Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation of Areas; North Carolina; Redesignation of the Charlotte-Rock Hill, 2008 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area to Attainment, 44873-44882 [2015-18345]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
44873
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 144 / Tuesday, July 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
EPA-APPROVED IOWA REGULATIONS
Iowa citation
State effective
date
Title
EPA approval date
Explanation
Iowa Department of Natural Resources Environmental Protection Commission [567]
*
*
Chapter 10 ..........................
*
*
*
*
Linn County Air Quality
Ordinance, Chapter
10.
*
*
*
*
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[EPA–R04–OAR–2015–0275; FRL–9931–28–
Region 4]
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans and Designation
of Areas; North Carolina;
Redesignation of the Charlotte-Rock
Hill, 2008 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment
Area to Attainment
Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is taking three separate
final actions related to a state
implementation plan (SIP) revision
SUMMARY:
18:34 Jul 27, 2015
1/30/15
*
[FR Doc. 2015–18346 Filed 7–27–15; 8:45 am]
VerDate Sep<11>2014
*
Linn County
Jkt 235001
*
7/28/15 and [Insert
Federal Register citation].
*
Frm 00045
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
*
The following definitions are not SIP-approved
in Chapter 10.2; Anaerobic lagoon, Biomass, Chemical processing plants (ethanol
production facilities that produce ethanol by
natural fermentation included in NAICS
code 325193 or 312140 are not included in
this definition); Federally Enforceable;
Greenhouse gases; Maximum Achievable
Control Technology (MACT); MACT floor.
The following sections are not SIP approved: 10.4(1), Title V Permits; 10.5(9)‘‘b’’
Locally Required Permits; Exemptions from
the Authorization to Install Permit to Operate Requirements; 10.5(9) ‘‘ll’’, Exemption
for production painting, adhesive or coating
units; 10.8(2)‘‘b’’ Emissions From FuelBurning Equipment; Emission Limitation;
10.8(3) Emissions From Fuel-Burning
Equipment; Exemptions for Residential
Heaters Burning Solid Fuels; 10.8(4) Emissions from Fuel-Burning Equipment; Nuisance Conditions for Fuel Burning Equipment; 10.9(2), NSPS; 10.9(3), Emission
Standards for HAPs; 10.9(4), Emission
Standards for HAPs for Source Categories;
10.10(4) Variance from rules; 10.11, Emission of Objectionable Odors; 10.15,
Variances, 10.17(13) Continuous Emissions
Monitoring from Acid Rain Program, and
10.24, Penalty.
*
submitted by the State of North
Carolina, through the North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, Department of Air Quality
(NC DAQ), on April 16, 2015. These
final actions are for the North Carolina
portion of the bi-state Charlotte-Rock
Hill, North Carolina-South Carolina
2008 8-hour ozone nonattainment area
(hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘bi-state
Charlotte Area’’ or ‘‘Area’’). The bi-state
Charlotte Area consists of Mecklenburg
County in its entirety and portions of
Cabarrus, Gaston, Iredell, Lincoln,
Rowan and Union Counties, North
Carolina; and a portion of York County,
South Carolina. Regarding South
Carolina’s request to redesignate the
South Carolina portion of the Area and
its maintenance plan for the 2008 8hour ozone NAAQS, EPA will address
this in a separate action. In the three
actions for the North Carolina bi-state
Charlotte Area, EPA determines that the
bi-state Charlotte Area is attaining the
2008 8-hour ozone National Ambient
PO 00000
*
*
*
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS);
approves and incorporates the State’s
plan for maintaining attainment of the
2008 8-hour ozone standard in the Area,
including the 2014 and 2026 sub-area
motor vehicle emission budgets
(MVEBs) for nitrogen oxides (NOX) and
volatile organic compounds (VOC) for
the North Carolina portion of this Area
into the SIP; and redesignates the North
Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte
Area to attainment for the 2008 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. Additionally, EPA finds
the 2014 and 2026 sub-area MVEBs for
the North Carolina portion of the bistate Charlotte Area adequate for the
purposes of transportation conformity.
DATES: This rule will be effective August
27, 2015.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA–R04–OAR–
2015–0275. All documents in the docket
are listed on the www.regulations.gov
Web site. Although listed in the index,
some information may not be publicly
E:\FR\FM\28JYR1.SGM
28JYR1
44874
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 144 / Tuesday, July 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
available, i.e., Confidential Business
Information 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 through
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the Air Regulatory Management Section
(formerly the Regulatory Development
Section), Air Planning and
Implementation Branch (formerly 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. 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:
Sean Lakeman of the Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and
Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides
and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Mr.
Lakeman may be reached by phone at
(404) 562–9043 or via electronic mail at
lakeman.sean@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
I. Background for Final Actions
On May 21, 2012, EPA designated
areas as unclassifiable/attainment or
nonattainment for the 2008 8-hour
ozone NAAQS that was promulgated on
March 27, 2008. See 77 FR 30088. The
bi-state Charlotte Area was designated
as nonattainment for the 2008 8-hour
ozone NAAQS and classified as a
marginal nonattainment area. On April
16, 2015, NC DAQ requested that EPA
redesignate the North Carolina portion
of the Area to attainment for the 2008
8-hour ozone NAAQS and submitted a
SIP revision containing the State’s plan
for maintaining attainment of the 2008
8-hour ozone standard in the Area,
including the 2014 and 2026 MVEBs for
NOX and VOC for the North Carolina
portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area. In
a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR)
published on May 21, 2015, EPA
proposed to determine that the bi-state
Charlotte Area is attaining the 2008 8hour ozone NAAQS; to approve and
incorporate into the North Carolina SIP
the State’s plan for maintaining
attainment of the 2008 8-hour ozone
standard in the Area, including the 2014
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:34 Jul 27, 2015
Jkt 235001
and 2026 MVEBs for NOX and VOC for
the North Carolina potion of the bi-state
Charlotte Area; and to redesignate the
North Carolina portion of the Area to
attainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. See 80 FR 29250. In that
document, EPA also notified the public
of the status of the Agency’s adequacy
determination for the subarea NOX and
VOC MVEBs for the North Carolina
portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area.
The details of North Carolina’s
submittal and the rationale for EPA’s
actions are further explained in the
NPR. See 80 FR 29250 (May 21, 2015).
II. EPA’s Responses to Comments
EPA received two sets of comments
on its May 21, 2015, proposed
rulemaking actions. Specifically, EPA
received adverse comments from the
Sierra Club (‘‘Commenter’’) and
comments supporting the proposed
actions from one member of the general
public.1 Full sets of these comments are
provided in the docket for this final
action. See Docket number EPA–R04–
OAR–2015–0275. A summary of the
adverse comments and EPA’s responses
are provided below.
Comment 1: The Commenter asserts
that North Carolina experienced
‘‘abnormally cool weather’’ during the
summers of 2013 and 2014 ‘‘that
reduced the likelihood of ozone
formation’’ and that the design values
for the Area would have exceeded the
2008 8-hour ozone standard ‘‘but for the
uncharacteristically cool summers in
2013 and 2014.’’ Therefore, the
Commenter believes that EPA ‘‘should
decline to issue the requested
attainment determination for the Area.’’
Response 1: EPA disagrees with the
Commenter’s position that weather
should impact EPA’s determination that
the area has attained the NAAQS
pursuant to CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(i).
That factual determination is based
solely on air quality monitoring data
and on the Agency’s evaluation of that
data’s compliance with 40 CFR part 50,
appendix P. Therefore, weather
conditions, including any alleged
resulting changes in energy demand, are
irrelevant in determining whether an
area is factually attaining a NAAQS.
Under EPA regulations at 40 CFR part
50, the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS is
determined by calculating the three-year
average of the annual fourth-highest
daily maximum 8-hour average ozone
1 The supporting comments state that the 2012–
2014 three-year average ‘‘support[s] attainment’’
and that the ‘‘[p]rojected NOX shows decreases in
all categories over the next decade, so even if the
predicted large projected decreases in on-road NOX
are not met the area should still see an overall
decrease in ozone levels.’’
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
concentrations at an ozone monitor, also
known as a monitor’s design value. See
40 CFR part 50, appendix P. When the
design value is less than or equal to
0.075 parts per million (ppm) at each
monitor within the area, then the area
is attaining the NAAQS. The data
completeness requirement for
evaluating monitoring data for NAAQS
attainment is met at each monitor when
the average percent of days with valid
ambient monitoring data is greater than
or equal to 90 percent and no single year
has less than 75 percent data
completeness as defined in appendix P
of 40 CFR part 50. Monitoring data must
also be collected and quality-assured in
accordance with 40 CFR part 58 and
recorded in the EPA’s Air Quality
System (AQS).
EPA’s analysis of monitoring data in
the bi-state Charlotte Area supports its
determination under section
107(d)(3)(E)(i) that the Area has attained
the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The
design values for each monitor in the
Area for the years 2012–2014 are less
than or equal to 0.075 ppm, and the data
from these monitors during this time
period meet the data quality and
completeness requirements and are
recorded in AQS. Therefore, the bi-state
Charlotte Area has attained the 2008 8hour ozone NAAQS in accordance with
40 CFR part 50, appendix P
requirements.
Comment 2: The Commenter believes
that EPA should disapprove North
Carolina’s redesignation request because
‘‘neither EPA nor DAQ has
demonstrated that the recording of a
design value below 75 ppb [parts per
billion] for the years 2012–2014 is ‘due
to permanent and enforceable
reductions’ ’’ as required by CAA
section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii). According to
the Commenter, EPA and NC DAQ
cannot make this demonstration because
‘‘but for the uncharacteristically cool
summers in 2013 and 2014, a design
value above 75 ppb would have been
recorded.’’ The Commenter also
contends that the ‘‘uncharacteristically
cool summers in 2013 and 2014’’
resulted in ‘‘unusually low monthly
total consumption of electric power’’
and ‘‘starkly lower capacity factors’’
from Duke Energy’s GG Allen and
Marshall power plants during those
summers and notes that ‘‘operation of
these plants significantly impacts total
NOX emissions and, thus, overall ozone
levels.’’ 2 Despite the alleged decrease in
2 The GG Allen plant is located in the portion of
Gaston County that is included in the
nonattainment area. The Marshall plant is located
in Catawba County and is not located within the
nonattainment area. During the nonattainment
designation in 2012, sources in Catawba County
E:\FR\FM\28JYR1.SGM
28JYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 144 / Tuesday, July 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
the capacity factors at these two EGUs,
the Commenter states that ‘‘the plants
still tend to run at a significantly higher
capacity factor on peak ozone days.’’
Response 2: Weather effects are not
controllable, and weather is just one of
the parameters that allow for ozone
formation. EPA does not disagree with
the Commenter that ozone season
temperatures and precipitation are two
readily available parameters that can be
used to evaluate the potential weather
impacts on ozone concentrations. Ozone
is more readily formed on warm, sunny
days when the air is stagnant.
Conversely, ozone production is
generally more limited when it is
cloudy, cool, rainy, or windy.3
However, although EPA agrees that the
Area experienced cooler and wetter
weather during some of the relevant
time period, EPA disagrees with the
Commenter that the improvement in air
quality in the bi-state Charlotte Area
was solely the result of ‘‘aberrant
weather.’’ EPA has examined the
weather data presented by the
Commenter, and has determined, after
conducting its own analysis of the
meteorological conditions and the
emission reductions occurring during
the relevant time period, that the
improvement in air quality in the Area
was due to those emissions reductions
in accordance with CAA section
107(d)(3)(E)(iii).
