Air Plan Approval; North Carolina; Regional Haze Progress Report, 38986-38992 [2016-14036]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
38986
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules
have a significant effect on the human
environment. Therefore, neither an
environmental assessment nor an
environmental impact statement is
required.
Dated: June 9, 2016.
Dennis M. Keefe,
Director, Office of Food Additive Safety,
Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition.
[FR Doc. 2016–14107 Filed 6–14–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164–01–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R04–OAR–2015–0449; FRL–9947–62–
Region 4]
Air Plan Approval; North Carolina;
Regional Haze Progress Report
Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a
State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision submitted by the State of North
Carolina through the North Carolina
Division of Air Quality (NC DAQ) on
May 31, 2013. North Carolina’s May 31,
2013, SIP revision (Progress Report)
addresses requirements of the Clean Air
Act (CAA or Act) and EPA’s rules that
require each state to submit periodic
reports describing progress towards
reasonable progress goals (RPGs)
established for regional haze and a
determination of the adequacy of the
state’s existing SIP addressing regional
haze (regional haze plan). EPA is
proposing to approve North Carolina’s
Progress Report on the basis that it
addresses the progress report and
adequacy determination requirements
for the first implementation period for
regional haze.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before July 15, 2016.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04–
OAR–2015–0449 at https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Once submitted, comments cannot be
edited or removed from Regulations.gov.
EPA may publish any comment received
to its public docket. Do not submit
electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video,
etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is
ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:37 Jun 14, 2016
Jkt 238001
considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points
you wish to make. EPA will generally
not consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or
other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, the full
EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Sean Lakeman, 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 can be reached by phone at
(404) 562–9043 and via electronic mail
at lakeman.sean@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
Under the Regional Haze Rule,1 each
state was required to submit its first
implementation plan addressing
regional haze visibility impairment to
EPA no later than December 17, 2007.
See 40 CFR 51.308(b). North Carolina
submitted its regional haze plan on that
date, and like many other states subject
to the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR),
relied on CAIR to satisfy best available
retrofit technology (BART) requirements
for emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2)
and nitrogen oxides (NOX) from electric
generating units (EGUs) in the State. On
June 7, 2012, EPA finalized a limited
disapproval of North Carolina’s
December 17, 2007 regional haze plan
submission because of deficiencies
arising from the State’s reliance on CAIR
to satisfy certain regional haze
requirements. See 77 FR 33642. In a
separate action taken on June 27, 2012,
EPA finalized a limited approval of
North Carolina’s December 17, 2007,
regional haze plan submission, as
meeting some of the applicable regional
haze requirements as set forth in
sections 169A and 169B of the CAA and
in 40 CFR 51.300–51.308. See 77 FR
38185. On October 31, 2014, the State
submitted a regional haze plan revision
to correct the deficiencies identified in
the June 27, 2012, limited disapproval
by replacing reliance on CAIR with
reliance on the State’s Clean
Smokestacks Act (CSA) as an alternative
to NOX and SO2 BART for BARTeligible EGUs formerly subject to CAIR.
1 40
PO 00000
CFR part 51, subpart P.
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
EPA approved that SIP revision on May
13, 2016, resulting in a full approval of
North Carolina’s regional haze plan.
Each state is also required to submit
a progress report in the form of a SIP
revision every five years that evaluates
progress towards the RPGs for each
mandatory Class I Federal area within
the state and for each mandatory Class
I Federal area outside the state which
may be affected by emissions from
within the state. See 40 CFR 51.308(g).
Each state is also required to submit, at
the same time as the progress report, a
determination of the adequacy of its
existing regional haze plan. See 40 CFR
51.308(h). The first progress report is
due five years after submittal of the
initial regional haze plan.
On May 31, 2013, as required by 40
CFR 51.308(g), NC DAQ submitted to
EPA, in the form of a revision to North
Carolina’s SIP, a report on progress
made towards the RPGs for Class I areas
in the State and for Class I areas outside
the State that are affected by emissions
from sources within the State. This
submission also includes a negative
declaration pursuant to 40 CFR
51.308(h)(1) that the State’s regional
haze plan is sufficient in meeting the
requirements of the Regional Haze Rule
(40 CFR 51.300 et seq.). EPA is
proposing to approve North Carolina’s
Progress Report on the basis that it
satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR
51.308(g) and (h) now that EPA has fully
approved the State’s regional haze plan.
II. Requirements for the Regional Haze
Progress Report and Adequacy
Determinations
A. Regional Haze Progress Report
Under 40 CFR 51.308(g), states must
submit a regional haze progress report
as a SIP revision every five years and
must address, at a minimum, the seven
elements found in 40 CFR 51.308(g). As
described in further detail in section III
below, 40 CFR 51.308(g) requires: (1) A
description of the status of measures in
the approved regional haze plan; (2) a
summary of emissions reductions
achieved; (3) an assessment of visibility
conditions for each Class I area in the
state; (4) an analysis of changes in
emissions from sources and activities
within the state; (5) an assessment of
any significant changes in
anthropogenic emissions within or
outside the state that have limited or
impeded progress in Class I areas
impacted by the state’s sources, (6) an
assessment of the sufficiency of the
approved regional haze plan; and (7) a
review of the state’s visibility
monitoring strategy.
E:\FR\FM\15JNP1.SGM
15JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules
ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
B. Adequacy Determinations of the
Current Regional Haze Plan
Under 40 CFR 51.308(h), states are
required to submit, at the same time as
the progress report, a determination of
the adequacy of their existing regional
haze plan and to take one of four
possible actions based on information in
the progress report. As described in
further detail in section III below, 40
CFR 51.308(h) requires states to: (1)
Submit a negative declaration to EPA
that no further substantive revision to
the state’s existing regional haze plan is
needed; (2) provide notification to EPA
(and to other state(s) that participated in
the regional planning process) if the
state determines that its existing
regional haze plan is or may be
inadequate to ensure reasonable
progress at one or more Class I areas due
to emissions from sources in other
state(s) that participated in the regional
planning process, and collaborate with
these other state(s) to develop additional
strategies to address deficiencies; (3)
provide notification with supporting
information to EPA if the state
determines that its existing regional
haze plan is or may be inadequate to
ensure reasonable progress at one or
more Class I areas due to emissions from
sources in another country; or (4) revise
its regional haze plan to address
deficiencies within one year if the state
determines that its existing regional
haze plan is or may be inadequate to
ensure reasonable progress in one or
more Class I areas due to emissions from
sources within the state.
III. What is EPA’s analysis of North
Carolina’s regional haze progress
report and adequacy determination?
On May 31, 2013, NC DAQ submitted
a revision to North Carolina’s regional
haze plan to address progress made
towards the RPGs for Class I areas in the
State and for Class I areas outside the
State that are affected by emissions from
sources within North Carolina. This
submittal also includes a determination
of the adequacy of the State’s existing
regional haze plan. North Carolina has
five Class I areas within its borders:
Great Smoky Mountains National Park
(GSMNP), Joyce Kilmer-Slickrock
Wilderness Area (JOKI), Linville Gorge
Wilderness Area (LIGO), Shining Rock
Wilderness Area (SHRO), and
Swanquarter Wildlife Refuge (SWAN).
Both the Great Smoky Mountains and
Joyce Kilmer-Slickrock Areas are
located in North Carolina and
Tennessee. In its regional haze plan, the
State also identified, through an area of
influence modeling analysis based on
back trajectories, one Class I area in one
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:37 Jun 14, 2016
Jkt 238001
neighboring state potentially impacted
by North Carolina sources: James River
Face Wilderness Area in Virginia. See
77 FR 11858, 11869 (February 28, 2012).
A. Regional Haze Progress Report
The following sections summarize: (1)
Each of the seven elements that must be
addressed by a progress report under 40
CFR 51.308(g); (2) how North Carolina’s
Progress Report addressed each element;
and (3) EPA’s analysis and proposed
determination as to whether the State
satisfied each element.
1. Status of Control Measures
40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) requires a
description of the status of
implementation of all measures
included in the regional haze plan for
achieving RPGs for Class I areas both
within and outside the state.
