one-year
extensions of the attainment date under
specified conditions. On May 31, 2011,
1 North Carolina withdrew a June 15, 2007,
attainment demonstration SIP for its portion of the
Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill 1997 8-hour ozone
area on December 19, 2008, and committed to
submit a revised SIP by November 30, 2009. On
November 12, 2009, North Carolina resubmitted the
attainment demonstration SIP for the North
Carolina portion of the Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill
1997 8-hour ozone area.
2 A supplement to the RFP was submitted on
November 30, 2009.
E:\FR\FM\26JYP1.SGM
26JYP1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
45154
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 144 / Friday, July 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules
EPA determined that the bi-state
Charlotte Area met the CAA
requirements to obtain a one-year
extension of the attainment date for the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. See 76 FR
31245. As a result, EPA extended the bistate Charlotte Area’s attainment date
from June 15, 2010, to June 15, 2011, for
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
On November 2, 2011, North Carolina
requested redesignation of the North
Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte
Area to attainment for the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. The redesignation
request included three years of
complete, quality-assured ambient air
quality data for the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS for 2008–2010, indicating that
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS had
been achieved for the Area. Under the
CAA, nonattainment areas may be
redesignated to attainment if sufficient,
complete, quality-assured data is
available for the Administrator to
determine that the area has attained the
standard and the area meets the other
CAA redesignation requirements in
section 107(d)(3)(E).
Subsequently, on November 15, 2011
(76 FR 70656), EPA determined that the
bi-state Charlotte Area attained the 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS. The
determination of attaining data was
based upon complete, quality-assured
and certified ambient air monitoring
data for the 2008–2010 period, showing
that the Area had monitored attainment
of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The
requirements for the Area to submit an
attainment demonstration and
associated RACM, RFP plan,
contingency measures, and other
planning SIP revisions related to
attainment of the standard were
suspended as a result of the
determination of attainment, so long as
the Area continues to attain the 1997 8hour ozone NAAQS. See 40 CFR 51.918
and 52.2125(a). The Area attained the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS with 2009–
2011 data, and preliminary data indicate
that the Area continues to attain with
2010–2012 data.
On January 12, 2012, North Carolina
withdrew the North Carolina portion of
the Area’s attainment demonstration
(except RFP, emissions statements, and
the emissions inventory) as allowed by
40 CFR 51.918. Therefore, EPA was not
required to take action on the
aforementioned portion of the
attainment demonstration. EPA
approved the emissions statements
portion of the attainment demonstration
SIP revision on April 24, 2012 (77 FR
24382). Additionally, EPA approved the
baseline emissions inventory portion of
the attainment demonstration SIP
revision on May 4, 2012 (77 FR 26441).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:22 Jul 25, 2013
Jkt 229001
EPA approved the RFP portion on
October 12, 2012 (77 FR 62159).
The March 28, 2013, supplemental
SIP revision extends the final year of the
maintenance plan to 2025. Specifically,
this revision updates emissions data,
emissions projections, MVEBs, and
safety margins to 2025. Additionally, it
provides updated ozone design values
for the bi-state Charlotte Area.
III. What are the criteria for
redesignation?
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:
1. ‘‘Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Design
Value Calculations,’’ Memorandum from
Bill Laxton, Director, Technical Support
Division, June 18, 1990;
2. ‘‘Maintenance Plans for Redesignation of
Ozone and Carbon Monoxide
Nonattainment Areas,’’ Memorandum
from G. T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon
Monoxide Programs Branch, April 30,
1992;
3. ‘‘Contingency Measures for Ozone and
Carbon Monoxide (CO) Redesignations,’’
Memorandum from G. T. Helms, Chief,
Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs
Branch, June 1, 1992;
4. ‘‘Procedures for Processing Requests to
Redesignate Areas to Attainment,’’
Memorandum from John Calcagni,
Director, Air Quality Management
Division, September 4, 1992 (hereafter
referred to as the ‘‘Calcagni
Memorandum’’);
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
5. ‘‘State Implementation Plan (SIP) Actions
Submitted in Response to Clean Air Act
(CAA) Deadlines,’’ Memorandum from
John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality
Management Division, October 28, 1992;
6. ‘‘Technical Support Documents (TSDs) for
Redesignation of Ozone and Carbon
Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment Areas,’’
Memorandum from G. T. Helms, Chief,
Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs
Branch, August 17, 1993;
7. ‘‘State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Requirements for Areas Submitting
Requests for Redesignation to
Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon
Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) On or After
November 15, 1992,’’ Memorandum from
Michael H. Shapiro, Acting Assistant
Administrator for Air and Radiation,
September 17, 1993;
8. ‘‘Use of Actual Emissions in Maintenance
Demonstrations for Ozone and CO
Nonattainment Areas,’’ Memorandum
from D. Kent Berry, Acting Director, Air
Quality Management Division,
November 30, 1993;
9. ‘‘Part D New Source Review (Part D NSR)
Requirements for Areas Requesting
Redesignation to Attainment,’’
Memorandum from Mary D. Nichols,
Assistant Administrator for Air and
Radiation, October 14, 1994;
10. ‘‘Reasonable Further Progress, Attainment
Demonstration, and Related
Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment
Areas Meeting the Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standard,’’
Memorandum from John S. Seitz,
Director, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, May 10, 1995; and
11. ‘‘Next Steps for Pending Redesignation
Requests and State Implementation Plan
Actions Affected by the Recent Court
Decision Vacating the 2011 Cross-State
Air Pollution Rule,’’ Memorandum from
Gina McCarthy, Assistant Administrator,
November 19, 2012.
IV. Why is EPA proposing these
actions?
On November 2, 2011, and later
supplemented on March 28, 2013, the
State of North Carolina, through NC
DAQ, requested the redesignation of the
North Carolina portion of the bi-state
Charlotte Area to attainment for the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA’s
evaluation indicates that the entire bistate Charlotte Area has attained the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and that
North Carolina meets the requirements
for redesignation for its portion of the
bi-state Charlotte Area 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 two related
actions summarized in section I of this
notice.
E:\FR\FM\26JYP1.SGM
26JYP1
45155
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 144 / Friday, July 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules
V. What is EPA’s analysis of the
request?
As stated above, in accordance with
the CAA, EPA proposes in today’s
action to: (1) Redesignate the North
Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte
Area to attainment for the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS; and (2) approve the
North Carolina portion of the bi-state
Charlotte Area’s 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS maintenance plan, including
the associated MVEBs, into the North
Carolina SIP. These actions are based
upon EPA’s determination that the
entire bi-state Charlotte Area continues
to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS,
and that all other redesignation criteria
have been met for the North Carolina
portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area.
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.
Criteria (1)—The Bi-ustate Charlotte
Area Has Attained the 1997 8-Hour
Ozone NAAQS
For ozone, an area may be considered
to be attaining the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS if it meets the 1997 8-hour
ozone standard, as determined in
accordance with 40 CFR 50.10 and
Appendix I of part 50, based on three
complete, consecutive calendar years of
quality-assured air quality monitoring
data. To attain these 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 0.08 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 0.084 ppm or below. The data
must be collected and quality-assured in
accordance with 40 CFR part 58, and
recorded in the EPA Air Quality System
(AQS) database. The monitors generally
should have remained at the same
location for the duration of the
monitoring period required for
demonstrating attainment.
As mentioned above, on November
15, 2011 (76 FR 70656), EPA determined
that the bi-state Charlotte Area was
attaining the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. For that action, EPA reviewed
ozone monitoring data from monitoring
stations in the bi-state Charlotte Area for
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for
2008–2010. These data have been
quality-assured and are recorded in
AQS. EPA has reviewed the 2009–2011
certified and 2010–2012 preliminary
data which indicate that the Area
continues to attain the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS beyond the submitted 3year attainment period of 2008–2010.
The fourth-highest 8-hour ozone average
for 2008, 2009 and 2010, and the 3-year
average of these values (i.e., design
values), are summarized in the
following Table 1 of this proposed
rulemaking.
TABLE 1—2008–2010 DESIGN VALUE CONCENTRATIONS FOR THE BI-STATE CHARLOTTE 1997 8-HOUR OZONE AREA *
[Parts per million]
Annual arithmetic mean concentrations
(ppm)
Location
County
Monitor ID
2008
2009
3-year
design
values
(ppm)
2010
2008–2010
Lincoln County Replacing Iron Station.
Garinger High School ........................
Westinghouse Blvd ............................
29 N at Mecklenburg Cab Co. ...........
Rockwell .............................................
Enochville School ..............................
Monroe Middle School .......................
Lincoln .................
37–109–0004
0.079
0.065
0.072
0.072
Mecklenburg ........
Mecklenburg ........
Mecklenburg ........
Rowan .................
Rowan .................
Union ...................
37–119–0041
37–119–1005
37–119–1009
37–159–0021
37–159–0022
37–179–0003
0.085
0.073
0.093
0.084
0.082
0.08
0.069
0.068
0.071
0.071
0.073
0.067
0.082
0.078
0.082
0.077
0.078
0.071
0.078
0.073
0.082
0.077
0.077
0.072
* An ozone monitor is located in York County, SC; however, it is outside of the nonattainment area. This monitor is monitoring attainment of the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
TABLE 2—2009–2011 DESIGN VALUE CONCENTRATIONS FOR THE BI-STATE CHARLOTTE 1997 8-HOUR OZONE AREA *
[Parts per million]
4th Highest 8-hour ozone value
Location
County
3-year
design
values
Monitor ID
2009
2010
2011
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
2009–2011
Lincoln County Replacing Iron Station.
Garinger High School ........................
Westinghouse Blvd ............................
29 N at Mecklenburg Cab Co. ...........
Rockwell .............................................
Enochville School ..............................
Monroe Middle School .......................
Lincoln .................
37–109–0004
0.065
0.072
0.077
0.071
Mecklenburg ........
Mecklenburg ........
Mecklenburg ........
Rowan .................
Rowan .................
Union ...................
37–119–0041
37–119–1005
37–119–1009
37–159–0021
37–159–0022
37–179–0003
0.069
0.068
0.071
0.071
0.073
0.067
0.082
0.078
0.082
0.077
0.078
0.071
0.088
0.082
0.083
0.077
0.078
0.073
0.079
0.076
0.078
0.075
0.076
0.07
* An ozone monitor is located in York County, SC; however, it is outside of the nonattainment area. This monitor is monitoring attainment of the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:15 Jul 25, 2013
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\26JYP1.SGM
26JYP1
45156
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 144 / Friday, July 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 3—2010–2012 DESIGN VALUE CONCENTRATIONS FOR THE BI-STATE CHARLOTTE 1997 8-HOUR OZONE AREA *
[Parts per million]
4th Highest 8-hour ozone value
Location
County
3-year
design
values
Monitor ID
2010
2011
2012
2010–2012
Lincoln County Replacing Iron Station.
Garinger High School ........................
Westinghouse Blvd ............................
29 N at Mecklenburg Cab Co. ...........
Rockwell .............................................
Enochville School ..............................
Monroe Middle School .......................
Lincoln .................
37–109–0004
0.072
0.077
0.076
0.075
Mecklenburg ........
Mecklenburg ........
Mecklenburg ........
Rowan .................
Rowan .................
Union ...................
37–119–0041
37–119–1005
37–119–1009
37–159–0021
37–159–0022
37–179–0003
0.082
0.078
0.082
0.077
0.078
0.071
0.088
0.082
0.083
0.077
0.078
0.073
0.080
0.073
0.085
0.080
0.077
0.075
0.083
0.077
0.083
0.078
0.077
0.073
* An ozone monitor is located in York County, SC; however, it is outside of the nonattainment area. This monitor is monitoring attainment of the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
The 3-year design value for 2008–
2010 submitted by North Carolina for
redesignation of its portion of the bistate Charlotte Area is 0.082 ppm at the
29 N at Mecklenburg Cab Co. monitor,3
which meets the NAAQS as described
above. As mentioned above, on
November 15, 2011 (76 FR 70656), EPA
published a clean data determination for
the bi-state Charlotte Area for the 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS. The 2009–2011
certified data show that the bi-state
Charlotte Area continues to attain the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS with a
design value of 0.079 ppm at the
Garinger High School monitor. After
review of the certified 2010–2012 data,
the Area continues to attain the 1997 8hour ozone NAAQS with a design value
of 0.083 ppm at the Garinger High
School and 29 N at Mecklenburg Cab
Co. monitors. In today’s action, EPA is
proposing to determine that the bi-state
Charlotte Area is attaining the 1997 8hour ozone NAAQS. EPA will not go
forward with the redesignation if the bistate Charlotte Area does not continue
to attain the NAAQS until the time that
EPA finalizes 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.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Criteria (2)—North Carolina Has a Fully
Approved SIP Under Section 110(k) for
the North Carolina Portion of the
Charlotte Area; and Criteria (5)—North
Carolina Has Met All Applicable
Requirements Under Section 110 and
Part D of Title I of the CAA
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
3 The monitor with the highest 3 year design
value is considered the design value for the area.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:15 Jul 25, 2013
Jkt 229001
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 (requirements
specific to 1997 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
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.
a. The North Carolina Portion of the
Charlotte Area Has Met All Applicable
Requirements Under Section 110 and
Part D of the CAA
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
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
implementation of part C requirements
(Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD)) and provisions for the
implementation of part D requirements
(New Source Review (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
(e.g., NOX SIP Call 4 and the Clean Air
Interstate Rule (CAIR) 5). The section
4 On October 27, 1998 (63 FR 57356), EPA issued
a NOX SIP Call requiring the District of Columbia
and 22 states to reduce emissions of NOX in order
to reduce the transport of ozone and ozone
precursors. In compliance with EPA’s NOX SIP Call,
North Carolina developed rules governing the
control of NOX emissions from electric generating
units (EGUs), major non-EGU industrial boilers,
major cement kilns, and internal combustion
engines. On October 5, 2007, EPA approved North
Carolina’s rules as fulfilling Phase I of the NOX SIP
Call (72 FR 56914).
5 On May 12, 2005, EPA published the Clean Air
Interstate Rule (CAIR), which requires significant
reductions in emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and
NOX from certain electric generating units in the
eastern United States to limit the interstate
transport of these pollutants and the ozone and fine
particulate matter they form in the atmosphere. See
76 FR 70093. The United States Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit)
initially vacated CAIR in North Carolina v. EPA,
531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008), but ultimately
remanded the rule to EPA without vacatur in North
Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176, 1178 (D.C. Cir.
2008) to preserve the environmental benefits
provided by CAIR. In response to the court’s
decision, EPA issued the Cross-State Air Pollution
Rule (CSAPR) to address interstate transport of NOX
and SO2 in the eastern United States. See 76 FR
48208 (August 8, 2011). On August 21, 2012, the
D.C. Circuit issued a decision to vacate CSAPR.
EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d.
7 (D.C. Cir., 2012). In that decision, the court also
ordered EPA to continue administering CAIR
‘‘pending the promulgation of a valid replacement.’’
E:\FR\FM\26JYP1.SGM
26JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 144 / Friday, July 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
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. However, as discussed
later in this notice, addressing pollutant
transport from other states is an
important part of the maintenance
demonstration for the bi-state Charlotte
Area.