As noted above, Federal regulations
require EPA to use a three-year average
to determine attainment of the 2008 8hour ozone NAAQS. The averaging of
values over three years serves to account
for some variation in meteorology from
year to year. While EPA agrees that 2013
was cooler than the long-term average
temperature and may have been less
conducive to the formation of ozone, the
Agency also notes that the weather
conditions in the 2012 ozone season (a
season included in the three-year
average forming the basis for the
attainment determination) were warmer
than the long-term average and were
more conducive to ozone formation. See
Table 1, below.4 Furthermore,
temperatures in the summer of 2014 are
close to the long-term average
temperatures. Given the higher than
long-term average 2012 temperatures
and the near normal 5 temperatures in
2014, EPA does not agree with the
Commenter’s conclusion that
meteorological conditions during the
relevant time period were so unusual or
abnormal such that those conditions
44875
alone ‘‘provide sufficient justification
for EPA to reject DAQ’s request for the
redesignation of the Area from
nonattainment to attainment.’’ To the
contrary, the certified data show that the
Area attained the 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS from 2012 to 2014, a time
period with varying meteorological
conditions. Preliminary monitoring data
from 2015 also indicates that the bi-state
Charlotte Area continues to attain the
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.6
Table 1 provides temperature and
precipitation data for the bi-state
Charlotte Area for the ozone seasons
(May 1 –September 30) from 2010–2014
obtained from the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration’s National
Centers for Environmental Information
(NOAA NCEI).7 Specifically, Table 1
provides overall average and average
maximum ozone season temperatures
and total ozone season precipitation;
deviation from the 74-year average
ozone season temperature and
precipitation (termed the ‘‘anomaly’’);
and the rank of the given year on the 74year (1940–2014) recorded history list.
A rank of 74 is given to the hottest or
wettest year.
TABLE 1—CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA TEMPERATURE AND PRECIPITATION OZONE SEASON (MAY–SEPTEMBER) DATA 8
Average
May-September
temperature
[degrees F]
(anomaly from the
long-term average
[74.7 degrees F])
Year
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
Rank [since 1940,
scale of 1–74]
Average maximum
May-September
temperature
[degrees F]
(anomaly from the
long-term average
[84.9 degrees F])
Rank [since 1940,
scale of 1–74]
Precipitation
[inches]
(anomaly from the
long-term average
[18.17 inches])
Rank [since 1940,
scale of 1–74]
78.0 (+3.3)
76.2 (+1.5)
75.3 (+0.6)
73.9 (¥0.8)
74.5 (¥0.2)
73
64
52
21
32
88.8 (+3.9)
87.3 (+2.4)
86.3 (+1.4)
83.3 (¥1.6)
84.5 (¥0.4)
73
67
54
12
32
17.67 (¥0.5)
22.1 (+3.93)
18.87 (+0.7)
22.63 (+4.46)
19.01 (+0.84)
36
58
44
61
46
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
The data in Table 1 show that both
average temperature and precipitation
varied significantly from 2010–2014.
The rank and anomaly data in Table 1
show that average ozone season
temperatures and precipitation were
slightly above normal for the year 2012,
temperatures were below normal and
precipitation was above normal in 2013,
and temperatures were near normal and
precipitation slightly above normal in
2014. The year 2012 was one of the
hottest in the recent past across the
Southeast. In fact, a record-setting heat
wave occurred in late June through early
July 2012, which resulted in high ozone
levels measured across the Southeast.
Based upon the meteorology analysis,
2012 was hotter, 2013 was cooler, and
2014 was near normal when compared
to the long-term average. Therefore, the
2012–2014 period does not appear to be
abnormally conducive to low ozone
formation and does not undermine
EPA’s analysis that the attainment in the
bi-state Charlotte Area was due to
permanent and enforceable reductions.
EPA also evaluated preliminary ozone
data and meteorology for May 2015,
which is the beginning of the ozone
season in the Area. The Commenter
provided data to show that the average
maximum temperature in May 2015 is
were not found to contribute to violations of the
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the bi-state Charlotte
Area. See https://www.epa.gov/ozonedesignations/
2008standards/documents/R4_Charlotte_TSD_
Final.pdf.
3 https://www.epa.gov/airtrends/weather.html.
4 EPA’s use of the phrase ‘‘long-term average’’
refers to the 74-year averages identified in Table 1.
5 EPA’s analysis is based on weather data from the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(see below). NOAA defines ‘‘normal’’ as the ‘‘longterm average value of a meteorological element for
a certain area. For example, ‘temperatures are
normal for this time of year[.]’ Usually averaged
over 30 years.’’ See https://www.erh.noaa.gov/er/
box/glossary.htm.
6 This preliminary data is available at EPA’s air
data Web site: https://aqsdr1.epa.gov/aqsweb/
aqstmp/airdata/download_files.html#Daily. The list
of monitors in the bi-state Charlotte Area is
available under the Designated Area field in Table
5 of the Ozone detailed information file at https://
www.epa.gov/airtrends/values.html.
7 Ozone is monitored from April 1 through
October 31 in the bi-state Charlotte Area.
8 EPA obtained this weather data from the NOAA
NCEI Web site at https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:34 Jul 27, 2015
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\28JYR1.SGM
28JYR1
44876
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 144 / Tuesday, July 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
higher than the average maximum May
temperature over the previous ten years.
EPA agrees that the average maximum
temperature in May 2015 was above
average; in fact, the average maximum
temperature was 84 degrees Fahrenheit,
which is 4.2 degrees above average and
it ranks 67 out of 75 years of recorded
data in the bi-state Charlotte Area.
However, even with this abnormally
warm month, the May 2015 preliminary
ozone data indicates that no
exceedances of the 75 ppb ozone
standard occurred and that the highest
8-hour average was 72 ppb. This data
also indicates that although
meteorological conditions were
conducive to ozone formation,
emissions in the Area were low enough
not to support the formation of ozone
above a level that would exceed the
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
Additionally, preliminary ozone season
data available through June 28, 2015,
indicate that the 4th Highest Maximum
Daily 8-hour Average value for the bistate Charlotte area monitors from
March 1, 2015 through June 28, 2015 is
72 ppb.9
The Commenter’s focus on
meteorological conditions is
inconsistent with EPA’s analysis of the
permanent and enforceable emission
reductions that did occur in the area
during the relevant time period.
Consistent with EPA’s longstanding
practice and policy, a comparison of
nonattainment period emissions with
attainment period emissions is a
relevant in demonstrating permanent
and enforceable emissions reductions.
EPA evaluated the ozone precursor
emissions data in the Area and found
that there were significant reductions in
these emissions in multiple source
categories from 2011 (a nonattainment
year) to 2014 (an attainment year). The
emissions data show that from 2011 to
2014, non-road NOX and VOC emissions
decreased, point source NOX emissions
decreased, and on-road mobile NOX and
VOC emissions have decreased
substantially. During this time period,
mobile source NOX emissions decreased
by approximately 54.5 tons per summer
day (tpsd) (equating to 79 percent of the
total NOX emissions reductions) and
mobile source VOC emissions decreased
by approximately 26.5 tpsd (equating to
100 percent of the total VOC emissions
reductions). It is not necessary for every
change in emissions between the
nonattainment year and the attainment
year to be permanent and enforceable.
Rather, the CAA requires that
improvement in air quality necessary for
the area to attain the relevant NAAQS
must be reasonably attributable to
permanent and enforceable emission
reductions in emissions.
TABLE 2—NOX EMISSIONS FOR THE CHARLOTTE 2008 OZONE NAAQS NONATTAINMENT AREA
[Tons per summer day]
Year
Point source
2011 .....................................................................................
2014 .....................................................................................
Area source
47.17
32.38
On-road
6.68
11.40
112.13
60.15
Non-road
28.75
26.26
Total
194.73
130.18
TABLE 3—VOC EMISSIONS FOR THE CHARLOTTE 2008 OZONE NAAQS NONATTAINMENT AREA
[Tons per summer day]
Year
Point source
2011 .....................................................................................
2014 .....................................................................................
Area source
11.37
12.03
46.69
47.88
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
The emissions reductions identified
in Tables 2 and 3, above, are attributable
to numerous measures implemented
during this period, including the
permanent and enforceable mobile
source measures discussed in the NPR
such as the Tier 2 vehicle and fuel
standards, the large non-road diesel
engines rule,10 heavy-duty gasoline and
diesel highway vehicle standards,11
medium and heavy duty vehicle fuel
consumption and GHG standards,12
non-road spark-ignitions and
recreational standards,13 and the
national program for GHG emissions
and fuel economy standards. These
mobile source measures have resulted
in, and continue to result in, large
reductions in NOX emissions over time
due to fleet turnover (i.e., the
replacement of older vehicles that
predate the standards with newer
vehicles that meet the standards). For
example, implementation of the Tier 2
standards began in 2004, and as newer,
cleaner cars enter the national fleet,
these standards continue to significantly
reduce NOX emissions. EPA expects that
these standards will reduce NOX
emissions from vehicles by
approximately 74 percent by 2030,
translating to nearly 3 million tons
9 This preliminary data is available at EPA’s air
data Web site: https://aqsdr1.epa.gov/aqsweb/
aqstmp/airdata/download_files.html#Daily. The list
of monitors in the bi-state Charlotte Area is
available under the Designated Area field in Table
5 of the Ozone detailed information file at https://
www.epa.gov/airtrends/values.html.
10 EPA estimated that compliance with this rule
will cut NOX emissions from non-road diesel
engines by up to 90 percent nationwide.
11 Implementation of this rule is expected to
achieve a 95 percent reduction in NOX emissions
from diesel trucks and buses.
12 When fully implemented in 2018, this rule is
expected to reduce NOX emissions from the covered
vehicles by 20 percent.
13 When fully implemented, the standards will
result in an 80 percent reduction in NOX by 2020.
14 EPA, Regulatory Announcement, EPA420–F–
99–051 (December 1999), available at: https://
www.epa.gov/tier2/documents/f99051.pdf.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:34 Jul 27, 2015
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
On-road
55.35
34.32
Non-road
24.4
18.89
Total
137.81
113.12
annually by 2030.14 Implementation of
the heavy-duty gasoline and diesel
highway vehicle standards rule also
began in 2004. EPA projects a 2.6
million ton reduction in NOX emissions
by 2030 when the heavy-duty vehicle
fleet is completely replaced with newer
heavy-duty vehicles that comply with
these emission standards.15
The State calculated the on-road and
non-road mobile source emissions
contained in Tables 2 and 3 using EPAapproved models and procedures that
account for the Federal mobile source
measures identified above, fleet
turnover, and increased population.16 17
15 66
FR 5002, 5012 (January 18, 2001).
Carolina used EPA’s MOVES2014 model
to calculate on-road emissions factors and EPA’s
NONROAD 2008a model to quantify off-road
emissions.
17 North Carolina used the interagency
consultation process required by 40 CFR part 93
(known as the Transportation Conformity Rule)
16 North
E:\FR\FM\28JYR1.SGM
28JYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 144 / Tuesday, July 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Because the model does not include any
additional mobile source measures, the
large reductions in mobile source
emissions quantified in the Area
between 2011 and 2014 are the result of
the permanent and enforceable mobile
source measures listed above and
discussed in the NPR.
Regarding the Commenter’s
discussion of capacity factors at the GG
Allen and Marshall power plants and
cooling degree days, the Commenter
does not attempt to quantify how any
decreases in these parameters translate
to decreases in NOX emissions or ozone
concentrations; therefore, it is unclear
how the changes in capacity factors and
cooling degree days support the
Commenter’s position that EPA cannot
redesignate the bi-state Charlotte Area.
The data in Table 2, above,
demonstrates that the decreases in
mobile source NOX emissions from
2011–2014 are much greater than the
decreases in point-source NOX
emissions.
In addition, EPA does not believe that
the cooling degree and capacity factor
data supports the conclusions reached
by the Commenter. The Commenter
presents data showing cooling degree
days for North Carolina for the past ten
years and concludes that the cooler
summers in 2013 and 2014 have
resulted in a lower demand for air
conditioning and thus a lower demand
for electric power. EPA acknowledges
that the number of cooling degree days
in 2013 and 2014 and the total
consumption of electricity in North
Carolina were lower in 2013 and 2014
than during 2010, 2011, and 2012.
