[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 144 (Friday, July 26, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 45152-45167]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-17834]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[EPA-R04-OAR-2013-0129; FRL-9835-8]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation
of Areas; North Carolina; Redesignation of the Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock
Hill, 1997 8-Hour Ozone Moderate Nonattainment Area to Attainment
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On November 2, 2011, and supplemented on March 28, 2013, the
State of North Carolina, through the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, Department of Air Quality (NC DAQ),
submitted a request for EPA to redesignate the portion of North
Carolina that is within the bi-state Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill,
North Carolina-South Carolina 8-hour ozone nonattainment area
(hereafter referred to as the ``bi-state Charlotte Area,'' ``Area,'' or
``Metrolina nonattainment area'') to attainment for the 1997 8-hour
ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS); and to approve a
State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision containing a maintenance plan
for the Area. EPA is proposing to approve the redesignation request for
the Area, along with the related SIP revisions, including North
Carolina's plan for maintaining attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard in the Area. EPA is also proposing to approve a supplemental
SIP revision, submitted to EPA on March 28, 2013, extending the
maintenance plan to the year 2025 and updating motor vehicle emission
budgets (MVEBs) for nitrogen oxides (NOX) and volatile
organic compounds (VOC) for the years 2013 and 2025 for the North
Carolina portion of the Area. These actions are being proposed pursuant
to the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) and its implementing regulations. EPA
finalized action to redesignate the South Carolina portion of the Area,
including approval of South Carolina's maintenance plan for the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS, in a separate action.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 26, 2013.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2013-0129, by one of the following methods:
1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
2. Email: [email protected].
3. Fax: (404) 562-9019.
4. Mail: EPA-R04-OAR-2013-0129, Regulatory Development Section, Air
Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Ms. Lynorae Benjamin, Chief,
Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides
and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours
of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal
holidays.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-
2013-0129. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit through www.regulations.gov or
email, information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected.
The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email
comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your
email address will be automatically captured and included as part of
the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on
the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that
you include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at the Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning
Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official
hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
excluding Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jane Spann or Sara Waterson of the
Regulatory Development Section, in the Air Planning Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. Ms. Spann may be reached by phone at (404) 562-9029, or via
electronic mail at [email protected]. Ms. Waterson may be reached by
phone at (404) 562-9061, or via electronic mail at
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. What are the actions EPA is proposing to take?
II. What is the background for EPA's proposed actions?
III. What are the criteria for redesignation?
IV. Why is EPA proposing these actions?
V. What is EPA's analysis of the request?
VI. What is EPA's analysis of North Carolina's proposed
NOX and VOC MVEBs for the North Carolina portion of the
area?
VII. What is the status of EPA's adequacy determination for the
proposed NOX and VOC MVEBs for 2013 and 2025 for the
North Carolina portion of the area?
VIII. Proposed Action on the Redesignation Request and Maintenance
Plan SIP Revision Including Proposed Approval of the 2013 and 2025
NOX and VOC MVEBs for the North Carolina Portion of the
Area
[[Page 45153]]
IX. What is the effect of EPA's proposed actions?
X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What are the actions EPA is proposing to take?
EPA is proposing to take the following two separate but related
actions, one of which involves multiple elements: (1) To redesignate
the North Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area to attainment
for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS; and (2) to approve into the North
Carolina SIP, under section 175A of the CAA, North Carolina's plan for
maintaining the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS (1997 ozone NAAQS maintenance
plan). EPA's proposed action for the maintenance plan also includes
proposed approval of the associated MVEBs. Through today's rulemaking,
EPA is also notifying the public of the status of EPA's adequacy
determination for the MVEBs for the North Carolina portion of the bi-
state Charlotte Area. The bi-state Charlotte Area consists of Cabarrus,
Gaston, Lincoln, Mecklenburg, Rowan, Union and a portion of Iredell
County (Davidson and Coddle Creek Townships), North Carolina; and a
portion of York County, South Carolina. These actions are summarized
below and described in greater detail throughout this notice of
proposed rulemaking.
First, EPA proposes to determine that the North Carolina portion of
the bi-state Charlotte Area has met the requirements for redesignation
under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. Accordingly, in this action, EPA
is proposing to approve a request to change the legal designation of
Cabarrus, Gaston, Iredell, Lincoln, Mecklenburg, Rowan and Union
Counties in their entireties, and a portion of Iredell County (Davidson
and Coddle Creek Townships) in North Carolina from nonattainment to
attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
Second, EPA is proposing to approve North Carolina's November 2,
2011, SIP revision (as supplemented by a March 28, 2013, SIP submittal)
for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS maintenance plan for the North Carolina
portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area as meeting the requirements of
section 175A (such approval being one of the CAA criteria for
redesignation to attainment status). The maintenance plan is designed
to help keep the bi-state Charlotte Area in attainment of the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS through 2025. Consistent with the CAA, EPA is
proposing to take action to approve the 2013 and 2025 MVEBs in North
Carolina's March 28, 2013, SIP revision.
EPA is also notifying the public of the status of EPA's adequacy
process for the newly-established NOX and VOC MVEBs for 2013
and 2025 for the North Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area.
The Adequacy comment period for the 2013 and 2025 MVEBs for the North
Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area began on February 21,
2013, with EPA's posting of the availability of North Carolina's
submissions on EPA's Adequacy Web site (http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/currsips.htm#charlotte1111). The Adequacy
comment period for these MVEBs closed on March 25, 2013. Please see
section VII of this proposed rulemaking for further explanation of this
process and for more details on the MVEBs.
Today's notice of proposed rulemaking is in response to North
Carolina's November 2, 2011, SIP revision (as supplemented by a March
28, 2013, SIP submission). These SIP revisions address the specific
issues summarized above and the necessary elements described in section
107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA for redesignation of the North Carolina portion
of the bi-state Charlotte Area to attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS.
II. What is the background for EPA's proposed actions?
On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a revised 8-hour ozone NAAQS of
0.08 parts per million (ppm). Under EPA's regulations at 40 CFR part
50, the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS is attained when the 3-year average of
the annual fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour average ambient air
quality ozone concentrations is less than or equal to 0.08 ppm (i.e.,
0.084 ppm when rounding is considered) (69 FR 23857, April 30, 2004).
Ambient air quality monitoring data for the 3-year period must meet a
data completeness requirement. The ambient air quality monitoring data
completeness requirement is met when the average percent of days with
valid ambient monitoring data is greater than 90 percent, and no single
year has less than 75 percent data completeness as determined in
Appendix I of part 50.
Upon promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, the CAA requires EPA
to designate as nonattainment any area that is violating the NAAQS,
based on the three most recent years of complete, quality assured, and
certified ambient air quality data at the conclusion of the designation
process. The bi-state Charlotte Area was designated nonattainment for
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS on April 30, 2004 (effective June 15, 2004)
using 2001-2003 ambient air quality data (69 FR 23857, April 30, 2004).
At the time of designation, the bi-state Charlotte Area was classified
as a moderate nonattainment area for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. In
the April 30, 2004, Phase I Ozone Implementation Rule, EPA established
ozone nonattainment area attainment dates based on Table 1 of section
181(a) of the CAA. This established an attainment date six years after
the June 15, 2004, effective date for areas classified as moderate
areas for the 1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment designations. Section 181
of the CAA explains that the attainment date for moderate nonattainment
areas shall be as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than six
years after designation, or June 15, 2010. Therefore, the bi-state
Charlotte Area's original attainment date was June 15, 2010. See 69 FR
23951, April 30, 2004.
On November 12, 2009,\1\ North Carolina submitted an attainment
demonstration and associated reasonably available control measures
(RACM), a reasonable further progress (RFP) plan, \2\ contingency
measures, a 2002 base year emissions inventory, and other planning SIP
revisions related to attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the
North Carolina portion of the Area. North Carolina submitted a
supplement to the attainment demonstration on April 5, 2010, which
provided supplemental information including the 2009 ambient air
quality data (showing that the area qualified for a one-year extension
to the attainment date).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North Carolina withdrew a June 15, 2007, attainment
demonstration SIP for its portion of the Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock
Hill 1997 8-hour ozone area on December 19, 2008, and committed to
submit a revised SIP by November 30, 2009. On November 12, 2009,
North Carolina resubmitted the attainment demonstration SIP for the
North Carolina portion of the Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill 1997 8-
hour ozone area.
\2\ A supplement to the RFP was submitted on November 30, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The bi-state Charlotte Area did not attain the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS by June 15, 2010 (the applicable attainment date for moderate
nonattainment areas); however, the Area qualified for an extension of
the attainment date. Under certain circumstances, the CAA allows for
extensions of the attainment dates prescribed at the time of the
original nonattainment designation. In accordance with CAA section
181(a)(5), EPA may grant up to two one-year extensions of the
attainment date under specified conditions. On May 31, 2011,
[[Page 45154]]
EPA determined that the bi-state Charlotte Area met the CAA
requirements to obtain a one-year extension of the attainment date for
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. See 76 FR 31245. As a result, EPA extended
the bi-state Charlotte Area's attainment date from June 15, 2010, to
June 15, 2011, for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
On November 2, 2011, North Carolina requested redesignation of the
North Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area to attainment for
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The redesignation request included three
years of complete, quality-assured ambient air quality data for the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for 2008-2010, indicating that the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS had been achieved for the Area. Under the CAA,
nonattainment areas may be redesignated to attainment if sufficient,
complete, quality-assured data is available for the Administrator to
determine that the area has attained the standard and the area meets
the other CAA redesignation requirements in section 107(d)(3)(E).
Subsequently, on November 15, 2011 (76 FR 70656), EPA determined
that the bi-state Charlotte Area attained the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
The determination of attaining data was based upon complete, quality-
assured and certified ambient air monitoring data for the 2008-2010
period, showing that the Area had monitored attainment of the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS. The requirements for the Area to submit an attainment
demonstration and associated RACM, RFP plan, contingency measures, and
other planning SIP revisions related to attainment of the standard were
suspended as a result of the determination of attainment, so long as
the Area continues to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. See 40 CFR
51.918 and 52.2125(a). The Area attained the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS
with 2009-2011 data, and preliminary data indicate that the Area
continues to attain with 2010-2012 data.