In addition, EPA believes that other
section 110 elements that are neither
connected with nonattainment plan
submissions nor linked with an area’s
attainment status are not applicable
requirements for purposes of
redesignation. The area will still be
subject to these requirements after the
area is redesignated. The section 110
and part D requirements that are linked
with a particular area’s designation and
classification are the relevant measures
to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation
request. This approach is consistent
with EPA’s existing policy on
applicability (i.e., for redesignations) of
conformity and oxygenated fuels
requirements, as well as with section
184 ozone transport requirements. See
Reading, Pennsylvania, proposed and
final rulemakings (61 FR 53174–53176,
October 10, 1996), (62 FR 24826, May 7,
1997); Cleveland-Akron-Loraine, Ohio,
final rulemaking (61 FR 20458, May 7,
1996); and Tampa, Florida, final
rulemaking at (60 FR 62748, December
7, 1995). See also the discussion on this
issue in the Cincinnati, Ohio,
redesignation (65 FR 37890, June 19,
2000), and in the Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania, redesignation (66 FR
50399, October 19, 2001).
EPA completed rulemaking on a
December 12, 2007, submittal and a
clarification in a June 20, 2008,
submission addressing ‘‘infrastructure
SIP’’ elements required under CAA
EPA filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the
U.S. Supreme Court on March 29, 2013, to review
the D.C. Circuit’s decision in EME Homer City. On
June 24, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the
United States’ petition asking the Court to review
the D.C. Circuit Court’s decision on CSAPR.
However,the Agency will continue to act in
accordance with EME Homer City pending final
resolution of the CSAPR litigation.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:22 Jul 25, 2013
Jkt 229001
section 110(a)(2) on February 6, 2012.
See 77 FR 5703. However, these are
statewide requirements that are not a
consequence of the nonattainment
status of the North Carolina portion of
the Area. As stated above, EPA believes
that section 110 elements not linked to
an area’s nonattainment status are not
applicable for purposes of
redesignation. Therefore, EPA believes
it has approved all SIP elements under
section 110 that must be approved as a
prerequisite for redesignating the North
Carolina portion of the Area to
attainment.
Title I, Part D, subpart 1 applicable
SIP requirements. Sections 172(c)(1)
through (9) and section 176 of subpart
1, part D of the CAA, set forth the basic
nonattainment requirements applicable
to all nonattainment areas. A thorough
discussion of the requirements
contained in section 172 can be found
in the General Preamble for
Implementation of title I (57 FR 13498,
April 16, 1992). Subpart 2 of part D,
which includes section 182 of the CAA,
establishes additional specific
requirements depending on the area’s
ozone nonattainment classification. A
thorough discussion of the requirements
contained in section 182 can be found
in the General Preamble for
Implementation of Title I (57 FR 13498).
Part D Subpart 1 Section 172
Requirements and Part D, Subpart 2
Section 182 Requirements. Section
172(c)(1) requires the plans for all
nonattainment areas to provide for the
implementation of all RACM as
expeditiously as practicable and to
provide for attainment of the national
primary ambient air quality standards.
EPA interprets this requirement to
impose a duty on all nonattainment
areas to consider all available control
measures and to adopt and implement
such measures as are reasonably
available for implementation in each
area as components of the area’s
attainment demonstration. Under
section 172, states with nonattainment
areas must submit plans providing for
timely attainment and meeting a variety
of other requirements. Section 182 of
the CAA, found in subpart 2 of part D,
establishes additional specific
requirements depending on the area’s
ozone nonattainment classification. For
purposes of evaluating this
redesignation request, the applicable
part D, subpart 2 SIP requirements for
all moderate nonattainment areas are
contained in sections 182(b)(1)–(5).
However, pursuant to 40 CFR 51.918,
EPA’s November 15, 2011,
determination that the bi-state Charlotte
Area was attaining the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS suspended North
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
45157
Carolina’s obligation to submit most of
the attainment planning requirements
that would otherwise apply.
Specifically, the determination of
attainment suspended North Carolina’s
obligation to submit an attainment
demonstration and planning SIPs to
provide for RACM under section
172(c)(1), contingency measures under
section 172(c)(9) and RFP under section
182(b)(1) of the CAA.
The General Preamble for
Implementation of Title I (57 FR 13498,
April 16, 1992) also discusses the
evaluation of the section 172 and 182
requirements in the context of EPA’s
consideration of a redesignation request.
The General Preamble sets forth EPA’s
view of applicable requirements for
purposes of evaluating redesignation
requests when an area is attaining a
standard (General Preamble for
Implementation of Title I (57 FR 13498,
April 16, 1992)).
Because attainment has been reached
in the bi-state Charlotte Area, no
additional measures are needed to
provide for attainment, and section
172(c)(1) requirements for an attainment
demonstration and RACM are no longer
considered to be applicable for purposes
of redesignation as long as the Area
continues to attain the standard until
redesignation. See also 40 CFR 51.918.
Pursuant to sections 172(c)(2) and
182(b)(1), nonattainment plans for areas
classified as moderate and above for
ozone must contain provisions that
require reasonable further progress
toward attainment. These requirements
are not relevant for purposes of
redesignation because EPA has
determined that the bi-state Charlotte
Area has monitored attainment of the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. See General
Preamble, 57 FR 13564. See also 40 CFR
51.918. While it is not a requirement for
redesignation, EPA took action to
approve North Carolina’s RFP for the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the
State’s portion of the bi-state Charlotte
Area on October 12, 2012. See 77 FR
62159.
Section 172(c)(3) and section 182(b)
require submission and approval of a
comprehensive, accurate, and current
inventory of actual emissions. Section
182(b) references section 182(a) of the
CAA which requires, in part, for states
to submit a current inventory of actual
emissions (182(a)(1)). As part of North
Carolina’s attainment demonstration for
the North Carolina portion of the Area,
NC DAQ submitted a 2002 base year
emissions inventory. EPA approved the
2002 base year inventory submitted
with the attainment demonstration on
May 4, 2012, as meeting the section
172(c)(3) and section 182(b) (182(a)(1))
E:\FR\FM\26JYP1.SGM
26JYP1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
45158
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 144 / Friday, July 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules
emissions inventory requirement. See
77 FR 26441.
Section 172(c)(4) requires the
identification and quantification of
allowed emissions from major new and
modified stationary sources in an area,
and section 172(c)(5) and section 182(b)
that require permits for the construction
and operation of new and modified
major stationary sources anywhere in
the nonattainment area. EPA has
determined that, because PSD
requirements will apply after
redesignation, 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. 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 has demonstrated that the
North Carolina portion of the bi-state
Charlotte Area will be able to maintain
the NAAQS without part D NSR in
effect, and therefore North Carolina
need not have fully approved part D
NSR programs prior to approval of the
redesignation request. Nonetheless,
North Carolina currently has an
approved part D NSR program in place.
North Carolina’s PSD program will
become applicable in the North Carolina
portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area
upon redesignation to attainment.
Section 172(c)(6) requires the SIP to
contain control measures necessary to
provide for attainment of the NAAQS.
Because attainment has been reached,
no additional measures are needed to
provide for attainment.
Section 172(c)(7) requires the SIP to
meet the applicable provisions of
section 110(a)(2). As noted above, EPA
believes the North Carolina SIP meets
the requirements of section 110(a)(2)
applicable for purposes of
redesignation.
Section 182(b) references, in part,
section 182(a)(3), which requires states
to submit periodic inventories and
emissions statements. Section
182(a)(3)(A) of the CAA requires states
to submit a periodic inventory every
three years. The periodic emissions
inventory is discussed in more detail in
Criteria (4)(e), Verification of Continued
Attainment.
Section 182(a)(3)(B) of the CAA
requires states with areas designated
nonattainment for the ozone NAAQS to
submit a SIP revision to require
emissions statements to be submitted to
the state by sources within that
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:22 Jul 25, 2013
Jkt 229001
nonattainment area. EPA approved
North Carolina’s emissions statements
requirement on August 1, 1997, and
approved the updated counties on April
24, 2012. See 64 FR 41277 and 77 FR
24382, respectively. EPA believes the
North Carolina SIP meets the
requirements of section 182(a)(3)(B)
applicable for purposes of
redesignation.
Section 182(b)(2) of the CAA requires
states with areas designated
nonattainment for the ozone NAAQS to
submit a SIP revision to require
reasonably available control technology
(RACT) for all major VOC and NOX
sources and for each category of VOC
sources in the Area covered by a Control
Techniques Guidelines (CTG)
document.6
The CTGs established by EPA are
guidance to the states and provide
recommendations only. A state can
develop its own strategy for what
constitutes RACT for the various CTG
categories, and EPA will review that
strategy in the context of the SIP process
and determine whether it meets the
RACT requirements of the CAA and its
implementing regulations. If no major
sources of VOC or NOX emissions
(which should be considered separately)
or no sources in a particular source
category exist in an applicable
nonattainment area, a state may submit
a negative declaration for that category.
North Carolina did a RACT analysis
for major VOC and NOX sources in the
Area and determined that these sources
in the bi-state Charlotte Area meet
RACT. In addition, EPA did a NOX
RACT analysis of the North Carolina
portion of the Charlotte Area major
sources and determined that these
sources meet RACT. North Carolina also
made a negative declaration for CTG
category sources in the June 15, 2007,
SIP submittal. On May 9, 2013, EPA
approved a number of North Carolina
NOX RACT SIP revisions and approved
in part and conditionally approved in
part a number of VOC RACT SIP
revisions. See 78 FR 27065.
North Carolina submitted a SIP
revision on May 1, 2013, to EPA to
address the requirements of the
conditional approval to correct the
deficiencies for which EPA proposed
conditional approval related to North
Carolina’s RACT submission. On June 7,
2013, EPA proposed to approve portions
of North Carolina’s May 1, 2013, SIP
revision which included changes to the
State’s RACT rules to correct
deficiencies and add new changes. See
78 FR 34306. EPA did not receive any
6 40 CFR 51.912 identifies the requirements that
apply for RACT under the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
comments, adverse or otherwise, on the
June 7, 2013, proposed rulemaking
related to North Carolina’s May 1, 2013,
SIP revision. On July 12, 2013, the
Acting Regional Administrator for EPA
Region 4 signed a final rulemaking
approving North Carolina’s May 1, 2013,
SIP revision to correct deficiencies for
North Carolina RACT requirements.
EPA has preliminarily determined that
North Carolina’s SIP meets the section
182(b)(2) requirements applicable for
purposes of redesignation.7
Under section 202(a)(6) of the CAA,
42 U.S.C. 7521(a)(6), the requirements of
section 182(b)(3) do not apply in
moderate ozone nonattainment areas
after EPA promulgated the onboard
refueling vapor recovery (ORVR)
standards on April 6, 1994 (59 FR
16262), codified at 40 CFR parts 86
(including 86.098–8), 88 and 600. As
mentioned above, the bi-state Charlotte
Area was designated as a moderate area
for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and
therefore was not subject to the Stage II
requirements as set forth in section
182(b)(3).
Section 182(b)(4) of the CAA requires
states with areas designated
nonattainment with moderate or above
classification for the ozone NAAQS to
submit SIPs requiring inspection and
maintenance of vehicles (I/M). North
Carolina’s I/M rule for the North
Carolina portion of the nonattainment
area, called the Clean Air Bill, was
submitted to EPA on August 7, 2002,
and approved by EPA on October 30,
2002 (67 FR 66056), effective December
30, 2002. EPA believes that the North
Carolina SIP meets the requirements of
section 182(b)(4) applicable for
purposes of redesignation.
Section 182(b)(5) of the CAA requires
that for purposes of satisfying the
emission offset requirements of Part D,
the ratio of total emission reductions of
VOCs to total increase emissions of
VOCs must be at least 1.15 to 1. North
Carolina currently requires these offsets.
See 40 CFR 52.1770. EPA therefore
believes that the North Carolina SIP
meets the requirements of section
182(b)(5) applicable for purposes of
redesignation.
Section 176 Conformity
Requirements. Section 176(c) of the
CAA requires states to establish criteria
and procedures to ensure that federally
supported or funded projects conform to
7 EPA approved South Carolina’s RACT SIP
revisions and concluded that the South Carolina
portion of the Area has met all the statutory and
regulatory requirements for making a negative
declaration regarding Groups I, II, III, and IV CTG
and meets the requirements of section 182(b)(2)
applicable for purposes of redesignation. See 76 FR
72844.
E:\FR\FM\26JYP1.SGM
26JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 144 / Friday, July 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
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 8 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).
For all of the reasons discussed above,
the North Carolina portion of the bistate Charlotte Area has satisfied all
applicable requirements for purposes of
redesignation under section 110 and
part D of title I of the CAA.
b. The North Carolina Portion of the BiState Charlotte Area Has a Fully
Approved Applicable SIP Under Section
110(k) of the CAA
EPA may rely on prior SIP approvals
in approving a redesignation request
(see Calcagni Memorandum at p. 3;
Northwestern Pennsylvania Growth
Alliance v. Browner, 144 F.3d 984 (6th
Cir. 1998); Wall, 265 F.3d 426) plus any
additional measures it may approve in
conjunction with a redesignation action
(see 68 FR 25426 (May 12, 2003) and
citations therein). Following passage of
the CAA of 1970, North Carolina has
adopted and submitted, and EPA has
fully approved at various times,
provisions addressing various 1997 8hour ozone NAAQS SIP elements
applicable in the North Carolina portion
of the Area (May 31, 1972, 37 FR 10842;
July 13, 2011, 76 FR 41111). For
example, EPA approved the emissions
statements portion of the attainment
demonstration SIP revision on April 24,
2012 (77 FR 24382), and the baseline
8 CAA section 176(c)(4)(E) requires states to
submit revisions to their SIPs to reflect certain
Federal criteria and procedures for determining
transportation conformity. Transportation
conformity SIPs are different from the MVEBs that
are established in control strategy SIPs and
maintenance plans.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:22 Jul 25, 2013
Jkt 229001
emissions inventory portion of the
attainment demonstration SIP revision
on May 4, 2012 (77 FR 26441).
On April 29, 2013, EPA signed a
Federal Register notice approving inpart and conditionally approving in-part
the RACT demonstration for the North
Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte
Area. See 78 FR 27065 (May 9, 2013).
On May 1, 2013, North Carolina
submitted a SIP revision to meet the
aforementioned conditional approval.
EPA proposed to approve North
Carolina’s May 1, 2013, RACT SIP
revision that fulfills the conditional
approval on June 7, 2013. See 78 FR
34306. EPA did not receive any
comments, adverse or otherwise, on the
June 7, 2013, proposed rulemaking
related to North Carolina’s May 1, 2013,
SIP revision. On July 12, 2013, the
Acting Regional Administrator for EPA
Region 4 signed a final rulemaking
approving North Carolina’s May 1, 2013,
SIP revision to correct deficiencies for
North Carolina RACT requirements.
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. Sierra Club v. EPA, 375
F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004); 68 FR 25424,
25427 (May 12, 2003) (redesignation of
the St. Louis-East St. Louis Area to
attainment of the 1-hour ozone
NAAQS).
Criteria (3)—The Air Quality
Improvement in the Bi-State Charlotte
1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
Nonattainment 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
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 believes 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
implementation of the SIP, Federal
measures, and other state adopted
measures.
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
45159
State, local, 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; open burning ban; NOX
SIP Call; Clean Smokestacks Act; and
Diesel Emissions Reduction Act (DERA)
grants for repower or replacement of
existing diesel engines. Local measures
implemented by Mecklenburg County
Air Quality (MCAQ) include prohibition
of open burning of any kind and diesel
engine emission reductions. Of these
measures, the Clean Air Bill I/M
program, open burning ban, NOX SIP
Call and Clean Smokestacks Act are
permanent and enforceable. The Federal
measures that have been implemented
include the following:
Tier 2 vehicle standards.
Implementation began in 2004 and will
require 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. These emission
reductions are federally enforceable.
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.
Heavy-duty gasoline and diesel
highway vehicle standards. These
standards began to take effect in 2004
and are designed to reduce NOX and
VOC emissions. These emission
reductions are federally enforceable.