However, the Commenter ignores the
fact that the numbers of cooling degree
days in 2010, 2011, and 2012 were
significantly above average. In fact, the
number of cooling degree days in 2010
ranks the highest in the 120 years of
data available for North Carolina and
2011 ranks the third highest out of those
120 years. In contrast, the number of
cooling degree days in 2013 and 2014
were close to the 120-year average—
2013 is slightly below the average, but
the 2014 cooling degree days are
actually above the long-term 120-year
average. Also, even within the ten years
which requires EPA, the United States Department
of Transportation, metropolitan planning
organizations, state departments of transportation,
and State and local air quality agencies to work
together to develop applicable implementation
plans. The on-road emissions were generated by an
aggregate of the vehicle activity (generated from the
travel demand model) on individual roadways
multiplied by the appropriate emissions factor from
MOVES2014. The assumptions which are included
in the travel demand model, such as population,
were reviewed through the interagency consultation
process.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:34 Jul 27, 2015
Jkt 235001
of data presented by the Commenter, the
number of cooling degree days in 2014
is on par with the number of cooling
degree days in 2006, 2008, and 2009.
EPA therefore does not agree with the
Commenter that the number of cooling
degree days in 2013 and 2014
undermines the Agency’s conclusion
about the causes of the attainment air
quality in the Area.
EPA also disagrees with the
Commenter’s characterization of the
capacity factor and electric power usage
data presented in its comments. For
example, the Commenter provides a
figure showing total consumption of
electric power in North Carolina for
each ozone season for only the last five
years (2010 through 2014) and
concludes that the electric power
consumption in 2013 and 2014 was
‘‘unusually low’’ using this limited time
period as its reference point. However,
as demonstrated by the meteorological
analysis provided in Table 1 of this final
action, 2010, 2011, and 2012 are warmer
than long-term average years. Therefore,
it is not appropriate to conclude that
levels in 2013 and 2014 were
‘‘unusually low’’ without evaluating
consumption data from a larger time
period. EPA also notes that the
Commenter’s conclusion that ozone
season capacity factors in 2012–2014 at
the GG Allen and Marshall power plants
are ‘‘starkly lower than preceding years’’
that ‘‘can be attributed, in part to the
aberrantly mild summer weather and
the resulting decrease in energy
demand’’ ignores the fact that 2012 had
warmer than average summer
temperatures and still had capacity
factors at those same units that were
lower than or comparable to 2014. The
Commenter’s assertion is also based on
the limited 2010–2014 time period that
is not representative of long-term
meteorological conditions. Therefore,
the Commenter has not established a
causal connection between differences
in ozone season meteorological
conditions and capacity factors for these
EGUs.
For the reasons discussed above, EPA
does not agree with the Commenter that
the meteorological data from the
relevant time period undermines its
analysis and conclusion that the
improvement in air quality in the biState Charlotte Area is reasonably
attributable to the permanent and
enforceable emission reductions
identified by the State and EPA.
Comment 3: The Commenter states
that ‘‘as EPA has acknowledged, global
climate change likely will lead to
significantly higher summer
temperatures in the years to come and
hotter summers, in turn, will lead to
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
44877
increased ozone formation.’’ The
Commenter therefore believes that it is
‘‘irrational’’ for EPA to approve the
redesignation request based on data
from ‘‘two outlying uncharacteristically
cool summers’’ that ‘‘Charlotte may not
experience again.’’
Response 3: EPA agrees that climate
change is a serious environmental issue;
however, EPA does not agree that the
redesignation and maintenance plan at
issue are flawed because temperatures
may increase in the future. Given the
potential wide-ranging impacts of
climate change on air quality planning,
EPA is developing climate adaptation
implementation plans to assess the key
vulnerabilities to our programs
(including how climate change might
affect attainment of national ambient air
quality standards) and to identify
priority actions to minimize these
vulnerabilities.
With respect to climate impacts on
future ozone levels, EPA’s Office of Air
and Radiation has identified as a
priority action the need to adjust air
quality modeling tools and guidance as
necessary to account for climate-driven
changes in meteorological conditions
and meteorologically-dependent
emissions. However, EPA has not yet
made those changes. The broad range of
potential future climate outcomes and
variability of projected response to these
outcomes limits EPA’s ability, at this
time, to translate a general expectation
that average ozone levels will increase
with rising temperatures to specific
‘‘actionable’’ SIP policies at any specific
location, including the bi-state Charlotte
Area. Thus, EPA believes that it is
appropriate to rely upon the existing air
quality modeling tools and guidance
and applicable CAA provisions to
ensure that ozone maintenance areas do
not violate the NAAQS (as a result of
climate change or any other cause).
As noted above, EPA is currently
unable to fully account for the potential
impact of climate change on ozone
concentrations in the Area. However,
there is nothing in the record to suggest
that the large emissions reductions of
NOX and VOC projected for the Area
over the next 10 years would be
outpaced by the potential increase in
ozone concentrations caused by climate
change over the same time period.
Comment 4: The Commenter contends
that EPA should not approve the State’s
maintenance plan because ‘‘DAQ
selected 2014 as the base year for the
purpose of its maintenance
demonstration, which year is not
representative of air quality conditions
given aberrant weather, and, thus,
inappropriately skewed the analysis of
future air quality toward an
E:\FR\FM\28JYR1.SGM
28JYR1
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
44878
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 144 / Tuesday, July 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
underestimation of future emissions.’’
According to the Commenter, EPA
should ‘‘require DAQ to reevaluate the
Area’s ability to attain and maintain the
ozone NAAQS using emissions data
from a year (or years) in which summer
weather conditions were more typical.’’
Response 4: As discussed in Response
2, EPA does not agree with the
Commenter’s assertion that the weather
in summer 2014 was ‘‘unusually cool’’
when the conditions from that year are
viewed in comparison to a larger data
set, and therefore does not agree that NC
DAQ selected an inappropriate base
year for a maintenance demonstration.
Furthermore, it is unclear how the
Commenter concludes that EPA should
disapprove the maintenance plan even
if the Agency accepted the Commenter’s
assertion that the weather in 2014 was
‘‘aberrant.’’ The maintenance
demonstration compares base year
emissions to future year emissions. If
total future year emissions are above
total base year emissions, maintenance
is not demonstrated. For some source
categories, future year emissions are
projected using base year emissions;
however, for other source categories,
future year emissions projections are
independent of base year emissions.
Projected emissions for source
categories that rely on base year
emissions will be proportional to base
year emissions in the same degree
regardless of the base year emissions
used. It is therefore more likely that an
area will fail to demonstrate
maintenance using a comparison of total
emissions if the baseline is artificially
low. In addition, while emissions from
some source categories may vary as a
result of weather conditions, the overall
NOX and VOC emissions released from
year to year across source categories is
generally not weather-dependent;
therefore, weather does not play a
determinative role in the base year to
future year emissions comparison.
Comment 5: The Commenter claims
that EPA must disapprove the State’s
maintenance plan because ‘‘it fails to
specify emissions reductions that are
permanent and enforceable. The
proposed plan identifies various state
and Federal requirements that may
apply to the major stationary sources of
air pollution located in and in close
proximity to the Charlotte Area,
however, it fails to present any
assurance that such requirements will
result in any reduction in emissions.’’ In
support, the Commenter references
three requirements—North Carolina’s
Clean Smokestacks Act and EPA’s Clean
Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) and Cross
State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR). As to
these three measures, the Commenter
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:34 Jul 27, 2015
Jkt 235001
states its belief that they are not
permanent and enforceable because they
are cap and trade programs that could
allow for increased NOX emissions at
Duke Energy’s GG Allen and Marshall
power plants. The Commenter further
states that ‘‘DAQ should impose
enforceable limits on NOX emissions
from all EGUs [electricity generating
units] that are based on available and
demonstrated control technology.’’
Response 5: EPA disagrees with the
Commenter. Consistent with EPA
guidance, the State’s maintenance plan
identifies a number of permanent and
enforceable requirements, including
measures that regulate area, on-road,
and off-road sources, and discusses the
emissions reductions associated with
each measure.18 See 80 FR 29250. In
discussing the emissions reductions and
status of these measures, the State has
provided assurance that these
requirements will result in emissions
reductions.19
EPA also disagrees with the
Commenter’s belief that emission
reductions associated with the CSA,
CAIR, and CSAPR are not permanent
and enforceable simply because the
underlying program is an emissions
trading program. Cap-and-trade
programs provide economic incentives
for early reductions in emissions and
encourage sources to install controls
earlier than required for compliance
with future caps on emissions. The
flexibility under a cap-and-trade system
is not about whether to reduce
emissions; rather, it is about how to
reduce them at the lowest possible cost.
Trading programs require total mass
emission reductions by establishing
mandatory caps on total emissions to
permanently reduce the total mass
emissions allowed by sources subject to
the programs, validated through
rigorous continuous emission
monitoring and reporting regimens. The
emission caps and associated controls
are enforced through the associated SIP
rules or federal implementation plans.
Any purchase of allowances and
increase in emissions by one source
necessitates a corresponding sale of
allowances and either reduction in
emissions or use of banked allowances
by another covered source.
Given the regional nature of ozone,
the corresponding NOX emission and/or
allowance reduction in one affected area
will have an air quality benefit that will
compensate, at least in part, for the
impact of any emission increase in
another affected area. EPA disagrees
with any suggestion that only specific
emission limits on units can be
considered ‘‘reductions.’’ In fact, the
information that EPA has evaluated in
order to conclude that the bi-State
Charlotte Area has met the criteria for
redesignation shows that power plant
emissions in both the Area and the
surrounding region have substantially
decreased as a result of cap-and-trade
programs, including CAIR. The facts
contradict the theoretical concerns
raised by the Commenter and show that
the emission trading programs,
combined with other controls, have
improved air quality in the Area.
Moreover, experience has
demonstrated that cap and trade
programs do successfully generate
lasting emission reductions. For
example, the NOX SIP Call and CAIR
have successfully reduced transported
emissions contributing to ozone
nonattainment in areas across the
country. Data collected from long-term
national air quality monitoring networks
demonstrate that these regional cap-andtrade programs have resulted in
substantial achievements in air quality
caused by emission reductions from
power sector sources.20 In 2004, EPA
designated 91 areas in the Eastern half
of the United States as nonattainment
for the 8-hour ozone standard adopted
in 1997, using data from 2001–2003.
Based on data gathered from 2009–2011,
90 of these original Eastern
nonattainment areas show
concentrations below the 1997 ozone
standard.21
Many states have sought and continue
to seek redesignation of their
nonattainment areas relying in part on
the reductions attributable to these capand-trade programs. See, e.g., 76 FR
59600, 59607 (September 27, 2011)
(proposing to redesignate a portion of
the Chicago area for the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS), finalized at 76 FR
76302 (December 7, 2011); and 74 FR
63995 (December 7, 2009)
(redesignation of Great Smoky Mountain
National Park for the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS). The Commenter’s contention
that EPA and North Carolina may not
rely on the substantial emission
reductions that have already occurred
18 See, e.g., Memorandum from John Calcagni,
Director, Air Quality Management Division, to
Regional Air Directors entitled ‘‘Procedures for
Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to
Attainment’’ (September 4, 1992).
19 See Response 2, above, for further discussion
of these permanent and enforceable emissions
reductions.
20 See, e.g., EPA, Progress Report 2011—Clean Air
Interstate Rule, Acid Rain Program, and Former
NOX Budget Trading Program—Environmental and
Health Results Report (March 2013), available at:
https://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/documents/
progressreports/ARPCAIR11_environmental_
health.pdf.
21 Id. at 12.
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\28JYR1.SGM
28JYR1
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 144 / Tuesday, July 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
from these rules is based on a faulty and
rigid interpretation of the CAA would
impose a major obstacle for
nonattainment areas across the country
that have achieved attainment air
quality because of the reductions
required by the rules. This would
unnecessarily undermine a reasonable,
proven, and cost-effective approach to
combating regional pollution problems.