On January 12, 2012, North Carolina withdrew the North Carolina
portion of the Area's attainment demonstration (except RFP, emissions
statements, and the emissions inventory) as allowed by 40 CFR 51.918.
Therefore, EPA was not required to take action on the aforementioned
portion of the attainment demonstration. EPA approved the emissions
statements portion of the attainment demonstration SIP revision on
April 24, 2012 (77 FR 24382). Additionally, EPA approved the baseline
emissions inventory portion of the attainment demonstration SIP
revision on May 4, 2012 (77 FR 26441). EPA approved the RFP portion on
October 12, 2012 (77 FR 62159).
The March 28, 2013, supplemental SIP revision extends the final
year of the maintenance plan to 2025. Specifically, this revision
updates emissions data, emissions projections, MVEBs, and safety
margins to 2025. Additionally, it provides updated ozone design values
for the bi-state Charlotte Area.
III. What are the criteria for redesignation?
The CAA provides the requirements for redesignating a nonattainment
area to attainment. Specifically, section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA
allows for redesignation providing that: (1) The Administrator
determines that the area has attained the applicable NAAQS; (2) the
Administrator has fully approved the applicable implementation plan for
the area under section 110(k); (3) the Administrator determines that
the improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable
reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the applicable
SIP and applicable Federal air pollutant control regulations and other
permanent and enforceable reductions; (4) the Administrator has fully
approved a maintenance plan for the area as meeting the requirements of
section 175A; and, (5) the state containing such area has met all
requirements applicable to the area for purposes of redesignation under
section 110 and part D of the CAA.
On April 16, 1992, EPA provided guidance on redesignation in the
General Preamble for the Implementation of title I of the CAA
Amendments of 1990 (57 FR 13498), and supplemented this guidance on
April 28, 1992 (57 FR 18070). EPA has provided further guidance on
processing redesignation requests in the following documents:
1. ``Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Design Value Calculations,''
Memorandum from Bill Laxton, Director, Technical Support Division,
June 18, 1990;
2. ``Maintenance Plans for Redesignation of Ozone and Carbon
Monoxide Nonattainment Areas,'' Memorandum from G. T. Helms, Chief,
Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, April 30, 1992;
3. ``Contingency Measures for Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Redesignations,'' Memorandum from G. T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon
Monoxide Programs Branch, June 1, 1992;
4. ``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to
Attainment,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality
Management Division, September 4, 1992 (hereafter referred to as the
``Calcagni Memorandum'');
5. ``State Implementation Plan (SIP) Actions Submitted in Response
to Clean Air Act (CAA) Deadlines,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni,
Director, Air Quality Management Division, October 28, 1992;
6. ``Technical Support Documents (TSDs) for Redesignation of Ozone
and Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment Areas,'' Memorandum from G.
T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, August 17,
1993;
7. ``State Implementation Plan (SIP) Requirements for Areas
Submitting Requests for Redesignation to Attainment of the Ozone and
Carbon Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
On or After November 15, 1992,'' Memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro,
Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, September 17,
1993;
8. ``Use of Actual Emissions in Maintenance Demonstrations for Ozone
and CO Nonattainment Areas,'' Memorandum from D. Kent Berry, Acting
Director, Air Quality Management Division, November 30, 1993;
9. ``Part D New Source Review (Part D NSR) Requirements for Areas
Requesting Redesignation to Attainment,'' Memorandum from Mary D.
Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, October 14,
1994;
10. ``Reasonable Further Progress, Attainment Demonstration, and
Related Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment Areas Meeting the Ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standard,'' Memorandum from John S.
Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, May
10, 1995; and
11. ``Next Steps for Pending Redesignation Requests and State
Implementation Plan Actions Affected by the Recent Court Decision
Vacating the 2011 Cross-State Air Pollution Rule,'' Memorandum from
Gina McCarthy, Assistant Administrator, November 19, 2012.
IV. Why is EPA proposing these actions?
On November 2, 2011, and later supplemented on March 28, 2013, the
State of North Carolina, through NC DAQ, requested the redesignation of
the North Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area to attainment
for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA's evaluation indicates that the
entire bi-state Charlotte Area has attained the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS, and that North Carolina meets the requirements for redesignation
for its portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area as set forth in section
107(d)(3)(E), including the maintenance plan requirements under section
175A of the CAA. As a result, EPA is proposing to take the two related
actions summarized in section I of this notice.
[[Page 45155]]
V. What is EPA's analysis of the request?
As stated above, in accordance with the CAA, EPA proposes in
today's action to: (1) Redesignate the North Carolina portion of the
bi-state Charlotte Area to attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS;
and (2) approve the North Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte
Area's 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS maintenance plan, including the
associated MVEBs, into the North Carolina SIP. These actions are based
upon EPA's determination that the entire bi-state Charlotte Area
continues to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and that all other
redesignation criteria have been met for the North Carolina portion of
the bi-state Charlotte Area. The five redesignation criteria provided
under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) are discussed in greater detail for the
Area in the following paragraphs of this section.
Criteria (1)--The Bi-ustate Charlotte Area Has Attained the 1997 8-Hour
Ozone NAAQS
For ozone, an area may be considered to be attaining the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS if it meets the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, as
determined in accordance with 40 CFR 50.10 and Appendix I of part 50,
based on three complete, consecutive calendar years of quality-assured
air quality monitoring data. To attain these NAAQS, the 3-year average
of the fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations
measured at each monitor within an area over each year must not exceed
0.08 ppm. Based on the data handling and reporting convention described
in 40 CFR part 50, Appendix I, the NAAQS are attained if the design
value is 0.084 ppm or below. The data must be collected and quality-
assured in accordance with 40 CFR part 58, and recorded in the EPA Air
Quality System (AQS) database. The monitors generally should have
remained at the same location for the duration of the monitoring period
required for demonstrating attainment.
As mentioned above, on November 15, 2011 (76 FR 70656), EPA
determined that the bi-state Charlotte Area was attaining the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS. For that action, EPA reviewed ozone monitoring data
from monitoring stations in the bi-state Charlotte Area for the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS for 2008-2010. These data have been quality-assured
and are recorded in AQS. EPA has reviewed the 2009-2011 certified and
2010-2012 preliminary data which indicate that the Area continues to
attain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS beyond the submitted 3-year
attainment period of 2008-2010. The fourth-highest 8-hour ozone average
for 2008, 2009 and 2010, and the 3-year average of these values (i.e.,
design values), are summarized in the following Table 1 of this
proposed rulemaking.
Table 1--2008-2010 Design Value Concentrations for the Bi-State Charlotte 1997 8-Hour Ozone Area *
[Parts per million]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual arithmetic mean concentrations (ppm) 3-year design
------------------------------------------------ values (ppm)
Location County Monitor ID ---------------
2008 2009 2010 2008-2010
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln County Replacing Iron Station..... Lincoln..................... 37-109-0004 0.079 0.065 0.072 0.072
Garinger High School...................... Mecklenburg................. 37-119-0041 0.085 0.069 0.082 0.078
Westinghouse Blvd......................... Mecklenburg................. 37-119-1005 0.073 0.068 0.078 0.073
29 N at Mecklenburg Cab Co................ Mecklenburg................. 37-119-1009 0.093 0.071 0.082 0.082
Rockwell.................................. Rowan....................... 37-159-0021 0.084 0.071 0.077 0.077
Enochville School......................... Rowan....................... 37-159-0022 0.082 0.073 0.078 0.077
Monroe Middle School...................... Union....................... 37-179-0003 0.08 0.067 0.071 0.072
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* An ozone monitor is located in York County, SC; however, it is outside of the nonattainment area. This monitor is monitoring attainment of the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS.
Table 2--2009-2011 Design Value Concentrations for the Bi-State Charlotte 1997 8-Hour Ozone Area *
[Parts per million]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4th Highest 8-hour ozone value 3-year design
------------------------------------------------ values
Location County Monitor ID ---------------
2009 2010 2011 2009-2011
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln County Replacing Iron Station..... Lincoln..................... 37-109-0004 0.065 0.072 0.077 0.071
Garinger High School...................... Mecklenburg................. 37-119-0041 0.069 0.082 0.088 0.079
Westinghouse Blvd......................... Mecklenburg................. 37-119-1005 0.068 0.078 0.082 0.076
29 N at Mecklenburg Cab Co................ Mecklenburg................. 37-119-1009 0.071 0.082 0.083 0.078
Rockwell.................................. Rowan....................... 37-159-0021 0.071 0.077 0.077 0.075
Enochville School......................... Rowan....................... 37-159-0022 0.073 0.078 0.078 0.076
Monroe Middle School...................... Union....................... 37-179-0003 0.067 0.071 0.073 0.07
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* An ozone monitor is located in York County, SC; however, it is outside of the nonattainment area. This monitor is monitoring attainment of the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS.
[[Page 45156]]
Table 3--2010-2012 Design Value Concentrations for the Bi-State Charlotte 1997 8-Hour Ozone Area *
[Parts per million]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4th Highest 8-hour ozone value 3-year design
------------------------------------------------ values
Location County Monitor ID ---------------
2010 2011 2012 2010-2012
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln County Replacing Iron Station..... Lincoln..................... 37-109-0004 0.072 0.077 0.076 0.075
Garinger High School...................... Mecklenburg................. 37-119-0041 0.082 0.088 0.080 0.083
Westinghouse Blvd......................... Mecklenburg................. 37-119-1005 0.078 0.082 0.073 0.077
29 N at Mecklenburg Cab Co................ Mecklenburg................. 37-119-1009 0.082 0.083 0.085 0.083
Rockwell.................................. Rowan....................... 37-159-0021 0.077 0.077 0.080 0.078
Enochville School......................... Rowan....................... 37-159-0022 0.078 0.078 0.077 0.077
Monroe Middle School...................... Union....................... 37-179-0003 0.071 0.073 0.075 0.073
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* An ozone monitor is located in York County, SC; however, it is outside of the nonattainment area. This monitor is monitoring attainment of the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS.