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 sparkignition 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
E:\FR\FM\26JYP1.SGM
26JYP1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
45160
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 144 / Friday, July 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules
sold in the United States and imported
after the effective date of these
standards.
When all of the nonroad sparkignition 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 will
help reduce ambient concentrations of
ozone, carbon monoxide, and fine
particulate matter.
NOX SIP Call. The NOX SIP Call
created the NOX Budget Trading
Program designed to reduce the amount
of ozone that crosses state lines. By the
end of 2008, ozone season emissions
dropped by 62 percent from 2000 at all
sources subject to the NOX SIP Call
(EPA, NOX Budget Trading Program:
2008 Highlights, October 2009, page 3,
available at https://www.epa.gov/
airmarkets/progress/NBP_4/NBP_2008_
Highlights.pdf). It follows that the bistate Charlotte Area benefited from
these overall reductions, since it is part
of the larger NOX SIP Call area. North
Carolina provided the NOX emission
reductions, as the result of the NOX SIP
Call rule, from North Carolina power
plants in the bi-state Charlotte Area, as
well as the power plants located directly
north and west of the Metrolina region 9
that may impact the Area in the March
28, 2013, submittal. There are four
facilities located within the North
Carolina portion of the Area located in
Gaston, Lincoln and Rowan Counties.
The facility west of the Metrolina region
is Cliffside, located in Cleveland
County, and the facility north of the
Metrolina region is Marshall, located in
Catawba County. This data is also from
the EPA Clean Air Markets Division’s
database and represents the second and
third quarters of the year (April through
September), the period during which
ozone levels are the highest. Two coalfired power plants (Buck and
Riverbend) were retired on April 1,
2013, and will result in additional
emissions reductions.
EPA has considered the relationship
of the North Carolina portion of the bistate Charlotte Area’s maintenance plan
to the reductions currently required
pursuant to CAIR. CAIR was remanded
to EPA, and the process of developing
a replacement rule is ongoing. However,
the remand of CAIR does not alter the
requirements of the NOX SIP Call, and
the State has now demonstrated that the
9 For the purposes of this document, the
Metrolina region refers to the Charlotte
metropolitan area and is inclusive of the bi-state
Charlotte nonattainment area.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:22 Jul 25, 2013
Jkt 229001
bi-state Charlotte Area can maintain
without CAIR. Therefore, EPA believes
that the State’s demonstration of
maintenance under sections 175A and
107(d)(3)(E) remains valid.
The NOX SIP Call requires states to
make significant, specific emissions
reductions. It also provides a
mechanism, the NOX Budget Trading
Program, that states could use to achieve
those reductions. When EPA
promulgated CAIR, it discontinued
(starting in 2009) the NOX Budget
Trading Program, 40 CFR 51.121(r), but
created another mechanism—the CAIR
ozone season trading program—which
states could use to meet their SIP Call
obligations, 70 FR 25289–90. EPA notes
that a number of states, when
submitting SIP revisions to require
sources to participate in the CAIR ozone
season trading program, removed the
SIP provisions that required sources to
participate in the NOX Budget Trading
Program. In addition, because the
provisions of CAIR including the ozone
season NOX trading program remain in
place during the remand, EPA is not
currently administering the NOX Budget
Trading Program. Nonetheless, all
states, regardless of the current status of
their regulations that previously
required participation in the NOX
Budget Trading Program, will remain
subject to all of the requirements in the
NOX SIP Call even if the existing CAIR
ozone season trading program is
withdrawn or altered. In addition, the
anti-backsliding provisions of 40 CFR
51.905(f) specifically provide that the
provisions of the NOX SIP Call,
including the statewide NOX emission
budgets, continue to apply after
revocation of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.
All NOX SIP Call states have SIPs that
currently satisfy their obligations under
the NOX SIP Call; the NOX SIP Call
reduction requirements are being met;
and EPA will continue to enforce the
requirements of the NOX SIP Call even
after any response to the CAIR remand.
For these reasons, EPA believes that
regardless of the status of the CAIR
program, the NOX SIP Call requirements
can be relied upon in demonstrating
maintenance. Here, the State has
demonstrated maintenance based in part
on those requirements.
CAIR and CSAPR. CAIR remains in
place and enforceable until substituted
by a ‘‘valid’’ replacement rule.
Regardless of the timing of the transition
from CAIR to CSAPR, or a resulting
court-ordered interstate transport
remedy, emissions of NOX and SO2 have
declined significantly and are expected
to continue to decrease in the future due
to the continuation of CAIR and North
Carolina’s own EGU emissions rules.
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
To the extent that the North Carolina
submittal relies on CAIR reductions that
occurred through 2012, the recent
directive from the D.C. Circuit in EME
Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696
F.3d. 7 (D.C. Cir., 2012) ensures that the
reductions associated with CAIR will be
permanent and enforceable for the
necessary time period for purposes of
CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) and North
Carolina’s request to redesignate the
Charlotte Area and seek approval of its
maintenance plan and other
requirements associated with
redesignation. EPA has been ordered by
the court to develop a new rule, and the
opinion makes clear that after
promulgating that new rule EPA must
provide states an opportunity to draft
and submit SIPs to implement that rule.
CAIR thus cannot be replaced until EPA
has promulgated a final rule through a
notice-and-comment rulemaking
process, states have had an opportunity
to draft and submit SIPs, EPA has
reviewed the SIPs to determine if they
can be approved, and EPA has taken
action on the SIPs, including
promulgating a Federal Implementation
Plan, if appropriate. The court’s clear
instruction to EPA is that it must
continue to administer CAIR until a
‘‘valid replacement’’ exists and thus
CAIR reductions may be relied upon
until the necessary actions are taken by
EPA and states to administer CAIR’s
replacement. Furthermore, the court’s
instruction provides an additional
backstop; by definition, any rule that
replaces CAIR and meets the court’s
direction would require upwind states
to have SIPs that eliminate significant
contributions to downwind
nonattainment and prevent interference
with maintenance in downwind areas.
Further, in vacating CSAPR and
requiring EPA to continue administering
CAIR, the D.C. Circuit emphasized that
the consequences of vacating CAIR
‘‘might be more severe now in light of
the reliance interests accumulated over
the intervening four years.’’ EME Homer
City, 696 F.3d at 38. The accumulated
reliance interests include the interests of
states who reasonably assumed they
could rely on reductions associated with
CAIR, which brought certain
nonattainment areas into attainment
with the NAAQS. If EPA were
prevented from relying on reductions
associated with CAIR in redesignation
actions, states would be forced to
impose additional, redundant
reductions on top of those achieved by
CAIR. EPA believes this is precisely the
type of irrational result the court sought
to avoid by ordering EPA to continue
administering CAIR. For these reasons
E:\FR\FM\26JYP1.SGM
26JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 144 / Friday, July 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules
also, EPA believes it is appropriate to
allow states to rely on CAIR, and the
existing emissions reductions achieved
by CAIR, as sufficiently permanent and
enforceable for purposes such as
redesignation. Following promulgation
of the replacement rule, EPA will
review SIPs as appropriate to identify
whether there are any issues that need
to be addressed. In light of these unique
circumstances and for the reasons
explained above, EPA is proposing to
approve the redesignation request and
related SIP revisions for the North
Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte
Area. EPA continues to implement CAIR
in accordance with current direction
from the court, and thus CAIR is in
place and enforceable and will remain
so until substituted by a valid
replacement rule. North Carolina’s SIP
revision lists CAIR as a control measure,
which was approved by EPA on October
5, 2007, 72 FR 56914, for the purpose
of reduction SO2 and NOX emissions.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Criteria (4)—The North Carolina Portion
of the Area Has a Fully Approved
Maintenance Plan Pursuant to Section
175A of the CAA
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 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS, NC DAQ submitted a SIP
revision to provide for the maintenance
of the 1997 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.
a. What is required in a maintenance
plan?
Section 175A of the CAA sets forth
the elements of a maintenance plan for
areas seeking redesignation from
nonattainment to attainment. Under
section 175A, the plan must
demonstrate continued attainment of
the applicable NAAQS for at least 10
years after the Administrator approves a
redesignation to attainment. Eight years
after the redesignation, the state 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:22 Jul 25, 2013
Jkt 229001
necessary to assure prompt correction of
any future 1997 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
finds 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.
b. Attainment Emissions Inventory
The bi-state Charlotte Area attained
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS based on
quality-assured monitoring data for the
3-year period from 2008–2010. North
Carolina selected 2010 as the attainment
emissions inventory year. The
attainment inventory identifies a level
of emissions in the Area that is
sufficient to attain the 1997 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. As
noted above, the year 2010 was chosen
as the base year for developing a
comprehensive emissions inventory for
NOX and VOC, for which projected
emissions could be developed for 2013,
2016, 2019, 2022, and 2025. The
projected summer day emission
inventories have been estimated using
projected rates of growth in population,
traffic, economic activity, and other
parameters. Naturally occurring, or
biogenic, emissions are not included in
the emissions inventory comparison, as
these emissions are outside the State’s
span of control. In addition to
comparing the final year of the plan
(2025) to the base year (2010) North
Carolina compared interim years to the
baseline to demonstrate that these years
are also expected to show continued
maintenance of the 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
March 28, 2013, 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
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
45161
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 USEPA’s Clean Air Markets
Division, the actual 2010 average
summer day emissions were used. For
the other Title V sources, the 2009 data
was used which was the latest data
available. For the small sources that
only report emissions every 5 years, the
most recently reported data was used
and assumed to be equivalent to 2009
emissions since these sources do not
vary much from year to year. The 2009
emissions data was grown to 2010 using
the USEPA’s EGAS model.
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
and aircraft engine. 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 and national fuel use from the
Energy Information Administration for
locomotives.
For highway mobile sources, EPA’s
Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator
(MOVES) mobile model is run to
generate emissions. The MOVES 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
highway 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 2010 NOX and VOC emissions for
the North Carolina portion of the bistate 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.
E:\FR\FM\26JYP1.SGM
26JYP1
45162
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 144 / Friday, July 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules
c. Maintenance Demonstration
The March 28, 2013, submittal
updates the maintenance plan included
in the November 2, 2011, maintenance
plan for the North Carolina portion of
the Area. The maintenance plan:
(i) Shows compliance with and
maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS by providing information to
support the demonstration that current
and future emissions of NOX and VOC
remain at or below 2010 emissions
levels.
(ii) Uses 2010 as the attainment year
and includes future emissions inventory
projections for 2013, 2016, 2019, 2022,
and 2025.
(iii) Identifies an ‘‘out year’’ at least 10
years (and beyond) 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 (2025)
of the maintenance plan (see section VI
below). Additionally, NC DAQ opted to
establish MVEBs for an interim year
(2013).
(iv) Provides actual 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.
TABLE 2—ACTUAL AND PROJECTED ANNUAL NOX EMISSIONS (TPD) FOR THE
NORTH CAROLINA PORTION * OF THE BI-STATE CHARLOTTE AREA
Sector
2010
2013
2016
2019
2022
2025
Point .................................................................................
Area ..................................................................................
Nonroad ...........................................................................
Mobile ...............................................................................
37.97
8.16
41.31
138.26
20.03
8.24
35.90
106.92
19.29
8.31
30.64
86.43
20.28
8.42
26.89
70.49
19.19
8.49
24.50
63.67
20.02
8.67
23.09
55.90
Total ** .......................................................................
225.47
170.90
144.53
125.98
115.76
107.61
* Iredell
County emissions for nonattainment area only.
taken directly from the March 28, 2013, submittal, which was calculated using county-by-county emissions values rather than the total
sector emissions values.
** Total
TABLE 3—ACTUAL AND PROJECTED ANNUAL VOC EMISSIONS (TPD) FOR THE
NORTH CAROLINA PORTION * OF THE BI-STATE CHARLOTTE AREA
Sector
2010
2013
2016
2019
2022
2025
Point .................................................................................
Area ..................................................................................
Nonroad ...........................................................................
Mobile ...............................................................................
14.78
57.67
26.47
66.70
15.78
56.61
21.92
51.32
17.04
56.36
19.4
41.58
18.32
57.78
18.79
34.47
19.5
59.06
18.86
30.21
20.87
63.26
19.26
28.67
Total ** .......................................................................
165.44
145.48
134.26
129.26
127.63
132.06
* Iredell
County emissions for nonattainment area only.
** Total taken directly from the March 28, 2013, submittal, which was calculated using county-by-county emissions values rather than the total
sector emissions values.
TABLE 4—EMISSION ESTIMATES FOR portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area
THE NORTH CAROLINA PORTION OF will remain below those in the
attainment year inventory for the
THE BI-STATE CHARLOTTE AREA
duration of the maintenance plan.
As discussed in section VI of this
proposed rulemaking, a safety margin is
2010 ......................
165.44
225.47
2013 ......................
145.48
170.90 the difference between the attainment
2016 ......................
134.26
144.53 level of emissions (from all sources) and
2019 ......................
129.26
125.98 the projected level of emissions (from
2022 ......................
127.63
115.76 all sources) in the maintenance plan.
2025 ......................
132.06
107.61 The attainment level of emissions is the
Difference from
level of emissions during one of the
2010 to 2025 .....
¥33.38
¥117.86
years in which the area met the NAAQS.
North Carolina selected 2010 as the
Tables 2 through 4 summarize the
attainment emissions inventory year for
2010 and future projected emissions of
the North Carolina portion of the biNOX and VOC from the North Carolina
portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area. In state Charlotte Area. North Carolina
situations where local emissions are the calculated safety margins in its
submittal for years 2013, 2016, 2019,
primary contributor to nonattainment,
2022, and 2025. The State has decided
the NAAQS should not be violated in
to allocate a safety margin to the 2013
the future as long as emissions from
within the nonattainment area remain at and 2025 MVEB for the bi-state
Charlotte Area. For the year 2013, the
or below the baseline with which
NOX and VOC safety margins were
attainment was achieved. North
Carolina has projected emissions as
calculated as 54.57 tpd and 19.96 tpd,
described previously and determined
respectively. For the year 2025, the NOX
that emissions in the North Carolina
and VOC safety margins were calculated
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Year
VerDate Mar<15>2010
VOC (tpd)
18:15 Jul 25, 2013
NOX (tpd)
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
as 117.86 tpd and 33.38 tpd,
respectively.
The State has decided to allocate a
portion of the safety margin to the
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 four-step approach for
determining a factor to use to calculate
the amount of safety margin to apply to
the MVEBs. The MVEBs to be used for
transportation conformity proposes is
discussed in section VI. This allocation
and the resulting available safety margin
for the North Carolina portion of the bistate Charlotte Area are discussed
further in section VI of this proposed
rulemaking.
d. Monitoring Network
There are currently seven monitors
measuring ozone in the North Carolina
portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area.10
10 While there is a monitor in York County that
the South Carolina Department of Health and
Environmental Control (SC DHEC) operates, this
E:\FR\FM\26JYP1.SGM
26JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 144 / Friday, July 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
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 the
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 2012 monitoring plan on
September 21, 2012.
e. Verification of Continued Attainment
The State of North Carolina, through
NC DAQ, has the legal authority to
enforce and implement the
requirements of the North Carolina
portion of the Area 1997 8-hour ozone
maintenance plan. 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.
The large stationary sources are
required to submit an emissions
inventory annually to NC DAQ or
MCAQ. NC DAQ will commit to review
these emissions inventories to
determine if any unexpected growth in
NOX emissions in the Area may
endanger the maintenance of the 1997 8hour 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 1997 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 CERR and AERR inventory
years are within a year of the baseline,
interim, and final 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 1997 8hour ozone NAAQS in this Area.
f. Contingency Measures in the
Maintenance Plan
The contingency measures are
designed to promptly correct a violation
monitor is not located within the bi-state Charlotte
Area for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:22 Jul 25, 2013
Jkt 229001
of the NAAQS that occurs after
redesignation. 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 November 2, 2011, and March
28, 2013, submittals, 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 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS (i.e.,
when the three-year average of the 4th
highest values is equal to or greater than
0.085 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 0.085
ppm.