Of the Federally-enforceable rules
relied upon by North Carolina in its
redesignation request, the Commenter
singles out cap-and-trade programs as
insufficiently permanent and
enforceable to meet the requirements for
redesignation. However, as discussed
above, a number of other permanent and
enforceable measures have helped
contribute to the Area’s attainment of
the 2008 8-hour ozone standard and
ensure maintenance of that standard.
There is inherent flexibility in nearly all
of these measures, including Federal
transportation control measures and SIP
emission rate limits, also known as
‘‘command-and-control’’ regulations.
For example, the rules do not and
cannot account for when and where
people drive their cars, nor do they
dictate that consumers in a certain area
invest in newer, lower-emitting cars.
Similarly, emission rate limits limit the
rate of emissions per unit of fuel
consumed, or parts per million of
emissions in the exhaust but do not
regulate throughput or hours of
operation of the regulated sources. It
would be unworkable for EPA to
disqualify a requirement as ‘‘permanent
and enforceable’’ for the purposes of
redesignation simply because the
requirement did not require the exact
same pollutant emission reduction
every hour of every day of every year.
North Carolina relied on a suite of
requirements that, while inherently
allowing for some flexibility, has
collectively served to bring the Area
into, and to maintain, attainment of the
NAAQS.
EPA’s position that cap-and-trade
programs are permanent and
enforceable measures under section
107(d)(3)(E)(iii) was recently upheld by
two Federal appellate courts. In the
most recent decision, the United States
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
rejected Sierra Club’s argument that
EPA improperly relied on emissions
reductions from cap-and-trade programs
such as the NOX SIP Call, CAIR, and
CSAPR in redesignating the CincinnatiHamilton nonattainment area for the
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. Sierra Club v. EPA,
781 F.3d 299 (6th Cir. 2015). This
decision is consistent with the opinion
of the United States Court of Appeals for
the Seventh Circuit in Sierra Club v.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:34 Jul 27, 2015
Jkt 235001
EPA, 774 F.3d 383 (7th Cir. 2014) that
EPA could rely on the NOX SIP Call capand-trade program as a permanent and
enforceable measure in redesignating
the Milwaukee-Racine, Greater Chicago,
and St. Louis (Illinois portion)
nonattainment areas to attainment for
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
EPA also notes that North Carolina’s
maintenance plan provides for
verification of continued attainment by
performing future reviews of triennial
emissions inventories and also for
contingency measures to ensure that the
NAAQS is maintained into the future if
monitored increases in ambient ozone
concentrations occur. See 80 FR 29250.
For this and the above reasons, EPA
disagrees with the Commenter’s
position that the State failed to identify
permanent and enforceable emissions
reductions in its maintenance plan.
Regarding the need for additional
controls at the GG Allen and Marshall
power plants, EPA has concluded that
the Area has attained, and will
maintain, the 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS with the permanent and
enforceable measures identified in the
State’s submission and in EPA’s NPR.
EPA also notes that the Marshall Steam
Plant is not located within the bi-state
Charlotte Area nonattainment boundary,
and is therefore not included in the
emissions comparison portion of the
maintenance demonstration.
Furthermore, continued nonattainment
status for this Area would not require
any further emissions controls for either
power plant under their current
configurations.
Comment 6: The Commenter believes
that redesignating the bi-state Charlotte
Area would ‘‘eliminate needed
additional air quality planning
requirements and jeopardize public
health by delaying permanent
attainment for the area.’’ According to
the Commenter, the Area ‘‘consistently
records higher asthma rates than the
entire state. Moreover, the impacts of
ozone pollution have significant
environmental justice implications as
African Americans carry a
disproportionate asthma burden
compared with whites in North
Carolina.’’ The Commenter therefore
concludes that EPA should not
redesignate the Area and that ‘‘[b]efore
making a final decision on whether or
not to approve DAQ’s redesignation
request, EPA must evaluate the
environmental justice implications of
such action and, if it still determines
that redesignation is justified, must
allow for additional public comment on
any proposed action.’’
Response 6: As noted in EPA’s May
21, 2015 NPR, Executive Order 12898
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
44879
establishes Federal executive policy on
environmental justice. Its main
provision directs Federal agencies, to
the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make
environmental justice part of their
mission by identifying and addressing,
as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or
environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority
populations and low-income
populations in the United States. These
final actions do not relax control
measures on existing sources and
therefore will not cause emissions
increases from those sources. Thus,
these actions will not have an adverse
human health or environmental effect
on any individuals, including minority
or low-income populations. As
discussed above and in EPA’s May 21,
2015 NPR, the Area has attained the
2008 8-hour NAAQS through permanent
and enforceable measures, emissions in
the Area are projected to decline
following the redesignation, and the
maintenance plan demonstrates that the
Area will continue to meet the NAAQS
for the next ten years and includes
contingency measures to quickly
address any NAAQS violations. While
the Commenter has expressed a general
concern that this action will ‘‘eliminate
needed additional air quality planning
requirements and jeopardize public
health by delaying permanent
attainment,’’ the Commenter has not
identified any specific requirements of
concern or any specific information on
the potential emissions impact that
would arise if those requirements were
not in place. Such future emission
impacts are speculative, and to the
extent that emissions in fact increase in
the future to levels that would impact
NAAQS maintenance—which EPA does
not think will happen—the Agency
could take future action to address
actual emissions in the Area.
III. What are the effects of these
actions?
Approval of North Carolina’s
redesignation request changes the legal
designation of Mecklenburg County in
its entirety and portions of Cabarrus,
Gaston, Iredell, Lincoln, Rowan and
Union Counties in the North Carolina
portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area,
found at 40 CFR 81.334, from
nonattainment to attainment for the
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Approval of
North Carolina’s associated SIP revision
also incorporates a plan for maintaining
the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the
bi-state Charlotte Area through 2026.
The maintenance plan establishes NOX
and VOC MVEBs for 2014 and 2026 for
E:\FR\FM\28JYR1.SGM
28JYR1
44880
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 144 / Tuesday, July 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
the North Carolina portion of the bistate Charlotte Area and includes
contingency measures to remedy any
future violations of the 2008 8-hour
ozone NAAQS and procedures for
evaluation of potential violations. The
sub-area MVEBs for the North Carolina
portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area
along with the allocations from the
safety margin are provided in the tables
below.22
TABLE 4—CABARRUS ROWAN METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION SUB-AREA MVEBS
[kg/day]
2014
2026
NOX
Base Emissions ...............................................................................................
Safety Margin Allocated to MVEB ...................................................................
Conformity MVEB ............................................................................................
VOC
11,814
........................
11,814
7,173
........................
7,173
NOX
VOC
3,124
625
3,749
3,135
627
3,762
TABLE 5—GASTON-CLEVELAND-LINCOLN METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION SUB-AREA MVEBS
[kg/day]
2014
2026
NOX
Base Emissions ...............................................................................................
Safety Margin Allocated to MVEB ...................................................................
Conformity MVEB ............................................................................................
VOC
10,079
........................
10,079
5,916
........................
5,916
NOX
VOC
2,482
510
2,992
2,278
470
2,748
TABLE 6—CHARLOTTE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ORGANIZATION—ROCKY RIVER RURAL PLANNING
ORGANIZATION SUB-AREA MVEBS
[kg/day]
2014
2026
NOX
Base Emissions ...............................................................................................
Safety Margin Allocated to MVEB ...................................................................
Conformity MVEB ............................................................................................
32,679
........................
32,679
18,038
........................
18,038
NOX
8,426
1,515
9,941
VOC
8,189
1,472
9,661
EPA is taking three separate final
actions regarding the bi-state Charlotte
Area’s redesignation to attainment and
maintenance of the 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. First, EPA is determining that
the bi-state Charlotte Area is attaining
the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS based on
complete, quality-assured and certified
monitoring data for the 2012–2014
monitoring period.
Second, EPA is approving and
incorporating the maintenance plan for
the bi-state Charlotte Area, including
the sub-area NOX and VOC MVEBs for
2014 and 2026, into the North Carolina
SIP. The maintenance plan
demonstrates that the Area will
continue to maintain the 2008 8-hour
ozone NAAQS, and the sub-area budgets
meet all of the adequacy criteria
contained in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) and
(5).
Third, EPA is determining that North
Carolina has met the criteria under CAA
section 107(d)(3)(E) for the North
Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte
Area for redesignation from
nonattainment to attainment for the
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. On this
basis, EPA is approving North Carolina’s
redesignation request for the 2008 8hour ozone NAAQS for the North
Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte
Area. As mentioned above, approval of
the redesignation request changes the
official designation of Mecklenburg
County in its entirety and portions of
Cabarrus, Gaston, Iredell, Lincoln,
Rowan and Union Counties in the North
Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte
Area for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS
from nonattainment to attainment, as
found at 40 CFR part 81.
EPA is also notifying the public that
EPA finds the newly-established subarea NOX and VOC MVEBs for the bistate Charlotte Area adequate for the
purpose of transportation conformity.
Within 24 months from this final rule,
the transportation partners will need to
demonstrate conformity to the new subarea NOX and VOC MVEBs pursuant to
40 CFR 93.104(e).
22 North Carolina has chosen to allocate a portion
of the available safety margin to the NOX and VOC
MVEBs for 2026. NC DAQ has allocated 2.93 tpd
(2650 kg/day) to the 2026 NOX MVEB and 2.83 tpd
(2,569 kg/day) to the 2026 VOC MVEB. After
allocation of the available safety margin, the
remaining safety margin was calculated as 59.72 tpd
for NOX and 10.15 tpd for VOC.
IV. Final Actions
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
VOC
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:34 Jul 27, 2015
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
V. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the CAA, redesignation of an
area to attainment and the
accompanying approval of the
maintenance plan under CAA section
107(d)(3)(E) are actions that affect the
status of geographical area and do not
impose any additional regulatory
requirements on sources beyond those
required by state law. A redesignation to
attainment does not in and of itself
impose any new requirements, but
rather results in the application of
requirements contained in the CAA for
areas that have been redesignated to
attainment. Moreover, the Administrator
is required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the
Act and applicable Federal regulations.
See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions,
E:\FR\FM\28JYR1.SGM
28JYR1
44881
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 144 / Tuesday, July 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. Accordingly, these actions
merely approve state law as meeting
Federal requirements and do not impose
additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state or Federal law. For
these reasons, these actions:
• Are not a significant regulatory
actions subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011);
• Do not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Are certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• Do not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Do not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Are not economically significant
regulatory actions based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Are not a significant regulatory
action subject to Executive Order 13211
(66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Are not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Will not have disproportionate
human health or environmental effects
under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR
7629, February 16, 1994).
The SIP is not approved to apply on
any Indian reservation land or in any
other area where EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has
jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal
implications as specified by Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000), nor will it impose substantial
direct costs on tribal governments or
preempt tribal law.
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report, which includes a
copy of the rule, to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. EPA will submit a
report containing this action and other
required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication of the rule in
the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it
is published in the Federal Register.
This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA,
petitions for judicial review of this
action must be filed in the United States
Court of Appeals for the appropriate
circuit by September 28, 2015. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the
Administrator of this final rule does not
affect the finality of this action for the
purposes of judicial review nor does it
extend the time within which a petition
for judicial review may be filed, and
shall not postpone the effectiveness of
such rule or action. This action may not
be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. See section
307(b)(2).
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.
40 CFR Part 81
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control.
Dated: July 17, 2015.
Heather McTeer Toney,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
40 CFR parts 52 and 81 are amended
as follows:
PART 52—APPROVAL AND
PROMULGATION OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart II—North Carolina
2. In § 52.1770, the table in paragraph
(e) is amended by adding a new entry
‘‘2008 8-hour ozone Maintenance Plan
for the North Carolina portion of the bistate Charlotte Area’’ at the end of the
table to read as follows:
■
§ 52.1770
*
Identification of plan.
*
*
(e) * * *
*
*
EPA-APPROVED NORTH CAROLINA NON-REGULATORY PROVISIONS
State effective
date
EPA approval
date
*
*
2008 8-hour ozone Maintenance Plan for
the North Carolina portion of the bistate Charlotte Area.