The 3-year design value for 2008-2010 submitted by North Carolina
for redesignation of its portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area is
0.082 ppm at the 29 N at Mecklenburg Cab Co. monitor,\3\ which meets
the NAAQS as described above. As mentioned above, on November 15, 2011
(76 FR 70656), EPA published a clean data determination for the bi-
state Charlotte Area for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The 2009-2011
certified data show that the bi-state Charlotte Area continues to
attain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS with a design value of 0.079 ppm at
the Garinger High School monitor. After review of the certified 2010-
2012 data, the Area continues to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS
with a design value of 0.083 ppm at the Garinger High School and 29 N
at Mecklenburg Cab Co. monitors. In today's action, EPA is proposing to
determine that the bi-state Charlotte Area is attaining the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. EPA will not go forward with the redesignation if the bi-
state Charlotte Area does not continue to attain the NAAQS until the
time that EPA finalizes the redesignation. As discussed in more detail
below, the State of North Carolina has committed to continue monitoring
in this Area in accordance with 40 CFR part 58.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The monitor with the highest 3 year design value is
considered the design value for the area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Criteria (2)--North Carolina Has a Fully Approved SIP Under Section
110(k) for the North Carolina Portion of the Charlotte Area; and
Criteria (5)--North Carolina Has Met All Applicable Requirements Under
Section 110 and Part D of Title I of the CAA
For redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment, the CAA
requires EPA to determine that the state has met all applicable
requirements under section 110 and part D of title I of the CAA (CAA
section 107(d)(3)(E)(v)) and that the state has a fully approved SIP
under section 110(k) for the area (CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii)). EPA
proposes to find that North Carolina has met all applicable SIP
requirements for the North Carolina portion of the Area under section
110 of the CAA (general SIP requirements) for purposes of
redesignation. Additionally, EPA proposes to find that the North
Carolina SIP satisfies the criterion that it meets applicable SIP
requirements for purposes of redesignation under part D of title I of
the CAA (requirements specific to 1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment
areas) in accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E)(v). Further, EPA
proposes to determine that the SIP is fully approved with respect to
all requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation in accordance
with section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii). In making these determinations, EPA
ascertained which requirements are applicable to the Area and, if
applicable, that they are fully approved under section 110(k). SIPs
must be fully approved only with respect to requirements that were
applicable prior to submittal of the complete redesignation request.
a. The North Carolina Portion of the Charlotte Area Has Met All
Applicable Requirements Under Section 110 and Part D of the CAA
General SIP requirements. General SIP elements and requirements are
delineated in section 110(a)(2) of title I, part A of the CAA. These
requirements include, but are not limited to, the following: Submittal
of a SIP that has been adopted by the state after reasonable public
notice and hearing; provisions for establishment and operation of
appropriate procedures needed to monitor ambient air quality;
implementation of a source permit program; provisions for the
implementation of part C requirements (Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD)) and provisions for the implementation of part D
requirements (New Source Review (NSR) permit programs); provisions for
air pollution modeling; and provisions for public and local agency
participation in planning and emission control rule development.
Section 110(a)(2)(D) requires that SIPs contain certain measures to
prevent sources in a state from significantly contributing to air
quality problems in another state. To implement this provision, EPA has
required certain states to establish programs to address the interstate
transport of air pollutants (e.g., NOX SIP Call \4\ and the
Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) \5\). The section
[[Page 45157]]
110(a)(2)(D) requirements for a state are not linked with a particular
nonattainment area's designation and classification in that state. EPA
believes that the requirements linked with a particular nonattainment
area's designation and classifications are the relevant measures to
evaluate in reviewing a redesignation request. The transport SIP
submittal requirements, where applicable, continue to apply to a state
regardless of the designation of any one particular area in the state.
Thus, EPA does not believe that the CAA's interstate transport
requirements should be construed to be applicable requirements for
purposes of redesignation. However, as discussed later in this notice,
addressing pollutant transport from other states is an important part
of the maintenance demonstration for the bi-state Charlotte Area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ On October 27, 1998 (63 FR 57356), EPA issued a
NOX SIP Call requiring the District of Columbia and 22
states to reduce emissions of NOX in order to reduce the
transport of ozone and ozone precursors. In compliance with EPA's
NOX SIP Call, North Carolina developed rules governing
the control of NOX emissions from electric generating
units (EGUs), major non-EGU industrial boilers, major cement kilns,
and internal combustion engines. On October 5, 2007, EPA approved
North Carolina's rules as fulfilling Phase I of the NOX
SIP Call (72 FR 56914).
\5\ On May 12, 2005, EPA published the Clean Air Interstate Rule
(CAIR), which requires significant reductions in emissions of sulfur
dioxide (SO2) and NOX from certain electric
generating units in the eastern United States to limit the
interstate transport of these pollutants and the ozone and fine
particulate matter they form in the atmosphere. See 76 FR 70093. The
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
(D.C. Circuit) initially vacated CAIR in North Carolina v. EPA, 531
F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008), but ultimately remanded the rule to EPA
without vacatur in North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176, 1178 (D.C.
Cir. 2008) to preserve the environmental benefits provided by CAIR.
In response to the court's decision, EPA issued the Cross-State Air
Pollution Rule (CSAPR) to address interstate transport of
NOX and SO2 in the eastern United States. See
76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011). On August 21, 2012, the D.C. Circuit
issued a decision to vacate CSAPR. EME Homer City Generation, L.P.
v. EPA, 696 F.3d. 7 (D.C. Cir., 2012). In that decision, the court
also ordered EPA to continue administering CAIR ``pending the
promulgation of a valid replacement.'' EPA filed a petition for a
writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court on March 29, 2013, to
review the D.C. Circuit's decision in EME Homer City. On June 24,
2013, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the United States' petition
asking the Court to review the D.C. Circuit Court's decision on
CSAPR. However,the Agency will continue to act in accordance with
EME Homer City pending final resolution of the CSAPR litigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, EPA believes that other section 110 elements that are
neither connected with nonattainment plan submissions nor linked with
an area's attainment status are not applicable requirements for
purposes of redesignation. The area will still be subject to these
requirements after the area is redesignated. The section 110 and part D
requirements that are linked with a particular area's designation and
classification are the relevant measures to evaluate in reviewing a
redesignation request. This approach is consistent with EPA's existing
policy on applicability (i.e., for redesignations) of conformity and
oxygenated fuels requirements, as well as with section 184 ozone
transport requirements. See Reading, Pennsylvania, proposed and final
rulemakings (61 FR 53174-53176, October 10, 1996), (62 FR 24826, May 7,
1997); Cleveland-Akron-Loraine, Ohio, final rulemaking (61 FR 20458,
May 7, 1996); and Tampa, Florida, final rulemaking at (60 FR 62748,
December 7, 1995). See also the discussion on this issue in the
Cincinnati, Ohio, redesignation (65 FR 37890, June 19, 2000), and in
the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, redesignation (66 FR 50399, October 19,
2001).
EPA completed rulemaking on a December 12, 2007, submittal and a
clarification in a June 20, 2008, submission addressing
``infrastructure SIP'' elements required under CAA section 110(a)(2) on
February 6, 2012. See 77 FR 5703. However, these are statewide
requirements that are not a consequence of the nonattainment status of
the North Carolina portion of the Area. As stated above, EPA believes
that section 110 elements not linked to an area's nonattainment status
are not applicable for purposes of redesignation. Therefore, EPA
believes it has approved all SIP elements under section 110 that must
be approved as a prerequisite for redesignating the North Carolina
portion of the Area to attainment.
Title I, Part D, subpart 1 applicable SIP requirements. Sections
172(c)(1) through (9) and section 176 of subpart 1, part D of the CAA,
set forth the basic nonattainment requirements applicable to all
nonattainment areas. A thorough discussion of the requirements
contained in section 172 can be found in the General Preamble for
Implementation of title I (57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992). Subpart 2 of
part D, which includes section 182 of the CAA, establishes additional
specific requirements depending on the area's ozone nonattainment
classification. A thorough discussion of the requirements contained in
section 182 can be found in the General Preamble for Implementation of
Title I (57 FR 13498).
Part D Subpart 1 Section 172 Requirements and Part D, Subpart 2
Section 182 Requirements. Section 172(c)(1) requires the plans for all
nonattainment areas to provide for the implementation of all RACM as
expeditiously as practicable and to provide for attainment of the
national primary ambient air quality standards. EPA interprets this
requirement to impose a duty on all nonattainment areas to consider all
available control measures and to adopt and implement such measures as
are reasonably available for implementation in each area as components
of the area's attainment demonstration. Under section 172, states with
nonattainment areas must submit plans providing for timely attainment
and meeting a variety of other requirements. Section 182 of the CAA,
found in subpart 2 of part D, establishes additional specific
requirements depending on the area's ozone nonattainment
classification. For purposes of evaluating this redesignation request,
the applicable part D, subpart 2 SIP requirements for all moderate
nonattainment areas are contained in sections 182(b)(1)-(5). However,
pursuant to 40 CFR 51.918, EPA's November 15, 2011, determination that
the bi-state Charlotte Area was attaining the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS
suspended North Carolina's obligation to submit most of the attainment
planning requirements that would otherwise apply. Specifically, the
determination of attainment suspended North Carolina's obligation to
submit an attainment demonstration and planning SIPs to provide for
RACM under section 172(c)(1), contingency measures under section
172(c)(9) and RFP under section 182(b)(1) of the CAA.
The General Preamble for Implementation of Title I (57 FR 13498,
April 16, 1992) also discusses the evaluation of the section 172 and
182 requirements in the context of EPA's consideration of a
redesignation request. The General Preamble sets forth EPA's view of
applicable requirements for purposes of evaluating redesignation
requests when an area is attaining a standard (General Preamble for
Implementation of Title I (57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992)).
Because attainment has been reached in the bi-state Charlotte Area,
no additional measures are needed to provide for attainment, and
section 172(c)(1) requirements for an attainment demonstration and RACM
are no longer considered to be applicable for purposes of redesignation
as long as the Area continues to attain the standard until
redesignation. See also 40 CFR 51.918.
Pursuant to sections 172(c)(2) and 182(b)(1), nonattainment plans
for areas classified as moderate and above for ozone must contain
provisions that require reasonable further progress toward attainment.
These requirements are not relevant for purposes of redesignation
because EPA has determined that the bi-state Charlotte Area has
monitored attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. See General
Preamble, 57 FR 13564. See also 40 CFR 51.918. While it is not a
requirement for redesignation, EPA took action to approve North
Carolina's RFP for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the State's portion
of the bi-state Charlotte Area on October 12, 2012. See 77 FR 62159.