The secondary trigger will apply
where no actual violation of the 1997 8hour 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
0.085 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 0.085
ppm or greater at a monitor for which
the previous season had a 4th highest
value of 0.085 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
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
45163
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 1997 8hour 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 1997
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 RACT on stationary sources
with a potential to emit less than 100
tons per year in the North Carolina
portion of the Metrolina 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, or as expeditiously as
practicable, 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.
Similarly, the tertiary trigger will not
be an actual violation of the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. This trigger will be a
first alert as to a potential air quality
problem on the horizon. The trigger will
be activated when a monitor in the Area
has a 4th highest value of 0.085 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 0.085 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
E:\FR\FM\26JYP1.SGM
26JYP1
45164
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 144 / Friday, July 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
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: attainment
inventory, monitoring network,
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.
VI. What is EPA’s analysis of North
Carolina’s proposed NOX and VOC
subarea MVEBs for the North Carolina
portion of the bi-state Charlotte area?
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) 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:15 Jul 25, 2013
Jkt 229001
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 consultation process on
setting MVEBs, the NC DAQ discussed
several options for setting the
geographic extent of the MVEBs with
the transportation partners. NC DAQ
requested feedback on these options or
other alternatives for consideration from
the transportation partners. NC DAQ
received feedback from only two of the
transportation partners. As part of the
public comment process, the NC DAQ
provided several options for
establishing the MVEBs.
After considering the comments
received, the NC DAQ chose to establish
subarea MVEBs based on geographical
areas that correspond to the
Metropolitan Planning Organization
(MPO) and/or Rural Planning
Organization (RPO) boundaries. This
option is consistent with the CabarrusRowan MPO (CRMPO) request and takes
into consideration two of the comments
from Mecklenburg-Union MPO
(MUMPO). NC DAQ believes that this
option is a good compromise between
how MVEBs have been established in
the past, addressing NC DAQ’s concern
with Mecklenburg County’s on-road
mobile source emissions and the
preferences of the transportation
partners. Further, NC DAQ believes this
approach provides additional flexibility
to the transportation partners while
providing adequate assurance that the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS will be
maintained in the Metrolina
nonattainment area. Accordingly, NC
DAQ established MVEBs for the CRMPO
(Cabarrus and Rowan Counties), for the
Gaston Urban Area MPO and Lake
Norman RPO (Gaston, Iredell, and
Lincoln Counties), and for the MUMPO
and Rocky River RPO (Mecklenburg and
Union Counties) geographical areas.
Tables 5 through 7 below provide the
subarea NOX and VOC MVEBs in
kilograms per day (kg/day),11 for 2013
and 2025.
11 The conversion to kilograms used the actual
emissions reported in the MOVES model. The
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
TABLE 5—CABARRUS-ROWAN MPO
MVEB
[kg/day]
2013
NOX Emissions:
On-Road Mobile Emissions ..........................
Safety Margin Allocated
to MVEB ....................
NOX Conformity MVEB
VOC Emissions:
On-Road Mobile Emissions ..........................
Safety Margin Allocated
to MVEB ....................
VOC Conformity MVEB
2025
19,838
9,961
1,984
21,822
1,992
11,953
9,863
5,425
986
10,849
1,085
6,510
TABLE 6—GASTON URBAN AREA
MPO/LAKE NORMAN RPO MVEB
[kg/day]
2013
NOX Emissions:
On-Road Mobile Emissions ..........................
Safety Margin Allocated
to MVEB ....................
NOX Conformity MVEB
VOC Emissions:
On-Road Mobile Emissions ..........................
Safety Margin Allocated
to MVEB ....................
VOC Conformity MVEB
2025
19,957
10,360
2,211
22,168
2,181
12,541
10,442
5,815
1,168
11,610
1,232
7,047
TABLE 7—MECKLENBURG-UNION
MPO/ROCKY RIVER RPO MVEB
[kg/day]
2013
NOX Emissions:
On-Road Mobile Emissions ..........................
Safety Margin Allocated
to MVEB ....................
NOX Conformity MVEB
VOC Emissions:
On-Road Mobile Emissions ..........................
Safety Margin Allocated
to MVEB ....................
VOC Conformity MVEB
2025
57,198
30,391
4,303
61,501
5,337
35,728
26,250
14,769
2,002
28,252
2,609
17,378
As mentioned above, the North
Carolina portion of the Area has chosen
to allocate a portion of the available
safety margin to the NOX and VOC
MVEBs for 2013 and 2025 (45.20 tpd
and 107.38 tpd of the NOX 2013 and
2025 safety margins remain,
respectively, and 19.96 tpd and 27.95
tpd of the VOC 2013 and 2025 safety
margins remain, respectively).
conversion was done utilizing the ‘‘CONVERT’’
function in an EXCEL spreadsheet.
E:\FR\FM\26JYP1.SGM
26JYP1
45165
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 144 / Friday, July 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules
Through this rulemaking, EPA is
proposing to approve the subarea
MVEBs for NOX and VOC for 2013 and
2025 for the North Carolina portion of
the bi-state Charlotte Area because EPA
has determined that the Area maintains
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS with the
emissions at the levels of the budgets.
Once the subarea MVEBs for the bi-state
Charlotte Area are approved or found
adequate (whichever is completed first),
they must be used for future conformity
determinations. After thorough review,
EPA has 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 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS through 2025.
VII. What is the status of EPA’s
adequacy determination for the
proposed NOX and VOC Subarea
MVEBs for 2013 and 2025 for the North
Carolina portion of the bi-state
Charlotte area?
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, North Carolina’s
March 28, 2013, maintenance plan
submission includes NOX and VOC
subarea MVEBs for the North Carolina
portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area for
2013, an interim year of the
maintenance plan, and 2025, the last
year of the maintenance plan. EPA is
reviewing the NOX and VOC subarea
MVEBs through the adequacy process.
The North Carolina SIP submission,
including the bi-state Charlotte Area
NOX and VOC subarea MVEBs, opened
for public comment on EPA’s adequacy
Web site on February 21, 2013, found at:
https://www.epa.gov/otaq/
stateresources/transconf/currsips.htm.
The EPA public comment period on
adequacy for the MVEBs for 2013 and
2025 for the North Carolina portion of
the bi-state Charlotte Area closed on
March 25, 2013.
EPA intends to make its
determination on the adequacy of the
2013 and 2025 subarea MVEBs for the
North Carolina portion of the bi-state
Charlotte Area for transportation
conformity purposes in the near future
by completing the adequacy process that
was started on February 21, 2013. After
EPA finds the 2013 and 2025 MVEBs
adequate or approves them, the new
subarea MVEBs for NOX and VOC must
be used for future transportation
conformity determinations. For required
regional emissions analysis years that
involve 2013 through 2024, the
applicable 2013 MVEBs will be used
and for 2025 and beyond, the applicable
budgets will be the new 2025 MVEBs
established in the maintenance plan, as
defined in section VI of this proposed
rulemaking.
VIII. Proposed Action on the
Redesignation Request And
Maintenance Plan SIP Revision
Including Proposed Approval of the
2013 and 2025 NOX and VOC Subarea
MVEBs for the North Carolina Portion
of the Area
As discussed above, section 172(c)(3)
of the CAA requires areas to submit a
base year emissions inventory. EPA
approved the 2002 base year emissions
inventory for the North Carolina portion
of the bi-state Charlotte Area (as
submitted in North Carolina’s November
12, 2009, 1997 8-hour ozone attainment
demonstration SIP revision) on May 4,
2012. See 77 FR 26441. Emissions
contained in the submittal cover the
general source categories of point
sources, area sources, on-road mobile
sources, and non-road mobile sources.
All emission summaries were
accompanied by source-specific
descriptions of emission calculation
procedures and sources of input data.
North Carolina’s submittal documents
2002 emissions in the North Carolina
portion of the Area in units of tons per
summer day. Table 6, below, provides a
summary of the 2002 emissions of NOX
and VOC for the North Carolina portion
of the bi-state Charlotte Area.
TABLE 6—NORTH CAROLINA PORTION OF THE BI-STATE CHARLOTTE AREA 2002 EMISSIONS FOR NOX AND VOC
[Tons per summer day]
Point
Area
Non-road
Mobile
County
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
NOX
Cabarrus ..........................................................................................
Gaston ..............................................................................................
Iredell (partial) * ................................................................................
Lincoln ..............................................................................................
Mecklenburg .....................................................................................
Rowan ..............................................................................................
Union ................................................................................................
* Only
VOC
2.6
34.8
8.5
0.3
2.1
11.0
0.2
2.2
2.5
0.9
2.1
5.7
6.3
1.0
NOX
0.8
1.3
0.3
0.5
7.0
0.8
1.0
VOC
NOX
6.0
8.9
1.9
3.1
29.4
5.6
6.4
part of Iredell County is in the nonattainment area.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:22 Jul 25, 2013
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\26JYP1.SGM
26JYP1
5.4
4.9
1.4
1.9
32.1
4.1
7.7
VOC
2.7
2.9
0.9
1.3
24.1
2.3
4.7
NOX
17.2
20.0
5.6
6.1
78.7
19.7
11.3
VOC
21.5
13.5
5.1
7.1
68.0
14.8
13.0
45166
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 144 / Friday, July 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules
X. Proposed Actions on the
Redesignation Request and
Maintenance Plan SIP Revisions
Including Approval of the NOX and
VOC Subarea MVEBs for 2013 and 2025
for the North Carolina Portion of the
Bi-State Charlotte Area
March 28, 2012, SIP revision), EPA is
proposing to determine that the North
Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte
Area has met the criteria under CAA
section 107(d)(3)(E) for redesignation
from nonattainment to attainment for
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. On this
basis, EPA is proposing to approve
North Carolina’s redesignation request
for the North Carolina portion of the bistate Charlotte Area.
EPA is also proposing to approve the
maintenance plan for the North Carolina
portion of the Area, including the NOX
and VOC subarea MVEBs for 2013 and
2025, into the North Carolina SIP (under
CAA section 175A). The maintenance
plan demonstrates that the Area will
continue to maintain the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS and that 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 2013 and 2025 in
accordance with 40 CFR 93.118(f)(1).
Within 24 months from the effective
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).
If finalized, approval of the
redesignation request would change the
official designation of Cabarrus, Gaston,
Iredell, Lincoln, Mecklenburg, Rowan
and Union Counties in their entireties,
and a portion of Iredell County
(Davidson and Coddle Creek
Townships) in North Carolina, as found
at 40 CFR part 81, from nonattainment
to attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS.
EPA previously determined that the
entire bi-state Charlotte Area was
attaining the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS
on November 15, 2011, at 76 FR 70656.
EPA is now taking two separate but
related actions regarding the
redesignation and maintenance of the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the
North Carolina portion of the bi-state
Charlotte Area. Today’s notice of
proposed rulemaking is in response to
North Carolina’s November 2, 2011, SIP
revision (as supplemented by a March
28, 2013, SIP revision).
EPA is proposing to determine, based
on complete, quality-assured, and
certified monitoring data for the 2008–
2010 monitoring period that the entire
bi-state Charlotte Area is attaining the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Further,
based on NC DAQ’s November 2, 2011,
SIP revision (as supplemented by a
XI. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
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.
42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions,
IX. What is the effect of EPA’s proposed
actions?
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
EPA’s proposed actions establish the
basis upon which EPA may take final
action on the issues being proposed for
approval today. Approval of North
Carolina’s redesignation request would
change the legal designation of
Cabarrus, Gaston, Iredell, Lincoln,
Mecklenburg, Rowan and Union
Counties in their entireties, and a
portion of Iredell County (Davidson and
Coddle Creek Townships) in North
Carolina, as found at 40 CFR part 81,
from nonattainment to attainment for
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
Approval of North Carolina’s request
would also incorporate a plan for
maintaining the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS in the North Carolina portion of
the bi-state Charlotte Area through 2025
into the SIP. This maintenance plan
includes contingency measures to
remedy any future violations of the 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS and procedures
for evaluation of potential violations.
The maintenance plan also establishes
NOX and VOC subarea MVEBs for 2013
and 2025 for the North Carolina portion
of the bi-state Charlotte Area. The
subarea MVEBs are listed in Tables 5
through 7 in Section VI. Additionally,
EPA is notifying the public of the status
of EPA’s adequacy determination for the
newly-established NOX and VOC
subarea MVEBs for 2013 and 2025 for
the North Carolina portion of the bistate Charlotte Area.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:22 Jul 25, 2013
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. Accordingly, these proposed
actions merely approve state law as
meeting Federal requirements and does
not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law. For
this reason, these proposed actions:
• Are not ‘‘significant regulatory
action[s]’’ subject to review by the
Office of Management and Budget under
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993);
• 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 significant regulatory
actions subject to Executive Order
13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• are not subject to requirements of
section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• do not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
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
40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.
E:\FR\FM\26JYP1.SGM
26JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 144 / Friday, July 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules
Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone
number: (703) 308–3240; email address:
kasai.jeanne@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
40 CFR Part 81
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: July 12, 2013.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2013–17834 Filed 7–25–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 170
[EPA–HQ–OPP–2011–0184; FRL–9384–4]
RIN 2070–AJ22
Notification of Submission to the
Secretary of Agriculture; Pesticides,
Agricultural Worker Protection
Standard Revisions
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notification of submission to
the Secretary of Agriculture.
AGENCY:
This document notifies the
public as required by the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide
Act (FIFRA) that the EPA Administrator
has forwarded to the Secretary of the
United States Department of Agriculture
(USDA) a draft regulatory document
concerning Pesticides; Agricultural
Worker Protection Standard Revisions.
The draft regulatory document is not
available to the public until after it has
been signed and made available by EPA.
DATES: See Unit I. under SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION.
ADDRESSES: The docket for this action,
identified by docket identification (ID)
number EPA–HQ–OPP–2011–0184, is
available at https://www.regulations.gov,
or, at the Office of Pesticide Programs
Regulatory Docket (OPP Docket) in the
Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West
Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave.
NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001. The
Public Reading Room is open from 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and
the telephone number for the OPP
Docket is (703) 305–5805. Please review
the visitor instructions and additional
information about the docket available
at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jeanne Kasai, Field and External Affairs
Division (7506P), Office of Pesticide
Programs, Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:22 Jul 25, 2013
Jkt 229001
I. What action is EPA taking?
Section 25(a)(2)(A) of FIFRA requires
the EPA Administrator to provide the
Secretary of USDA with a copy of any
draft proposed rule at least 60 days
before signing it in proposed form for
publication in the Federal Register. The
draft proposed rule is not available to
the public until after it has been signed
by EPA. If the Secretary of USDA
comments in writing regarding the draft
proposed rule within 30 days after
receiving it, the EPA Administrator
shall include the comments of the
Secretary of USDA and the EPA
Administrator’s response to those
comments with the proposed rule that
publishes in the Federal Register. If the
Secretary of USDA does not comment in
writing within 30 days after receiving
the draft proposed rule, the EPA
Administrator may sign the proposed
rule for publication in the Federal
Register any time after the 30-day
period.
II. Do any statutory and Executive
Order reviews apply to this
notification?