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Provision
*
4/16/2015
*
7/28/2015
PART 81—DESIGNATION OF AREAS
FOR AIR QUALITY PLANNING
PURPOSES
3. The authority citation for part 81
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:34 Jul 27, 2015
Jkt 235001
Federal Register citation
*
[insert Federal Register citation]
4. In § 81.334, the table entitled
‘‘North Carolina—2008 8-Hour Ozone
NAAQS (Primary and secondary)’’ is
amended by revising the entries for
‘‘Charlotte-Rock Hill, NC–SC,’’
‘‘Cabarrus County (part),’’ ‘‘Gaston
County (part),’’ ‘‘Iredell County (part),’’
■
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Explanation
*
*
‘‘Lincoln County (part),’’ ‘‘Mecklenburg
County,’’ ‘‘Rowan County (part),’’ and
‘‘Union County (part)’’ to read as
follows:
§ 81.334
*
E:\FR\FM\28JYR1.SGM
*
North Carolina.
*
28JYR1
*
*
44882
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 144 / Tuesday, July 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
NORTH CAROLINA—2008 8-HOUR OZONE NAAQS
[Primary and secondary]
Designation
Classification
Designated area
Date 1
Charlotte-Rock Hill, NC–SC 2 .......................................
Date 1
Type
This action is effective 7/
28/2015.
Type
Attainment
Cabarrus County (part) .................................................
Central Cabarrus Township, Concord Township,
Georgeville Township, Harrisburg Township,
Kannapolis Township, Midland Township, Mount
Pleasant Township, New Gilead Township, Odell
Township, Poplar Tent Township, Rimertown Township
Gaston County (part)
Crowders Mountain Township, Dallas Township, Gastonia Township, Riverbend Township, South Point
Township
Iredell County (part)
Davidson Township, Coddle Creek Township
Lincoln County (part)
Catawba Springs Township, Ironton Township,
Lincolnton Township
Mecklenburg County
Rowan County (part)
Atwell Township, China Grove Township, Franklin
Township, Gold Hill Township, Litaker Township,
Locke Township, Providence Township, Salisbury
Township, Steele Township, Unity Township
Union County (part)
Goose Creek Township, Marshville Township, Monroe
Township, Sandy Ridge Township, Vance Township
*
1 This
*
*
*
*
*
*
date is July 20, 2012, unless otherwise noted.
Indian country located in each area, unless otherwise noted.
2 Excludes
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2015–18345 Filed 7–27–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 97
[FRL–9931–40–OAR]
Allocations of Cross-State Air
Pollution Rule Allowances From New
Unit Set-Asides for the 2015
Compliance Year
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule; notice of data
availability (NODA).
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is providing notice of
emission allowance allocations to
certain units under the new unit setaside (NUSA) provisions of the CrossState Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR)
federal implementation plans (FIPs) and
is responding to objections to
preliminary calculations. EPA has
completed final calculations for the first
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:34 Jul 27, 2015
Jkt 235001
round of NUSA allowance allocations
for the 2015 compliance year and has
posted spreadsheets containing the
calculations on EPA’s Web site. The
final allocations are unchanged from the
preliminary calculations. EPA will
record the allocated allowances in
sources’ Allowance Management
System (AMS) accounts by August 1,
2015.
DATES: July 28, 2015.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Questions concerning this action should
be addressed to Robert Miller at (202)
343–9077 or miller.robertl@epa.gov or to
Kenon Smith at (202) 343–9164 or
smith.kenon@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the
CSAPR FIPs, a portion of each state
budget for each of the four CSAPR
emissions trading programs is reserved
as a NUSA from which allowances are
allocated to eligible units through an
annual one- or two-round process. In a
NODA published in the Federal
Register on June 1, 2015 (80 FR 30988),
EPA described the allocation process
and provided notice of preliminary
calculations for the first-round 2015
NUSA allowance allocations. EPA also
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
described the process for submitting any
objections to the preliminary
calculations.
In response to the June 1 NODA, EPA
received three timely written objections,
two late written objections, and several
telephone inquiries. The objections and
inquiries all concerned the question of
whether EPA is correct to exclude
emissions that occurred before a unit’s
monitor certification deadline from the
emissions data used to calculate the
NUSA allowance allocations. As
explained below, under the regulations
such emissions are properly excluded
because they are not emissions during a
‘‘control period.’’
Under the CSAPR FIPs, an eligible
unit’s first-round NUSA allowance
allocation for a given compliance year is
generally based on the unit’s emissions
‘‘during the immediately preceding
control period’’ (that is, the control
period in the year before the compliance
year).1 An eligible unit’s second-round
NUSA allowance allocation for a given
1 40 CFR 97.412(a)(4)(i), 97.512(a)(4)(i),
97.612(a)(4)(i), and 97.712(a)(4)(i). First-round
NUSA allocations may be affected by first-round
NUSA over-subscription and rounding.
E:\FR\FM\28JYR1.SGM
28JYR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 144 (Tuesday, July 28, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 44873-44882]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-18345]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0275; FRL-9931-28-Region 4]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation
of Areas; North Carolina; Redesignation of the Charlotte-Rock Hill,
2008 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area to Attainment
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking three
separate final actions related to a state implementation plan (SIP)
revision submitted by the State of North Carolina, through the North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Department of
Air Quality (NC DAQ), on April 16, 2015. These final actions are for
the North Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte-Rock Hill, North
Carolina-South Carolina 2008 8-hour ozone nonattainment area
(hereinafter referred to as the ``bi-state Charlotte Area'' or
``Area''). The bi-state Charlotte Area consists of Mecklenburg County
in its entirety and portions of Cabarrus, Gaston, Iredell, Lincoln,
Rowan and Union Counties, North Carolina; and a portion of York County,
South Carolina. Regarding South Carolina's request to redesignate the
South Carolina portion of the Area and its maintenance plan for the
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, EPA will address this in a separate action. In
the three actions for the North Carolina bi-state Charlotte Area, EPA
determines that the bi-state Charlotte Area is attaining the 2008 8-
hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS); approves and
incorporates the State's plan for maintaining attainment of the 2008 8-
hour ozone standard in the Area, including the 2014 and 2026 sub-area
motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs) for nitrogen oxides
(NOX) and volatile organic compounds (VOC) for the North
Carolina portion of this Area into the SIP; and redesignates the North
Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area to attainment for the
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Additionally, EPA finds the 2014 and 2026 sub-
area MVEBs for the North Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte
Area adequate for the purposes of transportation conformity.
DATES: This rule will be effective August 27, 2015.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0275. All documents in the docket
are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the
index, some information may not be publicly
[[Page 44874]]
available, i.e., Confidential Business Information 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 through
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Regulatory Management
Section (formerly the Regulatory Development Section), Air Planning and
Implementation Branch (formerly 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. 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: Sean Lakeman of the Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. Mr. Lakeman may be reached by phone at (404) 562-9043 or
via electronic mail at lakeman.sean@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background for Final Actions
On May 21, 2012, EPA designated areas as unclassifiable/attainment
or nonattainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS that was promulgated
on March 27, 2008. See 77 FR 30088. The bi-state Charlotte Area was
designated as nonattainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS and
classified as a marginal nonattainment area. On April 16, 2015, NC DAQ
requested that EPA redesignate the North Carolina portion of the Area
to attainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS and submitted a SIP
revision containing the State's plan for maintaining attainment of the
2008 8-hour ozone standard in the Area, including the 2014 and 2026
MVEBs for NOX and VOC for the North Carolina portion of the
bi-state Charlotte Area. In a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR)
published on May 21, 2015, EPA proposed to determine that the bi-state
Charlotte Area is attaining the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS; to approve and
incorporate into the North Carolina SIP the State's plan for
maintaining attainment of the 2008 8-hour ozone standard in the Area,
including the 2014 and 2026 MVEBs for NOX and VOC for the
North Carolina potion of the bi-state Charlotte Area; and to
redesignate the North Carolina portion of the Area to attainment for
the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. See 80 FR 29250. In that document, EPA
also notified the public of the status of the Agency's adequacy
determination for the subarea NOX and VOC MVEBs for the
North Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area. The details of
North Carolina's submittal and the rationale for EPA's actions are
further explained in the NPR. See 80 FR 29250 (May 21, 2015).
II. EPA's Responses to Comments
EPA received two sets of comments on its May 21, 2015, proposed
rulemaking actions. Specifically, EPA received adverse comments from
the Sierra Club (``Commenter'') and comments supporting the proposed
actions from one member of the general public.\1\ Full sets of these
comments are provided in the docket for this final action. See Docket
number EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0275. A summary of the adverse comments and
EPA's responses are provided below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The supporting comments state that the 2012-2014 three-year
average ``support[s] attainment'' and that the ``[p]rojected
NOX shows decreases in all categories over the next
decade, so even if the predicted large projected decreases in on-
road NOX are not met the area should still see an overall
decrease in ozone levels.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment 1: The Commenter asserts that North Carolina experienced
``abnormally cool weather'' during the summers of 2013 and 2014 ``that
reduced the likelihood of ozone formation'' and that the design values
for the Area would have exceeded the 2008 8-hour ozone standard ``but
for the uncharacteristically cool summers in 2013 and 2014.''
Therefore, the Commenter believes that EPA ``should decline to issue
the requested attainment determination for the Area.''
Response 1: EPA disagrees with the Commenter's position that
weather should impact EPA's determination that the area has attained
the NAAQS pursuant to CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(i). That factual
determination is based solely on air quality monitoring data and on the
Agency's evaluation of that data's compliance with 40 CFR part 50,
appendix P. Therefore, weather conditions, including any alleged
resulting changes in energy demand, are irrelevant in determining
whether an area is factually attaining a NAAQS.
Under EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 50, the 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS is determined by calculating the three-year average of the annual
fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations at an
ozone monitor, also known as a monitor's design value. See 40 CFR part
50, appendix P. When the design value is less than or equal to 0.075
parts per million (ppm) at each monitor within the area, then the area
is attaining the NAAQS. The data completeness requirement for
evaluating monitoring data for NAAQS attainment is met at each monitor
when the average percent of days with valid ambient monitoring data is
greater than or equal to 90 percent and no single year has less than 75
percent data completeness as defined in appendix P of 40 CFR part 50.
Monitoring data must also be collected and quality-assured in
accordance with 40 CFR part 58 and recorded in the EPA's Air Quality
System (AQS).
EPA's analysis of monitoring data in the bi-state Charlotte Area
supports its determination under section 107(d)(3)(E)(i) that the Area
has attained the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The design values for each
monitor in the Area for the years 2012-2014 are less than or equal to
0.075 ppm, and the data from these monitors during this time period
meet the data quality and completeness requirements and are recorded in
AQS. Therefore, the bi-state Charlotte Area has attained the 2008 8-
hour ozone NAAQS in accordance with 40 CFR part 50, appendix P
requirements.
Comment 2: The Commenter believes that EPA should disapprove North
Carolina's redesignation request because ``neither EPA nor DAQ has
demonstrated that the recording of a design value below 75 ppb [parts
per billion] for the years 2012-2014 is `due to permanent and
enforceable reductions' '' as required by CAA section
107(d)(3)(E)(iii). According to the Commenter, EPA and NC DAQ cannot
make this demonstration because ``but for the uncharacteristically cool
summers in 2013 and 2014, a design value above 75 ppb would have been
recorded.'' The Commenter also contends that the ``uncharacteristically
cool summers in 2013 and 2014'' resulted in ``unusually low monthly
total consumption of electric power'' and ``starkly lower capacity
factors'' from Duke Energy's GG Allen and Marshall power plants during
those summers and notes that ``operation of these plants significantly
impacts total NOX emissions and, thus, overall ozone
levels.'' \2\ Despite the alleged decrease in
[[Page 44875]]
the capacity factors at these two EGUs, the Commenter states that ``the
plants still tend to run at a significantly higher capacity factor on
peak ozone days.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The GG Allen plant is located in the portion of Gaston
County that is included in the nonattainment area. The Marshall
plant is located in Catawba County and is not located within the
nonattainment area. During the nonattainment designation in 2012,
sources in Catawba County were not found to contribute to violations
of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the bi-state Charlotte Area. See
https://www.epa.gov/ozonedesignations/2008standards/documents/R4_Charlotte_TSD_Final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response 2: Weather effects are not controllable, and weather is
just one of the parameters that allow for ozone formation. EPA does not
disagree with the Commenter that ozone season temperatures and
precipitation are two readily available parameters that can be used to
evaluate the potential weather impacts on ozone concentrations. Ozone
is more readily formed on warm, sunny days when the air is stagnant.