Section 172(c)(3) and section 182(b) require submission and
approval of a comprehensive, accurate, and current inventory of actual
emissions. Section 182(b) references section 182(a) of the CAA which
requires, in part, for states to submit a current inventory of actual
emissions (182(a)(1)). As part of North Carolina's attainment
demonstration for the North Carolina portion of the Area, NC DAQ
submitted a 2002 base year emissions inventory. EPA approved the 2002
base year inventory submitted with the attainment demonstration on May
4, 2012, as meeting the section 172(c)(3) and section 182(b)
(182(a)(1))
[[Page 45158]]
emissions inventory requirement. See 77 FR 26441.
Section 172(c)(4) requires the identification and quantification of
allowed emissions from major new and modified stationary sources in an
area, and section 172(c)(5) and section 182(b) that require permits for
the construction and operation of new and modified major stationary
sources anywhere in the nonattainment area. EPA has determined that,
because PSD requirements will apply after redesignation, areas being
redesignated need not comply with the requirement that a NSR program be
approved prior to redesignation, provided that the area demonstrates
maintenance of the NAAQS without part D NSR. A more detailed rationale
for this view is described in a memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant
Administrator for Air and Radiation, dated October 14, 1994, entitled,
``Part D New Source Review Requirements for Areas Requesting
Redesignation to Attainment.'' North Carolina has demonstrated that the
North Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area will be able to
maintain the NAAQS without part D NSR in effect, and therefore North
Carolina need not have fully approved part D NSR programs prior to
approval of the redesignation request. Nonetheless, North Carolina
currently has an approved part D NSR program in place. North Carolina's
PSD program will become applicable in the North Carolina portion of the
bi-state Charlotte Area upon redesignation to attainment. Section
172(c)(6) requires the SIP to contain control measures necessary to
provide for attainment of the NAAQS. Because attainment has been
reached, no additional measures are needed to provide for attainment.
Section 172(c)(7) requires the SIP to meet the applicable
provisions of section 110(a)(2). As noted above, EPA believes the North
Carolina SIP meets the requirements of section 110(a)(2) applicable for
purposes of redesignation.
Section 182(b) references, in part, section 182(a)(3), which
requires states to submit periodic inventories and emissions
statements. Section 182(a)(3)(A) of the CAA requires states to submit a
periodic inventory every three years. The periodic emissions inventory
is discussed in more detail in Criteria (4)(e), Verification of
Continued Attainment.
Section 182(a)(3)(B) of the CAA requires states with areas
designated nonattainment for the ozone NAAQS to submit a SIP revision
to require emissions statements to be submitted to the state by sources
within that nonattainment area. EPA approved North Carolina's emissions
statements requirement on August 1, 1997, and approved the updated
counties on April 24, 2012. See 64 FR 41277 and 77 FR 24382,
respectively. EPA believes the North Carolina SIP meets the
requirements of section 182(a)(3)(B) applicable for purposes of
redesignation.
Section 182(b)(2) of the CAA requires states with areas designated
nonattainment for the ozone NAAQS to submit a SIP revision to require
reasonably available control technology (RACT) for all major VOC and
NOX sources and for each category of VOC sources in the Area
covered by a Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) document.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 40 CFR 51.912 identifies the requirements that apply for
RACT under the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CTGs established by EPA are guidance to the states and provide
recommendations only. A state can develop its own strategy for what
constitutes RACT for the various CTG categories, and EPA will review
that strategy in the context of the SIP process and determine whether
it meets the RACT requirements of the CAA and its implementing
regulations. If no major sources of VOC or NOX emissions
(which should be considered separately) or no sources in a particular
source category exist in an applicable nonattainment area, a state may
submit a negative declaration for that category.
North Carolina did a RACT analysis for major VOC and NOX
sources in the Area and determined that these sources in the bi-state
Charlotte Area meet RACT. In addition, EPA did a NOX RACT
analysis of the North Carolina portion of the Charlotte Area major
sources and determined that these sources meet RACT. North Carolina
also made a negative declaration for CTG category sources in the June
15, 2007, SIP submittal. On May 9, 2013, EPA approved a number of North
Carolina NOX RACT SIP revisions and approved in part and
conditionally approved in part a number of VOC RACT SIP revisions. See
78 FR 27065.
North Carolina submitted a SIP revision on May 1, 2013, to EPA to
address the requirements of the conditional approval to correct the
deficiencies for which EPA proposed conditional approval related to
North Carolina's RACT submission. On June 7, 2013, EPA proposed to
approve portions of North Carolina's May 1, 2013, SIP revision which
included changes to the State's RACT rules to correct deficiencies and
add new changes. See 78 FR 34306. EPA did not receive any comments,
adverse or otherwise, on the June 7, 2013, proposed rulemaking related
to North Carolina's May 1, 2013, SIP revision. On July 12, 2013, the
Acting Regional Administrator for EPA Region 4 signed a final
rulemaking approving North Carolina's May 1, 2013, SIP revision to
correct deficiencies for North Carolina RACT requirements. EPA has
preliminarily determined that North Carolina's SIP meets the section
182(b)(2) requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ EPA approved South Carolina's RACT SIP revisions and
concluded that the South Carolina portion of the Area has met all
the statutory and regulatory requirements for making a negative
declaration regarding Groups I, II, III, and IV CTG and meets the
requirements of section 182(b)(2) applicable for purposes of
redesignation. See 76 FR 72844.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under section 202(a)(6) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7521(a)(6), the
requirements of section 182(b)(3) do not apply in moderate ozone
nonattainment areas after EPA promulgated the onboard refueling vapor
recovery (ORVR) standards on April 6, 1994 (59 FR 16262), codified at
40 CFR parts 86 (including 86.098-8), 88 and 600. As mentioned above,
the bi-state Charlotte Area was designated as a moderate area for the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and therefore was not subject to the Stage II
requirements as set forth in section 182(b)(3).
Section 182(b)(4) of the CAA requires states with areas designated
nonattainment with moderate or above classification for the ozone NAAQS
to submit SIPs requiring inspection and maintenance of vehicles (I/M).
North Carolina's I/M rule for the North Carolina portion of the
nonattainment area, called the Clean Air Bill, was submitted to EPA on
August 7, 2002, and approved by EPA on October 30, 2002 (67 FR 66056),
effective December 30, 2002. EPA believes that the North Carolina SIP
meets the requirements of section 182(b)(4) applicable for purposes of
redesignation.
Section 182(b)(5) of the CAA requires that for purposes of
satisfying the emission offset requirements of Part D, the ratio of
total emission reductions of VOCs to total increase emissions of VOCs
must be at least 1.15 to 1. North Carolina currently requires these
offsets. See 40 CFR 52.1770. EPA therefore believes that the North
Carolina SIP meets the requirements of section 182(b)(5) applicable for
purposes of redesignation.
Section 176 Conformity Requirements. Section 176(c) of the CAA
requires states to establish criteria and procedures to ensure that
federally supported or funded projects conform to
[[Page 45159]]
the air quality planning goals in the applicable SIP. The requirement
to determine conformity applies to transportation plans, programs, and
projects that are developed, funded, or approved under title 23 of the
United States Code (U.S.C.) and the Federal Transit Act (transportation
conformity) as well as to all other federally supported or funded
projects (general conformity). State transportation conformity SIP
revisions must be consistent with Federal conformity regulations
relating to consultation, enforcement, and enforceability that EPA
promulgated pursuant to its authority under the CAA.
EPA interprets the conformity SIP requirements \8\ as not applying
for purposes of evaluating a redesignation request under section 107(d)
because state conformity rules are still required after redesignation
and Federal conformity rules apply where state rules have not been
approved. See Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001) (upholding this
interpretation); see also 60 FR 62748 (December 7, 1995) (redesignation
of Tampa, Florida).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ CAA section 176(c)(4)(E) requires states to submit revisions
to their SIPs to reflect certain Federal criteria and procedures for
determining transportation conformity. Transportation conformity
SIPs are different from the MVEBs that are established in control
strategy SIPs and maintenance plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For all of the reasons discussed above, the North Carolina portion
of the bi-state Charlotte Area has satisfied all applicable
requirements for purposes of redesignation under section 110 and part D
of title I of the CAA.
b. The North Carolina Portion of the Bi-State Charlotte Area Has a
Fully Approved Applicable SIP Under Section 110(k) of the CAA
EPA may rely on prior SIP approvals in approving a redesignation
request (see Calcagni Memorandum at p. 3; Northwestern Pennsylvania
Growth Alliance v. Browner, 144 F.3d 984 (6th Cir. 1998); Wall, 265
F.3d 426) plus any additional measures it may approve in conjunction
with a redesignation action (see 68 FR 25426 (May 12, 2003) and
citations therein). Following passage of the CAA of 1970, North
Carolina has adopted and submitted, and EPA has fully approved at
various times, provisions addressing various 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS
SIP elements applicable in the North Carolina portion of the Area (May
31, 1972, 37 FR 10842; July 13, 2011, 76 FR 41111). For example, EPA
approved the emissions statements portion of the attainment
demonstration SIP revision on April 24, 2012 (77 FR 24382), and the
baseline emissions inventory portion of the attainment demonstration
SIP revision on May 4, 2012 (77 FR 26441).
On April 29, 2013, EPA signed a Federal Register notice approving
in-part and conditionally approving in-part the RACT demonstration for
the North Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area. See 78 FR
27065 (May 9, 2013). On May 1, 2013, North Carolina submitted a SIP
revision to meet the aforementioned conditional approval. EPA proposed
to approve North Carolina's May 1, 2013, RACT SIP revision that
fulfills the conditional approval on June 7, 2013. See 78 FR 34306. EPA
did not receive any comments, adverse or otherwise, on the June 7,
2013, proposed rulemaking related to North Carolina's May 1, 2013, SIP
revision. On July 12, 2013, the Acting Regional Administrator for EPA
Region 4 signed a final rulemaking approving North Carolina's May 1,
2013, SIP revision to correct deficiencies for North Carolina RACT
requirements.