The State evaluated the status of
measures included in its 2007 regional
haze plan in accordance with 40 CFR
51.308(g)(1). Specifically, in its Progress
Report, North Carolina summarizes the
status of the emissions reduction
measures that were included in the final
iteration of the Visibility Improvement
State and Tribal Association of the
Southeast (VISTAS) regional haze
emissions inventory and RPG modeling
used by the State in developing its
regional haze plan. The measures
include, among other things, applicable
Federal programs (e.g., mobile source
rules, Maximum Achievable Control
Technology standards), Federal consent
agreements, and Federal and state
control strategies for EGUs.2 The State
also discusses the status of several
measures that were not included in the
final VISTAS emissions inventory and
were not relied upon in the initial
regional haze plan to meet RPGs. The
State notes that the emissions
reductions from these measures will
help ensure Class I areas impacted by
North Carolina sources achieve their
RPGs. In aggregate, as noted in sections
III.A.2 and III.A.6 of this document, the
emissions reductions from the identified
measures are expected to exceed the
emissions reductions projected in North
Carolina’s regional haze plan.
EPA proposes to find that North
Carolina’s analysis adequately addresses
40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) for the reasons
discussed below. The State documents
the implementation status of measures
2 North Carolina’s progress report discusses the
status of CAIR, CSAPR, and the CSA as of the date
of submission. As noted above, North Carolina
subsequently submitted a SIP revision to replace its
reliance on CAIR as NOX and SO2 BART for BARTeligible units formerly subject to CAIR with reliance
on the CSA as a BART Alternative, and EPA
approved that SIP revision on May 13, 2016.
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
38987
from its regional haze plan in addition
to describing additional measures not
originally accounted for in the final
VISTAS emissions inventory that came
into effect since the VISTAS analyses
for the regional haze plan were
completed. The State’s Progress Report
also provides detailed information on
EGU control strategies in its regional
haze plan and the status of existing and
future expected controls for North
Carolina’s EGUs because, in its regional
haze plan, North Carolina identified SO2
emissions from coal-fired EGUs as the
key contributor to regional haze in the
VISTAS region. North Carolina
discusses the status of the CSA, which
the State identified as the primary state
control strategy in its regional haze
plan, and the resulting emissions
reductions.3 Under the CSA, power
plants were required to reduce their
NOX emissions by 77 percent in 2009
and their SO2 emissions by 73 percent
in 2013. The State notes that all of the
CSA subject units are controlled with a
scrubber for SO2 control and a selective
catalytic reduction unit or a selective
non-catalytic reduction for NOX control,
or have retired, which will result in
more SO2 and NOX emissions
reductions than those projected in the
regional haze plan.
2. Emissions Reductions and Progress
40 CFR 51.308(g)(2) requires a
summary of the emissions reductions
achieved in the state through the
measures subject to 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1).
In its regional haze plan and Progress
Report, North Carolina focuses its
assessment on SO2 emissions from
EGUs because of VISTAS’ findings that
ammonium sulfate accounted for more
than 70 percent of the visibilityimpairing pollution in the VISTAS
states and that SO2 point source
emissions in 2018 represent more than
95 percent of the total SO2 emissions in
the State.4 As discussed in section
III.A.5, below, North Carolina
determined that sulfates continue to be
the largest contributor to regional haze
for Class I areas in the State.
In its Progress Report, North Carolina
presents SO2 emissions data for EGUs in
the State and notes that North Carolina’s
EGU sector represents over 50 percent of
statewide SO2 emissions from stationary
3 According to the State, in 2011, regulated
sources under the CSA emitted 73,454 tons per year
(tpy) of SO2 and 39,284 tpy of NOX, well below the
CSA’s annual emissions caps for SO2 and NOX. The
State also notes that the 2018 current emissions
projection of SO2 from the sources subject to CSA
is 18,420 tpy, which is approximately 80 percent
lower than the original 2018 projections used in the
North Carolina regional haze plan.
4 For additional information, see North Carolina’s
December 17, 2007, regional haze plan at page 24.
E:\FR\FM\15JNP1.SGM
15JNP1
38988
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules
sources. SO2 emissions reductions from
2002 to 2011 for North Carolina EGUs
(387,373 tpy) are greater than the SO2
emissions reductions from 2002 to 2018
estimated in North Carolina’s regional
haze plan for these EGUs (367,528 tpy).
Additionally, the State updated the
2018 SO2 emissions projections for
North Carolina EGUs in its regional haze
plan. These updated 2018 SO2 EGU
emissions projections are approximately
80 percent lower than the projected
2018 SO2 emissions in the regional haze
plan.5
North Carolina states that coal-fired
EGUs in North Carolina emitted a total
of 370,000 tpy of SO2 in 2007, whereas
in 2011, these same EGUs emitted a
total of 73,000 tpy of SO2, a reduction
of 297,000 tpy, due largely to the
installation and operation of scrubbers.
The State expects that future SO2
emissions will decline further from
more natural gas use and the continued
retirement of older, smaller coal-fired
EGUs without scrubbers. NOX emissions
from these EGUs dropped from a total
of approximately 57,400 tpy in 2007 to
approximately 39,300 tpy of NOX in
2011, an 18,100 tpy reduction.
North Carolina identified the
retirement of over 100 EGUs at 35
facilities located in eight nearby states
that VISTAS modeling indicates
potentially impact visibility in North
Carolina’s Class I areas. These units
emitted more than 550,000 tpy of SO2 in
2011. The State believes that this is
another indicator that the Class I areas
in North Carolina are on track to meet
their RPGs. North Carolina also
discussed the SO2 emissions reductions
that occurred at non-EGU facilities
identified in its regional haze plan as
contributing one percent or more to
visibility impairment at any Class I area.
EPA proposes to conclude that North
Carolina has adequately addressed 40
CFR 51.308(g)(2). As discussed above,
the State provides estimates, and where
available, actual emissions reductions of
visibility-impairing pollutants resulting
from the measures relied upon in its
regional haze plan. The State
appropriately focused on SO2 emissions
from its EGUs in its Progress Report
because the State had previously
identified these emissions as the most
significant contributors to visibility
impairment at North Carolina’s Class I
areas and those areas that North
Carolina sources impact.
3. Visibility Progress
40 CFR 51.308(g)(3) requires that
states with Class I areas provide the
following information for the most
impaired and least impaired days for
each area, with values expressed in
terms of five-year averages of these
annual values: 6 (i) Current visibility
conditions; (ii) the difference between
current visibility conditions and
baseline visibility conditions; and (iii)
the change in visibility impairment over
the past five years.
North Carolina provides figures with
visibility monitoring data that address
the three requirements of 40 CFR
51.308(g)(3) for the State’s five Class I
areas. North Carolina reported current
conditions as the 2006–2010 five-year
time period and used the 2000–2004
baseline period for its Class I areas.7
Table 1, below, shows the current
visibility conditions and the difference
between current visibility conditions
and baseline visibility conditions.
TABLE 1—BASELINE VISIBILITY, CURRENT VISIBILITY, AND VISIBILITY CHANGES IN CLASS I AREAS IN NORTH CAROLINA
Baseline
(2000–2004)
Class I area
Current
(2009–2013)
Difference
20% Worst Days
30.3
30.3
28.6
28.5
24.7
26.6
26.6
25.1
25.8
24.2
¥3.7
¥3.7
¥3.5
¥2.7
¥0.5
13.6
13.6
11.1
8.2
12
Great Smoky Mountain National Park .........................................................................................
Joyce Kilmer-Slickrock .................................................................................................................
Linville Gorge ...............................................................................................................................
Shining Rock ................................................................................................................................
Swanquarter .................................................................................................................................
12.3
12.3
11
7.25
12.9
¥1.3
¥1.3
¥0.1
¥0.95
0.9
20% Best Days
ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Great Smoky Mountain National Park .........................................................................................
Joyce Kilmer-Slickrock .................................................................................................................
Linville Gorge ...............................................................................................................................
Shining Rock ................................................................................................................................
Swanquarter .................................................................................................................................
All North Carolina Class I areas saw
an improvement in visibility on the 20
percent worst days from 2006–2010 and
between baseline and 2006–2010
conditions. All North Carolina Class I
areas except for Swanquarter Wildlife
Refuge saw an improvement in visibility
on the 20 percent best days from 2006–
2010 and between baseline and 2006–
2010 conditions.
5 See
page 32 of the May 31, 2013, submission.
‘‘most impaired days’’ and ‘‘least impaired
days’’ in the regional haze refers to the average
visibility impairment (measured in deciviews) for
the 20 percent of monitored days in a calendar year
with the highest and lowest amount of visibility
6 The
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:37 Jun 14, 2016
Jkt 238001
At Swanquarter, a 0.9 dv increase was
recorded in the 20 percent best-day
average between 2006–2010 conditions
(12.9 dv) and the 2000–2004 baseline
(12.0 dv). This could be due, in part, to
the fact that the visibility data for 2008
at Swanquarter did not meet EPA’s data
completeness criteria and was therefore
removed from the 2006–2010 average,
resulting in a four-year average during
this review period.8 Regardless, North
Carolina believes that planned changes
to operating status and emission
controls on large sources within the
Swanquarter area of influence provide
sufficient evidence that by 2018, the 20
percent best days will be protected.9
Furthermore, the 20 percent best-day
average at Swanquarter has continued to
improve, dropping to 12.2 dv for 2007–
2011.10 Based on the visibility data
reported in the Western Regional Air
impairment, respectively, averaged over a five-year
period. 40 CFR 51.301.