No. This document is merely a
notification of submission to the
Secretary of USDA. As such, none of the
regulatory assessment requirements
apply to this document.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 170
Agricultural worker safety,
Environmental protection, Farmworker,
Pesticide and pests, Pesticide safety
training, Pesticide worker safety,
Worker protection standard regulations.
Dated: July 19, 2013.
Steven Bradbury,
Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 2013–17927 Filed 7–25–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 300
[EPA–HQ–SFUND–1983–0002; FRL–9839–5]
National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency
Plan; National Priorities List: Deletion
of the Cannon Engineering Corp.
(CEC), Superfund Site
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of intent.
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00072
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
45167
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) Region 1 is issuing a
Notice of Intent to Delete the Cannon
Engineering Corp. (CEC), Superfund Site
(Site) located in Bridgewater,
Massachusetts, from the National
Priorities List (NPL) and requests public
comments on this proposed action. The
NPL, promulgated pursuant to section
105 of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an
appendix of the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP). The EPA and
the State of Massachusetts, through the
Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection (MassDEP),
have determined that all appropriate
response actions under CERCLA, other
than five-year reviews, have been
completed. However, this deletion does
not preclude future actions under
Superfund.
SUMMARY:
Comments must be received by
August 26, 2013.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID no. EPA–HQ–
SFUND–1983–0002, by one of the
following methods:
• https://www.regulations.gov. Follow
on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
• Email: golden.derrick@epa.gov or
brown.rudy@epa.gov.
• Fax: 617–918–0448 or 617–918–
0031.
• Mail: Derrick Golden, EPA Region
1—New England, 5 Post Office Square,
Suite 100, Mail Code OSRR07–4,
Boston, MA 02109–3912 or Rudy
Brown, EPA Region 1—New England, 5
Post Office Square, Suite 100, Mail Code
ORAO1–1, Boston, MA 02109–3912.
• Hand delivery: Derrick Golden, EPA
Region 1—New England, 5 Post Office
Square, Suite 100, Mail Code OSRR07–
4, Boston, MA 02109–3912 or Rudy
Brown, EPA Region 1—New England, 5
Post Office Square, Suite 100, Mail Code
ORAO1–1, Boston, MA 02109–3912.
Such deliveries are only accepted
during the Docket’s normal hours of
operation (M–F, 9–5), and special
arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID no. EPA–HQ–SFUND–1983–
0002. 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
DATES:
E:\FR\FM\26JYP1.SGM
26JYP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 144 (Friday, July 26, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 45152-45167]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-17834]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[EPA-R04-OAR-2013-0129; FRL-9835-8]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation
of Areas; North Carolina; Redesignation of the Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock
Hill, 1997 8-Hour Ozone Moderate Nonattainment Area to Attainment
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On November 2, 2011, and supplemented on March 28, 2013, the
State of North Carolina, through the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, Department of Air Quality (NC DAQ),
submitted a request for EPA to redesignate the portion of North
Carolina that is within the bi-state Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill,
North Carolina-South Carolina 8-hour ozone nonattainment area
(hereafter referred to as the ``bi-state Charlotte Area,'' ``Area,'' or
``Metrolina nonattainment area'') to attainment for the 1997 8-hour
ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS); and to approve a
State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision containing a maintenance plan
for the Area. EPA is proposing to approve the redesignation request for
the Area, along with the related SIP revisions, including North
Carolina's plan for maintaining attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard in the Area. EPA is also proposing to approve a supplemental
SIP revision, submitted to EPA on March 28, 2013, extending the
maintenance plan to the year 2025 and updating motor vehicle emission
budgets (MVEBs) for nitrogen oxides (NOX) and volatile
organic compounds (VOC) for the years 2013 and 2025 for the North
Carolina portion of the Area. These actions are being proposed pursuant
to the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) and its implementing regulations. EPA
finalized action to redesignate the South Carolina portion of the Area,
including approval of South Carolina's maintenance plan for the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS, in a separate action.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 26, 2013.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2013-0129, by one of the following methods:
1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
2. Email: R4-RDS@epa.gov.
3. Fax: (404) 562-9019.
4. Mail: EPA-R04-OAR-2013-0129, 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: Ms. Lynorae Benjamin, Chief,
Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides
and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours
of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal
holidays.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-
2013-0129. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit through www.regulations.gov or
email, information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected.
The 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 email
comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your
email 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.
Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
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 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 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
excluding Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jane Spann or Sara Waterson of the
Regulatory Development Section, in the Air Planning Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. Ms. Spann may be reached by phone at (404) 562-9029, or via
electronic mail at spann.jane@epa.gov. Ms. Waterson may be reached by
phone at (404) 562-9061, or via electronic mail at
waterson.sara@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
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 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 MVEBs for 2013 and 2025 for the
North Carolina portion of the area?
VIII. Proposed Action on the Redesignation Request and Maintenance
Plan SIP Revision Including Proposed Approval of the 2013 and 2025
NOX and VOC MVEBs for the North Carolina Portion of the
Area
[[Page 45153]]
IX. What is the effect of EPA's 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 two separate but related
actions, one of which involves multiple elements: (1) To redesignate
the North Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area to attainment
for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS; and (2) to approve into the North
Carolina SIP, under section 175A of the CAA, North Carolina's plan for
maintaining the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS (1997 ozone NAAQS maintenance
plan). EPA's proposed action for the maintenance plan also includes
proposed approval of the associated MVEBs. Through today's rulemaking,
EPA is also notifying the public of the status of EPA's adequacy
determination for the MVEBs for the North Carolina portion of the bi-
state Charlotte Area. The bi-state Charlotte Area consists of Cabarrus,
Gaston, Lincoln, Mecklenburg, Rowan, Union and a portion of Iredell
County (Davidson and Coddle Creek Townships), North Carolina; and a
portion of York County, South Carolina. These actions are summarized
below and described in greater detail throughout this notice of
proposed rulemaking.
First, EPA 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
Cabarrus, Gaston, Iredell, Lincoln, Mecklenburg, Rowan and Union
Counties in their entireties, and a portion of Iredell County (Davidson
and Coddle Creek Townships) in North Carolina from nonattainment to
attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
Second, EPA is proposing to approve North Carolina's November 2,
2011, SIP revision (as supplemented by a March 28, 2013, SIP submittal)
for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS maintenance plan for the North Carolina
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 help keep the bi-state Charlotte Area in attainment of the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS through 2025. Consistent with the CAA, EPA is
proposing to take action to approve the 2013 and 2025 MVEBs in North
Carolina's March 28, 2013, SIP revision.
EPA is also notifying the public of the status of EPA's adequacy
process for the newly-established NOX and VOC MVEBs for 2013
and 2025 for the North Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area.
The Adequacy comment period for the 2013 and 2025 MVEBs for the North
Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area began on February 21,
2013, with EPA's posting of the availability of North Carolina's
submissions on EPA's Adequacy Web site (https://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/currsips.htm#charlotte1111). The Adequacy
comment period for these MVEBs closed on March 25, 2013. Please see
section VII of this proposed rulemaking for further explanation of this
process and for more details on the MVEBs.
Today's notice of proposed rulemaking is in response to North
Carolina's November 2, 2011, SIP revision (as supplemented by a March
28, 2013, SIP submission). These SIP revisions 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 of the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS.
II. What is the background for EPA's proposed actions?
On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a revised 8-hour ozone NAAQS of
0.08 parts per million (ppm). Under EPA's regulations at 40 CFR part
50, the 1997 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 0.08 ppm (i.e.,
0.084 ppm when rounding is considered) (69 FR 23857, April 30, 2004).
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 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS on April 30, 2004 (effective June 15, 2004)
using 2001-2003 ambient air quality data (69 FR 23857, April 30, 2004).
At the time of designation, the bi-state Charlotte Area was classified
as a moderate nonattainment area for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. In
the April 30, 2004, Phase I Ozone Implementation Rule, EPA established
ozone nonattainment area attainment dates based on Table 1 of section
181(a) of the CAA. This established an attainment date six years after
the June 15, 2004, effective date for areas classified as moderate
areas for the 1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment designations. Section 181
of the CAA explains that the attainment date for moderate nonattainment
areas shall be as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than six
years after designation, or June 15, 2010. Therefore, the bi-state
Charlotte Area's original attainment date was June 15, 2010. See 69 FR
23951, April 30, 2004.
On November 12, 2009,\1\ North Carolina submitted an attainment
demonstration and associated reasonably available control measures
(RACM), a reasonable further progress (RFP) plan, \2\ contingency
measures, a 2002 base year emissions inventory, and other planning SIP
revisions related to attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the
North Carolina portion of the Area. North Carolina submitted a
supplement to the attainment demonstration on April 5, 2010, which
provided supplemental information including the 2009 ambient air
quality data (showing that the area qualified for a one-year extension
to the attainment date).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North Carolina withdrew a June 15, 2007, attainment
demonstration SIP for its portion of the Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock
Hill 1997 8-hour ozone area on December 19, 2008, and committed to
submit a revised SIP by November 30, 2009. On November 12, 2009,
North Carolina resubmitted the attainment demonstration SIP for the
North Carolina portion of the Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill 1997 8-
hour ozone area.
\2\ A supplement to the RFP was submitted on November 30, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The bi-state Charlotte Area did not attain the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS by June 15, 2010 (the applicable attainment date for moderate
nonattainment areas); however, the Area qualified for an extension of
the attainment date. Under certain circumstances, the CAA allows for
extensions of the attainment dates prescribed at the time of the
original nonattainment designation. In accordance with CAA section
181(a)(5), EPA may grant up to two one-year extensions of the
attainment date under specified conditions. On May 31, 2011,
[[Page 45154]]
EPA determined that the bi-state Charlotte Area met the CAA
requirements to obtain a one-year extension of the attainment date for
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. See 76 FR 31245. As a result, EPA extended
the bi-state Charlotte Area's attainment date from June 15, 2010, to
June 15, 2011, for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
On November 2, 2011, North Carolina requested redesignation of the
North Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area to attainment for
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The redesignation request included three
years of complete, quality-assured ambient air quality data for the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for 2008-2010, indicating that the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS had been achieved for the Area. Under the CAA,
nonattainment areas may be redesignated to attainment if sufficient,
complete, quality-assured data is available for the Administrator to
determine that the area has attained the standard and the area meets
the other CAA redesignation requirements in section 107(d)(3)(E).
Subsequently, on November 15, 2011 (76 FR 70656), EPA determined
that the bi-state Charlotte Area attained the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
The determination of attaining data was based upon complete, quality-
assured and certified ambient air monitoring data for the 2008-2010
period, showing that the Area had monitored attainment of the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS. The requirements for the Area to submit an attainment
demonstration and associated RACM, RFP plan, contingency measures, and
other planning SIP revisions related to attainment of the standard were
suspended as a result of the determination of attainment, so long as
the Area continues to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. See 40 CFR
51.918 and 52.2125(a). The Area attained the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS
with 2009-2011 data, and preliminary data indicate that the Area
continues to attain with 2010-2012 data.
On January 12, 2012, North Carolina withdrew the North Carolina
portion of the Area's attainment demonstration (except RFP, emissions
statements, and the emissions inventory) as allowed by 40 CFR 51.918.
Therefore, EPA was not required to take action on the aforementioned
portion of the attainment demonstration. EPA approved the emissions
statements portion of the attainment demonstration SIP revision on
April 24, 2012 (77 FR 24382). Additionally, EPA approved the baseline
emissions inventory portion of the attainment demonstration SIP
revision on May 4, 2012 (77 FR 26441). EPA approved the RFP portion on
October 12, 2012 (77 FR 62159).
The March 28, 2013, supplemental SIP revision extends the final
year of the maintenance plan to 2025. Specifically, this revision
updates emissions data, emissions projections, MVEBs, and safety
margins to 2025. Additionally, it provides updated ozone design values
for the bi-state Charlotte Area.
III. What are the criteria for redesignation?
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:
1. ``Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Design Value Calculations,''
Memorandum from Bill Laxton, Director, Technical Support Division,
June 18, 1990;
2. ``Maintenance Plans for Redesignation of Ozone and Carbon
Monoxide Nonattainment Areas,'' Memorandum from G. T. Helms, Chief,
Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, April 30, 1992;
3. ``Contingency Measures for Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Redesignations,'' Memorandum from G. T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon
Monoxide Programs Branch, June 1, 1992;
4. ``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to
Attainment,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality
Management Division, September 4, 1992 (hereafter referred to as the
``Calcagni Memorandum'');
5. ``State Implementation Plan (SIP) Actions Submitted in Response
to Clean Air Act (CAA) Deadlines,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni,
Director, Air Quality Management Division, October 28, 1992;
6. ``Technical Support Documents (TSDs) for Redesignation of Ozone
and Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment Areas,'' Memorandum from G.
T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, August 17,
1993;
7. ``State Implementation Plan (SIP) Requirements for Areas
Submitting Requests for Redesignation to Attainment of the Ozone and
Carbon Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
On or After November 15, 1992,'' Memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro,
Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, September 17,
1993;
8. ``Use of Actual Emissions in Maintenance Demonstrations for Ozone
and CO Nonattainment Areas,'' Memorandum from D. Kent Berry, Acting
Director, Air Quality Management Division, November 30, 1993;
9. ``Part D New Source Review (Part D NSR) Requirements for Areas
Requesting Redesignation to Attainment,'' Memorandum from Mary D.
Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, October 14,
1994;
10. ``Reasonable Further Progress, Attainment Demonstration, and
Related Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment Areas Meeting the Ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standard,'' Memorandum from John S.
Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, May
10, 1995; and
11. ``Next Steps for Pending Redesignation Requests and State
Implementation Plan Actions Affected by the Recent Court Decision
Vacating the 2011 Cross-State Air Pollution Rule,'' Memorandum from
Gina McCarthy, Assistant Administrator, November 19, 2012.
IV. Why is EPA proposing these actions?
On November 2, 2011, and later supplemented on March 28, 2013, the
State of North Carolina, through NC DAQ, requested the redesignation of
the North Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area to attainment
for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA's evaluation indicates that the
entire bi-state Charlotte Area has attained the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS, and that North Carolina meets the requirements for redesignation
for its portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area 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 two related
actions summarized in section I of this notice.
[[Page 45155]]
V. What is EPA's analysis of the request?
As stated above, in accordance with the CAA, EPA proposes in
today's action to: (1) Redesignate the North Carolina portion of the
bi-state Charlotte Area to attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS;
and (2) approve the North Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte
Area's 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS maintenance plan, including the
associated MVEBs, into the North Carolina SIP. These actions are based
upon EPA's determination that the entire bi-state Charlotte Area
continues to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and that all other
redesignation criteria have been met for the North Carolina portion of
the bi-state Charlotte Area. 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.
Criteria (1)--The Bi-ustate Charlotte Area Has Attained the 1997 8-Hour
Ozone NAAQS
For ozone, an area may be considered to be attaining the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS if it meets the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, as
determined in accordance with 40 CFR 50.10 and Appendix I of part 50,
based on three complete, consecutive calendar years of quality-assured
air quality monitoring data. To attain these 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
0.08 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 0.084 ppm or below. The data must be collected and quality-
assured in accordance with 40 CFR part 58, and recorded in the EPA Air
Quality System (AQS) database. The monitors generally should have
remained at the same location for the duration of the monitoring period
required for demonstrating attainment.
As mentioned above, on November 15, 2011 (76 FR 70656), EPA
determined that the bi-state Charlotte Area was attaining the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS. For that action, EPA reviewed ozone monitoring data
from monitoring stations in the bi-state Charlotte Area for the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS for 2008-2010. These data have been quality-assured
and are recorded in AQS. EPA has reviewed the 2009-2011 certified and
2010-2012 preliminary data which indicate that the Area continues to
attain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS beyond the submitted 3-year
attainment period of 2008-2010. The fourth-highest 8-hour ozone average
for 2008, 2009 and 2010, and the 3-year average of these values (i.e.,
design values), are summarized in the following Table 1 of this
proposed rulemaking.