As indicated above, EPA believes that the section 110 elements that
are neither connected with nonattainment plan submissions nor linked to
an area's nonattainment status are not applicable requirements for
purposes of redesignation. Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir.
2004); 68 FR 25424, 25427 (May 12, 2003) (redesignation of the St.
Louis-East St. Louis Area to attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS).
Criteria (3)--The Air Quality Improvement in the Bi-State Charlotte
1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS Nonattainment Area Is Due to Permanent and
Enforceable Reductions in Emissions Resulting From Implementation of
the SIP and Applicable Federal Air Pollution Control Regulations and
Other Permanent and Enforceable Reductions
For redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment, the CAA
requires EPA to determine that the air quality improvement in the area
is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting
from implementation of the SIP and applicable Federal air pollution
control regulations and other permanent and enforceable reductions (CAA
section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii)). EPA believes that North Carolina has
demonstrated that the observed air quality improvement in the bi-state
Charlotte Area is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in
emissions resulting from implementation of the SIP, Federal measures,
and other state adopted measures.
State, local, and Federal measures enacted in recent years have
resulted in permanent emission reductions. Most of these emission
reductions are enforceable through regulations. A few non-regulatory
measures also result in emission reductions.
The state and local measures that have been implemented to date and
relied upon by North Carolina to demonstrate attainment and/or
maintenance include the Clean Air Bill I/M program; open burning ban;
NOX SIP Call; Clean Smokestacks Act; and Diesel Emissions
Reduction Act (DERA) grants for repower or replacement of existing
diesel engines. Local measures implemented by Mecklenburg County Air
Quality (MCAQ) include prohibition of open burning of any kind and
diesel engine emission reductions. Of these measures, the Clean Air
Bill I/M program, open burning ban, NOX SIP Call and Clean
Smokestacks Act are permanent and enforceable. The Federal measures
that have been implemented include the following:
Tier 2 vehicle standards. Implementation began in 2004 and will
require all passenger vehicles in any manufacturer's fleet to meet an
average standard of 0.07 grams of NOX per mile.
Additionally, in January 2006 the sulfur content of gasoline was
required to be on average 30 ppm which assists in lowering the
NOX emissions. Most gasoline sold in North Carolina prior to
January 2006 had a sulfur content of about 300 ppm. These emission
reductions are federally enforceable.
Large Non-road Diesel Engines Rule. This rule was promulgated in
2004, and is being phased in between 2008 through 2014. This rule will
also reduce the sulfur content in the nonroad diesel fuel. When fully
implemented, this rule will reduce NOX, VOC, particulate
matter, and carbon monoxide. These emission reductions are federally
enforceable.
Heavy-duty gasoline and diesel highway vehicle standards. These
standards began to take effect in 2004 and are designed to reduce
NOX and VOC emissions. These emission reductions are
federally enforceable.
Nonroad spark-ignition engines and recreational engines standards.
The nonroad spark-ignition and recreational engine standards, effective
in July 2003, regulate NOX, hydrocarbons, and carbon
monoxide from groups of previously unregulated nonroad engines. These
engine standards apply to large spark-ignition engines (e.g., forklifts
and airport ground service equipment), recreational vehicles (e.g.,
off-highway motorcycles and all-terrain-vehicles), and recreational
marine diesel engines
[[Page 45160]]
sold in the United States and imported after the effective date of
these standards.
When all of the nonroad spark-ignition and recreational engine
standards are fully implemented, an overall 72 percent reduction in
hydrocarbons, 80 percent reduction in NOX, and 56 percent
reduction in carbon monoxide emissions are expected by 2020. These
controls will help reduce ambient concentrations of ozone, carbon
monoxide, and fine particulate matter.
NOX SIP Call. The NOX SIP Call created the
NOX Budget Trading Program designed to reduce the amount of
ozone that crosses state lines. By the end of 2008, ozone season
emissions dropped by 62 percent from 2000 at all sources subject to the
NOX SIP Call (EPA, NOX Budget Trading Program:
2008 Highlights, October 2009, page 3, available at http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/progress/NBP_4/NBP_2008_Highlights.pdf). It follows that
the bi-state Charlotte Area benefited from these overall reductions,
since it is part of the larger NOX SIP Call area. North
Carolina provided the NOX emission reductions, as the result
of the NOX SIP Call rule, from North Carolina power plants
in the bi-state Charlotte Area, as well as the power plants located
directly north and west of the Metrolina region \9\ that may impact the
Area in the March 28, 2013, submittal. There are four facilities
located within the North Carolina portion of the Area located in
Gaston, Lincoln and Rowan Counties. The facility west of the Metrolina
region is Cliffside, located in Cleveland County, and the facility
north of the Metrolina region is Marshall, located in Catawba County.
This data is also from the EPA Clean Air Markets Division's database
and represents the second and third quarters of the year (April through
September), the period during which ozone levels are the highest. Two
coal-fired power plants (Buck and Riverbend) were retired on April 1,
2013, and will result in additional emissions reductions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ For the purposes of this document, the Metrolina region
refers to the Charlotte metropolitan area and is inclusive of the
bi-state Charlotte nonattainment area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA has considered the relationship of the North Carolina portion
of the bi-state Charlotte Area's maintenance plan to the reductions
currently required pursuant to CAIR. CAIR was remanded to EPA, and the
process of developing a replacement rule is ongoing. However, the
remand of CAIR does not alter the requirements of the NOX
SIP Call, and the State has now demonstrated that the bi-state
Charlotte Area can maintain without CAIR. Therefore, EPA believes that
the State's demonstration of maintenance under sections 175A and
107(d)(3)(E) remains valid.
The NOX SIP Call requires states to make significant,
specific emissions reductions. It also provides a mechanism, the
NOX Budget Trading Program, that states could use to achieve
those reductions. When EPA promulgated CAIR, it discontinued (starting
in 2009) the NOX Budget Trading Program, 40 CFR 51.121(r),
but created another mechanism--the CAIR ozone season trading program--
which states could use to meet their SIP Call obligations, 70 FR 25289-
90. EPA notes that a number of states, when submitting SIP revisions to
require sources to participate in the CAIR ozone season trading
program, removed the SIP provisions that required sources to
participate in the NOX Budget Trading Program. In addition,
because the provisions of CAIR including the ozone season
NOX trading program remain in place during the remand, EPA
is not currently administering the NOX Budget Trading
Program. Nonetheless, all states, regardless of the current status of
their regulations that previously required participation in the
NOX Budget Trading Program, will remain subject to all of
the requirements in the NOX SIP Call even if the existing
CAIR ozone season trading program is withdrawn or altered. In addition,
the anti-backsliding provisions of 40 CFR 51.905(f) specifically
provide that the provisions of the NOX SIP Call, including
the statewide NOX emission budgets, continue to apply after
revocation of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.
All NOX SIP Call states have SIPs that currently satisfy
their obligations under the NOX SIP Call; the NOX
SIP Call reduction requirements are being met; and EPA will continue to
enforce the requirements of the NOX SIP Call even after any
response to the CAIR remand. For these reasons, EPA believes that
regardless of the status of the CAIR program, the NOX SIP
Call requirements can be relied upon in demonstrating maintenance.
Here, the State has demonstrated maintenance based in part on those
requirements.
CAIR and CSAPR. CAIR remains in place and enforceable until
substituted by a ``valid'' replacement rule. Regardless of the timing
of the transition from CAIR to CSAPR, or a resulting court-ordered
interstate transport remedy, emissions of NOX and
SO2 have declined significantly and are expected to continue
to decrease in the future due to the continuation of CAIR and North
Carolina's own EGU emissions rules.
To the extent that the North Carolina submittal relies on CAIR
reductions that occurred through 2012, the recent directive from the
D.C. Circuit in EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d. 7
(D.C. Cir., 2012) ensures that the reductions associated with CAIR will
be permanent and enforceable for the necessary time period for purposes
of CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) and North Carolina's request to
redesignate the Charlotte Area and seek approval of its maintenance
plan and other requirements associated with redesignation. EPA has been
ordered by the court to develop a new rule, and the opinion makes clear
that after promulgating that new rule EPA must provide states an
opportunity to draft and submit SIPs to implement that rule. CAIR thus
cannot be replaced until EPA has promulgated a final rule through a
notice-and-comment rulemaking process, states have had an opportunity
to draft and submit SIPs, EPA has reviewed the SIPs to determine if
they can be approved, and EPA has taken action on the SIPs, including
promulgating a Federal Implementation Plan, if appropriate. The court's
clear instruction to EPA is that it must continue to administer CAIR
until a ``valid replacement'' exists and thus CAIR reductions may be
relied upon until the necessary actions are taken by EPA and states to
administer CAIR's replacement. Furthermore, the court's instruction
provides an additional backstop; by definition, any rule that replaces
CAIR and meets the court's direction would require upwind states to
have SIPs that eliminate significant contributions to downwind
nonattainment and prevent interference with maintenance in downwind
areas.
Further, in vacating CSAPR and requiring EPA to continue
administering CAIR, the D.C. Circuit emphasized that the consequences
of vacating CAIR ``might be more severe now in light of the reliance
interests accumulated over the intervening four years.'' EME Homer
City, 696 F.3d at 38. The accumulated reliance interests include the
interests of states who reasonably assumed they could rely on
reductions associated with CAIR, which brought certain nonattainment
areas into attainment with the NAAQS. If EPA were prevented from
relying on reductions associated with CAIR in redesignation actions,
states would be forced to impose additional, redundant reductions on
top of those achieved by CAIR. EPA believes this is precisely the type
of irrational result the court sought to avoid by ordering EPA to
continue administering CAIR. For these reasons
[[Page 45161]]
also, EPA believes it is appropriate to allow states to rely on CAIR,
and the existing emissions reductions achieved by CAIR, as sufficiently
permanent and enforceable for purposes such as redesignation. Following
promulgation of the replacement rule, EPA will review SIPs as
appropriate to identify whether there are any issues that need to be
addressed. In light of these unique circumstances and for the reasons
explained above, EPA is proposing to approve the redesignation request
and related SIP revisions for the North Carolina portion of the bi-
state Charlotte Area. EPA continues to implement CAIR in accordance
with current direction from the court, and thus CAIR is in place and
enforceable and will remain so until substituted by a valid replacement
rule. North Carolina's SIP revision lists CAIR as a control measure,
which was approved by EPA on October 5, 2007, 72 FR 56914, for the
purpose of reduction SO2 and NOX emissions.