7 For the first regional haze plans, ‘‘baseline’’
conditions were represented by the 2000–2004 time
period. See 64 FR 35730 (July 1, 1999).
8 See USEPA (2003) ‘‘Guidance for Tracking
Progress Under the Regional Haze Rule,’’ https://
www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1/memoranda/rh_tpurhr_
gd.pdf, pp. 2–8.
9 See pp. 43–49 of the May 31, 2013, submission.
10 See pp. 41–42 of the May 31, 2013, submission.
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\15JNP1.SGM
15JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules
Partnership Technical Support System,
the 20 percent best-day five year
averages have continued to improve
through 2014 and have dropped below
the baseline beginning with the 2008–
2012 average.11
North Carolina’s Progress Report
includes revised RPGs for the five Class
I areas within the State. North Carolina’s
original RPGs were based on the
VISTAS modeling run available at the
time of the 2007 SIP revision. In 2008,
VISTAS provided updated modeling
results that changed the modeled
progress for North Carolina’s Class I
38989
areas. North Carolina seeks to include
revised RPGs that reflect this modeled
progress. Table 2 identifies the RPGs for
North Carolina’s Class I areas in the
State’s regional haze plan and the
updated RPGs proposed in its Progress
Report.
TABLE 2—UPDATED RPGS FOR NORTH CAROLINA’S CLASS 1 AREAS
[Deciviews]
RPG 20%
worst days
(2007 regional
haze plan)
Class I areas
GSMNP ............................................................................................
JOKI .................................................................................................
LIGO ................................................................................................
SHRO ...............................................................................................
SWAN ..............................................................................................
EPA proposes to approve the updated
RPGs for North Carolina’s Class I areas
because they reflect more recent
modeling. Also, EPA proposes to
conclude that North Carolina has
adequately addressed 40 CFR
51.308(g)(3) because the State provides
the information regarding visibility
conditions and visibility changes
necessary to meet the requirements of
the regulation. The Progress Report
includes current conditions based on
the Interagency Monitoring of Protected
Visual Environments (IMPROVE)
monitoring data for the years 2006–
2010, the difference between current
visibility conditions and baseline
visibility conditions, and the change in
visibility impairment over the five-year
period 2006–2010.
ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
4. Emissions Tracking
40 CFR 51.308(g)(4) requires an
analysis tracking emission changes of
visibility-impairing pollutants from the
state’s sources by type or category over
the past five years based on the most
recent updated emissions inventory.
In its Progress Report, North Carolina
presents data from statewide actual
emissions inventories for 2008 and
projected emissions inventories
developed for the years 2009 and 2010.
The State compares these data to the
baseline emissions inventory for 2002.
The pollutants inventoried include
volatile organic compounds (VOC),
NOX, fine particulate matter (PM2.5), and
RPG 20%
worst days
(2013 progress
report)
23.7
23.7
22.0
22.1
20.4
SO2. The emissions inventories include
the following source classifications:
Point, area, non-road mobile, and onroad mobile sources.
North Carolina includes the emissions
inventories from the regional haze plan
for 2002 and 2009, and summarizes
emissions data from EPA’s 2008
National Emissions Inventory. North
Carolina’s analysis shows that 2008
emissions are lower than 2002
emissions. North Carolina estimates onroad mobile source emissions in the
2008 and 2010 inventories using the
MOVES2010a model. This model tends
to estimate higher emissions than its
previous counterpart, the MOBILE6
model used by the State to estimate onroad mobile source emissions for the
2002 and 2009 inventories, especially
for NOX emissions. North Carolina has
concluded that MOVES model
predictions for NOX can be 1.7 to 2.1
times higher than MOBILE6. Despite the
change in methodology, a declining
trend in all pollutants can be seen
between 2002 and 2008 as seen in Table
4.
North Carolina also includes an
emission inventory for 2010 in its
Progress Report. The State estimates
2010 point source emissions by taking
the emissions reported by sources for
2010 and adding the latest emissions for
the small sources that only report
emissions every five years. This
procedure differs from the procedure
RPG 20%
best days
(2007 regional
haze plan)
23.5
23.5
21.7
21.9
20.3
14:37 Jun 14, 2016
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
12.1
12.1
9.5
6.9
10.9
used by the State in its regional haze
plan that included only those sources
that reported emissions in 2002. In its
2010 inventory, North Carolina
estimated that small sources that did not
report contribute one percent of total
NOX emissions, seven percent of total
VOC emissions, one percent of total SO2
emissions, and seven percent of total
PM2.5 emissions. North Carolina
estimates area source emissions by
growing the existing 2007 emissions
inventory to 2010 and estimates nonroad mobile source emissions using the
EPA’s NONROAD2008 model for those
sources covered by the model and
growing the 2007 airport, locomotive,
and commercial marine emissions to
2010.
North Carolina estimates on-road
mobile source emissions for 2010 using
MOVES2010a with the latest vehicle
miles traveled (VMT) and speed data. If
2010 speeds and VMT were not
available for a particular county,
interpolated or projected 2010 data was
used. Using MOVES2010a, the on-road
mobile emissions are higher than those
that would be predicted using the older
model. As seen in Tables 3 and 5, the
2010 emissions inventory is
significantly lower than the 2002
emissions inventory despite including
additional stationary point sources and
the use of MOVES, which predicts
higher NOX emissions than its
predecessor MOBILE6.2.
11 See https://vista.cira.colostate.edu/tss/Results/
HazePlanning.aspx Web site for dv between 2011–
2014.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
12.2
12.2
9.6
6.9
11.0
RPG 20%
best days
(2013 progress
report)
E:\FR\FM\15JNP1.SGM
15JNP1
38990
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 3—2002 EMISSIONS INVENTORY SUMMARY FOR NORTH CAROLINA
[tpy]
Source category
VOC
NOX
SO2
PM2.5
Point .................................................................................................................
Area .................................................................................................................
On-road Mobile ................................................................................................
Non-road Mobile ..............................................................................................
61,484
250,044
263,766
94,480
196,731
41,517
327,329
84,284
522,093
5,815
12,420
7,693
26,953
83,520
4,623
7,348
Total ..........................................................................................................
669,774
649,861
548,021
122,444
TABLE 4—ACTUAL 2008 ANNUAL EMISSION SUMMARY FOR NORTH CAROLINA
[tpy]
Source category
VOC
NOX
SO2
PM2.5
Point .................................................................................................................
Area .................................................................................................................
On-road Mobile ................................................................................................
Non-road Mobile ..............................................................................................
39,053
149,264
122,503
72,754
97,879
43,672
253,849
52,469
274,541
13,937
1,190
980
27,987
48,807
7,895
4,924
Total ..........................................................................................................
383,573
447,869
290,648
89,613
TABLE 5—2010 EMISSIONS INVENTORY SUMMARY FOR NORTH CAROLINA
[tpy]
Source category
VOC
NOX
SO2
PM2.5
Point .................................................................................................................
Area .................................................................................................................
On-road Mobile ................................................................................................
Non-road Mobile ..............................................................................................
42,504
83,274
101,731
66,773
90,155
11,353
256,381
65,353
151,210
5,105
1,205
2,829
13,966
23,114
8,905
5,455
Total ..........................................................................................................
294,281
423,242
160,350
51,441
When comparing the 2010 emissions
(Table 5) with the projected 2009
emissions (Table 6), the total emissions
of each pollutant are lower in 2010 with
the exception of NOX. The slight
increase in 2010 NOX emissions is likely
due to the use of MOBILE6 to estimate
on-road mobile source NOX emissions
for 2009 and the use of MOVES to
estimate on-road mobile source NOX
emissions for 2010. As noted above,
MOVES predicts higher NOX emissions
than MOBILE6.
TABLE 6—2009 EMISSIONS INVENTORY SUMMARY FOR NORTH CAROLINA
[tpy]
Source category
VOC
NOX
SO2
PM2.5
62,161
74,056
200,873
168,676
101,236
70,997
45,382
201,609
284,802
1,892
6,281
1,503
26,360
5,760
90,729
3,493
Total ..........................................................................................................
ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Point .................................................................................................................