Table 1--2008-2010 Design Value Concentrations for the Bi-State Charlotte 1997 8-Hour Ozone Area *
[Parts per million]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual arithmetic mean concentrations (ppm) 3-year design
------------------------------------------------ values (ppm)
Location County Monitor ID ---------------
2008 2009 2010 2008-2010
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln County Replacing Iron Station..... Lincoln..................... 37-109-0004 0.079 0.065 0.072 0.072
Garinger High School...................... Mecklenburg................. 37-119-0041 0.085 0.069 0.082 0.078
Westinghouse Blvd......................... Mecklenburg................. 37-119-1005 0.073 0.068 0.078 0.073
29 N at Mecklenburg Cab Co................ Mecklenburg................. 37-119-1009 0.093 0.071 0.082 0.082
Rockwell.................................. Rowan....................... 37-159-0021 0.084 0.071 0.077 0.077
Enochville School......................... Rowan....................... 37-159-0022 0.082 0.073 0.078 0.077
Monroe Middle School...................... Union....................... 37-179-0003 0.08 0.067 0.071 0.072
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* An ozone monitor is located in York County, SC; however, it is outside of the nonattainment area. This monitor is monitoring attainment of the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS.
Table 2--2009-2011 Design Value Concentrations for the Bi-State Charlotte 1997 8-Hour Ozone Area *
[Parts per million]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4th Highest 8-hour ozone value 3-year design
------------------------------------------------ values
Location County Monitor ID ---------------
2009 2010 2011 2009-2011
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln County Replacing Iron Station..... Lincoln..................... 37-109-0004 0.065 0.072 0.077 0.071
Garinger High School...................... Mecklenburg................. 37-119-0041 0.069 0.082 0.088 0.079
Westinghouse Blvd......................... Mecklenburg................. 37-119-1005 0.068 0.078 0.082 0.076
29 N at Mecklenburg Cab Co................ Mecklenburg................. 37-119-1009 0.071 0.082 0.083 0.078
Rockwell.................................. Rowan....................... 37-159-0021 0.071 0.077 0.077 0.075
Enochville School......................... Rowan....................... 37-159-0022 0.073 0.078 0.078 0.076
Monroe Middle School...................... Union....................... 37-179-0003 0.067 0.071 0.073 0.07
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* An ozone monitor is located in York County, SC; however, it is outside of the nonattainment area. This monitor is monitoring attainment of the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS.
[[Page 45156]]
Table 3--2010-2012 Design Value Concentrations for the Bi-State Charlotte 1997 8-Hour Ozone Area *
[Parts per million]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4th Highest 8-hour ozone value 3-year design
------------------------------------------------ values
Location County Monitor ID ---------------
2010 2011 2012 2010-2012
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln County Replacing Iron Station..... Lincoln..................... 37-109-0004 0.072 0.077 0.076 0.075
Garinger High School...................... Mecklenburg................. 37-119-0041 0.082 0.088 0.080 0.083
Westinghouse Blvd......................... Mecklenburg................. 37-119-1005 0.078 0.082 0.073 0.077
29 N at Mecklenburg Cab Co................ Mecklenburg................. 37-119-1009 0.082 0.083 0.085 0.083
Rockwell.................................. Rowan....................... 37-159-0021 0.077 0.077 0.080 0.078
Enochville School......................... Rowan....................... 37-159-0022 0.078 0.078 0.077 0.077
Monroe Middle School...................... Union....................... 37-179-0003 0.071 0.073 0.075 0.073
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* An ozone monitor is located in York County, SC; however, it is outside of the nonattainment area. This monitor is monitoring attainment of the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS.
The 3-year design value for 2008-2010 submitted by North Carolina
for redesignation of its portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area is
0.082 ppm at the 29 N at Mecklenburg Cab Co. monitor,\3\ which meets
the NAAQS as described above. As mentioned above, on November 15, 2011
(76 FR 70656), EPA published a clean data determination for the bi-
state Charlotte Area for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The 2009-2011
certified data show that the bi-state Charlotte Area continues to
attain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS with a design value of 0.079 ppm at
the Garinger High School monitor. After review of the certified 2010-
2012 data, the Area continues to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS
with a design value of 0.083 ppm at the Garinger High School and 29 N
at Mecklenburg Cab Co. monitors. In today's action, EPA is proposing to
determine that the bi-state Charlotte Area is attaining the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. EPA will not go forward with the redesignation if the bi-
state Charlotte Area does not continue to attain the NAAQS until the
time that EPA finalizes 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The monitor with the highest 3 year design value is
considered the design value for the area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Criteria (2)--North Carolina Has a Fully Approved SIP Under Section
110(k) for the North Carolina Portion of the Charlotte Area; and
Criteria (5)--North Carolina Has Met All Applicable Requirements Under
Section 110 and Part D of Title I of the CAA
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 (requirements specific to 1997 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 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.
a. The North Carolina Portion of the Charlotte Area Has Met All
Applicable Requirements Under Section 110 and Part D of the CAA
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 (New Source Review (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 (e.g., NOX SIP Call \4\ and the
Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) \5\). The section
[[Page 45157]]
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. However, as discussed later in this notice,
addressing pollutant transport from other states is an important part
of the maintenance demonstration for the bi-state Charlotte Area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ On October 27, 1998 (63 FR 57356), EPA issued a
NOX SIP Call requiring the District of Columbia and 22
states to reduce emissions of NOX in order to reduce the
transport of ozone and ozone precursors. In compliance with EPA's
NOX SIP Call, North Carolina developed rules governing
the control of NOX emissions from electric generating
units (EGUs), major non-EGU industrial boilers, major cement kilns,
and internal combustion engines. On October 5, 2007, EPA approved
North Carolina's rules as fulfilling Phase I of the NOX
SIP Call (72 FR 56914).
\5\ On May 12, 2005, EPA published the Clean Air Interstate Rule
(CAIR), which requires significant reductions in emissions of sulfur
dioxide (SO2) and NOX from certain electric
generating units in the eastern United States to limit the
interstate transport of these pollutants and the ozone and fine
particulate matter they form in the atmosphere. See 76 FR 70093. The
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
(D.C. Circuit) initially vacated CAIR in North Carolina v. EPA, 531
F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008), but ultimately remanded the rule to EPA
without vacatur in North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176, 1178 (D.C.
Cir. 2008) to preserve the environmental benefits provided by CAIR.
In response to the court's decision, EPA issued the Cross-State Air
Pollution Rule (CSAPR) to address interstate transport of
NOX and SO2 in the eastern United States. See
76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011). On August 21, 2012, the D.C. Circuit
issued a decision to vacate CSAPR. EME Homer City Generation, L.P.
v. EPA, 696 F.3d. 7 (D.C. Cir., 2012). In that decision, the court
also ordered EPA to continue administering CAIR ``pending the
promulgation of a valid replacement.'' EPA filed a petition for a
writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court on March 29, 2013, to
review the D.C. Circuit's decision in EME Homer City. On June 24,
2013, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the United States' petition
asking the Court to review the D.C. Circuit Court's decision on
CSAPR. However,the Agency will continue to act in accordance with
EME Homer City pending final resolution of the CSAPR litigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, EPA believes that other section 110 elements that are
neither connected with nonattainment plan submissions nor linked with
an area's attainment status are not applicable requirements for
purposes of redesignation. The area will still be subject to these
requirements after the area is redesignated. The section 110 and part D
requirements that are linked with a particular area's designation and
classification are the relevant measures to evaluate in reviewing a
redesignation request. This approach is consistent with EPA's existing
policy on applicability (i.e., for redesignations) of conformity and
oxygenated fuels requirements, as well as with section 184 ozone
transport requirements. See Reading, Pennsylvania, proposed and final
rulemakings (61 FR 53174-53176, October 10, 1996), (62 FR 24826, May 7,
1997); Cleveland-Akron-Loraine, Ohio, final rulemaking (61 FR 20458,
May 7, 1996); and Tampa, Florida, final rulemaking at (60 FR 62748,
December 7, 1995). See also the discussion on this issue in the
Cincinnati, Ohio, redesignation (65 FR 37890, June 19, 2000), and in
the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, redesignation (66 FR 50399, October 19,
2001).
EPA completed rulemaking on a December 12, 2007, submittal and a
clarification in a June 20, 2008, submission addressing
``infrastructure SIP'' elements required under CAA section 110(a)(2) on
February 6, 2012. See 77 FR 5703. However, these are statewide
requirements that are not a consequence of the nonattainment status of
the North Carolina portion of the Area. As stated above, EPA believes
that section 110 elements not linked to an area's nonattainment status
are not applicable for purposes of redesignation. Therefore, EPA
believes it has approved all SIP elements under section 110 that must
be approved as a prerequisite for redesignating the North Carolina
portion of the Area to attainment.
Title I, Part D, subpart 1 applicable SIP requirements. Sections
172(c)(1) through (9) and section 176 of subpart 1, part D of the CAA,
set forth the basic nonattainment requirements applicable to all
nonattainment areas. A thorough discussion of the requirements
contained in section 172 can be found in the General Preamble for
Implementation of title I (57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992). Subpart 2 of
part D, which includes section 182 of the CAA, establishes additional
specific requirements depending on the area's ozone nonattainment
classification. A thorough discussion of the requirements contained in
section 182 can be found in the General Preamble for Implementation of
Title I (57 FR 13498).
Part D Subpart 1 Section 172 Requirements and Part D, Subpart 2
Section 182 Requirements. Section 172(c)(1) requires the plans for all
nonattainment areas to provide for the implementation of all RACM as
expeditiously as practicable and to provide for attainment of the
national primary ambient air quality standards. EPA interprets this
requirement to impose a duty on all nonattainment areas to consider all
available control measures and to adopt and implement such measures as
are reasonably available for implementation in each area as components
of the area's attainment demonstration. Under section 172, states with
nonattainment areas must submit plans providing for timely attainment
and meeting a variety of other requirements. Section 182 of the CAA,
found in subpart 2 of part D, establishes additional specific
requirements depending on the area's ozone nonattainment
classification. For purposes of evaluating this redesignation request,
the applicable part D, subpart 2 SIP requirements for all moderate
nonattainment areas are contained in sections 182(b)(1)-(5). However,
pursuant to 40 CFR 51.918, EPA's November 15, 2011, determination that
the bi-state Charlotte Area was attaining the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS
suspended North Carolina's obligation to submit most of the attainment
planning requirements that would otherwise apply. Specifically, the
determination of attainment suspended North Carolina's obligation to
submit an attainment demonstration and planning SIPs to provide for
RACM under section 172(c)(1), contingency measures under section
172(c)(9) and RFP under section 182(b)(1) of the CAA.
The General Preamble for Implementation of Title I (57 FR 13498,
April 16, 1992) also discusses the evaluation of the section 172 and
182 requirements in the context of EPA's consideration of a
redesignation request. The General Preamble sets forth EPA's view of
applicable requirements for purposes of evaluating redesignation
requests when an area is attaining a standard (General Preamble for
Implementation of Title I (57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992)).
Because attainment has been reached in the bi-state Charlotte Area,
no additional measures are needed to provide for attainment, and
section 172(c)(1) requirements for an attainment demonstration and RACM
are no longer considered to be applicable for purposes of redesignation
as long as the Area continues to attain the standard until
redesignation. See also 40 CFR 51.918.
Pursuant to sections 172(c)(2) and 182(b)(1), nonattainment plans
for areas classified as moderate and above for ozone must contain
provisions that require reasonable further progress toward attainment.
These requirements are not relevant for purposes of redesignation
because EPA has determined that the bi-state Charlotte Area has
monitored attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. See General
Preamble, 57 FR 13564. See also 40 CFR 51.918. While it is not a
requirement for redesignation, EPA took action to approve North
Carolina's RFP for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the State's portion
of the bi-state Charlotte Area on October 12, 2012. See 77 FR 62159.
Section 172(c)(3) and section 182(b) require submission and
approval of a comprehensive, accurate, and current inventory of actual
emissions. Section 182(b) references section 182(a) of the CAA which
requires, in part, for states to submit a current inventory of actual
emissions (182(a)(1)). As part of North Carolina's attainment
demonstration for the North Carolina portion of the Area, NC DAQ
submitted a 2002 base year emissions inventory. EPA approved the 2002
base year inventory submitted with the attainment demonstration on May
4, 2012, as meeting the section 172(c)(3) and section 182(b)
(182(a)(1))
[[Page 45158]]
emissions inventory requirement. See 77 FR 26441.
Section 172(c)(4) requires the identification and quantification of
allowed emissions from major new and modified stationary sources in an
area, and section 172(c)(5) and section 182(b) that require permits for
the construction and operation of new and modified major stationary
sources anywhere in the nonattainment area. EPA has determined that,
because PSD requirements will apply after redesignation, 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. 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 has demonstrated that the
North Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area will be able to
maintain the NAAQS without part D NSR in effect, and therefore North
Carolina need not have fully approved part D NSR programs prior to
approval of the redesignation request. Nonetheless, North Carolina
currently has an approved part D NSR program in place. North Carolina's
PSD program will become applicable in the North Carolina portion of the
bi-state Charlotte Area upon redesignation to attainment. Section
172(c)(6) requires the SIP to contain control measures necessary to
provide for attainment of the NAAQS. Because attainment has been
reached, no additional measures are needed to provide for attainment.
Section 172(c)(7) requires the SIP to meet the applicable
provisions of section 110(a)(2). As noted above, EPA believes the North
Carolina SIP meets the requirements of section 110(a)(2) applicable for
purposes of redesignation.
Section 182(b) references, in part, section 182(a)(3), which
requires states to submit periodic inventories and emissions
statements. Section 182(a)(3)(A) of the CAA requires states to submit a
periodic inventory every three years. The periodic emissions inventory
is discussed in more detail in Criteria (4)(e), Verification of
Continued Attainment.
Section 182(a)(3)(B) of the CAA requires states with areas
designated nonattainment for the ozone NAAQS to submit a SIP revision
to require emissions statements to be submitted to the state by sources
within that nonattainment area. EPA approved North Carolina's emissions
statements requirement on August 1, 1997, and approved the updated
counties on April 24, 2012. See 64 FR 41277 and 77 FR 24382,
respectively. EPA believes the North Carolina SIP meets the
requirements of section 182(a)(3)(B) applicable for purposes of
redesignation.
Section 182(b)(2) of the CAA requires states with areas designated
nonattainment for the ozone NAAQS to submit a SIP revision to require
reasonably available control technology (RACT) for all major VOC and
NOX sources and for each category of VOC sources in the Area
covered by a Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) document.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 40 CFR 51.912 identifies the requirements that apply for
RACT under the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CTGs established by EPA are guidance to the states and provide
recommendations only. A state can develop its own strategy for what
constitutes RACT for the various CTG categories, and EPA will review
that strategy in the context of the SIP process and determine whether
it meets the RACT requirements of the CAA and its implementing
regulations. If no major sources of VOC or NOX emissions
(which should be considered separately) or no sources in a particular
source category exist in an applicable nonattainment area, a state may
submit a negative declaration for that category.