Conversely, ozone production is generally more limited when it is
cloudy, cool, rainy, or windy.\3\ However, although EPA agrees that the
Area experienced cooler and wetter weather during some of the relevant
time period, EPA disagrees with the Commenter that the improvement in
air quality in the bi-state Charlotte Area was solely the result of
``aberrant weather.'' EPA has examined the weather data presented by
the Commenter, and has determined, after conducting its own analysis of
the meteorological conditions and the emission reductions occurring
during the relevant time period, that the improvement in air quality in
the Area was due to those emissions reductions in accordance with CAA
section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ https://www.epa.gov/airtrends/weather.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted above, Federal regulations require EPA to use a three-year
average to determine attainment of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The
averaging of values over three years serves to account for some
variation in meteorology from year to year. While EPA agrees that 2013
was cooler than the long-term average temperature and may have been
less conducive to the formation of ozone, the Agency also notes that
the weather conditions in the 2012 ozone season (a season included in
the three-year average forming the basis for the attainment
determination) were warmer than the long-term average and were more
conducive to ozone formation. See Table 1, below.\4\ Furthermore,
temperatures in the summer of 2014 are close to the long-term average
temperatures. Given the higher than long-term average 2012 temperatures
and the near normal \5\ temperatures in 2014, EPA does not agree with
the Commenter's conclusion that meteorological conditions during the
relevant time period were so unusual or abnormal such that those
conditions alone ``provide sufficient justification for EPA to reject
DAQ's request for the redesignation of the Area from nonattainment to
attainment.'' To the contrary, the certified data show that the Area
attained the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS from 2012 to 2014, a time period
with varying meteorological conditions. Preliminary monitoring data
from 2015 also indicates that the bi-state Charlotte Area continues to
attain the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ EPA's use of the phrase ``long-term average'' refers to the
74-year averages identified in Table 1.
\5\ EPA's analysis is based on weather data from the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (see below). NOAA defines
``normal'' as the ``long-term average value of a meteorological
element for a certain area. For example, `temperatures are normal
for this time of year[.]' Usually averaged over 30 years.'' See
https://www.erh.noaa.gov/er/box/glossary.htm.
\6\ This preliminary data is available at EPA's air data Web
site: https://aqsdr1.epa.gov/aqsweb/aqstmp/airdata/download_files.html#Daily. The list of monitors in the bi-state
Charlotte Area is available under the Designated Area field in Table
5 of the Ozone detailed information file at https://www.epa.gov/airtrends/values.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 1 provides temperature and precipitation data for the bi-
state Charlotte Area for the ozone seasons (May 1 -September 30) from
2010-2014 obtained from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration's National Centers for Environmental Information (NOAA
NCEI).\7\ Specifically, Table 1 provides overall average and average
maximum ozone season temperatures and total ozone season precipitation;
deviation from the 74-year average ozone season temperature and
precipitation (termed the ``anomaly''); and the rank of the given year
on the 74-year (1940-2014) recorded history list. A rank of 74 is given
to the hottest or wettest year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Ozone is monitored from April 1 through October 31 in the
bi-state Charlotte Area.
\8\ EPA obtained this weather data from the NOAA NCEI Web site
at https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/.
Table 1--Charlotte, North Carolina Temperature and Precipitation Ozone Season (May-September) Data \8\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average May- Average maximum
September May-September Precipitation
temperature temperature [inches] (anomaly
Year [degrees F] Rank [since 1940, [degrees F] Rank [since 1940, from the long- Rank [since 1940,
(anomaly from the scale of 1-74] (anomaly from the scale of 1-74] term average scale of 1-74]
long-term average long-term average [18.17 inches])
[74.7 degrees F]) [84.9 degrees F])
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2010.................................. 78.0 (+3.3) 73 88.8 (+3.9) 73 17.67 (-0.5) 36
2011.................................. 76.2 (+1.5) 64 87.3 (+2.4) 67 22.1 (+3.93) 58
2012.................................. 75.3 (+0.6) 52 86.3 (+1.4) 54 18.87 (+0.7) 44
2013.................................. 73.9 (-0.8) 21 83.3 (-1.6) 12 22.63 (+4.46) 61
2014.................................. 74.5 (-0.2) 32 84.5 (-0.4) 32 19.01 (+0.84) 46
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The data in Table 1 show that both average temperature and
precipitation varied significantly from 2010-2014. The rank and anomaly
data in Table 1 show that average ozone season temperatures and
precipitation were slightly above normal for the year 2012,
temperatures were below normal and precipitation was above normal in
2013, and temperatures were near normal and precipitation slightly
above normal in 2014. The year 2012 was one of the hottest in the
recent past across the Southeast. In fact, a record-setting heat wave
occurred in late June through early July 2012, which resulted in high
ozone levels measured across the Southeast. Based upon the meteorology
analysis, 2012 was hotter, 2013 was cooler, and 2014 was near normal
when compared to the long-term average. Therefore, the 2012-2014 period
does not appear to be abnormally conducive to low ozone formation and
does not undermine EPA's analysis that the attainment in the bi-state
Charlotte Area was due to permanent and enforceable reductions.
EPA also evaluated preliminary ozone data and meteorology for May
2015, which is the beginning of the ozone season in the Area. The
Commenter provided data to show that the average maximum temperature in
May 2015 is
[[Page 44876]]
higher than the average maximum May temperature over the previous ten
years. EPA agrees that the average maximum temperature in May 2015 was
above average; in fact, the average maximum temperature was 84 degrees
Fahrenheit, which is 4.2 degrees above average and it ranks 67 out of
75 years of recorded data in the bi-state Charlotte Area. However, even
with this abnormally warm month, the May 2015 preliminary ozone data
indicates that no exceedances of the 75 ppb ozone standard occurred and
that the highest 8-hour average was 72 ppb. This data also indicates
that although meteorological conditions were conducive to ozone
formation, emissions in the Area were low enough not to support the
formation of ozone above a level that would exceed the 2008 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. Additionally, preliminary ozone season data available
through June 28, 2015, indicate that the 4th Highest Maximum Daily 8-
hour Average value for the bi-state Charlotte area monitors from March
1, 2015 through June 28, 2015 is 72 ppb.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ This preliminary data is available at EPA's air data Web
site: https://aqsdr1.epa.gov/aqsweb/aqstmp/airdata/download_files.html#Daily. The list of monitors in the bi-state
Charlotte Area is available under the Designated Area field in Table
5 of the Ozone detailed information file at https://www.epa.gov/airtrends/values.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commenter's focus on meteorological conditions is inconsistent
with EPA's analysis of the permanent and enforceable emission
reductions that did occur in the area during the relevant time period.
Consistent with EPA's longstanding practice and policy, a comparison of
nonattainment period emissions with attainment period emissions is a
relevant in demonstrating permanent and enforceable emissions
reductions. EPA evaluated the ozone precursor emissions data in the
Area and found that there were significant reductions in these
emissions in multiple source categories from 2011 (a nonattainment
year) to 2014 (an attainment year). The emissions data show that from
2011 to 2014, non-road NOX and VOC emissions decreased,
point source NOX emissions decreased, and on-road mobile
NOX and VOC emissions have decreased substantially. During
this time period, mobile source NOX emissions decreased by
approximately 54.5 tons per summer day (tpsd) (equating to 79 percent
of the total NOX emissions reductions) and mobile source VOC
emissions decreased by approximately 26.5 tpsd (equating to 100 percent
of the total VOC emissions reductions). It is not necessary for every
change in emissions between the nonattainment year and the attainment
year to be permanent and enforceable. Rather, the CAA requires that
improvement in air quality necessary for the area to attain the
relevant NAAQS must be reasonably attributable to permanent and
enforceable emission reductions in emissions.
Table 2--NOX Emissions for the Charlotte 2008 Ozone NAAQS Nonattainment Area
[Tons per summer day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year Point source Area source On-road Non-road Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2011............................ 47.17 6.68 112.13 28.75 194.73
2014............................ 32.38 11.40 60.15 26.26 130.18
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3--VOC Emissions for the Charlotte 2008 Ozone NAAQS Nonattainment Area
[Tons per summer day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year Point source Area source On-road Non-road Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2011............................ 11.37 46.69 55.35 24.4 137.81
2014............................ 12.03 47.88 34.32 18.89 113.12
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The emissions reductions identified in Tables 2 and 3, above, are
attributable to numerous measures implemented during this period,
including the permanent and enforceable mobile source measures
discussed in the NPR such as the Tier 2 vehicle and fuel standards, the
large non-road diesel engines rule,\10\ heavy-duty gasoline and diesel
highway vehicle standards,\11\ medium and heavy duty vehicle fuel
consumption and GHG standards,\12\ non-road spark-ignitions and
recreational standards,\13\ and the national program for GHG emissions
and fuel economy standards. These mobile source measures have resulted
in, and continue to result in, large reductions in NOX
emissions over time due to fleet turnover (i.e., the replacement of
older vehicles that predate the standards with newer vehicles that meet
the standards). For example, implementation of the Tier 2 standards
began in 2004, and as newer, cleaner cars enter the national fleet,
these standards continue to significantly reduce NOX
emissions. EPA expects that these standards will reduce NOX
emissions from vehicles by approximately 74 percent by 2030,
translating to nearly 3 million tons annually by 2030.\14\
Implementation of the heavy-duty gasoline and diesel highway vehicle
standards rule also began in 2004. EPA projects a 2.6 million ton
reduction in NOX emissions by 2030 when the heavy-duty
vehicle fleet is completely replaced with newer heavy-duty vehicles
that comply with these emission standards.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ EPA estimated that compliance with this rule will cut
NOX emissions from non-road diesel engines by up to 90
percent nationwide.
\11\ Implementation of this rule is expected to achieve a 95
percent reduction in NOX emissions from diesel trucks and
buses.
\12\ When fully implemented in 2018, this rule is expected to
reduce NOX emissions from the covered vehicles by 20
percent.
\13\ When fully implemented, the standards will result in an 80
percent reduction in NOX by 2020.
\14\ EPA, Regulatory Announcement, EPA420-F-99-051 (December
1999), available at: https://www.epa.gov/tier2/documents/f99051.pdf.
\15\ 66 FR 5002, 5012 (January 18, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The State calculated the on-road and non-road mobile source
emissions contained in Tables 2 and 3 using EPA-approved models and
procedures that account for the Federal mobile source measures
identified above, fleet turnover, and increased
population.16 17
[[Page 44877]]
Because the model does not include any additional mobile source
measures, the large reductions in mobile source emissions quantified in
the Area between 2011 and 2014 are the result of the permanent and
enforceable mobile source measures listed above and discussed in the
NPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ North Carolina used EPA's MOVES2014 model to calculate on-
road emissions factors and EPA's NONROAD 2008a model to quantify
off-road emissions.
\17\ North Carolina used the interagency consultation process
required by 40 CFR part 93 (known as the Transportation Conformity
Rule) which requires EPA, the United States Department of
Transportation, metropolitan planning organizations, state
departments of transportation, and State and local air quality
agencies to work together to develop applicable implementation
plans. The on-road emissions were generated by an aggregate of the
vehicle activity (generated from the travel demand model) on
individual roadways multiplied by the appropriate emissions factor
from MOVES2014. The assumptions which are included in the travel
demand model, such as population, were reviewed through the
interagency consultation process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding the Commenter's discussion of capacity factors at the GG
Allen and Marshall power plants and cooling degree days, the Commenter
does not attempt to quantify how any decreases in these parameters
translate to decreases in NOX emissions or ozone
concentrations; therefore, it is unclear how the changes in capacity
factors and cooling degree days support the Commenter's position that
EPA cannot redesignate the bi-state Charlotte Area. The data in Table
2, above, demonstrates that the decreases in mobile source
NOX emissions from 2011-2014 are much greater than the
decreases in point-source NOX emissions.