Non-road Mobile ..............................................................................................
Area .................................................................................................................
On-road Mobile ................................................................................................
505,766
419,224
294,478
126,342
EPA proposes to conclude that North
Carolina has adequately addressed 40
CFR 51.308(g)(4). North Carolina
tracked changes in emissions of
visibility-impairing pollutants from
2002–2010 for all source categories and
analyzed trends in emissions from
2002–2010, the most current qualityassured data available for these units at
the time of progress report development.
The 2010 emissions were also compared
to the projected 2009 emissions, which
were with the exception of NOX, as
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:37 Jun 14, 2016
Jkt 238001
discussed above. While ideally the fiveyear period to be analyzed for emissions
inventory changes is the time period
since the current regional haze plan was
submitted, there is an inevitable time
lag in developing and reporting
complete emissions inventories once
quality-assured emissions data becomes
available. Therefore, EPA believes that
there is some flexibility in the five-year
time period that states can select.
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
5. Assessment of Changes Impeding
Visibility Progress
40 CFR 51.308(g)(5) requires an
assessment of any significant changes in
anthropogenic emissions within or
outside the state that have occurred over
the past five years that have limited or
impeded progress in reducing pollutant
emissions and improving visibility in
Class I areas impacted by the state’s
sources.
In its Progress Report, North Carolina
documented that sulfates, which are
E:\FR\FM\15JNP1.SGM
15JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules
ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
formed from SO2 emissions, continue to
be the biggest single contributor to
regional haze for Class I areas in the
State and therefore focused its analysis
on large SO2 emissions from point
sources. In addressing the requirements
at 40 CFR 51.308(g)(5), North Carolina
references its analyses that SO2
emissions from point sources show an
overall downward trend over the period
2006 to 2010 and examines other
potential pollutants of concern affecting
visibility in Class I areas in North
Carolina. After ammonium sulfate,
primary organic matter is the next
largest contributor to visibility
impairment at Class I areas in North
Carolina. The State demonstrates that
there are no significant changes in
emissions of SO2, PM2.5, or NOX that
have impeded progress in reducing
emissions and improving visibility in
Class I areas impacted by North Carolina
sources. Furthermore, the Progress
Report shows that the State is on track
to meeting its 2018 RPGs for Class I
areas in North Carolina. For these
reasons, EPA proposes to conclude that
North Carolina’s Progress Report has
adequately addressed 40 CFR
51.308(g)(5).
6. Assessment of Current Strategy
40 CFR 51.308(g)(6) requires an
assessment of whether the current
regional haze plan is sufficient to enable
the state, or other states, to meet the
RPGs for Class I areas affected by
emissions from the state.
The State believes that it is on track
to meet the 2018 RPGs for the North
Carolina Class I areas and will not
impede Class I areas outside of North
Carolina from meeting their RPGs based
on the trends in visibility and emissions
presented in its Progress Report. In its
Progress Report, North Carolina
provided reconstructed light extinction
figures for the 20 percent worst days for
all Class I areas in the Southeast for
2006 through 2010. The 20 percent
worst days extinction clearly
demonstrates that sulfates continue to
be the major concern, with EGUs being
the largest contributor. As identified in
Table 3–1 of the Progress Report, the
State estimates that SO2 emissions from
EGUs in North Carolina have decreased
by approximately 387,400 tons per year
from 2002 to 2011 and expects that
these emissions will continue to
decrease through the first regional haze
planning period.
The only coal-fired EGU in North
Carolina which is in the area of
influence (as defined by North
Carolina’s methodology) of the James
River Face Class I area in Virginia was
retired in April 2012. The SO2 emission
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:37 Jun 14, 2016
Jkt 238001
38991
the IMPROVE data and data analysis
tools.
In addition to the IMPROVE
measurements, some ongoing long-term
limited monitoring supported by
Federal Land Managers provides
additional insight into progress toward
regional haze goals. North Carolina
benefits from the data from these
measurements, but is not responsible for
associated funding decisions to
maintain these measurements into the
future.
A continuous nitrate monitor operates
at the Millbrook site in Raleigh and a
second continuous nitrate monitor
operates at the Rockwell monitoring site
in Rowan County. The State plans to
operate these monitors as long as
funding and supplies allow. North
Carolina began operating a continuous
sulfate monitor at the Millbrook in
August 2007 and is currently operating
aethalometers at the Millbrook and
Rockwell sites.
In addition, the NC DAQ and the local
7. Review of Current Monitoring Strategy air agencies in the State operate a
40 CFR 51.308(g)(7) requires a review comprehensive PM2.5 network of the
of the state’s visibility monitoring
filter based Federal reference method
strategy and an assessment of whether
monitors, continuous mass monitors,
any modifications to the monitoring
filter-based speciated monitors, and
strategy are necessary.
continuous speciated monitors. These
In its Progress Report, North Carolina
PM2.5 measurements help the NC DAQ
summarizes the existing monitoring
characterize air pollution levels in areas
network in North Carolina and in
across the State, and therefore aid in the
Tennessee to monitor visibility in North analysis of visibility improvement in
Carolina’s Class I areas in North
and near the Class I areas in North
Carolina and concludes that no
Carolina.
modifications to the existing visibility
EPA proposes to conclude that North
monitoring strategy are necessary. The
Carolina has adequately addressed the
primary monitoring network for regional sufficiency of its monitoring strategy as
haze, both nationwide and in North
required by 40 CFR 51.308(g)(7). The
Carolina, is the IMPROVE network.
State reaffirmed its continued reliance
There are currently three IMPROVE
upon the IMPROVE monitoring
sites in North Carolina (LIGO, SHRO,
network; assessed its entire visibility
and SWAN). In addition, an IMPROVE
monitoring network, including
site just across the border in Tennessee
additional continuous sulfate and PM2.5
serves as the monitoring site for both the monitors, used to further understand
Great Smoky Mountains National Park
visibility trends in the State; and
and Joyce Kilmer-Slickrock Wilderness
determined that no changes to its
Area, both of which lie partly in
monitoring strategy are necessary.
Tennessee and partly in North Carolina.
B. Determination of Adequacy of
The State also explains the
importance of the IMPROVE monitoring Existing Regional Haze Plan
network for tracking visibility trends at
Under 40 CFR 51.308(h), states are
Class I areas in North Carolina. North
required to take one of four possible
Carolina states that data produced by
actions based on the information
the IMPROVE monitoring network will
gathered and conclusions made in the
be used nearly continuously for
progress report. The following section
preparing the 5-year progress reports
summarizes: (1) The action taken by
and the 10-year SIP revisions, each of
North Carolina under 40 CFR 51.308(h);
which relies on analysis of the
(2) North Carolina’s rationale for the
preceding five years of data, and thus,
selected action; and (3) EPA’s analysis
the monitoring data from the IMPROVE
and proposed determination regarding
sites needs to be readily accessible and
the State’s action.
to be kept up to date. The VIEWS Web
In its Progress Report, North Carolina
site has been maintained by VISTAS
took the action provided for by 40 CFR
and the other Regional Planning
51.308(h)(1), which allows a state to
Organizations to provide ready access to submit a negative declaration to EPA if
reductions resulting from this
retirement are expected to contribute to
achieving the RPGs for the James River
Face Class I area.
EPA proposes to conclude that North
Carolina has adequately addressed 40
CFR 51.308(g)(6). EPA views this
requirement as a qualitative assessment
that should evaluate emissions and
visibility trends and other readily
available information, including
expected emissions reductions
associated with measures with
compliance dates that have not yet
become effective. In its assessment, the
State references the improving visibility
trends and the downward emissions
trends in the State, with a focus on SO2
emissions from North Carolina EGUs.
These trends support the State’s
determination that the State’s regional
haze plan is sufficient to meet RPGs for
Class I areas within and outside the
State impacted by North Carolina
sources.
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\15JNP1.SGM
15JNP1
38992
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules
the state determines that the existing
regional haze plan requires no further
substantive revision at this time to
achieve the RPGs for Class I areas
affected by the state’s sources. The basis
for the State’s negative declaration is the
findings from the Progress Report,
including the findings that: Visibility
has improved at Class I areas (with the
exception of the best-days visibility at
SWAN as discussed above) in North
Carolina; SO2 emissions from the State’s
sources have decreased beyond the 2018
projections in the regional haze plan;
additional EGU control measures not
relied upon in the State’s regional haze
plan have occurred or will occur in the
implementation period; and the EGU
SO2 emissions in North Carolina are
already below the levels projected for
2018 in the regional haze plan and are
expected to continue to trend
downward. EPA proposes to conclude
that North Carolina has adequately
addressed 40 CFR 51.308(h) because the
visibility trends at the Class I areas
impacted by the State’s sources and the
emissions trends of the State’s largest
emitters of visibility-impairing
pollutants indicate that the RPGs for
Class I areas impacted by source in
North Carolina will be met.
ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
IV. Proposed Action
EPA is proposing to approve North
Carolina’s Regional Haze Progress
Report, SIP revision, submitted by the
State on May 31, 2013, as meeting the
applicable regional haze requirements
set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(g) and (h).
EPA also proposes to approve the
updated RPGs for North Carolina’s Class
I areas.
V. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the
Act and applicable federal regulations.
See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions,
EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed
action merely proposes to approve state
law as meeting federal requirements and
does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by
state law. For that reason, this proposed
action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget under
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011);
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:37 Jun 14, 2016
Jkt 238001
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• Does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
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.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Nitrogen oxides, Particulate matter,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Volatile
organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: June 1, 2016.
Heather McTeer Toney,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2016–14036 Filed 6–14–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R03–OAR–2008–0603; FRL–9947–67–
Region 3]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans;
Pennsylvania; Philadelphia County
Reasonably Available Control
Technology Under the 1997 8-Hour
Ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standards
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve
state implementation plan (SIP)
revisions submitted by the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. These
revisions pertain to a demonstration that
Philadelphia County (Philadelphia)
meets the requirements for reasonably
available control technology (RACT) of
the Clean Air Act (CAA) for nitrogen
oxides (NOX) and volatile organic
compounds (VOC) as ozone precursors
for the 1997 8-hour ozone national
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS).
In this rulemaking action, EPA is
proposing to approve three separate SIP
revisions addressing RACT under the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for
Philadelphia, including new or revised
source-specific RACT determinations
for fifteen major sources of NOX and/or
VOC and certifications that certain
previous source-specific RACT
determinations for major sources of NOX
and/or VOC continue to adequately
represent RACT under the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. EPA also proposes to
convert the prior conditional approval
of the Philadelphia RACT
demonstration for the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS to full approval, as
Pennsylvania has met the obligations
associated with the conditional
approval. EPA therefore proposes to
find that Pennsylvania has met all
applicable RACT requirements under
the CAA for the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS for Philadelphia. This action is
being taken under the CAA.
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before July 15, 2016.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R03–
OAR–2008–0603 at https://
www.regulations.gov, or via email to
Fernandez.cristina@epa.gov. For
comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for
submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\15JNP1.SGM
15JNP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 115 (Wednesday, June 15, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 38986-38992]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-14036]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0449; FRL-9947-62-Region 4]
Air Plan Approval; North Carolina; Regional Haze Progress Report
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
State of North Carolina through the North Carolina Division of Air
Quality (NC DAQ) on May 31, 2013. North Carolina's May 31, 2013, SIP
revision (Progress Report) addresses requirements of the Clean Air Act
(CAA or Act) and EPA's rules that require each state to submit periodic
reports describing progress towards reasonable progress goals (RPGs)
established for regional haze and a determination of the adequacy of
the state's existing SIP addressing regional haze (regional haze plan).
EPA is proposing to approve North Carolina's Progress Report on the
basis that it addresses the progress report and adequacy determination
requirements for the first implementation period for regional haze.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 15, 2016.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2015-0449 at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Lakeman, 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 can be reached by phone at (404) 562-9043 and
via electronic mail at lakeman.sean@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
Under the Regional Haze Rule,\1\ each state was required to submit
its first implementation plan addressing regional haze visibility
impairment to EPA no later than December 17, 2007. See 40 CFR
51.308(b). North Carolina submitted its regional haze plan on that
date, and like many other states subject to the Clean Air Interstate
Rule (CAIR), relied on CAIR to satisfy best available retrofit
technology (BART) requirements for emissions of sulfur dioxide
(SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOX) from electric
generating units (EGUs) in the State. On June 7, 2012, EPA finalized a
limited disapproval of North Carolina's December 17, 2007 regional haze
plan submission because of deficiencies arising from the State's
reliance on CAIR to satisfy certain regional haze requirements. See 77
FR 33642. In a separate action taken on June 27, 2012, EPA finalized a
limited approval of North Carolina's December 17, 2007, regional haze
plan submission, as meeting some of the applicable regional haze
requirements as set forth in sections 169A and 169B of the CAA and in
40 CFR 51.300-51.308. See 77 FR 38185. On October 31, 2014, the State
submitted a regional haze plan revision to correct the deficiencies
identified in the June 27, 2012, limited disapproval by replacing
reliance on CAIR with reliance on the State's Clean Smokestacks Act
(CSA) as an alternative to NOX and SO2 BART for
BART-eligible EGUs formerly subject to CAIR. EPA approved that SIP
revision on May 13, 2016, resulting in a full approval of North
Carolina's regional haze plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 40 CFR part 51, subpart P.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Each state is also required to submit a progress report in the form
of a SIP revision every five years that evaluates progress towards the
RPGs for each mandatory Class I Federal area within the state and for
each mandatory Class I Federal area outside the state which may be
affected by emissions from within the state. See 40 CFR 51.308(g). Each
state is also required to submit, at the same time as the progress
report, a determination of the adequacy of its existing regional haze
plan. See 40 CFR 51.308(h). The first progress report is due five years
after submittal of the initial regional haze plan.
On May 31, 2013, as required by 40 CFR 51.308(g), NC DAQ submitted
to EPA, in the form of a revision to North Carolina's SIP, a report on
progress made towards the RPGs for Class I areas in the State and for
Class I areas outside the State that are affected by emissions from
sources within the State. This submission also includes a negative
declaration pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(h)(1) that the State's regional
haze plan is sufficient in meeting the requirements of the Regional
Haze Rule (40 CFR 51.300 et seq.). EPA is proposing to approve North
Carolina's Progress Report on the basis that it satisfies the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g) and (h) now that EPA has fully
approved the State's regional haze plan.
II. Requirements for the Regional Haze Progress Report and Adequacy
Determinations
A. Regional Haze Progress Report
Under 40 CFR 51.308(g), states must submit a regional haze progress
report as a SIP revision every five years and must address, at a
minimum, the seven elements found in 40 CFR 51.308(g). As described in
further detail in section III below, 40 CFR 51.308(g) requires: (1) A
description of the status of measures in the approved regional haze
plan; (2) a summary of emissions reductions achieved; (3) an assessment
of visibility conditions for each Class I area in the state; (4) an
analysis of changes in emissions from sources and activities within the
state; (5) an assessment of any significant changes in anthropogenic
emissions within or outside the state that have limited or impeded
progress in Class I areas impacted by the state's sources, (6) an
assessment of the sufficiency of the approved regional haze plan; and
(7) a review of the state's visibility monitoring strategy.
[[Page 38987]]
B. Adequacy Determinations of the Current Regional Haze Plan
Under 40 CFR 51.308(h), states are required to submit, at the same
time as the progress report, a determination of the adequacy of their
existing regional haze plan and to take one of four possible actions
based on information in the progress report. As described in further
detail in section III below, 40 CFR 51.308(h) requires states to: (1)
Submit a negative declaration to EPA that no further substantive
revision to the state's existing regional haze plan is needed; (2)
provide notification to EPA (and to other state(s) that participated in
the regional planning process) if the state determines that its
existing regional haze plan is or may be inadequate to ensure
reasonable progress at one or more Class I areas due to emissions from
sources in other state(s) that participated in the regional planning
process, and collaborate with these other state(s) to develop
additional strategies to address deficiencies; (3) provide notification
with supporting information to EPA if the state determines that its
existing regional haze plan is or may be inadequate to ensure
reasonable progress at one or more Class I areas due to emissions from
sources in another country; or (4) revise its regional haze plan to
address deficiencies within one year if the state determines that its
existing regional haze plan is or may be inadequate to ensure
reasonable progress in one or more Class I areas due to emissions from
sources within the state.
III. What is EPA's analysis of North Carolina's regional haze progress
report and adequacy determination?
On May 31, 2013, NC DAQ submitted a revision to North Carolina's
regional haze plan to address progress made towards the RPGs for Class
I areas in the State and for Class I areas outside the State that are
affected by emissions from sources within North Carolina. This
submittal also includes a determination of the adequacy of the State's
existing regional haze plan. North Carolina has five Class I areas
within its borders: Great Smoky Mountains National Park (GSMNP), Joyce
Kilmer-Slickrock Wilderness Area (JOKI), Linville Gorge Wilderness Area
(LIGO), Shining Rock Wilderness Area (SHRO), and Swanquarter Wildlife
Refuge (SWAN). Both the Great Smoky Mountains and Joyce Kilmer-
Slickrock Areas are located in North Carolina and Tennessee. In its
regional haze plan, the State also identified, through an area of
influence modeling analysis based on back trajectories, one Class I
area in one neighboring state potentially impacted by North Carolina
sources: James River Face Wilderness Area in Virginia. See 77 FR 11858,
11869 (February 28, 2012).