Criteria (4)--The North Carolina Portion of the Area Has a Fully
Approved Maintenance Plan Pursuant to Section 175A of the CAA
For redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment, the CAA
requires EPA to determine that the area has a fully approved
maintenance plan pursuant to section 175A of the CAA (CAA section
107(d)(3)(E)(iv)). In conjunction with its request to redesignate the
North Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area to attainment for
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, NC DAQ submitted a SIP revision to provide
for the maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for at least 10
years after the effective date of redesignation to attainment. EPA
believes that this maintenance plan meets the requirements for approval
under section 175A of the CAA.
a. What is required in a maintenance plan?
Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the elements of a maintenance
plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment.
Under section 175A, the plan must demonstrate continued attainment of
the applicable NAAQS for at least 10 years after the Administrator
approves a redesignation to attainment. Eight years after the
redesignation, the state must submit a revised maintenance plan
demonstrating that attainment will continue to be maintained for the 10
years following the initial 10-year period. To address the possibility
of future NAAQS violations, the maintenance plan must contain
contingency measures as EPA deems necessary to assure prompt correction
of any future 1997 8-hour ozone violations. The Calcagni Memorandum
provides further guidance on the content of a maintenance plan,
explaining that a maintenance plan should address five requirements:
The attainment emissions inventory, maintenance demonstration,
monitoring, verification of continued attainment, and a contingency
plan. As is discussed more fully below, EPA finds that North Carolina's
maintenance plan includes all the necessary components and is thus
proposing to approve it as a revision to the North Carolina SIP.
b. Attainment Emissions Inventory
The bi-state Charlotte Area attained the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS
based on quality-assured monitoring data for the 3-year period from
2008-2010. North Carolina selected 2010 as the attainment emissions
inventory year. The attainment inventory identifies a level of
emissions in the Area that is sufficient to attain the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. North Carolina began development of the attainment
inventory by first generating a baseline emissions inventory for the
State's portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area. As noted above, the
year 2010 was chosen as the base year for developing a comprehensive
emissions inventory for NOX and VOC, for which projected
emissions could be developed for 2013, 2016, 2019, 2022, and 2025. The
projected summer day emission inventories have been estimated using
projected rates of growth in population, traffic, economic activity,
and other parameters. Naturally occurring, or biogenic, emissions are
not included in the emissions inventory comparison, as these emissions
are outside the State's span of control. In addition to comparing the
final year of the plan (2025) to the base year (2010) North Carolina
compared interim years to the baseline to demonstrate that these years
are also expected to show continued maintenance of the 8-hour ozone
standard.
The emissions inventory is composed of four major types of sources:
point, area, on-road mobile, and non-road mobile. The complete
descriptions of how the inventories were developed are discussed in the
Appendix B of the March 28, 2013, submittal, which can be found in the
docket for this action. Point source emissions are tabulated from data
collected by direct on-site measurements of emissions or from mass
balance calculations utilizing emission factors from EPA's AP-42 or
stack test results. For each projected year's inventory, point sources
are adjusted by growth factors based on Standard Industrial
Classification codes generated using growth patterns obtained from
County Business Patterns. For the electric generating utility sources,
the estimated projected future year emissions were based on information
provided by the utility company. For the sources that report to the
USEPA's Clean Air Markets Division, the actual 2010 average summer day
emissions were used. For the other Title V sources, the 2009 data was
used which was the latest data available. For the small sources that
only report emissions every 5 years, the most recently reported data
was used and assumed to be equivalent to 2009 emissions since these
sources do not vary much from year to year. The 2009 emissions data was
grown to 2010 using the USEPA's EGAS model.
For area sources, emissions are estimated by multiplying an
emission factor by some known indicator of collective activity such as
production, number of employees, or population. For each projected
year's inventory, area source emissions are changed by population
growth, projected production growth, or estimated employment growth.
The non-road mobile sources emissions are calculated using EPA's
NONROAD2008a model, with the exception of the railroad locomotives and
aircraft engine. For each projected year's inventory, the emissions are
estimated using EPA's NONROAD2008a model with activity input such as
projected landing and takeoff data for aircraft and national fuel use
from the Energy Information Administration for locomotives.
For highway mobile sources, EPA's Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator
(MOVES) mobile model is run to generate emissions. The MOVES model
includes the road class vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as an input file
and can directly output the estimated emissions. For each projected
year's inventory, the highway mobile sources emissions are calculated
by running the MOVES mobile model for the future year with the
projected VMT to generate emissions that take into consideration
expected Federal tailpipe standards, fleet turnover, and new fuels.
The 2010 NOX and VOC emissions for the North Carolina
portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area, as well as the emissions for
other years, were developed consistent with EPA guidance and are
summarized in Tables 2 through 4 of the following subsection discussing
the maintenance demonstration.
[[Page 45162]]
c. Maintenance Demonstration
The March 28, 2013, submittal updates the maintenance plan included
in the November 2, 2011, maintenance plan for the North Carolina
portion of the Area. The maintenance plan:
(i) Shows compliance with and maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS by providing information to support the demonstration that
current and future emissions of NOX and VOC remain at or
below 2010 emissions levels.
(ii) Uses 2010 as the attainment year and includes future emissions
inventory projections for 2013, 2016, 2019, 2022, and 2025.
(iii) Identifies an ``out year'' at least 10 years (and beyond)
after the time necessary for EPA to review and approve the maintenance
plan. Per 40 CFR part 93, NOX and VOC MVEBs were established
for the last year (2025) of the maintenance plan (see section VI
below). Additionally, NC DAQ opted to establish MVEBs for an interim
year (2013).
(iv) Provides actual and projected emissions inventories, in tons
per day (tpd), for the North Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte
Area, as shown in Tables 2 through 4 below.
Table 2--Actual and Projected Annual NOX Emissions (tpd) for the
North Carolina Portion \*\ of the Bi-State Charlotte Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sector 2010 2013 2016 2019 2022 2025
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point............................. 37.97 20.03 19.29 20.28 19.19 20.02
Area.............................. 8.16 8.24 8.31 8.42 8.49 8.67
Nonroad........................... 41.31 35.90 30.64 26.89 24.50 23.09
Mobile............................ 138.26 106.92 86.43 70.49 63.67 55.90
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total \**\.................... 225.47 170.90 144.53 125.98 115.76 107.61
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\*\ Iredell County emissions for nonattainment area only.
\**\ Total taken directly from the March 28, 2013, submittal, which was calculated using county-by-county
emissions values rather than the total sector emissions values.
Table 3--Actual and Projected Annual VOC Emissions (tpd) for the
North Carolina Portion * of the Bi-State Charlotte Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sector 2010 2013 2016 2019 2022 2025
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point............................. 14.78 15.78 17.04 18.32 19.5 20.87
Area.............................. 57.67 56.61 56.36 57.78 59.06 63.26
Nonroad........................... 26.47 21.92 19.4 18.79 18.86 19.26
Mobile............................ 66.70 51.32 41.58 34.47 30.21 28.67
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total **...................... 165.44 145.48 134.26 129.26 127.63 132.06
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\*\ Iredell County emissions for nonattainment area only.
\**\ Total taken directly from the March 28, 2013, submittal, which was calculated using county-by-county
emissions values rather than the total sector emissions values.
Table 4--Emission Estimates for the North Carolina Portion of the Bi-
State Charlotte Area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year VOC (tpd) NOX (tpd)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2010............................................ 165.44 225.47
2013............................................ 145.48 170.90
2016............................................ 134.26 144.53
2019............................................ 129.26 125.98
2022............................................ 127.63 115.76
2025............................................ 132.06 107.61
Difference from 2010 to 2025.................... -33.38 -117.86
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tables 2 through 4 summarize the 2010 and future projected
emissions of NOX and VOC from the North Carolina portion of
the bi-state Charlotte Area. In situations where local emissions are
the primary contributor to nonattainment, the NAAQS should not be
violated in the future as long as emissions from within the
nonattainment area remain at or below the baseline with which
attainment was achieved. North Carolina has projected emissions as
described previously and determined that emissions in the North
Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area will remain below those
in the attainment year inventory for the duration of the maintenance
plan.
As discussed in section VI of this proposed rulemaking, a safety
margin is the difference between the attainment level of emissions
(from all sources) and the projected level of emissions (from all
sources) in the maintenance plan. The attainment level of emissions is
the level of emissions during one of the years in which the area met
the NAAQS. North Carolina selected 2010 as the attainment emissions
inventory year for the North Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte
Area. North Carolina calculated safety margins in its submittal for
years 2013, 2016, 2019, 2022, and 2025. The State has decided to
allocate a safety margin to the 2013 and 2025 MVEB for the bi-state
Charlotte Area. For the year 2013, the NOX and VOC safety
margins were calculated as 54.57 tpd and 19.96 tpd, respectively. For
the year 2025, the NOX and VOC safety margins were
calculated as 117.86 tpd and 33.38 tpd, respectively.
The State has decided to allocate a portion of the safety margin to
the MVEBs to allow for unanticipated growth in VMT, changes and
uncertainty in vehicle mix assumptions, etc, that will influence the
emission estimations. NC DAQ developed and implemented a four-step
approach for determining a factor to use to calculate the amount of
safety margin to apply to the MVEBs. The MVEBs to be used for
transportation conformity proposes is discussed in section VI. This
allocation and the resulting available safety margin for the North
Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area are discussed further
in section VI of this proposed rulemaking.
d. Monitoring Network
There are currently seven monitors measuring ozone in the North
Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area.\10\
[[Page 45163]]
NC DAQ operates four of the monitors in the Area, whereas the
Mecklenburg County Air Quality (MCAQ) Office operates three of the
monitors in Mecklenburg County. The State of North Carolina, through NC
DAQ, has committed to continue operation of the monitors in the North
Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area in compliance with 40
CFR part 58 and have thus addressed the requirement for monitoring. EPA
approved North Carolina's 2012 monitoring plan on September 21, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ While there is a monitor in York County that the South
Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SC DHEC)
operates, this monitor is not located within the bi-state Charlotte
Area for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
e. Verification of Continued Attainment
The State of North Carolina, through NC DAQ, has the legal
authority to enforce and implement the requirements of the North
Carolina portion of the Area 1997 8-hour ozone maintenance plan. This
includes the authority to adopt, implement, and enforce any subsequent
emissions control contingency measures determined to be necessary to
correct future ozone attainment problems.