In addition, EPA does not believe that the cooling degree and
capacity factor data supports the conclusions reached by the Commenter.
The Commenter presents data showing cooling degree days for North
Carolina for the past ten years and concludes that the cooler summers
in 2013 and 2014 have resulted in a lower demand for air conditioning
and thus a lower demand for electric power. EPA acknowledges that the
number of cooling degree days in 2013 and 2014 and the total
consumption of electricity in North Carolina were lower in 2013 and
2014 than during 2010, 2011, and 2012. However, the Commenter ignores
the fact that the numbers of cooling degree days in 2010, 2011, and
2012 were significantly above average. In fact, the number of cooling
degree days in 2010 ranks the highest in the 120 years of data
available for North Carolina and 2011 ranks the third highest out of
those 120 years. In contrast, the number of cooling degree days in 2013
and 2014 were close to the 120-year average--2013 is slightly below the
average, but the 2014 cooling degree days are actually above the long-
term 120-year average. Also, even within the ten years of data
presented by the Commenter, the number of cooling degree days in 2014
is on par with the number of cooling degree days in 2006, 2008, and
2009. EPA therefore does not agree with the Commenter that the number
of cooling degree days in 2013 and 2014 undermines the Agency's
conclusion about the causes of the attainment air quality in the Area.
EPA also disagrees with the Commenter's characterization of the
capacity factor and electric power usage data presented in its
comments. For example, the Commenter provides a figure showing total
consumption of electric power in North Carolina for each ozone season
for only the last five years (2010 through 2014) and concludes that the
electric power consumption in 2013 and 2014 was ``unusually low'' using
this limited time period as its reference point. However, as
demonstrated by the meteorological analysis provided in Table 1 of this
final action, 2010, 2011, and 2012 are warmer than long-term average
years. Therefore, it is not appropriate to conclude that levels in 2013
and 2014 were ``unusually low'' without evaluating consumption data
from a larger time period. EPA also notes that the Commenter's
conclusion that ozone season capacity factors in 2012-2014 at the GG
Allen and Marshall power plants are ``starkly lower than preceding
years'' that ``can be attributed, in part to the aberrantly mild summer
weather and the resulting decrease in energy demand'' ignores the fact
that 2012 had warmer than average summer temperatures and still had
capacity factors at those same units that were lower than or comparable
to 2014. The Commenter's assertion is also based on the limited 2010-
2014 time period that is not representative of long-term meteorological
conditions. Therefore, the Commenter has not established a causal
connection between differences in ozone season meteorological
conditions and capacity factors for these EGUs.
For the reasons discussed above, EPA does not agree with the
Commenter that the meteorological data from the relevant time period
undermines its analysis and conclusion that the improvement in air
quality in the bi-State Charlotte Area is reasonably attributable to
the permanent and enforceable emission reductions identified by the
State and EPA.
Comment 3: The Commenter states that ``as EPA has acknowledged,
global climate change likely will lead to significantly higher summer
temperatures in the years to come and hotter summers, in turn, will
lead to increased ozone formation.'' The Commenter therefore believes
that it is ``irrational'' for EPA to approve the redesignation request
based on data from ``two outlying uncharacteristically cool summers''
that ``Charlotte may not experience again.''
Response 3: EPA agrees that climate change is a serious
environmental issue; however, EPA does not agree that the redesignation
and maintenance plan at issue are flawed because temperatures may
increase in the future. Given the potential wide-ranging impacts of
climate change on air quality planning, EPA is developing climate
adaptation implementation plans to assess the key vulnerabilities to
our programs (including how climate change might affect attainment of
national ambient air quality standards) and to identify priority
actions to minimize these vulnerabilities.
With respect to climate impacts on future ozone levels, EPA's
Office of Air and Radiation has identified as a priority action the
need to adjust air quality modeling tools and guidance as necessary to
account for climate-driven changes in meteorological conditions and
meteorologically-dependent emissions. However, EPA has not yet made
those changes. The broad range of potential future climate outcomes and
variability of projected response to these outcomes limits EPA's
ability, at this time, to translate a general expectation that average
ozone levels will increase with rising temperatures to specific
``actionable'' SIP policies at any specific location, including the bi-
state Charlotte Area. Thus, EPA believes that it is appropriate to rely
upon the existing air quality modeling tools and guidance and
applicable CAA provisions to ensure that ozone maintenance areas do not
violate the NAAQS (as a result of climate change or any other cause).
As noted above, EPA is currently unable to fully account for the
potential impact of climate change on ozone concentrations in the Area.
However, there is nothing in the record to suggest that the large
emissions reductions of NOX and VOC projected for the Area
over the next 10 years would be outpaced by the potential increase in
ozone concentrations caused by climate change over the same time
period.
Comment 4: The Commenter contends that EPA should not approve the
State's maintenance plan because ``DAQ selected 2014 as the base year
for the purpose of its maintenance demonstration, which year is not
representative of air quality conditions given aberrant weather, and,
thus, inappropriately skewed the analysis of future air quality toward
an
[[Page 44878]]
underestimation of future emissions.'' According to the Commenter, EPA
should ``require DAQ to reevaluate the Area's ability to attain and
maintain the ozone NAAQS using emissions data from a year (or years) in
which summer weather conditions were more typical.''
Response 4: As discussed in Response 2, EPA does not agree with the
Commenter's assertion that the weather in summer 2014 was ``unusually
cool'' when the conditions from that year are viewed in comparison to a
larger data set, and therefore does not agree that NC DAQ selected an
inappropriate base year for a maintenance demonstration. Furthermore,
it is unclear how the Commenter concludes that EPA should disapprove
the maintenance plan even if the Agency accepted the Commenter's
assertion that the weather in 2014 was ``aberrant.'' The maintenance
demonstration compares base year emissions to future year emissions. If
total future year emissions are above total base year emissions,
maintenance is not demonstrated. For some source categories, future
year emissions are projected using base year emissions; however, for
other source categories, future year emissions projections are
independent of base year emissions. Projected emissions for source
categories that rely on base year emissions will be proportional to
base year emissions in the same degree regardless of the base year
emissions used. It is therefore more likely that an area will fail to
demonstrate maintenance using a comparison of total emissions if the
baseline is artificially low. In addition, while emissions from some
source categories may vary as a result of weather conditions, the
overall NOX and VOC emissions released from year to year
across source categories is generally not weather-dependent; therefore,
weather does not play a determinative role in the base year to future
year emissions comparison.
Comment 5: The Commenter claims that EPA must disapprove the
State's maintenance plan because ``it fails to specify emissions
reductions that are permanent and enforceable. The proposed plan
identifies various state and Federal requirements that may apply to the
major stationary sources of air pollution located in and in close
proximity to the Charlotte Area, however, it fails to present any
assurance that such requirements will result in any reduction in
emissions.'' In support, the Commenter references three requirements--
North Carolina's Clean Smokestacks Act and EPA's Clean Air Interstate
Rule (CAIR) and Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR). As to these
three measures, the Commenter states its belief that they are not
permanent and enforceable because they are cap and trade programs that
could allow for increased NOX emissions at Duke Energy's GG
Allen and Marshall power plants. The Commenter further states that
``DAQ should impose enforceable limits on NOX emissions from
all EGUs [electricity generating units] that are based on available and
demonstrated control technology.''
Response 5: EPA disagrees with the Commenter. Consistent with EPA
guidance, the State's maintenance plan identifies a number of permanent
and enforceable requirements, including measures that regulate area,
on-road, and off-road sources, and discusses the emissions reductions
associated with each measure.\18\ See 80 FR 29250. In discussing the
emissions reductions and status of these measures, the State has
provided assurance that these requirements will result in emissions
reductions.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See, e.g., Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air
Quality Management Division, to Regional Air Directors entitled
``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to
Attainment'' (September 4, 1992).
\19\ See Response 2, above, for further discussion of these
permanent and enforceable emissions reductions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA also disagrees with the Commenter's belief that emission
reductions associated with the CSA, CAIR, and CSAPR are not permanent
and enforceable simply because the underlying program is an emissions
trading program. Cap-and-trade programs provide economic incentives for
early reductions in emissions and encourage sources to install controls
earlier than required for compliance with future caps on emissions. The
flexibility under a cap-and-trade system is not about whether to reduce
emissions; rather, it is about how to reduce them at the lowest
possible cost. Trading programs require total mass emission reductions
by establishing mandatory caps on total emissions to permanently reduce
the total mass emissions allowed by sources subject to the programs,
validated through rigorous continuous emission monitoring and reporting
regimens. The emission caps and associated controls are enforced
through the associated SIP rules or federal implementation plans. Any
purchase of allowances and increase in emissions by one source
necessitates a corresponding sale of allowances and either reduction in
emissions or use of banked allowances by another covered source.
Given the regional nature of ozone, the corresponding
NOX emission and/or allowance reduction in one affected area
will have an air quality benefit that will compensate, at least in
part, for the impact of any emission increase in another affected area.
EPA disagrees with any suggestion that only specific emission limits on
units can be considered ``reductions.'' In fact, the information that
EPA has evaluated in order to conclude that the bi-State Charlotte Area
has met the criteria for redesignation shows that power plant emissions
in both the Area and the surrounding region have substantially
decreased as a result of cap-and-trade programs, including CAIR. The
facts contradict the theoretical concerns raised by the Commenter and
show that the emission trading programs, combined with other controls,
have improved air quality in the Area.
Moreover, experience has demonstrated that cap and trade programs
do successfully generate lasting emission reductions. For example, the
NOX SIP Call and CAIR have successfully reduced transported
emissions contributing to ozone nonattainment in areas across the
country. Data collected from long-term national air quality monitoring
networks demonstrate that these regional cap-and-trade programs have
resulted in substantial achievements in air quality caused by emission
reductions from power sector sources.\20\ In 2004, EPA designated 91
areas in the Eastern half of the United States as nonattainment for the
8-hour ozone standard adopted in 1997, using data from 2001-2003. Based
on data gathered from 2009-2011, 90 of these original Eastern
nonattainment areas show concentrations below the 1997 ozone
standard.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ See, e.g., EPA, Progress Report 2011--Clean Air Interstate
Rule, Acid Rain Program, and Former NOX Budget Trading
Program--Environmental and Health Results Report (March 2013),
available at: https://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/documents/progressreports/ARPCAIR11_environmental_health.pdf.
\21\ Id. at 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many states have sought and continue to seek redesignation of their
nonattainment areas relying in part on the reductions attributable to
these cap-and-trade programs. See, e.g., 76 FR 59600, 59607 (September
27, 2011) (proposing to redesignate a portion of the Chicago area for
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS), finalized at 76 FR 76302 (December 7,
2011); and 74 FR 63995 (December 7, 2009) (redesignation of Great Smoky
Mountain National Park for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS). The
Commenter's contention that EPA and North Carolina may not rely on the
substantial emission reductions that have already occurred
[[Page 44879]]
from these rules is based on a faulty and rigid interpretation of the
CAA would impose a major obstacle for nonattainment areas across the
country that have achieved attainment air quality because of the
reductions required by the rules. This would unnecessarily undermine a
reasonable, proven, and cost-effective approach to combating regional
pollution problems.
Of the Federally-enforceable rules relied upon by North Carolina in
its redesignation request, the Commenter singles out cap-and-trade
programs as insufficiently permanent and enforceable to meet the
requirements for redesignation. However, as discussed above, a number
of other permanent and enforceable measures have helped contribute to
the Area's attainment of the 2008 8-hour ozone standard and ensure
maintenance of that standard. There is inherent flexibility in nearly
all of these measures, including Federal transportation control
measures and SIP emission rate limits, also known as ``command-and-
control'' regulations. For example, the rules do not and cannot account
for when and where people drive their cars, nor do they dictate that
consumers in a certain area invest in newer, lower-emitting cars.