A. Regional Haze Progress Report
The following sections summarize: (1) Each of the seven elements
that must be addressed by a progress report under 40 CFR 51.308(g); (2)
how North Carolina's Progress Report addressed each element; and (3)
EPA's analysis and proposed determination as to whether the State
satisfied each element.
1. Status of Control Measures
40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) requires a description of the status of
implementation of all measures included in the regional haze plan for
achieving RPGs for Class I areas both within and outside the state.
The State evaluated the status of measures included in its 2007
regional haze plan in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1).
Specifically, in its Progress Report, North Carolina summarizes the
status of the emissions reduction measures that were included in the
final iteration of the Visibility Improvement State and Tribal
Association of the Southeast (VISTAS) regional haze emissions inventory
and RPG modeling used by the State in developing its regional haze
plan. The measures include, among other things, applicable Federal
programs (e.g., mobile source rules, Maximum Achievable Control
Technology standards), Federal consent agreements, and Federal and
state control strategies for EGUs.\2\ The State also discusses the
status of several measures that were not included in the final VISTAS
emissions inventory and were not relied upon in the initial regional
haze plan to meet RPGs. The State notes that the emissions reductions
from these measures will help ensure Class I areas impacted by North
Carolina sources achieve their RPGs. In aggregate, as noted in sections
III.A.2 and III.A.6 of this document, the emissions reductions from the
identified measures are expected to exceed the emissions reductions
projected in North Carolina's regional haze plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ North Carolina's progress report discusses the status of
CAIR, CSAPR, and the CSA as of the date of submission. As noted
above, North Carolina subsequently submitted a SIP revision to
replace its reliance on CAIR as NOX and SO2
BART for BART-eligible units formerly subject to CAIR with reliance
on the CSA as a BART Alternative, and EPA approved that SIP revision
on May 13, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA proposes to find that North Carolina's analysis adequately
addresses 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) for the reasons discussed below. The
State documents the implementation status of measures from its regional
haze plan in addition to describing additional measures not originally
accounted for in the final VISTAS emissions inventory that came into
effect since the VISTAS analyses for the regional haze plan were
completed. The State's Progress Report also provides detailed
information on EGU control strategies in its regional haze plan and the
status of existing and future expected controls for North Carolina's
EGUs because, in its regional haze plan, North Carolina identified
SO2 emissions from coal-fired EGUs as the key contributor to
regional haze in the VISTAS region. North Carolina discusses the status
of the CSA, which the State identified as the primary state control
strategy in its regional haze plan, and the resulting emissions
reductions.\3\ Under the CSA, power plants were required to reduce
their NOX emissions by 77 percent in 2009 and their
SO2 emissions by 73 percent in 2013. The State notes that
all of the CSA subject units are controlled with a scrubber for
SO2 control and a selective catalytic reduction unit or a
selective non-catalytic reduction for NOX control, or have
retired, which will result in more SO2 and NOX
emissions reductions than those projected in the regional haze plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ According to the State, in 2011, regulated sources under the
CSA emitted 73,454 tons per year (tpy) of SO2 and 39,284
tpy of NOX, well below the CSA's annual emissions caps
for SO2 and NOX. The State also notes that the
2018 current emissions projection of SO2 from the sources
subject to CSA is 18,420 tpy, which is approximately 80 percent
lower than the original 2018 projections used in the North Carolina
regional haze plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Emissions Reductions and Progress
40 CFR 51.308(g)(2) requires a summary of the emissions reductions
achieved in the state through the measures subject to 40 CFR
51.308(g)(1).
In its regional haze plan and Progress Report, North Carolina
focuses its assessment on SO2 emissions from EGUs because of
VISTAS' findings that ammonium sulfate accounted for more than 70
percent of the visibility-impairing pollution in the VISTAS states and
that SO2 point source emissions in 2018 represent more than
95 percent of the total SO2 emissions in the State.\4\ As
discussed in section III.A.5, below, North Carolina determined that
sulfates continue to be the largest contributor to regional haze for
Class I areas in the State.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ For additional information, see North Carolina's December
17, 2007, regional haze plan at page 24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its Progress Report, North Carolina presents SO2
emissions data for EGUs in the State and notes that North Carolina's
EGU sector represents over 50 percent of statewide SO2
emissions from stationary
[[Page 38988]]
sources. SO2 emissions reductions from 2002 to 2011 for
North Carolina EGUs (387,373 tpy) are greater than the SO2
emissions reductions from 2002 to 2018 estimated in North Carolina's
regional haze plan for these EGUs (367,528 tpy). Additionally, the
State updated the 2018 SO2 emissions projections for North
Carolina EGUs in its regional haze plan. These updated 2018
SO2 EGU emissions projections are approximately 80 percent
lower than the projected 2018 SO2 emissions in the regional
haze plan.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See page 32 of the May 31, 2013, submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
North Carolina states that coal-fired EGUs in North Carolina
emitted a total of 370,000 tpy of SO2 in 2007, whereas in
2011, these same EGUs emitted a total of 73,000 tpy of SO2,
a reduction of 297,000 tpy, due largely to the installation and
operation of scrubbers. The State expects that future SO2
emissions will decline further from more natural gas use and the
continued retirement of older, smaller coal-fired EGUs without
scrubbers. NOX emissions from these EGUs dropped from a
total of approximately 57,400 tpy in 2007 to approximately 39,300 tpy
of NOX in 2011, an 18,100 tpy reduction.
North Carolina identified the retirement of over 100 EGUs at 35
facilities located in eight nearby states that VISTAS modeling
indicates potentially impact visibility in North Carolina's Class I
areas. These units emitted more than 550,000 tpy of SO2 in
2011. The State believes that this is another indicator that the Class
I areas in North Carolina are on track to meet their RPGs. North
Carolina also discussed the SO2 emissions reductions that
occurred at non-EGU facilities identified in its regional haze plan as
contributing one percent or more to visibility impairment at any Class
I area.
EPA proposes to conclude that North Carolina has adequately
addressed 40 CFR 51.308(g)(2). As discussed above, the State provides
estimates, and where available, actual emissions reductions of
visibility-impairing pollutants resulting from the measures relied upon
in its regional haze plan. The State appropriately focused on
SO2 emissions from its EGUs in its Progress Report because
the State had previously identified these emissions as the most
significant contributors to visibility impairment at North Carolina's
Class I areas and those areas that North Carolina sources impact.
3. Visibility Progress
40 CFR 51.308(g)(3) requires that states with Class I areas provide
the following information for the most impaired and least impaired days
for each area, with values expressed in terms of five-year averages of
these annual values: \6\ (i) Current visibility conditions; (ii) the
difference between current visibility conditions and baseline
visibility conditions; and (iii) the change in visibility impairment
over the past five years.
North Carolina provides figures with visibility monitoring data
that address the three requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3) for the
State's five Class I areas. North Carolina reported current conditions
as the 2006-2010 five-year time period and used the 2000-2004 baseline
period for its Class I areas.\7\ Table 1, below, shows the current
visibility conditions and the difference between current visibility
conditions and baseline visibility conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The ``most impaired days'' and ``least impaired days'' in
the regional haze refers to the average visibility impairment
(measured in deciviews) for the 20 percent of monitored days in a
calendar year with the highest and lowest amount of visibility
impairment, respectively, averaged over a five-year period. 40 CFR
51.301.
\7\ For the first regional haze plans, ``baseline'' conditions
were represented by the 2000-2004 time period. See 64 FR 35730 (July
1, 1999).
Table 1--Baseline Visibility, Current Visibility, and Visibility Changes in Class I Areas in North Carolina
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline (2000- Current (2009-
Class I area 2004) 2013) Difference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20% Worst Days
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Great Smoky Mountain National Park.............................. 30.3 26.6 -3.7
Joyce Kilmer-Slickrock.......................................... 30.3 26.6 -3.7
Linville Gorge.................................................. 28.6 25.1 -3.5
Shining Rock.................................................... 28.5 25.8 -2.7
Swanquarter..................................................... 24.7 24.2 -0.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20% Best Days
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Great Smoky Mountain National Park.............................. 13.6 12.3 -1.3
Joyce Kilmer-Slickrock.......................................... 13.6 12.3 -1.3
Linville Gorge.................................................. 11.1 11 -0.1
Shining Rock.................................................... 8.2 7.25 -0.95
Swanquarter..................................................... 12 12.9 0.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All North Carolina Class I areas saw an improvement in visibility
on the 20 percent worst days from 2006-2010 and between baseline and
2006-2010 conditions. All North Carolina Class I areas except for
Swanquarter Wildlife Refuge saw an improvement in visibility on the 20
percent best days from 2006-2010 and between baseline and 2006-2010
conditions.