North Carolina did a RACT analysis for major VOC and NOX
sources in the Area and determined that these sources in the bi-state
Charlotte Area meet RACT. In addition, EPA did a NOX RACT
analysis of the North Carolina portion of the Charlotte Area major
sources and determined that these sources meet RACT. North Carolina
also made a negative declaration for CTG category sources in the June
15, 2007, SIP submittal. On May 9, 2013, EPA approved a number of North
Carolina NOX RACT SIP revisions and approved in part and
conditionally approved in part a number of VOC RACT SIP revisions. See
78 FR 27065.
North Carolina submitted a SIP revision on May 1, 2013, to EPA to
address the requirements of the conditional approval to correct the
deficiencies for which EPA proposed conditional approval related to
North Carolina's RACT submission. On June 7, 2013, EPA proposed to
approve portions of North Carolina's May 1, 2013, SIP revision which
included changes to the State's RACT rules to correct deficiencies and
add new changes. See 78 FR 34306. EPA did not receive any comments,
adverse or otherwise, on the June 7, 2013, proposed rulemaking related
to North Carolina's May 1, 2013, SIP revision. On July 12, 2013, the
Acting Regional Administrator for EPA Region 4 signed a final
rulemaking approving North Carolina's May 1, 2013, SIP revision to
correct deficiencies for North Carolina RACT requirements. EPA has
preliminarily determined that North Carolina's SIP meets the section
182(b)(2) requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ EPA approved South Carolina's RACT SIP revisions and
concluded that the South Carolina portion of the Area has met all
the statutory and regulatory requirements for making a negative
declaration regarding Groups I, II, III, and IV CTG and meets the
requirements of section 182(b)(2) applicable for purposes of
redesignation. See 76 FR 72844.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under section 202(a)(6) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7521(a)(6), the
requirements of section 182(b)(3) do not apply in moderate ozone
nonattainment areas after EPA promulgated the onboard refueling vapor
recovery (ORVR) standards on April 6, 1994 (59 FR 16262), codified at
40 CFR parts 86 (including 86.098-8), 88 and 600. As mentioned above,
the bi-state Charlotte Area was designated as a moderate area for the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and therefore was not subject to the Stage II
requirements as set forth in section 182(b)(3).
Section 182(b)(4) of the CAA requires states with areas designated
nonattainment with moderate or above classification for the ozone NAAQS
to submit SIPs requiring inspection and maintenance of vehicles (I/M).
North Carolina's I/M rule for the North Carolina portion of the
nonattainment area, called the Clean Air Bill, was submitted to EPA on
August 7, 2002, and approved by EPA on October 30, 2002 (67 FR 66056),
effective December 30, 2002. EPA believes that the North Carolina SIP
meets the requirements of section 182(b)(4) applicable for purposes of
redesignation.
Section 182(b)(5) of the CAA requires that for purposes of
satisfying the emission offset requirements of Part D, the ratio of
total emission reductions of VOCs to total increase emissions of VOCs
must be at least 1.15 to 1. North Carolina currently requires these
offsets. See 40 CFR 52.1770. EPA therefore believes that the North
Carolina SIP meets the requirements of section 182(b)(5) applicable for
purposes of redesignation.
Section 176 Conformity Requirements. Section 176(c) of the CAA
requires states to establish criteria and procedures to ensure that
federally supported or funded projects conform to
[[Page 45159]]
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 \8\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ CAA section 176(c)(4)(E) requires states to submit revisions
to their SIPs to reflect certain Federal criteria and procedures for
determining transportation conformity. Transportation conformity
SIPs are different from the MVEBs that are established in control
strategy SIPs and maintenance plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For all of the reasons discussed above, 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.
b. The North Carolina Portion of the Bi-State Charlotte Area Has a
Fully Approved Applicable SIP Under Section 110(k) of the CAA
EPA may rely on prior SIP approvals in approving a redesignation
request (see Calcagni Memorandum at p. 3; Northwestern Pennsylvania
Growth Alliance v. Browner, 144 F.3d 984 (6th Cir. 1998); Wall, 265
F.3d 426) plus any additional measures it may approve in conjunction
with a redesignation action (see 68 FR 25426 (May 12, 2003) and
citations therein). Following passage of the CAA of 1970, North
Carolina has adopted and submitted, and EPA has fully approved at
various times, provisions addressing various 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS
SIP elements applicable in the North Carolina portion of the Area (May
31, 1972, 37 FR 10842; July 13, 2011, 76 FR 41111). For example, EPA
approved the emissions statements portion of the attainment
demonstration SIP revision on April 24, 2012 (77 FR 24382), and the
baseline emissions inventory portion of the attainment demonstration
SIP revision on May 4, 2012 (77 FR 26441).
On April 29, 2013, EPA signed a Federal Register notice approving
in-part and conditionally approving in-part the RACT demonstration for
the North Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area. See 78 FR
27065 (May 9, 2013). On May 1, 2013, North Carolina submitted a SIP
revision to meet the aforementioned conditional approval. EPA proposed
to approve North Carolina's May 1, 2013, RACT SIP revision that
fulfills the conditional approval on June 7, 2013. See 78 FR 34306. EPA
did not receive any comments, adverse or otherwise, on the June 7,
2013, proposed rulemaking related to North Carolina's May 1, 2013, SIP
revision. On July 12, 2013, the Acting Regional Administrator for EPA
Region 4 signed a final rulemaking approving North Carolina's May 1,
2013, SIP revision to correct deficiencies for North Carolina RACT
requirements.
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. Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir.
2004); 68 FR 25424, 25427 (May 12, 2003) (redesignation of the St.
Louis-East St. Louis Area to attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS).
Criteria (3)--The Air Quality Improvement in the Bi-State Charlotte
1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS Nonattainment 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
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 believes 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 implementation of the SIP, Federal measures,
and other state adopted measures.
State, local, 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; open burning ban;
NOX SIP Call; Clean Smokestacks Act; and Diesel Emissions
Reduction Act (DERA) grants for repower or replacement of existing
diesel engines. Local measures implemented by Mecklenburg County Air
Quality (MCAQ) include prohibition of open burning of any kind and
diesel engine emission reductions. Of these measures, the Clean Air
Bill I/M program, open burning ban, NOX SIP Call and Clean
Smokestacks Act are permanent and enforceable. The Federal measures
that have been implemented include the following:
Tier 2 vehicle standards. Implementation began in 2004 and will
require 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. These emission
reductions are federally enforceable.
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.
Heavy-duty gasoline and diesel highway vehicle standards. These
standards began to take effect in 2004 and are designed to reduce
NOX and VOC emissions. These emission reductions are
federally enforceable.
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
[[Page 45160]]
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 will help reduce ambient concentrations of ozone, carbon
monoxide, and fine particulate matter.
NOX SIP Call. The NOX SIP Call created the
NOX Budget Trading Program designed to reduce the amount of
ozone that crosses state lines. By the end of 2008, ozone season
emissions dropped by 62 percent from 2000 at all sources subject to the
NOX SIP Call (EPA, NOX Budget Trading Program:
2008 Highlights, October 2009, page 3, available at https://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/progress/NBP_4/NBP_2008_Highlights.pdf). It follows that
the bi-state Charlotte Area benefited from these overall reductions,
since it is part of the larger NOX SIP Call area. North
Carolina provided the NOX emission reductions, as the result
of the NOX SIP Call rule, from North Carolina power plants
in the bi-state Charlotte Area, as well as the power plants located
directly north and west of the Metrolina region \9\ that may impact the
Area in the March 28, 2013, submittal. There are four facilities
located within the North Carolina portion of the Area located in
Gaston, Lincoln and Rowan Counties. The facility west of the Metrolina
region is Cliffside, located in Cleveland County, and the facility
north of the Metrolina region is Marshall, located in Catawba County.
This data is also from the EPA Clean Air Markets Division's database
and represents the second and third quarters of the year (April through
September), the period during which ozone levels are the highest. Two
coal-fired power plants (Buck and Riverbend) were retired on April 1,
2013, and will result in additional emissions reductions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ For the purposes of this document, the Metrolina region
refers to the Charlotte metropolitan area and is inclusive of the
bi-state Charlotte nonattainment area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA has considered the relationship of the North Carolina portion
of the bi-state Charlotte Area's maintenance plan to the reductions
currently required pursuant to CAIR. CAIR was remanded to EPA, and the
process of developing a replacement rule is ongoing. However, the
remand of CAIR does not alter the requirements of the NOX
SIP Call, and the State has now demonstrated that the bi-state
Charlotte Area can maintain without CAIR. Therefore, EPA believes that
the State's demonstration of maintenance under sections 175A and
107(d)(3)(E) remains valid.
The NOX SIP Call requires states to make significant,
specific emissions reductions. It also provides a mechanism, the
NOX Budget Trading Program, that states could use to achieve
those reductions. When EPA promulgated CAIR, it discontinued (starting
in 2009) the NOX Budget Trading Program, 40 CFR 51.121(r),
but created another mechanism--the CAIR ozone season trading program--
which states could use to meet their SIP Call obligations, 70 FR 25289-
90. EPA notes that a number of states, when submitting SIP revisions to
require sources to participate in the CAIR ozone season trading
program, removed the SIP provisions that required sources to
participate in the NOX Budget Trading Program. In addition,
because the provisions of CAIR including the ozone season
NOX trading program remain in place during the remand, EPA
is not currently administering the NOX Budget Trading
Program. Nonetheless, all states, regardless of the current status of
their regulations that previously required participation in the
NOX Budget Trading Program, will remain subject to all of
the requirements in the NOX SIP Call even if the existing
CAIR ozone season trading program is withdrawn or altered. In addition,
the anti-backsliding provisions of 40 CFR 51.905(f) specifically
provide that the provisions of the NOX SIP Call, including
the statewide NOX emission budgets, continue to apply after
revocation of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.
All NOX SIP Call states have SIPs that currently satisfy
their obligations under the NOX SIP Call; the NOX
SIP Call reduction requirements are being met; and EPA will continue to
enforce the requirements of the NOX SIP Call even after any
response to the CAIR remand. For these reasons, EPA believes that
regardless of the status of the CAIR program, the NOX SIP
Call requirements can be relied upon in demonstrating maintenance.
Here, the State has demonstrated maintenance based in part on those
requirements.
CAIR and CSAPR. CAIR remains in place and enforceable until
substituted by a ``valid'' replacement rule. Regardless of the timing
of the transition from CAIR to CSAPR, or a resulting court-ordered
interstate transport remedy, emissions of NOX and
SO2 have declined significantly and are expected to continue
to decrease in the future due to the continuation of CAIR and North
Carolina's own EGU emissions rules.
To the extent that the North Carolina submittal relies on CAIR
reductions that occurred through 2012, the recent directive from the
D.C. Circuit in EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d. 7
(D.C. Cir., 2012) ensures that the reductions associated with CAIR will
be permanent and enforceable for the necessary time period for purposes
of CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) and North Carolina's request to
redesignate the Charlotte Area and seek approval of its maintenance
plan and other requirements associated with redesignation. EPA has been
ordered by the court to develop a new rule, and the opinion makes clear
that after promulgating that new rule EPA must provide states an
opportunity to draft and submit SIPs to implement that rule. CAIR thus
cannot be replaced until EPA has promulgated a final rule through a
notice-and-comment rulemaking process, states have had an opportunity
to draft and submit SIPs, EPA has reviewed the SIPs to determine if
they can be approved, and EPA has taken action on the SIPs, including
promulgating a Federal Implementation Plan, if appropriate. The court's
clear instruction to EPA is that it must continue to administer CAIR
until a ``valid replacement'' exists and thus CAIR reductions may be
relied upon until the necessary actions are taken by EPA and states to
administer CAIR's replacement. Furthermore, the court's instruction
provides an additional backstop; by definition, any rule that replaces
CAIR and meets the court's direction would require upwind states to
have SIPs that eliminate significant contributions to downwind
nonattainment and prevent interference with maintenance in downwind
areas.
Further, in vacating CSAPR and requiring EPA to continue
administering CAIR, the D.C. Circuit emphasized that the consequences
of vacating CAIR ``might be more severe now in light of the reliance
interests accumulated over the intervening four years.'' EME Homer
City, 696 F.3d at 38. The accumulated reliance interests include the
interests of states who reasonably assumed they could rely on
reductions associated with CAIR, which brought certain nonattainment
areas into attainment with the NAAQS. If EPA were prevented from
relying on reductions associated with CAIR in redesignation actions,
states would be forced to impose additional, redundant reductions on
top of those achieved by CAIR. EPA believes this is precisely the type
of irrational result the court sought to avoid by ordering EPA to
continue administering CAIR. For these reasons
[[Page 45161]]
also, EPA believes it is appropriate to allow states to rely on CAIR,
and the existing emissions reductions achieved by CAIR, as sufficiently
permanent and enforceable for purposes such as redesignation. Following
promulgation of the replacement rule, EPA will review SIPs as
appropriate to identify whether there are any issues that need to be
addressed. In light of these unique circumstances and for the reasons
explained above, EPA is proposing to approve the redesignation request
and related SIP revisions for the North Carolina portion of the bi-
state Charlotte Area. EPA continues to implement CAIR in accordance
with current direction from the court, and thus CAIR is in place and
enforceable and will remain so until substituted by a valid replacement
rule. North Carolina's SIP revision lists CAIR as a control measure,
which was approved by EPA on October 5, 2007, 72 FR 56914, for the
purpose of reduction SO2 and NOX emissions.
Criteria (4)--The North Carolina Portion of the Area Has a Fully
Approved Maintenance Plan Pursuant to Section 175A of the CAA
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 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, NC DAQ submitted a SIP revision to provide
for the maintenance of the 1997 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.
a. What is required in a maintenance plan?
Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the elements of a maintenance
plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment.
Under section 175A, the plan must demonstrate continued attainment of
the applicable NAAQS for at least 10 years after the Administrator
approves a redesignation to attainment. Eight years after the
redesignation, the state 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 1997 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 finds 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.
b. Attainment Emissions Inventory
The bi-state Charlotte Area attained the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS
based on quality-assured monitoring data for the 3-year period from
2008-2010. North Carolina selected 2010 as the attainment emissions
inventory year. The attainment inventory identifies a level of
emissions in the Area that is sufficient to attain the 1997 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. As noted above, the
year 2010 was chosen as the base year for developing a comprehensive
emissions inventory for NOX and VOC, for which projected
emissions could be developed for 2013, 2016, 2019, 2022, and 2025. The
projected summer day emission inventories have been estimated using
projected rates of growth in population, traffic, economic activity,
and other parameters. Naturally occurring, or biogenic, emissions are
not included in the emissions inventory comparison, as these emissions
are outside the State's span of control. In addition to comparing the
final year of the plan (2025) to the base year (2010) North Carolina
compared interim years to the baseline to demonstrate that these years
are also expected to show continued maintenance of the 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 March 28, 2013, 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
USEPA's Clean Air Markets Division, the actual 2010 average summer day
emissions were used. For the other Title V sources, the 2009 data was
used which was the latest data available. For the small sources that
only report emissions every 5 years, the most recently reported data
was used and assumed to be equivalent to 2009 emissions since these
sources do not vary much from year to year. The 2009 emissions data was
grown to 2010 using the USEPA's EGAS model.
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 and
aircraft engine. 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 and national fuel use
from the Energy Information Administration for locomotives.
For highway mobile sources, EPA's Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator
(MOVES) mobile model is run to generate emissions. The MOVES 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 highway 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 2010 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.
[[Page 45162]]
c. Maintenance Demonstration
The March 28, 2013, submittal updates the maintenance plan included
in the November 2, 2011, maintenance plan for the North Carolina
portion of the Area. The maintenance plan:
(i) Shows compliance with and maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS by providing information to support the demonstration that
current and future emissions of NOX and VOC remain at or
below 2010 emissions levels.
(ii) Uses 2010 as the attainment year and includes future emissions
inventory projections for 2013, 2016, 2019, 2022, and 2025.