The large stationary sources are required to submit an emissions
inventory annually to NC DAQ or MCAQ. NC DAQ will commit to review
these emissions inventories to determine if any unexpected growth in
NOX emissions in the Area may endanger the maintenance of
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Additionally, as new VMT data are provided
by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NC DOT), NC DAQ
commits to review these data and determine if any unexpected growth in
VMT may endanger the maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
Additionally, under the Consolidated Emissions Reporting Rule
(CERR) and Air Emissions Reporting Requirements (AERR), NC DAQ is
required to develop a comprehensive, annual, statewide emissions
inventory every three years that is due twelve to eighteen months after
the completion of the inventory year. The CERR and AERR inventory years
are within a year of the baseline, interim, and final years of the
maintenance plan. Therefore, NC DAQ commits to compare the CERR and
AERR inventories as they are developed with the maintenance plan to
determine if additional steps are necessary for continued maintenance
of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in this Area.
f. Contingency Measures in the Maintenance Plan
The contingency measures are designed to promptly correct a
violation of the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation. Section 175A of
the CAA requires that a maintenance plan include such contingency
measures as EPA deems necessary to assure that the state will promptly
correct a violation of the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation. The
maintenance plan should identify the contingency measures to be
adopted, a schedule and procedure for adoption and implementation, and
a time limit for action by the state. A state should also identify
specific indicators to be used to determine when the contingency
measures need to be implemented. The maintenance plan must include a
requirement that a state will implement all measures with respect to
control of the pollutant that were contained in the SIP before
redesignation of the area to attainment in accordance with section
175A(d).
In the November 2, 2011, and March 28, 2013, submittals, North
Carolina affirms that all programs instituted by the State and EPA will
remain enforceable and that sources are prohibited from reducing
emissions controls following the redesignation of the Area. The
contingency plan included in the submittal includes a triggering
mechanism to determine when contingency measures are needed and a
process of developing and implementing appropriate control measures.
The primary trigger of the contingency plan will be a violation of the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS (i.e., when the three-year average of the 4th
highest values is equal to or greater than 0.085 ppm at a monitor in
the Area). The trigger date will be 60 days from the date that the
State observes a 4th highest value that, when averaged with the two
previous ozone seasons' fourth highest values, would result in a three-
year average equal to or greater than 0.085 ppm.
The secondary trigger will apply where no actual violation of the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS has occurred, but where the State finds
monitored ozone levels indicating that an actual ozone NAAQS violation
may be imminent. A pattern will be deemed to exist when there are two
consecutive ozone seasons in which the 4th highest values are 0.085 ppm
or greater at a single monitor within the Area. The trigger date will
be 60 days from the date that the State observes a 4th highest value of
0.085 ppm or greater at a monitor for which the previous season had a
4th highest value of 0.085 ppm or greater.
Once the primary or secondary trigger is activated, the Planning
Section of the NC DAQ, in consultation with SC DHEC and MCAQ, shall
commence analyses including trajectory analyses of high ozone days and
an emissions inventory assessment to determine those emission control
measures that will be required for attaining or maintaining the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS. By May 1 of the year following the ozone season in
which the primary or secondary trigger has been activated, North
Carolina will complete sufficient analyses to begin adoption of
necessary rules for ensuring attainment and maintenance of the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS. The rules would become State effective by the
following January 1, unless legislative review is required.
At least one of the following contingency measures will be adopted
and implemented upon a primary triggering event:
NOX RACT on stationary sources with a potential
to emit less than 100 tons per year in the North Carolina portion of
the Metrolina nonattainment area;
diesel inspection and maintenance program;
implementation of diesel retrofit programs, including
incentives for performing retrofits;
additional controls in upwind areas.
The NC DAQ commits to implement within 24 months of a primary or
secondary trigger, or as expeditiously as practicable, at least one of
the control measures listed above or other contingency measures that
may be determined to be more appropriate based on the analyses
performed.
Similarly, the tertiary trigger will not be an actual violation of
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. This trigger will be a first alert as to a
potential air quality problem on the horizon. The trigger will be
activated when a monitor in the Area has a 4th highest value of 0.085
ppm or greater, starting the first year after the maintenance plan has
been approved. The trigger date will be 60 days from the date that the
State observes a 4th highest value of 0.085 ppm or greater at any
monitor.
Once the tertiary trigger is activated, the Planning Section of the
NC DAQ, in consultation with the SC DHEC and MCAQ, shall commence
analyses including meteorological evaluation, trajectory analyses of
high ozone days, and emissions inventory assessment to understand why a
4th highest exceedance of the standard has occurred. Once the analyses
are completed, the NC DAQ will work with SC DHEC, MCAQ and the local
air awareness program to develop an outreach plan identifying any
additional voluntary measures that can be
[[Page 45164]]
implemented. If the 4th highest exceedance occurs early in the season,
the NC DAQ will work with entities identified in the outreach plan to
determine if the measures can be implemented during the current season;
otherwise, NC DAQ will work with SC DHEC, MCAQ, and the local air
awareness coordinator to implement the plan for the following ozone
season.
EPA has concluded that the maintenance plan adequately addresses
the five basic components of a maintenance plan: attainment inventory,
monitoring network, verification of continued attainment, and a
contingency plan. Therefore, the maintenance plan SIP revision
submitted by North Carolina for the State's portion of the Area meets
the requirements of section 175A of the CAA and is approvable.
VI. What is EPA's analysis of North Carolina's proposed NOX
and VOC subarea MVEBs for the North Carolina portion of the bi-state
Charlotte area?
Under section 176(c) of the CAA, new transportation plans,
programs, and projects, such as the construction of new highways, must
``conform'' to (i.e., be consistent with) the part of the state's air
quality plan that addresses pollution from cars and trucks. Conformity
to the SIP means that transportation activities will not cause new air
quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely
attainment of the NAAQS or any interim milestones. If a transportation
plan does not conform, most new projects that would expand the capacity
of roadways cannot go forward. Regulations at 40 CFR part 93 set forth
EPA policy, criteria, and procedures for demonstrating and assuring
conformity of such transportation activities to a SIP. The regional
emissions analysis is one, but not the only, requirement for
implementing transportation conformity. Transportation conformity is a
requirement for nonattainment and maintenance areas. Maintenance areas
are areas that were previously nonattainment for a particular NAAQS but
have since been redesignated to attainment with an approved maintenance
plan for that NAAQS.
Under the CAA, states are required to submit, at various times,
control strategy SIPs and maintenance plans for nonattainment areas.
These control strategy SIPs (including RFP and attainment
demonstration) and maintenance plans create MVEBs for criteria
pollutants and/or their precursors to address pollution from cars and
trucks. Per 40 CFR part 93, a MVEB must be established for the last
year of the maintenance plan. A state may adopt MVEBs for other years
as well. The MVEB is the portion of the total allowable emissions in
the maintenance demonstration that is allocated to highway and transit
vehicle use and emissions. See 40 CFR 93.101. The MVEB serves as a
ceiling on emissions from an area's planned transportation system. The
MVEB concept is further explained in the preamble to the November 24,
1993, Transportation Conformity Rule (58 FR 62188). The preamble also
describes how to establish the MVEB in the SIP and how to revise the
MVEB.
As part of the consultation process on setting MVEBs, the NC DAQ
discussed several options for setting the geographic extent of the
MVEBs with the transportation partners. NC DAQ requested feedback on
these options or other alternatives for consideration from the
transportation partners. NC DAQ received feedback from only two of the
transportation partners. As part of the public comment process, the NC
DAQ provided several options for establishing the MVEBs.
After considering the comments received, the NC DAQ chose to
establish subarea MVEBs based on geographical areas that correspond to
the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and/or Rural Planning
Organization (RPO) boundaries. This option is consistent with the
Cabarrus-Rowan MPO (CRMPO) request and takes into consideration two of
the comments from Mecklenburg-Union MPO (MUMPO). NC DAQ believes that
this option is a good compromise between how MVEBs have been
established in the past, addressing NC DAQ's concern with Mecklenburg
County's on-road mobile source emissions and the preferences of the
transportation partners. Further, NC DAQ believes this approach
provides additional flexibility to the transportation partners while
providing adequate assurance that the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS will be
maintained in the Metrolina nonattainment area. Accordingly, NC DAQ
established MVEBs for the CRMPO (Cabarrus and Rowan Counties), for the
Gaston Urban Area MPO and Lake Norman RPO (Gaston, Iredell, and Lincoln
Counties), and for the MUMPO and Rocky River RPO (Mecklenburg and Union
Counties) geographical areas. Tables 5 through 7 below provide the
subarea NOX and VOC MVEBs in kilograms per day (kg/day),\11\
for 2013 and 2025.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ The conversion to kilograms used the actual emissions
reported in the MOVES model. The conversion was done utilizing the
``CONVERT'' function in an EXCEL spreadsheet.
Table 5--Cabarrus-Rowan MPO MVEB
[kg/day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2013 2025
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX Emissions:
On-Road Mobile Emissions............................ 19,838 9,961
Safety Margin Allocated to MVEB..................... 1,984 1,992
NOX Conformity MVEB................................. 21,822 11,953
VOC Emissions:
On-Road Mobile Emissions............................ 9,863 5,425
Safety Margin Allocated to MVEB..................... 986 1,085
VOC Conformity MVEB................................. 10,849 6,510
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 6--Gaston Urban Area MPO/Lake Norman RPO MVEB
[kg/day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2013 2025
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX Emissions:
On-Road Mobile Emissions............................ 19,957 10,360
Safety Margin Allocated to MVEB..................... 2,211 2,181
NOX Conformity MVEB................................. 22,168 12,541
VOC Emissions:
On-Road Mobile Emissions............................ 10,442 5,815
Safety Margin Allocated to MVEB..................... 1,168 1,232
VOC Conformity MVEB................................. 11,610 7,047
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 7--Mecklenburg-Union MPO/Rocky River RPO MVEB
[kg/day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2013 2025
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX Emissions:
On-Road Mobile Emissions............................ 57,198 30,391
Safety Margin Allocated to MVEB..................... 4,303 5,337
NOX Conformity MVEB................................. 61,501 35,728
VOC Emissions:
On-Road Mobile Emissions............................ 26,250 14,769
Safety Margin Allocated to MVEB..................... 2,002 2,609
VOC Conformity MVEB................................. 28,252 17,378
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As mentioned above, the North Carolina portion of the Area has
chosen to allocate a portion of the available safety margin to the
NOX and VOC MVEBs for 2013 and 2025 (45.20 tpd and 107.38
tpd of the NOX 2013 and 2025 safety margins remain,
respectively, and 19.96 tpd and 27.95 tpd of the VOC 2013 and 2025
safety margins remain, respectively).