At Swanquarter, a 0.9 dv increase was recorded in the 20 percent
best-day average between 2006-2010 conditions (12.9 dv) and the 2000-
2004 baseline (12.0 dv). This could be due, in part, to the fact that
the visibility data for 2008 at Swanquarter did not meet EPA's data
completeness criteria and was therefore removed from the 2006-2010
average, resulting in a four-year average during this review period.\8\
Regardless, North Carolina believes that planned changes to operating
status and emission controls on large sources within the Swanquarter
area of influence provide sufficient evidence that by 2018, the 20
percent best days will be protected.\9\ Furthermore, the 20 percent
best-day average at Swanquarter has continued to improve, dropping to
12.2 dv for 2007-2011.\10\ Based on the visibility data reported in the
Western Regional Air
[[Page 38989]]
Partnership Technical Support System, the 20 percent best-day five year
averages have continued to improve through 2014 and have dropped below
the baseline beginning with the 2008-2012 average.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See USEPA (2003) ``Guidance for Tracking Progress Under the
Regional Haze Rule,'' https://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1/memoranda/rh_tpurhr_gd.pdf, pp. 2-8.
\9\ See pp. 43-49 of the May 31, 2013, submission.
\10\ See pp. 41-42 of the May 31, 2013, submission.
\11\ See https://vista.cira.colostate.edu/tss/Results/HazePlanning.aspx Web site for dv between 2011-2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
North Carolina's Progress Report includes revised RPGs for the five
Class I areas within the State. North Carolina's original RPGs were
based on the VISTAS modeling run available at the time of the 2007 SIP
revision. In 2008, VISTAS provided updated modeling results that
changed the modeled progress for North Carolina's Class I areas. North
Carolina seeks to include revised RPGs that reflect this modeled
progress. Table 2 identifies the RPGs for North Carolina's Class I
areas in the State's regional haze plan and the updated RPGs proposed
in its Progress Report.
Table 2--Updated RPGs for North Carolina's Class 1 Areas
[Deciviews]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RPG 20% worst RPG 20% best
days (2007 RPG 20% worst days (2007 RPG 20% best
Class I areas regional haze days (2013 regional haze days (2013
plan) progress report) plan) progress report)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GSMNP................................... 23.7 23.5 12.2 12.1
JOKI.................................... 23.7 23.5 12.2 12.1
LIGO.................................... 22.0 21.7 9.6 9.5
SHRO.................................... 22.1 21.9 6.9 6.9
SWAN.................................... 20.4 20.3 11.0 10.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA proposes to approve the updated RPGs for North Carolina's Class
I areas because they reflect more recent modeling. Also, EPA proposes
to conclude that North Carolina has adequately addressed 40 CFR
51.308(g)(3) because the State provides the information regarding
visibility conditions and visibility changes necessary to meet the
requirements of the regulation. The Progress Report includes current
conditions based on the Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual
Environments (IMPROVE) monitoring data for the years 2006-2010, the
difference between current visibility conditions and baseline
visibility conditions, and the change in visibility impairment over the
five-year period 2006-2010.
4. Emissions Tracking
40 CFR 51.308(g)(4) requires an analysis tracking emission changes
of visibility-impairing pollutants from the state's sources by type or
category over the past five years based on the most recent updated
emissions inventory.
In its Progress Report, North Carolina presents data from statewide
actual emissions inventories for 2008 and projected emissions
inventories developed for the years 2009 and 2010. The State compares
these data to the baseline emissions inventory for 2002. The pollutants
inventoried include volatile organic compounds (VOC), NOX,
fine particulate matter (PM2.5), and SO2. The
emissions inventories include the following source classifications:
Point, area, non-road mobile, and on-road mobile sources.
North Carolina includes the emissions inventories from the regional
haze plan for 2002 and 2009, and summarizes emissions data from EPA's
2008 National Emissions Inventory. North Carolina's analysis shows that
2008 emissions are lower than 2002 emissions. North Carolina estimates
on-road mobile source emissions in the 2008 and 2010 inventories using
the MOVES2010a model. This model tends to estimate higher emissions
than its previous counterpart, the MOBILE6 model used by the State to
estimate on-road mobile source emissions for the 2002 and 2009
inventories, especially for NOX emissions. North Carolina
has concluded that MOVES model predictions for NOX can be
1.7 to 2.1 times higher than MOBILE6. Despite the change in
methodology, a declining trend in all pollutants can be seen between
2002 and 2008 as seen in Table 4.
North Carolina also includes an emission inventory for 2010 in its
Progress Report. The State estimates 2010 point source emissions by
taking the emissions reported by sources for 2010 and adding the latest
emissions for the small sources that only report emissions every five
years. This procedure differs from the procedure used by the State in
its regional haze plan that included only those sources that reported
emissions in 2002. In its 2010 inventory, North Carolina estimated that
small sources that did not report contribute one percent of total
NOX emissions, seven percent of total VOC emissions, one
percent of total SO2 emissions, and seven percent of total
PM2.5 emissions. North Carolina estimates area source
emissions by growing the existing 2007 emissions inventory to 2010 and
estimates non-road mobile source emissions using the EPA's NONROAD2008
model for those sources covered by the model and growing the 2007
airport, locomotive, and commercial marine emissions to 2010.
North Carolina estimates on-road mobile source emissions for 2010
using MOVES2010a with the latest vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and speed
data. If 2010 speeds and VMT were not available for a particular
county, interpolated or projected 2010 data was used. Using MOVES2010a,
the on-road mobile emissions are higher than those that would be
predicted using the older model. As seen in Tables 3 and 5, the 2010
emissions inventory is significantly lower than the 2002 emissions
inventory despite including additional stationary point sources and the
use of MOVES, which predicts higher NOX emissions than its
predecessor MOBILE6.2.
[[Page 38990]]
Table 3--2002 Emissions Inventory Summary for North Carolina
[tpy]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source category VOC NOX SO2 PM2.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point........................................... 61,484 196,731 522,093 26,953
Area............................................ 250,044 41,517 5,815 83,520
On-road Mobile.................................. 263,766 327,329 12,420 4,623
Non-road Mobile................................. 94,480 84,284 7,693 7,348
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................................... 669,774 649,861 548,021 122,444
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4--Actual 2008 Annual Emission Summary for North Carolina
[tpy]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source category VOC NOX SO2 PM2.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point........................................... 39,053 97,879 274,541 27,987
Area............................................ 149,264 43,672 13,937 48,807
On-road Mobile.................................. 122,503 253,849 1,190 7,895
Non-road Mobile................................. 72,754 52,469 980 4,924
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................................... 383,573 447,869 290,648 89,613
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 5--2010 Emissions Inventory Summary for North Carolina
[tpy]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source category VOC NOX SO2 PM2.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point........................................... 42,504 90,155 151,210 13,966
Area............................................ 83,274 11,353 5,105 23,114
On-road Mobile.................................. 101,731 256,381 1,205 8,905
Non-road Mobile................................. 66,773 65,353 2,829 5,455
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................................... 294,281 423,242 160,350 51,441
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When comparing the 2010 emissions (Table 5) with the projected 2009
emissions (Table 6), the total emissions of each pollutant are lower in
2010 with the exception of NOX. The slight increase in 2010
NOX emissions is likely due to the use of MOBILE6 to
estimate on-road mobile source NOX emissions for 2009 and
the use of MOVES to estimate on-road mobile source NOX
emissions for 2010. As noted above, MOVES predicts higher
NOX emissions than MOBILE6.