(iii) Identifies an ``out year'' at least 10 years (and beyond)
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 (2025) of the maintenance plan (see section VI
below). Additionally, NC DAQ opted to establish MVEBs for an interim
year (2013).
(iv) Provides actual 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.
Table 2--Actual and Projected Annual NOX Emissions (tpd) for the
North Carolina Portion \*\ of the Bi-State Charlotte Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sector 2010 2013 2016 2019 2022 2025
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point............................. 37.97 20.03 19.29 20.28 19.19 20.02
Area.............................. 8.16 8.24 8.31 8.42 8.49 8.67
Nonroad........................... 41.31 35.90 30.64 26.89 24.50 23.09
Mobile............................ 138.26 106.92 86.43 70.49 63.67 55.90
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total \**\.................... 225.47 170.90 144.53 125.98 115.76 107.61
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\*\ Iredell County emissions for nonattainment area only.
\**\ Total taken directly from the March 28, 2013, submittal, which was calculated using county-by-county
emissions values rather than the total sector emissions values.
Table 3--Actual and Projected Annual VOC Emissions (tpd) for the
North Carolina Portion * of the Bi-State Charlotte Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sector 2010 2013 2016 2019 2022 2025
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point............................. 14.78 15.78 17.04 18.32 19.5 20.87
Area.............................. 57.67 56.61 56.36 57.78 59.06 63.26
Nonroad........................... 26.47 21.92 19.4 18.79 18.86 19.26
Mobile............................ 66.70 51.32 41.58 34.47 30.21 28.67
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total **...................... 165.44 145.48 134.26 129.26 127.63 132.06
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\*\ Iredell County emissions for nonattainment area only.
\**\ Total taken directly from the March 28, 2013, submittal, which was calculated using county-by-county
emissions values rather than the total sector emissions values.
Table 4--Emission Estimates for the North Carolina Portion of the Bi-
State Charlotte Area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year VOC (tpd) NOX (tpd)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2010............................................ 165.44 225.47
2013............................................ 145.48 170.90
2016............................................ 134.26 144.53
2019............................................ 129.26 125.98
2022............................................ 127.63 115.76
2025............................................ 132.06 107.61
Difference from 2010 to 2025.................... -33.38 -117.86
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tables 2 through 4 summarize the 2010 and future projected
emissions of NOX and VOC from the North Carolina portion of
the bi-state Charlotte Area. In situations where local emissions are
the primary contributor to nonattainment, the NAAQS should not be
violated in the future as long as emissions from within the
nonattainment area remain at or below the baseline with which
attainment was achieved. 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 2010 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 2013, 2016, 2019, 2022, and 2025. The State has decided to
allocate a safety margin to the 2013 and 2025 MVEB for the bi-state
Charlotte Area. For the year 2013, the NOX and VOC safety
margins were calculated as 54.57 tpd and 19.96 tpd, respectively. For
the year 2025, the NOX and VOC safety margins were
calculated as 117.86 tpd and 33.38 tpd, respectively.
The State has decided to allocate a portion of the safety margin to
the 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 four-step
approach for determining a factor to use to calculate the amount of
safety margin to apply to the MVEBs. The MVEBs to be used for
transportation conformity proposes is discussed in section VI. 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.
d. Monitoring Network
There are currently seven monitors measuring ozone in the North
Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area.\10\
[[Page 45163]]
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 the 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 2012 monitoring plan on September 21, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ While there is a monitor in York County that the South
Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SC DHEC)
operates, this monitor is not located within the bi-state Charlotte
Area for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
e. Verification of Continued Attainment
The State of North Carolina, through NC DAQ, has the legal
authority to enforce and implement the requirements of the North
Carolina portion of the Area 1997 8-hour ozone maintenance plan. 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.
The large stationary sources are required to submit an emissions
inventory annually to NC DAQ or MCAQ. NC DAQ will commit to review
these emissions inventories to determine if any unexpected growth in
NOX emissions in the Area may endanger the maintenance of
the 1997 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 1997 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 CERR and AERR inventory years
are within a year of the baseline, interim, and final 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 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in this Area.
f. Contingency Measures in the Maintenance Plan
The contingency measures are designed to promptly correct a
violation of the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation. Section 175A of
the CAA requires that a maintenance plan include such contingency
measures as 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 November 2, 2011, and March 28, 2013, submittals, 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
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS (i.e., when the three-year average of the 4th
highest values is equal to or greater than 0.085 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 0.085 ppm.
The secondary trigger will apply where no actual violation of the
1997 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 0.085 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
0.085 ppm or greater at a monitor for which the previous season had a
4th highest value of 0.085 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 1997 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 1997 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 RACT on stationary sources with a potential
to emit less than 100 tons per year in the North Carolina portion of
the Metrolina 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, or as expeditiously as practicable, 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.
Similarly, the tertiary trigger will not be an actual violation of
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. This trigger will be a first alert as to a
potential air quality problem on the horizon. The trigger will be
activated when a monitor in the Area has a 4th highest value of 0.085
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 0.085 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
[[Page 45164]]
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: attainment inventory,
monitoring network, 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.
VI. What is EPA's analysis of North Carolina's proposed NOX
and VOC subarea MVEBs for the North Carolina portion of the bi-state
Charlotte area?
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) 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.
As part of the consultation process on setting MVEBs, the NC DAQ
discussed several options for setting the geographic extent of the
MVEBs with the transportation partners. NC DAQ requested feedback on
these options or other alternatives for consideration from the
transportation partners. NC DAQ received feedback from only two of the
transportation partners. As part of the public comment process, the NC
DAQ provided several options for establishing the MVEBs.
After considering the comments received, the NC DAQ chose to
establish subarea MVEBs based on geographical areas that correspond to
the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and/or Rural Planning
Organization (RPO) boundaries. This option is consistent with the
Cabarrus-Rowan MPO (CRMPO) request and takes into consideration two of
the comments from Mecklenburg-Union MPO (MUMPO). NC DAQ believes that
this option is a good compromise between how MVEBs have been
established in the past, addressing NC DAQ's concern with Mecklenburg
County's on-road mobile source emissions and the preferences of the
transportation partners. Further, NC DAQ believes this approach
provides additional flexibility to the transportation partners while
providing adequate assurance that the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS will be
maintained in the Metrolina nonattainment area. Accordingly, NC DAQ
established MVEBs for the CRMPO (Cabarrus and Rowan Counties), for the
Gaston Urban Area MPO and Lake Norman RPO (Gaston, Iredell, and Lincoln
Counties), and for the MUMPO and Rocky River RPO (Mecklenburg and Union
Counties) geographical areas. Tables 5 through 7 below provide the
subarea NOX and VOC MVEBs in kilograms per day (kg/day),\11\
for 2013 and 2025.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ The conversion to kilograms used the actual emissions
reported in the MOVES model. The conversion was done utilizing the
``CONVERT'' function in an EXCEL spreadsheet.
Table 5--Cabarrus-Rowan MPO MVEB
[kg/day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2013 2025
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX Emissions:
On-Road Mobile Emissions............................ 19,838 9,961
Safety Margin Allocated to MVEB..................... 1,984 1,992
NOX Conformity MVEB................................. 21,822 11,953
VOC Emissions:
On-Road Mobile Emissions............................ 9,863 5,425
Safety Margin Allocated to MVEB..................... 986 1,085
VOC Conformity MVEB................................. 10,849 6,510
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 6--Gaston Urban Area MPO/Lake Norman RPO MVEB
[kg/day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2013 2025
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX Emissions:
On-Road Mobile Emissions............................ 19,957 10,360
Safety Margin Allocated to MVEB..................... 2,211 2,181
NOX Conformity MVEB................................. 22,168 12,541
VOC Emissions:
On-Road Mobile Emissions............................ 10,442 5,815
Safety Margin Allocated to MVEB..................... 1,168 1,232
VOC Conformity MVEB................................. 11,610 7,047
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 7--Mecklenburg-Union MPO/Rocky River RPO MVEB
[kg/day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2013 2025
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX Emissions:
On-Road Mobile Emissions............................ 57,198 30,391
Safety Margin Allocated to MVEB..................... 4,303 5,337
NOX Conformity MVEB................................. 61,501 35,728
VOC Emissions:
On-Road Mobile Emissions............................ 26,250 14,769
Safety Margin Allocated to MVEB..................... 2,002 2,609
VOC Conformity MVEB................................. 28,252 17,378
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As mentioned above, the North Carolina portion of the Area has
chosen to allocate a portion of the available safety margin to the
NOX and VOC MVEBs for 2013 and 2025 (45.20 tpd and 107.38
tpd of the NOX 2013 and 2025 safety margins remain,
respectively, and 19.96 tpd and 27.95 tpd of the VOC 2013 and 2025
safety margins remain, respectively).
[[Page 45165]]
Through this rulemaking, EPA is proposing to approve the subarea
MVEBs for NOX and VOC for 2013 and 2025 for the
North Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area because EPA has
determined that the Area maintains the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS with the
emissions at the levels of the budgets. Once the subarea MVEBs for the
bi-state Charlotte Area are approved or found adequate (whichever is
completed first), they must be used for future conformity
determinations. After thorough review, EPA has 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 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS through 2025.
VII. What is the status of EPA's adequacy determination for the
proposed NOX and VOC Subarea MVEBs for 2013 and 2025 for the
North Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte area?
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, North Carolina's March 28, 2013, maintenance
plan submission includes NOX and VOC subarea MVEBs for the
North Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area for 2013, an
interim year of the maintenance plan, and 2025, the last year of the
maintenance plan. EPA is reviewing the NOX and VOC subarea
MVEBs through the adequacy process. The North Carolina SIP submission,
including the bi-state Charlotte Area NOX and VOC subarea
MVEBs, opened for public comment on EPA's adequacy Web site on February
21, 2013, found at: https://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/currsips.htm. The EPA public comment period on adequacy for the MVEBs
for 2013 and 2025 for the North Carolina portion of the bi-state
Charlotte Area closed on March 25, 2013.
EPA intends to make its determination on the adequacy of the 2013
and 2025 subarea MVEBs for the North Carolina portion of the bi-state
Charlotte Area for transportation conformity purposes in the near
future by completing the adequacy process that was started on February
21, 2013. After EPA finds the 2013 and 2025 MVEBs adequate or approves
them, the new subarea MVEBs for NOX and VOC must be used for
future transportation conformity determinations. For required regional
emissions analysis years that involve 2013 through 2024, the applicable
2013 MVEBs will be used and for 2025 and beyond, the applicable budgets
will be the new 2025 MVEBs established in the maintenance plan, as
defined in section VI of this proposed rulemaking.
VIII. Proposed Action on the Redesignation Request And Maintenance Plan
SIP Revision Including Proposed Approval of the 2013 and 2025
NOX and VOC Subarea MVEBs for the North Carolina Portion of
the Area
As discussed above, section 172(c)(3) of the CAA requires areas to
submit a base year emissions inventory. EPA approved the 2002 base year
emissions inventory for the North Carolina portion of the bi-state
Charlotte Area (as submitted in North Carolina's November 12, 2009,
1997 8-hour ozone attainment demonstration SIP revision) on May 4,
2012. See 77 FR 26441. Emissions contained in the submittal cover the
general source categories of point sources, area sources, on-road
mobile sources, and non-road mobile sources. All emission summaries
were accompanied by source-specific descriptions of emission
calculation procedures and sources of input data. North Carolina's
submittal documents 2002 emissions in the North Carolina portion of the
Area in units of tons per summer day. Table 6, below, provides a
summary of the 2002 emissions of NOX and VOC for the North
Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area.
Table 6--North Carolina Portion of the Bi-state Charlotte Area 2002 Emissions for NOX and VOC
[Tons per summer day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Area Non-road Mobile
County -----------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX VOC NOX VOC NOX VOC NOX VOC
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cabarrus................................ 2.6 2.2 0.8 6.0 5.4 2.7 17.2 21.5
Gaston.................................. 34.8 2.5 1.3 8.9 4.9 2.9 20.0 13.5
Iredell (partial) *..................... 8.5 0.9 0.3 1.9 1.4 0.9 5.6 5.1
Lincoln................................. 0.3 2.1 0.5 3.1 1.9 1.3 6.1 7.1
Mecklenburg............................. 2.1 5.7 7.0 29.4 32.1 24.1 78.7 68.0
Rowan................................... 11.0 6.3 0.8 5.6 4.1 2.3 19.7 14.8
Union................................... 0.2 1.0 1.0 6.4 7.7 4.7 11.3 13.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\*\ Only part of Iredell County is in the nonattainment area.
[[Page 45166]]
IX. What is the effect of EPA's proposed actions?
EPA's proposed actions establish the basis upon which EPA may take
final action on the issues being proposed for approval today. Approval
of North Carolina's redesignation request would change the legal
designation of Cabarrus, Gaston, Iredell, Lincoln, Mecklenburg, Rowan
and Union Counties in their entireties, and a portion of Iredell County
(Davidson and Coddle Creek Townships) in North Carolina, as found at 40
CFR part 81, from nonattainment to attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. Approval of North Carolina's request would also incorporate a
plan for maintaining the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the North Carolina
portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area through 2025 into the SIP. This
maintenance plan includes contingency measures to remedy any future
violations of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and procedures for evaluation
of potential violations. The maintenance plan also establishes
NOX and VOC subarea MVEBs for 2013 and 2025 for the North
Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area. The subarea MVEBs are
listed in Tables 5 through 7 in Section VI. Additionally, EPA is
notifying the public of the status of EPA's adequacy determination for
the newly-established NOX and VOC subarea MVEBs for 2013 and
2025 for the North Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area.
X. Proposed Actions on the Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan
SIP Revisions Including Approval of the NOX and VOC Subarea
MVEBs for 2013 and 2025 for the North Carolina Portion of the Bi-State
Charlotte Area
EPA previously determined that the entire bi-state Charlotte Area
was attaining the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS on November 15, 2011, at 76
FR 70656. EPA is now taking two separate but related actions regarding
the redesignation and maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for
the North Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area. Today's
notice of proposed rulemaking is in response to North Carolina's
November 2, 2011, SIP revision (as supplemented by a March 28, 2013,
SIP revision).
EPA is proposing to determine, based on complete, quality-assured,
and certified monitoring data for the 2008-2010 monitoring period that
the entire bi-state Charlotte Area is attaining the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. Further, based on NC DAQ's November 2, 2011, SIP revision (as
supplemented by a March 28, 2012, SIP revision), EPA is proposing to
determine that the North Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte
Area has met the criteria under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) for
redesignation from nonattainment to attainment for the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. On this basis, EPA is proposing to approve North
Carolina's redesignation request for the North Carolina portion of the
bi-state Charlotte Area.
EPA is also proposing to approve the maintenance plan for the North
Carolina portion of the Area, including the NOX and VOC
subarea MVEBs for 2013 and 2025, into the North Carolina SIP (under CAA
section 175A). The maintenance plan demonstrates that the Area will
continue to maintain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and that 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
2013 and 2025 in accordance with 40 CFR 93.118(f)(1). Within 24 months
from the effective 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).
If finalized, approval of the redesignation request would change
the official designation of Cabarrus, Gaston, Iredell, Lincoln,
Mecklenburg, Rowan and Union Counties in their entireties, and a
portion of Iredell County (Davidson and Coddle Creek Townships) in
North Carolina, as found at 40 CFR part 81, from nonattainment to
attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
XI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
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. 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 approve state law as meeting
Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law. For this reason, these proposed actions:
Are not ``significant regulatory action[s]'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
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 significant regulatory actions subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
are not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
do not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
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
40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
[[Page 45167]]
40 CFR Part 81
Environmental protection, Air pollution control.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: July 12, 2013.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2013-17834 Filed 7-25-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