[[Page 45165]]
Through this rulemaking, EPA is proposing to approve the subarea
MVEBs for NOX and VOC for 2013 and 2025 for the
North Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area because EPA has
determined that the Area maintains the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS with the
emissions at the levels of the budgets. Once the subarea MVEBs for the
bi-state Charlotte Area are approved or found adequate (whichever is
completed first), they must be used for future conformity
determinations. After thorough review, EPA has determined that the
budgets meet the adequacy criteria, as outlined in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4),
and is proposing to approve the budgets because they are consistent
with maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS through 2025.
VII. What is the status of EPA's adequacy determination for the
proposed NOX and VOC Subarea MVEBs for 2013 and 2025 for the
North Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte area?
When reviewing submitted ``control strategy'' SIPs or maintenance
plans containing MVEBs, EPA may affirmatively find the MVEB contained
therein adequate for use in determining transportation conformity. Once
EPA affirmatively finds the submitted MVEB is adequate for
transportation conformity purposes, that MVEB must be used by state and
Federal agencies in determining whether proposed transportation
projects conform to the SIP as required by section 176(c) of the CAA.
EPA's substantive criteria for determining adequacy of a MVEB are
set out in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). The process for determining adequacy
consists of three basic steps: Public notification of a SIP submission,
a public comment period, and EPA's adequacy determination. This process
for determining the adequacy of submitted MVEBs for transportation
conformity purposes was initially outlined in EPA's May 14, 1999,
guidance, ``Conformity Guidance on Implementation of March 2, 1999,
Conformity Court Decision.'' EPA adopted regulations to codify the
adequacy process in the Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments for
the ``New 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air
Quality Standards and Miscellaneous Revisions for Existing Areas;
Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments--Response to Court Decision
and Additional Rule Change,'' on July 1, 2004 (69 FR 40004). Additional
information on the adequacy process for transportation conformity
purposes is available in the proposed rule entitled, ``Transportation
Conformity Rule Amendments: Response to Court Decision and Additional
Rule Changes,'' 68 FR 38974, 38984 (June 30, 2003).
As discussed earlier, North Carolina's March 28, 2013, maintenance
plan submission includes NOX and VOC subarea MVEBs for the
North Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area for 2013, an
interim year of the maintenance plan, and 2025, the last year of the
maintenance plan. EPA is reviewing the NOX and VOC subarea
MVEBs through the adequacy process. The North Carolina SIP submission,
including the bi-state Charlotte Area NOX and VOC subarea
MVEBs, opened for public comment on EPA's adequacy Web site on February
21, 2013, found at: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/currsips.htm. The EPA public comment period on adequacy for the MVEBs
for 2013 and 2025 for the North Carolina portion of the bi-state
Charlotte Area closed on March 25, 2013.
EPA intends to make its determination on the adequacy of the 2013
and 2025 subarea MVEBs for the North Carolina portion of the bi-state
Charlotte Area for transportation conformity purposes in the near
future by completing the adequacy process that was started on February
21, 2013. After EPA finds the 2013 and 2025 MVEBs adequate or approves
them, the new subarea MVEBs for NOX and VOC must be used for
future transportation conformity determinations. For required regional
emissions analysis years that involve 2013 through 2024, the applicable
2013 MVEBs will be used and for 2025 and beyond, the applicable budgets
will be the new 2025 MVEBs established in the maintenance plan, as
defined in section VI of this proposed rulemaking.
VIII. Proposed Action on the Redesignation Request And Maintenance Plan
SIP Revision Including Proposed Approval of the 2013 and 2025
NOX and VOC Subarea MVEBs for the North Carolina Portion of
the Area
As discussed above, section 172(c)(3) of the CAA requires areas to
submit a base year emissions inventory. EPA approved the 2002 base year
emissions inventory for the North Carolina portion of the bi-state
Charlotte Area (as submitted in North Carolina's November 12, 2009,
1997 8-hour ozone attainment demonstration SIP revision) on May 4,
2012. See 77 FR 26441. Emissions contained in the submittal cover the
general source categories of point sources, area sources, on-road
mobile sources, and non-road mobile sources. All emission summaries
were accompanied by source-specific descriptions of emission
calculation procedures and sources of input data. North Carolina's
submittal documents 2002 emissions in the North Carolina portion of the
Area in units of tons per summer day. Table 6, below, provides a
summary of the 2002 emissions of NOX and VOC for the North
Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area.
Table 6--North Carolina Portion of the Bi-state Charlotte Area 2002 Emissions for NOX and VOC
[Tons per summer day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Area Non-road Mobile
County -----------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX VOC NOX VOC NOX VOC NOX VOC
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cabarrus................................ 2.6 2.2 0.8 6.0 5.4 2.7 17.2 21.5
Gaston.................................. 34.8 2.5 1.3 8.9 4.9 2.9 20.0 13.5
Iredell (partial) *..................... 8.5 0.9 0.3 1.9 1.4 0.9 5.6 5.1
Lincoln................................. 0.3 2.1 0.5 3.1 1.9 1.3 6.1 7.1
Mecklenburg............................. 2.1 5.7 7.0 29.4 32.1 24.1 78.7 68.0
Rowan................................... 11.0 6.3 0.8 5.6 4.1 2.3 19.7 14.8
Union................................... 0.2 1.0 1.0 6.4 7.7 4.7 11.3 13.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\*\ Only part of Iredell County is in the nonattainment area.
[[Page 45166]]
IX. What is the effect of EPA's proposed actions?
EPA's proposed actions establish the basis upon which EPA may take
final action on the issues being proposed for approval today. Approval
of North Carolina's redesignation request would change the legal
designation of Cabarrus, Gaston, Iredell, Lincoln, Mecklenburg, Rowan
and Union Counties in their entireties, and a portion of Iredell County
(Davidson and Coddle Creek Townships) in North Carolina, as found at 40
CFR part 81, from nonattainment to attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. Approval of North Carolina's request would also incorporate a
plan for maintaining the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the North Carolina
portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area through 2025 into the SIP. This
maintenance plan includes contingency measures to remedy any future
violations of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and procedures for evaluation
of potential violations. The maintenance plan also establishes
NOX and VOC subarea MVEBs for 2013 and 2025 for the North
Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area. The subarea MVEBs are
listed in Tables 5 through 7 in Section VI. Additionally, EPA is
notifying the public of the status of EPA's adequacy determination for
the newly-established NOX and VOC subarea MVEBs for 2013 and
2025 for the North Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area.
X. Proposed Actions on the Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan
SIP Revisions Including Approval of the NOX and VOC Subarea
MVEBs for 2013 and 2025 for the North Carolina Portion of the Bi-State
Charlotte Area
EPA previously determined that the entire bi-state Charlotte Area
was attaining the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS on November 15, 2011, at 76
FR 70656. EPA is now taking two separate but related actions regarding
the redesignation and maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for
the North Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area. Today's
notice of proposed rulemaking is in response to North Carolina's
November 2, 2011, SIP revision (as supplemented by a March 28, 2013,
SIP revision).
EPA is proposing to determine, based on complete, quality-assured,
and certified monitoring data for the 2008-2010 monitoring period that
the entire bi-state Charlotte Area is attaining the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. Further, based on NC DAQ's November 2, 2011, SIP revision (as
supplemented by a March 28, 2012, SIP revision), EPA is proposing to
determine that the North Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte
Area has met the criteria under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) for
redesignation from nonattainment to attainment for the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. On this basis, EPA is proposing to approve North
Carolina's redesignation request for the North Carolina portion of the
bi-state Charlotte Area.
EPA is also proposing to approve the maintenance plan for the North
Carolina portion of the Area, including the NOX and VOC
subarea MVEBs for 2013 and 2025, into the North Carolina SIP (under CAA
section 175A). The maintenance plan demonstrates that the Area will
continue to maintain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and that the budgets
meet all of the adequacy criteria contained in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) and
(5). Further, as part of today's action, EPA is describing the status
of its adequacy determination for the NOX and VOC MVEBs for
2013 and 2025 in accordance with 40 CFR 93.118(f)(1). Within 24 months
from the effective date of EPA's adequacy determination for the MVEBs
or the effective date for the final rule for this action, whichever is
earlier, the transportation partners will need to demonstrate
conformity to the new NOX and VOC MVEBs pursuant to 40 CFR
93.104(e).
If finalized, approval of the redesignation request would change
the official designation of Cabarrus, Gaston, Iredell, Lincoln,
Mecklenburg, Rowan and Union Counties in their entireties, and a
portion of Iredell County (Davidson and Coddle Creek Townships) in
North Carolina, as found at 40 CFR part 81, from nonattainment to
attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
XI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, redesignation of an area to attainment and the
accompanying approval of a maintenance plan under section 107(d)(3)(E)
are actions that affect the status of a geographical area and do not
impose any additional regulatory requirements on sources beyond those
imposed by state law. A redesignation to attainment does not in and of
itself create any new requirements, but rather results in the
applicability of requirements contained in the CAA for areas that have
been redesignated to attainment. Moreover, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions
of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40
CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to
approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA.
Accordingly, these proposed actions merely approve state law as meeting
Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law. For this reason, these proposed actions:
Are not ``significant regulatory action[s]'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
do not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
are certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
do not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
do not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
are not economically significant regulatory actions based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
are not significant regulatory actions subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
are not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
do not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
[[Page 45167]]
40 CFR Part 81
Environmental protection, Air pollution control.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: July 12, 2013.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2013-17834 Filed 7-25-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P