Table 6--2009 Emissions Inventory Summary for North Carolina
[tpy]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source category VOC NOX SO2 PM2.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point........................................... 62,161 101,236 284,802 26,360
Non-road Mobile................................. 74,056 70,997 1,892 5,760
Area............................................ 200,873 45,382 6,281 90,729
On-road Mobile.................................. 168,676 201,609 1,503 3,493
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................................... 505,766 419,224 294,478 126,342
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA proposes to conclude that North Carolina has adequately
addressed 40 CFR 51.308(g)(4). North Carolina tracked changes in
emissions of visibility-impairing pollutants from 2002-2010 for all
source categories and analyzed trends in emissions from 2002-2010, the
most current quality-assured data available for these units at the time
of progress report development. The 2010 emissions were also compared
to the projected 2009 emissions, which were with the exception of
NOX, as discussed above. While ideally the five-year period
to be analyzed for emissions inventory changes is the time period since
the current regional haze plan was submitted, there is an inevitable
time lag in developing and reporting complete emissions inventories
once quality-assured emissions data becomes available. Therefore, EPA
believes that there is some flexibility in the five-year time period
that states can select.
5. Assessment of Changes Impeding Visibility Progress
40 CFR 51.308(g)(5) requires an assessment of any significant
changes in anthropogenic emissions within or outside the state that
have occurred over the past five years that have limited or impeded
progress in reducing pollutant emissions and improving visibility in
Class I areas impacted by the state's sources.
In its Progress Report, North Carolina documented that sulfates,
which are
[[Page 38991]]
formed from SO2 emissions, continue to be the biggest single
contributor to regional haze for Class I areas in the State and
therefore focused its analysis on large SO2 emissions from
point sources. In addressing the requirements at 40 CFR 51.308(g)(5),
North Carolina references its analyses that SO2 emissions
from point sources show an overall downward trend over the period 2006
to 2010 and examines other potential pollutants of concern affecting
visibility in Class I areas in North Carolina. After ammonium sulfate,
primary organic matter is the next largest contributor to visibility
impairment at Class I areas in North Carolina. The State demonstrates
that there are no significant changes in emissions of SO2,
PM2.5, or NOX that have impeded progress in
reducing emissions and improving visibility in Class I areas impacted
by North Carolina sources. Furthermore, the Progress Report shows that
the State is on track to meeting its 2018 RPGs for Class I areas in
North Carolina. For these reasons, EPA proposes to conclude that North
Carolina's Progress Report has adequately addressed 40 CFR
51.308(g)(5).
6. Assessment of Current Strategy
40 CFR 51.308(g)(6) requires an assessment of whether the current
regional haze plan is sufficient to enable the state, or other states,
to meet the RPGs for Class I areas affected by emissions from the
state.
The State believes that it is on track to meet the 2018 RPGs for
the North Carolina Class I areas and will not impede Class I areas
outside of North Carolina from meeting their RPGs based on the trends
in visibility and emissions presented in its Progress Report. In its
Progress Report, North Carolina provided reconstructed light extinction
figures for the 20 percent worst days for all Class I areas in the
Southeast for 2006 through 2010. The 20 percent worst days extinction
clearly demonstrates that sulfates continue to be the major concern,
with EGUs being the largest contributor. As identified in Table 3-1 of
the Progress Report, the State estimates that SO2 emissions
from EGUs in North Carolina have decreased by approximately 387,400
tons per year from 2002 to 2011 and expects that these emissions will
continue to decrease through the first regional haze planning period.
The only coal-fired EGU in North Carolina which is in the area of
influence (as defined by North Carolina's methodology) of the James
River Face Class I area in Virginia was retired in April 2012. The
SO2 emission reductions resulting from this retirement are
expected to contribute to achieving the RPGs for the James River Face
Class I area.
EPA proposes to conclude that North Carolina has adequately
addressed 40 CFR 51.308(g)(6). EPA views this requirement as a
qualitative assessment that should evaluate emissions and visibility
trends and other readily available information, including expected
emissions reductions associated with measures with compliance dates
that have not yet become effective. In its assessment, the State
references the improving visibility trends and the downward emissions
trends in the State, with a focus on SO2 emissions from
North Carolina EGUs. These trends support the State's determination
that the State's regional haze plan is sufficient to meet RPGs for
Class I areas within and outside the State impacted by North Carolina
sources.
7. Review of Current Monitoring Strategy
40 CFR 51.308(g)(7) requires a review of the state's visibility
monitoring strategy and an assessment of whether any modifications to
the monitoring strategy are necessary.
In its Progress Report, North Carolina summarizes the existing
monitoring network in North Carolina and in Tennessee to monitor
visibility in North Carolina's Class I areas in North Carolina and
concludes that no modifications to the existing visibility monitoring
strategy are necessary. The primary monitoring network for regional
haze, both nationwide and in North Carolina, is the IMPROVE network.
There are currently three IMPROVE sites in North Carolina (LIGO, SHRO,
and SWAN). In addition, an IMPROVE site just across the border in
Tennessee serves as the monitoring site for both the Great Smoky
Mountains National Park and Joyce Kilmer-Slickrock Wilderness Area,
both of which lie partly in Tennessee and partly in North Carolina.
The State also explains the importance of the IMPROVE monitoring
network for tracking visibility trends at Class I areas in North
Carolina. North Carolina states that data produced by the IMPROVE
monitoring network will be used nearly continuously for preparing the
5-year progress reports and the 10-year SIP revisions, each of which
relies on analysis of the preceding five years of data, and thus, the
monitoring data from the IMPROVE sites needs to be readily accessible
and to be kept up to date. The VIEWS Web site has been maintained by
VISTAS and the other Regional Planning Organizations to provide ready
access to the IMPROVE data and data analysis tools.
In addition to the IMPROVE measurements, some ongoing long-term
limited monitoring supported by Federal Land Managers provides
additional insight into progress toward regional haze goals. North
Carolina benefits from the data from these measurements, but is not
responsible for associated funding decisions to maintain these
measurements into the future.
A continuous nitrate monitor operates at the Millbrook site in
Raleigh and a second continuous nitrate monitor operates at the
Rockwell monitoring site in Rowan County. The State plans to operate
these monitors as long as funding and supplies allow. North Carolina
began operating a continuous sulfate monitor at the Millbrook in August
2007 and is currently operating aethalometers at the Millbrook and
Rockwell sites.
In addition, the NC DAQ and the local air agencies in the State
operate a comprehensive PM2.5 network of the filter based
Federal reference method monitors, continuous mass monitors, filter-
based speciated monitors, and continuous speciated monitors. These
PM2.5 measurements help the NC DAQ characterize air
pollution levels in areas across the State, and therefore aid in the
analysis of visibility improvement in and near the Class I areas in
North Carolina.
EPA proposes to conclude that North Carolina has adequately
addressed the sufficiency of its monitoring strategy as required by 40
CFR 51.308(g)(7). The State reaffirmed its continued reliance upon the
IMPROVE monitoring network; assessed its entire visibility monitoring
network, including additional continuous sulfate and PM2.5
monitors, used to further understand visibility trends in the State;
and determined that no changes to its monitoring strategy are
necessary.
B. Determination of Adequacy of Existing Regional Haze Plan
Under 40 CFR 51.308(h), states are required to take one of four
possible actions based on the information gathered and conclusions made
in the progress report. The following section summarizes: (1) The
action taken by North Carolina under 40 CFR 51.308(h); (2) North
Carolina's rationale for the selected action; and (3) EPA's analysis
and proposed determination regarding the State's action.
In its Progress Report, North Carolina took the action provided for
by 40 CFR 51.308(h)(1), which allows a state to submit a negative
declaration to EPA if
[[Page 38992]]
the state determines that the existing regional haze plan requires no
further substantive revision at this time to achieve the RPGs for Class
I areas affected by the state's sources. The basis for the State's
negative declaration is the findings from the Progress Report,
including the findings that: Visibility has improved at Class I areas
(with the exception of the best-days visibility at SWAN as discussed
above) in North Carolina; SO2 emissions from the State's
sources have decreased beyond the 2018 projections in the regional haze
plan; additional EGU control measures not relied upon in the State's
regional haze plan have occurred or will occur in the implementation
period; and the EGU SO2 emissions in North Carolina are
already below the levels projected for 2018 in the regional haze plan
and are expected to continue to trend downward. EPA proposes to
conclude that North Carolina has adequately addressed 40 CFR 51.308(h)
because the visibility trends at the Class I areas impacted by the
State's sources and the emissions trends of the State's largest
emitters of visibility-impairing pollutants indicate that the RPGs for
Class I areas impacted by source in North Carolina will be met.
IV. Proposed Action
EPA is proposing to approve North Carolina's Regional Haze Progress
Report, SIP revision, submitted by the State on May 31, 2013, as
meeting the applicable regional haze requirements set forth in 40 CFR
51.308(g) and (h). EPA also proposes to approve the updated RPGs for
North Carolina's Class I areas.
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
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.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide,
Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: June 1, 2016.
Heather McTeer Toney,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2016-14036 Filed 6-14-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