Similarly, emission rate limits limit the rate of emissions per unit of
fuel consumed, or parts per million of emissions in the exhaust but do
not regulate throughput or hours of operation of the regulated sources.
It would be unworkable for EPA to disqualify a requirement as
``permanent and enforceable'' for the purposes of redesignation simply
because the requirement did not require the exact same pollutant
emission reduction every hour of every day of every year. North
Carolina relied on a suite of requirements that, while inherently
allowing for some flexibility, has collectively served to bring the
Area into, and to maintain, attainment of the NAAQS.
EPA's position that cap-and-trade programs are permanent and
enforceable measures under section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) was recently
upheld by two Federal appellate courts. In the most recent decision,
the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit rejected
Sierra Club's argument that EPA improperly relied on emissions
reductions from cap-and-trade programs such as the NOX SIP
Call, CAIR, and CSAPR in redesignating the Cincinnati-Hamilton
nonattainment area for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. Sierra Club v.
EPA, 781 F.3d 299 (6th Cir. 2015). This decision is consistent with the
opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
in Sierra Club v. EPA, 774 F.3d 383 (7th Cir. 2014) that EPA could rely
on the NOX SIP Call cap-and-trade program as a permanent and
enforceable measure in redesignating the Milwaukee-Racine, Greater
Chicago, and St. Louis (Illinois portion) nonattainment areas to
attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
EPA also notes that North Carolina's maintenance plan provides for
verification of continued attainment by performing future reviews of
triennial emissions inventories and also for contingency measures to
ensure that the NAAQS is maintained into the future if monitored
increases in ambient ozone concentrations occur. See 80 FR 29250. For
this and the above reasons, EPA disagrees with the Commenter's position
that the State failed to identify permanent and enforceable emissions
reductions in its maintenance plan.
Regarding the need for additional controls at the GG Allen and
Marshall power plants, EPA has concluded that the Area has attained,
and will maintain, the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS with the permanent and
enforceable measures identified in the State's submission and in EPA's
NPR. EPA also notes that the Marshall Steam Plant is not located within
the bi-state Charlotte Area nonattainment boundary, and is therefore
not included in the emissions comparison portion of the maintenance
demonstration. Furthermore, continued nonattainment status for this
Area would not require any further emissions controls for either power
plant under their current configurations.
Comment 6: The Commenter believes that redesignating the bi-state
Charlotte Area would ``eliminate needed additional air quality planning
requirements and jeopardize public health by delaying permanent
attainment for the area.'' According to the Commenter, the Area
``consistently records higher asthma rates than the entire state.
Moreover, the impacts of ozone pollution have significant environmental
justice implications as African Americans carry a disproportionate
asthma burden compared with whites in North Carolina.'' The Commenter
therefore concludes that EPA should not redesignate the Area and that
``[b]efore making a final decision on whether or not to approve DAQ's
redesignation request, EPA must evaluate the environmental justice
implications of such action and, if it still determines that
redesignation is justified, must allow for additional public comment on
any proposed action.''
Response 6: As noted in EPA's May 21, 2015 NPR, Executive Order
12898 establishes Federal executive policy on environmental justice.
Its main provision directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent
practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of
their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate,
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority
populations and low-income populations in the United States. These
final actions do not relax control measures on existing sources and
therefore will not cause emissions increases from those sources. Thus,
these actions will not have an adverse human health or environmental
effect on any individuals, including minority or low-income
populations. As discussed above and in EPA's May 21, 2015 NPR, the Area
has attained the 2008 8-hour NAAQS through permanent and enforceable
measures, emissions in the Area are projected to decline following the
redesignation, and the maintenance plan demonstrates that the Area will
continue to meet the NAAQS for the next ten years and includes
contingency measures to quickly address any NAAQS violations. While the
Commenter has expressed a general concern that this action will
``eliminate needed additional air quality planning requirements and
jeopardize public health by delaying permanent attainment,'' the
Commenter has not identified any specific requirements of concern or
any specific information on the potential emissions impact that would
arise if those requirements were not in place. Such future emission
impacts are speculative, and to the extent that emissions in fact
increase in the future to levels that would impact NAAQS maintenance--
which EPA does not think will happen--the Agency could take future
action to address actual emissions in the Area.
III. What are the effects of these actions?
Approval of North Carolina's redesignation request changes the
legal designation of Mecklenburg County in its entirety and portions of
Cabarrus, Gaston, Iredell, Lincoln, Rowan and Union Counties in the
North Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area, found at 40 CFR
81.334, from nonattainment to attainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. Approval of North Carolina's associated SIP revision also
incorporates a plan for maintaining the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the
bi-state Charlotte Area through 2026. The maintenance plan establishes
NOX and VOC MVEBs for 2014 and 2026 for
[[Page 44880]]
the North Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area and includes
contingency measures to remedy any future violations of the 2008 8-hour
ozone NAAQS and procedures for evaluation of potential violations. The
sub-area MVEBs for the North Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte
Area along with the allocations from the safety margin are provided in
the tables below.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ North Carolina has chosen to allocate a portion of the
available safety margin to the NOX and VOC MVEBs for
2026. NC DAQ has allocated 2.93 tpd (2650 kg/day) to the 2026
NOX MVEB and 2.83 tpd (2,569 kg/day) to the 2026 VOC
MVEB. After allocation of the available safety margin, the remaining
safety margin was calculated as 59.72 tpd for NOX and
10.15 tpd for VOC.
Table 4--Cabarrus Rowan Metropolitan Planning Organization Sub-Area MVEBs
[kg/day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2014 2026
---------------------------------------------------------------
NOX VOC NOX VOC
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Base Emissions.................................. 11,814 7,173 3,124 3,135
Safety Margin Allocated to MVEB................. .............. .............. 625 627
Conformity MVEB................................. 11,814 7,173 3,749 3,762
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 5--Gaston-Cleveland-Lincoln Metropolitan Planning Organization Sub-Area MVEBs
[kg/day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2014 2026
---------------------------------------------------------------
NOX VOC NOX VOC
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Base Emissions.................................. 10,079 5,916 2,482 2,278
Safety Margin Allocated to MVEB................. .............. .............. 510 470
Conformity MVEB................................. 10,079 5,916 2,992 2,748
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 6--Charlotte Regional Transportation Planning Organization--Rocky River Rural Planning Organization Sub-
Area MVEBs
[kg/day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2014 2026
---------------------------------------------------------------
NOX VOC NOX VOC
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Base Emissions.................................. 32,679 18,038 8,426 8,189
Safety Margin Allocated to MVEB................. .............. .............. 1,515 1,472
Conformity MVEB................................. 32,679 18,038 9,941 9,661
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Final Actions
EPA is taking three separate final actions regarding the bi-state
Charlotte Area's redesignation to attainment and maintenance of the
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. First, EPA is determining that the bi-state
Charlotte Area is attaining the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS based on
complete, quality-assured and certified monitoring data for the 2012-
2014 monitoring period.
Second, EPA is approving and incorporating the maintenance plan for
the bi-state Charlotte Area, including the sub-area NOX and
VOC MVEBs for 2014 and 2026, into the North Carolina SIP. The
maintenance plan demonstrates that the Area will continue to maintain
the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and the sub-area budgets meet all of the
adequacy criteria contained in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) and (5).
Third, EPA is determining that North Carolina has met the criteria
under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) for the North Carolina portion of the
bi-state Charlotte Area for redesignation from nonattainment to
attainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. On this basis, EPA is
approving North Carolina's redesignation request for the 2008 8-hour
ozone NAAQS for the North Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte
Area. As mentioned above, approval of the redesignation request changes
the official designation of Mecklenburg County in its entirety and
portions of Cabarrus, Gaston, Iredell, Lincoln, Rowan and Union
Counties in the North Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area
for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS from nonattainment to attainment, as
found at 40 CFR part 81.
EPA is also notifying the public that EPA finds the newly-
established sub-area NOX and VOC MVEBs for the bi-state
Charlotte Area adequate for the purpose of transportation conformity.
Within 24 months from this final rule, the transportation partners will
need to demonstrate conformity to the new sub-area NOX and
VOC MVEBs pursuant to 40 CFR 93.104(e).
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, redesignation of an area to attainment and the
accompanying approval of the maintenance plan under CAA section
107(d)(3)(E) are actions that affect the status of geographical area
and do not impose any additional regulatory requirements on sources
beyond those required by state law. A redesignation to attainment does
not in and of itself impose any new requirements, but rather results in
the application of requirements contained in the CAA for areas that
have been redesignated to attainment. Moreover, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions
of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k);
40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions,
[[Page 44881]]
EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the
criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, these actions merely approve state
law as meeting Federal requirements and do not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state or Federal law. For these
reasons, these actions:
Are not a significant regulatory actions subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
Do not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Are certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Do not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Do not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Are not economically significant regulatory actions based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Are not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Are not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
Will not have disproportionate human health or
environmental effects under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February
16, 1994).
The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does
not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by September 28, 2015. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).
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.
40 CFR Part 81
Environmental protection, Air pollution control.
Dated: July 17, 2015.
Heather McTeer Toney,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
40 CFR parts 52 and 81 are amended as follows:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart II--North Carolina
0
2. In Sec. 52.1770, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding a
new entry ``2008 8-hour ozone Maintenance Plan for the North Carolina
portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area'' at the end of the table to
read as follows:
Sec. 52.1770 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
EPA-Approved North Carolina Non-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State effective EPA approval Federal Register
Provision date date citation Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
2008 8-hour ozone Maintenance 4/16/2015 7/28/2015 [insert Federal ...........................
Plan for the North Carolina Register
portion of the bi-state citation]
Charlotte Area.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PART 81--DESIGNATION OF AREAS FOR AIR QUALITY PLANNING PURPOSES
0
3. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
0
4. In Sec. 81.334, the table entitled ``North Carolina--2008 8-Hour
Ozone NAAQS (Primary and secondary)'' is amended by revising the
entries for ``Charlotte-Rock Hill, NC-SC,'' ``Cabarrus County (part),''
``Gaston County (part),'' ``Iredell County (part),'' ``Lincoln County
(part),'' ``Mecklenburg County,'' ``Rowan County (part),'' and ``Union
County (part)'' to read as follows:
Sec. 81.334 North Carolina.
* * * * *
[[Page 44882]]
North Carolina--2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
[Primary and secondary]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Designation Classification
Designated area --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date \1\ Type Date \1\ Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charlotte-Rock Hill, NC-SC \2\. This action is Attainment ..................
effective 7/28/
2015.
Cabarrus County (part)......... ..................
Central Cabarrus Township, ..................
Concord Township, Georgeville
Township, Harrisburg Township,
Kannapolis Township, Midland
Township, Mount Pleasant
Township, New Gilead Township,
Odell Township, Poplar Tent
Township, Rimertown Township
Gaston County (part) ..................
Crowders Mountain Township, ..................
Dallas Township, Gastonia
Township, Riverbend Township,
South Point Township
Iredell County (part) ..................
Davidson Township, Coddle Creek ..................
Township
Lincoln County (part) ..................
Catawba Springs Township, ..................
Ironton Township, Lincolnton
Township
Mecklenburg County ..................
Rowan County (part) ..................
Atwell Township, China Grove ..................
Township, Franklin Township,
Gold Hill Township, Litaker
Township, Locke Township,
Providence Township, Salisbury
Township, Steele Township,
Unity Township
Union County (part) ..................
Goose Creek Township, ..................
Marshville Township, Monroe
Township, Sandy Ridge
Township, Vance Township
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This date is July 20, 2012, unless otherwise noted.
\2\ Excludes Indian country located in each area, unless otherwise noted.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2015-18345 Filed 7-27-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
